Alternate to buyout program proposed

Posted on Tue, Oct. 30, 2007
By J.R. WELSH

BAY ST. LOUIS -- Local elected officials hammered out a possible compromise with state and federal representatives Monday, aimed at derailing plans for an ambitious private property buyout that has thrown shadows over the Hancock County economy since last month.

During a two-hour evening meeting that excluded the public, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state Department of Marine Resources said they may be willing to drop the buyout plan in favor of strengthening an existing program that allows the federal government to buy repetitively flooded lands from private owners.

That would likely narrow the scope of any buyout and ease fears by local officials that a grand-scale buyout would jeopardize redevelopment, devour Bay St. Louis and stop any progress that has been made since Hurricane Katrina.

"It's a lot easier to support than a potential buyout of two-thirds of Bay St. Louis," Mayor Eddie Favre said following the meeting.

Favre, members of the City Council and the county Board of Supervisors attended the meeting, along with Waveland Mayor Tommy Longo and Board of Aldermen representatives. Bill Walker, executive director of the DMR, and Susan Rees of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, were present.

Walker and Rees were the same officials who threw shock waves across Hancock County in September when they held a hastily assembled public meeting at Bay-Waveland Middle School. That night, they enraged some local residents by announcing a wide range of flood mitigation possibilities the corps had in mind for the county.

Those included a massive land buyout that would turn hurricane-vulnerable private properties into green space.

Since then, local elected officials have said construction has slowed, developers and investors are backing off the county, and homeowners who have already rebuilt are fearful of what might come next. But at Monday's meeting, Rees blamed the press for at least part of the ensuing public reaction.

She also described Hancock County residents and public officials as "gullible."

"We never envisioned that people were so gullible that they'd believe the federal government would come in and buy up 17,000 properties," she told the local officials.

"I don't think people here are gullible," Tax Assessor-Collector Jimmie Ladner Jr. responded. "People are scared."

Corps maps of the plan showed buyout areas that included all of Shoreline Park and other newly annexed neighborhoods stretching back to Cedar Point. That proposal brought loud protests and an opposing resolution from the Bay St. Louis City Council.

In an effort to find a solution, Monday's meeting was arranged by Tish Williams, executive director of the Hancock County Chamber of Commerce. During the discussion, official after official expressed how deeply the state and federal plan has wounded the county.

"Real estate has been slow," said Bay St. Louis Councilman Bobby Compretta, also a Realtor. "But when this buyout hit the newspaper, it hit rock bottom."

Under the compromise idea, Walker and Rees indicated they would consider dropping the overall buyout for Hancock County and meet with a three-member committee of elected officials to craft a new plan. It would involve possibly broadening an existing FEMA program that allows owners of property that floods repetitively to sell out to the federal government.

The current program calls for FEMA to pay 75 percent on such buyouts. Local governments are responsible for a 25 percent match, but hurricane-strapped governments now can't afford that. If the corps were to assume the buyout power instead of FEMA, the federal government might then shoulder 100 percent, officials said.

Meetings between the state, the corps and the local committee will begin as soon as possible. Rocky Pullman, president of the Board of Supervisors, will represent the county. City Council President Jim Thriffiley will represent Bay St. Louis, and Alderwoman Lili Stahler will represent Waveland.

Meeting tonight
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' proposed buyout program will be the focus of Jackson County Supervisor John McKay's town hall meeting at 6:30 p.m. tonight at Ocean Springs Middle School.

The corps is seeking public input about a proposed flood prevention plan which would buy hundreds of low-lying residential homes in the county's flood plain with federal funding.

"This is a great opportunity for Jackson County's residents to learn about the corps' buyout program in person," McKay said. "This meeting is open to all county residents and officials. We are going to have the people who can answer the important questions."



© 2007 Sun Herald. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.sunherald.com

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Katrina aid bill advances

Old rules had hampered recovery
By MARIA RECIO
SUN HERALD WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- The House passed a bill Monday which will aid areas hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita by retroactively changing federal rules that have hampered recovery.

"Sometimes it seems that public schools and city and county offices will be the last buildings rebuilt on the Mississippi Coast," said Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Bay St. Louis, in a statement.

"This bill will help resolve any remaining problems so that local officials can start construction. The bill also provides flexibility for alternate projects and for mitigation grants so that the new facilities can be built better and stronger than the buildings that were destroyed."

The bill, which passed by voice vote, would change the Stafford Act in a number of ways, notably by increasing the federal share of constructing relocated buildings or "alternate projects," as they are called, from 75 percent to 90 percent.

"The Stafford Act was not written for disasters the magnitude of Katrina and Rita," said Rep. Charles Melancon, D-La.

The bill also would allow work already done by local communities to strengthen structures and infrastructure to count toward the 25 percent state match for federal hazard mitigation grants, a change that could mean as much as $145 million to Mississippi. It would permit work done by the state and localities to count for the state's match requirement under the Stafford Act to access Mississippi's $434 million in FEMA's hazard mitigation funding.

The bill will now be considered by the Senate, where Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., is poised to champion it. "We're supportive of the bill," said Landrieu press secretary Stephanie Allen. "We're still reviewing it but we expect to usher it through the Senate Homeland Security Committee." Landrieu chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Disaster Recovery subcommittee.

Taylor was not present for the House vote, which was done under suspension of the rules, a device usually reserved for noncontroversial bills.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Perverted Priorities: Fires, Fema, Fake News

by Ana Maria

“Tell me where you spend your money,
and I’ll tell you where your priorities are.”

Throughout my growing up years here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, my mother would often mention one or another variation of that saying. Sometimes she would end it with “and I’ll tell you where your heart is.” For Bush’s FEMA, their priorities remain in making Bush look good with self-created PR pretending to be reporters posing those big softie questions. FEMA is not in actually doing the excellent job that the agency should be doing, just posing and pretending.

For example, Bush’s Chertoff pretended to scold his own agency with his spokeswoman stating "Stunts such as this will not be tolerated or repeated."

Ever since Bush and Cheney cheated their way into the White House and deceived the American people—including our congressional officials into a war of choice, the Bushies modus operandi has been betrayal, deceit, and abandonment. So the FEMA stunt is part and parcel of the Administration’s ongoing way of operating our government.

While the people at FEMA should have lost their job for deliberately deceiving the American people with a fake news conference, no one has. To be sure, Bush’s man Chertoff faked his admonition that such a “stunt” would not be “tolerated.” What a joke. And I’m not laughing.

The other joke at which I’m not laughing is comparing FEMA’s response to the California wildfires to its response to Hurricane Katrina’s devastation throughout the Mississippi-Alabama Gulf Coast region and the breaching of the US Corps of Engineers levees in New Orleans. The comparison needs a bit of evening up before we jump to happy conclusions.

Now, let’s forget about the fact that the fires raging were well publicized in California while no one saw coming the breaching of the New Orleans levees.

Oh, wait. The night before New Orleans flooded, the White House had seen photos of the levees being breached and deliberately failed to inform the Louisiana state authorities of this important factor.

“FEMA knew at eleven o’clock on Monday that the levees had breached, at 2 o’clock they flew over the 17th St. Canal and took video of the breaches, by midnight on Monday the White House knew, but none of us knew.”

Ivor Van Heerden, Deputy Director of Louisiana State University’s Hurricane Center

Ooops.

Still, the residents themselves—as well as the local officials—didn’t see the levees breaching, and the prep time for the emergency shelters were zilch.

Let’s forget about the fact that folks in California drove and parked to their shelters while New Orleans folks walked to the Superdome with their children, babies, and grandparents in tow.

Let’s forget about the fact that there were no massages, yoga classes, or ventriloquists inside the New Orleans Superdome.

Free newspapers were available, National Guard troops kept watch, ventriloquists and balloon artists entertained kids, and even massage therapists were trying to help the 12,000 to 15,000 evacuees relax as they fretted about the fate of their homes.

The relative comfort of the California evacuees is well recorded, and here is one such video capturing it.

This is where the generosity of the comparison ends. Let's incorporate some of the conditions from the Superdome days.

The floodwaters surrounded the Superdome making escape impossible. So, let’s put provide the same conditions for my fellow Americans in Southern California who have had the horrendous tragedy of being evacuated from their homes not knowing what condition they may find upon return and let’s put the fires immediately outside of the Qualcom Stadium. Escape from the stadium, just as with the Superdome, is impossible.

After all, it isn’t as if we have flood and hurricane fighters flying overhead pouring chemicals on the floodwaters and the hurricane force winds that will stop the devastation.

Next, the food and water inside Qualcom Stadium runs out just as it had in New Orleans both inside and out of the Superdome Stadium.

Let’s add another factor. No communication between and among public officials. No telephone lines, no Internet access. Remember, the Bush Administration has yet to create national emergency communication system. Too busy trying to war with the countries strategic for the untapped oil and gas reserves in the Baltics for such essential homeland security items here at home, imho.

Next, we have to have the fires surround the stadium just as the flood waters surrounded the Superdome.

With no food or water in the California stadium, hunger pains retch the stomachs of the evacuees and those of their kids. The evacuees are surrounded by thousands of others who are also hungry and thirsty. They know—not just wonder, but know—that everything that they owned, their entire communities, their livelihoods, their homes were going up in smoke.

Now, tell me, would the people inside Qualcom Stadium be reading newspapers, getting massages, doing yoga, and talking with reporters? Or would they be going crazy with fear and desperation like we witnessed inside the Superdome?

Ahhh, the view becomes more clear. You see, without the same critical circumstances of Katrina disaster, comparing the two reactions is erroneous. Though it does serve the White House in another rendition of government by pretension.

Now, what comes to my mind is the movie Trading Places with Eddie Murphy and Dan Akroyd. For the purpose of this little exercise, Akroyd’s character represents Southern Californians. The movie analogy is so appropriate.

Louis Winthorpe, III, Akryod’s character, is stripped of his social standing and financial success. In the movie, Winthorpe ends up living in horrendous conditions, acting in ways that he would never have thought possible for him from his previous socio-economic position.

Were the victims in the Qualcom stadium subjected to the same circumstances—and I wouldn’t wish those circumstances on anyone . . . other than, perhaps, the Bush Administration and their accomplices in FEMA and counterparts in Congress and the Senate—then to what extent would we witness them reacting just as the Americans in the New Orleans Superdome had?

What I expect to be similar is for the insurance industry to figure out a way to scam California home and business owners out of paying off in full on their policies. What I expect to be similar is for home and business owners to sue the hell out of their carriers to get—perhaps years down the road—the check that should be provided within days of the devastation.

In August, Bloomberg News already exposed the ravages of insurers in Southern California in its August expose: Home Insurers' Secret Tactics Cheat Fire Victims, Hike Profits.

On average, those of us inside of Katrina’s wake may not have the financial resources or the educational level as the average person in Southern California possesses. What we do have, however, is a sophisticated view of the insurance industry and its deceptive tactics to keep our premiums in its coffers at our expense, which is an industry-wide priority.

We understand that Big Insurance priorities are not those of the policyholders. We understand that Big Insurance is its own racket which the federal government does not regulate in the least.

From our painful experiences, we understand that Big Insurance will screw over the powerful like a U.S. Congressman (as in Gene Taylor) or Senator (as in Trent Lott) as quickly as it will screw over its average policyholders be they high or low income, white or black or Asian, Republican or Democrat. We're pretty sophisticated and gladly share our experience so that others will benefit from our own tragedies.

Since there continues to be no federal regulation of the insurance industry, we could eventually hear of companies again ripping off California home and business owners just as they have in the past and just as they did to Katrina survivors. [Read the Bloomberg article.]

You see, the only priority of the insurance companies is to increase their profits, pad the bonuses of its board of directors, and inflate the income of its CEOs. that they do so with great deceit to its policyholders, its customers, is of no consequence. They sell us on financial security their products allegedly provide. Hhowever, when we need our insurance policies to pay off, the companies often only concern themselves with their own financial security. In that regard, Big Insurance has its own priorities, however pathetic and perverse they may be.

Rest assured, though, the good people inside this Katrina-ravaged region will be empathetic to the plight of those families and business owners in Southern California whose lives the insurance companies may very well end up ruining. Our hearts are filled with empathy. Unlike Big Insurance, we have our priorities straight.


© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Anderson Accuses Chaney of Pocketing Big Insurance Contributions

Jackson 10/25/07

by Jon Kalahar
jkalahar@wlbt.net

Both candidates for insurance commissioner agree this is the most important race coming up in the November general election. Gary Anderson and Mike Chaney each believe they're the one to lower insurance rates and generate more economic growth in the state.

But there's plenty they disagree on. The issue of campaign contributions is again at the forefront. Should an official who will regulate insurance in Mississippi be allowed to accept contributions from insurance agents and companies?

Gary Anderson says no. Mike Chaney says there are more important issues facing the state.

Gary Anderson blasted Mike Chaney for his alleged ties to big insurance.

"A lap dog for big insurance isn't protecting your pocket books. This will lead to higher insurance rates for all of us," said Anderson.

But Chaney isn't trying to hide the fact he has accepted money from insurance agents and companies.

"I will take money from independent agents all day and I'll take it from domestic companies. I do not take money from large, big insurance companies," said Chaney.

Anderson believes by accepting those contributions Chaney is more susceptible to favoring those contributors rather than running the department of insurance independent of outside influences.

"I call on Chaney to return every dime of the insurance money that he's taken, over 70 thousand dollars. I call on him to return that money and come clean," said Anderson.

Chaney says he will do no such thing.

"Will you return the money you get from insurance agents, and I said, ' When pigs fly.' ," said Chaney.

Are voters concerned who contributes to either campaign? Ole Miss professor, Larry Cox says there are definitely bigger issues that need to be addressed.

"I certainly think the nitty gritty of straightening out the markets of the coast as best they can and again attracting new competition will provide us with the most competitive rates are by far and away the most important issues," said Cox.

Finding ways to bring in more insurance companies into the state seems to be the key to lowering rates for Mississippians. Gary Anderson favors cracking down on waste and insurance fraud. While Mike Chaney says to increase economic progress, the state needs available, affordable and accountable insurance.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Anderson: Chaney Wrong on Right to Vote

Says Insurance Commissioner Should Be Appointed and Not Elected

Anderson Reaffirms His Pledge to Remain Independent of Insurance Interests as Mississippi's Insurance Regulator

Jackson, Mississippi - Insurance Commissioner Candidate Gary Anderson held a press conference at 10:00am at the State Capitol Building. Anderson blasted Mike Chaney for his position on whether the Insurance Commissioner's post should be appointed rather than elected.

On July 26 th at the Neshoba County Fair, Chaney said, "As Commissioner, I will ask the legislature to make the position of Insurance Commissioner appointed and not elected."

On September 17 th , the Commercial Dispatch reported, "a way Chaney sees to make it [insurance] more affordable is to make the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner a position appointed by the Governor rather than elected by voters."

"Mike Chaney wants to take away the right of voters to elect or remove the Insurance Commissioner. He wants to turn over control of the office to big insurance," said Anderson at the press conference. "Here is another example of how Mike Chaney wants to work on the side of big insurance. The people of Mississippi need checks and balances in place; they deserve an Insurance Commissioner working on their side who they can elect or remove. Mike Chaney wants to answer to big insurance instead of to the people."

Anderson also called on his opponent Mike Chaney to come clean with the voters of Mississippi about pocketing over $70,000 in insurance money since he entered the race against Anderson. Chaney's most recent financial disclosure report shows thousands collected from insurance company executives, insurance PACS, insurance agents and insurance companies.

"I have not taken a single dime from insurance companies or any insurance special interests," said Anderson. "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 of interest. I call on Chaney to return every dime and come clean with the people of Mississippi," said Anderson.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Schumer seeks expanded flood insurance program

By Keith Herbert - Newsday, October 23, 2007

More New Yorkers are turning to unregulated insurers for property coverage, further proof that federal regulation is needed to stabilize the homeowners' insurance market on Long Island, Sen. Charles Schumer said Monday.

During a news conference at the home of a Huntington homeowner, Schumer (D-N.Y.) cited the trend to support his call for legislation that would expand a federal flood insurance program to include hurricane wind damage.

Private insurers fearful of a catastrophic storm hitting Long Island have been unwilling to cover wind damage, so the federal government should add "multi-peril coverage" to its flood insurance program, Schumer said.

"I think this would solve the problem once and for all," he said of legislation being considered by a Senate banking committee he serves on.

Since early last year, a half dozen insurers, including Allstate, Liberty Mutual and State Farm, have not renewed thousands of area homeowner policies. They cite concerns a catastrophic storm is overdue for Long Island, forcing large payouts for losses they would be unable to cover.

The nonrenewals have left many homeowners facing hard-to-find coverage, increased premiums and high wind-storm deductibles.

"We all complain about tax increases," Schumer said. "This is the same thing -- more money going out to keep your house."

There are 1.7 million homeowner policies in coastal New York areas, according to the state Department of Insurance.

Schumer said that in New York State the number of people seeking so-called excess line property insurance has jumped from 3,100 in 2002 to more than 7,000 as of last month.

Without providing detailed figures, Schumer said more and more Long Islanders have been forced to buy homeowners insurance from the excess-line market, whose companies aren't licensed by the state.

Such policies are more typical for homeowners with unusually expensive homes or whose property is close to a potential hazard, such as water. They often can't secure insurance from licensed underwriters. The premiums are also much higher than regular homeowner policies and involve more risk because state regulators don't monitor rates. However, the state does regulate the brokers who provide excess-line coverage.

Schumer spoke from the driveway of Denise Laimo, 55, who turned to an excess-line company after her previous insurer, Allstate, didn't renew her homeowners policy.

In January 2006, Laimo said her furnace malfunctioned and flooded her basement, prompting her to file a claim with Allstate. Six months later, she said she received a letter that her policy was not being renewed because her home was prone to flooding.

Laimo said she was unable to find insurance after shopping other providers, and turned to Utica Insurance. Her policy premiums increased from $960 a year to $2,400, but her new policy covers more.

"I have better coverage, but it more than doubled," Laimo said of the premium.

Copyright © 2007, Newsday Inc.



© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Vitter puts hold on insurance bill

By Bruce Alpert - Times Picayune, October 23, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has put a hold on a flood insurance overhaul bill because he says it doesn't raise coverage limits or expand the program to provide wind-damage coverage to address a shortage of affordable policies in Gulf Coast communities devastated by hurricanes in 2005.

Because the Senate calendar often is set by unanimous consent, letting a single senator block a bill's consideration, Vitter's hold puts passage in limbo. Members put a hold on a bill in an effort to get the sponsors to negotiate changes.

Vitter said Monday that he's looking for several changes in the bill approved last week by the Senate Banking Committee.
He wants to increase the current maximum levels of flood insurance to for residential properties from $250,000 to $335,000 and for commercial properties from $500,000 to $750,000.

The program, Vitter said, also should be expanded to allow policyholders new lines of optional coverage for business interruption and to provide full replacement of contents.
Congress should take steps to alleviate a shortage of wind coverage along the Gulf Coast and other coastal areas, he said.
"Lack of available or affordable general liability coverage, including wind coverage, is now one of the single biggest obstacles to recovery," Vitter said in a letter to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the panel's top Republican. Either the flood insurance program should be expanded to provide wind coverage, or Congress must take other steps to address the crisis, Vitter said.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., also has concerns about the Senate bill, spokesman Adam Sharp said. Landrieu is concerned that the Senate bill allows for bigger increases in premiums than the House-passed bill, and, like Vitter, would like to see a wind coverage option added to the program, Sharp said.

Landrieu plans to consult soon with Rep. Richard Baker, R-Baton Rouge, to develop a strategy to win changes in the Senate Banking Committee bill, Sharp said. But for now she is not joining Vitter in placing a hold on the measure.
. . . . . . .
Bruce Alpert can be reached at bruce.alpert@newhouse.com or (202) 383-7861.

Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Vitter stalls bill on flood insurance


By Sean Reilly - Press Register, October 23, 2007

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La, is blocking action by the full Senate on a flood insurance overhaul, saying that it should include higher coverage limits and optional protection for windstorm damage.

The overhaul, sponsored by U.S. Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, won unanimous approval from the Senate banking committee Wednesday.

But in a Monday letter to his two colleagues, Vitter said the legislation should have increased coverage levels, as a House-passed measure would do. The House bill also would allow flood insurance policyholders to add wind coverage; Vitter urged the Senate to consider a similar provision or take other action "to address the broader insurance crisis."

In a news release accompanying the letter, Vitter said he was placing a "hold" on the bill to prevent it from going forward until his concerns were addressed.

Saying he has not seen the letter, a spokesman for Dodd, who chairs the banking committee, had no immediate comment late Monday.

Together with Louisiana's other senator, Democrat Mary Landrieu, Vitter blocked a Senate vote last year on a similar measure to strengthen the flood program, which is now crippled by billions of dollars in debt to the federal treasury. The Senate bill would write off that debt, but also phase out cut-rate premiums for vacation homes and business properties. Last week, a Landrieu spokesman also sounded concerns about the bill's lack of wind coverage and the potential cost to Louisiana policyholders.

The federally backed flood insurance program has more than 54,000 policyholders in Alabama, the bulk of them in Mobile and Baldwin counties.

© 2007 Press-Register



© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Vitter to put hold on bill for insurance


By Kate Magandy - Sun Herald, October 23, 2007

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter said Monday he's putting a hold on the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007.
According to the Senate Web site, a hold is "an informal practice by which a senator informs the floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The majority leader need not follow the senator's wishes but is on notice that the opposing senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure."

Vitter, in a press release, said the current bill is similar to last year's and doesn't include provisions that were approved by the House. Vitter particularly addressed the need for greater flood coverage through higher limits and new optional lines of coverage as well as the need for wind-related measures to stabilize general liability rates.

The senator asked the bill's authors, Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and ranking member Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), to meet with him to discuss his concerns.

"This bill looks to be a lot like last year's, and that's disappointing," Vitter said in his release. "Last year and again this year, the House companion bill at least addressed some of the missing pieces, but the bill reported out of Chairman Dodd's committee leaves out these needed reforms.

"I hope the drafters of this bill will open up the lines of communication and work with those states directly impacted by this legislation to ensure that we pass a flood insurance bill that best serves those affected areas," he said.

Vitter also said he plans to organize a meeting between himself, U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu and Mississippi senators Trent Lott and Thad Cochran to discuss what is needed to improve the current version of the bill.

Lott spokesman Lee Youngblood said Monday that Lott also is concerned with the current version of the bill and is committed to getting results for the people of South Mississippi.

"He's going to try any way he can to get a result, whether it's in committee or on the floor," Youngblood said.

"The bottom line is, they didn't include (the wind provision) the other day. He will try to help in any way he can. He has a stake in seeing the wind provision added."


Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......

Mike Chaney as 'Mini Me' in Miss. Insurance Race

by Ana Maria

Two weeks from today, Mississippi can make history in a good and positive way. We have an opportunity to elect Gary Anderson as our state’s insurance commissioner. In the August Democratic primary, Anderson defeated George Dale, a 32-year incumbent bought and paid for by the insurance companies he had been elected to regulate to the benefit and on behalf of Mississippians.

On November 6th, Mississippians like myself will cast their ballots choosing between Anderson and Republican nominee Mike Chaney—the George Dale stand-in candidate. See, Anderson beat out George Dale through pledging not to take money from Big Insurance. Chaney is the George Dale stand-in candidate complete with taking money from Big Insurance just as his good friend Dale had done. Chaney’s recent financial disclosure forms reveal the man sticking his hand out to receive well over $40,000 of Big Insurance campaign investments.

Now the political campaign is going to heat up, and we can write the script Chaney and his team will use. First, Chaney’s team will pretend that taking money from Big Insurance, which has royally screwed over tens of thousands of families and businesses here in Mississippi’s part of the Katrina-ravaged region alone, is the same as money from our legal warriors who successfully protect us from Big Insurance screwing us.

Let’s see. The Chaney campaign believes that the legal protectors of our property are the same as the bullies who steal our homes and businesses. That’s some kind of perverted logic. The Chaney campaign must be desperate.

See, Democratic nominee Gary Anderson had long ago pledged not to take money from Big Insurance.

That made Anderson stand out from George Dale who had raked in over $200,000 in Big Insurance contributions. See pledge here.

Chaney did the “me, too” pledge.

"I will not take money from big insurance companies," Chaney said in a recent telephone interview. "I have not taken money from big insurance companies. I have taken money from insurance agents and from smaller insurance companies that are domiciled in the state.

Of course, Chaney revoked his pledge when he began to take in the over $40,000 in Big Insurance checks. Not the $200,000 that his buddy George Dale raked in during the primary, but a substantial amount more than say, uh, $0. Chaney is doing his best to imitate George Dale whom he likes. Said so himself.

I like George. I’m just worried that he might not get the nomination.

Republican Nominee Mike Chaney
Miss. Insurance Commissioner

Apparently, Chaney ran to keep the George Dale tradition of having someone in the back pocket of Big Insurance. Chaney is George Dale lite. Kind of the 'Mini Me' in the Mississippi insurance commissioner campaign.

Photo from here.

Just as George Dale did unsuccessfully in the primary, Chaney is banking on painting lawyers in a bad light. Well, a funny thing happened when corporate insurance giants began stealing homes and businesses from families and communities in South Mississippi. Folks looked around to fight Big Insurance with the biggest legal ammo they could find. Big Insurance treated Republican Senator Trent Lott and Congressman Gene Taylor so badly that even they brought in the big guns in the form of Dickie Scruggs of the Scruggs Katrina Group. Without putting the big guns to Big Insurance, Lott and Taylor—along with plenty of other Mississippians—would still be whistling Dixie, as the saying goes around here.

Since Insurance Commissioner George Dale wasn’t protecting Mississippians from Big Insurance, folks rightfully turned to the courts to protect their rights. That’s why Dickie Scruggs and other attorneys have stepped in. They offered to help get the money Big Insurance owed Katrina families and businesses.

Sure, Dale and his supporters such as Big Insurance and Mini were plainly agitated during the August primary. Scruggs gave $250,000 to a political committee named Mississippians for Fair Elections, which ran a fantastically effective ad campaign informing voters that Big Insurance was denying claims all over the state while giving $200,000 in campaign contributions to George Dale.

Big Insurance has already given at least $40,000 to Mike “Mini Me” Chaney. Now Mike “Mini Me” Chaney has his Big Insurance talking points, and the Chaney campaign is probably pleased that those talking points are echoing in various parts of the state. I wouldn’t count those campaign chickens before they hatched, Mini Me.

With Big Insurance’s $40,000, Mini Me is surely considering putting up a racist-tinged ad campaign reminding Mississippi voters that he, Mike 'Mini Me' Chaney, is the WHITE candidate. We know it is coming. This is as predictable as much as banking on Chaney continuing to hold out his hand for Big Insurance campaign money.

I hope that we see another round of ads blowing Chaney’s cover as the Mini Me of the race.

Look for “Mini Me” Chaney to pull out the racist card, to hide behind the color of his own skin as a rationale for our vote. He will do this to hide the fact that he is taking money from Big Insurance who screwed us regardless of our race, religion, ethnicity, economic status, educational background, or political clout.

The only colors that Big Insurance cares about are green and red. Green for the profits it makes and red for sticking us with the bills Big Insurance should pay. We have the opportunity to make our lives better than this.

Mississippi families depend on insurance as part of their financial security to protect their property—their homes and businesses. We depend on insurance for our financial security. As Mississippians, we depend on our insurance commissioner to protect us with fair regulation of the insurance industry. Mike “Mini Me” Chaney will do as George Dale did and protect Big Insurance. In two weeks, Mississippians have the opportunity to make history and elect Gary Anderson as our insurance commissioner the only candidate who has the financial background, integrity, grit, and backbone to protect us from Big Insurance taking advantage of us. We can depend on Gary Anderson to protect us.

In two weeks, we can show the kind of insurance commissioner we believe we deserve. Big Insurance is banking on Mike “Mini Me” Chaney. For me, I’m casting my vote Gary Anderson—the candidate on whom home and business owners, regular folks like you and I can bank on to protect us from Big Insurance.


© 2007 Ana Maria Rosato. All rights reserved.
Return to A.M. in the Morning! Home

Read More......