The New York Times gave it to the president the other day for any number of reasons. That's okay. Most of us on the right don't take the Times seriously anymore, and judging by their consistently declining readership, I don't think it is just hardcore righties like myself that find it execrable. A friend of mine on his blog wrote that this piece was "spot on" (his words). I wonder if he thought an earlier op-ed piece essentially contradicting it was also "spot on". Here are the critical excerpts of their 9/1/05 op-ed:
While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?
Here's what the Times had to say about the same topic back in April of this year:
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... this is a bad piece of legislation.
(Provided courtesy of Donald Luskin)
No comments:
Post a Comment