Should the Federal Government Act in Response to Disasters?

Contrary to popular belief amongst the right-wingers around here, my "Republicans Apparently Can't Govern" post had a point beyond merely pointing out the obvious fact that the Republican government failed spectacularly w/r/t Katrina. The point was that the "failure" was not just a matter of mistakes and incompetence, it was also a matter of philisophy and ideology -- the belief amongst the right that the Government should not, in fact, help people in need -- even dire need.

We have now seen confirmation of that philosphy here on this board, as loud-and-proud right-wingers (e.g., BGC) argue that, despite what we have seen, none of it was the fault of the federal government. Indeed, some of the responses in this thread suggest that the problem, in fact, is that the federal government is *too* involved in disaster relief. So let's have a poll:

[Bez]

Why the hell isn't it a federal problem? I don't understand how there could be any argument against this.

[warlockjd]

A few NY times opinion columns covered this exact subject matter, I'll also post the text.

linky1

linky2

A Can't-Do Government
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 2, 2005
Before 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on New Orleans. "The New Orleans hurricane scenario," The Houston Chronicle wrote in December 2001, "may be the deadliest of all." It described a potential catastrophe very much like the one now happening.

Skip to next paragraph

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

More Columns by Paul Krugman

Forum: Paul Krugman's Columns
So why were New Orleans and the nation so unprepared? After 9/11, hard questions were deferred in the name of national unity, then buried under a thick coat of whitewash. This time, we need accountability.

First question: Why have aid and security taken so long to arrive? Katrina hit five days ago - and it was already clear by last Friday that Katrina could do immense damage along the Gulf Coast. Yet the response you'd expect from an advanced country never happened. Thousands of Americans are dead or dying, not because they refused to evacuate, but because they were too poor or too sick to get out without help - and help wasn't provided. Many have yet to receive any help at all.

There will and should be many questions about the response of state and local governments; in particular, couldn't they have done more to help the poor and sick escape? But the evidence points, above all, to a stunning lack of both preparation and urgency in the federal government's response.

Even military resources in the right place weren't ordered into action. "On Wednesday," said an editorial in The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss., "reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival at the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish Hill Road and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and performing calisthenics. Playing basketball and performing calisthenics!"

Maybe administration officials believed that the local National Guard could keep order and deliver relief. But many members of the National Guard and much of its equipment - including high-water vehicles - are in Iraq. "The National Guard needs that equipment back home to support the homeland security mission," a Louisiana Guard officer told reporters several weeks ago.

Second question: Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003 the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work, including work on sinking levees. "The corps," an Editor and Publisher article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, "never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same time as federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain."

In 2002 the corps' chief resigned, reportedly under threat of being fired, after he criticized the administration's proposed cuts in the corps' budget, including flood-control spending.

Third question: Did the Bush administration destroy FEMA's effectiveness? The administration has, by all accounts, treated the emergency management agency like an unwanted stepchild, leading to a mass exodus of experienced professionals.

Last year James Lee Witt, who won bipartisan praise for his leadership of the agency during the Clinton years, said at a Congressional hearing: "I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared."

I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the military wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe, the same reason nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of Baghdad. Flood control was neglected for the same reason our troops in Iraq didn't get adequate armor.

At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice.

Yesterday Mr. Bush made an utterly fantastic claim: that nobody expected the breach of the levees. In fact, there had been repeated warnings about exactly that risk.

So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it makes those excuses, Americans are dying.



and
Killed by Contempt
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 5, 2005
Each day since Katrina brings more evidence of the lethal ineptitude of federal officials. I'm not letting state and local officials off the hook, but federal officials had access to resources that could have made all the difference, but were never mobilized.

Skip to next paragraph

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

More Columns by Paul Krugman

Forum: Paul Krugman's Columns
Here's one of many examples: The Chicago Tribune reports that the U.S.S. Bataan, equipped with six operating rooms, hundreds of hospital beds and the ability to produce 100,000 gallons of fresh water a day, has been sitting off the Gulf Coast since last Monday - without patients.

Experts say that the first 72 hours after a natural disaster are the crucial window during which prompt action can save many lives. Yet action after Katrina was anything but prompt. Newsweek reports that a "strange paralysis" set in among Bush administration officials, who debated lines of authority while thousands died.

What caused that paralysis? President Bush certainly failed his test. After 9/11, all the country really needed from him was a speech. This time it needed action - and he didn't deliver.

But the federal government's lethal ineptitude wasn't just a consequence of Mr. Bush's personal inadequacy; it was a consequence of ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve the public good. For 25 years the right has been denigrating the public sector, telling us that government is always the problem, not the solution. Why should we be surprised that when we needed a government solution, it wasn't forthcoming?

Does anyone remember the fight over federalizing airport security? Even after 9/11, the administration and conservative members of Congress tried to keep airport security in the hands of private companies. They were more worried about adding federal employees than about closing a deadly hole in national security.

Of course, the attempt to keep airport security private wasn't just about philosophy; it was also an attempt to protect private interests. But that's not really a contradiction. Ideological cynicism about government easily morphs into a readiness to treat government spending as a way to reward your friends. After all, if you don't believe government can do any good, why not?

Which brings us to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In my last column, I asked whether the Bush administration had destroyed FEMA's effectiveness. Now we know the answer.

Several recent news analyses on FEMA's sorry state have attributed the agency's decline to its inclusion in the Department of Homeland Security, whose prime concern is terrorism, not natural disasters. But that supposed change in focus misses a crucial part of the story.

For one thing, the undermining of FEMA began as soon as President Bush took office. Instead of choosing a professional with expertise in responses to disaster to head the agency, Mr. Bush appointed Joseph Allbaugh, a close political confidant. Mr. Allbaugh quickly began trying to scale back some of FEMA's preparedness programs.

You might have expected the administration to reconsider its hostility to emergency preparedness after 9/11 - after all, emergency management is as important in the aftermath of a terrorist attack as it is following a natural disaster. As many people have noticed, the failed response to Katrina shows that we are less ready to cope with a terrorist attack today than we were four years ago.

But the downgrading of FEMA continued, with the appointment of Michael Brown as Mr. Allbaugh's successor.

Mr. Brown had no obvious qualifications, other than having been Mr. Allbaugh's college roommate. But Mr. Brown was made deputy director of FEMA; The Boston Herald reports that he was forced out of his previous job, overseeing horse shows. And when Mr. Allbaugh left, Mr. Brown became the agency's director. The raw cronyism of that appointment showed the contempt the administration felt for the agency; one can only imagine the effects on staff morale.

That contempt, as I've said, reflects a general hostility to the role of government as a force for good. And Americans living along the Gulf Coast have now reaped the consequences of that hostility.

The administration has always tried to treat 9/11 purely as a lesson about good versus evil. But disasters must be coped with, even if they aren't caused by evildoers. Now we have another deadly lesson in why we need an effective government, and why dedicated public servants deserve our respect. Will we listen?

[New001]

Maybe because rich Americans would rather not see their tax money going to help the poor? I'm not sure. I agree with you, I don't see how the government shouldn't help in times like these.

[cardcounter0]

This right-wing administration with the support of a right-wing majority senate and right-wing majority house, approved $175 billion for a HomeLand Security Department and a reorganization of supporting agencies.

It is a little too late to ask if we should do this, they have already spent the money to do it.

[cadillac1234]

Since 9/11 it's been $375B total to FEMA and DHS AND Bush ran on the 'Keep America Safe' ticket.

I don't think he meant at the state and local levels only.

In a strictly political context and not meaning to make light of the situation or the suffering of our brothers and sisters in New Orleans, Republicans should be thanking their lucky stars this happened in 2005 and not 2007.

I saw former defense secretary William Cohen on TV today making an obvious point which is that the exact same proceedures and departments that would organize rescue efforts after a huge terrorist attack should be in charge of rescue efforts after a natural disaster. So this Homeland Security dept which is supposed to be so well thought out and funded should be in charge of both things. Why would we expect those same skills and operational expertise to not do both. The scary thing is that if a terrorist attack caused devastation to a city, this ineptitude in response may be what we're in store for in that case as well.

[lehighguy]

It seems to me that private individuals and corporations are the only ones that actually provided timely and effective relief. Hell Wal-Mart did a good job.

Government seems to have succeeded in only three things:
1) Telling people to go to the superdome instead of leaving the city.
2) Preventing other people getting in and saving people.
3) Not fix the levies even though they desperately need to be fixed.

Number two is an especially good example of why the government shouldn't be involved. Food, water, trucks, fuel, aid workers, everyone and everything was turned away by government buearacracy. In the complete absence of government the relief effort might have even been better.

While I'm sure specific people in the government will be fired for thier incompetence I fully suspect that if a similair event occurs 30 years from now the result will be the same. Government seems fundamentally bad at doing everything. It would be better if people didn't form a false reliance on government and end up screwed when it turns out the government can't help them.

[ QUOTE ]
While I'm sure specific people in the government will be fired for thier incompetence

[/ QUOTE ]

To the contrary, I expect that Bush will keep his job.

[ QUOTE ]
I fully suspect that if a similair event occurs 30 years from now the result will be the same. Government seems fundamentally bad at doing everything. It would be better if people didn't form a false reliance on government and end up screwed when it turns out the government can't help them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent. Thanks.