In pursuit of a needed victory in Florida, Rudy Giuliani
continues to tout the fact that he is the only candidate to support
a national catastrophic fund for natural disasters. His campaign is
hammering home the point that John McCain is opposed to it, and
Mitt Romney has failed to take a firm position. I am writing from
Sarasota, Florida now, but I haven't spoken to enough voters in the
state to know how much this will resonate politically. However,
from a pure policy perspective, I remain firmly opposed to the
idea, and still am having trouble seeing how supporting such a fund
can be reconciled with a belief in free market economics.
Here were Giuliani's remarks on the matter on Tuesday, as
provided by the campaign (emphasis mine):
MAYOR GIULIANI: I think the questions and the
introduction, rather, that I got illustrates the importance of the
National Catastrophic Fund here in Florida, and the main reason
it's so important is that people are finding it impossible to get
insurance. And the reality is if there is a catastrophe, once in a
generation, once in a lifetime, once in a century kind of
catastrophe the federal government clearly is always there and is
there with large amounts of money. The idea is to
be there with a backstop that will allow a private market to
workso that people who have risk will pay
more but at least they'll have insurance that [isn't]
excessive. Now this is necessary for Florida, but if you
think about it it's necessary for a lot of the rest of the country
because in California we're looking at the risk of earthquakes, up
and down the east coast -- hurricanes, middle of the country --
tornados, northern part of the country -- ice storms. So the idea
of this is to try and see if we can help each other nationally, so
that people can get insurance and this can be done in a sensible
way. And I think it's an important thing for Florida but I do think
it's an important thing for the rest of the country including the
general areas that I've mentioned. And it is an area in which I am
the strongest supporter of it of the candidates that are running on
the Republican side.
But actually, the private market is working quite perfectly.
Homeowners are having trouble finding insurance at reasonable rates
because they are living in areas that are at greater risk of being
hit by natural disasters. Should government intercede to
artificially lower insurance rates, it will only provide an
incentive for more people to move to natural disaster prone areas,
and thus increase the costs associated with disasters in the
future. There are advantages to living in Florida--from warm
weather to beautiful beaches--but one of the drawbacks is that it's
in prime position to be hit by hurricanes. Anybody who chooses to
benefit from living here, should bear the full costs.
Giuliani is right that at the end of the day, the federal
government jumps in with a relief package in the event of a
disaster. But two wrongs still don't make a right.