This is the season of the quick fix, the period when we are entertained by promises and by assurances that our crises are well in hand, that fear is good, that it stimulates the minds and hearts of both candidates and their constituencies to respond, to persevere and to succeed.

In their Oct. 2 commentary, U.S. Reps. Ginny Brown-Waite and Clay Shaw write of their proposal for a National Catastrophe Fund, which would insure the subsidization of the insurance industry.

As previous experiences with Medicare and Social Security show, it is simply another slush fund, an open cash account to be borrowed on to pay for increasing waste and debt services supported by these same do-nothing representatives in their congressional roles as Republicans. When the National Catastrophe Fund runs dry, be assured that Congress will address the situation by cutting the levels of insurance coverage, increasing the rates, or eliminating areas of coverage based on the political influence of the appropriate committee.

We are also well aware of the ability of the federal government to dispense aid and organize reconstruction following Hurricane Katrina and the war that deposed both Saddam Hussein and the infrastructure of Iraq.

State Sen. Ron Klein, a challenger for the seat of incumbent Shaw, speaks of our frustration, and offers a solution, although no solution has been seriously proposed in any Congress by any political party in the decades before Social Security and Medicare reached a stage where any emergency fix would seem to be better than hanging the thieves who ignored the problem and fed at the trough.

Klein proposes, one, that he was not there when the chicken coop was raided and, two, that his Federal Homeowners Defense Act "will provide homeowner relief and inspire homeowners to protect and secure their homes."

Does this include mudslides, earthquakes, forest fires, floods, volcanoes, hurricanes and other acts of nature? Does this give the homeowner incentive to build in areas of probable risk? Does it allow states and federal agencies to be exempt from responsibility for acts which increase dangers from dams, drainage, mining, timber, grazing and destruction of soil; from pollution of air, ground and water; or any manner of business subsidy programs aided by such a fund?

A tax credit is suggested to reduce the cost of homeowners insurance. Who will pay for this tax relief?

Neither this plan nor Shaw's Catastrophe Fund addresses the real problem. Just as Medicare subsidized the health and pharmaceutical industries by permitting unlimited increases in prices without cost analysis, the homeowners insurance industry has been allowed to make billions of dollars in profits, year after year, without being required to maintain a fund against catastrophes.

The interest on such a fund would have reduced, if not mitigated, the losses. A tax benefit to the insurance industry for maintaining such a fund would have given added incentive and profit to those who insure the risk and reduce the cost of coverage to the homeowner.

We have endured enough from this government of ours. This is the season to rise up and be heard. We must make the candidates listen before we allow them to represent us.

_______________________________________________________________

By Morton Kurzweil

Morton Kurzweil is a resident of Margate.

Copyright © 2006, South Florida Sun-Sentinel