6 ms·

There's a terrific debate to be had about the role of the federal government in a national emergency. Is it the air support for state led initiatives, or should

There's a terrific debate to be had about the role of the federal government in a national emergency. Is it the air support for state led initiatives, or should it be more of a quarterback coordinating action across all state lines?

mehrdadn 7y ago
No, there's zero debate to be had. They actively intercept and confiscate medical supplies that states purchase to save their populations from dying. Blue states, I might add. Which is of course a complete coincidence. (And other countries haven't been immune to this either, but that's another story.)
- sooheon 7y ago
  A: "there's a good debate to be had about the role of justice system, should it seek to rehabilitate or punish?" B: "no, there's zero debate to be had because this one judge was caught taking bribes" One is a question about purpose and design, the other is a bug in the implementation.
- makomk 7y ago
  See, this is why it's lose-lose for the federal government. If they allow states to bid against each other for the same equipment, enriching shady middlemen and stockpilers, this is proof they've failed (see comment elsewhere in thread) - but if they seize those stockpiles and don't allow them to be sold at a massive markup to the highest bidder, they're actively intercepting medical supplies that states purchase to save their populations from dying. The American press has been loudly pushing both of these narratives at once.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - sgift 7y ago
    Probably because the president (still the leader of said government) telling the press that his people shouldn't talk to governors which haven't been nice enough to him doesn't inspire confidence that the second part is done in the best interest of all states. Now, if the federal government would show that they don't just do it for selfish purposes that narrative would die down pretty fast.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    The lack of coordination and mixed messages have been a problem. Trump has publicly said governors should be fending for themselves, and has also been "punishing" states with governors he doesn't like by not taking their calls. States have no reason to trust the federal government to properly help them, and the federal government has shown no capacity or willingness to do anything but release funds.
Fezzik 7y ago
I would think when the type of need is uniform across all states (testing, supplies, containment rules, support for workers and businesses, etc...) and the only difference in each state is in the volume of the need, the Federal Government would take charge. It has more funds and the ability to mandate uniform rules. It also has access to people who are paid to be the smartest folks in the room in dealing with pandemics. This is what the CDC was designed for. Having 50 different states try to piece together a response to an international problem seems destined to... lead us exactly where we are - a day late and a dollar short. Avoiding this was predicated on not having a complete imbecile at the helm though. It really mucks everything up.
- anticensor 7y ago
  Department of State should step in to restore fearless travel conditions as the pandemic is a situation preventing people actually practice statutorily guaranteed freedom to travel. EDIT: I looked up; the Department of Health or the Department of State would be more fit for purpose. Not the Department of Homeland Security, because TSA is actually a Travel Security Agency despite it is named Travel Safety Agency.
  - mulmen 7y ago
    > Department of Interior should step in to restore fearless travel conditions as the pandemic is a situation preventing people actually practice statutorily guaranteed freedom to travel. In spirit I don’t disagree but how can the Department of the Interior do this? What is the specific action? Also why would The Department of the Interior be responsible for travel conditions rather than something like The Department of Transportation? E: I still don’t follow, what action can be taken by any agency to make travel fearless in time of pandemic? Department of State carries out U.S. foreign policy. What can they do to change the reality of a pandemic?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - anticensor 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
djaque 7y ago
No, there might be a nice debate later, but this crisis isn't an exercise in theory. There are people dying right now because of an administration that downplayed the crisis, failed to react, and is now actively sabotaging our state level response unless officials perform personal favours to the president.
- austhrow743 7y ago
  None of that changes our ability to have that debate now. You're allowed to discuss current events on the internet. No one will get you for it.
- tastygreenapple 7y ago
  People are dying because of China, not America.
eli 7y ago
A pandemic that affects all states and all countries in the world and requires almost unprecedented collective action to solve? How can forcing states to figure it out themselves possibly be beneficial? Why is the Governor of NY negotiating directly with Chinese suppliers? Why are states bidding against each for the same scarce equipment, enriching only the middlemen who have suddenly and suspiciously inserted themselves in the process?
- sooheon 7y ago
  Great points in favor of a good QB. Fat middlement don't disappear with centralization though -- see: defense contractor fraud [1] [1]: https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/05/defense-contracting-fraud/ https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/05/defense-contracting-fr...
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  FWIW, states like New York and California have larger populations and economies than most European countries. That, I think, is an argument in favor of being more hands off and letting the governors figure out what’s right in their state. They’ll have a much better understanding of what their local problems and capabilities are.
  - eli 7y ago
    No I don’t think it is. Their local problems are the exact same virus as everyone else’s local problems.
    - surge 7y ago
      No its not, for instance just population density is a huge factor in the spread of a virus. If you live in an area where people are fairly isolated or travel outside their region very little, than you don't need to do the same extreme lockdowns or shut down the economy to the same degree to prevent the spread. I live in a state that's barely being touched by this, and not because we don't have it, but because there are two large cities that have maybe 100+ cases or significant hospital load, and the spread is insignificant because its very easy for people to avoid each other and take basic precautions during interaction to prevent the spread. If you live in apartment buildings, 6 feet from your neighbor with only a wall to separate you stacked stories high with shared elevators, stairwells, hallways, and the majority of transport requires people to be in close proximity on sidewalks, buses, or trains, the factors and extreme measures needed to stop its spread are very different than someone living in Alaska or Idaho. Those people don't need to stay in their homes, they just need to avoid going anywhere unnecessary with large groups of people and wash their hands and cover their mouths. Some states have higher rates of obesity or other risk factors, some states have higher populations of elderly than others. One size fits all measures doesn't work, you need focused precision efforts determined by locals and the only thing they need from the umbrella governments is support in their efforts for needs they've determined are necessary.
trhway 7y ago
doesn't pandemic infection fall under interstate commerce, and thus is pure federal domain?
- redis_mlc 7y ago
  No. The Courts have ruled in the past that for public safety, states can restrict travel.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
joe_the_user 7y ago
Maybe there's a debate to be had about how the Federal Government should act but there shouldn't be a debate whether it should act and the article gives a good description of the Federal Government simply failing to act and even sabotaging action. The unconscionable and rather unbelievable.
lmeyerov 7y ago
There's a difference between having a terrific debate and changing the national stockpile website mid-pandemic to say "nah"
shirro 7y ago
Other federal systems face the same dilemmas. In Australia the powers of the states and federal government are set by the constitution. The feds don't have jurisdiction in many areas. It has to be a team effort. So they have whole of government meetings to work out a common, co-ordinated approach. We see a common message and have federal government support for the states but each state is free to implement measures appropriate to their local situation. I think this consensus driven approach is the only way it can work. The federal government implementing border security, helping with international trade, mobilising military, providing funding. States legislating isolation, enforcing law and order, organising hospitals and testing. Australia has a much smaller population, fewer states and less political extremes. It would be easy to dismiss our relatively good performance in this crisis as due to our isolation and geography. But I think our political system has worked well for us. Even though I don't like some of our political leadership and don't consider them very effective normally, even their worst efforts are looking good compared to what I see elsewhere in the world. I think in a crisis like this if you rely too strongly on a quarterback to take control you can get into a lot of trouble if your quarterback turns out to be useless or even detrimental. The elected king model is too risky. An executive controlled by the legislature is far more responsible and effective.

mehrdadn 7y ago

No, there's zero debate to be had. They actively intercept and confiscate medical supplies that states purchase to save their populations from dying. Blue states, I might add. Which is of course a complete coincidence. (And other countries haven't been immune to this either, but that's another story.)

sooheon 7y ago
A: "there's a good debate to be had about the role of justice system, should it seek to rehabilitate or punish?" B: "no, there's zero debate to be had because this one judge was caught taking bribes" One is a question about purpose and design, the other is a bug in the implementation.
makomk 7y ago
See, this is why it's lose-lose for the federal government. If they allow states to bid against each other for the same equipment, enriching shady middlemen and stockpilers, this is proof they've failed (see comment elsewhere in thread) - but if they seize those stockpiles and don't allow them to be sold at a massive markup to the highest bidder, they're actively intercepting medical supplies that states purchase to save their populations from dying. The American press has been loudly pushing both of these narratives at once.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- sgift 7y ago
  Probably because the president (still the leader of said government) telling the press that his people shouldn't talk to governors which haven't been nice enough to him doesn't inspire confidence that the second part is done in the best interest of all states. Now, if the federal government would show that they don't just do it for selfish purposes that narrative would die down pretty fast.
- kelnos 7y ago
  The lack of coordination and mixed messages have been a problem. Trump has publicly said governors should be fending for themselves, and has also been "punishing" states with governors he doesn't like by not taking their calls. States have no reason to trust the federal government to properly help them, and the federal government has shown no capacity or willingness to do anything but release funds.

Fezzik 7y ago

I would think when the type of need is uniform across all states (testing, supplies, containment rules, support for workers and businesses, etc...) and the only difference in each state is in the volume of the need, the Federal Government would take charge. It has more funds and the ability to mandate uniform rules. It also has access to people who are paid to be the smartest folks in the room in dealing with pandemics. This is what the CDC was designed for. Having 50 different states try to piece together a response to an international problem seems destined to... lead us exactly where we are - a day late and a dollar short. Avoiding this was predicated on not having a complete imbecile at the helm though. It really mucks everything up.

anticensor 7y ago
Department of State should step in to restore fearless travel conditions as the pandemic is a situation preventing people actually practice statutorily guaranteed freedom to travel. EDIT: I looked up; the Department of Health or the Department of State would be more fit for purpose. Not the Department of Homeland Security, because TSA is actually a Travel Security Agency despite it is named Travel Safety Agency.
- mulmen 7y ago
  > Department of Interior should step in to restore fearless travel conditions as the pandemic is a situation preventing people actually practice statutorily guaranteed freedom to travel. In spirit I don’t disagree but how can the Department of the Interior do this? What is the specific action? Also why would The Department of the Interior be responsible for travel conditions rather than something like The Department of Transportation? E: I still don’t follow, what action can be taken by any agency to make travel fearless in time of pandemic? Department of State carries out U.S. foreign policy. What can they do to change the reality of a pandemic?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - anticensor 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

djaque 7y ago

No, there might be a nice debate later, but this crisis isn't an exercise in theory. There are people dying right now because of an administration that downplayed the crisis, failed to react, and is now actively sabotaging our state level response unless officials perform personal favours to the president.

austhrow743 7y ago
None of that changes our ability to have that debate now. You're allowed to discuss current events on the internet. No one will get you for it.
tastygreenapple 7y ago
People are dying because of China, not America.

eli 7y ago

A pandemic that affects all states and all countries in the world and requires almost unprecedented collective action to solve? How can forcing states to figure it out themselves possibly be beneficial? Why is the Governor of NY negotiating directly with Chinese suppliers? Why are states bidding against each for the same scarce equipment, enriching only the middlemen who have suddenly and suspiciously inserted themselves in the process?

sooheon 7y ago
Great points in favor of a good QB. Fat middlement don't disappear with centralization though -- see: defense contractor fraud [1] [1]: https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/05/defense-contracting-fraud/ https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/2019/05/defense-contracting-fr...
toasterlovin 7y ago
FWIW, states like New York and California have larger populations and economies than most European countries. That, I think, is an argument in favor of being more hands off and letting the governors figure out what’s right in their state. They’ll have a much better understanding of what their local problems and capabilities are.
- eli 7y ago
  No I don’t think it is. Their local problems are the exact same virus as everyone else’s local problems.
  - surge 7y ago
    No its not, for instance just population density is a huge factor in the spread of a virus. If you live in an area where people are fairly isolated or travel outside their region very little, than you don't need to do the same extreme lockdowns or shut down the economy to the same degree to prevent the spread. I live in a state that's barely being touched by this, and not because we don't have it, but because there are two large cities that have maybe 100+ cases or significant hospital load, and the spread is insignificant because its very easy for people to avoid each other and take basic precautions during interaction to prevent the spread. If you live in apartment buildings, 6 feet from your neighbor with only a wall to separate you stacked stories high with shared elevators, stairwells, hallways, and the majority of transport requires people to be in close proximity on sidewalks, buses, or trains, the factors and extreme measures needed to stop its spread are very different than someone living in Alaska or Idaho. Those people don't need to stay in their homes, they just need to avoid going anywhere unnecessary with large groups of people and wash their hands and cover their mouths. Some states have higher rates of obesity or other risk factors, some states have higher populations of elderly than others. One size fits all measures doesn't work, you need focused precision efforts determined by locals and the only thing they need from the umbrella governments is support in their efforts for needs they've determined are necessary.

trhway 7y ago

doesn't pandemic infection fall under interstate commerce, and thus is pure federal domain?

redis_mlc 7y ago
No. The Courts have ruled in the past that for public safety, states can restrict travel.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

joe_the_user 7y ago

Maybe there's a debate to be had about how the Federal Government should act but there shouldn't be a debate whether it should act and the article gives a good description of the Federal Government simply failing to act and even sabotaging action. The unconscionable and rather unbelievable.

lmeyerov 7y ago

There's a difference between having a terrific debate and changing the national stockpile website mid-pandemic to say "nah"

shirro 7y ago

Other federal systems face the same dilemmas. In Australia the powers of the states and federal government are set by the constitution. The feds don't have jurisdiction in many areas. It has to be a team effort. So they have whole of government meetings to work out a common, co-ordinated approach. We see a common message and have federal government support for the states but each state is free to implement measures appropriate to their local situation. I think this consensus driven approach is the only way it can work. The federal government implementing border security, helping with international trade, mobilising military, providing funding. States legislating isolation, enforcing law and order, organising hospitals and testing. Australia has a much smaller population, fewer states and less political extremes. It would be easy to dismiss our relatively good performance in this crisis as due to our isolation and geography. But I think our political system has worked well for us. Even though I don't like some of our political leadership and don't consider them very effective normally, even their worst efforts are looking good compared to what I see elsewhere in the world. I think in a crisis like this if you rely too strongly on a quarterback to take control you can get into a lot of trouble if your quarterback turns out to be useless or even detrimental. The elected king model is too risky. An executive controlled by the legislature is far more responsible and effective.