Nearly every credit card agreement now contains an arbitration clause.  Some critics of mandatory consumer arbitration say arbitration is like having your opponent's brother-in-law decide your case.  I disagree.  It's more like having your opponent's mother decide your case.  

Crucial to any case is an impartial decision maker.  Impartiality certainly is a concern for me where the arbitrator appointed is an attorney from a defense oriented law firm who was opposing counsel on prior cases I litigated.  The arbitrator may also receive substantial compensation from doing hundreds of credit card collection arbitrations where he repeatedly rules in favor of the creditor or collector.  Should the arbitrator ever start following Iowa law and begin ruling against the creditor, the creditor would simply demand a different arbitrator and the arbitrator would lose a source of income.

The fact the arbitration forum advertised its services to creditors as a way to limit remedies and relief for consumers is also discouraging, to say the least.  Our arbitration system is the equivalent of a judge being repeatedly paid by creditors after advertising he would give creditors a good deal in cases against consumers.  That judge would be removed and disbarred.  For some reason this is acceptable for arbitration forums, even though the harm to consumers is exactly the same.   

Arbitration awards are routinely confirmed in Iowa courts where, had the arbitrator actually followed the law, the awards would have never been entered.  Some of these awards exceed twenty thousand dollars plus interest at more than twenty percent, resulting in financial ruin for the consumer and her family.

These problems are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to consumer arbitrations.  It's hardly surprising consumer advocates vehemently oppose arbitration--what's shocking is that any politician supports it.

Economists have attributed the recent downturn in the economy to "irregularities in the sub-prime lending market."  That is a polite way of saying financial institutions have been getting away with cheating the working poor for some time now, and the chickens are coming home to roost.

An economic bubble was created as mortgage brokers and lenders wrote high interest loans supported by phony appraisals, inflated incomes, and a less than healthy dose of good old fashion fraud and deception.  Credit card banks passed out credit cards like they were candy, relying on 27% compound default interest rates, late fees, over limit fees and deceptive practices of their own to push credit card balances on many cards to more than twenty thousand dollars on merchandise charges just a fraction of that amount.  Piled on was $3.00 a gallon gas, sky high utility bills, title pawns, pay day loans, refund anticipation loans, bounce protection and an endless number of other financial schemes with interest rates so high that even Al Capone would have been embarrassed to charge them.  You can only bleed the poor and working class for so long before the well runs dry, they run out of money, and the feeding frenzy is over.   

Any five year old with a bubble blower could have told these wizards of Wall Street what happens to all good bubbles--they burst. And with all the foreclosures and debt collection lawsuits, their economic bubble bursts as well--taking the stocks and economic fortunes of both perpetrators and innocent victims into a nose dive. 

As the saying goes, pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered. 

You have a choice between two identical vehicles with a book value of $30,000.  One sustained $15,000 worth of damage in a collision and was repaired.  The other has never been wrecked.  Which one are you going to buy?  Let me go out on a limb and guess you picked the vehicle without prior damage. 
  

Now let’s assume you owned the $30,000 vehicle.  Unfortunately, somebody talking on a cell phone ran a red light and did $15,000 worth of damage to your vehicle.  Can You Hear Me Now’s insurance company pays to fix your vehicle and tells you you're good to go.  Or are you?  You now must disclose when you sell or trade the vehicle it has been wrecked.  Your vehicle is probably worth about 20-30% less even after repair.  If the vehicle will have a salvage title, it can be worth up to 50% less.  Can You Hear Me Now’s insurance company should be writing you a check for at least 20-30% more to compensate you for diminished value.

Many insurance adjustors will tell you just about anything to avoid paying diminished value damages.  For example, the bogus argument is made by the adjustor they do not have to pay diminished value because you haven’t sold your vehicle and incurred the loss yet.  Your vehicle is worth less now and you are entitled to be compensated for your loss sustained at the time of the accident. 

Also beware when the damage to the vehicle is just below the amount legally required to be disclosed on the title when the vehicle is sold or traded.  The adjustor argues because you do not legally have to disclose the damage on the title, you do not have diminished value because the buyer will not know your car was wrecked.  The argument is little more than your adjustor conspiring with you to commit fraud.  You cannot sell or trade your vehicle by omitting material facts with the intent to deceive your buyer.  Any significant prior damage to a vehicle is a material fact that must be disclosed.

Five years ago President Bush, with the support of both parties in Congress, led us into a 25 billion dollar a month, three trillion dollar war in Iraq.  We were told the purpose of the war was to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--weapons that did not exist.  The ignorance of going into Iraq on a mistaken belief and without an exit strategy was soon compounded by the President's infamous photo opportunity declaring "mission accomplished" at a time when the war, if anything, was just getting started.

Yesterday, the 4,000th U.S. Soldier died in combat in Iraq.  Thousands of others have been seriously injured.  Iraqi civilian casualties are estimated to be 80-100,000.  Millions of others have been displaced from their homes.  Our choices are now between the disaster of staying in Iraq or the disaster of leaving.    

Senator Clinton's recent White House red phone commercial has led to bickering between the candidates as to who would be most qualified to answer the phone.  Given the decisions made by both Democrats and Republicans on the war in Iraq, we might all be better off if they would just let it ring.