As a general rule, which makes more sense:
A: Buying a home in an area that is likely to flood, or;
B: Buying a home in an area that is not likely to flood?
Take a minute to think about it.
OK, if you said "B," go to the head of the class.
Unless you are in Congress, where the rules of common sense -- nay, of reality itself -- routinely are suspended.
Majorities in the Senate and the House of Representatives alike recently voted to extend the National Flood Insurance Program.
"The program, started in 1969 ..., now covers some 5.6 million policyholders in 21,000 flood-prone communities," The Associated Press advises.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended Congress' weird promotion of the market for flood-prone real estate.
Without the government-backed insurance, he said, "new housing construction would stall, in fact, in many places, just come to a halt. Real estate transactions would come to a screaming halt ... ."
Yes, Mr. Majority Leader, they would. And while that would have some undesirable economic ramifications in the affected areas, shouldn't we want home construction to come to a halt -- screaming or otherwise -- in areas where the homes that are built are apt to suffer catastrophic, costly, even life-threatening damage from floods?
No really: What part of that don't you get? Why on earth would Congress see it as its duty to promote construction of homes in such regions?
The only bit of real sense immediately visible in the legislation is an amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., that gets rid of subsidies for the insurance premiums for people who purchase second homes and vacation homes in areas that are likely to flood.
Some victory.
But why should taxpayers underwrite the unwise decisions of even first-home buyers?
The House bill, meanwhile, sought to "encourage private-sector participation in the flood insurance market," the AP added.
Goody. But private insurers aren't idiots. They know just as Congress knows that hurricanes Rita and Katrina cost the National Flood Insurance Program plenty. The program now owes the U.S. Treasury about $18 billion after borrowing money to pay for damage from the storms.
That sounds a lot more like a good reason for the federal government to get out of the flood insurance business than for private insurers to get into it.