Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

Prop 14 Will Hurt Personal Injury Victims

Monday, June 7th, 2010

If Proposition 14 passes tomorrow personal injury victims will lose.

The Proposition on its face sounds good enough – open up primaries in hopes that more moderate middle of the road candidates will have a shot at running on behalf of their party.  Because isn’t that were compromise comes from – the middle of the road, right?  Wrong!

There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.  And I wish that I could take credit for that sentence but it came from a much more famous Texan than I, Jim Hightower, the last democrat to serve on the Texas Supreme Court before tort reformers did to that state what they dream of doing to California.

What Proposition 14 will do is increase the overall spending on elections, which if you are from Wall Street or you made a bundle in Silicon Valley off of back-dated stock options that’s probably no big deal.  But if you are trying to back candidates that are concerned with the rights of consumers and personal injury victims, it’s a serious problem.

Besides, don’t take my word for it – just take a close look at who is backing the proposition: business groups, insurance companies, and the state Chamber of Commerce.  A group of folks that isn’t exactly a friend to injured workers, personal injury victims, and consumers.

Vote no on Proposition 14.  You’ll be glad that you did.

Injury Victims & Others Unite Against Tort Reform

Friday, February 12th, 2010

Consumer and injury victim rights advocates, medical malpractice survivors, and journalists and award winning and well respected news magazines have all come forward recently to denounce Republican attempts to include tort reform in any health insurance reform.San Francisco Injury Attorney Brett A. Burlison Looks At Tort Reforms Real Purpose

Andrew Cohen of The Atlantic writes this week that tort reform is one of the most blatantly anti-democratic concepts to find its way into our legal system; for it takes decision making away from local judges and juries, gives it to politicians who are often at the calling of their major corporate contributors, and protects corporations at the expense of us all.

The Economist objects to the proposed and so-called tort-reforms because in the U.S. the poor lack a sufficient safety net.

And as reported by the Huffington Post, personal injury victims and medical negligence survivors sent a letter to the President and Congressional leadership this week.  The injury victims and survivors urged the President and Congress to refrain from including additional tort-reform in any health insurance reforms that are enacted.

The injury victims make a coherent and reasonable argument in their letter.  They address many of the points that tort-reformers promote as the basis for their proposals.  But let’s be honest, tort-reform is not about helping patients.  It’s not about helping doctors.  And it’s not about bringing down costs.  And we know that it isn’t about any of these things because it accomplishes none of these things.  It’s about politics and protecting insurance companies and Republican corporate contributors from having to suffer the consequences of their actions.

If Republicans are successful at tort-reform they believe that they can kill two birds with one stone.  First, as noted above, they protect their corporate contributors.  Second, they hurt democrats by going after a large source of funding for Democrats – trial lawyers.  For Republicans the issue is a win-win or as some would say a no-brainer.

But as injury victims, award winning journalists, and respected serious news publications have pointed out what we actually need is the President and Congress to use their brains on this issue.

Protections For Consumers Held Hostage By Banking Committee

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Here at Legal Blog, we have written previously about the need for an independent agency to protect consumers, injury victims, and us all from financial injury or ruin due to the worst practices of the financial industry – practices and that greatly contributed to the crash of 2008 and recession of 2009.

In fact, Washington was a-buzz with the idea just a few months ago.

Well, what do you think the chances are that we will get that new independent agency (the Consumer Financial Protection Agency – CFPA) anytime soon? Little to none.

The bill that would create the CFPA is stuck in the Senate Banking Committee and doesn’t appear to be headed anywhere in a hurry. The answer as to why lies in the Republicans’ united front in the wake of last month’s Democratic loss in Massachusetts. And the power to move the bill and protect consumers from injury and harm resides mostly with a man who claimed during the financial crisis of 2008 that we should simply let all the banks fail – Senator Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), the banking committee’s ranking Republican.

According to the Washington Post and other media sources, Shelby and Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) have been discussing a compromise that would enact some reforms without creating a new agency. But reforms are meaningless without teeth.

And the divide between consumer advocates and those that are fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo actually runs deeper than one election cycle and political posturing. It demonstrates a failure of our political system in the worst way: the loss of our ability to save ourselves (a loss exacerbated by last week’s Supreme Court ruling – read here).

Senator Shelby has himself recognized the need for consumer protections. According to the Post, Shelby stated last summer, “Consumers are not likely to participate in our markets . . . unless they know they are protected against fraud and unfair dealings[.]” And he is right.

Many state attorneys general have called for an independent federal agency. And these folks should know, they enforce state consumer protections laws and see first hand the injury and harm that can be inflicted by a predatory financial industry. These folks also understand the need for an independent agency that isn’t essentially run, funded, and managed by the industry insiders it seeks to corral.

When families become entangled in a web spun by some of the more dangerous financial abuses and practices, they are left more than injured – they can be financially destroyed and ruined. Parents lose their ability to provide for their children’s education, to start a new business, to make any meaningful contribution to society all because of a system that many now feel is only profitable when it engages in activities that are fraudulent and fundamentally unfair.

Yet the bill that could change this is held up in committee – why? Because, for instance, one of the provisions provided the agency with the power to require simpler products from financial firms; straight forward terms for mortgages and credit card agreements for example. This brought the critics out in full force.

What they want it seems is a bill with no teeth, no new agency, and no real mechanism of enforcing any reforms that do get enacted. The existing federal and state regulatory agencies had the power to stop the abuses of consumers that lead to the crash; they did not do so and a new agency is needed to prevent a second much worse catastrophe from taking place.

Business groups, which despite their leadership and participation in the excesses and abuses that lead to our current condition, have lined up in a hard stance against any reform that is anything but meaningless. The fact that these groups still have power in our nations capital and wield it unabashedly indicates our broken state. And because of the Republicans willingness to utilize the filibuster on any legislation at all, the fate of our financial system and essentially the stability of our society is left with a man that would have let every single financial institution in the United States fail one year ago.

Democrats’ Loss Could Mean Set-Back For Consumers & Injury Victims

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

The meaning of the recent upset in Massachusetts and victory by republican Scott Brown is still being deciphered by analysts and democrats.  However, the loss of a democratic senate seat thought to be safe could easily spell trouble for injury victims, consumers, and the public in general.  That is, unless democrats and specifically the President decide to lead.San Francisco Injury Attorney Comments on Scott Brown Election

Health care aside, there is still much work to be done to protect consumers, injury victims, and the public from predatory financial institutions, dangerous and defective products, and unethical business practices that have become all but common-place with insurance companies.

To be fair and honest, the loss of Edward Kennedy’s seat to a republican is disappointing to say the least.  However, democrats never truly had a 60 vote majority (Joe Lieberman) and republicans have never truly wanted reform of any sort.  What health care, banking, and financial reforms require is what the President has failed to deliver: leadership.

As pointed out in editorials, letters to editors, and readers comments in papers from San Francisco to New York the President has failed to lead on health care, on jobs and housing, and for consumer protections, and real banking reform that the country desperately needs. (more…)

Al Franken – (D) United States Senator!

Tuesday, June 30th, 2009

180px-alfrankenjpgAccording to the LA Times (click here), the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that Al Franken should be certified as the winner of that state’s US Senate race. The court had heard and rejected legal challenges to the election results by Republican Norm Coleman.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled unanimously and according to the Times stated that “Franken is entitled to the election certificate he needs to assume office.”

If Franken is seated in the US Senate, Democrats will have a filibuster proof majority.

The New York Times has an excellent article on the decision, which can be read here: Court Rules Franken Has Won Senate Seat

Republicans “misunderestimate” President Obama

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009

George W. Bush stated numerous times while in office that his political adversaries often  “misunderstedmated” him.  Despite his garbled syntax his sentiment was correct.  Now it appears that the Republicans are making the same mistake in their dealings with our new president.

It’s clear to everyone in the country, with the exception of Congressional Republicans, that we are facing a terrible economic crisis.  The Wall Street Journal’s economic blog, Real Time Economics, points out in a recent post that the real unemployment rate is 13.9% and not 7.6%. (see WSJ blog)  Nevertheless, Congressional Republicans decided to test the President, attempting to blindly stand in the way of the stimulus package – as if any other fight just wouldn’t do. (see Paul Begala’s commentary on Republican strategy ).

And though he may have made initial mistakes in the debate, the President has corrected himself, engaged, and appears to have won the battle.  This is evident from the most recent polling by Gallup and the Senate’s passage of the stimulus.  (see Gallup Data)

What the Republicans have done is, (1) lost a debate that they were destined to lose anyway, and (2) alerted President Obama to their strategy and approach on future legislative battles.  Having learned from his earlier mistakes the President will now be better prepared in the future – a process that Barack Obama has shown to be particularly adept at.  We can only hope that the Congressional Republican’s strategy continues to be as sound as George W. Bush’s syntax.

Republicans, Obstruction, & Stimulus

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

President Obama and Congressional Democrats are working around the clock to pass the stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act).  This Act will help to right our economy and prevent a deeper and lingering recession. And while there are sincere Republicans attempting in good faith to compromise and pass this needed legislation, most notably Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, it appears a large contingent of Republicans are willing to play politics with America’s economic security.

As E.J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post points out “…Republicans who in one breath say they want more tax cuts declare in the next that they are against the tax cuts Obama has proposed.”

Let’s hope that the Republican’s politics are as ill-fated as they are transparent.

The President’s Washington Post Op-Ed can be read here: Op-Ed

Read E.J. Dionne’s of the Washington Post look at the status of the stimulus bill and the surrounding politics here:Hard Ball