Comments on: Incompetence Rewarded

By: bhurt-aw

bhurt-aw — Fri, 05 May 2006 20:46:51 +0000

You guys are assuming that all of the recommendations- especially the recommendations that funding be increased- will be followed. Especially when you consider this quote:

The report calls for more funding for disaster planning and response, but does not specify how much or where the money would come from.

The trick to doing something unpopular is to mislabel it. If congress came out and cut funding to FEMA, there’d be a stink. People know about FEMA, and what it’s supposed to do, and why we should fund it. But when they cut the budget of the National Preparedness and Response Authority, there will be less of a stink. Most people will think that Congress is just cutting some bureaucratic nonsense, getting rid of some pork, and be in favor of it.

Bush doesn’t need to play word games to grab more power anymore- he just does. Consider this news:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

Although I comment this isn’t that new- pretty much all post-Goldwater Republicans had an “interesting” take on the law. Consider Watergate and Iran Contra as just two examples. Again, Bush has taken things a step further, but he is definately following the path laid out by Republicans past.

The point here is that the danger isn’t creeping socialism- it’s rampaging facism.

By: Candide

Candide — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:52:47 +0000

That’s a federalist conceit. A socialist system is clearly stronger — i.e.: has more power — than a free market system. Yet does it work better.
When the government starts talking about “stronger”, it means more powerful and less controlled.

By: TheHawk

TheHawk — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:49:28 +0000

I like to interpret that stronger as meaning “works better”.

By: Candide

Candide — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:24:56 +0000

I don’t know what they think they need, but they’re apparently suggesting replacing FEMA with a stronger agency — how much stronger can you get?

By: TheHawk

TheHawk — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:18:30 +0000

The ability to impose martial law is only useful if you are more organized then the government you are supplanting. I think the failures involved with Hurricane Katrina show a definite need for reorganization, so that they can respons swiftly and effectively. I’m not entirely sure this is a power grab. Like you said, they can already declare martial law, what more do they need?

By: Candide

Candide — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:19:05 +0000

Wow, you missed the point. The intent isn’t to disband FEMA, it is to go so far as to be

…replacing it with a stronger authority could the government best respond to future catastrophes.

They want to strengthen the federal government yet further, not gut it. This isn’t a destruction of federal authority, but a power grab. I wasn’t aware that FEMA’s existant capability to suspend the constituion and impose martial law was insufficient to address Hurricane Katrina.