Incoming Retaliatory Strike Part II: Where Did The Money Go?

As the old adage goes, and my grandfather’s close friend remarked: "If you want to find the rats in the system, follow the money." Thomas made a comment earlier today regarding money that was earmarked for improving flood controls. Today’s WaPo also has the story. (If not registered, you will have to. It is free.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090702462.html?sub=new

Before Hurricane Katrina breached a levee on the New Orleans Industrial Canal, the Army Corps of Engineers had already launched a $748 million construction project at that very location. But the project had nothing to do with flood control. The Corps was building a huge new lock for the canal, an effort to accommodate steadily increasing barge traffic.

Except that barge traffic on the canal has been steadily decreasing.

In Katrina's wake, Louisiana politicians and other critics have complained about paltry funding for the Army Corps in general and Louisiana projects in particular. But over the five years of President Bush's administration, Louisiana has received far more money for Corps civil works projects than any other state, about $1.9 billion; California was a distant second with less than $1.4 billion, even though its population is more than seven times as large.

Much of that Louisiana money was spent to try to keep low-lying New Orleans dry. But hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to unrelated water projects demanded by the state's congressional delegation and approved by the Corps, often after economic analyses that turned out to be inaccurate. Despite a series of independent investigations criticizing Army Corps construction projects as wasteful pork-barrel spending, Louisiana's representatives have kept bringing home the bacon.

So, part of the truth is now laid bear. Rather than take the money they demanded and fix their problems, the money has gone to things completely unrelated to upgrades and maintenance of their flood control measures. As is apparent above, that money went to something that not only did not relate to flood control, nor help with disaster prevention, but it dealt with an issue that was decreasing in need.

"We've been hollering about funding for years, but everyone would say: There goes Louisiana again, asking for more money," said former Democratic senator John Breaux. "We've had some powerful people in powerful places, but we never got what we needed."

That may be true. But those powerful people -- including former senators Breaux, Johnston and Russell Long, as well as former House committee chairmen Robert Livingston and W.J. "Billy" Tauzin -- did get quite a bit of what they wanted. And the current delegation -- led by Landrieu and GOP Sen. David Vitter -- has continued that tradition.

The Senate's latest budget bill for the Corps included 107 Louisiana projects worth $596 million, including $15 million for the Industrial Canal lock, for which the Bush administration had proposed no funding. Landrieu said the bill would "accelerate our flood control, navigation and coastal protection programs." Vitter said he was "grateful that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee were persuaded of the importance of these projects."

Louisiana not only leads the nation in overall Corps funding, it places second in new construction -- just behind Florida, home of an $8 billion project to restore the Everglades. Several controversial projects were improvements for the Port of New Orleans, an economic linchpin at the mouth of the Mississippi. There were also several efforts to deepen channel for oil and gas tankers, a priority for petroleum companies that drill in the Gulf of Mexico.

"We thought all the projects were important -- not just levees," Breaux said. "Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but navigation projects were critical to our economic survival."

I will be nicer to Mr. Breaux than I should be because of the common sense he has put to the Democrats regarding the nomination of John Roberts. However, this is not about hindsight. This is about the politicians at the time, knowing that Louisiana—without the upgrades to protect the city from a natural disaster—could face severe devastation, and they opted to spend the money on things that were not needed. Mr. Breaux states that the barge project was "critical" to their economy. How can he say that when state figures showed it was on the decrease. Hmmm...Make the levees stronger, or cater to a group of people that are not helping your economy that much? Boy, that is a tough question. It is about as tough as the question that President Bush as Gov. Blanco.

"Don’t you think you should call for the evacuation?"

"Mr. President, can you give me twenty-four hours to mull that one over? I’m trying to figure out how I’m getting out of here."

And I have some news to Sen. Landrieu, and it is not good. If I were her, I would keep my yap shut, lest congressional investigators would like to dive into her family’s history as a prominent political arm in Louisiana politics. She may never expect what they might find. Not that they would, per se, but New Orleans has been a corrupt city for a long time. And that goes to both sides of the aisle.

So, for all those out there still supporting the governor, the mayor, Sen. Landrieu, or anyone else pointing fingers at the federal government for dropping the ball, you are only partially correct. Congress should have paid a lot closer attention to where this money was going. But the rest of the blame lies with those in power, who opted to misspend the money, and refuse to address a problem that is at catastrophic proportions, rather than a minor inconvenience as it should have been.

The Bunny ;)