<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Donovan et. al.<BR>
<BR>
I am not against the Feds spending billions on aid for Katrina relief. I just think the issues of the wisdom of monitoring on what projects the money is spent with what methods of accountability are worth considering, rather than rushing into a politically motivated PR damage control scenario to spend billions as quickly as possible, that could result in a lot of the federal funding not serving the real needs of the people suffering.<BR>
<BR>
If it means waiting a day or two to write language into this relief bill to provide more guarantees that the money will be spent in a manner that really assists the most needy suffering from Katrina's wrath, which means the most poor and disadvantaged, why is this not a good idea? I am cynical enough about how government works to imagine that many congressional politicians may see a huge spending bill with minimal oversight to be a chance for them to funnel government funds for their districts with the goal of pursuing their pet projects that may seem related to Katrina relief, but really do not offer timely assistance to the most needy hurricane victims.<BR>
<BR>
I am aware that Otter's political views might lead him to oppose such a huge federal spending bill to assist the most poor and disadvantaged victims of Katrina, even if there was rigorous oversight and accountability.<BR>
<BR>
I don't think Otter's political career is that imperiled by his "no" vote on this federal aid package for Katrina relief. Remember, Idaho has the most republican dominated legislature in the USA, Idaho's recent poll numbers show Bush with the highest popularity among all states, and where did Bush chose to "flee" to meet with mothers of soldiers in Iraq who support Bush when he was countering the Cindy Sheehan campaign during the weeks before Katrina hit?<BR>
<BR>
Our lovely state of Idaho!<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett <BR>
</FONT></HTML>