After cutting funding for local fire departments Rick Perry demands FEMA help - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Rick Perry is a joke. Ron Paul all the way!

Responsibility for what? Your bias is showing.

No paid firefighters were laid off. The cuts were related to state aid that went to volunteer fire departments, and they were cuts in money that was to go towards purchasing new fire trucks.

This new budget JUST went into effect last week, so it has had no effect on anything at this point.

Your post implies that if Perry had not cut that budget that he wouldn't need to be calling FEMA for help. Have you see those fires? FEMA would've been called in regardless.

Do you even KNOW if the volunteer departments in Texas considered it a big hit that the state aid to purchase equipment was cut by 1/3? Or are you just spouting that because you saw it being sensationalized on a slanted website?

Just because there was a cut does not mean it was an unreasonable cut. Texas has a very low tax rate, and my assumption - and it is purely an assumption - is that they presumed that individual localities could levy a sales tax, if necessary, for the purchase of their own equipment. I grew up in a volunteer fire department town, and to the best of my knowledge, the citizens of the town - not the state - paid for our trucks and equipment.

I'm pretty sure a 75% cut, upset more than a few of these communities and volunteers. The money doesn't just buy trucks, it buys other equipment, training (vital), and supplies. There are, according the other link in the article, 879 volunteer departments, 114 paid departments, and 187 both paid and volunteer departments. So if the budget is cut 75%, and no one is laid off, that means that the volunteer departments are actually receiving more than a 75% cut. The bulk of that cut is going to hit the 1066 departments with either all volunteer or part volunteer workers. Would you want to volunteer for a department that can not only not give you good equipment, but does not have the money to train you to fight a fire safely and properly?

And after condemning FEMA, I would think pride would have stopped hm from requesting help from such a dastardly group. You shouldn't have to stoop so low as to ask for help from those you abhor. Texas has money, let them pay for their own lack of fire fighters and equipment. Why should the rest of us? It's sort of like that welfare mother who "won't" get a job to support her proverbial 12 children, Texas is unwilling to collect enough taxes to meet their state's needs and "won't" pay it's own way. They want the rest of us to do it for them.

But you are assuming that these localities cannot afford to purchase these things for themselves.

Sure, this cut will create a situation in which communities who were on the verge of making equipment purchases won't have STATE funding with which to make them.

But this does not prevent cities from funding their OWN equipment.

Just because the state has traditionally given localities funding for specific services does not mean that it HAS to be that way. If the state budget is tight, then it makes sense for them to put some of the costs for running towns back on those towns.

Will it be a shift? Sure. Will it put a ball back into the court of those communities that they have not had to bounce all by themselves in the past? Sure.

But that doesn't mean it is a bad or wrong plan to have them assume their own costs.

Living in a state that relies heavily on volunteer fire departments and QRUs (1st responders), I can say with some certainty--Our state would have been in deep whoo-whoo if the VFDs didn't receive government assistance.

I will never forget sitting on SO's front steps (middle of town) watching the fires last year. We could see the flames licking over the tops of trees about 10-15 miles away.

We have so much state and federal land bordering private land that the varying state and fed fire departments (Forestry, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, Natural Resources, etc.) depend on local help. Sometimes we have to have Smoke Jumpers come in because the fire got so big, so fast. The residents of my beautiful state depends heavily on the VFDs and First Responders to protect our homes/land and to take care of us when we are sick/hurt.
My county alone is over 3000 square miles, w/ approx. 19 people per mile. There are only 5 major cities spread out over a state of less than a million people (ranked 4th in area and 44th in populations).

I can't for the life of me understand why Gov. Perry would 1) cut assistance to VFDs so drastically, 2) then EXPECT that FEMA should have to pay (especially given Perry's criticism of FEMA)! I think Perry is frightening.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Scary Perry

SO....

I did a little digging, and below is a cut and paste of an email response a reporter received when they inquired about the funding 'cuts' in Perry's budget for the next two years that impact firefighters.

But first...

I had a HARD time finding much regarding this more-full picture of what REALLY was happening with volunteer fire departments and the Texas Forest Service in Texas. What I would have EXPECTED to find when I googled for news articles was a boatload of articles about a HUGE controversy when the budget was being <ahem> SLASHED to death, as is implied here and in pretty much ALL the articles I found.

The telling thing for me was that I couldn't find any articles older than a few days about this issue.

If his 'slashing' was such a horrible thing, why on EARTH were there not articles discussing the slashing BEFORE it happened? Letters to editors from firefighters who were worried they wouldn't get a new truck that they badly needed? Where WERE those articles??????

Well.... here is the explanation. This is not a slash from their TYPICAL budget. it is a 1/3ish reduction from this PAST year's budget, which was a HUGELY inflated budget because the PREVIOUS budget had been buffetted up so those very fire departments could buy a boatload of new equipment because of wildfires!

They now OWN new equipment because their most recent budget represented a 50% INCREASE - a TEMPORARY increase that was ALWAYS intended to be a one-shot, one year bump - so they could BUY NEW EQUIPMENT.

And they BOUGHT IT last year.

So now the budget is back to where it was before.

Well, actually it's a measly $200,000 more than it was prior to the temporary bump...

Enjoy.

The Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Account appropriation for the 2012-13 biennium is comparable to amounts included in previous budgets signed by Gov. Perry. A one-time increase in funding for the 2010-11 biennium included funding for recommended capital costs like new equipment. Included below are the appropriations amounts for the Texas Forest Service for each budget signed by Gov. Perry. The Volunteer Firefighter Service Account is included in the total Texas Forest Service appropriation.

The Texas legislature traditionally makes supplemental appropriations to provide additional funding to cover unexpected costs related to disasters, including wildfires. This year, the legislature approved $121 million in supplemental spending of this sort. The threat of unpredictable natural disasters including as wildfires is precisely why Gov. Perry insisted that Texas’ 2012-13 budget not include any spending from the state’s Rainy Day Fund, which currently has an estimated balance of $6.5 billion.

Texas Forest Service appropriations

Biennium Total (in millions)

2002 – 2003 $43.5

2004 – 2005 $70.6

2006 – 2007 $72.4

2008 – 2009 $75.2

2010 – 2011 $109.2

2012 – 2013 $75.4




And here is something else to think about....

George Bush was the governor of Texas just before Perry (there was an interim dude in there between them). Bush only served two years - 1999-2000. Obviously, Perry's dollars represent a HUGE bump over what Bush provided.

What I cannot seem to find is how much Ann Richards - the governor right before GWB - appropriated to this agency that the left are claiming is in such dire straits because of their Republican governor.

Any lefties care to look that up for us? Did Bush slash it, and Perry re-raise it? Or did Richards starve those departments so much that Perry had to come in and rescue them?

ETA: I think it is legit to be critical of FEMA, but still expect them to come do their job when your state has a disaster. In fact, I think it would be irresponsible of him not to do EITHER of those things if they were called for. If he sees something wrong, it is RIGHT to be critical. If his state is a disaster area, he has a RESPONSIBILITY to seek their help, even if he doesn't like everything about them.

<crickets>

wow--I respectfully disagree with you on the FEMA issue.

And as far as the budget issues. Thank you for the explanation.
I still think Rick Perry is creepy and frightening!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Marilyn, do you specifically know what Rick Perry said about FEMA?

I didn't, and when I saw your post above just now, I went looking. As it turns out, unless I find something different, it sounds like the entire like is a fallacy.

First I went to the piece linked in the original post. Despite the headline - and the text showing in the link - says that Perry DEMANDS FEMA help, the article doesn't say WORD ONE about FEMA. Not.Word.One.

There are allegations that Perry slammed FEMA and is now yelling at them demanding they show up and take care of the fire damage that the underfunded fire departments can't - and that he 'pocketed' the difference to put it in a rainy day fund.

Less biased accounts give me the impression that Texas keeps a rainy day fund that is to be used to help in the case of natural disasters. For the past couple of years, it sounds like they under-funded their rainy day fund so they could give 'bonus money' to the TX Forest Service, the agency that oversees volunteer fire departments. The bonus was to be used for capital purchases. Now that the equipment has been purchased, that amount of money is back to being put into the rainy day fund instead.

Unless I am missing something, Perry's criticism of FEMA was in 2009, over 2 1/2 years ago. It was after Hurricane Irene, and Perry and a number of other lawmakers were frustrated with the speed of FEMA's response to help those who lost their homes and businesses. If this report is unbiased, it sounds like their criticism was valid. It was not a criticism of FEMA workers on the ground. He was critical of the bureaucratic process that was taking so long that promised deadlines were passing and people were a long way from being helped. He asserted that FEMA should be restructured so that FEMA wrote the checks, but local workers already on the ground and familiar with the needs do the actual work.

This is from the Galveston newspaper in Jan, '09: http://galvestondailynews.com/story....08f6b315a765b0

From displaced homeowners to county judges, the disaster commission heard plenty on how the federal disaster response has been delayed in getting money to those who need it or not quick enough in giving governmental agencies answers to key questions.

Chambers County Judge Jimmy Sylvia said dealing with FEMA has frustrated his county’s efforts to recover. He said the agency takes too long in responding to requests for funding of debris cleanup or reimbursement of funds used to rebuild damage left behind by the storm.

Sylvia, who is also a member of the governor’s commission, blamed FEMA’s “foot dragging” for hampering his county’s recovery effort.

“They set a deadline for when they will pay 100 percent of debris cleanup, but when you ask if they are going to extend that deadline you don’t find out until the last second,” Sylvia said. “What do you do until then? Just stop working? We can’t do that.”

Because this is a natural disaster, Perry has requested that FEMA come in and assess things - as is customary- and make recommendations for clean-up, etc., and they will indicate whether or not Texas is eligible for FEMA assistance. FEMA will report to Perry, and Perry, if he believes it to be the best course of action, will ask Obama for FEMA help.

As far as I can tell, there is no "demanding" of anything. His previous criticism of them was directly connected to their slow mode of delivery, but that doesn't mean, IMHO, he should not ask FEMA for the assistance Texas is 'due' because he was frustrated with their foot-dragging nearly three years ago.

I don't know enough about him yet to know if I think he's scary. I'm bothered by the fact that he mandated Gardasil (sp?) be given with the standard vaccines in Texas. I think that one should be left to the discretion of the parent.

I do think, though, that maybe the OP should take some responsibility for perpetrating some pretty slanted mis-information about his 'cuts' to the firefighters in his state.

Rick Perry's Budget Leaves Texans In Bind Amidst Historic Wildfires

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Oh, good, more HuffPo.

What a boatload of crap that Democratic senator is spewing.

There were no cuts- only a return to the standard budget. If he didn't vote for 'the budget', it was not because of this specific line item.

The state has a 6.5 BILLION DOLLAR rainy day fund to use for natural disasters such as this - to cover whatever is needed after FEMA has done what they will do financially.

I'm not educated enough about Perry yet to know if I like him or not. The Gardasil thing ... I'm not impressed that he mandated that.

Please don't ever pretend to be a sophisticated consumer of education if you can't research any budget year past the last one. "Bias" doesn't begin to describe HuffPo.

Well this didn't take long...

Rainy Day Fund unlikely for wildfires | KXAN.com

The Democrats (like the one quoted in HuffPo) wanted to NOT fund the Rainy Day Fund this year. Let me lay this out real simple-like for you...

The State of Texas usually budgets $70 - $75M to go to the Forest Service, which oversees volunteer firefighters.

They also put some money aside in a rainy day fund each year. Perry said this in March, regarding that fund:

In the last budget, the state diverted about $35M-ish from the Rainy Day Fund contribution to go to the Forest Service so volunteer fire departments could buy new equipment. That was a one-time infusion of cash, and for the budget they just voted on for THIS year, they returned the Forest Service budget back to around $75M. And they made a bigger Rainy Day Fund contribution than they had the previous year... because they were no longer diverting funds from the Rainy Day contribution to the Forest Service.

THE DEMOCRATS did NOT want to put as much in the RDF. They wanted the money to go to Education instead.

So... if ANYBODY wanted to slack on funding that would ultimately benefit natural disasters, it was the LEFT and not the RIGHT.

Democratic lawmakers have called on Perry to release funds from the RDF to be used towards the fire relief. Perry has said that once they know how much federal disaster aid is coming their way, he will know how much state money will be needed. Here is a quote from his spokesperson:

Most people would have had private insurance for their personal homes and belongings. Right now it looks like the public tab for fighting these fires will be $250M... which is a drop in the bucket for the feds. Obama Stimulus-Funded Solar Power Company Solyndra Goes Bankrupt - YouTube Makes sense to see what FEMA is going to offer first before tapping the state coffers. Texans pay FEDERAL taxes just like the rest of the US, and so Texas has every right to any FEMA money they qualify for.

Funding cuts could hurt wildfire fight | Texas | onPolitix

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

<yawn>

Is that the best you can do?

So let me get this straight. Texas does not want to pay for preventive measures for wildfires, does not want to collect enough taxes to fight the resultant fires that are larger and harder to fight because they didn't take any preventive measures, does not want to properly fund the volunteer departments, has a rainy day fund that could pay for some of the disaster, but refuses to do so, and is waiting for the rest of us to pick up the bill?

You can not avoid a tornado, earthquake, hurricane. The best you can do is pick up the pieces afterwards. But there is much that can be done to lessen the impact of wildfires. This is something that the state and local governments should have foreseen and done something about. I sure hope that their homeowners insurance has been costing them a bundle so that we don't get higher insurance rates to help cover that mess along with footing the bills for the clean up of something that was at least partially avoidable.

Uh, no.

Texas paid for the preventative measures for the wildfires. They spent $35M+ on new equipment for that very purpose last year.

In case you haven't been paying attention, they have had severe drought. Cities and communities have had water rationed. There is only so much 'prevention' you can do when you can't turn on your garden hose.

I don't know where you live, Wildwood, but as someone who grew up not all that terribly far from places that have been hit by wildfires recently, I can tell you that they are largely unavoidable. Once a dry cattle pasture (a place where there is no irrigation - only acres upon acres upon acres of dry grass) catches fire, there's just not a lot that can be done.

To me, it makes perfect sense that they would contact FEMA first. This is no different than anyplace else that gets hit by a natural disaster... and by and large, FEMA doesn't mandate that states do 'everything they can', preventatively, before they come in and help. They didn't say to New Orleans, "We're sorry, but Louisiana needs to pick up the first dollars here because really... they could have done some things to foresee that some of these areas could suffer catastrophic losses in case of a hurricane."

FEMA: Federal Response to the California Wildfires

Obviously California didn't do 'everything in their power' to be ready for wildfires to sweep through and cause such massive destruction, yet none of the liberals here complained when FEMA was called in to give aid. Interesting.

It's how it's set up. Natural disaster happens. Governor calls Pres. and asks for a team to be sent in to see if it should be declared a Major Disaster. If it is, FEMA steps in to help with clean-up and cover some of the costs. Then the state picks up any costs that remain... and hopefully the state had enough foresight to have a rainy day fund.

Why should Texas be any different? Because they have a Republican governor who is a presidential candidate?

<yawn>

Is that the best you can do?

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

ummmm....there really isn't much you can do to lessen the impact of a wildland fire.
Like any natural disaster, no one knows when and where a fire will spark!
Every year, for the last 8, I have seen first hand the devastation of wildland/forest fires. And my state has significant resources at their disposal for wildland fires! My state KNOWS that it will have at least ONE really bad fire. We had an extremely wet spring (so much so that FEMA stepped in to help flooding victims!) and our snowpack was very good this year, so our fire season was delayed and hasn't been AS bad. But, we've still had fires. And there wasn't a darned thing anyone could have done to avoid them or lessen the impact.

(this coming from a person who believes Rick Perry is nuttier than squirrel poop, and a religious zealot to boot!)

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

But there are things that can be done and they were evidently not done because of lack of money and equipment. There are firebreaks that can be built, brush removal, controlled burns. There has been a lessening of destruction where these things have been done. Since Texas is a state that seems to be mostly dry grass, combine that with understaffed, under equipped, (hopefully not under trained), volunteer fire departments and you have a recipe for disaster.

There will always be fires. But when communities are newly built in areas that have the chance of becoming extremely flammable, precautions need to be a part of life, including the funding for the right equipment and training. FEMA should help, but it's sort of the like the mountain climber who goes out in bad weather and gets stuck on the mountain in a blizzard. Should the rest of us foot the bill for his folly? I don't think so. Not totally anyway.

The fire budget in Texas needed to be raised for several reasons. That chart shows no increases for inflation, no increases to offset all the new communities that are growing rapidly in different parts of the state. That 75M dollar budget on the chart that WOW posted seems small for a state the size of Texas and there were no significant increases in the last few years, according to the chart), to account for inflation, rising gas prices, and growing demand. I live in St. Louis County and the fire budget for here is over 50M, and the giant state of Texas only budgets 75M. California's budget is over 1 billion.

The idea seems to be that Texas will not pay for the things they can get the rest of us to pay for. Their low tax rate is a selling point for companies and people. It gives them a competitive advantage in luring new industry. While the rest of us lose industry and get stuck with the bill for the things they haven't bothered to fund with adequate taxes.

Oh, please....

Have you ever BEEN to Texas? Do you know how BIG it is? Do you expect them to be doing this near Austin, near Amarillo, near Texarkana, near the Mexican border, near the Red River... the entire state???

Do you have any clue what "open range" means?

Have you ever BEEN in the midst of a prairie fire and watched fire literally just erupt in an adjacent pasture a number of yards away because the heat was just that intense?

There's nothing quite like it. And there's really nothing that can stop it. You'd have to keep the entire perimeter of every pasture plowed up in swathes that would be so wide that you'd be left with a 10' square piece of land to graze 200 head of cattle.

One of our worst fires last years was because of a controlled burn by National Forest Service! They left ONE hot spot, wind picked up (40+ MPH) and that was all she wrote...

Many years ago--at "Man Gulch", several fire jumpers lost their lives as they were trying to create a back burn and trenching. That aspect of fire fighting is horribly dangerous for everybody. And sometimes creates more problems...

Clearing brush? Seriously? Have you ever been to Texas? They are in a drought--EVERYTHING is dry. And it has been an extremely hot summer. You can't clear enough brush to help--you'd be clear cutting everywhere (which creates other enviromental issues).

Wildland fires are horrific to watch (and I mean be right there--watching the flames race up the side of the mountain). Fire is a living, breathing beast with a mind all it's own!

The difference between the wildland fires here and in other places is that MOST the fires here do happen in the mountains, and uninhabited/sparcely populated areas. The Texas fires have happened close to populated areas...

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Controlled burns require skill, a lot of planning, and some luck with winds etc. but they are successful a great deal of the time. Part of that planning is to burn before the need arises, not after you are in the middle of a crisis. People can and should clear brush near their houses, and the brush clearing is for firebreaks not the entire state.

And yes, over the years I've been to many places in all parts of Texas. We lived there for several years back in the late 60's to early 70's. My oldest was born at Galveston Memorial Hospital. Wonder if it's still in existence.

Yes, this was a prescribed burn done by the NATIONAL Forest Service! There was no active wildland fire...until then.

Any one who owns property should be responsible for their property--removing brush, trimming growth.

In case you haven't noticed, Texas has been in a drought for a while now. The whole state is combustible. Fire breaks are not nearly as useful when every inch is combustible.

And while Galveston is part of Texas---it's an island, surrounded by water. Does not compare to areas like Cass County, Texas, or any other area!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

And Galveston Memorial is not in Galveston the city, so it's not on an island unless they've moved it, (which is entirely possible it's been so long), and it really was just a comment and question that had nothing to do with the other stuff. And I have been all over Texas from Brownsville, Austin, Houston, Laredo, Dallas, Abilene, Big Bend National Park,(which I loved), San Antonio, just to name a few. Driving in a car in all cases, so I have seen a lot of Texas over many years, over 60 to be more precise, although it has been a few years since I've spent any real time there. But other than the large cities getting larger and uglier, I don't imagine it has changed all that much.

If fire breaks are not useful when everything is combustible then why do them at all? If things are not combustible then there are no fires.

Marilyn, you're so right about watching racing flames.

IMHO, it would stand to reason that California's budget would be larger than that of Texas, for a number of reasons.

It's never easy to fight a fire, but a prairie or flatland forest fire has to be less expensive to battle than a forest fire in the mountains.

And California has many more populated areas than Texas. They have about 6M more inhabitants in California. And California, while large, is about 3/5 the size of Texas. And it's more mountainous. It just stands to reason that it would cost more to fight fires in California.

California has HIGH state taxes, they have over-committed those tax dollars to their constituents, and they are going broke faster than fast. Texas has LOW state taxes, and allows localities to collect funds for their own areas for services that California handles on a statewide basis. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

Additionally... Check out FEMA's states on wildfires. Obviously Texas has been as funded as they NEEDED to be, given that they haven't needed FEMA assistance for wildfires very often:
FEMA: Texas State Disaster History

And check out FEMA's site for California's wildfire incidents: FEMA: California State Disaster History

Despite all that cash, they expect the rest of the nation to pick up their tab?

Sorry... you're losing this one, wildwood! ;-)

ETA: I remember we had a wildfire outside of town about twenty years ago or so. Our barn was one mile from town, and we had no doubt the fire *was* our barn. We went racing out to the farm to watch everything go up in smoke, only to find that the fire wasn't there.... and we kept driving towards the fire... and it was a full fifteen miles out of town. The flames were so high it absolutely seemed that they were much, much closer than they were. We watched it from about half a mile away, and it would just jump from one side of the road to a tree in the middle of the adjacent pasture and suddenly the tree would be on fire, and then all the wheat stubble surrounding it. It was a sight to behold... and nothing to mess with.

Yeah California is good at disasters. They have 37M people so they get lots of practice. I'm not fond of bailing them out either. But at least they attempt to find the money that they need for the services that are expected.

Losing? According to you two? I don't think so, oh fire-breathing dragon.

75M dollars for a state that covers 268820 square miles is low.

I found these, sort of off topic, but interesting facts, in an article about one of the Arizona fires.

"A grant covers costs such as dispatching fire engines and feeding fire crews. Hunt said it can cost $2,000 to $3,000 a day to send a truck with three firefighters to a blaze.

At the height of last month's fires, 150 trucks were working the Wallow, Horseshoe Two and Monument fires combined, he said.

Meals, at 8,000 to 9,000 calories a day, cost about $50 a day per firefighter, he said. The Wallow Fire alone had more than 4,000 firefighters battling it during its height."

My math is lousy and I can't find my calculator, but I think those figures come to about 1/2M a day, using the $2000 per, for that fire. He didn't say how many firemen were battling the Horseshoe Two and Monument fires so it's really probably quite a bit higher than my calculations. And there are the non-fixed expenditures that they don't talk about, such as planes, helicopters, chemicals, water, etc.

Good thing there's no climate change going on. We'd be in really bad shape then.

FEMA: Montana State Disaster History

Not a whole lot of help (in reality) for our wildland fires--of course our fires happen in largely unpopulated areas. They just destroy land, trees, grazing land, wildlife, cattle, etc.

We have extreme winter weather, EXTREME! Don't get a lot of help for that either.

Had significant flooding this year--did get help, but it occurred in highly populated areas.

Our state does have a surplus budget, and we (Montanans) prefer that the federal government stays the hell out of our state, frankly!

And yes, asking where you've been in Texas does have import in the discussion: It gives me an idea if you have any idea what ecological, enviromental, and geographical factors that are faced in Texas w/ a wild land fire. I don't expect people to "know" how wildland/forest fires evolve due to ecological, enviromental and geographically factors.
However, having lived in East Texas, DFW area, South and NorthWest Arkansas as well as visiting Oklahoma extensively(and have family & friends still in the area)--I have a pretty good base knowledge of what they are facing.

I don't know if you're losing the debate--but, I don't think you're looking at it objectively. I think you're letting your personal opinion regarding the politician to jade your views.
I do not like Rick Perry--think he's a scary man!

However, I choose to look at the facts and see that in this instance the media twisted the situation.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Well I don't like Perry, that's pretty clear, but I also don't like the idea that states that can at least go a small way towards solving their own problems and don't, then come running to the Feds for help, (and this, all while badmouthing said help). If you have a rainy day fund, then what the use is it if you don't use it when it's needed. If you have the lowest taxes around and can't afford fire departments then rethink your tax structure. Don't keep crowing about your low taxes while not providing the needed things for your state to run correctly. Texas received almost their entire budget shortfall from the for the last couple of years from bailout money. Now that has ended and they are slashing funds for education, medicaid, and other social services.

The state government, here in Missouri, is not a lot better, but they do have a great conservation department and have managed to lessen the amount and severity of fires here over the last 20 years or so, I think pretty significantly, mostly with controlled burns and fire breaks. Money well spent. We have plains, forests, and the Ozark Mountains, (not very big mountains to be sure). Forestry is big here, and there is a cattle industry, but I'm not sure how large. It's been a few years since we've experienced a severe drought, but we do have them from time to time. The climate here, so far, seems to keep them from lasting as long as they've been over the last 12 or so years in the southwest.

I'm not so sure the media is to blame for this situation. The budget was cut and it was cut while the fires were burning. Perry did ask for aid after taking billions over the last few years from the Feds and complaining about the Feds giving aid at the same time. The Feds are picking up a large part of the fire fighting tab, as far as I have been able to find. The so-called rainy day fund is largely intact, while the Feds are picking up slack in the firefighting funding.

And yet Texas has the highest number of disasters reported to FEMA:

FEMA: Annual Major Disaster Declarations Totals

Like wildwood says, they need to at least go a small ways towards solving their own problems.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Then your problem needs to be with the federal government.

EVERY state looks to FEMA first when there is a major disaster.

Get this thru ye olde thick head: The budget was not cut. The one-time cash infusion of the last budget was never intended to be THE budget forevermore. They simply returned to baseline.

The new budget went into effect at the time the fires were burning. It had been signed into law last SPRING before there were any fires.

If you are going to complain about Perry complaining about the way FEMA's bureaucracy works while still accepting their money, then let's talk about New Orleans a little.

I don't think that it is inappropriate to complain AND accept funding in the least. FEMA isn't a gift horse. FEMA uses OUR tax dollars - and the tax dollars of the Texas citizens - and serves as the go-to agency for states who have had disasters.

What you are saying Perry should have done is akin to me saying, "Ya know, I pay my insurance premiums, and my roof has hail damage, but I have the cash to just do it myself so I'm not going to bother State Farm. I need to be prepared financially to cover these things without their assistance."

FEMA is like a 'major medical' policy.

As I said - FEMA is not a gift horse. It's an agency that exists off of OUR tax dollars. Our government is run FOR the people, BY the people, and if the PEOPLE are having problems getting their government to work as it should, well... we are supposed to make note of that. Perry had trouble with FEMA's efficiency in the past, and was not shy about speaking about his problems with them.

But that doesn't mean that the state of Texas is not entitled to any benefits they are due from FEMA. He would be derelict in his duties as a governor were he to let his personal frustrations with FEMA get in the way of his seeking aid on behalf of Texas -just like ANY other governor would do.

The budget is severely underfunded, no matter how thin you slice it. Texas is a like a welfare cheat. They don't want to pay their own way, they want the rest of the country to pay for their problems. Perry stands behind that behavior, even though he is against "big governement." Go figure.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Given that in terms of land mass, they are second only to Alaska (which isn't exactly ripe for disasters), it stands to reason that they would have more 'space' in which to have more disasters than other states.

Texas' rankings:

Square Miles: 2nd
Population: 2nd
Contribution to the federal tax base: 3rd
Population Density: 26th

In other words... they are one of the largest states in terms of space, and while they are one of the largest in terms of population (and therefore are one of the biggest contributors to the national coffers), their density suggests that per 'tax contributor', they have an awful lot more 'space' to take care of than over half of the other states.

Do you pick on other states when they have tragedies, too, or just Texas because they are a red state?

Um, no.

You come from the mentality that the 'big machine' should collect all the money and dole it out where they see fit.

Texas is not run that way. They allow their localities the freedom to tax and spend and support. It is not that there is not SUPPORT. It just comes from the LOCAL - not the STATE - level.

Their state taxes are extremely LOW, so the citizens in each locality aren't as strapped as they are in... say... New York or California, and therefore when the localities impose sales or local property taxes to fund their volunteer fire fighters, it doesn't kill their citizens to pay them.

Depending on volunteer fire fighters for a state plagued by disasters is irresponsible. Making the volunteers pay for equipment is wrong too:

http://www.rightspeak.net/2011/09/is...exas-more.html

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.