quietlife.net

higher and better

12 Dec 2005

“We’ll not just rebuild, we’ll build higher and better”

Another complete load of crap from our fearless leader, from September, when pretending to give a shit about New Orleans was still politically necessary. What? New Orleans? Oh, it used to be a city in Louisiana.

At this moment the reconstruction is a rudderless ship. There is no effective leadership that we can identify. How many people could even name the president’s liaison for the reconstruction effort, Donald Powell? Lawmakers need to understand that for New Orleans the words “pending in Congress” are a death warrant requiring no signature.

The rumbling from Washington that the proposed cost of better levees is too much has grown louder. Pretending we are going to do the necessary work eventually, while stalling until the next hurricane season is upon us, is dishonest and cowardly. Unless some clear, quick commitments are made, the displaced will have no choice but to sink roots in the alien communities where they landed.

The price tag for protection against a Category 5 hurricane, which would involve not just stronger and higher levees but also new drainage canals and environmental restoration, would very likely run to well over $32 billion. That is a lot of money. But that starting point represents just 1.2 percent of this year’s estimated $2.6 trillion in federal spending, which actually overstates the case, since the cost would be spread over many years. And it is barely one-third the cost of the $95 billion in tax cuts passed just last week by the House of Representatives.

Total allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror have topped $300 billion. All that money has been appropriated as the cost of protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. But what was the worst possible case we fought to prevent?

Losing a major American city.

Comments

newton — December 13, 2005 at 21:30 · reply

i tried leaving a comment…your quiet life quietly and quickly ate it. poop!

cwage — December 13, 2005 at 21:36 · reply

Crud. Did it say anything? It was probably the wp-blacklist plugin. It sometimes has overzealously added blacklist entries. I might clean that out.

t. rev — December 13, 2005 at 22:09 · reply

Total allocations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terror have topped $300 billion. All that money has been appropriated as the cost of protecting the nation from terrorist attacks. But what was the worst possible case we fought to prevent?

Losing a major American city.

This is such a deceptive comparison I don’t even know where to start pulling it apart.

cwage — December 14, 2005 at 03:19 · reply

You should pick someplace..

t. rev — December 14, 2005 at 04:55 · reply

Okay. First: they’re comparing political action and money spent on the WoT after 9-11 to political action and money spent on hurricane-proofing New Orleans prior to Katrina. Now, it’s been damn clear what to do about New Orleans for many years now (first, don’t build a city in a goddamned flood basin), but the political will to act on that knowledge wasn’t there.

Second, they’re comparing a threat that’s pretty much a federal responsibility to a threat that’s mainly a local responsibility. The feds may have bungled their part of things, but their responsibility is tertiary.

That’s a vague start.

I hate your security code, by the way.

cwage — December 15, 2005 at 06:28 · reply

First: they’re comparing political action and money spent on the WoT after 9-11 to political action and money spent on hurricane-proofing New Orleans prior to Katrina.

What’s wrong with this comparison? If we’re loathe to spend even the amount since 9/11 on things we could have done over a span of time before Katrina, doesn’t that make it all the worse that we didn’t, much less that we’re still unwilling to?

Second, they’re comparing a threat that’s pretty much a federal responsibility to a threat that’s mainly a local responsibility. The feds may have bungled their part of things, but their responsibility is tertiary.

Local/Federal responsibility here seems to me like a meaningless distinction. I mean, maybe the country is really willing to let New Orleans rot, and I guess if that’s the case, the federal government should let it proceed apace, but I am expressing here a) my dismay, and b) my reluctance to believe that’s really what the people want.

Steve L. — December 17, 2005 at 01:06 · reply

“Second, they’re comparing a threat that’s pretty much a federal responsibility to a threat that’s mainly a local responsibility. The feds may have bungled their part of things, but their responsibility is tertiary.”

Isn’t there some agency that is supposed to in charge of emergency situations like this…like when it overwhelms the local authorities…it’s four letters..can’t quite remember..oh yeah.. FEMA! with an “F”.. FEDERAL Emergency Management Agency. I’ve got another acronym for ya..TTBO..Throw The Bums Out! Brownie was a good start

Steve L. — December 17, 2005 at 01:13 · reply

and yes, i know i look like an idiot becasue I don’t know how to quote like you fancy blooger-types. i mostly use my computer to look up porn.

Thanks! Your comment has been submitted and will appear shortly.

Leave a comment