Tag: APUS

The following was submitted as a response to an essay question on my POLS210 final exam…

In 1979 President Jimmy Carter consolidated many emergency/disaster assistance branches of the nation’s federal programs/entities into a Federal Emergency Management Agency—FEMA (Carter, 1979). FEMA assumed many of the duties of the former Defense Department’s Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, the Federal Insurance Administration, the General Service Administration’s Federal Preparedness Agency, Housing and Urban Development’s Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, and the National Weather Service’s Community Preparedness Program (FEMA, 2010). By consolidating these entities and placing the duties under one agency the nation was given a centralized agency through which all disaster functions could be performed without the confusion related to having responsibilities shared across a splintered disaster planning/recovery system.

FEMA did not, however, truly become a fully functioning agency with the goal of disaster relief until the early to mid-1990s. This delay is in part related to some of the former agencies’ duties and responsibilities—notably Civil Defense. Though the “Cold War” had been dying over the 1980’s tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union existed until the fall of the USSR in 1991. Throughout that period Civil Defense remained a primary function of FEMA. Following the end of the Cold War, FEMA was able to refocus and reassign duties and funds to disaster relief; many of these changes took place in 1993 under the reform efforts of newly appointed FEMA director James L. Witt (FEMA).

Through the 1990s FEMA was capable of responding and providing assistance for many natural disasters—notably Hurricane Andrew in 1992. The next large test of FEMA’s abilities did not come until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Immediately following 9/11 FEMA changed focus to strengthen efforts on national level preparedness and homeland security. This near return to the days of Civil Defense came through the cooperation of President Bush’s newly formed Department of Homeland Security; FEMA was soon after placed under DHS. Though FEMA did still exist as FEMA under DHS, portions of FEMA’s responsibilities were stripped from FEMA and placed under other sections of DHS. FEMA was also given a classification of Emergency Preparedness and Response—these changes were essentially reversed in 2006/2007 following the events of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

FEMA has seen praise and ridicule from all over the nation since its inception. Though many praised Carter for consolidating those original departments and creating a centralized agency there were—and still are—those who saw the move as a waste and misappropriation of federal funds. These differing opinions seem to root in whether one believes the nation should provide assistance, and if so, to what extent. In 1992, FEMA saw mixed reviews with response to Hurricane Andrew. Though FEMA did arrive to provide assistance in the aftermath of Andrew, there were numerous complaints to the response time and organization (Associated Press, 2004).

The next large disaster FEMA faced were the events of 9/11. Publicly, FEMA did not face much criticism—aside from conspiracy theorists who question the FEMA presence on 9/10 for a scheduled bio-terror drill on 9/12 (“FEMA was in New York,”). Internally, however, FEMA criticized their response with regard to funding assistance for persons affected by disaster. FEMA provided financial aid to families who lost income related to the terrorist attacks through their Mortgage and Rental Assistance program; however the funds were doled out slowly as there had been no anticipation for such a high need (Chen, 2003).

Since 9/11 FEMA received major criticism for the response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Though there were FEMA representatives dispatched to the areas prior to Katrina making landfall these preparations were not enough. Following the landfall and the increasing floodwater in the areas affected, additional resources were dispatched, however the event proved to be too great at the time for FEMA and other agencies. There are a great number of reasons—factual and suggested—as to why this incident proved to be too much and the response is seen as a failure.

The Katrina incident will likely be remembered by the emergency management community for quite some time—perhaps even longer than the events of 9/11—due to the scale and number of complaints coming from and going against the public and every level of government. Katrina has/had led to a number of arguments and reviews on local, state and federal levels with regard to responsibilities of preparedness, response and recovery within varying agencies and governing bodies. The overall controversy has also led to the firing and resignations of various members of public service agencies and has also altered the election of many officials in and representing those areas.

In 2007 new direction and control was given to FEMA through the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act. The Act returned many functions back to FEMA that had been absorbed by DHS. The Act also removed the Emergency Preparedness and Response function from DHS and placed FEMA in its stead. Though still a part of DHS, FEMA was returned to being a separate entity without fear of DHS making changes to its operations and structure as had happened following 9/11. (SEMP, 2008)

FEMA will undoubtedly receive more criticisms as the years continue—being an agency of the government with the mission of helping individuals during times of crisis opens the door for negative comments. With the recent changes, however, these criticisms should lesson as FEMA has a better defined direction and clearer authority. This conclusion has been echoed by many pundits and officials, including current FEMA Administrator, Craig Fugate:

“While we still have more work to do, I am confident that with the authorities and tools given us by Congress and the lessons we have learned through their application during disasters, FEMA will continue to be an agile and innovative Agency that is consistently improving its processes.” (Fugate, 2011)

Associated Press. “FEMA learned from Hurricane Andrew in 1992.” USA Today. 26 August 2004. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: https://web.archive.org/web/20100228011442/http://www.usatoday.com:80/weather/hurricane/2004-08-26-charley-fema_x.htm
Carter, Jimmy. “Federal Emergency Management Agency” Executive Order 12127 of 31 March 1979. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12127.htm
Chen, D. ” FEMA Criticized for Its Handling of 9/11 Claims.” The New York Times. 8 January 2003. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/08/nyregion/08FEMA.html
FEMA. “FEMA History.” 11 August 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: https://web.archive.org/web/20120719090409/http://www.fema.gov:80/about/history.shtm
“FEMA was in New York the Night Before 9/11.” Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fematape.html
Fugate, C. ” Written Statement of Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, before the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications, ‘Five Years Later: An Assessment of the Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act’.” 25 October 2011. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/testimony/20111025-fugate-emergency-management-reform-act.shtm
SEMP. “The Incredible Expanding FEMA.” 15 September 2008. Retrieved 27 Oct 2011, from: http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=537

The following was submitted as a response to an essay question on my POLS210 final exam…

Public policies are essentially the ideas and tools created to attempt to resolve a problem or fill a need that has been recognized by the government. Recognition of these issues can come from a variety of sources, such as external lobbying—from “grassroots” to corporate sponsored—and internal reviews. Once the issue has been recognized a political figure or group of political figures (senators, representatives, even the President) sets out to advertise the issue and draft proposals and resolutions for the matter. From this point, these drafts go through a process similar to the passing of a law, where the associated committees—elected or appointed, depending upon the issue, level of government or structure of the agency—review and vote up or strike down the proposals; following a passing the policy may become implemented if the associated governing head agrees.

Following the implementation of the policy more review is given to see if the plan is working as it had been designed without causing a greater detriment in any areas related to the issue—worries of financial burden are common. It is not unusual for a policy to be removed after it has been implemented, though it tends to be uncommon. Generally policies are revised to better accommodate and change in needs or regulation.

Unknown. “Unit 7: Politics and the Economy.” 2010. Web/PDF Document. Retrieved 26 Oct 2011, from: https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/155085/Unit%207:%20Public%20Policy/Unit7_PublicPolicy.pdf

The following was submitted as a response to an essay question on my POLS210 final exam…

United States vs. Lopez was a case brought before the Supreme Court, where a challenge was made to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Alfonso Lopez, Jr. of San Antonio, Texas, had intentionally brought a .38 caliber weapon and five cartridges to Edison High School. Lopez was dismissed from school and charged under Texas law for possession of a firearm on school premises. The following day, however, these original state charges were dismissed in favor of federal charges under the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Lopez was found guilty and convicted in District Court. Lopez appealed to The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, claiming that the Act was unconstitutional as the law did not meet any of the requirements of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the District Court’s decision. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court. (United States vs. Lopez, 1995)

After review of the case, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals in that at no point was it clearly stated how possession of a firearm on school property would have an effect on interstate commerce. Following this ruling the Act was revised do that federal charges could still be brought on the same basic premise—the revision made the act now read that:

It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. (18 USC 922, 2010)

This revision has enabled the Act to work as it was originally intended, by imposing federal charges against any person—other than law enforcement—who brings a weapon onto school property. Additionally, since the revision, there has yet to be a case where the Act has not been upheld in court. The Act, however, now brings into question whether Congress can attach a similar stipulation for any item that has been handled through or could have an effect on commerce in order to regulate it.

United States v. Lopez. 514 U.S. 549. U.S. Supreme Court. 1995. Retrieved 26 Oct 2011, from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). 2010. Retrieved 26 Oct 2011, from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00000922—-000-.html

The following was originally published as a class assignment:

To lobby the government is to attempt to present a concern or group of concerns to various individual or groups of legislators. Lobbyists can be individuals representing the public, civic groups, or business; there are also professional lobbyists that perform the communication between the individuals/groups and the legislators. Lobbyists can represent themselves in a public forum and/or have a single representative for private meetings with the legislators being lobbied. Lobbying can occur at any level of government and even within government houses with lower legislators attempting to appeal to the higher levels of government.

Lobbying has gotten negative attention over the years as many legislators have been influenced by lobbyists for a cause through the use of gifts and donations to campaign funds. To combat these negative practices there have been many resolutions passed to regulate lobbying practices. One of the most recent acts involving lobbying is the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. This act calls for punishment of former legislators abusing their privileges of visiting Congress for the purposes of lobbying. The act also changed how lobbying reports are disclosed by increasing the frequency of reports and lowering the amounts required to be reported for political contributions.

References

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (PL 110-81, 14 September 2007) 121 Stat 735. Retrieved 25 Oct. 2011 from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ81/pdf/PLAW-110publ81.pdf

[…sorry, can’t afford to go long-winded on this one… may do a complete revision later this week, if time allows.]

The following responses came from this forum posting:

Resource Cited:
Encarta (, 2009). Define Bribery. Retrieved from http://www.bing.com/dictionary.

The following was originally submitted as a homework assignment:

In an attempt to combat some of the issues of poverty and guarantee a certain quality of life among the impoverished various governmental policies agencies and resources have been established. The bulk of these public welfare policies and resources have roots in the programs created in Roosevelt’s New Deal response to the effects of the Great Depression. One such program is SNAP–the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

During the depression era two issues had risen relating to the consumption of agriculturally based goods; there were many families that were incapable of purchasing as many goods; accordingly, there had grown a surplus of goods in some areas as there were too few consumers making these purchases. In response, a Food Stamp Program–FSP– had been established where consumers could purchase an orange colored stamp for $1 redeemable as the equivilent value in cash for any food product.¹ Upon the purchase of the orange stamp, the patron would receive a blue stamp valued at $0.50 redeemable on the purchase of food goods which had been deemed as being in excess supply.² This program stimulated the purchase of goods that had been going to waste, and was doing so at a discounted rate, making the foods more easily available to those struggling to make grocery purchases.