LETTERS
Props 57, 58
If California’s voters are resilient in their determination to clean up the Gray Davis budget catastrophe and re-establish fiscal common sense in Sacramento, they must continue to send their message by supporting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s economic recovery package, Propositions 57 and 58.
Prop 57 would authorize a $15 billion bond that would cover the state’s budget shortfall, while Prop 58 would add a balanced budget amendment to the state Constitution and establish a “rainy day” fund, preventing future budget catastrophes.
Traditionally Republicans,and fiscal conservatives in particular,have been wary of state bond financing, considering it to be a fiscally irresponsible practice, much like running up a credit card bill. This case is different.
The governor’s recovery plan is the most sensible path to restoring California’s fiscal and economic health and avoiding an even larger state fiscal catastrophe.
Since 1998, with Democrats holding the governor’s office and majorities in the Legislature, state expenditures have steadily climbed a staggering 43%, far outpacing the 25% increase in revenue. Even with deep cuts, the state still is running an estimated $14 billion deficit.
Fiscal conservatives, like our Republican governor, would like to see this disparity solved by cutting runaway spending rather than bond financing. The governor is already taking drastic steps in that direction. But there is more to it than just waving a magic wand.
Should Californians reject Propositions 57 and 58, the governor could possibly find himself in an unfortunate Legislative quagmire, struggling to protect his simple promise of fiscal responsibility from relentless Democrat demands for higher taxes. For a state already maligned with high taxes, unfriendly business laws and a host of additional needs, this prospect is chilling.
In contrast, Propositions 57 and 58 would consolidate California’s debt and then tear up the credit card, preventing future deficits and allowing Gov. Schwarzenegger to advance his agenda of restoring California’s fiscal and economic health.
Dale Dykema
(Dykema is chief executive of TD Service Financial Corp. in Santa Ana and a board member of the New Majority.)
John Edwards
While I am not a supporter of Sen. John Edwards, I could not contain myself after reading Dr. Glueck’s Feb. 16 letter denouncing Edwards as a presidential candidate solely due to his profession as a trial attorney.
Dr. Glueck has apparently bought into the myth perpetuated by members of his profession that the healthcare system is in crisis due to contingency fees, punitive damage awards, class-action lawsuits and medical malpractice claims in general.
The contingency fee system is its own regulator against frivolous lawsuits. Any trial attorney, either for plaintiff or defendant, can confirm that medical malpractice cases are very expensive to prosecute, that the plaintiff’s attorney is most often the only source of funding for those costs, that doctors most often refuse to settle and that the vast majority of such cases that go to trial see the defendant prevailing.
None of these factors predisposes a plaintiff’s attorney to take on a medical malpractice case unless it has merit, it is supported by the opinion of a healthcare professional and the potential damages are real and significant.
Attorneys representing healthcare professionals as defendants are not subject to fee restrictions and are paid at an hourly rate. Which attorney would have the greater incentive to take a case to trial?
Physicians always decry punitive damages, but as a practical matter physicians are rarely sued for punitive damages, and to recover such damages a plaintiff needs to prove intentional and malicious misconduct by the doctor. In California and other states, special permission of the court is required before a claim for punitive damages can be allowed.
Placing caps on medical malpractice claims is regularly touted by certain politicians and “tort reformers” as the ultimate panacea for combating escalating malpractice insurance premiums, without focusing on the real culprit, which is the insurance industry.
A July 2003 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office showed that multiple factors have led to recent increases in medical malpractice premium rates, including lower investment income for insurers, lack of competition in the insurance market and rapidly rising reinsurance rates. Of the seven states studied, the one with the lowest premium increases, Minnesota, had no damages cap.
Dr. Glueck correctly notes that trial lawyers do contribute to the campaign coffers of certain politicians, Sen. Edwards included. What he fails to state is that the amount of such contributions pale beside the amount of contributions coming from the insurance companies, doctors’ groups and the healthcare industry in general, who rally to any politician who wants to engage in lawyer-bashing.
California already has had in place for years the type of damage caps and other restrictions on medical malpractice claims that President Bush has attempted to bring into place as federal law. Does Dr. Glueck believe that such restrictions have helped to lower his own personal malpractice premiums, or does he want complete immunity from malpractice claims for physicians, so that insurance will become unnecessary and injured patients will have to fend for themselves?
The real problem behind the medical malpractice issue is the insurance industry and the physicians who commit malpractice. Blaming the victims of malpractice and the lawyers who have the courage to help them won’t change that.
Lawrence A. Strid
Burge & Strid
Laguna Hills
George Bush
I never thought the president would become vulnerable in the coming election. But he has!
Bush won’t:
Get rid of Cheney.
Get rid of Rumsfeld.
Get rid of Ashcroft.
Get rid of Tenet.
Protect our borders from illegal aliens.
Stop spending so much damn money.
Stop calling it the War on Terrorism.
Bush should:
Get rid of Cheney.
Get rid of Rumsfeld.
Get rid of Ashcroft.
Get rid of Tenet.
Protect our borders from illegal aliens.
Stop spending so much damn money.
Start calling it WW III.
Barry M. Gold
Irvine
