An ounce of prevention, it has been said, is worth a pound of cure.

That proverb is attributed to Benjamin Franklin, who purportedly coined it in a 1735 letter to The Philadelphia Gazette. The gist, as it applies to government, is that spending on preventive measures can avoid even greater costs in the future.

While Franklin went on to be one of our nation’s Founding Fathers, the extent to which his observation can be applied to modern politics is remarkable. So, too, is the extent to which modern leaders ignore its prescience.

In recent years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has provided billions in assistance to communities recovering from historic flooding but has denied grants to improve preventive infrastructure.

As Rep. Rick Larsen, D- Everett, said according to The Seattle Times, “Disaster declaration helps people recover from the last flood, but hazard mitigation helps people survive the next flood.”

Ignoring that reality is an all-too-frequent reaction regardless of which party is in control in Washington, D.C. And it has been especially common during Donald Trump’s two terms in the White House.

The most glaring example was the COVID-19 pandemic during Trump’s first term. In 2018, Trump eliminated the National Security Council office tasked with preparing for the next pandemic; two years later, a pandemic arrived, with Trump insisting that the coronavirus “came out of nowhere” and “blindsided the world.” Whether or not the virus came out of nowhere, Trump had demonstrated little interest in preparing for such an event.

Being reactive rather than proactive is a common trait for governments at both the federal and state levels, and the consequences are particularly dangerous in the age of climate change. With an increasing intensity and frequency for floods, wildfires and other extreme weather events, preparation requires more than simply raking forests — as Trump has recommended in the past.

Flooding in the United States has caused billions of dollars in damage to infrastructure, wiping out roads, bridges, culverts as well as homes and businesses. Awards from FEMA include some mitigation measures as part of $250 million in funding across the nation. But the rejection of broader investment from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program could be a costly oversight.

In 2025, FEMA canceled funding for the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, returning $882 million in undistributed funds to the Disaster Relief Fund or the U.S. Treasury. It also cut the Flood Mitigation Assistance program. In December of that year, a federal judge ordered the administration to restore funding, but Trump’s approach to mitigation remains shortsighted.

While the federal government can claim such cuts as “savings,” in truth it is costly; preventive programs must be seen as investments that reduce future spending. As the Urban Institute wrote at the time: “Without these programs, the vast majority of federal funding for disasters will be spent on response and recovery after disasters occur and in the places they occur, rather than attempting to reduce costs.”

The reason for this approach is clear: Spending on recovery can be easily seen by taxpayers; mitigation spending is more difficult to quantify, with the benefits often overlooked. But, as Congress and presidential administrations must remember, an ounce of prevention can carry great weight.

— From Tribune News Service