IAED: THE BANKRUPTCY BILL

THE BANKRUPTCY BILL: Usury!
"To Hell With Forgiveness," Saith the Congress
Criminal Interest Rates for Credit Card Companies and Banks

(How the Rich screw the rest of us...)

Wonder why people hated the Republican congressional majority enough to vote them out of office in the 2006 elections? Here's a good example:

In 2005, impelled by massive campaign contributions from banks and credit card companies, Congress passed the first change in the bankruptcy law in twenty seven years. A draconian bill, it ends the concept of a "clean start," which has long animated the humanitarian impulse behind the bankruptcy process.

A more cold blooded piece of legislation would be hard to envision. Credit card companies, the beneficiaries of the bifi, posted a profit of $30 billion in 2004, charging exorbitantly high interest rates, peddling credit cards to teens like drug pushers, and charging loan shark like excessive penalties for even slightly late payments. To augment their profits, the revised bankruptcy law holds debtors in almost permanent bondage to their debts, making a mockery of the very purpose of the bankruptcy statute in the first place. In its exclusively pro business attitude, and with complete lack of compassion for debtors, the Republican Congress conformed to the stereotype of heartlessness that Democrats delight in painting. President George W. Bush's enlightened "compassionate conservatism" is nowhere to be seen in the legislation.

The revival of debtor's prison cannot be far behind! WHY DO PEOPLE FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY? BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO! Half of all bankruptcies are filed because of high medical bills. One in ten people who file for bankruptcy has cancer when they file. Ninety five percent of bankruptcies are due to job loss, family breakup, or medical bills. Only 2 percent of filers are in alcohol or drug rehab when they file. Source: Newsweek In their lust to appease their campaign contributors, did our congressmen and senators stop to contemplate as both Newsweek and Harvard researchers have that more than half of all bankruptcy filers cite medical costs as the key factor that pushed them over the financial edge? The conservative sponsors of the bankruptcy bill were right that filings have skyrocketed in recent years from 200,000 in 1978 to 1.6 million in 2004. In fact, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, one in sixty households filed for bankruptcy in 2OO5. But the real question is: why the increase in bankruptcy? The key factor is the extraordinary increase in credit card debt, which has quadrupled since 1990 and now comes to just under $700 billion. Interest rates on credit card debt are often not capped, and penalties often triggered by a single late payment frequently exceed 30 percent' u The rapid fall in health insurance coverage exacerbates the problem. Forty one percent of moderate and middle income adults lacked health in : 11 surance for part of 2005, up from 28 percent in 2001. According to the Census Bureau, there are 45 million uninsured Americans.' it Congress has failed to provide national health insurance, and the states
THE BANKRUPTCY BILL 1 241

have failed to regulate credit card interest rates and lending practices. The inevitable result is a major increase in bankruptcies. Yet when amendments were offered on the floor of Congress to exempt bankruptcies caused by medical bills from the legislation's requirements, or to cap credit card interest rates at 30 percent, the Republican majorities intent on passing this purely punitive measure rejected them out of hand.

The goal of the bankruptcy reform Congress passed was to curtail the use of the "clean slate" bankruptcy offered under Chapter 7 and to force debtors into the more draconian Chapter 13. Under Chapter 13, those in bankruptcy must do their utmost to pay their debts over a five year period. As an incentive to encourage lenders to accept partial payment, the bankruptcy judge can reduce the debtor's liability by up to 20 percent, but can do no more.

Rather than cure insolvency, Chapter 13 simply perpetuates it. Most people find it impossible to make the required payments over a five year period, so about 75 percent of Chapter 13 bankruptcies fail. Then, with the debt unforgiven, the hounding by creditors resumes but this time the debtor has no surcease or shelter until two more years have passed, after which the debtor can refile for bankruptcy and begin the same dismal process all over again.'

For most people, Chapter 13 means a life of indebtedness with no relief. One mistake, one serious illness, one lapse into carelessness or irresponsibility, one job loss, and you're serving a life sentence of debt.

On the surface, the criteria Congress has established for entry into the more generous Chapter 7 seem reasonable. Those who earn less than the median income for their state continue to be eligible for Chapter 7 relief under the new law. The median income for a family of four in the United States in 2003 was $65,000 (or about $1,250 per week before taxes), and ranged from $46,000 in New Mexico to $83,000 in Massachusetts!

Those who earn more than the median income cannot enter Chapter 7 unless they can prove that they cannot pay $6,000 of their debt over the next five years. But in calculating their ability to repay their debt, the law uses the IRS standards for allowable expenses: $200 per month for food and $800 for monthly housing costs for a family of four! Given the cost of a Big Mac, it's hard to imagine how anyone could feed four mouths for $6.50 per day.

Essentially, just about anybody who pays federal income taxes is above the median income cutoff in the legislation. They should be able to handle ordinary credit card debt with that kind of income. But they can't handle it if they lose a job or face huge medical bills... and Congress has made sure they'll have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

Under the new bill, student loans cannot be forgiven or reduced. The provisions of the old bankruptcy law prevented government direct or federally guaranteed student loans from being wiped out, but allowed private student loans to be. The new legislation eliminates any such forgiveness.

In computing the value of "collateral" (which includes furniture, clothing, cars, and electronic equipment), the new law specifies that they be assessed at their replacement value far above the previous law, which directed that they be valued at their current worth. The assumption seems to be that families in bankruptcy will go out on a spending spree and buy new goods rather than make do with what they have. In some states such as Florida and Texas that protect homes from seizure by creditors, the new law provides that dwellings worth more than $125,000 cannot be protected unless they were purchased more than three years before filing for bankruptcy.

This is a bill only Uncle Scrooge could love.

Defenders of this iniquitous piece of legislation cite the benefit to other consumers, arguing that those who borrow from credit card companies and then cannot pay their debts drive up the costs for more diligent borrowers, who conscientiously repay their obligations. But with credit card company profits so high, interest so exorbitant, and penalties so frequent and costly, shouldn't we expect the industry to mitigate its greed and help those driven to bankruptcy by such extravagances as chemotherapy for their cancer?

Of course, the revisions have been a boon for some industries. Credit counselors certainly do well by its provisions, since the law requires anyone seeking bankruptcy protection to enter counseling. Legislators had hoped that the counselors could persuade potential bankrupts to sign up for a debt management plan offered by credit counseling services. But a recent study showed that, since the law was passed, out of fifteen thousand people counseled at a typical agency, only 42 (0.3 percent) signed up for such a program.'

The only thing the counseling requirement does is assure that agencies offering financial advice get an average of $51 for each session. With up wards of two thousand people filing for bankruptcy daily, this creates a flow of $100,000 per day for credit counseling agencies."

Lawyers also appreciate the reform legislation. The burden of proof on those filing for bankruptcy has at least doubled under the new statute. The American Bankruptcy Association says that under the new law debtors must provide "a list of secured and unsecured creditors; documentation to credit counseling; monthly income and expenses; assets and liabilities; most recent tax return and any earlier returns that were not filed; pay stubs and photo ID?' Lawyers who must now certify that the filings of those seeking bankruptcy are accurate are liable to sanctions if they are not. All this adds up to much higher legal fees for those who can, obviously, least afford them."

We all know of people who have used the bankruptcy law irresponsibly to evade paying money they legitimately owed. But the changes Congress enacted at the prompting of the industry are truly excessive.

THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON BANKRUPTCY

Global Crossing. Enron Worldom unscathed. Student loan debtors . Patients in bankruptcy due to medical costs Broken families punished forever!

One does not have to engage in class warfare to ask why Congress was so anxious to crack down on the small individual debtor while leaving unscathed the massive corporate bankruptcies (like Enron, Global Crossing, and WorldCom) that left millions of individuals with sharply depleted ins vestments or without their hard earned pensions. As the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out editorially, the Congress "could have addressed myriad schemes used by the wealthy to shield their assets from creditors. It could c have taken on some of the highly profitable but ethically suspect lending a: practices predatory mortgage loans to the elderly, high interest credit cards to college students, payday loans to the working poor that too often n send the recipient into a downward spiral of debt. Instead, the bill focused J on an easy target low income folks who find themselves in dire straits?"2 tc A key opponent of the bill, New York Democratic senator Chuck Schumer (whose irrelevant amendment to stop the law from discharging c; fines levied by courts against pro life demonstrators outside abortion clinics if held up the bill's passage for more than a year) was particularly critical of the fi "bias" in the bill. Noting that the law does nothing to close a loophole that allows the rich to shelter assets through trusts, Schumer said the bill "deals with e: abuses in bankruptcy by one group but not with another group.""3 c At the bidding of the credit card industry, the Republican Congress had t] tried before to revise the bankruptcy law. It had passed similar legislation in p the waning days of the Clinton administration, only to have it die through a p presidential pocket veto (in which the president fails to sign a bill within the c required ten days, so it dies, as it were, "in his pocket"). p Reaction to the bankruptcy law changes has been swift and fierce. Judge Frank Monroe of Austin, Texas, found himself compelled to reject the bankruptcy petition of Alfonso Sosa, a house painter who made $20,000 a year. He had filed for bankruptcy in the hopes of avoiding foreclosure on the $33,000 mobile home where he lived with his family. Judge Monroe t] noted that the new law is filled with traps for consumers, calling its provi h sions "inane" and "absurd?' "Apparently," he observed wryly, "it is not the in p dividual consumers of this country that make the donations to the c members of Congress that allow them to be elected and reelected and re d elected and reelected. Two weeks before the bill's passage, 104 bankruptcy law professors c wrote to Congress complaining about the law. And the New York Times t noted that critics of the bill "said the measure was a thinly disguised gift to p banks and credit card companies, which, they contend, are largely responsi $ ble for the high rate of bankruptcies because they heavily promote credit li cards and loans that often come with large and largely unseen fees for late $ payments. They said that the measure would impose new obstacles on c many middle income families seéking desperately needed protection from creditors and that it would take far longer for those families to start over after suffering serious illness, unemployment, and other calamities.

Noting that the bankruptcy law revisions "provide for no distinction between those who get unlucky in Las Vegas and those who get cancer;' Jonathan Alter of Newsweek charged that the revisions were "literally written by the credit card industry.

In an emotional piece tying the bankruptcy law changes to a hypothetical case, Alter said, "Let's say Peter Jennings was named Jeter Pennings and instead of making more than $7 million a year, he earns $70,000, still comfortably middle class. Pennings has lung cancer, and he understandably wants the best treatment available. But his insurance company won't cover experimental chemotherapy, so Pennings has an excruciating but familiar choice: he can charge the $25,000 chemo on his credit card or go without the cutting edge treatment. If Pennings is like most people, he chooses to put his health first. With credit card interest and late fees often totaling 100 percent a year, he's now so deep in the hole he'll never dig out. But under current law, he can file Chapter 7 and get on with what's left of his life?' The piece went on to describe how Pennings would be unable to do so if, under the new law, he found himself in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. 17

How did this law make it through Congress? How did it manage to attract enough Democratic votes in the Senate to avoid a filibuster?

The votes were bought and paid for. According to the Washington Post, the banking, credit card, and retail industries, "which have pushed for the legislation for more than seven years;' gave more than $56 million in campaign contributions in the 2004 elections." And, in the 2005 06 election cycle, while the bill was under consideration, the banking and finance industries gave $34 million more."

The New York Times noted that "the main lobbying forces for the bill a coalition that included Visa, MasterCard, the American Bankers Association, MBNA America, Capital One, Citicorp, the Ford Motor Credit Company, and the General Motors Acceptance Corporation spent more than $40 million in political fund raising efforts and many millions more on lobbying efforts since 1989.. . ?' All told, the industry has spent more than $150 million since 1990 in campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates in its effort to change the bankruptcy law."

One key recipient of industry largesse, predictably, was the law's Senate sponsor, Senator Chuck Grassley (MA). Senator Grassley got the following campaign contributions from forces backing the bill: FOLLOW THE MONEY: CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO SENATE SPONSOR CHUCK GRASSLEY American Bankers Association PAC (BANKPAC) 1997 to 2005 $18,000 o American Express Company PC (AXPPAC) 1997 to 2003 $15,000 o B of A Corp Federal PAC 1997 to 2006 $38,500 o Citicorp Voluntary Political Fund Federal 1997 to 1998 $4,000 o Citigroup Inc. PAC 1997to2004 $11,499 o Mortgage Bankers Association PAC 1997 to 2006 $8,000 o U.S. Bankcorp Political Participation Program 1998 to 2003 $11,000 o Wells Fargo and Co Employee PAC 1997 to 2003 $20,000 TOTAL TAKE: $126,000

One expects the Republican Party to do the bidding of its upscale, corporate, special interest funders. But where was the Democratic Party on this bill? Except for a handful of Democrats, they put up no serious fight. Indeed, nineteen Senate Democrats voted for the bill, led by the new Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid (D NV). These Democrats deserve special scorn. Despite being in the minority in the Senate, they could have killed the bill, as they killed many others, by filibustering and blocking the Republicans from getting the sixty votes they needed to close debate. Filibusters once a rare tactic usually used only by Southern senators to kill civil rights legislation have become a standard tactic in our political arena. If you don't have sixty votes, you don't bring a bill to the floor of the Senate. A majority is no longer necessary; you need sixty votes. But the GOP sponsors of the bankruptcy bill had no difficulty getting those sixty, because the financial industry had spread its money around to the Democrats who might have blocked the bill. The following table lists those Democratic senators who sold out and supported the bankruptcy bill, and how much they got in campaign contributions from commercial banks in the 20012006 period:

SENATE DEMOCRATS WHO SOLD OUT ON BANKRUPTCY PROTECTION ...
AND
HOW MUCH THEY GOT 23 2001 2006 Total:

Arkansas Blanche Lincoln $145,507 Mark Pryor $59,396 Colorado: Ken Salazar (new in 2006) $9,500 Delaware Joe Biden $48,725 Tom Carper $298,018 Florida Bill Nelson $93,899 Hawaii Daniel lriouye $5,950 Indiana Evan Bayh $220,544 Louisiana Mary Landrieu $85,250 Michigan Deborah Ann Stabenow $150,096 Montana Max Baucus $166,727 Nebraska Ben Nelson $127,300 Nevada Harry Reid $109,896 New Mexico Jeff Birigaman $40,631 North Dakota Kent Conrad $114,500 South Dakota Tim Johnson $228,022 Vermont Jim Jeffords (I) (not running) $1,400 West Virginia Robert Byrd $66,450

Source: Profiles of individual senators on politicalmoneyline, corn, listing the top twenty industries contributing to each candidate. (Some profiles did not include commercial banks among their top twenty industries, so we added these.)

Max Baucus of Montana is from a small state with no real opposition, but he still rakes in plenty of campaign money from major industries interested in his vote. In his most recent race, Baucus won with 63 percent of the vote. He's likely to win by even more next time. His reelection is a given, conceded by both parties. The donors didn't give him money because they were worried he wouldn't be reelected. They gave him the money to get his vote. And it worked!

Go down the list of Democrats. It's not hard to spot the more obvious examples of influence. Tom Carper from Delaware, for example, is not vulnerable to put it mildly. He won last time with 56 percent of the vote and he will probably not face serious opposition next time. To give him almost half a million dollars in campaign contributions for an almost nonexistent campaign clearly smacks of buying access, if not influence. And, even if he needed the money for a campaign, Delaware is one of the smallest states in the nation. For half a million dollars, he could wallpaper the state with ads. But he won't. He'll use the extra money to pay for travel, staff, and other allowable perks of the job.

And that's an outrage!

ACTION AGENDA

The politicians have made a simple calculus: people who file for bankruptcy don't vote. Typically young families or individuals just starting out, they are burdened by student loans and the costs of a first home and their turnout in elections is notoriously low. It's a truism in politics that the older you are, the more likely you are to go and vote.

So the congressmen and senators who voted to sabotage the bankruptcy law are expecting those who need its protections to stay home. They figure they will have a better chance of getting reelected if they pocket the campaign contributions and bet that those who are being hurt by the new law won't know about how they voted, or won't go out to vote themselves.

It's our job to confound them! Study the list, particularly of the Democrats who sold out. Send them a letter or an e mail telling them you've heard about how they voted on bankruptcy and that they can't expect your vote in the next election. Get in touch with others who are similarly situated, and start a large movement. Don't let them get away with their vote! Stand up and fight. And let them know you're fighting. Congress should let bankruptcy judges take the circumstances of the debt into account. If it was drugs or drinking, no relief. But if a petitioner can prove that medical bills or job loss caused his indebtedness, the judge should be allowed to use some discretion. Specifically, Congress should change the law so that a judge can forgive up to 80 percent of a debt (the current figure is only 20 percent) under Chapter 13 if the reason for defaulting on the debt was legitimate. Why should the rest of us bear this cost? Because we believe in second chances and forgiveness and mercy where it is deserved and that's a worthwhile thing to spend our money on!

Bankruptcy judges should be required to distinguish between the actual amount of the debt, the accumulated interest due, and the penalties imposed by the lender for late or missed payments. Not all debt is created equal. Judges should be able to forgive all penalties, and much of the interest, if the debtor had a good reason for his inability to pay.

In repeated filings under Chapter 13, a judge should be able to forgive debt entirely if there is evidence that the debtor made a good faith effort to make payments in his previous period under Chapter 13. If a debtor can prove, for example, that he or she paid a certain percent of their income to extinguish the debt but just didn't make enough money to do it completely, a judge should be able to recognize the attempt and grant relief.

Congress should turn its attention to regulating credit card companies and curbing their current practice of luring students and others with limited means into debt. Because some lending companies find that they make much more from bad debtors with their accrued interest and penalties creditors often deliberately seek out bad borrowers as targets for their credit card marketing.

The absurd credit counseling requirement should be abolished. This holier than thou attitude coming from a Congress that bounced House Bank checks to high heaven a decade ago has no place on the statute books. Only about 1 percent of those counseled enter debt management agreements; why the boondoggle for the counselors who collect fifty dollars a session?

And if our good legislators are so upset about bankruptcies, why don't they write some tougher legislation to crack down on corporate bankrupts like Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, and the like, who fleece tens of millions of dollars out of their employees' retirement savings? Come on, Congress. Go for broke.

NOTES

32. Fannie Mae Runs Ads: McLean, "The Fall of Fannie Mae."

33. "Here is an organization": McLean, "The Fall of Fannie Mae?'

34. "Fannie sprinkles millions": Guberman, "Balancing Act.'

35. "foundation had existed": McLean, "The Fall of Fannie Mae?'

36. "free, step by step": "Fannie Mae Foundation;' DiscoverTheNetwork.org, 2006, http://dis coverthenetworks.com/funderproflle.asp?fndid"'5 197&category'"78.

37. Organizations That Got Grants: Ibid.

38. "Fannie Mae is": Guberman, "Balancing Act?'

39. received letters opposing: Ibid.

40. "he picketed Fannie's": Ibid.

41. got fourteen checks: Ibid.

42. "partnership offices": Ibid.

43. "you did not question": McLean, "The Fall of Fannie Mae?'

44. "in 1996, when": Ibid.

45. "called for a new": Ibid.

46. "disrupting the capital": Ibid.

47. "special examination of": Press Release, "OFHEO Report: Fannie Mae Facade: Fannie Mae Criticized For Earnings Manipulation," Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), May 23,2006, http://w'ww.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/fnmserelease.pdf.

48. "allowed the company": Ibid.

49. "these accounting standards": Ibid.

50. "This hearing is": Ibid.

51. "Is it possible": McLean, "The Fall of Frank Raines?'

52. "overplayed his hand": Ibid.

53. "At a little after 6:00 p..m.": McLean, "The Fall of Fannie Mae?'

54. "Raines looked stricken": Ibid.

55. "Fannie employees manipulated": Press Release, "OFHEO Report: Fannie Mae Facade?'

56. implement thirteen recommendations: Ibid.

57. "To the extent": McLean, "The Fall of Fannie Mae."

58. "We have all": Press Release, "Fannie Mae Agrees to Comprehensive Settlements with OFHEO and SEC;' FannieMae.com, May 23, 2005, http://www.fanniemae.com/news releases/2006/3738.jhtml?p"'Media&s"'News+Releases.

59. "Mudd's not out": Robert Schrader, "Fannie Mae cited for misconduct: Mortgage finance giant agrees to $400 million fine," MarketWatch.com, May 23, 2006, http:f/www.market watch.com/news/story/fannie-mae-board-management-cited/story.aspx?guid"'%7B0 10C3 F92 94F9 4DDF 873D 9BC40810A439%7D.

CHAPTER NINE

1. $30 billion in 2004: Stephen Labaton, "Bankruptcy Bill Set for Passage; Victory for Bush;' New York Times, March 9, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/09/business/09bank ruptcy.html?ex= 12681 10800&en=05c9987df2e25e4b&ei5088.

2. Only 2 percent are: Jonathan Alter, "A Bankrupt Way to Do Business;' Newsweek, April 25, 2005, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/idI75285l9fsite/newsweek/.

3. 1.6 million in 2004: Labaton, "Bankruptcy Bill Set?'
NOTES J 333

4. one in sixty: Liz Pulliam Weston, "Bankruptcy filings soaring again," MSN.com, 2006, http://articles.moneycentraLmsn.com/Banking/BankruptcyGuidefBankruptcyFilings5oar ingAgain.aspx.

5. frequently exceed 30 percent: Ibid.

6. 45 million uninsured Americans: Ibid.

7. About 75 percent: R.V. Scheide, "You're Going Broke!" Newsreview.com, March 2, 2006, http://www.newsreview.com/reno/Content?oid=oid%3A47519.

8. $83,000 in Massachusetts: Labaton, "Bankruptcy Bifi Set?'

9. only 42 0.3 percent: Scheide, "You're Going Broke!"

tO. $100,000 per day: Weston, "Bankruptcy filings soaring?'

11. "a list of secured": Joan E. Lisante, "New Bankruptcy Law Tightens Rules, Adds Paperwork,' ConsumerAffairs.Com, October 14, 2005, http://www.consumeraffairs.com/newsO4/2OO5/ bankruptcy_2005.html.

12. "could have addressed": Editorial, "How a Bad BiB Becomes Law:' San Francisco Chronicle,

March 13, 2005, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-binlarticle.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005 /03/13/EDGSMAPC9G1.DTL.

13. "deals with abuses": Labaton, "Bankruptcy Bill Set?'

14. "apparently, it is not": Robert Elder, "Judge Takes Congress to Task in Bankruptcy Case," Staesman.com, February 6, 2006, http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/ stories/otherfO2/Sbankrupt.html.

15. "said the measure": Labaton, "Bankruptcy Bill Set?'

16. "provide for no distinction" Jonathan Alter, "A Bankrupt Way to Do Business," Newsweek,

April 25, 2005, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7528519/site/newsweek/.

17. "Let's say Peter Jennings": Jonathan Alter, "A Bankrupt Way to Do Business:' Newsweek,

April 25,2005, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/75285l9/site/newsweekJ.

18. "which have pushed": Kathleen Day, "Senate Passes Bill to Restrict Bankruptcy:' Washington

Post, March 11, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2494O-2Ot5Mar 1O.html.

19. gave $34 million more: Ibid.

20. 1 "the main lobbying": Labaton, "Bankruptcy Bill Set."

21. $150 million since 1990: Scheide, "You're Going Broke!"

22. Campaign Contributions to Senate Sponsor Chuck Grassley (R TA): PoliticalMoneyLine from Congressional Quarterly, sampling of PACs for commercial banks and other lenders who contributed to Grassley, available at http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/irs.ef_527 .exe?DoFn=&sYR=2004.

23. "Democrats Who Sold Out On Bankruptcy Protection And How Much They Got": U.S. Senate Roil Call Votes 109th Congress ist Session, S256, March 10, 2005 as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate bill clerk under the direction of the secretary of the Senate, available at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/rol1_call_lists/rol1_call_vote...cfm.cthi?congress= l09&session=1&vote=00044; contribution information from the Center for Responsive Politics, specifically senator profiles listing commercial bank contributors at www.open secrets.org.
P

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Our heart felt thanks and our hearts go out to Judith Regan, our former publisher, with whom this was our sixth book. Her brilliance, creativity, and intuitive grasp have been something to witness and we will both miss her very much.

Fortunately, the other half of the tandem with which we have worked so well, Calvert Morgan, is still there and did so very much to make this book what it is. He is a joy to work with and a good friend and we both thank him very much.

Thanks to Katie Vecchio for her research, editing, and proofing. She guided us through the minefield of research and data with great skill.

And to Thomas Gallagher for making sense of the hundreds and hundreds of footnotes, often maddeningly scattered in the early drafts in the wrong places.

Finally, we want to thank Cassie Jones, Donna Lee Lurker, Brittany Hamblin, Gregg Sullivan, and Suzanne Wickham at HarperCollins for their wonderful help in producing this book.
OUTRAGE. Copyright © 2007 by Eileen McGann. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and N reviews. For information, address HarperCoffins Publishers, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022. n t HarperCollins books may be purchased for educational, business, or sales promotional use. For information please write: Special Markets Department, HarperCollins Publishers, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022. Designed by Kris Tobiassen Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data has been applied for. ISBN: 978 0 06 119540 2 ISBN 10: 0 06 119540 5