On one hand, you blame Bush for increasing the spending overall. You say Bush has agreed to """only fund $250 million""" (you didn't add "so far")....then you say "$14 BILLION" is required.
WHERE did that number come from? Who put together the budget and the estimates of what had to be done? Is the $14 BILLION a FIRM number and a number that will NOT continue to increase, and increase, and increase? Is there a guarantee?
Have studies been done in this short time to see what the effects of ANY proposal will be?
I've NEVER seen the Government, any of the parts from City, Region, State, or Federal act on anything as a coordinated effort in less than 3 months. Normally, it seems to take YEARS to get anything done.
BUT the more important thing I think is...we can't get scientists to agree on much of anything, including global warming. How could scientists, environmentalists, engineers, heads of the various companies who ship and use the waterway and port, politicians, etc etc etc...even begin to agree in less than the 3 months since the disaster.
Are you blaming Bush for that too? Does Bush singlehandedly fund the $14 Billion or any other amount of money? I thought it was the US House and Senate who have that job....Bush (or any President) can only veto or sign whatever spending measure that comes up.
From your earlier post...
Mike Tidwell and the 60 Minutes guy have it exactly right: it is stupid to spend all the billions upon billions of dollars, much more than the $14bn required to fund Coastal 2050, to restore levees and pay for hurricane damage if the loss of wetlands will eventually make all the restored levees irrelevant or prohibitively expensive to maintain. In a very strange way, a commitment to simply repair levees and do nothing else is as much a death sentence for NO as letting them stand in their current condition. |
