The aftermath of Hurricane Sandy

Bill McKibben wrote an opinion piece for the Daily News. He notes that oil companies contributed to the conditions -- higher and warmer ocean water -- that made Sandy so severe and these same companies contribute heavily to candidates to not do anything about climate change. So he proposes naming big storms after oil companies. Newsreaders would then say with some accuracy, "Chevron forces evacuation of 375,000."



A storm so huge can't just happen. There just has to be something nefarious behind it. The SPLC has collected the latest conspiracy theories that caused the storm. I wonder if these theories appear because the speakers can't admit climate change is a cause. Here are a few of the dumbest causes of the storm:

* It's the gays. America has turned from God.

* Every time someone puts pressure on Israel to divide their land (the "two-state solution") God takes vengeance on America.

* Obama engineered the storm to be his October surprise and win the election. (A president can control the weather and he doesn't get your vote?)

* The Gov't will use this as an opportunity to confiscate our guns, the same way the New Orleans Police did after Katrina.

* The Dept. of Labor jobs report is bad enough to influence the election and the DoL is using the storm to delay it. Actually, the jobs report was released on time and was ambiguous enough that both candidates seized it to support their side.



I had written about the claim that a tragedy should not be politicized. Jonathan Chait of the New York Magazine notes that the Dems are doing precisely that about Sandy and he says they are right to do so. The Dems need to talk about the difference between their funding of FEMA and what the GOP wants to do to it.



In an article for On the Commons David Morris lists all the things the government (at various levels) did to help residents get through the storm. Here are some of them:

The weather service accurately tracked the storm and warned of its ferocity, giving communities time to prepare. Governors and mayors ordered evacuations. Police helped carry out the order. 911 and 311 operators responded to calls for assistance and info. Public buildings converted into shelters. Food and water stockpiled ahead of time. Police and National Guard rescued stranded people. Agencies are cleaning up subways and sewer plants. Other agencies are providing financial relief. And the prez. is being hands-on in leading relief.

When disasters hit, the government is the only agent with the authority and capacity to marshal and mobilize resources sufficient to the undertaking. It can coordinate across jurisdictions and with both the public and private sectors. That’s because its mission is not to enhance its balance sheet but to preserve the well being of its citizens. And in October 2012 it has shown how effectively it can perform that task.

That makes me think not all that long ago such an article wouldn't need to be written because everyone would already understand it. Sadly, that's not the case today.



David Callahan of The American Prospect continues the discussion.

Natural disasters are often highpoint moments for the public sector, reminding us of the power of common institutions that allow citizens to help each other in times of need. The residents, say, of sunny Los Angeles needn't do anything special at this moment, because they have already been doing something—helping fund FEMA with their tax dollars so that it has the capacity to respond to unexpected events like a "Frankenstorm."

Taking care of each other through gov't assistance in a natural disaster is assumed. Callahan asks why is it controversial for the gov't to provide assistance in an economic disaster?

Economic disasters are also something outside the control of the individual and are frequently national (or global) in size. The individual may be helpless before its ferocity.

Charity organizations? They couldn't keep up with Sandy or with the response the gov't can muster. Charities can't keep up with those in need in an economic disaster. Food stamp spending went up by tens of billions during the Great Recession and there is no way charities could fill that need.

You won't hear even conservative politicians say communities swamped by Sandy are on their own. We shouldn't say the same to those swamped by the Great Recession.



Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone says Sandy has clarified the small v. big gov't debate. After listing several headlines trumpeting that Obama has won that debate he wrote:

The point is that the storm has become a flash-point for a new media meme: Obama is for big government (which is suddenly a good thing), Romney is for small government (and wants to take rafts and blankets away from flood victims), and goodness gracious, aren't we lucky that we got to see such a clear, real-world demonstration of the important philosophical differences between these two candidates in the week before the election.

Except, Taibbi says, it isn't quite true. Bush II presided over a massive expansion of gov't and Romney could do the same. What's really driving all this?

In the abstract, most Americans want a smaller and less intrusive government. In reality, what Americans really want is a government that spends less money on other people.

Some will deride the welfare queen, but when the water rises to their doorstep gov't programs are a great idea. And that includes rich people inconvenienced by economic troubles.

The only reason we're having this phony big-versus-small argument is because of yet another longstanding media deception, i.e. that the only people who actually receive government aid are the poor and the elderly and other such traditional "welfare"-seekers. Thus a politician who is in favor of cutting services to that particular crowd, like Mitt Romney, is inevitably described as favoring "small government," no matter what his spending plans are for everybody else.

Taibbi then documents the ways all of us -- especially the rich -- benefit from big government.

It's this weird national paranoia about being seen as needy, or labeled a parasite who needs government aid, that leads to lunacies like the idea that having a strong disaster-relief agency qualifies as a "big government" concept, when in fact it's just sensible. If everyone could just admit that government is a fact of life, we could probably do a much better job of fixing it and managing its costs. Instead, we have to play this silly game where millions of us pretend we're above it all, that we don't walk on regularly-cleaned streets or fly in protected skies.