[Tee]

First off, I want to say that I filed bankruptcy over 20 years ago for medical reasons in excess of 70k. During that time I probably had 1k worth of assets.

Also, I want to say that I don't know the mayor and have no political bias for, or against.

But here is why I have a problem with this:

$170,000 in exempt assets. I assume this is in his savings and his home equity. How many common folk in Dodge City have 170k equity in their home? How many of us have $170,000 in savings? Why do you suppose he filed two days before the laws change? I'll tell you why: because the new laws would not be so lenient as to allow him to keep so much equity while at the same time discharging his debt.

It is clear that anyone that has 70k in unsecured debt, with 170k of exempt assets has done some debt shifting in order to come out ahead in a bankruptcy.

Why is this wrong? Who do you suppose pays for the loss? If you think it is the government then you need to think again. The people who pay for these losses are the taxpayers; in higher costs for goods and in higher taxes and interest rates.

Is it fair for an elected official to offload his debt onto the taxpayers while retaining 170k in exempt assets?

Let me ask it like this... How many of you out there live within your means, are responsible with your income and spending, yet don't have near 170k in equity or savings?

I think if I were the judge, I'd take about 35k of his equity and 35k of his savings and pay back the lenders. He'd still have 100k in equity and savings- not too shabby!

The new laws would have prevented him from getting away with this, and for good reason- he knew this.

Nobody with 170k in assets and 70k in debt is really bankrupt- actually, they are pretty well off.

Should an elected official be allowed to grant himself a free and clear home and a nice fat savings on the backs of the taxpayers? I'll leave that up to you to decide.