Bankruptcy and Politics

WASHINGTON - OCTOBER 08:  (L-R) Kathy Miller, ...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Just a few years ago, the Federal bankruptcy laws were reformed. Many people consider this a result of the lobbying power of the credit industry. With the recent revelations of abusive practices on the part of credit companies, from credit cards providers to mortgage companies, it’s hard to deny this claim. To add credibility to this claim, who else but the credit industry would stand to gain from changing these laws. Lucky for today’s debtor, total bankruptcy is there to help.

The intent was sold as a way to prevent consumers from abusing the laws. The credit industry claimed that consumers simply ran up their credit bills knowing that bankruptcy was an easy way out. They backed this up by reporting that many people filed bankruptcy again and again. Of course, they took no responsibility for handing out new credit cards to people who were barely out of bankruptcy time and time again. Because no one can file again for at least seven years, the credit card companies seemed to consider this a strategy. Offer the cards at high rates knowing that they would be paid for at least that amount of time.

What exactly changed when the new laws were put into place? For one, anyone who would like to file bankruptcy must attend credit counseling first. Because most people file bankruptcy because of job loss or high medical laws, this just didn’t make sense. It did, however, delay the case and allow the credit companies to extend their collection efforts for awhile longer. Another major change is that bankruptcy attorneys must now verify some of the claims that the debtor makes instead of relying on their word. What ever happened to the trust between a lawyer and his client? The net effect of this change is that the legal fees required to file have skyrocketed since the reform was completed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Equal Pay for Equal Work

President George W. Bush delivers his State of...
Image via Wikipedia

President Obama is calling on Congress to approve the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is a measure that is very similar to one that was proposed a few years back that makes it easier for women to sue if men in the office are getting more money for the same work. Government statistics have found that women typically make about 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man in a similar position.

Supporters of the measure say women now make up 50% of the workforce and believe it is time to finally achieve true pay equality. The last major piece of legislation in this area was adopted in 1963 and those who back the Paycheck Fairness Act say it is time for an update. The biggest source of contention is helping women find out if they are being underpaid and the new rules would open access to financial records. It would also strengthen the penalties for companies which are not following the law.

The American Association of University Women has done a study to show that over the course of a career, the pay inequities will cost the typical female executive over $700,000. The study also shows that retirement benefits for women are impacted because those are based on the money earned while working. The group says the arguments that women are paid less because they take time off for child bearing or fail to work as many hours as men are not true.

Opponents of the Paycheck Fairness Act include organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It doesn’t think it is fair to force companies to publicize worker salaries and questions how comparable work would be defined. They also object to provisions in the bill which lift current limits on the amount of jury awards in cases that involve sex discrimination in the workplace.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Cheerleading Is Not a Sport

If you have been following the latest political science news, you know that cheerleading is not a Title IX sport. College Administrators had thought they had found a simple solution to meet government Title XI requirements. They wanted to make cheerleading an official NCAA sport to make it easier to meet gender equity rules but a federal judge has said no. The ruling from Judge Stefen Underhill states that “the activity is still too underdeveloped and disorganized” to be elevated to varsity athletics. Once again those in politics help those fighting for the correct Title IX requirement.

It was Quinnipiac University that was trying to convince the judge that competitive cheering should be considered as an officially recognized sport. The school was looking to get rid of volleyball and institute cheering as a school sanctioned sport instead for budget reasons and it was the volleyballers who sued. They did not think it was fair that their sport would be eliminated.

A number of schools have been struggling to follow government rules to be in compliance with Title XI. Title XI was adopted in 1972 requiring that equal opportunities be provided to men and women in athletics. The rules mean that an equal number of scholarships must be offered to students of each sex and schools have been left scrambling to find more opportunities for female athletes. Quinnipiac University thought cheerleading would be a perfect way to meet the requirements until the judge blocked the effort.

To qualify as a sport the law says it must have a defined season, formal practices and and competitions. The problem with cheerleading according to the judge is that competing against other schools is not necessarily the main goal since the participants activities are more in support of other teams. There is likely to be an appeal of the case. The national group that runs competitions for cheer squads is calling this just a minor setback and believes eventually cheerleading will be a fully sanctioned intercollegiate sport.

Enhanced by Zemanta