Apr 27 2006
Incompetence Rewarded
I’ve argued here before about how Republican incompetence is simply used as an excuse to claim that goverment is incompetent, and we should elect more Republicans who will try to simply reduce the cost of an incompetent and worthless goverment. In other words, Republican incompetence rewards Republicans.
I made a point of singling out FEMA as an example of this in action. And never has this example been more prescient than with the release of the Senate Investigation into Katrina.
The bipartisan investigation into one of the worst natural disasters in the nation’s history singled out President Bush and the White House as appearing indifferent to the devastation until two days after the storm hit.
It said the Homeland Security Department either misunderstood federal disaster plans or refused to follow them. And it said New Orleans for years had neglected to prepare for large-scale emergencies.
…
The senators concluded that only by abolishing the Federal Emergency Management Agency — which Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), R-Maine, called a “bumbling bureaucracy” — and replacing it with a stronger authority could the government best respond to future catastrophes.
…
Lieberman, in an addendum, took sharper aim at Bush, who he said appeared distracted from the disaster as it unfolded. “The president is, after all, the commander in chief — not only in terms of international crises, but in terms of catastrophes here at home,” he said.
So let’s see, it’s blatantly obvious that the problem with FEMA is that Bush doesn’t care and a moron is in charge. This is so blatantly obvious that even Lieberman is willing to say Bush is to blame (although Lieberman’s willingness to say this may have something to do with this guy). So the solution is to… reorganize the “bumbling” beauracracy. Because we sure as hell aren’t going to hold any bumbling beauracrats accountable. We wouldn’t want to fix the problem because then people might think “hey, maybe the goverment can do something for me!” And we can’t have that- because once they think the goverment can do something, they start thinking the goverment should do something. Which takes precious money away from what the goverment should be doing- giving money to rich people and companies.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Wow, you missed the point. The intent isn’t to disband FEMA, it is to go so far as to be
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.
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?
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?
I like to interpret that stronger as meaning “works better”.
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.
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 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:
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.