September 11, 2005

Victims Should Work For Less

In response to my piece about Bush's waiver of the Davis-Bacon Act where I said, among other things:

It's profoundly revealing how in the midst of this terrible crisis, someone in the adminstration (perhaps Cheney himself?) was probably approached by Halliburton and other companies like them and told that it would be helpful if the President suspended the requirements of the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act. And in response, Bush reacts like a trained monkey.

Anonymous, someone who commented on my piece, said this:

This is complete conjecture. All we know is that there are not enough people to help with the rebuilding. It's a shame that people wouldn't help rebuild their communities unless they are paid some prevailing wage.

**********************

Here's my response to anonymous (which is a category I don't like, by the way, because it lets people say things without being accountable -- sound familiar?)

My response:

I made it clear that it was conjecture by including the question mark and the word "probably." But it's probably closer to the truth than "Anonymous" would want us believe. Someone had to have the bright idea to request a waiver. And it certainly wasn't the victims who need jobs. So whose bright idea does anonymous think it was? It was either the corporate world that had the idea, or it was the Bush government that had the idea.

Anonymous believes that people who have lost their homes and jobs are not worth paying prevailing wage, anyway. I suppose anonymous would have all the victims become volunteers and "help" rebuild roads and bridges (which is what the Davis-Bacon Act applies to in the first place) for nothing. Amazing, not only should the victims pay with their homes, jobs, and lives, but they should work for less, so corporate vultures can make a higher profit from the disaster.

2 comments:

dante said...

Anonymous must have been one of those people who thinks it's a good idea that the governement kept welfare but got rid of the WPA. I have never understood the reasoning behind that policy descision. Even during the depression, peopler willing to work for the government instead of receiving a handout from the governemnt were paid the prevailing wage. Restarting a WPA project in New Orleans would get people working, and might even get them the experience and training they need to improve their lives long term. but I suppose then the wrong people would be making money.

Nickster said...

I think you nailed it right on the head. Heaven forbid you allow some of the "lower" folks to learn something, help rebuild their community, and earn a wage to afford a roof over their heads and for their children. All in the name of increasing Halliburton's profits yet again. What about those Blackwater folks? Think they earn minimum wage or less to provide "security"?

Not only do these Neo-Cons hate welfare, they hate anyone other than themselves making a dime.