Ex-Tea Party President Takes on Bishop Sis in Payday Loan Debate

I read with interest and not a little dismay Bishop Sis’s article about payday lenders. I don’t deny that they’re bloodsuckers, but his analysis would have been more convincing—and accurate—if he’d used proper terminology and done some fact-checking.

He mentions payday lenders being located close to veterans’ facilities. I believe he means military facilities. He refers to “the poor financial misfortune of our veterans.” If he had checked current pay scales he’d know that a recruit earns approximately 150% of the poverty level, and when allowances are added in, it’s closer to 250% of the poverty level. I’m not begrudging military personnel a penny of what they get—I wish it were more—but to suggest military people are on the brink of starvation is grossly inaccurate.

Bishop Sis also says: “Throughout history, governments have sought to protect the poor from exploitative interest rates and consumer loans.” This is absolutely untrue. History tells us governments have been among the greatest exploiters of the poor, that until the American Revolution, governments were established by the rich to protect their interests. The concept of “We the People” being the source and repository of government power had never been tried before. Let’s not forget Magna Carta was an agreement between the nobility and the king, not between the poor and the ruling class.

Bishop Sis also refers to several studies: “...a recent Texas study...” “Approximately 75 percent of all fees...” It would be useful to know who performed these studies and supplied the data in order to gage their credibility. The adage comes to mind that “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”

Later, when he makes recommendations to solve or at least ameliorate the problem, I found one glaring omission. He blames payday lenders for the financial misery of military personnel. He urges expansion of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a creation of the Dodd-Frank legislation that brought us to our knees when the sub-prime loans it mandated burst like a soapy bubble. However, Bishop Sis never addresses personal responsibility. One statistic I would have liked to see presented was the percentage of car-title loans made on Corvettes, Mercedes, BMWs and other high-end “wheels.” Why did he not recommend young and inexperienced service members be taught that they shouldn’t buy things they can’t afford, that they don’t have a “right” to all the toys in the store?

I agree completely with the bishop’s final statement: “The way we resolve this current moral challenge will demonstrate our character as a society.” Will we be a Nanny State in which we make every personal failing and bad decision a social problem, then turn to the government to protect us from our own greed and laziness? Or will we be a nation of free individuals who take personal responsibility for our mistakes and profit by the self-esteem earned in overcoming them?