Yes, to a point. It's in the best interests of the entire country that these areas resume normal functioning as soon as possible. It's in no one's interests to let property values (and the tax base) degrade significantly. What we need is for these people to be self-sufficient again, so any money should be given with that in mind. What we don't want is people simply walking away from their homes because the cost of repairs is too expensive.

If these houses aren't in a livable condition, then the government will be picking up the slack anyway in the form of temporary shelters.

I think the federal government should be looking mostly toward the long-term goals of preventing this kind of damage from happening again (engineering projects, etc.).

Insurance companies are shifty little bastards, and less government help would be necessary if they weren't. Insurance is one of the few areas where the company will take your money for decades, then do everything in its power not to give you the service you paid for.

It's legit for the government to help pay for emergency relief (food, shelter etc) and public infrastructure repairs and cleanup.

But washing machines? No. We should not be paying for personal items. What insurance won't cover - or if one is irresponsible enough to lack insurance - that's on the victim. It's part of the adult experience of responsibility and misfortune.

The Government makes sure you get clean water and electricity restored. You have to buy your own dang washers.

"Why should other taxpayers pick up costs from people's residences being devastated by the hurricane"

Macro economic question in return. What would happen to our economy if that many people suddenly stopped spending and saved an effective rainy day fund instead? Like, at least 5K.

Alternatively, What would happen to our economy if that many people put 5k on their card at 20%?

Insuring more and more natural disaster costs shifts the bailouts from actual people to big insurance companies. Not sure we really win on the whole there.

Insuring more and more natural disaster costs shifts the bailouts from actual people to big insurance companies.

Insurance companies aren't doing a good job of this anyway. I have a friend who had flood insurance. Only the flood insurance didn't cover flooding if the sump pump failed, which it did when the power went out. He needed a $20 rider for that, which he would have been happy to pay had anyone at the insurance company bothered to tell him he needed it. Maybe if he's had a lawyer go over the contract before he signed it he wouldn't have gotten screwed, but it's really easy for insurance companies to pull stunts like that.

The answer to that issue, MonicaP, is not to have the government pick up the cost. It might be to have the government allow or facilitate suits against "shifty" insurance companies. However, in many cases, insurance companies are rated by independent agencies based on their claims-paying records, and a customer who does some easily-accessible due diligence before signing up can make an informed choice. Fed.gov is not their nanny.

I'm all for them walking away from a ruined home in an area that is subject to frequent flooding. Maybe it meant they came to their senses and decided to live on dry land. At any rate, at least private insurers will charge premiums commensurate with actual risk to insure people who live in flood plains.

"FEMA said I make too much money,"

If only medicare would say that.

Two words: Nashville flood. (Or, even closer to home, North Alabama tornadoes.)

We can do this two ways: we can either all insure each other via the federal government, or we can turn the whole thing over to private companies, and take off the shackles that prevent them from operating interstate. Insurance needs a large pool to work, especially when it's trying to cover regional disasters like Sandy or the 2011 tornado outbreak. Federal flood insurance sorta kinda works; it might could work better if it was in private hands, but at least it's available to everyone on a basis that's more or less proportional to the risk involved.

On the other hand, with the current rules, the amount of aid a region gets depends a lot on the region's political influence and which party is in power at the moment. If you are tight with the current Administration, you get billions thrown at you, as New Orleans did. If you aren't, you get bupkis, e.g., the aforementioned Nashville.

If you think FEMA works, you are mistaken. The problem is not that no one knows what to do - it is that their pay is the same if they do nothing, or the wrong things.

Now - how could an insurance company tell the IBEW they have to let non- union work happen?

Look at the Katrina response.

Not simple!

My heart goes out to the people, but I haven't seen any compelling arguments for why the government should be responsible for this kind of thing. Certainly not that federal government.

Federal flood insurance sorta kinda works; it might could work better if it was in private hands, but at least it's available to everyone on a basis that's more or less proportional to the risk involved. -- Cousin Dave at January 4, 2013 2:48 PM

I look at the federal flood insurance as the most fucked up option, ever. It is going through the private insurance but the companies can't set rates and can't deny coverage based on the location and risk. That means that you, me and the rest of the taxpayers are getting bent over and fucked, multiple times.

An example of that is Gilchrist, Texas. It's on a barrier island near Galveston. After hurricane Ike came through, one single house was still standing. The owner had built it to survive a category five storm, and it was still rendered uninhabitable. About 200 other houses simply ceased to exist. But if you google Gilchrist, Texas apparently they have rebuilt. And they all probably have flood insurance again with reasonable rates.

If I was an actuary -- I'd be pricing the flood insurance at a rate that is half of the cost to replace the house every seven years. And I'd advertise that cost before someone even starts construction.

So the people who live in an area that is probably going to be totally trashed every ten years are being subsidized by the taxpayers.

And comparing it to other natural disasters such as tornadoes is a red herring. The odds of a tornado happening in Pennsylvania are significantly less than in Kansas, just because of the differences in terrain. The actuaries know this and adjust the rates accordingly. But even in Kansas, the odds are still in the favor of the home owners.

As one who lives near the Jersey shore, I say not one dime of MY tax dollars should help those who didn't help themselves (i.e., buy enough insurance for their homes - a washer? really, someone wants others to pay for their dang washer?)

The reason I am so against the government helping most of these folks is that most of us are NOT allowed on the beaches on most of the Jersey shore without buying a "beach badge." My taxes already pay for a beach that I am not allowed to walk freely on. Why should further tax dollars be spent to help those who do not want the rest of us around them and their private homes?

eff em all! (sorry, I am not in a charitable mood)

eff em all! (sorry, I am not in a charitable mood) -- Charles at January 4, 2013 9:05 PM

Fuck charity -- I'm with you. I want someone to show me NFIP, FEMA, or any similar program in the United States Constitution. Then I might have sympathy.

Local people, local help. If lots of people are in need, private charity will help. The federal government has no role here.

All FEMA has done is effectively eliminate local organizations that actually know the areas they are working in (which is hugely important), and add a huge and expensive bureaucracy.

Federal flood insurance is a subsidy to idiots who build in flood zones. That's what private insurance is for. As JimP points out, private insurance would also never let people build in some of particularly stupid places.

Jim, I don't really disagree with anything you said. And yeah, the only thing FEMA really does is push more focused and effective organizations out. (FEMA itself tacitly admits this; their director recently talked about the "Waffle House index", in which they determine which areas are most in need by observing whether or not the local Waffle House is open, because Waffle House is so good at disaster preparation and getting its restaurants open after a disaster.) Further, with FEMA, you get a stream of officious bureaucrats and union officials who perceive their job as being to prevent any recovery until every 'i' is dotted, every 't' crossed, and every payoff delivered in small unmarked bills by the approved bagman. As we've seen with Sandy, where non-union electric linemen have been barred, and owners of undamaged houses are having to pay thousands in permits just to get their power turned back on.

For years the Northeast has subsidized relief for mudslides and wildfires in CA, tornadoes in the Midwest, hurricanes in Florida and the Gulf Coast, Mississippi flooding, and storm damage all over the country. _Now_ you're going to moan about federal money? FEMA is itself a disaster that can't manage itself well, let alone manage catastrophe, but it seems rather hypocritical for the cries against federal aid to be levied (pun intended) now.

Yes, I live in NJ, and no, I do not need and will not get FEMA aid, but I would be happy to see the region go without, as soon as other regions - CA and FL for example - pay Northeastern states back for all of our $$ gone to bail them out in the past. That should do nicely. As for authority to fund disaster relief under the Constitution, the General Welfare clause seems far more relevant here than in many other cases where the gov't uses it as a rationale.

For years the Northeast has subsidized relief for mudslides and wildfires in CA, tornadoes in the Midwest, hurricanes in Florida and the Gulf Coast, Mississippi flooding, and storm damage all over the country. _Now_ you're going to moan about federal money? FEMA is itself a disaster that can't manage itself well, let alone manage catastrophe, but it seems rather hypocritical for the cries against federal aid to be levied (pun intended) now. -- Inland dweller at January 5, 2013 3:44 PM

The flaw in your argument is that the typical mudslide, wildfire, tornado or other similar event gets about $50-100M from FEMA, with a good chunk of the rest of the billions being pork. Yes, the government will pay for hotel rooms, etc. and give some tax breaks. Some is given to the various local cities and town to affect infrastructure repairs. The rest is usually paid by the privately owned insurance companies.

The original congressional bill for Sandy was $51,000,000,000 but somehow they cut enough pork out that it was only $9,700,000,000 going to FEMA and the NFIP.

The problem with that is the NFIP is always taxpayer money, not based on premiums that are paid:

The bill gives more authority to the National Flood Insurance Program to borrow money from the U.S. Treasury to pay claims. Premiums average about $625 per year and residential claims under the program average nearly $30,000.

So your tit for tat idea is not reality.

I'm closer to east than the mid-west designation of my location indicates. Tornadoes happen in the area but are not a normal part of my life. The actuaries have tried to charge me in the $1K+ for insurance. But that is because the private insurers can set the rate on the realistic possibilities, not the prospect of fucking the taxpayers, again.