By Daniel B. Kline
Spending billions of dollars to rebuild New Orleans makes no sense. Though reconstructing what once was the clear emotional direction to follow, the prudent choice would be to abandon the city.
No matter how much money gets poured into fixing levees, pumping out water and building stronger sea walls, there is no surefire way to keep nature at bay. We can certainly make a safer city -- we knew how to do that well before Katrina hit -- but we can't make a safe city.
President Bush has estimated that rebuilding efforts will cost taxpayers $200 billion. Spending that much money does not change the fact that New Orleans lies below sea level and remains susceptible to the next horrific hurricane that sets its sites on the area.
Instead of rebuilding, the President and Congress must condemn the city using eminent domain laws to seize property and to determine compensation for those displaced. At a later date, perhaps New Orleans would have value to a private developer and the land could be sold. Until then, the government must cut its losses and help people in the most economical way possible.
Condemning New Orleans would displace its approximately 450,000 residents. Each of these people should be entitled to fair reimbursement for both their destroyed property and the lost opportunity caused by never being able to return to the place they called home. Of course, those with insurance will receive some money from their policies, but insurance can't pay for the loss of jobs and other intangibles.
The government, however, can pay for these things and doing so would be dramatically cheaper than reconstructing New Orleans. Taking even half of the $200 billion cost of rebuilding and distributing it to the victims would give you more than enough money to take care of everyone.
To keep things simple, consider that every $1 million spent equals $2 for each resident. Every $100 million is $200, every billion $2,000, every $10 billion $20,000 and $100 billion would mean $200,000 and change to spend for each person. Since residents had unequal assets before the storm, obviously the money would be distributed according to a formula based on the value of what was lost.
Abandoning New Orleans makes even more sense when you consider that the U.S. government has estimated that it will take nearly a year to fix the levees. That means that the City will still be extremely vulnerable for a year and that normalcy will not be possible. Of the 450,000 people displaced, logic says that many will not be able to wait until the repairs are made.
For many residents of the Big Easy, the choice has already been made. The jobs they once had have disappeared and new ones may not materialize for years. Truly helping these people means providing them with the resources to start over someplace else -- not rebuilding a city they can no longer live in.
Since the proposed $200 billion comes from taxpayer dollars, U.S. citizens have the right to demand that the money be spent prudently, not emotionally. Nobody wants to deny a fellow citizen the right to return to the place they live. We can all envision how the same thing could happen to our homes and we understand the pain deciding to condemn New Orleans would cause.
Unfortunately, nature has left us no choice. You can't spend $200 billion to rebuild a city that stands a reasonably good chance of being destroyed again -- not when the residents of that city could be better helped for less money.
Daniel B. Kline is a freelance writer based in Connecticut. His book "50 Things Every Guy Should Know How to Do" will be released in April. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Arrogant heiress deserves prison stay
By Daniel B. Kline
While many of us wanted Paris Hilton thrown in jail for crimes against humanity after the release of her CD, currently no law specifically outlaws terrible pop music sung by someone with a lousy voice. Though that seems like a rule Congress should at least think about, we must consider whether we have enough jail cells for the likes of Gwen Stefani, Fergie Jennifer Lopez and the atrocious-in-every-medium Lindsay Lohan.
Still, while we can't jail Hilton for not having any particular talent, we do get to throw her in jail when she completely ignores the laws the rest of us must live under. Celebrities -- even ones with their own best-selling sex tape -- must have a valid license to operate a motor vehicle.
Without this particular law our streets would be filled with toddlers, the elderly and the habitually drunk crashing their vehicles into anything in their paths. If we didn't have some basic standard regulating who can drive, than simply stepping outside your house would be as risky as trying to cross the race track during the Indy 500.Since it would be profiling to simply ban all celebrities under 30 who hang out in nightclubs, wear oversized sunglasses and have tiny dogs as pets from driving, we instead must hold Hilton to the rules the rest of us obey.
Hilton actually claimed in court that she was unaware her license was suspended. She made this claim even though after her last court case she had signed something explaining the loss of her driving privileges. She had also been pulled over in the days before her arrest and warned by a too-friendly police officer that she should not be driving.
Fortunately, the judge in Hilton's case refused to accept the "whoopsie, I didn't know defense"; A bit of a hardliner, he is famous for regularly rejecting "he started it" and "it wasn't my fault" as legal arguments for bad behavior.
Many were surprised when the judge sentenced the hotel heiress to any jail at all and were absolutely shocked when he gave her 45 days. Realistically, he had almost no choice but to make an example out of the spoiled star given that she refused to take the proceedings seriously and had the audacity to show up late for court.
By arriving to her sentencing hearing 20 minutes late, the talentless celebrity showed a stunning arrogance and lost any chance of showing the judge that she actually takes responsibility for her actions. Why would a judge grant someone mercy when they not only blatantly refuse to show remorse but openly show contempt for the legal system?
Even the lowest level of criminal -- your petty thieves and minor drug dealers -- know that appearing in court requires humility. Even the most hardened street criminals know enough to show up on time and make every effort to show respect for the judge.
Hilton, who lives a privileged life where most rules do not actually apply to her, seems to find it impossible to obey even the basic laws of society. We don't ask much from her -- simply that while drinking and partying her life away, she not put any of us regular folks at risk.
Since she's clearly unable to do even that, Hilton deserves whatever time she will actually spend in jail. Her arrogance makes it okay for the rest of us to take just a little joy in every humiliation she faces and for us to laugh a little at every tear she cries.
Perhaps Paris Hilton will learn from her mistakes and emerge from jail a slightly less reprehensible person. More likely, she'll get out, hold a press conference about her "ordeal" and then head out to the latest hot nightspot.
Once there, she can get drunk, expose herself to the paparazzi and try to drive herself home. Paris Hilton has as much chance of learning from her mistakes as George Bush does of admitted he made a few errors in Iraq or Al Gore does of being caught on tape saying he doesn't actually believe in global warming it's just a way to get into the race in 2008.
Daniel B. Kline's new book, "Easy Answers to Every Problem" comes out in September. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
While many of us wanted Paris Hilton thrown in jail for crimes against humanity after the release of her CD, currently no law specifically outlaws terrible pop music sung by someone with a lousy voice. Though that seems like a rule Congress should at least think about, we must consider whether we have enough jail cells for the likes of Gwen Stefani, Fergie Jennifer Lopez and the atrocious-in-every-medium Lindsay Lohan.
Still, while we can't jail Hilton for not having any particular talent, we do get to throw her in jail when she completely ignores the laws the rest of us must live under. Celebrities -- even ones with their own best-selling sex tape -- must have a valid license to operate a motor vehicle.
Without this particular law our streets would be filled with toddlers, the elderly and the habitually drunk crashing their vehicles into anything in their paths. If we didn't have some basic standard regulating who can drive, than simply stepping outside your house would be as risky as trying to cross the race track during the Indy 500.Since it would be profiling to simply ban all celebrities under 30 who hang out in nightclubs, wear oversized sunglasses and have tiny dogs as pets from driving, we instead must hold Hilton to the rules the rest of us obey.
Hilton actually claimed in court that she was unaware her license was suspended. She made this claim even though after her last court case she had signed something explaining the loss of her driving privileges. She had also been pulled over in the days before her arrest and warned by a too-friendly police officer that she should not be driving.
Fortunately, the judge in Hilton's case refused to accept the "whoopsie, I didn't know defense"; A bit of a hardliner, he is famous for regularly rejecting "he started it" and "it wasn't my fault" as legal arguments for bad behavior.
Many were surprised when the judge sentenced the hotel heiress to any jail at all and were absolutely shocked when he gave her 45 days. Realistically, he had almost no choice but to make an example out of the spoiled star given that she refused to take the proceedings seriously and had the audacity to show up late for court.
By arriving to her sentencing hearing 20 minutes late, the talentless celebrity showed a stunning arrogance and lost any chance of showing the judge that she actually takes responsibility for her actions. Why would a judge grant someone mercy when they not only blatantly refuse to show remorse but openly show contempt for the legal system?
Even the lowest level of criminal -- your petty thieves and minor drug dealers -- know that appearing in court requires humility. Even the most hardened street criminals know enough to show up on time and make every effort to show respect for the judge.
Hilton, who lives a privileged life where most rules do not actually apply to her, seems to find it impossible to obey even the basic laws of society. We don't ask much from her -- simply that while drinking and partying her life away, she not put any of us regular folks at risk.
Since she's clearly unable to do even that, Hilton deserves whatever time she will actually spend in jail. Her arrogance makes it okay for the rest of us to take just a little joy in every humiliation she faces and for us to laugh a little at every tear she cries.
Perhaps Paris Hilton will learn from her mistakes and emerge from jail a slightly less reprehensible person. More likely, she'll get out, hold a press conference about her "ordeal" and then head out to the latest hot nightspot.
Once there, she can get drunk, expose herself to the paparazzi and try to drive herself home. Paris Hilton has as much chance of learning from her mistakes as George Bush does of admitted he made a few errors in Iraq or Al Gore does of being caught on tape saying he doesn't actually believe in global warming it's just a way to get into the race in 2008.
Daniel B. Kline's new book, "Easy Answers to Every Problem" comes out in September. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Keep taxes low and the economy strong
By Daniel B. Kline
President Bush must ignore those calling for a tax increase to fund efforts to recover from Hurricane Katrina. Raising taxes in this time of economic insecurity would almost surely send the United States into a recession.
Though the U.S. has minimal unemployment, historically low mortgage rates and other strong indications of a growing economy the public clearly has fear for the future. We're paying more for gas, have seen little growth in our retirement accounts and are unsure whether the housing bubble will burst. Increasing taxes would do little to quell these fears and would likely be the tipping point that causes fear to become reality.
If the people who have money don't spend it because they're worried about tomorrow than the economy shrinks. If middle class families feel financially pinched, they cut back on vacations, luxury items, meals in restaurants and all sorts of other things that create jobs.
The rebuilding efforts will cost billions of dollars and that money must come from other government programs, not the already over-burdened taxpayer. Increasing taxes, which Democrats have called for, but Bush has pledged not to do would simply transfer the problem from the Gulf Coast and spread it out across the nation.
The impact of tax increases on the economy works counter intuitively. Lower taxes and you have economic growth, raise taxes and everything shrinks. If people pay less to the government they buy more stuff, giving other people money to do the same. When they must pay more, the purse strings get tighter and everyone below them on the economic ladder suffers.
No matter how you look at it, history has show that an increase in taxes levied generates a decrease in revenues collected by the government. In addition to the public having less to spend, this decrease leads to the government spending less. That eliminates jobs, increases poverty and generally sends the whole country rocketing down a steep cliff. Many elected officials like to ignore these facts because holding press conferences where you pledge to raise taxes on the wealthy generally wins you a lot of votes.
The question of how much the government should charge in taxes generally breaks down along party lines. Democrats, who see themselves as the working class party want higher taxes – specifically on those they perceive as rich. Republicans want lower taxes, mostly for the same so-called wealthy folks. None of this has anything to do with economic theory or what's best for the country, it's all basically a marketing plan to appeal to the most voters.
The public must remember that governments never spend money well. Since keeping your job has nothing to do with maintaining fiscal responsibility, elected officials are free to blow billions on bureaucracy, needless infrastructure and endless hearings about how to create even more roadblocks to doing things efficiently.
Politicians lack the pressures facing those running actual businesses. There are no balance sheets, no stock prices to worry about and no shareholders demanding better returns. With only the electorate to please, those in office don't have to worry about spending our money wisely. Instead, their only task is spending enough of it badly in ways that please a lot of people.
Everyone wants to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina and nearly everyone would sacrifice their money to do so. It's tempting to think that a tax increase would give the government more money to aid in rebuilding.
The reality is that higher taxes would draw dollars away from the Gulf Coast. Skip the rhetoric and use common sense. Give what you can to charities that help the victims, but fight to keep the government from taking even more of your dollars.
Daniel B. Kline is a freelance writer based in Connecticut. His book "50 Things Every Guy Should Know How to Do" will be released in April. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
President Bush must ignore those calling for a tax increase to fund efforts to recover from Hurricane Katrina. Raising taxes in this time of economic insecurity would almost surely send the United States into a recession.
Though the U.S. has minimal unemployment, historically low mortgage rates and other strong indications of a growing economy the public clearly has fear for the future. We're paying more for gas, have seen little growth in our retirement accounts and are unsure whether the housing bubble will burst. Increasing taxes would do little to quell these fears and would likely be the tipping point that causes fear to become reality.
If the people who have money don't spend it because they're worried about tomorrow than the economy shrinks. If middle class families feel financially pinched, they cut back on vacations, luxury items, meals in restaurants and all sorts of other things that create jobs.
The rebuilding efforts will cost billions of dollars and that money must come from other government programs, not the already over-burdened taxpayer. Increasing taxes, which Democrats have called for, but Bush has pledged not to do would simply transfer the problem from the Gulf Coast and spread it out across the nation.
The impact of tax increases on the economy works counter intuitively. Lower taxes and you have economic growth, raise taxes and everything shrinks. If people pay less to the government they buy more stuff, giving other people money to do the same. When they must pay more, the purse strings get tighter and everyone below them on the economic ladder suffers.
No matter how you look at it, history has show that an increase in taxes levied generates a decrease in revenues collected by the government. In addition to the public having less to spend, this decrease leads to the government spending less. That eliminates jobs, increases poverty and generally sends the whole country rocketing down a steep cliff. Many elected officials like to ignore these facts because holding press conferences where you pledge to raise taxes on the wealthy generally wins you a lot of votes.
The question of how much the government should charge in taxes generally breaks down along party lines. Democrats, who see themselves as the working class party want higher taxes – specifically on those they perceive as rich. Republicans want lower taxes, mostly for the same so-called wealthy folks. None of this has anything to do with economic theory or what's best for the country, it's all basically a marketing plan to appeal to the most voters.
The public must remember that governments never spend money well. Since keeping your job has nothing to do with maintaining fiscal responsibility, elected officials are free to blow billions on bureaucracy, needless infrastructure and endless hearings about how to create even more roadblocks to doing things efficiently.
Politicians lack the pressures facing those running actual businesses. There are no balance sheets, no stock prices to worry about and no shareholders demanding better returns. With only the electorate to please, those in office don't have to worry about spending our money wisely. Instead, their only task is spending enough of it badly in ways that please a lot of people.
Everyone wants to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina and nearly everyone would sacrifice their money to do so. It's tempting to think that a tax increase would give the government more money to aid in rebuilding.
The reality is that higher taxes would draw dollars away from the Gulf Coast. Skip the rhetoric and use common sense. Give what you can to charities that help the victims, but fight to keep the government from taking even more of your dollars.
Daniel B. Kline is a freelance writer based in Connecticut. His book "50 Things Every Guy Should Know How to Do" will be released in April. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Forget politics, elect a leader
By Daniel B. Kline
If we expect our political leaders to perform well during a crisis than we must elect people based on their competence not whether they agree with us on a list of hot-button topics. If we continue to pick presidents, governors and other representatives due to their stands on issues like abortion and gay marriage than we are doomed to more failures like our government's handling of Hurricane Katrina.
Like so many politicians before him, George W. Bush was swept into office because his belief system appealed to a large percentage of the American populace. Bush worships the right God, spouts the right rhetoric and perhaps, most importantly, has the right friends. Unfortunately, none of this helps when a situation demands that the man actually stand up and lead.
The flood waters in New Orleans did not care that Bush opposes the assault weapons ban or that he supports the death penalty. The people killing American soldiers in Iraq don't seem so interested in either of these issues either, yet we keep making every election about ideology instead of competence.
Bush isn't mismanaging this crisis because he's a Republican any more than Bill Clinton's mistakes were caused by him being a Democrat. The president has botched the relief effort and put us into a war with no exit strategy because he's a politician, not a leader.
Only a very small percentage of running a country actually comes down to politics. We spend most of our time debating the most polarizing issues, but managing our country's affairs actually has very little to do with whether or not you want federally funded stem cell research. The bulk of running a government involves thing like making sure roads go where they are supposed to and that schools get built in neighborhoods full of kids.
We all like to think we're great philosophers and that we can't possibly tolerate an elected official who disagrees with us on life's great questions. The reality is that no matter how much we pretend to care about these grand debates all we really want is lower taxes, better jobs and safety for our families. Sure I care about protecting the environment for future generations, but I'm much more concerned about the air I'm breathing right now.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 taught New Yorkers and the nation that politics were trivial compared to management abilities when a true crisis strikes. Before the attack Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was unpopular with many people, including myself. Sure, Rudy had dramatically lowered crime and led the City to a massive economic revival, but we disagreed with his views on public funding of art.
When the towers fell, Mayor Giuliani stood up and carried the City of New York on his back. He made clear decisions and led his people through disaster, saving the lives of countless people along the way. His politics didn't matter as he dealt with the attacks, only his ability. That was certainly true three years before when people like me questioned his reelection, but it took seeing the man handle a catastrophe to point us to the obvious.
As we sift through the aftermath of Katrina and deal with the never-ending war in Iraq we must as a nation redefine what we want in a leader. On our way towards the 2008 presidential election we have to cast aside our petty political differences and find a man who can truly lead us. We need someone who knows how to act when disaster strikes, not someone who makes us feel good during a 30 second sound-bite.
Of course, there's a former mayor who might be up to the task and while I still disagree with his opinions on the arts, I know he can be a leader who finds a light there is only darkness. Our president doesn't have to agree with us on every issue, he has to be a man capable of running the country in its times of need.
Daniel B. Kline is a freelance writer based in Connecticut. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
If we expect our political leaders to perform well during a crisis than we must elect people based on their competence not whether they agree with us on a list of hot-button topics. If we continue to pick presidents, governors and other representatives due to their stands on issues like abortion and gay marriage than we are doomed to more failures like our government's handling of Hurricane Katrina.
Like so many politicians before him, George W. Bush was swept into office because his belief system appealed to a large percentage of the American populace. Bush worships the right God, spouts the right rhetoric and perhaps, most importantly, has the right friends. Unfortunately, none of this helps when a situation demands that the man actually stand up and lead.
The flood waters in New Orleans did not care that Bush opposes the assault weapons ban or that he supports the death penalty. The people killing American soldiers in Iraq don't seem so interested in either of these issues either, yet we keep making every election about ideology instead of competence.
Bush isn't mismanaging this crisis because he's a Republican any more than Bill Clinton's mistakes were caused by him being a Democrat. The president has botched the relief effort and put us into a war with no exit strategy because he's a politician, not a leader.
Only a very small percentage of running a country actually comes down to politics. We spend most of our time debating the most polarizing issues, but managing our country's affairs actually has very little to do with whether or not you want federally funded stem cell research. The bulk of running a government involves thing like making sure roads go where they are supposed to and that schools get built in neighborhoods full of kids.
We all like to think we're great philosophers and that we can't possibly tolerate an elected official who disagrees with us on life's great questions. The reality is that no matter how much we pretend to care about these grand debates all we really want is lower taxes, better jobs and safety for our families. Sure I care about protecting the environment for future generations, but I'm much more concerned about the air I'm breathing right now.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 taught New Yorkers and the nation that politics were trivial compared to management abilities when a true crisis strikes. Before the attack Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was unpopular with many people, including myself. Sure, Rudy had dramatically lowered crime and led the City to a massive economic revival, but we disagreed with his views on public funding of art.
When the towers fell, Mayor Giuliani stood up and carried the City of New York on his back. He made clear decisions and led his people through disaster, saving the lives of countless people along the way. His politics didn't matter as he dealt with the attacks, only his ability. That was certainly true three years before when people like me questioned his reelection, but it took seeing the man handle a catastrophe to point us to the obvious.
As we sift through the aftermath of Katrina and deal with the never-ending war in Iraq we must as a nation redefine what we want in a leader. On our way towards the 2008 presidential election we have to cast aside our petty political differences and find a man who can truly lead us. We need someone who knows how to act when disaster strikes, not someone who makes us feel good during a 30 second sound-bite.
Of course, there's a former mayor who might be up to the task and while I still disagree with his opinions on the arts, I know he can be a leader who finds a light there is only darkness. Our president doesn't have to agree with us on every issue, he has to be a man capable of running the country in its times of need.
Daniel B. Kline is a freelance writer based in Connecticut. He can be reached at dan@notastep.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
