The rise in "cloture votes" since the 1950s, spiking in the 110th Congress (from "Our Broken Senate," The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute).

Editor’s note: This is the second of a two-part discussion of how one recent election has topsy-turvied Team Obama’s legislative advantage. Taking the seat of longtime Democrat Teddy Kennedy a day after Part I posted, Scott Brown (R-MA) provides the GOP with the critical 41st vote that ends the Dems’ so-called “super-majority.” By the 1970s, Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.), the senate’s longest serving majority leader, recognized the filibuster and other delaying tactics as serious roadblocks to conducting Senate business. Cited in Sen. Bayh’s Feb. 20 op-ed in The New York Times as an “abusive practice,” it is a topic for today’s beleaguered consumers, who wonder what’s wrong in Washington, D.C.

The problem is the modern filibuster has morphed into a much different procedure than the one originally envisioned, which was a method to ensure the potential for debate against hasty, ill-conceived measures and a way to prevent an overzealous majority from trampling roughshod over a hapless minority. Delaying tactics have been used in legislative bodies at least since ancient Rome, notably in Parliamentary procedure in Great Britain and again in defiance of Woodrow Wilson’s effort to arm merchant marine ships before World War I. The most famous “talk ‘em to death” filibuster may be Strom Thurmond’s record setting 24-hour, 18-minute opposition to a 1957 civil rights bill.

But when we commonly speak of such tactics–notably Thurmond’s marathon, or, say, Huey Long’s recipe-infused “pot-likker” rants in reaction to bills he regarded as bad for “the little guy”–we’re talking about (1) often passionate but always tiring and tiresome efforts for everyone involved and (2) more important, efforts that were very much out in the open. Back then, everyone in the Senate could see (and, of course, hear) who was holding the floor. And when “tag-team” efforts (such as the 57-day unsuccessful battle against the 1964 Civil Rights Act) were mounted, they took on the logistics and personnel requirements of a Broadway production.

Costless, painless–anonymous

But not so today, hence the term “stealth filibuster.” When Mansfield resolved to streamline the process, what resulted was a method to let filibusters occupy morning sessions but to reserve afternoons for “pressing business.” But as Roy Ulrich explains, Mansfield’s two-track system may have been expedient in the short term, but “over the long term it has proved to be disastrous.”

Why? Not only has the use of the filibuster increased alarmingly but also it increasingly is used as a tool for gridlock–and it can effectively be employed anonymously.

Too often it is now used as a dry, routine block of anything the “other side” wants.

Ulrich writes: “Boston College historian Julian Zeliger puts it this way: ‘Mansfield’s measure, which was intended to promote efficiency, inadvertently encouraged filibusters by making them politically costless and painless.’

“One way for a senator to let her colleagues know that she intends to pursue a filibuster is to place a ‘hold’ on a bill, thereby letting her colleagues know she will not accede to unanimous consent. Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein has noted that in the modern Senate holds ‘are routinely employed–often anonymously–against bills or people the senator has nothing against, but wants to take as hostages for leverage on something utterly unrelated to the hold itself.’

“If members actually had to hold the floor as in the days of Senators Long and Thurmond, most filibusters would end quickly. The reason is that we live in an age where this public disgust over partisan gridlock. Public airing of the old-fashioned filibuster on C-Span and elsewhere would not be something most Senators would want the public to see. In the current climate, it would be sound political strategy for Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to force the Republicans to engage in extended debate on a major issue such as health care reform. Best of all, no change in Senate rules would be required.”

Options for reform

Remedies exist, including the so-called “nuclear option,” which, according to a Feb. 10 piece in “Political Animal,” would require in today’s Senate that VP Joe Biden (as Senate President) declare current rules unconstitutional and, in effect, craft an on-the-fly workaround of Senate Rule 22. The “Political Animal” piece points out that this is not the brainchild of frustrated Democrats–the GOP (namely Trent Lott [R-Miss.] ) thought it up back in 2005, when they were fed up with Dems blocking judicial nominees.

The piece also quotes a few lines from Tim Noah, writing Jan. 25 at slate.com, but we’ve included a few more lines: “The first step in exercising the nuclear option, then, is for the president of the Senate (i.e., Vice President Joe Biden) to state, in effect, ‘Previous Congresses can’t tell this Congress what to do. Senate Rule 22 has no force because it was never agreed to by the current Senate.’ Biden would then state, ‘Under Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, this current Senate may “determine the rules of its proceedings.” I say we change Rule 22 to eliminate the filibuster.’ Or modify it, if he wanted to opt for an intermediate reform such as a proposal by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, to subject filibusters to a series of cloture votes that begin with a 60-vote requirement and gradually work their way down to a 51-vote requirement. Biden would then put the new rule to a simple-majority vote. After that passed, he would put the health reform conference report (or any number of other Obama initiatives currently stalled in the Senate) to a simple-majority vote.

In other words, the Senate got itself into this mess, and by the Constitution, it can take internal, procedural steps to get itself out. (For instance, the House–with so many more members–long ago dropped the filibuster.) Or the Senate could act on Harkin’s bill.

Whatever the Senators decide, clearly this gridlock begs for remedy. Here’s a quick snapshot of the increase of “cloture votes” since the 1970s, from a 2008 piece called “Our Broken Senate”: “In the 1970s, the average number of cloture motions filed in a given month was less than two; it moved to around three a month in the 1990s. This Congress, we are on track for two or more a week. The number of cloture motions filed in 1993, the first year of the Clinton presidency, was 20. It was 21 in 1995, the first year of the newly Republican Senate. As of the end of the first session of the 110th Congress, there were 60 cloture motions, nearing an all-time record.”

Implications for those facing unemployment, bankruptcy, foreclsoure

Now, why do we as consumer-members of a hard-pressed, foreclosure-riddled, unemployment-shackled economy care about stealth filibusters?

Although an argument might be made that the current GOP minority has taken obstructionist cloture/filibuster methods to unprecedented, Draconian levels, the truth is that both sides have used the tactic, and it’s evolved into a kind of arms race. And it’s become one of the chief methods to simply cut off any chance for meaningful progress during this financial crisis. It’s a quandary that Obama alluded to in his recent State of the Union address. On the one hand, why didn’t the Democrats’ “super-majority” get more done before losing Teddy’s seat to Scott Brown? (”But, [Obama] also chastised Congressional Democrats, saying, ‘I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills.’ “)

And in what appears to be a direct reference to heavy-handed stealth filibustering, he chided the GOP for “incessant opposition” and said “Saying ‘no’ to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership…. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. Let’s show the American people that we can do it together.”

Sounds good–let’s hope he gets that “jobs on his desk” that he demanded. Otherwise, doesn’t it sound hollow to hear reports that recession is over?

OK, true: the economy is finally showing some growth. In fact, Reuters reported on Oct. 12 that the National Association for Business Economics took “a survey” and quoted NABE President-Elect Lynn Reaser: “The great recession is over.”

Which is weird, because it’s actually the similarly sounding National Bureau of Economic Research who is charged with designating the officially recognized beginning and ending of economic dowturns. Yet, as of this posting, the NBER still has question mark on its Web site, indicating the end of this recession remains unknown. See the right-hand column, second hed. To be fair, the Reuters report also says that the NBER, “which does not define a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real gross domestic product, often takes months to make determinations.” So maybe Reuter’s stance is that NABE “scooped” the NBER and some day we’ll wake up and read that NBER has decided the Fat Lady of the Recession bowed out months ago and we simply missed it

Regardless of any official word, though, we know the Phat Lady of the Recovery hasn’t even begun warming up.

Obama knows that, too. He said in August that “we will not have a recovery as long as we keep losing jobs,” and reiterated that message in the State of the Union address and again Feb. 11.

But the jobs bill is not on Obama’s desk, and given the current Congress, no meaningful jobs bill is likely any time soon. Neither is a bankruptcy reform bill, which was killed by the Senate in April 2009, then snubbed again by the House, when it was omitted from a larger financial reform measure that passed in December.  On the stump in Nevada for Harry Reid on Friday, Obama unveiled a $1.5 billion plan to help with foreclosures in five of the hardest hit states, but when will Congress follow his lead with programs for the rest of the country?

Senator Bayh’s insights: ‘Congress must be reformed.’

The back-biting and divisiveness is so bad in Congress that Senator Evan (D-Ind.), well-known son of famous Senator Birch Bayh, recently announced he’s resigning at the end of his term next fall because he simply can’t take it anymore. He told Charlie Rose that he believes he can serve the nation better “by being in the private sector, either with a university, a philanthropy, or helping to create jobs by expanding a business.”

In an op-ed at The New York Times published Saturday, Bayh flat out says, “Action on the deficit, economy, energy, health care and much more is imperative, yet our legislative institutions fail to act. Congress must be reformed.”

He says there are “many causes for the dysfunction” on Capitol Hill: “strident partisanship, unyielding ideology, a corrosive system of campaign financing, gerrymandering of House districts, endless filibusters, holds on executive appointees in the Senate, dwindling social interaction between senators of opposing parties and a caucus system that promotes party unity at the expense of bipartisan consensus.”

What’s really telling is his disgust with the filibuster, as misused today: In a nearly 1,800-word piece, Bayh devotes almost 400 words specifically to the filibuster, calling it “a practice increasingly abused by both parties . . . ”

The full piece is well worth the read, given the insight from someone with such a rich family history in U.S. politics, but here’s some of the highlights from his section on the filibuster:

• “Historically, the filibuster was employed to ensure that momentous issues receive a full and fair hearing. Instead, it has come to serve the exact opposite purpose — to prevent the Senate from even conducting routine business.”
• “Last fall, the Senate had to overcome two successive filibusters to pass a bill to provide millions of Americans with extended unemployment insurance. There was no opposition to the bill; it passed on a 98-0 vote. But some senators saw political advantage in drawing out debate, thus preventing the Senate from addressing other pressing matters.”
• “The minority has a right to voice legitimate concerns, but it must not employ this tactic to prevent progress on everything at a critical juncture for our country.”
• “. . . under current rules just one or two determined senators can stop the Senate from functioning. Today, the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to stop a vote. . . .”

Critics are sure to chime in with remarks about “quitting on the job” or “giving up and giving in,” but maybe he just gave out. One thing’s for sure: when somebody like Bayh packs it in, it’s a sure sign that dysfunction reigns, and those of us huddled down in trenches are gonna have to make some tough decisions on our own.

We can hope, of course–but evidently we can’t wait on Congress.

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

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, please know the laws have changed recently. Whatever you do, before making major, life-changing  financial decisions, please 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

The rise in "cloture votes" since the 1950s (from "Our Broken Senate," The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute).

In his most public acknowledgment of the true depths of unemployment, President Obama today said in a speech to the Brookings Institution that  he wants to use unexpected fiscal headroom in recovery-stimulus funds to create jobs.

As reported by CNN Obama said “he wants to give small businesses tax breaks for new hires and equipment purchases. He also wants to expand American Recovery and Reinvestment Act programs and spend some $50 billion more on roads, bridges, aviation and water projects.

“Obama did not give a price tag for his proposals but pointed out that there is more wiggle room in the federal budget since the 2008 financial system bailout program will cost $200 billion less than expected.”

Perhaps to be expected, some top Republicans are resistant to the idea–remember, it was the Senate where the bankruptcy “cram-down” provisions stalled after intense lobbying by the lending industry–saying any extra room in the recovery-stimulus funds should go toward the national deficit. To that, Obama responded, “”There are those who claim we have to choose between paying down our deficits on the one hand, and investing in job creation and economic growth on the other–but this is a false choice.”

The timing could not be better–with all the gushing over the November jobs data, you’d think the jobless crisis has passed.

But, no, until major change takes hold, it’s still a matter of the same ol’, same ol’: We’ve merely been shedding jobs more slowly than we were.

But you wouldn’t know it by following  the mainstream media; here’s how The New York Times reported the data on December 5: “In the strongest jobs report since the recession began two years ago, the nation’s employers all but stopped shedding jobs in November, the government reported on Friday, and they appeared to be on the verge of finally rebuilding the work force.

“The sudden and unexpected improvement surprised even the most optimistic forecasters. Instead of yet another six-figure job loss, only 11,000 jobs disappeared last month and instead of another rise in the unemployment rate, it went down, to 10 percent from 10.2 percent in October.”

Of course, it is nice that the nation’s job loss is slowing down.

The bad news is that “official” unemployment’s going to 10 percent really means the “total” unemployment rate is 17.2 percent.

Yup, as it turns out, when unemployment was reported to have reached double-digits, at 10.2 percent, that figure applied only to out-of-work folks who are actively looking for jobs.

As explained December 1 at MoneyNews.com, ” It’s bad enough that the official unemployment rate hit a 26-year high of 10.2 percent in October.

“But if you count people who have given up looking for a job – those who are really the most unemployed – and those who are working fewer hours than they would like, the jobless rate registers 17.5 percent.”

“That’s a record since the government began tabulating the statistic in 1994.”

This all comes from a table maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, right there in row “U-6,” in two data sets, four columns each, showing the grim rise, in data “Not seasonaly adjusted,” and four more columns of data that has been “seasonally adjusted,” the numerals just sort of laying there like shameful secrets in an unlocked but forgotten diary–row U-6 which is labeled, “Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.”

There it is, with one row of seasonally adjusted data (mislabeled as “Nov. 2008,” when it should be “Oct. 2008″), when total unemployment was 12.2 percent, having risen to 12.6 percent a month later. By Oct. 2009, it was 16.3 percent and by last month, up again to 16.4 percent.

The seasonally adjusted data look even worse, rising monthly from July through October: 16.3, 16.8, 17.0, to 17.5 percent; then it fell in Novemeber to 17.2 percent.

Perhaps the best signal of all was discussed in another piece from The Times, a December 4 “Economy” post that discusses an un-named indicator that “is part of the monthly survey done by the Institute for Supply Management, in which manufacturing companies are asked if their business is getting better or worse.”

Described as having proven “reliable in all 10 previous recessions since World War II,” the indicator is part of the I.S.M.’s “November results, showing that for the fourth consecutive month, more companies thought business was getting better than believed it was getting worse.

“A part of that survey asks whether companies are adding or subtracting workers. It showed more companies hiring than firing in both October and November,” so if “the I.S.M. indicator is right, that means that the 10.2 percent rate in October was the cyclical high.”

So that is good, right? Finally a drop in the rate…whew.

Still it’s staggering to learn that instead of the improvement from 10.2 to 10 percent, in fact total unemployment is actually closer to 20 percent…

Some newspapers have caught onto this, but don’t seem to be bothered, as evidenced by the many headlines like this one in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, by two AP reporters:  “Unexpected drop in jobless rate sparks optimism.” From there, it’s pretty much the same info that The Times’ would detail the next day.

For some, the route to a new job may very well entail a move to a different part of the country, as some areas, in various sectors, are coming back more quickly than others. At cnbc.com, you can watch a slideshow of the “Best U.S. Cities to Find a Job,” which not only lists the metro area but also includes the best sectors for each city.

For job stability, it looks like automobile repo work may be doing OK.  According to a December 7 Daily Finance report, “The ratio of U.S. auto loan borrowers who were 60 or more days past due on their payments increased in the third quarter over the second quarter from from 0.73% to 0.81%, according to Trans Union. The year-over-year delinquency rate at the national level increased by 1.25% in the third quarter.”

Although TransUnion expects the default rate to continue rising–projecting 0.9 percent by end of the year–to a 7.5 percent increase over the past year,  some data suggest that seeing a silver lining even here is warranted.

“Peter Turek, automotive vice president in TransUnion’s financial services group, believes the increased delinquency rate is indicative of a cyclical pattern. The good news is that seven states experienced a drop in their quarter-to-quarter delinquency rates while 22 showed a drop on a year-over-year basis. ‘The drop in delinquency is an indicator that some states could emerge from the recession sooner than others,’ Turek said in a statement released with the report.”

What it really sounds like is that the hard hit areas have been really, really hit hard, because nearly half the states have shown improvement: “So essentially, the market is shifting back to a pattern dependent on local economic conditions, with some states faring better than others. At least with 22 states seeing a drop in delinquencies over last year we can see there is some economic improvement in almost half the states.”

Still, the most encouraging sign amid all the bad news/good news is Obama’s public recognition: “Even though we have reduced the deluge of job losses to a relative trickle, we are not yet creating jobs at a pace to help all those families who have been swept up in the flood,” Obama said. “And it speaks to an urgent need to accelerate job growth in the short term while laying a new foundation for lasting economic growth.”

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

In this tough economy, sometimes filing for protection under the federal bankruptcy code is a consumer’s last, best defense from creditor harassment and a chance to start over with a clean slate.  If you don’t have enough income to make payments under Chapter 13 protection, the relief offered by Chapter 7 may be your best bet–and may protect more assets than is commonly perceived.

Here’s a starting point for the basics of bankruptcy.

If you’d like to schedule a free appointment to evaluate your situation, click here.

With mixed-news noise dominating any clear signal of a consumer-level recovery from The Great Recession, at least one Senator is still hoping to make the bankruptcy code more useful to individuals filers.

On the slightly brighter side of recent announcements, the big consumer-credit players are saying that even though credit-card delinquencies rose in October, out and out defaults fell more than expected–which is a good sign.

And as Bloomberg reported Nov. 17, “Wholesale prices in the U.S. increased in October for just the second time in the past four months, indicating inflation will not be a concern for the Federal Reserve.”

(Of course, although that’s another good sign, one presumes that the inflation news applies to only the  near future: who knows what inflationary surprises lurk in the long haul?)

“The decrease in prices excluding food and energy last month was the biggest since July 2006. The core measure was forecast to rise 0.1 percent after a 0.1 percent drop a month earlier, according to the Bloomberg News survey.

“Compared with a year earlier, companies paid 1.9 percent less for goods today’s report showed. Core costs were up 0.7 percent from a year earlier, the smallest 12-month gain since March 2004.”

And for families who are planning menus for the festivities later this month,  CNBC reports good news re: the “Turkey Price Index,” in a slide show called “The Cost of Thanksgiving Dinner 2009,” with the conclusion that “the average cost of this year’s turkey dinner and all the fixings will take a smaller bite out of your wallet.” Despite CNBC’s humor–and the fact that the savings aren’t huge–it’s nice to see that not all food costs are going up.

Back at the Team Obama ranch house, meanwhile, unemployment news remains grim. Traveling in Asia, the president announced via the White House that he “will hold a forum on job creation with U.S. business leaders on December 3 and then embark on a cross-country tour to discuss economic recovery,” according to a Reuter’s Nov. 17 report.

With the national unemployment rate now in double digits, Reuters said, the “conference aims to bring chief executives, small business owners and financial experts to the White House to exchange ideas on putting unemployed Americans back to work.

” ‘We have a responsibility to consider all good ideas to encourage and accelerate job creation in this country,” Obama said in a statement.’ ”

On Nov. 16, Fed boss Ben Bernanke “predicted that the unemployment rate will get worse before it gets better,” according to the Huffington Post.

“Bernanke on Monday blamed banks for slowing the recovery and keeping unemployment high,” according to HP, quoting the chairman as saying, ‘Banks’ reluctance to lend will limit the ability of some businesses to expand and hire. Because smaller businesses account for a significant portion of net employment gains during recoveries, limited credit could hinder job growth.’ ”

One hates to wax sarcastic, but, dang, Mr. Bernanke–it sure does seem like widespread, restricted credit could hurt job growth, especially given CIT’s troubles and that lender’s importance to small business.

Bernanke managed to find one glimmer of hope: “The best thing we can say about the labor market right now is that it may be getting worse more slowly.”

Echoing the labor market, the housing market has shown improvement, but the number of “underwater mortgages” is hardly cause for holiday cheer. According to Diana Olick,“Home prices are improving, but there is a lot of government stimulus behind that improvement. The extension and expansion of the home buyer tax credit, as well as artificially low mortgage rates backed by the Federal Reserve’s purchase of GSE loans and securities, will all expire by the middle of 2010, so it remains to be seen whether the very tenuous recovery we are now seeing in housing can endure on its own.”

Quoting a recent survey from Zillow.com, Olick says that “even in those markets where investor competition has returned and prices on the low end are beginning to stabilize, homeowners still owe far more on their mortgages than their homes are currently worth.”

The most troubled states (click here for a slideshow showing the worst cities) include California, Arizona, Florida and Nevada–a staggering piece of data, according to Olick, is that “Las Vegas leads the way with 81.8 percent of borrowers underwater on their loans in the third quarter of this year, down barely one percent from the second quarter but still up 10 percent from the first quarter.”

Olick reminds us that various government programs “do allow for modifications and refinances on homes with up to 25 percent negative equity. . . “  and that some market observers “argue that ‘underwater’ borrowers are no different than any other borrowers, as long as they continue to make their monthly mortgage payments, and as long as they continue to want to live in their homes, knowing they will have to wait out the market for home equity to gradually return.”

“But,” says Olick, “the danger is for those that need to sell, or for those who can no longer afford their monthly payments and don’t qualify for a loan modification.”

Olick also pints out that “. . . many homeowners, especially in the hardest hit regions, don’t think they will ever see equity again, and therefore see no reason to continue making payments on their loans, whether they are able to or not.

“Many are simply sitting in their homes, rent-free, as banks struggle to catch up and contact them. Others are vacating the homes, mailing in the keys, and choosing a credit hit, rather than be strapped to a home that will only ever be a liability.”

Of course, we’ve shown that granting “cramdown” powers to federal bankruptcy judges would be the most efficient method for dealing with the housing crisis. But the banks and mortgage-lending lobbies have so far been able to stymie such commonsense legislation.

But in lieu of being able to address the housing crisis, at least one Senator is challenging his cohorts to play fair with consumers who need bankruptcy protection because of catastrophic medical bills.

As reported in the Providence Journal on Oct. 21, a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), convened Oct. 20 “to consider his legislation to make it easier for those burdened with medical bills to go into bankruptcy.”

Whitehouse indicated he may pursue a different tack than the preceding efforts on cramdown legislation, by working the medical-debt relief into pending health-care legislation. His main idea is that “bankruptcy filing would be permitted for anybody who owes more than $10,000 or 10 percent of his or her income in medical bills.

“Whitehouse would also exempt those with high medical debt from meeting the income tests required of other debtors seeking bankruptcy protection.”

Testimony included remarks concerning a couple, Patrick and Kerry Burns, whose 4-year-old son died in March following a long illness.

Even though the couple had insurance, they could not cover their portions of the medical expense and wound up in “financial ruin,” losing their home in the process.

Another highlight of the testimony was an interchange between recent Senate addition Al Franken (D-MN) and Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who wrote a commentary piece for Forbes about the incident, saying that “At a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, where I was a witness, Sen. Franken disagreed with my testimony that pending health care ‘reform’ bills would lead to more bankruptcies, because higher taxes and health insurance premiums would cause more job loss, a major cause of bankruptcy.”

In tart response, Franken asked  Furchtgott-Roth about the number of medical bankruptcies last year in Switzerland, France and Germany. Forchtgott-Roth, a former chief economist at the Department of Labor, said she didn’t know but could find out and get back to Franken. He told her in each case the number is zero, then said, “The point is, I think we need to go in that direction, not the opposite direction.” A piece of the interchange is available here as well as video clip.

**********

Even though legislation may bring needed change to the bankruptcy code–such as the so-called “cramdown powers,” and catastrophic medical-cost relief–the laws already in place do provide strong protection for hard-pressed Americans.  To learn more about getting a new start in your financial situation, read more about “Bankruptcy Basics,” or Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 filings. If you’d like to schedule a free consultation or evaluation of your situation, click here.

We left the Phat Lady of the Turnaround headed back to her dressing room, not yet ready to sing the praises of the end of the Recession and the start of a shiny future.

In fact, foreign observers may have a better feel for the plight of the U.S. consumer than do many domestic pundits and measures that just don’t seem to get it.

For example, an Oct. 26 report from MarketWatch tells us, “A broad gauge of U.S. economic activity rose above the level that typifies recessions, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago reported Monday.”

But here’s an account from Oct. 28…from Ireland, mind you, showing a better grasp of the situation:

“The US recession is expected to be declared over tomorrow but economists insist that it is still too early to start celebrating.

“When gross domestic product (GDP) estimates for the third quarter are released at 8.30am local time (12.30 Irish time), they are likely to report that the economy is growing again, ending one of the deepest slumps since the Great Depression.”

Of course, that report did not materialize, but even if it had,  imagine the bitter taste and hollow comfort “to the millions of people left unemployed or who have lost their homes as a result of prolonged economic downturn–especially as economists suggest that more jobs and houses are to go before real improvement is realised.”

And here’s this…from The Globe and Mail, in Canada: “Fresh figures due out Thursday are widely expected to show that the U.S. economy grew in the third quarter for the first time in more than a year – long-awaited confirmation that the recession is over and recovery has begun.”

But a few grafs down, here’s the kicker: “But temper the enthusiasm: The main driver of the economy – U.S. consumers – are still in a deep funk, relying heavily on temporary government incentives to get them to spend.”

At least the president seems to have a grasp.

As we know, the recession’s end was not announced Thursday, but still the AP reported, “Helped in large part by federal support for spending on cars and homes, the economy grew at an annual rate of 3.5 percent from July through September, the government said Thursday.”

Although Obama called the numbers “welcome news,” he also said, ” ‘The benchmark I use to measure the strength of our economy is not just whether our GDP is growing, but whether we are creating jobs, whether families are having an easier time paying their bills, whether our businesses are hiring and doing well.’ “

So, maybe the numbers are simply saying that the recession is over for the Big-Shoe Boys on Wall Street, where business continues as per usual?

Remember the teeth-grinding despair in certain circles when the gummint “turned its back” on Lehman Brothers while bailing out everybody else? Well, have a look at Kevin White, one of Lehman’s “architects” of the so-called “securitized” debt that helped create the Recession. In a Fortune report via CNNMoney.com, we learn that White was “head of the global structured finance syndicate at Lehman Brothers ([before being]  . . . promoted to a different job in 2006), [when he] created the kind of collateralized debt securities that fueled the financial bubble–and still bedevil many bank balance sheets.

“Now White runs a firm that’s doing a nice business in cleaning up the mess: Spring Hill Capital Partners specializes in buying, selling, deconstructing, and investing in structured finance products.”

And get this–he sounds proud of it: ” ‘The securitization process locked a lot of assets into mortgage-backed securities or CDOs,’ says White. ‘As the underlying collateral ran into trouble, the complexity of securitizations has paralyzed investors, lenders, and borrowers.

But we made a lot of these products, and we’re skilled at taking them apart, valuing them, and in some cases restructuring them.’ “

Kinda sounds like Stanford Kurland, who spent nearly 30 years at Countrywide before leaving in 2006, then subsequently starting PennyMac (along with a cadre of other Countrywide alumnae)–and to do what? Why, to specialize in distressed properties…

As might be expected Kurland puts distance between his role at Countrywide and its riskier business practices, as shown in this March 2008 account at MSNBC.com: “Kurland, who left Countrywide in late 2006, said he wasn’t to blame for problems faced by the company as a result of subprime loans made to people with shaky credit histories.

“ ‘My leaving Countrywide has a lot to do with having a different strategic view,’ Kurland said. ‘I have a reputation in the market that, unfortunately, is tainted by things that transpired after I was gone.’ ”

Not everybody bought into that, according to MSNBC:

“The irony was not lost on analysts.

“ ‘He won’t be the first or the last person trying to make money on both sides of a trade,’ said Frederick Cannon, an analyst at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc. who covers Countrywide [since absorbed by Bank of America].

“ ‘On the one hand you could make the case that he was (with) the company that made all these loans. On the other hand, what we need right now is to find some buyers for these assets,’ Cannon said. ‘Is it fair? Hard to say.’ ”

(CNBC has an interesting slide show here, a “where-are-they-are-now?” update on (in)famous figures from the financial crisis, including Countrywide founder Angelo Mozilo, who is fighting the SEC in a civil suit alleging fraud and “misleading investors.”)

By the way, it’s these guys who will “officially announce” the end of the recession; as you can see as of 10-30-09 (on the right-hand side of the page), the current recession has no end date, but merely a question mark. Meanwhile, as end-of-Recession talk buzzes, unemployment, foreclosures and filings for bankruptcy protection continue unabated.

This, from Oct. 28 The New York Times, “Unemployment is Higher Almost Everywhere”:

“Unemployment rates were higher in September than a year earlier in 371 of the 372 United States metropolitan areas, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

Not too long ago, the concern was that unemployment might blow past 10 per cent. In some areas, the new concern is it may breeze on 20 per cent. “The greatest increase in unemployment over the last year was in  Detroit-Warren-Livonia, Mich., where joblessness grew 8.4 percentage points to a total rate of 17.3 percent in September 2009. The second-greatest year-over-year increase was in  Muskegon-Norton Shores, Mich., where the rate rose 6.8 percentage points to 16 percent.”

And it gets worse: in a couple of areas, 20 per cent is in the rear-view mirror: “In September 2009, the overall highest metropolitan rates of unemployment (again, not seasonally adjusted) were in  El Centro, Calif., and  Yuma, Ariz., where rates touched 30.1 and 24.2 percent, respectively. These two areas, which both border Mexico, are highly agricultural.”

On the foreclosure front, perhaps the worst hardest-hit areas have bottomed out, but the damage seems to be spreading according to RealtyTrac data reported by American Banking News.” ‘Rising unemployment and a new variety of mortgage resets continue to gradually shift the nation’s foreclosure epicenters in the third quarter away from the hot spots of the last two years and toward some metro areas that had avoided the brunt of the first foreclosure wave,’ said James J. Saccacio, RealtyTrac’s CEO in the Metropolitan Foreclosure Market Report. “Per the report, filings for foreclosures rose five percent in the third quarter, and 23 percent over last year. This includes auctions, bank repossessions and defaults. Taking into account the unreported abandonment by homeowners of their houses by banks so they don’t have to include it as an accounting event, and the numbers are even more staggering, to say the least.”

Consumers seeking relief via bankruptcy petitions are filing in waves, unmatched since the rush to beat the “reform” deadline in 2005.

Google “personal bankruptcy news” and the results read like a fill-in-the-blank: numbers rising in _____________  (Massachussetts, Connecticut,  Georgia).

An Oct. 2 Wall Street Journal post sums it up simply as “Personal Bankruptcy Filings Soar”: “Consumer bankruptcies topped one million for the first nine months of this year, the highest point since the system was overhauled in 2005.

“The number of personal bankruptcy filings for the nine months rose to 1,046,449 as of Sept. 30, the American Bankruptcy Institute, an organization made up of attorneys, accountants and other bankruptcy professionals, said Friday, using data from the National Bankruptcy Research Center. There were 773,810 personal bankruptcy filings for the same time period in 2008.

“September’s filings reached 124,790, 41% higher than the same month last year.”

Looks like the Phat Lady of the Turnaround has even left the dressing room and headed home–if she still has one.

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

Bankruptcy protection offers a chance for a new start, as well as methods for protecting certain assets–and even improving one’s credit score over time. To asses the value of bankruptcy for your individual situation, you should seek counsel from a trained, experienced bankruptcy attorney.

Here’s some online resources:

U.S. bankruptcy court

Federal Trade Commission, consumer credit

Bankruptcy Corner, overview portal

Bankruptcy Corner, principles of bankruptcy

A blogger at iStockAnalyst posted  on August 12 a pretty thorough roundup showing that the tsunami of consumer bankruptcies is not limited to the “ugly Americans” of the USA but is indeed a global phenomenon. His main point is that the binge of the “credit party” is over, and as far it is goes, the post is a quick, representative look at nations and economies as seemingly diverse as Holland, Scotland, the U.K., and Canada–and it offers plenty of links to pertinent, recent headlines.

Nevertheless, these are all statistics, alarming, yes–but still a rather chilly dataset that do not uncork the hot odor of failure. For regardless of perceptions in the other beleaguered countries, in the bootstrap-yourself, Root Hog, or Die! psyche of most U.S. workers, the simple truth is that bankruptcy stinks. True, you can find many accounts across the Web saying something to the effect that there’s so many personal bankruptcy filings now that the mere fact of having a bankruptcy on your credit report does not carry the stigma that it once did. For instance, at this in-depth post from July 19 (”The Human Side of Bankruptcy: Financial Disruption is Personal for the Millions Who File for It”), consider this passage:

“Brian Hemphill is a lawyer in Bend who did not work for the Gulicks but who specializes in bankruptcy cases. He keeps a box of tissues on his desk because clients are often in tears. Many clients, he said, feel overwhelmed and ashamed.

“I tell them, it’s not a magic wand and it can’t cure everything,” he said. “It does have a lot of negatives to it, and people have to decide, do the positives of bankruptcy outweigh the negatives? But fundamentally, bankruptcy is there to help.”

Hemphill said the social stigma attached to bankruptcy has faded in recent years as it has become more common.

Donald Trump told the New York Daily News in 2004 — during his casino company’s second voyage through bankruptcy — that there’s no shame in it.”

And it’s also true that recent unemployment figures hint that overall job loss in the U.S. may be turning around. Neverthless, a very cruel trend is emerging that spells double trouble for job seekers: the increased use of background credit checks among prospective employers is headlined “Another Hurdle for the Jobless . . .” in this August 7 report from The New York Times.

Here’s the lead: “Digging out of debt keeps getting harder for the unemployed as more companies use detailed credit checks to screen job prospects.”

And here’s the meat and potatoes: “Once reserved for government jobs or payroll positions that could involve significant sums of money, credit checks are now fast, cheap and used for all manner of work. Employers, often winnowing a big pool of job applicants in days of nearly 10 percent unemployment, view the credit check as a valuable tool for assessing someone’s judgment.

“But job counselors worry that the practice of shunning those with poor credit may be unfair and trap the unemployed — who may be battling foreclosure, living off credit cards and confronting personal bankruptcy — in a financial death spiral: the worse their debts, the harder it is to get a job to pay them off.”

The article also cites a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management in reporting that “[m]ore than 40 percent of employers use credit checks at least sometimes. . . up from 25 percent in 1998,” adding that  career counselors contend that figure “has almost certainly risen today.”

Of course, anyone who’s ever run a business can sympathize with the effort to find the best employee: “Business executives say that they have an obligation to be diligent and to protect themselves from employees who may be unreliable, unwise or too susceptible to temptation to steal, and that credit checks are a help.”

But, see, right there? “unreliable,” “unwise” or propensity for theft–what has that got to do with a business decision to file bankruptcy? Where’s the two-way street? By that measure, who can do business with any of the bailout companies or the scores of businesses that have filed for bankruptcy protection?

As the article continues, “Credit counselors, worker advocates and the unemployed contend that a credit check is not always relevant to hiring decisions.

“ ‘There’s no relationship between being a personal trainer making $12 an hour’ and having a good credit history, said Janet L. Newcomb, a career counselor in Huntington Beach, Calif. ‘People are being turned down for jobs on the basis of things that really have nothing to do with qualifications.’ ”

Here’s an example: Say you’re an employer with a choice between:

1. a recent graduate, with no roots, who bounces from apartment to apartment, never cleaning up behind and simply walking away from the deposit, and
2. a 30s or 40s employee, with spouse and children, who’s fighting to save their home and therefore were forced to seek bankruptcy protection.

Ask yourself one simple question: Who will be more highly motivated?

The problem is the reliance on the FICO score, in which bankruptcy is a big, long-lasting hit. As summarized in the following, while national leaders are looking at major reform, perhaps this whole credit score industry deserves a long-overdue examination: “Employers say it’s a good way of picking out possible red flags in an otherwise promising-looking employee. But this continued belief in the existing credit-check infrastructure seems stupidly pro-cyclical. In the boomtimes, everyone looked like a great credit risk. Now at this point, everyone looks suspect. Maybe it’s time to put some more though thought into how we measure an individual’s creditworthiness.”

Now, here’s another double-whammy, from the health-care arena. It’s the practice of rescision, in which insurance companies can drop policy holders in the hot grease of costly medical bills and simply deny to pay all claims. Merriam Webster online defines rescinding as:

1. “to take away: remove
2. “take back, cancel”

Here’s how a June 17 LA Times article describes the insurance company practice: “The committee investigation uncovered several rescission practices that one lawmaker called egregious, including targeting every policyholder diagnosed with leukemia, breast cancer and 1,400 other serious illnesses. Such investigations involve scouring the policyholder’s original application and years’ worth of medical and pharmacy records in search of any discrepancies.

” ‘These practices reveal that when an insurance company receives a claim for an expensive, life-saving treatment, some of them will look for a way — any way — to avoid having to pay for it,’ said [Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.)] Stupak, chairman of the commerce committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.”

Here’s how it works. Insurance company contracts have anti-fraud provisions, such that applicants are not supposed to lie about known life-threatening conditions, for example, AIDS or cancer. If you lie, if you try to commit insurance fraud, you should be caught–and punished, for that matter.

But what unscrupulous companies do is use those provisions as loopholes, cutting people off who forget to list innocent items on the apps–or even for not listing conditions hidden in their medical records, unknown to them. Here’s some example from a repost of another LA Times article: “A Texas nurse said she lost her coverage, after she was diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer, for failing to disclose a visit to a dermatologist for acne.

The sister of an Illinois man who died of lymphoma said his policy was rescinded for the failure to report a possible aneurysm and gallstones that his physician noted in his chart but did not discuss with him.”

The practice of rescission “was largely hidden until three years ago, when The Times launched a series of stories disclosing that insurers routinely canceled the medical coverage of individual policyholders who required expensive medical care.”

Apparently, once the practice came to light, Congress got interested and held a hearing in June. From The Times’ coverage and the hearing testimony, a particularly nasty item came to light. Despite insurance execs’ denials of bonuses for employees who rescind thousands of policies, “[o]ne employee, for instance, received a perfect 5 for ‘exceptional performance’ on an evaluation that noted the employee’s role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.”

The jaw-dropper in all this is the response of three insurance execs who testified at the hearing.

“Late in the hearing,  Stupak, the committee chairman, put the executives on the spot. Stupak asked each of them whether he would at least commit his company to immediately stop rescissions except where they could show ‘intentional fraud.’

“The answer from all three executives:

” ‘No.’ “

Then Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) tied the discussion to the need for health-care reform. He “said that a public insurance plan should be a part of any overhaul because it would force private companies to treat consumers fairly or risk losing them.

” ‘This is precisely why we need a public option,’ Dingell said.”

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

Many of us can not wait for our leaders to fix the foreclosure/credit card/health system fiasco. Experts agree that if personal bankruptcy is your best option, the sooner you get counsel from a qualified attorney, the better. Here’s some online resources:

An overview from The New York Times.

An introduction to Chapter 7.

An introduction to Chapter 13.