Senate Inquiry: Abolish FEMA

[CrimsonWhite]

Senate panel calls for abolishing FEMA
Bipartisan investigation finds disaster agency beyond repair

Wednesday, April 26, 2006; Posted: 11:00 p.m. EDT (03:00 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's disaster response agency should be abolished and rebuilt from scratch to avoid a repeat of government failures exposed by Hurricane Katrina, a Senate inquiry has concluded.

Crippled by years of poor leadership and inadequate funding, the Federal Emergency Management Agency cannot be fixed, a bipartisan investigation says in recommendations to be released Thursday.

Taken together, the 86 proposed reforms suggest the United States is still woefully unprepared for a disaster such as Katrina with the start of the hurricane season a little more than month away.

"The United States was, and is, ill-prepared to respond to a catastrophic event of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina," the recommendations warn. "Catastrophic events are, by their nature, difficult to imagine and to adequately plan for, and the existing plans and training proved inadequate in Katrina."

The recommendations, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, are the product of a seven-month investigation to be detailed in a Senate report to be released next week.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/26/katrina.congress.ap/index.html

I can't sat that I agree with this one. Just make it its own department again, with FEMA director at Cabinet level. The problem isn't with FEMA, it is with the massive buearocracy that is Homeland Security. Lets learn from the only thing that Clinton did right.

 

[Avatar4321]

I can't help but wonder what authority the Constitution gives the federal government to even have an agency like FEMA.

Of course, just because of what it does no one would ever succeed at removing such power from the government now that its been granted. Unless of course the people just gathered together and learned how to give themselves emergency relief. Unfortunately that kind of freedom does not exist in the world at the moment.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I can't help but wonder what authority the Constitution gives the federal government to even have an agency like FEMA.

Of course, just because of what it does no one would ever succeed at removing such power from the government now that its been granted. Unless of course the people just gathered together and learned how to give themselves emergency relief. Unfortunately that kind of freedom does not exist in the world at the moment.

Necessary and Proper. Thank Hamilton, he did it. What authority does it give to create any agency?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Try Article 1, Section 8. If there's any doubt left, see the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Or to word it in a more modern way:

"Any power not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States (states cannot coin money, for example), are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

FEMA needs to die. We survived disasters without it in years past. They didn't just exhibit idleness and incompetence during Katrina (which you'd expect from any gov't agency, really)--no, they went above and beyond, by actively and deliberately making relief efforts by private indiviuals and local law enforcement more difficult. Firing every single FEMA employee would be a good start, but really the ideal thing would be to blacklist them from any/all government positions in the future. Or at least the management. They shouldn't be able to even get work as county dogcatchers.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Try Article 1, Section 8. If there's any doubt left, see the 10th amendment:



Or to word it in a more modern way:

"Any power not delegated to the United States federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the States (states cannot coin money, for example), are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

FEMA needs to die. We survived disasters without it in years past. They didn't just exhibit idleness and incompetence during Katrina (which you'd expect from any gov't agency, really)--no, they went above and beyond, by actively and deliberately making relief efforts by private indiviuals and local law enforcement more difficult. Firing every single FEMA employee would be a good start, but really the ideal thing would be to blacklist them from any/all government positions in the future. Or at least the management. They shouldn't be able to even get work as county dogcatchers.

So, no FBI, CIA, IRS, DEA. Should all of these Agencies fold up and be relegated to state governments?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

So, no FBI, CIA, IRS, DEA. Should all of these Agencies fold up and be relegated to state governments?

No, they should just be folded up.

 

[dilloduck]

No, they should just be folded up.

they can't do that----who we gonna blame when things screw up??? :rotflmao: All the conspiracy theories--shot to hell.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

No, they should just be folded up.

You are shitting me right? You are saying that the Federal govt. shouldn't have the authority to collect inteligence and enforce its laws? How about collect taxes? Guess your all about a central government similiar to the one under the Articles of Confederation. These agencies can do good things. Next time you have your identity stolen, your local bank is robbed, or you need your mail delivered, who will you call on without these federal agencies. Your conclusion is short sighted.

 

[dilloduck]

You are shitting me right? You are saying that the Federal govt. shouldn't have the authority to collect inteligence and enforce its laws? How about collect taxes? Guess your all about a central government similiar to the one under the Articles of Confederation. These agencies can do good things. Next time you have your identity stolen, your local bank is robbed, or you need your mail delivered, who will you call on without these federal agencies. Your conclusion is short sighted.

Anarchy always is.

 

[jillian]

You are shitting me right? You are saying that the Federal govt. shouldn't have the authority to collect inteligence and enforce its laws? How about collect taxes? Guess your all about a central government similiar to the one under the Articles of Confederation. These agencies can do good things. Next time you have your identity stolen, your local bank is robbed, or you need your mail delivered, who will you call on without these federal agencies. Your conclusion is short sighted.

Can I get an "Amen", bruthahs and sistahs?!?!?!

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Here is another idea. Let's demolish the military. The Constitution doesn' t formally provide for its creation. It simply makes the President, Commader-in-Chief. It says nothing of its creation or powers thereof.

BaronVonBigmeat, here is your allowance for the creation of these agencies:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

You are shitting me right? You are saying that the Federal govt. shouldn't have the authority to collect inteligence and enforce its laws? How about collect taxes? Guess your all about a central government similiar to the one under the Articles of Confederation. These agencies can do good things. Next time you have your identity stolen, your local bank is robbed, or you need your mail delivered, who will you call on without these federal agencies. Your conclusion is short sighted.

The federal government did not have all of those agencies even 100 years ago. How did it ever collect taxes and enforce it's laws before?

Identity theft? Call the state authorities.

Bank robbery? Ditto.

Mail delivery? Abolish the postal service and make it legal for UPS to deliver the mail. This is one of the few constitutional functions of the federal government however. I'd like to see an amendment removing it though.

What a sad state of affairs it is, when even the "conservatives" are brainwashed by grade-school New Deal propaganda doled out by government schools. Remember folks, before 1932 we had chaos and anarchy!

Here is another idea. Let's demolish the military. The Constitution doesn' t formally provide for its creation. It simply makes the President, Commader-in-Chief. It says nothing of its creation or powers thereof.

Section 8: The Congress shall have power:
...
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

[CrimsonWhite]

The federal government did not have all of those agencies even 100 years ago. How did it ever collect taxes and enforce it's laws before?

Identity theft? Call the state authorities.

Bank robbery? Ditto.

Mail delivery? Abolish the postal service and make it legal for UPS to deliver the mail. This is one of the few constitutional functions of the federal government however. I'd like to see an amendment removing it though.

What a sad state of affairs it is, when even the "conservatives" are brainwashed by grade-school New Deal propaganda doled out by government schools. Remember folks, before 1932 we had chaos and anarchy!

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

First, I'm not a conservative. I am a moderate. Second, progress is all of a sudden bad? The federal government can do things that lower agencies can't. It can respond quicker and better, when structured correctly.

Your constitution quote proved my point. Congress can only appropriate money for the Army for a period of two years. So lets just abolish it to, since this artcle has obviously been skewed to allow for yearly appropriation. Hell, we don't need the Army, do we?

 

[dilloduck]

The federal government did not have all of those agencies even 100 years ago. How did it ever collect taxes and enforce it's laws before?

Identity theft? Call the state authorities.

Bank robbery? Ditto.

Mail delivery? Abolish the postal service and make it legal for UPS to deliver the mail. This is one of the few constitutional functions of the federal government however. I'd like to see an amendment removing it though.

What a sad state of affairs it is, when even the "conservatives" are brainwashed by grade-school New Deal propaganda doled out by government schools. Remember folks, before 1932 we had chaos and anarchy!

Convinced me--bring on the anarchy and chaos. We have run out of leaders, common sense and courage. I'll take my chances.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

First, I'm not a conservative. I am a moderate. Second, progress is all of a sudden bad? The federal government can do things that lower agencies can't. It can respond quicker and better, when structured correctly.

Hmm okay, I usually just assume people with elephant avatars are conservative republicans. Fair enough.

Yes, the federal government can do things that decentralized government can't. Namely, it can ignore the will of the people without harming the career of the politicians in charge. A distant government far removed from the people is always going to respond slower than a localized government. You can point out efficiencies of scale, and that's often valid for big private businesses, but then again they have an actual incentive to serve people. Washington doesn't.

Your constitution quote proved my point. Congress can only appropriate money for the Army for a period of two years. So lets just abolish it to, since this artcle has obviously been skewed to allow for yearly appropriation. Hell, we don't need the Army, do we?

The congress can re-appropriate new funds for an army every two years. This is nothing new.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Hmm okay, I usually just assume people with elephant avatars are conservative republicans. Fair enough.

The congress can re-appropriate new funds for an army every two years. This is nothing new.

My elephant is Big AL. The mascot for the University of Alabama. It has nothing to do with the GOP.
\You don't feel that the congress re-appropriating funds for the Army is a loose interpretation? Considering that it only calls for a period of two years and says nothing of maintaining it thereafter.