Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Bush sent more funding to NO to sure up the levees than any of his predecessors. Doesn't matter much: NY Times September 13, 2005 Katrina's Message on the Corps There has been much grumbling that Congress and the Bush administration denied the Army Corps of Engineers the money that was required to fortify New Orleans against a hurricane like Katrina. These complaints need to be pursued. Flood control is mainly a federal obligation, and the agency most responsible for it must have enough money to do the job right. But there is another question worth asking: has the Army Corps made wise use of the money it has? Louisiana has received about $1.9 billion over the past four years for corps civil works projects, more than any other state. Although much of this has been spent to protect New Orleans, a lot has also been spent on unrelated water projects - a new and unnecessary lock in the New Orleans Industrial Canal, for instance, and dredging little-used waterways like the Red River - mainly to serve the barge industry and other commercial interests. The Louisiana delegation, second to none in bringing home the bacon, is as much to blame for these skewed priorities as the corps is. Yet the reports of wasted dollars in Louisiana are consistent with the corps's historical profile. Studies by the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences and others have documented that the agency has long inflated the economic payoffs of its projects to justify ever greater budget outlays, while underestimating the environmental damage caused by turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of valuable wetlands. This satisfies the corps's appetite for money and Congress's appetite for pork. Katrina thus raises an even broader question: has the time not come, finally, to impose some real discipline on the Army Corps and its paymasters in Congress who regard it as their own cookie jar? Both the present commander, Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, and his predecessor have promised internal reforms. But the lead must come from Congress, where enlightened reformers like Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold are pushing independent peer review for individual projects and other changes that might truly make a difference. Unfortunately, many other senators - not just those from Louisiana - are powerfully addicted to corps projects and the votes they attract, especially Christopher Bond of Missouri, who controls the corps's budget and has single-handedly kept alive a nonessential barge industry on the Missouri River at great cost to the environment and taxpayers. To discipline the corps, Congress must first discipline itself. Good article. So the money was sent, but not used properly. Now the real blame game can start. Since Bush wasn't the one to appropriate where the money went, can we at least agree that it's ridiculous to keep arguing that "Bush didn't spend the money to reinforce the levees"? I never said Bush had anything to do with the levees. I doubt anyone on his staff has the patience to try explaining levees to him. |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Harry, stop spinning, you'r getting dizzy and sounding silly. There is
not a rational person on this planet who thinks Bush is responsible for evacuating NO. If the Dems keep doing this blame thing for katrina, you can see that it will be very easy to make them look like Genocidal maniacs. The blame thing is kinda sleazy but I can easily imagine campaign blogs in 2006 that show the flooded busses followed by pics of corpses to illustrate the incompetence of the Dems. Maybe you'd like a blog on Democratic Urban renewal showing Bush having to beg Blanco to evacuate and then showing corpses. If this is the sort of thing the Dems want , I can guarantee they will end up looking really bad. If the Dems really want to campaign on this, they will just make themselves into easy targets. Find some real political issues unless you just want a sleaze campaign that you will lose. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Bush sent more funding to NO to sure up the levees than any of his predecessors. Doesn't matter much: NY Times September 13, 2005 Katrina's Message on the Corps There has been much grumbling that Congress and the Bush administration denied the Army Corps of Engineers the money that was required to fortify New Orleans against a hurricane like Katrina. These complaints need to be pursued. Flood control is mainly a federal obligation, and the agency most responsible for it must have enough money to do the job right. But there is another question worth asking: has the Army Corps made wise use of the money it has? Louisiana has received about $1.9 billion over the past four years for corps civil works projects, more than any other state. Although much of this has been spent to protect New Orleans, a lot has also been spent on unrelated water projects - a new and unnecessary lock in the New Orleans Industrial Canal, for instance, and dredging little-used waterways like the Red River - mainly to serve the barge industry and other commercial interests. The Louisiana delegation, second to none in bringing home the bacon, is as much to blame for these skewed priorities as the corps is. Yet the reports of wasted dollars in Louisiana are consistent with the corps's historical profile. Studies by the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences and others have documented that the agency has long inflated the economic payoffs of its projects to justify ever greater budget outlays, while underestimating the environmental damage caused by turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of valuable wetlands. This satisfies the corps's appetite for money and Congress's appetite for pork. Katrina thus raises an even broader question: has the time not come, finally, to impose some real discipline on the Army Corps and its paymasters in Congress who regard it as their own cookie jar? Both the present commander, Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, and his predecessor have promised internal reforms. But the lead must come from Congress, where enlightened reformers like Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold are pushing independent peer review for individual projects and other changes that might truly make a difference. Unfortunately, many other senators - not just those from Louisiana - are powerfully addicted to corps projects and the votes they attract, especially Christopher Bond of Missouri, who controls the corps's budget and has single-handedly kept alive a nonessential barge industry on the Missouri River at great cost to the environment and taxpayers. To discipline the corps, Congress must first discipline itself. Good article. So the money was sent, but not used properly. Now the real blame game can start. Since Bush wasn't the one to appropriate where the money went, can we at least agree that it's ridiculous to keep arguing that "Bush didn't spend the money to reinforce the levees"? I never said Bush had anything to do with the levees. Of course not. The environmental group "Save our Wetlands" put the kibosh to the idea of flood gates back in 1970. http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Rea...e.asp?ID=19418 |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I read the quote from Blanco about Bush appealling to her to order a
mandatory evac in a copy of the Monday NO Times Picayune (the day of the hurricane). Since then, I have seen two apocryphal statements that she had decided to evacuate BEFORE Bush talked to her but no evidence of this. The idea that she had decided to evac before she talked to Bush is cantradicted by both her and Nagin being afraid to evac due to buisiness and liability concerns the day before. Instead, she decided to blame Bush by telling people (as quoted in the NO paper) just in case an evac really was not needed. As it turns out, and evac really was needed so Bush should get credit. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... I read the quote from Blanco about Bush appealling to her to order a mandatory evac in a copy of the Monday NO Times Picayune (the day of the hurricane). Since then, I have seen two apocryphal statements that she had decided to evacuate BEFORE Bush talked to her but no evidence of this. The idea that she had decided to evac before she talked to Bush is cantradicted by both her and Nagin being afraid to evac due to buisiness and liability concerns the day before. Instead, she decided to blame Bush by telling people (as quoted in the NO paper) just in case an evac really was not needed. As it turns out, and evac really was needed so Bush should get credit. I still find it amazing that even in the face of overwhelming evidence, people like bb continue to deny that Blanco publicly stated that Bush spoke with her on the phone and urged her to evacuate New Orleans. Facts: The Bush/Blanco phone call took place before the mandatory evacuation order was given by Nagin. The press conference occurred after the phone call. Blanco stated in the press conference that Bush called her and urged her and Nagin to issue a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
HAM and SSB Frequencies | Cruising |