Amidst all the debate over the appropriate role of government, one statement is indisputable: Government cannot control the weather. All it can do is move people out of the way and, afterward, respond in a manner that quickly restores safety, order and then self sufficiency.
And, its constituents hope, a government agency can analyze the information gained in each successive disaster to make certain that the planning and response for the next one is better targeted and more efficient.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency appears to have learned the lessons of Hurricane Katrina and applied them effectively to Irene.
The two storms were different. Katrina was much stronger when it struck the United States, and the Gulf Coast, with aging, insufficient structures to protect low-lying land, is a different landscape. What happened there was not going to be duplicated as Irene swept up the Atlantic shore, and for that, many millions of people are thankful.
In partnership with state and local governments all along the eastern seaboard, FEMA has coordinated a response that is greatly improved. Communication among agencies flowed well, with little confusion or duplication of effort and relatively few gaps. Mobile teams were staged accurately.
Further improvement is always an appropriate goal. for example, diverting money committed to Joplin tornado in reaction to Irene, while a classic example of the allocation of scarce resources, was not ideal. But the response to Irene offers hope that such improvement is possible.
This is the kind of task at which a federal agency, under the right direction, can excel. A catastrophic storm that crosses state boundaries requires an effort that transcends governmental subdivisions. Managing one agency with authority, personnel and equipment to respond anywhere in the country is an effective use of resources.
Even House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, one of Congress boldest advocates for shrinking the federal government, said this week, This is a time when there is an appropriate government role. (By contrast, Ron Paul used the occasion to lobby for FEMAs dissolution.)
Cantor, who said that Congress will find recovery funding for FEMA and the states, also said that such expenditures must be balanced by cuts elsewhere. This may be the time to make cuts, because some people who have been protecting their own turf may be moved by such a visible demonstration of more immediate need.
Most Americans, though, want the federal government to be more than a disaster-response team. If it can be managed appropriately, they dont want it to go away.
The same big-picture skills that have revamped FEMA could be used to analyze what works and what doesnt when confronting other challenges that cross state boundaries: air and water pollution, access to health care, transportation and so on. States, and the counties and communities within them, have differing needs and different resources, but they dont need to start from scratch with every problem. Sharing information, expertise and rarely needed equipment only makes sense.
Such displays of good government even good large government happen, more often and more successfully, than many constituents know. The people and agencies responsible for them deserve credit and encouragement, especially when they correct past mistakes.
If FEMA can do that, other government agencies can improve as well. The Department of Defense, which reportedly has lost $60 billion to fraud, waste and abuse in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, need not repeat that mistake. Federal health care policy can be refined to make it both more efficient and more effective.
Government wont ever be perfect, but it can be improved if the political will exists to do that.
