Yes, I see little difference on the private sector economic impact between this and Katrina, except for scale. The thing is, it is economically driven, and if I buy insurance from a company that underwrote a lot in the area in question and didn't hedge the risk by offsetting investments (after all, insurance underwriters make money by selling in a market with higher risk, and should be investing that capital accordingly), then I expect them to raise their rates to offset their losses, and I will be in the market for new insurance when my agent can no longer compete.

My point is that you are supposed to be responsible for the risks you take, whether as an individual or a group. By taking federal money to pay people for losses suffered due to fire, any fire, you are taking money from perhaps thousands, if not millions, of folks who not only probably have far less than those who lost their investment, but also will receive absolutely no benefit from such a payout.

As Mr. Bunce cited, once we open such a door, then it becomes far too easy for those with the power to distribute monies, intended only to fund governmental function, to their own constituents' personal needs at the expense of the entire population. That is the sort of fraud that corrupts the integrity of as system of trust such as ours. We've been doing it for almost a hundred years now, and it is only getting worse.