Foreclosure numbers across the U.S. hit a six-year low in April, according to data from national real estate listing firm, RealtyTrac. South Carolina, however, saw a 20% increase from April 2012 in the number of filings, pushing the state into the top five for the rate of foreclosures for the month.

RealtyTrac data found that one out of every 590 homes in South Carolina had at least a notice of default against it. The highest rate of foreclosures for the month was in Beaufort County, which saw one of every 275 homes in distress, with Richland County coming in second with one of every 332 homes with at least a filing.

Read more.

As the US House and Senate Agriculture Committees prepare to take up the Farm Bill, new polling data released by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) shows that support for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) remains high. Seven in 10 voters say that cutting food stamp funding is the wrong way to reduce government spending. Despite broad support for SNAP and broad opposition to cutting this program that is helping millions of low-income Americans, some in Congress – from both sides of the aisle – continue to propose cuts to the program. “Any cut to SNAP means less food in the refrigerator for struggling seniors, families with children, veterans, people with disabilities, and unemployed people. Voters recognize the harsh impact of such cuts, and it is time for Congress to come to the same conclusion,” said FRAC President Jim Weill. The poll of 850 registered voters was conducted online from April 29 to May 1, 2013, by Hart Research Associates on behalf of the Food Research and Action Center. Voters also were posed a choice between cutting food assistance to low-income families or cutting subsidies to farmers as a way to reduce federal spending. A plurality of voters (51 percent) chooses neither to cut, but more voters would rather see cuts in subsidies to farmers (34 percent) than cuts to food assistance for low-income households (19 percent). And among the majority of voters who do make a choice, reducing spending on subsidies for farmers is the preferred choice for nearly all major population groups, including voters living in the Midwest, the South, rural and small town voters, and Republicans. Other findings from the poll include:

• When voters learn that Congress is considering cutting billions of dollars from the food stamp program to reduce government spending, 70 percent say this is the wrong way to reduce spending—over half (51 percent) feel strongly about this—while just 30 percent favor the cuts. Women oppose cuts by 73 percent.
• Voters in rural communities and small towns reject cuts decisively, by 68 percent to 32 percent.  Support for food stamps also crosses generational lines—67 percent of both young voters (under age 35) and seniors reject food stamp cuts.
• Rural and small town voters also are more likely to favor greater government spending to address hunger (39 percent) than less (31 percent), as are voters with children under 18 (48 percent to 23 percent).
• Republican support for cuts is modest at best: 37 percent of Republicans say that the federal government should spend less, while 63 percent of Republicans want to see current spending levels continue (34 percent) or increase (29 percent).

# # #

The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) is the lead advocacy organization working to end hunger in America through stronger public policies. For more information, visit http://www.frac.org.

Designed to meet the need for emergency cash, the short-term loans are essentially advances on wages and meant to be repaid on the next payday—usually within two weeks. Borrowers secure the loans by providing a postdated check or electronic access to their bank account. But the loans, which have been around for nearly 20 years, carry onerous interest rates, ranging from 200 percent to 500 percent.

Payday lenders claim to be a convenient source of credit for low- to moderate-income families in a budget crisis. Yet a revealing study from Pew Research shows that contrary to common assumptions, 69% of borrowers typically use payday loans to pay for day-to-day expenses, not emergencies, leading them further into a debt trap – unable to reconcile their stagnant wages with the rising cost of living.

Though most payday lenders are storefront or Web operations, major banks have also been players. On top of the impact payday lending has on families and individuals struggling to break the cycle of debt and poverty, the payday lending industry also leaves a negative impact on our economy. This study finds that in 2011, payday loans were responsible for:

• $774 million in lost consumer spending
• 14,000 job losses
• 56,230 Bankruptcies (taking an additional $169 million out of the economy)

At SC Appleseed, we will continue to advocate for the protection of consumers from the unconscionable practices of payday lenders in South Carolina and work with legislators to develop and adopt legislation to further limit their foothold in the state.

Some new rules are in the works for banks and other financial institutions offering so-called deposit advance products, which are similar to payday loans. We applaud the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) for directing banks to stop making predatory loans that trap borrowers in a cycle of debt.

Guidance proposed by the  FDIC and the OCC is intended to ensure that banks are aware of a variety of safety and soundness, compliance, and consumer protection risks posed by deposit advance loans. The announcement comes in the wake of a study by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that examined the impact on consumers of these types of loans.

Payday loans — sort of

The products are offered to customers who have a deposit account, reloadable prepaid card, or similar deposit-related vehicle. The customer takes out a loan, which is to be repaid from the proceeds of thei
The FDIC/OCC bank guidance, if adopted and fully enforced, would address longstanding concerns expressed by policymakers, advocates and concerned citizens. The banking regulators have heard opposition to bank payday lending from more than 157,000 citizens, 250 organizations, a number of civil rights leaders, and members of the Senate. In addition, several institutional investors have raised concerns about payday lending and its impact on consumers and banks alike.r next direct deposit. These loans typically have high fees, are repaid in a lump sum in advance of the customer’s other bills, and often do not utilize fundamental and prudent banking practices to determine the customer’s ability to repay the loan and meet other necessary financial obligations. Requiring banks to assess a borrower’s ability to repay and make loans that borrowers can afford to repay is just common sense.

We welcome the proposed guidance for addressing payday lending by banks, but we also know that non-bank payday lending continues to trap thousands of vulnerable borrowers in debt. We urge the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to act quickly and decisively to curb payday lending by all types of lenders.

To learn more about how South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center is engaged in consumer protection for South Carolinians, which includes bringing national attention to the unconscionable practices of payday lenders - visit our website http://scjustice.org/brochures-and-manuals/consumer-protection/