Disaster Relief Shouldn’t Be a Political Bargaining Chip
3D Render of a Topographic Map of the Gulf of Mexico with the clouds from August 04, 2024. Category 1 Hurricane Debby west of Florida. All source data is in the public domain. Cloud texture: Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS) courtesy of NASA, GOES data courtesy of NOAA
It's that time of year again—the time to discuss one of the worst policy positions held by any political party in the entire history of our country.
It's time to talk about natural disasters.
Unless you've been living under a rock, you know that Floridians are bracing for one of the most powerful hurricanes ever recorded, Milton, a storm that developed so quickly it may redefine hurricane science. This comes on the heels of an epic storm, Helene, that brought devastating floods to large portions of the Southeast.
Whenever a large disaster strikes—whether it's a natural disaster like a hurricane or wildfire, or a manmade one like a terrorist attack or industrial accident (such as when the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed after being hit by the Dali container ship)—the Federal government typically responds in three ways. First, it coordinates with local authorities to manage the immediate preparation and aftermath of the disaster. Second, it provides short-term emergency funding, usually through the general funds of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In a typical year, these funds are decided ahead of time. However, larger catastrophes may require longer-term funding, which could exhaust FEMA’s operating budget. Since it's difficult to predict the scope of funding needs, this often leads to a supplemental funding bill that must be passed through Congress.
When a Republican is in the White House, these bills typically fly through Congress. But when Democrats hold the presidency, Republican lawmakers often hold the bills back and demand budget cuts to offset the new expenditures.
There are so many problems with this approach that it's hard to find a respected economist or policy expert who thinks it’s wise. Let's start by unpacking the biggest issues.
The first problem is that instead of having an informed national debate on certain programs, Republicans prefer to take the budget hostage during an emergency, forcing Democrats to cut popular programs or regulations. These are typically plans that would not survive lengthy debate, so the GOP prefers to make these moves behind closed doors when time is of the essence.
The second problem is that the Federal budget doesn’t operate like a household budget. If you have an emergency bill, many households would need to cut spending elsewhere, even if those cuts are painful. But the Federal government works differently. It can absorb very large emergency expenses without significantly impacting the deficit, the value of the dollar, or the broader economy. What actually harms those things is the uncertainty created by delaying or debating emergency funds. Uncertainty about funding, potential cuts, or delays damages markets, harms the value of the dollar, and weakens our global reputation.
The biggest issue with these debates is the false choice it offers voters—a common tactic, particularly on the right, that appears repeatedly. Let’s examine some examples.
We're already seeing memes or political statements on social media and from politicians using this formula: “How can we spend money on ‘X’ while we have problem ‘Y’?” Most versions of this formula you’ll see this week will set the Y variable as hurricane relief. Here are some common X variables I’ve encountered:
Funding the war in Ukraine
Sending money to Israel
Allowing immigrants into the country
Expanding government programs like Medicare or the Affordable Care Act
Forgiving student loans
These false choices are often riddled with disinformation:
The U.S. isn't giving much cash to Ukraine, and supporting our ally is actually really cheap. Most of the aid is in the form of weapons and supplies that have already been manufactured, some of which were practically mothballed. While we will need to replace some of these supplies, they’re made in the U.S., generating jobs and tax revenue. Additionally, inaction on Ukraine could come at a much higher cost—potentially greater than the cost of intervention (a topic for another article).
Funding Israel, while controversial, is tied to broader policy considerations. Simply pulling funding could have significant consequences (this is a complex issue I've covered extensively and will continue to do so, but it has nothing to do with hurricanes).
Allowing immigrants and refugees into the country: First, they typically contribute more in revenue than they cost, helping to fund government rather than taking from it. Additionally, they don’t increase crime rates. Again, a false choice.
Expanding certain government programs may be crucial for the well-being of American households or the economy at large. While these programs should be debated, their funding has nothing to do with whether or not we experience hurricanes.
You get the idea.
The most significant flaw in the Republican approach is the idea that in response to an emergency or disaster—whether natural or manmade—we must alter course on our national strategy. This is not only false, but it also sends a dangerous message to adversaries like Russia, North Korea, Iran, China, and terrorist organizations. It signals that if they were to attack or weaken our infrastructure, it could disrupt programs related to our health, economy, or national security.
Our current political environment doesn’t support healthy policy debates, and that’s unfortunate because there are many aspects of how we govern that need serious reconsideration. But the notion that every time we face a serious crisis, we must dismantle existing programs with minimal debate? That’s not how you run a country. It’s dangerous, frustrating, and ultimately unhelpful.
