Still, given how much water saturated the buildings in New Orleans, I would worry that they'll start to collapse a la last season's ER finale (yes, I know that was wooden scaffolding, but the principle is sound) and people will start blaming the government.

And $200,000 is a little much, in my estimation. One year's salary up to $200,000 but no less than $40,000 would probably be better.

I've never been to New Orleans. Never really wanted to go. But after all we've learned, it kind of seems silly to rebuild it. It's like building a sand castle near the water's edge at low tide: when you come back to the beach tomorrow, you're just going to have to do it again.

Given that my entire family's net worth is significantly less than even $200,000, I'd love to collect the cash. OTOH, I know some people I wouldn't trust with $20, much less $200,000. The potential for even more seismic disruptions in the lives of those individuals is huge, and would definitely NOT be in our nation's best interests.

That said, I think the idea is much akin to the "40 acres and a mule" idea, which wouldn't be a bad idea - give people a voucher for another piece of property or to rebuild their own property. That way it's not just "cash".

But since we are talking about public dollars I think the question really is what would be best for us as a nation?

Aren't we all better off with rebuilt and reinforced levees to protect the port city of New Orleans? And what about rebuilding the infrastructure to support the oil development and gasoline refineries? Certainly we can justify spending money for at least those two reasons and there may be others just as good.

Having said that I am sure when the spending starts, given that this is a project of the Bush administration, the money will be mostly wasted and the rebuilding botched.