Saturday, April 29, 2023

H. 410 - Credit Union "Updates" - Designed To Deceive # 2 - The Red Herring - "Maybe Baby?"

❓What is so important in H. 410 that the Carolinas' Credit Union League (CCUL) is willing to sacrifice anything and anybody to get it passed?

 § 54-109.28. Other credit unions and specially designated common bonds. [Changes are underlined]To facilitate the provision of financial services to underserved populations and communities, any credit union organized under Articles 14A to 14L of this Chapter may also permit membership of the following located in this State:

(1) Individuals and families that earn income at or below the federal poverty threshold

 ðŸ‘Those proposed changes sound very positive, don't they! Who in there right mind - especially if they were not-for-profit credit unions organized to serve North Carolinians of modest means - would object to that? 


New data released last week by the U.S. Census Bureau, measuring poverty and income, provides insight into how North Carolinians are faring. The data finds that last year, 1.4 million North Carolinians lived in poverty, making North Carolina the state with the 15th highest poverty rate.

👍As the graph and blurb above shows, every state-chartered credit union in North Carolina would be able to add 1.4 million North Carolinians as potential members - and who needs credit unions more than North Carolina families below the federal poverty threshold?

But there is a potential catch and it "lies" in those words "all" and "may". Every state-chartered credit union is not required to take advantage of this new opportunity to help those most in need in North Carolina. 

If Dan Schline and the Carolinas' Credit Union League are being honest about their sincerity and desire to help North Carolinians living in poverty, then certainly Mr. Schline will have no objection to changing "any" to "all" and "may" to "shall" would he? 

👍Hope the Senate will be sure to ask him!

Would also assume that all state-chartered credit unions will remain "united" behind passage of H. 410, when the new law reads: "... all N.C. state-chartered credit unions shall permit membership for families living below the federal poverty threshold." [Even better, CCUL can add language requiring low/no cost "Lifeline Accounts" for these new members!]

North Carolina banks are required to serve low income folks in North Carolina - on what basis could Dan Schline and CCUL  justify not accepting this small positive change?

Fair is fair, right? or.... Videri quam esse - "to seem, rather than to be"?  

Maybe baby?