This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Jeroboam and you both seems unfamiliar with governmental budgetary practices. The order of money allocation does alleviate a falsely accused injustice because the order of money allocation renders the charge baseless.
FEMA cannot be swindled out of $300 million if FEMA never had $300 million that could be allocated for other purposes. If the money is only appropriated to FEMA for the purpose of migrant support, it'd be more accurate to say FEMA received $300 million more than it otherwise would have with the potential for ancillary benefits of dual-utilization investments that would be absent Congress had chosen another agency to help disperse the appropriated funds. Since American budgets work more along the lines of Purpose -> Funds -> Agency rather than Agency -> Funds -> Purpose, it is wrong to claim spending on one cause stole from another, even by the same agency, unless those are specifically the same funding line.
Since gaining $300 million you otherwise wouldn't have but for the action has considerably different moral and ethical implications than losing $300 million you could have used but for the action, this would if anything be the opposite of a swindle.
This is the distinction between an appropriation and an allocation.
How much money does the Federal Emergency Management Agency need to be allocated before it starts having some left over with which to manage federal emergencies?
How much water needs to be poured into a bowl before the bowl starts having some water left over to be in the bowl?
Unless you intend to claim that FEMA was not appropriated money with which to manage federal emergencies, the question doesn't parse. Governmental budgets tend to work on a 'pot of money' model, in which your annual appropriation is the starting amount you have to work with. Other pots (funding codes) don't get filled to overflowing for you to get the remainder- your pot is separate from others pots (funding codes) from the start.
Competition for resources at an Agency or Ministry level generally happens within a funding code, not between funding codes. Every disaster draws from the 'manage federal emergencies' pot of money. No emergency draws from the 'facility maintenance and improvement' pot of money. When cross-pot funding gets involved, so do lawyers, because if you start allocating funds for uses they weren't appropriate for by the government, you're defrauding your own government and the audits tend not to be pleasant.
When a funding code's allocation is proving insufficient for the year, this is a normal point for legislatures to pass additional appropriations. This is generally still on the per-pot basis, and from what I've read is more or less what was already underway with FEMA.
What I'm asking is how much money do we need to shovel into this organization before it starts having enough left over after migrant expenses for hurricane response. The money we're allocating now isn't enough for the hurricane budget after other expenses. How much more money do we need to give before there's enough?
The amount of money it costs to cover hurricane costs is the amount of money it costs to cover hurricane costs. No more, and no less.
Again, your question assumes an invalid premise. There is no 'starts having left over after migrant expenses,' because migrant expenses don't come out of the hurricane response budget in the first place.
No, the money you allocated for the hurricane budget in the last appropriation months ago isn't enough for the hurricane budget after hurricane expenses.
Non-hurricane expenses had nothing to do with it, because non-hurricane expenses didn't come out of the hurricane funding code.
X-Y
The amount of money that is enough for all hurricane response expenses incurred the budget period (X), minus the insufficient amount previously budgeted for hurricane response (Y).
Alright, so I suppose the answer is actually theoretically infinite. It's possible that we could endlessly shovel money into FEMA, and there could still be no money for hurricanes depending on the charge codes. There is no amount of money that one could see going into FEMA that one could feel safe knowing there's enough for actual natural disasters.
The organization has reached the point where responsibility for budgetary decisions is sufficiently diffused that when something like this happens, it isn't anyone's fault in particular and nobody can be fired because everyone was following orders/procedures. Well, I suppose we can get mad at republicans for not authorizing the right charge code as a part of some monster monster omnibus bill.
You could get mad, but before you do that I'd recommend just reading the Disaster Relief Fund monthly spending reports, which are posted, well, monthly. These reports are not only required by law, but break down how the Disaster Relief Fund spending is actually done.
In Annex B, you can see how DRF funding is distributed per month per line item. Per the September report (produced AUG 31, but which would have fed the Congressional discussions that decided to allocate 20 billion for the three months of Oct-Nov-Dev in the short term spending bill), the forecasted expenditures of September 2024 alone was expected to be 9.9 billion... before there was a hurricane.
If you budget 20 bilion for 3 months, but the previous month was already expected to take nearly $10 billion even before there was a disaster, it's quite reasonable to believe there might be more needed within the 3 months window. That is the only shortage currently being faced by FEMA or raised by the government.
This isn't endlessly shoveling money, any more than refilling your gas tank is an endless shoveling of money. It is an artifact of both budgets are passed in general (if you budget for only 3 month averages, non-average expenditures are more likely to need near-term rectification), and the point that the FEMA budget is built to allow immediate response but not the full cost of post-disaster reconstruction.
Which if you are remotely concerned about fiscal prudence, you don't want FEMA to be able to do. You actually want Congress to determine what post-disaster relief should be paid for, as opposed to letting the FEMA-controlling administration spend billions of dollars on its own discretion and then come back claiming there's a lack at the next disaster. This consequence is the charge that was being leveled in the first place!
Because future costs aren't known, there is no reasonable answer to a question of how much money is needed for future disaster relief. It depends on the disaster, and how many disasters, which do not kindly submit pre-fiscal year damage expectations for Congress to pre-authorize against.
Yes, I understand how this shell game works. The processes and procedures have been set up such that if I see a gross mismatch of funds and priorities and I get mad, I'm an ignorant rube that doesn't understand how government works. Pretty cool, huh?
It seems that the funding and command structure of this government organ has already failed spectacularly. I don't know, I'm pretty stupid, so maybe I'm seeing things.
Here's an idea generated from my simpleton brain: how about we amputate FEMA as government organ and create in its place an organization with a budget and command structure so that when funds are squandered there's someone to hold responsible. Maybe there's reasons beyond my understanding why this isn't possible.
Not really, no, and especially when you're accusing the mitigation of your claimed complaint with being the issue.
The premise of a shell game is that you don't know what is under each shell which are virtually indistinguishable, which allows the manipulator to conflate the shells and thus move the prize. The purpose of a funding code restriction is to be extremely clear what each pot of money is for, and to establish clear limits on what that money can be used for so it can't be moved between shells, and to make it a crime against the state to do so anyway.
This would be akin to painting the shells distinct colors (funding codes) and taping different pebbles to each shell (funding pot tracking) and having the shells routinely exposed each movement cycle (monthly reporting) to validate that the claimed item is still there (monthly audit), with the shell-game manager committing a felony if he shifts the pebbles around between shells..
Which is to say, not a shell game, but about as far from a shell game as you can have.
You are certainly projecting anger, and anger is the mind-killer.
Sure- the funds weren't squandered. As long as you start from the premise that they were, you will be confused.
They were used in precisely the way the budget and command structure of the organization were directed to do so. If you made a new organization with the same budget and told it to adhere to the same priorities and it do so truly and faithfully, it would reach the same conclusion. You are blaming the system for what you are saying you want a replacement system to do. If there is anyone in this metaphor to hold responsible, it is you, yourself, and you, for determining the budget and priorities for spending. It is not the executor of the budget and spending rules assigned to them.
Again, I return to the monthly budget and item lines, which you seem to have refused to examine. If you tell your new organization to spend X amount of money on things, and it spends X amount of money on those things, it is by definition not squandering the money but complying with its budget requirements placed on it. And if your organization does not have enough money on-hand to assume additional costs Y when you only allocated insufficient amount Z which is less than X and Y combined, it still has not squandered the money given.
Part of the issue here is that no one has a pre-event understanding of Y needed to determine a meaningful Z, because Y is impossible to forecast, and part is that you have no idea what X is because you have no idea what you have already told the organization to do with the initial Z provided.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link