HOW HE SEES IT Bankruptcy should not be free ticket for filers

By JAY AMBROSE
SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE
Wise bankruptcy law ought to give people unable to pay their bills a chance to recover, but is it somehow a kick in the teeth of those who are already down and out to ask that they pay back some of what they owe when and if they can?
Democrats and some consumer groups who are opposed to new bankruptcy legislation like to argue as much. And then they throw in the argument that many of those who fall into bankruptcy got there through no particular fault of their own, but perhaps through some such thing as an unexpected illness.
The point is true, but irrelevant. Whatever the cause of the bankruptcy, the issue is whether there should be some obligation if you get back on your feet. The chief objective of a House bill is to say that people should pay off 25 percent of their debt over five years if a court concludes in accordance with new standards that they have enough income to do it. If you argue differently, you are arguing against the working-class people that the consumer groups and Democrats claim they are sticking up for. These people -- the large majority of whom are not bankrupt -- find themselves paying higher prices to make up the difference of those who don't pay their debts.
Farmers
Owing to a recent vote, the House legislation now includes a provision specifically for farmers, saying they don't have to sell their equipment and other assets before being granted protection from creditors. If they did, sponsors are quoted as arguing, they would not have the means of earning a living again.
The provision sounds reasonable, which is not to say that every provision in the large, complex piece of legislation is reasonable. But those opposed need to point to specific problems, not simply complain that anything toughening bankruptcy laws is ipso facto unfair to working people or those who are temporarily out of luck.