Obama puts bankruptcy-law reform on the table

By any reasonable measure, the 2005 bankruptcy “reform” law passed in 2005 was one of the worst pieces of domestic legislation of Bush’s presidency.

Campaigning in Georgia today, Barack Obama, to his enormous credit, put fixing the law back on the table.

For all the talk about Obama reversing course and scurrying to the middle, he keeps making high-profile moves that undermine the narrative. Last week, Obama announced that he opposes California’s conservative ballot measure on gay marriage. This week, he’s targeting an awful bankruptcy bill.

Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed changing bankruptcy laws to fast-track the process for military families, help seniors keep their homes, and protect people recovering from natural disasters.

The Democratic presidential hopeful also accused Republican rival John McCain of repeatedly siding with the banking industry, saying, “When it comes to strengthening the safety net for hardworking families, he’s been part of the problem, not part of the solution.”

Both candidates are in the midst of weeklong efforts devoted to the economy, the top concern of voters four months before the election as gas prices and job layoffs rise while the credit crisis and housing crunch continue. Each senator is trying to portray himself as most in tune with the needs of a middle class that’s smarting from tenuous economic times — and the other as out of touch.

That’s true, but one of them is right.

“Like the president he hopes to succeed, Sen. McCain does not believe the government has a real role to play in protecting Americans from unscrupulous lending practices,” Obama said. “He would continue to allow the banks and credit card companies to tilt the playing field in their favor, at the expense of hardworking Americans.”

Obama’s campaign pointed to a series of Senate votes in 2005 to accuse McCain of “siding with banking industry lobbyists” while opposing measures that the Democrat’s campaign said would have helped families struggling to pay medical bills, seniors in bankruptcy fighting to keep their homes, and victims of Hurricane Katrina. Aides noted that McCain, an Arizona senator, voted for a bankruptcy reform bill three years ago that critics say favored big business while Obama opposed it. The measure passed the Republican-led Senate with Democratic support.

The McCain campaign responded that 18 Senate Dems ended up voting for the bill in 2005. That’s true. But guess what — they were wrong, too. The McCain campaign should be able to defend the merit of the legislation, but it can’t, so it’s doing the next thing — arguing that the bill was bipartisan.

That may make it a good bill in BroderLand, but for the rest of us, especially Americans struggling in a weak economy, the partisan breakdown of the roll call is irrelevant. McCain sided with the banks and credit card companies to stack the deck in their favor, screwing over consumers in the process.

The Reuters report added:

Obama said about half of all personal bankruptcies result in part from the burden of high medical expenses.

He said he would change the law so that Americans who can prove their bankruptcies resulted from high medical costs could get some relief from their debts.

Obama would also create a “fast-track” bankruptcy process for people serving in the military and their families who get behind on expenses because of long deployments, repeated moves and predatory lenders.

“If you’re serving our country, you should be protected no matter where you live,” Obama said.

In addition, he would make it easier for people over 62 to keep their homes if they are facing bankruptcy and give some relief to people burdened by bills because of a natural disaster.

More of this, please.

For all the talk about Obama reversing course and scurrying to the middle, he keeps making high-profile moves that undermine the narrative.

And that’s great, and not to credit the netroots with more power than it has, but the heavy pushback on his FISA position seems to have had an impact. His lengthy statement addressing this proves that he’s paying attention to the people who are really paying attention. Good.

  • By any reasonable measure, the 2005 bankruptcy “reform” law passed in 2005 was one of the worst pieces of domestic legislation of Bush’s presidency.

    And my POS ‘Democratic’ Representative voted for it, CAFTA, and now this awful FISA bill. I don’t think she ever actually reads or comprehends any of the legislation.

    Bean will never get my vote again.

    I’d rather have an actual Republican in that seat so an actual Democrat could run against them. She may be more, but she’s not better.

  • For all the talk about Obama reversing course and scurrying to the middle,

    That talk is pretty much wrong. Obama’s always been pretty much “in the middle” – during the primary he was just very good at phrasing centrist ideas in ways that resonated with parts of the Dem “base”. There’s no way that bankrupcy reform is anything but “in the middle” – only in Broderland would fixing a broken system, designed at the behest of a monied interest group, be some kind of litmus test for “liberalism”.

    His only real major flip-flop is the FISA capitulation. And it’s only a flip-flop because he was dragged kicking and screaming to the correct position by the outrage of the folks who he needed to cast primary ballots for him and by the shaming that Chris Dodd laid on the rest of the Dem primary slate. THAT was the flip-flop. And it’s not even a “left-right” flip-flop but more of a “bi-partisan middle-finger to the Constitution that everyone can enjoy flip-flop”. Wheee.

  • For all the talk about how Obama should not be classified as the “most liberal” member of the Senate, even the lefties are drinking that Kool-Aid. Of course, that’s likely because many of us would LIKE him to be a full-on far left ideologue, since that’s how he will match with OUR worldview. I submit that a left-wing ideologue is what we need the LEAST. We, the people of the United States, cannot wait until the right-wing ideologue occupying the White House departs in shame. Why would we want an exact counterpart to replace him? That’s not “change”, that’s reactionary crap.

    We need a non-ideologue, someone who will use whatever ideas make sense to do their best to fix what’s broken AND (lest we forget) build something from scratch, too. Someone who makes decisions not based on ideology, but rather based on the merits of the competing proposals. Obama is shaping up to be that kind of leader, and I think that’s good. He may not be in full agreement with all 300+ million of his fellow U.S. citizens, but hey, that’s the whole point of “res publica” isn’t it?

    So let’s stop gasping in wonder every time he does something we like. He’s a good politician (as good as they get) and he’s the best we’ve got right now. I’m not advocating unquestioning support, mind you. Just that we call things by their own names.

  • The Reuters report added:

    The J-Lie sycophants will now start screaming that “the unpatriotic foreign press” is why America is so messed up! We need patriotic heroes like Murdoch and Scaife!!!

  • The McCain campaign should be able to defend the merit of the legislation, but it can’t, so it’s doing the next thing — arguing that the bill was bipartisan.

    So, last week, the RNC attacks Obama for not “pushing his own party” on energy, but this week McSame says that he should have followed “just the party line” on bankruptcy?

    To maverick or not to maverick, that is the question.

  • Is this just another distraction, that really is limited in it’s scope? When other problems dwarf this situation in comparison?

    Trying to placate both sides of the conflagration on immigration, isn’t going to work? Senator McCain has fumbled over this growing issue, that is now out-of-control. Neither Obama or McCain are stewards of stopping overpopulation, because after a blanket AMNESTY which both have proposed. Millions more will appear on our doorstep, expecting more of the same. Diversity Alliance for Sustainable America http://www.earthtimes.org/ have stated in it’s article that if the U.S. grants amnesty and gives citizenship to 12 to 30 million illegal migrants, as Senators Obama and McCain propose.All those naturalized citizens could possibly add 120 million U.S. and foreign-born relatives to the U.S., in the next 20 years whom all would CONSUME MAJOR ENERGY.

    We all know the consequences of illegal immigration, that has already taken a serious toll on jobs and the quality of life in America. Not enforcing our laws has become an unparalleled financial benefit for predatory businesses, but a growing chaos on the streets and highways, as America tries to cope with the propagation of congestion and pollution. Do not think Canada is exempt from this monolithic issue, as the free movement of cheap labor is the obnoxious agenda of the free trade, open border globalists.

    Leading Democrats have refused to sponsor the SAVE ACT (H.R.4088) for enforcement only, All American patriots (no matter their country of origin) should join for free http://www.numbersusa.com and learn about the facts and the next AMNESTY conflict.

  • Brittanicus wonders if talking about the possibility that many people are getting hit with financial problems isn’t “just another distraction.” Possibly, but then Brit goes into immigration. Excuse me, but that is sort of like McCain harping on Obama flip-flopping. If you want something as a distraction to get people all bent out of shape over nothing while they get screwed from the back, there aren’t too many other things that are more meaningless than immigration.

  • I say, let’s have a lot more talk about banking reform. I think it’s a perfectly legitimate way to get people talking again about the Keating Five…one of whom is running for President, even if you’d never know it from MSM coverage…

  • Obama said about half of all personal bankruptcies result in part from the burden of high medical expenses.

    He said he would change the law so that Americans who can prove their bankruptcies resulted from high medical costs could get some relief from their debts.

    50% “in part from” medical expenses.

    “resulted from” high medical costs.

    That can be a huge difference.

    So if I’m upside down on my mortgage and car and have maxed out my credit card bills I should wing myself with a deer rifle?

    Obama and those that wish to let debtors off the hook need to plan VERY carefully.
    The bankruptcy bill is a good thing executed sloppily. It could easily be made just as bad in the other direction.

  • Comments are closed.