[The Slate fray expert on economics issues discusses the wrongs of the pending bankrupcy bill here. Mark Kleiman adds another: an inefficient and perhaps unconstitutional altering of contractual obligations. Cloture was voted for today and there now will be thirty hours of debate before what is likely to be a successful vote for the alleged reform bill. The telling thing will be how many amendments will be allowed to temper it some.]
It then rejected an amendment by Senator Richard Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, to curtail what he called the abusive practices of executives at companies like Enron and WorldCom who received millions of dollars in compensation shortly before the companies filed for bankruptcy protection.
-- Pending Bankruptcy Bill
I honestly have not kept track of this bankruptcy legislation too deeply, but it is a telling bit of political theater. Speaking of Sen. Durbin, who I like (not just his politics, but his savvy ... he puts a good face to the party and it's good that he has an important leadership position), I also caught him denouncing another rejected amendment respecting helping out veterans that are suffering bankruptcy by giving them some special treatment.
Just two telling examples hitting home the contrasting political viewpoints on display here. The legislation also is expressed as a some sort of shifting of Chapter 7 bankruptcy (favoring individuals and those without deep pockets) to Chapter 13 (payment plan, reverse). Speaking as a non-expert everyman on the issue of economics, this sounds on its face as another example of the current favoring of those with more money.
This is definitely the case when the issue of bankruptcy is examined a bit deeper. The current legislation is favored by credit companies, the same sorts that keep on sending me credit cards with large limits [and who now are shown to suddenly increase interest rates, even for those still paying their payments], that tempts me like a little devil on my shoulder to spend past my needs. They are not free from sin, so to speak.
Likewise, it is telling to examine why many fall into bankruptcy. One reason is a reflection of our cultural ethos that encourages risk (and constantly failing individual small businesses), including at times by tempting those to make choices that are foolish in the long term (e.g., the overextending by farm owners). But, others are the result of the usual vagaries of life, including sickness.* Of course, a better health system and safety net would often help here, but so it goes. The very least we can remember is that we aren't just talking about deadbeats here.
Finally, I do wonder how seriously at risk the system is without the current proposed 'reforms.' I might trust my betters, aka legislators, but then I reflect upon the whole S.S. thing. And, their penchant not to quite be ... um .. truthful.
Oh, talking about Sen. Durbin, the Cubs won today.
---
* Interestingly, perhaps the first federal legal challenge to DOMA -- the anti-gay legislation -- dealt with a bankruptcy proceeding involving a woman who married her partner in Canada who late became bankrupt because of health costs. The bankruptcy court rejected jurisdiction over the marriage. Another connection to controversy is an amendment (if passed) that would protect pro-life groups that declare bankruptcy after being stuck with large fines for blocking clinics and harassing patients there etc.
This money stuff is more interesting than it first seems.