Krugman: Will Bush deliver?
Tom Quarlous
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.