• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

$127,000,000,000 - Down the drain

Texan

Well-known member
The Big Easy's Billion Dollar Boondoggle
By Lawrence Kudlow


So, the president and Mrs. Bush went down to New Orleans to commemorate the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Who knows? Maybe over a latte with leading Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, they discussed spending even more money down there. After all, everyone seems to be saying New Orleans needs more cash.

Here's a pop quiz: How much money has Uncle Sam spent on New Orleans and the Gulf region since Hurricane Katrina ripped the place apart?

I'll give you the answer because you'll never guess it. The grand total is $127 billion (including tax relief).


That's right: a monstrous $127 billion. Of course, not a single media story has highlighted this gargantuan government-spending figure. But that number came straight from the White House in a fact sheet subtitled, "The Federal Government Is Fulfilling Its Commitment to Help the People of the Gulf Coast Rebuild." Huh?

This is an outrage. The entire GDP of the state of Louisiana is only $141 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. So the cash spent there nearly matches the entire state gross GDP. That's simply unbelievable. And to make matters worse, by all accounts New Orleans ain't even fixed!

You might be asking: Where in the hell did all this money go? Well, the White House fact sheet says $24 billion has been used to build houses and schools, repair damaged infrastructure and provide victims with a place to live. But isn't everyone complaining about the lack of housing?

Perhaps all this money should've been directly deposited in the bank accounts of the 300,000 people living in New Orleans. All divvied up, that $127 billion would come to $425,000 per person! After thanking Uncle Sam for their sudden windfall, residents could head to Southern California and buy homes that are now on sale thanks to the sub-prime mortgage crisis and bid up the sagging house prices in the state.

The fact sheet goes on to say that $7.1 billion went to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to rebuild the levees; that the U.S. Department of Education spent $2 billion on local schools; and that the Laura Bush Foundation for America's Libraries has awarded more than $2.5 million (the pikers). The administration also provided $16.7 billion as part of the largest housing-recovery program in U.S. history.

So the billion-dollar question becomes: Where did the rest of that money go?

Meanwhile, according to an article by Nicole Gelinas at the Manhattan Institute, New Orleans has earned the distinct honor of becoming the murder capital of the world. The murder rate is 40 percent higher than before Katrina, and twice as high as other dangerous cities like Detroit, Newark, N.J., and Washington, D.C.

Think of this: The idea of using federal money to rebuild cities is the quintessential liberal vision. And given the dreadful results in New Orleans, we can say that the government's $127 billion check represents the quintessential failure of that liberal vision. Hillary Clinton calls this sort of reckless spending "government investment." And that's just what's in store for America if she wins the White House next year.

Remember President Reagan's line during the 1980 campaign about how LBJ fought a big-government spending war against poverty, and poverty won? Well think of all this Katrina spending as the Great Society Redux. And it failed. I suppose the current Bush administration would like to label this "compassionate conservatism." But guess what? That failed, too.

Right from the start, New Orleans should have been turned into a tax-free enterprise zone. No income taxes, no corporate taxes, no capital-gains taxes. The only tax would have been a sales tax paid on direct transactions. A tax-free New Orleans would have attracted tens of billions of dollars in business and real-estate investment. This in turn would have helped rebuild the cities, schools and hospitals. Private-sector entrepreneurs would have succeeded where big-government bureaucrats and regulators have so abysmally failed.

This is the real New Orleans Katrina story. It's a pity that the mainstream media isn't writing about it. Call it one of the greatest stories never told.



Lawrence Kudlow is a former Reagan economic advisor, a syndicated columnist, and the host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/the_big_easys_billion_dollar_b.html
 

Texan

Well-known member
In fact, the disaster in New Orleans was caused, not by too little welfare spending, but by too much.


Yes, this is about a failure of government, all right. It's about the failure of big government and the welfare state and the whole philosophy behind them.



September 01, 2006
The Unlearned Lesson of Katrina
By Robert Tracinski


In the press coverage of the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we expect a fair bit of the usual throwing around of blame for political advantage, but to my surprise that has not been the main theme of the coverage (though Ted Kennedy couldn't resist a crudely partisan tirade). Instead, the dominant theme of the anniversary coverage is what is not being mentioned. Having reported the wrong story about the flooding of New Orleans one year ago, the press is trying to protect its distortion by excising from history the events that gave many Americans their greatest shock.

What shocked many of us was not the hurricane itself, nor the response of the federal government--outrage against the Bush administration was cultivated later. What shocked us first was the response of the people of New Orleans themselves: the immediate looting, the collapse of the city government as demoralized local police walked off the job in the middle of an emergency, and the thousands of people wallowing in squalor while demanding that someone else come to help them. These are the facts that the mainstream media has downplayed or just plain ignored.

Ironically, it was the press itself that first brought this story to our attention, by focusing its reporting on the crime and squalor at the Superdome and the New Orleans convention center in the days after the levies failed. But the press soon began to backpedal, realizing that they had miscalculated. They showed us too much of the squalor, too much of the rampant looting and lawlessness, and too many ungrammatical ravings by foul-mouthed New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. The American people began to lose their initial reaction of sympathy and to wonder instead why so many inhabitants of New Orleans were more eager to blame others for their plight than they were to lift a finger on their own behalf.

The media had hoped for an opposite reaction. They wanted to induce guilt, telling the rest of the nation that the wretchedness of New Orleans was somehow our fault. For example, New York Times columnist Frank Rich lectured us that the poor people of New Orleans "were left behind to suffer and die when the people of means began sprinting toward higher ground. They are the ones who are always left behind, out of sight and out of mind, and I'd be surprised--given the history of this country--if that were to change now." Didn't we understand that the story was supposed to be about America's heartless indifference to the poor?

Let's take a critical look at the events, from a year's perspective, and see what the real story was.

The left is correct on one point: the story is all about federal spending and the welfare state--but not in the way that they think.

Frank Rich and company claimed that people were trapped in New Orleans because they had been abandoned for decades by a stingy government that denied them an adequate level of welfare handouts. In fact, New Orleans received a higher per-capita rate of federal welfare spending than most cities--a full 78 percent more than the national average--and the districts hardest hit by the flooding contained some of the city's largest public housing projects. The welfare state had showered its largesse on New Orleans, but with what result?

In fact, the disaster in New Orleans was caused, not by too little welfare spending, but by too much. Four decades of dependence on government left people without the resources--economic, intellectual, or moral--to plan ahead and provide for themselves in an emergency. I stated the lesson at the time:

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men....

People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at those who come to rescue them--this is not just a description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.

In the week after the disaster, a New York Times reporter profiled two New Orleans families and their different reactions to Katrina. The main difference was not money; neither family was well-off. But one was from the lower middle class--people who are used to working for a living and providing for themselves--whereas the other family fully represented the welfare state mentality. The first family pooled their efforts with their extended family to drive out of New Orleans before the storm hit and stay at an inexpensive hotel farther inland. The other family didn't leave New Orleans until the flood waters reached their own home--and along the way, they blew their "last $25 dollars to buy fish and shrimp from men grilling them on the street"--with apparently nary a thought for what they would live on after dinnertime.

The main difference between these two families was not money but responsibility. That is also the difference between the people in New Orleans who stockpiled necessities like food, gasoline, and bottled water before the storm hit, and those who waited until after the storm and looted whatever they needed--which apparently included televisions, jewelry, and DVDs--from the local Wal-Mart. Many of these looters, especially those who struck within hours after the storm passed, were not in any kind of desperate need. As one of them explained to a reporter, "People who have been repressed all their lives, man, it's an opportunity to get back at society."

This fellow acquired his sense of ethics from the welfare state--and from its spokesmen, like Frank Rich.

This sense of victimhood and entitlement brings us to the other mainstream media claim about Katrina: that it unmasked America's institutionalized racism and showed, as one rapper proclaimed, that "George Bush doesn't care about black people." (It could be argued, incidentally, that "rap music" is itself the most insidious form of institutionalized racism today, peddling a debased view of blacks as thugs and whores that exceeds the wildest slanders of Ku Klux Klan propaganda.) But what are the actual facts about Katrina and race? The Coast Guard and National Guard toiled relentlessly for four days to rescue thousands of people from their roofs, saving as many as 50,000 people--most of them black. And an analysis of deaths from the hurricane showed that mortality rates were slightly higher for whites than for blacks. So much for the myth of the racist hurricane.

But that doesn't mean race was not an issue. Katrina exposed the virulent racism of many blacks, who are raised on a culture of victimhood and grievance and think the rest of the nation owes them a prosperous living. On September 10, for example, Fox News Channel broadcast a live interview with a Katrina evacuee in Houston, a self-parody of the Angry Young Black Man who demanded a $20,000 debit card from FEMA and shouted at the camera: "We didn't ask to come on that bus.... It's like a slave ship. It's just like, you know, back in history, you know, they put us on a slave ship.... Just give us what the f--- we deserve."

What was he describing as a "slave ship"? The buses sent to rescue people from New Orleans--the same buses whose absence in the first days after the flood were considered evidence of nationally institutionalized racism. There is certainly prejudice involved here; this young man has prejudged America as guilty, and he simply grabs at any rationalization that will confirm his bigotry.

Like this young man, the media has blamed Hurricane Katrina on a massive failure of government--which is also true, but again not in the way that they claim. It was not primarily a failure by the federal government, which is not supposed to be the first responder to a natural disaster. The first responders are supposed to be the state and local governments--who failed utterly.

Mayor Ray Nagin failed to devise or administer an evacuation plan--remember that famous photo of dozens of school buses that were left to be swamped by the flood waters instead of being used to evacuate flood victims?

Instead, Nagin spent the entire crisis complaining about what other people weren't doing to save his city. When asked where he was during the crucial moments of the disaster, Nagin snapped back, to the world at large, "Where were you?"--as if a random resident strolling the streets of Buffalo bears more responsibility for the plight of New Orleans than the city's own mayor.

That Ray Nagin is still mayor of New Orleans, one year later, is the worst possible indictment of the city's corrupt culture. In 1979, the people of Chicago voted out their mayor because he failed to ensure the timely plowing of the streets after a heavy snowstorm. Ray Nagin presided over an unprecedented collapse in city government, and the people of New Orleans re-elected him. A large number of New Orleans voters are still stuck in the fantasy of holding everyone responsible for their lives except themselves.

William Jefferson also represents the local political culture well. He's the congressman whose home district is in central New Orleans--and he's also the congressman recently caught hiding $90,000 worth of bribe money in his freezer. Nagin and Jefferson are typical political products of the welfare state. Their job is not to protect citizens' lives and property, but to dole out vast sums in vote-buying patronage to their supporters and constituents, and occasionally to skim a little off the top for themselves.

And that brings us to the role of the federal government. The federal government's problem is not lack of spending. Over the decades, Louisiana's congressional delegation has funneled billions of dollars to a vast system of canals and levees, which failed--not because they were inadequately funded, but because they were inadequately designed and built.

And what about federal spending on the rebuilding of New Orleans? The federal government, far from ignoring the Gulf Coast, has pledged the astonishing sum of $120 billion dollars, far more than for any previous natural disaster. Tens of billions have already poured out of the federal coffers--largely to disappear into the unreformed swamp of Louisiana political corruption.

Yes, this is about a failure of government, all right. It's about the failure of big government and the welfare state and the whole philosophy behind them. It is about the vital necessity to move away from government handouts and toward personal responsibility and private initiative. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated that the moral difference between self-reliance and dependence on government is ultimately the difference between life and death.

The only institution for which the press has any praise on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina is, naturally enough, the press. They have spent much of this week congratulating themselves on what a marvelous job they did--which is the surest indication that they have completely missed the real story.


Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/the_lesson_of_katrina_what_the.html
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
The biggest portion of that money went to Mississippi's Haylee Barber. Less than a third of the money spent went to the folks in LA or NO.

And coming from a Reagan economist, I am not surprised he doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
The biggest portion of that money went to Mississippi's Haylee Barber.
The "biggest portion" of $127 billion would be greater than, or equal to, $63,500,000,000.01. And you say this amount went to one person? Your source, please?
 

MoGal

Well-known member
The article I read said they had 83 billion in NO, but maybe they didn't have it right either, but they did state that it would have rebuilt 2 homes for everyone who was displaced by the hurricane in NO.

However, I do wonder how much of that was given to the Red Cross (as they don't do anything for free).

One other thing I don't understand is why they just turned everyone loose that was in jail and they were running the streets as well.

There was a tornado close to here last year, in Crosstown, MO and it flattened the entire community. The largest majority weren't eligible for any FEMA help as they were insured. Perhaps it should be looked into more if folks want to live in a flood plain, earthquake area, etc.. that they have the insurance for it. I have earthquake insurance and it wasn't that expensive (<$50 year).
 

Texan

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
CBO? How 'bout LOL? Can you back your claim, or not? This claim:

Goodpasture said:
The biggest portion of that money went to Mississippi's Haylee Barber. Less than a third of the money spent went to the folks in LA or NO.

Any proof? Or were you just trying to make the Republican governor of Mississippi look bad? Or maybe you'd like for it to appear that Mississippi got special treatment because of the relationship between Governor Haley Barbour and President Bush?

Do you believe in facts? Either you've got some facts, or you don't. If you've got 'em, I'd like to see 'em.

Here's some reading for you - until you can come up with something else:



"The U.S. Government Accountability Office says federal hurricane-relief spending to date is about $116 billion.

Mississippi has received about $23.5 billion of that total, including money that went to repair federal facilities..."


http://www.sunherald.com/278/story/133055.html
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Here's a pop quiz: How much money has Uncle Sam spent on New Orleans and the Gulf region since Hurricane Katrina ripped the place apart?

I'll give you the answer because you'll never guess it. The grand total is $127 billion (including tax relief).



"The U.S. Government Accountability Office says federal hurricane-relief spending to date is about $116 billion.

Where'd the missing $11 Bil go? Or is that type chickenfeed too little to be accountable by D. C. anymore..... :???:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Texan said:
Goodpasture said:
CBO? How 'bout LOL? Can you back your claim, or not? This claim:

Goodpasture said:
The biggest portion of that money went to Mississippi's Haylee Barber. Less than a third of the money spent went to the folks in LA or NO.

Any proof? Or were you just trying to make the Republican governor of Mississippi look bad? Or maybe you'd like for it to appear that Mississippi got special treatment because of the relationship between Governor Haley Barbour and President Bush? l
Do your own research.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
Texan said:
Goodpasture said:
CBO? How 'bout LOL? Can you back your claim, or not? This claim:

Goodpasture said:
The biggest portion of that money went to Mississippi's Haylee Barber. Less than a third of the money spent went to the folks in LA or NO.

Any proof?


Or were you just trying to make the Republican governor of Mississippi look bad?


Or maybe you'd like for it to appear that Mississippi got special treatment because of the relationship between Governor Haley Barbour and President Bush? l
Do your own research.


u]Or were you just trying to make the Republican governor of Mississippi look bad?[/u]


Uhhh....I don't think he needs ANY help in that dept!!!
 

Texan

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Or were you just trying to make the Republican governor of Mississippi look bad?

Uhhh....I don't think he needs ANY help in that dept!!!
Can you be more specific, kola? I don't keep up with Mississippi politics or news very much. What is it that Governor Barbour has done that you don't like? Besides being a conservative?
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Goodpasture said:
Do your own research.

Typical Liberal response! Say what they want and screw the proof! :roll:
I gave my source. You don't like it or won't accept it, tough. Find your own. Your failure or inability to do basic research is not my problem, and if you want to provide evidence that I am wrong, show me where the CBO is wrong.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Goodpasture said:
aplusmnt said:
Goodpasture said:
Do your own research.

Typical Liberal response! Say what they want and screw the proof! :roll:
I gave my source. You don't like it or won't accept it, tough. Find your own. Your failure or inability to do basic research is not my problem, and if you want to provide evidence that I am wrong, show me where the CBO is wrong.

Show us were the CBO said what you said it did? I have no interest in spending hours searching articles or links from the CBO. You obviously have it at your finger tips since you quote them as your source.

If you list something as your source of proof you should be able to show it. Or maybe next time You could just say you got your proof from a book, the TV or the Internet. Why narrow it down to just the CBO? :roll:
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Show us were the CBO said what you said it did? I have no interest in spending hours searching articles or links from the CBO. You obviously have it at your finger tips since you quote them as your source.
And I have less interest in spoon feeding you information. Why is it obviously at my fingertips? I do economic analysis for a living, I research highest and best use for land. I study economic trends and predict future response to historical data. That is a part of my job. Whether it is to determine the feasibility of a subdivision development, a retail center, an office complex, or a chicken farm, fundamental economics play a part of every lending, buying, selling and development decision. I read dozens of articles and economic information on a regular basis. I do not catalog everything I read but I pay attention to what is happening as well as where it is happening. So NO, I do NOT have data like that at my fingertips. And really don't give a flying f if you believe me or not. Being a typical conservative I have learned that you would rather call a person a name than deal with an issue, anyway. So whether or not I have certified documentation or not is irrelevant....if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions, it is false and the source is a part of the vast liberal conspiracy anyway. So why should I bother taking the time to refute your opinions with facts? You guys still believe Iraq had something to do with 9-11.

The CBO, in determining allocation of funds showed Mississippi, under Barbers Republican administration has received four times as much money as LA has, and while the funds have been allocated for LA, they have not been disbursed. You want the numbers? go read the report and extract your own figures....that is what I work with.....raw data.......not regurgitated nonsense from a columnist who is trying to justify their paycheck that you neocons seem to thrive on.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Texan, I was watching PBS programs about them "training" people to be carpenters. They were stick framing. They were toe nailing top and bottom in the TRAINING. OMG. What the heck is that going to hold up??? Fire the framers and fire the trainers.

After all this, NO is still below sea level. Why throw good money after bad? They'll probably have Ray Nagin for the next hurricane as well
 

Steve

Well-known member
Goodpasture
I have learned that you would rather call a person a name than deal with an issue, anyway.

Seems that statement describes you to a T...

so far you seem hell-bent on calling others names and making baseless accusations...
 
Top