Paul Krugman's a dope

I've said it before. And I'll say it again. This guy just sucks.

Yesterday, Homey D regaled us with his Jack Handey-esque Deep Thoughts on the Katrina debacle. I wish he hadn't. I wish he wished he hadn't.

With comments like this, do you blame me?

After 9/11, hard questions were deferred in the name of national unity, then buried under a thick coat of whitewash. This time, we need accountability.

Huh?

But the evidence points, above all, to a stunning lack of both preparation and urgency in the federal government's response.

Yes, Paul, I agree. But why is this just a Bush issue? Is there any evidence that Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, or Eisenhower were any more prepared? Any? At all? Like the 9/11 attacks, the system failed. And while it's tempting to score political points by naming names, the issue, if we're to discuss it seriously, demands deeper introspection than personalities.

And a good starting point is the essential argument that Krugman sidesteps. As an advocate of Big Government, why does Krugman not fault it in his analysis? I mean, after all, isn't it Big Government and not George W. Bush that's failed the Gulf Coast here? What about this
situation suggests to Entitlement Nation that the answer lies in Washington? Do they really believe that if we spent another couple hundred mill here, spruced up the FEMA headquarters there, brought in a new president and reorganized the government yet again that the Wizard behind the curtain would magically wake up and start pushing the right buttons? Please. I think if we've learned anything, it's that more government is not the solution.

Even military resources in the right place weren't ordered into action. "On Wednesday," said an editorial in The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss., "reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival at the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish Hill Road and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and performing calisthenics. Playing basketball and performing calisthenics!"

Gee, I thought they were all in Iraq. Oh, wait...

Maybe administration officials believed that the local National Guard could keep order and deliver relief. But many members of the National Guard and much of its equipment - including high-water vehicles - are in Iraq. "The National Guard needs that equipment back home to support the homeland security mission," a Louisiana Guard officer told reporters several weeks ago.

As previously mentioned, this is not the Guard's primary mission. Entitlement Nation strikes again. I need a million dollars to become a millionaire. And for some reason my cat's breath smells like cat food.

Second question: Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003 the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work, including work on sinking levees. "The corps," an Editor and Publisher article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, "never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same time as federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain."

How about some historical context and a valium, Paul? Since this was such a crying national priority, why wasn't Al Gore "lockboxing" it in 2000? Did Kerry mention it...at all...in '04? Where was Clinton on it? And everyone else? Gee, where were they on terrorism? So wait, Sim, you're saying the Feds have let us down on security for generations? Hey, here's an idea! Let's give them more money!

I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the military wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe, the same reason nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of Baghdad. Flood control was neglected for the same reason our troops in Iraq didn't get adequate armor. At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice.

Our current leaders? Ok, fair enough. But dear Paul, are you suggesting there's been a greater commitment to security and defense among out-of-power Democrats? Please. Ignore reality.

So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it makes those excuses, Americans are dying.

All the more reason to raise taxes and centralize more government functions, eh? Hey Paul, I'd be more than willing to pay Sweden-style taxes if I got as much for my money as the Swedes do. But I don't. And Katrina is proof of that. So tell me again why we need to invest more in Washington rather than Mobile, Biloxi, New Orleans and Gulfport....

Oops. Your giddiness over currrent events has robbed you of your ideology.