Reply #12: There are two problems with this line of reasoning,both of

[Igel]

which make it mostly suspicion or belief.

The first is the prominent use of the word 'proposed'. * proposes a budget; but it's Congress that ultimately says how much there is to be spent. *'s numbers are a first draft. NOLA's levees failed based on what was in the final draft. Congress routinely added money for NOLA levees; it was less than projected to be needed, but more than * proposed. But Congress added the money on a project-by-project case.

The second is how the money's apportioned. There are around 900 miles (count them, 900 miles) of levees and floodwalls in the system. Some were worked on; some were not. Some work was more expensive and higher priority than other work. It's not the case that 80% funding meant all 900 miles had 80% of the needed work done on them. Somebody needs to match up the funding and work completed with levees. ACoE claims to have done so. Unless their claims are debunked, and that requires an actual reality-based fact--not belief or suspicion--there's no valid claim.

A third point is tangential: the project was multi-year, spanning not just the 2nd-4th years of *'s term, but also some Clinton years and *'s first year, where he had not much to say about most of the details of the budget. So having 2-3 years at 50% doesn't mean that only 50% of a 8 or 9 year (10 year?) project was funded.