by Tom Sears
Louisiana is to Blame For Katrina
I was all set to go with an article about the ACLU (it wasn’t a nice one), but I got sick and tired of everyone playing the Washington blame game of who was responsible for the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
First, I want everyone to know that the people of New Orleans and Louisiana have my most profound sympathy. You were the victims of others’ incompetence. No, it wasn’t the evil President Bush or the slow-moving federal government response. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of your New Orleans Mayor and your Louisiana Governor.
Yes, the Federal Government (FEMA) was slow to respond, but where the blame truly lies is on the first responders, of which FEMA is not, and the poor planning by the state of Louisiana.
Why do I say this? First, let’s compare hurricane Katrina to the 9/11 attack. Even though the 9/11 tragedy was totally unexpected, remember how the firemen, police, and all other emergency departments reacted quickly and effectively? Their swift actions and heroism saved countless lives.
Now look at the first responders of New Orleans. What did the mayor and governor do, even though they had days (actually decades) to prepare for the hurricane’s impact? They did absolutely nothing. Where were the bus drivers to assist in the evacuation of New Orleans citizens? Remember the 500 plus buses partially submerged? Where were the police and other emergency personnel? There was no plan, and as a result, many lives were inexcusably lost.
First of all, the mayor didn’t even have a plan for response, and he was the one responsible for having one. There is an evacuation order in the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan that simply says the Mayor is in charge of everything.
Secondly, the governor could have easily called up the National Guard much sooner to protect peoples’ abandoned property from looters and to prevent other criminal acts. These actions, or rather lack thereof, are indefensible. It’s just easier to blame President Bush, even though he and his administration had zero responsibility.
Not to be overlooked - What about an article in a December 1995 issue of The New Orleans Times-Picayune? It states that the New Orleans Levee Board received federal dollars to protect the region from hurricanes. At this time the board promised the newspaper that the few manageable gaps in the walls would be completely sealed by 1999.
CSNnews.com senior staff writer Jeff Johnson stated that in 1998 Louisiana had a $2 billion dollar construction budget, and less than 1/10 of 1 percent was dedicated to levee improvements in the New Orleans area. As Mr. Johnson stated, “They got the federal money and didn’t spend it on what it was supposed to be for.”
Here is a novel idea. Since the city of New Orleans had 35 to 50 or more years to prepare for this inevitable tragedy, why didn’t it create the necessary programs and funding to provide security for their constituents? This includes development of a long- term plan of levee re-enforcement, using STATE FUNDS to pay for the cost. I know. What a cold-hearted (though many would say practical) thought. But please tell me why do I have to pay for someone else’s lack of action. Why is the federal government blamed for the inaction and lack of leadership in Louisiana? It is their state, their responsibility, their cost, and only theirs.
I feel the same way about other costs. I don’t want to pay for someone’s choice of building on a flood plain, on an earthquake fault line, in a tornado alley, or in a city that is below sea level. The states should bear the responsibility for building the reserves to cover such catastrophes, and those funds should come from the state’s citizens.
How were they supposed to do this? Anybody hear of state income taxes and state sales taxes? Louisiana has ridiculously low rates in both areas of taxation compared to other states. It has a three tier income tax structure with the top rate being 6 percent. Its sales tax is 3.97 percent with an additional .03 percent “Louisiana Tourism Promotion District Sales Tax.”.
How about a 1 or 2 percent “Let’s Include in Our Own Budget The Costs To Protect Our Citizens” tax? This additional tax, collected over 35 or 50 years, would have allowed the entire state to be enclosed in one gigantic dome, to say nothing of strengthening a levee or two. Hey, this could also work for repaying the federal government for funds ADVANCED to Louisiana.
The federal government cannot be a do all – end all solution for everyone. Now, the federal government (that’s all of us) is absorbing untold billions of dollars of hurricane relief, and then Bush gets blamed again. What happened to our Founding Fathers’ idea of a weak Federal government and strong state powers?
Lawmaker Fabricates Many Issues
I told myself when I began writing my columns that I would not respond to letters to the editor except on rare occasions. This is one of those times.
In the February 24th issue of The Daily Star there was a letter from Congressman Michael R McMcNulty, D-Green Island. When so many (how can I say this in a I restrained way?) fabrications are stated, I can hardly sit by and let them go unchallenged.
First, is the Congressman’s, straight-from-the-Democrats’ playbook, scare tactics and mis-truths throughout his letter. To mention just a few: “slashes educational spending,” “mortgages our grandchildren’s future,” “unfairness of proposals breathtaking,” and finally, “being both fiscally and morally irresponsible.”
First of all, Congressman, a slowing of the growth of a budgeted item is not a cut. If one proposes an increase from $10 to $20 but trims it to $18, that is a slowing of growth. If one proposes a cut from the $10 that means the $10 decreases to $8. I know you are mis-using the terms for political gain, but a second grader can see the difference.
Let’s take the issues one at a time: There is no one who respects our military men and women more than I do. The Office of Management and Budget says that spending for veterans actually increased by 11 percent to $77.85 billion. The decrease in benefits you are talking about is due to an increase in co-pay for prescription medication from $7 to $15. To demand that the government absorb all of the increase is unreasonable. President Bush cannot control the cost of medication.
You state that 46 million Americans lack health insurance, and that figure is correct. Is it possible that the uncontrolled increases in costs might no longer be affordable to businesses? Don’t blame Bush for that, as he cannot control rises in medical costs. Spending for Medicare and Social Security went up 6.7 percent to $980.15 billion, and spending for health programs decreased by 4.9 percent to $280.01 billion, which is still more than half of the amount spent for national defense! I certainly don’t agree with the 8.7 percent cut in National Defense to $513.03 billion, but you can see Bush has put healthcare above defense spending.
I agree with you, somewhat, on the new proposals for increases involving the dairy industry. There are no harder-working individuals in the U.S. than our farmers. Remember, however, that these are just proposals. I doubt there will be any cuts in the final plan. Spending for agriculture as a whole increased 9.7 percent to $27.06 billion. A more reasonable approach would be to end paying farmers for not growing certain crops and instead aggressively pursue the opening of other countries’ markets for our agricultural products.
We have, for too long, allowed other countries to keep their markets closed to
U.S.goods while we don’t do the same for their goods. Our farmers can compete and
win every time if the playing field is level.
Thank heavens the budget for education is being cut. This is the most wasteful, unproductive agency in the federal government. In 1996, an investigation made by the House of Representatives’ Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee “documented 760 unconstitutional federal education programs – 175 from the Department of Education alone – located in 39 separate agencies, departments, commissions and boards!
These combined unconstitutional funds totaled $120 billion. Further, the committee found that only 6 percent of these programs have as their primary function the teaching of math, reading or science!
A study released
in 2000 by the (bipartisan) American Legislative Exchange Council showed that there was no correlation between increased spending and student achievement.
I have a column coming up later to address his “tax cuts for the wealthy.”
Congressman McNulty, leaders lead. President Bush has provided a budget proposal for negotiation. Your party has offered no plan whatsoever. If you are going to criticize others, tell me what your plan is. Stop whining! Not once in your letter did you suggest alternative strategies. The federal government cannot be all things to all people. The government isn’t there to grant our every wish. We can only expect government to provide in a fiscally responsible fashion.
You insist in going in another direction? Unemployment is at 4.9 percent, the lowest since the ‘70s (Labor Department). There are 4.5 million more workers now than in May 2003, before the Bush tax cuts (The Wall Street Journal). We have an economic growth rate of 3.5 to 4 percent, about twice the rate in Europe (The Journal). States the Journal, this is “especially remarkable given 8 Federal Reserve Board interest rate hikes, oil prices as high as $70 a barrel, and Hurricane Katrina, one of the most devastating natural disasters in American history.”
What policies do you want to pursue that will take our country in another direction Mr. Congressman?
Arctic Refuge Has Energy That We Need
As President Bush stated in his State of The Union speech in January, it is Eme to get serious about becoming energy independent. The only thing I disagree with him about is that he wants this accomplished by the year 2025. I feel, with aggressive commitment, it can be accomplished much sooner.
The strategy must be mulE-faceted. I’ll list these acEons separately before I discuss each one at length. This will obviously take more than one column.
1.Immediate opening, leasing and drilling of the ArcEc NaEonal Wildlife refuge (ANWR).
2.Immediate plans to develop more nuclear power staEons. As in number one above, all environmental groups’ stall tacEcs and misinformaEon campaigns should be ignored.
3.Ethanol producEon should be heavily subsidized, which has already been proposed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
4.Expanded use of our natural coal resources. We have enough for more than 400 years.
5.Tax incenEves for purchasers of ethanol-driven Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) as well as tax credits to encourage the manufacture of such vehicles. A total of 600,000 of these vehicles are planned to be produced in 2006 by General Motors, even though they will conEnue to be powered by gasoline because of the lack of availability of fuel-refilling staEons. There are currently only 600 such ethanol staEons in the United States.
6.Lastly, for now, tax credits for the manufacture of cars with meaningful and measureable increases in miles-per-gallon staEsEcs. This is the one that can be accomplished almost immediately.
Let’s start with number one, a drilling strategy for ANWR. The area consists of 19 million acres, of which 1.5 million would be explored, leaving the remaining 17.5 million acres untouched. Of this 1.5 million-acre area, only 2,000 acres would be involved in the actual drilling. This represents a parcel no bigger than Dulles Airport near Washington,
D.C. Give me a break. I’m Ered of hearing about this huge, unspoiled, prisEne area being ruined forever. 99.99 percent of the area remains untouched!
Why bother with all this effort? The U.S. Geological Survey esEmates that ANWR could provide yields of up to 16 billion barrels of oil. There are oil stained sands as well as oil literally bubbling up from the ground! This is roughly equal to all Saudi oil imports for more than 30 years. Saudi Arabia is our third-largest oil supplier, behind Canada and Mexico. As a mazer of fact, it would replace 100 percent of all the oil provided by the Persian Gulf countries for 20 years. Those countries include Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. This is making me feel safer already. It gives us more than enough Eme to fully develop strategies 2 through 6.
The environmentalists have been lying to us long enough. In 1968, they said there wasn’t enough oil to make it worthwhile to develop the Prudhoe Bay area. It took the Eme from 1968 to 1977 to create the Alaskan pipeline. Since that Eme, the area has provided more than 13 billion barrels of oil and is sEll producing, albeit at only 50 percent of its capacity. The pipeline is more than 800 miles long and the untapped area of ANWR, where the drilling would take place, is only 60 miles east of Prudhoe Bay.
Did I describe this “prisEne“ environment? According to Jonah Goldberg, editor of The NaEonal Review, the area is flat and treeless. Winters on the coastal plain last for nine months. There is complete darkness for 58 straight days, and temperatures can drop to 70 degrees below zero without factoring in wind chill. Summer creates huge puddles and azracts thousands of mosquitoes. No wonder many Congressmen who voted against drilling never even bothered to go and actually inspect the area.
Opponents of drilling also distort the facts by saying drilling would drasEcally affect .the populaEon of the porcupine caribou. Not that I care, but these same groups said the same thing about the caribou if the Prudhoe Bay were to be developed. From 1977, when the development began, to 2002, the caribou populaEon increased from 5,000 to 32,000. Also, the polar bear populaEon conEnues to grow and remain unthreatened.
The Wharton Econometrics Center esEmates that, in full producEon, up to 735,000 decent- paying jobs would be created. Remember, in my first column I said if it was a choice between the spozed owl and jobs for people in the lumber industry providing for their families, the choice would be simple. Replace the words spozed owl with caribou and lumber-industry jobs with oil-producEon jobs. I hear caribou meat is quite tender and tasty. Fire up the grills!
I’ll get to steps 2 through 6 in future columns.
Tax Cuts can Benefit Everyone
April 15th is rapidly approaching and the Democratic, leftist, leadership is reinstituting the mantra about the evils of President Bush’s tax cuts and how they favor only the rich. Give me a break. It’s a great strategy to foment class envy and class warfare, but it is a strategy with no merit whatsoever.
Look up the word “envy” in Webster’s Dictionary and you will find it defined as “Discontent or jealousy excited by the sight of another’s superiority or success; a feeling that makes a person begrudge another his good fortune; resentment; malice…..” Envy is even one of the seven deadly sins in Dante’s “Inferno.” Is this something to be proud of?
So why is class envy such an effective rallying cry? Simply because 42.5 million Americans who filed a tax return had no tax liability (some had zero taxes owed and still got a refundable check from the government), millions more paid next to nothing, and 15 million individuals and families earned some income last year but not enough to file a return. Therefore the strategy of taxing someone else doesn’t affect them at all. It seems easy to rally behind the cry of “tax the rich, they don’t deserve their wealth.” The liberals promote this attitude even when the top 1 percent of income earners pay 29 percent of all taxes. Extending this further, the top 5 percent pay 50 percent of all taxes and the top 20 percent pay over 79 percent!
Come on! How much should one have to pay to be a citizen of this great country? I know it should be something more than zero. Maybe those not contributing anything shouldn’t have a right to vote.
This country is hailed as the land of opportunity. Capitalism is what has made this country great. A large percentage of our economy and employment has been built on the backs of small businesses, in other words, risk takers. These individuals should be rewarded and praised for their efforts, not penalized. Their success benefits all of us.
But still, the rallying cry is a very popular one, even though short-sighted and foolish. If you remember back in the 90’s, Congress passed a “luxury tax” on items such as yachts, furs, jewelry, and the like. “Boy, that will sure soak the dirty rich!”
So what happened? These industries were basically destroyed as the “rich” simply postponed their purchase
s or made them overseas instead. More than 25,000 jobs were lost in the boat building business alone. Way to go. Ask these unemployed boat builders if they feel good about sticking it to the rich.
Yes, billions of dollars are going back to those from whom it was originally taken. Remember, it was not the government’s money to begin with. It belonged to the people who earned it in the first place. Most people, other than extreme leftists, would call this fair. As a matter of fact, it is the rich who save and invest which in turn leads to job creation and economic growth. This can be proven time and time again.
It was the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that brought us out of the recession that Bush inherited, and in turn is causing the strong growth we are presently experiencing. I wouldn’t call 4.5 million new jobs created since the tax cuts of 2003, a 4.9% percent unemployment rate, and a growth rate of 3.5 to 4 percent too bad. But those blind, shortsighted, whining Bush-hating liberals will still find something bad about the figures.
The problem is not tax-revenue generation, it is government spending. And I will agree and blame both Republicans and Democrats for this irresponsibility. In the 1800’s, government spending increased from $30 per person annually to $129. In 2004, the federal government was spending $7,100 per person! This is inexcusable!
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states exactly the federal authority for taxing and spending. Some of these are national defense, the Post Office, roads, courts, and a few other rather insignificant purposes. James Madison, in Federalist Paper number 45, said, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain with the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.”