Re: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: keith <krw@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:02:31 -0400
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:18:01 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>
>
> keith wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 08:08:29 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Richard Crowley wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Pooh Bear" wrote ...
>>>>
>>>>>A poster to the previous thread I started posted the following link.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/08/31/disaster_preparation/
>>>>>
>>>>>Includes...
>>>>>
>>>>>" A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how
>>>>>New
>>>>>Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush
>>>>>administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. "
>>>>>
>>>>>your comments are welcome
>>>>
>>>>A year ago a study was proposed about almost anything you
>>>>can imagine (and likely scores of things you can't imagine.)
>>>>Proves nothing except that likely too many studies are being
>>>>proposed.
>>>>
>>>>Your "hindsight" is admirable. Try to resist being sucked into
>>>>the mass media hysteria.
>>>
>>>" It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to
>>>handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's
>>>the price we pay.
>>
>>
>> Umm, Congress sets the budget. Specifically all budget and spending
>> bills must originate in the House. The President can only ask for
>> money. The House may or may not put it in the budget. All the
>> President can do is sign the bill or veto it (I don't believe GWB has
>> vetoed a single bill in five and a half years).
>>
>>
> No- not quite- the President submits his budget through the Office of
> Management and Budget, and then the legislature creates an
> Appropriations Bill and enacts it, as required by the Constitution.
No, the Constitution says nothing about the OMB nor the President's
budget. All it says is that anything with money in it starts in the
House. Congress may (and usually does) ignore the President's budget.
> The
> President has no line item veto authority, remember that one, he can
> only sign or veto the whole Bill.
I think I said that. ;-)
> I don't consider the story about
> zeroing the Army Corps of Engineers proposed study to be significant,
> and the reduced funding for maintaining the levee at Cat 3 strength also
> made no difference, it was going to topple this time. So that even
> though I am disgusted with this Administration, they are not really at
> fault here.
>From what I've been able to gather, the levees weren't washed out by the
storm surge going over the top, rather they were undermined and collapsed.
It appears that there may have been a fault in at least that levee such
that it wouldn't even make its design point.
> And they are doing a good job of mobilizing resources for
> the response.
Wow! I think you're the only one who thinks so. ...in the opposition,
no less. I don't know how their doing. Too far away to judge, but there
are reports of monumentally *dumb* things the local authorities have
pulled (like turning back the 22 VA(?) sheriff's deputies who volunteered
to help out in Mississippi).
--
Keith
--
Keith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Jim Thompson
- Re: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- References:
- OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Pooh Bear
- Re: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Richard Crowley
- Re: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Pooh Bear
- Re: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: keith
- Re: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- From: Fred Bloggs
- OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- Next by Date: Re: OT: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- Previous by thread: Re: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- Next by thread: Re: followup on New Orleans - disgraceful
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|