During an interview with CNN last Thursday, Gov. Dan Malloy called presidential candidate, Ron Paul “an idiot” for believing that FEMA should be disbanded on a federal level and its powers be delegated to states and municipalities. Ron Paul argues his position on the basis that he receives more complaints from constituents of his Texas coastal district about FEMA than any other program. While Ron Paul’s argument for less of a federal role in disaster relief may work in his district, it likely sounds foreign to people in Connecticut who have had little to no interaction with FEMA. Although the governor will likely dismiss me as an idiot, there is good reason for Connecticut to believe that FEMA should not be a federal responsibility.

Malloy expanded on his idiot comment by saying, “What state has benefitted more than Texas over the years from declarations of disaster?” While intended as an attack on Ron Paul, this statement is actually an inadvertent admission by Gov. Malloy that FEMA is a program designed to give money to some states at the expense of others. More bluntly, FEMA gives money to Texas at the expense of Connecticut. This is not only supported anecdotally, but empirically.

According to a working paper from the St. Louis Fed from 1991 to 1999, Texas was in the top 10 recipients of FEMA expenditures, receiving $506 million, far outpaced by states like California with $8.9 billion in relief, but receiving far more support than Connecticut, which received only $28 million during this period, putting us in the bottom 10. Furthermore, according to FEMA’s website,

Texas leads the nation in declared disasters since 1953 with 85 compared to Connecticut’s 27 (47th place). Yet, despite this realization that FEMA takes money from Connecticut and spends it in Texas, Connecticut’s governor not only supports FEMA, but dismisses anyone who dares to question a program with this type of structure as “an idiot.”

In the absence of a federal program designed to subsidize more disaster-prone states such as Texas, the cost associated with these routine natural disasters would be paid out by the taxpayers of Texas, rather than the taxpayers of other states. Furthermore, abolishing a federal role in these routine disasters would give states and municipalities the incentive to be better prepared for when these events occur, rather than relying on federal support. The moral hazard associated with subsidizing states that are more disaster prone ought to be clear. By externalizing the costs associated with these disasters, it makes these states more attractive to people looking for places to live, putting more people in harm’s way come future disasters. This hurts Connecticut’s competitive standing against states like Texas who don’t have to price the cost of disaster into their taxes.

Some may say that a national FEMA response is necessary because it can handle disasters that states could not handle on their own. But, these people fail to recognize that the existence of the federal institution crowds state-run disaster relief programs. Furthermore, it certainly is not true that all FEMA declarations of disaster are in need of federal attention. In the words of former FEMA Director, James Lee Witt, “Disasters are very political events” and as such, are declared on a very political basis. Dr. Russel Sobel, an economist at West Virginia University shows, using FEMA data, that historically, the number of disasters declared strongly correlates with whether or not it’s a re-election year. Every president since Ronald Reagan has declared more disasters during their re-election year than during any other year of their terms.

Also from FEMA data, Matt A. Mayer of the Heritage Foundation, shows that the number of declared disasters has skyrocketed in recent years, more than tripling since George H.W. Bush’s term. This can be attributed to the incentive the federal government gives to states of subsidizing the relief efforts. Therefore, states put pressure on the federal government to cover the bills of problems that are easily within their control. Often times, disasters are not even declared until weeks or months following the event, which demonstrates that it is primarily about states trying to obtain free money, not a genuine need for outside emergency services.

Even including hurricane Irene, Connecticut isn’t on the receiving end of FEMA money, so it would be in our best interest to oppose FEMA and focus on in-state response. Meanwhile, it would do Gov. Malloy well not to endorse programs that, by his own admission, favor Texans at Connecticut’s expense.