Lies the government told you

by Andrew P. Napolitano

  When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast in late August 2005, the storm was one of the most powerful to hit American soil. It would reveal failures—at the federal, state, parish, and city levels—to plan appropriately and to act quickly for this disaster. Yet, the magnitude of the storm is absolutely no reason to dismiss FEMA from all responsibility. Immediately after the storm hit and for long after, the streets of New Orleans were a chaotic, unrecognizable mess. Sure, the federal government was there, but it certainly was not helping. Drinking water and ice could not be found, evacuations were not efficient, and there was no plan as to how to evacuate sick or elderly people who could not necessarily transport themselves. The existence of FEMA caused many people to think they would not need to create their own evacuation plans because they thought the government would have it under control. Sadly, they were wrong. FEMA let New Orleans go to hell.

  According to the Disaster Accountability Project (a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that collects data about disaster preparedness and acts as a watchdog over government agencies such as FEMA), several parishes (counties) in the New Orleans region had no evacuation plans drawn up at the time Katrina hit. And of the parishes that did, many had not updated their plans in years. Maybe the Louisiana parishes were under the impression that the federal government was there to help. Tragically, many lives were lost due to this huge lie the government told us.

  It is not as though FEMA merely failed to act; it prevented people from taking action themselves. FEMA turned away private donors who wanted to deliver vitally needed goods to victims. One FEMA official turned away a Wal-Mart truck full of supplies. It was as though self-righteous FEMA was saying, “Hey, we have this under control. We don’t need your help.” Anyone who has seen pictures, videos, or stories about Katrina would tell you that the government needed all the help it could get. But instead of admitting its incompetence, FEMA’s administration acted like stubborn children. FEMA claims that it did not let the supply trucks in because they posed some sort of safety hazard, but it really just didn’t want anyone to steal its thunder. Economics Professor William L. Anderson wrote about the issue:

  Now, it did not matter to FEMA officials that a large number of people needed the provisions that the Wal-Mart truck was carrying. While I am sure that any member of FEMA would employ rhetoric to the contrary, but I stand by my point. It does FEMA no good at all for Wal-Mart to do something for which FEMA receives no credit. Furthermore, this “securing the area” business is nonsense, and the people at FEMA know it. Yes, there are risks that people take going into areas just after something devastating like a hurricane or earthquake has occurred, but the vast majority of people who put themselves into such situations know beforehand about the nature of the dangers they are facing.5

  Even after the storm had passed, FEMA was not out of the hot water to which it subjected itself. The agency did a wonderful job of proving itself to be as wasteful and bungling as ever. In an effort to provide a source of temporary housing for Katrina victims, tens of thousands of residential trailers were issued by FEMA. But, in its ineptitude, FEMA handed out trailers from a supplier who used a high concentration of formaldehyde in building the structures. Almost immediately after the trailers were doled out, hundreds of displaced families called FEMA to complain of health issues such as rashes, bloody noses, breathing difficulties, and illness probably due to the concentrated level of formaldehyde used to manufacture the trailers. Additionally, there were allegations that exposure to high levels of formaldehyde could be linked to serious long-term health issues, like cancer or miscarriages. There is also some speculation that FEMA tried to sweep the connection between formaldehyde exposure and cancer under the rug.

  In May 2006, FEMA asked the National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to do a “health consultation” on the trailers. ATSDR’s chief of toxicology, Christopher De Rosa, M.D., told FEMA that cancer risks and other possible health problems would need to be included in the report. In an effort to save face, FEMA cut out Dr. De Rosa and forced some of his staff to prepare a consultation that would omit information on the risk of cancer and other key health information. De Rosa wrote to FEMA:

  I am concerned that this health consultation is incomplete and perhaps misleading . . . Formaldehyde is classified as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” As such, there is no recognized “safe level” of exposure. Thus, any level of exposure to formaldehyde may pose a cancer risk, regardless of duration. Failure to communicate this issue is possibly misleading, and a threat to public health.6

  In June 2009, USA Today reported that there are still thousands of families living in the temporary trailers, but that FEMA and HUD announced programs giving trailer residents $50 million (of taxpayers’ money) in housing vouchers in an effort to make some amends for their formaldehyde catastrophe.7 So, in the spirit of Reagan’s words, the government was here to “help,” and it was terrifying, corrupt, and quite expensive. The American people wound up paying the price for the government’s deception, both in their health and in their taxes.

  FEMA’s disingenuous and blatantly corrupt practices did not end with the trailer fiasco. In fact, this incident was just the beginning. Serious misconduct, such as racial discrimination, sexual harassment, and cronyism, are among the allegations made about the FEMA office in downtown New Orleans.8 Even more disturbing, that type of “toxic” office culture has greatly hampered the Katrina recovery. In one year’s time, more than thirty employment-related complaints were filed against Doug Whitmer, the chief of staff at the New Orleans FEMA branch.

  Amidst these allegations, the head of FEMA, Nancy Ward, did not even fire the chief of the New Orleans office. Instead, Ward opted to reassign him to a FEMA office in Texas (with the twisted logic that he can cause further damage somewhere else?). After the corruption, poor management, and wasteful use of government funding was exposed, FEMA announced in April 2009 that the New Orleans Recovery Office was being shut down.9 So much for helping people in need.

  In September 2008, Hurricane Ike hit the Gulf Coast area. Did FEMA learn from the myriad mistakes it made in Katrina by 2008? No, it seems that FEMA made nearly all the same blunders with Ike. The Disaster Accountability Project had a hotline in September 2008 whereby Ike victims could provide information regarding their experiences with FEMA and problems with hurricane preparedness. Some of the common complaints were: People had no ice to cool insulin, baby formula, or other medications, and FEMA never publicized the location of shelters and places to get necessary supplies like food and water. Others said that when they had been trying to call FEMA, they received a recording saying that it was not a valid number. Another caller said that once she did get through to the FEMA hotline, she was instructed to go on the Internet for more information, even though simple logic would tell you that most hurricane victims did not have Internet access because electric power was lost for weeks.10

  Carey Giudici, a guest blogger on the Disaster Accountability Project’s blog, said it best, “Most agreed that the storm itself was much less of a problem than what has come afterwards.”11 Much of the reason why the storm wasn’t the worst of things was because FEMA failed on many counts. She and other people quoted discussed communication problems between hurricane victims and relief services, because many did not know where to go to get supplies.

  In the aftermath of Katrina, much debate occurred about rebuilding New Orleans. Should the government pay to rebuild a city on the Gulf Coast that is mostly below sea level? One commentator on economics and environmental issues wrote, “To me, though, it doesn’t seem to be a triumph of the human spirit to rebuild a city with a population of a half-million with most of the residences under sea level. These seem like the worst sort of government subsidies.”12

  Should enormous amounts of taxpayers’ dollars really be given to a rebuilding effort, just so the same thing can likely happen all over again? This situation simply does not make goo
d sense, but neither do most of the policies FEMA proposes. From one perspective, a below-sea-level city is almost definitely not safe, and we should not be encouraging people to move there. From another viewpoint, should American taxpayers have to pay to recover and rebuild a nearly infinite number of times? This is an especially frustrating cycle when FEMA squanders or uses most of that money so inefficiently.

  The statistics prove FEMA’s ineptitude. The Greater New Orleans Community Data Center report on the rebuilding process in New Orleans shows that while the city has bounced back somewhat, it seems like growth has stagnated.13 For example, households actively receiving mail in Orleans Parish plummeted from 198,232 before Katrina to 133,966 two years after Katrina.14 Households receiving mail have increased, but gradually. In 2009, only 152,904 households were receiving mail in Orleans Parish, a far cry from the nearly 200,000 households pre-Katrina.15 Before Katrina, there were 275 child care centers in Orleans Parish, 98 two years after Katrina, yet only 142 in 2009.16 The average daily transit riders in New Orleans fell drastically from 71,543 before Katrina, to 19,744 two years after Katrina.17 Today, the New Orleans transit authority, on average, sees 31,007 transit riders per day.18 Finally, the fair-market rent for two-bedroom apartments in the New Orleans area was merely $676 per month before Hurricane Katrina.19 Over the last two years, rents have hovered near $1,000 per month.20 It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize FEMA’s failures in New Orleans. Plenty of work is left before New Orleans experiences real growth again.

  FEMA’S Public Relations Team Wins a “Prize”

  Not only does FEMA lie to us, it doesn’t even do a spectacular job at covering it up. In 2007, Fineman Public Relations, a crisis communications firm, issued its list of Top 10 PR Blunders. First place was won by FEMA based on a fake press conference it held earlier that year during the Southern California wildfires. In October 2007, FEMA arranged to have its own employees role-play as independent reporters and ask soft questions to FEMA’s deputy director, Harvey E. Johnson. FEMA gave real reporters only about fifteen minutes notice about the press conference, and consequently not many came.

  This boldfaced lie to the American people is inexcusable, and the public relations firm that bestowed this “prize” on FEMA’s staff commented, “Already troubled by continued claims of inadequate disaster response and wasteful use of funds, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) truly fumbled when it held what the Washington Post described as a ‘phony press conference’ in response to Southern California wildfires.”21

  Moreover, one of the FEMA staffers involved in this debacle was actually promoted to deputy director of public affairs after the phony conference. So, yet again, FEMA was not even able to learn from its past blunders.

  Through making us pay for FEMA’s faulty work, the federal government has created a contract between itself and American taxpayers. Yet, this is unconstitutional because it’s a contract we never agreed to or have any way of escaping. There is no constitutional argument to be made for the feds taking tax dollars and giving them to private persons, even if they are disaster victims. It is one’s personal choice to give money to a charity, not something that can be required by our federal government. Think about it: It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money.

  Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to engage in wealth distribution, yet no one in Washington stopped Congress from dumping $200 billion of the taxpayers’ money into New Orleans. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to bail out politicians who felt it unnecessary to maintain the levees that broke when Katrina struck, but Congress said to Louisiana politicians after Katrina, “Don’t worry. We’ll just steal from the American people.” So, keep working and earning money, America! Your money is going below sea level.

  FDA

  Medicine is prescribed primarily to make us healthy. And often it has that effect. But, sometimes prescribed or even over-the-counter drugs can go terribly wrong. Years after people have been taking them, the government goes ahead and says, “Oops!” Often, by the time it says, “Oops,” it is too late, and the American people have already paid the price.

  Until the twentieth century, the federal government rarely regulated the content or sale of food and drugs. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was created in the 1920s under a climate of fear created by muckraking journalists like Upton Sinclair, who exposed the disgusting and unsafe conditions inside the meatpacking industry. By the 1950s, FDA bureaucrats had begun expanding their premarket approval process, meaning that they were enlarging the part of the agency that checks drugs “for safety” before they reach consumers.

  Yet, only a nation of sheep would think that the government alone can keep us safe and healthy. The Framers obviously omitted from Congress’s powers all that FEMA and the FDA have done and tried to do. Despite the apparent congressional intent of reducing to zero the risk of using pharmaceuticals, unsurprisingly, the FDA has failed to do so. Instead, the FDA began the process of dictating standards for clinical drug trials and tests and conducting a lengthy approval process that a manufacturer needed to pass before bringing a new or modified drug to market.”22 So, instead of bringing the risk of using drugs to zero, the FDA has created a nation of people, many of whom believe the lie that the risk of using drugs has been brought to zero. This is an extremely dangerous situation.

  It seems as though the FDA’s supposed purpose is to help Americans so drugs that would hurt us never make it to the shelves. This all sounds well and good, but the problem is that harmful drugs do make it to the shelves and often stay on them for quite some time. The FDA is not helping us at all; it is giving us a false sense of security. The government lies when it presents the FDA as an organization that will keep us safe. But, we can’t push all the blame off on the FDA.

  Often, there are more FDA recalls than there are days of the week; these recalls are usually reported in the media. So, we lie to ourselves when we say, “Okay” and pop any pill on which the government places its stamp of approval. We lie to ourselves when we forgo looking at labels or doing our own research about the safety of something because we trust that the government did our homework for us. The federal government can’t deliver the mail or manage Medicare or run Amtrak on time; can it really be expected to keep pharmaceuticals safe?

  There is a long list of drugs that the FDA has approved and then later said were unsafe. In the summer of 2009, it was reported that pain medications Vicodin and Percocet, which combine acetaminophen (the ingredient used in Tylenol) and other painkillers, would likely be taken off the market due to the risk of liver damage. The same FDA panel also voted to limit the maximum single doses of over-the-counter acetaminophen to eight pills of a medication like Extra Strength Tylenol. A safety panel voted on these matters, and though the FDA is not required to follow the advice of its panels, it usually does.

  Around the same time, in July 2009, the FDA decided to require Chantix and Zyban (two drugs to help people quit smoking) to issue the FDA’s strongest suicide and depression warning. The drugs come with a possibility of side effects like depression, change in behavior, or suicidal thoughts. These are serious potential side effects, and drugs like these are widely used. Chantix was only approved in 2006, and annual sales had already reached $846 million at the time of the recall.23

  Jim Grichar argues that the FDA not only does an exceedingly poor job at fulfilling its purpose, but that it does not even have a purpose and should be abandoned because the free market will do a better job at regulating drugs than the FDA has ever done. “In the absence of the FDA,” Grichar said, “and with trial lawyers looking for multi-billion dollar settlements in lawsuits, pharmaceutical manufacturers and medical equipment manufacturers have every incentive to be cautious in bringing out new drugs and new medical devices. To this end, they would avail themselves of independent private reviews of the results of clinical trials and tests.”24

  This proposed system makes a great
deal of sense in that it gives the burden of being held accountable back to the pharmaceutical companies that produce these drugs. With all that liability on their hands, companies are bound to be more careful. And if they are not careful, they will cease to exist.

  The free market and our own judgment are really the only legitimate entities that can keep us safe. When the government lies and tells us that it can foolproof pharmaceuticals for use, we rely on it and put ourselves and our families in danger. The government knows that it cannot handle the massive undertaking of keeping us safe, but it wants us to think it can. Private companies are far better, faster, and more accurate at rating goods and products and communicating to us, and then we can be free to choose. When a company like Underwriters Laboratories (UL) acts as our informant, we have choices. Instead, when the government prohibits, we have fewer choices. This “nanny state” that the government has created automatically leaves us with less choice, and less choice means a departure from true freedom.

  You Are What You Eat

  Not only drugs, but the government also deceives us into thinking that our food is safe from bacteria or disease, because federal agencies oversee and check our food for us. In recent years a vast universe of food has been recalled as unsafe by the FDA: our beef, spinach, peanut butter, eggs, tomatoes, and many more items (even dog food) have been deemed unsafe over and over again. Clearly many FDA employees are asleep at the wheel, while taxpayer money goes down the drain.

  In addition to failing to keep our food from making us physically sick, the FDA has also wreaked a great deal of havoc and hysteria through its food recalls. During the spring and summer of 2008, the FDA went on a wild goose chase in search of bacteria-laden tomatoes. While the FDA spent weeks of its employees’ time and millions in taxpayers’ dollars trying to figure out the source of the bad tomatoes, the tomato industry and consumers suffered as major companies like McDonald’s refused to use tomatoes in any of their food. In July, eleven weeks into the recall, the FDA decided that maybe people were not getting sick from tomatoes after all. Its scientists began to think that maybe the sickness was coming from peppers or cilantro that is often mixed with tomatoes in foods like salsa or guacamole.25