BK Bill Reform: Passed

[HRx]

Bankruptcy Bill on Brink of Passing

2 hours, 13 minutes ago Top Stories - Los Angeles Times


By Mary Curtius Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — A sweeping overhaul of bankruptcy rules long sought by credit card companies and banks seemed poised to become law after two key Senate votes Tuesday.

The legislation, a top item on the Republican agenda, would force more people who file for bankruptcy to pay back some of their debts.


The GOP appeared to have overcome the final hurdles to the bill's enactment in the Senate's Tuesday votes — one that defeated an abortion-related amendment to the measure and another that set a limit on further debate.


The votes paved the way for the bill to pass the Senate as early as today. In the House, GOP leaders have promised to act quickly on the bill if it is sent to them without major amendments, as now appears likely.


Proponents say the bill would stem abuses of bankruptcy law by some debtors and cause more Americans to be financially responsible. They have noted that 1.6 million Americans filed for bankruptcy last year, compared with slightly fewer than 300,000 in 1985.


Critics say the bill would not protect those who have been wiped out by crushing medical bills or other unforeseen calamities, and that the wealthy would still benefit from loopholes.


Even after their victories Tuesday, some Republicans noted that similar legislation had passed the Senate on three previous occasions but had failed to become law.


Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record) (R-Ala.) said the bankruptcy legislation had taught him "a political lesson: No matter how much support a bill has … things can go awry."


Still, GOP leaders expressed confidence that this time, after eight years of effort by its supporters, the measure would become law.


"It's quite exciting," said Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). "It's been a very good day."


The bill's core provisions would impose a means test on debtors to determine whether they had enough assets to pay back at least some of their debts. Those filing for bankruptcy whose annual household income falls below the median level in their state could apply for complete debt forgiveness. Those who make above the median would have to develop a repayment plan.


California's median household income is about $50,000.


Republicans said that those saddled with crippling medical bills would be protected by the means test, and said that it should be left to the states to decide how much of a home's value should be protected from seizure during bankruptcy. Democrats lost a bid to protect $150,000 of the value of homes owned by people facing medical hardships from being seized by bankruptcy courts to pay creditors.


The White House supports the legislation, and its passage would be an important victory for President Bush (news - web sites) at a time when he is struggling to build support for Social Security (news - web sites) reform with a skeptical public and skittish Republican lawmakers.


During more than a week of debate on the bill, Democrats put forth a series of amendments that were defeated, largely along party lines. These included proposals to exempt seniors and people facing medical hardship from some of its provisions, as well as a bid to increase the federal minimum wage.


But Republicans considered the abortion-related amendment offered by Sen. Charles E. Schumer (news, bio, voting record) (D-N.Y.) the greatest threat to the bill.


The amendment would have barred violent protesters from filing for bankruptcy to avoid paying court-ordered fines for their actions. Although it would have applied to any such protester, it was spurred by reports in the late 1990s that some antiabortion activists were divesting themselves of assets before taking part in illegal protests.





A similar amendment passed by a wide margin in the Senate's 2001 version of the bankruptcy bill. But the provision sparked controversy in the House among abortion foes, and that eventually thwarted the legislation.

Abortion rights groups had portrayed Tuesday's vote on Schumer's amendment as the first test of how the Senate, with its increased Republican majority after November's elections, can be expected to act on abortion-related legislation this year.

"What it says is: It's uphill sledding" for abortion rights advocates, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record) (D-Calif.) said after the amendment was defeated, 53 to 46. Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record) (D-Calif.) both voted for the amendment.

Several Republicans who had voted for Schumer's amendment in 2001 said Tuesday that they were determined to do nothing this time to cause the House to reject the bill. Some said they also were convinced that the measure was unnecessary because courts could block protesters from using bankruptcy law to avoid fines.

"Rather than go down this fruitless road again, I'm asking my colleagues to vote it down once and for all," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (news, bio, voting record) (R-Utah), who co-wrote the amendment in 2001 with Schumer. "You just have to know that eight years is enough time to work on one bill. To blow up this once again over an incendiary, 'poison pill' amendment is just not right."

But Schumer said the amendment was about protecting the rule of law, not going after antiabortion activists who stay within legal limits when they protest at clinics.

"People have done a 180-degree about-face" in the Senate, Schumer complained, "because of a small group in the House who don't represent mainstream views of the House, or even of the Republican Party of the House."

The bankruptcy bill is the second in a series of bills backed by Republicans that they say are necessary to end abuse of the legal system. The first — passed by Congress last month and signed into law by Bush — shifted many class-action lawsuits out of state courts and into federal courts, where the bill's supporters say judges are more conservative in their decisions and awards.

Debates are expected on a bill that would put caps on liability payments in medical malpractice cases and another that would protect businesses from asbestos-related lawsuits by creating a trust fund to pay victims' claims. Still another measure would limit the liability of gun manufacturers whose weapons were used to commit crimes.

Votes on the bankruptcy legislation have underscored the importance to the GOP of the four Senate seats it gained in the 2004 elections, giving the party 55 of the chamber's 100 members. This majority not only enables Republicans to more easily derail Democrat-backed amendments but, as shown Tuesday, gain the 60 votes needed to end debate on a bill.

The motion to limit remaining debate on the bankruptcy bill passed easily, 69 to 13. Feinstein and Boxer voted against that measure, but 14 Democrats voted for it.

Schumer and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record) (D-Mass.) had indicated that they might push for a filibuster of the bill. But not enough Democrats decided to join that effort. Some said the party might resort to a filibuster for more important fights over Social Security, some judicial nominees and tax reform.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Feinstein noted that she had voted for the bankruptcy bill the last time the Senate considered it. But this time, she said, she would vote against it, in part because Republicans had defeated an amendment that would have required credit card companies to disclose to consumers how long it would take them to pay off a debt if they only made the minimum payments.

"The fact of the matter is that this bill is really all for the credit card companies," Feinstein said. "I felt that the bill should be balanced and that we should see that the consumer is also protected in this process."

Republicans argued that there were already enough safeguards to protect consumers.

"At a certain point, the time comes to move forward with what we have," Sessions said. "The large majority recognizes that we are not doing anything radical in this bill."

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (news, bio, voting record) (R-Iowa), one of the bill's sponsors, said, "The sooner we finish work in the Senate and get the bill to the House, the sooner our bankruptcy system will be focused, as it should be, on helping those with real need, and less vulnerable to abuse by consumers who have the ability to repay their debts."

[HHM]

Aside from making it harder to file BK for the average consumer, there is also a clause that would hold BK Attorney's liable for the accuracy of the Debtor's petition, which would make hiring a BK attorney nearly impossible for most debtors, since, in order to comply, attorney's would have to hire private investigators to investigate every client.

[mothersvox]

I guess all illusions that we live in a democracy must give way to the reality that we live in a corpocracy. This legislation was literally written by an employee of MBNA. Our elected officials aren't even up to writing their own sell-out laws. :mad:

[robivi3]

Not to get off the thread subject, but...

Please remember the USA is NOT by definition a Democracy. The Founding Fathers would have utterly turned over in their graves to hear the Country reffered to as a Democracy. We were, and still are (for the most part) a Republic, a nation that holds the rule of Law as supreme. The Constitution is held (and rightfully so) as our supreme law. It can be modified but the basic tenets are not subject to the whims of the mass populace or the politicians and judges, that is the intent at least.

In a Democracy everything is up for grabs by the mob, and people can vote entitlements from the public treasury. Since that so called great speech at Gettysburg which so many can quote but which few understand or understood at the time we have slipped closer to a socialist democracy in every generation. Mr. Lincoln spike of a "new birth of freedom", in our day it would be termed a "new birth of federalism", he fully understood what steps would be necessary to purchase complacency and quash future rebellion. The man was a shrewed genius. The absolute first step was the unheard of Federal assumption and desegregation by State of the Military in 1865 (it actually started by draft in 1863). Never again would the Feds need to "ask" the States to raise an Army, or for the MONEY.

The first entitlements were to be doled out from public funds as part of his federal rebuilding program for the South. Northerners rightfully balked at this as it was revealed after his election. This would have secured Southern loyalties to the Republican Party and the Southerners (I am one, my great uncle WW Williams was the last living Confederate Soldier) would have continued to vote themselves money from the treasury.

The word democracy really comes into American terminology during and after the Civil War. Within twenty years the first entitlement becomes fully entrenched. The Civil Service and Federal pension system are born. A group now becomes loyal to those who will vote them money from public funds. From that point on we railroad closer to "democracy".

So, do we hate Abe, Cleveland, Taft and FDR for all this? No, Abe had to trash (and he stomped the Constition 'til it was tissue paper, even threatening to imprison Supreme Court Justices without charges) the absolute right of the Southern States to secede because providence declared it so. Only a large, powerful, united America could have defeated fascism and communism in this century. FDR had to get the Country back to work or face the possibilty of overthrow of the entire system. Thank God we had these courageous lions when we did, they faced great storms head on.

Now back to the thread... yes, the BK bill is bad. Bad for families, bad for individuals, bad for small business. America is about risk. Who, weighing the possiblities will take a chance to open a Bridal Shop, Italian Restaurant or dry cleaner? His out and ability to open a new business are in jeopardy now.

An Argentinian family just arrived here three years ago. They opened a beautiful little produce market in the newly renovated Corner (it has to much parking to be strip mall) by our house. A Cuban man just opened a Pollos Don Mario restaurant beside him. The "Country Market" Deli beside them is owned by an Indian Family, only the BankAmerica and the Homeowners Association Office are "American Owned". These people who struggle daily will have had their protection and "out" removed by the BK Bill. Thank God for the immigrant spirit that is still alive and well in our Country. I have no doubt that people will still take the risk even with this bad Bill, but some will not and that hurts us all.

[robivi3]

Peevee, you'll be "grandfathered in. Us antiquated, Unionized, Federalized, Railroad Employeeized schlepps are quite used to the term. This Bill will have an "effective date".

[mothersvox]

robivi is right. the new law will take effect 180 days after the prez signs it. it still has to go to the house, where it will probably be a slam dunk. so figure six month out from sometime in april. that'd be october or so.

[robivi3]

Ultimately, more and more, it seems like no matter who you vote for, it's still the same guy, different tie.

[EdytaHome]

I agree that the US is not at all a Democracy, it's all about capitalism... and if that's what makes big business tick... that's how laws will be decided. Money talks, big business is back (monopoly), small business is being squeezed out. Look at Walmart! It's only a matter of time until we get deregulated again...

I'm glad I got a chance to file bk before this bill went into law, I feel for people which need to file but are holding back.

[BKGuru28]

For more information about the new bill and what it might mean to you visit AboutBankruptcyReform.com

[kari]

If I were to wait to file until the end of June and the new law goes into effect in October, would I still be covered under the old rules?

[HHM]

Originally Posted by kari

If I were to wait to file until the end of June and the new law goes into effect in October, would I still be covered under the old rules?

Yes, the old rules would still apply.

[teddybeardj]

With the new laws about to be passed, when would the latest time to file be? We are hoping for things to turn around here soon, but if it results to the bk anyway, when would be safe to decide to file?

[HRx]

Bankruptcy Reform Close to OK in Congress

1 hour, 17 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress


By MARCY GORDON, AP Business Writer

WASHINGTON - Bankruptcy legislation that could make it impossible for thousands of people to wipe away their debts is nearing passage by Congress.

After eight years of failed efforts by banks and credit card companies, the biggest overhaul of bankruptcy laws in a quarter-century has been catapulted toward enactment by a Republican majority buttressed by the fall elections. The legislation, which garnered some Democratic votes, cleared the Senate last month 74-25.

The House was voting Thursday on the bill, which would require people with incomes above a certain level to pay credit-card charges, medical bills and other obligations under a court-ordered bankruptcy plan.

President Bush has said he will sign the bill into law. It marks a second victory for Bush this year on pro-business legislation.

Opponents say the change would fall especially hard on low-income working people, single mothers, minorities and the elderly and would remove a safety net for those who have lost their jobs or face crushing medical bills.

Between 30,000 and 210,000 people — from 3.5 percent to 20 percent of those who dissolve their debts in bankruptcy each year in exchange for forfeiting some assets — would be disqualified from doing so under the legislation, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Going into effect six months from enactment, the measure sets up an income-based test for measuring a debtor's ability to repay debts. It also requires people in bankruptcy to pay for credit counseling.

Underscoring the political sensitivity of the issue, the liberal group MoveOn said it was beginning a campaign of radio ads this week against House lawmakers of both parties who support the bankruptcy legislation.

"With solid control of both houses of Congress and the White House, the Republican leadership thinks they're free to show their true colors — taking from the middle class and giving to the wealthy and corporations," said Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn's political action committee.

"But we're going to call the Republican agenda what it truly is: a war on the middle class. ... The American people deserve to know who's on their side and who's trying to harm them for the sake of banks and ... credit card companies," Matzzie said.

In two weeks of debate and a series of votes on the Senate floor and later in the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans systematically rebuffed Democrats' efforts to soften the bill with amendments.

Backers in Congress and the financial services industry have been pushing the legislation for eight years, arguing that bankruptcy frequently is the last refuge of gamblers, impulsive shoppers, divorced or separated fathers avoiding child support, and multimillionaires — often celebrities — who buy mansions in states with liberal homestead exemptions to shelter assets from creditors.

New personal bankruptcy filings declined to 1,599,986 from 1,613,097 in the year ending last June 30, breaking an upward trend of recent years.

Banks, credit card issuers and retailers have lobbied vigorously for bankruptcy revisions that would force more people to repay at least part of their debt. Such a bill nearly passed in 2002. It failed when the Senate accepted, but House Republicans rejected, a Democratic amendment barring anti-abortion protesters from using bankruptcy to avoid paying court fines for blocking abortion clinics.

The bill creates a test for measuring a debtor's ability to pay.

Those with insufficient assets or income could still file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which if approved by a judge erases debts entirely after certain assets are forfeited. Those with income above the state's median income who can pay at least $6,000 over five years — $100 a month — would be forced into Chapter 13, where a judge would then order a repayment plan.

Critics say that's unfair because many people who file for bankruptcy have lost their jobs, or are going to lose them.

Under the current system, a federal bankruptcy judge determines under which chapter of the bankruptcy code a person falls — whether they have to repay some or all of their debt.

[mom]

Hello,
As you probably know, the new bankruptcy bill is now on the House floor for debate (April 14). If it passes, how long would it take to go into effect? I have my info into my attorney, and we're trying to wait to file until some certain dates pass... so knowing how long it would take for this bill to go into effect would be helpful. Immediately? Or within a certain amount of time? Would it take time to implement certain aspects of the bill before it could go into effect, as far as my filing date so it's before the new effective date?
Thanks!! Mom

[HHM]

For most provisions, it will be 180 days from enactment, but many of the provisions come into effect sooner...and some of those will effect BK's filed after the date of enactment.