|
|
|
Jewish World Review Sept. 21, 2005 / 17 Elul, 5765 Politics and reconstruction By Tony Blankley
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
It is sad evidence of the bitterness, intense partisanship and
mindless ideology of our current politics that President Bush's proposal for
the reconstruction of New Orleans and the other devastated gulf communities
has been received with such thoughtless criticism across much of the
political spectrum.
In the minutes and hours after the president's speech, famous
journalists were criticizing the president for wearing a blue shirt ("it
didn't set off well from the blue background") and the location of his
speech ("picking a beauty spot when he was only yards from destruction was
dishonest").
The sheer shallowness and vacuity of such observations at our
first moment of serious, national consideration of one of America's worst
calamities is breathtaking.
Worse, the pettiness of the president's loyal opposition — Sen.
Harry Reid and other leading Democrats — holding press conferences before
the speech in order to criticize what they had not yet even heard further
discredits their standing as serious statesmen.
In lonely and noble exception to such attitudes stands the
article by Donna Brazile (a leading Democratic Party partisan and campaign
manager of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign), who thanked the president
for his unprecedented support of New Orleans and the gulf region and offered
to work with him to make it a great success.
Some people will note as almost an excuse for her fine statement
(in fact, privately, a couple of Democrats in town have already said to me)
that she is from New Orleans — as if that excused her failure to viciously
attack the president. Has it come to that in our political class? Are they
completely unable to see a national obligation when it arises — and behave
accordingly?
It is manifestly impossible for Louisiana (and Mississippi) to
handle their crises. They were two of the poorest states before the
hurricane. Now they have lost much of their economic base. Good heavens, the
entire economic activity of New Orleans has been extinguished for some
unknown length of time.
We are one nation — one admittedly raucous family — and when a
member of our family has been overwhelmed beyond any plausible ability to
manage by itself, the rest of the family must unite to save it. Afterward,
we can continue the bickering — if we must.
On the conservative side, a certain ideological rigidity is on
display. A conservative television host, among others, deplored the
president's statement that historic racism had a role in poverty. Now, I
fully share (and have written on in the last week) the conservative view
that persistent poverty in the inner cities is substantially caused by
government welfare programs that breed dependency — not by the remnants of
racism in our society. And if that is all the president had said, I would
have raised a skeptical eyebrow.
But the president's outline of his approach to the redevelopment
was stunningly Kempian: Enterprise zones, individual job-training accounts,
tuition vouchers for parents of schoolchildren, urban homesteading. His
opening proposals minimize bureaucracy, and maximize individual initiative
and responsibility.
In light of such commitments, the president's one-sentence
reference to "historic" racism should have been seen as a bow to the
sensibilities of many of our citizens (and also a gesture of ideological
modesty that despite our convictions, there may be a small "racism" truth as
well as a larger "dependency" truth to the causes of poverty).
When it comes to paying for this vast project, predictably, the
liberals said raise taxes, the conservatives said cut spending, and
President Bush said raise the deficit.
All three reflective answers have their shortcomings. Paying it
all with taxes would have a depressive, job-killing effect on an economy
that is OK but could turn down if we are not careful.
Budget cuts are essential but won't be enough. In my judgment,
at least, reducing appropriated spending over the next six to 12 months by
about $50 billion is doable but would be extraordinarily hard. (We could
start with $25 billion of earmarked highway construction and send that money
to the more pressing needs of gulf reconstruction of downed bridges and
washed-out roads.)
More is simply not politically plausible. Remember, in 1995,
Newt Gingrich's 104th Congress cut about $50 billion out of actual
appropriations — it took a year of intense political and budgetary struggle
to accomplish. Now we are going to need at least $200 billion.
That leaves deficits — President Bush's preferred financing
method. With Treasury revenues up recently, low inflation and low long-term
interest rates, the economy can probably absorb that level of further debt.
But it should make us all very uneasy. Deficit would approach or
pass 5 percent of GDP. War costs continue to mount. Another terrorist attack
could cost as much to manage. And overhanging all that is the vast
structural deficits of Social Security and Medicare that in a very few years
will make a deficit of 5 percent of GDP look like Victorian fiscal probity.
Is it beyond the imagination of political realists to pay for
the reconstruction with substantial budget cuts, modest tax increases and
the remainder in debt?
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here. Tony Blankley is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.
© 2005, Creators Syndicate |
Mitch Albom | |||||||||||
