In comments to this post below Sarah wonders why I'm calling for the resgination of federal executives but not local executives. I actually do think there were major failures at the local level, and that these probably ought to result in resignations, but there are a couple of qualitative differences. There were actually two catastrophes here: one was the hurricane itself, and the other was the lack of an appropriate response. Much death and destrction was wrought by the hurricane, and a lot of that might have been prevented with a better emergency plan and better execution -- this was largely the fault of the local executives, although there is also some evidence that the federal government failed to provide appropriate funding, declare a state of emergency in the appropriate locations, etc. Perhaps some of these failures can be forgiven because of the extremely low probability (see this Tyler Cowen post) of these events, and the accompanying difficulties for allocating public funding via the political system.
The other catastrophe -- the failure to respond -- was different in a couple senses. It happened over a much longer period of time, which should have effectively eliminated the problems mentioned above with low probability events -- after a few hours (and certainly no more than a day) of cable news reportage it should have been clear to crisis professionals what was happening and what was going to happen. It also seems likely that it killed far more people, or at least left them to die. There is still some question about whether the resources necessary to enter the city and address the needs there were even available, whether because they were allocated elsewhere or simply because the need overwhelmed the response structures that were in place at the time.
It seems obvious that local authorities have to shoulder much of the responsibility for the failure to anticipate and plan for the hurricane, both in the long term and in the days immediately preceding Katrina's landfall. These oversights are probably serious enough to justify some high profile resignations. But I have a hard time seeing how local authorities can be held responsible for the response -- what local government in the United States is equipped for a catastrophe that obliterates (at least in the short term) 80% of its infrastructure and changes all its thoroughfares into waterways? Once the city flooded, help on a grander scale was needed -- and yet it took 5 days to arrive.
The federal response should have come days sooner. The results of failure to act were much easier to predict than they were before the hurricane arrived. The resources were or should have been available, because for the past four years in this country we have been reconfiguring our government to deal with mass catstrophe on precisely this scale. The fact that this was a natural disaster rather than a terrorist attack might have excused some of the failure if FEMA hadn't been situated deliberately under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. But the message coming out of these agencies and the White House that created and organized them is that the local authorities are responsible, either because they failed to keep the peace, didn't anticipate the scope of the problem, or didn't ask for help in quite the right way. I'm sorry, but that's just horseshit. The whole point of these federal agencies, and in particular the point of the Department of Homeland Security, is to coordinate the response in cases where the scale or nature of an event has made local responses impossible. At no time in recent history (inlcuding 9/11) has this been more true than it was in New Orleans last week.
At some point, Americans are going to have to decide what the purpose of the federal government is. Ever since Reagan, the dominant political ideology has been antagonistic to the very idea of federal government, and successful politicians on the national scene have all derided the government and conspicuously sought to dismantle it from the inside, to the point where it's unable to fulfill its most basic function. The result is this colossal failure, which will only serve to further erode Americans' confidence in their government.
If I am going to feel a erosion of confidence in government, it is going to come from a local official such as a mayor who can let his city down in such a colossal manner, and then point the blame at everyone but himself. I have been defending the mayor & the city of NO for a week. I saw the Superdome situation as a last-ditch effort to keep people from being swept away in the storm. Figured they probably saved a lot of lives (and, actually, they probably did.) Come to find out, the Superdome IS their disaster plan. They have planned for years to use it in a case like this...and actually have used it for other hurricanes. WHY, if this is your "disaster plan" was this building not EQUIPPED with food, water, and generators? That is a disaster plan? To herd 10,000 people into a huge building with no provisions? And what is meant by a mandatory evacuation if buses and personnel are not in place to help those who cannot obey it? Why weren't these sick and old people already far out of town when that storm hit?
We could also move on to the Governor of the state of LA, who refused for TWO DAYS to allow the feds to take over the operation. You are so right, Paul, that it IS the point of the Federal agencies to coordinate the response when the state/local authorities can't handle it. The way it works is that the state/local governments have to request help, and then they turn it over to the appropriate federal agency. The governor refused to turn it over, and this contributed in a large way to the organizational and communications problems.
I am not attempting to excuse FEMA or the DHS. All I am saying is that it is the job of local authorities to do EVERYTHING they can to save lives in a disaster, and to turn the job over to the Feds when they reach their limit. As far as I can see, NO and LA failed on both levels.
Sorry, it is just wrong to state the Feds have to be invited in. Please check Sections 5170 and 5170a of the Stafford Act.
The Governor has to ask for a declaration of emergency. Blanco asked for that declaration on 8/27.
Once that's done, the President can do whatever is necessary under the Stafford Act Section 5710, subsections a,b, and c.
The idea that the Feds have to wait for a "Mother May I?" before stepping in to help the sick and dying is nuts.
There's more on this issue of jurisdiction here.
Quote from USA Today:
"By Aug. 31, the state had activated 3,780 Guard troops, and others were on the way from other states. It would be two more days before a significant presence became visible in the city.
There was a delay while Blanco and the White House grappled over whether to turn over law enforcement authority to the federal government, and whether all Guard troops should be put under federal control — both of which the governor resisted."
You missed my point. The state DID request help. I won't debate whether or not this request was a NECESSARY step...it is certainly customary. My point was that the governor did request the help, and then resisted the federal takeover of the operation. She wanted the help, but only if the feds did not take over the managment. This was partially what caused the lack of organization & communication, because no one was in charge. If the governor refuses to turn the operation over, what is the President supposed to do? Lock her up?
I think the necessary resources simply did not exist or were not deployed. The President likely did nothing in the early days. If the governor refuses to "turn the operation over" the least he could have done is to have resources available so when the governor is screaming for help it doesn't take days and days for it to get there.
It's crazy that people are talking about evacuating people with BUSES. In a third world country I can see it but in America I would think that we have enough helicopters, planes and the like to get people out of a place ASAP.
Sarah, what I find more interesting is the implied threat from the White House that if Blanco didn't put all her resources under direct White House control that help would not be forthcoming.
I can understand why a governor might not want to cede all authority in the cleanup to tha White House. Why the White House would make such a demand is more intresting.
I don't think there's any reason to read nefarious motives into the White House's demand to take control of the situation from top to bottom. What I don't understand is why there was any argument at all -- it seems from everything I've read that the Bush administration 1) didn't need to ask permission before taking control and 2) could in any event have provided the assistance needed without operational control. I'm not saying the governor, whose leadership skills were clearly inferior, was without sin. But even a great governor would have needed lots of federal assistance here, and in this case that assistance simply was not forthcoming.
Paul & Barrett...just to clarify your position here...are you saying that the president has the unilateral power to move federal authorities into a city or state and take complete control of its affairs, with or without approval from the state/local authorities? Can't believe you read that in the Constitution. It's been widely reported that the president urged the governor to allow federalization of the disaster plan. For 2 days, she refused. My previous question was serious...what is the federal government supposed to do in that situation...move troops in and wrest control from her at gunpoint? Frankly, I DON'T understand why a governor would not want the feds to take over 100%...a huge operation like this needs to be centralized, and this was clearly beyond the state's capability (heck, it was clearly beyond FEMA's capability). Her desire to retain control was, in my opinion, a huge mistake. But as painful as it may be, it was the state's mistake to make.
The legalities of this are more complicated than just what you read in the Constitution. There's some more sophisticated discussion of this issue here and also in this Newsweek piece (the latter also has some valuable explanation of the sequence of events).
All law is more complicated that what is found in the Constitution. However, one of the Constitution's primary purposes is to define the type of government we are supposed to have, which is a federal republic of states. It seems to me that you couldn't find a better contradiction of that concept than the idea that the feds can come into a state and seize operations.
Sarah,
It's unclear why anyone needed to 'sieze' operations. The bottom line was that at a certain point both the mayor of NO and the Governor of LA were screaming on national tv to the federal government for help.
Here's a simple question. Even if there were some DMV forms that needed to be filled out before that help could have been provided it was not anywhere close. There's really no dispute about that. The line about the Governor of Blanco needing to cede control is simply false. But in any event she asked for the requisite help. It wasn't even in the area.
My original point was that there were massive failures at ALL levels of government. To give the local authorities a pass and place the blame solely on the feds ignores the fact that the local/state authorities acted in a completely unprofessional and incompetent manner, which also hampered relief efforts. Personally, I think the thing was so appalling that I would demand the resignation of the mayor, the governor, the head of FEMA (too late, he's already gone), and probably a few dozen other people who are nameless at this time, at the local, state, and federal levels. I would probably be for dismantling FEMA all together and starting over, certainly not under the umbrella of homeland security, which it never should have been in the first place.
Sarah,
Well, doesn't the question of responsibility devolve on the constituencies involved? I might like New Orleans to kick out its mayor, but since I don't live in New Orleans and do live in the U.S., it would seem that my primary duty, as a citizen, is to kick out those members of the federal government that are responsive to a national vote. And since the national government will be involved in disasters outside of Louisiana (California, New York, Texas, etc.), my primary interest as a person outside of Louisiana should be with the national response. Since you evidently live in Louisiana, Sarah, I think it is fine to be concerned with the state and local response -- but those outside of Louisiana should be concentrating fire on the national government.
No need to be sarcastic. I actually do not live in LA. My ONLY original point was that there is plenty of blame to spread around. I may not be able to vote in LA, but I can still have an opinion. Personally, there is not much I can do regarding getting rid of any of these people. Unfortunatly, I only have one vote.
Post a comment