• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Some detailed info on Federal aid to No

We've all heard the superficial "Bush cut funding for the levee project" being tossed around. But there is far more to the issue than that. Shady dealings within the state and a redirection of some of the funds that were designated had a definite impact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462.html

Money Flowed to Questionable Projects
State Leads in Army Corps Spending, but Millions Had Nothing to Do With Floods

By Michael Grunwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 8, 2005; Page A01

Before Hurricane Katrina breached a levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Army Corps of Engineers had already launched a $748 million construction project at that very location. But the project had nothing to do with flood control. The Corps was building a huge new lock for the canal, an effort to accommodate steadily increasing barge traffic.

Except that barge traffic on the canal has been steadily decreasing.

In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon.

For example, after a $194 million deepening project for the Port of Iberia flunked a Corps cost-benefit analysis, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) tucked language into an emergency Iraq spending bill ordering the agency to redo its calculations. The Corps also spends tens of millions of dollars a year dredging little-used waterways such as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, the Atchafalaya River and the Red River -- now known as the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway, in honor of the project's congressional godfather -- for barge traffic that is less than forecast.

The Industrial Canal lock is one of the agency's most controversial projects, sued by residents of a New Orleans low-income black neighborhood and cited by an alliance of environmentalists and taxpayer advocates as the fifth-worst current Corps boondoggle. In 1998, the Corps justified its plan to build a new lock -- rather than fix the old lock for a tiny fraction of the cost -- by predicting huge increases in use by barges traveling between the Port of New Orleans and the Mississippi River.

In fact, barge traffic on the canal had been plummeting since 1994, but the Corps left that data out of its study. And barges have continued to avoid the canal since the study was finished, even though they are visiting the port in increased numbers.

Pam Dashiell, president of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, remembers holding a protest against the lock four years ago -- right where the levee broke Aug. 30. Now she's holed up with her family in a St. Louis hotel, and her neighborhood is underwater. "Our politicians never cared half as much about protecting us as they cared about pork," Dashiell said.

Yesterday, congressional defenders of the Corps said they hoped the fallout from Hurricane Katrina would pave the way for billions of dollars of additional spending on water projects. Steve Ellis, a Corps critic with Taxpayers for Common Sense, called their push "the legislative equivalent of looting."

Louisiana's politicians have requested much more money for New Orleans hurricane protection than the Bush administration has proposed or Congress has provided. In the last budget bill, Louisiana's delegation requested $27.1 million for shoring up levees around Lake Pontchartrain, the full amount the Corps had declared as its "project capability." Bush suggested $3.9 million, and Congress agreed to spend $5.7 million.

Administration officials also dramatically scaled back a long-term project to restore Louisiana's disappearing coastal marshes, which once provided a measure of natural hurricane protection for New Orleans. They ordered the Corps to stop work on a $14 billion plan, and devise a $2 billion plan instead.

But overall, the Bush administration's funding requests for the key New Orleans flood-control projects for the past five years were slightly higher than the Clinton administration's for its past five years. Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the chief of the Corps, has said that in any event, more money would not have prevented the drowning of the city, since its levees were designed to protect against a Category 3 storm, and the levees that failed were already completed projects. Strock has also said that the marsh-restoration project would not have done much to diminish Katrina's storm surge, which passed east of the coastal wetlands.

"The project manager for the Great Pyramids probably put in a request for 100 million shekels and only got 50 million," said John Paul Woodley Jr., the Bush administration official overseeing the Corps. "Flood protection is always a work in progress; on any given day, if you ask whether any community has all the protection it needs, the answer is almost always: Maybe, but maybe not."

The Corps had been studying the possibility of upgrading the New Orleans levees for a higher level of protection before Katrina hit, but Woodley said that study would not have been finished for years. Still, liberal bloggers, Democratic politicians and some GOP defenders of the Corps have linked the catastrophe to the underfunding of the agency.

"We've been hollering about funding for years, but everyone would say: There goes Louisiana again, asking for more money," said former Democratic senator John Breaux. "We've had some powerful people in powerful places, but we never got what we needed."

That may be true. But those powerful people -- including former senators Breaux, Johnston and Russell Long, as well as former House committee chairmen Robert Livingston and W.J. "Billy" Tauzin -- did get quite a bit of what they wanted. And the current delegation -- led by Landrieu and GOP Sen. David Vitter -- has continued that tradition.

The Senate's latest budget bill for the Corps included 107 Louisiana projects worth $596 million, including $15 million for the Industrial Canal lock, for which the Bush administration had proposed no funding. Landrieu said the bill would "accelerate our flood control, navigation and coastal protection programs." Vitter said he was "grateful that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee were persuaded of the importance of these projects."

Louisiana not only leads the nation in overall Corps funding, it places second in new construction -- just behind Florida, home of an $8 billion project to restore the Everglades. Several controversial projects were improvements for the Port of New Orleans, an economic linchpin at the mouth of the Mississippi. There were also several efforts to deepen channel for oil and gas tankers, a priority for petroleum companies that drill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"We thought all the projects were important -- not just levees," Breaux said. "Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but navigation projects were critical to our economic survival."

Overall, Army Corps funding has remained relatively constant for decades, despite the "Program Growth Initiative" launched by agency generals in 1999 without telling their civilian bosses in the Clinton administration. The Bush administration has proposed cuts in the Corps budget, and has tried to shift the agency's emphasis from new construction to overdue maintenance. But most of those proposals have died quietly on Capitol Hill, and the administration has not fought too hard to revive them.

In fact, more than any other federal agency, the Corps is controlled by Congress; its $4.7 billion civil works budget consists almost entirely of "earmarks" inserted by individual legislators. The Corps must determine that the economic benefits of its projects exceed the costs, but marginal projects such as the Port of Iberia deepening -- which squeaked by with a 1.03 benefit-cost ratio -- are as eligible for funding as the New Orleans levees.

"It has been explicit national policy not to set priorities, but instead to build any flood control or barge project if the Corps decides the benefits exceed the costs by 1 cent," said Tim Searchinger, a senior attorney at Environmental Defense. "Saving New Orleans gets no more emphasis than draining wetlands to grow corn and soybeans."

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We've all heard the superficial "Bush cut funding for the levee project" being tossed around. But there is far more to the issue than that. Shady dealings within the state and a redirection of some of the funds that were designated had a definite impact.

Depending on how you define "cut funding" he did infact deny the Corps funds to improve and/or do more research on the flood protection for N.O. I don't understand how thats exactly, superficial.
 
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We've all heard the superficial "Bush cut funding for the levee project" being tossed around. But there is far more to the issue than that. Shady dealings within the state and a redirection of some of the funds that were designated had a definite impact.

Depending on how you define "cut funding" he did infact deny the Corps funds to improve and/or do more research on the flood protection for N.O. I don't understand how thats exactly, superficial.

This is true, in most liberals mind when you dont increase funding it is actually a cut. Just like if you dont deny allegations then they are true.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We've all heard the superficial "Bush cut funding for the levee project" being tossed around. But there is far more to the issue than that. Shady dealings within the state and a redirection of some of the funds that were designated had a definite impact.

Depending on how you define "cut funding" he did infact deny the Corps funds to improve and/or do more research on the flood protection for N.O. I don't understand how thats exactly, superficial.

This is true, in most liberals mind when you dont increase funding it is actually a cut. Just like if you dont deny allegations then they are true.

Okay? He didn't cut funding, he just denided funding them for the full amount.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We've all heard the superficial "Bush cut funding for the levee project" being tossed around. But there is far more to the issue than that. Shady dealings within the state and a redirection of some of the funds that were designated had a definite impact.

Depending on how you define "cut funding" he did infact deny the Corps funds to improve and/or do more research on the flood protection for N.O. I don't understand how thats exactly, superficial.

This is true, in most liberals mind when you dont increase funding it is actually a cut. Just like if you dont deny allegations then they are true.


This is old democrat tactic. They use it for the federal budget every year. The budget goes up, but because it was pared down before signing the Dems call it a cut, when in fact, the budget was raised, just not as high as they would have liked.
 
Originally posted by: Tab
Okay? He didn't cut funding, he just denided funding them for the full amount.

It's called slicing the defecit and fiscal conservatism. I thought most people on this forum supported those goals.
 
Good article, thanks.

But, none of that excuses the horrid federal response to the help the victims trapped in New Orleans.
 
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: Tab
Okay? He didn't cut funding, he just denided funding them for the full amount.

It's called slicing the defecit and fiscal conservatism. I thought most people on this forum supported those goals.

You aren't serious are you? How much has been sliced from annual deficits since Bush was elected?
 
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We've all heard the superficial "Bush cut funding for the levee project" being tossed around. But there is far more to the issue than that. Shady dealings within the state and a redirection of some of the funds that were designated had a definite impact.

Depending on how you define "cut funding" he did infact deny the Corps funds to improve and/or do more research on the flood protection for N.O. I don't understand how thats exactly, superficial.

This is true, in most liberals mind when you dont increase funding it is actually a cut. Just like if you dont deny allegations then they are true.

Okay? He didn't cut funding, he just denided funding them for the full amount.

But I thought Bush "signed every single appropriation bill that came across his desk" and "never met a spending bill he didn't like?" Now he's a misery old scrooge that horded tax-payer money when it needed to be spent? 😕


😛
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Good article, thanks.

But, none of that excuses the horrid federal response to the help the victims trapped in New Orleans.

Exactly. This is the point being widely ignored by all the conservative talking heads on TV and in the seemingly dozens of threads on P&N.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: conjur
Good article, thanks.

But, none of that excuses the horrid federal response to the help the victims trapped in New Orleans.

Exactly. This is the point being widely ignored by all the conservative talking heads on TV and in the seemingly dozens of threads on P&N.

I dont think it address's it much does it? Sounds to me like it helps debunk the theory Bush's "cuts" were responsible for the levee failure.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: conjur
Good article, thanks.

But, none of that excuses the horrid federal response to the help the victims trapped in New Orleans.

Exactly. This is the point being widely ignored by all the conservative talking heads on TV and in the seemingly dozens of threads on P&N.

I dont think it address's it much does it? Sounds to me like it helps debunk the theory Bush's "cuts" were responsible for the levee failure.

It's not so much that he cut the funding to the levees, it's more the fact that he lied on national television and said that "no one knew that the levees would break."
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: conjur
Good article, thanks.

But, none of that excuses the horrid federal response to the help the victims trapped in New Orleans.

Exactly. This is the point being widely ignored by all the conservative talking heads on TV and in the seemingly dozens of threads on P&N.

I dont think it address's it much does it? Sounds to me like it helps debunk the theory Bush's "cuts" were responsible for the levee failure.

It's not so much that he cut the funding to the levees, it's more the fact that he lied on national television and said that "no one knew that the levees would break."

Who said that, Bush? I didnt hear that, got a link? I think it was quite clear when the thing was projected to hit that the city was going to flood because the levees werent strong or high enough to deal with the surge.

Either way that is besides the point that this article helps to put to rest the idea him not funding to 100% of what they want is what caused this issue.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: conjur
Good article, thanks.

But, none of that excuses the horrid federal response to the help the victims trapped in New Orleans.

Exactly. This is the point being widely ignored by all the conservative talking heads on TV and in the seemingly dozens of threads on P&N.

I dont think it address's it much does it? Sounds to me like it helps debunk the theory Bush's "cuts" were responsible for the levee failure.

Not really, but what it really seemed to do is debunk the theory that the blame for the levee failure can be placed just on one group. If anything, it sounds more like there is a very complex story behind the failure, one that leaves quite a number of people looking stupid.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: conjur
Good article, thanks.

But, none of that excuses the horrid federal response to the help the victims trapped in New Orleans.

Exactly. This is the point being widely ignored by all the conservative talking heads on TV and in the seemingly dozens of threads on P&N.

I dont think it address's it much does it? Sounds to me like it helps debunk the theory Bush's "cuts" were responsible for the levee failure.

Not really, but what it really seemed to do is debunk the theory that the blame for the levee failure can be placed just on one group. If anything, it sounds more like there is a very complex story behind the failure, one that leaves quite a number of people looking stupid.

I think you are right there is more than a single reason why the city had to be flooded. It isnt the Mayors fault, the govs fault, the army corps of engineers, congress, or Bush. It is a combination of failures that caused this issue.

I have been saying this since the dust settled in NO.

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Who said that, Bush? I didnt hear that, got a link? I think it was quite clear when the thing was projected to hit that the city was going to flood because the levees werent strong or high enough to deal with the surge.

Either way that is besides the point that this article helps to put to rest the idea him not funding to 100% of what they want is what caused this issue.
The President
In comments on Thursday, President George W. Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Sec'y Chertoff
Chertoff argued that authorities actually had assumed that "there would be overflow from the levee, maybe a small break in the levee. The collapse of a significant portion of the levee leading to the very fast flooding of the city was not envisioned."

Director of FEMA, Brown
FEMA director Mike Brown was asked about that comment on ABC?s Good Morning America:
GIBSON: Mike, with all due respect to you and with all due respect to the president, I was amazed to hear him say to Diane yesterday, We didn?t know the levees were going to break. We didn?t know the dams wouldn?t hold.

We all were talking about that on Monday morning, that the levees were only built to withstand a category 3 hurricane. There?s batches of reports that say that. And you knew a 4 or 5 was coming all weekend long.

BROWN: I think we were all taken aback by the fact that the levees did break in so many places and caused such widespread devastation. And so we?re responding the best we can to help those people that are stuck in this ongoing disaster.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We've all heard the superficial "Bush cut funding for the levee project" being tossed around. But there is far more to the issue than that. Shady dealings within the state and a redirection of some of the funds that were designated had a definite impact.

Depending on how you define "cut funding" he did infact deny the Corps funds to improve and/or do more research on the flood protection for N.O. I don't understand how thats exactly, superficial.

This is true, in most liberals mind when you dont increase funding it is actually a cut. Just like if you dont deny allegations then they are true.

You forgot that liberals now consider it a lie if someone accuses you, you deny it but can't prove it. Plus, it is a lie if you quote someone else (intelligence communties and heads of state around the world) but then can't prove them right.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Genx87
Who said that, Bush? I didnt hear that, got a link? I think it was quite clear when the thing was projected to hit that the city was going to flood because the levees werent strong or high enough to deal with the surge.

Either way that is besides the point that this article helps to put to rest the idea him not funding to 100% of what they want is what caused this issue.
The President
In comments on Thursday, President George W. Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

Sec'y Chertoff
Chertoff argued that authorities actually had assumed that "there would be overflow from the levee, maybe a small break in the levee. The collapse of a significant portion of the levee leading to the very fast flooding of the city was not envisioned."

Director of FEMA, Brown
FEMA director Mike Brown was asked about that comment on ABC?s Good Morning America:
GIBSON: Mike, with all due respect to you and with all due respect to the president, I was amazed to hear him say to Diane yesterday, We didn?t know the levees were going to break. We didn?t know the dams wouldn?t hold.

We all were talking about that on Monday morning, that the levees were only built to withstand a category 3 hurricane. There?s batches of reports that say that. And you knew a 4 or 5 was coming all weekend long.

BROWN: I think we were all taken aback by the fact that the levees did break in so many places and caused such widespread devastation. And so we?re responding the best we can to help those people that are stuck in this ongoing disaster.

Heh well they were talking about the levees failing on the weather channel the morning of the storm 3 hours before it hit land. But that doesnt really have any effect on the OPs article.

 
It doesn't fix the problem, no, but it shows either they are horrible liars or they are completely disconnected from reality. I think it's a combo deal.
 
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
We've all heard the superficial "Bush cut funding for the levee project" being tossed around. But there is far more to the issue than that. Shady dealings within the state and a redirection of some of the funds that were designated had a definite impact.

Depending on how you define "cut funding" he did infact deny the Corps funds to improve and/or do more research on the flood protection for N.O. I don't understand how thats exactly, superficial.

This is true, in most liberals mind when you dont increase funding it is actually a cut. Just like if you dont deny allegations then they are true.

Okay? He didn't cut funding, he just denided funding them for the full amount.

But I thought Bush "signed every single appropriation bill that came across his desk" and "never met a spending bill he didn't like?" Now he's a misery old scrooge that horded tax-payer money when it needed to be spent? 😕


😛

We were warned that he was too fiscally liberal. This was proven when he turned over all funding bills to the Democrats to write except for National Defense. Defense was, of course raised about 10% higher than before Clinton cut it. Education was increased 50% and HRS (includes education) was increased 40% from 1.1 trillion to 1.5 trillion dollars. The increase alone dwarfs military spending.

Of course, the biggest educational increase in our history was not used to educate the children. It is sad that they want more money but won't use it for the education of our children.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
It doesn't fix the problem, no, but it shows either they are horrible liars or they are completely disconnected from reality. I think it's a combo deal.

Who is? The people making accusations that are wrong? I agree with you 100%.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
It doesn't fix the problem, no, but it shows either they are horrible liars or they are completely disconnected from reality. I think it's a combo deal.

Who is? The people making accusations that are wrong? I agree with you 100%.
Glad to see you coming around finally. Now that you realize the President, Sec'y Chertoff, and Michael Brown are incompetent liars, how about we get them out of power?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
It doesn't fix the problem, no, but it shows either they are horrible liars or they are completely disconnected from reality. I think it's a combo deal.

Who is? The people making accusations that are wrong? I agree with you 100%.
Glad to see you coming around finally. Now that you realize the President, Sec'y Chertoff, and Michael Brown are incompetent liars, how about we get them out of power?

I was referring to the baffoons making the claim Bush's lack of funding is the reason for the levee failure.

 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: conjur
It doesn't fix the problem, no, but it shows either they are horrible liars or they are completely disconnected from reality. I think it's a combo deal.
Who is? The people making accusations that are wrong? I agree with you 100%.
Glad to see you coming around finally. Now that you realize the President, Sec'y Chertoff, and Michael Brown are incompetent liars, how about we get them out of power?
I was referring to the baffoons making the claim Bush's lack of funding is the reason for the levee failure.
Well, we were discussing the lying liars: Bush, Chertoff, and Brown.
 
Back
Top