Fascism in "America the free"? It’s here; get used to it!

Excerpted from "Reclaiming The Issues: Islamic Or Republican Fascism?"
by Thom Hartmann

The John Birch Society’s website editor recently opined of the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretap program: "This is to say that from the administration's perspective, the president is, in effect, our living constitution. This is, in a specific and unmistakable sense, fascist."

Vice President Wallace's answer to a question regarding fascism in America was published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan:

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

Read the whole article by Thom Hartmann here:
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0828-23.htm

Read Will Grigg’s critique of Bush as our "living constitution" here:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_2943.shtml

Wake up, people!

************************************************

Stop Social Security Privatization--Vote Democratic

************************************************

Rise of the MegaChurch

A new phenomenon is taking shape in America--one that is radically redefining the “Christian experience.” What is this trend, and why is it gaining popularity?

Upwards of 16,000 worshipers gather every weekend, across the United States, in the latest craze in religious experience--gigantic, multi-million-dollar worship complexes called “megachurches.” Resembling concert halls or shopping malls, these churches are stirring up frenzy among those seeking a more modern approach to religion.

During a time in which congregations of nearly every faith and denomination are experiencing a decline in membership, megachurches are experiencing explosive growth.

A megachurch is defined as a non-Catholic congregation with at least 2,000 attendees. Nearly all were established after 1955. On a typical weekend, the largest megachurch hosts roughly 30,000 people, with a 300-member choir and a 10-piece band. Many others boast similar numbers.

Massive attendance is not the only defining characteristic of a megachurch.
These giant social complexes have other distinctive trademarks such as gymnasiums, schools, divorce centers, aerobics studios, computer centers, arcades, banquet halls, etc.--one even has a McDonald’s restaurant! Virtually all aspects of life are catered to at megachurches; they are not just Sunday experiences.

Upon entering this particular church, you would see why it is so attractive to the average person. In the foyer, you are immediately greeted by five 50-inch plasma-screen televisions, a bookstore, and a café with a Starbucks trained staff. Those who enjoy Krispy Kreme doughnuts will be happy to know that these are served at every service. For the children, there are numerous Xboxes available to hold their attention (ten forth- fifth- and sixth-graders alone).

As for the dress code, it is “anything goes.” Depending upon the season, most wear jeans, sweats, or shorts.

As one 55,000-square-foot church complex was being constructed, some asked if it was going to have stained glass windows or a steeple. The leader answered, “No! We want the church to look like a mall. We want you to come in here and say, ‘Dude, where’s the cinema?’”

Visit http://www.realtruth.org/articles/0401-trotm.html
for a more detailed description of the megachurch phenomenon.

"These are the times that try men's souls."

This simple quotation from Founding Father Thomas Paine's The Crisis not only describes the beginnings of the American Revolution but also the life of Paine himself. Throughout most of his life, his writings inspired passion but also brought him great criticism. He communicated the ideas of the Revolution to common farmers as easily as to intellectuals, creating prose that stirred the hearts of the fledgling United States. He had a grand vision for society: he was staunchly anti-slavery, and he was one of the first to advocate a world peace organization and social security for the poor and elderly. But his radical views on religion would destroy his success, and, by the end of his life, only a handful of people attended his funeral.

Islamic Fascism (courtesy of Wikipedia)

Islamic fascism, the term adopted by journalist Stephen Schwartz, is intended to refer to Islamist extremists, including terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. The term has gained wide currency in the United States, particularly among neo-conservatives. Since the term is intended to be pejorative and was coined by critics of militant Islamist groups, there are no self-identified Islamic fascists. The most recent appellation is by President Bush describing assorted cells of British Muslims of Pakistani origin in England.

In contrast, Wikipedia defines fascism this way: “Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.”

Since corporatism and other elements are missing from militant Islam, is the term islamofascist really valid, or is it just another attempt by the fascists in our government to redefine away from themselves a nasty but accurate epithet?

Today’s Installment of the Federalist Papers

The existence of these papers was noted in an earlier post. All 85 papers will be published on this blog. They are worth our consideration since our Constitution is based on their precepts. The short paragraph appearing below applies to all 85. The one appearing after this brief description was written by John Jay.

The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. They consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. The essays were signed PUBLIUS. The authors of some papers are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote fifty two, James Madison wrote twenty eight, and John Jay contributed the remaining five. The Federalist Papers remain an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

FEDERALIST PAPER No. 2

Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
For the Independent Journal.
John Jay

To the People of the State of New York:

WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers. It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government.

It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly directed to that object. But politicians now appear, who insist that this opinion is erroneous, and that instead of looking for safety and happiness in union, we ought to seek it in a division of the States into distinct confederacies or sovereignties. However extraordinary this new doctrine may appear, it nevertheless has its advocates; and certain characters who were much opposed to it formerly, are at present of the number. Whatever may be the arguments or inducements which have wrought this change in the sentiments and declarations of these gentlemen, it certainly would not be wise in the people at large to adopt these new political tenets without being fully convinced that they are founded in truth and sound policy.

It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, wide spreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being persuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.

This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom, in times which tried the minds and hearts of men, undertook the arduous task. In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.

Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive. But this (as was remarked in the foregoing number of this paper) is more to be wished than expected, that it may be so considered and examined. Experience on a former occasion teaches us not to be too sanguine in such hopes. It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so.

They considered that the Congress was composed of many wise and experienced men. That, being convened from different parts of the country, they brought with them and communicated to each other a variety of useful information. That, in the course of the time they passed together in inquiring into and discussing the true interests of their country, they must have acquired very accurate knowledge on that head. That they were individually interested in the public liberty and prosperity, and therefore that it was not less their inclination than their duty to recommend only such measures as, after the most mature deliberation, they really thought prudent and advisable.

These and similar considerations then induced the people to rely greatly on the judgment and integrity of the Congress; and they took their advice, notwithstanding the various arts and endeavors used to deter them from it. But if the people at large had reason to confide in the men of that Congress, few of whom had been fully tried or generally known, still greater reason have they now to respect the judgment and advice of the convention, for it is well known that some of the most distinguished members of that Congress, who have been since tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities, and who have grown old in acquiring political information, were also members of this convention, and carried into it their accumulated knowledge and experience.

It is worthy of remark that not only the first, but every succeeding Congress, as well as the late convention, have invariably joined with the people in thinking that the prosperity of America depended on its Union. To preserve and perpetuate it was the great object of the people in forming that convention, and it is also the great object of the plan which the convention has advised them to adopt. With what propriety, therefore, or for what good purposes, are attempts at this particular period made by some men to depreciate the importance of the Union? Or why is it suggested that three or four confederacies would be better than one? I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers. They who promote the idea of substituting a number of distinct confederacies in the room of the plan of the convention, seem clearly to foresee that the rejection of it would put the continuance of the Union in the utmost jeopardy. That certainly would be the case, and I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly foreseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet: "FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS."

PUBLIUS.

**********************************************

Nota bene:
The Constitution mentions IMPEACHMENT 6 times.

**********************************************

Impeachable Crimes

- Declaring war on a sovereign country (Iraq) without the consent of Congress. Congress cannot abdicate this responsibility under the Constitution.
- Lying the country into war just to be written into history as a “war president” while securing his own selfish goal of a second term.
- Illegal domestic spying, a ploy to intimidate Americans so they wouldn’t dissent or demand impeachment from their senators and representatives.
- Using “signing statements” to bypass over 750 American laws, thereby declaring himself king. The responsibility of the executive office is to carry out laws passed by Congress. It is NOT the responsibility of the executive office to reinterpret or ignore those laws based on personal likes and/or dislikes by implementing signing statements.

Free Speech Zones (courtesy of Wikipedia)

Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones and Free speech cages) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. Although such zones were first instituted by the Clinton administration, they gained more attention after the WTO Meeting of 1999 and have been used vigorously by the George W. Bush administration. Civil libertarians claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas--the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone. The Department of Homeland Security “has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves.”

History
Free speech zones were used aggressively in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention after a bid to keep protestors out of downtown Boston was abandoned due to harsh media criticism of its dictatorial implications. The free speech zones organized by the democratic leadership were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the Fleet center where the convention is held and criticized harshly as a “protest pen” or “Boston’s camp X-Ray.”

Free speech zones were used aggressively in New York at the 2004 Republican National Convention, after a bid to keep protestors out of the whole city was abandoned due to harsh media criticism of its dictatorial implications.

Prominent examples of recent free speech zones are those set up by the Secret Service, who scout locations where the president is scheduled to speak or pass through. Officials will target those who carry anti-Bush signs and escort them to the free speech zones prior to and during the event. Reporters are often barred by local officials from displaying these protestors on camera or speaking to them within the zone. Protestors who refuse to go to the free speech zone are often arrested and charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest. A seldom-used federal law making it unlawful to “willfully and knowingly enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” has also been invoked.

Legality
The Supreme Court has ruled that picketing and marching in public areas has some degree of protection under the First Amendment but less than that afforded to pure speech due to the physical externalities it creates. Regulations for such activities, however, may not target the content of the expression.

Notable incident
Free Speech zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event. When Bush came to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, “The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us.” The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a “designated free-speech zone” on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech. The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, though people with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Police detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views.

Criticisms
The Bush administration has been criticized by columnist James Bovard of The American Conservative for requiring protestors to stay within a designated area while allowing supporters access to more areas. According to the Chicago Tribune, the American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court in Washington D.C. to prevent the Secret Service from keeping anti-Bush protesters distant from presidential appearances while allowing supporters to display their messages up close, where they are likely to be seen by the news media. Regarding free speech zones, U. S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock has commented that, “One cannot conceive of what other design elements could be put into a space to create a more symbolic affront to the role of free expression.”

Well, here’s Dot Calm’s handy solution to protesters intent on practicing true free speech: carry a sign that is pro-Bush on one side and that expresses your true sentiments on the other. Protesters can arrange themselves so that no one can see their messages of protest until the group reaches its desired destination and the protesters turn their signs around.

Do You Know?

--Your Congress person? Your Senators? Supreme Court Justices?
--The Chief Justice? The members of the cabinet?
--Who thinks the Geneva Conventions obsolete and quaint?
--How much personal debt each American baby is born with?
--That AIDS funding has decreased around the world since this administration’s abstinence only policy?
India--most infected
Russia--fastest growing
China--unknown
--That over 16 billion records exist on Americans in a national data bank including DNA and voting history?
--About this administration’s signing statements?
--That Building 7, the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on 9/11/2001, was leveled by “small fires” according to this government?

Stay tuned: Dot Calm will be bringing you more about Building 7 next month.

Hurricane Katrina Update

One year after hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast, the numbers are not pretty. Read ‘em and weep … I did.

1. Number of housing units damaged, destroyed, or inaccessible because of Katrina: 850,791

2. Number of churches, synagogues, and mosques damaged or destroyed: approximately 900

3. Number of homes destroyed by breaches in federally designed and funded levees and not covered under the federal housing recovery plan: 200,000

4. Amount committed to Katrina relief by the federal government: $85 billion

5. Amount spent by FEMA specifically on housing assistance for hurricane victims: less than $4 billion

6. Amount spent by FEMA on operating expenses, including salaries and expense accounts: $6 billion

7. Amount spent on administrative overhead for every dollar FEMA spends: 26 cents

8. Number of FEMA trailers occupied in Mississippi: 94,000

9. Number of FEMA trailers still needed in Mississippi: 9,000

10. Number of FEMA trailers requested in the New Orleans metro area: 69,706

11. Number of FEMA trailers occupied in the New Orleans metro area: 31,517

12. Number of unoccupied modular homes purchased by FEMA and sinking into mud in Hope, Arkansas: 10,777

13. Number of FEMA trailers held in staging areas and unoccupied: 20,000

14. Number of repair and maintenance requests for FEMA trailers in Mississippi: 34,000

15. Average cost of a single FEMA trailer per month: $3,200

16. Cost to taxpayers for debris removal per cubic yard: $32

17. Payment to subcontractors for debris removal per cubic yard: $6-10

18. Number of “evacuees” given FEMA emergency assistance with invalid Social Security numbers or false addresses and names: 900,000

19. Percentage of FEMA contracts that were “no bid” in 2005:
In September: 80
In October: 60
In November: 68
In December: 50 (first half)

20. Percentage of FEMA contracts by mid-November 2005 that went to firms in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi: 12

21. Number of new migrant workers to the Gulf Coast region since Katrina: 30,000

22. Percentage of New Orleans pre-Katrina residents who have returned to the city: approximately 40

23. Percentage of homeowner settlements with insurance companies by January 2005 after the four Florida hurricanes: 90

24. Percentage of homeowner settlements by February 2006 after Katrina: 70

25. Average homeowner claim for flood damage before Katrina: $22,084,
After Katrina: $93,118

26. Number of insurance companies instructed by FEMA to cease National Flood Insurance payouts due to insolvency of the federally managed National Flood Insurance Program: 96

27. Amount allocated from Katrina funding to date to pay National Flood Insurance Program claims: $18.5 billion

28. Number of insurance companies sued for refusal to pay damages: 50

29. Number of counts in Senator Trent Lott’s lawsuit against State Farm Insurance: 7

30. Insurance industry’s contributions to Democratic campaigns and PACs for the 2004 and 2006 election cycles combined: $15,101,286

31. Insurance industry’s contributions to Republican campaigns and PACs for the 2004 and 2006 election cycles combined: $31,282,859

32. Percentage of homeowners still awaiting Small Business Association disaster loan approval: 50

33. Percentage of homeowner SBA disaster loans that have been fully paid after approval: 6.9

34. Amount collected by The American Red Cross’s hurricane relief fund: $2.1 billion

35. Annual salary of former Red Cross CEO, Marsh Evans: $651,957

36. Amount paid to consultants in the past three years to boost the American Red Cross’s profile: $500,000

37. Gallons of crude oil contaminating 2,500 Louisiana homes: 1,000,000

38. Number of medical professionals who volunteered with the Department of Health and Human Services after Katrina: 30,000
Number called to serve: approximately 1,400

39. Number of Katrina victims still missing: 1,960

40. Number of missing victims 20 years old or younger: 245

Sources (October 5, 2005–February 27, 2006):

1, 2, 30, 32 USA Today. 3, 7 Website of Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), http://landrieu.senate.gov. 4 Speech by President Bush in Waveland, Mississippi, on January 12, 2006. 5, 6 White House Office of Management and Budget, provided to Eyewitness News WWL-TV. 8, 9 Gulf Coast News. 10, 11, 17, 25, 36 The Times-Picayune. 12 DHS audit, February 2006. 13, 15 American Chronicle. 14, 40 The Washington Post. 16 Senator Tom Coburn. 18 GAO Report. 19, 20, 21, 22 www.federaltimes.com. 23 Gulf Coast Reconstruction Watch/Institute for Southern Studies. 24 www.migrationinformation.org. 26, 27 Newhouse News Service. 28, 29 www.fema.gov. 31 White House OMB and Capitol City Press. 33 Trent and Tricia Lott vs. US State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and John Does 4, 7, 34, 35 www.opensecrets.org. 37 Senate Resolution 347. 38 The Associated Press. 39, 40 www.forbes.com (FY 6/30/03). Department of Health and Human Services, quoted by www.reconstructionwatch.org.

And this from Alternet

Don’t Let Insurers Shirk Their Duty

Condensed from an AlterNet article
by Nomi Prins

New laws must prevent abuse by companies that are squirming out of paying Katrina victims.

Katrina destroyed homes along 70 miles of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Another storm's been brewing there ever since: a set of lawsuits against five major insurance companies for shirking post-Katrina claims. The lawsuits, filed by famed litigator Richard Scruggs, cover 4,000 families, including Scruggs's brother-in-law, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

All that's left on the plot of land that was Lott's home is brown-twig lawn. His insurance company of 40 years -- the nation's largest insurer, State Farm -- refused to pay for damage. As with other homes, State Farm contended that the cause of the damage was flooding -- something the company was not required to cover. That was despite Lott's 34-year record of opposing corporate regulation.

State Farm didn't value that record any more than Lott's home, treating him like all policyholders: badly. This highlights one indisputable fact. Corporate America may generally discriminate against the less wealthy, but nature and insurance companies are equal-opportunity offenders.

Scruggs and other lawyers aren't suing just about refusal to pay; the suits allege national, systemic fraud and consultant-concocted ways of shirking claims and stretching payment periods.

Scruggs also has evidence of dual engineering reports from firms used to evaluate homes for claims. The story goes: Give us (the insurance company) a report we like (that says we don't have to pay), or keep coming back until you do. That kind of collusion never favors consumers. With tens of billions of dollars of unpaid claims at stake, it's a strategy neither insurance nor engineering firms want illuminated in court.

The result is that a disaster in 2006 or later will hit policyholders with greater losses than last year. Meanwhile, insurance company profits have nearly doubled from $22 billion to $43 billion, in the past six years. Even with Katrina, the industry posted its largest surplus in 2005.

Enter federal intervention. In June, Sens. Lott and Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) proposed the "Honesty is the Best Insurance Policy" bill, which would force insurers to write policies in plain English. The bill has an uphill climb, given the power of the insurance lobby.

Other problems linger. A glaring one in the Katrina suits is what constitutes wind damage versus flood damage. Blaming floods is the industry's "get out of payment free" card. But for the decimated coastal homes, it's a seismic leap to proclaim the cause was spontaneous flood, rather than wind-caused storm surge.

Another dilemma is the lack of federal oversight of the industry, leaving the states as hostages of the insurers. While many insurers pulled coverage from Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, remaining ones hiked premiums. When Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood commenced investigations after Katrina, insurance firms threatened to bolt.

It's one thing when a major senator has his house blown down and instigates necessary legislation. But, for lasting reform, we need more federal and state supervision and fewer leniencies with reinsurance and insurance company price hikes and reneged claims.

We're a country bordered by sea with dense populations near water. Intense weather is always possible. But the role of insurance companies is to insure. Regardless of weather, they should be held accountable to that promise. That's what the companies signed up for.

Nomi Prins is senior fellow at the public policy center, Demos.