Somehow I don't thinking cutting funding for FEMA today seems like a good idea ...

.... unless you're Mittens.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/us-election-blog/2012/10/romneys-big-storm-killing-off-fema.html

Priceless commenter from 'The Tragically Flip' -

"It's not even just a matter of rich states helping poor states (though that matters), but take a small state like Rhode Island - it is easy to imagine a disaster that simply swamps the state's emergency personnel. What is it supposed to do without a Federal relief agency to turn to? Is there any plausible scenario in which 2005 Lousiana could have handled Katrina on its own?


This is part of the whole point of being a nation. 50 mini-Femas can be individually overwhelmed and without a unifying coordinating body (eg the US Federal government) to bring in resources from unafflicted areas, any one disaster could be unrecoverable.

And for any conservatives who somehow think 50 mini-femas makes some kind of sense, explain to the class why the US should not have 50 mini militaries instead of a federal one? Why does New York have to subsidize the defence of South Carolina? Why should Iowa pay a dime for the Navy, it has no coasts!

Obviously the economies of scale make sense. A unified US Military is far more effective than 50 state militaries would be. Same goes for FEMA.."