Dylan Greene dot com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050910/ap_on_re_us/katrina_gore_5

At least one elected president was on the ball.

And meanwhile, Haliburton received a $500M contract to do work in that area...who's on the board at Haliburton...? Some guy named Cheney...?

Economics, people.  Let's not everyone get all knee-jerk.  Yes, there are cons to allowing contractors to pay below the prevailing rates, but the big pro (and the reason Bush did this) was to get as many contractors down there to help as possible.  By lowering the amount of wages the contractors must pay, you increase the incentive to get more contractors (i.e.-more help) to the area.

     Before we bash Bush and say that he's allowing contractors to get away with screwing people out of wages, keep in mind that a larger, more powerful force will not allow him to do that: supply & demand.  If the people are not willing to accept wages that are too low, then the contractors won't make any money at all when workers refuse to work for them.  Thus, even with contractors paying below prevailing wages, they still must pay a wage to their workers that is acceptable enough for them if they want to make any money/business at all.

What?  Someone dared to stand up against the "prevailing wage" scam?  Economics must be banned!

http://fotomodelle.deep-ice.com/

http://www.freepages.at/werty/