Putting Dollars First

I wonder if the people bemoaning the cost of the Gulf Coast reconstruction take pride in the rebuilding we did after WWII in Europe through the Marshall Plan. If they do, and if they justify the different response by exclaiming that the foreign rebuilding was a matter of national security, then I'd really like them to explain how allowing poverty to flourish and devastation to remain unaddressed won't have a significant negative impact on the health of our country and ultimately our domestic security.

I read one blogger's comment referring to federal funding of the reconstruction as taking his money and giving it to someone else, morphing the reconstruction into wealth redistribution. Well, I say that if my tax burden this year goes up a hundred dollars or two in order to rebuild the Gulf Coast then so be it. There is a responsibility we have as members of this national community - a responsibility to help one another. And why in the world we should leave that up to chance, the hope that the private sector will step in and do the job fairly and completely, is beyond me.

We've been told that we're in the midst of a global war on terror and as a nation we have not been asked to sacrifice to fight and win that war. Instead, a small percentage of our fellow citizens are carrying the burden - and future generations will inherit the bill to pay for the war. For once, can our leaders ask us to do something as one? To make the sacrifice of a one-time higher tax bill in order to reconstruct the Gulf Coast and not condemn those hit by Katrina to years of poverty? I believe in the goodness of Americans and believe we'd give what was needed.

Comments

[Matthew C. Aycock]

First off, you don't believe in the goodness of Americans and that we will give what is needed. If you truly felt this way, you wouldn't feel the government would need to step in at all.

As to the amount of money being spent on reconstruction, I definitely do not view it as a redistribution of wealth. I realize that many of those that are part of my economic outlook do, but I think they are more in fear of what will happen next if we were to lose to the Democrats in the next major election.

I will state that I am happy that we are rebuilding the areas affected by Katrina. This shows that we have our priorities in order as a nation. I am proud of the donations that were given.

How is this going to be paid back? I know that we have several options there, and I am not sure that any of them are good. It would be my preference to have a 10-20 cent per gallon tax hike on Gas. Funnel that money towards the reconstruction efforts. Once the reconstruction is complete, that money could then be used to pay down our foreign held debts.

This change would provide a couple of benefits:
1. It would keep us from going deeper into debt over the reconstruction.
2. It would help motivate the public to move away from a pure oil dependancy.

Unfortunately, I do not believe we will be doing it my way or one similar.

[Kathy]

"First off, you don't believe in the goodness of Americans and that we will give what is needed. If you truly felt this way, you wouldn't feel the government would need to step in at all."

I always wonder at statements like this. "Americans" and "the government" are the same thing, or they should be. When Kathy says she believes in the goodness of Americans, I take her to mean that she believes that the values and priorities of America as a society are reflected in America's public policies, in America's legal system, in how America -- i.e., the GOVERNMENT of America, as well as individual Americans -- chooses to respond to the human needs of Americans.

There is no need to create a dichotomy between American generosity defined in individual terms and American generosity defined in terms of public policy and government action. BOTH are essential for the people of the Gulf Coast to rebuild their lives and their homes.

That said, Americans as individuals CANNOT give the totality of what is needed to address the economic, physical, demographic, social, and environmental problems caused by the hurricane. The problems are too big, too complex to be solved by volunteerism and donations alone. Government must step in to provide resources of that magnitude. And there's nothing wrong with that. Government is the mechanism that free people in a democratic society set up to deal with problems that affect the entire society. Government is not the enemy of the people. Government IS the people.

[Matthew C. Aycock]

So you feel that Government is merely for organizational purposes only, and not in place to force the hand of the people?

You do realize that the Constitution provides that the Government shall have POWER and the People shall have RIGHTS. There is a clear separation here, regardless of any philosophical desires to the contrary.

I definitely agree that Americans as individuals cannot give what it takes in this particular situation. That does not mean, however, that Americans as individuals could not do so if they modified their way of thinking.

If government did not provide a service such as FEMA, but instead required individuals to donate an equal amount of money to what is in FEMA's budget to a charitable organization that handles disaster relief, then the money would most likely be better spent. With this, you must agree.

[Kathy]

I think the function of government is to make and enforce law, and to protect the rights of the people. Everything else flows from those two functions.

Yes, the government has power and the people have rights, but the government is formed and maintained BY the people to ENSURE the protection of those rights (as I said above).

I agree with you, in theory at least, that Americans could give more if they modified their thinking. But in practice, that's not going to happen -- especially not when the government does not model the kind of generosity it expects of private citizens.

As for your idea of the government requiring individual Americans to give to charity in an amount equal to FEMA's budget, I think that is unrealistic, antidemocratic, and illogical.

It's antidemocratic, because if the government "forces" people to donate to charity, then it's not a donation, is it? Donations by definition are voluntary contributions of money, clothing, time, or other tangible commodities. It's illogical, because why force people to donate to a charity when we already have something called "taxes," whereby the government raises money to fund public policies and initiatives that benefit the entire society. And it's unrealistic because it's unenforceable. How would you ensure that every American gives a specific amount of money to one specific charitable organization that handles disaster relief? This makes no sense to me.

[a]

I always heard something from my neighbor that he sometimes goes to the internet bar to play the game which will use him some rose online zulie
Having more fun here

[candy]

I always heard something from my neighbor that he sometimes goes to the internet bar to play the game which will use him some cabal alz
cabal gold

Having more fun here

[buy AO credits]

Welcome to our Anarchy credits center. We can provide all what you want if you want. Our Anarchy Online credits are specialized, professional and reliable website

[cabal money]

You will not regret to have cabal gold . So I will continue to have cabal money , it is a beautiful fairy tale, it looks like my life.

[latale gold]

On account of I have latale online gold , I am not afraid of the lonely. At that time I do not know the meaning of it. Later I buy latale gold .

[Atlantica online Gold]

By the way, I recommend you buy the cheapest Atlantica online Gold and Atlantica power leveling from us where the prices here are low. So if you have the Atlantica Gold is useful to your level spear.

[zxzxzx]

I always heard something from my neighbor
شات الخليج
شات الحب
شات السعودية
I always heard something from my neighbor

[zxzxzx]

I always heard something from my neighbor
شات الخليج
شات الحب
شات السعودية
I always heard something from my neighbor