And yes, I'm looking at me:
Standing in the living room of their house, now full of mud, slime and debris, Helen and Peter Kelly cannot believe that Congress is bickering over disaster aid to people like them.
The stories are truly heartbreaking and yes, I feel like a total heel. But still, the economics is impeccable. Am I right?
But note that one's wasteful spending might be someone else's government program with positive social net benefits:
The government, [a female flood victim] said, would have more money for disaster assistance if it spent less on inessential amenities: “a park where people sit to watch the river and eat lunch; a playground in the middle of an empty field.”
Er, I imagine the hapless lunch eater might say if folks didn't live in risky places and ask to get bailed out all the time there might be more money for parks. Am I right?
