by Economaniac
Tue Jan 22, 2008
I have so far completely avoided the candidate wars here on Kos, and frankly find the spin about who did or didn't score some triumphant victory in the latest debate or caucus a bit absurd. I guess I have been leaning toward Obama but I continue to have some reservations about his political seasoning and his vulnerability to political attack. I was hopping mad about his SS rhetoric a few months ago and I'm just getting over that. So when Hillary made the case that he was in the pocket of the financial services industry and had given them crucial support in rejecting an amendment to limit credit card interest rates to 30% as part of the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, I was troubled enough to check it out.
Fortunately the good folks at Daily Kos made that easy. Hunter posted a guide to understanding the amendments at the time - you can read it here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/6/63144/06015 So what did I learn - Obama did vote against the Dayton Amendment (no. 31) to limit interest rates to 30% (no surprise, he admitted as much in the debate). So did 17 other Democratic Senators (including John Kerry, Durbin, Leahy and Wyden) and all the Republicans. Even with Obama's support the amendment would have failed by nearly 3-1 (It had 74 votes against). Hunter notes that senators were concerned that the Amendment was poorly drafted and would probably preempt the more stringent usury laws in many states. In the diary Hunter singles out 10 more amendments that were also rejected, by much narrower margins. Obama voted for all of them.
Objectively Obama's vote on Dayton's amendment (the 30% limit) was completely meaningless. The amendment had no cosponsors (nearly all the others that came to a vote did), and lost by the largest margin of any of the Democratic amendments, failing to garner even a majority of Democratic votes. Hillary cosponsored several of the other amendments (as did Obama); if this one was so important why didn't she sponsor it as well? While I can't speak to the argument that it was poorly drafted and might have had unintended consequences, it is clear that a large number of Democratic Senators who voted consistently for all the other Democratic amendments and against the bill on cloture and final passage, chose to vote against this amendment.
I can't find anybody who claimed at the time that the Dayton amendment was an important vote or huge victory for the credit card industry. There was a fair amount of heat after the fact from the left on the Democratic 18 that voted against the Dayton amendment, I guess because it sounds like such an clear cut issue. "See, even the Democrats have been bought by the banks," trumpeted the Nation and somehow this one, meaningless vote became the measure of a Barack Obama only too eager to get into bed with big money lobbyists. By last summer it was the centerpiece of two unflattering profiles of Obama. And today Hillary tells us this is how we should choose a president.
Well I call BS.
I wondered for a while whether there was any substance to Obama's claim to represent a new kind of politics. After all Bill Clinton and even Bush came in proclaiming their desire to unite the country and put aside petty partisanship to confront the real problems facing the country. Isn't Obama just singing the same old song? But I have watched Hillary run a campaign of lies and distortions and wedge politics designed to get her the 51% she needs to win, damn any need to build a coalition for real change, and I begin to get it.
The thing that I hate most about Bush is that the deepest divisions he has wrought in this country are between the people who know and the ones who don't. His willingness to make completely absurd claims and count on the ignorance of the people and the complicity of the press which insists on presenting everything as he said she said to let him get away with it. And those of us who know and care about the truth are left to stammer in awe. I don't want that anymore. I supported (volunteered for) Bill Clinton in both elections, and think he was a great president. I don't remember him ever resorting to this kind of distortion about his opponents. He had a respect for political discourse that demanded honesty (yes I know he didn't feel the same way about his personal liasons, and I'm pretty much OK with that too). When Clinton wanted to contrast his position from Tsongas, or Bush or Dole he would fairly describe his opponent's view, and then explain why he had a better choice. You see Obama do that with the Health Care mandates. Here is their view, here is mine, this is the difference, they express legitimate concerns, here is why I think this is the right way to go. Does anyone think that Obama has misrepresented or demagogued the individual mandates in the Clinton and Edwards proposals? I actually prefer the Clinton position but I think Obama is clear and honest about the distinction and Hillary's "Obama leaves 15 million out" is unfair and unhelpful.
I admire Hillary. I think she knows more about public policy than Obama and Edwards put together and as a policy wonk myself, I respect that. But she doesn't respect me. She is willing to say things about Obama that I know are wrong and I know she knows are wrong, because she figures most people won't know. After 7 years of Bush that isn't acceptable any more.
moreby Hunter
Sun Mar 06, 2005 at 03:31:44 AM PST
(The following is based on a Daily Kos diary by Maryscott OConnor. Due to the importance of this bill and the quality of her research and analysis, we have requested and received from Maryscott permission to repost this edited and restructured version of her original work. What follows is required reading for anyone seeking to understand the motivations behind this bill and the strategies being used in forcing this legislation through the Senate. -- Hunter] The details of the
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 reveal it to be a bill crafted as a Republican paean to
MBNA, the largest single contributor to the Republican party. Far from being either an effort to stem "Bankruptcy Abuse" or an effort at "Consumer Protection", the bill is in fact an attempt to rewrite bankruptcy laws
to reduce the ability of those laws to protect consumers from predatory lending practices on the part of MBNA members, and to
stiffen the capabilities of those corporations to collect from consumers already suffering from extreme financial hardships.
The "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005" will almost certainly pass, absent a filibuster -- and at present, it is questionable whether Democrats would have the votes for a filibuster. Nevertheless, it is instructive to examine the structure and proposed amendments to this bill, to examine exactly
how insistent Republicans are in passing this bill while blocking all Democratic efforts to protect even the most at-risk consumers.
On the Democratic-sponsored amendments discussed below (you can learn a lot from the
Role Call Vote Summary, which lists each Amendment to S.256), the voting was consistent. Not even one Republican voted against party lines. Three Democrats consistently voted with the Republicans:
<…>
The "Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection" in this bill occurs for Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies –
individual avenues of bankruptcy. Conspicuous in absence, evidently not needing reform, are Chapter 11 bankruptcies.
Want to guess what Chapter 11 covers?
You guessed it. Chapter 11 is bankruptcy for businesses:
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy - The most common type of bankruptcy proceeding. It is a liquidation type of proceeding (as opposed to a reorganization proceeding). All of the debtor's assets, with the exception of "exempt" property, will be sold, and the proceeds will be used to pay their debts. If the proceeds are not enough to pay off all the debts, unpaid amounts on "dischargeable debts" will be discharged.
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy - Known as reorganization bankruptcy. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is filed by individuals who want to pay off their debts over a period of three to five years. This type of bankruptcy appeals to individuals who have non-exempt property that they want to keep. It is also only an option for individuals who have predictable income and whose income is sufficient to pay their reasonable expenses with some amount left over to pay off their debts.
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy - Typically used for business bankruptcies and restructuring. It is not commonly used by individual consumers since it is far more complex and expensive to pursue. It allows businesses to reorganize themselves, giving them an opportunity to restructure debt and get out from under certain burdensome leases and contracts. Typically a business is allowed to continue to operate while it is in Chapter 11, although it does so under the supervision of the Bankruptcy Court and its appointees.
It seems evident that the only people the Republican crafters of this bill think are "Abusive" of the bankruptcy laws are
individuals, and the only people needing "Protection" are the corporations.
<...>
You have now gotten a glimpse into the next 2 years (at least) of what will pass for legislation in the Senate and the House. Orwell would be proud of the naming:
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
No protection for the homes of the elderly and the medically infirm -- but by God, we made sure those exemptions for protected assets stayed firm. No protection for employees' earnings, pensions and retirement savings when an employer takes refuge in bankruptcy - but by God, we're gonna protect those credit card companies from too many intrusive rules that demand they properly inform their consumers of the small-print deal with the devil they've just made on that high-interest, high-limit, low-minimum-payment credit card.
Outrageous.
This morning Elizabeth Warren and her students invited me to say a few words about the bankruptcy reform bill. I'm grateful for the opportunity.
I'm now spending a lot of my time tackling the challenges of poverty, but I learned a lot about bankruptcy on the campaign trail last year. I saw how many good families end up broke and poor, and how they need the safety net of a fair bankruptcy law if they're going to get back on their feet.
Like a lot of Democrats, I voted for a bankruptcy reform bill before. I can't say it more simply than this: I was wrong.
The bill is supposed to crack down on irresponsible borrowers. That's the right thing to do. The problem is that this bill imposes big burdens on families who did everything right but went broke just because they lost a job or lost their health insurance. And, even more than the legislation I supported, this bill doesn't crack down on the real abusers.
Two million Americans go bankrupt every year, but you might never know it. People keep it to themselves. They're ashamed about what has happened to them. But they aren't alone-these families are our neighbors, our brothers, our friends. And I've listened to so many people tell me how their life was on track until hardship hit. Thanks to Professor Warren, we now know that half of families going broke suffered illnesses or high medical costs.
These men and women want to pay their own way, but they can't. They can't because the hospital wants $135,000 to cover the heart operation and the plant just cut back their hours. They can't because the bank is about to foreclose on a predatory loan unless they can pay $40,000 in 48 hours. They can't because they lost their job and now the electric company wants a few hundred dollars more just to turn on the lights.
This bill won't do anything to give struggling families more security. It will only make it harder for good and decent people to start over. The new means test that will mean hundreds of dollars in new legal fees for families who barely have money to put food on the table.
If we want real reform, we shouldn't punish every hard-working family looking for another chance. But we should get serious about the biggest abuses.
In some states, a multimillionaire CEO can drive his company into the ground, declare bankruptcy, and still keep his mansion-tennis court, Jacuzzi, and all. The 2001 bill at least stopped that by capping the "homestead exemption" at $125,000. This bill will allow many multimillionaires to protect their mansions if they plan ahead.
We've also seen the credit card companies and predatory lenders become more aggressive. Today, many Americans have seen their interest rates triple to 29% or higher-not because they missed a payment, but just because they lost a job and needed another loan. Many more Americans are losing their homes because lenders have hidden points and fees in their loans. These companies are making billions by kicking people when they're down. This bill does nothing to stop them.
Unfortunately, we know what the outcome today is going to be. But that doesn't mean we should give up the fight-it means we have to fight harder. If we want to stop bankruptcies, we need to address their real causes, like rising health costs. We need to stop the abuses by the credit card companies and the predatory lenders. We need to make sure all families, and especially those who are poor, can build their savings and assets so they have some security if something goes wrong. It won't be easy, but it can be done.
That's what being American is about--standing with people who are struggling to do right, and taking on anyone who tries to take advantage of them.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
