FREEDOMPOST, a lawyer's commentary

GRASSLEY SCREWED YOU IN 2005 AND HE IS SCREWING YOU IN 2009.

Opening Statement of Sen. Chuck Grassley at the Bankruptcy Reform Hearing

 

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased the bankruptcy bill is on the Judiciary Committee agenda and that we are scheduled to mark up this bill next week. The bipartisan legislation I just introduced as S. 256 is nearly identical to the 107th Congress H.R. 333 Conference Report signed by Senator Leahy, but voted down in the other body. The only difference is that I've removed the poison pill abortion amendment. All of the other compromises made at the request of our Democratic colleagues have been preserved intact in this bill.

As many of you know, we've been working on the issue of bankruptcy reform for a number of years now-since the mid 1990's. When I started working on this issue, it was considered a scandal that bankruptcies might reach 1.4 million. Guess what? In 2004, there were 1.6 million. Congress has wasted time and we still have a bankruptcy crisis on our hands.

By way of background, both Houses demonstrated overwhelming margins in favor of this bipartisan bill in 2000, but President Clinton pocket-vetoed the legislation and we simply ran out of time in the session to override the veto. In the 107th Congress, I re-introduced the bankruptcy bill and it passed the Senate overwhelmingly, with numerous changes to satisfy Democrats. We then went to conference with the House, and further concessions were made. The conference committee report language was the result of a long process of bipartisan negotiations that culminated in agreement on over four hundred pages of legislative text. Ultimately, we had a signed conference report supported by our Ranking Member.

Given that the language we are considering is the same as the 107th Congress conference report signed off on by our Democratic friends - minus the poison pill - I'm hopeful that we can all stand by the compromises we reached in good faith. We all cooperated and compromised on this legislation. It provides new consumer protections, helps children in need of child support, and makes other necessary reforms to a system that is open to abuse. There is no need to re-open this bill.

As we hear from witnesses today, I recall the broad public support for reforming our bankruptcy system. The vast majority of people believe that individuals who file for bankruptcy should be required to pay back some of their debts if they have the means to do so.

This is precisely what the bankruptcy reform legislation does.

Most people think it should be more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy. Americans have had enough; they are tired of paying for high rollers who game the current system and its loopholes to get out of paying their fair share.

This legislation eliminates some of the opportunities for abuse that exist under the current system. Our current system allows wealthy people to continue to abuse the system at the expense of everyone else. People with good incomes can run up massive debts and then use bankruptcy to get out of honoring them.

All of us end up paying for the unscrupulous who abuse the system. In fact, it has been estimated that every American family pays as much as $550 a year in a hidden tax as a result of the actions from these abuses. My bankruptcy reform legislation will help eliminate this hidden tax by implementing a means test to make wealthy people who can repay their debts actually honor them. I suppose we can call this a tax cut for the responsible people in America.

Bankruptcy abuse hurts our nation's small businesses. We will hear today about how small businesses have been hurt by losses due to bankruptcy. When businesses absorb these losses, they have to make up for the loss somehow through higher prices, or by laying off employees or going out of business.

The bankruptcy crisis is a jobs crisis. Making American's businesses stronger helps all of us - especially those in need of a job.

Make no mistake, misrepresentations about this legislation have been running rampant by those who oppose any meaningful bankruptcy reform. I've been in politics a long time, and I know that political criticism is never inhibited by ignorance. For instance, the statistical analysis in the U.S. Trustee's office examined over 5000 bankruptcy cases and found that under one-half listed medical debts of any sort. And those filers who did list medical debts, on average, listed under $5000 in medical debts.

So much for the myth that most bankruptcies are driven medical costs. The fact is there are abusers out there. The fact is S. 256 doesn't harm bankrupts with large medical debts.

Let's stop the abuse. Let's return to common sense. Let's enact bankruptcy reform now, before the abuse gets worse.

The reality is that the bankruptcy reform bill does not deny anyone access to bankruptcy relief; it just requires those who have the means to repay debts based on their income to do so. It's that simple. I look forward to quick Committee action and quick floor action on this bill.

COMMENT by Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.

He is one pious son of a bitch. Listen to his BS about pulling the plug on Grandma. The Democrats should pull the plug on Grassley since most bankruptcies are caused by uninsured sick people. He favors bringing guns to Washington before violence erupts.

Give him the "heave ho".

Martin S Friedlander, Esq.

BUSH, DeLAY AND JOHNSON MAKE A TEXAS THREE STEP MARCH TO HELL

Sunday, Jan. 08, 2006
Never a Texas Two-Step
By MATTHEW COOPER, MIKE ALLEN

When legal and ethical questions began spinning around House majority leader Tom DeLay last year, President George W. Bush was publicly supportive. Privately, though, he questioned his fellow Texan's mojo. Bush had scored 10 points higher than DeLay in the Representative's district in 2004, and that was only after Bush had recorded a telephone message to help rally local Republicans. "I can't believe I had to do robocalls for him," the President said bitingly to an Oval Office visitor.

To people who know Bush well, the remark said it all about the longtime chill between the two pols—a distance that is only sure to grow with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea. Both camps describe the two conservative Texan's relationship as professional—an alliance, not a friendship. "DeLay admires Bush's leadership but still thinks of himself as the strongest conservative on the block," a DeLay friend says. "They perceive DeLay as a bull in a china shop. They appreciate him as their protector and retriever." Like many of his colleagues on Capitol Hill, DeLay suffers under what officials call this Administration's general lack of respect for Congress. But he is also in the unique position of being the most prominent modern Republican politician in Texas to rise without the help of White House senior adviser Karl Rove, and the two have never been close. "Karl thinks of him as someone a little bit too opinionated for his own good," says an official close to both men. "And DeLay thinks of Karl as a former mail vendor, not some great guru."

Even before DeLay's announcement that he would abdicate his leadership post, top Bush advisers tell TIME, the President's inner circle always treated DeLay as a necessary burden. He may have had an unmatched grip on the House and Washington lobbyists, but DeLay is not the kind of guy—in background and temperament—the President feels comfortable with. Of the former exterminator, a Republican close to the President's inner circle says, "They have always seen him as beneath them, more blue collar. He's seen as a useful servant, not someone you would want to vacation with."

During Bush's first run for the presidency, that uneasy relationship was already on display. Eager to establish himself as a compassionate conservative, Bush took an oblique shot at DeLay while campaigning in California in 1999, saying of House Republicans, "I don't think they ought to balance their budget on the backs of the poor." DeLay never got a major speaking role at either of Bush's conventions. Still, the White House has had no qualms about using him to advance its agenda, and he has delivered. Without DeLay's deftness as the Hammer, Bush could have lost battles over the energy bill, the establishment of a new Medicare prescription-drug benefit and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

But with the possibility that DeLay could be indicted in the Abramoff case, the Administration fears that the scandal could tarnish all Republicans and even hand the House to the Democrats. "They're worried about the Congress," an adviser said after talking to White House aides, "and they're worried about themselves." Although DeLay's forfeiture of his leadership post makes things easier for the White House, the Abramoff saga will continue to be a problem. Bracing for the worst, Administration officials obtained from the Secret Service a list of all the times Abramoff entered the White House complex, and they scrambled to determine the reason for each visit. Bush aides are also trying to identify all the photos that may exist of the two men together. Abramoff attended Hanukkah and holiday events at the White House, according to an aide who has seen the list. Press secretary Scott McClellan said Abramoff might have attended large gatherings with Bush but added, "The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him."

Republican officials say they are so worried about the Abramoff problem that they are now inclined to stoke a fight with Democrats over the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in an effort to turn the page from the lobbying investigation. Outside groups plan to spend heavily, and the White House will engage in some tit for tat with Democrats as the hearings heat up.

In the end, Bush may be saved by the textured relationship he has long had with well-heeled donors, who raised $300 million for his 2004 campaign, the most expensive one in the nation's history. When the President is traveling, he does not like to have contributors or local officials in his cars, planes or holding rooms unless they are there for a good reason, and he sometimes questions his underlings sharply if someone he considers extraneous is admitted. To make sure that doesn't happen, chief of staff Andrew Card has set up an elaborate vetting system that keeps people from sidling up to the President to suggest or hand anything to him. "They learned a lot from the previous Administration," says a Bush friend intimately familiar with the staff protocols.

Abramoff was one of the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign's "pioneers"—meaning he raised at least $100,000, most of it from others, in increments of $2,000. After Abramoff pleaded guilty, Bush aides announced they had donated to the American Heart Association $6,000 that had been given to the campaign by Abramoff, his wife and one of his Indian-tribe clients. But Republican officials said they plan to keep the remaining $94,000. A Bush aide said it cannot be assumed that the other donors, who were simply recruited by Abramoff, have done anything wrong: "That's not a fair standard."

Fair or not, the Bush Administration must now spend time and capital trying to minimize collateral damage from people they have tried to keep at a safe distance. Fortunately for the White House, the President a year ago began sending mixed signals about DeLay. When conservative leaders held a $250-a-plate tribute dinner in April to show solidarity with him, no one from the White House spoke. But a few weeks earlier, when Bush spoke in Galveston, Texas, he went out of his way to praise DeLay—then unindicted in Texas but under fire—and even gave him a ride to Washington on his helicopter, Marine One, and his jet, Air Force One. In his remarks, Bush saluted DeLay's effectiveness, which no one could dispute, but didn't bother to mention his character. That was exactly the point.

I just cannot understand why Americans vote for Texans. They all blow in the wind. Bush blows with blow. DeLay blows with bull shit. Lyndon Johnson blew it with 59,000 American boys dead in Vietnam. Read Robert McNamara's "Fog of War". McNamara knew as early as 1967 that America could not win the war in Vietnam. He commissioned a "secret report" of America's involvement in Vietnam, including the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson Administrations. Only 10 people knew of this Report. This Report was published in the NY Times as "The Pentagon Papers".

     Risen, the NY Times reporter, who discovered Bush's violation of the 4th Amendment, by Bush authorizing warrantless "searches and seizures" deserves the same Medal of Freedom that Bush bestowed on the three unworthies. Why did the Publisher of the NY Times sit on this story for over 1 year? There has to be a reason other than the one he gave, namely "National Security". How many times (forgive the pun) have we heard that one before? There is something deeper and dirtier lurking in the background. What does Bush have on Sulzberger? I heard a rumour that Sulzberger and Judy Miller, his star White House Reporter, were an item. Is there ANY truth to that rumour. Maureen Dowd, please speak up, now.

Martin S. Friedlander, Esq.

www.freedompost.typepad.com