Federal Flood Insurance

Floods are different from house fires. The chance of a house fire is about the same for every house in the country. Thus the premiums of the many go to make the few fire victims whole again. Everyone buys fire insurance and thus there is enough money to pay out the claims. Floods are different. Property too close to the water and too low is the only property liable to flooding. Therefore, only the few on the flood plains buy flood insurance, and sooner or later, they all have losses. Commercial insurance companies figured this out many years ago and now refuse to offer flood coverage.
A great cry went up from all the waterfront property owners. Congress critters heard the cry and Uncle Sam began offering flood insurance to all comers. Despite hefty premiums, federal flood insurance racks up heavy losses to the taxpayer. The program is really a taxpayer subsidy to waterfront home owners. Availability of flood insurance has subsidized a lot of construction in flood prone areas that should not have been built in, and paid for the inevitable rebuilding after the predictable flood.
As a taxpayer I see no reason for my tax dollars to pay people who build houses in flood prone locations. Every one would be better off building on higher ground, of which there is an enormous amount. No body needs to build on the river bank. If people want to build there, fine, but I don't want to be taxed for it.
A new flood insurance bill is floating thru the Congress at this very minute. If it is impossible to vote it down, how about limiting the payout to ONE flood. The flood victim gets paid off, but his flood insurance is canceled, and the site goes on a list of "too flood prone to insure" properties. If the owner rebuilds on the same site, it is at his risk, not mine. It's a free country, and people are free to build where ever they want. But I shouldn't have to pay for other peoples risky decisions.