Richardson comes across as even more incoherent than Trump.
The takeaway is that FEMA as we have known it will cease to exist, and states will noe be basically 100% responsible for cleanup and recovery from all natural disasters.
Worse than Trump for sure. A babbling, incoherent, Trump sycophant who needs to be told if it's light or dark and just as willing to change his stance if he should sray, "go along to get along." MORON. GOD HELP US!!
Based on this article my conclusion is that Richardson is clueless and is counting on clear direction from Trump. I have never heard Trump say anything clear and concise and seriously doubt if he has a clue what FEMAs mission is. We are headed for a cluster f**k. I hope this isn’t the year we get hit by a hurricane. Richardson probably doesn’t know how many states there are but thanks to his girlfriend he now knows Texas is bigger than Spain, I hope she knows how big Alaska is and u hope he knows he is not responsible for Spain. Maybe his girlfriend will help out.
Reminds me of "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job". In another era, I would have snarkily compared this shamefest to something that would happen in a third-world dictatorship, but now I wouldn't want to offend them.
To play "stump the chump" for a second...when they bring the plan to Secretary Noem the most important question will be "What kind of costume should she be wearing that would be appropriate for that meeting?"
Well, after reading the previous posts there's nothing left for me to say that could describe this individual better, but I just have to say it -- what an idiot!
FEMA, like most government services, isn’t meant to operate as a business aiming for efficiency or profit. Instead, it exists to fulfill collective goals like ensuring public safety and facilitating recovery in times of crisis. When you shift the responsibility for essential services to the state level, especially when it involves public safety and disaster response, you're essentially suggesting that those services should become subject to cost-benefit analyses that might not align with the public interest, especially in communities where resources are scarce. In a business model, decisions are driven by profit margins; in a public service model, decisions should be driven by societal needs, fairness, and shared responsibility.
And this logic applies to all government services—public goods, like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and emergency management, are not meant to be commodified. They are essential for the well-being of the community as a whole. When these services are reduced or fragmented under a decentralization model, it often leads to greater inequality and inefficiency, as states or municipalities with fewer resources struggle to maintain them, while wealthier areas may still be able to rely on private corporations to provide the same services, thus further exacerbating disparities.
For FEMA in particular, removing its central, standardized role could undermine the collective strength of the national response system and leave individual states or regions more vulnerable in times of widespread disaster. It might also push people and communities to increasingly turn to private sector responses, like insurance companies or corporate aid organizations, which could distort the public good for private profit.
This point is clear: services like FEMA should not be reduced to market-driven efficiency models; they are foundational to our collective societal goals. The debate isn’t just about efficiency, but about what kind of society we want to live in—one where we each take on more of the burden individually or one where we pool resources and power to create a system that works for everyone.
Sounds like this guy is going to be as great at his job as Trump is at his...There is an insidious kind of genius in embedding a real agenda in all that apparent incoherence. It probably comes from a successful career in the post WWII military, which found itself openly operating increasingly for the exclusive benefit of oligarchs while pretending to 'spread democracy'.
There is some merit to address FEMA's 'mission creep', both in realizing its legally mandated goal and structure, and with the expanded areas of involvement being better served if directly addressed by their own structures and systems.
FEMA's legal remit is primarily defined by several key pieces of legislation, most notably the Stafford Act, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and various other laws that govern emergency management, disaster response, and recovery. These laws outline FEMA's responsibilities and authority to support state and local governments during times of disaster. Here’s a breakdown of FEMA’s core legal remit and the potential tasks that might be outside of it:
█ FEMA's Legal Remit
Stafford Act (1988)
The Stafford Act is the cornerstone of FEMA’s legal framework. It authorizes the President to issue declarations of federal disaster assistance and enables FEMA to coordinate federal support in response to major disasters. The key provisions of the Stafford Act include:
• Disaster declarations: FEMA provides financial assistance and coordinated federal support for state and local governments when disasters overwhelm local resources.
• Federal assistance: FEMA coordinates financial aid for individuals, businesses, and communities impacted by disasters. This includes grants, loans, and support for rebuilding.
• Incident management: FEMA supports the coordination of federal agencies involved in disaster response and recovery, helping to ensure a unified approach to large-scale events.
• Preparedness and mitigation: FEMA works with states to improve preparedness and reduce future disaster risks, including funding programs for mitigation, infrastructure improvement, and community resilience.
Homeland Security Act of 2002
The Homeland Security Act established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under which FEMA operates. This act expanded FEMA’s role to include:
• Counterterrorism: FEMA’s remit includes providing support for counterterrorism and national defense in relation to man-made disasters (e.g., terrorism, pandemics, or other public health emergencies).
• National Response Framework (NRF): FEMA is responsible for leading the creation of the NRF, a guide for disaster response coordination across federal, state, and local governments.
Other Relevant Legislation
FEMA’s mission is further defined by various laws like the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which strengthened FEMA's preparedness and recovery capacity, and the National Incident Management System (NIMS), which standardizes how federal, state, and local governments respond to disasters.
█ Tasks FEMA Has Taken Beyond Its Legal Remit
While FEMA's legal remit is clearly defined, over time, there has been a tendency for the agency to expand its scope into areas beyond the original statutory mission. This is often driven by evolving national needs, political pressure, and the agency’s capacity to respond to crises effectively. Some of these tasks include:
Expanding Role in Mitigation and Preparedness
• FEMA has broadened its role to include extensive funding and coordination of mitigation efforts, which aim to reduce disaster risk before they occur. While mitigation is a critical task, FEMA’s expanded involvement in land use planning, building codes, and community development programs may go beyond what was originally intended in the Stafford Act.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection
• FEMA has taken on a larger role in cybersecurity preparedness in recent years, particularly after national security concerns over cyber threats and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. While this mission has overlap with other federal agencies, FEMA has been involved in coordinating federal assistance for cyberattacks or disruptions to public services (e.g., power grid failures).
Pandemic Response and Public Health
• FEMA’s role in public health emergencies, such as pandemics (e.g., COVID-19), has expanded over time, although public health crises are not explicitly part of FEMA’s original mission. The agency’s involvement in coordinating medical supplies, vaccines, and distribution logistics during COVID-19 is a prime example of FEMA moving beyond its original legal mandate.
State and Local Emergency Management Responsibilities
• FEMA has increasingly taken on the responsibilities that traditionally fell under state and local governments, such as disaster preparedness and planning for communities. While the Stafford Act is clear about federal assistance, the federal government’s growing involvement in state and local disaster planning and operations may not align with its legal remit, as states and localities are constitutionally supposed to take the lead in emergency management.
Broad Economic Recovery Programs
• FEMA has sometimes expanded its operations into areas of economic recovery that are traditionally outside its legal responsibilities, such as funding business continuity programs, economic recovery grants, and broader community rebuilding efforts. While these are often tied to disaster recovery, some critics argue that FEMA’s role in broader economic recovery programs is beyond what was originally envisioned for the agency.
Community Resilience and Sustainability Initiatives
• FEMA has funded long-term resilience programs aimed at building sustainable communities after disasters. These programs might involve climate resilience efforts or policies encouraging local governments to address environmental sustainability, areas traditionally managed by other agencies like the EPA or local departments of environmental protection.
Coordination with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
• FEMA works with NGOs and private sector organizations in ways that go beyond traditional disaster response. This expanded role often involves managing relationships with private contractors, insurance companies, and non-profits, which can blur the lines between FEMA's public service duties and commercial interests.
FEMA's legal remit is focused on disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation, particularly as outlined in the Stafford Act and related legislation. However, as the agency has evolved, its tasks have expanded into areas that might be seen as outside its original legal mandate, often in response to national needs or political pressure. Some of these tasks—like extensive mitigation programs, public health response, and cybersecurity—could be seen as stepping beyond FEMA’s core statutory responsibilities, raising questions about efficiency, accountability, and the appropriate roles of federal, state, and private sector actors in managing disaster-related issues.
The staff asking the questions sound a lot smarter than the guy answering them
Richardson comes across as even more incoherent than Trump.
The takeaway is that FEMA as we have known it will cease to exist, and states will noe be basically 100% responsible for cleanup and recovery from all natural disasters.
My God, do they have something against competence
Worse than Trump for sure. A babbling, incoherent, Trump sycophant who needs to be told if it's light or dark and just as willing to change his stance if he should sray, "go along to get along." MORON. GOD HELP US!!
Obviously we can't read tone into a transcript but it sounded like a lot of these questions had never occurred to him.
Based on this article my conclusion is that Richardson is clueless and is counting on clear direction from Trump. I have never heard Trump say anything clear and concise and seriously doubt if he has a clue what FEMAs mission is. We are headed for a cluster f**k. I hope this isn’t the year we get hit by a hurricane. Richardson probably doesn’t know how many states there are but thanks to his girlfriend he now knows Texas is bigger than Spain, I hope she knows how big Alaska is and u hope he knows he is not responsible for Spain. Maybe his girlfriend will help out.
Reminds me of "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job". In another era, I would have snarkily compared this shamefest to something that would happen in a third-world dictatorship, but now I wouldn't want to offend them.
To play "stump the chump" for a second...when they bring the plan to Secretary Noem the most important question will be "What kind of costume should she be wearing that would be appropriate for that meeting?"
Lordy!
(FBI Chief James Comey testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Lordy, I hope there are tapes" June 2017)
Good God!! How illiterate do you have to be to become a "leader"! If I lived in the hurricane zone, I would be horrified!
So they had a meeting to talk about making a plan to make a plan? 🤨
Well, after reading the previous posts there's nothing left for me to say that could describe this individual better, but I just have to say it -- what an idiot!
FEMA, like most government services, isn’t meant to operate as a business aiming for efficiency or profit. Instead, it exists to fulfill collective goals like ensuring public safety and facilitating recovery in times of crisis. When you shift the responsibility for essential services to the state level, especially when it involves public safety and disaster response, you're essentially suggesting that those services should become subject to cost-benefit analyses that might not align with the public interest, especially in communities where resources are scarce. In a business model, decisions are driven by profit margins; in a public service model, decisions should be driven by societal needs, fairness, and shared responsibility.
And this logic applies to all government services—public goods, like healthcare, education, infrastructure, and emergency management, are not meant to be commodified. They are essential for the well-being of the community as a whole. When these services are reduced or fragmented under a decentralization model, it often leads to greater inequality and inefficiency, as states or municipalities with fewer resources struggle to maintain them, while wealthier areas may still be able to rely on private corporations to provide the same services, thus further exacerbating disparities.
For FEMA in particular, removing its central, standardized role could undermine the collective strength of the national response system and leave individual states or regions more vulnerable in times of widespread disaster. It might also push people and communities to increasingly turn to private sector responses, like insurance companies or corporate aid organizations, which could distort the public good for private profit.
This point is clear: services like FEMA should not be reduced to market-driven efficiency models; they are foundational to our collective societal goals. The debate isn’t just about efficiency, but about what kind of society we want to live in—one where we each take on more of the burden individually or one where we pool resources and power to create a system that works for everyone.
Buckle up America. It appears many Americans are headed over the cliff FEMA used to deal with, only now there will be no safety net.
Sounds like this guy is going to be as great at his job as Trump is at his...There is an insidious kind of genius in embedding a real agenda in all that apparent incoherence. It probably comes from a successful career in the post WWII military, which found itself openly operating increasingly for the exclusive benefit of oligarchs while pretending to 'spread democracy'.
There is some merit to address FEMA's 'mission creep', both in realizing its legally mandated goal and structure, and with the expanded areas of involvement being better served if directly addressed by their own structures and systems.
FEMA's legal remit is primarily defined by several key pieces of legislation, most notably the Stafford Act, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and various other laws that govern emergency management, disaster response, and recovery. These laws outline FEMA's responsibilities and authority to support state and local governments during times of disaster. Here’s a breakdown of FEMA’s core legal remit and the potential tasks that might be outside of it:
█ FEMA's Legal Remit
Stafford Act (1988)
The Stafford Act is the cornerstone of FEMA’s legal framework. It authorizes the President to issue declarations of federal disaster assistance and enables FEMA to coordinate federal support in response to major disasters. The key provisions of the Stafford Act include:
• Disaster declarations: FEMA provides financial assistance and coordinated federal support for state and local governments when disasters overwhelm local resources.
• Federal assistance: FEMA coordinates financial aid for individuals, businesses, and communities impacted by disasters. This includes grants, loans, and support for rebuilding.
• Incident management: FEMA supports the coordination of federal agencies involved in disaster response and recovery, helping to ensure a unified approach to large-scale events.
• Preparedness and mitigation: FEMA works with states to improve preparedness and reduce future disaster risks, including funding programs for mitigation, infrastructure improvement, and community resilience.
Homeland Security Act of 2002
The Homeland Security Act established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under which FEMA operates. This act expanded FEMA’s role to include:
• Counterterrorism: FEMA’s remit includes providing support for counterterrorism and national defense in relation to man-made disasters (e.g., terrorism, pandemics, or other public health emergencies).
• National Response Framework (NRF): FEMA is responsible for leading the creation of the NRF, a guide for disaster response coordination across federal, state, and local governments.
Other Relevant Legislation
FEMA’s mission is further defined by various laws like the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which strengthened FEMA's preparedness and recovery capacity, and the National Incident Management System (NIMS), which standardizes how federal, state, and local governments respond to disasters.
█ Tasks FEMA Has Taken Beyond Its Legal Remit
While FEMA's legal remit is clearly defined, over time, there has been a tendency for the agency to expand its scope into areas beyond the original statutory mission. This is often driven by evolving national needs, political pressure, and the agency’s capacity to respond to crises effectively. Some of these tasks include:
Expanding Role in Mitigation and Preparedness
• FEMA has broadened its role to include extensive funding and coordination of mitigation efforts, which aim to reduce disaster risk before they occur. While mitigation is a critical task, FEMA’s expanded involvement in land use planning, building codes, and community development programs may go beyond what was originally intended in the Stafford Act.
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection
• FEMA has taken on a larger role in cybersecurity preparedness in recent years, particularly after national security concerns over cyber threats and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities. While this mission has overlap with other federal agencies, FEMA has been involved in coordinating federal assistance for cyberattacks or disruptions to public services (e.g., power grid failures).
Pandemic Response and Public Health
• FEMA’s role in public health emergencies, such as pandemics (e.g., COVID-19), has expanded over time, although public health crises are not explicitly part of FEMA’s original mission. The agency’s involvement in coordinating medical supplies, vaccines, and distribution logistics during COVID-19 is a prime example of FEMA moving beyond its original legal mandate.
State and Local Emergency Management Responsibilities
• FEMA has increasingly taken on the responsibilities that traditionally fell under state and local governments, such as disaster preparedness and planning for communities. While the Stafford Act is clear about federal assistance, the federal government’s growing involvement in state and local disaster planning and operations may not align with its legal remit, as states and localities are constitutionally supposed to take the lead in emergency management.
Broad Economic Recovery Programs
• FEMA has sometimes expanded its operations into areas of economic recovery that are traditionally outside its legal responsibilities, such as funding business continuity programs, economic recovery grants, and broader community rebuilding efforts. While these are often tied to disaster recovery, some critics argue that FEMA’s role in broader economic recovery programs is beyond what was originally envisioned for the agency.
Community Resilience and Sustainability Initiatives
• FEMA has funded long-term resilience programs aimed at building sustainable communities after disasters. These programs might involve climate resilience efforts or policies encouraging local governments to address environmental sustainability, areas traditionally managed by other agencies like the EPA or local departments of environmental protection.
Coordination with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
• FEMA works with NGOs and private sector organizations in ways that go beyond traditional disaster response. This expanded role often involves managing relationships with private contractors, insurance companies, and non-profits, which can blur the lines between FEMA's public service duties and commercial interests.
FEMA's legal remit is focused on disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation, particularly as outlined in the Stafford Act and related legislation. However, as the agency has evolved, its tasks have expanded into areas that might be seen as outside its original legal mandate, often in response to national needs or political pressure. Some of these tasks—like extensive mitigation programs, public health response, and cybersecurity—could be seen as stepping beyond FEMA’s core statutory responsibilities, raising questions about efficiency, accountability, and the appropriate roles of federal, state, and private sector actors in managing disaster-related issues.