The difference is that it'd allow the attribution of negligence which could be used for geopolitical gain.
E.g. "Government X's bad management of COVID wouldn't have been an issue if China wasn't leaking deadly diseases out of research institutions. So Government X deserves compensation for the harm China caused to the people of Government X. So X will institute trade sanctions of China."
Tear the page you're on out and keep it in your pocket to look back to when you need to start again and you can find the page # on the torn out page. /S
Without knowing which hurricane or flood victims you're asking about I can't answer as for them. But for the COVID pandemic? Yes, absolutely. The CARES Act has tons of sections that impose requirements on recipients. It's not like the federal government just gave away 2.2 trillion dollars no strings attached.
We can and should audit for any fraud or diversion of aid after the crisis
Naturally it's not like there's any point in an audit of spending before spending occurs. I was asserting that post conditional terms (like CA must return unaccounted expenditures) or requiring the preservation of records for such and audit is a reasonable condition.
Most financial aid and transactions these days is strictly digital and easy to audit because of that.
Other forms of aid like diversion of fire suppression helicopters have other simple means of establishing records that can later be audited after the end of the emergency (e.g. adding a comment on the pre flight checklist).
But if we decide 9 months from now CA has to pass an audit and they tossed their receipts it'll be impossible.
Most of the SAR is voluntareer based here. There are several regional SAR groups all made of ordinary people who help the state in their free time. The $2k is an average not fixed amount. Depending on circumstances it'll be higher or lower.
In my state SAR is free unless the person was doing something really dumb. Eg. Avalanche victim = free. Vs. Hypothermia evac from winter hiking without a coat = ~$2k total.
NCVS data isn't limited to murders or just homicides. And even if reports by victims or surviving members of their families was a significant issue it'd be mooted by the fact the core value of this study isn't how much data shows in any one year but how it cross compares to other years.
The difference is that it'd allow the attribution of negligence which could be used for geopolitical gain.
E.g. "Government X's bad management of COVID wouldn't have been an issue if China wasn't leaking deadly diseases out of research institutions. So Government X deserves compensation for the harm China caused to the people of Government X. So X will institute trade sanctions of China."