The Bankruptcy Bill and Arlen Specter

Why are the bankruptcy laws available to the rich but not to every-man? What do Democrats gain when they embrace Arlen Specter?

Some may wonder how they are interrelated, but they are.

We have witnessed many large and small corporations become overwhelmed with debt. They file for what is known as Chapter 11 bankruptcy under which their debtors are encouraged, and many are required to forgive at least part of the debts and the corporation emerges from the process with a new beginning. We saw that happen with Continental Airlines, and we now see the process unfolding with Chrysler and quite possibly soon with GM.

It used to be available to the average Joe or Jane (maybe even to Joe the Plumber) but it was taken away in March of 2005. The matter is summarized by the BSC Alliance.com Credit and Debt solutions alliance, as follows: "After an eight year long battle funded by the banking and credit card industries, who contributed more than $40 million to federal election campaigns during this period, The United States Bankruptcy Code has finally been amended. The new bill was approved by the Senate in March 2005 and by the House on April 14, 2005. The changes to the Bankruptcy Code became official law on October 17, 2005." 

Today adequate publicity has been given to the predatory practices of the credit card industry. They drive people into bankruptcy by taking a relatively small debt, and by encouraging the debtor to pay the smallest conceivable amount each month, create a situation where the principal instead of shrinking gets bigger over time, and then by increasing the interest rate at will and adding exorbitant fees if a monthly payment is missed, they create a situation where the debtor often ends up in debt to a multiple of the debt incurred. G-d forbid the debtor should get sick resulting in his loss of job, health insurance and now mounting debts he finds the door to debt relief through the bankruptcy courts no longer available.

That 2005 bill passed the senate by a vote of 74 to 25. Not a single Republican voted against it. They are not always the party of NO. Not when it comes to protecting the interests of the banking industry. Where was Arlen Specter? He voted with his brethren. According to "On the Issues", he voted with the Republican Party 67% of 322 votes. Democrats are not so united. Fourteen, including now VP Biden and now majority leader Reid voted with the Republicans. But at least these Democrats didn't vote 67% of the time with Republicans. The pressure after eight years of lobbying was intense and Bill Clinton signed the bill.

Fast forward to 2009, we have a bankruptcy bill to protect homeowners from foreclosure when their homes are "under water" pending in the Senate. 

Once again the party of NO was solidly against this. They don't believe in giving anyone, but the rich, a break. Where was Arlen Specter? You guessed it, he was now officially a Democrat, but who did he vote with? He voted with his former brethren. We know where his heart lies. To be sure, once again 12 Democrats voted against every-man but that is the more reason why we don't need another like Specter.

What happened to Arlen Specter? In today's Republican Party 67% isn't good enough. It's like the Communist party of old. They expect 100%. Specter was about to lose the Republican Party primary in Pennsylvania to a true blue acolyte of Right wing politics from the Club for Growth. This Republican nominee would have had no chance to win and a real Democrat would have been elected; one who could have been counted on to support the Obama agenda. But instead the Trojan horse in the form of Specter has entered the gates. The Democratic party is a big tent. There is no problem with having a Democrat who only votes 67% of the time with his party. But do the Democrats need someone who votes 33% of the time with them, and 67% with Republicans? What have Democrats gained? If this were a situation of needing one vote to organize the Senate, it might have been understandable. But that is not the case, and Specter cannot be counted on to be the 60th vote to prevent a filibuster. He has already announced on "Meet the Press" last Sunday that he will oppose the Presidents Health Reform initiative.

I say Republicans don't want him and Democrats shouldn't either. It is to be hoped that Specter will be challenged in the Democratic primary and will be sent into the retirement he so richly deserves.

In referring to a "true blue acolyte of Right wing politics" above I do not, as Mr. Chiu suggests in his Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite, which is quoted below, mean to imply Fascist or Nazi. I simply cannot find any other suitable word for this movement. The media often calls them "conservative" but they are anything but conservative. They do not want to conserve, but to radically change things to the way the were in the days of President Harding, to undo the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" and even many reforms enacted under Republicans, Teddy Roosevelt and even Richard Nixon. That is not conservative. Some would have called them Reactionaries, but I don't know what that tells us. Right Wing is appropriate, and the bellyaching from people who have called progressives Communists, Fascists, Socialists, Muslim and friend of terrorists, in the case of Obama, and even lesbian, in the case of Clinton, (not that either Muslim or lesbian should be a term of opprobrium) have no standing to complain about a term that does no more than honestly describe their philosophy. As for the suggestion that the debate is just about which stimulus is better, that makes Republican opposition seem even worse, for that would hardly justify their unanimously trying to block a plan that they consider only not as good as theirs.

The letter from Mr. Chiu is quoted below:

"I have read many of Emil Scheller's letters. I wonder if his use of "Right Wing" isn't just for some descriptive purpose, but also code language for Nazi or Fascist. In liberal New York, this term is hardly a compliment. 

"If he took a friendlier tone, I'm sure he could convert some people to his positions. In fact, many people, especially if they don't double check his "facts" because his arguments can be persuasive. But instead he labels people who don't agree with him as "minions of the Republican party" or uses other epithets synonymous with "idiot". 

"In his letter published in the April 24, 2009 issue, he mentions his previous statement that Republicans claim the New Deal was "totally ineffective". I've never heard any Republican say that. My old high school history teacher, a Democrat, said the New Deal created jobs but did not itself end the Depression. It was WWII that did. That's the consensus of the history books. And, again, no one ever said "totally ineffective". Any stimulus would create economic activity. If Democrats spent $1 and get 50 cents of stimulus, the Republicans may want 60 or 70 cents of stimulus from that dollar. And they may claim that their plan is better. That's what the debate is about."