Schwarzenegger Visits D.C. Seeking Aid
"I came basically to Washington to establish relationships and to make sure we are getting more federal money for California as I promised in my campaign," Schwarzenegger told reporters following a meeting with House Republicans. "But of course the recent events, the huge disastrous fires have changed my mission a little bit. I'm now looking for federal money for the people, the victims of the fire."Schwarzenegger used his first visit since his Oct. 7 election to plead for additional federal resources to fight what authorities are calling the worst fire emergency in the state in more than a decade.
The governor-elect began his day on Capitol Hill, meeting with Michael Brown, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. There, on the advice of outgoing Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, he pressed for "one-stop" disaster relief centers where fire victims could receive needed services in a single location.
"I've asked today, FEMA, and they are establishing those this weekend. Most of the centers will be established," Schwarzenegger said.
"I don't think that the fire victims right now ... care about Democrats or Republicans," he said, adding they were eager for any and all helping hands.
But someone needing something does not necessitate need-relieving action from another. Humans helping other humans in times of disaster is one of this species' great traits and characteristics.
Don't stain this charity with resources gained through taxation. It isn't anyone's duty to sacrifice for another. If that person wishes to give then nothing should stand in his or her way. But if a person doesn't wish to give, then that should be the end of it. Don't allocate our property and wealth on the basis of need. Don't allocate it at all.
UPDATE(11/3/2003 12:55am)
Via the Mises Blog, I hear of this New York Times article by David Rosenbaum who says:
President Bush's declaration last week that the wildfires in Southern California were a "major disaster" was the 50th such declaration he has issued this year.That is more than one disaster a week, double the average annual figure in the 1980's. At the rate he is going, Mr. Bush's total for the year could approach the record of 75 disasters declared by President Clinton in 1996, his re-election year.
When a president declares a region a disaster zone, like the four counties in California hit by fires, millions, even in a few cases billions, of federal dollars become available overnight. The residents can be eligible for assistance ranging from unemployment benefits to temporary housing to low-interest loans, and the communities receive grants to cover expenses like debris removal, repairs to damaged buildings and emergency public services.
[...]
Without question, the fires last week left a terrible trail of devastation, destroying more than 3,100 houses and other structures. But in a comprehensive analysis of disaster declarations over the years, two economists, Thomas A. Garrett of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and Russell S. Sobel of West Virginia University, found this year that "nearly half of all disaster relief is motivated politically rather than by need."
But then there's this bit of ignorance-on-display:
Even the most ardent libertarians do not hold that the federal government should offer no help when communities are devastated -- by a big earthquake, say, or a powerful storm.
One of the most ardent libertarians of the last century, Murray Rothbard disagreed with the notion of, applications of, and existence of government natural disaster funding and financing, calling for the wholesale abolishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I agree.
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
Although I agree with many of the statements concerning "noble ideas" being corrupted by vote hungry politicians. I disagree with the abolishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for these reasons. One, as I myself have never experienced or want to experience a natural disaster, I assume is a throughly traumatic scenario. These people have been emotionly or even possibly physically injured and need all the support they can get, especially from the government who are there to protect them and keep order and calmness in their country. Point two, put yourself in their shoes. You have just experienced a dangerous event. You probably are without a job, house, car, or even a family member or friend. However you are expected to use all of your own money to pay for damages that are not your fault, even when you pay taxes to the government expecting them to take care of certain needs of yours. Also, although many disaster declarations are of political strategies, they do influence voters and help them make descions on candidates. Four, if a region is hit by a disaster and is not able to function for long time, that region is losing money, and so is region-wide panic.the national government. Resulting in economical problems and a panic in that overall region, affecting the rest of the country.
I would just have to say that emergency funding is essential for our country and its citizens to function properly.
Megan -- I don't care what the rationale is: it's not a sufficient moral ground to *force* anyone else to help. No one's *need* is a moral ground to *steal* someone else's money to assuage it.
"Reasoning" like yours is exactly why I stopped paying income taxes in 1976. No arguments, no bullshit: nobody can have what I produce without my permission. Period.
And I would never argue that anyone should be permitted to do that to *you*.