Some growing concern among Republicans:
Congressional Republicans from across the ideological spectrum yesterday rejected the White House’s open-wallet approach to rebuilding the Gulf Coast, a sign that the lockstep GOP discipline that George W. Bush has enjoyed for most of his presidency is eroding on Capitol Hill.
Trying to allay mounting concerns, White House budget director Joshua B. Bolten met with Republican senators for an hour after their regular Tuesday lunch. Senators emerged to say they were annoyed by the lack of concrete ideas for paying the Hurricane Katrina bill.
“Very entertaining,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said sarcastically as he left the session. “I haven’t heard any specifics from the administration.”
“At least give us some idea” of how to cover the cost, said Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), who is facing reelection in 2006. “We owe that to the American taxpayer.”
The pushback on Katrina aid, which the White House is also confronting among House Republicans, represents the loudest and most widespread dissent Bush has faced from his own party since it took full control of Congress in 2002. As polls show the president’s approval numbers falling, there is growing concern among lawmakers that GOP margins in Congress could shrink next year, and even rank-and-file Republicans are complaining that Bush is shirking the difficult budget decisions that must accompany the rebuilding bonanza.
A.) Get Karl Rove out of the reconstruction role.
B.) Spend what is necessary to provide immediate relief.
C.) Take a long hard look at how rebuilding should be done.
D.) Appoint a cabinet level appointee to make sure it is done right, with thorough accounting and an eye for the long-term- including re-thinking the levees, and what to do with the entire delta and other environmental concerns.
E.) Stick to your damned guns, and don’t let people try to paint you as not compassionate because you are demanding my money be spent right.
Katrina is actually a tremendous opportunity to continue drowning the federal government in a bathtub. Its starting to look so incompetent and ineffective I imagine more people are being convinced it should just be abandoned.
yet another jeff
I don’t see the problem, it’s not like there were any residual bad feelings the last time the Republicans were involved in Reconstruction in the South.
To avoid upsetting conservatives, the solution is to “sell” Louisiana to the Dutch (a 99-year lease) and have them take charge of rebuilding. They can recoup their costs from the offshore oil…wait no, that won’t work. Drat.
John, I think you’re mistaking the goals, and treating this as if the administration were serious about doing the reconstruction correctly. They aren’t. They are serious about short term popularity, hand outs to
shareholdersrepublican funders, and a chance to remake a portion of the country in the party’s image.
Amazing how no one stood up and insisted the money be spent properly when it came to Iraq, ain’t it?
‘I voted for it before I voted I against it’
Amen, John. And while we are at it, I want some specifics about my money being spent in Iraq. When is it going to stop? How do we pay the borrowed money back? When the “levees of democracy” (Constitution, legislative and executive branch, etc.) in Iraq burst, can we collect damages from the contractor (that would be the Bush administration)?
F. None of the above; raise debt ceiling; flog non-compliant Republicans with cat o’ nine-tails.
Sorta implies you think he’s been dragged into this behavior. Heh. It is his very nature to waste our money and not be accountable for it. That’s what these people do.
And the Reps are just holding out for more pork.
The libertarians say no federal aid, but make New Orleans a tax-free area for 10 years. But that would show how useless gov’t is. Wouldn’t Be Prudent.
Damn, you sound like you are serious about this. You might be getting ready to run for office.
Thing is, the WH already tipped its hand by exposing its 3-pronged Katrina strategy, which nobody around here seems to have thought was for real … it was. (a) Big spending package, (b) move on, (c) blame others.
The WH doesn’t care about the details.
They didn’t care about them in terms of what to do with Iraq after they overthrew Hussein, either. So anyone is surprised at this situation? These are potatoheads, they make the stuff up as they go along. They are feckless, incompetant, and irresponsible.
Not exactly a secret by now, is it?
Appoint a cabinet level appointee to make sure it is done right, with thorough accounting and an eye for the long-term- including re-thinking the levees, and what to do with the entire delta and other environmental concerns.
Bah, you’re DREAMIN’, John! This is the same administration that’s poised to nominate Andy Card as Treasury Secretary!
Given that New Orleans is a sinking city, won’t the rebuilding costs have to be repeated each time a big hurricane hits? Even if a Cat 5 levee is built at great expense, isn’t it being built on swampland? I honestly don’t know. I hope it can be, as NO is a national treasure imo.
The Fed govt does have an obligation to provide immediate relief to this disaster. But as far as rebuilding, why isn’t the state of Louisiana paying the lion’s share of the rebuilding costs? If one chooses to live in hurricane alley or on an active fault line, shouldn’t they bear most of the costs?
I agree with A, B, and C
While I agree with D, I would offer a different solution. I would allow public audits on the reconstruction effort. To me it seems, that if you have more eyes on this, it would put pressure on them to get the job done right. I dont see any security issues that would not make this feasable, but if there are issues that i’m missing, security concerns can be redacted and overseen by Congress.
On E, I think most people have made up their minds on what a “compassionate conservate” is. =]
I like your list John, but that last one should be a no brainer. As far as I know, there are a significant portion of Dems worried about the whole accounting issue. If anything, I think the American people, a lot of Dems particularly, would be relieved if a separate independent auditing office were setup up to oversee reconstruction costs. Bush’s poll numbers are sinking and his problems are due in no small part to the fact that people don’t trust him anymore. In other words, his “character” thing, what he based a good deal of his presidency on, has now gone out the door. I don’t know if he can regain that, but he needs to seriously do all the things you’ve listed, ensure that there is real open-to-the-public accounting in the reconstruction process, and he may gain some of it back.
Speaking of D.
Streiff at Redstate has a good article about another Bush Homeland Security nominee, Julie Myers.
Streiff is on a role this week.
Right, we’re going to transform Bush into Gerald Ford, and Halle Berry is going to be revealed as a female impersonator.
Eventually, it will sink so much that water will leak in hurricane or no hurricane. It seems crazy to rebuild. They could easily build a replica of it farther up the river. That would be a great tourist attraction — safer, and good for business. Seems like a no brainer to me.
You are so cute, John.
The only thing the Congressional Republicans are concerned with is trying to figure out how they can get a big piece of that reconstruction pie for their state.
Yes, that’s right… even if they live in Alaska where there was no hurricane. I think there’s a few more unpopulated islands that need bridges.
A) Recind the Hurricane Katrina bill
B) Put out to bid to private contractors the job or reconstruction; allow all options (put up a parking lot, etc)
C) Award the lowest bidder
D) Assign local officials the audit task
Heck, it worked for the Big Dig in Boston, didn’t it?
You know. Maybe Bush could appoint Julie Myers to this post? She’s got just as much experience with reconstruction as she does with immigration. And she has the right qualifications…
One of the few times I can say I agree with John Cole 100%.
Damn I just hate that.
You guys need to think more long-term. Each time a hurricane destroys the city, don’t clear the debris away. Crunch it down in place and build on top of it. After enough iterations, the city’s been built into an artifical hill that’s no longer in danger of flooding!
Yes, and perhaps you can get a job running one of the Jazz roller coaster rides.
If I thought Com Con was a serious poster I would have more to say, but I’ve come to the conclusion that Com con is yanking everyone’s leg.
I would have to agree. Unless, of course, he finally comes up with a citation to support his belief in Jesus Christ: Warrior Prince (of Peace).
Mike in SLO
Hopefully this is a sign that Republican leaders are going back to the tried and true fiscal discipline that used to be hallmark of the party.
If they have any sense, they’ll follow John’s suggestions.
Fair is fair. ComCon finally gave up his source on another thread. Anyone wanting to know more about Jesus Christ: Warrior Prince (of Peace) can find it at the following link. Warning, giggle mode engaged.
Ahh, and here we see the beautiful Conservatus fiscalus in its natural habitat. This beautiful species was long thought extinct, but a recent change in the environment has led to its resurgence. However, its existence is fragile, and must be carefully protected from the insidious parasite Fundamentalus looney, which almost eradicated this essential species.
I could live with being gay.
Does anyone know which specific parts of News Orleans the federal government is supposed to rebuild?
If it is putting the break away highways and bridges back together, then redo the transportation bill and raise gasoline taxes to cover the cost.
If it is to rebuild the levees, then let Louisiana and New Orleans issue some municipal bonds for at least some of the costs. If they can’t raise enough that way, then the federal government can help out.
If it is to help people with housing and jobs, then try first to help them with what already exists. The Atlanta area is doing its best to absorb a lot of evacuees. If the people are here and scattered throughout the country, why send the money to LA?
If they have any sense… One tall order!
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned in this thread is rescind some of Bush’s tax cuts. But that’s not fiscal discipline, indebting several generations to come is.
Did demimonde get banned?
Normally I’d agree with you here; if some asshole’s house slides into the Pacific because it was built 20 feet from an unstable coastline, well, that’s his problem.
In this case, though, we’re talking about the largest port in the country. It’s a matter of national importance, and the Federal government needs to play a key role in getting the city rebuilt. (I would say “rebuilt correctly,” but my hopes of that are getting dimmer every day.)
Yes, but he must want to change.
“Reagan showed that deficits don’t matter.”
That should give you an idea of how this will be financed.
What will be the new talking point? “We will spend whatever it takes” did not go over well.
Maybe “We will rebuild it *there*, so we don’t have to fight them *here*.”
Who knows, maybe they can pay for the whole thing with oil revenues?
And if some country builds one of its most economically important ports in a meteorologically incorrect zone, whose problem is it and who should bear the cost?
No, they will cut more taxes on the wealthy and the economic benefits will rain down on the reconstruction. Umm, perhaps that was not the best choice of words.
Don’t forget, Narvy, nothing is more important after a natural disaster than cutting taxes.
I take it you missed this in my post?
Sorry, tBone, I did. I read “his problem” and fired off my comment. That was definitely a premature ejaculation.
Damn good point about the importance of the port.. really the only significant one near the Mississipi river. Then why not the NO Port Authority, shippers, and state of LA who benefit so greatly from the port pay the lions share of the rebuilding?
A couple of points. I belive the Stafford Act requires that the Federal Government pick up the tab for all infrastructure expenses (roads, bridges, levees, beaches, water treatment plants, etc. etc.). Obviously that was put in place becuuse only the Federal Government would have the resources to undertake such a project in the event of a natural disaster.
As for your second point about people “choosing” to live in hurricane alley that would probably include a good chunk of the population of America. The whole highly populated eastern seaboard as well as the entir Gulf coast Gulf is subject to hurricanes. And why stop at hurricanes, shouldn’t that apply to anyone that “chooses” to live on the San Andreas Fault? Natural Disasters are just that, Acts of God. lets not try to blame or punish the people that have to suffer the consequences of such a horror by saying, “hey, that was your choice where to live.”
Well, for starters, they can’t afford it on their own and the entire country depends on the Port of NO for distribution of midwestern grain and the importation of goods distributed to the rest of the country. Your post suggests that you think only the state where the port is located benefits from trade that goes through it. Surely you don’t believe that? Oh, wait, it’s Darrell. I withdraw the question.
I totally agree. My solution is to build all ports in Kansas where they are nice and safe from storms. Lol….
And of course, we should build a dam in Arkansas so we can fight the water there instead of NO.
(my apologies to Jon Stewart for ripping him off)
Dorothy might have something to say aout that, like: Tornadoes. (Giggling silently)
The State, the city of NO, the Port authority and shippers receive HUGE benefits from the port. Since they disproportionately benefit, why should they not pay a disproportionately large percentage of the rebuilding?
Actually, I think we’re on to something here. Instead of one big port that can become a disastrous single point of failure, let’s have dozens of miniports strategically scattered around the country. We could start with Alaska. They’re about to start on a major bridge project to an island that has plenty of undevloped space for a major seaport.
This may indeed be the absolutely dumbest thing ever said on Balloon Juice. Certainly, it’s in the running for the award.
Suppose you have a system of waterways and ports upon which a huge portion of the country depends for the flow of goods and materials. You want to hold the ports financially responsible for recovering from a disaster?
Are you trying to take over for DougJ in the hilarious spoof department, or ………?
If a person chooses to live in an area with a KNOWN likelihood of hurricane strikes or on an active fault line, fine. But they and their state (through taxes) should be required to be insured to certain level to pay for reconstruction or have a reduction in Fed benefits in rebuilding. It’s not fair for people in S. Dakota, AZ, and IL to have to subsidize the constant perpetual rebuilding of those who chose to live in Florida. You want to live in a nice area that happens to be in an active seismic zone or hurrican alley, fine. Then you take financial responsibility for that decision. You might have a point if it was an area that experienced an unexpected disaster. But living in FL and the Gulf Coast, hurricanes are damn sure not unexpected. Same with those living in active seismic zones in CA
I should know better than to get into this with Darrell, but… How about allocating the expense to the individual states in proportion to the benefit they derive from goods that enter and leave through the port, and the federal government in proportion to the amount of taxes it receives from port-related businesses? How fair is that? And we could have a new federal agency to ensure that the money is properly collected, staffed by Bush appointees. Wow! I think we’re on to something here.
The founding fathers understood that. That’s why they chose not to name the country the UNITED States of America.
is Darrell for real?
I’ll ask again. Can anyone give a coherent response as to why the State of LA, the city of NO, the Port authority and shippers who so disproportionately benefit from teh port.. why then should they not pay a disproportionately large percentage of the rebuilding? Ports take in massive sums of money, so cut the lying crap about how they have no money
You, Joe Albanese posting under the alias ‘slide’ are asking that question?
Darrell, I give up. I am simply unable to answer your precise, irrefutable logic. You win. I think you ought to call the White House and your congressperson and senators and get them to work on this.
If I follow your dumbass logic, then no one in disaster prone areas should ever again be required to pay for flood or homeowners insurance because, after all, the founding fathers understood that we are the UNITED States of America and all
what is with you guys and my “alias” ? MY NAME IS JOE ALBANESE……what is the point? I just dont’ get how this somehow means something to anybody? I changed my screename. BIG FUCKING SHIT? But now that you got my attention DARRELL shall we all show what a total fuckin moron you are? Trust me it won’t be difficult.
Are you really this dumb or are you just willfully obtuse?
Because everyone knows about the ports in Nebraska and Idaho, as well as their famous oil refineries.
I take it you are unable to answer the question
I can’t give it up. It’s like a drug. Darrell, what figures do you have to support your contention that the state, city, and port authority profit disproportionately to the farmers, manufacturers, and retailers who profit from having goods pass through the port?
Please, God, stop me before I type again!
Ports are not “placed” where some government bureaucrat decides to place it asswipe. Port develop over time as a result of MARKET FORCES.. dont you right wing nutjobs belive in MARKET FORCES… Ports have to be on the FUCKING WATER asshole. If you are on the water ANYWHERE on the east coast you are in a hurricane zone dipshit. Hurricanes have hit from all the way up in Nova Scotia to the tip of Key west and all the way around the Gulf to Mexico shit for brains.
The port of NO is where it is because that is where you NEED a port, at the mouth of the Mississippi River jerk. And the goods that are shipped up and down the Mississsippi river bennefit the whole country.
How many years of education did you get darrell?
I’ll chalk that up to ‘willfully obtuse’.
By that ‘logic’ then, cities and airlines shouldn’t have to pay for airports, it should be all federal. Do you finally see what a dumbass you are? Is it clear yet?
slide aka Joe Albanese
he can’t be for real right?
Ppgaz, Bush could be like Gerald Ford, all it’ll take is hard work, right?
Somebody missed his nap time
Jeebus, i think it’s a colossal waste of money too, but at what point have we “Jumped The Shark” on “Bridge to Nowhere” jokes? (although, narvy’s was quite clever.)
He really doesn’t port thing at all.
The leftists complain about federal deficits, but anyone dares to suggest that anyone other than the Federal government pay the bill for rebuilding efforts, and they scream like stuck pigs. Shows how ‘serious’ the left is about fiscal discipline.
Leftist answer to all fiscal problems = raise taxes. Doubt me? Re-read this thread
Yes I do. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Are you going to answer my question about disproportionality, or should I go let somebody else harass me for a while?
Cities and airlines benefit disproportionately from airports although it could be argued that manufacturers, retailers and a whole host of private industries benefit even more from these airports than do airlines and cities. Because Cities and airlines are clear, undeniable beneficiaries, they pay the lions share for construction and maintenace costs of airports. Manufacturers, retailers, import/exporters, etc, and others who benefit, pay their way via freight charges and airline tickets.
Same exact concept should be applied to ports. If not, why not?
Thanks, Another (or is it Mr. Jeff?), I needed that.
Friends and Darrell, I have to stop for a while. The fate of the Nation (or at least my job) depends on my actually working. But in the words of my esteemed Governor, All be bock!
How serious can you really be by suggesting that NO, LA and shippers should pay the lion’s share of the rebuilding costs? It’s absurd to think that they could even come close to raising the hundreds of billions of dollars that will eventually be necessary. Common sense tells you that, which is why I said you’re being willfully obtuse.
How many Trillions of dollars in trade pass through the Port of NO each year? Over half the grain in the US, and that’s just scratching the surface.. yet these poor destitute shippers, port authority and city and state govt should not be expected to pay for reconstruction of port facilities? Incredibly, that seems to be the position of the leftists on this site.
No, common sense tells me that private companies, semi-private port authorities, shipping companies and local and state govts WITH THEIR OWN MONEY ON THE LINE, either tax base money or private profits, will spend money more wisely than federal politicians spending someone else’s money
OK, finally something to discuss. (1) I don’t think that seaports and airports are comparable in this context. Any city that wants one can build an airport and charge to use it. This is not true of seaports. (2) The volume of trade through a seaport is much greater than that through any single airport, and more states benefit, and benefit more, from the flow of goods through a single seaport than through a single airport. (3) The federal government imposes rules and restrictions on airports and, I believe, pays for part of the expense of running one (think air traffic control). Do you think this expenditure is unfair to cities without airports? (4) Do you really believe that the locals can afford to rebuild the port and the supporting business infrastructure without federal help? I don’t. And if they can’t, and the fed doesn’t pay for it, then the country doesn’t have the port any more and, until some coastal city can come up with the money to replace it, the flow of goods will be both truncated and more circuitous.
Now I really have to stop. Later.
Darrell, your common sense is leftist. The idea that private companies, etc, should not be subsidized by federal money is leftist. Don’t listen to your common sense, it’s trying to subvert your politics.
Slides undernourished conscience
The port of NO is really more of a national resource than a local one, Darrell. Shipping coming down the Mississippi from many states goes out through that port and goods are likewise shipped back up the river. In addition the oil pipeline running out into the gulf is helpful to bringing in oil for the whole country to use.
The point about how long the rest of the country should be forced to keep rebuilding houses in disaster areas is a good one. It is a discussion the country should be having, as my tax money and yours are sometimes used to rebuild houses that we would never be able to afford for ourselves. A sort of welfare for the well off if you will.
Agreed, but has nothing to do with my point
With more money coming their way, all the more reason state, local govt, shippers and NO port authority should pay a disproportionate share of the rebuilding instead of putting it all on the taxpayers back
Don’t airlines and airports pay special taxes to fund air traffic control? In any event, the construction and bulk of airport expenses are paid for by the city and airlines with costs passed on to cargo shippers and airline passengers
With so much $$ going through the Port of NO each year, why can’t state and local authorities pay for more of it themselves? There is certainly a huge financial incentive for them to do so.. that is, unless they are able to unfairly throw all those expenses all on the backs of taxpayers.. a financial incentive completely lacking in any federal rebuilding program. As you pointed out, there is serious money going through those ports, so tell me again why Joe taxpayer should have to foot the entire bill?
But the same holds true for airports which also carry needed goods across the country and the world, does it not? New Orleans, the state of LA, the NO port authority and the shipping lines disproportionately benefit from the port of NO. They should bear a disproportionate share of its rebuilding costs. Why is that suggestion so controversial?
Good example. The fed doesn’t pay to build or maintain oil and gas pipelines, although the entire country benefits (like with the port). If the fed doesn’t pay for pipelines, then why should they pay for port facilities?
If you run a Deficit to pay for something… technically nobody is paying for it. That’s why deficit spending is so wonderful! you get to give the people what they want, with none of the responsibility of actually paying for it.
I think it’s interesting that now anybody who complains about running deficits is a leftist. Reagan apparently wasn’t a leftist in 1980 and a conservative in 1984.
You know… Why aren’t we talking about building a bridge to Mackinac Island as part of this reconstruction funding? Come on people! We got bridges to build! No time to argue about who is paying for what.
So tell us Steve, is it, or is it not your position that the federal government should pay for the entire rebuilding of the Port of NO? since you’re so concerned with deficits and all
Darrell, did you object to the airline bailouts after 9-11?
Darrell, you seem to be conflating the amount of money derived from trade by traders and the businesses that they serve with money paid to the port in the form of fees and taxes. They’re not the same. I don’t know how much the greedy seaport of NO used to take in, but I doubt that it was sufficient to rebuild.
So do the shippers own half the grain in the US, or do they divvy it up with the port authority? Please.
That’s a riot. Local and state governments are spending ‘someone else’s money’ too aren’t they? Regardless, you’re putting forth the position that those most affected by the hurricane should bear the brunt of its costs, but completely ignoring the fact that the costs are beyond their means. We’re talking about the destruction of a major city here. Why do you cling to this notion that the city government can team up with the port authority and the state to cover the reconstruction bill?
Also, do you object to oil industry subsidies?
I have mentioned both. The traders and businesses who benefit so greatly from the port have a financial incentive to get the port back up and running.. that is, unless they can shift all the costs to taxpayers which you are advocating
Most f*cking definitely I object to them
Well, we seem to have a measure of agreemnt here. I do not believe that private businesses that profit from trading through the port should receive government money. If they can’t make a profit without spending their own money, they should not be in the business. (Off topic but related: This goes double for government-subsidized sports stadiums.)
Yes, I think they set a bad precedent. If we bail out the airlines, why not the casinos too, right?
That didn’t come out right. Should have been: If they can’t make a profit spending their own money, etc.
Another bad analogy.
Ok, we are in agreement to some extent. My problem is that private businesses that profit through trading through the port are now passing the buck on rebuilding the port facilities to taxpayes, instead of paying throught their own fees and/or insurance. So if Joe taxpayer pays for reconstruction instead of Mega Shipping line LLC, that’s less fees for the shipping lines to worry about
How so? Casinos were adversely affected by 9/11 too? People were reluctant to fly pleasure after the hijackings
State and local governments are losing ENORMOUS sums of tax money every day that the port is not functioning. Therefore they have an incentive to see it up and running as soon as possible. A real “riot”, huh?
My point was that ports and airlines are vital infrastructure. They have huge significance beyond their immediate localities, so it’s in the national interest to help them recover after a disaster. Casinos? Not so much.
Credit for being consistent, though.
What’s it matter? Bush won’t handle this any more competently than he has the Iraq reconstruction! It’s time to profit! Get into reconstruction now! That’s where the real money is!
Seriously… Yeah, I generally have a problem with it, but mainly because the Republicans are so fucking inept we’ll end up paying at least triple what it would have cost under Clinton because guys like Don Young and Ted Stevens will find a way to get parts of Alaska in on the take too. That’s how they’ve run Iraqi reconstruction, so I expect the same here.
Uh, no. For the same reason that you would not ask a city to pay to rebuild its national-defense-critical-airbase after a storm, you would not ask a city to pay to rebuild its own port facility which is nation-critical, and probably, in the case of NOLA, exists SOLELY because the Corps of Engineers made it possible for it to exist there in the first place. The Port of New Orleans pretty much is necessary whether the city is there or not, wouldn’t you say?
Slides undernourished conscience
No, casinos are not part of the transportaion network in this country. Roads, airports, seaports, and shipping lanes all are. The fed has jurisiction over interstate commerce and therefore can be expected to pony up part of the cost of keeping it maintained or fixing it when it breaks.
If airlines are considered “vital” (not arguing their importance), then why are airlines privately owned, not federalized, and why are airports paid for by cities and airlines? The same thing should be the case with ports
The well-being of US commerce does not depend on functioning casinos. That being said, I think most of the airlines have mismanaged their business very badly and deserve to suffer for it. But that’s like saying (another analogy!) I’ve mismanaged my diet very badly and I deserve to have a heart attack. The taxpayer in this case has to play doctor, otherwise the patient will die. If the patient is the airline industry, we’ll all suffer for it, and not just from having our pleasure travel affected.
Since when is the federal govt supposed to pay for all or most of the transportation in this country?? Check with your state DOT and get back to me. Should they federalize the trucking industry then? How about federalizing all the rail and airlines too? If you’re going to suggest that the federal government is liable for all the transportation network in the country, then at least be consistent enough to call for the nationalization of all our transportation industry too
And the federal government isn’t?
Actually, smaller competitors like Independence Air and other small independents suffer when the large carriers get bailouts.. govt subsidizing their competitors isn’t usually a good thing
Who is saying this?
If there’s a large-scale disruption in the nation’s transportation network, it’s in the national interest to fix that disruption ASAP. That means Federal money, like it or not.
That doesn’t mean we all think that transportation should be completely nationalized; it just means that Federal assistance may be called for in extraordinary circumstances.
I did. They say they depend on federal funds for highway maintenance.
Regarding federal ownership of the airline and trucking industries, our economic belief system rejects the idea. My personal opinion is that it wouldn’t make a lot of difference, it would just replace one style of mismanagement with another. The citizenry is not and would not be particularly well-served by either.
This argument isn’t really going to be resolved. It’s between a bunch of we’re-all-in-this-together communitarians and an if-you-can’t-go-it-alone-don’t-go conservative. (BTW, to his credit, Darrell is much closer to a real conservative than the Boss Tweed Redux in the White House.)
Do they? On state roads? Not talking Federal Highways here, but all, or most state roads?
Fair enough.. I’m not a complete if-you-can’t-go-it-along conservative, but the label on me is close enough to the truth. I’m not saying the feds have NO role, but with the amount of profits and tax revenues going through the port, I would have liked to have seen more loans and less outright payment on the part of the feds. I think the port rebuilding, like illigal immigration, is a matter of businesses shifting costs to taxpayers, but that’s a topic for another thread.. and I agree that Bush has definitely f*cked the pooch on spending
Sheesh, Darrell. Don’t play nicely with me. I’ll be ostracized, and your reputation as an unreasonable wack job will be ruined.
No, you are wrong. It’s really no different from building highways. Ports and waterways are public utilities to a large extent. They are also national defense requirements, for the same reason that the Interstate Highway system is. That highway system was originally envisioned as primarily a defense resource, but it became, because of its effectiveness, the primary means of moving goods left to right across the country. The trucking industry that exists today, and the relatively cheap costs of transporting goods, fall to a great extent from that highway system.
That’s not a “giveaway to business.” That’s an investment in infrastructure that promotes business and helps everybody.
Do you consider education a “giveaway” to citizens, a shifting of costs to the taxpayers? Or should businesses have to pay to educate their own next generation of workers?
Has anyone mentioned Sen. McCain’s recommendation that we repeal that %*&%&*&### Medicare Drug Prescription boondogle and use those funds for rebuilding? That gets my vote.
Also I did not notice if anyone had mentioned “Inland Sea Ports”. There is one I know of in Arkansas.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, pp, but there are people who feel that way. Some congresswoman – I don’t remember who – was quoted a while back to the effect that expectation of a free (i.e., taxpayer paid) public education was akin to welfare entitlements.
I had overlooked this in John C’s thread source up top. Given the administration’s track record on appointees, do you really think this is a good idea?
Interesting perspective, but actually I view it sort of the opposite. Education is preparedness to better compete for jobs.
Why then are most dams in the country built and controlled by state govts rather than federal? I don’t believe large waterways, even those as large as the Mississippi river are under federal control, right?
The Highway system is bit more complicated because unlike ports, it is used Primarily by private citizens for their own use rather than large businesses, although certainly a lot of goods are transported via highway (and rail, and air for that matter).
Mine too, except for the part about using all those funds to rebuild what, to a large extent, should be rebuilt instead by state & local govts + private business.
I see yet another thread has turned into a Darrell-a-thon.
Donate some money to the Flat Earth Society if you are feeling charitable to his cause.
The majority of large dams were built by the Army Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Land Reclamation; they may be administered by a state or local authority but they are still owned by the Feds. Smaller dams were/are often built using a combination of local, state and federal funds.
As far as large waterways go, the Feds have a huge amount of control through the COE, Fish & Wildlife, and other agencies. Ask South Dakota about the Missouri sometime.
No fair. Darrell has never advocated the teaching of flat earthness, at least in this thread.
Actually, although I disagree with a lot of what he says and find his thinking lacking in depth and nuance, he has only insulted me once in this thread (a record low, I think) and has otherwise carried on a civil conversation without bad grammar, ignorant misspellings, or any of the other characterisitics of the Little Green Footballs crowd. In addition to that, he is one person defending an unpopular position against a number of highly articulate smartass opponents. I think he deserves a lot of credit.
Hey, anybody see this yet? Sounds pretty interesting.
Hear, hear. I agree.
It’s my understanding that the Army corp and Bureau of Land Reclamation only built the dams for hydroelectric power, a small fraction of total dams. I could be mistaken, but I think this is correct
Actually if you re-read the thread, you were the one to insult me first. I realize such facts are often forgotten by the self-righteous, but hey, I’m just sayin’. Thanks for your sort of kind words, but in what respect specifically are you saying my thinking “lacks depth and nuance”? Because that sounds to me like whining of the intellectually defeated
Yes, it was in this morning’s papers. Looks like the old I-can’t-reveal-my-misdeeds-because-it-would-affect-national-security ploy.
Do you lefties ever read the details, or just react first, get facts later? From the CNN article linked to on Talk Left:
More information is needed, but that’s never stopped you lefties from running out with half-cocked accusations before. carry on
Bwuh? My accusations are always fully cocked.
If you’re referring to my sarcastic remarks upthread, I don’t think they’re insulting in quite the same way as
OK. Your thinking has depth and is nuanced. Now I’m intellectually victorious.
But seriously, go back and reread my serious non-sarcastic comments. I tried to raise a number of questions and identify some issues that appeared not to be addressed by your assertions. I considered that to be adding depth and introducing nuances I did not see in your posts (but only because I was afraid of being intellectually defeated). Let’s agree to my being sarcastic, because that’s my favorite mode of argument, and your calling names and not being terribly subtle, and we can go on futilely debating and failing to persuade one another.
Darrell recently admitted that the earth was probably round about three threads ago.
Now, if we could only convince him that the earth goes around the sun…
There’s gotta be a depth-and-nuance joke in there somewhere, but I’ve had a long day.
Where’s the cronyism in that? This is operation bathtub. Get with the program, Cole.
E.) would actually be the compassionate thing to do. Especially when you consider that Rita has ramped up to cat5 and heading for Houston. Yes, we have a problem.
You’re mistaken. Hydroelectric power was a major focus of the Bureau, but they (and the Corps) also built dams that were primarily for other purposes (flood control, irrigation, drinking water, etc.) There are at least 10 smallish reservoirs within 20 miles of my home that were built by the Corps for flood control and have no hydropower component at all.
You would be hard-pressed to find any decent sized reservoirs that didn’t have some federal involvement; even tiny farm ponds are often built using federal funds through NRCS.
Are you sure? The states regulate approximately 94 percent of the dams in the country. And the Feds own just 2.7% of the dams in the country
I think the dams built for flood irrigation and drinking water were built predominantly by utilities. Flood control, I would have guessed the state took the lead there, but it could have been the feds
By Darrell’s line of thinking, the oil companies should go out and buy their own military to fight these lame-ass wars where the oil is.
Oh wait! That was a bad analogy, they already did.
No blood for oil! Perhaps this is the liberal depth and nuance referred to by Narvy
Hee-Haw Dougie! That was funny. What’s next, you gonna make jokes about my mother? DougJ: “Yo momma is so stupid that she * insert mindless punchline * “
You said the Corps and the Bureau only built hydroelectric dams – you were mistaken about that, which is what I was referring to. And if you recall, I started this whole conversation by talking about large dams (i.e. hundreds of thousands of surface acres). The vast majority of those were built by the feds.
Also, some dams originally built by the feds reverted to state control/ownership at some point after their construction.
Again, large irrigation and flood control dams were built by the feds; most smaller dams serving the same purposes were built using various combinations of local, state and federal funds.
I’ve actually been involved in several of these projects, Darrell. My original intent was just to point out that the federal government has played a huge role in dam development in this country, not bore everyone else to death with dam trivia.
DougJ, Darrell –
Knock it off, you two. This thread is not about Darrell, it’s about engaging Darell in political debate. I haven’t been particularly snarky since midway through the thread, when I found the discussion getting serious and interesting. Which is not to say I won’t get snarky again if Darrell starts name-calling again, but until then I think we ought to cut the swordplay. Although the thread may have played out, in which case we’ll have to start this all over agin somewhere else.
And Bob, I own the copyright on all sarcastic lines that begin “Oh wait”, so pay up.
Bwaahahaha! Dam trivia may be the best thing going here at this point!
I was wondering if anyone would bite on that. :)
Keep the dam trivia coming. If we run out of Darrellisms, at least we can learn something.
Boring? You find it boring? Well I think it’s … zzzzz
I lost my mind
Somehow I don’t think that will be a problem.
Narvy, if you want serious conversation with someone of Darrell’s IQ, get a dog.
Statement on Federal Assistance for Louisiana from Hurricane Rita
Statement on Federal Assistance for Texas from Hurricane Rita
He’s quite the potatohead. If you put toothpicks in him and stick him in a jar of water, you’ll get a vine.
tBone, DougJ –
C’mon guys, at least his posts are literate. If you’re not civil to him, he’ll never concede a point. Of course, if you are civil to him, he won’t concede a point either, but at least the conversation will stay on topic. I am taking a vow. I will not be mean to Darrell (on this thread anyway) unless he reverts to insult and name-calling, like calling me Dumbass again, in which case I shall unsheath my rapier wit and club him senseless with it. (I know, that’s a straightline, please don’t pick up on it.)
jobiuspublius points to two federal assistance declarations.
This is a job for Deconstructionman (with a nod to Jacques Derrida, whom I never understood).
just like a rebate offer. Miss the deadline and you get nothing.
and nothing quite so specifically all-inclusive for Louisiana although
applies equally to both states in their respective entireties.
with no promise of parity between TX and LA in the application of discretion.
But hey, they mean well.
OK, I’m being unfair. Lets wait and see whether both states get fair, proportionate treatment.
Narvy, I’ve been patient with Darrell in the past. I explained to him about Richard Perle had been involved with communism, citing a link to and an excerpt from a lengthy wikipedia article. He then proceeded to ask me 4 times for an article about how Richard Perle had been a communist. I told him 4 times that I had already shown him such an article.
I think he is mentally ill. Which is fine, that’s what these comment areas are for.
I think he thought you meant Pearl Bailey.
If all that brush that got cleared over the summer ends up back in Bush’s favorite pickup trail, then we’ll see the president cry.
Huh? I thought I was being perfectly civil.
and several of us responded along the lines of
Looks like we were wrong, at least by the Bush administration’s standards. The Washington Post hasthis today:
Except, according to the article, they don’t do it that way in Mississippi.
I love the self-righteous delusional aspect so common to kooks on the left. So little contact with reality. DougJ of course, NEVER ONCE provided such a link as he’s claiming. Doubt me? Here is the thread he’s referring to. Not one link from him. Here is Richard Perle’s Wikipedia bio. Anybody see any reference to him being a “communist” or “trotskyite”? No? More refutation on his ‘factual’ claim here. But none of these details matter to the delusional kooks like DougJ, who now come on this separate thread to whine. Let it go Dougie, you’re obsession is getting a little creepy.
I agree, except the obsessive loons keep returning with posts like this:
The Feds in point of fact control but 2.7% of the dams in this country. Hardly a “huge” percentage.. more like a drop in the bucket. Granted, they may have played some role in some dams taken over by states and municipalities, but I see no evidence whatsoever, and you have provided none, that the Feds play/played anything close to a “huge” role in our nation’s dams.
Okay, I’ve read over what Darrell is saying in this thread and I agree with a lot of it philosophically.
Oh I get it, because Bush is from Texas and those people in NO were mostly black, therefore you think Texas will likely get a far better response than Louisiana, right? Do you seriously believe that embrace of such conspiratorial views is not kooky? And because these responses will likely be under such analogous circumstances, with all those Texas cities built under sea-level… oh wait.
I demand all Texans get $2,000 debit cards!
Darrell, the Western U.S. as we know it today would not exist without the huge dam/water development projects undertaken by the Federal government during the first half of the 20th century. IMO that qualifies as a “huge” role.
Also, I never said that the Feds control a huge percentage of the dams in this country. I said that most of the large-scale projects were Federal (true) and that many of the thousands of smaller dams around the country were at least partially funded with Federal dollars (also true). Just because most dams are owned/operated/regulated by a state or local agency, it doesn’t mean that the Feds had no involvement.
Read up on the development of the West sometime, or rent Chinatown.
From FEMA’s website. Scroll down about 1/3 of the way to see the graph on ownership of dams. Only a tiny miniscule number run by the Feds. Hardly a “huge” role by any measure. Army corps of engineers? They have authority on only 609 out of the 75,000+ dams in this country. What’s more, of even that tiny percentage, the Army corp did not build all of those
Of the tiny percentage of dams run by the Feds, many were not designed, contructed or owned by the Army corps.
Source In other words, of even that 3% of dams controlled by Feds, many of those were not built or owned by the Feds
My sources = FEMA, National Performance of Dams Program
tBone’s source = Roman Polanski’s Chinatown
I’m just sayin’
I can’t find the conspiratorial view I embraced in
Unless acknowledging unfairness and saying “Let’s wait and see” is part of a really subtle conspiracy. I also can’t find anything in my posting to support your attribution to me of the idea that
I happen not to believe that race played a role in the FEMA response to Katrina, but apparently you prefer to leap headlong to unwarranted conclusions rather than ask what your correspondent actually thinks. Don’t you ever stop to think about why people respond to your postings the way they do?
And, yes, I think there’s a possibility that states where the President has a personal or political interest might get more favorable treatment from the administration. Florida certainly got better hurricane response in 2004 than LA did in 2005. If you think that commenting on a potential disparity is asserting a kooky conspiracy theory, I don’t see how we can have a serious discusssion.
In disaster relief?? Sorry, that’s a kook position no matter how you slice it
Bush to M. Brown and armed forces commanders: “Can you guys slow the relief efforts down a bit? We are talking about Louisiana after all.” [/channeling moonbat]
Thank you for focusing on the really big issue — an opinion for which there is no supporting evidence except past behavior of the administration — and ignoring the trivial non-issue of falsely attributing to other people views that they do not hold.
I give up Dude. You don’t exist anymore. This is the last post of mine in which the name “Darrell” will occur.
(God, grant me the power to stick to that resolve. My name is Narvy and I’m a Balloon-Juice poster, taking it one post at a time.)
Well, so much for my resolve.
Bush never made a call like that, he was way too disengaged to even notice what was happening, let alone issue orders.
I enjoy any reference to classic 70s cinema, but I think right now both sources have about the same amount of credibility.
“Forget it, Brownie, it’s Chinatown.”
I enjoy any reference to classic 70s cinema, but I think right now both sources have about the same amount of credibility.
“Forget it, Brownie, it’s Chinatown.”
As I’ve tried repeatedly to point out, a dam can be owned/operated/regulated/controlled by someone else and still have had Federal involvement.
You want to play trivia? According to the National Dam Inventory (the official dam registry of the U.S., maintained by the Corps of Engineers under a Congressional Order), there are currently 79,777 dams in the U.S.
Of those 79,777, the Federal government:
Funded – 11,980 (15%)
Designed – 23,768 (30%)
Constructed – 12,680 (16%)
Seriously, if you can’t look at the massive water projects that transformed the American West and concede that the feds have played a significant role in this country’s history of dam building, then I might as well go beat my head against a brick wall. It would be less painful.
And as I have pointed out, a dam can be regulated/controlled by the feds, and they didn’t even design, fund or build it. Thanks for the link, but it doesn’t take me to the info that you cite. Can you try again and give me a correct link as I am interested to see the details. For example, I’d like to see what constitutes “funded”. Does paying some small grant constitute ‘funding’ a dam largely otherwise paid for by private and/or state funds? How about defining constructed? Does this mean some role as project mgmt while others do the bulk of the construction or what? Does federal ‘involvement’ at some minor level constitute a “huge role” in your book?
Best possible case from your stated data which could not be determined from your link, 15% of the bridges paid for and constructed by the Feds, and even the definition of “paid for” and “constructed” have not been spelled out. Not at all anything approaching a “huge role” by the federal government as you have claimed. Again, the Army corps of engineers has responsibility for only 609 dams out of 79,000.
Your point was that the feds pretty much built our systems of dams. “Huge role” were your words. Facts say otherwise. You made this claim in the context of trying to make the case for the federal govt to pay for all port rebuilding, since (according to you) the feds pretty much are responsible for our system of dams (an extreme characterization by any reading of the data presented so far), they should also take over paying for port reconstruction. Feds shouldn’t have to pay for port reconstruction and they were far from being the main force in our system of dams
Find the database on their site and download it. That’s where the numbers are from. You’ll need Access and some patience.
I said they played a huge role, not that they “pretty much built our system of dams.” Do you honestly not see the difference? The Feds also played a “huge role” in over-the-road transportation in this country by building the interstate highway system; I guess you would argue that that’s insignificant next to the number of county-owned gravel roads.
Anyway, I’m done; this is quite possibly the stupidest conversation I’ve ever let myself be sucked into.
“Suppose you have a system of waterways and ports upon which a huge portion of the country depends for the flow of goods and materials. You want to hold the ports financially responsible for recovering from a disaster”
Actually, that makes a great deal of sense. The ports pay for levees, for insuring themselves against disaster and for recovery from same, and other costs that allow the port to exist there. Costs that allow people to live there safely (part of the levee cost, shelters, extra roads, cars) are paid by the people living there, and the port has to pay people enough to make paying those costs worthwhile or to make commuting in worth while.
Where does the port get that money? From fees charged to shippers. And those fees get passed on to… everyone in the country that uses products shipped through that port.
And the neat part about it is that the price signals getting transmitted tell shippers whether to ship through New Orleans or whether it makes more sense to forget that whole below-sea-level-port business and ship through Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, or some other place like that.
The downside, of course, is that this involves tax money being collected and spent by the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, which pretty much guarantees that inefficiency, corruption, graft, and so forth will be a much bigger problem than anything coming out of the Bush Administration.