Why Democrats Need to Politicize Hurricane Sandy

Republicans - especially those within the Kool-Aid drinking Tea Part element of the party - love to talk about about the need for "smaller government," motivated primarily by what I view as greed.  They want to slash government agencies and services so that they can hoard more money for themselves. Their attitude is to Hell with the best interests of the nation not to mention the unfortunate who may find themselves needing assistance through no fault of their own.  

In this current presidential election the "starve government" charge is being led by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan - two spoiled, amoral brats who were born to wealth and as a result protected from the everyday trials and financial worries that haunt us regular Americans. They promise to slash government so that the wealthy can enjoy more tax cuts.  But when confronted about specifics, their "plans" resemble a pile of Jell-o that lacks substance and any coherent framework.  Enter Hurricane Sandy and the massive damage that has been inflicted up and down the East Coast from North Carolina to New England.  Now, Mitt Romney is being challenged about his past pledges to gut FEMA and federal emergency relief agencies/programs.  And low and behold, he's shape shifting and trying to disavow his past statements and positions since he knows voters will be appalled by his callousness and willingness to allow citizens to suffer even more when hit by natural disasters such as Sandy.  

The man is a heartless liar who can empathize more with a rich friend who just saw his/her horse lose a dressage event than he can with families who have lost their homes.  He and Ryan need to be challenged.  A piece in New York Magazine makes the case for politicizing Hurricane Sandy's aftermath and exposing the agenda for what it is.  Here are excerpts:

Disasters are inherently political, because government is political, and preventing and responding to disasters is a primary role of the state. But there is an innate tension in overtly politicizing a disaster. 

What you are going to see over the next week is an overt effort by Democrats to politicize the issue of disaster response. They’re right to do it. Conservatives are already complaining about this, but the attempt to wall disaster response off from politics in the aftermath of a disaster is an attempt to insulate Republicans from the consequences of their policies.

Funding for FEMA is something the parties wrangle over, with Republicans pushing to limit the agency’s budget, and Democrats pushing back. FEMA has to fight for its share of a constricted pot of money for domestic non-entitlement spending, a pot of money that the Republicans propose to radically constrict. How radically? Romney’s budget promises require shrinking domestic non-entitlement spending as a share of the economy by about two-thirds.

The Republican proposal to eviscerate this wide array of public functions is one of the underdiscussed questions of the election. Republicans have defended it using a very clever trick. They don’t explain how they would allocate the massive cuts to all these programs. When President Obama explains what would happen if those cuts were allocated in an across-the-board fashion, Republicans scream bloody murder. And when any single one of those programs enters the political debate, they can deny plans to make any specific cuts: They won’t cut education, they won’t cut support for veterans, and so on.

[T]he most concrete statement of Romney’s view of disaster spending came in a Republican debate last summer. John King, the moderator, asked Romney whether FEMA needed to be devolved to the states. Romney agreed and went farther:

The GOP is the party arguing for splurging on a long vacation at the beach rather than repairing the roof. Naturally, they want to have this argument only when it’s sunny and never when it’s raining. There’s no reason to accommodate them.