Hey Big Spenders

IN 1993 the village of Valmeyer, Illinois, after suffering its fourth major flood in 50 years, voted to migrate to higher ground. They gave up their perilous location, but their attitude was not defeatist: On the contrary, calling their move "Operation Fresh Start," they picked up and ventured to better prospects, with a little federal assistance. But this relocation only involved 900 residents. No one knows exactly how many Katrina refugees will return to New Orleans and the Gulf coast, or how many are currently living elsewhere. At present, the best information FEMA can provide is that about 14,500 people from the affected areas are still living in shelters scattered from Massachusetts to Wisconsin.

But hoping that a majority of the Louisiana evacuees will return, Senators Mary Landrieu and David Vitter have proposed federal relief in the form of over $200 billion--in addition to the $62 billion in FEMA funds already earmarked for the Gulf coast. Their proposal was not especially thrifty: It includes such expenditures as $4 million to aid the South Regional Climate Center in hurricane forecasting (as if no one had known Katrina was coming) and $25 million to complete (not rebuild) a sugarcane research laboratory. Though the senators' pie-in-the-sky plans have already been abandoned as unrealistic by the rest of the state's congressional delegation, don't think this means fiscal sanity is the order of the day in the federal aid packages to the Gulf coast--especially given the Bush administration's confusion regarding disaster aid.

The administration says that the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, enacted in 1974, "commits the federal government to cover between 90 and 100 percent of the cost" of Katrina relief efforts. In a speech on September 26, President Bush claimed that "we're in the process of understanding how much cost the federal government is responsible for, for Katrina and possibly Rita. For example, we're obligated for at least 75--by law, obligated for at least 75 percent of infrastructure repairs."

Then, most recently, Sen. Vitter obtained from the administration--with the help of White House budget director John Bolten--an agreement to repair and rebuild damaged levees, while ignoring the Stafford Act's requirement that the state or local governments share some of that cost.

Vitter's office, which did not return THE WEEKLY STANDARD's phone calls, defended the agreement in a press release, saying that it "will allow the communities of southeast Louisiana to focus their funds and attention on other priority recovery efforts." Currently, though, the Stafford Act requires nonfederal levels of government to pay 20 percent to 35 percent of the costs of repairing and shoring up critical infrastructure--such as levees. Moreover, contra the administration's comments, Stafford, which gave birth to FEMA, never asks the federal government to spend more than 90 percent of total emergency costs, and the act never gives permission for the administration fully to fund relief efforts without some eventual repayment.

RON CASS, former dean of Boston University's law school, notes that disaster declarations typically have to take politics into account. Depending on how "sensitive people will be to the spending decision," he says, the administration will hand out more or less money, without necessarily considering the efficiency of their proposals.

But shouldn't the administration give at least some consideration to the rule of law? The Vitter-Landrieu proposal requires the federal share of disaster relief--relief for the most part not related to provisions in the Louisiana bill--to be 100 percent for the next two years. Additionally, it waives any caps on federal spending as well as some provisions of the Stafford Act that call on states to pay back loans from the federal government. But at least this recognizes the laws on the books, for it requires that the Stafford Act's provisions be amended regarding Katrina. The administration seems to want to twist--or ignore--Stafford's language without legally changing the text.

PRESIDENT BUSH has a history of being generous with disaster relief funds. In his first term, he issued an average of 54.5 major disaster declarations per year. This was, on average, about three more per year than President Clinton; President Reagan never issued more than 34 in a year. And Bush has been very generous with Katrina aid. According to the Insurance Information Institute, within two weeks of Katrina, the administration had authorized more relief money than it had for 9/11, Hurricane Andrew, the Northridge Earthquake, and the four Florida Hurricanes of 2004 combined.

Moreover, the president has declared Katrina evacuation-related states of emergency in 44 states, including, most recently, New York and Delaware. When such emergencies are declared, the federal government is obliged to fund at least 75 percent, and not more than 90 percent, of the relief efforts. Instead, the administration has elected to fund 100 percent of all emergency measures in these states, without requiring any of the repayment Stafford requires.

AMERICANS OF ALL SORTS have pledged to help those affected by Katrina. Taxpayers in Alaska even told their congressman, Don Young, that in order to contribute to Gulf coast reconstruction they would relinquish the federal funds he appropriated for a $223 million bridge which has been planned to connect the town of Ketchikan (population 8,000) to Gravina Island (population 50). But, perhaps recognizing that money saved from extravagant, unnecessary projects in his state would merely go toward extravagant, unnecessary projects in Gulf coast states, the congressman, when a reporter told him of his constituents' suggestion, responded, "They can kiss my ear! That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard."

And perhaps he was right. Why would Alaskans give up money for a useless, but surely impressive, bridge when--if the Louisiana senators' proposal is passed--the funds would otherwise be used for, say, a $35 million Louisiana seafood promotion and marketing campaign? Or a $20 million grant to southern Louisiana's development districts "to develop comprehensive plans" to develop southern Louisiana? Or $400 million to alleviate the substance-abuse problems of hurricane victims?

Joseph Lindsley is an editorial assistant at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.