Out of “left field” or handing his seat to the “right”?

via [ NWI Times ]

Thomas National

via [ Matthew Yglesias ]

Thomas National

From what I can gather from Frontline’s documentary is that the Afghanistan War is as much about managing agrarian market forces as it is about battling an insurgency. A problem I see is in this short piece is that America is once again relying solely on forces trained to deliver and manage overwhelming violence. Granted they are trying to put on their best face for the local farmers, but it is not ringing true.

This may sound ridiculous, but it appears to me that America would be more effective if it relied more on cultural agents that were similar to the small Afghan farmers and villagers - a kind of peace corp. I realize America has classified this region as a war zone, but for locals it is home, and to a certain extent life goes on normally, so it ought not to be crazy to suggest using a normalizing force that they can identify with and gain trust in more quickly.

America is a complex culture. It has many people and farmers with similar lifestyles as these people. I suggest sending in a peaceful force of agrarian faiths including Muslims. The Mennonite Central Committee immediately comes to mind, and there are many more organizations doing similar work. Many of these groups have been doing this kind of work for decades throughout the world. I am thinking of the Mennonites because central to their faith is the doctrine of pacifism. In areas of conflict this makes them honest agents of good faith. They are also known to build relationships through concrete hands-on work to address basic human needs such as water and food supply.

Thomas International, National

Lawrence Wilkerson looks at Shirley Anne Warshaw’s new book The Co-Presidency of Bush and Cheney. This is a comprehensive rendering of the Cheney’s evisceration of the country’s regulatory system, where my Governor, Mitch Daniel’s appears in a supporting role and referred to as ”Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney.”  This portrait gives the moniker “My Man Mitch” a whole new meaning.

via [ The Washington Note ]

Whether oil, gas, forestry, mining, fisheries, national parks, clean air, pharmaceuticals, food, endangered species - you name it - Cheney was the kingpin in the dismantling of relevant oversight and regulation.

Cheney managed this principally by putting into the regulatory or oversight positions within the executive branch of our government, people who either hailed from long service in the industry or field they were overseeing or regulating, or who had lobbied for that industry or field for long years, or a combination of the two.

Not content to have CEQ, EPA, the Departments of Energy, Agriculture, and Interior at his beck and call, Cheney went after the real seat of executive power - the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The OMB was the ultimate reviewer of all proposed regulatory changes. Its director, Mitch Daniels, as Warshaw points out, was referred to as “Dick Cheney’s Dick Cheney.” Daniels, coming from the huge pharmaceutical company Eli Lily, knew big business. Sean O’Keefe, another Cheney man, was OMB’s deputy. And with John Graham and, later, Susan Dudley in the key regulatory positions at OMB, Cheney had a winning hand. Graham at Harvard and Dudley at George Mason University had both made names in risk management analysis concerning industrial pollution and corporate malfeasance that were shamefully full of holes but extremely pro-business.

In the case of Dudley, the analyses were underwritten by such sponsors as ExxonMobil and BP Amoco. From their positions in OMB’s office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Graham and Dudley gave Cheney the ultimate power to oversee and check if necessary almost everyone in the bureaucracy concerned with regulation-writing.

The Washington Note

A Local Impact
National policies are not abstractions when your community sits on the worlds greatest fresh water resource managed by several international treaties and is the home to three of the largest, wealthiest, and to a measurable degree dirtiest multinational industries; BP, ArcelorMittal, and US Steel. This is how policies have location with real effects. The legacy of Cheney’s energy task force and environmental policies continue today unopposed, and this has a real negative effect for East Chicago.

East Chicago is the site of BP’s Canadian Crude project. The BP project is GROUND ZERO for concentrating highly negative environmental impacts in a poor minority community while directing benefits elsewhere.

Recently BP convened the “Good Government Initiative,” essentially cutting-off political opposition to there project while simultaneously walking behind the public process to extract a tax abatement from East Chicago without a single public hearing. BP also effectively pushed through a flawed NPDES permit without a single political eyebrow raised, editorial written, or an environmental group objecting in Indiana. Instead of calling foul regional leaders, including the regional news paper - NWI Times, rallied behind BP against out-of-state opposition, by citing the bad environmental stewardship of others.

Thomas National, State

Although, I don’t know all the facts behind Yosi Sergant’s resignation, I’m reluctant to come to his defense like I would for Van Jones. I am simply not a fan of his work with Shepard Fairey on the HOPE poster.

From "Guerrillero Heroico" to Jim Fitzpatrick's "Che Guervara" to fake Warhol

Steven Mcdonald’s article “Yosi Sergant and the Art of Change: The Publicist Behind Shepard Fairey’s Obama Hope Posters ” offers some insight in to Yosi Sergant and his work.

via [ Atlantic Wire ]

The Atlantic follows the Yosi Sergant story from offensive conference call to resignation.

The communications director for the National Endowment for the Arts, Yosi Sergant, resigned Thursday, a month after becoming the target of conservative ire for suggesting in a conference call that NEA-funded artists use their work to support the Obama administration. Specifically, Sargent asked artists “to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment,” and apply their “artistic creative communities’ utilities and bring them to the table.” Conservative bloggers, including an artist who participated in the call, considered this government propagandizing and a misuse of NEA funds. A brief history:

[ Read More ]

Thomas National

August 15, 2009 Pittsburg, Pa: Netroots Nation. 

Thomas National

Wife Paid $2.1M to Serve on the Boards of Several Healthcare Companies

via [ Post-trib ]

INDIANAPOLIS — As a board member of several health care companies, Sen. Evan Bayh’s wife has collected lucrative payments from some of the same businesses that would be most impacted by Congress’ proposed overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

Bayh, D-Ind., contends that the $2.1 million his wife, Susan, earned by serving on the boards of public health care companies from 2006 to 2008 represents no conflict of interest

Read more

Bayh health firm ties studied :: Indiana/Politics/Elections :: Post-Tribune.

Thomas National

Think Progress » Evan Bayh votes against a national renewable electricity standard that even Republicans supported.

This morning, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) “was the only Democrat to oppose a renewable-energy requirement” that even some Republicans supported. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee “voted down an amendment offered by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions that would have removed the renewable electricity standard from the energy package the panel is currently debating” by a vote of 9 to 13. Even though the Energy Information Administration has found that a much stronger standard would only affect electricity prices in Indiana by 6 percent in 2026, Bayh argued Indiana would be hit hard:

Bayh said Indiana would be among the states that would bear a disproportionate share of the cost of meeting the requirement. He said a fairer system would be offering tax credits for producing power from renewable sources.

The standard of 15 percent renewable energy or efficiency gains by 2021 is significantly weaker than President Obama’s preferred standard of 25 percent by 2025. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) joined 11 Democrats in support of the standard, and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote.

I am having a problem with my senator. We have been fighting hard and long for a RES in Indiana to no avail, because out leaders have been so dependent on money from the old energy sector, and have consequent done a poor job preparing the state to address the issues of the coming decades.

This is one reason for cultivating a creative class, especially among the Political Elite - for that is apparently Evan Bayh only qualification. I think he ought to feel a little political blow back for these kinds of things.

Thomas National

Matt Yglesias points me to the Root

I am also concerned:

In November 2008, less than one week after winning the votes of city dwellers by a margin of 28 points, President-elect Barack Obama announced he would reward them by creating the first-ever “White House Office of Urban Policy.” Like other new aspects of Obama’s executive branch, appointing a city czar was intended to fast-track communications among city governments, federal agencies and the White House. With great fanfare, Obama dispatched his friend and fellow Chicagoan Valerie Jarrett to tell America that he was making good on his campaign pledge to “stop seeing cities as the problem and start seeing them as the solution.”

The Root: What Happened to Obama’s Office of Urban Policy?

Thomas National, Urbanism

There are those who think America is on the verge of a Gorbachev moment of peaceful change or revolution. If we remember correctly Gorbachev came decades after Kruschev exposed the horrific and hidden crimes of the Stalinist era. Now, America can not in any way be compared to the Stalin era, but there are systematic crimes that do need to be surfaced to allow America to make the necessary institutional changes and confront the challenges in the coming decades. Otherwise, these institutions will continue wasting public energies fortifying themselves against exposure - Cheney and covering up his role in the energy task force, an illegal war in Iraq, lies about WMDs and Saddam’s relationship to Al-Qaeda, torture, is just ONE example. These entities are clogging up our bureaucracy and not contributing to solutions as America addresses the present challenges. I can not say how this will occur, and yes, I am excited about the prospect of getting beyond a kind of perestroika towards achieving great things.   

David kurtz over at Talking Points Memo hit-on an ancient sore spot from the cold war era with his post Time Marches Slowly.

It still rankles me two decades after the fact that Bill Casey died before he could be held to account in the Iran-contra scandal. Here’s hoping that Rummy and Cheney live long enough for the wheels of justice to finish grinding.

I completely concur with David’s sentiment.

If memory does not fail me, Casey suffered a seizure while being examined by a CIA physician the day before he was to testify before the House Select Committee on Intelligence. He died of a minor surgical procedure not Brain Cancer as stated at wikipedia.

Didn’t Casey’s surgeon also die a few weeks later?

   - just saying

Thomas National

Evan Bayh’s Budget Hypocrisy | The American Prospect

What Evan Bayh says he wants out of the budget is less important than how he actually votes.

EZRA KLEIN | April 6, 2009

In 1938, the economist Paul Samuelson published his theory of “revealed preference.” The concept falls into that elite class of insights so revolutionary that they now appear obvious. Consumer preferences, Samuelson argued, are best determined by consumer behavior. What people say or think they want is less important than what they actually buy.A similar theory holds true for politicians. What politicians say or think they want is less important than how they actually vote. For instance, Sen. Evan Bayh cast a difficult vote against Obama’s first budget, and he also released an appropriately tortured statement along with it. “This budget,” he said, “represents an improvement from years past … [because] money we will borrow will fund important priorities like affordable health care, energy independence, job creation, and education improvements, rather than tax cuts for the most affluent.” Sadly, Bayh continued, he could not support it: “Under this budget, our national debt skyrockets from $11.1 trillion today to an estimated $17 trillion in 2014.” 

Bayh’s expressed preferences were clear. National debt reduction was of paramount importance. Below that were such priorities as “affordable health care, energy independence, job creation, and education improvements.” And below that were “tax cuts for the most affluent.”

His revealed preferences — as shown by the fate of two tax changes that came before budget vote — told another story.

The first tax change was built into the health reform reserve fund included in Obama’s initial budget. Currently, Americans making more than $250,000 a year can claim a 35 percent subsidy on deductible expenses. Obama proposed to limit that to 28 percent. Lower, yes, but still much higher than the 10 percent to 15 percent available to most Americans. The tax change would have affected only 1.4 percent of households and raised more than $300 billion for health-care reform. It would not have raised the national debt by even $1.

Critics held that this plan would harm charitable giving. Some wealthy Americans, it’s thought, give money to charity in order to save money on their taxes, underscoring Thoreau’s dictum that “goodness is the investment that never fails.” But the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that the tax change would prove only a mild disincentive. Charitable giving, they calculated, would drop by 1.9 percent. Still, some legislators remained worried. “I’d like to think that people give out of the goodness of their heart but that tax deduction helps to loosen up the heartstrings,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Democrat, during a Ways and Means Committee hearing.

Last week, Sens. Jon Kyl and Blanche Lincoln proposed another tax change that was also likely to harm charitable giving. The estate tax encourages charitable donations because a dollar given to charity is taxed less than a dollar left in your estate. You get more for your dollar by giving it to charity.

Kyl and Lincoln sought to reform the tax to exempt estates valued below $10 million and lower the rate on holdings above $10 million from 45 percent to 35 percent. This change would cost $440 billion over 10 years and accrue entirely to the wealthiest 0.28 percent. The tax cut would reduce charitable giving by making donations somewhat less advantaged than they had previously been, and it did not come with a source of funding. Proponents promised deficit neutrality, but only by finding the money later, they said. Even if they do find that money, that’s $440 billion that could go toward paying down the deficit or funding health care or improving schools.

The contrast was almost comical. One tax change would raise $300 billion for health reform without adding a dollar to the national debt. The other would save hundreds of billions for the wealthiest sliver of Americans and carries no source of funding whatsoever. And both would slightly disincentivize charitable giving.

The outcome, however, was depressing. Charities howled over the change to the itemized deduction rules. Moderates bristled at the tax increase. “Before we raise revenue,” Bayh warned, “we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending.” The proposal was stripped from the budget, and with it, $300 billion in funding for health reform was lost.

The Kyl-Lincoln amendment, however, was quickly passed. Ten Democrats crossed the aisle to vote in its favor. Among them was Bayh.

That would be the same Bayh who’d complimented the budget because it “will fund important priorities like affordable health care, energy independence, job creation, and education improvements, rather than tax cuts for the most affluent” but voted against it because “this budget will increase our borrowing.”

Bayh’s expressed preferences ranked reducing the debt first and investing in areas like health care second. They also suggested an aversion to tax cuts for the affluent. But the revealed preferences showed something else entirely. Bayh cut $300 billion of revenue-neutral money for health reform from the budget. He then promised to find $440 billion in the budget and, rather than directing it toward debt repayment, cut taxes on the top two-hundredths of the income distribution.

Can someone help me understand where Evan Bayh’s support comes from. He rarely makes it to NWI. He seems to be a throw back to the era of the Reagan Democrats.

Thomas National

There goes my senator. 

Bayh and Nelson: We Prefer a GOP Budget | TPMDC.

I noted earlier that two of the Senate’s most conservative Democrats–Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson–voted against the Democrats’ budget. That’s not terribly surprising. The resolution wasn’t vulnerable to a filibuster, their votes weren’t strictly necessary, and, whether they were ideologically opposed to the measure that passed, or adhering to the demands of their conservative constituents, or bending to the whims of special interests, voting “no” allows them to say they voted “no” without necessarily wedding themselves to an alternative proposal.

Enter Mike Johanns, the freshman Republican senator from Nebraska whoseamendment preventing the Senate from passing climate change legislation through the reconciliation process passed on Tuesday.

He also authored a different measure–not an amendment, but a “motion to recommitt”–which would have scrapped the budget that passed and replaced it with a much more conservative version. Most significantly, it would have indexed non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending to the expected rate of inflation. It failed 43-55–for all intents and purposes a mirror image of the vote on the final budget resolution. Which is to say that Bayh and Nelson voted for the “Johanns Budget”.

I don’t have all the details of the Johanns budget just yet, but will pass them along when I do. And I’ll place a call for comment to Bayh’s and Nelson’s staffs to see if there’s more to this than simply that the two would have preferred Johann’s budget to the Democrats’.

UPDATE: I noticed on april 8th a sudden increase in hits on the Bayh Bulletin coming from Washington D.C. just saying…

Thomas National

by desmoinesdem

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana announced plans in December to form an equivalent of the Blue Dog caucus in the Senate. Today his office rolled out the Moderate Dems Working Group:

WASHINGTON - A diverse group of 15 Senate Democrats today announced the formation of a new moderate coalition that will meet regularly to shape public policy. The group’s goal is to work with the Senate leadership and the new administration to craft common-sense solutions to urgent national problems.

The Moderate Dems Working Group will meet every other Tuesday before the Democratic Caucus lunch to discuss legislative strategies and ideas. The Moderate Dems held their second meeting Tuesday to focus on the upcoming budget negotiations and the importance of passing a fiscally responsible spending plan in the Senate.

Leading the new group are Democratic Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper of Delaware and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Both Senators Bayh and Carper were successful governors before coming to the Senate. Senators Lincoln and Carper bring bicameral experience to the group as former members of the House of Representatives. All three leaders are honorary co-chairs of Third Way, a progressive Democratic policy group, and Senators Bayh and Carper have led the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

At the working group meeting, Senator Bayh acknowledged that such a large group was unlikely to agree on all major issues before the Senate. Yet the Moderate Dems are joined by a shared commitment to pursue pragmatic, fiscally sustainable policies across a range of issues, such as deficit containment, health care reform, the housing crisis, educational reform, energy policy and climate change.

In addition to Senators Bayh, Carper and Lincoln, others joining the group are Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Mark Begich of Alaska, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Mark Warner of Virginia.

A few things jumped out at me:

15 members is a quarter of the Democratic Senate caucus. That’s proportionally larger than the Blue Dog caucus in the House.

Look how many first-term senators have joined up with Bayh: McCaskill from the class of 2006 and Udall, Begich, Hagan, Shaheen and Warner from the class of 2008.

Of the Moderate Dems, only Bennet, Lincoln and Bayh are up for re-election in 2010. Lincoln and Bayh are not expected to face tough challenges.  

Of the Moderate Dems, only Lincoln, Landrieu, Begich and Ben Nelson represent states carried by John McCain. Why did the others rush to join a caucus that (based on Bayh’s record) will try to water down President Barack Obama’s agenda?

Back in December Matthew Yglesias advanced a very plausible hypothesis about Bayh’s agenda:

With Republicans out of power, the GOP can’t really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work. It was a good racket for the House Blue Dogs in 2007-2008 and there’s no reason it couldn’t work for Senate analogues over the next couple of years.

Bayh’s press release includes a ludicrous quote from Harry Reid:

Of the working group’s formation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “If we are going to deliver the change Americans demanded and move our country forward, it will require the courage to get past our political differences and get to work. Established organizations like Third Way and new ventures like this group offer us a new opportunity to get things done, and I support every effort that puts real solutions above political posturing.”

Raise your hand if you believe that Bayh’s group is going to offer “a new opportunity to get things done.”

The only good I can imagine coming of Bayh’s venture is if the group gives some political cover to Democratic senators representing red or purple states, making it harder for Republicans to tie them to liberal bogeymen.

This optimistic scenario would pan out only if the Moderate Dems do not consistently vote as a bloc with Bayh. Earlier this month, David Waldman/Kagro X analyzed some Senate votes in which Bayh supported Republican amendments. If you click that link you’ll see that various senators named in today’s press release did not vote with the Bayh/Republican position.

For that reason, Waldman greeted today’s news with a big yawn and doesn’t seem worried that the Moderate Dems will do anything other than help Bayh show off how “moderate” he is.

The Russians say one should “hope for the best but prepare for the worst.” As a Democrat who wants President Obama to succeed, I hope Waldman is right and the “Moderate Dems” are just using Bayh to bolster their “centrist” image.

On the other hand, if Bayh’s group develops along the path envisioned by Yglesias, which I consider more likely, then Democrats really should prepare for the worst in 2010. The severe recession may make next year a tough environment for the president’s party to begin with. If Democrats carrying water for corporate interests sink “the change we need,” Democratic base turnout could drop significantly, as it did in 1994. Most of the Moderate Dems Working Group members will not face the voters until 2012 and 2014, but their obstruction could harm many other Congressional Democrats.

MyDD :: Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics.

Thomas National, State

[ Matt on Evan Bayh ]

Are you one of the 95 percent of Americans whose taxes would be cut under Barack Obama’s budget? Does the thought of that tax cut being paid for by tax increases on the wealthiest 2 percent of the population strike terror into your heart? If so, you’re in luck, because it’s not just Republicans who are eager to spare you from this nightmare moderate Democrats such as Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson want to keep the rich as rich as possible too:

As for the tax increases on high-income earners called for in Obama’s plan, [Evan] Bayh said, “I do think that before we raise revenue, we first should look to see if there are ways we can cut back on spending.” […] “I have major concerns about trying to raise taxes in the midst of a downturn of the economy,” said [Ben] Nelson, the conservative Nebraska Democrat. “On the one hand, you’re trying to stimulate the economy. On the other hand, you’re trying to keep money from going into taxpayers’ pockets. It’s very difficult to make that logic work.”

It’s particularly depressing that Nelson seems to have gotten 100 percent of his information about Obama’s tax plans from Fox News and zero percent from participating in the extensive on- and off-the-record briefings for members of congress, congressional staff, and media that the administration has organized. But once again, nobody is raising taxes in the midst of a downturn.

Meanwhile, the median household income in Indiana is $42,000 a year. Families making that much would not see tax increases under Obama’s plan. Families making double the Indiana median household income would not see tax increases under Obama’s plan. Families making double that would not see tax increases under Obama’s plan. Only families making almost six times the median household income of Indiana would see increases; increases that would essentially take us back to the rates that prevailed during the more prosperous 1990s. But never fear, if you’re dramatically richer than most Indianans and sociopathically unconcerned with the well-being of your fellow citizens, then Evan Bayh is fighting for you.

Thomas Local, National

Strategy of brinksmanship overtakes free-market ideologues in the Republican party resulting in a massive anti-intellectual backlash. In the stimulus debate republicans relegated themselves to opposing the President at the expense of the health and welfare of the nation. With these tactics there is no way to policy. Just saying….

Boehner, House Republican Leaders Call for Federal Spending Freeze to Address Growing Budget Deficit

Thomas National

Behind the scene efforts at the White House to screw the middle and Lower classes

From the LAT’s: “Limiting Government’s Role” by Peter G. Gosselin and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

Two days after Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced plans to issue emergency vouchers aimed at helping poor storm victims find new housing quickly by covering as much as $10,000 of their rent.
But the department suddenly backed away from the idea after White House aides met with senior HUD officials. Although emergency vouchers had been successfully used after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the administration focused instead on a plan for government-built trailer parks, an approach that even many Republicans say would concentrate poverty in the very fashion the government has long sought to avoid.

A similar struggle has occurred over how to provide healthcare to storm victims. White House officials are quietly working to derail a proposal by leading Republican and Democratic senators to temporarily expand Medicaid. Instead, the administration is pushing a narrower plan that would not commit the government to covering certain groups of evacuees.

Thomas National

From Duncan Black:

Eschaton: Quote of the Day

“… I went to Florida a few days after President Bush did to observe the damage from Hurricane Andrew. I had dealt with a lot of natural disasters as governor, including floods, droughts, and tornadoes, but I had never seen anything like this. I was surprised to hear complaints from both local officials and residents about how the Federal Emergency Management Agency was handling the aftermath of the hurricane. Traditionally, the job of FEMA director was given to a political supporter of the President who wanted some plum position but who had no experience with emergencies. I made a mental note to avoid that mistake if I won. Voters don’t chose a President based on how he’ll handle disasters, but if they’re faced with one themselves, it quickly becomes the most important issue in their lives.”
Bill Clinton, My Life (p. 428).

Thomas National

Paul Krugman asks “how many FEMA’s are there?”

All the President’s Friends - New York Times: How many FEMA’s are there? Unfortunately, it’s easy to find other agencies suffering from some version of the FEMA syndrome. 

The first example won’t surprise you: the Environmental Protection Agency, which has a key role to play in Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath, but which has seen a major exodus of experienced officials over the past few years. In particular, senior officials have left in protest over what they say is the Bush administration’s unwillingness to enforce environmental law.

Yesterday The Independent, the British newspaper, published an interview about the environmental aftermath of Katrina with Hugh Kaufman, a senior policy analyst in the agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, whom one suspects is planning to join the exodus. “The budget has been cut,” he said, “and inept political hacks have been put in key positions.”… What about the Food and Drug Administration? Serious questions have been raised about the agency’s coziness with drug companies, and the agency’s top official in charge of women’s health issues resigned over the delay in approving Plan B, the morning-after pill, accusing the agency’s head of overruling the professional staff on political grounds. Then there’s the Corporation for Public Broadcasting….

You could say that these are all cases in which the Bush administration hasn’t worried about degrading the quality of a government agency because it doesn’t really believe in the agency’s mission. But you can’t say that about my other two examples. Even a conservative government needs an effective Treasury Department. Yet Treasury, which had high prestige and morale during the Clinton years, has fallen from grace.

The public symbol of that fall is the fact that John Snow, who was obviously picked for his loyalty rather than his qualifications, is still Treasury secretary. Less obvious to the public is the hollowing out of the department’s expertise. Many experienced staff members have left since 2000, and a number of key positions are either empty or filled only on an acting basis. “There is no policy,” an economist who was leaving the department after 22 years told The Washington Post, back in 2002. “If there are no pipes, why do you need a plumber?” So the best and brightest have been leaving.

And finally, what about the department of Homeland Security itself? FEMA was neglected, some people say, because it was folded into a large agency that was focused on terrorist threats, not natural disasters. But what, exactly, is the department doing to protect us from terrorists? In 2004 Reuters reported a “steady exodus” of counterterrorism officials, who believed that the war in Iraq had taken precedence over the real terrorist threat. Why, then, should we believe that Homeland Security is being well run?…

The point is that Katrina should serve as a wakeup call, not just about FEMA, but about the executive branch as a whole. Everything I know suggests that it’s in a sorry state - that an administration which doesn’t treat governing seriously has created two, three, many FEMA’s…

This is an era for the history books - A time I never expected to see in my life-time.

Thomas National

For a good timeline on the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina visit Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo.

Thomas National

The Washington Monthly: EVACUATING THE POOR…. Why did so many people who lacked the means to evacuate New Orleans get left behind?

Brian Wolshon, an engineering professor at Louisiana State University who served as a consultant on the state’s evacuation plan, said little attention was paid to moving out New Orleans’s “low-mobility” population — the elderly, the infirm and the poor without cars or other means of fleeing the city, about 100,000 people. At disaster planning meetings, he said, “the answer was often silence.”

It’s not that no one had thought of this problem. They just didn’t consider it important enough to spend any time on.

Thomas National