R000259
Monday, March 11, 2002 11:27 PM
Mr. Feinberg, here's where you got it wrong
Dear Mr. Feinberg,
Before I tell you where you got it wrong, I must say that I would
appreciate any reply you might care to give. I must begin by telling you
that I found your conduct at the Boston meeting to be reprehensible. You
seemed to have a lack of understanding regarding who it was that you were
speaking to, and what we had been through as a group. I know that you say
different, but your actions contradicted your words. Furthermore, at the
meeting, you said several times, "Trust me." Well, I didn't, and I was
right.
Second, your performance on "Meet The Press," this weekend was the
worst kind of dishonesty. Oh, I do not believe that you lied, but you also
did not tell the whole truth. You have, from the inception of this process,
insisted on using the pre-collateral deduction figure as the "Average award,"
as you call it. You know that the American people hear this, and conclude
that this is what the average check will be. Again, this shows that despite
your insistence, we were correct not to trust you.
Now to where you went wrong. Right in the Final Regulations, you
state that the "Victims' Compensation Fund," was created to compensate
victims for their loss. Another half-truth. Congress knew that it would
have been both unfair, and unconstitutional to pass the "Airline Bailout
Bill," which as you know not only bailed out the airlines through loans, but
also capped the liability on each flight at the extent of the insurance
coverage carried for it, without providing some measure of recompense for the
victims' families. So the "Victims' Compensation Fund," was truly created to
compensate victims for the loss of their rights, and opportunity. This is
the first thing that you missed or ignored. I will grant you, that winning
such a lawsuit is not a given, and it takes time, however, this too what you
missed or ignored. Any insurer, absent the existing cap on liability, would
choose to attempt to settle any case that the believed that they had a
substantial chance of losing. The cap removes any motive to settle that the
insurance company might have had, because they already know what their
maximum expenditure will be.
In closing, when you were in Boston, I had the opportunity to ask you
one of the final questions of the day. I wrote my questions before I asked
it, a fact I am very glad of now. My question went as follows:
"As a historian, and as a teacher of history, I have developed an inherent
distrust for the people within government. You have said several times times
today, "Trust me."" I continued, "Then tell me something that you are
willing to do, or are planning to do which will make me have trust in you.
What changes are you planning to make which will make me trust you?"
In response you first quizzed me on history, and when you seemed
dissatisfied that I didn't back off, you choose to answer an entirely
different question. When I pointed out to you that you still hadn't answered
my question, and asked if you planned to do so, you said, "No, I haven't made
any plans yet." That's when I knew that I had just wasted my time, because
the fix was in, and as we say in Boston, "The whole thing was a bag job."
I would appreciate any comments have in response.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment