You’ve probably seen signs for payday loan stores while driving through certain commercial districts back home. You’ve almost certainly seen or heard commercials telling us that when you are short on cash, these payday loan companies are there “to help you out.”
The concept behind these businesses is simple enough: They offer short-term loans to customers with the expectation of being paid back when that customer’s next paycheck comes in. What’s wrong with that? When you start to examine the industry, the answer is a lot.
Payday loan peddlers prey on the most vulnerable members of society — people who simply cannot afford these loans. They give people money with the expectation that the recipient will fall into debt. Then they charge them triple-digit interest rates for falling behind. There’s no ethical defense for this practice. The United States government needs to enact stringent limitations on the interest that payday lenders can charge.
To obtain a payday loan, borrowers often write checks for the lender to hold as collateral until the date of the loan’s maturity. If the borrower comes in and pays back the loan, they get the check back. If they default, the check is cashed by the lender, which for cash-strapped borrowers often leads to additional fees from the bank for bouncing a check.
Unfortunately, while these loans are intended to be short term, many people fall behind on their payments and end up with loans that can take years to be paid off. The interest payments then add up to be more than the original amount of the loan. Furthermore, these payday loan sharks rely on getting people in cycles of debt, where they have to take out additional payday loans to cover interest payments on earlier loans.
According to the Center for Responsible Lending, payday loans can charge interest rates between 390 and 780 percent annually. Compare that to the typical credit card interest rate, which tops off at around 20 percent.
The typical user of payday lenders takes an average of 22 payday loans out each year, illustrating the cycle of debt. Payday lenders collect $6 billion in finance charges each year, money being taken out of the pockets of America’s poor.
Take for example Janet Gosnell, who according to The Cincinnati Enquirer defaulted on a $500 payday loan she took out a few years ago. She now owes $670.75 on the loan in interest and fees and cannot even afford to make the monthly minimum payments of $81.25. She will continue to fall deeper and deeper into debt as her payday lender preys on her.
The payday lenders argue that their loans are subject to higher default rates than bank loans, so they have to charge higher interest rates. In principle that’s true, but there’s a difference between charging slightly higher interest rates for their risk and scheming to keep poor Americans in a spiraling cycle of debt.
Georgia is one of 13 states that have banned payday lending and this is a step in the right direction. Other states, or even Congress, need to take steps to limit the interest payday lenders can charge, or just outlaw such operations all together. The government has the responsibility to contribute to the welfare of its citizens. They cannot allow payday lenders to prey upon vulnerable Americans.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wheel Column: The Big Man in Pakistan? (11/9)
Pakistan is in a state of sheer chaos. President/General/Dictator Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency last week, suspending the constitution, eliminating independent media and sending police officers into the Pakistani Supreme Court building before sacking the independent-minded chief justice. Since Saturday, Pakistan has seen massive demonstrations against Musharraf. Thousands have been beaten and arrested by Pakistani police and soldiers.
Pervez Musharraf became the leader of Pakistan in a 1999 coup, overthrowing a very unpopular and corrupt civilian leader. Since then, he has pledged to make Pakistan democratic but has dragged his feet every step of the way. He has broken promises to give up his military post and still serves both as the military and political leader. In the past year or so, things have taken a turn for the worse. Musharraf is unwilling to give up any iota of his power, and the Pakistani population is starting to rebel against him.
Musharraf had already suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in March, but massive protests from his country’s lawyers forced him to reinstate Chaudhry to his post in July. Last month, Musharraf was just re-elected to another five-year term as president, but the Pakistani Supreme Court has been reviewing the legitimacy of his victory ever since, questioning whether the parliament who re-elected him was eligible to do so.
Though he’s pledged to step down as army chief if he were re-elected, he has been waiting for the Supreme Court to confirm him as the legitimate victor before doing so. Afterward, he would most likely enter a power-sharing deal with popular former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who just returned to Pakistan last month.
There’s no way around it: Pervez Musharraf is a cruel military dictator who is using force against his own people to keep his tenuous grip on power. That being said, despite the actions of the past week, I still support him.
Musharraf is too important to the United States and the world for us to turn our back on him. After Sept. 11, Musharraf, a one-time Taliban supporter, did an about-face to become the United States’ most important ally in the war against terrorism. He has helped to track down and arrest Al Qaeda operatives in his country. Even in light of Musharraf’s most recent undemocratic actions, President Bush has reaffirmed his support for the Pakistani leader while urging the general to hold elections and step down from his military post.
Though Pakistan under Musharraf has done a mediocre-at-best job at pursuing terrorists, it’s certainly better than not trying at all. The unrest caused by these Islamic militants is the official reason for Musharraf’s state of emergency. His support for the United States has led to a number of assassination attempts. There is nothing that these terrorists would like more than to see Musharraf gone, freeing up a chance for them to run wild in the nuclear-armed Pakistan.
The pandemonium in Pakistan is terrible, and I hope Musharraf is able to return to ruling a civil, democratic country. But if I have to choose between a Pakistan without a strong leader and a Musharraf dictatorial regime, then for the good of the United States and the world, it has to be Musharraf the dictator.
Pervez Musharraf became the leader of Pakistan in a 1999 coup, overthrowing a very unpopular and corrupt civilian leader. Since then, he has pledged to make Pakistan democratic but has dragged his feet every step of the way. He has broken promises to give up his military post and still serves both as the military and political leader. In the past year or so, things have taken a turn for the worse. Musharraf is unwilling to give up any iota of his power, and the Pakistani population is starting to rebel against him.
Musharraf had already suspended Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in March, but massive protests from his country’s lawyers forced him to reinstate Chaudhry to his post in July. Last month, Musharraf was just re-elected to another five-year term as president, but the Pakistani Supreme Court has been reviewing the legitimacy of his victory ever since, questioning whether the parliament who re-elected him was eligible to do so.
Though he’s pledged to step down as army chief if he were re-elected, he has been waiting for the Supreme Court to confirm him as the legitimate victor before doing so. Afterward, he would most likely enter a power-sharing deal with popular former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who just returned to Pakistan last month.
There’s no way around it: Pervez Musharraf is a cruel military dictator who is using force against his own people to keep his tenuous grip on power. That being said, despite the actions of the past week, I still support him.
Musharraf is too important to the United States and the world for us to turn our back on him. After Sept. 11, Musharraf, a one-time Taliban supporter, did an about-face to become the United States’ most important ally in the war against terrorism. He has helped to track down and arrest Al Qaeda operatives in his country. Even in light of Musharraf’s most recent undemocratic actions, President Bush has reaffirmed his support for the Pakistani leader while urging the general to hold elections and step down from his military post.
Though Pakistan under Musharraf has done a mediocre-at-best job at pursuing terrorists, it’s certainly better than not trying at all. The unrest caused by these Islamic militants is the official reason for Musharraf’s state of emergency. His support for the United States has led to a number of assassination attempts. There is nothing that these terrorists would like more than to see Musharraf gone, freeing up a chance for them to run wild in the nuclear-armed Pakistan.
The pandemonium in Pakistan is terrible, and I hope Musharraf is able to return to ruling a civil, democratic country. But if I have to choose between a Pakistan without a strong leader and a Musharraf dictatorial regime, then for the good of the United States and the world, it has to be Musharraf the dictator.
Wheel Column: For Wilson, Justice Long Overdue (11/2)
In a move long overdue, the Georgia Supreme Court decided last Friday that the 10-year jail sentence handed down to Genarlow Wilson in 2006 constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Wilson, who was imprisoned for almost three years for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17, was released later that day.
Wilson broke a Georgia child molestation law since he had oral sex with someone who was a minor. It does not matter that said activity was consensual, or that Wilson was also a minor: He broke the law and got a 10-year jail sentence for it. Cruel and unusual? Definitely. The Georgia legislature has since changed the penalty to a one-year jail sentence, a change made in large part due to the attention the Wilson case attracted.
But the sentence isn’t the problem here — the law itself is terrible and should be abolished.
Any law that says consensual sexual activity between two people is a crime is a violation of privacy and does not belong on the books. I’m trying to figure out how the girl who performed oral sex on Wilson made herself a “victim,” even though she acted freely and consciously. Yet Wilson’s detractors repeatedly pointed out how she was taken advantage of, and even incorrectly referred to Wilson as a rapist.
According to statistics, an inconceivable number of Georgia high schoolers should have already been jailed. Sexual activity between consenting minors happens all the time, and it should not be a crime. The prudish adults who sit under the gold dome of the Georgia State Capitol may think that by making such an act a crime, they are preventing sexual activity from taking place but to believe so reeks of naiveté.
Georgia legislators need to stay away from meddling in morality. That’s not their job, and it takes focus away from more important issues.
Many have speculated that the reason this particular case was tried had to do with Wilson’s race. Wilson’s conviction, they said, was indicative of the subtle racism that still permeates Georgia.
But there was no reason to convict in this case, since Wilson’s crime had no victim. The girl has admitted that the oral sex was consensual so she cannot be the victim. While making a videotape of the act being performed was a foolish mistake, there’s no denying that this exact situation happens all the time — yet Wilson was the only one prosecuted.
Thankfully, justice finally prevailed for Wilson. B.J. Bernstein, his lawyer and a 1984 Emory
College graduate deserves praise for taking on this case pro-bono and for fighting to make sure justice would be carried out. Now it’s time for the next step: The law must be changed so teenagers cannot be charged for child molestation for consensual sexual activities.
Genarlow Wilson was an upstanding student, star football player, and by all accounts a person destined for success. An asinine law took several years of his life from him. Now he’s a free man and wants to go to college and succeed in life. Let’s root for Genarlow Wilson to show he can overcome how the state of Georgia wronged him.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
Wilson, who was imprisoned for almost three years for receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl when he was 17, was released later that day.
Wilson broke a Georgia child molestation law since he had oral sex with someone who was a minor. It does not matter that said activity was consensual, or that Wilson was also a minor: He broke the law and got a 10-year jail sentence for it. Cruel and unusual? Definitely. The Georgia legislature has since changed the penalty to a one-year jail sentence, a change made in large part due to the attention the Wilson case attracted.
But the sentence isn’t the problem here — the law itself is terrible and should be abolished.
Any law that says consensual sexual activity between two people is a crime is a violation of privacy and does not belong on the books. I’m trying to figure out how the girl who performed oral sex on Wilson made herself a “victim,” even though she acted freely and consciously. Yet Wilson’s detractors repeatedly pointed out how she was taken advantage of, and even incorrectly referred to Wilson as a rapist.
According to statistics, an inconceivable number of Georgia high schoolers should have already been jailed. Sexual activity between consenting minors happens all the time, and it should not be a crime. The prudish adults who sit under the gold dome of the Georgia State Capitol may think that by making such an act a crime, they are preventing sexual activity from taking place but to believe so reeks of naiveté.
Georgia legislators need to stay away from meddling in morality. That’s not their job, and it takes focus away from more important issues.
Many have speculated that the reason this particular case was tried had to do with Wilson’s race. Wilson’s conviction, they said, was indicative of the subtle racism that still permeates Georgia.
But there was no reason to convict in this case, since Wilson’s crime had no victim. The girl has admitted that the oral sex was consensual so she cannot be the victim. While making a videotape of the act being performed was a foolish mistake, there’s no denying that this exact situation happens all the time — yet Wilson was the only one prosecuted.
Thankfully, justice finally prevailed for Wilson. B.J. Bernstein, his lawyer and a 1984 Emory
College graduate deserves praise for taking on this case pro-bono and for fighting to make sure justice would be carried out. Now it’s time for the next step: The law must be changed so teenagers cannot be charged for child molestation for consensual sexual activities.
Genarlow Wilson was an upstanding student, star football player, and by all accounts a person destined for success. An asinine law took several years of his life from him. Now he’s a free man and wants to go to college and succeed in life. Let’s root for Genarlow Wilson to show he can overcome how the state of Georgia wronged him.
Benjamin Van der Horst is a College junior from Cincinnati. He is executive director of the nonpartisan political organization CSAmerica and the managing editor of the Emory Political Review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)