Citizen's Rent 2005

Republicans See Opportunity in Katrina Disaster

Are you surprised?

"Congressional Republicans, backed by the White House, say they are using relief measures for the hurricane-ravaged Gulf coast to achieve a broad range of conservative economic and social policies, both in the storm zone and beyond." (WSJ)

I'm not. Bush suspended wage protections for reconstruction workers, meaning companies can pay low wages for any construction jobs funded by the federal government. He's considering suspending wage protections for the service industry too. He's put Karl Rove in charge of the reconstruction effort. Didn't he learn anything about appointing people with no experience to critical jobs when FEMA failed so miserably to respond to the disaster Katrina wrought? Apparently not.

So how do the Republicans plan to take advantage of the greatest natural disaster in our history and the terrible human tragedy that followed it? Well, besides suspending the prevailing wage laws - something the Republicans have been trying to get rid of for decades, Bush is also waiving some affirmative action requirements for reconstruction contractors. The Republicans in Congress are reportedly planning to pass legislation to limit victim's rights to sue, introduce vouchers for schools, eliminate environmental protection laws, and give tax breaks to companies working in the reconstruction areas.

I particularly like the sly way they've included expanded off-shore drilling and new refineries in the legislation - those are things that didn't survive the energy bill. So why not slide them in here? Well, the oil lobby is already knocking on doors and this is the least the Republicans can do to thank them for being so prompt.

What I want - desperately - is for Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities. Instead, what I'm getting is Congress using the devastation in the Gulf Coast as a real-world petri dish for trying out Republican ideologies. I just hope that 2006 changes the balance in Washington. We won't get accountability any other way.

Putting Dollars First

I wonder if the people bemoaning the cost of the Gulf Coast reconstruction take pride in the rebuilding we did after WWII in Europe through the Marshall Plan. If they do, and if they justify the different response by exclaiming that the foreign rebuilding was a matter of national security, then I'd really like them to explain how allowing poverty to flourish and devastation to remain unaddressed won't have a significant negative impact on the health of our country and ultimately our domestic security.

I read one blogger's comment referring to federal funding of the reconstruction as taking his money and giving it to someone else, morphing the reconstruction into wealth redistribution. Well, I say that if my tax burden this year goes up a hundred dollars or two in order to rebuild the Gulf Coast then so be it. There is a responsibility we have as members of this national community - a responsibility to help one another. And why in the world we should leave that up to chance, the hope that the private sector will step in and do the job fairly and completely, is beyond me.

We've been told that we're in the midst of a global war on terror and as a nation we have not been asked to sacrifice to fight and win that war. Instead, a small percentage of our fellow citizens are carrying the burden - and future generations will inherit the bill to pay for the war. For once, can our leaders ask us to do something as one? To make the sacrifice of a one-time higher tax bill in order to reconstruct the Gulf Coast and not condemn those hit by Katrina to years of poverty? I believe in the goodness of Americans and believe we'd give what was needed.

Blogs that Make You Think

The following posts are ones that caught me as I surfed the web. Some are insightful, many  informative, others provocative, most are partisan, and all thought provoking. I recommend them.

Michael Berube skewers the modern Republican party adeptly and well. Who knew that we'd ever miss the old Republican party?

James Wolcott explains better than I why it's imperative to push for answers and fix accountability now.

Emma at American Street names and challenges what she labels a southern culture that falsely distinguishes the white poor from the black poor, and leverages that distinction for political gain. The comment thread here adds substance to the post.

Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, makes the case for impeaching the President in this extremely provocative CounterPunch post.

Billmon nails the President for using firefighters in a photo op instead of sending them into NO to rescue trapped Americans and put out the growing number of fires. He's got plenty of suggestions for additional ways to use first responders to solve Bush's PR problems.

Eric Holdeman, Director of the King County, Wash., Office of Emergency Management, provides an interesting overview of FEMA before an after Bush. The real surprise here is found in this excerpt: "This year it was announced that FEMA is to "officially" lose the disaster preparedness function that it has had since its creation. The move is a death blow to an agency that was already on life support. In fact, FEMA employees have been directed not to become involved in disaster preparedness functions, since a new directorate (yet to be established) will have that mission." Huh.

And that's enough for today. It's distressing, infuriating, and just plain sad, sad, sad. What's happening to America?

The Blame Game

Here's the official white house talking point on calls for accountability:

MR. McCLELLAN: What you're doing is trying to engage in a game of finger-pointing and blame-gaming. What we're trying to do is solve problems. (Press briefing 9/7/05)

This is an administration that has been steadfast in its refusal to be held accountable. They now consider accountability to be a game, a blame game of finger pointing. They reduce the necessary burden of accountability, the infamous "buck stops here" nature of leadership, to a child's game of "nyah, nyah, nyah". It's a weak response and one we can't allow.

If the administration is right and the failure in New Orleans is the fault of the local and state government and the citizens who didn't evacuate, then they should embrace the opportunity to determine accountability. That they don't tells us all we need to know.

UPDATE:
Just a note that in today's press briefing, McClellan used a variation of the phrase "blame game" and the and "finger-pointing" sixteen times each.In yesterday's press briefing, he referenced "blame game" six times.The day before, he didn't use it once. Let's make sure this talking point doesnt' grow legs.

Bush is Leading What?

Yesterday morning, Bush announced that he was going to lead an investigation into the response to Katrina:

What I intend to do is lead a -- to lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong. (Bush in response to press question before meeting with the Cabinet.)

Except he's not really going to lead an investigation. If he were then, McClellan's answer to this reporter's question would have been "President Bush" instead of the usual tap dance away from the topic:

Who will do that? I mean, who will lead that -- will it be an outside investigation, or White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I think you heard from the President that we've got to remain focused on the task at hand. We've got to remain focused on getting help to people in the region. (In a press briefing later that day.)

In follow up questions, reporters tried to no avail to get a timeline for the investigation. McClellan parried in two ways: by suggesting that an investigation would detract from rescue and recovery and by reframing a desire for an investigation as playing the "blame game". The reporters were aggressive and consistently retorted that it was really accountability. It was nice to see an aggressive press corp. They even called out McClellan a few times, saying dismissively, "That's a talking point."

Oddly enough, on the following day (today), McClellan said that Bush was going to lead the investigation.

MR. McCLELLAN: You're trying -- well, the President is going to lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong. The President made it very clear yesterday that we are going to look at these issues.

Um, except that's not really what he meant. I think. Oh, shit, now I'm really confused.

Q    Doesn't the President have a conflict of interest leading the investigation since what he did and did not do --

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's -- I don't think that's what he was saying, Terry. I think he was going to say he's going to lead the effort to make sure there's a thorough investigation of things.

Let's see if I understand this. He's going to lead in making sure that there's an investigation?

What happened to the "I say what I mean" president and administration?

Bush/Rove Losing Their Political Nose?

Undoubtedly, the administration announcement that they'll investigate what went wrong in the response to Katrina is a result of the tremendous political pressure they face in light of the suffering of our fellow citizens. I don't think the administration is the right group to investigate, but at least they're acknowledging that an investigation is needed.

Given the endless comments about the political brilliance of the administration, you would think that the announcement of an investigation might reference the grief we feel as a country over our failure to meet the basic needs of those devastated by the storm - food, water, shelter, and safety. But nope. Maybe these guys have lost their political sense of smell. Because instead of a commitment to protecting its citizens and a steely resolve to never let it happen again (Bush likes that steely resolve thing), we instead heard this:

"What I intend to do is lead a -- to lead an investigation to find out what went right and what went wrong. And I'll tell you why. It's very important for us to understand the relationship between the federal government, the state government and the local government when it comes to a major catastrophe. And the reason it's important is, is that we still live in an unsettled world. We want to make sure that we can respond properly if there's a WMD attack or another major storm. And so I'm going to find out over time what went right and what went wrong." (Bush)

I could slam Bush for not caring about the people who suffered but I think he cares. I could slam him for paying more attention to the boundaries of federal power than the needs of Americans, and I'm tempted, but I'll leave it to you to decide if his focus is off. My point here is that the vaunted political genius of Bush/Rove is sorely missing here. And I think it's been off for a while. The campaign for privatizing social security is a waste of money. A defiant insistence on a five week vacation. The refusal to meet Cindy Sheehan and prevent the birth of a new anti-war movement. The failure to visit Ohio when so many soldiers from the same unit died on the same day. Giving a prime time speech to defend his Iraq policies and not offering one new thought. These are all political gaffes. I think they're losing their touch.

Of course, that doesn't mean that we, the loyal opposition, ease up. It means that his is the time to keep the pressure on - in getting all of the Roberts documents, in fighting the repeal of the estate tax, in protecting the courts from an extremist bias, in demanding a clear and executable exit strategy from Iraq, in ensuring that our veterans are cared for, in the follow through on the Katrina evacuees and the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. Despite the endless laments from the conservative punditry, we do have clear goals. We need to keep the pressure on.

In Defense of FEMA

For those who are leaping to the defense of the federal government, may I direct you to the following links.

• FEMA won't accept Amtrak's help in evacuations
• FEMA turns away experienced firefighters
• FEMA turns back Wal-Mart supply trucks
• FEMA prevents Coast Guard from delivering diesel fuel
• FEMA won't let Red Cross deliver food
• FEMA bars morticians from entering New Orleans
• FEMA blocks 500-boat citizen flotilla from delivering aid
• FEMA fails to utilize Navy ship with 600-bed hospital on board
• FEMA to Chicago: Send just one truck
• FEMA turns away generators (See entry from 3:32 P.M. by Ben Morris, Slidell mayor)
• FEMA: "First Responders Urged Not To Respond"

Shameful, no?

Parsing the Rovian Response to Political Crisis

In his Washington Post column today, Dan Froomkin provides an excellent parsing of the classic response of the Bush administration to political crisis:

• Multiple appearances by the president in controlled environments in which he can appear leader-like.
• Extensive use of Air Force One and a massive deployment of spinners.
• No change in policy required.
• No admission of error.
• Attack critics rather than defending against their criticism.
• Throw up chaff to muddle the issue and throw the press off the scent.
• Regular public expressions of outrage over the politicization of the issue and of those who would play the "blame game."
• Ignore the administration's own politicization of the issue and its own efforts to allocate blame.

Froomkin goes on to explain why applying this strategy is a bit trickier with the poor response to Katrina. Let's hope that this time the strategy of misdirection and personal attack doesn't work. After all, this is about our national security. And if the public - even the Dems - saw the administration taking ownership of the federal failures in the past few days, they'd be more supportive and more open to discussing local failures. 

Please, Point Fingers!

Today, I've heard a number of local officials from the Gulf Coast as well as plenty of pundits repeat the mantra, "Now is not the time to point fingers".

Are they getting their talking points from Chertoff or what?

We HAVE to point fingers now. The Bush administration is stellar at avoiding accountability. Let's not help them avoid this one by demurely declaring that now is the time to focus on the rescue and recovery. We're actually capable of doing more than one thing at a time. So let's figure where things went wrong - bi-partisan commission, whatever. Because I'm quite sure that while some responsibility is local, it's not the friggin' mayor's fault that the federal government failed in its fundamental job of protecting its citizens.

Barbara Bush: Evacuees Better Off

So. I was channel surfing through the cable news shows and came across Larry King, suck up extraordinaire, interviewing George Sr. and Barbara. No newsworthy information of course - more of a commercial for how great their son is. He has a strong heart, he's determined, he feels people's pain, he's a man of faith. Uh huh. Parents get to brag on their kids. Of course, when the kid is the President and their bragging on Larry King while the devastation from Katrina is still being uncovered, it's a bit much. I hit my threshold when Barbara said that she'd talked to some evacuees in the AstroDome and they told her that when Bush Jr. flew over the area, it made all the difference in their lives.

REALLY?!? Imagine. Your home city is flooded and you're stranded on a spit of highway. You have no food or water for days. People around you are dying. When food and water are finally delivered, you hear promises of rescue, which doesn't happen for another day. Or two. Or maybe you followed the directive to go the sports arena because you didn't have the means to get out of New Orleans. You suffer heat, dehydration, filth, and violence. You're scared, thirsty, hungry, and locked in. You're promised evacuation. And when the buses come, they're turned away. Finally, you get on a bus in the same clothes you've been wearing for days. You ride for hours in order to be safe, to have food, water and shelter. Whether you come from the highway or the arena, would you really say upon learning that Bush flew over the Gulf Coast that it made all the difference in your life? I think not.

I might excuse this as a poor attempt by a mother to support her son. I was working my way towards that view when I heard that in a different news segment Barbara said: "So many people in the Astrodome were underprivileged anyway so this is working really well for them."

Are you kidding me? This is the statement of someone so fundamentally out of touch with the common man that they really shouldn't let her near a microphone. Does she really think that living in an arena, having gone through a terribly traumatic ordeal, having lost the few possession you had and possibly lost people you love... does she think that's better than living in poverty? That living in a public space on the charity of others with no privacy, no ownership, hundreds of miles from the place you know, sleeping next to strangers in the noise of thousands under lights that are always on... this is better than living in poverty?

I'm ashamed that someone so callous and assuming and uninformed and disconnected was our country's first lady.