After the flood
The horror stories coming out of New Orleans are not for the faint-hearted. With the very worst of the survivors' ordeal now coming to an end, albeit very gradually and very belatedly, the wider picture is beginning to emerge.
Writer and activist, Rahul Mahajan, gives by far the best commentary I've read anywhere on the disaster. A short yet comprehensive view from a global and historical perspective, searing in its cold-eyed anger.
That anger is by no means restricted to the American liberal-left. The US corporate media, usually as craven and reverential as medieval courtiers, especially during the "war on terror", appear to have been briefly re-acquainted with their critical faculties. Using an surprising and uncharacteristically strong turn of phrase, the New York Times editorial writers laments that the US may well be "stuck with leaders who neither know, nor care, how to lead".
Because the bottom line is that, whilst the hurricane itself could not have been avoided, measures that could have been taken before and after the event, measures that would have saved lives, were not taken by those responsible. In fact such measures were sometimes actively counteracted by the federal government. As former Clinton aide, Sidney Blumenthal, points out: "In 2001, FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war. A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken."
More on this from the UK's Independent: "No one can say they did not see it coming," reported The Times-Picayune from New Orleans this week. The newspaper published a five-part series predicting the disaster five years ago. Officials and experts last week wearily recalled their attempts to make the government take action. "It's frustrating to have planned, begged and pleaded that this could happen," said Walter Maestri, emergency management director of the now submerged Jefferson Parish. "They would say, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah.' Well it's here now."
Federal spending on flood control in south-east Louisiana has been cut by almost half since 2001, from $69m (£34.5m) per year to $36.5m. Funds for work at Lake Pontchartrain, the source of the flooding, have fallen by nearly two-thirds over three years, from $14.25m to $5.7m. As a result, work on New Orleans' east bank hurricane levees stopped last summer for the first time in 37 years.
The US Army Corps of Engineers, which maintains the levees, requested $27m this year for hurricane protection around the lake. President Bush tried to cut this to $3.9m, although Congress allowed $5.7m. The President also tried to cut $78m to improve drainage and prevent flooding in the city to $30m, though Congress passed $36.5m. A $14bn longer-term project to restore marshes was cut to $570m.
Mr Maestri, the Jefferson Parish emergency director, added: "It appears that money has been moved in the President's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq. I suppose that's the price we pay.""
In fact the frenzied budget-slashing (save for the security services) is part of a general right-wing distrust for "big government" of which Bush's regime is but the most extreme example so far. Money for public projects was instead handed to the wealthy in tax cuts, as the Republicans asset-stripped the public sphere and their corporate sponsors pocketed the gains. So, without the nanny state to cramp their entrepreneurial spirit, the sick, the old, and those too poor to afford transport when the order came to evacuate New Orleans were left, literally, to sink or swim. Somehow, the dynamism of the private sector failed to respond to the opening up of a new market in emergency mitigation created by Hurricane Katrina. It seems that there are some jobs that only government can do. Rarely can the advocates of "small government" amongst the kleptocratic classes have looked so callous than when faced with these, the gruesome consequences of their greed. Rarely can their right-wing "libertarian" cheerleaders have looked so irredeemably stupid.
(Incidentally, it should be noted that opponents of "big government" tend to clam up on the subject when it comes to subsidies for arms manufacture and related industries, arms exports underwritten by the state, socialising the costs of motoring and other pollution, subsidies for agriculture, no-bid contracts to private firms for public works on risk-free terms...in these and countless other examples the nanny state is embraced whole-heartedly by the pioneers of the free market....but this topic deserves a separate discussion of its own).
Benefactors such as Afghanistan and Sri Lanka have been offering the impoverished US Government their assistance.
BBC television news, in a depressingly boneheaded piece at the weekend, described attempts to hold those responsible to account as "the blame game". This trite bit of mediaspeak might have been better employed, if it must be used at all, to describe Washington's shameful attempts to shove the blame anywhere but the place where the buck stops: at the President's desk. The Nation editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, lists those in the Republican's buck-passing crosshairs: the city, the media, the locals, the victims.....
The Republicans' fellow travellers and voter base on the religious far-right have their own views on what others might see as a horrendous tragedy. Rev. Bill Shanks, pastor of New Covenant Fellowship of New Orleans, is full of Christian love and rejoicing in God's mercy: "New Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of all of those things now," Shanks says. "God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're going to start over again".
The political consequences could be dire for a US President caught in a pincer between his inept handling of Katrina, which at times verged on the politically autistic, and the surge of popular opposition to the ongoing conflict in Iraq.
Finally, Michael Klare examines what impact the serious damage to the US’ domestic oil production in the Gulf of Mexico may have, particularly on its military and foreign policy:
"If recent US behavior is any indication, the Bush Administration will respond to this predicament by increasing the involvement of American military forces in the protection of foreign oil potentates (like the Saudi royal family) and the defense of overseas oil installations. American troops are already helping to defend the flow of petroleum in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of Georgia, Colombia and offshore areas of West Africa, producing an enormous strain on the Pentagon's finances and capabilities. In addition, plans are being made to establish new US bases in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, two promising producers, and in the oil-producing regions of Africa. (See Klare, "Imperial Reach," April 25, 2005.) Given the need for even more foreign oil, these plans are likely to be accelerated in the months ahead. This means that the United States will become even more deeply embroiled in foreign oil wars, with an attendant increase in terrorist violence. "
Writer and activist, Rahul Mahajan, gives by far the best commentary I've read anywhere on the disaster. A short yet comprehensive view from a global and historical perspective, searing in its cold-eyed anger.
That anger is by no means restricted to the American liberal-left. The US corporate media, usually as craven and reverential as medieval courtiers, especially during the "war on terror", appear to have been briefly re-acquainted with their critical faculties. Using an surprising and uncharacteristically strong turn of phrase, the New York Times editorial writers laments that the US may well be "stuck with leaders who neither know, nor care, how to lead".
Because the bottom line is that, whilst the hurricane itself could not have been avoided, measures that could have been taken before and after the event, measures that would have saved lives, were not taken by those responsible. In fact such measures were sometimes actively counteracted by the federal government. As former Clinton aide, Sidney Blumenthal, points out: "In 2001, FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war. A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken."
More on this from the UK's Independent: "No one can say they did not see it coming," reported The Times-Picayune from New Orleans this week. The newspaper published a five-part series predicting the disaster five years ago. Officials and experts last week wearily recalled their attempts to make the government take action. "It's frustrating to have planned, begged and pleaded that this could happen," said Walter Maestri, emergency management director of the now submerged Jefferson Parish. "They would say, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah.' Well it's here now."
Federal spending on flood control in south-east Louisiana has been cut by almost half since 2001, from $69m (£34.5m) per year to $36.5m. Funds for work at Lake Pontchartrain, the source of the flooding, have fallen by nearly two-thirds over three years, from $14.25m to $5.7m. As a result, work on New Orleans' east bank hurricane levees stopped last summer for the first time in 37 years.
The US Army Corps of Engineers, which maintains the levees, requested $27m this year for hurricane protection around the lake. President Bush tried to cut this to $3.9m, although Congress allowed $5.7m. The President also tried to cut $78m to improve drainage and prevent flooding in the city to $30m, though Congress passed $36.5m. A $14bn longer-term project to restore marshes was cut to $570m.
Mr Maestri, the Jefferson Parish emergency director, added: "It appears that money has been moved in the President's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq. I suppose that's the price we pay.""
In fact the frenzied budget-slashing (save for the security services) is part of a general right-wing distrust for "big government" of which Bush's regime is but the most extreme example so far. Money for public projects was instead handed to the wealthy in tax cuts, as the Republicans asset-stripped the public sphere and their corporate sponsors pocketed the gains. So, without the nanny state to cramp their entrepreneurial spirit, the sick, the old, and those too poor to afford transport when the order came to evacuate New Orleans were left, literally, to sink or swim. Somehow, the dynamism of the private sector failed to respond to the opening up of a new market in emergency mitigation created by Hurricane Katrina. It seems that there are some jobs that only government can do. Rarely can the advocates of "small government" amongst the kleptocratic classes have looked so callous than when faced with these, the gruesome consequences of their greed. Rarely can their right-wing "libertarian" cheerleaders have looked so irredeemably stupid.
(Incidentally, it should be noted that opponents of "big government" tend to clam up on the subject when it comes to subsidies for arms manufacture and related industries, arms exports underwritten by the state, socialising the costs of motoring and other pollution, subsidies for agriculture, no-bid contracts to private firms for public works on risk-free terms...in these and countless other examples the nanny state is embraced whole-heartedly by the pioneers of the free market....but this topic deserves a separate discussion of its own).
Benefactors such as Afghanistan and Sri Lanka have been offering the impoverished US Government their assistance.
BBC television news, in a depressingly boneheaded piece at the weekend, described attempts to hold those responsible to account as "the blame game". This trite bit of mediaspeak might have been better employed, if it must be used at all, to describe Washington's shameful attempts to shove the blame anywhere but the place where the buck stops: at the President's desk. The Nation editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, lists those in the Republican's buck-passing crosshairs: the city, the media, the locals, the victims.....
The Republicans' fellow travellers and voter base on the religious far-right have their own views on what others might see as a horrendous tragedy. Rev. Bill Shanks, pastor of New Covenant Fellowship of New Orleans, is full of Christian love and rejoicing in God's mercy: "New Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of all of those things now," Shanks says. "God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're going to start over again".
The political consequences could be dire for a US President caught in a pincer between his inept handling of Katrina, which at times verged on the politically autistic, and the surge of popular opposition to the ongoing conflict in Iraq.
Finally, Michael Klare examines what impact the serious damage to the US’ domestic oil production in the Gulf of Mexico may have, particularly on its military and foreign policy:
"If recent US behavior is any indication, the Bush Administration will respond to this predicament by increasing the involvement of American military forces in the protection of foreign oil potentates (like the Saudi royal family) and the defense of overseas oil installations. American troops are already helping to defend the flow of petroleum in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Republic of Georgia, Colombia and offshore areas of West Africa, producing an enormous strain on the Pentagon's finances and capabilities. In addition, plans are being made to establish new US bases in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, two promising producers, and in the oil-producing regions of Africa. (See Klare, "Imperial Reach," April 25, 2005.) Given the need for even more foreign oil, these plans are likely to be accelerated in the months ahead. This means that the United States will become even more deeply embroiled in foreign oil wars, with an attendant increase in terrorist violence. "
posted by David Wearing at 5:10 PM
4 Comments:
I am amazed that Bush has come off as well as he has from Katrina. Nearly every one of his most glaring non-partisan faults has been exposed brutally and on a massive scale.
Besides the well reported siphoning of vital flood defence money and local troops (30% of the Louisiana National Guard units were in Iraq many of whom were trained to deal with precisely this emergency) in to Iraq, Bush has actively courted this well predicted disaster.
First we have chronic negligence in cutting funding to defences. This is made worse by a second failing we have come to expect, namely ignoring the advice of his scientific experts when the conclusions conflict with policy objectives. We have seen this “what I strike out with black marker can’t hurt me” approach to science time and time again always with disastrous results.
Secondly we have total disrespect for the environment (leaving aside the fact that many scientist believe that global warming increase the number and strength of severe Hurricanes) in that Bush started extensive development of the Swamps surrounding New Orleans said by experts to reduce storm surge (flooding) but 1/2m for every mile. Thirdly we have lying in that he promised not to do this in his election campaign.
Fourthly we have seeming lack of compassion for the suffering. He was doing photo shoots with a country music star the day after the disaster.
Fifthly we have chronic mismanagement after the fact, Bush quoted as saying “Browny [the head of FEMA the federal disaster agency] your doin a hell of a job” when anyone with, well anything could see that was not the case! “Browny” has since quit and will be lucky if he is not lynched.
Finally we have cronyism, not just “Browny” (who shared a room with Bush jrn. at Uni) but 8 of the top 15 officials at FEMA were given their jobs with no previous experience in the, on would have thought, rather important field of disaster management.
What is surprising is not the faults, they have been writ large throughout his administration, but that so many should have come together in one disaster that has devastated a city and potentially killed 1000’s!
Some have argued that the near total destruction of New Orleans should be classified as a man made and not natural disaster. Frankly with this litany of mistakes and the size of the Disaster one wonders whether he can be impeached. It would be unprecedented but it is unprecedented for a political leader’s choices to been directly responsible for having destroyed one of their country’s greatest cities. If you can impeach a President for being kissed somewhere funny surely you can kick a President out for gross mismanagement and negligence and thereby causing injury and death to thousands of his people?
As a side note sometimes my dearest Diarist you make glaring mistakes of fact that belittle the magnificent arguments you make.
1. The New York Times is a good publication which routinely criticises the Bush Administration and is famed for its "Liberal" Bias.
2. The Republican Party is pro small government but Bush has in fact presided over the largest increase in Federal spending of any president since Lyndon Johnson. And that is not if we include his war and Katrina!
3. The clear cut “Katrina=Big government good” argument you make is a little weak. One could argue that Katrina shows why Government is in fact a very bad service provider compared to private sector. Wall Mart had reopened nearly all its stores in the area while people were still waiting for the federal government to come and save them from the Super Dome. Perhaps if the levees of FEMA were private companies they might have done a better job! (N.B. I don’t believe this but I think it is a perfectly sensible moral to take from the story if you want!)
NYE
Nye - in broad agreement with the bulk of what you say so I'll stick to your list of corrections at the end.
You say that I "sometimes make glaring mistakes of fact". The factual accuracy of this site is some thing I take very seriously, as you can tell by the large amount of hyperlinked references. But looking at these three points I'm guessing that you just didn't express yourself as you might perhaps have wished, since what you've identified here are certainly not "mistakes of fact", “glaring” or otherwise. Just views that you disagree with for whatever reason. Let's look at the three points you raise.
1. You say: "The New York Times is a good publication which routinely criticises the Bush Administration and is famed for its "Liberal" Bias."
The New York Times is "famed for its liberal bias" amongst the US right; possibly the most rabidly extreme right wing in any western democracy. What Fox News, Rev Pat Robertson, et al see as "liberal" is not necessarily liberal, putting it gently.
The NYT "routinely criticises the Bush Administration". In the Bush administration the US right has produced the most radical US Government in the post-war era. Its profound contempt for international law, science, secularism, and any concern for minimal social welfare at home or abroad is unprecedented. Aside from that, its sheer lack of competence is baffling, presiding as it has over two national disasters that history will view as synonymous with its reign: Katrina and the unfolding defeat in Iraq. So congratulations to the NYT, but plainly criticism of Bush's government - perhaps the worst in living memory - does not on its own make the paper a byword for quality and liberalism. Criticising the Bush administration is barely more than proof of sanity.
A description of the NYT's position relative to the rest of the privately-owned media and US politics in general should not be confused with an objective analysis of its actual position. In general, the paper did not until quite recently deviate from the post-9/11 consensus that suffocated political dissent in the US (and only when administration incompetence became impossible to avoid). The corporate media of which it is part - whose owners were benefiting from the Republican tax-cutting, deregulating bonanza - took the "War on Terror" as an opportunity to help force US politics into lockstep behind their benefactors in the White House. The bloodiest most disastrous consequence of this was the role of the NYT in relaying Cheney/Pentagon WMD propaganda in the run up to the invasion of Iraq; performing a role that was crucial in assuring that the invasion took place.
Historically, this was no aberration. We can also add to the NYT's list of achievements its literally deathly silence on the US sponsored genocide in East Timor; a silence which ensured that US voters' attention was diverted from the bloodbath their government was sponsoring. In another triumph for the 'newspaper of record', it "refused - the word is accurate - to publish the fact that through the 1980s, [Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat was calling for [peace] negotiations which Israel rejected". In doing so the NYT inverted the truth of the situation in that part of the world for the benefit of the US taxpayers, whose governments were bankrolling the true rejectionist, Israel, with dire consequences for the victims of the conflict, the region and the world.
The above quote comes from veteran US academic Noam Chomsky, whose extensive and detailed studies of the US corporate media revealed a long and illustrious record, on the part of the NYT, of misreporting the most savage of US government foreign policies to the benefit of those in power and to the detriment of the victims. His studies are world renowned and widely respected. So, the assertion you make - that it is an indisputable "fact" that the NYT is "liberal" and a "good publication" - is actually, at the very least, debatable. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/717/sc42.htm
2. You say: "The Republican Party is pro small government but Bush has in fact presided over the largest increase in Federal spending of any president since Lyndon Johnson. And that is not if we include his war and Katrina!"
Here, I'm afraid you've just misunderstood the argument. There's no contradiction between record federal spending and my description of the US right's view of "big/small government". I described those views as hypocritical, which you'll recall from the following paragraph from the article:
"...it should be noted that opponents of "big government" tend to clam up on the subject when it comes to subsidies for arms manufacture and related industries, arms exports underwritten by the state, socialising the costs of motoring and other pollution, subsidies for agriculture, no-bid contracts to private firms for public works on risk-free terms...in these and countless other examples the nanny state is embraced whole-heartedly by the pioneers of the free market...."
I don't doubt for a moment that Bush has presided over record federal spending. I believe the same was true under Reagan. I think you'll find that its not social programs for the benefit of the most needy that accounts for those rises in expenditure, but the type of corporate welfare described above. As I've already said, the oft-proclaimed benefits of "small government" are strictly for the least well off, like the victims of Katrina. By contrast, the nanny state is fine for companies like Halliburton who, unlike the poor, are carefully protected from market discipline. By all means point out inaccuracies here if you can find them, but please read what I've written first.
3. You say: "The clear cut "Katrina=Big government good" argument you make is a little weak. One could argue that Katrina shows why Government is in fact a very bad service provider compared to private sector. Wall Mart had reopened nearly all its stores in the area while people were still waiting for the federal government to come and save them from the Super Dome. Perhaps if the levees of FEMA were private companies they might have done a better job! (N.B. I don't believe this but I think it is a perfectly sensible moral to take from the story if you want!)"
I believe Thatcher was planning to employ this argument against the NHS after starving it for years. A seriously underfunded state agency is unable to do its job, and from this one can argue that government is a bad service provider. Beyond admiring the contortion of logic its not something we need waste our time with. Unless we're also to say that when a car without petrol doesn't run this then exposes the motor car as a misconceived contraption incapable of providing transport. Or that when a TV that’s not plugged in stubbornly refuses to work, no matter how many chances we give it by repeated pressing of the on button, we can therefore deduce...
...well I needn't go on.
Also, I'm sure you weren't intending to compare the opening of convenience stores with the provision of disaster relief.
Hope the above answers your points
1. “The US corporate media, usually as craven and reverential as medieval courtiers, especially during the "war on terror", appear to have been briefly re-acquainted with their critical faculties. Using an surprising and uncharacteristically strong turn of phrase, the New York Times editorial writers laments that the US may well be "stuck with leaders who neither know, nor care, how to lead".” you
I spent 3 month in America during the recent election. I read the New York Times every day. I can tell you for a fact that the New York Times is one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush administration you will find. Period. That is not to say it doesnt have a history of Bias (some of which you may commend some of which you will not) like all media outlets it does. It just so happens that one of these Biases is hating Bush. Now to anyone who is personally acquainted with America Media the above paragraph will come across as rather stupid to say the least. It would be like saying to a Brit how craven British news media normally is to national government interest (which is true) and then quote John Humphries attacking Blair as an example of a massive change of tack. It shows a lack appreciation which is understandable living in a different country. I only offer this as advise, you can go on calling the New York Times a Bush crony if you like but you will a victim of what you accuse George Galloway of, namely making ignorant statements which undermine the justness of your wider point.
2. “By all means point out inaccuracies here if you can find them, but please read what I've written first.” You
By all means. This is what you wrote.
“I don't doubt for a moment that Bush has presided over record federal spending. I believe the same was true under Reagan. I think you'll find that its not social programs for the benefit of the most needy that accounts for those rises in expenditure, but the type of corporate welfare described above.” You
This was in the economist (not a Bush supporter though prowar).
“The Bush presidency has seen the biggest increase in discretionary spending since his fellow Texan, Johnson, was in the White House (see chart 1). In his first term, according to the 2005 budget, total federal spending will rise by 29%, more than triple the rate of increase in Bill Clinton's second term. The Bush administration raised spending on education from $36 billion in 2001 to $63 billion in 2004, a 75% increase; it has also pushed through the biggest expansion of Medicare, the federal health-care plan for the old, since the programme was created in the 1960s. More people now work for the federal government than at any time in history.” Economist (please see for full article http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3127557)
If you go to that article you will see a table with discretionary spending. Reagan is at the bottom Bush is at the top.
3. “ I'm sure you weren't intending to compare the opening of convenience stores with the provision of disaster relief.” You
I was. The provions of supplies, repairs and logistics is exactly the nature of disaster relief.
“Wal-Mart, for instance, … proved far more adept than the Feds at getting supplies quickly to where they are needed.” Economist http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4382437
On the wider point. You say “Katrina response bad therefore Big Government good.” (“Somehow, the dynamism of the private sector failed to respond to the opening up of a new market in emergency mitigation created by Hurricane Katrina. It seems that there are some jobs that only government can do.” you)
This is so obvious to you that you have yet to actually defend it. I am simply pointing out that it is quite possible to respond “Katrina response bad therefore government response bad therefore replace government response with more efficient private response.” Some might argue when a service provider fails it is sensible not to pump more money in but to look for a more efficient service provider.
“small-government conservatives already claim Katrina as an indictment of government power rather than an open-and-shut case for more of it. Look, for instance, at the private sector's efficiency: all but 15 of the 126 Wal-Mart facilities shut down by Katrina are up and running.” Economist
http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4403361
I don’t really want to have an argument about Government vs. Private Service providers. I just want to point out that your assertion that the disaster NECESSARILY proves the need for big government. This is false. Again wider conclusion true small but glaring point false.
NYE
Nye - thanks for your response
1. I'm happy, if you are, to compare the results of extensive, detailed and world renowned studies by one of America's leading academics against your 3 months in the US. If you'd like to raise the level of debate by putting such studies aside and looking at personal experiences and impressions then I should say that I too read the New York Times, as well as a great deal of the rest of the US media online, and have done on a daily basis for several years. I agree that some dissent exists on the pages of the NYT, but for every Paul Krugman there's a Judith Miller or the unspeakable Thomas "give war a chance" Friedman. But beyond this is the overall record, which is as I described in my original answer, to which I've nothing further to add.
2. Given the vast profits and market protection that the privatised US healthcare system provides for major drug companies (many if not most of whom will have sponsored Bush's election bid), it does not surprise me that federal expenditure on that particular scam has increased. The question is whether this expenditure was "for the benefit of the most needy". A look at the profits of those drug companies, and the extent to which the most vulnerable in the US are served, or even covered, by their healthcare system will give you the answer to that question.
On education, the encroachment of the corporate sector continues under Bush. The "No Child Left Behind" programme, perhaps better described as "No Lobbyist Left Behind" was devised with the balance of input, from the private sector on the one hand and education professionals on the other, that one might expect. In general, the extent to which the private sector is free to walk in and draft government policy to suit its own interests under Bush's presidency is well known. Legislation drafted in this fashion hardly fits the bill of government measures "for the benefit of the most needy".
Also, you fail to mention the much larger $400 billion plus expenditure on the military in the current budget or the extent to which increases in Pentagon spending (much of which is a subsidy to the technology industries) account for the overall rise in public spending under Bush. I'm surprised by Reagan's position on the list, given the massive amounts of public money they he funnelled into the corporate trough through the Pentagon, and ill-conceived corporate-welfare schemes like "Star Wars".
The point however, which you continue to miss, is not the overall level of public spending. The point is how that spending is prioritised. Priority is given to expenditure that benefits the corporate sector in some form. Areas of public expenditure that do not benefit the corporate sector are privatised or 'reformed' so that they do. Otherwise they're just starved e.g. flood defences. This starving, privatisation or 'reform' is justified using empty rhetoric built around simplistic notions of "small government" or "big government" that bear no relation to fact.
I plainly did not say that the principle of "small government" is to blame for the Katrina failures, a notion which you then cleverly disprove by showing that Bush in fact increased federal spending. I said there is no such principle. I said that the priorities of economic policy (for private, not popular interests) were to blame for the Katrina failures, priorities which are often justified with the nonsensical rhetorical notions of "big/small government". The point is that those who bought into this false debate, and then advocated the policies of corporate-sponsored government whilst ignoring its true priorities, are now free to observe the consequence of the realities they avoided in the wreckage of New Orleans. The answer is not in "big" or "small government". This has nothing to do with it. The answer is expenditure and policy in pursuit of the public interest.
3. The idea that opening a convenience store and providing emergency relief are comparable is no less ridiculous because its was written in The Economist or because "small government conservatives" endorse it. The range of skills and equipment required, the sheer organisational feat of co-ordinating and deploying them effectively, go somewhere beyond fixing up a shop and putting products on the shelves. The medical effort, the security effort, the evacuation and resettlement effort..."exactly the nature of disaster relief"?...to be frank, the point's not even worth discussing. I've addressed your argument on inefficient service providers in my original answer to point 3, on which there's no need to elaborate.
Finally, I'm not clear on your wording but you seem to say that I've not defended my statement that "there are some jobs that only government can do". If I've understood your point correctly, the justification you're looking for came in the preceding sentence. A new market emerged, undoubtedly. The demand was there, undoubtedly. In the absence of the authories’ response during those first few days did the invisible hand of the market appear in all its splendour to evacuate to superdome, to restore order, to feed the victims, to administer medical care? Since it did not, as I've said, these would appear to be jobs for (properly funded and organised) government agencies.
Post a Comment
<< Home