Jul 13, 2013 3 min read

There’s a long-standing tradition of amendments being attached to bills in Congress that have absolutely nothing to do with the main piece of legislation, but nonetheless end up becoming law because congressmen and senators feel duty-bound to vote for the primary bill.

It goes something like this: An amendment funneling money to, let’s say, a rooster museum, in someone’s state or district gets attached to a defense appropriation bill. No one wants to be tarred as “soft on defense’ by opponents if they vote against the measure, so they vote for the whole enchilada, and the rooster museum is approved, even though the rooster museum would otherwise never pass muster on its own.

The same thing happened in Harrisburg in the hours before the state budget was being finalized. On Page 55 of the 59-page fiscal code bill, a technical piece of legislation on the transfer and collection of funds, someone in the House leadership – no one is saying who exactly – sneaked in language that stated both the state House and Senate were committed to voting on a bill overturning Pennsylvania’s ban on payday loans by Oct. 31.

This “commitment” was news to many legislators and, as a result, the fiscal code bill was voted down 49-0 in the Senate. In order to get the fiscal code approved, and set the 2013-14 budget wheels in motion, the House would have to vote for the bill again. Only problem is, they’re in recess until Sept. 23. If they returned to Harrisburg before then, legislators would presumably have to add it to their expense accounts and, of course, reach a little deeper into the wallets of commonwealth taxpayers.

What a shambles.

This procedural disaster would be appalling even if it involved language suggesting that the Legislature was fully committed to sunny skies, smiling faces and soothing breezes.

But that it was done presumably to please a heavyweight – and, one presumes, campaign contributor – in the payday lending industry should raise the collective blood pressure.

Payday lenders prey primarily on low-income people who need a quick cash infusion. Only problem is, they carry interest rates that can best be described as usurious. Call it legalized loan-sharking.

No state has approved any legislation in support of payday lenders since 2005, and federal banking regulators have been targeting banks that have tried to adopt the storefront payday lender as a model within their own businesses.

However, by an 8-6 vote, the banking committee in the state Senate signed off on a plan approving payday loans, although no vote has been scheduled for the full Senate, and there’s no corresponding bill in the House.

Opponents of payday lending, which is outlawed in the state due to caps on interest rates, say it can trap unwitting consumers in a pernicious cycle of debt.

Supporters of the plan say it would come with protections attached and keep consumers from having to resort to credit cards, which also carry high interest rates. We’re more inclined to believe Mark Price, a labor economist with the Keystone Research Center, who told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that payday loans are “a product that is actually making people poorer. It is making their financial situation worse.”

If the House has to trek back to Harrisburg on our dime to clean up this mess, couldn’t they deal with liquor privatization, pension reform and transportation funding while they’re there?