From The Archives -- The Plastic Loan Shark In Your Wallet
Again, if you missed it, please see the Program Note I wrote on Monday about this week's columns. Oh, I should also mention that I didn't have time to check all the links from these ancient articles, so I cannot guarantee that some of them haven't gone dark in the meantime -- if so, my apologies.
This was the second column I wrote for the Huffington Post, and even though Bernie Sanders is now a United States Senator (not to mention Elizabeth Warren), this issue has, to the best of my knowledge, never been addressed or pushed in the intervening eight years. Democrats should embrace real Populism, because it is the only way to fight the massive disparities in income and wealth in this country. The issue below, in my opinion, would be a dandy place to start.
Originally published June 12, 2006
Continuing the theme of picking real and tangible issues for Democratic campaigns: imagine a candidate running on the issue of lowering credit card costs. How many voters in Red State America would strongly consider electing a Democrat if it meant the cost of their credit cards would go down? How many swing voters would be swung by such an appeal? Most importantly, how many economically-struggling disenfranchised citizens would take the time to register and vote if they were promised an end to 28% or 29% interest rates? These are questions the Democratic party needs to seriously consider as it wonders how to motivate voters to get to the polls.
Many of the policy initiatives I proposed in my book "How Democrats Can Take Back Congress" seem to bear a high cost, since they are what I call "Neo-Populism": by definition, the issues appeal widely to the general public, but they are also strongly opposed by affected corporations and industries (who have enormous vested interests in preserving the status quo). This terrifies Democrats in office (or seeking office) because they are afraid campaign contributions will disappear from these wealthy corporate donors.
They should take heart in Jim VandeHei's recent article in the Washington Post titled "Democrats Closing Fundraising Gap With Republicans: Increase in Grass-Roots Support Buoys Party as GOP Efforts Falter." While the article does admit that things could go either way before this year's election, it points out the trend is towards more grassroots money coming in to Democrats and less going to Republicans.
This, as Martha Stewart would say, is a good thing; but the article also points out a rule of thumb many in politics miss: when large corporate interests see one party as the probable winner in an election, they'll donate to that party in an attempt to "protect their interests" -- no matter what the party is saying about them. So even if corporate money initially waned as a result of Democrats taking on populist causes, eventually the money would likely return if the issues were seen to be big winners politically. Admittedly, this is a best-case scenario, but my guess is championing issues that are wildly popular with the average Joe and Jane isn't going to lose the party money in the long run, or (worst case) not nearly as much money as some predict.
Last year, Representative Bernie Sanders [Ind-VT], who is currently running for Jim Jeffords's Senate seat from Vermont, proposed a "Loan Shark Prevention Act" in the House. He explains it with passion on his website, and in an op-ed piece he wrote, both of which are well worth a read. He doesn't mince words, and shows remarkable backbone in addressing an issue he obviously cares about.
Democrats should take note. Almost everyone has a credit card these days, making it an issue of near-universal concern. Of course, it wasn't always this way. When I grew up, credit cards were hard to get, since it wasn't that easy to qualify. This was before the credit industry figured out that giving cards to high risk people (who often default on their debt) was still profitable as long as the interest rates to that group as a whole were high enough. So now everybody can have a card, but some are paying 20%, 25%, or even greater interest rates. This used to be called "usury," or -- more bluntly -- loansharking.
Rep. Sanders' bill would put an end to the worst excesses of the credit card industry. It would cap interest rates at 8% above what the IRS charges in interest (a total of 14% when the bill was introduced). It would cap penalties and fees (such as late fees) at $15. It would also restrict when credit card companies could change customers' interest rates, which is today completely unrestricted. Since it makes so much sense, it will come as no surprise to hear that the bill disappeared into a Republican-controlled subcommittee last year and hasn't been heard from since.
But it seems to be yet another issue that would do wonders for the Democratic Party if they would just get behind it. If you offered voters in a red state the choice between a Republican ideologue or someone promising a maximum 15% interest rate on their credit card, which would they vote for? How many suburbanites would respond to such a choice by voting Democratic? Enough to win back Congress is my humble guess.
When I was preparing my manuscript, I timidly cut this issue from the short list, even though it was a favorite of early reviewers. I figured the consumer credit industry was just too formidable an opponent for the issue to be politically viable. Now I'm not so sure. The downside of supporting it is losing an enormous amount of campaign money from the entire banking industry. But as the Post article points out, maybe that wouldn't be as dire as it sounds. Maybe that campaign cash would be replaced by people who get excited about the issue. And in the end, it's votes that get you elected, not campaign contributions. Most voters don't own banks or consumer credit corporations. But almost all of them have credit cards in their wallets.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Don't take this the wrong way, CW...
But I am consistently amazed at the naivety of your early columns.. I mean that in the most respectful way possible...
Your earlier commentaries can be summed up thusly..
If only Democrats would gain power, THEN things would be better..
I have to ask Weigantians and would hope they would be honest about it..
We have had almost 6 years of Democrat rule...
Are things any better??
Are things as good as you thought they would be??
Michale
Well, things are about as good as they could realistically have expected to be, after the Bush/CHENEY era.
Which really goes without saying. Ahem.
Well, things are about as good as they could realistically have expected to be, after the Bush/CHENEY era.
Which really goes without saying. Ahem.
Ahhhhh...
So, 6 years later...
It's STILL Bush's fault...
Gotcha... :D
One has to wonder what it will take to have the Democrats be blamed for ANYTHING...
Michale
Ah, I think it's STILL going to be Bush's fault, well into the administration of the next Republican president, whenever that might occur.
Such is the havoc wreaked through the Bush/CHENEY era.
And, in case you haven't noticed, Michale, I blame Cheney and his cohorts more than Bush. Just wanted to make that clear. :)
On the other hand, ya'all have conceded that Democrats can't govern without a SuperMajority, so I guess it's to be expected.. :D
It's going to be interesting to witness the dynamics at work when the GOP control Congress..
I am betting they are not going to have ANY problems doing their jobs... :D
Michale
And, in case you haven't noticed, Michale, I blame Cheney and his cohorts more than Bush. Just wanted to make that clear. :)
And, Obama of course.. Right?? Obama gets the blame, too... Right?? :D
Michale
For what?
Everything that Bush and Cheney gets the blame for...
Michale
That's non-serious.
That's non-serious.
It's semi-serious..
Look, Democrats had total power for 2 years..
They couldn't do crap...
They lost the House BECAUSE they couldn't do crap..
Now, they have had control of the White House and the Senate for the last 4 years..
And EVERY LITMUS POLL that you can find, Democrats are losing ground...
It simply goes back to what I have always said..
According to the Left, if the GOP is in charge, everything is the GOP's fault..
If the Democrats are in charge, everything is STILL the GOP's fault..
Now, how can that be logical??
Answer: It's not...
Democrats simply refuse to accept responsibility for their own incompetence.. They would much rather blame everything on Republicans..
And the Left enables such irresponsibility by not holding Democrats accountable...
Michale
I mean, help me out here..
Was it Bush or was it Cheney who issued an ultimatum to Assad about the use of Chemical Weapons and then ignored that bright red line??
Neither. It was Obama..
Was it Bush or was it Cheney who stood in front of the world and said, "We have absolutely NO IDEA how to deal with ISIS.."
Neither.. It was Obama...
So, I am at a loss to understand how Bush and Cheney are to blame for EVERYTHING and Obama has absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY whatsoever for the state of the Union in the here and now...
Michale
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/the-collapse-of-obamas-foreign-policy-110575.html?hp=pm_1#.VAim-fldX_F
THIS is why the US is in the shape it's in...
The idea that "don't do stupid shit" is absolutely useless if an administration hasn't a CLUE what SMART shit is...
They do stupid shit, THINKING it is smart shit...
And all they do is sink this country deeper into the shit...
Michale
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/if_thomas_friedman_is_the_voice_of_reason_on_isis_then_things_have_gotten_out_of_hand/
John From Censornati wrote:
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/03/if_thomas_friedman_is_the_voice_o
At least there are people who have a clue about what's going on and the threat it represents..
Yer Messiah, Obama admits he is CLUELESS about what to do.. He is still living in a fantasy world where ISIS (Oh Mighty) is "the J.V."
And all of this is happening because Obama drew a bright red line in the sand and dared Assad to step over it..
And the Obama ran like a coward when Assad did...
Obama declared to the world, "Assad has got to go"
And, per usual, the world yawned and ignored Obama...
Great POTUS ya voted for, sunshine....
Michale
LOL! I'll try once again to make myself clear for all the chatbots out there with reading comprehension issues: I'm not a Democrat and I didn't vote for BHO - ever. Now, since I've said that before in plain English, I'm not optimistic that slow-learning Artificial Ignorance programs focused on posting non-serious, dishonest Republican talking points will get the message, but that's OK. It's amusing to read their embarrassing, self-defeating insult comedy anyway.
I'm not a Democrat and I didn't vote for BHO - ever.
Yea??
How can anyone believe you. You have already proven that you will lie at the drop of a dime, so..... :D
Sorry, sunshine. You have no credibility whatsoever..
Michale
Well folks, like I said, I wasn't optimistic about these bots. After all, Republican rule #1 is "Reject an evidence that contradicts your preferred fantasy and lie a lot".
Well folks, like I said, I wasn't optimistic about these bots. After all, Republican rule #1 is "Reject an evidence that contradicts your preferred fantasy and lie a lot".
Says the guy who can't admit that I am not a chat bot nor could provide ANY evidence of his outlandish accusations. :D
So who lies alot and who always has the facts to back up his comments..
That would be you and me, respectively.. :D
Michale
It's funny how you don't want to talk about yer messiah's red line in Syria.. Or don't want to talk about your messiah's bonehead admission that he is clueless on how to handle ISIS (Oh Mighty)...
"Gee!! I wonder why that is!!!"
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR
:D
Michale
Michale [1] -
Wrong. We have had 2 months of Democratic rule. Here's a thought for you: do you think Democrats would have done more on their agenda if Teddy Kennedy were still alive today? That would have meant more than one month of Congress being in session (one of those aforementioned 2 months was August, when Congress plays instead of works) with a filibuster-proof majority. If, say, Democrats had had even six months truly "in power" (with House, 60-40 Senate, and White House), then I might answer your question. But "6 years" is ridiculous. At most, you can argue for two years -- 2009 and 2010. And, like I said, only one working month of that was with a 60-vote majority in the Senate.
As for your general question, yes I am happy with where we are now versus (shudder) the second McCain term. If McCain had won, we would now be at war with: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt (perhaps), Libya, Afghanistan, and maybe a few others. The budget would be trillions more in deficit to pay for it all. Perhaps a military draft might be contemplated within Washington, to provide the soldiers. So, yes, I'm a lot happier now than in that scenario.
Michale [10] -
Aha! Now you're down to "2 years." That's a little more realistic... you even used the word "supermajority"!
Heh.
As for your other comments, to be fair, I don't ever hear a lot of Republicans giving Obama a shred of credit for getting the chemical weapons out of Syria, either. I mean, you can give Putin the lion's share of the credit, but what's left has to go to Obama, right?
Also, I notice that Republicans are now calling on Obama to come to Congress for an authorization to wage war on Syria... but when Obama contemplated actually making good on his "red line," he did go to Congress and the Republicans refused to back him up. Now, of course, they're trying to have it both ways: bitch that Obama isn't going to ask for a vote now, and bitch because Obama held a vote back then and then DIDN'T act on his own (which they would have bitched about as him acting "like a king" on his own).
-CW
Oh, I forgot a big one:
"we would now be at war with RUSSIA" as well...
Mea culpa for the omission.
-CW