More on the ssame awful subject - Miriam V.

Killed by Contempt - New York Times
The New York Times

September 5, 2005

Killed by Contempt
By
PAUL KRUGMAN

Each day since Katrina brings more evidence of the lethal ineptitude of
federal officials. I'm not letting state and local officials off the hook,
but federal
officials had access to resources that could have made all the difference,
but were never mobilized.

Here's one of many examples: The Chicago Tribune reports that the U.S.S.
Bataan, equipped with six operating rooms, hundreds of hospital beds and the
ability
to produce 100,000 gallons of fresh water a day, has been sitting off the
Gulf Coast since last Monday - without patients.

Experts say that the first 72 hours after a natural disaster are the crucial
window during which prompt action can save many lives. Yet action after
Katrina
was anything but prompt. Newsweek reports that a "strange paralysis" set in
among Bush administration officials, who debated lines of authority while
thousands
died.

What caused that paralysis? President Bush certainly failed his test. After
9/11, all the country really needed from him was a speech. This time it
needed
action - and he didn't deliver.

But the federal government's lethal ineptitude wasn't just a consequence of
Mr. Bush's personal inadequacy; it was a consequence of ideological
hostility
to the very idea of using government to serve the public good. For 25 years
the right has been denigrating the public sector, telling us that government
is always the problem, not the solution. Why should we be surprised that
when we needed a government solution, it wasn't forthcoming?

Does anyone remember the fight over federalizing airport security? Even
after 9/11, the administration and conservative members of Congress tried to
keep
airport security in the hands of private companies. They were more worried
about adding federal employees than about closing a deadly hole in national
security.

Of course, the attempt to keep airport security private wasn't just about
philosophy; it was also an attempt to protect private interests. But that's
not
really a contradiction. Ideological cynicism about government easily morphs
into a readiness to treat government spending as a way to reward your
friends.
After all, if you don't believe government can do any good, why not?

Which brings us to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In my last
column, I asked whether the Bush administration had destroyed FEMA's
effectiveness.
Now we know the answer.

Several recent news analyses on FEMA's sorry state have attributed the
agency's decline to its inclusion in the Department of Homeland Security,
whose prime
concern is terrorism, not natural disasters. But that supposed change in
focus misses a crucial part of the story.

For one thing, the undermining of FEMA began as soon as President Bush took
office. Instead of choosing a professional with expertise in responses to
disaster
to head the agency, Mr. Bush appointed Joseph Allbaugh, a close political
confidant. Mr. Allbaugh quickly began trying to scale back some of FEMA's
preparedness
programs.

You might have expected the administration to reconsider its hostility to
emergency preparedness after 9/11 - after all, emergency management is as
important
in the aftermath of a terrorist attack as it is following a natural
disaster. As many people have noticed, the failed response to Katrina shows
that we
are less ready to cope with a terrorist attack today than we were four years
ago.

But the downgrading of FEMA continued, with the appointment of Michael Brown
as Mr. Allbaugh's successor.

Mr. Brown had no obvious qualifications, other than having been Mr.
Allbaugh's college roommate. But Mr. Brown was made deputy director of FEMA;
The Boston
Herald reports that he was forced out of his previous job, overseeing horse
shows. And when Mr. Allbaugh left, Mr. Brown became the agency's director.
The raw cronyism of that appointment showed the contempt the administration
felt for the agency; one can only imagine the effects on staff morale.

That contempt, as I've said, reflects a general hostility to the role of
government as a force for good. And Americans living along the Gulf Coast
have
now reaped the consequences of that hostility.

The administration has always tried to treat 9/11 purely as a lesson about
good versus evil. But disasters must be coped with, even if they aren't
caused
by evildoers. Now we have another deadly lesson in why we need an effective
government, and why dedicated public servants deserve our respect. Will we
listen?

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com