Score another one for the big boys...

[dean_martin]

Sure, folks should pay their bills. But, if you're going to raise credit card rates with envelope stuffers (fine print notice in your bill that if you use your card again your rate will increase from 19.9% to 24.9%), charge over 30% for a loan on a car title or on a "payday" loan maybe your customer's potential bankruptcy should be an inherent risk. Those predatory lenders will get their pound of flesh for sure. Remember Shylock?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/business/09bankruptcy.html?th

The first pay-off was the class-action bill. Now we have the bankruptcy legislation. Federalization of medical/drug-maker/medical device manufacturer liability is next. Where's your lobbyist?

[dean_martin]

You may have to register with the NYTimes to read the article linked above. For those who do not wish to register (registration is free and you can sign up for a daily digest with summaries and links to the paper's site), here's the article:

ASHINGTON, March 8 - The Senate assured final passage of the first major overhaul of the nation's bankruptcy laws in 27 years on Tuesday, when it took two votes that cleared the remaining political obstacles to a measure that the nation's credit and retail industries have sought for years.

The bill would disqualify many families from taking advantage of the more generous provisions of the current bankruptcy code that permit them to extinguish their debts for a "fresh start." It would also impose significant new costs on those seeking bankruptcy protection and give lenders and businesses new legal tools for recovering debts.

The Senate on Tuesday first defeated an amendment that would have prevented violent protesters at abortion clinics from using the bankruptcy laws to shield themselves from judgments awarded in civil lawsuits. That amendment, which lost by a vote of 53 to 46, had threatened to derail the legislation. The senators then voted 69 to 31 to limit debate and cut off any effort to kill the legislation by filibuster.

Final passage of the measure is now an inevitable formality.

House leaders have said they will quickly approve the legislation once the Senate completes work on it as early as this week. President Bush has said he intends to sign it. His predecessor, President Bill Clinton, killed the measure in his final days in office in 2000 after it had been passed by Congress by declining to sign it at the end of the legislative session, issuing a so-called pocket veto.

The sponsors of the legislation say that it will have the effect of lowering the costs of goods and services for all consumers by making it easier for companies and issuers of credit to collect unpaid debts rather than passing those costs on to everyone else. In the last 30 years, bankruptcy filings have steadily increased, rising eightfold since Congress last rewrote the bankruptcy laws.

But critics said the measure was a thinly disguised gift to banks and credit card companies, which, they contend, are largely responsible for the high rate of bankruptcies because they heavily promote credit cards and loans that often come with large and largely unseen fees for late payments. They said that the measure would impose new obstacles on many middle-income families seeking desperately needed protection from creditors, and that it would take far longer for those families to start over after suffering serious illnesses, unemployment and other calamities.

The votes on Tuesday were the second legislative victory in recent weeks both for Mr. Bush and the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, himself a possible presidential contender in 2008. Mr. Frist nimbly moved both the bankruptcy bill and another bill last month making it more difficult to bring class-action lawsuits through the Senate.

In both cases, he unified the Republicans to beat back every effort by the Democrats to water down or delay the measures. In both cases, he also reached a deal with House leaders in which the Senate blocked any significant changes to the measure in exchange for a commitment from the House that it would adopt unaltered what the Senate approved.

The White House applauded the votes on Tuesday.

"The administration supports the passage of bankruptcy reform because ultimately this will lead to more accessibility to credit for more Americans, particularly lower-income workers," said Trent D. Duffy, a deputy White House spokesman. "The fact that the Senate was able to set aside those issues and move toward passage shows it's another bipartisan accomplishment. Coupled with class actions, it shows we're off to a good start."

The sponsors of the bankruptcy legislation say it is a badly needed measure to curb a growing number of abusive bankruptcy filings by individuals who ought to be able to meet their obligations. Those cases, supporters of the measure say, have added hundreds of dollars in annual costs to other consumers who wind up having to pick up the unpaid debt.

"We are a compassionate nation but we should not be fools," said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a Utah Republican who has fought for the measure for eight years. "We want to give our neighbors who get in over their heads a chance to get out of their financial troubles. But for some it is a way to avoid personal responsibility. There is something inherently unfair about denying full restitution to creditors."

Supporters of the new law point to the rise of bankruptcy filings, from 200,000 in 1978 to 1.6 million last year, as evidence of abuses.

But critics of the measure say that the rise in such filings is not evidence of unfair filings. Rather, they say, it is symptomatic of broader economic problems - the growing distress in families plagued by high health care and education costs. A recent study by bankruptcy and medical experts at Harvard University found that more than half of the 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts cited medical bills as a primary reason they filed.

The critics - including consumer groups, Democrats and more than 100 bankruptcy law professors - say that the legislation's supporters have significantly exaggerated the problem with the current bankruptcy laws. They say the legislation will do far more damage than good by hitting middle-income families, women and the elderly who have used bankruptcy protection in growing numbers to protect themselves.

"This bankruptcy bill is mean-spirited and unfair," said Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. "In anything like its present form, it should and will be an embarrassment to anyone who votes for it. It's a bonanza for the credit card companies, which made $30 billion in profits last year, and a nightmare for the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak."

In a letter to Congress two weeks ago, 104 bankruptcy law professors predicted that "the deepest hardship" would "be felt in the heartland," where the filing rates are highest - Utah, Tennessee, Georgia, Nevada, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Ohio, Mississippi and Idaho.

Critics also said the measure fails to do anything to curb abusive bankruptcy practices by wealthy families, who can create special trusts to shelter their assets, and by corrupt companies like Enron and WorldCom, which were able to find favorable bankruptcy courts and deprive many of their employees and retired employees of benefits. The Senate defeated a series of amendments proposed by Democrats that sought to address those issues.

"The bill has a real bias," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, whose proposal to close a loophole that permits wealthy people to shelter assets through a special trust was defeated last week. "It deals with abuses in bankruptcy by one group but not with another group."

The lobbying money for the legislation, which has come close to passage several times in the eight years since it was introduced, has been lopsided.

The main lobbying forces for the bill - a coalition that included Visa, MasterCard, the American Bankers Association, MBNA America, Capital One, Citicorp, the Ford Motor Credit Company and the General Motors Acceptance Corporation - spent more than $40 million in political fund-raising efforts and many millions more on lobbying efforts since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that studies the role of money in the political process. By definition, the critics of the legislation had limited lobbying resources.

The foundation of the legislation is a provision that would limit access by individuals to Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. It enables individuals to sharply limit payments on their obligations and get a "fresh start."

The bill would instead impose a means test that would prompt many people to file for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 13, which requires a repayment plan. The means test would not be applied to debtors who earn less than the median income in their state. Those who earn more than that and can pay at least $6,000 over five years would have to seek protection under Chapter 13.

The median income for a family of four in 2003 was $65,093, ranging from $45,867 in New Mexico to $82,561 in Massachusetts, according to the United States Census Bureau.

The bill would also increase the costs of bankruptcy by increasing the amount of paperwork filed and force people in bankruptcy to pay for counseling about the way they use credit. It would also make it more difficult for some people to try to shelter their assets through the purchase of expensive homes in states like Florida and Texas, which have homestead exemptions. To shelter more than $125,000 in assets, homes must have been purchased at least three and a third years before a bankruptcy filing.

[paul_pci]

Now I'll need a time machine to file bankruptcy.

And to respond to the generic comment "sure people should pay their bills" credit card companies give credit lines to people whom they have absolutely no business giving credit to, then make up for it by compounding indefensible interest rates on all the customers, responsible and irresponsible. Essentially, if you're a fairly responsible consumer, you're paying for the fact that the credit card companies are basically whores the way they give out credit. 'nough said.

[dean_martin]

And to respond to the generic comment "sure people should pay their bills"

As for the generic comment, that's the new politically correct speak acknowledging "personal responsibility" which literally applies to persons of flesh and blood. The only way to avoid responsibility in today's society is to incorporate.

God forbid I fail to acknowledge personal responsibility lest I be dragged to the town square and stoned.

[dean_martin]

ooh, ooh, here's another one comin' down the pike:

Wal-Mart Wants Truckers to Have 16-Hour Workdays
By LESLIE MILLER, AP
WASHINGTON (March 9) - Wal-Mart and other retailers are lobbying Congress to extend the workday for truckers to 16 hours, something labor unions and safety advocates say would make roadways more dangerous for all drivers.

Rep. John Boozman, an Arkansas Republican whose district includes Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s headquarters in Bentonville, is sponsoring a bill that would allow a 16-hour workday as long as the trucker took an unpaid two-hour break. The proposal is expected to be offered as an amendment during debate over the highway spending bill on Wednesday.

"Truckers are pushing harder than ever to make their runs within the mandated timeframe,'' Boozman said. "Optional rest breaks will reduce driver layovers and improve both safety and efficiency.''

Current rules limit drivers' workdays to 14 hours, with only 11 consecutive hours of driving allowed, union leaders and safety advocates say. That gives truckers three hours to eat, rest or load and unload their trucks.

Critics of the proposal accuse Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, of trying to fatten its profits by forcing truckers to spend more time waiting at the loading dock without getting paid.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters "hasn't gotten one complaint from drivers saying they don't have time for a break or a meal,'' the union's vice president, John Murphy, said at a news conference Tuesday.

Joan Claybrook, president of the safety advocacy group Public Citizen, said drivers could end up starting their workday at 8 a.m. and quitting at midnight.

"This is a sweatshop-on-wheels amendment,'' Claybrook said. "The last thing we need is for tired truckers to become even more fatigued and threaten the safety of those around them on the roads.''

The current rule had been struck down in federal court because it didn't take into account truck drivers' health. In October, Congress reinstated the rule for one year. If the Boozman proposal is adopted, it would retain the 16-hour workday regardless of any new rule.

Nearly 5,000 people were killed in large truck crashes in 2003, and those vehicles were three times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes than passenger cars, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.

Wal-Mart spokesman Erik Winborn said the proposal has broad support among the trucking industry and other retailers.

"We support it because we feel it would actually enhance safety rather than hurt safety,'' said Winborn, whose company employs about 7,000 truck drivers.

Wal-Mart employees were Boozman's top contributors in 2003-04, giving him $48,152 for his re-election campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Wal-Mart and its employees gave $44,500 to Boozman for his first successful bid for Congress in 2001-02, the last year corporations could give to congressional candidates.


03/09/05 06:24 EST

[paul_pci]

As for the generic comment, that's the new politically correct speak acknowledging "personal responsibility" which literally applies to persons of flesh and blood. The only way to avoid responsibility in today's society is to incorporate.

God forbid I fail to acknowledge personal responsibility lest I be dragged to the town square and stoned.

Yes, that drives me nuts how personal responsibility doesn't apply to businesses. And why do businesses all of a sudden have more rights than flesh and blood citizens? There's no justification for that at all.