Posted on 09/14/2011 4:41:35 PM PDT by Kaslin
There are still thousands of families still suffering from Hurricane Irene and our thoughts and prayers are with them.
As cleanup continues, the tragic loss of life, property damage and cost estimates are heartbreaking and sobering. Some reports say the storm created as much as $13 billion in damage across its 10-state path of destruction, but it will probably go higher than that with insured losses added to the pot. But who will pay that bill?
In the coming days, Congress will grapple with whether to make an emergency appropriation to address the exhaustion of this year's disaster relief fund. Beginning next year, the debt ceiling deal, named the Budget Control Act of 2011, will bring an end to the practice of Washington writing what amounted to blank checks to cover damages in major natural disasters.
The new approach makes financial sense to taxpayers, but it also leaves huge potential liabilities blowing in the wind for those who will be inevitably in harm's way of catastrophe.
Over the next 10 years, the Office of Management and Budget projects that future disaster recovery costs requiring federal assistance for relief and reconstruction will total $225 billion.
However, the recently enacted cap will limit federal disaster relief expenditures to roughly one-fourth of that amount.
Flooding Manhattan
The nation needs to face that fact and build upon this first step of fiscal reform by changing the way natural catastrophes are dealt with financially, compassionately and sensibly. We must continue the transition from the after-the-fact, government-heavy, reactive model to a pre-funded, proactive public-private one.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
The problem is these types of costs are supposed to be funded via debt.
Most catastrophes don’t require any funding they just happen. Isn’t that why they are called “natural” disasters?
Think about it, I mean if people are paying to create these things: hurricanes, flash floods, and the like. I think we should really make that illegal.
The federal “family”? LOL
Who Will Fund Catastrophes After The Dollar Collapses and Hyperinflation Ensues?
Disaster comes and our fedgov spends
our children’s and grand-children’s money
to repair/rebuild:
...damage to federal property...
...damage to state property...
...damage to personal property...
Our fedgov is konda like the tooth fairy.
The federal government was already ringing up the debt destruction of our future faster than a hurricane could destroy property.
And it has been doing so every day since.
What are you talking about? You know President Bush caused Katrina. One of the Kennedy idiots said so, don’t you remember?
Chicago Fire..1871
San Francisco 1906
Tri-State Tornado 1925
How did we do it back then?
Why don’t we get obama’s bundlers to raise the money? They seem pretty good at that.
“The problem is these types of costs are supposed to be funded via debt.”
Could you explain why debt? Why not use a reserve account — like an insurance company?
The JOKE that was the payoffs to the minority population in New Orleans after Katrina, for TWO YEARS AND MORE, so the shack-dwellers could stay in ritzy hotels, be handed thousands of dollars of walkin' around money (for tattoo's, drugs, etc.), was what has led to ALL Taxpayers having to fund the handouts.
LEGITIMATE losses can be mitigated, but the parasitic populace will line up and get "Obama Money", once again, I'm sure, if they pass more "Relief".
There is no requirement to fund states for natural disasters. It is the responsibility of the individual states to take care of local disasters. The federal government should only pay for federal facilities damaged.
Some sort of reserve funding is even better than using debt. My point was that using debt to fund discrete unexpected expense is when congress should be authorizing the issuance of debt. They should not use debt to pay for ongoing expenses and routine operations.
That clarifies things. What you say makes perfect sense.
Like the medical mandate, the Feds can mandate buying property insurance.
People who live in areas that flood regularly shoulod be denied insurance. Instead, the fed gov (us), subsidises their folly.
Some of these houses get rebuilt regularly, on our dime. If these people want to live in these flood zones, it should be on them.
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.