Insurance execs' pay up dramatically
|
Friday, October 12, 2007
Hey, Toledo Blade, you first
by Ana Maria
Oh good grief! I just read an editorial in the Toledo Blade praising Bush’s land grab and political punishment project. What I have to say is this.
"You first, Toledo Blade"
Northern Ohio has had quite a few black outs and tornadoes over the years needing all kinds of repairs to phone lines and roads. I’m sure that plenty of business expenses for those utility repairs come straight off the businesses bottom lines thus reducing their tax liabilities.
I’m sure, too, that there are all kinds of government grants associated with the hazards of living in an area that has extreme weather conditions that the area experiences with such regularity that hearing the tornado alarm going off in the background has been rather common when I’ve talked with a great friend of mine who had lived in the area for a number of years.
Stan Zeleski uses a leaf blower to clear the driveway of his Beverly Drive home after yesterday’s snow, but he may need a snowblower to handle the amount forecast for today and tonight.(THE BLADE/DAVE ZAPOTOSKY)
Since the editorial board feels that the veiled political revenge posing as a government act of fiscal kindness both to the fed’s coffers and to the families who live here, I say, “you first.” Yeah, that’s right. You and yours get the Bush Administration breathing down your neck talking about buying up various parts of your city. Heck, over the years, how much money has been spent plowing the roads, looking for people stuck in the snow, buried under the many feet of that lofty dust of cold stuff.
Let’s see, what was it the paper wrote?
"FOR those who live along U.S. coastlines, the feel of sand between their toes, the year-round ocean view, and falling asleep to the sound of gentle waves are experiences just this side of heaven.
Unfortunately, the ability of the few to live in paradise has been subsidized for decades by the rest of the country in the form of higher insurance premiums, federal insurance subsidies, and disaster-relief payments because many of these same areas are prone to hurricane-related storm damage."
Tow operators prepare to upright a vehicle following a rollover accident on southbound I-75.( THE BLADE/DAVE ZAPOTOSKY )
So let’s change this up to fit Toledo, shall we?
"FOR those who live near the beauty of Lake Michigan, the feel of the gentle snow, the falling asleep to the winter picture perfect beauty on the roof and covering of the terrain are experiences just this side of heaven.There, I feel better. So, Toledo editors, I am not much into the cold weather. I have on my flannels when the temperature outside dips below 70 degrees. For the life of me, I cannot understand the desire for anyone to live in any area where the conditions are like living in a deep freeze. Now that you no longer wish to burden the rest of us with your whining about the hardships of living in that god-forsaken place.
Unfortunately, the ability of the few to live in paradise has been subsidized for decades by the rest of the country in the form of higher insurance premiums, federal insurance subsidies, and disaster-relief payments because many of these same areas are prone to blizzard and tornado-related storm damage."
Yes, it’s beautiful with the snow on the ground during the winter holiday season. But you don’t have to actually live there. Geeze, Louise! Look, you’ve known about the treacherousness of the area’s winter months. Here’s a USA Today article from February of this year.
The monster snow and ice storm that hit the Midwest and Northeast blew out to sea, leaving behind huge snow piles, frigid temperatures, highway logjams Thursday. The storm was blamed for at least 15 deaths.
"You can't even shovel it," said Wes Velker, an electrician who had to dig out from a foot of snow so he could go to work fixing busted water pipes and furnaces in Toledo, Ohio. "You have to take it off in layers."The article provided an example of the foolish behavior of those living there, folks who apparently don’t pay attention to the authorities.
In Toledo, Ohio, Derrick Jones managed to deliver red roses and heart-shaped balloons even though authorities had ordered everyone but emergency workers to stay off the roads.
So, there, now, you should all be happy that the Toledo Blade’s editorial board has piped up and volunteered to be the first in line to beg Bush’s bottom bargain basement bullies to bulldoze your homes to turn it into the winter playground for others.
Here’s a headline from the Toledo Blade itself in February of this year.
Blizzard-like conditions make driving treacherous
Most schools to close Wednesday; downtown power resumes
Most schools to close Wednesday; downtown power resumes
The snowy weather also was blamed on a power outage that struck downtown Toledo and much of North Toledo shortly before 7:30 p.m. The outage area of concentration was Lagrange and Huron to Lagrange and Manhattan and everything east to the river, Toledo police said.Police said? Police are paid from the government coffers funded with money from taxpayers. Scrap that, Toledo. From now on, perhaps the Toledo Blade should fund all the information gathering having your reporters figure out all of these things without relying for its information on any government funded organization be it the police or school system.
** *
Meanwhile, most public and parochial schools closed today in advance of the storm. In addition, classes were canceled at Owens Community College and Bowling Green State.
The heavy snow made driving treacherous, causing fender benders throughout Toledo all day. Sliding cars and jackknifed trucks snarled traffic on I-75. Police departments responded to only injury accidents.And here was a nice sentence.
See? The Toledo Blade editorial board should not be running a business in the area. It’s dangerous and it relies on government funding for safety in an area that is, well, treacherous. Besides, if the government funded agencies like the police didn't provide accurate and timely information to the Toledo Blade, the paper would not have the information from which to write reliable and authoritative articles for its readers. The paper's ad revenue may see a dip were the readers not able to turn to it for timely, reliable, and authoritative information. A dip in ad revenue may mean layoffs and eventually, the business may no longer be profitable. Since the paper relies on government funded activities--police, public schools, etc.--then the paper is relying on our tax dollars to provide it with a basis for it to be in business. Tss. Tss. Tss.
Perhaps it is irresponsible of the Blade to open its doors and employ folks because isn't that encouraging Americans to live in the area, put their children in schools that require tax funding and that will end up being closed because of the routinely bad winter weather? Doesn't living in a blizzard and tornado-prone area cost taxpayers in the form of higher premiums across the nation and higher taxes as well?
Get my point?
Of course, I don’t really think this way. I have friends and family from Cleveland, Ohio, to Detroit, Michigan. While I personally turn into an ice cube thinking of their kind of cold weather and cannot imagine living daily with their weather conditions, I support their decision to live there and access all the resources—government and otherwise—to live there.
Heck, I couldn’t have imagined myself living with the threat of earthquakes, yet I lived in the greater Bay area of California for five years. Tornadoes, blizzards, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, dust storms. Pick any area of the country and some form of non-Utopian weather exists. Leveraging the power of our local, state, and federal governments, we come together to protect our families, businesses, communities, schools, houses of worship. We insure our homes and businesses. When we file a legitimate claim, we expect tour insurance company to pay up be it for a blizzard or tornado or hurricane winds. Across the nation, though, that is not happening.
Imagine if all the Toledo area commercial and residential insurance claims were not paid. Really, not a dime. Period. Residents would be up in arms just as we have been down here. How in the living heck are families to live, work, play in the Toledo area if their homes and businesses had to rely solely on their own savings to fund all damages? What would be the point of insurance?!
Moreover, how would those families and business owners feel if after they had experienced some horrible weather conditions, after they had been betrayed by their insurance companies who deliberately failed to pay on their claims, after their leaders in the White House sent in clowns rather than a professionally managed federal emergency agency, after the man living in the White House let his buddies in the insurance industry have its way with the area’s people for the sake of corporate greed? Then after two years of this kind of insanity, Bush’s buffoons sprung a two-year secret plan to buy up the area. The White House propaganda so good that as you are awakening with your morning reading, you read an editorial cheering on Bush’s plan. This from an area that routinely relies on government to work through the disaster and insurance to pay for any damages.
Good grief! You know that the areas residents would feel just as we do down here. Tired, exhausted, betrayed . . . determined to keep their lives, homes, and communities . . . determined to help the rest of our nation see that what is happening could happen to them in the blink of an eye. In other words, the Toledo Blade’s area residents would feel like they were in the same boat as those of us here inside the Katrina-ravaged region.
The Blade's readers would understand that if the insurance companies had done as they were supposed to have done and paid off its claims, no one would be talking about Bush’s BS land grab—which seems to really be about political revenge targeting Congressman Gene Taylor whose vision and backbone of steel has combined to lead the nation in rectifying the severe problems with going after the insurance industry.
Can it be merely coincidental that Bush’s buyout plan is targeting the hometown of the man spearheading the effort to ensure that whenever an American family or business owner purchases insurance for both wind and flood, that they actually get paid on their wind policy for the damages wind causes? In a word, no.
Libby Garcia, one of the few residents to rebuild . . ., wonders why the Corps is singling out the Gulf Coast for buyouts when so many other coastal areas face the same flood risks.
"Why don't they go buy Key West?" she asked.
Think about it. If the insurance companies had simply done as they should have, would we be having these conversations? No, we would not.
That is our point. We’re all in the same boat with insurance companies that betray us and with a White House that betrays us in so many ways many of us quit counting. We’re in the same boat. So before you find yourselves in a sea of insurance insanity, start paddling with us if not because it is the right thing to do then because of strictly selfish reasons. We don’t care about your reasons. Just start paddling so we all go in the direction of protecting the financial security for American families and businesses. Given today’s circumstances, it’s the only insurance we can count on.
© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home Read More......
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Taylor: ‘No federal buy-outs’
By Mary G. Seiley
Oct 10, 2007
Area officials are set to huddle with the Corps of Engineers and state Department of Marine Resources Oct. 29., concerning the controversial Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program.
The meeting, arranged by the Hancock County Chamber of Commerce, is planned for elected officials only, although media representatives will be allowed too. Meanwhile, the public is urged to let their city, county, and state officials know of their concerns so they will be represented at the meeting.
Tish Williams, executive director off the Chamber, arranged the meeting for 4 p.m. at a Hollywood Casino meeting space.
Invitees include the mayors and council of Bay St. Louis and Waveland, Hancock County Board of Supervisors and the county administrator, state Reps. J.P. Compretta, Jessica Upshaw and Dirk Dedeaux. State Sen. Scottie Cuevas also is invited, as well as Chris Lagarde of US. Rep. Gene Taylor’s office, Phara Fishburn of Sen. Thad Cochran’s office, and Scot Walker of Sen. Trent Lott’s office.
Williams asked that the general public not be invited, in order to “make this meeting as productive as possible.”
Last month, the Sea Coast Echo printed details of proposed property buyouts by the Corps of a vast stretch of Bay St. Louis, including most of the territory along the Jourdan River south of Bayou La Croix to Julia Street.
DMR and the Corps called a public hearing immediately after that news broke, and faced hundreds of area residents frightened by and opposed to any buyout plan.
In what appears to be a nearly final scenario for Hancock County, officials have engineering and design underway for seawall restoration at Cowand Point, the Bay St. Louis Seawall and Clermont Harbor. Jackson Marsh, Bayou Caddy and Hancock County beaches are up for environmental restoration, and storm water capacity in Hancock County streams will be restored.
The buyouts -- still in the MSCIP final draft -- are longer-term plans, impacting such areas as Cedar Point and Clermont Harbor.
“Based on the analysis we identified a number of areas that are considered a priority for the nonstructural option of buyout/relocation,” the document states. “These area areas that will continue to sustain damages during future events if no action is taken. In these cases, even if an engineering solution is considered, the areas are either outside the footprint of the engineer solution or the engineered solution either would not reduce damages to these areas of could make the level of damages greater.”
Planners say they’ve dropped the idea of building a 40-foot seawall at Bay St. Louis. But construction of a long linear levee from high ground north of I-10, in the western part of the county south to the area of the railroad corridor and eastward with a surge gate across the mouth of St. Louis Bay “is an option still under consideration“ an updated report from the Corps states.
In lieu of the linear levee, officials are still considering ring levees surrounding populated sites in Bay St. Louis and, possibly, Waveland.
A ring levee system at Pearlington is also under consideration.
The buyout idea remains a volatile issue in Hancock County, although it is a voluntary concept that would first involve properties which haven’t been rebuilt.
Next would come properties that were undeveloped prior to Katrina and remain undeveloped, followed by structures that may have been rebuilt.
Officials say the buyout program would take 10 to 20 years to complete, turning the newly owned government lands into green space, recreation areas and nature preserves.
In a recent interview DMR’s executive director, Dr. Bill Walker, told the Sea Coast Echo that most of the calls he’s received since the huge public hearing have been in favor of voluntary buyouts.
He held a meeting last week with the president of Bay St. Louis City Council, James C. Thriffiley III, and Hancock County Board of Supervisor Jay Cuevas, to rehash the plan.
That session was set up by Sam Moore, president of the Garden Isles Community Association, who calls the plan a “boondoggle…poorly thought out and a knee jerk reaction.”
Walker has essentially left the fate of the buyout part of the plan up to area elected officials to endorse or crush.
While Thriffiley said Monday a buyout program would be “a major disaster which would destroy development and redevelopment,” City Council hasn’t taken an official position on the matter yet.
It was on the agenda for discussion and probable action Tuesday night. The Board of supervisors and Waveland aldermen also are expected to reach official positions on the proposals soon, possibly presenting them to Walker at the Chamber-sponsored gathering on Oct. 29.
U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor yesterday issued a statement that – as far as he is concerned – the buy-out plan won’t happen.
“There will be no mandatory buyouts at the federal level,” Taylor said. “As you may be aware, the State of Mississippi has previously been given federal funding for Katrina-related recovery efforts. What the state chooses to do with funds already given to it is a decision for state officials. However, I assure you that there will be no federal funds for mandatory buyouts.”
MSCIP was funded under a $10 million federal appropriation in December 2005. A final report is due to Congress this December.
© Copyright 2007 Bay St. Louis Newspapers, Inc.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home
Insurance relief can only come from state
By Daniel Israeli
October 11, 2007
As the wave of big insurance companies dropping thousands of Long Island homeowner's insurance policies continues to gain momentum, legislators in Albany are contemplating ways to calm the storm, which has already left its mark in Long Beach.
On Tuesday the state Senate's standing committee on insurance held a public hearing on Long Island to examine the availability and affordability of homeowner's insurance in New York's coastal communities. The committee, led by state Sen. James Seward (R-Oneonta), gathered at the Western Campus of Suffolk County Community College in Brentwood, for a hearing that included testimony from insurance company representatives and state insurance department superintendent Eric Dinallo.
According to Tom Dunham, a spokesman for Sen. Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre), the hearing was focused on assessing the current problem, while also gaining input from the insurance companies, to better understand why so many policy holders on Long Island have received nonrenewal letters.
In the two years since Hurricane Katrina, the big insurance companies, such as Allstate, Liberty Mutual and State Farm, have stopped providing coverage for thousands of residents in Long Island and other coastal communities. As homeowners continue to wonder what their next move is, legislators have been left with a troubling question - whether or not to further regulate the insurance companies.
According to Dunham, while nothing was resolved at the hearing, a lot was taken away by the parties involved. "The hearing was a step in the right direction," he said. "Right now, it's about weighing the pros and cons of each course of action."
At this point, the most talked about course of action appears to be a bill proposed by Eric Dinallo last week, which would require insurance companies to set up a catastrophe reserve fund, to be used in the event of a major storm to help pay off claims. Each company would save a percentage of its premium dollars on an annual basis. It's Dinallo's hope that the funds would reap enough for the companies to feel more secure, and drop fewer policies.
According to Dunham however, the proposal hasn't gone over well with insurance companies, obviously uninterested in saving their own money for a rainy day, at least in New York. "They didn't feel it was an idea that made a lot of sense," he said. "[The insurance companies] did seem to support it on a national level, but didn't feel it was right for risk states to create their own carve-out policies."
The issue dates back to January 2006, when Allstate announced it would not renew a number of homeowner's policies in the region, in an effort to protect its liability after a major storm. Soon after, the other companies followed suit, and the legislators up in Albany took notice.
Assemblyman Robert K. Sweeney (D-Lindenhurst) wrote a bill to address big insurers not renewing people from coastal areas. Insurance companies are allowed to take four percent of their policy holders off their rolls annually under state law. Sweeney's bill would change that, by making it so insurance companies can drop four percent of their policies, but by each individual rating territory (region), not statewide.
This would prevent cherry picking, when insurance companies minimize their liability by targeting coastal areas during the nonrenewal process. According to Sweeney, the efforts of Allstate and other big insurers to flee the coastal market, and in effect decrease their market shares, hasn't always been the case.
"Originally, Allstate used aggressive tactics by undercutting rates," said Sweeney. "They wanted the lion's share of the market." He added that the company still covers 26 percent of homeowners insured on Long Island. "Then, Katrina happened."
The hurricane's impact on the insurance market is evident all along the state's eastern coastline, and the political response has come from all levels of government. Last year, U.S. senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton criticized Allstate's decision to limit its exposure in lower New York. But change can only come from the state Legislature, since insurance companies are licensed through the state.
In Long Beach, the local push to get legislation passed has already begun. The members of Homeowner's Insurance Scam Stoppers, or HISS, are urging legislators to curtail the dropping of Long Island policy holders.
Richard Boodman, a Long Beach resident and founder of HISS, said the issue isn't political. "This is not about party politics," he said. "It's a matter of survival for all of Long Island. We have to take this issue island-wide and demand that the Long Island assembly and senate delegation create legislation that protects us.
The Senate has introduced three bills in the last two years regarding homeowners insurance, including one that would cap deductibles at $1,500 on policies for windstorms. However, that bill and Sweeney's bill, both sponsored in the Senate by Kenneth LaValle, have not reached the governor's desk. Sweeney's bill did pass the Assembly in each of the last two sessions.
According to Dunham, getting legislation passed has been difficult because insurance companies lobbying against bills that would effect their liability. While the lobbying power of big insurance is apparent, Dunham said that it has no correlation with the company's contributions to election campaigns. Both Skelos and Assemblyman Sweeney accepted contributions from Allstate during the 2006 election campaign.
"Senator Skelos has many different contributors," said Dunham. "If you look at his record of passing legislation, he's supported a number of bills that conflict with the interests of insurance companies."
Dunham said that the senator is confident, however, that the insurance committee hearing has shed some light on the issue of homeowner's policies, and has created a better understanding of what needs to be done to help Long Island homeowners.
"It's a situation where people are being unfairly denied a necessity, and the problem needs to be fairly addressed," Dunham said. "This is an issue that will be front and center once the new session begins in January."
Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg said the practice of cutting coverage regionally is wrong, and said he believes the big companies should be held accountable.
"If you are a licensed insurer by the state of New York, then you have an obligation to provide insurance," he said. "These companies are not living up to their responsibilities, which is to protect people. They are in this business to make money and not serve the needs of people, and that is very offensive to me."
There are people in the market, like local insurance agent Denis Miller, who feel that the top insurance companies hold too strong an influence, which would prevent a major bill from passing. "It is nearly impossible to legislate insurance companies," he said. "They are too big. The licensed companies have paid their money into the state's guaranteed fund, and it's very difficult to legislate a private company."
As for Boodman and the members of H.I.S.S., they are continuing to gather signatures, in hopes that the names of Long Island homeowners can overpower the likes of Allstate and Liberty Mutual.
"Our legislators are supposed to be putting our interests, their constituents, first and not catering to special interest groups like the insurance industry," Boodman said. "If we don't put the fire to their feet now, our homes and our quality of life are going to be worth didley."
Comments about this story? DMiller@liherald.com or (516) 569-4000 ext. 213.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home
Hypocrisy and Independence in Mississippi’s Insurance Commissioner Race
by Ana Maria
Hypocrisy. What a terrible characteristic in a human being, particularly an elected official with regard to their public statements on their responsibilities and duties for which they are responsible. The current revelation that Republican State Senator Mike Chaney took over $44,000 from the very people in the insurance industry that he says he wants to regulate makes him a big laughing stock here in Mississippi. Wasn’t this the guy who stated, “I don’t know how you can take money from a company and regulate ‘em?”
Well, I guess he figures that he would do what his buddy George Dale had done—you DON’T regulate ‘em. See, Chaney likes Dale.
Said so himself in that very same speech where he pronounced the question perplexing him at the time.
Yep, Chaney said,
And by George! Gary Anderson won the Democratic nomination beating out the 32-year, in-the-back-pocket-of-Big-Insurance George Dale! Now it is time to beat the George Dale stand in.I like George. I’m just worried that he might not get the nomination.Republican Nominee Mike Chaney
Miss. Insurance Commissioner
Chaney’s political game plan has been pretty typical of the Trojan Horse political strategy--pretend there is no real difference between the candidates when there is a world of difference. Chaney has come out in favor of the multiple peril insurance legislation that won overwhelming and bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation is very popular with South Mississippi voters because of our big wave of discontent over how Big Insurance has wronged the families and business after Hurricane Katrina. Gary Anderson has long supported this groundbreaking legislative initiative that South Mississippi's Congressman Gene Taylor sponsored.
However, as we connect the dots, Chaney’s character looks differently.
In front of the MML , Chaney had declared his fondness for George Dale, the darling of the insurance industry. In front of the political insiders who attend the Neshoba County Fair, Mississippi's annual political, Chaney declared that he intended to win the election in November--weeks before the upset defeat of the then-ever so popular 32-year incumbent in the Democratic primary.
Collectively, his statements comprise a wink, wink, nod, nod in politics. Translation:
"If things don’t work out so well for George Dale in the primary, don’t worry, I have Big Insurance’s back. I’m your guy."How does a candidate take money from the corporate interests he is to regulate—particularly an industry that is in such disfavor as the insurance industry is with the residential and commercial insurance policyholders in this state—then turn around and regulate them? They do not. The only way to be sure that the insurance industry is regulated as stringently as our laws currently permit them is to elect a candidate who takes positions that protect Mississippi’s residential and commercial policyholders AND remains financially independent of the insurance industry.
There is only one candidate in Mississippi’s election campaign for insurance commissioner that fits that perfectly. That candidate is Democratic nominee Gary Anderson.
In the August primary, Anderson was elected over George Dale because Anderson had shown his independence from the insurance industry, an industry that has shown how ruthless and cruel it can be to its customers. Plenty enough voters supported Anderson’s campaign to elect him as the Democratic nominee.
Yes, this included support that came from a man who has fought successfully in court against the insurance companies that have wrongfully failed to live up to their financial responsibilities to the people of Mississippi. Yes, this included support from a man who had dedicated his life to fighting the giant corporations that sometimes fail to be good neighbors, corporations in whose hands we found ourselves financially strangled. Thank GAWD for trial lawyers who will take up the cause of the little people like you and me so that we can be the David successfully going up against the Goliaths such as Big Insurance.
I find it truly amusing that trial lawyers, rather than corporate lawyer shills, have become the butt of many jokes in our society, in our culture. But as Senator Trent Lott demonstrated, when someone is taking away our home, we will look around and find the best of the best trial attorney to fight our legal battles. For Senator Lott, he needed go no further than his own brother-in-law Dickie Scruggs.
Scruggs is an ardent supporter of those getting the short end of the stick that corporate shill attorneys get paid to poke into the eyes of the little people. I want the Dickie Scruggs of the world out there fighting the good fights to protect American families and businesses. That’s the American way. Our history is filled with countless stories of an injustice being righted solely because someone finally hauled—or threatened to haul—someone’s you-know-what to court. Skilled attorneys on our side is what has given plenty of South Mississippi families money to rebuild their homes, their lives, their businesses.
Dickie Scruggs and other attorneys supporting a solid candidate for Mississippi’s insurance commissioner, a candidate dedicated to protecting our state’s policyholders from unscrupulous behavior from Big Insurance, this is simply a natural alliance. Of course, they would support Gary Anderson. If what trial attorneys wanted was more business, they would simply conduct independent expenditure campaigns—create a political action committee, fund it, develop a television ad, etc.—supporting Republican Mike Chaney. After all, with Chaney as the George Dale stand in candidate, we can expect the same kind of pro-industry policies that have given rise to the need to employ engineers and high powered attorneys like the Scruggs Katrina Group, the Merlin Group, and others.
But, the trial lawyers want good things for Mississippi’s mom-and-pop policyholders. So, they are supporting the candidate who they believe, like I believe, will best protect the interests of the little people.
We have a clear choice for Insurance Commissioner this year.
Republican candidate Mike Chaney is obviously taking substantial sums of campaign contributions from Big Insurance while pretending he can be independent in spite of his campaign coffers filled with insurance dollars. Well, we’ve already seen the results of an insurance commissioner whose campaign hand eagerly took the cash from Big Insurance. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. At the end of the day, South Mississippian families and businessowners often found themselves with only the shirts on their backs.
That is why I’m supporting and voting for Gary Anderson for Mississippi’s next Insurance Commissioner. I want a candidate who is independent from, who will protect policyholders from, who will stand up to Big Insurance. I hope you do, too. As each of us invests time to assist with the myriad of activities or money to fund those activities, Mississippi can make history through putting into office an Insurance Commissioner who will protect the interest of the state’s families and businesses. The choice is clear.
© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home Read More......
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Chaney Pockets Industry Money By Thousands According to Financial Disclosure Report
Jackson, Mississippi – Insurance Commissioner Candidate Mike Chaney has taken over $44,000 in insurance industry money since July 29th according to his October 1oth financial disclosure . Chaney, who first said he would not take insurance money, later changed his mind, saying he would only take money from individual insurance agents. Now his report shows thousands collected from insurance company executives, insurance PACS, agents and insurance companies.
“I have not taken a single dime from insurance companies or insurance special interests. Mr. Chaney cannot protect the pocketbooks of the insurance ratepayers if he is taking money from insurance interests. Taking money from an industry you would be responsible to regulate is a direct conflict. I call on Chaney to return every dime and come clean with the people of Mississippi,” said Anderson.
Mike Chaney has a history of taking insurance company money and then voting against the consumer. As a member of the Senate Insurance Committee, he has been wined and dined by insurance industry lobbyists and then voted against insurance rate rollbacks, for increased auto insurance premiums and for an insurance company tax credit. Chaney Fact Sheet Link
“My independence from insurance is the main difference between my opponent and I. Mike Chaney is beholden to the insurance industry. What we see reflected in this financial disclosure is more of what we can expect from him, just check his record. It is clear Chaney is in the back pocket of big insurance and will rubber stamp big rate increases just like Dale did. Chaney has been bought for a price,” stated Anderson.
A CLOSER LOOK AT MIKE CHANEY'S FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
• Insurance Company Contributions
Chaney has taken over $16,000 from insurance companies like Fulton Insurance, Bills Insurance Agency, Southern Vanguard Insurance, Republic Underwriters Insurance Company, REP Fire & Casualty, Southern Insurance Company, Family Insurance Agency Incorporated, FCCI Services Incorporated, FCCI Insurance Group, Imperial Fire and Casualty, Underwriters Group Incorporated, Starmount Insurance Company, Oxford Insurance Agency, and Fowler Adjustment Company.
• Insurance Company PACS
Insurance Political Action Committees work to coordinate and facilitate legislative and regulatory agendas; they have given Chaney about $2,000. Insurance PACS which have given to Chaney include National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Independent Insurance Agents PAC and Professional Insurance Agents of Mississippi PAC.
• Insurance Company Executives
Chaney took nearly $7,000 from insurance company executives. These include Ronald Tubertini, CEO of South Group Insurance Services, Donna Halford, CEO of Halford Insurance Agency Incorporated, Thomas Quaka, CEO of Mississippi Insurance Managers and Brierfield Insurance Company.
• Misleading Reporting
Mike Chaney has reported Andrea Bennett's occupation as “individual” when she is currently the President & CEO of Bennett & Co., a consulting practice which specializes in all lines of insurance. Another example of Chaney's failure to openly disclose sources of campaign contributions is Kenneth Shearer, a contributor listed in Chaney's disclosure as “individual” who is the CEO of Brickell Insurance Company. Both Bennett and Shearer gave Chaney $1,000. Thousands of dollars in insurance money are hidden throughout Chaney's report.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home
Not Buying Bush's Buyout Plan
[Photo is part of an] "exhibit contain[ing] selected images from over 5,000 slides and photographs in the Dale M. McDonald Collection which document art exhibits, businesses, boating events, attractions, community events, landscapes, residences, and street scenes in Key West." Firefighter and photographer Dale McDonald was born in Key West, Florida on October 2, 1949.
by Ana Maria
Yesterday’s news carried story after story—many posted here in my blog—of the continuing drumbeat about Bush’s government apparatus stating that federal buyouts of homes along the Mississippi Gulf Coast is the agenda on the table. Some reported that the plan is now extending into Louisiana. All this unnecessary upset for a regional area that has already been through hell and back.
I loved Congressman Gene Taylor’s response,"Five words: 'It ain't going to happen,' " says Rep. Gene Taylor (D) of Mississippi, who's in the midst of rebuilding his Bay St. Louis home. "There's no money for it, there's no will for it, and there's no public support for it. That's 0 for 3."
Can it be merely coincidental that Bush’s buyout plan is targeting the hometown of the man spearheading the effort to ensure that whenever an American family or business owner purchases insurance for both wind and flood, that they actually get paid on their wind policy for the damages wind causes? In a word, no.Libby Garcia, one of the few residents to rebuild . . ., wonders why the Corps is singling out the Gulf Coast for buyouts when so many other coastal areas face the same flood risks.
Good idea. Let Bush attempt his buyout plan in a state with 25 electoral votes in play for the upcoming presidential election. Key West is a great place to start. Like the Mississippi Gulf Coast, Key West was battered in a 2005 hurricane. Her name was Wilma.
"Why don't they go buy Key West?" she asked.
Here’s a YouTube video on Wilma's impact on that fabulous city. Only video, no sound.
Here’s another before and after video of Wilma hitting Key West. The first part is humorous. The second, well, it isn’t.
Notice that there were plenty of winds long before the storm surge came ashore. Be sure to read the text that the creator embedded in the video. Six storms through Key West in two years.
Personally, I think the discussion of the buyouts is politically motivated, political revenge because Gulf Coast Congressman Taylor (D-MS)—a man whom the Bush Administration could count on to vote with the White House on its Iraq and social conservative policies—had demonstrated clearly that his moral values included using the government levers of power to help the American people of every political, economic, and religious stripe and size.
You see, once Taylor’s ground breaking multiple peril insurance legislation is signed into law, the Big Insurance Scam days are O-V-E-R. Immediately, REAL competition for REAL insurance enters the market.
At present, Big Insurance pretends to offer folks wind coverage be it for hurricane or tornado winds. But when those winds whip up a shore and cause substantial damages to or destroys homes and businesses, the gig is up and its time to pay AND to shut up. However, after Katrina, Big Insurance companies talked with each other and all of a sudden we had an industry wide response to Katrina’s wind damages: not gonna pay. Any other industry would be in violation of the U.S. anti-trust laws were their companies to be in cahoots, in collusion with each other. That is the other ground breaking legislation that has been introduced in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives with bi-partisan support—eliminating the accidental, though fiscally lethal, loophole that has permitted the insurance industry’s corporations to collude with one another.
George W. Bush has raked in tons o’ cash from the insurance industry that has been unfairly raking in profits at the expense of paying its policyholders on legitimate wind claims.
Vicious political revenge has long been the modus operandi of the Bush Administration. Need proof? Two words: Karl Rove.
I think it is useful to put this buyout propaganda into proper perspective. First, the Democratically-controlled Congress has committed itself time and again to the rebuilding of the Katrina-ravaged area. Last year when she was Majority Leader and then this year as Speaker of the House, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) led a delegation of congressional representatives to the area and held town meetings in Bay St. Louis, Miss., the very town Bush’s Buyout has targeted.
When Bush’s Corps of Engineers first unveiled its proposed buyout plan to the residents of Bay St. Louis, I was in the room and just as ticked off at it as the rest of my townspeople neighbors in the room. If Bush feels that this is such a great idea, he should convince his little brother to sell the buyout plan to Key West. Let’s see how well that goes over. Yeah, right. Like a lead balloon."There will be no mandatory buyouts at the federal level," Taylor said in an e-mail. "As you may be aware, the State of Mississippi has previously been given federal funding for Katrina-related recovery efforts. What the state chooses to do with funds already given to it is a decision for state officials. However, I assure you that there will be no federal funds for mandatory buyouts."
I believe Congressman Taylor when I read the news article conveying his statement on this pathetic propaganda veiling that the White House has put out to mess around with Taylor’s home district. Heck, who am I kidding? This is Taylor’s hometown.
So long as the Democrats are in power in Congress, I don’t see this Bush’s BS of a buyout plan going anywhere. But it may not have a thing to do with actually making it happen. It will, however, generate a ton of anxiety, stop development, and pour a ton of unnecessary phone calls into Taylor’s offices. You see, part of the impact of this would be to pull from Taylor and his staff some of the time and energy that they spend on pushing through the Multiple Peril Policy through the U.S. Senate. Part of the impact is to serve as a political warning for others who join the fight for the financial security for America’s families and businesses.
“What political warning?” you ask. How’s this. You mess with our friends—i.e. Bush’s buddies in the insurance industry, and we’ll mess with you . . . at home.
On August 13, 2007, when Speaker Pelosi spoke with the standing room only crowd at Congressman Taylor’s Town Hall Meeting on Insurance Reform that he held at the Our Lady of the Gulf Community Center, she told us that she knew we were a deeply religious people, a deeply patriotic people. Speaker Pelosi is, indeed, accurate in her description of the people in this area—myself included.
Though Bush and his Corps of Engineers are attempting to run over us in a tyrannical-like fashion not experienced by any other community in these United States, we will remain steadfast in our faith that we will prevail, that our congressman will lead the way, and that others will join with us to make life better for us and for the nation. We're not buying Bush's buyout plan. Our county and city officials have come out against it. "People are just backing off and it's leading to a panic," said [Hancock County Supervisor Jim] Thriffiley. "The buyout situation is worse than a stock market crash for our community."
Bush's cruelty will be remembered. Here in Bay St. Louis specifically, I know us to be a humble group of folks with backbones of steel, hearts of gold, and memories better than any elephant. “Remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall -- think of it, ALWAYS.”
© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home
Gov't May Buy Thousands of Miss. Homes
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. (AP) — The federal government is considering buying out as many as 17,000 homes along the Mississippi coast and remaking the land into a vast hurricane-protection zone, raising anxieties that it could destroy the waterfront lives many residents are struggling to rebuild after Katrina.
The Mississippi Coastal Improvement Program could cost $40 billion, including buying the homes, building levees and restoring barrier islands. The land could be converted into wetlands or other public uses, such as golf courses or bike trails, but could not be sold for private development.
For Finley Williford, a 42-year-old boat captain, a buyout offer would have been tempting if it had come shortly after Hurricane Katrina destroyed his Bay St. Louis home on Aug. 29, 2005.
But instead of leaving, he invested countless hours of labor and more than $400,000 in two new houses for his family and his father.
"If they had showed up a day after the storm, I probably would have taken the money. It's kind of after-the-fact now," Williford said.
The buyouts would be voluntary, and the Army Corps plan envisions allowing casinos, hotels and restaurants to continue operating on the coast from Bay St. Louis to Biloxi. But until the proposal becomes more focused, residents are concerned that it could spell the end of their Margaritaville-like communities, where a lifestyle of beaches and boiled shrimp has flourished for decades, and many houses are already built atop stilts.
Williford fears the buyouts could stunt the growth of his nearly deserted neighborhood and harm property values if few other residents return.
"Just the rumor of it is slowing people down," he said, noting a neighbor suspended his rebuilding plan after hearing about the proposal.
Buyouts could be part of a similar plan in Louisiana, but Corps officials could not say how many properties may be involved or where they are.
"Buyouts are a possibility, but it's still just one of several options we're studying for the report," Corps spokeswoman Julie Morgan said.
In Louisiana, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is considering compensating residents who used their own money to elevate their hurricane-damaged homes while $1.1 billion was tied up in a dispute between state and federal agencies.
Otherwise, the tens of thousands of homeowners the state estimates have already begun raising their homes could be left with nothing.
"I do sense there's a commitment on our end to try to recognize those folks, because they did the right thing," FEMA spokesman Butch Kinerney said. "We want to make sure we don't penalize people who did what we recommend every day."
The Corps expects to release a draft of its Mississippi buyout plan in December. In the meantime, project director Susan Rees is fielding questions at meetings with local officials and residents.
Several hundred people attended a forum last month in Bay St. Louis, a city about 45 minutes east of New Orleans, where Katrina destroyed many of the quaint shops and beachfront restaurants that drew tourists and New Orleans-area residents.
Rees said many residents mistakenly worry their land would be seized and turned over to private developers. Involuntary buyouts are "always an option of last resort," but aren't part of this plan, she said.
"I was taken aback by what some of the individuals believed the proposal was," she said. "I wasn't taken aback by the emotional nature of the response."
The Corps has bought flood-prone homes near rivers in the past, but Rees said this would be its first large buyout of coastal homes. The proposal will give Congress a menu of choices, not impose mandates, she added.
"Congress gave us an opportunity to just strip everything away and say, 'What are the options to make this a resilient coast?' It is a rare opportunity, and I hope a lot of good comes from it," she said.
Oliver Houck, a Tulane University law professor who has studied government efforts to control coastal flooding, said voluntary buyouts are a "very reasonable way to approach managing floods."
Moving people away from areas at the greatest risk of flooding makes more sense than spending hundreds of millions of dollars to shield them with levees, he added.
"Any program that attempts to subsidize their continuing to stay in place is simply subsidizing another wipeout," Houck said.
William Walker, director of Mississippi's Department of Marine Resources, is helping Rees craft the plan and introduce it to communities.
"If all we do is rebuild where we were prior to Katrina, we will have failed," he said. "We need to rebuild better, stronger and smarter."
Government subsidies could offset the loss of tax revenue from residential buyouts, but some local officials fear the proposal would have a chilling effect on development plans and turn some parts of the coast into a disjointed checkerboard of homes and wetlands.
U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor, a Democrat whose home in Bay St. Louis was leveled by Katrina, said he doesn't see much support — locally or on Capitol Hill — for funding billions of dollars in home buyouts.
"I can't think of a single person who has come up to me and said, 'I want the government to buy my land,'" he said.
Some of his constituents welcome that option, though.
Arnold Toups, 90, is living in a government-issued trailer outside the gutted shell of the octagon-shaped home he built with his own hands three decades ago. A "For Sale" sign in his front yard has attracted a few offers, but nothing serious. Toups said he would listen to an offer from the Corps.
"If I get my price," he said. "I'm not in a rush to sell."
Libby Garcia, one of the few residents to rebuild in Williford's neighborhood, wonders why the Corps is singling out the Gulf Coast for buyouts when so many other coastal areas face the same flood risks.
"Why don't they go buy Key West?" she asked.
Associated Press writer Becky Bohrer contributed to this report.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home
Ire in Gulf over buyout plan
US proposal may mean parts of the Gulf Coast won't get rebuilt.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Hancock officials oppose buyout
Posted on Tue, Oct. 09, 2007
By J.R. WELSH
jrwelsh@sunherald.com
BILOXI -- Two elected officials from Hancock County have told the state Department of Marine Resources they will ask their boards to oppose any federal buyout plan of private lands in the county, even if the program is voluntary.
County Supervisor Jay Cuevas and Jim Thriffiley, president of the Bay St. Louis City Council, delivered their message to Bill Walker, DMR's executive director, during a lengthy meeting at DMR headquarters late last week. A buyout is one option being pushed by DMR and the Army Corps of Engineers through a plan called the Mississippi Coastal Improvements Program.
The plan calls for the federal government to buy large tracts of privately owned lands that flood repeatedly and use the property as nature preserves and parks. Both DMR and the corps have emphasized that a buyout would be purely voluntary.
That made little difference to Thriffiley, however. "I'm against any buyouts because I believe it's going to lead to the demise of the neighborhoods," he told Walker.
The elected officials were part of a Hancock County group that met with Walker. The group included Sam Moore and Dennis Bordelon, president and vice president of the Garden Island Community Association, and Chris LaGarde, an environmental aide to U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor. The Sun Herald was also there.
Moore arranged the meeting. LaGarde did not voice opposition from Taylor's office to the buyout plan during the discussion, saying if such a program occurred, it would be many years down the road.
On Sept. 17, the DMR and corps announced an ambitious plan to buy thousands of flood-prone acres in the south county. The Shoreline Park and Cedar Point areas would be included.
The announcement was also accompanied by revelations that the corps is studying other possibilities such as beach and dune restoration and constructing an extensive levee system as tall as 30 feet, a seawall around Bay St. Louis, and flood gates at the mouth of the bay. However, one corps presentation has classified the seawall option as unlikely.
Other buyout trial balloons are being floated for parts of Harrison and Jackson counties.
But alarm over the plan has been especially pronounced in Hancock County.
The local officials said that since Walker made the announcement at a public meeting in Bay St. Louis, economic fears have infected the county and thrown shadows over prospects for new development and hurricane recovery.
"People are just backing off and it's leading to a panic," said Thriffiley. "The buyout situation is worse than a stock market crash for our community."
Cuevas told Walker that construction was on the upswing in the county before the buyout announcement. But since then, he said, growth has slowed and, "My phone hasn't stopped ringing" with calls from citizens frightened of the plan. He said he has received no calls from business people or property owners who favored a buyout.
Walker told the group that a buyout plan "might take up to 10 years." But he said that if all governmental entities in Hancock County oppose it, "DMR will not recommend" the program. He said his agency has been acting in an advisory capacity to the corps.
"This is not something the DMR or the corps is trying to force on anybody," Walker said. But, he added, "In order to protect the Coast from future storms, there needs to be a buyout of repetitively damaged property."
Positions stated by Cuevas and Thriffiley differed from a formal resolution passed by the Hancock County Chamber of Commerce, which has asked the corps and DMR to work through local businesses and governments in developing the coastal improvements program. The chamber resolution made no mention of a buyout plan, voluntary or otherwise.
Thriffiley also told Walker he does not oppose other parts of the corps plan aside from the buyout. "We don't want to shut down this plan except for the buyout," he said. "That's the only part we want to negate."
The Bay St. Louis City Council is scheduled to meet tonight. County supervisors do not have another regularly scheduled meeting until next week.
"I don't see our board voting for the buyout," Cuevas said after the meeting. "But until we get it on the minutes, nothing's official."
Web poll
What do you think about the Corps of Engineers' buyout of coastal property? To vote, go to sunherald.com.
© 2007 Sun Herald. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.sunherald.com
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home
