Go ahead, show us your true colors
That’s exactly what Rock Hill, South Carolina’s The Herald newspaper is doing when it comes to their payday loans reporting. Their staff opine that the recent bill that passed the S.C. House is “toothless” and does not protect consumers from supposedly “predatory” lenders. Of course, they would be on to something if not for the fact that pay day loans aren’t chewy (they go down like a smooth custard) and lenders are paid back on time by their customers about 90 percent of the time. Where’s the predation, the carnage? It isn’t there.
Rub ‘em out, yeah, see…
Through clenched teeth (cheeks?), The Herald describes in mock horror what the state House passed:
That bill limited borrowers to one loan at a time and required a seven-day cooling-off period between loans. More significantly, it capped the amount of a loan at 25 percent of the borrower’s income or a maximum of $500. And it required the State Board of Financial Institutions to keep a database of payday loans to prevent borrowers from shopping for loans from one payday lender to another… The House bill would limit borrowers to one loan at a time and establish a database to track loans. But it places no cap on interest rates, and it would double the amount of money a consumer could borrow — from $300 to $600.
What do they suggest could clean up this inexcusable exercise in consumer convenience and financial utility? Because it has to be stopped, right? Their rallying cry from climates unknown is that South Carolina senators could cap the interest rates loan until payday companies charge. That will harm the population just fine, yeah, ya see?
It’s time for the arts!
According to The Herald, the payday loans industry “paints” a portrait where consumers rely upon them in emergency cash situations. That’s horrible! Is it true, momma, that they also trap little kids like me in a big, bad cycle of debt? No? Oh good, I was worried there. I feel better now that you tell me it’s only a fairy tale.
But the Center for Responsible Lending is NOT a fairy tale. They are very real and very much responsible (through close association) for the recession that has nearly buried America. The Herald, bless their little hearts, they think citing anything from the Center For Responsible Lending constitutes a credible source! Let’s say it for those who missed the commercial last time: payday loans are not annual loans and they DO NOT bear 391 percent annual interest. They are typically two-week loans that charge $15-$25 per $100 loaned. That’s a 15 to 25 percent fee – not 391 percent annual interest.
Lobbying marches on; it’s The Herald that’s greasy
The payday loans industry, according to The Herald, “helped grease the way for the House bill with nearly $300,000 for lobbyists and political contributions.” Lobbying is salesmanship. Everybody does it, or if they don’t, they should. When it comes to political causes (regardless of what side of an issue draws you), money changes hands. So long as the playing field is level, why is that wrong? Lobbying is the American way. Be careful on the way out, Herald. Don’t slip in your own grease and don’t let the door hit you…
Mr. Tarlow,
I am Paul Osmundson, editor of The Herald. It’s important to note that the piece you reference here was an editorial and not a news story. The wording reflected the editorial board’s opinion based on information we gathered, not original reporting by our news staff. Our news stories are objective.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the editorial board.
I greatly respect your right to disagree with our editorials. But I wanted to clear up any belief that the wording was in a news story.
Sincerely,
Paul Osmundson
Editor
The Herald
Once more, you have people crusading for a so called solution that has nothing to do with the problem. There is a legitimate demand for the product, and when used responsibly and correctly there isn’t a thing wrong with it, and if you just nanny the public to death you aren’t go to fix anything. If the leadership of this country, at least heretofore, had been more concerned with fostering growth in the middle class instead of lining already beyond amply lined pockets, then perhaps there wouldn’t be a need for payday loans, would there? You can’t have supply if there’s no demand. If the author of that editorial was serious about the REAL problem he’d be out campaigning for socialized health care, and better access to higher education. They want poor people to stay poor, but not have any access to help of any kind? What kind of logic is that?