Fiscal conservatives often have a hard time enunciating their care for fellow man while in the process of trying to guard the purse strings. This is as evident in the wake of Katrina as ever.
It's simple, though. The burden the Bush response will put onto every American for generations to come is who fiscal conservatives are looking out for. If you believe in doing best by the majority, as so many Americans do, then this should be easy logic to follow, and therefore begin to question the enormous pricetag to this bailout.
Here's a good way to understand the scope of the $200 billion Bush will spend to show that he is compassionate: That amount represents $400,000 per displaced household. $400,000!!! From Stephen Moore, in the Wall Street Journal:
Conspicuously missing from the post-Katrina spending debate is a question for some brave soul in Congress to ask, What is the appropriate and constitutional role here for the federal government? Before the New Deal taught us that the federal government is the solution to every malady, most congresses and presidents would have concluded that the federal government's role was minimal. One of our greatest presidents, Democrat Grover Cleveland, vetoed an appropriation for drought victims because there was no constitutional authority to spend for such purposes. Today he would be ridiculed by Ted Kennedy as "incompassionate."
We all want to see New Orleans rebuilt, but it does not follow that this requires more than $100 billion in federal aid. Chicago was burned to the ground in 1871; San Francisco was leveled by an earthquake in 1906; and in 1900 Galveston, Texas, was razed by a hurricane even more ferocious than Katrina. In each instance, these proud cities were rebuilt rapidly and to even greater glory--with hardly any federal money.
What's amazing to me is that the Left continues to scream about how cheap the GOP is. I know that the screaming merely reflects political strategy. It's completely disingenuous, but utterly effective. The objective of the Left is to create socialism, and as Bush & DeLay also move left with their spending, if the call is to keep moving further, Bush & DeLay merely help the Left achieve their objective without even having elected majorities. It's quite brilliant. Bad for the country, but brilliant strategy.
What point is there to electing Republicans who do little but forward the Democrats' agenda? Fiscal conservatives need to change their ways and vote Libertarian.