Andy Harris votes against aid to his constituents

[Creekman]

When a strong storm comes into the Bay it might as well be on the Ocean. How many of those 800 claims have been wrongfully denied by the insurance companies? How many have been settled? Or doesnt any of that matter to you? Just keep that federal spigot open huh?

You have got a lot of questions . Why don't you look into and get some answers? I am not your answer man. And I don't suffer fools gladly.

[Sagittarius]

More waste, fraud and abuse.
Cut the pork and I'll support it.

Boo hoo hoo.

Bad ole Repugs. Ignoring the needy.

"I am not a Republican."

I'm fed up with money being thrown around that does nothing to address the problem.

[demopublican]

I don't suffer fools gladly.

Good for you.

So why wouldn't FEMA be prepared for disasters? This is not the first storm that ever hit the USA. Why not use the agency for it's intended use?
Why should they have to keep passing laws to fund emergency activities after each storm?

[Saticon3]

Good for you.

So why wouldn't FEMA be prepared for disasters? This is not the first storm that ever hit the USA. Why not use the agency for it's intended use?
Why should they have to keep passing laws to fund emergency activities after each storm?

I think most of us know the answer to that one. But I'll take a stab-- because its a great opportunity to hitch a bunch of special interest payola money to what looks like a Mom and Apple Pie bill which most legislators will find it hard to vote against.

[Saticon3]

You have got a lot of questions . Why don't you look into and get some answers? I am not your answer man. And I don't suffer fools gladly.

Those are all good questions. You don't have to be the answer man, but I think those would all be important points to ponder when assessing the merits of the bill. Or, would you rather the huge bill be blindly passed just to benefit less than 800 Eastern Shore residents. I say less than 800 because as he points out, no doubt some of them have been adequately reimbursed by insurance. Assuming you're basing the need on the number of insurance claims, which wouldn't be a good criteria, anyway, again, as the othe poster points out.

If we had the time maybe we could research that, but its not our job, it is our rep's job to be informed on such points before casting the vote-- seems Harris was informed and cast a good vote.

[OldBay]

from the Sun article:

The flood legislation does not authorize direct spending; rather, it gives the flood insurance program authority to borrow money to pay claims during times of heavy flooding. In the past, those loans have been repaid with premiums property owners pay to carry the insurance.

For decades, the program has repaid the loans, but the fund went deeply into debt following Hurricane Katrina and now is nearly $18 billion in the red, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Are some in this thread suggesting that property owners who paid their insurance premiums should be treated as though they had no flood insurance?

If you pay your insurance premiums, do you expect to be cheated by your insurer?

[Omaha Beach]

You have got a lot of questions . Why don't you look into and get some answers? I am not your answer man. And I don't suffer fools gladly.

Too bad you and the legislators who wanted to bum rush this bill dont have the answers before trying to have taxpayers bend over and pony up.

[Omaha Beach]

from the Sun article:

The flood legislation does not authorize direct spending; rather, it gives the flood insurance program authority to borrow money to pay claims during times of heavy flooding. In the past, those loans have been repaid with premiums property owners pay to carry the insurance.

For decades, the program has repaid the loans, but the fund went deeply into debt following Hurricane Katrina and now is nearly $18 billion in the red, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Are some in this thread suggesting that property owners who paid their insurance premiums should be treated as though they had no flood insurance?

If you pay your insurance premiums, do you expect to be cheated by your insurer?

No i am not suggesting that. All i am asking is how many of the people making claims did pay insurance premiums and are entitled to the insurance.

[demopublican]

from the Sun article:

The flood legislation does not authorize direct spending; rather, it gives the flood insurance program authority to borrow money to pay claims during times of heavy flooding. In the past, those loans have been repaid with premiums property owners pay to carry the insurance.

For decades, the program has repaid the loans, but the fund went deeply into debt following Hurricane Katrina and now is nearly $18 billion in the red, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Are some in this thread suggesting that property owners who paid their insurance premiums should be treated as though they had no flood insurance?

If you pay your insurance premiums, do you expect to be cheated by your insurer?

Thank you. That is good info.
Of course as stated before there would be little reason to oppose the bill if the was no pork attached in the first place.
Sounds like we need to proactively fix the flood insurance program to avoid these type if fights happening during other ha times. The only way to do that is to eliminate other wasteful or less important spending.

[OldBay]

No i am not suggesting that. All i am asking is how many of the people making claims did pay insurance premiums and are entitled to the insurance.

I haven't seen any numbers. I can't imagine that all 800 claims are without merit. What I've read is that the claims are in limbo not because of the question of merit, but due to the funding of the bill. Those who pay their bills when they arrive have no control over funding shortages caused by disasters elsewhere.

[OldBay]

Thank you. That is good info.
Of course as stated before there would be little reason to oppose the bill if the was no pork attached in the first place.
Sounds like we need to proactively fix the flood insurance program to avoid these type if fights happening during other ha times. The only way to do hat is to eliminate other wasteful or less important spending.

Actually, it sounds to me as though the flood insurance premiums have not been sufficient to fund this program. Perhaps if the premiums were increased to reflect the true risk of flooding, there might be an additional benefit of fewer homes being rebuilt in flood-prone areas and repeating the whole cycle.

[Creekman]

Good for you.

So why wouldn't FEMA be prepared for disasters? This is not the first storm that ever hit the USA. Why not use the agency for it's intended use?
Why should they have to keep passing laws to fund emergency activities after each storm?

Go ask your Congressman.