Lessons from Hurricane Sandy

Having lived in the Tornado Alley for 30 years, I have learned many valuable lessons. After many raging tornadoes, straight line winds, and hurricanes I understood that churches and other Americans near and far, not the big government, were the first line of defense after a disaster.

Mennonites, Baptists, Mormons, and the National Guard came by truckloads with bulldozers, shovels, and chain saws to extricate their fellow Americans from trees and debris. Utility trucks from places as far away as Utah helped restore our power.

I have never met a Mormon who was not giving and caring to their fellow man. For this reason, I do not understand the sheer hatred against Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. At the same time, liberals bend over backwards to appease and co-exist with “religions” that preach hate and terrorism.

How can New Jersey turn down utility crews from Alabama who came to help restore their power, just because they were not union members? There are still one million people in New Jersey without power yet crews from Alabama were told to stand down. They are either going back home or to New York. Does the Democrat pro-union political machine trump the misery and suffering of Americans?

When FEMA was run properly, help was forthcoming. The Red Cross fed us hot meals when our homes were unusable and the entire food supply had spoiled in freezers, refrigerators, and grocery stores. We barbequed meat for the entire street before it spoiled. We took showers at the YMCA, schools, or the local gym if they had generators.

We survived Katrina. Mississippians never complained or blamed the president when entire communities were razed off the face of the earth – the only remnants were the concrete outlines of the former homes’ foundations. We rolled up our sleeves under the leadership of the Republican governor Hailey Barbour and we rebuilt because that is what resilient Americans do, we do not wait for Uncle Sam to come to the rescue.

We were never so arrogant to claim, in shameless hubris, that humans were in control of Mother Earth. We did not cause global warming and we are not responsible for cycles of disastrous weather. Bad weather events such as Sandy have occurred periodically throughout our planet’s history. Soil samples prove that massive tsunamis and hurricanes had occurred long before humanity reached the industrial age. Time and effort would be better spent to find a way to minimize the damaging effect of natural events. Destroying our way of life and returning to pre-industrial age is not a rational answer.

Liberals are fond of mixing climate with weather events. Mayor Bloomberg was eager to point out, “Our climate is changing. And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be – given this week’s devastation – should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action.”

I would prefer that leaders take immediate action and reduce our national debt, the number one threat to our national security. Taxing us more is not a solution.

Bloomberg continues by promoting their sustainability plan (U.N. Agenda 21), PlaNYC 2030 (www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml),

carbon foot print reduction, and C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, “a partnership among many of the world’s largest cities – local governments are taking action where national governments are not.” While he stops short of blaming global warming for hurricane Sandy, he implies it, touting the steps taken by the current administration in reducing carbon consumption, enforcing cap-and-trade, implementing higher fuel-efficiency standards, tighter control on mercury emissions, and closing the dirtiest coal power plants, the very same steps that supposedly saved 13,000 lives each year but killed millions of jobs.

Bloomberg, a rich urbanite, cannot fathom the idea that climate has changed for millennia and people had to adapt or die off. Rural residents are not deluding themselves and others that the power of nature can be controlled by man. You can ask the dinosaurs that even a 100 percent tax to offset carbon footprint cannot change global events. It is just a scheme to make money and to make people like Al Gore rich.

The fact that millions are crowded into high-rise apartments in densely populated areas, leaving people exposed, more vulnerable, with more casualties in the wake of a weather related event, escapes the liberal mind. We now track and keep very accurate records of catastrophic weather events. In the past the data was scarce, records sketchy, and news did not travel so fast without the Internet.

It is common sense that coastal areas are prone to flooding. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The Washington Post was quick to point out that “Climate change predictions foresaw Hurricane Sandy scenario for New York City.” There is at least a show a week on National Geographic or the History Channel predicting global Armageddon and what life would be like after people and coastal areas disappear. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/climate-change-predictions-foresaw-hurricane-sandy-scenario-for-new-york-city/2012/10/31/b78de428-2374-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz)

Computer modeling and satellites enable scientists to forecast and track massive super storms. Forecasting of weather events is done by a $13 billion program run by NOAA and NASA. There is a problem with satellites that are nearing their life cycle or have already passed it. These satellites fly pole-to-pole, across the Equator, scanning the planet for weather patterns, helping to predict major storms five days ahead. Launching replacements called Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) will not occur until 2017, possibly causing a gap in the continuity of the ability to forecast weather accurately. It is unclear how the JPSS-1 spacecraft will carry the scientific payload into space. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/us/dying-satellites-could-lead-to-shaky-weather-forecasts.html)

Mercy Chefs, a relief agency that serves hot meals to disaster victims, is staging operations in lower Manhattan to serve Hurricane Sandy’s victims while rich liberals think that it is a good idea to host the New York City marathon surrounded by so much need. Mercy Chefs served 900 people after the initial setup. According to Gary LeBlanc, there are 40,000 people in the vicinity where they are serving hot meals, many residents still without power and water for the next 10 days.

I understand need, pain and suffering – I’ve lived through many hurricanes, a few earthquakes, and many tornadoes. I hope Democrats use this painful lesson to ponder the fact that immediate help and relief does not come from Big Government, it comes from ordinary fellow Americans who do extraordinary things.

Liberals have always lived in the capitalist lap of luxury but have yearned for the poverty of communism. As they ardently advocate and support utopia at all costs, liberals are finally getting painful lessons from a hurricane, of what everyday life is like under communism - power goes out for weeks on end, water is turned off, hot water is seldom available, heat is anemic, wood, coal, gasoline, and heating oil are hard to find and expensive, and food is very scarce, distributed in long lines, with rationing coupons, or on the black market. The only difference between communism and a natural disaster is the culprit that causes all the pain and suffering – irrational control freaks or Mother Nature.

 

Butler on Business WAFS 1190 Atlanta, 9-12-12

My 10 minute radio commentary on sequestration of disaster relief. I come on at the 30 minute mark.
http://host1.cyberears.com//17399.mp3

Sequestration in Disaster Relief

The upcoming 2013 budgetary fiscal cliff has prompted some in Congress to consider sequestration in disaster relief in order to save money. Sequestration is simply defined as automatic spending cuts.

The Congressional Research Service has published a report, “Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications for Congress.”(Bruce R. Lindsey and Francis X. McCarthy, August 31, 2012)

The Stafford Act gives the president the authority to issue declarations for federal assistance to states and towns in the event of natural and man-made disasters.

Suddenly, there is skepticism that declarations are not issued just to provide disaster relief. Some believe that declarations are political instruments before and during election years. There is also heightened worry about the spending associated with such disasters. In 2011 99 major disasters were declared, with an average of 56 per year since 2000. Between 1953 and 2011 the average was 35 per year.

Under the Stafford Act grants can be given for fire management, emergencies, and major disasters. In the case of disaster declarations, floods, storms, hurricanes, and winter storms are included. According to CRS," most emergency declarations are for snow related events, followed by hurricanes, droughts, and fires.

A group in Congress wants to shift some financial responsibility to the states while another group argues that limiting federal help would impede speedy recovery.

FEMA, upon request from a governor, makes a damage report and a recommendation to the president if a declaration is needed. The president can approve or deny any request.

Congressmen are worried about the federal cost. 75% is paid by the federal government and 25% by the state and local governments. Congressmen are interested in" offsetting some portion of disaster assistance spending by implementing budgetary mechanisms that might trigger a sequestration." (CRS, p. 1)

Some contend that disaster relief is given to" marginal incidents" and that the federal government is too generous in its interpretation criteria of disaster or emergency. Because the federal government is so “open in describing factors considered for declarations has led a formerly discretionary program evolving into a form of entitlement.”

A governor cannot request a declaration unless the state is overwhelmed by a disaster. If the governor’s request is denied federal assistance, it is called a" turndown." The first disaster declaration was issued by President Eisenhower on May 2, 1953, for damages caused by a tornado in Georgia.

The qualification formula for a fire threshold for any state is the greater of $100,000 or 5% multiplied by $1.30, multiplied by the state population. Cumulative fire cost threshold is $500,000 or 3x5% x $1.3, multiplied by the state population.

CRS reported that16 states qualified for the minimum $100,000 while California has a minimum for a single fire of over $2.2 million. (FEMA, Fire Management Assistance Grant, September 2011, p. 24)

According to CRS analysis based on data provided by FEMA, Texas has received the most fire management grants (234), California (120), Oklahoma (78), Florida (57), and Washington (53). (CRS, p. 4)

The state of New York has benefitted from the most emergency declarations (18), Maine and Massachusetts (14 each), and New Hampshire and Texas (11). Emergency declarations are for winter storms, hurricanes, and drought." FEMA does not use specific categories to classify disaster types." (CRS, p. 8)

Major disasters beneficiaries can be state and local governments and nonprofit organizations. Grants are given to repair and/or restore public infrastructure such as roads and buildings, for temporary housing, unemployment assistance, crisis counseling, recovery programs, such as disaster loans for a specific community.

"The states that have received the most major disaster declarations are Texas (86), California (78), Oklahoma (69), New York (65), and Florida (63). (CRS, p. 10)

Presidential denials for major disaster declarations have averaged almost 11 per year during the last decade. (CRS, p. 9)

Increases in disastrous weather events and changes in federal policies may explain the perceived increase in major disaster declarations. It may appear that more weather events occur, when in reality we have better tracking technology. To validate this hypothesis, a well-researched link between historical weather patterns and major disaster declarations should be established.

Recovering from a disaster is much more expensive due to increased population size and increased standard of living. In the period1953-2011 the US population has doubled in size. Population density pushed habitation into areas previously uninhabited which may have been affected by severe weather previously but nobody recorded it or needed help. (CRS, p. 12)

Some members of Congress complained that political motivations are reflected in the number of disaster declarations. Around the clock news bias the president to issue increased disaster declarations in the year prior and during an election. Public scrutiny may have major consequences on how the president handles a disaster. He may appear uncaring if he does not intervene.

Policy changes include federal legislation and various FEMA declaration policies. Because states are cash strapped, they may be eager to apply for disaster aid. The $1 per capita formula for preliminary assessment had been used by FEMA since 1986. The number was changed in 1999, adjusting for inflation. The Inspector General said, in the 13 years, adjusting for inflation would have resulted in 36% fewer disaster claims, saving federal government money. (CRS, p. 23)

The Disaster Recovery Act of 2011, if passed, would amend the Stafford Act and authorize the president to declare a catastrophic incident if a panel of experts would determine that federal assistance is needed. An expert panel may:

 

      -          Make more objective decisions
      -          Slow down the process
      -          Infringe on the President’s authority

The President may still declare a disaster in spite of the panel’s recommendations. (CRS, p. 25) Could this panel become another Obamacare style recovery death-panel if their expert opinion becomes politicized?

Suggestions have been made to offer low interest recovery loans. In such a case a state could resolve a disaster without federal assistance.

-          By repealing section 320 of the Stafford Act, states would have to meet certain levels to qualify for assistance.

-          Section 404 of the Stafford Act gives the President the power to contribute 75% of the cost of a disaster. Section 404 could be amended to give only 50% if a state does not meet certain “mitigation standards.” Would that not dictate to states how they should govern?

Several other amendments to the Stafford Act have been suggested in order to limit the number of declarations issued or the amount of help provided to the states by the federal government:

-          no administrative adjustment of the cost-share

      -          no federal assistance to states without programs such as housing assistance
      -          discontinue all assistance for snow removal.

The federal government wants to pay less and less for the increased declarations of natural disasters. It appears less willing to help American disaster victims while it is more willing to help disaster victims and causes in other parts of the world. Lindsey and McCarthy state,” it is unclear whether the fiscal responsibility for victims in time of need resides primarily with the federal or the state government.” No matter how much taxes we pay to the state or the federal government, we are ultimately on our own.