Gulf Coast Debacle Off the Headlines, But Not Over

It seems that the corporate media has agreed to largely go back to "business as usual," and the ongoing crisis along the Gulf Coast from hurricanes Katrina and Rita are shoved to the background. The reality is that the "relief" effort is still not functions very well. Michael Moore and the Veterans for Peace have been in Louisiana (and now have moved operations to Mississippi) for a month. They are keeping diaries and have a news letter. I recommend you sign up for their newsletter. An image from their photo gallery speaks volumes.

The spreading dimensions of mismanagement of the disaster and relief/recovery efforts are spreading. From FEMA awarding contracts to firms outside the impacted states, to the bankruptcy of the New Orleans. That bankruptcy has lead to the permanent layoff of 3,000 public employee's at a time the city is attempting to rebuild. In a statement to the press by Naigan, he said that county and state employees would soon follow, as all levels of government in Louisiana run out of funds. It places the issues of giving the majority of contracts to companies and corporations outside the impacted areas in an even grimmer light. Who exactly will run Louisiana when the Bush FEMA machine gets done with it?

One of the glaring issues to arise out of hurricane Katrina was the tremendous impact of inequality - race and class. Bush essentially defined that inequality as a regional issue, but pledged to address it. That makes the President's response to how to pay for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast and people's lives raise my eyebrows. In his press conference on October 4th (transcript), Bush informs us as to his plan for "offsets:" (emphases are mine)

" I'll work with members of Congress to identify offsets, to free up money for the reconstruction efforts. I will ask them to make even deeper reductions in the mandatory spending programs than are already planned. As Congress completes action on the 2006 appropriations bills, I call on members to make real cuts in non-security spending"

.

Now his instructions are clear. They are supposed to cut spending out of the non-discretionary budget, but they cannot take those cuts out of "security" (read military, CIA, Homeland Security, Defense research ...). So where do they head with their axes? The Agriculture budget - with a $3 billion target in their sites. And what do they recommend cutting? Food programs for the poor ($574 million cut), conservation programs ($1 billion cut), farm payments (2.5% across the board).

Now how do these cuts fit within the face of disaster? Well, cutting food programs for the poor certainly does nothing to reduce inequality. Part of the reason for the severity of the damage to the Gulf coast was the destruction of wetlands and barrier islands (which everyone argues need to be reconstituted to avert more disasters) - that's conservation funds. Farmers, particularly private farmers, are sinking the under the dramatic costs of petroleum. They are getting hit by both out of sight diesel costs, and fertilizer costs. Certainly a 2.5% cut will send those teetering right over the edge. But then that is all to the good for corporate agriculture and developers - and disastrous in terms of food security for the nation. Are these folks nuts, or do they think we are stupid?

Non-discretionary, or "mandatory" funding is approximately 2/3 of the entire budget (OMB, Budget Concepts, 12). Mandatory spending is controlled by laws rather than by annual appropriations. These include such things as: Social Security; Medicaid; and parts of the defense budget, "welfare," education, veterans' benefits and numerous other departments and programs. Given that the discretionary portion of the U.S. budget has been growing much faster than the mandatory portion, why did Bush stipulate cuts in mandatory programs rather than say the recently passed "highway bill." That bill is purportedly loaded with "pork," but it is immune from Bush's perspective.

The costs for Katrina recovery are initially estimated at @200 billion. If the devastated areas are rebuilt, but the state and local governments are bankrupt, then what? Is the plan to create a test case where there is no government - only corporate interests? Who will they hire to take care of the infrastructure, fight the fires, fix the roads, run the courts, run the schools - all those things that government is responsible for? Will we see the privatized / corporatized state of Louisiana? Will the poor who couldn't afford to escape the storm never be able to return home? This looks an awful lot like "social engineering" on a grand scale, and I thought that the "conservatives" and "republicans" were adamantly opposed to such activities.

Posted by rowan at October 6, 2005 4:35 PM | [eMail this article!] |