Maybe states could handle mild to moderate storms without FEMA....But

[Laura PourMeADrink]

not major, catastrophic events. How does Mr. Romney expect any state to handle a major terrorist or bio-terrorist attack on their own?

What surprises me a lot about Romney, is that he doesn't seem to know what every operational consultant knows, that a centralized approach is more cost effective and efficient. Can you imagine how ineffective the handling of a major terrorist event would be if states were on their own? And FBI and Homeland Security had to coordinate actions of multiple places with multiple systems?

If anyone in the press actually does manage to get an answer out of Money Boo Boo, he should ask about how he would handle terrorist attacks if FEMA was gone.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. and when poor southern states get hit with a hurricane....... ?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. yes, modified my post to reflect that I meant only mild to moderate storm

events. My larger point is how would he propose we handle catastrophic events. Think the press is missing how devastating it would be with no central authority for a nuclear or terrorist event, which FEMA is now responsible. Bush came up with this idea in May of 2001.

I also wish someone had pressed Romney on this whole "give it back to the states" deal. States are broke. How would you allocate the money. Places like Mississippi, FL, Al....all the coastal places have a much higher incidence of storm event than say, a Utah or Washington state. The money still has to come from the tax payer.....and a share of FEMA would be less costly than a share of an entire separate and whole organization on a state level.

[justiceischeap]

2. There's no way in hell Louisiana could have handled Katrina alone

I don't think any of the Gulf states could have. Florida can't handle hurricane damage on its own. With these storms getting bigger and nastier and more frequent, we all need to realize that the Federal government has to continue taking roles in such disasters and the head of FEMA should not be a political appointment. It should always be run by someone qualified for this type of work.

[DonViejo]

3. Mitt flips on FEMA, now would keep it

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1251190203

[patricia92243]

4. He wanted to carry it even further and turn it over to private enterprise. I guess only people that

could afford to pay for it would get help.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

7. think that may mean just that a state would hire a private enterprise to run their

disaster recovery. Same as Bush's push to hire fewer government workers and get contractors instead. I know this because I actually saw the memo he wrote on it. His motivation was to make it look like he was shrinking govt. But, another motivation is that the private sector, their buddies, make the money. It's always about money with these creeps.

[Tx4obama]

5. Romney, as governor, wasn't in his state when disaster struck, see below

Article here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021666389

[Democratopia]

8. Romney says states could deal with disasters themselves and he also says states can

deal with their healthcare in the same way as Massachusetts, but we know they CAN do all sorts of things, but in reality they might not. Some states may provide adequate provisions, other states may not. State taxes would have to rise to pay for it, and we know how Republican state administrations feel about raising taxes. That is why it needs to be at Federal level as well as state level.

[ashling]

9. This was proved in 1927

by the Mississippi flood which saw people on from states on opposite sides of the river trying to blow up or destroy the levee on the other side.