| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
03 Sep 2005 09:26:42 PM |
| Object: |
A Can't-Do Government |
A Can't-Do Government
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Friday 02 September 2005
Before 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three
most likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack on
New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on
New Orleans. "The New Orleans hurricane scenario," The Houston Chronicle
wrote in December 2001, "may be the deadliest of all." It described a
potential catastrophe very much like the one now happening.
So why were New Orleans and the nation so unprepared? After 9/11,
hard questions were deferred in the name of national unity, then buried
under a thick coat of whitewash. This time, we need accountability.
First question: Why have aid and security taken so long to arrive?
Katrina hit five days ago - and it was already clear by last Friday that
Katrina could do immense damage along the Gulf Coast. Yet the response
you'd expect from an advanced country never happened. Thousands of
Americans are dead or dying, not because they refused to evacuate, but
because they were too poor or too sick to get out without help - and help
wasn't provided. Many have yet to receive any help at all.
There will and should be many questions about the response of state
and local governments; in particular, couldn't they have done more to
help the poor and sick escape? But the evidence points, above all, to a
stunning lack of both preparation and urgency in the federal government's
response.
Even military resources in the right place weren't ordered into
action. "On Wednesday," said an editorial in The Sun Herald in Biloxi,
Miss., "reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival at
the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish Hill Road
and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and performing
calisthenics. Playing basketball and performing calisthenics!"
Maybe administration officials believed that the local National Guard
could keep order and deliver relief. But many members of the National
Guard and much of its equipment - including high-water vehicles - are in
Iraq. "The National Guard needs that equipment back home to support the
homeland security mission," a Louisiana Guard officer told reporters
several weeks ago.
Second question: Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003
the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work,
including work on sinking levees. "The corps," an Editor and Publisher
article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New
Orleans, "never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the
war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same time as
federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain."
In 2002 the corps' chief resigned, reportedly under threat of being
fired, after he criticized the administration's proposed cuts in the
corps' budget, including flood-control spending.
Third question: Did the Bush administration destroy FEMA's
effectiveness? The administration has, by all accounts, treated the
emergency management agency like an unwanted stepchild, leading to a mass
exodus of experienced professionals.
Last year James Lee Witt, who won bipartisan praise for his
leadership of the agency during the Clinton years, said at a
Congressional hearing: "I am extremely concerned that the ability of our
nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I
hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first
responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with
has now disappeared."
I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the
military wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe, the
same reason nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of Baghdad.
Flood control was neglected for the same reason our troops in Iraq didn't
get adequate armor.
At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't
serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like
waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in
need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for
shared sacrifice.
Yesterday Mr. Bush made an utterly fantastic claim: that nobody
expected the breach of the levees. In fact, there had been repeated
warnings about exactly that risk.
So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do
government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it
makes those excuses, Americans are dying.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/090205A.shtml
--
.
|
|
| User: "moorehead" |
|
| Title: Re: A Can't-Do Government |
03 Sep 2005 09:46:37 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
A Can't-Do Government
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times
Friday 02 September 2005
Ooooh. Krugman criticizing the Bush administration....SHOCKER!
Keagle, here's what you sorely lack....some context and perspective:
From the Times-Picayune and available from Nexis
Lexus -
February 17, 1995
An Army Corps of Engineers "hit list" of recommended budget cuts would
eliminate new flood-control programs in some of the nation's most
flood-prone spots - where recent disasters have left thousands homeless
and cost the federal government millions in emergency aid.
Clinton administration officials argue that the flood-control efforts
are local projects, not national, and should be paid for by local
taxes.
Nationwide, the administration proposes cutting 98 new projects in 35
states and Puerto Rico, for an estimated savings of $29 million in
1996.
Corps officials freely conceded the cuts, which represent only a small
portion of savings the corps ultimately must make, may be penny-wise
and pound-foolish. But they said they were forced to eliminate some
services the corps has historically provided to taxpayers to meet the
administration's budget-cutting goals.
June 23, 1995
A hurricane project, approved and financed since 1965, to protect more
than 140,000 West Bank residents east of the Harvey Canal is in
jeopardy.
The Clinton administration is holding back a Corps of Engineers report
recommending that the $120 million project proceed. Unless that report
is forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget, Congress cannot
authorize money for the project, U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office
said Thursday.
On June 9, John Zirschky, the acting assistant secretary of the Army
and the official who refused to forward the report, sent a memo to the
corps, saying the recommendation for the project "is not consistent
with the policies and budget priorities reflected in the President's
Fiscal Year 1996 budget. Accordingly, I will not forward the report to
the Office of Management and Budget for clearance."
July 26, 1996
The House voted Thursday for a $19.4 billion energy and water bill that
provides $246 million for Army Corps of Engineers projects in
Louisiana.
The bill, approved 391-23, is the last of the 13 annual spending
measures for 1997 approved by the House.
One area in which the House approved more financing than the president
requested was for flood control and maintenance of harbors and shipping
routes by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Flood control projects along the Mississippi River and its tributaries
were allotted $303 million, or $10 million more than the president
wanted.
June 19, 1996
The Army Corps of Engineers, which builds most flood protection levees
on a federal-local cost-sharing basis, uses a cost-benefit ratio to
justify a project. If the cost of building a levee is considered less
than the cost of restoring a flood-ravaged area, the project is more
likely to be approved.
For years, the Jean Lafitte-Lower Lafitte-Barataria-Crown Point areas
couldn't convince the corps they were worthy of levee protection. But
the use of Section 205 and congressional pressure has given the corps a
new perspective, Spohrer said.
But even so, when the Clinton administration began to curtail spending
on flood control and other projects a year ago, the corps stopped
spending on Section 205 projects even after deciding to do a $70,000
preliminary Jean Lafitte study, Spohrer said.
July 22, 1999
In passing a $20.2 billion spending bill this week for water and energy
projects, the House Appropriations Committee approved some significant
increases in financing for several New Orleans area flood control and
navigational projects.
The spending bill is expected on the House floor within the next two
weeks.
For the New Orleans District of the Army Corps of Engineers, the panel
allocated $106 million for construction projects, about $16 million
more than proposed by President Clinton.
The bill would provide $47 million for "southeast Louisiana flood
control projects," $16 million for "Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity
hurricane protection," $15.9 million for the Inner Harbor Navigation
Canal Lock on the Industrial Canal in New Orleans and $2 million for
"West Bank hurricane protection -- from New Orleans to Venice."
Most of the projects received significant increases over what the
Clinton administration had proposed. The exception: general flood
control projects for southeast Louisiana, which remained at the $47
million suggested by Clinton. Local officials had hoped for double that
amount.
February 8, 2000
For the metropolitan New Orleans area, Clinton's budget was seen as a
mixed bag by local lawmakers and government officials. For instance,
while Clinton called for $1.5 billion to be spent at Avondale
Industries to continue building LPD-17 landing craft, his budget calls
for significantly less than what Congress appropriated last year for
Lake Pontchartrain and vicinity hurricane protection and for West Bank
flood control projects.
September 29, 2000
The House approved Thursday a $23.6 billion measure for water and
energy programs, with sizable increases for several New Orleans area
flood-control projects. The Senate will vote Monday, but it may be a
while before the bill is enacted.
President Clinton is promising to veto the annual appropriation for the
Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers, not because it is $890
million larger than he proposed, but because it does not include a plan
to alter the levels of the Missouri River to protect endangered fish
and birds.
mj
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
