Light a Candle or …

Light a Candle or …  

By Jim Mullen

“Much of the strength and efficiency of any government in procuring and securing happiness to the people depends … on the general opinion of the goodness of government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its governors.” (Benjamin Franklin)

Franklin was on to something. And natural disasters are unique tests of natural resilience. Elected leaders are often judged harshly on the quality of their response to a crisis; a widely perceived failure to provide swift assistance to help communities heal undermines faith in our political system’s stability. And yet, almost annually, Congress underfunds FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, eventually necessitating an often contentious emergency supplemental appropriation at some point in the fiscal year. Congress seems incapable, or merely unwilling, to apply logic, historical data, and rationality to its budget deliberations on emergency management funding. This cries out for thoughtful budget reform. If history is any guide, don’t
hold your breath.

Proposals that might increase the “cost of government” are always non-starters for Congressional “budget hawks” who insist that additions to FEMA’s annual budget must be “offset” by untenable cuts to essential social programs. So, a longer-term solution remains elusive.

In 2011, during my 21-month stint as president of the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), the priority was to preserve the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). This program was among the “discretionary programs” Congress had targeted for elimination. In presenting our argument, we documented literally hundreds of incidents which were prevented from spiraling out of control (thus not requiring federal intervention) because EMPG-funded personnel in local and state governments were effectively limiting the necessity for federal intervention. The 50/50 federal/state and local match mandated for EMPG support clearly demonstrated that states and locals had “skin in the game”. At a congressional hearing in 2012, a leading “budget hawk” acknowledged to me that NEMA’s match example was a “winning” argument.

If in 2011/2012 that argument was persuasive to the ‘budget hawks”, the voluminous disaster incident data today, a dozen years later, is even more compelling. With unelected billionaires joining congressional budget-cutters in scouring the federal budget for major “discretionary” spending cuts, it’s not possible to foresee where the Trump Administration will land on budgeting for future disasters. Nevertheless, state and local leaders needn’t wait to find out. Sustained local initiatives to invest in hazard mitigation and community preparedness using local and state financial and programmatic resources (i.e. General Fund dollars) would illustrate that local and state officials have contributed “skin” to the game, much as the EMPG
defense did in 2011-2012.

Selling local/state investment in disaster mitigation and preparedness in advance of a major disaster carries political risk. But as Franklin might have observed, the obligation to assure jurisdictional resilience is inescapable and is essential to maintaining public trust. Merely hoping that a crippling disaster does not occur on one’s watch risks that essential trust. It’s way past time, locals!

NEXT TIME: My “Modest” Proposal