thoughts on disaster relief funds
inspired in part by Eric Cantor's ridiculous insistence that such funds for the areas hit in the Midwest by tornadoes be offset by cuts elsewhere.
First, a similar approach could be made on any unplanned need - thus by his logic the expenditures after September 11 for the military and homeland security should have been offset by cuts elsewhere. Except everyone recognizes that in an emergency it is perfectly acceptable to borrow money.
Second, prudent planning would recognize that there are always unplanned contingencies that will require a response. We know there may be earthquakes, tornadoes, river floods, even massive fires, during the course of any one year. We have some awareness of the level of expenditures that might be necessary to respond to such. Thus someone being responsible would budget on a contingency basis - budget for and appropriate some number of billions to be spent in response to Federally-declared disasters. If that money is not used in that year, it is returned to the treasury thus reducing the deficit for the year. Further, write into law some additional amount that can be appropriated without offsets.
Alternatively, there could be the funding of a trust fund or if you will insurance pool where any money not spent is simply accumulated. I don't like that idea quite as well, because the tendency would not be to continue adding to it, and/or to borrow against it for other purposes, as we have previously borrowed from Social Security surplus and are now borrowing from federal pensions.
Just a few more thoughts below:
