Key House Republicans Oppose Delaying Flood Insurance Increases

February 4, 2014

  • February 4, 2014 at 1:07 pm
    bob says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 28
    Thumb down 14

    “The answer is simple. Taxpayers should not continue to subsidize the flood insurance of those who live in flood-prone areas. It’s not fair.”

    • February 5, 2014 at 12:19 pm
      SWFL Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 0

      I would agree with you if you or anyone else can tell me where the “flood prone areas” are located. My home is located in a SFHA and the home or the land that it’s on has never flooded (I sound like the typical insured on this one). The homes that flooded in CO last year where not in SFHA’s. So what authority or panel of experts are going to decide this Bob?

      • February 7, 2014 at 7:20 pm
        I think I know, SWFL Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        A flood prone area is one that has flooded! That must make me an expert!

    • February 5, 2014 at 3:43 pm
      Bill Price says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 0

      We see testimony that the National Flood Insurance Program ( NFIP) :
      - Paid commission and management fees of 33% to 66% to Insurance Companies having No Risk.
      - Paid for Un-insured properties to be re-built.
      - No Reserves were kept, surpluses reverted to the Treasury.
      Unfortunately, we can’t find a comprehensive financial breakdown of the Flood Insurance program,
      so there is no way to tell if it’s actuarial, or not,,,
      But It’s just not right to force insured folks to pay
      absurd Ins. Commissions, or to re-build un-insured property.
      Delay BW-12 until the Policy Holders get some answers.

      Bill Price USLandAlliance.US

    • February 5, 2014 at 6:03 pm
      jw says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      are you ok with no crop insurance subsidies, no health insurance subsidies, no insurance guarantee funds, FDIC it goes on and on the list of taxpayer subsidies??

      • February 6, 2014 at 1:03 pm
        LiveFree says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 5
        Thumb down 1

        I would be elated without all those drags on production.

    • February 6, 2014 at 9:59 am
      Squandered Youth says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 8
      Thumb down 0

      It is important to separate the issue of setting sound rates on a going forward basis from making current and future owners pay off the pre-existing Katrina debt. Too many politicians and pundits are using arguments supporting the first issue to justify the second.

      Current and future owners (particularly those who have never received subsidies and/or didn’t own NFIP properties in 2005) were no more responsible for the Katrina debt than any other taxpayer and shouldn’t have to bear the full burden of paying it off simply because FEMA enjoys the power under federal law to compel them to buy insurance regardless of its cost. Thre really can’t be any meaningful discussion about setting up a sensible program on a going-forward basis until the Katrina debt is taken out of the formula for computing “actuarial” rates.

    • February 9, 2014 at 11:16 am
      gerard says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 1

      Great post Bob. And I don’t think it’s fair that I have to subsidize people that don’t have health insurance!

    • July 15, 2014 at 11:08 am
      FUFI says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Do you realize how many houses there are that have never flooded but are required to pay flood insurance? My house has gone through two 200 plus year floods in the past ten years without flooding. Yet my flood insurance rates are almost in the top tier.

  • February 4, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    jw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    The purpose of NFIP is to protect the financial institution collateral. As long as banks are beneficiary taxpayers will have the subsidize. This program is for the banks not the property owner

    • February 4, 2014 at 2:15 pm
      Barry Rabkin says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 0

      And there is nothing wrong with that …. the flood program should exist to protect all the major stakeholders in the property. Banks are not, and should never be, charitable organizations.

      • February 5, 2014 at 3:49 pm
        jw says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 0

        Then why taxpayers have to support policies for which the banks are beneficiaries??

        • February 6, 2014 at 10:41 am
          KY jw says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          You should ask your senators or represenatives that question. Along with all the other subsidies provided to commercial enterprises.

  • February 4, 2014 at 2:40 pm
    Unjustified Flood Rates says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 8

    This program is for the benefit of unethical government mapping contractors who manipulate the rules at the expense of taxpayers. It has nothing to do with actuarially sound rates or protecting property owners and financial institutions. The program is full of corruption and flat out needs to be shut down. Private carriers are coming out of the woodwork to write flood insurance because they will be able to charge actuarially sound rates. Biggert-Waters should not be implemented as written BUT I’m glad it’s here. I think it’s going to be the first step in eliminating this corrupt government program.

  • February 5, 2014 at 2:08 pm
    Wayne says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 15
    Thumb down 0

    I wonder how many of you who are not in a flood zone now will be placed in one when new maps are done. Isn’t it funny we complain about subsidizing flood but will subsidize other things that not all of us want or need. I think we all need to realize the NFIP didn’t go this far in the hole just because of subsidized rates. If a business is failing you look at all the reasons. The NFIP is failing and the government only wants you to look at one reason. Surprised that their way to fix it is to charge more money? Lets not worry about poor management of funds.

  • February 5, 2014 at 3:00 pm
    Vermonter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    Rather than run the flood program as any private insurer would have to do, it was run with political considerations taking precedent. Over time, it became unsustainable. The reaction to go to actuarial based rating makes sense in the long term, but how to get there is the question. The other question is whether the federal government needs to run this program or can it be done by the competitive marketplace. With the old rating structure, no private enterprise was interested. With the new structure, there seems to be interst in making it a competitive market because equity sees profit potential. Perhaps there is an ability to privatize the market and have some sort of TRIA type backstop. In the long run a competitive market would be more effecient and benefit both consumers and taxpayers.

    • February 5, 2014 at 3:52 pm
      Bill Price says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 0

      Should the FED Gov. Fight Forest Fires, help Tornado Victims,
      Help during Blizzards, build Levees, or Dams?
      We even help foreign countries that have natural disasters.
      With Flood Insurance, most of the Folks are paying some premiums, while in many other situations they don’t.
      Bill Price USLandAlliance.US

    • February 6, 2014 at 1:30 pm
      LiveFree says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 1

      Vermonter, you have brushed up against the main reason that government subsides in general do not work. Because they assume risk that is not acceptable to private organizations. Private industry/people are betting with their own money (or money directly entrusted to them) and governments are betting with other peoples. That not only creates a morale hazard but also means that they will fund things that are more likely to fail or under-preform (in this case have a loss). In other terms they will subsidize things that are more likely to not be able to pay back the subsidy in either money or production (in this case premium).

      My argument is to end the NFIP because no matter what their rates go to this is bound to be a program that hurts society because it gives subsides and takes un-necessary risks. Let the markets figure it all out and be sure to thank your government for messing it up in the first place and the heartache it will take to fix it.

      A TRIA like backstop is an interesting idea but if a catastrophic flood does trigger it aren’t we just back in the same boat (pun intended) that we are in now with another deficit program for all intents and purposes?

  • February 5, 2014 at 3:53 pm
    Joe Geraghty says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    The program was self sustaining until Katrina. It could be again with a few tweeks and better management and not cost the taxpayers anything. It has not been subsidized. That is the wrong word. That crooked mayor in NOLA ran up the bill and everyone was feeling guilty. Houses were rebuilt that were not insured the same as they are doing in NJ. Houses that are prefirm should have expiration date but those who built to old maps did what the law required at the time and should not be penalized. FEMA is too incompetent to run the program and private insurance companies are too greedy.

  • February 6, 2014 at 12:11 pm
    mm says:
    Hot debate. What do you think?
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 9

    What a surprise, republicans that vote against helping out the average american. Gee I wish they were this tough on corporate welfare, tax loopholes, defense contractors, big agriculture or wall street etc… I guess these congressman never have a tornado or fire in there state that fema has to go in and pick up the pieces at our expense. They are going to kill the real estate market in 40% of america then there hedge fund buddies can come in and buy the houses cheap and rent them back to us. What a country!

  • February 6, 2014 at 4:58 pm
    3-H Rider says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    “FEMA has failed to complete a study of ways to make flood insurance more affordable and has come under assault for new flood maps that have decreed some never-flooded communities at risk.”

    This is the first time I’ve seen anyone address the real problem of FEMA’s map failure.

    My husband and I have lived in our home for 28 years and have never experienced flooding issues. There is no record of this area ever flooding (we live in central Pennsylvania). We were forced to buy flood ins last year because the “new maps” put us into a flood zone A. On Dec. 7, 2013 we received a letter stating we had to have an elevation certificate done in order to continue our policy. Think about that a minute, we were forced to buy flood ins and the maps weren’t even complete.

    Even though our house is above flood level we still have to buy ins because according to the “new maps” some of our property is in the flood zone. Of course, the policy doesn’t pay for property damage, only the house. So FEMA is forcing us to buy flood ins knowing full well we will never file a claim. Our property value has gone down the crapper, FEMA has pushed us further into debt and every letter from them threatens to have the bank foreclose on our loan if we don’t jump high enough fast enough (standard operating procedure for FEMA). FEMA should not be allowed to make the rules, set the premiums and draw the maps, they aren’t qualified.

  • February 7, 2014 at 10:58 am
    Boonedoggle says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 1

    Just last week Congress passed a HUGE farm welfare giveaway, labeled as “crop insurance” included in the new farm bill.

    Isn’t it a double standard to demand flood insurance to be premium self supporting, yet farm welfare to be designed to be charity for the wealthy?

    • February 9, 2014 at 11:12 am
      gerard says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 1

      It is quite a double standard. I also think that the STOP FEMA NOW coalition should sue FEMA for implementing Biggert Waters without the required economic impact study. FEMA is violating the law! Is it possible to arrest the head of FEMA for violating federal law? Where is the Attorney General? Sounds reasonable to me!

      • February 24, 2014 at 4:48 pm
        earlybird says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        hello gerard, so you want Attorney General Eric Holder,an Obama appointee, to sue FEMA, which operates under the Homeland Security Administration, which is led by Obama appointee Jeh Johnson? I wonder what the odds of that happening could be? I will let you know when my bookie returns my call!!!!

  • February 7, 2014 at 5:08 pm
    California Resident says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Just pray you don’t get wrapped up in FEMA’s net! FEMA came through our California city in 2009 and with their dangerous pen remapped and rounded up an “ADDITIONAL” 8,900 HOMES which were NEVER IN ANY FLOOD ZONE PRIOR! Needless to say, citizens were and still are outraged; FEMA representatives came to the city to distribute their mapping and could have cared less about our shock and outrage. Please keep in mind the Governor of California has declared a ‘state of emergency’ … the state has been experiencing a severe drought and this city lies in the Central Valley with extremely dry desert climate, has a population of about 100,000(people, not 100,000 homes!). Our ‘average’ rainfall is supposed to be 11 inches per year. Last year we received 4 inches, this year it’s been under an inch…farms have been turned into dust bowls, cities are running out of water, yet ironically we’re living in fear of exorbitant increases in FLOOD insurance premiums and a collapse of our home value because neighbors who are upside down on their mortgages plan to just walk away leaving vacant abandoned homes in what is currently a beautiful neighborhood. This is FEMA and our government in action! Pray this does not happen to you!

  • February 9, 2014 at 11:05 am
    gerard says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 7

    I am a lifelong Republican but since this Biggert Waters fiasco I have unfortunately had to switch sides. I will support any Democrat that is on the ballot in the voting booth. The Republicans are done come November anyway!!

  • February 9, 2014 at 11:19 am
    gerard says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 5

    In November, remember to vote Democrat!!

    STOP FEMA NOW!!

  • February 12, 2014 at 1:21 pm
    nita says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    The economic impact on everyone required to pay flood insurance because of the changes everytime the change the flood plain will be devistating. Most people can barely pay their bills much less having their policies go from 1,500 a year to 18,000. They can’t sell their properties because they have lost the value with the new changes. And not everyone has the ability to tear down their homes and rebuild. Alot of people on fixed incomes will just have to walk away from their homes. I guess that is what the government wants.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features