The GAO weighed in this week, but their myopic report seemed to indicate that perhaps federal terrorism reinsurance should be limited to nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacksas if a plane flying into a major commercial building, killing and injuring thousands, is just a routine exposure for private insurers to anticipate and cover.

Washington is clueless about the risk of terrorism. Lawmakers and bureaucrats dilly-dally about securing our ports, nuclear plants, water supplies and transportation hubs. They hand out homeland security grants like political pork, rather than based on sound risk management considerations.

Its really an outrage how inept our federal government is in dealing with this threat. Congress and the White House make the three monkeys of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil infamy seem like the Three Wise Men by comparison!

I have no doubt no matter who says what about terrorism exposures, this debate will go down to the wire again next year, with a lot depending on who is running Congress.

It is incredible to say this, but the best-case scenario for the insurance industryat least as far as terrorism goes–might be that Democrats take over the Senate and name Hillary Clinton majority leader. At least Hillary recognizes that a lack of terrorism insurance would be a national security concern, as she has repeatedly stated.

All those Republicans who self-righteously insist that the American people can only trust them to defend the country against the terrorist menace, should stop their political posturing and actually do something to defend the economic security of the United States by putting in place a permanent terrorism reinsurance facility.

In future weeks, Ill address the various proposals that have been floated, but for now Ill take a straight renewal of TRIA as is, before its too late.

What do you think the best way is to insure terrorism risks???