News-Record.com

This makes sense only if you think it the duty of government (taxpayers) to replenish an aquarium.

Funny how FEMA worked well under Clinton. Guess appointing an intelligent, experienced person made all the difference. Witt certainly wasn't "Heckuva a job Brownie".

"We are all given common sense at birth. Where does this go when one becomes a government employee?"

Common sense was removed from FEMA on Jan 21, 2001. If you don't believe that, just note the credentials of the person Bush put in charge of that agency: contributed a few bucks to Republican candidates, needed a job due to recent loss of previous horse-show managing position. If anyone knows of any other pertinent credentials "Brownie" had to be FEMA chief, please let us know.

After the New Orleans debacle, Bush realized the press would pay attention to his next choice, and looked for more genuine credentials the second time around. The damage had already been done. All executive branch employees in FEMA and elsewhere had gotten the message that the current President believes government programs are always bad, and as such, does not take governance seriously. Bush appointments across the board have used our tax dollars not to perform any useful service, but simply to reward Republican donors. As with FEMA, appointment of blatent incompetents is brazen in any area that the press ignores.

In a way, it's logical. If you really do believe that government is never the solution to anything, that it is always the problem instead, then why should you take governing seriously? Why shouldn't you simply use the government to reward cronies rather than to improve life for Americans?

"We are all given common sense at birth. Where does this go when one becomes a government employee?"

Common sense was removed from FEMA on Jan 21, 2001. If you don't believe that, just note the credentials of the person Bush put in charge of that agency: contributed a few bucks to Republican candidates, needed a job due to recent loss of previous horse-show managing position. If anyone knows of any other pertinent credentials "Brownie" had to be FEMA chief, please let us know.

After the New Orleans debacle, Bush realized the press would pay attention to his next choice, and looked for more genuine credentials the second time around. The damage had already been done. All executive branch employees in FEMA and elsewhere had gotten the message that the current President believes government programs are always bad, and as such, does not take governance seriously. Bush appointments across the board have used our tax dollars not to perform any useful service, but simply to reward Republican donors. As with FEMA, appointment of blatent incompetents is brazen in any area that the press ignores.

In a way, it's logical. If you really do believe that government is never the solution to anything, that it is always the problem instead, then why should you take governing seriously? Why shouldn't you simply use the government to reward cronies rather than to improve life for Americans?

As usual, someone makes remarks about something they know nothing about and have not researched. Read the following editorial:

EDITORIAL: FEMA's reading list
Sunday, November 25, 2007

At a recent convention in New Orleans, city officials from across the country got some advice from a top FEMA official on how to prepare for a disaster. Having dealt with the agency since Katrina, New Orleanians have a piece of advice of their own: Don't buy FEMA's line.

Bob Josephson, director of external affairs for FEMA's Louisiana Transitional Recovery Office, told convention attendees that they should be prepared by reading up on the federal Stafford Act -- the law that governs how the federal government allocates disaster money. If they do that and take a few other precautions, supposedly everything will be fine.
As anyone from South Louisiana can attest, that's an absurd notion.
Reading the text won't prepare any city to deal with the Stafford Act's abundant shortcomings and with FEMA's small-minded bureaucracy. Instead, cities across the country need to support efforts in Congress to reform the act and the agency that administers it.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Gulf Coast recovery director Donald Powell made that clear when they warned the same conventioneers that the Stafford Act is a serious threat to any city hit by catastrophe.
"It's obsolete. It's a handicap and it puts unnatural tension" between federal and local officials, Mr. Powell said.
The Stafford Act, for instance, punishes communities for rebuilding something different from what was destroyed -- even if the replacement is safer and smarter. For example, local governments that relocate or consolidate schools due to population loss or safety reasons can only get 75 percent reimbursement from FEMA. Penalizing communities for making responsible choices is illogical.
The Stafford Act is not the only problem, though. FEMA is a deeply flawed bureaucracy, and officials from other cities should read up on how the agency operates. Consider these examples from the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita:
-- For more than a year, FEMA refused to reimburse the Aquarium of the Americas in New Orleans for the $600,000 expense of restocking fish that died during the storm. The agency claimed that the marine life -- like artwork -- was irreplaceable and, therefore, not reimbursable. That is demonstrably false. The aquarium appealed the decision and reduced its request by half a million dollars. Instead of buying the fish, aquarium staff caught them in the wild for less than $100,000. Despite the savings to taxpayers, FEMA continued to deny reimbursement. It took 17 months and public ridicule for the agency to reverse itself, which it finally did last week.
-- Last month FEMA staged a fake press conference about the California wildfires, with questions posed by agency employees pretending to be reporters. A sample: "Are you happy with FEMA's response so far?" Answer: "I'm very happy with FEMA's response so far." Need we say more?
-- As Hurricane Rita approached in 2005, officials in Lafourche Parish sought temporary dams to help prevent flooding. But they did not have the $650,000 to buy them and FEMA would not agree to a purchase. The federal agency instead chose to rent the dams at a cost of $5 million. Only FEMA would think it made more sense to rent something at an exorbitantly higher price.
-- Vermilion and Iberia parish school officials were told by FEMA officials in 2005 that the agency would pay to replace elementary schools heavily damaged in Hurricane Rita. So, school leaders moved ahead with plans to build new schools on higher, safer ground. More than a year later, FEMA reneged on its promise, saying that there was insufficient damage at the schools to warrant replacement. By then, Iberia Parish had spent $390,000 on land for a new consolidated school.
"We spent 14 months modifying and making decisions based on what FEMA told us would happen," Iberia Parish Assistant Superintendent Charles Harvison said at the time. "Now, we're told that what we told you 14 months ago was wrong."
Even FEMA doesn't seem to understand exactly what the Stafford Act provides.
If officials in other cities familiarize themselves with the act and with the way FEMA works, they will come to the same conclusion we have here: It's time to give both the act and the agency an overhaul.

Also note it took 17 months but the decision was finally appealed and they were paid by FEMA.

There are just too many people who would rather run their mouths than research. FEMA isn't the only place where there is stupidity.

"Funny how FEMA worked well under Clinton."

Remember Hurricane Floyd?

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=2323