I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read the Left side of this morning’s Chattanooga TFP heaping praise on FEMA’s efforts in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. I wonder if the editor interviewed the folks in New York and New Jersey for their opinion.
Everything I read and saw over the weekend and this morning indicate this has become a disaster at least equal to Katrina and FEMA is no more responsive in planning in advance of the long-awaited storm than before. Mayor Giuliani has agreed and cited the shortage of essentials such as food, water, blankets, fuel, emergency housing, gasoline, etc. etc.
The real sad, typical Left side used this politically to attack Gov. Romney and Paul Ryan and praise President Obama. Unbelievable.
* * *
Apparently Dick Eden didn't read the glowing endorsements of mayors from New York; governors of the affected states praising the efforts of FEMA and its response to the aftermath of Sandy.
He apparently isn't aware that his candidate, Willard Romney and others of their ilk, want to reduce and take the federal government out of disaster relief.
I ask you, Dick Eden, do you think New Jersey has $15-20 billion around to fix up the necessary repairs? Your argument is flawed and anyone that takes the opinion of the presidential loser, Guliani, should take a course in humility.
If the election comes out as the Republicans hope then all the criticism can disappear and we can then watch Willard walk on water.
Robert J. Brooks
* * *
Unfortunately, Mr Eden gets his information from wing nut blogs, Limbaugh, Faux news and any other source which hates the public sector. Apparently, he would prefer to bankrupt the affected states, or worse, reward the private sector with massive profits while waiting for the next disaster which it can't handle or coordinate on its own.
* * *
The fact of the matter is that the Republican governor of New Jersey praised and hugged President Obama for the preparation that FEMA did prior to Sandy hitting shore and its work in the aftermath. Governor Chris Christie was actually a keynote speaker at the RNC's national convention and advocate for Mitt Romney on the campaign trail, but he put partisanship aside when he worked with President Obama on the disaster that his state faced.
Your reference to Mayor Giuliani's assessment of the situation in New York is rather dubious, too, since he's not even the mayor. For your information, the mayor of New York is Michael Bloomberg. Maybe you should quit watching FOX (fake) news to get the facts straight.
* * *
Rudolph William Louis "Rudy" Giuliani was awarded honorary knighthood (KBE) by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on Feb. 13, 2002 for exemplary leadership exhibited during a little incident that occurred in New York City on Sept. 11, 2001, wherein almost 3,000 citizens of Planet Terra, most of whom were citizens of these grand United States of America, died as a direct result of terrorist activities. Mayor Giuliani was the mayor of New York City that day, just as he was every other day between Jan. 1, 1994 and Dec. 31, 2001. He was the mayor of New York City immediately preceding Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
So yes, it is right and proper to refer to him as Mayor Giuliani.
It's common for those who've retired after spending entire careers as government employees, or are currently employed by government, making them employees of the taxpayer, to look first to government for solutions. However, it's been shown time and time again that a free market economy and private enterprise is always more efficient, therefore less expensive, than government performing the very same tasks. Why? Because decisions must be made based upon true economy and efficiency; exempli gratia - Mayor Bloomberg diverting critical, life critical at the time, equipment for use by a bunch of out-of-towners so they could run around the city in the middle of an emergency... or FEMA running out of water and other supplies when they had several days in which to prepare, then mobilize for the emergency.
They'd have been better off contracting to Wally World, but specifying store brands so it would be cheaper. We can go in that joint 24/7/365.25 and get water, grub, and anything else we need.
And why, pray tell, should we think first about dumping on city and state governments? Why not let the insurance companies, you know, those insurance companies every man, woman, and child, for the next several generations, paid to bail out, with taxpayer dollars, because they got a little greedy, and continue going to the government looking for bailouts and public/private partnerships, do what they're supposed to do... insure against catastrophes? I mean, like, they collected money for premiums. They've collected taxpayer money from the government, us, to pull soft body parts out of the wringer, the wringer they knowingly and willingly stuck those soft body parts into. They've continued to pay their administrators and executives humongous salaries and megajajijabuck benefit plans. They've continued to build Taj Mahal-ish office campi. Why can't they ante up the way they've contracted to do?
Government's only function should be to ensure they don't deny legitimate claims from payment.
Besides, many of those same cities and states are either on the verge or bankrupt anyway. A little more won't hurt. It's sort of like being a little bit pregnant, isn't it.
But then, when we stack people on top of one another so they're at the mercy of the elements, and government, it's tough to practice survival skills, if we ever learned them in the first place.
Self reliance bad, government reliance good... private enterprise and competition bad, government control and inefficiency good... how's all that nitpicking, with government intervention and control been working?
I need chocolate... and a cigarette...
Royce E. Burrage, Jr.