American Republic Online

Recently, I’ve seen a lot of media coverage about Katrina. At first, I just figured the media had grown tired of Election 2008 and needed something to fill the void. Then I remembered: it’s been two years since Katrina. Two years. Has it been that long? Well, I guess I lost track since I’ve been waiting for all those continuous hurricanes that were supposed to decimate American soil over the past two years. Remember those? Weather experts have predicted that we would have multiple significant hurricanes reaching our shores. So far, nothing. Dean has been the most notable storm since Rita, much to the chagrin of the weather alarmists that desperately want to retrofit my SUV to run on chicken fat. How do you convince the populace that we need more federal legislation if the hurricanes don’t cooperate? Bush must have turned down the knob on his weather machine.

As a part of all the “anniversary” stories, presidential hopeful Obama was interviewed on GMA. He introduced a plan to “reduce government bureaucracy” by involving government more. The federal government should 1. hire police and doctors 2. hire more people to work in the government 3. rebuild the infrastructure and 4. tell the insurance companies how to run their businesses. In reference to the last point, he claims he believes in the insurance companies making a profit, and yet criticizes that very thing. Do we stop to think that since they paid so much for Katrina policies that they had to raise their rates in anticipation of what the aforementioned weather experts were saying, and when no disaster happened, they had extra money? Now the federal government needs to tell them what to do with that money? Well, if they are going to get lessons in finance and spending, maybe we should consider how good of stewards the government is with our money…
The Sun Herald recently ran a story about Katrina and all the government money that has been pouring into the area.

It’s hard for the average working stiff to contemplate a number as vast as the $23.5 billion the federal government has allocated to Mississippi for Katrina recovery.

Think of it this way:

It’s enough money to buy two average-sized houses for each of the 65,000 families in Mississippi who lost their homes.

And, there would be enough left over to buy each family a brand-new Honda Accord to drive between their two $166,000 houses. That’s the EX-L, V-6 four-door sedan Accord, with all the extras and navigation, not a base model.

It’s enough to give each man, woman and child in the three southernmost counties $68,500 apiece. Or, to look at it another way, federal Katrina spending in Mississippi will cost each person in the United States about $94.

Just the $1 billion the U.S. Government Accountability Office estimates FEMA lost to “fraud, waste and abuse” within a short time after the storm would be enough to cover the city of Waveland’s budget for 143 years, or buy more than 6,000 new houses.

Surely with that kind of money they would have made significant progress right? Then why are all the news stories focusing on how slow the recovery is, and wondering where all the money went? First, the US GAO estimates that 1 out of every 6 dollars spent for Katrina recovery was lost to “fraud, waste and abuse.”

On top of that, consider this gem:

[Mississippi Republican Governor] Barbour managed to convince federal authorities to let the state use more than $600 million to expand water and sewerage into northward, rural areas where growth is expected as homeowners and businesses move inland. This is on top of the more than $400 million received to replace systems destroyed by the storm.

$600 million to expand sewer lines in anticipation of something they think will happen as an indirect result of Katrina? Is this what the federal government should be spending our tax dollars on? Where does it say that it is up to the federal government to expand local infrastructure to help with new development, because I’d like to see it. Or even to help hire doctors, as Obama proposes?
Is this the model of fiscal responsibility? The people behind these ideas are going to tell private sector corporations how to manage their money? (We won’t even bring up other financial monstrosities such as Medicare and Social Security.) As John Stossel is fond of saying “give me a break.” First, demonstrate that you know how to manage money, money that isn’t even yours, then we’ll talk. Until then, stick to renaming post offices.

(On a side note: many of those involved here are Republicans: the so-called party of smaller government. Maybe we can see why they are losing elections?)