Gov. Blanco Declares War on New Orleans

06/19/2006: First, New Orleans mayor Ray “Nutbrain” Nagin confiscated guns from law-abiding citizens. (Of course, the criminals got to keep their guns. It always works that way.) In doing so, Mayor Nagin violated the 2nd Amendment rights of his citizens.

Next, Gov. Kathleen “Boo Hoo” Blanco uses the shooting deaths of five teens as an excuse to declare martial law and bring in the National Guard. Evidently, she has never heard of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the military from being used for law enforcement.

She–and Mayor Nagin–have declared war on their citizens. The two of them should be impeached, put on trial, and thrown in jail the rest of their lives.

Nagin and Blanco are nothing but a couple of bumbling idiots who use excessive force to cover their incompetence.

Froggy on New Orleans/Media Racism

09/28/2005: After seeing the news media bungle the reporting of Katrina, Froggy has this to say about the mainstream news media and their latent racism.

In their coverage of Katrina, the MSM completely reared their ugly, partisan, racist heads. Like Dan Rather, they succumbed to faith-based reporting: they took wild stories, didn’t bother to check them out, and reported them as fact because they believed the stories; after all, those stories fit the far-left leanings of the “reporters”.

This is why the MSM needs to clean up their system, and soon. They are quicky slouching toward irrelevance.

FDR is Alive and Well and in His 6th Term!

09/17/2005: I still cannot understand why Democrats are not high-fiving Dubya. With the exception of a few social issues–partial birth abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage–he is the Second Coming of FDR.

His economic policies–even the tax cuts–are Keynesian all the way. His tax cuts had the same effect is spending programs in the Keynesian model: they increased economic activity. As for spending, he has taken that to levels that would have made LBJ and Hubert Humphrey blush (much to my chagrin!) His Prescription drug bill is merely an adoption of a Democrat idea.

By supporting the Department of Homeland Security, he reversed course, and merely co-opted an idea proposed by the Democrats. (Hillary Clinton even voted for the DHS–with FEMA under the umbrella.)

His education record includes unprecedented spending levels, and he even let Ted Kennedy craft the No Child Left Behind Act, which has John Dewey written all over it (again, much to my chagrin!)

On defense, he is spending less than FDR, LBJ, and Reagan. To date, he is fighting a war that the most prominent Democrat senators–such as Kerry, Hillary, and Biden–supported. (And that’s saying something: Kerry opposed Reagan throughout the Cold War, and even voted against Gulf War I.)

On relief to impoverished nations, Bush has done more for Africa than any American President in history. (Even Bob Geldoff–of LiveAid and Live8 fame–acknowledged that.)

On women’s rights, Bush has liberated more women than Susan B. Anthony. Just ask the Afghan women who for whom submitting to spouse abuse was required by law only four years ago.

On race relations, he has elevated blacks to prominent cabinet-level positions, and they served honorably. Condi Rice may go down as one of the most effective SecStates in the last quarter century. (I would strongly consider voting for her if she runs for President.)

On the New Orleans reconstruction plan, it has “New Deal” written all over it.

Even his partial privatization plan for Social Security is a variation of a Clinton proposal.

Republicans, true conservatives, and classical liberals should be wary: With the exception of a few social issues, race relations, and national defense, Bush is not really a conservative. His lax record on spending will only create a bigger mess for which future generations will get the tab.

Like Reagan, he has allowed high domestic spending as the tactical price for his larger initiatives: in this case the war against Islammunism and lower taxes.

Unlike Reagan, Bush has no excuse: Reagan had a Congress dominated by an opposing party; Bush has his own party in control of both houses.

The budget was already a mess, and now Katrina threatens to blow a hole in it the size of Hiroshima. Paying for the reconstruction of New Orleans will require either huge spending cuts or a significant tax hike or a deficit that–in miles–would take us to the moon, and back, and back to the moon. I hope he kills that pork-laden highway bill to pay for New Orleans–that would provide more than enough money for the reconstruction. However, I’m not holding my breath.

If Bush expects to win the war against Islammunism, pay for the New Orleans reconstruction, and maintain a fertile ground for economic growth, he is going to need to work with a longtime personal adversary: John McCain.

I’ll run around my block in my underwear if that happens.

Quote of the Day

09/17/2005: From Doug Giles:

So, why did New Orleans and Biloxi get socked? I’m not going to jump out there and speak for God (principally, because He hasn’t spoken to me since I went to that Celion Dion concert in Vegas four years ago), but here’s my best guess: if you build a big city below sea level in the middle of hurricane highway then the chances are you’re eventually going to take a hit. It doesn’t mean God hates you. It just means there is a cost to living on the coast. Now, if New Orleans, Biloxi or Miami gets hit six more times between September and October and continues to get hit several times each year over the next eight summers, then I would say God’s probably annoyed with them.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Katrina: Time for a New Paradigm in Government

09/15/2005: Thomas Sowell articulates the difference between free enterprise and government enterprise with respect to disaster response. What he points out is noteworthy:

(1) FEMA’s bungle of the Katrina aftermath is nothing new: they bungle almost every emergency. What FEMA provided was their standard response to a disaster. In most instances–tornadoes, lower-grade hurricanes, moderately strong earthquakes–that response would have been somewhat adequate. Unfortunately, Katrina was the natural equivalent of a WMD attack on 90,000 square miles of coast. This exposed longstanding systemic problems with FEMA. A legitimate issue would be whether including FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security exacerbated those problems.

(2) Contrasting the federal response with that of private enterprise–Wal Mart, Federal Express, State Farm, et al–magnifies the inefficiency of government. While people tend to overlook private enterprises–which are profit-generating entities–it does not change the reality: free markets work. Markets–in and of themselves–are impersonal and amoral, but corporate entitles act within their own best interests, and goodwill is often within their best interests. The best CEOs know that social responsibility is good for profitability in the long run.

On the other hand, it is normal for us to want a government-run relief agency that we control. The trouble is that government-run entities, like private entities, also act within their own best interests. Because government entities do not generate revenue or profit, CYA is the operative standard.

That approach by government agencies is perfectly rational, especially when internal policymakers are lawyers and those policymakers have to answer to legislators (who are mostly lawyers). Such policymakers implement strict internal controls (bureaucracy) to satisfy government auditors and legislators and legislative staff. Even the hint of failure is career-damaging to any aspiring policy wonk.

As a result, policymakers take a defensive approach to policy. Why? Most of the time, the risk of failure outweighs the benefits of innovation.

Hopefully, if nothing else, Katrina–coupled with 9/11 and the recent Space Shuttle debacles–has tipped the risk-benefit scale for government toward innovation and proactivity.

Now, we have a new paradigm: the risk of bureaucracy outweighs the risk of innovation.

We need innovators: people who will shake up the system–even to the point of eliminating some jobs, creating others, streamlining policies, who will quit studying problems and actually solve them and implement those solutions.

We need leaders who are willing to take risks and do big things that make a difference. This is how we won the Revolutionary War. This is how the Union prevailed in the Civil War. This is how we won World War I. This is how we won World War II. This is how we won the Cold War. This is the only way we will win the war against Islammunism, prepare for major disasters, and maintain economic stability all at the same time.

Many people complain that government should be run like a business. To a certain extent that is not possible–some bureaucracy will always be necessary. (This is true even in the private sector, especially with respect to corporate governance.)

In the latter respect, government can learn from the private sector: bureaucracy allows for sufficient accountability, but does not hinder good companies from innovating, competing effectively, providing social benefits, and providing solid returns to their stakeholders. Toyota has sufficient bureaucracy to run a transparent operation, but that did not stop the company from implementing Just-In-Time manufacturing, which revolutionized the whole manufacturing sector. Starbucks is very active in social and environmental causes, but that has not stopped them from achieving strong profitability. Southwest Airlines is probably the best-run airline in the world: bureaucracy does not stop them from blowing away their competition.

Ultimately, government needs leaders who will think less like policy wonks and more like leaders who seek to actually accomplish something.

It is my hope that Katrina will spark such leaders to pursue government service.

Two Governors, Two Styles, Two Different Sets of Results

09/13/2005: USA Today provides some insight into Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and their handling of the Katrina strike. The responses of the two governors tend to reflect their backgrounds.

Barbour–a former lobbyist and Republican National Committee Chairman–has been very businesslike, and has shown a fundamental understanding of how things work. While he has not had the personal touch of Blanco, he has rolled up his sleeves (literally) and has helped actively to bring relief to the hurricane victims in his state. As a top-level Republican, he has had a good working relationship with the Bush Administration.

Blanco, on the other hand, has been more personal and relational, spending time grieving with families. Criticisms of her on-camera tears have been unfair. (Faced with the New Orleans devastation, who wouldn’t have lost it on camera?) While she now has a better working relationship with Bush, her initial response conveyed an “I trust you as far as I can throw you” attitude toward Bush. Like Mayor Nagin, she was initially on the “Blame everyone but the people in your home state” bandwagon. (Nagin has toned it down somewhat, but he’s still on that bandwagon.)

Unfortunately, Blanco has failed to demonstrate leadership. She has done a great job grieving with families, but leaders also need to inspire people, promote confidence, and convey resolve. Toward that end, she has fallen short. In addition, she has shown a lack of understanding of government systems and processes, both in her state as well as the federal level.

Like Blanco, Barbour rejected a federal takeover of relief efforts in his state. However, unlike Blanco, Barbour really did have the situation under control. While Barbour is hardly as sharp as Mayor Giuliani, he has acquitted himself well. Other than Lt. Gen. Honore, Barbour is the only leader whose star will rise out of this.

Blanco, on the other hand, is completely in over her head.

As we learn more about how the leaders–city, state, and federal–responded to Katrina, we will find out the extent to which the friction between Bush and Louisiana Democrats contributed to the federal response, and who contributed to that friction. Bush didn’t wait for Barbour to call him; he called Barbour.

Was this level of proactivity shown to Blanco? If not, were the reasons technical or personal? A disaster like this is not the time for political grandstanding.

If I’m a Republican governor and need serious federal help from a Democrat President, now is not the time to give him the Dick Cheney salute.

Similarly, if I am a Republican President, now is not the time to get into a defacating contest with a Democratic governor. If I have a hostile governor cussing me out, it’s still my job to look beyond that and keep my eye on the real issue: people are in desperate need of help.

Again, we will see the extent to which partisan politics–and the people who escalated it–hindered the relief efforts in Louisiana.