Two Issues from Katrina

Now that the process of rebuilding has begun in New Orleans, two of the most prevalent things in the media are the massive price tag of the Congressional rebuilding effort and of course, the effect it has had on President Bush's poll numbers. To me they are really two separate issues so I will deal with them as such.

First, to rebuild the City of New Orleans the Bush Administration has proposed $200 billion worth of total aid, in the form of a whole variety of things. To be perfectly honest this amount is not only too much, but too soon. Quickly following the disaster House Speaker Dennis Hastert caught a lot of flack for saying that "it makes no sense to spend billions of dollars rebuilding a city that’s seven feet underwater," but there is value in his comments. While certainly it would be almost impossible to not rebuild New Orleans, as it is a city steeped in history and the residence of some 1.2 million people, it is plausible to ask if the entire city is indeed safe for human living.

Should we really let people live in all parts of the city? Are there places, further below sea level than others, that simply are to high-risk to live in? These are answers that I don't have (and that apparently no one does) but that need to be answered before we just send people back in to rebuild. We have to make sure that where those New Oleanders are living is a safe place for them to live, one that can be protected by the levees and other means. And we especially need to answer these sorts of questions BEFORE we spend $200 billion.

As for the actual amount, I do not claim to be the one who knows if this is truly an appropriate amount of cash to overcome the tragedy on the Gulf Coast. Although I must say, by the looks of it, the sum appears to be quite large and excessive. Prior to Katrina, the most costly Hurricane was Andrew, which devastated Southeastern Florida in 1992. That cost $25 billion. Certainly Katrina will be much more than that, perhaps even two or three times as much; but surely not 8 times as much. In fact, at landfall, Andrew was a stronger Hurricane (cat. 5 vs cat. 4) and it hit a more densely populated area. While New Orleans was much more vulnerable, it seems clear to me that Katrina should not cost an astronomical amount more than Andrew did.

Now, the second issue: Bush's poll numbers. CNN.com reported that on September 10th Bush's approval rating dipped to a new low of 39%. This simply makes me laugh. First of all, they don't matter AT ALL, because Bush is not going to be reelected, and in all likelihood will retire after he leaves the White House. Clearly he has a responsibility to the country as President, but he is not doing anything illegal, or anything worthy of a rebellion. Furthermore, just because some Conservative Congressmen disagree with Bush on this issue doesn't mean they will hold hands with Ted Kennedy all the way to an impeachment trial.

Second, if you really trust poll numbers then I can perhaps negotiate a deal to sell you a mountain house in the Florida Keys. Seriously, polls typically include about a five percent more Democrats than Republicans. Furthermore, they don't tend to be accurate. At the end of October 2004, a few days prior to the election Bush's approval rating, and the expected percent of votes he would get in the election, was 45%. In case you missed it that number was off by 6%.

Third, while many Conservatives disagree with Bush on this issue of rebuilding New Orleans, that doesn't mean they don't like him overall. I disagree with Bush on this issue, and on others, such as immigration, but I still think that between his handling of the War on Terror and his efforts to create a remarkable economy, he has been a good President. Mark you he is no Reagan or Lincoln, but still not bad. Indeed, come to think of it, during his first term, Lincoln's approval rate wasn't so great either, half the country hated him so much they seceded from the Union ;-)