>>>>>>Of course, hindsight is 20-20 .... But it is interesting to think what could have been done with $12B in other ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>These $12G are a pittance, compared to other waste. Now if a week in Iraq costs about $2G, imagine USA with that money being spent elsewhere instead...
>>>>>
>>>>>- rebuild the infrastructure so no more collapsing bridges, tunnels etc
>>>>>- have more than 200 health inspectors on the whole country (China has 140,000 or so, and even my little municipality of 120,000 people back home has six)
>>>>>- free vaccinations, TB screening, and other prevention
>>>>>- enough money for public education to attract talent into teaching
>>>>>- European/Japanese style fast railway (far more green than using jets for 30 passengers) - the 2:05 hours train trip between Paris and London was just recently tested; three hours from Paris to Marseilles is already common. Imagine an overnight trip coast to coast.
>>>>>- double the strength of levees in N.O.
>>>>>- get college tuitions back to 1999 levels
>>>>
>>>>While I agree that all the things you suggest would be a better application of the money than where it actually went, I find it very interesting that one of the choices was never "Return it to the people you taxed it from to begin with and let them decide how they want to spend their own money" <bg>
>>>
>>>Are you suggesting some sort of a non-taxing government setup? How would such a government operate? If not, then they would first have to decide not to have a war, then decide what it would have cost had they decided otherwise, and then return only that money to the citizenry?
>>
>>Nope, simply saying some of the suggestions ( the rail etc ) presupposed that it was the government's money to spend rather than saying "Gee if we don't need the money for national defense let's give it back to the people we took it from to begin with instead of looking for other things we - the enlightened, caring people who care so much we are willing to spend other people's money to show how much we care - think is good for them."
>>
>>Social engineering works well in college classrooms and on drawing boards, where it is never tested against outcomes. People spending their own money have stricture ROI requirements.
>>
>>"I know I'm a better person than Bill Gates because while he is willing to spend 10 billion of his own money to help the poor I am willing to spend 20 billion of his money to help the poor"
>
>But there are things that the government needs money for. Infrastructure (if it's anything like Canada) gets horribly short changed. No matter how much of my money they give me back, I can't build or repave a highway. That 12Bn that keeps popping up wouldn't fix all the roads in the country that need fixing. And yes, I do believe that government has a place in trying to make sure that people who can't help themselves are helped. And how much would it cost to really put New Orleans back on it's feet, not to mention other areas hit by natural disaster. If you leave the government with little or no money just because 'you know how to spend it better', you will certainly end up living in a third world nation (if it gets ranked that high).

I agree with everything you say and don't mean to imply government and collective action do not have a function. But the infrastructure too often includes bridges in Alaska and post offices and federal buildings named after Robert Byrd in West Virginia. I think the distribution model needs to be redefined and it seems a lot more efficient to build roads in Ohio for Ohians with Ohio tax dollars than send money to Washington and have our reps fight Ted Stevens for it.

As to helping those who *can't* help themselves I believe that is exactly the role of the community - whether government or otherwise. I am somewhat distressed when I see programs that are in no way evaluated as to outcome ( most of the Great Society programs including the welfare programs that destroyed the so many families and subsidized exactly the behavior that is today causing so much hopelessness - inlcuding what we saw in New Orleans ) I think such programs either make the public cynical about government's ability to help, outraged at people who need help more than they need outrage, or feeling good about what they are paying for in taxes so don't feel the need to support private charity.

Some things can be done by government and some things have to be done through cultural osmosis. I give cheerfully to the Cleveland Food Bank and reluctantly to federal and state government.

AS to New Orleans, that is a particularly interesting case. Louisiana has traditionally the most corrupt government at all levels seen in the US and that puts it up against pretty stiff competition. After failing completely to provide for its citizens, when the levees broke and exposed what a disaster that state is, the locals decided it was George Bush's fault. FEMA didn't/couldn't cope and Washington was distant and unready and incompetant. But the outrage was focused on the idea that only Washington can make things right when the government at state a local level was far more culpable and far more incompetant and certainly should have been much more in touch with local needs.

Putting NO 'back on its feet' implies it was on its feet before Katrina. The problems in NO were not and are not all water related and trying to get Washington to fix them by throwing a lot of money down there is magical thinking.

I just don't like demagogues, and the wake of Katrina was as politically and rhetorically disgusting as the stagnant water it left behind.