Key Katrina recovery Congressman not interested in Baker Plan


Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia, who chairs the committee investigating issues surrounding Hurricane Katrina, is not like most of New Orleans’ recent Congressional visitors. Davis is not a fan of the Baker Plan, which would provide a federal buyout of damaged houses, he says he is not ready to support Category 5 storm protection for New Orleans, and–as the New Orleans Times-Picayune pointed out on Sunday–he does not want to hear about the federal government’s role in the failure of the city’s levees.

Davis’s objection to the Baker Plan is that it places a huge burden on the federal government in order to help people who did not buy insurance. This type of reasoning may get applause from the “no handouts” crowd, but it is flawed to the point of being deceptive. First, a lot of New Orleanians did not buy flood insurance because FEMA told them they were not in a flood zone and therefore did not need insurance. Many of the houses in the hardest hits areas of New Orleans are in federal “no flood” zones.

Second, even those who had flood insurance are not likely to receive a high enough insurance benefit to pay off their mortgages. And then there is the matter of the 17th Street Canal and London Avenue Canal levees. The Army Corps of Engineers declared them safe. They were not, so the flooded residents should be punished?

Finally, as the Times-Picayune editorial points out, in 2000, 26,000 New Orleans families were living in poverty and could not afford insurance even if they lived in designated flood zones.

Congressman Davis is not alone. So far, he has the support of George W. “We will do what it takes” Bush, who has dodged every question about the Baker Bill, which will soon be re-introduced in Congress, has made it clear by silence and evasion that he is not going to suppot the proposal the second time around. In the meantime, New Orleanians who want to return to their city have no way to rebuild.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.