Crusader Opinions Article...
Written By: Our Very Own Co-Chair, Chris Marot

Fireside Politics
September 12, 2005

I often get blank stares from friends when I'm at a party on a Friday night and I start talking politics. Usually, the response is a chorus of "whatever, Marot" or "don't give me any of that FDR bull…" you get the idea. Lately, I have been the one giving blank stares as friends and others I know talk about "State's rights" and an arcane version of federalism that leaves States too weak to deal with natural disasters. Within the confines of a safe and comforting campus like Holy Cross, some students suffer from a disconnect with the real world. Nostalgic wishes for a "less intrusive" federal government seem quaint and even favorable from a distance. It is a nice idea until something terrible happens and we are brought back to reality.
Hurricane Katrina has proven to be a wake up call in this respect. Some politicians may cry foul at the slow response of FEMA and other federal relief programs, but in truth, this is only a symptom of the real problem. It is inconceivable that the people in charge of such relief efforts, including the tough-as-nails General Russell Honoré who has shown his commitment to the people of New Orleans, are purposely neglecting their jobs. The slow response is actually the result of over 25 years of failed government philosophy.
In the late 1970s, conservative intellectuals were organizing a frontal assault on the Democrats' welfare state and vision of federal action. At first, the attacks were aimed at anti-poverty programs and attempts at what they labeled "social engineering." The federal government was trying to turn everything into a science, they claimed, including our way of practicing politics. There may be some merit to these critiques, but the main issue here is the impact upon the nature of government.
On a practical level, conservative politicians seized upon the criticism of federal intervention but lacked the vigor to offer large-scale adjustments or alternative solutions other than leaving States to fend for themselves. With the election of Ronald Reagan, the rhetoric was solidified: "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem." Reagan proceeded to move from a Roosevelt-style federal system dedicated to security and public-spirited action and towards a government that was essentially narcissistic: if it doesn't benefit me directly, cut it.
A policy soon developed which liberal politicos and academics dubbed "starve the beast." Reagan's restructuring of income tax levels combined with increases in defense spending led to huge deficits (sound familiar?) that many hoped would eventually cripple the federal government's ability to fund social programs. This strategy was bound to fail, however, due to the politics surrounding the particular programs. As a result, cuts were minimized or even put off to a later date.
When President Clinton came to Washington, he came as a New Democrat preaching a "third way" that attempted to achieve liberal goals with conservative market-based means. It was Clinton, not Reagan or another Republican, who declared "the era of Big Government is over." He largely gave in to public relations pressure and Republican budget demands. Though Clinton successfully brought balance back to the country's yearly budgets, the debt that had been accumulated was so great that he was unwilling to take risks in order to fund many public programs. Despite the advent of several pet programs that Clinton championed (and which were quite successful), his administration did little to reverse the trend of reducing the federal role in the States.
Naturally, when President Bush was elected as the inheritor of Reagan's legacy, he proposed a hefty tax cut, which in real dollars benefited the rich much more than any other group. This may seem logical, because it is assumed that wealthy Americans carry more of the tax burden in the first place. Arguments about tax loopholes not withstanding, the subsequent loss in public services disproportionately affected those in the middle and lower classes while the elites cashed in on their reduced tax rates.
The fact of the matter is that the now-dominant conservative mentality regarding the federal government has had grave consequences in this country. Democrats are no longer only complaining about disproportional reductions in services and taxes. Now, as Hurricane Katrina has proven, the budget games both parties have played have come back to haunt Americans of all classes. The States had adapted to a post-Depression system in which the Federal government recognized a role in such areas as education, welfare and infrastructure. Historically, the Federal role in economic and transportation aid to States has its roots in the building of the Erie Canal. Yet, since the 1980s, States have had to cope with less and less Federal aid, including in the areas of infrastructure and general 'aid to States' which is often issued in block grants that can be used for broad purposes. States are hard-pressed to raise the revenue to meet these needs because, far from Washington, they realize that even if the money disappears their problems do not. They are dealing with a Washington culture that looks at welfare and says "it's a State problem" and simultaneously looks at infrastructure and says "that's also a State problem" and expects States to carry the ever-increasing burden.
In 1981, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) conducted hearings on reductions in grants-in-aid to States and localities. They found that both rely heavily on the Federal government for revenue and that serious changes would have to occur if cuts took place. Today, the changes have manifested themselves in State budgets caught in a virtual straightjacket. My home state of Connecticut has had to reduce State aid to cities and towns as a result, leaving major infrastructure projects unfunded and also forcing some hard choices between funding mental health and education. New taxes are debated every year, but the fear remains that higher taxes will drive residents to New York or elsewhere. Similar situations exist across the country.
Nowhere is the effect of Federal slash and burn budget policy more apparent than in New Orleans. All sides have been remiss in their duties to repair and maintain the levees that burst under the weight of Katrina, but with less and less money coming from Washington, the legislature and the city council had few options other than directly raising taxes or limiting their spending on other priorities. Again, this is a major departure from the federal role since Roosevelt. Now is the time, while the military and relief workers care for the people of the Gulf region, for Congress and the President to show real leadership and reverse this trend of reckless budget politicking. While tax cuts and even social spending are more politically attractive to Republicans and Democrats alike, the main functions of government must be met. This writer hopes both parties can come together and put first things first - infrastructure and protecting our nation's citizens - before such a tragedy happens again.