I don't know if bailing out the "corrupt and wasteful government" is the solution but I think it is meaningfully different. The difference that immediately spr

I don't know if bailing out the "corrupt and wasteful government" is the solution but I think it is meaningfully different. The difference that immediately springs to mind is that the corruption was in some ways the responsibility of higher levels of government to prevent. The justice system was failing these residents when people engaged in corrupt practices were not caught soon enough to prevent this situation arising. It is difficult to hold the residents who voted fully accountable - they can not be clairvoyant and predict who is or is not corrupt. Another difference is that governments exist to serve the peoples' interest at all levels, if one level is dysfunctional it does not seem to give all other levels the freedom to ignore it. Giving the reality on the ground right now it is the governments duty to do some kind of cost-benefit analysis to determine what can be done to help these people a great deal while only harming (or perhaps helping) others in other jurisdictions a small amount. (For example based on the information in the article it would seem obvious that sanitation problems among the poor are going to end up being bigger medicare bills for the government to handle at some point given the economic circumstances.)