Disasters like Sandy can't be handled by only local
by Roger NC - 12/9/12 8:03 AM
In Reply to: Your last paragraph by TONI H
indeed, states have a hard time handling them, in part because as has been pointed out, most states are required not to run a deficet. No state is going to have to political will to put aside enough emergency money to handle a storm like Sandy. Any politician who tried would lose the next election.
Local individuals, organizations, cities and counties are not going to have the capability to repair roads, power grids, drainage systems, transportation systems etc.
Regarding the accusation that union electricians insulted and refused to allow an crew in, I saw the story and I'm not disputing the guys who were treated such. However, I alsosaw several other non-union crews that said they had no problems and were welcomed. Sadly there are such people and not just in unions.
Yes the bigger the government the more inefficient it is and the more bureaucacy interferes with results. As you yourself point out though, this has happened under different presidents, different parties, time and time again.
Local people can do more right now help, for sure. But they can't even begin to rebuild all the damage from a storm like Sandy or Katrina. Surely you're not in favor of doing away with federal FEMA aid and federal money to help in such natural disasters? Reform them would be great, but sadly I don't see government or politicians with the will to make things better. Even more sadly, if you did away with most of the beauracracy, scammers would make off with even more of the money.
You think all the fake handymen that show up, promise to fix a house, get money for supplies and disappear are union?
It's downright disgusting how humans prey on the weak and vulnerable. This isn't political, it's rats on two legs.
Now as far as local churches, associations, and individuals helping others I think it's great. But do you think it can replace medicaid, medicare, and fixed social security payments? Afterall, that was the situation under discussion, replacing current programs with some type of self responsible savings. It was in reference to a quite vocal view in the last few years furor that government shouldn't be in the social business at all, that individuals should be self reliant and damn it if they won't, or can't.
Individuals and small organizations are great in helping out in disasters, less so in a long term care role. Not that some won't try, but people sadly have trouble maintaining their committment. Not only that, employers are understanding about time off for personal problems or to help others after a disaster, less so day to day. With the business first attitude today, too much time off to help others and you'll be the one needing help.
Only a few in most local areas have the financial wherewithal to provide the money needed and they're not going to support a community of retirees and disabled on their own dime for decades.
Elderly use to live with their kids for old age care, with the rest of the kids helping out. Today families are scattered to hell and back. Afterall, they have to live where they can work do they not? Even more problematic is that we no longer have half a dozen to a dozen kids to work the farm and take care of us in our old age. No everyone has a farm to live on or off of. How many gardens where Sandy hit?
Many have no kids, where do they go when if they need a little help day to day. Many today can hardly afford to support their kids, much less their kids, their parents, and all too often their grandkids.
Indeed, how often do we criticise those that have large families and can't support them?
So if we as a society want to leave it up to individuals, families, and locals to handle the problem, then we have to be honest enough to say so, and not blind ourselves to what will happen to many of the disabled and elderly. If we don't want to help as a society, that's the way it is, but don't self deluded ourselves that someone else will always take care of the problems.
We can't be Anybody, nobody, somebody, and everybody