Nawlins, Two Years On

**Lemur** · 08-30-2007, 05:26

I'll admit I haven't been following the post-Katrina rebuilding effort very closely. Um, at all. But with the two year anniversary upon us, I glanced at some of what's been written for the occasion. Kinda shocking. I had no idea that Karl Rove was put in charge of the federal effort.

And I had no idea that rebuilding was so utterly stalled:

I agree that looks bad, but I don't understand why it would benefit this administration or the Republican party to willfully abandon an American city. I just don't see political the logic of it. Admittedly, the admin's performance during and after the hurricane was awful, inexcusable, but so was the city's and the state's. There was plenty of blame to go around. Wouldn't it make the admin look good to step up and go gangbusters on the reconstruction? If not, why not?

Before you go crying that it's all about how corrupt and inefficient Louisianans are, check out some of the numbers from the GAO:

When pressed on the slow pace of recovery in the Gulf Coast, President Bush insists the federal government has fulfilled its promise to rebuild the region. The proof, he says, is in the big check the federal government signed to underwrite the recovery -- allegedly more than $116 billion. But residents of the still-devastated Gulf Coast are left wondering whether the check bounced.

"$116 billion is not a useful number," says Stanley Czerwinski of the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm.

For starters, most federal money -- about two-thirds -- was quickly spent for short-term needs like debris removal and Coast Guard rescue. As Czerwinski explains, "There is a significant difference between responding to an emergency and rebuilding post-disaster."

That has left little money for long-term Gulf Coast recovery projects. Although it's tricky to unravel the maze of federal reports, our best estimate of agency data is that only $35 billion has been appropriated for long-term rebuilding.

Even worse, less than 42 percent of the money set aside has even been spent, much less gotten to those most in need. For example:

* Washington set aside $16.7 billion for Community Development Block Grants, one of the two biggest sources of rebuilding funds, especially for housing. But as of March 2007, only $1 billion -- just 6 percent -- had been spent, almost all of it in Mississippi. Following bad publicity, HUD spent another $3.8 billion on the program between March and July, leaving 70 percent of the funds still unused.

* The other major source of rebuilding help was supposed to be FEMA's Public Assistance Program. But of the $8.2 billion earmarked, only $3.4 billion was meant for nonemergency projects like fixing up schools and hospitals.

* Louisiana officials recently testified that FEMA has also "low-balled" project costs, underestimating the true expenses by a factor of four or five. For example, for 11 Louisiana rebuilding projects, the lowest bids came to $5.5 million -- but FEMA approved only $1.9 million.

* After the failure of federal levees flooded 80 percent of New Orleans, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received $8.4 billion to restore storm defenses. But as of July 2007, less than 20 percent of the funds have been spent, even as the Corps admits that levee repair won't be completed until as late as 2011.

The fact that, two years later, most federal Katrina funds remain bottled up in bureaucracy is especially shocking considering that the amounts Washington allocated come nowhere near the anticipated costs of Gulf rebuilding.

So. Given all of this, what the **** is going on? Theories and hypotheses gratefully welcomed. No conspiracies unless you have documentation, please.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 08-30-2007, 05:37

Incompetence.

Don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, after all.

CR

**Xiahou** · 08-30-2007, 06:44

Two full years after the hurricane, the Big Easy is barely limping along, unable to make truly meaningful reconstruction progress. The most important issues concerning the city's long-term survival are still up in the air. Why is no Herculean clean-up effort underway? Why hasn't President Bush named a high-profile czar such as Colin Powell or James Baker to oversee the ongoing disaster? Where is the U.S. government's participation in the rebuilding?

Those questions are all idiotic in my opinion. I guess the federal government is supposed to just roll in and toss aside municipal and state governments, wave the magic wand, throw around some fat wads of cash and make everything "Better"(TM)? Just send Colin Powell in to run rough-shod over state sovereignty and municipal government.

What exactly should the federal government's responsibilities be in a situation like this? As the article states, they've already paid billions upon billions of dollars to clean up debris and rebuild infrastructure. New Orleans may still be a mess, but other areas hit just as hard, if not harder, are well on their way to recovery.

Many volunteers come to understand what I've concluded is the heartless reality: The Bush administration actually wants these neighborhoods below sea level to die on the vine.

I don't really think this is true, but it does beg a question. Why on earth would the federal government want to spend money on rebuilding communities below sea-level, in a flood zone? That whole story is a bunch of emotional-appeal, tripe.

**Geoffrey S** · 08-30-2007, 10:57

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Those questions are all idiotic in my opinion. I guess the federal government is supposed to just roll in and toss aside municipal and state governments, wave the magic wand, throw around some fat wads of cash and make everything "Better"(TM)? Just send Colin Powell in to run rough-shod over state sovereignty and municipal government.

What exactly should the federal government's responsibilities be in a situation like this? As the article states, they've already paid billions upon billions of dollars to clean up debris and rebuild infrastructure. New Orleans may still be a mess, but other areas hit just as hard, if not harder, are well on their way to recovery.

It seems that the state institutions clearly aren't up to the job, and I can see why. If the federal government has far more resources at its disposal and in theory should be able to concentrate them more effectively, then why not? I realise in the US strong federal government is hardly a popular form of running the country, but isn't it in precisely this kind of a situation where Washington can (or rather, should be able to) do things the individual states simply can't do as well on their own? I'd have thought that the whole point, in general letting states run things themselves and stepping in when necessary such as in Louisiana now.

**Don Corleone** · 08-30-2007, 11:53

Whenever I see somebody on television complaining about the lack of Katrina Aid, it's always somebody living in a trailer bitching that nobody has given them a 3000 ft^2 house with central AC yet. Sorry, my sympathies in that department run almost non-existently. Refugees fleeing for their lives from the Sudan with nothing but the clothes on their backs have arrived since the catastrophe and managed to get themselves settled. The Katrina victims have had just about every debt under the sun forgiven. All they have to do is get off their butts, get a job and start taking care of themselves. But apparently, that's too much to ask of them.

Seriously, when people need aid, I have as big a heart as anyone. But I'm not going to ooh and aah over these new emperor's clothes. After two years, these people need to start looking to their own needs. "Katrina aid" has become codeword for "permanent entitlement" and I want no parts of it.

**Lemur** · 08-30-2007, 15:42

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Why on earth would the federal government want to spend money on rebuilding communities below sea-level, in a flood zone?

Excellent question, and I haven't heard it addressed seriously by the President, FEMA, Karl Rove, the Governor or the Mayor. Both enviro-weenies and big oil representatives agree that the wetlands should be re-seeded and the city made much smaller. When environmentalists and petro-businesses agree on something it's worth taking note.

So why did the President blindly pledge to rebuild Nawlins? Why didn't anyone start a conversation about how maybe the city needed to be radically reconfigured?

**Devastatin Dave** · 08-30-2007, 16:09

Some people are just incapable of doing ANYTHING for themselves. No matter how much federal aid or programs you give them they will NEVER be anymore than a leach on our tax dollar. These "Nawlins" Katrina "victims" need to get off their collective asses (probably for the first time in their lives), throw away the 40's, put out the Kools, break the crack pipes, and WORK to get THEIR city straight. The Man is getting pretty tired of having to do EVERYTHING for those who won't do for themselves except use the same excuses used for the past 50 damn years.

**Lemur** · 08-30-2007, 16:20

So Don and Dave, both of you are putting forward the Permanent Parasites argument, if I'm getting you correctly?

**Odin** · 08-30-2007, 12:13

Originally Posted by Lemur

Theories and hypotheses gratefully welcomed.

The federal government is consumed with Iraq/afghanistan and cleaning up the messes of scandals. Lemur's opening line is telling, he along with millions of other americans havent been paying attention to the aftermath of Katrina. We are awash in recycled news of failure in Iraq, and however else the media can beat the dead horse that is Bush.

One only needs to look at, lets say April 2007 what were the predominate news stories? Was Katrina recovery 5% of them? Public awareness is often driven by media outlets and its far to easy to hammer on Iraq.

Meantime gas lines burst in manhattan, bridges collapse, floods in the corn belt, fires on the west cost, Air traffic control system from the 50's, a power grid that is failing....

Domestic infrastructure issues dont make sexy news casts and sell commercials unless someone dies. I work with my town government and at the local level thats where this business of rebuilding bridges (and its funding) gets hashed out.

So nawlins has been left to its own devices, not surprisingly its a domestic infrastructure issue which rarely garnishes national attention.

**drone** · 08-30-2007, 15:41

Originally Posted by Lemur

I agree that looks bad, but I don't understand why it would benefit this administration or the Republican party to willfully abandon an American city. I just don't see political the logic of it. Admittedly, the admin's performance during and after the hurricane was awful, inexcusable, but so was the city's and the state's. There was plenty of blame to go around. Wouldn't it make the admin look good to step up and go gangbusters on the reconstruction? If not, why not?

From a politically cynical viewpoint, why would a Republican administration rebuild New Orleans? It's not like they will ever win over the voters there. The GOP cares about suburbs and rural areas more than major cities, that's where their support is.

From a practical standpoint, I pretty much agree that the areas below sea level should not be rebuilt. A waste of current funds and a potential disaster waiting to happen. But if that's the plan, they need to just step up and say it, and tell the former residents that they need to give up hope of returning and get a job somewhere else.