For those wondering how Florida can get by without an income tax and states like Wisconsin can’t, here’s the clue: Florida’s citizens aren’t asked to pay the actual cost of living there.

Florida faces a financial meltdown this summer if a hurricane slams into the peninsula. Since the private insurance market either can’t or won’t offer insurance rates that Florida property owners are willing to pay, the state has established a Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. The fund is a state subsidy for “reinsurance,” which insures private insurance companies against catastrophic losses. Florida also imposed a freeze on insurance premiums, which fueled the state’s building and real estate boom.

The problem? The reinsurance fund is grossly underfunded. It’s estimated that one major hurricane could put the fund $18 billion into the hole (which makes Wisconsin’s $6 billion shortfall look relatively tame). “Our current strategy in Florida is prayer,” said Jim Massie with the Reinsurance Association of America.

Florida could replace prayer with a state income tax. After all, that’s how most states deal with weather-related expenses. Wisconsin, for example, deals with a phenomenon called snow. Part of Wisconsin’s income tax is sent to counties, cities, villages and townships to purchase and maintain snow removal equipment and pay the people who plow the roads. Snowstorms in Wisconsin aren’t freak occurrences or disasters; they’re a normal, predictable facts of life.

It’s the same with hurricanes in Florida. There is nothing wrong with Florida using state tax dollars to solve a problem that the private sector can’t. What’s wrong is refusing to pay for it and expecting the federal government to write an enormous disaster check when the inevitable happens. What are the odds of Florida asking for a federal bailout if a hurricane hits? And what are the odds of the federal government saying yes?

Wisconsin’s fiscal policy may be tax-and-spend, but it’s far more responsible than don’t-tax-and-pray.