Off the Kuff Rotating Header Image

January 28th, 2012:

Saturday video break: Kiss

Song #84 on the Popsode Top 100 Covers list is “Kiss”, originally by Prince and covered by the Art of Noise with Tom Jones. While I was able to find a Prince song video before, I regret to say that this time I struck out – every one I clicked on had the audio disabled. So you’ll just have to settle for the cover this week, which I must say is its own kind of awesome.

The Art of Noise and Tom Jones are individually two things I’ve never quite gotten, but put together they add up to more than their parts. I love the little commentary at the end, too, even if the announcer is speaking over the music, which I normally consider to be a cardinal sin. Weirdly enough given the artists involved, this isn’t that great a divergence from the original, though it clearly bears the Tom Jones stamp – with that voice, how could it not? I was going to make a joke about Martian heads exploding, but while Tom Jones was in the movie, it was apparently Slim Whitman music that saved the Earth. And to think, all these years I’d remembered it wrong. Oh, well.

Update on the redistricting settlement possibility

Late Friday we heard about the possibility of a settlement agreement in the redistricting lawsuit in San Antonio, with the idea of coming up with an interim map in time to keep the primaries on April 6. Here’s an update on that from the Chron.

Under the arrangement outlined during the hearing, the parties would negotiate each of the challenged districts separately and the court would draw the boundaries for districts where an agreement could not be reached.

[Assistant Attorney General David] Mattax said they could announce agreements on some of the districts as soon as Sunday or Monday.

“If it’s possible to have a primary in April, why don’t we at least set that as a goal to do that?” asked Texas Republican Party Chairman Steve Munisteri, who said it is still in the “realm of possibility” to have an April primary.

He acknowledged that the court could give the state some flexibility in dealing with the MOVE Act, which requires ballots to be sent to troops and citizens abroad at least 45 days before an election.

The Justice Department objected to that request, so it’s no sure thing. In any event, the San Antonio court told both sides to get a move on if they want a chance to salvage the April primary date.

Is there an end in sight?

U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia told an attorney for the state that the parties should try to agree “to as many districts as possible” by early next week “if you want to have an election in April.”

He also said the parties should agree to an election date in case the maps can’t be done in time for an April election.

Assistant Attorney General David Mattax said the state wants to have a unified primary, and they want to have it in April. He said the state hasn’t appropriated the money for extra elections. That’s a new position. In hearings last month about moving the primaries, the state didn’t take a position on whether the primaries should be split or not.

The judges are concerned about the timetable. Election administrators across the state have said they need 60 to 80 days after maps are completed to pull an election together. To hold an election on April 3, they’ve told the court that they need maps by the end of the month. “How are we supposed to get all of this done by the 1st?” asked an obviously frustrated [Judge Xavier] Rodriguez.

“It can’t be done,” Garza answered. He reads the Supreme Court’s recent decision to mean the worries of the state parties are “secondary” to the need to hold fair elections. The parties hold their state conventions in early June and must hold primaries in advance as part of their nominating process.

“Those are party issues,” Garza said, in response to a question from [Judge Jerry] Smith. “I’m not saying they’re not important … but they must take a back seat.”

[…]

Garcia said the lawyers should meet over the weekend to figure out what they can agree upon. “Monday or Tuesday, you tell us the districts you’ve agreed upon or you’ll tell us the date you’ve agreed upon if it’s not going to be April,” he said.

Judge Garcia later said basically that they either have a map by February 6 or they can kiss the April 3 primary good-bye.

Michael Li sums it all up.

Settlement discussions

The other big development of the day (maybe the biggest) was the emergence of serious discussions about a settlement on the maps, with intense negotiations expected to continue this weekend.

David Mattax, the state’s lawyer, explained that what the state was proposing was a deal on interim maps, not permanent maps.

Mattax said that under the deal he was trying to work out, if redistricting plaintiffs proposed maps in areas where the state agreed that there were legitimate issues of dispute, the state would not object. Mattax conceded, though, that other parties (such as Congressman Barton) might object. Mattax also recognized that complete agreement with redistricting plaintiffs might not be possible. But Mattax said he hoped to at least be able to narrow the issues for the court before February 6 in an effort to facilitate getting maps by mid-February.

If this sounds like a significant sea change from the state’s prior position, it certainly seems to be. And at least some reports are that Republicans are willing to make significant concessions.

_____

Drawing new maps

If the parties are not able to agree on interim maps, or substantially narrow issues, the court did not indicate when it expected to be able to complete maps.

However, the judges repeatedly raised questions about how they would be able to draw maps quickly in that instance, with Judge Rodriguez noting that they had even yet received the record and transcript from the D.C. case.

There also were questions about whether to wait for a ruling in the preclearance case from the D.C. court. In middle of the hearing, the court took a recess to call the D.C. court to discuss timing with Judge Collyer, though the judges were mum about what they learned.

While the state said it thought the court could move quickly, plaintiffs disagreed noting that the record in the D.C. case was different than in the case tried before the San Antonio court. They also said they thought the burden imposed by the Supreme Court’s ruling was more complicated than the state suggested. That position was supported, in part, by lawyers for Joe Barton who argued that the court would benefit from evidence about section 5 issues before making any significant changes to the map.

Emphasis mine. That sure sounds like a big effin’ deal to me. Obviously, the plaintiffs, whose interests are mostly but not entirely aligned, would have to come up with something – remember, there are three maps in dispute here – and there would have to be no objections from other intervenors such as Congressmen Barton and Canseco, but I would think the plaintiffs would have strong incentive to work something out. I’m very hopeful, that’s for sure. The other news of interest is that the previous court order that included things like a secondary filing deadline of February 1 has been suspended pending the outcome here. There will still be a second filing period, we just don’t know when it will be yet. Stay tuned.

You can drive 75

Pedal to the metal, y’all.

Vroom vroom!

The Texas Transportation Commission approved 75 mph speed limits for nearly 1,500 miles of interstate in 60 counties.

The action follows a state law approved last year providing for the Texas Department of Transportation to see whether 70 mph speed limits safely can be raised to 75 mph, and to hike the speed as warranted.

Before passage of that law, higher speed limits were limited to rural counties and highways mostly in West Texas, according to TxDOT. Under the previous law, Texans could drive 75 mph on 1,445 miles of highway and 80 mph on other stretches.

You can see a full list of the affected highways here; click one of the PDF map links there, or look at the post above for a graphical guide. Note that this now includes I-10 from the Waller – Austin County Line all the way to Loop 410 in San Antonio and I-45 from the Montgomery – Walker County Line to the Navarro – Ellis County Line. Not that people weren’t already driving 75 out those ways, it’s just that now they won’t get ticketed for it. Well, once the new speed limit signs are up they won’t. The On The Move blog and Dallas Transportation have more. And because tradition demands it:

You’re always welcome in Texas, Sammy.

The CFPB and payday lending

This ought to be good.

Picking his first public fight with the banking industry, Washington’s top consumer cop, Richard Cordray, promised on Thursday that his examiners will scrutinize a handful of big banks that make high-cost loans. Inspection of major financial institutions will be part of a broader review of payday lenders, he said at a public hearing organized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Birmingham, Ala.

The move is significant in that Cordray made no distinction between established financial institutions, including Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank, and less-respectable storefront and online payday lenders with names like EZ Money and AmeriCash Advance, widely criticized for making high-cost, short-term loans to the most desperate borrowers.

Although he was careful not to strike a directly confrontational tone, by specifically mentioning banks’ high-cost loans in his first major speech as the new CFPB chief, Cordray suggested that his agency doesn’t buy the bank industry line that its loans are not traditional payday products because they are structured differently.

Cordray did not single out any bank. But the listing of specific names of such payday lending programs in an examination guide released at the hearing — such as Fifth Third Bank’s “early access advance” — is likely to chill the blood of bank executives, whose companies make big profits off payday loans.

“We recognize the need for emergency credit,” Cordray said in a transcript of his opening remarks, provided in advance. “At the same time, it is important that these products actually help consumers, rather than harm them.”

I have a copy of his remarks beneath the fold. I note this story for two reasons. One, of course, is because I believe this sort of scrutiny is long overdue. While there is certainly a need for short-term emergency credit, you don’t have to do a lot of research on this topic to see that an awful lot of payday lending is designed to take advantage of people who are not very sophisticated about finances, most of whom are poor. It’s a huge transfer of wealth away from those who have the least, which is why many religious leaders and organizations are involved in this fight, to their credit. Often, churches are left to clean up the mess that this causes for their members. Putting a stop to the worst practices and arming people with the information they need to make better choices will make a big difference.

The other reason is that the state of Texas finally took action on payday lending last year, with those new laws taking effect this month. Stronger legislation than what eventually passed was championed by none other than Rep. Tom Craddick, who is no one’s idea of a business opponent. It’s too early to say what effect the state’s new laws will have, and it’s too early to say what direction the CFPB will take, but it’s not hard to imagine the feds being more aggressive than the state was. If so, how will the politics of that play out? There is clearly bipartisan support for more oversight on this industry. Will the federal versus state issue get in the way?

Anyway. The CFPB’s field guide for examiners is here, and there’s more on the CFPB website. Let’s remember what this is all about:

Traditional payday lenders say the high cost of their loans is justified because the risk of default is also high. At those lenders, where average annual interest rates on borrowing top 400 percent, customers leave behind a post-dated check for the amount borrowed, plus a fee.

Bank payday loans, also described as direct deposit advance products, work differently. Customers must have checking accounts and must have their pay or benefits check directly deposited into that account. When the check is deposited — the maximum loan term is 30 days; the maximum loan usually $500 — the bank pays itself what it is owed, plus the fee. If direct deposits are not sufficient to repay the loan within 35 days, the bank repays itself anyway, even if the repayment overdraws the customer’s account, triggering more fees.

For some borrowers, there are much cheaper forms of short-term credit. Members of State Employees’ Credit Union in North Carolina, for example, can take out a payday loan at 12 percent interest. Further, they are required to sock away 5 percent of what they borrow in a savings account. When that balance tops $500, they can borrow money for even less — just 5.5 percent.

Payday loans are still the most profitable loans the credit union makes, said Jim Blaine, president of the company. Blaine said that the credit union earns a 4 percent return on the average loan.

More than 110,000 members participate in the program, with as many as 90,000 taking loans on a recurring monthly basis. They have put away $23 million collectively through the mandatory savings program, according to the credit union’s data.

Blaine said he didn’t want to comment directly on bank payday lending, but noted, “It sometimes seems like our financial system is set up to penalize those who know the least and have the least.”

He added, “It appears to me that the system has gone beyond buyer beware to buyer be damned.”

Indeed it has. This is why the CFPB was created.

(more…)

Sierra Club sues over coal permits

Remember how four coal plants were granted permits to pollute more in December? You probably don’t, because it basically happened under cover of darkness. The Sierra Club found out about it and has filed a lawsuit to call a halt to it.

Martin Lake coal plant

The environmental group is appealing permit amendments approved Dec. 16 by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that allow increased emissions from the plants, in East and Central Texas, during periods of planned startup, shutdown and maintenance.

The issuance of the permits is “invalid, arbitrary and unreasonable,” according to the lawsuit filed in state District Court in Travis County.

The lawsuit comes as coal plants across the state apply for permit amendments for emissions produced during startup, shutdown and maintenance, which were not previously regulated, said Ilan Levin, an environmental attorney representing the Sierra Club.

Environment commission spokesman Terry Clawson said the agency has not received the lawsuit and will not comment on it, but he said the four permits questioned in the lawsuit were issued legally.

Coal plant operators were required to apply for the amendments to authorize increased emissions by Jan. 5, 2011 . The four plants involved in the suit, all owned by the state’s largest generator, Dallas-based Luminant Generation Co., applied for higher emission ceilings and were approved in December.

“We were surprised to find out that, really, just by trolling the agency’s website, that right before the holidays, the TCEQ had issued these permits to Luminant without any public notice or any sort of opportunity at all to file some formal comments,” Levin said.

I wish I could tell you more about this, but the Sierra Club webpage has no information on the suit, and I have been unable to get a copy of it for myself. So this is all I know for now. Texas Vox also wrote about this, but they don’t have anything more than the Statesman did.