tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post114072158588635689..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Federalizing EverythingHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140934752202835442006-02-26T01:19:00.000-05:002006-02-26T01:19:00.000-05:00Some observations that appear not to have been con...Some observations that appear not to have been considered adequately:<BR/><BR/>1. FEMA was one of the best-run, efficient federal agencies up to the current Bush administration. Failures of FEMA can squarely be laid on George Bush's lap, and past successes show that federal involvement can be lifesaving, and appropriate.<BR/><BR/>2. The states were overwhelmed? Don't forget that Alabama and Mississippi also got hit, with similar results to New Orleans -- even where Republicans hold office. A few weeks later Texas was hit, and with Republicans holding every state-wide elected office, the same problems arose EXCEPT at the city levels. Houston, most notably, and other cities rose to the occasion. Federal screw-ups have diminished the overall effectiveness since then.<BR/><BR/>3. State response? Traditionally we've used the National Guard for that stuff. Our National Guard units are out of the country because of poor planning for an invasion of another country. With our out-of-country National Guard units are most of the helicopters and big trucks used in past disaster relief and rescue efforts. Our nation stands more vulnerable to natural disasters because President Bush has made it so.<BR/><BR/>But, Mr. Elliott, FEMA is a shrimp among federal agencies. It does great work with a small budget, and a small staff.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140735987007873252006-02-23T18:06:00.000-05:002006-02-23T18:06:00.000-05:00That's right; I don't.That's right; I don't.S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140730411367892092006-02-23T16:33:00.000-05:002006-02-23T16:33:00.000-05:00CLA, you are correct when you say, "However, ST do...CLA, you are correct when you say, "However, ST does not appear to be arguing *against* federal involvement (as hyperbolically inferred by Tlaloc). I think his point is about the *expansion* of a federal program because of a single data point." That is correct and answers all the quibbles quite succinctly. For a person to quote me as observing that "the federal government will become the default option for management of the response to any significant disasters" in my post and leave out the crucial conclusion that follows in the next sentence is either careless or disingenuous or both. The key fact I'm bringing out is: "That, of course, will require a huge, permanent bureaucracy to be established at the Department of Homeland Security, a bureaucracy that will inevitably become much bigger and vastly more expensive over time, as is the norm for federal departments and programs."<BR/><BR/>Anyone who likes that prospect is free to stand up and say so. Personally, I find it repugnant. Chacon a son gout.S. T. Karnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05971214612730402709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140727933532477652006-02-23T15:52:00.001-05:002006-02-23T15:52:00.001-05:00With the exception of equating Andrew with Katrina...With the exception of equating Andrew with Katrina (more-or-less) I agree with what you have to say James.<BR/><BR/>However, ST does not appear to be arguing *against* federal involvement (as hyperbolically inferred by Tlaloc). I think his point is about the *expansion* of a federal program because of a single data point.<BR/><BR/>If you want to equate Andrew w/ Katrina, then you'd have to at least partially agree that the expanding beauracracy under Bush's Homeland Security has not made things better.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the sensible "solution" is not MORE beauracray but LESS.Barry Vanhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04006891046091646808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140724584960518202006-02-23T14:56:00.000-05:002006-02-23T14:56:00.000-05:00There are two flaws with your argument, Mr. Karnic...There are two flaws with your argument, Mr. Karnick:<BR/><BR/>Most glaring is that one of the largest single federal agencies is devoted specifically to this type of situation: the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). FEMA dwarfs, in size, scope of duties, and mandate, almost every other agency. Until the creation of the Department of Homeland Security it was an independent entity, so large were its duties. When the federal government creates a giant bureaucracy and response system to cover such eventualities, and it does so quite well (such as during Hurricane Andrew) in past years, and then suddenly manages to not only drop the ball fail in its assigned task quite spectacularly, that merits questions, investigation, and criticism. Especially when it fails its first major test after having been folded into a brand-new, larger bureaucracy enacted by the sitting president.<BR/><BR/>The second is that it is a question of resources and resource-sharing. When a disaster overwhelms a municipality, a governor declares a state of emergency and sends in the national guard. Other cities and counties from across the state that are not dealing with the disaster send aid in the forms of trained personnel, volunteers, and materiel. When a state’s disaster response system is overwhelmed - whether through sheer scale of the destruction, incompetence, or both (as is the case with New Orleans and its environs) - why shouldn’t the federal government respond with the aid it is capable of giving in supplies and trained responders? Other states send aid, but there is a massive infrastructure, at least part of which is supposed to be devoted to national defense, across state boundaries. Isn’t the toll of a natural disaster a threat to the nation? To do otherwise, to shrug off a disaster as, “Oh well, you chose to live there and didn’t devote the proper resources,” is callous and uncaring of human suffering and ignores potential dangers to the nation as a whole.<BR/><BR/>Federal governments - nations - are formed to pool and share resources, to minimize the effects of catastrophe (drought, famine, disasters both natural and man-made) upon fellow citizens, even if they’re in California and you’re in Rhode Island. I do not begrudge my federal tax dollars to the citizens of New Orleans, despite their incompetent leadership. I do so with the knowledge that I, living in the Bay Area and having lived through the Loma Prieta earthquake, may need theirs once again.<BR/><BR/>On a related note: There are very few places suitable for human habitation that are not unstable in geological and/or meteorological terms. New Orleans was in a delta. You might as well ask why San Francisco and San Jose sit atop fault lines, why New York is on an island, and why people live in tornado country. Because those very meteorological and geologic dangers are what makes them valuable economic places: they give us fertile soil, minerals, and good ports and so on.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1140721884565620812006-02-23T14:11:00.000-05:002006-02-23T14:11:00.000-05:00I am reminded of a Henry Rollins joke:"It's like w...I am reminded of a Henry Rollins joke:<BR/><BR/>"It's like when you see all those people down in the Mississippi delta after El Nino came through. They're all standing there, 'Why? Why, God, did you take my house away?'<BR/><BR/>"'Because you built it on a %@$@^&@ floodplain, you idiot!'"James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.com