Bankrupt

E.J. Dionne calls attention to the grave injustice of the bankruptcy bill soon to come up in the Senate. The bill proposes sweeping changes in bankruptcy law, namely to make more difficult the whole process. It has been long sought by the credit card industry.

In his opinion piece today, Dionne nails what is fundamentally wrong about the bill:

Listen to Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor and one of the most learned and powerful critics of the bill. Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early February, Warren argued that the proposal "assumes that everyone is in bankruptcy for the same reason -- too much unnecessary spending."

What does that mean in practice? "A family driven to bankruptcy by the increased costs of caring for an elderly parent with Alzheimer's disease is treated the same as someone who maxed out his credit cards at a casino," Warren said. "A person who had a heart attack is treated the same as someone who had a spending spree at the shopping mall. A mother who works two jobs and who cannot manage the prescription drugs needed for a child with diabetes is treated the same as someone who charged a bunch of credit cards with only a vague intent to repay."

Warren and her colleagues surveyed Americans in bankruptcy courts and found that half said illness or medical bills drove them to bankruptcy. The "bigger surprise," as Warren has said, is that three-quarters of the medically bankrupt had health insurance. Which is to say that even those who have insurance are often not sufficiently covered to protect them from financial disaster.

On a side note, Dionne's final paragraph need to be procaimed from the rooftops. He steps away fro mthe details and seemingly addresses a deep nag. It is vastly important and should be repeated often:

There is a great misunderstanding that the key fight in our politics is between friends and foes of capitalism. In fact, the battle is among supporters of capitalism who disagree over what rules should govern the market. Should the rules favor the wealthy and the connected, or should they give some protection to those who fall into distress and would like nothing more than a chance to rejoin the ownership society? If Democrats sell out on the bankruptcy bill, they will, alas, show which side they're on.

press

I remain undecided about this.
We might talk about this at length later, but for now: I did not leave my studies of media law with a passion to continue our broad reading of the freedom of press clause to allow the various excuses from law already enjoyed by the press. Rather, I'm inclined to think we can scale back the current press exploitations of their privacy invasions and subpoena avoidances while still acheiving a news core that seeks to inofrm. But to the extent they inform us of Spears' latest as opposed to the next Watergate, what's the use?

A thought: the current press clause is read by the Court much like the old, broad free exercise clause. Why don't we narrow down the press clause just as Smith narrowed Exercise; to wit, the laws of general applicability must also e obeyed by press, unless we can show that the law is aimed to interfere with their work.

rich

Frank Rich is right, our media is on the wrong track, and we (and democratic thought) are the worse for it.

valentines 2

Happy Valentines, part II
Since 1559.

From the English Church's Book of Common Prayer:

Dearely Beloved frendes, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of his congregacion, to joyne together this man and this woman in holy matrimony, which is an honorable state, instytuted of God in Paradise, in the time of manes innocencie, signiflyng unto us the mistical union that is betwixt Christ and his Churche: ...
...and therfore is not to be enterprised, nor taken in hande unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly, to satisfye mennes carnall lustes and appetytes, lyke brute beastes that have no understandyng ; but reverently, discretely, advisedly, soberly, and in the feare of God, duely consideryng the causes for the which matrimony was ordeined. One was the procreation of children, to be brought up in the feare and nurtoure of the Lorde, and praise of God. Secondly, it was ordeined for a remedy agaynste sinne and to avoide fornication, that suche persones as have not the gifte of continencie might mary, and kepe themselves undefiled membres of Christes body. Thirdly, for the mutual societie, helpe, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, bothe in prosperity and adversitye, into the whiche holy state these two persones present, come nowe to be joyned. Therefore if any man can shewe any just cause, why thei may not lawfully be joyned together let hym now speake, or els hereafter for ever holde his peace.

Dear history professor readers, I can't research this myself right now, so I call on you: Back in the day, we had ecclesiastic court and the state's court. To what extent was marriage intertwined with the civic laws? taxes?

As I jot that down, I wonder if the mind-set of the 16th century would have regarded different spheres in that respect. They're both authoritative- church and state. The popular conception, now, is a difference in private and public spheres (church and state). Obviously, that distinction breaks down, because the Church was quite public in its authority.

That takes us elsewhere- another day.

valentines

Happy Valentine's Day.
Since 498 CE.
From Stephanie Coontz, in today's Times:

Before he was either a saint or a holiday, Valentine was a Christian priest martyred in the third century. Some legends said he was executed for defying an edict against conducting marriages for Roman soldiers, whom the emperor believed would fight better without family ties. In one account, Valentine fell in love with his jailor's daughter and wrote her a poignant goodbye letter signed "from your Valentine."

But when the church declared Feb. 14 St. Valentine's feast day in 498 A.D., it was not trying to celebrate romance. Rather, the Church wanted to replace the existing holiday, a festival honoring Juno, the Roman goddess of love and marriage. Church fathers probably hoped as well that a Valentine holiday would undercut the Roman fertility festival of Lupercalia, which began each Feb. 15. According to Roman custom, on Feb. 14 - the night before Lupercalia - boys would draw names from a jar to find which girls would be their sexual partner for the rest of the year.

The church roundly condemned such pagan practices, but not because it idealized love-based courtship.
...

They had a point. High expectations of married love can lead to huge disappointments, and free choice means that an individual can refuse to settle for a marriage where love is absent. Thus modern marriage almost inevitably brings higher divorce rates. Prince Charles and Diana Spencer, for instance, could have had a very stable marriage if she had not refused to live with the traditional disconnect between love and marriage - a disconnect that both Charles and his new fiancée, Camilla Parker Bowles, were prepared to accept 20 years ago (though presumably not today).

But today's high expectations are a monumental improvement over the past, when violence, adultery and day-to-day misery were considered normal in a marriage. So when couples look soulfully into each other's eyes tonight over a romantic Valentine's dinner, they might take a moment to remember that despite the risk of divorce today, never before in history have people have had so many opportunities to make marriage fulfilling.

acc

Hadn't seen it before. There's a blog dedicated to the most important conference in college basketball.

three legs

Kicking that stool right out from under me.

Is it any suprise that privateers would want to misquote the creator of Social Security in order to tease the unwitting into thinking the system is supposed to evolve into the private sphere?

No, it isn't. So I am less shocked than sad to see this example of GOPropaganda, wherein Fox's Brit Hume evokes FDR as such:

Senate Democrats gathered at the Franklin Roosevelt Memorial today to invoke the image of FDR in calling on President Bush to remove private accounts from his Social Security proposal. But it turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it.

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, quote, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, quote, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

When in fact FDR said this:

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.

Hume's patent cherry picking would be less disturbing if it weren't so similar to our leaders' similar deliberate misleads.

Here, FDR is approaching what we call the three-legged stool for retirement financial security. Ideally, we have our savings, private 401k like accounts, and social security (the last leg acting as a base net for those unfortunates that lack the prior two). In the beginning of social security, the plan was not going to cover people already old, so the government helped provide pensions unrelated to social security (which would build up funds through tax). After a few years, eg- once social security gained feet, the temporary fix would not be needed. Mr. Hume conveniently makes it look like FDR said social security would not be needed. Jerk.


Reminds me of Bush's equating federal workers' 401k-like plans to social security. Somehow, he forgot to detail that the 401k-like savings are in addition to social security--just as the Democrats propose. Three legs.

It is no more complex to describe Bush's scheme as t osay he want to saw off one leg.

summit

Here's hoping the summit between Sharon and Abbas is the good news it appears to be.
If nothing else, it appears that the passing of Arafat and rise of Abbas is the catalyst we thought it may be.

eagles

Note from a Sore Loser:
You would think members of a team used to winning superbowls would think of a better celebration than mimicing Terrell Owens' (suprisingly team-oriented) wing flap.

GAO

Our Government's Accounting Office released a report today with some tough, but inspiring language. Talking about civic duty...

Simply put, our nation's fiscal policy is on an unsustainable course. As
long-term budget simulations by GAO, the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO), and others show, over the long term we face a large and growing
structural deficit due primarily to known demographic trends and rising
health care costs. Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will
gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of
living, and ultimately our national security. Our current path also will
increasingly constrain our ability to address emerging and unexpected
budgetary needs.
Regardless of the assumptions used, all simulations indicate that the
problem is too big to be solved by economic growth alone or by making
modest changes to existing spending and tax policies. Nothing less than a
fundamental reexamination of all major existing spending and tax policies
and of priorities is needed. This reexamination should also involve a
national discussion about what Americans want from their government and
how much they are willing to pay for those things. This discussion will not
be easy, but it must take place.

Read it here.