Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Excerpt: The Katrina Effect

By Jared Bernstein, AlterNet. Posted May 18, 2006.


In the wreckage that followed Hurricane Katrina, we saw the failure of Bush's 'You're-on-your-own' economic and social policies.
Advertisement

Editor's Note: The following is excerpted with permission from All Together Now: Common Sense For a Fair Economy (Berrett-Koehler).

On August 29, 2005, the powerful hurricane Katrina hit the U.S. Gulf Coast, flooding 80 percent of New Orleans. An estimated one million people were evacuated from the area, though many of the poor, old, and ill were unable to leave and seek higher ground. Moreover, those left behind were overwhelmingly African American. The nation watched in horror as death and destruction flashed across our TV screens. We were inured to seeing such events unfold in third-world countries. How could they possibly occur in a major American city?

Equally unbelievable, the government response at all levels was late, insufficient, and widely considered by all sides to have been lethally bungled. President Bush, on vacation at the time, appeared not to grasp the magnitude of what was occurring until a day or two later. Even then, he was uncharacteristically off-key in his response. His initial comments that "America will be a stronger place" for going through the disaster seemed like spin, especially given the inadequate federal response.

As the tragedy wore on, the feds and local politicians started blaming each other. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, though created to react to such emergencies, was particularly inept. As reported by Los Angeles Times journalist Peter Gosselin, FEMA underwent a renaissance under Clinton, "speedily responding to the 1993 Mississippi flood, the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and other disasters." When George W. Bush was elected, he gave the job of heading FEMA to his campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh, who criticized his new charge as "an oversized entitlement program," suggesting that states and cities would be better off relying on "faith-based organizations."

Much of the public became transfixed by the disaster and its aftermath. For the media, it was all Katrina, all the time. As an economist who often comments on government data releases, I was asked in every interview  about the economic impact of Katrina for weeks after the storm. As the days wore on, we learned to our disbelief about victims dying in homes, in hospitals, and on the flooded streets of their cities, especially New Orleans.

It seemed incomprehensible that we as a nation would be unprepared for such an emergency, especially after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Right underneath the surface of all this anxiety could be felt the pulse of a critically important national discussion about the role of government. A critique of the political and social philosophy I call YOYO ("You're on your own") coalesced amid the storm's wreckage. To be sure, there were those who dismissed the significance of FEMA's performance as just another example of governmental failure, but these were largely anti-government ideologues whose views appeared to be out of step with the mainstream. Few took seriously the notion that less government was necessary, before or after the event. To the contrary, the conservative majority in the federal government immediately began spending billions (over $60 billion in the first week, with billions more to follow, the most ever in response to a natural disaster) to redress the damage.

A conversation broke out on the op-ed pages, in blogs, in letters to the editor, wherein citizens actively wondered if we'd gone too far down the YOYO path. Liberal columnists like Paul Krugman lambasted the administration, connecting the dots between its ideology of individualism and its failure to rise to an occasion of such dire need. In an op-ed entitled "Killed by Contempt," he wrote:

"The federal government's lethal ineptitude wasn't just a consequence of Mr. Bush's personal inadequacy; it was a consequence of ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve the public good. For 25 years the right has been denigrating the public sector, telling us that government is always the problem, not the solution. Why should we be surprised that when we needed a government solution, it wasn't forthcoming?"

Letters to the editor during this period express with crystal clarity the stakes invoked by hyper-individualism. One letter argued that this breakdown of the social contract was directly related to the "starve the beast" mentality of those who would cripple the government by cutting off its revenue stream. The writer went on to assert that, contrary to the belief of those in charge, "'the beast' is not government. It is the insolence of those who believe that helping one's fellow citizens is not a duty, but an option."

Another letter writer summed it up this way:

"We have a president ... and a Congress whose agenda is to privatize risk by reducing public financing and dismantling public safeguards, including bankruptcy, Social Security, health insurance, and environmental and disaster protections. The level of the government's response to Katrina was as predictable as the hurricane itself. You get what you pay for.

Digg!

Jared Bernstein is a senior economist and director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington D.C.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
taxes
Posted by: mazel on May 18, 2006 5:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If our taxes were used to give our children excellent educations, protect the environment, support the infrastructure, care for the poor, sick, and elderly, offer health coverage for all citizens, give immediate disaster aid, etc, then maybe the idea of tax cuts wouldn't get used so often politically and politicians proposing tax cuts would be scorned instead of praised.

I personally would be happy to be taxed for these services, but I resent financing an illegal war, wiretapping, torture, election rigging--the list goes on and on. Some serious reform is needed but I think the system is rotten to the core, and I'm afraid the necessary changes might not happen in time before we lose it all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: taxes Posted by: Sweeet Pea
» RE: taxes Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: taxes Posted by: Sweeet Pea
» RE: taxes Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: taxes Posted by: Sweeet Pea
More than a Dime's Bit of Difference
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 18, 2006 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People always like to say that there isn't a Dime's bit of difference between the people they vote for, but that isn't true. Voting for NeoCons and 'New' Democrats (read GOP Lite) has brought us the YOYO government.

Money reflects priorities. According to the National Priorities Project here is the breakdown of a $10,000 Federal Tax Payment:

$2,850 for Defense Spending
$2,020 for Health Care
$1,870 for Interest (not Principal Payoff) on the Debt
$ 660 for Income Security
$ 410 for Education
$ 370 for Veterans Benefits
$ 270 for Nutrition
$ 200 for Housing
$ 140 for Environmental Protection
$ 30 for Job Training
$ 1,160 for All Other Expenses

Do you notice a pattern? Most of it is consumption and very little is investment. Defense spending is mostly current accounts and represents little investment. Most of the interest on the debt leaves the US, as most of the debt is held by foreign individuals, governments and banks. Income security, Veterans benefits and Healthcare are largely what is left of our social safety net-- much of which is means-tested.

Look at housing, education, nutrition and environmental protection. These are programs that represent an investment in our future. Added together, they are a little more than half of what we spend on debt service. Look at the state of housing, education, child hunger and environment in our country and tell me if our priorities are correct.

Over 9 million families, mostly working poor, live in trailers. The fact that the fastest growing housing type in our country is a trailer ought to tell you what our country is becoming. The projects are not the only places of despair and breeding ground for trouble.

Our Public Schools are a mess in the aggregate. Kids and staff are not safe, resources are unevenly distributed and often scarce, specialists are in great shortage, the infrastructure is crumbling and the drop-out rate is high and climbing.

A 2004 study showed that 38.2 million people, half of them children, experience or are at risk for hunger. Many of the rest are fixed-income seniors living alone.

As to the environment, the picture is just as ugly and our government, industry and society is in denial.

It's time that we check the widespread attitude of 'I've Got Mine' at the door and re-evaluate our priorities. Many who would never utter that phrase live as though they hold to it. Friends, we are people who live in a community. It's time we started acting like it, and voting like it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is the government for?
Posted by: badkitty on May 18, 2006 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I always thought government is for the public good. However, I fail to see why I should have to pay federal income taxes to a government which starts an illegal war, can't manage its finances (look at that national debt), and has a military/defense department which fights said illegal war. It's time for this government, including the House and Senate, to go. Anytime they want to build a fence to keep out illegal immigrants instead of enforcing current laws on the books (let's proscecute those employers!), they are just new-law-happy, incompetent at running an effective government, and determined to increase danger from small terrorist groups. What did Katrina teach me? Here in earthquake country, FEMA/the federal government will be nowhere to be found after the big one hits. That says it all to me--there's no reason to pay federal taxes. It's not providing any public good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Female-Headed Households in East South Central US
Posted by: bpetyo on May 19, 2006 11:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hello Jared,

My May 19th post at http://homemakeover.blogspot.com was originally going to be about the rise of female home improvement shoppers. Interesting, maybe even charming. But in the Katrina-rebuild neighborhoods, women out purchase men three to one. The market research called the rise of women home improvement shoppers a trend. I called it a farce. Marketers are targeting the women in these areas. In essence, companies like Lowe's and Home Depot have acquired cheap labor and control the assets in this area. Can you tell me just exactly what type of homes we are actually rebuilding there? Who is profiting and who is losing? I figure you could shed some light on what I only stumbled across on the Internet.

Thanks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More on the Bushite Neocons
Posted by: alicelillie on May 20, 2006 3:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com for more on the Bush administration and it's assaults on freedom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Didn't Bother to Say This Before, but...
Posted by: alicelillie on May 21, 2006 4:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wanted to get my blog posted and that was all there was time for yesterday, so I didn't bother to say anything else.

I have to say it now, as it stuck in my mind all night.

Mr. Bernstein, what planet are you on anyway?

This administration is anything *BUT* individualist!! And it does anything *BUT* encourage people to be on their own!!! Everything is under government control, and the federal government is taking power away, not only from individuals but from state and local governments.

The left is always complaining about pandering to the rich and powerful. And this is a legitimate complaint, but what you are advocating is *more* power to the government (read rich and powerful).

Dependency on government gives more power to the government. You're selling out.

Just because one is "on one's own," doesn't mean one cannot help those who need it. Actually, many tried to help those who were harmed by Katrina, but the government stood in the way. It should have stepped back and *allowed* people to help one another.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]