10/05/2005: New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin announced yesterday that he was laying off 3,000 city workers. This, he said, was because the city is in financial ruin.

Sadly, the mayor was not among the employees on the chopping block.

09/28/2005: After seeing the news media bungle the reporting of Katrina, Froggy has this to say about the mainstream news media and their latent racism.

In their coverage of Katrina, the MSM completely reared their ugly, partisan, racist heads. Like Dan Rather, they succumbed to faith-based reporting: they took wild stories, didn’t bother to check them out, and reported them as fact because they believed the stories; after all, those stories fit the far-left leanings of the “reporters”.

This is why the MSM needs to clean up their system, and soon. They are quicky slouching toward irrelevance.

09/15/2005: Thomas Sowell articulates the difference between free enterprise and government enterprise with respect to disaster response. What he points out is noteworthy:

(1) FEMA’s bungle of the Katrina aftermath is nothing new: they bungle almost every emergency. What FEMA provided was their standard response to a disaster. In most instances–tornadoes, lower-grade hurricanes, moderately strong earthquakes–that response would have been somewhat adequate. Unfortunately, Katrina was the natural equivalent of a WMD attack on 90,000 square miles of coast. This exposed longstanding systemic problems with FEMA. A legitimate issue would be whether including FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security exacerbated those problems.

(2) Contrasting the federal response with that of private enterprise–Wal Mart, Federal Express, State Farm, et al–magnifies the inefficiency of government. While people tend to overlook private enterprises–which are profit-generating entities–it does not change the reality: free markets work. Markets–in and of themselves–are impersonal and amoral, but corporate entitles act within their own best interests, and goodwill is often within their best interests. The best CEOs know that social responsibility is good for profitability in the long run.

On the other hand, it is normal for us to want a government-run relief agency that we control. The trouble is that government-run entities, like private entities, also act within their own best interests. Because government entities do not generate revenue or profit, CYA is the operative standard.

That approach by government agencies is perfectly rational, especially when internal policymakers are lawyers and those policymakers have to answer to legislators (who are mostly lawyers). Such policymakers implement strict internal controls (bureaucracy) to satisfy government auditors and legislators and legislative staff. Even the hint of failure is career-damaging to any aspiring policy wonk.

As a result, policymakers take a defensive approach to policy. Why? Most of the time, the risk of failure outweighs the benefits of innovation.

Hopefully, if nothing else, Katrina–coupled with 9/11 and the recent Space Shuttle debacles–has tipped the risk-benefit scale for government toward innovation and proactivity.

Now, we have a new paradigm: the risk of bureaucracy outweighs the risk of innovation.

We need innovators: people who will shake up the system–even to the point of eliminating some jobs, creating others, streamlining policies, who will quit studying problems and actually solve them and implement those solutions.

We need leaders who are willing to take risks and do big things that make a difference. This is how we won the Revolutionary War. This is how the Union prevailed in the Civil War. This is how we won World War I. This is how we won World War II. This is how we won the Cold War. This is the only way we will win the war against Islammunism, prepare for major disasters, and maintain economic stability all at the same time.

Many people complain that government should be run like a business. To a certain extent that is not possible–some bureaucracy will always be necessary. (This is true even in the private sector, especially with respect to corporate governance.)

In the latter respect, government can learn from the private sector: bureaucracy allows for sufficient accountability, but does not hinder good companies from innovating, competing effectively, providing social benefits, and providing solid returns to their stakeholders. Toyota has sufficient bureaucracy to run a transparent operation, but that did not stop the company from implementing Just-In-Time manufacturing, which revolutionized the whole manufacturing sector. Starbucks is very active in social and environmental causes, but that has not stopped them from achieving strong profitability. Southwest Airlines is probably the best-run airline in the world: bureaucracy does not stop them from blowing away their competition.

Ultimately, government needs leaders who will think less like policy wonks and more like leaders who seek to actually accomplish something.

It is my hope that Katrina will spark such leaders to pursue government service.

09/13/2005: USA Today provides some insight into Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, and their handling of the Katrina strike. The responses of the two governors tend to reflect their backgrounds.

Barbour–a former lobbyist and Republican National Committee Chairman–has been very businesslike, and has shown a fundamental understanding of how things work. While he has not had the personal touch of Blanco, he has rolled up his sleeves (literally) and has helped actively to bring relief to the hurricane victims in his state. As a top-level Republican, he has had a good working relationship with the Bush Administration.

Blanco, on the other hand, has been more personal and relational, spending time grieving with families. Criticisms of her on-camera tears have been unfair. (Faced with the New Orleans devastation, who wouldn’t have lost it on camera?) While she now has a better working relationship with Bush, her initial response conveyed an “I trust you as far as I can throw you” attitude toward Bush. Like Mayor Nagin, she was initially on the “Blame everyone but the people in your home state” bandwagon. (Nagin has toned it down somewhat, but he’s still on that bandwagon.)

Unfortunately, Blanco has failed to demonstrate leadership. She has done a great job grieving with families, but leaders also need to inspire people, promote confidence, and convey resolve. Toward that end, she has fallen short. In addition, she has shown a lack of understanding of government systems and processes, both in her state as well as the federal level.

Like Blanco, Barbour rejected a federal takeover of relief efforts in his state. However, unlike Blanco, Barbour really did have the situation under control. While Barbour is hardly as sharp as Mayor Giuliani, he has acquitted himself well. Other than Lt. Gen. Honore, Barbour is the only leader whose star will rise out of this.

Blanco, on the other hand, is completely in over her head.

As we learn more about how the leaders–city, state, and federal–responded to Katrina, we will find out the extent to which the friction between Bush and Louisiana Democrats contributed to the federal response, and who contributed to that friction. Bush didn’t wait for Barbour to call him; he called Barbour.

Was this level of proactivity shown to Blanco? If not, were the reasons technical or personal? A disaster like this is not the time for political grandstanding.

If I’m a Republican governor and need serious federal help from a Democrat President, now is not the time to give him the Dick Cheney salute.

Similarly, if I am a Republican President, now is not the time to get into a defacating contest with a Democratic governor. If I have a hostile governor cussing me out, it’s still my job to look beyond that and keep my eye on the real issue: people are in desperate need of help.

Again, we will see the extent to which partisan politics–and the people who escalated it–hindered the relief efforts in Louisiana.