Skip to main content

Banks, benefits, and story bias

This story has got a lot of people up in arms--as they should be--but for almost all the wrong reasons.

Here's the gist:

For hundreds of thousands of workers losing their jobs during the recession, there's a new twist to their financial pain: Even when they're collecting unemployment benefits, they're paying the bank just to get the money — or even to call customer service to complain about it.

Thirty states have struck such deals with banks that include Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., JP Morgan Chase and US Bancorp, an Associated Press review of the agreements found. All the programs carry fees, and in several states the unemployed have no choice but to use the debit cards. Some banks even charge overdraft fees of up to $20 — even though they could decline charges for more than what's on the card.

"They're trying to use my money to make money," said Santa-Maria, a laid-off engineer who lives just outside Albuquerque, N.M. "I just see banks trying to make that 50 cents or a buck and a half when I should be given the service for free."


The banks are handling this with their usual flair for interpersonal relations:

The banks say their programs offer convenience. They also provide at least one way to tap the money at no charge, such as using a single free withdrawal to get all the cash at once from a bank teller. But the banks benefit from human nature, as people end up treating the cards like all the other plastic in their wallets.


As somebody asked earlier today: Is your blood boiling yet?

But wait. The shorter versions of this AP story conveniently concentrates on the plight of the victims and the rapacious nature of the banks, and omit this:

The U.S. Department of Labor allows the fees as long as states create a way for recipients to get their money for free, spokeswoman Suzy Bohnert said.

"Beyond that, the individual decides how to manage his drawdowns using the debit card," she said in an e-mail.

A typical contract looks like the agreement between Citigroup and the state of Kansas, which took effect in November. The state expects to save $300,000 a year by wiring payments to Citigroup instead of printing and mailing checks.

Citigroup's bill to the state: zero. The bank collects its revenue from fees paid by merchants and the unemployed.


Let's parse this, shall we?

1) The Labor Department specifically allows these fees.

2) The States are saving big bucks by sending the money to the banks instead of writing checks.

3) The States knew going in that the only way the banks could make any money was by charging fees.

So essentially what happened here is that the States decided to transfer the cost of delivering unemployment benefits to the recipients..

Not the banks--even though they certainly haven't protested the opportunity to gouge a few more fees--the States.

The State governments.

You have to wonder if Kansas had said to Citigroup, Hey, we'll give you $150,000 of the $300,000 we're saving as your handling fee if you don't charge any fees on these cards, what might have happened.

But the State bureaucrats who certainly knew it was legal for the banks to charge those fees decided that saving money in their budget was more important than insuring that unemployed people received all of their benefits.

My question: how come I've seen this story about six bazillion times and nobody ever criticizes the government bureaucrats who decided to balance their budgets by stiffing the unemployed?

Comments

Bowly said…
My question: how come I've seen this story about six bazillion times and nobody ever criticizes the government bureaucrats who decided to balance their budgets by stiffing the unemployed?

Because government is wonderful and corporations are evil.
Anonymous said…
If you get a paper check, cashing it once is free.

*If you get an electronic card, dumping all the money into your pocket once, or making one transfer to your checking account is free.

*Using the card at a retail point of sale is free. As often as you want. FREE.

The fees only come into play when you go out of the banks ATM network. If you had a paper check, many banks wouldnt cash it at all if you are not an account holder, which drives people to check cashing stores who charge a % of face value. That dwarfs the cost of using the card at a non network ATM. They dont run stories about people getting mugged carrying $800 out of a check cashing store, and crying out for the govt to provide a secure means of moving money. they also dont do stories about how many checks are scanned and copied 10x and cashed 10x in a 10 minute window, geometrically increasing the burden on taxpayers and agencies.

Lessons learned:

The media sells stories, factual analysis is irrelevant.

Know the details before you post.
Anonymous said…
no one criticizes them because the savings can be used to extend UI benefits for a few more weeks. Banks get the money whether its on paper or plastic. Just another example of a culture driven by convenience.
RE Anonymous in comment 2:

Thanks for the completely unneccessary lesson in avoiding bank fees, and way to go in missing the point of the post.
Ztroilo said…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

the truth behind the world today. and a solution...the only viable long term solution

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba