tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10238534.post114024879635510700..comments2023-11-05T04:35:19.263-05:00Comments on Faceless Bureaucrat: FEMA and DHSBill Harshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02094598931693185805noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10238534.post-1141848789457819302006-03-08T15:13:00.000-05:002006-03-08T15:13:00.000-05:00I've my reservations about separating FEMA out aga...I've my reservations about separating FEMA out again. That's another reorganization with attendant confustion. An independent FEMA wouldn't automatically revert back to where it was under Witt. <BR/><BR/>Bureaucratic reorgs should be evaluated on their utility over a long time scale.Bill Harshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02094598931693185805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10238534.post-1141698892439475092006-03-06T21:34:00.000-05:002006-03-06T21:34:00.000-05:00Bill, thanks for looking at this. >"But the reali...Bill, thanks for looking at this. >"But the reality, as any experienced bureaucrat knew, was that creating DHS would cause us to be less prepared over the next few years, both for disaster and terror, than the alternative. The truth is any reorganization uses so much bureaucratic energy that the sum is significantly less than the whole for several years."<BR/><BR/>This reminds me of a while ago somebody asked how we could have won world war two with bureaucracies created in 1942 and disbanded in '45 or '46. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, FEMA was in great shape under Clinton and Jamie Lee Whitten and proved its mettle time and time again. It had to be because, after Andrew in 92, the critics would eat you for lunch if you stumbled just once on a hurricane or other disaster.<BR/><BR/>FEMA should go back to Independent status without a middleman (DHS)betweem the director and the president.George Buddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10567769949113869344noreply@blogger.com