General Feed
Yesterday, Senators Mary Landrieu and David Vitter of Louisiana introduced a mammoth $250 billion, 440-page disaster relief bill for Louisiana. While the bill’s size and scope is hardly commensurate with the amount of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, the bill does little to address the fact that, if enacted, the Federal Government will have over $300 billion in new spending for which politicians must account.
While rebuilding Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are vital state and federal priorities, so is the need to reign in profligate spending. The highway bill, which recently passed by wide majorities is both houses, is a good place to trim the fat. Cajun country should not suffer due to the political desires of some who choose to “bring home the bacon.”
Read the bill here.
Where Are the 440 Pages of Offsets?
Posted by Sam Batkins - September 23, 2005Thoughts? Add Comment -
said on Sep 23 2005 at 12:05pm
As an alternative to slogging through 440 pages, here is a summary of her plan to soak the taxpayers:
http://landrieu.senate.gov/hurricanes/MasterSectionbySection.pdf
More $ for the Sugar Daddies said on Sep 23 2005 at 12:06pm
From the Summary:
$25,490,073 shall be available until expended for completion of the of the ARS Sugarcane Research
Laboratory at Houma, Louisiana to do research and development.
Ehi Passika said on Sep 23 2005 at 12:18pm
This is disgusting, 400+ pages of new spending without a single mention of any offsets anywhere.
Demian said on Sep 23 2005 at 12:34pm
Louisiana recieves about $5.2 billion in federal aid annually, or $1,200 per resident of the state. This bill, S 1765 would dole out an addition $55,600 per resident.
Janus said on Sep 23 2005 at 1:45pm
Why do we need offsets? It's the role of government to help people who need help. Why can't the rich give up some of their tax cuts, which they don't really need? If they would just do that, America could have a functioning government and society.
Louis Varnson said on Sep 23 2005 at 2:09pm
We have offsets because we already have one of the largest deficits in US history. We cannot continue to spend money we simply do not have. There is plenty of room to cut money from the federal budget without forcing back-alley abortions, taking candy away from crying babies, and suppressing the Social Security checks of senior citizens.
Disgusted said on Sep 23 2005 at 2:34pm
The introduction of this bill will only fuel the "me-too" mentality infecting our members of congress and egg them on to demanding more for their own states. If LA gets more money, why not the other 49 states? Everyone can point out some reason for needing more money.
Of two faces said on Sep 23 2005 at 2:37pm
Janus,
Please serve as a good "role model" and send all of your earnings care of:
"Federal Government"
PO Box 4 Trillion
Black Hole, Deficit 20005
This extra money will help ensure a functioning government and society.
Porkopolis said on Sep 23 2005 at 10:24pm
I've calculated (see: http://porkopolis.blogspot.com/2005/09/louisiana-senators-ask-for-14-of.html) that the $250 billion dollars represents at least $80,000 per affected person.
TW said on Sep 24 2005 at 4:19pm
There are four themes running through these comments, two of which are laudable, one of which is ignorant & one of which is deplorable:
1) We can't do this whole thing on credit. Amen. That doesn't mean we need to come up with dollar-for-dollar offsets before we do anything, and it's perfectly reasonable to say, okay, we'll be spending a lot of money on this for 3 to 5 years & set out a plan for paying it off with interest over 10 years. But still, the point is valid - self-evident, even - that we shouldn't use the urgency of the situation as a pretext for ignoring the cost.
2) We should spend this money carefully, not just pour it on top of every lobbyist's wish list just because the activity would be taking place within the disaster zone. Absolutely so, and that's an excellent reason not to rush in right away with a massive master plan that we haven't taken the time to figure out. (Also an excellent reason to put the brakes on the Administration's half-baked plans as spelled out in the LA Times the other day.) Right now the Federal govt should be focusing on the strategy for relief & reconstruction, carefully considering where Federal involvement is essential & would do the most good, and lining up support & building consensus behind that strategy among all of the local, state, and private interests that are going to have to be part of the solution.
3) $250 billion is an excessive amount of money to ask for to rebuild Louisiana & Mississippi. We don't know that. The gross product of the hardest-hit areas approaches $100 billion per year, and while i don't know exactly what multipliers to use, the extended impact of having that whole area shut down for an extended period of time would certainly be several times that (especially considering how important the area is for transportation and energy). Of course other parties besides the government will be spending money on reconstruction, but i don't think any of us can say in the abstract what government share of that effort is fair or reasonable - and i'm sure none of us have the data to say so in any conrete way. Don't dismiss a big price tag just because it's big - this is going to be a large, expensive undertaking, especially if we want to do it well.
4) This is just another example of special interests hitting up Uncle Sucker, taking our hard-earned tax dollars to pay for their stupidity / malfeasance / name-your-favorite-straw-man. Give it up, already. If you don't see a need for a large government role in recovering from such a massive natural disaster, you'll never see a role for government - in which case, please feel free to move to the uninhabited island of your choice. Maybe Hobbes was right about the state of nature, but that doesn't mean we should all move there.