Insurance companies helped put the federal flood program in the red

In the article "Barbour sides with Taylor's insurance bill," you should have noted that Congressman Taylor has disputed the insurance industry's study about costs. The $200 billion cost estimate is based on bogus assumptions.

I worked in D.C. for 10 years for an advocacy group. I know that lobbying associations often fund studies to fight particular legislation, and they usually find a way to inflate costs to scare people away from a bill. Even though Taylor has refuted the study, the very fact that you include the association's cost doubts in the article without proper refutation is a victory for the insurance association. Their dishonesty has been rewarded.

While "artificially low rates for flood insurance" may have "helped mire the program in debt," you should have also noted that the insurers' improper shifting of costs to the flood program when wind was involved is likely the primary reason the flood program is in debt.

This dishonest activity, which has been reported on several occasions, has certainly shifted costs to taxpayers.

LARRY MARTIN
Bay St. Louis

See letter here.


Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home