Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

The cure was worse

December 19, 2013

During one of the many financial crises manufactured by the Tea Party Republicans, they exacted a change in how flood insurance is funded....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(86)

mikekerstetter

Dec-19-13 4:21 AM

Elliot, if you are so inclined to subsidize other peoples insurances, feel free. I feel that I subsidize enough peoples lives with my tax money.

17 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Dec-19-13 5:01 AM

Elliot, if you are so inclined to subsidize other peoples insurances, feel free. I feel that I subsidize enough peoples lives with my tax money." - mikekerstetter

*

After all...we're only talkin'-about "a relatively small group of policyholders."

*

See:

Flood Insurance Changes Prove Politically Challenging

1 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Dec-19-13 5:23 AM

The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, sponsored by Cedric Richmond, D-LA with 33 cosponsors to include Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Maxine Waters, passed by a vote of 373-52 in the House and signed into law by President Obama.

Yep, it's the Tea Party's fault.

21 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Dec-19-13 5:26 AM

Gavin, I agree. His letter lost all credibility when he erroneously attempted to blame the tea party.

18 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Premier

Dec-19-13 5:30 AM

Gavin and Cap beat me to it but I was wondering if Elliot knows the Tea Party and Liberal sponsored a bill to postpone the hikes?

15 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Dec-19-13 5:34 AM

See:

Flood Insurance Changes Prove Politically Challenging -Shaman

"Part of the bill mandated that FEMA complete an affordability study within 270 days, but Fugate said the study has proven more expensive and time-consuming than expected and may not be finished until 2015."

I'm not an expert on Congressional Bill procedures, but shouldn't this study have been done BEFORE they passed the Bill?

16 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

fromtheport

Dec-19-13 6:02 AM

Can all you complainers mail me a check for my auto insurance? Thank you in advance

7 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Dec-19-13 6:10 AM

It's telling that Mr. Weiss blamed the tea party for this without ever explaining what they did in more than generic terms.

Like Gavin said, a majority of Dems voted for this too. So if you're going to point fingers, point them at all that did this.

I also question where Mr. Weiss got the figure of 65% of homes in Muncy needing flood insurance. Is there a source that shows this figure, Mr. Weiss? I lived there in the 70's in one of those homes that got wet and know that nothing like 65% of the homes were wet. Please explain where this figure came from.

13 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Dec-19-13 6:13 AM

Elliot, if you are so inclined to subsidize other peoples insurances, feel free. I feel that I subsidize enough peoples lives with my tax money. -Mike

Mike, yes those that live in his risk areas should pay for coverage to protect their homes. However, what type of risk analysis did the government do on the millions of properties affected by this Bill? When we purchase car insurance, the insurance company bases your premium costs on a risk analysis of your age, driving record, number of accidents and type of car. IMO this insurance should be handed over to the private sector so that they can fairly analyze the risk of each property going by past flood data, damage and value of the property. I believe this would make it fair for everyone.

13 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Dec-19-13 6:21 AM

If this LTE is from the attorney, I hope that he gets his facts correct when working with clients.

**

The Issue is how is this law rolled out in fairness to all. Those in flood plans should carry the burden of the payments but these should be done in proportion to the risk and potential costs to their resident or business. Execution, execution, execution; when will the federal government ever learn to execute well.

These flood risks are best assessed by insurance companies and the government should NOT be involved.

**

What will be interesting to see is what will the mortgage companies in this country do. They don't want mortgages on properties that aren't covered in a flood and they don't want to foreclose on properties that are under-valued relative to the mortgage amount.

Watch these sneaky lobbyist try to pass a law distributing their mortgage losses to the taxpayers and citizens.

14 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

susquehannaretriever

Dec-19-13 6:23 AM

Vince, Mr. Weiss is wrong on that figure. According to the Lycoming County Planning office, who have the up to date flood plain maps, 40% of residences in Muncy are in the flood plain; 50% of JSH is flood plain. Still substantial numbers. If even a fraction of those homeowners lose or walk away from their homes, the other residents, like Mike Kerstetter, are going to be hurting from the much higher taxes.That then starts a trickle down effect on home values, economy, etc.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Dec-19-13 7:10 AM

Mr. Elliott Weiss is another sleazy, slimy, liberal LIAR!!

I've had enough of liars like this and President Obama. Unfortunately, there is little we can do about President Obama, but we can do something about the liberal liars in his party.

Next November remember this: If you like your liberal liar you can keep your liberal liar!

16 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Dec-19-13 7:26 AM

LOL

Sorry but this bill had strong bipartisan support and is still strongly supported by conservative groups.

The truth is Tea party republicans had no problem at all with this bill. Problems arouse after the bill was passed and voters realized what it meant to them. Now you have Senators from flood prone states trying to rewrite the law, including House Rep. Maxine Waters a co-sponsor of the original bill.

People saying they want less government always sounds really good until you finally get it then you don't like it. But it is always the other guy who is the hypocrite and not you.

2 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Dec-19-13 7:51 AM

People saying they want less government always sounds really good until you finally get it then you don't like it. But it is always the other guy who is the hypocrite and not you. -Reeder

Chuck, how is this less government? If anything it is more government interference and this should be handed over to the private sector. This Bill was passed not knowing the impact it would have on this country. The Bill even includes a requirement for a "study" to determine the affordability of it. Something that should have been done before it was signed. It also includes a requirement for FEMA to examine the possibility of turning this over to the private sector. Once again, something that should have been done before passing the bill. I think this is just another example of our government attempting to regulate something without having all the facts. That's obvious in the number of Representatives that voted for the Bill who are now having second thoughts.

12 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Dec-19-13 7:52 AM

Mr. Reeder said:

"People saying they want less government always sounds really good until you finally get it then you don't like it."

True.

Government programs are like barbed hooks.....once in place, they are very difficult to remove without some pain or worse.

That is the evil inherent in big government...taking advantage of trusting, poor and/or uneducated citizens with the lure of free money that is taken from others.

At some point, you run out of money.

14 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ArtFold

Dec-19-13 7:57 AM

Laws like this one are why a big, centralized government is a really bad idea.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ArtFold

Dec-19-13 8:01 AM

Also, it seems Mr. Weiss is trying to use the old ploy of; "Tell a lie loud enough and often enough (it's the Tea Party's fault...it's Bush's fault... etc.) and people will start to believe it's the truth".

14 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Dec-19-13 8:19 AM

I didn't hear anyone complaining when I was paying $9000 a year for their insurance. That's right, the cost of the insurance didn't go up, just who was paying for it. Now the insured person has to pay for it instead of taxpayers. Now I admit that the cost is too high, but that's because it's a government program. When you could get flood insurance privately, it was expensive, but not that expensive. Then the government took it over and promised low rates, but of course it was all taxpayer subsidized. As with everything the government does the admin cost are through the roof and now that you have to pay it all yourself it's worse than before. Still lovin' government insurance? ACA anyone? Wake up folks. The government doesn't want to be your friend, it wants to be your master.

12 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

VinceKnauff

Dec-19-13 8:22 AM

Do any of you understand the stupidity of living in or owning property in a flood zone in the first place? Do you see the stupidity of rebuilding or repairing that property every time it floods? Somebody has to pay for that. Don't like this reality? Don't live there.

Flooding should be a call to move somewhere else. Flood plain data is something that every home buyer is informed about. So don't complain when the reality of your decision to live there comes about.

If you think about it, the theory of evolution should apply here.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Dec-19-13 8:41 AM

In my line of work, anything new or changed is tested thoroughly before being implemented. With government it's get an idea, get enough followers, pass a law, and then shake it out, which wastes billions and usually causes more harm than good.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Dec-19-13 9:05 AM

Capricorn1 it is less government. The federal government will not subsidize insurance against flooding, in other words they will not be in the flood insurance business. Conservative groups are strongly in favor of this even after the fallout from voters.

3 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Dec-19-13 9:06 AM

Steeler that is testing a product not a law.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Dec-19-13 9:10 AM

OK, everyone. get off blaming either party or the Tea Party. This passed by 373 votes, a number larger than any group. In fairness, Marino, an R and Tea party voted for it. As I said, those who voted yes cover all parties. This particular congressman is well familiar with Muncy, Jersey Shore, Lycoming creek, etc.. He is from this county.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Dec-19-13 9:20 AM

Well spike, I don't know who is blaming liberals as most responses showed that there was bipartisan support for the bill, including from the far left as pointed out in my earlier post, but the letter writer clearly blamed the Tea Party.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Steelman

Dec-19-13 9:40 AM

Do any of you understand the stupidity of living in or owning property in a flood zone in the first place? Do you see the stupidity of rebuilding or repairing that property every time it floods? Somebody has to pay for that. Don't like this reality? Don't live there. VinceKnauff. You know he is right. Just leave everything, (because it is to late to try to sell it now) and move one. I am sure you all have enough money in the bank to go out and buy a new house somewhere out of the flood zone. Oh wait you don’t? I don’t see why not. VinceKnauff seams to think everyone does and continues to call you stupid for not.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 86 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web