DMI Blog

Mark Winston Griffith

A New Day in Banking?

Now we're talking.

In a sign, hopefully, of things to come, Democrats are seemingly more aggressive about critiquing the American economy and, well...American capitalism. Although he was certainly preaching to the choir, the new chair of the senate banking committee, Christopher Dodd, speaking at a Rainbow Push economic summit, decried the injustice of high cost financial products targeted at low-income communities. As reported by Reuters, Dodd cited payday lending and high credit card fees and juxtaposed them with the high salaries and bonuses being paid to Wall Street executives. "History is going to look back and wonder what's going on in the country that rewarded people with bonuses of this magnitude while so many of our fellow citizens are struggling", Dodd declared.

Hopefully this kind of talk is part of a new political will aimed at reigning in years of unchecked abuses by credit providers and debt servicers. What is necessary, however, is to expand the current debate on pay day lending, which is viewed as reprehensible by many policy makers, but only when it is targeted at members of the military. Payday lending is bad, period. It should be outlawed everywhere, whether it's found in Fort Dix or in Fort Greene, Brooklyn (where, incidentally, New York State law has already made it illegal).

Either way, Dodd's speech bodes well for those of us looking for any semblance of change in the financial services industry. Let's hope his leadership of the senate banking committee will match his rhetoric.


UPDATE (1/11/07 10:08am): Senator Chirs Dodd has announced his presidential bid.

Mark Winston Griffith: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 4:24 PM, Jan 10, 2007 in
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (3)


Comments

what are the major distinctions between the federal legislation barring pay-day lenders for preying on the military and new york state's legislation barring predatory payday lending in fort greene?

Posted by: justin | January 11, 2007 05:09 PM

it's so wrong that congress can unanimously vote down such a blatant injustice - predatory lending to people in the military - without any nod to the other victims of these gross financial schemes. is there something to be gained for members of congress? does the financial services industry really carry that much sway on the hill that they're able to protect their ability to overcharge low-income people? or is it just laziness from elected officials who don't feel like acting on behalf of the people targeted by the horrible financial products? what's the problem?

Posted by: Chris Jackson | January 11, 2007 05:15 PM

High-interest loans to the military pose a security risk that simply isn't present with other borrowers. If soldiers get too mired in debt, they could become desperate and succeptible to financial inducements from our enemies to provide secret information (about troop movements or locations, for example -- stuff even your average grunt might know). For that reason, deeply indebted service members can lose their security clearance, depriving the military of their skills.

Posted by: Richard K. | January 12, 2007 12:38 PM