BuckeyeBlog

Perhaps I shouldn’t be giving too much attention to the folks over at the Progress Ohio blog. But since they decided to misrepresent my work on payday lending, I figure I should answer them. They make the silly claim that I (and others who question the need for a ban on payday lending) am motivated by the “prosperity gospel” (or “prosperity doctrine,” as they also call it) in defending “predatory lenders.” I find it funny that an organization that has consistently misread the Bible in terms of “usury” is lecturing me on religious doctrine.

I also find it funny that this is the basis for their attack on me (and others). Nowhere in anything I have written have I ever used a religious justification for payday lending. Unlike those who want to ban it, I don’t like to twist Scripture to suit my political ends. I think a payday lending ban is a bad idea based on my belief in liberty and my study of the scholarly work which indicate that it is bad public policy. Since those opposed to payday lending do not have the facts on their side when they talk about a “cycle of debt” or “outrageous profits,” I guess the only mode of attack they have left is to ascribe to me a view I do not hold. If anything I support the “liberty doctrine” which says that people should be free to make their own choices. Perhaps Progress Ohio can answer why they think that some people are too stupid to make their own financial decisions and that the government should do it for them.

I also find it funny that Progress Ohio claims that the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) “clearly has ties” to the Buckeye Institute. If it does, I don’t know about them. The only “ties” I have to COAST is that I’m on their e-mail list. And even if there were “ties,” so what? I fail to see why that would be an issue.

In the end, this Progress Ohio blog is typical of the thinking of those who are opposed to payday lending. They don’t have a clear grasp of the facts about the industry and so they make up charges about their opponents, questioning motives instead of trying to discuss the issues. But since the only “facts” they have offered in this debate come from completely worthless “studies” put out by the Center for Responsible Lending and Policy Matters Ohio, I doubt they can do so. It’s too bad when name calling becomes a substitute for an honest discussion of the facts.