« PA-18: Hafer's Out | Main | Katrina Proves Bush is a Failure »
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Katrina Proves Bush Failed New Orleans
Posted by Bob BrighamUPDATE (Bob) Here is the full recap
So far today, I've looked at Global Warming and Katrina and the crisis resulting from Lousiana's National Guard being in Iraq instead of defending their state.
Will Bush stay on vacation? At this point, it doesn't really matter. Because Bush has been asleep at the wheel for four years. From the Houston Chronicle in 2001:
New Orleans is sinking.And its main buffer from a hurricane, the protective Mississippi River delta, is quickly eroding away, leaving the historic city perilously close to disaster.
So vulnerable, in fact, that earlier this year the Federal Emergency Management Agency ranked the potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most castastrophic disasters facing this country.
The other two? A massive earthquake in San Francisco, and, almost prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York City.
The New Orleans hurricane scenario may be the deadliest of all.
FEMA said this was the "three likeliest, most castastrophic disasters". Bush's response? Cut preparedness:
(UPDATE -- Tim:) I wanted to take a moment to spell it out for the visiting freepi fawning over the head start the Superdome is giving you supporters of minority internment. Of course we don't believe Bush caused the hurricane, although I think many of us wish he would have asked Pat Robertson to pray for a re-direction.
And most of you failed to read the article Bob linked, no surprise there. But inbetween vacations, the preznit got massive tax-cuts passed at the expense of important projects. Among them, preparedness for natural disasters--some of which happen to be in New Orleans.
In general, funding for construction has been on a downward trend for the past several years, said Marcia Demma, chief of the New Orleans Corps' programs management branch.In 2001, the New Orleans district spent $147 million on construction projects. When fiscal year 2005 wraps up Sept. 30, the Corps expects to have spent $82 million, a 44.2 percent reduction from 2001 expenditures. [...]
Unfunded projects include widening drainage canals, flood- proofing bridges and building pumping stations in Orleans and Jefferson parishes. The Corps also wants to build levees in unprotected areas on the West Bank.
Irresponsible distribution of resources has, yet again, put American lives in peril. If the freepi were able to see past 9/11 and recognize the difference between real life, health, and safety risks (ie. environment & port protection among others) and not get distracted by contrived security risks (ie. Iraq), things might not look so grim tonight.
In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding.It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said.
I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction, said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. I think part of the problem is it's not so much the reduction, it's the drastic reduction in one fiscal year. It's the immediacy of the reduction that I think is the hardest thing to adapt to.
There is an economic ripple effect, too. The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now.
Remember, this was a top-three "likeliest catastrophic disasters" and Bush shelved the study of how to protect against Category 5 hurricanes like Katrina? For most of Bush's time as President, FEMA has been saying this could be the deadliest scenario facing America. And Bush cut the preparedness funding, sent our strategic reserve National Guard troops to fight an unnecessary war and then went on vacation. Not only is Bush the worst President ever, but he is also a total asshole for fucking over New Orleans.
Hat tip to Ms Librarian and commentors.
UPDATE: (Bob) Here is some more...
BUSH LEFT GULF COAST VULNERABLE TO DISASTER
Katrina could be the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States. But it was not a surprise. Experts have been warning for years of the potential catastrophic devastation that a category 4 or 5 hurricane could have on the Gulf Coast. And in Louisiana, local officials have fought for federal funding to implement hurricane defense plans that could have avoided the widespread flooding of New Orleans. But under the Bush Administration, funding for those projects has been continuously slashed, leaving the Gulf Coast unprepared for such a disaster.
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS FUNDING CUT BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Federal Government Has Neglected Disaster Preparedness, Left Enormous Vulnerabilities. Disaster and emergency experts have warned for years that governments, especially the federal government, have put so much stress on disaster response that they have neglected policies to minimize a disaster's impact in advance. Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, said “It's going to be very evident that there were an enormous number of vulnerabilities that weren't addressed. There's going to be a lot of finger-pointing.” [Newhouse News Service, 8/31/05]
Disaster Mitigation Programs Slashed Since 2001. Since 2001, key federal disaster mitigation programs, developed over many years, have been slashed and tossed aside. FEMA’s Project Impact, a model mitigation program created by the Clinton administration, has been canceled outright. Federal funding of post-disaster mitigation efforts designed to protect people and property from the next disaster has been cut in half, and now communities across the country must compete for pre-disaster mitigation dollars. [Baltimore City Paper, 9/29/04]
In 2003 White House Slashed Mitigation Programs In Half. In 2003, Congress approved a White House proposal to cut FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) in half. Previously, the federal government was committed to invest 15 percent of the recovery costs of a given disaster in mitigating future problems. Under the Bush formula, the feds now cough up only 7.5 percent. Such post-disaster mitigation efforts, specialists say, are a crucial way of minimizing future losses. [Gambit Weekly, 9/28/04]
Bush Continuing To Propose Cuts To Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers will be cut in 2006. Bush’s 2005 budget proposal called for a 13 percent reduction in the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget, down to $4 billion from $4.6 billion in fiscal 2004. [Associated Press, 2/6/05; Congressional Quarterly Online, 2/3/04]
Under Bush, FEMA Reverted To Pre-Clinton Status As One Of The Worst Agencies. Former President Clinton appointed James L. Witt to take over FEMA after its poor response to Hurricane Andrew. Witt adopted recommendations and FEMA was described as an agency reborn: “transformed itself from what many considered to be the worst federal agency to among the best.” But FEMA under the Bush administration has destroyed carefully constructed efforts. After the 9/11 attacks the agency’s inspector general in 2003 criticized portions of FEMA’s response, citing “difficulties in delivering timely and effective” mortgage and rental assistance to those in need. [USA Today, 6/1/2005]
STATES FORCED TO CARRY MORE OF THE BURDEN
States Expected To Shoulder More Of The Burden In Emergency Management With Fewer Funds. “The federal focus on terrorism preparedness has left states with an increased responsibility to provide support for natural disasters and emergencies,” noted a report released by the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) this summer. “State budget shortfalls have given emergency management programs less to work with, at a time when more is expected of them. In fiscal year 2004, the average budget for a state emergency management agency was $40.8 million, a 23 percent reduction from fiscal year 2003.” [Gambit Weekly, 9/28/04]
Bush Tried to Cut Federal Percentage of Large-Scale Natural Disaster Preparedness. The administration made a failed attempt to cut the federal percentage of large-scale natural disaster preparedness expenditures. Since the 1990s, the federal government has paid 75 percent of such costs, with states and municipalities funding the other 25 percent. The White House's attempt to reduce the federal contribution to 50 percent was defeated in Congress. [Gambit Weekly, 9/28/04]
BUSH CRIPPLED HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS IN LOUISIANA
Bush Opposed Necessary Funding For Hurricane Preparedness In Louisiana. The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. Ultimately a deal was struck to steer $540 million to the state over four years. The total coast of coastal repair work is estimated to be $14 billion. In its budget, the Bush administration also had proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need. [Newhouse News Service, 8/31/05]
Republican Budget Cut New Orleans’ Army Corps Of Engineers Funding By A Record $71.2 Million. In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding. It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said. “I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction,” said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Money is so tight the New Orleans district instituted a hiring freeze. The freeze is the first of its kind in about 10 years, said Marcia Demma, chief of the Corps' Programs Management Branch. [New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]
Landrieu Called Bush’s Funding Priorities Shortsided. Landrieu said the Bush Administration is not making Corps of Engineers funding a priority. “I think it's extremely shortsighted,” Landrieu said. “When the Corps of Engineers' budget is cut, Louisiana bleeds. These projects are literally life-and-death projects to the people of south Louisiana and they are (of) vital economic interest to the entire nation.” [New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]
Emergency Preparedness Director Furious With Project Cuts. A study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now. Terry Tullier, the New Orleans emergency preparedness director, said he was furious but not surprised to hear that study had been cut from the Bush budget. “I’m all for the war effort, but every time I think about the $87 billion being spent on rebuilding Iraq, I ask: What about us?” he said. “Somehow we need to make a stronger case that this is not Des Moines, Iowa, that we are so critical that if it hits the fan in New Orleans, everything this side of the Rockies will feel the economic shock waves.” [Times-Picayune, 9/22/04; New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]
Flood Protection Projects Put On Hold Because Of Republican’s 2006 Budget. One of the hardest-hit areas of the New Orleans district's budget is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project. SELA's budget is being drained from $36.5 million awarded in 2005 to $10.4 million suggested for 2006 by the House of Representatives and the president. The Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans has identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects in a line item where funding is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in 2006. “We don't have the money to put the work in the field, and that's the problem,” Naomi said. [New Orleans City Business, 6/6/05]
Senator Landrieu Urged Action After SELA Budget Slashed. Louisiana’s congressional delegation assured local officials they would seek significant increases for SELA. “We could have lost 100,000 lives had Hurricane Ivan hit the mouth of the (Mississippi) River before it turned,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., alluding to last year’s storm that largely spared Louisiana but devastated parts of Alabama and Florida. “God has been good, but one of these days a hurricane is going to come and, if we don’t get projects . . . finished, we’re sitting ducks,” she said. [Times-Picayune, 3/11/05]
NATIONAL GUARD AND COAST GUARD UNDERFUNDED AND OVERSTRETCHED
LOUISIANA GUARD WARNED OF EQUIPMENT SHORTAGES BEFORE KATRINA
Louisiana National Guard Said Before Katrina That It Needed Equipment Back From Iraq If It Is To Respond To A Natural Disaster. “The National Guard needs that equipment back home to support the homeland security mission,” said Lt. Colonel Pete Schneider with the LA National Guard. “You've got combatant commanders over there who need it they say they need it, they don't want to lose what they h ave, and we certainly understand that it's a matter of us educating that combatant commander, we need it back here as well,” Col. Schneider said. [ABC 26 WGNO, 8/1/05]
NATIONAL GUARD STRETCHED THIN, UNABLE TO FULFILL DUTIES AT HOME
Iraq Has Left National Guard Units At Home Short Of Equipment. Already suffering from manpower shortages, the National Guard’s overstretched forces are being confronted with another problem: not enough equipment to supply Guard troops at home. “To fully equip troops in Iraq, the Pentagon has stripped local Guard units of about 24,000 pieces of equipment. That has left Guard units at home, already seriously short of gear.” [Detroit Free Press, 6/13/05]
Gen. McCaffrey Said We Could Permanently Damage The Guard And Reserve. Gen. McCaffrey warned against overstretching Guard and Reserve. “[W]e're going to damage fatally the National Guard if we try and continue using Reserve components at this rate. Forty percent of that force in Iraq right now is Reserve component. We have shot the bull. We've got to back off and build an Army and Marine Corps capable of sustaining these operations.” [Meet the Press, 8/28/05]
Governors Say Long Deployments Leaving Their States Vulnerable. “[S]tate officials think continued deployments will have an effect on people who sign up for or remain in the Minnesota National Guard. At a National Governor's Association meeting…some governors criticized the burden of repeated deployment, saying that the troops' absence leaves their states unprotected against things like natural disasters. Officials in Idaho and Montana have said they are unprepared if forest fires hit their states this summer.” [AP, 8/10/05]
COAST GUARD’S RESPONSIBILITIES INCREASING WITHOUT ADEQUATE FUNDS
Coast Guard Gave Congress List of $919 Million in Unfunded Priorities. The Coast Guard has given Congress a $919 million wish list of programs and hardware not funded in the Bush Administration's fiscal 2006 budget request. For the first time, the Coast Guard has sent Congressional representatives an unfunded priorities list - a tally of needed items not included in the fiscal 2006 request. The list includes an additional $637 million for the service's Deepwater recapitalization program; $11.6 million for helicopter repairs; $4 million to increase aviation maritime patrol hours, and $59 million to renovate shore stations. [Journal of Commerce Online, 5/11/05]
Coast Guard Faced With Helicopter Problems. The head of the US Coast Guard told Congress his equipment is failing at unacceptable rates. Despite increases in spending on maintenance, the agency's older large craft -- called cutters -- experience equipment failures capable of ruining a mission almost 50 percent of the time, according to Coast Guard officials. Further, the agency's HH-65 helicopters suffered a rate of 329 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours in 2004, way over the Federal Aviation Administration's acceptable standard of 1 mishap per 100,000 hours. [UPI, 6/10/05; USA Today, 7/6/05]
Commandant Says Coast Guard Short On Resources. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thomas H. Collins said, “Do we have more business than we have resources? Yes.” The Coast Guard has put the cost of implementing safety regulations laid out by Congress at $7.3 billion over the next ten years. The Bush administration only asked for $46 million for aid to the ports in the 2005 budget. [Budget of the United States, www.omb.gov; House Approps Cmte Transcript, 3/31/04; Washington Post, 4/2/03; Boston Globe, 6/30/04]
Posted at 06:27 PM in 2006 Elections, Culture of Corruption, Economy, General, Louisiana, Republicans, Scandals | Technorati
Comments
Let's face it, if something goes wrong, Bush caused it. I bet he's even responsible for my allergies and my sore foot.
Posted by: olrtex ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.swingstateproject.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 28, 2005 08:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Yes its all Bush's fault not the morons and crooks that have been running the state and city for the last few decades.
Posted by: grandcosmo at August 28, 2005 09:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
How sad and pathetic to blame a hurricane on Bush. This is the height of "journalistic" laziness.
Posted by: CJ at August 28, 2005 09:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding"
If im not mistaken when did we move into 2006???What do proposed cuts in 2006 have to do with a Hurricane in 2005???
Posted by: Asphalt at August 28, 2005 09:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding"
If im not mistaken when did we move into 2006???What do proposed cuts in 2006 have to do with a Hurricane in 2005???
Posted by: Asphalt at August 28, 2005 09:56 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
"In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding"
If im not mistaken when did we move into 2006???What do proposed cuts in 2006 have to do with a Hurricane in 2005???
Posted by: Asphalt at August 28, 2005 09:57 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
And weren't liberals all for these reductions during Clintons "peace dividend?" They were so happy that this money was spent on their little social projects. The hypocrisy is stunning!
Posted by: CJ at August 28, 2005 10:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
My dog had a wicked case of the farts last night. It was George Bush's fault.
Posted by: LouMinatti at August 28, 2005 10:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Every time I think I've seen or heard some liberal do or say something that could never be surpassed in terms of sheer stupidity -- as I did several times in the last few weeks from Camp Casey -- one of them comes along to demonstrate that there really is no limit to how stupid a liberal can be.
I hate to think what will top this.
Posted by: unclefrankie at August 28, 2005 10:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Better to blame the Mayor who waited until too late to order evacuation.
Why Iraq?
1. Saddam was a known supporter of terrorism.
a. Abu Nidal was a known terrorist who operated out of Iraq.
b. Saddam directed the assasination of US President G.H.W. Bush.
c. Saddam provided 25,000 dollars to families of terrorists who killed Israelis.
d. Saddam provided refuge to the terrorist who killed Leon Klinghoffer.
e. Saddam killed Iranian soldiers and Kurdish villages with chemical weapons.
2. Saddam had targeted the US.
a. The terrorists who launched the first WTC bombing had Kuwait passports stolen by Iraqi intelligence during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.
b. Saddam had attempted to kill President G.H.W.Bush.
3. Saddam had contacts with Al Queda
a. Iraqi state controlled press forcast the 9/11 attacks on US targets.
b. Salman Pak terrorist training site was used to train the 9/11 terrorist team.
c. Al Zarawi had already been in the Iraq coordinating operations with Al Queda and Saddam's terrorist groups.
4. Saddam had violated the Desert Storm cease fire agreement.
a. he had his people fire on US and allied forces patrolling the no fire zone.
b. he had restricted the movements of WMD inspection teams.
So the effort in Iraq was necessary, and was a legal and appropriate response to Saddam's international terrorism.
Posted by: Don Meaker at August 28, 2005 10:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm out of wine.
Darn George Bush and Karl Rove.
Posted by: Slublog at August 28, 2005 11:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The only way to fix this problem in the future is for all of us to get gay.
/Theh tuk awr jehbs!
Posted by: Beagle at August 29, 2005 12:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I've got the new lunatic lefts meme figured out. Bush caused the hurricane so the oil flow in the gulf would be disrupted. You all know what that means don't you? More money for Bush's oil buddies.
Posted by: CJ at August 29, 2005 12:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Busted.
The article you linked above, where the pull quotes came from, contains a KEY sentence that you neglected to quote:
"Congress is setting the Corps budget."
That's right. Congress, not the Administration. Further, the article makes it pretty clear that the reason the Democratic Representative was upset about the cuts was that they were pork-barrel cuts. Nary a word about public safety - her concern was foor the poor contractors who wouldn't be able to line up at the trough.
If you want your argument to stick, you need to demonstrate - not merely insinuate - that the unfunded projects would have made a lick of difference faced with 165mph winds and a 28-foot storm surge.
Here's a bit of unpleasant calculus for you. Libs seem to forget that W is a Harvard MBA. One of the things you learn in biz school is risk management. Sometimes it's a wiser course of action to maintain liquid funds that can be used to pick up the pieces if an unlikely event occurs (or be otherwise usefully employed if it does not occur), than sink those funds in risk-prevention that might not work.
The risk-prevention we have undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq has been demonstrably effective. It's not clear that dumping a few billion bucks into New Orleans levees would save the city from Katrina.
Oh and by the way - how about those scarce oil production platforms and refineries that have been made even more scarce over the past few decades thanks to eco-zealouts?
Posted by: corrie at August 29, 2005 12:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I love this part...
In 2001, the New Orleans district spent $147 million on construction projects. When fiscal year 2005 wraps up Sept. 30, the Corps expects to have spent $82 million, a 44.2 percent reduction from 2001 expenditures.
Wow, this guy is dense. 2001 expenditures/funding were allocated prior to the start of the recession, the September 11th attacks, etc.... the 2005 expenditures would have been determined afterward. To attribute this to the tax cuts that are now generally agreed by economists to have spurred the economy into recovery and lowered the deficit is... well... stupid.
Posted by: smitty1276 at August 29, 2005 01:11 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
My girlfriend broke up with me a few weeks ago.
A pox on George W Bush and Karl Rove. I know they're behind it...somehow.
Posted by: LawrenceSeattle at August 29, 2005 02:04 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen, and I'm quite surprised it's lasted as long as it has.
And this place has the audacity to blame it on GW.
Looks like some people are getting desperate. What next? The price of tea in China?
Posted by: Sailor Republica at August 29, 2005 02:31 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I hope you have your tinfoil hat screwed on tight. The Mind Control Beams will be broadcast shortly after Katrina clears New Orleans.
100,000 Blue-Staters will be compelled to leave their houses so that the homeless people of New Orleans will have homes.
The 100,000 Blue-Staters will further be compelled to (horror of horrors) sing America the Beautiful while marching to their nearest enlistment center to volunteer to fight Bush's Evil War Of Oppression For Oil and Empire In The Former Iraqi Utopia. You moron.
Oh, and I'm out of toilet paper. Damn that Bush and Rove!
Posted by: jb at August 29, 2005 05:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This just proves that there is a good reason to keep the loony left from Washington --
Posted by: Jo at August 29, 2005 07:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Ever since Betsy in 1965, New Orleans and Louisiana have known N.O. was vulnerable. They had 40 years to do something about it. More and bigger pumps were not the answer. My heart bleeds for the city, but, unlike San Francisco and L.A, which learned their lesson about earthquakes, the 'Big Easy' partied on. Now, they may have to pay the price.
Posted by: Pine Knot at August 29, 2005 08:21 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Face it. If New Orleans was important to Louisiana, the state's people would have demanded it fixed.
It's only important if anyone except Louisiana (President Bush) does not fix it.
Posted by: Bush-Rocks at August 29, 2005 09:51 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Aw, Freepii, you are diappointing me... ove twenty comments, and you haven't directly blamed the hurricane on Bill Clinton yet. Y'all are off your game.
Posted by: pbz at August 29, 2005 10:10 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
How much are you willing to bet that even if the people and government of Louisiana (NOT the Administration) had taken steps to better prepare for a Cat 5 hurricane, we'd STILL nevertheless be reading some dribble from this idiot under the exact same headline?
Personally, I'm waiting for The Big One, the monster earthquake we all fear, to hit California. I'll make a fortune selling "It's Bush's Fault" T-shirts. Fault! Get it? Ha ha!
Posted by: GJameson at August 29, 2005 10:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
tinfoil hatter: "the crisis resulting from Lousiana's National Guard being in Iraq instead of defending their state."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050829/ap_on_re_us/katrina_national_guard
National Guard: Enough GIs for Storm Duty
Though thousands of National Guard personnel from Louisiana and Mississippi are serving in
Iraq, officials say more than enough personnel were available for disaster duty Monday as Hurricane Katrina slammed ashore.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Don't let facts get in in the way of your tinfoil hattery. dumb bass.
massive tax cuts. let's see, 19% good, 18.5% massive tax cuts. maroon.
Posted by: jb at August 29, 2005 12:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
From the statement that George Bush is an MBA we are supposed to draw what conclusion? That he knows what he's doing? I have an MBA for a boss. He doesn't know what he's doing. Common sense is not a requirement for the awarding of this degree. I have seldom seen an MBA demonstrate common sense.
Grumpy
Posted by: GrumpyIconoclast at August 29, 2005 02:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Before immediately jumping to the conclusion that George W. Bush is personally responsible for any damage that Hurricane Katrina causes to New Orleans, I would like to know something about N.O. city politics, and what happened to the buttloads of money that they've received in the past. The federal government has been pumping money into that city for a long time.
Oh, and Bob? Via the linked Yahoo news article mentioned above, regarding the National Guard, it looks like you and Kos got your asses handed to you once again. Nice work.
Posted by: Sloan at August 29, 2005 03:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
But the really IMPORTANT thing we need to know, is what do the experts on this matter think in relation to Bush being respponsible?
By experts, I mean highly credentialed and credible types such as Cindy "Bush is the real terrorist" Sheehan.
Posted by: baaadbeet at August 29, 2005 04:10 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Oh how easy it is to spend your time judging and blaming, blaming and judging...what a waste! There is no way to "fix" New Orleans other than to move it completely...if you must blame, blame the french, spanish, cajuns, and so many other peoples who simultaneously selected this area of land to live on hundreds of years ago. Good grief...have you no compassion?
And those of you who are blaming bush for this hurricane, or any other politician for that matter, don't you realize you're now elevating them to the status of a god or someone powerful enough to control nature? Good grief...they are all just people, not gods.
Global warming, probably...but both the left and the right drive cars that use gas and consume products that are packaged in plastic. Until we are ready to get rid of the "convenieces" we blame on the politicians, industry will continue to produce products we purchase. We consumers are to blame for global warming...if we would stop consuming, industry would respond. If we keep giving them money, they will continue to sell environmentally damaging products to us. WE are in control...not them! Take a look in the mirror and thank God you and/or your loved ones don't live in that area and have to listen to you criticize them.
Posted by: Marise at August 30, 2005 02:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Let me get this straight. Wikipedia says New Orleans was founded in 1718.
1718.
Levees have been built for decades. Worked on for decades. And the danger has been known for decades.
But it's all Bush's fault? Where was your man Clinton during HIS eight years on the job? Maybe a little less horn blowin', and a little less getting his horn blown, and he could have had 100 foot levees built?
Posted by: AmazinglyCompassionate at August 30, 2005 11:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This is good stuff. AmazingCompassionate hit the nail on the head.
New Orleans levee system has been underfunded for YEARS and I'd venture to guess every president befor Bush knew about this too.
If you really want to blame anyone. BLAME THE FRENCH ! They created the mess in the first place.
"In its natural condition, the Mississippi River regularly overflowed its banks and meandered back and forth across the floodplain. For thousands of years, Native Americans accepted the whims of the river and adapted to its patterns. The arrival of European settled in the early 1700s, however, brought a radically new perspective on the river's habits. The river's tendency to flood was a serious hindrance to settlement and development--a problem which demanded solutions.
Early inhabitants began constructing earthen embankments (called levees) along the river's banks to contain the flow and protect residents and developed property. The French built levees to protect New Orleans as early as 1717. At the turn of the 19th century, a crude system of levees extended for 100 miles upriver of New Orleans, with individual landowners constructing and maintaining the levees.
By the 1830s, states were becoming involved in flood control on the Mississippi River through both direct funding and the creation of levee boards. These boards took over levee construction and maintenance with funds acquired from taxes on landowners. "
oh btw the Corps has also dredged the Mississipi creating an unaturally wider river which ALSO contributed to the problems in New Orleans. So you can also blame them
Posted by: strong at August 31, 2005 04:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I may be a bit naive, but where is the president?
I look at the Whitehouse webpage I see he's doing a meet and greet with some veterans today. Shouldn't the crisis in the Gulf (that's the one in North America, not the Middle East) be the only priority right now? Shouldn't he be leading?
Posted by: Bick at August 31, 2005 10:56 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The Govenors of Mississippi and Louisiana asked President Bush to wait a few days before coming to the area...they said there was nothing he could do until they assessed initial damage and got the flood waters under control. President Bush cancelled his vacation to respond to the Governors' requests and be available in a few days to help out. He was at a veterans conference as events were unfolding and responded appropriately. The Reds just gave a press conference and explained they are a back up to the States and not the leaders of disasters. The Governors' are very pleased with the Feds response to their requests for help.
Posted by: Marise at August 31, 2005 02:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I can't go so far as to say that Bush is at fault for all the destruction Katrina's caused, but I can say how furious it makes me that he hasn't made a public appearance or any announcement todate, at least not that I know of! And where was Bush when Katrina destroyed the Gulf Coast?? I believe he was on his ranch for the 100th time this year, enjoying the nice dry weather in Texas and instead of taking action - and I don't mean a senseless war in Iraq!
Posted by: kirky at August 31, 2005 03:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
POINT THE BLAME!
Everyone hurry, its never your fault if you can only find someone to blame.
Yes this is one of the greatest disasters in American History...
and yes these people chose to live there, with the knowledge that this may one day happen.
Let the finger pointing begin.
Everyone is so fixated on the politics they are missing the big picture...
whether or not you like our current president, or you are a democrat or a republican
Bush's response to one of if not the biggest disaster in American History has been pathetic...
Immediate action was necessary and is only now being put into strategic plans.
One question comes to mind after all the 9/11 hype and the homeland security B.S.
Where did our tax dollars go, where is the leadership the country needs at a time like this?
And yes I must touch on this since there is a lot of talk about it:
Troops in Iraq and not at home!
Should we have gone in there in the first place?
No! Was Saddam an evil dictator? Yes! Did papa bush fund him back in the day? YES! Does mexico (OUR NEIGHBOR) have just as many problems if not more than iraq? Maybe...Do we exploit them for cheap labor! YES! Was NAFTA just an official way to fuck them? YES! Are there bigger threats to safety than IRAQ? YES! Did we go to Iraq to remove Saddam originally? NO! Was pulling the wool over Americans eyes and spinning it into a safety threat one of the few smart things Bush has done as president? YES!
Of course all of this is just one mans opinion, which Im entitled to in this GREAT NATION! cough
In summary, get the troops where the fuck they belong, and should we expect foreign aid from all the countries we have "HELPED" over the years?
In conlusion I say lets find that man that can represent America as we want it to be represented. America needs a massive overhaul and maybe it will take events like 9/11 and Katrina to get the ball rolling. Lets move away from the two party system, and finally start governing ourselves rather than sitting around and complaining about the mess we have gotten into!
PEACE!
As a side note, does anyone know if Bush used the 747 to try to assess the damage as "air force one" was said to have done. And if so...WTF...Please! Camera moment, thats about it, can you see anything from a 747 that you couldnt see on the news?
Get in a helicopter and go into the trenches (oh wait, maybe they just lost the records of him doing so...haha)
Posted by: pik2000 at September 1, 2005 02:41 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I am new to this site, and it seems to generate much more heat than light. But FWIW, I don't think people are saying that Bush caused the hurricane.
At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.
On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
You can argue that even if these funds weren't diverted, it wouldn't have helped. You might be right (though many experts disagree.) But granting that, the larger issue is that the war in Iraq has attendant costs. And this Administration has been disingenuous about them from the outset.
It's too late for New Orleans, but what is next? What has been the cost of the diversion of the Iraqi adventure?
Until yesterday no Americans, other than the families and friends of those in the Service, have had to sacrifice. The tax bills have not yet hit the middle and lower classes; hence the war appears "free." No war is free.
We were told by President Bush's Budget Director that this war would cost $50 billion and last six months. Donald Rumsfeld said, "The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," on February 28, 2003. This led to the demotion of Gen. Shinseki who disagreed. It goes on. But the point is, oK , they were off a little bit in time, cost, the friendly Iraqi reception, the ability to generate oil and oil revenues, the Arab response, the settling affect on terrorism, and U.S. lives lost. These are trivial concerns and it is neither fair nor appropriate to hold The President accountable because all of this was always beyond his control.
Instead, the issue is, can you pursue a war at $1 billion+ per day and with no consequences? I would argue that answer is no.
We should not cavil about whether the extent of the damage could have been prevented (though the people in charge say it could have).
The point is, what will happen next? Is anyone accountable? When will someone in the Administration speak in forthright terms about the implications of this war, instead of hiding behind the distractions of Jesus and the flag, and shifting rationales for the war, now numbering at least 31, and most lately including the possibility that our oilfields would fall into Iranian hands?
Read this article from Editor & Publisher, which is, as you may know, the trade pub. of the newspaper industry:
Philadelphia - Even though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city, the waters may still keep rising in New Orleans. That's because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city's 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until it's level with the massive lake.
New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.
Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, 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 SELA 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. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.
Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."
In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.
On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."
Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune:
"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them."
The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.
The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.
There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:
"That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said."
The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late.
One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday.
The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."
Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."
*****
Everything that George W. Bush has gotten in his life has come free: Andover and Yale like his dad, his (albeit failed) oil businesses like his dad, his baseball job through the team's owner who was his father's financial advisor, running for Governor in his father's state, etc. All was given to him by his daddy, and from his famous surname that he has used, pardon the expression, liberally.
The only time in his life he has suffered (or learned) was when he got lost in booze and cocaine, by his own hand and his own admission.
There is nothing wrong with skating through life for free, but it does become a problem when you are President of the United States. He seems to think that this same principle applies for the rest of us. It doesn't. Not everything in life is free. Including this war.
Posted by: piedmontese at September 1, 2005 02:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
N.O. was one the three likeliest, most catostrophic disasters facing this country. The other two? A massive earthquake in San Francisco, and, almost prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York City.
So, based on your logic, if GW doesn't order the evacuation of San Francisco today and the massive quake hits tomorrow and it falls into the Ocean...it's G.W.'s fault.
Posted by: Jake at September 1, 2005 02:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
No. It appears you missed the all the logic entirely and rushed to defend George Bush for something that he was not accused of doing. That should be telling you to slow down and look around.
I said: "You can argue that even if these funds weren't diverted, it wouldn't have helped. You might be right...."
So rather than blindly defend the current occupant of the White House, let's discuss what was really stated.
The logic is that the policies of this Administration (diverting money to Iraq as part of a broader policy of subsidizing and encouraging the expanded use of fossil fuels) all have tremendous costs. He has not been honest about this policy. He has not been honest about the costs. He has not been honest about the implications. The first such implication has hit home. There will be more.
There will be more, and I can offer some educated guesses as to what they will be, if you think you can hear something that is not pure adulation of the current resident of the White House.
Not the hurricane, but its after-effects, have given us the first intimations of how severe these costs will be.
Tellingly, Bush did not mention the word "conservation" yesterday. Conservation is what got us over the 1979 shock. It is anathema to to the two oilmen and one oil-woman atop this Administration.
Gas in Georgia is $5 a gallon this afternoon because the pipeline from N.O. is down. If this prevails, the GOP is in deep, deep trouble. As it is, our children are in deep trouble due to global warming that doesn't exist, impossible deficits that don't exist, put off to the next generation, and our deteriorating security due to the fact that this Administration has squandered any semblance of international political capital we earned from the 9/11 Tragedy.
That horrible event served only as grist for the self-serving machinations of Karl Rove.
So tell us, are there any costs to the war? If Bush was off by $500 billion in its cost, and 1800% by his duration, do you think he is accountable?
Posted by: piedmontese at September 1, 2005 04:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
You guys are so typical. It didn't take you long to use a natural disaster for more Bush-bashing. Why don't you blame him for the hot summer also? Jeez. You people need to get a life and quit blaming people for things. I guess you'll blame him for the idiots shooting guns at rescue helicopters keeping them from doing their jobs and getting the people out. I guess when they die it will be his fault.
Let's just ignore all of the reports that showed the levees in New Orleans couldn't sustain a Category 3 hurricane, and all of the recommendations by our government to improve it. Do you ever wonder why Republicans never blame other people for their mistakes? Because they are mature enough not to do so (and we care enough about our families to spend our time working to put food on the table and not protesting, bitching, complaining, etc.!)!)!)!)!)!)!
Posted by: kjjack at September 1, 2005 04:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Hurricane? Sorry, all the troops and money went to Iraq. Global warming? No, it doesn't exist. Never mind a foot of snow in LA,
Bush is making our country weaker, not stronger. As far as "facts" about Saddam and Iraq, I say read the Downing Street Memo: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
Instead of rallying the nation and putting our best minds to work to make America energy independent, and less dependent on fossil fuels, our so-called leader just says "New Orleans will be back". Is that it? Isn't making America more independent and safer, part of "Homeland Security"? If we can put a man on the moon, can't we make America energy independent and thereby keep us out of misadventures in the middle east? In that photo of him looking down at the mess from his airplane, I can almost hear him saying "Sucks to be them, doesn't it?" He won't have to suffer, only the people under him will.
Posted by: AmericaFirst at September 1, 2005 05:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'll try this a third time. You are certainly defensive, seeing things where nothing is. Why would that be so? Let's see if you can come down from the defensive long enough to understand this with yet another try.
I did not blame the president for the hurricane, the snipers, etc. Nor did any of the people with whom you disagree.
Rather, we are saying that his decisions have greatly debilitated this country; the a-f-t-e-r-e-f-f-e-c-t-s of the hurricane are only the latest and largest signs of his bad decisions.
I am saying that he has been disingenuous about the costs and tradeoffs of his decisions.
I am also saying that he has been less than candid about his rationales and motivations.
I am saying that he shirks accountability.
****
On that subject, regarding mistakes, the Bush Administration as a matter of routine blames people for mistakes that Administration commits. Ask Karl Rove to talk to you about WMD and yellow cake from Nigeria. Sorry, he cannot talk to you about it....
There never has been an Administration held to so low a standard of accountability; owning both houses of Congress, controlling the judiciary, the Executive, and the corporate, that is to say, liberal, media certainly helps.
I can provide a dozen major instances where people are punished because of mistakes of their superiors. Have you heard how much fun it is it to work in the Pentagon these days?
But this remarkable exchange from the current President really gives the lie to your diversion:
October 8, 2004 debate:
LINDA GRABEL: President Bush, during the last four years, you have made thousands of decisions that have affected millions of lives. Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it. Thank you.
PRESIDENT BUSH: (225 words about correct decisions, then...) Now, you asked what mistakes. I made some mistakes in appointing people, but I'm not going to name them. I don't want to hurt their feelings on national TV.
(LAUGHTER)(End of answer).
It is little wonder every the U.S. is at its lowest popularity around the world since these things have been measured. Where do you think this arrogance comes from? The minority committees in the Senate?
BTW, can you tell me three mistakes the Bush Administration has made? It doesn't make him a bad President. Take a dare. We'll wait....
Posted by: piedmontese at September 1, 2005 05:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Keep speaking the truth piedmontese thats all you can do. You can't force people to understand. People are too quick to point the blame and defend there lifestyles and choices. Everyone needs to step back from this tragic mishap and learn. It's one of the few good things that can come of this.
Peace
Posted by: pik2000 at September 2, 2005 04:16 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
P.S. Yes this article is biased and unintelligent and bashes bush without merit. But, Bush has made many mistakes and is who we have charged with the power to lead us and we do need to look at the decicions or lack there of from the oval office.
Posted by: pik2000 at September 2, 2005 04:25 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Call me crazy, but I care more about the citizens of New Orleans, the poor ones as well as the wealthy ones, than I do about democracy in Iraq or the defense of Israel. Clearly, this administration doesn't agree with me. It's geo-politcs is designed by fanatical neocons and lunatic christian zionists. They've prioritized the security and welfare of the USA below that of Iraq and Israel. I'm sure we would respond to a disaster in Iraq much quicker than we did in New Orleans. I am comforted by one thought. No lie lives forever. Eventually, America will learn where this administration's loyalty lies.
Posted by: Akillys at September 2, 2005 10:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I've got a hundred bucks for the first person who can name a president that never made a mistake. I've got a thousand for the first person who can name someone who can predict what decisions will be mistakes. Hindsight has always been 20-20, how else would we be able to blame somebody?
Posted by: kjjack at September 2, 2005 12:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I've got a hundred bucks for the first person who can name a president that never made a mistake. I've got a thousand for the first person who can name someone who can predict what decisions will be mistakes. Hindsight has always been 20-20, how else would we be able to blame somebody?
Posted by: kjjack at September 2, 2005 12:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
When relief and rebuilding funds fall short, this too will be blamed on Mr. Bush. When in fact the medias depiction of the looting and violence, along with the Black Caucuses blaming Bush and “White America” for not caring and inadequate responses will be the real culprits!!
Posted by: RClark at September 2, 2005 02:07 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bush has long had an agenda to privatize FEMA it so the money will go to firms that purchased his election. So he put two people in charge of it who wanted to gut it. (Sort of like the UN)
The first, Joe Allbaugh, was qualified by being a Bush campaign manager. With no disaster relief experience, he referred to FEMA as a "bloated entitlement program."
Fortunately he checked out after two years to peddle influence to contractors who wanted onto the Iraqi gravy train. Such is his patriotism.
The next and current director, Michael Brown, was counsel to the Arabian Horse Association, and that was the extent of his disaster experience. The department lost its cabinet status and has been heavily defunded. This is what we have. But of course, the current president is just a bystander in this and should not be held accountable. He has little control over what goes on in Washington.
Bush signed a measure last year that destroyed more wetlands than any single measure in history. This will permit the construction interests who helped purchase his staff's election, to profit.
Now this bill alone probably had nothing to do with the New Orleans disaster. But like so many greedy, shortsighted things this administration has done, it will dump the load on future generations so that the most wealthy 1% of the nation can continue to increase their share of wealth at the expense of everyone else.
As the current occupant of the White House told a fundraiser at Madison Square Garden last year, "You're my kind of folks: the have's, and the have-mores."
Of course none of this FEMA has anything to do with the current predicament, or could contribute to future predicaments, because this person makes no mistakes.
Still waiting for the first one, btw.
For the person who said he had $100 for naming the first president who made no mistakes, I have an answer: George W. Bush.
Clinton, btw, said his biggest policy mistake was ignoring Rwanda. Bush is ignoring Darfur of course, but that's ok, because in case you didn't know, Darfur is all about the oil. (As is Iraq.)
Posted by: piedmontese at September 2, 2005 10:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
since this is apparently a dialogue between people on opposite sides of the divide that the current President of the United States (CPUS) did not create or exacerbate, I would appreciate their views on these statements from a major newspaper today:
First: "Dick Cheney was vacationing in Wyoming; Condi Rice was shoe shopping at Ferragamo's on Fifth Avenue and attended "Spamalot" before bloggers chased her back to Washington; and Andy Card was off in Maine - lacked empathy but could get the job done. But it is a chilling lack of empathy combined with a stunning lack of efficiency that could make this administration implode."
Second: "Ron Fournier of The Associated Press reported that the Army Corps of Engineers asked for $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans last year. The White House carved it to about $40 million. But President Bush and Congress agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-filled highway bill with 6,000 pet projects, including a $231 million bridge for a small, uninhabited Alaskan island." (Ted Stevens and LInda Murkowski)
Finally: "The pre-Katrina plan for this Congressional season was to enact more upper-bracket tax cuts for the least needy, while cutting into the safety-net programs for sick and impoverished Americans. These are the very entitlement programs most needed by the sudden underclass of hundreds of thousands of hurricane refugees cast adrift like Dustbowl Okies. Will Congress dare to go forward with these retrogressive plans in the face of the suffering from Katrina? Its woeful track record suggests that, shockingly, the answer may be yes.
"G.O.P. leaders are set to mandate billions in Medicaid and antipoverty cuts this month, while the Senate is poised to try again to repeal the estate tax, a monumental folly that will deprive the deficit-ridden government of an estimated $750 billion in vital revenue in the first decade. The theory is that over the long run, the missing money will "starve the beast" and force Washington to make huge cuts in federal programs."
I don't see this government as compassionate, or conservative, as promised. How do and why do you cling onto this Administration, like some flooded-out person in New Orleans clinging to a piece of floating garbage, when so many facts speak to the fact that you, we, and the world would be better off if we sent them back to their cushy corporate jobs?
Are you among the 0.5% to whom the Congressional Budget Office affirms they are sending our wealth? If not, what is it about them that you find so appealing?
Posted by: piedmontese at September 3, 2005 12:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I am getting so sick and tired of some people (liberals mainly, if you can call them people) blaming our president for everything! Goodness, to hear them talk, you'd think Mr. Bush had been there in the sky just churning away the wind and rain not caring at all about who or what was being destroyed! Get a life people! Go down there and take a look for yourselves and see the enormous task it's been and will be before you start pointing fingers! President Bush has nothing to be sorry for or anyone to apologize to. If you want to place blame, start at the local levels like Nagin and Blanco!!!
Posted by: emasgram at September 4, 2005 07:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I guess it wasn't until Bush's administration when we even knew that something like this was possible. Get real. Failure of disaster preparedness can be traced well before Bush's administration. Here's a brief chronology starting from 1995.
February 17, 1995
An Army Corps of Engineers "hit list" of recommended budget cuts would eliminate new flood-control programs in some of the nation's most flood-prone spots - where recent disasters have left thousands homeless and cost the federal government millions in emergency aid.
Clinton administration officials argue that the flood-control efforts are local projects, not national, and should be paid for by local taxes.
Nationwide, the administration proposes cutting 98 new projects in 35 states and Puerto Rico, for an estimated savings of $29 million in 1996.
Corps officials freely conceded the cuts, which represent only a small portion of savings the corps ultimately must make, may be penny-wise and pound-foolish. But they said they were forced to eliminate some services the corps has historically provided to taxpayers to meet the administration's budget-cutting goals.
June 23, 1995
A hurricane project, approved and financed since 1965, to protect more than 140,000 West Bank residents east of the Harvey Canal is in jeopardy.
The Clinton administration is holding back a Corps of Engineers report recommending that the $120 million project proceed. Unless that report is forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress cannot authorize money for the project, U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office said Thursday.
On June 9, John Zirschky, the acting assistant secretary of the Army and the official who refused to forward the report, sent a memo to the corps, saying the recommendation for the project "is not consistent with the policies and budget priorities reflected in the President's Fiscal Year 1996 budget. Accordingly, I will not forward the report to the Office of Management and Budget for clearance."
July 26, 1996
The House voted Thursday for a $19.4 billion energy and water bill that provides $246 million for Army Corps of Engineers projects in Louisiana.
The bill, approved 391-23, is the last of the 13 annual spending measures for 1997 approved by the House.
One area in which the House approved more financing than the president requested was for flood control and maintenance of harbors and shipping routes by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Flood control projects along the Mississippi River and its tributaries were allotted $303 million, or $10 million more than the president wanted.
June 19, 1996
The Army Corps of Engineers, which builds most flood protection levees on a federal-local cost-sharing basis, uses a cost-benefit ratio to justify a project. If the cost of building a levee is considered less than the cost of restoring a flood-ravaged area, the project is more likely to be approved.
For years, the Jean Lafitte-Lower Lafitte-Barataria-Crown Point areas couldn't convince the corps they were worthy of levee protection. But the use of Section 205 and congressional pressure has given the corps a new perspective, Spohrer said.
But even so, when the Clinton administration began to curtail spending on flood control and other projects a year ago, the corps stopped spending on Section 205 projects even after deciding to do a $70,000 preliminary Jean Lafitte study, Spohrer said.
July 22, 1999
In passing a $20.2 billion spending bill this week for water and energy projects, the House Appropriations Committee approved some significant increases in financing for several New Orleans area flood control and navigational projects.
The spending bill is expected on the House floor within the next two weeks.
For the New Orleans District of the Army Corps of Engineers, the panel allocated $106 million for construction projects, about $16 million more than proposed by President Clinton.
The bill would provide $47 million for "southeast Louisiana flood control projects," $16 million for "Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protection," $15.9 million for the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal Lock on the Industrial Canal in New Orleans and $2 million for "West Bank hurricane protection -- from New Orleans to Venice."
Most of the projects received significant increases over what the Clinton administration had proposed. The exception: general flood control projects for southeast Louisiana, which remained at the $47 million suggested by Clinton. Local officials had hoped for double that amount.
February 8, 2000
For the metropolitan New Orleans area, Clinton's budget was seen as a mixed bag by local lawmakers and government officials. For instance, while Clinton called for $1.5 billion to be spent at Avondale Industries to continue building LPD-17 landing craft, his budget calls for significantly less than what Congress appropriated last year for Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protection and for West Bank flood control projects.
September 29, 2000
The House approved Thursday a $23.6 billion measure for water and energy programs, with sizable increases for several New Orleans area flood-control projects. The Senate will vote Monday, but it may be a while before the bill is enacted.
President Clinton is promising to veto the annual appropriation for the Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers, not because it is $890 million larger than he proposed, but because it does not include a plan to alter the levels of the Missouri River to protect endangered fish and birds.
May 8, 2005 (extra)
Ten years ago today, the Bonneaus and hundreds of thousands of New Orleans area residents rode out a rain unlike any they had ever experienced. The flood killed six people and generated more claims than any in the history of the National Flood Insurance Program. In its aftermath, Congress created a new role for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and federal and local governments spent more than a half-billion dollars to widen and line drainage canals, bury culverts bigger than cars and beef up pumping stations.
But not even those improvements could prevent massive flooding if a storm of similar intensity were to strike today.
There's plenty of blame to go around. But now is not the time to discuss it.
Posted by: dascoyne at September 5, 2005 04:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
How about "The buck stops here" and we ask our President to act presidential NOW and do something about protecting our citizens against known dangers.
Posted by: ghu at September 6, 2005 06:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Dascoyne, you are overlooking a few vital facts.
The Republicans closed the government down in 1995. The GOP took control of the House and Senate. The idea, as Grover Norquist later said, was to take government into the bathroom and "drown it in the bathtub."
Is the irony of that expression lost upon you?
Does the name Newt Gingrich ring any bells? If your selective facts are true, why do you think Clinton was cutting budgets in 1995? Because he wanted to?
So Clinton made FEMA a Cabinet level post, built up its funding, and Bush defunded it, took away its Cabinet level status, and put it under the charge of his national campaign manager (now peddling influence) and then his college roommate, who was fired from the Horse Association, who collectively had less experience has our current president has military service.
The larger issue is not whether CLinton was forced to defund certain things in Lousiana after the GOP shut down the Federal Government.
The Wall St. Journal, that bastion of liberal thinking, yesterday lambasted Bush's handling of FEMA. David Brooks abandoned him in the NYT. Why are the rats leaving the ship?
If you are going to see this thing accurately, you are going to have to try to reframe it.
SOme of Bush's policies work s l o w l y: like increasing our murderous dependency on foreign oil, transferring national wealth to the 20,000 families that least need it, selling our future to the Chinese, running up a $600 billion deficit, wasting the Social Security trust fund, alienating almost every foreign government on the planet, sending science back to the middle ages, breaking the Army's back when Gen. Shinseki said we would need 400,000 men in Iraq, raping the environment so the 20,000 families can get richer, transferring vital government operations to the private sector (so Halliburton can "lose track of" $8 billion in Iraq and skate, while we spend $70 million to chase a $100K 20-year-old land deal vs. Clinton), concentrating media into 5 corporate plutocracies that are not exactly liberal, lying to get us into a ruinous war, chasing Iraq while North Korea and Iran get nukes, walking away from global warming, turning the US into a theocracy, dividing the country more deeply than any time since 1861, increasing govt intrusion into our private lives, assuring we are the only industrialized nation on earth without basic health insurance...it goes on and on and on.
ALL --ALL -- these policies are disasters. Some work quickly, but most work slowly. You can buy the Fox spin and blame it on Clinton or Monica or Harry Truman or Louis XIV. But the bottom line is, this is the most short-sighted, selfish, incompetent, evil administration the nation has ever seen.
Katrina simply evidenced a standard slow Bush policy that played out quickly. Iraq is more of a slog. If we cannot see the coffins returning it's not a war. If we can see ~10,000 dead bodies in Louisiana, while WalMart was turned away by FEMA who could get nothing in, that might be a different story.
Harry Connick, Jr. was there before the head of FEMA??? Please.
The more I read this blog the more I see how hopeless it is. This man can do nothing wrong. Ever.
His whole administration has been based on politicizing 9/11 to achieve a vicious agenda of transferring wealth to the wealthiest, under the cover of Christ.
What are the fruits of 9/11? Have they done at most one thing well? Is the Iraqi insurrection in its last throes?
How about at home. Four years to prepare...A preparedness office that is unprepared after four years, a disastrous war that is squandering $1 billion a day (wait till the next batch of Abu Ghraib photos come out), complete evaporation of the international goodwill we had 9/12, and big paydays for Halliburton and Bechtel, whence he, Dick, Rummy, and Condy came.
What is it about him that is so attractive? I cannot fathom it. Perhaps you can explain.
Posted by: piedmontese at September 7, 2005 03:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
piedmontese: Excellent posts & please don't stop! Maybe, just maybe, some of the lemmings will see a glimmer of light in your words & not continue following their leader over the cliff (& trying to drag the rest of us along w/them).
"What is it about him that is so attractive? I cannot fathom it. Perhaps you can explain." Ditto! I'd really like to know the answer to that too. He may be 'book learned' but I don't see a whole lot of common sense or compassion/understanding. I think he's rather naive, myself.
If WE were to have another disaster (natural or man made) at this point in time > GOD help us all because this Admin is sorely lacking in OUR time of need & our troops are stretched to their limits & beyond already.
.02,
PS: To those that honestly think anyone is trying to blame Bush for Katrina & don't understand this is about 'preparedness' (esp since 9/11), or specifically: the lack thereof on Bush's 'watch', I truly feel sorry for you.
Posted by: oldgeezer at September 7, 2005 10:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Dear Old Geezer:
Thanks for the kind words.
It has been remarked that the Current President of the United States is, with regard to education, the antithesis of Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln had no opportunities and made himself learned. CPUS has had every opportunity and likes to effect that he is unschooled.
He is not really from Texas. He was born in New Haven, CT. He got into Phillips Andover Academy, just like his dad.
He then got into Yale like his dad, and the four generations prior. At the time of his admission, 1963, his grandfather former Senator Prescott Bush sat on the Yale Corporation, a trustee. It didn't hurt.
I have spoken with classmates who said that he did not say "nucular" and "folksh". He talked "like an Eastern preppie" said one. This whole Texas, washington Outsider thing is a lot of cods.
He then went to Harvard Business School (here he deviated from his father's path, temporarily).
In those days, 1968, business was not a very attractive field and one could get into that school virtually the same day as one applied, if one had the money.
Bush's academic career was completely undistinguished. But what makes him remarkable to me at least is his utter lack of curiosity about the world, then and now.
While his father had all those diplomatic posts, in China, the CIA, the UN, etc., he never once left the US to visit other nations. Compare that to another indifferent scholar, JFK, and you will see the difference.
This lack of curiosity by a president is truly unfortunate. He is, basically, medieval. Like a lot of substance abusers, he latches onto something (in this case born-again Christianity) because it offers him stability and certainty in a bewildering world.
Nuance and shades of gray are a tall order for him to handle. The cobbling together of that terribly ill-considered "Axis of Evil" speech will haunt this nation for a long time after he retires to Crawford.
So don't feel inadequate about his "book learning." Unlike you, I suspect, he had every opportunity to learn and seemed much more interested in making jokes, cheerleading, mugging, getting drunk, and slacking through.
His deplorable apish behavior this week, the mugging with Trent Lott while bodies rot on the street, assures me, at least, that he has not since learned much.
Posted by: piedmontese at September 8, 2005 12:41 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
$62 Billion is now what is being committed to Katrina Relief by the Feds. That's an awful heavy 'pound of cure', in my book.
Then again: the 'ounce of prevention' we're paying for in $$$ & American lives in Iraq is (sadly) far greater.
3+ more years of a lame duck admin that can't seem to focus on more than one thing at a time & really doesn't seem to have any 'end game' strategies ... GOD help us all.
YW piedmontese. :) Prescott Bush & Prescott Jr. ... Nazi's & the Chinese .... ;) "Oh what a tangled web we weave, ..."
Posted by: oldgeezer at September 8, 2005 01:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It has often been remarked that this Administration is unusual in the degree to which it politicizes and ideologizes areas of policy that heretofore have been handled by professionals. They do this far more than any other administration in history.
Examples abound. How Rumsfeld made up his own intelligence network. Anything John Bolton touched. The EPA.
Probably a Rove touch, they save the most inept people for departments they want to dismantle: FEMA, the UN, the Interior, Fish and Wildlife, the departure of Paul O'Neill from the treasury, Sandy Berger, and more.
Today's promotion of Michael Brown to a top post in Washington (see how I spin it!) is one example. Look at the three below him. All were "advance men" who orchestrated photo ops for Bush.
It takes a hurricane to wring a few of these people out. Like termites, the rest will continue to do their work, eating away at the fabric of the federal government so that Bush can complete his agenda of transferring wealth to the wealthiest.
Whilst the Bushies who read this will accuse me of Bolshevism, I only ask that they look at what this week's agenda in Congress would have been if God's act had not stayed their hand.
On this daring mission they are provided enfillade fire by Rupert Murdoch and, they would have you believe, Jesus Christ. Strange bedfellows.
Posted by: piedmontese at September 9, 2005 05:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Are all of you that daft to be so apologetic about this dumbass puppet in the presidency. I never have seen a president so lethargic to reality. He couldn't put a sentence together without being coached first. Give it a little time and you will see the fruits of this administrations evil's in years to come.
Posted by: TrumpCard at September 13, 2005 04:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment