PDA

View Full Version : THE SENATE OPENS FIRE ON U.S. CONSUMERS


Boomer Chick
03-09-2005, 09:30 PM
THE SENATE OPENS FIRE ON U.S. CONSUMERS

By Arianna Huffington

U.S. consumers and freed Italian hostage Giuliana Sgrena found themselves in the same position this week: under fire from those put in place to protect them.

For Sgrena, the bloody barrage came from jittery U.S. soldiers. For consumers, it was jaded U.S. senators who pulled the trigger, about to pass a bankruptcy bill so hostile to ordinary American families that it could only have come about in a place as corrupt, cynical and unmoored from reality as Washington, D.C.

In a normal world, those elected to represent the interests of the people would have fought for bankruptcy legislation that would, well, represent the interests of the people. But not in Beltway Bizarroland. Instead of cracking down on predatory lending practices, closing loopholes that favor the wealthy, and strengthening the safety net for working people, single mothers and elderly Americans struggling to recover from a financial setback, the Senate put together a nasty little bill that reads like a credit industry wish list. Rubbing salt in the wound, Sen. Charles Grassley, the bill's chief sponsor, labeled it the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005--even though it does nothing to prevent bankruptcy abuse or protect consumers.

So what does the bill do? It makes it harder for average people to file for bankruptcy protection; it makes it easier for landlords to evict a bankrupt tenant; it endangers child support payments by giving a wider array of creditors a shot at post-bankruptcy income; it allows millionaires to shield an unlimited amount of value in homes and asset protection trusts; it makes it more difficult for small businesses to reorganize, while opening new loopholes for the Enrons of the world; it allows creditors to provide misleading information; and it does nothing to reign in lending abuses that frequently turn manageable debt into unmanageable crises. Even in failure, ordinary Americans do not get a level playing field.

Credit card companies have been feverishly lobbying for this legislation for nearly a decade--and it looks like the $34 million the finance and credit industries have contributed to political campaigns since 1996 is finally about to pay off. On Tuesday, the cloture vote on the bill was 69 to 31. The House passed similar legislation last year and GOP leaders are hoping to bypass the conference committee deadlocks that have derailed similar measures in the past and have the bill on President Bush's desk in short order. The president, well aware that credit card giant MBNA is one of the Republican Party's largest donors, has promised to sign the bill as soon as someone hands him a pen.

Make no mistake, the inequitable nature of the bill--bending over backwards to help the credit card industry while sticking it to American working people who fall on hard times--is no accident. Time and again over the last week, the Senate shot down amendments that would have made the bill a bit less mean-spirited. They denied proposals that would have made it easier for military veterans, the sick and the elderly to qualify for bankruptcy protection. They even rejected an amendment that would have put a 30 percent ceiling on the interest rates credit card companies can charge. Thirty percent--that's more than Paulie Walnuts charges. But 74 U.S. senators--including John Kerry, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and Dick Durbin--clearly thought that wasn't high enough. Quick, somebody send those guys a Bible bookmarked to Deuteronomy 23:19: "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother."

For years, credit-card companies have been claiming that tougher laws are needed to reign in high-flying customers using bankruptcy to game the system. But the truth is that the vast majority of people who file for bankruptcy are middle-class folks who can't pay their bills because they've lost their jobs or been hit with high medical bills or gone through a divorce.

Indeed, a recent study by Harvard University found that half of last year's 1.6 million bankruptcies were the result of crushing medical bills. Put another way: Every 30 seconds, someone in this country files for bankruptcy in the wake of a serious illness. How's that for a shocking stat? Here's another: Three-quarters of the so-called medically bankrupt had health insurance. It just wasn't enough to cover the dramatic rise in health-care costs.

But instead of adapting to this harsh new reality, where hardworking, college-educated, middle-class folks can be financially destroyed by a sudden illness, the Senate is about to approve a one-size-fits-all law that treats a family man who has sunk into debt because of a heart attack the same as a con artist who maxes out his MasterCard, then refuses to pay up.

Worst of all, the bill does absolutely nothing to protect consumers from the aggressive tactics credit-card companies have devised in recent years--tactics that have proven hugely profitable. Along with sending out over 5 billion solicitations a year, they are constantly developing new ways to stick it to the people they've already lured into the tent. For instance, companies now routinely jack up a cardholder's interest rate when their payment is late--and, presto, a "fixed" 7 percent APR is suddenly transformed into a cash-gobbling 30 percent loan.

There has also been an explosion in the fees that credit card companies charge: late fees, balance transfer fees, cash-advance fees, over-the-limit fees. Such fees bring in billions and are partly responsible for the fact that, even as personal bankruptcies in America have steadily increased, so have the profits of credit card companies--which reached a whopping $30 billion last year.

So tell me again: Just who is gaming the system?

It's one thing for credit card companies to exact their pound of flesh even as their profits soar. But shouldn't we hold our elected officials to a higher standard? The bankruptcy bill is morally bankrupt. And so is any senator who votes for it.

© 2005 ARIANNA HUFFINGTON.
DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Boomer Chick
03-09-2005, 09:43 PM
Thank you, Arianna. I was wondering about that bill, even as I listened to the debate, the Democrats would bring up the hard luck cases, the loss of jobs and medical expenses, and then the Republicans would come on and rant about those who earn more than $200K or some such minimum, and say they're the ones that will be affected. All those below that income level won't be affected. It was confusing. I'd like to know exactly what that income demarcation line is.

If it is over $200K, is that income bracket considered "middle class?" I'm just curious. I'm going to CSpan or Congress.org and look up the bill itself. I will post the link when I find it.

Thanks for the explanation..... I expected because of such Republican support, that it was a runaway giveaway again, but I'm shocked to hear certain Democrats supported it.

This subject needs more investigation.

BC :confused:

Boomer Chick
03-09-2005, 10:31 PM
Here's the link for the Bill.

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/issues/bills/?billtype=S.&billnumb=256&congress=109

Happy Reading!

BC

Boomer Chick
03-10-2005, 03:40 PM
Article on Senate Bill with a link at the bottom.

http://start.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20050310/422fd450_3421_13345200503101075330228

From Paul Krugman's piece:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/030905G.shtml

" One increasingly popular loophole is the creation of an "asset protection trust," which is worth doing only for the wealthy. Senator Charles Schumer introduced an amendment that would have limited the exemption on such trusts, but apparently it's O.K. to game the system if you're rich: 54 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against the Schumer amendment.

Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected."

In in agreement with Arianna, he concludes with the incredibly justified moral judgment which so many of us have realized in regard to especially the neocons, but now it seems the whole Republican Congress unifies in this. This is why we tried to get Dems elected.

" Warren Buffett recently made headlines by saying America is more likely to turn into a "sharecroppers' society" than an "ownership society." But I think the right term is a "debt peonage" society - after the system, prevalent in the post-Civil War South, in which debtors were forced to work for their creditors. The bankruptcy bill won't get us back to those bad old days all by itself, but it's a significant step in that direction.

And any senator who votes for the bill should be ashamed."

***

Some of the Bankruptcy Bill makes sense, but most of it is a clear giveaway to the corporations who made BILLIONS of dollars in profit just last year and a supression of the poor and other unfortunates who are victims of ill health, loss of jobs, and just being elderly. Of course the rich, with their multiple homes, and ability to hire lawyers to find the loopholes, which do exist in the bill -- always get the breaks. Thank God we're (our family) not in debt of any kind.... but who knows about the future concerning our health?

I'm truly amazed that the majority of the American people are too busy, too tired, too focused on their jobs and careers, too intellectually feeble, and too brainwashed to do anything about this class warfare that has reared it ugly head. Not only that, we just seem to go on getting kicked in the stomach over and over and over again and that includes having our election stolen right from under us. While they shove us FEAR in the media, FEAR of enemies, corporations in collusion with government ---- they all just run to the bank, any old offshore bank, all banks, and continue to create their two class system with no mercy, no historical logic, and a callousness of which I truly wonder its humanity. Could it be alien? Isn't that the temptation, to distance such inhumane actions as far away from recognizable human behavior as one could get?

And if the Social Security privatization goal, which was found to be quite dysfunctional in Chile (see Laurouchpac.com: a total mess of a program penalizing those who invested and investments themselves proving untrustworthy as well as the fact of corruption in the banks and banking personnel who charged outrageous rates for their services and made a killing on the backs of la gente) passes here by some weird twist of the political pocketbook, our nation will have completed its neocon takeover and the Democrats will have to be blamed for not fighting hard enough. But then again, what if the whole system is corrupt and even Democrats can be "had? "

We're descending into hell after the hoola hoops and Disney conditioned us to trust and become moral. And it's a second and worse hell to that of the Vietnam era, in which I protested as college student. So before we get into power positions, the old men make war against the young, kill them, and try to insure their dominance and power? Can it be as simple as that? Old white men with money and power-lust? Bush junior does nothing on his own and he knows it. Bill Clinton didn't do a whole lot to prevent all of this trendy privatization, either, and his NAFTA was his worst mistake.

What madness!

Can anyone justify the slashing of social programs? Please, anyone?

And I still don't know who the Democrats are who vote for this Bankruptcy Bill!

BC

Boomer Chick
03-10-2005, 05:01 PM
The Bill just passed. Will post the votes as soon as they become available.

Boomer Chick
03-10-2005, 06:11 PM
See who voted yea or nay !

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

The man I worked hard to put into the Senate, Ken Salazar, voted: YES!

I'm P.O.d !

spiritdream
03-10-2005, 08:59 PM
I absolutely couldn't agree more with both Arianna and Boomer Chick. This is nothing short of appalling. I am a bit confused though because Arianna's article reads as if both Kerry and Obama voted yes but the link of actual votes shows them voting "no." Or perhaps they both voted yes to the 30% and no to the bill?

Personally, I'm disappointed in the dems, right now. Is there no one with some real backbone anymore? Is there no one willing to challenge the flagrantly obvious dichotomy between what we say stand for in this country and what we are actually doing to our citizens? :confused:

Boomer Chick
03-10-2005, 09:14 PM
Hey, spiritdream! Welcome! :D

I counted 18 Dems voting for the finalized bill. Guess we'll have to read the Bill itself to see what's in it. I'm sure various editorialists will be giving their opinion tomorrow!

Notice Boxer, Feinstein, Obama, Kerry, and quite a few other Dems voted "nay" on the bill.

If it was fair, I could support it, but it seems at this point, it isn't a fair bill at all. Post anything regarding it when you get a chance, OK?

Take care,

BC :(

Noisy Democrat
03-14-2005, 12:00 AM
The bankruptcy bill was an abomination. I'm very glad that Senators Kerry and Obama, two senators I respect, voted against it. But I was appalled at Arianna Huffington's column, which makes it sound as if both of them were in league with the GOP against consumers. The reality is that they voted No on the 30% interest cap because it would have superceded state rules, and thus *raised* the amount of allowable interest in some states (which have a cap of 21%). Senator Kerry actually voted *for* every amendment that would genuinely have protected consumers (I haven't looked up all of Senator Obama's votes, though I wouldn't be surprised if he had the same voting pattern as Senator Kerry down the line), and voted *against* the final bill. It's important to inform people about what's going on in Congress, but part of that is actually getting the facts straight about who is on which side. This column is ridiculously unfair to Senators Kerry and Obama, two of the good guys in this fight, as it mistakenly places them among the bad guys. I think Ms. Huffington owes them a retraction.

Noisy Democrat
03-14-2005, 09:02 AM
p.s. Dick Durbin voted against the bill too. I was shocked and disappointed when Harry Reid voted for it, and I wish he would explain himself. But my point about this column is that if we're going to take Democrats to task for aiding and abetting the GOP, we really need to get straight who actually did that and who was on our side.

Boomer Chick
03-14-2005, 02:21 PM
p.s. Dick Durbin voted against the bill too. I was shocked and disappointed when Harry Reid voted for it, and I wish he would explain himself. But my point about this column is that if we're going to take Democrats to task for aiding and abetting the GOP, we really need to get straight who actually did that and who was on our side.

Oh yes. I agree with you and that's why I posted the link to who voted for and against the bill. As far as previous voting for various amendments and for cloture, that's an interesting investigation as well.

I wondered about Arianna's accuracy as well, but she wrote it before the final votes and possibly she was referring to amendments regarding various Democrats.

Reading the Bill itself as it is now, might be informative. I'm still upset, but I didn't expect the Dems to win even if they had all voted against it. It takes Republicans to stop any of the legislation we as Democrats find repulsive. If the Bill had only been fair to all strata of society, I would have applauded a kind of clamp down, but unfortunately the rich were catered to again.
Maybe middle-class Republicans will get a clue from this?

BC :(

Boomer Chick
03-14-2005, 02:31 PM
The bankruptcy bill was an abomination. I'm very glad that Senators Kerry and Obama, two senators I respect, voted against it. But I was appalled at Arianna Huffington's column, which makes it sound as if both of them were in league with the GOP against consumers. The reality is that they voted No on the 30% interest cap because it would have superceded state rules, and thus *raised* the amount of allowable interest in some states (which have a cap of 21%). Senator Kerry actually voted *for* every amendment that would genuinely have protected consumers (I haven't looked up all of Senator Obama's votes, though I wouldn't be surprised if he had the same voting pattern as Senator Kerry down the line), and voted *against* the final bill. It's important to inform people about what's going on in Congress, but part of that is actually getting the facts straight about who is on which side. This column is ridiculously unfair to Senators Kerry and Obama, two of the good guys in this fight, as it mistakenly places them among the bad guys. I think Ms. Huffington owes them a retraction.

Thank you for this! It is duly noted. I hope Arianna reads it writes a retraction of sorts given that she is indeed wrong on the amendment regardng the 30% cap on interests. Do you have that link on the vote?

Thanks!

BC

Boomer Chick
03-14-2005, 02:49 PM
LInk for amendments to the bill: over 100 amendments some shot down, others accepted. Notice Durbin in these:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d109:./temp/~bdaRAZp:1[1-125](Amendments_For_S.256)&./temp/~bdsiNG

Will be scanning for more articles on this.

Boomer Chick
03-14-2005, 03:49 PM
Vermont Lawyers critical of Bankruptcy Bill:

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050313/NEWS/50312005/1006

LA times on credit counseling:

http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/bal-bz.ambrose13mar13,1,5529514.column?coll=la-utilities-business-money&ctrack=1&cset=true

Op Ed piece:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031405B.shtml

BC