Posted September 28, 200519 yr http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...elt-cover_x.htm Hurricanes' aftermath whips up new deal for president By Susan Page, USA TODAY WASHINGTON ? Back-to-back hurricanes have reshaped the geography of the Gulf Coast and the contours of George W. Bush's presidency. Bush was elected in 2000 as a "compassionate conservative" who promised a "humble" foreign policy. After the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, he made fighting terrorism his main mission, launching wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq. Now, in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita ? to the consternation of many in his Republican base ? he is outlining one of the most ambitious domestic goals of any modern president. It is akin to FDR's New Deal, a response to the Depression, and the anti-poverty projects of LBJ's Great Society. Call him Franklin Delano Bush? The president has promised to do "what it takes" ? the $71 billion in spending and tax cuts approved by Congress so far is just a down payment ? to rebuild New Orleans and other storm-torn areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas. He proposes not only to help hurricane victims through a rough patch but also to create jobs, foster homeownership, address the nation's legacy of racism and revive a destroyed city in the poorest region of the country. The most devastating natural disaster in U.S. history has opened a third, distinct phase of Bush's presidency. This turn is more perilous than the pivot he made to acclaim in his first term, though. Democrats have their own ideas about hurricane relief. And Bush's big-spending, big-government proposals have split the Republican loyalists on whom he has relied. "This is a critical intersection for the president and his ability to be effective for the next three years," former House speaker Newt Gingrich cautions. He calls Bush's plan "the last straw" for deficit hawks. Leon Panetta, chief of staff in the Clinton White House, says the hurricanes are "a real turning point in his presidency." In the aftermath of 9/11, Americans united behind Bush as he vowed to pursue the al-Qaeda terror network behind the attacks on New York and Washington. Democrats deferred to his leadership. But in the aftermath of the hurricanes, especially Katrina, officials in both parties have criticized the administration for inadequate disaster planning despite the expenditure of billions of dollars since 9/11. Ousted FEMA director Michael Brown was hammered at a Senate hearing Tuesday about his agency's performance. Eight in 10 Americans want an independent investigation into what went wrong, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found. The poll showed that most African-Americans blame racism for the government's slow response. As he tries to move forward, Bush doesn't have the overwhelming congressional majorities enjoyed by Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. For the first time in Bush's presidency, Republicans are openly critical. "There is considerable concern about the estimated cost of rebuilding in the Gulf states and what the role of the federal government should be," says Maine Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Meanwhile, Bush's job-approval ratings and standing as a strong leader have sunk to record lows. "His political skills will have to be tremendous, of Rooseveltian proportions," says Stephen Hess, who came to Washington as an Eisenhower aide and is now a professor at George Washington University. After dealing with the hurricanes' aftermath and the Iraq war, Hess predicts, "There'll be little oxygen left in the air for other things." That includes the priorities Bush set in the 2004 campaign, from simplifying the tax code to adding individual investment accounts to Social Security. The hurricanes could threaten public support for maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq. Most Americans in the USA TODAY Poll endorsed financing hurricane relief by cutting spending on the war. Just how much Bush's presidency has changed in the space of the month was apparent by his whereabouts during the past few days. As Katrina barreled toward landfall at the end of August, Bush cleared brush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas; met with his national-security team to discuss the progress of the war; was photographed strumming a guitar given to him by country singer Mark Willis, and attended events in Arizona and California to promote Medicare's new prescription-drug benefit. He viewed the scene in New Orleans from aloft, in Air Force One. As Rita approached, Bush seemed to have nothing but the weather on his mind. At the White House, he conferred with officials in the Gulf region using a secure video system installed for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He flew to the U.S. Northern Command in Colorado to monitor the storm, then visited Texas' emergency operations center in Austin. He stopped by Baton Rouge on Sunday. Forty-eight hours later, he was back to view damage in Beaumont, Texas, and Lake Charles, La. "This area's hurting," he said during Tuesday's visit. "I saw firsthand how it's hurting." All that may have erased or at least diminished the images of Katrina. Then, wrenching news accounts showed mostly poor, mostly black victims stranded in New Orleans without food, water or medicine while government agencies dithered. Fairly or not, the public holds political leaders to account after natural disasters. An analysis by two Princeton political scientists published in June found that the New Jersey shark attacks of 1916 ? the inspiration decades later for the movie Jaws? caused a "near-earthquake" in shore communities against President Woodrow Wilson. The irate response from voters near the coast cost Wilson his home state in his re-election contest that year, though he won a second term. The study concluded that "climatic retribution" in 2000 ? that is, dismay over droughts and floods ? held down Vice President Gore's vote in Arizona, Louisiana, Nevada, Florida, New Hampshire, Tennessee and Missouri. He lost all seven states to Bush. "On average these things hurt the people who are in office," says Christopher Achen, co-author of the study with Admin Bartels. "There was a consensus that Bush handled events in the aftermath of 9/11 skillfully politically. This is more difficult." Most presidents face challenges in the Oval Office that they never imagined when running for the job. One disaster boosted Herbert Hoover, then the secretary of Commerce, when he gained a can-do reputation as President Coolidge's point man for relief efforts after the Mississippi River floods of 1927. Once in the White House, however, Hoover was undone by his failure to respond effectively when the Depression hit in 1929. Roosevelt, elected in 1932 to address the Depression, ended up leading the nation into World War II. Johnson's tenure was roiled by civil rights upheavals and assassinations. Jimmy Carter's term was defined by oil shocks in the Mideast and a hostage crisis in Iran. Twice transformed But no modern president can match the late-summer calamities that have twice transformed Bush's presidency: First, the nation's worst terrorist attacks; then, its most devastating natural disaster. Katrina has prompted Bush to make vaulting promises. "As we clear away the debris of a hurricane, let us also clear away the legacy of inequality," he declared at a service at Washington National Cathedral. On Monday, he said that with the hurricanes, "what a lot of Americans saw was ... some poverty that they had never imagined before, and we need to address that." In a speech to the nation, he made an open-ended pledge: "Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives." He has proposed a "Gulf Opportunity Zone," using tax breaks to encourage business investment. "Worker Recovery Accounts," to help evacuees get job training and jobs. An "Urban Homestead Act," to give federal land to poor people who would build houses on them. Plus federal funding for infrastructure repair, temporary housing and education aid. How much will it cost? Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist estimates the price tag for hurricane relief at $100 billion. The White House hasn't disputed suggestions that the total could be double that ? about the same as for the war and reconstruction in Iraq. Democrats' approaches are different, though equally expensive. Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., proposes a Gulf Coast Redevelopment Authority modeled on FDR's Tennessee Valley Authority. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, in a speech last week suggested an FDR-inspired Works Progress Administration for those who have lost their jobs. "Katrina is to the domestic budget what Sputnik was to the space program," says budget analyst Stan Collender ? that is, a spur to set as a national goal an endeavor that had scarcely been on the radar screen. But Bush's proposals have brought protests from deficit hawks and small-government conservatives. "I thought his middle initial was 'W,' not 'LBJ,' " former Reagan aide Linda Chavez grouses. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, leader of the Republican Study Group, proposed cuts in the highway bill or a delay in the Medicare drug benefit to offset hurricane costs, ideas the White House rejected. The criticism is not only that Bush's plans are expensive but also that they are expansive, carving out a major federal role in areas that Republicans traditionally have argued should be left to state and local governments and market forces. In the first campaign debate in 2000, Bush warned that electing Gore would bring about "a big, exploding federal government." Gingrich has his own prescription for what Bush should do: Name a high-profile point person to manage hurricane relief. Launch an independent audit of what went wrong. Push for more creative and non-bureaucratic solutions for rebuilding. For his part, Panetta ticks off Bush's problems, from complaints about disaster response to continuing violence in Iraq to rising energy prices. He calls the challenge to Bush as formidable as anything he's faced. "Put that all together," he says, "and it raises some very serious questions that I don't think are easily turned around."
September 28, 200519 yr The president has always made the fiscal right very angry because he supports the government programs that help people improve their stature. The president has pushed several home financing programs through Congress and that really has led to a boom in home ownership.
September 28, 200519 yr Anything less than his response of HUGE dollars to the affected areas could seriously injure Republican support in the South. At least for one election cycle. Not to mention his horrendous polling numbers. He's doing what he's got to do to survive politically. I can understand that.
September 28, 200519 yr Anything less than his response of HUGE dollars to the affected areas could seriously injure Republican support in the South. At least for one election cycle. Not to mention his horrendous polling numbers. He's doing what he's got to do to survive politically. I can understand that. If the 2004 election taught us anything, it's that people in the bible belt (i.e. the south) care more about keeping Gays down than pretty much anything else.
September 29, 200519 yr Ignoring the ignorant statement above. Ill respond to shamrock's post. I think bush haters should be pleased. Its a damned if you do or damned if you dont scenario. Spending too much wont go well with the true conservatives. Spending too little will hurt public opinion b/c the situation wont improve. The only way i see this as potentially being positive for bush is if.. 1. he uses this is a good reason to diminish troop presence in iraq 2. as a result of heavy spending the results are so great and revolutionary, that they not only rebuild the region but ultimately lead to black communities looking more favorably at bush. If these things happen then bush will be able to leave office as one of the most influential figures in this nations history, if he doesnt this may be the worst disaster since the election of jimmy carter
September 30, 200519 yr He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill during his time in office if I'm not mistaken. So whether it's "disaster" spending or otherwise, the fiscal right probably isn't thrilled with him.
September 30, 200519 yr He hasn't vetoed a single spending bill during his time in office if I'm not mistaken. So whether it's "disaster" spending or otherwise, the fiscal right probably isn't thrilled with him. You're right. He actually hasn't vetoed a single bill at all during his Presidency.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.