Posted 7:32 PM by steve

I don't expect much from so-called business reporters, but AP writer Anne Flaherty fails to meet even those low expectations in this article on the Senate's move to restrict credit card companies.

For example, she justifies Congressional action because "... money is tight in most households".. but where is the justification for that claim? Most households haven't suffered the loss of a job and most households aren't behind on their mortgage. As far as I know, most households have suffered no loss of income which would, at best, lead to money being tight on a figurative and not literal basis.

The reporter also claims that "members of Congress didn't want to face voters in the 2010 election without proof that they are listening to constituents crushed by foreclosure rates and joblessness" and she claims that "the jobless rate rose to 8.9 percent in April, and some economists predict it could rise into double digits" and "the number of foreclosures jumped 32 percent in April compared with the same month last year". Again, ignoring the fact that most constituents are NOT losing their houses and are NOT without jobs, is she claiming that this credit card bill is the Senate's answer to those out of work and/or losing their home? That this bill is a sop thrown to those folks? If so, then where's the interview with someone out of work, asking them how happy they are that they won't be hit with late fees on their next credit card statement? And if not, then why the references to foreclosures and joblessness, other than to throw some irrelevant statistics into the story?

And she uncritically accepts Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney's claim that "Today is a victory for all credit cardholders". On the contrary. I am not going to benefit, nor are even 'most' credit cardholders going to benefit from these changes as I, along with the majority of cardholders, don't engage in the behavior that results in these charges being levied. This bill benefits a self-selecting group of cardholders, namely those who exceed their credit limit, pay late or do something that lowers their credit rating. For everybody else, those who play by the rules, this bill does nothing.

And while she gives lip service to and buries at the end the arguments given by credit card companies opposed to these changes, nowhere does she address the concerns of on-time payers afraid that they'll be charged fees and higher interest rates as credit card companies try to make up from them the money they won't be able to get from those who don't pay their bills on time and who run over their limit. To me, this is a classic case of the majority being punished for the sins of a relative few... and nowhere does the reporter mention this at all.