 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am really tired of reading all the leftist hate about how President Bush is allegedly "responsible" for the damage caused by hurricane Katrina.
I think we all know how the left would react if someone on the right declared the above headline to be the reason behind all the devastation. Yet they cannot see how they themselves look when they claim that "global warming" not only caused the hurricane, but it could have been stopped if only President Bush hadn't "torn up" the Kyoto treaty (which was never passed by Congress, but never mind that). How it is somehow President Bush's fault that the state of Louisiana and/or the city of New Orleans didn't upgrade their own levees (all problems stem from a lack of Federal funding). How, even though Homeland Defense/FEMA funding has been vastly increased under President Bush (more than doubling since 2002), it is all his fault that FEMA directors didn't make upgrading of the New Orleans region a priority. Perhaps if he had tripled the budget they would have gotten around to it?
Let's see what the FY2005 budget had in it for disaster relief, shall we?
When a major disaster strikes, assistance is necessary to meet the emergency needs of families and individuals, and to help pay for the rebuilding and repair of critical community infrastructure. DHS has continued to assist States in response and recovery after a disaster. In 2003, there were 62 major disasters and 19 emergencies, in addition to the continued response to previous disasters. This included recovery of the Space Shuttle Columbia, response to the Northeast blackouts, and relief from Hurricane Isabel and the California wildfires. The 2005 Budget provides $2.9 billion for disaster relief—a level consistent with the average non-terrorist disaster costs over the past five years. This includes over $2 billion in new funds, which is over $300 million more than the 2004 appropriation, as well as money expected to remain available from prior years.
Gosh, no cuts there. Indeed, the vast majority of disaster relief funds are provided through supplemental spending bills after a disaster has been declared.
And
The Department continues to work towards protecting people and property from damage due to disasters. The Pre-disaster Mitigation program, which helps to minimize the devastation caused by natural disasters, will continue to support well-designed mitigation projects through a competitive grant process. Additionally, DHS is working to replace and modernize the Nation's Flood Insurance Rate Maps.
Gee, look that. Modernizing the flood insurance rate maps so everyone would know where the greatest need was for improved flood control. Why, that just proves that President Bush is a heartless bastard!
And just how much money are we talking about? In 2004 spending was $3.8 billion. Estimates for FY2005 at the time were for $5.6 billion in spending. But what about the Corps of Engineers, allegedly the subject of massive funding cuts? FY2004 spending was $4.6 billion, projected spending for 2005: $4.7 billion.
I don't know about the left, but that sure looks like an increase of $1.8 billion for disaster relief and $100 million for the Corps of Engineers to me.
And...what's this?! The west bank of the Mississippi in Louisiana listed as a priority for the Corps of Engineers?! That can't possibly be true! Oh, but it is.
Flood/Storm Damage Reduction. The Budget provides $450 million to continue progress on flood damage reduction projects, including projects in Sims Bayou, Texas, and West Bank, Louisiana.
Gosh, that changes things a bit, doesn't it? Apparently the left is simply telling a bunch of lies. I am shocked, shocked I say to discover that. (Don't they realize how ridiculous they sound?)
Doesn't it make you glad that you are too smart to be a liberal and too honest to be a Democrat?
Current Mood : working 
Tags : hurricane katrina
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, and the argument that Katrina was caused by global warming turns out to be a bucket of tripe as well. From the New York TImes, no less: August 30, 2005
Storms Vary With Cycles, Experts Say
By KENNETH CHANG
Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming.
But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught “is very much natural,” said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.
From 1970 to 1994, the Atlantic was relatively quiet, with no more than three major hurricanes in any year and none at all in three of those years. Cooler water in the North Atlantic strengthened wind shear, which tends to tear storms apart before they turn into hurricanes.
In 1995, hurricane patterns reverted to the active mode of the 1950’s and 60’s. From 1995 to 2003, 32 major hurricanes, with sustained winds of 111 miles per hour or greater, stormed across the Atlantic. It was chance, Dr. Gray said, that only three of them struck the United States at full strength.
Historically, the rate has been 1 in 3.
Then last year, three major hurricanes, half of the six that formed during the season, hit the United States. A fourth, Frances, weakened before striking Florida.
“We were very lucky in that eight-year period, and the luck just ran out,” Dr. Gray said.
Global warming may eventually intensify hurricanes somewhat, though different climate models disagree.
In an article this month in the journal Nature, Kerry A. Emanuel, a hurricane expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote that global warming might have already had some effect. The total power dissipated by tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic and North Pacific increased 70 to 80 percent in the last 30 years, he wrote.
But even that seemingly large jump is not what has been pushing the hurricanes of the last two years, Dr. Emanuel said, adding, “What we see in the Atlantic is mostly the natural swing.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it's nice to be able to count on your audience not ever doing any fact checking. All that conservative talk radio really drills that into you, doesn't it?
You make this little quote here:
Flood/Storm Damage Reduction. The Budget provides $450 million to continue progress on flood damage reduction projects, including projects in Sims Bayou, Texas, and West Bank, Louisiana.
However, this is completely meaningless to your claim that the Army Corps of Engineers had enough money in the FY2005 budget, which you linked to. If you actually read through the budget, you'll see that $37 million was allocated to the West Bank of the Mississippi in LA, and that only $50 million total was allocated for flood control in general. When the Corps is saying they need $200 million to finish the project, $37 million just isn't going to cut it.
Apparently, the right tells just as many lies as the left. And this makes me glad that I'm smarter and more honest than liberals, Democrats, conservatives and Republicans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
