* _ * _  * _ *_ * _ * _  * _ *_ * _ * _  * _ *_ * _ * _  * _ *_ * _ * _  * _ *_ *

UPDATE from “Life After Bankruptcy, Part 4″ re: “Second-Chance Auto Loans”:

If your bankruptcy protection plans include keeping a vehicle that you’re paying off via an auto loan, make sure you understand about the reaffirmation agreement. Not understanding this crucial aspect can be a costly mistake later down the road.  Here’s three good links to columns about autos and reaffirmation agreements, one here, another here, and another here. Following is an excerpt from the second column:

A reaffirmation agreement is a legally enforceable contract filed with the bankruptcy court that states your promise to repay all or a portion of a debt that may otherwise have been subject to discharge in your bankruptcy case. Some lenders demand that you sign this agreement and will not send you statements or report payments to the credit bureau without the court-approved agreement. In many instances, lenders consider it a breach of the terms of your loan and will repossess the car if you fail to sign the agreement.

There are some lenders who will allow you to keep the car and continue to make regular monthly payments. Unfortunately, this also means that future payments might not be reported on your credit report. You will be able to pay off the car and eventually receive the vehicle title, but you might not see any benefit to your credit for all those payments.

* _ * _  * _ *_ * _ * _  * _ *_ * _ * _  * _ *_ * _ * _  * _ *_ * _ * _  * _ *_ *

What are we to make of the Senate’s action to ditch the extension of unemployment benefits?

For the horde of folks facing foreclosure, unemployment, bankruptcy–and God only knows what else in this misnomer of a recovery–the partisan voting lines and continued reliance on the stealth filibuster must taste something awfully like betrayal.

The Socialists, or more accurately, at least one Socialist Web site blames the Democrats in the Senate and President Obama, pinning the following headline atop its coverage of the vote that leaves more than one million unemployed staring down the double barrels of a 12-gauge economic threat:

Senate Democrats and Obama abandon the jobless

Here’s the first two grafs from that June 26 account:

“Senate Democrats gave up efforts to extend unemployment benefits for millions of jobless workers after the third vote on overcoming a Republican filibuster failed. The final vote Thursday was 57 to 41, three votes short of the 60 necessary to cut off debate, with one Democrat, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, joining a unanimous Republican opposition.

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose home state, Nevada, has the highest unemployment rate in the country, indicated there would be no further effort to revive the unemployment benefit extension unless one or more Republican senators expressed willingness to change their position. ‘We can’t pass it unless we get some Republicans,’ Reid told reporters. ‘It’s up to them.’ “

Reading thus far, one wonders if the headline writer simply bonked out…or purposely jumped the fence. For instance, here’s the June 24 hed and lede covering the same event by the decidedly capitalist Bloomberg BusinessWeek:

Republicans Kill Unemployment Aid, Buyout Tax Boost

“Senate Republicans killed legislation to extend unemployment benefits, provide aid to state governments and increase taxes on buyout fund managers, saying the bill would add too much to the federal deficit.

“Today’s vote was 57-41 in favor of the measure, with 60 needed to advance it. Democrats repeatedly cut the bill in an effort to win over lawmakers who objected to its cost. The latest version version would have added $33 billion to the budget shortfall, a fraction of previous proposals; Republicans said the cost-cutting didn’t go far enough.”

But, no, apparently the hed writer at the Socialist site was working from the writer’s copy. In the fourth graf, the writer all but ignores the concerted GOP effort to kill the benefits extension–and blames the Democrats while glossing over the fact that 60 votes are needed for the cloture to overcome the filibuster:

“While the Democrats, who control the Senate by a 59 to 41 majority, whine about Republican opposition, some 200,000 unemployed workers are losing extended benefits each week. The total number cut off benefits since June 2, when the last such extension expired, reached 1.2 million Friday.  Assuming the deadlock continues, a total of 5.7 million workers will lose extended benefits by the time the program expires completely in November.”

So what are the Dems supposed to do? Beat ‘em up? Egg their cars? It’s obvious they can’t be shamed into caring about economically ravaged consumers. Remember, it was basically this same Senate that refused to budge last year when they could have passed reforms allowing bankruptcy judges to modify terms of loans on primary residences.

According to the BusinessWeek piece, Senator Baucus hopes for pressure from the public to launch support for a benefits extension as a separate, stand-alone measure: “Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, said he didn’t know if lawmakers would try to pass an unemployment benefit extension as a separate measure. The bill derailed yesterday would have continued some extended jobless benefits through November.

“ ‘We’ll have to take stock and see,’ Baucus said. ‘I hope frankly that enough people in the country realize what’s going on here and call members of the Senate on the Republican side and say, “Hey, we need some help here.” ‘ ”

On the other hand, maybe the Dems could force the balky mules to go through the pain of an actual filibuster–the stealth filibuster has got to go.

CNBC.com has picked up a story from The New York Times that echoes many warnings we have discussed several times about so-called debt-settlement firms. Our most recent peeks under the hood of this industry were in a four-part series beginning here and ending here.

McCaskill fires warning shot?

Although we covered the GAO study mentioned in the Times piece, we may have left out a nugget that the Times includes–well, even if we did mention it, it bears repeating, especially Sen. McCaskill’s parting shot:

Consumer watchdogs point to another reason customers wind up confused and upset: bogus marketing promises.

In April, the United States Government Accountability Office released a report drawing on undercover agents who posed as prospective customers at 20 debt settlement companies. According to the report, 17 of the 20 firms advised clients to stop paying their credit card bills. Some companies marketed their programs as if they had the imprimatur of the federal government, with one advertising itself as a “national debt relief stimulus plan.” Several claimed that 85 to 100 percent of their customers completed their programs.

“The vast majority of companies provided fraudulent and deceptive information,” said Gregory D. Kutz, managing director of forensic audits and special investigations at the G.A.O. in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee during an April hearing.

At the same hearing, Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, pressed Mr. Ansbach, the Usoba lobbyist, to explain why his organization refused to disclose its membership.

“The leadership in our trade group candidly was concerned that publishing a list of members ended up being a subpoena list,” Mr. Ansbach said.

“Probably a genuine concern,” Senator McCaskill replied.

Employment up or down–which is it?

Another point we made recently  (in our preceding post) had to do with confusion over interpretation of reported unemployment rates. A June 18 AP story in the  Times reinforces our point about the much ballyhooed recovery in general–and about our longstanding concern regarding confusion over the “official unemployment rate” in particular.

The hed reads: “Most State Jobless Rates Fall,” but the lede belies the headline: “Unemployment rates in a majority of states dropped in May. But the widespread declines were mainly because people gave up looking for work and were no longer counted.”

Here’s a subsequent graf about job gains: “Forty-one states and the District of Columbia saw a net increase in jobs. But that reflected national data showing a huge gain because of government hiring of temporary census workers.”

Senate stuck in filibuster mode

Also unchanged since last we posted is the Senate’s position on helping those unemployed who have reached the end of their benefits–with no significant change in the jobs picture. On June 19 the president reacted to yet another filibuster that creates roadblocks where instead we need an express lane.

In a MarketWatch.com report, Obama is quoted thusly: “”I was disappointed this week to see a dreary and familiar politics get in the way of our ability to move forward on a series of critical issues that have a direct impact on peoples’ lives.

“”Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the Senate won’t even allow this legislation to come up for a vote.”

In other words, if filing for bankruptcy protection made sense last week, it also makes sense this week–nothing has changed, and nothing seems likely to change anytime soon.

Get informed

In that vein, here’s some tips to use when considering the benefits and drawbacks of bankruptcy protection.  Following are some highlights derived from a list at a June 6 Orlando Sentinel piece.

1. Review the many resources offered by the “official” Web sites of various federal and state agencies:
   • U.S. Department of Justice
   • American Bankruptcy Institute
   • United States Courts
   • Bankruptcy law, state-by-state
   • National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys
2. Consider non-bankruptcy options such as consumer-credit counseling–but be sure to avoid the “debt-settlement” or “debt-repair” firms described in the GAO report.
3. Take informed action before using up all your savings or retirement funds.
4. This one is word-for-word from the Sentinel: “Don’t try to ‘game the system’ by running up credit-card charges for jewelry or other luxuries just before filing for bankruptcy — you’ll likely still be on the hook for such debt.”
5. This tip condenses three separate points from the list: Be aware that because of the financial crisis, waves of consumers are turning to the bankruptcy code for protection, and so bankruptcy law is “hot” right now; accordingly, you want to make sure you get trained, seasoned professional counsel; furthermore, such firms will often provide a free consultation to begin–this is your chance to evaluate the firm to avoid a “mill”-type operation.
6. Do not rely on creditors (credit-card companies, bill collectors, etc.) to tell the truth about the legal system or bankruptcy protection.

(mis)Leading myths about bankruptcy

In fact, misinformation is so common that certain “myths” about bankruptcy have arisen, a sort of urban legend. This attorney’s page answers each of the following myths, none of which is true:

1. Bankruptcy relief is no longer available (False: the 2005 “reform” act changed some things, but protection is still available for those who need it.)
2. You can’t file bankruptcy if you have a job (False: In fact, reliable income is a necessity to service a Chapter 13 filing.)
3. Medical bills can’t be discharged in bankruptcy (False: medical debt can be addressed, as can credit-card debt, and even personal loans.)
4. Chapter 13 plans require repayment in full of debt (False: unsecured creditors may receive payments that total 100 per cent of the debt–or zero per cent–each case is different, depending on the unique variables.)
5. People who file bankruptcy can’t get credit for 10 years (False: Although true that bankruptcy will remain on credit reports for up to ten years, many people’s finances are in such disarray that receiving bankruptcy protection can be the start of improving one’s credit score.)
6. You lose everything you own in bankruptcy (False: a small percentage of filers will liquidate a significant amount of assets, but exemptions provide for retaining “tools of the trade” and more–most filings result in little to no loss of assets, and some assets can’t be touched.)
7. Bankruptcy is a sign of personal or moral failure (False: The bankruptcy code is designed to offer a restart, a second chance, for those who have been devastated by events beyond their control such as job loss or medical emergency. See a “typical profile,” based on research by Elizabeth Warren.
8. Bankruptcy costs our society too much (False: This myth is directly traceable to a credit-industry lobbyist.)
9. There is a minimum amount of debt required to file bankruptcy (False: No minimum is necessary.)
10. Married couples must file together (False: Confusion arises most often because of states with community property laws–although it may be in a couple’s best interest for both spouses to file, each can file separately, or not all. This is best decided in conjunction with a trained, experienced bankruptcy attorney.)

*************************************************************************

The bankruptcy reform act of 2005 increased the complexity of the law, but if you are overwhelmed by debt, filing for bankruptcy protection may be your most pragmatic alternative. If you are facing foreclosure of your home (sometimes referred to as your “primary residence,” as opposed to a second home, or “vacation home”), bankruptcy protection may be your best route to saving the home. If you are struggling with medical bills, you may be in a special category for setting debt aside, and if you have problems with credit-card debt, you should be aware that some of those laws have changed recently, too. Whatever you do, before making major, life-changing financial decisions, consider consulting a trained, experience attorney. For bankruptcy basics, please see:

Principles of bankruptcy

Basics of bankruptcy

Introduction to Chapter 7

Introduction to Chapter 13