posted
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."
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."
quote:Originally posted by 4Art: 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."
posted
Flood control within the watershed of navigatable waterways and intrastate waterways lies withing the jurisdiction of the Corp Of Engineers, not the local governments. To allow it to be otherwise undermines the ability of any state fo effectively handle the problem. This is even more so with the Mississippi and those bodies of water flowing into it, as it is one of the principal methods of interstate commerce the country has. Neither the State of Louisianna nor the City of New Orleans have responsibility to control flooding or the authority to meddle with it.
Bush pulled out the funding to do the studies and the work, which was already scheduled when he took office. The local governments had no say in it.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not true. Bush is the Commander in Chief and had nothing ready. Ineptness in action.
quote:Originally posted by Art: The local government is responsible - not the feds or bush. The local government has failed the people of N.O., not Bush.
posted
That's foolish. That's like saying it's the President's fault that my cereal was too soggy and made me choke on it. The President should head up the federal agencies like the FDA. He should have known that milk (approved by the FDA) and the cereal (approved by the FDA) would make a fatal combination when mixed together.
BTW It is the local government's job to take care of the levies and dams. Read again. Look in the Lousiana DNR. You can't blame the President for not providing you enough money to take care of your own state.
This is the exact reason the federal government should be getting smaller and the local government being given these responsibilities (which they are).
-------------------- If you don't sweat the pennies, you're not making any money. Posts: 2218 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go ahead, Chadsly. give the "President" another pass. You're beginning to bore me.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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."
posted
Yes 4art, it had to happen. If you think this bad...what about a nuclear strike with 100,000's of people dead and radiation killing about 100,000 more in the aftermath. If this is how we behave for a hurricaine then imagine a nuclear bomb on an American city...the terrorists are working on it.
We had better get wise and seal our borders quick or we see an American city go up in smoke. Liberals say this would be cruel and that we should receive every illegal alien with billions in social programs paid for by you and I.
posted
Do some research and see just how hard Bush is working on sealing those borders for you, Patrick. LOL
quote:Originally posted by Patrick: Yes 4art, it had to happen. If you think this bad...what about a nuclear strike with 100,000's of people dead and radiation killing about 100,000 more in the aftermath. If this is how we behave for a hurricaine then imagine a nuclear bomb on an American city...the terrorists are working on it.
We had better get wise and seal our borders quick or we see an American city go up in smoke. Liberals say this would be cruel and that we should receive every illegal alien with billions in social programs paid for by you and I.
posted
I apologize. I'm not positive who's job it is to secure the levees. I've read local government say it is their job and how they plan to accomplish it, etc. But as someone pointed out, the US Army Corps of Engineers do specifically say that they are to help out with Flood Control. I don't whether this counts as flood prevention or not.
-------------------- If you don't sweat the pennies, you're not making any money. Posts: 2218 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |