The homeland security bill isn't the only Bush-backed legislation that got approved yesterday, though you might not know it from the headlines. Often buried in homeland security articles was news of a terrorism insurance bill that passed the Senate 86-11. Under the new legislation, the government will pay for up to 90% of terrorism losses (to commercial insurers' 10%) in the event of another catastrophic attack. Hey, aren't Republicans supposed to stand for less government assistance, not more?
Don't think this is a favor to corporate lobbyists, implied both parties, it's for our blue-collar buddies whose construction gigs have been stalled by the high price and scarcity of insurance coverage. "Terrorism insurance will help get America's hard hats back on the job, create new jobs for America's workers, and spur billions in new investment in construction projects all across the country," said President Bush. White House spokesman Scott McClellan echoed the sentiment, right down to the "hard hats" synecdoche. Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) called it "a jobs bill" and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D., Conn.) intoned, "no security is ever final unless you've also dealt with economic security."
That's the spin, but not every outlet swallowed it. The bill's supporters "were unable to provide a list" of projects that had stalled due to terrorism insurance concerns. "Some economists and consumer advocates contended that insurance was just one of many reasons that construction and real estate companies and banks were struggling," said the New York Times. As for the claim that the insurance industry has taken a hit since Sept. 11, the AP reported that "the Consumer Federation of America says insurers reported a 66.4% increase in profits in the first six months of 2002." A USA Today editorial railed that "lawmakers are ignoring the facts" and should have passed more "modest" legislation drafted soon after Sept. 11, not the current "overly generous protections."
Even some who voted for the bill are unhappy with it, but for different reasons. The bill included a compromise that allows victims of terrorist attacks to seek punitive damages in lawsuits against companies and property owners. The AP and the Washington Post said Republicans hate punitive damages because trial lawyers like them, and trial lawyers also like Democrats. Well, as long as we're all judging things on their merits ...
Let's go back to the idea that the terrorism insurance bill is, as Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill put it, "perhaps the single most important thing we can do to boost job creation in the short run." The Wall Street Journal seemed to differ. "Eager to go home Tuesday night, senators brushed aside last appeals for drought-stricken farmers," complained the Journal's terror insurance article, "and as Republicans continued to fight among themselves, there was growing concern that more than 800,000 U.S. workers could be cut off from federal unemployment benefits just days after Christmas." That's 800,000 people, sure, but how many lobbyists? -Jen Muehlbauer
Terror Insurance Bill Backed by Bush Is Passed
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-insure20nov20.story
Senate Passes Bill Limiting Insurers' Liability After an Attack
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/20/politics/20INSU.html
Terror Insurance Bill to Bush (Newsday)
http://tinyurl.com/2uvk
Two More Senate Victories for Bush
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12425-2002Nov19.html
Terror-Insurance Bill Gets Senate Vote of Approval
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1037743805691339068,00.html
(Paid subscription required.)
House OKs Terror Insurance Bill (AP)
http://tinyurl.com/2uvl
Terror Insurance Loaded With Gifts
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-11-20-edit_x.htm
Synecdoche
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Terms/synecdoche.html
