| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
Corps officials: Funding levels not to blame for flooding
Earlier today, I blogged about an article from the Chicago Tribune that discussed how the US Army Corps of Engineers had been the target of funding cuts since 1965 (you had to dig that out of the article, but it was there). If you’ve done any travelling around the lefty blogosphere today you’ve probably seen how often this article has been cited to show how the levee breaks that happened in New Orleans were Bush’s fault due to funding cuts advocated by both him and Congress. Here’s a follow up piece from the Tribune this evening (emphasis added):
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Thursday that a lack of funding for hurricane-protection projects around New Orleans did not contribute to the disastrous flooding that followed Hurricane Katrina. In a telephone interview with reporters, corps officials said that although portions of the flood-protection levees remain incomplete, the levees near Lake Pontchartrain that gave way–inundating much of the city–were completed and in good condition before the hurricane.However, they noted that the levees were designed for a Category 3 hurricane and couldn’t handle the ferocious winds and raging waters from Hurricane Katrina, which was a Category 4 storm when it hit the coastline. The decision to build levees for a Category 3 hurricane was made decades ago based on a cost-benefit analysis.
"I don’t see that the level of funding was really a contributing factor in this case," said Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, chief of engineers for the corps. "Had this project been fully complete, it is my opinion that based on the intensity of this storm that the flooding of the business district and the French Quarter would have still taken place."
Of course, we’ll never know for sure. But you can best believe from here on out, the ACE budget will increase dramatically. And they’ll get that money (as they should).
(Cross posted at BlogsForBush)
Update: Rob at Say Anything (which has become one of my favorite blogs) has a couple of excellent posts on the the "blame W" game being played right now by so many on the left in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Click here and here to read ‘em.
Update II: Don’t forget you can still contribute to the American Red Cross Hurricane 2005 Relief Fund or any one (or more!) of a number of other great organizations out there mobilizing to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. If you do contribute, please log it here at the TTLB contribution page as he is tracking the amount of money raised from each blog. Logging it is totally anonymous – in other words, you don’t have to give a name. Just an amount, the charity you donated to, and the blog that encouraged you to do so.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
8 Responses to “Corps officials: Funding levels not to blame for flooding”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
I’d have to go look back to where I read it…somewhere on straightdope.com, but the ACE budget for 2000 was 3.9 billion. The budget for 2005 was 4.0 billion…so….
I do wonder…and this is just 100% speculation on my part…if when they say budget cuts, they are refering to the amount of reduction in requested funds. Every year I request something like $10,000 in funds for my VocEd class, and every year I get $3000. I suppose I could say my budget was cut by 70%, but that’s not quite accurate.
The budget for the entire country’s projects was raised, but those particular projects did not get funded, for whatever reason. And to be honest, from what I’m reading, they were valid reasons at the time that ended up, in the long run, being the wrong call, but those are the kinds of calls you have to make.
Argh, I don’t know. I have to get ready for class and my brain is already pounding..
It’s quite, ahem, ‘odd’ that this info about the levee’s failure at its most recent construction point is being so studiously ignored on the Left.
Please, Ms. Sistertoldjah, could you explain this phenomenon to me?
Yes, lies get half way around the world before truth gets it’s boots on.
Arizona Tech wrote, “I do wonder…and this is just 100% speculation on my part…if when they say budget cuts, they are refering to the amount of reduction in requested funds.”
Yessirree,
That’s exactly what happens. The education budget in CA as well as the entire budget in CA has gone up every year. Arnold hasn’t cut anything. First of all the state legislature (Democrat) sends him a budget and he signs it.
The news media in CA and every state agency is hollering about cuts (especially the Education department here in CA) and it ISN’T TRUE. There ain’t no cuts and the dominant media here in CA aren’t going to tell people that. They are just going to ASSIST the democrat leadership in attacking Arnold.
AT: That’s exactly what it is – a reduction in the percentage of what they requested. I probably should have worded my post better.
Eric: Hehe .. I call the phenomenon “willfull ignorance”
Bak: Yeah, from what I’ve been reading, the press there in California has really been sticking it to Arnhold. I think his approval ratings mirror W’s right now.
ST,
and the funny thing is both Bush and Arnold are left of center. Imagine if conservatives actually got a centrist or slightly right of center person in office. I think the left would just about hyperventilate.
“and the funny thing is both Bush and Arnold are left of center. Imagine if conservatives actually got a centrist or slightly right of center person in office. I think the left would just about hyperventilate. ”
You mean more than some of ‘em already are?