Why New Orleans is in Deep Water by Molly Ivins Like many of you who love New Orleans, I find myself taking short mental walks there today, turning a familiar corner, glimpsing a favorite scene, square or vista. And worrying about the beloved friends and the city, and how they are now. To use a fine Southern word, it's tacky to start playing the blame game before the dead are even counted. It is not too soon, however, to make a point that needs to be hammered home again and again, and that is that government policies have real consequences in people's lives. This is not "just politics" or blaming for political advantage. This is about the real consequences of what governments do and do not do about their responsibilities. And about who winds up paying the price for those policies. This is a column for everyone in the path of Hurricane Katrina who ever said, "I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in politics," or, "There's nothing I can do about it," or, "Eh, they're all crooks anyway." Nothing to do with me, nothing to do with my life, nothing I can do about any of it. Look around you this morning. I suppose the National Rifle Association would argue, "Government policies don't kill people, hurricanes kill people." Actually, hurricanes plus government policies kill people. One of the main reasons New Orleans is so vulnerable to hurricanes is the gradual disappearance of the wetlands on the Gulf Coast that once stood as a natural buffer between the city and storms coming in from the water. The disappearance of those wetlands does not have the name of a political party or a particular administration attached to it. No one wants to play, "The Democrats did it," or, "It's all Reagan's fault." Many environmentalists will tell you more than a century's interference with the natural flow of the Mississippi is the root cause of the problem, cutting off the movement of alluvial soil to the river's delta. But in addition to long-range consequences of long-term policies like letting the Corps of Engineers try to build a better river than God, there are real short-term consequences, as well. It is a fact that the Clinton administration set some tough policies on wetlands, and it is a fact that the Bush administration repealed those policies--ordering federal agencies to stop protecting as many as 20 million acres of wetlands. Last year, four environmental groups cooperated on a joint report showing the Bush administration's policies had allowed developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands. Does this mean we should blame President Bush for the fact that New Orleans is underwater? No, but it means we can blame Bush when a Category 3 or Category 2 hurricane puts New Orleans under. At this point, it is a matter of making a bad situation worse, of failing to observe the First Rule of Holes (when you're in one, stop digging). Had a storm the size of Katrina just had the grace to hold off for a while, it's quite likely no one would even remember what the Bush administration did two months ago. The national press corps has the attention span of a gnat, and trying to get anyone in Washington to remember longer than a year ago is like asking them what happened in Iznik, Turkey, in A.D. 325. Just plain political bad luck that, in June, Bush took his little ax and chopped $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. As was reported in New Orleans CityBusiness at the time, that meant "major hurricane and flood projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now." The commander of the corps' New Orleans district also immediately instituted a hiring freeze and canceled the annual corps picnic. Our friends at the Center for American Progress note the Office of Technology Assessment used to produce forward-thinking plans such as "Floods: A National Policy Concern" and "A Framework for Flood Hazards Management." Unfortunately, the office was targeted by Newt Gingrich and the Republican right, and gutted years ago. In fact, there is now a governmentwide movement away from basing policy on science, expertise and professionalism, and in favor of choices based on ideology. If you're wondering what the ideological position on flood management might be, look at the pictures of New Orleans--it seems to consist of gutting the programs that do anything. Unfortunately, the war in Iraq is directly related to the devastation left by the hurricane. About 35 percent of Louisiana's National Guard is now serving in Iraq, where four out of every 10 soldiers are guardsmen. Recruiting for the Guard is also down significantly because people are afraid of being sent to Iraq if they join, leaving the Guard even more short-handed. The Louisiana National Guard also notes that dozens of its high-water vehicles, Humvees, refuelers and generators have also been sent abroad. (I hate to be picky, but why do they need high-water vehicles in Iraq?) This, in turn, goes back to the original policy decision to go into Iraq without enough soldiers and the subsequent failure to admit that mistake and to rectify it by instituting a draft. The levees of New Orleans, two of which are now broken and flooding the city, were also victims of Iraq war spending. Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, said on June 8, 2004, "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq." This, friends, is why we need to pay attention to government policies, not political personalities, and to know whereon we vote. It is about our lives. Molly Ivins is a syndicated columnist based in Washington. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0901-26.htm
So the levees broke just because of the war? The levees broke because they weren't built strong enough, period. Did Bush allocate money for the war? Yes he did. But let's not forget that no president has done anything to help New Orleans for a long time. No one gave a crap about that town and that's why NOTHING was done about the levees? It's not just Bush that didn't do anything about it, Clinton didn't, Bush Sr. didn't, Reagan didn't. Everyone knew the state of New Orleans, it was a run down town w/ a major susceptibility to a major disaster, like a hurricane. But I can't remember the last president to go in and actually do something about it. It's blaming someone at the end of the line, when there were many people and opportunities to stop it at the beginning. I'm not defending Bush and saying it's another person's fault, I am saying that there is no single person to blame. If there is someone to be blamed, we should blame the ENTIRE U.S. government for not doing something the past 30 years.
Actually, I think it is perfectly fair to blame Bush... "Just plain political bad luck that, in June, Bush took his little ax and chopped $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. As was reported in New Orleans CityBusiness at the time, that meant "major hurricane and flood projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now.""
I'm not going to get into who should be blaming who, New Orleans has been in this situation for a long time before either Clinton or Bush or the first Bush for that matter were born. But I think this article, aside from its political slant makes valid points. I saw a scientist talking about how the wetlands has helped New Orleans avoid a severe catastrophe the other day and that's something that as a person I never would think about when voting. I would never think about what is being done to the Mississippi River when voting. These are important issues as well as many others that will come out when all is said and done.
Molly nailed it. Can't keep mindlessly bashing government forever and giving tax breaks to the walthy. Eventually something happens.
If this makes you feel better fine. I just think Bush has to be accountable for direct decisions he made as President that have made an awful situation exponentially worse. Don't let the fact that Bush cut programs that were supposed to reinforce the levies get in the way of the easy "everybody's to blame" argument. Don't let the fact that Bush overturned Clinton's and his fathers protections against wetlands development hinder your argument, either. George W. Bush and his cronies have demonstrated time after time after time that they are not only monumentally incompetent- from 9-11 to the Gulf War- they actually don't care. This refrain of "no one could have expected this" was said over and over again after 9-11 and people bought that hook, line and sinker. That was a lie then and a that refrain being said about what's happening in New Orleans is a lie now. Just as the movements of Mohammed Atta were known and understood then, environmental, weather and city planners have been sending out warning signals about New Orleans' special vulnerability for *years.* The New Orleans Times-Picayune has wrote many articles saying that that Louisiana was losing out because Bush diverted funds scheduled to go to protect the state against natural disasters in favor of tax cuts and war. Just because this adminstration ignores science, reality, common sense and decency while demonizing people who disagree with their priorities doesn't mean that the right group of leaders can't make sensible decisions. You know, it's not some incredible coincidence that the country has gone completely down the drain since these morons stole the election in 2000.
This isn't true. In the 90's - whether it was Clinton or the Republican Congress - had funding to help improve the safety systems in New Orleans. The whole point of these articles is that the funding was cut by the Bush Administration to fund the war. From the other article on this topic: <I>After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent.</I>
Before I make this too political - I'm not intending to blame the Bush administration. Budget cuts are a part of reality of all administrations, and anything that's cut is going to have consequences. Sometimes it's gambling that what you do has the least consequences and it doesn't work. My only point was that this administration DID change funding levels and people were dealing with the issue before.
Tax cuts for the wealthy Diverted National Guard and military Overwelming National Debt due to the two above. Cutting costs like (imposed by Bush Sr and Clinton) wetland protection, and levee streghthening = Bush and his administations fault. Its pretty cut and fooking dry.
I don't like George W. Bush, but I agree with you While it is true that Bush did cut funding, there is no direct or indirect proof to say that this disaster would have been any less tragic had those cuts not taken place. Even though other presidents looked at this as a concern while Bush did not, no president's actions were enough to weather the storm (no pun intended). Safeguarding a city from a natural disaster is not necessarily a recurring expense (like the military). Once you take care of it, the vast majority of the cost is done with. If Reagan or Clinton had taken that initiative like the Dutch, maybe this would not been as bad. We have enough reasons to blame Bush and to dislike his presidency. This isn't one of them. My $0.02
I respectfully disagree. If this tragedy has taught us one thing, it is that the will of God (or mother nature if you prefer) is no match for our dollars, our democracy, and our military might. Tax cuts for the wealthy and a diverted National Guard have no bearing whatsoever on this storm. You could maybe argue about the recovery effort, but I don't even that is a strong argument.
the problem is the budget had to be cute because $300B went to the war.. they say it was supposed to make america stronger.. instead of spening money for infrastructure inside the US to protect citizens from catastrophes like this and using that money to respond to these catastrophes, we're spending money to build roads in iraq that we destroyed in the first place.. a lot of americans will start thinking why are we in iraq again?
If Iraq is turbulent waters for Bush, this is an iceberg. Unfortunately, GOP policies have led to complete anarchy in the region. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/msnbc_ccc_bush_pres_no_mo_050831a.mov
yeah, I also think it is quite fair that bush is to be blamed for cuting funds in NO district. Troops in Iraq should be draft as soon as possible, which in turn will raise budget for natural disaster relief.
You know, I agree. That being said, Bush made it worse - and for what? An unjust and unnecessary war, a tax cut for those who have too much money already, and an overarching ineptitude dwarfed only by his ego. So I think there is a distinction. I think there is a point to showing how the party's differ in their tactics. While one makes tha hard long-term choice (help the wetlands) the other destroys it for short term benefit. I think that applies on many levels as of late - and will become ever more apparent as the oil-driven recession slams us in the coming year.
