Afflicting the afflicted, comforting the comfortable

President Bush suspended the law requiring federal contractors cleaning up after Hurricane Katrina to pay workers the prevailing wage, but contractors have cost-plus agreements that guarantee them a certain amount of profit, no matter how much they spend to complete the job.

If a contractor is going to make a certain profit no matter how much it costs to complete their work, why is it necessary to eliminate the prevailing-wage requirement? Paying workers the prevailing wage won't cost the contractor an extra penny if the amount of profit is guaranteed, so the only result of eliminating this requirement is that money is kept out of the pockets of workers.

I'm not buying arguments about keeping federal government expenses down. If that were a concern, why was Halliburton again awarded a no-bid contract? If the government was so interested in keeping costs down, why did it agree to cost-plus arrangements, which do nothing to discourage excessive spending? The government is only interested in limiting certain expenses.

I'm also not buying arguments about the government side-stepping the bidding process to save precious time. Not when the government infamously dragged it's feet in an unconscionable mosey down to NOLA.

Even if I were to buy the argument that paying the prevailing wage would cause taxes to go up, to that I say the following:

1. Tax dollars in the hands of people who have lost everything and are willing to help rebuild their own communities is, as far as I'm concerned, money well spent.

2. Take a look at the deficit. Does it look like Bush gives a shit about the deficit? There's no way Bush is going to raise taxes, no matter how much it costs to rebuild the Gulf Coast. Sure he promised to halve the deficit by 2009 -- when he is conveniently out of office -- but does anyone anywhere expect him to live up to that promise? The deficit hasn't dropped a dollar since he took office. And Bush thinks he's going to cut it in half while spending more than $300 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with Gulf Coast spending currently at more than $62 billion and expected to exceed $200 billion within weeks -- all without raising taxes? That's not even remotely realistic. It's laughable.

3. Taxes are going to have to be raised anyway. Sooner or later, to get us out of the hole that bush has dug us into, taxes are going to go up. As soon as we get some adults in the White House, people who actually care about the future of this nation, they are going to have to make the hard choices to clean up this mess, and tax increases are going to have to be part of the solution. (Remember how Clinton cleaned up after Reagan and Bush I, and left the nation with -- here's a word you don't hear much these days -- a "surplus"? How do you think he did that? Amazing what the government can do when it's fully funded.) So in 2010, when you're telling your wingnut friends that "Bush never raised taxes like the current president," remember that it was Bush who created the need for the tax hike. And if taxes are going to go up anyway, some of that money might as well find its way to people who have lost everything and are starting over with nothing.

The Bush administration might not see a hurricane coming, but when there's money to be made, no stone is left un-bled.