NMAmerican Governments In the midst of the most devastating string of wildfires in California’s history, the federal government under the command of President Donald Trump has waged a partisan political battle to strip the state of its well deserved and required federal funds to deal with the emergency. In ill informed tweets and public statements, the president has threatened withholding federal payments to California under the guise of “gross forest mismanagement”. However, when looking at the most devastating wildfire in over a century, the camp fire near Chico, CA, it becomes obvious that the presidents claims are not informed and don’t hold up to scrutiny. In fact, the camp fire was sparked in federal forest in which California is not responsible before moving into private property. In fact, federal agencies manage almost 60% of California’s forests, making the presidents claim a statement of gross misinformation. Building on this absurdity, a large majority of the fires in California each season, and often the most destructive, are not even in the forests at all but are fueled in developed residential areas of dry grassland far from forests. The second most devastating fire this season was the Malibu fire in a densely populated suburban area in Southern California. The presidents claims are far from airtight, and have more holes poked in them every day. The presidents threatening statements came after meeting with former governor Jerry Brown and current governor elect Gavin Newsom. In statements after the meeting, Jerry Brown reassured Californians that president Trump quote “got our back” in regards to funding.
Shortly after, president Trump went immediately back to partisanship and privately threatened both of the California leaders that he had just met with in person. So if when digging even a thumb nail below the surface reveals massive inconsistencies and falsehoods in the presidents statements, why in the world would he say these things, and why does it feel personal against an otherwise extremely giving state in terms of federal relief fund acquirement? The answer is simple. Since the 2016 election Donald Trump has had a very good understanding of his base, the far right. Donald Trump never set out to win the popular vote, and spent very little time and effort on blue states like California and New York. He was going for the electoral college, which meant going all in for the deep red heartland of the country which had been radicalized in political apathy upon the emergence of Hillary Clinton as the democratic candidate. Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of the “Liberal Elite” which on the far right represents a snooty ruling class congregating at the coasts. In far right mythology it’s a battle of us v. them, the coasts versus the heartland. As money and power congregates on these liberal coasts republican leadership has time and time again used this narrative to attack, threaten, and berate their liberal counterparts based on this mythology. California happens to be the poster-boy for this ruling class of “Liberal Elites”, and Donald Trump has singled the state out time and time again based on this ideology. Unfortunately, California’s resistance to the Trump Presidency in every shape way and form possible has emboldened this us v. them mentality on both sides and created a quasi political culture war and clash of ideology. What makes this threat even more egregious is the idea that these federal emergency finds that President Trump threatened to withhold for California’s wildfire relief was proposed to be used instead for the southern border wall. Diverting federal emergency relief funds to appropriate money to be used for immigration has nothing to do with disaster protection projects in which the fund is meant to be used for, and is wildly constitutional. It is about as plainly partisan of a suggestion as can be made, not based in reality and entirely a counterpunch to California’s general resistance to the administration. California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Xavier Becerra threatened to take the Trump administration to court if this plan to divert funds was enacted, and for now, the President and his administration have diverted their attention to appropriating the funds instead from military construction and illegal drug seizure. Each state gives money to the emergency relief fund and puts in requests to receive aid after a natural disaster or emergency. According to Xavier Becerra the attorney general of the state, “California is a donor state the the federal treasury.” What this means is that California gives more to the federal treasury than it receives, with the national average being a $1.22 return in federal funds for every dollar given, while California sees about 99 cents on the dollar. The idea that these federal funds could be used for anything other than disaster protection projects in the state of California which had just suffered from record setting natural disasters is grossly ludicrous. On top of this, the partisan threats become more transparent as the heartland of the country of which Trump was elected has just been promised expedited emergency relief funds to deal with major flooding in Iowa. With over $1.5 Billion requested to assist in flooding damage the Trump administration quickly and quietly expedited the emergency declaration process and granted funds to Iowa. Much like California, Iowa is a donor state meaning they receive less federal funding than they give to the union. Also, much like California’s wildfires Iowa’s flooding is a product of global warming and man made changing climates. Now its imperative that we fish out the distinction here between the two states and their respective natural disasters and the response to those disasters by the Trump administration. On one hand, Trump blamed California solely for the wildfires scorching the state, citing “forest mismanagement”. In other words, the disaster could have been prevented but since California did not rake the floors of their drought ridden forests (of which a majority is under federal jurisdiction) it was then their fault and should not receive funds, which could be used instead to fund an immigration issue in the form of a border wall. On the other hand, Iowa, much like California in dealing with its wildfires, has seen chronic flooding in its state that has been accentuated with climate change in recent years. In 2008 Iowa was granted $2.8 Billion in federal emergency relief funds for flooding. It begs the question, why did the president and his administration not berate Iowa for its proven lack of preparedness for these natural disasters, and why did he not threaten to withhold these emergency relief funds to instead use for his border wall? Where were the threats for Iowa which swung red for the presidents often touted 2016 electoral college victory? Where was the expedited presidential emergency declaration for California’s much larger emergency? It becomes clear that politics and partisanship is the game we play in the face of natural disasters.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorUndergraduate student generated content. Blog posting and updating done by Kristina Flores Victor, Assistant Professor of Political Science at CSUS Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|