Search: Site   Web
Print Story | E-Mail Story | Font Size
What is this?

Save & Share this Article

Senate takes wind out of flood insurance

Comments 0 | Recommend 0

The late William F. Buckley Jr. once noted it's more fun to criticize than praise. That's probably why readers see so many editorials and pundits criticizing politicians and very few taking note when our representatives do something noteworthy in a good way.

But it's important to recognize that what comes out of Washington is not always a new attempt to get into our wallets or restrict our freedom. It was encouraging to see that played out May 7 in the Senate as that body was debating changes to the National Flood Insurance Program.

In a 73-19 vote, senators headed off a move by Louisiana and Mississippi lawmakers to add wind insurance to the federally backed insurance program. The Gulf state senators pushed the change because many private insurance companies denied wind damage claims after the series of hurricanes that pummeled the region in 2005. Insurers argued homes and businesses were damaged by floodwaters rather than wind, thus pushing the claims off onto taxpayers. As if taxpayers in states such as Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio aren't paying enough for flooding in areas thousands of miles away.

The vote came as the Senate considers changes to the insurance program that expires in September. Lawmakers are trying to get the cash-strapped program back on its feet financially, but, like so many government programs, that's not likely to happen.

Two provisions in the bill show why. Insurance premiums are supposed to generate enough cash to cover claims, but the National Flood Insurance Program has had to pay many large claims in recent years, forcing it to borrow about $17 million from the federal Treasury. The Senate bill would forgive that debt. According to an Associated Press report, another part of the proposal would force a larger number of at-risk homeowners to buy into the program. Insurance works by spreading the risk, not attracting policyholders likely to make claims.

However, lawmakers are trying to restore some measure of fiscal responsibility to the program by boosting deductibles and allowing higher annual rate increases. In addition, the bill would drop subsidies to some vacation homeowners. Still, the program is basically broken and tinkering at the edges won't do much to solve its problems.

What progress the Senate could make might well be in vain, however. The House passed its version of the bill in September, and it included the wind damage provision. After the Senate approves its bill the two chambers will have to get together in conference committee to hammer out differences. Because government's tendency is to increase its reach, the wind damage addition will likely be part of the bill that lands on the president's desk.

Bob Dylan was right; the answer really is blowing in the wind.


See archived 'Opinion' Stories »
 


Reader Comments
From the editor: Many of you have expressed concerns about some of the harsh anonymous comments from readers. To remedy that, we are introducing new features. You can create your own blog, publish your news and share your photos with the community. Once you fill out a simple form and leave a verifiable e-mail address, you can set up your profile page. It will display all of your contributions and allow you to track issues and easily connect with others.

We want our site to be a place where people discuss and debate ideas that foster stronger communities. We built this for you. Please take care of it. Tolerate broad thinking, but take action against obscene or hateful material. Make it a credible and safe place worth preserving and sharing.


Jobs
Auto
Real Estate
Classifieds
Place an Ad
Jobs in Seymour
   
ADVERTISEMENT 
Featured Events

 
  • Find an Event
  • 5 Day Event Calendar
Sat05
Sun06
Mon07
Tue08
Wed09
Publish Your Stuff
publish your photos
start your own blog
Poll
Stocks
Games
EXPLICIT MATERIAL
Do you agree with the court ruling that threw out Indiana's new law concerning registration of stores selling sexually explicit material?
Yes -- It violated the First Amendment
Yes -- But the law should be rewritten to make it pass constitutional muster
No
Enter The Code To Vote
 
powered by
google
Search
        Search: Web    Site
Already a member? Sign in here
Publish your stuff
Welcome, Please Log In
To login please enter your username and password in the form below and click on the login button.
Remember me
Resend Email
Enter the username and email address for your account to resend you your confirmation email: