As a matter of policy, I don’t think the federal government should have a role or pay for natural disasters in any state; except for damage to federal property.
As for flood insurance, it should be privatized and if a piece of property is damaged by future flooding, the current program should pay to replace a totaled building once and then the owner can decide to either risk rebuilding or build in a non-flood proned area.
Taxpayers should not subsidize people’s choice of residence.
Can't argue with that part about taxpayer help. My little home town in Missouri, with its 150 year history of never having a flood, is now flooded. Not in a flood plain either. Bad things sometime happen no matter where you choose to live.
Get the feds grubby hands out of my pocket and then we’ll talk about states not recieving federal disaster aid...but until then...THAT’S OUR MONEY OBAMA IS REFUSING TO HAND OUT!NOT HIS! HE acts like Chavez!
What about farmland that is being flooded on purpose bu the Corps of Engineers?
In principle you are correct.
But you totally miss the point.
obummer sends money to some and not to others.
In another life, it would be called bribery.
The best thing that could come out of this is that very few Texans will vote for the dims and certainly not for obummer.
I agree. Mark Steyn did a piece on this issue a while back, pointing out that states and municipalities no longer budget for the costs of completely expected weather issues - such as snow storms in New England - because they are counting on Federal "disaster" funds.
It's part of the bigger problem of people's pushing the cost of their choices on the general public, which leads to people's making much more risky decisions than they would if they had to expect to bear the cost.