Bush Takes Blame

In an MSNBC article reporting that Bush is taking the blame for federal agencies' weaknesses, a serious flaw in the reasoning of reporters was extremely obvious.

The president was asked whether people should be worried about the governmentÂ’s ability to handle another terrorist attack given failures in responding to Katrina.

The big problem is the assumption that the government has the ability to handle any situation. My libertariantendenciess always makes me suspicious of the government's ability to handle anything. As a government worker I know firsthand the problemsbureaucracyy creates. Everyone is so apprehensive that they will do something wrong, that they fail to make decisions. Government is so worried that it might exclude somebody or hurt someone's feelings (thus causing a lost vote) that it dare not make radical decisions that rock the status quo. To get any decision made requires the forming of a committee, the consulting of experts, and the building of a consensus (so that no one person is held responsible for the decision).

Neal Boortz has used an illustration on his radio program that explains the difference between government and private enterprise. Imagine living in the year 1900 and someone saying which of these three things is possible to accomplish in the next 100 years, 1) Build a system of roads and bridges that connect the east coast to the west coast, 2) Transport people and goods across the Atlantic Ocean in under 6 hours, or 3) Create a machine that perform a billion calculations per second. In the year 1900 none of these existed. Two of them were nothing better than science fiction. Government only achieved one of the goals. The other two were created by privateinitiativess. While government could not have performed two of the tasks, it could have impeded them. So often today we see good ideas stopped and blocked, not by technology, but by government.

Government, by its very nature, is not designed to move forward nor is it designed to move quickly. Government is designed to maintain the current state of things. (Please note that I am speaking in generalities here. There are some, miniscule parts of government where this is not case, for instance, our military. By in large, though, what I am saying is true.) Government does just enough to get by. In times of tragedy, you need more than that.

That is why self-reliance and private organizations are better able to respond to tragedy. I can make quick decisions for myself on how to handle a situation. A private organization, unencumbered by the fear of being voted out, can make hard decisions very quickly. Anyone at anytime that depends ongovernmentt to handle the situations that arise intheirr lives is going to be disappointed, let down. And what government does handle for them, will only be mediocre at best (No one will get wealthy on welfare, it is just enough money toekek by on. Public housing: barely a roof over your head. Medicare: just enough coverage to keep you alive).

As a country, we need to return to our roots of self-reliance. Sure, not everyone is equipped to make the decisions and take responsibility for themselves. When that is the case, it is up to the person's family andtheirr church to take responsibility for them. If a person does not have family or church, then private organizations can assist them.

After comparing how the government handled the Katrina Crisis with how organizations such as the American Red Cross and churches have handled it,ist should be clear that the apersonal approach of government is a failure while the others have been able to respond to individuals in a humane and personal way.

Anyone who relies on government will be disappointed at every turn. So, to answer that reporter's question: Yes, people should be worried about the government's ability to respond and prepare for disaster themselves. The only person you can rely on to look after your interests is yourself. That is a fact of this life. If you don't like it, you can only pray for the next life.