Last week, Congress once again did what it does best: delayed the inevitable. Whether the issue is health care, jobs or foreign policy, our political leaders typically avoid implementing fundamental reforms.
Instead, they push back deadlines and delay rate increases while skirting around the root problems. Last week, the U.S. House passed a bill that would, among other things, prevent homeowners from experiencing massive increases in their flood insurance rates. The Senate passed its own version in January, but both chambers must agree on one before moving       forward.
Although representatives are lauding this vote as a step forward, they are avoiding the fundamental question: should the government mandate flood insurance? Common sense, economics and morality all answer with a resounding “No.”
Flooding is part of Louisiana’s history and culture. We know better than anyone else—save Floridians—the physical and monetary dangers a wall of water can bring. As students and future residents of this swampy state, we understand flood insurance is sometimes a necessity.
For many Louisianans, flood insurance is pointless and serves as an added economic burden. Ranging from $100 to more than $1,000 a year, federally enforced insurance places added pressure on residents — especially students — to pay for protection they otherwise wouldn’t opt for.
Legislators claim this mandate benefits everyone by providing affordable insurance to those living in flood-zones. However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requires anyone with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding to purchase insurance. Premiums depend on both one’s risk and mortgage. A 1 percent chance is quite small and in no way necessitates insurance.
By setting the limit at such a low level, the government requires millions of people to contribute to the collective insurance pool ,which may never need its assistance. History proves that giving such power to a central authority yields catastrophe, and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) follows suit.
Storms like Katrina, Ike and Sandy have dealt serious blows to the program, which is currently $24 billion in the red. This is why rates were expected to increase this year, until Congress stepped in and delayed the hikes. But FEMA is looking to expand the pool of insurance-buyers in attempts to generate more revenue for the NFIP.
To our representatives, two choices remain: raise premiums or require more homeowners to buy insurance. Neither option solves the problem. They penalize those who don’t need it and charge higher premiums for those who already have it. A third choice — the only moral one — remains.
Phasing out the government-subsidized program is the only method that gives consumers the freedom to purchase insurance if they feel it necessary while taking the payment load off the government’s shoulders. The fact that FEMA forces Americans to buy insurance should be motivation enough to oppose the NFIP. 
Another cause for concern is the inefficiency that runs rampant throughout this program. Many who are supposed to buy insurance choose not to because of either exorbitant prices or those homeowners don’t feel it necessary. Because the federal government is in charge of overseeing so many transactions and balancing such a large budget, it often overlooks hundreds to thousands of non-payers. New legislation will try to address this problem, but we all know that one bureaucracy is incapable of policing an entire population.
Instead of head-butting over numbers and statistics, Congress needs to understand the damage its federal insurance program causes. As the costs of living and education continue to increase, more insurance payments help no one. In the long run, maintaining the current program hurts the entire country and disproportionately hurts students who are already on a razor-thin budget. 
Phasing out the NFIP must be Washington’s priority, not the trivial details like rates and flood zoning. Seeing that most legislators are FEMA fanboys, I don’t see reforms happening anytime soon. That doesn’t mean we                 shouldn’t try.        
Andrew Stolzle is a 21-year-old mechanical engineering junior from Baton Rouge.