inspired in part by Eric Cantor's ridiculous insistence that such funds for the areas hit in the Midwest by tornadoes be offset by cuts elsewhere.
First, a similar approach could be made on any unplanned need - thus by his logic the expenditures after September 11 for the military and homeland security should have been offset by cuts elsewhere. Except everyone recognizes that in an emergency it is perfectly acceptable to borrow money.
Second, prudent planning would recognize that there are always unplanned contingencies that will require a response. We know there may be earthquakes, tornadoes, river floods, even massive fires, during the course of any one year. We have some awareness of the level of expenditures that might be necessary to respond to such. Thus someone being responsible would budget on a contingency basis - budget for and appropriate some number of billions to be spent in response to Federally-declared disasters. If that money is not used in that year, it is returned to the treasury thus reducing the deficit for the year. Further, write into law some additional amount that can be appropriated without offsets.
Alternatively, there could be the funding of a trust fund or if you will insurance pool where any money not spent is simply accumulated. I don't like that idea quite as well, because the tendency would not be to continue adding to it, and/or to borrow against it for other purposes, as we have previously borrowed from Social Security surplus and are now borrowing from federal pensions.
Just a few more thoughts below:
A single hurricane of the scale of Andrew would in today's dollars have damages in excess of $50 billion. It is simply not possible to offset that amount with cuts elsewhere.
Perhaps were FEMA or maybe the Congressional Research Service directed to do a study of the average cost in today's dollars of expenditures for Federal disaster responses over the past 20 years, we would have information appropriate to planning.
At the same time, we should be hammering the likes of Cantor for attempting to misuse the need of people in places like Joplin to achieve other goals not otherwise within reach for the radical Republicans. LEt the American people know that the Republicans would rather keep tax breaks for oil companies and Wall Street billionaires than to help the ordinary Americans in places like Joplin and Oklahoma - let's see how "red" those areas stay in the next election cycle, when people get reminded of one of the reasons we have a government which is capable of borrowing to meet the immediate needs of the American people.