Where Will Katrina Money Come From?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Economy, Hurricane Katrina, Smart Things Said By Smart PeopleIt looks like the total relief package, when all is said and done, is going to be around $200 billion dollars. Yes, that’s billion with a “b”.
So where is Bush going to get the money?
In response to Peggy Noonan’s call for a debate over conservatism, Andrew Sullivan tears into Bush’s fiscal policy with this caustic, yet painfully accurate view of Bush’s idea of responsible spending:
Here’s a starter: fiscal conservatism as we have known it is over. No liberal Democrat would ever have managed to spend as much and as incompetently as this administration. Even in opposition, the GOP would have mounted a defense of the country’s fiscal standing against such reckless big government liberalism. But in power, the only difference between the GOP and, say, a Ted Kennedy administration is that the Republican free spending goes to different interest groups, has no restraint or domestic opposition, and rests on borrowing rather than taxing. Yes, Katrina reconstruction is inevitable and important. But $200 billion doesn’t grow on trees. Where is it going to come from? Part of the point of fiscal responsiblity, after all, is that disasters do happen and the government should have fiscal lee-way to respond to them. But we have no lee-way at all, thanks to this president and his party.
It’s true. We really haven’t seen any sort of fiscal conservatism from this President. Unfunded mandates. Massive entitlements. Wanton tax cuts. And just to be clear, tax cuts are NOT fiscal conservatism. They’re an opinion that people are paying too many taxes. In Reagan’s time I would have agreed. In Bush’s time I simply can’t.
So yes, I’ll ask the question again, where will the money to rebuild come from? What will we cut? Will we raise taxes? Or will we keep having the same credit card economy we’ve been banking on for so long?
Hmm, Tom DeLay’s comment about their being no fat in the budget seem a lot more calculated now.
Thoughts are welcome and appreciated.
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 15th, 2005 and is filed under Economy, Hurricane Katrina, Smart Things Said By Smart People. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 15th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
I would like to see every congressperson give up one of their favorite pet pork project, this includes the bridge to nowhere in Alaska to any project that will get a congressperson’s name on a roadsign or building. I would also like to see these same congresspeople put a moratorium on any sneaky stuffing of line items into bills that have nothing to do with the original purpose of the bill. Unfortunately, with statements like the one by Tom Delay this seems like a pipe dream
September 15th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
The Bush Administration will bankrupt us, plain and simple. They’re not interested in any sort of fiscal sanity as long as they–and I’m including Congress here–get their $200+ million bridges in thinly populated places.
The Republican Party has become corrupted by the power they wield–and the voters are ultimately responsible.
September 15th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
This project will be funded by Chinese cosmetic companies. And no, I’m not kidding.
And will it REALLY cost $200,000,000,000 to rebuild the Gulf coast? How the hell would anyone know for sure at this point in time? Just another chance for pork barreling….
Jon, if the admninistration was really trying to bankrupt the country, they would have nationalized health care. Instead, we’re just going to get stuck with the prescription drug benefit. It’s one hell of a bill, but not enough to break us. I don’t envy whoever gets stuck with the presidency in 2009, though.
Justin, Greenspan came out a year or so ago and said that Bush’s tax cuts probably provided the stimulas needed to keep the country from sliding into an outright depression. Are you saying that would have been a better option? That kind of fiscal conservatism died with the Hoover Administration! The tax cuts weren’t the problem. The problem is a Republican Party that has abandoned all pretense of small government conservatism in favor of the more ancient style of bread and circuses goverrnment.
September 15th, 2005 at 10:09 pm
Well, at least in some small part…
Well, they’re saying at least $100 B. One can assume that it’s going to go up from there, but that’s Sullivan’s assertion, not mine.
To some other points, I don’t think JonBuck said that they are TRYING to bankrupt us. But their policy and fiscal philosophy will just by its very nature. Correct me if I’m wrong JB.
I’m almost certain he said “recession” instead of “depression.” The difference is non-trivial and I would hope you’d be more careful in the future. And given that, I don’t think I really need to answer the question since I don’t even believe he said that in the first place. But let me say that Greenspan is most certainly in favor of a more top-down approach to the economy. Remember, he’s a follower of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, which calls for extreme selfishness and nearly unbridled captialism. And also know that Rand’s Objectivism was a reaction to Soviet Communism, and I think her philosophy was on the opposite side of that extreme. And having a follower of that school of thought, like Greenspan, certainly troubles me.
But let me say that personally I agreed with tax cuts for the middle class, but not for those making over $250,000. Call me old-fashioned, but I think those who make more usually do less of the heavy lifting. Therefore, they should bear more of the burden. In other words, they’re not in the trenches making the engine of this economy work. Somebody who makes that much money is living in splendor and has nearly every luxury at their fingertips. Trust me, I have been around these people for the past year. They aren’t bad people. Far from it. They’re just extremely shrewd and they know how to protect what’s theirs. Somebody making 30K doesn’t, so I think our government should recognize that and give them back more.
In a word: agreed.
September 15th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
And Icepick, if you think Sullivan is middle of the road, this quote is from Powerline, a decidedly right-wing blog.
September 15th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
I had been hearing and reading $200B from several sources. It seems to be the expected number. I’m not saying that isn’t the number everyone is bandying about. I’m saying how do THOSE people know it will cost this much? (I mean the government types, not the reporters and commentators.) Remember, two weeks ago Mayor Nagin told of 10,000 dead in New Orleans. Now it appears he was no better at counting than he was in stocking relif supplies in the evac shelters. If 10,000 was wrong, why are we assuming that the 200B is correct?
Also, I apologize for falling into the Alterman Trap. I didn’t mean to imply that JB meant they were trying to bankrupt us. (I hope you can follow that.) I meant that I don’t really think the Bush admin can bankrupt us. The economy is really damn big, and it would take something along the lines of nationalized healthcare to do it.
September 15th, 2005 at 11:00 pm
Justin, I am pretty sure Greenspan said depression. And yes, the r to d change is emmense. I recall he was talking about a full economic meltdown. I’ll see if I can find an article to link to.
March 22nd, 2006 at 8:06 pm
Personally, I never use more than a single link in the comment I post because doing so can trigger spam catchers if the user has that plugin activated, whereas a single link will not.
March 31st, 2006 at 7:10 am
Nice Site! I have a bearded dragon called Gucchi and a border terrier called Ruby.They both hate each other and run a mile when they see each other! I enjoyed your blog- Thanks. R
April 5th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
I’m Elnora, this is an interesting article, and it contained the information that I searched for in Yahoo, Thanks
November 5th, 2006 at 12:35 am
Interesting discussion. Too hot for me to comment but I’ll follow it closely.