Nearly 10 percent of Virginia households have used short-term credit in the form of payday, pawnshop, and auto-title loans.

A study by the University of Virginia’s Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service released Tuesday shows that more than 275,000 financially struggling families in Virginia have turned to alternative financial-service providers to pay for basic needs such as food, housing and transportation. They also are using the high-cost loans to pay for unexpected expenses stemming from job losses, car repairs and medical bills.

…

Nearly 120,000 Virginia households — 4 percent — used payday loans, according to the study, which analyzed 2009 national banking statistics from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

A Virginia newspaper thinks if it fills its editorials with one-liners that sound like taglines for an Indian Jones movie it will scare people into agreeing with its views.

Saslaw is sponsoring legislation this year that would give title lenders based in the commonwealth the right to lure people living in neighboring states to their financial doom.

… Saslaw’s bill would overturn the regulation and permit lenders to export suffering and despair into communities where they are not welcome.

“Suffering,” “despair” and “doom” all in one editorial over small loans? … Simmer down.

A state Senate panel voted against killing short-term credit businesses.

The Senate panel voted 8 to 6 to kill the proposal from Sen. John S. Edwards, D-Roanoke, which would have capped the amount of interest that could be charged on open-end credit at 36 percent a year.

Virginians can take out short-term credit and as long as lenders provide a three-week grace period on loans they avoid tougher new state laws put in place to curb payday and car title lending. The Senate Commerce and Labor committee has already killed three bills — sponsored by Sens. Mamie Locke and John  Miller — that would put the same cap in place on payday loans and car title loans at 36 percent.

So says The Associated Press. Not sure why though.

Local leaders planning to gather in Richmond to urge legislators to cap the interest that can be charged on short-term, high-interest loans have canceled their event.

A group called Virginians Against Payday Loans tout alternatives:

Of course, this is poppycock, and employers as diverse as the state of Virginia and Riverside Health System have created short-term loans for their employees at interest rates well under 36 percent and are doing quite well. Credit unions across the state, appalled at the payday and car-title scams, are now providing similar loans at similar rates with the same positive results.

Well the Pundit says that’s poppycock. These “alternatives” are offered on the market now and consumers choose to use payday loans.

A committee in Virginia voted against killing the payday lending industry.

The Senate Commerce and Labor committee voted 10-4 to reject two proposals that would ban lenders from charging fees that boost borrowers’ cost above the 36 percent interest rate that the legislature capped in 2008.

Despite repeated attempts to explain how an APR rate cap will kill the payday lending industry, a Virginia City Councilman continues his campaign to rid the Commonwealth of consumer freedom. But Jamie Fulmer of Advance America gives it one more admirable go of explaining the situation:

“They might as well call it the ‘Eliminate Payday Loans Act,’ ” said Fulmer.

Based on media reports, I’d say possible state fights in Mississippi, Virginia and Kentucky.  On the federal level, of course, the CFPB will become active in July.  Its first priority will be developing new mortgage lending rules, even to the extent of drafting a standard application form.  After that, it will address non-bank products.

Some lawmakers want another crack at payday and title loans again in Virginia.  And here’s the latest from Kentucky.

Never thought I’d say that.  From the Lynchburg News & Advance:

On a split decision, council did not include a proposal for additional restrictions on payday lending, which is often criticized as predatory.

Council had supported previous efforts to clamp down on that industry in 2008, but this year a majority concluded it was an unnecessary addition that would water down their agenda.