Let’s talk about disaster relief. And let’s start this way: If my waterfront home in Tampa floods in a hurricane, should the federal government help me repair it?
Although I think it is fair to discuss the appropriate roles of the federal versus state governments, private insurance, and the personal responsibilities of property owners, I don’t think it’s breaking any new ground to suggest that a majority of people would probably say “yes.” Indeed, one of the arguments for a national, federal government is for us, collectively, to have the ability to respond to natural disasters that might be too big for the market, cities or states to address.
But what if I build it back, and it floods again the following summer. How do you feel now about writing me a debt-funded government check? How many years in a row would you be willing to pay for me to have a luxurious home with a beautiful ocean view in such an unfortunate location? Would you feel differently if I did it five times? Because at least 45,000 people in this country have done precisely that.
And five is nothing. There is a house in Houston that has been rebuilt at taxpayer expense 16 times.
As California tries to crawl out from under the ash of the Palisades and other fires, there seems to be a lot of controversy — something that I suppose we will be saying a lot for the next couple of years — about President Trump’s comments on the matter. He and others within the Republican Party have suggested that relief money from California should come with conditions attached.
Given that this is Washington and Trump is Trump, Democrats are apoplectic at the idea. They suggest that disaster money shouldn’t come with strings attached. There certainly should be some conditions, as the examples above illustrate. But when it comes to Congress approving disaster aid, we have become quick to shoot first and ask questions later.
I don’t get what all the hubbub is about. What’s wrong with telling California “if you want this money, you have to change your water, timber management, and building standards so as reduce the risk that we will be right back here again in five years?” Wouldn’t that just make it less likely that something like these fires would happen again?
We’ve done something like that for decades with hurricane and other flood-prone areas. For example, the so-called 50 percent rule, promulgated as part of the National Flood Insurance Program, provides that if a flood causes damage exceeding 50 percent of the value of a home, the home must be demolished and built back to modern flood mitigation standards.
In other words, there are conditions for aid.
The Biden administration enforced that condition. In 2022 after Hurrican Ian, “FEMA sent an explosive letter to local officials in Lee County, Florida…(claiming) that almost 600 homeowners in the city of Cape Coral and other nearby towns had rebuilt vulnerable homes in the flood zone over the 18 months since Hurricane Ian, violating the 50 percent rule as well as local construction laws.”
As a taxpayer (and someone who at the same time owns property in Florida), I say good for the Biden team. But how is what they did all that different than what some Republicans are talking about now?
Of course, the 50-percent rule deals with conditions that mitigate future, repetitive losses. But even those who agree with conditions like that one might object to tying disaster aid to other, non-disaster-related topics.
I understand the emotional basis for such objections, but I also know how Washington works. Unrelated matters are tied together all the time. You can bet your bottom dollar that the very people who now insist we don’t want apples and oranges tied together have already voted, probably dozens of times, for fruit salads with lots of bits and pieces they like.
The better argument for tying disparate subject matters, however, pertains to the federal government’s proper role in disaster relief. Should Uncle Sam use borrowed taxpayer funds to rebuild roads, bridges, schools, libraries and fire stations? Probably. But if you start to ask your fellow taxpayers for free money to rebuild your home, maybe it’s not so unreasonable to impose conditions.
The state of Texas seems to agree. They have a law that says that entities accepting state-funded disaster aid cannot boycott Israel. You may not like the policy, but at least you know about it before you ask for the money.
And the issue isn’t whether or not we should talk about reforms to disaster aid. The issue is why didn’t we start talking about it 40 disasters ago. It isn’t popular to have this discussion now, but it is necessary. Indeed, if we don’t have it now, we aren’t likely to have it again … until after the next major disaster.
Mick Mulvaney, a former congressman from South Carolina, is a contributor to NewsNation. He served as director of the Office of Management and Budget, acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and White House chief of staff under President Donald Trump.
