And then there's the effect on the nation's real estate market! The Sacramento Business Journal reported that in Sacramento county alone, since no home buyer can get a mortgage without flood insurance, thanks to a filibuster by Republican Senator Jim Bunning for several days, the National Association of Realtors estimated that about 1,400 real estate transactions a day were stalled during the lapse.
So if we got rid of the National Flood Insurance Program, in every county nationwide that requires flood insurance, which includes most cities on or near a river, the real estate market would come to a screeching halt. What would that do to our nation's economy? Of course, this is only for the citizens who actually decided to stay in flood-prone areas despite the fact that there was no flood insurance available. One also has to wonder what the owners of tens of millions of acres of farmland would do when their crops were destroyed by floods, if there were no flood insurance. As I said, Ron Paul didn't think things through.
But this article was also about FEMA, wasn't it? So let's think about what Ron Paul said, that people should rely on insurance alone (as if everyone can afford insurance). What happens when a major disaster hits? Let's look at the Jones family who just lost everything, absolutely everything but the clothes on their backs, and we all know that in major disasters, such a scenario is not at all unusual.
What do the Jones do in Ron Paul world? They thank God that they're still alive, and they wait for the insurance adjusters. Now said insurance adjusters (who may or may not have also suffered in the same disaster) are going to be trying to make it to all those covered by the company, and the numbers of their constituents can run into the thousands. So the adjusters have to each find their way to the addresses, if the addresses can be found after said disaster, mind you, and try to do their jobs. And then the real frustration starts. Why? Because if the insurance adjuster does not personally know the victims, then the victims have to somehow prove who they are, and this can be problematic if identifications were lost in the disaster. Furthermore, does the insurance company cough up money immediately? And in the unlikely event that they do, is there even a place where the victims can readily purchase food and water? Bear in mind that all this is if the insurance adjuster can find them in the first place, since they may be at what is left of their residence, or they may be in an aid shelter, or the may be someplace else shivering in the cold. And they need most of all what the insurance company does not provide (and what local charities almost certainly cannot provide enough of in a truly major disaster): food, water, blankets, clothing, medical aid.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - George Washington
FEMA provides at taxpayers expense, insurance to land that is so dangerous and high risk that even insurance companies will not insure the area. How man little nicks like that until our country is bleeding out?
Ron Paul 2012
2 - johnnyb
The Mississippi R. basin has been populated for 10,000 years. Why not allow the individual states or the individual prepare for disasters. Or amend the constitution?
3 - Glenn Contrarian
"George" -
You really didn't read the article, did you? If Ron Paul had his way - no FEMA and no National Flood Insurance Plan - and since insurers even in 1968 were beginning to consider flood-prone areas 'uninsurable', then NOBODY living in a flood plain would be able to have flood insurance...and they'd get little help when the floods come.
Imagine that - nobody in Memphis or St Louis or New Orleans or Kansas City or any of the other large cities along the Mississippi river and its hundreds of tributaries would be able to get ANY flood insurance at all!
Not to mention the fact that real estate lenders in flood-prone areas will NOT approve of mortgages without flood insurance...so the real estate market plummets.
So how do you think these would affect the economy, sir?
It's SO easy to sit back and complain about "the guv'mint this" and "the guv'mint that"...but the reality ain't so simple...and that's why you don't leave government to simpletons like Ron Paul and the Libertarians who support him.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
'johnnyb'
For most of those 10000 years, flood insurance wasn't a requirement by lenders in order to approve a mortgage, was it?
5 - Avenger
[personal attack deleted by comments editor]
What you don't seem to be able to grasp is what rights do you have. You have a right to your life. You have the right to private property. But you have no right to have other people pay for your mishaps.
When the Jones family loses everything in a flood or otherwise, it is a tragedy, but it does not mean I owe them something. If they ask me for help, I probably will help them, voluntarily. I send money to the red cross every year. Lots of it. Do you? I doubt it very much.
Somehow the country got along very well without FEMA for most of our history. We don't need it and we never have.
Using your excuse for logic, we should cover the cost every car accident that occurs if the person doesn't have insurance. What about people who lose their homes to fire and don't have fire insurance. Do we bail them out? Why not? Does it have to be a major event before we help people?
My brother owned a chicken farm in Arkansas. A few years ago they had a major 100 year ice storm in his county and his chicken house was completely destroyed. The insurance didn't cover ice damage. He lost his farm, his home, and all his income and the Federal government did nothing. Guess FEMA only does something if the disaster makes the papers.
Two years later my brother was back on his feet and doing very well. How? He worked his butt off and his friends and family and church helped.
We don't need FEMA and we don't need the government making people into wimps who can no longer manage to care for themselves.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
'Avenger' -
Hm. Why is it that all of a sudden I see these new names pop up that haven't been seen on BC before?
Anyway, guy - about car insurance - is there anywhere in America that ALL auto insurers REFUSE to provide insurance? No? But that's the problem we faced (and would face again if Ron Paul had his way) when the insurance industry was going to stop giving flood insurance. And then there's the small matter of your real estate markets coming to a complete standstill....
And for your brother and the chicken farm...tell me - did the ice storm destroy or severely ALL the businesses of the area? What damage did it do to the Wal-Marts? Or how about to all the automobiles? Did it destroy your brother's house? Was every single residence and business in several counties severely damaged or destroyed?
No?
THAT, sir, is the difference between an ice storm and a major flood. And I DO know what an ice storm is - my family lost every single tree on their property in the MS Delta in that 100-year ice storm...but their house and cars were just fine, thank you very much.
Next time, think through what you're saying and compare apples to apples and not to oranges, okay?
7 - JBM
Ron Paul's Congressional district is Galveston and other coastal communities that would not be there without flood insurance and FEMA assistance after Hurricane Ike and previous storms. I don't remember him telling FEMA, NFIP, HUD, SBA, and other agencies to stay away and let his constituents eat the cost of living in a hurricane risk area. Why is it that all the anti-government Congressmen represent districts that are subsidized much more than they pay in taxes? Not just FEMA, but the oil and gas industries and all other industries in coastal Texas are subsidized by government programs or tax breaks.
8 - Jon in san jose
The opposition to Ron Paul's careful analysis of govt waste and excess comes from an unfortunate decades long indoctrination in the feel-good doctrine of socialism. Socialism suppresses industriousness, initiative, self-reliance, competency, persistence, reliance on family and VOLUNTARY associations, long-term planning, looking before leaping, seeking out of complementary workmates and partners, finding livelihood appropriate to one's aptitudes, seeking living and working environments UNLIKELY to make one into a long-term dependent, knowing what constitutes victimhood, and not milking the taxes that other people pay.
The self-reliance that Emerson wrote about and the creativity that de Tocquevile wrote about are the spirit of America that today's liberals decry or ignore or have never been exposed to. That's the only way to explain their evident ignorance.
Ron Paul is literate, involved, patriotic, attuned to the crises of the age, and very far from a simpleton. How could he be right on a few issues and way off-base on others? How can this author believe that one of the best examples of doing that which should not be done is not also the attitude that will rob a whole country blind? Clearly Glenn C does not apply any reasonableness test to govt expenditures. He thinks if it's a good idea, price is not a consideration. Good luck with that.
9 - Allen Scott
that's why you don't leave government to simpletons like Ron Paul and the Libertarians who support him.
Naw it is far better to leave the government to the real professionals like Harry Reid, Ms Boxer, Charlie Rangel Obama and Biden and the ever so eloquent Nancy Pelosi.. yep those tprofessionals in government are doing a bang up job.
Now if we could just convince enough of them really smart democrats to legalize marijuana then America can sit back and light em up. That will certainly bring about real change in America..
10 - Allen Scott
For most of those 10000 years, flood insurance wasn't a requirement by lenders to approve a mortgage, was it?
That is because the GOVERNMENT had not required it until they made it a regulation. The government controls most of the mortgages today through Freddie and Fannie and therefore they set the conditions of how the money can be lent and to whom and under what circumstances.
I just wonder how many people would actually build so close to the ocean if there was not flood insurance. With or without flood insurance I am not going to ever build a home in New Orléans since it is below sea level and sinking.
The river deltas are there for a reason but man in his infinite wisdom dares mother nature building houses on sinking sand. TO some people this would seem foolish.
But since nothing is considered foolish in DC if there is money to be made, they pay people to do foolish things simply by making everyone else pay for it.
11 - JP in clt
Wow, the author edits people's comments? Well I call foul before even writing a comment. FEMA is unconstitutional. Remember that quaint piece of paper? Nothing else needs to be said. Or we can just print more money to bail out people that live in unhabitable areas and push the value of the dollar to precisely ZERO! Btw, Paul says that his Galveston constituents claim FEMA is a bigger nuisance than the local authorities.
12 - Jordan Richardson
Wow, the author edits people's comments?
No.
13 - Scott Craig
I am very happy that most the people that commented on here are against what the author of this article is stating. FEMA is great if it ever ends up helping you but if you actually watched any of what happened after most of the recent Tornadoes I did not see a single FEMA official or help. All of the help was coming from local communities and religious groups which is how our Founding Fathers intended our country to work. They believed in a moral society that would look out for other Americans while believing in a free market and not to really on a government to provide for you with minimum wages and unemployment benefits or social security.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Scott -
You say you didn't see any FEMA actually there...so were you there?
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Allen -
Did you actually read the article? The government stepped in with the National Flood Insurance Program when the insurance INDUSTRY - you know, the one that's not run by government? - said that flood-prone areas are becoming uninsurable.
Did you get that? The insurers - and NOT the government - were saying it's uninsurable. The government stepped in so that people could STILL have insurance.
Got that? Without the government, no flood insurance at all for all the flatlands, the millions of acres on either side of the Mississippi river and its tributaries. So are you going to say that nobody should live there? That we should evacuate Memphis and St Louis and New Orleans and all the other cities along the way?
Because if there is no flood insurance, when it comes - as it happens every single year at one point or another - if people didn't have flood insurance to help them rebuild, then entire counties, communities, cities are screwed...because they cannot recover nearly so quickly without the insurance!
If you don't believe that, then look at Haiti! It wasn't a flood...but since the government's not helping them at all - which is the way you think it oughta be, apparently - well, they should be all recovered by now! And are they?
Allen - THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES provide little or no help to their citizens when disaster hits - and that's because they can't. But the point is, if things are better without the government help, then why is it that disaster victims in third-world countries are often destitute for years after a major disaster?
And what you and the rest of the critics don't get is that YOU PAY ANYWAY. Either up front through taxes, or down the line when the people become a never-ending burden on the state and federal budget and drain money that would otherwise go to better things. YOU PAY ANYWAY, Allen - and higher taxes are the price of admission to live in a first-world democracy. If you don't like it, then leave it. Go to Mexico, and you can live without paying taxes at all!
16 - naed
he is not for legalizing prostitution or cannabis, he just stats that its unconstitutional for the government to take away your rights to do these things, and would leave any legalizing up to each state, why put words in is mouth that he didn't say? can't you at least be honest about what he is about, your rights and freedoms are what he's looking out for...wake up this is the time for taking your country back....
17 - pitt
Joplin, mo devasted by a tornado millions DONATED by businesses and individuals the community working together volunteering time Ron is right it should be a volunteer basis only
18 - Clavos
Go to Mexico, and you can live without paying taxes at all!
And live well and free anyway.
19 - Leroy
Libertarianism is the path to poverty and oppression.
Since libertarians always carefully carve out their own areas to be secure from the anarchy that libertarianism results in, they make themselves personally safe from the consequences of their dictates.
Libertarians lie constantly about the US Constitution. For example, there is nothing in the constitution that bars FEMA. There is no mention of 'free enterpise' or 'capitalism', at all, let alone as Libertarians wish to interpret those terms.
My conclusion is that Libertarians are Feudalists who are too wimpy to show their claws.
20 - Glenn Contrarian
pitt -
So...since America's been struck by FIVE billion-dollar weather disasters this year - NOT counting Joplin, mind you - do you really think that the American people, as compassionate as we tend to be, would really donate such amounts...and continue to do so in the weeks and months to come since recovery from disasters never happens overnight?
No, I don't think so.
21 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Why is it that the great majority of third-world countries provide little or no help when a major disaster strikes, but first-world nations (even those who are not democracies) ARE quick to provide help when a major disaster strikes?
But I get it - it's better that we emulate the third-world countries so you can keep a few more of Your Precious Tax Dollars.
22 - Allen Scott
The government stepped in with the National Flood Insurance Program when the insurance INDUSTRY - you know, the one that's not run by government? - said that flood-prone areas are becoming uninsurable.
Actually yes I understand this pretty well since I used to work in the insurance industry. The tendency in modern America is to shift risk and responsibility to others to bear. Rather than assuming those risks ourself. Insurance companies are set up to pool risks across a large number of people who VOLUNTARILY apply for and pay for coverage. When RISK pools get too large and revenues are too small an insurance company (due to government regulations and requirements) are unable to off-set potential losses against current revenues and guarantees. Insurance companies must keep on hand a certain percentage of funds in eschew to cover risks, these guidelines are set forth by the federal government. It becomes impossible to adequately insure billions of dollars worth of properties with million dollar revenues. Therefore many insurance companies would no longer write flood policies for property owners moving into flood prone areas. I am not sure which came first but my guess is insurance lobbyists affected congress to assume the risks of these flood insurers and off-set their liabilities to taxpayers. Therefore assigning the risk to those who dwell on mountain tops as well as those who live by the sea.
This is a faulty premise and damaging to our country in more ways than one. Too many are spreading their personal responsibilities to taxpayers who are forced by law to assume these risks they would not necessarily assume on their own. Since these homeowners now living under sea level have insurance they figure there is no risk to living there and build more and more houses and condos in flood prone areas. Disaster strikes which was predictable - the main reason insurers could no longer assume the risk of more and more properties in flood areas.
After the disaster strikes those with insurance file their claims and that should be the end of it, but it is not, more federal dollars are sent to these areas to help those disenfranchised by the disaster. These are not voluntary contributions but mandatory at the discretion of the federal government.
I am all for helping others but first let them do all they can do and then if they still need help ask for it and Americans are more than likely willing to help out. IT IS THIS EXPECTING others to do for us what we fail to do for ourselves which is the problem with federal mandates and coercion for federal compliance.
Flood insurance is required on all properties in designated flood zones. Therefore one would think that if a person is living in a flood zone like say New Orléans when there is a flood their FLOOD insurance should cover them for either their structural loses or personal belongings or both depending on the type of policy issued. And this settlement of a voluntarily agreed upon amount should be enough.
So are you going to say that nobody should live there? That we should evacuate Memphis and St Louis and New Orleans and all the other cities along the way?
Actually no you can live anywhere you want but remember if you live by the sea sometimes the sea gets restless. Make your own preparations for such times and do not come crying when the sea does what the sea often does, overruns its boundaries.
If having government guarantees is the only way insurers can offer flood insurance then we are left with the albatross of a federal bureaucracy. If private insurers assess risks and offer insurance based on those assessments and they find that the risks to provide coverage far exceeds their abilities to adequately cover those loses perhaps one should think twice about locating in such a HIGH RISK situation.
There are many high risk situations in life most of which are uninsurable. Some people choose to take those risks many do not. ALL should not be forced to provide for those who live life at high risk levels.
And as to your last point as for paying anyway either by paying their insurance or paying their welfare both programs are in my opinion an anathema to freedom loving people. If there were no federal guarantees people would make other life choices. But since many feel there is a free lunch they ofttimes make bad life choices. I really take offense every time I am asked to pick up the tab for another's poor life choices.
I have suffered my share of loses through the years and I have yet to receive one federal dollar toward those loses. I excepted them as a fact of life and moved on. And I live on a hilltop so as not to worry about flooding. Fire on the other hand and wind damage now that is something I INSURE for.
23 - Louis Nardozi
For all those who say, "well what would happen to the real estate market in low lying areas", that's the POINT. Building structures in those areas without putting them on stilts is just plain STUPID. Expecting a guy like me (who lives inland) to bail you out with MY tax dollars is SLAVERY. What are you, pro slavery?
24 - John S
I want to build a house on an ice floe so that if it drifts into a warmer climate, I can get federal assistance at the expense of the rest of you. After all, it's not like I would have any responsibility in the matter.
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Allen -
The tendency in modern America is to shift risk and responsibility to others to bear. Rather than assuming those risks ourself.
No, that's NOT 'modern America'...it's been that way for a long, long time, ever since long before Lloyd's of London began insuring ships over two centuries ago. And then there was our nation's first health insurance mandate - which was signed in 1798 by John Adams, and which effectively spread the risk among our sailors who were the lifeblood of our shipping industry.
So are you going to say that nobody should live there? That we should evacuate Memphis and St Louis and New Orleans and all the other cities along the way?
No - but that's what Ron Paul said in so many words: "Buy insurance. If the insurance [company] won't sell it to you, it means it's too dangerous."
It becomes impossible to adequately insure billions of dollars worth of properties with million dollar revenues. Therefore many insurance companies would no longer write flood policies for property owners moving into flood prone areas.
You're absolutely right! And that's precisely my point! What mortgage lender is going to approve of a mortgage when no insurance company will insure the property because the property's on a flood plain?
More than anything else, this is where the rubber meets the road, Allen - a LARGE percentage, perhaps even a majority of the Midwest and our central southern states are one gargantuan flood plain, the flood plain of the Mississippi and ALL its hundreds of tributaries! You've probably driven these states, you know how flat it is!
And if the mortgage lenders will not lend because no flood insurance can be had, what will happen to the real estate market of this area that comprises perhaps a quarter of our nation? The real estate market plummets over night...which is why I posted the link in the article of how this was happening earlier this very year in Sacramento - which is also in a flood plain, btw.
So HOW would you fix this without destroying a full one-quarter of our nation's real estate market, Allen? And when you answer, please keep from pie-in-the-sky dogmatic we-hate-the-left arguments, but give real-world practical solutions that Congress - whether Republican or Democratic - would actually pass.