Shake, Rattle, and Roll in the Miss. Insurance Commissioner Race

The 5.6-quake that closed this supermarket in San Jose on Tuesday may have raised the danger of a strong temblor on the Hayward Fault, scientists say. Tuesday's quake was the strongest in the Bay Area since the 1989 Loma Prieta event. www.sfgate.com

Stirring up powerful emotions, San Jose's earthquake has shaken up more than the ground, more than the residents in the 10th largest city in the nation, more than the friends and relatives of the many million who live in the area. Earlier this year while visiting at a friend's home in San Francisco, I experienced a baby earthquake.

I was sitting on the couch watching TV when it hit. I had thought her cat had suddenly ran across the back of the couch. When I realized that Cole was no where in that part of the house, I got frightened. "Oh, God, I don't want to deal with an earthquake," I remembered thinking.

You can't see them coming. There is no way to really be prepared all the time. Sure, I can get water and canned food--and I did. I can earthquake proof my home. But, what if I'm out shopping, say, at the Eastridge Mall in San Jose when an earthquake hits such as the one that hit last night? Canned food and water at my apartment miles and miles away won't be terribly convenient. Thankfully I have not ever experienced an earthquake the size of the 1989 Loma Prieta one.

Last week, many Californians were battling against fires. the rest of us were battling our ongoing disgust at learning that FEMA has continued the fake news cycle that has remained tradition in the Bush White House. Remember? Two years go, the mainstream news got wind of this.

Fake News Gets White House OK

Washington Post

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News

New York Times

Until earlier this year, however, I lived in San Jose, Calif., and I could have been there for this earthquake. All that comes to mind now is the safety of all of my friends out there, the accuracy of the news reports. All that comes to mind is whether we, as a nation, are equipped to handle multiple natural disasters--either simultaneously or one after the other.

Of course, the ongoing battle with insurance companies scamming there way out of paying legitimate claims--and their loyal accomplices in the industry's post-disaster endeavor. Who are these accomplices? For starters, any state insurance commissioner who is in the back pocket of Big Insurance.

Here in Mississippi, we have an election in just six days that is a battle between an enthusiastic apologist for Big Insurance and an ardently enthusiastic advocate for policyholders.

Mike Chaney has taken tens of thousands of Big Insurance dollars. Proudly proclaiming he'll return the money "when pigs fly." In this regard, Mike Chaney is the same as current insurance commissioner George Dale--a 32 year incumbent--who lost the Democratic nomination to Gary Anderson in large part because Dale is in Big Insurance's back pocket.

I loved it when Anderson referred to Chaney as a lap dog for Big Insurance.

Just as I'm certain that last night's earthquake rattled and rolled my former home in California, I am hoping that in Mississippi's election next Tuesday, we'll be rattling and rolling right here in my home state. I'm hoping that we'll go to the polls and vote for the only insurance commissioner candidate who has pledged and consistently demonstrated that when disaster hits, we can count on Gary Anderson to be on our side, to be looking out for our pocketbooks, to be casting a watchful eye upon the way in which insurance corporations are treating policyholders--who are also the voters in this state.

I'm hoping that when we wake up next Wednesday, we will wake up to a brand new era of our own making, having shaken, rattled and rolled the status quo shaking up the Big Insurance powers that be with the power of the votes cast for Gary Anderson.

That will spell relief for policyholders whether here along the Gulf Coast or our friends and relatives in the Delta or in the central and northern part of the state.

That will spell disaster for Big Insurance, and that is a disaster all of us can live with easily.

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

Read More......

Unimitigated Gall of Bush's Corps of Engineers

by Ana Maria

The unmitigated gall of Bush’s Corps of Engineers Susan Rees burns my grits. First, she walks into this tiny town and announces a never-before-heard of plan from Bush’s government to buy up 2/3 thirds of our homes. Then, she has the audacity to blame our outrage on the press.

“. . . 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.”

My outrage was at what she herself told hundreds of us at a public meeting held at the local high school. Gullible? The only gullible ones at that meeting were Bill Walker, executive director of Gov. Barbour’s Department of Marine Resources, and Susan Rees representing Bush’s U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Sun Herald aptly described the pair.

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.

The pair apparently forgot that before giving any kind of a speech it is important to know who comprises the audience. One of the things that I really love about having come home to Bay St. Louis, Miss.,--one of the tiny beach towns that comprise Katrina’s ground zero—is that I’m surrounded by people who have well-refined BS detectors and who speak their mind instantly and do so in such a way that leaves no question as to their meaning. What a breath of fresh air!

God knows that whether I was living and working in the capitol of Silicon Valley, Calif., or Nashville, Tenn.—the capitol of country music, or around our nation’s capitol—Washington, DC, it always seemed to me that I needed a dictionary or a thesaurus to understand people who were born and raised right here in the USA. They didn’t seem to routinely be able to just speak what is on their minds. Too much ambiguity for my tastes.

I come from direct-speaking folk, and because many of us down here have accents similar to those in New York AND because we’re direct in our verbiage—a directness that is often associated with New York, some mistake me as being from New York. Fine by me!

Somewhere along the way, I learned that the migration patterns for the Italians and Irish were similar in New York, Boston, and New Orleans, and thus our speech patterns find kinship. With all due respect to my New Yorker friends, I have often tell folks that I’m like a New Yorker . . . with charm. You know, tell you that folks that they are idiots for their foolish comments then turn around and offer ‘em something to eat to ease their pain of facing a new piece of information about themselves. Directness with a side dish of charm. Kinda has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?

Well, Ms. Rees apparently is using the White House talking point to blame the press for delivering accurately the pathetically ill-designed plan to buy up the private properties in this community. I was there along with the rest of my community when she presented Bush’s wall-and-haul proposal. Wall off this beach town with 40 foot seawalls along the beach. Haul off the residents who’ve been here for decades. My own family moved here from New Orleans in 1953. That’s 54 years.

As I’ve written before I find it no mere coincidence that Bush’s “wall-and-haul” proposal was reserved for Congressman Gene Taylor’s (D-MS) hometown. He’s not offering to buyout the 9th Ward in New Orleans or Lakeview at the other end of the economic spectrum of that beloved treasure of a city. No, Bush’s Administration is targeting the itty bitty hometown of the man who is pushing through Congress a bill that will radically alter one aspect of the financial services industry—the property insurance end.

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.

I don’t believe that the buyout plan was ever intended to do more than to mess with Congressman Gene Taylor through riling up his constituents who would then flood his office with frantic phone calls and emails taking up precious time and energy that Taylor and his staff has been using successfully to push through the U.S. House of Representatives the Multiple Peril Insurance legislation. That legislation is beginning to get traction in the Senate. Bush’s folks need a way to slow it down and kill it. I think this wall-and-haul proposal is part of the White House arsenal.

Ms. Rees can take her White House drafted talking points blaming the press for our outrage then calling us gullible for being rightfully angry that the Bush Administration can drag its oil drenched, blood-soaked feet when it comes to helping us get back ON our feet and just stick it where the Mississippi Gulf Coast sun doesn’t shine.

All the while she is over here doing the Bush Administration’s dirty work, Bush’s buddy Rush Limbaugh is pretending everything is honky dory.

You know, nobody ever talks about Gulfport Mississippi and all these places in Mississippi that were literally leveled during Hurricane Katrina, and they're back on their feet or they're in the process of getting back on their feet. You never, ever hear about the misery and the destruction that they went through, because they're not whining and complaining about it. They're out there fixing it, just like they're doing in California.

Yeah, well, if we were doing just fine, Bush and Barbour wouldn’t be proposing a wall-and-haul policy.

Alas, Bush and Barbour are in bed with the insurers while Rush and Rees parrot the White House talking points.

If both Bush and Barbour had pushed the insurance industry to pay up immediately and in full on the wind policies of our homeowner insurance policies, we would be fixing up the place. Rush Limbaugh’s comments would, then, make history reflecting reality with which everyone down here could agree. Susan Rees would be memorizing her White House talking points to deliver to another part of the nation where I would hope she would continue to experience the wrath of Americans she erroneously dubs gullible.


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

Read More......

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......