A solution to bureaucratic incompetence - another bureaucracy

[Buccaneer]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">

Democrat to submit FEMA bill

Also Sunday, the top Democrat on the House Department of Homeland Security Committee blasted the federal government for its response.

"It was too little, too late," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat. "We missed the mark."

Thompson said the blame can be traced to the merger of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the Homeland Security Department, when domestic preparedness "took a back seat" to preparing for terrorist attacks.

Rep. John D. Dingell said he will introduce legislation Tuesday that would remove FEMA from the Department of Homeland Security and make it, instead, an independent agency headed by a Cabinet-level executive.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Sorry for the political injunction but this is what we don't need - another federal govt bureaucracy. It had hoped that the primary lesson learned regarding the response that you need troops and military supplies in as quickly as possible (since they are the only ones prepared to handle such disasters), not bureaucrats at the local,state and federal level. It would be better if Emergency Management is handled by the military and Dept of Defense.

[Flasch186]

right. it worked terribly before the merger.

no it didnt.

it didnt?

no.

hmm, maybe a cabinet level position wouldnt be such a bad idea condiering how much stuff was cut from already planned budgets?

maybe not.

you think?

I do.

youre smart.

thanks.

[JonInMiddleGA]

right. it worked terribly before the merger.
no it didnt.
it didnt?
no.


I'm totally not sure whether you said what I think you said (or even what you meant to say, or even what I think you meant to say), but ... I don't particularly recall FEMA being all that well thought of before it was reorganized.

I don't believe there's much chance the role will be put under military supervision, I expect that'd make some people too uneasy. But it's been pretty obvious when things started working best during the current situation, so I think that might be a very viable solution.

For now, I'm content to reserve judgement on the future of FEMA until we can get some hard analysis of what was going on day-by-day in the region, and really see where the problems were, who was making any mistakes, and who might have been impeding progress. My strong suspicion is that the facts (if they're ever known) will have the Feds looking far better in days 1-5 than the state officials or the city of N.O. officials.

[ice4277]

My strong suspicion is that the facts (if they're ever known) will have the Feds looking far better in days 1-5 than the state officials or the city of N.O. officials.
I generally agree with this, but I don't see anybody coming out rosy. I think the local governments are going to look equally as bad as the feds.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't have a problem with FEMA being part of DHC. In fact, I don't really have a problem with consolidating federal agencies, if they're done in a way that makes sense.

But let's be honest: FEMA's a useful scapegoat in this situation. What was lacking was leadership, both from Chertoff & from Bush, in dealing with the situation. At some point members of this Administration really need to stop spinning and placing the blame on bureaucratic functionaries, and start exercising actual leadership, making things happen to get things done.

[clintl]

It's a great idea, and here's why, explained by someone in a position to know (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/29/AR2005082901445_pf.html).

[Buccaneer]

I don't have a problem with FEMA being part of DHC. In fact, I don't really have a problem with consolidating federal agencies, if they're done in a way that makes sense.

But let's be honest: FEMA's a useful scapegoat in this situation. What was lacking was leadership, both from Chertoff & from Bush, in dealing with the situation. At some point members of this Administration really need to stop spinning and placing the blame on bureaucratic functionaries, and start exercising actual leadership, making things happen to get things done.
But that's exactly why leadership was ineffective - bureaucratic red tape and adhering to pre-set rules and conditions. All of the calls in the world wasn't going to shake that bureaucracy out of their way of doing things (esp. when the head of FEMA had no experience in anything relating to this and any calls to FEMA has to go through DHS). The only effective leadership are military officers, experienced in organizing people and materials under stressful conditions.

[Buccaneer]

FEMA will be survived by state and local emergency management offices, which are confused about how they fit into the national picture
That's exactly where the focus should be - at the state and local levels - that can better and more quickly respond instead of waiting for someone for bureaucrats in Washington. If more funds and personnel were to be given at the state level, then we - in theory - shouldn't be needing the bloated mess that is DHS. But knowing that those in power - in Congress and in the Executive - loves to keep their power growing, I only see the "solutions" will be bureaucratic re-shuffling and more funding at the federal level - and more powers taken away from the states and localities.

It is very frustrating to me, as a libertarian, to see the predictable mess of the bureaucratic-centric federal govt and the solutions is to give them more power and more funding.

[clintl]

There's no doubt that Bush picked the wrong person to run something like FEMA. As far as military officers being the only people who can provide effective leadership, that is total bullshit.

[clintl]

I guess you missed the part where he said that disasters of this type are too big for local officials to handle with local resources.

[Buccaneer]

I guess you missed the part where he said that disasters of this type are too big for local officials to handle with local resources.
Not if more tax revenues were directed to the state and local levels instead of the federal level.

You have a bureaucracy (DHS) that was created in response to outcries from the politicians in lack of coordination (and intelligence) in terrorist acts, as well as the outcry from the public in never, ever to let something like 9/11 to happen again.

[Flasch186]

My strong suspicion is that the facts (if they're ever known) will have the Feds looking far better in days 1-5 than the state officials or the city of N.O. officials.


never wouldve thought this wouldve come from you ;)

[flere-imsaho]

But that's exactly why leadership was ineffective - bureaucratic red tape and adhering to pre-set rules and conditions. All of the calls in the world wasn't going to shake that bureaucracy out of their way of doing things (esp. when the head of FEMA had no experience in anything relating to this and any calls to FEMA has to go through DHS). The only effective leadership are military officers, experienced in organizing people and materials under stressful conditions.

If the U.S. President, the Commander-In-Chief, can't cut through the red tape in a crisis situation to get things done, then we have a really, really big problems on our hands. That's the kind of leadership I'm talking about.

[clintl]

I disagree strongly. Things of this scope need federal resources and a federal response. Perhaps Colorado has not seen enough natural disasters up close, but we in California have. Even with tax dollars directed to local agencies for disaster response, there are just not enough unaffected people to be able to deal with something like Katrina or the Loma Prieta Earthquake without substantial mobilization of federal resources. New Orleans got out of control because in part because the manpower was not sufficient to deal with the magnitude of the disaster. It was not a question of tax allocations. You could have thrown 20 times the money to local officials for disaster preparedness, and Louisiana still would not have had the human resources to deal the Katrina aftermath.

[JPhillips]

Bucc: I won't argue with you on the pitiful response of local and state authorities in this case, but the problem is not FEMA as an idea. This disaster was so huge that no state or local government could handle it. This had to be a federal response because only the federal government has the resources to handle a strong that killed probably thousands and left 1.5 million homeless. No matter how much money is funneled to states its beyond belief to think that a state, particularly one as historically corrupt as LA, could handle this on their own.

Under James Lee Witt FEMA had a fairly good reputation precisely because it became a place for professional emergency management authorities not the traditional backwater where presidents could dump political friends. When it was absorbed by DHS, FEMA again became the place to put cronies and was seen as an agency that should have far less money and authority than it had in the 90s. We're seeing the effects of those decisions today.

This has been a disaster on almost every level. Out of the mayor, governor, president and department heads I haven't seen anyone that should keep their job. I believe hundreds maybe thousands died due to beauracratic incompetence and lack of planning. The only person that seems to be getting things done is Gen. Honore. I don't think DOD would want to be in charge of emergency management, but at least in this instance the only person who seems to be getting the job done stands tall in an Army uniform.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

You have a bureaucracy (DHS) that was created in response to outcries from the politicians in lack of coordination (and intelligence) in terrorist acts, as well as the outcry from the public in never, ever to let something like 9/11 to happen again.

That sounds horribly inefficient and costly to make every state and local government be equipped to deal with disasters of this magnitude. Talk about government waste... Given that disasters of this sort occur infrequently in any given locale, why wouldn't states want to pool their resources for emergency managment so that those resources could be applied more efficiently rather than having to be duplicated 50 times over? And maybe the states could find some structure that already exists to coordinate this pooling of emergency resources... like the Federal Emergency Managment Agency...

[MrBigglesworth]

The only problem with FEMA is the incompetence of the people in charge. Brown got fired from his last job overseeing horse shows for 'supervision failures' and got his job at FEMA because he was college roommates with the director at the time. It's the cronyism that made this disaster as bad as it was. They just need to give Brown his obligatory Medal of Freedom and shove him out the door.

[Buccaneer]

That sounds horribly inefficient and costly to make every state and local government be equipped to deal with disasters of this magnitude. Talk about government waste... Given that disasters of this sort occur infrequently in any given locale, why wouldn't states want to pool their resources for emergency managment so that those resources could be applied more efficiently rather than having to be duplicated 50 times over? And maybe the states could find some structure that already exists to coordinate this pooling of emergency resources... like the Federal Emergency Managment Agency...
Only if they are stocked with military or quasi-military personnel - not bureaucrats and political appointees. Look at 9/11, it was the local police/fire forces from all over under the leadership of Guiliani. With Katrina, it is the NG and the Red Cross actually doing the front lines work, along with local and state police. In a SF earthquake, it will be the same type of folks. I am not talking about the rebuilding efforts, insurance claims and work of the coroners, but the immediate response 1-5 days after a disaster. This is the job of the military and quasi-military to handle public disorder, coordinate search and rescue, get survivors out and get supplies through a war zone; and Red Cross to care for the people on-site as well as caring for refugees.

I made a large donation to Red Cross this weekend, do you think that money would make a bigger difference than if I would have given it directly to FEMA (assuming that I could)?

[MrBigglesworth]

Look at 9/11, it was the local police/fire forces from all over under the leadership of Guiliani. With Katrina, it is the NG and the Red Cross actually doing the front lines work, along with local and state police.
You can't compare 9/11 and the hurricane. 9/11 was a disaster centered around two buildings. Katrina is a city-wide disaster. Not even all the cops and FD in NYC would be effective in NOLA.

It's also important to note that the large statewide military forces (NG) won't always be there, they may be off occupying another country. That is why the feds need to step in, local and state organization get overwhelmed. It's a lot easier for the feds to plan for emergencies.

[Buccaneer]

You can't compare 9/11 and the hurricane. 9/11 was a disaster centered around two buildings. Katrina is a city-wide disaster. Not even all the cops and FD in NYC would be effective in NOLA.

It's also important to note that the large statewide military forces (NG) won't always be there, they may be off occupying another country. That is why the feds need to step in, local and state organization get overwhelmed. It's a lot easier for the feds to plan for emergencies.
I understand but it was 9/11 that created the DHS. However I disagree very much that all of the NYPD and NYFD would not be effective, I think that's exactly the type of response and people we needed on-site in days 1-5 (in addition to the NG). Also, it may be easier for the feds to plan (afterall, they are very good at committees and producing volumes of reports) but not good at actually responding. That's why I argue to let them plan but have those that can and are able (like military, NG, police and fire, Red Cross) to be on the front lines.

Remember when Nagin waited until Tuesday to declare martial law? No fed was going to nor should they - you don't want to give the feds even more power than they already have - but if a military presence was there on Monday late afternoon, then it would have been easier for him to have done so.

[Buccaneer]

Bottom line for me is that 9/11 created the mess that is DHS and the Patriot Act and others, don't let this disaster be a repeat of that to where the fed budget grows even more and additional powers are given at the expense of personal liberties.

As noble as the cause may be, we end up losing in the end when the financial costs outweigh the actual benefits (and performance) and the cost to our personal liberties suffer.

[Leonidas]

Something of interest that is completely forgotten, we once had a pretty well thought out plan nationwide to recover from a nuclear war, but after the fall of the Iron Curtain that whole deal was pushed aside as obsolete. I gotta think there was at least an idea or two of merit in all that planning against nuclear catastrophe that could carry over to post-hurricane recovery, but it appears it's all been File 13'd along the way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Meanwhile, Gen. Honore just gave one of the most sterling performances I've ever seen in a press conference setting.

Folks, I think we may be watching the emergence of a new star on the national scene (although I have serious doubts he'll be the least bit interested in anything that could mean).

In any event, that is what a leader looks like in action & I'm damned proud to know that quality still exists in this country.

[Cringer]

There is no martial law in Louisiana, FOXNews has drilled that into my head. Only State of Emergency.

:)

[MrBigglesworth]

Bottom line for me is that 9/11 created the mess that is DHS and the Patriot Act and others, don't let this disaster be a repeat of that to where the fed budget grows even more and additional powers are given at the expense of personal liberties.

As noble as the cause may be, we end up losing in the end when the financial costs outweigh the actual benefits (and performance) and the cost to our personal liberties suffer.
I agree with you on most counts, I don't think FEMA necessarily needs more funding, just better leadership. Is it too much to ask that someone with disaster experience gets put in control?