"ron paul"I had a brief conversation with Mike about it, and I'll get to that momentarily. For those of you just joining us, here's a synopsis (you must, of course, read the whole article too):
Bad guys knock buildings down; turning a few square miles of the most densely populated area in America into poison. Bad poison. A couple days later the "we're from the government and we're here to help you" types tell people that there's no more poison, or if there is, it's not bad. Well, not real bad.
This is a lie; there was still real bad poison everywhere. NB: 6 years later exactly, it's largely undetermined whether there's still real bad poison everywhere.
Sprinkled into this story are some absolute screamers:
Was it wrong to try get the city back on its feet as quickly as possible in the safest way possible? Absolutely not... We weren't going to let the terrorists win.
-Christine Todd Whitman, at hearing in June, 2007
Yes, you heard me: 2007, long after the s--t had hit the fan, when Ms. Whitman ought to have been saying stuff like "We are so very, very, very sorry that you all are sick or dying, or -- even better -- stuff like 'I am so very, very resigning'"
Okay, I'll let you enjoy the rest of that testimony on your own time. Back to the discussion with Mike; the question at hand is "does a screwup of these proportions argue for bigger government and/or at what level?" I believe Mike's assessment was that (contra Ron Paul) municipal/state control of the decision-making process was to blame for some of the severity.
Personally, I'm skeptical. I think these particular individual were to blame, but this is owing to their drawbacks as individuals, not to the level of government on which they serve. That is: the federal government (as demonstrated frequently) is quite capable of such screwups if pigheaded cronies are put in charge of it. In fact, Mike's article briefly touches on an example -- Katrina -- and Whitman (quoted above) is, of course, a federal-level official.
In short, there have not been (thankfully) enough disasters of this scale to make an assessment about whether municipal or federal environmental-protection agencies would be more effective at curtailing their effects. As a big (municipal) government liberal (sorta), I incline to the former, but all evidence is anecdotal so far.
Last point: Mike's article ends with a straightforward statement that explodes Whitman's song-and-dance.
It is clear there are laws and regulations that were in place, which, had they been followed, would have prevented all this... They weren’t followed.
-Rep. Jerrold Nadler
... which is exactly to the point of Ron Paul's insistence on following the explicit law of the land, first and foremost. Without a commitment to that, there isn't much point arguing whether it's easier to fight city or national Hall.
