JG,

Any agency or company can be more efficient. I guess I'm saying that you could take an econ supply-demand curve and substitute efficiency and output effectiveness. You cannot maximize one value without diminishing the other, so a prudent manager seeks to optimize the competing values.

And yes, FEMA for sure could be more efficient and effective based on my personal biases toward the values of what is deserving (and in the national interest) of protecting. But again, pluralism, by definition, means that equally good Americans will disagree about those priorities.

If it were up to me, I would dispense humanitarian relief (food, water, shelter) to people who suffered losses on the barrier islands. But I wouldn't provide one cent of relief toward rebuilding on the barrier islands. Students of nature and ecology know that barrier islands naturally serve as protective buffers of environmentally rich coastlines. Other folks see barrier islands as a perfect location for a beach cabin, home, or mcmansion, depending on their economic status. Then they think it is in the public interest to develop levees, dikes, roads, and other public services on those islands. Meanwhile, the ecologist knows that change is the very nature of barrier islands, and the change is caused by storms. Sorry to get lengthy, but maybe illustrating by example increases understanding. If you're really interested in the impossibility faced by FEMA and the Corps, I highly recommend this book: The Control of Nature by John McPhee.

FEMA's mission doesn't include making sense. I think that contributes to why there is so much conflict about the intrinsic inefficiency at FEMA. As far as the "waste" goes, I'm just trying to explain that what you might see as FEMA waste is another citizen's sacred cow.

Sg