John Whitehead's Commentary
We Need Accountability for Katrina Funds
Americans are generous to a fault, especially during times of crisis. The overwhelming response to Hurricane Katrina has been no exception. Quick to open their pocketbooks and contribute to the disaster relief efforts, Americans have already pledged at least $587 million--twice as much as was donated in the first ten days after the 9/11 attacks. Not included in the tally are the efforts of those who have volunteered to help hurricane survivors in other ways, whether by housing them, employing them or otherwise caring for them.
However, what is sorely lacking is accountability for how this money, whether government funds or private donations, is going to be spent. More to the point, Americans have been given little assurance yet that the money for disaster relief is actually going to get to the people who need it most--the thousands of individuals, many of them poverty-stricken African Americans, who have been left homeless and destitute by the storm.
For example, although Congress recently approved President Bush's request for a whopping $51.8 billion (with much more to come) to aid the victims of Katrina, the bulk of which will be given to FEMA, one has to wonder if survivors will ever reap the benefits of that financial aid. Such concerns prompted Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to vote against the bill, along with 10 other members of the House. As Flake explained, his no vote was "an issue of oversight, not priority" given the fact that there is no clear plan of action for how the funds will be used. Appearing with Arizona Senator John McCain at a news conference sponsored by Citizens against Government Waste, a watchdog group that reports on government spending, Flake called on Congress to cut spending elsewhere in order to commit to the large relief grant: "What we've seen in the past is an irresistible temptation on the part of some members of Congress to use emergency supplements as a vehicle to lard on pork-barrel projects which are in no way related."
With the entire nation being called on to sacrifice, Congress should certainly make some sacrifices of their own. They can start by cutting the "pork," a term used to describe the process by which lawmakers pad a bill with money for their own pet projects in order to bypass congressional review. As a recent New York Times editorial stated, "Hurricane Katrina cries out to Congress for something other than business as usual. Imagine what would happen if each member of Congress announced that he or she would give up a prize slab of bacon so the government would be able to use the money to shelter hurricane victims and rebuild New Orleans. The public would--for once--have proof that politicians are capable of setting priorities and showing respect for the concept of a budget."
Setting priorities is obviously a difficult task for government bureaucrats. As James Ridgeway, writing for the Village Voice, pointed out, "The very first thing George W. Bush did in response to Hurricane Katrina was to offer a helping hand--not to the people stranded on rooftops in New Orleans, but to his friends in the oil industry." Other Bush White House friends like Halliburton and Bechtel are also benefiting from the recent disaster, having been immediately awarded lucrative government contracts for housing and reconstruction.
There may not be much that can be done at this stage about the federal government's failure to respond immediately to the crisis in New Orleans and other parts of the South. But Congress can ensure that there is greater accountability and better fiscal stewardship in the future. They must also ensure that there will be oversight for all funds contributed to the Katrina relief efforts.
While tragedies such as Katrina tend to bring out a spirit of generosity and selflessness in many people, sadly, such crises also attract those who are eager to turn a quick buck. Already, the FBI has warned of fraudulent websites popping up on the internet purporting to help hurricane survivors. According to FBI assistant director Louis Reigel, new websites are appearing "faster than we can pound them down." He recommends that people wishing to contribute to the relief effort contact well-known organizations. However, even well-known organizations have been known to be less than scrupulous in how they dole out the funds to those in need.
Consider what has happened in the past when large amounts of money have been earmarked for disaster relief efforts:
In 1994 during the Rwanda crisis, Christian televangelist Pat Robertson appeared on his 700 Club television program and requested donations for his group Operation Blessing in order to help Rwandans who were suffering. It was later reported that Robertson had used the planes purchased by Operation Blessing to transport mining equipment for his own African diamond mining operation. He had used the suffering of those in Africa for his own financial gain. Despite Operation Blessing's less than stellar record, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) listed them among its top three charities for Hurricane Katrina donations.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Red Cross was accused of fraudulent fundraising practices when it was reported that millions of dollars collected for their Liberty Fund were not going to directly help the victims of the World Trade Center. Instead, the funds were being diverted to community outreach programs, a blood reserve program and telecommunication upgrades. The Red Cross, also included among FEMA's top three groups for Katrina donations, has received the bulk of the donations thus far, totaling roughly $485 million
Luckily, there are watchdog groups such as the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) that keep an eye on charitable organizations. AIP grades charities on how much money is spent on program services and fundraising. According to AIP, a charity should spend at least 60% of its budget on program services and should spend no more than $35 to raise $100. AIP also warns individuals to be cautious of newly created charities and telemarketers asking for donations. (For more information, see the AIP's website www.charitywatch.org.)
The devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina has been tragic enough. If we fail to demand accountability and oversight from our government and private charities ensure that the donated money reaches those in need, we will have only ourselves to blame.
However, what is sorely lacking is accountability for how this money, whether government funds or private donations, is going to be spent. More to the point, Americans have been given little assurance yet that the money for disaster relief is actually going to get to the people who need it most--the thousands of individuals, many of them poverty-stricken African Americans, who have been left homeless and destitute by the storm.
For example, although Congress recently approved President Bush's request for a whopping $51.8 billion (with much more to come) to aid the victims of Katrina, the bulk of which will be given to FEMA, one has to wonder if survivors will ever reap the benefits of that financial aid. Such concerns prompted Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to vote against the bill, along with 10 other members of the House. As Flake explained, his no vote was "an issue of oversight, not priority" given the fact that there is no clear plan of action for how the funds will be used. Appearing with Arizona Senator John McCain at a news conference sponsored by Citizens against Government Waste, a watchdog group that reports on government spending, Flake called on Congress to cut spending elsewhere in order to commit to the large relief grant: "What we've seen in the past is an irresistible temptation on the part of some members of Congress to use emergency supplements as a vehicle to lard on pork-barrel projects which are in no way related."
With the entire nation being called on to sacrifice, Congress should certainly make some sacrifices of their own. They can start by cutting the "pork," a term used to describe the process by which lawmakers pad a bill with money for their own pet projects in order to bypass congressional review. As a recent New York Times editorial stated, "Hurricane Katrina cries out to Congress for something other than business as usual. Imagine what would happen if each member of Congress announced that he or she would give up a prize slab of bacon so the government would be able to use the money to shelter hurricane victims and rebuild New Orleans. The public would--for once--have proof that politicians are capable of setting priorities and showing respect for the concept of a budget."
Setting priorities is obviously a difficult task for government bureaucrats. As James Ridgeway, writing for the Village Voice, pointed out, "The very first thing George W. Bush did in response to Hurricane Katrina was to offer a helping hand--not to the people stranded on rooftops in New Orleans, but to his friends in the oil industry." Other Bush White House friends like Halliburton and Bechtel are also benefiting from the recent disaster, having been immediately awarded lucrative government contracts for housing and reconstruction.
There may not be much that can be done at this stage about the federal government's failure to respond immediately to the crisis in New Orleans and other parts of the South. But Congress can ensure that there is greater accountability and better fiscal stewardship in the future. They must also ensure that there will be oversight for all funds contributed to the Katrina relief efforts.
While tragedies such as Katrina tend to bring out a spirit of generosity and selflessness in many people, sadly, such crises also attract those who are eager to turn a quick buck. Already, the FBI has warned of fraudulent websites popping up on the internet purporting to help hurricane survivors. According to FBI assistant director Louis Reigel, new websites are appearing "faster than we can pound them down." He recommends that people wishing to contribute to the relief effort contact well-known organizations. However, even well-known organizations have been known to be less than scrupulous in how they dole out the funds to those in need.
Consider what has happened in the past when large amounts of money have been earmarked for disaster relief efforts:
In 1994 during the Rwanda crisis, Christian televangelist Pat Robertson appeared on his 700 Club television program and requested donations for his group Operation Blessing in order to help Rwandans who were suffering. It was later reported that Robertson had used the planes purchased by Operation Blessing to transport mining equipment for his own African diamond mining operation. He had used the suffering of those in Africa for his own financial gain. Despite Operation Blessing's less than stellar record, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) listed them among its top three charities for Hurricane Katrina donations.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Red Cross was accused of fraudulent fundraising practices when it was reported that millions of dollars collected for their Liberty Fund were not going to directly help the victims of the World Trade Center. Instead, the funds were being diverted to community outreach programs, a blood reserve program and telecommunication upgrades. The Red Cross, also included among FEMA's top three groups for Katrina donations, has received the bulk of the donations thus far, totaling roughly $485 million
Luckily, there are watchdog groups such as the American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP) that keep an eye on charitable organizations. AIP grades charities on how much money is spent on program services and fundraising. According to AIP, a charity should spend at least 60% of its budget on program services and should spend no more than $35 to raise $100. AIP also warns individuals to be cautious of newly created charities and telemarketers asking for donations. (For more information, see the AIP's website www.charitywatch.org.)
The devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina has been tragic enough. If we fail to demand accountability and oversight from our government and private charities ensure that the donated money reaches those in need, we will have only ourselves to blame.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
