helping people or rewarding stupidity?

I'm sure it's not time for another rant yet but I need to gripe about something so too bad. About this taxpayer-funded disaster relief thing...what gives? Now all disaster relief isn't bad. To the extent that the military, including the National Guard, and perhaps other security-related federal entities can lend a hand they certainly ought to.* And such efforts ought to take precendence over other plans they might have had. But I hate to hear all this talk about the federal government dumping loads upon loads of money into the Katrina disaster zone to supposedly help the places rebuild. And the whiners who act as if it's the government's responsibility to dash in and fix everything...just shut up already.

For one, it's not the feds' responsibility and they shouldn't be collecting money for such things in the first place. That's best handled on a local level, as I believe the current saga is demonstrating quite effectively. No need to have some overgrown bureaucracy like FEMA tossing out millions for relief that could be handled quickly by better-mobilized crews from charities and the private sector, with perhaps some lower-level government help added in. From what I've heard it's safe to say that the best work being done in New Orleans and other areas hardest hit is being done by local forces and citizens stepping up. Heck, I'm not sure the people there even know if FEMA is trying to help them much less accomplishing anything. And it would be painful to hear how much money they've wasted and are continuing to waste. Forget about firing Brown, just dismantle the whole damn agency or at least move its functions under the DoD.

Moving on to personal responsibility, people must accept the risk of living in certain areas. If one chooses to live in California, one must realize that a mudslide, earthquake, or wildfire is going to destroy one's house every 10-15 years or so. If one lives right smack on the Atlantic Ocean in Florida or the Carolinas, one must expect to be rebuilding after a hurricane every few years. If one builds a house in the plains of tornado country, one should not be surprised to have the landmarks on one's property rearranged every now and then. If you want to live there you'd better learn from history and be prepared for it to repeat itself. And when history does indeed repeat itself, which it has a bad habit of doing, don't come crying to everyone else about how they somehow owe you something because you chose to live in an at-risk area.

Now, if you live in a bowl that sits 12 feet below sea level, with water on three sides, a gulf to welcome hurricanes and floods, a river to carry floodwaters from more than a dozen states to your back door, and a reservoir with enough water to make your life miserable were it ever to break through its barriers, you'd better be prepared for some nasty times under the wrong set of circumstances. I'm not convinced anyone who lived there was dumb enough to think they weren't at risk. After all, numerous articles and warnings on the threat have been published and insurance companies won't even insure some of that property. In light of such overwhelming facts and evidence what excuse is there for residents not being at least somewhat prepared for such a catastrophe?

Let's take a few seconds to consider that last bit. If you go trying to buy flood insurance, and large thieving corporation after large thieving corporation--ones that make money by accepting risk, by the way--refuses to take massive sums of money from you because they claim the associated risk is too high, that should tell you something. Like, maybe you should be at least a tiny bit concerned about flooding. Or, maybe you ought to weigh the risks and benefits before settling there. Perhaps it's just me, but insurance companies refusing to deal with me would be a clincher. When that happens I'm taking the hint.

Okay, so we have a bunch of people living in an imminent disaster area. No biggie, happens all the time. Just look at the areas mentioned above. Now, suddenly the imminent storm comes and brings the worst upon the residents. That sucks and those people deserve the help we as individuals (and especially as Christians, for some of us) can offer, but as taxpayers we should be under no obligation whatsoever to give them part of our taxes. They made choices that put themselves at risk and they're reaping the rewards for it. I don't mean to sound cruel or uncaring here, I'm just laying out the facts. People are responsible for their own decisions and the consequences that result from them. Those of us who had no part in the decision can't be held accountable for any of the results.

Now on to government-funded rebuilding. A major problem with this is that it encourages the same sort of dumb moves that brought on the problem in the first place. We all need to learn from our mistakes and take steps to prevent the consequences from recurring. But why not choose to just keep living life as usual until the next disaster if you won't be held accountable for that decision? You see, if there's too much risk associated with living in some areas, those areas ought not be lived in. If there's too much risk with certain types of buildings or city designs, they ought to be avoided. Let's not "help them get back on their feet" by building another house of cards that's just gonna go the way of the previous one when the next doomsday scenario comes along. And as I said earlier, history repeats itself and as best we can tell will continue to do so. It's good to have sympathy for people who come on hard times but it's not good to encourage them to set themselves up for more hard times. If people insist on repeating the past let's at least let them do so on their own.

Let me conclude by way of personal example. I grew up on land that bordered a river. A few times a year the river would flood, submerging fields on both sides and altering the appearance of the beaches by rearranging trees and rocks and such. So did my family build a house in the field so we could be close to the water? Of course not, we lived up on a hill about, I dunno, 40 feet or so above water level and had to traverse steep hills and sharp rocks whenever we wanted to go swimming. (Okay, it wasn't so horrible, but we didn't have a beach at our back door either.) Now even on the hill there was the slightest risk that some freak once-in-a-millenium flood could cover the entire valley and thus wash our house downriver. Such a thing obviously wasn't expected or even really prepared for, but it was a risk that had to be considered at some point.** So assume it actually happened and we suddenly found ourselves homeless. How could anyone be held responsible for this and thus be forced to pay us to rebuild? (This is assuming nobody had altered the course of the river to cause it or something, but you get the idea.) Should government money be thrown our way? Not in a million years. We chose to live there, we took on the risk, we chose not to buy catastrophic flood insurance, we didn't expect to suffer for it. But we did. That's called life--things happen sometimes that can't be expected or blamed on anyone.*** And when such things do happen it's nice when people pitch in and help but nobody should be forced to. And there certainly shouldn't be some government behemoth tasked with giving the help that ought to come from neighbors across the globe.

*For much more detail on the National Guard's role check this briefing transcript out (via Malkin). It should convince you that the Guard is plenty capable of supporting rescue and law enforcement activities in the region. It also has some interesting info about the NOPD's lack of preparedness and subsequent collapse.

**Although I was too young to remember much detail, once the river actually did flood high enough to cause some concern in my family. As I remember the story it came at least halfway up a short wooded hill that separated our back door from the field below, supposedly coming close to claiming some of our toys near the edge of the woods. I don't have any scarring childhood memories of losing prized possessions in such a way so I'm pretty sure it didn't.

***Note that the Katrina disaster was not only expected in a general sense but warned of days beforehand. Contingency plans should have not only been prepared but actually put in place before chaos took hold. Don't try to force me or anyone else to ante up for something that was clearly preventable to a large degree. The temporarily displaced Bryan Preston has more.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin just posted a related piece on the "feckless FEMA bureaucracy" with plenty of links. Good readin'.