The 55-Cent Solution (My title: Bush says 'drop dead' to New York)--barf alert

When Gerald Ford turned down New York City's appeal for financial aid, the front page of The Daily News screamed "Ford to City: Drop Dead." Those were the days.

These days, only diligent newspaper readers know that George W. Bush has backed off his personal pledge to provide aid to the battered city. And only serious policy wonks know that this is part of a broader picture — that the economic measures now being discussed in Washington will impoverish state and local governments across the country.

Gerald Ford didn't really deserve that headline. He had never promised anything to a city whose fiscal woes were, without question, largely self-inflicted. Why should he have felt compelled to help?

This time, the story is different. Mr. Bush, you may recall, had a rocky couple of days after the terrorist attack. Some questioned his movements on Sept. 11; in New York there was some anger that he did not quickly visit the city. The White House responded to the first criticism with its story about a "credible threat" to Air Force One. More important, Mr. Bush quickly mended his fences in New York by promising members of the state's Congressional delegation that he would provide ample aid — he told Senator Charles Schumer that the city had a "blank check."

Mr. Bush may not have been specific about the details, but all involved thought they knew what he had promised. Every news story I've been able to find from those early days declared that Mr. Bush would allocate half the $40 billion proposed antiterrorism package to New York. And this was widely regarded as only a first installment.

But last week the House Appropriations Committee finally filled in the details. And the antiterrorism package, which closely followed the administration's guidelines, contained only $9 billion for New York, less than half the promised $20 billion. In last-minute negotiations with irate Republican congressmen this was raised to $11 billion; but that's still only 55 cents on the dollar.

Administration officials say they will eventually provide the full $20 billion. But since they haven't kept Mr. Bush's promise to include that sum in the antiterrorism package, why should we believe them? As the memory of the attack recedes, as the administration returns to its pre-Sept. 11 embrace of hard-line conservatives — which has pretty much happened already — it becomes less and less likely that New York will see the rest of the money.

There may never be a specific day when the Bush administration tells the city to drop dead. Instead there will be vague promises, and then a lot of creative accounting — for example, the costs of deploying the National Guard will be counted as part of the $20 billion. But more and more it seems that the aid New Yorkers thought they had been promised, the aid that was supposed to help rebuild the city, was a mirage.

As I said, this is part of a broader picture. The combination of an economic slump and the effects of Sept. 11 has placed state and local governments across the country in a severe financial squeeze. Since almost all state governments are required by law to balance their budgets, this will force draconian cuts in spending.

You might have expected the "stimulus" packages being floated in Washington to provide some help to state governments in this difficult time. On the contrary, they will compound the damage. Proposals that would exempt large chunks of corporate profits from federal taxes will also reduce the profits subject to state taxes. Next year, in all likelihood, will present quite a spectacle: big tax cuts for corporations and people who make more than $300,000 per year, even as desperate state governments slash spending — with the biggest cuts falling on education and medical care for the poor.

Coming back to New York, what puzzles me is how little attention the story of the promise that wasn't is getting. In the weeks after Sept. 11, everyone took it for granted that there would be a great national effort to help rebuild the city. Now it is clear that this won't happen; the administration may claim to be providing what it promised, but New York will have to beg for every dollar of that $20 billion.

Where's the outrage? Have New Yorkers, of all people, forgotten how to complain?

Krugman is a vindictive little twerp. He's mad because his boy didn't win last year.

Here's how you can write your own Paul Krugman column:

First, choose an issue.

Second, say why something related to that issue is bad and should be changed.

Finally, tie that bad thing to the George W. Bush tax cut.

Instant Krugman column!!!!

Only liberal wealth redistributionist can say "only 11 billion dollars" with a straight face. Given the death toll in NY thats a little over 2 million dollar for every single person killed. I don't think they'll be able to muster up much in the way of outrage over that.

Mr. Krugman,

When and if you find the time to pull your head out of your ass, please note that the President of the United States does not have the authority to spend one nickel of money for your beloved city. You do, however, have two sanctimonious blowhards in the Senate who may lawfully assist in effecting that change. Please direct your vitriol toward them. Now, would you like another tissue? Or maybe you could just put some ice on it....

Imagine the city having to justify the money they are receiving from the taxpayers. Rudy has said that the money has been arriving as promised. Leave it to the NYSlimes to make something out of nothing, as usual.

What I can't understand is why the State of New York doesn't sue the feds for damages caused on 9/11, then give the money to NYC.
After all, they have a contract that states specifically the Federal government's reponsibility to keep our country's borders secure!
Sounds like a case of 'breach of contract' to me.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.