Jackson Free Press

In January, I wrote an editor's note about the governor that miffed some Democrats around the city. They told me I went too easy on Barbour. I wrote then that although his wink-wink, race-tinged, nationally financed campaign tactics had really turned me off, I still hoped that he really wanted to come in and bridge gaps, not widen chasms. I wrote: "It's up to Barbour. This wasn't our game; the new governor needs to convince me, and other Mississippians, that he deserves the benefit of our doubt. Can he do that? Sure, if he will."

He hasn't.

I've watched this legislative session with growing apprehension, almost panic. My impression: Barbour has some brass hubris. With him at the helm, a platinum Republican machine is down here in Jackson, Miss., doing the work of far-right ideologues and big industry, playing us Mississippians for fools. And that stings.

The agenda: Shrink the budgets available for health care, public education and social services. Pass the costs onto school districts and municipalities. Generate business for donors like private-prison companies. Pat companies on the back that sent our jobs "offshore"; then talk a lot about "creating" (low-paying, non-union) jobs. Throw bones to the far right by signing off on abortion bills that likely won't withstand judicial scrutiny. Hedge the race-conscious vote by ensuring that the Confederate battle emblem shows up on places like Highway Patrol cars. Ensure that corporate donors can cut safety costs and keep marketing deadly products, because they know exactly how much, or how little, the people can collect in lawsuits—and thus can do reliable cost-benefit analyses before investing in safety. Have a "company" jet to fly back to D.C. whenever needed to, er, network with those uppity contacts we were promised during the election—the high-rollers who were going to come on down and rescue us from the No. 50 reject pile.

The irony, of course, is that right-wing politicians such as Barbour, and the very rich, are the only ones who seem very concerned about his no-new-taxes-or-raising-of-fees-that-haven't-been-raised-in-40-years pledge. A Stennis Institute study in 2003 found that 78 percent of Mississippians—a majority of Dems and Republicans—said they would be willing to pay higher taxes for better health care. Most Mississippians also give at least half a damn about public education.

When the session started, the talk was that Barbour wouldn't try to ram through more tort reform—a rumor that seemed unlikely at the time (it is a priority of his funders). But word was that House Speaker Billy McCoy would block efforts to tackle that amorphous problem of "lawsuit abuse"—especially efforts to cap damages that victims of corporate or medical malpractice could collect. Barbour surely would sit this session out, they said.

Alas, big business is restless. They want their $250,000 damage caps (or, is that $25?), and they want them now!

In some ways, you can hardly blame them: the pendulum is headed back their direction. Since the 2002 special session that cost Mississippi taxpayers upward of $1.6 million, more citizens are starting to catch on to the "lawsuit abuse" game. That is, they haven't exactly been telling us the whole truth and, if they don't hurry through more reforms, people might start paying attention.

At Barbour's press conference last week to announce the $34,000-a-day special session to get more tort reform and voter ID (we'll get back to that scheme next issue), he was dramatic, saying Mississippi faces a "lawsuit abuse tax": "Lawsuit abuse drives the cost of doing business to intolerably high levels, and every small business in our state is one lawsuit away from bankruptcy," he declared in his statement.

I asked his press secretary, Pete Smith, for back-up materials. He looked at me, puzzled, as if no reporter had ever asked him such a thing. "You know ... information that shows Mississippians why we need more tort reform, that proves that it will create more jobs," I explained.

"Oh," Smith answered, "talk to the Mississippians for Economic Progress."

"They're a tort-reform group and have a certain bias," I said. "I'd like data from independent agencies that will explain the governor's reasoning to taxpayers."

He took my business card.

The truth is, as we reported last year in our "Hookwinked" report, independent analysis of the "lawsuit abuse" crisis does not show the need for more damage caps, although procedural reforms can make sense. Indeed, the General Accounting Office of Congress found that media outlets, including here, have done a poor—incomplete at best, erroneous at worst—job of covering civil-justice issues, especially medical malpractice legal reforms. The truth is "lawsuit abuse" and that stupid "runaway jury" mantra are hyped way out of proportion to the reality of the money that actually gets paid to victims. The media don't often tell you much of anything substantive on these issues, such as mentioning that judges reduce most "outrageous" awards.

In fact, this session, the word "perception" kept coming up, even on the part of tort-reform proponents. As in, "there is a perception that lawsuits are out of control in Mississippi." Now, why would that be? And what if it isn't actually true? Interestingly, the MFEP currently states: "Mississippi has a judicial system that is widely believed to be imbalanced and, in fact, is considered one of the worst in the country." Believed? Considered? We're trying to limit the jury-trial rights of Americans based on perception?

Proponents often hide behind "create new jobs" rhetoric and kick up fury over "greedy trial attorneys." Anyone who knows me well—including doctor and lawyer friends—is fully aware that I support nothing because it is going to make friend, family, politician or myself rich. If this were just about whether some attorney friend was going to be able to collect a golden payout or not, I wouldn't be wasting my words.

I care about this issue for one reason: It's about the people, or should be. We will get screwed by any attempt to limit our constitutional rights to sue and collect damages that, in turn, make companies safer.

Some lawmakers seem to get this—men like Billy McCoy who was elected despite being targeted by the big green tort machine for defeat, and who doesn't give a damn for a lobbyist on any side of the issue. He seems fully aware of what Barbour is trying to steamroll, and he is trying to block it procedurally. He is right. Barbour must be stopped until the people have time to catch up with what's happening to their rights.

We—citizens, local media—must take back this issue, ask smart questions and demand real answers. It is not cool to roll over and let Big-Ass Industry, and their lapdogs, play us for fools. Mississippians deserve better.

Previous Comments

ID

69316

Comment

Another Clarion-Ledger screed today on tort reform: "Unfortunately, without a cap on these non-economic damage awards, there really isn't any tort reform." The Clarion-Ledger is getting worse on coverage of tort reform, not better. I am embarrassed on behalf of my industry for how poorly they cover this issue. (Ignoring reports its own corporation has done, even.) What is up??? This no-tort-reform-without-caps line is the mantra the coporate Gannett paper keeps repeating -- which so happens to be the same thing that the corporations that fund Barbour try to convince us. It is harder to say something much stupider than that. The Gannetteers are really making themselves look silly, naive, on this one. Worse, they're keeping vital information from Mississippians.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-05-20T15:42:35-06:00

ID

69317

Comment

Surprise, The Clarion-Ledger is dead wrong, again, and standing up for Corporate America against the little guy, again. We woke up this a.m. to the strains of a woman's voice reading today's Clarion-Ledger editorial on tort reform. Todd and I both opened our eyes and stared at each other. We have both been covering the special session this week -- and, frankly, I think The Clarion-Ledger folks missed the turn and ended up in another state. The editorials it is writing on this issue are IDIOTIC. False. One-sided. Biased toward corporations. (Surprise.) It has decided from on high (home office in McLean, Va., perhaps?) that it is going to support damage caps, no matter what. Like the Senate and like Barbour, The Clarion-Ledger has adopted the insultingly stupid mantra that there is "no tort reform without damage caps." Today's editorial makes it sound like the House is up there refusing to vote on any substantive tort reform, and blocking all the worthwhile efforts of the Senate. This is false, ladies and gentlemen. We've been there and seen it close at hand. What is actually happening is that the House is presenting a menu of real tort reforms that businesses say are very important to them. It is a worthy compromise and true effort to weed out actually lawsuit abuses. But the House--which of the People, lest we forget--is also saying that it will not consider further non-economic damage caps. It is correct to refuse to give up the rights of the people -- victims, remember, who have already won real lawsuits against real companies doing real damage -- to try to get companies to be more responsbile and safe. It is also good to pass legislation to make it more difficult for bad attorneys and fortune-seekers to bring and win frivolous lawsuits. The House is doing both of those things. The Senate, for its part, with Solomonic arrogance, is willing to give up substantive reforms that the House is working hard to put together--if the House don't get their donors' damage caps. Now, who's playing whom here? It is as if The Clarion-Ledger cannot tell the difference between the factors that encourage frivolous lawsuits and facts that discourage business negligence and safety cost-cutting. Clarion-Ledger editors, these editorials are shameful and show where your interests really lie: corporate America--certainly not with the people. Wake up and start doing your homework and start covering tort reform like a real newspaper should. Other Gannett papers have covered this issue well -- why can't you here in the state of Mississippi???

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-05-21T10:49:10-06:00

ID

69318

Comment

"But the House--which of the People, lest we forget--is also saying that it will not consider further non-economic damage caps." The House has not had an up or down floor vote on the caps. They would pass if a vote was allowed to take place. Interesting how, though you have been attending the session, you fail to mention the ghost-voting that has been taking place. You are as agendized as the Clarion-Ledger.

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2004-05-21T11:32:42-06:00

ID

69319

Comment

Ranch, we have stated unequivocably that we are against non-economic damage caps -- we believe they are against the best interests of the people to ensure that corporations do not factor the lower costs of safety into their bottom lines, and decide that a risk of killing or disfiguring a certain number of people are worth it. We are plain spoken about that, and have clearly stated our reasoning for it, and will continue to. It is tragic that we have reached a point where it is costing the people $34,000 a day, and most legislators, or the governor's office, cannot present an iota of real evidence that shows why the non-economic caps are needed and how they are going to help create more jobs. And The Clarion-Ledger is going along with it hook, line and sinker, pardon the cliche. My take is that if you are going to pass government regulation to limit my rights, you'd better show me a good reason for it, and not just spew a bunch of sound bites. If there is a compelling reason, I might agree -- but absent one (such as the case now), no. As I say in the above column, I absolutely support blocking caps procedurally until such point as the media is actually disseminating the whole story to the people; until then, none of our rights should be sacrified to corporate interests. We have also stated repeatedly over the months that we believe in other types of "tort reform," including several of the measures that the House is trying to present and that the Senate will not even consider without caps being attached -- and that The Clarion-Ledger is now magically proclaiming are not tort reforms (although it has called for some of the measures as tort reforms in past editorials: now you see it, now you don't). That is simply irresponsible posturing and slogan-making on their part. The truth is: There is room for compromise on the House side and not on the Senate side--and The Clarion-Ledger is twisting that into something it is not.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-05-21T11:44:53-06:00

ID

69320

Comment

BTW, just my $0.02 since Ranch said this today...the House did have an up or down vote on tort reform yesterday -- apparently with voters in full attendance -- they passed a tort reform bill that didn't include caps. The whole House could have defeated that bill as well and gone back to committee to demand one with caps. There's no question that, politically, the question of caps in close in the House -- they have about 60 votes in a 122-vote body. But there are more votes in the House for a tort reform bill that doesn't include caps.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-05-21T12:20:55-06:00

ID

69321

Comment

Put a bill with caps on the floor of the House for an up or down vote and it passes. That is exactly why such a bill is not allowed to come up for a vote. McCoy and Blackmon would not be standing in the way if a bill with caps would fail in a floor vote. You are doing a great job of helping them carry the water, but its dishonest to say that there are more votes for a bill without caps because the House simply hasn't voted on such a bill yet.

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2004-05-21T13:18:19-06:00

ID

69322

Comment

If it's dishonest, then you're being just as dishonest to assume "a bill with caps" would pass. You need to discuss each bill on its merits. HB 2 had an insurance reform clause in it; it didn't pass. (And it wouldn't have anyway because of the fees in the bill that required a 3/5 vote.) HB 4 removed that clause; it did pass. I think the intellectual dishonestry creeps in when you assume that the House is more partisan than it is -- I think there are reps in the House who honestly do consider the merits of the bill in front of them and make a decision based on what's politically tenable -- both at home, in the House itself and when considering who funds them (or who funds massive campaigns against them). Why is it so unbelievable that some people on both sides of the aisle might be trying to craft reasonable legislation? *This* bill got votes from House reps who have vowed never to vote for any tort reform -- you should sit in on a Jud A committee meeting at some point if you haven't; you'll see that Blackmon is actually making some compromises that are getting a tort reform bill to the floor. It's an extraordinary oversimplication to say that "McCoy and Blackmon" are standing in the way -- an oversimplication that serves your point of view, but is a disservice to people who want to make up their own mind on this issue by consider alternative points of view. Consider this -- what does the senate and the governor *really* want? What will they settle for? What's their motivation for spending $34,000 a day on general business liability damage caps and voter ID? These are the most pressing issues facing a state that can't get adequate education funding under existing legislation? If you can answer the motivation question -- which I'm honestly curious about and only have working theories so far -- then you might have a case for getting those caps and ID bills passed. At least one point of view paints the House members as heroes in this scenario.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2004-05-21T13:37:04-06:00

ID

69323

Comment

I don't think it is clear whether it would pass or not, based in part on what happened yesterday, as Todd posted: the House indeed passed a bill without caps and being that this has been made by the Senate, the guv and the C-L into a referendum on caps, check one, yes or no, that seems to be a pretty resounding message. It would also depend, in part, on what else is in the bill. Again, such a bill should not be put on the floor for a vote -- it is not in the people's interest for a bill that so blatantly caters to big industry with so little regard to people's rights would come to the floor. I'd call it a frivolous bill, in fact, that should be weeded out before it reaches the floor, and I'm happy to see that happening here. It's funny to me that, suddenly, The Clarion-Ledger and the Senateseem so aghast that legislation can be, and is often, blocked procedurally. Did someone just fall off the turnip truck? BTW, I just returned from an interview with Sen. Charlie Ross, who is shepherded the damages caps in the Senate. He told me in no uncertain terms that the Senate does not consider a bill without non-economic damages to be true tort reform that the Senate can support. And he quoted The Clarion-Ledger's editorial above (!). More on all that in the next print edition next week. Does it truly sound like all the stonewalling is coming from the House side? Of course not. To recap, here's how it stacks up as of today: The House is willing to pass a menu of tort reforms that business says it wants, but no non-economic damaage caps. The Senate says it does not want to accept any of those reforms unless the Big Potato -- damage caps -- is included. All or nothing.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-05-21T13:38:06-06:00