Whatever one thinks about the proper role of the federal government in providing housing to the poor, I think it is pretty clear that Section 8 housing vouchers are some of the best efforts it has come up with yet. Unlike HOPE VI boondoggles, dubious project-based subsidies, pork expenditures, and much more, Section 8 seems to deliver something like 90-95 cents of benefit for every dollar spent. (Which is darn good for a welfare program).

So, I agree with Alex Tabarrok and Edgar Olsen that if we are interested in giving federal housing money to Katrina victims, expanding the Section 8 program is a great way to do it.

[It might also comfort paternalists like Dan Markel who are terrified that the Katrina victims might spend their money on alcohol or tobacco. Although given the fungibility in even tight budgets, maybe not.]

UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias says "I told you so". It is worth noting the basic influence of political salience here. I suspect that a great many libertarians would like to cut federal welfare programs, but would also like to make sure that the programs we do have are good ones. This means that when it's clear that federal welfare is going to happen no matter what, the good-government libertarians speak out loudly, but when it is time to start cutting, they are likely to take whatever they can get.

When did "incentivize" become an acceptable synonym for "motivate"?