Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (40917)	4/25/2004 11:58:47 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 794205

The Trial Lawyers won't go for the cap on legal fees. That's a deal breaker. Late bid to create $100bn federal asbestos fund By Christopher Bowe in New York Published: April 26 2004 0:53 \| Last Updated: April 26 2004 0:53 Last-ditch negotiations begin on Monday on a proposal to create a federal fund of more than $100bn (?84bn, £56bn) to pay asbestos injury claims. Senators Tom Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat, and Bill Frist, Republican majority leader, agreed to oversee new bipartisan talks seeking a compromise on asbestos legislation this year. The talks follow the blow dealt last Thursday by Senate Democrats to a $114bn, 24-year plan to compensate asbestos victims and stem the tide of corporate bankruptcies. Mr Frist tried to force a vote on the bill, which has been in the works for more than a year. The bill is seen as the most advanced effort in 10 years of attempts to tackle rising asbestos suits that have cost an estimated $70bn and caused more than 60 corporate bankruptcies. Democrats and groups including labour unions remain sceptical about the proposed trust fund. They argue it is underfunded, has no guarantees for victims if the money runs out and pays each victim too little. But Democrats are preparing for a presidential election, which requires keeping big political donors on board for the fight against President George W. Bush. Proponents of the asbestos fund have begun to question openly whether Democrats want the fund, which in its current form would cap payments to plaintiffs' attorneys - one of the Democrats' biggest donor groups. "The best option for Democrats is don't vote," said someone close to negotiations. "A 'yes' [passage of the bill] is going to enrage the trial bar." Trial lawyers are potential key contributors to the Democratic presidential campaign. In 2000, Mr Bush campaigned promising tort reform, changing the system allowing damage lawsuits, and he oversaw changes in tort rules in Texas as state governor. The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a non-profit Washington group that analyses US political contributions, says lawyers are Democrat contender John Kerry's top contributing group donating $4.76m in the 2004 cycle - almost three times more than the next group. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA), a plaintiffs attorneys' lobby group, is the fourth biggest overall political contributor, according to CRP. In the past five years, ATLA has given almost $23m, 91 per cent of it to Democrats. Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican architect of the asbestos trust fund, blasted Democrats for holding up the vote. "I was told by many . . . that when I embarked on this legislation the Democrats would simply run out the clock. They will never let us vote on a bill that could deprive them of their huge cash cow," Mr Hatch said last week. Compromise talks will continue efforts mediated by former federal judge Edward Becker with defendant companies, insurers, labour and lawyers and politicians. = requires subscription to FT.com Find this article at: news.ft.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (40917)	4/26/2004 12:33:44 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794205

The only Muslim countries where that is not happening is the ones with a strong Military. Turkey. Egypt. Algeria. Indonesia. That is why I think we will end up with something like that in Iraq. We've got a long way to go before Iraq has a "strong military", and I'm not entirely sure that military dictatorship will be a terribly positive outcome for Iraqis. Certainly support for a military regime - especially a weak and unstable one - would be an untenable position for the US. There are few things that the Islamists would like better.