Posted on 12/15/2005 10:08:51 AM PST by Ben Mugged
President Bush will request billions more to help rebuild the levee system in New Orleans, Louisiana, Donald Powell, the top federal official for reconstruction, announced Thursday.
"The levee system will be better and safer than it's ever been before," Powell said at the White House.
When asked if the levees would be built to withstand a Category 5 storm, officials used broader language instead, promising that the city's citizens would be safe and the levees would be "stronger and better."
"The federal government is committed to building the best levee system known in the world," said Powell. "It's a complicated issue." (Watch Powell announce more money for New Orleans -- 2:54)
The announcement came after Bush met in the Oval Office with Powell, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Lt. Gen. Carl Strock, the head of the Army Corps of Engineers.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
For $3 Billion, couldn't we just pay everybody in New Orleans $12,000 to move?
My relatives down there echo your comments that Nagin was on track to root out corruption and had a somewhat favorable view of him prior to Katrina and he opened up his mouth and lost it on National TV. Regardless of whatever positive things he had previously he will now be regarded as an idiot who couldn't lead under pressure. His legacy is cast. He is trying to undo the damage though. On CSPAN even when he tries to behave himself he still comes across as an arrogant fool. But he does one thing few politicians do - he says what's on his mind and doesn't hold back. Unfortunately, in his case, that's hasn't made him look very good.
I understand your point. In my opinion though, if surrounding communities have to go through growing pains then so be it. It is much better to adjust and deal with the population and the growth it demands now and be done with the problem for good than deal with it at some unforeseen point in the future. In the future the problem will have not gone away and the magnitude will have grown after the population has increased. Not to mention the pumping of never ending tax payer dollars into the money pit called the New Orleans levee's. As a nation we hav propped up New Orlean's for over 2 centuries with a never ending supply of money and engineers to solve a problem which we need to admit will never go away and will only get worse. It is time draw a line in the delta mud and stop putting lipstick on a pig.
>>
It would be a powerful sign to the rest of the world if we did rebuild it . . .
<<
we?
Good God. We are supposed to pay for this thing because you don't want Mardi Gras kids going to your town? Geez.
So?
and that would be a tragedy.
Why?
Yeah, that'll convince people. /sarcasm
Why don't they just do a category 5 levee system?? As a conservative, I am against uneccesary spending but I'm also a student of history. A category 5 system would not be frivalous IMO and could save 10s of billions in the future. Idiots.
Either do it right or don't do it at all.
"Spend, Spend, Spend..."
Waste, Waste, Waste....
We're supposed to pay for it because New Orleans is important to America.
The quiet resistance New Orleanians practiced during the Butler regime, that became a model for the rest of the South when we also fell after the war, and in fact, served as the inspiration for Joe Cain's infamous wagon stand
Most people don't realize this, but the only reason Mardi Gras survived the Civil War is because in the cities that had had it before the war, it was decided that continuing the tradition was one way to thumb their noses at federal authorities without committing an act that Union officials could create trumped up charges for.
Also, the simple fact that, New Orleans actually can be saved, you can rebuild the levees in a way where this never happens again, if you combine this with a wetland renourishment program in the areas to the immediate south of St. Bernard, you could effectively eliminate the danger of this ever happening again.
New Orleans has flooded from hurricanes before, and this never happened. Wihtout the levees, it would have been like Betsy, like 1947, like 1915, like Last Island, and many hurricanes before that. The problem with the levees were that inherent design flaws existed which caused them to fail. After all, the New Orleans Cat 5 disaster scenario never involved the the levees breaking, it involved water higher than the levees topping them, creating the dreaded bowl situation. No one expected that the levees would crack, thereby causing a flood of water equalization.
It makes as much sense today to rebuild New Orleans today as it did to rebuild Galveston 105 years ago. While I don't think New Orleans will ever be like it was (this could be a good thing) it is still vital to our economy, the city is an economic and cultural asset, and it would be a tragedy to let it slide into history. On the streets of New Orleans, you see the way society used to be, the way that neighborhoods used to look like, in many ways, New Orleans never really left it's antebellum mindset, and that is an asset to America. The fact that New South banking interests were able to build skyscrapers and co-exist with all the varied components of what was the epitome of the Old South, it was an important message.
Now maybe it would be smarter to trash all levies, and go back to the situtation where we let the city flood once every 10 years, and let the sedimentation deposit. Thats a possibility. But it would be sad to desert a city that meant so much to America. A city which had as much to do as anything else with keeping Huey Long from becoming President.
Your general underlying premise appears to be that people who happen to serve in the government are entitled to take my money from me by force, because they're better judges of how to spend my money than I am. I think the massive corruption of the New Orleans government alone is enough to rebut that argument. In addition, your premise is morally wrong. No one is entitled to take my money from me without my consent. The govt may have the power to do so, but it doesn't have the right.
Specifically, you're telling me that I'll benefit from the rebuilding of New Orleans, a conclusion with which I respectfully disagree. In addition, you tell me that I'm obligated to help relieve the citizens of New Orleans, Baton Rouge and other coastal cities of the hardships they've incurred as a result of their decision to live in a hurricane-prone area. I respectfully disagree with this assumption as well. The people of whom you speak are adults. They're responsible for the decisions they make, just as I'm responsible for mine.
I submit to you that if we subsidize irresponsibility and corruption, which is exactly what we're doing by paying for the repair of a city built below sea level, we will encourage that behavior, and the entire cycle will repeat itself. If we refuse to do so, and the people there have to pay for their own rebuilding effort, they'll likely make different decisions about whether to rebuild, relocate, etc., and will benefit in the long run by making decisions that are wiser than the ones they made originally. Far fewer people will choose to live in a city built below sea level and right in the path of catastrophic hurricanes. When people know they'll reap the consequences of their decisions, they'll almost always make much smarter ones.
This may seem harsh to you, but in fact it's a much kinder philosophy than the one on which your argument is based. Forcing people to subsidize irresponsibility and corruption is not kind. Nor is treating adults like children, robbing them of their dignity and adult decision-making capability by cocooning them in a cradle made of other people's money.
I'm a big advocate of voluntarily giving money to any cause that an individual deems worthy. My objection is to being forced to pay for (in this case) a rebuilding project that I think is a bad idea on both moral and practical grounds.
What do you think of this?
That's right.
Every city is important to America. So, you simply believe that nothing is a local issue.
The quiet resistance New Orleanians practiced during the Butler regime, that became a model for the rest of the South when we also fell after the war, and in fact, served as the inspiration for Joe Cain's infamous wagon stand
Huh? All those people are dead. That is a silly reason to prop up the bums that live there now.
Most people don't realize this, but the only reason Mardi Gras survived the Civil War is because in the cities that had had it before the war, it was decided that continuing the tradition was one way to thumb their noses at federal authorities without committing an act that Union officials could create trumped up charges for.
Yeah, so?
Also, the simple fact that, New Orleans actually can be saved, you can rebuild the levees in a way where this never happens again,
Of course, they haven't promosed that it will protect a CAT 5, so you are wrong. There can always be a bigger storm.
if you combine this with a wetland renourishment program in the areas to the immediate south of St. Bernard, you could effectively eliminate the danger of this ever happening again.
I disagree, but still, why should I pay someone else's costs?
New Orleans has flooded from hurricanes before, and this never happened. Wihtout the levees, it would have been like Betsy, like 1947, like 1915, like Last Island, and many hurricanes before that.
So you are saying they are better off without the Levee's? Fine with me. Don't rebuild them.
The problem with the levees were that inherent design flaws existed which caused them to fail. After all, the New Orleans Cat 5 disaster scenario never involved the the levees breaking, it involved water higher than the levees topping them, creating the dreaded bowl situation. No one expected that the levees would crack, thereby causing a flood of water equalization.
So let's not rebuild the Levees.
It makes as much sense today to rebuild New Orleans today as it did to rebuild Galveston 105 years ago.
Did people from around the country pay to rebuild Galveston, or was it mostly a local affair?
While I don't think New Orleans will ever be like it was (this could be a good thing) it is still vital to our economy,
How so? You don't need the whole city in order to have ports for river barges.
the city is an economic and cultural asset,
That's a matter of opinion.
and it would be a tragedy to let it slide into history.
So says you. I disagree. I couldn't care less if it goes away. It has been a dump for well over 100 years.
On the streets of New Orleans, you see the way society used to be,
That is not a good thing. By that standard, it would be okay to have a city where slavery is ok.
the way that neighborhoods used to look like, in many ways, New Orleans never really left it's antebellum mindset,
Fair enough?
and that is an asset to America.
Why? You are full of personal opinions.
The fact that New South banking interests were able to build skyscrapers and co-exist with all the varied components of what was the epitome of the Old South, it was an important message.
What is that message? I've never heard it.
Now maybe it would be smarter to trash all levies, and go back to the situtation where we let the city flood once every 10 years, and let the sedimentation deposit.
Sounds good to me.
Thats a possibility.
I hope so.
But it would be sad to desert a city that meant so much to America. A city which had as much to do as anything else with keeping Huey Long from becoming President.
Well hey, I'm not deserting it. If the people that live there don't want to desert it, that's fine with me.
In short, you simply like New Orleans and want it rebuilt, and want to take money out of the pockets of everyone else to do it.
I'll give you this, you're arguing with me on an intellectual ground, and that I can respect
But I would add that there have been many federal projects that I think we could do better without, yet my tax money goes to, for example, the Bridge To Nowhere in Alaska. I certainly think this project, which benefits among other things, America's # 1 port (per tonnage) deserves the merit of consideration.
I'm not arguing that we should be giving the money to the state of Louisiana, far from it. Just as if they were suggesting giving money to Alabama under Alabama's sole discretion, I'd veto this idea too. What I am saying though that this is a project certainly more worthy than a 200 million dollar bridge in the Alaskan wilderness, and it's certainly as worthy as every other pork project Congress approves. Not to say I'm a fan of pork, I'm not, but the simple fact of the matter is, a certain amount of pork will be spent every year, our money will be wasted, you can count on it, and when you look at it from that angle, I think this, as what is admittedly a mondified pork project, is certainly more deserveing than much of the pork in the country today, with far more reaching implications than say, a bridge in the near Arctic
However, if we do rebuilt the levees, they should be built to hold back a surge 15 feet higher than what was recorded in Biloxi, and it should be done entirely by the Corps of Engineer. It should be done in such a manner as that we never ever have to worry about this again. And it's not as if all of New Orleans flooded, the West Bank didn't, and the Quarter, Garden District, higher areas, faired well, all things considered. It was Lakeview and New Orleans East that took the biggest hit.
I personally think it would cost more to our economy to relocate everything than to rebuild it, if you consider all the new infrastructure that would have to be laid out, the fact that it would affect the shipping along the coast, as well as the petroleum producing grid. Basically, to use an old economic analogy, economically, I think it makes more sense to keep New Orleans in business than it does to shut down the plant. Thats just my personal opinion though.
"In short, you simply like New Orleans and want it rebuilt, and want to take money out of the pockets of everyone else to do it. "
No, but the simple fact is, the money will be spent on something, if it is not spent on this pork project, will be spent on another pork project.
If the money is not spent here, it will be spent in some other way. We once had a line item veto, but the Supreme Court overruled it, so for the near future, we're stuck with a pork barrel government that spends our money like it will never run out, so if theyre going to do it, at least spend money on something that has more national implications.
And I never said I liked New Orleans, as it was before the storm it was polluted, crime-ridden, somewhat trashy and somewhat arrogant. Only recently did they begin to publically acknowledge that they didn't start Mardi Gras. This being said, cesspool as it may have been, it was important to our nations economy, and our physche, and it, more than anything else, has helped define the identity of the central Gulf Coast. New Orleans is to the Gulf Coast what Los Angeles is to the West Coast, what Atlanta is to much of the South, etc etc.
And I believe on a cost-benefit analysis, the benefits of rebuilding outweigh the costs. You disagree with me, this is America, you are entitled to disagree, and I'll respect you for it. I'm just laying out my opinion on it.
Right, except that economic theory would dictate that if New Orleans as a physical site for a city were valuable economically, then it would be able to pay its own costs. If it is only viable economically if someone else covers the costs of its risky behavior, then it is not a net benefit to the economy for it to exist.
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.