Dodd Strengthens the Safety Net
I don't think bankruptcy is a sexy political issue. Don't get me wrong: I think bankruptcy policy is critically important to working families. In a world with inadequate health insurance, job insecurity, predatory lenders, family break ups and plain old financial mistakes, bankruptcy can be a family's last chance to get back into the economic mainstream. But no one sees bankruptcy in their future, and those who have been through it want to forget, so there is no special interest group for the protection of bankruptcy laws.
Enter Chris Dodd. He released a major policy statement entirely about bankruptcy. He has good, strong suggestions that revolve around a single theme: Bankruptcy is a critical safety net for families that he promises to strengthen.
He's not a Johnny-Come-Lately to this issue. Over the decade of The Bankruptcy Wars (1995-2005), Senator Dodd consistently sided with the families against the banks. I recall the many, many press conferences the senator held to highlight how families--particularly families headed by women--would be hurt by the new laws. Now he's pushing the need for a safety net into the political conversation about the economic survival of the middle class.
Bankruptcy isn't a sexy issue, but I'm sure glad Senator Dodd is willing to speak up.
I appreciate Senator Dodd's efforts.
One point, if I may. Inadequate health insurance is certainly one burden on working families. But I suggest that it is secondary to the burden of sheer, excessive health care costs. I do not believe that we can afford to forget this.
November 29, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ally Nair is correct. Costs affect everyone. Insurance issues would be heavily reduced if we got costs under control. Moreover, costs will continue to bedevil us under all coverage extension proposals currently being floated.
November 30, 2007 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thumbs up to Senator Dodd!
Bonnie
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/pupart@cox.net/
November 30, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dodd's got two things right -- civil liberties and bankruptcy reform. Wish he were a more credible candidate. And that he didn't support mandatory civil service.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
November 30, 2007 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Dodd consistently sided with the families against the banks.
it seems to me that Dodd doesn't care about familes. for example:
"Dodd said he welcomed the Fed's steps thus far to deal with the credit problems. The Fed last week sliced its discount rate to banks and has been pumping billions of dollars into the financial system. Dodd said he was impressed with these actions."
as Dodd asks the Fed to inflate the currency to "save the day," the wealth of americans, in terms of real dollars, goes down and that's not good for families.
Now he's pushing the need for a safety net into the political conversation about the economic survival of the middle class.
I'm glad that my boots are out and ready for the winter, the BS is getting deep here. The survival of the middle class rests on its ability to create capital; i.e. the middle class will wither away if it worships the Fed's printing presses and the money dropped by Bernake's helicopter.
We Need Ron Paul! NOT Dodd.
To boldly go...
November 30, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Costs are as high as they are in part because health insurance paid for by third parties distorts the economics. The folks who consume the end product - health care service - don't for the most part pay for the end product. Divorced from its cost they naturally want the most they can get, even if the utility is marginal, not the most they can afford. This is a natural and understandable impulse.
The only way to reduce the ultimate costs without artificial rationing is to reduce the demand from the consumer, increase the supply from the providers or increase the supply by increasing the number of providers, or reduce the net cost of the supply through productivity increases and overhead (read liability insurance costs and administrative costs) reduction.
November 30, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
We can blame the media for that. In their coverage of the race, the "second-tier" candidates (a term invented by the media), such as Dodd, Biden and Richardson, and even Edwards, who may not even really be "second-tier," have gotten scant attention, even though their backgrounds and proposals certainly deserved as much scrutiny by the electorate as Clinton's and Obama's. I've stated before that there seems to be a sort of vicious circle in terms of the media's attention, with more coverage leading to better polling for the frontrunners. This isn't how things should work in a democracy. We should have the opportunity to thoroughly vet all of the candidates before making a choice; instead, the media's need for ratings seems to drive to much of the coverage.
This is something that has been really annoying in the early news coverage of the race. A couple of months ago, CNN seemed to have all but given the race to Clinton. OK, rant over.
...and kudos to Dodd for his efforts regarding the bankruptcy issue.
“The healthy man does not torture others — generally it is the tortured who turn into torturers.” ~~ C. G. Jung
November 30, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that he didn't support mandatory civil service.
By the time you add up all the civilians who do work for the military (lockheed, alliant tech, united technologies, boeing, public universities, etc...) we propably have the largest unofficial army in the history of our country.
I once read that "contracted civilians" out numbered "boots on the ground" in Iraq at one point.
The only thing that a civil service requirement would do is act like the death penalty since, while I think the death penalty associates death with justice-- the basis for a justification of war, a "civil service requirement" would give politicians more power by giving deferments in return for favors (i.e. freedom for sale).
To boldly go...
November 30, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bankruptcy laws need much more than "reformed". They need to be scrapped entirely, then rewritten by a group of experts not dominated by lender interests, and lawyer interests.
As just one example of the unfairness of current bankruptcy laws: If a company buys $50,000 worth of materials from a supplier but goes bankrupt before those materials are paid, those materials will eventually be sold by the court and the proceeds will usually go to pay the company's bank debt. The supplier will get zero. This is because the company earlier signed a "security agreement" that gave its bank a lein on all inventory, whether that inventory has been paid for or not. Even if there are enough assets to pay the bank's note in full, chances are additional monies will still be eaten up by added bank fees, higher interest rates and attorney fees that the bank will add on because of the bankruptcy.
It should not be legal for a bank, or any lender, to take a lein on inventory that has not been paid for.
Since the Regan era, as more and more conservative judges have been appointed, the bankruptcy system has tilted farther and farther to the interests of the secured lender. It does not well serve either the debtor or the unsecured creditor.
No doubt, the special intersts are too entrenched for us to expect a truely fair bankruptcy system. I think Dodd's suggestions are bandaids for a system that has had a serious train wreck, yet they are a point in the right direction.
One thing to allways remember about bankruptcy - it is all about the judge. If you file in the right juristiction, you can still get some help and fairness.
December 1, 2007 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink