Payday lenders lose

They don't lose much, but at least they got beaten.

It wasn’t even close. Today, the Houston City Council voted 15-2 to join every other major Texas city except one (hello, Fort Worth) in regulating payday loan companies.

Last month, Houston Mayor Annise Parker dropped a compromise plan, saying she wanted “a united front” with other Texas cities.

The lopsided vote surprised some Council observers, who had at least expected a procedural move to delay the vote. Instead, seesawing councilmembers said they felt city action was necessary in light of the Texas Legislature’s failure to do much of anything to rein in the payday loan industry.

The "procedural move" would have been a 'tag' by CM James Rodriguez, who has distinguished himself in the worst possible way with regard to the payday lending ordinance.

One of the ‘nay’ votes came from Councilmember Helena Brown, aka “Helena Handbasket,” who rails against funding for things like AIDS prevention. The other ‘nay’ was Councilmember James Rodriguez, who evidently was unpersuaded by a withering column this morning (“This payday loan column is for you, Councilman Rodriguez”) by the Chronicle‘s Lisa Falkenberg in which she checks out Rodriguez’s claim that his constituents are unconcerned about the issue by, you know, talking to his constituents.

[...]

Rodriguez, who is on his way out of office and is tied to a Cash America lobbyist, has been real cute about his post-council plans, laughingly telling Falkenberg that he’s “keeping all options open” when asked whether he plans to go into the payday loan business.

My friend Neil called it like it is on FB yesterday.

Is it any surprise that Councilman James Rodriguez -- who was a force behind the repulsive anti-food sharing ordinance -- is now leading opposition to City of Houston regulation of the payday lending industry? I've long thought Mr. Rodriguez a lousy public servant. His imminent departure from City Council will benefit Houston. 

To refresh: Rodriguez is a member of the Carol Alvarado/Marc Campos gang, affectionately referred to as "We Know How to Lose and Not Get Things Done", which just lost another city council race last week.  Some serious self-examination is long overdue among that crew.

Update: Rodriguez completely lost his mind on Twitter yesterday evening after the vote, lashing out at Falkenberg, Chron sportswriter Jose de Jesus Ortiz, and Texpatriate's Noah Horwitz. See his Tweets embedded at the end of Texpate's post here.  That's a person who needs to take their medication.

Update II:  You know you've struck a nerve when Marc Campos is calling somebody "chickenshit".

Texas Leftist runs down the changes the ordinance mandates, and Stace gave the instructions this morning that helped predict the outcome.  Here's to more progress like this in the new year.

Affluenza... and Gulliblemia

Well-written here by Ben Sherman at Burnt Orange.

Two weeks ago, Burleson teen Ethan Couch killed four Texans. He got behind the wheel of his car with three times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood, mowed down several pedestrians, and now four families are without their children. One victim is crippled for life. "I'm Ethan Couch, I'll get you out of this," said to one of his friends in the car afterward.

The judge let Ethan off with 10 years probation and prescribed therapy. The defense argued that Ethan has "affluenza," a condition by which rich people don't understand and are thus not responsible for the consequences of their actions. State District Judge Jean Boyd didn't say she agreed with that particular argument, but Americans everywhere have balked that the deaths' circumstances resulted in such a relaxed punishment at all. Wendy Davis spoke out against the decision, calling it a "disgrace". Even Greg Abbott says his office is looking into it.

"Affluenza" is a term popularized in 1997 by a documentary of the same name. It is about the warped worldview of Americans in uppermost echelon of financial holdings -- and the consequences for the rest of us. The documentary was turned into a popular book. What the filmmakers and then authors never intended is for the term to be used, successfully no less, in defense of a killer. John de Graaf, "Affluenza" co-author, wrote an excellent piece for TIME about what this case reveals about the United States:

Liberals and conservatives alike have condemned the Texas decision. But before we cast the first stones, let's admit that Couch's actions do reflect our national "affluenza." After all, we have exalted consumerism above other values. And while we pride ourselves for our "exceptionalism," we have for years been exceptionally irresponsible in our naked pursuit of wealth.

We refuse to increase taxes on millionaires while cutting food stamps for the poor, and advocate cutting social security while ignoring the obscene bonuses of bankers whose speculation caused the 2008 crash. We allow thousands to die each year for lack of health insurance. We strip the mountains of Appalachia and poison our water to continue our addiction to fossil fuels.  We have made war under false premises while our drones kill civilians with impunity. We have supported murderous dictators -- think Pinochet or Rios Montt -- to assure continued profits. We could virtually end world hunger at an annual expense equal to what we give our military every week, but we refuse to do it. And we deny our role in changing the climate in drastic ways. All of these actions flow from affluenza, greed, and refusal to consider consequences. We rage about the Couch decision but ignore our greater responsibility to the world and future generations.

In 1877, the Sioux chief Sitting Bull spoke of the light-skinned people who were overrunning his lands: "They make many laws which the rich may break but the poor may not, and the love of possession is a disease with them."

That's the real "affluenza."

Via this, affluenza has a symbiotic yet diametrically opposed condition known as "gulliblemia".   It causes a person to think and act in ways that are disassociated from their self-interest, thus keeping them in poverty.  The symptoms include:

-- Thinking that higher taxes on the affluenzant will hurt the gulliblemic.

-- Confusing the debt ceiling with a limit on how much the government can spend.

-- Thinking Medicare and Social Security are not government programs or are causing the deficit.

-- Thinking that shutting down the federal government is a good thing.

-- Watching Fox News for some reason besides comedic value.

-- Logic centers of the brain aren't the only ones affected; lobes that control spelling and grammar are also damaged, and the comprehension of irony is nonexistent.

-- There is demonstrable confusion between religious law and federal and state laws. Here's an example of a chronic case...

There are other associated symptoms that are not included in this list, and the good news is that gulliblemia is not contagious and in fact is quite curable. It sometimes requires an intervention, and there are some unpleasant withdrawal symptoms.

But people can -- and are -- being healed every day, and some gulliblemics are capable of making the journey to better health with only a small amount of absorbed ridicule, combined with heavy application of critical thinking.

So the next time you hear someone say "liberalism is a mental disorder", just look at who's doing the talking.

HCRP gets TRO on same-sex benefits

Double your outrage.

Harris County Republicans, led by their chairman, sued the City of Houston Tuesday over Mayor Annise Parker's extension of health and life insurance benefits to all spouses of legally married employees, including same-sex couples in November.

"This is one of the most egregious acts by an elected official I've ever seen," said Jared Woodfill, chairman the Harris County Republican party. Woodfill, is the lead lawyer on the lawsuit. "They just decided to, unilaterally, as a lame duck, thumb their nose at the will of the people and just spit on the U.S. Constitution."

Woodfill said state District Judge Lisa Millard signed a temporary restraining order late Tuesday, putting the new policy on hold until the matter goes before a judge on Jan. 6.

As Noah has pointed out, Harris County Democrats failed to field a challenger to Judge Millard for next year.  We can only guess as to whether her actions would have been different if they had.  And let's disregard the hyperbolic and misrepresentative exaggeration that Barrister Woodfill, like so many of his conservative ilk, employs.

Noah's best point, one that deserves repeating, is that the GOP is still going to lose next year, irrespective (mostly) of what the Democrats do or don't do, because of stunts like this lawsuit.

This predictable action by the Harris County Republican Party is just helping to dig its own grave. The Republicans have very weak competition in this county, as it simply campaigns against a party that -- despite being lead by venerable forces -- is filled with members too incompetent/lazy to fill the ballot. Taking up such a disastrously unpopular position as homophobia does nothing to dispel the notion that Republicans are simply old and bigoted folks; in fact, it actively perpetuates it. If the Democrats win in 2014, it will be because of things like this.

Homophobia is a disease that's on the wane, and it is the growing acceptance and tolerance that all people are equal -- even by many long-time Republican voters -- that is the clearest signal yet that the Republican Party, as currently constituted, is a bunch of dead (straight, white) men walking.  2014 might bring their reign to a close, but my guess is that we'll still have a few soreheads to kick around in 2016.  It's a process that is happening organically, but Democrats would be wise to do what they can to fertlilize the composting.  Maybe squirt some lighter fluid on the immolation.

Just don't get too close to them as they self-destruct.  Those stains are hard to get out.

Update: Jeff Balke at Hair Balls piles on.

This is a classic example of someone (or some group) not knowing when to let go of a particular issue and simply move on. A majority of Americans support same-sex marriage and the Supreme Court has upheld multiple challenges to state laws allowing same-sex couples to tie the knot. It's only a matter of time before states like Texas will have to come to the same conclusion most other states have: if homosexual couples want to marry, they should have every right to do so, and preventing them from obtaining the benefits heterosexual couples have is a violation of the Constitution Woodfill is so hungry to defend.

The other question that keeps running through my head is, "Why do you care?" What difference does it make to Woodfill or any member of the local GOP if people they clearly don't associate with have an opportunity to share in the same rights as they do? Same-sex partner benefits are provided by most American corporations already. For a group that is hell bent on protecting individual rights, it sure seems this flies directly in the face of that ideal.

Uber gouges customers in bad weather (again)

The two previous posts here about Uber and its pending entry to the Houston market are among the most heavily-clicked in this blog's history.  Here's the latest on the transportation phone app, first from CNN Money.

Luxury cab app Uber is under fire for charging New Yorkers insanely high prices during last week's snow storm.

Uber, which sends private cars to your location with a tap of a button, raised fares by as much as eight times (last) Saturday, as New York was blanketed with four inches of snow. Minimum fares surged well above $100, and per-mile charges were upwards of $30.

There were no surprises: Uber notified users what the prices would be before they ordered their cabs. Still, the Twitters were ablaze with angry Uberites crying foul. 

Uber calls it "surge pricing".  And from Bloomberg.

Uber is the darling of the technology industry—unless it’s raining. That’s when it raises prices and becomes the whipping boy of the Twitterati. The latest round of outrage over the company’s surge pricing came over the weekend, when rates increased by a factor of seven in New York because of a snowstorm. At one point, Uber was asking riders for a rate of $35 a mile.

An article in Wired on Tuesday broke down the thinking behind surge pricing, as explained by Travis Kalanick, the company’s chief executive officer. It’s basically the first lecture from an Introduction to Economics class:

“To understand the economics of surge pricing from Uber’s point of view, think of drivers as supply and riders as demand. Especially in bad weather, demand goes up: Would-be passengers don’t want to be out in the snow and rain. Meanwhile, supply goes down: Drivers don’t want to be out in the snow and rain, either.

“In that scenario, higher prices are meant to accomplish two things. First, by offering drivers more money, it gives them more incentive to get out on the streets—at least in theory—thereby increasing supply. Second, higher fares price out some riders, and demand goes down. Calibrating supply, demand, and price to get the most people the most rides for the least money is the math problem that Kalanick says Uber is always trying to solve.”

Kalanick told Wired that higher prices facilitate more rides in situations of high demand. “We are not setting the price. The market is setting the price,” he says. “We have algorithms to determine what the market is.”

Now that's as invisible as the hand of the free market can get.  Don't like being gouged in bad weather by Uber? The author of the CNN Money piece says 'get over it'.

Uber has a dynamic pricing model, in which fares rise when demand for cars is higher. That encourages more cabs to get on the road -- few chauffeurs want to drive around the city in the middle of a blizzard, but a guarantee of a $200-per-ride fare might be incentive enough to change their minds.
 
It also ensures that users don't have to wait around for hours for an Uber cab, which would defeat the purpose of the luxury service. If you're willing to pay $350 to go from Midtown to Brooklyn, there will be a cab at your location when you want it.

[...]

"Nobody is required to take an Uber, but having a reliable option is what we're shooting for," Uber CEO Travis Kalanick blogged last year. "It's not about gouging."

It doesn't matter how rich you are; nobody wants to pay $200 for a cab ride. But the wonderful thing about a free market is there's always another option. You can still travel 25 miles from Yankee Stadium to Rockaway Beach for just $2.50 if you take the subway.

Everything is now a commodity. The Bloomberg writer suggests a more, shall we call it, existential rationale.

Whether or not this is outrageous isn’t a question of economics. It’s a question of values. The ethical discussion can get a bit Talmudic. For some things, like the price of publicly traded stocks, society has decided to strive for as close to a perfect market as possible. For others, market forces are interrupted in one way or another. Restaurants, concert venues, and movie theaters all accept less than full market value for their goods and services at times of high demand, because they think it’s good business. At other times, the government sees a social good in dulling market forces through regulation or subsidies.

Kalanick, on the other hand, is a free-market fundamentalist. This isn’t surprising: Rationality has long been the religion of Silicon Valley, and what’s more rational than having a computer constantly calibrating prices? But a free market is always defined by scarcity: Not everyone who wants something can have it. So even if Uber is facilitating more rides, building a system where there is what amounts to continuous bidding for services will aggravate inequality.

[...]

Uber’s approach is effectively the opposite of the existing car-service industry’s model, where prices are largely regulated. Then, when it rains or snows, people manage to get rides mostly by being lucky. Uber’s riders can trump luck by being wealthy. Which one is unfair?

John Aravosis at AMERICAblog recently wrote a glowing advertorial about his maiden voyage on Uber.  He used his space not only to praise the service -- no problem there -- but to help himself get a few $10 credits.  Sorry John, but that's unethical too.

I think anybody who uses this service has to steel themselves for the eventuality that they are going to get ripped off, and sooner rather than later.  So have it, lemmings. It's all yours.  I'll stick to the folks that provide actual local jobs, give back to the community, are just as reliable and dependable without the predatory capitalistic supply/demand price gouging, and play by the rules that were established decades ago to weed out unscrupulous businesses (like Uber).

Update: More from Gawker, and a Los Angeles victim, in The $357 Uber Ride.

The Daily Stockman

I get the feeling it's going to be a daily series, anyway.

A Texas SuperPAC with close ties to Sen. John Cornyn is launching a “Shady Stockman” social media campaign to spotlight ethical questions dogging Rep. Steve Stockman, the senator’s top rival in the March primary.

The political action committee, Texans for a Conservative Majority, has plenty of funds to bolster Cornyn, thanks to a $2 million donation last spring from Houston home builder Bob Perry.

You know, I might start to feel sorry for Steve if this keeps up.

A Twitter handle, @shadystockman, has only one follower so far. The website and Facebook pages are also in the early stages. But there’s enough to get the gist of the attacks on the Friendswood Republican ...

Under the heading “Finances,” the site refers to a recent Houston Chronicle investigation that found Stockman had failed to sufficiently explain the source of $350,000 in income over the last two years. Under “Ethics,” it notes his failure to file required congressional disclosure forms, and a scandal involving illegal donations that prompted him to fire two aides.

Under “Criminal history,” it notes that Stockman had been jailed repeatedly and was even caught once by jailers with Valium in his underwear – an admission he made to Texas Monthly in a 1996 profile, explaining the hell-raising days of his youth, before he found Jesus and conservative activism.

Website visitors can spread the message at the click of a mouse, tweeting out such taunts as “@StockmanSenate can try to run for Senate, but he can’t run away from his past. See more at: http://www.shadystockman.com/#sthash.FIj2ji6O.dpuf

Sorry, but I'm not going to do any more than what I just did in order to help John Cornyn get re-elected.  I wonder how the Tea People feel about Big John brutalizing their boy like this?

-- Under the headline "Tea party candidate selling Obama ‘barf bags’":

Texas Republican Senate candidate Steve Stockman has nowhere near the millions of dollars his GOP opponent Sen. John Cornyn has, but the tea party congressman has a novel fundraising ploy: selling Obama “barf bags.”

Stockman unveiled the bags Tuesday on his website alongside a letter that touts the candidate as a “proud, principled conservative Tea Party Republican” who has spent “the last few years defeating liberals by helping train and launch the Tea Party.”

Every $10 donation comes with one bag printed with an image of the president and a tagline that reads, “Socialism Makes Me SICK!”

“If I win this race, you and I will be able to spend decades repealing Obama’s radical bills, unseating Obama’s radical appointees and ripping out Obama’s radical regulations,” Stockman writes in his campaign letter. “Obama’s socialism is too dangerous to send timid backstabbers to the Senate.”

Supplies are limited!  Get 'em while they're hot!  Puke your guts out!

Now puke some more!  You've only got about three months to get it all out of your system.

Update: You might need a barf bag for this.

Those looking for dirt on Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) need look no further. TPM has obtained photographs taken by the local officials who recently shut down Stockman's campaign office in Webster, Texas. And the images are dirty. And dusty. And grimy.

The story, to recap, was reported last month by The Houston Chronicle. According to the Chronicle, officials in Webster, Texas in November ordered the emergency closure of Stockman's campaign headquarters, citing multiple safety violations. The newspaper reported that various campaign staffers and volunteers were working and sleeping in the office, located in a former a former motorcycle shop considered unsafe for habitation.

Dirty dozen vie to replace Stockman in 36

In extending the deadline to file an extra week, the Texas GOP still couldn't come up with anyone known outside their respective district communities. Harvey Kronberg with the subheadline and teaser.

No big surprises but Houston businessman Ben Streusand joins the fray

There are many little-known candidates, but some of the top names include longtime Chief of Staff to Rep. Kevin Brady Doug Centilli, former Liberty County Judge Phil Fitzgerald and Dave Norman, who is a prominent insurance agent.

Further research reveals the full list.

Streusand and John Manlove, both of Houston, Robin Riley and Jim Engstrand, both of Seabrook, and Pat Kasprzak of Crosby filed for the seat on Monday. Riley is a former Seabrook mayor. One other Republican, Brian Babin, a dentist and former mayor of Woodville, also took advantage of the deadline extension, filing on Friday. They joined six Republicans who had filed for the seat before the original deadline: Nassau Bay City Councilman John Amdur; Doug Centilli, a longtime chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands; former Liberty County Judge Phil Fitzgerald; Lumberton lawyer Charles "Chuck" Meyer; former Seabrook City Councilman Kim Morrell; and insurance agent Dave Norman.

Manlove might be this ad guy, but is probably the former mayor of Pasadena, which has been in the news recently for trying to water down the Latino representation on their city council.  That Manlove also ran in 2008 for CD-22, then occupied by Nick Lampson.  He lost to Shelley Sekula Dracula Cunt Gibbs.  Also this, from Roll Call last week.

In 2012, Meyer unsuccessfully ran against Stockman in the 12-person open primary and earned about 4 percent of the vote. He has, as of this writing, 27 followers on Facebook. From that account, he has attacked Stockman from the right and advocated for the impeachment of President Barack Obama.

Dave Norman unsuccessfully ran for state Senate in 2012.

Back to the Trib piece for this.

The filing extension only applied to the Republican Party, and anyone who had already filed for another race could not withdraw to join the CD-36 race. That shut out people like state Rep. James White, R-Hillister, who was interested in running for Stockman’s seat. His district, House District 19, encompasses the northern half of CD-36. Texas Republican Party officials said the decisions were based on state election law.

White criticized Stockman for withdrawing his re-election filing at the last minute. Though most were not aware of Stockman’s decision ahead of time, three of the six original CD-36 candidates — Centilli, Norman and Morrell — said last week they had advance notice that Stockman was planning to withdraw from the race.

“It is unfortunate that Congressman Stockman and some Washington insiders have decided to do D.C.-style power politics and inject them into southeast Texas,” White said.

David Bradley, a member of the State Board of Education, had filed for re-election but, like White, explored switching to the CD-36 race. He expressed frustration that the secretary of state’s office and the Texas Republican Party had interpreted election law as such that he could legally withdraw his earlier SBOE filing but could not join the CD-36 race under the filing deadline extension. He plans to continue with his original plan and run for for re-election.

“I talked to a couple of [state Republican Executive Committee] members, and I had an election attorney looking at it,” Bradley said. “It wasn't worth a food fight.”

White and Bradley shouldn't be underestimated in terms of electoral prowess; it was White who knocked off longtime Texas House incumbent Tuffy Hamilton when redistricting forced the two conservatives to run against each other in 2012.  And Bradley is well-renowned for his efforts to take the SBOE back to the 1960s.  They are forced to stand by and watch, and wait for 2016.

Of those who jumped in, the ones that spend the largest amount of their personal wealth ought to move on to the runoff next April.  Today, my bet would be on Streusand and Norman (he's close to Stockman and will likely serve, if elected, as de facto Stockman).

I said before I didn't want to blog about this race unless the candidates began roasting and consuming each other.  I am delighted to see that remains a distinct possibility.