As hurricane season begins, Democrats in Congress want to nationalize a chunk of the insurance business that covers major storm-damage claims.
The proposal -- backed by giant insurers Allstate Corp. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., as well as Florida lawmakers -- focuses on "reinsurance," the policies bought by insurers themselves to protect against catastrophic losses. The proposal envisions a taxpayer-financed reinsurance program covering all 50 states, which would essentially backstop the giant insurers in case of disaster.
That may sound all fine and dandy, but if we look deeper into the issue we find some things that don't bode well for most Americans:
[E]nvironmentalists and other critics -- including the American Insurance Association, a major trade group -- say lower premiums would more likely spur irresponsible coastal development, already a big factor in insurance costs. The program could also shift costs to taxpayers in states with fewer natural-disaster risks.
"This bill makes it a little bit too easy for the state to go to the federal government for a bailout," said Eric Goldberg, associate general counsel at the American Insurance Association, an insurers' trade group.
So, we'll end up having people in Missouri paying for hurricane damage in Florida. Never mind the fact that Florida experiences about half of all hurricanes that affect the U.S., and never mind the fact that those people in Florida could always MOVE away from the coasts if their premiums got too high. I think the phrase fixing the wrong problem applies nicely here. Unfortunately, this sort of program is not unprecedented:
The proposed plan is roughly analogous to the National Flood Insurance Program, which has been criticized for encouraging construction in risky floodplains. Nevertheless, in recent weeks the Senate voted to renew the flood-insurance program, and also to forgive $17 billion in debt incurred after Hurricane Katrina.
Critics cite that debt forgiveness as an example of how states with little or no hurricane risk can end up footing the bill for damage in flood-prone areas. "For years, federal flood-insurance backers told us the program was financially sound, but the storms of 2005 left it $17 billion in the hole," said Steve Ellis of nonpartisan budget watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Even some analysts hired by lobbyists for the federal program acknowledge it has its risks. "If you charge something less than the private-market cost for homeowners' insurance, that creates a potential incentive to increase exposure on the coast" -- in other words, to build in risky or flood-prone areas -- said David Chernick of Milliman Inc., an actuarial firm hired by ProtectingAmerica.
Hillary Clinton is one of the bill's sponsors, and both she and Obama have been campaigning on it in Florida as something of a litmus test for future Congressional action. Once again, liberalism is going to attempt to redistribute money from people who are responsible (living in safer areas) to people who insist on living in areas with higher risk. This is dangerous, not only for promoting further growth in risky areas, but also to the pocketbook of everyone not living in risky areas.
Here's one that's just plain stupid, an example of how ridiculous things can (and will) get when political correctness trumps common sense:
An airline passenger claimed that a security guard threatened to arrest him because he was wearing a T-shirt showing a cartoon robot with a gun.
Brad Jayakody, 30, from London, said he was stopped from passing through security at Heathrow's Terminal 5 after his Transformers T-shirt was deemed 'offensive.'
SERIOUSLY?! Have we lost our minds??
Now let's shift gears to something with considerably more substance: the economy. Unfortunately for liberals all across this nation, the much-ballyhooed recession just isn't happening (despite obsessive reports to the contrary):
The American people by a 2-1 margin believe we're in recession.
But the economy refuses to cooperate. An official recession would involve 2 consecutive quarters of negative or no growth. Figures released by the Commerce Department today make it clear that the economy outperformed expectations in the 1st quarter, growing at revised rate of .9%:The new reading on gross domestic product, released by the Commerce Department on Thursday, was an improvement from the government's initial growth estimate for the January-to-March quarter as well as the economy's performance in the final quarter of last year. Both periods were pegged at a 0.6 percent growth rate.
Rick Moran's logical conclusion:
What [a lack of recession] would do to the political race is place the Democrats in the awkward position of appearing to root for a recession since they have been saying the economy is there already for months. If the economy refuses to cooperate and does not tip into recession, the Democrats are going to look very foolish on election day.
Despite their best efforts to snow the public into thinking we're in a recession -- which has clearly worked, by the way -- the actual spending habits of Americans haven't changed all that much. Sure, it isn't the 4% growth we've typically seen since the Bush tax cuts, but it's still growth!
What's up with the Democrats? First they root for us to lose the War in Iraq, whining about how we can't possibly win and that it was over before it even began. Now they're rooting for an economic recession, whining about how we're living in the days of the Great Depression despite concrete evidence to the contrary. Do they genuinely want the country to lose a war and have an economic disaster? I personally believe that they might not want it, but they'll gladly accept it if it puts them back in power.
This is what I mean by 'dangerous' liberalism.
Moving on, let's take a look at the man who almost became President four years ago. His ignorance is stunning:
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) believes that on September 11 "we were basically at peace."
Asked to clarify his remarks, specifically asking about the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole during Barack Obama campaign conference call, Kerry said, "well, we hadn't declared war," The Hill's Sam Youngman reports.
Asked if al Qaeda was a threat at the time, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee said, "well yes, obviously they were a threat. But, fundamentally we were not at war at that point in time."
Kerry also called John McCain "out of step with history and facts."
I think we can all agree on who's out of step with history and facts, and it ain't McCain! Did we dodge a bullet, or what? Say what you want about Bush, but Kerry's mind-boggling stupidity would have been truly disastrous in the White House. The report also includes this update:
Responding to Kerry's claim, RNC spokesman Danny Diaz said: "It's absolutely critical that the next Commander in Chief understands the challenges America faces. Yet it's clear that Barack Obama has a thin understanding of history and fails to grasp the threat of terrorism."
"After a week's worth of examples demonstrating Obama's lack of preparedness to serve as president, his campaign is understandably desperate to shift the focus. Considering it's now been 873 days since Obama visited Iraq, any suggestion that he even understands what's happening on the ground is laughable."
Barack Obama is cut from the same cloth as Kerry, but slightly more eloquent. Still, they share the same foundational beliefs about the fight against terrorism. This mindset is dangerous, as it displays incredible arrogance combined with incredible ignorance.
Speaking of the War on Terror, how about a story dealing with Islam? Apparently, Friendswood Junior High School forced students to listen to some Islamic religious indoctrination without giving parents any prior notification or opportunity to opt their students out:
Parents of some junior high students are upset they weren't notified about a school presentation on Islamic culture, an omission that violated school district policy.
The parents' letter-writing campaign stems from a May 22 presentation at Friendswood Junior High, where two Muslim women gave a 30-minute presentation about Islamic life as part of a yearlong study of respect, tolerance and culture, The Galveston County Daily News reported Saturday.
The guest speakers discussed Muslim culture, including topics such as food, religion, dress, beliefs and famous Muslims.
School district spokeswoman Karolyn Gephart said principal Robin Lowe had "best intentions," but Gephart acknowledged not informing parents beforehand was a mistake.
District policy states parents are to be informed about the purpose and content of presentations so that they can keep their children out if they think the material might be offensive or inappropriate.
"We can't say 'One nation under God' in school, so I definitely don't think (the presentation) was the right choice," said Kim Leago, whose son is in the eighth grade.
"The specific details, as we were given by the students, included teachings that Adam, Noah, and Jesus were all prophets like Mohammed; the basic tenets of Islam; the process of how to pray five times a day; again, the pillars of Islam. These were specific, religious instructions."
Even more egregious, Welch says, is the fact that the principal was allegedly ordered by the superintendent of the school district not to allow the pro-Islam assembly, but did so anyway.
"Because ... we have now verified that the principal did, in fact, act in direct contradiction and violation of the expressed direction of the superintendent, in addition to violating the policies, we're supporting the call for her removal. She just has lost the trust and violated the trust of the parents and the students to operate in this capacity."
He also notes the double standard that would have existed in this situation had Islam been replaced with Christianity. According to Welch, several parents' groups are also demanding that the principal resign or be fired.
As Michelle Malkin asks: "Yoo-hoo, ACLU?"
Indeed, this is a clear violation of the ACLU's beloved concept of the separation of church and state (which they've got backwards, by the way - it was intended to keep the government out of church affairs, not the other way around; it's also not in the Constitution). Of course, the ACLU is not an anti-religious organization, it's an anti-Christian organization. They'll never get involved if it means attacking Islam.
As unbelievable as it may sound, that's still not all. The two women who provided the Islamic teaching were members of CAIR, an un-indicted co-conspirator with the Holy Land Foundation and more links to terrorism than prayer mats.
Can anyone else see the danger in this kind of liberalism, or is it just me?
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment