Sometimes efforts to cut spending have a price tag we don’t like. Virginia was recently denied FEMA relief by the Obama administration. Ouch! Here’s what went down. Governor McDonnell declared Virginia a disaster area so several countries ripped apart by tornadoes in April. Virginia saw more than 30 tornadoes last month.
According to the Richmond Times Dispatch:
The Obama administration has rejected Virginia’s request for federal disaster aid for rural counties hit last month by tornadoes that killed 10 and destroyed or damaged more than 1,000 homes. The state might appeal the decision.
In a letter Friday to Gov. Bob McDonnell, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said that it was turning down Virginia because it concluded that the state could handle the cleanup on its own.
Damage “was not of such severity and magnitude to merit … (a) disaster declaration and (was) not beyond the combined capabilities of the commonwealth, affected local governments and voluntary agencies,” said FEMA Administrator W. Craig Fugate.
“Accordingly, we have determined that supplemental federal assistance is not necessary,” Fugate said. “Therefore, I must inform you that your request for a major disaster declaration is denied.”
Well, Damn, I reckon! as they say in Virginia (outside of Northern Virginia). Stop the spending sure came back fast to bite us in the hind quarters. 212 homes in Virginia were destroyed and 1050 were damaged during extreme weather conditions.
McDonnell sought assistance for the counties of Halifax, Pulaski and Washington. He also asked FEMA to consider destructive weather April 8-28 as one incident, freeing other localities, including Gloucester and Middlesex counties, to possibly seek federal aid later.
Nearly 30 tornadoes churned through Virginia in April, causing tens of millions of dollars in damage. The strongest hit Washington County with winds of 140 mph, killing four people. Tornadoes are blamed for the deaths of two in Gloucester County and one in Halifax County. In addition, state emergency officials said Saturday, one person died in Wythe County and two were killed in flash flooding in Waynesboro.
The state has 30 days to appeal the FEMA decision. The state will continue to help local areas recover from the spate of violent weather. McDonnell is on his way to the far east on a trade trip.
Nationwide, tornadoes hit Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia and Virginia and killed over 300 people, some of whom have still not been found. It would in interesting to see how many other states got rejected. People don’t realize, it seems, that the cattle call to stop spending might just include THEM. ‘Stop spending’ is a mantra without much thought behind it. Virginia is just now finding that out. This probably isn’t a very good time politically to have your house caught up in a tornado. I guess we just assume the feds are going to bail us out when these kinds of things happen. Hopefully, Gov. McDonnell will appeal and Virginians will get the relief they seek. FEMA can stop spending when the disasters stop.
Update at The Richmond Times Dispatch.
I think the most appropriate word that comes to mind is “Karma”.
Unfortunately, that Karma has consequences for all of Virginia, as one way or another, these rural counties are going to need financial help, either through the state of the Feds.
Like saying we have a balanced budget while using the VRS as an ATM?
Yup, Karma works.
yeah, just like that!
I think I agree with FEMA on this one but disagree on them rejecting Texas. I don’t think anyone with two brain cells to rub together could say that Texas hasn’t had a major disaster.
Chicago politics at it’s best.
I agree with MH and Elena — these Virginian’s don’t need federale aid.
I don’t know if they need it or not. I expect they do need it. But….the spending. No one likes it when the stop spending affects their own pet projects or neighborhoods. How many people disliked the additional time it takes for state background checks when purchasing firearms.
I guess it is a case of be careful what you wish for.
When the state makes a name for itself by suing the feds at every opportunity, it better be prepared to be bitten on the butt in return – whether by this FEMA decision or a cut-back in military spending.
The Feds ignored the fires in Texas too.
Hmm…..could there be politics involved on who’s getting the money?
The governor is being urged to appeal this decision. I recall that one of the obstacles that Daddy Bush faced was poor response time (in some eyes) to Hurricane Andrew.
I would think since one town was totally leveled and 4 people were killed, and that 30 tornadoes struck the state in one month, that we should qualify.
Still, if spending is to be cut, where does one start? I wouldn’t like if it started in my tornado ravaged town, that’s for sure.
I think it is very interesting that all these people who don’t want big government around are the first to cry for help when something goes wrong. You don’t want the federal government around, you don’t want to pay any more taxes but you want the federal government to bail you out. Folks you gotta fish, cut bait or get out of the boat.
I agree with Censored–if you pee on the federal government’s shoe, you should expect some to splash back on you. Texas has repeatedly thumbed its nose at the feds and Virginia isn’t doing too badly in that department either. Payback is a bitch.
I live in the area that was devastated by the tornado’s that struck in Virginia. Less than 10 miles just across the state line in Tennessee they had the same destruction from the same tornado. They received aid from FEMA.
I find it ironic that the current administration that has had to defend its decisions by the great state of Virginia decided not to offer assistance.
I dont agree with the mind set that the federal govt. is responsible for cleaning up and offering aid after a natural disaster, but I do get chaffed that Virginia was blackballed!
This is nothing but Chicago style politics and when Virginia sued the federal govt over obamacare………………… Well what did you expect???????
So….payback is the proper response to a disaster….ok, then.
Remember, its not doing without government. Its BETTER, MORE STREAMLINED GOVERNMENT that can respond to emergencies, etc.
So if the feds refuse to help…more power to the Tea Party. We’ll do without. And Americans may learn that they CAN get along without the feds. Maybe if the feds hadn’t spent all that money on GM and Goldman Sachs and the unions, we’d have the money for disasters. Maybe if we didn’t have to pay the interests on that extra trillion dollars that we borrowed last year, we would have it for disasters.
I echo Cargo here. Maybe it’s tough love. But, I don’t see many posts on here (if any) saying that FEMA was wrong. For Virginia I think FEMA has a good case that the state suffered damage but not to the extent needed for the federales to step in with aid. TX should have a solid case.
Even in Alabama with entire communities destroyed people started helping one another and coming to each other’s aid. Would the same have occured in a place like Boston? :shrug:
George’s response in #9 shows us exactly why having a strong federal government is wrong. A government too strong, too powerful and one that doesn’t obey the law but rather shifts according to polls or “what have you done for me lately” is tyrannical.
George’s response is exactly why we need a TEA party.
Also, I don’t remember Governor MCDonnell running on a Tea Party Ticket or even paying lip service to them….ever. So, pointing out Obama’s reaction to a governor’s request as being a fair reaction to the Tea Party is wrong there, too.
Cargo, who mentioned the Tea Party? Maybe The Prez is just prioritizing limited resources – there’s the current Mississippi flooding to worry about as well as the tornado damage. I think Alabama can make a stronger defense of needing funds right now than Virginia can. You guys need to make up your minds. You want funds. You don’t want funds. You don’t like how Obama distributes funds, but you want to cut spending anyway.
I’m really suspicious of all the “cut funds” crying that conservatives are doing right now. Where were you guys during Bush’s record spending? What it all boils down to is that you lost the last presidential election and can’t stand to have the Dems in charge of many (but not all) financial decisions so you’re trying to starve the beast that you didn’t mind feeding during Bush’s term in office. It’s transparent. It’s called being a sore loser. Maybe Obama is just trying to help you guys out by not giving us money. We seem like the brat kid who complains about every chore his parents ask him to do and threatens to call CPS if they don’t give in – and then comes up with his hand out asking for his allowance.
@Cargosquid
No McDonnell didn’t run on a Tea Party ticket, but he has allowed Cuckonelli to repeatedly stick his finger in the federal government’s eye and kowtow to the Tea Party. I continue to stand with Censored–you can fish, cut bait or get out of the boat. As long as you want to slam the federal government, primarily slamming the president, you should expect some fall out.
Don’t tug on Superman’s cape, don’t spit into the wind, don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger and don’t mess around with Slim.
Is that mess around with Slim or with Slime?
@George
Again, if its about conserving resources, I applaud it. Also, I haven’t been calling for Obama to send FEMA in. Furthermore, Cuccinelli is doing the job he was elected too and the Governor has limited power to control that. But, if its about payback, then that’s wrong. And Texas has requested federal aid for the wildfires and had it ignored….look, almost a trend.
“I’m really suspicious of all the “cut funds” crying that conservatives are doing right now. Where were you guys during Bush’s record spending? ”
How many times are you going to pull out this old canard. The conservatives were upset enough with Bush’s spending that the REPUBLICANS LOST TWO ELECTIONS IN A ROW. Along with various conservative pundits writing and talking about it. And Bush’s record spending was ONE FOURTH of Obama’s, so there is a matter of scale involved.
Also, the only people calling for cuts is the Tea Party, so anytime that someone here comments like this: “I think it is very interesting that all these people who don’t want big government around”, tends to be describing the TEA Party. So, that’s where the TEA Party was, well, implied.
So, since payback is a valid reason to neglect the duties of the federal government under current law, then it should be ok if the people and the states do their level best to ignore, undermine, and nullify federal law, right? Maybe the states should start withholding funds to the feds, stop cooperating with the feds on anything….I mean, it seems to be ok with you George…. Payback IS a bitch and in the long run, the feds need the states more than the states need the feds….
Oh, and since you don’t seem to care about the spending since you harp so much about those of us that are trying to fix it, what are you going to do when the funds dry up because we can’t borrow any more money from anyone and printing money doesn’t work anymore? Because that’s what $trillion + deficits do to a country.
Maybe a bit at variance with some here, but I was personally kind of surprised when the Governor asked for federal help. True we had some serious damage, but it looked to me (admittedly from a rather far away vantage point) like something which Virginia could handle on its own. I kind of cotton to the idea of state self-reliance except in truly major disasters like the one which hit Alabama — pick-yourself-up-by-your own bootstraps federalism I would call it. And, if cash help is needed, ask your fellow Virginians — the same who are quick to send their money (and their first-class search and rescue team) to Haiti or Japan or Indonesia or anyplace where people are hurting.
@Wolverine
Well said. Totally agree.
+1 Wolverine – #19
@Wolverine
You have hit the nail on the head Wolfie. I disagree with Cargo that only the Tea Party is talking about tax cuts. Republicans in general are talking about tax cuts and some it is kowtowing to the Tea Party. It just seems to me that everytime something happens, the first ones to yell for federal help are the same ones who damn the federals on many issues. And I am certain that Cargo never harbors any feelings about payback.
We are in serious trouble financially and it seems that neither side has a good plan for solving it. I am hopeful that the Gang of Six is going to come up with something that will work. Whether we like it or not, everyone’s ox is going to get gored and the sooner we figure that out, the better off we are going to be. When either side throwns down the gauntlet maybe the other has to refuse to pick it up.
Wolverine, I agree that localities with damage should start with the state before coming, hat in hand, to the feds. And state budgets should have enough money to cover these occasional disasters.
@George S. Harris
I think most of the right leaning folks on here understand that cuts will happen even to programs we support. Remember JFCOM down in the VA Beach area? That’s a lot of jobs that just disappeared. Cuts do mean pain and we’re all going to be feeling it.
It has to happen. We’ve been writing checks on the home equity that our kids will need to pay back and I think that’s just sad. It’s a moral hazard.
@George S. Harris
“the only people calling for cuts is the Tea Party”
That would be SPENDING cuts. The GOP is paying lip service, so far, to spending cuts.
Heck, EVERYONE is calling for tax cuts, even the liberals. What changes is the target of the tax cuts.
even many of the tea party crowd want tax cuts and spending cuts – in other jurisdictions – they do not want cuts to their own constituents.
@Cargosquid
Which liberals are calling for tax cuts? We are now paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in some time. I know it has been lower but the national debt went up. Now I agree we are spending way too much money and need to make some serious changes. But, hacking away at social programs is not the answer. Industrial subsidies, 2-1/2 wars, and foreign aid need serious looks. And we must do something about O-I-L. We continue to pay through the nose to OPEC and they keep jabbing their finger in our eye. When you are as dependent on foreign oil as we are, it is hard to negotiate from a position of supplication–either hands on ankles or on bended knee.
Speaking of oil……how did everyone like that horrible oil spill/leak? I think before we do that kind of drilling again we had better have a better plan B for everyone to follow. The cost in flora and fauna of that area can never be calculated and we have no clue as to the long term effects of that spill.
Cargo, I’m a liberal, progressive, socialist, commie (pick your poison) and I favor a a tax increase. Couple that with the decrease in spending you’re calling for and the debt will be diminished more quickly.
@George S. Harris
Obama was touting his tax cuts for the middle class. Didn’t you get one?
I agree. We have to do something about oil. Oh, wait…we can’t drill off the coasts, there’s a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, the EPA wants to control carbon and wants to bankrupt coal, and now wants to stop fracking. And we’re lending our money to Brazil so that we can be a good customer to them.
We have to cut EVERYTHING because cutting all BUT “social programs” will do NOTHING. Medicare alone will bankrupt us in the years to come. Social programs use our entire revenue stream, now. We borrow money for EVERYTHING else.
We have no more money.
Medicare won’t bankrupt us if it is handled correctly. That’s part of what HCR was all about. Its probably a good idea to define what social programs we are talking about before we start generalizing. Perhaps social security would be in better shape if the fund weren’t used as an ATM.
cargo – Oh, wait…we can’t drill off the coasts, there’s a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf – why do we have to open up off shore drilling – the oil companies have many many current leases that they can drill on, but choose not to – http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/DOI-Releases-Report-on-Unused-Oil-and-Gas-Leases.cfm – what, we have to open up more areas, so that they can just purchase the lease, and move on to another area? No, there is plenty of oil in the current leased areas where they can drill for oil – we do not have to open up anymore areas until those are depleted.
What the US really needs to do – is to get off of oil – why do we not use natural gas for cars in the US, like other countries (yet, we think we are so advanced)? Why not Ethanol? Is it because we do not like change?
@Pat.Herve
We don’t use nat’l gas because THAT TOO is being restricted. The fight against fracking is just that.
Ethanol is inefficient. Right now, it takes more energy to produce a drivable gallon of gas than it did before ethanol was added, kills gas mileage, and kills carburetor engines. We also don’t have a convenient crop of sugar cane like Brazil, the most popular user of ethanol. But, notice that they are drilling more and more.
The law already states that the oil companies have to use it or lose it by the end of their leases. Just because they have the lease doesn’t mean that there is recoverable oil at that spot. Or, that they are being allowed to drill on that lease. Or that they are still in the process of exploring, etc. A lease does not equal oil. Furthermore, this moratorium is killing jobs and businesses in Louisiana and will depress the area for years to come since the rigs will be leaving for better pastures.
Here’s a reply. I’m sure you’l disregard it because its from an oil man.
http://survivalandprosperity.com/2011/03/17/senate-democrats-attack-%E2%80%98big-oil%E2%80%99-and-unused-leases/
Erik Milito, the Director of Upstream and Industry Operations for the American Petroleum Institute (API), the national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry, responded to the Democratic lawmakers in API’s blog Energy Tomorrow. Milito wrote yesterday:
When it comes to crafting a sensible energy policy, once again politics carry the day. This notion of “use it or lose it” is a stale, invalid argument and a political distraction to rising gasoline prices combined with the fact that we’re not doing enough in the Gulf to use our own resources and put Americans back to work. Let’s get back on track with some facts:
The administration itself is preventing the industry from developing these leases because it is not issuing permits to drill or conduct seismic studies of these leases. They want the industry to develop the leases it already possesses, but they won’t grant the permits to do so.
Companies pay millions of dollars to acquire these leases (each lease costs at least $250,000 and some have gone for more than $100,000,000), further fees for renting the leases and the leases have a finite term. If a company does not produce oil or gas from a lease then they are required to return it to the government. In other words “use it or lose it” is already the law.
These are very successful and sophisticated companies that are engaged in this business and it makes no logical sense for companies to pay millions of dollars to purchase leases, sit on them for 10 years, and then give them back to the government. They make money by supplying the American economy with the energy it needs to grow, not from sitting on assets. The level of capital expenditures by the industry to develop these leases demonstrates their commitment to find oil and gas. For example, the industry spent more than $37 billion (with a B) in capital expenditures to develop deep water Gulf leases issued between 1996 and 2000. In addition they paid more than $4 billion (with a B) in bonus bids to obtain those leases in the first place. With that level of investment, it is hard to argue that the industry is not working hard to develop the leases it owns.
Finally, these arguments simply ignore the basics of the oil and natural gas industry. Companies purchase leases for the right to explore for the resources. You don’t know if a lease actually contains oil or natural gas until you move forward and drill an exploratory well. Companies purchase a large portfolio of leases to give them the greatest opportunity to find oil and natural gas. They work hard to survey and study all of their leases with the hope that they can narrow the list down to a subset that have the best likelihood of actually containing oil or natural gas. However, it is not uncommon for a company to spend $100 million to drill a well and find no oil or natural gas. In fact, companies drill more wells that have no oil or natural gas than wells that actually do.
With one election just concluded, the positioning for the next one has started, but it’s time to stop the stupid and start getting smart on creating jobs, growing our economy and increasing our energy security.
So, in a nutshell, Milito pointed out:
• It makes no sense for oil companies to sit on leases when they could be bringing product to market- especially at today’s prices
• The billions of dollars spent by the oil and natural gas industry to develop leases demonstrates their commitment to finding oil and gas
• Having a lease doesn’t necessarily mean oil and gas are there. Leases are purchased for the right to explore for these resources.
• The federal government is stonewalling permits to develop leases
• “Use it or lose it” is already the law
@Moon-howler
HCR took money from Medicare and spent it on an increase in Medicaid. And then Obama counted that money as a cut in costs in Medicare. The CBO called it double counting. HCR is a scam that won’t save any money.
Furthermore, “if it is handled correctly?” When have you EVER seen money being handled correctly in Congress? Ever? Even the supposed surplus under Clinton was fake. Our debt still increased. A lot of that surplus came from Congress “borrowing” from Social Security.
The way the truth is spun is ridiculous – here is the real story on the Brazil $2Billion – http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/braziloil.asp
cargo – I read the article, and there is some truth to it, but I do not believe all of it – the truth will be somewhere in the middle. As far as Frakking – yes, if they were Fracking in my neighborhood (water supply), I would be against it to – but as long as it is in your back yard, with your water supply, I am all for it. We still have a good NG supply without the fracking. We do not have an oil supply problem – there is plenty of oil – we have a consumption problem. The US does not have an energy policy with any depth – drill baby drill is not an energy policy, and we will not drill ourselves out of it. Car can run on pure ethanol (like they do in other parts of the world), they can run on NG – we choose not to do either.
We keep buying more oil from our own enemy – where did UBL get his money – from American OIL consumers. Like everything else, lets kick the can down the road – well, we are down the road.
And do we have the NG resources to run our transportation? Further exploration and development is constantly being stymied. Virginia can’t access the NG off its own coast.
Ethanol? And where are we supposed to get this ethanol? Our little experiment in ethanol raised food prices across the globe. Corn producers switched from food corn to growing for the fuel industry. Brazil uses its huge sugar cane crop. And again, ethanol plays havoc with engines. Are we going to develop different supply chains to build ethanol cars?
I agree, we have a consumption problem. We also have a development problem. Its so difficult to get additional resources out of the ground here that its easier to buy it from the Middle East, in addition to the fact that the ME oil is of a better quality.
We pay lip service to the CAFE rules. Why aren’t those fuel efficient cars that I see on TOP GEAR being sold over here? Are they so dangerous that only Europeans can drive them? Why don’t I see 45 mpg diesel cars here? Why is it that their cars seem to get twice the mileage but are of similar size?