A little article I wrote that is going to be published in a Las Vegas newspaper on Friday.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Now, its not very often that I get publicly involved in politics, which is what talk of hurricane reconstruction is, but I heard something on TV that made me start thinking.

It was only a small blurb, one that I caught while flipping news channels on my satellite dish to hear the latest on Hurricane Rita before it smashed ashore along the Texas, Louisiana border. It went something like this... It is illegal for the government to take taxpayer dollars and provide it to individuals.

What??? Did I hear that right? I Tivo’ed it to played it again and sure enough, I did hear it right. That’s when the wheels started churning inside my head because, although I am sympathetic to the people effected by the hurricanes, I don’t think that I should have to pay to rebuild their life. After all, I’ve got my own to worry about.

At this point, I’m sure that I have got a lot of readers thinking I’m the Anti-Christ because I would even say
something like this - in public anyway. But I’m sure there are many people around that feel the same way. I’m also sure many of you want to know why I would say taxpayer money
should not be spent on hurricane relief - or any disaster relief for that matter, so here’s why:

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution
says “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the
United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

What that means is the government can’t take my money or yours, via taxes, and give to someone else. So far the government has spent $60 billion on hurricane relief and the governor of Louisiana is asking for another $32 billion to rebuild the state.

First of all, I’d like to know how you spend $60 billion in taxpayer money in a couple of weeks, and secondly I’d like to know why I should pay to rebuild anything but my own domain.

A better question is how did FEMA wind up with the authority to provide billions of dollars in federal aid annually to individuals in the first place, despite the fact that the US Constitution says tax money has to be spent uniformly across the land?

Don’t think that I am looking to abolish FEMA, I just want it to stay within legal boundaries and provide disaster preparedness and mitigation assistance on an equal basis across the country - like they’re supposed to.

I don’t want them to provide free “emergency housing” (which lasts up to 18 months), I don’t want them to provide cash (the debit cards they gave to Katrina victims), I don’t want them to provide free clothing or pay any part of rebuilding someones private property. I also don’t want FEMA
to give money to private “not-for-profit” companies like the American Red Cross or Salvation Army, so they can
do it either. That’s what insurance and having money in the bank is for.

Every time FEMA gives someone a trailer to live in as temporary housing for up to 18 months, taxpayers are
paying whatever the company that provided the trailer says is due for the trailer. When FEMA gives someone clothes, they don’t give them perfectly good clothes that have been
donated, FEMA gives them brand new clothes purchased from the vendor of their choice. Its the same with food and water and/or medical care.

Seems like it’s pretty easy to transfer public wealth (i.e. the money collected from you in the form of taxes) to a few approved vendors of FEMA, the Red Cross or Salvation Army. So easy in fact, it sounds like I should become an approved vendor to get in on the gravy train!

I call on government to stop illegally spending taxpayer money to bail out individuals who choose to live in areas
prone to disaster or fail to buy insurance to protect them from losses.

If you want to kick in your “fair share,” feel free to donate money to reputable charities. But hey, if you really want to help, I’m sure there is some swampland in Louisiana you can buy. You know, the swamp somebody built on in the first place and tried to use walls and pumps to keep the water out.

Yeah it definitely seems like Katrina victims are getting a whole helluva lotta dough. I was sitting there wondering if Rita turns out to be a catastrophe, how are they going to tell Rita victims that you don't get as much as Katrina victims? No way you can keep giving money out like that.

YOu gotta wonder if Bush didn't see not only the disaster on the Gul Coast as well as the political catastrophe and say, "I'm going to fix that come hell or high water". And, then he fixes it with our money.

That said, I've got no basis for an opinion as to whether or not New Orleans should be rebuilt. I just don't know. But, it is hard for me to imagine it not being rebuilt. And, the estimates I've seen, they're saying $200 billion that they're kicking around now may not even be enough.

THAT IS FUCKIN VERY SADDDDDD

Yeah, sounds good to me. Not only would a smaller New Orleans make sense, but it would be cool as fuck. Imaging something like Austin or Portland if you go that way and things work out right. Maybe that's what they have in mind.

Also, to be completely insensitive about the whole thing, I don't know how much incentive they should give the poor to come back. Not that I don't think you shouldn't help the poor. There were just way, way too many in New Orleans. Here's wishing them well in their new home cities! Spread out like they are now, I figure there's less danger of crime and maybe a better chance of them getting a leg up if they try to since they aren't completely surrounded by the poverty. Or, not as much anyway...

Exactly. Why in the hell would you want to rebuild NO with poor areas that will never be able to get out of the diaster area next time buses or not. It is too much of a headache with no benefit. Other cities are not usually below sea level in the path of many hurricanes so they should fare better there IMO.