Well, that bit them in the ass, didn't it?

September 4, 2005 12:10 PM

"I'm sure the thugs at OMB are happily gnawing on Mike Parker's bones." Mike Parker, the former head of the Army Corps of Engineers from 2001-2002, was forced to retire because he vocally criticized Bush administration plans to cut funding for their anti-flooding projects. Here's a bit of Mike Parker's testimony from a Senate Budget Committee meeting in 2002, shortly before he was forced to resign: "After being in the administration and dealing with them, I still don't have warm and fuzzy feelings for them. I'm hoping that OMB (White House Office of Management and Budget) understands we're at the beginning of the process. If the corps is limited in what it does for the American people, there will be a negative impact." So, what is he saying now about what would've happened had New Orleans recieved proper funding? "Levees would have been higher, levees would have been bigger, there would have been other pumps put in. I'm not saying it would have been totally alleviated but it would have been less than the damage that we have got now."
posted by insomnia_lj (21 comments total)

From the second link:
Environmentalists have termed both projects "boondoggles."
"It's a great day for taxpayers and the environment," said Louie Miller, legislative director for the Mississippi Sierra Club.

So if the projects went through and there was no Katrina, would we be seeing another "Bush shows no regard for the the environment" post here?
posted by shoos at 12:43 PM on September 4, 2005

So if the projects went through and there was no Katrina, would we be seeing another "Bush shows no regard for the the environment" post here?
posted by shoos at 3:43 PM EST on September 4 [!]

Perhaps, but to throw another strawman back at you, no one died when Clinton lied. Does awareness of environmental issues cause mass deaths and chaos?
posted by Rothko at 12:48 PM on September 4, 2005

I saw this guy on CNN the other night. He seems to hate the OMB, he was ranting about the OMB while the anchor was trying to shut him up.

Is the OMB controlled by the White house? I thought it was part of Congress. Obviously, if its a white-house thing that could be a problem. But without the OMB, my understanding is that congress could make up any numbers it wanted to, willy-nilly. The OMB keeps the congress grounded in reality.

This isn't a question of procedure it's a question of priorities

From what I understand, the work that would have been done from 2003-2004 was work on the Mississippi levees, so it wouldn't have done anything to prevent this particular disaster (which was all related to the lake).

New Orleans could have been hardened, but I'm sure while everyone 'knew it was coming' they all thought "in the next 20-30 years" not "in the next 20-30 months"
posted by delmoi at 12:50 PM on September 4, 2005

Thank god the choir showed up to clarify the situation.
posted by shoos at 12:50 PM on September 4, 2005

When you vote for people that believe that government is incapable of doing any good, you get a government that is incapable of any good.

So us Americans got exactly what we deserved here: FEMA is a joke of epically tragic proportions under the "it's not our job" Republican federal government. Something like Corp engineering projects for natural disasters are immediately seen as a waste of money by those in charge, and thus are slashed. Under current Republican practice, there is not even a point in studying the individual projects: the ideology dictates that such things at the federal level are wrong. Don't even bother with specifics.

What people should realize is that ideologies have real-world implications. In this case, the idea that a federal government should be crippled leads to many excess, preventable deaths.

Remember that the next time at the ballot box.
posted by teece at 12:56 PM on September 4, 2005

Thank you teece.
posted by stbalbach at 1:02 PM on September 4, 2005

"From what I understand, the work that would have been done from 2003-2004 was work on the Mississippi levees"

Nope. There have also been major delays and underfunding of the projects regarding the lake, too. They are seperate projects, both going on at the same time, but they are also complementary as well, especially when you're talking about things like pumping capacity, levee maintenance, etc.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:06 PM on September 4, 2005

Where were Louisiana's Representatives and Senators when Mike Parker was raising this stink? Bush deserves some heat, no doubt, but the responsibility for funding projects begins in Congress.

"[T]he idea that a federal government should be crippled" is built into the Constitution.
posted by mischief at 1:12 PM on September 4, 2005

I don't think anyone here would defend the idea that rivers should just flood uncontrollably. You need to protect cities too, even as you try to maintain the natural balance.

In the city where I live, the answer to the flooding problems was simple enough... make the river area wider, remove housing from those areas that routinely flooded, and use proper landscaping projects to protect the area... and yes, some levees, as needed. The end result has actually been a healthier river area, with more wildlife.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:13 PM on September 4, 2005

"[T]he idea that a federal government should be crippled" is built into the Constitution.

I'm no constitution scholar, but I disagree wholeheartedly with that. For example, the existence of the bill of rights suggested that the people who put it in place were implying that it would be possible to maintain and enforce those rights. Similarly, the point that congress can make laws, implicitly enforceable ones, and one could imagine that a benevolent congress could in theory exist, and could then write laws which would be helpful.

However anyone willing to take up your point will have all sorts of rich concerns off in the wings willing to cover you on it. It's a popular idea with the libertarian/hard currency/flat tax/ wack jobs.
posted by nervousfritz at 1:18 PM on September 4, 2005

"[T]he idea that a federal government should be crippled" is built into the Constitution.

"Limited" and "crippled" aren't the same thing. Well, not to everyone, anyway.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:31 PM on September 4, 2005

I saw this guy on CNN the other night. He seems to hate the OMB, he was ranting about the OMB while the anchor was trying to shut him up.

It has been quite telling, across the board, to see the reporters and officials on the ground of the gulf coast being outraged at the enormity of the problems and failure to respond while the news anchors at bureau headquarters and the editorialists of Washington, DC newspapers call for everyone to "be reasonable."
posted by deanc at 1:32 PM on September 4, 2005

Major error, there, mischief.

As others have said, limited does not equal crippled. Only to current Republican (and perhaps Libertarian) ideology does that make sense.

Republicans, with glee, hamstring federal agencies when they get the chance. They don't deny that the role the agency played is needed, they just always shift that responsibly somewhere else, usually a vague, nebulous, and unaccountable somewhere else.

The end result of that is a crippling. FEMA experienced such a crippling in 2001-2005. It was not a "limiting." It was a crippling. The difference is huge, and the difference kills people when an agency like FEMA is crippled, silently, and absolutely nothing is done to replace that function somewhere else.
posted by teece at 2:04 PM on September 4, 2005

The federal government is limited, yes. But not limited in disaster relief. One of the main points is to 'provide for the common defense'. I don't think many people would consider natural disaster relief outside of that scope.
posted by delmoi at 2:06 PM on September 4, 2005

"[T]he idea that a federal government should be crippled" is built into the Constitution.

Is that "drown it in the bathtub" line in there, too? 'Cause I really haven't read it, lately.
posted by docgonzo at 2:13 PM on September 4, 2005

How do you explain that one of the levees that was funded failed?
posted by ParisParamus at 5:40 PM on September 4, 2005

irrelevant question.
posted by zoogleplex at 5:47 PM on September 4, 2005

Hey, look who's back! That was a mighty short hiatus; I (and I'm sure others) thought you'd quit MF for keeps.

Anyhoo, that funded-but-failed levee there -- is that the same round of funding we're talking about? I thought that the levee was due to have additional work on it but the funding got cut. If that's incorrect, can you point me to the relevant detail?
posted by alumshubby at 6:09 PM on September 4, 2005

Crippled? Limited? Rhetoric.
posted by mischief at 6:14 PM on September 4, 2005

Crippled? Limited? Rhetoric.

Very postmodern of you, mischief. If you're not just being a smart ass, then there's no point in any communication, if all words are fungible.
posted by teece at 6:19 PM on September 4, 2005

How do you explain that one of the levees that was funded failed?

Do you have a point to make?

That was a mighty short hiatus; I (and I'm sure others) thought you'd quit MF for keeps.

PP must get paid to keep comming back and handwave about. *yawn*

But like so much of what the government funds, PP isn't worth what was paid for.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:10 PM on September 4, 2005