FEMA Should Be Shut Down
Far from having assisted in the crisis, FEMA actively made it worse by urging rescue departments not to assist. It prevented private relief organizations from having access. It stopped the Red Cross from delivering food, barred morticians, and even ignored a Navy ship with a 600-bed hospital. How much better off would the Gulf Coast be if FEMA had never existed? Much! FULL ARTICLE
Comments (16)
A very good article in a series of great responses, by the authors at mises.org, to the hurricane relief efforts.
In particular, I thought this paragraph touched on something not often stated:
"More importantly, FEMA's generosity with other people's money discourages families and other private networks from forming and reaching out to help each other in times of need. Household B above would have less of an incentive to search out family or friends when FEMA is making funds available. The result is a weaker social fabric and greater dependence of the State."
I wish that Mr. Westley had perhaps articulated this point more fully. People now will react against anit-federal statements, saying "Look, I don't care where the help comes from so long as they get it!" While I seek immediate relief for the victims (and have myself given to charity towards this end), I can't ignore the long term damage done to our nation's social fabric when we rely on federal programs for charitable purposes.
Published: September 12, 2005 7:44 AM
Just another example of how the state seeks to erode all the traditional societal bonds and replace them with itself. Religion, family, and private charity are all displaced by government programs and organizations that re-distribute wealth and provide a false sense of security. Great article.
Published: September 12, 2005 9:04 AM
I wrote this item recently on another Mises.org thread but it is probably more relevant here.
"It's fascinating to read some of the history of FEMA. Despite widespread criticism of FEMA simply for being hosted within the Dept. of Homeland Security, this org chart location was really a return home for the agency.
FEMA began life in the Cold War where it recommended citizens counter nuclear attack with "duck and cover". In New Orleans, it's first reaction seemed to recommend citizens turn into ducks!
After the 1990 Loma Prieta California earthquake, Congressman Mineta concluded FEMA "could screw up a two-car parade." Following Hurrican Andrew FEMA took about 3 days to get into action. George H W Bush is said to have suffered electoral consequences for the poor showing of FEMA in Florida. Under Clinton, and following a scathing post-Andrew GAO review that , the agency seemed to have got it's act together, especially under the chairmanship of Clinton appointee James Lee Witt.
That the application of a GAO blow torch to the agency would create pressure for improvement should not surprise Austrians.
"In the fall of 1992, Senator Barbara Mikulski, then the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over FEMA's budget, told the General Accounting Office (GAO) that it had to suggest real improvements for FEMA or else the GAO itself would see its budget slashed. Officials took the threat from Mikulski, whose subcommittee had jurisdiction over the GAO's budget as well, very seriously. "This isn't a member of Congress we were eager to upset," says GAO administrator Stan Czerwinski. "She wanted this fixed and she's a very key player in Congress for us, and we were there to help her."
This quote is from an article at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.franklin.html that describes FEMA during it's "Phoenix revival" under Clinton, ...but the agency's apparent subsequent collapse back to a more normal level of incompetence really tells us much more about how the political/bureaucratic boom-bust cycle really works.."
Also:
"FEMA's mission is ...vote buying. James Bovard talks about "FEMA's Snow Job".. [Bovard empirically details some cases of FEMA aid crowding out local efforts].., and Jason Leopold talks about Bush's use of FEMA to rescue his campaign from electoral disaster here. No wonder FEMA's disaster relief performance is poor. Maybe they should rename it the Federal Electoral Manipulation Agency so no one gets confused!"
The politicised mess just doesn't happen, it's systemic and history has shown that attempts at reform just don't stick. Time to consider alternatives!
Published: September 12, 2005 9:14 AM
Has anybody considered that the various failures of governmental action in the Katrina disaster may be an American phenomenon? May I remind the readers that German cities in WWII suffered much greater devastation and vastly greater loss of life and yet went back into action the day following the attack! There was no looting, no raping, no setting of fires, no mayhem! Relief efforts started the very same night and everybody helped. Troops were not present, civil law and order was maintained on a voluntary basis.
Could the presence of flooding explain the difference in response? I think not. There was an
attack near Gelsenkirchen if I remember correctly, where a bomb, of which the English were very proud, busted a dam drowning thousands of civilians downstream. There was no breach of discipline following this disaster and rescue efforts started without delay and without a corporation like Walmart providing help.
Something to think about!
Published: September 12, 2005 11:03 AM
Calling it an American phenomenon doesn't explain anything. What does "American" mean in this context anyways? Now, if you mean that perhaps the American political machine has succeeded in destroying the social fabric to the extent that it has produced an infantile, irresponsible, overly dependent and often violent population, then maybe you're on to something.
Published: September 12, 2005 11:12 AM
This particular mess is a New Orleans phenomenon. However, in a broader sense, such civil disorder is an urban phenomenon. Widespread looting and shooting did not occur in Mississippi and did not occur in the Florida hurricanes of last year.
Published: September 12, 2005 12:10 PM
FEMA director Michael Brown's behaviour is nothing short of shocking and appaling in regard to how he dealt with hurricane Katrina's impact onNew Orleans. All kinds of help was ready and available and he turned back the help . . . . how could something so utterly deplorable have happened in America ????
Chris, closing down FEMA would be the least that the U.S. Gov't could do . . . out of respect for Americans.
Harry Valentine
Published: September 12, 2005 12:30 PM
oh don't worry. we'll see an even bigger and stronger FEMA after all of this.
Published: September 12, 2005 2:03 PM
After reading the article I believe Mr. Westley would be better off if he stayed with economics, something he may have a better grasp on. I am not here to defend Mr. Brown but the rule is that you need to fend for yourself for 72 to 96 hours after the hurricane comes ashore. The mayor and governor are the main obstacles in this storm! Living in the southeast for the last 40 years I have been through a few of these. I have not once asked FEMA for a thing. If you are a ward of the state you will remain one. People could have gone another 11 miles and been on dry land instead of remaining at the Super Dome or the Convention Center. The problem too many people want to blame someone else instead of taking responsibility for their own actions.
Published: September 12, 2005 3:59 PM
The emergency comes and the head of emergencies quits. Another day in the life of government.
Published: September 12, 2005 4:22 PM
Interesting article, but the vitriol is being directed at the wrong government. Well, given that Libs hate all government, some of the overall nastiness is expected. However, no mention is given to the utter, unabashed and breathtaking incompetence of the Mayor of NOLA and the Governor of LA.
Is it possible to find two more absolutely unsuitable people to cope with disaster in the free world....outside of a mental institution, that is?
When the Mayor gets the heck outta Dodge, but leaves the buses in the water, whose backside is he covering? Not the citizens, for certain.
When the Governor refuses to accept help from the Feds, and then takes petty potshots at the folks there to help, who is she seeking to protect? Looks like her sinking political career.
Having lived in Florida for nearly two decades, under both liberal and conservative administrations - both state and local - we're smart enough (trained, actually) to look locally first and then nationally - later, much later - for help. Apparently when storms hit FLA - as they're wont to do - we know that help comes from within first. Our pals in NOLA expect the world to come to their door and yet do nothing themselves.
Sounds like it wasn't economic poverty that caused the most trouble in the Big Easy....it looks like intellectualy poverty was the major culprit.
Published: September 12, 2005 5:35 PM
Ross: Are you arguing both that FEMA should not be shut down and also that people should not expect to benefit from it when disaster strikes? Why not shut it down? If we do, we can save ourselves some waste, on the one hand, and on the other, potentially disabuse people of the delusion that FEMA is there to save them in times of this sort of disaster.
Published: September 12, 2005 5:35 PM
I found your article spot on. FEMA is one more example of the misuse of government and its inability to assist the citizenry.
However while many are under the belief that FEMA will grow, and it certainly will, I fear the real threat will come from the military who will seek to take over the agency. Since the inception of USNORTHCOM, the military has been moving to take over DHS. I say this not in some bizarre Dr. Strangelove paranoia but rather the military sees weakness and seeks to correct the situation. Most military support the federal government status quo. Our military (the folks on the ground), while not perfect, have been doing great work since 9/11. However, for the military to take over DHS, the disaster response and humanitarian lead is a recipe for tyranny.
I agree with Mr. Westley, cut the bad branches off of the vine now. End FEMA and please keep the military out of internal issues. Let the private sector and the States handle the situation
Published: September 12, 2005 8:47 PM
I can't be sure what incidents this article is referring to, but several of the anecdotes contradict known facts.
The Red Cross and Salvation Army were turned back from the conventions center and the Superdome several times, each time by city officials. There was no ignored Navy ship; if you're talking about Krugman's claim, you should know better than to believe a word he says. The USS Baatan was on the scene before the hurricane, battened down as approriate for surviving a hurricane without needless risk to life, and began rescue operations by helicopter as soon as the hurricane conditions receded.
I don't know about the mortician problem; haven't heard about it. I'm prepared to believe that it's 100% FEMA's fault, and I'm also prepared to believe that FEMA's a disaster that should be shut down along with the rest of the "welfare" state. But I try not to do so on the basis of false anecdotes.
Published: September 12, 2005 9:06 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=Z2EBJSTDDLIUDQFIQMFCNAGAVCBQYJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/09/13/do1302.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/09/13/ixportal.html
Published: September 13, 2005 3:57 AM
Here are a few thoughts inspired by this discussion thread, thrown out almost at random....
* There is a sense in which this is a unique American problem. This is not to say that disaster relief efforts in other countries are perfect, although there are other countries that often (not always) do this sort of thing better.
The US political & economic system are largely unique. The US combines a federal division of responsibilities and a strong legal tradition against using the military in civil affairs role. Australia and Canada are also federal systems however in overall population size and economic size, there is nothing that compares to the US, except maybe "the EU" or Russia. In both Australia and Canada, perhaps due to their different histories, the political aversion to using the military for civil purposes, e.g. in the Coast Guard role or in forest fire fighting does not exist. At the same time as both states are relatively minor military powers and do not at present maintain military forces of the same size as the US, even in per capita terms, they probably have less need for a US style civil/military firewall anyhow.
* On top of this the US federal public administration tradition relies less on full time civil servants at the top and more on political appointees than do (say for example) Westminster system nation-states. Having political appointees running a permanent disaster relief organisation in a competitive democratic system almost guarantees that funding will be diverted to pork barreling and vote buying rackets.
* The fact that there are a range of possible government based solutions does not mean that private solutions should necessarily be ruled out.. or vice versa. Austrians should have something useful to say and insights to offer even if full privatisation (itself partly defended on ethical and non-utilitarian grounds) is not on the political horizon at present.
* My guess is that under an anarcho-capitalist system insurance companies, being in the risk pooling business, would be the most probable agencies for disaster relief. That these same agencies would also play a role in non-state defense services would also be a likely development. Also "defense" on the market would probably have a larger "civil defense" component than government defense strategies which are mainly oriented to protecting the state leadership and the military itself. Maybe this speculation provides some ideas for real world reform of the current statist system, on the other hand the risk of statist military encroachment on dwindling private rights may make this a real world risk.
* This brings us back to the Rothbard "public library" argument.
"..(L)ibertarians who might be sound in the remote reaches of high theory, are so devoid of common sense and out of touch with the concerns of real people (who, for example, walk the streets, use the public libraries, and send their kids to public schools) that they unfortunately wind up discrediting both themselves (which is no great loss) and libertarian theory itself.
What then is the second, and far preferable, theory of how to run government operations, within the goals for cutting the budget and ultimate privatization? Simply, to run it for the designed purpose (as a school, a thoroughfare, a library, etc.) as efficiently and in as business-like a manner as possible. These operations will never do as well as when they are finally privatized; but in the meantime, that vast majority of us who live in the real world will have our lives made more tolerable and satisfying."
Disaster relief coordination may be another example.
Published: September 14, 2005 2:26 AM