Mon. Mar 07, 2005
Bankrupt Priorities
A letter to Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson:
I am writing regarding the proposed overhaul of bankruptcy laws currently before Congress. While I am certainly a proponent of paying one’s bills, and support reasonable levels of judicial enforcement of such payment, one would think a body that will this year intentionally add another $400 billion more to our national debt of over $7 trillion would be a bit more empathetic about catastrophic debt.
One would also think that the credit card industry that is pushing this measure should be held responsible for its part in these circumstances. From the fact they’ve profitted tens of billions of dollars in higher interest rates, late fees, and penalties, to the manner they do it (jacking your interest to nearly 30% if your payment is late … for your rental storage unit, or anything else). Not to mention the concept that if they are experiencing high default rates, this means they have been offering credit to people who are not qualified … as in, unable to repay. That’s simply Bad Business. You know, like the college student who has yet to obtain Job One, yet gets a half dozen offers for thousands in EZ-Visa credit. Is that a wise business decision, and when it goes awry, does the company have no financial culpability for their own errors?
But never mind credit card debt. A study done at Harvard claims half of bankruptcies are due to illness and medical bills. Further, the majority of those were fully employed citizens with health insurance, who were still overwhelmed by circumstances and the system as it exists (Heaven help you if you’re living anywhere near paycheck to paycheck, and have a heart attack and/or bypass surgery).
Yet not one, but two amendments put forth to offer some relief in cases of medical hardship have been blocked. Another amendment meant to protect $75,000 of home value for senior citizens was tossed. And one that would have exempted veterans and military members for the same amount (as well as blocked repayment of usurious loans in excess of 36% interest, i.e., those that prey on the financial hardships of the enlisted) was deemed unneeded as well.
Meanwhile, the loophole of “asset protection trusts” utilized by corporations and rich individuals to protect their assets from forfeiture remains unaddressed.
Senator, you are the elected representative of a state whose citizens rank third out of fifty when it comes to bankruptcy. That’s a sad statistic, but one you should take under advisement. Do you think this bill will make things better for your constituents? I’m talking about the people who voted for you, Senator. If the statistics show them in financial distress, how is it helpful (never mind “compassionate”) to remove even the most stigmatized form of potential relief?
If you won’t protect the citizens of Georgia who are fully employed yet still live on the edge of a health care crisis, Senator, then who will?
If you won’t protect the seniors of Georgia on a fixed income who are living on the edge of a proclaimed Social Security crisis, Senator, then who will?
If you won’t protect the veterans of Georgia, as well as the reservists and National Guardsmen who take a big financial hit from being called up to serve their country, Senator, then who will?
The answer is that no one will, Senator.
One can’t help but wonder exactly whose best interests this bill represents. In my opinion, it isn’t the citizens of Georgia. They need your help on this one, even if it’s just the sick, the old, and those who serve. None appear to be getting it.
Published 01:50AM, Mon, Mar 07 2005
Category: Politics
Previous: «« 03-04-05 ««
Next: »» Earthlink Fee Recovery »»
Peanut Gallery
When I call/write them I usually don’t even get a boilerplate response, but what you just wrote is very elegant. Thanks for making it public. Since I’m self employed, I had to give up my health insurance (again) back in 2001. I just hope either I won’t get sick, or I can last long enough to get Medicare, if it’s still there when I get that old. Or maybe the economy will get better and I can afford it again, but I’m not holding my breath. Fortunately, our Congressmen and Senators do such an important job for us, that they have premium health coverage. Thank god they’ll never get sued into oblivion.
That is a superb letter, Reid; thanks for writing it.
A response has come in from Senator Chambliss’ office, via e-mail:
——0——
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts on
bankruptcy reform. I appreciate hearing from you on this
important issue.
With the continued abuse of the bankruptcy laws, I believe
bankruptcy reform is long overdue. Many times people file for
bankruptcy when they can afford to pay their debts but use it as an
easy means to have their debts canceled. Bankruptcy should be
there for those who truly need it and not for those who are trying to
take advantage of the system. Furthermore, when companies file
for bankruptcy, they often leave employees with little or no
severance benefits, and greatly reduced (or eliminated) health
insurance benefits to which they might have been entitled. This is
an injustice to employees; in particular, to retirees who depend on
their former employer to provide earned benefits.
Currently there are several pieces of legislation before
Congress that seek to reform bankruptcy laws. S. 256, the
“Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of
2005,” was introduced on February 1, 2005, and is currently
pending before full Senate. There is also S. 314, the “Fairness in
Bankruptcy Litigation Act of 2005,” which was introduced on
February 8, 2005, and is currently pending before the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary. Please be assured that I will keep
your thoughts in mind as bankruptcy reform comes before the
109th Congress.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. As
always, I appreciate hearing from you.
——0——
So, Senator Chambliss is not only unmoved, he claims this is because of abuse by both individuals and corporations. Yet the main corporate loophole, “asset protection trusts,” is left wide open by this bill, through which corporations can retain millions in assets. Meanwhile, Senator Chambliss has voted down amendments to even minimally protect certain classes of individuals in financial distress.
Senator Chambliss, you and your Republican cohorts have spit upon the sick, the old, and those who serve … your constituents … while sucking up to your banking and credit card industry friends who’ve been pushing this bill unsuccessfully for six years.
Don’t think we don’t see it, and don’t think it is covered up by this boilerplate reply. I hope your opponents beat you bloody with it: “Saxby Chambliss voted against the smallest protections for Georgia’s sick, elderly, and those who serve, so he could suck up to corporate interests.”
Because it is true.
And I would also note that, one month after sending it, I haven’t heard a peep from Johnny Isakson’s office.
I’m going to assume that since he’s a freshman with an office that’s barely been set up four months, no one has yet figured out how to hit “reply.”
Maybe next time.
Recent Comments
- Ryan Ward (The Original Dither)
- Reid (The Not So Public Option)
- elburro (The Not So Public Option)
- Stephanie Hunter (The Not So Public Option)
- Reid (We Are Covered In Bipartisan Bull)
- Susan (We Are Covered In Bipartisan Bull)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
If you get anything more than a boilerplate response with a reasonable facsimile of an official signature, do let us know.