A high-interest loan is better than a bounced check.
Fed up with politicians incapable of balancing budgets? Well, now state legislatures across the country want to take a crack at balancing your checkbook – whether you like it or not.
Paternalism – the idea that government must take care of adults because they aren't able to do so themselves – is the ideology behind the wave of politicians determined to limit how much and how often Americans can borrow money. By putting stringent restrictions on borrowing, these politicians would effectively ban the practice of short-term "payday" lending, no matter how many people use it responsibly in times of crisis.
For those who enjoy access to high lines of credit, these short-term loans – which essentially let customers borrow cash from their next paycheck – may be a bad deal. But many of the less prosperous don't have such attractive alternatives to the kind of loans that politicians like to demonize.
So when Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton prey on people's emotions by calling short-term lending "abusive" and "predatory," the result of their actions will be leaving low-income borrowers stranded in debt.
Most financial institutions aren't willing to cover the risk that these loans incur, so real alternatives don't exist. Why is that the case? Consider this scenario.
In some states, lawmakers have tried to pretend that they're not banning the service, only capping its price at a "reasonable level." If a complete stranger walked up to you on the street and asked you for a $100 loan and promised to pay it back in two weeks, but only give you $1.38 for your troubles – would that be a "reasonable" deal? Of course not. And no business could survive making these kinds of loans.
In fact, after Washington set a 24 percent cap on interest rates last fall, payday lenders left the city in droves, leaving consumers hard-pressed to get cash in a pinch.