Politics Who's Gonna Win?

The US is facing a situation were we can no longer act as if there are unlimited resources. We have to prioritize. If government is to do what is really supposed to do, we do not have the luxury to do those things that are optional. Ryan acts like the adult who says if we face disaster, we may need to cut expenses elsewhere. If you are the adult in your household it is what you would do, it is what I do. It is not easy or a role that I like, who does.
--- merged: Oct 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM ---

FEMA does not need some special guru to run it, they just need a good principled manager. I could run FEMA, you could run it - I don't agree with your point.

The fraud involved with FEMA is unacceptable. After hurricane Katrina I remember reading a report that about 1 in 3 claims for assistance was fraudulent. In my experience from 1994, time after time I heard people bragging about how they benefited from FEMA rather than simply being helped to get their lives back together, it was a joke. I imagine FEMA does some good, but I also bet a real audit would reveal major problems. when I give money to charity and that charity proves to be inefficient, I stop giving money to them, don't you?

 

Really, ace. You dont need a professional with knowledge and understanding of an organization's mission, roles and responsibilities?

Now I understand why you supported Palin even with her questionable principles.

If you are concerned about fraud, start with the Dept. of Defense.

 

Now that I have recovered from the revelation that you dont need a qualified professional at the top, on the issue of fraud:

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 includes numerous provisions -- see Title V: Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.

So your better way -- Anyone can run FEMA and it should just give money to the states and let the states tell the FEMA on-site professionals what to do, even if the state officials are in over their head and dont have the experience or knowledge on how best to respond to a major disaster, the likes of which they have never experienced.

 

So, we agree? It is a matter of priorities, after all.

 

That's your answer to the question? What on earth are you talking about?

Again, how does this answer the question? Your response is totally irrelevant.

So you would be in favor of raising state taxes to cover the costs of disaster relief. Those who don't want to pay more in taxes would have the option of moving to a state which is less disaster prone. First of all I don't see tax increases happening in red states no matter what the reason as long as Republican candidates seek to get elected. Secondly, why is the cost of the disaster your first consideration in who should provide disaster relief? When do you begin to consider who is best equipped to respond to the immediate concerns of those in the disaster area?

FEMA, under the leadership of capable directors provides effective response. Could it be better? There's little in this world which can't be improved upon. Can it maintain it's effectiveness with a smaller budget? Probably not. Could individual states and localities provide the same services, be as effective as FEMA, and do it more cheaply? It's possible that some could but then you have to wonder, if they are capable, why are they still calling in FEMA when disaster strikes in their states?

Why should we look to change what is working? Where's the point in pushing disaster management onto the states simply because "we" don't like it the hands of the federal government? Fraudulent claims were made during the Katrina catastrophe due in large part to a failure of management but also due to the sheer number of victims who needed help. That some victims might have been paid more than they deserved is no reason to claim the entire agency is riddled with fraud, incompetence, or wasteful disregard, especially in light of all those the agency helped during an unprecedented disaster. Can you cite any recent occurrences of fraud, incompetence or waste?

I can argue that FEMA's primary role is not in doling out money to disaster victims anyway. A good definition:

"Federal Emergency Management Agency plans, organizes and manages response to catastrophic emergencies such as flood, hurricane, biohazard, etc. that are large enough in scope to exceed local response capabilites and / or of 'national' consequence".

How should the Fed govt minimize exposure in these areas? Should they prevent homeowners from rebuilding in flood zones once a flood has occurred or building in areas prone to tornadoes? I think that would a huge overstep of govt authority. Besides, insurance companies provide the bulk of money used for rebuilding. Shouldn't it be left to them to make it difficult to build in disaster prone areas?

 

Yes. In theory, a state like New York is relatively wealthy, the people in a sate like Mississippi, relatively poor, should not have to pay for the needs of those in New York. So I would suggest New York, a state that has the wealth to pay for the natural disasters that occur in the state prepare for those events. Another way to look at it is I would send money to help a country like Haiti, because it is a poor country, more so than I would send money to help a wealthy nation like Japan. I think Japan is better able to handle a disaster. Yes, you can twist and contort what I am saying, but I think you get it.

In addition, when we look at aid going to certain places, like Haiti for example, there is an issue of the help getting to people who need it as opposed to the money going to enrich those in power. I think it is a tragedy when food and water is sent to help people and the help sits in a warehouse going to waste. This has an impact on how I would want resources allocated as well. In the context of disasters in the US there is often a fine line between legitimate need and those who would take advantage of the good will of others. Again, you can twist and contort this, but I would be surprised if you do not have the same concerns.
--- merged: Oct 30, 2012 at 4:46 PM ---

Leaders define an organization's mission, roles and responsibilities. No special training is needed to do what is the right thing to do, and to make sure it gets done well. The problem with many bureaucrats is they lose a basic view of simple common sense. You don't need a fucking PHd, to know not to give money to people who have not been harmed in a disaster!

And you should understand why I do not support pseudo-intelectuals, the kind of people who think a PHd is needed to do what is right.

It would be on my list - no government expenditure is off limits in the context of making sure they spend money appropriately. What is your point? I agree there is too much waste, fraud and abuse in government spending! This is what the Tea Party is all about - regardless of party.
--- merged: Oct 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM ---

Well, I think the roles of the Federal US government are narrowly defined. We have more than enough to do what the government is required to do. The problem is when the government is limited from doing what is required to do because it is doing thing it should not be involved in, i.e. bailing out GM, national health-care, etc. We generally agree, but there are some qualifications.

 

Ace, I said nothing about a PhD as a requirement, but practical experience and training to understand emergency preparedness and response.

And, Ace...the mission, role and responsibilities of the organization are defined by Congress.

But perhaps you think the manager of a department store shoe department could be the director of the FBI.

 

I know who said what. Phd is illustrative of specialized training. It is a subset of what you specified. I used "Phd" as a form of short-hand to illustrate over-qualification, or a person in the context used who is long on formal education and short on common sense. And since I feel I need to say it, many Phd's have both formal education and common sense and most are good people. - Gee whiz, why did I need to write that???

They surely did not define a culture of fraud, if it exists within FEMA - again I would love to see a detailed audit.

Depends on the individual, are you suggesting that for example a young person working by day in a shoe store and going to law school at night could not lead the FBI at some point? If the person has the mental capacity of course they can do it! You bark up the wrong tree on this issue - I know many brilliant people without formal education who can run circles around those with years and years of formal education. Leading people and organizations requires skills that many have naturally-this is different than brain surgery or even operating a piece of heavy machinery. But even in these kinds of categories the training will come easier for some than for others - and the book knowlegde does not always translate to actually doing the job.

 

Right, Ace!

Aguy with ten years of front line experience as a volunteer firefighter/ems followed by another ten years as director of a state emergency response agency and hands on experience in responding to major disasters is an over qualified pseudo-intellectual.

 

Surely it's down to the people to decide what the government should be involved in? Some things work better when people work together for a common good, as a single nation. Other things don't.

The principle of subsidiarity is a good one, but there are matters that are better handled centrally. In the case of disaster relief, it seems to me that it makes sense to pool resources. Of course, if the central resource is simply handing out cash that would not apply. However, that isn't, as I understand it, the core remit.

I sometimes wonder whether people who make these arguments would rather split up the nation and treat each state as a nation in its own right. Now, let's say that happened
- would they then be arguing that the State is doing too much that should be at County level? Probably. Why do they chant "USA, USA" if they only identify locally?

 

Trump is sad as well...that Obama missed the noon deadline for his "blockbuster, game-changing" offer to donate $5 m to Obama's charity of choice in return for releasing his college transcripts.



A sad day for America, indeed.

 

The Redskin Rule:

Since the Redskins moved to DC in 1937, there have been 18 presidential elections. In 17 of those, the following rule applied:
If the Redskins win their last home game before the election, the party that won the previous election wins the election two days later. If the Redskins lose, the challenging party's candidate wins.

The only exception was 2004, when the Redskins lost to the Packers which meant Kerry should have won.

Sunday, the Redskins play Ace's Carolina Panthers. ....sweet victory!