Predictions abound: Will superstorm Sandy help or hurt President Obama look 'presidential'? The bigger question is what Washington can do to help the neediest Americans, when a hurricane blows through ? and when it doesn't.
A rescue worker carries a boy through flood waters brought on by hurricane Sandy in Little Ferry, N.J., Oct. 30. New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie said on the day after the superstorm that damage was 'unfathomable' and President Obama was 'outstanding' in handling the storm. Op-ed contributor Jonathan Zimmerman looks at the question: If Washington is so willing to help victims of natural disasters, why does it hesitate to assist victims of man-made ones, such as frozen economic mobility?
Adam Hunger
EnlargeIn 1972, as Congress debated legislation to assist the victims of Hurricane Agnes, then Rep. Ed Koch (D) of New York rose to ask his colleagues why they didn?t extend the same generosity to ?the ghettos of Harlem? and other poverty-stricken parts of America. ?Do we need the intervention of God before we address ourselves to the problems that man has created?? the future New York City mayor wondered. ?I would like to know why it is we distinguish between natural disasters and those made by man.?
Skip to next paragraph' +
google_ads[0].line2 + '
' +
google_ads[0].line3 + '
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
It?s a good question, and we still don?t have an answer. Indeed, we?re not even asking it.
Consider the news coverage of hurricane Sandy and next week?s elections, which devolved into a duel of vapid prognostication. Would the hurricane-turned-superstorm help President Obama by allowing him to appear, well, ?presidential?? Or would the post-hurricane damage actually make him look worse, giving an eleventh-hour boost to Mitt Romney?
Meanwhile, a minor debate broke out in the blogosphere over what was seen as Mr. Romney?s pledge ? during a GOP primary debate ? to close the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ?Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that?s the right direction,? Romney said last June, in a quote highlighted by the Huffington Post.
Spokespersons for Romney quickly sought to quell the controversy, insisting that he had been misinterpreted. Yes, they said, Gov. Romney still thinks states should take the lead in addressing disasters. But no, he wouldn?t shutter FEMA.
And that raises the more interesting question: Why not? Even as Romney and the GOP condemn government spending, why does federal emergency relief remain a sacred cow for conservatives and liberals alike?
When Herbert Hoover made his famous trip to flood-ravaged Mississippi in 1927, as secretary of Commerce, he called on state governments and charities ? not Uncle Sam ? to provide emergency assistance. Even after he ascended to the White House, facing the worst economic crisis in US history, Hoover continued to reject federal relief to struggling localities and individuals. The stopgap measures he implemented late in his term were considered by many ? especially voters ? to be too little, too late.
After Franklin D. Roosevelt defeated Hoover, his New Deal unleashed massive federal spending for public works, farm aid, and much else. Not surprisingly, then, Roosevelt also presided over the first coordinated federal disaster relief. In 1935, he sent thousands of unemployed World War I veterans to Florida to help clean up after a hurricane; more than 200 of them died while doing so.
But direct assistance to affected individuals came much more slowly. In 1950, Congress passed a measure allowing presidents to authorize disaster-related spending on pubic facilities. Yet individuals couldn?t apply for federal aid until the 1969 Disaster Relief Act, passed in the wake of hurricane Camille, which offered temporary housing, unemployment compensation, and small business loans to victims of the tragedy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.