Chris Edwards - Economist, Cato Institute Joins Houston's Morning News

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Number one six twenty three song time here in Houston's
Morning News. We're not big fans of FEMA. Here, I
don't know about our next guest. He's an economist at
the Cato Institut's name is Chris Edwards. Are you a
FEMA fan or not a fan?

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Chris, I'm not a FEMA fan. I am for states
handling their own natural disasters, preparing for natural disasters, and
recovering from natural disasters. I think FEMA main Lola does
to spend money and gets in the way of state

(00:33):
first responders from handling their own disasters.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
You know, I think Florida was a great example of that.
Wasn't that? I mean, they handled their hurricane beautifully. They
coordinated everything at the state level. You know, all they
really needed from the federal government was a little financial
help and that would have been fine.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
Florida's done a fantastic job on hurricanes over recent decades.
In nineteen ninety two, Hurricane Andrew really hammered Florida and
they learned a lesson and they have tremendous first responder
capabilities now in Florida. Then we had Hurricane Katrina two
thousand and five, Louisiana. Everyone did a bad job on that. Feds,

(01:14):
the state, and local governments. The FEMA did a terrible
job there. They often stood in the way of private
responders coming to help Walmart target. Others were sending trucks
of water and supplies into Louisiana, they're being blocked by FEMA.
So FEMA, you know, yes, it gives money to the states,

(01:36):
but it often imposes all these rules in bureaucracy that
slow disaster response.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
Well, and it's such a bureaucracy like everything else in
the federal government that it moves very very slowly, and
after an emergency like that, you need quick action. And then,
like I said, that's why the states are so much
better at it. Christine nom was asked back in February
of President Trump aster if he should get rid of FEMA.
That she responded by saying, yeah, I would rid of
FEMA the way it exists today. So that kind of

(02:03):
sounds like maybe you we get the same creeping as
the Education Department, which means it's easier to to to
gut it than it is to actually physically eliminate it.

Speaker 2 (02:14):
That's right, you know. The wonky word for this is
a federalism, devolving power back to the states, you know,
the federal The problem is, they said, with the federal government, yes,
it spends money, but with top down regulations and bureaucracy,
always come with the money. That's true with the K
twelve schools as well. Texas is a countryside state. It
should be able to create a rainy day fund or

(02:37):
a pool of money that is available if they have
a disaster. The other thing that happens after a disaster
is sort of horizontal help between the states and between
cities and areas within the country, aside from the federal government.
In other words, when there's a disaster in Euston or
wherever the utility is often you know, of course under

(03:00):
great pressure to restore power quickly, help comes in from
other utilities and from other states across the country to help.
We saw this after the California wildfires as well. Utilities,
water bomber equipment was coming from other states across the
country to help with disasters. So states can and should

(03:22):
have these horizontal agreements between each other. That's great, But
I don't think we need the federal government to step
in with all of his bureaucracy.

Speaker 1 (03:30):
Yeah, I know, Houston has got a lot of help
in the Cajun Navy and Louisiana and vice versa, so
we kind of take care of each other when it
comes to these big storms. Let me ask you this, Chris,
In a perfect world, how would this work. Would FIMA
be absorbed in the Department of Homeland Securities and just
basically take a look at you know, what the financial
needs are after disaster, in other words, become more of
a check writing operation in a perfect world.

Speaker 2 (03:52):
Well, I see, I think that's what we don't need.
There's no magic money tree in Washington. The federal budget
has massive deficits. I think the states should handle again,
and they should create rainy dayfon the pools of their
own money to handle these disasters. We can't keep spending
money in Washington that we don't have. I mean, Texans
pay a lot of taxes to Washington. Why not just
keep those taxes in Texas and respond to your own disasters.

(04:16):
Here's the way the federal government has a role when
it has unique assets and capabilities. The classic example of
that is the Coastguard enormous help preserving life after and
during disasters hurricanes. So when the federal government has a
sort of unique capabilities. Great, we should use it. The
military stepped in after the floods in North Carolina a

(04:39):
number of months ago. That was great. I don't think
we need the check writing from the federal government though.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
Okay, well then we're going to need to keep a
whole lot more of our money here, Chris, thank you.
Chris Edwards, economist at the Cato Institute, A six twenty
seven