>[snip]
>>Finally, I don't think that the government should count on the good works of volunteer organization in their disaster relief planning and delivery. They can be accommodated in planning (to be in 'control centers', space for their (additional) supplies, etc.) but not delegated any official duties.
>
>As I understand it, the people of the U.S. want a small government. At the same time, they spend a lot on charity. Isn't that odd, for a capitalist country where it is everybody's ideal to become millionair and the general idea is that those who are poor either must have done something wrong or are still busy becoming millionair.
>
>I think that all that charity gives those money-spenders a higher self-esteem each time they give money. If the government would raise the taxes and take care of certain problems, the charity industry would go down and there would be less chance for a push of one's self-esteem.
>
>I am not against charity for certain cases. But personally (here's Europe calling?) I think that the government must do most of the rebuilding work in NO, not volunteer organizations. And give a lot of jobs to the poor citizens of NO. Tax raises? Yes!

The problem with your theory is that government is wasteful and has too high administrative costs. These costs take to big of a chunk of the funding (30% or more) that is targeted for those who need it. Volunteer organizations do not have the overhead (typically 10% or less) that government does (namely, payroll, employment taxes, etc). These organizations are much more able to address the specific needs than any federal gov't can. That is why we send our donations to private organizations instead of more to the gov't. We know who does the better job.