If you read my reply a little more carefully, you'll see that I already answered your question. A disaster is pretty self-evident. It doesn't require the kind of -I don't know what to call it- that you're engaging in. But to help you out a little...anything that would cause the President to declare a disaster would be one. So whatever criteria is used for that now could be used to justify those expenditures. Oh, wait, isn't it ALREADY done that way? < /sarcasm.
My attitude isn't relativistic at all, imo. Personally, I would do away with the vast majority of the crap our tax dollars go to, in order to free up those monies for things like this. I am not okay with wasteful spending, and I wouldn't use it to justify spending on something important. I'm saying that the money SHOULD be spent in this manner (disaster relief), RATHER THAN some Senator's latest pet project. Hope that clarifies my position, since my choice of words there didn't convey it correctly.
If it takes an Amendement to codify what is already done, I'll go for it. At least then you would have no excuses to deny folks needed emergency aid. You'd be standing there stark naked with your attitude in full display.
Unless, of course, your only objection to federal disaster aid is the fact that it's not strictly spelled out in the Constitution.
I didn't see your answer.
A fluke lightning strike which causes only damage to my home is not a federal disaster deserving of FEMA aid.
Hurricane Katrina does, according to you.
What is the difference? Is it the number of people affected? The cost of the damage? The area of affected land?
If our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people", then President Bush is doing what we want him to do.
I'm asking you to critically explain what about this Hurricane qualifies it as a disaster while others do not. Please be specific.
Also, please explain which federal spending you would do away with, and why those "needs" are not worthy, while Hurricane relief is worthy.
To me, the simplest way to figure it out is to look at the words of the Constitution which give Congress and the President the powers they have. If it's in there, it's within the power of the fedgov. If not, then those powers remain with the States or the People.
Since you reject my approach, please explain what your approach is, and how you determine whether or not a particular initiative or program is appropriate for the use of federal tax dollars.