NFIP is a tax payer funded boondoggle, it neither meets underwriting or actuarial standards. The premiums paid by "policyholders" compared to the payouts are a joke. The program has never been solvent it has always been a handout. Do your research before you make comments that are not grounded in fact.

Just b/c the NFIP is a joke, that doesn't mean Congress shouldn't provide the funding necessary for a program they themselves set up to not charge enough to cover expected claims. Congress should have passed the funding w/o any delay. Congress should also revisit the NFIP and put it on a path towards solvency in the long term.

You all have nothing to worry about. Money not approved and sent to aid Sandy's victims will gladly be given to other countries as foreign aid. Your money and tax dollars at work by the government that helps everyone else but the Americans that truly need it.

Actually that is a good point and has some merit, even in the eyes of liberals as well as conservatives. But don't think for one second that Scott Garrett is thinking along those lines with his silence and inaction over the last 2 months. He is so far right on everything that entails spending that a few years ago he voted no on veterans disability issues.

The fact is that the government has no choice but to pay out on the claims it legally owes as underwriter of the policies it forces people to buy.

As for not insuring vacation homes at subsidized rates I totally agree. Feel free to lobby your congressman to make changes so that primary residences are covered and vacation homes are not. But that's going forward.

Paying out what is contractually owed by the government on existing policies is not a "subsidy" to undeserved "entiltled" people who choose to live irresponsibly in flood zones. It's a legal obligation and a failure to do so would not be "fiscal prudence" it would be fraud.

Scondo, Like letting New Orleans rebuild. Let me get this right, after Katrina we rebuild New Orleans, a city that is below sea level, sinking more every year, while sea levels are rising.
Congress and the nation did not have a problem throwing a ton of money at that disaster. But now you want to question someone for having a shore home? What about the financial district or for that matter all of lower Manhattan?

Scondo, I am with you on that. But what about year round residents, who moved to the hard hit areas long before storms like this took place more than every hundred years or so? It is unfair to categorize them in the same way. MMaybe we have to help them relocate, but to lump them together with weather second homeowners is inaccurate and unfair.

Can anyone show me anywhere in the Constitution of the United States of America where the US Government is allowed to be involved in insurance? I hate to be a dick about this, but there is reason private insurances companies won’t sell flood insurance in areas like this. Why should the government? It seems to me by selling (actually forcing) the government selling of insurance, provides the very reason for the mass destruction. I mean it is simple right. No homes on the shore, no destruction!
I agree the people who paid their premiums are entitled their coverage. However, we should act to ensure no more government flood insurance to be given to flood prone areas. In other words I’m saying the victims of the flood should take the money they get walk away from the shore and buy or rebuild in areas that don’t flood.
The definition of insanity is doing the something over and over and expecting a different result. So what are we if we keep rebuilding the shore only to watch it get devastated again?

B@B – There are a couple of terms that are misunderstood by the vast amount of Americans. The term “100 year storm” is one of them. It by no means, means a storm like Sandy only comes once in 100 years. What it really means is you have a 1 in 100 chance of a storm like Sandy occurring every day.

That, BTW, is thousands of times better odds than winning the lottery today.

Howler of the month: "I hate to be a dick about this..." ~Edward P. Campbell

@Edward ... 100 year storm speaks about a storm on an annual basis not daily. Its annual exceedance probability is1% with a return period of 100 years. The misconception is the storm will only occur once every 100 years but statistically a 100 year storm has a 63% chance of re-occurring in a given 100 year period as we have seen in the past three years. Hate to be a dick ...

@CVNGNR; You are not being a dick. I stand corrected, you are right it does mean a 1% chance of happening each year. However, it can happen every year, or for that matter every week. The point is --- It did, and it will again!

Jim, you need to understand that the reluctance of the Republicans was due to all the pork in the bill, not the Sandy victims. There was so much outrageous stuff tacked into the bill. Of course, the mainstream media once again successfully under reported this aspect and did their usual cheer leading for the Democrats.

Harlan: then why is their reticence only when the aid goes to blue states?

Scott Garrett has a long history of cutting funding and denying government assistance wherever it is needed. "We can't spend out way to prosperity," he says. As a congressman, he has a long history on the topic.

On July 12, 2011 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 556 (H.R. 1309), a provision that eliminated a provision in a flood insurance bill that directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to designate areas behind levees and dams as “residual risk” floodplains.

On July 12, 2011 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 554 (H.R. 1309), an amendment that would have prohibited lenders from requiring homeowners to purchase flood insurance in an amount greater than the outstanding principal balance of a home loan.

On July 8, 2011 Scott Garrett voted YES on Roll Call 533 (H.R. 1309), legislation that reauthorized the National Flood Insurance Program, which allowed the program to continue operating through fiscal year 2016, setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.

On July 22, 2010 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 466 (H.R. 1264), legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage, on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.

(cont'd)

On July 22, 2010 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 465 (H.R. 1264), legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage – On bringing to a final vote the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.

On July 15, 2010 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 447 (H.R.5114), legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners.

On July 15, 2010 Scott Garrett voted YES on Roll Call 446 (H.R. 5114), a motion to recommit (which is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure) that would have eliminated an outreach program intended to educate property owners about how the National Flood Insurance Program (which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners).

On Jul 15, 2010 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 443 (H.R. 5114), legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program, which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners- the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill.

On March 24, 2010 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 186 (H.R. 4899), legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program.

On March 24, 2010 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 179 (H.R. 4899), legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program -- On the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill

On April 18, 2007 Scott Garrett voted NO on Roll Call 225 (H.R. 1361), reforming federal disaster loans to small business.

On Apr 18, 2007 Scott Garrett voted YES on Roll Call 223 (H.R. 1361), reforming the program providing federal disaster loans to small business- Rep. Steve Chabot’s (R-Ohio) amendment to remove language allowing the Small Business Authority the ability to offer grants of up to $100,000 for certain businesses severely affected by hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma

On April 18, 2007 Scott Garrett voted YES on Roll Call 222 (H.R. 1361), reforming federal disaster loans to small business- Rep. Steve Chabot’s (R-Ohio) amendment to remove language allowing duplicate benefits for the victims of the 2005 hurricanes.

The idea that Garrett just wants to cut pork is a diversion. This is about not wanting to pay disaster assistance, period. He might also not like spending on other things that he calls pork either, but this is a case of opposing spending, regardless of need, as a generalized principle- an unreasoned and callous matter of knee-jerk ideology.

Stewart, If he was worried about the tea party's support? He wouldn't have been on the beach with the Pres. Your just a die hard Dem.

John – Do you think the government is your friend? Talk about someone who takes your money and gives you nothing in return. BTW, the company you work for makes a profit too, otherwise they couldn’t pay you.

If the government "gives you nothing in return", you use no highways and have no need for fire or police departments, correct, BillBalls?

John, did you ever work for NASA?

If it was a legitimate rape, the Treasury has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

LMAO Cletus