If you’ve been trying to figure out why so many Democratic lawmakers support the bankruptcy bill, you’re not alone. Alert reader FT was so confused he wrote his Senator, Ken Salazar (D-CO), and asked the Senator why he let the bill glide through the Senate.

Here’s the revealing portion of Salazar’s response:

I voted for this legislation because I believe that people who have the ability pay back some of their debts should be prevented from discharging those debts completely in bankruptcy, as they are able to do under current law.

In fact, under current law, judges do require anyone with the ability to pay back their debts to do so. [11 U.S.C. 707(b)] The bill merely eliminates a judge’s ability to evaluate each filer individually, and substitutes an inflexible “means test” which assumes everyone went broke for the same reason: a lack of personal responsibility.

Salazar’s fundamental misunderstanding of the bill shows how thoroughly the credit card industry has obscured the real issues. For example:

1) Is bankruptcy abuse a “crisis?”

No. The non-partisan American Bankruptcy Institute estimates that at most 3 percent of filers—and almost certainly less—are able to discharge debts they could actually pay. In other words, the system already does a good job of preventing abuse. The credit card companies are the real abusers; their predatory lending practices pumped up their profits even as personal bankruptcies skyrocketed.

2) Does this bill prevent abuse of the system?

No. The infamous “millionaire’s loopholes”—which allow rich filers to hide their wealth by buying mansions or special trust funds—were carefully preserved. At the same time, the bill raises the price of filing even for the lowest income earners and eliminates a judge’s discretion to discharge debts if people go bankrupt due to medical emergencies, job loss, or divorce.

3) Is the heart of the bill the new “means test?”

No. The bill is about 500 pages long; only 6 pages are about the means test. The remainder of the bill is an unseemly combination of gifts to the rich and attacks on working families.

Let us know if you hear any other interesting justifications from your representatives.