Quote:
Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I'm trying to figure out what you're complaining about, Mavdog.
IF this move ONLY results in more net profits to contractors, I would agree that it doesn't make much sense. If, however, it results in getting more accomplished with fewer tax dollars (which is what it sounds like Bush intends), then I'm all for it. I'm already concerned about how they're going to pay for the reconstruction effort -- the less it costs the better.
|
And I might add the sooner that it gets done the sooner that tax monies will start flowing in from that region which would help with the paying for it factor. I think this will give the contractor more flexibility to get things done quickly with less redtape to deal with and the potential ability to hire more people for the same amount of money. And not all of the 60 billion is for labor. There are materials, fees, fuel, electricity, and many other things which must be purchased with that money. There no where close to being enough to provide unlimited employment at any wage. This is much more so, if the monies are not to be released at once but staggered over a period of time.
The bottom line is that this is a public works project with the main emphasis on getting the infrastructure back up in the area ravaged by Katrina, not to provide a permanent high standard of income for a few workers through artificially increased wages. This will only be a temporary solution until the infrastructure is repaired.