I am writing my congresspeople today to tell them that I do not support a penny of government aid for New Orleans. It's below sea-level on the coast. How did anyone think this was a good idea?
Also, I got to hear again today about how George Bush didn't adequately protect New Orleans from Katrina. Now you can argue that his administration didn't react to it well enough... you'd be wrong, but you could argue it.
New Orleans was founded in 1718. So by my count New Orleans was governed by 3 kings and 42 presidents prior to Katrina. How exactly is this George Bush's fault anymore than it is Bill Clinton's, Theodor Roosevelt's, Andrew Jackson's, or King George II's?
7 comments:
You know, some republican politician (Hastert?) publicly mused in 2005 whether it would even be a good idea to rebuild NO after katrina, for the same reasons you cite. I actually agreed with him then, and with you now, and I was saddened when a predictable chorus of "how dare you"s drowned him out and stopped any rational discussion.
On Katrina -- true on the "protect" point, with the indirect caveat that the Bush administration defunded ACE levee maintenance. Evidence is, though, that none of the defunded projects would have prevented NO from flooding, so there is no direct culpability for Bush there.
I know you and I don't quite agree on the exact distribution of blame for the post-katrina situation -- fair enough. However, the fact that FEMA was headed by a horse-lawyer crony, and that W spent the first week of the disaster yukking it up on vacation pretty much ensures that in the judgement of history this was a catastrophic failure of leadership for the Bush administration. In this case, the perception is the reality -- more's the pity for Bush.
I'm with you in theoretical, debate society terms, but I think there's a hint of disingenuousness in applying that to reality.
Who thought it was a good idea to build where the water would come?... everybody from Holland, Indonesia, the Nile flood plain, the Mississippi delta, etc., etc.
Who thought it was a good idea to live where they'd be routinely, predictably destroyed by nature?... everbody in S.F., L.A., Miami, Tornado Alley, etc....
I think if you're asking if we should blame King George (current or centuries past) for N.O. being floodable, no, of course not. But I think that by accepting a New Orleans as part of your nation, you (the government, and the citizenry at large) have implicitly accepted the risk and obligation that it might get messed up on your watch. If you didn't want to pay to rebuild it, you should have demanded and paid to dismantle it and move everyone to higher ground Before. You can't enjoy the pleasures and benefits of its existence (mardi gras, main port for middle America, Saints football... well, not that one maybe) when everything's fine, and then only when it's broken say, "well, I never wanted it anyway."
To be consistent, I think you'd reasonably have to decide that almost no natural disaster should qualify for federal rebuilding. And I think you'd have to insist that we shut down and remove populations and cities from a lot of high-risk areas. They aren't really "risks" at all. They are Guarunteed to get hit at some point, which means you know now that you will or won't want to deal with that, which means you should either abandon them now or accept the responsibility when the inevitible happens.
James! Exactly! It *was* inevitable. And so is San Francisco falling into the sea, Los Angeles being eaten by lava and Seattle being overrun by mold and coffee stains.
My point in this is that every president ever has come into office with the reality that there is a 0.01% chance that New Orleans is going to be reclaimed by the sea during his presidency. And there is also a 0.001% chance that San Francisco will be destroyed by The Big One. *And* a 0.001% chance that LA will be similarly destroyed. *And* a 0.1% chance that a terrorist attack will destroy the Twin Towers, and, and, and. Each new president is presented with those facts. They are each exceedingly unlikely. So some bureaucrat somewhere produces a report about one of those things (in fact tons of those reports are being created all the time). Each new president looks at all of those and makes decisions.
Imagine president Bush proposing that New Orleans is in grave danger of being inundated by the sea. We need to do something right now, I mean within 3 years! He raises the alarm. Most people ask why, seeing as New Orleans has been perfectly safe with 20-foot walls since 1718, for God's sake, shut up about it already. But Bush persists and shows that the only way to secure New Orleans is to move it 80 miles North.
What?!? The cost is $243 Trillion dollars, no way. Okay, so build 40-foot walls at a cost of $4 Billion. That won't secure it totally, but it does reduce the inundation threat to some level that makes it measurably less likely.
$40B? I think not, again, didn't we mention that for 290 years New Orleans has been standing just fine. 290 years is a long, long ass time.
Do you think Bush could have gotten that done? Well not the moving part, but the big walls thing, sure. But Clinton faced the *exact* same odds and he did nothing.
And let's just say that Bush had managed to build $4B walls in front of New Orleans, because he was *that* far thinking a guy. And then San Francisco gets hit, falls into the sea and you and I are having this exact same discussion except you're telling me he should have done something about earthquakes on the Pacific rim.
There are two truths here:
1) The United States could easily protect New Orleans against hurricanes, but it *can't* protect every city from every possible disaster that is of the likelihood of a hurricane. It can't, and to pretend it can is silly. How many $4B projects could the government fund?
2) Nature can kill us, and we in America forget that we can't hold the government responsible if something unfortunate befalls us. We're too used to our cushy lives and the prospect that "someone should *do* something!"
You're going to die, and probably in an unpleasant manner. And probably in a way wherein if you had sufficient foresight you could have postponed it. But the fact is that you aren't running around now protecting from all the myriad ways that a small, unlikely event is going to kill you, but one of them will.
Just for reference, the "bad thing" that could happen in Seattle is for Mt Rainier to pull a St Helens. Rainier is way closer to civilization, and the mudflows would destroy many many thousands of homes and industries. Deaths would be dependent on advance notice, but the potential is huge.
Fortunately, it seems that Rainier is quiescent, but so was St Helens in 1978.
How many $4B projects could the government fund?
That's what, a week in Iraq? OK, I apologize for the snark, but there is a fair point here that the Iraq war has diverted a lot of funds from other domestic priorities. The fair counterpoint, though, is that I am not sure that beefing up NO's levees was on anybody's list of priorities before 2005.
I wonder whether the free market (defined loosely as large numbers of people following their self-interest) will take care of the problem. There was a marked diaspora of NO's residents after 2005, and it's never been clear how many went back. Maybe after another couple hurricane seasons, the population will enter a gradual decline as people decide to relocate. Of course, people can be obstinate about their homes, and when the government offers assistance and incentives to rebuild, that does thwart the "free market" effect.
The fair counterpoint, though, is that I am not sure that beefing up NO's levees was on anybody's list of priorities before 2005.
Yeah, and that was, bringing it full-circle, the only point I originally had--it just doesn't make sense to argue that Bush failed to protect New Orleans when everyone failed to do it.
I hope New Orleans gets abandoned. I don't know why when one home gets destroyed it's a private/insurance issue but when 10,000 homes gets destroyed it's something else.
Well, I think I had a good point, but I think I misrepresented it somehow, cuz it didn't seem like it was understood. I am NOT disagreeing on whether W. can be blamed in any way for not protecting N.O. (I agree that he is no more to blame than... pick random funny alternative figure we could blame of your choice.)
I AM questioning the desire not to put any national, communal effort into rebuilding N.O.
I presume that you are against basically all and every form of federal disaster relief. Not making a judgement about that, just asking if that's the case.
If you ARE, then you are left, in my view, with two choices. 1) Make the effort ($240T per or whatever) to remove all populations from all potential disaster areas BEFORE the disaster (I nominate putting everyone in Brooklyn where the only natural disaster is being eaten by roaches), or 2) forfeit your share of the national benefit of having those population centers where they are.
I just don't see how you can say, "I sure like having huge international trade centers allow the goods and services I produce and purchase move freely across the global market, and also occasionally host topless parties," and not be willing to foot the INEVITIBLE bill to keep that possible.
Why is a single house fire a private insurance problem while an empty city is a federal bailout? Because, a single house fire doesn't (sad as it may be) affect the success of the entire nation, where the loss of a major city might sorta kinda do that.
I am willing to be schooled on where I'm wrong here....
I presume that you are against basically all and every form of federal disaster relief. Not making a judgement about that, just asking if that's the case.
No, I'm not. I think the government should save lives and provide for public safety and to some degree public health.
But I do not think the government should house people beyond providing temporary shelters during the storms, and to catch the most destitute from falling completely through the cracks.
I just don't see how you can say, "I sure like having huge international trade centers allow the goods and services I produce and purchase move freely across the global market, and also occasionally host topless parties," and not be willing to foot the INEVITIBLE bill to keep that possible.
I think the government should rebuild the public infrastructure that can support the oil, and farming interests on the Louisiana coast. I do not support the public funding for building of private homes and businesses. If the citizens of New Orleans want to go back and give it the old dumbass college try, good for them, but while I agree that an argument can be made that we need a New Orleans type place to organize our oil-refining infrastructure, I do not agree that we need a government-funded city below sea level on a hurricane-infested coast. Can we have one? Sure, but there is no compelling public interest in having one. And I can hold that position without being hypocritical. I feel perfectly consistent to enjoy a private resort on the beach, but not take financial responsibility for their infrastructure built upon the sand. As individual owners they took the risk to put their business there.
Post a Comment