Conference back40::soapbox

    
    This looks like one of those that will get bipartisan support
    to me.  A few of the terrible ten in Newt's list will be knockdown
    dragouts.  But a surprising number will draw considerable support
    from Democrats, including Clinton.
    
    The devil is in the details, however.
    
      bb

    Steve:
    
    One thing that baffles me.  The contract is merely the idea of bringing
    these issues to debate and vote.  I fail to understand why you would be
    for this but not the rest of the contract, seeing as how the items can
    be voted down!
    
    -Jack

	If we're going to have reform, can we do away with the lemon ones?

    Jack, tell Newt Gingrich and Phil Gramm that; they're talking 
    'mandate for change.'
    
    As I said to someone else, if you voted Republican simply because you
    wanted these issues *brought up for a vote*, you've been hornswoggled.
    (How many of these items have been voted on before?  I can think of
    four offhand...!)

    > This looks like one of those that will get bipartisan support
    > to me.
    
    Trial lawyers opposing tort reforms have been among the largest PAC
    contributors in the last several decades.  Lots of congressmen have
    already sold their votes to these critters, and that's why tort reform
    has been consistently defeated every time its been mooted in recent
    years.  I expect the GOP to make a lot of changes in the way Washington
    works, but frankly, given the way the money has been spread around, I
    don't expect this to succeed.
    
    DougO

    
    You're right Dougo; except trial lawyers are finally *the* largest PAC
    contributors of all.
    
    jeff

    the Washington POST pac is one of the largest proponents of TORT reform.

    There seems to be a movement, at least in the legal profession where
    the gov't is trying to address this issue.
    
    There is a book called Sanctions: The Federal Law of Litigation Abuse.
    
    "The sanctions movement continues to gain momentum.  The federal
    courts have issued thousands of awards, many in excess of $1,000,000
    against attorneys and parties engaging in litigation abuse.  With
    new rules 11,26(g), and 37 effective 12/1/93 - the federal courts
    have created new regions of vulnerability for unwary attorneys."

	Raspberry ones are cool.

                   <<< Note 112.4 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
                      -< Not to hear them talk about it >-

>    Jack, tell Newt Gingrich and Phil Gramm that; they're talking 
>    'mandate for change.'
    
>    As I said to someone else, if you voted Republican simply because you
>    wanted these issues *brought up for a vote*, you've been hornswoggled.
>    (How many of these items have been voted on before?  I can think of
>    four offhand...!)

    No one is "hornswoggled" if they understand the contract.  As I said 
    before, debate is a good thing.  The final measure of the GOP reform
    movement will not depend on the percentage of the contract that passed.

    The changes won't even start with the Contract for America.  If the GOP 
    cuts overhead in the House and Senate and improves the access for people 
    to look at legislation before it's voted upon instead of a single paper 
    copy, those will be welcomed changes.  According to Gingrich, the first 
    order of business in the 104th Congress is to take Social Security off 
    budget for the first time since the Johnson Administration.



    [1992: We need change]

    "Change" was a key word in the 1992 Presidential campaign: Clinton used
    the word constantly.  I don't have my copy of _Putting_People_first_ here, 
    but I recall that Clinton proposed multiple changes in the Federal 
    Government:

    o   A 25% cut in the House, Senate, and Whitehouse staffs
    o   Line item veto
    o   Cuts in the federal payroll and waste
    o   Campaign finance reform
    o   Lobbying reform


    [25% cut in staff]

    You can make a case that the Whitehouse did, in fact, cut staff by 
    25%.  However, as I recall, a couple of days after the election, the
    Democratic leadership of the House and Senate went to Little Rock to
    talk to the President-elect.  Behind closed doors, Clinton asked them
    to cut their staff, and they refused.  Later, a dejected Clinton stood
    before the press and announced that he was going to push ahead with 
    cuts in the Whitehouse staff.  He also stated that the House and Senate 
    had already reduced their staffs, and that no further cuts would be made
    there.  He was clearly crushed, and he never brought up this issue again.



    [Line item veto]

    I recall Clinton stating: "They [House and Senate] don't have to make 
    the cuts, just add a line item veto to the [appropriations] bills, and 
    we'll make the tough decisions.

    As far as I know, this idea was never discussed and was certainly never 
    implemented.



    [Cuts in the federal payroll and waste]

    Other than cuts in military spending -- and many of the tough decisions
    such as base closings were already made -- this area was covered by 
    Al Gore's "Reinventing Government" initiative.

    One year after Gore's document was released -- on expensive non-standard 
    type -- the GAO issued a report on the progress the Administration had 
    made on reinventing government.  Of the hundreds of proposals, only 
    eleven had been implemented [the ABC news magazine with Sam Donaldson].
    This is particularly disappointing because many of the proposed changes 
    can be done by executive order.  [Bill Clinton stated this at the news 
    conference when the report was issued.]  Furthermore, the Clinton 
    Administration has only submitted a few reform bills to Congress.  All
    are sitting in committee and will likely die when the 103rd Congress 
    adjourns.  I can't think of one piece of legislation from the reinventing
    government report that the Clinton Administration has brought to the 
    public's attention the way that they lobbied for the Crime Bill or NAFTA.

    "Reinventing Government" is long on spin and short on substance.



    [Campaign finance reform]

    The bill that was recently debated and killed does not meet the needs 
    outlined in _Putting_People_First_.  Clinton proposed spending caps on 
    House and Senate races, not voluntary guidelines.  Furthermore, the bill's
    disclosure clause on contributors raises serious privacy issues.  And
    finally, simply lowering the maximum amount that a PAC can give to a 
    campaign is too easy to bypass.  For example, Charles Keating gave lots 
    of money to Congressmen and Senators through multiple PACs.  You have to 
    limit the total amount spent, limit the total from PACs, or eliminate PAC 
    money altogether.

    [I recognize that PACs have a constitutional right to free speech, but I 
    don't think that there is a constitutional right to give money to 
    political campaigns.

    IMHO, neither party has been honest with the American people about this one.
    The Democrats have traditionally received money for their House and Senate 
    campaigns through PACs, while the Republicans have received lots of 
    "soft money" channelled through the national Republican Party.  
    Predictably, Democrats favor restrictions on soft money, while Republicans
    favor restrictions on PACs.   Grrrrrr.  "A pox on both your houses!"] 



    [Lobbying reform]

    As promised, the Clinton Administration requires all appointees to 
    sign an agreement not to lobby for industries or foreign governments
    until they have left office for at least five years.



    [1994: We still need change]

    People who voted for change in 1992 didn't get much change.
    Perhaps they were "hornswoggled": perhaps Bill Clinton simply put a 
    pile of lies into _Putting_People_First_.  Maybe the problem is that
    Bill Clinton is just not up to the job.  He certainly could have tried
    harder to rally public opinion.  The public is clearly fed up with the 
    status quo and would be easily convinced to pick up the phone and call 
    their Congressmen or Senators.  Too late.

    The irony of it all is that the Democratic leadership should have 
    listened to Clinton.  They didn't want to cut their staffs, now the 
    GOP is going to do it for them.  They didn't want a line item veto even
    discussed.  The GOP may send an amendment to the states for ratification.
    They didn't want Clinton to cut spending with a scalpel.  The GOP may 
    cut it with an ax -- or a chainsaw.

    They were simply too arrogant to hear the train coming and too complacent
    to get off the tracks.  What a shame.

    I feel their pain.

    Kevin, you are attempting to employ a preposterous double standard.
    
    Candidate Clinton campaigned on pledges to do certain things.  He did
    some, he didn't do others; you criticize him for his failures, and
    rightly so.  But he didn't pledge to *talk* about making changes, he
    pledged to *make* them.
    
    Along come the Republicans with their Contract With America.  You say
    they only pledged to *talk* about making changes, and you commend them
    for carrying out their plans to... talk, even if no changes result.
    
    Nope, I still say you've been hornswoggled.

    Kevin, I do agree with your analysis about the Democratic legislative
    leaders and their arrogance in refusing to support President Clinton in
    many areas.  They are suffering now for their refusal to go along.

                   <<< Note 112.11 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
               -< You're willing to reward them for *talking*? >-

>    Kevin, you are attempting to employ a preposterous double standard.

    No.  There is one standard here: will the GOP keep their word and do
    what they said that they will do.

   
>    Candidate Clinton campaigned on pledges to do certain things.  He did
>    some, he didn't do others; you criticize him for his failures, and
>    rightly so.  But he didn't pledge to *talk* about making changes, he
>    pledged to *make* them.

    That is correct.  He, as all of us, should be held accountable for living
    by his agreements.  I'd even give him credit for a good try.  One of my
    complaints about Clinton is that he just doesn't put in the effort.
    Many of his ideas would have done much better if he had proposed quickly,
    gone on the television, and rallied support.  He didn't even try.  The
    best effort he made on getting support for legislation was on the Crime 
    Bill, and that's about it.  When I read _Putting_People_First_, I marked
    all the little bills and simple things that Clinton could do early in 
    his administration to gain political capitol.  I expected him to come out
    early and get a few political wins under his belt.  I completely over-
    estimated his abilities and his resolve.  History handed him a golden 
    opportunity, and he wasted it.

    Perhaps he shouldn't have made commitments that he can't keep.  I think 
    that all of us can learn something from that.  The old saying goes, 
    "Don't make promises you can't keep."

    
>    Along come the Republicans with their Contract With America.  You say
>    they only pledged to *talk* about making changes, and you commend them
>    for carrying out their plans to... talk, even if no changes result.
>    
>    Nope, I still say you've been hornswoggled.

    I don't agree.

    If they succeed in doing what they say that they will do, then, yes, 
    I will commend them.  As I stated earlier, there is value in having this
    kind of debate.  An open discussion is a welcome change from the closed,
    static environment we have had in the past.  Science cannot exist without
    that kind of openness, let's bring debate back to Congress for a change.

    Furthermore, I may be overly optimistic, but I find it hard to believe 
    that if we start a real debate, the momentum will be such that real change 
    becomes the expected norm.

    I expect the GOP to make changes -- as part of the Contract for America
    and totally outside of the Contract.  There are possibilities for the 
    104th Congress that would be impossible under the old regime.

    Hey, I think I'm ahead of the game here!
    
    I wasn't hornswaggled!  I was even more suspicious than the liberals
    out there!  Still am, for that matter...

    Wordy:
    
    I believe you got it wrong.  The voters rewarded those democrats who
    DID work with Clinton by voting them outta office! 

    re hornswoggled by a promise to talk:
    
    There's a very real danger in this:  that if there's talk and no action
    (without a well-understood and valid reason) the hands that swept out
    so many pols in '94 may well backhand more away in '96.
    
    Dick

     <<< Note 112.16 by VMSSG::LYCEUM::CURTIS "Dick "Aristotle" Curtis" >>>
                        -< Loose talk can cost careers >-

    That could very well happen.  The public will judge the harshly if their
    isn't movement in other areas as well.  For example, if welfare reform 
    or cuts in the size of government are not accomplished, the public will 
    be in a nasty mode in 1996.  In any case, it'll be fun.

             TORT REFORM - LOBBYISTS DROP GIRL SCOUTS AS EXAMPLE
                        copied without permission from
                          The Lawrence Eagle-Tribune
                                 8 March 1995

     WASHINGTON (AP) -- When advocates of tort reform went looking for
     sympathetic symbols, they thought they had found a winner: the Girl
     Scouts of America.

     The story spread quickly among tort reform lobbyists and their
     supporters on Capitol Hill, and it was compelling: Girl Scouts in the
     nation's capital have to sell 87,000 boxes of cookies each year just
     to cover the cost of their liability insurance.

     The lobbying and public relations machinery went into high gear. The
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce produced a radio ad using the  information,
     and a business coalition began planning a television spot showing a
     Girl Scout trudging door to door with a basket of Thin Mints and
     Samoas.

     But when the Girl Scouts got wind of it, they called a halt. The
     87,000- box statistic was undocumented, they said. The Girl Scouts do
     not consider damage suits much of a problem, and the organization
     takes no position on tort reform legislation.
         
     So the girl in the TV spot donned a Little League outfit instead, and
     the focus changed to the legal problems of children's baseball.

     The radio and television ads have been just the most visible part of
     an intense lobbying campaign that Climaxes with House votes this week
     on bills designed to curb damage and injury lawsuits. While reform
     proponents are doing battle over the airwaves, lobbyists for both
     sides are plying congressional corridors.
         
     The trial lawyers have legendary clout in Congress; they have held
     changes in the tort system at bay for more than a decade.

     Meanwhile the Little League says it has no position at all on the
     various tort reform proposals. League spokesman Dennis Sullivan said
     the coalition did have  permission to use the Little League's name in
     its ads.

     Mr. Sullivan declined to provide any details about the cost of
     liability insurance for Little League baseball, except to say it
     starts at about $750 per year for a local league.
                                     -30-
    

    
      If you are a real CSPAN masochist, check out the recent shenanigans
     in the Senate.  Two Senators voting to table their own amendments,
     the sponsors voting against cloture while fillibustering their
     own bill, the endless amendments that have rendered the whole thing
     unrecognizable compared to the House bill.  As it stands now, there
     are enough votes to pass several different forms, composed of quite
     different collections from both parties including 75 senators, but
     there are not 60 votes for cloture on ANY of the alternatives.
    
      It is, in a way, amusing, I suppose.  The Senate is the killing
     ground of legislation.
    
      bb

    -1
    
    I'd really like to know who the 9 Republicans were who sided with
    the dims to kill this.
    
    If any of them are from Georgia they can kiss my vote goodbye next
    time.
    
    

    The Senate went overboard, writing absolutely irresponsible
    restrictions on the ability to sue for damages into the law.
    Clinton's sound-bite called it the Drunken Driver Protection Act,
    which was actually not far off.  They blew it.  They're starting over.
    
    DougO

    GOP Tries to Save Legal Reform Bill

    Washington

    Senate Republicans retreated again yesterday in hopes of salvaging a
    bare-bones legal reform bill, confining the legislation to product
    liability lawsuits and modifying proposed limits on punitive damages in
    these cases.

    Key backers of the legislation, which is in its third week of
    contentious debate, said they now believe it will pass.

    The latest compromise was offered after it became clear that the first
    retreat, a scaled-back version proposed Friday by majority leader Bob
    Dole, R-Kan., was still too far-reaching to get the 60 votes necessary
    to limit debate and bring the bill to a final vote.

    The scaling back was forced after the Senate loaded up a relatively
    narrow product liability bill with broader litigation curbs, including
    a proposal to limit punitive damages in all civil lawsuits, and then
    fell well short of the 60-vote mark. When Dole's Friday compromise came
    up for a vote late yesterday, it also fell far short, winning only 43
    votes.

    The new proposal is a far cry from the broad bill approved by the House
    earlier this year and closely resembles the product liability bill
    originally introduced in the Senate by Senators Slade Gorton, R-Wash.,
    and John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va.

    As explained by Gorton, the latest version -- hammered out in a day of
    bipartisan negotiations -- had the backing of Dole as well as
    Rockefeller. Rockefeller said he believed the measure would command
    enough votes to win final passage later this week.

    But it posed potential difficulties for a House-Senate conference
    because the two houses are so far apart and the Senate demonstrated so
    strongly in debate on the measure that it has little wiggle room for
    compromise.

    The latest proposal seeks to limit punitive damage awards only for
    lawsuits against manufacturers of allegedly faulty products. The Friday
    proposal would have limited punitive damages in all lawsuits against
    small businesses and people of relatively modest resources. The broader
    bill would have covered medical malpractice and other civil lawsuits as
    well.
    
    Published 5/9/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

I asked it before in 99.336, and I'll ask it again here:

What's the constitutional basis for the various tort reform bills' ability
to affect suits in state courts?

    Senate Passes Product-Liability Bill

    Washington

    The Senate yesterday passed a bill limiting punitive damages in
    lawsuits involving injuries from defective products.

    The 61-to-37 vote came after the bill was stripped from a broader
    measure that would have limited punitive damages in all civil cases,
    including medical malpractice.

    The bill now goes to a conference with the House of Representatives,
    which passed the broader version in March as part of the House
    Republicans' Contract with America.

    President Clinton has promised to veto the final bill if he thinks that
    it goes too far in limiting the rights of injury or accident victims to
    sue.

    Supporters of the bill, including business groups such as the U.S.
    Chamber of Commerce that have tried for years to change tort laws, said
    it is needed to curb excessive liability awards and discourage
    frivolous lawsuits.

    ``Passage today is an important victory for common sense and the
    American people,'' Senate majority leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., said after
    the vote. ``I think we've had a dramatic step forward. We had strong
    opposition.''

    But opponents said that liability cases are only a small percentage of
    total court cases and that excessive awards are rare. ``This is not an
    epidemic or a crisis,'' said Senator Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

    ``It is the threat of litigation that is the problem,'' replied Senator
    Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va.

    The final version of the Senate bill applies to product-liability cases
    only. It would limit punitive damages to two times compensatory
    damages, which include economic and noneconomic losses, or $250,000,
    whichever is greater.

    Judges could add higher punitive damages if they thought they were
    justified. Punitive damages are awarded for willful misconduct by a
    defendant.

    The bill took almost three weeks to pass because opponents blocked
    action until the broader provisions were dropped.

    California's senators were divided on the issue, with Dianne Feinstein
    voting in favor of the bill and Barbara Boxer voting against it.
    
    Published 5/11/95 in SF Chronicle

    Why is this a federal issue?  This looks like one of those things
    that should be up to the states.  Don't these guys have anything
    better to do?  Like cut the budget...
    
    Chris

    Re: .25
    
    >Why is this a federal issue?
    
    Interstate commerce, at a guess.  If the product was manufactured in
    one (or more) states by a company headquartered in another state, and
    then purchased by someone in a third state (and possibly given to
    someone in a fourth state), which state's product liability laws apply?  
    And why should someone in one state have better or worse protection
    from defective products than someone in another state?

re: .26

>    And why should someone in one state have better or worse protection
>    from defective products than someone in another state?

Accepting this argument would lead to the practical elimination of state
and local government.  There are very, very few issues where I couldn't find
a reason for the above to apply to.

Bob

    Whatever.  It's still a matter of interstate commerce.

>> Accepting this argument would lead to the practical elimination of state
>> and local government.
    
    ...which would probably suit the bureaucrats in the Federal
    government just fine.  If this argument is extended to take
    international trade into account, it could get even more
    interesting.
    
    Chris

    Legislators -- Make Haste Very Slowly
    ANTHONY LEWIS

    GETTING LEGISLATION through Congress is notoriously difficult, with all
    the obstacles in the two houses. But the framers of the Constitution
    wanted it that way. They valued reflection more than speed. The wisdom
    of a deliberate system is being demonstrated now, in a fascinating way,
    on the legislation to impose new federal limits on damage suits. It has
    gone through the House and, last week, the Senate in very different
    forms. The process has exposed the dangers in the proposed ``reform.''

    Newt Gingrich's juggernaut got a bill through committee and the floor
    of the House in weeks. As passed there, it was a collection of devices
    aimed at making it harder for the victims of torts -- civil wrongs --
    to win damages from manufacturers, doctors and other defendants.

    One device was a modified version of the English rule that the loser in
    a civil lawsuit pays the legal fees of the winner. That idea has been
    an ideological crusade for a number of conservative thinkers. Its
    effect would be to scare many victims out of suing, for fear that they
    would be bankrupted if they lost -- as happens in Britain. The House
    bill imposed new federal rules on all tort law, an area of the law that
    for 200 years has been left to the states. This radical move toward
    centralization was in striking conflict with the Gingrich's professed
    aim to cut back the power of the federal government.

    In the Senate, Bob Dole, the Republican leader, tried to get a broad
    bill passed, no doubt trying to advance his presidential candidacy by
    pleasing the right. But he overreached, and in the end the Senate
    passed a bill dealing only with faulty manufactured products. Because
    almost all products reach a national market, imposing federal rules on
    state tort law there is less absurd than, for example, trying to make
    the malpractice law of 50 states fit into a national box. But there are
    still serious problems.

    The Senate bill, for instance, says punitive damages can be awarded in
    product-liability cases only when the manufacturer has shown
    ``conscious, flagrant indifference to the safety of others.'' Judges
    all over the country, state and federal, would have to decide what that
    slippery phrase means. There would be differences, perhaps chaos, for
    years.

    Is there a tort crisis in this country, a plague of worthless lawsuits
    that burden business and the courts? Some of my lawyer friends think
    there is. If so, the way to deal with it is not to try tilting
    substantive tort law against victims. It is to speed up the legal
    process by winnowing out worthless cases early on.

    A proposal that would work to that end has been shaped by Michael J.
    Horowitz, a conservative legal thinker, together with others both
    liberal and conservative. It would apply in all personal injury cases
    where the plaintiff's lawyer is to get a percentage of what the
    plaintiff wins: a contingency fee.

    First, the plaintiff would have to detail for the defendants his or her
    injuries and medical and other costs. The defendant would then have 60
    days to offer a settlement figure. If the settlement is accepted, the
    plaintiff's lawyer would get only hourly fees for work he actually did,
    with some further limitations. If the offer is rejected, and the
    plaintiff wins an award at trial, his lawyer would get a percentage
    only of the excess over the rejected settlement figure.

    That idea would curb some abuses by some plaintiffs' trial lawyers, who
    now demand as much as 50 percent as a contingency fee, even if a case
    is settled after little work. But it would not discourage lawyers from
    taking cases at all, as the cap on punitive damages in both the House
    and Senate bills would.

    I have been able to give only a sketch of Horowitz's proposal. But it
    shows how to approach the tort problem: Avoid rigidities and delusive
    certainties. And leave substantive tort law to state courts and
    legislatures, where it belongs.

    5/16/95 , San Francisco Chronicle, All Rights Reserved

    
      At a White House ceremony, Bill Clinton vetoed the Tort Reform
     bill, arguing against placing any limits on "punitive" damage awards.
    
      This is a shrewd political move, aimed at California electoral votes.
     Recall that the American Trial Lawyers' Association is bankrolling
     a "Green" presidential candidacy by Ralph Nader in California, which
     could only draw off Democrats.  This move buys off the lawyers.
    
      bb

    RE: .31

>     This move buys off the lawyers.

    It should be noted that the lawyers have already bought off Clinton. 
    The trial lawyers are the laregest contributors to the Clinton
    campaign.

    -- Dave

    And large corporations are financing most of the republicans, including
    Dole, so what is your point?
    
    In either case it is the fox guarding the henhouse.
    
    meg

    Question, Who wrote the tort reform bill?

	I really hope they reform tarts. BAN ASSAULT POPTARTS!

    
    
    	I dunno, I like mz_deb and she's a tart....;*)
    
    

    
    
    	:*)
    
    

    RE: .33

>    And large corporations are financing most of the republicans, including
>    Dole, so what is your point?

    Large corporations are financing most of both sides (can you say Tyson
    Foods?), no sense in being on the losing side.  So meg, what's your
    point?

    My point was that the trail lawyers are the LARGEST contributor to
    Clinton.  Obviously money well spent.

    -- Dave

Re: .39. Now you stop that. Laura Tyson got her cabinet job as Finance
Director and High Poobah because she was qualified.

The very idea.