Posted on 09/08/2004 8:05:04 AM PDT by Servant of the 9
Our hearts automatically go out to the people of Florida, who are being battered by a series of hurricanes in rapid succession. But we have brains as well as hearts -- and the time is long overdue to start using them.
Hurricanes come through Florida every year about this time. And, every year, politicians get to parade their compassion by showering the taxpayers' money on the places that have been struck.
What would happen if they didn't?
First of all, not as many people would build homes in the path of a well-known disaster that comes around like clockwork virtually every year. Those who did would buy insurance that covers the costs of the risks they choose to take.
That insurance would not be cheap -- which would provide yet another reason for people to locate out of harm's way. The net result would be fewer lives lost and less property damage. Is it not more compassionate to seek this result, even if it would deprive politicians of television time?
In ABC reporter John Stossel's witty and insightful book "Give Me A Break," he discusses how he built a beach house with only "a hundred feet of sand" between him and the ocean. It gave him a great view -- and a great chance of disaster.
His father warned him of the danger but an architect pointed out that the government would pick up the tab if anything happened to his house. A few years later, storm-driven ocean waves came in and flooded the ground floor of Stossel's home. The government paid to have it restored.
Still later, the waves came in again, and this time took out the whole house. The government paid again. Fortunately for the taxpayers, Stossel then decided that enough was enough.
In politics, throwing the taxpayers' money at disasters is supposed to show your compassion. But robbing Peter to pay Paul is not compassion. It is politics.
The crucial fact is that a society does not have one dime more money to devote to the resources available to help victims of natural disasters by sending that money through government agencies. All that it does is change the incentives in such a way as to subsidize risky behavior.
The same money can just as well come through insurance companies. Even if most insurance companies are unwilling to insure people living in particularly vulnerable areas, or living in homes that are inadequate to withstand hurricane-force winds, there are always insurers who specialize in high risks -- and who charge correspondingly higher premiums.
Lloyds of London, for example, has already been moving into the market for insurance for homes costing half a million dollars or more and located along coastal waters, whether in Florida or the Hamptons or elsewhere. If rich people want to put their mansions at risk, there is no reason why they shouldn't pay the costs, instead of forcing the taxpayers to pay those costs.
What about "the poor"? As in so many other cases, the poor are the human shields behind which big-government advocates advance. If you are seriously concerned about the poor themselves, you can always subsidize them and avoid subsidizing others by having means tests.
Means tests are anathema to the political left because that puts an end to their game of hiding behind the poor. Compassion is a laudable feeling but it can also be a political racket.
As with so many government programs that people have come to rely on, phasing out state and federal disaster relief programs would not be easy. In an election year, it is impossible.
Fortunately, there are years in between elections, in which it is at least theoretically possible to talk sense. Whether the risks are hurricanes, earthquakes, floods or forest fires, people who have gotten themselves out on a limb by taking risks in the expectation that the government will bail them out can be gradually weaned away from that expectation by phasing out disaster relief.
The alternative is to keep on forcing taxpayers to be patsies forever, while politicians bask in the glow of the compassion racket by throwing the taxpayers' money hither and yon, while the media applaud the courage of those who rebuild in the path of known disasters.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
How dare you question my patriotism!
;-)
Sowell is a libertarian. Large numbers of freepers hate libertartians. Many here hate Sowell, except when he says what they want to hear.
No way. That's not true at all. Sowell is a conservative libertarian. I guess you call it a small "l" libertarian. He is not the same senseless, aimless, mindless, free-for-all, anarchist libertarian that we see around here. If you read him regularly you know that. And all FReepers everywhere like Sowell. I've never seen him bashed here. Some of us might disagree from time to time (rarely), but that's it. NO ONE HATES SOWELL!
I don't understand why victims of the '93 Flood weren't allowed to rebuild in known flood plains but hurricane victims are allowed to rebuild in known areas of hurricane activity.
Why the weather double standard?
cause waterfront homes are so romantic....everyone dreams of having one!
Private Insurance is voluntary, as are mortgages and cars.
So9
Sowell's point is that the "realities" would change if we would phase out the current policy of throwing taxpayer money to bail out poor judgment.
Note that he says, "phase out." That means we would not abandon people in dire straits today.
But it does mean we would say: This is the LAST time you can expect the government to throw money at you for your own poor decisions.
Good to see you take time out of your busy schedule to personally attack the poster instead of discussing the issue at hand. Of course since you can't defend the fact that Republican compassionate conservatism looks very much like Democratic big government I wouldn't expect any less from you. Have a good day
Ummmm, that's how I typed it.
He is not the same senseless, aimless, mindless, free-for-all, anarchist libertarian that we see around here.
Name them.
If you read him regularly you know that.
I know him.
I've never seen him bashed here.
I guess you don't get out much.
NO ONE HATES SOWELL!
Speaking for oneself is usually a good thing.
Hey, I'm not the one who back in May said the "I'm taking my dollies and going home" part.
Besides, you're doing your typical, "I'm a conservative, you are not" bit with your post.
Aren't there lots of houses in Florida that have survived numerous hurricanes?
I think the problem is poor construction quality and home buyers who don't think through what they're buying.
There are homes on Key West that are over 100 years old, and still standing despite all the hurricanes.
i'll bet that given a decent budget, I could create a Florida waterfront home that would withstand anything nature cares to throw at it.
D
Another big government FReeper. Can you show me the article in the Constitution that empowers the government to do such a thing?
I don't think you read his sentence and absorbed it in full. :-) "Hurricanes in California, earthquakes in Florida." Get it now? :-)
Okay, one senseless, aimless, free-for-all, anarchist libertarian is tpaine. There are a bunch of others, but I hate to name names. I think tpaine will wear the badge proudly. No one is running him out, but he is no Thomas Sowell.
Alright, I misspoke when I said "no one hates Sowell." Liberals hate the guy. I have hung out in FR for quite some time and I have never seen a lack of respect for Sowell around here. Why are you so mad? The moderator already said the post was pulled because it was a duplicate. I think every column Sowell has written since FR was founded has probably been posted here. No one is going around deleting Sowell columns. That's a crazy, paranoid charge.
Also....Sowell is a Bush supporter. There is no possible way he will not support Bush. He does not approve of everything Bush does, but he is a big believer in voting for the best VIABLE candidate. He is not a 3rd party guy. He has supported a wide range of candidates from Gov' Arnold to Senate candidate Keyes. His comments would not be deleted around here for political incorrectness.
Bump for later reading.
No more than usual. I'm a curmudgeon. That's what I do. I do what I'm good at. Don't you know me yet? LOL
I think tpaine will wear the badge proudly. No one is running him out, but he is no Thomas Sowell.
On that we agree. But I don't think he is as crazy as you describe.
Why are you so mad? The moderator already said the post was pulled because it was a duplicate.
I'm not mad and I have never addressed why the thread was pulled.
No one is going around deleting Sowell columns. That's a crazy, paranoid charge.
I'm glad I didn't make it.
Along the gulf coast (Texas to Alabama, or just about) the soil is “gumbo.” It has a lot of clay in it. It is like concrete when it is dry, but turns into something resembling chocolate pudding when it gets wet. It expands a lot when it gets wet and shrinks/cracks/contracts a lot when it dries. Building on a slab isn’t the best idea (though they still do it). Most older homes are built up 18” – 3’ on piers. You can’t really build a brick/stone home like that.
At the very least you’d have to pour a footing for the brick/stone to rest on and you’re going to have nothing but problems with it settling.
Also, the entire Gulf coast area doesn’t have a single rock anywhere, so any stone you use is going to have to be imported from somewhere.
In northwestern Florida they used to build cinderblock houses, but the soil was more sandy there and they didn't have so many problems with the ground settling.
Please reference that.
He does not approve of everything Bush does,
That is an understatement.
but he is a big believer in voting for the best VIABLE candidate.
Again, please reference that.
He is not a 3rd party guy.
Never said he was, but I have seen him avoid the question many times on his politics, so I'm curious where you get the info.
Disaster releif should be a state, not federal, function. Everyone knows; floods along rivers, hurricanes in Florida & Gulf states, tornadoes in midwest, snow & cold in upper midwest, earthquakes & fires in California. Those that take the risk of natural disaster should bear the costs.
I get my info from his columns. He wrote many supportive Bush columns during the 2000 campaign. He hasn't said "vote for Bush" this time around, but everything he says points to his support of the Republican candidate. Read his columns regarding the conventions. He openly supported Arnorld and now supports Keyes. These two guys are not the same. His reason for supporting Arnold had to do with viability. Arnold could win and he was better than Davis. You can read his reason for supporting Keyes at Townhall.com. It was a recent column -- in fact, two of them.
No, what "we" should do is stop subsidizing stupidity. They can move themselves out once the gravy train no longer stops in their town.
Of course, the downside is that other parts of the country would then be inflicted with old, crotchety, leftist New Yorkers with atrocious, ear-splitting accents. Who can't drive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.