Postal Service Community Financial Lending Act of 2015 (Law'd)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I understand the intent behind this bill, but I'm not sure I understand why the Postal Service is the natural home for these services? The only one that sort of makes sense to me is 1(b)ii...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sorry, hehe.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I object.

This should not be a half billion dollar bill. I appreciate the answers I received earlier and I do believe this a service that could be offered (though I'm slightly uncomfortable with the fact that it fundamentally changes what the postal service is), but I don't think we need to be pouring so much money into this thing. Couldn't half of these new jobs be mechanized?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

All right. In the meantime, then, what are some numbers we can agree on?

$50 million for training and $75 million for services, including a new public outreach component (it's no use making these changes if no one knows about them)?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Most people will not be flocking to the post office to get a loan, I'm sure...

And once the system makes money off of interest payments and the like, there will be more there to spend. Financial institutions exist to earn profit... I hope our system here would be able to eventually pay for itself as well...

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Griffin:

The purpose of this legislation is to provide small loans to people who can't easily access banks. I see no reason why I should root against that. If interest is being charged just like it would be charged anywhere else, people who already happily do business with other financial institutions aren't going to have any reason to switch over to USPS. Yes, people in rural areas might find it more convenient to bank at a post office, but these places aren't going to be giving out mortgages or significant LOCs. These small loans (maybe we specify that the loans can't exceed $1,000) won't be a big burden, opening and maintaining accounts doesn't really cost anything, and interest payments and loan repayment should keep the upfront capital (the amount I suggested) relatively freed up. We don't need to spend a fortune here.

Then again, your vision for this program is not what I believe most of us bargained for. The post office is the post office. Small loans and account services for people who really need them are one thing, but if we're voting to turn USPS into a "formidable public banking institution" as you indicate, I'll have to rethink my support. The government shouldn't be a full-service truck stop for city folk who are unsatisfied with the plethora of solid banking options they have just around the corner. It should give small loans to people who can't currently access them; that's it. The point, as I understood it, was not to create a mega two-tiered financial system that the fringe left could circle-jerk over.

And the willingness of others in this chamber to bring down the amount of your proposed appropriations leaves me hopeful that at least a few people will agree with me.


Windjammer:

As someone who has been in the position of receiving requests for estimates, I think maybe it's better not to bother the GM unless we think it's super-necessary. But that's just me.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

It's too much money for a program that I'm not convinced should exist. I believe my vision for this program is much different than the vision that some members expressed on the floor; I don't feel comfortable voting to enable that. I do not want a transformation of our financial system. It's pretty unfortunate that people weren't willing to vote for Senator Cris's sensible amendment.