http://www.newsday.com/ap/topnews/ap421.htm

03/06/2001

Disaster Response Gets Harsh Look

by CALVIN WOODWARD

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- When natural calamity strikes, Washington's impulse is to drop everything and rush to help. Another impulse is also being keenly felt these days: to save money.

The result, if President Bush's budget is any guide, may be a shift in emphasis away from disaster prevention toward disaster relief. And even that assistance may be provided under tougher conditions.

Such a policy shift is expected to take some time, and tread on daunting political sensitivities.

Meantime, the new administration's response to nature's assaults on its watch -- Southern ice storms, Mississippi tornadoes, the Northwest earthquake and now the winter storm that has New England hunkered down -- has been indistinguishable from that of the old administration.

Bush praised the Federal Emergency Management Agency on Monday at the swearing in of agency director Joe Allbaugh, back from surveying quake damage in Seattle.

''A lot of change is needed in Washington, but in this agency, the standards are already high,'' Bush said. He said the agency is ''the federal government at its best.''

Yet, he's proposing to cut its operating budget by about 20 percent.

Normally, disaster response provokes little debate in Washington except when politicians complain the government is not acting with sufficient speed or generosity.

''A rapid and competent federal reaction is good politics,'' said Jack Harrald, director of the Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management at George Washington University.

''Whether it's good politics to go overboard or not is still an open question.''

Bush seems inclined to ask that question.

The president wants clearer conditions established for him to declare a disaster area. Such a declaration frees up federal aid.

He also is seeking cuts in several prevention programs, including one to shore up public structures and another to bring better training and equipment to crews fighting wildfires and other blazes.

With unavoidably awkward timing, the Seattle-area quake hit the same day last week that Bush presented a budget outlining $500 million in savings from cutbacks in disaster spending.

On the other hand, the budget proposes a huge multiyear emergency reserve, making $5.6 billion available.

But White House officials could not say whether the fund would be reserved for natural disasters or shared, and therefore diluted, among a broader range of emergency needs.

''They are dissociating themselves from programs closely identified with the prior administration,'' Harrald said. ''But there is more unclear at this point than is clear.''

Disaster declarations began under a 1950 law that defined federal aid as a supplement to state and local money for rebuilding. Some authorities say it has evolved into an oversized entitlement.

''The tricky question is where to draw the line,'' said Peter May, a University of Washington political scientist in Seattle who studies disaster policy.

''Politically, it's very difficult to say no. Essentially, government becomes sort of the parent that has to decide how paternalistic should they be.''

Bush says in his budget outline there must be ''meaningful criteria'' for declarations so money goes to states that really need it.

''Without clear and consistent rules for federal intervention and assistance following disasters, FEMA runs the risk of rewarding some states that do not need assistance,'' he said.

Among Bush's proposed savings in other areas: $100 million by canceling new grants to fire departments; $83 million by cutting the federal share of hazard mitigation grants by one-third; and $25 million by ending Project Impact, a small disaster-preparedness campaign.

Mitigation grants are used to shore up structures already weakened by floods, quakes or more, so they will withstand a future attack better. They also are tapped to buy out damaged property.

James Lee Witt, Allbaugh's predecessor, said he hoped Bush would reconsider the cuts and realize efficiencies were introduced in his tenure, including a tightening of disaster declarations.

''Really and truly, we've streamlined things,'' Witt said.

May said the Clinton administration emphasized prevention through modest programs aimed at helping to keep losses low before something happened.

Bush may have realized it's politically easier to cut that money instead of disaster relief.

''You don't get people in between floods and in between earthquakes marching on City Hall,'' May said. ''It's after the event they say, 'We need help.'''

^------=

On the Net: Federal Emergency Management Agency: http://www.fema.gov

AP-NY-03-06-01 0144EST< 

-- (news@of.note), March 06, 2001

Answers

Didn't W ever hear that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 06, 2001.

I think this is a misnomer. To my knowledge, we don't yet know how to "prevent" volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornados, blizzards, and so on. We can unwisely cut too deeply into preparations, but not prevention. These things still just happen.

No question, good preparations can mean faster response, and sometimes reduce the scope of any suffering or displacement. And equally predictably, no bureaucrat in history has ever seen the wisdom of a budget cut in his territory. Whether these cuts reduce expenses that weren't cost-effective in addressing emergencies is a judgment call. Certainly relief expenses can be focused much more tightly toward where then are needed, and in what form. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure only when you know exactly what you're preventing. Spending whatever it takes to be "ready for anything" can be an infinite sink and a bureaucrat's heaven.

We'll have to judge these policies by their results, and even then we have no "control emergency" where nothing is changed, as a baseline for comparison.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 06, 2001.

Flint,

>we don't yet know how to "prevent" volcanos, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornados, blizzards, and so on.

Good grief. Use some common sense.

"Disaster prevention" refers to prevention (or reduction) of the _damage to humans and their property_ caused by those natural phenomenon.

You know (or, ought to) -- stuff like reinforcement of buildings to minimize earthquake damage (which has been proven cost-effective during recent earthquakes), requiring sturdy connections between roofs and walls of houses in hurricane-prone areas (shown effective during Hurricane Andrew), or flood plain zoning to restrict buildings so as to reduce cost of flood damages (my village has recently purchased and razed some frequently-flooded houses along a creek because that will cost less in the long run than repeatedly repairing damages or compensating homeowners after each flood).

Quit using rhetoric to excuse short-sighted Republican dumbness.

>even then we have no "control emergency" where nothing is changed, as a baseline for comparison.

Never heard of those earhquake testing laboratories out in California, eh? The places where they developed the structural reinforcement techniques that reduce damages to buildings in earthquake zones? Oh, yeah -- that would come under the heading of "disaster prevention", so of course ...

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 08, 2001.

No Spam:

You really don't have to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to misrepresent what I was saying. I wasn't even disagreeing with what you seem to be saying. I'm all in favor of construction techniques that reduce hurricane or earthquake damage. Flood plain zoning is simple common sense (up to a point, however. Where I live, some people are still required to pay flood plain insurance even though the terrain has been so heavily modified that they are now well above flood levels.) I praised good preparations, which you chose to ignore.

What I was trying to say was that the political direction described in this article is not automatically short sighted or stupid simply because you voted for the losing candidate. I'm sure you'd be as hard pressed as I would to find a bureaucrat who *supports* reducing his budget and territory. Any time you change a policy, you are guaranteed to work against someone's personal vested interest. Finding and quoting that person and pretending you are presenting a balanced assessment (or even a trivial understanding) of the new policy is a journalistic technique I'm quite sure you can see through easily, at least when it's used against you.

Using this technique, Calvin Woodward has told you this is an example of "short-sighted Republican dumbness", and you have bought into this without thinking any further. WAS there any fat in the budget? COULD this money have been put to better use? ARE prevention expenses always better spent than relief expenses?

I don't know if this is a good decision or not. I don't have the necessary data, and sure as HELL Calvin Woodward isn't about to provide it. I'm willing to give the new policy the benefit of the doubt, unless and until an emergency or disaster clearly demonstrates that the old ways were better. And even then, do you seriously expect Calvin Woodward to point to what was purchased instead with the money saved, and ask you to make an informed choice? Instead, I'll bet he (or his ubiquitous media equivalent) will find something, *anything* that could have been prevented, and use this as "proof" of a poor policy. And once again, this is a technique I know you can see through easily, when it's used against you.

I'd personally like to know what the money being cut was actually used for, as opposed to its nominal purpose. Everyone agrees that the government wastes some money, but you will never find any description of an expense that anyone can object to. We surely don't want to reduce "training", or deprive response teams of "equipment", do we? Of course not. And what kind of training or equipment, and what does it cost, and what does it gain us? You are saying you don't need to know, all you need to know is that Bush proposes it to know it's short sighted and dumb!

I admit I favor reducing government expenses. Drastically. To anyone who believes that everything government does is the best way to do it, and that government is the answer to all our problems, ANY reduction in government expenditures is "short-sighted dumbness". Intelligent people can legitimately disagree about this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 08, 2001.

Flint, I doubt there are more than six people on the planet who believe that "everything government does is the best way to do it". But the plain and simple fact is that some tasks are much more efficiently done communally than individually. Government has the advantage (and simultaneous and equal disadvantage) of being able to impose uniformity of direction.

I agree that this coercive power ought to be used sparingly and carefully, rather than broadly and indiscriminately, but disaster-planning seems to me to be a tailor-made issue for government, in the exact same way as disaster relief. The two make a matched pair of bookends.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 08, 2001.

Flint,

>I'm all in favor of construction techniques that reduce hurricane or earthquake damage. Flood plain zoning is simple common sense (up to a point, however.

So why is "disaster prevention" a misnomer? (And if you were referring to something else as being the misnomer, why did you explain by using the "prevent" verb?)

>I praised good preparations, which you chose to ignore.

You wrote, "good preparations can mean faster response". "Response" is in the category of disaster relief, not disaster prevention.

>What I was trying to say was that the political direction described in this article is not automatically short sighted or stupid simply because you voted for the losing candidate.

Maybe that's what you wish you had written at first, but I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation of what you were trying to say in your first posting, the only one I could see when I wrote my previous posting.

>you have bought into this without thinking any further.

Actually, before I read this thread I had already both read a different article and heard a radio report, on the same subject of Bush's proposals for disaster prevention.

>WAS there any fat in the budget? COULD this money have been put to better use? ARE prevention expenses always better spent than relief expenses?

Depends on one's definition of "fat". Depends on one's idea of "better". Depends on the details.

>I don't know if this is a good decision or not. I don't have the necessary data,

... but you _did_ know there was a misnomer in there somewhere. :-)

>You are saying you don't need to know,

By now, you've probably read my preceding "Actually, before ..." sentence.

>I admit I favor reducing government expenses. Drastically.

So reducing the national debt (and, thus, interest payments) has priority over substantial tax cuts until we've pared off, say, the $3 trillion that Reagan's and Bush the Elder's administrations added to that debt, right?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 08, 2001.

Nipper:

I am largely in agreement with you. Certainly disaster relief is a worthy government activity. Disaster planning seems to me to be subject to some considerable leeway in terms of how much is proper and appropriate. Some disaster planning seems, as you say, tailor- made for government. I think No Spam has identified some excellent examples of this. But knowning government a little bit, I'm sure I could find some disaster planning expenses that could legitimately be described as boondoggles.

Broadly speaking, what I'm sensitive to is the general viewpoint (which Calvin Woodward exemplifies) that since the intent of every government expense is worthwhile, therefore any reduction in expenditure *levels* must necessarily violate these laudable intents. And as I said, any reduction in the spending level of any government program is bound to displease those whose budgets are cut. These people believe in their programs, and almost invariably want even more money to make their programs even better. Their program is essential - just ask them! Cuts are *always* bad, if you only ask the right people.

And since every government program was begun because enough people felt it was worthwhile, in this sense cuts REALLY ARE always bad. I'm reminded of the funny ad on TV where the two guys had to choose between toilet paper and beer. Both items are absolutely essential, and neither can be cut (according to the ad, of course). Yet one of them HAD to go. What to do?

Reducing the size of government requires that we be placed in just the same position as those guys in the ad. To get what we want (smaller and less intrusive and expensive government), we must do without something we also want (government services and programs). We aren't trading something bad for something good, that would be easy. We're (hopefully) trading something good for something even better.

So people here attack Maria saying she doesn't want safety. That's like saying those guys *didn't want* toilet paper. It's not honest.

No Spam:

Yes, I favor a mixed stragegy, but I'd place retiring the debt at a higher priority than reducing taxes. I'd favor repaying those IOU's to the social security program as a higher priority as well, and invest the recovered money in the private sector.

Incidentally, my recollection was that, while that $3 trillion debt was rung up during the administrations of Reagan and Bush, it was a joint enterprise. Both parties (the dems ran the legislature, remember) were more than glad to borrow and spend.

Finally, I do believe a tax cut helps the economy, which in turn increases government revenues. Even the Reagan tax cut did this, although of course Congress spent Reagan's *predicted* increases, rather than the (much smaller) actual increases.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 08, 2001.

Flint,

>Both parties (the dems ran the legislature, remember) were more than glad to borrow and spend.

In Reagan's first years, he repeatedly vetoed budget bills the Dems passed until they agreed to _increase spending and cut income to match his requests_. The original Dem bills had substantially lower deficits than the budget on which Reagan insisted.

Republicans always had at least one-third of the House and/or Senate then, and thus could uphold every Reagan veto.

Reagan's greatest talent was fooling citizens into overlooking the effects of his early vetoes. IIRC, his first year he set some record for number of vetoes.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), March 08, 2001.

No Spam:

I'm not a Reaganite. I want to reduce government, not just taxes. On the OSHA thread (cleaning house), Already made a really good suggestion (if I understood him correctly). Rather than having an OSHA pass a million safety rules and regulations, and spend many millions inspecting and enforcing them whether or not they are appropriate to each situation, Already suggested we simply fine the bejeezus out of any company suffering an injured employee.

The effect is to make safety (not anal rule-following, *safety*) a very high priority among the bean counters. It lets the businesses decide how to make their particular operations safe, cuts out huge gobs of bureaucracy, focuses on results rather than bullshit, etc. Safety is like quality -- you build it in, you don't inspect it in. It prevents businesses from defending themselves by saying "We did as you requested, stupid as it was. We didn't do what would have helped, because no rule required it."

I always prefer decentralized decision making.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 08, 2001.