Does bankruptcy law need to be changed? Of course. Bankruptcy law has been abused for decades - there is no argument.

The primary reason for the abuse is that bankruptcy law, weak as it may be, is not being enforced. This has resulted in a tremendous backlog of cases being pushed through the courts without required consumer background investigations.

Bankruptcy requirements are fluid and protect consumers who file when they possess the resources to adjust their lifestyle and control debt without filing bankruptcy. These consumers are allowed to take the easy way out - a serious abuse of the system. The rules need to be redefined to force potential bankrupt consumers to prove the inability to recover from financial disaster, not financial setback. This is an important distinction.

The suggested annual income requirement must be eliminated from debate. Financial catastrophes are experienced by many consumers regardless of income level. It should become a matter of proving the inability to recover.

Bankruptcy law should also be written to protect court-approved bankrupt consumers during credit probation and restrict the business sector from capitalizing on their misfortunes. The business sector damage control for consumer bankruptcy is to offer that same, now debt-free, consumer-renewed purchasing power with much higher interest rates, knowing that the bankrupt consumer cannot file for bankruptcy again for seven to 10 years. These tactics are anti-productive to debt recovery.

The debate over bankruptcy law revision, like many other controversial matters facing us today, is a much broader issue. Instead of pros and cons and left and right being at such extreme distances, all parties need to work in the middle ground and create synergy to find resolution that add to the greater good.

WAYNE T. COFRIN

Concord