Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

$60B left on the table, bipartisan outrage, but yet Congress did nothing? Wow.

They'll do something. And to be fair they have to since they did it for others. But they never should've started the precedent. I always liked the story at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Maybe there's something out there saying it's not a true story but so far I haven't seen it. Probably didn't look as hard as someone who doesn't like it would. The good part, to me, starts a way down. It's about an experience Congressman Crockett had after being among those voting to appropriate $20,000 for relief of victims of a large fire in Georgetown. Here is part of a description of a conversation with a constituent:

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it.

And so it goes. We gave up following the Constitution a long time ago. No chance of turning back. But there is a lot of truth in the statement, "...the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions." This thing that's evolved where we ignore what it says, ignore how it was understood, and make up things it does not say renders having a Constitution at all pointless. Might as well just drop the pretense and say we have a council of elders (the Supreme Court) that will tell us what to do.

JohnStOnge wrote:They'll do something. And to be fair they have to since they did it for others. But they never should've started the precedent. I always liked the story at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Maybe there's something out there saying it's not a true story but so far I haven't seen it. Probably didn't look as hard as someone who doesn't like it would. The good part, to me, starts a way down. It's about an experience Congressman Crockett had after being among those voting to appropriate $20,000 for relief of victims of a large fire in Georgetown. Here is part of a description of a conversation with a constituent:

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it.

And so it goes. We gave up following the Constitution a long time ago. No chance of turning back. But there is a lot of truth in the statement, "...the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions." This thing that's evolved where we ignore what it says, ignore how it was understood, and make up things it does not say renders having a Constitution at all pointless. Might as well just drop the pretense and say we have a council of elders (the Supreme Court) that will tell us what to do.

The constitution didn't authorize public fire departments either but...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVq_GrwNWNE[/youtube]

The constitution didn't authorize public fire departments either but...

Local government responsibility. That's the thing. The idea was that the Federal government could not do anything it was not specifically authorized to do. Then if we wanted it to be authorized to do something it wasn't authorized to do we could amend the Constitution to provide for that. That's the way it was supposed to work. And if it had worked the way it was supposed to work its effect would never have changed unless someone succeeded in developing a societal consensus for changing it.

Instead, we have a system whereby the effect can change at anytime based on majority opinion among nine unelected and totally unaccountable life-term officials. And there are no real limits on Federal power at all because the Constitution itself doesn't matter. Just get to the point where you've got at least five Justices on the Supreme Court who will vote your way and it's a done deal.

JohnStOnge wrote:

The constitution didn't authorize public fire departments either but...

Local government responsibility. That's the thing. The idea was that the Federal government could not do anything it was not specifically authorized to do. Then if we wanted it to be authorized to do something it wasn't authorized to do we could amend the Constitution to provide for that. That's the way it was supposed to work. And if it had worked the way it was supposed to work its effect would never have changed unless someone succeeded in developing a societal consensus for changing it.

Instead, we have a system whereby the effect can change at anytime based on majority opinion among nine unelected and totally unaccountable life-term officials. And there are no real limits on Federal power at all because the Constitution itself doesn't matter. Just get to the point where you've got at least five Justices on the Supreme Court who will vote your way and it's a done deal.

The US forest service fights fires.

JohnStOnge wrote:They'll do something. And to be fair they have to since they did it for others. But they never should've started the precedent. I always liked the story at http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Maybe there's something out there saying it's not a true story but so far I haven't seen it. Probably didn't look as hard as someone who doesn't like it would. The good part, to me, starts a way down. It's about an experience Congressman Crockett had after being among those voting to appropriate $20,000 for relief of victims of a large fire in Georgetown. Here is part of a description of a conversation with a constituent:

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

"I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

"No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

"Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it.

And so it goes. We gave up following the Constitution a long time ago. No chance of turning back. But there is a lot of truth in the statement, "...the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions." This thing that's evolved where we ignore what it says, ignore how it was understood, and make up things it does not say renders having a Constitution at all pointless. Might as well just drop the pretense and say we have a council of elders (the Supreme Court) that will tell us what to do.

The FAA, FDIC, USDA...aww hell you get the point.

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/christie ... sxuAA.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good stuff from our next President.

I was watching SE Cupp on MSNBC say they Republicans wanted a "clean" bill.

Good time to make a stand.

Pressure looks to pay off.

Supposedly $9B will be approved within a week from today & the additional $51B by January 15.

kalm wrote:
The US forest service fights fires.

Should they?

Cluck U wrote:

kalm wrote:
The US forest service fights fires.

Should they?

Depends

I am not a big believer in beach restoration...nor for federal help for areas that are prone to destruction.

In Sandy's case, you are just going to build houses and businesses where they are going to get destroyed again. It is just a matter of time.

What a waste of money to benefit so few.

If the beach is such a huge economic boon to the state - the repeated agument for the continued dumping of money in to beach restoration, then the beach areas should surely be able to fund their own recovery...out of the pockets of those who benefited from the good times.

Cluck U wrote:I am not a big believer in beach restoration...nor for federal help for areas that are prone to destruction.

In Sandy's case, you are just going to build houses and businesses where they are going to get destroyed again. It is just a matter of time.

What a waste of money to benefit so few.

If the beach is such a huge economic boon to the state - the repeated agument for the continued dumping of money in to beach restoration, then the beach areas should surely be able to fund their own recovery...out of the pockets of those who benefited from the good times.

You're joking, right?

89Hen wrote:

Cluck U wrote:I am not a big believer in beach restoration...nor for federal help for areas that are prone to destruction.

In Sandy's case, you are just going to build houses and businesses where they are going to get destroyed again. It is just a matter of time.

What a waste of money to benefit so few.

If the beach is such a huge economic boon to the state - the repeated agument for the continued dumping of money in to beach restoration, then the beach areas should surely be able to fund their own recovery...out of the pockets of those who benefited from the good times.

You're joking, right?

No.

Cluck I don't disagree with you.

Almost every spring I see the reports of the Mississippi River flooding & ask after the second time this happens can't you just drop people or jack the rate so high they'd want to move or not have coverage.

Part of me wants a shore house for retirement, the other part of me says it'll get flooded out in a hurricane...

Cluck has a point to an extent. How far do we go to cover the damage and expenses occurred by people during natural disasters in areas that are prone to natural disasters? If expensive homes get damaged on Cape Hatteras, should we spend a lot of money to help those homeowners rebuild in the same exact spots, despite the fact that we know that area will see a hurricane on the average of 1-2 per year? If you choose to live in a flood plain, how much should the government help when the certainty of a flooding event happen?

There is some irrational behavior that is involved when we court damage from natural disasters by obstinately putting ourselves in the direct path of nature's fury and then demand help from people who didn't choose to live there in order to keep living there with no additional protection than what didn't work before.

I'm not saying that we should deny Sandy relief in this particular case, but it probably does warrant a dicsussion on how to handle these things in the future and how to price insurance to encourage more rational behavior.

".....There are currently 5.7 million flood insurance policies, covering $1.27 trillion in property. But critics say the program, part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has backfired, creating huge debt for taxpayers even as it rewards homeowners for trying to defy nature. Thanks to federal flood insurance, says Duke University coastal geologist Orrin Pilkey, "we are subsidizing, even encouraging, very dangerous development."

Why is flood insurance hurting taxpayers?
It pays out far more than it takes in. The program currently collects $3.5 billion in annual premiums — a total that falls chronically short. The cost of damage from major hurricanes can be five or more times that.....

......Many policyholders, moreover, still pay subsidized premiums that reflect less than half of the true risk value. Even for vacation homes with prestigious addresses like Hilton Head Island, S.C., annual premiums are capped at $3,300. Flood claims from Hurricane Katrina alone totaled $21.9 billion, putting the U.S. flood insurance program $18 billion in the hole to the U.S. Treasury. That was before it began processing claims from Hurricane Sandy.

How does it pay for Sandy?
Only by taking on more debt. Sandy is expected to generate up to $12 billion in claims, but only $2.9 billion remains on the flood insurance program's line of credit. That makes it almost inevitable that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will soon have to ask Congress to bail the program out again — at a time when all federal expenditures are under intense scrutiny. When Congress voted in July to extend the program through 2017, it eliminated some subsidies and authorized premium hikes of 20 percent per year in high-risk areas, and up to 25 percent per year for vacation properties. But many critics say those reforms are inadequate, and that the government should get out of the flood insurance business altogether.

What's their argument?
Subsidized flood insurance, they say, is a classic example of moral hazard: encouraging people to take foolish risks by relieving them of the cost of bearing those risks. "If we allowed market forces to dictate at the coast, a lot of the development in the wrong places would never have gotten built," said Jeffrey Tittel, head of the Sierra Club's New Jersey chapter. Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a longtime critic of FEMA and no friend of the Sierra Club, agrees. "The market would never provide insurance in flood-prone areas at an affordable price," he said. "If it's a losing proposition, should taxpayers subsidize the inevitable losses?"......

......Republican Gov. Chris Christie has spurned that approach. "I don't believe in a state like ours, where the Jersey Shore is such a part of life, that you just pick up and walk away," he said. Without insurance subsidies, he and others argue, lower- and middle-class families simply could not afford to live on much of the Jersey Shore,......

The payouts that never stop
Over the years, the federal government has shelled out a total of $2 million to repeatedly rebuild a flood-ravaged home in Humble, Texas, assessed at just $116,000. Another home, in Wilkinson County, Miss., worth $69,900, has been flooded 34 times since 1978 and collected $663,000 in insurance payments......

http://theweek.com/article/index/237325 ... -taxpayers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Christie, its not the job of the taxpayers to subsidize people to live on the shore.

You have enviros on the left like the Sierra Club and some on the right strange bedfellows on this issue- both against the fed flood insurance program for different reasons.

As far as the properties that have flooded and received payouts numerous, even several doz times, thats asinine. Simply increasing their premiums by 50% after a 2nd claim would put an end to that.

Bottom line is, govt NEVER should have gotten involved in the flood insurance business.

Cluck has a point to an extent. How far do we go to cover the damage and expenses occurred by people during natural disasters in areas that are prone to natural disasters?

No he doesn't have any points. "Areas prone to natural disasters" would likely encompass the entire U.S. And I'm not talking about homes being slightly damaged on Cape Haterras by cat 1 hurricanes. Sandy was a freak storm and should be treated like Katrina. It completely annihilated the Jersey shore.

GannonFan wrote:Cluck has a point to an extent. How far do we go to cover the damage and expenses occurred by people during natural disasters in areas that are prone to natural disasters? If expensive homes get damaged on Cape Hatteras, should we spend a lot of money to help those homeowners rebuild in the same exact spots, despite the fact that we know that area will see a hurricane on the average of 1-2 per year? If you choose to live in a flood plain, how much should the government help when the certainty of a flooding event happen?

There is some irrational behavior that is involved when we court damage from natural disasters by obstinately putting ourselves in the direct path of nature's fury and then demand help from people who didn't choose to live there in order to keep living there with no additional protection than what didn't work before.

I'm not saying that we should deny Sandy relief in this particular case, but it probably does warrant a dicsussion on how to handle these things in the future and how to price insurance to encourage more rational behavior.

OK, so don't rebuild the beaches and maintain their geographical place. How long before the second row homes are enveloped, then third, then the block, then the whole town? MILLIONS of people get their enjoyment from going to beach resorts. If we don't rebuild the beaches where they exist, there would be no beach resorts. And it's not limited to ones with businesses. The Cape Henlopen State Park does beach and dune replenishment constantly. This really is an asinine stance.

I believe in freedom. If you want to live on the beach, in the Mississippi River flood plain or on the San Andreas fault, I say go right ahead. But as a taxpayer I should not have to bear the burden of your decision. When the ocean comes to take your home, as it will eventually, I should not be expected to provide you relief. You should have to bear the full cost of insurance to protect your property as opposed to the give-away government flood insurance.

I live in an area of Norfolk that has never flooded but I have flood insurance as the harbor is but a few blocks away. It's not that expensive bcause of the history. But I know people with homes on the ocean on the Outer Banks with government flood insurance and their premiums are less than mine and they have the ocean in their front yard. And they don't even thank me or anyone else for our subsidy.

TheDancinMonarch wrote:You should have to bear the full cost of insurance to protect your property as opposed to the give-away government flood insurance.

I live in an area of Norfolk that has never flooded but I have flood insurance as the harbor is but a few blocks away. It's not that expensive bcause of the history. But I know people with homes on the ocean on the Outer Banks with government flood insurance and their premiums are less than mine and they have the ocean in their front yard. And they don't even thank me or anyone else for our subsidy.

I don't think you are an expert on FEMA flood insurance.

89Hen wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:You should have to bear the full cost of insurance to protect your property as opposed to the give-away government flood insurance.

I live in an area of Norfolk that has never flooded but I have flood insurance as the harbor is but a few blocks away. It's not that expensive bcause of the history. But I know people with homes on the ocean on the Outer Banks with government flood insurance and their premiums are less than mine and they have the ocean in their front yard. And they don't even thank me or anyone else for our subsidy.

I don't think you are an expert on FEMA flood insurance.

What would you know about flood plains and flood insurance

89Hen wrote:

GannonFan wrote:Cluck has a point to an extent. How far do we go to cover the damage and expenses occurred by people during natural disasters in areas that are prone to natural disasters? If expensive homes get damaged on Cape Hatteras, should we spend a lot of money to help those homeowners rebuild in the same exact spots, despite the fact that we know that area will see a hurricane on the average of 1-2 per year? If you choose to live in a flood plain, how much should the government help when the certainty of a flooding event happen?

There is some irrational behavior that is involved when we court damage from natural disasters by obstinately putting ourselves in the direct path of nature's fury and then demand help from people who didn't choose to live there in order to keep living there with no additional protection than what didn't work before.

I'm not saying that we should deny Sandy relief in this particular case, but it probably does warrant a dicsussion on how to handle these things in the future and how to price insurance to encourage more rational behavior.

OK, so don't rebuild the beaches and maintain their geographical place. How long before the second row homes are enveloped, then third, then the block, then the whole town? MILLIONS of people get their enjoyment from going to beach resorts. If we don't rebuild the beaches where they exist, there would be no beach resorts. And it's not limited to ones with businesses. The Cape Henlopen State Park does beach and dune replenishment constantly. This really is an asinine stance.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with there being a general consensus that we do want to spend money to keep and maintain something, and I think shore resorts, in general, are something that the public at large has clearly said they want to have and keep.

But that's just one aspect of disaster relief. There's plenty of places around here that qualified for disaster relief and they tend to be very low lying, in some cases even butting right up to waterways that are prone to flooding even in regular storms (to answer the criticism that this was a once in a lifetime event - rather, for many of these areas, these events happen at least annually). Why do we keep building or keep allowing people to build right up against a large river that will flood, and then subsidize the insurance for them to live there. There is a big difference between the Jersey shore and the guy building a house on a flood plain 50 miles from the shore right next to a big creek. Of course the former should be something that is protected and subsidized - as you say, millions of people use it. But that guy building his home next to a disaster doesn't tend to get much in the way of tourism, except when the FEMA guy come out once a year to bail him out.

GannonFan wrote:There's plenty of places around here that qualified for disaster relief and they tend to be very low lying, in some cases even butting right up to waterways that are prone to flooding even in regular storms (to answer the criticism that this was a once in a lifetime event - rather, for many of these areas, these events happen at least annually). Why do we keep building or keep allowing people to build right up against a large river that will flood, and then subsidize the insurance for them to live there. There is a big difference between the Jersey shore and the guy building a house on a flood plain 50 miles from the shore right next to a big creek. Of course the former should be something that is protected and subsidized - as you say, millions of people use it. But that guy building his home next to a disaster doesn't tend to get much in the way of tourism, except when the FEMA guy come out once a year to bail him out.

I don't know how much of your post is fact and how much is speculation. Flood insurance for a homeowner is capped at $250,000 and it's really expensive. I have the full $250,000 coverage, but I only have dwelling coverage (won't cover personal possessions damaged by flood) and I have the highest deductible allowed ($5000) and my premium is $2,051 this year. That's some shitty coverage for that much money and you can't shop around... it is what it is.