The Need for Tighter Restrictions on Payday Lenders

      The Austin American-Statesman published an editorial titled: Tighter restrictions on payday lenders needed. The piece was written by the Editorial Board and is a good argument for the need to better regulate the local lending industry. The lenders at the heart of the issue are not credit unions or banks, they are payday lenders and auto-title loan lenders.
      The author of the editorial makes some good points throughout the article, but there are a few shortcomings as well. The article claims, "state lawmakers passed a couple of timid rules regulating businesses that make short-term, high-interest loans." Closely following this portion the editorial goes on to name a couple of Texas cities (including Austin) which have passed stricter rules restricting payday lenders, who because of there fees and charges have a predatory reputation. These are important statements for the reader. It tells the reader that state lawmakers have taken a soft approach while the cities are more concerned with tightening the reins on these companies. Other areas of the argument that stand out are the author's recommendations for lawmakers, as to what regulations should be placed on payday lenders. The Editorial Board goes on to describe the service provided by the payday lenders while explaining the vicious cycle that the borrower becomes entangled in.
      One area where this editorial falls short is the lack of a bold, absolute statement. The author would have produced a better argument had they got rid of the "predatory reputation" and instead called it what it is, predatory lending. Exchanging the words from the first sentence, "businesses that make short-term, high-interest loans" with the words, "predatory lenders" would have been ideal. It acts as a thesis statement which gives the article a clear objective right from the start. Another shortcoming of the article is the author's placement of facts, descriptions and opinions. One example of this is the author's recommendations for lawmakers. This should have been used towards the end of the article, not prior to explaining how these predacious businesses operate. Explaining how these payday loan companies take advantage of people should have been a priority of the argument and not placed in the sixth paragraph. Lastly, presenting a specific person or case would have solidified the claim that these businesses need to be more closely watched and regulated. Presenting the reader with examples of the stipulations placed on borrowers for their late payments or the actual interest rates offered by the payday loan lenders would have been beneficial to the argument. 
      The editorial's intended audience is not necessarily the would-be borrower, but rather the general public. The Editorial Board did a good job of presenting the story, but not a great job of presenting their argument. As to the author's credibility, this is not known and is probably not the most important factor with regard to this subject matter.

Public Safety Commission's Take On Gun Control

     On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 Austin YNN published a news story titled: Public Safety Commission Tackles Gun Control. The article talks about Austin's City Hall getting in on the gun control debate. On Monday, February 4th, the Public Safety Commission came up with various gun control recommendations which they presented to the Austin City Council. The article mentioned a few of these recommendations, but did not go into detail as to the extent of the measures.
     A major issue with the proposals, which the story does point out is the fact that "cities and counties are severely limited by state law as to what they can do." Public Safety Commission Chairman Michael Lauderdale realizes they are dealing with a subject that is much larger than county, city or state. He mentions, in fact, that they are about to challenge and possibly infringe upon a right, "that is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution."
     The article also mentions that the Public Safety Commission brought in some medical experts for the mental health aspect of the debate. The article states that the Safety Commission wanted the medical experts to assess the mental health climate of the community. The story closes by pointing out that, "no recommendation was made to council concerning the city's mental health programs."
     Why is this article worth reading? That is for each individual reader to decide. I would like to just point out two issues/questions I have.
     First, why did the Public Safety Commission not give any recommendations to the City Council on how to address the mental health aspect, with regard to public safety? I think this would be the most important part of the equation being that the last three and most deadly mass shooting were commited by mentally unstable people.
     Two, why did the Public Safety Commission bring in Dr. Chris Ziebell who is an emergency medicine physician? With all due respect to Dr. Ziebell, if I wanted to know what the mental health pulse of the community felt like, I would speak to a psychologist or psychiatrist, not an ER doctor.