September 19, 2005 RE: A Survey to Gather Your Thoughts on Launching a Domestic Security Initiative Dear Friend of OMB Watch: Like you, the board and staff of OMB Watch has been dismayed, even outraged, by what has transpired in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The limited and poorly coordinated government response is a direct consequence of the "starve the beast" mindset that has dominated our nation's capitol in recent years. The era of less government and unquestioned reliance on the private sector must end. In its place must be a renewed commitment to creating responsive government institutions and policies that address not only the immediate problems in the Gulf Coast, but also the underlying inequities that existed in the region before Hurricane Katrina and that still exist today in far too many areas of our country. We made this argument in a September 8 statement, your responses to which have been illuminating, gratifying -- and largely supportive. We were taken by not only the number of responses but also the energy, emotion and vitality of them. All these comments were shared with OMB Watch board members and staff, and some, which in particular added to the understanding of the crisis and what our response has and should be, have been published here for all to see. Last Thursday evening President Bush said that "the work of rescue is largely finished; the work of recovery is moving forward." He highlighted the important work of the voluntary sector and then offered a new federal plan to address the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast that some have estimated will cost roughly $200 billion. The president should be commended for calling on government to respond to the challenge even as "starve the beast" ideologues begin to criticize the spending. At the same time, the magnitude of proposed spending dictates careful consideration by lawmakers to ensure it is directed toward the right priorities. The public should be concerned with accountability and should demand that taxpayer dollars go toward their intended purpose. It is troubling that the first weekly financial updates required of the administration as part of the money already appropriated by Congress have been called by Rep. David Obey (D-WI) "so vague as to be useless." Others are already warning about contractor profiteering, with Rev. Jesse Jackson, for example, noting that "it's a hurricane for the poor, and a windfall for the rich." One of Congress' key responsibilities in the clean-up and reconstruction to come will be ensuring transparency and accountability, in order to provide assurances to the public that money is being spent wisely and justly. The president's plan looks like a hasty repackaging of conservative proposals that have been rejected in the past. His proposal for Worker Recovery Accounts of up to $5,000, the latest incarnation of the White House's routinely rejected proposal for re-employment accounts for dislocated workers, is simply another voucher proposal, embodying the conservative philosophy that favors private corporations over public services, and diminishing accountability. Moreover, the White House's Gulf Opportunity Zone proposal is unlikely to boost new economic activity in the region, as it is merely a rehash of existing empowerment zone policies, which rely heavily on corporate tax breaks to entice businesses into taking on economic activity they would likely do anyway. Finally, the Urban Homesteading Act, which would give land through a lottery to people in exchange for an agreement to build on it, falls far short of being visionary in its approach, does nothing to assuage the enormous anxieties the underprivileged of the region face, and raises moral questions about re-establishing geographic concentrations of the poor. It is even so short-sighted as to provide no means for helping "winners" build housing, only for obtaining property. The president appears to be taking a page out of the Heritage Foundation post-Katrina response playbook. For example, the Heritage Foundation called on Congress to offset the cost of responding to Hurricane Katrina with cuts to other programs. Bush ruled out tax increases to pay for the new initiatives the day after presenting his plan, and instead called for cuts to offset the new spending. Even House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), a staunch conservative, said earlier in the week that discretionary spending has already been cut to the bone and that offsets would be nearly impossible to find. Not surprisingly, conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation are trying to capitalize on Katrina to pursue ideological objectives. For example, they have proposed suspending or watering-down a broad swath of environmental, safety, and wage regulations, some of which the president has already temporarily waived. (See related story.) Possibly the most outrageous proposal of all, however, is the call to repeal the estate tax and "immediately exempt Katrina victims from paying death taxes." Such a statement, which is cruel in its willful ignorance of the reality of Katrina's victims, illustrates just how out of touch this movement is. Had the poor, elderly, and frail who were the vast majority of those who lost their lives in Hurricane Katrina and her aftermath been wealthy enough to face even the slightest prospect of paying the estate tax, they would have likely had the resources to evacuate in time. Those left the most adrift in Katrina's wake are certainly not estate tax payers: they are the single mother struggling to start over from scratch, the senior who lost his home, and working families housed in temporary shelters across our country. In the weeks, months, and even years to come, it is with these people and their hopes for a better future that our priorities should lie. Instead, Time.com reported last week that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), a leader for estate tax repeal, left a voice mail for a colleague: "[Arizona Sen.] Jon Kyl and I were talking about the estate tax. If we knew anybody that owned a business that lost life in the storm, that would be something we could push back with." We hope the president's plan will receive the careful scrutiny it deserves. Democratic leaders have also presented a plan that deserves consideration. That plan includes helping victims: (1) find housing; (2) find jobs with decent wages, along with increasing and extending unemployment insurance; (3) obtain access to the health care they need, including mental and public health services; (4) get children back to school and provide student borrowers with relief; and (5) get back on their feet. The president said last Thursday, "We've also witnessed the kind of desperation no citizen of this great and generous nation should ever have to know -- fellow Americans calling out for food..." We wholeheartedly agree. But we wish to point out that this desperation, which the White House finds so unacceptable, was experienced by many along our Gulf Coast before Hurricane Katrina and is experienced today in underprivileged communities across America. Over the past four years, poverty rates have steadily climbed, with 4.1 million more Americans slipping below the poverty line. We believe something must be done about this; addressing this challenge is both a moral imperative and a practical necessity. Not only must this nation help heal and rebuild its Gulf Coast communities, it must also work to tackle a still deeper blight. We must invest in communities across the country to prevent avoidable tragedies, mitigate the unavoidable ones, and work to improve the opportunities available to and the quality of life for all Americans. This requires also that our government address existing glaring inequalities in our society. For example, poor and homeless people in the Washington, DC area are already on waiting lists for shelter. They now must wait even longer, because Hurricane Katrina evacuees have been placed above them on those waiting lists. The problem is less the decision to prioritize evacuees than the inadequacy of resources in the capital city of the wealthiest country in the world. In that vein, OMB Watch and several other like-minded national organizations have begun discussing what a new investment agenda -- tentatively titled the Domestic Security Initiative -- might look like. Here are our initial thoughts. We would like to involve you in this discussion and would appreciate any feedback you may have in helping to shape it. Five Elements of a Domestic Security Initiative

1. Addressing our Infrastructure Needs. This would include repairing and improving our roads, bridges, levees, and public transit systems.
2. Protecting our Environment. This would include enacting mandatory limits on pollution to fight global warming and other environmental problems, reducing our dependence on oil, cleaning up existing environmental hazards, and strengthening enforcement.
3. Investing in our People. This would include strengthening public education, health care for all, providing child care support, expanding food and nutrition support, providing affordable housing, and protecting the institutions that provide these services.
4. Strengthening our Economy. This would include supporting public works projects where needed to put people to work, establishing decent, livable wages, instituting workplace improvements, increasing job training and placement activities, and other employment issues.
5. Protecting our Communities. This would include support for community-based policing, enforcement of anti-discrimination, environmental, health and safety, and civil liberty laws intended to protect the public, and federal oversight, testing and coordination of emergency response plans, which include ensuring our chemical plants, nuclear facilities, and borders are safe and secure.

To make it easier to obtain your thoughts, we have created a short survey. Please take a moment to complete the survey. Thank you in advance for your thoughts. Also please encourage others to complete the survey. We'll leave it open until the end of the month, when we'll report to you on the results. Yours truly, Gary D. Bass Executive Director, OMB Watch Click here to give us your thoughts.