From Mark Steyn in the OCResgister:
Our permanent state of routine emergency
In just about his last act as president, George W. Bush has declared Washington, D.C., a federal disaster area.
It's been a disaster area since it was founded, but I don't think that's what he's getting at.
No, seriously. I'm not setting up some lame-o punchline here, like we used to do a decade back in the good old Monica days: "President Clinton today declared his pants a federal disaster area," etc. What happened last week was that the Bush administration formally declared a federal emergency in the District of Columbia.
So what was it? An ice storm? A hurricane?
Do tell! What is this impending disaster?
No, it's the inauguration of his successor. The inauguration is scheduled to make landfall on Tuesday and wreak havoc all night long, as Category Five conga lines buckle highways round town, and emergency busboy crews find themselves overwhelmed as they struggle to clear drained champagne flutes. So the mayor, Adrian M. Fenty, put in a request for more federal money, and, apparently, the easiest way to sluice the cash to him no questions asked was for the president to declare a state of emergency in the District and funnel however many extra gazillions he wants through FEMA – the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
"I don't know if anybody's ever done that," said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary.
Aaahh! I get it. This sudden, unforeseeable "disaster" is about to fall on the district, and in spite of us being told that all expenses ($150 mil worth) would come from private donations, they need more and lucky us, we get to pay for it.
They don't even have the cajones to come right out and tell us we've got to pick up this slack, they do the little sidestep, and sneak it through as disaster relief.
Indeed. One reason why nobody's ever done that before is because a presidential inauguration is not (to be boringly technical about it) an "emergency." It's penciled in well in advance – in this case, so well in advance that for years Democrats have been driving around with "1-20-09" bumper stickers on the back of their Priuses. Emergency-wise, that's the equivalent of Hurricane Dan Rather wrapped around a lamppost in his sou'wester, hanging there in eager anticipation every night for half a decade. Generally speaking, changes of government are only "emergencies" in the livelier banana republics where this week's president-for-life suddenly spots the machete-wielding mob scrambling over the palace walls so nimbly he barely has time to dial the Liberian branch of FEMA and put in a request for extra Portapotties and a rope-line management team
As far as the allusion to banana republics...we'll have to wait and see how the gathered throngs react.
The proposition that a new federal administration is itself a federal emergency is almost too perfect an emblem of American government in the 21st century. FEMA was created in the 1970s initially to coordinate the emergency response to catastrophic events such as a nuclear attack. But there weren't a lot of those even in the Carter years, so, as is the way with bureaucracies, FEMA just growed like Topsy. In his first year in office, Bill Clinton declared a then-record-setting 58 federal emergencies. By the end of the Nineties, Mother Nature was finding it hard to come up with a meteorological phenomenon that didn't qualify as a federal emergency: Heavy rain in the Midwest? Call FEMA! Light snow in Vermont? FEMA! Fifty-seven under cloudy skies in California? Let those FEMA trailers roll!
Tent...camel nose...Nobody seems to learn. Once a state or federal agency is formed, all the DDT, dynamite or penicillin in the world will ever make it go away let alone stay with the constraints it started with. It'll just morph into something bigger with more areas to cover. And it won't matter that they sucked at trying to cover their original obligations...if they get bigger, and get a larger budget, they'll provide more
The Cato Institute's James Bovard was struck by the plight of Vernon, Conn., a town ravaged in the winter of 1995-96 by, er, slightly more snow than they'd expected. So FEMA sent them a check for $40,023. Vernon had 30,000 people, and its town snow-removal costs that winter were $258,000. "That's just $8.60 per person," Bovard pointed out, "less than a 12-year-old charges to shovel out a driveway after a good snowfall."
OMG!!! A town in Connecticut got snow (love that Global Wormering) and it was more than they anticipated? Being rational human beings one would plan for something close to the same thing next year, right?
So why did they need "federal emergency" aid? Because the town had only budgeted $104,516, and so claimed to be "overwhelmed" by the additional costs. They could have asked the good burghers of Vernon to chip in an extra five bucks apiece. But why bother when FEMA's so eager to give you a warm bath in the federal love nectar? The town government wised up pretty quickly. The next winter, they set the snow-removal budget at just $69,383.
That's the ticket, cut the snow removal budget by 33%! If it snows this year (want to take bets on if it did?), the Feds will make up any shortfall.
So a "federal emergency" is no longer a nuclear strike on Cleveland or even a Category Three hurricane, but now a snowfall in New England and an inaugural ball at the Mayflower Hotel. As Mister Incredible shrewdly observes to his kid in "The Incredibles," when everybody's special, nobody is. Likewise, when everything's an emergency, nothing is: We live in a permanent state of routine emergency.
Anything basic that we don't want to pay for now can just be ignored, don't plan for snowfall, don't plan for mudslides (Calif.), don't expect it to get effing hot in Arizona and have a shortage of electricity to run the A/C... FEMA is there and will bail us all out.
This is just another example of "spreading the wealth". I'm in California paying for snow removal in Connecticut, and Iowa is paying for my mudslides and fire prevention. That Bush declared this POS just fries my bacon...to burnt!
The metastasization of FEMA teaches several lessons – the first and most obvious being that any new government program, agency or entitlement will always outgrow whatever narrow purpose it was created for. Which is why we small-government types are wary of creating any new ones in the first place. Thus, an itsy-bitsy bit of inconsequential government tinkering on the periphery of the mortgage market expanded to the point where federally mandated home loans to the uncreditworthy came close to collapsing not just the U.S. property market but the global financial system.
If you'd suggested in the Seventies a new federal agency to cope with municipal snow removal in Connecticut, you'd have been laughed out the room. But, with government, mission creep isn't a bug but the defining feature. In mid-September, the "bailout" was a once-in-a-lifetime emergency measure to save the planet. A mere four months later, it's the new baseline. If your congressman's lousy boondoggle has got six zeroes on the end, it's an earmark: Boooooooooo! If it's got 12 zeroes, it's a "stimulus": Hurrah!
Laugh it up fuzzball. FEMA is now willing to cover any inconvenience our elected officials decided not to budget for, that way they can supply free needles to addicts and university education to illegals. Oh, you get to pay for that too.
I'm not worried about "change" so much as creep. The Obama administration doesn't have to do anything terribly transformative – overnight socialization of health care, etc. In fact, it doesn't have to do anything at all. It could just sit there, and America would still drift remorselessly, incrementally left, inch by inch. Eventually, you reach a tipping point: At some point in the next four years, we will reach a situation where the majority of Americans pay no federal income tax but are able to vote themselves more goodies from those who do. The most basic of conservative principles is that if you reward bad behavior you get more of it. We now have a government offering trillion-dollar rewards for bad behavior to the financial system, to the housing market, to the auto unions and to individual voters. And the heirs to those Connecticut town meetings that Tocqueville regarded as the best form of government ever devised by man now underbudget their snow-removal costs, secure in the knowledge that the Feds will pick up the tab.
This is beyond bad behavior, this is pathetic. My income was cut in half two years ago, but I've kept my house payments current, paid insurance, even most of my bills are paid up. I cut back on expenses and prioritized what was necessary to keep up with my obligations and try to plan for future "disaster". I doubt I'm going to get a court ordered refi on my house or any forgiveness on debts. Most likely, I'm going to be taxed higher to help those SOB's that were underqualified for a loan. Sounds fair to me.
We're now told that the problem with the last New Deal is that it was too small, so Obama's new New Deal has to be even bigger. That's like telling New Orleans that the problem is they're not far enough below sea level so they need to dig deeper. If Washington is now a federal disaster area, it would be nice to think of Barney Frank and the gang waving from the roof of the Capitol until they can be evacuated somewhere safe, like one of the outlying South Sandwich Islands or Charley Rangel's vacation property in the Dominican Republic. But, alas, Washington is one of those disaster relief cases, where they get the relief, and the rest of us get the disaster. As the incoming president has said, this is the worst crisis since …oh, at least the great Vernon, Conn., snowfall of 1996. To facilitate the stimulus, I urge him to declare every American his own individual federal disaster area.
Government does not create productivity!!!
Government may create a job, but to pay for the job they must provide the funds, The funds come from the taxpayer, who must now pay more in taxes to fund the government created job, thereby, the taxpayer, having less to spend on products depresses the economy more, causing layoffs with more people looking to the government to give them something to do (or at least pick up their bills), making the few remaining taxpayers pay more....and around and around...and around.
Obama seems to be naming a lot of "czar's" in his administration. These are people who are going to make policy on all these different facets of my life. I didn't elect them and I don't what them telling me how I have to live my life. If I can afford something, I'll use it. If I can't, then I'll adjust my lifestyle (right Mr. Gore?).
I waiting for the food police to kick in, probably shortly after they get National Health Care. I've never eaten a "good" diet, I've got too many vices that I indulge in, BUT, even though I'm way under BMI and eat what I feel like, I've had 5 sick days in the last 10 years...and I don't get paid for unused sick days. (Aside: I don't take "Metal Health" sick days, I can get sick, but it's not on a Monday or Friday.)
Anyone want to go up against that? I don't need instruction on how to live, I think I do OK.
We're a nation wussies that want someone else to cover our shortcomings, but we've forgotten that the money to do that comes from us, and the more people that want to be protected from their shortsightedness, the fewer people there are to cover their mistake(s).