http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/18/louisiana.katrina.lawsuit/index.html
Basically, a judge said that the Army Corps of Engineers are liable for the damage caused by katrina in New Orleans. And that puts you and me on the hook for billions of dollars of damages suffered by people who built houses in a terrible place to build houses. Sounds awesome!

11/19/2009 6:19:23 PM

dude, there is virtually no place that is a "good place to build a house." just about every location in the U.S. is prone to some sort of natural disaster, meaning most people stand the chance to have their homes/lives shattered when the big one happens. unless you can afford a million dollar home. then, fuck everyone else, right?

11/19/2009 6:22:30 PM

so, you don't think that some places are safer than others? Would you build your house literally on top of the San Andreas fault?

11/19/2009 6:24:43 PM

Plenty of people have done so. The city of Palm Springs, CA, for example, is a stone's throw away from a faultline. I was up there during the summer, and it's pretty impressive. That said, would you advocate moving people from a bunch of disaster-prone areas? Seems to me like that would be fairly expensive as well.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 6:27 PM. Reason : CA]

11/19/2009 6:27:17 PM

^^^ they're not blaming the disaster, they're blaming the engineers for not making sure all the puny mortal earth-men devices could prevent the flooding

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 6:29 PM. Reason : +]

11/19/2009 6:28:48 PM

people can put their homes wherever the fuck they want. that is of course, if they are millionaires. which most people are not. homes can be designed to withstand amazing forces of natural disaster...if you have the means.

maybe we should have regulation to determine where people can and cannot live? regulation, right here, in your united states of freedom.


what exactly is the point your trying to make here? that we have an old and increasingly deteriorating infrastructure? what's the solution? government money? but then we'll have to pay?!?! argghhhh!!!

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 6:51 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 6:32:52 PM

Just seems like they are making the COE the scapegoats here, when really much of the blame lies on N.O.

11/19/2009 6:35:50 PM

the acoe was tasked with maintaining those levies. they fucked up.

now there were other screwups at the city, state and federal level. namely the terrible job of communication in dealing with evacuations, but this isn't really about that.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 6:40 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 6:39:52 PM

so you're gonna blame an entire city?

meaning what? they would have had two options. either pick up and leave (not likely) or raise taxes to help prevent the looming disaster scenario. either way, it's not free. the city very well could have made an attempt to fix its aging infrastructure before hand. they didn't, and katrina happened, and now we're stuck with the tab. either way, it's gonna cost money. the only real lesson here is that it is probably cheaper to make adjustments before hand instead of rebuilding. but that knowledge doesn't matter when nobody wants to pick up the bill.


and fixing this countries levees is a real issue. most levees were made by farmers and are horribly outdated and weak. there are plenty of other cities with poor levees (sacramento, my home town immediately comes to mind). new orleans isn't the only one at "fault" here.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 6:46 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 6:42:02 PM

Quote :

"the acoe was tasked with maintaining those levies. they fucked up."

were they given the money to do so? were they even able to do so without interference from environmental groups?

11/19/2009 7:10:01 PM

surely there's a liberal at the bottom of this that we can blame, right?

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 7:24 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 7:20:17 PM

This is a good example of why I love America,

A government entity screwed up and damaged some people's property, people take them to the same government's court system and win.

Obviously it took a while for the decision but you can't do that everywhere in the world.(You can't fight city hall . .. . . . . )

Quote :

"were they given the money to do so?"

Yeah I had heard that budget cuts could be partly responsible. I dont think anyone at the acoe intentionally disregarded New Orleans.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 7:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2009 7:22:26 PM

heckuva job corpie

11/19/2009 7:51:53 PM

i think that the Corps are probably getting scapegoated here a bit, though. anyone that's followed some of the outcomes of Katrina has seen how a lot of local N.O. and lower Louisiana politics played havoc with funding to maintain and upgrade the levee system in that area. there was also B.S. going on with the federal government and Congress, so it's not like there isn't plenty of blame to go around.

11/19/2009 8:32:57 PM

this has to be nonsense

is this going to become a state vs. federal issue?

11/19/2009 8:35:35 PM

They knew they were going to be sued BEFORE the levies broke, which is one of the main reasons they blew one end of the levy to flood the less valuable land, relieving the pressure on the other sides and keeping richer NO relatively safe from flooding. If they didn't do that, they'd be on the hook for much more $$.

Quote :

" The judge ruled against one couple, who lived in New Orleans East, but awarded the others, from the Lower 9th Ward and St. Bernard Parish, damages ranging from $100,000 to $317,000."

Imagine if they had to pay for all those multi-million dollar homes.

[Edited on November 19, 2009 at 9:22 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2009 9:20:04 PM

oh jesus

11/19/2009 9:58:54 PM

A large percentage of the homes in the affected areas were not built by the people who lived there, so it's not quite "billions of dollars of damages suffered by people who built houses in a terrible place to build houses." A lot of them are homes built by previous generations where the current generations were living virtually for free because the houses were paid off. That's really beside the point, though; I just thought it worth clarifying. Are you going to blame someone for living in a rent-free home for as long as possible, hoping that the next Big One like Katrina wouldn't occur?

I was actually in New Orleans on Tuesday and Wednesday this week for a project which is evaluating policy options for risk mitigation from future storms and developing better ways to communicate those risks to all stakeholders in the area. I'll also clarify that although the judge strongly condemned the Corps, he ruled that they are shielded from liability for damages stemming from flood control project failures (outfall canal floodwall failures, other levee failures, etc) while remaining liable for improper maintenance of MR-GO. So they're actually not being held liable for some of what's being discussed.

My issue is that we're putting together a big data request from the Corps for surge data from past storms that were modeled in some of their previously published work, and this judgement is going to throw a wrench in that process. Now we're probably going to have to submit a FOIA request instead of going through our usual network, and there's still no guarantee we'll get what we want. Maybe this decision having been pending is part of why they've been stonewalling us on the data for so long already.

11/19/2009 10:54:06 PM

Quote :

"this has to be nonsense is this going to become a state vs. federal issue?"

if we go back to the day it was decided that new orleans could exist above ground

who's zoomin who?

11/20/2009 1:49:25 AM

honestly people

who started building where

when did this start?

clearly THEY are at fault

find them

dig them up

place blame on them

etc

11/20/2009 1:53:49 AM

This is purely the fed/n.o. using the corps as a scapegoat for their own failure. Nothing else.

11/20/2009 9:28:57 AM

that's because the Army C.o.E. are racists and don't care about wet people.

11/20/2009 11:24:57 AM

If I buy an oceanfront house and eventually the beach erodes, who can I sue? Cause I should be able to build a house on a dynamic coastline, RIGHT NEAR DA BEACH!

11/20/2009 12:01:31 PM

^ Now wait a minute. Admittedly I haven't been following this case but if I build my house somewhere or choose to live in an area in part because the government says they provide protection against X and their protection doesn't hold up against X, I absolutely have a right to sue for damages caused by X.

The government doesn't offer any protections against beach erosion, but if they did, you absolutely should sue if they fail in providing that protection.

11/20/2009 12:50:51 PM

I disagree. The legislature says you will receive Social Security payments in the future, but the Supreme Court ruled that promise was not a property right.

Well, by building what it did, the government did not offer a guarantee, it just built a dam to hold back the ocean. That it failed to do so is a tragedy, but at no point did the government guarantee that its "dam would hold under all circumstances or I pay." To collect, I think you should need to prove that had the government done nothing your land would not have flooded, which is clearly not the case here.

In my opinion, the core of engineers should have done nothing. If the city or state wanted to build the levees they would have, and then and only then would the locals have had an incentive to maintain the levees against all enemies, even corruption. As it was, it is just like all public works: the Fed is praying the state is watching and reporting, while the state is praying the Fed is paying and maintaining.

[Edited on November 20, 2009 at 4:10 PM. Reason : ,.,]

11/20/2009 4:10:06 PM

If they lived in NC, they could hold all policy holders across the state responsible.

http://www.insurancefederationnc.com/insurance/fair-beach-plans/

Quote :

"Under the FAIR Plan, a property owner cannot be denied coverage based upon the property’s location or other environmental factors."

11/20/2009 4:15:00 PM

Quote :

"I disagree. The legislature says you will receive Social Security payments in the future, but the Supreme Court ruled that promise was not a property right. "

Arguably because the money you pay into SS is used now, your SS funds come from future generations.

Quote :

"Well, by building what it did, the government did not offer a guarantee, it just built a dam to hold back the ocean. That it failed to do so is a tragedy, but at no point did the government guarantee that its "dam would hold under all circumstances or I pay." To collect, I think you should need to prove that had the government done nothing your land would not have flooded, which is clearly not the case here. "

They didn't have to say it would hold under all circumstances. All they had to say was it would hold under X circumstances, and if it did fail under X circumstances, that a person should have the right to sue for damages. Our government shouldn't be in the business of building things just for the hell of it. Either it has a public purpose or it doesn't get done by the government. But as I said, I haven't followed this particular case, I'm just speaking from an academic standpoint.

Quote :

"In my opinion, the core of engineers should have done nothing. If the city or state wanted to build the levees they would have, and then and only then would the locals have had an incentive to maintain the levees against all enemies, even corruption. As it was, it is just like all public works: the Fed is praying the state is watching and reporting, while the state is praying the Fed is paying and maintaining."

Well yes, that would have been ideal. But since it didn't happen, and likely won't happen that way for the foreseeable future, then the people should have a right to recoup their losses from bad government promises.

11/20/2009 9:05:29 PM

Ok, let me put it another way. To be liable one must have done something that caused the wrong. Which is not the case here: had the government done nothing, your land would have still flooded. Therefore, you cannot blame your damage upon any act by the government. All you can blame upon it is a lack of action, but there you would need to demonstrate that the government had an obligation to build walls to keep your land dry, which it clearly does not: the government had no obligation to build anything, it chose both to build something and then to build it poorly to save money, you had no right to expect them to do anything else.

Now, it is clear that American voters and American taxpayers deserved better, but these land-owners got far more than they deserved.

It is very-much identical to the Social Security situation. If the legislature tomorrow can vote to eliminate unemployment insurance, disability insurance, medicare, medicaid, the army, or the national debt, who can claim it has no right to stop providing flood control? If the government decided to tear down the levies it built and sell off the steel and concrete, what right would you have to complain?

Relying upon the grace of Congress is not unique. Bond holders paid very good money for the bonds sold by the Treasury, but congress could legally vote tomorrow to suspend payments. Similarly, land-owners paid good money for their land that otherwise resides on a flood plain. There is no difference between the two, and arguably the bond holders were given far more of a promise than the land owners were.

11/20/2009 11:16:09 PM

i expect the government to protect me from terrorism.

but when it comes to category five hurricanes, i can take care of myself, thank you much.

[Edited on November 20, 2009 at 11:43 PM. Reason : ]

11/20/2009 11:34:47 PM

^^ That's not true at all. If I hire a security firm to monitor my property and they guarantee a 1 minute response to any broken window or door, if they respond to a broken window in 10 minutes they are still liable for damages that occur after that first minute, regardless of the fact that if they did nothing at all, the damages would still have occurred.

No, the government had no obligation to build anything, but once they took tax payer money to build, they had an obligation to either maintain that structure, or declare it defunct. What the government did is more like the security firm that installs a bunch of alarms on your property, keeps taking monthly payments and doesn't actually monitor or repair the system when it breaks.

Quote :

"It is very-much identical to the Social Security situation. If the legislature tomorrow can vote to eliminate unemployment insurance, disability insurance, medicare, medicaid, the army, or the national debt, who can claim it has no right to stop providing flood control? If the government decided to tear down the levies it built and sell off the steel and concrete, what right would you have to complain? "

Except that the government did no such thing. Had they torn them down and sold off the materials, they wouldn't be taking tax money on the promise of maintaining them.

And to be honest, if the government tomorrow suddenly stopped paying on bonds, I would expect the bond holders to sue, and I would expect them to win, and I would expect that if it came down to it, the courts would order the garnishment of federal employee wages, starting from the top and working down until the payments are being made. The people absolutely should hold the government to the promises it makes, and the government should absolutely fear being taken to task for breaking those promises. All the more reason why the government shouldn't be promising shit.

[Edited on November 21, 2009 at 8:43 AM. Reason : sdf]

11/21/2009 8:41:43 AM

Quote :

"and I would expect that if it came down to it, the courts would order the garnishment of federal employee wages, starting from the top and working down until the payments are being made."

lolz

11/21/2009 8:48:27 AM

Oh I'm fully aware it would never happen. Overall, we are far to content to let our government get away with anything and everything.

11/21/2009 9:37:42 AM

^^^ The list of obligations upon the Federal Government is a short one. No where in the constitution does it say the government must keep its promises. That is why they are called promises and not obligations.

As to your example: the homeowner hired the security firm, the security firm signed a binding contract to meet certain response times which was similarly signed by the homeowner. In this example, no such contract exists. The homeowners at no point hired the government and the government at no point signed any such binding contract. Fuck, at no point did the government have a right to sign such a contract: the Constitution and supreme court are clear on this issue, the 53rd Congress has no right to impose obligations upon the 64th Congress. Therefore, no Contract, no standing.

Secondly, money changed hands: money flowed to the security firm, insurance flowed to the homeowner. It is entirely possible to be a homeowner without paying federal taxes. Similarly, whether the levies were built or not had no impact upon the homeowners obligation to pay the taxes they did pay. In every respect, the levies were a gift from Congress, and common law going back to the 14th century is clear on gifts: they impart no obligation beyond the gift given. If I give you a faulty gift you have no standing to sue me for a working gift. If the homeowners in question had paid at least $1 for the levies then they could have standing, that they did not, they should not.

Some other case law that is relevant: if you call 911 and the police never come, you have no standing to sue. That is the difference between government and private, and probably why no private entity would have ever built the levies for profit in the first-place (although levies throughout history have often been built by charities, under the protection of the rules governing gifts).

11/21/2009 11:45:12 AM

Quote :

"but when it comes to category five hurricanes, i can take care of myself, thank you much. "

Katrina was a Category 3 hurricane when it made landfall and hit NO.

11/21/2009 1:47:33 PM

^^ How things are and how they should be are two different things I know, but how things are is wrong, as has been prior rulings. The people should absolutely hold the government to its promises, and should absolutely be able to recoup losses caused by the government failing to uphold their promises.

Congress 53 may not be able to impose an obligation on Congress 64, but if congress 64 continues to abide by such an obligation, then that obligation becomes the 64ths as well. If congress did not want to be saddled by the obligations set forth when the levies were built, then they had an obligation to the people to
a) discontinue funding for the levies
b) discontinue maintenance and support for the levies
c) declare that support and maintenance for said levies was being discontinued so that home owners and buyers could make informed decisions about entering or staying in the NO housing market

As to money changing hands, the government doesn't get to give gifts, because the only money that the government has, is money it takes from the people. It takes that money under the pretenses of providing public goods and services. Anything that isn't provided as a public good or service should not be paid for with government money. Therefore, if taxes paid for the levies and their maintenance, then those taxes were collected to do just that, and a failure to do that is fraud.

As to the 911 bit, that has to do with individual obligation vs communal obligation. That is, the police are not obligated to provide any one individual with protection. However, if the police stopped responding to 911 calls for an entire neighborhood you can be damn sure that the people would have a standing to sue for damages.

11/21/2009 3:26:44 PM

It seems we are in agreement, the government had no obligations, but you feel the rules should be changed so that it does, which is possible. But you need to consider the results of enforcing such a change. Afterall, Congress makes promises all the time. If Government Promises became obligations (akin to legal contracts, tort, or non-gifts), even in the face of an act of Congress, mission creep will ensure bankruptcy is inevitable. Congress currently faces promises to all sorts of people, from Medicare to medicaid, to SS to farm subsidies in perpetuity to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars, money it will be in no position to collect, especially in the event of a war. If Congress is suddenly never able to revoke these promises, then they will build up over time until they threaten the working of the government (cutting checks to millions of land owners would threaten its ability to honor its actual obligations to employees and contracted parties).

You do seem to realize this, so you have provided "an out" if the government tore down the levies it was previously maintaining. But this seems crazy: it is value destructive to enforce a rule that one must either build a levy that will hold under all circumstances (this was not the first hurricane, afterall) or tear down what you did build, otherwise find yourself liable for all damages resulting from a possible future trillion dollar failure. This is absurd: having a levy at all is beneficial. The people of NO would not have been better off if the levies failed in 1985 as opposed to holding until 2005.

And what do you think would happen if the government did pull out, like you suggest? Who would replace the levies then, knowing the rules you have imposed? As it is, no firm would ever build them for profit, but now not even a non-profit would be able to build them, except maybe under the legal assumption that they declare bankruptcy every hurricane, burying your obligation under limited liability statutes.

Would you have felt better if the Government had slapped a sign on the walls saying "This levy should not be expected to hold back water and everyone should act under the assumption it is going to fail." A better alternative is to keep the current rules (government gave a gift and is therefore immune) and assuage your conscience by having an act of congress compensate the land owners this time.

11/21/2009 6:17:09 PM

Quote :

" i think that the Corps are probably getting scapegoated here a bit, though. anyone that's followed some of the outcomes of Katrina has seen how a lot of local N.O. and lower Louisiana politics played havoc with funding to maintain and upgrade the levee system in that area. there was also B.S. going on with the federal government and Congress, so it's not like there isn't plenty of blame to go around. "

Bingo. New Orleans is like the Boston of the South - corrupt as fuck. Politicians there are too busy lining the pockets of the people who keep them in power, as well as themselves. ACOE is a fucking scapegoat, they've told the city for years that the levees were not adequate, and the city didn't give a shit.

11/21/2009 7:21:01 PM

Bankruptcy is inevitable anyway. No way that the people let the government end medicare/medicaid, SS etc without payout. And it's hardly like these promises are made with the design to be arbitrarily ended. Congress isn't putting the new healthcare reform in place and saying "it's all good, if it starts getting to expensive, we'll just stop paying doctors." Besides, I'm not saying that congress shouldn't be able to end entitlement programs. I'm saying that they should be liable to pay out while such entitlement programs are in place. They didn't just put the levies up and leave them, they maintained them, and collected taxes for their up keep, therefore they should be liable for failures in that upkeep.

Also, I don't say they need to tear down the levies, merely discontinue and publicly state discontinues maintenance and support. Again, it's not like this was something some congress once did, and no one has looked at or paid any monies for since. Nor did I say that the government should be held liable for all failures of the levies no matter what. But if the government said the levies are built to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane, they tax you for maintenance of the levies, and the levies fail to hold against a Cat 3 hurricane, and that failure is due to government negligence, neglect or fraud, then the government is absolutely responsible for damages.

And again, you miss the large distinction between levies built by the government, levies built for profit, and levies built by charity. Of all of these, only the government can't give gifts because the only money the government has is money taken for the purpose of operating So as long as the government is collecting taxes, and paying for the maintenance of the levies, then the levies are the government's responsibility.

A company that built the levies for profit presumably would do so under strict contracts the same way an insurance company might insure homes and would only be liable to those it has a contract with. A charity would fall under your gift giving obligations, though even then, if said charity collected a million dollars for maintenance and only used 25k while pocketing the rest, I could still see them being liable, gift or not.

As to a sign, yes I would. Presumably then the tax payers would question why they're paying money for levies that won't work and either demand better construction or the end of tax payer funded levies. Either option is better than declaring that the government can take your money for purpose X, fail to do X and then get away without any compensation for damages for failure to do X simply by declaring X a gift. The government is the only entity short of the mob that takes your money by force. Either they live up to the promises that come with that threat of force, or they stop taking money, those are the only options that the people should tolerate.

As to your last idea, you think it is more preferable to have the precedent of congress passing acts to give out money to people rather than simply holding the government accountable for any promises made under the rule of already existing law?

11/21/2009 8:14:12 PM

You seem to be hung up on the assumption that the government taxed the people to build the levies. This is completely untrue. The levies were built with the previous years tax collections, taxes that were collected before anyone thought the Federal Government would find itself building levies in NO. Either way, it is irrelevant: Congress could have legally voted to give all the money to me. It would be both constitutional and valid by democratic principles.

All paying taxes gives you is the right to elect representatives which will decide amongst themselves how to spend it. You have no right to sue anyone if they spend it poorly. This is a democracy after-all, and sometimes the people get what they deserve good and hard. So, no, not a single American has ever paid their taxes for purpose X. You pay because they tell you to pay, that is how the world works, and how it should work. Like I tried to explain, to make the world otherwise would be to invite perpetual disaster (rather than the government going bankrupt and causing chaos every few hundred years, you would find yourself there every generation or so).

The goal is not to have a government you can be proud of, that is impossible, but to have a political system that does as little harm as possible. And making it incapable of breaking its promises would be to increase the harm. In this very example, when people rebuild in NO without the government paying, they are going to build elsewhere or at least smaller less flood prone structures than they would have if the government paid off on its promise, thus lessening the destruction when the levies fail again (which they will do eventually).

11/21/2009 11:33:26 PM

Quote :

"You seem to be hung up on the assumption that the government taxed the people to build the levies. This is completely untrue. The levies were built with the previous years tax collections, taxes that were collected before anyone thought the Federal Government would find itself building levies in NO. "

Sophistry and nothing more. The money may have been collected with last years taxes, but they were used this year to build the levies. Either way, someone is responsible for the building of the levies, with the people's money and the promises that come with that building. And each successive congress which maintained those levies with tax dollars instead of declaring the levies defunct where complicit in continuing to make the promise of the public good the levies would provide. They claimed the money for public goods and services, the money was used to build the levies. Therefore, the levies were a public good or service as promised by the congress that ordered the levies built, and who taxed for maintenance money, and then subsequent congresses who used that money for maintenance of the levies. So either the levies were a public good, and the government is liable for the promises they made, or the levies were not a private good, and the government is liable to return all monies used for the levies to the people. Simply put, if the government is going to act in the stead of private entities, then it takes responsibility as any private entity would.

Quote :

"Either way, it is irrelevant: Congress could have legally voted to give all the money to me. It would be both constitutional and valid by democratic principles. "

It would not be constitutional.

Quote :

" Like I tried to explain, to make the world otherwise would be to invite perpetual disaster (rather than the government going bankrupt and causing chaos every few hundred years, you would find yourself there every generation or so). "

It seems that may have been the intent of the founding fathers. History has shown us the problems of a centuries long government. The constitution is designed to limit the government, not empower it.

Quote :

"The goal is not to have a government you can be proud of, that is impossible, but to have a political system that does as little harm as possible. And making it incapable of breaking its promises would be to increase the harm."

But having a government which can collect taxes one year, spend it all on hookers and black jack the next year, and have no liability because the people who collected it aren't the ones who spent it is least harm? Sorry no. If the government was liable from the get go, as you point out, they probably wouldn't have built the levies in the first place, meaning less people would have built in the first place, meaning less damage would have been caused in the first place, and the people wouldn't have been taxed for the levies, and the government wouldn't be liable for the levies when they fail to hold up to government promises. In short, making the government liable for the promises that it makes IS the least harm solution, just as it is for private entities.

Quote :

"In this very example, when people rebuild in NO without the government paying, they are going to build elsewhere or at least smaller less flood prone structures than they would have if the government paid off on its promise, thus lessening the destruction when the levies fail again (which they will do eventually). "

You know what else gets people to build elsewhere? The government not paying for the levies in the first place, which they may not have and wont in the future if they are held liable for the promises they make.

Look, you seem to be mistaking the difference between the government being able to end a program, and the government being liable for the promises made when running a program, so let me explain it.

If the government collects taxes one year, the next year congress has two options, spend the money or return the money. If they spend the money on levies, then that congress has made the government liable for that year for those levies, and they will of course collect taxes this year. The next congress has again two options, spend the money, or return the money, every year that congress takes the money collected previously and spends it on the levies is another year that congress is liable for the levies. During any one year, congress can say that they will no longer maintain the levies and the people of NO are on their own. Then congress can either return the money, or spend that money on something else (on the assumption that the government collects taxes for no specific purpose). That is how they end their liability.

In the case of these levies, congress was still paying for maintenance and thus renewing the governments liability for the levies. If congress didn't want to be liable, they had an obligation to declare the end of government support for the levies and stop paying money for that support.

11/22/2009 1:00:12 PM

You are overlooking the problem with politics. Politicians don't care about the future, they want to get elected now. Therefore, what politician is going to vote to scrap the levies and lose an election in 2004 just in case the government is bankrupted by their existence in 2005? Governments are already in perpetual states of insolvency, what your rule would do is make it illegal for Congress to ever curtail any spending. And since politicians only operate on a two to four year window, paying for that spending is never their problem. As such, all you are doing is tying the hands of those politicians in the future that would be in a position to curtail that spending. But no, you somehow think it would be liberty maximizing to have the men with guns go batshit insane every generation in open civil war because you want to confuse the line between promises and obligations.

You are setting absurd and ridiculous rules. Obligations cannot be waved, that is why they call them obligations. Declaring the levies on their own the morning of August 23, 2005 should change nothing come Katrina on August 29, 2005. Therefore, to maintain sanity, the only rule that works is for everyone to understand that what government does it has no incentive to do well, and Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results.

But, again, this is a philosophical question. The world works the way I said it does, and that is not likely to change. If this lawsuit pays off it is because the government wants it too, in the name of scoring political points. As such, I feel there is nothing left to say on the subject of the levies, we have both made our points clear.

Changing the subject, I find it curious how you say it would be unconstitutional for the government to just write me a huge check for doing nothing. It is a democracy, if the congress passes the bill and Obama signs it, it is law, the Treasury will cut me a check. Where in the constitution does it say this would not be ok? Sure, the Constitution does prevent titles of nobility, as such would constitute an obligation upon future Congress' to pay, which I keep saying was what the founding fathers were affraid of.

11/22/2009 2:13:45 PM

Because cutting you a check for money in no way shape or form falls under any of the powers granted to the federal government under article I section 8 of the constitution.

11/22/2009 2:41:35 PM