$200 billion government bribe for New Orleans

[Mr. Harley]

DanS - this is scary, but I am agreeing with you on this one. Not only from the economic standpoint, which some other posters have challenged with valid though different viewpoints. From a purely scientific standpoint.

I know some of this has been posted in other threads. Some of it hasn't. The environmental degredation of the Mississippi delta makes rebuilding New Orleans as a population center madness. One acre of the delta disappears every 24 minutes, roughly 25-30 square miles a year. Each mile that is lost makes the city more vulnerable. Add in the damn Nutria, a introduced South American rodent that is helping destroy the wetlands and that we have not been able to control - and it's a fool's errand.

Someone just completed a study that over the last ten or so years while the worldwide number of hurricanes have not increased - the number of category 4 and 5 ones has doubled. That makes rebuidling insane. A seperate analysis I heard said that for every something like $2 of damage due to global warming - coastal development, i.e. building where the hurricane will destroy it, causes $20-60 of damage. I wish I had the cite, I'm know I'm off but I am in the general vicinity. My folks come from the White and Wabash River Basins. NOBODY in my family buys a house that is in a flat area along a river - we know it's STUPID.

The same applies for coastal development. It's economically foolish, scientifically stupid, and damages the environment (both due to attempts to protect the development as well as due to the actual building itself). That's lose - lose - lose. DanS is correct on this one, and wishing it away with 200 billion dollars is only pissing money away in a toilet. Like trying to build a western-style democracy in a land where Sharia is revered (trying reading the basics of Sharia before you disagree). Wishful thinking only wastes money.
edited to clarify a sentence

[Ted Striker]

What about restoring the delta? Or is that just impossible?


I don't think I've heard any discussion on letting the delta rebuild itself. Normally natural wetlands can recuperate by themselves if whatever manmade source of their demise is removed.

[Mr. Harley]

Ted - they were going to build a bypass canal someday, tentatively in the next decade that might have helped. They haven't even started on it yet except studies... Plus, the Nutria are stripping out the marsh grass, and unless something can be done about even that might not save the delta. Google them and you will so how hideous a problem they have become.

DanS has made a very succinct point. However, he does not go far enough. As I've mentioned in the past, the rest of Florida and it's either Mississippi or Alabama are forced to pay for the insurance on people's coastal developement (it's a "surcharge" everybody pays). So of course they build there because they get this beautiful scenery, cool breezes, and they don't need to worry about the fact that the life expectency of the structure is well under 50 years.

In the past, for example at Martha's Vineyard, people built bungalows on the beach. Up there one primary use was as summertime retreats for the rich. The rich understood that the vagaries of weather could destroy these structures, and thus built something they could afford to have destroyed by the weather. You also had regular fishermen and those working the docks also building on the coast, just like in most American cities the poor ended up shunted into the less desirable, i.e. less safe areas.

In addition these same coastal (and riverfront) areas that have been developed have often had to be drained of water to make them suit for building. Fetid swamps. The problem is that the aforementioned swamps are the nurseries for much of our aquatic life, and you can see another reason fisheries are on the wane - we both overharvest the adult fish while polluting their environment and destroying their nurseries. I don't believe that it take rocket science to predict the result.

Finally, with the property rights movement, so-called, etc. you are not going to see any kind of sanity in the area of coastal development anytime soon. One coworker who is much closer to Drake than to you or I stated that he would impose a simple rule - the federal goverment only pays for one rebuild, ever. After that you get your own insurance privately. If you cannot find an insurance company that will "affordably" insure you, maybe you should get the message. That is a different way of phrasing DanS message, and he is correct IMHO. Though as I noted other posters correctly made some different arguments economically. The problem is that the science, with warming of the Gulf Waters, and the deterioration of the Delta pretty much gives DanS economics the win.

[Adam Smith]

Heeeere piggy piggy piggy....

From the front page of today's WASHINGTON POST:
Louisiana Goes After Federal Billions

By Michael Grunwald and Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 26, 2005; Page A01

Louisiana's congressional delegation has requested $40 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, about 10 times the annual Corps budget for the entire nation, or 16 times the amount the Corps has said it would need to protect New Orleans from a Category 5 hurricane.

Louisiana Sens. David Vitter (R) and Mary Landrieu (D) tucked the request into their $250 billion Hurricane Katrina Disaster Relief and Economic Recovery Act, the state's opening salvo in the scramble for federal dollars.

The bill, unveiled last week, would create a powerful "Pelican Commission" controlled by Louisiana residents that would decide which Corps projects to fund, and ordered the commission to consider several controversial navigation projects that have nothing to do with flood protection. The Corps section of the Louisiana bill, which was supported by the entire state delegation, was based on recommendations from a "working group" dominated by lobbyists for ports, shipping firms, energy companies and other corporate interests.

The bill would exempt any Corps projects approved by the commission from provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. It would also waive the usual Corps cost-sharing requirements, ensuring that federal taxpayers would pay every dime.
...
the Louisiana delegation's $250 billion bill would cost more than the Louisiana Purchase under the Jefferson administration on an inflation-adjusted basis.
....

The overall Corps budget for fiscal 2005 was $4 billion, and Corps officials have estimated that they could upgrade the New Orleans flood protection system to defend against a Category 5 storm for about $2.5 billion.

"This bill boggles the mind," said Steve Ellis, a water resources expert at Taxpayers for Common Sense. "Brazen doesn't begin to describe it. The Louisiana delegation is using Katrina as an excuse to resurrect a laundry list of pork projects."



All of this on top of the big $$$ Transportation and Energy bills of a couple of months ago, which were hugely beneficial for Louisiana. This is about the best ammunition I could imagine for people who want to "starve the beast". If advocates of government spending expect to be taken seriously, they had better knock this down by a factor of at least 10.

[Dinner]

Spend you politicians! Spend! I need another $37 billion!

[Colonâ„¢]

I'm really glad we have a European Stability and Growth Pact around here.

[DanS]

"Brazen doesn't begin to describe it. The Louisiana delegation is using Katrina as an excuse to resurrect a laundry list of pork projects."

Hey, welcome to Louisiana. The dirtiest state in the Union. Gimme, gimme, gimme. That's why we are in this mess in the first place.

Hopefully, these money grubbing dirty politicians will see a backlash.

Spend you politicians! Spend! I need another $37 billion!

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
edit.....

"Neo-conservatism" is strictly a foreign policy, the idea that America should use it's might to spread liberal democracy throughout the world. It has no domestic agenda, because not all Neo-conservatives are conservatives. Thomas Friendman is a liberal (supposedly anyway, I have yet to see it). Irving Kristol is an arch conservative. Christopher Hitchens is a leftist, even if he thinks much of the left is populated by idiots (and he's not wrong). They are all Neoconservatives though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss have a dig around, google, maybe even read some real books on this guy and note that many(if not all) of the founders of the neo-conservative movement were students of Leo Strauss.
I dont think its easy in the light of the last 50years or so and the change in american domestic+foriegn policy to believe that the neo-con movement hasnt had a large+wide impact. And the price of this is coming home - we are all going to have to deal with it as best we can.

But i cant believe they have anything to do with the storms directly, much as i'd like to find

[mrmitchell]

Hey, welcome to Louisiana. The dirtiest state in the Union. Gimme, gimme, gimme. That's why we are in this mess in the first place.

DanS doesn't understand how government works...what a surprise

A congressman asks for money, and then 434 other people (with staffs that bring their totals in the many thousands) have the chance to say "hold up guys, this dude is just going to waste it"

And then on top of that, every single citizen can write a letter and talk to their representatives...

DanS are you writing letters about this?

[DanS]

I know how government works in Louisiana. This is the state that brought us such gems as Huey Long.

Besides, you're wrong that every single citizen can talk to his representative. I don't have a representative, but rather a delegate who has no say on whether New Orleans is fed at the federal government trough.

[mrmitchell]

Okay, every single citizen outside DC, which is definitely a great example of federal money being used to build a local economy...

You have family in Ohio that can voice your concerns. You can talk with your delegate and he probably has buddies in the House. Or you can move...or better yet start a movement to give DC a representative. If you guys really wanted one, by now you would have one.

As the bumper sticker says, "stop b*tching and start a revolution," man.

[DanS]

This is such a crock of ****. Just vote the bastards out if they vote for this. Next year. DeLay is particularly retarded.

GOP Leaders Try to Soothe Conservatives
Drive Planned to Defuse Ire Over Spending

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 27, 2005; Page A04

Squeezed between a conservative clamor for spending cuts and the rising cost of hurricane relief, Republican congressional leaders will respond this week with a public relations offensive to win over angry conservatives -- but no substantive changes in budget policy.

Republican lawmakers and leadership aides conceded that the wholesale budget cuts envisioned by House conservatives are not being contemplated; the Senate is moving toward approving a temporary expansion of Medicaid for hurricane survivors, estimated to cost $9 billion. Nor are GOP leaders considering tax increases.

And Hurricane Rita's blow to a politically sensitive region of Texas could add more pressure to spend.

"Many communities, faith-based entities and the state of Texas have drained assets to save lives and help with the enormous multi-state national emergency, and they will need reimbursement to avoid massive financial failures," warned Rep. Louie Gohmert, a freshman Republican whose hard-hit East Texas district was drawn with the help of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) to take it from Democratic control.

Since Hurricane Katrina struck Aug. 29, Congress has approved spending bills and tax cuts worth nearly $71 billion. An additional $5 billion in housing, education and small-business assistance cleared the Senate, even before the Medicaid bill was considered. A united Louisiana congressional delegation is seeking $250 billion more.

Republican leaders say the overall cost could be $100 billion to $200 billion. Although mindful of criticism, the leaders contend that such one-time expenditures -- albeit huge -- should not harm deficit-reduction efforts.

Prodded by conservatives, President Bush and GOP leaders have said they are willing to offset those costs with spending cuts. But realistically, the political will does not exist to vote through the cuts that have been proposed, said House leadership aides and sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. Nor have Republican leaders given serious thought to reversing course on tax cuts, lawmakers said yesterday.

"I don't see any change in fiscal policy," said Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), a former vice chairman of the Budget Committee.

The leadership has, however, felt the political sting of the recent deficit spending, which began with huge new transportation and energy bills this summer and cascaded into debt-financed hurricane relief this month. Republican leaders plan appearances this week on the syndicated radio talk shows of conservatives Sean Hannity, Tony Snow, Mike Gallagher and Lars Larson, as well as local radio and television shows, leadership aides said. DeLay set the tone in a Washington Times opinion piece yesterday.

"It is clear that the recent political discussion focusing on the government's spending priorities and overall economic platform in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita has introduced a valuable forum to promote the triumph of our ideas and solutions for government over the crumbling and outdated policies of the Democrat-controlled Congresses of past decades," he wrote.

In private meetings last week, GOP leaders sharply criticized rank-and-file Republicans for taking issue with the surge in spending, pleading instead for unity. But neither the public relations offensive nor the private upbraiding has quieted conservatives.

"This leadership group is so out of touch, it's unbelievable," said one House lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid inflaming leaders further.

GOP leadership officials say the conservatives are the ones out of touch. The hurricanes may have raised anxieties about the federal deficit, but they have pricked the conscience of a nation confronted by its own undercurrent of poverty.

Of the $509 billion in cuts proposed by the House Republican Study Committee, nearly half would come from health care for the poor. Yet Katrina knocked out eight charity hospitals in Louisiana that were helping to keep people off the Medicaid rolls, one House GOP leadership aide said.

Other targets would rekindle political battles that have already been fought and lost, such as eliminating federal support for the National Endowment for the Arts and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

"While I like their idea of offsetting things, I wonder how productive it is," said Rep. Michael N. Castle (Del.), a Republican moderate.

Further complicating such cuts is the unabated spending on defense. A House Appropriations subcommittee yesterday completed a $440 billion military spending bill for 2006 that includes $50 billion for the war in Iraq.

If anything, the pressure could be for more spending. Congress has appropriated $62.3 billion for hurricane relief operations, by far the largest sum for a natural disaster. As of yesterday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency had allocated about $18.3 billion, said House Appropriations Committee spokesman John Scofield -- $2.5 billion in the past four days, as funds were sent to prepare for Hurricane Rita.

But $44 billion remains in FEMA's disaster fund, which can be tapped for relief from either hurricane. That should be enough to push back the next hurricane relief bill until late October, and it could keep total hurricane costs to about $100 billion -- about half of early estimates, G. William Hoagland, a senior Senate budget aide, said yesterday.

But politics could intervene, lawmakers warned. Two of the House districts hardest hit by Rita are represented by freshmen Gohmert and Ted Poe, both of whom owe their seats in part to DeLay's redistricting. Leaders have encouraged the spending of federal largess in freshman districts to solidify House gains, said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), an outspoken fiscal conservative.

"We hear the rhetoric, that nobody wants earmarks, but the truth is, the leadership likes them," he said. "They like to get you hooked. They make freshmen believe they are the ticket to reelection."

[Mr. Harley]

Shawnmmcc starts the DanS project.

DanS, you are seeing now the falsehood of the cut and contract out every government function. It has it's place, like every other tool. But cutting clinics and preventative health care for the poor is penny wise and pound foolish, until and unless we are willing to let people, including children, literally die in the streets. Otherwise the indirect subsidizing it via emergency room visits and bankruptcies due to medical bills - paid for by the providers essentially - is much more expensive.

The same applies to programs like night time basketball in inner cities, run by off duty police. If you look at the reduction in juvenile crime versus the cost of their incarceration, you can see there simply are some things that government does better. We'll make a moderate of you yet.

Maybe we can state a Blue-dog moderate party.

[Ted Striker]

shawn is right, and this privitization whoring has really gotten me scared, especially when it comes to tearing out the social fabric that has been in place.

Yeah the bottom line doesn't turn a profit but who cares when it makes people better off, thus saving dollars that cannot be quantified.

[DanS]

Shawnmmcc starts the DanS project.

You start by saying that we should spend more rather than less?