Tag Archives: predatory lending

You Aren’t Seeing Double, House GOP tries again to block DoD predatory lending rules

Pay Day Lending Shark We don’t really pay members of our Armed Forces all that much.  A quick visit to the Defense Department’s finance section shows that a recent enlisted person (2 years or less) gets $1,546.83 in basic pay. A person at E5 status can expect $2,202.90 per month.  Twenty years of service topping out at the E9 category yields $5,730.41 in basic pay.  Those rare souls who last 40 years are looking at $7584.60. There are some added bonuses – not exactly extraordinary – for clothing allowances,  there are also allowances for hardship duty pay, assignment incentive pay, and hazardous duty incentive pay (as if the whole idea of being in the military weren’t intrinsically hazardous).  There are retention bonuses for medical, dental, and veterinary personnel.  Proficiency in foreign languages will also merit some extra pay.  But, no matter how many times the figures are totaled the pay still doesn’t place any member of the services in the lap of luxury; not anywhere close.

This is why the following bit of news is especially disturbing:

“The military has been grappling with the financial impact of predatory lending on service members for years. In 2006, Congress passed legislation cracking down on some forms of high-interest credit, particularly payday lending. Lenders responded by exploiting loopholes in the law, and late last year, the Department of Defense proposed a new set of regulations designed to curb these creative workarounds that target troops.”  [HuffPo]

Worse still, this is the second time the House Republicans have tried to block the Department of Defense efforts to control predatory lending to military members and their immediate families.

“Republicans have been working to kill those regulations before they can take effect. This week, Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio) will offer legislation that would block DOD from finalizing its rules until a host of unrealistic technical certifications could be made for a database of active-duty military members. The House will vote on Stivers’ plan as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, a major bill that establishes military funding.” [HuffPo]

Why all this effort to block Defense Department rules meant to contain the scourge of predatory lending to members of our Armed Forces?  And, why all the GOP fussing about the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau?  One example unearthed by the CFPB in its report on predatory loans to military personnel may serve to illustrate the issue:

“A lender licensed under the Illinois Consumer Installment Loan Act extended an auto title loan to the spouse of a servicemember at an APR of 300 percent. For the 12-month contract term, the $2,575 loan, including a $95 lien fee, carried a finance charge of $5,720.24. The loan agreement provided the lender with a security interest in the borrower’s vehicle and contained a binding arbitration agreement. Although the Military Lending Act prohibits lenders from taking a non-purchase money security interest in the vehicle of a borrower covered by the law, charging a rate of interest in excess of 36 percent, and requiring covered borrowers to submit to arbitration, the auto title loan in Illinois was not subject to the protections of the Military Lending Act because it had a duration longer than 181 days.” [CFPB pdf]

And there’s another loop hole for the predatory lenders demonstrated by this example:

“An internet-based lender located offshore that targets military borrowers through their marketing extended to a servicemember a line of credit with an APR of 584 percent. In addition to the stated finance charge, the lender charged a “credit access fee” and a “transfer fee” for each draw on the $1,447 credit line. The contract provided the lender with authorization to debit the borrower’s bank account for the minimum payment due each payment period. This loan made to a borrower in Delaware was not subject to the protections of the Military Lending Act because it was structured as an open-end line of credit.”  [CFPB pdf]

There were more, equally egregious, examples provided by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report.

Representative Stivers has been the beneficiary of $42,500 in campaign contributions from pay day and predatory lenders.  Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) took in $65,500; Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS) received $53,257; Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) received $41,200; and Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) received $32,500. [OPSecrets]  Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV) received $6,700 in donations from pay day and predatory lenders. [OPSecrets] Predatory lending accounted for $190,150 in contributions to Democrats, and $748,585 in donations to Republicans in Congress. [OPSecrets]

However, no matter how generous the donation, there is no ethical or moral way to justify blocking protections for members of the U.S. Armed Forces from the practices mentioned above on the part of predatory lenders.  The White House was quick to respond:

“On Monday, in response to reporters’ questions, White House spokesman Josh Earnest called the potential addition to the annual authorization bill a significant concern for President Obama.

“It’s almost too difficult to believe that you’d have a member of Congress looking to carry water for the payday loan industry, and allow them to continue to target in a predatory fashion military families who in many cases are already in a vulnerable financial state,” he said.

Earnest said he “can’t imagine (the amendment) earning the majority support in the United States Congress.” [MilitaryTimes] [The Hill]

Representative Joe Heck (R-NV3) didn’t cover himself in glory the last time this subject emerged [Desert Beacon] one can only hope he’s seen the light since and will oppose the Stiver’s Amendment.  At best he can avoid some of the more lame excuses offered by the proponents of this amendment.

Stivers is anxious to tell everyone that he was a member of the military for 30 years – so he cares!  And that the Obama Administration doesn’t have a good track record of getting systems going on  ‘day one’ noting the computer problems with the health insurance rollout. [TheHill]  The “I care” argument is specious if not associated with legislation the intent of which is to protect those about whom one “cares.”  Secondly, it is a rare policy indeed which works perfectly the first day – in the public or private sector. in this instance the Representative is making the Perfect the enemy of the Good.

There’s another excuse which needs rehabilitation: “Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) added, “I would quickly point that there are always unintended consequences,” citing concerns of “drying up sources of credit for folks at  the bottom end of the economic scale.” [TheHill] “Concerned” is getting to be one of the words commonly connected to opposition to any policy or legislation which might help someone.  The question is: Are you more concerned about payday lenders being forced to shave a bit from their profits than about enlisted personnel and young officers being shaved by the pay day lenders?

As for pay day lending drying up any time soon, probably not.  In March 2013 the Washington Post reported on some big banks who were treading into the shark pool of pay day lending.  By April 2013 the FDIC and the Comptroller of the Currency were looking at the banks’ payday lending practices. [NYT]  The spotlight must have been a bit too bright because by January 2014 the larger banks were dropping the pay day loans and trying to find options which “fit within current regulatory expectations.” [CNNMoney]  However, the banks were still selling account data to pay day lenders until January 21, 2015. [Bloomberg]  And, nothing prevents the major banks from financing the operations of “independent” pay day lenders. [ConsAffairs]

While the big banks may have scurried back out of the light, the payday lending industry continues along,

“Currently, there are about 22,000 storefront payday loan stores nationwide, according to the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, D.C. On average, the industry makes $40 billion in loans and collects $6 billion in finance charges from borrowers each year.” [Bankrate]

There are alternatives.  For example: (1) Credit Union loans; (2) Small bank loans; (3) Credit Counseling assistance; and (4) options like credit card advances and credit negotiations. [Bankrate]   Representatives Heck, Stivers, and Conway would be better advised to promote the efforts of the Services to provide credit counseling and information to members of the military and their families.  The Army Community Service offers a Financial Readiness Program for those who need basic financial information and education.  The U.S. Navy offers training in Personal Financial Management.  The Air Force has its own Financial Readiness Program, and the Navy and Marine Corps oversees a Relief Fund for urgent financial needs along with caseworkers to assist personnel.

Promoting financial education, and providing services for urgent and emergency needs is a far better way of assisting our service members than protecting the pay day lenders who extend usurious loans to those who are at the “bottom end of the economic scale.”

Comments Off on You Aren’t Seeing Double, House GOP tries again to block DoD predatory lending rules

Filed under Defense Department, Military pay, Republicans, troop pay

To Heck With Your Service? Again?

Heck photo

The issue of protecting military families from egregious practices by predatory payday lenders gets a bit mired in Congressional legislative processes.  However, it’s not hard at all to figure out what the Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee wanted to do.

“House lawmakers narrowly voted to remove controversial language delaying new rules on payday lenders from their annual defense authorization bill early Thursday morning, calming concerns from advocates who saw the move as potentially undoing financial protections for military families.

By a 32 to 30 vote, members of the House Armed Services Committee stripped provisions from the legislation that would have delayed Defense Department plans to expand the scope of the 2006 Military Lending Act by requiring a new report due next spring on DoD’s rule-making procedures in that regard.” [MilTimes]

Congressman Joe Heck (R-NV3) has a seat on that committee.  Further, Representative Heck is the chair of the subcommittee on Military Personnel. The blurb from the subcommittee’s web page reads:

“The Military Personnel Subcommittee is responsible for military personnel policy, reserve component integration and employment issues, military health care, military education, and POW/MIA issues. This subcommittee makes sure that our troops and their loved ones are receiving the first class benefits that they deserve.”

Remember this for future reference.  For the moment ask how the statement squares with the effort to “delay new rules on payday lenders…?”  And, how does this align with comments made by subcommittee chairman Joe Heck:

“The 2006 lending law was passed by Congress after reports of payday lenders charging unusually high interest rates to troops — 400 percent or more, in some cases — and misleading borrowers about the long-term debt they could incur.

Implementation of the law initially was confined to payday loans, vehicle title loans and tax refund anticipation loans. But last September, defense officials proposed new rules that would expand the types of credit covered by the maximum 36-percent interest rate that can be charged to service members and their dependents.

Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., chairman of the armed services committee’s military personnel panel, said those moves have raised concerns that defense officials are applying rules too broadly.”  [MilTimes]

It’s the Pentagon’s belief that service members need protection from predatory forms of credit cards, deposit advance loans, installment loans, and unsecured open ended lines of credit.  The bottom line is simple – members of our armed forces can be charged no more than the quite nearly usurious 36% interest rate. Too broadly?  How does applying rules saying no member of the military can be charged no more than 36% cut off credit options? If a lender can’t profit with a 36% margin perhaps they ought not be in business?

Representative Heck’s idea was to have the Pentagon conduct ANOTHER study of the effects of the Military Lending Act, in spite of the completion of the original study. Translation: Congressional studies can be used to delay the implementation of regulations interminably. Meanwhile, member of the military remain threatened by the terms of predatory lenders. [More at TP]  And, was Representative Heck proud of his delaying maneuver?

“The one-year delay of new financial protections for the military appears to come from Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV), who chairs the subcommittee that produced the provision without discussion. Heck’s office did not respond to requests for comment on the provision.”  [TP]  (emphasis added)

Members of the Armed Forces should welcome the amendment by Representative Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) which stripped Heck’s language from the appropriations bill, and was adopted by the committee on a 32-30 vote.

But wait, there’s more.

“The House voted 213-210 Thursday against an amendment that would have allowed Veterans Administration doctors to discuss medical marijuana with soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions. Opponents of the amendment underscored marijuana’s federally illegal status and said veterans shouldn’t be prescribed pot for psychological problems.” [IBT]

Representative Heck voted in favor of the amendment, but Nevada Representatives Hardy and Amodei voted against it.  Perhaps Hardy and Amodei are clinging to the old War on Drugs theme, a stale leftover from those days when it seemed like every candidate for every office was running for county sheriff?

The amendment certainly wouldn’t have required the VA to prescribe marijuana or related products to veterans, but it would have aligned the services of the VA more closely with NRS 435A on the medical usage for marijuana.  The state of Illinois is currently hearing a report on studies related to the use of marijuana to assist in the treatment of PTSD.  The American Glaucoma Society isn’t thrilled with the side effects of marijuana, but acknowledges that it does reduce intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma patients.

Contrary to the drum beating of the Old Drug Warriors, marijuana has been used successfully to treat moderate to severe “refractory spasticity” in multiple sclerosis patients, to alleviate loss of appetite associated with HIV/AIDS cachexia, and to inhibit chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting among cancer patients.

In short, given Representative Heck’s attempt to give a handout to the predatory lenders, and Old Drug Warriors Hardy and Amodei’s conviction that medical and marijuana don’t fit together – it wasn’t a complete loss of members of the Armed Forces and Veterans in the House, but it was a near thing.

Comments Off on To Heck With Your Service? Again?

Filed under Amodei, Defense Department, Heck, Veterans

A Little Regulation Can Go A Long Way: Protecting Those Vulnerable to Predatory Lending

Yesterday’s post concerned the efforts of the House Republicans to de-regulate the payday lending industry in the guise of H.R. 6139.  With nearly a third of Las Vegas, NV individuals availing themselves of high interest short term loans the problem of predatory lending deserves more than a passing critique of an individual piece of legislation.  Additionally, if we truly believe the function of government is to protect its citizens, then the de-regulation of the high interest lenders stands in high contrast to that goal.

This isn’t a call for a nanny state, it’s more like an extension of the point made by President Reagan: “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”  Predatory lending practices definitely fit in the former category.

With this in mind, who are the targets of high interest lenders?

The targets are the unbanked and the underbanked:The highest unbanked and underbanked rates are found among non-Asian minorities, lower-income households, younger households, and unemployed households. Close to half of all households in these groups are unbanked or underbanked compared to slightly more than one-quarter of all households.”  [FDIC pdf]

Those who are unbanked are families in which no one has a checking or savings account; the underbanked are families in which there might be a small savings and checking account, but financial needs are augmented by non-bank money orders, check cashing services, rent to own firms, RAL’s (refund anticipation loans), and pawn shop services.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation found that the unbanked, and underbanked, are predominantly in ethnic minority communities.

As the FDIC graph indicates, those likely to fall into the unbanked and under-banked categories are predominantly Hispanic and African American.

The unbanked and under-banked also tend to be low income, and low education.

And, there’s no surprise here… most of the unbanked and under-banked are younger people.

Fully 57.5% of the unbanked are under the age of 44, with 37.3% under the age of 34.   11.1% of the unbanked are new to the work force, aged 15-24 years of age, and 8.1% of the under-banked are 15 to 24.

The unremarkable conclusion is easily reached: Those who are most likely to fall prey to predatory high interest lending are young, minority group individuals, with lower rates of educational attainment.  The vulnerable at risk of running into the vultures.

Advocates of “alternative banking” complain that since the high interest rate lenders deal with higher risk borrowers they must, of necessity, charge higher rates to cover their risk of default.  No one would make a sound argument based on an inversion of the risk and reward model of consumer lending.  However, the amount required to cover potential expenses doesn’t automatically justify rates which might make a loan shark lose his appetite.

The argument that making many small loans incurs more cost than making fewer larger loans founders on the same shoals.

Pilot Whales and Loan Sharks

In February 2008 the FDIC launched a pilot program with 28 volunteer banks to offer small dollar loans with restrictions on interest rates and provisions.
The agency reported: “Since the pilot began, participating banks made more than 34,400 small-dollar loans with a principal balance of $40.2 million. The pilot tracked two types of loans: small-dollar loans (SDLs) of $1,000 or less and nearly small-dollar loans (NSDLs) between $1,000 and $2,500. All pilot banks offered only closed end installment loans.”   The FDIC used initial information to produce a template for small and nearly small dollar loans:

The Pay Day lending lobbyists promptly dismissed the FDIC’s efforts as too little (only 31 banks participating) and insufficiently differentiated from pay day lending.  The critique failed to note the program was a PILOT project to create templates for the banking sector and not an attempt to initiate a broad banking program for the unbanked and under-banked.   Also missing from the criticism was the information that the pilot program yielded results necessary to create banking guidelines for small dollar loans.

“In June 2007, the FDIC issued the Affordable Small Dollar Loan Guidelines (Guidelines) to encourage financial institutions to offer small-dollar credit products that are affordable, yet safe and sound, and consistent with all applicable federal and state laws.”  [FDIC]

What the FDIC discovered in the course of its pilot project was that regulated banks could issue small dollar loans, which didn’t break either the lender or the borrower, and which didn’t involve stretching — or avoiding — federal and state consumer protections.

And, still protect the vulnerable from the vultures.

For further informationFDIC, “2011 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households,” pdf.   FDIC Small Dollar Loan Pilot Program.

Comments Off on A Little Regulation Can Go A Long Way: Protecting Those Vulnerable to Predatory Lending

Filed under Economy, financial regulation

An Amen Chorus: Nevada Doesn’t Need H.R. 6139

Nor does any other state!  H.R. 6139 is a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives which would give predatory lenders all the latitude they need to put consumers on a debt treadmill at infinite cost to the consumer and almost limitless benefit to the lenders.  How this directly affects very real Nevadans is the topic of a MUST READ article by J. Patrick Coolican in the Las Vegas Sun.

After cringing at the descriptions in the article about what predatory lenders do to desperate customers, more gasps might be in order as we look deeper into what the bill would actually DO.

The Congressional Research Service summarizes part one of the bill:

“Requires a qualified nondepository creditor seeking a federal charter to submit an application which includes in part: (1) a business plan for at least a three-year period with its primary business activities serving underserved consumers and small businesses; (2) a market demand forecast, the intended customer base, competition, economic conditions, financial projections, and business risks; (3) a marketing plan that describes the types of financial products or services such creditor intends to offer; and (4) adequate capital structure.” (emphasis added)

Those two words, “federal charter,”  are the crucial part of the matter.  H.R. 6139 would allow predatory lenders to fall under the jurisdiction of the Comptroller of the Currency — the agency that supervises federally chartered banks.

What’s missing? State consumer protection laws — which the newly minted “federally chartered” lenders could circumvent by shuttling under the OCC jurisdiction.   Nevada has placed restrictions on predatory lending under the provisions of NRS 604A since 2007.  Section  NRS 604A.420 should be of additional interest: It prevents predatory lending to members of our Armed Forces, which would include Creech AFB in Indian Springs, NV; Nellis AFB in Clark County, and the Fallon Naval Air Station.   The state provisions define “high interest lending,” and prohibit making loans which amount to more than 25% of the individual’s gross monthly income.

By allowing the predatory lenders to slither under the OCC umbrella the bill would also protect them from oversight by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In its “Snapshot Report,” October 10, 2012 (pdf) the CFPB summarized the complaints it has received in regard to banking practices:

“Approximately 10,300 (86 percent) of bank account and service complaints have been sent by Consumer Response to companies for review and response. The remaining bank account and service complaints have been referred to other regulatory agencies (11 percent), found to be incomplete (3 percent), or are pending with the consumer or the CFPB (5 percent). Companies have already responded to approximately 9,800 complaints or 95 percent of the complaints sent to them for response. The median amount of monetary relief reported was approximately $105 for the approximately 2,500 bank account and service complaints where companies reported relief. Consumers have disputed approximately 1,900 company responses (20 percent) to bank account and service complaints.”

Thus we have a relatively new agency which has already received and processed some 10,300 consumer complaints, 1,900 of which are still unresolved.  This doesn’t sound like all the lending industry members are yet practicing “safe lending.”

The second major section of the bill is summarized by the CRS as follows:

“Directs the Comptroller to: (1) ensure that Credit Corporations focus their business operations primarily on providing underserved consumers a variety of affordable and commercially viable financial products or services, including some that facilitate personal savings and enhance the credit record of such consumers; (2) facilitate business partnerships among Credit Corporations, insured depository institutions, other nondepository creditors, third-party service providers and vendors, and nonprofit organizations in order to ensure greater credit access for underserved consumers and small businesses; and (3) examine and supervise the Credit Corporations.” (emphasis added)

Who are those “underserved consumers?” Many of them, as reported by Mr. Coolican, are in Nevada:

“Nevada leads the nation in the percentage of residents who are “underbanked” — meaning they have some sort of bank account but also resort to high-interest loans from nontraditional lenders to make ends meet. In theory, a borrower uses these services to tide him or her over until the next paycheck because he or she doesn’t have access to a bank loan or credit card. One-third of Las Vegas Valley residents use these services.” (emphasis added)

Riding the tide until the next paycheck could be a problem for those who would be at risk of being “sold” a pay day loan greater than 25% of their gross monthly income should that protection by the State of Nevada no longer be available to them.  Nor could these “underbanked” individuals and families count on the State to protect them from pay day lenders who want to issue multiple loans.

And Nevadans aren’t alone, although 7.5% of Nevada households are unbanked, and another 31.2% are underbanked.  This, as Coolican notes, puts  us in the Dubious Category of Number One in the Nation in underbanked persons.  [FDIC pdf]  8.2 percent of US households are unbanked. This represents 1 in 12 households in the nation, or nearly 10 million in total.  20.1 percent of US households are underbanked. This represents one in five households, or 24 million households with 51 million adults. [FDIC pdf]  Which brings us to the part of the bill which is supposed to make us feel better.

“Requires Credit Corporations to make available to each consumer to whom a financial product or service is being offered: (1) information on how a consumer may obtain financial counseling services, the benefits of following a regular personal savings program, and how consumers can improve their credit ratings; (2) disclose clearly and conspicuously in the loan agreement the true cost of the loan, including all interest, fees, and loan related charges; and (3) offer an underserved consumer who is unable to repay an extension of credit with a loan repayment term of less than 120 days, an extended repayment plan, at no cost to the consumer, at least once in a 12-month period.”  [CRS]

Not. So. Fast.  The Center for Responsible Lending research found that —

“Although marketed and advertised as a quick solution to an occasional financial shortfall, the actual experience of payday loan borrowers reveals there is nothing quick about the loan except its small principal. According to new CRL research that tracked about 11,000 payday borrowers over two years, many borrowers remained indebted for the 24 months that followed their initial loan.”

The lending isn’t quick, it isn’t inexpensive (with rates up to about 400%), and it is borderline pathological.   Credit counseling is fine — depending upon who does the counseling.  Even adequate credit counseling should put off the borrower from even considering a pay day loan.  Disclosing the true cost of the loan is fine — but it may very well NOT prevent the individual from taking on more debt in subsequent transactions.  Further, an extended re-payment plan for one loan does nothing to ease the pain of the subsequent ones.

There is one more thing we should notice about H.R 6139 — the enthusiasm for placing the predatory lenders under the jurisdiction of the OCC (which doesn’t want it).

Why?  Because the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is tasked with handling consumer complaints about predatory lending practices, and has a special section dealing with the issues affecting military families and their  lending or home ownership issues.   AND because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation created the Division  of Depositor and Consumer Protection in August 2010.

“The establishment of a new division dedicated to depositor and consumer protection will provide increased visibility to the FDIC’s compliance examination and enforcement program. That program ensures that banks comply with a myriad of consumer protection and fair lending statutes and regulations. While Congress established the new bureau to promulgate consumer protection rules, the FDIC maintains the responsibility to enforce those rules for banks with $10 billion or less in assets and to perform its traditional depositor protection function.” (emphasis added)

And, there we have it. The FDIC has a new initiative to regulate the activities of lending institutions under its jurisdiction to curtail predatory lending practices, and the CFPB is tasked with restraining predatory lending practices, so … the only regulatory agency remaining would be the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency which oversees nationally chartered banking institutions.

The bill now sits in the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit to which it was referred on October 1, 2012.  It should stay there.  Forever. And ever. Amen.

 

Comments Off on An Amen Chorus: Nevada Doesn’t Need H.R. 6139

Filed under Economy, financial regulation, Nevada economy, Nevada politics

Coffee and the Papers: Bears, Sharks, and Snark

** Nevada’s very own Sheldon Adelson, he of Freedom’s Watch and he who spent about $30 million during the 2008 campaign season, [SW] finds himself in trouble with a U.S. magistrate because he refused to answer questions in a deposition. [VegasInc] And speaking of things in court: The Righthaven rulings are making some people nervous. [LVSun full article]

** The Heller for the Senate campaign would like to make a bit of hay out of Rep. Shelley Berkley’s husband investing in foreclosed properties and re-selling them, the problem — of course — is this is exactly the practice Republicans are promoting as a way for “the housing market to right itself.” [LVSun]

** Another volunteer for the Austerity does not produce Prosperity cause. This time it’s the CFO of Morgan Stanley: “The wealthiest can afford to pay more in taxes. That’s a part of the deal. That makes sense. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t agree with that,” Porat said. “The wealth disparity between the lowest and the highest continues to expand, and that’s inappropriate.””We cannot cut our way to greatness,” she added.” [HuffPo] Amen to that.  If memory serves, the GOP was supposed to have rolled out its version of the payroll tax cut extensions yesterday.  Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) may introduce a compromise measure on the subject.  Senate Republicans could not bring themselves to vote for payroll tax cuts offset by a 1.9% surcharge on the top 1%.  [Bloomberg]

** Shark Alert:  Big banks, like Well Fargo, are bankrolling Payday Lenders who earned approximately $3.5 billion in fees making loans to people, and churning them back into perpetual debtors, meaning “repeat borrowing by customers who paid off their loan, but because of the interest, require another loan before their next paycheck.”  [TP] Now, do we understand why the Banks and their GOP allies on Capitol Hill are opposed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

** More sharks in the water:  The Gleaner has some succinct observations on the silence of the sharks, NVEnergy, who would like to maintain their very profitable grasp on Nevada ratepayers.

** It was The Lie of the Year in 2010, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney keeps telling it.  “The health care reform act was a 100% government takeover of health care.”  Perrspectives takes a long look at this Romney incantation, in a readable and recommended post.   However, Mitt The Flip has changed his position on the extension of payroll tax cuts,  before they were “temporary little Band-Aids,” now they are OK because middle class Americans are feeling the pinch. [TPM] In the “lawful, but awful” department: Romney’s governorship in Massachusetts ended with the expenditure of $100,000 to scrub records by having 11 members of his staff buy hard drives containing info on his administration. [TPMM]

** The ratings agencies are under scrutiny from the EU watchdogs: “Our inspectors are examining how the rating agencies conduct their business and arrive at ratings. If we were to find wrongdoing, ESMA has the power to fine agencies, suspend their ratings and we could even withdraw their license.” [Reuters] The oversight group has been investigating the ratings agencies since last month and will continue its scrutiny in December.  Could explain why Standard & Poor’s has been a little tetchy lately?

** Drill Baby Drill may be Spill Baby Spill?  BP workers found “cold pipes” weeks before the North Slope Spill. [McClatchy] Background info at Anchorage Daily News. (May 2011)

** The Department of Defense is looking at possible beneficial effects of hyperbaric oxygen treatment for members of the Armed Services suffering from traumatic brain injuries.  [Army Times] In 2009 Pentagon officials estimated that as many as 360,000 members of the services may be suffering with TBI. [USAT]

Comments Off on Coffee and the Papers: Bears, Sharks, and Snark

Filed under Adelson, Berkley, ecology, Nevada politics, Taxation, Veterans