|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 11:41 pm Post subject: Funding for Levees slashed |
 |
|
Full article here, but here's what you really should read. The bold is mine.
| Quote: |
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." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:23 am Post subject: Re: Funding for Levees slashed |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Full article here, but here's what you really should read. The bold is mine.
| Quote: |
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." |
|
There you go, I would have put that one in bold as well.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is what the "Bush to blame for Katrina?" thread is about. This article was brought up there. In fact, I think I started that thread in reference to that article.
Hope we're still discussing NO for a long time, but find it unfortunate we need to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:34 am Post subject: Re: Funding for Levees slashed |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Full article here, but here's what you really should read. The bold is mine.
| Quote: |
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." |
|
There you go, I would have put that one in bold as well. |
I wouldn't. I could've cited that Bush was reluctant to raise taxes instead of cutting them rather than blame Iraq for the drag. But I'm really only arguing with you to top my thread, you see...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it your position that had that money had gone into the levee, or had the Iraqi War not taken funds away from it, then we would not be seeing this damage?
How exactly do you measure that?
Respondents also disagreed widely on who is to blame for the problems in the city following the hurricane -- 13 percent said Bush, 18 percent said federal agencies, 25 percent blamed state or local officials and 38 percent said no one is to blame. And 63 percent said they do not believe anyone at federal agencies responsible for handling emergencies should be fired as a result.
http://cnn.com/2005/US/09/07/katrina.poll/index.html
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:44 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If the levees had been properly funded, we'd be a lot less likely to see the utter devastation and human misery that we are. That's what budgeting is about--prioritizing properly. Bush decided the Iraq war was more important than the levees. The results are clear to see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| If the levees had been properly funded, we'd be a lot less likely to see the utter devastation and human misery that we are. |
But how do you know this? How do you know the levees would have held through that storm, by all accounts an atypical storm? Would the levees have had anything to do with the roof of the stadium coming off or other kinds of similar catastrophic damage that the storm wrought?
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Sep 08, 2005 11:28 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| If the levees had been properly funded, we'd be a lot less likely to see the utter devastation and human misery that we are. That's what budgeting is about--prioritizing properly. Bush decided the Iraq war was more important than the levees. The results are clear to see. |
Hater Depot, et. al., you are marginal!!!
(This has been a public disservice announcement from gopher via the "Bush.... for Katrina?" thread.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Is it your position that had that money had gone into the levee, or had the Iraqi War not taken funds away from it, then we would not be seeing this damage?
How exactly do you measure that? |
No need to dip into calculus here. You have a violent storm season, including Hurricane Ivan the terrible in 2004. So, rational people in relevent local offices suggest funding further studies to see how the levees might withstand further pressure from other hurricanes as well as money for provisional reinforcement on the wall.
It is not my position that with certainty we could have avoided this calamity if more had been spent, but only that possible prevention was underfunded. That underfunding is directly at the feet of the administration budget proposal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| If the levees had been properly funded, we'd be a lot less likely to see the utter devastation and human misery that we are. That's what budgeting is about--prioritizing properly. Bush decided the Iraq war was more important than the levees. The results are clear to see. |
Hater Depot, et. al., you are marginal!!!
(This has been a public disservice announcement from gopher via the "Bush.... for Katrina?" thread.) |
Please go into another room, the adults are talking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| If the levees had been properly funded, we'd be a lot less likely to see the utter devastation and human misery that we are. That's what budgeting is about--prioritizing properly. Bush decided the Iraq war was more important than the levees. The results are clear to see. |
Hater Depot, et. al., you are marginal!!!
(This has been a public disservice announcement from gopher via the "Bush.... for Katrina?" thread.) |
Please go into another room, the adults are talking. |
Sheesh... Why doesn't gopher get this kind o response when he says somethign ridiculous and insulting? Hmmm...
I guess I could have posted: It is difficult to discuss these topics with gopher because he considers those that hold the opinion that Bush bears responsibility for the extent of the disaster to be marginal. Please see the "Bush to Blame for Karina?" thread. But, hell, that's a lot more verbiage, not nearly as humorous, and far less clever. Ah, to each his own... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Is it your position that had that money had gone into the levee, or had the Iraqi War not taken funds away from it, then we would not be seeing this damage?
How exactly do you measure that? |
No need to dip into calculus here. You have a violent storm season, including Hurricane Ivan the terrible in 2004. So, rational people in relevent local offices suggest funding further studies to see how the levees might withstand further pressure from other hurricanes as well as money for provisional reinforcement on the wall.
It is not my position that with certainty we could have avoided this calamity if more had been spent, but only that possible prevention was underfunded. That underfunding is directly at the feet of the administration budget proposal. |
I think this is fair. I think that Bush has serious issues with anything related to the environment -- always on the backburner, for example. I think it's fair that he might have put more money into the levee. I'm not sure that it would have mattered much, though.
I think the real criticism is his slow response. Inadequate, not even in dispute. It was a leadership failure. Not the FEMA director's fault. Bush's fault for not energizing the system himself for an event that seems to be overshadowing 9/11.
The politicization of this issue is wholly inappropriate, however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
Is it your position that had that money had gone into the levee, or had the Iraqi War not taken funds away from it, then we would not be seeing this damage?
How exactly do you measure that? |
No need to dip into calculus here. You have a violent storm season, including Hurricane Ivan the terrible in 2004. So, rational people in relevent local offices suggest funding further studies to see how the levees might withstand further pressure from other hurricanes as well as money for provisional reinforcement on the wall.
It is not my position that with certainty we could have avoided this calamity if more had been spent, but only that possible prevention was underfunded. That underfunding is directly at the feet of the administration budget proposal. |
I think this is fair. I think that Bush has serious issues with anything related to the environment -- always on the backburner, for example. I think it's fair that he might have put more money into the levee. I'm not sure that it would have mattered much, though.
I think the real criticism is his slow response. Inadequate, not even in dispute. It was a leadership failure. Not the FEMA director's fault. Bush's fault for not energizing the system himself for an event that seems to be overshadowing 9/11.
The politicization of this issue is wholly inappropriate, however. |
Let me get this straight. This is exactly what I and others have been saying, but now you think it is fair?
| Quote: |
| The politicization of this issue is wholly inappropriate, however. |
Are you joking? At what point did anyone but you say it was politics? It was you who daid I purposely went looking to knock Bush, which is an outright lie and insult. You politicized it, not us. We simply added 2 + 2 and got 4. I have never said the Republican party is responsible or anything else. I said exactly what the above poster said.
Good lord.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBlackEquus
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Lotte controls Asia with bad chocolate!
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can remember Clinton, a Democrat, cutting the funding specifically for the Levees years ago.
In every case, the funding would have provided only Level 4 protection against Hurricanes.
New levees would have made no difference, as this was a level 5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gdimension
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Jeju
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BigBlackEquus wrote: |
I can remember Clinton, a Democrat, cutting the funding specifically for the Levees years ago.
In every case, the funding would have provided only Level 4 protection against Hurricanes.
New levees would have made no difference, as this was a level 5. |
I recall hearing that it had been downgraded to a level 4 before it hit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
