There's an old cliche that "the squeaky wheel gets the oil," but at what point is the proverbial oil no longer helpful? What if the wheels can oil themselves if given the chance, but grow incapable over time of doing so if they are constantly oiled by someone else?

In coastal Alabama, many rural towns populated by hard-working veterans of the seafood industry are still struggling four years after Hurrcane Katrina devastated their homes. They have received little or no federal or state aid, while watching areas like New Orleans' Ninth Ward scream and hollar for more handouts from the government. And because they've received no aid, reconstruction efforts have moved far slower here than elsewhere on the Gulf Coast.

(for the full NPR story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112257238)

Yet these residents are subject to new government-imposed restrictions on where they can build, how they have to build, and even where they can live in rental agreement properties. If it sounds like they've been denied benefits while still having to pay the cost, it's a classic case of why government interventions rarely succeed in doing anything but waste money and impose its paternalistic will on its citizens.

Consider this for a moment: These hardy residents of coastal Alabama have never relied on government handouts, and always worked hard to look after their own interests. As a result, they've grown resilient, self-sufficient, and, given the chance, will rebuild their coastal towns with the same assets that have helped them survive all these years: belief in themselves, belief in hard work, and the willingness to do whatever it takes to survive. They will not see the kind of overnight success that comes with government spending to build new homes for them, but in 20 years from now, they will still be self-sufficient and the small local businesses will still control their own destinies.

Now, consider the infamous Ninth Ward in New Orleans. Even before Hurricane Katrina struck, only 41.2% of the population over 16 bothered to work (!!!). Enter Katrina, and then a (pardon the term) deluge of federal and state dollars to rebuild this already decayed slum, because the residents screamed and hollared and "squeaked" louder than anyone else on the Gulf Coast. But after 4 years and hundreds of millions of dollars, employment is even lower, there's little local "industry" to speak of, and in 20 years from now it will still be reliant on handouts from governments, charities, and do-gooders nationwide.

My question to you: is it better to create a population of people dependent on others for their basic needs, by domesticating them and feeding them every day, or promoting independence? I'm not suggesting that the government has no part to play in helping rebuild devastated regions, but I am saying that a keener perspective may be needed in developing strategies for long-term economic growth, rather than simply throwing money at people and making them dependent on Uncle Sam to think and work for them.