I’m normally not a fan of hyperpartisan Atrios (who is sadly part of the marching-over-the-cliff wing of the Democratic Party), but he’s got a great roundup of Senators to contact and how to contact them if you’re unhappy (as you should be) with the bankruptcy bill.
Click over and make some phone calls. (Calls are better than emails, by the way…)
Like Paul Krugman’s very poor editorial on the bankruptcy bill, Atrios also doesn’t provide a name or number for the bill, which makes calling to complain a little difficult. This is especially true with this bill as there are currently three bills involving bankruptcy in the Senate.
Good point Carl.
However I would hope that anyone calling to complain about a bill would at least bother to read the offending bill first.
Otherwise it’s just astroturfing IMO, which is bad regardless of who initiates it.
Davebo – that’sa charming notion, but very few of the legislators voting on bills read the language. There are too many of them and they are too long and complex. They rely – as should we, to an extent – on proxies who we trust.
The trick is figuring out who you trust.
A.L.
I’m with Carl… can we get a number or main sponsor name for this bill? It would enhance the post, and the campaign (send to JMM &Atrios once you have the bill & links, they’ll link here).
I believe its “SB 256”:http://thomas.loc.gov/. Sorry, its not a direct link to the bill.
Patrick
I must disagree, at least in part, with Armed Liberal. This bill may be one of those that is a little hard to digest, but more often than not; congressional legislation can be easily read and understood. I concede that our elected representatives fail to do the job for which we pay them and actually read the bills they support or oppose. I also concede that an overwhelming majority of political journalists, eternal defenders of the people’s right to know, do not read even the simple legislation and treaties.
So, who should we trust? I have a few web-sites that I trust for analysis of legislation and news on certain topics, but I haven’t found any sites that offer an analysis of the bankruptcy legislation sufficient that I may make up my own mind.
I have begun my own analysis, crossing out the old language of Title 11 and adding in the new, but I don’t yet have a full picture of the changes. Basically, Chapter 7 is no longer a guaranteed option. For example, here is a currently existing sentance that will be removed by S.256:
“There shall be a presumption in favor of granting the relief requested by the debtor”
Now, there is a formula for determining whether a debtor qualifies for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. I have not done the math yet, so I can’t say more.
Anyway, I’ll post again if I have time to continue this and if I can post it online.
Isn’t the fervent support of the bill by the credit card companies enough evidence? The story is pretty simple: they make almost as much money through penalties and late fees as straight-up interest on accounts in good standing. If these debts at loanshark rates can be kept from discharge under BK, then they’ll make even more.
Sure, we can argue about this threshold and that cutoff, but the sponsorship ought to tell you everything, that plus the fact that not one GOP Senator was willing to trash the unlimited exemption in Florida (also Texas?) for homes, so that the wealthy in trouble can swindle their creditors by purchasing a mansion in those states with their remaining ready assets. (Former Commish of Baseball Bowie Kuhn pulled this stunt.)
Merely another example of compassionate conservativism in action. Next, lets make those tax cuts for 7-figure-income households permanent and pay for ’em by collapsing Social Security.
No health insurance, no bankruptcy protection, no state-run welfarme program to go running to. By gosh , we’ll be living in a utopian society soon enough.
Wow! I agree with AJL!
Sorry. I don’t normally post “me too” or “great post” comments, but this rare event deserves special recognition.
Uh, make that two of us in agreement, lurker. AJL nails this one.
Once again, I’ll have to disagree. The sponsorship of legislation is not enough for me. Sure, I hate credit card companies and am well aware of their tactics (believe me I am). I also oppose this bankruptcy bill, but not because it is sponsored by credit card companies. I oppose it because it does nothing to level the playing field for the consumer, which is what I want to see in Bankruptcy Reform. I should point out that few if any articles actually make that point. It’s always an irrelevant screed about how much money credit card companies make from fees or how much the wealthy profit from loopholes.
I must say the public discourse on this legislation, both in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, has been extremely underwhelming and a bit disappointing.
I wonder if it has occurred to you, Armed Liberal, that things like the bankruptcy bill are why nobody in the Democratic Party is marching over a cliff just yet. Our Republican friends are just getting started. We will be building on the ruins.
I’m still waiting for your analysis Carl. Seriously.
The only analysis I have read is from a few years ago and that might be the problem. This isn’t exactly a new bill — its a new Congress.
The legal community is up in arms over provisions which hold the debtor’s lawyers uniquely liable for the content of the debtor’s petition. Many lawyers will stop accepting bankruptcy cases on behalf of debtors (but not creditors). The remaining lawyers will become more specialized in debtor work, charging extra for the increased risk of liability. Add that to the increased paperwork for filing bankruptcy, and debtors are going to find filing bankruptcy rather expensive.
That’s the Catch-22 of bankruptcy. A lawyer won’t take a debtor’s case without upfront payment. If you can’t afford a lawyer, you can’t afford bankruptcy.
Patrick
PD Shaw, That’s exactly the bulk of what I am finding and the key point of my opposition to this bill so far. I have had some work to do, so I’ve only been able to dabble with the bill.
The new formula used to determine whether a claim is “an abuse”, and therefore denied or converted to Chapter 11 or 13, is only the tip of the iceberg of new work and effort foisted upon the debtor. The days of lawyers doing personal bankruptcies for $350 would be long gone.
Here is only some of the new language to which you may be referring:
“(D) The signature of an attorney on the petition shall constitute a certification that the attorney has no knowledge after an inquiry that the information in the schedules filed with such petition is incorrect.”
And that is not the only mention, it is a recurring theme, especially when attempting a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.
Then we also have the new rules about mandatory Personal Financial Management training (at the expense of the debtor as far as I can tell) before a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 will be granted.
The new Consumer Protection clauses are hardly worth the paper they’re written on. A judge may arbitrarily reduce the debt by 20 percent if they determine the creditor did not negotiate payment terms in good faith *with the non-profit credit counseling agency*. In other words, they continue belligerent collection behavior towards the consumer without recourse.
One of the good things this bill does is protect any tax exempt retirement account. Currently, some states protect some types of investments, but it is a mixed bag depending on geographical location. It also protects automatic paycheck deductions for qualified retirement accounts from garnishment. It also protects qualified college savings accounts.
Anyway, I hope to continue my perusal *before* it gets through the Senate.
Good, bankruptcy attorneys are the bottom feeders of the legal profession. Anything that puts them on the hook for helping or not stopping their deadbeat clients from scamming their creditors is a good thing.