Will Bush Deliver? - New York Times
The New York Times

October 10, 2005

Will Bush Deliver?
By
PAUL KRUGMAN

Ever since President Bush promised to rebuild the Gulf Coast in "one of the
largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen," many people have
asked
how he plans to pay for that effort. But looking at what has (and hasn't)
happened since he gave that speech, I'm starting to wonder whether they're
asking
the right question. How sure are we that large-scale federal aid for
post-Katrina reconstruction will really materialize?

Bear with me while I make the case for doubting whether Mr. Bush will make
good on his promise.

First, Mr. Bush already has a record of trying to renege on pledges to a
stricken city. After 9/11 he made big promises to New York. But as soon as
his
bullhorn moment was past, officials began trying to wriggle out of his
pledge. By early 2002 his budget director was accusing New York's elected
representatives,
who wanted to know what had happened to the promised aid, of engaging in a
"money-grubbing game." It's not clear how much federal help the city has
actually
received.

With that precedent in mind, consider this: Congress has just gone on
recess. By the time it returns, seven weeks will have passed since the
levees broke.
And the administration has spent much of that time blocking efforts to aid
Katrina's victims.

I'm not sure why the news media haven't made more of the White House role in
stalling a bipartisan bill that would have extended Medicaid coverage to all
low-income hurricane victims - some of whom, according to surveys, can't
afford needed medicine. The White House has also insisted that disaster
loans
to local governments, many of which no longer have a tax base, be made with
the cruel and unusual provision that these loans cannot be forgiven.

Since the administration is already nickel-and-diming Katrina's victims,
it's a good bet that it will do the same with reconstruction - that is, if
reconstruction
ever gets started.

Nobody thinks that reconstruction should already be under way. But what's
striking to me is that there are no visible signs that the administration
has
even begun developing a plan. No reconstruction czar has been appointed; no
commission has been named. There have been no public hearings. And as far as
we can tell, nobody is in charge.

Last month The New York Times reported that Karl Rove had been placed in
charge of post-Katrina reconstruction. But last week Scott McClellan, the
White
House press secretary, denied that Mr. Rove - who has become a lot less
visible lately, as speculation swirls about possible indictments in the
Plame case
- was ever running reconstruction. So who is in charge? "The president,"
said Mr. McClellan.

Finally, if we assume that Mr. Bush remains hostile to domestic spending
that might threaten his tax cuts - and there's no reason to assume
otherwise -
foot-dragging on post-Katrina reconstruction is a natural political
strategy.

I've been reading "Off Center," an important new book by Jacob Hacker and
Paul Pierson, political scientists at Yale and Berkeley respectively. Their
goal
is to explain how Republicans, who face a generally moderate electorate and
have won recent national elections by "the slimmest of margins," have
nonetheless
been able to advance a radical rightist agenda.

One of their "new rules for radicals" is "Don't just do something, stand
there." Frontal assaults on popular government programs tend to fail, as Mr.
Bush
learned in his hapless attempt to sell Social Security privatization. But as
Mr. Hacker and Mr. Pierson point out, "sometimes decisions not to act can
be a powerful means of reshaping the role of government." For example, the
public strongly supports a higher minimum wage, but conservatives have
nonetheless
managed to cut that wage in real terms by not raising it in the face of
inflation.

Right now, the public strongly supports a major reconstruction effort, so
that's what Mr. Bush had to promise. But as the TV cameras focus on other
places
and other issues, will the administration pay a heavy political price for a
reconstruction that starts slowly and gradually peters out? The New York
experience
suggests that it won't.

Of course, I may be overanalyzing. Maybe the administration isn't
deliberately dragging its feet on reconstruction. Maybe its lack of
movement, like its
immobility in the days after Katrina struck, reflects nothing more than
out-of-touch leadership and a lack of competent people.

List of 11 items
. Copyright 2005

Posted by Miriam V.