Firing of 800 NOAA Employees

[Randy Zipser]

I agree with Jeff House's reaction to Post #119. The following link is another "sad" consequence of the current administration's decisions and actions affecting the lives of thousands of American citizens who are victims each year of weather (and other) natural disasters.

I wonder what would happen if a hypothetical Cat 5 hurricane were to obliterate Mar-a-Lago? In that scenario, if FL Gov. DeSantis (a staunch supporter of the administration) was to request FEMA funding to help those "billionaires" (including the president), would the president disapprove those funds?

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/22/politics/fema-money-slowed-trump/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc

 

[Mike Smith]

I wonder what would happen if a Cat 5 hurricane were to obliterate Mar-a-Lago? Would FL Gov. DeSantis request FEMA funding to help those "billionaires" (including the president)? Would the president approve those funds?

Good morning, Randy,

I guess my perspective is driven by the fact that I lived a significant amount of my life before there was a FEMA and before the feds (specifically President Obama with assistance from Gov Chris Christie) post-Sandy completely screwed up the homeowners' insurance market due to the close proximity to an election. The reverberations of that stupid move continue today, with the effect of significantly increasing homeowners insurance rates, especially in hurricane areas.

The F-5 Ruskin Heights Tornado of 1957* was very similar to Joplin in many ways, including occurring the same state. Yet, somehow, recovery occurred without a FEMA and it occurred much more quickly than similar recoveries today -- while people wait around to see if they are going to receive federal assistance (ask the people of Los Angeles where, as of last week, fewer than 100 building permits had been issued for the fire areas). The insurance companies, within days, went around the neighborhood to find their policyholders and/or they set up a tent at a local shopping center's parking lot. Once they had confirmed your ID and that you were a policyholder, they wrote a substantial check then and there.

I have long believed that if a person cannot afford homeowners' insurance, they can't afford to buy that home. There is more than a little evidence that if we got the feds out of interfering with disaster recovery (ask the people of North Carolina's mountains what they think of FEMA!), rates would actually go down.

In my ideal world, Congress and President Trump would reform this mess along these lines:

• Get the feds out of the homeowners insurance market.
• Insure the insurance companies (Allstate, State Farm, etc.) were sufficiently solvent with their assets and with the reinsurance markets to handle the largest disasters.
• A new "all-hazard" category of homeowners' insurance would be allowed. This would end the arguing over "wind or water" after a hurricane. It would also handle the potential for tsunami or volcano damage which --I believe -- is underestimated by FEMA and insurance due to recency bias.
• FEMA would, going forward, be shrunken into an expert logistics and red-tape cutting coordinating agency. It would be, according to the EA President Trump issued two weeks ago, be located outside of DC. It would be about 10% of its current size.
• There would be optional federal multi-state licensing of contractors so help could go where it is needed.

To answer your question, once this was accomplished, there would be no need for Governor DeSantis to request federal help. Insurance would take care of Mar-a-Lago.

My 2¢.

Mike


*Photos of the devastation of that tornado are below. The next morning, since we lived within the governor's designated disaster area, my mother drove us down the circled street. I knew I wanted to be a meteorologist from that moment, on.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Good morning, Randy,

I guess my perspective is driven by the fact that I lived a significant amount of my life before there was a FEMA and before the feds (specifically President Obama with assistance from Gov Chris Christie) post-Sandy completely screwed up the homeowners' insurance market due to the close proximity to an election. The reverberations of that stupid move continue today, with the effect of significantly increasing homeowners insurance rates, especially in hurricane areas.

The F-5 Ruskin Heights Tornado of 1957* was very similar to Joplin in many ways, including occurring the same state. Yet, somehow, recovery occurred without a FEMA and it occurred much more quickly than similar recoveries today -- while people wait around to see if they are going to receive federal assistance (ask the people of Los Angeles where, as of last week, fewer than 100 building permits had been issued for the fire areas). The insurance companies, within days, went around the neighborhood to find their policyholders and/or they set up a tent at a local shopping center's parking lot. Once they had confirmed your ID and that you were a policyholder, they wrote a substantial check then and there.

I have long believed that if a person cannot afford homeowners' insurance, they can't afford to buy that home. There is more than a little evidence that if we got the feds out of interfering with disaster recovery (ask the people of North Carolina's mountains what they think of FEMA!), rates would actually go down.

In my ideal world, Congress and President Trump would reform this mess along these lines:

• Get the feds out of the homeowners insurance market.
• Insure the insurance companies (Allstate, State Farm, etc.) were sufficiently solvent with their assets and with the reinsurance markets to handle the largest disasters.
• A new "all-hazard" category of homeowners' insurance would be allowed. This would end the arguing over "wind or water" after a hurricane. It would also handle the potential for tsunami or volcano damage which --I believe -- is underestimated by FEMA and insurance due to recency bias.
• FEMA would, going forward, be shrunken into an expert logistics and red-tape cutting coordinating agency. It would be, according to the EA President Trump issued two weeks ago, be located outside of DC. It would be about 10% of its current size.
• There would be optional federal multi-state licensing of contractors so help could go where it is needed.

To answer your question, once this was accomplished, there would be no need for Governor DeSantis to request federal help. Insurance would take care of Mar-a-Lago.

My 2¢.

Mike


*Photos of the devastation of that tornado are below. The next morning, since we lived within the governor's designated disaster area, my mother drove us down the circled street. I knew I wanted to be a meteorologist from that moment, on.

Great points, all, Mike. Much appreciated perspective, your "2-cents" worth!

In the case of Florida, even with FEMA acting in very-much-reduced background role, I'm not overly optimistic that the predominant role for disaster remediation should be left to the insurance industry at large. Commercial insurance companies (and their back-up reinsurance pools) are both subject to market forces and most are answerable to their shareholders (deep-pocketed investors in the latter case, or Members, as is the case with USAA, for example). Businesses being what they are, ultimately "King Dollar" mentality takes over and corners (in their interest in appeasing shareholders/investors) get cut. The end result is always the same: the policy holders get "screwed" when actual claims are filed. Then, who becomes the back-up to the re-insurers in a really major disaster? It's going to be the state governments, that's who! Florida's Citizens back-up insurance fund is chronically underfunded and essentially operating in debt now. Bottom line: Government (i.e., the public sector) will always be involved somehow with disaster-relief assistance, especially in the event of widespread, catastrophic natural (or even, human-caused) events. That said, I agree that a downsized FEMA role would go a long way toward streamlining and eliminating a lot of the "foot-dragging" that now occurs with FEMA in its present form, just as claim-settlement by commercial insurance companies is generally a bit faster (and simpler) nowadays.

 

[Mike Smith]

Government (i.e., the public sector) will always be involved somehow with disaster-relief assistance

I completely agree that there is a role for the federal government in a coordination/logistics role (only) in a major disaster such as an intense hurricane or tsunami. That said....

FWIW, for ~200 of our nation's ~250 years of existence we functioned fine without a FEMA. That is in spite of considerable evidence the meteorological disasters of the late 19th Century were worse than today (see: ironically named, When the Climate Was Perfect ) and the fact that the U.S.A's worst meteorological disasters since 1900 -- as measured by storm intensity -- all occurred in the 20's and 30's. As Roger points out, the wildfires of the late 1800's were far worse than today's wiping out Chicago and, separately, an area the size of Iowa! Somehow the remote Island of Hawaii managed to recover from the tsunami of 1946 -- the worst in the nation's history (Hawaii was a territory at the time) without a FEMA.

Keeping in mind I have sat in the executive offices of some of America's largest homeowners companies and one of its largest reinsurance companies, worked for attorneys on the other side of the issue, and have done consulting work for both, I think I have a decent amount insight into these issues for someone from outside of the industry.

Attached is a cartoon that may apply to doing away with FEMA in its present form and definitely applies to the opposition/indifference I have experienced with the National Disaster Review Board proposal. We can't imagine doing away with the NTSB and I believe the NDRB will do so much good that 10-15 years after its creation, America will feel the same way about it, too.

As to the almighty dollar, I recently had unusual hail damage to my home ( 1/2" hail but driven by a measured gust of 96 mph). Because it was a very small-scale storm (downburst-related), I feared the claims process. It turned out to be fast and very fair. I realize companies are under far less pressure in a situation like mine but think back to 9-11...

Warren Buffet said that GEICO and his other insurance companies did not include terrorism in their coverage nor were their rates priced for that risk. Yet they paid the whole liability immediately to the tune of $2.4 billion. The other insurance companies of which I am aware, especially the life insurance companies, did the same. Now, the life insurance companies could have said, "Hey, we didn't include direct terrorism in our risk categories and the government/charity is paying you more than your policies are worth" (in many cases that was true). Yet they paid quickly and in full.

I truly believe that rates would stay the same or go down if we got the government out of the 'insurance business.' Right now, the actuaries have no idea how to price risk because they don't know whether FEMA or Congress is going to step in and pay all or part as they did with the phony "Superstorm" Sandy and a number of storms since. That entire event caused a huge loss of trust in the insurance industry and within the insurance industry. There is no question the quality of claims service in major disasters has greatly decreased in the aftermath. Why would ACME Insurance want to pay off immediately (as they used to) if the government is going to come in and subsidize the whole financial aftermath for the companies that don't pay immediately and also covers the losses of the uninsured (subsidizes bad behavior)? Remember, government does not have to earn both money for retained earnings (to pay future claims) and a reasonable profit (so people will invest going forward).

Finally, I attach a photo of the discussion Obama's secret plan on a noisy tarmac, with Christie, to screw the taxpayers and the responsible insurance companies in the wake of Sandy. While I can't speak for Republicans, we conservatives spend a lot of time talking about government's unintended consequences. The effects of this meeting continue to reverberate today.