adios
09-08-2005, 08:23 PM
I don't know if you saw this article in today's Washington Post:
Money Flowed to Qeustionable Projects in Louisianna (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462.html)
From the article:
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.
and
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.
and
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.
and
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.
Interesting article. The basic gist is that there has been a lot of federal money spent on Army Corps of Engineering projects in Louisianna but beefing up the levies never got the highest priority and that the Louisianna congressional delegation has has a lot of influence in Congress. Also the implication is that a ton of this money was spent on "pork." Perhaps I'm participating in the blame game but I'd sure like to know why certain projects got higher priorities than the levies. I certainly think that claims of 20-20 hindsight are inadequate.
Money Flowed to Qeustionable Projects in Louisianna (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462.html)
From the article:
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.
and
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.
and
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.
and
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.
Interesting article. The basic gist is that there has been a lot of federal money spent on Army Corps of Engineering projects in Louisianna but beefing up the levies never got the highest priority and that the Louisianna congressional delegation has has a lot of influence in Congress. Also the implication is that a ton of this money was spent on "pork." Perhaps I'm participating in the blame game but I'd sure like to know why certain projects got higher priorities than the levies. I certainly think that claims of 20-20 hindsight are inadequate.