Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The skanner. (Portland, Or.) 1975-2014 | View Entire Issue (March 6, 2013)
Opinion Black Americans’ Never-Ending Challenge “Challenging People to Shape a Better Future Now” B ERNIE F OSTER Founder/Publisher B OBBIE D ORE F OSTER Executive Editor T ED B ANKS Advertising Manager J ERRY F OSTER Account Executive L ISA L OVING News Editor H ELEN S ILVIS Multimedia Editor B RUCE P OINSETTE Reporter D AVID K IDD Graphic Designer M ONICA J. F OSTER Seattle Office Coordinator J ULIE K EEFE S USAN F RIED Photographers The Skanner Newspaper, established in October 1975, is a weekly publica- tion, published each Wednesday by IMM Publications Inc., 415 N. Killingsworth St., P.O. Box 5455, Portland, OR 97228. Telephone (503) 285-5555. E-mail: info@theskanner.com W ithin a matter of days late last month, four controversies erupted that acutely underscore the crux of Black Americans continuing chal- lenge in this land. In one, Emory University Presi- dent James W. Wagner seemed to suggest that the bargaining among the delegates at the Constitutional Convention that produced the infamous three-fifths clause of the Constitution was a model of the value of compromise. In the second, the February 21st Bloomberg Businessweek maga- zine cover had a drawing, above the title, “The Great American Housing Rebound,” consisting of caricatures of grinning Black and Hispanic Americans cavorting in a house stuffed with dollar bills – suggesting that minority home- owners were gaming the mortgage system. Five years ago, conserva- tives made similar charges in try- ing to pin most of the blame for the collapse of the nation’s hous- ing bubble on Black and Hispanic borrowers. The third controversy involved Dov Hikind, a prominent politi- cian in Brooklyn, N.Y. who “corked up” in blackface, sun- glasses and a wild Afro wig, as “a Black basketball player,” to cele- brate the Jewish festival of Purim. Before the volume of rebukes forced him to make an insincere apology, Hikind claimed that any criticism of his behavior was “political correctness to the absurd.” Finally, and most importantly, on February 27t the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a challenge to the most important provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the foundation of Blacks’ political advancement NNPA C OLUMNIST Lee A. Daniels since the 1960s. The case was brought by officials of Shelby County, Alabama. There they are: One controversy that recalled the bargain the Founders made to insure the cre- ation of the United States – which also insured that their own for- tunes and the economic power of the fledgling nation would be built by continuing to exploit Africans and African Americans as slave labor. Two others which show that profoundly racist views of Blacks and other people of color still grip those in the South with long histo- ries of concerted efforts to deny their Black residents access to the ballot in the Jim Crow decades, were still using such tactics as denying petitions for early voting, or reducing the hours for early vot- ing, or moving polling stations to locations likely to reduce Blacks’ turnout, and so on. For another, just four years ago, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge to the Act in a case from Texas. But in that case the justices side- stepped ruling whether the Act’s key provision – its Section 5 clause – was constitutional. That clause requires jurisdictions cov- ered by the Act to get permission Many analysts think the court’s conservative majority will strike it down some individual Whites who should know better. And, last – the, apparently, never-ending effort of some individuals and entities in America to deny Black Americans democracy’s funda- mental marker of citizenship: the right to vote. Of the four, the voting rights case — Shelby County v. Holder – is the most laden with a bitter irony. For one thing, Congress in 2006 re-authorized the Act by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 390- 33 in the House of Representatives after extensive testimony made it clear that many of the jurisdictions covered by the Act, especially from the Justice Department or a special federal court before chang- ing voting procedures. Now, many analysts think the court’s conservative majority will strike it down. Certainly, Justice Antonin Scalia made it clear that is his intent. During the oral arguments, he called the Act a “racial entitle- ment” program and dismissed the overwhelming 2006 Congression- al vote to renew it as racial pan- dering. It’s a point of view that a century and a half ago formed the foundation of the racist attack to destroy Reconstruction. There’s another bitter irony to the Shelby case. The debate in the court comes amid a continuing blizzard of laws and regulations in at least 38 states since President Obama’s 2008 election to try to suppress the vote of Blacks and other Democratic-leaning voting blocs. Those efforts, widely publi- cized and attacked by civil rights and other groups, had just the opposite effect on Election Day 2012. They produced record- breaking turnouts of Black, His- panic and Asian-American voters that signaled a deeper maturation of these groups’ electoral power – and the growing peril shadowing the Republican Party’s ability to contest future presidential elec- tions. That’s the broader framework encompassing the Shelby County case. It continues the historical pattern of America’s struggle over race and the meaning of democra- cy. Every “proof” Black Ameri- cans forge that shows they, too, can claim the “unalienable rights” the Constitution declared belong to all human beings has always provoked a fierce reaction from those Whites who’ve staked their status and identity on excluding them. Yes, the United States is a long way from the evil bargain James W. Wagner foolishly cited as an example of a “good” compromise. But we’re also a long way from the racial Promised Land some people foolishly think is just around the corner. Lee A. Daniels is a longtime journalist based in New York City. His most recent book is Last Chance: The Political Threat to Black America. World Wide Web site: http://www.theskanner.com Fax: (503) 285-2900 The Skanner is a member of the National Newspaper Pub lishers Associ- ation and West Coast Black Pub lishers Association. All photos submitted become the property of The Skanner. We are not re - spon sible for lost or damaged photos either solicited or unsolicited. © 2013 The Skanner. ALL RIGHTS RE SERVED. REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITHOUT PERMISSION PROHIBITED. To see The Skanner News on your smart phone go to theskannermobile.com or scan this QR code with your app. • • • • • • • • Local news Opinions Jobs, Bids Sports Entertainment Music reviews Bulletin board RSS feeds Car-Title Loans Drive to Financial Disaster I n today’s still-struggling econ- omy, many consumers find themselves short on cash. When consumers seek a credit remedy, one particular lender is likely to bring more problems than solutions: companies that make car title loans. According to new joint research report by the Consumer Federa- tion of America (CFA) and the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), the average car-title loan of $951 winds up costing the typi- cal borrower $2,142 in interest. Nationwide, 7,730 car-title lenders in 21 states reap $3.6 billion in interest on loans valued at only $1.6 billion. The car-title loan uses a borrow- er’s personal vehicle as collateral and additionally charges triple- digit interest rates, like those of payday loans. And similar to pay- day loans, the typical car-title loan requires full repayment in just one month. When borrowers cannot afford to pay in full, they are forced to renew their loan by pay- ing additional interest and fees. The report found that a typical customer renews their loan eight times. The report also found anecdotal instances in which car-title lender marketing practices have lured Page 4 The Portland Skanner March 6, 2013 R ESPONSIBLE L ENDING Charlene Crowell consumers by advertising 25 per- cent interest per month for a two- week loan. The actual rate of interest, however, equates to 300 percent annual percentage rate (APR). And it’s not as though 300 $400 or about half of the borrow- er’s remaining loan balance. The report found that one in six con- sumers was charged expensive repossession fees. It’s easy to sum up the central problems with car-title loans. As the authors write in the report, these loans “carry inherently unsuitable terms that cause already vulnerable borrowers to pay more in fees than they receive in credit while putting one of their most important assets at risk.” If you’re thinking that there $3.6 billion in interest paid on $1.6 billion in loans percent APR is an offsetting risk to the lender: Car-title loans are usu- ally made for only a fraction of the vehicle’s market value - approxi- mately 26 percent. When borrowers can no longer keep up with interest payments, cars are repossessed and yet anoth- er fee is added to the borrower’s debt. On average, these reposses- sion fees run in the range of $350- ought to be a law against this obvi- ously predatory product, be sure to tell your state legislators. Most states with car-title loan laws either have no interest rate caps, or authorize triple digit interest. Tracking how these loans affect consumers is one thing; financial reforms are quite another. In this regard, the CFA -CRL report calls for public policy actions at the state and federal levels. For example, the federal Con- sumer Financial Protection Bureau could enact protections addressing loan terms and underwriting. States, on the other hand, could adopt rate caps of 36 percent on these loans. Other policy recommendations include: — Changing loan terms to equal monthly payments that would enable borrowers to gradually pay down their debt; — Require written notice prior to borrowers and the right to redeem the vehicle before lenders repossess or sell the car; and — In the event of a vehicle sale, return to the borrower any surplus between a new sales price and the remaining amount of money owed In 2006, similar consumer pro- tections were enacted to protect the military and their families. If President George W. Bush and Congress could agree to cap small loans at 36 percent annually for this consumer sector, it seems rea- sonable that the rest of us should be given the same protections. Charlene Crowell is a communi- cations manager with the Center for Responsible Lending.
