Re-reading OneMan – I thought of this: “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a life time.” I used to think conservatives (among others) agreed with that kind of thinking. Apparently that’s not true of FEMA in this administration. Take the fish or lose it all.
WurfWhile
politics is about the people – and I'm one of them
Comments 2
My first thought after reading OneMan’s post was similar to yours. However, after reading this article http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100020425&docId=l:700559559&start=6
Posted 26 Nov 2007 at 9:36 pm ¶I am left wondering if the request for reimbursement included all of the background that we have the luxury of evaluating. On the face of it, perhaps FEMA should question a request for reimbursing a scuba expedition to the Florida Keys, the Bahamas and Chesapeake Bay as a Katrina disaster expense. Prudence would suggest that the Aquarium should have had FEMA on board before taking the trip.
Hi Carl,
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately I’m not a LexisNexis subscriber – so I can’t comment on that part of what you offer – but my thoughts on what you further write are clear:
Was it legitimate to get the particular sea life involved by going to the Florida Keys, the Bahamas and the Chesapeake Bay? If so, it should have been covered as long as the expenses were otherwise reasonable (e.g. I don’t think FEMA should be picking up bar tabs). I do agree that clearing things beforehand would have been prudent – and really should have been done – but if they got the fish at a discount through legal means and with reasonable expenses, I find it hard to argue with the results.
Posted 27 Nov 2007 at 12:21 am ¶