Forum Thread

FEMA's Budget Doesn't Reflect Disaster Realities

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Is FEMA financially prepared to handle all the natural disasters that could strike inside of the United States at any moment? This is something I've been thinking about recently as wildfire, tornado, and hurricane season are on the horizon and FEMA's budget doesn't, in my opinion, reflect the realities on the ground.

    Hurricanes are impossible to predict until a week or so before they strike, and even then they are hard to fully understand exactly where they will hit and how strong they will be, but we do know the financial disaster that follows when a hurricane hits a major city or cities. The same can be said about tornadoes and the Great Plains. No one knows where they will hit, but we all know that they will like clockwork. And last, but definitely not least, wildfire season is now a year round endeavor in the drought stricken west.

    My main worry is that FEMA's budget does not reflect the realities on the ground. Their budget of $10.38 billion might sound like a lot, but it doesn't come close to being able to adequately fund ONE major disaster relief effort, let alone a handful of them. I would much rather see our government get out in front of these crises and fund the agency at the front end instead of throwing money at things after disaster strikes.

    Would you agree with me or do you think that the current system of reacting to individual disasters instead of increasing funding for FEMA is the proper way to handle disaster relief efforts?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Having a pure reactionary department scrambling to fund disaster relief after the fact is a terrible idea. If we are already going to be spending the money at some point regardless, and we just don't know when or where it will be, we should be over prepared, not under.

    Being over prepared (funded) could do 2 very good things: 1) It could save lives and property. All the lives lost and property damaged that could have been averted had we have acted sooner. 2) We can already have the funds allocated appropriately, and we won't have to take money from some other department, hurting another sector of the economy, just to cover the disaster relief deficit. And if the full yearly budget is not spent, then we will have a surplus, meaning the next year we won't have to put in as much.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    J.K.Logic Wrote: Having a pure reactionary department scrambling to fund disaster relief after the fact is a terrible idea. If we are already going to be spending the money at some point regardless, and we just don't know when or where it will be, we should be over prepared, not under.

    Being over prepared (funded) could do 2 very good things: 1) It could save lives and property. All the lives lost and property damaged that could have been averted had we have acted sooner. 2) We can already have the funds allocated appropriately, and we won't have to take money from some other department, hurting another sector of the economy, just to cover the disaster relief deficit. And if the full yearly budget is not spent, then we will have a surplus, meaning the next year we won't have to put in as much.
    I agree. Having a purely reactionary stance with natural disasters winds up having drastic consequences, especially with lost lives that could have been saved had the proper investments been provided. And the financial cost of being reactive instead of proactive is there for all to see. The main problem is that we (our government) are currently incapable of planning for things that may or may not happen. I hope that changes soon.