WASHINGTON - For years, Washington had been warned that doom lurked
> just beyond the levees. And for years, the White House and Congress
> had dickered over how much money to put into shoring up century-old
> dikes and carrying out newer flood control projects to protect the
> city of New Orleans.
There are a great many projects throughout the United States that are 'critical' but are 'underfunded'.
The Federal Government does not have an unlimited well and can't pay for everything everybody wants.
It must be remembered that many people strongly disagree on what projects are actually "critical" as well as what constitutes "underfunding". Let's take an example close to home:
If it were up to me, every Telecommunications service provider or manufacturer would have regular on-site audits by both technical and financial inspectors by the FCC to ensure their system is reliable, won't screw up other people, meets high standards of performance, and isn't a sham -- the kind of oversight to prevent a Norvergence.
But I can't help but suspect a lot of people in that business, especially smaller ones, would feel that's a waste of money and would not appreciate FCC inspectors nosing about their business asking tough questions and demanding answers.
In other newsgroups, there was considerable debate concerning if in fact the levees were underfunded or who was responsible for what.
Anyway, every state has a backlog of critical bridge and highway construction and lots of other needs.
In my state, the Feds proposed a flood control project that the locals shot down. Years later, we got very serious flooding that that project could've prevented, and now it's up for discussion again. So, people can't even agree on what desirable infrastructure is. In New Orleans, they're arguing about wetland areas, for example.
I also note that some newspaper columnists pulled the race card, claim> To cut spending, officials gambled that the worst-case scenario
would not come to be.
The reality is that this kind of gamble is done every day in every city across the country. There simply is not enough resources to do everything everyone wants done.
First off, not everyone agrees on criticiality of every project. Some projects may hurt other people who object to them (a flood control project was nixed because of that). Not everyone agrees on the amount of funding necessary.
Secondly, there are many infrastructure needs that could called inadequate. Roads, highways, hospitals. We do the best we can.
As an example close to home, I would be in favor of beefing up the FCC with technical and financial inspectors who would rigorously check all telecom providers (service and equipment) to ensure they meet rigorous standards. Let's prevent another Norvergence. I'd dare say a lot of people in that business would resent such severe demands and time requirements to fulfill those audits. Who would be right? As you can see, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer when it comes to spending money or taking Federal action.
By the way, The New York Times had a columnist, Tierney, blame the local officials for the failure: