Pres. Bush, show me the money!

Author: ROB KING ’09

When Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, it left an indelible geographic and human impact. There is an ever-growing death count reaching into the thousands, a historically significant city destroyed and over 70,000 public school students displaced in New Orleans alone, and those are just three examples. Katrina has caused and continues to cause an endless amount of pain and damage to its victims.

Hurricane Katrina has also had a profound political impact. Beginning with the Bush administration's initial lack of response to the disaster, continuing with the Medicaid disgrace and resulting Republican strife about spending on Katrina, there is evidence that the Republican Party has exposed a contradiction in its own policies.

The administration's failure to respond in the first 48 hours after the storm hit has been well documented. Bush was "monitoring" the storm from his ranch in Crawford, Texas, when it first began, and made his appearance in New Orleans several days later in close proximity to Air Force One. It was several days before Bush produced his initial relief package of $10.5 billion dollars, which was woefully inadequate. And it wasn't until 15 days after Katrina struck that the final aid package was passed. Here, Bush showed a lack of empathy for the victims and a hesitance to spend on their relief.

Bush continued this trend when he showed opposition to a bill written in the aftermath of the hurricane. It is a piece of bipartisan legislation written by Senators Grassley (R-Iowa) and Baucus (D-Montana). The Grassley-Baucus legislation provides comprehensive and immediate Medicaid relief for Katrina's many low-income victims. In this legislation, the federal government will provide complete funding for the affected states, including Medicaid programs, which ensure total health coverage for all qualified.

Disturbingly, Bush and other Republicans opposed the Grassley-Baucus legislation on account of the spending involved. Bush only backed off when he became aware the bill was going to pass through Congress regardless of his support. Backers of the bill included former senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi).

As a result, an internal feud of sorts has erupted within the Republican Party. In the most basic sense, some members want to increase federal spending to aid Katrina victims, while others want to decrease that spending in order to decrease the deficit. This latter group is, at least, advocating a less effective, less comprehensive way of handling the relief effort.

While the Republicans promulgate a policy of decreased government spending on social welfare programs, the same policymakers are forced (either morally, politically or both) to support such spending. The clear, present and desired solution to Katrina is a federally funded relief effort for the American victims, whether or not Republican ideology allows for it.

And where does all that money come from, a Republican might ask? Well, raising taxes seems trivial now if the alternative is Americans drowning.

The author is a fellow of the Roosevelt Institution of Middlebury College's Center on Social Justice.