The President declared a federal emergency in many Indiana counties and ordered federal aid to supplement state and local aid.
Federal funding is available to state and eligible local governments and certain private nonprofit organizations on a cost-sharing basis. Other counties included were Bartholomew, Boone, Brown, Clay, Daviess, Dearborn, Decatur, Franklin, Greene, Jackson, Jennings, Jefferson, Johnson, Lawrence, Morgan, Monroe, Ohio, Owen, Ripley, Rush, Shelby, Sullivan, Union, Vermillion, Vigo, and Wayne.
The Indy Star apparently has an article about flood insurance, but I couldn’t get the page to load.
So, does this sort of government assistance constitute “nanny state government” in the conservative mindset, and if not, why not?
That’s an interesting question, but I’m curious about what you have in mind when you write “nanny state government.”
As I’ve seen it used, and more often by libertarians than conservatives, it refers to the tendency of the government to hector, regulate, and generally baby-proof the world against commonplace dangers. For example, public health campaigns. In this sense, the “nanny” thing for the government to do would be to discourage people from developing in flood-prone areas; in fact, the government does just the opposite.
On the other hand, you might mean that the government is acting as a “nanny” because it is taking care of distressed citizens. While I think there is a lot to criticize about the way the government handles flood victims, I also think providing relief after natural disasters is a far cry from cradle-to-grave social welfare. Emergency assistance does not breed a culture of dependence on others.
I didn’t have a specific meaning in mind. I was mostly just regurgitating the phrase I’ve seen on occasions where government helping citizens was criticized.
I figure that the culture of dependence is a continuum with flood relief somewhere south of our system of agriculture.
It seems to me that if you live in a flood plain and don’t have flood insurance, the government should not step in with anything more than humanitarian assistance. If the event is not something that could be predicted however (I’m not even in a 100-year flood plain, for example), or somehow is so overwhelming that insurance just can’t cover it… *that* is when the government can and should assist.
It really burns me to see the interviews with people who are whining “this is the third time I’ve had to rebuild!”
I remember when tornados hit southwestern Indiana 2 years ago, Daniels said “we’ll take care of it, we don’t need Federal help.”
But….it’s an election year…..
Doug- I use the phrase ‘nanny state government’ from time to time. I use it when government writes rules designed to protect us from ourselves: helmet laws, smoking laws, use this kind of light bulb, wear your seat belt, no trans fat, etc.
So, I don’t think the phrase applies here, at least so far as this libertarian anti-nanny stater is concerned. This is more a “bail out bad decision-making” kind of thing that applies to Brenda’s “this is my third rebuild” example.
I don’t mind emergency relief to government infrastructure- roads, bridges, etc, and I am very much in favor of rescuing people, providing emergency food, shelter, and medical assistance, and the like. But, I believe that if you chose to live in the flood plain, you chose to accept the consequences, and the rest of us shouldn’t be under any obligation at all to rebuild your building.
What Mike said.
As I understand it – and it’s been a few years – the National Flood Insurance Program is managed by the federal government and basically subsidizes flood insurance in areas that have adopted certain zoning rules. Among them is a rule that structures that pre-existed the zoning rules which sustain a certain amount of damage can’t be rebuilt unless they’re raised up.
By extension, that would extend to people who own homes along the coastlines. I like the beach, but do I have to pay for rebuilding multi-million dollar condos every time a hurricane blows through?
Reading the linked article Doug provided in the initial post, this federal aid does appear to be specifically for what I call “humanitarian” aid: water, food, power generators, medical supplies, cots and housing assistance. I assume that is *emergency* (short-term) housing assistance.
Floods, particularly flash floods, can occur many places, not only in flood plains. Being flooded out three times is not necessarily proof that someone lives in a flood plain. It could merely be proof that someone has been extraordinarily unlucky.
It seems that every time there is a natural disaster, people come on here crowing about how the victims are undeserving of anything beyond the most basic of help, people ought to live in less picturesque parts of the country, etc. Just where would some of you have people live and work and not be at risk of being caught in some sort of natural disaster that is not in their control? What sort of economy and what sort of society would we have if people only lived in “safe” parts of the U.S.? And where are those “safe” areas? Is there any corner of the United States that isn’t at risk for some sort of catastrophe?
And why do people choose to live where they do? Could it be that good jobs and good weather also happen to be in the same locations? Yet none of you are complaining about businesses being located in “disaster-prone” areas. Your anger seems to be aimed at individuals only, as if people just say, “Hey let’s move to the coast and take our chances about whether a hurricane will blow us away.”
Also, I’m kinda curious about what sort of precautions the planners among you have taken to prevent yourselves from becoming victims of a tornado that mows down your house at 3 a.m. or a flash flood that washes your house away? There is really not much anyone can do to prevent those occurences. Don’t think that because those things haven’t happened to you that they can’t happen to you.