Why Houston Doesn't Need Federal Flood Relief

[Swordsmyth]

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute, (https://mises.org/blog/why-houston-doesnt-need-federal-flood-relief-%E2%80%94-four-charts)
In his article today (https://mises.org/blog/thanks-markets-houstons-disaster-isnt-bad-it-might-have-been), Christopher Westley noted that Texas's economy — when measured by GDP — is larger than Canada's. In other words: If Texas were an independent country, it would be the world's 10th largest economy (totaling $1.6 trillion), and its citizens would be more than capable of addressing natural disasters of the magnitude of a major flood. Texas's economy is also larger than those of Russia and Australia.
By why stop our analysis at the state of Texas? Indeed, if we look at the GDP of the Houston metropolitan area (https://www.bea.gov/itable/), we find it comes in at $503 billion. This total is similar to the GDPs of Poland, Belgium, and Austria. It's significantly larger than the GDPs of Norway and Denmark.
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/texasgdp.png?itok=YnxsI93J

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/texasgdppercap.png?itok=UzYkjf6W

https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/houstongdp.png?itok=1KW7l8y7

Nor is Texas's GDP largely driven by federal spending — so we can't say that Texas's economy depends on federal spending (https://mises.org/blog/which-states-rely-most-federal-spending) to stay afloat. When we look at federal spending in Texas compared to the federal taxes paid by Texans, we find it's nearly a one-for-one relationship. So, if the Federal government stopped spending in Texas — but allowed Texans to keep their money, Texas would be fine.
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/dollar_2.JPG?itok=SfKghw80

Indeed, as Westley notes, the Houston area has benefitted from its relatively laissez-faire politicies in recent decades, and this will enable the region to more easily confront its troubles: "What makes Houston different has to do with property rights institutions taking root and developing there over decades, making it a center for capital investment, because capital always flows to those areas where it is most secure."
Nevertheless, because there's money there for the taking, the Texas state government and countless local governments in Texas will be more than happy to take the federal aid (https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2017-08-28/18-texas-counties-granted-federal-disaster-declaration-governor)that Donald Trump was recently promising as he posed for photo ops near the flood zone. After all, if taxpayers from the other 49 states are being forced to hand over money to Texans, why refuse "free" money?
This free cash promised for Texas has already lit up the usual leftwing outlets with charges of hypocrisy and foolishness on the part of GOP politicians who have in the past allegedly been stingy with federal disaster-relief funds. One New Orleans columnist opines that "Texas Republicans will have some explaining to do (http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/08/texas_republicans_will_have_so.html)" since nearly the entire GOP Texas delegation in Congress " voted against a $50.5 billion relief package for victims after 2012 superstorm Sandy slammed into New York and other parts of the Northeast."
Now that Texas "needs" Federal funds, the shoe is on the other foot! Or so we're told.
It's true enough that GOP Texas politicians have themselves in a political bind here. If they refuse the funds, local voters who think the federal funds are essentially without cost to them will largely be angry their Congressmen and Senators didn't grab the cash.
But, of course, the politicians themselves — and the voters who supported their reluctance to shell out more federal spending on disaster funds — will look like hypocrites. (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2017-08-31/political-hypocrisy-on-hurricane-harvey-disaster-relief-needs-to-stop)


More at: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-01/why-houston-doesnt-need-federal-flood-relief-four-charts

It was never constitutional for the Feds to give out federal funds as charity in the first place, not even the states should do that with government funds.

[acptulsa]

Nevertheless, because there's money there for the taking, the Texas state government and countless local governments in Texas will be more than happy to take the federal aid that Donald Trump was recently promising as he posed for photo ops near the flood zone. After all, if taxpayers from the other 49 states are being forced to hand over money to Texans, why refuse "free" money?
This free cash promised for Texas has already lit up the usual leftwing outlets with charges of hypocrisy and foolishness on the part of GOP politicians who have in the past allegedly been stingy with federal disaster-relief funds. One New Orleans columnist opines that "Texas Republicans will have some explaining to do" since nearly the entire GOP Texas delegation in Congress " voted against a $50.5 billion relief package for victims after 2012 superstorm Sandy slammed into New York and other parts of the Northeast."

And in spite of their objections, Houstonians in particular and Texans in general have been forced to pay their federal taxes. And as a result, they've had less to save for the proverbial 'rainy day' which has now come in spades. So why in God's name would they not get some of their money back? Now that they've been outvoted and robbed by the tyranny of the majority, what principle is left to stand on? And where is the liberal principle of unfettered mercy in one's hour of need, if the liberals are going to make them feel guilty for reclaiming a fraction of the federal taxes they have had extorted from them over the years?

[Swordsmyth]

And in spite of their objections, Houstonians in particular and Texans in general have been forced to pay their federal taxes. And as a result, they've had less to save for the proverbial 'rainy day' which has now come in spades. So why in God's name would they not get some of their money back? Now that they've been outvoted and robbed by the tyranny of the majority, what principle is left to stand on? And where is the liberal principle of unfettered mercy in one's hour of need, if the liberals are going to make them feel guilty for reclaiming a fraction of the federal taxes they have had extorted from them over the years?

Any mercy and charity should come from private charity, it is not right for government to be involved in charity, taxes should be cut but NO government state or federal should give one penny for the relief effort, once you give in on that you have lost the war, you will have agreed that government can redistribute wealth to "the needy".

[acptulsa]

Any mercy and charity should come from private charity, it is not right for government to be involved in charity, taxes should be cut but NO government state or federal should give one penny for the relief effort, once you give in on that you have lost the war, you will have agreed that government can redistribute wealth to "the needy".

I think we're all agreed that the government can do all sorts of things it shouldn't do.

And I think most of us agree that reclaiming plunder from the bastards that robbed you at gunpoint is hardly a sinful act.

[Madison320]

And in spite of their objections, Houstonians in particular and Texans in general have been forced to pay their federal taxes. And as a result, they've had less to save for the proverbial 'rainy day' which has now come in spades. So why in God's name would they not get some of their money back? Now that they've been outvoted and robbed by the tyranny of the majority, what principle is left to stand on? And where is the liberal principle of unfettered mercy in one's hour of need, if the liberals are going to make them feel guilty for reclaiming a fraction of the federal taxes they have had extorted from them over the years?

Exactly, that's what pisses me off the most. The government takes half your money then when there's a crisis they say they're the only ones who have enough money to fix the problem.

As Harry Browne used to say, "Government is good at one thing: It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See, if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.""

[acptulsa]

All this silly-assed hyperbole reminds me of back before Ron Paul shamed earmarks out of existence. The puppet media would shame Paul as unprincipled for sticking earmarks for his district in the budget before voting against it. Because obviously the smart thing for a principled man to do is send the message that no one in the country should vote in a principled Representative, because he'll screw his own district.

That would be convenient for the unprincipled heathens, if they could talk the principled into being that freaking stupid.


https://youtube.com/watch?v=U7XVcqZodAM

[merkelstan]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/david-stockman/15-trillion-gallons-keynesian-goodness/

Stockman weighs-in with some great history on how the Houston disaster is a result of decades of government intervention.