Aftermathematics

Certainly, one of the
terrorists’ motivations in planning the attacks of 9/11 was to cripple our
economy. In addition to destroying its most prominent symbol, and all the
people inside it, they hoped to deal a crushing blow to our finances as a
nation.

            According to no less an authority
than New York Governor George Pataki, they’ve succeeded in this regard, big
time, and they keep winning battle after battle on this front because “we have
no choice” but to lie down and take it.

            In tandem with references to the
country’s pre-9/11 recession and “the unique difficulties of the financial
industry [Wall Street] so critical to New York’s economy,” Pataki has
consistently cited the 9/11 attacks as the trigger that’s caused “a fiscal crisis
today of a magnitude that we have not faced in our lifetime.” Both quotes are from his January 8 State of the State
Address.

            But in
the same speech, Pataki hammered home the message that Americans — New
Yorkers, in particular — are a strong people. We’re united in opposition to
our enemies and determined to see justice prevail. And we’re united in support
of the victims our enemies have hurt. We will not, we cannot, allow our fellow
citizens to suffer by enemy hands.

            “Ultimately, someone will have to
make the tough choices that will transform today’s fiscal crisis back into even
greater economic prosperity than we enjoyed before September 11th,” Pataki said
during his 2003 State of the State. “As a father of four, I have no intention
to bequeath hardship on my sons and daughters — or anyone else’s. And as
governor of the state which showed the world that cowardly terrorism is no
match for character, courage, unity — I know we won’t have to.”

            But, of
course, we will. Three weeks later, during his 2003 budget address, Pataki
bequeathed hardships by the dozens.

After the 9/11 attacks,
donations of both blood and money flooded in for the victims and their
families. Their immediate and future needs were addressed by an outpouring of
generosity. Funding college scholarships for the children of 9/11 victims is
one of the most common forms this charity has taken.

            Yet, according to our governor, as a
result of the 9/11 attacks, we have no choice but to raise college tuition at
New York’s state colleges and universities $1,200, while simultaneously
withholding a third of the state-funded tuition assistance enrolled students
can receive while they work towards graduation.

            The logic is clear, albeit perverse:
Our state government wouldn’t have to hike public college tuition and reduce
aid to public education and health care for the poor if the terrorists hadn’t
struck. But they did, and now we’re in trouble. And if the critics of Pataki’s
proposed budget are even half right, the sick and disabled will be worse off,
as will the old and the young, high school graduates and prekindergardners
alike, because of the 9/11 terrorists.

            Because
the terrorists struck, the state now has no better option than to give up
billions of dollars in future tobacco-settlement money to stanch the hemorrhage
of red ink with a one-time payment of $4 billion. That’s another $11 billion to
$16 billion in damage they’ve inflicted on us.

            Among the
terrorists’ many, lesser triumphs: Librarians say Pataki’s proposed $13.3
million cut to the state’s library systems will force libraries to cut hours,
programs, book orders, and jobs. (Could Osama bin Laden have imagined this
arcane facet of his victory?).

I can understand, if not accept, the economic logic of the 9/11 attacks’ effects. What I
have a harder time understanding or accepting is the sudden disappearance of
the strength and compassion politicians of both major parties have been telling
us we have every day since 9/11.

            Wouldn’t the same New Yorkers who
united to ease the suffering of the terrorists’ most immediate victims be
willing to pitch in to help those who will suffer from it second-hand?

            Are all those individuals and
families who ponyed up, say, $20, $50, to help those afflicted by terrorism now
adamantly opposed to a percentage hike in the sales tax, or a slightly higher
income tax rate (at least, for those making over $100,000; so often the most
generous donors, anyway) to prevent the terrorists from causing more pain and
poverty?

            I suspect New Yorkers would be more
than willing to chip in for such a just cause. But as we face the economic
shock waves almost a year and a half into “the wake of the attack,” no
politician is telling us we’re tough and generous enough to avoid the economic
fallout.

            Neither are we being asked to spend
hundreds of billions of our dollars to depose Saddam Hussein, a man with only a
hypothetical connection to the 9/11 terrorists. Massive protests
notwithstanding, we’re being told we
will do so; or rather (and this is less discussed) that our children will do so, destined as they
are to inherit a mammoth national debt ballooned by the one-two punch of war
and tax cuts on Wall Street dividends.

            And more than being asked to donate
a pint of our rejuvenating blood, we are being told to prepare to lose the
lives of hundreds or thousands of our friends and neighbors in the military to
“change the regime” in Iraq.

New Yorkers are strong, compassionate people. We’ll run into a burning building to save a stranger’s
life. But as human beings, even the weakest and meanest among us perform such
acts of heroism when catastrophe strikes, no matter what regime we live under,
no matter who or what caused the fire.

            When it comes to inflicting tragedy
on the Iraqi people, a tragedy that will likely eclipse 9/11 in size and scope
many-fold, we are tough enough to say no, we are generous enough to help them
by other means. But, sadly, we are not yet unified against killing more
innocents to (somehow) avenge the loss of our own.

This article appears in Mar 12-18, 2003.