An open letter to President George W. Bush:
August 28, 2007
Dear Mr. President:
Thank you for visiting New Orleans for the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, the worst federal levee-failure disaster in United States history followed by the worst federal disaster response in United States history. We’re also grateful for the $116 billion federal allocation for the Gulf Coast. That $116 billion has served you well, as your spokesmen often cite it as an indicator of your dedication to our recovery. But, it hasn’t served us as well -- it’s not enough, it’s been given grudgingly, and only after our elected officials have had to fight for it. So I feel I must correct the record about you and your administration’s dedication to our recovery and implore you to take action to make things better.
Indeed, you have allocated $116 billion for the Gulf Coast, but that number is misleading. According to the Brookings Institute's most recent Katrina Index report, at least $75 billion of it was for immediate post-storm relief. Thus only 35% of the total federal dollars allocated is for actual recovery and reconstruction. And of that recovery and reconstruction allocation, only 42% has actually been spent. In fact, while your administration touts "$116 billion" as the amount you have sent to the entire area affected by Katrina and the levee failures, the actual long term recovery dollar amount is only $14.6 billion. This amount is a mere 12% of the entire federal allocation of dollars, billions of which went to corporations such as Halliburton for immediate post-storm cleanup work, instead of to local businesses. Contrast that to the $20.9 billion on infrastructure for Iraq that the Wall Street Journal reported in May 2006 that you have spent, and it’s an astonishing 42% more than you have spent on infrastructure for the post-Katrina Gulf region. The American citizens of the Gulf region do not understand why the federal obligation to rebuilding Iraq is greater than it is for America's Gulf coast, and more specifically for New Orleans.
New Orleans has more challenges and fewer resources than we've ever had in my lifetime in the City of New Orleans. Yet, other than FEMA repair reimbursements, the only direct federal assistance this city has received from you has been two community disaster loans that you are demanding be paid back even though no other city government has had to pay back a these types of loans for as long as our research can determine (at least since the 70’s). These loans are being used to balance the city budget to provide basic services to citizens who need far more than the pre-Katrina basics.
Despite this obvious contradiction, your administration blames local leadership for our continued need for federal assistance. But this argument is disingenuous, Mr. President. There are a host of tasks that only you and your administration can accomplish for our recovery. These are some concrete steps you can take to make good on your 2005 Jackson Square promise:
* Completely fix the federally managed levees
* Fully fund our expertly crafted recovery plan
* Give New Orleans all that you have promised to Baghdad - schools, hospitals, infrastructure, security, and basic services
* Forgive the community disaster loans, as authorized by the new Congress
* Appoint a recovery czar who works inside the White House that reports daily and directly to you and whose sole job is the recovery of New Orleans and the rest of the region
* Restore our coast and wetlands
* Work with Congress to reform the Stafford Act
* Cut the bureaucratic red tape
In turn Mr. President, the people of New Orleans are more than willing to do our part. We have already:
* Consolidated and reformed the state levee board system.
* Consolidated and reformed our property assessment system.
* Passed sweeping ethics reform legislation.
* Created an Ethics Review Board.
* Hired an Inspector General.
* Submitted a parish-wide recovery plan.
Much has changed in New Orleans for the better since the storm, and more progress is coming. Civic activism is at an all time high. For the first time in my lifetime, there is an actual reform movement in New Orleans driven by the people. "Best Practices" has become a City Council mantra. We have a new Ethics Board. Our incoming Inspector General, Robert Cerasoli, is considered one of the elite in the Inspector General world, as is our new Recovery Director Dr. Ed Blakely in that world and our Recovery School Superintendent Paul Vallas in the realm of public education. We are attracting the cream of the crop. Young people from around the country seeking to make a difference in their lives are moving to New Orleans to teach in public schools, provide community healthcare, build housing, work for nonprofits engaged in post-Katrina work, and, in general, do whatever they can for the recovery because they all know what I am not so sure that you know, mainly that what happens in New Orleans over the next few years says something about the very heart of America itself.
Mr. President, we are in fact doing our part locally in New Orleans despite contrary comments by your administration. Our intense civic activity and government reform initiatives are serious indicators of our local commitment to do our part for the recovery. But we are drowning in federal red tape. We are being nickel and dimed to death by your Federal Emergency Management Agency. We are resource-starved at the city level. The mission here is not accomplished. What we need is Presidential leadership, not just another speech filled with empty promises. Our recovery's success, struggle, or failure will be intimately woven into your legacy, for better or worse. What Americans think about America is deeply affected by how this country rises to national challenges, none more significant than post-Katrina New Orleans. Fully restoring New Orleans to its formerly unique and permanent place in American culture is this nation's greatest domestic challenge. Your leadership of our country through this difficult time will serve as an American character lesson for future generations.
Sincerely,
Shelley Midura
New Orleans City Councilmember
District A
===
Update:On 8.24.07 the
following exchange occurred between a reporter and White House spokesman:
Q: A couple questions on New Orleans. In a lot of very basic way, the city is still in shambles. There are neighborhoods in ruins. There's pervasive crime and homelessness. Bottom line, two years later, why hasn't the administration done more to fix this problem?
MR. JOHNDROE: Well, I certainly disagree with the premise of the question. As I said at the beginning of the briefing, the federal government has provided $114 billion to the region, of which $96 billion has been disbursed or is available to the states.
I think that this was a catastrophic natural disaster that we all know is going to take some time to -- for the Gulf Coast to recover. And there are a lot of good people in the Gulf Coast Office led by Don Powell, working with the states and the local governments. You know, this is a combined effort, combined effort with the private sector involved as well to rebuild New Orleans and the whole Gulf Coast region.
But these sort of things are going to take -- they're going to take some time.
---
Update #2: Check out
Shelley Midura's diary on Kos!Labels: Bush, Cons, Federal Flood, levees
34 Comments:
Shelly ... Bush can't read.
Well said, Shelley. Bravo.
Wow. Whoa.
I'm stunned. This lady should be mayor.
If I were Mayor of New Orleans, I would say what Shelly has said here to every reporter I meet, ever federal official I meet and every taxi cab driver from Detroit I meet until I was blue in the face. Instead, New Orleans is cursed with a mayor who would rather talk of exploding economic pies and crime as a positive branding tool. Why can't Ray Nagin just go away and let somebody else present the city's case to the rest of the country. Shelly's letter is right on. Unfortunately, I have a feeling she's not fielding as many national press requests as C. Ray.
I wonder how much these points and language are shaped by the ongoing discussion tossed around the local internets over the past two years... and if this may be an indicator that the discussion does in some small way affect the politics...
..not that I'd be too thrilled about such a thing..
That lady makes me want to stand up and cheer like I'm at a damn Saints game.
"I think that this was catastrophic natural disaster..."
Bullshit bullshit BULL SHIT.
Shelley for prez!!!!!
Goddammit why isn't there a city-wide march scheduled for tomorrow... that I'm aware of.
This is just... I'm just... fuck these muthas!!
Shelly is right on point. I think she's right when she suggests that young people moving here to make a difference feel a sense of patriotism and duty to country that somehow our own American President does not.
Instead, you have to wonder if Bush sees us down here as more of a political problem, a pain in the ass, than as a patriotic national obligation.
I have to say, there is no political leader in New Orleans that I see standing up for us and what is right with both smarts and passion like Shelly does. Good riddance to Oliver, the New Orleans Politician 1.0. I'm hoping Shelly is the 2.0 version, along with some of the other new Councilpeople.
My second comment.. obviously.. refers to the update.
**waving hands in air**
YAY SHELLY!
bush has 2 brain cells left and they are fighting each other.
i abhor that man.
i can't stand listening to him talk; he sounds like a dumb-ass who can't pronouce things correctly. i mean, listen to him. his sentences don't even make any sense. it's just a bunch of words that literally don't mean anything or answer the question.
embarassing.
I second that motion: Midura for mayor.
Damn! She sounds like a friggin' blogger!
I'll just reiterate my objections to Midura's letter (particularly because I know I won't get banned here).
Midura is a partisan, which is fine -- I'm a partisan too. However, if she's trying to change minds or otherwise accomplish something besides whipping her base up into a frenzy with this letter, she has failed miserably.
First of all, she overemphasizes the responsibility of the federal government and downplays the failures of the state and local government, which most would agree are *more* significant. She even blames the president for not providing more oversight of spending, which I read as an implicit admission that local officials have dropped the ball, regardless of her claim that they've done their part. After all, if local officials have stepped up, then why is greater federal oversight needed? And why haven't local officials applied for the grants and spent the money that's been allocated?
Secondly, the comparison to the Iraq War is likewise off-putting and also off-base. Iraq is a foreign policy issue that involves different concerns. It's also a far larger country, and per capita US spending there has been far, far less than has been spent in New Orleans. Even if Iraq is somehow ripe for comparison, Midura doesn't make the case -- she assumes it because her intent clearly isn't to change minds.
Finally, Midura can mock deregulation and tax cuts all she wants (as she does on Kos), but the fact remains that taxes are far too high in Louisiana and particularly in New Orleans; this was true before the storm, and it's been hampering the region's economy for decades. The city loses population to Atlanta, Houston and Dallas because companies won't move here and professionals can get more for their money elsewhere. If what Midura is proposing is a continuance of the same with regards to the size of government and the level of taxation, she isn't proposing anything positive for this city.
Whew! Sorry for the long comment.
About the taxes comment, are these other cities having to deal with La.'s sacred cow homestead exemption? Between that and how so much property in N.O. is church-owned or an educational institution's, not to mention years of grossly inaccurate assessments it's just a fact that the city has been and is hamstrung. Right-wingers always talk about lower taxes but somehow you still have to have a way to pay for things you need such as streets, drainage, water, garbage pickup, police and fire protection, EMS, schools, libraries, parks and parkways and what have you. Would you really prefer to live somewhere where there are none of these things for which we rely on government but there are no taxes, either? Other places do have a different method and, yes, La. should change on this but every time someone has the courage to propose real reform the conservatives are the ones who go nuts and try to block it.
Also, how do "most agree" that the failures of state and local govt.'s are more significant than the federal govt.'s failure? The Corps of Engineers is responsible for the levees, period, full stop. Also, don't forget MR-GO. How is that one a failure of local govt.? The only long-term real solution has to involve a NATIONAL catastrophe fund, a full federal commitment to the strongest levee protection and the same for coastal restoration.
Besides that, please don't ignore what Midura has highlighted in terms of what we are doing locally on our own, e.g. levee board and property assessment reform.
The comparison to Iraq is very appropriate in that since the U.S. bombed it the U.S. very ought to rebuild it (although it's much more likely that giving Halliburton the work has been the motivation rather than any sense of propriety). The federally designed, built and maintained levees failed and so the responsibility has to be squarely on the federal level.
Midura at least has facts to back up her assertions. If she does not change minds it's probably because those minds were already closed, regardless of the facts.
anonymous,
Other cities just plain don't have as much tax overall. New Orleans has a 9% sales tax, which is extremely high, benefits from a state income tax, which isn't present in Texas or Florida, and has the highest property tax rates in the state. The homestead exemption is high in Louisiana, but then again, other taxes clearly pick up the slack.
Surrounding states have far lower tax rates, and yet they're still able to pay for "streets, drainage, water, garbage pickup, police and fire protection, EMS, schools, libraries, parks and parkways and what have you." So why does New Orleans need these astronomical taxes? And why are city services so abjectly awful despite the higher tax rates?
And don't blame conservatives for this. Democrats have controlled the Louisiana legislature since the 1870's. The governor is currently a Democrat. Conservatives are not, and have never, controlled the economic agenda of this state. This debacle is exclusively the creation of the left in this state.
anonymous,
With regards to the responsibility of the federal government, I was actually speaking more towards the responsibility for actually managing the recovery. I would argue that most people would agree that state and local officials should actually be responsible for managing recovery funds, which they have failed to do properly. Consequently, billions have been wasted and billions remain unspent. The state's administration of the Road Home program, for example, has been abysmal.
Local responsibility for the levees is also manifest. First of all, the state has had a massive construction budget, but has never chosen to dedicate any significant portion of it to improving the levees. Secondly, the New Orleans Levee Board, which is responsible for local oversight, was corrupt, asleep at the wheel, and wasted money. Given that the Flood Protection Act explicitly exempts the federal government from any liability for any failure of the levees, one would think that the levee board would have been more watchful.
As for Iraq, the comparison is still weak. We didn't bomb the bejezzus out of Iraq; it was in shambles primarily because of the economic degradation that took plack under Saddam's rule. In any case, Midura wasn't arguing that both Iraq and New Orleans are a federal responsibility -- she was arguing that we're spending too much in Iraq and too little in New Orleans. As I've tried to show, this argument is weak at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.
I'll just reiterate my objections to Midura's letter (particularly because I know I won't get banned here).
Midura is a partisan, which is fine -- I'm a partisan too. However, if she's trying to change minds or otherwise accomplish something besides whipping her base up into a frenzy with this letter, she has failed miserably.
-------------
Her primary objective was to hold Bush and his administration accountable for their often used "110, 114, and 116" billion dollar figures they like to throw around without context which they put out as an indication of their dedication to post-Katrina recovery. The message that sends to the country is the one you are trying to send: that the feds have met their responsibility, but we are so stupid locally that we don't know how to spend over a hundred billion dollars.
The truth is that most of that money was spent immediately after the storm for emergency relief operations and that only about a third of the total allocation is for actual recovery and rebuilding and that small amount is wrapped in federal red tape and restrictions that Bush will not alleviate. And the modest $150 million amount for city operations came in the form of a loan that no other city has ever been asked to pay back after a disaster in modern history.
The point is that Bush and the feds still hold responsibility over effective administration of the funds because they are making it inordinately difficult to rebuild with federal funds. If you want to make that partisan, then frankly you are an idiot.
------------
First of all, she overemphasizes the responsibility of the federal government and downplays the failures of the state and local government, which most would agree are *more* significant. She even blames the president for not providing more oversight of spending, which I read as an implicit admission that local officials have dropped the ball, regardless of her claim that they've done their part. After all, if local officials have stepped up, then why is greater federal oversight needed? And why haven't local officials applied for the grants and spent the money that's been allocated?
---------
Most would agree state and local failures were more significant than the failure of the federal levees? ARE YOU A MORON?
And she does not blame Bush for inadequate oversight in terms of need for regulation. She is asking him to cut the red tape. If you want to spin that as a request for oversight, go ahead. But it's dishonest and calls everything else you have to say into question.
We need more federal "oversight" in terms of cutting red tape. You think we are so damn backwards Louisiana redneck blacky stupid down here that we don't know to apply for federal grants? You think we are so stupid that we don't know how to spend money. Well fuck you.
-------------
Secondly, the comparison to the Iraq War is likewise off-putting and also off-base. Iraq is a foreign policy issue that involves different concerns. It's also a far larger country, and per capita US spending there has been far, far less than has been spent in New Orleans. Even if Iraq is somehow ripe for comparison, Midura doesn't make the case -- she assumes it because her intent clearly isn't to change minds.
----------
It's off-putting and off-base to YOU because you support the moronic War in Iraq and oppose rebuilding the American city of New Orleans.
Secondly, the money allocated is not just for New Orleans you dumb piece of shit, it's for the entire Gulf region that was affected by Katrina and Rita. It's several million people.
Thirdly, if you want to do the per capita math, New Orleans population is estimated at 275,000. We have thus far spent $185 million in FEMA reimbursements and $150 million in Community Disaster LOANS. That works out to $1,218 per New Orleanian in federal aid.
If the population of Iraq is 27 million and we have spent $455 billion on the war in Iraq thus far, that works out to $16,851 per Iraqi.
You fucking dumbass.
-----------
Finally, Midura can mock deregulation and tax cuts all she wants (as she does on Kos), but the fact remains that taxes are far too high in Louisiana and particularly in New Orleans; this was true before the storm, and it's been hampering the region's economy for decades. The city loses population to Atlanta, Houston and Dallas because companies won't move here and professionals can get more for their money elsewhere. If what Midura is proposing is a continuance of the same with regards to the size of government and the level of taxation, she isn't proposing anything positive for this city.
-----
What is it like having a pea sized brain to go with your baby mushroom shaped penis?
The millage is high because property assessments were uneven. People with $3 million homes were being assessed at $500,000. Their millage might be high, but their actual property tax bill was ridiculously low.
-----
Whew! Sorry for the long comment.
No problem! Fuck you very much!
The FEDERAL responsibility for levee protection has been ongoing since the Civil War and most especially since the 1927 floods. The notion that somehow this is a really a state responsibility is just totally idiotic.
southern leftist,
The truth is that most of that money was spent immediately after the storm for emergency relief operations and that only about a third of the total allocation is for actual recovery and rebuilding and that small amount is wrapped in federal red tape and restrictions that Bush will not alleviate.
Like what? If Midura asserts that red tape is holding up funding, she doesn't say what restrictions are responsible. Moreover, if all "red tape" is eliminated, you'll encourage fraud. According to the GAO, approximately a billion dollars of emergency aid -- 16 percent of the total -- was lost to fraudulent claims.
And if you mean simply applying for grants, I don't see why New Orleans or the state would be incapable of filling out grant applications. Perhaps it's because, as Ed Blakely claims, we aren't even prepared to spend it at this planning stage -- or perhaps city officials just need to get on the ball.
And the modest $150 million amount for city operations came in the form of a loan that no other city has ever been asked to pay back after a disaster in modern history.
Agreed. President Bush definitely shouldn't require the community disaster loans to be repaid. If Midura had stuck with this argument (and Bush's controversial impending veto of levee funding), she might have impacted the discourse.
And she does not blame Bush for inadequate oversight in terms of need for regulation. She is asking him to cut the red tape.
The study Midura relied on argues for greater oversight. If Midura doesn't agree with that conclusion, and still feels that local officials are doing their part, she ought to explain why. I should have made that part more clear; I was mistakenly conflating the study with Midura's letter.
It's off-putting and off-base to YOU because you support the moronic War in Iraq and oppose rebuilding the American city of New Orleans.
That's not true. I support both, although both have been horribly mismanaged.
Thirdly, if you want to do the per capita math, New Orleans population is estimated at 275,000. We have thus far spent $185 million in FEMA reimbursements and $150 million in Community Disaster LOANS. That works out to $1,218 per New Orleanian in federal aid.
If the population of Iraq is 27 million and we have spent $455 billion on the war in Iraq thus far, that works out to $16,851 per Iraqi.
That math isn't right; you're using the community disaster loans and FEMA reimbursements as the total amount spent on New Orleans, when it clearly isn't.
A valid comparison would be to take the portion of the reconstruction budget that has been allocated to New Orleans (I don't know what that figure is precisely) and compare it to the total reconstruction budget in Iraq. This would reveal a much larger amount of per capita spending in New Orleans than Iraq. However, taking a grand total for Iraq while hand-picking two small figures for New Orleans isn't an accurate basis for comparison.
The millage is high because property assessments were uneven.
I know all about this. The problem is that, even if assessments were proper and millages were dropped, the city and state still have a high overall level of taxation, one that far exceeds Texas, Florida, Arkasas, Alabama -- any other state in the region. Louisiana currently ranks 17th in the nation overall in terms of the state and local tax burden, according to the Tax Foundation. In 2005, when Katrina struck, we had reached a high point with a ranking of 6th.
On the other hand, Florida ranks 38th, Texas ranks 43nd, Mississippi ranks 29th, Georgia ranks 32nd, and Alabama ranked 46th. Only Arkansas ranks higher at 13th, largely the result of recent increases by Mike Hukabee.
But just ask anyone who has moved to Louisiana from a nearby state. Ask what their take-home pay is compared to where they lived before. Ask what their sales taxes were in their home town (9% is very high, especially when there's already a state income tax). There is a difference.
Well fuck you. . . . You fucking dumbass. . . . Fuck you very much!
I've tried to take you seriously in spite of these profane comments and other assorted insults, which you hurl from safety behind a wall of anonymity. I would appreciate it if you would be civil in the future; otherwise there's no point in discussing anything with you.
anonymous,
The federal responsibility for building levels was established under the Flood Control Act, although it was understood that local dollars could and would be used in conjunction with federal monies to maintain them. Moreover, much of the responsibility for oversight was placed with local levee boards. Finally, the Flood Control Act contained a conspicuous "buyer beware" provision -- essentially leaving the Army Corps of Engineers without any liability.
Given these facts, the failure of local officials to fund local levee improvements and to properly inspect the levees was a major cause of what happened when Katrina struck.
Owen,
I apologize. Seriously.
I think you are a jackass. But I think I also responded as an angry jackass. My momma raised me better than that.
I do not think we can have a productive dialog though. You basically interrupted a memorial service for our city. You walked in on a group of family members gathered at a gravesite commemorating the greatest single day of loss in our lives and you picked a fight on that sacred day. And I got pissed and lashed out. Maybe you can understand that. Or maybe not.
Again, apologies. But that's about all I can muster from myself to say to you.
"You walked in on a group of family members gathered at a gravesite commemorating the greatest single day of loss in our lives and you picked a fight on that sacred day."
Bingo. And that's why I don't want you to play in my sandbox any more.
ashley,
You post a very politically-charged letter, allow numerous people to offer their own kudos for said letter, and then you have the gall to claim that I violated something sacred by questioning it? If you don't want a political discussion, you shouldn't post approvingly political writings. It sends very mixed messages when you behave outwardly political on the anniversary of Katrina and then bash others for being doing the same.
It wasn't as if you posted a heartful prayer on the anniversary of Katrina and I responded with partisan vitriol. Quite the opposite -- You posted a letter attacking President Bush and I challenged it. You have no basis for questioning the propriety of what I said; it was civil and pertinent to what you yourself had posted.
southern leftist,
The same argument basically applies. Midura's letter posted on a weblog does not in any way equate with a "group of family members gathered at a gravesite." It was a partisan attack on the president, and I simply responded to it. When something political is posted, it invites political debate.
To put it another way, imagine if a right-wing blogger from New York posted one of Bush's recent speeches boosting the War in Iraq and condemning its detractors on September 11th -- the anniversary of the attacks on the twin towers. Would you honestly say that it would inappropriate for another New Yorker opposed to the war to come out and respond to the president's speech in a calm, civil manner?
It is a FACT that the Corps of Engineers admits to faulty DESIGN of the hurricane protection levees which is in no way a local responsibility. http://www.levees.org/research/sources/nytimes1.htm
See also: http://www.levees.org/research/sources/gao%20Testimony.pdf
regarding the 1965 Flood Protection Act.
Local levee boards have no access to federal funds and no responsibility for design and construction. It's all Corps of Engineers, i.e. FEDERAL. Assertions to the contrary are BS.
anonymous,
There is no doubt that the Army Corps of Engineers designed and constructed the levees. However, the New Orleans Levee Board was responsible for inspection and maintinence. Investigations have shown that the levee board's inspections were completely inadequate.
Moreover, the levee board frequently misspent its budget, which could have gone to levee improvements. In fact, most of levee board's budget has been going to projects other than flood control.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9342186/
In my eyes, the levee board must shoulder a considerable portion of the blame for what happened.
Let's see...if we the locals and our local levee boards somehow (mistakenly) thought that we could place trust in the Corps' design and construction, which, let's please all agree, is their responsibility and no one else's, of the levees then somehow that totally absolves the Corps and any Federal aspect and also makes it completely OK if Bush crawfishes out of his promises as made on national tv, even though the levees' failure was indeed on account of poor design and construction, is that right?
anonymous,
No, the Corps of Engineers still bears a great deal of the blame as well. However, there was no real reason to blindly trust the Corps. As I noted, the Flood Protection Act contains full immunity for the Corps vis-a-vis the levees. The local levee board, which was supposed to inspect and oversee, barely did either. Accordingly, there's a clear case of divided fault.
All of that is precisely why Midura's letter is spot-on and also why a right-winger should be not be surprised at whatever angry reaction that they receive in disputing the Midura letter, which BTW was hardly political at all inasmuch is that the main point was "Mr. President, please keep your promises..." and nowhere in it was there anything about Republican or Democrat. It's very sad and disheartening how so many are now looking for every angle to justify the Federal govt. not keeping the promise regarding recovery but rather letting New Orleans die on the vine. That there was clearly a FEDERAL aspect of the levees' failure should be abundantly clear, thus there is clearly a FEDERAL responsibility as regards recovery and as Bush promised. All Midura is pointing out is that that commitment has NOT been met and if we can be so very committed to rebuilding a foreign country which we invaded and occupied on very tenuous premises why the heck can't we keep our commitment to a genuine U.S. city. One suspects that at least part of the answer -- I am saying this; Midura did not -- is that that city has long been a bastion of support for Democrats and is filled with lots of people such as minorities and liberals, i.e. not Bush's constituency.
anonymous,
Here's the history: After the federal floods of 1927, the federal government decided to design and build levees for certain communities that need them. Before, this had been a state and local responsibility. However, there was concern that the federal government would be seen as making guarantees as to the performance of the levees. I'm certain that many representatives from districts that didn't require any levee protection were concerned that the federal government would suddenly be taking on a massive obligation to protect the small percentage of inhabited land that did require it.
Accordingly, a compromise was reached. The levees were build with a distinct "buyer beware" type provision -- the federal government made clear that it would not be responsible for a penny of damage if any of its levees failed. It would be responsible for building them, but it would not be responsible for whether they worked or not.
Therefore, when you try to make the federal government "responsible," you have to remember two things: 1) the federal government is in no way legally responsible for the failure of the levees, and 2) any moral responsibility the federal government bears is tempered by the fact that local officials knew that the Army Corps of Engineers made no warranties concerning the levees, and yet still were asleep at the wheel when it came to inspections and overseeing construction. In other words, local officials bear a huge part of the blame. They knew the score; they ignored the risks.
In any case, Midura's letter is indisputably political. I could go on and on as to why. It attacks President Bush in particular while making no criticism of Democrats in the House who have doomed funding to the Gulf Coast in the past by intentionally tying it to Iraq pullout legislation. It makes a comparison to Iraq without explaining the basis for it. Even your characterization of Midura's letter is political -- "if we can be so very committed to rebuilding a foreign country which we invaded and occupied on very tenuous premises why the heck can't we keep our commitment to a genuine U.S. city" -- You don't think that's political?
As for New Orleans being Democratic and therefore ignored by Bush, I think you're grasping at straws. Bush has dedicated a great deal of money to New Orleans already; much of the current problems arise from local officials either misspending it, or not placing themselves in a position to spend it.
No, local officials are NOT responsible for construction; ONLY the Corps is. See http://www.levees.org/factsheet
This is all right-wing fantasy.
However and unfortunately, until this current administration is gone and unless and until Democrats take control of the White House and stronger control of Congress, which might happen but is no lock either, one suspects that prospects are not good given that this current administration, while they wil offer up lip service, can be expected by the actions or inaction to attend to their main constituency which is crying up a river about spending on New Orleans' recovery while not saying the same about a bona fide "runaway" situation in Iraq (a venture which has done little to improve U.S. national security and more likely has actually hurt it a good deal).
Stick to the facts. The figure that Bush quotes as a total disbursement is misleading; only a small amount, a small fraction of that, has actually been disbursed at the federal level for RECOVERY (not talking about the immediate aftermath but longer term need here) and even that has been tremendously wrapped up in red tape.
How is it wrong, how is it unjust to ask that the red tape be cut? That the promises be kept? That the commitment for the best levee protection be fulfilled? Even the hardworking individuals and business owners who are not lazy or corrupt (Midura's district is no bastion of liberals, rest assured on that) but who are only looking to have legit needs addressed that their insurance won't -- and let's please not fantasize that insurance companies have been anything other downright evil in this whole episode -- need to know and get a sense of solid commitment rather than the lip service and waivering that's the been the story up to now.
That's not political. No way, however why should we think Bush cares when we know as a whole we in New Orleans are not his main constituency and we also know what his main constituency is screaming about?
anonymous,
I never *said* that local officials were responsible for construction; I said they were responsible for inspections, maintinance, and oversight.
Again, I'm hearing about dispersements being held up by "red tape." What red tape? You can't gauge whether the requirements are reasonable and easy to comply with, or onerous and unecessary, unless at least a general description of this "red tape" is given. For all I know (and I suspect this is true) local and state officials have simply been lax in applying for fully-funded grants.
You try and act as if this isn't political, which is simply sticking your head in the sand. Even if you're right, you're still arguing a political issue and trying to assign partisan blame. I don't see the vitriol against the Democratic House for tying reconstruction dollars to Iraq War pullout legislation -- a cheap political trick that cost this city billions. No, all I see are expecations that the Democrats, despite doing little more than using Katrina as a bludgeon against the president, are going to sweep in and make everything better. Sorry, I just don't see it that way, and THAT'S political.
A previous post most certainly did use the words "overseeing construction." That is simply wrong. Now, did the levees fail ONLY because they deteriorated over time and were not maintained? NO...the design and construction, for which the Corps and the Corps alone are responsible, were the main problems, as the Corps themselves have admitted, along with the MR-GO acting as a funnel for storm surge. And the MR-GO was a Corps item completely. Again see levees.org.
All this tripe trying to hang the main responsibility on local levee boards is a right wing myth just like this notion that somehow every individual in New Orleans is lazy, foolish and trying to perpetrate a scam rather than address legit needs when their insurance is screwing them over.
Should Congress not have tied recovery legislation with Iraq legislation? OK, a wrong move there but that's not the topic here. Midura is spot-on. Bush needs to cut the red tape, make the fullest commitment to levee protection and coastal restoration so that we can have assurance of a future and quit pretending, as he has, that the levees are already OK and that all this funding has already gone out for recovery, which it hasn't.
Even if poorly designed and constructed floodwalls are perfectly "maintained", that has limited to no bearing on whether or not they will fail.
Thanks for the lively discussion owen and anon.
