We tend to think of the parasites in our society as skinny little weasels with hollow cheeks and pencil moustaches. But greed is not solely the domain of con artists, drug dealers, pickpockets, and other felons. The worst parasites probably look more like corporate executives in expensive suits. Whether they are offering payday loans at usurious interest or enticing us into sub-prime mortgages, they take the mantel of solid citizens.
Payday loan outlets have sprung-up exponentially. I have counted at least 11 in Xenia alone. In Ohio, the number of lender locations jumped from 107 in 1996 to 1,562 ten years later. Payday loans are small short-term loans offered in storefront shops to people who need cash in a hurry. The loans are easy to get regardless of credit history. All the borrower needs to show is a bank account, proof of a steady income, a simple form of identification, and references. It takes about 20 minutes to secure a loan. They do not check credit, except to make sure borrowers haven't defaulted on previous payday loans.
The customers are required to pay the principal, interest, and fees in full when the loan is due, generally in two weeks. The fees and interest on these loans are huge, and can amount to a staggering annual percentage rate of 391 percent. If it sounds like loan-sharking, it's not. "Loan sharks are actually cheaper," said Bill Faith, a leader of the Ohio Coalition for Responsible Lending.
The biggest problem is that many people cannot repay the loans on their due dates and have to roll them over at additional interest and fees. People often take out loans for a large part of their weekly pay. If they repay the loans when they get their salaries, they will not have enough money to live on until the next paycheck. The average payday loan is rolled over at least thirteen times a year. Borrowers go from owing small amounts into overwhelming debt. One military borrower reported that he took out a $300 loan from a payday lender near his base. On paydays he would go from store to store borrowing money from one lender to pay off another. He ended up having to pay back $15,000.
When I first noticed the proliferation of payday loan outlets in Greene County, I wondered where all this money was coming from. The dirty little secret is that many of the outlets are supported by major banks. Big banks are restricted by law on how much interest they can charge on regular personal and commercial loans, but in most states there is no limit on the interest that they can charge in the payday loan business. Because of the unsavory nature of the payday loan business, the big banks fund the payday loan outlets under other names.
For some time now there has been a movement to restrict the amount of interest and fees that can be charged on payday loans. Under Governor Taft, nothing was done. Now, Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann has come out in strong opposition to such loans and has held a series of hearings to expose the scam. A number of consumer’s groups have supported legislation to limit the amount of interest and fees that can be charged by the loan shops.
Three bills have been introduced in the Ohio General Assembly to reform the payday loan industry. HB 333, introduced by Republican Bill Batchelder and Democrat Bobby Hagan, would cap payday loan interest rates at 36 percent APR and limit the number of loans borrowed per year. HB 358, introduced by Rep. Tyrone K. Yates, D-Cincinnati, sets an interest rate cap of 25 percent APR and requires all loans to be made in accordance with criminal usury laws. Then there is HB 337 backed by the payday loan industry. It focuses on borrower education and extended loan plans, but does not cap interest rates. Rep. Ross McGregor, a Springfield Republican, and Rep. Matt Lundy, an Elyria Democrat, are sponsoring the HB 337. Thirteen members of the House Financial Institutions Committee are co-sponsoring the McGregor-Lundy bill. One has to wonder why anybody would support HB 337. Is there something improper going on?
The payday industry claims that if interest on the loans is capped at 36 percent or 25 percent, instead of the current 391 percent, they will go out of business. Good! If they can’t do business without gouging their customers, they should go out of business. What appears to be a convenience for working people is actually a deadly trap that makes the credit card industry look positively benign.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
McCain and the Other Guy
Emerging from that demolition derby called the Republican primaries are one and one-half survivors, John McCain and a huckleberry named Mike.
Republican voters seem to admire McCain’s apparent candor and integrity as well as his positions on the Iraqi war and national security. Liberals and independents seem to like McCain because of his reputation as a maverick and his support for some liberal causes such as campaign finance reform.
For those who think of John McCain as a liberal, however, forget it. He has gone out of his way lately to proclaim that he is and has always been a true conservative. Unlike the vulpine Mitt Romney, McCain has been steadfast in his political positions. Liberals might be inclined to vote for him thinking that he is more liberal than most Republicans. Well, despite the foaming-mouth fulminations of radical right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, liberals should look more closely before signing on to McCain’s campaign.
To start with, he supports Bush on the most contentious issue today, the war in Iraq. McCain is, if anything, more hawkish on the war than Bush. He says that a timetable for withdrawal would be a “white flag of surrender.” He sees no end to American military presence in Iraq and has said that it would be okay if our troops remain there for “another 100 years.” He thinks that the Iraqi war was justified even in hindsight. He strongly supports the “surge” but would have preferred to send more troops. He wants “victory” in Iraq and projects a long American military presence there. If McCain were to get elected, that war would drag-on for many more years.
Perhaps more ominous, McCain has made clear that strategic bombing of Iran would be acceptable if there is an “imminent threat.” It is not clear what he considers an imminent threat, but I assume he means an Iran supplied with nuclear weapons. We should be deeply wary of putting this bellicose scion of a military family in the White House.
McCain has an 83 percent positive lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and an 83% rating from the Christian Coalition. He opposes a woman’s right to choose abortion and would repeal the decision in Roe v. Wade. He opposes gun control. He would allow prayer in the schools and supports a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning.
McCain has a reputation for having a violent temper. He has been voted by congressional staffers as having one of the worst tempers in Congress. McCain's run-ins with other Republican senators are legendary. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa was so upset by a McCain tirade that he didn't speak to him for two years. He once said “f… you” in a committee meeting to Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi. He is known by other senators as “Senator Hothead.” He has been described by Washington officials as being “vindictive,” “impetuous,” and “quirky.” I wonder whether it would be good for the nation to have such a highly volatile president with a hair-trigger-finger on the Armageddon button.
It must be admitted that John McCain was a hero as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Prior to that ordeal he did not have an illustrious career in the Navy. He graduated fifth from the bottom of his class in Annapolis and was known primarily as a ladies man and hot-dog pilot. He did suffer torture after he was captured by the North Vietnamese, and his heroism and dedication to honor must be respected. But heroism should not be equated with the leadership of a nation.
Mike Huckabee is a Baptist minister and evangelical Christian who looks like Jim Nabors. He says that ending school prayer in the public schools was one step in society's moral decay. He supports displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools. He opposes a woman’s right to abortion. He opposes stem-cell research. He does not believe in evolution. He says that gay tolerance reflects a lack of fixed societal standards and would forbid gay adoptions. He signed legislation outlawing same-sex marriage in Arkansas and opposes same-sex civil unions. He opposes hate-crimes legislation. He believes that the Kyoto Accord was a mistake. He says that George W. Bush has done a magnificent job. God help us!
Jack LeMoult is a writer and retired lawyer. He resides in Xenia.
Republican voters seem to admire McCain’s apparent candor and integrity as well as his positions on the Iraqi war and national security. Liberals and independents seem to like McCain because of his reputation as a maverick and his support for some liberal causes such as campaign finance reform.
For those who think of John McCain as a liberal, however, forget it. He has gone out of his way lately to proclaim that he is and has always been a true conservative. Unlike the vulpine Mitt Romney, McCain has been steadfast in his political positions. Liberals might be inclined to vote for him thinking that he is more liberal than most Republicans. Well, despite the foaming-mouth fulminations of radical right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, liberals should look more closely before signing on to McCain’s campaign.
To start with, he supports Bush on the most contentious issue today, the war in Iraq. McCain is, if anything, more hawkish on the war than Bush. He says that a timetable for withdrawal would be a “white flag of surrender.” He sees no end to American military presence in Iraq and has said that it would be okay if our troops remain there for “another 100 years.” He thinks that the Iraqi war was justified even in hindsight. He strongly supports the “surge” but would have preferred to send more troops. He wants “victory” in Iraq and projects a long American military presence there. If McCain were to get elected, that war would drag-on for many more years.
Perhaps more ominous, McCain has made clear that strategic bombing of Iran would be acceptable if there is an “imminent threat.” It is not clear what he considers an imminent threat, but I assume he means an Iran supplied with nuclear weapons. We should be deeply wary of putting this bellicose scion of a military family in the White House.
McCain has an 83 percent positive lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and an 83% rating from the Christian Coalition. He opposes a woman’s right to choose abortion and would repeal the decision in Roe v. Wade. He opposes gun control. He would allow prayer in the schools and supports a constitutional amendment banning flag-burning.
McCain has a reputation for having a violent temper. He has been voted by congressional staffers as having one of the worst tempers in Congress. McCain's run-ins with other Republican senators are legendary. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa was so upset by a McCain tirade that he didn't speak to him for two years. He once said “f… you” in a committee meeting to Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi. He is known by other senators as “Senator Hothead.” He has been described by Washington officials as being “vindictive,” “impetuous,” and “quirky.” I wonder whether it would be good for the nation to have such a highly volatile president with a hair-trigger-finger on the Armageddon button.
It must be admitted that John McCain was a hero as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. Prior to that ordeal he did not have an illustrious career in the Navy. He graduated fifth from the bottom of his class in Annapolis and was known primarily as a ladies man and hot-dog pilot. He did suffer torture after he was captured by the North Vietnamese, and his heroism and dedication to honor must be respected. But heroism should not be equated with the leadership of a nation.
Mike Huckabee is a Baptist minister and evangelical Christian who looks like Jim Nabors. He says that ending school prayer in the public schools was one step in society's moral decay. He supports displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools. He opposes a woman’s right to abortion. He opposes stem-cell research. He does not believe in evolution. He says that gay tolerance reflects a lack of fixed societal standards and would forbid gay adoptions. He signed legislation outlawing same-sex marriage in Arkansas and opposes same-sex civil unions. He opposes hate-crimes legislation. He believes that the Kyoto Accord was a mistake. He says that George W. Bush has done a magnificent job. God help us!
Jack LeMoult is a writer and retired lawyer. He resides in Xenia.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Bush's Heartless Budget
What has happened to America? Are we proud that we have elected and re-elected this intellectually challenged politician who is nothing more than a lackey for the oil industry and other big-business conglomerates? As we examine the President’s $3 trillion budget, perhaps we should also examine our consciences and consider the proud principles for which this country is supposed to stand.
In his State-of-the-Union address Bush said that we should stand-up for American soldiers and veterans. But in his budget, Bush sought to impose on veterans new fees ranging up to $750 for care at veterans’ health-care facilities. This would cost them more than $2.6 billion over five years. It would double veterans’ co-payments for prescription drugs. In addition, the Bush budget would significantly reduce federal support for state-operated veterans’ homes and impose new limitations on who can be admitted. State officials have warned that the White House spending plan could force out roughly half of the 600 residents at Washington D.C.’s three veterans homes, possibly resulting in the closure of one of them.
Bush’s address, dripping with “compassion” for unfortunate Americans, would cut more than $600 billion over ten years from Medicare and Medicaid. It would also eliminate the $243 million Low-income Weatherization Assistance Program and cut $570 million from the Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program at a time of record-high fuel prices. The budget would also drastically cut nutrition and housing programs for the poor.
Needless to say, Bush’s budget takes care of his beloved billionaires. The budget would preserve hundreds of billions in tax breaks for the richest 0.01 percent of the population while slashing programs for the poor and the middle class.
Bush wants to increase the defense budget by 7.5 percent to $515.4 billion — which does not include either war spending, estimated to be more than $170 billion next year, or the cost of nuclear weapons. Defense spending would be up by more than 30 percent since Mr. Bush took office and would be the highest level of military spending since World War II. The result would be mammoth budget deficits unlike anything we have ever known.
Among other cuts proposed in this “compassionate’ budget are the complete elimination of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, a vital nutrition program for low-income seniors and children; a 29 percent cut in funding for nurses’ training at a time of severe nursing shortage; a $484 million cut to job training and employment programs while the unemployment rate is going up; an 86 percent cut in Rural Health Programs; a $900 million cut to Community Development Block Grants for job creation, economic development, and home ownership in cities; a $195 million cut in elderly housing; and a $500 million cut to Social Services Block Grants which provide funding to protect children from abuse and neglect as well as providing care for homeless seniors and services to children and adults with disabilities.
Bush calls the fabulously wealthy plutocrats in America his “base.” The gap between the richest Americans and the middle class is growing wider every day. In 2005 the top 1 percent earned more income than the bottom 50 percent of Americans -- with the top 300,000 earners making more money than the bottom 150 million. While the top-earning 0.01 percent received an average income increase of $4.4 million in 2005, the bottom 90 percent saw their average income decline by about $172.
Today, despite all the rhetoric about "family values," the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country in the world. Since George Bush has been president, nearly 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty, 8.6 million have lost their health insurance, 3 million have lost their pensions, and median family income has declined by about $2,500.
A two-income family has less disposable income today than a one-income family had 30 years ago. Home foreclosures are now the highest on record. More and more workers are now spending more than half of their limited incomes for housing, leaving less for other basic needs.
I hope that the Congress rejects this foul budget. Congress needs to remind the President that he is the President of all of the United States and not just that small neighborhood called Easy Street.
In his State-of-the-Union address Bush said that we should stand-up for American soldiers and veterans. But in his budget, Bush sought to impose on veterans new fees ranging up to $750 for care at veterans’ health-care facilities. This would cost them more than $2.6 billion over five years. It would double veterans’ co-payments for prescription drugs. In addition, the Bush budget would significantly reduce federal support for state-operated veterans’ homes and impose new limitations on who can be admitted. State officials have warned that the White House spending plan could force out roughly half of the 600 residents at Washington D.C.’s three veterans homes, possibly resulting in the closure of one of them.
Bush’s address, dripping with “compassion” for unfortunate Americans, would cut more than $600 billion over ten years from Medicare and Medicaid. It would also eliminate the $243 million Low-income Weatherization Assistance Program and cut $570 million from the Low-income Home Energy Assistance Program at a time of record-high fuel prices. The budget would also drastically cut nutrition and housing programs for the poor.
Needless to say, Bush’s budget takes care of his beloved billionaires. The budget would preserve hundreds of billions in tax breaks for the richest 0.01 percent of the population while slashing programs for the poor and the middle class.
Bush wants to increase the defense budget by 7.5 percent to $515.4 billion — which does not include either war spending, estimated to be more than $170 billion next year, or the cost of nuclear weapons. Defense spending would be up by more than 30 percent since Mr. Bush took office and would be the highest level of military spending since World War II. The result would be mammoth budget deficits unlike anything we have ever known.
Among other cuts proposed in this “compassionate’ budget are the complete elimination of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, a vital nutrition program for low-income seniors and children; a 29 percent cut in funding for nurses’ training at a time of severe nursing shortage; a $484 million cut to job training and employment programs while the unemployment rate is going up; an 86 percent cut in Rural Health Programs; a $900 million cut to Community Development Block Grants for job creation, economic development, and home ownership in cities; a $195 million cut in elderly housing; and a $500 million cut to Social Services Block Grants which provide funding to protect children from abuse and neglect as well as providing care for homeless seniors and services to children and adults with disabilities.
Bush calls the fabulously wealthy plutocrats in America his “base.” The gap between the richest Americans and the middle class is growing wider every day. In 2005 the top 1 percent earned more income than the bottom 50 percent of Americans -- with the top 300,000 earners making more money than the bottom 150 million. While the top-earning 0.01 percent received an average income increase of $4.4 million in 2005, the bottom 90 percent saw their average income decline by about $172.
Today, despite all the rhetoric about "family values," the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country in the world. Since George Bush has been president, nearly 5 million more Americans have slipped into poverty, 8.6 million have lost their health insurance, 3 million have lost their pensions, and median family income has declined by about $2,500.
A two-income family has less disposable income today than a one-income family had 30 years ago. Home foreclosures are now the highest on record. More and more workers are now spending more than half of their limited incomes for housing, leaving less for other basic needs.
I hope that the Congress rejects this foul budget. Congress needs to remind the President that he is the President of all of the United States and not just that small neighborhood called Easy Street.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
