Preparing for the Worst, OR, Advocating for the Rich

A very interesting article on post-hurricane Ike redevelopment of Galveston is published in the editorial column of The Dallas Morning News. The editor acknowledges the destruction brought to the Houston-Galveston area by Ike, and the condition of the people directly affected by it. However, the focus of the article is not those people whose “primary concerns are whether you still have a house and when they'll ever get to sleep in it.” The article is directed towards the residents of Texas.

In the article, the editor is mainly concerned about two issues. The first issue is that if state monies are involved in rebuilding Galveston, all of state’s budget surplus would be used up. In that case, should we just stop caring about what happens to Galveston? Don’t we know what happened to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina? Has it really been able to gain all the economic development that once flourished in New Orleans? If the Feds are willing to bail out banks that are in bad shape due to their greedy lending strategies, the people of Galveston should not be penalized for the wrath of nature. That said, the suggestion by the editor to recapitalize the insurance wind pool should also be considered.

The editor talks about the second issue about building more refineries. The editor mentions that this time, many refineries largely survived because of Ike, but that may not be the case if another hurricane hits the gulf coast. While considering the environmental consequences, the editor suggests that more refineries should be built so that if such a storm comes again, there will still be adequate supply of oil. The editor fails to see the other side of the argument. If another hurricane hits the gulf coast, there is potential for damage to more refineries if they are over there. Again, if they are damaged, they will need to be rebuilt. Also, the environmental consequences should be given appropriate consideration.

In short, the article does not look at all aspects of an issue. In the first issue, the editor would not like to spend tax-payer’s money to rebuild Galveston, but in the second issue, the editor talks about extending incentives and giving tax breaks to oil refineries. One may be led to believe that the article is written an advocate for oil and gas companies.