he s describing the status quo. but he s also lost his moral deep, deep moral concerns about the nature of debt. because that extra funding that these natural disasters cost, we have to go borrow that money. let s face it. and before, when he was running for the nomination, that was a deep, deep concern to him as a question of values because debt as a question of values is more important than helping people in need. by the way, it only took him 48 hours to come up with a statement. you would hope that as president he could respond to a disaster a little quicker than that. and actually, i found myself in the middle of it getting lost as i was reading it. it was not exactly the clearest statement on fema. but this is a guy who said you could actually do all this from the private sector. never mind return it to state governments, but actually the private sector. he envisions what? the bain recovery corporation that you hire when you have a flood in your state to come in and fix thin
talking about getting money directly to first responders. that would be a sudden interest on mitt romney s part in getting federal money for firefighters and for local police officers, the kind of thing that president obama has done. he s scribing the status quo. but he s also lost his moral deep, deep moral concerns about the nature of debt. because that extra funding that these natural disasters cost, we have to go borrow that money. let s face it. and before, when he was running for the nomination, that was a deep, deep concern to him as a question of values because debt as a question of values is more important than helping people in need. by the way, it only took him 48 hours to come up with a statement. you would hope that as president he could respond to a disaster a little quicker than that. and actually, i found myself in the middle of it getting lost as i was reading it. it was not exactly the clearest statement on fema. but this is a guy who said you could actually do
going back in the bush administration and there s always been a point of emphasis, if you will, on fema by the obama administration. i think frankly it won t have mattered who came into the presidency in the post katrina world there was going to be an emphasis on fema. you weren t going to let that get politicized. yes, it s a political appointee and you re going to have somebody who came with a background to do this stuff. so i think that they realize that it s a high-wire act, this emergency management business. and most of the time if you do a good job it s good politics. if you blow it, it s really bad politics. i agree. it can be unrecoverable politics. so this is a case where good politics and good public policy and good management all converge. it s good politics to do a good job. you re not playing one side against the other.
speaker boehner scratching his head because he says democrats and republicans both had their input. it is a bipartisan bill, a reasonable, responsible approach to keep our government funded and to provide fema for the disaster relief money that is so badly needed by thousands of families. the sticking point is funding for disaster victims. republicans want to give money to people with need it when a tornado or flood or hurricane hit but they want all the new fema money to be paid for with cuts to an able industry loan program, something democrats will not support in large numbers and although the federal government will not run out of money until friday, fema could go broke sooner and harry reid does not know what republicans want. we agreed with their number. on fema. do they want the government to