With apologies to Slashdot, 
it appears the plan is now
1: Give overinflated contracts to Halliburton and other cronies
2: rebuild New Orleans
3: PROFIT!
Yes. I am saying that.
Also–The Salvation Army is a church.
Fine. Strike that as an example. But to clarify: Let’s say there’s a rape crisis center in NOLA that is run as a nonprofit organization, and thus doesn’t pay taxes, even though it has a revenue stream and a payroll. Are you saying that the feds should not help defer the cost of rebuilding that center?
Similarily, I’d imagine that many of the poor people that were relocated to Houston havn’t had to pay federal taxes, should they then receive no federal aid?
In reality, that would depend upon whether or not they offer abortion counceling. 
Of course they should receive aid. People are different than institutions. The government has a responsibility to it’s citizens, but not to tax free institutions.
You couldn’t use your tax money to rebuild the Cistine Chapel (sp?) and have any left over to fix the school house.
You really have to lay off those mushrooms.
It’s here: www.Boobs4BourbonSt.com
Gotta love the internet…
Q: What is Bush’s position on Roe v. Wade?
A: He doesn’t care how people get out of New Orleans.
There will be graft and corruption, that is guaranteed. It has nothing to do with party, it has nothing to do with Bush. The feds will be pouring money into New Orleans. There will be vultures waiting to grab as much as they can. Many of the contractors will be decent honest people. Some will be crooks. It’s a simple fact. You can see it already in the FBI warnings about fake charities that prey on the generosity of others and then keep the money. It’s nothing new. It ignores party lines. It’s all about money. Sure, I’ve said harsh things about Bush myself. But even I don’t think he will deliberately fuck New Orleans. He said he would do something. Now let’s see what he does. If all goes well, great. If not, I will join the dogpile that follows.
Of course, the church, the Red Cross building, and a mortgaged home would all be insured.
Which brings me to the question that was raised for me when I listened to the speech - what about insurance? Was there THAT MUCH uninsured property on the Gulf Coast?
To change the debate a bit:
The Economist this week (article apparently not offered online, sorry) suggested that pouring 200 bil worth of money into helping people to rebuild is a bad idea because it encourages folks to ignore the risk of building in dangerous areas. After all, if the gov’t will come and bail them out, and give them money to build in the same dangerous area, then some of the risk out of building in danger prone sites and makes people more likely to do so, necessiating yet more gov’t spending (and loss of property/life) when the next hurricane/flood/earthquake etc. rolls around.
The article didn’t really suggest an alternative solution however, and it’s hard to belive that we’d leave these people to fend for themselves when it came to rebuilding. But should we factor in the cost of the public effectivly subsuming the risk for private citizens of building in dangerous areas as part of the cost of the plan to rebuild NO.
Again, according to the same article, people living in the flood plane didn’t get flood insurance because it was assumed the gov’t will help in the event of major flooding. According to here in NO it was something like 60% of homes were uninsured against flooding despite the fact that federal regs require many homeowners to get flood insurance through FEMA.
The government has been doing that for some time with federal flood insurance, which allows people to buy flood insurance at heavily discounted rates if they live in ‘high risk’ areas. And like most federal programs, it’s turned into welfare for the rich and upper middle class. Rich people build houses on waterfronts that would be otherwise uninsurable against flooding, get federal flood insurance, the houses get destroyed, the feds pay the tab, and people rebuild.
The bottom line is that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. It’s perverse to create incentive for people to build their houses in dangerous places, but that’s what the flood insurance program does, and that’s what the New Orleans rebuilding project would do.
The problem isn’t so much that I think he wants to screw New Orleans: it’s just the end result of the way he operates.
It’s already painfully obvious that the whole shebang is being run not as a policy operation, but as a mini-political campaign: the same way they seem to think about anything. I mean, Karl Rove? What’s HIS disaster management experience.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_09/007143.php
This is just what happens when you fill your efforts to the brim with cronies. It won’t be any different in the rebuilding.
The gov’t flood insurance plan, at least as originally conceived, makes sense to me. Since the federal gov’t is going to help people recover from storms like this whether they have insurance or not, it makes sense to offer them discounted insurance from the gov’t, this way they will at least provide some of the $$ for reconstructing their homes when the “big one” hits. While it may create some incentive for people to build thier houses in stupid places, it is less of an incentive then the knowledge that we’ll bail them out anyway if they have no insurance.
The problem is this only works if you force people to buy the federal insurance, since if they know they’ll get federal money anyways there’s no reason for them to pay for the insurance, discounted as it may be. My understanding was that this was how it worked, that to buy a home under sealevel you had to buy this insurance, so how is it that 60% of the people in NO were uninsured?
The choice of Rove is bizarre. It seems bad for Bush both politically (he’s already taken heat for appointing one person w/ little experince to disaster recovery, now he’s found one who has less experience that was already disliked by much of the public) and logistically (I’m sure Rove is very smart, but he doesn’t have any experince in this sort of thing, I can’t imagine he’s the best person to manage this crisis from anything other then a political damage control point of view).
From here:
So again, how is it that so many home owners managed to avoid buying the gov’t insurance?
Has Bush actually appointed Rove to run the rebuilding? I was listening to the New Hour on PBS yesterday and they were speculating on who would be the best person to oversea things. THey never mentioned Rove. Did I miss something?
Malodorous: The original federal insurance plan might be better than just plain bailing people out, but if the feds are offering discount insurance (which they almost certainly are), then they are still subsidizing poor decision making processes. It would be one thing if the gov’t required folks to buy insurance from private companies (ie, at market rates), but that is not how it works, is it?
Well the gov’t doesn’t have to turn a profit, and it can cut itself cheap loans from the treasury, so it can offer cheaper insurance then the private sector w/o necessarily “subsidizing” in the sense of the word that I’m familiar with, that is the gov’t isn’t taking a loss on it. Indeed the program is supposed to be self sustaining (it isn’t quite, but according to Wikipedia it was tweaked in 2004 to make it so). If it works as planned, then at risk homeowners will essentially be paying for the damages themselves, financing houses in at risk areas will be somewhat more expensive to discourage building there and the taxpayer assumes no risk.
Of course this presumes that everybody in an at risk area has to buy the insurance, which isn’t what happened, so that now Joe Taxpayer will foot the bill. So again, what happened?
That’s true, but on the other hand you have my situation. I live across the street from the North Fork of the Kentucky River. My neighborhood was prone to flooding at one time, but dam and lake projects have been built upstream and downstream since then making it virtually impossible to flood to that level now. The last flood here was about 40 years ago, and it hasn’t been for lack of rainfall.
Still, my house is considered to be in a high-risk flood zone, and because I have a federally-secured loan, I am required to have flood insurance via the NFIP. Costs about $1300 a year.
If I’m required to have flood insurance, I can’t imagine anyone in New Orleans isn’t. I guess those 40% either don’t have a mortgage or dont’ have a federally-backed mortgage.