Progress is in sight. However, one sticking point remains, and it is indicative of political philosophy that resulted in THOUSANDS of legislative seats flipping from Democrat to Republican over the last 10-15 years. That sticking point is the proposal to ban from NFIP homeowners whose homes are flooded repeatedly yet refuse to sell their home to their town or state government for mitigation/ avoidance of a near-certain risk.
Those who opt for the government to subsidize their poor, selfish choices will only support, and be supported by, Democrat politicians…. at the expense of other taxpayers who act responsibly to mitigate or avoid near certain ‘casualty expenses’.
from the article:
In the draft legislation released Thursday, Republicans propose ejecting from the program homeowners who keep getting flooded but don’t want to sell their houses. Democrats wouldn’t eject them. And Republicans would impose fewer conditions on private insurers who want to sell flood insurance.
How do you ‘defend’ (e.g. vote for) Democrat politicians’ support of ‘wetland squatters’ subsidized by NFIP, thus, ultimately subsidized by taxpayers who act / behave responsibly?
RSH/
A good place to start would be a valid P&L on NFIP.
– OMB said NFIP books were undecipherable.
– Claims were paid in New Orleans, New Jersey, and for riverine flooding to uninsured, and
– BW 12 was written by EPA, NOAA, and Wildlife Foundation to promote Accelerated Sea Level Rise policies.
To start by saying NFIP is 25 Bil in debt when they have No Idea how much uninsured claims were paid, nor any analysis of the 30% to 60% commissions paid, doesn’t bode well.
Bill Price
Progress is in sight. However, one sticking point remains, and it is indicative of political philosophy that resulted in THOUSANDS of legislative seats flipping from Democrat to Republican over the last 10-15 years. That sticking point is the proposal to ban from NFIP homeowners whose homes are flooded repeatedly yet refuse to sell their home to their town or state government for mitigation/ avoidance of a near-certain risk.
Those who opt for the government to subsidize their poor, selfish choices will only support, and be supported by, Democrat politicians…. at the expense of other taxpayers who act responsibly to mitigate or avoid near certain ‘casualty expenses’.
from the article:
In the draft legislation released Thursday, Republicans propose ejecting from the program homeowners who keep getting flooded but don’t want to sell their houses. Democrats wouldn’t eject them. And Republicans would impose fewer conditions on private insurers who want to sell flood insurance.
How do you ‘defend’ (e.g. vote for) Democrat politicians’ support of ‘wetland squatters’ subsidized by NFIP, thus, ultimately subsidized by taxpayers who act / behave responsibly?
RSH/
A good place to start would be a valid P&L on NFIP.
– OMB said NFIP books were undecipherable.
– Claims were paid in New Orleans, New Jersey, and for riverine flooding to uninsured, and
– BW 12 was written by EPA, NOAA, and Wildlife Foundation to promote Accelerated Sea Level Rise policies.
To start by saying NFIP is 25 Bil in debt when they have No Idea how much uninsured claims were paid, nor any analysis of the 30% to 60% commissions paid, doesn’t bode well.
Bill Price