|
On 5 Sep 2005 02:52:46 -0700, "maff" <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:
Killed by Contempt
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/opinion/05krugman.html
By PAUL KRUGMAN
The government's lethal ineptitude in the Katrina disaster was a
consequence of ideological hostility to the very idea of using
government to serve the public good.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0905-28.htm
Published on Monday, September 5, 2005 by The New York Times
Killed by Contempt
by Paul Krugman
Each day since Katrina brings more evidence of the lethal ineptitude
of federal officials. I'm not letting state and local officials off
the hook, but federal officials had access to resources that could
have made all the difference, but were never mobilized.
Here's one of many examples: The Chicago Tribune reports that the
U.S.S. Bataan, equipped with six operating rooms, hundreds of hospital
beds and the ability to produce 100,000 gallons of fresh water a day,
has been sitting off the Gulf Coast since last Monday - without
patients.
Experts say that the first 72 hours after a natural disaster are the
crucial window during which prompt action can save many lives. Yet
action after Katrina was anything but prompt. Newsweek reports that a
"strange paralysis" set in among Bush administration officials, who
debated lines of authority while thousands died.
What caused that paralysis? President Bush certainly failed his test.
After 9/11, all the country really needed from him was a speech. This
time it needed action - and he didn't deliver.
But the federal government's lethal ineptitude wasn't just a
consequence of Mr. Bush's personal inadequacy; it was a consequence of
ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve
the public good. For 25 years the right has been denigrating the
public sector, telling us that government is always the problem, not
the solution. Why should we be surprised that when we needed a
government solution, it wasn't forthcoming?
Does anyone remember the fight over federalizing airport security?
Even after 9/11, the administration and conservative members of
Congress tried to keep airport security in the hands of private
companies. They were more worried about adding federal employees than
about closing a deadly hole in national security.
Of course, the attempt to keep airport security private wasn't just
about philosophy; it was also an attempt to protect private interests.
But that's not really a contradiction. Ideological cynicism about
government easily morphs into a readiness to treat government spending
as a way to reward your friends. After all, if you don't believe
government can do any good, why not?
Which brings us to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In my last
column, I asked whether the Bush administration had destroyed FEMA's
effectiveness. Now we know the answer.
Several recent news analyses on FEMA's sorry state have attributed the
agency's decline to its inclusion in the Department of Homeland
Security, whose prime concern is terrorism, not natural disasters. But
that supposed change in focus misses a crucial part of the story.
For one thing, the undermining of FEMA began as soon as President Bush
took office. Instead of choosing a professional with expertise in
responses to disaster to head the agency, Mr. Bush appointed Joseph
Allbaugh, a close political confidant. Mr. Allbaugh quickly began
trying to scale back some of FEMA's preparedness programs.
You might have expected the administration to reconsider its hostility
to emergency preparedness after 9/11 - after all, emergency management
is as important in the aftermath of a terrorist attack as it is
following a natural disaster. As many people have noticed, the failed
response to Katrina shows that we are less ready to cope with a
terrorist attack today than we were four years ago.
But the downgrading of FEMA continued, with the appointment of Michael
Brown as Mr. Allbaugh's successor.
Mr. Brown had no obvious qualifications, other than having been Mr.
Allbaugh's college roommate. But Mr. Brown was made deputy director of
FEMA; The Boston Herald reports that he was forced out of his previous
job, overseeing horse shows. And when Mr. Allbaugh left, Mr. Brown
became the agency's director. The raw cronyism of that appointment
showed the contempt the administration felt for the agency; one can
only imagine the effects on staff morale.
That contempt, as I've said, reflects a general hostility to the role
of government as a force for good. And Americans living along the Gulf
Coast have now reaped the consequences of that hostility.
The administration has always tried to treat 9/11 purely as a lesson
about good versus evil. But disasters must be coped with, even if they
aren't caused by evildoers. Now we have another deadly lesson in why
we need an effective government, and why dedicated public servants
deserve our respect. Will we listen?
Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the
Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International
Affairs at Princeton University.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
