I think some money should have been appropriated sooner than two months after the disaster struck but I have no problem with being careful and prudent about how the money is spent and watching where it goes.
Completely agree, in principle.
Now, how is the best way to "be prudent"? Set up an agency in DC to administer the aid? Give the money straight to the cities and towns or states, since they should know best?
On a nationwide level, $60 billion is a lot of cash. Before voting that money through, I'd like to do a thorough review to make sure it's going to be spent in the right places.
Who should do this review?
Good questions. Personally I would like the money to go to the cities but have it mandated that the money go proportionally to three areas that each city would have records of needing money: 1.) Personal home owners with damage that goes beyond their insurance coverage 2.) Infrastructure damage 3.) Businesses with damages that go beyond what their insurance covers
I am sure each city can get a breakdown of what each area has in damages. Then have the cities award the money they receive proportionally through those three categories with each recipient receiving proportionally the amount of money they make up in each area.
For instance. if a city has 60% of monetary damages being from home owners, 15% from infrastructure damage and 25% from businesses and then if a claimant makes up 1% of all the home owners claimed monetary damage, they get .6% of all the money the city gets. If one business has 10% of all the business claimed monetary damage they get 2.5% of all the money awarded the city.
How much money each city get can be done the same way on a state level.
I think that's the must prudent way to do it with as little politics getting in the way as possible and creating the least amount of waste.