I was going to mention this in the [broken link]Katrina exposes the failure of the welfare state thread, but decided it deserves its own.
When Hurricane Katrina slammed into the US Gulf Coast with 150 mph (240 kph) winds and 30’ (9 meter) storm surges hundreds of thousands of homes and business were destroyed and millions of people were displaced, left not just homeless, but without even the comfort of knowing they had a home somewhere out there. The most recent estimates I’ve heard for the projected cost of property damage were somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 Billion USD (almost 55 Billion GBP). In addition to actual physical damage there is the damage to the national economy due to the breakdown of trade and the loss of fuel refineries and import. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, where the Minnesota River meets the Upper Mississippi River in Minnesota, there is a pile up of grain barges that are waiting for export and have no where to go. This is a disaster the likes which this country has rarely, if ever, seen.
Yet, there is still something about the US Government’s response that does not sit right with me. I’m not talking about the initial lethargic response of getting rescuers into New Orleans, that doesn’t sit right with anyone and is a different issue. I’m talking about the commitment from the national government to rebuild.
We have a system here in the US that provides the resources for people to rebuild in wake of catastrophe. We have privatized insurance and the provision for people to receive funding from private charities and donations. Home owners, renters, business owners…all of these and more have their own kinds of insurance. It is exactly for cases like this that insurance exists. For those that do not have insurance either because they cannot afford it or they did not have the proper kinds of insurance (flood insurance for example) we have plenty of organizations such as the Red Cross and the United Way plus in the wake of events such as Katrina there is always a surge of new, specialized charities that spring up for relief and rebuilding. We have these institutions precisely because it is not supposed to be the Federal Government’s responsibility to perform these duties.
So why is the Federal Government doing this?
I just cannot figure out a good reason short of PR. Even that isn’t a very good reason to me. People may not like it, but times like this present the perfect opportunity for the Government to re-iterate to the people the idea of laissez-faire upon which it was founded. If local governments (up to State Government) wish to put their resources toward rebuilding that is their prerogative and I agree—nay, encourage—them to do so. The Federal Government should not be part of the majority of the rebuilding.
Let me highlight this with an example: in 1997 the Cities of Grand Forks, ND and East Grand Forks, MN on the Red River of the North were 80-90% flooded by the spring swell of the river. While the 60,000 displaced people looked down upon their drowned cities from a distance, fires began to spring up. They had no way to fight these fires and soon they spread to consume many buildings of the down town area. Look here for more information on this disaster; or, if you prefer the Wikipedia Article. FEMA provided shelter and relief, but beyond that all of the rebuilding of private property, as far as I’ve been able to learn, was funded by charities, insurance, donations, and local governments. The exception to this was the government subsidies given to the farms of the Red River Valley, one of the world’s most fertile areas, but even most of that was provided by local government. Now, I will be the first to admit that the scale of these disasters, the 1997 Red River Flood and Hurricane Katrina, are vastly different; but, where does it cross that line and become a matter for the Federal Government?
Perhaps a more poignant example is this: if your house is destroyed by a lightning strike or a tornado, is it the Federal Government’s responsibility to rebuild your house and pay you for the damages?
No.
So, why should it be the Federal Government’s responsibility to rebuild private property in the wake of Katrina? In my opinion it shouldn’t be.
Here again, there should be an exception: basic infrastructure of national importance. Ports, docks, canals, etc. All of these are essential to the national economy and so I have no problem with the Federal Government providing some aid in the recovery of these areas. Of course, I don’t agree with the nature that rebuilding these will have. But that is more closely related to the question of how to rebuild New Orleans than it is with who should rebuild all the effected areas.
I understand that I may be largely alone here with these particular sentiments, and that is fine. I’m asking all you, what do think the Federal Government should be responsible for and why? I'm not limiting this discussion to Hurricane Katrina either, I have just been using that as an example to illustrate my possition.
When Hurricane Katrina slammed into the US Gulf Coast with 150 mph (240 kph) winds and 30’ (9 meter) storm surges hundreds of thousands of homes and business were destroyed and millions of people were displaced, left not just homeless, but without even the comfort of knowing they had a home somewhere out there. The most recent estimates I’ve heard for the projected cost of property damage were somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 Billion USD (almost 55 Billion GBP). In addition to actual physical damage there is the damage to the national economy due to the breakdown of trade and the loss of fuel refineries and import. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, where the Minnesota River meets the Upper Mississippi River in Minnesota, there is a pile up of grain barges that are waiting for export and have no where to go. This is a disaster the likes which this country has rarely, if ever, seen.
Yet, there is still something about the US Government’s response that does not sit right with me. I’m not talking about the initial lethargic response of getting rescuers into New Orleans, that doesn’t sit right with anyone and is a different issue. I’m talking about the commitment from the national government to rebuild.
We have a system here in the US that provides the resources for people to rebuild in wake of catastrophe. We have privatized insurance and the provision for people to receive funding from private charities and donations. Home owners, renters, business owners…all of these and more have their own kinds of insurance. It is exactly for cases like this that insurance exists. For those that do not have insurance either because they cannot afford it or they did not have the proper kinds of insurance (flood insurance for example) we have plenty of organizations such as the Red Cross and the United Way plus in the wake of events such as Katrina there is always a surge of new, specialized charities that spring up for relief and rebuilding. We have these institutions precisely because it is not supposed to be the Federal Government’s responsibility to perform these duties.
So why is the Federal Government doing this?
I just cannot figure out a good reason short of PR. Even that isn’t a very good reason to me. People may not like it, but times like this present the perfect opportunity for the Government to re-iterate to the people the idea of laissez-faire upon which it was founded. If local governments (up to State Government) wish to put their resources toward rebuilding that is their prerogative and I agree—nay, encourage—them to do so. The Federal Government should not be part of the majority of the rebuilding.
Let me highlight this with an example: in 1997 the Cities of Grand Forks, ND and East Grand Forks, MN on the Red River of the North were 80-90% flooded by the spring swell of the river. While the 60,000 displaced people looked down upon their drowned cities from a distance, fires began to spring up. They had no way to fight these fires and soon they spread to consume many buildings of the down town area. Look here for more information on this disaster; or, if you prefer the Wikipedia Article. FEMA provided shelter and relief, but beyond that all of the rebuilding of private property, as far as I’ve been able to learn, was funded by charities, insurance, donations, and local governments. The exception to this was the government subsidies given to the farms of the Red River Valley, one of the world’s most fertile areas, but even most of that was provided by local government. Now, I will be the first to admit that the scale of these disasters, the 1997 Red River Flood and Hurricane Katrina, are vastly different; but, where does it cross that line and become a matter for the Federal Government?
Perhaps a more poignant example is this: if your house is destroyed by a lightning strike or a tornado, is it the Federal Government’s responsibility to rebuild your house and pay you for the damages?
No.
So, why should it be the Federal Government’s responsibility to rebuild private property in the wake of Katrina? In my opinion it shouldn’t be.
Here again, there should be an exception: basic infrastructure of national importance. Ports, docks, canals, etc. All of these are essential to the national economy and so I have no problem with the Federal Government providing some aid in the recovery of these areas. Of course, I don’t agree with the nature that rebuilding these will have. But that is more closely related to the question of how to rebuild New Orleans than it is with who should rebuild all the effected areas.
I understand that I may be largely alone here with these particular sentiments, and that is fine. I’m asking all you, what do think the Federal Government should be responsible for and why? I'm not limiting this discussion to Hurricane Katrina either, I have just been using that as an example to illustrate my possition.
Comment