Also see below:
Bill Requires Louisiana Governments to Pay Back FEMA •
Go to Original
Will Bush Deliver?
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Monday 10 October 2005
Ever since President Bush promised to rebuild the Gulf Coast in "one of
the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen," many people
have asked how he plans to pay for that effort. But looking at what has (and
hasn't) happened since he gave that speech, I'm starting to wonder whether they're
asking the right question. How sure are we that large-scale federal aid for
post-Katrina reconstruction will really materialize?
Bear with me while I make the case for doubting whether Mr. Bush will make
good on his promise.
First, Mr. Bush already has a record of trying to renege on pledges to a stricken
city. After 9/11 he made big promises to New York. But as soon as his bullhorn
moment was past, officials began trying to wriggle out of his pledge. By early
2002 his budget director was accusing New York's elected representatives, who
wanted to know what had happened to the promised aid, of engaging in a "money-grubbing
game." It's not clear how much federal help the city has actually received.
With that precedent in mind, consider this: Congress has just gone on recess.
By the time it returns, seven weeks will have passed since the levees broke.
And the administration has spent much of that time blocking efforts to aid Katrina's
victims.
I'm not sure why the news media haven't made more of the White House role in
stalling a bipartisan bill that would have extended Medicaid coverage to all
low-income hurricane victims - some of whom, according to surveys, can't afford
needed medicine. The White House has also insisted that disaster loans to local
governments, many of which no longer have a tax base, be made with the cruel
and unusual provision that these loans cannot be forgiven.
Since the administration is already nickel-and-diming Katrina's victims, it's
a good bet that it will do the same with reconstruction - that is, if reconstruction
ever gets started.
Nobody thinks that reconstruction should already be under way. But what's striking
to me is that there are no visible signs that the administration has even begun
developing a plan. No reconstruction czar has been appointed; no commission
has been named. There have been no public hearings. And as far as we can tell,
nobody is in charge.
Last month The New York Times reported that Karl Rove had been placed in charge
of post-Katrina reconstruction. But last week Scott McClellan, the White House
press secretary, denied that Mr. Rove - who has become a lot less visible lately,
as speculation swirls about possible indictments in the Plame case - was ever
running reconstruction. So who is in charge? "The president," said
Mr. McClellan.
Finally, if we assume that Mr. Bush remains hostile to domestic spending that
might threaten his tax cuts - and there's no reason to assume otherwise - foot-dragging
on post-Katrina reconstruction is a natural political strategy.
I've been reading "Off Center," an important new book by Jacob Hacker
and Paul Pierson, political scientists at Yale and Berkeley respectively. Their
goal is to explain how Republicans, who face a generally moderate electorate
and have won recent national elections by "the slimmest of margins,"
have nonetheless been able to advance a radical rightist agenda.
One of their "new rules for radicals" is "Don't just do something,
stand there." Frontal assaults on popular government programs tend to fail,
as Mr. Bush learned in his hapless attempt to sell Social Security privatization.
But as Mr. Hacker and Mr. Pierson point out, "sometimes decisions not to
act can be a powerful means of reshaping the role of government." For example,
the public strongly supports a higher minimum wage, but conservatives have nonetheless
managed to cut that wage in real terms by not raising it in the face of inflation.
Right now, the public strongly supports a major reconstruction effort, so that's
what Mr. Bush had to promise. But as the TV cameras focus on other places and
other issues, will the administration pay a heavy political price for a reconstruction
that starts slowly and gradually peters out? The New York experience suggests
that it won't.
Of course, I may be overanalyzing. Maybe the administration isn't deliberately
dragging its feet on reconstruction. Maybe its lack of movement, like its immobility
in the days after Katrina struck, reflects nothing more than out-of-touch leadership
and a lack of competent people.
Go to Original
Bill Requires Louisiana Governments to Pay Back FEMA
By John Hill
The Shreveport Times
Saturday 08 October 2005
New Orleans - After Sept. 11, 2001, Congress granted New York City money it
needed to pay employees, but Louisiana governments will have to demonstrate
how they can pay money back to the federal government.
Broke southeastern Louisiana local governments can apply for up to $750 million
in federal loans to pay law enforcement, firefighters and other essential employees,
but they must show how they plan to pay the money back within three years.
U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-New Orleans, negotiated the emergency legislation
passed in Washington on Friday to allow the Federal Emergency Management Agency
to shift $750 million of the $62 billion already appropriated for hurricane
relief to the local government loan program.
Federal law allows FEMA to pay for police and firefighters overtime during
a disaster, but not regular pay and normal operating costs.
But with tax bases wiped out or severely damaged in several parishes, including
Orleans, St. Bernard, Plaquemines and St. Tammany, governments have begun laying
off personnel. The same situation will exist in Rita-ravaged southwestern Louisiana
parishes.
Last week, New Orleans laid off 3,000 employees - half the city employees
- and said it would soon run out of money to pay law enforcement and firefighters.
For weeks, President Bush has promised grants to local governments.
In Washington, Democrats in Congress objected that the money was a loan program,
but Vitter said the House Republican leadership, wary of Katrina's costs, insisted
the $750 million be a loan rather than a grant program.
"That is not my preference," Vitter said.
But financially strapped governments needed the money immediately, and unless
Congress acted Friday before recessing, it would be another 10 days before the
necessary federal legislation could be considered.
Because the legislation was an emergency bill, it required unanimous House
consent Friday afternoon following Senate approval Friday morning, Vitter said.
"This is an urgent need. This is what could be accomplished today,"
Vitter said.
Vitter said he would work later to get the loans forgiven.
U. S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-New Orleans, and other congressional Democrats
expressed anger that Congress was requiring the money to be a loan program.
While Landrieu said she and Vitter have worked together on Katrina relief and
she respects his work, she disagrees with his agreement with House leaders that
the local government bailout should be a loan program.
"At some point, it became clear that House Republicans were not going
to accept anything but a loan program," Landrieu said. "I wasn't willing
to sit down. I'm not willing to sit down now.
"For 37 days, my people have heard that help was on its way. Words are
cheap. Actions are what people value."
After Sept. 11, Congress didn't require New York City to say first how it would
pay back money for operations, said U. S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York.
"I am bewildered why we are turning the people of the Gulf Coast into
second-class citizens," Clinton said. "It's not going to be available
to many communities because they are not going to be able to pay it back."
On the U.S. House floor, U.S. Rep. Richard Baker, R-Baton Rouge, said FEMA
had assured him it "could be very flexible with terms and conditions"
of the loans. "When possible, communities will pay it back," he said.
"This act today is another small step in helping our people back to normality,"
Baker said.
U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville, expressed his fury that the Republican
leadership insisted on a loan program.
"I'm going to look my local leaders in the eye and tell them to take the
money and run," Melancon said. "The federal government has let them
down. I believed the White House when they said they would help local government.
"My advice is to spend it on your deputies, your police and your firefighters.
Spend it and don't pay it back."
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-New York, called it "terribly unfair" to
put $750 million in debt on financially bankrupt or strapped local Louisiana
governments.
"Congress is not requiring the people of Iraq to pay us back," she
said.
Vitter said he has asked Gov. Kathleen Blanco if she could put up any state
money to help local governments, but Blanco said there was no money. "Anything
would help (in Washington)," Vitter said.
-------
Jump to today's TO Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story