Ron Paul: Why We Don’t Need FEMA


John Stossel: Tonight, we explode a few myths about elections and natural disasters. Here’s the first: I’m told that Hurricane Sandy is proof that we need a powerful federal government, namely FEMA, which provides emergency management. This just makes sense to people: we have a big disaster across state lines, who but the feds can help. Just like New York Times declared, week, “A big storm requires big government”. Very few politicians are skeptical about that, so it’s a relief to turn to former presidential candidate, Ron Paul. Dr. Paul, you say it’s a myth that we need FEMA?

Ron Paul: I certainly think so, because it causes more harm than good. We’ve handled floods and disasters for 204 years before we had FEMA, and the states and the volunteers and the local communities did quite well. I’ve taken this position for a long time, it’s not just recently. I’ve taken it since I was first in office, and I kept getting re-elected, because people in my district got tired of FEMA. All they had was headaches, they got locked into their insurance and it’s a bureaucracy and I’ve tried to help them get through the bureaucracy. But they just come in and take over.

John Stossel: But it’s a big problem, it crosses state lines, the Feds have to have some role?

Ron Paul: No, they don’t have to. What we should have is a real insurance. The problem is, the insurance program causes many of the problems, because they say, “Well, you have to have insurance”. The market won’t sell insurance to you, and that’s telling you that it’s too dangerous. So rich people get insurance subsidized by poor people, and they go and build on beaches and they have a good time and their houses get washed away and the poor people pay to rebuild their houses.

John Stossel: It was interesting that this week, before the storm hit, the President held a press conference, not at FEMA’s offices, but at the Red Cross. Here’s a clip:

Barack Obama: The reason we’re here is because the Red Cross knows what it’s doing when it comes to emergency responses.

John Stossel: So what’s he saying there, the Red Cross, not FEMA, knows what it’s doing, and FEMA doesn’t? Sounds like he’s admitting it.

Ron Paul: Yea, that was good politics, but, unfortunately, from my experience here in my district, the Red Cross and others were inhabited by FEMA. They would come in and stop it. Think of the difference between how evacuation occurred in New York after 9/11, all the volunteers shipped boats and things, thousands of people there were evacuated. And the opposite happened in Katrina, because FEMA got in and had control. But this giving up on individuals helping neighbors and local government doing things is a serious problem and it’s one of the reasons why we’re totally bankrupt. Because all this money that’s going to go out here in the next few months because of this storm … there is no money in the bank and there’s really no money in FEMA, the insurance is broke. So they’re going to just borrow it and print it and make our problems worse. They’ll take and centralize the power, the power will be in Washington DC, and it’s bureaucratic and it’s very inefficient.

John Stossel: Well, thank you, Dr. Paul, and thank you for all you’ve done to wake people up.

Ron Paul: Thank you, John.


  • Looking good Ron!

  • Sad for us, but Ron’s message won’t resonate with the sheep until another four years screwing have passed. Then maybe there will be an awakening in the masses that will “come out of nowhere”. That is when he will be looked at as a prophet.

  • Nice to see Ron without a collar or tie.

  • They’re both pretty much the same. There are minor differences, but in the end Romney will do the things Obama wants to do.

  • It’s not about picking a winner – it’s about not supporting evil. If you think the 3rd party candidates are evil, don’t vote for them either. Otherwise, it’s simply about convincing as many people as possible to vote for who they want to win, not who they think can win. I know it sounds impossible, and it probably isn’t going to work – but I’d rather go on a fools errand to try and achieve the impossible than submit to run circles in support of what we have now.

  • He supports abortion and homosexual marriage. That’s certainly not good.

    But there will be no interest in 3rd parties. Ron Paul was the greatest chance since Perot, and he stuck to it as a Republican. Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, etc. aren’t going to do a thing.

  • There will be more dignity in it if Romney and Obama both acknowledge that Ron Paul is more fit to run for president, and step down and give him the stage

  • Johnson is libertarian. Though I do disagree with him on a few things, I believe he is far from evil.

    “If you know for sure he isn’t going to win, why are you going to vote for him and give greater chance of an Obama victory? ”

    Voting for Obama’s loss through Romney is a vote to stay stuck in the two party system. Voting for Johnson won’t win the vote, but there will be more 3rd party votes, showing a greater interest in 3rd parties.

  • Well, let us suppose that Johnson is the lesser of the three evils, which he is. We would still be voting for evil. So, if I vote for Johnson, I’d still be voting for evil.

    And voting for Johnson isn’t going to break the system. See, Johnson supporters know that Johnson has no chance of winning. If you know for sure he isn’t going to win, why are you going to vote for him and give greater chance of an Obama victory?

  • This equating votes for GJ as votes for Obama is annoying. Who gives a flyin’ F if Obama wins again? I’d rather vote libertarian, and have 4 more years of BS leadership, than have Romney win and have another 8. Liberty in 2016. No other options.

  • Is that right?.. well can you explain to us what Romney’s plans are for..

    NDAA? Patriot Act? Military Spending? Drug War? Wall-Street Accountability? Border Security? TSA? SmartPhone Surveillance? GMO Labeling? QE3? Federal Reserve? Working Class Tax Increase? Reclassification of Cannabis/Hemp? Drones over America? Lobby Reform?

  • A vote for Gary Johnson can, in a way, be seen as letting Obama win. However, a vote for Gary Johnson in a vote to break out of the system. And yes, a vote for any 3rd party candidate is a vote against this system we’re stuck in. To vote to win is a vote to always be stuck in this “lesser evil” system.

  • A vote for a (R) or (D) is a wasted vote!

  • Wrong. This libertarian slogan that Romney is the same as Obama is just like Obama’s ‘Hope and Change’ slogan. It’s misleading and not truthful.

  • I wish we had a part conservative system. That, however, is not the case. Romney is closer to conservatism than Obama. In fact, Romney looks like Calvin Coolidge compared to Obama. But Romney is hardly a conservative.

    I will not vote for Gary Johnson. A vote for him is a vote for Obama. If you’re going to vote for Johnson, you may as well vote for Vermin Supreme.

  • Eh, it’s your wasted vote.

  • By voting for a conservative or liberal who has a “chance of winning”, you’re voting to keep us locked in the conservative-liberal controlled elections. You can vote Romney to prevent Obama from becoming president, but a vote for Romney OR Obama is also a vote to keep us locked in this Conservican/Republocrat system.

    Voting 3rd party will – at the least – send a message. Don’t vote for the winner – that’s what keeps us trapped in this system in the first place.

  • The more power the government has the less liberty we have.

  • The only difference is that one is white and the other is half white.

  • Marriage
    Healthcare (Romneycare is at the state, Obamacare at the federal. Romney does not support federal healthcare.)
    Gun rights
    Romney isn’t creepy. We don’t question whether he’s a Muslim or a person who wasn’t born in America.
    Crony capitalism over socialism
    There will be less spending under Romney

    Yes, Romney was quite moderate as a governor. But Reagan was a Democrat before he was a Republican.