Thanks to Nathan, following is the text of Senator Reid's statement about his "Yea" vote on the bankruptcy bill:
People who have the ability to repay their debts should be required to do so. I support this bill because it puts that principle into law and prevents the abuse of bankruptcy laws.The bill is flawed in several ways. It does not do enough to protect people who declared bankruptcy due to medical emergencies or military service. It does not do enough to protect the employees of corporations like Enron and Worldcom that declare bankruptcy. And it allows people who engage in unlawful projects to avoid accountability. Democrats offered amendments to address each of these flaws, but they were rejected by the Republican majority. I hope the Congress returns to these important issues in the future.
But even with these flaws, the bill is an improvement over current law and merits my support.
How so??
Note that this had to be transcribed by someone who called in and asked for the statement, as Reid's office is refusing to release it through normal public channels or post it on their website.
What an odd statement. List a bunch of specific flaws, speak ambiguously about unidentified benefits, and then defend the bill? Refer to the recent pdf from bankruptcy-law professors, or the awesome video of Dave Ramsey to gather up counterpoints.
Posted by tunesmith at March 14, 2005 04:16 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://politology.us/mt/zxcv.cgi/24
Carl, you're very articulate so it makes my post look a bit terse...but I think Senator Reid's comments were crap.
It's a bad bill and all of our amendments to actually protect people were shut down but I voted for it.
I called my Senator (Nelson from Florida) and told the very nice receptionist that I was very disappointed with the Senator's Yea vote and that he came down on the wrong side of a very important issue.
UGH!
Posted by: Lynne at March 14, 2005 06:55 PM
When Reid appeared on the radar after Daschle's defeat I thought that a wily, sly old mountain lion was coming down out of the Nevada mountains to provide some focus and direction and disipline to the ever wavering and uncertain Democrats. His statement regarding the bankruptcy bill is just about as good an example of utterly meaningless doublespeak as any I've heard from the bushies. He says he's a badass when it comes to rules in the senate. He indicates that he's the new backbone in the minority party. I want to give the guy time to marshall his forces and create a foundation to fight from but the bankruptcy bill is very significant legislation and I didn't sense much of a fight at all. Living to fight another day may be pointless. Is the wily mountain lion a pussycat?
Posted by: Jay at March 14, 2005 08:43 PM
Don't forget that Nevada has a significant Credit Card industry.
I know my payment for my Citibank card went to Nevada, and other companies did the same to take advantage of lax usury laws.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20020320a.asp
Posted by: Boadicea at March 15, 2005 09:54 AM
I would like to try to organize a cross-partisan group from Blogginois to lean on Bean to withdraw from the Hastert letter and Biggert to withdraw from co-sponsoring the bill.
I would like to emphasize the lack of balance in the legislation.
1. The legislation decreases the incentive to screen if an individual is a good credit risk. It encourages irresponsible behavior by credit card companies while penalizing individuals for irresponsible behavior.
2. The legislation should include provisions about identity theft. In cases where identity theft was made possible by credit card companies behaving irresponsibly and the consumer did not allow her/his personal information to be compromised the credit card company is responsible for fixing the problem. If the credit card company does not fix the problem in a timely manner, the credit card company is responsible for paying the consumer at the market rate for fixing the problems plus legal fees.
Do you have a sample sign-on letter covering these issues?
Posted by: Carl Nyberg at March 14, 2005 05:22 PM