Not inconsistent

These days, everyone seemingly worries about global warming and rising sea levels. In true Bootleggers and Baptists fashion, one can line up spiritual support for most boondoggles by making the claim that it is in the service of halting the rise in temperatures, the melting of ice caps, the rising of the seas, etc.

To be consistent :-), these advocates would find a way to end taxpayer subsidies of flood insurance. But it is not working out that way in the U.S. Congress. The Senators voted 64-35 to continue the moral hazard. Its all about "relief."

"I am here to say hallelujah," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., about the strong likelihood for Senate passage. "It looks we are finally coming to the point at which we can grant the homeowners and businesses of America some relief from the huge, gargantuan, tenfold sometimes, increases in flood insurance premiums."

But, on reflection, spending taxpayers' money to subsidize flood insurance for beachfront properties and spending money for crackpot projects that might "get people out of their cars" (but never seem to) do have something in common.  Both of them spend other people's money and direct it to favored constituents. One simply has to look more deeply. 

ADDED

These flood insurance subsidies are not even in the service of reducing inequality. The poor do not occupy beachfront properties.