Recently, the T-P's Stephanie Grace wrote a column titled "Katrina a risk-free issue for McCain". And whenever I see the words "risk free", I immediately run to my battlestations. Here's what Grace had to say:
Sen. John McCain could actually benefit from highlighting the Bush administration's catastrophic failures in Louisiana.
...
the hurricane response is the one aspect of the Bush's record that nobody bothers to defend.
...
During his visit to the Lower 9th Ward and Xavier University last month, McCain was utterly unapologetic about the Bush administration's' response. He also promised quick action on Category 5 flood protection and reform of the Stafford Act...
Not so fast, there. Let's take a closer look at McCain's so called "promise for quick action on Category 5 flood protection". Unlike Senator Obama, who has a detailed Gulf Coast Reconstruction plan including Category 5 protection as part of his platform, McCain has no such plan, nor does he have plans to create a plan. So, I guess all we have to go on is what he said last month. Here's how it was reported by CBS News:
[McCain] said that beyond the most immediate needs of people in New Orleans, such as affordable housing, the top priorities now were to achieve the government's goal to fortify the city against 100-year storms by 2011, and to move beyond that [and] find a way to protect the region against Category 5 hurricanes.
On the latter issue, he said, "It's time to end the studies and it's time to act."
Before we credit McCain with "promising" Category 5 protection for the South Louisiana region, let's force him to elaborate on this issue, either when he comes to visit tomorrow, or at the planned YouTube/Google presidential debate in New Orleans. Ask him:
Senator McCain, the last time you were here you said "it's time to end the studies and it's time to act" regarding Category 5 flood protection for South Louisiana. New levees, floodwalls and coastal marshlands are projected to cost $50 billion or perhaps much more. Are you making a commitment to Louisiana that you will fund this vital reconstruction effort with federal dollars, to ensure the protection of America's Energy Coast? If not, how can we act without the federal funding? And how will this affect your promise to balance the budget while 1) extending the Bush tax cuts, 2) indefinitely continuing the occupation of Iraq (whose marshlands have already been restored), and 3) maintaining current spending levels on defense?
That's the sort of question McCain should be asked before he gets credit for supporting a liberal idea like Cat 5 flood protection*. Do you REALLY think that McCain is bragging about how he'll save all this money by eliminating earmarks, just so that he can plow it back into a gargantuan reconstruction program that will benefit South Louisiana? Especially after Donald Powell's infamous levee "promise", do you think journalists should be a tad more skeptical when a so-called conservative flippantly appears to endorse a $50 billion dollar program to protect New Orleans/S. Louisiana?
So Grace basically sees Katrina as a risk-free issue for McCain. I disagree, because "Katrina" is related to things like Gulf Coast reconstruction (which McCain has been vague about), as well as crucial issues like insurance, which could come under sharp focus if and when another hurricane threatens. Consider this WSJ article (pardon the long excerpts):
As hurricane season begins, Democrats in Congress want to nationalize a chunk of the insurance business that covers major storm-damage claims.
The proposal -- backed by giant insurers Allstate Corp. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., as well as Florida lawmakers -- focuses on "reinsurance," the policies bought by insurers themselves to protect against catastrophic losses. The proposal envisions a taxpayer-financed reinsurance program covering all 50 states, which would essentially backstop the giant insurers in case of disaster.
The program could save homeowners roughly $500 apiece in annual premiums in Florida, according to an advocacy group backed by Allstate and State Farm, the largest writers of property insurance in the U.S.
But environmentalists and other critics -- including the American Insurance Association, a major trade group -- say lower premiums would more likely spur irresponsible coastal development, already a big factor in insurance costs. The program could also shift costs to taxpayers in states with fewer natural-disaster risks.
...
The legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, 258-155, late last year, despite a presidential veto threat. Although a Senate vote is unlikely this year, proponents are trying to make it a litmus-test issue in the presidential race. The two Democratic contenders, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, in their recent visits to Florida -- a key swing state -- have both voiced support for the plan.
Big winners would be coastal states, particularly Florida, where more than half of the nation's hurricane risk is centered.
...
The proposed plan is roughly analogous to the National Flood Insurance Program, which has been criticized for encouraging construction in risky floodplains. Nevertheless, in recent weeks the Senate voted to renew the flood-insurance program, and also to forgive $17 billion in debt incurred after Hurricane Katrina.
Critics cite that debt forgiveness as an example of how states with little or no hurricane risk can end up footing the bill for damage in flood-prone areas.
...
Florida Democrats' effort to make a federal disaster fund a big issue in this year's presidential race was one reason the state moved up its primary election to January from March, defying party rules...
Florida lawmakers and Republican Gov. Charlie Crist are pushing hard for the federal program. Florida is currently the only state with its own reinsurance fund. That fund, created in 1992 after Hurricane Andrew, has lowered insurance costs for state residents, but would be stretched by a big hurricane this year. The federal program would assist the state's fund while also providing political cover for state politicians, some of whom say claims from a major storm this year could trigger the largest tax increase in state history.
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who badly wants to win Florida, is resisting calls to back the program. "This is a very large federal program," and the only state currently in a position to benefit is Florida, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Mr. McCain's policy director.
...
The proposal envisions the creation of funds like Florida's in all 50 states. These reinsurance funds would collect premiums from companies like Allstate, who would benefit because they would be paying less than in the private reinsurance market. That savings would get passed on to homeowners. Then, if a state got hit with a particularly severe disaster, whether hurricane, earthquake, tornadoes or other crisis, federal loans and state-backed reinsurance could step in to cover big losses.
When I analyze the political implications of on an issue or event, I first filter out everything I deem politically impossible. So, in this presidential election year, do you really think that McCain flippantly endorsed a $50 billion program to protect S. Louisiana from Cat 5 hurricanes, but is resisting Florida's national re-insurance scheme out of conservative principle?
No way, no how.
After informing him how much it will cost, just try to pin McCain down on Category 5 flood protection. Just try to get an unhedged, unequivocal commitment on that. I believe he was flying by the seat of his pants when he said "it's time to act" regarding Cat 5 protection for S. LA. Or he misspoke. Or he was confused.
Katrina et al. is a "risk-free" issue for McCain? Not this hurricane season.
---
Update 1: I forgot to note that Grace thought McCain's "Never again..." comment sounded like a "pretty good campaign slogan". Of course, Obama's plan has a whole section titled "Never Again" (#2), and Obama repeated the "Never again" phrase in his speech at Tulane in February.
---
Update 2: post has been edited slightly for clarity.
===
* Yes, I know it's not a technically accurate term! We're talking politics here, not science.
Labels: coastal loss, Elections and Campaigns, flood protection, Insurance, levees, McCain
