Posted on 09/27/2005 7:47:37 PM PDT by liberallarry
...snip...
This is a reality visible in the numbers. Year after year, the Bush administration insisted on massive tax cuts for the wealthy. And year after year, the White House refused to provide the funding government experts said was needed to strengthen levees, beef up hurricane preparedness and get federal emergency response ready for an onslaught from Mother Nature. America’s budget surplus, built in the ’90s to serve as a rainy day fund, was robbed to provide more and more giveaways to the rich. When the rainiest day of them all came, our country was left totally—and unnecessarily—vulnerable.
...snip...
By the beginning of the 2002 congressional session, Parker had enough of sitting in silence while these tax and budget decisions were being made. In a meeting with White House budget director Mitch Daniels, Parker demanded the Bush administration restore the critical money for flood and hurricane protection.
“I took two pieces of steel into Mitch Daniels’ office,” Parker recalled. “They were exactly the same pieces of steel, except one had been under water in a Mississippi lock for 30 years, and the other was new. The first piece was completely corroded and falling apart because of a lack of funding. I said, ‘Mitch, it doesn’t matter if a terrorist blows the lock up or if it falls down because it disintegrates—either way it’s the same effect, and if we let it fall down, we have only ourselves to blame.’ “
But as Parker noted, “It made no impact on [the White House] whatsoever.” In February 2002, the president unveiled his new budget, this one with a $390 million cut to the Army Corps. The cuts came during the same year the richest 5 percent (those who make an average of $300,000 or more) were slated to receive $24 billion in new tax cuts.
The cuts were devastating. The administration provided just $5 million for maintaining and upgrading critical hurricane protection levees in New Orleans—one fifth of what government experts and Republican elected officials in Louisiana told the administration was needed. Likewise, the administration had been informed that SELA needed $80 million to keep its work moving at full speed, but the White House only proposed providing a quarter of that. These cuts came even though the potential cost of not improving infrastructure was known to be astronomical. A widely-circulated 1998 report on Louisiana’s insurance risks said a serious storm could inflict $27 billion worth of damage just to homes and cars—and that didn’t include industrial or commercial property. Local insurance executives estimated in 2002 that the total damage would be closer to $100 billion to $150 billion—estimates that now look frighteningly accurate.
When Parker headed to Capitol Hill for annual budget hearings in February 2002, he couldn’t hide the truth. Under questioning, he admitted that “there will be a negative impact” if the President’s budget cuts were allowed to go forward. The White House fired Parker within a matter of days.
...snip...
The bias is right out front. One need read no more.
I'm thinking we should all just quite our jobs and let the likes of Katie "13 Million Dollar Salary" Courtic pay our way
Hey Katie ... Where's my check .. I WANT IT NOW
You're wrong. Bias doesn't equal falsehood. But if you want to read only what supports your bias try this
According to Democrats, there is NEVER any reason for tax rates to go down, and EVERY event that takes place can be used as justification for increasing tax rates.
When the economy is stagnant -- increase taxes so the Fed can spend the money and stimulate the economy
When the economy is booming -- it's a good time to increase taxes because everyone can afford it
When there's a national emergency that needs to be paid for -- have to raise taxes because you just can't expect the Fed to borrow the money temporarily
When there's a deficit -- have to raise taxes because you just can't expect the Fed to limit it's own rate of spending to a reasonable level
When everything is fine -- have to raise taxes so the Fed can put the money in a rainy day fund for an emergency (this is my favorite one)
The plain truth is the tax cuts as usual increased the Treasury's take and kept us out of a deep recession..like that in Europe which has double-digit unemployment in many countries. Static analysis of tax policy has proven wrong in the past, still is now. You may question the ppriorities of government spending, but you should remember that Congress, not the President, spends money.
Remember....if you get less than the amount you asked for, but more than the amount you had, it's a cut.
So, if only Bush raised your taxes the levees would have held up? You are truly stuck on stupid. Try a little sliver of reality. Tax revenues to the US Treasury have gone UP since the tax cuts, not down. Spending on levee construction for Bushs first 5 years was more than Clintons last 5. The corruption of the democrats who control the state of Louisianna diverted the money to their own pet projects. Have you read a single news article on these facts?
It's worth noting that Michael Brown, in his testimony before Congress, blamed some of FEMA's problems on the depth of funding cuts.
Tax cuts have been the Administration's number one priority - it's first act and the one it defends most tenaciously. O'Neill in his book says that Bush questioned the size of the largesse given to wealthy supporters but Cheney assured him that to the victor go the spoils.
Interestingly, as an aside, Woodward in "Plan of Attack" (which paints a very favorable picture of Bush as a leader) says it was Cheney who was most insistant that Iraq possessed WMD.
You are truly illiterate. Try reading my post #1.
The corruption of the democrats who control the state of Louisianna diverted the money to their own pet projects. Have you read a single news article on these facts?
And my second post with a link to the WaPo article.
Despite the facts you cite there are all those complaints and warnings. Do you just ignore them? What about Parker?
LOL, why all the whining, just vote for Hillary!
Can someone provide an official and specific source for the oft-repeated statement that during the Bush Administration actual appropriations and outlays of federal funds for New Orleans/Louisiana levees has been five times as much as during the Clinton years? I do not doubt the veracity of this statement, but would like to be able to cite an official and reliable source for possible use in letters to editors, et cetera.
Thanks.
My preference is for Giuliani.
My preference is for Giuliani.
I misinterpreted your post. Sorry. As far as the warnings and Parker goes, those are the same broken record excuses and cries of wolf that have been going on for 35 years. 35 years of corruption and broken promises by Louisiannas politicians had Bush finally fed up with the lies. Why would anyone continue to give them money for the levees when the money has been wasted for 35 years?
Sure.
Well, I didn't think much of you before and I think less of you now.
Fair enough. I'm not a local, not in a position to judge. That's why I posted the article. I wanted to hear what people who live in the area have to say.
You're just as addicted to political nonsense as I am...or you wouldn't be posting to a political forum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.