“After ignoring questions this week about his plans for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitt Romney said in a statement Wednesday night that he would not eliminate or underfund the agency.
“I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Romney said. “As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first-responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”
In a primary debate last year, Romney agreed that federal disaster response could be curtailed to save federal dollars, with more responsibility given to states and the private sector. Campaign aides have told reporters that the Republican candidate would not eliminate FEMA.
Under the current system, local and state officials respond to disasters and make requests of the federal government for additional supplies or money only when needed.
President Obama’s budget cuts FEMA funding by 3 percent. Both Romney and running-mate Paul Ryan have proposed deep cuts to discretionary spending, which includes FEMA and its disaster fund. Neither singles out the agency for cuts, but they have not said it would be exempted either.”
Undoubtedly you’ve noticed Mittens’ reluctance to face the press of late. This video shows why.
As you can see the interviewer is scarcely “confrontational.” Yet Mittens is Beyond Testy. He’s clearly put put that anyone would question his august presence in any way. We shouldn’t be speaking at all. He’s the “Job Creator.”
We’re The Help.
Needlessto say Sludge’s resident neo-fascist water-carrier John Dickersondoesn’t se it that way.
“If Mitt Romney wins the election, it will be because he ignored conservatives. After he won the primaries, many of the most prominent voices in the movement plead with him to run loud and proud as a conservative and to campaign overtly on conservative ideas. He never did that, and he’s ending the campaign on a moderate note, a move his strategists believe will capture the disaffected Obama voters he needs to win the election.
The strategy appears to render a verdict on a long-standing debate in conservative circles over whether candidates can campaign on conservative ideas like privatizing Social Security, offering Medicare vouchers, or drastically shrinking the social safety net. It also gives us some limited insight into the inner heart of Mitt Romney and how he might govern. At least tactically, he’s acted pragmatically, not ideologically.
Romney has been sounding notes of bipartisanship since the first presidential debate on Oct. 3. The election is all about coming together with Democrats, he says. “I’ve got to make sure and reach across the aisle,” Romney said at a recent campaign stop. “I gotta find, I know there are good Democrats who love America just like we do. I’m going to reach across the aisle to them and work together, put the interests of the people ahead of the politicians. We’ve gotta do this. It’s too critical a time. We can’t change course unless we change the way Washington is working.” It’s another shift in tone and it appears to be working—at least with many of the 200 undecided voters I’ve been corresponding with. It doesn’t seem to be costing Gov. Romney support with conservatives who are banking he’ll return to the fold when he’s in office.”
In a Binder.
“Romney’s new spirit of bipartisanship actually seems in keeping with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christies, our most recent example of a big name Republican saying good things about the other side. Christie has been sharing the stage and praising President Obama for his fast response to Hurricane Sandy. It is completely in keeping with Christie’s reputation for calling it as he sees it—even if it might upset Republicans.”
Oh so now he’s Chris Christie? Talk about Etch-a-Sketching!
“WASHINGTON — The Congressional Research Service has withdrawn an economic report that found no correlation between top tax rates and economic growth, a central tenet of conservative economic theory, after Senate Republicans raised concerns about the paper’s findings and wording.
The decision, made in late September against the advice of the agency’s economic team leadership, drew almost no notice at the time. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, cited the study a week and a half after it was withdrawn in a speech on tax policy at the National Press Club.
But it could actually draw new attention to the report, which questions the premise that lowering the top marginal tax rate stimulates economic growth and job creation.
“This has hues of a banana republic,” Mr. Schumer said. “They didn’t like a report, and instead of rebutting it, they had them take it down.”
Did you say “Banana Republic”?
Sing us out Babs