Should government protect us from hurricanes?

proposed "Ike Dike"

     Hurricanes are nasty creatures.  They kill people and destroy massive volumes of property, all without remorse.   Hurricanes Katrina in 2005, and Harvey in 2017, are tied for first place as the most costly in history, at about $125 Billion each.  And that's just dollars of property damage; deaths and injury have their own dishonorable-mention stats.  By golly, the government needs to protect us from these monsters!  (And while they're at it, let's also include earthquakes, firestorms, tornados, and other acts of terrorism courtesy of Mother Nature.)

      This issue came up recently in my home state of Texas, as the Army Corp of Engineers is considering a huge storm surge protection system across the mouth of Galveston Bay, tagged the  

"Ike Dike".  Its estimated cost is $28 to $31 Billion.  All paid by the state, local, and federal government, of course.

      Or is hurricane protection a job for government?

      Let's begin by mentioning that elephant here in our living room:  the U.S. government already spends a helluva lot of money.  The federal budget for fiscal year 2018 is like $1.3 Trillion, or more than $43 Thousand for every man, woman, and child in the USA.  And I will bet you anything that that amount will certainly continue to go up, up, up indefinitely.  Oh and did I mention that tax revenues only cover a small part of it?  And this is not, by any means, just a federal government thing, for state and local governments pretty much everywhere also face out-of-control spending problems.  It seems that everybody and his brother have lots of really good reasons for government to spend MORE money, but nobody can ever think of a reason for government to spend LESS money.

      The core of the argument for governmental protection from Mother Nature is the age-old wealth redistribution theme straight from Karl Marx:  from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.  People who have endured a hurricane clearly are in need, and others who have not endured said hurricane have the ability.  And so government must take from one to give to the other - minus the government's transaction handling charges, of course.

       One of the biggest problems with this philosophy is that it fosters a culture of victimhood.  Everybody is potentially a victim of something - if not a hurricane, then an earthquake, blizzard, bad health, loss of job, financial hardships, ethnic prejudice, lack of self-esteem, obesity, addiction - the list is endless.  You end up with a system whereby those who are best at making politicians and taxpayers feel sorry for them get the money.  Meanwhile, those who pick themselves up, wipe off the dust, and get back in the game must cough up the tax dollars for the poor-poor-pitiful-me crowd.  Is this any way to build a productive, successful society?

      So if government is not the ultimate savior of hurricane victims, then who is?  The answer, in short, is:  you are.  If you live or own property in a hurricane-prone area, then take a lesson from the fable of the Three Little Pigs, and build your structures soundly.  Harden your buildings against the wind, and build them high enough to survive a flood.  Or better yet, stay out of flood zones in the first place.  And buy adequate insurance.  It's up to you - not the government - to cover your assets.

      If you're not a hurricane victim, then there are all sorts of ways you can help that do NOT involve government.  After Hurricane Harvey, pro football defensive lineman J.J. Watt took it upon himself to create his own foundation to help the victims.  Anyone can donate, any amount, any time.  And let us not forget the efforts of the Cajun Navy, who volunteered their time, their energy, their boats, and their resources, at a tremendous risk to themselves and their watercraft, to rescue people complete strangers in the aftermath of that awful storm.  

The "Cajun Navy" during Hurricane Harvey

      Furthermore, it is foolish for the people of coastal Texas to demand that the federal government spend tax dollars collected from, say, coastal New York to pay for their Ike Dike.  Likewise, it is foolish for the people of New York to tax Texans to pay for protection from another Sandy.  If government absolutely must have special-interest programs for some needy group, then localize and decentralize it as much as possible.  State-wide government is always better than national government.  County government is even better than state-wide.  City is better than county.  Neighborhood is even better than city-wide.  The more decentralized and localized the government, then the greater the relative weight of your vote; and, it's much easier to pack up and move if local government policy is not to your liking.

      Finally, remember that politicians and bureaucrats don't give a flying flip about the poor and suffering victims of the latest disaster.  There is nothing "generous" about spending SOMEONE ELSE'S money.  Despite the rhetoric, it has nothing do with compassion; rather, it's all about power - the power to buy votes with my paycheck, and yours.