Katrina and Rita were monster storms, transforming the Gulf Coast from Texas to Mississippi into a flooded mass of debris and death. This unprecedented confluence of events (and by unprecedented I mean happens every few decades) has had a profound effect on our politicians. New Orleans and Louisiana officials put a halt to the corruption and apathy (for the time being); Mississippi and Texas officials forswore their vows of conservatism to declare that the region would be rebuilt no matter what the cost; and Georgia's Republican governor jumped on the conservation bandwagon.
Well, that's not all exactly true. But the hurricanes do have Republicans acting like Democrats, or trying to, just like the 9/11 attacks had, well, Republicans acting like Democrats (meddling in foreign affairs, giving the government more power). But in 2001 the Republicans said the Dems were acting like weaselly surrender-monkeys, so all was forgiven. In 2005, the Republicans are taking it on the chin, after failing to adequately respond to two natural disasters (In part because they happen to be the ones in power, and in part because of the deadly combination of Bush's cronyism and the Right's desire to "starve the beast"). Much has already been made of the Republican Congress's zealousness in doling out Brazillions of dollars, most recently to the hurricane victims. Rebuilding the Gulf Coast is a complex issue, and beyond the scope of this little article, so I'll leave to others the analysis of whether Congressional Republicans have become "Cut and Spend" liberals (Yes) and whether or not that's a bad thing.
On Friday, Georgia governor Sonny Perdue made his own foray into liberalism, calling for Georgia schools to close Monday and Tuesday (Free Login) to save fuel. I think I understand his thought process: school buses won't run for two of the days when fuel shortages may be worst, keeping gas prices reasonable until the refineries and pipelines can get going again after Rita. In addition, a lot of parents will probably decide to take a vacation day from work so they can watch the kids at home. Some parents might even telework. It's such a wonderful, simple idea that a third grader could have thought of it. A fifth grader, on the other hand, would have pointed out to the governor that not every one of his constituents has the flexibility to take off work at a moment's notice. How many parents out there cannot just leave work or afford two days of emergency childcare? How many businesses out there can't let their entire offices or warehouses have a vacation day? Consider some of our essential services - our police officers and firefighters work on Christmas and the Fourth of July, when their kids are out of school. But they have advance notice and many people in that situation are paid extra for the inconvenience. Governor Perdue, is it OK for half of the state's police force to "call in sick" for 2 days to save gas?
What happened here is that Perdue was struck with a liberal idea, but lacking a Liberal's foresight and long-term thinking, decided conservation could be accomplished in two days. Had he wanted to do this right, he would have worked to discourage driving and push through mass transit solutions. Instead, he has spent much of his term pushing through additional highways to the detriment of transit money. Had he wanted to do this right, he would have long ago raised the gas tax, which is currently one of the lowest in the nation. Instead, he temporarily repealed the gas tax in the wake of Katrina.
I have to stray for a minute to talk about what a boneheaded idea suspending the gas tax was.
1) Georgia has about 15 cents of tax on each gallon. Therefore, his idea was that suspending the gas tax should lower gas prices by 15 cents. However, many stations didn't completely do this, maybe lowering gas prices 13 or 14 cents. Besides, prices have been so crazy lately, jumping up and down 20 cents at a time, who's to say what portion is gas tax?
2) This stunt cost the state of Georgia over $75 million. This is money the state desperately needed for highway and transit projects. However, lets assume the state wants to donate $75 million dollars to the effort. Wouldn't it have been a lot more helpful to pay people to go fix the pipelines and refineries quicker? Or if you wanted to get really liberal about it, spent that money on water and food and housing for refugees?
3) In a time when gas stations were (are) regularly running out of fuel on a daily basis, why on earth would you want to encourage more driving? Keep the cost of fuel high so people don't take a 2,000 mile Labor Day trip in their 5 mpg SUV!
end of gas tax rant
These terrible twin tragedies are waking America up from its "screw the world and screw you" attitude it developed in 2001. Will our Republican leaders be able to adapt and truly become "compassionate conservatives"? Or will their penchant for ignoring the poor and unfortunate just become more apparent?
19 comments:
I don't approve of what Perdue did, both with school and the gas tax, but for you to say that liberals have so much more foresight than everyone else is ridiculous.
I understand that many of the poor people that were given those FEMA debit cards spent them at strip clubs and pawn shops and the like. That's why many of them were poor in the first place. Maybe a little conservative ideal, like giving people incentives to be responsible (like personal savings accounts for SS and the like) might help. Ted Kennedy likes to say, "A hand up, not a hand out," but if he had the forsight you say liberals have, he'd know that hasn't worked, it's not working now, and it will never work. Giving people something for nothing is a recipe for a lot of wasted money, but what liberal program does not center around giving people something for nothing (while taking from those who actually did something to earn it).
P.S. I finally got over my hangover this morning. Took me a day and a half. Fun wedding.
Ben, the comment about foresight was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But it is true that long-term solutions have been out there and rejected, only to be sorely missed during emergencies.
There's a poster I've seen at secretaries' desks at various companies. It says, "Lack of planning on your part does not constitue an emergency on my part."
p.s. Fay Ann still doesn't feel great. I think the bartenders used cheap liquor.
I understand that many of the poor people that were given those FEMA debit cards spent them at strip clubs and pawn shops and the like.
Really? How do you understand this? Because I haven't read a single news report about this. Any citations to back that claim up?
Maybe a little conservative ideal, like giving people incentives to be responsible (like personal savings accounts for SS and the like) might help.
That's a conservative ideal? How do you explain the constant effort to repeal the Estate Tax? The rampant nepotism in this administration? Today's conservatives don't want to open the door for others, they want to protect what they've already got.
Ted Kennedy likes to say, "A hand up, not a hand out," but if he had the forsight you say liberals have, he'd know that hasn't worked, it's not working now, and it will never work.
Never worked? The War on Poverty managed to cut poverty rates
nearly in half in its first eight years. More recently, the poverty rate fell
every year under Clinton. Meanwhile, it has risen
every year under Bush. So, yeah, I think maybe liberals do know something about this.
Giving people something for nothing is a recipe for a lot of wasted money, but what liberal program does not center around giving people something for nothing (while taking from those who actually did something to earn it).
Please. Conservatives love to rail against liberal welfare programs, but what about the conservative version? Corporate welfare coming from every direction? A federal courts system that we all pay for, and that spends 90% of its time on corporate matters? Pork spending that ranges from that abomination of a transportation bill to the usual handouts to conservative groups like, say, paying farmers not to farm?
This administration is proof of the old truism -- Republicans campaign on a platform that government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it.
Actually, if you look at the Census Data, the liberal approach to economic issues seems even stronger.
Look at the data for black families, down in the second series of tables. Under the heyday of the Great Society (1966-1969) the poverty rate dropped ten percentage points. Under the trickle-down smoke-and-mirrors of Reaganomics (1980-1993), it actually rose a percentage point. Back to Clinton (1993-2001), and you've got another ten point drop.
Conservatives can try and spin the cold hart facts however they'd like, but the numbers don't lie. Democrats have a proven success record with poverty, especially among the minority poor, while Republicans tend to preserve the status quo or make things worse.
By the way, if you've never read Kevin Phillips' analysis of Reaganomics in "The Politics of Rich and Poor," you should. And this is no bleeding-heart liberal. Phillips is the former Nixon strategist who came up with the Southern Strategy.
I found something interesting this morning. A quote from the Gainesville (FL) Sun on September 2.
Beyond fractured nerves in gas lines, Florida faced the specter of canceled school classes due to a lack of gas to run buses.
Florida Education Commissioner John Winn said 12 districts only had enough gas to get through next Tuesday and two - Orange and Pinellas counties - were down to one day's worth of gas. Winn said the state was getting gas to those districts.
[Florida governor Jeb] Bush joked that stopping school buses is "not the conservation strategy I'm advocating."
Clinton had the advantage of the tech boom, which created tons of new jobs completely seperate from anything he did. Both Bush and Reagan had the disadvantage of starting out with bad economies. The tech boom cannot be credited to Clinton, nor can the bust, but it still happened, and Bush had to deal with the fallout. Carter, on the other hand, did make policies that created a bad economy for Reagan to have to deal with.
I never said everything "conservatives" in office do matches conservative ideals. Unfortunately many of them fall into the liuberal trap of buying off voters with social programs like the stupid medicare drug thing. I wish we could get some real fiscal conservatives in. Did you happen to see that state tax revenues are WAY up? Probably due to economic growth brought on by the tax cuts.
My evidence about how people spent their FEMA cards is anecdotal. My mom's friend owns two pawn shops and says that several people came in and spent their whole cards on jewelry and electronics. I also read about someone going to strip club and seeing two drunk guys bragging about how they were spending their hurricane money. Obviously "many" is not all, and there is nothing like a complete survey of how the money was spent. I really don't like the way they are just throwing money at the region, though.
Did you know that federal tax revnues are up like 15% these days? http://taxes.about.com/b/a/185334.htm
How can anyone complain about the tax cuts anymore? State tax revenues are up, too, and it's because of the cuts. Is everyone who whined about the cuts for the rich and all that BS going to take it back and admit Bush was right? Or are you going to spin it and make up other reasons?
Clinton had the advantage of the tech boom, which created tons of new jobs completely seperate from anything he did. Both Bush and Reagan had the disadvantage of starting out with bad economies.
I'm sorry, but do you think the tech boom had anything to do with the alleviation of poverty rates? Those Silicon Valley production lines weren't being staffed with people from the welfare lines. They were being staffed with Stanford engineers.
And to say Bush and Reagan deserve a break because things were bad when they started ignores both the year-by-year data -- even if things were bad in 1980, why were they worse in 1993? -- and also the fact that Clinton too started out with a poor economy. Remember the 1992 recession?
Carter, on the other hand, did make policies that created a bad economy for Reagan to have to deal with.
He also appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed and allowed him to institute the cold-bath policies that did away with stagflation. Reagan came in and passed the largest tax cut in American history in 1981 and then realized he'd screwed things up so badly with the '82 recession that he passed the largest tax increase in American history that year. Meanwhile, Volcker's fed policies evened things out.
Did you know that federal tax revnues are up like 15% these days?
There's a 15% improvement this year over last year, yes. That doesn't mean anything. Last year was a big year for the installment plan of the tax cuts -- and oddly enough, also an election year! -- so obviously revenues would've been lower then than this year.
If you want the data that really matters, you should look at the real dollar amounts in federal revenues. As shown
here. Under Clinton, tax revenues rose from 1.15 trillion to 2.02 trillion, or nearly doubled! Under Bush, meanwhile, they've sunk from that 2 trillion mark down to 1.88 trillion last year.
Is everyone who whined about the cuts for the rich and all that BS going to take it back and admit Bush was right? Or are you going to spin it and make up other reasons?
I think I'll go with other reasons. Like math and economics.
I think Perdue was just trying to come up with a last minute solution that would impact the fewest people (i.e. school students who do not work or contribute to society in any meaningful way) but forgot to think about the implications of such a fast-acting plan. Clearly, not the brightest politician in the pack. But he DOES deserve a little credit for attempting to exercise the pea brain in his head, no?
Ben, your initial post sounds dangerously much like you're willing to just leave poor people lying in the ditch by saying "it's not working now and it will never work." Conceding the battle, as you seem to be doing, is far worse than at least trying and sometimes failing to solve the problem. Furthermore, it does very little to keep in line with what Republicans are often calling themselves: Compassionate Conservatives. Compassionate my foot! And speaking of incentives to be responsible, I'm so sure that that's exactly what Congress is thinking each time they give energy companies more tax breaks to emit more pollution into the air. Very responsible of them.
Great post, Scott!
I too did not understand the thing about poor people spending FEMA cards on strip clubs and pawn shops. So I googled it. Only turned up one story -- an op-ed from a conservative columnist. Now I understand.
If you read what I wrote in response, you'd see my evidence was anecdotal. I never said a majority were spending their FEMA money that way, just that many are. And I doubt the people I know that own pawn shops were lying, why would they?
And I wasn't defending the first Bush's economic policies. Though if he did cause a recession, maybe it was because he went back on his no new taxes line.
And in now way do I think we ought to leave the poor in a ditch. I just don't think throwing money at them will work. When exactly has it owrked so far? African Americans have been voting Dmeocrat for fourty years, and it sure as heck hasn't gotten rid of their poverty. How many billions have been spent on the war on poverty, and yet it's still there? If you graduate high school, wait till after high school to get married, and wait till you are married to have kids, then you have a pretty good shot at middle class. The culture needs to be fixed, just like Bill Cosby said.
My definition of compassionate conservatism: Looking at what hasn't worked, and trying something different. Some people's definition of insanity: trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That's what most anti-poverty programs are.
And, and the estate tax as a conservative ideal is very simple. I earned the money, and when I die I should be able to do what I want with it (as long as it's not illegal, like sending it to terrorists, of course).
And if Carter's economic policies were so great, why did he announce that the country was in a malaise, one which we did not come out of until Reagan was in office?
Sorry this is so disjointed, there's only one of me, and several of you to respond to.
Oh, and the tech boom did affect everyone. Or do you think all those people making extra money stuck it in a matress? I'm pretty sure they used it to expand businesses, build new buildings, buy bigger homes, buy more cars, whatever. That's the simple and obvious concept of trickle down economics. That extra money doesn't just go away. It gets spent, and then spread around.
FYI, I also never said Clinton's economic policies were bad. In fact his very best was welfare reform, something that fit right in with my discussion of personal responsibility.
Isn't it funny how every Republican president in the last 30 years that followed a Dem had to fight a bad economy in the first years of their term? Granted, the sample size is small, but both Reagan and Bush had to start with bad economies.
ooh ohh, I have anecdotal evidence to add too. I heard from my mother-in-law, who used to be a teacher, that one of her former coworkers heard about a guy that said Republicans funded GW's 2004 campaign by robbing convenience stores. Now, don't quote me, this is just anecdotal. But obviously it's clear that all Republicans must be violent theives who hate Indian store owners.
Though if he did cause a recession, maybe it was because he went back on his no new taxes line.
Bush Sr. didn't cause that recession; it was the result of the late-80s slump. In fact, by breaking his no-taxes pledge and helping bail out the S&L industry, Bush did a lot to end the recession.
I just don't think throwing money at them will work. When exactly has it owrked so far?
If you'll read back upthread, it worked in the '60s and it worked in the '90s. You know, the last two times we tried it? I really don't understand how you can insist that the liberal approach to poverty doesn't work when every single shred of actual evidence says it did. You can keep your anecdotes, I'll take my OMB, CBO, Census and Fed data.
How many billions have been spent on the war on poverty, and yet it's still there?
Wow, that's a pathetic line of reasoning. How many billions have been spent on the war on terrorism, and it's still there? No one thinks we're going to wipe poverty off the face of the earth, but we can and have reduced it significantly. Again, the evidence shows two liberal Democratic approaches each dropped the rates of black poverty by 10% points. Are you saying because we can't go all the way to zero we should just give up?
And if Carter's economic policies were so great, why did he announce that the country was in a malaise, one which we did not come out of until Reagan was in office?
Simple. He didn't. Carter never once used the word "malaise," and the fact that you think he did suggests you might want to read up on your history.
As far as the economic recovery, ask any economic historian -- the credit lies with Volcker, not anyone on Reagan's staff. Ask yourself this: If the 1981 ERTA was the supply-side miracle conservative revisionists would like to believe it was, then why did Reagan repeal virtually all of it the next year?
That's the simple and obvious concept of trickle down economics. That extra money doesn't just go away. It gets spent, and then spread around.
Simple, yes. Simplistic is more like it. I know conservatives love the trickle-down theory, because it tells people that their own selfishness is really helping the greater good, but it's total bunk. We've tried this three times in 20th century history -- first, with the Coolidge-Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s, which led to the greatest maldistribution of wealth the country had ever seen (until now) and helped usher in the Great Depression; then again in the 1980s, before Reagan quickly backtracked in '82, and then raised taxes again in '84, '85, and '86. And now again, with the tax revenues down again.
You can keep insisting that trickle-down somehow works, but every single economic indicator says otherwise.
Isn't it funny how every Republican president in the last 30 years that followed a Dem had to fight a bad economy in the first years of their term? Granted, the sample size is small, but both Reagan and Bush had to start with bad economies.
Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.
Reagan started off with a bad economy, but your claim that it was somehow all Carter's fault is laughable. The OPEC embargo happened in '73-'74, and inflation was runaway by '75. (And remember the great solution of Republican Gerald Ford? Little buttons that said "WIN: Whip Inflation Now.") Carter inherited the mess, and with Volcker had the stones to change it.
And remember, Clinton ran on "it's the economy stupid" not because things were doing great. He inherited a big mess and turned it around without a single GOP vote in '93.
And how exactly did Bush inherit a bad economy? All the figures for 2001 are high, so much so that Bush initially said he needed the tax cuts to distribute the surplus. And then flip-flopped and said they were needed to frix a growing deficit.
Face it, the smoke and mirrors of Republican tax policy is just that. All the positive beneifts they associate with tax cuts are just BS. There's no statistical evidence to support them, and they take whatever rationale will help get them passed.
Alright, I'm done. It's getting tiring using facts and data to rebut the things you heard some guy say, and depressing that you're still putting your faith in the tired old party line, all evidence to the contrary.
Have fun with the Republican world of unicorns and magical pixies. We'll be over here in reality if you ever want to visit.
I can't repsons to all that, this conservative has a job, and doesn't have time for treatises... But you must be the only person in the world who thinks the economy was kicking ass when Bush took office.
And Jimmy Carter did use the word malaise, Mr. Fact Checker man.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1486.html
The economic policies leading to the Great Depression were not trickle-down, BTW. Milton Freedman hadn't even been to college yet.
Thanks for the Bartleby link, Ben! However, you said Carter "announced" malaise, but the Bartleby posting specifically said he did not use the word in his speech to the nation, just at some town hall meeting.
Milton Freedman did not invent the policies behind trickle down economics, which boil down to massive tax cuts for the wealthy and little else for the other 80% of the country. He simply packaged them for "modern" conservatives.
Fine, play semantics. That doesn't change the fact that Carter made a speech in which he said our country was having a lot of troubles. I think he used the phrase, "a crisis of confidence," which isn't surprising considering the gas lines, the high inflation, and the generally sorry state of the economy at the time.
I know Otto Man likes to say, with 20 years of hindsight, that everything was hunky dory because Carter was a democrat, but the people who were adults at the time, like my parents, sure weren't happy. But when Reagan was elected, things turned around and the "crisis of confidence" that Jimmy announced was over.
It's wonderful that you can bring the first person perspective to this, Ben. Yes, everything turned rosy in January 1981. And I'm sure you remember this well, you being, what, 3? 4?
Carter's sin in that "malaise" speech was asking Americans to conserve. It was Republican PR flaks that first used the word "malaise" which is why Carter responded to that the next day.
I never said Carter said anything that made him bad. What I said is that he admitted that the country was in bad shape. This all started when someone implied that things were all rosy when Carter was in office and not so when Reagan took over. I merely pointed out that Carter himself disagreed. Argue the semantics all you want, that doesn't change the point. If things were so great, why didn't the President think so?
Post a Comment