Share

Bank Lobby on Course to Gut Bankruptcy Bill

by: Ryan Grim  |  The Huffington Post

photo
"Cram-down" provisions are on the chopping block in the Senate. (Photo: AP)

    The bankruptcy reform bill that passed the House weeks ago amid much fanfare is on course to be gutted by the Senate Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told the Huffington Post Wednesday that he wasn't sure the bill had enough votes to overcome a GOP filibuster and that its key provision -- cramdown -- may have to come out.

    "We're going to find out. I don't know," he said when asked if the bill had enough votes to pass.

    Democrats Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) have indicated to the Huffington Post that they oppose the bill's central measure -- giving bankruptcy judges the power to reduce, or cramdown, a homeowner's mortgage payment under bankruptcy proceedings.

    That provision is on the chopping block.

    "The bill that the House sent us is a very, very good bill, a very good bill," said Reid. "It would be a terrific bill if we had cramdown in it and it'll still be a good bill if that's not in it."

    Cramdown, however, is the guts of the bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told the Huffington Post.

    "Well, it wouldn't be a bankruptcy reform bill without cramdown in it," she said.

    The two versions of the bill would need to be reconciled in a conference committee. "I strongly support [cramdown], but we'll see what happens on the Senate floor," said Pelosi.

    On Tuesday night, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the lead proponent of the cramdown measure, laid out the latest compromise version, which includes strict conditions governing which mortgages would be eligible. Only mortgages entered into before Jan. 1, 2009 would be open to judges to reduce. A mortgage would need to be delinquent for 60 days. A borrower would need to notify the bank of economic difficulty 45 days before filing for bankruptcy. Only mortgages under $729,000 would be eligible.

    Cramdown faces fierce opposition from Wall Street. "The very same banks that are saying these people have to pay a price for bad decisions, many of these banks were in line to receive millions if not billions of federal dollars because of the same mistakes they made, when they made a business mistake," said Durbin.

    ---------

    Ryan Grim is the author of the forthcoming book "This Is Your Country On Drugs: The Secret History of Getting High in America."

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The Senate should take it to

The Senate should take it to vote even with out enough votes to deal with a GOP filibuster. Then everyone could see just who is stomping on the little guys, and vote them out next election.

Aren't we a little fed up

Aren't we a little fed up with this favortitism towards the fools, crooks and greedy clowns who got us into this mess? Why would Senators, Democratic Senators oppose it except as a lobbyist influenced decision? When, if ever, will this stop?

We should ALL be "fed up'

We should ALL be "fed up' but it won't stop while we are in the clutches of the money handlers.

Just one more example of why

Just one more example of why we need to vote against all the influence-peddlers in our Congress. Lobbyists can't get anywhere if nobody takes their money. Vote the bastards out of office and let's get some honest representation in our House and Senate. I'm a registered, liberal Democrat and term limits make progressive sense to me. I believe George Washington had the right idea when he refused a third term. If Congress won't change on its own, then we as voters need to change it. What's your vote worth?

Just one more example of why

Just one more example of why we need to vote against all the influence-peddlers in our Congress. Lobbyists can't get anywhere if nobody takes their money. Vote the bastards out of office and let's get some honest representation in our House and Senate. I'm a registered, liberal Democrat and term limits make progressive sense to me. I believe George Washington had the right idea when he refused a third term. If Congress won't change on its own, then we as voters need to change it. What's your vote worth?

The banksters rule. Don't

The banksters rule. Don't you understand this? If congress can't audit the fed, what does that tell you? It tells you that politicians are in the pockets of the lobbyists, who, in turn, are in the pockets of the bankers and the Fed is the king of the lot. Any questions?

Socialism for the wealthy

Socialism for the wealthy and free market for everyone else. It's absolutely inconceivable that the root of the problem was greed on the part of the financiers, they brought this country to the brink of financial collapse, and they get taxpayer dollars to bail them out. Yet, the homeowners, many who were scammed have to pay double for these crimes with their hard earned tax dollars bailing out these crooks, or by losing their homes, or paying exhorbitant rates to keep the homes. Once again, we see who our representatives represent.