<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
Funding to improve the New Orleans flood protection system was given scant attention by the Bush administration:<BR>
<BR>
This info from this newspaper article dated 8/31/05 available at the web link below:<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1125468020104100.xml&coll=1&thispage=1">http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-2/1125468020104100.xml&coll=1&thispage=1</A><BR>
<BR>
Until recently, efforts to squeeze coastal protection money out of Washington have met with resistance. The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. Ultimately a deal was struck to steer $540 million to the state over four years. The total coast of repair work is estimated to be $14 billion. <BR>
<BR>
In its budget, the Bush administration had also proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need. <BR>
-------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
If the Bush administration had funded the 14 billion dollar figure the article above claims is needed for flood protection in and around New Orleans, would this have prevented or lessened the catastrophic flooding of New Orleans? Probably not, due to the years/decades it can take to complete such massive construction projects. We could just as well blame Clinton for not prioritizing this critical infrastructure. If his administration had funded 14 billion in flood protection for the New Orleans area, there would have been more time for construction before Katrina hit.<BR>
<BR>
Nonetheless, the thousands of National Guard troops from Mississippi and Louisiana that are now in Iraq is certainly part of the problem with the insufficient response to this disaster.<BR>
<BR>
The lack of investment in critical domestic infrastructure in the USA, while we spend hundreds of billions to fight the war on terror on foreign soil, suggests warped priorities on the part of the Bush administration. Hurricane Katrina can be compared to a massive terrorist attack in terms of lives lost and damage to infrastructure. <BR>
<BR>
Political/economic ideology has resulted in an allocation of hundreds of billions of taxpayers dollars to fight wars oversees, while we neglect critical domestic infrastructure. Even if the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is agreed to be necessary for the protection of the USA, how can it be argued that we should at the same time underfund critical domestic infrastructure, that can prevent thousands dying and billions of dollars in losses from natural disasters?<BR>
<BR>
If the response to Hurricane Katrina is symptomatic of how the new Homeland Security Department and other emergency response systems now operate, it appears obvious that our domestic preparedness to respond to a major terror attack are woefully inadequate.<BR>
<BR>
Those who have been claiming that while we fight the war on terror on foreign soil, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, we are not domestically prepared for the very kind of large scale terror attack on US soil we at war to prevent, have just had their argument validated.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>