Following Hurricane Isaac, after most of the debris has been removed, power restored and extra food stamps distributed, political squalls continue over who should pay how much of the bill. Not surprisingly, the approaching presidential election gives rise to the latest disturbance. Last week, U.S. Sen. David Vitter called attention to a resurfaced 2007 video of then-candidate Barack Obama criticizing then-President George W. Bush’s administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina. Vitter noted that while the federal government eventually waived the state’s responsibility and paid for all Katrina relief expenses, Obama is holding Louisiana to a 25% cost share for Isaac. “The hypocrisy is startling,” Vitter concluded. Gov. Bobby Jindal readily agreed. “Despite the initial response to Katrina, eventually the cost share was waived,” Jindal said. “Contrast that to the White House’s response to Isaac this year.” Now wait. Hypocrisy aside, to compare Katrina with Isaac is preposterous, even as destructive as was the latter. In the aftermath of Katrina, the federal government waived the state’s share of the $26 billion spent, which is very fortunate, because, at even 10%, a $2.6 billion bill would have crippled the recovery in Louisiana and Mississippi. In contrast to his Isaac reaction, Jindal did not publicly complain when former President George W. Bush set the state’s share at 25% for hurricanes Gustav and Ike, which was lowered to 10% for Louisiana and Texas when the costs of the September 2008 storms exceeded $1 billion. Read the full column here.
(John Maginnis publishes LaPolitics Weekly, a newsletter on Louisiana politics, at LaPolitics.com.)
