Hurricane Irene

[Razgovory]

$7 billion through ten states? Small potatoes. What is the damage cost in infrastructure? Presumably the vast majority of private damage is covered by insurance?

I wouldn't call a $7 billion storm small potatoes, whether it goes through 1 state or 10.  I also imagine that a large chunk of the damage is due to flooding, in which case it's a federal insurance program that covers it at subsidized rates.

Well, the federal flood insurance program already exists - obviously it needs to be funded adequately to cover its obligations. Is that what we are talking about though?

$7 billion is a meaningless number for purposes of this discussion. What is the federal bill, and what is it for?

Who should be responsible for paying for infrastructure damage, and for private damage that is not covered by insurance, to the extent that anyone should be responsible for paying it?

That is the question Paul is raising. I find it interesting that the answer is immediately "the feds". Note that this is not a question of whether the damage should be covered, but simply by whom, and the only acceptable response is that it MUST be the highest possible level of government. So this is strictly an argument that the Federal government should be as large as possible, rather than letting the states handle themselves. Why is the instinctive response always whatever justifies expanding the federal government the most?

Cause the states are corrupt and incompetent?  Some states don't have a tax base large enough to cope, either.

[DGuller]

Apparently Dguller took Christie's advice and didn't go to work today.

What makes you say that?

In fact, I did not go to work today, but that was on the advice of my own company. 

[Razgovory]

Cause every time one of my friends plays a game on Steam, I get a pop-up.  Also I saw the last night that your Gov advised people not to go to work if they didn't want to.

[DGuller]

$7 billion through ten states? Small potatoes. What is the damage cost in infrastructure? Presumably the vast majority of private damage is covered by insurance?

I wouldn't call a $7 billion storm small potatoes, whether it goes through 1 state or 10.  I also imagine that a large chunk of the damage is due to flooding, in which case it's a federal insurance program that covers it at subsidized rates.

Well, the federal flood insurance program already exists - obviously it needs to be funded adequately to cover its obligations. Is that what we are talking about though?

$7 billion is a meaningless number for purposes of this discussion. What is the federal bill, and what is it for?

Who should be responsible for paying for infrastructure damage, and for private damage that is not covered by insurance, to the extent that anyone should be responsible for paying it?

That is the question Paul is raising. I find it interesting that the answer is immediately "the feds". Note that this is not a question of whether the damage should be covered, but simply by whom, and the only acceptable response is that it MUST be the highest possible level of government. So this is strictly an argument that the Federal government should be as large as possible, rather than letting the states handle themselves. Why is the instinctive response always whatever justifies expanding the federal government the most?

The reason why instinctively federal government is the answer in matters like these is because federal government is the most competent government there is in US, and the one with the most resources and economy of scale.  When it comes to hurricanes, you shouldn't dick around with cute concepts like "let the states decide", you go with what works most effectively.

In my opinion, federal government should cover damages that are not insurable.  Basically, if someone lost his house and didn't buy insurance, too bad.  If the county lost its whole infrastructure, then it's the kind of thing government exists to protect and maintain.

[viper37]

Why is Paul's position at all worthy of comment? He is perfectly consistent. It would only be interesting if he came out and now said the Feds should step in and spend a pile of cash on what is a "routine" natural disaster.

I agree with him, at least in theory. The Feds should not be in the business of making good on natural disasters, that should be the job of the states to make sure they have funds necessary to handle most potential disasters. The Feds and FEMA should only be involved for stuff the states cannot handle, and Irene is small potatoes.

Now, that is all theory - given that for a couple decades the Feds have made it clear that it IS their job to manage this crap, then you cannot blame the states now for not being prepared. Of course they are going to slash their own disaster recovery funds if they know FEMA is going to be there.

Any natural disaster is bound to affect more than one state.  So, you can have States signing shared-cost agreements on an ad-hoc basis or a semi-permanent basis to deal with the situation (because presumably, if an Hurricane hits Virginia and North Carolina, the same people are going to be involved to do the repairs and/or evacuation emergency relief if it comes to that).  That is not very efficient.  And if all States need to sign some kind of agreement between them (North Carolina with Virginia and South Carolina), might as well have a Federal authority to take care of it any time it happens.

It is a loss of sovereignty for sure, it might appear to cost more when there is small disasters (like this hurricane), but in the long term, it's probably the most effective and cost efficient solution.

That is not to say FEMA is untouchable and near perfect, I know nothing about them an it's quite possibly a bloated organisation with unnecessary administrative costs, but still, the basic principle is that you need a supra-State organization to deal with matters that concern more than one state and occur on a regular basis.  Otherwise, what's the point of living in a Federation of States?

[viper37]

News from the front.

Reading all those reports about Irene being a 'fluke' and some small storm in New York, I didn't really prepare for the storm.  Even when I heard the warnings about not driving along the St-Lawrence, having emergency supplies and all that stuff, I just figured it wasn't worth my time.  So, I spent a part of sunday afternoon sleeping.  Even when I woke up, I figured the storm wouldn't be that bad.  Oh boy.

Lost power around 21:00.  2 trees fell in my backyard.  the BBQ was sent flying, multiple branches downed, the swing got dismantled (as happens with any storm) and my father's old garage got destroyed, only the front was still there, no more side and back wall, no more garage door.
But the worst was spending the evening without power.  Oh fuck.  No tv, no PC    Contingency measures where in place this morning, shortly after 10:00.  I was about to plug my Backberry in the car to get some power and start posting on Facebook and browse the web.  The withdrawal symptoms were very high by that point.  BUT I SURVIVED IRENE!!!  HELL YEAH!!!

[grumbler]

Any natural disaster is bound to affect more than one state.  So, you can have States signing shared-cost agreements on an ad-hoc basis or a semi-permanent basis to deal with the situation (because presumably, if an Hurricane hits Virginia and North Carolina, the same people are going to be involved to do the repairs and/or evacuation emergency relief if it comes to that).  That is not very efficient.  And if all States need to sign some kind of agreement between them (North Carolina with Virginia and South Carolina), might as well have a Federal authority to take care of it any time it happens.

That's not how it works in the US.  Repairs to storm damage are done by local people, by and large; the states don't need to import people from other states to replace roofing tiles, pump out flooded basements, and the like, so that rationale for a national response to local conditions fails.  If a state cannot handle the response, it should be able to call upon Federal aid, for sure, but making Federal response the default only lowers the efficiency of the response, because federal decision-makers are generally the least efficient decision-makers, being removed from knowledge about the actual conditions and the actual area.

It is a loss of sovereignty for sure, it might appear to cost more when there is small disasters (like this hurricane), but in the long term, it's probably the most effective and cost efficient solution.

FYPFY.  Economies of scale work against efficiency in the case of natural disasters.

[viper37]

Any natural disaster is bound to affect more than one state.  So, you can have States signing shared-cost agreements on an ad-hoc basis or a semi-permanent basis to deal with the situation (because presumably, if an Hurricane hits Virginia and North Carolina, the same people are going to be involved to do the repairs and/or evacuation emergency relief if it comes to that).  That is not very efficient.  And if all States need to sign some kind of agreement between them (North Carolina with Virginia and South Carolina), might as well have a Federal authority to take care of it any time it happens.

That's not how it works in the US.  Repairs to storm damage are done by local people, by and large; the states don't need to import people from other states to replace roofing tiles, pump out flooded basements, and the like, so that rationale for a national response to local conditions fails.  If a state cannot handle the response, it should be able to call upon Federal aid, for sure, but making Federal response the default only lowers the efficiency of the response, because federal decision-makers are generally the least efficient decision-makers, being removed from knowledge about the actual conditions and the actual area.

It is a loss of sovereignty for sure, it might appear to cost more when there is small disasters (like this hurricane), but in the long term, it's probably the most effective and cost efficient solution.

FYPFY.  Economies of scale work against efficiency in the case of natural disasters.

I tought FEMA was in cases or big natural disasters, when States where themselves overwhelmed, when there's so much damage to the power lines that the teams of one State can't do the repairs in a timely fashion.

States are geographically small compared to Canadian provinces, so I though it was likely that a huge storm could affect more than one State and require some kind of coordination for evacuation, re-routing airport & maritime traffic, that kind of stuff.

I was not advocating FEMA takes over roof repairs of individuals in every State... if that is what FEMA does, than I think you and Ron Paul may have a valid argument there.  I just think you need a Federal agency to coordinate actions between various States when there's a major disaster (such as what was expected of Irene at first).

[Berkut]

$7 billion through ten states? Small potatoes. What is the damage cost in infrastructure? Presumably the vast majority of private damage is covered by insurance?

I wouldn't call a $7 billion storm small potatoes, whether it goes through 1 state or 10.  I also imagine that a large chunk of the damage is due to flooding, in which case it's a federal insurance program that covers it at subsidized rates.

Well, the federal flood insurance program already exists - obviously it needs to be funded adequately to cover its obligations. Is that what we are talking about though?

$7 billion is a meaningless number for purposes of this discussion. What is the federal bill, and what is it for?

Who should be responsible for paying for infrastructure damage, and for private damage that is not covered by insurance, to the extent that anyone should be responsible for paying it?

That is the question Paul is raising. I find it interesting that the answer is immediately "the feds". Note that this is not a question of whether the damage should be covered, but simply by whom, and the only acceptable response is that it MUST be the highest possible level of government. So this is strictly an argument that the Federal government should be as large as possible, rather than letting the states handle themselves. Why is the instinctive response always whatever justifies expanding the federal government the most?

The reason why instinctively federal government is the answer in matters like these is because federal government is the most competent government there is in US

Uhhh, no. It is the largest and most inefficient. It is the most competent at collecting resources and centralizing them, which I suspect is the true appeal.

, and the one with the most resources and economy of scale.

It has the most resources because we choose to give them the most resources. It does not necessarily have to be that way.

And the solution for local damage is local resources, you aren't going to hire some electricians from DC to come fix the transformer down the street - so the claim that the Feds have some economies of scale to deal with storm damage is not at all apparent. Quite the opposite in fact in many cases.

  When it comes to hurricanes, you shouldn't dick around with cute concepts like "let the states decide", you go with what works most effectively.

I don't at all agree that the federal government is "most effective". That is by no means an assumption that has been supported. One size fits all is not at all the most effective means of dealing with every issue.

The reasons for demanding that the feds handle this has nothing to do with what is most effective - you've decided the Feds MUST be the solution before you've even really thought much about what is actually most effective.

[Razgovory]

Uhhh, no. It is the largest and most inefficient. It is the most competent at collecting resources and centralizing them, which I suspect is the true appeal.

Where did you come to this conclusion?

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, we should be like 1900 in Galveston.  What an ideologically inflexible moron.

I don't think Ron is opposed to the advance notice provided by weather forecasting.

[grumbler]

I tought FEMA was in cases or big natural disasters, when States where themselves overwhelmed, when there's so much damage to the power lines that the teams of one State can't do the repairs in a timely fashion.

You are conflating some unrelated things here.  In the US, the government doesn't own the power companies, so neither the states nor the Feds repair power lines.  That work is done by the utilities.  The utilities call in people from other utilities (in-state or out-of-state) to help, as required, but this is true no matter the nature of the emergency.

FEMA is designed to step in and help the states when they are overwhelmed and ask for help.  In practice (as opposed to by design), FEMA steps in where FEMA wants to step in.

States are geographically small compared to Canadian provinces, so I though it was likely that a huge storm could affect more than one State and require some kind of coordination for evacuation, re-routing airport & maritime traffic, that kind of stuff.

In the US, states don't operate airlines or control air traffic.  Air traffic control is a federal responsibility even when there are no disasters.

I was not advocating FEMA takes over roof repairs of individuals in every State... if that is what FEMA does, than I think you and Ron Paul may have a valid argument there.  I just think you need a Federal agency to coordinate actions between various States when there's a major disaster (such as what was expected of Irene at first).

There is no question that there is a role for FEMA, and Ron Paul is a moron who doesn't understand how the world works.  The problem with the role of FEMA is that FEMA has become a self-justifying bureaucratic monster that isn't very good at what it does (like most Federal agencies) but which absorbs more and more state responsibility and money simply because it can.

[Neil]

The US federal government is simply a ploy to socialize the risk of natural disasters.

[Neil]

In the US, states don't operate airlines or control air traffic.  Air traffic control is a federal responsibility even when there are no disasters.

Transport Canada regulates that in Canada as well.

[The Brain]

Also I saw the last night that your Gov advised people not to go to work if they didn't want to.

Worked great for the Greeks.