Editorial: Disaster aid spat is a thoughtless waste

Hurricane Irene's remnants were still dissipating over the Eastern Seaboard last week when federal disaster aid for storm victims became ensnared in thoughtless politics.

Invoking that fabled family sitting around the kitchen table facing tough budget decisions, Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor agreed that any additional aid should be matched dollar-for-dollar by spending cuts.

He softened that position later in the week, saying that offsets should be found when possible. But his initial statement didn't say much about his financial management skills, either personally or professionally.

Cantor may not set aside money for unexpected expenses, but responsible families do budget ahead for unforeseen events, whether it's a car repair or medical emergency.

The federal government, however, generally does not take this common-sense approach. Instead of having strong budgets that can handle short-term shocks and incorporate risk, federal disaster aid has long been done on a as-needed basis.

Those who want to put this nation on a sustainable fiscal path should be seizing this opportunity to point out that it's time to start planning for such events -- just as many families and businesses do.

Unfortunately, that got lost in the kerfuffle over Cantor's remarks. Criticism by the White House targeted Republican hypocrisy -- where were the spending offsets for disaster aid during the Bush administration?

"His 2012 budget had about $90 billion over 10 years for this. The idea was not that these dollars would necessarily be spent each year, but that if there was a disaster, the costs would already be reflected in the budget.," said Michael Linden, a federal budget expert with the Center for American Progress.

"That doesn't mean this concept was ever adopted by Congress, so you can't say the money has actually been 'put away.' But Obama was, at least, demonstrating responsible budget practices."

It is inherently wrong to link disaster aid to spending cuts elsewhere, particularly when the GOP protects oil subsidies and tax breaks for the rich. The United States certainly needs to get its books in order, but it still has massive financial resources.

Haggling over disaster aid -- which provides nation rebuilding while we spend billions building regimes elsewhere -- suggests priorities seriously out of whack. It's also shortsighted. The sooner disaster areas are back on their feet, the sooner their residents and businesses contribute to the economy.

Those who argue that cities and states can go it alone after disasters -- as GOP presidential contender Ron Paul ludicrously did this week -- are removed from reality. Paul, who finished a strong second in the Iowa straw poll, said the nation would be better off without the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

"We would never have rebuilt if it hadn't been for FEMA and the state of Minnesota," said Linda Wallin, who was the mayor of Comfrey, Minn., when a tornado leveled the little farm town in 1998.

Comfrey's losses quickly outstripped insurance coverage. Debris removal and other expenses overwhelmed the town's usually healthy finances.

As for state aid, "The state could never have given you all the money," said Wallin, who also appreciated regional FEMA staff's expertise in navigating the long-term recovery process.

Officials from the flood-ravaged city of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, also said that federal augmentation of local and state resources is vital. The eastern Iowa city's damages from 2008 flooding came to $6 billion. The city's annual general-fund budget is about $100 million.