| richardhutnik said: Ok, so if this is the case, then why is the military the ONLY thing that the federal government is more competent doing than leaving it to the states, and private citizens? Why yes to military and no to say, FEMA? |
I don't think there is a case against there being a government organization to aid states in dire distress. However, the problem is how its done, and how invasive the process is.
FEMA is an example of a good idea gone awry. Prior to FEMA, the government leveraged private institutions to help out with emergency situations, as they are far more effective countermeasures for such situations, as they don't have the red tape, or bloated bureaucracy that a government institution has.
A good example would be Hurricaine Katrina...While FEMA and the National Guard were trying to get approvals for mobilization and orders, tens of thousands of people through various organizations were flooding into the gulf (excuse the pun) to help with the rebuilding effort.
Personally, I think it'd be better for the government to partition a part of the federal budget, and save it back for disbursment to organizations in case of disaster, as opposed to having an entire governmental agency to do it. It would save on time, money, and flexibility to ensure that needs are met immediately, as opposed to going through various crazy red-tape channels.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
