GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Homeland Security had power to bypass states in hurricane response

• 12321
  

  Looking at the tone of the posts on here blaming the Bush administration for EVERYthing that went wrong and NOthing that went right, can you even begin to imagine what would have been said if someone would have overridden the local and state authorities and exercised this power?

  Submariner Posted September 20, 2005 7:24 AM
• 12200
  

  There is a good reson why Federal response is not to be issued until state/local gov't requests it - otherwise, the federal gov't is "invading". I agree that the states need to be held responsible for the issues within their jurisdiction and stop relying on the federal government for socialist handouts. It seems silly to me that the states depend on federal funds for so much of their budgets...why not do away with state and local taxes and institute a budgetary system similar to how DoD distributes funds: Congress distributes funds to DoD, DoD distributes it the various branches who then distribute to the MAJCOMs who distribute it to the bases. However, each level is also responsible for funding projects at its level. For example, if something needs to be done at all bases, then the MAJCOM funds the project but it is overseen by a project manager at the base and coordinated with the MAJCOM. Maybe this type of government would be more efficient in today's global age? States would lose rights, but don't privliges come with responsibility? As I see it, they are neglecting these responsibilities and federalization seems the logical choice.

  Stephanie Smith Posted September 14, 2005 9:33 AM
• 12154
  

  The Feds never should override the state and local governments and that is the point in this case! States rights should be protected but over the post-WWII period the Feds have overriden the states on almost every major issue. In the USA the states have become obsolete and we should get rid of them. However, that impacts a lot of political jobs and removes the senate as we know it; therefore it is highly unlikely to happen. Thus, we will continue with the situations we witnessed in the recent cawse and never resolove the issue unless we take more power away from the states and give it to the Feds. Personally I would rather take the pwers away from the Feds and give it to the states but that is not going to happen. The general polutlation wants the FGeds to takecare of everything when they should want to take care of it themselves. Patrol of the New Mexico border should be a problem for New Mexico, aid for education should come from the stae and not the Fed's, research on medicine and other science areas should be done through the states and not the Feds. The Feds should get rid of the Depts. of education, commerce, housing, energy, agriculture and all the other areas for which the Federal government was not formed. Furthermore, the President should never be allowed to employ the US military in combat for more than 30 days without an explicit approval by the Congress! The President has far too much latitude to employ force without the will of the people as indicated by Congress. There is little reason to go vote for any Congress position any more.

  taxpayer Posted September 13, 2005 7:14 AM
• 12101
  

  Union bashing is an old paradigm, get over it and let the good people in Unions alone. They have some problems but so do the abusers of Union members. Don't read into the situation, just let it be and we will all be better off.

  rds Posted September 10, 2005 11:04 AM
• 12085
  

  That's because the government asked for VOLUNTEERS to go to the disaster area. Imagine the union position if members were ordered to go, and had no choice in the matter.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 9, 2005 2:48 PM
• 12079
  

  Note that of all the obstacles cited the employee unions are not mentioned. The fact is that federal employee unions have never been an obstacle to emergency response.

  GovExec.com reader Posted September 9, 2005 1:12 PM