Romney and FEMA

Well, there I was, last evening, enjoying my fleeting fifteen minutes of fame, when Mitt strode into the room.

OK—it just felt that way. Is it just I, or does anyone else hear the repressed petulance of a guy wishing for the 1950’s who knows in his heart they’ll never come again?

Mitt, as you can hear, wants to send the responsibility of cleaning up after disasters back to the states, and preferably the private sector.

My first question—what do the experts say? Is there anybody out there that thinks that’s a good idea? Are all disasters alike or can some be dealt with at the state level while others require a centralized / national organization? Would we really save money, or would we just be sticking the tab on the states?

Well, in an effort to be fair—that father of mine is still lingering around somewhere—I did a brief google on the topic. And guess what?

Still don’t have the answer!

There is a guy, however, who makes a case for privatization in the case of disaster response. And he adduces a little company I know something about.

Wal-Mart!

Right—Wal-Mart’s finest hour was in response to Hurricane Katrina.

Anybody remember FEMA’s response to hurricane Katrina?

Or that “heck of a job” that “Brownie” was doing?

Well, while Brownie was answering emails or shopping for shirts, Wal-Mart was giving away ice-cold water to people who needed it.

Good business strategy, really. Lady in the shop across the street did the same for me, after one of our hurricanes, and am I gonna buy cigars anywhere else?

Nope!

Right, and I’ve had a little experience with FEMA, too. Well, actually, I’ve not. But my students have, and the reports were hardly raves.

Also true, of course, that NOBODY is happy after a disaster. There’s something about not showering for two weeks, sweating bullets as the mosquitoes dive-buzz your ear at 2AM, and not having a hot meal for a fortnight that sours the mood.

But hey—wait a sec. Before we privatize our disaster response, there’s something we ought to consider.

Wal-Mart is perhaps the most centralized company in the world.

Want an example? When a freezer in the Bayamón store goes above a set temperature, an alarm is activated in Bentonville, Arkansas, and a technician there calls the store—as he or she will call ANY store, anywhere in the world. At this moment, Bentonville is monitoring freezers in China.

Bentonville, as well, is monitoring the weather. It’s got its own meteorologist—nice guy, we exchanged emails once—who said metaphorically to New Orleans what I said actually to my brother John.

“You’re fucked….” 

So since they have a very efficient (and very centralized) logistics system, it was no problem to put the trucks with that cold water in a nice high-and-dry spot.

OK—so we’re at the point of asking: which is better, the (probably centralized) private sector or the public sector? Does business do it better? Does the profit motive increase efficiency to the point that we save money AND get better results?

Well, Mitt, I grew up in the fifties and sixties in a little town that worked. Nobody except the Catholics paid for private schools, nobody had gated communities, you could drink the water. And government did all that, or regulated the industries that did. And everybody grumbled about their taxes, but assumed automatically that if you called an ambulance, one would come.

It was efficient, it was clean, and the press kept an eye on things, as did an educated populace.

Well, maybe those halcyon days weren’t quite as lustrous as remembered. But I got a question.

Why am I suspicious of rich guys who want to privatize everything? I bashed FEMA, a few paragraphs up.

Anybody remember Halliburton?