Picking Up the Tab
How much will it cost to clean up and rebuild the Gulf Coast? Harry Reid says $150 billion. Now, the Wall Street Journal reports that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg says it could go as high as $200 billion. That's more than three times what has been spent by all levels of government on post-9/11 aid in current dollars.
At some point, someone's going to have to figure out how to pay for this clean-up; after all, there's only so much we can ring up on the national MasterCard, isn't there?
A good place to start is the $286.4 billion highway bill passed about a month ago. As John McCain pointed out in opposing the bill, it contained a record number of pork-barrel projects -- 6,376 or about five times the amount in 1998 -- totalling $24 billion. It's not nearly enough to cover the Katrina's total tab, but it's the most obvious place to look when it comes to cuts.
Now, asking Senators and Members of Congress to cut out the goodies they just got is about as easy as ripping a steak out of the jaws of a lion -- unless, of course, there's leadership. All it takes is someone to tell the American people that their fellow Americans need their help -- that the new biking trails, $223 million bridges to nowhere, horse-riding centers, and "Motorcycle Crash Causation Study Grants" will have to wait. Fortunately, we all know that almost all Americans would gladly go along, and unfortunately, that neither the President nor the congressional leadership has the courage to ask for this sacrifice.
Saving the estate tax wouldn't be a bad start either.
I'm not in favor of filibustering very often, but if 41 Democrats won't stand up against the estate tax repeal, I'll join all the mouth-breathers out there on the left who enjoy bashing Democrats more than they enjoy bashing Republicans.
Filibustering the estate tax repeal is obviously good policy, but it's good politics too.
September 7, 2005 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll go a step farther the petey and say not only not repeal the Estate Tax but maybe levy a small, lets say just as an example, 1% national sales tax for a set period of time. If the people knew that the revenue would go only to rebuild the Mississippi, Alabama coasts and NOLA they would probably support it. But the revenues could only go to rebuilding the Gulf Coast states ravaged by Katrina, and only for a set period of time. Americans are charitable and if the were sure the money would go to reduilding, and the tax would be temporary, they would probably support it.
September 7, 2005 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
So I'm supposed to "go along" in spending $200 billion to build bridges to barrier islands for condos, to drain wetlands for subdivisions, and to rebuild Sen. Lott's front porch so he can sit there sipping his mint julep while watching the next hurricane roll in over his beautiful Gulf coast panorama?
Democrats -- the party of the Little Big Man.
September 7, 2005 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen--My first response was to roll my eyes at your tone, but of course you're on to something. There's every expectation that somethign with this high a price tag will be a corruption and dumb-development magnet and that it could well do very little serve those most brutally affected by the disaster, or for that matter the nation as a whole.
Let me suggest three principles for the development, just sort of plucked out of thin air:
1) Gets the Port of New Orleans up and running as soon as possible, keeping in mind
2) Mitigating the long term effects of the enormous environmental catastrophe and
3) Building is done in a manner to prevent damage/destruction from future seaborne disasters.
I think within these parameters some pretty radical things could happen. But it will require a lot of oversight and transparency to ensure it's not just money shot down a rat hole.
September 7, 2005 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . it will require a lot of oversight and transparency to ensure it's not just money shot down a rat hole.
And with the Republican trough-hounds in complete charge of the government, should we Democrats - virtually none of whose districts are involved -- be signing up so enthusuastically for this line-the-Republican-party's-pockets boondoggle?
Just asking.September 7, 2005 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well again, depends what you're signing up for. Keeping the Port of New Orleans open affects everyone--that's non-negotiable.
And if nothing else, running against Halliburton isn't the worst thing to do in '06.
September 7, 2005 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keeping the Port of New Orleans open affects everyone-- that's non-negotiable.
Agreed. Although I hadn't heard there was that much damage to it.September 7, 2005 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen wrote:
No! You're supposed to "go along" in spending $200 billion to rebuild the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people who suffered this catastrophe. Hopefully, some of the money will be spent on wetland restoration and other environmental projects that could help mitigate future disasters in the area. I prefer not to dwell too long on the prospect from Sen. Lott's porch but I do hope that all the survivors will be able to view the prospect from their homes once again.
September 7, 2005 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, the folks who run it need a place to live. that sort of thing.
All that to say, there are a million ways of doing this wrong and only a few of doing it right...
September 7, 2005 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink