Ironically, the two news stories hit the headlines on the same front page. “Hurricane Cost Seen as Ranking Among the Top Ten” and “Federal Austerity Changes Disaster Relief.”
Irene may run up a repair and replacement bill between $7 billion and $10 billion.
The storm did extensive damage to towns, electric power lines, highways and farm fields from North Carolina to Vermont.
As the implications for the federal budget of that widespread damage hit Washington, Republican leaders had a knee-jerk reaction: spending on Irene must be matched with cuts elsewhere, they insisted.
None of those making that callous comment live in the stricken states, needless to say.
Sen. Bernard Sanders represents Vermont, where rains of as much as 10 inches caused disastrous floods in the southern half of the state.
Fresh from flights over his state, he commented:
“To say that the only way you can come up with funding to rebuild devastated communities is to cut back on other desperately needed programs is totally absurd,” said Sanders, an independent. “Historically in this country we have understood that when communities and states experience disasters, we as a nation come together to address those. That is what being a nation is about.”
Conservative Republicans have pushed in the past to pay for disaster relief through budget cuts elsewhere, most notably in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. But party leaders ultimately relented under political and public pressure, and much of the aid was delivered through deficit spending.
Research by Senate Democrats showed that since 1989, Congress has approved 33 emergency appropriations for disaster relief without offsetting that money with cuts in other departments or agencies.
SHOULD CONGRESS, once again, ignore the deficit and shovel the money out to Irene’s victims?
Yes and no.
FEMA is, as it should be, responding to the widespread need for federal assistance to recover from the storm’s devastation. To argue against federal disaster aid to fellow Americans should offend us all. As Sen. Sanders said, helping fellow citizens hit by a natural disaster is part of being a nation.
But the money spent doesn’t have to be borrowed, it can be raised. That, also, is what a nation is about — taxing itself to pay its bills.
Just as levies on luxuries were made to help pay for wars in the past, it would be perfectly appropriate to pass a luxury levy today to raise funds for the victims of Irene.
Our World War II luxury tax backfired because taxing yachts wound up putting shipyard workers out of work. So rather than tax luxuries, tax the incomes of those who can afford yachts and other luxuries. Following that rational course of action, which has pertinent precedence in our history, would be fairer and have far fewer unexpected consequences.
— Emerson Lynn, jr.
