Glenn Reynolds on rebuilding after disasters and the moral hazard of federal dollars: ‘When “disaster relief” is part of your lifestyle, it’s quit being a form of insurance, and turned into just a subsidy.’

And Progressives ask, “What’s wrong with that?”

To which I turn to a recent John Stossel column: More Government where he details an interview with Representitive Ron Paul:

Paul said, “We handled floods and disasters for 204 years before we had FEMA, and states and volunteers and local communities did quite well.”

Paul’s congressional district is on the Gulf Coast, so he knows what he’s talking about.

“What we should have is real insurance,” he said.

Real insurance means private companies make bets about floods with their own money. But America has little of that.

I know this first-hand. I built a beach house because government encouraged me to take the risk. Private insurance companies wouldn’t insure most of us who built on the edges of oceans, and those that did charged high prices. “Too high,” said Congress, “so government must insure everyone!” They said they’d price it so taxpayers wouldn’t lose — but as usual, they were wrong. Even before Sandy, federal flood insurance was $18 billion in the red.

And worse, cheap insurance encouraged more people to build on the beach. This is an absurd subsidy that should immediately be abolished. 

Indeed, indeed. But yet, the Progressives ask, “What’s wrong with that?”. I guess when you consider printing a $1 trillion dollar platinum coin, nothing’s wrong with that.