If $500 million was being spent per day on Katrina , as FEMA claims, what exactly is being done? Wouldn't we see something more than what we are seeing and what the reporters are reporting?
We all know the US government spends mega-billions on the Dept of Education and we have zero return on investment there, and we know the US government has spent $405 billion on the Dept of Energy since 1978, and we are more dependent on foreign oil today than in 1978.
The question is why does it cost $500 million to have few helicopters and a handful of FEMA spokesmen doing TV interviews? Why is it so costly to do relatively little, or nothing in the case of the Depts of Education and Energy?
Many here a tFR cliam that the government is too gunked up and fat to get anything done and this claim by FEMA of $500 million per day adds to that arguement.
I value your opinion and hope you value mine.
Most of the costs of running a government agency go into salaries and benefits.
>>If $500 million was being spent per day on Katrina , as FEMA claims, what exactly is being done? Wouldn't we see something more than what we are seeing and what the reporters are reporting?<<
1. New Orleans was not the only city or area to suffer. In fact, NOLA was NOT even the hardest hit by Katrina. The problem in NOLA was flooding after the levy breach (and 100,000 people ignoring a mandatory evacuation order but not taking even the most basic preparations to be without food, water, and electricity for a few days). There are probably up to a quarter million people between N.O. and Biloxi that are in urgent need over a hundred miles square. But as you may know, only the 'squeaky wheel' gets the oil, or in this case, media attention. Tens of thousands of rural and suburban white people in dire need isn't as newsworthy as tens of thousands of screaming urban blacks in dire need.
2. New Orleans is geographically one of the last, if not THE last, stop on the trip into the affected region for convoys. Rescue and assistance teams coming from the north, north east, and north west are going to encounter widespread damage and need 50 miles before reaching NOLA, especially from the north east. You treat the patient as you find him; first to be reached is first treated. You don't pass-by 50 miles of devastated people and areas in need then work backwards just because they don't have a powerful lobby and might play the race card on you.
3. In EVERY significant natural disaster we've had in the past 20 years (hurricanes, tornados, flooding, earthquakes, etc.), it has taken up to five full days AFTER the event for the National Guard to get the full force that is needed on the ground. The ground forces needed to deal with the wake of Katrina will be far larger than Andrew. The scope, magnitude, and complexity of the response needed is unprecedented in our times.
4. We have NEVER had to evacuate up to 100,000 people from an isolated city AFTER a disaster by plucking them off roof-tops, loading them onto busses that only have access to a fraction of the city, with two or three passable roads in and out of the city. And again, NOLA is not the only area affected or in need, in spite of the almost exclusive media coverage due to the 'squeaky wheel' effect.
5. It is not possible to mount an adequate rescue and assistance response to a disaster of this complexity and magnitude, spread well over one hundred miles square spanning two states, with only three to four days advanced notice. We are seeing the best response to a disaster of this scale that could be mustered with four days notice.
If we presumed a Katrina or Andrew was always around every corner, we could mount a faster response. But the federal government has never taken this view, and neither has LA or New Orleans. This is as much a failure of preparedness on the part of city residents, city and state officials who have been cavalier and in serious denial about the city's extreme vulnerability for...well...ever since the city was first settled, wiped out, rebuilt, wiped out, rebuilt and wiped out again 300 years ago.