Obama Send Mexico Aid, Snubs Texas

[UTAlan]

Obama Administration Sent Aid to Mexico to Fight Wildfires But Not Texas (http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/05/obama-administration-sent-aid-to-mexico-to-fight-wildfires-but-not-to-texas/)

386 sq miles in Mexico vs 2.5 million acres in Texas. For easy reference, let's put those into the same units of measure.

386 sq miles to 3,906.25 sq miles (difference = 3,520.25 sq miles)
247,040 acres to 2.5 million acres (difference = 2,252,960 acres)

Way to go, Mr. President.

[Neopergoss]

Hehe, he's snubbed Texas a few times. Also notable is that he's cut NASA's budget big time and emphasized other places as important to space travel.

It's nothing new. George W. Bush snubbed the states that didn't support him, and I'm sure many other Presidents have as well. See for example, the California energy crisis.

[Belthus]

Fort Worth Star-Telegram (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/10/3065605/untruths-about-federal-fire-aid.html):

The governor requested more funds to assist in fighting  the fires, something the federal government was and is already doing.

A FEMA representative in Washington pointed out during a telephone interview last week that the governor's request did not have to go to the president because the state could receive approval for fire management assistance grants from a regional office.

The closest regional office for Texas is in Denton.

"This administration, through FEMA, has been working closely with the state throughout the duration of these fires, and we are supporting the firefighting efforts," said Rachel Racusen, FEMA's director of public affairs. "In fact, we have approved 25 fire management assistance grants to help cover expenses for these emergency response efforts.

"Each of these grants covers 75 percent of the costs to fight the fire and many of the same emergency response needs that Gov. Perry was seeking assistance for."

A 26th grant was requested and approved after that interview.

The motive of the right-wing attack dogs seems to be to throw some red meat to that part of their constituency that hates brown people. They get to hate on Obama and Mexicans at the same time. Woohoo!

[Neopergoss]

Fort Worth Star-Telegram (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/10/3065605/untruths-about-federal-fire-aid.html):

The governor requested more funds to assist in fighting  the fires, something the federal government was and is already doing.

A FEMA representative in Washington pointed out during a telephone interview last week that the governor's request did not have to go to the president because the state could receive approval for fire management assistance grants from a regional office.

The closest regional office for Texas is in Denton.

"This administration, through FEMA, has been working closely with the state throughout the duration of these fires, and we are supporting the firefighting efforts," said Rachel Racusen, FEMA's director of public affairs. "In fact, we have approved 25 fire management assistance grants to help cover expenses for these emergency response efforts.

"Each of these grants covers 75 percent of the costs to fight the fire and many of the same emergency response needs that Gov. Perry was seeking assistance for."

A 26th grant was requested and approved after that interview.

The motive of the right-wing attack dogs seems to be to throw some red meat to that part of their constituency that hates brown people. They get to hate on Obama and Mexicans at the same time. Woohoo!

Not really surprised. The story was a little hard to believe in the first place. I wouldn't be so upset if it were true, though. The way that our state government has complained about federal involvement makes such sentiments hypocritical. It's a shame our mayor lost that race.

[Belthus]

Remapping Debate (http://www.remappingdebate.org/article/deserving-versus-undeserving?page=0,0) [emphasis mine]:

According to an Apr. 12 statement from House Appropriations Committee chair Harold Rogers (R-KY), the committee, when it crafted H.R. 1473 , the fiscal 2011 budget resolution, “went line-by-line through agency budgets.” That resolution cut $786 million — a 26 percent reduction — from a FEMA state and local grant program to train first responders to prepare for and assist in emergencies. The bill also cut half the funding — $50 million — for a “predisaster mitigation” grant program that provides funding for state and local organizations to plan for disasters ahead of time.

[....]

H.R. 1473 passed the House on a 260-167 vote (many Republicans opposed the bill because they thought the cuts were not deep enough). The Senate quickly followed suit and passed the bill in an 81-19 vote.

H.R. 1, the fiscal 2011 spending bill drawn up by House Republican leaders to reflect their legislative priorities, went even further in cutting programs to assist with disaster planning and response. It gutted a FEMA firefighter assistance grants program, cutting $90 million (23 percent) from funding to provide equipment, vehicles, and training to local fire departments and completely zeroing out a $420 million program to assist fire departments with recruiting and hiring firefighters. (President Obama in his fiscal 2012 budget proposed eliminating a $60 million FEMA grant program to fund emergency operations centers, but did not propose changes to grants for state and local first responders, firefighter assistance, or predisaster mitigation.)

H.R. 1 passed the House on a 235-189 vote with the support of nearly all Republicans in the chamber. Of the 32-member Texas delegation, 22 of the 23 Republicans, including Conaway, voted in favor of the bill while one Republican did not vote. [....]

[....]

In a 2009 report, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, took aim at the firefighter assistance grants program. The report argued that the grants were wasteful because it said its own analysis showed the grants had no impact on firefighter and civilian deaths or injuries.

A 2003 evaluation by the U.S. Fire Administration, on the other hand, found that the firefighter grant program was “highly effective in improving the readiness and capabilities of firefighters across the nation.” A separate evaluation the same year by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General concluded that the grant program “succeeded in achieving a balanced distribution of funding through a competitive grant process.”

When it comes to what the government should do, Republicans often talk out of both sides of the mouth. When they are doing alright, the federal government is a bunch of faceless bureaucrats who should be downsized because the states are more effective and closer to the people. When disaster strikes, they moan with outstretched hands for federal money. If they followed the logic of their rhetoric consistently, they would be unelectable.

[Belthus]

Ron Paul: You Don't Deserve FEMA Help, Also I'm Running For Prez (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/ron-paul-you-dont-deserve-fema-help-also-im-running-for-prez-video.php):

"Do you think everyone should just be responsible for themselves and if a flood washes your house away no FEMA?" the viewer asked via email. "Sink or swim?"

"I think that's the way a free society works and that's what the Constitution mandates," Paul replied.

Paul's full answer:

I think that's the way a free society works and that's what the Constitution mandates. I'm on the Gulf Coast, I have a house on the beach or had one recently, and I don't think that somebody in New York or New Hampshire or Iowa has to pay for my flood on the Gulf Coast... Insurance is an old fashioned way of doing it. Buy insurance. If the insurance [company] won't sell it to you, it means it's too dangerous. If it's too dangerous, why dump the responsibility on the taxpayer? You know it doesn't make economic sense, it doesn't make good moral sense, it doesn't make Constitutional sense.

Ron Paul is consistent about his small-government rhetoric. He also has very little chance of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the general election. In recent polls, he has been coming in 5th/6th in the Republican field, following Huckabee, Romney, Trump, Palin and tied with Gingrich. He does better in general election polling one-on-one with Obama than Trump and Palin, but he is also less known than they are.

[Astrocyte]

"Do you think everyone should just be responsible for themselves and if a flood washes your house away no FEMA?" the viewer asked via email. "Sink or swim?"

"I think that's the way a free society works and that's what the Constitution mandates," Paul replied.

This is not what "free society" means; this is closer to "anarchy" than "freedom." It's not in the public interest (in terms of economics, public health, and crime/safety, at the very least) to leave people to fend for themselves after a natural disaster.

[OldTrees]

"Do you think everyone should just be responsible for themselves and if a flood washes your house away no FEMA?" the viewer asked via email. "Sink or swim?"

"I think that's the way a free society works and that's what the Constitution mandates," Paul replied.

This is not what "free society" means; this is closer to "anarchy" than "freedom." It's not in the public interest (in terms of economics, public health, and crime/safety, at the very least) to leave people to fend for themselves after a natural disaster.

This demonstrates that you misunderstood Ron Paul like so many people do.
Ron Paul's position on natural disasters:
No money should be forcibly extracted from the taxpayers to be given to the victims of natural disasters.
AND
Everyone, would you please volunteer to give money to those victims?

[Astrocyte]

This demonstrates that you misunderstood Ron Paul like so many people do.
Ron Paul's position on natural disasters:
No money should be forcibly extracted from the taxpayers to be given to the victims of natural disasters.
AND
Everyone, would you please volunteer to give money to those victims?

I understand his position perfectly well. I simply disagree with it.

[OldTrees]

This demonstrates that you misunderstood Ron Paul like so many people do.
Ron Paul's position on natural disasters:
No money should be forcibly extracted from the taxpayers to be given to the victims of natural disasters.
AND
Everyone, would you please volunteer to give money to those victims?

I understand his position perfectly well. I simply disagree with it.

1) This is not what "free society" means; this is closer to "anarchy" than "freedom."
2) It's not in the public interest (in terms of economics, public health, and crime/safety, at the very least) to leave people to fend for themselves after a natural disaster.

1) "In a theoretical free society, all individuals act voluntarily." Does this not sound like freedom? If not then what definition of freedom are you using for it is certainly foreign to both Ron Paul and me. I do not see how involuntary action can be a necessary part of freedom.
2) Ron Paul agrees on this point as I pointed out above with the 2nd sentence.

[Astrocyte]

1) "In a theoretical free society, all individuals act voluntarily." Does this not sound like freedom? If not then what definition of freedom are you using for it is certainly foreign to both Ron Paul and me. I do not see how involuntary action can be a necessary part of freedom.

Permitting all individuals to act voluntarily does not mean that all are free. Voluntary individual actions can go quite far in curtailing other individuals' freedom. If this idea is foreign to both Ron Paul and you, so be it.

A possible place to take a "What is freedom?" discussion:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,25821.0.html
(not trying to sidestep, I take responsibility for my part in yanking this thread off the rails  )