Paul, we are now in an age when many Republicans and
Democrats see compassion as being defined as how much of our tax
dollars will be redistributed to those in need. This problem
certainly has existed for awhile now, even well before Katrina was just
a baby thunderstorm.
The measure of support for education, for
example, is not the reforms and critical changes proposed, but how much
money each party wants to appropriate.
In this type of
environment, it seems only logical that the Republicans do not want to
be outbid when it comes to Hurricane Katrina relief, especially after
Bush has been criticized so harshly over the last few weeks.
Rational action and fiscal responsibility are no
longer an issue for many politicians. When Congress appropriated
$60 billion almost immediately for Katrina relief, what was their
rationale for this specific number? Wouldn’t it have made more
sense to appropriate based on need? Of course, now Bush has
promised $200 billion for Katrina relief. It may make no sense
but it is doubtful anyone will say he is cheap when it comes to
spending.
If we look back to the tsunami disaster, the United
States made initial promises of aid that were criticized by politicians
and other countries as being cheap. Of course, the initial
numbers were just that: initial. The point that more money would
be on its way was apparently not very compelling. This time, Bush
and the Republicans were not going to be criticized for not promising
enough initially for a natural disaster right here in our own country,
even if waste, fraud, and abuse likely will be prevalent.
