A year ago, the state Legislature outlawed payday and title loans in order to protect consumers from paying exorbitant interest rates. But that hasn’t stopped some lenders from offering other types of short-term loans at equally high interest rates.

Today, the House will vote on a bill meant to close what some consider a loophole in the law. Opponents of the bill say it will remove the last resource for people desperate for short-term loans.

“I don’t think those people with bad credit should have no place to turn for a loan,” said state Rep. Jeff Goley, a Manchester Democrat and chairman of the House Labor Committee.

Senate Bill 193 would put a 36 percent cap on annual interest rates, including some fees, for any loan under $10,000. It would apply to both loans and lines of credit.

There’s a tremendous disconnect between elected officials and working Americans.  It seems as if the officials are listening to a few anti-business advocacy groups and not their constituents.

Short-term “payday” lenders have been under attack by state and federal lawmakers who denounce their services as “predatory.” But across the country, borrowers in need of emergency cash choose these loans willingly, over other financial options. Research by a Federal Reserve economist found that 88 percent of short-term borrowers are satisfied with their loans.

Last session, lawmakers drove most payday lenders out of the state by capping interest rates at 36 percent, but some companies have found a way around the law that by imposing such charges as membership and loan consultant fees.

House Bill 193, at the request of the banking commissioner and the attorney general’s office, would try to change all that by making the cap an aggregate 36 percent on all loans under $10,000, payday or not.

The House Commerce Committee – which has traditionally favored the payday loan industry — voted to kill the measure, but just barely, 9-7. Wednesday’s House votes were even closer. A motion to kill it there failed, but only by three votes, 174-177. Then a motion to refer it back to committee failed, but only after House Speaker Terie Norelli tied it up by voting against it.

The real-world examples are proof of the consequences of overly restrictive annual rate caps. Hundreds of stores have closed, thousands of employees have lost their jobs and hundreds of thousands of consumers are left to choose among less desirable credit options.

Read more about annual rate caps in Oregon, Ohio, New Hampshire and D.C.