I'll give you this, you're arguing with me on an intellectual ground, and that I can respect
But I would add that there have been many federal projects that I think we could do better without, yet my tax money goes to, for example, the Bridge To Nowhere in Alaska. I certainly think this project, which benefits among other things, America's # 1 port (per tonnage) deserves the merit of consideration.
I'm not arguing that we should be giving the money to the state of Louisiana, far from it. Just as if they were suggesting giving money to Alabama under Alabama's sole discretion, I'd veto this idea too. What I am saying though that this is a project certainly more worthy than a 200 million dollar bridge in the Alaskan wilderness, and it's certainly as worthy as every other pork project Congress approves. Not to say I'm a fan of pork, I'm not, but the simple fact of the matter is, a certain amount of pork will be spent every year, our money will be wasted, you can count on it, and when you look at it from that angle, I think this, as what is admittedly a mondified pork project, is certainly more deserveing than much of the pork in the country today, with far more reaching implications than say, a bridge in the near Arctic
However, if we do rebuilt the levees, they should be built to hold back a surge 15 feet higher than what was recorded in Biloxi, and it should be done entirely by the Corps of Engineer. It should be done in such a manner as that we never ever have to worry about this again. And it's not as if all of New Orleans flooded, the West Bank didn't, and the Quarter, Garden District, higher areas, faired well, all things considered. It was Lakeview and New Orleans East that took the biggest hit.
I personally think it would cost more to our economy to relocate everything than to rebuild it, if you consider all the new infrastructure that would have to be laid out, the fact that it would affect the shipping along the coast, as well as the petroleum producing grid. Basically, to use an old economic analogy, economically, I think it makes more sense to keep New Orleans in business than it does to shut down the plant. Thats just my personal opinion though.
Right, except that economic theory would dictate that if New Orleans as a physical site for a city were valuable economically, then it would be able to pay its own costs. If it is only viable economically if someone else covers the costs of its risky behavior, then it is not a net benefit to the economy for it to exist.
One problem with trying to weigh the "merits" of one pork project over another is that it's highly subjective. But the more important problem, to my mind, is the fact that it overlooks the fundamental principle involved, which is that no one has the right to take your money by force to pay for something of which you don't approve.
To discuss which government project is more worthy than another is to surrender that fundamental principle, and that I think we should never do. Once Congress decided in 1913 that the government has a right to your money, the door for endlessly increasing government interference in our lives was opened.
And when we say "government", of course, we're only talking about fellow citizens who happen to work in public-sector jobs. They're no wiser than we are, no more logical, and no more moral. They have no more wisdom in spending our money than we do. I think most people would agree that they have in fact considerably less, because there's no incentive for wisdom when you're spending someone else's money, with no accountability to that person.
That's why I object to the spending of my money to rebuild New Orleans. If the people in Louisiana want it, let them build it. If they decide it's not worth their own hard-earned money, that'll tell the rest of us just how much our forced "contribution" is actually valued.