Washington State Senator Darlene Fairley (D-Lake Forest Park) seems to believe military personnel are not capable of fending for themselves in the brutish civilian world, where high-interest payday loans lurk. And the rest of us aren't much better. The Puget Sound Business Journal reports:
...Fairley....the chair of the state Senate's Financial Institutions, Housing and Consumer Protection Committee, sponsored the seven bills. If passed, the bills would put restrictions on payday lending to military personnel; lower the maximum allowable size for payday loans and the amount of interest charged; limit borrowers to one outstanding payday loan every 60 days; and give borrowers the option to skip a payday when repaying a loan.
Meanwhile Washington State Sen. Karen Keiser (D-Des Moines) has introduced legislation to tax cosmetic medical service, according to the PSBJ.
Senate Bill 5451 defines that as including:
...but...not limited to, cosmetic surgery, hair transplants, cosmetic injections, cosmetic soft tissue fillers, dermabrasion and chemical peel, laser hair removal, laser skin resurfacing, laser treatment of leg veins, sclerotherapy, and cosmetic dentistry.
What about massages and pedicures? My wife really wants to know. Keiser's proposed Botox Tax is wacky enough to earn Washington legislators an official "raspberry" (last item in link) from editorialists at The Times-Gazette in Corvallis, Oregon; a lovely town full of unicycle-riding Leftist moonbats. That oughta tell us something.
Finally, for now at least, there's State Sen Paul Shin. You guessed it. A Democrat. And he doesn't want you to collect rainwater on your property unless the State Department of Ecology says it's OK. Here's SB 5113.
So, permit fees are likely if this one passes. But why not also a per-gallon rainwater tax? And why no tax on raincoat advertising now that the state Supreme Court says that's okay?
Then again, it's early.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 28, 2005 06:45 PM | Email This"the bills would put restrictions on payday lending to military personnel; lower the maximum allowable size for payday loans and the amount of interest charged; limit borrowers to one outstanding payday loan every 60 days; and give borrowers the option to skip a payday when repaying a loan"
I recall all the problems which some of my buddies had when they got out of boot camp, including going across the street in order to buy their sweetheart a diamond ring, pendant, etc. Naturally the business put an interest rate of 30% on the loan. Such practices led the Command to HIGHLY DISCOURAGE blokes like me from visiting the offending establishments.
I don't believe evolution has enough legs to stand on, but discouraging it this way (by Fairley) is wrong...
Posted by: smegma on January 28, 2005 07:08 PMI was worried about you...come home and we can talk about your homework...
Posted by: smegma on January 28, 2005 07:23 PMHow dare the Navy Officer speak up for his soldiers.
What are these legislators thinking stopping 24 loan agencies from targeting soldiers with 24,000 percent loans?
An eighth bill that would toughen penalties for payday-lending violations also was expected to be introduced. The state DFI issued a report last week on the rapid growth of the payday industry in Washington.
What? Penalize businesses that take advantage of soliders. Outrageous.
We only find out there's a problem when we get the letters from these payday loan places, that have loaned out so much that the Sailor's whole paycheck (and then some) goes to paying off the payday loans.
These places let young military members go much further into debt than they would let a civilian, because they know that they can get us to help them collect the money. Sort of an unpaid enforcement service.
No problem when the Sailor (or Soldier, Airman or Marine) is single and living on base or onboard ship. No spending money for a couple of weeks, and the Sailor gets chewed out by his Chief for being what we call "stupid in public."
When the Sailor is married, Navy and Marine Corps Relief ends up picking up the bill. Essentially my money goes to paying off the debt. (Another reason that these places will lend more money to military members than to a civilian in similar circumstances.)
If these places didn't use the military rules and personnel to do their collection, I'd be more in favor of letting the marketplace solve this. Enough bad loans, and the place goes under. Problem solved.
At one time, if we had too many problems with a particular business, we could put the place "off limits" and solve the problem that way. Unfortunately, some very business friendly politicians made that impossible.
But, since they've used military rules and regulations to make me do their "enforcing" for them, I think putting some restrictions on their business seems reasonable.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 28, 2005 07:36 PMSay it isn't so. These are not "elective" surgeries, they are essential to any yuppie and should continue to have a tax free status. Its criminal to tax these services at the same rate as other products.
Don't these legislators know that the plastic surgery economy could be hurt by imposing sales tax. This could have the effect of reducing the number of plastic surgeries in Washington from 25,000 to 23,879 per year.
THIS?....is the "PEOPLES" business that the Dems in the legistature were in such a rush to get to - when they refused to delay Gregoires certification?
Are they out of their minds?
To the Democrats in the State Legislature:
Come on guys! (I know most of you read Sound Politics!) Are you even remotely aware of the microscope that has been placed over you in this election fiasco?
Are you actually thinking of regulating our rain water usage? (The person introducing this Bill, needs to go back on his medication...)
And you thought the Patriot Act was oppressive! Pah!
Liberal Democrats ARE the oppressive Big Brother/Nanny of this country!
Incredible!
Really Deborah? Its true that the blue forces do have an edge in Washington, but the republicans run the federal government in its entirety.
Posted by: Erik on January 28, 2005 07:47 PMMethinks you would support the tax carte blanche, from your comments.
Can you tell me how it would benefit 'childrens' health care'? How much money would be raised for the children? And how much of that money would actually make it to the children? And which children would it help? The children of the rich or the children of the poor? And what affects on the health of those children will it have?
And would you want answers to ANY of the above questions before dancing down the street singing your song of taxation?
Posted by: Larry on January 28, 2005 08:01 PMMeanwhile, Democrats will be congratulating themselves.
Really, it's not much a source of revenue. The women in Seattle generally are not much concerned with their looks. That's why 46% of the men in King County in their 30's have never been married.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 28, 2005 08:14 PM"We gotta take the power back" - Zach De La Rocha (Rage Against The Machine)
Posted by: Adriel on January 28, 2005 08:17 PMNah. I just think that the citizens need to determine first the level of taxation which is appropriate.
Then, they should address the rates of taxation for each activity.
Thus, even if one believes taxes should stay the same or go down, there is a good argument for re-thinking the tax exemptions that are in place in Washington.
Unlike the internet, one has to question the beneficial public policy of encouraging plastic surgery. The theory is that you tax items (like tobacco and alcohol) that you want discourage and do not tax items, such as the internet, that you wish to encourage.
Thus, one has to make the analysis : is the plastic surgery exemption an industry loophole or is there a public benefit to it so we should encourage it.
Posted by: Erik on January 28, 2005 08:18 PMI disagree on some issues:
"When the Sailor is married, Navy and Marine Corps Relief ends up picking up the bill. Essentially my money goes to paying off the debt. (Another reason that these places will lend more money to military members than to a civilian in similar circumstances.)"
My Command(s) had ALWAYS made a point to warn about the ridiculous nature of the businesses which were preying on us. Understand your point of giving the lunkhead who is single a good chewing out. I was always ready for mine, but I never had such problems :-)
I understand the need to protect the wife (and children if applicable), but how many times did you have the same person, over and over, doing the same thing? And how many times, over and over, did Navy Relief kick in? I contend this is an educational/evolutional problem best solved by the boot at first (or maximum, second) offense...
"At one time, if we had too many problems with a particular business, we could put the place "off limits" and solve the problem that way. Unfortunately, some very business friendly politicians made that impossible."
This puzzles me. You got out in '98 right? Why does my stepson have business places he is not allowed to go to in 2005?
Posted by: smegma on January 28, 2005 08:21 PMTo say nothing of the ones in their 20's!
I have 2 sons in early/mid 20's with loads of pals who all come by for meals and Mom. The consensus is that the females of Seattle are a bit too militant, disgustingly snotty and way to stuck on themselves. Note that this group of fellows are all college grads, and include a civil engineer, one entering grad school for an MBA and one finishing law school this May. The plan is to head back down to Vanderbilt and assorted points south where women ARE indeed female and pleased to be so.
The action I took was to help Dino's 2nd attempt to get into the state Senate from here in the 5th. That was the first political campaign I ever got involved in. He eventually beat that Dem (who he lost to four years earlier by a small margin), and the rest is history.
Posted by: Michele S on January 28, 2005 08:52 PMHmm. On second thought. Perhaps your right. If it can be proven that Washington state has more than it's proportional share of below average looking people, perhaps as a society we want to encourage....well...better looks.
Its simply a public benefit to walk around outside at your neighborhood grocery and see better looking people. Unlike medical treatments which no one is forced to look at, we are forced to see peoples' outside and would all benefit by a surgically enhanced citizenry.
Who wants to look at flabby bellies, wrinkles, and odd shaped noses? A tax break for cosmetic surgery will encourage people who are haunting us with their poor looks to get themselves fixed.
Posted by: Erik on January 28, 2005 08:52 PMThe core of the change to RCW 90.03.250 laid out in SB 5113 that Matt linked to is addition of this paragraph 4:
=============================================
(4) The department may permit by rule, under conditions appropriate to the water resources inventory area, the use of rain barrels and cisterns to collect rainwater intended to be put to a beneficial use on the same property where the rainwater is captured.
=============================================
IOW: Where now you can set up a stock tank to catch a couple hundred gallons that runs off the roof of your house when it rains and use it to water your garden or whatever, the sponsors want to give DOE the authority to REGULATE THE USE OF RAIN GUTTERS AND RAIN BARRLES !!!....
... just when I think we must have seen the ultimate dumbest left-wing socialist regulatory mentality by now, they keep proving me wrong.
BTW: You have to be familiar with some of the details regarding the supply, use, and regulation of water in the deserts of Eastern WA to truly appreciate how TOTALLY insane it is to be worrying about people catching a little rainwater and running it in to their barrels or cisterns. I have been extensively involved with land and water use issues in the Methow Valley for 20+ years, and when I see Legislators throwing stuff like this into the hopper I almost dispair that State government can EVER be fixed.
Here is just ONE little factoid to remember when considering the endless list of tiny water uses that lefties want to regulate and (of course) charge fees for:
In WIRA 48 (the Methow River Basin), just the standard deviation natural variation in yearly total runoff at the mouth of the Methow River at Pateros is on the order of **100** times the TOTAL yearly domestic consumptive use by the ENTIRE permanent and transient population of the Methow Valley (no: that is NOT a typo: ONE-HUNDRED times as much).
And Sen. Shin and his fellow (D)s want to regulate and charge fees for allowing people to collect rainwater runoff from their houses.....
IMO this rises to the level of being a strong contender for the 2005 State government Darwin awards.
Sheesh !!!.
Methow Ken
Reminds me of the guy who gave his new wife power of attorney before he went overseas (as is required by policy- just they didn't warn him about giving it to a hag). While he was overseas, she ran up 50k in credit debt and then bolted. Because she had power of attorney he had to eat all of it in the divorce.
But obviously pay day loans are much eviler, because God forbid they get paid before the hags.
Posted by: Andy on January 28, 2005 09:52 PM"When will they pass a law protecting our soldiers from marrying military hags fishing for benefits and child support?"
I have no idea how many military men or women get married for the benefits (they are not that great, believe me).
I am in steadfast solidarity with the idea that the soldier, airperson, sailor, or marine should not be married, at least before E-4. At E-4, there is the likelihood (or possibility) the individual has matured into her/his position. An E-3 or below has no such compunction (sic).
Posted by: smegma on January 28, 2005 10:16 PMThis puzzles me. You got out in '98 right? Why does my stepson have business places he is not allowed to go to in 2005?
The rules for putting a business within the US "off limits" got very tight. At one time, we could put a business on the list if we just had too many problems with it. Now, it's limited to known drug and prostitution houses. (Why we can't just get those shut down is beyond me.)
Overseas the situation is different, and commanders have far more latitude.
My Command(s) had ALWAYS made a point to warn about the ridiculous nature of the businesses which were preying on us. Understand your point of giving the lunkhead who is single a good chewing out. I was always ready for mine, but I never had such problems :-)
Yes, we warned them too, and often believed that getting stung, just a bit, was good for the soul. And yes, if it happend too many times, we ended up sending the young Sailor home.
My biggest problem with them was that they knew that military regulations essentially required us to act as their enforcers. They had the forms, pre-printed with the appropriate regs, and we got to do their dirty work. They charged outrageous intrest with essentially no risk. If they had to go through the same processes that they do with a civilian, my opinion would be somewhat different.
A company that lent to civilians that way would find themselves out of business, due to the bad debts. Survival of the fittest, as it were. If that were the case here, I'd have no problem with it.
These jokers prey on young military because they get free "enforcement" services, courtesy of your tax dollars. If it's a Sailor with a family, Navy and Marine Corps Relief ends up paying for their groceries and utilities. I don't mind that when it's an emergency (hey, stuff happens, and we look after our own) but when it's because someone suckered one of our young kids, it ticks me off.
In essence, the business gets more protection because they're dealing with military personnel. It seems a reasonable balance to give the military personnel a bit more protection too.
Andy asked:
When will they pass a law protecting our soldiers from marrying military hags fishing for benefits and child support?
Reminds me of the guy who gave his new wife power of attorney before he went overseas (as is required by policy- just they didn't warn him about giving it to a hag). While he was overseas, she ran up 50k in credit debt and then bolted. Because she had power of attorney he had to eat all of it in the divorce.
We used to strongly discourage unlimited powers of attorney, especially to new spouses. They could get a portion (usually the lion's share) of the paycheck sent automatically every month, but not a power of attorney.
Now, the new spouse (especially those up to no good) would often try to get one, and I heard more than once (from a Sailor or spouse) that it was "policy," but all the JAG lawyers I ever talked to counseled against them.
Of course, the Sailors were often not thinking with the organ between their ears, so the advice was often ignored.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 28, 2005 10:18 PMThe Botox Tax and Rainwater tax remind me of King John's "mud tax" etc. Talk about tyranny! But maybe these silly ideas are the product of lazy thinking? We need creative solutions, which don't raise taxes or grow the government!
Matt- I know it sounds like they are treating the military as "silly irresponsible kids" but you obviously have no idea about the PREDATORY LENDING practices by the check cashing and FAST loan "sharks" out there. The JAG and MP "blacklists" protect our soldiers from establishments which exploit or otherwise "prey" on military!
These same loan places are NOT bound by the FDCPA, and they really do SHARK you when trying to collect an overdue debt, including threatening terrible, TERRIBLE things! Let's just say you hope your kids don't answer the phone when they call ;0)
Take another look at the Consumer Protection element to Fairley's proposals, it's more about weeding out bad business (which benefits good business) than holding these soldiers hands!
Posted by: CR ACTIVIST on January 28, 2005 10:27 PMErik,
You're joking....right? (psst...the red guys are giving us tax credits! And pushing for *personal* responsibility! Go figure!)
You are not naive...Though you may be in denial of the oppressive ideas the Democrats come up with - to place into law to *protect* (Nanny)their subjects ...Or to implement laws in an effort to monitor and control (Big Brother) their subjects so they may collect the most taxes, fees, penalties, etc.. ...
Please don't bait me.
Posted by: Deborah on January 28, 2005 11:03 PMOur elected officals need to remember who they work for.
Posted by: Alex on January 28, 2005 11:31 PMOur elected officals need to remember who they work for.
Posted by: Alex on January 28, 2005 11:31 PM"Take another look at the Consumer Protection element to Fairley's proposals, it's more about weeding out bad business (which benefits good business) than holding these soldiers hands!"
From the PS Business Journal:
"The other bills would allow for prosecution of extortionate extension of credit by payday lenders; An eighth bill that would toughen penalties for payday-lending violations also was expected to be introduced."
Good point CR. I would say that the above portion of the bills submitted would provide protection for the majority of cases, as the business must keep itself from running afoul of the law.
Limiting the amount of $ or the number of times between paydays? That sounds too much like intrusive govenment going out of their way to 'help' us dolts out here.
Posted by: smemga on January 29, 2005 06:47 AMBut the idea of restricting the Pay Day Loan sharks strikes me as a good one. Actually, I'd love to see it pushed a bit further, as the idea of 24% interest rates on credit cards strikes me as obscene when my savings accounts are earning in the low single-digits.
Young people in the military ARE vunerable to being preyed upon. I was 17 when I enlisted in the Corps, and didn't have a clue about the real world. I was fortunate to have quite a few senior Marines around who steered me right, (sounds like Mr. Barelli is doing his part in that regard.)
Posted by: Darrell on January 29, 2005 10:00 AMTake a look: http://mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/prime.asp
Prime Rate was 21.5 on 12/19/80
Looks like you should be the last one to tell someone else to think before they speak.
Posted by: independent on January 29, 2005 10:33 AMWont this hurt the landscaping business? Is installing a Small Pond or Fountain or even Bird Bath be the same thing, as they surely collect rain.
If I recall, they (the "elected") campaigned on REAL ISSUES affecting this state. If this is an example of how they are going to deal with Issues, then It is time to write our "elected" and let them know how we feel about this trivial crap.
I thought the "D's" wanted to get down to the Business of running this state, they wouldnt delay certifying the Gov for two weeks, and this is what they come up with????I hope they can start "working" soon.
Posted by: Chris on January 29, 2005 11:03 AMThe fact that the “Assault Weapons” ban declares a state of emergency, goes further than the Federal act of the same name, requires registration, background checks, and sheriff's inspection annually, and prohibits hunting or concealed carry with anything loosely defined as an assault weapon should be plenty chilling.
Posted by: Josh Poulson on January 29, 2005 11:39 AMMy documentation?
I LIVED it.
We bought -and nearly lost (thank you very much, Comrade Carter)- our first house with interest rates over 19% in Tampa in 1981.
Come back later little lucy - go have a tea party with your imaginary friends, dear. The grown-ups are talking about important things here and we don't have time for your gibberish.
Our First Home purchased in 1980 had an interest rate of 12% (Washington State). I am not sure where lucy her information of 8% being illegal. I wish it were true..
Posted by: Chris on January 29, 2005 01:39 PMCheryl, you really made me giggle with the "grown-up talk" comment.
Posted by: Laurie on January 29, 2005 02:20 PMHere's its traffic on its blog:
Total 652
Average Per Day 8
Average Visit Length 0:52
Last Hour 1
Today 9
This Week 55
Must be frustrating to be so... idiotic, addle-minded. Puerile, arrogant. Its visits here must be the only way it gets any attention, other than cops pulling it over for reckless driving. It has my pity. Kind of.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 29, 2005 03:55 PMsick of them
Posted by: chardonnay on January 29, 2005 06:28 PMI never have been there, myself. Did you wear the prescribed protection: respirator...and perhaps SPF 1K sunglasses?...I would fear for my mind seeing the kind of bizarre I imagine :-)
Posted by: smegma on January 29, 2005 06:58 PMThen they'll cry their annual blues about how the legislative session is about to end without a final budget and how they have to go into overtime (yes, we DO have to pay them time and a half).
Posted by: Jeff on January 30, 2005 06:46 AM