Posted on 09/24/2005 11:01:00 AM PDT by billbears
What is the proper constitutional role for the federal government in the post-Katrina reconstruction of the Gulf Coast? Should not this subject be debated seriously before Congress mortgages generations of Americans yet unborn with the obligation to repay $200 billion in loans? Don't expect it.
The Republican leadership in the House of Representatives already signaled its intention to stifle such debate when it refused to allow members of the House to consider an amendment to a bill that allocated the initial $62 billion in funds to Katrina victims. The amendment would have directed federal departments and agencies to look for ways to offset waste, so as to recapture at best a portion of the funds. In a now infamous statement, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican from Texas, stated that Republican budget surgeons had already cut out all the waste in the federal government, so if nothing else can be cut, why bother with debate?
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Most of them already know this. Unfortunately, most voters either don't know, or disagree. They're the ones who need an attitude adustment.
My thinking is entirely appropriate...why do you think you can't buy beer with food stamps? As for the masses buying plane tickets and setting up news lives...i am sure that most of them did that...the rest were bussed up to Arkansas to evacuate for Rita. The point is that the government is a steward of our money. The more responsible that they can be with it, the more people that they can help. Would you rather give $2000 to someone that is going to buy a purse with it or to a family that is next in line that will spend it responsibly? I personally would rather the person buying the purse spend their own money and let the funds we all provide go to putting a roof over someone's head.
It just doesn't make sense. Why spend $200 plus billion for a city that only had 500,000 people. It is equivalent to spending over $1,000,000 on every family. It is crazy.
Wow, I just likened President Bush to FDR two days ago. Maybe I should have written this article.
I don't agree with this. Not because of blind Bush allegiance, but because of ONE commitment that Bush made. He noted after his address and commitment to rebuild New Orleans that the money would come from reductions in government spending.
IF Bush keeps his word on this one, it will be the biggest anti-Socialist blow in the last 60 years. This will be the FIRST TIME in America's 40+ year socialist history that non-disaster related government spending was reduced.
It spells a high-water mark that may be the beginning of the end for the rabid socialists, IF Bush keeps his word to offset the rebuilding costs by reducing government spending.
ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com
400,000 per person is assanine. I agree. i don't think that figure includes the people in Mississippi. Still rediculous. Why are we bringing in "experts" from Holland to tell us how to build a city under water when we could just send any red neck from East Texas over there to tell them that that is a bad idea? If they rebuild, it should be from the shores of what ever lake is formed once all the levees are dynamited.
"Or any other place hit by a natural disaster."
...
I agree that government money(tax payers money) shouldn't be used to rebuild entire communities residential homes that are repeat natural disaster prone areas. Private businesses should and would do a better job anyway.
If people "choose" to re-settle these areas without any engineer designed improvements then they should re-settle at their own risk. Either way, create a coop insurance system within their communities.
I don't care what he noted. Find the Constitutional basis for government spending on disaster recovery. As Napolitano states, and Presidents going back to Jefferson, it's just not there. The President nor Congress has the right or responsibility. No matter how much 'compassionate conservatives' would hope it would be, there should not be one dime spent from national government funding.
But go ahead and do some cutting to give money back to the people
I think the point is that the federal government is not empowered by the Constitution to give charity.
Exactly! If anything happened to my property, or our businesses, I sure as hell am responsible & not city, state or Federal governments to rebuild it.
Let the casinos in N.O. rebuild and replace businesses. Casinos draw in the biggest $$.
Walter Williams' Wisdom of the Month
President Grover Cleveland's Respect for the Constitution"I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevailing tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
"The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
-- President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas [February 16, 1887]
If you are a Constitutional lawyer I will take your word for it, but the way I read it was that the Congress could not take taxes disguised as willfull donations from the people. ie..mandatory charitable contributions to the king.
Is that clear enough for you? There is no power of Congress or the President to hand out money from the national government for disaster recovery, assistance, or anything of the sort
And that includes FHA loans which should be dismissed immediately
see welfare state...once 13% of the budget now 40%...what happened to give a man a fish and feed him for a day...teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime?
And that's not counting corporate welfare, is it?
Excellent read!
Thanks for posting it.
That is absolutely clear...i was referring to the james madison quote from earlier...that is interesting what you just posted...what is that comment in reference to?
Firstly, that's a rather large "IF."
Secondly, the point is that Bush's approach does nothing to teach the typical voter why using the power of government to rob Peter to give charity to Paul is morally wrong, and not in the best interests of any society. You don't teach your children to respect the rights of others by violating them yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.