I'm angry and disgusted at the political shenanigans currently affecting those trying to buy flood insurance for their homes - particularly after experiencing the Nashville flood a few weeks ago. The Tennessean reports:
For the third time this year Congress has failed to reauthorize the national flood insurance program, leading to a temporary suspension of policy sales just as interest in flood protection in the Nashville area had peaked as a result of the devastating May floods.
The suspension, which took effect on Tuesday morning, means renewals and the sale of new flood insurance policies won't happen until Congress votes to officially fund the program again. The delay doesn't impact existing policies.
The National Association of Realtors said thousands of commercial and residential sales are likely on hold across the United States as a result of Congress' inaction since most lenders require borrowers to buy flood insurance if a home or building sits in a high-risk flood zone.
. . .
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to reauthorize the flood insurance program last week, but the Senate didn't act before going on recess. The earliest that the Senate could act to reauthorize the program is next Monday, when it returns.
. . .
Two previous suspensions because of a lack of funding occurred Feb. 28 through March 2 and again March 29 through April 14, according to a spokeswoman for FEMA.
Jim Manley, a spokesman for U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Republicans have delayed the latest measure because of a dispute over part of the bill that would extend unemployment insurance benefits.
"We have tried to extend the program repeatedly,'' Manley said.
U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said Republicans are concerned the bill would add to the national debt. He said Reid refused to let a separate bill come to a vote that would have reauthorized the flood insurance program without adding to debt levels.
A spokeswoman for U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said: "Senator Corker believes bills should be paid for. Many times instead of cutting government largesse to pay for priorities, Washington would rather pass the buck and add to our country's crippling debt."
There's more at the link.
This is why I'm so adamantly opposed to the practice in Washington of attaching completely unrelated matters to any bill at all. The Democratic Party is trying to ram through an extension of unemployment benefits by attaching it to the flood insurance reauthorization bill. They then turn around and blame Republicans for the delay because they don't want to vote for the unemployment benefits extension, and therefore oppose the bill as a whole. (Of course, Republicans are guilty of the same despicable practice in their turn - both parties are equally guilty on this point.)
Through their 'playing politics', both parties are preventing people like you and I from getting the insurance we need. As a result, some property sales are likely to fall through, as the insurance delays will mean that other deadlines can't be met; and it's even possible that some people will suffer catastrophic losses through flooding, without the safety net of insurance, because their applications for it could not be processed.
It's time all the politicians involved in this mess got a swift kick up the fundamental jujube, if you ask me . . . Certainly, none of them appear worth re-electing to office.
Peter
Can some gentle reader help here?
ReplyDeleteAttaching "unrelated matters" to draft legislation has always puzzled me about US politics.
How did the practice arise?
Why does it continue today?
Isn't it horribly confusing when the contents of a bill (may)bear no resemblance to its title and ostensible purpose?
Why should the US Government sell ANY flood insurance at all?
ReplyDeleteIts is not permitted by the constitution.
If people had to bear all the costs of their own flood insurance (or lack thereof) maybe they wouldn't live in areas that are at a high risk for flooding!
This would result in fewer homes being flooded.
Why should the us taxpayer pick up the tab for repeatedly re-building beach houses that will someday be destroyed again?
Ben, you ask what I was thinking. Is there no private insurance available?
ReplyDelete[quote]U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said Republicans are concerned the bill would add to the national debt. He said Reid refused to let a separate bill come to a vote that would have reauthorized the flood insurance program without adding to debt levels.
ReplyDeleteA spokeswoman for U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said: "Senator Corker believes bills should be paid for. Many times instead of cutting government largesse to pay for priorities, Washington would rather pass the buck and add to our country's crippling debt."[/quote]
So either passing the bill will add to the national debt (something 2 out of 2 Republicans believe) or Harry Reid (all the Democrats) will not allow a bill that will not add to the national debt. How could it be any more clear that this is going to cost the taxpayer somewhere, somehow?
The first guy to build where nobody knows if it will flodd can buy insurance against the possibility. Everybody who comes along after he completes his Noah impression gets no insurance because they are already on notice that it's gonna get flooded. The jerks who rebuild after being flooded out get to pay us taxpayers back for all the money expended trying to rescue them.
Go look up what the Town of Grundy, Virginia did about being flooded repeatedly. I can get behind expending some .gov $$ to assist in that.
stay safe.
"Certainly, none of them appear worth re-electing to office."
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely correct about that. I refuse to vote for incumbents, particularly at the Congressional level.
There is a really good reason why no Insurance company sells flood insurance without a major government subsidy. In the areas where it is worth buying, it isn't so much a case of "Will you get flooded" but rather "how soon will it happen".
ReplyDeleteThe insurers aren't stupid. They know that they would have to price in absurdly high in order to break even or profit from the exchange and very few people would want to pay that much for it.
As a real estate agent, I have to say that flood insurance is simply nuts. If you have to buy it to live in a place, DON'T buy that house!
ReplyDeleteYou will get flooded out, it will ruin everything you own, and other, smarter people will have to bail you out, and maybe even save you life.
Congress is insane.