Bush cut hurricane/flood funding for New Orleans last year 50%, but wait there's more

Just last year, the Army Corps of Engineers sought $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans. The White House slashed the request to about $40 million. Congress finally approved $42.2 million, less than half of the agency's request.

Yet the lawmakers and Bush agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-laden highway bill that included more than 6,000 pet projects for lawmakers. Congress spent money on dust control for Arkansas roads, a warehouse on the Erie Canal and a $231 million bridge to a small, uninhabited Alaskan island.

How could Washington spend $231 million on a bridge to nowhere - and not find $42 million for hurricane and flood projects in New Orleans? It's a matter of power and politics.

Alaska is represented by Republican Rep. Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, a senior member of the all-important Senate Appropriations Committee. Louisiana's delegation holds far less sway.

Once the hurricane hit, relief trickled into the Gulf Coast. Even Federal Emergency Management Agency director Michael Brown, whose agency is in charge of disaster response, pronounced the initial results unacceptable.

The hurricane was the first major test of FEMA since it became part of the Homeland Security Department, a massive new bureaucracy that many feared would make the well-respected FEMA another sluggish federal agency.

Looting soon broke out as local police stood by. Some police didn't want to stop people from getting badly needed food and water. Others seemed to be overwhelmed. Thousands of National Guard troops were ordered to the Gulf Coast, but their ranks have been drastically thinned by the war in Iraq.

On top of all this, Katrina is one of the worst natural disasters ever to hit the United States. The best leaders running the most efficient agencies would have been sharply challenged. FULL STORY

-----------------------

Of course the Bush administration isn't to blame here.. after all.. there's a bridge needing to be build to an uninhabited island in Alaska... the residents of New Orleans can wait.

When will this administration ever have to answer to the atrocities it's brought upon our country, and those of other countries, and the decline of America since Bush entered office?

We now have record gas prices, oil prices and deficit, while maintaining a war in Iraq where troops continue to be killed after the people were freed from a dictator (that Bush Sr. put in power). Our currency is weak. Our people are suffering. We need to impeach Bush and have him answer for what he's done to us.

I’ve been Watching the TV almost none stop, THIS IS A SIN! A crime! The second the second they could have flown there should have been airdrops from Texas and Florida. They could have had aircraft dropping massive amounts of food and water, either by c-135 and coppers! They have mobile food kitchens they could have coppered in and set up. It’s just plain sick!
National guard, where is the army and air force????????
They keep on saying looting, well if I had to feed my loved one or get them shoes, or what ever they needed you could bet you ass I would be right there fighting for a bottle of soda or bread. The gulf port police said they were going to go after looting hot and heavy. Are they f_ing nuts! People are dieing from lack of food and water. I had dealing with the loony toons police department once. They are key stone police force!
The Bush administration is to blame hot and heavy for this, the president should have ordered airdrops the second coppers could fly. There should have been so much food and water on the ground that the people couldn’t possible finish.

Basschick you tell the republicans you talked to they could have stripped military bases of all food and water, and air dropped them in. What you where told was bull! They don’t think that the aircrews would have gone with out thinking.

I’m really pissed off!

ponyboy - i KNOW it's bull. i was simply telling the way that they are defending the indefensible.

and by the way, most of the anger about this horrible problem is not going where it belongs - we are spending our energy writing on boards, and to each other. it's our congress and the whitehouse that need to hear it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ponyboy

The Bush administration is to blame hot and heavy for this, the president should have ordered airdrops the second coppers could fly. There should have been so much food and water on the ground that the people couldn’t possible finish.

---

It's important to remember that the President was on vacation in Texas while this happened. What do you expect? :francais: I think it's ironic that Bush has defended his vactioning by saying through modern technology he can run the nation from his ranch. Well then.. why did he cut short his vacation to deal with the hurricane aftermath? SOURCE

It's important to remember that Bush has taken more time on vacation then any other president in history SOURCE

While Bush was on vacation this time: Gas prices broke records, Oil prices broke records, and hurricane Katrina developed without a peep from the prez. :coffee:

But I'm glad Squirt posted this, I don't have cable or talk to a lot of politically oriented people (unfortunately), so posts like this give me a lot to think about. I didn't know about any Alaskan bridge to nowhere.

Sorry basschick if it came out wrong. Sorry.
I gave money that I was going to use for the next two weeks updates on my site. That’s the best I could do.
Squirt the only thing im going to say about the president being away from his office is. No matter where he is, he is supposed to be in contact with everyone.
In all the reports no one has said anything about the airports? If they weren’t damaged, they still could fly planes in and out. Its important to remember if the runways where damaged they can still be used.
The c-130 Hercules is a short field airplane.
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equ...30/intro_e.asp

c-5 galaxy
www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/C_5-Galaxy

A long long time ago I used to fly.

Great post Squirt. I didn't know he spent so much money on ridiculous shit. I am sure if there was oil in New Orleans it would of been a different story. This country is just a utter mess and FINALLY some people are beginning to realise that Bush is a complete idiot.

Mark

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ponyboy

Sorry basschick if it came out wrong. Sorry.
I gave money that I was going to use for the next two weeks updates on my site. That’s the best I could do.
Squirt the only thing im going to say about the president being away from his office is. No matter where he is, he is supposed to be in contact with everyone.
In all the reports no one has said anything about the airports? If they weren’t damaged, they still could fly planes in and out. Its important to remember if the runways where damaged they can still be used.
The c-130 Hercules is a short field airplane.
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equ...30/intro_e.asp

c-5 galaxy
www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/C_5-Galaxy

A long long time ago I used to fly.

---

I agree! "It's important to remember that the President was on vacation in Texas while this happened. What do you expect? " That was a satirical comment darling lol

If I was president and gas prices were breaking record, and oil prices were breaking records, and a class 5 hurricane was headed toward an area I cut 50% of funding for, I'd get me ass off of vacation and in the White House in a hot second. Bush is a lazy spoiled rich kid that got his presidency by manipulation and name recognition. It's up to us as Americans to take him to task and make him answer for what he's done. In my eyes he's a criminal.

more about those cuts:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bush administration funding cuts forced federal engineers to delay improvements on the levees, floodgates and pumping stations that failed to protect New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters, agency documents showed on Thursday.

The former head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that handles the infrastructure of the nation's waterways, said the damage in New Orleans probably would have been much less extensive had flood-control efforts been fully funded over the years.

"Levees would have been higher, levees would have been bigger, there would have been other pumps put in," said Mike Parker, a former Mississippi congressman who headed the engineering agency from 2001 to 2002.

"I'm not saying it would have been totally alleviated but it would have been less than the damage that we have got now.""

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsAr...FUNDING-DC.XML

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLS

But I'm glad Squirt posted this, I don't have cable or talk to a lot of politically oriented people (unfortunately), so posts like this give me a lot to think about. I didn't know about any Alaskan bridge to nowhere.

---

Yeah - you know if they had that money in the transportaion bill that passed earlier this year it would have solved everything.

I guess you can blame everything on Bush. The mayor and city council have no responsibility. Neither does the state of Louisiana. That state's 8%+ sales tax and their state income tax and their flush oil and gas royalties could just never be used to shore up a civil engineering project for their own largest city. That is totally rediculous. Much less it should be their responsibility to create a real plan in case a hurricane ever hit the city -- that is someone else's job.

It's all because Bush was in Crawford. Also - consider the hypothetical: if Hillary Clinton were President, would she not have cut the appropriations requests to improve the levys? Her husband did! (i know... another "academic" point)

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

That state's 8%+ sales tax and their state income tax and their flush oil and gas royalties could just never be used to shore up a civil engineering project for their own largest city.

---

I know you're trying to be snarky, but repsonsibility for flood control has been the purview of the federal government since the Flood Control Act of 1936. Further, the Army Core of Engineers is the agency tasked with controlling all work done on the shores of the navigable waters of the United States.

I understand the point you're trying to make, but shouldn't an administration that continuously ignores its own experts in pursuit of an alternate agenda be expected to defend its conduct? There may be enough blame to go around, but when will this government be held accountable for anything it has done? My bet is that the day of reckoning is fast approaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

I guess you can blame everything on Bush. The mayor and city council have no responsibility. Neither does the state of Louisiana. That state's 8%+ sales tax and their state income tax and their flush oil and gas royalties could just never be used to shore up a civil engineering project for their own largest city. That is totally ridiculous. Much less it should be their responsibility to create a real plan in case a hurricane ever hit the city -- that is someone else's job.

---

Steve the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers handles the infrastructure of the nation's waterways, not local government. Why are you asking a local government to do the job of the federal government?

New Orleans does/did have a real plan for natural disaster, they always have, but when the government doesn't fund what you need, then what do you do?

Everything in New Orleans was handled exceptionally well before the disaster. People were notified to leave, local officials went door to door assisting people. Residents knew they could go to the Super Dome for shelter. After the disaster is when all hell broke loose. The city was underwater, they then had to rely on the Federal Government to bring in support. And here we are, still, days later, looking like a third world country in the Gulf Coast. We're an international embarrassment.

Just John and Squirt

Hey .... who knows what is going to end up happening.... it would be interesting if Bush's first term which was defined by the 9/11 attack could ultimately find it's demise from this catastrophe.

But still making the case that New Orleans was victimized at every turn for all these many years and prevented from rebuilding its levy system, or minimally planning for the event of a hurricane, is a pretty tall order.

Senators can go into Hyperdrive if they try to close a military base in their state. And Louisiana's Senators were in such a mode earlier about closing the naval reserves there in New Orleans. IF they really wanted it, don't you think they could have put in the same kind of effort towards funding the levys for their own hometown?

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

Senators can go into Hyperdrive if they try to close a military base in their state. And Louisiana's Senators were in such a mode earlier about closing the naval reserves there in New Orleans. IF they really wanted it, don't you think they could have put in the same kind of effort towards funding the levys for their own hometown?

---

Sen. Landrieu did go into hyper drive and made numerous attempts to get help for the levys and support from the federal government. ( see post in other thread with quotes over the last five years from Sen. Landrieu regarding this topic)

Steve I cannot understand how one can support an administration that so quickly put America in its current state. Our record surplus before Bush took office was spent within Bushes first year of office, we then promptly went into a deficit.

Sen. Landrieu didn't only campaign for levy support, and to get new, better, pumps.. she also campaigned to improve and expand the roads leaving the city so in case of a natural disaster they'd have effective escape routes and people wouldn't be stranded in the city.

I'm in no way saying I support Sen. Landrieu in her general politics, or moral values. I am saying that I think she did a more then addiquate job in regards to preparedness for natural disaster, and our current administration let New Orleans down before, and they are letting them down now as we ponder politics, while hungry, thirsty, homeless families suffer in the South.

United by Katrina, Divided by Assessment
As Mississippi Gov. Barbour Praises Federal Response,
Louisiana's Blanco Seeks More Aid

By JEANNE CUMMINGS
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
September 2, 2005; Page A4

Govs. Kathleen Blanco and Haley Barbour are now forever bound by Hurricane Katrina, but divided by their assessment of the federal government's response.

Ms. Blanco, a Louisiana Democrat, and Mr. Barbour, a Mississippi Republican, are both grappling with challenges they could never have expected upon taking office in recent years. Ms. Blanco is a former teacher; Mr. Barbour a lawyer, lobbyist and political operative.

Now both regularly appear on national television in dusty clothes, exhausted and overwhelmed by the catastrophic damage caused when Katrina crashed into their shared stretch of Gulf shoreline. But their assessments of the reaction of the Bush administration to the disaster are starkly different.

Ms. Blanco's office has been critical of the federal government's response amid heart-breaking images of stranded families in New Orleans. Yesterday, she appealed to President Bush to send soldiers to the Big Easy so police and national guardsmen can patrol the streets. "Time is of the essence," she said.

Mr. Barbour, in contrast, has strongly defended the Bush administration, saying federal help was in the state immediately after Katrina blew out. When pressed with questions about whether the federal response has been inadequate, he asked: "Is this an argument or an interview?"

Both governors will have a chance to speak with the president directly today when Mr. Bush is scheduled to join them, as well as Republican Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama, on tours of the affected areas. Of the three states hit by Katrina at its powerful phase, Alabama suffered least.

The stature of state or local officials can soar from effective handling of a massive crisis, as evident from the experience of New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But no fellow governor would trade places with Ms. Blanco or Mr. Barbour.

The scale of their governing challenges is "incomprehensible," says Republican Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. "They are both good at processing that amount of information. But it is unimaginable how much information is coming at them. When you are dealing with true life-and-death situations, just endurance and sleep deprivation become issues."

Ms. Blanco worked her way up to the governor's office, serving first in the Louisiana House of Representatives and then two terms as lieutenant governor. She was considered the underdog in a run-off race in November 2003 against Republican Bobby Jindal, a charismatic newcomer to politics. She won 52% of the vote and became the state's first female governor.

Since then, Ms. Blanco has been credited with running a clean administration in a state where political corruption is legendary. She has recruited new business and traveled to Cuba to protect Louisiana's rice exports to that nation.

The Democratic governor tangled with Bush administration officials over emergency help even before Katrina hit. Louisiana sought relief from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for damage caused by Tropical Storm Cindy in July. Despite intervention by the state's U.S. senators and House members, FEMA hadn't responded to that request when Katrina came crashing through.

Mr. Barbour's political pedigree and track record suggest he might have had more success with such a request. He has long been a Washington insider, close to the president, powerful lawmakers and key aides on Capitol Hill and the White House. Fortune magazine once declared Barbour Griffith & Rogers, which Mr. Barbour founded, the top lobbying firm in Washington. In 2003 he launched a well-financed campaign against incumbent Democrat Gov. Ronnie Musgrove and won with 53% of the vote.

Mr. Barbour is only the second Republican governor elected in Mississippi since Reconstruction. After taking office, he pushed through a Democratic legislature a conservative agenda that has delighted party activists and pushed his name onto the list of potential 2008 White House contenders. His initiatives include limiting jury awards and passing four antiabortion rights measures in 2004 alone. Americans United for Life, an antiabortion group, deemed Mississippi "the safest place in America for an unborn child."

But a cost-saving proposal that would have eliminated the eligibility of about 65,000 individuals for Medicaid services energized opponents. A judge blocked Mr. Barbour from shrinking the rolls. Ultimately, the plan was dropped while the Legislature passed a measure that limited to five the number of prescription drugs most Medicaid recipients could receive -- only two of which could be name brands.

Mississippi's problems from Katrina are severe, but not nearly as complex as those in Louisiana. New Orleans survived Katrina's winds and rain, only to succumb to flood waters caused by breaks in levees around the city. But for both states, recovery could take years.

In times of crisis, people initially look to elected officials "with respect and hope and trust" in the early days, says Alan Secrest, a Democratic pollster. But he adds that public scrutiny of Ms. Blanco and Mr. Barbour will grow tougher over time as constituents continue to struggle with the effects of the disaster.

Steve please tell me you're not trying to counter my offensive with one news article? And one that doesn't even mention that the FEMA director himself has said that their response has been far from adequate. :honest:

seems like what steve is doing is what most republicans are doing - defending with attacks. squirt, i've really appreciated your extra research on this - i am so shocked when someone says something like "it's not the federal government's fault that the national guard is gone" or says it wouldn't make a difference, i go blank or cry.

our people are dying, starving and being raped and murdered by more of our desparate and angry people. the army was given less than half the money it said it NEEDED to keep those people safe, and now the equipment and people we need are not there because they are in iraq. and the money isn't there.

and bush supporters aren't admitting the facts. they are claiming that this is a local problem, when it isn't. they are saying "nothing would be any different if clinton were in office". this isn't a competition - this is the people in new orleans dying and living without support during THIS disaster. even if all other presidents did a terrible job, the only president in charge right now is bush. and the situation has been grossly mishandled.

their knee jerk reaction of defending the current government makes me sick to my stomach, and it makes me cry. do the bush supporters have no consciences whatsoever? do they not care about all those poor people at all? is the only important thing to pass the buck so that their party/president is shown not at fault?

I don't think I've ever seen Steve declare his political affiliation here or anywhere else? Why is it assumed he's a Republican?

We could all just run about the boards agreeing with eachother on every single aspect of every single argument so long as we're all sided against Bush and the Republican right, but I think his alternative perspective (alternative in relation to the vast majority of us) is a breath of fresh air.

It's like... you have these political threads on a gay webmaster board but for what purpose? To engage a discussion? Or for us all to just come in, post "HUZZAH! HUZZAH!" and move along on our merry way content in the notion we all agree with one another?

Steve could very well be a diehard democrat who just likes playing devil's advocate for sake of discussion. Or he could be a staunch libertarian. Or a card-carrying republican. Or have no party allegiance whatsoever and simply fashion his opinions on various issues based upon the research he's done and information he's gathered about that particular issue (as opposed to towing the party line and assuming that because such and such political party says so, that must be the position to take).

I'm not the least bit fond of Bush and love a Bush-bashing session just as much as the next guy. But we could play monday morning quarterback with every president on every decision that turned out to have been the wrong one since the nation was founded. I'd love a clairvoyant president just as much as the next guy but with all the decisions the nations leaders have to make, it doesn't surprise me when there's a fuck up. Especially when you throw a massive natural disaster in to the mix. I think there's a big difference between an intentional campaign to deceive the public (as I believe there was with Iraq) and simply droppin' the ball on an infrastructure project.

BDBionic - i could be wrong, and remembering the wrong guy, but i'm pretty sure that steve told us he was a republican during the elections - and explained to me things about being a republican that were actually positive. which was cool, actually. but if i have the wrong person, steve is still defending time and again a govenment which is allowing the people in new orleans to starve when we have food, to die in the streets. how can anyone defend something like this?

and he does it by saying that the local government is the responsible party or by blaming the local democrats, including people who have begged for funding for the levies for years.

this is not just dropping the ball here - which would be inexcusable anyway. it was specifically the white house that gave less than half the money to the army corps of engineers that they needed to build strong enough levies to keep new orleans safe. the national guard is in another country, even though their function was to keep us safe here. a lot of the equipment we need now is also in that country.

we should not have had resources taken away from this country and sent to another country. it's my personal opinion that our safety HERE should take priority over an offensive somewhere else.

our people should come first :(

Well I think there's a difference between defending something and addressing various factors that could have led to its existence. Sometimes issues aren't as simple as good vs. bad and right vs. wrong and there are infinite factors that contributed to the way things are today. It could be oversimplification to just up and say "It's Bush's fault New Orleans is so fucked". That's what I see Steve pointing out.

And it could have been me who you're thinking of re: being a Republican. I was a member of the Republican Party and eagerly active as such until the Bush Administration started leading us in to Iraq. That's when the flags went off in my head and I became a Bush-disliker. And know I've shared that here before and made posts of the like you'd mentioned.

And playing devil's advocate... those that supported the invasion or Iraq felt they were looking out for our safety here. That by invading Iraq we were going to prevent terrorists from striking us at home. That's the slogan upon which the entire invasion was based and through which public support for it was built up leading up to the invasion and for a good long while following it. Now, we know it's all bullocks now as many of us knew it was then. But a significant majority of this nations citizens felt invading Iraq was in the best interests of all of us at home. Despite having been built upon false premise and pretense, that was the intent of many when we invaded. So even "home vs. abroad" could be an oversimplification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDBionic

I don't think I've ever seen Steve declare his political affiliation here or anywhere else? Why is it assumed he's a Republican?

We could all just run about the boards agreeing with each other on every single aspect of every single argument so long as we're all sided against Bush and the Republican right, but I think his alternative perspective (alternative in relation to the vast majority of us) is a breath of fresh air.

---

I like Steves input immensely. I like to be challenged as well. I like the fact Steve gives his opinion, and not only that, he backs it up with facts. Part of good debate is having and equally good opponent. I agree with Steve on a LOT of topics... I don't agree with Steve on this particular topic.

It's frustrating when someone is doing something wrong, and the people expressing themselves about it are accused of "bashing" the person. I'm an independent. I don't care what party line Bush, or anyone else, falls under. What I care about is my country, who is leading it, and what they are doing.

Notice I don't support D- Senator Landrieu on most of her platform, but I do support her work over the years to protect her people from natural disaster. I'm not a party hardliner, R or D.

Unfortunately this administration has been very good at demonizing people who disagree with them, and manipulating the public by intimidating the press, but now it's gone to far. Everyone is fed up, and now Bush is saying the response is not satisfactory... but of course, it will be someone elses fault.

When the national guard was stretched to it's limit the administration was warned months ago that we were stretched to thin, again this administration didn't listen to the people hired specifically to defend the interests of America, our best and brightest, ignored, again.

Nobody is Monday night quarterbacking, or second guessing, what has happened, a LOT of us have been posting about this for months, even years, now.. and here is the result. The man needs to answer for what he's done to our country.

they felt they were defending our safety because they were told we were, but it just ain't so. iraq was pretty much ignoring us when we decided they had wmd. they didn't - but we went anyway.

most of the people i know who supported this war believed that the taliban, afganistan, and iraq were all tied together. i still talk to war supporters all the time who feel it's a good thing we attacked iraq because of 9/11.

so basically they are supporting a war that is killing people and taking away our own protection because they believe something that isn't true.

you could say the war thing is an oversimplification, but, as far as the national guard specifically - their function is to protect us, not to be a fighting body away from here when we are not being in any way threatened.

Regardless of ones opinion on Iraq, it is our federal governments responsibility to maintain safety at home. Homeland security ( so apply named ) was merged with FEMA, by G. W. himself, to protect the interest of the American people on our soil.

I've paid a good percentage of my income, since the day I started working, to protect me in time of need, as have the people in the Gulf. Bush has taken that money and used it to take a dictator out of power, that his father put in power when he was President.

$500,000 a day is being spent in the Gulf right now with this relief effort. The army corp of engineers asked for $105,000 to fix the problems in New Orleans, they were denied. Now countless lives are lost and we are spending more money then ever imagined in the South.

Bush was golfing as oil prices reached new all time highs. Bush was on vacation while gas prices reached all time highs. Bushed stayed on vacation as the hurricane barreled towards the Gulf. Bush only left his vacation a few days AFTER the hurricane to "address the issues of this natural disaster"

My God this wasn't an unforeseen earthquake or tidal wave, this was a storm we saw coming for days. How hard is it to go to work when you see disaster headed right for your country? The man has taken the most vacation days in the history of the U.S. presidency, and this vacation ( 5 weeks ) was the longest presidential vacation in 36 years. SOURCE Why is it those of us who've called him out over the years are seen as the bad guys? I don't get it

um.. the figures in my last post were to be millions, not hundreds of thousands ooops :mental: $105 million and $500 million