I'd be willing to bet the apparent "overcompensation" is there to cover an unknown time variable on the recovery; funding shortfalls in rebuilding FL wouldn't harm the US economy anywhere close as they could in that part of LA, I'm afraid. The level of devastation is so massive across such a wide area and compounded by the environmental issues that may keep any meaningful recovery YEARS out in some areas, I can see the Feds padding the number as much as they can to prepare for the long-haul. I could be entirely wrong, as I don't have a clue as to all of the variables that come into play when the Feds start earmarking money for disasters...
I'd also be willing to bet there is a political element as well, since FEMA is getting "gangbanged" by the press. Perception is reality and regardless that the state and local mechanisms apparently failed miserably; FEMA has taken the brunt of it all, right or wrong. There have been enough perceived and real shortfalls that I'm sure they didn't want to get this one wrong.
Anytime someone mentions "benzene" or "heavy metals" contaminating an area, I start to visualize truckloads of money leaving someone's pocket for the cleanup...
...so I would put a hefty wager on the table that the environmental cleanup in LA as compared to FL is going to be absolutely epic in terms of a comparison.
EDIT:
The amount that the Feds have allocated is over DOUBLE the amount that the ENTIRE French government spent in ALL capital expenditures in 2004 (estimates are based off of what I could find in the CIA Factbook).
Yeah, that's one HELL of a hefty sum of money.
