Personally, my scapegoat sense is tingling. From the looks of things, after they "abolish" it they're going to basically recreate it with a different name.
So many things went wrong on many different levels when the huricane quit. It seems like a real shame that instead of actually trying to learn from this the government is going to basically pay a bunch of money to shift the blame and keep the status quo.
The article was woefully vague. The only specific action they talked about was to increase funding.
The sad thing is, we won't know for sure how well all this has worked until the next disaster hits.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Oh, great. Bush is gonna visit again? Traffic is going to suck...
quote:It would also oversee efforts to protect critical infrastructure such as buildings, roads and power systems, as well as Homeland Security's medical officer.
...Homeland Security's medical officer is a building, road, or power system?
I also agree...it sounds like it's just going to change its initials from FEMA to NPRA. And if FEMA spells failure, I bet NPRA spells...negligance. Dammit, that doesn't sound as cool. That must be the reason for the name change.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, no, pearce, Homeland Security's medical officer is critical infrastructure other than buildings, roads, or power systems!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It COULD work.
The scapegoting has already been done, Brownie has been fired. He made a rather nice defense of himself on The Colbert Report of all places.
The reason they say they want to close it down is because it's simply too rife with problems to fix. Step one would be making sure that whatever the new agency is, it isn't a part of the Department of Homeland Security. Too much buearacracy is what helped kill FEMA. It needs to be an efficient, independent agency with a singular focus: Relief. It needs to be the sort of agency that can do what the army did just after the earthquake in San Francisco in 1906.
I'd agree with the report that the current administration is too riddled with holes to be very effective should another problem arise. I'd rather see something new built up from the ground than see FEMA continue on as it is. Besides, FEMA has existed for 200 years more or less, but not for that entire period AS FEMA. It changes every half century or so. Maybe it's time for the next version of FEMA to come about.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, no, pearce, Homeland Security's medical officer is critical infrastructure other than buildings, roads, or power systems!
Oh, how silly of me! Of course! When someone says "infrastructure," he may clearly be referring to Homeland Security's medical officer. Not a road, or anything. Pff, roads.
-pH
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Lets just wait and see where this goes.
As it stands now, the recommendation for the abolishment of FEMA is not a definitive course of action. I'm imagining that the vagueness of the reorginazation/reconstruction of FEMA into the NPRA was intentional, as it basically reconstitutes the agency into its pre-Homeland Defense structure, once again allowing for the direct flow of information and resources.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Homeland Security taking over another federal agency. Sounds like someone has been watching too much 24.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Homeland Security taking over another federal agency. Sounds like someone has been watching too much 24.
Having never watched 24, I guess I'm missing the joke...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Step one would be making sure that whatever the new agency is, it isn't a part of the Department of Homeland Security. Too much buearacracy is what helped kill FEMA. It needs to be an efficient, independent agency with a singular focus: Relief.
Like it used to be?
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
The strange thing is, out of all the various agencies and departments that the people in the government have created, a disaster relief agency, in theory (not practice) would be one of the ones I'd be most likely to support. Natural disasters happen and there may be times when federal assistance is needed.
(Oh wait, wasn't that supposed to be what the National Guard was for? National emergencies?)
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Actually, when the National Guard responds to disasters, they are under the control of the Governor of the State. It is for State Emergencies. When they are federalized, (like the Units is SWA) then they have a National mission.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The Department of Homeland Security should be abolished and rebuilt from scratch. From my readings, FEMA was continuously thwarted from doing the right thing during the Katrina aftermath by bureaucratic infighting and outright interference/sabotage by DoHC's Dubya-appointed administrators, most especially by HomelandSecuritySecretary MichaelChertoff.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: Step one would be making sure that whatever the new agency is, it isn't a part of the Department of Homeland Security. Too much buearacracy is what helped kill FEMA. It needs to be an efficient, independent agency with a singular focus: Relief.
Like it used to be?
In a word, yes.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I think this is nothing more than an attept at scapegoat. Abolish FEMA? Get real. They know there is no way in hell that FEMA will be disbanded and reformed...and even if some crazy twist happens and it's approved they know that it will take years to do, way after the hurricane seasons...
And of course when disaster strikes, because it will, they will claim that they knew better and it was because they weren't listened to that the disaster happened. Perfect fodder for election time.
I have great respect for FEMA, and it will take more than just one botched job (or the painting of a botched job) for me to approve of this. I'm ashamed of the Senators who called for this.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
When I read the thread title, my mind finished the phrase, "FEMA to be abolished" with "in a natural disaster of unprecedented proportions."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: I think this is nothing more than an attept at scapegoat. Abolish FEMA? Get real. They know there is no way in hell that FEMA will be disbanded and reformed...and even if some crazy twist happens and it's approved they know that it will take years to do, way after the hurricane seasons...
And of course when disaster strikes, because it will, they will claim that they knew better and it was because they weren't listened to that the disaster happened. Perfect fodder for election time.
I have great respect for FEMA, and it will take more than just one botched job (or the painting of a botched job) for me to approve of this. I'm ashamed of the Senators who called for this.
Regardless, FEMA needs some heavy reforms. There's too much red tape involved in the process, especially now that Chertoff can get in the way and muck everything up.
There were disaster agencies before FEMA, I'm guessing there will be new ones after it. Though quite frankly the national guard and army have always done a superbly efficient job of bringing relief and rescue to disaster areas and the people involved in them.
There's no reason why they can't start building a new, INDEPENDENT relief and disaster management agency while FEMA is still covering whatever might go wrong. When the new place is up and running, FEMA can be abolished and whoever worked there that is of use can be switched over to the new agency.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I have a hard time believing that there is going to be anyone with both enough power and enough of an attention span to actually oversee any kind of meaningful remake. In my opinion, it will probably end up just being the old FEMA with a new name and a few firings. Just enough to let the politicians say that the problem is solved.
Then again, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: Step one would be making sure that whatever the new agency is, it isn't a part of the Department of Homeland Security. Too much buearacracy is what helped kill FEMA. It needs to be an efficient, independent agency with a singular focus: Relief.
Like it used to be?
In a word, yes.
Could they just wave a wand and undo what they did? Sort of a Presidential "take-backs"?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Maybe it could be a state agency. After all, that wouldn't violate the 10th Amendment.
But if we'd relied on the state of LA and local governments in the Katrina disaster, well . . . actually, we did. And they decided not to evacuate. Or to let the National Guard in until days after the disaster.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
How long until local police and state highway patrol get to be inefficient, and Homeland Security takes that over as well?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
FEMA wasn't taken over by Homeland Security because it was efficient, it was made inefficient BECAUSE it was taken over by Homeland Security. I'm not saying that was the only thing that went wrong in the case of Katrina, but it was certainly one of the most counter productive problems.
kmb -
Making it an independent agency not subordinate to the Department of Homeland Security would be a huge step in the right direction. Other than that, FEMA can be fixed. Congress is actually fairly good at spotting inefficieny with their long drawn out reports (ironically). Their problem is that they never follow through with the recommended changes. Time is what is killing FEMA. It takes too long for decisions to get made, and there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Getting Chertoff's fat head out of there is step one, step two is to streamline the process to what it used to be back when FEMA was a well honed machine.
Sadly, we have to trust Congress to get that done for us.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"We have totally screwed up this agency. Now it doesn't work so we are forced to abolish it"
If I were more cynical, I would think this was a plan by Grover Norquist.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The general plan by neo"conservative"s for the federal government: screw things up so badly that they can't be fixed. And given the time that Republicans have been in control, they've been pretty efficient at achieving that goal.
[ April 28, 2006, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Could they just wave a wand and undo what they did? Sort of a Presidential "take-backs"?
see President Bush's explanation on classified information.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Good points on the need for a return to an independent FEMA. I agree it should return to how it used to be.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I know people who lost their entire homes who still haven't seen a dime from FEMA.
At the same time, people who lost absolutely nothing have been given a few thousand.