First, I am proud of the 11 Congressmen who voted against the $50 billion appropriation for disaster relief. If the feds are going to rebuild New Orleans, relief should come in several small amounts rather than one large amount in order to insure proper oversight. (That might work well for Iraq, as well). I recall one of the Congressmen stating (I think it was on The O'Reilly Factor with John Gibson guest-hosting) that he wasn't against aiding New Orleans, he just felt that aid should come in $10 billion increments every so many weeks rather than $50 billion all at once.
Secondly, I have to agree with the idea that spending cuts rather than tax increases should be used to pay for reconstruction (if the feds are going to do it).
Finally, I am not certain that federal help is needed, at least not the amounts people are talking about. I think it is very plausible that a lot, if not all, of the reconstruction could be done privately. I think that federal welfare for disasters at most ought to be viewed as an option of last resort. Federal disaster relief is, I believe, ultimately unconstitutional, as Davy Crockett pointed out and we ought to move away from that paradigm.
That is all.