There oughta be a law.... Act Against Eviction:

Eleven residents of Victoria House in Port Townsend, Washington State, (some in their 90s) are being evicted from the assisted living facility with 90 days notice. Why? Because the Victoria House management company, has decided to stop accepting Medicaid, and there is no law in Washington that makes them have to stick with their agreements with tenants.

Yup. They can just kick 'em out.

The same company kicked out all the Medicaid patients from their Oregon facilities last year. Community action got together, and now Oregon has a law, like the one in Illinois, that prohibits such practices.

The company has the Orwellian name of "Assisted Living Concepts" and their motto is "Life Just Got Easier". No, really. And this is a deliberate business decision on the part of a company that says they are committed to eldercare. Elder Law Answers says, "Over the next five years, company officials say they plan on having their 1,800 remaining Medicaid recipients move out, either voluntarily as they choose to move into other assisted living facilities or nursing homes, or involuntarily through evictions."

Assisted Living Concepts' chief executive officer Laurie Bebo said the company filed for bankruptcy twice in the 1990s and is now moving toward serving only private-pay residents in part because it does not want to undergo a third bankruptcy....Even with Medicaid residents in its facilities, Assisted Living Concepts made about 24 percent more in fourth-quarter earnings in 2007 than it did in 2006.

It may seem a little wonky, but the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is a pretty important government report. As Dean Baker explained a while back, it’s the “only major longitudinal survey that tracks the same families over time…. [It is] especially useful for examining the impact of TANF, Medicaid, and other anti-poverty programs.”

With poverty rising, more families declaring bankruptcy, and political fights over domestic spending on the way, the SIPP is the kind of report that can offer valuable information about the nation’s economic well-being.

Naturally, therefore, the administration wants less information. (via Steve M.)

[P]roposed Bush administration budget cuts to the Survey on Income and Program Participation, known as SIPP, will significantly reduce the amount of information it generates for the next four years.

“We’ll have the statistical equivalent of a Katrina on our hands if the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] refuses to request funding for the SIPP,” Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “We need the SIPP to determine which government programs are working and how to best make use of taxpayer dollars in tight fiscal times.”

How bad is it? Even the Heritage Foundation believes this is a mistake.

Once again, the administration would rather stick its head in the sand than deal with a problem.

The Existentialist Cowboy: BBC debates on Iraq: Speaking truth to power which no longer speaks the truth

Faithful Progressive: On Edwards, cancer, souless Katie Couric, and the will to live and believe

Your Right Hand Thief: Suggests having a presidential debate in New Orleans. A few updates on N.O.L.A and the Gulf Coast...

Words of Power: DoJ Purge Update

Simply Left Behind: We didn't go to war with the army we had, or wished we had. We went to war with the army we could get on the cheap, and some of the survivors are coming home to lost jobs, debt and bankruptcy

The Poor Man Institute: Keyboard Kommando Komics Kontinues…

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: POLITARY...Sorry About Our President..."and i quote blog"...Underneath Politics…

Ignatz

It would boggle your mind to read this article about the fees that big-time corporate bankruptcy lawyers get. More than 800 per hour for some; 240 per hour for people who (at best) have graduated from law school but have not yet passed any bar exam; millions upon millions for some firms, per case. Read it and weep, or yell, or whatever you feel inclined to do.

The birthday man Ezra Klein, who I and Jesse Taylor had the pleasure of spending a little time with last night, wrote this brilliant article today:

John Cole's got more on United's liquidation of its pensions. The story, amazingly, gets worse. While the Bankruptcy Bill was steamrolling through Congress, Dick Durbin offered an amendment that would've "protect[ed] employees and retirees from the common corporate practice of discharging liability for retirement plans, retained earnings and matching funds when businesses file Chapter 11." This is really, if you think about it, quite amazing. ...read on

"When you have seen a system that has gone from a few hundred thousand cases to 1.5 million last year — most of that increase during the fat years of the Clinton administration — you must conclude something is not right," said Edith H. Jones, a federal appellate court judge in Houston who served on a blue-ribbon panel to review bankruptcy law in the 1990s and is widely believed to be seen as on President Bush's short list for a position on the Supreme Court.

"When you have seen a system that has gone from a few hundred thousand cases to 1.5 million last year — most of that increase during the fat years of the Clinton administration — you must conclude something is not right," said Edith H. Jones, a federal appellate court judge in Houston who served on a blue-ribbon panel to review bankruptcy law in the 1990s and is widely believed to be seen as on President Bush's short list for a position on the Supreme Court.

Sadly, No! The lowest bankruptcy year under Bush is higher than the highest one under Clinton.

The Not So Honorable possible Supreme Court Justice doesn't take into account the distribution of the "fat" and who has to file bankruptcy. Interestingly enough, the only years bankruptcy applications have gone down in the cited chart are the two years after the minimum wage was raised.

The data suggests that if Congress really wants to fight bankruptcy then they should raise the minimum wage.

 

 

The (Un)Popularity Contest     democracy arsenal

 

Why aren't Democrats making more of the fact that Bush's popularity recently fell to 45%, an all-time low? 

When I attended the inaugural parade, I had the misfortune of seeing two junior high girls holding up front pages of the So, the bankruptcy problem is Clinton's fault... The possible future Supreme Court Justice makes it sound like there were more bankruptcies under Clinton than under Bush. Sadly, No! The lowest bankruptcy year under Bush is higher than the highest one under Clinton.

The Not So Honorable possible Supreme Court Justice doesn't take into account the distribution of the "fat" and who has to file bankruptcy. Interestingly enough, the only years bankruptcy applications have gone down in the cited chart are the two years after the minimum wage was raised.

The data suggests that if Congress really wants to fight bankruptcy then they should raise the minimum wage.

Atrios points us to another fine example of Democrats once again abetting the kleptocrats by calling for support for the bankruptcy bill.

I am disgusted with the party. Between the nit-witted nonsense of the Joe Leiberman League claiming we should try to out-Republican the Republicans on social issues, and the craven, cowardly, and complicitous attitude of most of our Democrats in Congress, I fear the party is doomed. It has become nothing beyond a label at this point.

I cannot but blame the so-called party leadership for this. Time after time after time, Democrats have been handed golden opportunities on platinum serving trays. But every time they have managed to drink from the finger bowl instead.

The bankruptcy bill is a shining example. It is a screwjob for Joe and Jane Sixpack, and there’s no way to dress it up as anything else. Tauscher doesn’t want to be “the party that says no.” Well goddamnit, this bill goes directly against your proclaimed values and constituency as a Democrat. If you won’t say no to this, what the hell will you say no to? Democrats should have loudly and publicly repudiated this bill as a block, forcing the Republicans to take ownership of it. But, no: Now it’s a bipartisan measure.

The same goes for Social Security. Holy Joe Leiberman is blowing in the wind on this, and a few other Democrats have actually come out to support Bush’s bamboozle. Another issue that should be pinned squarely on Republicans and used to beat them over the head gets lost to us.

Perhaps most disturbingly, in the wake of the Schiavo tragedy we have two Bad Attitudes

Atrios points us to another fine example of Democrats once again abetting the kleptocrats by calling for support for the bankruptcy bill.

I am disgusted with the party. Between the nit-witted nonsense of the Joe Leiberman League claiming we should try to out-Republican the Republicans on social issues, and the craven, cowardly, and complicitous attitude of most of our Democrats in Congress, I fear the party is doomed. It has become nothing beyond a label at this point.

I cannot but blame the so-called party leadership for this. Time after time after time, Democrats have been handed golden opportunities on platinum serving trays. But every time they have managed to drink from the finger bowl instead.

The bankruptcy bill is a shining example. It is a screwjob for Joe and Jane Sixpack, and there’s no way to dress it up as anything else. Tauscher doesn’t want to be “the party that says no.” Well goddamnit, this bill goes directly against your proclaimed values and constituency as a Democrat. If you won’t say no to this, what the hell will you say no to? Democrats should have loudly and publicly repudiated this bill as a block, forcing the Republicans to take ownership of it. But, no: Now it’s a bipartisan measure.

The same goes for Social Security. Holy Joe Leiberman is blowing in the wind on this, and a few other Democrats have actually come out to support Bush’s bamboozle. Another issue that should be pinned squarely on Republicans and used to beat them over the head gets lost to us.

Perhaps most disturbingly, in the wake of the Schiavo tragedy we have twoDemocrats pushing a bill to allow the federal government to interfere in end-of-life issues. Apparently the fact that 90-percent of Democrats and nearly 80-percent of the general public abhor such action just isn’t enough to keep Democrats from trying to out-Republican the Republicans.

These and a dozen other issues should be getting wrapped around the necks of Republicans by Democrats.

It is nothing short of agonizing to watch the Democrats wither this way. But I fear it is both inevitable and unstoppable.

Whoo Hoo, Freedom!    Shot by Both Sides

Shooting reporters isn't enough. Let's arrest them too (also RSF piece on the detention. The guy is alleged by unreliable sources to be a US citizen of Iraqi origins). Meanwhile, lunatics are claiming that this indicts the press, not the truth-hating journo-hating bastards who lied and schemed to get us into this stupid war in the first place.

Fuck them.
Democrats pushing a bill to allow the federal government to interfere in end-of-life issues. Apparently the fact that 90-percent of Democrats and nearly 80-percent of the general public abhor such action just isn’t enough to keep Democrats from trying to out-Republican the Republicans.
These and a dozen other issues should be getting wrapped around the necks of Republicans by Democrats.

It is nothing short of agonizing to watch the Democrats wither this way. But I fear it is both inevitable and unstoppable.

Smythes World

One of the more provocative features of the passed by the House this afternoon is Section 106, which requires prospective debtors to seek "credit counseling" as a condition for being allowed to file a Chapter 7 petition. Credit counseling agencies are currently regulated by the states, and the new law will require the United States Trustee, a political appointee in the Justice Department, to approve any non-profit groups permitted to give credit counseling. Federal budgeting being what it is, the likelihood that the U.S. Trustee is going to be given the funds to properly regulate credit counseling agencies is almost nil, so it is more likely that the Trustee will rely on the regulatory powers (if any) currently invested by the states in determining which agencies will be approved.

So far, the states aren't doing a particularly effective job. It is unclear from the language of the bill whether bankruptcy attorneys would be permitted to affiliate with an approved agency; the petition mills that have proven such a bane to the Bankruptcy courts in California may switch business strategies when the bill goes into effect, luring prospective clients by advertising as "credit counseling agencies", then handing the case off to a bankruptcy lawyer who works next door. Moreover, the law contains a glaring exception: when a debtor can show that he was not able to receive counseling within five days of so requesting, he may go ahead and file, and seek "counseling" later. With the disproportionate number of non-English speaking filers in some states, the probability of this loophole being exploited is high. new bankruptcy law passed by the House this afternoon is Section 106, which requires prospective debtors to seek "credit counseling" as a condition for being allowed to file a Chapter 7 petition. Credit counseling agencies are currently regulated by the states, and the new law will require the United States Trustee, a political appointee in the Justice Department, to approve any non-profit groups permitted to give credit counseling. Federal budgeting being what it is, the likelihood that the U.S. Trustee is going to be given the funds to properly regulate credit counseling agencies is almost nil, so it is more likely that the Trustee will rely on the regulatory powers (if any) currently invested by the states in determining which agencies will be approved.

So far, the states aren't doing a particularly effective job. It is unclear from the language of the bill whether bankruptcy attorneys would be permitted to affiliate with an approved agency; the petition mills that have proven such a bane to the Bankruptcy courts in California may switch business strategies when the bill goes into effect, luring prospective clients by advertising as "credit counseling agencies", then handing the case off to a bankruptcy lawyer who works next door. Moreover, the law contains a glaring exception: when a debtor can show that he was not able to receive counseling within five days of so requesting, he may go ahead and file, and seek "counseling" later. With the disproportionate number of non-English speaking filers in some states, the probability of this loophole being exploited is high.
Section 106 represents probably the biggest change from the current law, in terms of who will be permitted to file in the future (and btw, the "future" won't begin for six months: 180 days of the most spectacular, hedonistic periods in the history of my profession, a BK Bacchanalia, if you will). As I noted last month, the much-discussed change in financial eligibility has a loophole so broad that any changes to the current practice of bankruptcy law will be limited to the greater amount of money lawyers like myself will be able to charge. By not providing clear standards for judicial review, Congress is inviting the Bankruptcy Court to create its own; the "special circumstances" that will justify a greater than normal budget will be set judge by judge, circuit by circuit, and based on what I've heard from other local professionals, more than a few of the local judges have no intention of imposing any sort of rigid formula preferred by the credit card industry. Expect to see this issue revisited many times in the future.

Enjoy.

Section 106 represents probably the biggest change from the current law, in terms of who will be permitted to file in the future (and btw, the "future" won't begin for six months: 180 days of the most spectacular, hedonistic periods in the history of my profession, a BK Bacchanalia, if you will). As I noted last month, the much-discussed change in financial eligibility has a loophole so broad that any changes to the current practice of bankruptcy law will be limited to the greater amount of money lawyers like myself will be able to charge. By not providing clear standards for judicial review, Congress is inviting the Bankruptcy Court to create its own; the "special circumstances" that will justify a greater than normal budget will be set judge by judge, circuit by circuit, and based on what I've heard from other local professionals, more than a few of the local judges have no intention of imposing any sort of rigid formula preferred by the credit card industry. Expect to see this issue revisited many times in the future.

Enjoy.

Wilkerson on Bolton: GreatScat!