Here's where I think I am with this... I find the payday loan and check cashing places to be somewhat morally repugnant. However, I don't really want the government legislating them out of business on the basis of my morality. Similarly, I find Rent-A-Center and its ilk to be just as slimy and morally objectionable, but I wouldn't want the government legislating them out of business either. Philosophically, I also don't like the idea of the government (especially the federal government) competing against those businesses solely on the basis of morality.
For that reason, the idea above re: post offices leasing kiosk or similar space to private businesses appeals to me. However, as the above post notes, I'm not sure what problem that solves. I wouldn't think that simply changing the location of check cashing businesses (from wherever they are now to inside a post office) is going to significantly alter the costs and practices of these businesses.
All that said, I'd like a reason other than morality to support the original idea. Is there one?
Is "morality" different from "helping poor people"? I think I'm confused.
It is different to me in this context, yes. For example, food stamps should probably be considered "helping poor people", and we have that program in place specifically to help poor people, not to prevent unscrupulous "insert food stamp business here" from preying upon the poor. I'm suggesting that "punishing/preventing unscrupulous check cashing businesses from preying on the poor" isn't enough of a reason for me to support this policy.
Intuitively, I like the suggestion, but I feel like the reason it appeals to me is emotion based simply because I want to punish what I consider to be sleazy check cashing businesses. For the same reason as "ick" isn't a good reason to support bans on gay rights, "ick, sleazy" isn't a good reason to support a policy of increasing government responsibility and power.
"Helping poor people" is an entirely different reason to me. To support it, I'd at least want to know the following: 1) can government provide these services more efficiently (i.e. cheaper to the consumer), and 2) while adhering to #1, can the government provide these services in a deficit neutral fashion. Also, I'd want to ensure that government would play by the same rules as the private providers. Even then, I'm not certain this is really the proper role of government, which is why the idea of simply leasing space within the post office to private providers appeals to me.