Katrina: Is Deliberate Incompetence Making The Case For Faith-Based Aid?

[rucky]

As the trailers that could house thousands of families sit mired in red tape. As Brownie and Chertoff point fingers. As 6 months go by, concerned people are picking up the slack of DHS's sweeping incompetence by making private donations and volunteer efforts to organizations who could provide more efficient and immediate aid to the displaced victims.

It's great that everybody's pitching to get relief to the victims, and that is the A-1 priority right now. I'm not discouraging anybody from doing so, but I'd like to point out that -if they haven't by now - the Bush Administration will use their own willful and criminal negligence to push their agenda of privitization and faith-based initiatives.

The myth that government-pirates like Grover Norquist and his reptilian ilk love to spread is that private FOR-PROFIT organizations can do the job more efficiently than the government. One look at KBR in Iraq will blow that case, but reality has nothing to do with Bush's policy of corporate handouts. The only thing that is, in reality, more criminal and more negligent than corrupt contractors (in all forms of "rebuilding" that they do) IS the US Government itself.

But the real indicator that the Katrina debacle was mostly willful will come at the exploitation of good people who can't stand to see this type of suffering. There are literally hundreds of NGO projects for Katrina aid - many, but not all of them are faith-based. If they haven't done it already, you can bet the White House will point (exclusively) to the church groups who are mobilized to give aid, tell them their doing a "heckova job" and send some big government checks to the Faith-Based Programs. At least the Christian ones (100% of faith-based money has gone to Christian churches). At least the Christian ones that preach conservatism.

They do have the chutzpah and the opportunity to flaunt their own incompetence in the face of human tragedy, and use it to further their political agenda. And again, there's not a damn thing we can do about it, other than HAMMER home the message that the government acted WILLFULLY. This was not a mere case of "big-government red tape."

[cornermouse]

1. The fact is that faith based cannot do what the federal government

can do when it is properly administrated. They don't have the power to make insurance companies pay up. They don't have the money to help people start rebuilding their lives. Faith based and George Bush is why New Orleans still looks just like it did the day the water receded from the town.

[jobycom]

2. Exactly. I have no doubt that the negligence is willful, and ordered

by BushCo. They not only hope to strengthen "faith-based" charities, but cause people to reject government. By being completely incompetent, they are hoping people will stop wanting the federal government to help, and will begin relying on NGOs and private industry.

Notice, they aren't waiting for the people to make the choice, they are forcing the choice on them. Also, notice that the taxes that have been paid over the last six or more decades have been to a government expected to help out in emergencies. Instead, BushCo is spending those taxes on a private war, and letting the people who paid those taxes suffer and die. This is fraud, in addition to being inhuman.

Our government's ability to handle crises has always set us above the rest of the world. Our spending to minimize earthquake, hurricane, fire, tornado and every other type of damage we could imagine is what made us seem so lucky so often. An earthquake hitting California causes less damage because the buildings are built to higher codes than elsewhere.

That's the real sin of neocons. They hate America. They want to destroy it, so that the US of A becomes just another nation, and all the sacrifices of the generations before us are nullified. Our government--by the people, for the people, and of the people--was what made us the envy of the world and of history itself. But to the neocons, government is the enemy and must be destroyed. These treasonous bastards don't deserve to live here, not one damn one of them.

[FreedomAngel82]

5. Right

I am glad all the churches and faith-based groups have helped out but you are right about the neocon plan. Remember after it was over a lot of rightwingers were saying "see?! This is why you can't trust the government!"

[anitar1]

9. They are "helping out" with OUR tax money. n/t

[liberal N proud]

3. And then the churches will only give aid if you will let them SAVE you

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Wrong not all of them do

I know lots of churches who don't do that. They just go and help. My church doesn't make anybody do anything and if they're bribing people than that's not what charity is about and certainly not what Jesus talked about. There's a time and place for missionary. Helping people is not that time. People know they can come and worship anytime they want. Now yes some churches do this, and it's very shameful and wrong, but not everyone. So please correct your statement. As a member of a church who doesn't do this it's very very wrong.

[liberal N proud]

7. True, not all will do that, but there are many who will

But the whole guise of Faith Based Initiatives is to divert federal money to churches

[anitar1]

10. Do you sit on the board of your church? Do you have inside

knowledge of the decisions they make? Or do you merely believe everything you are told? Fools are people who blindly believe what they are told.

[jobycom]

13. I can't speak for her church, but I can speak for Katrina aid.

My parents live in Mississippi, and I went down there shortly after Katrina hit. I was there before the National Guard, in fact. I have pictures of their convoys arriving.

There were a lot of religious groups who were there before the government. None of them--let me repeat that--none of them that I saw required anything for their assistance. They gave away clothing, food, water, ice, medical assistance, rides for people without cars (and there were a lot of them), and just about anything you can think of. People came down to help from across the nation, breaking supplies and much needed water and meals. Not everyon was connected to a religious organization, but the quickest, most organized response was from the religious organizations. I'm sure some of them would hand you a flyer if you let them, and I'm sure some of the volunteers would have started preaching if you encouraged them, but the help down there was sincere. And needed. Desperately.

I can tell you hate churches, and that's your own issue. But you fling that word "brainwashed" around rather easily, and yet other people are providing details, while you are simply insulting people in response. If you have some direct information, please present it, would all love to here it. Until you give me some evidence that you have any knowledge beyond speculation about what you're saying, your words will continue to be quite ironic to me.

I know Bush's agenda, and how the churches fit into it, but I've also seen these churches in action, and I know damn good and well that they don't require you to be "SAVED" before they will provide assistance to you. And I'm an atheist, so don't start calling me brainwashed.

[sandnsea]

16. They can get reimbursement

And most of them know that they can get FEMA reimbursement, or Red Cross reimbursement, in natural disaster relief work. The problem is when people receiving that assistance don't make the connection between their tax dollars, their representation, their vote and that relief. They write out a check to a church, vote for tax cuts, and then wonder why they're still in a tent 6 months after a natural disaster. We need government and funneling this money off to churches is just putting a smokescreen on it and leaving alot of people suffering and not knowing why.

[jobycom]

17. Couple of problems with this

First, many of these organizations have been doing disaster relief since before Bush took office, so they were set up for such endeavors before they could be reimbursed.

Second, the people who are living in tents in New Orleans didn't vote for the tax cuts. In 2004 Kerry got 77% of the vote in Orleans Parish.

Third, it shouldn't be a question of government OR charity assistance, disaster recovery plans should include BOTH. Only one side failed to keep up their end of the bargain, and that wasn't the church organizations.

[sandnsea]

19. Why isn't the government keeping up their end

Because THIS government believes churches should provide charitable services and Republicans have been saying so for at least 20 years now. The question isn't why have the churches done what they always do, it's why has the government NOT done what they usually do. Answer; to convince people government CAN'T, which is easier in the south because so many of them don't believe in government anyway.

I'm not criticizing churches, I know they're the first reponders for social needs. I'm just pointing out that there's a strategy behind the lack of long term governmental response. They don't believe in government.

[jobycom]

24. That's what I said in post #2. I guess I misunderstood your post

I thought you were saying churches were ONLY helping because they could get reimbursed, as if their help were part of the problem. My bad.

[sandnsea]

28. My bad too

I missed that post. Oops. :)

[PBass]

22. If there is no faith-based criteria to passing out aid,

or receiving aid, then there is no reason to use churches (or church groups) as a central hub to disburse aid. Use 4H clubs, local firehouses, Moose Lodges, National Guard, you name it. Am I supposed to think it's a coincidence that churches are getting hired to do relief work?

Also, under Bush, it is specifically Christian groups getting this federal money for 'faith based aid'. Overwhelmingly so. Does that bother you? It certainly bothers the hell out of me.

Getting back on topic, hell yes, I do think the disgraceful federal response has something to do with the Bush urge to privitize everything. Part of the horrible job they did is pure incompetence (Bushco are great campaigners with very little interest in actual governance or legislating). But part of the lack of federal response is (IMO) at least a subconscious desire to see massive privitization of federal programs... including domestic security.

[jobycom]

26. I never defended Bush's policy

Read the whole thread, I'm opposed to Bush's "faith-based" charity giveaways, and I don't think it's a "subconscious desire to see massive privitization of federal programs--" I think they deliberately let people die in order to kill the trust in the federal government, to force people to turn to NGOs. (Read post #2).

But the poster who claimed that churches were requiring people to convert before they would help was just wrong.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. Very true--I was down in Mississippi volunteering at

an Episcopal relief center that happens to be housed at the school that jobycom attended.

They gave away free food, clothing, drinking water, and medical care and sent out work crews to help people clear debris off their lots or tear down what was left of their houses.

The week I was there, 150 volunteers from all over the country were there, sleeping on cots in the school gym, eating plain, cheap food, and working 9:00 to 5:00 six days a week. Many of us made shopping trips and helped replenish supplies that were running low.

There were NO religious requirements for getting help. We served white, black, Native American, Latino, and Vietnamese Mississipians, no questions asked, no judgments made.

The volunteers attended a religious service every evening.

There was something very special about the atmosphere there. I have never been in an environment that had so many people living together in such crowded conditions so peaceably and pleasantly. The work was so absorbing that I realized at the end of the week that I had not even thought about any of my usual petty problems for six days. In fact, despite the discomforts of living out of a duffle bag and sharing crowded conditions with 149 other people, we all hated to leave.

I agree that the Bush administration is purposely lousing up relief in the Gulf Coast area in order to create further distrust of the government. I also suspect that the expenses of the Iraq War have left them without financial resources to do a good job.

But the churches are working hard on the Gulf Coast. I was telling someone at the gym about my experiences this morning, and she said that she went down with the Red Cross shortly after "the Storm" and found them pretty disorganized. The church groups, on the other hand, were well organized (all the mainstream denominations have disaster relief agencies) and seemed to know what to do.

[FreedomAngel82]

4. I think it goes to show

sometimes you need other people to help too. Especially from the government. Even my own church has gotten involved with sending down groups to Louisiana. My dad went during the holiday break in early January with a group to help clean up for a few days and they're planning on sending a group during spring break. I think you should have more professional people who know disasters and hurricanes. I remember when this happened I heard Joe Scarborough on another show talking about this (maybe it was Bill Maher? I'm not sure) and he was talking about how during the Clinton years he worked with the guy Clinton put in charge of FEMA really did a fantastic job and he really sang this guys praises. He also talked about how this FEMA guy would go around with Scarborough and survey the sites etc. So it's not so much about the Christian groups I think but more about Bush and his administration being lazy and not wanting to use government fundings for helping people but for the corporations that in return give them money. With the churches they can easily just write a check and give them a little press and they're off your back.

[tanyev]

8. Not only does it provide a rationale for faith-based aid,

but also for privatizing tasks that should be done by the government.

[anitar1]

12. So right. and this conversation points out how naive

church members are. Good brainwashing shows. Some cannot believe that they have to question and investigate everything. they have been truly and well brainwashed .But that is what organized religion does best.

[rucky]

14. Like education:

NCLB is an unfunded mandate because they want it to fail, so parents can use government $$$ to send their kids to private school (that can pick & choose their students) via vouchers.

And Medicaid. It's plan is deliberately confusing, but the healthcare industry will help us. what a relief.

And Social Security, soon enough. They're looting it as we speak, but the stockbrokers can save us, because we can grow our money by investing in private industry! (or lose it all).

[LisaLynne]

11. I think you might be right.

I've been wondering this myself. I know that BushCo and his neocons would like the government not to be involved in any sort of aid. They've spoken before about how generous the American people are, so the government doesn't have to be involved -- we just give to charitable organizations out of our own pocket and thus the government can do nothing. I think that was part of the deal behind BushCo's non-response initially to the tsunami. It was sort of like a test-run to see what would happen if the government gave only insultingly minimal aid.

In any case, yes, I do believe that their goal is to get the government out of the helping people business, which is stupid, IMHO, because I believe that's one of the reasons we NEED them. If they aren't going to help, then I'm keeping ALL my tax dollars. Thank you very much.

Now, is their bungling of Katrina a deliberate plan in order to give their people a chance to start yelling about government incompetence and thus give them an opening to start putting funds and responsibilities on non-government organizations (this admin would want those orgs to be fundy-Christian-faith-based, of course) to handle disasters as a first step toward moving all sorts of social services out of government hands? I don't know if it's a plan, but it wouldn't shock me, but I think it is more in this Admins' M.O. to bungle something (for example, 9/11) and then use it to their advantage and to advance their ideology later (using 9/11 to invade Iraq, which they wanted to do long before 9/11).

So, to sum up -- I think they are using Katrina that way, but I don't think they bungled it on purpose. I think they're just that stupid. :)

[sandnsea]

15. Faith-based & privatization

And even the people right in the thick of it will tell you that it's the charities and churches and private business that stepped in to help, even solid Democrats don't seem to get it is all by design. And that it wasn't enough and thst government has done better in the past and should have easily done better this time too.

[SmokingJacket]

18. I've been saying this since September 1st.

The incredibly delayed and inadequate response was OBVIOUSLY deliberate. So, why? I wondered, because it sure did make them look bad.

Well, clearly they don't care about looking bad; but they wanted to make the point that the Govt of the USA is no longer in the business of helping people. Period.

:grr:

[linazelle]

20. That's the same conclusion I drew back then as well. nt

[Emit]

21. Yes, I think so and also deliberate

to make it appear that the government 'needs' to intervene militarily in domestic issues. They tried to kill two birds with one stone.

The issue of the Posse Comitatus act, if you recall, was discussed several times. There was some ulterior motive there, including using faith based initiatives, using military, etc. Call me suspicious, but, allowing and even helping the failure along gave the Grover Norquists and others some ammo to boost the notion that the government's role in society should be shrunk to 'fit in a bathtub' or whatever his comment was about shrinking the size of government.

Maybe I'm not articulating very well, but others brought this up at the time, too.

Here's a brief article talking about the Posse Comitatus Act and military involvement in domestic issues as it relates to Katrina:

Having already wrecked a legendary American city, Hurricane Katrina may now be invoked to undermine a fundamental principle of American law: When it comes to domestic policing, the military should be a last resort, not a first responder.

On Sept. 26, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that the U.S. military could seize control immediately in the aftermath of a natural disaster, noting that "it may require change of law."

The law the president seems to be referring to is the Posse Comitatus Act, the longstanding federal statute that restricts the government's ability to use the U.S. military as a police force.

Sen. John Warner, R.-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also has signaled his desire to change the law.

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita called Posse Comitatus a "very archaic" statute that hampers the president's ability to respond to a crisis.

Not so. The Posse Comitatus Act is no barrier to federal troops providing logistical support during natural disasters. Nor does it prohibit the president from using the Army to restore order in extraordinary circumstances -- even over the objection of a state governor.

~snip~

The Katrina tragedy ought to be an occasion for rethinking a number of federal policies, including our promiscuous use of the Guard abroad. Instead, Washington seems poised to embrace further centralization and militarization at home.

That has the makings of a policy disaster that would dwarf Hurricane Katrina.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:EMbrzvZjApQJ:www.cato.org/pub_display.php%3Fpub_id%3D5115+posse+comitatus+katrina&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

[rucky]

23. If you listen carefully to Brown's testimony, he hints at this a bit...

when he admits his reluctance to involve the National Guard in the rescue. Nobody really asked him to elaborate, but he made it clear that he did not trust them - I think he said something like "they were working under a different set of orders."

[leftchick]

25. very scary and very true

I have no doubt. :(