I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of this ever so slightly
provocative argument about the Hurricane Katrina situation from Daniel
Henninger, deputy editor of the conservative Wall Street Journal Editorial
Page. Hen
ninger writes:
Perhaps low-lying, self-indulgent New Orleans understood its losing bargain
with a devil's fate.
This in and of itself would seem controversial enough. Henninger then
proposes a solution to the apparently slow government response:
Give contract authority to organize these resources to a project-management
firm like Bechtel.
In short, a key Wall Street Journal editorialist is decrying the limpness
of the federal response to the hurricane, and praising the vigor of private
companies.
But it is the Wall Street Journal editorial page's fault that the federal
disaster response is so limp, Economic Principals argues this
week. The context here is that the Wall Street Journal editorial page
has for decades pounded the drum for lower taxes on the one hand and less
restrictions on business on the other.
Economic Principals publisher David Warsh writes:
Not only is the economy not growing satisfactorily. Not only is the nation less safe than if Bush hadn't bungled the war in Iraq. But now the government is broke and can't afford to fulfill its legitimate and essential functions in a time of disaster. If that's not a conclusive result for a president who has been given the benefit of every doubt, what is?
It is hard for me to convey how provocative Warsh's position is,
especially in comparison to Henninger, but his claim is nearly as
controversial. He is saying that Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent
federal response has laid waste to the brand of supply-side economics -- big
tax cuts coupled with big federal spending -- most closely associated with
Ronald Reagan and now George W. Bush. Forever. He also baldly states that
everyone associated with the W. Bush administration is out of the White
House for good after 2008.
I am not commenting on either of these perspectives, but present them
side by side. They represent two completely different takes on the same
event.
| 
