The only homes affected by the new rates are vacation homes, but the mayor is worried about the impact on low-income residents. Does anybody else see something fishy here? How can one be a “low-income resident” and at the same time own a primary residence AND a vacation home? Only in government fantasy-land, where the parasite can simply extract more wealth from its productive hosts to bail itself out and buy votes for the next election.
“The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been ordered to make its flood insurance program self-sustaining.” Notice to the economically clueless: Honest private insurance companies (those that are not in cahoots with the government via the NFIP scam) make their insurance self-sustaining every day, and they can do the same for flood insurance if we get the politicians and crony capitalists out of the way.
Would everybody be able to afford the market rate to insure their flood-prone property? No. So what does that tell us? Those structures should not have been built in the first place, and certainly should not be rebuilt over and over at taxpayer expense.
The only homes affected by the new rates are vacation homes, but the mayor is worried about the impact on low-income residents. Does anybody else see something fishy here? How can one be a “low-income resident” and at the same time own a primary residence AND a vacation home? Only in government fantasy-land, where the parasite can simply extract more wealth from its productive hosts to bail itself out and buy votes for the next election.
“The Federal Emergency Management Agency has been ordered to make its flood insurance program self-sustaining.” Notice to the economically clueless: Honest private insurance companies (those that are not in cahoots with the government via the NFIP scam) make their insurance self-sustaining every day, and they can do the same for flood insurance if we get the politicians and crony capitalists out of the way.
Would everybody be able to afford the market rate to insure their flood-prone property? No. So what does that tell us? Those structures should not have been built in the first place, and certainly should not be rebuilt over and over at taxpayer expense.