Forgive Us Our Debts
My church recently made a quiet switch from saying the version of the Lord’s Prayer with “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors” to the version that says “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” (I really don’t know the reason behind the change, but it’s turned me into someone who can’t help but say “forgive us our debt...passes.")
I miss the old version, and it’s those words that keep running through my head as I read more and more about the bankruptcy bill that the Senate is scheduled to vote on early this week.
On the face of it, the bill sounds appropriate enough. It’s “The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005” or S. 256. The more I read about it, the more it’s clear that the authors of this bill and the party that is supporting it are much less interested in preventing abuse and protecting consumers than in helping the credit card industry maximize its ability to make a buck.
One of the major provisions of the bill is to substantially lower the income threshold under which someone is allowed to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, instead of the more stringent Chapter 13. Apparently, the credit card industry believes that Chapter 7 bankruptcy, as currently structured, makes it easy for people to game the system and avoid paying massive debts owed. And certainly, as with any system, some people will seek to figure out how to abuse the system for their advantage.
But a vast percentage of the people filing for bankruptcy are not “deadbeats” or “predatory borrowers.” They are people up and down the economic ladder who have been hit by something unexpected (illness, job loss, death in the family, divorce, etc.), didn’t have enough financial reserve to weather the storm, and haven’t been able to pull themselves out from under a continually compounding pile of debt. They turn to bankruptcy not because it’s easy and painless, but because they are willing to submit themselves to a humiliating process in order to get a little breathing room in their attempt to get back on their feet.
Maybe I’ll write about this more in the next few days, but you should really read a series of articles written by Peter Gosselin and published last fall in the Los Angeles Times. The thrust of the series is that Americans face increasing risk and income volatility, and that any number of financial shocks can send households into an unrelenting cycle of debt. Gosselin has also penned a follow-up article in recent days focusing even more on the issue of bankruptcy.
If it is true that credit card companies are being hurt by rampant fraud or “predatory borrowers,” then sensible bankruptcy reform would tighten loopholes and make the laws tougher and better enforced in a way that would still allow honest, desperate filers to benefit fully from the protections that the current bankruptcy process offers. But as I watch the debate unfold in the Senate, it is becoming clear to me that the Republican Senators (and a handful of their Democratic colleagues whose states benefit immensely from the credit card industry) are not interested in sensible reform.
How can I tell? In the last few days, the Republicans have unanimously (with an occasional defection) rejected several amendments that would have modified the bill to:
- Require credit card companies to inform their customers clearly as to their interest rate and how long it will take to pay off their current balance by making the minimum monthly payments;
- Limit maximum chargeable interest rates to 30%;
- Help people facing bankruptcy as the result of major medical expenses;
- Help people who were the victim of predatory lending practices;
- Protect military servicemembers and veterans from means testing, usurious interest rates and provide a property exemption for those serving in the military.
Now, to be fair… I know that sometimes congresspeople will introduce “poison pill” amendments to try to sink a bill that looks like it may otherwise pass. So it’s possible that Sen. Durbin’s amendment to protect military personnel whose small business goes under because they’re serving overseas may have also contained a provision to enshrine the “Hokey Pokey” as our new national anthem or declared the second Thursday of every month Free Abortion Day.
But barring such legislative hijinks, it seems to me that a party interested in serious, sensible reform that was truly focused on preventing abuse and protecting consumers wouldn’t summarily reject any of these amendments.
A sensible party also wouldn’t remove a provision preventing companies like Enron from “venue shopping” for a lenient state or judge, particularly after that same party used that same argument in reverse only weeks ago to limit class-action lawsuits. A party serious about eliminating fraud might consider closing a loophole allowing wealthy bankruptcy filers to protect assets in trusts and massive homesteads.
But it seems the Republican Senators are neither sensible nor serious about this kind of bankruptcy reform.
Many of these Senators are outspokenly Christian. When they say the Lord’s Prayer in church, I wonder which version they say. And if they pray — as I am so used to praying — “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors,” I wonder if they really know what they’re asking.
Maybe you should contact your Senator and find out.