Brummett continues to expose the disaster that is the Bush administrations Federal Emergency Management operation. Dumas is learning what Louisiana learned and continues to learn -- FEMA is immobile, insensitive and very nearly inert in the face of proven needs. Unless you live in a heavily Republican district.
There's a scathing editorial on the Bush administration's dereliction of duty in today's Washington Post, (link fixed, I think) including an amazed reaction to the notion that federal emergency help should not be provided states with a current budget surplus (already well obligated, I would add.) Conclusion:
We give you all these details of one state's tussle with FEMA because it suggests that the "new" FEMA is no better than the old one. The agency that bungled the federal response to Hurricane Katrina and that promised to step up its game is giving itself high-fives for nickel-and-diming people in need.
When the House Homeland Security Committee convenes its hearing on the limp response to Arkansas's aid request on March 15, FEMA Director R. David Paulison should answer this question: How much distress must an area suffer before his agency deems it appropriate to help? Having regulations and procedures for doling out federal aid is understandable, but blind adherence to the rules that gets in the way of fulfilling an implicit moral mandate is unacceptable.
Question: Name a single thing the Bush administration has done that hasn't been incompetent, incorrupt or blindly arrogant -- or all three.