Posted on 09/08/2004 8:05:04 AM PDT by Servant of the 9
Our hearts automatically go out to the people of Florida, who are being battered by a series of hurricanes in rapid succession. But we have brains as well as hearts -- and the time is long overdue to start using them.
Hurricanes come through Florida every year about this time. And, every year, politicians get to parade their compassion by showering the taxpayers' money on the places that have been struck.
What would happen if they didn't?
First of all, not as many people would build homes in the path of a well-known disaster that comes around like clockwork virtually every year. Those who did would buy insurance that covers the costs of the risks they choose to take.
That insurance would not be cheap -- which would provide yet another reason for people to locate out of harm's way. The net result would be fewer lives lost and less property damage. Is it not more compassionate to seek this result, even if it would deprive politicians of television time?
In ABC reporter John Stossel's witty and insightful book "Give Me A Break," he discusses how he built a beach house with only "a hundred feet of sand" between him and the ocean. It gave him a great view -- and a great chance of disaster.
His father warned him of the danger but an architect pointed out that the government would pick up the tab if anything happened to his house. A few years later, storm-driven ocean waves came in and flooded the ground floor of Stossel's home. The government paid to have it restored.
Still later, the waves came in again, and this time took out the whole house. The government paid again. Fortunately for the taxpayers, Stossel then decided that enough was enough.
In politics, throwing the taxpayers' money at disasters is supposed to show your compassion. But robbing Peter to pay Paul is not compassion. It is politics.
The crucial fact is that a society does not have one dime more money to devote to the resources available to help victims of natural disasters by sending that money through government agencies. All that it does is change the incentives in such a way as to subsidize risky behavior.
The same money can just as well come through insurance companies. Even if most insurance companies are unwilling to insure people living in particularly vulnerable areas, or living in homes that are inadequate to withstand hurricane-force winds, there are always insurers who specialize in high risks -- and who charge correspondingly higher premiums.
Lloyds of London, for example, has already been moving into the market for insurance for homes costing half a million dollars or more and located along coastal waters, whether in Florida or the Hamptons or elsewhere. If rich people want to put their mansions at risk, there is no reason why they shouldn't pay the costs, instead of forcing the taxpayers to pay those costs.
What about "the poor"? As in so many other cases, the poor are the human shields behind which big-government advocates advance. If you are seriously concerned about the poor themselves, you can always subsidize them and avoid subsidizing others by having means tests.
Means tests are anathema to the political left because that puts an end to their game of hiding behind the poor. Compassion is a laudable feeling but it can also be a political racket.
As with so many government programs that people have come to rely on, phasing out state and federal disaster relief programs would not be easy. In an election year, it is impossible.
Fortunately, there are years in between elections, in which it is at least theoretically possible to talk sense. Whether the risks are hurricanes, earthquakes, floods or forest fires, people who have gotten themselves out on a limb by taking risks in the expectation that the government will bail them out can be gradually weaned away from that expectation by phasing out disaster relief.
The alternative is to keep on forcing taxpayers to be patsies forever, while politicians bask in the glow of the compassion racket by throwing the taxpayers' money hither and yon, while the media applaud the courage of those who rebuild in the path of known disasters.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Apologies accepted.
It was pulled and linked in that manner. There have been reports of a glitch in the system, where in some cases, reasons for pulls aren't showing.
This is not breaking news. This is opinion/editorial.
If it was posted in breaking news yesterday, then no wonder it was pulled.
It wasn't breaking news yesterday either.
I have a mind boggling problem on occasion, easily fixed with chocolate and also coffee (the same substitutes for a boyfriend I might add).
Caveat Emptor says it all. They bought stupid and they can suffer for it, no government bailout.
Government bailouts ought to be restricted to the truly unpredictable, like a major meteor strike in your area.
So9
Much of what I see on TV that is damaged is not necessarily ocean-front.
Sowell makes a good point. But like many points that libertarians make "on principal" it is ultimately not very helpful--we still have to deal with realities.
I resent the fact that Federal funds keep going for disasters in Florida.
Perhaps it's high time that instituted a state tax to pay for their own costs of living in an area with unstable weather patterns.
I'm always boggled, glitch or no glitch.
*chuckle*
Not unlike to Mississippi River residents.
Without government insurance, those houses would never have been rebuilt after they were first destroyed. We pay for them over and over. Anyone can find out where it is safe to build and then take their chances.
No one built expensive homes in vulnerable areas unless tey could afford to lose them. Now they not only build them, they count on Federal money to remodel and modernize them every few years when a storm comes through.
SO9
Why do they allow "mobile homes" or manufactured housing in a place like Florida? Why aren't the building codes stronger and more realistic? At least in California they've passed stronger earthquake codes for housing.
You don't? You should if you're a conservative. Providing relief for acts of God or anything else (i.e fires, disasters, etc.) is not covered in the Constitution? Nor is a 'moral obligation' to provide for the elderly covered either. Of course I learned from our President it must be because he has stated that it is....
just more government waste
Hey, I thought you said you weren't going to post here anymore after Burkeman1 and JohnGalt got the zot.
Or did LP kick you off?
Heh. Meteor strikes are actually more predictable - it's only Kepler's Laws - than any other natural disaster.
Now, the question of disaster relief. The "let-them-eat-cake" FReepers say that the gubmint cain't spend none of their tax dollars on relief. Well, justifications exist in the preamble, "We the people of the United States, in order to...promote the general welfare"; Article 1, section 8, "The Congress shall have power to...provide for the...general welfare of the United States". Merely because the exact words "disaster relief" do not appear within the text of the Constitution does not mean that it is prohibited. For example, the Constitution only contains a vague reference to "executive departments"...does this mean that the Cabinet is un-Constituitional, because it's not specifically mentioned?
The fact that there are government bailouts is just part of the problem. Private insurance is a form of cost-shifting not too dissimilar from taxation. Of coursem, you can choose to go without insurance for some things, but many times we are much constrained against doing without (licensing of cars, home mtgs--requires insurance).
While you worry about how fed funds are not being used accding to good libertarian principals, I worry more about the increase in premiums I'm going to have to face.
Are you sure the first version wasn't a Flip and the second a Flop?
Earthquakes in California are not unexpected. Hurricanes in Florida are not unexpected. Their timing may be unexpected, but not their occurrence. Which means that you can, and should, plan for them.
As a California resident, I pay $$$ on earthquake insurance, which is flat-out required if you expect to get a mortgage on your house. If you pay cash, well, it is assumed you have the means to deal with it yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.