Sorry for the lack of posts the past few days. I have been in the process of moving to the D.C. area and haven't had much time to keep Nothing Aside as up-to-date as I would like. In the meantime I've failed to give my two cents on some pretty incredible stories. So as a catch-up, here is a quick round up of some of the big stories:
Hurricane Katrina. Wow. Where to begin? This is shaping up to be as catastrophic for the nation as 9-11 was, though the impact will be different. David Brooks had a good column about the difference between the two though. The human costs of this natural disaster are horrifying, but perhaps more importantly: tragic. A major hurricane in New Orleans was inevitable and many disaster scenarios used just such a situation as their worst case. But the federal government apparently did not. This is incredibly inept. It doesn't take a huge leap of the imagination to see the parallels of Condoleezza Rice saying, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center" and President Bush's stunning quote from a few days ago: "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Well, Mr. President, it seems that many experts did anticipate just such a problem - and none of them worked in your administration. Instead of pros, you appointed Mike Brown as the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In his previous career, Brown ran, and was fired from, the International Arabian Horses Association. Clearly this is the prerequisite you are looking for when it comes time to pick someone to head disaster relief. As a result of the federal government's incompetence in responding to Katrina, thousands died. Heads should roll. 
Chief Justice Rehnquist dies, Roberts nominated for Chief Justice. If there was ever an ideal time for a Supreme Court justice to die, the middle of a media storm centering on your administration's inability to handle the perfect storm has to be it. With two Supreme Court spots to fill at the same time - and with one being the top post - Bush is sitting pretty. He has the ability to push the court more firmly to the right. While O'Connor and Rehnquist were generally conservative, they were old school conservatives. With them out of the way, Bush can now nominate a whole bench full of Scalias. While Roberts continues to be a mystery to just about everyone, we can be pretty confident that he won't be to the left of Rehnquist, the justice he once clerked for. And, with Roberts still young at the tender age of 50, he could easily serve as Chief Justice for thirty plus years. Yikes. Meanwhile, Bush again can pick from his short list of confidently right-wing justices. Back when we only had one opening, many thought it would be Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Then Gonzalez fell out of favor with both sides within a day for no particular reason other than he was appearing too moderate. At the time I bought into the idea that Bush wanted to wait on nominating Gonzalez until he could make him Chief Justice. Apparently that was a bad idea to buy. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush took this opportunity to nominate his friend from Texas as the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice. But, of course, I'll probably be wrong. 
Gas prices are ridiculous. Good God. Today as I drove through College Park, Maryland, I momentarily got excited when I spotted a gas station hawking its wares for the rock bottom price of $3.19/gallon. People, this price should excite no one. It is, what's the word?, expensive. There are some people out there who have long advocated a gas tax as a way to curb America of its dependence on cheap gas. I am not one of these people since such a tax would hit the poor the most since it would be an incredibly regressive tax. However, with prices the way they are, I would certainly rather be paying $3.49/gallon (the more common price around here) with half of it going to boost federal revenues than half of it going to the belly of the beast that is the backwards looking oil-focused energy industry.
We're losing Iraq. Oh, you forgot about Iraq? With all this other stuff going on, it's easy to forget that American soldiers continue to die over there. Frankly, that's what the White House was hoping would happen. The administration's incompetence on Iraq was nearing a tipping point. Luckily for them, a brand new disaster gave them a bit of a respite. Meanwhile there is no respite for the American soldier who is part of a mission in Iraq that has just enough troops to keep us from losing and just enough to keep us from winning.
And for those of you who are still hopelessly committed to backing this inept administration, I'm sure there will soon be fewer uncomfortable pictures of the dead and dying in [Iraq, the streets of New Orleans] and more stories about all the schools, hospitals and water treatment plants that are opening...
The gas tax isn't very regressive overall, and is actually progressive for lower-income people. See http://mdahmus.thebaba.com/blog/archives/000188.html
Posted by: M1EK | September 08, 2005 at 12:35 PM
M1EK,
I'll quote from a comment on your own blog:
"Those in the lowest incomes are not in the gas market because they don't have cars. Therefore, gas taxes are regressive for those in the market. That's one definition of regressivity. A problem is that car ownership is one of those variables that helps low-income people increase their incomes. For example, if you don't have a car it is tougher to get to work at various places, tougher to find better employment, tougher to work and take your kids to daycare, etc. So, excluding them from the definition of regressivity seems like circular logic."
I do see your point, but everyone who does have a car (which extends pretty far down the socio-economic ladder) face the same issues. If you want to quibble and say that upper middle class people drive FURTHER than lower middle class people or poor people, that's fine, but even then I still have a hard time believing that the upper middle class person is really getting hit harder in the wallet than the lower middle class person. The driving difference seems negligable in comparison to the difference in income. Therefore, a gas tax would be regressive for those who own cars.
Posted by: Kris | September 08, 2005 at 02:29 PM