389 Country
Staff Report
The stark contrast between how the federal government allocates aid abroad versus at home is difficult to ignore. Governor Roy Cooper’s announcement that President Biden has agreed to increase federal assistance for disaster recovery in North Carolina to 90% of costs is being hailed as a victory—and, by typical standards, it is. Yet, this celebratory tone feels hollow when placed alongside the billions of dollars in aid being sent overseas with seemingly little hesitation or scrutiny.
Consider this: Ukraine has received tens of billions of dollars in aid from the United States since the start of the conflict with Russia. These funds cover military supplies, humanitarian efforts, and economic support with no apparent limit to the commitment. Similarly, President Biden recently pledged to assist in rebuilding Syria. These international gestures are framed as necessary for democracy, stability, and humanity. But what about the American citizens who’ve lost everything due to natural disasters? Why is their recovery tied to percentages, conditions, and negotiations?
Western North Carolina is still reeling from the devastation caused by Hurricane Helene. Entire communities have been uprooted, roads and bridges destroyed, and families displaced. The cost of rebuilding will reach into the billions, yet the federal government’s response starts with a baseline of 75% assistance, leaving states and local governments to scramble for the rest. The “generous” increase to 90% is now being sold as a victory for North Carolinians. But why should Americans—taxpayers who fund this government—settle for only partial assistance when the devastation is right here at home?
The funds being allocated to Western North Carolina will provide critical support for debris removal, infrastructure repairs, and hazard mitigation. But let’s be clear: 90% is still not 100%. Local communities, already stretched thin, will bear the remaining financial burden. Hazard Mitigation programs, which could prevent future losses, depend on state and local jurisdictions to find the additional funds to fully implement them. Meanwhile, American dollars flow freely to foreign governments with no expectation of reimbursement or matching contributions.
This selective generosity begs the question: Why are foreign crises prioritized over domestic disasters? If billions can be allocated to Ukraine and promises made to Syria without batting an eye, why does North Carolina’s disaster recovery come with caveats and compromises? How can the same government that sends American tax dollars halfway around the world hesitate when it comes to fully rebuilding its own communities?
This is not to suggest that America should turn its back on global responsibilities. There is a moral and strategic imperative to assist allies and promote stability abroad. However, these commitments should not come at the expense of our own citizens. Natural disasters are an unavoidable reality, and the federal government’s primary duty should be to its own people.
Governor Cooper and NC Emergency Management Director Will Ray are doing their best to maximize resources and stretch state dollars to cover what federal funds won’t. But that effort should not be necessary. The residents of Western North Carolina deserve the same unequivocal support that foreign nations receive. Instead of celebrating a higher percentage, we should demand complete federal coverage for disasters of this magnitude.
It’s time to reevaluate our priorities. If the federal government can find unlimited resources for Ukraine and Syria, it can—and must—do the same for North Carolinians. Anything less is unacceptable.
Comments