New Orleans Pays the Death Tax
Now should not be the time, as Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly has noted, for the politics of blame. In the wake of Katrina's devastation along the Gulf Coast, Americans should be united in providing relief, resources and support to all in need.
But sadly, that massive relief effort will take place during a time of divisive and fundamental debate about the very meaning of national unity in the United States. As New Orleans struggles for survival, the President and his amen corner are waging a full scale assault on the Estate Tax, what they derisively (and effectively) term the "Death Tax." They will continue to pursue this massive transfer of the U.S. treasury to America's wealthiest, even as a mountain of evidence shows that successive Bush budget cuts devastated New Orleans' disaster preparedness and levee maintenance...
A cornerstone of progressive societies for over 100 years, the estate tax seeks to prevent the rise and entrenchment of a permanent aristocracy of money, "dividend dynasties" with growing political power as they clip coupons. As a result, the estate tax is paid by fewer than 1% of American families. Along with progressive taxation, the estate tax helps provide one of the fundamental underpinnings of the American social contract: those who disproportionately enjoy the benefits of our economic system are morally bound to contribute disproportionately to its maintenance.
But President Bush and his allies feel no such obligation. Falsely claiming that the levy devastates family farms and small businesses, the Republicans are in fact seeking to protect only the very richest Americans. Their 2001 tax package lowered the rate and raised the estate exemption to $1 million, and after hitting a level of $3.5 million in 2009, eliminates the tax altogether for tax year 2010. Bush's goal now is to make the elimination of the estate tax permanent starting in 2011.
The cost to the American taxpayer - and national bargain is staggering. At a time of unending $300 billion budget deficits, the reform of the estate tax costs the U.S. $20 billion a year through 2010. After that, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the revenue loss could top $70 billion annually. The impact on basic services - and on the tax bill of the typical American family - will be dramatic.
Which brings us back to hurricane Katrina and the unfolding catastrophe in New Orleans. State and local officials have know for years that New Orleans was vulnerable, especially in the event of a category 5 storm. After a storm in 1995 killed six people, major work was needed to improve the levee system. In response, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project (SELA), which alotted 10 years and $430 million to the Army Corps of Engineers to build new pumping stations and repairing the levee system.
The warning signs were clear: think of it as the equivalent of President Bush receiving a presidential daily brief titled, "Category 5 Hurricane Determined to Strike in U.S." And yet in 2003, the SELA funds slowed to a trickle. The Army Corps' funding in New Orleans was slashed to due to the twin constraints of the Iraq war and the budget deficit. By Febuary 2004, President Bush proposed cutting SELA spending by 80%.
The results, as project manager Al Naomi said, were staggering:
"The longer we wait without funding, the more we sink. I've got at least six levee construction contracts that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling). Right now I owe my contractors about $5 million. And we're going to have to pay them interest.
I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction. I think part of the problem is it's not so much the reduction, it's the drastic reduction in one fiscal year. It's the immediacy of the reduction that I think is the hardest thing to adapt to."
So as President Bush and Congress debate ending estate levies in America, the levees in New Orleans are crumbling and a city is destroyed.
Should basic public services in the United States be slashed so that George W. Bush and Paris Hilton may get additional millions at your expense? To use the words of the Club for Growth, "it is wrong."
UPDATE: Yet another hat tip goes to Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly for assembling a detailed timeline of FEMA defunding of New Orleans projects and overall mission deemphasis. Be sure to also check out the great September 5th piece in the LA Times which details the gutting of FEMA, "Why FEMA Was Missing in Action."
This gets it exactly right. Bush would rather give money to his rich friends and play the guitar than help the people of New Orleans.
This is disgusting.
The President is leading the country in a global war against terror, and all you can do blame him for an act of God. President Bush is a great and God-fearing man. You're just blinded by your own hatred.
Loretta, let me help you understand. We fault the entire Bush administration (and those administrations before it as well, for that matter)for their denial of/inaction on the issue of carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, which spawns irregular weather patterns like Katrina.
Now, you yourself may live in a comfy little bubble, denying that human activities can actually influence our weather, but the scientific community worldwide is very clearly united in understanding this intimate relationship. What we do, or don't do, influences virtually everything, like it or not.
Refusal by this government to sign on to and implement the Kyoto Protocol is NOT an act of God, it's a foolish, shortsighted, arrogant error, a denial of reality that is nothing short of a stupid and greedy refusal to accept scientific truths.
The hatred you seem to see is your own, reflected in the clear mirror of reality. Playing the victim will never make you happy. It will make you bitter in the end, unfortunately. God is not outside of yourself.
The simple question is, Why didn't Bush respond to the Katrina disaster sooner? Why was he in California and vacationing in Texas while people were stranded in neck-high waters? Why did he not address the hundreds of thousands of people in need until three days AFTER the hurricane hit? You've heard of our first responders? Well, our Mr. President is a SLOW RESPONDER. Not a good quality to have in a president is it?
Loretta doesn't get that Bush and Company CUT THE BUDGET for levee maintenance and hurrican preparedness, and he also took about 1/3 of the National Guard over to invade and occupy Iraq. All of this was done to enrich his already rich friends. The tax cuts that went to only the richest in the land and the Iraq invasion that are benefitting those same rich people (can you say Haliburton?) are nothing but the rich getting richer on the backs of the middle class and the poor.
Besides, Bush has no problem lying and sending other people's children to their deaths, so, he's hardly a Christian.
If there was a god, there would be no George Bush.
Yes the first priority is rescue and recovery. The 2nd is sustenance, the 3rd rebuilding lives.
Yet we can NOT ignore how Conservative Republicans instituted policies over the years that increased the number of dead people because of Katrina. For a very long time the "liberals" talked about global warming, supported wetland protection, reducing CO2 emissions, fully funding the Corps of Engineers, building up the levees, etc... only to have conservatives put the profit interests of their RW buddies over the interests of Americans.
And people have died as a result of Conservative policies. It's as simply as that. (and more will die if we don't stop their environmental, health care, etc.. policies)
Loretta, dear, it can't be any worse than the religious right blaming gays for the hurricane since Southern Decadence was going to be held in New Orleans this weekend.
But, I don't see the blame directly on Bush & Co, rather, the contempt he seems to show for the depth of this disaster. The funding being cut, when it was critically needed, has certainly affected the outcome of this tragedy. The money would probably have been allocated if we weren't spending needless billions in Iraq at the expense of our own citizens.
Excellent piece & excellent comments, sans Loretta.
All I can say is "Great minds ..." You can read my own take on this tragedy on
this page
Death Tax indeed. New Orleans died for Iraq.
It continues to amaze me that the average Bush supporter blames this tragedy on "God" and all they care about is that Bush is a "God" fearing man. Is "God" fearing all it takes to make someone great? So I guess a murderer who has turned to "God" is just as great as George Bush.
I guess fighting the war on terror is more important than preserving someone's life in a city that obviously needed funding for more preventive measures. It seems to me that the war on terror is just pissing off the terrorists and making them blow up more things than fixing things. So if Bush is fighting the war on terror then why is he focusing on Iraq and not finding Osama Bin Laden, the man that is the cause of 9/11?
It seems that Bush needs to fix this country rather than Iraq. Will he ever get a clue? Doubtful.
>he also took about 1/3 of the National Guard over
Actually this is being charitable. One-third of the NG *is* in Iraq at the moment, but many many more have been there. So the remaining 2/3s is badly in need of R&R and what, if any, equipment they managed to bring back with them is beat to hell and clogged with sand.
They don't need this.
If god and Bush are saving us why are so many dying?
"The longer we wait without funding, the more we sink. I've got at least six levee construction contracts that need to be done to raise the levee protection back to where it should be (because of settling)
So even if everything had been done, the situation would be static, the city is sinking and even the best funding won't fix that.
I wonder what the state of Louisiana was doing all this time. It's not a federal issue in any way I can see, so how is it that the State of Louisiana and the City of New Orleans shares no responsibility in this?
Even if all the work had been done, it is not certain that things would have worked out any different. All it takes is one levy failing and the city's under water. Hell, it is below sea level, that's the whole problem.
There is much you can blame Bush for, but this is not something you can assert was caused by Bush, nor can you say that there would be no disaster if not for the budget cuts. It's a big hurricane, it packs lots of power.
And even worse, it's not even a federal issue, why is no one holding the State responsible?
Rich said
Things like levees ARE federal projects, managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the state. The Corps has responsibility for navigable waterways, such as the Mississippi. The money is federal.
Bush gets the blame because it's his budget, and his party's priorities.
Good discussion. To chime in, Rich started a train of thought I have been on. New Orleans seems to have always been a problem in the near forseeable future because of being below Sea Level. The responsibility I believe is shared by both State and Federal. Just like the current states that border Mexico and are taking measures to protect their citizens from the hords illegal aliens, when the federal government doesn't step up to the plate for whatever reason, you as a state body must do something to protect your citizens (Sue, peitition the federal government, raise taxes, whatever . . .lives are at risk).
Would a better levee system have helped? Maybe. Would a prolonged egineering effort like: (Netherlands North Sea Protection Works) http://www.asce.org/history/seven_wonders.cfm#neder have helped? I'd argue it is more likely to give the city a fighting chance. Either fix the dangers surrounding the city of New Orleans or vacate it.
As for Bush and his administration. Their abilities to lead this country have proven poor. Their views on the environment are nothing short of despicable. They can't get full repsonsiblity for this as New Orleans has been around for a long time. However, higher and reinforced levees would have kept back more water, that is obvious. I see it as one thing his administration shares in blame for.
Good discussion. To chime in, Rich started a train of thought I have been on. New Orleans seems to have always been a problem in the near forseeable future because of being below Sea Level. The responsibility I believe is shared by both State and Federal. Just like the current states that border Mexico and are taking measures to protect their citizens from the hords illegal aliens, when the federal government doesn't step up to the plate for whatever reason, you as a state body must do something to protect your citizens (Sue, peitition the federal government, raise taxes, whatever . . .lives are at risk).
Would a better levee system have helped? Maybe. Would a prolonged egineering effort like: (Netherlands North Sea Protection Works) http://www.asce.org/history/seven_wonders.cfm#neder have helped? I'd argue it is more likely to give the city a fighting chance. Either fix the dangers surrounding the city of New Orleans or vacate it.
As for Bush and his administration. Their abilities to lead this country have proven poor. Their views on the environment are nothing short of despicable. They can't get full repsonsiblity for this as New Orleans has been around for a long time. However, higher and reinforced levees would have kept back more water, that is obvious. I see it as one thing his administration shares in blame for.
in case anyone has any thoughts to share with Shrub & company about their complete incompetence, hubris, avarice, greed and other disgusting, dehumanizing, pathetic, war-/hate-mongering qualities?
[email protected]
Maybe you want to thank them for their zealous, fanatical adherence to zero government/free market greed, and destroying government for and by the people (while creating welfare for the wealthy) ... meanwhile poor people are dying everywhere, even in their own right-wing backyard.
another place to share the feelings: http://www.congress.org
Kevin appears to be a good guy. But on this issue he's totally full of shit. It's political by its very nature.
The "death tax" should be: everything you own.
the price we pay
looks like you and walter maestri took a similar approach, AA:
http://www.alternet.org/story/24871/
On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
draining the already-depleted coffers to pay for the war for oil; now that's what i call a "death" tax!
There are two levees. The Western Levee was constructed by the US Army Corp of Engineers. It is a solid continuous levee and did not fail.
The eastern levee failed. The responsibility for maintaining those levees is the resposibility of THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE PROPERTY ABUTTS LEVEE, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The local Levee Board is responsible for the inspection of these levees and insuring that they are safe. NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
One other point: The New Orleans Director of Homeland Security has called the response a national embarassment.
I agree.
But its the local director who is responsible for drawing up the plans and coordinating the rescue effort. He is a political appointee of the State Louisiana, a democrat. The mayor of New Orleans, also a democrat, has also been completely useless in this effort.
So as the saying goes: "people who live in glass houses..."
There are two levees. The Western Levee was constructed by the US Army Corp of Engineers. It is a solid continuous levee and did not fail.
The eastern levee failed. The responsibility for maintaining those levees is the resposibility of THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE PROPERTY ABUTTS LEVEE, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
The local Levee Board is responsible for the inspection of these levees and insuring that they are safe. NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
One other point: The New Orleans Director of Homeland Security has called the response a national embarassment.
I agree.
But its the local director who is responsible for drawing up the plans and coordinating the rescue effort. He is a political appointee of the State Louisiana, a democrat. The mayor of New Orleans, also a democrat, has also been completely useless in this effort.
So as the saying goes: "people who live in glass houses..."
Things like levees ARE federal projects, managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the state. The Corps has responsibility for navigable waterways, such as the Mississippi. The money is federal.
Try as I might I can't seem to find levees and waterways in the Constitution, which delineates the federal government's mandate and authority.
The federal government has ignored the Constitution since at least the reconstruction, if not before. But it remains that the federal government has no mandate to build or maintain waterways or levees, and hence no authority to do so. It also has no Constitutional authority to invade iraq, or create civil rights or privacy rights out of thin air, then ignore them for virtually everything else, or require that they be violated, but it has indeed done so.
It continues to amaze me that the average Bush supporter blames this tragedy on "God"...
I believe the words you are looking for is 'act of god'. That is, the storm is a natural event and that bush did not create, steer, direct, modify, or otherwise have anything to do with the creation and path of said storm.
I really don't think this is unreasonable BTW.
Or do you believe bush has weather control and uses it against the US?
"Things like levees ARE federal projects, managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the state. The Corps has responsibility for navigable waterways, such as the Mississippi. The money is federal."
uhhh if you check the map, the levees that failed are NOT on the navigable waterway that is the Mississippi. Sorry, your point fails on fact.
Two other points:
1. The Lousiana National Guard is under the control of the GOVERNOR, a democrat, not the President. Sof if they were slow to respond, talk to the Governor.
2. The mayor of New Orleans declared a mandatory evacuation, prior to the arrival of Katrina, but he failed to use the hundreds of school busses at his disposal to get his constituents, who had not transport out of harms way.
You are an idiot, Loretta.
Bush thought it was more important to spend $213 million on a bridge to an uninhabited island than spend an extra $60 million to protect New Orleans.
Homeland Security is a very sick joke!
There had been urgent requests to the Bush adminstration from the Army Corps of Engineers and Louisiana congress to allocate money to save New Orleans, but because of the tax cuts to the wealthy, the war in Iraq and the demands of homeland security these requests were repeatedly denied. The Times-Picayune had been running articles about what would happen if a major hurricane hit N.O. So, because of Bush and his greed and his ego for power of starting a war based on lies the people of NO have suffered and die but we will all suffer from this. Please do not tell me he is a God-fearing man for if he was a real Christian (not a con-artist as he is) he would be doing a lot more to help those who can not help themselves and he would put the interest of this country first over his rich and greedy cronies. If they pass this tax cut they are the lowest of the scum for this is nothing but a tax cut for the wealthy.
Hurricane Katrina was an act of God. No one disputes this. But ...
What if Katrina were the act of an angry God sent NOT to punish New Orleans for any real or imagined sins, but to shake all those ignorant people who reelected this incompetent president to office from the hypnotic trance they were in. What if God wanted to anger the electorate to such a degreee that they finally spoke up and brought out the truth in such a loud and undeniable manner that those theocratic, corporate puppets (Republicans) would be driven from power so that our country could be given back American citizens?
This issue is nothing more - absolutely nothing more - than a lefist excuse to blame the president for something, for anything, for everything.
Blame the mayor of NO for being useless and having no plan. Blame the governor of LA for being useless and having no plan. They had everything they needed to make the best of a bad situation. But they didn't.
The cost of the cleanup to the citizens of the US will far exceed the cost of proper levees. This is not a surprise to anyone of course.
You all play the hate card and it will get you no where, because all Americans know how to do is take sides instead of action. Americans should unite to solve the issues. Hasn't the levy issue been discussed in Congress for 30 years?
Additionally, why have we not persued other energy alternatives like solar? Debating - not action...
In Loretta's defence, she at least admits that God wrought the devastation upon New Orleans. Usually God is only attributed with answering prayers and leading sports people to victory. Death, destruction and inhumanity to man which, logically, must be under his auspices, are somehow avoided. One notes that President Bush's very first reaction to the disaster was to thank Americans for their prayers.
I'm sorry that Christian Rightist kneejerk diverted healthy discourse here from the good and rightful topic - which is the deep concern people need to have about the policies which are set to carve yet deeper the very class divide which has been so graphically highlighted by the catastrophe of New Orleans.
Additionally, why have we not persued other energy alternatives like solar? Debating - not action...
Posted by Christine at September 4, 2005 01:50 PM
You know, back in the daze of president Carter solar energy was a big thing. Fact is, billions were spent in direct subsidies (well, I don't know the dollar amount) and many solar water heaters etc... were installed.
The thing about solar power is it works fine as long as someone else pays the costs. On top of that since all the alternative power sources are intermittant (the sun goes down, or gets covered by clouds, the wind don't always blow, etc...) for each KW is alternateative power, we need a KW of traditional power, to make up for the times when the wind ain't blowing or the sun ain't shining. That is, it costs more than twice as much as traditional power.
The problem is that these alternative energy sources make no economic sense, and unless they recieve subsidies, they are not only not cost effective, they ain't affordable. They are a cost, another way to waste resources, and the supposed benefit is more than offset by the fact that they all need to have a traditional power source as backup for the times they don't work.
And it's curious that the so-called eco-friendly wind power generators are killing many birds, including endangered species.
My take is that we need to do what makes sense, and it's rarely what is presented as desirable. We need to look at both the costs and the benefits, not just the benefits (if any, can anyone tell me the benefit of recycyling paper?).
Loretta, let me help you understand. We fault the entire Bush administration (and those administrations before it as well, for that matter)for their denial of/inaction on the issue of carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, which spawns irregular weather patterns like Katrina.
Posted by wiley at August 31, 2005 04:18 PM
This is so disjoint as to be schizophrenic.
1) There is no proven correlation between global warming and hurricane frequency or intensity.
2) Katrina is not an "irregular weather pattern", it's a regular normal weather event that happens around the world each and every year, and has for the entire recorded history of man and most certainly long before that.
If you feel so strongly about this, ditch your car (I expect this is largely what you blame, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Refusal by this government to sign on to and implement the Kyoto Protocol is NOT an act of God, it's a foolish, shortsighted, arrogant error, a denial of reality that is nothing short of a stupid and greedy refusal to accept scientific truths.
Kyoto is not just stupid, it's suicidal. You think Katrina a catastrophy, Kyoto would be worse, for the entire country. No matter what the problem, Kyoto is not a solution. I think it important that a 'solution' needs be an improvement over the situation without said solution BTW.
BTW, can you tell me why Chinese CO2 is not as bad for the enviornment as is claimed ours is? Same question for all the countries exempted by Kyoto, which is the majority of the countries in the world.
The "death tax" should be: everything you own.
Posted by Chuck Dupree (Belisarius) at September 2, 2005 04:45 AM
Excuse me?
"[C]an anyone tell me the benefit of recycyling paper?)."
Trees trap carbon, carbon is a greenhouse gas, therefore the fewer trees cut down the greater their capacity to trap carbon.
Trees produce oxygen, cutting them down diminishes the amount that is produced, therefore...
See where I'm going with that one?
And if you think alternative energy costs too much money, you should see how much nuclear is subsidized. Hell, oil, gas and coal as well. The associated health care costs to society in general from the burning of fossil fuels should preclude their use.
"[C]an anyone tell me the benefit of recycyling paper?)."
Trees trap carbon, carbon is a greenhouse gas, therefore the fewer trees cut down the greater their capacity to trap carbon.
Trees produce oxygen, cutting them down diminishes the amount that is produced, therefore...
See where I'm going with that one?
---
I see one-sided analysis.
Paper, if you've not noticed, is heavy. To recycle it required that it be moved, often very far. How much CO2 is released from the fuel used (which is non-renewable) to move paper to and from the recycling center, and how much CO2 is released in recycling? You have to look at the whole system dude. And do you have any idea how toxic the chemicals used to de-ink are and how much enviornmental damage they have in fact caused when they get released into the enviornment?
The quetion that should be asked is whether it's a net benefit or cost. It's a cost bigtime and burns lots and lots of non-renewable resources (which is a very poor tradeoff, IMHO). And the recycled paper is not good for much, and in a vast oversupply for those few things it is used for.
And if you think alternative energy costs too much money, you should see how much nuclear is subsidized. Hell, oil, gas and coal as well.
You think that the status of Nuclear energy in some way modifies the status of wind power? And if you think wind power is not subsidized research the "production tax credit". I'm sure there's more, I don't have time to look into it now.
---
The associated health care costs to society in general from the burning of fossil fuels should preclude their use.
---
And what costs are these, exactly?
And you not addressed at all the fact that wind power is not dependable, the wind don't always blow, and that the power companies need to install the same generation capacity as the wind power for the times when the wind don't blow (which is often when it's needed the most). Wind power does not make traditional power unecessary, it required additional traditional power as backup for when the wind don't blow. What is the value of intermittant power? You tell me. If all your food goes bad because the wind is not blowing, and you can't feed your kids, you may see no problem, but I suggest that many would, everyone with stored refigerated food needs dependable power.
Very interesting blog!