The weather makes news again; headlines as far away as the UK shout, "Worst Storm Outbreak for 40 Years." The UK Mail Online asks "Is this the American Tsunami," perhaps referring to the devastation in Japan, or for those with longer memories, the Indonesian event of 2004. Chris Matthews of MSNBC made another historical reference when discussing President Obama's planned trip to view the storm ravaged town of Tuscaloosa. Matthews lauded Obama's quick response as compared to President Bush's tardy visit to New Orleans after Katrina. One wonders if the Dems will ever tire of making comparisons with "W."
My question is whether we really want a Presidential response to a natural disaster. Certainly, the country's top executive must register compassion for hurting citizens. But as part of this compassion our modern leaders seem to think government action is required; it is definitely expected -- by Matthews et al. anyway. After hearing the horror stories and seeing the pictures of FEMA villages and discovering the massive fraud which resulted from federal involvement after Katrina, I question the wisdom of delegating disaster relief to Uncle Sam.
It may be an unfair comparison, but it is nonetheless interesting to note that the Mississippi victims of Katrina are mostly back on their feet now, while much of New Orleans remains largely in ruins. Perhaps it is coincidence that Mississippi got by with much less federal aid, while New Orleans depended almost entirely upon FEMA and other Washington based efforts. The Democrat run political apparatus in Louisiana must also shoulder it share of blame. It may also be a coincidence that the Mississippi political machine was headed by Republican Haley Barbour.
What Chris Matthews and many liberals do not understand is something Karl Rove pointed out to a radio audience recently: “People don’t understand the federal government is not in charge of these things, and the basis on which they can take charge is very unusual.” Explaining that things went so badly in Louisiana because of the incompetence of Democrat state and city officials, Rove suggested that Bush should have invoked an 1807 law that gives the federal government the right to take over states. “It was a mistake. We should have used the legal authority to declare the state an insurgent, taken the political heat of pushing out the state’s governor and overruling the African-American mayor of New Orleans.”
My question is whether we really want a Presidential response to a natural disaster. Certainly, the country's top executive must register compassion for hurting citizens. But as part of this compassion our modern leaders seem to think government action is required; it is definitely expected -- by Matthews et al. anyway. After hearing the horror stories and seeing the pictures of FEMA villages and discovering the massive fraud which resulted from federal involvement after Katrina, I question the wisdom of delegating disaster relief to Uncle Sam.
It may be an unfair comparison, but it is nonetheless interesting to note that the Mississippi victims of Katrina are mostly back on their feet now, while much of New Orleans remains largely in ruins. Perhaps it is coincidence that Mississippi got by with much less federal aid, while New Orleans depended almost entirely upon FEMA and other Washington based efforts. The Democrat run political apparatus in Louisiana must also shoulder it share of blame. It may also be a coincidence that the Mississippi political machine was headed by Republican Haley Barbour.
What Chris Matthews and many liberals do not understand is something Karl Rove pointed out to a radio audience recently: “People don’t understand the federal government is not in charge of these things, and the basis on which they can take charge is very unusual.” Explaining that things went so badly in Louisiana because of the incompetence of Democrat state and city officials, Rove suggested that Bush should have invoked an 1807 law that gives the federal government the right to take over states. “It was a mistake. We should have used the legal authority to declare the state an insurgent, taken the political heat of pushing out the state’s governor and overruling the African-American mayor of New Orleans.”
Though I respect Rove's political savvy, I disagree with his premise. The federal government should not be involved with local politics at all -- not in bad times or good times. Shocking as it may sound, I do not think any government should be expected to pick up after anyone's personal disaster except to make sure the public roadways are passable, municipal services are provided, and civil order is maintained. This is what limited government means to me. Unfortunately there is a near majority of my fellow citizens who think that government services should be unlimited. Our current national fiscal disaster is the result of this insatiable appetite for public largess.
All people of moral character, but Christians especially know the meaning of charity. Those who have, help those who have less. Natural disasters provide living demonstrations of this principle. Glenn Beck used his national soapbox for this good purpose last week. He is organizing private assistance for the victims of the recent tornadoes. Think what you will of his alarmist rhetoric and Mormon theology, he understands what is needed in this desperate hour. We the people, not least people of faith, must take back our country. If we don't do something soon, wild weather may be the least of our worries.
No comments:
Post a Comment