<< LAW UPHELD ~ MAIN ~ BUSH UNBLAMED >>
MONEY ILL-DIRECTED
“Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen?” asks Editor & Publisher:
[T]he Army Corps of Engineers … spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.
Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward [levee repair] dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security—coming at the same time as federal tax cuts—was the reason for the strain.
But what about other spendthrift Bush policies? Such as, say, the Bush administration’s commitment to climate change?
The President’s FY ‘03 budget seeks $4.5 billion in total climate spending – an increase of $700 million. This commitment is unmatched in the world, and is particularly notable given America’s focus on international and homeland security and domestic economic issues in the President’s FY ‘03 budget proposal.
(From climate change correspondent Alan R.M. Jones)
If I remember correctly, had the Army Corps of Engineers been granted the authority to print money by Congress it still would have taken twenty years to upgrade the system of dikes and levees that surround New Orleans.
A lot of folks seem to forget that it was only twelve years ago that the Midwest was absolutely inundated by the flooding of the Mississippi River. Seventy-five percent of St. Charles County, where I am working from right now, was under water. Feel free to compare and contrast the aftermath of the 1993 floods in the Midwest with the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans.
The Army Corps of Engineers must love all the good press they are getting. Usually the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and all the environmental groups with a megaphone are doing nothing but castigating them and casting aspersions on everything they ever propose.
Hells bells, Bush spends money like my wife does. That’s the only problem I have with him. I support his efforts to reform the Middle East and to defeat Islamist terrorism forever.
But we’re spending what, a billion dollars a week in Iraq and Afghanistan? Which means we need to tighten the belt in other areas. The areas affected should depend on their priority.
Seven hundred million on climate change? Why? Not one dollar will buy one bit of support from the supporters for the Kyoto Treaty. I say cut it to $0, explain to those lefty liberals that due to the war he had to cut the budget somewhere, and let them scream a bit louder.
And then cut public broadcasting and support for the arts and let them go over the bend completely.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 09 07 at 06:44 PM • permalinkOh wait a minute. I read it wrong:
The President’s FY ‘03 budget seeks $4.5 billion in total climate spending – an increase of $700 million
$4.5 billion dollars!!!! For what? What does $4.5 billion dollars get you in climate spending? A freaking weather machine?
Look, I like George Bush. But sometimes I think his spending habits are not much different than the Democrats’.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 09 07 at 07:58 PM • permalinkAmount of money spent on Iraq
“The Bush administration intends to seek about $70 billion in emergency funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan early next year, pushing total war costs close to $225 billion since the invasion of Iraq early last year, Pentagon and congressional officials said yesterday.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62554-2004Oct25.htmlAlso the Bush administration like our own thinks that Climat Change will be fixed by nuclear and clean coal with the bulk of the money going to these industries
This is the link to the statement
http://www.state.gov/g/oes/rls/rm/6633.htmand our Energy White paper that spends most on Clean Coal
“Securing Australia’s Energy Future includes a range of major new initiatives, including:
* driving investment of at least $1.5 billion to demonstrate break through technologies with significant long term greenhouse gas reduction potential through the establishment of a $500 million fund to leverage private sector investment of at least $1 billion in the demonstration of low emission technologies;”
http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/media_Release911.htmlReally what is spent in climate change is a drop in the bucket especially when most of the money is subsidies for the coal industry.
I don’t like spending huges amount of American dollars on a part of the world that probably would not become the least bit appreciative. But the war is being waged to reform the Middle East and ultimately bring a stop to Islamist terrorism. It that’s what it takes to prevent the detonation of a WMD in a city, whether American, Australian, or European, then I support it.
But we have to cut back somewhere. I’m for cutting back the $4.5 billion to $4.50. Let the Germans or French make up the difference. They’re not doing jack shit to better the future for mankind so they should have the dough.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 09 07 at 10:19 PM • permalinkI don’t like spending huges amount of American dollars on a part of the world that probably would not become the least bit appreciative.
But enough about San Francisco…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 09 07 at 11:19 PM • permalinkA statement by the Army Corps of Engineers refutes the claim that the reduction in funding caused the levees to fail. Of course it’s just too much trouble to, say, pick up the phone and call the ACE. Having all the facts presents Bush-bashing journos with a dilemma: Report the facts and risk making Bush look good, or hide the facts and betray what little journalistic integrity they have. Tough choice. Just better not to research in the first place.
Posted by lil varmint on 2005 09 08 at 12:25 AM • permalinkThe funding issue is not an issue. As has been pointed out, one section of the flood control works that failed in NOLA had just been upgraded. Money was being spent on the project.
The levees failed because there was too much water. Period.
As for the funding reductions....folks, I’ve said it before. LTG Carl Strock says the same thing. Funding cuts for flood control works have been happening for years. I know of Federally maintained levee systems in other parts of the nation that have also received less funding.
From the Tribune article (which is amazingly non-partisan, BTW):
Funding for these projects has generally trended downward since at least the last years of the Clinton administration. Congressional records show that the levee work on Lake Pontchartrain received $23 million in 1998 and $16 million in 1999. It was not clear how much the drainage project received in 1998, but records show it received $75 million in 1999.
This is typical for other major projects within the Corps, at least in my experience. The funding really depends on how much log rolling the congressional delegation does, and how much the project is pushed by local authorities. Funding levels need not be steady by any means. Cuts can and will happen in committee without warning.
From earlier in the article:
Congress in 1999 authorized the corps to conduct a $12 million study to determine how much it would cost to protect New Orleans from a Category 5 hurricane, but the study isn’t scheduled to get under way until 2006. It was not clear why the study has taken so long to begin, though Congress has only provided in the range of $100,000 or $200,000 a year so far.
I’d guess that the $100-200K appropriation is due to the cost sharing requirement. Such studies are typically not at 100% Federal cost; the arrangement is generally 65% Federal, and 35% non-Federal. That 35% has to be kicked in up front, which means that the sponsor has to dig up $35-70K in cash for the study. Not knowing who the sponsor is, nor their typical budget, I’d have to guess that this is all they could afford on an annual basis (such studies take several years). The total sum ($135-$270K) would fund a small team to investigate options for cat 5 protection.
In other words, this whole process has been “business as usual” for the Corps and the Federal government. And much of it pre-dates 9/11.
The only reason we see this focus on the NOLA levees is because of the disasterous consequences. Oh, and Bush is president, of course. How could I forget that? :-P
But this is not a unique problem. One article in the LA Times reports that the California congressional delegation is up in arms about the condition of the levee systems in California....which have been funded in a similar manner. Surprise, surprise! There’ll be more to come.
/rant
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 09 08 at 01:39 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Again, nobody bothers to report that the levee that failed was one that had just been upgraded.
Because, well, that wouldn’t leave anything to blame Bush for, would it? And that’s far more important than being fair and accurate.