Connect with us

News

Since When Are Taxpayers Responsible For Rebuilding Other People’s Homes After Disasters?

Published

on

Three major hurricanes have hit our country and millions of people have been affected. Homes have been flooded and blown away. It is heartbreaking, awful and sad. My heart goes out to all of those affected by Hurricane Harvey, Irma and Maria. Recovery is going to be tough and expensive.

Clearly, public damage needs to be paid by public money. While I believe states should be primarily responsible for rebuilding infrastructure, in some circumstances the federal assistance is certainly warranted. Power plants, water services, collapsed roads and bridges, the list goes on…should all be covered by taxpayers. This is probably not likely to be debated. But then there is private property like homes and businesses.

As heartless as it may sound at first, as a conservative who believes in limited government, I think it is a fair question to ask: “Since when is the federal government responsible for personal property damage after these disasters?”

I thought that’s why insurance existed. At what point do we expect people to think twice before they build homes near the ocean, near a fault line, in a wooded area or any other place that greatly increases the chances it will be damaged to an extent that they can’t just pay to fix it?

The federal government has many responsibilities clearly listed in the Constitution. None of them include becoming an insurance policy for those who neglect to get real homeowners insurance.

The fact is, if your house is the only one in a neighborhood to get blown away by a tornado, you are on your own. Hopefully, you have homeowners insurance. The government is not going to be helping out everyone who happens to suffer a major loss. Often in these situations charities, churches and local business band together to help people out. This used to be how it worked.

However, if the whole neighborhood gets hit, and a disaster area is declared, you may be eligible for federal money. And if you have insurance and your neighbor does not, they will likely get more. Seems to me the government actually rewards irresponsibility.

H/T Townhall

“The hurricane devastation is severe. What should the federal government do?

Give us lots of money, say many.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, demanded $150 billion — just for Texas.

So far, Congress has agreed to $15 billion in hurricane relief. But more will come.

Few Americans will object. The House vote for the first $7.9 billion was 419-3.

But let’s take a breath. Why is rebuilding the federal government’s responsibility?

Clearly, only the feds can send in the military and some other first responders. After Hurricane Irma, 13,000 National Guard soldiers from 22 states helped rescue and evacuate people. That’s the kind of emergency response we expect from the federal government.

But rebuilding after storms?

Washington, D.C., has no money of its own. Anything it spends comes from states. And states and local governments know better than Washington how relief money might best be used. (Though Puerto Rico may be an exception, since its government is, as one entrepreneur put it, “inept and riddled with corruption.”)

The idea that the federal government must lead in rebuilding is only a recent phenomenon, says the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards.

“Prior to recent decades,” he writes, “private charitable groups and businesses have been central to disaster response.”

In 1906, the massive San Francisco earthquake and fire that followed destroyed 80 percent of the city. Yet that tragedy “is remembered not just for the terrible destruction it caused, but also for the remarkably rapid rebuilding … (The) population recovered to pre-quake levels within just three years, and residents quickly rebuilt about 20,000 buildings.”

The rebuilding was quick because it wasn’t done by a cumbersome government bureaucracy. Rich people and companies donated labor and goods. “Johnson and Johnson quickly loaded rail cars full of donated medical supplies and sent them to San Francisco,” writes Edwards.

Also, “90 percent of San Francisco residents had fire insurance.”

Today in America, even people who live on the edges of oceans don’t buy insurance. “Why pay?” many think. “There probably won’t be a problem, and if there is, government will step in.”

The more the federal government intervenes, the more people come to rely on handouts.

Just seven years after the San Francisco earthquake, the Midwest was hit with a huge disaster now called the Great Easter Flood. Eleven states flooded. Rising water and tornadoes killed 600 people.

Many storm victims “refused disaster relief, to the point of hiding from aid workers,” writes historian Trudy Bell. Even mayors turned away outside aid, and would then “boast that they had refused it.” Why? “Because cultural norms against being seen as accepting charity were more powerful than the physical imperatives of health, welfare and recovery.”

Those norms have changed.

That’s one reason why private charity is also better than government aid. Charities are less likely to fund freeloaders.

After Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans, Habitat for Humanity built 70 homes — quickly. Even the mayor admitted that charities did what his government didn’t.

“Private sector does it better and quicker,” he told me. “Not a lot of rules and regulations.”

Part of this year’s post-hurricane effort from Congress is a $7 billion grant to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Fund.”Community Development” sounds nice, but HUD has squandered millions of dollars. HUD bureaucrats often give money to sketchy developers who just vanish.

The Washington Post reports, “In at least 55 cases, developers drew HUD money but left behind only barren lots.”Federal bureaucrats are the last people who ought to fund rebuilding. It would be cruel to cut people off unexpectedly in the middle of a crisis, but when the crisis is past, let’s debate better ways of doing things.

As Daniel Rothschild of the Mercatus Center puts it, “Unfortunately, the scale of major disasters leads many people to conclude that only governments have the resources to deal with the aftermath. This could not be further from the truth. What makes sustainable rebound possible is the rebuilding of communities and the organizations that support them: businesses, civic groups, religious communities and nonprofits.”

Grover Cleveland addressed this issue in 1887 when a severe drought hit Texas and crops were ruined. Congress passed a bailout bill of $10,000 for seeds for the farmers, but Cleveland vetoed the bill saying:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.

A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated.

Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

This is a great example of the principle of limited government and our country has certainly become quite dependent on it. Could you even imagine the outrage if Trump had made that statement? Personal responsibility is quickly fading in America and people are becoming quite accustomed to the government taking care of everything.

Now of course the poorest people will need more help, but often they are already getting it. It will continue after the disaster just like before. But for average income people, it seems more and more people will think “why bother” when it comes to extra insurance, because good old Uncle Sam will be there anyway.

Let us know what you think in the comments. Do you think your hard earned taxes should go to people who don’t buy insurance to rebuild their homes?

Continue Reading