Romney: ‘We cannot afford’ disaster relief
Looking back through the transcript of Monday night’s GOP debate, attention has begun to focus on the following exchange between CNN’s John King and Mitt Romney. I’ll post it here in its entirety, just so there’s no question about context:
KING: Governor Romney? You’ve been a chief executive of a state. I was just in Joplin, Missouri. I’ve been in Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee and other communities dealing with whether it’s the tornadoes, the flooding, and worse. FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say do it on a case-by-case basis and some people who say, you know, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role. How do you deal with something like that?
ROMNEY: Absolutely. 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. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking in the federal budget, what we should cut — we should ask ourselves the opposite question. What should we keep? We should take all of what we’re doing at the federal level and say, what are the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do? And those things we’ve got to stop doing, because we’re borrowing $1.6 trillion more this year than we’re taking in. We cannot…
KING: Including disaster relief, though?
ROMNEY: We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all.
Where to begin?
Let’s start with the Romney’s contention that disaster relief is an obligation that the federal government ought to shuck and devolve to the states or even private enterprise. Devolving that duty to the states means it would not get done. The state of Missouri, like most states, is struggling to balance its budget and could not possibly have funded the billion-dollar relief effort launched in the wake of the disaster in Joplin. The same is true of Alabama and the tornadoes that devastated our neighbors to the west in April. A state suffering destruction on such a scale cannot be told to suck it up and pull itself up by its own bootstraps.
After all, it is moments such as these that put the “United” in the United States. We are not self-contained human units each out to maximize individual wealth and consumption; we are Americans, and we help each other out. The notion that disaster relief is among “those things we’ve got to stop doing” is nonsense, and to base that suggestion on grounds of morality, as Romney does, boggles the mind.
After all, we are the richest nation the world has ever known. The concept that “we cannot afford to do those things” — “those things” being assisting our fellow Americans in a time when they have lost everything as a result of natural disaster — is unacceptable.
I’m not sure what Romney was thinking in those remarks. This was not some misstatement or misunderstanding on his part. I suspect, however, that this is what happens when a party becomes so trapped in its rhetoric that it no longer recognizes rational bounds or even basic compassion.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
440 comments Add your comment
joe suggs
June 15th, 2011
12:46 pm
Dear Finn, just give all the money to the welfare queens . It is not fair to make them support their own kids.Let us bring every Mexican to the USA.They need welfare too !
W. Link
June 15th, 2011
12:46 pm
I think Governor Romney’s point, with which I agree emphatically, is that the primary burden of reconstruction of homes and communities should fall first on the insurance companies, then on the states, then last, if at all, on the federal government.
George P. Burdell
June 15th, 2011
12:53 pm
Joe I understand all about risk and pools making it cheaper. However, in this case it is not just being made cheaper by a larger pool, but by a larger pool that includes people who will never receive a benefit. Again I use Wyoming as an example. In the nearly 60 years FEMA has been around, Wyoming has received about $22 million out of $148 billion. Now Wyoming has a small population, but its not THAT small. And Wyoming may very well have a large disaster in the future. I’m willing to bet that it is either not a hurricane, or, if it is, other states are going to have a much bigger problem than whatever happened in Wyoming from the storm.
Goldie
June 15th, 2011
12:54 pm
Jay, doesn’t the U.S. Constitution state that the Feds should “provide for the common defense” — it’s there in the Preamble… Seems to me like Ole Mitt and the other “we can’t afford it” GOP-ers really don’t believe in the designs our Founding Fathers had for our country.
St Simons - we're on Island time
June 15th, 2011
12:57 pm
“Like “Hope & Change” St. Simons?”
no, Rush’s parrot & diversion troll extrordinaire, not “like” anything
“let em eat cake” Own it.
BADA BING
June 15th, 2011
1:01 pm
George P…… Good stuff, thanks.
Jerome Horwitz
June 15th, 2011
1:04 pm
Leg Lamp – Made the change. Thanks for noticing my spelling error. Curley was my favorite Stooge and sometimes the banter on this blog reminds me of the Gentlemen.
Joe Mama
June 15th, 2011
1:09 pm
Mr. Burdell — “Joe I understand all about risk and pools making it cheaper. However, in this case it is not just being made cheaper by a larger pool, but by a larger pool that includes people who will never receive a benefit.”
Hold it — let me stop you right there.
I don’t think you can fairly assert that there is a specific, enumeratable population that WILL NEVER receive a benefit.
I do think you could fairly say that there are people in the pool — whom exactly, we can’t know in advance — who will never receive a benefit from the pool. But not knowing who they are (or will be), we can’t exclude them from the pool, right?
“Again I use Wyoming as an example. In the nearly 60 years FEMA has been around, Wyoming has received about $22 million out of $148 billion. Now Wyoming has a small population, but its not THAT small. And Wyoming may very well have a large disaster in the future.”
And that’s part of my point. You seem to be suggesting that Wyoming should somehow opt out of FEMA simply because it hasn’t ever experienced a disaster for which it would need FEMA’s assistance. Am I mistaken in that?
“I’m willing to bet that it is either not a hurricane, or, if it is, other states are going to have a much bigger problem than whatever happened in Wyoming from the storm.”
FEMA doesn’t help *just* with hurricanes, no?
I’d like to turn your example on its head and point out that the cost per person (for both construction and maintenance) of the interstate highways in Wyoming probably far outstrip the cost per person of interstate highways in more populated states like say, Texas, Illinois or Pennsylvania. Should we therefore not build interstates in states like Wyoming?
Political Animal - Romney backs Cantor line on natural disasters
June 15th, 2011
1:43 pm
[...] Jay Bookman explained that states can’t afford to tackle such a burden on their own — “A state suffering destruction on such a scale cannot be told to suck it up and pull itself up by its own bootstraps,” he said — and that the very idea is at odds with who we are. After all, it is moments such as these that put the “United” in the United States. We are not self-contained human units each out to maximize individual wealth and consumption; we are Americans, and we help each other out. The notion that disaster relief is among “those things we’ve got to stop doing” is nonsense, and to base that suggestion on grounds of morality, as Romney does, boggles the mind. [...]
@@
June 15th, 2011
1:47 pm
Non-responsive. My query was about *insurance,* not government. But nice job of dodging, madam.
I wasn’t dodging. Your argument was predicated on the “fact” that insurance companies don’t cover floods and earthquakes. Not true…they do…it may be costly, but then, if your home’s worth it, it’s an expense you’re willing to pay.
Have you ever checked into CEA (California Earthquake Authority’s) coverage. It charges more than the private companies, while covering less. Not everyone in California NEEDS earthquake insurance, the CEA said they did. If an insurance company offered fire, they were forced to offer earthquake as well. Insurance companies stopped offering fire to get out from under the unnecessary earthquake policies. CEA got stuck with the high-risk areas. When the BIG ONE hits, they’ll be out of money. Insurance companies offer coverage at a price that’s in line with the low-risk.
@@
June 15th, 2011
1:48 pm
Oops! My 1:47 should’ve been addressed to Joe Mama.
Adam
June 15th, 2011
1:53 pm
Mighty Righty: Here’s your dots:
How about you cite the first argument too. I’ll be reading your articles (darn doncha just hate it when people READ your sources?) and get back to you.
RLJ
June 15th, 2011
1:53 pm
To a certain extent, he is correct. The federal government should be asking, “What does it have to do and what can other do?”, and thus, reduce the deficit. However, helping natural disasters on that scale, in my opinion, are something the federal government should do as it has logistical capabilities that states do not. However, the federal government is never a substitute for fellow citizens helping suffering citizens through charities and private non-governmental relief efforts.
marica eads
June 15th, 2011
2:05 pm
this is so sad it makes me wont to cry i cann’t stand knowing that all these people eatherd died and i feel sorry for the ones who lost thair homes when this disaster struck i was at home well just got home from grov ok form grand lake that sunday i was at the water park then at grand lake then back to mcdonald co we live in anderson and we got hit pretty hard our hill has washed out and our horses was very scared we say a little rotation abuve our house then we were ready to take acean if needed my prares and thoughts our with all of you helping
Ben Dukes
June 15th, 2011
2:17 pm
How is this the “responsibility” of the government? The people who had insurance will receive their payouts and be able to rebuild. Those who didn’t will have to find a way to make a new life. People talk about the “Americanism” of helping your fellow man…but how about the “Americanism” of resilience and self-reliance? The infrastructure is wiped out? Yes, it is. It will have to be rebuilt. If there isn’t a stock of money…if the government DOESN’T swoop in, if “Daddy” doesn’t help, THEN what happens? It’s a tough question, and one many people don’t have the sack to answer. The answer: some people will toughen up, do what’s needed, and survive. Others will whither and die. That’s life, folks, and like it or not – that’s the mentality that built this country. America has definitely become too soft – a nation of whining babies raised by overindulgent parents. I know – I was raised by parents who DEFINITELY gave me more than my needed share.
The real problem isn’t the lack of Federal Funding to support those in pain and loss. It’s the lack of support from individual AMERICANS to help their fellow man. Appropriating borrowed funds (which is essentially what our national coffers are filled with) isn’t “Americans standing up for Americans.” You know what is? Taking your two-weeks vacation RIGHT NOW and getting your tail to the disaster sites and helping out.
But, how many people are gonna do that? Not many. Not when it’s far easier to just take some of our non-existent budget and throw cash at the problem. All of these politicians are politicians, and nothing more. If Leadership were oil, it’d be $10K a barrel, because it’s truly in short supply.
George P. Burdell
June 15th, 2011
2:43 pm
No Joe I’m not suggesting Wyoming opt out of FEMA. I am suggesting that certain states have received historically higher payouts per resident than others and that maybe each state should have its own disaster pool, even if it is administered on the federal level. By higher payouts, I’m not talking about a small difference. A state like Wyoming has received around $45 per resident from FEMA over 60 years. Some states ( all of which are in the hurricane zone except New York which is due to the 9/11 attacks) have averaged over $5,000 per resident over the same period.
I see your point about things like Interstates but I don’t think it is an even comparison. Although I am not from Wyoming, I have driven on Wyoming Interstates. I am certain that food and other products that I have used were transported via Wyoming Interstates. Last, one of the originial purposes of the Interstate Highway System was so the military could move troops and weapons anywhere in the country quickly. That would certainly qualify as a federal function to me.
jn3792
June 15th, 2011
2:52 pm
I agree that we are the “United” States and that we should help our fellow Americans, but the problem is that too many of us shirk our individual responsibilities because we know that the “government” will take care of it.
What is the government? Is it a building? Is it an entity without body, parts, or passions? How exactly is this “government” going to save us? The truth is that each of us needs to feel an individual responsibility to take care of ourselves as much as we possibly can and then help others who are in need. We absolutely cannot have the idea in the back of our mind that the government will take care of us and our neighbors. We need to take care of ourselves and then we, as individuals, families, churches, and other organizations, need to take care of our neighbors.
TnGelding
June 15th, 2011
3:09 pm
Just pandering to the states’ right’s crowd. But isn’t that what insurance is for?
Good little liberal
June 15th, 2011
3:16 pm
Jay
Thanks for addressing my concerns this morning about the abusive language coming from yet another liberal toward a conservative. You did exactly what I and most of the conservatives on the blog expected: nothing.
Now maybe you will understand why we all have a nice big belly laugh when you claim to be fair.
Thanks again for being the liberal that you are.
Adam
June 15th, 2011
3:20 pm
but the problem is that too many of us shirk our individual responsibilities because we know that the “government” will take care of it.
This has no relevance when discussing a natural disaster that requires much more than “personal responsibility” can provide
Palouse Guy
June 15th, 2011
3:21 pm
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
What a bunch of darn socialists those framers were! All this stuff about “common defence (sic)”, “general welfare,” “Justice,” …. We can’t afford any of this now and Mitt knows it. It’s every man for himself!
SwedeAtlanta
June 15th, 2011
3:27 pm
There is no question that “private” organizations, both non-profit and for-profit have a role in a disaster such as the ones in Joplin, Alabama, North Carolina, etc. Private insurance, to the extent of coverage, will help make property owners whole. Non-profits such as the Red Cross, etc. can help with distribution of disaster supplies and other logistics.
But only the FEDERAL government working with local government agencies and actors such as the National Guard, have the resources and capability to respond quickly and decisively in the face of this kind of disaster. They have military and other readiness resources that no other entity has including any state agencies.
If you think GEMA would be prepared to handle a Joplin-like disater in Georgia you re dreaming. So would you rather pay into a national pool where more are contributing and spread the risk or shrink the pool and spread the risk across fewer taxpayers? Historically and logically, the larger the pool, the better risk is allocated across the entire pool. Sure, there are some states that represent greater risk such as states prone to earthquakes, tornados and hurricanes. But natural disasters can occur anywhere and anytime.
Common Cents
June 15th, 2011
3:34 pm
Since private sector involvement is Mitt’s choice for disaster relief, let’s help these “government is evil” folks remain in the private sector and create just such a program.
Mitt, with your wealth and executive experience, why don’t you spearhead this effort?
md
June 15th, 2011
4:16 pm
“The notion that disaster relief is among “those things we’ve got to stop doing” is nonsense, and to base that suggestion on grounds of morality, as Romney does, boggles the mind. [...]”
I think folks can not see the forest because of the trees………….he is speaking in bigger terms…overall debt and the problems that will arise from it…….
Think in terms of Greece or the USSR…….think after their implosions they were capable of disaster relief??
Hardly……….if we continue adding to the debt, there will come a straw that breaks the camels back…..and ALL programs will be put into jeopardy, not just one………….
WAW
June 15th, 2011
4:17 pm
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
What Romney is saying is contrary to this confession of American beliefs. We are “one nation under God, indivisible”. Where are the Sons of Confederate Veterans, VFW, military families who honored their dead on Memorial Day? This is what we stand for and if a candidate for the President’s seat thinks that order of sovereignty is #1 the private sector, #2 the state, and #3 the United States, then he is unfit to call himself an American much less to serve as it’s leader. (and that goes for the rest of you folks above who put the Almighty Federal Reserve Note above the citizens of this country)
WOODSTOCK MIKE
June 15th, 2011
4:24 pm
What’s interesting is the difference in how much more money conservatives give to charity compared to liberals. I thought liberals were the one’s that cared so much more?? Take a look, every scientific study that has been done shows conservatives give to charity almost 30% more than liberals. The sad thing is that when a liberal reads this he/she will come up with some kind of twisted justification that the conservatives are doing this for their own interests…
Martin Williams
June 15th, 2011
4:45 pm
Will make this statement again, the GOP folks are getting very stupid every minute they get a chance to open their big mouths. America will never be debt free and this is since WWI. Hope Mr. Romney gets the nomination to the GOP ticket and Obama will take him and the GOP to the cleaners.
md
June 15th, 2011
4:51 pm
Martin…..there is a difference between manageable debt and unmanageable debt……..think Greece and the USSR thought theirs was unmanageable??
md
June 15th, 2011
4:53 pm
“This is what we stand for and if a candidate for the President’s seat thinks that order of sovereignty is #1 the private sector, #2 the state, and #3 the United States, then he is unfit to call himself an American much less to serve as it’s leader.”
In case you aren’t aware, WE are #’s 1, 2 and 3……each and every one of us…………..
Adam
June 15th, 2011
4:59 pm
WOODSTOCK: Where are these scientific studies?
James
June 15th, 2011
5:16 pm
Common Cents,
The private sector includes more than just businesses. I don’t believe that Governor Romney was suggesting that businesses should be in charge of disaster relief, but rather that non-profit organizations like the American Red Cross or the church to which the Mr. Romney belongs would be in a better position to provide fast and effective relief after a disaster. Consider how quickly such organizations can approve funding and rally volunteers–much faster than a grid-locked congress.
Additionally, such organizations are not 14 trillion dollars in debt, or 60 trillion if we consider medicare and social security promises to the baby-boomers. Mitt had it exactly right when he said it would be immoral for the government to provide relief to disaster victims if that mean further contributing to the financial crisis that our country will surely face in 30 years if you do not take drastic measures now. Tornados are scary, but a 45% general income tax just to fund the basic necessities of government is much scarier – and that is what we will have if we don’t make some tough decisions.
RLJ
June 15th, 2011
5:34 pm
Adam @ 4:59 pm
The study is called “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” and it is by a Syracuse professor by the name of Arthur C. Brooks. And yes, liberals have come up with twisted justifications…
Michael
June 15th, 2011
5:35 pm
Romney supported the disaster relief for the bankers (of course he wanted to help his bankster pals on Wall Street), but doesn’t support natural disaster relief?
Shaun
June 15th, 2011
6:33 pm
The author’s states “we are the richest nation the world has ever known. The concept that “we cannot afford to do those things” — “those things” being assisting our fellow Americans in a time when they have lost everything as a result of natural disaster — is unacceptable.”
Romney states “We are borrowing 1.6 Trillion more this year than we are taking in.”
Simple baby math tells us that WE ARE NOT THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. We are the biggest SPENDING county in the world. Romney is correct, if the states managed their budgets better then they could afford natural disasters. If the Federal Government could manage it’s budget better than it could afford natural disasters. Right now NEITHER can afford natural disasters, without putting our grandkids into a man-made disaster (extreme debt resulting in loss of liberties).
Mary
June 15th, 2011
6:56 pm
Some states are humane and generous, as a matter of policy, and others, like Georgia are so constantly, and stubbornly backwards, they have to be forced, and or, shame into “modern times”.
md
June 15th, 2011
7:04 pm
Well…in summation, looks as if jay’s twisting ways have worked on a number of posters…….swallowed it all hook line and sinker……..and i bet not a one of them actually looked it up themselves…………….I am not surprised at the lemming mentality displayed by so many.
Billybob
June 15th, 2011
7:11 pm
I want to help you Jay. To paraphrase……..’Mitt Romney…blah……blah blah……blah…..is completely irrational and hates you which is why he doesn’t want to help all of you who need help’.
Fyi….the issue is not about assisting or not assisting Jay, the issue is about HOW to do the assisting. The actual issue is also not about how liberally biased you are in your writing……but at least it lets me exercise my conservatism…….enjoy your day…..
Larry
June 16th, 2011
1:17 am
You tried so hard to make us think you didnt take the comments out of context, yet you did (print the previous question/response). He’s a Mormon. Do you really think he thinks disaster relief is not a federal responsibility? He was answering in the context of the line of questioning. Nice try. He’s your next president. Get used to it.
Joel Edge
June 16th, 2011
6:46 am
“Where to begin?”
How about right here.
“FEMA is about to run out of money,”
When you start with a loaded question. There is no good answer. He answered as he did and you write a blog about it. He answers in a liberal, feel good manner and you still get a blog on him not answering the question with specifics. No way to win.
“After all, we are the richest nation the world has ever known.”
We were. Now we’re broke.
Shawk
June 16th, 2011
9:51 am
“this is what happens when a party becomes so trapped in its rhetoric that it no longer recognizes rational bounds or even basic compassion” — precisely.