A tangent from the extended rant (a "rantgent" perhaps)
In discussing Bush is like a deer in headlights, I stated that "Part of what Bush and the Republican Congress have done is place primacy on the federal government in more and more areas[,]" and I further asserted that disaster relief was one of those areas.
Let's begin with the crisis management position taken by the Bush administration--and I'm talking about political backlash crisis management. While administration officials keep saying "Let's not play the blame game," they have been pointing the finger at Louisiana state officials, especially Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin. According to BushCo, the state and local officials were supposed to be primarily responsible, failed to notify the feds and ask for help in a timely manner, did nothing to evacuate people, etc. If you want a detailed rundown of this latest bit of "if you do it, it is bad, but it's good if we do it" (and I'm speaking of the blame game), go to Talking Points Memo and its progeny TPM Cafe.
Much of the criticism of the federal government has been aimed at FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). FEMA used to be a cabinet-level agency, and then the Homeland Security Act made FEMA part of the Department of Homeland Security. With this in mind, let us now take a look at what the Department of Homeland Security its ownself has to say about its role in responding to natural disasters.
The DHS website defines its mission as follows: "We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation." (emphasis added). This definitely applies to natural disasters, as the same web page lists the following as a strategic goal: "Response -- Lead, manage and coordinate the national response to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies." (emphasis added).
On February 24, 2004, DHS published "Securing Our Homeland; U.S. Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan." This document contains some strong promises:
In December 2004, DHS published the comprehensive National Response Plan. Page 9 (p. 27 of the .pdf document) has the following paragraph:
Read all of the above again and try to tell me that DHS has not asserted that it--not the state and local authorities--will be in charge of response to a major natural disaster. Look, I am not arguing one way or the other that the feds should be in charge. What I am arguing is that the DHS, the department that is now claiming that the state and local authorities failed to take charge, has expressly said that it has that responsibility AND has assured the Nation that it would meet that responsibility.
Let's begin with the crisis management position taken by the Bush administration--and I'm talking about political backlash crisis management. While administration officials keep saying "Let's not play the blame game," they have been pointing the finger at Louisiana state officials, especially Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin. According to BushCo, the state and local officials were supposed to be primarily responsible, failed to notify the feds and ask for help in a timely manner, did nothing to evacuate people, etc. If you want a detailed rundown of this latest bit of "if you do it, it is bad, but it's good if we do it" (and I'm speaking of the blame game), go to Talking Points Memo and its progeny TPM Cafe.
Much of the criticism of the federal government has been aimed at FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). FEMA used to be a cabinet-level agency, and then the Homeland Security Act made FEMA part of the Department of Homeland Security. With this in mind, let us now take a look at what the Department of Homeland Security its ownself has to say about its role in responding to natural disasters.
The DHS website defines its mission as follows: "We will lead the unified national effort to secure America. We will prevent and deter terrorist attacks and protect against and respond to threats and hazards to the nation." (emphasis added). This definitely applies to natural disasters, as the same web page lists the following as a strategic goal: "Response -- Lead, manage and coordinate the national response to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies." (emphasis added).
On February 24, 2004, DHS published "Securing Our Homeland; U.S. Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan." This document contains some strong promises:
The Nation will know it can rely on us to respond in time of need. We will provide and coordinate a quick and effective response when state, local and tribal resources are overwhelmed by disasters and emergencies. We will bring the right people and resources to bear where and when they are needed most, including medical, urban search and rescue, and incident management capabilities, and will assist all mariners in peril. We will provide integrated logistical support to ensure a rapid and effective response and coordinate among Department of Homeland Security and other federal, state and local operations centers consistent with national incident command protocols. We will work with our partners to create and implement a National Incident Management System and a single, all-discipline National Response Plan that will strengthen the Nation’s ability to respond to catastrophic events of all types, including terrorism.(emphasis added).
In December 2004, DHS published the comprehensive National Response Plan. Page 9 (p. 27 of the .pdf document) has the following paragraph:
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established DHS to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies; and minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other emergencies. The act also designates DHS as “a focal point regarding natural and manmade crises and emergency planning.”(emphasis added). The Nation Response Plan also says on p. 43 (p. 61 of the .pdf document) that "The NRP establishes policies, procedures, and mechanisms for proactive Federal response to catastrophic events."
Read all of the above again and try to tell me that DHS has not asserted that it--not the state and local authorities--will be in charge of response to a major natural disaster. Look, I am not arguing one way or the other that the feds should be in charge. What I am arguing is that the DHS, the department that is now claiming that the state and local authorities failed to take charge, has expressly said that it has that responsibility AND has assured the Nation that it would meet that responsibility.
posted by WCharles @ 9/08/2005 02:21:00 AM
19 Comments:
Speaking of deer in the headlights, Nagin has been publicly crying and saying there would be 10,000 deaths. Our paper reported 154 confirmed deaths so far. OK, there will be more... maybe 10 times that number? Still a long way from Nagin's emotional estimate. Give me Bush any day over the democratic misleadership from Louisianna.
First, you are not addressing the point of this post, namely that DHS has asserted that it--not the state and local authorities--will be in charge of response to a major natural disaster.
Second, are you saying that just because the death toll to this point is less than Nagin's estimate, there was nothing wrong with what DHS and FEMA did or did not do? I sure hope the answer is "no."
Third, there is a huge difference between being mayor of a big city and President of the United States. A mayor is not in a position to try to dictate a domestic agenda for the entire country. A mayor does not have control of our foreign policy. A mayor cannot order a war. A mayor does hire the person who is in charge of a national agency whose express purpose is to respond to disasters. Need I continue?
Fourth, Nagin's "misleadership" has nothing to do with Bush's supposed leadership.
There is so much more I could say, but it will have to wait for another time.
I should probably know better than to even attempt to go up against a lawyer. I really have no response to whether or not the DHS is responsible for disaster coordination. The documentation you presented supports that contention. I do find it interesting that over the past 5 years NY has developed an evacuation plan for NYC which includes transporting people into my upstate community. As reported in our local paper today, this plan is a NY developed plan. We can't always depend on Big Brother to solve all our problems. I do think Bush did the right thing by removing his crony from the scene and naming that Navy guy as coordinator.
The answer to your 2nd question is a definite "no". My only point was that Nagin has provided horrible leadership through emotional comments such as the 10k death toll that is most likely so overstated to be laughable if it were not for the seriousness of the situation.
And with your third point, I agree there is a huge difference between a mayor and a president. But, I'm just questioning if local leadership did all they could or were they relying on the Feds to bail them out.
One thing that has been running through my mind lately. Since I have friends in Jackson, MS who were effected by the storm, I watched it quite closely. Bush has taken a lot of flak because he waited a couple days to respond supposedly not realizing the severity of the disaster. I think the press was slow also. It took us in NY a couple days to begin to realize how severe the damage was. With 9/11 the whole world knew immediately what was happening. With Katrina, the events as reported seemed to unfold much slower.
Another perspective on the magnitude and timeliness of the response.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm
Another interesting perspective from the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/11/opinion/11brooks.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists
And you can click on a link to the NO disaster plan. A plan which states the mayor is responsible for notifying the citizenry and for their safe evacuation in case of an emergency. In essence, this document gives the LOEP responsibility for oversight of training, notification and implementation.
There have been reports of resources that were available but not used due to bureaucracy. So, the ultimate problem is everybody is responsible and in charge therefore nobody is.
"I do find it interesting that over the past 5 years NY has developed an evacuation plan for NYC which includes transporting people into my upstate community. As reported in our local paper today, this plan is a NY developed plan."
"But, I'm just questioning if local leadership did all they could or were they relying on the Feds to bail them out."
Points well taken... States and major cities should develop plans. The local authorities will be in a better position to know what needs to be done in their unique circumstances. Still, I have two questions (and I really do not have answers--yet).
First, under the federal statutes and regulations, how much autonomy do the states and cities have in developing such plans? For example, do such plans have to comply with all federal laws on the same subject? That answer is likely "yes," but perhaps a better question is whether such plans can deviate in any way from federal standards?
Second, have the various federal statutes and regulations created a culture of expectation that "big brother" will be primarily responsible? I ask this question because of the primacy element presented in the documents I have cited.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05254/568876.stm
This column contains some valid points. However, it overlooks other points. The federal failure involves things like FEMA officials turning away supplies like water and food, not approving military assets to be utilized until after delays, cutting emergency communication lines in Jefferson Parish, etc. The matters do not involve the logistical aspects of getting help to the region.
I'll post some links that describe these matters.
You do raise two good questions. And they demonstrate the complexity of society today. And neither do I have answers. But, "...do such plans have to comply with all federal laws on the same subject? That answer is likely "yes," but perhaps a better question is whether such plans can deviate in any way from federal standards?" From my HR experience, the stricter law, state or federal, takes precedence. So, I would think that if the state disaster requirements are tighter and more comprehensive they would take precedence over any federal requirements. Putting it into terms of the recent disaster, I would expect that state and local agencies would provide "first responder" duties with FEMA stepping in at the appropriate time to coordinate the efforts as described in their document.
" Second, have the various federal statutes and regulations created a culture of expectation that "big brother" will be primarily responsible?" Excellent question and one I think gets to the heart of what happened in NO. I will contend that the liberal policies of the federal government going back to LBJ's Great Society have created a nanny state where people believe they are entitled to the government providing them everything they need. I don't believe the results of this disaster is colored by racism, but it is colored by classism. But, that is another topic completely in itself. Yes, there is a culture of big brother will hold my hand, wipe my nose, etc. But then again, I would not want to go back to era of the 1920s and Harding. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Now we must learn to deal with that expectation.
"From my HR experience, the stricter law, state or federal, takes precedence."
And that is similar to my experience in litigating employment matters. However, often state law on HR/employment/discrimination--to the extent it varies from federal law--is in ADDITION TO (sorry for the caps, but I haven't figured out how to do italics in the comments) federal law.
There are some instances in which federal law is deemed to take precedence over state law, and there are still other instances in which federal law preempts state law. What I don't yet know is whether disaster response is either of those instances. Finding the answer is going to take more time than I have right now.
"I will contend that the liberal policies of the federal government going back to LBJ's Great Society have created a nanny state where people believe they are entitled to the government providing them everything they need. I don't believe the results of this disaster is colored by racism, but it is colored by classism. But, that is another topic completely in itself."
Indeed, it is another topic, but one would be hard-pressed to argue that the New Deal and the Great Society did not present a basis for a mindset of "a nanny state where people believe they are entitled to the government providing them everything they need." I am not saying that the New Deal or the Great Society were bad; however, there is a time for everything, and a time for things to come to an end once they have served their purpose--but that is yet another topic. :-)
Part of what I have been trying to say is that the Bush administration and the GOP Congress have in effect perpetuated this "expectation" through things such as the PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Medicare prescription package, etc. As to why this has happened, I have a few opinions (hard to believe, I know), but those will be a separate post.
Do you not think that the PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the Medicare prescription package came as a result of a need? If after 9/11 Bush had not done anything related to protecting us from terrorists he would have been accused of doing nothing as he is with Katrina. Medical care is critical. Medicare prescription action is a result of that critical need. That's not to say those three items were handled correctly, but he had to do something. But, like you said, "there is a time for everything, and a time for things to come to an end once they have served their purpose". Or to be modified based on current circumstances. So, yes he has perpetuated the entitlement philosophy, but he had no choice.
I can't figure out the italics either.
"Do you not think that the PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, and the Medicare prescription package came as a result of a need?"
I agree that in each instance there was a need.
"That's not to say those three items were handled correctly[.]"
As for the first two items, they certainly were not handled correctly in my view. The questions are the extent of the need and the means chosen to address the need.
The PATRIOT Act does indeed address some matters which needed to be changed, chief among them the ability to disclose matters discovered in criminal proceedings (such as a grand jury hearing) to intelligence agencies and better coordination between all law enforcement and intelligence organizations, but the Act goes way beyond that. Can you name even one significant instance in which the PATRIOT Act has led to a victory in the war on terror? Let me state the question another way: can you name one instance in which such a victory could not have occurred under the law prior to the PATRIOT Act? There might be one, but I am unaware of it.
There has to my knowledge been one--and only one--successful prosecution of a terrorist suspect since the enactment of the PATRIOT Act. The US Attorney who led that prosecution did things that were arguably allowable under the Act, yet when questions were raised about some of his tactics, his own boss and the rest of the Dept. of Justice turned on him and hung him out to dry.
As for the Homeland Security Act, it is a huge piece of unnecessary legislation. Did there need to be better organization and coordination? Yes. Could it have been done in an easier way? Yes. As I have said before, the chief feature of the Act is NOT the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The chief feature is the massive, wholesale reorganization of the federal bureaucracy. Read the Act sometime and you will see what I mean. The Act created a new cabinet-level department--which adds to the bureaucracy--and created so many new levels of bureaucratic chaos. This creation/reorganization resulted in further confusion and red tape and inefficiency and thus hurt efforts in the war on terror.
Here's an example. Prior to the Iraq war and passage of the Homeland Security Act, the Treasury Department had a task force called Operation Green Quest, whose purpose was to find and stop terrorist finances. Operation Green Quest was very effective--far more effective than any other federal effort--and was set to expand operations when the HSA was passed. To make a long story short, the HSA resulted in Operation Green Quest being shut down and all similar efforts being reserved to the FBI, which at the time was horribly ill-equipped and understaffed.
By the way, can you tell me just what it is that DHS does? Do you know just what the Secretary of Homeland Security is supposed to do? I am not trying to be flippant. I really do not know these answers.
The HSA produced changes in the bureaucracy that will take YEARS to sort out. It has been almost three years since its passage, and things aren't worked out yet (the recent FEMA situation is a good example). In my opinion, we did not have the luxury of wasting this kind of time in combating terrorism. Thus, while I agree that there was a "need," the means chosen to address that need was and is inefficient and unnecessary. There were other ways to go about this.
"Medical care is critical. Medicare prescription action is a result of that critical need."
I agree. However, there is no question that 1) this program is one of the most expensive entitlement programs in our history, 2) was brought about by Bush and the GOP Congress, and 3) these facts support my claim in my previous comment about perpetuating the "expectation."
Moreover, does it make sense to create such a costly entitlement when the federal government is already running record deficits and taxes have been cut?
More to follow...
"Moreover, does it make sense to create such a costly entitlement when the federal government is already running record deficits and taxes have been cut?"
Short answer, No. I would contend that Bush's entitlement programs were politically motivated because he believed it was what the people wanted. Isn't that ultimately what a politician does? Make promises to get elected then do whatever it takes to keep his ratings up.
You say we didn't need HSA because we already had a program in place, Operation Green Quest. Imagine the uproar after 9/11 if Bush had done nothing saying we already had a program to protect US citizens. He would have tarred and feathered and ridden out of DC on a rail. These entitlements were enacted to assuage our fears of another attack.
"If after 9/11 Bush had not done anything related to protecting us from terrorists he would have been accused of doing nothing as he is with Katrina."
You raise a very interesting point, but before getting into that, I want to point out a difference between post 9-11 and Katrina. In the case of 9-11, Bush took action after an event. In the case of Katrina, many of the problems were caused by actions Bush took before an event.
That being said, your question about what would have happened if Bush had done nothing after 9-11 is a valid one. The answer is that he would have been run out of office. However, as discussed in my previous comment, neither the PATRIOT Act nor the Homeland Security Act were the way to get things done.
Moreover, doing something for the sake of doing something is not a good approach. Now I have to warn you. If I have not already upset you, what I am about to say likely will do so.
My biggest complaint about Bill Clinton is that he was more concerned with appearances and thus often went along with which way the wind was blowing instead of leading and focusing on doing things right. Clinton had enourous capabilities (insert joke here), but often did not use them. Instead, he would do what would increase his poll numbers, or, perhaps more accurately, would not do things which would harm those numbers. An example is the missed opportunities to take out bin Laden. Many people have concluded that Clinton passed on some opportunities because of the impeachment turmoil. The thinking was that if he did something, his opponents would claim it was only politically motivated to deflect the scandal. Given how I view Clinton, my opinion is that such thinking was correct. As a leader, Clinton should have decided that those concerns did not matter and that it was more important to take out a major enemy.
Now let's turn to Bush. Yes, something needed to be done after 9-11. However, instead of really looking at the situation, Bush--and Congress-- rushed to pass the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act. No one had a chance to really review and evaluate these provisions. Instead, they were pushed through immediately so everyone could show the country that something grand was being done quickly. In my opinion, there were better ways to get something done. Bush could have tried to do those things while at the same time showing the country that progress was being made. For instance, even I have to say that Bush's tone and actions immediately after 9-11 were good. He could have continued to act like that and lead, and that could have been effective even in the absence of the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act. Instead, we were all told that these Acts were absolutely necessary. In other words, the PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security Act seem to have been hasty actions designed to show that Bush was doing something big in order to improve his political popularity instead of doing something effective.
Now, to be fair, this is not all Bush's fault. Every member of Congress who voted for these provisions--and that includes every single Democrat who did so--shares just as much, if not more, responsibility.
"You say we didn't need HSA because we already had a program in place, Operation Green Quest. Imagine the uproar after 9/11 if Bush had done nothing saying we already had a program to protect US citizens."
Operation Green Quest is just one example of what was already in place. It was a program that was created in the Bush administration in late October 2001 in response to 9-11. It was a highly effective program, and it was expanding. It was a multi-agency task force which showed that coordination and cooperation was possible without the Homeland Security Act. Bush could have cited the program as one of the things that had been done which was in fact helping to make us safer.
I thought I posted after your next to last post, but it doesn't show.
I actually agree with you concerning Clinton. He's a good example of how playing politics for one's own end can be devastating. Bush plays politics too, but to a lesser extent. I don't believe the average American would have accepted his citing extant agencies being able to provide the necessary protection. Under the circumstances he had to *do* something different, whether necessary or not.
"Now, to be fair, this is not all Bush's fault." Now we are getting somewhere.
"I don't believe the average American would have accepted his citing extant agencies being able to provide the necessary protection."
Perhaps you are right, but 1) Operation Green Quest was started on October 25, 2001, in direct response to 9-11, 2) it had a proven record of success, and 3) the Homeland Security Act was passed more than a year later.
"Now we are getting somewhere."
Don't get too excited. I was referring to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act. My concession that this was not all Bush's fault does not take away from my overall theme that Bush is not a leader, nor does it diminish the claims made in the post which started this thread.
Now here's something to make you at least smile demurely. "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" is running right now a story about wasteful spending by the Louisiana state agency responsible for protecting the New Orleans levees. I imagine this will be up on the MSNBC website.
I heard earlier today reports of state fiscal mismanagement of levee monies in Louisianna. May have been on that bastion of far right conservative radio, NPR *said tongue in cheek*. On another forum I've read posters from those in Katrina's path paint a much different picture. Before this is over, we may be surprised what comes out of the woodwork.
Post a Comment
<< Home