The good news and bad news of the Bush reconstruction plan
After the president's speech on Gulf Coast reconstruction, I wrote that Bush is a "uniter once again." In general, I stand by that assessment. The speech, I think, struck the right note in rebutting MSM and Democratic claims that Bush is indifferent to the plight of the storm's victims and of poor people generally. Bush came across as engaged and compassionate -- a healer. I believe that most people who heard the speech liked what they heard.
At the same time, the president's remarks have divided conservatives like no other speech he has given, and no other policy he has announced. How valid are the criticisms coming from the right?
There are two broad questions here: first, is Bush correct that the federal government should play the leading role in the reconstruction; second, is the specific role Bush has outlined the correct one. As to the first question, I don't see much room for doubt that the feds should play the leading role. Some fiscal conservatives and libertarians point out that San Francisco and Chicago rebuilt themselves without federal involvement after their great disasters, and that New York City and State took the lead after 9/11. But reliance on the reconstruction of pre-modern cities a century ago, or on the rebuilding of a few blocks of New York, is so obviously misplaced in this context as to be unserious. And, because it is not reasonable to expect that the burden of a disaster of this magnitude be borne by the people of a given state or city, conservatives who argue otherwise strike me as heartless, as well. Conservatives play into liberal hands when they fail to recognize that we are a nation, not a loose confederation, and that we cannot turn our backs on our fellow citizens, or make them pay the lion's share of the bill, when they are on the receiving end of a disaster of this magnitude.
Moreover, quite apart from the merits, the federal government is required by law to pay for a huge share of the costs of disaster relief. As I understand it, the Stafford Act of 1988 requires that the feds pay at least three-quarters of the cost of reconstruction of public infrastructure after a major disaster is declared, and even more in the case of an extraordinary disaster. So the answer to the first question is, I think, that the feds should and must play the leading role.
However, I don’t read the Stafford Act as mandating that the federal government undertake, and pay for, a reconstruction effort of the scope Bush proposed. The president contemplates more than just rebuilding infrastructure. His broad program seems to encompass education, jobs, anti-poverty measures, and the like. What should a conservative make of this?
This conservative sees the speech as essentially the same bad news-good news story that characterizes so much of the president's domestic policy (think of education and prescription drugs). The bad news is that the president has proposed what looks like a super-expensive, super-intrusive federal program. The good news is that he wants to build-in conservative agenda items and an overall conservative approach. The agenda items include enterprise zones, tax incentives, reliance on private institutions, private accounts, home ownership, and so forth. The overall approach, in the words of David Brooks, is an "energetic but not dominating government that catalyzes other institutions and embraces individual initiative."
The problem, as John has said, is that the bad news is real -- what Bush proposes will be expensive and intrusive. And much money will be wasted, not because Bush is incompetent or wasteful by nature (as his rabid critics on the left and right claim), but because all big government programs result in massive waste, all the more so when a corrupt locality like New Orleans is involved.
By contrast, as John has also said, the good news is softer and more amorphous. How much attention will the administration pay to the various agenda items; will the bureaucracy really implement them in meaningful ways; what do they actually mean in practice as applied here; will the president's good intentions be swallowed up by inertia, incompetence, or corruption at various levels of government?
I don't think anyone knows the answer right now, but conservatives are not wrong to be worried. The devil is always in the details, but here the devil may also be in putting a program like this into motion without anticipating and comprehending many of the details. Perhaps the administrative will exhibit the wisdom and follow-through needed to make the good news outweigh the bad here. Time will tell.
