Big Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

Pennsylvania was not spared from the destruction of Hurricane Irene, with 11 counties encountering heavy flooding and severe damage to property costing untold millions of dollars. Five people tragically lost their lives in the storm.

As people began digging out and assessing the damage, Gov. Tom Corbett joined governors from the affected states in requesting disaster relief funding from the federal government. In response, President Obama declared an emergency in Pennsylvania and ordered federal aid to supplement commonwealth and local response efforts.

The president's action authorizes the Federal Emergency Management Agency to identify, mobilize, and provide—at its discretion—equipment and resources necessary to alleviate the impacts of the emergency.  Emergency protective measures, limited to direct federal assistance, will be provided at 75 percent federal funding. 

I absolutely believe Corbett did the right thing in asking for relief, and I believe the President was correct in signing off on the request. But I could not help but notice how quickly so many people in power stopped demonizing government spending just long enough to ask the president for federal disaster relief funding.

I'm curious as to how my Tea Party-minded friends (and I’m not being sarcastic, I do have friends who identify themselves as members of the Tea Party) feel about this request. Should the federal government use public money to pay for disaster relief, or should those affected simply pull themselves up by their bootstraps and rebuild in the free market?

This isn’t political sniping or partisan bickering. The Tea Party’s belief in limited government is a tent pole of its philosophy, and since it is a relatively new coalition without much history on these issues, it is entirely reasonable to ask for an opinion of where the line ought to be drawn.

I’m guessing people in impacted areas consider the disaster relief to be acceptable, while those in non-impacted areas find it to be wasteful government spending.

I get tired of hearing people describe any government service they don't personally happen to use as wasteful while quietly using plenty of government services themselves, coupled with the certitude that the private sector can automatically do anything better than government. Let me see the massive private sector investment to totally rebuild areas impacted by the hurricane and prove me wrong.

I will be the first to acknowledge people in the private sector often come forward and do amazing things for their fellow Americans in times of need, and God bless everyone who does so. But we’re talking about many millions of dollars in damage. What happens if no one comes forward, insurance claims are delayed or denied, and peoples' lives are impacted? What do the affected people do then?

Unfortunately, public debate has shifted to a place where many cannot stop perpetuating the false premise that everything about government is negative, corrupt and wasteful. This attitude is unbelievably counterproductive to getting anything meaningful accomplished whatsoever.

Helping Americans recover from a natural disaster is common sense to most of us, but when those who spend so much time vehemently attacking government suddenly turn a blind eye and put out their hands, we deserve an explanation.

This is important, because it's at the very heart of the debate of the role of government. If you have principles, you can't pick and choose when to have them. It's easy to be against something when it benefits the guy next door; the real test of principle is when people are willing to make a stand against their own self-interests. Lately I see lots of the "government is bad unless it is government for me" mentality. I wish that weren't the case, but I see it every day.

I’m not writing this to pick a fight or demonize anyone. The whole reason I write these kinds of things is to hear what other people think. It helps me do my job better and gain insight into the people I represent. I’m not stupid, but I’m not naïve or arrogant enough to think my opinions are above scrutiny and debate.

Be accountable, be consistent in your principles, and be prepared to honestly explain the consequences of your actions or inactions to the people you represent.

Isn’t that a fair expectation from our government, be it big or small?