We've all heard the reports about how the Army Corps of Engineers requested more money to reenforce the levees in New Orleans. Many have speculated that if the Bush Administration had approved the funding, then this terrible tragedy could have been avoided.

My question is, why was it their decision to make? The people of New Orleans have been paying taxes, and the people of New Orleans should have been the ones to decide where their tax dollars would be spent. From the federal point of view, the levees in New Orleans were not the most important thing on the list of projects that need money. But I bet if you had asked the New Oreanders what was important, they would have told you a very different story.

I say that if the money wasn't controlled by a federal beurocracy, then this terrible tragedy could have been avoided. Bush and Co. would never have had the opportunity to deny funding to the levees. If the taxpayers were not burdened by federal taxes, then the state of Louisianna could have raised the money and built the levees themselves. I'm sure the oil companies whose refineries are now ruined would have gladly ponied up the cash to prevent this from happening.

I agree that we shouldn't be paying taxes if this is what we're paying for.

But the fact is that we do pay a lot of money in federal taxes, for services which in this case were not rendered.

Perhaps it really is time to start a massive grassroots movement to withhold taxes. There's a non-violent way to get some attention. They can't arrest us all for "tax evasion". If they won't hold themselves accountable for their dereliction of duty to the American people (in many regards) then why should we have to hold up our end of the bargain?

No. State and local governments should be responsible for their disaster planning - and for requesting resources. The last thing we need is further federalization of state and local programs.

NO was a failure of the Governor and the Mayor to competently fulfill their roles. It is a mistake to restructure government due to the failings of two people.

A report I saw last night on TV said that in, 1980 when it was first proposed, it would have taken 3 decades and more than 14 billion to complete the NO levee project. At that time, and since, the project has been put on the back burner. So, it bites them in the ass 25 years later. I do not know what 14 billion in1980 equates to today, but, it's still more money than I'll ever see.

So a question begs to be asked: How long would it take for NO tax payers to raise that kind of $$$ in order to pay for that project? And due to cost increases, would it have only been 14b at the end of the project?

My answer to the original question: I simply do not know...

But I do have to say, an ACoE project DOES remain under their control, usually. So funding has to come from somewhere... federal usually.

No. State and local governments should be responsible for their disaster planning - and for requesting resources. The last thing we need is further federalization of state and local programs.

NO was a failure of the Governor and the Mayor to competently fulfill their roles. It is a mistake to restructure government due to the failings of two people.

I think you missed the point. The federal government is already controlling our disaster preparations. The states shouldn't have to request funding from the federal government. The federal government should never get the money in the first place. Remember, the federal government gets it from the same taxpayers that the state governments get it from.

Does the constitution require the federal government to be prepared for and handle disasters?

Does the constitution require the federal government to be prepared for and handle disasters?

The consitution requires the federal gov't to provide for the "common defense". If disasters pose a threat to the nation, then they are obligated to play a role, in my interpretation anyway.
The flooding of New Orleans is more than a local disaster, though. It affects national security.
Our fuel supply has been disrupted, and an environmental disaster has also been created by the flood. I think this has national implications that would require some federal intervention at some point.

A report I saw last night on TV said that in, 1980 when it was first proposed, it would have taken 3 decades and more than 14 billion to complete the NO levee project. At that time, and since, the project has been put on the back burner. So, it bites them in the ass 25 years later. I do not know what 14 billion in1980 equates to today, but, it's still more money than I'll ever see.


Pres. Bush just approved 51 billion for hurricane relief.

The consitution requires the federal gov't to provide for the "common defense". If disasters pose a threat to the nation, then they are obligated to play a role, in my interpretation anyway.
The flooding of New Orleans is more than a local disaster, though. It affects national security.
Our fuel supply has been disrupted, and an environmental disaster has also been created by the flood. I think this has national implications that would require some federal intervention at some point.Admittedly the NOLA disater is larger than most. People want federal intervention at every point along the road to recovery for every disaster from mudslides and tornadoes to hurricanes. The vast majority of these disasters don't affect national security. New Orleans and Louisiana haven't accepted enough responsibility for response and want to lay the problem at the federal doorstep. I think these disasters should be handled through state and local planning and private insurance. If you can't afford the insurance, then you must be willing to accept the consequences of your decision to live in a disaster prone area. The entire nation shouldn't be taxed when people choose to live below sea level in an area surrounded by water and under threat of hurricanes. That's just dumb. And now cities and states have that entitlement mentality. By trying to solve problems for eveyone at every level, the feds have set a nasty precedent of federal participation and funding for disasters. What ever happened to individual responsibility?

States should have far, far, far, far more say in where there federal taxes go. Im pretty sure about 99% of all americans, alaskians themselves, arent exactly pleased that the govt. is spending 223 million on a bridge that serves so few people it would be far cheaper and easier to buy them each a jet plane and fuel it for decades.

I agree fully that states need far more rights and say re-installed.

It doesn't matter that "people shouldn't live below sea level if they don't want to die in the tragic desolation of a shattered world they never made." What matters is that a million people DID live there, in a historically important city in our country.

As noted, the disaster created national repercussions which will affect the security of the rest of the nation.

The federal gov't doesn't just let hundreds of thousands of Americans die because "it's their own fault." Besides helping ****-can the economy, among other things like humanitarian considerations, it harms our credibility on the world stage and undermines our status as the world's most powerful nation.

If that's not a national issue, I don't know what is. Besides, it would just be a matter of time until terrorists took advantage of our poor planning, which is probably why FEMA is a division of Homeland Security.

On the other hand, making everyone in the nation pay to rebuild New Orleans so that it can get swept back into a the ocean in ten years, and then making everyone pay for every house in tornato alley every time they get knocked down, and them making everyone pay to rebuild the Florida coast every single year, is a great way to ****-can the economy.

Economic realities don't always conform to what your bleeding heart wants them to be.

It doesn't matter that "people shouldn't live below sea level if they don't want to die in the tragic desolation of a shattered world they never made." What matters is that a million people DID live there, in a historically important city in our country.I guess I don't have the sense of nostalgia some seem to exude. I could care less about the history of NO. They all chose to live there and the entire country will be highjacked to pay for their stupidity.


As noted, the disaster created national repercussions which will affect the security of the rest of the nation.
I live in the south and I don't feel any less secure, nor do I feel any national repercussions. I suspect I won't until they force me to pay my share.

The federal gov't doesn't just let hundreds of thousands of Americans die because "it's their own fault." Besides helping ****-can the economy, among other things like humanitarian considerations, it harms our credibility on the world stage and undermines our status as the world's most powerful nation.
First of all the death toll will be no where near hundreds of thousands. The feds have watched as hundreds of thousands die and they will continue to die from doing all kinds of stupid things like smoking, over eating, drugs, etc. It's called freedom. I also don't give a crap about how we look to the rest of the world. It's time to stop following and start leading.
If that's not a national issue, I don't know what is. Besides, it would just be a matter of time until terrorists took advantage of our poor planning, which is probably why FEMA is a division of Homeland Security.There isn't enough planning or money in the world that can protect all people from themselves. If we continue to lay everything on the feds because our states, counties, cities and the individuals within them fail to plan, the whole country will suffer because of the stupidity of others. Now that's a national disaster. If you want to live in areas and states that are susceptable to disaster, then state, county and city tax structures should reflect the danger. Many city infrastructures are old and need to be replaced. A nice flood or an earthquake could come in handy. How long before states and cities are hoping for disasters so they can get some of that federal money? Why bother raising local taxes when the feds will bail us out?

I live in the south and I don't feel any less secure, nor do I feel any national repercussions. I suspect I won't until they force me to pay my share.
- Once the insurance companies have to get a federal bail-out, you will.

First of all the death toll will be no where near hundreds of thousands.
- I wasn't suggesting that it will be; just commenting that the federal gov't doesn't take a cavalier attitude to what could POTENTIALLY kill hundreds of thousands just because "it was their choice to live there."

The feds have watched as hundreds of thousands die and they will continue to die from doing all kinds of stupid things like smoking, over eating, drugs, etc. It's called freedom.
- Bunk - the gov't has done ALL KINDS of things to protect citizens from this, like chartering the FDA, awareness programs, labelling laws, regulations, inspections, civil suits, etc.

Similarly, the feds take precautions regarding the millions vulnerable to harm from levees and dams.

I also don't give a crap about how we look to the rest of the world. It's time to stop following and start leading.
- Guess what? We make our policies on the basis of the best interests of the state and the people as a whole, and not how you personally happen to feel.

There isn't enough planning or money in the world that can protect all people from themselves. If we continue to lay everything on the feds because our states, counties, cities and the individuals within them fail to plan, the whole country will suffer because of the stupidity of others.
- There's certainly enough planning and money to do disaster preparation. And, as the tax and economic situations in the wake of the NOLA disaster will show, not doing so will certainly cause suffering to the country, for reasons not the least of which include that terrorist groups can certainly exploit those weaknesses to attack the nation as a whole.

Now that's a national disaster. If you want to live in areas and states that are susceptable to disaster, then state, county and city tax structures should reflect the danger. Many city infrastructures are old and need to be replaced. A nice flood or an earthquake could come in handy. How long before states and cities are hoping for disasters so they can get some of that federal money? Why bother raising local taxes when the feds will bail us out?
- Because the feds typically pay matching funds, which requires the local gov'ts to raise money on their own, and, of course, what the feds will pay would never be enough to cover the exponentially expanding costs of the projects as they evolve.

They need all the money they can get their hands on, state, federal, and local.

New York City was quite competent on 9/11 and the blackout in August 2003. There were plans in place and they were followed. The city didnt fall into chaos, nobody paniced to the point were anarchy broke loose.

Local and state governments, can handle disasters quite well when you have the right people in place.

I dont know why this Chertoff and Brown were appointed to their positions at FEMA and Homeland Security.

- I wasn't suggesting that it will be; just commenting that the federal gov't doesn't take a cavalier attitude to what could POTENTIALLY kill hundreds of thousands just because "it was their choice to live there."
IMO it should.

- Bunk - the gov't has done ALL KINDS of things to protect citizens from this, like chartering the FDA, awareness programs, labelling laws, regulations, inspections, civil suits, etc. And yet people still smoke and are overweight, etc. The government can't protect people from themselves. And that includes the people who chose to live in NOLA. Taxing the whole because of poor choices made by a small subset is just wrong.

Similarly, the feds take precautions regarding the millions vulnerable to harm from levees and dams. That's not good. Let the people in the areas that needs protection tax the people who want to build and live there. Why make the whole country suffer for the actions of a few?


- Guess what? We make our policies on the basis of the best interests of the state and the people as a whole, and not how you personally happen to feel.
Guess what? You're a socialist. When the feds spend billions on people who made a poor choice, it is most certainly not in the best interest of the people as a whole.


- There's certainly enough planning and money to do disaster preparation. And, as the tax and economic situations in the wake of the NOLA disaster will show, not doing so will certainly cause suffering to the country, for reasons not the least of which include that terrorist groups can certainly exploit those weaknesses to attack the nation as a whole.
NOLA had a disaster preparation plan. They didn't use it when the time came. Do you honestly think this is the only place that won't implement properly?. Terrorist groups can and likely will exploit anything they want, any time they want. The government won't be able to stop them if they really want to do something. You'd better come to the realization that government can't keep us safe. Not only isn't it their job, there is no way they can do it. No matter how socialistic we become. No matter how much we pay in taxes. No matter who, or how many are in charge. Bad things will happen and people are going to die. Period.


- Because the feds typically pay matching funds, which requires the local gov'ts to raise money on their own, and, of course, what the feds will pay would never be enough to cover the exponentially expanding costs of the projects as they evolve.

They need all the money they can get their hands on, state, federal, and local.If they can't raise all the money at the local and/or state level, they shouldn't rebuild. The feds have no business rebuilding cities at taxpayer expense.

- There's certainly enough planning and money to do disaster preparation. And, as the tax and economic situations in the wake of the NOLA disaster will show, not doing so will certainly cause suffering to the country.
Should be the responsibility of local goverment. Since local goverment is not willing/able to raise the 14 billion needed, they request the federal goverment to help. It was turned down because there are other priorities. Even when the 14 billion is spend, it may or may not help in this disaster. What if the storm is twice the strength? Will someone say "we had 140 billion plan before, but fed denied us"?

It is reasonable for federal goverment to collect some fund for nation wide protection, such as border patrol. It is also reasonable to collect for helping after disaster happened. Fed should not collect fund for local matter, such as the disaster protection of NO. I am not sure fed did collect fund for local disaster protection.

I dont know why this Chertoff and Brown were appointed to their positions at FEMA and Homeland Security.

Chertoff is a neo-con republican partisan, former white-water special council and federalist ... then became a Bush crony ... his legal specialty was chipping away at what little is left of the 4th ammendement as part of the "war on terror" He was appointed by Bush after ethically-challenged Bernard Kerik declined the offer

Brown's ticket to FEMA was Bush's 2000 campaign manager Joe Allbaugh When Allbaugh took over FEMA in 2001 ... he took Brown in as general counsel. Brown was fired from his previous job at the arabian horse association