So earlier this week I sent Senator Feinstein a letter urging her to oppose the heinous bankruptcy reform bill currently being fast-tracked through Congress. I told her about my own parents' need to file bankruptcy and how it saved them from homelessness. I reminded her of all the protections Democrats tried, as a last-ditch measure, to soften the blow to seniors, servicemen and women, and those who support a woman's right to choose, among others.
I wasn't expecting much from DiFi. I wonder why:
Dear Mr. l4m3:
Thank you for writing to me about proposed bankruptcy legislation. I appreciate your letter on this important issue and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
Congress has considered various forms of bankruptcy legislation over the past seven years, and the Senate is again taking up bankruptcy reform in the 109th Congress. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that too many people are abusing the current system. We need bankruptcy reform that is balanced and requires both debtors and creditors to act responsibly.
However, while I do believe reform is needed, and have supported it in the past, it is essential that current legislation being considered contain language not actually included in it.
Specifically, I am a firm supporter of an amendment proposed by Senator Charles Schumer's efforts to amend the bill, so that extremist anti-abortion protesters will not be allowed to shield their assets from court imposed sanctions by simply declaring bankruptcy. This amendment protects both a woman's right to choose and the ongoing effectiveness of the Freedom to Clinic Entrances Act that has led to successful cases against those who employ violence or intimidation to prevent women from obtaining or providing reproductive health services. Also, I believe that any bankruptcy reform needs to sufficiently account for serious medical costs that are so high that it is literally impossible for people to ever pay them off. If a court decides the person is unable to repay the medical debt over his or her lifetime, I feel that the law should recognize that fact.
Recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, sent bankruptcy reform legislation to the entire Senate for debate. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as Congress considers this important topic.
Once again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to write to me on issues of importance to you. If you have any more questions or comments, please feel free to contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202)224-3841.
United States Senator
Notice how she didn't mention exactly and clearly how she was voting? Very cute. And I like how she cited a need for reform -- probably the line she was told to give when she asked her corporate paymasters how she could justify even considering such a feudal-minded bill.
Thank you for your timely and thoughtful reply. I am afraid, however, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of bankruptcy abuse by consumers. The real abuse is by predatory credit companies and lenders who have used their deep pockets to buy an alarming amount of influence in our august Senate.
Our differences of opinion regarding whether there is a problem of bankruptcy abuse notwithstanding, the fact remains that several key amendments -- protections for seniors and servicemen and women, and as you so appropriately pointed out, an amendment that would protect a woman's right to choose -- key amendments that would have lessened the harsh blow to working people this bill represents were struck down by your Republican colleagues.
Furthermore, though I recognize the exigencies of political pragmatism, and while other more politically vulnerable senators may feel inclined to vote for this bill in hopes of securing future funds to fight Republicans, I see no similar vulnerability in your position. It would seem, Madame Senator, that the political benefits of your opposing this bill far outweigh whatever liabilities you might incur.
I would hope that the aforementioned omissions and my admittedly weak appeal to political pragmatism would be enough to secure a vote of "No" from you, Senator.
Do I know how to waste my time or what?