Name
Date
Case Study: Federalism & Hurricane Sandy
DIRECTIONS: Read each article in the order its questions are listed here. As you read each article, answer the
corresponding questions.
“Congress Approves $51 Billion in Aid for Hurricane Victims”
1. Hurricane Sandy came ashore in New Jersey in late October 2012. How long did it take for Congress to approve this
funding for relief?
2. Who will this money aid?
3. How much money was approved in contrast to how much was asked for?
4. What was controversial in the House when deciding whether or not to pass this bill?
5. In what ways does this story relate to federalism?
“A Big Storm Requires Big Government”
6. What does the author mean by “big government?”
7. According to the author, why do Republicans dislike FEMA?
8. Overall, how would you describe the author’s point of view? Why do you think s/he holds this opinion?
9. What does this article have to do with federalism?
AP US Government & Politics: Unit 1 – Constitutional Underpinnings of US Gov.
“Disaster Response and Federalism”
10. How is this author’s opinion different from that of the author of the Times article?
11. Why does the author state that the federal relief system is flawed?
12. What does the author propose occur to replace federal aid?
13. Opinion: Do you agree more with the author of the Times article or this article? Why?
14. Analysis: Discuss reasons people may support or oppose federalism, using Hurricane Sandy as an example.
AP US Government & Politics: Unit 1 – Constitutional Underpinnings of US Gov.
Congress Approves $51 Billion in Aid for Hurricane Victims
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: January 28, 2013
New York Times
WASHINGTON — Congress gave final approval on Monday to an emergency aid package of nearly $51 billion to help
millions of victims of Hurricane Sandy, ending the legislation’s long and complicated odyssey.
By a 62-to-36 vote, the Senate approved the measure, with 9 Republicans joining 53 Democrats to support it. The House
recently passed the bill, 241 to 180, after initially refusing to act on it amid objections from fiscal conservatives over its
size and its impact on the federal deficit.
The newly adopted aid package comes on top of nearly $10 billion that Congress approved this month to support the
recovery efforts in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and other states that were battered by the hurricane in late
October.
The money will provide aid to people whose homes were damaged or destroyed, as well as to business owners who had
heavy losses. It will also pay for replenishing shorelines, repairing subway and commuter rail systems, fixing bridges and
tunnels, and reimbursing local governments for emergency spending.
President Obama praised the vote, saying, “I commend Congress for giving families and businesses the help they
deserve, and I will sign this bill into law as soon as it hits my desk.”
Leaders from storm-damaged states welcomed the vote in the Senate, though the aid package does not cover the entire
$82 billion in damage that the governors of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut identified in aid requests to
Washington.
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican, joined with Govs. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York and Dannel P. Malloy
of Connecticut, both Democrats, saying, “Despite the difficult path in getting to this moment, the Senate membership
clearly recognized early on the urgency and necessity of approving the full aid package.”
“To all Americans,” they added, “we are grateful for their willingness to come to our aid as we take on the monumental
task of rebuilding, and we pledge to do the same should our fellow citizens find themselves facing unexpected and harsh
devastation.”
In the debate leading up to the vote in the Senate, lawmakers from the storm-tossed region faced one major hurdle: an
amendment backed by fiscal conservatives that proposed cuts in other programs to pay for the storm aid.
Republican supporters of the amendment argued that Congress had to begin imposing fiscal discipline on itself and that
the aid package included unrelated spending items, like $274 million for Coast Guard initiatives in the Bahamas and
Great Lakes.
“At some point, we need to make choices,” Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, told his colleagues.
“We can’t have everything. That’s how you get trillion-dollar deficits.”
But lawmakers from the region argued that the government had an obligation to respond quickly to the emergency in
the Northeast without miring the process in a debate over deficit spending.
Supporters of the package also warned that amending the bill would further delay aid from getting to victims by forcing
the measure to be considered yet again in the House, where it has already faced fierce resistance.
“It’s been 91 days since Sandy struck,” Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said. “We’ve waited 91 long
days. We can’t wait any longer.”
In the end, the amendment was defeated, 62 to 35, largely along party lines.
The Senate action brings an end to a fierce Congressional debate that had lasted since Dec. 7, when Mr. Obama
proposed a $60.4 billion emergency bill to finance recovery efforts.
The Democratic-led Senate passed the measure, with minor changes, within a few weeks. But the Senate measure
eventually died in the House after Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, adjourned the previous Congress
without taking it up.
Mr. Boehner eventually agreed to take up the matter this year after coming under intense criticism from leading
Republicans in and out of Congress, including Governor Christie.
AP US Government & Politics: Unit 1 – Constitutional Underpinnings of US Gov.
Editorial: A Big Storm Requires Big Government
Published: October 29, 2012 369 Comments
New York Times
Most Americans have never heard of the National Response Coordination Center, but they’re lucky it exists on days of
lethal winds and flood tides. The center is the war room of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, where officials
gather to decide where rescuers should go, where drinking water should be shipped, and how to assist hospitals that
have to evacuate.
Disaster coordination is one of the most vital functions of “big government,” which is why Mitt Romney wants to
eliminate it. At a Republican primary debate last year, Mr. Romney was asked whether emergency management was a
function that should be returned to the states. He not only agreed, he went further.
“Absolutely,” he said. “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it
back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s
even better.” Mr. Romney not only believes that states acting independently can handle the response to a vast East
Coast storm better than Washington, but that profit-making companies can do an even better job. He said it was
“immoral” for the federal government to do all these things if it means increasing the debt.
It’s an absurd notion, but it’s fully in line with decades of Republican resistance to federal emergency planning. FEMA,
created by President Jimmy Carter, was elevated to cabinet rank in the Bill Clinton administration, but was then
demoted by President George W. Bush, who neglected it, subsumed it into the Department of Homeland Security, and
placed it in the control of political hacks. The disaster of Hurricane Katrina was just waiting to happen.
The agency was put back in working order by President Obama, but ideology still blinds Republicans to its value. Many
don’t like the idea of free aid for poor people, or they think people should pay for their bad decisions, which this week
includes living on the East Coast.
Over the last two years, Congressional Republicans have forced a 43 percent reduction in the primary FEMA grants that
pay for disaster preparedness. Representatives Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and other House Republicans have repeatedly
tried to refuse FEMA’s budget requests when disasters are more expensive than predicted, or have demanded that
other valuable programs be cut to pay for them. The Ryan budget, which Mr. Romney praised as “an excellent piece of
work,” would result in severe cutbacks to the agency, as would the Republican-instigated sequester, which would cut
disaster relief by 8.2 percent on top of earlier reductions.
Does Mr. Romney really believe that financially strapped states would do a better job than a properly functioning
federal agency? Who would make decisions about where to send federal aid? Or perhaps there would be no federal aid,
and every state would bear the burden of billions of dollars in damages. After Mr. Romney’s 2011 remarks recirculated
on Monday, his nervous campaign announced that he does not want to abolish FEMA, though he still believes states
should be in charge of emergency management. Those in Hurricane Sandy’s path are fortunate that, for now, that
ideology has not replaced sound policy.
AP US Government & Politics: Unit 1 – Constitutional Underpinnings of US Gov.
Disaster Response and Federalism
By Tad DeHaven
October 31, 2012 1:29PM
CATO
The title of a New York Times editorial claims that “A Big Storm Requires Big Government.” The Times implies that when
confronted with a major natural disaster like Hurricane Sandy, Americans would be screwed if they didn’t have
bureaucrats from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to “to decide where rescuers should go, where
drinking water should be shipped, and how to assist hospitals that have to evacuate.”
(Gee, I had no idea that it was government planners who directed my local Wegmans to ramp up shipments of bottled
water to meet the demand of people rushing to stock up on H2O.)
One would think that the Times might have been more restrained in casting as our savior the same outfit that responded
to Hurricane Katrina with trailers contaminated with formaldehyde. Nope. According to the Times, it’s crazy to think that
the “financially strapped states” could handle disaster relief. “Who would make decisions about where to send federal
aid?” the Times asks. “Or perhaps there would be no federal aid, and every state would bear the burden of billions of
dollars in damages.”
Why shouldn’t the states be responsible for paying for disaster response? The last time I checked, the federal
government was also financially strapped. Regardless of which level of government assumes the responsibility of paying
for it, the money ultimately comes from taxpayers. Under the current arrangement, taxpayers in, say, Arizona will pay
for disaster recovery in Pennsylvania. Is it really more absurd to expect the citizens of Pennsylvania to pay for their own
disaster response than people living in, say, the Rockies? Here’s another crazy thought: maybe Pennsylvanians would
have more of an incentive to scrutinize the effectiveness and efficiency of relief efforts in their state if they were footing
the bill?
A 2006 Cato study written by economists Russell Sobel and Peter Leeson argues that the federal government’s top-down
disaster system is “fundamentally flawed.” Bureaucratic red tape and the inherent inability of federal officials to
effectively coordinate the delivery of supplies can stymie relief efforts. State and local officials are naturally closest to
those affected and thus better appreciate the needs of their communities. However, federal red tape can impede the
ability of those on the frontlines to effectively deliver assistance. Take, for example, FEMA’s interference with the
delivery of relief supplies to hospitals during Katrina:
The Red Cross “begged to be allowed to go [into New Orleans]” to distribute essential relief supplies but was prevented
by government officials from doing so. FEMA confiscated critical emergency supplies, shipped by the hospital’s out-ofstate private owner to assist the hospital’s 137 remaining patients, while the supplies were in transit to Methodist
Hospital in New Orleans. “Those supplies were in fact taken from us by FEMA, and we were unable to get them to the
hospital,” one hospital representative remarked. To avoid FEMA’s confiscatory actions, the owner sent a second
shipment to Lafayette (130 miles from New Orleans) and had a private helicopter fly it directly to the rooftop of the
hospital in New Orleans.
Sobel and Leeson recount numerous examples of FEMA’s inability to coordinate the delivery of relief assistance. Here’s
another:
Perhaps the most stunning example of how a centralized federal bureaucracy is inherently ill-equipped to coordinate the
direction of relief resources is what has become known as the “odyssey of the ice.” FEMA ordered 182 million pounds of
ice to be delivered to stranded families and aid workers. Yet some of the ice ended up in Portland, Maine, more than
1,500 miles away from the disaster area. The cost of shipping and storing the 200-plus truckloads of the Portland-bound
ice was $275,000…
A truckload of ice even ended up at the Reid Park Zoo in Tucson, Arizona. The driver of the ice truck got so many
conflicting commands from government relief officials that he ended up traveling through 22 states without ever
delivering a single bag of ice to a hurricane victim. Instead, he ended up donating it to the Tucson zoo to be enjoyed by
the polar bears.
AP US Government & Politics: Unit 1 – Constitutional Underpinnings of US Gov.
Of course, anytime federal policymakers have the green light to spend other people’s money, politics invariably come
into play. The President is responsible for declaring that a disaster qualifies for federal aid. According to Sobel and
Leeson, recent presidents issue the most “major disaster” declarations when it is reelection time:
After examining all disasters from 1991 to 1999, a comprehensive study by Garrett and Sobel found that states politically
important to the president in his reelection bid have a significantly higher rate of disaster declaration. Recent data
confirm the continuation of this political manipulation. In 1996, when Bill Clinton was up for reelection, he set a record
by declaring the largest number of major disasters in history: 75. Unsurprisingly, the second-highest year for disasters in
history was 2004, George W. Bush’s reelection year, when he declared 68. Ninety percent of the increase in disasters
declared between 2003 (a nonelection year) and 2004 were in the 12 battleground states where the election was
decided by 5 percent or less.
The year with the largest number of disasters declared during George H. W. Bush’s administration was also the year he
was up for reelection, and this holds true for Ronald Reagan as well. Other striking individual examples abound,
including a two-foot snowstorm in Ohio (a state that went for Bush), which netted that state disaster relief during the
2004 election year, while Wisconsin (a state that went for Kerry) was denied disaster relief in 2005 in the aftermath of a
major tornado.
The authors also note that “For every representative a state has on the House disaster relief oversight committee, it
receives about $30 million in additional funding when a disaster is declared. All told, the [Garret and Sobel] study found
that nearly half of all disaster relief is motivated by politics rather than by need.”
Finally, Sobel and Leeson point out that “The vast majority of disasters declared are for rain, snow, and other mundane
weather events.” Indeed, the following chart shows that the total number of federal disaster declarations has
substantially increased since the mid-1990s.
What has
happened is that
disaster assistance
has become
effectively
nationalized. So for
all of the Times’
whimpering about
cutting FEMA’s
budget, the real
problem is that the
federal
government has
(once again)
overstepped its
boundaries. But
just as is the case
with all federal aid
to lower levels of
government, the
receiving state and local politicians are only too happy to take the “free” federal money instead of having to ask their
constituents to come up with it.
AP US Government & Politics: Unit 1 – Constitutional Underpinnings of US Gov.