Why did Edwards vote against this bill

[ProSense]

We know he voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001, but why vote against this:

Question: On the Amendment (Wellstone Amdt. No. 14 )
Vote Number: 16 Vote Date: March 7, 2001, 06:55 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 14 to S. 420
Statement of Purpose: To create an exemption for certain debtors that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that the reason for the filing was a result of debts incurred through medical expenses.

link

Video

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

2. Kick for comment. n/t

[ArkySue]

3. Looks like

there are no defenders of this. Hmmm.

[ProSense]

4. Kick

for another comment!

[karynnj]

5. That was before he was a populist

I guess it doesn't count in his case. While I agree with many of his current positions, I think some of the language verges on demagoguery and it is disturbing that there was such a big shift in so little time. Both Obama and HRC have a past where they advocated for the less fortunate. Edwards really doesn't.

[ProSense]

6. I suppose!

Really strange vote!

[denem]

7. Shameful

BUT what other candidates (if any) voted against as well.

[maximusveritas]

8. Biden also voted against it; Clinton and Dodd voted for it n/t

[denem]

9. Even if Biden had a constituency, I can't excuse him

but why did Edwards vote against it? It's horrible.

[frogmarch]

10. The bill was flawed and the amendment didn't help.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:S01929

[denem]

12. Wellstone agreed it was bad legislation:

"legislation we bring to the floor is an unjust, imbalanced bankruptcy bill which is great for the big banks and it is great for the credit card companies."

Then moved HIS amendment to exempt bankruptcy for medical bills. AND EDWARDS VOTED IT DOWN.

[frogmarch]

17. The amendment was problematic. Read what Biden said:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:1:./temp/~r107aY1rTk:e293986:

I'm going to try to get some factual information on why Edwards opposed the amendment. He may have had the same concerns about it that Biden did. Or maybe he had different concerns about it.

[denem]

20. I've read Biden - I don't buy it.

He says, correctly that medical expenses frequently leads to bankruptcy - Chapter 13, but does not address why tighter rules for Chapter 7 in the bill should apply in those cases where the reason for filing is medical expenses.

[frogmarch]

26. The bill was bad, and

Edwards regrets having voted for it. However, the amendment, instead of helping those overwhelmed by medical bills set up affordable payment plans, facilitated the filing of bankruptcy for total absolution of medical debts. Even discounting the percentage of ineligible people who'd scam the system, how is bankruptcy the better way to go?

Anyway, I am not as concerned about the past as I am about the present and the future. Edwards has presented excellent ideas on what he would like to do with issues related to debt and bankruptcy. That's what I care about.

[ProSense]

18. The bill was horrible and he voted for it! n/t

[Tejanocrat]

11. Only Biden voted for the WORSE 2005 bill, which Edwards, Kucinich, Hillary, Obama, and Dodd opposed.

It is a shame that only 15 Senators voted against the 2001 bill, but the 2005 bill was a thousand times worse than the 2001 bill.

Hillary, Dodd, Edwards, and Biden (that's every candidate who was in the Senate in 2001) voted for the 2001 bill.

[denem]

13. 2001 - Edwards voted AGAINST an exmptioon for medical expenses.

Clinton and Dodd voted for.

[lisainmilo]

16. What are you combing Thomas for all records ...Ever voted on.....??? by JRE

:rofl:


That's like Matthews last week making a huge deal out of Edwards being "tardy".:rofl:


The NAYs were 65....and it was a flawed bill.

I am sorry for laughing, it just struck me funny combing, searching, lurking. checking....When blantant atrocities are making headlines on other candidates.

[maximusveritas]

21. The OP is about that ammendment; 34 Dems voted for it, 14 against

This is about Edwards' record. It's not a laughing matter.

[Fight Power]

23. I agree

There are posts about him being trustworthy...

[FlyingSquirrel]

36. The better question might be, why did those 34 vote for it?

Reason could be: Many of them knew it was a bad amendment, knew it would fail, so instead of voting their conscience, they voted for it so later on it couldn't be used against them (or they could point to it and say in a soundbite how great they were.)

Once again... Using senate votes to make your argument is not for people who prefer rational discourse over slime tactics.

[PurityOfEssence]

19. No, actually Dodd voted against the 2001 bill

Biden co-sponsored it and Edwards and Clinton both voted for it.

[1corona4u]

22. You forgot to mention that there were 6 co-sponsors...

Once again, I will post Joe Biden's floor statements as to WHY he voted the way he did, even back in 2001;

2001;

March 15, 2001
Press Release

Statement from Senator Biden Regarding the Passage of the Bankruptcy Reform Bill

"The bankruptcy bill passed with broad bipartisan support -- from Senator Clinton to Senator Specter, from Majority Leader Lott to Minority Leader Daschle -- because it makes specific improvements benefitting consumers. I'm very pleased the Senate adopted language I advocated to move women and children owed alimony and child support to the front of the line among all those to be paid in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The major change from current law simply asks those filing for bankruptcy if they can afford to pay any of their debts. Most Americans would be surprised to learn we don't ask that question already. This bill restores the element of personal responsibility to an important part of our nation's financial system."
-----------------------------------------





And, this one, you can read for yourself. It's too long to post;

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229883&&&search_field=bankruptcy

[PurityOfEssence]

25. Point well taken

Perhaps I too have been too harsh on this bill. I like the concept of responsibility for one's actions, and this bill has been quite misinterpreted as some kind of modern debtor's prison.

If I recall, there were also provisions in it about restricting the ability of credit card companies from issuing cards to minors with more than a $2.5K limit, weren't there? It's hardly like Democrats completely rolled over on this bill. Still, the black-and-white brigade trudges on in lock-step.

In retrospect, I can see how my comment can be seen as a bit of a swipe at Biden, but it was meant as more of an elaboration of the situation in response to another poster: all four weren't completely aligned in the same fashion; one was a serious force for its passage, two voted for it and one against.

Biden has taken lots of heat over the years because of Delaware's big financial industry, but it bears noting that his actions have been a very active buffer between the interests of individuals and corporations. Much as it's uncool to voice such things around here, rampant abuses like the one Gravel was so proud of having gotten away with aren't good for the society at large either, and if balancing influences like Biden aren't around, more draconian laws to the extreme benefit of certain industries would get passed. There I go again with this grey area stuff; surely I'll be slagged for it again.

Nice post.

[ProSense]

27. The bill and it's impact were horrible

Guest Blogger: John Edwards

This morning Elizabeth Warren and her students invited me to say a few words about the bankruptcy reform bill. I'm grateful for the opportunity.

I'm now spending a lot of my time tackling the challenges of poverty, but I learned a lot about bankruptcy on the campaign trail last year. I saw how many good families end up broke and poor, and
how they need the safety net of a fair bankruptcy law if they're going to get back on their feet.

Like a lot of Democrats, I voted for a bankruptcy reform bill before. I can't say it more simply than this: I was wrong.

The bill is supposed to crack down on irresponsible borrowers. That's the right thing to do. The problem is that this bill imposes big burdens on families who did everything right but went broke just because they lost a job or lost their health insurance. And, even
more than the legislation I supported, this bill doesn't crack down on the real abusers.

Two million Americans go bankrupt every year, but you might never know it. People keep it to themselves. They're ashamed about what has happened to them. But they aren't alone-these families are our neighbors, our brothers, our friends. And I've listened to so
many people tell me how their life was on track until hardship hit. Thanks to Professor Warren, we now know that half of families going broke suffered illnesses or high medical costs.

These men and women want to pay their own way, but they can't. They can't because the hospital wants $135,000 to cover the heart operation and the plant just cut back their hours. They can't because the bank is about to foreclose on a predatory loan unless
they can pay $40,000 in 48 hours. They can't because they lost their job and now the electric company wants a few hundred dollars more just to turn on the lights.

more

There is no excuse for having voted against the Wellstone amendment.

[jillan]

31. Edwards was not in the Senate in 2005; Hillary was at the hospital with Bill that day.

The only one that gets kudos is DODD.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Here are some things to think about

This is an exchange from earlier this month:

DODD: : Back in 2001 the congress passed I think one of the worst pieces of legislation of all time: the so called the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Senators Clinton, Biden, and Edwards voted for that bill, which drove a lot of people working class families into poverty, & made it very difficult for them to manage their lives & to get back on their feet again. John, you made a big issue of poverty, something you have dedicated your life to. So could you explain to me why you'd vote for a piece of legislation like that which did so much damage to so many families in our country?

EDWARDS: Yeah, I was wrong. I was wrong and you were right Chris. I should not have voted for that bankruptcy bill. It was a bad, bad piece of legislation. I think any of us who voted for it were wrong to have voted for it. I think there were some good provisions in it but I think on the whole when you look it at it actually did damage to low income families and working families in this country.

Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum Dec 1, 2007

Why did he vote for it? For one thing, it also included AN INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE, something that has been a pet issue for him from the beginning.

I don't find any explanations from a quick web search, so even this is putting words in his mouth. Since I've already started to do so, I guess I'll continue.

The bill was novel in its means testing, which made it more difficult for people to completely wipe the slate clean if they had some ability to repay some of the debts. It didn't mean that people would be completely denied bankruptcy and made debt-slaves for the rest of their lives, just that they'd have to repay up to 25% of the debt if they could. The bill has been sweepingly mischaracterized as one that would deny ANY protection for individuals in a tight spot, and that's not the case.

It also tried to cap the homestead rules at $125K, so rich people in Texas and Florida couldn't play the time-honored game of the rich of piling up a huge mountain of debt by (among other things) buying a mansion and then welshing on their obligations and keeping the house. (Why do you think Kay Bailey Hutchison voted against it?)

Another big provision was the changing of rules on privacy brought in by Leahy. This actually gave a form of protection to those filing bankruptcy that they'd never had before. You may not be aware of it, but this is a big early cause of Edwards, with one of the two bills he sponsored being the "Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act of 2000".

Legislation is often a rearguard action against looming legislation that could be worse, and there was a great deal of tactical maneuvering done in the sculpting of S.420. In the end, it wasn't a good bill, but the idea that some accountability should be had by those seeking protection from their creditors is hardly complete submission to corporations.

There are also the less pleasant aspects to it: it was a bill with overwhelming support, so perhaps it wasn't a battle worth fighting, especially coming from a state with a huge banking industry. I don't like to think that this was a major reason, but it would be disingenuous to not point out such a thing as an influence.

Please do remember, though, that he repeatedly used the term "predatory lending" in his stump speeches in '03 and '04, so he certainly stuck out his neck in the face of the powerhouse industry back home.

I would welcome any comments he's made on the bill, but I couldn't find any.

Once again, he has come down very specifically on the side of the little guys with his current proposals, and that should be taken into account.

[rch35]

15. to me, the ability to admit you were wrong is one of the most important a candidate can have

thats my opinion, yes it was terrible, and yes, i have lingering doubts about edwards from some of his past performance, but i do not agree with the argument made in these forums many times that he has become a completely different person with his current populist platform.

I live in Cali, so i will wait until the first group of primaries, and the iowa caucus, ends and i will decide between my two current favorites, Edwards or Biden.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

[rch35]

28. thank you

and im in the northern cali humboldt area

[Bill Todd]

39. Thanks for posting that

so that I don't have to. I just finished a similar post at another forum (which may still not be able to be mentioned here?), after delving a bit deeper into Edwards' voting record in a response there.

Edwards appears to be about as mischaracterized when called a conservative as Hillary is when called a liberal: if you actually look at his voting record (I used VoteSmart's synopsis), it's at worst moderate (i.e., somewhat left of 'centrist') from the very beginning of his Senate tenure - which is entirely consistent with his previous career as a legal advocate for the weak against the strong (yes, that paid well too, but my wife has worked with such attorneys and has observed that they tend to believe in their work as well as just profit from it).

Since the IWR gets so much air time, it's worth noting that a *lot* of Democrats (including 29 of the 51 Democratic Senators at the time) voted for it: they were barraged with a huge amount of misinformation and outright lies which were only exposed as such later, Saddam was still acting as if he had something to hide, it was not unreasonable to have thought that military action *might* be necessary on short notice (and in particular that a clear threat of it might be the best way to ensure that it was not actually required), and Dubya was still appearing to favor working with the U.N. and even its inspection process, if restarted. I doubt that I was the only person to be dumbfounded when he later displayed utter contempt for world opinion and international law and barged ahead with no justification whatsoever: hindsight's a lot easier. And indeed in one of Edwards' speeches supporting his position on the up-coming resolution he explicitly stated that U.N. Security Council approval should not be considered essential if it was "prevented" - apparently a reference to it being vetoed rather than simply refused.

I find it a lot more significant to examine how Democrats reacted after the full magnitude of the disaster began to unfold - and while Edwards did not distinguish himself particularly (e.g., I pleaded with Kerry just before the invasion to stand up and oppose it as a Vietnam veteran, but didn't ask Edwards since he didn't have the same credentials and hadn't been my Senator when I lived in Massachusetts), he was one of only 11 Democratic Senators to vote against the second emergency supplementary appropriation in October, 2003 (no Senator voted against the first one during the invasion in early April).

So it's not too hard to defend voting for the IWR in the abstract, and that appears to be what Edwards urged Kerry to do in the 2004 campaign: what's much more important is whether you actually supported the invasion as being justified, which Kerry appeared more than willing to do for most of the campaign (and in the response he sent to me when the invasion started, long before Edwards had any influence with him). That both of them later apparently came to the conclusion that they should have been more cautious in delegating that much authority to someone whose behavior was not known to be predictable (i.e., that their IWR vote was wrong for *that* reason) seems reasonable, but that kind of fine distinction in the middle of a presidential campaign can be difficult to make (and/or to express).

All in all, Edwards' behavior over the past decade seems quite consistent to me: that of a moderate from a conservative state who was skilled at presenting his positions in ways that his constituents could understand but became freer to express his personal progressive beliefs after relinquishing his Senate seat. The number of mistakes he made does not seem unusual - only his willingness to admit them.

And his current positions are sufficiently progressive to please Nader: regardless of what many here may feel toward Ralph, he's not a man to hand out such accolades lightly. Edwards does seem like the real deal as a progressive, which alienates both ardent Kucinich supporters (by drawing support that they feel Dennis should 'rightly' have) and supporters of more 'centrist' Democrats (because Edwards has demonstrated that he can appeal to their base *plus* those more to the left).

Kind of reminds me of Dean last time around, though he was more of a populist centrist who could also appeal to the left. And in both cases, the breadth of their appeal makes them far too dangerous to the narrower candidates (and to special interests of other kinds) not to get torn down at every opportunity.

Which is unfortunate, since it could translate not only to a significant advantage in the general election but to effective administration after entering the White House.

- bill

[ProSense]

29. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

30. Kick! n/t

[jillan]

32. Dodd is the only Senator (candidate) that has a clean record on this.

[ProSense]

33. Kick for

authenticity?

[FlyingSquirrel]

34. For more on why using Senate record to trash candidates is lame...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3922595

[FlyingSquirrel]

35. Also voting against this amendment...

Biden
Byrd
Cleland

and 12 other Dems...

Why don't you ask them ALL why they voted against it. I'm sure they had their reasons. Using a single vote on a single amendment is about as lame as an argument can get which is the reason so few are bothering to respond.


Edit: The other reason is that they can't respond is 'cause they have you on IGNORE.

[ProSense]

37. From your link:

A good senator will be forced to vote for something they don't completely believe in to avoid seeing something even worse get passed, or seeing the entire bill die when it contains some things which are important to them.

That doesn't really explain why Edwards voted for the bankruptcy bill and against this amendment. His vote against it defies logic.

[FlyingSquirrel]

38. I haven't seen you come out in support of anyone yet...

How about doing it now so we can all trash your candidate? Or would you prefer to be the one taking pot shots?

-----

Edited to add: I've done a little search and it looks like all you DO is take pot shots and start inflammatory threads. Guess you're not supporting anyone. Even attacked Kucinich. You have nothing to add... you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

[jillan]

40. hahaha! Let some other candidate's supporters deal with this for a change!