BS: Greater Federal Authority?

Subject: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 07:49 AM

CNN reported this from George Bush's speech last night:

He conceded "the system, at every level of government, was not well coordinated and was overwhelmed in the first few days."

"It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority," he said

There are plenty of threads discussing who did what when and who should have done something else instead. Generally, though, both the pro-Bush people and the anti-Bush people share a common cause: the importance of the ability(and/or responsibility) of states to work independently of the federal level.

Talk of 'greater federal authority' sounds to me like it would alter the balance of power between state and federal level in a way that neither group would be keen on. In fact, since as a rule Republicans are in favour of smaller governments, I would expect them to be less keen than Democrats.

Do you agree it is 'now clear' that this should happen? [Remember that any additional powers granted will apply to both Republican and Democrat governments in the future!]

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 09:46 AM

I think a debate on that point is neither necessary nor promising, because the actual issue lies elsewhere. That issue is Mr. Bush's confusion about the difference between leadership and authority. (Lacking the former, he craves the latter.) The Feds had all the authority they needed, but lacked someone with the leadership skills to use it effectively.

"Git 'er DONE!"

Doesn't sound much like Dick Cheney, does it? Thus I blame Cheney for the Katrina miss-steps.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: DMcG
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:05 AM

I'm not so sure, WYSIWYG. You are talking about what happened and whether the Feds had all the power they needed. GUEST seems to be talking about what happens next and whether the Feds are trying to further increase their power (whether they need it or not.) Of course, as I'm from the UK, its not of my business.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:15 AM

As a conservative I am, as guest observed, very hesitant to offer the federal government more power -- especially in the face of a seeming failure that resulted from a previous overstep of what should have been a more local solution.

We failed -- that is the proof that you need to give us more responsibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Donuel
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:34 AM

Bush referred to a greater US military authority in diasaster events.
___A relaxation of posse comitas.___ (nicely worded don't you think)

So far no state govenor wants military control of their state.

The Roman empire made it a crime to march the army into Rome.
To do so made the general of such an army an enemy of the state.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: John Hardly
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 10:52 AM

....prepareing myself for whiplash here, as those who have spent the last two weeks screaming at Bush for not "relaxing posse comitas" are going to about-face.

BBBBBBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 04:56 PM

It's funny, isn't it John?



Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 06:41 PM

I think the fact that some people want to make it about posse comitatus is far more telling than anything else.

It isn't about posse comitatus (unless Bush wants to make it about posse comitatus). It isn't necessary to use federal forces for law enforcement if the federal forces are: A) providing enough other kinds of support (logistical, communications, transportation of people and/or supplies, equipment, etc.) to free up the local law enforcement agencies and the National Guard for law enforcement purposes, and: B) the National Guard are allowed to remain stateside (along with their equipment), so that there are enough of them to get the job done.

I think the fact that some people (like Bush, for instance) want to make this about posse comitatus, when it is not really about posse comitatus at all, shows us who really wants to increase the powers of the federal government.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Rapparee
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 07:00 PM

Consolidation is the present principle of distinction between republicans and the pseudo-republicans. --Thomas Jefferson

The truth is that finding that monarchy is a desperate wish in this country, [the enemies of republicanism] rally to the point which they think next best: a consolidated government. Their aim is now therefore to break down the rights reserved by the Constitution to the States as a bulwark against that consolidation, the fear of which produced the whole of the opposition to the Constitution at its birth... But I trust they will fail... and that the friends of the real Constitution and Union will prevail against consolidation as they have done against monarchism. I scarcely know myself which is most to be deprecated, a consolidation or dissolution of the States. The horrors of both are beyond the reach of human foresight. --Thomas Jefferson

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: michaelr
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 07:20 PM

Aren't the Republicans forever going on about how they want less government interference in peoples' lives? I thought the response to the disaster demonstrated exactly what they mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Sep 05 - 07:47 PM

Just found this thread, read the first post, and knew what I wanted to say. Then I read the second post, and Susan had said it.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 01:49 PM

Whose authority?

Most people worldwide feel the will of the people have no bearing on the authority of their state. That includes Americans under their great ideal democracy.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4247158.stm

Sixty-five percent of citizens across the world do not think their country is governed by the will of the people, a poll commissioned by the BBC suggests.
The Gallup International Voice of the People 2005 poll questioned more than 50,000 people in 68 states for the BBC World Service survey about power.

Only in Scandinavia and South Africa do the majority believe that they are ruled according to their wishes.

But 47% thought elections in their countries were free and fair.

The figure is 55% for the US and Canada and up to 82% in EU countries - but just 24% in West Africa.

The survey also found that only 13% of people trusted politicians and only 16% thought they should be given more power.

About a third of those asked thought more power should go to writers and academics.

A quarter felt more should go to religious leaders - who are also seen as the most trusted group.

A fifth of those asked thought military, business leaders and journalists should be given more power.

Other key findings include:


Family exerts the greatest single influence on people
Sixty-one percent said a partner or family member has most influenced decisions about their life in the past year.

In Mexico, the figure is 88%. The lowest rating for family influence comes from North America (35%), where people report a wider range of influences, especially religious leaders (12%).


There is a wide gap between the developed and developing world on the degree to which people feel they can control their lives
Least control is felt in Africa, the Asia-Pacific region and the former Soviet bloc.

The highest scores are in Latin America (65%), followed by Canada and the US (62%) and Europe (53%).


National identity is still strong
Nationality was used by a third of those surveyed to 'define' themselves. About a fifth chose religion.

The sense of nationality is strongest in Latin America (54%).

Religion gained the highest scores in Africa (56%), followed by the US and Canada (32%).

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 02:14 PM

I think I agree with everything said here besides John's comment about the posse comitas, that was little more than a childish dig and deserves no more comment.

The Military and FEMA didn't need any aditional authority in this matter. Blanco told Bush to "send everything you've got." and once it was declared as a federal disaster it was up to FEMA to manage the relief effort and communications. Had Bush given the orders to mobilize at that point and had FEMA done a halfway decent job of communications, few people would have had reason to complain about the Federal response.

So Bush says his response will be to increase the authority of the military? What else do you expect from Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 02:42 PM

Katrina emergency room physician shares his feelings with Cheney, and gets handcuffed...
http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/100905Cheney.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 02:46 PM

The survey also found that only 13% of people trusted politicians and only 16% thought they should be given more power.

Hmmmm.... That's roughly the percentage of the population that are politicians, are married to politicians or owe their jobs directly to politicians, isn't it?*


* Just in case some anonymous GUEST or other shitbird with no sense of humor and a bug up his ass doesn't realize it, that was a joke**.


** Joke: Something not meant to be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 02:48 PM

When I was a workin' stiff, I did security clearance investigations on dozens of disaster workers from FEMA and the Small Business Administration. The FEMA people do the initial work, and SBA handles low-interest reconstruction loans and other long-term assistance. I was very impressed by the caliber of people FEMA employs in the field. Most of them brought years of experience from all walks of life - particularly construction and construction inspection - and they were dedicated people who really knew how to do the job.


But yes, they needed more authority. The political hacks in FEMA upper management had all the authority they needed and more - but they nerver seemed to be able to pass that authority down to the people who actually knew how to do the work. FEMA field workers have to do their jobs with their hands tied behind their backs, because upper managemrnt doesn't believe in delegating anything.


And that's a shame.


-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 03:48 PM

Hey Joe, how r ya?

Listen Joe I've plenty of experience in construction & construction inspection. Do ya think I could get a job with FEMA & they could save me. Joe mostly I'd agree. The people in the field are the hands on experts they do the job. With out them it's all just wasted hot air. On the flip side they also are the field experts at knowing will not work while trying to get the job done. Policy & politics are not their tools of the trade. They also know who at the helm they can trust to partner up with them. When the rot at the top just hasn't got the talent it takes or the know how, the backbone & the back up or the intelligence then in the end & at the bottom the efforts just all go to shit. From the top, Bush to Brown & right on down, is overloaded with unqualified know it all's. Fix that problem & half the job has already been done. It's like the landscape architect telling the mason how to lay block wall & the mason telling the architect how to design a bridge & so the brickie can push him off & complete his job without further delay. More control in the hands of power thirsty is just another blueprint for disaster.


Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 03:49 PM

1. Lack of investment in emergency preparedness - Where did your tax dollars go? Who is responsible for Homeland Security?

2. Who is responsible for the coordination of the federal bureacracy?

3. Why did local communication systems fail?

My guess is that the focus on the War on Terrorism abroad has eaten up the ablity of the government to protect its people at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Sep 05 - 10:38 PM

Barry, you remind me very much of the FEMA disaster workers I've met. You'd enjoy working with them - but they spend months and months away from home.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 05:26 PM

For those of you who think the their is a need for 'greater federal authority' you need to read about the waste and fraud associated with the distribution of your tax dollars by FEMA.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/18/history_of_fema_woes_detailed/

Typical of GWB, he will use human suffering to gain political support for more oppressive government control, whether or not its effective.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 07:01 PM

Strange, the money finding hasn't seemed to be a barrier lately. ;-)

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 08:33 PM

Art- you just don't understand. W has discovered the Cash Fairy. The Cash Fairy works much like the Tooth Fairy, but instead of putting your tooth under the pillow and finding a dollar in the morning, W can sweep his problems under a rug and find a multi-billion dollar appropriaton the next day.
No taxes; just a bigger debt.

Subject: RE: BS: Greater Federal Authority?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Sep 05 - 10:11 PM

The problem isn't as much about responsibilty/authority but leadership...

When the chips were down, Bush hasn'r been able to cut it...

Now not that I'm no Clinton lover, 'casue I ain't, but he would have stepped up to the plate...

Yeah, *I* woulda stepped up to the plate...

I'd have had a "Ten Point" proposal on the table on Sepgtember 30th!!!

And even now, 3 weeks later, Bush still ain't gottta a clue... Hethink it's about spending money and that's it... More important to make good decissions on the future of what New Orleans can and cannot be...

Bobert