Funding the Katrina disaster rebuild

[MODU]

Most of us watched the President's address last night and understand the scope of what he plans for the area, including the spending of potentially $200 Billion over the next decade (let's be real . . . it's going to take a loooong time to rebuild).  With that being the case, how should the funding be handled? Some have argued for a tax increase to handle the increased burden, others have stated that the states and the insurance companies should handle the bulk of the burden.

Personally, I say we scrap the pork projects which have not been acted upon already ear-marked in the last two budgets and ALL pork over the next decade in order to shoulder the burden without increasing the debt or taxes. 

[jimrtex]

You haven't been watching the New Orleans newscasts. 

After all the bad stuff that went on at the Superdome, shouldn't we tear it down and build a new stadium.  Or what about that monorail we've always talked about.

[Sam Spade]

Personally, I say we scrap the pork projects which have not been acted upon already ear-marked in the last two budgets and ALL pork over the next decade in order to shoulder the burden without increasing the debt or taxes. 

I would be fine with this.

[MODU]

After all the bad stuff that went on at the Superdome, shouldn't we tear it down and build a new stadium.  Or what about that monorail we've always talked about.

I'm all for a new stadium.  There is no reason why the exisiting one should be saved.  It's near the end of it's practical life (stadium wise) anyway.

[A18]

I don't like the idea of direct federal spending... too communistic. At least give the money to the states involved.

Anyway, I like the idea of cutting pork. Eliminating Medicaid would be another good idea.

[David S]

I think insurance and states should handle most of it. Also it would be nice to know how many people were actually affected and what the true extent of the damage is. New Orleans had a population of about 500,000. If twice as many as that were affected then Bush's plan to spend $200 billion would amount to $200,000 for every man woman and child. For a family of five it would amount to $1 million. And that's in addition to what the insurance and states will pay. Seems kind of high to me.

[MasterJedi]

Best thing to do would be to let the people in to get anything that survived out then tear the whole city down (try to save historical sites and french quarter), create a new design and build it that way.

[MODU]

Well, between Bush calling for no new taxes but rather cut in federal spending, we will need the insurance funding to help pick up the slack.  However, many of those that lost the roofs over their heads were renters and not owners, so they most likely did not have enough insurance to cover their losses. 

Now, I agree with Jedi for the most part.  Clear out all of the destroyed areas, but don't rebuild all of it.  Leave  a majority of those areas alone and let them go back to nature.  Move the new homes further inland, on higher ground, and leave the flood plains alone.  That will save money right there.

[Jake]

Pork would cover alot of it, but a tax raise will be necessary to keep us out of an even more massive deficit. Does anyone know how much a raise in the two highest brackets of 1% and the two next brackets of .5% for the next two to three years would generate money wise?

[opebo]

Raise the top tax brackets in to the 50-70% range.

[Sam Spade]

Pork would cover alot of it, but a tax raise will be necessary to keep us out of an even more massive deficit. Does anyone know how much a raise in the two highest brackets of 1% and the two next brackets of .5% for the next two to three years would generate money wise?

My tax knowledge is not so hot nowadays.  Given total tax revenue is $2 trillion, I'd say maybe $10-15 billion a year, provided the highest brackets continue to make money at 2005 levels.

[J. J.]

You have a lot of debris; use it to raise the level of part of the city.

[jimrtex]

You have a lot of debris; use it to raise the level of part of the city.

That would be like building on top of a dump.  Anything organic would rot and be unstable.  Anything wood would be yummies for termites.

Georgia Pacific has announced that it is reopening two lumber mills in Mississippi for using all the downed trees (I got the impression that the mills had been closed at some earlier time).

[??????????]

Why not just do what Galveston did? If they could do it in 1900 why can't we do it much easier in 2005?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Raise taxes on the rich, keep the estate tax, get the hell out of Iraq, make sure that there isn't massive curroption. FDR was good at having a clean New Deal. Bush will give all the money to politically connected incompetant hacks.

[A18]

The estate tax is a very immoral tax, and needs to be eradicated.

Spending should be cut, but not to 'pay' for this. This shouldn't be happening. Why are we spending half a million dollars per person to rebuild a city below sea level?

This is a terrible precedent to set. Might as well not worry about insurance. Next time a disaster hits an area, they'll come asking for the same treatment.

[Jake]

Pork would cover alot of it, but a tax raise will be necessary to keep us out of an even more massive deficit. Does anyone know how much a raise in the two highest brackets of 1% and the two next brackets of .5% for the next two to three years would generate money wise?

My tax knowledge is not so hot nowadays.  Given total tax revenue is $2 trillion, I'd say maybe $10-15 billion a year, provided the highest brackets continue to make money at 2005 levels.

"Raising taxes" would have little effect then.