MSM: Questions Answered, Loops Closed
I have received many visits and comments due to my original post regarding the flip-flop of the NYT in regards to the topics of flood control and the responses of the federal government in previous flood-related natural disasters. The NYT asked the following question in their 1 September 2005 editorial "Waiting for a Leader":
Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?
Fortunately, an answer is provided....
In April of this year the Senate proposed a bill, S. 728: (H/T American Thinker)
To provide for the consideration and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.
Among the proposals in the bill, Section 1001:
(16) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOUISIANA.
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $788,000,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $512,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $275,800,000.
Once again, the NYT editorial response to the above referenced Senate bill S. 728, "The Untouchable Corps" 13 April 2005 (via Lexis-Nexis):
Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.
The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.
This is a bad piece of legislation.
Since the NYT only highlights one flood control and water-related project "boondoggle" in the bill, their feelings on the $512m being "shoveled" at the Army Corps of Engineers for Louisiana hurricane and storm damage reduction may fall under the rubric of what they call "pork." See the NYT own abstract here.
Use your own judgement in regards to the credibility of the NYT on this issue. As my friend Tim Worstall would ask, "Do they have editors?"
Update: With some slight administrative changes, look who actually did support the House version of the same bill.
Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?
Fortunately, an answer is provided....
In April of this year the Senate proposed a bill, S. 728: (H/T American Thinker)
To provide for the consideration and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.
Among the proposals in the bill, Section 1001:
(16) MORGANZA TO THE GULF OF MEXICO, LOUISIANA.
(A) IN GENERAL.—The project for hurricane and storm damage reduction, Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana: Reports of the Chief of Engineers, dated August 23, 2002, and July 22, 2003, at a total cost of $788,000,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $512,200,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $275,800,000.
Once again, the NYT editorial response to the above referenced Senate bill S. 728, "The Untouchable Corps" 13 April 2005 (via Lexis-Nexis):
Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.
The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.
This is a bad piece of legislation.
Since the NYT only highlights one flood control and water-related project "boondoggle" in the bill, their feelings on the $512m being "shoveled" at the Army Corps of Engineers for Louisiana hurricane and storm damage reduction may fall under the rubric of what they call "pork." See the NYT own abstract here.
Use your own judgement in regards to the credibility of the NYT on this issue. As my friend Tim Worstall would ask, "Do they have editors?"
Update: With some slight administrative changes, look who actually did support the House version of the same bill.
posted by Georges at 08:36
<< Home