Corporate Accountability

Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act

hmoroz — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:18:44 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009

hmoroz — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:04:32 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Number of uninsured Americans in 2008: 45.7 million

Estimated number of uninsured Americans after passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act: 18 million

Percentage growth in the uninsured between 2004 and 2007 that came from lower- and middle-income families: 70

Average annual worker contribution to health insurance premiums in employer-sponsored coverage in 1999: $1,543

Average annual worker contribution to health insurance premiums in employer-sponsored coverage in 2008: $3,354

Savings to a low-income family and a higher-income family, respectively, from the Affordable Health Care for America Act because they do not have to buy private, nongroup insurance: $9,000, $1,260

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Skyrocketing health care costs have created a vicious and destabilizing trap for middle-class Americans in which employer-sponsored coverage is offered less frequently and private coverage is increasingly unaffordable. Meanwhile, successful public programs that effectively cover children (SCHIP), the poor (Medicaid), and the elderly (Medicare) are unavailable to middle-class adults. Almost 46 million nonelderly Americans lack health insurance, the majority of whom are low- and middle-income, and the rate of the uninsured has grown significantly since 2000. At the same time, the average worker’s health care premium has increased 128% (to $3,515) since 2009. One study has even found that just shy of two thirds of all bankruptcies are due to medical expenses even though the vast majority of these bankruptcies involve families who have health insurance. Because employers, too, have had to absorb similar premium increases, employer-sponsored insurance – the type of insurance most middle-class Americans obtain – has declined significantly in each of the last eight years. The economic downturn has exacerbated this situation and experts estimate that each percentage point increase in the unemployment rate results in substantial increases in the number of uninsured Americans. Given the high costs of obtaining insurance in the private, non-group market, which is nearly impossible without steady employment, many Americans have simply given up coverage over the last several years. In short, a perfect storm of increasing health care costs and a down economy has undermined the financial stability and endangered the wellbeing of the middle class and the aspiring middle class.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act would do much to relieve the financial stress placed on these households by high health insurance costs while also extending health coverage to millions of Americans. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reckons that the bill would reduce the number of uninsured to 18 million, leaving just 4 percent of the population without health coverage. Expanding Medicaid to cover low-income adults is one of the most effective and cost-efficient means of covering more aspiring middle-class Americans. The expansion would enroll about 15 million individuals in Medicaid, providing an important public backstop for low-income families. Indeed, public programs have successfully kept millions of children from becoming uninsured, while the lack of such programs for low-income childless adults has led to increased numbers of the uninsured among this population. Similarly, coverage in the Health Insurance Exchange would reduce health care costs for tens of millions of households: the savings range from more than $9,000 for a low-income household of four which receives payment assistance to $1,260 for a higher-income family making more than $90,000 that does not receive such assistance. Such savings are targeted at the very groups that need the most help. The inclusion of a public option in the Exchange, in which a relatively meager 6 million individuals are expected to enroll, will create competition with the Exchange’s private insurance plans driving costs even lower.

At the same time as it helps reduce health care costs for middle-class and aspiring middle-class Americans, the Affordable Health Care for America Act greatly improves health coverage by enacting strict requirements for the type of insurance that is offered. The bill prevents the nightmare scenarios of being denied coverage just because you have become sick or being forced to pay higher premiums because of a preexisting condition (in many policies, being a woman is effectively considered a preexisting condition). Eventually, it will define minimum benefits and cost limits that must be included in all health insurance plans, not just ones offered by the Health Insurance Exchange. And it will ensure that health insurers do not use premiums to pay for administrative costs and profits, instead of medical care. In this way, affordable and adequate health insurance that protects individuals and their families during both normal medical events and extraordinary medical hardship will be available to all aspiring middle-class and middle-class households.

Finally, the Act contains cost-cutting strategies to reduce the impact of health care costs on the budget deficit and additional measures to reorient health care delivery to quality, preventive care and away from costly and unnecessary overtreatment. Eliminating overpayments to Medicare Advantage, the ill-advised, Bush-era privatization of a chunk of Medicare, and empowering the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate Medicare drug prices are effective ways to cut costs without weakening coverage. The tax surcharge on the wealthiest Americans, who benefited most from the economic growth of the 2000s and who are weathering the current economic downturn best, is a sensible method of increasing access to and the affordability of health insurance coverage in a fiscally responsible manner.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Health Reform,” from the Kaiser Family Foundation

“House Health Reform Bill Expands Coverage And Lowers Health Cost Growth, While Reducing Deficits,” from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

“Competitive Health Care: A Public Health Insurance Plan That Delivers Market Discipline,” from the Center for American Progress Action Fund

“The Treatment,” A Health Care Reform Blog from The New Republic

Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act of 2009

hmoroz — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:00:26 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009

hmoroz — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 11:32:32 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Combined compensation received in 2008 by 11 executives at Citigroup, a primary recipient of financial bailout funds: $77.25 million

Net losses of Citigroup in 2008: $27.7 billion

Factor by which the average CEO pay exceeded that of the American worker in 2007: 344 times

Average value of perks like private jets given to executives in 2008: $336,248

Payment included in an executive compensation package that the heirs of James Bernhard, Chairman and CEO of the Shaw Group, were to receive from the construction giant upon his death: $40 million

Percentage of Shaw shareholders who voted in favor of having a say on executive compensation packages that include such payments to heirs: 66.7%

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Today nearly half of Americans own some stock, with many middle-class families relying on 401(k)s and other investments to finance their retirement security or help their children afford college. Workers with traditional pension plans, including many public employees, also have a stake in the long-term financial performance of companies their pensions are invested in. As a result, the retirement security middle-class Americans work a lifetime to earn can be thrown into jeopardy by lavish CEO pay and retirement packages that reward executives with hundreds of millions of dollars even if they perform poorly, behave unethically, or manipulate pay through a biased compensation committee. As the financial crisis demonstrates, excessive pay can provide incentives for executives to take on excessive risk, endangering both shareholder value and the entire economy.

When executives get sumptuous rewards for inferior or mediocre work, middle-class Americans get shortchanged on the retirement benefits they have earned. Yet there is little shareholders can do to curb the excesses of companies in which they have a vital stake. This bill would introduce an important element of accountability, giving all shareholders “a say on pay” in the form of a nonbinding advisory vote to the Board of Directors. Although the vote is nonbinding, knowing they have option to vote increases shareholders’ scrutiny of executive pay and provides regular shareholder feedback to Boards of Directors. The mechanism of a nonbinding vote on compensation has been used successfully in other countries to put the brakes on questionable compensation plans and tie CEO pay more closely to performance. Some U.S. companies, such as Blockbuster, have also voluntarily adopted a shareholder vote on executive compensation, which they regard as a “best practice” in corporate governance. The improved independence of compensation committees, which can be heavily influenced by management and compensation consultants overly favorable to the interests of executives, and federal oversight of the riskiness of pay schemes will further improve accountability.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Giving Shareholders a ‘Say on Pay’ with Blockbuster Inc. Chairman and CEO James Keyes,” from the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy

“2009 Executive PayWatch,” from the AFL-CIO

“Executive Excess 2008: How Average Taxpayers Subsidize Runaway Pay,” from United for a Fair Economy

Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:29:09 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Number of U.S. states that registered their opposition to the Private Property Rights Implementation Act: 30

Number of state attorneys general who oppose the bill: 40

Date on which the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments and the International City Management Association expressed their opposition to the bill: 6/8/2006

Date on which the National Association of Home Builders celebrated the fact that a similar bill would be “a hammer to the head” of local elected officials: 3/14/2000

Number of American cities and towns which could see their local laws challenged in federal court as the result of this bill: 36,000

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Opposes. Although portrayed as legislation that protects the rights of homeowners, this bill would severely limit the ability of middle-class citizens to have a say in the character of their communities. For example, if a real estate developer wanted to build a slaughterhouse next door to a residential area and local land use regulations prohibited this, the developer could sue the town in federal court, demanding compensation for the restrictions on his ability to use the property as he chooses. Even if the lawsuit did not ultimately prevail, developers could use the threat of costly litigation to bully towns into relaxing land use, public health, and environmental laws regulations that protect local quality of life for middle-class Americans.

It is particularly ironic that this legislation, which greatly expands the power of big real estate developers to sue local governments, is sponsored by Rep. Steve Chabot, who has also sponsored legislation that would limit the ability of ordinary citizens to bring their concerns to court.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Property Fairness

“Detailed Analysis of HR 4772, The Private Property Rights Implementation Act,” from Georgetown Law School

“Fact Sheet: H.R. 4772, a ‘Hammer to the Head’ to Local Communities,” from Defenders of Wildlife

United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 2006

hmoroz — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:53:35 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Opposes

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Date on which President Bush boasted that the Oman trade deal would “provide additional market access for U.S. goods”: 9/19/2006

Estimated Gross Domestic Product of Oman in 2006: $44.53 billion

Estimated Gross Metropolitan Product of the Memphis, TN area in 2005: $56.69 billion

Date on which the current Omani head of state, Sultan Qaboos bin Said al-Said first assumed office: 7/23/1970

Estimated percentage of increased inequality of earnings in the U.S. in 2006 attributable to trade policy: 7

Minimum annual loss this represents to the typical married couple household in the U.S.: $2,000

Approximate proportion of U.S. workers whose jobs are potential targets for off-shoring if present trade policies continue over the next two decades: 1 in 4

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

The Middle Class Opposes. Increased international trade can contribute to economic growth, but the way trade rules are formulated in agreements like this means that the benefits of trade are distributed unevenly, ultimately undermining the middle class and aspiring middle class in both the U.S. and the nations it trades with. A central problem is that the Oman trade agreement empowers businesses and investment capital to cross international borders more easily, providing a decisive advantage over working people who are not so internationally mobile and whose rights are not well protected in Oman. Despite recent reforms to the Omani labor code, independent unions are still banned. There are also concerns about human trafficking and involuntary servitude among the more than half a million guestworkers from nations including India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines who make up the bulk of the Omani workforce. This imbalance of power creates incentives to move U.S. jobs overseas and puts downward pressure on the wages of American workers as they are placed in more direct competition with poorly-paid, disempowered Omani workers.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

“Final Text of the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement," from the Office of the United States Trade Representative

“U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement,” from the Citizens Trade Campaign

“U.S.-Oman FTA,” from Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch

Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2009

hmoroz — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:23:20 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Pay for Performance Act of 2009

hmoroz — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:23:23 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Total amount of federal assistance authorized for AIG, according the Government Accountability Office, in dollars: 182,500,000,000

Minimum amount of bonuses distributed to employees of AIG’s Financial Products Subsidiary, the unit principally responsible for the firm’s collapse, in dollars: 165,000,000

Percent ownership stake in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG held by the United States government, respectively: 79.9, 79.9, 77.9

Value of assets received for every $100 the Treasury Department spent on the ten largest TARP investments in 2008, in dollars: 66

Value of securities received by Berkshire Hathaway for each $100 it invested in Goldman Sachs in September of 2008, in dollars: 110

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Taxpayer bailout funds should be used first to prevent a collapse of the financial system and next to make the financial system work for current middle-class Americans by addressing the housing crisis and increasing the availability of loans. Under no circumstances should taxpayer funds pay exorbitant bonuses or excessive compensation. The compensation restrictions imposed by the Pay for Performance Act provide taxpayers with a measure of accountability by helping to ensure that taxpayer funds are not misused by financial institutions whose very existence is largely predicated on government assistance. The legislation does not excuse the government’s failure to include meaningful restrictions on compensation in the original financial bailout legislation. However, the bill protects middle-class taxpayers by preventing firms from using public money inappropriately for excessive compensation and bonuses.

As difficulties for middle-class Americans worsened at the end of 2008, Congress prioritized the country’s financial sector instead of struggling homeowners and the growing ranks of the unemployed. Legislators rushed passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), arguing that a failure to shore up the financial system would cause great pain throughout the economy. In exchange, they promised strict oversight and accountability for the $700 billion of taxpayer money that would be funneled to the very banks and financial institutions responsible for the current crisis. But strong measures to ensure appropriate use of taxpayer funds were not included in EESA. Despite a majority government stake and commitment of 183 billion of government funds, American International Group, for example, paid executives bonuses unthinkable to the vast majority of working Americans. Similar compensation payments are planned for executives of the housing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are also under government control.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

TARP Oversight and Accountability Reports, from the House Financial Services Committee

TARP Congressional Oversight Panel

“Re: AIG 2008 Retention Bonuses,” Letter from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to Rep. Barney Frank

A Bill To Impose An Additional Tax On Bonuses Received From TARP Recipients of 2009

hmoroz — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:35:25 -0400

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Total amount of federal assistance authorized for AIG, according the Government Accountability Office, in dollars: 182,500,000,000

Minimum amount of bonuses distributed to employees of AIG’s Financial Products Subsidiary, the unit principally responsible for the firm’s collapse, in dollars: 165,000,000

Percent ownership stake in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG held by the United States government, respectively: 79.9, 79.9, 77.9

Value of assets received for every $100 the Treasury Department spent on the ten largest TARP investments in 2008, in dollars: 66

Value of securities received by Berkshire Hathaway for each $100 it invested in Goldman Sachs in September of 2008, in dollars: 110

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports. Taxpayer bailout funds should be used first to prevent a collapse of the financial system and next to make the financial system work for current middle-class Americans by addressing the housing crisis and increasing the availability of loans. Under no circumstances should taxpayer funds pay exorbitant executive bonuses. The tax on bonuses imposed by H.R.1586 provides taxpayers with a measure of accountability by recovering taxpayer funds that are misused by financial institutions whose very existence is largely predicated on government assistance. The tax cannot excuse the government’s initial failure to limit executive compensation at firms propped up by taxpayers. However, the bill will protect middle-class taxpayers by holding firms accountable when they use public money inappropriately for bonuses.

As difficulties for middle-class Americans worsened at the end of 2008, Congress prioritized the country’s financial sector instead of struggling homeowners and the growing ranks of the unemployed. Legislators rushed passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA), arguing that a failure to shore up the financial system would cause great pain throughout the economy. In exchange, they promised strict oversight and accountability for the $700 billion of taxpayer money that would be funneled to the very banks and financial institutions responsible for the current crisis. But strong measures to ensure appropriate use of taxpayer funds were not included in EESA. Despite a majority government stake and commitment of $183 billion of government funds, American International Group paid executives bonuses unthinkable to the vast majority of working Americans. Similar compensation payments are planned for executives of the housing finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are also under government control.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

TARP Oversight and Accountability Reports, from the House Financial Services Committee

TARP Congressional Oversight Panel

“Re: AIG 2008 Retention Bonuses,” Letter from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to Rep. Barney Frank

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Conference Report

hmoroz — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:06:44 -0500

Legislation

The middle class

Supports

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Unemployment rate in early 2010, if current laws and policies governing federal spending and taxes do not change, according to the Congressional Budget Office: 9.2%

Reduction in unemployment rate in 2010 if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is enacted, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers, respectively: 1.9%, 2.1%, 1.8%

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on extended unemployment insurance benefits, in dollars: 1.63

Increase in GDP from spending $1 on accelerated depreciation, which provides businesses a tax break for new investment, in dollars: 0.25

Percentage of spending and tax cuts that will take effect by the end of 2010, according to the Congressional Budget Office: 74%

Percentage reduction in aid to states made by the conference report of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act compared to the House version: 32%

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Middle Class Supports.Economic conditions are bleak. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the economy continues on its current course, both the length and depth of the current downturn will be the worst since the Great Depression. For middle-class Americans, this means job and wage cuts, loss of health insurance, and, simply, a daily struggle to keep up with everyday costs like mortgage payments and college tuition.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if current economic conditions persist the unemployment rate could reach as high as 9.2% by 2010. With 46 million Americans already uninsured, the Kaiser Family Foundation reckons that if unemployment averages just 7% in 2009 (the current rate is 7.2%), the number of uninsured will increase by 2.6 million with an additional 2.4 million individuals enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP. Indeed, state governments are struggling to provide the increased services needed to keep the swelling ranks of unemployed, uninsured individuals from falling out of the middle class. But the current economic climate has left states with decreased revenue from income, sales, and property taxes: 46 states face budget shortfalls with combined budget gaps of $350 billion through 2011. To confront these gaping budget holes, more than 20 states have implemented or are considering cuts to health insurance programs; the same is true of K-12 and early education programs and of funds for public colleges and universities.

Beyond the decidedly dire short-term outlook, economic improvement is probably quite far off. Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, has testified that “economic recovery is likely to be slow and protracted.” Thus, programs that address longer-term concerns – investment in infrastructure and green technology are two primary examples – are as important as an immediate, stimulative jolt to the economy.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ties together measures designed to assist middle-class households struggling to make ends meet, provisions that will provide an immediate economic stimulus, and investment that can help set the stage for an economy built on energy efficiency and durable infrastructure. Economists generally agree that the legislation will save around 3 or 4 million jobs by 2010, while increasing economic output. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office, Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com, and White House economic advisers all project that the legislation will reduce the unemployment rate by around 2%. Extended unemployment insurance will allow 6.7 million people to collect benefits. Importantly, aid to state governments for Medicaid and education programs would shore up budget gaps and help prevent cuts to vital services.

While assisting those most at need during the economic downturn, extended unemployment insurance and state fiscal assistance also generate the most “bang for their buck” in terms of stimulus because they funnel money into the hands of the people most likely to spend it. Extended unemployment insurance generates an estimated $1.63 in economic activity for each dollar spent; aid to state governments generates $1.38. In contrast, though they act more quickly than spending measures, tax cuts generate less stimulus. The Making Work Pay, Child, and Earned Income tax credits will help keep more than 2.3 million Americans out of poverty and the American Opportunity credit will make 3.8 million more students eligible for a higher education tax break. These are important measures that will assist aspiring middle-class and middle-class Americans struggling to make ends meet. But the expansions are temporary and tax cuts, even when refundable and directed at the low-income individuals most likely to spend them, are less effective stimulus measures. Worst of all, though, are tax cuts for businesses like accelerated depreciation and carryback loss provisions that have little economic benefit.

Despite concern that the spending included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be delayed, perhaps a valid concern due to the legislation’s size and complexity, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 74% of spending would occur between 2009 and 2010. Indeed, funds for investment in infrastructure and energy efficiency, though perhaps more complicated to spend, are a critical step in longer term economic recovery. Beyond its stimulative value – infrastructure spending’s “bang for the buck” is $1.59 – the United States desperately needs new infrastructure to compete in the global economy. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that $2.2 trillion in infrastructure spending is now necessary. The funding for infrastructure projects included in the legislation is a first step in addressing this deficiency and funds devoted to high-speed rail are particularly welcome. Similarly, spending on a modernized electricity grid, retrofitted low-income housing, and weatherized homes creates the framework for a future economy less reliant on fossil fuels and, indeed, based on green technology.

Limitations on executive compensation and bonuses are a first step in establishing the accountability that has been missing from the financial bailout. Still, the bill does not set forth a comprehensive plan to address the foreclosure crisis that includes a moratorium on foreclosures, a mechanism to require modification of mortgages, and a change to the bankruptcy code to permit modification of mortgages on primary residences. Funds for the Neighborhood Stabilization Program are a necessary, but insufficient, step in mitigating the widespread negative effects that foreclosures can have on entire neighborhoods and communities.

Quotes from Experts

Beyond this Bill

Additional Resources

Recovery.gov, the official website of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

“Recession and Recovery,” from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

“Impact of Economic Turmoil on Health Coverage and State Medicaid Programs,” from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured

Corporate Accountability

Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act of 2009

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2006

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act of 2006

Legislation

The middle class

Video Summary

Injustice Facts

Overview/Summary

Middle Class Position Analysis

Related Blog: Header

Quotes from Experts

Related Blog: Text

Beyond this Bill

Related Blog: Link

Additional Resources

Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2009