Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceejayoz | Hacker News Reader

There's some truth to the idea that the Feds do need some reserved for things like embassies, warships, FEMA, etc.

The current meme going around local news Facebook comments seems to be that the Feds are just a backup with no direct responsibilities for disaster management, though, and that it's all on the states for being unprepared. Which, well, is bullshit.

View on HN

Is it? I'm honestly asking. As an American, I understand there's a division of responsibility between the federal state governments for disaster preparedness, but I don't know exactly what that agreement entails (or even if it's clearly written down somewhere). Without a clear understanding of who's responsible for what, it seems easy to point fingers depending on political preference.

If anyone has more knowledge and is willing to share, I'd appreciate it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Emergency_Management_A...

"The agency's primary purpose is to coordinate the response to a disaster that has occurred in the United States and that overwhelms the resources of local and state authorities."

Yes, I agree that the feds should step in at this point (and should have done so long ago). What I'm curious about is the responsibility each state has to, for example, maintain their own stockpile of PPE. What are the resources that have been overwhelmed (and does it vary by state)?

States absolutely have stockpiles, but more for the "there was an earthquake/hurricane/bombing" sort of scenarios where there'd be mutual aid from other states after a few days/weeks and you could readily rebuild the stockpiles in a few weeks by placing some orders with 3M etc.

I don't think any state is going to wind up having had a stockpile sufficient for this sort of prolonged, world-affecting disaster.

The fed govt can print and borrow money at will, which states cannot and which is crucial in large scale disasters like this.

The federal government can comandeer private businesses to produce whatever it wants.

I don’t think states can do this

I don't think the states would _want_ to do this. Gov control of business closer to the local level means you're closer to your constituents.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com