A drive-by cross-post FYI. Update [2005-9-5 19:55:35 by catastrophile]:: Edited to remove a rude nickname for Adair, with apologies. -catastrophile
There’s a new argument spreading through the Reeposphere . . . Somebody named George Adair seems to be the originator, but Malkin, National Review, Red State, and, of course, Freeperville have already picked up on it.
Adair went Lexising and found an NYTimes editorial from April of this year calling for the defeat of $17 billion in spending for the Army Corps of Engineers on projects billed as “flood control.” With some skillful editing and no link, Adair gave the distinct impression that the NYTimes was advocating not spending money on flood prevention in New Orleans, with the obvious implication that we are all a bunch of hypocrites because the NYTimes is, of course, the flagship of the “liberal media” and therefore speaks for all of us.
Anyway, I did some Googling and found the article in pdf format here. The complete editorial is pasted in below.
As a great philosopher once said: “To be forewarned is to have four arms.“
EDITORIAL
The Untouchable Corps
Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America’s rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects – this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.
The bill would also weaken civilian control over the corps, a fiercely independent agency that operates in what amounts to a parallel universe in Washington, spending billions on public works projects ordered by members of Congress. The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands – usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress’s appetite for pork.
Pointed in the right direction, the corps can accomplish engineering marvels without corollary damage – the dredging of New York Harbor is a case in point. But too often senators like Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, point it in exactly the wrong direction. The most notorious example is the Mississippi River project, a lock-building plan. It has failed two reviews by the National Academy of Sciences on economic and environmental grounds.
Over the years, enlightened senators like John McCain and Russell Feingold have pushed for major reforms, including independent peer review to make sure that corps projects are fiscally and environmentally responsible. Yet the water resources bill drawn up by Mr. Bond and his like-minded colleagues would not only prohibit meaningful outside review but would also undercut the authority of any civilian official – up to and including the secretary of the Army – to countermand corps decisions.
This is a bad piece of legislation. Key Democrats on the committee – including Hillary Clinton of New York, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut – should make sure it does not emerge from the committee without significant changes.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
