Wu are you? Wu Wu Wu Wu (hummed to The Who)

Is Wu a Democrat? 

After reading this over at Preemtive Karma, I realized there is no way I can support Congressman David Wu in the next election cycle.  For anyone who hasn't been following the story on the Bankruptcy Bill, it's one of the most anti-family, pro-multi-millionaire bills to ever go through Congress.  There are no exemptions for families or individuals who have suffered a severe financial blow due to illness or sudden injury, or no exemptions for those serving in the National Guard and Reserves who've been uprooted from their jobs and businesses to serve in Iraq (better buy more of those yellow magnetic ribbons!)  On the other hand, people like Ken Lay, former CEO of Enron, will be spared.  I'll finally be able to sleep at night. 

Yesterday our favorite economist, Paul Krugman, wrote a moving piece that sums it all up:

A vast majority of personal bankruptcies in the United States are the result of severe misfortune. One recent study found that more than half of bankruptcies are the result of medical emergencies. The rest are overwhelmingly the result either of job loss or of divorce.

And:

To the extent that there is significant abuse of the system, it's concentrated among the wealthy - including corporate executives found guilty of misleading investors - who can exploit loopholes in the law to protect their wealth, no matter how ill-gotten.

Like Krugman says, it's o.k to game the system if you're rich.  Senator Charles Schumer introduced an amendment to the bill that would have closed these loopholes.  The Credit Card Company controlled Senate voted it down, including our own Senator Gordon Smith (I called his office to confirm how he had voted.)

Krugman goes on:

Other amendments were aimed at protecting families and individuals who have clearly been forced into bankruptcy by events, or who would face extreme hardship in repaying debts. Ted Kennedy introduced an exemption for cases of medical bankruptcy. Russ Feingold introduced an amendment protecting the homes of the elderly. Dick Durbin asked for protection for armed services members and veterans. All were rejected.

Let's talk about moral values.  Any elected official in DC who supports this bill should hang their heads low when they go back to their districts to hold their faux town-hall meetings, and that includes Congressman David Wu, who claims to be a Democrat.  He should be ashamed, truly ashamed.  Someone needs to challenge him in the Democratic primaries next year.  Otherwise, many of us in Oregon's 1st District won't be filling in the oval next to his name on the ballot .

Comments

[ron]

Sad.

Should we ban "limited liability" for any and all corporations in the state? That really is the flip side for bankruptcy for the individual.

Imagine if every shareholder of a company was on the hook, personally.

[Sid]

It's not just LLCs. My business is an S-Corp and it also has protections that an individual does not have under the new bill. Same with the regular Corp. S-Corps are for small businesses and the C-Corps are for the big guys, like Intel and Nike.

[andrew morton]

I'm pretty blown away by this. Here's a letter I just sent to his office:

To The Honorable David Wu,

I am writing to express my displeasure about The New Republic's report that you have signed a letter to Speaker Hastert supporting bankruptcy "reform". The Senate's bill does nothing to close the loopholes that let the wealthiest escape their debts, but will cause irreparable harm to those in the middle class. The credit card and banking industries make record profits under the current system of charging higher interest rates and fees to individuals they know may default.

Your constituents aren't asking for this "reform." In fact, those with blogs are puzzled at your decision to support it:

• Moderate Democrats are not Democrats
• Wu Flirts with the Devil
• Wu are you? Wu Wu Wu Wu (hummed to The Who)

One of these constituent-bloggers went so far as to check the list of donors to your 2004 campaign looking for an explanation. They found strong support from labor but no money from the financial service sector. If you're not beholden to their money and why support this bill? What benefit will it bring to those of us in the 1st district?

Continuing to support this bill would be a mistake on par with your vote for Bush's Medicare plan. There is no reason to support this bill. Please consider your constituents, not the credit card companies.

Sincerely,
Andrew Morton

[ron]

I used the term corporation generically.

Perhaps an alternative would be to make Alan Greenspan “stimulate” the economy through direct gifts of dollars to individuals-only rather than indirectly through below-cost loans to financial services companies then lend out for homes, cars. and all those things people buy with credit cards.

The support is from folks who have no respect for, or knowledge of, capitalism. This is simple serfdom or feudalism.

Wu should be waging a war to inflate wages to match that of the past decade of asset hyper-inflafion caused by easy money Alan.

[Sid]

Andrew-
Great letter. All of my neighbors are just totally perplexed by Wu. We all voted for him, but this just isn't right considering all the compassionate amendments that were introduced and voted down.

Ron-
I agree. I think using the term 'corporation' is fine. I was just clarifying the difference between large and small corps. All these corporate executives out there from companies like World Comm and Enron are walking away from their fraud as wealthy men. They should be held accountable, but that's not how the people in power who represent the wealthy operate. Obviously.

[Neo]

How many people are going to cut up their credit cards and send letters explaining their decision to the credit card companies that lobbied for this bill?

Complaining to politicians does nothing---they have (or can claim to have) a Gannondate from the last election cycle, and the next round of Dieboldic farce is sufficiently far into the future and the results suitably preordained to matter to these scumcheneys.

Complaining to the credit card companies, and doing something that has the potential to hurt their business *may* bring about some change.

The only way corporate interests will change their rapacious behavior is if they are made to understand that their rapaciousness loses them money.

Kos's closing paragraph is particularly apropos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/9/105611/5456

but while he talks about politicians, I care more about directing retribution against corporate cheneyers.

In a land of conspicuous-consumption driven fascism, the first, last, and only resort we have is left what we do with our money.

Starve the beast (not the government, but the corporate beast).

[Sid]

Every time we use our credit cards the credit card company gets 2% of the charges. Even if you pay your bill off every month, the companies are still making money.

Neo's right. We need to stop using our cards, especially when going to small businesses, because they are the ones who are having to pay the credit card companies the 2%.

What will it be, sir, cash or check?

On the other hand, if you're buying an airline ticket from United, Northwest or any of the other Republcian airlines, it doesn't matter. But just make sure you pay that card off when you get your bill, unless it's at zero percent intererst... then just pay the minimum until the interest changes. That's what I do. I have money in savings that's earning interest and then have a balance on a 1 yr. zero percent offer. When the year is up, I pay off the bill.

Milk 'em for eveything. Most people use the zero percent and then get stuck with a balance when the interest rate goes up, but you've got to be on it. Mark your calander and know exactly which billing cycle the higher rate goes into effect.

I think there's some book out there about how you can actually make money off the credit card companies.