The risk of hurricane
flooding is enormous. Insurance companies, in competition with one another, set
the premiums as low as they can. But the premiums are high nevertheless because
the risks are great.
The premiums send
a signal: Hurricanes are dangerous.
Prosperous seacoast
homeowners complain to legislators that, without low flood-insurance premiums, they
can’t afford a home near the coast. The legislators should respond, “The premiums
are high for good reason. We suggest you live elsewhere.”
But they don’t. Risking
other people’s money, they offer insurance from the National Flood Insurance
Program that sets premiums unrealistically low. For seacoast dwellers and the
businesses that serve them, the benefits are obvious and substantial, and the legislators
can show that they care.
But seacoasts
occasionally get whacked with billions of dollars of property damage. Paid by
the federal government or added to the debt, the costs amount to just a few
dollars per person to the 200 million Americans who live apart from the sea
Suppose U.S.
senators are allowed to serve for only one term and representatives for two. The
homeowner says, “If you don’t reduce my flood-insurance premiums, I’ll vote you
out of office.”
The representative
can respond, “That’s okay. I’ll be leaving before long anyway.”
Bingo, the
pressure to appease interest groups is reduced, and legislators can focus on the
nation’s long-term interests. Like repealing the National Flood Insurance Program, for example.
Sent
to newspapers 10/12/17. Published by the Concord Monitor 10/16/17.
