Replies

I still like the idea but have had second thoughts-mainly that the land now belongs to the victims and their families. I disagree with with your reluctance to spend the money. This seems like its an absolutely legitimate place to spend Federal money. The attack was one that those responsible for the WTC could not have predicted or defended against. I doubt it is insurable-acts of war and terrorism aren't. The hole where the WTC is a psychic scar on the National Psyche. I lived in the New York area. There were many things I didn't like but seeing the skyline of Manhattan on the horizon was always a rush.

A reflexive opposition to spending Government money hurts the conservative cause.

A reflexive opposition to spending Government money hurts the conservative cause.
in other words, "the pet project i support is not like the pet projects other people are supporting." fortunately, we have a guideline in cases such as this, and it's called the constitution of the united states. nowhere in that document will you find the authority necessary for the federal government to rebuild port authority property. although the proposal may pull at your heartstrings, it's still boondoggle. conservatives who refuse to authorize unconstitutional spending are not only a wonderful thing, they are also a dying breed; hence your comfort with making an 'exception'. such talk would have been vilified in the period immediately following adoption of our constitution. there is no reason it should not be so now as well.