I was trying to think why on earth Obama would appoint those two. Then I think I figured it out. They all share a belief in neoliberlism as the solution to all of society's problems. Maybe Bush is more brutal about it, but that is about the only difference I can see. They all believe that government's role is primarily a police authority, while it encourages business to do `the right thing.' I suspect they all believe that most government social services are somehow `charity' better handled by non-governmental groups from corporations in health care to corporatized charters for public schools or some string of charities and volunteerism for whatever.
I certainly share Fatton's hopes, that somehow, this time will be different. But my head also tells me that this could be a second sort of disaster in the making.
Example. I was trying to figure out a simple problem. Does the US military own bulldozers and dump trucks? For example the State of California owns plenty of heavy road equipment through CalTrans. It was CalTrans and local contractors who cleared the collapsed freeway. The reconstruction was all overseen by state and county agencies. How would such a thing be run in Haiti, say to reconstruct its port, enlarge its airport, or built up a central telecom system or carry out an enlarged electrification project?
All that goes to the question of how the US military would help Haiti rebuild or even just clear the streets of rubble. At a guess they brought armored personnel carriers not bulldozers and dump trucks.
I am pretty sure that what's going to happen in Haiti is an intensification of neoliberalism under some interim US authority. This would be followed by a US hand over to the UN who will take control of the various projects.
CG