Is nothing sacred? In Washington the answer is no.
As the last Congress sought to avoid the “fiscal cliff” and
raced toward adjournment, the House refused to vote on a
pork-ridden bill sold as aid for the victims of Hurricane Sandy.
That triggered a splenetic outburst from Rep. Peter King (R-NY),
who complained that the GOP stuck a “knife in the back of New
Yorkers and New Jerseyites.”
It was an example of political extortion at its worst. In
Washington political fraud rules. The $60 billion bill did not live
up to its sales pitch. Much of it had nothing to do with helping
hurricane victims. Complained
Jon Fleischman of the Flash Report: “You would not believe how
many billions of dollars in pork barrel spending has been stuffed
into this legislation by appropriators in the upper chamber.”
For instance, $17 billion was for “Community Development Block
Grants,” boondoggle spending that usually benefits political
activists rather than average citizens. Alaska fishermen several
thousand miles away from Hurricane Sandy would have gotten $150
million. There was $8 million for cars and equipment for the
Departments of Homeland Security and Justice.
The Veterans Administration would collect $207 million for its
Manhattan Medical Center. There was $2 million to repair a roof at
the Smithsonian Institution in Washington and $58.8 million for
private forest restoration. Almost $11 billion was targeted for
future public transportation construction and
maintenance.
Another $41 million would go for work at eight military bases as
far away as Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. And $4 million for repairs at
Florida’s Kennedy Space Center. The connection of all these
projects to Hurricane Sandy was not immediately obvious.
If Rep. King and other northeastern legislators had simply
wanted disaster relief money, they could have had it. If the bill
had focused on disaster relief. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) observed:
“They had the opportunity to have a $27-to $30-billion legit relief
package, packed it with pork, then dared us not to vote on it.”
An unnamed GOP aide made the reasonable point that “we need to
know more about the contents of the [second] bill before deciding
on a path forward.” A short delay was the least Congress could do
for taxpayers.
The new House immediately passed $9.7 billion in extra money for
the bankrupt federal flood insurance program. A vote is expected
mid-month on the rest of the package.
Reported the New York Times: “The overall measure
would provide money to help homeowners and small-business owners
rebuild; to repair bridges, tunnels and transportation systems; to
reimburse local governments for overtime costs of police, fire and
other emergency services; and to replenish shorelines. It also
would finance an assortment of longer-term projects that would help
the regions prepare for future storms.”
Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) promised that the second measure
would “strip out the extraneous spending directed to states not
affected by the storm.” Of course, that money should never have
been in the legislation. The new combined total is expected to
run about $37 billion, well under the original measure passed by
the Senate.
No one can have anything but compassion for those who lived
through the worst of Hurricane Sandy and any other natural
disaster. But that doesn’t give vote-seeking pols a license to loot
the public for partisan gain. In fact, federal disaster “relief” is
itself a disaster.
Observed the Wall Street Journal: “every disaster has
become a Washington political opportunity. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency is fully funded but does an incompetent job.
Federal flood insurance encourages overbuilding in storm zones, so
taxpayers pay first to subsidize the insurance and then to save the
homeowners who overbuilt. And politicians use the public sympathy
after any disaster as an excuse to throw even more money not merely
at victims but for pent-up priorities they should be funding out of
regular state and local tax dollars.”
It’s quite a racket. A
2006 Cato Institute study cited earlier studies which found
that presidents declare far more disasters during reelection years
and states with members serving on FEMA’s oversight committees
collect significantly more disaster money. Overall, “nearly half of
all disaster relief is motivated by politics rather than by
need.”
Obviously, the government has some assets, such as the National
Guard, which no private entity can match. But most of what FEMA
does can be done better by others. For instance, when it comes to
delivering supplies, companies like Wal-Mart have proved to be far
more efficient than FEMA. Charities such as the Red Cross and
Salvation Army more effectively address the deepest human needs,
raising money across the nation to promote relief.
But even if politicians were pure as the driven snow and
bureaucracies demonstrated extraordinary competence, disaster
management still should not be turned over to them. While
excoriating the GOP for delaying its vote, the president said “When
tragedy strikes, Americans come together to support those in need.”
Which is true. However, that doesn’t mean government should take
control.
The state, a coercive and inefficient institution, always should
be a last resort. It has basic responsibility for preserving public
security and maintaining public facilities. Otherwise, disaster
relief should be principally a matter for civil, not political,
society.
So, too, compensation for victims of terrorism and their
families. Even stranger than the relief bill for Hurricane Sandy
was the one approved after 9/11. The terrorist attacks were
monstrous and murderous. But the taxpayers should not have been
stuck with the bill for personal losses.
Middle class Americans ended up compensating families for the
earning potential of investment bankers who died. (In return,
families weren’t supposed to sue the airlines. However, that
shouldn’t have been the taxpayers’ responsibility either.) The
legislation later expanded coverage to provide compensation for
victims and even first responders who fell ill as a result of the
attacks, including from toxins released from the building’s
collapse. More than $11 billion was paid out.
Americans organize every day to help each other, and usually
outside of politics. Indeed, the U.S. always has been distinguished
by the readiness of its people to respond to crisis. Frenchman
Alexis de Tocqueville remarked upon the phenomenon nearly two
centuries ago when he visited America. Americans continue to form
“little platoons” and give hundreds of billions of dollars every
year to help meet society’s deepest needs.
Private assistance is better than government welfare for several
reasons. First, genuine compassion is not compulsory. Giving away
other people’s money is not being generous. Choosing whether to
give and thinking seriously about how much to give to whom are
important moral decisions. Placing responsibility for making such
decisions on individuals is a form of character development. Said
Benjamin Franklin: “When you are good to others, you are best to
yourself.”
Charity also strengthens the sinews of community. As Marvin
Olasky famously explained, compassion originally meant to “suffer
with.” It was relational. People met each other. They
learned about and from each other. They helped each
other.
Over time compassion has turned into writing checks. That is
important, even essential, but does not build human relationships.
Now politicians act as if making others write checks is the highest
form of compassion. Yet that actually undermines society:
responsibility for the care of others is transferred to the state
and beneficiaries become dependent on government. The only real
winners are vote-seeking politicians like Rep. King.
For decades politicians have steadily substituted state welfare
for private charity. It will take time to reverse direction,
transferring responsibility for aiding those in need back to
individuals from governments.
That won’t be easy. But Americans have to start saying no. No
more turning government “aid” into political pork. No more ramming
“aid” bills through with no thought or debate. No more draping
political extortion with compassionate rhetoric.
People should help those who suffer all manner of misfortune,
including natural disasters, such as Hurricane Sandy. But that
doesn’t mean creating more government boondoggles just because they
have been labeled as disaster aid.
