March 09, 2005

Bankruptcy Bill Saga (Cont)

Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren wrote that there was one silver lining that came out of the Bankruptcy bill.

This bankruptcy bill was largely written by a credit industry lobbyist and, as he put it, shopped to a friendly Congressman. From the outset, the bill was supposed to be an easy push, ďassured of passage,Ē something that would stay below the radar screen.

But you changed all that.

And that is good news. This isnít the first time that special interests have gone to Congress with a complex, hard-to-understand bill that would profit them while it increased costs or risks for all the rest of us. But you pushed up the cost.

Thus, a bill that was supposed to be a slamdunk has now been given enough publicity that Democratic House members and Senators will be aware that their vote will be remembered. This vote will influence more than just their corporate backers, but also their ability to tap into the grassroots for support. It will have a cost.

And because this bill is such an unfair and blatantly corporate bill, the bright light of publicity is making conservatives such as Instapundit question the people and the agenda that is forcing its passage. Even they can see that this particular bill is a license for the credit industry to prey on the citizens of this county.

This bill exposes the ugly truth that we have the best government that money can buy. When Bush signs the bankruptcy bill into law, Americans of all persuasions will have proof that he cares very little about ordinary citizens and cares a lot about the rich and the powerful. Because of the publicity on this bill, those on the right could be more likely to critically examine the details of his support on other issues.

And the New Democrats who implored Dennis Hastert to bring this bill with all its flaws to a speedy vote should be tasked with telling their constituents why they are planning to vote for this bill -- before they vote. Those Senators that voted for cloture should be challenged as well.

Call them. Send them mail. And when they come back into your district ask them to explain this vote. Then ask them why we should believe they can be trusted to look out for our interests when they enable an administration that is so obviously trying to destroy the Democratic Party and that care nothing about the little guy. Ask them why they think that their corporate taskmasters are going to protect them from the rabid right during the next campaign - afterall they will no longer have anything to barter for the campaign dollars. Ask them what they think it means to be a Democrat. And finally ask them was this vote really worth the cost?

Posted by Mary at March 9, 2005 11:32 PM | Law/Justice | Technorati links |
Comments

People need to be responsible for their debts. No one forces people to whip out their credit card and buy items they really don't need. The typical common-sense rule is "if you can't afford to buy it with cash then you can't afford it".

The exception might be some sudden medical situation. Normal consumer greed for "stuff" should be the total responsibility of the individual.

Hey - I was over $78,000 in credit card debt about 7 years ago and I paid it ALL off by getting another job. It's sort of like gaining weight and trying to sue the fast food industry, as if they forced food down your mouth against your will.

I'm totally in favor of bankruptcy reform. Of course the credit companies have a big stake in this - they are the ones being hit with the bills of people that don't want to take responsibility for their actions, looking for a quick fix.

Posted by: Maddie Dog at March 10, 2005 09:15 AM

The major cause of bankruptcy in this country is unexpected medical bills. The next highest reason is unemployment, followed by divorce. Indulgence is a distant fourth. It would be nice if people stopped perpetuating myths about others.

Posted by: matertiamat at March 10, 2005 10:20 AM

"if you can't afford to buy it with cash then you can't afford it".

In that case, why not ban credit cards? There are much better options for society to handle medical expenses than getting sick and injured people to rack up credit card debt, and debit cards are perfectly adequate for convenience (eg online payments).

Posted by: felice at March 10, 2005 07:16 PM

i think harry reid should be lambasted onhe net for his vote on this one.

why should we not hold him accountable for his voting yes?

if we dont hold him accountable now then what can we expect in future fights?

its bullshit and nobody on the left is holding reid accountable.

more on media in trouble

Posted by: media in trouble at March 11, 2005 09:07 AM

Harry Reid took $115,000 last election from the credit card folks. This was way down on his list of contributors. He could have voted against this bill on principle - he's the minority leader. He let special interests, his and the credit card people come before the poor people of this country he is supposed to represent. "The best Government money can buy, indeed!"

Posted by: baldski at March 12, 2005 12:39 AM