Posted on 09/26/2005 10:12:17 AM PDT by kellynla
Almost every aftereffect of Hurricane Katrina has been chronicled and studied, from the impact on survivors to the toll on our emergency response resources.
But there is one more. The results are in, and it's official. Katrina also drove politicians crazy.
I don't mean it unnerved them. I mean it drove them stark-raving, rubber-room bonkers.
To be bipartisan about this, I'll offer as Exhibit A the effect of the hurricane on the leaders of my own party.
A few days ago, there stood President Bush, whom I remember electing to do many things. Chief among the domestic priorities among the 50-some million who joined me was an expectation that he would bring a certain fiscal conservatism we had longed for since Ronald Reagan left office.
We got the tax cuts, and that was good. The economy responded well, and the swelling deficits slowed. But what good is any of that if the president releases a tsunami of our tax dollars amid a misguided crusade to "rebuild" New Orleans?
His critics have embarrassed themselves with the severity and raw nuttiness of their hateful attacks, blaming him for policies that make black people poor and hurricanes more violent.
But I'll give you one criticism that will stick: Our tax dollars will flood New Orleans in an attempt to wash away criticism of federal failings in the wake of Katrina.
It is usually Democrats who drown problems in money, distracting criticism with feel-good platitudes. But this time, it is a Republican chief executive buying into the Great Society-style excess, following what another Republican (and possible presidential candidate) Sen. Lindsey Graham called a "Marshall Plan" for the region.
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
I hate to quibble, but our so-called "leaders" were already out of touch with reality looooooong before these disasters. Current events have merely made it dramaticly clear what a bunch of bonehead idots they actually are.
Gotta agree, W needs to quit spending our money like a sailor on payday. But just imagine what it would be like if Kerry was President now, or Gore.
EXACTLY! They are so out-of-touch with the common folk, it's no longer funny.
"The government's responsibility...dwarfs anything done by criminals [after Katrina]. To start, the federal government invited disaster by offering cheap insurance. That encourages people to build on the coasts. I'm embarrassed to admit I once built a house on a beach in Westhampton, N.Y., because government insurance guaranteed I couldn't lose. When a storm washed my house away, government paid me for my loss. It would have covered me again and again had I rebuilt. (I sold the land.) Government insurance is truly an insane policy. Then came the bureaucratic obstacles. While New Orleans hospitals had no electricity, the U.S.S. Bataan sat just off the coast, equipped with six unused operating rooms and hundreds of hospital beds. Its commander said she could do nothing because she hadn't received a signed authorization. It's reasonable to worry about getting the armed forces involved in law enforcement, but where's the threat to the Constitution if, in the middle of a disaster, a Navy doctor saves your life? In other cases, private enterprise tried to help, but government got in the way. Wal-Mart offered truckloads of water, but was turned away by federal bureaucrats... The deadliest government mistake was made by Congress. The Army Corps of Engineers had said it wanted $27 million to strengthen the levees protecting New Orleans. Congress said no, though our can't-spend-your-money-fast-enough representatives did appropriate more than that for an indoor rain forest in Iowa.
Louisiana
Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat, blamed the president. 'The president could have funded it,' she said. Someday, she should read the Constitution. Only Congress can appropriate federal money... Americans shouldn't filter so much money through Washington. Louisianans don't need Iowa rain forests, and Iowans don't need levees in Louisiana. Maybe the people who want to live in New Orleans should have to pay (through private enterprise or local taxes) the special costs of its exposed location---or live elsewhere. If all local projects, essential and whimsical, were paid for with local taxes, competition among states and cities would force them to become more efficient."
---John Stossel
Just fry a few of the 'porksters' in Congress and there would be a lot more funds available to fund disaster situations. Millions and millions are wasted on special interests and goofy projects and studies... get rid of all the FAT.
Then the GOP Congress would be fighting them on every spending bill and forcing them to compromise by removing large parts of the spending. As they did with Clinton, when federal spending as a % of the GDP was actually falling.
Mark Davis is an interesting talk show host on WBAP as long as you agree with HIM. We heard an interview with a lady who did not agree with him and after she was off the air, Mark proceeded to shred her. He is convinced he's right in everything.
Think weve lost him. A conservative that spends us into the ground. And wont protect our borders..I dont know?? Seems they think we wont sit out 2006.
Your link doesn't work.
"As they did with Clinton, when federal spending as a % of the GDP was actually falling."
I'm not sure where you come up with this. Spending as a % of GNP was actually as high as 21.6% of GNP at one point in the late 90s, a post WW2 high, and stayed about that high for several years. That is part of why the GOP faithful finally gave Newt Gingrich the boot, for caving in to too much Clinton domestic spending.
Domestic spending has actually come down SINCE Clinton left office to now being around 17% of GNP. Don't get me wrong, I still think domestic spending is way out of control. But let's not buy into Clintonite/media myths that spending came down on his watch. We only had lower deficits and Social Security funded surpluses because tax receipts were flooding in, not because of anything Clinton did to cut or control spending.
Yep, GRIDLOCK IS GOOD! Leave's one wanting for the good ole day's. Blackbird.
The current drunken sailor in chief has presided over inflating that number back up to about 20.5% for this year including Katrina spending.
You're right. That's why we're probably better off w/ "gridlock" gvt. Its almost (but not quite) as good as them not meeting at all.
My source was the Wall Street Journal for the figures I cited. I guess I can't dispute the link you sent though I didn't bother to read it since it was just way too much information to deal with right now. I have no reason to disbelieve the Journal's figures however, and the 21.6% I cited was actually a figure from 1998 and 1999, not 1994. They also recently cited the 17% figure for current spending levels.
Anyway, I don't know what to make of the disparity. Maybe I, you or us are misinterepreting something in the data we saw. Perhaps later if I have time I will sort through that PDF file you linked to in order to make heads or tails of it.
However, if spending went down as a percent of GNP under Clinton, it wasn't through spending discipline, that's for sure. It was through the rise of the GNP that the relative portion of spending went down.
Gridlock does have its benefits, especially for those of us who prefer less government interference in our lives. The more time politicians spend in gridlock, the less time they have to pass unnecessary laws.
Seriously, what happened to the Republican party? I'm starting to look back fondly on the Clinton years (with a Republican Congress): "The era of big government is over." Who brought it back?
This whole act was presented as if it was real commentary by concerned citizens just airing their disappointment with our President and Commander-in-Chef.
It was a presentation of sentiment orchestrated and conducted by the Democrat Party who facing the unignorable fact that they have no platform or even remotely recognizable agenda for moving our nation forward have undertaken a silly-assed hodge podge based entirely upon HATRED.
Please note well and vote Republican on all matters in the future,
The reaction about Katrina was mainly led by the mainstream press. They led the way in this hysteria...and now will never admit that their coverage was as disasterous as the storm itself. Yes, we have to fix up the gulf shore because it is in our best interest to fix an area that is so important from an energy standpoint. BUT, the media in this country thrive on conflict and disaster, and their over-the-top reporting, exaggerations are going to cost us all big time...they will never come out and critique their coverage yet lead the way in critizing the government. IN fact, they believe this was their finest hour.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.