I do believe the Army Corp didn't get the money they needed. I would agree to that. I also don't know, however, if the money would have made much difference in the end.. maybe a few hours?
Meanwhile, somewhere that money was actually screwed up was at DHS. New Orleans received 6.5M in the Homeland Security Act and another 7.25M in Readiness DHS funding.. the idea behind that money was to develop a city wide "alert" system which would allow for easy communication between police, firefighters, ambulances, etc. That was 2001/2002. Now, we're finding out about half of the cars are equipped with the right stuff, older cars haven't been refitted, and some of the relay stations were never turned on / had no power backup. So the big question I have is: where the hell did that money go? CW > Other issues also play into it which make it more difficult as well... > anyway, I will agree with you that $50M a year is not only every year, > but it is a figure that will go up drastically every year, even with > the best upkeep imaginable because of the nature of the problem. Keep in mind that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested $27 million for this fiscal year (2005) to pay for hurricane-protection projects around Lake Pontchartrain. The Bush administration countered with $3.9 million, and the Republican controlled Congress eventually provided $5.7 million. Michael Parker, a former Republican Mississippi congressman who headed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from October 2001 until March 2002, told the 'Chicago Tribune' today: "I'm not saying it wouldn't still be flooded, but I do feel that if it had been totally funded, there would be less flooding than you have".< I view this as just a serious a screwup. It slows down co-ordination, etc. And someone in DHS oversight should have their head handed to them. But wherever the money went, it certainly wasn't all spent very wisely :) > I have no problem with that. Move people to more solid ground, make > where New Orleans a nice, gigantic national wildlife preserve, and you > save all the money.. and you do something nice for mother nature.. and > you immediately increase a big area of wetlands which provide for a > nice buffer later when you need it ;) I think that argument has gained some additional weight given what has happened. Vince
