Monday, February 23, 2009

Jim Bunning - /headdesk

First as a law student and now as an attorney, I've always been a fan of Ruth Bader Ginsburg - her opinions have generally showed clarity of thought and a good deal of appreciation for the bottom line, as opposed to some long-winded Founding Fathers interpretation or some off the wall precedent.

I was saddened by her recent illness, and I hope she will recover. The loss of any great legal mind is always painful, and I sincerely hope that Justice Ginsburg will be with us for a long, long time before she goes and joins the Great Bar Association in the Sky.

So, today, we get the wonderful Kentucky jackass Jim Bunning, playing cliche partisan anti-court rhetoric cards and stating that Ginsburg has 9 months to live. He later apologized, but still misspelled Ginsburg's name.

This moron represents his state in the House of Representatives, and he can't even spell the name of a Supreme Court justice right. He is another great example (along with Roland Burris) of why democratic government requires constant vigilance - and also the dark downside of letting everyone's vote count equally.

"Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! [. . .] God Save the United States and this Honorable Court."

Another Non-Law Post - Oscars = bleh

A couple of notes on the Oscars (or rather, my venomous disagreement with the overstuffed, pretentious academy):

Actor in a Leading Role: Rourke's performance was such a wonderful, truthfully savage look at a man's soul . . . though I haven't seen Milk yet, so maybe I really am off base here - but I doubt it.

Actress in a Leading Role: Should have gone to Anne Hathaway, but she's still suffering from all the nice, fun roles in Get Smart and Ella Enchanted and hasn't yet fully gone over to the Academy darkside.

Supporting Actress: Again, I would go with The Wrestler and Marissa Tomei.

Animated Feature: Kung Fu Panda was head and shoulders above Wall-E. Another solid "bleh."

Now, for my big, big rant: Makeup and Costume design. Did anyone who voted actually watch Hellboy II? F*ck you Benjamin Button. Del Toro's Hellboy II stands out as probably one of the most elaborate visual effect movies since Clash of the Titans, and yet it gets snubbed. Bleh. And Double Bleh.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Yet another Post that has Nothing to do with Law

I feel like I am only posting to stay in the habit of posting - but perhaps I am using the word habit a bit strongly.

This blog started as a way to vent angst about my uncertain future, and now things are looking bright (or at least moderately well lit). I'm even developing some semblance of social life. (And now this is starting to sound like a LiveJournal entry . . .).

Oh well. I promise that I will post something law-related tomorrow.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Haven't Posted in a Bit

I haven't posted in several days, and I probably should.

The only thing is, I really don't have much to talk about. Life is going pretty well right now. I like my job, I've got some steady income, and I'm pretty content.

In a way, this change is pretty major. For the last 7 years or so, my life has been about "what's next." College, law school, the bar exam, and now the job - there was always something around the corner, some new goal to accomplish.

Now? Now I've ran projections on my estimated student loan payoff (Sometime in 2017, heh . . .). Life is on cruise control now, to a pretty big extent. My priorities are to pay off my credit card debts, then my private student loans, and then my federal loans. That's really it. I've started saving a good chunk of my paycheck as well, with hopes to buy a car in 18 months or so.

I'm just waiting for life to happen - making new friends, meeting new people, perhaps that special someone - and that's really it.

In a way it is a bit scary. I feel like I am almost inviting life to throw me a curveball. On the other hand, I have been pretty focused for the last decade, so perhaps it is time I was able to relax and just live day by day, instead of focused on some future event.

Oh, and I bought a topcoat today. I love it, and it is very sweet - now I look like a lawyer when I walk down the street downtown, instead of some schmuck.


Insert inside joke here: Booyah.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Economic Stimulus and Math (Or How to Be Thrifty)

The current proposed economic stimulus plan being debated on Capitol Hill has a cost of $800 billion dollars, and the powers that be tell us it will create 4 million jobs.

$800,000,000,000 divided by 4,000,000 = $200,000. Each of those jobs will cost the American Taxpayer (and their children, and their children's children) $200,000.

There are currently ~11,600,000 people unemployed in the United States today.

$800,000,000,000 divided by 11,600,000 = ~$68,965.52.

So, here's the plan. We create the Re-Employment Agency. To qualify, you must be: unemployed, and work at least 25 hours per week. For an employer to qualify, they must agree to freeze their current employment numbers and salary for a year. In exchange, those employers will gain access to the pool of unemployed for free. The government will pay those employees $20 per hour, up to 40 hours per week.

If every single unemployed person took advantage of the program, the cost would be $41,600 per worker, for a total of about $482 billion dollars.

That would save the taxpayer over $300 billion dollars, give the private sector up to 464 million free man-hours per week, and it would reduce unemployment in the United States to zero.

Treat the employees at independent contractors, use 1099 forms to track hours, and let the employer eat the cost of worker's comp/etc.

Free labor + zero unemployment + saving money = win. Also, the $41,600 is a tad bit more than I'll make this year, as an attorney with 7 years of post-high school education.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Good Days and Bad Days

Today was the latter. Since I'm still a new attorney, I haven't really developed the thick skin that armors most others in the rough and tumble world of consumer bankruptcy. Behind every file name is a story, a series of poor choices, easy credit, and lots and lots of regret. We do what we can, and most of the time, for most of the people, we help them.

Today thought, came the exception. The client was an older female, and unfortunately had a whole life insurance policy and a car with a little equity in it - less than $10,000 in total. Some trustees wouldn't bother, but of course we get one who is exceedingly thorough (that is, a more polite way to say something I won't state in public about a bankruptcy trustee).

We had done what we could, but there was little we could really do to help her. So, now she's going to likely lose her car and her life insurance. Perhaps she can get a loan from a family member, or figure something else out, to buyout the trustee interest, but that isn't likely.

That's the thing that pisses me off about bankruptcy. If you have horrible judgment, rack up a f*ck ton of credit debt, your chapter 7 will sail cleanly through. If you have a ton of money and income, and you just made a couple of bad calls and got behind on your mortgage, chapter 13 will help you.

If you're in the middle, and you made some decent financial decisions right alongside the horrible ones, and you have a middling amount of equity, and a car that is worth something but not a lot, you get the short end of the stick. It creates a perverse incentive for asset management.

I feel bad for the client - she was in tears by the end of it. There's only so much we can do, and sometimes it isn't enough.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Bankruptcy, Consumer Credit Debt, and the Economy

Having been on the consumer end of consumer bankruptcy for several weeks now, I have gained some perspective (a dangerous thing, I know) on the recent economic meltdown.

My theory goes as follows: During the last ten or 15 years of steady economic growth, that growth has largely been fueled by consumer credit card debt. The boom in the consumer spending, on things like electronics, food, clothing, jewelry, vacations, and just about everything else, has largely been bought on credit. The statistics don't lie: the average consumer credit card debt is over $8,000. However, most households carry only about $2,000 worth - only 1 in 20 (5%) have more than $8,000 in debt. Total outstanding credit card debt in 2002 was $750 billion - the Gross Domestic Product of Australia.

That debt has almost no relation to any real number. Rather, the credit card companies transform that debt and turn it into a monthly payment. That payment is little more than a bribe for temporary respite, a purchase of time while the debtors wait for the other shoe to drop. The debt merry-go-round keeps going around only as long as those monthly payments, payments which only go to interest and fees and whatnot. Once that merry-go-round stops, the angry calls and collections start.

The main problem is that those payments are really only going to pad the earnings report of credit card companies. That money, the hard-earned money of working folks, is doing nothing. They are not buying consumer goods, not saving money, not buying a new car, not doing anything to stimulate economic growth.

The solution? This answer will be self-serving, but we should liberalize bankruptcy laws and clamp down on consumer credit. By making it easier to clear credit card debt, the hundreds of dollars families are spending on each month for their credit card respite will be turned instead towards economically stimulating activites. Secondly, by clamping down on the ease of access to credit cards, the slippery slope of the credit card money pit can be avoided.

To throw some numbers out:

Increase the exemptions for cars and real property by 50%, to protect the equity in the home: $3,600 for each car, and $22,500 (single) / $45,000 (joint) for real property.

Secondly, decrease the filing limits to every 5 years, from every 8, for chapter 7 bankruptcy. Also, increase the income levels to 30% over the median, instead of the median income.

These changes will make it easier to wipe credit card debt.

Now, as far as credit cards, put a limit on any revolving credit account for a person to $1,500 total, increasing the limit by $500 per year, and removing the limit after 10 years. Also, put strict limits on interest rates (say, prime + 15%) and all the various fees.

What will this accomplish? First of all, it will let most families get out of the credit card money pit, freeing up hundreds of dollars each month. That money can go to save mortgages, can be used to buy things to stimulate economic growth, and can generally be used in a more efficient way than buying time from the credit card company.

Secondly, the restrictions on credit cards will ensure that bad debtors, who suck with money, will have a much harder time racking up 5 figure credit card debts. The ease of bankruptcy will also force credit companies to be much more stringent with how they hand out credit.

Who will lose? The credit card companies will get hosed, big time. They are big, evil corporations and deserve it. Realistically though, their business model sucks anyway, and is likely doomed to failure, since it focues on easy credit, high interest, high fees, and short term gains over any long-term working relationship.

Who will win? Consumers and the economy as a whole. Who else will win? Consumers will win because they will be prevent from falling into the credit money pit, and one less pitfall will exist between them and financial independence.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Banks - They All Suck

Now that I've relocated and found a job, it is time to find a bank.

In short, they all suck. Chase wants $6 a month, Bank of America wants $6.95, and the rest are just as bad.

I love SIU Credit Union, in Carbondale, because they were (a) nice people; (b) gave full credit in most cases for deposits, immediately, and (c) a variety of locations. I prefer credit unions generally; it seems to me that by and large much of the recent economic meltdown has been caused by banks getting greedy/stupid/moronic. Credit unions, on the other hand, tend to be much, much smaller, and therefore much more likely to be conscious of their bottom line and very risk adverse.

Unfortunately, and this applies to basically every banking institution in the universe, DuPage Credit Union does not have hours that work for me; their opening hours are my work hours.

Oh, and f*ck Chicago traffic.