These are all excellent questions and ones that should be answered no matter who is in charge.  Thanks.

Will the President insist on cutting spending to "pay for" the Gulf?

He's already said he won't raise taxes to pay for the reconstruction costs, that he was going to cut spending in other areas to pay for it.  9/11 was a disaster to the rest of the country, but to conservatives, it was an opportunity to further their "starve the beast" agenda by running up huge war debts.  Katrina was a disaster for the rest of the country, but to conservatives, it is an opportunity to further their "starve the beast" agenda by siphoning money away from other areas to pay for the reconstruction.  George W Bush's presidency has been a disaster for the rest of the country, but wealthy conservatives have used Bush to cut taxes on themselves, and further their "starve the beat" agenda.

The question is, will the public see that the disastrous response to Katrina was caused, in part, by the Republican agenda of cutting taxes on the wealthy, and starving government spending until the government was unable to perform its most basic task, IE, protecting people?  I see the message getting out there a little bit, but when Bush stated publicly, yesterday,, that he was going to cut spending in response to this, and a leftistish pundit asks how Bush is going to pay for it the next day, I have to wonder about the competency of the people who are supposed to be speaking for me.    

Perhaps you have noticed that in the last few days the media has focused on the Insurance Industry's efforts to make a difference between damage by wind in the Hurricane, and damage by the storm serge that was part of the same storm, and then flooding from the back end of the storm surge which was what apparently did in much of NOLA.  By these means they are attempting to get out of paying out.  It is as if the Hurriane were a totally independent event from the flood and the surge. 

I suppose it will take the courts to figure whether one could have happened independent of the other -- but that will take years and jury after Jury. 

Isn't it time to attach Hurricane protection to all property owners in the ripe zones.  What I have in mind is essentially what Germany did after 1951 regarding war losses -- none of which were covered by insurance.  They decided that if the financial loss per property was less than 20 % of value -- no compensation.  Between 20 and 50% they capped the compensation.  Then it was pro-rated over 50%.  Likewise a tax was imposed on all property that had sustained lesser damage, and on personal estates that also had escaped relative damage, and that created a fund for re-hab and new construction that continued to grow well into the 1980's.  (The Grants to Jews who had survived and moved to Israel came off the top of the fund). 

I am not suggesting that this be copied -- I am suggesting that the Insurance Industry ought not to go scot free based on crazy definations of the situation -- and that Americans be told that under our occupation auspices in Germany, there was a decision that attempted to distribute the loss and create equity in the cost of rebuilding.   

Excellent questions, but what are your answers?  What are the policy positions that the Democratic Party should take?  Are you suggesting that Democrats merely snipe at any actions the White House takes and oppose every proposal they make? 

Leadership requires offering real alternatives, not merely asking questions.  Should the Democratic Party insist on cutting spending to "pay for" rebuilding the Gulf or should it call for increased taxes?  Do you think it should oppose some of the rebuilding efforts? 

Also, a question about Question 4.  How does one determine what expenditures or actions produce benefits to "actual victims of the hurricane and flood"?  For example, would tax incentives to encourage business growth to provide jobs for previously unemployed citizens of New Orleans produce benefits for the victims or merely advance a social agenda? 

Doesn't the answer to Question 9 require a vision as to what "different coastal zone" you want to have at the end of the day?  If the goal is to rebuild New Orleans more or less as it was, that implies certain regulations as being "necessary" to effect that rebuilding.  If that should not be the goal, then an alternative vision needs to be offered. 

The question seems to imply allowing the rebuilding of New Orleans to continue, but opposing the regulations needed to effect that rebuilding as being environmentally unsound. 

If the country should make environmental reforms, you need to describe your vision of the "different coastal zone" and the regulations needed to effect that vision.  If that requires that New Orleans not be rebuilt, you need to step up to the plate and argue for that.

Cheers.

Not to delve into each question in detail, but four sweeping things to do to start:

1. Repeal the Bush tax cuts as proposed by Bill Clinton.

2. Appoint a Democrat of good repute to oversee the reconstruction project and an ombudsman or inspector general with strong spending oversight. 

3. Draw down troops from Iraq.

4. Begin any spending cuts from pork projects and defense budget. 

 5. Is it true that refugees are not going to be allowed to enroll children in public school, and otherwise obtain social benefits, in their new locations?

Mmm, no.  Forty thousand new children have been enrolled in Texas schools.  FEMA will not pay for the cost of the teachers or textbooks needed to school them but will pay for additional portable classrooms.  I don't think there's any decision yet about how NCLB will be affected by the increased school population.  Unless other arrangements are made, the additional costs of schooling these children appear to fall on local school districts with some help from the State of Texas. 

Federal benefits seem to be sorting themselves out.  The Treasury Department is doing all sorts of things to make sure that folks get whatever checks they are normally entitled to (i.e., what they were getting in Louisiana).  Evacuees are being admitted to assorted state programs as well.  I met with the staff of one of those programs today, and the worry is that more people have not applied to the program.  Only 90 have applied so far, when the expectation was that 1000 would need their services.

No doubt a lot of folks are falling through the cracks, and outreach efforts are needed, but there has been a concerted effort--as far as I can tell--to meet educational, social, and health needs as much as possible.  How long it lasts, who pays for it--well, those are the questions we're asking around here.

5. Is it true that refugees are not going to be allowed to enroll children in public school, and otherwise obtain social benefits, in their new locations?

Not true; is a state by state decision. There were already plenty of stories about how Texas took in lots of kids into public school; Perry said it as soon as they took them in!  And In New York, they are going to school (read a long piece in the NYT a few days ago on a high school age girl that came with her mother from N.O., and the reporter followed them around as they registered for school. She got special preferences over the NYC kids, she got into a specialty school for the performing arts, which is why she decided to come here instead of elsewhere, wants to be an actress. Was also jumped ahead in the line for registration, had someone help.)

They are getting benefits, even without proper I.D. at risk of fraud; story today in New York Times:

September 17, 2005

Out of Katrina's Wake, Victims Find Aid in Harlem

At an old welfare office, families find housing, counseling, and cash

By NINA BERNSTEIN

Using a model developed to help bereaved families after 9/11, New York has turned one floor of an old Harlem welfare office into a welcoming center where several hundred Katrina storm survivors are finding one-stop disaster assistance.

The center, which opened at noon Thursday, had handled more than 300 people from 100 families by Friday evening, city officials said, describing them as people who had made their way on their own from the storm-devastated Gulf region to join friends and family in New York. State rules for identification were waived so that no one would be denied public aid for lack of documents lost in the flood.

"We wanted to make these people feel welcome," said Bob McHugh, a spokesman for the city's Human Resources Administration. He said employees worked around the clock to remodel the space for the city's Office of Emergency Management, which is in charge of the overall operation. "These people are traumatized, and New York's going to be there for them."

<snip>

Nicholas said they had walked out of their house in New Orleans' Carrollton section in waist-high water two days after the storm, gathering what belongings they could, including important documents. With rides from friends and strangers, they made their way to Texarkana, Tex., and finally, after learning from an online bulletin board that Ms. Clifton's brother in New York was looking for her, they flew to New York with the help of the Federal Emergency Management Administration, or FEMA. Ms. Clifton had not seen her brother in seven years, Nicholas said.

Ms. Clifton, who said that before the flood she worked at the Place d'Armes Hotel in the French Quarter and was a student at Southern University, soon had a hotel room provided by the Red Cross, and had signed up for other benefits.

Initially, New York State prepared for many more than the 750 or so people who have shown up in county social services offices since the hurricane, said Joseph F. Bruno, the city's emergency management commissioner. Until Monday, officials at FEMA, had planned to send planeloads of Katrina evacuees to the state, and the city and six counties had volunteered to take them in - including Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Erie, Onondaga and Monroe.

Camp Smith near Bear Mountain had been selected as a staging area for up to 1,500 at a time and the state had agreed to accept as many as 5,000. Then the state, city and county officials who had mobilized for the event were told mass transports were off. Apparently too many evacuees resisted a secondary migration so far from home, Robert Doar, commissioner of the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, said yesterday.

Meanwhile, however, the state relaxed the rules for obtaining public benefits like food stamps, Medicaid and cash assistance. "If someone presents themselves as a victim of Katrina and doesn't have a driver's license or ID, those document requirements should be waived," Mr. Doar said yesterday.

"The situation in New Orleans was unprecedented. We wanted to respond in a way that showed the heart of New York, and we have."

At the same time, he added, counties were told, "Don't completely forget about the fact that there are unfortunate people in your cities and towns who will attempt to abuse this."

At the center, which will be open seven days a week - 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday - most of those seeking help Friday night had documentation, officials said.

Before reaching the center at 530 W. 135th Street, near Broadway, many had stopped at a welcome center set up nearby in the Great Hall of City University of New York, where weary families were issued photo ID's, screened by health care workers, and collected free MetroCards, diapers, comfort kits and cots.

Officials said they expected about 50 families a day. Mr. Bruno suggested that most would eventually return home to rebuild their city. But some seemed ready to put down roots.

Ollie Stewart, who worked at a home for abused children in New Orleans and lived in the Garden District, said his mother wound up in Tennessee and his sister in Georgia. But he likes what he has seen since Sept. 2, when he moved in with his 37-year-old brother, Darryl Bloodsaw. After picking up a Red Cross debit card worth $360 for 14 days, he said he was planning to stay in New York.

"They're taking care of me here," he said, "showing me mad love."

Peter Beller contributed reporting for this article.

Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 13 - Simplified Acquisition Procedures allows that now for up to $100,000 and has for many years.  Those purchases still must be documented and are subject to audit.  This bumps the threshold.

If 65% of the contracts are under $250K what percentage of the total dollars does it represent?

On more thought, and after finding this second article, I thought, why would you even think it true? People are free to move from state to state in this country, rent in a new place, and enroll the kids in school! I know there is a waiting period for benefits in lots of states but school shouldn't be a problem. Anyhow, this piece is on how 'refugees' are moving into the southern cities where there is a 'buyers market' in rentals, and how the property owners are glad to have them. The graphic has a map of people in shelters in the 10-state are as of yesterday and and the apartment vacany rates in those same states.

September 16, 2005

Invasion of the Reluctant Renters

By ERIC DASH and DAVID LEONHARDT

MEMPHIS, Sept. 15 - Eric Summers saw thousands of high-stakes wagers come across his tables as a blackjack dealer and pit boss at Harrah's Casino in New Orleans. But after watching Hurricane Katrina ravage his city, Mr. Summers made the biggest bet of his life: he moved his wife and three children to Memphis, where he had no family, no job and no place to live.

"I wasn't going back to New Orleans after I saw all that damage," Mr. Summers said.

<snip>

"This is home now," Mr. Summers said. "It's just a shame it took a hurricane to help us move."

Federal officials say 400,000 to as many as a million people from the Gulf Coast region have scattered across the nation in the days after the storm, in perhaps the country's largest single migration since the Civil War. While hundreds of thousands flocked to nearby cities like Houston and Baton Rouge, La., others like the Summers family have fanned out along a crescent of cities farther from New Orleans where, as luck would have it, thousands of apartments were available.

From San Antonio to St. Louis to Atlanta, the economies of these cities have chugged along in recent years, missing out on the booms and busts on the East and West Coasts. Yet there has long been a glut of empty apartments in these areas, as new buildings sprang up and lower interest rates made it more attractive for renters to buy homes.

As a result, evacuees have encountered plenty of affordable options, and local property managers have seen a small but noticeable boom.

"It's been a double-edged sword," said Mark Fogelman, president of Fogelman Management Group, which owns more than 5,500 apartments in the Memphis area and has found units for at least 90 evacuees. "It has definitely helped our rental market, but you hate to be a beneficiary because of someone else's misfortune."

In Memphis, the Summerses -- who plan to remain here for the long term -- have at least two dozen new neighbors in their apartment complex alone who, like them, came searching for work, housing and, perhaps, a fresh start. The Summers' landlord, Fogelman, has waived their rent for up to six months.

Local leaders report that more than 6,000 families displaced from New Orleans and other towns along the Gulf Coast have registered with the Red Cross in Memphis. With extended hotel stays too expensive and the realization sinking in that the damage to their homes may prevent them from moving back any time soon, many are also fast becoming the city's newest renters.

Most, of course, will ultimately leave. But the evacuees are expected to stay at least three months to a year as their homes and offices are rebuilt. Some may live here even longer once spouses find work and their children settle into new schools.

Before Hurricane Katrina hit, Houston and Dallas had the two highest vacancy rates in the country, according to Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Company, in Encino, Calif. More than 10 percent of apartments were empty in both cities. Memphis and Atlanta were not far behind.

Nationally, the average vacancy rate is 6.5 percent.

Both Atlanta and Dallas have lost thousands of technology jobs, noted Hessam Nadji, a managing director at Marcus & Millichap. Houston suffered from Enron's meltdown. Memphis, one of the nation's biggest distribution centers and the headquarters of FedEx, and St. Louis have tepid economies that have been creating jobs at a slower rate than the rest of the country.

The slow job growth meant that relatively few people were moving to the region, while some of the people already there decided to live with their parents or another relative for longer than planned.....

continued in full @ New York Times

Graphic: Refugees and Apartments, 10 states in the South

In regards to number 9, the environmental restoration:

Unless the insurance industry steps up and demands wetlands restoration to reduce their future liability, the Gulf Coast will be as badly designed or worse.  Environmentalists and coastal scientists (e.g., experts from the Gulf Coast universities) will be completely shut out of the process.   The fishing industry might also be a lobbyist for wetlands restoration, as coastal wetlands are the nurseries for many types of fish. 

In addition, how long until we see the GOP propose suspension of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, or suspension of the Endangered Species Act along the Gulf Coast?

As a theoretical aside, how would "the market" handle the design of the Gulf Coast with regards to creating wetland buffers that can diminish storm surge and clean up runoff before it enters the productive fisheries of the Gulf?  It seems to me that all of the feedback mechanisms are slow and long term.  For example, a decline in fish catches as compared to the market value of a huge condo development on a barrier island? 

I think they wanted suggestions of what to do now, not a list of Democrat talking points for every interview they've given since 2001 (all you guy's that have been rating me as a 1, just because you don't like what I say, have to admit that this one was pretty clever. How about a couple of 2's for this one, except for the "Democrat of good repute," which will be almost impossible to find in Louisianna, it is just a rerun of the "Nancy & Harry Show")

3. When will the WH's next run at social security take place, or do you really think there won't be another try?

This will be a low-level geurilla war now. They are still sending out the propagandistic press releases you can get here. I got one 9/16 with this bit of info:

U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint And U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan Moving Forward To Strengthen Social Security: "U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint is behind a GOP plan to breathe life into the Social Security debate... DeMint worked the phones this summer, calling congressional colleagues to make sure the idea didn't lose steam. 'Jim's really the guy who got us off the dime on this. We're planning on moving on this bill,' said U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. 'It's a jump-start bill because it's a consensus bill, and the first thing we need to do is stop the raid on Social Security.' Ryan is a sponsor of the House version of what he and DeMint call the 'Stop the Raid' bill." (Lauren Maroke, "DeMint To Revisit Social Security," The [SC] State, 9/12/05)

 And you better believe they're looking at ways to sneak it in if at all possible.

In both the original questions raised by Reed, and the questions in this comment, the BIG question is elided.  This pattern of much discourse but systematic (and obviously "mandatory" -- repressed -- in the real America) evasion of the $64K question is typical.   The way that the media systematically avoided debunking the flipflop spin for 5 months, not seriously beginning until well after the Republican Convention was safely over, is a classic illustration.  Lots of discussion, but like the old expression -- water water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.

      The big question (and there is a second significant one that has been downplayed -- namely the environment and energy policy, as raised by Greenpeace and outlined by Todd Gitlin) is that is avoided in what is characteristic of the theatric arena that only masquerades as a 'free marketplace of ideas' or as a (perhaps imperfectly level) playing field, rather than the national machine of justifying the lying and parmesan than it really is is:

Are the partisan Republican plans (much ballyhooed as nonparisan especially at the astroturf roots) not to fully rebuild NOLA, but to have only a truncated version of the City, displacing hundreds of thousands of mainly lower income bracket black residents going to continue to be seriously challenged by progressives and liberals in the media and society?

The notion of a quasi-New Orleans, according to a Bush/Halliburton/Hastert et al vision of the City replacing what was there before, with the progressive half or more of US society and its opinion leaders only punting where it counts as usual, is horrifying.   Let us note how, since Hastert's rather crude "bulldoze" remarks have faded, the RW juggernaut on the issue.
The Wall Street Journal has both editorially commented in favor of the idea, and run a full scale commentary, called "The Rationale for a Scaled-Back New Orleans", supporting that by one of their major columnists.   Steve Chapman has run a major column in the Chicago Tribune to the same effect, one cited on the widely used RealClearPolitics.com website (mainly RW stuff).
The New York Times, on the other hand, only mentions in the final paragraphs of a lengthy article on plans for rebuilding NOLA that 'some scientists, urban planners, and commentators" have called for a partial rebuilding, then citing a prescient comment by an opponent of this juggernaut pointing out that no such things are said about rebuilding Florida repeatedly after hurricane destruction.   But the Times both trivializes a major issue, burying it from serious progressive concern, and makes it seem a nonpartisan issue which is the opposite of the truth.  (I sent them an LTTE which I will attach).

Progressives need to start FORCING through our own discourse and actions the very free marketplace of ideas that is suppressed in the US, starting with open and specific challenges to how this suppression goes on, with Chomsky on the press and foreign policy being merely a first step.   This truncation of discourse -- a plan for NOLA that as far as I know, no respected black national political figure or mainstream/progressive organization has supported (interesting since the overwhelming majority of those who would be directly impacted by this "idea" are black) is a scandal in and of itself.   International press should be taken by the hand so they will explicitly report it, even though, like the Downing St Memo, coverage in the US will inevitably be truncated.

     None of these discussions of NOLA that I have seen (or heard at the astroturf roots) about not rebuilding a City below sea level have yet mentioned the word "landfill".


      If we are going to ask questions about NOLA -- LET'S ASK THE BIG ONE, the elephant in the room that the RW is freely advocating but the liberals are barely even whispering about into their bvds.  (as usual)

But even if that was not the case, how can anyone on the Left (or even the principled conservative wing) believe anything that Bush says about cutting spending? He has been talking about cutting spending for years, and yet still signs every spending bill, even though putting his pen to the bulging and pulsing pile of pork and ears (earmarks, that is) could cause a huge explosion.  

The whole "starve the beast" strategy is based on the idea of spending the government into the ground, so government spending will have to be cut.  It's why things like Katrina are godsends for the conservative movement, no matter the short term political fallout: Katrina presents them with an opportunity to spend money on non-recurring projects, IE, ones that have a finite lifespan.  So they have to spend a few hundred million on Katrina now.  To pay for it, maybe a cut in welfare, or education, or military benefits, maybe all of them.  The spending on Katrina will be over soon, but the cuts will be permanent.  Similarly, a lot of Bush's new spending has been on the military for his War on Terra.  Again, the War on Terra has a finite lifespan (even if we don't know what it is), while the cuts made to pay for it will be permanent.  It isn't as simple as knowing they are spending like drunken sailors in a whorehouse; you have to watch what they are spending on.  

I screwed up on the second link -- it should have been this thread I linked to.  It amazed me that Hundt didn't know Bush had already said he was going to find cuts to pay for Katrina.  

If you are concerned about your dissenting ideas being treated with fairness and civility, why do you indulge yourself the (at the macro level of US society, privileged) incivility of referring to "Democrat" talking points instead of the more neutral and less perjorative "Democratic" talking points?   I wouldn't expect postings from me referring to Repuglicans (appropriate as far as I am concerned as long as they continue to refer to the "Democrat" Party) at a Repuglican website to get much of a positive response.

    It appears that your squeaking wheel, however, has gotten some positive results.   I must say that a 3.66 rating for a comment of such little substance and coherence as that is rather generous!   It reflects the ease with which liberals are guilt tripped, especially from rightwing interests they know to be powerful at the more macro level.   I would like to see Democrats more willing to exercise the loyalty that looks past flaws when necessary and the solidity in aggressiveness and willingness to complain about ANY injustice or slight that those on the right have.   But alas, the further left AUTHENTICALLY you go on the political spectrum (red-headed league copperheads masquerading as progressives are another issue somewhat) the more obviously craven the deference to those less authentically progressive or more overtly rightwing is.   When progressive wheels squeak, including in progressive venues, there have to be special reasons for a response.   The opposite solititude occurs at RW web-sites. 

     So RWers are treated with extra deference at liberal websites, while progressives (eg at NationalLedger.com, before they ditched their discussion board altogether) are treated with NEGATIVE deference at rightwing ones, and most of the complaints about political discrimination are then levelled at the left.

    All is right, and keep the aspidistra falling, to borrow a phrase from George Orwell, in such matters.

Better to allow some of the poor people to settle elsewhere.

The poor, like the rich, can settle in any city or state that they can get to and afford. They don't need to be allowed to do so. New Orleans was home to a large number of poor people before Katrina, so those people need the same government assistance the rest of NO needs so that they can chose to return if they wish to do so.

"allow some of the poor people to settle elsewhere"
Do you guy's realize how "NE elitist" you sound? We're not talking about cattle, or transplanting trees here. These are people who called New Orleans home, some for generations. Those that want to return will return. Those who don't won't. Neither will require your permission or approval!!!