Me, First
Happy Friday.
The current administration -- belatedly awaking to the reality that the government has obligations to Americans, too -- is seeking $200 billion in budget cuts to contribute to the Katrina relief effort. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) already has rejected the repeal of 6,000 pet projects (e.g. pork) worth $24 billion. Included among them is a $500 million Hastert-sponsored transportation project to widen roads in his suburban Chicago district and to fund a bicycle path and a sidewalk.
Such misplaced priorities are not surprising. For the current administration, the real tragedy of Katrina was not the staggering loss of life or the creation of tens of thousands of American "refugees" -- it was the interference with the Congressional agenda. The week Katrina hit, the Senate was to consider legislation to make repeal of the estate tax permanent. The measure (H.R. 8) already passed the House on April 13, 2005.
Remarkably, however, "[c]omplete repeal of the estate tax would reduce federal revenues by $290 billion over the first five years, according to one of Congress's most conservative estimates."
"The estate tax, the most progressive American tax, is paid only by the very wealthy. The top 5% of taxpayers pay almost 99% of estate taxes, and the top tenth of 1% of taxpayers pay more than 33%. The vast majority of Americans are already exempt from the estate tax. As a result, they will receive no benefit at all from making the repeal permanent."
So why do republicans continue to insist on the repeal of a tax that affects just 5% of the most wealthy members of society and generates 33% more revenue than is being sought for the Katrina relief effort?
Greed.
According to the Fact Sheet issued by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca), the President, Vice President, and the Cabinet are estimated to receive a total tax benefit of between $91 million and $344 million if the estate tax repeal is made permanent.
W, whose estimated worth is between $3 million and $12.9 million, will save between $787,193 and $6.2 million. Cheney, whose estimated worth is between $23.9 million and $111.3 million (ticker symbol: HAL), will save between $12.6 million and $60.7 million.
To be fair, the current administration is showing some concern for those whose lives were destroyed by Katrina. The conservative Heritage Foundation, which has been helping Karl Rove develop the administration's recovery plan, wants to exempt from the estate tax anyone killed by Katrina with a net worth of $1.5 million or more. Not surprisingly, so far they haven't been able to find anyone who fits that description...
The current administration -- belatedly awaking to the reality that the government has obligations to Americans, too -- is seeking $200 billion in budget cuts to contribute to the Katrina relief effort. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) already has rejected the repeal of 6,000 pet projects (e.g. pork) worth $24 billion. Included among them is a $500 million Hastert-sponsored transportation project to widen roads in his suburban Chicago district and to fund a bicycle path and a sidewalk.
Such misplaced priorities are not surprising. For the current administration, the real tragedy of Katrina was not the staggering loss of life or the creation of tens of thousands of American "refugees" -- it was the interference with the Congressional agenda. The week Katrina hit, the Senate was to consider legislation to make repeal of the estate tax permanent. The measure (H.R. 8) already passed the House on April 13, 2005.
Remarkably, however, "[c]omplete repeal of the estate tax would reduce federal revenues by $290 billion over the first five years, according to one of Congress's most conservative estimates."
"The estate tax, the most progressive American tax, is paid only by the very wealthy. The top 5% of taxpayers pay almost 99% of estate taxes, and the top tenth of 1% of taxpayers pay more than 33%. The vast majority of Americans are already exempt from the estate tax. As a result, they will receive no benefit at all from making the repeal permanent."
So why do republicans continue to insist on the repeal of a tax that affects just 5% of the most wealthy members of society and generates 33% more revenue than is being sought for the Katrina relief effort?
Greed.
According to the Fact Sheet issued by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Ca), the President, Vice President, and the Cabinet are estimated to receive a total tax benefit of between $91 million and $344 million if the estate tax repeal is made permanent.
W, whose estimated worth is between $3 million and $12.9 million, will save between $787,193 and $6.2 million. Cheney, whose estimated worth is between $23.9 million and $111.3 million (ticker symbol: HAL), will save between $12.6 million and $60.7 million.
To be fair, the current administration is showing some concern for those whose lives were destroyed by Katrina. The conservative Heritage Foundation, which has been helping Karl Rove develop the administration's recovery plan, wants to exempt from the estate tax anyone killed by Katrina with a net worth of $1.5 million or more. Not surprisingly, so far they haven't been able to find anyone who fits that description...
posted by Happy Friday | 7:04 AM
6 Comments:
A quick look at a picture of Hastert, and I'd say he needs to give up his pork . . . and plenty else.
We're using Paul Krugman's columns as fact sources?
Does the "fact" that Rove relies on the Heritage Foundation for advice really need a citation? Or the "fact" that the Heritage Foundation favors tax cuts for the wealthy? I'm sure you'll find such info on its web page.
I think Krugman's a Nobel Prize-winning clown lately, but that doesn't mean he can't tell you the sum of 2+2, or the date the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Finally -- always easy to criticize when you sign your missive, "anonymous."
At the expense of stating the obvious, Bush ran his first campaign on the idea that he could return dignity and civility to Washington. Well he has certainly done that. He then ran his re-election campaign on the idea that his opponent would be unable and/or unwilling to appropriately defend and/or protect the nation during a crisis. Moreover, the current administration was warned of a possible terrorist attack on American soil (see numerous sources including former anti-terrorism czar, Richard A. Clark), yet many right-wing pundits blamed the former administration. The current administration was warned of an impending natural disaster on American soil (see the Weather Channel), yet spun the focus and blame for the dismal response upon local authorities in Louisiana. But the Department of Homeland Security website (www.dhs.gov) clearly states, “In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort. The new Department will also prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness. Educating America's families on how best to prepare their homes for a disaster and tips for citizens on how to respond in a crisis will be given special attention at DHS.” WOW. At this point, Democrat or Republican, I’m just looking for a little leadership (and some accountability).
I agree dog!
Housing for Storm's Evacuees Lagging Far Behind U.S. Goals
By ERIC LIPTON and LESLIE EATON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 - After Hurricane Katrina left hundreds of thousands of people homeless, the Federal Emergency Management Agency signed contracts for more than $2 billion in temporary housing, including more than 120,000 trailers and mobile homes. But the agency has placed just 109 Louisiana families in those homes.
A month after the disaster, the federal government's temporary housing effort is stumbling.
The inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday that FEMA was freezing many orders for trailers, although the agency disputes that. Members of Congress, complaining that a $236 million deal to lease three ships to house evacuees was far too expensive, are calling for an investigation. And under an alternative FEMA program to give victims cash to find their own housing, 332,000 households have been approved in just a week.
Federal officials acknowledge that the installation of mobile homes has moved slowly, especially in Louisiana. But they are blaming the disruption caused by Hurricane Rita, as well as local officials in Louisiana.
"We as a federal government can't come in and just place anything anywhere," said James McIntyre, a FEMA spokesman. "This is not a takeover. We have to work within the limitations set by state and local officials."
Louisiana officials, though, have been working tirelessly to find spots for the trailers, said Kim Hunter Reed, director of policy and planning for Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco.
Ms. Reed described the process as too cumbersome and in need of streamlining, but said: "We are working as fast and as hard as we can to make this happen. We have thousands of people in shelters who are past ready to move."
Almost 48,000 people remain in shelters in Louisiana, according to the governor's office, and about 30,000 Louisiana citizens are in shelters in other states. For those who want to stay in Louisiana, FEMA's new cash and voucher programs are not a solution, Ms. Reed said, because there is no vacant housing.
Some housing experts say it would make sense to scrap plans for large-scale installations or even for the smaller 500-unit trailer parks the agency now envisions.
"There are a lot of problems with trailers," said Susan J. Popkin, a researcher for the Urban Institute in Washington. "You're concentrating people in the middle of nowhere, and once they're there, it's very hard for them to get out."
Especially if displaced families get relocation help and other social services, Ms. Popkin said, they would be better off moving to places with existing schools, hospitals and other infrastructure. "People's basic needs go beyond a roof," she said.
FEMA is leasing three ships from Carnival Cruise Lines and a fourth from Scotia Prince Lines; together, they can hold 8,116 people.
As of Wednesday, 3,726 people were on the ships when a census was taken, suggesting they may be less than half full. FEMA officials say that understates occupancy, because not all guests are on the ships at any given time. Based on the number of people registered to stay on the ships - most of whom are doing recovery work - FEMA officials believe the ships are more than 80 percent full and will be at capacity in a few days.
"It serves quite a big need to put people in the right location," Natalie Rule, a FEMA spokeswoman, said. "People needed to rebuild."
But the ship deal has drawn rebukes from several lawmakers, some of whom are calling for an investigation into how the Carnival contract was negotiated. The three Carnival ships are costing the government $236 million, or about $1,280 per person per week, assuming full occupancy. The Scotia Prince ferry, less luxurious, is costing $13 million, or about $500 per person a week.
"Where was the judgment?" said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma.
Mr. Coburn suggested that the government could have saved money by simply sending people on a six-month cruise, as the advertised weekly rates for some Carnival cruises to the Caribbean are lower. "I don't know anybody who has experience in finance or in business who says that the price they paid is appropriate," he said.
Carnival has said that the government payments would simply replace the revenues it would have collected if it sailed its planned cruises. Four analysts who track the industry said that Carnival had negotiated a good deal, but that there were too many variables involved - including lost gambling revenues - to determine whether it would prove to be a windfall for the company.
The temporary housing FEMA has provided was made available fairly quickly in Alabama and Mississippi. Nearly 4,000 travel trailers or mobile homes are ready for occupancy in those two states, and many of them are already filled.
But progress has been much slower in Louisiana. Only 1,397 travel trailers or mobile homes have been installed, and just 109 are occupied. About 1,000 trailers have been given to businesses, like the Folger's coffee operation of Procter & Gamble, for temporary housing for workers.
Ron Albright, program manager for the Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo, Calif., the engineering consulting firm hired by FEMA to install the units, acknowledged that the work had gone slower than the company would like. Mr. Albright said getting approval to occupy land that has access to basic utilities and other infrastructure had been difficult.
Several big trailer parks are in the works, but FEMA is nowhere near a goal that it set earlier this month of delivering 30,000 units of housing every two weeks.
Officials from FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the agency, said they were still committed to providing temporary housing through mobile homes and trailers. But they said they wanted to give evacuees choices.
"It may be some will voluntarily choose to go where there are jobs, and for the time being use temporary housing assistance," Ms. Rule, the FEMA spokeswoman, said. "Maybe they'll want to rebuild on their lots and they'll want to put a trailer there. We're not going to make them do it, but we're going to enable them to do it."
So, a week ago, the federal government announced it would provide two kinds of rental assistance to evacuees for up to 18 months. It can be used anywhere in the country.
Homeowners and renters are eligible for cash payments; people who had been living in federally subsidized housing are eligible for a voucher program.
Edgar O. Olsen, an economist at the University of Virginia, said that this kind of program made more sense than installing a lot of trailers, even though it might result in a steep drop in population.
"Let the individuals decide what makes most sense," Mr. Olsen said. "If it means the population of New Orleans is less, that may bother some politicians in Louisiana. It doesn't bother me in the slightest."
Leslie Eaton reported from New York for this article.
Post a Comment
<< Home