Paul Krugman: George the Unready

Paul Krugman explains the administration's run of "bad luck":

George the Unready, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Iraqi insurgents, hurricanes and low-income Medicare recipients have three things in common. Each has been at the center of a policy disaster. In each case experts warned about the impending disaster. And in each case — well, let's look at what happened.

Knight Ridder ... reports that from 2003 on, intelligence agencies "repeatedly warned the White House" that "the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war." But senior administration officials insisted that the insurgents were a mix of dead-enders and foreign terrorists. Intelligence analysts who refused to go along ... were attacked for not being team players. ... President Bush's reaction to a pessimistic report from the C.I.A.'s Baghdad station chief was to remark, "What is he, some kind of defeatist?"

Many people have now seen the video of the briefing Mr. Bush received before Hurricane Katrina struck. Much has been made of the revelation that Mr. Bush was dishonest when he claimed, a few days later, that nobody anticipated the breach of the levees. But what's really striking ... is the lack of urgency Mr. Bush and his administration displayed in responding ... [A]s Newsweek reports, for several days nobody was willing to tell Mr. Bush, who "equates disagreement with disloyalty," how badly things were going. "For most of those first few days," Newsweek says, "Bush was hearing what a good job the Feds were doing."

Now for one you may not have heard about. The new Medicare drug program got off to a disastrous start: "Low-income Medicare beneficiaries ... were often overcharged, and some were turned away from pharmacies without getting their medications, in the first week of Medicare's new drug benefit," The New York Times reported.

How did this happen? The same way the other disasters happened: experts who warned of trouble ahead were told to shut up. ...[In] ... a 2005 report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office on potential problems with the drug program... is a letter from Mark McClellan, the Medicare administrator. ... He demanded that the report say that the administration had "established effective contingency plans" — which it hadn't — and that it drop the assertion that some people would encounter difficulties obtaining necessary drugs, which is exactly what happened. ...

In short, our country is being run by people who assume that things will turn out the way they want. And if someone warns of problems, they shoot the messenger. Some commentators speak of the series of disasters now afflicting the Bush administration ... as if it were just a string of bad luck. But it isn't.

If good luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity, bad luck is what happens when lack of preparation meets a challenge. And our leaders, who think they can govern through a mix of wishful thinking and intimidation, are never, ever prepared.

Correction. ... I cited an article in The American Prospect that reported that Indian tribes who hired Jack Abramoff had reduced their contributions to Democrats by 9 percent. Dwight Morris, who prepared the study ... says ... that "there is no statistically valid way to calculate this number ..." ... However, Mr. Morris goes on to say this is a minor point because other calculations show "an undeniably Republican shift in giving." Pre-Abramoff, the tribes gave slightly more money to Democrats than to Republicans; post-Abramoff, they gave 70 percent to Republicans, versus only 30 percent to Democrats. In other words, there's nothing bipartisan about the Abramoff scandal.

Previous (2/27) column: Paul Krugman:  Graduates Versus Oligarchs
Next (3/6) Column: Paul Krugman: Feeling No Pain

Comments

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/national/03water.html?ex=1299042000&en=4f19c2275aaf5ab8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 3, 2006

For Thirsty Farmers, Old Friends at Interior Dept.
By TIMOTHY EGAN

FRESNO, Calif. — For more than 10 years, Jason Peltier was a paid advocate for the irrigation-dependent farmers here in the Central Valley of California, several hundred landowners who each year consume more water than the city of Los Angeles does.

Now Mr. Peltier works for the Bush administration, and he helps oversee the awarding of new water contracts for the people he used to represent as head of the Central Valley Project Water Users Association. The federal contracts, tying up water for a quarter-century or more from the world's largest irrigation project, have the potential to bring the farmers a huge windfall if they turn around and sell the water on the open market.

At the same time Mr. Peltier — as the deputy assistant secretary for water and science at the Interior Department — is involved with reviewing a request by the water association to stop paying up to $11.5 million a year into an environmental restoration fund, as required by a 1992 law.

Mr. Peltier's role influencing decisions that could have a direct financial impact on his former employer is part of a pattern at the Interior Department over the last five years, critics say, with a revolving door between managers on the government side, and the people who buy or lease federal water, land or forests on the other side.

At the Interior Department, at least six high political positions have been occupied by people associated with businesses or trade associations tied to public lands or resources. One of those appointees, J. Steven Griles, a deputy secretary, continued to receive $284,000 a year from his old lobbying firm while working for the government. Mr. Griles stepped down last year, saying he had not done anything to violate ethics rules at the department.

Mr. Peltier, in an interview, said that when he first came to the Bush administration in 2001, he recused himself from some decisions involving the landowners he used to represent, but he said he was granted an exemption because of his expertise in California water issues.

"I was given dispensation early on because of my knowledge of these issues," he said.

He added, "I have not had the strict bar of separation on certain issues, but I've been very mindful of the appearance of a conflict and operated accordingly."

Interior Department officials said Mr. Peltier, who is the chief policy adviser on California water issues, had cleared his activities with the ethics office....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/national/02mine.html?ex=1298955600&en=fde8a798125d42da&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 2, 2006

U.S. Is Reducing Safety Penalties for Mine Flaws
By IAN URBINA and ANDREW W. LEHREN

CRAIGSVILLE, W.Va. — In its drive to foster a more cooperative relationship with mining companies, the Bush administration has decreased major fines for safety violations since 2001, and in nearly half the cases, it has not collected the fines, according to a data analysis by The New York Times.

Federal records also show that in the last two years the federal mine safety agency has failed to hand over any delinquent cases to the Treasury Department for further collection efforts, as is supposed to occur after 180 days.

With the deaths of 24 miners in accidents in 2006, the enforcement record of the Mine Safety and Health Administration has come under sharp scrutiny, and the agency is likely to face tough questions about its performance at a Senate oversight hearing on Thursday.

"The Bush administration ushered in this desire to develop cooperative ties between regulators and the mining industry," said Tony Oppegard, a top official at the agency in the Clinton administration. "Safety has certainly suffered as a result."

A spokesman for the agency, Dirk Fillpot, defended its record, pointing out that last year the coal industry had 22 fatalities, the lowest number in its history.

"Safety is definitely improving," Mr. Fillpot said.

A spokeswoman for the National Mining Association, Carol Raulston, agreed.

"The agency realized in recent years that you can't browbeat operators into improved safety, and this general approach has worked," Ms. Raulston said. "The tragic events of this year have given everyone pause. But I don't think it means we want to abandon what we have found works." ...

[anne]

"The tragic events of this year have given everyone pause. But I don't think it means we want to abandon what we have found works."

What works for this Administration and Congressional majority is to slant every possible policy to business interests and this lends a peculiar nature to carrying out public policy.

[ken melvin]

Incompetent, i n c o m p e t e n t, incompetent.

[paul]

Ken (just above): what is incompetent about the administration? It seems to me that, in light of their goals, rewarding their supporters, they have been quite competent. They only seem incompetent because you think that they share your concerns, your view of the appropriate functions of government, and they are performing those functions so badly. I think you are mistaken (in this view that I attribute to you).

[calmo]

That old horse, 'Incompetent or mendacious?' just fails to die.
Or do ken and paul really have a significantly different view of the matter?

Krugman labors the point that W is not merely unfortunate in his performance since it is repetitively unfortunate. [An isolated failure of execution we might tolerate, but a string of failures we don't.]
This current failure (pick any) is not to be perceived as the isolated example that proves the overall competency of the performer. No, the basic disposition of the performer is one of incompetence. [Have we labored this point enough?] (I have)
Is Krugman pounding us with due care and attention or mercilessly?
For some (the 35% and falling) this is news: W is a bungler. And hence that care and attention.
For others, (the latest polls show many like paul) it is not strong enough; it does not account for the pillaging of the many for the few. These people (us!) don't need the same care and attention and we can stand the lack of mercy, no?