The city of Oakland already offers residents a municipal ID card, a form of identification thought to help undocumented immigrants, in particular, who might otherwise fear reporting crimes, or labor or housing violations. Now, they’ve upped the ante, becoming the first city to add a pre-paid debit-card function to its ID.
Residents can reload the card at Western Union, direct-deposit paychecks to it, withdraw cash from it at ATMs, and shop with it like any other pre-paid Mastercard.
Governing has an interesting look today at how the whole thing is going. With nearly one in 10 households considered “unbanked” in the U.S., Oakland’s initiative is part an effort by many cities to broaden the financial options available to low-wage workers beyond check-cashing stores and payday lenders. The challenges of being “unbanked” are also related to those of being undocumented. As J.B. Wogan writes:
A municipal ID card with a debit feature may be the natural evolution of those two movements. The same people who lack official identification are likely to be unbanked or underbanked. Undocumented immigrants, for instance, often become targets for robberies because they carry cash — instead of storing money in banks — and are less likely to report crimes to the police. Theoretically, it makes some sense for cities to tackle both issues with the same program.
Oakland has also couched the program as a crime-reduction strategy. But Wogan writes that the ID/debit card (you can sign up for the former without the latter) has received considerable criticism for the fees attached to it: They include a 75-cent transaction fee, a $1.50 ATM withdrawal fee, and a $2.99 monthly service fee. All of which pretty quickly adds up to a serious burden on people who receive their weekly payday in cash.
Oakland and the company managing the program suggest that the fees will go down as the idea catches on, creating economies of scale. Consumer advocates so far don’t seem sold. Could an improvement on the same idea work better somewhere else? What would that look like?
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."