The goal was to shift the majority of all costs to the States and reduce flood insurance coming from the federal government. Remove near all grants to get rid of disaster readiness. How do we know this, it was ALL written in Project 2025.
“These opportunities include privatizing TSA screening and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program, reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government, eliminating most of DHS’s grant pro- grams, and removing all unions in the department for national security purposes.”
“Replacement of the Entire Homeland Security Advisory Committee. The Secretary should plan to quickly remove all current members of the Homeland Security Advisory Committee and replace them as quickly as is feasible.”
“Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters.”
“FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program.”
^^^Note, in November 2017 this $16 billion in debt was bailed out with a Republican Majority in the Senate, the House, and President was Donald Trump. Bill: H.R. 2874
So they used their own acts as the reason why the government was “misusing” funds for federal relief to try to highly shift all recovery efforts to the states.
What does this mean effectively?
The plans for the current administration not only blame Texas’s flooding recovery misfortunes on Texas’s misuse of federal funds that the Republicans “should not have incentivized them to do.”. Then when disaster struck they didn’t answer 2/3rds of the calls, and spent 3 days waiting to deploy relief because their new policy on $100,000+ efforts must all be signed off on prior by DHS (Kristi Noem), yet she effectively didn’t pick up the phone when the emergency occured, nor used any tools/resources to act prior to the event to ensure resources would be available in a scenario of such likeness.
Hmm, I’m sure deploying the Coast Guard is cost effective and will rebuild homes/relocate people. 🧐
Well, yeah, he wants to award all the contracts to companies him and his cronies control…
As usual their complaints of FEMA making death camps was projection.
Cool.
Now, just explain why it needs to be remade, what goals the new version will achieve and how you plan on achieving them.
This is how shit is supposed to get done: you have an idea, you share the idea, people provide feedback on your idea, and you adjust until you have a working plan. I’ve never seen a trump administration accomplish this bad minimum of planning.
Only supporters would get aid.
just explain why it needs to be remade
Privatization
And so they can exclude “problematic” areas from their coverage.
Wouldn’t want those with dark skin to benefit from our society, would you?
LOL, it’s interesting what that site considers “the left”.
Calling oneself “all sides” is like “truth.social”
Repeal and (then) Replace
