Franklin Delano Bush

NY Sun ^ | 9/22/05 | ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO

[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?

[woodb01]

I respect Mr. Madison's opinion in this issue and I stand corrected in part.

While it is certainly true that the President has the power to call for the rebuilding of New Orleans under the Constitution, it appears that Congress has no specific constitutional authority to follow through on funding that project.

To the extent that Congress limits the issue to those related to Interstate Commerce, ports, and rebuilding federal type infrastructure, I do believe Congress has that authority.

I stand properly corrected.

[sourcery]

Interstate commerce will be curtailed as a result of infrastructure loss. The federal infrastructure must be returned to working order.

There's one small problem with your interpretation of the assigned role of the Federal government: The principal author of the Constitution doesn't agree with you: Veto of a Federal public works bill.

[sourcery]

To the extent that Congress limits the issue to those related to Interstate Commerce, ports, and rebuilding federal type infrastructure, I do believe Congress has that authority.

• The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause
• LOCATING THE BOUNDARIES: THE SCOPE OF CONGRESS'S POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE

[Abcdefg]

The states would NEVER have ratified a document that gave unlimited power to a central government.
The powers they granted to Leviathan are "narrow and defined".

[billbears]

The issue is that so many have bought into Clay's 'American System' and all that it entails as being the original intent of the Framers when in fact it never was, except perhaps for Hamilton. One has to wonder how the world would have been different if Burr had not shot Hamilton, allowing him and his ideas to possibly be discredited later on.

[RipSawyer]

>>>>>>>>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?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As we say here,"that would be too damned simple". I could tell stories for hours about just such boneheaded decisions I have seen made by so-called "experts" when any clear-headed graduate of the seventh grade would have known better.

[Dick Bachert]

It's WORSE than you could possibly imagine.

A study of a few years ago disclosed that for every person who appears before a committee of congress or visits a legislator's office to urge that government spend less, 144 OTHERS APPEAR TO URGE MORE SPENDING!

And even more revealing was a DEMOCRAT SPONSORED STUDY from around the same period which revealed that if spending WERE NOT cut and the budget balanced, a child born in 1990 or so would have 84% OR MORE of his or her wealth confiscated by government over his/her lifetime.

Unfortunately, the vast (or is that HALF-vast) majority of the political hacks today are cut from the same hemlock tree as FDR's British economic "genius," one John Maynard Keynes, who, when told that his inflationary New Deal policies would, in the end, destroy the country, wryly remarked that "In the end, WE'LL ALL BE DEAD."

And there was FDR's chief "advisor," Harry Hopkins who was overheard at a Maryland racetrack -- after one too many martinis -- that the guiding philosophy of the Roosevelt administration was
"Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect. The American people ARE TOO DAMN DUMB TO UNDERSTAND."

It seems that the modern Pubbies have taken Nixon's remark that "Now, we're ALL Keynsians" to heart.

Seems they have all also become clones of Harry Hopkins.

WE'RE DOOMED!

RATHER, OUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS ARE DOOMED TO LIVE AS SLAVES.

But since WE'LL all be dead, it's OK, right?

Go here to learn more: http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

[Dick Bachert]

Id take it even further.

I wrote his after Andrew, whose path was eerily similar to that of Katrina. That should tell ANY sane person that THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN AND PROBABLY IN LESS THAN 12 YEARS GIVEN THE MORE AGGRESSIVE HURRICANES IN THIS CYCLE. And this cycle is predicted to last another 15 years!!

Simply change some of the names.

If they rebuild NOLA on the present site – and DON’T get folks OFF THOSE BEACHES ALONG THE ENTIRE HURRICANE-PRONE U.S. COAST -- keep this for the NEXT catastrophe. Insanity is defined as doing the same things over and over while expecting a different result. Whom God would destroy, He first makes insane. Has this nation lost its mind? Look to NOLA – BUILT 8 FEET BELOW THE SURROUNDING WATERWAYS – for the answer for that. If NOLA is rebuilt, those low-lying areas ought to be allowed to revert to their original state as wetlands and swamps. The folks necessary to operate that vital port and petro/chemical infrastructure need to live in dwellings ABOVE future anticipated flood levels.

And now that Rita is here, it is time to consider turning a 10 to 15 mile strip of our hurricane prone coastal areas into RV parks or campgrounds with MINIMAL SEMI-PERMANENT – and I stress “SEMI” -- STRUCTURES. Anyone building a structure in that strip is ON HIS OWN RE. SHOULDERING THE FINANCIAL LIABILITY FOR ITS LOSS!!!

---

WHAT GEORGE SHOULD HAVE SAID
by Dick Bachert

On the evening of September 1st, 1992, President George Bush went on national TV to announce that the already empty federal coffers would pour forth uncounted billions of dollars to totally rebuild the Florida and Louisiana communities destroyed by Hurricane Andrew. A vast majority of Americans seem to agree with this action, providing yet more evidence (as if more were needed) that we have come very, very far from the philosophy of self-reliance articulated by one Colonel Davey Crockett. (See "Not Yours to Give" available from FEE at www.fee.org)

Instead of attempting to purchase his reelection with plundered resources, this is what George Bush should have said.

"My fellow Americans:

As you all know, a devastating hurricane has struck the southern tip of Florida and Louisiana. Our hearts and prayers go out to all who have lost so much.

“There is now a great cry for the federal government to "do something".

“And we shall.

“I have dispatched otherwise idle military resources -- men and women involved in our national defense who will profit from what will amount to a real-life field exercise -- to the area to render whatever aid the local authorities deem appropriate to restore basic communications and public safety infrastructure. But, beyond that, we can do little else. Before you brand me a heartless monster, allow me to explain:

"The area involved has been regularly struck by many such storms since long before we have inhabited this continent. There is reason to believe that this pattern will continue. All who have vacationed or visited there will agree that it is a beautiful area and by driving a short distance, residents there can avail themselves of the ocean waters and sandy beaches of that coastal setting. I, too, understand the attraction. That's why I spend as much time as possible
in Kennebunkport. That's the upside of living in such an area.

"The downside is that the area is regularly struck by these terrible storms. Which is why responsible and intelligent residents of the area insure their property against the inevitable resultant damage.

"That the largest private insurers have determined that certain of these areas are so likely to be struck by storms such as Andrew as to make them "actuarially unsound" risks is a matter for the insurers and the property owners. Government will only, through the lawfully established court system, do its best to see to it that any contracts between these private parties are honored.

"If a prospective property owner is unable to secure private insurance against these calamitous eventualities, he or she had better reevaluate his or her position. If a prospective owner cannot bear the financial loss which would flow from the destruction of an uninsured home in one of these high risk areas, he or she is well advised to purchase in an area where such insurance is available. It is not, nor can it ever be, the government's place to levy a compulsory tax on citizens who do not live in these high risk beach areas to subsidize the folly of those who choose to do so! It would be criminal to force citizens who themselves already pay hundreds of dollars each year to protect their homes from
normal hazards such as fire and the occasional tornado to also pay for the beach front lifestyle of others! To increase their taxes so that some of their less responsible fellows may enjoy the benefits of living in these normally
beautiful -- but statistically periodically dangerous -- surroundings is unconscionable.

"As much as our hearts go out to those who have lost so much, I must remind them that just as it has happened in the past, it will happen again. If you chose to remain there, you do so at your peril. This is an election year and the temptation is great for me to obligate the already strapped taxpayers of the entire nation to pay for the rebuilding of these damaged areas.

"Though it may cost me another term as President, I must, because of the dangerous precedent it would set, resist it. To do otherwise would be the grossest unfairness to, say, a citizen in Kansas whose roof might be blown off during a tornado. Would that citizen not have the right to ask the federal government to do the same for him? Multiply that by the numbers of isolated, individual-but equally calamitous disasters each year and you will come to see that the treasury of even the richest nation on earth (which, thanks to decades of such nonsense, we no longer are) would soon collapse under the load.

"On a technical level, I would also remind you that expert analysis of the destruction of these homes quickly disclosed that it was government and the building codes -- rather the false security of their enforcement -- which led to the loss of nearly 85,000 dwellings. You who now look to government to solve your problem ought to consider that it was the failure of the government mandated building code enforcement that reduced your home to a pile of rubble. Your reliance upon government enforcement of these codes and their assiduous observance has proven to be an error.

"In that connection, I would point out that engineers who surveyed the damage discovered a number of structures which survived. It was found that these buildings had been built under an older, ostensibly less stringent code and/or were constructed using a number of proven, but more costly, techniques designed to improve survival.

"If you do plan to rebuild in one of these uninsurable sections, please, in order to minimize the destruction the next time another killer storm comes ashore, employ these construction techniques.

"Let me now turn to what we must now do to help those in such desperate need at this moment.

"I submit that we should continue and intensify what we've been doing thus far: The volunteer activities many of you have undertaken as individuals, small businesses and large corporations are doing exactly what I envisioned when I
launched my "Thousand Points of Light" campaign. What we need now are millions of such points. And, if the response continues to swell as in the past few days, we'll get there.

"Let me also remind you that the first folks into the area with meaningful relief were not government people. As we have seen, these huge bureaucracies possess equally huge levels of static inertia. They lack the flexibility and
sensitivity to function efficiently. People helping people is the highest embodiment of the faith our forefathers brought to these shores over 300 years ago.

"America was -- and, I fervently believe, still is – a nation of people who understand this basic concept. It is time we remembered that government's role is to only do for citizens those few constitutionally limited things we cannot
individually do for ourselves. I'd remind you what George Washington said about government: "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force! And like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

"It is also time for us all to remember that we must take individual responsibility for ourselves. We must remember, for example, that we cannot construct our homes in places where the forces of nature periodically rage against us without adequate preparation for those periodic rampages.

"To be more specific, if we must build in those areas, we must take personal responsibility for the soundness of construction and/or insure against the certain eventuality that these natural assaults will occur. The days when
individuals can look to a government to force the rest of us to underwrite the folly of the few are gone! I urge those of you now digging out from the destruction in Florida and Louisiana to remember that as you consider your future. I pledge that if you grant me another term in office, I shall devote my next 4 years to bringing government back under the United States Constitution in order to ensure that it does only those few things we cannot do for ourselves and does them as efficiently and effectively as possible.

"Let me again urge us to continue the enormous volunteer efforts we have already begun until this tragedy is behind us.

"Thank you and good night!"

[ladyinred]

We should not have to pay for this, but we will.

[willyd]

Bravo...very well stated...is there any reason that we can't hold our government to the letter of the law? What is the arguement to the contrary? That the money that we are all leveed would be less than the cost of the civil unrest that would follow such a large number of displaced people? (just playing devil's advocate) or is this a perceived duty of the government stemming from the socialist/welfare state? On a side note...is it really unreasonable to suggest that some of these people move to another city? I have done just that several times in my life seeking better employment or quality of living...people have historically gone where the jobs were...why not now?

[willyd]

Another quick question...what are the insurance companies' roll in all of this? Do they pay out on all the policies or do they get bailed out by Uncle Sam as well?

[sourcery]

For a philosophical discussion of the central moral issue involved in government charity, I recommend reading Frederic Bastiat's essay The Law.

[bert]

.....There's one small problem with your interpretation of the assigned role of the Federal government:......

My reference was primarily to projects conducted with federal funds. These include federal hiways and waterways.

Congresses and courts after the selected reference have had a different interpretation.

[sourcery]

Congresses and courts after the selected reference have had a different interpretation.

Yes they have. And they've been wrong beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Types_with_Fist]

Although the entire article can also be found here

Well... I cannot find it on the main page, in the archives or with a search.

[billbears]

Re-link

[Types_with_Fist]

Thank you very much!...:-)