09:56 AM EDT on Tuesday, September 20, 2005

President Bush, reeling from accusations that his administration was too slow to respond to Hurricane Katrina, is overcompensating by promising truckloads of public money to Gulf Coast states.

Not since Lyndon Johnson has a president so ardently advocated solving problems by throwing money at them while being evasive about the true costs. That such an approach can produce fiscal disaster seems to have been lost on a president who has turned out to be anything but a conservative on spending.

Mr. Bush promised to be the Gulf Coast's Santa Claus, pledging "one of the greatest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen." He talked of declaring an "opportunity zone" of tax breaks (which other taxpayers would have to make up), to create jobs; Worker Recovery Accounts, of up to $5,000, for each evacuee to use for training, education or child care; and free federal property on which people could rebuild in New Orleans.

He also talked about using Hurricane Katrina relief to attack poverty, which he called the legacy of racism.

"Federal funds will cover the great majority of the costs of repairing public infrastructure in the disaster zone, from roads and bridges to schools and water systems," he said. "Our goal is to get the work done quickly. . . . We will not just rebuild; we will build higher and better." The piles of debt will be ever higher.

For Mr. Bush offered no plausible means of paying for all of this, and no believable assurances that taxpayer dollars would not be wasted or stolen on a massive scale, especially in deeply corrupt Louisiana. He did not call for tax hikes to fund the bailout, nor specify sharp reductions in other spending. To imply that "the government" will take care of it all without saying how is disingenuous and irresponsible.

Unfortunately, this is a bipartisan problem, with members of Congress getting into a bidding war over Hurricane Katrina relief -- in part because of heavy and sometimes even hysterical television coverage. As Nevada's Harry Reid, the Senate's Democratic leader, said: "I'm not into finding where we can cut yet." Drunken sailors show greater restraint.

Few are asking such hard questions as Can we afford this? Enormous tax cuts have been implemented, and the president and congressional allies also want to eliminate the estate tax, a move that will benefit the rich. Meanwhile, the United States is still in costly military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, and preparations are under way for a huge prescription-drug program, with few cost controls (which is a bonanza for the pharmaceutical companies).

What will happen to poor people in other parts of America if so many public resources are diverted to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama? How will the federal government find the means to help when the next disaster strikes (such as this week?), if it has all of its eggs in the Katrina basket?

Although Uncle Sam must pitch in when there is a catastrophe, the government cannot -- and should not -- do everything. Ours is supposed to be a federal system. Many things must be considered at the state and local levels: Does it make sense to rebuild in an area that is at or below sea level and prone to severe flooding? Will there be solid long-term economic activity in an area to sustain residents, or will public money for disaster merely go to housing people who remain dependent, and thus poor -- with all the social ills that that entails?

With Katrina, politicians have again forgotten their responsibility to consult reality in their rush to please constituents.