20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina | Federal government plans to blow off disaster response quicken

Today is the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans.

-- "Stories From The Storm: Remembering 20 Years Since Hurricane Katrina," Weather Channel
-- "Hurricane Katrina, 20 years later," NPR

Looters make off with merchandise from several downtown businesses in New Orleans, Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005, after Hurricane Katrina hit the area. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

When the disaster of federal government response to Hurricane Katrina's effect on New Orleans transpired, my overarching thought was that the cost of austerity-neoliberal policies introduced during the Reagan era finally hit, in that over the previous 20 years, government cutbacks could be withstood because of the long period of overinvestment that preceded it.

-- "Capital shallowing: the effect of disinvestment on government functioning," 2023

Certainly, the Trump Administration's desires to cut FEMA ("The Trump administration says it wants to eliminate FEMA. Here's what we know," NPR, "Trump says he plans to phase out FEMA after 2025 hurricane season," CNN) and devolve emergency response fully to the states is problematic because such "natural" or weather related disasters can exceed the resources and ability of local and state government to respond.

Levee works built to protect New Orleans from floods were inadequately planned and built, and were especially vulnerable to extranormal storm events.  AP photo.

It's already bad that the Trump Administration has politicized what areas get disaster declarations approved ("FEMA delays disaster aid to multiple states while Texas receives rapid approval," EHN, "FEMA faces backlog of emergency aid requests as hurricane season nears," Washington Post), and how quickly ("Hawley says FEMA is ‘slow-walking’ disaster declaration requests, but he’s pushing Trump," St. Louis NPR, " Trump's former FEMA chief opens up — and says administration is 'delaying' aid," Politico).

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) became a symbol of the government's failure to prevent damage and save lives after Hurricane Katrina. Here, a plea spray-painted on plywood sits in front of an apartment complex on Sept. 4, 2005, in Biloxi, Miss., which was hit hard by the storm. Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Washington Monthly has a good article, "Trump’s Definition of DEI Is a Disaster for Disaster Management," on the topic of how calling planning and response "diversity" and therefore not funding it will have disastrous consequences.  From the article:

Billion in damages mark, outpaced only by the record-setting 28 in 2023. Presiding over America’s response to this cataclysmic situation, we have a president ignoring the science on climate change, rolling back environmental protections, and denying half of the requests the federal government receives from states for major disaster aid. From weakening the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to laying off hundreds of federal employees critical in forecasting and responding to extreme weather events, this administration has already shown itself to be disastrous for disaster management.

But the unequal consequences of natural catastrophes reveal an added danger that Trump’s wide-ranging rollbacks create. When wildfires ravaged Los Angeles at the beginning of this year, killing at least 30 people, forcing around 200,000 evacuations, and destroying more than 16,000 structures, then-Trump advisor Elon Musk placed the blame squarely on L.A. agencies’ prioritization of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

An aerial view Jan. 28 of trees and homes that burned in the Palisades Fire in 

the Pacific Palisades area of Los Angeles. Mario Tama, Getty Images

... we accept the Trump administration’s operational definition of the acronym, the L.A. fires—and every other natural disaster—most definitely have something to do with DEI. Since January, the administration has cast DEI to mean any consideration of populations uniquely at risk, turning efforts to identify and address where needs are greatest into “dangerous preferential hierarchy.” In response, government agencies have been limiting the use of language like “at risk,” “historically,” “marginalized,” “underserved,” and hundreds of other terms, according to a New York Times analysis.

Not surprisingly, those with the least resources have the most to lose in the face of such disasters.  Planning and responding to disaster efficiently saves money, time, and lives.

The inability of the Trump Administration to have any other agenda than wrecking the capacity of the federal government to add value to society is breathtaking ("It was the costliest hurricane in U.S. history: Have we forgotten Katrina's lessons?," NPR).

=====

In 2007, I was in New Orleans for the National Main Street conference and I went on a Katrina "disaster" tour.  The tour guide was incensed "how could the government do this?"  I said, "have you ever been to Detroit?"

Flood waters from Hurricane Katrina cover streets in New Orleans on Aug. 30, 2005. It is estimated that 80 percent of the city was under flood waters as levees broke and leaked around Lake Pontchartrain. Vincent Laforet/Pool/AFP via Getty Images.

Empty lots in the Brush Park neighborhood of Detroit.

Nonprofit funding under threat by actions from the Trump Administration

 Reporting in Crain's Chicago Business, "Nonprofits turn to donors after shock of Trump federal grant freeze," reminds me of my writings about incorporating into organizational planning scenarios for exogenous changes in conditions.  From the article:

The Trump administration’s freeze on federal grants sent a shudder through nonprofits. Now the sector will look to donors and foundations to help shore up finances in the short term as they face an uncertain future.

“Trump's directives are a) reminder to all nonprofits not to be overly reliant on any single funder — be that the government or a big donor — because just as you're receiving that money, that money can suddenly go away,” says Bill Stanczykiewicz, director of The Fund Raising School at Indiana University's Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

Stanczykiewicz says nonprofits should now be reaching out to donors to remind them of the financial uncertainty they face, “explain to them what the situation is and why it's important to help now.”

Chicago-area nonprofits are already heeding that advice. WBEZ, an affiliate of NPR, sent out an email to subscribers explaining its financial precarity. P33, the civic-corporate partnership aimed at boosting the city's tech fortunes, made a similar plea in a recent email.

That writing was spurred by parks specifically, and how during federal shutdowns, national parks close, and these parks are often fundamental economic drivers for local communities.  The National Park Service does have a system where localities can pay for parks to be open during shutdowns, but you have to be prepared in order to do so.

Similarly, in recessions, state governments will close parks or rest stops, and the local community often doesn't have plans in place to be able to address the action in a timely fashion.

Local and state government planning doesn't like to make recommendations to higher ups.  In other words, when I said during my Baltimore County bike planning gig that we needed to make recommendations about state policy, my boss demurred, because "we don't have authority over them."  My counter was, if they don't hear what the problems are, they won't respond.

So I recommend local parks plans have recommendations for state, federal and other parks within their jurisdiction, if only to put these recommendations on record, and to represent the interests of local residents.  Similarly, parking plans for jurisdictions should acknowledge private parking resources, and recreation plans should at least survey and touch on the element of private sector provision of facilities and programs.

The Trump Administration takes this to a whole new level.  First, it isn't afraid to try illegal actions, like the recent funding freeze ("What does Trump's federal funding freeze mean for people who get aid?," CBS), later countermanded by the Courts--the Executive Branch doesn't have this authority.  Second, the House and Senate, Republican-controlled, are not likely to criticize the moves, even though such moves may significantly harm large segments of their constituencies--for example, Medicaid, the low income health insurance program, ended up being frozen as well.

(I'm on Medicaid so I have been paying attention.  And I have no agency, as Utah's elected Republicans are not likely to step up.  The only reason Utah, a very red state, participates in the program which grew out of Obamacare, is because there was a voter referendum.  Otherwise, the state government wouldn't have pursued.  They understand the importance, but health care conflicts with the Republican go it alone zeal-ology. "Medicaid Funding Freeze Would Hurt Trump’s Own Voters," US News).

Another example is US Agency for International Development, which funds aid projects overseas.  The Trump Administration is trying to dissolve the agency, lay off its staff, and stop the grants, even though these actions require Congress approval.

Also see "WA Head Start programs shaken in aftermath of Trump funding freeze," Seattle Times. From the article:

As of Monday, about a quarter of Head Start grant recipients in Washington were locked out of a system they use to collect federal payments in the wake of the Trump administration’s brief but chaotic freeze on federal grants last week. As of early Wednesday morning, one program, on the Olympic Peninsula, still could not access the system, said Joel Ryan, executive director of the Washington State Association of Head Start and ECEAP, during a virtual news conference U.S. Sen Patty Murray held with other Washington officials. Shortly after the news conference ended, Ryan received word that the Olympic Peninsula program could reenter the payment system.

This is but one example of many from across the country.

Local government funding rescissions for nonprofits can be a threat too.  It's happened in Oakland, California as a result of budget gaps ("Oakland nonprofits lose critical funding amid city’s budget woes: ‘We are blindsided’," San Francisco Chronicle).

The changing of Brand America from positive to negative.  During the first Trump Administration, I commented to Simon Anholt, co-author of the book Brand America, which when written he opined it was the strongest brand in the world, that now the brand is:

Can't do.  Won't do.  You do.  Fuck you.

The book was updated in 2010, Brand America: The Making, Unmaking and Remaking of the Greatest National Image of All Time.

It's due for another update, with the focus on "Breaking Brand America."

Even more pharmacy consolidation: UPMC in Pennsylvania

 When I was doing research on public markets a few years ago, I came across a book called Civic Agriculture, about the development of local food systems centered upon small business.  

One of the interesting discussions within the book was how the prominent sociologist C. Wright Mills did a study for a Congressional Committee just after World War II, about the difference in economic effect of small businesses versus chain businesses and the impact on local communities.

-- Small Business and Civic Welfare, United States. Congress. Senate. Special Committee to Study and Survey Problems of Small Business Enterprises, 1946

Well, in terms of government support for small business versus large business, we know the road that was taken.

At the beginning of the covid vaccination program, West Virginia was touted for its program which focused on utilizing independently owned pharmacies to deliver vaccines, leveraging the trust in locally based professionals within the community ("A West Virginia pharmacist on how the state became a vaccine success story," Vox).

I also remember stories about independent pharmacists taking their own initiative to go to local nursing homes, senior centers, etc., to do vaccinations "in place" rather than expect often infirm people to come to them ("This Pharmacist Had Vaccine Doses to Spare. So He Hit the Road," New York Times).

Just like there is a term food desert, the same goes for pharmacies, "pharmacy deserts," as the industry has pretty much chained up on two primary firms--CVS and Walgreen's--and one also ran, Rite Aid.  Plus Walrmart.  A few years ago Target sold its pharmacies to CVS, which now runs them within Target stores.

-- "Mapping pharmacy deserts and determining accessibility to community pharmacy services for elderly enrolled in a State Pharmaceutical Assistance Program," PLoS One, 2018

While supermarkets have been quite active in having pharmacies, increasingly stores are getting out of the business, especially because prescription benefit companies keep lowering the reimbursement levels, making it unprofitable to fill a prescription.

Health care organizations are doing the same thing.  UPMC, the major hospital and health care group based in Pittsburgh, has just reduced the number of pharmacies able to participate in its health care program, and this has targeted small pharmacies in small towns ("As UPMC takes drugstore network trend to Obamacare plans, small-town Pa. pharmacists worry," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette).  From the article:

UPMC Health Plan is reducing by 60% statewide the number of drugstores where people with Obamacare coverage can fill prescriptions, a move that follows an industry cost-cutting trend and one the insurer said is needed to better align pharmacist services with overall patient care.

The smaller networks will affect both individuals and small employers who are insured through Pennsylvania’s online marketplace, called Pennie. Enrollment in Pennie plans for 2023 continues through Jan. 15 and will determine the number of people affected by the change.

But some independent pharmacy owners predict the downsizing — and similar efforts to drive down drug costs by limiting the number of participating pharmacies available to plan participants — endangers Pennsylvania’s 829 independently owned pharmacies, including many serving rural areas.

Healthcare deserts, nationally.  While the switch will reduce costs up to 2%, it comes at the cost of abetting the medical desert problem, and makes getting medical care that much more difficult in small towns and rural areas more generally. 

-- "Mapping Healthcare Deserts: 80% of the Country Lacks Adequate Access to Healthcare," GoodRx

Government policy should differentiate between place conditions--inner city urban versus suburban versus rural in particular, and these kinds of program changes should be disallowed because of the negative impact on local communities and businesses.

The immediate savings for the health plan are dwarfed by the negative costs imposed on communities in other ways, costs which can exacerbate health conditions rather than improve them.