Military borrowers pay higher costs and face greater financial risks than civilian borrowers when taking out credit to buy a car - according to a new report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The report found service members tend to borrow larger sums, at higher interest rates over longer terms.

Rosemary Shahan, president of the Sacramento-based nonprofit Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said yo-yo scams are common - where the victim signs an initial contract on good terms but then the dealer claims the financing fell through.

"And then they say, 'If you don't agree to sign this other contract where we're charging you for a lot of worthless add-ons you don't really want and a higher interest rate,'" said Shahan, "'then we'll report the vehicle stolen, and you'll be in trouble with your command, and it'll ruin your career.' "

The report finds many service members are young and far from family members who might help them negotiate a large purchase.

Last year under former President Joe Biden, the Federal Trade Commission finalized the CARS rule, which would combat dishonest sales tactics. Automakers sued and last month a federal judge put it on hold.

Shahan said the CARS rule would require dealers to tell you the price up front before you even go to the lot.

"It also has additional protections for military service members," said Shahan. "It prohibits car dealers from representing that they're somehow affiliated with the military, or have been approved by the military when that's not true, and would also require them to be more honest about the price of the add-ons and actually get your affirmative approval before adding them."

The Federal Trade Commission under the Trump administration will now have to decide whether to stand behind the rule and fight for it in court, or withdraw it.

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Egg prices have never been this high. To address this, newly appointed United States Department of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently outlined a five-pronged plan to address high egg prices for American consumers: including potentially importing eggs. Importing eggs is not the norm in the United States, especially considering this country is the second-largest egg exporter in the world. We produce over 100 billion eggs per year, millions of which go to Canada and Mexico.

The U.S. plans to import 420 million eggs from Turkey - barely a drop in the 100 billion-eggs-annually bucket. Even if the U.S. imported one billion eggs, that would only lower prices by a small percentage, Associate Dean of the School of Public Policy at UC Riverside Bruce Babcock tells Sentient. If the U.S. wanted to lower prices by, say, 10 percent, it would need to import close to 2 billion eggs, he says. And by the time that happens, more chickens will likely have been culled - meaning the "lower" price may still be much higher for consumers than pre-avian flu levels.

In order to keep up with avian flu, which is still spreading, the U.S. would need to import billions, not millions of eggs. Other countries also might not want their own domestic egg supplies to diminish, which could in turn raise their prices.

"Whether or not we can actually import that many eggs to have that kind of price effect is probably not possible, because other countries don't have that many surplus eggs, and if they did try to export that many eggs to the United States, their egg prices would rise dramatically," Babbock says. "It's not clear that it's feasible, but is it theoretically possible? Yes."

Importing Eggs: a Fragile Plan

Eggs are incredibly fragile and need to be refrigerated, making them an expensive commodity to trade, explains James Mitchell, Assistant Professor and Extension Livestock Economist at the University of Arkansas. "Think about how careful you have to be transporting eggs from the grocery store to your house," Mitchell tells Sentient.

As avian influenza continues to spread, each day resulting in the death of thousands of chickens (killed by culling), the U.S. government is scrambling to get a hold of how to keep costs low for consumers. Thus far, they have not been successful, and importing eggs seems like one of the least economically viable options considering the scale of the problem.

Factory Farms Have Boosted Cheap Egg Supply, But at a Cost to Public Health

Over 99 percent of farmed animals are raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where they often do not have room to move around or see daylight. According to a new report by Food & Water Watch, the system is incredibly consolidated: 75 percent of egg-laying hens in the U.S. are raised on fewer than 350 factory farms, and the vast majority - 99 percent - of commercial laying hens impacted by bird flu lived on factory farms.

The efficiency of factory farms and increasing consolidation in agriculture has historically enabled eggs to be an extremely cheap commodity at the grocery store. Feed costs are low, and factory farms are highly efficient, churning out millions of eggs per month. But the true cost of these operations can be seen in their externalities: a lack of animal welfare, pollution and compromised worker safety.

"With regards to animal welfare, we're probably the worst country in the world with our battery cages," Babcock says. "Any country that crams those laying hens into little battery cages...It's just inhumane, in my opinion, but that's my opinion, because I care about animal welfare."

CAFOs are notorious breeding grounds for highly pathogenic diseases. Animals often defecate on top of one another and ventilation is scarce.

"When disease hits a production facility, and they have to destroy all the chickens that are laying hens, there's so many in one location that it disrupts the supply of eggs nationally to a much greater extent than if you had smaller production units spread out across the countryside," Babcock says. "Consolidation increases the risk to our food security. It doesn't decrease the risk."

When one chicken tests positive for avian influenza, the entire flock needs to be killed, though new secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is interested in trying out "therapeutic drugs" on flocks to avoid culling.

Uncertainty About the Trump Administration's Avian Flu Plan

Advocates from across the aisle are calling for the federal government to intervene. Rollins responded with her plan to put $1 billion toward avian flu research. But with sweeping federal government cuts from the Department of Agriculture to the Food and Drug Administration, including within the avian flu research team, it is unclear how much will actually get done.

"The actions of the Trump administration to unilaterally disable key roles of government runs completely counter to the proper role of government in providing food security and food safety," Babcock says. "It's almost as if the Trump administration...[is] trying to actually disable the government functions in those areas, and one of them is in food safety."

Additionally, relying on imported eggs also relies on the notion that avian flu will not spread to, or highly affect, the countries the U.S. imports from. So far, avian flu has been detected in 108 countries.

"We don't have a crystal ball, so we don't know how this could look like for those other countries in a month, two months, two months, six months, a year from now," Mitchell says.

Both Mitchell and Babcock agree that the solution rests in collective action to restructure the industry. Mitchell says more research on vaccines and biosecurity are needed, and that the problem extends far beyond factory farms to migratory flocks, too, ushering a need for more cross-departmental collaboration.

"The public good is the ability for producers to produce in a disease-free environment," Babcock says. "Private industry does not provide public goods at the right level."


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

New legislation would bring the insurance industry under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

Supporters said the change would protect consumers from deceptive practices.

Tyler Staggs, an attorney in Portland, represented insurers for nearly 20 years. He said his law firm now advocates for consumers because of the insurance industry's growing unfairness. He cited such cases as a client left homeless when an insurer denied living expenses after a house fire. In another case, he added, a client was denied a claim after a brain injury from a car accident.

"Rather than paying the benefits that the insured paid for, the insurance company lowballs them and delays, to see if they can force them to take a settlement," Staggs explained.

Oregon's insurance industry is the only major industry in the state not subject to the state's Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The bill is scheduled for a work session in the Senate Tuesday.

Staggs pointed out insurance companies argued the change will lead to more lawsuits and higher rates for consumers. He countered if companies are treating people fairly, rates will not have to increase.

"To say, well, 'We shouldn't have this enforcement mechanism because it's going to raise your rates,' really seems like disingenuous and it seems like blackmail," Staggs contended.

Staggs explained under the law, if the court finds a lawsuit to be unjustified, the insured would be responsible for covering the insurance company's legal fees, which protects insurers against baseless claims.

Mike Leib, vice president of Precision Body and Paint, an auto-body repair shop based in Beaverton, said insurers exploit consumers' lack of time and money to fight claims. He noted negotiating with insurers has become combative, as they routinely delay and deny legally required repair reimbursements.

"They are declining required repair procedures by manufacturers," Leib observed. "That can result in an unsafe repair, which can result in a death."

Both Leib and Staggs said insurance companies' quality of service has been worse since the pandemic, when they closed local offices and started depending more on artificial intelligence. They added the legislation would make insurance companies accountable to fairly evaluate claims.


get more stories like this via email

As Los Angeles starts to recover from the firestorm, people are looking for ways to harden their homes against future mega-blazes.

Experts said the massive destruction from the Palisades and Eaton fires has some people discouraged, thinking there is nothing they can do to defend their homes.

Michele Steinberg, wildfire division director for the nonprofit National Fire Protection Association, said in fact, homeowners can significantly reduce their risk.

"Home survival is down to making sure that the exterior of the home cannot carry ignition," Steinberg explained. "By that we mean non-combustible roofing, siding, good windows that aren't going to crack under heat."

The home ignition zone is the five-foot area around your structure, so anything within the perimeter, including decks, porches, and fences, needs to be made of non-combustible material. Screens on vents work to prevent embers from being sucked up into the home.

California's statewide building code is considered one of the strongest in the country. It specifies how buildings should be designed and maintained and how they should be sited with appropriate defensible space. Steinberg added the state helps people find fire-safe materials.

"They actually list products that meet those standards," Steinberg pointed out. "You can actually find manufacturers and people that have provided those products on the California State Fire Marshal's website."

Experts also cautioned against putting dry wood mulch or climbing vegetation up against the house.


get more stories like this via email