For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com
Premium Left blogad
Left Blog Ad

Advertisement
WSJ Lays Out The Differences Between Katrina And BP Responses
Written By : William Teach

Paul H. Rubin, professor of economics at Emory University, does a great job in comparing and contrasting the federal responses to the two disasters as they relate to two presidents, though, I do think he forgot one point, which I’ll get to. First, some background

In many respects, the Deepwater Horizon disaster and Katrina are mirror images of each other. The harm from Katrina was on state land—mainly Louisiana, but also Florida, Alabama and Mississippi. As a result, President George W. Bush and the federal government were limited in what they could do. For example, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wanted to take command of disaster relief on the day before landfall, but Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco refused. Federal response was hindered because the law gave first authority to state and local authorities.

State and local efforts—particularly in New Orleans, and Louisiana more broadly—interfered with what actions the federal government could actually take. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin was late in ordering an evacuation and did not allow the use of school buses for evacuation, which could have saved hundreds of lives. President Bush had no power to change that decision.

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is on federal offshore territory. The federal government has primary responsibility for handling the situation, while state and local governments remain limited in what they can do. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly changed its mind regarding the chemical dispersants that Louisiana is allowed to use. In the Florida Panhandle, Okaloosa County officials voted to disregard any restrictions from higher branches of government and allow its own emergency management team to do what it views as best, such as creating an underwater “air curtain” of bubbles to push oil to the surface, and using barges to block the oil once it rises. They believe that the federal government is undermining their efforts.

As opposed to Katrina, state and local attempts to address the oil spill have been hindered by an ineffectual and chaotic federal response.

Paul then gets into the differences in the responses by the Coast Guard, the way that Bush almost immediately suspended the Jones Act while Obama has yet to do so, and how the media attacked Bush beyond belief, yet are, for the most part, gently chiding Obama for his handling of this.

Mr. Bush was a Republican, and elected Democrats controlled Louisiana and New Orleans, the main victims of Katrina. Many claimed Mr. Bush neglected New Orleans for this reason. Mr. Obama is a Democrat, and the states affected by Deepwater Horizon—Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida—all have Republican governors. I have not seen anyone, even on the right, claim that the ineffectual response of the Obama administration is due to partisan politics.

I should hope no one will claim the Obama response is due to partisan politics. There are two reasons the response has been “ineffectual.” First, I think we can guess that Obama wants the spill to be worse, and continue on till he can get cap and tax passed. Second, let’s face it, Obama is incompetent, and he has surrounded himself with mostly people who have no idea what to do and/or are incompetent. Let me ask, when is the last time you heard Janet Napolitano, the Director of Homeland Security, discuss the BP Spill? The Washington Post is asking, too, as well as wondering where Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is.

In the two days right after Katrina landfall, President Bush spent only a little time discussing it. He was focused on Medicare and the Iraqi Constitution. We obviously cannot read his mind, but, after eight years of watching the man, I would suspect that he expected the same type of competence happening on Alabama and Mississippi to happen in lower Louisiana, particularly in New Orleans. He probably hadn’t expect Mayor Nagin to order a late evacuation, fail to use the school bus plan, and blow off the use of Amtrak trains. I bet he didn’t expect Louisiana officials to deny the Red Cross access, as well. Nor the unbelievable looting and violence. This is not to say the response by the Federal government was great, but, at least by day three they were trying. They were engaged. They couldn’t exactly pre-position the number of people and aid needed when 1. there was a monster hurricane coming, and even 48 hours out there was some doubt where it would hit, plus, hurricanes are BIG, and 2. they did not know what the exact damage would be.

As for Obama, really, they have been barely engaged, other than in a pissing match over who is in charge, who’s “ass to kick,” and who can appear better in the press.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

0
  • northerncanuck

    I get a kick out of the liberal's hypocrisy and the BP mess just exposes it more. One example; the BP president. BP honcho goes boating and the left rants he should be working on the oil spill, but Obama golfing is just fine. The BP president should be fixing this and should be held responsible because he's the president and should know everything going on. Obama shouldn't be held accountable for fixing anything or for decisions made in his administration because he's President and he doesn't have time for every detail, he delegates.

  • RBC217

    There are several other differences between Katrina and the BP oil spill.

    First, there is nothing new about hurricanes. In the 1600's, the Spanish knew not to sail treasure galleons, or anything else, around in the Caribbean during hurricane season. By contrast, while there have been oil spills before ( in the nigerian oil fields they are apparently quite common – and as commonly ignored), there has never been one of such magnitude or at such depth, as the BP oil spill. The BP spill is unprecedented.

    Second, no corporate entity caused Katrina or had the presumptive responsibility for dealing with it. By contrast, BP and its primary drilling contractor were entirely responsible for the equipment, the failure to operate the rig safely, and for the immediate response to the spill when it occurred. As we now know, BP attempted to minimize what was going on and deliberately tried to mislead federaL regulators and responders. In the recent Congressional hearing, even other large oil companies said BP acted irresponsibly before the disaster and dishonestly afterwards.

    Third, upon taking office, George Bush gutted the management of FEMA, the agency primarily responsible for responding to disasters like hurricanes, tornados etc. As a consequence, when FEMA had to react to Katrina, it bungled – for reasons directly traceable to George Bush's inability to manage government organizations. By contrast, Obama has strengthened the EPA's management, as well as that of Homeland Security. the reason not much has been heard from Janet Napolitano is because she is doing her job with quiet competence, unlike the noisy and hopelessly incompetent Chertoff.

    All of which comes down to a simple and obvious conclusion, the reason the Republican governors of the Gulf States are not critical of the Obama Administration is because ……… they have little or nothing to criticize under the circumstances. If Haley Barbour could grab something to beat up Obama with, he would, but he does not have anything. Thinking they are more restrained and less partisan is just silly,given what else those same people have said about lots of other topics – like health care.

    • UFKA_Smithwick

      I notice you didn't have anything to say about Katrina being initially a local issue (ie only states had the authority to deal with it and refused to grant the feds authorization to intervene until too late) whereas the spill is entirely a federal issue with nothing preventing Obama from doing his job other than his own incompetence.

    • StanW

      Typical partisan rant and attack. You are incapable of giving Bush the benefit of the hundreds of doubts you casually give Obama.

      Tell me something, RBC… Why in Obama's world is government the answer to every problem in America (financial, automotive, healthcare, etc) but THIS CRISIS, something that clearly falls under the control of the FEDERAL government, has to be left to those evil and incompetent private industry people?

      • UFKA_Smithwick

        Good point.

        Kind of like when democrats refuse to pay their taxes. It's an even bigger deal than when republicans don't (although that seems to be far less common, hm) because they are the ones that claim taxes are just effing awesome and should always be higher.

        When big government fails under a republican it kind of reinforces their views. When it fails under a democrat it kind of disproves their views.

        See the difference?

    • http://www.thepiratescove.us/ William_Teach

      I won't argue that Bush did a good thing in the way the mission of FEMA was changed to focus more on terrorist attacks and almost completely ignore other disasters, manmade or natural, but, face it, FEMA was created to assist local and state responders, to manage the crisis when asked. They would co-ordinate the overall response while using federal resources and such.

      When we had two nasty tropical systems hit back to back in NC (Floyd and Dennis), dropping enormous amounts of rainfall, we had serious flooding from I-95 eastwards. I witnessed this first hand. People pitched in, offering help. Heck, NC State was nice enough to let my ECU Pirates play Miami, and we Pirate's responded by not tearing the field up too bad after an emotional win. The flooding was almost biblical. The governor didn't bother with FEMA: he called out our own resources, the NC National Guard, and asked citizens to help. We got it done on our own, thank you very much. I give all kudos to Democrat Gov. Jim Hunt for a great response.

      As far as Republican gov's not criticizing Obama, they have. But, they aren't dumb enough to go on the record as calling POTUS a complete incompetent.

    • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

      Shut op hoggo, nobody cares what you think!

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

      …there has never been one of such magnitude or at such depth, as the BP oil spill. The BP spill is unprecedented.

      Are you really this stupid? The BP spill isn't even the largest spill in the history of the Gulf of Mexico.

      Ixtoc I

      Ixtoc I spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico for nine months. We aren't even halfway there with the BP spill.

      Basically, everything you wrote is completely wrong, from Bush gutting FEMA, to Janet Napolitano being anything even close to competent. The Governors of the south are complaining, you're just ignoring them.

      Barrier wall

      • mightysamurai

        Basically, everything you wrote is completely wrong

        You have just described Hoggo's entire existence.

      • Fiza1

        The Ixtoc 1 oil spill was estimated at 140 million gallons. The BP spill has already passed 100 milliom gallons and maybe a lot more. In case you havent checked lately, it is still leaking oil.

        • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/ELCWV5ANDUEJ5D5PB35FL2LZ6Y Bildo

          So when you claimed that there had “never been been one of such magnitude or at such depth” you meant, what, this year?

          Last time I checked 140 million gallons is more than 100 million gallons, even using Al Gore math. Also, the 100 million gallon number is an estimate that the extremists are using, not an official number.

          Nobody knows how much oil has been spewed into the gulf yet, and the final number will probably not be close to accurate. There's too much politics involved at this point to get a factual number.

          The situation down there appears bad. I don't know if it is or not. Environmentalists and the networks are trying to portray this as the biggest environmental disaster in history. I'm pretty sure they're full of shit. Conservatives are agreeing with them, for the most part, in order to weaken the President. So everybody has an incentive to portray this as worse than it is. I'm not buying it… yet.

        • Mr. EMT

          Day 64 ended and obamao still hasnt lifted the jones act, nor accepted help from outside sources, and continues to block efforts.
          How could we forget this is about to become the largest spill at the rate your leader moves?
          Wanna take any bets on it becoming the worst spill since obamao is so damn clueless?

    • Mr. EMT

      All of which comes down to a simple and obvious conclusion, the reason the Republican governors of the Gulf States are not critical of the Obama Administration is because

      Is because they are too busy actually using their limited-by-obamao resources to control as much of the spill washing onto their shores as they are able.
      They dont have time to sit down with professors and play golf because they are meeting with professionals who have dealt with these disasters to find out what they can do within the limiting confines of their powers to clean their beaches and set up barriers.

      But I bet if you ask Bobby Jyndal who's ass to kick, he will give you an answer.

  • baoxian

    Everything Obama does is motivated by partisan politics. Hell, this narrative could have come straight out of Atlas Shrugged…only if Ayn Rand was cynical enough to write Mr. Thompson, Head of State, as an avid golf player.

    Not that Obama is trying to favor or punish certain people through the cleanup “effort”. It's just that everything he's done or not done to this point has been politically motivated. His panel of “experts” are a bunch of favor trading liberals who know nothing about oil. He's been dragging his feet (rejecting perfectly good boom, forbidding Jindal to build barrier islands) because the oil spill dominates the issue polls even above the economy, and it's a perfect crisis to take into November as he can blame Big Oil and push Cap and Tax as a “solution”.

    On top of it all is the cowardly way he's trying to position himself to take the credit when the leak is fixed, while avoiding blame as the repair efforts fail. He was President Kick Ass when it looked like BP would stop the leak, and now he's President Bystander as the oil flows. Nobody should be surprised though..this is what happens when you give somebody a job that doesn't have the skill set needed to perform it.

  • RBC217

    You folks need to bring some consistency to your thinking.

    You point out that state and local governments are expected to be the first to respond to natural disasters. and that FEMA is expected to “assist' and “coordinate” and to “manage when asked.” then you say that the BP oil spill occurred in terrotory under federal, not state, control, ognoring the fact that the spill occurred because of a privately owned and operated oil rig. When disasters occur at privately owned facilities, the owner / operator is expected to be the first to respond. Just as Ray Nagin botched his response to Katrina, BP botched its response to the spill.

    I do not blame Bush for Gov Blanco or Mayor Nagin's mistakes, and you should not blame Obama for BP's mistakes – or its dishonesty in reporting the extent of the disaster.

    Keep in mind that hurricanes are well-known and well understood phenomena. Oil spills at 5000' down on the ocean bed are not.

    And Stan, Democrats are for sure more likely to use government to deal with things than Republicans, but you are not recognizing that the Obama Administration does in fact put limits on it uses government to do. For example, Obama provided cash to General Motors to get it through an economic crisis which neither the Obama Administration nor GM caused. The “bail-out” money was put in as an equity investment, not a grant. GM is now recovering, becoming once again profitable, making better cars, and is about to offer stock to the public. The Obama Administration will make money ( i.e. make a capitalist profit in a classically capitalist way) after having saved a major industrial employer and avoiding the enormous economic damage that would have resulted from a collapse of GM. In the end, the jobs and the company will be saved and the public investment repaid. No government take over of an industry – more a classic capitalist investment – buy low, sell high.

    And you might notice that the Obama health care legislation aims as much at controlling health insurance costs as anything else. Health insurance premiums have risen faster than health care costs for a decade. Health insurance company executives have become mega-wealthy – some are billionaires. Health insurance consumers had no ability to control the situation. So just as FEMA is brought in to manage a crisis when necessary, the health care legislation was necessary to put a lid on health insurance company gouging. What Obama did, was not take over health care or health care insurance, but – like the Sherman Act – legislate to prevent monopoly power being used to enrich a very few at the expense of very many.

    • StanW

      More lies from you, imagine my surprise.

      Yes, you did blame Bush for the failure of the Democrats, just like you excuse Obama for the government's response to the oil spill. You are blaming Bush for something that was not his job or his responsibility, but letting Obama off the hook for for something that WAS his responsibility.

      Oh, and this is classic Liberal thought right here “The Obama Administration will make money ( i.e. make a capitalist profit in a classically capitalist way) after having saved a major industrial employer“. Yes, Obama and his cronies will profit from this and get all the credit if it works. But he used MY MONEY to do it. Will I get tax relief when this supposed profit comes in? Not a chance from this bunch of criminals and tax cheats! And what happens if they DON'T make a profit? Why, Obama will give them MORE of my money, while blaming private industry for the problem!

      You idiocy knows no bounds!

    • Mr. EMT

      Wow, you totally got us on the run with your ignorance little guy.

      Gee, how can anyone cope under such a barrage of stupidity and not run giggling from the room?

      Let me make this simple for you.
      If a fire broke out and destroyed a man's house… spread to his property, then continued to spread to his neighbors… then the neighborhood then the city, then the county and continued to grow…
      Would you sit there using the same LACK of Logic you are trying now to explain why the government is not using its resources that tax payers paid for?
      Would you cry that the man who owned his home should be stopping the fire by himself?

      Bet you would.
      Bet you would also be bitching and whining at everyone trying to do something about it. Bet you would also be bitching and moaning about how people shouldn't blame the government for not stepping in and helping when they have the resources to do so.

      Your opinion has no value.

    • Christopher_Taylor

      I'm sure even you can work out the difference between an in-state emergency and a federal, open waters one. Think about it a while and you'll work it out.

  • Fiza1

    Did anyone here expect Paul, Rubin, a member of the conservative Independent institute and former member of the big deficit, free spending Reagan administration, write an article praising, or even a neutral article on the Obama administration? I know y'all like the Independent Institute for it's “Great Global Warming Swindle”. Yup, the Independent Institute is just another clone of the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. The latter is the originator of the “theory” that the CRA “forced” the banks to make loans to poor people, which brought the world financial system to the brink of disaster. What a bunch of nonsense!
    Thank you, Paul Rubin, for recycling the conservative popaganda on why the Bush administration was “blameless” during huricane Katrina.

    • Mr. EMT

      Flagged for douchebaggery.

      You used an article written by Michael Kinsley.
      It is impossible for you to make it a single day with out proving what a hypocritical moron you are isn't it fizzle?

      • Fiza1

        “You used an article written by Michael Kinsley.”

        What I used from the Kinsley article in a previous post was “FACT”. Fact #1 from the Kinsley article -The federal government personnel count “grew” under Reagan, and Bush I & II, and it shrank under Clinton. I suppose you will claim the the Democratic congresses “forced” the Reagan, and Bush I & II administrations to add personnel.
        Fact #2 from the Kinsley article – Only the Clinton administration ran a surplus. The last balanced budget was in 1957 under the Eisenhower administration. You will claim that the Republican congress “forced” Clinton to balance the budget. If so, what happened during the first 6 yrs of the Bush II administration. What happened was deficits as far as the eye can see!
        Sorry Mr. EMT, you loose!

        • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

          All hail the brainwashed one!

        • Mr. EMT

          I like how you put your “fact” in quotes.
          Let us know when you can come up with any sources for your “facts” in your opinion article.
          Facts are clinton balanced the budget with more debt.

          • Fiza1

            “Let us know when you can come up with any sources for your “facts” in your opinion article.”

            You don't believe the government employment growth/decrease figures in Kinsley's article? Do you think Kinsley is lying or making up the “facts”?I gave you the link to Kinsley's article in another post. Since you seem to think Kinsley is lying or distorting the data he gives in the article, it is up to you to prove hom wrong! Go ahead Mr. EMT, and enlighten us!

          • Mr. EMT

            Sorry, I did not write his opinion editorial, it is therefor not my job to research his claims. That is his.
            Since you are saying it is gospel despite the lack of sources, then you can pick up the mantel.
            Until then I am more than willing to give him just as much credit as you are willing to give Paul Rubin.
            Also point of fact, nowhere have i stated he was wrong. I stated you are a douchebag for calling the kettle black.
            You are a hypocrite and a moron with the reading comprehension level of a repeat failure of second grade.

    • the_hawk

      I'm sure you would use the same argument for anything that comes from say, the Center for American Progress or the Economic Policy Institute right?

    • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

      All hail the brainwashed one!

    • Christopher_Taylor

      But is he wrong? Is what he says inaccurate or false? Why don't you even bother trying to deal with that – fear or intellectual feebleness?

      • http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

        “Why don't you even bother trying to deal with that – fear or intellectual feebleness?”

        YES!!!

      • Mediumheadboy

        Don't forget stupidity.

Advertisement
Featured Video

Ed Klein on ‘The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House’

php developer india
Premium Right Ads
Blogads Right
Previous Features

Ads

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time
50 Things Every 18-Year-Old Should Know
Politically Correct Fairy Tales
Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married
Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies
The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web
Advertisement
User Info