Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 19:14:32 GMT
So trump has banned all US travel to Cuba. When I heard it I wondered why, what has Cuba done now to piss off trump.
Then on the news I heard the reason had to do with Cuba’s support for the guy in Venezuela who won’t leave. Still didn’t make sense why we are putting more sanctions on Cuba. So I asked my friend google.
From the New York Times...
”President Trump quickly recognized Mr. Guaidó as the country’s leader in January and called the National Assembly the “only legitimate branch of government duly elected by the Venezuelan people.” About 50 countries, including much of Latin America and Europe, have joined the United States in supporting Mr. Guaidó.
Mr. Trump, with the 2020 election clearly in mind, has sought to frame the Venezuela crisis as an example of the failure of socialism. His administration has taken a number of economic steps to pressure Mr. Maduro, including a ban on American purchases of Venezuela oil, the country’s economic lifeline. The United States also has called on other members of the United Nations to revoke the credentials of Mr. Maduro’s delegation.
Mr. Trump has not ruled out the use of military force in Venezuela, setting up a potential conflict with Russia, which backs Mr. Maduro. He also is supported by the longtime Venezuela allies Cuba and Bolivia.”
Which brought up a question, if trump is so quick and eager to bring additional sanctions against Cuba for supporting Maduro, why doesn’t he do the same to Russia?
|
|
|
Post by alsomsknit on Jun 4, 2019 19:30:10 GMT
Pretty much the response in this house, I have always been suspect of the Tories commitment to the NHS. Thatcher floated the idea of cutting back the Nhs in her day but her cabinet told her it was a non starter. Trump can demand whatever he wants, WE need to worry about the Tories who would see no problem with it. Just have a look at who has already said no way, no how (Raab, Hancock, Stewart) and those who have yet to say anything. I don't trust the Tories with the nhs. They will only do the right thing if impacts their hold on power. Hunt was in charge of the Nhs for long enough and now is looking for the leadership. He should be answering questions on the Tories intentions. Yours is the more realistic analysis. If the Brits think that the NHS will be carved out of a Trump trade deal because the US cannot force the privatization of a public service, they haven’t been paying attention. When Trump says everything is on the table, no one should think he isn’t serious. No one should also assume that our US Congress will do anything to stop that – at least, not while our Senate is in GOP control. Everyone will huff and puff, but no one in his party will go against him. The protection against this happening is fully dependent on the Brits, not the Americans. Can someone please dumb this down for me? Dumbed down to the extreme. How can Britain’s NHS be part of any kind of trade deal with the US? Maybe I don’t understand trade at this point. All I can picture is him demanding their NHS be dismantled in exchange for something. Yet, that doesn’t make a bit of sense. I don’t understand.
|
|
wellway
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,994
Jun 25, 2014 20:50:09 GMT
|
Post by wellway on Jun 4, 2019 19:36:19 GMT
The nhs is a huge purchaser of medicine, equipment, services. A deal might demand we buy x amount of medicine A at £££(read not the best price available) and that's only the start.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 4, 2019 19:44:51 GMT
Yours is the more realistic analysis. If the Brits think that the NHS will be carved out of a Trump trade deal because the US cannot force the privatization of a public service, they haven’t been paying attention. When Trump says everything is on the table, no one should think he isn’t serious. No one should also assume that our US Congress will do anything to stop that – at least, not while our Senate is in GOP control. Everyone will huff and puff, but no one in his party will go against him. The protection against this happening is fully dependent on the Brits, not the Americans. Can someone please dumb this down for me? Dumbed down to the extreme. How can Britain’s NHS be part of any kind of trade deal with the US? Maybe I don’t understand trade at this point. All I can picture is him demanding their NHS be dismantled in exchange for something. Yet, that doesn’t make a bit of sense. I don’t understand. It’s primarily about two issues: (1) Trump wants the NHS to pay more for US drugs; and (2) Trump wants the NHS to allow American contractors to bid for services. His admin is serious about this. Their summary on their negotiating goals in a US-UK bilateral trade deal includes the following: Establish rules that reduce or eliminate barriers to U.S. investment in all sectors in the UK. Ensure that SOEs (state-owned enterprises) accord non-discriminatory treatment with respect to the purchase and sale of goods and services. Ensure that SOEs act in accordance with commercial considerations with respect to the purchase and sale of goods and services. Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices: - Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full market access for U.S. products.
|
|
|
Post by alsomsknit on Jun 4, 2019 20:08:22 GMT
Can someone please dumb this down for me? Dumbed down to the extreme. How can Britain’s NHS be part of any kind of trade deal with the US? Maybe I don’t understand trade at this point. All I can picture is him demanding their NHS be dismantled in exchange for something. Yet, that doesn’t make a bit of sense. I don’t understand. It’s primarily about two issues: (1) Trump wants the NHS to pay more for US drugs; and (2) Trump wants the NHS to allow American contractors to bid for services. His admin is serious about this. Their summary on their negotiating goals in a US-UK bilateral trade deal includes the following: Establish rules that reduce or eliminate barriers to U.S. investment in all sectors in the UK. Ensure that SOEs (state-owned enterprises) accord non-discriminatory treatment with respect to the purchase and sale of goods and services. Ensure that SOEs act in accordance with commercial considerations with respect to the purchase and sale of goods and services. Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices: - Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full market access for U.S. products. Thank you! So, let’s push American products and gaining American profits in the UK, while having tariff wars with China and Mexico to keep them benefitting from their products being sold in the US? *smh*
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Jun 4, 2019 20:18:52 GMT
It’s primarily about two issues: (1) Trump wants the NHS to pay more for US drugs; and (2) Trump wants the NHS to allow American contractors to bid for services. His admin is serious about this. Their summary on their negotiating goals in a US-UK bilateral trade deal includes the following: Establish rules that reduce or eliminate barriers to U.S. investment in all sectors in the UK. Ensure that SOEs (state-owned enterprises) accord non-discriminatory treatment with respect to the purchase and sale of goods and services. Ensure that SOEs act in accordance with commercial considerations with respect to the purchase and sale of goods and services. Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices: - Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full market access for U.S. products. Thank you! So, let’s push American products and gaining American profits in the UK, while having tariff wars with China and Mexico to keep them benefitting from their products being sold in the US? *smh* That’s why no one should underestimate the enormous power Trump wields when it comes to trade. Trump does not negotiate win-win trade deals. He negotiates win-lose. In other words, zero-sum. No need to invoke WTO rules. Rules mean nothing to him (just ask Mexico). If the UK truly wants Brexit because they refuse to be a vassal state, then they should refuse to be a vassal state to the US instead if and when Brexit is fulfilled. Fight it, that’s all I can say, because there’s nothing Americans can do except vote him out.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 4, 2019 20:24:39 GMT
Meanwhile, in Texas ... Some of you might recall the scandal earlier this spring when the Texas Secretary of State's office used DPS (driver's license) info to attempt a "purge" from the voter rolls of what turned out to be mostly naturalized citizens. This was done in response to the 2018 midterms, which terrified the Texas GOP as we took 12 seats in the Texas house and a few in the Senate, many from districts that had been solidly red before. There were other attempts at voter suppression and intimidation during the election itself. The Sec. of State, David Whitley, who had been appointed by Abbott but not yet confirmed by the lege, took the hit for the voter purge attempt. The lege did not take up the question of his confirmation during its session this spring, and Whitley resigned when the session was over. (He has since been hired as a "special consultant" for Abbott's office, with a salary of around $200K per year.) Now, emails obtained under FOI requests show that the directive to undertake the attempted purge operation came directly from the Governor's office. If the lege - still Republican-led, BTW, in both houses - declined to confirm Whitley over this scandal, must they not now take some action to censure Abbott? Perhaps impeach him? Oh, but they can't, because these emails were withheld until the lege's session was over. SMDH. The Republicans see they're losing their grip on Texas, and the illegal attempts to retain power through voter suppression and intimidation are coming right from the top. www.houstonchronicle.com/news/local/article/Emails-show-Texas-governor-requested-the-voter-13936493.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on Jun 4, 2019 20:36:47 GMT
Meanwhile, in Texas ... Some of you might recall the scandal earlier this spring when the Texas Secretary of State's office used DPS (driver's license) info to attempt a "purge" from the voter rolls of what turned out to be mostly naturalized citizens. This was done in response to the 2018 midterms, which terrified the Texas GOP as we took 12 seats in the Texas house and a few in the Senate, many from districts that had been solidly red before. There were other attempts at voter suppression and intimidation during the election itself. The Sec. of State, David Whitley, who had been appointed by Abbott but not yet confirmed by the lege, took the hit for the voter purge attempt. The lege did not take up the question of his confirmation during its session this spring, and Whitley resigned when the session was over. (He has since been hired as a "special consultant" for Abbott's office, with a salary of around $200K per year.) Now, emails obtained under FOI requests show that the directive to undertake the attempted purge operation came directly from the Governor's office. If the lege - still Republican-led, BTW, in both houses - declined to confirm Whitley over this scandal, must they not now take some action to censure Abbott? Perhaps impeach him? Oh, but they can't, because these emails were withheld until the lege's session was over. SMDH. The Republicans see they're losing their grip on Texas, and the illegal attempts to retain power through voter suppression and intimidation are coming right from the top. www.houstonchronicle.com/news/local/article/Emails-show-Texas-governor-requested-the-voter-13936493.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referralI didn’t realize someone fell on the knife and lost their job over this. Last I heard it was proven to be misleading BS, which we knew from the start. What’s sad is that we are learning things like this are fairly common place in the GOP. Both to obtain and keep power. Until fairly recently, I honestly had no idea it was this widespread. Eta: What also kills me is that this news will not become widespread, especially on conservative platforms. Which is how DH ended up pretty shaken up when he actually started looking at other sources and his eyes were opened up that pretty much every political belief he has is based on a bunch of crap, basically. I really hope they start a full class for middle school and high school kids about good sourcing and how to read the news.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 23:17:35 GMT
Hardball...
”This Romanov thing, it's ridiculous ... he acts like somehow the family is royal!"
@hardballchris on Trump bringing his family with him to London. #Hardball”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 23:24:26 GMT
trump 6-4-2014.
”Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?”
I don’t know, but sure would like to find out with the current president.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 4, 2019 23:25:00 GMT
Hardball... ”This Romanov thing, it's ridiculous ... he acts like somehow the family is royal!" @hardballchris on Trump bringing his family with him to London. #Hardball” At a HUGE expensive for the American taxpayers! What ever happened to the hangeroners paying their own way?!?!?!?!?! ETA:For what it is worth.. since we pay for all their trips one way or another... and security etc.....
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 23:43:43 GMT
Reuters... “Donald Trump and Theresa May view a rare copy of the U.S. Declaration of Independence” You mean the UK has a copy of our Declaration of Independence from them on display? I did not know that and think it’s neat. Of course she wasted her time pointing it out to trump since he doesn’t understand the concept of what it means and why it was written in the first place. The UK forgot it had it! It was rediscovered in the National Archives in Richmond about ten years ago by an American. www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jul/02/declaration-of-independence-copyThey also found a parchment copy at the Chichester records office 4 years ago by someone from Harvard Declaration Resources Projest.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 23:44:14 GMT
Kyle Griffin...
”Jerry Nadler rejects the Justice Department's request to cancel the contempt votes scheduled for next week.
"We urge you not to make the mistake of breaking off accommodations again. We are here and ready to negotiate as early as tomorrow morning." bit.ly/2MtHqC5”
But are they willing to “negotiate” in good faith? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jun 4, 2019 23:51:51 GMT
Kyle Griffin... ”Jerry Nadler rejects the Justice Department's request to cancel the contempt votes scheduled for next week. "We urge you not to make the mistake of breaking off accommodations again. We are here and ready to negotiate as early as tomorrow morning." bit.ly/2MtHqC5” But are they willing to “negotiate” in good faith? I think not. Did I hear correctly that DOJ wants Nadler to drop the contempt issue and they might provide SOME documents?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 1:01:27 GMT
trump... “Washed up psycho @bettemidler was forced to apologize for a statement she attributed to me that turned out to be totally fabricated by her in order to make “your great president” look really bad. She got caught, just like the Fake News Media gets caught. A sick scammer!”
Bette Midler ....
”I apologize; this quote turns out to be a fake from way back in ‘15-16. Don’t know how I missed it, but it sounds SO much like him that I believed it was true! Fact Check: Did Trump say in '98 Republicans are dumb? on.rgj.com/1Y5RE57 via @rgj”
This is a real problem with trump, he has told so many lies and said so many outrageous things, that when you read he said something like “Republicans are dumb”, you believe it. Why, because it’s trump and based on past things that he has said, it leaves you thinking yea he said it.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jun 5, 2019 3:07:02 GMT
Someone needs to tell Trump that he doesn’t need to have a permanent grimace on his face even if the occasion is formal. The difference between him and Obama is night and day. I never thought I’d defend Ivanka and husband but in that photo of them at the window I think they were watching Trump inspecting the guard and as minor players in all this, they would not have been part of the official party. We have photos on other occasions of members of the Royal family standing at windows, watching ceremonial occasions. I’m finding the coverage of all this fascinating although I am staggered at the support Trump has from some Brits. One woman was saying he is the best leader the world has ever had!!! I hope The Queen gets to giggle at Camilla’s wink! Since he made a comment yesterday that the protestors were probably planted by the media, I am thinking that his people probably planted some “supporters” there.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 4:37:54 GMT
He can forget this little wish. The National Health is not for sale and no politician that would even half suggest it here.They would be hanging themselves at a blink of an eye lid. He's also taking through the top of his hat in saying any trade deal could be phenomenal. From what I understand by someone who was interviewed here yesterday, he doesn't get to make that decision, it's up to both houses to approve trade deals, apparently. Opportunistic and cowardly. But glad he got told what's what.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 4:59:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 5:05:08 GMT
Re: our Frank Luntz discussion on thread #26 where I noted we need to get the kids out to vote so their grandparents don't continue to pull this country down by it's foundation:
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 5:09:43 GMT
Nothing to do w/the rotting turd that is the Trump administration. Just needed a laugh:
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 5, 2019 5:13:48 GMT
Pretty much the response in this house, I have always been suspect of the Tories commitment to the NHS. Thatcher floated the idea of cutting back the Nhs in her day but her cabinet told her it was a non starter. Trump can demand whatever he wants, WE need to worry about the Tories who would see no problem with it. Just have a look at who has already said no way, no how (Raab, Hancock, Stewart) and those who have yet to say anything. I don't trust the Tories with the nhs. They will only do the right thing if impacts their hold on power. Hunt was in charge of the Nhs for long enough and now is looking for the leadership. He should be answering questions on the Tories intentions. Yours is the more realistic analysis. If the Brits think that the NHS will be carved out of a Trump trade deal because the US cannot force the privatization of a public service, they haven’t been paying attention. When Trump says everything is on the table, no one should think he isn’t serious. No one should also assume that our US Congress will do anything to stop that – at least, not while our Senate is in GOP control. Everyone will huff and puff, but no one in his party will go against him. The protection against this happening is fully dependent on the Brits, not the Americans. I need this explained to me in short, simple words. I’m not understanding AT ALL in what way the NHS would be involved in US/UK trade talks. Why would the US have any opinion, let alone any say, in regards to British National Health? ETA never mind! I see this has been covered.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 5:40:17 GMT
Sad news during Pride month:
Youtube won't follow its own policies when it comes to shutting down a YTer w/millions of followers. When it comes to money or principles, trust a giant corp to go w/money EVERY TIME.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 7:05:40 GMT
He can forget this little wish. The National Health is not for sale and no politician that would even half suggest it here.They would be hanging themselves at a blink of an eye lid. He's also taking through the top of his hat in saying any trade deal could be phenomenal. From what I understand by someone who was interviewed here yesterday, he doesn't get to make that decision, it's up to both houses to approve trade deals, apparently. Opportunistic and cowardly. But glad he got told what's what. Backtracking is par for the course for him so that came as no surprise really. Theresa May said it quite subtly in her reply to him at the press conference when she said, well not quite what she said word for word but something like ...any trade deal has to have a discussion on what is and what is not included. I wish she would have been more direct and said.....in your dreams sunshine
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 7:14:57 GMT
trump... “Washed up psycho @bettemidler was forced to apologize for a statement she attributed to me that turned out to be totally fabricated by her in order to make “your great president” look really bad. She got caught, just like the Fake News Media gets caught. A sick scammer!” Bette Midler .... ”I apologize; this quote turns out to be a fake from way back in ‘15-16. Don’t know how I missed it, but it sounds SO much like him that I believed it was true! Fact Check: Did Trump say in '98 Republicans are dumb? on.rgj.com/1Y5RE57 via @rgj” This is a real problem with trump, he has told so many lies and said so many outrageous things, that when you read he said something like “Republicans are dumb”, you believe it. Why, because it’s trump and based on past things that he has said, it leaves you thinking yea he said it. At least she admitted that she made a mistake. I'm still waiting for him to apologise for his lying tweet that there were no go areas in London which resulted in the Met Police making an unprecedented statement refuting his allegations. There are so so many more he owes an apology for not just to the UK. He's the king of lying tweets.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 8:42:14 GMT
Thank you! So, let’s push American products and gaining American profits in the UK, while having tariff wars with China and Mexico to keep them benefitting from their products being sold in the US? *smh* That’s why no one should underestimate the enormous power Trump wields when it comes to trade. Trump does not negotiate win-win trade deals. He negotiates win-lose. In other words, zero-sum. No need to invoke WTO rules. Rules mean nothing to him (just ask Mexico). If the UK truly wants Brexit because they refuse to be a vassal state, then they should refuse to be a vassal state to the US instead if and when Brexit is fulfilled. Fight it, that’s all I can say, because there’s nothing Americans can do except vote him out. But within Brexit the UK is also negotiating trade with the EU. 73 per cent of pharmaceutical imports at the moment come from the EU. The UK are actively trying to protect this amongst other trade agreements we have within the EU at the moment. If they are successful they're not going to seek a trade deal with the US, at possibly a higher tariff. Surely Trump can only control the tariff on these goods and not control how much the pharma corporation's charge their customers.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 13:25:26 GMT
trump...
”I kept hearing that there would be “massive” rallies against me in the UK, but it was quite the opposite. The big crowds, which the Corrupt Media hates to show, were those that gathered in support of the USA and me. They were big & enthusiastic as opposed to the organized flops!”
He certainly is in denial...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 13:28:47 GMT
trump..
”If the totally Corrupt Media was less corrupt, I would be up by 15 points in the polls based on our tremendous success with the economy, maybe Best Ever! If the Corrupt Media was actually fair, I would be up by 25 points. Nevertheless, despite the Fake News, we’re doing great!”
Again, what specifically has trump done that resulted in “tremendous success” with the economy?
If anything he is slowing it down.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Jun 5, 2019 13:38:32 GMT
Yours is the more realistic analysis. If the Brits think that the NHS will be carved out of a Trump trade deal because the US cannot force the privatization of a public service, they haven’t been paying attention. When Trump says everything is on the table, no one should think he isn’t serious. No one should also assume that our US Congress will do anything to stop that – at least, not while our Senate is in GOP control. Everyone will huff and puff, but no one in his party will go against him. The protection against this happening is fully dependent on the Brits, not the Americans. I need this explained to me in short, simple words. I’m not understanding AT ALL in what way the NHS would be involved in US/UK trade talks. Why would the US have any opinion, let alone any say, in regards to British National Health? ETA never mind! I see this has been covered. I just came here to ask this too. I know our UK peas lurk about this thread (like watching a trainwreck 😂) and I was completely baffled by this too. What on earth does the NHS have to do with any trade deal? And who the hell does Trump think he is, to think that the US holds ANY leverage on it, in trade deals? I’m so sorry U.K. peas. He’s a bumbling jackass who runs this country like one of his bankrupted businesses, so take that for what it’s worth. Fucking delusional!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 19, 2024 15:46:47 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 13:51:30 GMT
You know between this, the gerrymandering and voter suppression it’s becoming clear that the Republicans believe the only way they can “win” is to cheat. If I were a conservative I would be ashamed by what the politicians of my party were doing.
Judd Legum
“1. Last week we learned that a political operative that specializes in racial gerrymandering concocted the Trump administration's scheme to rig the 2020 census.
Who was paying him?
I followed the money and found the answer: the RNC”
2. The Trump admin told the SUPREME COURT that the purpose of adding a citizenship question was to protect minority voting rights
The operative responsible for the scheme said the question could be used to empower "REPUBLICANS AND NON-HISPANIC WHITES"
Permanently Rigging the Game”
“In the next few weeks, the Supreme Court will issue a decision that could reshape American politics for decades. At issue is whether the court will allow the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
The key question for the court is whether the administration has any legitimate purpose for adding the question. The Department of Justice claims the question was added to collect data necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act and protect minority voters.
There have been problems with this explanation from the beginning. But stunning new evidence emerged last week that the inclusion of the citizenship question was the brainchild of Thomas Hofeller, a political operative and redistricting specialist. In a 2015 study, Hofeller said adding a citizenship question would empower "Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites," and "would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats."
Hofeller, who was in close contact with the Trump administration, also came up with the idea of using the Voting Rights Act, a bill designed to protect minority voters, as a pretext for adding the question. Hofeller drafted portions of a letter that laid the foundation for the Justice Department's official rationale for the citizenship question.
Documents unearthed by Popular Information also reveal that, while Hofeller was concocting his scheme to rig the census, he was on the payroll of the Republican National Committee (RNC).
How we learned about Hofeller
The Trump administration tried to keep Hofeller's role in adding the citizenship question hidden from the court. But Hofeller passed away in August 2018. His estranged daughter was sorting through his effects when she found hard drives that revealed he "played a crucial role in the Trump administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census."
Hofeller was revered in Republican circles for his "mastery of redistricting strategy" and his tactics "helped propel the Republican Party from underdog to the dominant force in state legislatures and the House of Representatives."
Hofeller achieved that by diluting the power of minority voters. Here is how a federal court described Hofeller's redistricting efforts in North Carolina.
There is strong evidence that race was the only nonnegotiable criterion and that traditional redistricting principles were subordinated to race. In fact, the overwhelming evidence in this case shows that a (black voting-age population) percentage floor, or a racial quota, was established in both CD 1 and CD 12. And, that floor could not be compromised.
Hofeller's map in North Carolina was struck down for discriminating against African Americans.
His scheme to rig the 2020 Census could be his most audacious yet.
Changing the way districts are drawn to benefit white Republicans
Most critics of the redistricting question have focused on the inclusion of the question creating an undercount of minority voters. Non-citizens and others in immigrant communities may not want to fill out the survey for fear that it will be used by the government to target them or their friends and relatives. Even the DOJ acknowledges this will happen. The DOJ argued in the Supreme Court that gathering citizenship data is more important than an accurate count.
But Hofeller had something else in mind. Currently, states base their Congressional and state legislative districts based on total population, regardless of citizenship status. Hofeller believed that if citizenship data was collected as part of the 2020 census these districts could be redrawn based only on citizens. This could dramatically strengthen political power for Republicans.
Hofeller ran a case study in Texas and found "Democratic districts could geographically expand to absorb additional high Democrat precincts from adjacent Republican districts, strengthening the adjoining GOP districts." Hofeller said his proposal would dilute Latino power in particular because "considerable population would have to be added to a majority of the Latino districts to bring their populations up to acceptable levels." He predicted "a high degree of resistance from Democrats and the major minority groups in the nation" to his plan.
A move to draw districts based only on citizens would be challenged in court as unconstitutional. But there is no reason to expect that the Supreme Court, if it allows the citizenship question to be added to the 2020 Census, would then prevent the citizenship data from being used in redistricting.
Who was paying Hoffler
Documents uncovered by Popular Information reveal that, while Hofeller was concocting his scheme for the 2020 Census, he was on the payroll of the RNC.
Starting in August 2011, the RNC began making payments to Hofeller's firm, Geographic Strategies LLP, for "legal and compliance" service. The RNC paid Hofeller $44,000 on September 6, 2017. That payment came just a week after Hofeller ghostwrote the DOJ letter that used the pretext of the Voting Rights Act to justify the citizenship question.
In a 2012 deposition, Hofeller said he worked as a "redistricting consultant" for the RNC.
Hofeller's status as a paid contractor for the RNC further undermines the claims of the DOJ that the question was added for legitimate, non-political purposes. The RNC is also controlled by Trump's political operation, creating another strong link between Hofeller and the Trump administration.
What the DOJ is saying
In a letter to the court on Monday, the DOJ flatly denies that Hofeller had anything to do with the DOJ's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The DOJ argues that Hofeller had "no role whatsoever." The letter describes the entire issue as "a conspiracy theory involving a deceased political operative that essentially hinges on wordplay."
The DOJ makes this claim even though Hofeller's argument, using the pretext of the Voting Rights Act to justify the question, was communicated verbatim to the DOJ official who drafted their position. That DOJ official adopted Hofeller's precise argument in his final letter.
The DOJ also argues that, even if Hofeller did influence its decision, it doesn't matter. The letter argues that the issue at hand is "whether the Secretary provided an objectively rational basis for his decision to reinstate the citizenship question." The DOJ says that "[n]othing in the private files of a deceased political operative can affect the resolution of that issue." The DOJ does not say why the files of a deceased political operative are irrelevant. In this case that operative, through an intermediary, was in contact with the administration as the decisions were being made.
The lying to Congress thing
Even before evidence of Hofeller's role emerged, there were already serious problems with the Trump administration's story. Wilbur Ross, who as Commerce Secretary administers the Census, told Congress under oath that he added the citizenship question solely at the request of the DOJ and that the White House had nothing to do with it. This is a summary of his testimony from a ruling by the United States District Court:
Representative José Serrano asked Secretary Ross whether “the President or anyone else in the White House [had] directed [him] to add this or a similar question to the 2020 census.” Secretary Ross responded that the Department of Commerce was “responding solely to Department of Justice’s request.” Later in the same hearing, Representative Grace Meng asked Secretary Ross whether “the President or anyone in the White House discussed with you or anyone on your team about adding this citizenship question.” Secretary Ross answered: “I am not aware of any such.”
But Ross was actually convinced to add the immigration question to the 2020 Census by Steve Bannon, who was then Chief White House Strategist, and Kris Kobach, who was then Kansas Secretary of State. Ross then instructed his staff at the Commerce Department to add the citizenship question. Ross' deputies informed him that he needed a legitimate rationale to add the citizenship question. You can't change the Census because Steve Bannon tells you to.
Earl Comstock, who worked under Ross, worked with the White House to request that the DOJ create a pretext for adding the question. Eventually, the DOJ agreed to do so.
What happens next?
The Supreme Court is expected rule on the case within the next few weeks. It is unclear whether the Justices will consider the new evidence. During oral argument, conservatives on the court appeared sympathetic to the administration's arguments.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 5, 2019 13:58:26 GMT
How Payday Lenders Spent $1 Million at a Trump Resort — and Cashed In At the Trump Doral outside Miami, payday lenders celebrated the potential death of a rule intended to protect their customers. They couldn’t have done it without President Donald Trump and his latest deregulator, Kathleen Kraninger.
In mid-March, the payday lending industry held its annual convention at the Trump National Doral hotel outside Miami. Payday lenders offer loans on the order of a few hundred dollars, typically to low-income borrowers, who have to pay them back in a matter of weeks. The industry has long been reviled by critics for charging stratospheric interest rates — typically 400% on an annual basis — that leave customers trapped in cycles of debt.
The industry had felt under siege during the Obama administration, as the federal government moved to clamp down. A government study found that a majority of payday loans are made to people who pay more in interest and fees than they initially borrow. Google and Facebook refuse to take the industry’s ads.
On the edge of the Doral’s grounds, as the payday convention began, a group of ministers held a protest “pray-in,” denouncing the lenders for having a “feast” while their borrowers “suffer and starve.”
But inside the hotel, in a wood-paneled bar under golden chandeliers, the mood was celebratory. Payday lenders, many dressed in golf shirts and khakis, enjoyed an open bar and mingled over bites of steak and coconut shrimp.
They had plenty to be elated about. A month earlier, Kathleen Kraninger, who had just finished her second month as director of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, had delivered what the lenders consider an epochal victory: Kraninger announced a proposal to gut a crucial rule that had been passed under her Obama-era predecessor.
Stay Informed. Get ProPublica’s Daily Digest. Payday lenders viewed that rule as a potential death sentence for many in their industry. It would require payday lenders and others to make sure borrowers could afford to pay back their loans while also covering basic living expenses. Banks and mortgage lenders view such a step as a basic prerequisite. But the notion struck terror in the payday lenders. Their business model relies on customers — 12 million Americans take out payday loans every year, according to Pew Charitable Trusts — getting stuck in a long-term cycle of debt, experts say. A CFPB study found that three out of four payday loans go to borrowers who take out 10 or more loans a year.
Now, the industry was taking credit for the CFPB’s retreat. As salespeople, executives and vendors picked up lanyards and programs at the registration desk by the Doral’s lobby, they saw a message on the first page of the program from Dennis Shaul, CEO of the industry’s trade group, the Community Financial Services Association of America, which was hosting the convention. “We should not forget that we have had some good fortune through recent regulatory and legal developments,” Shaul wrote. “These events did not occur by accident, but rather are due in large part to the unity and participation of CFSA members and a commitment to fight back against regulatory overreach by the CFPB.”
This year was the second in a row that the CFSA held its convention at the Doral. In the eight years before 2018 (the extent for which records could be found), the organization never held an event at a Trump property.
Asked whether the choice of venue had anything to do with the fact that its owner is president of the United States and the man who appointed Kraninger as his organization’s chief regulator, Shaul assured ProPublica and WNYC that the answer was no. “We returned because the venue is popular with our members and meets our needs,” he said in a written statement. The statement noted that the CFSA held its first annual convention at the Doral hotel more than 16 years ago. Trump didn’t own the property at the time.
The CFSA and its members have poured a total of about $1 million into the Trump Organization’s coffers through the two annual conferences, according to detailed estimates prepared by a corporate event planner in Miami and an executive at a competing hotel that books similar events. Those estimates are consistent with the CFSA’s most recent available tax filing, which reveals that it spent $644,656 on its annual conference the year before the first gathering at the Trump property. (The Doral and the CFSA declined to comment.)
“It’s a way of keeping themselves on the list, reminding the president and the people close to him that they are among those who are generous to him with the profits that they earn from a business that’s in severe danger of regulation unless the Trump administration acts,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of consumer group Americans for Financial Reform.
The money the CFSA spent at the Doral is only part of the ante to lobby during the Trump administration. The payday lenders also did a bevy of things that interest groups have always done: They contributed to the president’s inauguration and earned face time with the president after donating to a Trump ally.
But it’s the payment to the president’s business that is a stark reminder that the Trump administration is like none before it. If the industry had written a $1 million check directly to the president’s campaign, both the CFSA and campaign could have faced fines or even criminal charges — and Trump couldn’t have used the money to enrich himself. But paying $1 million directly to the president’s business? That’s perfectly legal.
The inauguration of Donald Trump was a watershed for the payday lending industry. It had been feeling beleaguered since the launch of the CFPB in 2011. For the first time, the industry had come under federal supervision. Payday lending companies were suddenly subject to exams conducted by the bureau’s supervision division, which could, and sometimes did, lead to enforcement cases.
Before the bureau was created, payday lenders had been overseen mostly by state authorities. That left a patchwork: 15 states in which payday loans were banned outright, a handful of states with strong enforcement — and large swaths of the country in which payday lending was mostly unregulated.
Then, almost as suddenly as an aggressive CFPB emerged, the Trump administration arrived with an agenda of undoing regulations. “There was a resurgence of hope in the industry, which seems to be justified, at this point,” said Jeremy Rosenblum, a partner at law firm Ballard Spahr, who represents payday lenders. Rosenblum spoke to ProPublica and WNYC in a conference room at the Doral — filled with notepads, pens and little bowls of candy marked with the Trump name and family crest — where he had just led a session on compliance with federal and state laws. “There was a profound sense of relief, or hope, for the first time.” (Ballard Spahr occasionally represents ProPublica in legal matters.)
In Mick Mulvaney, who Trump appointed as interim chief of the CFPB in 2017, the industry got exactly the kind of person it had hoped for. As a congressman, Mulvaney had famously derided the agency as a “sad, sick” joke.
If anything, that phrase undersold Mulvaney’s attempts to hamstring the agency as its chief. He froze new investigations, dropped enforcement actions en masse, requested a budget of $0 and seemed to mock the agency by attempting to officially re-order the words in the organization’s name.
But Mulvaney’s rhetoric sometimes exceeded his impact. His budget request was ignored, for example; the CFPB’s name change was only fleeting. And besides, Mulvaney was always a part-timer, fitting in a few days a week at the CFPB while also heading the Office of Management and Budget, and then moving to the White House as acting chief of staff.
It’s Mulvaney’s successor, Kraninger, whom the financial industry is now counting on — and the early signs suggest she’ll deliver. In addition to easing rules on payday lenders, she has continued Mulvaney’s policy of ending supervisory exams on outfits that specialize in lending to the members of the military, claiming that the CFPB can do so only if Congress passes a new law granting those powers (which isn’t likely to happen anytime soon). She has also proposed a new regulation that will allow debt collectors to text and email debtors an unlimited number of times as long as there’s an option to unsubscribe.
Enforcement activity at the bureau has plunged under Trump. The amount of monetary relief going to consumers has fallen from $43 million per week under Richard Cordray, the director appointed by Barack Obama, to $6.4 million per week under Mulvaney and is now $464,039, according to an updated analysis conducted by the Consumer Federation of America’s Christopher Peterson, a former special adviser to the bureau.
Kraninger’s disposition seems almost the inverse of Mulvaney’s. If he’s the self-styled “right wing nutjob” willing to blow up the institution and everything near it, Kraninger offers positive rhetoric — she says she wants to “empower” consumers — and comes across as an amiable technocrat. At 44, she’s a former political science major — with degrees from Marquette University and Georgetown Law School — and has spent her career in the federal bureaucracy, with a series of jobs in the Transportation and Homeland Security departments and finally in OMB, where she worked under Mulvaney. (In an interview with her college alumni association, she hailed her Jesuit education and cited Pope Francis as her “dream dinner guest.”) In her previous jobs, Kraninger had extensive budgeting experience, but none in consumer finance. The CFPB declined multiple requests to make Kraninger available for an interview and directed ProPublica and WNYC to her public comments and speeches.
Kraninger is new to public testimony, but she already seems to have developed the politician’s skill of refusing to answer difficult questions. At a hearing in March just weeks before the Doral conference, Democratic Rep. Katie Porter repeatedly asked Kraninger to calculate the annual percentage rate on a hypothetical $200 two-week payday loan that costs $10 per $100 borrowed plus a $20 fee. The exchange went viral on Twitter. In a bit of congressional theater, Porter even had an aide deliver a calculator to Kraninger’s side to help her. But Kraninger would not engage. She emphasized that she wanted to conduct a policy discussion rather than a “math exercise.” The answer, by the way: That’s a 521% APR.
A while later, the session recessed and Kraninger and a handful of her aides repaired to the women’s room. A ProPublica reporter was there, too. The group lingered, seeming to relish what they considered a triumph in the hearing room. “I stole that calculator, Kathy,” one of the aides said. “It’s ours! It’s ours now!” Kraninger and her team laughed.
Triple-digit interest rates are no laughing matter for those who take out payday loans. A sum as little as $100, combined with such rates, can lead a borrower into long-term financial dependency.
That’s what happened to Maria Dichter. Now 73, retired from the insurance industry and living in Palm Beach County, Florida, Dichter first took out a payday loan in 2011. Both she and her husband had gotten knee replacements, and he was about to get a pacemaker. She needed $100 to cover the co-pay on their medication. As is required, Dichter brought identification and her Social Security number and gave the lender a postdated check to pay what she owed. (All of this is standard for payday loans; borrowers either postdate a check or grant the lender access to their bank account.) What nobody asked her to do was show that she had the means to repay the loan. Dichter got the $100 the same day.
The relief was only temporary. Dichter soon needed to pay for more doctors’ appointments and prescriptions. She went back and got a new loan for $300 to cover the first one and provide some more cash. A few months later, she paid that off with a new $500 loan.
Dichter collects a Social Security check each month, but she has never been able to catch up. For almost eight years now, she has renewed her $500 loan every month. Each time she is charged $54 in fees and interest. That means Dichter has paid about $5,000 in interest and fees since 2011 on what is effectively one loan for $500.
Today, Dichter said, she is “trapped.” She and her husband subsist on eggs and Special K cereal. “Now I’m worried,” Dichter said, “because if that pacemaker goes and he can’t replace the battery, he’s dead.”
Payday loans are marketed as a quick fix for people who are facing a financial emergency like a broken-down car or an unexpected medical bill. But studies show that most borrowers use the loans to cover everyday expenses. “We have a lot of clients who come regularly,” said Marco (he asked us to use only his first name), a clerk at one of Advance America’s 1,900 stores, this one in a suburban strip mall not far from the Doral hotel. “We have customers that come two times every month. We’ve had them consecutively for three years.”
These types of lenders rely on repeat borrowers. “The average store only has 500 unique customers a year, but they have the overhead of a conventional retail store,” said Alex Horowitz, a senior research officer at Pew Charitable Trusts, who has spent years studying payday lending. “If people just used one or two loans, then lenders wouldn’t be profitable.”
It was years of stories like Dichter’s that led the CFPB to draft a rule that would require that lenders ascertain the borrower’s ability to repay their loans. “We determined that these loans were very problematic for a large number of consumers who got stuck in what was supposed to be a short-term loan,” said Cordray, the first director of the CFPB, in an interview with ProPublica and WNYC. Finishing the ability-to-pay rule was one of the reasons he stayed on even after the Trump administration began. (Cordray left in November 2017 for what became an unsuccessful run for governor of Ohio.)
The ability-to-pay rule was announced in October 2017. The industry erupted in outrage. Here’s how CFSA’s chief, Shaul, described it in his statement to us: “The CFPB’s original rule, as written by unelected Washington bureaucrats, was motivated by a deeply paternalistic view that small-dollar loan customers cannot be trusted with the freedom to make their own financial decisions. The original rule stood to remove access to legal, licensed small-dollar loans for millions of Americans.” The statement cited an analysis that “found that the rule would push a staggering 82 percent of small storefront lenders to close.” The CFPB estimated that payday and auto title lenders — the latter allow people to borrow for short periods at ultra-high annual rates using their cars as collateral — would lose around $7.5 billion as a result of the rule.
The industry fought back. The charge was led by Advance America, the biggest brick-and-mortar payday lender in the United States. Its CEO until December, Patrick O’Shaughnessy, was the chairman of the CFSA’s board of directors and head of its federal affairs committee. The company had already been wooing the administration, starting with a $250,000 donation to the Trump inaugural committee. (Advance America contributes to both Democratic and Republican candidates, according to spokesperson Jamie Fulmer. He points out that, at the time of the $250,000 donation, the CFPB was still headed by Cordray, the Obama appointee.)
Payday and auto title lenders collectively donated $1.3 million to the inauguration. Rod and Leslie Aycox from Select Management Resources, a Georgia-based title lending company, attended the Chairman’s Global Dinner, an exclusive inauguration week event organized by Tom Barrack, the inaugural chairman, according to documents obtained by “Trump, Inc.” President-elect Trump spoke at the dinner.
In October 2017, Rod Aycox and O’Shaughnessy met with Trump when he traveled to Greenville, South Carolina, to speak at a fundraiser for the state’s governor, Henry McMaster. They were among 30 people who were invited to discuss economic development after donating to the campaign, according to the The Post and Courier. (“This event was only about 20 minutes long,” said the spokesperson for O’Shaughnessy’s company, and the group was large. “Any interaction with the President would have been brief.” The Aycoxes did not respond to requests for comment.)
In 2017, the CFSA spent $4.3 million advocating for its agenda at the federal and state level, according to its IRS filing. That included developing “strategies and policies,” providing a “link between the industry and regulatory decision makers” and efforts to “educate various state policy makers” and “support legislative efforts which are beneficial to the industry and the public.”
The ability-to-pay rule technically went into effect in January 2018, but the more meaningful date was August 2019. That’s when payday lenders could be penalized if they hadn’t implemented key parts of the rule.
Payday lenders looked to Mulvaney for help. He had historically been sympathetic to the industry and open to lobbyists who contribute money. (Jaws dropped in Washington, not about Mulvaney’s practices in this regard, but about his candor. “We had a hierarchy in my office in Congress,” he told bankers in 2018. “If you were a lobbyist who never gave us money, I didn’t talk to you. If you’re a lobbyist who gave us money, I might talk to you.”)
But Mulvaney couldn’t overturn the ability-to-pay rule. Since it had been finalized, he didn’t have the legal authority to reverse it on his own. Mulvaney announced that the bureau would begin reconsidering the rule, a complicated and potentially lengthy process. The CFPB, under Cordray, had spent five years researching and preparing it.
Meanwhile, the payday lenders turned to Congress. Under the Congressional Review Act, lawmakers can nix federal rules during their first 60 days in effect. In the House, a bipartisan group of representatives filed a joint resolution to abolish the ability-to-pay rule. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., led the charge in the Senate. But supporters couldn’t muster a decisive vote in time, in part because opposition to payday lenders crosses party lines.
By April 2018, the CFSA members were growing impatient. But the Trump administration was willing to listen. The CFSA’s Shaul was granted access to a top Mulvaney lieutenant, according to “Mick Mulvaney’s Master Class in Destroying a Bureaucracy From Within” in The New York Times Magazine, which offers a detailed description of the behind-the scenes maneuvering. Shaul told the lieutenant that the CFSA had been preparing to sue the CFPB to stop the ability-to-pay rule “but now believed that it would be better to work with the bureau to write a new one.” Cautious about appearing to coordinate with industry, according to the article, the CFPB was non-committal.
Days later, the CFSA sued the bureau. The organization’s lawyers argued in court filings that the bureau’s rules “defied common sense and basic economic analysis.” The suit claimed the bureau was unconstitutional and lacked the authority to impose rules.
A month later, Mulvaney took a rare step, at least, for most administrations: He sided with the plaintiffs suing his agency. Mulvaney filed a joint motion asking the judge to delay the ability-to-pay rule until the lawsuit is resolved.
By February of this year, Kraninger had taken charge of the CFPB and proposed to rescind the ability-to-pay rule. Her official announcement asserted that there was “insufficient evidence and legal support” for the rule and expressed concern that it “would reduce access to credit and competition.”
Kraninger’s announcement sparked euphoria in the industry. One industry blog proclaimed, “It’s party time, baby!” with a GIF of President Trump bobbing his head.
Kraninger’s decision made the lawsuit largely moot. But the suit, which has been stayed, has still served a purpose: This spring, a federal judge agreed to freeze another provision of the regulation, one that limits the number of times a lender can debit a borrower’s bank account, until the fate of the overall rule is determined.
As the wrangling over the federal regulation plays out, payday lenders have continued to lobby statehouses across the country. For example, a company called Amscot pushed for a new state law in Florida last year. Amscot courted African American pastors and leaders located in the districts of dozens of Democratic lawmakers and chartered private jets to fly them to Florida’s capital to testify, according to the Tampa Bay Times. The lawmakers subsequently passed legislation creating a new type of payday loan, one that can be paid in installments, that lets consumers borrow a maximum $1,000 loan versus the $500 maximum for regular payday loans. Amscot CEO Ian MacKechnie asserts that the new loans reduce fees (consumer advocates disagree). He added, in an email to ProPublica and WNYC: “We have always worked with leaders in the communities that we serve: both to understand the experiences of their constituents with regard to financial products; and to be a resource to make sure everyone understands the law and consumer protections. Educated consumers are in everyone’s interest.” For their part, the leaders denied that Amscot’s contributions affected their opinions. As one of them told the Tampa Bay Times, the company is a “great community partner.”
Kraninger spent her first three months in office embarking on a “listening tour.” She traveled the country and met with more than 400 consumer groups, government officials and financial institutions. Finally, in mid-April, she gave her first public speech at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C. The CFPB billed it as the moment she would lay out her vision for the agency.
Kraninger said she hoped to use the CFPB’s enforcement powers “less often.” She alluded to a report by the Federal Reserve that 40% of Americans would not be able to cover an emergency expense of $400. Her suggestion for addressing that: educational videos and a booklet. “To promote effective approaches to savings and particularly emergency savings,” Kraninger explained, “the Bureau recently launched our Start Small, Save Up initiative. It offers tips, tools and information to help consumers build a basic savings cushion and develop a savings habit. Later this year, we will be launching a savings ‘boot camp,’ a series of videos, and a very readable, informative booklet that serves as a roadmap to a savings plan.”
Having laid out what sounded like a plan to hand out self-help brochures at an agency invented to pursue predatory financial institutions, she then said, “Let me be clear, however, the ultimate goal for the bureau is not to produce booklets and great content on our website. The ultimate goal is to move the needle on the number of Americans in this country who can cover a financial shock, like a $400 emergency.”
Back at the Doral the month before her speech, $400 might not have seemed like much of an emergency to the payday lenders. Some attendees seemed most upset by a torrential downpour on the second day that caused the cancellation of the conference’s golf tournament.
Inside the Donald J. Trump Ballroom, the conference buzzed with activity. The Bush-era political adviser Karl Rove was the celebrity speaker after the breakfast buffet. And the practical sessions continued apace. One was called “The Power of the Pen.” It was aimed at helping attendees submit comments on the ability-to-pay rule to the government. It was clearly a matter of importance to the CFSA. In his statement to ProPublica and WNYC, Shaul noted that “more than one million customers submitted comments opposing the CFPB’s original small-dollar loan rule — hundreds of thousands of whom sent handwritten letters telling personal stories of how small-dollar loans helped them and their families.”
A couple of months after the Doral conference, Allied Progress, a consumer advocacy group, analyzed the new round of comments that were submitted to the CFPB in response to Kraninger’s plans. In one sample of 26,000 comments, the group discovered that 27% of the statements submitted by purportedly independent individuals contained duplicative passages, all of which supported the industry’s position. For example, Allied Progress reported that 221 of the comments stated that “I have a long commute to work and it’s better for me financially to borrow from Cash Connection so that I can still make it to work than to not take care of my car and lose my job because of absences.” There were 201 asserting that “I now take care of my parents and my children” and I “want to be able to enjoy life and not feel burdened by the additional expenses that are piling up.” Allied Progress said it doesn’t know “if these are fake people, fake stories, or form letters intentionally designed to read as personal anecdotes.” (Cash Connection couldn’t be reached for comment.)
Taking account of public comments is the final task before Kraninger officially determines whether to put the ability-to-pay rule to death. Whatever she decides, it’s a likely bet that decision will be challenged in court, the CFSA will weigh in and the payday lenders will still be talking about it at next year’s annual conference. A spokesperson for the CFSA declined to say whether the event will be held at a Trump hotel.
|
|