Last week I published a summary of my interpretation of Occupy Wall Street. The movement has sprung up in many cities and appears to be similar in all of these. This is my response to those movements.
First, let me say that I get it. There's a lot of frustration out there. People are out of jobs and worse yet, they feel their future has been stolen by financiers who haven't been and won't be punished for their incompetence. People like Patrick Meighan have been arrested (read his story here) and jailed over non-violent protests. I know that there have been some criminal acts committed by some of the Occupiers, but that doesn't change the message these people are trying to bring (it doesn't excuse it, but that's a different story).
I also agree with parts of the message of the Occupy movement, the financiers should be punished. The banks should have been allowed to fail and the people creating the mess should certainly not be in charge of the business that I involuntarily bailed out. And like them, I'm not convinced that the system can work itself out - I'm just that cynical.
But I also know that we live in the United States of America, a country with a system of laws and that we have to obey those laws. Even if politicians and bankers committed fraud and theft, that doesn't give me the right to break laws. If someone refused to leave when instructed by police, they deserve to be arrested. When Mr. Meighan (same story as above) was arrested, he complained in his blog that in most situations of this type, "the police just give you a ticket and let you go. It costs you a couple hundred dollars." One thing that is different in his case is that he would have gladly taken the ticket and ripped it up and never left the park he occupied. Police have an obligation to enforce the law (which he acknowledges in his blog) and in that case that meant physically removing the Occupiers and cleaning out the park.
I also know that it's possible to move up in the world. I grew up in a not-too-priviledged environment. I won't go into the details, but my college was paid on a combination of scholarships and grants (until I lost the grant because I made too much in a below-minimum wage job). I have worked at one job or another (and sometimes two at the same time) since 1973. My father taught me that there is always a job available for someone who was willing to work. This past weekend, I heard that Scheider National Trucking needs to hire 41,000 and Pizza Hut needs to hire 28,000. These may not be jobs that people want or may not pay as much as their last job, but they are jobs. And they pay at least minimum wage.
I decided sometime back to adopt the slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally." What that means to me is to elect the kind of representatives who push an agenda of personal responsibility. I believe this is the only way (if there's a way) to fix our national problem. By encouraging people to work, even at low-paying jobs, to pay off debts and to support the family, politicians begin encouraging a way out. As for acting locally, charity begins at home, helping the people in your community. I can't help Mr. Meighan in LA, but I can help the single lady in our church who sells real estate and hasn't sold any in a while. I can help the people who will come to me in February through April to file their tax returns (without charging them) so they can get the refunds and credits that are available under current law. I can help the couple whose husband is in a wheel chair and unable to work.
So while I understand the Occupy movement, I can't say I agree with it. I believe that instead of protesting, the occupiers would be better of returning to work and starting their own personal recovery. That's my thoughts, what are yours?
Monday, December 12, 2011
Thursday, December 08, 2011
What is Occupy Wall Street?
I've been trying to wrap my head around what's going on in the Occupy Wall Street movement. It's gotten a lot of attention from the press, yet there seems to be very little understanding about what is really going on. Some of the bloggers I read have published stories about crime in the Occupy movement, stories that have seem limited airtime on national news. But my goal has been to avidly read every story I could find, to determine what it's all about. These people are exerting a lot of time and in some cases money, I'd like to find out why. In this post, I'll try to explain what I've learned. In a later post, I'll give my thoughts and opinion on that information.
Two of the best stories I've read come from Bloomberg Businessweek, both available online here and here. While there are more stories out there, these stories do a better job of explaining the movement than most. I encourage reading them. I also plan on reading a book described in the article titled "Debt: The First 5,000 years" by David Graeber, the so-called "Man behind the mask."
The article says that Graeber "as been an anarchist since the age of 16." What's unique is that Graeber would not mind being an anarchist. He admits that "most people don’t think anarchism is (just) a bad idea. They think it’s insane." But unlike most people, "Graeber’s father, (has) seen it work."
The Occupy movement is made of a lot of other individuals, each with their own view of what is going on. As a group, they are still trying to define what all of this means. But there are groups within the movement that have similarities and they attract people sympathetic to their views (I doubt we see many Reagan conservatives at these rallies). They are against money in politics and the crushing effect of "debt: mortgages, credit-card debt, student loans, and the difference in how the debts of large financial companies and those of individual borrowers" get settled.
If there is one defining trait of the Occupiers - it's that. It's the "where's MY bailout" story. Where's the bailout for the middle-aged man, who took out first and second mortgages, credit cards and bought the American Dream on payments, then lost his job in the 2008 fiasco and saw his interest rates skyrocket, while the Bank paid executives huge salaries? Where's the bailout for the college graduate who took out student loans, now can't find a job to pay them back?
The timing of the movement, amidst this overwhelming debt by individuals, bail-outs and unemployment has been the triggering action to bring these people together. Top that off with a conservative movement that wants to cut all forms of aid because they think it's the only way to recover and they hate big government and the movement ignites. The Occupiers "oppose cutbacks and austerity of any kind." (Wikipedia defines austerity as budget cutting, lower spending, reduction of benefits). This comes from the anarchy that Graeber's father saw in Spain after the IMF mandated spending cuts, austerity that is now being imposed on Greece, other nations and even individuals in the US.
What bothers me the most about watching the movement from the sidelines is the similarities between this movement and some movements I've watched from afar in Egypt, Libya and France. Movements in those countries started not as political movements, but as movements by unemployed. When large numbers of people become unemployed and can't find work to pay for basic necessities, they look for answers and frequently rise up against the government. Instead of answers, they see the government keeping them down. I've read other articles that compared debt to slavery, this idea feeds the movement as well.
At the end of the article, reference is made to a policy recommendation in Graeber's book calling for "jubilee" - a forgiveness of all international and consumer debt. I understand the term and have even written about it (although I referred to a city of refuge). I thought it was uniquely Judeo-Christian in concept, but the article says that jubilees occurred "in ancient Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt." The article goes on to say that the "alternative, ... was rioting and chaos in years when poor crop yields left lots of peasants in debt."
Is that where we're headed? Rioting and chaos (which we've already seen)? Is anarchy, or small democracy the answer? Must banks be run as non-profit organizations? Should all debt be wiped clean every seven years? I'm not sure I have the answers, but I'll give my opinion in my next post.
Two of the best stories I've read come from Bloomberg Businessweek, both available online here and here. While there are more stories out there, these stories do a better job of explaining the movement than most. I encourage reading them. I also plan on reading a book described in the article titled "Debt: The First 5,000 years" by David Graeber, the so-called "Man behind the mask."
The article says that Graeber "as been an anarchist since the age of 16." What's unique is that Graeber would not mind being an anarchist. He admits that "most people don’t think anarchism is (just) a bad idea. They think it’s insane." But unlike most people, "Graeber’s father, (has) seen it work."
The Occupy movement is made of a lot of other individuals, each with their own view of what is going on. As a group, they are still trying to define what all of this means. But there are groups within the movement that have similarities and they attract people sympathetic to their views (I doubt we see many Reagan conservatives at these rallies). They are against money in politics and the crushing effect of "debt: mortgages, credit-card debt, student loans, and the difference in how the debts of large financial companies and those of individual borrowers" get settled.
If there is one defining trait of the Occupiers - it's that. It's the "where's MY bailout" story. Where's the bailout for the middle-aged man, who took out first and second mortgages, credit cards and bought the American Dream on payments, then lost his job in the 2008 fiasco and saw his interest rates skyrocket, while the Bank paid executives huge salaries? Where's the bailout for the college graduate who took out student loans, now can't find a job to pay them back?
The timing of the movement, amidst this overwhelming debt by individuals, bail-outs and unemployment has been the triggering action to bring these people together. Top that off with a conservative movement that wants to cut all forms of aid because they think it's the only way to recover and they hate big government and the movement ignites. The Occupiers "oppose cutbacks and austerity of any kind." (Wikipedia defines austerity as budget cutting, lower spending, reduction of benefits). This comes from the anarchy that Graeber's father saw in Spain after the IMF mandated spending cuts, austerity that is now being imposed on Greece, other nations and even individuals in the US.
What bothers me the most about watching the movement from the sidelines is the similarities between this movement and some movements I've watched from afar in Egypt, Libya and France. Movements in those countries started not as political movements, but as movements by unemployed. When large numbers of people become unemployed and can't find work to pay for basic necessities, they look for answers and frequently rise up against the government. Instead of answers, they see the government keeping them down. I've read other articles that compared debt to slavery, this idea feeds the movement as well.
At the end of the article, reference is made to a policy recommendation in Graeber's book calling for "jubilee" - a forgiveness of all international and consumer debt. I understand the term and have even written about it (although I referred to a city of refuge). I thought it was uniquely Judeo-Christian in concept, but the article says that jubilees occurred "in ancient Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt." The article goes on to say that the "alternative, ... was rioting and chaos in years when poor crop yields left lots of peasants in debt."
Is that where we're headed? Rioting and chaos (which we've already seen)? Is anarchy, or small democracy the answer? Must banks be run as non-profit organizations? Should all debt be wiped clean every seven years? I'm not sure I have the answers, but I'll give my opinion in my next post.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
When Hubert met Rose
This is the story of how my father-in-law was introduced to my mother-in-law. I've heard the story told numerous times and it always warmed my heart.
The story starts in 1955, when Hubert Lawrence became a widow. He and his 17 year old son Tommy were living alone after the death of his first wife Della. Tommy worked at a local mill as a doffer, someone who replaced bobbins in the machines where the (mostly) ladies were sewing. One of those ladies was Rose.
Apparently, Tommy had a mischievous streak. Something that he did aggravated Rose that day and she told him "I'd like to be your mother for just one day." It's never been clear to me if she knew his mother had died a few weeks earlier or not, but I can just imagine her pointing her crooked finger at him as she said it (her finger probably wasn't crooked then, but it was all the time I knew her).
That night, Tommy told his father that there was a lady at the mill who wanted to meet him. So Hubert went to meet Rose at the boarding house where she lived. When she told the story about his big shoes clomping up the stairs to the porch, you could hear the sound it made.
About five weeks later (sometimes this was as short as five days when Rose told the story) he picked her up in his car to take her for a ride. When she asked where they were going he replied "to get a marriage license." I guess that served as a proposal.
Her answer was a simple "oh, ok" (which I guess meant "yes") and a day later they were married at the preacher's house. Unknown to them at the time, her brother Claude got married the same day in the next state about 45 miles away.
Now some will question the romance of this short courtship, but somehow it must have worked. Hubert and Rose were married just short of 40 years before he passed away on Dec 3, 1994. She lived alone for 17 years and her blue eyes always sparkled when she told this story. On November 26, 2011, Rose met Hubert again in heaven.
The story starts in 1955, when Hubert Lawrence became a widow. He and his 17 year old son Tommy were living alone after the death of his first wife Della. Tommy worked at a local mill as a doffer, someone who replaced bobbins in the machines where the (mostly) ladies were sewing. One of those ladies was Rose.
Apparently, Tommy had a mischievous streak. Something that he did aggravated Rose that day and she told him "I'd like to be your mother for just one day." It's never been clear to me if she knew his mother had died a few weeks earlier or not, but I can just imagine her pointing her crooked finger at him as she said it (her finger probably wasn't crooked then, but it was all the time I knew her).
That night, Tommy told his father that there was a lady at the mill who wanted to meet him. So Hubert went to meet Rose at the boarding house where she lived. When she told the story about his big shoes clomping up the stairs to the porch, you could hear the sound it made.
About five weeks later (sometimes this was as short as five days when Rose told the story) he picked her up in his car to take her for a ride. When she asked where they were going he replied "to get a marriage license." I guess that served as a proposal.
Her answer was a simple "oh, ok" (which I guess meant "yes") and a day later they were married at the preacher's house. Unknown to them at the time, her brother Claude got married the same day in the next state about 45 miles away.
Now some will question the romance of this short courtship, but somehow it must have worked. Hubert and Rose were married just short of 40 years before he passed away on Dec 3, 1994. She lived alone for 17 years and her blue eyes always sparkled when she told this story. On November 26, 2011, Rose met Hubert again in heaven.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Is China a treat (economically)?
A recent Bloomberg Businessweek article (available here) said that "China will soon overtake the US as the world's biggest economy." However, the remarks aren't all bad when you look at the facts. The authors point to a 10.5% annual increase in GDP in China since 2001 and a 1.7% annual increase in the US in the same time period.
However, looking at the GDP per capita (remember China has A LOT more people than the US), USA is at $47,600, China is at $4,400 (according to CIA World Factbook). Even if the growth rate continues at the same rate it has for the last 10 years, it will be another 28 years before China surpasses the US when you examine the dollars this way.
The article was interesting in the comments about the approach to expenditures. It points out that the US "spends, borrows and patches," while China "saves, invests and builds." Of course the current administration likes the term "invest" and "build," so the Chinese way makes sense for these parts (and they would like to ignore the "save" part.
Overall, I like Bloomberg, but you have to read the articles carefully.
However, looking at the GDP per capita (remember China has A LOT more people than the US), USA is at $47,600, China is at $4,400 (according to CIA World Factbook). Even if the growth rate continues at the same rate it has for the last 10 years, it will be another 28 years before China surpasses the US when you examine the dollars this way.
The article was interesting in the comments about the approach to expenditures. It points out that the US "spends, borrows and patches," while China "saves, invests and builds." Of course the current administration likes the term "invest" and "build," so the Chinese way makes sense for these parts (and they would like to ignore the "save" part.
Overall, I like Bloomberg, but you have to read the articles carefully.
My mom will be homeless at Thanksgiving
If all goes as planned, my mom will be homeless in just under two weeks. It's not as bad as it sounds, she's selling her duplex with the plan of moving into an assisted living center in the near future (in the mean time, she'll shuttle between my two sisters' houses). So for a while, she will be homeless.
Several years ago, several people asked mom where she was going for Thanksgiving dinner. They knew that she was widowed and her six kids were scattered across multiple states (and maybe even one of the Pacific Ocean island-nations depending on the year). They also knew that she visited her kids regularly and was seldom alone. She proudly responded that she was going to the Salvation Army. This horrified her friends who immediately invited her to their house for turkey. She laughed as she explained that she would be serving meals to the homeless. All of us kids were disappointed that she didn't come to our house, but we understood her need to serve.
Mom's always been one to see others that were less fortunate. Growing up we didn't have a lot, but when we outgrew clothes, we passed them to one of the local charities (if there was no one to pass them down to). She knew that there were people who could make use of them.
So, hats off to mom - I hope I can be the servant she has been.
Several years ago, several people asked mom where she was going for Thanksgiving dinner. They knew that she was widowed and her six kids were scattered across multiple states (and maybe even one of the Pacific Ocean island-nations depending on the year). They also knew that she visited her kids regularly and was seldom alone. She proudly responded that she was going to the Salvation Army. This horrified her friends who immediately invited her to their house for turkey. She laughed as she explained that she would be serving meals to the homeless. All of us kids were disappointed that she didn't come to our house, but we understood her need to serve.
Mom's always been one to see others that were less fortunate. Growing up we didn't have a lot, but when we outgrew clothes, we passed them to one of the local charities (if there was no one to pass them down to). She knew that there were people who could make use of them.
So, hats off to mom - I hope I can be the servant she has been.
Thursday, November 03, 2011
God helps those who help themselves
Did he really say that? Yes, he did. (see here for text). To be fair, it wasn't the president, it was his spokesman. And he corrected it later in the day. And many people use this same mis-quote much of the time.
The president actually said "God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work." I think it's interesting that he thinks God wants us to help ourselves, but by that he means the government helping us. But then I've always said that we're not electing a theologian in chief. I occasionally had problems with the previous president's theology and I'm sure I'll have problems from time to time with the next president as well.
This all brings me to my point. Over the next year, many of the candidates will say things that they don't have a chance to think through. Look beyond that. What is he really trying to say? What does his record say? What does he say in position speeches and papers? Those really determine what the person will do if he reaches office.
I'm not surprised that President Obama thinks that God wants the government to step in and help people who need jobs. This has been his approach all along. You may agree with the idea and you may disagree. But you shouldn't be surprised.
The president actually said "God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work." I think it's interesting that he thinks God wants us to help ourselves, but by that he means the government helping us. But then I've always said that we're not electing a theologian in chief. I occasionally had problems with the previous president's theology and I'm sure I'll have problems from time to time with the next president as well.
This all brings me to my point. Over the next year, many of the candidates will say things that they don't have a chance to think through. Look beyond that. What is he really trying to say? What does his record say? What does he say in position speeches and papers? Those really determine what the person will do if he reaches office.
I'm not surprised that President Obama thinks that God wants the government to step in and help people who need jobs. This has been his approach all along. You may agree with the idea and you may disagree. But you shouldn't be surprised.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
The power of the consumer
Over the last few weeks, banks have slowly backed off their plans to charge fees for debit cards (I expected this. See here for my prediction) The consumer has the power to effect change.
The first time I saw a change like this was back in the mid 1980's. At that time, the country of South Africa was under increased scrutiny due to Apartheid (see details here). It was discovered that many business interacted with South Africa and a large movement was made to force these businesses to stop. One bank, which has since been merged into other banks, was heavily involved and did not change their policies.
After several months of trying to get the bank to change, a group emerged that petitioned the bank for policy changes. The group said that if the bank did not change, the signees of the petition would open an account at the bank and then close it the next day. And there were a lot of signees.
The day after this information came out, the bank "clarified" their position on Apartheid. They explained that they made loans to businesses in South Africa and not to the government. Their loans were actually helping the people of that country and would give them a chance to change the government.
The petitioners were unimpressed. Even with the "clarified" position, they vowed to go on with their opening and closing of accounts. They responded publicly to the bank and planned to start the following week. Before they started, the bank announced a change in policy and stopped making loans to businesses in South Africa. The consumer had voted and US businesses (largely) stopped supporting Apartheid.
By 1994, South Africa had elected it's first non-white president. There are a lot of side-stories that come out of this incident, but the story relevant here is that consumers have the power to change a nation. Without violence, threats or even name calling, consumers can vote with their wallets. Individuals can change too. You have the right to decide what services you want from a bank (or any company) and evaluate the cost. If it's too much, you have the right to change providers.
The first time I saw a change like this was back in the mid 1980's. At that time, the country of South Africa was under increased scrutiny due to Apartheid (see details here). It was discovered that many business interacted with South Africa and a large movement was made to force these businesses to stop. One bank, which has since been merged into other banks, was heavily involved and did not change their policies.
After several months of trying to get the bank to change, a group emerged that petitioned the bank for policy changes. The group said that if the bank did not change, the signees of the petition would open an account at the bank and then close it the next day. And there were a lot of signees.
The day after this information came out, the bank "clarified" their position on Apartheid. They explained that they made loans to businesses in South Africa and not to the government. Their loans were actually helping the people of that country and would give them a chance to change the government.
The petitioners were unimpressed. Even with the "clarified" position, they vowed to go on with their opening and closing of accounts. They responded publicly to the bank and planned to start the following week. Before they started, the bank announced a change in policy and stopped making loans to businesses in South Africa. The consumer had voted and US businesses (largely) stopped supporting Apartheid.
By 1994, South Africa had elected it's first non-white president. There are a lot of side-stories that come out of this incident, but the story relevant here is that consumers have the power to change a nation. Without violence, threats or even name calling, consumers can vote with their wallets. Individuals can change too. You have the right to decide what services you want from a bank (or any company) and evaluate the cost. If it's too much, you have the right to change providers.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Help for homeowners
Yesterday, President Obama unveiled a "new" plan to help home-owners who may be able to benefit from re-financing (see article here). From what I have read, I think the program is good, but I'm not sure how successful it may be.
The program is designed as an aid to homeowners who want to refinance and take advantage of today's lower rates. Nothing that I have read says it will reduce the amount of the loan, only the interest rate. Let's say someone took out a loan on a $300,000 home in 2004 with a rate of 5.5%. If they had chosen a fixed rate, that's a payment of about $1700. If they can refinance to a 4% loan today, that's a payment of about $1430 and leaves $270 in their pocket.
So who loses the $270? Well, the new program is for people whose loans are owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mach, so they are obvious losers in the deal. Also, banks may lose as older loans are paid off earlier. However, banks will get some refinance $$ in their pocket as well as a better loan. If the old loan defaulted, banks were sure to lose.
So what is the down-side to the program? Well, refinancing costs money and some of that burden will be paid by the tax payer. I don't think that's a lot of money (compared to loan defaults), so I think this is a good program overall.
Trouble is, it doesn't address the amount owed. In my example above, I assumed the entire $300,000 would be refinanced. In reality, if they were current, they would only owe $262,000 at this point. But the problem comes in that the value of the house may have dropped. The house may only be worth $200,000 now and in that case, they wouldn't be able to refinance. under today's rules, but would be able to under the new rules.
The program looks like it helps out some people in certain circumstances and therefore I have no objection to it. I'm not overly excited, because it doesn't seem like it will affect many people. Maybe the president is trying to tackle the economic issues in small bites rather than a sweeping program that no one can pass.
The program is designed as an aid to homeowners who want to refinance and take advantage of today's lower rates. Nothing that I have read says it will reduce the amount of the loan, only the interest rate. Let's say someone took out a loan on a $300,000 home in 2004 with a rate of 5.5%. If they had chosen a fixed rate, that's a payment of about $1700. If they can refinance to a 4% loan today, that's a payment of about $1430 and leaves $270 in their pocket.
So who loses the $270? Well, the new program is for people whose loans are owned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mach, so they are obvious losers in the deal. Also, banks may lose as older loans are paid off earlier. However, banks will get some refinance $$ in their pocket as well as a better loan. If the old loan defaulted, banks were sure to lose.
So what is the down-side to the program? Well, refinancing costs money and some of that burden will be paid by the tax payer. I don't think that's a lot of money (compared to loan defaults), so I think this is a good program overall.
Trouble is, it doesn't address the amount owed. In my example above, I assumed the entire $300,000 would be refinanced. In reality, if they were current, they would only owe $262,000 at this point. But the problem comes in that the value of the house may have dropped. The house may only be worth $200,000 now and in that case, they wouldn't be able to refinance. under today's rules, but would be able to under the new rules.
The program looks like it helps out some people in certain circumstances and therefore I have no objection to it. I'm not overly excited, because it doesn't seem like it will affect many people. Maybe the president is trying to tackle the economic issues in small bites rather than a sweeping program that no one can pass.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The 9-9-9 tax and the flat tax
Herman Cain has gotten a lot of attention for his 9-9-9 tax plan. I've looked into one part of the plan and decided I can't support it. Your responses are appreciated.
The plan is close to the Fair Tax that was discussed a few years ago. I confess, I didn't study the Fair Tax as I felt it had near-zero chance of being passed. I was forced to go look at it some. From what I've read the 9-9-9 plan has not laid out all the details and someone pointed me to the "prebate" part of the Fair Tax for more information.
The problem is that low income people today pay no income tax and will be forced to pay sales tax under 9-9-9. This additional burden on low income people would be offset (under the Fair Tax) by a "prebate", money given to them at the beginning of each month.
However, there is no mention of what happens to the current EITC and it appears to be eliminated. For those unfamiliar, the EITC is a refundable tax credit given to low income workers. The amount of the credit is based on the family size and the amount a person works. As the person's income increases, the EITC increases until it reaches a mid-point. Then it decreases, slower than the increase, until it gets to zero. Think of a standard curve, slightly skewed to the right.
EITC has been touted as "workfare, not welfare" because it encourages people to work. If the person has no earned income, they have no EITC. None other than conservative President Ronald Reagan pushed this program. You may not think the EITC is fair or that some people pay no income tax is not fair, but that's not part of my discussion today. Today, the EITC is the law and it gives low income workers additional cash. Taking that away may be revenue neutral to the government, but not to individuals.
Any tax plan that involves eliminating the EITC should include a plan (tax or otherwise) to address program. If a candidate decides not to replace it, he/she should clearly state that.
The plan is close to the Fair Tax that was discussed a few years ago. I confess, I didn't study the Fair Tax as I felt it had near-zero chance of being passed. I was forced to go look at it some. From what I've read the 9-9-9 plan has not laid out all the details and someone pointed me to the "prebate" part of the Fair Tax for more information.
The problem is that low income people today pay no income tax and will be forced to pay sales tax under 9-9-9. This additional burden on low income people would be offset (under the Fair Tax) by a "prebate", money given to them at the beginning of each month.
However, there is no mention of what happens to the current EITC and it appears to be eliminated. For those unfamiliar, the EITC is a refundable tax credit given to low income workers. The amount of the credit is based on the family size and the amount a person works. As the person's income increases, the EITC increases until it reaches a mid-point. Then it decreases, slower than the increase, until it gets to zero. Think of a standard curve, slightly skewed to the right.
EITC has been touted as "workfare, not welfare" because it encourages people to work. If the person has no earned income, they have no EITC. None other than conservative President Ronald Reagan pushed this program. You may not think the EITC is fair or that some people pay no income tax is not fair, but that's not part of my discussion today. Today, the EITC is the law and it gives low income workers additional cash. Taking that away may be revenue neutral to the government, but not to individuals.
Any tax plan that involves eliminating the EITC should include a plan (tax or otherwise) to address program. If a candidate decides not to replace it, he/she should clearly state that.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
The President's teleprompter is stolen
I know, this sounds like a joke. It's not. It's true. To be fair, it wasn't just a teleprompter, it was a truck which contained sound equipment, podiums and yes, a teleprompter. The truck was later found in a hotel parking lot several miles away.
This happened about 1/2 mile from the Hampton Inn where I stay when I go to Richmond. I promise, I was no where near where the incident occurred. As for other comments, on the advice of counsel, I have no additional comments at this time.
Click here for the story from Richmond Times Dispatch.
This happened about 1/2 mile from the Hampton Inn where I stay when I go to Richmond. I promise, I was no where near where the incident occurred. As for other comments, on the advice of counsel, I have no additional comments at this time.
Click here for the story from Richmond Times Dispatch.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Marx to market (Bloomberg Businessweek 9/19-25)
I'm a little behind on reading, but this article in Bloomberg Businessweek caught my attention. Follow this link to read the article. While not mentioning the Occupy Wall Street movement, it certainly seems to apply (although I confess, I haven't read all of the details on OWS).
The article/editorial talks about how times have changed, yet we seem to be going back to some Marxist ideas and it says this in a not-negative tone. "You might even say the Bearded One (Karl Marx) has rarely looked better." The article notes that with "U.S. unemployment rate is still more than 9 percent" and Marx had predicted that "companies would need fewer workers as they improved productivity." Peter Coy (the author of the editorial) points out that the blue-collar workers' condition is "still a far cry from the subsistnence wage and 'accumulation of misery' that Marx conjured" but he adds that "it's not morning in America, either." The last line is a reference that few conservatives would miss.
The article also stresses Marx' point that "the proletariat isn't paid enough to buy the stuff capitalists produce (a point I disagree with - all of the unemployed have very nice cell phones, TVs, etc).
The editorial says that it's "time for another burst of enlightenment" and says we are facing a "crisis of capitalism". He thinks that "grasping the ways in which Marx was right is the first step toward making sure that... predictions of capitalism's downfall remain wrong."
Might it be that Coy is correct? Are the rumblings of the OWS group rumblings from Marx' grave? Are these people anti-capitalists? I'm certain that I don't know and am looking for answers
The article/editorial talks about how times have changed, yet we seem to be going back to some Marxist ideas and it says this in a not-negative tone. "You might even say the Bearded One (Karl Marx) has rarely looked better." The article notes that with "U.S. unemployment rate is still more than 9 percent" and Marx had predicted that "companies would need fewer workers as they improved productivity." Peter Coy (the author of the editorial) points out that the blue-collar workers' condition is "still a far cry from the subsistnence wage and 'accumulation of misery' that Marx conjured" but he adds that "it's not morning in America, either." The last line is a reference that few conservatives would miss.
The article also stresses Marx' point that "the proletariat isn't paid enough to buy the stuff capitalists produce (a point I disagree with - all of the unemployed have very nice cell phones, TVs, etc).
The editorial says that it's "time for another burst of enlightenment" and says we are facing a "crisis of capitalism". He thinks that "grasping the ways in which Marx was right is the first step toward making sure that... predictions of capitalism's downfall remain wrong."
Might it be that Coy is correct? Are the rumblings of the OWS group rumblings from Marx' grave? Are these people anti-capitalists? I'm certain that I don't know and am looking for answers
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Bank fees
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard the mess about bank fees. At least four of the major banks (Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Sun Trust and Regions) are planning to start charging debit card holders a monthly fee of anywhere from $3 to $5. Citibank is increasing the fees on checking accounts. The president has said that the banks don't have the right to certain profits (more on that later).
The banks say that they have to do this to make up for the lost fees charged to retailers. In theory, retail prices should come down as their fees go down (I'm not holding my breath). Consumers are complaining it's not fair. My suggestion is simple. Change accounts or change banks.
Most banks have some accounts that will still be free. Simply sitting down with someone at the bank or calling the bank can help you understand your options. Before you do, write down your expectations/requirements. Do you use an ATM? Do you use other banks' ATM's? Do you use your debit card? Do you keep a balance? Do you have other accounts with the bank?
Also, banks may have other options available based on your age (I found out I'm a "senior" at age 52 at one bank) or school status (student checking is often free). Smaller banks or credit unions may have benefits based on your employer.
If the bank has no free account that fits your need, consider changing banks. Tell the person you've talked to at your current bank that you're planning to look at other banks. Be prepared to follow through.
My honest opinion is that this fuss will not last if consumers start changing banks. They will find ways to keep depositors from jumping ship. But there's no reason you should pay fees.
The banks say that they have to do this to make up for the lost fees charged to retailers. In theory, retail prices should come down as their fees go down (I'm not holding my breath). Consumers are complaining it's not fair. My suggestion is simple. Change accounts or change banks.
Most banks have some accounts that will still be free. Simply sitting down with someone at the bank or calling the bank can help you understand your options. Before you do, write down your expectations/requirements. Do you use an ATM? Do you use other banks' ATM's? Do you use your debit card? Do you keep a balance? Do you have other accounts with the bank?
Also, banks may have other options available based on your age (I found out I'm a "senior" at age 52 at one bank) or school status (student checking is often free). Smaller banks or credit unions may have benefits based on your employer.
If the bank has no free account that fits your need, consider changing banks. Tell the person you've talked to at your current bank that you're planning to look at other banks. Be prepared to follow through.
My honest opinion is that this fuss will not last if consumers start changing banks. They will find ways to keep depositors from jumping ship. But there's no reason you should pay fees.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
The President's job speech - Reaction Part 2
This is a continuation of my previous post on the President's job speech. Part 1 is found here.
We are told that the President's bill (which was not released until days after the speech) will give companies an extra tax credit if they hire veterans. While this is a good idea, I'm not sure this will provide a lot of jobs and I don't think it belongs in a jobs bill. Was it added here so that the President could say that anyone who opposes this bill opposes veterans? I shouldn't be so cynical.
The bill offers "companies... a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job." This is like the HIRE act I mentioned in Part 1 of my review, but it brings up an important point: why not limit unemployment benefits to six months as well? This way, you motivate both the employer and the employee.
The President promises us that the "typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year." This is on top of the $2,000 we have already gotten. Anyone know where this comes from? It comes from Social Security payments we all make through payroll deduction. Someone should point out that this actually helps to remove the illusion that Social Security is anything but a tax.
President Obama promises that "the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit." MSNBC (not exactly an anti-Obama source) in their fact-check of the President's speech explains this by saying "it will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding." To mis-quote President Truman, "the buck stops there" not with the current president.
Finally, about half-way through his speech, the President admits "this approach is basically the one I've been advocating for months." Nothing new. But pass this bill. Right away.
The speech goes on (my printed copy continues for five more pages), but as he said, there's not much new. The programs outlined are programs the President has been pushing for months or extensions of existing programs created and pushed with the last stimulus package. They didn't work then, and they won't work now. Congress should kill this bill. Right away.
We are told that the President's bill (which was not released until days after the speech) will give companies an extra tax credit if they hire veterans. While this is a good idea, I'm not sure this will provide a lot of jobs and I don't think it belongs in a jobs bill. Was it added here so that the President could say that anyone who opposes this bill opposes veterans? I shouldn't be so cynical.
The bill offers "companies... a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job." This is like the HIRE act I mentioned in Part 1 of my review, but it brings up an important point: why not limit unemployment benefits to six months as well? This way, you motivate both the employer and the employee.
The President promises us that the "typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year." This is on top of the $2,000 we have already gotten. Anyone know where this comes from? It comes from Social Security payments we all make through payroll deduction. Someone should point out that this actually helps to remove the illusion that Social Security is anything but a tax.
President Obama promises that "the American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit." MSNBC (not exactly an anti-Obama source) in their fact-check of the President's speech explains this by saying "it will only be paid for if a committee he can't control does his bidding." To mis-quote President Truman, "the buck stops there" not with the current president.
Finally, about half-way through his speech, the President admits "this approach is basically the one I've been advocating for months." Nothing new. But pass this bill. Right away.
The speech goes on (my printed copy continues for five more pages), but as he said, there's not much new. The programs outlined are programs the President has been pushing for months or extensions of existing programs created and pushed with the last stimulus package. They didn't work then, and they won't work now. Congress should kill this bill. Right away.
Friday, September 30, 2011
The President's job speech - Reaction Part 1
Ok, I'm a little slow in posting my comments to the jobs speech. The President spoke three weeks ago, and I've just gotten around to starting my comments. My apologies if you were waiting. But I promise to complete this fairly quickly. The speech was long, I printed it and it took 10 pages. My response will be long too,
I commented right after the jobs speech that I was glad the President spoke. I should have also said I was impressed with his speech. I was amazed the first time I heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I knew then, that he was going places. He's a good speaker and has good speech writers.
When I read the President's speech (found here), my first impression was that he gets it. He understands. He used words like "an urgent time" and said that we "face an economic crisis." These are strong, but accurate words. He understands that "millions of Americans... don't care about politics," they just want the problem solved. And he understands that the problem is unemployment. If we fix this problem, we fix the economy (and most likely the deficit).
But I begin to have problems when he began to talk about a "compact." He accurately depicted "an America where hard work and responsibility paid off" and where "if you did the right thing, you could make it." But I'm not sure that's a compact. And then he followed by saying that "Washington has not always put [the people's] interests first." While I'm certain that part is true, I'm not sure what, if anything, Washington's role should be in the compact between people and their employers.
After this aside, the President returned to the track that I agree with. He says that "our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers." These kinds of statements give me hope that he may actually see the right way to run this country. But then he began to give details on his plan - The American Jobs Act. He repeatedly tells Congress that they "should pass [this bill] right away." Only there was no bill. For four days. After he had delayed his speech for several days. But right away, they should pass it.
Once President Obama began talking about parts of the to-be-delivered bill, I noticed a familiar refrain. First, he talks about cutting taxes for small businesses that hire new workers. This is similar to the HIRE Act of 2010 that I discussed here. This didn't stimulate hiring then, is there any reason to believe it will work now?
Next the President talks about putting "people to work rebuilding... decaying roads and bridges." Can someone say "shovel ready?" While I do believe transportation costs affect the economy more than any single factor, I don't think that just because "construction companies... [are] waiting to get to work" we should throw good money after bad. This didn't work in the previous stimulus, it won't work now. We may need to rebuild our infrastructure, but let's not call it a jobs program.
President Obama tells us that the American Jobs Act will "repair or modernize at least 35,000 schools." While I agree our schools need help (see here and here for two recent posts on schools), the best help would be for Washington to step away and let the states manage them.
The speech goes on with a promise to "rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hardest hit by foreclosures." Wasn't this tried before? Didn't we pass a Mortgage Reform Act to reduce foreclosures? And how's that working out?
(more notes on the speech to come. Please feel free to comment now or wait).
I commented right after the jobs speech that I was glad the President spoke. I should have also said I was impressed with his speech. I was amazed the first time I heard him speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. I knew then, that he was going places. He's a good speaker and has good speech writers.
When I read the President's speech (found here), my first impression was that he gets it. He understands. He used words like "an urgent time" and said that we "face an economic crisis." These are strong, but accurate words. He understands that "millions of Americans... don't care about politics," they just want the problem solved. And he understands that the problem is unemployment. If we fix this problem, we fix the economy (and most likely the deficit).
But I begin to have problems when he began to talk about a "compact." He accurately depicted "an America where hard work and responsibility paid off" and where "if you did the right thing, you could make it." But I'm not sure that's a compact. And then he followed by saying that "Washington has not always put [the people's] interests first." While I'm certain that part is true, I'm not sure what, if anything, Washington's role should be in the compact between people and their employers.
After this aside, the President returned to the track that I agree with. He says that "our recovery will be driven not by Washington, but by our businesses and our workers." These kinds of statements give me hope that he may actually see the right way to run this country. But then he began to give details on his plan - The American Jobs Act. He repeatedly tells Congress that they "should pass [this bill] right away." Only there was no bill. For four days. After he had delayed his speech for several days. But right away, they should pass it.
Once President Obama began talking about parts of the to-be-delivered bill, I noticed a familiar refrain. First, he talks about cutting taxes for small businesses that hire new workers. This is similar to the HIRE Act of 2010 that I discussed here. This didn't stimulate hiring then, is there any reason to believe it will work now?
Next the President talks about putting "people to work rebuilding... decaying roads and bridges." Can someone say "shovel ready?" While I do believe transportation costs affect the economy more than any single factor, I don't think that just because "construction companies... [are] waiting to get to work" we should throw good money after bad. This didn't work in the previous stimulus, it won't work now. We may need to rebuild our infrastructure, but let's not call it a jobs program.
President Obama tells us that the American Jobs Act will "repair or modernize at least 35,000 schools." While I agree our schools need help (see here and here for two recent posts on schools), the best help would be for Washington to step away and let the states manage them.
The speech goes on with a promise to "rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hardest hit by foreclosures." Wasn't this tried before? Didn't we pass a Mortgage Reform Act to reduce foreclosures? And how's that working out?
(more notes on the speech to come. Please feel free to comment now or wait).
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Debt collectors calling your cell phone? * Updated *
Not many people know it, but debt collectors are not supposed to call your cell phone. That's part of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, but it may change soon due to the proposed deficit reduction plan. Certainly many people don't have landlines any more and this is the only way to contact them, however, it's not been widely publicized.
Everyone hates debt collectors, I suspect even debt collectors hate other debt collectors. They tend to make lawyers look good. But unfortunately, their job is essential and one way to avoid them is to pay your bills. I know, that's easy for me to say and a little bit callous. To protect the collectee, there are rules that collectors must follow. A lot don't and the FTC says there were 140,000 complaints against debt collectors last year alone. I suspect there were a lot more issues that never got reported. Many people won't register a complaint because they know they legitimately owe the debt.
Bankrate.com does a good job of explaining this change and lists some of the guidelines debt collectors are supposed to follow in this posting.
According to this report from Fox News, "apply only to cases in which money is owed the government." I guess we'll know more as the details come out
Everyone hates debt collectors, I suspect even debt collectors hate other debt collectors. They tend to make lawyers look good. But unfortunately, their job is essential and one way to avoid them is to pay your bills. I know, that's easy for me to say and a little bit callous. To protect the collectee, there are rules that collectors must follow. A lot don't and the FTC says there were 140,000 complaints against debt collectors last year alone. I suspect there were a lot more issues that never got reported. Many people won't register a complaint because they know they legitimately owe the debt.
Bankrate.com does a good job of explaining this change and lists some of the guidelines debt collectors are supposed to follow in this posting.
According to this report from Fox News, "apply only to cases in which money is owed the government." I guess we'll know more as the details come out
Friday, September 09, 2011
Let's Reclaim the Post-9/11 Unity
I was looking for the President's speech from last night. Before I found it, I found this op-ed written by Pres. Obama asking for Americans to "regain the sense of common purpose that stirred in our hearts 10 years ago."
In the op-ed, President Obama also notes "that our differences pale beside what unites us and that when we choose to move forward together, as one American family, the United States doesn't just endure, we can emerge from our tests and trials stronger than before."
Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. I promise to work towards the civility that you, and others have asked for. I'd like you to lead and stop blaming Republicans for everything as I saw in your speeches last week. I'd like you to use your leadership influence and ask those around you to stop bashing Tea Partiers, those in other (or the same) wealth class and whoever the target-du-jour happens to be.
I promise to do my part, will you do yours?
In the op-ed, President Obama also notes "that our differences pale beside what unites us and that when we choose to move forward together, as one American family, the United States doesn't just endure, we can emerge from our tests and trials stronger than before."
Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. I promise to work towards the civility that you, and others have asked for. I'd like you to lead and stop blaming Republicans for everything as I saw in your speeches last week. I'd like you to use your leadership influence and ask those around you to stop bashing Tea Partiers, those in other (or the same) wealth class and whoever the target-du-jour happens to be.
I promise to do my part, will you do yours?
Thursday, September 08, 2011
The President's speech - American Job Act
The president's speech motivates me to start my blog back. I saw some things in the speech that I needed to comment on. I'll wait to comment in detail until I can read the speech, but some things need immediate attention.
My first comment - did you notice that there was no Republican response? Apparently, they read my blog post from January (here) A response tonight would have been premature as President Obama's speech had not been publi8shed. The R's could have written a speech a few days ago, making some guesses about what the president was going to say. Instead the let the president have his say. Hopefully this trend will take off and we won't have a response every time the president speaks.
My second comment is regarding the congressmen who were absent. One of my senators had indicated he would not be there. I think this is disrespectful. While I may not like the current president and don't agree with most of his ideas, I do believe he deserves a certain amount of respect because of his office. I intend to send him a note indicating my displeasure.
I noticed that the president said this bill would be paid for. However, the devil's in the details. He said he would challenge congress with paying for it as a part of their upcoming budget. To me, that sounds like he's hoping they will pay for it.
I noticed that the President did not blame Republicans, past or present, for the problems. Too often he has done that and too often while he's on the campaign trail he complains about Republicans. Hopefully, he won't do this when he starts pushing this bill.
Overall, I did like the fact that the President spoke. I believe this president has been reluctant to lead too many times in the past. Instead this time, he is introducing a bill. I may not agree with it, but at least he's started the process.
I will be reading the jobs act in the near future and will publish my thoughts.
My first comment - did you notice that there was no Republican response? Apparently, they read my blog post from January (here) A response tonight would have been premature as President Obama's speech had not been publi8shed. The R's could have written a speech a few days ago, making some guesses about what the president was going to say. Instead the let the president have his say. Hopefully this trend will take off and we won't have a response every time the president speaks.
My second comment is regarding the congressmen who were absent. One of my senators had indicated he would not be there. I think this is disrespectful. While I may not like the current president and don't agree with most of his ideas, I do believe he deserves a certain amount of respect because of his office. I intend to send him a note indicating my displeasure.
I noticed that the president said this bill would be paid for. However, the devil's in the details. He said he would challenge congress with paying for it as a part of their upcoming budget. To me, that sounds like he's hoping they will pay for it.
I noticed that the President did not blame Republicans, past or present, for the problems. Too often he has done that and too often while he's on the campaign trail he complains about Republicans. Hopefully, he won't do this when he starts pushing this bill.
Overall, I did like the fact that the President spoke. I believe this president has been reluctant to lead too many times in the past. Instead this time, he is introducing a bill. I may not agree with it, but at least he's started the process.
I will be reading the jobs act in the near future and will publish my thoughts.
Friday, August 19, 2011
A different election?
In my reviewing the 2008 election, I saw it as a foregone conclusion. President Obama had been running for the office for over four years and was specifically groomed for the office. Anyone who doubts that should only go back to his 2004 speech at the DNC. He wrote books to carefully lay out his views and everything he did in the Senate was to head him in that direction.
It was a candidate who could not lose. He was in the party that could not lose. The political and economic wind was blowing at the Democrats' back and in the Republicans' face. The war in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan made the Democratic candidate an almost foregone conclusion.
And he was pitted against a candidate who could not win. Sen McCain was not a strong candidate. He admitted openly that he was not an expert in the economy and was more interested in debating than deciding.
Now it's 2012 (well, will be soon). I just heard an interview on WLFJ 660 AM with Michelle Bachmann and I am impressed. (I'm hoping to find the interview on their archives and will post a link here if I find it). Her answer during the debate to the "submit" question was amazing. I've also posted recently about Gov Perry's approach to solving school problems.
It's still early, but it seems to me that the Republicans have a much stronger group of candidates than they did in 2008. Will this be a different election?
It was a candidate who could not lose. He was in the party that could not lose. The political and economic wind was blowing at the Democrats' back and in the Republicans' face. The war in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan made the Democratic candidate an almost foregone conclusion.
And he was pitted against a candidate who could not win. Sen McCain was not a strong candidate. He admitted openly that he was not an expert in the economy and was more interested in debating than deciding.
Now it's 2012 (well, will be soon). I just heard an interview on WLFJ 660 AM with Michelle Bachmann and I am impressed. (I'm hoping to find the interview on their archives and will post a link here if I find it). Her answer during the debate to the "submit" question was amazing. I've also posted recently about Gov Perry's approach to solving school problems.
It's still early, but it seems to me that the Republicans have a much stronger group of candidates than they did in 2008. Will this be a different election?
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Rep Gowdy sees his term in office as a lost opportunity
Most of my readers probably don't know Rep. Gowdy. He's one of the congressmen swept into office last year on a conservative wave. He represents my part of SC, a traditionally conservative area, and beat out Rep. Bob Inglis in the primaries. I can't be certain who I voted for in the primaries, but I know I voted for Gowdy in the general election.
Earlier this week, Gowdy said he saw his first six months in office as "a lost opportunity." (Source: Greenville News). Gowdy acknowledged that be "really did not have a frame of reference because [he'd] never served in the Legislature before." And he noted that "There’s more civility in a criminal trial (his former job was a prosecutor) than there is in politics."
Well, Rep Gowdy, I guess I see this as a lost opportunity too, if you decide to give up. Let me remind you that there was a lot less civility in the primary fights in your discussions about then-Rep. Inglis (and most of it was deserved). Part of the reason I and others like me voted for you is that you had never been in legislature before, we were tired of the ever compromising status-quo.
That's not to say I don't believe in compromise, I do. But I also know (as do you) that we will not fix our budget problems simply raising taxes on one group of people. "Shared sacrifice" needs to actually be shared and that means cutting spending.
I'm going to trust that the Greenville News caught you on a bad day, after a budget battle that left everyone unhappy. And, having a deal that no one likes, is not necessarily a good solution (some people call that compromise - I call it a mess). Instead, I look to you and others like you to lead, to look ahead to what's coming and take the necessary action to really resolve matters, not just make it easier on some politicians until after the next election.
I sympathize with how hard your job is on a day-to-day basis. I know you don't "like the travel between Washington and [your] home in South Carolina, where [your] family is living." But as you said, you knew the job was in Washington when you ran for election. There is certainly "a role for a fact-centric ... hopefully persuasive, argument" in Congress like you dream of. Unfortunately, sometimes it will be uncivil. You knew that too, back at election time.
I hope you will take this as helpful criticism and go back and finish the job you started, the job you were elected to do. It will be hard, as we expect you to hold ground on reducing spending and many will paint you in a bad light because of that. But we are depending on you.
Earlier this week, Gowdy said he saw his first six months in office as "a lost opportunity." (Source: Greenville News). Gowdy acknowledged that be "really did not have a frame of reference because [he'd] never served in the Legislature before." And he noted that "There’s more civility in a criminal trial (his former job was a prosecutor) than there is in politics."
Well, Rep Gowdy, I guess I see this as a lost opportunity too, if you decide to give up. Let me remind you that there was a lot less civility in the primary fights in your discussions about then-Rep. Inglis (and most of it was deserved). Part of the reason I and others like me voted for you is that you had never been in legislature before, we were tired of the ever compromising status-quo.
That's not to say I don't believe in compromise, I do. But I also know (as do you) that we will not fix our budget problems simply raising taxes on one group of people. "Shared sacrifice" needs to actually be shared and that means cutting spending.
I'm going to trust that the Greenville News caught you on a bad day, after a budget battle that left everyone unhappy. And, having a deal that no one likes, is not necessarily a good solution (some people call that compromise - I call it a mess). Instead, I look to you and others like you to lead, to look ahead to what's coming and take the necessary action to really resolve matters, not just make it easier on some politicians until after the next election.
I sympathize with how hard your job is on a day-to-day basis. I know you don't "like the travel between Washington and [your] home in South Carolina, where [your] family is living." But as you said, you knew the job was in Washington when you ran for election. There is certainly "a role for a fact-centric ... hopefully persuasive, argument" in Congress like you dream of. Unfortunately, sometimes it will be uncivil. You knew that too, back at election time.
I hope you will take this as helpful criticism and go back and finish the job you started, the job you were elected to do. It will be hard, as we expect you to hold ground on reducing spending and many will paint you in a bad light because of that. But we are depending on you.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Payday loans in Missouri
I saw some articles today about payday loans in Missouri and it touched me off. Seems that in Missouri there are "325 McDonald's restaurants, 157 Starbucks coffee outlets and 1,040 payday loan stores." (as of 2010. source: Bankrate article). Now my personal opinion is that Starbucks is overpriced, but I'm thinking 10 times as many Payday lending stores as Starbucks is a little much. And you can always get things on the dollar menu at McDonalds.
In reality, the article was NOT drawing a conclusion about the number of McDonalds and Starbucks vs payday lending, it was just comparing numbers in terms that most people can relate to. The goal is to get you to say "gee, that's way too many payday lending stores." So why would there be so many? Well to quote a well-known bank robber who was asked why he robbed banks - "because that's where the money is" (Wikipedia). Payday lenders flock to Missouri because they know they can make a good profit. "The APR allowed by Missouri’s statutes of 1,950% based on a two-week loan of $10" (BBB paper)
The same BBB paper indicates there are some nursing homes that have payday lending companies at the homes. The article doesn't mention if they loan money to the residents (let's hope not), but they do loan to workers, then allow them to pay back with payroll deductions. I'm reminded of the Tennessee Ernie Ford song "Sixteen Tons" which said "I owe my soul to the company store." (Video here)
In reality, the article was NOT drawing a conclusion about the number of McDonalds and Starbucks vs payday lending, it was just comparing numbers in terms that most people can relate to. The goal is to get you to say "gee, that's way too many payday lending stores." So why would there be so many? Well to quote a well-known bank robber who was asked why he robbed banks - "because that's where the money is" (Wikipedia). Payday lenders flock to Missouri because they know they can make a good profit. "The APR allowed by Missouri’s statutes of 1,950% based on a two-week loan of $10" (BBB paper)
The same BBB paper indicates there are some nursing homes that have payday lending companies at the homes. The article doesn't mention if they loan money to the residents (let's hope not), but they do loan to workers, then allow them to pay back with payroll deductions. I'm reminded of the Tennessee Ernie Ford song "Sixteen Tons" which said "I owe my soul to the company store." (Video here)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)