We’ve all heard the term a zillion times. But what does “homeland security” mean, really?
Since 2001, when the phrase became part of our everyday vocabulary, homeland security has been shorthand for preventing, and responding to, terrorists. Now Katrina has struck in New Orleans and in Mississippi. (Click here for a list of ways you can help.) The results, in terms of lives and property lost, are in the same catastrophic class as 9/11.
But the government’s reaction has been underwhelming, Eric Tolbert, FEMA’s former disaster response chief, tells Knight-Ridder (via TP). “Weakened by diversion into terrorism,” he says.
Federal flood control spending for southeastern Louisiana has been chopped from $69 million in 2001 to $36.5 million in 2005, according to budget documents. Federal hurricane protection for the Lake Pontchartrain vicinity in the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget dropped from $14.25 million in 2002 to $5.7 million this year. Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu requested $27 million this year.
Both the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper and a local business magazine reported that the effects of the budget cuts at the Army Corps of Engineers were severe.
In 2004, the Corps essentially stopped major work on the now-breached levee system that had protected New Orleans from flooding. It was the first such stoppage in 37 years, the Times-Picayune reported…
The Army Corps’ New Orleans office, facing a $71 million cut, also eliminated funds to pay for a study on how to protect the Crescent City from a Category 5 storm, New Orleans City Business reported in June…
[I]n the 1990s, in planning for a New Orleans nightmare scenario, the federal government figured it would pre-deploy nearby ships with pumps to remove water from the below-sea-level city and have hospital ships nearby, said James Lee Witt, who was FEMA director under President Clinton.
Federal officials said a hospital ship would leave from Baltimore on Friday.
Hopefully, Katrina will trigger a larger conversation about what it means to keep America safe. Maybe funds for coping with natural disasters won’t be so hard to come by. Maybe some of those billions taken out of flu and TB research can be reinstated. Maybe we can have a more have a more honest assessment of where risk really lies.
Someone on TPM pointed this out: wouldn’t you expect that part of Homeland Security’s brief would be to handle large number of refugees? As would be expected after a major terrorist incident, for example?
So where are they?
Sigh. Everyone always asks “What can government do for me?”
Please feel free to make an unerring set of predictions about where the next unexpected disasters will strike so we can be sure to spend the money in the right place.
Regarding, “Sigh. Everyone always asks “What can government do for me?” “:
The government’s job is to organize and do for people what they can’t normally do for or by themselves. Without government you’d be living in anarchy, digging your own well for drinking water (thank you corp of engineers), and driving your car over rutted dirt roads.
What can government do for me? They do a lot.
I think the point of the above article is that diverting money away from infrastructure and disaster relief agencies to a new homeland security agency that has a poorly defined mission is a good way for us to shoot ourselves in the foot.
I have to wonder why people didn’t leave. It seems to me that 90% of the problem right now is that almost all the resources are going to finding people stranded. They didn’t leave when they where suppose to and now my tax dollars are being spent to rescue them (Not to mention my tax dollars going to pay for flood damage). This will sound bad but I think we should worry about the people that made an effort to help themselves before those that left themselves out to dry and now expect the govt. to fix it for them.
Personally I don’t like the idea of my tax dollars going to shoring up against flooding a city that is below sea, lake and river level 365 days a year and like even less that they will spend tax dollars fixing it and then pay ‘insurance’ money to people to rebuild in the same spot.
Matt, I am personally with Bret on this one. The country is not supposed to be here to serve you because you are too lazy to do it yourself. Roads, wells, the like are public infurstructure, plucking your dumb ass off the roof of your house after a flood you knew was coming is not a public service.
These people are about to get billions of dollars in relief, much of it from the local, state and fed govt. because of their loss. But if my house was destroyed tomorrow I would get nothing. What makes these people worth more than me?
“The results, in terms of lives and property lost, are in the same catastrophic class as 9/11.“
you cant compare the two. One is a natural disaster…the other an act of war. and we have no real numbers on the dead…its all wild speculation. and BTW, This is far more damage then 9/11.
I think the gov needs to work a little harder…but they are doing a pretty good job. Its ashame that theres so much looting going around…and now the news is showing that people are burning down houses in an attempt to get the governments attention to the huge problem…as if they dont allready know.
anyway…It will all be fixed up in time…and I really hope that the new Levi’s that they build in the coming year or two are able to withstand category 5.
NYTimes.com has a nice infographic that mentions income, population, and race data over the various parts. Lots and lots of people were too poor to afford leaving. No matter that they lost more now, when you’re very low on cash, you start taking risks to save it. Is it their own fault? That’s debatable but my answer’s no — they’re just being human.
As for the government needing some list of certain natural disasters, the likelihood of something severe was pretty well known, yet the work done to secure the area was essentially cut off.
Salon.com | “No one can say they didn’t see it coming”
Looks like the url to that article was lost:
http://salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/08/31/disaster_preparation/index.html
Good Afternoon,
NORTHCOM gets it’s first mission and blows it. While the Gulf Coast was drowning NORTHCOM did nothing not even any prep for the mission everyone knew was comming.
Why?
The Admirals and Generals remember all to well what happen to two Naval Officers during the wildfires of 2003 in Calfornia. There officers on their own moved and pre-positioned a Navy Aero Fire Fighting Squadron so that when the word came to go they were ready.
Instead of getting metals for taking the initative both officers were relieved of their commands and give letters of repermand, careers over.
You don’t screw with this Bush Administration. It doesn’t matter if thousands are dieing as an officer you sit and wait for the President to act.
No one gets away with making President Bush look foolish, no one.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“Stewart’s Platoon”
The big issue here, is that we need to take an objective look at how using our resources benefits the most people. In terms of damage, Katrina, or any other large natural disaster dwarfs the kinds of attacks that terrorists are likely to inflict on the United States (including 9/11). I’ve always been enthusiastic for the “elephant” model of dealing with terrorists, that is, we largely ignore them, as their real world effects are minor compared to the real problems that government needs to be addressing at all times.
Is a billion spent to prevent one terrorist attack that kills a few hundred people (imagining a major incident here) worth it when the same billion would save countless lives and economic resources when natural disasters strike? The problem with the “War on Terror” from an economic standpoint, is that you can have an infinitely large investment and still be subject to attacks. Whereas, we know that if you spend money on disaster preparedness, education, health care, or social welfare programs, there are measurable benefits that reflect your investment and save more lives than will ever be taken in a terrorist attack or series of attacks.
“Please feel free to make an unerring set of predictions about where the next unexpected disasters will strike so we can be sure to spend the money in the right place.“
Well in 2001 FEMA estimated that a cat 5 hurricane in NO would be one of the three biggest (and most likely) disasters…
And the weather service had several days to warn that a big storm was coming…
Why is it again that relief assets (water trucks, medical supplies, generators, refugee camps) weren’t placed close enough but out of harms way (as they were for Andrew)? Oh right, because 80,000 Guardsman are in Iraq, $200b are in Iraq, and no one in the eviscerated FEMA has any experience dealing with actual disasters (being a policeman and lawyer, that they got in spades). And because no one told W that it wouldn’t look good to be learning a G chord while people were dying on rooftops during the aftermath of a hurricane.
gg gw
kneeslider:
The same could be said about a terrorist attack. So you’d agree, I assume, that the NO situation reveals the administration’s incompetence and lack of planning?
Or would they have responded differently if this had been a dirty bomb attack on New Orleans?
“Why is it again that relief assets (water trucks, medical supplies, generators, refugee camps) weren’t placed close enough but out of harms way (as they were for Andrew)? Oh right, because 80,000 Guardsman are in Iraq,“
Actually, it’s less than that, and since you mentioned it, if the other QUARTER-MILLION Guardsmen can’t handle it, what makes you think the rest will help, especially since we’ve only deployed 30,000 in the disaster area so far (more would just get in each other’s way)?
There *were* prepositionings going on. The President declared the disaster *Saturday* (a full day before the Mayor of NO even announced the mandatory evacuation). Supplies started moving that night. It takes days to get things moving in the right direction, and with the footprint of possible impacts, you can’t put those things anywhere near the possible disaster areas.
The relief supplies were *not*, by any stretch, predeployed when Andrew hit in 1992. They called people up, and started looking at what to do, but it was much slower. It took almost five days before they saw half as much response as we saw yesterday alone.
After Katrina, major roads and bridges were blocked or destroyed. It took a couple of days to clear those hundreds of miles of Interstates alone.
You’re talking about deploying 20,000 to 30,000 troops, and literally thousands of tons of supplies, before you can even *think* about “doing” stuff.
Lo and behold, we’re starting to see results. Post-disaster evac started yesterday. Troops are starting to get in.
Except, for some reaon, you missed it.
“Its theyre [sic] policies as to why WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH GASOLINE & the 3.00 gal in CA today.
Blame the Eco Movement.
Blame Sierra Club, EPA, etc for our NO Gasoline event IE 1973 again.“
Nice ditto-head argument.
Is it so difficult to understand that given a supply and demand problem, you can attack the problem from either side? Reduce demand and the supply becomes sufficient?
I realize that’s tricky, but I’m sure with some effort you’ll grasp it.
For you, I would rather to give up my all treasures and the kamas which I practice the level hard.
My friends also told me that there is a web site http://www.hameim.com supplies cheap Lunia gold. If one day you want to buy Lunia gold you can go to the above company.
Now I have more Sword of the New World Vis in this game. Of course the Sword of the New World Gold is gained by I upgrade and kill the monsters. If you kill a big monsters you can get more Sword of the New World money.
SEX????????????????????????????????????????????????????SM??????????????????????mixi?????????????????????????????????????mixi??????????????????????