Obenshain Introduces Title Loan Regulation

Sen. Mark Obenshain (26th-Harrisonburg) pre-filed SB565 on 01/09, which regulates "Car Title Loan" lenders, such as LoanMax. Here is the summary of the bill from RichmondSunlight.

Regulates motor vehicle equity loans, which are closed-end loans secured by an interest in a motor vehicle. The measure caps the interest on such loans at 20 percent per month for the first two months and three percent per month for the balance of the term. If such a loan is repaid in full within 48 hours, the loan shall not bear interest. The maximum term of such a loan is 12 months. The maximum amount of a motor vehicle equity loan is 50 percent of the value of the motor vehicle. Lenders are required to be licensed with the State Corporation Commission. A violation of the measure is a prohibited practice under the Consumer Protection Act. Violators are subject to civil and criminal penalties. Making unlicensed motor vehicle equity loans, or arranging or brokering motor vehicle equity loans, is punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Not a bad deal, really. It caps the interest, but does so that is more advantageous for these companies to profit in the short-term. It also requires them to be licensed with the State Corporation Commission, which should've happened already, and provides penalties for making unlicensed vehicle equity loans. Fairly sensible legislation.

Read the full text here.

Finnegan at hburgnews has a good post on this.

This "Kill The Payday Lenders" Stuff Has Gotta Go

Whatever happened to just running an honest business with intent to make a profit? Isn't that part of capitalism?

Well, it is...as long as you're not a payday lender.

I don't understand why people want to ban payday lending, or cap their interest rates at a set percentage. Simply put, there isn't a very valid argument for this.

This op-ed at The New Dominion makes me laugh. To quote this person...

It’s incomprehensible to me how any company can be so unconscionable as to charge $15 in interest per pay period, even when one is paid weekly, on every $100 borrowed. Talk about usury!

So that means they're only making $15 gross for every $100 lent if a customer pays them back on time. Considering you have employees to pay, office space to rent, and utility bills...that's not really a lot of money per customer. To put it in perspective, if I'm a payday lender, and I lend out $25,000.00 in payday loans, and all of my customers pay me back on time, I make a gross profit of $3,750.00. Let's remember that lending money to people is a risky business, as you don't know that they're going to pay you back.

Plus, IT'S ONLY $15!!! Geez, that's 1 less case of beer, or 3 less of those $5 scratch-off tickets, or 2-3 less extra value meals at McDonalds!

Where the added profit comes in is regarding the people who are irresponsible enough not to make a payment.

Now, if you have a legitimate reason/hardship as to why you cannot repay your debt, that's perfectly understandable, and there should be a system in place to work that out. However, many times, people run to payday lenders because it's quick and easy cash, and don't plan on budgeting for repayment.

But then again, is the inability of the customer to budget their money for repayment of a debt the fault of the lender?

Unlike many people who pass judgment on payday lending, I've actually USED payday lending on more than one occasion. Life throws you curveballs, and sometimes you don't have the funds available at that moment. I always knew that, when I got the loan, I would have to pay it back...and I budgeted accordingly. Sometimes, that may lead to taking out a smaller loan when you repay the first one, and you "stair-step" yourself back into a normal budget. It worked for me, and I can assure that I am not financially affluent by any means.

Stephen Winslow, whom I agree with on many issues, used to run a payday lending store. Now, he rails against the industry as some kind of source of monetary evil. He likes to use the fact that he had seen a couple of his customers go through bankruptcy, and one couple get divorced, and he blames payday lending for it.

Personally, I believe that if you're declaring bankruptcy or getting a divorce, an unpaid payday loan is not the real source of your problems. Your financial or marital life was probably struggling before you took out the loan.

Weekly Podium: "Feelings, Reactions, Opinions...oh my!"

Why is there so much crying, blubbering, and useless information being passed as "news" these days? Did the "Democratic De-evolution" have to spark such a regression of what is considered to be "important" and "notable" news stories.

A good example of this is a very recent story on CNN about the Olympic Bomber, Eric Rudolph. It seems that The Gazette of Colorado Springs has been running a series of "letters to the editor" from Mr. Rudolph, who provides an excellent depiction of life in Supermax, which is one of the toughest maximum-security prisons in America. However, in a land populated by leftist-hippies(Colorado Springs, Colorado), Rudolph is given a forum to talk about how his life sentence in Supermax is driving him insane, and how he spends 23 hours a day in his 7 x 12 cell. He also thinks that Supermax is designed to cause "mental illness and chronic physical conditions", and that solitary confinement is used to "inflict as much misery and pain as constitutionally permissible."

This is a man who pled guilty to the Olympic Park bombing in 1996 and three other bombings, one of which was a Birmingham, Alabama women's clinic.

All that said...what's the problem?

We put the most dangerous people to society in places like Supermax. The idea is to break them down, make them pay for the crimes they have committed. Now, this guy wants sympathy?

His letters and statements will be used by bleeding-heart liberals as a reason why we need to stop the prisons, and attempt to "rehabilitate" these "poor individuals". The fact that the man can be classified as a terrorist is not something that can be "rehabilitated". The fact that this "individual" killed and injured people is not to be ignored. He is doing what all that commit such crimes should be doing...rotting away in a concete and steel hell. Suffice it to say, I believe he is reaping what he had sown.

A question for you people to ponder...why is it that the plight of the raped, tortured, and murdered citizens of Darfur is of utmost concern to liberals...but for over a decade, the plight of the raped, tortured, and murdered Kurds in northern Iraq was of zero concern to these same liberals? It must have something to do with the Hollywood trend of adopting(or, in Madonna's case, stealing) little children from Africa.

Kofi Annan spent most of his "farewell" (I call it a "good riddance") speech challenging the United States to, paraphrasingly, do what he and most of Europe think is "right". Annan did a lot of quoting of Harry Truman in his goodbye speech. Where does Annan and his spineless legacy get off quoting Harry Truman? Honestly, how can Kofi "let's fight terror economically" Annan quote "Give 'em hell, Harry" Truman with a straight face? Annan also mentioned that the U.N. must take the steps necessary to end the violence in Darfur. Nice turnaround in your last speech, Kofi. Just last month, Annan said that the U.N. did not have the force nor the will to go into Sudan and take care of this situation.

So which is it, Mr. Annan? Do you think that the U.N. should or should not intervene in Darfur? I would ask you to make a stand in your final speech, but taking a hard stance on anything except anti-American sentiments is something you have failed to do during your lackluster tenure.

I find it amazing that a supposed "leader" like Annan can only appear brave and emboldened in his denouncing of Bush's administration when he had the quasi-socialist French and other members of the European Union(of Soviet Socialist Republics) standing behind him.

If you don't believe me, I urge you to read or listen to Annan's "goodbye" speech, and count how many times he says the words "you Americans" to preface a very long statement about how America needs the U.N. and needs a global economy.

Dennis Kucinich is once again attempting to gain the Democratic Party's nomination for President again, and he believes that he can do it.........*yawn*. Moving on...

Leonardo DiCaprio (an environmental "expert", naturally, because he is an award-winning actor) wants answers from America on the topic of Global Warming. His question is this: "What are some simple steps or creative ideas that people can take at home and work to combat global warming?"

My answer is even simpler than that...I say, "well, Leo, you can stop using your private jet, as it puts as much pollution in the air during a one-way flight from Los Angeles to Chicago as my ULEV-rated car would in 30,000 miles of continuous use."

If you don't believe me, you can look it up, as that is a fact. This fact also applies to such "conscious" celebrities as George Clooney, Cameron Diaz, and Julia Roberts. So much for the new trend of celebs using enviro-friendly cars and speaking out about global warming...they're a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect in a few hours than most Americans are in a year!

Speaking of global warming, would someone tell Erik Curren that his post-apocolyptic dystopia has been put on hold indefinitely?

According to a few sources, a soon-to-be released United Nations report will downgrade human influence on global warming, stating that livestock are only responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gasses (not the much larger figures Curren threw out 2 weeks ago), and that American cars are only responsible for 6 percent.

Also, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Control (IPCC) is lowering their predictions for future sea level raises. They lowered the high-end estimate for sea level increases from 34 inches to 17 inches by 2100. So at-worst, we'll see a 17-inch increase in average sea levels in 94 years.

Curren's "worst-case scenario" in his previous article predicted over 40 feet of water-level increases in 50 years.

So let's compare these worst-case scenarios. The liberal-loved U.N. says that, at worst, we'll see sea levels raise less than 1 1/2 feet in 94 years. Erik Curren says over 40 feet in 50 years.

I recently read another report that states three scientifically-backed facts. One of those facts was that the hole in the ozone over Antarctica is closing. The second fact was that the regression of the arctic ice-cap seems to be stabilizing. The third fact was that the Antarctic ice cap was beginning to increase in size again.

Pro-environmental liberals (such as Mr. Curren) across the world will start crying now, as "the day after tomorrow" will be pretty much the same as the day before yesterday. Their beloved United Nations has told them that global warming is not the impending doom they once thought it was. Now is 17 inches going to be a problem? Well, I'm sure there will be some ramifications (beach erosion, etc...), but it is certainly not the end of western civilization as we know it, and is a gradual enough increase that humans can adjust easily to this. Plus, as I said before, the 17 inches is the high-end estimate.

Next thing you know, environmentalists like Curren will tell you that the unusually large solar flare that caused the I.S.S. and Space Shuttle astronauts to take cover from radiation exposure was really a massive simultaneous fart from cows near Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

All jokes aside, there needs to be a separation of reality and far-fetched, unproven theory. While it is true that "worst-case scenarios" tend to grab your attention more than the "most-likely scenario". However, "worst-case scenarios" that are presented as "this is what's most likely going to happen" make my stomach turn in that way that makes you want to scream "LIARS!!!"

I am going to close this week's column with a rebuttal to Stephen Winslow's statements in last week's article on payday lending. Mr. Winslow, I can understand your hesitancy to do your job as you were told to do. It's not easy to follow procedures when it involves taking people's money, whether they like it or not. However, Mr. Winslow, you're not stealing money from people by following the procedures of your company, you are simply protecting your company's assets.

Guess what, those lobbyists happen to be right. They are providing a service, they are providing tax revenues, they are providing jobs, it is a free market, it is capitalism, and I have yet to have someone twist my arm to use payday lending. Like the majority of those who use payday lending, I have only used it in emergency cases in which the immediate need for money was only a short-term problem.

Allow me to add, before we go further, that I am not so well-paid that I don't have periods of time in which I am living paycheck-to-paycheck. My wife and I each earn enough to allow us to put food on our table, a roof over our family's head, and clothes on our family's backs...as well as pay my monthly bills. Most of the time, after it's all said and done, there isn't much left for a lot of fun and frivolity other than the occasional night out for dinner or some other unnecessary, but entertaining, expense.

However, those desperate times call for tighter measures of control over your finances, not "desperate measures". The reason why many people can't get out of the cycle is because they don't control their finances. That, my friend, is the fault of the customer. It is not the fault of the lender that the customer does not make the appropriate lifestyle and financial changes necessary to adapt to the repayment of the payday loan. Most payday lenders will only allow you to borrow up to a certain percentage of your average paycheck, as to allow you to have the funds necessary for fee repayment and to also have some funds available for you to live on.

While I agree that these interest rates are high, to say that a lender is predatory because there are a minority-percentage of customers who come in more than once-a-month to borrow money is harsh, and deflecting appropriate responsiblity from the individual and placing it upon the "big, bad, predatory lender".

It's time people stopped buying into the sales pitch alone, and started seeing the whole picture for what it really is.

Weekly Podium: "The Hype Machine Keeps On Grinding"

After reading Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “Letter to Noble Americans”, I’m amused by the fact that Ahmadinejad thinks that most Americans would agree with his point of view. His previous and current anti-Semitic rhetoric gets minor notice in the media, and I’ve noticed that the media is downplaying Ahmadinejad’s letter.

Although his letter’s intent is to get the American public to force the U.S. into leaving the Middle East altogether, and put up a false screen of “past friendliness” between America and Iran (a friendliness that died with the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini), what Ahmadinejad didn’t realize is that our mostly Islamic-apologist media would not report this story beyond a mere mention of it below other headlines.

The reason behind the burying of Ahmadinejad’s letter is simple. His notion that he can will American people into doing what he wants would cause a harmful backlash to his position, and the general liberal position of “abandon ship” in the Middle East. To incite the anger of Americans by reporting that a leader of another country is attempting to directly influence our thinking would kill the anti-Bush and anti-Republican movement that the media and the Democrats have so carefully put in motion.

There you have it, the liberal “Hype Machine” keeps grinding. Spitting out what it wants you to hear, and quietly squashing what it doesn’t want you to hear.

A battle between religiously-based sects within the country of Iraq is now being called a “civil war”. Not “insurgency” or “anti-Government acts of terrorism”. No, now it’s called “civil war”. Let’s call this whole debacle in Iraq what it really is…

“A war that was not allowed to be fought correctly because the Democrats and the liberal media made sure we walked in with one hand behind our back…just like in Vietnam.”

Revisionist history tells us that somehow, Nixon was to blame for Vietnam…yet it was the oh-so-legendary purveyor of the not-so-Great Society, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who created the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution AND escalated the Vietnam War to its highest peak…and its worst defeats. The truth is, Nixon began a gradual withdrawal from Vietnam AND allowed the military to run more successful bombing campaigns. We lost Vietnam because LBJ and the media made the war so unpopular that there was no way to justify further escalation without widespread civil disorder and disobedience.

Just like LBJ in the 1968 Democratic primaries, the Democrats believe that the U.S. should just simply give up in Iraq. The Democrats and the media, once again, made sure that the War in Iraq became so unpopular amongst U.S. citizens that there is no way to convince the general populous that we must finish this war.

The anti-war liberals and their media pundits are right when they say “Iraq is turning into another Vietnam.” The part they don’t tell you is that it is their fault…again. Once again, the liberal “Hype Machine” is rewriting history and using it to spew forth current propaganda.

On a regional note, the Virginia House Commerce and Labor Committee will vote on House Bill 619. If a passing vote is cast, the bill will be sent to the House floor when the next session begins in 2007. HB 619 would repeal the Payday Loan Act of 2002. The act, in short, allowed providers of payday loans to place an APR up to 780% on all payday loans. Even though it is rare to see APR’s this high on such loans, 300% APR is not uncommon. This usually leads to a charge of about $15.00 per $100 borrowed once repayment is due.

Being a previous user of payday loans (i.e.: Check-Into-Cash, Cash Advance, etc…), the convenience it provides for a working-class individual like myself is immeasurable. It allows those with lower incomes and little or bad credit ratings the opportunity to gain short-term advances on their paychecks, and cover unforeseen emergencies.

While these APR’s are certainly outrageous figures, as a $500 loan will cost you $575.00 on your next payday, I do not agree with the pro-HB 619 rhetoric of calling these lenders “predatory”. First of all, the fees due and APR’s are stated very clearly and are posted in large writing on the walls of these various businesses. The pro-HB 619 propaganda is very inflammatory towards these businesses, and seems to have the intent of driving these companies out of Virginia by labeling them as “predatory lenders” and thereby demonizing these companies in the eyes of some of their customers and potential customers.

That being said, I do agree that the APR figures are outrageously high, and with Congress having passed a 36% cap on interest rates charged to active-duty military personnel and their families, I feel that that a limit on these interest rates will come to pass. Being that it will save plenty of people some money, I guess it isn’t too bad of a deal. However, the scare-tactic rhetoric and the imposition of law to keep a company from profiting too much in a legal manner is what’s keeping me from supporting HB 619.

Finally, I would like to address a response to my prior statements about Steny Hoyer, and how when I repeat his words, I’m casting the wrong light upon him. From a former Marylander to a current one, I know your area very well. I’m very aware of Mr. Hoyer and what he stands for and represents. The fact that he will soon be the House Majority Leader does not make him a good man; it just means his party preferred him over John Murtha (kudos to the Dems for choosing the lesser of two evils, there).

If Steny Hoyer is the good and 100% racism-free man that you say he is, don’t you think he would have chosen his words with a little more care and precision? It doesn’t matter, because if you’re a liberal, you can get away with murder (Ted Kennedy) and perjury (Bill Clinton). Why should we hold a liberal Democrat accountable for making was can easily be construed as a racist remark, right?

Tell me, why is it that it is OK to label Allen’s “macaca” remark as being racist because of 3rd party hearsay and "prior incidents" that lead you to believe he is racist, but we can’t question Steny Hoyer’s “slavishly” remark because, in your own personal opinion, he’s a “good man” and "does not have a racist bone in his body".

On another note, how dare you criticize Allen for creating “Southern Heritage Week”? One thing I’ve learned since I moved to Virginia 9 years ago is that people in Virginia are proud to be from the South. They take pride in who they are and where they live, and the majority of them also acknowledge the sins of their ancestors. They also take pride in being independent spirits and hard-working individuals, and for you to criticize George Allen for allowing the state to embrace that kind of pride…what kind of citizen does that make you? Your prejudice towards Southerners shines through with great luminescence.

Why are Allen’s questionable remarks relevant to what Steny Hoyer said, anyway? They have no relevance, other than the fact that it is a typical Donkey Party tactic to deflect the harsh spotlight of doubt, and flash it upon your enemies, instead of facing the question at hand.