Bankruptcy Vote Switchers and Sellouts

Once again, my Senator does me proud

April 14, 2005

Mr. Vincent Furman
Woodridge, IL 60517

Dear Mr. Furman:

Thank you for contacting me about bankruptcy reform. I appreciate
knowing your concerns.

Bankruptcy law is one of the most arcane legal fields in America. Its
premise is that honest debtors should be given a fresh start, free from
obligations incurred through uncontrollable financial misfortune.

An increase in filings over the past decade has led some to conclude that
the law is too lenient. The need for balanced reform has guided me over
the years that Congress has considered bankruptcy legislation. I believe
that any reforms imposing stricter requirements must also address abusive
tactics by the credit industry.

Financial service companies have the right to reasonable protection from
spurious claims of bankruptcy or from outlandish loopholes that leave some
assets untouchable. I support reasonable limitations on the amount of
home equity those who file for bankruptcy can keep, so that people with
lavish mansions cannot exploit a system that is meant to protect those who
are truly in need. At the same time, consumers have the right to better
information about and protection from aggressive credit card solicitations
and other offers of easy credit that can quickly trap people in debt.

I voted against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act of 2005 because it failed to deliver the balanced reform that we need.

Ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job,
high medical bills or divorce. Yet, the bankruptcy bill sets up a rigid
means test to determine who is eligible for relief. Courts are left with
no discretion to waive the means test even if the debtor is seeking
bankruptcy relief because of some terrible circumstance beyond his or her
control.

This legislation also fails to provide for credit card disclosure that
would give consumers the information they need and deserve to know in
order to make sensible financial decisions. All Americans would benefit
from receiving more specific information on their monthly credit card
statements, such as how many months it will take to pay off a debt if only
the minimum monthly payment is made. But this sensible proposal was not
included in the bankruptcy measure.

In addition, the bill fails to address the practices of some sub-prime
lenders who offer high-risk borrowers loans that carry steep interest
rates and fees. Some sub-prime lenders prey on vulnerable members of our
society, including senior citizens and the poor, often driving them into
serious debt and home foreclosures. I offered an amendment to the
bankruptcy bill that would have helped protect consumers from predatory
lending. Unfortunately, my amendment failed by a vote of 40-58.

I offered another amendment related to corporate bankruptcies. Most of
the provisions of the bankruptcy bill related to individual, rather than
corporate, bankruptcies, despite the clear abuses of bankruptcy laws in
the corporate world. When a corporation files for bankruptcy, the workers
are left standing at the back of the line without their jobs, retirement
savings, or health care benefits. Yet this bankruptcy legislation goes
after employees who fall on hard times, while failing to hold corporate
abusers accountable.

In an attempt to level the playing field for employees of bankrupt
companies, I offered an amendment to allow bankruptcy courts to scrutinize
and set aside questionable transfers made by corporate insiders, including
huge payouts, loans, and bonuses that exceed a reasonable compensation
amount. It also would have given employees of bankrupt companies relief
in bankruptcy court by giving them a place in line as a creditor. This
amendment also was defeated by a vote of 40-54.

I am pleased that the Senate did adopt, by a vote of 99-0, an amendment I
offered to protect disabled veterans who incurred debts while at war.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have worked to protect
consumers and promote a balanced approach to bankruptcy reform that will
benefit all Americans. I will continue to pursue those goals.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

Vince,
If you really wanted to run, you shouldn't be afraid of the wolves. We need people who aren't afraid. We need honest caring people who don't want to be feted every night by lobbyists. Sure, people attack you but sticks and stones can't harm you. You woul have to try to keep some things in line. You have to control yourself (Bill Clinton's failure to do so has done us harm). I think that we need more real people in Congress. Otherwise, the scum will create the world that we inherit. Sacrificing privacy for the common good would be worth it.

I was just asking a question. I completely respect helping someone who is facing credit issues due to deterioration of health. However, I was referring to the above writer's opinion discussing people who shouldn't have credit cards in the first place, and then you tell me I can't ask a question or express my opinion. Despite whatever political alliance I may have, why would you so strongly uphold the declaration of free speech, but not even allow me to ask a question that suggests a dissenting opinion? Is free speech only allowed if it's in complete 100% compliance with your views? Again, only asking a question, not even offering a dissenting opinion.