In Article VIII of the U.S. Constitution
I know that the floods have been bad and that there are a lot of people in dire straits, but when did it become the assumed duty of the federal government to clean up the mess? I can understand when there is a widespread disaster like a massive hurricane, earthquake, nuclear disaster, etc.that would overwhelm any state, but at this point we’re talking about $31 million in estimated damages. $18 million of that is in private property that is hopefully insured. Are you telling me that the State of Wisconsin isn’t prepared to handle $13 million in damaged infrastructure? Even if we decide to help our the private folks, do we really need to go hat in hand to the federal government for $31 million?
That just seems pathetic to me and a sad admission that the states have ceded all power and authority to the federal government.
I blame the feds completely, and don’t actually blame Doyle for asking for the relief.
Federal taxes are so high, that the feds have essentially stolen much of our money and are holding it ransom. Doyle is simply asking for our own money back.
Of course, if our federal income tax wasn’t so fricken high, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Preaching to the choir I know… but what can I say. I like to hear an Amen now and then.
Posted by Nick on August 22, 2007 at 0833 hrs
My bet is that most of that property will not have been insured from flodd damage.
I’m not commenting on your position, just making conversation this time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 0840 hrs
What raises your Federal taxes more, a $500 billion war in Iraq, or flood relief? $13 million? Why, they lost, what, $13 billion in cash alone over there?
Posted by John Foust on August 22, 2007 at 0843 hrs
Many of the answers are more clear by reading (online) not the JS but the LaCrosse Tribune and Twin Cities Star Tribune. Great reporting, amazing photos. Btw, much more rain there last night, as expected. So your totals here were out of date before we read them, probably even before you typed them!
A few points: It seems these are just projections, ballparking, and it looks like it’s just a process of getting in line, staking a claim, until they can get out to see the damage to public property there, the infrastructure of bridges, dams, and roads.
Re private property: It seems that such flood insurance is not available as you suspect but only through FEMA. That acronym ought to explain a lot, right there. . . . And much is in crops, and farmers are the most governmentally protected group. If your annual income was almost entirely a crop that was going to be harvested in just a couple of weeks, you’re ruined for a year—and don’t have the stake to start again next year. Etc.
It’s one of the poorest areas of the state, where many live a cash-economy life, Southern style, which can be hard for us Northerners to understand. A very different area of the state in many interesting ways, not just its driftless topography that make it flood-prone. A very prominent difference, to do with its almost-subsistence-style cash economy, is the area’s Southern roots. You can find hush puppies on menus there to this day.
At least we didn’t get hit nearly as hard as southeastern Minnesota—again. Btw, more bridges and dams may be in trouble there from more rains, too—also read the recent Star Trib revelations on all the warnings about the bridge that already went down there. Then read the LaCrosse Trib about how long it has been since we inspected most dams here, too.
Again, a lot of the damage there and here is going to be to public property, and this process appears to be placeholding to start the gears of government grinding. As for those few who do have private flood insurance through FEMA, imagine the interim help they will need while waiting for it to do a heckuva job.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 0858 hrs
I’m sure there are other states that need the money more than we do, and are more deserving of it. Our job in Wisconsin is to provide it. In 2005, FEMA aid was denied when 3 Wisconsin counties were hit by tornadoes (Dane/Richland/Vernon). Denial was based on high levels of private insurance (Wisconsinites are too damn responsible for themselves - they spend good money on insurance, pay good tax money for local services, and thus have the privilege of sending money to help other states) & perceived ability of local governments to self-fund the damages to their infrastructure.
At that time, FEMA was spending a lot of money on Katrina. Here’s some investment advice the next time a hurricane hits New Orleans - buy stock in Victoria’s Secret. Look how much of a bounce they got with the flow of FEMA dollars at that time.
And next time, maybe President Bush will be smart enough to more efficiently and expeditiously dispense the FEMA dollars - I suggest next time they air-drop Victoria’s Secret gift cards on the disaster area.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 0902 hrs
Owen, I know you’re a student of history. You ought to read Rising Tide by John M. Barry. Its a great study of the beginnings of this sort of behavior (on a federal level).
Great book, great commentary on how it changed our views of what the Fed ought and ought not do.
Posted by k2aggie07 on August 22, 2007 at 0906 hrs
Sorry, one more significant point from the fine coverage there:
Most of the federal aid for private property damage is in loans.
And all of the aid is only a request and hardly a done deal. “Lois Ristow, director of Wisconsin Emergency Management’s west central region . . . said she didn’t want to get anyone’s hopes up about federal aid, stressing it would come mostly as loans and President Bush denied similar aid to Wisconsin following an outbreak of tornadoes in 2005. ‘There are a lot of points where you can be turned down,’ she told the crowd.”
It will be interesting to see if aid comes through in the red state to the west of us but not here. And reading further—flood-prone as parts of that river bottom area are, a lot of folks living high on hillsides didn’t think they needed flood insurance. And they might not have qualified, high above floodplains, as mudslide insurance seems to be a question as yet not addressed.
Living high on a hill, now I’m gonna go see what the rains did last night. . . .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 0906 hrs
Federal taxes are so high, that the feds have essentially stolen much of our money and are holding it ransom. Doyle is simply asking for our own money back.
The danger in this thinking (getting our own money back) is that it adds velocity to the current cycle.
If the federal government was a vault that held our money, ‘getting it back’ would be a great idea.
But the Federal government is more like a syphon. When you pull it out of one end, it sucks it from the other.
The more money we get back from the federal government (even though we sent it in in the first place) that will just perpetuate them taking MORE to replace what they gave back to us (after they wasted a good portion of it on costs associated with supporting the machine that took it from us)
More spending from the federal govevernment is leverage for them to demand that they need more from us.
What raises your Federal taxes more, a $500 billion war in Iraq, or flood relief? $13 million? Why, they lost, what, $13 billion in cash alone over there?
John, do you do anything other than troll and snipe?
Damn man… I’ve never heard you agree with a single comment anyone has ever made on this blog?
I swear if someone made a comment about their house getting broken into you’d pipe up with a comment about how their loss of property was nothing compared to an innocent Iraqi’s loss when their house gets hit by a misguided air attack or something.
Its just rediculous.
You are nothing but a contrarian. It gets really old after a while.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 0923 hrs
I guess this got a bit sidetracked. I think the original post was more about the proper roles of our two levels of government - not so much about taxes. I think that to the extent this is a gov’t problem at all it is a state problem.
Also as for the flood insurance - the guidelines, policy terms etc are set by FEMA but the insurance is sold by private companies (I represent one so I know).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 1407 hrs
Useful to know, Joe. So it’s a government problem, but it’s a state problem, but one solution is federally controlled insurance, but sold by private companies.
Jeesh. Sounds like it’s everybody’s problem. . . .
A question, since you know the program: Would you recommend that people high on a hill, well above any floodplains, get flood insurance? Some stories suggest that they wouldn’t even have qualified under the guidelines. Does flood insurance also mean mud insurance? And as others are renters, are they under the guidelines for their property, or is it only for homes, barns, land—maybe trailers?
Seriously, I’m interested. I have family considering that area, friends already there, including one of county chairmen there. That must be the second-worst job there right now, figuring out whose solution fits whose problem. The worst job might be the insurance agents who are hearing the stories straight from the people there, because in small towns, they know those people well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 1452 hrs
there was a time that communities would come together and help each other out, but that has changed as communities have gotten larger and people more mobile. Without the communities people have had to turn to the government. In some cases entire communities have been destroyed and there have been no neighbors to help. With no community who else is in a position to help? The government is the best alternative.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 1710 hrs
Xx, I often agree with Recess Supervisor, and I’ve agreed with Gordon on the “rounds v. slugs” thread, and I’ve agreed with Scott now and then, and I believe I’ve even agreed with you on several points here and there.
Why get your undies in a bundle about a few million here or there, when there’s clear evidence of the squandering of billions with a ‘B’? Did this blog cover that news item? Or would that be more propaganda aiding the enemy, too?
Posted by John Foust on August 22, 2007 at 1729 hrs
JF, if we can’t discuss issues that involve less than a billion dollars, I fear this blog’s scope will be severely limited.
Posted by Tony Turner on August 22, 2007 at 2016 hrs
TT, I can only hope for perspective and insight, and indignation that’s proportional to the order of magnitude of the funds involved.
When there’s no screaming about the billions literally “lost” and lots of grousing about a thousand here or a million there, don’t you think the blinders are on?
Posted by John Foust on August 22, 2007 at 2134 hrs
Because determining that those billions are “lost” too early means something, John.
And because no one is talking about Iraq in this thread but you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 2149 hrs
and I believe I’ve even agreed with you on several points here and there.
I admit I haven’t read every thread, but agreeing with me? I think I might have remembered that. I’ll eat my words if you have but I’d love a link.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 22, 2007 at 2204 hrs
Surprise, surprise. Minnesota has a Republican governor. Minnesota got the federal disaster declaration for loans to save crops, etc., from Bush two days ago.
But no word on Wisconsin’s request yet, not that I can find. . . .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2007 at 0742 hrs
Surprise, surprise. Minnesota has a Republican governor. Minnesota got the federal disaster declaration for loans to save crops, etc., from Bush two days ago.
But no word on Wisconsin’s request yet, not that I can find. . . .
If what you insinuate is true, its just MORE reason to restrict the role of the federal government.
Take away the Kings power and he won’t be able to play favorites.
To think that (if what you say is true) a different administration would be ‘fair’ is equally as naive.
I’m always interested to see who is against government partisanship, and who is only against it when it hurts them.
Everything thinks power in someone elses hands is BAD but power in their hands (or the hands of THEIR political party would be used ‘the right way’)
www.lp.org
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 24, 2007 at 0945 hrs
XX, you’re the one who is naive, if you think the decision was not political when the feds refused to declare a disaster here a couple of years ago, when tornadoes devastated an area near Madison . . . and compare that with the declarations that went forward at the same time for far less damage in red states.
But yes, you are correct that the politicization of emergency aid is a reason to call for it to be removed from politics—although just moving it to the state level would not then be the best answer, considering what you have written of our Democratic administration in this state, would it? There are ways to remove processes from political tampering at federal or state levels.
“Emergency” means people in our state need help now, period. If FEMA could find its way even farther west from D.C. several days ago, flying right over the destruction in our state . . . if FEMA could reassure several news outlets several days ago that it would be in Wisconsin by now . . . what’s going on, do you think? Maybe the East Coasters just can’t find Wisconsin on the map? Maybe FEMA is relying on ABC News, which interviewed a Minnesota couple and their Wisconsin grandson and said they all were from Iowa?
That’s it—FEMA is in Des Moines, looking for Wisconsin!
If so, then you find reassurance in continued incompetence, instead of politically motivated malfeasance? Huh.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2007 at 1131 hrs
XX, you’re the one who is naive, if you think the decision was not political when the feds refused to declare a disaster here a couple of years ago, when tornadoes devastated an area near Madison . . . and compare that with the declarations that went forward at the same time for far less damage in red states.
Key… I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I was merely pointing out that if what you suggest is true, its more reason to remove government from the process
I personally don’t play the ‘nah nah gotcha political games’ because it detracts from the source of the problem.
So I’m not going to get into a debate of “oh look at what the republicans do, and oh look at what the democrats do” when they sit in the king’s throne.
“Emergency” means people in our state need help now, period. If FEMA could find its way even farther west from D.C. several days ago, flying right over the destruction in our state . . . if FEMA could reassure several news outlets several days ago that it would be in Wisconsin by now . . . what’s going on, do you think? Maybe the East Coasters just can’t find Wisconsin on the map? Maybe FEMA is relying on ABC News, which interviewed a Minnesota couple and their Wisconsin grandson and said they all were from Iowa?
I agree with you Kay… Government has proven time and time again that it is incapable of effectively handling nearly every problem or situation it tries to solve.
Wouldn’t it be a great idea if the federal government stopped taking more of our income than anyone else and left money in our pockets to plan for disasters AND/OR with state/local governments where we can have a much more efficatious influence on the government?
I see groups of citizens regularly get together and go to city council meetings and efficate a change on the spot. I’ve NEVER seen a group of citizens go to washington, attend a session of congress and make any difference at all.
So now you’re mad at FEMA. Wouldn’t it be great if when you had a problem with government you could drive to Madison or your local city council and make a difference.
Good luck going and finding someone who can make things happen at FEMA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2007 at 1337 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 112
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 02:25 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).