LETTERS
Deep Thoughts on John Edwards
Next to John Kerry, the Democratic presidential hopeful who has fared the best lately is Kerry’s fellow U.S. senator, John Edwards, who is being increasingly mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate.
The photogenic Edwards presents himself as an “aw shucks” country boy made good, first in his family to go to college, that sort of thing. He also presents himself as a crusader for the little guys, a fearless attorney who took on The Interests and won.
Indeed, during his career as a trial attorney, he won more than $60 million for himself and his little guy clients via medical malpractice suits.
But his wealth represents not justice but money sucked out of the healthcare system by class-action lawsuits, contingency fees and lunatic punitive damage awards. His personal success has contributed to the destruction of American medicine.
Edwards’ legal fame and fortune comes from suing obstetricians who failed to use fetal monitoring and Caesarian sections for babies born with cerebral palsy. No correlation between fetal monitoring and cerebral palsy has been established. But thanks to Edwards, the rate of C-sections has jumped from 6% to 26%, bringing its own set of medical complications, while healthcare costs have risen significantly.
Now, in an unblushing display of chutzpah, he campaigns and complains about the healthcare system he helped rob and ruin.
Edwards’ campaign touts its refusal of donations from “lobbyists and political action committees.” Yet according to public records, nearly half of the $14.5 million Edwards raised in campaign contributions as of last September came from trial lawyers, their wives, their firms and the American Trial Lawyers Association.
How predictably slick and sly of Edwards to conveniently ignore his own special interests.
If the American Bar Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, nearly one million lawyers and almost 60,000 trial lawyers are not one of the nation’s largest lobbying groups, what are they?
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D.
Newport Beach
Props 57 and 58
On March 2, Californians will have the opportunity to vote for a pair of propositions that will alleviate the budget deficit brought on by past fiscal mismanagement and ensure that the state doesn’t find itself in this sort of financial crisis again.
Propositions 57 and 58 were placed on the ballot by both Democrat and Republican lawmakers who jointly agree that these measures represent the right mix of short- and long-term solutions for the state’s economic troubles. And in the new spirit of bipartisanship at the Capitol, Gov. Schwarzenegger and Democrat State Controller Steve Westly are co-chairing the campaign for their passage.
Proposition 57 provides for a one-time $15 billion bond to refinance and consolidate the deficits of the past several years,at a time when interests rates are at historic lows. This will allow us to wipe the slate clean and get a fresh start, without dramatically raising taxes or severely cutting spending for crucial state programs like education.
Proposition 58 requires California’s elected state officials to balance the budget every year in the future and prohibits bond financing of any future deficits. Under 58, California will have to live within its means. Proposition 58 also creates a “rainy day savings account” to be used for paying the bonds off early and helping us through any future economic downturns. It also prohibits the Legislature from adjourning during a fiscal crisis unless solutions are proposed.
For more information on 57 and 58, visit www.yes57and58.org.
Allan Zaremberg and Larry McCarthy
(Zaremberg is president of the California Chamber of Commerce. McCarthy is president of the California Taxpayers Association.).
Sir Eldon
Eldon Griffiths’ Jan. 26 Viewpoint advocating support for CAFTA,the “free trade” agreement extending NAFTA to Central America,ignores the serious adverse effects already experienced by this country after 10 years of NAFTA.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, manufacturing employment in the U.S. has declined for more than 40 consecutive months; 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. According to a report from the director of labor education research at Cornell University, the U.S. has lost 70,000 to 100,000 jobs per year to Mexico under NAFTA.
Sir Eldon appears clueless to the threat to health and road safety in the U.S. by allowing Mexico’s trucks unfettered access to U.S. roadways.
He also fails to mention that a primary cause of illegal immigration into this country from Mexico has been the displacement of rural Mexican farmers who have been unable to compete with U.S. agribusiness following the elimination of agricultural trade barriers under NAFTA.
Finally, his stated admiration of the alleged benefits of economic integration under the EU ignores the fact that European nations have sacrificed sovereignty over decision-making to an unelected bureaucracy.
William M. Crosby
Barnes, Crosby, FitzGerald & Zeman LLP
Irvine
