Bill Description: House Bill 17 would grow government by creating the Idaho Wildfire Risk Mitigation and Stabilization Pool, a board to oversee it, and a fund from which it may give grants.
Rating: -3
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
House Bill 17 would add several new sections to Chapter 24, Title 41, Idaho Code, to establish the Idaho Wildfire Risk Mitigation and Stabilization Pool, a board to oversee it, and a fund to enable its spending.
Under this proposal, the pool will be "an independent public body corporate and politic" that will "receive funding from various sources" and use the money to "assist target areas and improve access to property insurance in target areas." It will also "distribute funding to mitigate wildfire risk, including but not limited to grants, matching programs, and educational efforts."
The pool will be overseen by a 12-member board, with one member from the Senate, one from the House, and 10 appointed by the director of the Department of Insurance. The board would create and submit a "plan of operation" to the director, who would decide whether to approve it.
The bill says the pool shall have "the general powers and authority granted under the laws of this state to insurance companies licensed to transact business, except the power to issue property coverage directly to individuals." It will also be given a wide range of powers, including the authority to "borrow money to effect the purposes of the pool."
The bill also creates the wildfire risk mitigation and stabilization fund in the state treasury.
The bill's intent language says the legislature is meant to "assist homeowners and property owners in protecting their homes and property against wildfire risks and to reduce or mitigate wildfire risk to property owners." While this may sound like a noble ambition, it is not the proper role of government, and it is a meaningful increase in government's size, scope, and spending.
(-1)
Does it increase government redistribution of wealth? Examples include the use of tax policy or other incentives to reward specific interest groups, businesses, politicians, or government employees with special favors or perks; transfer payments; and hiring additional government employees. Conversely, does it decrease government redistribution of wealth?
The bill calls for providing "grants to citizens or communities for wildfire risk mitigation." These grants would necessarily benefit some property owners at other people's expense.
The choice to purchase and develop property in an area that has an elevated risk of natural disasters such as fires, floods, or hurricanes is a calculated risk. Individuals and businesses alike need to account for those risks and take steps to mitigate them by purchasing more expensive and comprehensive insurance or taking other measures.
When government starts handing out money to mitigate risk, it's redistribution. This act has a secondary effect of manipulating the market. Once people begin to expect government subsidies and grants, they adjust their market decisions accordingly.
(-1)
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase any taxes, fees, or other assessments? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce any taxes, fees, or other assessments?
The bill lists half a dozen funding sources for the Idaho wildfire risk mitigation and stabilization pool. These include "the ongoing appropriation of premium tax authorized pursuant to section 41-406(1)(e), Idaho Code."
The bill would amend this section of code to say that after certain required payments from the fund, if the premium tax remaining exceeds $113 million, "one-fourth (1/4) of such excess is hereby appropriated and shall be paid to the Idaho wildfire risk mitigation and stabilization pool."
Another funding source would be "grants or other contributions available for fire prevention or mitigation." While some such grants may be available from the private sector, most come from the federal government, which raises additional concerns about increasing Idaho's dependency on debt-financed federal funding.
In addition, the bill says the pool may be funded through "assessments, if any, as deemed necessary to meet the obligations of a program." It further says that the board shall "establish procedures for determining when an assessment from insurers is recommended" and the director shall "approve a recommended assessment that is in the best interest of the state and its citizens."
Assessments on insurers are ultimately passed along to consumers through higher premiums.
It's worth remembering that with very few exceptions, any money that government spends or appropriates is taken from the people, either directly or indirectly, through taxes, fees, debt, or other assessments. Whenever a new government program comes along, the people end up funding it one way or another.
(-1)
