Here are excerpts from recent editorials in Oklahoma newspapers:
Enid News & Eagle. Feb. 25, 2019.
- Club stands for all voices
We hope people don’t get too caught up on labels.
Because if they are, they are missing the point.
The Feminist Club at Enid High School is an example.
Comments on social media show several people seemed to be caught up with the name, trying to make the club to far more sinister and radical than what it is.
That’s a shame.
The club was formed by EHS senior Mary Neal as a way for students to come together and talk about issues.
The club isn’t just for females. It doesn’t have a man-hating ideology, and it doesn’t exist just for the benefit of females.
The club is open to anyone, and the topics discussed can cover a variety of issues - class, race, human trafficking, sexual assault, voting and sex education.
All organizers ask is that those attending be civil.
Rather than attack, we all should be applauding the organizers, sponsors and members of the Feminist Club and others at Enid High School.
High school students shouldn’t be afraid to express their opinions.
They should be encouraged to do so.
And, it shouldn’t be just the so-called popular opinions that are heard.
___
Tulsa World. Feb. 26, 2019.
- Constitutional carry bad idea, bad policy
Loosening Oklahoma’s gun possession laws to put more guns in more hands of untrained people is a bad idea.
We support the Second Amendment but do not think that should imply a firearms free-for-all.
The pending permitless-carry measure - vetoed last year by Gov. Mary Fallin - would eliminate common-sense protections in Oklahoma’s gun laws. It passed along political party lines in the House, and the Senate is likely to approve it this week. Gov. Kevin Stitt said he “looks forward” to signing it.
We urge the Senate to defeat the bill and the governor to reconsider his position.
Current law requires a person who wants to carry a handgun in public to obtain a permit. That means going through a criminal background check, paying a $100 fee and completing a minimal firearms safety and training course. A person must also be 21, a U.S. citizen and Oklahoma resident.
The law requires permit holders to take 16 hours of instruction covering gun handling, safety and storage; firearms ammunition and firing; the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act; criminal provisions related to firearms; a practice shooting session; and “a familiarization course.”
An instructor must do a safety inspection of the firearm to be used by the applicant and witness “actual demonstration of competency and qualification.”
Permitless carry would eliminate the mandate for all those safeguards. The proposal is unneeded and has the potential to cause confusion and harm.
With the change, no one will be able to tell who has met basic standards.
Nothing about existing law or the proposal effectively prevents criminals from getting and using firearms. Those who are determined to break the law, will do so. But removing the permit requirements will make it harder for law enforcement to sort out whether someone carrying a gun into a crowded place is a criminal or law-abiding citizen.
All rights are subject to limitations.
Free speech doesn’t include slander, and the right to assemble doesn’t allow for rioting. The right to bear arms isn’t a social suicide pact.
It is possible to uphold the Second Amendment and adopt policies that protect lives.
___
The Oklahoman. Feb. 26, 2019.
- Payday lenders’ critics overstate case
In 2017, the Obama administration advanced regulations effectively designed to force most payday lenders out of business. Under the Trump administration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed eliminating those rules. Critics decry this effort as leaving the poor vulnerable to exploitation, but research indicates low-income citizens are smarter and service is more reasonable than payday lending’s critics imply.
Writing for the libertarian Cato Institute, Peter Van Doren bluntly says evidence “indicates that the predatory costs of payday loans may be nonexistent and the benefits are real and measurable.”
Payday lenders provide short-term, uncollateralized loans that typically range from $100 to $500 per loan. The lender makes money off a fee, usually about $15 per $100 borrowed for two weeks.
Critics call that $15 unconscionable, noting it converts into an annualized rate of 391 percent. But Van Doren says such comments are misleading because they ignore the true economics of payday lending. Research shows lenders’ fixed and marginal costs run about $25 for a $300 loan if no one fails to repay the loan. But if just 5 percent of borrowers default, the lender’s cost increases to $40 per $300 in loans, which comes out to $13.33 for every $100 provided as a loan.
Thus, a $15 fee may provide less than $2 in profit for every $100 in loans. That’s not an egregious profit margin. Van Doren notes payday lenders’ stock prices further undermine the idea that the industry is a cash cow.
“The apparently ’high’ fees are a natural outcome of lending small amounts to riskier borrowers,” Van Doren writes. “Any restrictions that limit these fees or impose increased costs on lenders may eliminate access to any loans, leaving former borrowers with less-desirable, higher-cost options.”
The industry is also criticized because borrowers can roll over loans, raising the associated fees in the process. Yet research shows most borrowers understand the financial reality.
In 2016, the Global Strategy Group and The Tarrance Group polled 1,000 payday loan borrowers for the Community Financial Services Association of America. That poll, which included oversamples of blacks and Hispanics, found 96 percent of borrowers said they completely understood before they took out the loan how long it would take to pay off a payday loan and the finance charges involved. Seventy-two percent said they received better treatment from a payday lender than from a bank or credit card company, and 75 percent said they were likely to recommend payday loans to friends and family.
Those responses don’t paint a picture of people who have been ruthlessly exploited and financially victimized.
As we have argued before, government regulations should target and prevent fraud. Otherwise, citizens should be free to determine for themselves which lender they believe offers the best terms.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.