The Federal Emergency Management Agency was created in 1979 to protect American citizens that have been affected by disasters (FEMA 2018). The FEMA has provided a lot of assistance to people, but like any policy it has it positives and negatives and people have their own opinions of policies. Biases very evident in the think tanks.
Policies exist to assist people, but assistance does not always come as quickly as people would like. It is reported by some that FEMA’s has had a slow response to disasters and that the process has not been organized (Edwards 2014). It is believed that FEMA should be cut as a policy (Edwards 2014). It is the opinion of some that individual states should take care of disaster efforts and the federal government should not intervene (Edwards 2014). While minor disasters may be able to be fixed by only the state major disasters are very costly and most state cannot pay for damages just by using states funds. Some states are hit by more natural disasters then other states, such as Florida and other south eastern states, which are frequently hit by hurricanes. Some states do not have a large enough budget and do need federal assistance.
The Biggert- Water act was passes to extend the National Flood Insurance Plan, but was met with some controversy as the NFIP had to make changes for the Act (Flood 2015). It is of the opinions that the Act caused debt to be incurred the program and caused other issues to NFIP and it was also reported that FEMA was slow to implement some of the changes (Flood 2015). The Biggert-Water act had the potential to help the public by assisting with insurance that can help citizens that are affected by flooding. Policy-makers and other actors that were involved in the NFIP did not approve of the act because it resulted in a lot of changes when some people thought that the program was operating fine as it was. They had to reserve some of the progress that they made to implement the changes.
It is the opinion of some people that government just uses the FEMA to spend money and citizens do not benefit much from FEMA (Mayer 2012). When FEMA was first established it was used by presidents, but no at the rate that it is used today. The article shows that President Obama used FEMA an average of 153 times a year, which is much more than any other president used the policy (Mayer 2012). The opinion that disaster relief should be under state and local control is again expressed (Mayer 2012).
The authors in each of the think tanks each have strong negative opinions of the FEMA. Each article may have been stronger if they would of also listed positive things that the FEMA has done. The authors of the think tanks do offer opinions of how the FEMA could do things different, which is good.
References
Edwards, C. (2014). The Federal Emergency Management Agency. Policy Analysis. (1-32).
FEMA. (2018). About the Agency.
Flood Insurance. Status of FEMA’s Implementation of the Biggert-Waters Act, as Amended. (2015). United States Government Accountability Office.
Mayer, M. (2012). Congress Should Limit the Presidential Abuse of FEMA. The Heritage Foundation.
https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/congress-should-limit-the-presidential-abuse-fema
Response two-pol-03
GAO’s (2015) report is addressed in the challenges of changes policies and reversals of the Biggert-Waters Act, and the operational directives as the prime issues with their success. The report is difficult to follow and carries a great deal of policy and law issues. They referred to changing policies which added then removed insurance increases, this created an uncertain level of available long-term funding which increased confusion and frustration on the side of both consumers and the agency (GAO, 2015). The recommendations surrounded gathering appropriate data, stabilizing the resources and data needs by increasing the reliability of information. Additionally, they recommended tighter controls in oversite of contractors and their contract requirements (Gao, 2015, pp. 15-25).
The Freedom House (2018) also indicated they interpreted corruption involved in Katrina contracts through FEMA, wherein appointees of then-President Bush were not equipped to handle the situations of large emergencies but were given their position due to favoritism. The appointees and the agency (FEMA), they oversaw had failed data, poor oversite and contracts were awarded without competition to the benefit of close allies of the President. They recommend the appearance of impropriety be stopped, and that Congress must be willing to push and be authorized to launch investigations into matters where corporate interests and political agents are closely aligned with campaign funding and kickbacks (Freedom House, 2015).
Edward (2014), the CATO organization recommends not only the removal of Federal Funding for states that suffer natural disasters but the closure of FEMA in its entirety due to inefficiency and waste. Indicated in the report is Federal control of disaster relief has allowed insurance breaks for the higher socio-economic buyers, who live in areas that are prone to disasters. The Federal government encourages local agents to build in areas which are likely to be flood-prone, for the lower-socioeconomic status individuals through building grants and poor surveys and protections (Edward, 2014). Specifically, the acts of the Federal Government to expand housing for the poor has encouraged local agents to build for grant money without concern they will be responsible if a natural disaster occurs. Cato recommends returning all costs for rebuilding to the local agents, require private insurance coverage and disband FEMA. Both the GAO (2015) report and Edwards CATO (2014) report point to the inefficiency or failure of insurance plans and expenditures as a driving force in controlling expenditures and establishing risk-management programs effectively. They are completely different in the ideation that the government cannot properly support the mission through mandated policies in floodplains and assistance programs.
Think tanks are designed to break down issues that are extremely complex. Unfortunately, they are often not well analyzed and are slanted based on their ideologies (Think Tank Studies, 2018). Those who believe the government is too intrusive are likely to slant their fact-finding to favor the negative of government interactions in state or local matters. Cato seems to be biased against government interactions into public matters and dislike the interference of such. The Freedom House seemed to slant towards the ideation that many government officials make great gains by inappropriately using their power to contract bids in an emergency, instead of viewing instant awards to the needs of the emergency, they see them as a way to pay back businesses that supported public officials.
LINK: https://freedomhouse.org/report/todays-american-how-free/corruption-money-and-politics-full-chapter
Edwards, C. (2014). CATO: The Federal Emergency Management Agency Floods, Failures, and Federalism. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa764_1.pdf
Freedom House. (2018). Corruption: Money And Politics- Full Chapter. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from https://freedomhouse.org/report/todays-american-how-free/corruption-money-and-politics-full-chapter
GAO. (2015). Flood Insurance Status of FEMA’s Implementation of the Biggert-Waters Act, as Amended. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668578.pdf
Think Tank Studies. (2018). Retrieved April 18, 2018, from https://apus.realizeithome.com/RealizeitApp/ContentDelivery.aspx
Response -03 pol-03
Policy makers face the critical tasks of deciding how public monetary resources are allocated throughout society (Daniell, Morton, & Insua, 2016, p.2). Policy makers must make important decisions based upon policy analysis involving the identification of policy choices; and deciding the most reasonable option to fulfill a set goal. Accordingly, think tanks play a critical role in affecting policy creation by educating policy makers and the citizenry on various issues. Think tanks utilize data in their findings to pursue their respective agenda. As discussed in Jarmin and O’Hara, compiling and utilizing data is instrumental in impacting public policy analysis (2015, p.715). Think tanks formulate analysis through a skewed lens focused on influencing policy makers to create policy aligned with their respective agenda. It is imperative policy makers take into consideration various perspectives of an issue to create balanced policy.
The think tanks analyzed and their respective literature share some similarities and possess a variety of perspectives on the necessity of FEMA. The readings assigned both address the need for FEMA’s need for efficiency and increased performance. However, the Cato Institute article contends that policy makers need to cut FEMA’s funding and dismantle the federal agency all together (Edwards, 2104, p. 1). Cato’s argues that disaster relief is the responsibility of the state, local governments, and private sector; and the Federal Government should intervene only if needed (Edwards, 2014, p.2). Historical evidence is provided to persuade its audience that FEMA is unconstitutional, and not needed. For example, the War Department in 1917, set regulations that states have primary responsibility for handling disasters; and the Federal Government should only intervene when desperately needed. FEMA has been painted as a rogue agency, plagued with inefficiency and free spending (Edwards, 2014, p.23). This assessment is based on a conservative platform to reduce the expansion, interference, and spending of the Federal Government. The article fails to address the impact of global warming and its effects on natural disasters.
The GAO article discusses FEMA’s inability to maintain its budgetary guidelines. FEMA, specifically it’s National Flood Insurance Program, experienced a shortfall in 2014 by collecting $3.8 billion and paying out $1.3 trillion in property damages (GAO, 2015, p. 1). GAO discusses the importance of implementing efficiency methods to adequately maintain the NFIP. FEMA officials maintained that forecasting NFIP funding is difficult because of its inability to ascertain the impact of surcharges and removal of policy subsidies could negatively affect insurance policy participation (GAO, 2015, p.29). GAO has a modest outlook about FEMA’s performance, and sustainability as a viable government agency. The GAO maintains that strengthening FEMA’s reserve is beneficial; but may not be enough to reduce its debt (GAO, 2015, p.29) GAO contends that FEMA is moving in the right direction by making changes and incorporating scientific data and collaboration with other agencies to insure the NFIP maintains its solvency.
The Institute for Policy Studies published an article in September 5, 2017, “Climate Change is Bigger Threat Than Any Military”, regarding the increase of government spending to fund the military. The increase in military spending would cut funding to other government agencies. The President’s outlined budget would reduce FEMA funding by 11% and cut many other agencies’ funding to assist rebuilding efforts (Pemberton, 2017, p.3). The article contends that Congress and the President need to shift its focus from military spending toward funding social programs at home. The article takes into account the impact of global warming and increase in greenhouse gases relevant to the increase in natural disasters. The current administration has abandoned clean energy initiatives which is crucial to minimizing climate change (Pemberton, 2017, p.3).
In conclusion, all 3 articles take a different stance concerning the viability of FEMA and its programs. The Cato funded Edwards’ article takes a drastic conservative approach by calling for the demise of FEMA and reducing the role of the Federal Government in domestic disasters. The demand for the shrinking of government is a typical conservative approach. The GAO’s article takes a more neutral approach by recognizing the need for improvements within FEMA to increase the agency’s effectiveness and performance. The IPS article takes a liberal approach by reducing military funding and increasing financial support for domestic programs, like FEMA. Also, the inclusion of environmental measures to decrease global warming is in line with liberal Democratic initiatives. The need to mitigate through think tank rhetoric by policy makers is crucial for effective policy creation.
References:
Daniell, K. A., Morton, A., & Ríos Insua, D. (2016). Policy analysis and policy analytics.Annals of Operations Research, 236(1), 1-13. doi:10.1007/s10479-015-1902-9
Edwards, C. (2014) The federal emergency management agency. Policy Analysis, 764, 1-32
Government Accountability Office. (2015). Status of FEMA’s implementation of the Biggert-Waters Act, as amended. (GAO Publication No. 15-178). Washington, DC.: US Government Printing Office.
Jarmin, R. S., & O’Hara, A. B. (2016). big data and the transformation of public policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(3), 715-721. doi:10.1002/pam.21925
Pemberton, M. (2017) Climate change is a bigger threat than any military. The Hill, 1-4.