U.S. Navy vs. the perpetually deferred payday
It's not very often you hear news of the U.S. military attempting to enact genuinely progressive legislation, so this took me by surprise:
Military targets payday lenders
A top Navy official testified during the last legislative session that payday loans -- short-term cash advances typically made at high interest rates -- ensnare young sailors in a dangerous cycle of debt that can harm their combat readiness. A raft of bills was introduced in the House and Senate that would have curtailed payday loans, but only one passed. Critics said the lone bill, which essentially codified the payday industry's "best practices" for lending to military personnel, was weak and ineffective.
[snip]
"We're looking for much more aggressive legislation. We're looking for some bills with real teeth that will cap APRs (annualized percentage rates) and extend the payback period to 90 days or more," he said, adding that the Navy would be heading back to Olympia for the new legislative session that starts Jan. 9.
[snip]
"We have been and always will be supportive of legislation that balances the interests of consumers with those of the industry. But we will remain steadfastly opposed to legislation that is a disguised prohibition that serves to take away the alternative or choice of payday loans for consumers," [president and CEO of Seattle-based Moneytree Inc. Dennis] Bassford said.
Hey Bassford, skip the double-talk and just come out with it: payday loans can actually improve combat readiness! Payday lenders and pawnshops are truly the backbone of the American fighting machine.
Anyway, as much as I'd love to support a business model which relies upon postdated checks written by desperate soldiers, I still think predation is something which should be regulated. See the Center for Responsible Lending for more information.
posted by Mark D. @ 10:48 PM |
| 
8 Comments:
Low pay, high interst loans, dependent on food stamps and pawnshops...wonder why I haven't seen any of this in the new military recruitment ads?
"It's not very often you hear news of the U.S. military attempting to enact genuinely progressive legislation"
Other than leading the rest of the nation at racial integration, in 1948 (twenty years ahead of most of the Democratic party)?
Other than driving minority education long before the rest of society?
Other than being the first major government institution, in most cases, to genuinely challenge Jim Crow (even if inconsistently), during WWII?
Nope. You just never hear about it.
"Other than leading the rest of the nation at racial integration, in 1948 (twenty years ahead of most of the Democratic party)?"
Hmmm. I don't think Harry Truman had anything to do with that...
Yeah Mitch, it seems the three examples you give are just manifestations and effects of Truman's executive order 9981, am I wrong? Lobbying for progressive legislation, through the democratic process, is quite different from being forced to obey an executive order...
There really isn't much to this.
It's within a commander's perogative to declare check-cashing establishements off limits. Its typical of most installations that I was assigned to or visited.
There's always a lag in responding to new business openings etc. You really have to wait for the business to do something wrong before you declare it off limits, etc. Consequently, for a determined young soldier/sailor/airman/marine there's usually an option.
I'm no fan of usury or predatory lending practices, just so that's clear. But I'm not convinced it requires more legislation. A clear pentagon policy could address this just as well.
mnsky - everything you wrote could be applicable to college students or anyone else starting out (and dare I suggest pretty much all young people?) The point is you don't see it in college ads either.
Know what I mean?
-Censored
"Yeah Mitch, it seems the three examples you give are just manifestations and effects of Truman's executive order 9981, am I wrong? "
Yes, you are.
Truman's order merely confirmed something that the liberal elements of the Army and Navy (yes, there were such things) had been pressing for since the early days of WWII, and whose ideological groundwork had been laid during the Battle of the Bulge - well before Truman assumed command. In the B of the B, blacks fought side by side with whites, in the same units (smaller than battalion-sized units, anyway) for the first time in the history of the post-revolutionary US Army, showing all but the most Jim-Crowish elements in the political and military command that black and white guys live and fight together.
This doesn't deny Truman any credit - merely gives the military the credit it's due, of which there is more than most of the American left's orthodoxy has has led it to believe.
By the way - the US Navy from the Revolution until the early 1900s was ALWAYS integrated - easily the most liberal such institution in the US - and only segregated from 1900 until 1948, at the (shameful) behest of Jim Crow-supporting elements (which were common throughout society).
-Censored
34% of the forces in Iraq are Nationa Guard or Reserves. Both of these groups tend to have older members as well as special operations.
More than half of all reservist/guard members have a lost of income when they go on active duty...typically more than $4,000 a year.
About 30,000 small business owners alone have been called to service in Iraq and are more likely to fall victim to the adverse economic effects of military deployment.
The Iraq war isn’t the same as Vietnam where the average age of a casualty was a 20 year old...in Iraq it’s 27.
They are not just starting out like college students. They are employed in the service of our country and as such deserve some degree of economic security.
mnsky -
First, you cite casualties for ages, not the actual troop mix. While the age in the field is undoubtedly higher than that of a draftee army, I'm rejecting 27 as inflated.
Second you cite "more than half" - that's a pretty big range. You also don't qualify it. Then you cite the average only of those that are losing, magnifying its impact. Its not clear if almost half are gaining, is it by even more? Your statement only deals with income, this ignores benefits and allowances. It also doesn't address the impact of tax free wages in combat zones. Pre-tax? Post-tax? Total compensation?
You're offering very little real information.
-Censored
Post a Comment
<< Home