Bush's Katrina rebuilding speech: opinions? [Archive]

zimv20

Sep 16, 2005, 01:32 AM

krugman's got an opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/opinion/16krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)

Not the New Deal

Now it begins: America's biggest relief and recovery program since the New Deal. And the omens aren't good.

It's a given that the Bush administration, which tried to turn Iraq into a laboratory for conservative economic policies, will try the same thing on the Gulf Coast. The Heritage Foundation, which has surely been helping Karl Rove develop the administration's recovery plan, has already published a manifesto on post-Katrina policy. It calls for waivers on environmental rules, the elimination of capital gains taxes and the private ownership of public school buildings in the disaster areas. And if any of the people killed by Katrina, most of them poor, had a net worth of more than $1.5 million, Heritage wants to exempt their heirs from the estate tax.

Still, even conservatives admit that deregulation, tax cuts and privatization won't be enough. Recovery will require a lot of federal spending. And aside from the effect on the deficit - we're about to see the spectacle of tax cuts in the face of both a war and a huge reconstruction effort - this raises another question: how can discretionary government spending take place on that scale without creating equally large-scale corruption?

It's possible to spend large sums honestly, as Franklin D. Roosevelt demonstrated in the 1930's. F.D.R. presided over a huge expansion of federal spending, including a lot of discretionary spending by the Works Progress Administration. Yet the image of public relief, widely regarded as corrupt before the New Deal, actually improved markedly.

How did that happen? The answer is that the New Deal made almost a fetish out of policing its own programs against potential corruption. In particular, F.D.R. created a powerful "division of progress investigation" to look into complaints of malfeasance in the W.P.A. That division proved so effective that a later Congressional investigation couldn't find a single serious irregularity it had missed.

This commitment to honest government wasn't a sign of Roosevelt's personal virtue; it reflected a political imperative. F.D.R.'s mission in office was to show that government activism works. To maintain that mission's credibility, he needed to keep his administration's record clean.

But George W. Bush isn't F.D.R. Indeed, in crucial respects he's the anti-F.D.R.

President Bush subscribes to a political philosophy that opposes government activism - that's why he has tried to downsize and privatize programs wherever he can. (He still hopes to privatize Social Security, F.D.R.'s biggest legacy.) So even his policy failures don't bother his strongest supporters: many conservatives view the inept response to Katrina as a vindication of their lack of faith in government, rather than as a reason to reconsider their faith in Mr. Bush.

And to date the Bush administration, which has no stake in showing that good government is possible, has been averse to investigating itself. On the contrary, it has consistently stonewalled corruption investigations and punished its own investigators if they try to do their jobs.

That's why Mr. Bush's promise last night that he will have "a team of inspectors general reviewing all expenditures" rings hollow. Whoever these inspectors general are, they'll be mindful of the fate of Bunnatine Greenhouse, a highly regarded auditor at the Army Corps of Engineers who suddenly got poor performance reviews after she raised questions about Halliburton's contracts in Iraq. She was demoted late last month.

Turning the funds over to state and local governments isn't the answer, either. F.D.R. actually made a point of taking control away from local politicians; then as now, patronage played a big role in local politics.

And our sympathy for the people of Mississippi and Louisiana shouldn't blind us to the realities of their states' political cultures. Last year the newsletter Corporate Crime Reporter ranked the states according to the number of federal public-corruption convictions per capita. Mississippi came in first, and Louisiana came in third.

Is there any way Mr. Bush could ensure an honest recovery program? Yes - he could insulate decisions about reconstruction spending from politics by placing them in the hands of an autonomous agency headed by a political independent, or, if no such person can be found, a Democrat (as a sign of good faith).

He didn't do that last night, and probably won't. There's every reason to believe the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast, like the failed reconstruction of Iraq, will be deeply marred by cronyism and corruption.

rdowns

Sep 16, 2005, 06:27 AM

Con:
- did NOT like conclusion that the military must take a greater role in disaster response. If by military he means just greater Coast Guard and National Guard presence, then fine. If he means Army units on U.S. streets, I get worried.

I don't think anyone wants to see Army units patrolling the streets but the fact is, there is no other organization in the US with the resources to respond as the military can. They are ready, trained and funded to restore order, evacuate people and quickly build infrastructure needed to deal with disasters. They have the necessary equipment at their disposal.

What's the alternative? Doesn't seem to make sense (practical or economic) to have another large group to do this. Where would they come from? How would they be trained and ready? Where would they get the needed equipment? How much more would it cost? Do we want another layer in the bureaucracy?

Local government is just not equipped to deal with disaster by and large. Sure, you can point to Giuliani and 9/11 but NYC is hardly representative of local government. NYC's economy, resources and manpower are bigger than many states.

State governments are better equipped but there are still problems. Louisiana's governor is weak; she showed that, at least to me, in every public comment she made. Her head ought to roll over this.

Seems to me a federal response is the best answer. Politics must be removed from this equation. Political patronage killed people here. Brown's head rolled. Wouldn't surprise me to see Chertoff "resign to spend more time with his family" by year's end.

Roger1

Sep 16, 2005, 08:38 AM

I tried to watch the speech, but after about 5 minutes of him telling us it was a sensless storm (or whatever), I decided to change the channel. I kep getting the opinon he was trying to turn the storm into an "evildoer".

mactastic

Sep 16, 2005, 12:57 PM

I don't think anyone wants to see Army units patrolling the streets but the fact is, there is no other organization in the US with the resources to respond as the military can. They are ready, trained and funded to restore order, evacuate people and quickly build infrastructure needed to deal with disasters. They have the necessary equipment at their disposal.

What's the alternative? Doesn't seem to make sense (practical or economic) to have another large group to do this. Where would they come from? How would they be trained and ready? Where would they get the needed equipment? How much more would it cost? Do we want another layer in the bureaucracy?
That's precisely where the National Guard is supposed to fit in -- trained, funded, and equipped. But all the high-tech NG communications gear is being used somewhere else right now...
TANSTAAFL - as some might say. Sure we can do both Iraq and Katrina at the same time. But to say we couldn't have handled Katrina better if the LNG wasn't abroad rings hollow.

Local government is just not equipped to deal with disaster by and large. Sure, you can point to Giuliani and 9/11 but NYC is hardly representative of local government. NYC's economy, resources and manpower are bigger than many states.
Not to mention that the 'red zone' was only a few blocks in NY. The city didn't have to be evacuated.

State governments are better equipped but there are still problems. Louisiana's governor is weak; she showed that, at least to me, in every public comment she made. Her head ought to roll over this.

Seems to me a federal response is the best answer. Politics must be removed from this equation. Political patronage killed people here. Brown's head rolled. Wouldn't surprise me to see Chertoff "resign to spend more time with his family" by year's end.
Yes, a federal response capability is a necessity. No one state can effectively absorb the displacement of up to a million people. 50 separate states shouldn't have to fund 50 separate caches of the basic needs for that many people; not when the federal government could put together perhaps a half-dozen spread around the country and achieve the same effect. They should be ready to bring immediate basic aid to people within 12 hours. Full scale evacuation and SAR should be under way with whatever resources you have within 24 hours. Heavy equipment should begin to arrive no more than 24 hours after a disaster.

Those golden hours after a disaster are the most important. Stuff that arrives 3 to 5 days after the event arrives to late to help those who needed it most. Only the feds have the resources to bring to bear on an even of this magnitude. To be sure, state and local governments need to have their own plans to handle events up to this scale on their own, and citizens should be prepared at all times to live for a minimum of 2-3 days without power or water.

But I know when California shakes in a big way the local governments are going to need help. Local governments will be quickly overwhelmed.

JesseJames

Sep 16, 2005, 01:36 PM

Stuffed shirts, glad-handing politicians, media spin doctors, nepotism, cronyism, mediocre bureaucrats proffered up as leaders and saviors.

Welcome to American politics. :rolleyes:

Sun Baked

Sep 16, 2005, 01:47 PM

Those golden hours after a disaster are the most important. Stuff that arrives 3 to 5 days after the event arrives to late to help those who needed it most. Only the feds have the resources to bring to bear on an even of this magnitude. To be sure, state and local governments need to have their own plans to handle events up to this scale on their own, and citizens should be prepared at all times to live for a minimum of 2-3 days without power or water.

But I know when California shakes in a big way the local governments are going to need help. Local governments will be quickly overwhelmed.Problem is Katrina was a pre-announced disaster and all the planning fell apart -- with more than ample time to stage troops and supplies, and get all the bosses into agreement.

Sort of shocking to think what would have happened in California had shaken in a big way. :(

mactastic

Sep 16, 2005, 01:56 PM

Problem is Katrina was a pre-announced disaster and all the planning fell apart -- with more than ample time to stage troops and supplies, and get all the bosses into agreement.

Sort of shocking to think what would have happened in California had shaken in a big way. :(
Exactly the point. We knew for 2-3 days prior to Katrina making landfall that someone was going to get nailed hard, with the most likely target being New Orleans. What if it had been an event with no warning like an earthquake under a major city? Or even worse, a coordinated series of events, such as a terrorist attack, with no warning?

At least earthquakes and hurricanes aren't malicious. They do what they do with no regard to the outcome. A terrorist would seek to maximize damage, which would make crucial response and communications issues paramount.

IJ Reilly

Sep 16, 2005, 02:02 PM

In California it's not a matter of "had" it's a matter of "when." California has the advantage over other states of being large enough to be able to send in assistance from elsewhere in the state and the nature of or likely natural disasters, which tend to focus their devastation over relatively small areas. Still, when the "big one" hits we're going to need an effective FEMA response, no question. When the Northridge quake hit in '94, FEMA was all over us like a cheap suit. In fact they were moving too quickly to demolish damaged buildings.

pseudobrit

Sep 16, 2005, 02:30 PM

I knew this would be spun away into nothingness.

Yesterday I read an op/ed (likely astroturf) in which the writer alluded to being "in the know" about all things emergency management and then commended the administration for its rapid three day response time.

New Orleans got sold down the river.

zimv20

Sep 16, 2005, 02:58 PM

i caught only the last couple minutes of the speech; did bush say how the reconstruction was going to be paid for?

skunk

Sep 16, 2005, 03:08 PM

i caught only the last couple minutes of the speech; did bush say how the reconstruction was going to be paid for?Duh! It's coming out of your pocket and into theirs, as usual.

zimv20

Sep 16, 2005, 03:18 PM

Duh! It's coming out of your pocket and into theirs, as usual.
does deficit spending count as coming out of my pocket?

skunk

Sep 16, 2005, 03:20 PM

does deficit spending count as coming out of my pocket?No, that's when it comes out of my pocket. Good point!
:(

pseudobrit

Sep 16, 2005, 03:22 PM

i caught only the last couple minutes of the speech; did bush say how the reconstruction was going to be paid for?

tax cuts

skunk

Sep 16, 2005, 03:24 PM

tax cutsThat was actually very funny. In a sick to the stomach sort of way.
:D

zimv20

Sep 16, 2005, 04:40 PM

perhaps this (http://nytimes.com/2005/09/16/national/nationalspecial/16cnd-bush.html?hp&ex=1126929600&en=ba127d67131f02fb&ei=5094&partner=homepage) will answer my question.

Bush Rules Out Tax Increases to Pay for Hurricane Recovery

WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 - President Bush ruled out tax increases to pay for hurricane and flood recovery today, saying instead that federal spending would have to be cut to help the Gulf Coast recover.

"We got to maintain economic growth, and therefore we should not raise taxes," Mr. Bush said. Working people have already been subject, in effect, to a tax increase through higher gasoline costs, he said, "and we don't need to be taking more money out of their pocket."

The president did not go into detail, at the brief question-and-answer session with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, on what programs he sees as likely candidates for spending cuts. He said the White House Office of Management and Budget would work with Congress to see not only where to cut but "to maintain economic growth and vitality" as well as help in the long recovery along the Gulf of Mexico.

"You bet, this is going to cost money," Mr. Bush said at one point. "But I'm confident we can handle it, and I'm confident that we can handle our other priorities."

A moment later, the president said, "It's going to cost whatever it costs, and we're going to be wise about the money we spend."

Heated discussions between the White House and Congressional leaders, including some Republicans, over how to pay for the recovery effort now seem inevitable. Some Republicans were worrying publicly about the rising federal deficits even before Mr. Bush pledged a huge federal role in the recovery in a speech Thursday night in New Orleans - and before his "no new taxes" pledge today.

(more)

nope, guess not.

and let's not miss the words of a man who love invoking the god thing:
"The Creator of wind and water," Mr. Bush said, is the source of "a love that can redeem the worst tragedy, a love that is stronger than death."

pseudobrit

Sep 16, 2005, 05:20 PM

Maybe he can cut the Army Corps of Engineers budget.

zimv20

Sep 16, 2005, 05:28 PM

Maybe he can cut the Army Corps of Engineers budget.
again?

mactastic

Sep 16, 2005, 05:32 PM

Ah yes, an avalanche of federal money as a response to criticism. But just to prove that the federal government can't do anything right, Bush will make sure to steer the money toward his cronies, and see that huge portions get wasted. Just so we all can see how bad the federal government is. Quick, drown it in the bathtub! :rolleyes:

pseudobrit

Sep 16, 2005, 05:47 PM

again?

Now is not the time to point fingers.

zimv20

Sep 16, 2005, 05:51 PM

Now is not the time to point fingers.
i submit that it's possible to use a Hypocrisy Test to determine, a priori, if one is a fan of this administration.

ham_man

Sep 16, 2005, 06:00 PM

Cut out the pork barrel bullcorn and we will have plenty to spare.

zimv20

Sep 16, 2005, 06:54 PM

link (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001138507)

Coming 'Sun-Sentinel' Series: Katrina Only Latest of FEMA Foul-Ups

CHICAGO A two-day investigative series that the South Florida Sun-Sentinel will publish starting this Sunday says that the wretched performance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) during Hurricane Katrina is the rule rather than the exception for the agency.

The series comes down hard on FEMA from the first graf: "The federal government's mishandling of Hurricane Katrina is just the latest in a series of missteps by a national disaster response system that for years has been fraught with waste and
fraud."

FEMA's bungling during Katrina came as no surprise to the Sun-Sentinel, says Editor and Sr. Vice President Earl Mauker.

"We actually called for [Michael Brown's] resignation a year ago," he said, referring to the FEMA head who resigned earlier this week.

The Tribune Co.-owned Fort Lauderdale paper has been on FEMA's case since last year when its computer-assisted investigation turned up massive fraud and waste in the wake of Hurricane Frances. FEMA, the paper found, had paid millions of dollars in claims in Miami-Dade County -- even though the hurricane made landfall 100 miles away.

"It was absolutely incredible. In Miami, the hurricane never hit, it never came on shore, and we found FEMA paid out $31 million for a storm that never came ashore," Mauker said.

The Sun-Sentinel followed up that revelation with continuing reporting of FEMA waste. The paper says the agency paid for funerals for people whose deaths had nothing to do with the hurricane. It reports that FEMA inspectors receive little training -- and that a shocking number of them have criminal records.

With this coming investigative series -- titled, "FEMA: A Legacy Of Waste -- the newspaper expands its examination far beyond Florida.

"We found the same waste in Detroit, Baton Rouge, Cleveland, Los Angeles," Mauker said. One example: After a season of wild fires and mudslides in Los Angeles, FEMA paid $5.2 million in disaster relief to families in Watts, far from the affected areas.

"There is a huge pattern of low-income urban neighborhoods, when they find out there is a FEMA-declared emergency, they file," sometimes faking damage to collect, Mauker said.

The series estimates that between 1999 and 2004, FEMA squandered $400 million in money spent "for storms that never occurred or for issues that were miles away from" a disaster site, Mauker said.

Sun-Sentinel investigative journalists actually started out looking to track how homeland security funds were being spent for ports and other sensitive areas. "We started looking on the computer, and saw all this federal money going to all these places, and wanted to know why," Mauker said.

"Michael Brown was nothing but defensive" as the newspaper was doing its reporting, Mauker said. "We had to file all kinds of lawsuits."

Reporters overlaid maps of the various storms and disasters with maps of where FEMA money was spent. The newspaper tracked some one million claims, Mauker said.

The series will be available online atwww.sun-sentinel.com beginning Sunday, Sept. 18.

skunk

Sep 16, 2005, 07:45 PM

I just love this:
Allan Hubbard, assistant to the president for economic policy, told reporters that Bush remains committed to slashing the deficit. "This in no way will adversely impact his commitment to cut the deficit in half by 2009," Hubbard said. He said the economy "is very, very strong now" and "the last thing in the world we need to do is raise taxes and retard economic growth."

Hubbard declined to provide an overall cost figure for hurricane relief. Pressed on where the money would come from, he said, "Well, there's no question that . . . the recovery will be paid for by the federal taxpayer and it will add to the deficit."

Also asked to name programs that could be cut or eliminated to help pay for relief efforts, Claude Allen, assistant to the president for domestic policy, said, "No, I cannot name any programs that will be cut." He said Bush is focused on "the immediate need of the evacuees."I think these "assistants to the President" should reacquaint themselves with Planet Earth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/16/AR2005091601488.html?sub=AR

zimv20

Sep 16, 2005, 08:00 PM

btw, for all you PBS and NOW fans:

NOW on PBS will devote all if its programs in September to covering Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The coverage includes a special one-hour broadcast on September 16, entitled "Katrina: The Response." That program, taped at WLPB, the PBS station in Baton Rouge, gathered an audience of citizens, experts and officials to concentrate on the rapid response failure and the challenges ahead.
link (http://www.pbs.org/now/society/katrina.html)

Thomas Veil

Sep 16, 2005, 11:22 PM

...when the "big one" hits we're going to need an effective FEMA response, no question. When the Northridge quake hit in '94, FEMA was all over us like a cheap suit.Hmm, let me see...who was president then...?

krugman's got an opinion (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/opinion/16krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)The cronyism isn't a surprise. I suppose I shouldn't even be amazed by how fast they got those no-bid contracts into place. It's the sheer nakedness of it that galls me. It's Bush saying, "I know we screwed up, and I know there's a lot of suffering, but I'm still gonna make your kids pay the price of fixing our mistake. I know I could raise taxes on the wealthy, but instead I'm gonna use this disaster to make my friends even richer. Oh, and there's not a damned thing you can do about it."

It really makes me angry that we've built up some kind of asinine tolerance to this crap. Bush keeps dropping the soap, and we keep bending over to pick it up. Amazing.

Xtremehkr

Sep 16, 2005, 11:31 PM

For brevities sake, I'll say; Opportunistic.

His apology was quite politically inclined.

zimv20

Sep 17, 2005, 01:22 AM

link (http://nytimes.com/2005/09/17/national/nationalspecial/17fema.html?hp&ex=1127016000&en=f3c0a5321cb09237&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

FEMA, Slow to the Rescue, Now Stumbles in Aid Effort

BATON ROUGE, La., Sept 16 - Nearly three weeks after Hurricane Katrina cut its devastating path, FEMA - the same federal agency that botched the rescue mission - is faltering in its effort to aid hundreds of thousands of storm victims, local officials, evacuees and top federal relief officials say. The federal aid hot line mentioned by President Bush in his address to the nation on Thursday cannot handle the flood of calls, leaving thousands of people unable to get through for help, day after day.

Federal officials are often unable to give local governments permission to proceed with fundamental tasks to get their towns running again. Most areas in the region still lack federal help centers, the one-stop shopping sites for residents in need of aid for their homes or families. Officials say that they are uncertain whether they can meet the president's goal of providing housing for 100,000 people who are now in shelters by the middle of next month.

While the agency has redoubled its efforts to get food, money and temporary shelter to the storm victims, serious problems remain throughout the affected region. Visits to several towns in Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as interviews with dozens of local and federal officials, provide a portrait of a fragmented and dysfunctional system.

The top two federal relief officials in charge of the effort both acknowledged in interviews late this week that they too have listened to the frustrated voices of local officials and citizens alike, and find their complaints valid.

"It is not happening fast enough, effective enough and it is not impacting the people at the bottom as quickly as it should," said Vice Adm. Thad W. Allen, standing along the waterfront in New Orleans on Friday. "I have heard frustrations."

Admiral Allen, who was put in charge of the federal government's emergency operations along the Gulf Coast a week ago Friday, said entrenched bureaucracies hampered attempts to accelerate his top priorities: aid to residents, providing housing and clearing the vast swaths of wreckage from homes and trees damaged by the storm.

Working from Baton Rouge, William Lokey, FEMA's coordinating officer for the three-state region, echoed Admiral Allen's criticisms. "It is not going as fast as I would like, and yes, I do not have the resources I would like," he said on Thursday. "I am going as fast as I can to get them."

The problems clearly stem largely from the sheer enormousness of the disaster. But the lack of investment in emergency preparedness, poor coordination across a sprawling federal bureaucracy and a massive failure of local communication systems - all of which hurt the initial rescue efforts - are now also impeding the recovery.

FEMA, Mr. Lokey said, is an agency with limited federal money that must quickly expand its operational capacity only after a major disaster strikes. It has not won a large chunk of the new federal homeland security dollars, that have been dedicated to terrorism.

"If the billions of dollars that have been spent on chemical, nuclear and biological response, if some of that had come over here, we would have done better," he said. "But after 9/11, the public priority was terrorism."

The Katrina troubles underscore serious questions about the federal government's ability to handle similar disasters in the future.

"I don't think federal bureaucracy can handle the next disaster," said Toye Taylor, the president of Washington Parish, one of the hardest hit areas in Louisiana, who met with Mr. Bush this week.

"I expressed to the president that it would take a new partnership between the military and private sector," Mr. Taylor said. "Because there will be another one and I don't think the federal government is going to be able to help." Indeed, Mr. Bush said in his address to the nation from New Orleans on Thursday night that the military would play a new role in federal disaster relief.

(more)

broken_keyboard

Sep 17, 2005, 01:48 AM

The analogy to the jazz musician's funeral was very clever.

(Yes I know the president has his speeches written by professionals...)

Deepdale

Sep 17, 2005, 06:00 AM

i caught only the last couple minutes of the speech; did bush say how the reconstruction was going to be paid for?

Paying for a massive project like that is never a concern for a clone of Alfred E. Newman. What, Bushie worry?

mactastic

Sep 17, 2005, 11:40 AM

Cut out the pork barrel bullcorn and we will have plenty to spare.
Do you have any confidence that will happen?

And if not, then how else would you suggest paying for Katrina's aftermath?

FFTT

Sep 17, 2005, 12:30 PM

Another heart felt speech attempting to excuse
complete and libelous incompetence, no-bid contracts
and tax evasion for the upper 1%.

I felt like I was watching the 700 club.

Please send everything you can to

1-866-GWB-FUND

IJ Reilly

Sep 17, 2005, 12:39 PM

The analogy to the jazz musician's funeral was very clever.

(Yes I know the president has his speeches written by professionals...)

This analogy was used by Harry Shearer on his radio program over a week earlier, on Sept. 4. In fact, when I was hearing Bush saying it, I was thinking, "they stole that one from Harry!" Now I'm wondering whether Shearer will mention this on his show tomorrow. I bet he does.

(A podcast of his program is available from the iTMS if evidence is required.)

zimv20

Sep 17, 2005, 05:20 PM

'nother op/ed piece (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/09/17/bushs_changing_tune?mode=PF)

Bush's changing tune

By Derrick Z. Jackson | September 17, 2005

PRESIDENT BUSH said these things about Hurricane Katrina in his speech to the nation Thursday:

''Millions of lives were changed in a day by a cruel and wasteful storm."

''Federal funds will cover the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone."

''As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

In a vacuum, Bush came across as sincere. For a second time, he said he took personal responsibility for the federal government's slow response to Katrina. ''I, as president, am responsible for the problem and for the solution." This was seemingly a big turnabout for a president who has portrayed himself as righteously infallible. In the midst of his lowest approval ratings ever, Bush has been forced off Mt. Olympus.

It will be miraculous for him to become the solution after four and a half years of throwing down thunderbolts at the poor, who are disproportionately African-American and Latino. This is after joining the side of white students to kill affirmative action at the University of Michigan in the 2003 Supreme Court case. This is after his Justice Department deleted half of a 168-page report that detailed the lack of promotion and disparate pay for African-American and female attorneys.

This is after a first term in which his Health and Human Services Department issued a report that originally was to highlight racial disparities in healthcare, except that the department deleted racial ''inequalities" and ''disparities" from its key findings.

The altered report went so far as to downplay the dramatic disparities in healthcare with ''Americans have exceptional quality of healthcare; but some socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, and geographical differences exist." The original report was published after an outcry.

This is from the same president who now tells us, ''Let us rise above the legacy of inequality."

Let him be the first to rise, by ending his cruel and wasteful assault on the poor. The last four and half years of his trickle-down theories have failed. His tax cuts and tax incentives have only enriched the rich. The poor have become poorer. The poverty rate has risen by from a 27-year low of 11.3 percent to 12.7 percent according to the US Census. For the first time on record, household incomes failed to rise for five consecutive years. Even Phillip Swagel, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute was quoted in The New York Times as saying, ''The gains have gone to owners of capital and not to workers."

Bush now says he wants to rebuild New Orleans with federal dollars. But for four and a half years, he has embarrassed even fellow Republicans by his annual proposals to slash Community Development Block grants. He talks now of federal accounts of up to $5,000 for job training, education and child care expenses for evacuees. Yet before Katrina, he has proposed to slash job training programs, adult literacy programs and let his own No Child Left Behind program go underfunded by billions of dollars a year. Nearly every state in the nation is either suing the government or complaining about having to follow unfunded mandates.

Bush says he will now create a Gulf Opportunity Zone to stimulate business, ''including minority-owned enterprises." But he also suspended the Davis-Bacon act for Katrina rebuilding, meaning that contractors need not pay the prevailing wage for laborers. Bush says he wants to ''help lower-income citizens in the hurricane region build new and better lives." But between relaxing wage rules for the CEOs and heading a Republican Party that has for eight years blocked a rise in the $5.15 federal minimum wage, Bush's plan to rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf Coast will squeeze yet more pulp out of the poor.

Bush proclaimed that we are about to witness ''one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen." For that to happen, he will have to become everything he has not been for his first four and a half years. That is only possible if he does things like drop his tax cut program or end the needless war in Iraq.

Bush says Katrina was cruel and wasteful. He was right in a way he did not intend. Katrina laid bare the cruel waste of so much of his presidency.

FFTT

Sep 17, 2005, 06:19 PM

We're already looking at a deficit of roughly 7 TRILLION dollars
with Bush and his administration funneling much of that amount
to his friends and supporters one way or another.

Once Bush leaves office, trying to rebalance the budget will more than likely
be a Democratic government's problem, making them the bad guys for
cutting spending and raising taxes.

You me, our kids and grandkids will suffer from the way these people have mismanaged their responsibility to the American people.

Chip NoVaMac

Sep 17, 2005, 11:19 PM

White House speechwriters are fully capable of crafting the right words and infusing enough optimism for any occasion. Logistically it will degenerate into the usual infighting that damages such prodigious reconstruction efforts. Therefore, I'll take your skepticism and raise you $10.

Good point, but they have the wrong messenger IMO. Bush seems to me to come off condescending. His repeated use of "God" in the last couple of weeks seems to forget that not all believe in his "God". Far better in todays world to ask people to look to their "higher power" and ask for guidance. Acknowledging that what ever beliefs each one of of us has, we need to come together to make things right.

I am sure that I will be corrected, but FDR did not invoke God's name in trying to save the nation back then with the New Deal.

I don't think anyone wants to see Army units patrolling the streets but the fact is, there is no other organization in the US with the resources to respond as the military can. They are ready, trained and funded to restore order, evacuate people and quickly build infrastructure needed to deal with disasters. They have the necessary equipment at their disposal.

What's the alternative? Doesn't seem to make sense (practical or economic) to have another large group to do this. Where would they come from? How would they be trained and ready? Where would they get the needed equipment? How much more would it cost? Do we want another layer in the bureaucracy?

Local government is just not equipped to deal with disaster by and large. Sure, you can point to Giuliani and 9/11 but NYC is hardly representative of local government. NYC's economy, resources and manpower are bigger than many states.

State governments are better equipped but there are still problems. Louisiana's governor is weak; she showed that, at least to me, in every public comment she made. Her head ought to roll over this.

Seems to me a federal response is the best answer. Politics must be removed from this equation. Political patronage killed people here. Brown's head rolled. Wouldn't surprise me to see Chertoff "resign to spend more time with his family" by year's end.

But politics has invaded every nook and cranny. I spoke with a senior member of our local FD the other day. His words were as if they were drawn from Rove's play book. Blame on the local officials, little on what we as a nation could have done to prepare as a federal government.

In the end he could not see my argument that given what we do know about the devastation of hurricanes, and the warnings from the NWS - that we did not have stockpiles and a plan for manpower in place, for what ever hurricane we might be hit with this year or next. Though to his credit, he did say that he could be on the ground in less than 12 hours, if given the call.

Stuffed shirts, glad-handing politicians, media spin doctors, nepotism, cronyism, mediocre bureaucrats proffered up as leaders and saviors.

Welcome to American politics. :rolleyes:

Well said. And given the current climate of giving to those that are well connected to Administration, what could we expect?

I am concerned that Bush and his people are saying that there will be no tax increases in order to fund Katrina relief. And by default the war in Iraq. There will be spending cuts.

Who will be hurt most by the spending cuts? The poor in other areas of the country. Heaven forbid that we should gracefully exit from Iraq to save some money there.

Exactly the point. We knew for 2-3 days prior to Katrina making landfall that someone was going to get nailed hard, with the most likely target being New Orleans. What if it had been an event with no warning like an earthquake under a major city? Or even worse, a coordinated series of events, such as a terrorist attack, with no warning?

At least earthquakes and hurricanes aren't malicious. They do what they do with no regard to the outcome. A terrorist would seek to maximize damage, which would make crucial response and communications issues paramount.

I live in the DC area. With all the money spent on Homeland Security, I had what I now know to be a false sense of security that the federal government had my back covered. I now know the truth.

I have never been big on gun ownership. But given what happened in NO, I will be taking my sister and myself down to the local gun store in the next few weeks.

Now to my opinions on his speech.

Glad to see that we are willing to help recover after the disaster. But money is being thrown at a problem with out a clear understanding of how to address the real issues. What 40 to 50% of those that left have no desire to go back?

We have 1500 living in a trailer camp called Camp FEMA in Florida after Charles. Their homes are to be vacated by law in February.

I have said this in other threads, but we have an opportunity to show the world that we are truly the greatest nation in the world by addressing the needs of our own people.

We also have the opportunity to transform other parts of our nation in to great economic zones of opportunity. We should only rebuild the Gulf Coast to the extent to capitalize on the unique opportunities that region can provide. The balance of the "lost" economy of that region can be shifted to other areas.

We need to encourage ALL able bodied people to aid in the effort to rebuild not just the Gulf Coast, but the nation as a whole. There is no job too small that can not be filled.

This will give us the greatest opportunity to transform welfare into workfare. With Camp FEMA the issue is that the city is transforming itself into a place that few of those left behind can now afford. Charlie is giving us some lessons. How we choose to learn from these lessons says alot about us s a nation to the rest of the world.

solvs

Sep 18, 2005, 02:45 AM

As with everything else, I get my hopes up only for them to be dashed. If Bush actually did some of the things he says I might not dislike him so much. I'd love to believe him this time, but fool me once and all that.

Chip NoVaMac

Sep 18, 2005, 03:06 AM

but fool me once and all that.

And in the end he could not even get close to the saying....

Deepdale

Sep 18, 2005, 04:28 AM

NOW on PBS will devote all if its programs in September to covering Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The coverage includes a special one-hour broadcast on September 16, entitled "Katrina: The Response."

David Brancaccio, who took over PBS' NOW after the retirement of Bill Moyers, did a very good hosting the town hall meeting from Baton Rouge.

I found the broadcast to be compelling, gut-wrenching television ... everybody who spoke shared stories that would just make your heart bleed. May many affected victims experience the beginning of new hope in the months ahead.

FFTT

Sep 18, 2005, 04:42 AM

President Bush has envoked executive privledge to hide so much dirt,
that you could use it to backfill New Orleans up to sea level.

skunk

Sep 18, 2005, 06:08 AM

President Bush has envoked executive privledge to hide so much dirt,
that you could use it to backfill New Orleans up to sea level.But you wouldn't want to put new housing on top of contaminated landfill, would you?

rdowns

Sep 18, 2005, 06:19 AM

I am concerned that Bush and his people are saying that there will be no tax increases in order to fund Katrina relief. And by default the war in Iraq. There will be spending cuts.

The amount of wasteful federal spending is staggering. Cuts could easily be made without hurting those most in need. Take the recent $286 BILLION transportation bill loaded with 6,371 "pet projects" These pet projects are worth a minimum of $34 BILLION.

-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who secured $207 million for the "Prairie Parkway" The Illinois Department of Transportation is only two years into a five-year study into the project and has not yet determined whether a highway is needed or improvements to existing roads would suffice.

-$2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California

-$6 million for graffiti elimination in New York

-nearly $4 million on the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, and the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich.

-Alaska's Gravina Island (population less than 50) will soon be connected to the megalopolis of Ketchikan (pop. 8,000) by a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge. Alaska residents can thank Rep. Don Young, who just brought home $941 million worth of bacon, $231 million for the bridge. Pays to be chairman of the transportation committee.

-$3 million to renovate and expand the National Packard Museum

-$2.88 million to construct a bike/pedestrian path in Delta Ponds, Oregon

-$2.7 million to reconstruct Union Station in North Canaan, Connecticut for a transportation museum

-$1.3 million to construct a recreational visitor center on the Mesabi Trail in Virginia, Minnesota, part of which will be used for bike and rollerblade rental.

-$500,000 to establish a transportation museum on the Navy Pier in Chicago, Illinois

-$200,000 to construct a bicycle path in Petal, Mississippi

Let's not even go into the recent Energy Bill. FUBAR seems to come to mind.

skunk

Sep 18, 2005, 06:24 AM

You may be no Beacon of Democracy, but you're certainly leading the way in pork barrels. Why do you stand for it? The corruption is staggering.

zimv20

Sep 18, 2005, 07:21 AM

pork barrels. Why do you stand for it?
we don't. that's why we elect republicans, because the dems are known as the party of pork.

doesn't matter if that's reality or not, because that's the perception. you've seen it on these very boards.

Deepdale

Sep 18, 2005, 07:32 AM

we don't. that's why we elect republicans, because the dems are known as the party of pork.

Party of pork vs. party of bull ... does it make that much of a difference? Both suck big-time.

skunk

Sep 18, 2005, 08:02 AM

Party of pork vs. party of bull ... does it make that much of a difference? Both suck big-time.Maybe it's time to change from the donkey and the elephant.

broken_keyboard

Sep 18, 2005, 10:32 AM

-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who secured $207 million for the "Prairie Parkway" The Illinois Department of Transportation is only two years into a five-year study into the project and has not yet determined whether a highway is needed or improvements to existing roads would suffice.

-$2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California

-$6 million for graffiti elimination in New York

-nearly $4 million on the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, and the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich.

-Alaska's Gravina Island (population less than 50) will soon be connected to the megalopolis of Ketchikan (pop. 8,000) by a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge. Alaska residents can thank Rep. Don Young, who just brought home $941 million worth of bacon, $231 million for the bridge. Pays to be chairman of the transportation committee.

-$3 million to renovate and expand the National Packard Museum

-$2.88 million to construct a bike/pedestrian path in Delta Ponds, Oregon

-$2.7 million to reconstruct Union Station in North Canaan, Connecticut for a transportation museum

-$1.3 million to construct a recreational visitor center on the Mesabi Trail in Virginia, Minnesota, part of which will be used for bike and rollerblade rental.

-$500,000 to establish a transportation museum on the Navy Pier in Chicago, Illinois

-$200,000 to construct a bicycle path in Petal, Mississippi

Think of all the people who struggled to pay their taxes, thinking it was for important national business, and it was for things like the above. It's disgusting.

FFTT

Sep 18, 2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by FFTT
President Bush has envoked executive privledge to hide so much dirt,
that you could use it to backfill New Orleans up to sea level.

But you wouldn't want to put new housing on top of contaminated landfill, would you?

Very good point SKUNK,

We need to go back to the foundation of our leadership and rebuild
from the ground up.

Unfortunately, not enough people care to insure that they have worthy
leadership at the local and state level, so anything we build above that
is based on defective materials.

We need to go back to the original plans and follow them.

IJ Reilly

Sep 18, 2005, 12:15 PM

-Alaska's Gravina Island (population less than 50) will soon be connected to the megalopolis of Ketchikan (pop. 8,000) by a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge. Alaska residents can thank Rep. Don Young, who just brought home $941 million worth of bacon, $231 million for the bridge. Pays to be chairman of the transportation committee.

I'm not defending any of these projects but it happens that I was in Ketchikan last month so I was curious about this project, which I heard about when I was there. Like a virtually all Alaska Panhandle cities (8,000 is a big city by Alaska standards), Ketchikan is jammed onto a small shelf of land between the ocean the mountains with very limited access to anywhere. With the lumber and fishing industries all but dead, all they've got anymore is tourism -- most of which takes place on the nearby islands, of which I believe Gravina Island is the largest and nearest.

Anyhow, I'm not necessarily defending this particular project, just pointing out that nearly any big-dollar project proposed for a place where you don't happen to live can be made to look like a huge waste of money.

Chip NoVaMac

Sep 18, 2005, 12:24 PM

I'm not defending any of these projects but it happens that I was in Ketchikan last month so I was curious about this project, which I heard about when I was there. Like a virtually all Alaska Panhandle cities (8,000 is a big city by Alaska standards), Ketchikan is jammed onto a small shelf of land between the ocean the mountains with very limited access to anywhere. With the lumber and fishing industries all but dead, all they've got anymore is tourism -- most of which takes place on the nearby islands, of which I believe Gravina Island is the largest and nearest.

Anyhow, I'm not necessarily defending this particular project, just pointing out that nearly any big-dollar project proposed for a place where you don't happen to live can be made to look like a huge waste of money.

One mans "pork" is another mans need or desire.

Hopefully after Katrina, we will see future transportation bills that will spend more money on getting us out of our cars, and in to mass transit. With much of the Gulf Coast in need of a total rebuilding, we have an opportunity to start anew. Building communities that will not have to totally rely on the use of the car to to do day to day business.

skunk

Sep 18, 2005, 12:30 PM

With much of the Gulf Coast in need of a total rebuilding, we have an opportunity to start anew. Building communities that will not have to totally rely on the use of the car to to do day to day business.Subways. That's what every below-sea-level city needs.
:p

Chip NoVaMac

Sep 18, 2005, 12:55 PM

Subways. That's what every below-sea-level city needs.
:p

Subways are not the only efficient mass transit means.

skunk

Sep 18, 2005, 01:01 PM

Subways are not the only efficient mass transit means.Just a suggestion...
;)

mactastic

Sep 18, 2005, 01:14 PM

Subways. That's what every below-sea-level city needs.
:pThere's that British wit again!

Say, when are you chaps going to figure out how to turn fog into energy?
:p

IJ Reilly

Sep 18, 2005, 01:20 PM

There's that British wit again!

Say, when are you chaps going to figure out how to turn fog into energy?
:p

Give 'em a break. They've already figured out how to turn it into lethargy.

zimv20

Sep 18, 2005, 02:43 PM

link (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001138507)
about that sun-sentinal series. link to article is here (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-femareport,0,7651043.storygallery?coll=sfla-home-headlines), link to new thread about it is here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1745349#post1745349).

solvs

Sep 18, 2005, 04:59 PM

And in the end he could not even get close to the saying....
I was kinda taken in after 9/11. I thought he'd do a good job after that. That's why I'm so pissed he didn't. I feel betrayed, and it's been getting worse ever since he first brought up Iraq. I didn't realize how much worse it would get, and now I'm scared to think about it. I suspect a lot of people feel the same way.

Subways are not the only efficient mass transit means.
Just don't mention monorails. I swear, that Simpsons episode was about the Seattle monorail system. There's a couple of billion dollars down the drain. :rolleyes:

zimv20

Sep 18, 2005, 05:16 PM

Just don't mention monorails. I swear, that Simpsons episode was about the Seattle monorail system. There's a couple of billion dollars down the drain. :rolleyes:
have you been to north haverbrook?

zimv20

Sep 18, 2005, 05:18 PM

in all seriousness, it's been a few years since i rode the NOLA streetcar, but i recall it seemed to work pretty well for where i was going. anyone here more familiar w/ it? perhaps an expanded streetcar system would work well?

zimv20

Sep 18, 2005, 05:29 PM

link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050916-23381200-bc-us-katrina-clinton.xml)

Clinton: Raise taxes to pay for Katrina

WASHINGTON, Sept. 16 (UPI) -- President Bill Clinton called for a repeal of upper-income tax cuts, saying America should not stick its grandchildren with the bill for Hurricane Katrina.

In an appearance on NBC's "Today Show," Clinton said it would be "crazy" to maintain the cuts in the face of the massive spending that will be needed. He said President Bush's plan to borrow means future generations and the poor around the world will have to pay "to cover our self-indulgence."

(more)

skunk

Sep 18, 2005, 08:15 PM

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President George Bush said the federal government would assume the bulk of the costs for "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen".Certainly puts the Iraqi effort in perspective.

solvs

Sep 18, 2005, 11:58 PM

link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050916-23381200-bc-us-katrina-clinton.xml)

Clinton: Raise taxes to pay for Katrina
Damn those tax and spend liberals.

mactastic

Sep 19, 2005, 10:52 AM

have you been to north haverbrook?
No, but I've been to Ogdenville. It sure put them on the map!

katchow

Sep 19, 2005, 01:33 PM

Give 'em a break. They've already figured out how to turn it into lethargy.

Reminds me of our ability to turn garbage into television. ;)

IJ Reilly

Sep 19, 2005, 01:48 PM

Reminds me of our ability to turn garbage into television. ;)

Ernie Kovacs said that television is a medium because it is neither rare nor well done.

Chip NoVaMac

Sep 19, 2005, 02:28 PM

The amount of wasteful federal spending is staggering. Cuts could easily be made without hurting those most in need. Take the recent $286 BILLION transportation bill loaded with 6,371 "pet projects" These pet projects are worth a minimum of $34 BILLION.

-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), who secured $207 million for the "Prairie Parkway" The Illinois Department of Transportation is only two years into a five-year study into the project and has not yet determined whether a highway is needed or improvements to existing roads would suffice.

-$2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California

-$6 million for graffiti elimination in New York

-nearly $4 million on the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, and the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich.

-Alaska's Gravina Island (population less than 50) will soon be connected to the megalopolis of Ketchikan (pop. 8,000) by a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate and higher than the Brooklyn Bridge. Alaska residents can thank Rep. Don Young, who just brought home $941 million worth of bacon, $231 million for the bridge. Pays to be chairman of the transportation committee.

-$3 million to renovate and expand the National Packard Museum

-$2.88 million to construct a bike/pedestrian path in Delta Ponds, Oregon

-$2.7 million to reconstruct Union Station in North Canaan, Connecticut for a transportation museum

-$1.3 million to construct a recreational visitor center on the Mesabi Trail in Virginia, Minnesota, part of which will be used for bike and rollerblade rental.

-$500,000 to establish a transportation museum on the Navy Pier in Chicago, Illinois

-$200,000 to construct a bicycle path in Petal, Mississippi

Let's not even go into the recent Energy Bill. FUBAR seems to come to mind.

And according to what I read on news radio, the Senior prescription benefit should be held back a year, in order to save money.

I am sorry. But I feel that tax cuts for those that in the upper 25% of this nation need to be rolled back. Since I am in the bottom 30 to 50%, the extra money could mean so more to the nation as a whole.

50% of of my income goes to my rent. I am not not living large. I live in an all utilities apartment, that many here might not even consider moving in to. Sure I might be able t save an extra 20% by moving in to some other neighborhood; but It would cost me more in gas $ and time. Not to mention they are less safe than what I found.

Is there waste? Yes. Just look at the no bid contracts for support in the war in Iraq. My guess is that we could get $20 to $50 billion back in over charges in Iraq alone.

We f'd up in Iraq. Now that we need the money for our own people, the debt will be paid by future generations to come.

zimv20

Sep 20, 2005, 05:50 PM

and the rebuilding effort proceeds as efficiently and logically as before...

link (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=16147117&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=up-in-flames--name_page.html)

EXCLUSIVE: UP IN FLAMES

Tons of British aid donated to help Hurricane Katrina victims to be BURNED by Americans

HUNDREDS of tons of British food aid shipped to America for starving Hurricane Katrina survivors is to be burned.

US red tape is stopping it from reaching hungry evacuees.

Instead tons of the badly needed Nato ration packs, the same as those eaten by British troops in Iraq, has been condemned as unfit for human consumption.

And unless the bureaucratic mess is cleared up soon it could be sent for incineration.

One British aid worker last night called the move "sickening senselessness" and said furious colleagues were "spitting blood".

The food, which cost British taxpayers millions, is sitting idle in a huge warehouse after the Food and Drug Agency recalled it when it had already left to be distributed.

Scores of lorries headed back to a warehouse in Little Rock, Arkansas, to dump it at an FDA incineration plant.

The Ministry of Defence in London said last night that 400,000 operational ration packs had been shipped to the US.

But officials blamed the US Department of Agriculture, which impounded the shipment under regulations relating to the import and export of meat.

The aid worker, who would not be named, said: "This is the most appalling act of sickening senselessness while people starve.

"The FDA has recalled aid from Britain because it has been condemned as unfit for human consumption, despite the fact that these are Nato approved rations of exactly the same type fed to British soldiers in Iraq.

"Under Nato, American soldiers are also entitled to eat such rations, yet the starving of the American South will see them go up in smoke because of FDA red tape madness."

(more)