Financial and Political Challenges for FEMA
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-09-01/financial-and-political-challenges-fema
In the wake of Hurricane Irene, Northeasterners are dealing with record floods. Hundreds of thousands of people are still without power. And throughout the region, at least 45 people have died. Hurricane Irene's impact will be felt for months and years to come. And it has also put the Federal Emergency Management Agency back in the spotlight. Representative Ron Paul renewed demands for the agency to shut down. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called for any future FEMA funding to be offset by spending cuts. A look at the fiscal and political challenges facing FEMA.
Guests
Ed O'Keefe
author of The Federal Eye blog and federal government reporter for The Washington Post.
Dan Mitchell
senior fellow at the Cato Institute
Jane Bullock
former chief of staff, FEMA
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Independent U. S. senator from Vermont
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
It's ironic that a state like Vermont rarely requires emergency funds while people in other states build in areas that are prone to natural disasters and need to be bailed out much more frequently. But when we could use a bit of a hand, politicians from states that have taken huge amounts of federal emergency aid want to pull that hand back. Wow.
Shawn
Chester, VT.
Part 1 of 2
Diane Rehm Show should step up to the plate and clean up the mess OnPoint / WBUR has created last week on Aug 25th . We want a show with Architect Richard Gage – a full hour show; BECAUSE IT IS DARN IMPORTANT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND THE WORLD AND PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING SUCH A SHOW.
http://onpoint.wbur.org
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/08/25/conspiracy-theories-and-the-sept-11-t...
Here is what they did in Boston’s #1 NPR Station (second biggest NPR in the country):
The Host Honorable Tom Ashbrook has personally promised that he would bring Architect Richard Gage as the Guest about Why There Should Be a New Investigation About The Collapses of “THREE” Towers on 9/11 – and Why The Media Has Been Ignoring 9/11 Truth Movement for a darn TEN years.
Part 2 of 2
Upon more than three years of constant demand, The Management of WBUR decided to tackle the issue and created an OnPoint program for this topic …. WHILE TOM ASHBROOK WAS ON VACATION last week. Tom Ashbrook was back on Monday. He did two regular live shows; and then now three days of repeat Rebroadcasts (Hmmmm, internal fighting????)
OMG … what a program it was, non-journalistic biased crap ever on NPR.
Introduction: 10 Years after 9/11 Why Don’t the members of 9/11 Truth Movement go away.
The Show was supposed to be 9/11 Truth Movement. It opened up with two guests against the Movement. These two clowns have said whatever lie they desired, never challenged and the one hour show ended with their calculated and rehearsed garbage as closing statements.
Kevin Ryan, yet … a former government employee who was fired for objecting to the lies during the 9/11 Investigation, member of the 9/11 Truth Movement was a call-in guest for 5 min 10 seconds. His net airtime was 3 min 38 seconds. During his connect time, “time constraints” was mentioned three time.
As a result…. Normally the show gets average 80 comments on the web for an average subject. For this garbage show … there are now 3100 comments, mostly protest comments and lately about derailment and arguing, etc.
The Bottom Line: NPR Owes us, The Public, a full show with Richard Gage. Or, else … we will contact you again and again and again and again and again.
Make it Happen!
I notice Cantor wants hurricane funds held up.
I did not notice that he objected to funds for the earthquake in VA. Or that he & McDonnell have turned down funds for tornados.
He's a hypocrite. let him turn down money for his own state before he screws the rest of us.
I cannot believe anyone can support Dan Mitchell's position. I know you want a voice from each side of the issue, but the Cato Institute's position on these types of issues is so extreme as to be irrelevant. YOU DON'T DO WHAT CATO WANTS IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS. . . PERIOD.
What is truly needed, especially in light of the obvious changes to the world's climate, is a National Disaster Insurance Program covering ALL of the possible natural disasters.
(Eric Cantor should offset FEMA costs by cutting his own staffing budget.)
Shawn,
You'll notice those same politicians come from states which take all the time or which like VA are highly dependent on federal jobs.
What is a FEMA camp? Where are they? What are they "being" used for or what is their intended use?
Diane I have survived several hurricanes here on the gulf coast and wittnessed Katrina up close. We need to remember that Louisiana's National Guard was delpoyed in Iraq during the Katrina. This does not forgive the total lack of planning on state or local authorites part but it show the integration of national and local resources. We are all in this together.
I wish politicians would stop grandstanding and using disasters to score points. BOTH sides own a piece of the truth: the federal government must stand ready to help states coping with natural disasters, and state officials need to recognize that Uncle Sam is not the answer to everything. The Katrina disaster was the result of local officials who had no plan whatsoever AND federal officials who did not do their jobs. It was not an ideological point, but a human disaster--and the flooding from Hurricane Irene is the same thing on a lesser scale.
I get furious when I hear New Englanders preaching about "what our nation is," as if only they know, and when I hear Cato Institute people using natural disasters to score rhetorical points. A pox on both their houses. The public wants these guys to stop arguing with each other and get to work!
I think the issue isn't so much whether federal disaster relief is *appropriate* as much as the question is whether it is within their current capability to provide it. Like so many other things, the government is asking or being asked "should we _____" while the question "Can we____" is constantly ignored. The simple fact is, the government is in financial difficulties and should be allocating funds to paying its debts first, and charity second, just like individuals should. As a Christian and as a compassionate individual, this is a hard thing to say --- but it's COMMON SENSE to say that you can't spend what you don't have. That's how we all got into this mess in the first place. If the government is in debt, it can't afford to buy anything that isn't essential. Neither can individuals, frankly. I would give my last dime to help someone who needed help... but I wouldn't go to the bank and sign my house away and BORROW money to turn around and give to the needy. That may be an uncharitable attitude, but it makes good financial sense, and NOT living that way is why we have so much trouble making ends meet as a nation already.
Mr. Mitchell
The world has CHANGED since FDR and Harry Truman, Would even the CATO Institute be able to do business the way business had to be done in those periods (no cell phones, I-pads, internet, etc.) And if a STATE is devastated, and wiped out, such as Vermont and most of its roads -- Are we supposed to just LEAVE those citizens in their circumstances?
Wow. Dissolve FEMA.
That is soooo cute at this point in the narrative.
Even after all that Grover Norquist, George W. Bush, "Heckuva Job" Brownie, and (since Inauguration Day 2009) just about every Republican, all it takes is a hurricane--actually, didn't it come onto land as a tropical storm?--to slap humanity a good one and remind people that governance matters, and putting people in there who give a damn about actually making it work makes a difference.
So much different than Katrina, right down to the Bushies' preemptive PR push to drown out Gov. Landreiu and Mayor Nagin (in lieu of their FEMA being prepared) that it isn't even funny.
I think that the congressional districts of those representatives who do not support disaster aid should not apply for it. The states whose senators do not support disaster aid should likewise not apply for it. If they think that their states can handle it all by themselves, then let them. Their refusals to accept aid should be broadcast by the media so that the federal government and FEMA are not blamed for the lack of disaster aid.
Insurance for natural disaster recovery should be mandatory for ALL real property with risk rating and premium collection included with the real estate taxation process.
This would make the cost of constructing and maintaining building construction and establishing residence in high risk zones reflect the real cost of the activity in high risk areas.
The current approach of making flood insurance, for example, voluntary has the real result of transferring the cost of natural disaster risk to the taxpayers who are subsidizing that cost.
Worse yet, the high risk causes the market value of those areas to be depressed which attracts residents that are least able to pay for recovery.
This would include all forms of disaster, probably a super-set of those covered by FEMA.
So how much will it cost Joe Taxpayer when EVERY state has to prepare EVERY year for a 50 year disaster? It's an economy of scale - the Fed Gov. can count on a need nearly every year, so supplies and equipment are MUCH more economically used.
Having worked in Disaster Recovery, I think it is important to note that much of the expertise that is engaged in recovery are not FEMA or Army Corps, but goverment contractors hired by FEMA and the states. One of the biggest issue that occurs after a major disaster is that the skilled professionals in the area of the disaster are often themselves recovering. As mentioned Mitigation is a major agenda of FEMA and at times local professionals do not have the technical expertise to rebuild and design buildings and infrastructure to mitigate future damage. Bringing in professionals (engineers, architect, planners, etc) from national firms with experience in other disasters is a necessary step to limit citizens from recreating the same mistakes that allowed the damages they are rebuilding.
A Rational Discussion with Senator Sanders sounds like oxymoron.
I'm sure he'd like the United States to appear as laughing stock to the rest of the world, that is until they need our military. Just look at Libya.
Whether we do it "from behind" or out in front, the world just wants to hold our coat and then complain when we're not "there for them."
Of course there needs to be some coordination for large disasters.
Will it be political?
There were politics between the L.A. governor and the N.O. mayor during Katrina.
The funds come from the Federal Government. There is always a carrying charge added (a large one it turns out) when money goes to the Federal Government. The recipients
It will always be political. That's a tragedy that might make the rest of the world laugh...or cry.
Should it be political...absolutely not.
Is there enough money for FEMA to use for this coordination?
Probably not.
Should we fund FEMA to a higher level by increasing our taxes?
Senator Coburn just "discovered" trillions of dollars in waste and abuse in Federal Funds.
Do we really want to send more money to this money burning bureaucracy?
If FEMA needs a higher funding level, shouldn't we find those wasted dollars, close down the agencies responsible, and send the money to FEMA and other needs?
The gentleman from the CATO Institute may be right or wrong. The bottom line is that our governments, Federal State, Municipal, are all horribly corrupt. Money is wasted, patronage is rampant, and politics makes poor decisions far worse.
We must, as a citizenry, fix that or else we will no longer have a free society.
--R
Having worked in Disaster Recovery, I think it is important to note that much of the expertise that is engaged in recovery are not FEMA or Army Corps, but government contractors hired by FEMA and the states. One of the biggest issue that occurs after a major disaster is that the skilled professionals in the area of the disaster are often themselves recovering. As mentioned Mitigation is a major agenda of FEMA and at times local professionals do not have the technical expertise to rebuild and design buildings and infrastructure to mitigate future damage. Bringing in professionals (engineers, architect, planners, etc) from national firms with experience in other disasters is a necessary step to limit citizens from recreating the same mistakes that allowed the damages they are rebuilding.
Having worked in Disaster Recovery, I think it is important to note that much of the expertise that is engaged in recovery are not FEMA or Army Corps, but government contractors hired by FEMA and the states. One of the biggest issue that occurs after a major disaster is that the skilled professionals in the area of the disaster are often themselves recovering. As mentioned Mitigation is a major agenda of FEMA and at times local professionals do not have the technical expertise to rebuild and design buildings and infrastructure to mitigate future damage. Bringing in professionals (engineers, architect, planners, etc) from national firms with experience in other disasters is a necessary step to limit citizens from recreating the same mistakes that allowed the damages they are rebuilding.
I am so tired of hearing politicians talk against federal involvement in the individual states, when they have been eager to take that same assistance when their state needed it in the past. Indeed, Governor Perry requested from Obama, and was granted, federal emergency assistance a couple of years ago.
And on another note, they don't want federal control of what they consider their 'rights' (guns, for example), but they are more than happy, in fact insistant, that the federal government should impose THEIR religious beliefs on the entire country.
There's no logic in their thought process.
Why did Dan Mitchell get invited on this show? His comments regarding getting rid of FEMA (and HUD, and the Departments of Education and Energy) are offensive and so extreme that they would be funny if people weren't beginning to take such thoughts seriously. These agencies are made up of people-- hard-working, well-educated, tax-paying people--who do a good job and who do the best they can in the legislative environment that is provided to them. It's the uneducated, talking heads like Mitchell and a large proportion of Congress who would rather listen to the "Joe Plumbers" than the real experts when it comes to creating legislation.
I second the comments of the caller who said that we are still a wealthy nation. We are not "broke" or "broken" and we still have a strong government.
What Cantor & this man want is to destroy the "United" States of America. The benefit of FEMA is that natural disasters are unpredictable so, a federal approach can bring resources to bear as needed. If left to the states, one state could have a huge reserve for disasters and never use it, while a neighboring state that gets hit by more than the average number of disasters in one time period can have completely depleted its reserve.
FEMA is part of our shared enterprise as a nation. We help each other in times of need. We do not say every citizen for his or herself. The latter view is, by the way, incredibly un-Christian.
Shawn Cunningham is right on point: The people of Vermont have been relatively better off in terms of disaster, so their taxes have in prior years been used by other states. Now,VT has an unusual disaster situation and politicians from states that have received oodles of FEMA assistance in the past want to renege on our social contract.
The gentleman who wants to eliminate FEMA should read the preamble to the Constitution. One of the reason the United States was created was to "...promote the general Welfare...." Doesn't that mean that the federation should help the individual states?
Kathleen
Am I the only one who thinks Dan Mitchell is getting wayyyy too much airtime?
Please someone talk to him about the failure of austerity in Europe at this point in the business cycle.
Each state is not an entity with a unique and preset group of citizens. People move from one state to another all the time. So the politicians are working not just for the present citizens, but also future citizens, who can come from the next state or from the other side of the country.
Excellent comment. The last major hurricane we endured here found that the first thing destroyed was the new purlic safety facility and the related communications equipment necessary to organize a response. States do not have the resources to cover every potential disaster. Cannot be done. Cato wants something akin to no government and everyone for themselves. Haiti did not do well with that model.
The US government can borrow at negative interest rates. That means the rest of the world will PAY US to spend on capital projects. "Fiscal conservatives" should acknowledge this reality. Every second arguing about $3bb in deficit spending for OBVIOUSLY positive net present value projects like rebuilding is a COMPLETE waste of political breath that should be spent on actual problems like entitlement reform.
I have listened with some dismay to some of the comments this morning bashing FEMA. I believe that recent and distant history has been forgotten - or conveniently ignored by those who want to make some political statement.
FEMA has performed admirably for the disasters that have occurred during the Obama administration. Hurricane Irene in progress, but I recall high marks being given by local officials to FEMA for their initial response after the tornados in Alabama.
Regarding Hurricane Katrina, the flooding of New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen. The problem with the levees was known and was being addressed, but as I recall, the Bush administration pulled the funding from the Corps of Engineers for levee reconstruction after 9/11 to fund the new Department of Homeland Security. And then one adds the inexperience and incompetence of the Bush appointee/crony as Director of Homeland Security and the disaster is complete. President Obama did not go down that road and assembled his team based upon competence and the result shows.
Now going back a bit in history to Herbert Hoover when he was Secretary of Commerce. Hoover also embraced the concept of local and charitable response to deal with natural disasters. But the flood of the Mississippi River (1927?) was so vast and damaging that he realized that the federal government must step in. Of course, Republicans of that era hated him for it. (Sound familiar?)
David Pillsbury
When your guest referrs to President Truman plan.....where was Bush when he did not fund the wars........now we have all the debt and no one to raise taxes to pay for our past debt..
This Mitchell guy from the Cato people is so far out in left field you have to look for his alternative agenda as there is absolutely no logic in wiping out our national disaster services. Does he want to weaken the US? More likely as soon as he gets rid of the agencies he will reform them all again, in a way that he can better fund his buddies.
Also, if we are not going to provide aid for ourselves, what are we doing providing aid for other countries? Mitchell is so far out there - nothing but good entertainment for the ludicrous.
The port of New Orleans is an essential part of our infrastructure for transport and energy, crazy to take that out of federal realm, crazy.