|Republicans use their mastery of weather |
(along with space and time) to direct a storm
as big as Texas to destroy their dark-skinned
enemies in the Chocolate City. Or so the
New York Times believes.
Our liberal betters and setters of the agenda for lazy liberal newsies continue their brakeless descent into madness with two massive lies in the opening paragraph.
Tropical Storm Isaac is more than just a logistical inconvenience for Republicans gathered in Tampa: it is a powerful reminder both of Republican incompetence in handling Hurricane Katrina seven years ago, and the party’s no-less-disastrous plans to further cut emergency-related spending.Let's take a look at New York Times editorial board's noxious falsehoods one by one.
1. Republicans Incompetently Handled Hurricane Katrina
False. Republicans were not incompetent in responding to Hurricane Katrina. Rather, it was the Democrats who failed. It is the states, not the federal government, that is primarily responsible for the safety and well-being of their citizens during natural disasters.
When Katrina laid waste to New Orleans in 2005, Louisiana had a Democrat governor (the inept Kathleen Blanco, the direct result of corrupt Democrat cronyism and nepotism) and New Orleans had a Democrat mayor (the inept Ray Nagin, he of "Chocolate City" fame). Gov. Blanco's career was undone by her weak response, and portions of Mayor Nagin's New Orleans are uninhabited and uninhabitable to this day. It wasn't Republicans or George W. Bush or FEMA who made the decision not to force evacuation of New Orleans' below sea level areas as it became increasingly apparent that New Orleans was screwed. It wasn't the RNC or the mysterious Koch brothers who determined the best place to leave school buses intended for evacuation was in a flood-prone location, guaranteeing their unnecessary destruction. It was the state and local machine-dominated Democrats who made flawed decision after flawed decision, failing to do their most basic of jobs: protect their citizens.
"But what about FEMA, 'Puter?!? It was all BUSHITLERBURTON'Z FAWLT!!1!!!1eleventy!!1!", 'Puter hears the frothy mouthed unshaven hippies chanting from their drum circles and macrame collectives. W hat about FEMA, indeed.
Could George W. Bush's FEMA have been more responsive to Louisiana and Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina struck? Probably. But presidents have remarkably little influence on agencies below the political appointee level. A federal agency is just as incompetent under a Democrat president as it is under a Republican president, and no amount of wishing will make it otherwise. Do you really need examples?
The New York Times also conveniently omits telling its readers that FEMA is not actually intended to do anything during an actual disaster; that's the states' job. Before disasters strike, FEMA provides guidance and funds to state and local governments so as to permit these local authorities to prepare adequately their jurisdictions and populace for disasters. After disasters, FEMA provides grants and loans to states, municipalities and citizens affected so that they may clean up and rebuild. FEMA cannot force states and municipalities to take its assistance or to heed its warnings, nor should it have the power to do so.
2. Republicans Are Cutting Funding To FEMA So As To Endanger Americans
False. FEMA's funding markedly increased after 9/11, as America clamored for government to provide a greater security blanket, even though government cannot ever adequately protect us, no matter how much money we throw at the problem.
In the 2001 fiscal year (ending 9/30/01), the taxpayers funded FEMA to the tune of approximately $3.6 billion. This year, FEMA's asking the taxpayers to pony up approximately $13.6 billion. 'Puter's no math genius, but even he knows that's an increase in the neighborhood of 378%. These numbers exclude Department of Homeland Security funding which is often lumped into FEMA's allocation, and also disaster-specific outlays.
To further elucidate 'Puter's point, let's posit a hypothetical. Assume that FEMA's funding only increased at the average inflation rate from 2001 through 2011, which rate is 2.46%. If those assumptions held, FEMA's budget today would be about $4.7 billion. Even if 'Puter assumes a very generous 6.00% annual return on FEMA's original budget and compounds the return, FEMA's budget today would still be only $6.85 billion. To get from FEMA's 2001 budget to FEMA's 2013 request requires a 12.85% rate of return, more than five times greater than the rate of inflation.
Even the Obama Administration thinks FEMA's gotten plenty of money, as its fiscal year 2013 budget request for FEMA is less than its 2012 actual outlay.
The New York Times editorial board thinks you're stupid. So stupid that you will believe that reining in an agency that has increased its spending at a rate more than five times that of historical inflation is somehow underfunded, placing you in imminent peril.
'Puter would delight in continuing his depantsing his liberal betters over at the New York Times, pointing out their inability to comprehend basic math, but 'Puter's bored and ... SQUIRREL!