At a Republican primary debate in June of 2011, CNN’s John King asked Mitt Romney for his views on disaster relief. “FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say, ‘Do it on a case-by-case basis.’ And there are some people who say, ‘You know what, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role.’ How do you deal with something like that?”

Mr. Romney responded ““Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.”





He went on to advocate cutting the federal budget, leading Mr. King to interject “Including disaster relief, though?”

“We cannot—we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids.”

I don’t see how you can read that and not conclude that Primary Mitt endorsed decreasing the federal government’s role in disaster relief with a possible end goal of having private industry take over.

Naturally Hurricane Sandy Mitt feels somewhat differently. His campaign released a statement Wednesday that reads: “”I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters. As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”

No mention of the private sector; or of how it’s “immoral” to amass debt and thus absolutely necessary to cut the federal budget. Just a bland assurance that FEMA will have “the funding it needs to fulfill its mission.” The reference to “states and localities” may sound like tough federalism, but FEMA already works with local first responders. He did not address whether he would cut other programs to pay for disaster relief (something his running mate, Paul Ryan, has endorsed.)

Naturally Mr. Romney didn’t acknowledge that he’d changed his position; he just changed it. As usual there’s no telling which position represents Mr. Romney’s authentic beliefs, or if he has authentic beliefs—or, most crucially, which position a President Romney would hold.