FEMA packed with W's pals

NY Daily News ^ | 9/8/05 | Kenneth R. Bazinet

[Crackingham]

The three top jobs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Bush went to political cronies with no apparent experience coping with catastrophes, the Daily News has learned. Even if Bush were to fire embattled and suddenly invisible FEMA Director Michael Brown over his handling of Hurricane Katrina, the bureaucrat immediately below him is no disaster professional, either.

While Brown ran horse shows in his last private-sector job, FEMA's No. 2 man, deputy director and chief of staff Patrick Rhode, was an advance man for the Bush-Cheney campaign and White House. He also did short stints at the Commerce Department and Small Business Administration.

Rhode's biography posted on FEMA's Web site doesn't indicate he has any real experience in emergency response.

In addition, the agency's former third-ranking official, deputy chief of staff Scott Morris, was a PR expert who worked for Maverick Media, the Texas outfit that produced TV and radio spots for the Bush-Cheney campaign. In June, Morris moved to Florida to become FEMA's long-term recovery director.

"The Bush administration has apparently transformed FEMA from a professional, world-class emergency responder into a dumping ground for former campaign staff and political hacks," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan).

FEMA also is hampered by several midlevel and regional director's jobs currently held by acting directors.

"Just like our military, FEMA should be immune to this kind of political staffing. It should be run by career emergency response professionals," Maloney added.

Traditionally, the Commerce and Labor departments have long been Washington's dumping ground for presidential pals and campaign operatives - not the disaster relief agency.

Government sources blame Bush's first FEMA director, Joe Allbaugh, with turning FEMA into a patronage shop.

He was chief of staff when Bush was Texas' governor and later headed the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign.

[TChris]

The hipocrisy of the Left is sickening. Is it really news that an administration hires people who more or less match their way of thinking? Is it any surprise that a President would put people he knows and trusts (commonly termed: friends) into positions of value in his administration?

This is expected! Yet the Legacy Media^TM writes as though it's the very definition of corruption. ...as though no Democrat president would ever consider hiring friends to work with him. ...as though the whole Clinton warmed-over-hippie whitehouse had never happened.

[Gone GF]

"So...one question for the NY Daily Spews crew: Who ran FEMA under Clinton? Were they "Clinton cronies" as well?"

So if Clinton appointed cronies or hacks, then that makes it OK that Bush did? That's what your reaction implies anyway.

[dennisw]

Good for him (and our Federal disaster response) and I say this without any sarcasm

[dennisw]

A Bill Clinton appointed hack is sorta OK if he performs. Did the GW Bush appointed hacks in FEMA perform? I can't sort it all out yet but it seems they didn't.

Of course the governess of LA and the NO mayor have primary responsibility

[spanalot]

"The flap over Brown being a horse lawyer for 9 nine years before his FEMA jobs will be compared to the kind of background and qualifications of this Acting Director Of Operations. Some critics might say that even this resume and work experience are insufficient. But there's nothing that looks political about it.
"

Why is not the top guy equal to his subordintes?
This is a high profile position w/ respect to the War on Terror -- this ain't ambassador to France where you can have any old puffer.

[Prime Choice]

It's called putting the issue in perspective. Duh?

[George W. Bush]

Why is not the top guy equal to his subordintes?

Good question. I dunno if Burris has the perfect resume. But he doesn't appear to be a political crony and had strong professional standing in an emergency-services field long before working in the Fire Administration or FEMA. Well, he wasn't a horse lawyer anyway.

Clinton's FEMA head was his crony. And I don't doubt he was expert in funneling money to Arkansas. But he also repeatedly won bipartisan praise for moving toward mitigation after the Mississippi floods. He emphasized strategies to reduce the numbers of repeat claims against federal flood insurance. I recall one particular flood-prone area where the Senate gave him credit for reducing the numbers of claims from 500 down to 11. The Senate seemed to like that a lot because they were tired of writing checks to the same 'victims' every couple of years. Anyway, that seems to have been what they liked at the time. Given that the big Mississippi floods hit a lot of Blue and Red states, it seems a good example of what FEMA was supposed to do. Help with the crisis and make sure that next time, you have less of a problem with victims and less federal insurance liability.

Federal flood insurance is always debatable but the recent disaster made it clear enough why we have it. No one could afford flood insurance if it was in the smaller pools you'd have without federal flood insurance. So there would effectively be no flood insurance without federal involvement. A very strong argument can be made for the economic effectiveness of federally-backed flood insurance. And I really hate to admit it because I always wanted to terminate the federal involvement in it and have been called a heartless bastard for saying so.

Whether Clinton's FEMA strategy was good or bad is debatable. But I think the debate should center more around whether it was cost-effective. Many of the changes in FEMA since it was subsumed into DHS revolve around this question of how much of FEMA's work has been privatized and whether that was as effective as the old program was. And the upcoming hearings will undoubtedly focus on this. Congress will decide which approach they like better. The repulsive part of the debate will be that Madame Hillary will be leading the charge for the Dims.

So I expect the hearings to focus on the size of FEMA's role and whether FEMA is accomplishing its mission by granting monies to private companies vs. having its own experts who lead a government-centered effort. No one debates whether we should privatize the military or police or firefighters. So the question will be how much FEMA is like those other types of emergency/security operations. And it's even more true since FEMA is part of DHS.

I'll be waiting to see how it turns out. It may be that Bush's strategy is both more cost-effective and has stronger mitigation. No matter how it turns out, I expect Madame Hillary or the Dim candidate in '08 will try to make headway in a few Red states over this issue. And as we've seen in the last two elections, the Dims only need one or two Red states to win the WH.

So there is going to be a very heavy political undercurrent in all this.

[spanalot]

"the Dims only need one or two Red states to win the WH."

How quick some forget.

[spanalot]

youre gonna love this.

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/008013.html

[George W. Bush]

I still don't see how Dims can really spin this into House or Senate seats in '06, let alone in '08. But we haven't yet seen the real Katrina death toll yet, especially in Mississippi.

The higher the death toll, the more potential traction this might have. At this point, I'd say it's a wash at best for Dims.

[spanalot]

They have to prepare in case the poop hits the fan - drudge has headlined "25000 body bags ready" If so, Bush will need 2 more for FEMA and Homeland.

Look at what the "trolls" at NR have posted.

[George W. Bush]

youre gonna love this.

These accounts haven't been substantiated yet. If they're true, it's an outrage. Like a lot of other stories we've heard, we'll know a lot more once we have hearings with full press coverage.

If it is true, the local Gretna sheriff took hostile action against citizens trying to evacuate, effectively imprisoning them. And this has nothing to do with Bush or FEMA or even the governor. It would be an example of lawlessness by lawmen which is why I find it a little hard to take at face value.

What was that article at NR (New Republic or National Review?)

[1035rep]

"the Dims only need one or two Red states to win the WH."

Not to worry, when the hearings on Katrina are over they will need a whole lot more

[spanalot]

You can add Robert Novak to your list of trolls

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak08.html

"Get Rid of all the Lawyers"

[AmusedBystander]

He has both the Senate and the House in his favor and still has not moved on many of the most critical issues that we face

Just having a majority of Republicans does not put them in Bush's favor. I have never seen so many "good" republicans like McCain, Hagel, et al get so far off the reservation that they sound like democrats more than republicans most of the time.

[George W. Bush]

Interesting writing by Novak. I wonder if he's still as well-connected as he once was. If he's right, Brown is gone.

[spanalot]

"I wonder if he's still as well-connected as he once was"

It looked like he had cover while he bitch slapped the libs that tried to harpoon the Nigeria/Iraq yellow cake story.

He goes back a loooong way inside the Beltway.

[Gone GF]

"It's called putting the issue in perspective. Duh?"

Actually, it sounds more like a lame attempt at justification. In this case, "persepctive" helps no one.

[Luker]

That's a "baffoon" rlmorel - an incompetent who can't keep his job. Get it. (And it only took a couple of days to prove me right - I love being so correct.)

[uncitizen]

"disaster professional" What the He** is a "disaster professional"

Nagin and Blanko are two examples of disaster professionals.