Craig Lalley wrote:
> Russ,
> My point of fiscal responsibility is that 200Billion is a LOT of money.

When you're dealing with things at a national level, the numbers usually 
are.  After all...a million here and a million there...

> According to the 2003 census estimates
> Population of Louisiana       4,496,334
> Population of Mississippi    2,844,658
>              Total                    7,340,992
> 200,000,000,000 / 7,340,992 = $27, 000 for every man, woman and child.
> This is not just the people involved in the flooded parts of New Orleans, but the entire state of Louisiana and Mississippi.
> Given the government track record of add pork to large spending bills, I have no doubt that 200Billion is just a starting point.  Also given the government track record of efficiency, I have no doubt that only a small fraction of that money will actually benefit the people of Louisiana, let alone New Orleans.

All of which is data for a very valid argument about our need to monitor 
how the money is spent, and I think also from where it is accumulated; 
but is not an explanation as to why you would question the amount.

> My point is, the looting that happened after Katrina is just a small fraction of the looting to follow.

Again, "need to watch what they do" is not "don't do it".

> -Craig

Craig,

My intention is really not to single you out, and realistically, I 
expect you are voicing one thought of many running around in a lot of 
people's minds.

I'm not going to play the "looting" versus "finding food" game.  Those 
individuals who took advantage of the situation and stole (not looted, 
stole) merchandise from stores in their areas, were wrong to do so, and 
I'm pretty sure it's them you're mentioning, as opposed to those who 
(regardless of skin color) were scavenging for food to stay alive.

Simply put: yes, $200B is a lot of money.  It represents nearly 8% of 
last year's fiscal federal budget.  If that were to be paid out in a 
single chunk to some other party, it could have a devastating effect on 
this country.  That's not the case, however.

That figure represents an estimate of what the cost of the recovery will 
be, not what the federal government's check to Party Z will be.

Further, some of that money will come from insurance companies.  Some 
will be "instead of" other dollars that were already budgeted.  For 
example, federal highway dollars already budgeted for the repair of a 
bridge will not need to be spent if this new figure includes the 
replacement of that same bridge.

Plus, the money in large part will be used to pay for products and 
services here in the U.S.  It will pay the wages of the Americans who 
are doing the construction on those new homes, or for the construction 
materials (many of which are man made) to do the building.  Much of that 
will actually flow back up to the federal government in the form of 
sales and income taxes.

There will be those who take their insurance checks, and walk away. 
That is their choice.  I would have a problem with a bunch of people 
from those states, taking checks from FEMA and heading off on vacation. 
  I have no problem with them taking a check from FEMA and using it to 
rebuild their home or their business.

Oddly, I feel like I'm playing Gary Olman's character in The Fifth 
Element here, commenting that the act of destruction is what is driving 
the economy.  I should avoid bing cherries for the remainder of the day.

Anywho, it is far too easy to hear a number like $200B and react to it, 
and while I can understand your reaction, I think you should question 
why you reacted that way.

Do I think the federal government should pay the entire tab?  Nope.  Do 
I think the insurance companies should?  Nope.  Do I think the people of 
those cities, counties or states should?  Nope.  Do I think some 
combination of the three should?  Yep.

If the insurance companies went bankrupt, and all the "rich" people 
decided to take their insurance payouts and leave the state so there was 
no longer enough of tax base for the state to pony up much, should the 
feds jump in and save the area?  Probably, but not as a "hand out".

Keep in mind: we need the port, we need the gulf oil production 
facilities, and we need the farmlands.  We have no choice but to rebuild 
the infrastructure.

The homes may not be rebuilt.  I have a friend who took the insurance 
money from his house that burned in the Oakland Hills fires, and bought 
a house in Sonoma.  He still owns the land in Oakland, but never rebuilt 
his house.

Regardless: the scope of the disaster makes it a FEMA issue.  The extent 
to which the money for the reconstruction is federal is something that 
will have to be argued out.  Watching how it gets done is important, and 
you are right that *some* level of corruption will probably be present.

Heck, Halliburton will probably get the contract to do something, 
without a bidding process, naturally.  ;)

Rs~

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *