Political MoJo

Delivery of three tons of food postponed by Bush's visit

| Wed Sep. 7, 2005 4:57 PM EDT

On Friday, September 3, three tons of food ready for helicopter delivery to stranded residents of St. Bernard Parish and Algiers Point sat in trucks on the Crescent City Connection because all air traffic--including emergency rescue traffic--was halted so that Bush could enter New Orleans and announce that "the results are not enough."

Thanks to Just Ain't Right for alerting me to this story. Amtrak trains, U.S. Forest Serivce carriers, and Red Cross supplies were all prevented from reaching people because FEMA thought--well, who knows what they thought?--and then food was kept from hurricane victims because of a visit from Bush. Sandbags were ready to patch the levee, but the Blackhawk helicopter that was to block them never arrived, causing waters to rise at a deadly rate. Then people were forced to leave their companion animals to starve, drown, or die of starvation.

There is no way to spin this into anything acceptable, no matter how many late-night phone calls Karen Hughes makes or how many memos Karl Rove scribbles. I have talked with Louisianians of every poliitcal persuasion, and they all say the same thing: What happened was disgusting, and there can be no reasonable explanation for it.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

"No to the last pharaoh"

Wed Sep. 7, 2005 3:35 PM EDT

Egypt voted today in what some have hailed to be a breakthrough for democracy in the Middle East. It is the first time during Hosni Mubarak's 24-year authoritarian rule that candidates from opposition parties were allowed.

But of course, the elections today hardly single the opening for democracy in Egypt. The so-called "free and fair" elections were anything but as the government banned protests hours before voting began.

Then there was the fact that the government tried to keep international monitors and human rights groups from the polling stations – a decision that was backed yesterday by Egypt's Supreme Administrative Court. The Court in fact went so far as to rule that the voting process was free from any judicial review.

Then there is the actual constitutional amendment that set the elections into place – Article 76 – an anti-democratic reform designed to preserve the status quo. Besides allowing for multi-party elections, Article 76 also outlawed the largest opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, and made it virtually impossible for independent candidates to run at all.

And what of Kefaya – the group whose name in Arabic means "enough"? The affiliation of leftist intellectuals, Islamists, and progressive secular activists who have organized protests and demonstrations in opposition to the Mubarak regime have been thwarted with government violence and intimidation at every turn. Over the past weeks riot police have beaten and arrested protesters, just as they did back in May. While some demonstrators held posters that read "No to the last pharaoh" and chanting "Poverty – kefaya! Torture – kefaya!" any effective opposition has been all but prohibited.

While this election is anything but legitimate, Bush and his crew will attempt to sanction it with the blessing of the United States, because the White House so desperately needs a positive democratic election in the Middle East in order to promote its foreign policy as a success. Unfortunately, if Bush praises this election, he will be sending the absolute wrong message. In effect, Bush will be telling those who long for democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere abroad that it doesn't matter of elections come with government suppression and violence and intimidation and it doesn't matter of elections are decided by legislation in advance of the vote as long the charade of freedom is maintained.

Why Oversight Matters

| Wed Sep. 7, 2005 2:19 PM EDT

While everyone else is parceling out blame for the inept response to Hurricane Katrina, and even Michelle Malkin—Michelle Malkin!—is calling for FEMA director Michael Brown to be fired, I think it's worth pointing the finger in a different, somewhat unexpected direction: the Senate Democrats who approved Brown's nomination on a voice vote in 2002. Obviously this pales beside the issue of having a president tap one of his cronies' former roommates—whose previous experience included being fired from the Arabian Horse Association—for a top disaster relief spot. But it does put the lie to the idea that Congress should just defer to the president when he makes his picks for various federal agencies. A little more scrutiny would have been appreciated.

New at Mother Jones

| Wed Sep. 7, 2005 12:59 PM EDT

Sucker's Bets for the New Century
By Bill McKibben
The U.S. After Katrina

The Wrong Side of History
By Patrick Mulvaney
William Rehnquist lived to see much of his pro-death penalty work undermined.

Paul Allen's Other Yacht
By Paul Rogat Loeb
You can tell a nation's soul from the state of its budgets. So are we really going to abolish the estate tax?

New at Mother Jones

| Tue Sep. 6, 2005 6:28 PM EDT

Hurricane Katrina: Why Was the Impact So Huge?
Despite what President Bush says, a disaster on the Gulf Coast has been predicted for years. Mother Jones Radio speaks with journalists William Bunch and Mike Dunne, relief provider Ginger Ferguson, and Lainey Poche, a Lousiana National Guard sergeant in Iraq.

New Orleans: Iraq in America
By Tom Engelhardt
The Perfect Storm and the Feral City

Blaming the Voter
By Melissa Reiss
Convoluted procedures, not voter confusion, are the real obstacle to smooth elections.

Who Guards the Gates?

| Tue Sep. 6, 2005 5:44 PM EDT

Matthew Kahn of the "Environmental and Urban Economics" blog has an excellent post on figuring out who, exactly, should have responsibility for investing in New Orleans' levees. Should the city do it? The federal government? Says Kahn:

To convince me that federal taxpayer money was needed for such a local project, you'd have to convince me that New Orleans was liquidity constrained (couldn't get a loan) or that there political leaders were over optimistic about the quality of the existing levees and thus were underestimating the benefits of upgrading the levees.

Good point, though don't we also have to factor in the fact that New Orleans' political leaders might be optimistic about the existing levees holding during their time in office? One can easily imagine a mayor thinking that, yes, the levees may be inadequate, but hey, as long as they overflow on someone else's watch, it's not worth the investment. As ever, rational actors in office don't always act in the public's long-term interest. (Plus, local corruption played a significant role in underfunding New Orleans' government.)

On the other hand, the federal government is even more likely to be risk-averse (after all, if Congress—or the president—happens to slash funds for, say, levees in Louisiana and then disaster strikes, they incur the wrath of voters in, on average, one state out of fifty). As we've seen, it's hard for a state to depend on a federal government that sits hundreds of thousands of miles away, especially when its two sitting senators are very low-ranking members, and one (Mary Landrieu) is in the minority party. And so on. As Kahn notes, this debate becomes important as climate change ends up exposing more and more cities to the risk of flooding, and people need to figure out which protection costs should be paid for by cities themselves, and which by the federal government.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Joys of Multi-Tasking

| Tue Sep. 6, 2005 5:23 PM EDT

The devastation from Hurricane Katrina is pretty clearly the most important thing affecting the country right now. But it's not the only thing affecting the country right now, and it seems odd that the Bush administration is getting ready to focus solely on the recovery—or rather, getting lots of photo-ops in to make it look like they're doing something about the recovery. Whatever. Neverthless, are they dropping everything else? See this bit of news from Knight-Ridder:

[The hurricane] could crimp Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's ability to press on with the president's highly ambitious foreign policy agenda, even as the administration grapples with such complex issues as the war in Iraq and Iran's nuclear program, according to diplomats and analysts....

Bush had planned to host Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington this week, but the White House asked that the meeting be rescheduled to take place during Bush's trip to the United Nations, so he could concentrate on hurricane relief.

Why are they putting this off? The Secretary of State isn't needed for hurricane relief. Nor, for that matter, is the president's "supervision" required day in and day out. And repairing America's image abroad, along with everyday foreign policy matters—especially since, say, Iraq doesn't look like it's getting any better—seems like a pretty crucial task at this point. But apparently not. Even the Vice-President is flying down to Louisiana. All hands on deck and say 'cheese,' that sort of thing. I'm beginning to think that Sam Rosenfeld might be onto something here when he says that the White House is treating this as an all-important opportunity to boost its image: "That's the Bush approach in a nutshell -- make messes, then take credit for boldly tackling those messes." Perhaps Bush critics will rue the day they started screaming at the president to get down there and "do something" long after the fact. Hopefully not.

Frist to the Rescue!

| Tue Sep. 6, 2005 4:25 PM EDT

My, what a large-hearted fellow he is: The Los Angeles Times finds Bill Frist planning to put off a vote on repealing the estate tax in order to make room on the legislative agenda for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Good boy. (One might also note that the estate tax tends to increase charitable giving—perhaps a hike would be appropriate at a time like this. Encourage donations and all. Yes? Frist? No? No, I guess not.)

Speaking of which, it's worth noting that disaster relief is the sort of situation that just screams out for ultraliberal solutions from Congress. Sad but true. Thousands of families down south, for instance, are sitting on the verge of bankruptcy; why not repeal the recently-passed bankruptcy bill that prevents Americans, who have lost everything through no fault of their own, from making a fresh start? Meanwhile, oil and gas prices are skyrocketing; isn't it time for a real energy conservation bill? The wreckage from Katrina also seems to call for the sort of investment in infrastructure and public housing that would have the New Dealers grinning in their graves. (Why, even John Podhoretz seems to be hoping for a Keynesian economic recovery spurred on by large public spending rather than tax cuts. Aren't we all!) One could go on, but at the risk of sounding like a press release, I won't.

Of course, seeing as how Bill Frist and Tom DeLay control the legislature, and not some mythical benevolent actor, odds are we won't see any of this. Instead—and this is, oh, just a wild guess—well-connected construction companies will end up receiving lucrative no-bid contracts to do the sort of awe-inspiring work they've been carrying out in Iraq. As Josh Marshall says, the billions tossed at Louisiana and Mississippi are going to make for "the biggest slush fund of all time." Or maybe that's just overly cynical. Maybe Frist and DeLay really do have the best interests of the public at heart this time. Of course, Congress' response after Hurricane Andrew doesn't inspire much confidence—check out this Reason article from 1993:

By the time [George H.W.] Bush and Congress had worn themselves out from stuffing extra goodies into the hurricane aid package, it was $8 billion for Florida alone. The only part that met any resistance was Bush's proposal to rebuild Homestead Air Force Base, which was nearly closed last year as part of a general military cutback and was expected to be on the next list of bases to shut down. Opposition to the reconstruction of Homestead, however, represented not a heroic burst of political courage but rather an act of shared venality: Several congressmen suddenly sensed the opportunity to save hitherto-doomed bases in their own districts. Closing Homestead meant one less base would have to bite the dust elsewhere.

Virtually every other boondoggle that was suggested was accepted. Special hurricane counseling for the deaf? Sure. Emergency grants to hire performance artists to dress up like Santa Claus? Why not? After all, as one aide to the House Appropriations Committee noted in a widely reprinted quote, "Simply put, our job is to start shoveling bucks south." Some politicians were positively unhinged by an opportunity to spend money for a cause that was utterly beyond criticism. My favorite was Louisiana Sen. Bennett Johnston (D), who breezily dismissed questions about who would pick up the tab. "It will be paid for out of the deficit," Johnston explained. "The deficit is big enough to encompass this too." All I can say to that is that we here in Miami thank God for prescient public servants like Johnston who were prudent enough to squirrel away a nice large deficit for use on a rainy day.

Expect more of the same. Boondoggles and special favors. Not to mention that this reconstruction endeavor will also be paid for with a nice large deficit squirreled away for a rainy day. By the way, there are early signs that the baronial squabbling has already started. Check out this lede from the AP: "A triumvirate of Republican power brokers may give Mississippi first dibs in the post-Hurricane Katrina grab for federal disaster funds even though the federal government focused its initial response to the storm on New Orleans." Ah, Republican power brokers...

Whose Authority Where?

| Tue Sep. 6, 2005 2:45 PM EDT

As far as I can tell, the media is still sorting out who, exactly, is at fault in the botched response to the flooding in New Orleans. At the moment, the scorecard looks something like this: State and local authorities pretty clearly deserve blame for not having a decent evacuation plan ready, apart from preparing DVDs to let all the poor people know that they need to fend for themselves. The Bush administration, meanwhile, deserves blame for stocking FEMA full of cronies, focusing Homeland Security resources too heavily on terrorism, underfunding the construction of levees, and not preparing for the possibility that the local and state authorities might be overwhelmed. Not planning much of anything, in fact. A more complete list of failures can be found here and here. (Meanwhile, Eric Boehlert's asking a prickly question: Why was FEMA's response to the hurricanes in Florida last year so much better than the response in New Orleans? Okay, so it's a rhetorical question. Still.)

That appears to be the basic "fair and balanced" storyline. Another question worth asking, though, is why there's even potential for lack of coordination between local, state, and federal governments. FEMA's plan, insofar as it had one, apparently involved hoping that New Orleans had its act together in the first 48 to 72 hours and then step in. What sense does this make? With a competent team running the local and state responses, sure, FEMA's delegation of responsibility to the states and cities would work nicely. If that's not the case, though, it pretty clearly sets the stage for disaster. And there's no way to predict that the municipal and state governments will handle everything smoothly, especially when a large disaster quickly overwhelms local responders.

So why is the chain of command so warped? Over at the Corner, Jim Robbins reads the relevant statutes and points out that the Department of Homeland Security "can't just seize control" of the area after a disaster, it needs to wait for authority. Why? What purpose does all this waiting and authorization serve? According to the Washington Post, Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco was grappling with the federal government in the early post-Katrina days over who had authority where. The Bush administration reportedly requested authority to federalize the state National Guard, Blanco reportedly said no, people were struggling over chains of command, and so on. This all seems very inefficient and nonsensical. State sovereignty may have its purposes, but not here, not while people are drowning.

Positive Directions

Tue Sep. 6, 2005 12:09 PM EDT

If there is one and only one positive outcome from Katrina, I hope it is this: Americans wake up to the reality of poverty in this country.

And it may be happening.

In the aftermath of this disaster, everywhere I turn, people are talking about poverty. On the news, in the paper, in the op/ed columns, and of course on the blogs.

As Atrios so rightfully noted this morning, it is no laughing matter if the poor or the retired felt compelled to stay since their welfare and SS checks would not go out until the beginning of the month – that is, even assuming they would have had the means to leave otherwise. People simply don't understand the reality that the poor face everyday.

What we need right now is a national discussion about poverty, about homelessness, and about joblessness (and by that I include those not considered on the job market). And by "national discussion" I don't just mean a discussion about why Katrina disproportionately affected the poor, African-American community, although that should be part of the conversation as well.

Progressives in this country should seize the opportunity to highlight how current economic and social policies adversely affect the poor, how our education system is unequal, and how our healthcare system leaves so many out. Katrina is giving us a chance to put poverty back on the agenda as an issue in the 2006 elections, and to help those our country too often ignores.