24/7/365
"Hurricane Katrina . . . is already jeopardizing President Bush's agenda for cutting taxes and reducing the deficit," according to Edmund Andrews at the Times. It's a reminder that not knowing what they're doing isn't just an occassional hurricane-or-invasion kind of thing for the Bush team, it's the background mode of behavior which these crises interrupt. Think about it -- his agenda for cutting taxes and reducing the deficit! Awesome. What are you even supposed to say anymore about this stuff?
Meanwhile, check out my column on Bush, Katrina, and poverty. Poor people don't just get screwed-over by this administration when floods bury their homes, it happens all the time, and members of the Democratic leadership class rarely bother to make a big deal out of it.
The question, it seems to me, is not whether the agenda is jeopardized, (this event, in my view, is a profound disruption to commerce in the US) but rather, who recognizes this. Judging by the Federal response so far, I think the Bush team still thinks they are in the driver's seat. As Nancy Pelosi noted, this is a dangerous situation, ironically so for a group who was hoping for a catalyst. As I argue in my blog here at TPMCafe, The PNAC boys behind Bush asked for a catalyzing event and in this case they may have gotten more than they bargained for. Unlike the attacks of 9/11, the media will not need to show images and descriptions of the event to bring the effects home to those not in the immediate vicinity, they will be felt on their own. In one of his final interviews in office, President Clinton wryly noted that "They'll (the Bush team) have the microphone." In the aftermath of 9/11 they also had the story to transmit. I certainly hope they have a new narrative now.
September 7, 2005 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm having this argument with a friend who complains that there aren't practical ways of reducing poverty.
Baloney.
A few include: 1) Make the tax code more progressive; 2) Raise the minimum wage; 3) Make sure everyone gets health insurance; 4) increase postsecondary education grants and loans; 5) Restore balance to the labor laws by making it no longer ridiculously easy for employers to kill unionizing drives.
This is not rocket science. The first four of these have long commanded majority public support. The fifth has gotten almost no MSM coverage that I have seen, at any rate.
Unfortunately, the Republican party, with very few individual exceptions on some of these approaches, adamantly opposes every one of these policies.
Specifically, this Administration and Congress has in every case supported the opposite of the above policies: 1) They have made the federal tax code much less progressive; 2) They have blocked efforts to raise the minimum wage although there are a hardy minority of Congressional Republicans not in the party's leadership who would vote to raise it if it came to a vote; 3) They have no plan or even goal to bring about universal health insurance; 4) They have cut college and community college aid to students; 5) They are reliably and virulently anti-labor in their NLRB appointments and labor policies.
As between the two major parties, almost all of the support for these policies comes from Democrats. But you're right: Democrats have not yet as a party found a clear, consistent voice on these issues that has penetrated the RW echo chamber.
September 7, 2005 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor people don't just get screwed-over by this administration when floods bury their homes, it happens all the time, and members of the Democratic leadership class rarely bother to make a big deal out of it.
We are the party of ideals...but we have become the party without a soul. We used to stand up for less fortunate Americans but now we only seem to be concerned with parroting the GOP "family values" mantra as the tonic that will cure all of our ills. We have fallen into the GOP trap, that people who can't help themselves don't deserve help. New Orleans is a great example of that. Who did the conservatives want to blame? The people who stayed in New Orleans, it is their fault they refused to help themselves. And who represented those people? A democratic mayor and governor. Of course the mayor and governor are to blame because they didn't tell the people to help themselves, and they didn't help themselves by asking the feds for help.
LIES...LIES...LIES!!!
Compassionate conservatism my ass!!! Everybody for themselves is more like it. Eat or be eaten...live and let die. Compassion can not be put into practice by words or legislation...it can only become a reality by actions. When are the democrats going to act?
September 7, 2005 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What i find frightening is that they even think talking about a domestic agenda makes sense.
The port that 50% of ag exports flow through is unavailable for probably months and finding an alternative for how to get all those crops sitting on barges up and down the Mississippi out isn't one of their top priorities?
September 7, 2005 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Poor people don't just get screwed-over by this administration when floods bury their homes, it happens all the time, and members of the Democratic leadership class rarely bother to make a big deal out of it."
John Edwards...
September 7, 2005 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
great column.
September 7, 2005 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
An editorial from the Capital Times almost draws a picture of the attitude toward the poor:
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion//index.php?ntid=53192&ntpi
d=0
Excerpts:
Barbara Bush concluded that the poor people of New Orleans had lucked out.
"Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this, this is working very well for them," the president's mother told American Public Media's "Marketplace" program, before returning to her multimillion-dollar Houston home.
On the tape of the interview, Barbara Bush chuckles audibly as she observes just how great things are going for families that are separated from loved ones, people who have been forced to abandon their homes and the only community where they have ever lived, and parents who are explaining to children that their pets, their toys and in some cases their friends may be lost forever. Perhaps Bush was amusing herself with the notion that evacuees without bread could eat cake.
Oh, there is more.
September 7, 2005 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The port that 50% of ag exports flow through is unavailable for probably months and finding an alternative for how to get all those crops sitting on barges up and down the Mississippi out isn't one of their top priorities?
Already pretty much taken care of. Capitalism really is an awesome force - who knows how long it would have taken some socialist/government-based solution to fix things?
The Ports
Ad-Libbing Many Routes, Ships Return to Mississippi
By JEFF BAILEY
Published: September 7, 2005
This article was reported by Jeff Bailey, Alexei Barrionuevo and Charles V. Bagli, and was written by Mr. Bailey.
It may be in fits and starts, but shipping in the gulf region is coming back to life.
In the last few days, ships laden with American grain have been steaming out of the mouth of the Mississippi River headed for overseas markets. And dozens of vessels full of imported goods have been steering away from New Orleans and the harbors of other damaged cities to unload at alternate ports eager for the business.
At a staging area near the river's entrance, called the Southwest Pass, the number of idled ships dwindled to 19 yesterday morning from 86 about a week earlier, the Coast Guard said, as some were rerouted to ports in Texas and elsewhere and others were able to sail upriver to drop off and take on cargo.
The rapid adjustments augur well for the nation's economy, showing how businesses scrambled to preserve the value of cargo.
September 7, 2005 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barbara Bush was exactly right. Limosine liberals like the people at this site have no clue. See this story for examples of people who see the move to Houston as a result of the flood as a good opportunity:
The Displaced
Putting Down New Roots on More Solid Ground
By SUSAN SAULNY
Published: September 7, 2005
HOUSTON, Sept. 6 - In her 19 years, all spent living in downtown New Orleans, Chavon Allen had never ventured farther than her bus fare would allow, and that was one trip last year to Baton Rouge. But now that she has seen Houston, she is planning to stay.
"This is a whole new beginning, a whole new start. I mean, why pass up a good opportunity, to go back to something that you know has problems?" asked Ms. Allen, who had been earning $5.15 an hour serving chicken in a Popeyes restaurant.
September 7, 2005 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure what it means for the agenda but Stephen Moore, someone from the Cato Institute and Grover Norquist were all on CNBC today supporting the permanent elimination of the estate tax, other tax cuts as well as not spending too much on the recovery. I presume it means they believe their dreams of "strangling the government in the bathtub" may be done or they may be showing the flag indicating to Republicans they better not quit.
As aside before we attribute too much wisdom to Barbara Bush's comment lets see how many people have died for some to "have it pretty good." At least we can see where her son gets is deep compassion.
September 7, 2005 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The conservatives are already trying to spin this into support for their agenda of tax cuts and shrinking the government.
Ken Mehlman today said,
Ken Mehlman, Dean's counterpart at the Republican National Committee, said he hoped Dean "will match his rhetoric with his support for reforms that replace bureaucracy and entitlement with hope and opportunity."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9247380/
So the Republicans are already trying to use this event to further their overall agenda while most Democrats are using it to try to attack Bush.
To his credit (and I'm no fan), Dean is trying to tie the thing to issues of race and class, which are big picture issues, but the big Dems, Hillary for example, are focusing on issues of competence. Bush is a tool, a stick that, once broken, the consevatives will throw away and find a replacement for. Their big goal is to continue cutting taxes on the wealthy and weakening the government; they don't care if it's Bush or McCain or Hagel or Frist who does the actual work of it. Making Bush the focus of attacks here is rather like a boxer trying to land a blow on his opponent's hands instead of the body or head.
Democrats are just plain behind the curve on getting a message, and I begin to wonder if they'll ever catch up.
September 7, 2005 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Bush be worried about a going for another tax cut at this stage?
Here he has an opportunity to conveniently channel a large portion of the US $51 billion to his base!!
In contrast, the tax cut to them would have been miniscule.
September 7, 2005 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The root issue is taxes. George can't raise taxes. His dad raised taxes. It ended up a mistake. He can't make the same mistake his dad made. And he'll never go back on his promise not to raise them. Even if it means a total bankruptcy of the economy. His twisted sense of pride and upside down honor system have left no avenue of retreat.
thepeoplechoose
September 8, 2005 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The woman that wants to stay there, may be in for a shock when the TV cameras are turned off. For three days, you are a guest, after that you are a pest.
Just wait until the money quits flowing in from the government and donations.
My point was Barbara should know that these people are in deep pain and dire straights even though they may be in a more "comfortable" situation now.
That isn't the only thing she has said. She also said she couldn't bother her beautiful mind thinking about body bags in Iraq.
She also said she was worried about Social Security for her grandchildren. B.S. As if they would ever work long enough to draw Social Security. They are filthy rich.
Only Barbara could have spawned George Bush.
September 8, 2005 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Steve Sailer said it best:
I definitely agree with the reader who said that Bush takes after his mother. Barbara Bush definitely has a reputation behind the scenes as a pretty nasty and unforgiving person. I think that her fairly good reputation with the public is based on a) Nancy Regan was so reviled in many quarters that her successor was bound to be positively contrasted with her, whether accurately or not and b) She wrote a book and said her dog wrote it, which was regarded as cute.
September 8, 2005 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her dog did write the book.
September 8, 2005 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. This is getting to the point. What the republicans are good at is demanding accountability for every penny spent on social programs and then pointing to the tiniest waste or fraud as being typical.
Conversely, macho programs that bring tears to the eyes of veterans must have black budgets, no accountability for fear of spilling state fraud secrets, and so on.
Republicans will tell you that racism is a backseat issue to making schools accountable for education, it is teachers who are the problem.
And universities that offer courses about poor cultures are wasting taxpayer money as well. Exposing future citizens and voters to the realities of the world might lead to national discussions of poverty, racism, inequality, and we all know how messy that can get.
The republicans are terrified of that slippery slope that occurs when the American public is woken from their stupor to realize that it is they who are slipping into poverty and it is they who may demand that condition change.
September 8, 2005 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess this calamity enabled by the federal government is really part of their war on poverty. Flood out the poor- the ones that don’t drown can find great opportunity elsewhere! A hand up, not a hand out! A refugee from a destroyed city says that they are not going back (and what about that 5.15 an hour?). I’m sure you could argue that some of the poor might be eating better in the shelters than they were at home. So what. To imply that the devastation in the aftermath of Katrina that was allowed to happen to these wounded people is some golden opportunity is really twisted.
September 8, 2005 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Hurricane Katrina . . . is already jeopardizing President Bush's agenda for cutting taxes and reducing the deficit,"
Let's hope so. What's wrong with these people? We have two major planning disasters which can be attributed to this administration, which have cost many lives. In addition, many lesser demonstrations of their incompetence are in plain view. The whole world is tuned in. They are still making up their own realities. Just give capitalism and tax cuts a chance, and New Orleans will be up and running in a few weeks.
New Orleans is my home town, and I am beyond grief-stricken. My daughter and her family live in Jefferson Parish, and they still cannot go home, although their home is intact and not flooded.
If you hear any administration officials say, "How could we have known?", you will know they are lying. Just go read this from the Baton Rouge, La. Advocate.
I know Ivor van Heeden. He has been at meetings with FEMA and Homeland Security to present his doomsday scenario; they snickered at him. Ivor is a passionate man, and knows whereof he speaks. If you were not persuaded by Ivor, it was because you had closed your mind and did not want to be persuaded. Remember, "How could we have known?", is a lie.
I have weathered two fairly recent hurricanes, Betsy and Andrew, but I will never do so again. Ivor, among others, has convinced me to get the hell out.
September 8, 2005 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you all insist in bashing Democrats every time you open your freakin' traphole? I mean, this really ticks me off, and I'm as liberal as they come. What the hell IS the "Democratic Leadership Class"? It's YOU, dammit. And me, and everyone whose thoughts are given wide distribution, such as on this site. There is no Trilateral Commission of cigar smoking Democrats holed up and making all the calls for the party. There's just you and me and a bunch of minority elected officials in DC trying to roll a very big boulder up a very steep hill to get noticed. I don't know where the hell you've been, but I've seen some of my party's leaders burn some serious holes in some Bush Administration a-holes these past few days.
Every time I see one of these "The Bush Admin is ridiculous but the Democrats suck too, sigh, sigh, sigh, aren't I so above the fray and all and very very moral" posts I remember why we've lost so much ground recently. If you can't be a team player, stop playing at all. You're not doing anyone any good.
September 8, 2005 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
To imply that the devastation in the aftermath of Katrina that was allowed to happen to these wounded people is some golden opportunity is really twisted.
Huh, that's interesting, since it was one of the refugees evacuees HERSELF that called this an "opportunity." I can't believe that you'd call one of those desperate refugees evacuees "twisted".
September 8, 2005 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now you’re twisting what I said. If my house burned down, I might try to look at the bright side and say, “Well, it’s a chance to build a better house.” But if someone else told me, “so your house burned down, it’s an opportunity for you,” it is insulting (especially if it was the fireman who stood by and watched my house burn to the ground). You can pretend to be blind to the context, but it’s still there. “Let them eat cake” out of context, is a thoughtful and compassionate sentiment. Barbara Bush just let her true colors show
P.S. Someone seeking refuge is a refugee, it doesn't seem derogatory to me.
September 8, 2005 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will continue to blast the New Democrats. They are the ruination of the Democrats. They take turns helping the Republicans put their bills through which always hurt the middle class and help the rich.
Before the last election, I can't tell you how many voters told me that the Democrats are just like the Republicans, except the Democrats believe in gay marriage, abortion and want to take our guns.
Personally, I own a gun. I want to keep it. I don't think gay marriage is necessary. They can legalize their relationship through a lawyer with wills and contracts. They can have a big wedding and marry, now. They just can't register it. That battle isn't worth all the votes our party has lost because of it.
We need to make the point that abortion is a matter of choice. You can vote for a Democrat and be a Democrat without having an abortion.
What do we offer people once they have struggled past gag?(gays, abortion guns) Voting with the Republicans?
September 11, 2005 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink