Two Years After Katrina, Billions in Relief Funds Are Missing

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
By Jeffrey Buchanan and Chris Kromm, AlterNet. Posted August 23, 2007.

The federal government has promised more than $116 billion in recovery aid, but residents of the still-devastated Gulf Coast wonder whether the check bounced.​

This article is taken from the new report compiled by the Institute for Southern Studies called, "Blueprint for Gulf Renewal," giving a voice to grassroots advocates calling for greater federal accountability in the Gulf Coast rebuilding process. The report is available at: http://www.southernstudies.org/BlueprintShort.pdf.

When pressed on the slow pace of recovery in the Gulf Coast, President Bush insists the federal government has fulfilled its promise to rebuild the region. The proof, he says, is in the big check the federal government signed to underwrite the recovery -- allegedly more than $116 billion. But residents of the still-devastated Gulf Coast are left wondering whether the check bounced.

"$116 billion is not a useful number," says Stanley Czerwinski of the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm.

For starters, most federal money -- about two-thirds -- was quickly spent for short-term needs like debris removal and Coast Guard rescue. As Czerwinski explains, "There is a significant difference between responding to an emergency and rebuilding post-disaster."

That has left little money for long-term Gulf Coast recovery projects. Although it's tricky to unravel the maze of federal reports, our best estimate of agency data is that only $35 billion has been appropriated for long-term rebuilding.

Even worse, less than 42 percent of the money set aside has even been spent, much less gotten to those most in need. For example:

  • Washington set aside $16.7 billion for Community Development Block Grants, one of the two biggest sources of rebuilding funds, especially for housing. But as of March 2007, only $1 billion -- just 6 percent -- had been spent, almost all of it in Mississippi. Following bad publicity, HUD spent another $3.8 billion on the program between March and July, leaving 70 percent of the funds still unused.
  • The other major source of rebuilding help was supposed to be FEMA's Public Assistance Program. But of the $8.2 billion earmarked, only $3.4 billion was meant for nonemergency projects like fixing up schools and hospitals.
  • Louisiana officials recently testified that FEMA has also "low-balled" project costs, underestimating the true expenses by a factor of four or five. For example, for 11 Louisiana rebuilding projects, the lowest bids came to $5.5 million -- but FEMA approved only $1.9 million.
  • After the failure of federal levees flooded 80 percent of New Orleans, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers received $8.4 billion to restore storm defenses. But as of July 2007, less than 20 percent of the funds have been spent, even as the Corps admits that levee repair won't be completed until as late as 2011.

The fact that, two years later, most federal Katrina funds remain bottled up in bureaucracy is especially shocking considering that the amounts Washington allocated come nowhere near the anticipated costs of Gulf rebuilding.

For example, the $3.4 billion FEMA has available to recover local public infrastructure would only cover about one-eighth of the damage suffered in Louisiana alone. But this money is spread across five states -- Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas -- and covers damage from three 2005 hurricanes, Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

Congress has acted on some of the money holdups, like changing a requirement in the Stafford Act that mandates local governments pay 10 percent of rebuilding projects up front before receiving federal aid. The Bush administration had refused to waive the rule -- like it did for New York after 9/11 -- grounding countless projects. The effect of the rule was particularly devastating in the hardest-hit places like Mississippi's Hancock County, where communities lost most of their tax base after the storms.

Many in Washington claim that state and local governments are to blame: The money's there, they say, but the locals just aren't using it. And it's true that there have been problems below the federal level. For example, Louisiana's "Road Home" program -- created by Congress but run by the state -- has been so poorly managed that 18 months after the storms only 630 homeowners had received checks. Closings have sped up since then, but administrators admit many won't see money until 2008, if at all -- the program is facing a projected $3 billion shortfall.

But the White House and Congress have done little to exercise oversight of these federally backed programs, much less step in to remove red tape and make sure taxpayer money gets to its intended destination.

This is especially true when it comes to tax breaks and rebuilding contracts. Included in the $116 billion figure is $3.5 billion in tax breaks to jump-start business in Gulf Opportunity Zones -- "GO Zones" -- across 91 parishes and counties in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. But many of the breaks have been of questionable benefit to Katrina survivors, like a $1 million deal to build 10 luxury condos next to the University of Alabama football stadium -- four hours from the Gulf Coast.

Federal contracts for rebuilding and recovery have also been marked by scandal, fraud and abuse. An August 2006 study by the office of Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., identified 19 contracts worth $8.75 billion that experienced "significant overcharges, wasteful spending or mismanagement."

For thousands of Gulf residents, the end result is that federal support for recovery after Katrina's devastation has been insufficient, too slow and hasn't gotten to those most in need.

"Where did it go?" says Tanya Harris of ACORN in New Orleans when asked about the $116 billion. "Tell me. Where did it go?"
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Vi, the FEMA Monies were given and mismanaged under the Republicans. So what is your next weak argument going to be????
 

cwil916

Active Member
That shit was so meant to be that way. Our government gets what they pay for. Whatever the results are, that is what our government ordered. New Orleans should look like fucking Disneyland by now. And it looks like the hurricane was there last week. Wake the fuck up people and watch the movie Zeitgeist. Go to zeitgeistmovie.com and see the truth.

Pm me with comments about the movie if you like.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Vi, the FEMA Monies were given and mismanaged under the Republicans. So what is your next weak argument going to be????
I know you're smarter than that, Dank. Geeze man, lighten up a bit.

First, I don't care what party is in control of the White House ... Katrina was a major bureaucratic nightmare. Administrations come an go, but the bureaucracies stay in place and bureaucrats pretty much stay in their jobs. It is these bureaucrats that you devotees of government health care would put in charge. Sorry ... I take one look at Katrina and know you are being misled.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
I know you're smarter than that, Dank. Geeze man, lighten up a bit.

First, I don't care what party is in control of the White House ... Katrina was a major bureaucratic nightmare. Administrations come an go, but the bureaucracies stay in place and bureaucrats pretty much stay in their jobs. It is these bureaucrats that you devotees of government health care would put in charge. Sorry ... I take one look at Katrina and know you are being misled.

Vi
What a weak ass arguement, Bureaucrats come and go. Well these were G.W.Bush appointees, as in "Good job Brownie", Bullshit. Had this happened on Clintons watch, there would have been a lot different outcome. The city of New Orleans would be back and the people would be lovin life. This administration has done more to harm people worldwide, including the USA than any besides Stalin and Hitler since I've been born. Sig Heil to you also.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Med ...

Are all of the employees of the IRS, NEA, Justice, FBI, DEA, FEMA, BATF, FAA, FCC, etc., all Bush appointees? Like I said, bureaucracies remain after a president leaves office and then, with a wink of the eye, and knowing glances toward their fellow workers, they welcome the new president in. And these are the types you would trust our entire medical system to?

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Med ...

Are all of the employees of the IRS, NEA, Justice, FBI, DEA, FEMA, BATF, FAA, FCC, etc., all Bush appointees? Like I said, bureaucracies remain after a president leaves office and then, with a wink of the eye, and knowing glances toward their fellow workers, they welcome the new president in. And these are the types you would trust our entire medical system to?

Vi
I think much more than a multi-million dollar CEO of a HMO, that lives to curtail the most medical care he can get away with.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Umm, hmmm ... so putting IRS types, Katrina types and DMV types in charge of your heart bypass operation is perfectly OK with you? Personally, I'd rather have a guy operating on me who understands that his reputation, and therefore, his future income is at stake. If he makes a healthy profit off of my heart operation, so be it.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Umm, hmmm ... so putting IRS types, Katrina types and DMV types in charge of your heart bypass operation is perfectly OK with you? Personally, I'd rather have a guy operating on me who understands that his reputation, and therefore, his future income is at stake. If he makes a healthy profit off of my heart operation, so be it.

Vi
I've already said that rich assholes like you can use their own expensive dr.s, OK Dorkwad, go ahead and spend-spend-spend, just let the rest of us have some kind of medical that will suffice, Over.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Med ...

Making statements like "rich assholes like you," and calling me a "dorkward" really isn't condusive to rational political discussions. How about canning it for awhile? Its getting a bit old.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Med ...

Making statements like "rich assholes like you," and calling me a "dorkward" really isn't condusive to rational political discussions. How about canning it for awhile? Its getting a bit old.

Vi
Sooo, calling me an Idiot is OK though? Double standards indeed apply.
 

ViRedd

New Member
I don't believe I've ever called you an "idiot" Med. I DO think that you are grossly misinformed though.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
I don't believe I've ever called you an "idiot" Med. I DO think that you are grossly misinformed though.

Vi
Well sir, you did indeed call me an idiot, and that raises the bar or in your case lowers it. Yeah all my misinformation just happens to be opposite of what you believe, what if it was you that was misinformed? stranger things have happened.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Again ... I don't recall calling you an idiot. If I did though ... I apologize. Now then, can we revert to rational discussions.

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Again ... I don't recall calling you an idiot. If I did though ... I apologize. Now then, can we revert to rational discussions.

Vi
Geeze, does that mean I can't call you names? I'll have to think on this, well Ok, as long as you don't start asking me to do homework, you know, like Answer this:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
etc.
 

ViRedd

New Member
Med ...

If you make blanket statements without posting references, I will ask for the facts upon which you based your "opinions." For example, if you say "Clinton did a lot of wonderful things while in office," I want to know what those wonderful things are. If you make the statement, you should be able to easily state what those things are, no?

Vi
 

medicineman

New Member
Med ...

If you make blanket statements without posting references, I will ask for the facts upon which you based your "opinions." For example, if you say "Clinton did a lot of wonderful things while in office," I want to know what those wonderful things are. If you make the statement, you should be able to easily state what those things are, no?

Vi
Well, a lot of what I post is mostly my opinions. I noticed, you never answer any questions put to you, like what were the wonderful things GW Bush has done. So there is a double standard at work in your posts. You seem to think the only right way is your way and refuting anyones claims with facts or bolstering your own with answers is out. I feel what is good for the Goose..................
 
Top