JP's Fantastic Baseball and Other Musings
My personal interests are geared to baseball, history, legal ramifications and the human experience.
September 21, 2005-FEMA stuff, John Tierney, My opinion

John Tierney of the NY TImes opined:

I don't think Washington needs any more czars. But if President Bush feels compelled to put someone in charge of rebuilding the Gulf Coast, let me suggest a name: Lee Scott.

Scott is the chief executive of Wal-Mart, one of the few institutions to improve its image here after Katrina sent a 15-foot wave across the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. If you mention the Red Cross or FEMA to people in Slidell, you hear rants about help that didn't arrive and phone lines that are always busy. If you mention state or national politicians, you hear obscenities.

But if you visit the Wal-Mart and the Sam's Club stores here, you hear shoppers who have been without power for weeks marveling that there are still generators in stock (and priced at $304.04). You hear about the trucks that rolled in right after the hurricane and the stuff the stores gave away: chain saws and boots for rescue workers, sheets and clothes for shelters, water and ice for the public.

"This was the only place we could find water those first days," said Rashan Smith, who was shopping with her three children at Wal-Mart on Saturday. "I still haven't managed to get through to FEMA. It's hard to say, but you get more justice at Wal-Mart."

That's the same assessment you hear from public officials in Louisiana, and there's even been talk of letting Wal-Mart take over FEMA's job. The company already has its own emergency operations center, where dozens of people began preparing for the hurricane the week before it hit by moving supplies and trucks into position.

I realize that Scott would not be a popular choice with Democrats. They concede that Wal-Mart and other private companies were far better prepared for Katrina than FEMA was, but they say FEMA would work fine if it were under the control of a virtuous, compassionate public servant - someone, as Bill Clinton suggested, like himself.

Clinton looks back on the 1990s as FEMA's Age of Pericles. "I think we did a good job of disaster management," he said on ABC's "This Week." While criticizing the Bush administration for leaving poor people stranded in New Orleans, he said that he and his FEMA director, James Lee Witt, had been especially sensitive to the needs of poor people because of their own backgrounds.

But if they cared so much, why didn't New Orleans ever work out a feasible way to evacuate poor people? FEMA had a golden opportunity to plan it during the 1990s. The threat of nuclear war had receded and terrorism wasn't yet a priority, so the agency's biggest concerns should have been an earthquake in California and a flood in New Orleans.

But it was too busy dealing with the record number of other "disasters" that Clinton declared - an average of one a week, which meant FEMA was mailing out checks for every flash flood within range of a major media market. Upstate New Yorkers suddenly became incapable of coping with the cost of snow removal.

In 1997, Congress gave FEMA $500,000 and ordered it to develop a comprehensive plan to evacuate New Orleans. The agency passed on the money to Louisiana, which used it instead to study building a new bridge. As Rita Beamish of The Associated Press reported on Sunday, FEMA didn't bother making sure a plan was drawn up - an aide to Witt said its job had just been to pass on the money.

How often do you suppose someone at Wal-Mart headquarters dispenses $500,000 and doesn't bother keeping track of it? It's legendary for tracking every transaction and pinching every penny.

When Scott, the chief executive officer, travels with the chief financial officer, they cut costs by sharing a hotel room.

That's the kind of leader we need to oversee the tens of billions that Washington will be spending on the Gulf Coast. Scott could cut costs while still leaving the area as well prepared for the next disaster as Wal-Mart was for Katrina.

David Vitter, the Republican senator from Louisiana, was so impressed with the rapid response of Wal-Mart and other companies that he promised to introduce a bill to abolish FEMA and contract its job out to the private sector. I'm afraid the Wal-Mart Emergency Management Agency will be a tough sell on Capitol Hill. But I'd vote for WEMA

My thought to John Tierney:

WEMA is a convincing argument....but why the Clinton bashing?

I can understand the relationship between FEMA’s ineptitude and the
current malaise involving Katrina and Rita.  Their focus somehow has
been misguided recently through any number of governmental miscues on
the local, state and federal levels. What I don’t see is your analysis
of Clinton’s efforts being less than adequate given the circumstances.

FEMA has been around since 1979. Before that it existed in various
smaller and splintered departments: Reconstruction Finance Corporation
in the 1930’s, Bureau of Public Roads handling damaged roads, The Flood
Control Act which gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers control over
projects to stop floods and Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
in 1960’s and 1970’s. (That is directly from FEMA.) So, disaster
management is not suddenly ‘new’ or really a ‘partisan’ issue.


Additionally, the ‘disaster a week’ mentality does not reflect the
actuality of the Clinton administration. To enlighten you, go to
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/billionz.html
and see for yourself the incidences of Billion dollar disasters during
Clinton’s administration. During Bush I reign as President, 8
emergencies were considered Billion dollar disasters. During Clinton’s
8-year administration, 32 events topped the 1-billion dollar mark.
During Bush II, 12 emergencies happen in 2001-2004. Now, I won’t haggle
with you over which constituted ‘disasters’ and which were just ‘things
that happen’ that the government should not be responsible for. But if
my math is right, Clinton’s FEMA handle AT LEAST 2 times as many as
Bush I (16 per 4 years) and 1 1/3 times as many real disasters as Bush
II.  

Now, we can throw in wars, started by us, for us and to 'protect' us,
if that will make you happy, Mr. Tierney. And Bush I and II looks like... stars
compared to Clinton???

Additionally, the New Orleans study was done many years ago (prior to
Clinton, I might add), then REDONE  AGAIN recently under Bush II.  The funding
for stout levees could have been done at anytime and should have been
done long before it came time to test it. Last I checked, George W.
Bush is our President. If he wasn’t fighting terrorism without getting
the real culprit or starting wars with a country we obviously know
little about operating (which is what we are doing – a puppet state),
then maybe he could 'focus' on Domestic issues.

Republicans go abroad to make their Presidencies; whereas, Democrats
usually stay at home with their agendas. But that doesn’t mean either
is right (or wrong) when the problems come up in your backyard.

I realize this president thinks he is pro-active toward things, yet he
really is ‘no different’ from many other officials that sound the alarm
after the levee breaks…a day too late and billions of dollars too
short.

Let us hope Reconstruction II of the South is more civil and effective
than Reconstruction I was.

2005-09-21 23:28:31 GMT
Comments (4 total)
Author:Gustavo Sosa
Isn't there any other political party?
What about the communist party?
Socialdemocrats?

They haven't got enoguh money to go to elections or they don't exist?
2005-09-22 14:25:00 GMT
Author:Jason P
Not enough money. And certainly, Communism is the 'kiss of death' in America. Socialism is not a 'happening' stance either. We have a 'Green party' that ran. Independents that are very minor.

America has nearly always been two parties - especially after the Civil War in the 1860's - and will not change in the forseeable future, unless people actually put radicals on the ticket.

A joke that is pretty true: we have two parties; white men under 40 and white men over 40. Don't get me wrong, blacks, hispanics and women abound government, but we still haven't had a black/woman/hispanic president or vice president. So that's all.
2005-09-22 14:55:48 GMT
Author:Gustavo Sosa
I know what you mean. It was the civil wars after independence that lead to birth of both traditional Uruguayan parties, but the rising of socialism during the 60's (Ithink it was captured by democrats in USA) led to formation of a bunch of new parties. Two of them (even considering they are only one in practice) grew stronger and eventually became government. Argentina has Radicals (traditional agrarian) and Peronists (urban proletariat) but the political crisis gave birth to new parties and alliances were formed. As I have said before, vote should be mandatory in USA that would fix a lot of problems your democracy has.
2005-09-23 17:50:15 GMT
Author:Jason P
Mandatory voting would be good thing. But, most people don't necessarily know who or what they are voting for. Politicians pretty much stay to the middle, non-offensive ground to get elected, then do whatever they want once elected (to whatever degree they have alliances in government.) It would change if 4 or 5 really legitimate parties and candidates had to really establish a platform for election. I guess what amazes me is that this nation was originally founded on being a very diverse and 'wildly' opinionated group. Now, because we have 'it all' (no offense, just a fairly accurate observation) the conversative attitude has extended too far, no development of better policies.

That's another reason I want to move: more diversity and variety exists elsewhere.

Good comments...I didn't know much about your country before. You are enlightening me to a lot of things.
2005-09-24 04:19:10 GMT
 
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1