Hey Romney––Disaster Isn't a Business Opportunity

Even Republican governors are praising Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy. Such a contrast with the guitar strumming response we got from a recent Republican president. Romney has urged shutting FEMA down altogether. There's a difference between the two parties. Mega-disasters like this remind us of the importance of good government that works for everyone. Sometimes we really need it.

At Raw Story.

The Washington Post.

Under a President Romney this hurricane's aftermath would look a lot different. Instead of FEMA being ready, fully equipped and on the ground, Romney would open the devastated areas up to the "magic of capitalism". Disasters are a business opportunity in Romney's eyes. An opportunity for profit, and you can imagine how prices could be affected by sudden mass shortages. Don't worry, his friends on Park Avenue would win a bidding war for bottled water, and would probably do well selling their excess. If you think about it, Mr. Romney, looting is a business opportunity, we just don't condone it.

Worth reading and sharing with your fence-sitting friends.

A very good post on the New York Times blog.

At The New Republic.

Also this, also at TNR.

Want irony? Remember "Heckuva Job" Brownie? The man who ran FEMA for Bush, who fumbled the Katrina response, whose previous experience before his government job was running a horse show association? (Maybe he knows Rufalka...) Brownie has criticized Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy, saying he responded too quickly... Story reported by The Hill newspaper.

I think it comes down to something I saw on a wall last week:

"ObamaCare. RomneyDon't"

Having a Secure Backup

Our parents and grandparents told us it was smart to have extra put by for a rainy day, but what happens when the rainy day fund in the coffee can under the floorboards is washed away with the house? What happens when your neighbors are too busy rescuing themselves to help you? We've learned from experience that institutional reserves are more practical than letting everyone fend for themselves. We need government, because the government is us.

When flood or drought or an earthquake strikes, it's good to live in a big country. (Joe Conason has a very good piece about this at nationalmemo.com.) A nation needs to plan for disasters that are more than local. Republicans are busy looking for redundancies to eliminate, but redundancy is an essential part of planning and planning is a key role of government. In a crisis big government is better than small. Extra is better than not enough. The Republicans are mocking the government response to Hurricane Irene, but it's better to be there early with sufficient force than too late with too little as happened to the previous administration with a previous hurricane.

Redundancy isn't the enemy of efficiency; it's crucial to maintaining efficiency in a crisis. Redundancy is a key part of emergency planning at the government level. It's been part of planning by governments of both parties, until the Republicans began thinking small.

There's a rationale for the Republicans' slimming obsession: disaster is an excellent profit opportunity for corporations that Republicans represent. War, disaster, famine, pestilence, epidemic, any or all the horses of the apocalypse will make opportunists very very rich if government is as small as Republicans would like it to be. But it will cost us.

It's called "Disaster Capitalism" and government preparedness is just what they don't want. Naomi Klein wrote about it in her book Shock Doctrine.

Here's a strange glimpse at the far extreme. Apparently the concept of personal redundancy is pretty important among the survivalist folks who demand less sufficiency in government. These podcasters preach the redundancy of two homes, for instance, which is nice for them. But consider this: when millions of people stockpile extra food, extra supplies and hide cash under the mattress, what does it do to the broader economy? What happens to those who can't afford to stash a year's worth away (or five years' worth)?

During the Great Depression this kind of behavior was called "Hoarding". Apart from how self-centered it is, hoarding causes shortages among those who aren't hoarding, who can't afford to or think it's wrong. Hoarding cash depresses the economy. (The corporations sitting on trillions in unspent government bailout money are the prime culprits here.)

There is a vital pragmatism to redundancy at the national level. It's been understood by most modern presidents. Roads and bridges to carry traffic if one or more are damaged, redundant lines of communication, backup power supply lines and backup power capacity. Securing these are the most important role of government, but the "cost cutters" eye sufficiency and backups as "waste" and "excessive". The way George W. Bush considered the revenue surplus he inherited from Clinton as free money he could throw away. Which is why we are experiencing shortages now. We could be more prepared and better equipped, but the Republicans want us to be less so. Why? Because it might make their clients rich.