FEMA - Worst Run Govt. Agency?

[Fireball]

Please then name all these 'well-run' federal plans and agencies. I cant think of one that I would give that much credit to.

Interstate highways?

You mean those interstates that are ten years and millions of dollars over budget on projects here in my state? Try again.

Over budget or not, those highways have become essential to our economic well-being. They have been a hugely successful investment of government resources.

Also, our National Park system has preserved millions of acres of land, and kept it free from pollution, development and made accessible, natural spaces open to everyone. That's a highly successful program that makes this nation a nicer place in which to live.

Social Security, while imperfect, has slashed the poverty rate amongst the elderly. People focus on its flaws, but it has been one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in world history.

Similarly, school breakfast programs have been shown to improve nutrition, health and grades amongst adolescents who weren't receiving a proper breakfast at home.

Needle exchange programs have been very effective at cutting down on the rate of spread of HIV in at risk, marginal populations.

The late 1990s and early 2000s have been a golden age for probe-based and telescopic research into outer space.

The list of successful government programs, ones that have had measurable positive impacts on the areas they were designed to address, is far longer than most people like to think.

[Grifman]

Someone tried to point out that the interstate highways is an example of a well run federal agency, which again I highly disagree with, doesnt matter where the planning is done.

Sure it does. If the federal government doesn't do anything other than write checks, then the success or failure of any given project doesn't really have anything to do with whether the agency is well run or not.

How about the Coast Guard? They seem to do a pretty good job.

If you just right checks and dont follow up to make sure the money is spent well, or a project is planned well thats a pretty good definition of a poorly run organization.

As for the coast guard, they fall under the cost overrun problems all parts of our military still have, you know, $300 hammers, $1000 dollar toilet seats and all that.

Government by its very nature is innefiecient in almost all things it does, but in the case of the military and a VERY few other things, its the only body that can do it.

All large organizations suffer from similar issues, government or not. Ever worked in a cube farm?

Funny, I was going to raise that exact same point. It's funny how people see govt waste everywhere, and ignore the waste in the private sector. It's not like private enterprise is really efficient for that matter. Look at Ford and GM - have they been efficient in the wasting of shareholder's money in designing cars that no one wants to buy? What about KMart that was so efficient and successful that they filed for bankruptcy. I can tell you from my own personal work experience, I've seen my share of waste in the company I work for. It's just not public knowledge as corporations aren't nearly as transparent as the govt even with required finanicial disclosures.

Capitalism is extremely wasteful, as companies and investments are destroyed all the time. And we end up paying for it also. Companies go under leaving unpaid debts, shareholders lose investments, etc. All of this comes out of our GNP. Sure, this destructive process presumably makes things better overall in the long term as inefficient companies go out of business, but it's a bit messy and wasteful while it happens.

[Grifman]

Brettmcd wrote:

Is there such a thing as a well run federal agency????? Sadly the rule at the governmental level seems to be waste and incompetance. FEMA is no different.

Godhugh wrote:

Heh, that's a good point. Which makes it even more exceptional that FEMA is the worst of the bunch Wink.

I'd offer that while the overall agencies might not be as well run as we'd like (or even close to it), there's probably a substantial number of programs that are well run. There's probably also a large number of good, competent people working in those agencies. So before you start painting with such a large brush, I'd ask that you consider those things.

All that aside, FEMA has to be one of my top 5 agencies/department (or at least top 10) that I'd like to be among the most well-run in the government.

Please then name all these 'well-run' federal plans and agencies. I cant think of one that I would give that much credit to.

Eaten any food lately? Taken any drugs lately? Breathed any air or drunken any water lately? The govt does a pretty decent job at making sure our food and drugs are safe, as well as insuring we have clean water and air. Oh, yeah, govt mandated seatbelts and airbags have saved thousands of lives - actual highway deaths are down despite increased miles driven. Successful govt programs really aren't hard to find if you just take the ideological blinders off for a minute.

[Poleaxe]

Capitalism is extremely wasteful, as companies and investments are destroyed all the time. And we end up paying for it also. Companies go under leaving unpaid debts, shareholders lose investments, etc. All of this comes out of our GNP. Sure, this destructive process presumably makes things better overall in the long term as inefficient companies go out of business, but it's a bit messy and wasteful while it happens.

Capitalism is generally self-correcting. Govt. rarely is.

[brettmcd]

Brettmcd wrote:

Is there such a thing as a well run federal agency????? Sadly the rule at the governmental level seems to be waste and incompetance. FEMA is no different.

Godhugh wrote:

Heh, that's a good point. Which makes it even more exceptional that FEMA is the worst of the bunch Wink.

I'd offer that while the overall agencies might not be as well run as we'd like (or even close to it), there's probably a substantial number of programs that are well run. There's probably also a large number of good, competent people working in those agencies. So before you start painting with such a large brush, I'd ask that you consider those things.

All that aside, FEMA has to be one of my top 5 agencies/department (or at least top 10) that I'd like to be among the most well-run in the government.

Please then name all these 'well-run' federal plans and agencies. I cant think of one that I would give that much credit to.

Eaten any food lately? Taken any drugs lately? Breathed any air or drunken any water lately? The govt does a pretty decent job at making sure our food and drugs are safe, as well as insuring we have clean water and air. Oh, yeah, govt mandated seatbelts and airbags have saved thousands of lives - actual highway deaths are down despite increased miles driven. Successful govt programs really aren't hard to find if you just take the ideological blinders off for a minute.

Most if not all of the drug safety testing is done by the drug companies themselves. Same with most other product safety issues. But i guess if the government didnt exist companies would just put out products that would kill all of their customers?

Most of what the government does is done in about the most inefficient manor possible and wastes vast amounts of money. Again I fail to see all these 'well run' governmental agencies that you seem to think exist.

[Grifman]

Capitalism is extremely wasteful, as companies and investments are destroyed all the time. And we end up paying for it also. Companies go under leaving unpaid debts, shareholders lose investments, etc. All of this comes out of our GNP. Sure, this destructive process presumably makes things better overall in the long term as inefficient companies go out of business, but it's a bit messy and wasteful while it happens.

Capitalism is generally self-correcting. Govt. rarely is.

I think I pointed that out. But the self correction algorithm is extremely wasteful. And it oftentimes doesn't stop other wasteful corporations from developing. I think my point still stands.

[Poleaxe]

Capitalism is extremely wasteful, as companies and investments are destroyed all the time. And we end up paying for it also. Companies go under leaving unpaid debts, shareholders lose investments, etc. All of this comes out of our GNP. Sure, this destructive process presumably makes things better overall in the long term as inefficient companies go out of business, but it's a bit messy and wasteful while it happens.

Capitalism is generally self-correcting. Govt. rarely is.

I think I pointed that out. But the self correction algorithm is extremely wasteful. And it oftentimes doesn't stop other wasteful corporations from developing. I think my point still stands.

Yeah, but it's like saying that democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form.

[Grifman]

Most if not all of the drug safety testing is done by the drug companies themselves. Same with most other product safety issues. But i guess if the government didnt exist companies would just put out products that would kill all of their customers?

But the testing is required and regulated by the govt - to say that the testig is done by the companies doesn't disprove my point in anyway whatsoever. As for killing customers, ask Merck - they seem to be having some problems in this area.

Most of what the government does is done in about the most inefficient manor possible and wastes vast amounts of money.

Statement asserted, not proven.

I would argue that much of what the govt does is given to the govt because there isn't an "efficient" way of doing it via the private sector. How efficient should an M1A2 tank be? What tradeoffs do you make between cost, firepower, protection and fuel efficiency? How much is a tanker's life worth? How do you measure ROE on a tank? What about the national parks? What's the ROE in preserving Yellowstone or the Yosemite or the Grand Tetons? What about the CDC - how do you price stopping avian flu?

I'd also argue that a portion of "waste" is due to the inability to plan long term. Republicans and Democrats have different agendas when in office. How disruptive is that everytime a different party takes power and changes priorities? Some of this is the cost of the democratic process itself.

Another area of waste is due to Congress itself. The record is full of spending Congress requires as part of porkbarrel spending. You can't blame the bureaucracy for that - this is forced on them by your representatives and mine. Weapons the military doesn't want or need, 'bridges to nowhere" demanded by congressmen. etc.. That's not the fault of the govt, per se, but us, the people that want this stuff and vote for the congressmen that get it for us.

Again I fail to see all these 'well run' governmental agencies that you seem to think exist.

Bureau of Printing and Engraving
National Weather Service
Coast Guard
FBI
FDA
EPA
National Park Service
National Institute of Health
Center for Disease Control
Congressional Budget Office
US Mint
NTSB
SEC
NOAA

These are some of the ones that I think are pretty well respected, though I'm certain none is perfect and have some warts.

[Scanner]

Again I fail to see all these 'well run' governmental agencies that you seem to think exist.

National Weather Service

A great example. This is so well run that its private-sector competitors, unable to add value, want to shut it down.

[brettmcd]

Most if not all of the drug safety testing is done by the drug companies themselves. Same with most other product safety issues. But i guess if the government didnt exist companies would just put out products that would kill all of their customers?

But the testing is required and regulated by the govt - to say that the testig is done by the companies doesn't disprove my point in anyway whatsoever. As for killing customers, ask Merck - they seem to be having some problems in this area.

Most of what the government does is done in about the most inefficient manor possible and wastes vast amounts of money.

Statement asserted, not proven.

I would argue that much of what the govt does is given to the govt because there isn't an "efficient" way of doing it via the private sector. How efficient should an M1A2 tank be? What tradeoffs do you make between cost, firepower, protection and fuel efficiency? How much is a tanker's life worth? How do you measure ROE on a tank? What about the national parks? What's the ROE in preserving Yellowstone or the Yosemite or the Grand Tetons? What about the CDC - how do you price stopping avian flu?

I'd also argue that a portion of "waste" is due to the inability to plan long term. Republicans and Democrats have different agendas when in office. How disruptive is that everytime a different party takes power and changes priorities? Some of this is the cost of the democratic process itself.

Another area of waste is due to Congress itself. The record is full of spending Congress requires as part of porkbarrel spending. You can't blame the bureaucracy for that - this is forced on them by your representatives and mine. Weapons the military doesn't want or need, 'bridges to nowhere" demanded by congressmen. etc.. That's not the fault of the govt, per se, but us, the people that want this stuff and vote for the congressmen that get it for us.

Again I fail to see all these 'well run' governmental agencies that you seem to think exist.

Bureau of Printing and Engraving
National Weather Service
Coast Guard
FBI
FDA
EPA
National Park Service
National Institute of Health
Center for Disease Control
Congressional Budget Office
US Mint
NTSB
SEC
NOAA

These are some of the ones that I think are pretty well respected, though I'm certain none is perfect and have some warts.

Sadly there is nothing I can say or no point you would accept that would get past your love of big government being the end all solution to every problem in the world. MOST of what government does could be done better and more efficiently in other ways. And some of the things you list are things that ONLY government is allowed to do, so putting them on any list is pointless as the private sector is not allowed to do their functions constitutionally.

Also what congress (the government) does is not the fault of the government???? That makes zero sense.

[brettmcd]

Again I fail to see all these 'well run' governmental agencies that you seem to think exist.

National Weather Service

A great example. This is so well run that its private-sector competitors, unable to add value, want to shut it down.

I think there would be weather prediction and forcasting without the government doing it.

[Scanner]

Again I fail to see all these 'well run' governmental agencies that you seem to think exist.

National Weather Service

A great example. This is so well run that its private-sector competitors, unable to add value, want to shut it down.

I think there would be weather prediction and forcasting without the government doing it.

Yes, and I'm sure it wouldn't be as good.

[Dogstar]

Brettmcd wrote:

Sadly there is nothing I can say or no point you would accept that would get past your love of big government being the end all solution to every problem in the world. MOST of what government does could be done better and more efficiently in other ways. And some of the things you list are things that ONLY government is allowed to do, so putting them on any list is pointless as the private sector is not allowed to do their functions constitutionally.

Sadly, there is apparently little we can say that would get you to accept that not all aspects of the federal government are bad. You ask for a list -- and people provide you with one -- but you reject it anyway. It's not like they handed you the entire phonebook for all the federal agencies. However, you extrapolate from this list that they must have an undying love for big government, as opposed to merely providing you the very list that you asked for. (I'd remind you what they say about assumptions.) Last but not least, the question was not whether the jobs could be done better in the private sector -- it was whether a federal program/agency could be well-run. So your assertion that "things that ONLY the government is allowed to do" affects whether we can judge whether they're well-run or not is irrelevant. The very agency that started this thread -- if it were the only one that was capable of delivering emergency supplies -- could be easily evaluated if it in fact failed to do so.

[farley2k]

Again I fail to see all these 'well run' governmental agencies that you seem to think exist.

National Weather Service

A great example. This is so well run that its private-sector competitors, unable to add value, want to shut it down.

I think there would be weather prediction and forcasting without the government doing it.

You asked for a well run governmental agency - you were shown one!
When faced with that you tried to change the focus to "well it would exist without the government doing it"

That is a crappy debate technique.

[noxiousdog]

You asked for a well run governmental agency - you were shown one!
When faced with that you tried to change the focus to "well it would exist without the government doing it"

That is a crappy debate technique.

The interstate highway system is the most cited reason for the emergence of the US as a post WWII superpower. If he's going to denegrate that, he'll denegrate anything.

[brettmcd]

Brettmcd wrote:

Sadly there is nothing I can say or no point you would accept that would get past your love of big government being the end all solution to every problem in the world. MOST of what government does could be done better and more efficiently in other ways. And some of the things you list are things that ONLY government is allowed to do, so putting them on any list is pointless as the private sector is not allowed to do their functions constitutionally.

Sadly, there is apparently little we can say that would get you to accept that not all government is bad. You ask for a list -- and people provide you with one -- but you reject it anyway. It's not like they handed you the entire phonebook for all the federal agencies. However, you extrapolate from this list that they must have an undying love for big government, as opposed to merely providing you the very list that you asked for. (I'd remind you what they say about assumptions.) Last but not least, the question was not whether the jobs could be done better in the private sector -- it was whether a federal program/agency could be well-run. So your assertion that "things that ONLY the government is allowed to do" affects whether we can judge whether they're well-run or not is irrelevant. The very agency that started this thread -- if it were the only one that was capable of delivering emergency supplies -- could be easily evaluated if it in fact failed to do so.

If something can be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then yes the government agency doing it is NOT well run. For the national weather service, is it a good use of federal funds to do the exact same things the private sector already does just as well?

As for things only the government can do, the private sector constitutionally cannot coin money or print money, or provide the military, so its impossible to compare if it could be done better in the private sector.

All government is not bad, there are a small number of things that only the government can do, BUT the vast majority of what it does could be done better in other ways.

[deadzone]

I think we all can agree that the Border Patrol does a heck of a job....

[brettmcd]

Again I fail to see all these 'well run' governmental agencies that you seem to think exist.

National Weather Service

A great example. This is so well run that its private-sector competitors, unable to add value, want to shut it down.

I think there would be weather prediction and forcasting without the government doing it.

You asked for a well run governmental agency - you were shown one!
When faced with that you tried to change the focus to "well it would exist without the government doing it"

That is a crappy debate technique.

No it is not a 'crappy debate technique' what I am arguing is that if something could be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then the government providing it show that they are not using taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible, which to me show the agency is NOT well run.

[farley2k]

You asked for a well run governmental agency - you were shown one!
When faced with that you tried to change the focus to "well it would exist without the government doing it"

That is a crappy debate technique.

The interstate highway system is the most cited reason for the emergence of the US as a post WWII superpower. If he's going to denegrate that, he'll denegrate anything.

Probably but it still bugs me as a debate technique.

I know that I use it sometimes but it is so annoying when someone asks one question, gets an answer they don't like so they change the question.

[brettmcd]

You asked for a well run governmental agency - you were shown one!
When faced with that you tried to change the focus to "well it would exist without the government doing it"

That is a crappy debate technique.

The interstate highway system is the most cited reason for the emergence of the US as a post WWII superpower. If he's going to denegrate that, he'll denegrate anything.

Saying something isnt well run does NOT mean I am denegrating the entire interstate highway system. I say it could be done better then it currently is.

[farley2k]

No it is not a 'crappy debate technique' what I am arguing is that if something could be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then the government providing it show that they are not using taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible, which to me show the agency is NOT well run.

You are not arguing anything. You are simply saying stuff and hoping people will take that as an argument.

You offer no evidence that things could be done cheaper or better you just decide that they can be.

[farley2k]

No it is not a 'crappy debate technique' what I am arguing is that if something could be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then the government providing it show that they are not using taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible, which to me show the agency is NOT well run.

You make no sense.

[brettmcd]

No it is not a 'crappy debate technique' what I am arguing is that if something could be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then the government providing it show that they are not using taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible, which to me show the agency is NOT well run.

Good thing logic never slows you down.

And good thing you decide to be insulting whenever possible.

[brettmcd]

No it is not a 'crappy debate technique' what I am arguing is that if something could be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then the government providing it show that they are not using taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible, which to me show the agency is NOT well run.

You make no sense.

What 'makes no sense'? Does somehow a governmental agency wasting money make them well run?

[farley2k]

No it is not a 'crappy debate technique' what I am arguing is that if something could be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then the government providing it show that they are not using taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible, which to me show the agency is NOT well run.

Good thing logic never slows you down.

And good thing you decide to be insulting whenever possible.

No, I am often not insulting. I save it just for you.

[farley2k]

No it is not a 'crappy debate technique' what I am arguing is that if something could be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then the government providing it show that they are not using taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible, which to me show the agency is NOT well run.

You make no sense.

What 'makes no sense'? Does somehow a governmental agency wasting money make them well run?

Show me evidence that the National Weather Service is wasting money. Come on, just one report, just one.

[brettmcd]

No it is not a 'crappy debate technique' what I am arguing is that if something could be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then the government providing it show that they are not using taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible, which to me show the agency is NOT well run.

Good thing logic never slows you down.

And good thing you decide to be insulting whenever possible.

No, I am often not insulting. I save it just for you.

Nice of you to admit you are just being a troll then.

[brettmcd]

No it is not a 'crappy debate technique' what I am arguing is that if something could be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then the government providing it show that they are not using taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible, which to me show the agency is NOT well run.

You make no sense.

What 'makes no sense'? Does somehow a governmental agency wasting money make them well run?

Show me evidence that the National Weather Service is wasting money. Come on, just one report, just one.

If you are copying things already done in the private sector, then yes you are wasting money.

[ChrisGwinn]

No it is not a 'crappy debate technique' what I am arguing is that if something could be done better or cheaper in the private sector, then the government providing it show that they are not using taxpayer dollars as efficiently as possible, which to me show the agency is NOT well run.

You make no sense.

What 'makes no sense'? Does somehow a governmental agency wasting money make them well run?

Show me evidence that the National Weather Service is wasting money. Come on, just one report, just one.

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/total_forecast/ ... nty=cac037

[noxiousdog]

You asked for a well run governmental agency - you were shown one!
When faced with that you tried to change the focus to "well it would exist without the government doing it"

That is a crappy debate technique.

The interstate highway system is the most cited reason for the emergence of the US as a post WWII superpower. If he's going to denegrate that, he'll denegrate anything.

Saying something isnt well run does NOT mean I am denegrating the entire interstate highway system. I say it could be done better then it currently is.

So it's great but it's not?

[brettmcd]

You asked for a well run governmental agency - you were shown one!
When faced with that you tried to change the focus to "well it would exist without the government doing it"

That is a crappy debate technique.

The interstate highway system is the most cited reason for the emergence of the US as a post WWII superpower. If he's going to denegrate that, he'll denegrate anything.

Saying something isnt well run does NOT mean I am denegrating the entire interstate highway system. I say it could be done better then it currently is.

So it's great but it's not?

Nope, never said it was great ever, unless saying that something could be done better now equals great in the noxiousdog vocabulary.

[Padre]

Brettmcd, what do you think wouldn't both exist and be better run by the free market rather than government intervention? Serious question.

[brettmcd]

Brettmcd, what do you think wouldn't both exist and be better run by the free market rather than government intervention? Serious question.

Military and other national security issues (borders things like that), handling of disputes between states, police, fire. I cant honestly think of a social welfare program that would fall under this for me.

[ChrisGwinn]

Brettmcd, what do you think wouldn't both exist and be better run by the free market rather than government intervention? Serious question.

Military and other national security issues (borders things like that), handling of disputes between states, police, fire. I cant honestly think of a social welfare program that would fall under this for me.

Why not allow competition among privately-operated fire companies?

[farley2k]

Brettmcd, what do you think wouldn't both exist and be better run by the free market rather than government intervention? Serious question.

Military and other national security issues (borders things like that), handling of disputes between states, police, fire. I cant honestly think of a social welfare program that would fall under this for me.

Why not allow competition among privately-operated fire companies?

The military already uses lots of private contractors for jobs so why not privatize the whole thing?

[brettmcd]

Brettmcd, what do you think wouldn't both exist and be better run by the free market rather than government intervention? Serious question.

Military and other national security issues (borders things like that), handling of disputes between states, police, fire. I cant honestly think of a social welfare program that would fall under this for me.

Why not allow competition among privately-operated fire companies?

The military already uses lots of private contractors for jobs so why not privatize the whole thing?

Because the military is a governmental function by our constitution. Having things built by the private sector is much different then having them provide the military services themselves.

[Enough]

Brettmcd, what do you think wouldn't both exist and be better run by the free market rather than government intervention? Serious question.

Military and other national security issues (borders things like that), handling of disputes between states, police, fire. I cant honestly think of a social welfare program that would fall under this for me.

Why not allow competition among privately-operated fire companies?

The military already uses lots of private contractors for jobs so why not privatize the whole thing?

Because the military is a governmental function by our constitution. Having things built by the private sector is much different then having them provide the military services themselves.

Are fireman mandated to be publicly own/run by the Constitution and if not why shouldn't they be privatized per your thinking?

[noxiousdog]

The interstate highway system is the most cited reason for the emergence of the US as a post WWII superpower.

Saying something isnt well run does NOT mean I am denegrating the entire interstate highway system. I say it could be done better then it currently is.

So it's great but it's not?

Nope, never said it was great ever, unless saying that something could be done better now equals great in the noxiousdog vocabulary.

You said you are not denigrating the system, nor did you disagree it is a significant contributor to the success of America. If that doesn't qualify as great, I don't know what does.

[brettmcd]

The interstate highway system is the most cited reason for the emergence of the US as a post WWII superpower.

Saying something isnt well run does NOT mean I am denegrating the entire interstate highway system. I say it could be done better then it currently is.

So it's great but it's not?

Nope, never said it was great ever, unless saying that something could be done better now equals great in the noxiousdog vocabulary.

You said you are not denigrating the system, nor did you disagree it is a significant contributor to the success of America. If that doesn't qualify as great, I don't know what does.

Ok now you have confirmed that saying something can be done better equals 'great' Got it, ill remember that for future reference.

[Dogstar]

From what I understand, he's not saying that the idea of interstate highways isn't a good one, or that he'd be happier if they weren't there. He's simply stating that he perceives that the project itself isn't necessarily well-run, and might be run more efficiently if handled by the private sector.