Mind you, I've had my share of aggravating experiences with credit card companies, but in my experience the terms are spelled out in the customer agreement. If consumers don't like it, they can switch cards, stop carrying a balance (my approach), or stop using the cards altogether. Businesses are not slaves whose purpose is to provide for consumers' and legislators' wishes.
The purpose of the email was to ask me to sign a petition to stop the credit card companies from raising rates before the bill kicks in! Therefore, not only will companies be subject to another series of unjust restrictions, but also Udall and others are trying to prevent them from exercising their last few months of freedom by charging what they choose. Despicable.
I wrote the following to the Senator:
I am writing to ask you to stop your credit card petition.
It is bad enough that the Credit CARD Act was enacted to restrict free trade by determining the rates companies can charge and when they can charge them. Now you want to close the last option they have to recoup costs before the measures go into effect? Both the original bill and the petition are reprehensible.
Additionally, in light of recent bank failures, is it really a good thing to have banks with less profit and cash flow? If they had more profits, perhaps they would have weathered the recent crises (which were ultimately caused by government) better than they did.
Business should be free to engage in any practice they wish, provided they do not violate conditions of existing contracts, or commit actual fraud or theft. This law goes beyond that and violates their individual rights.
An adjustable rate means just that: it is ADJUSTABLE. If consumers don't like it, they can search for credit elsewhere.
Attacks on credit card companies threaten us all, because the principle of individual rights applies to us all. A loss of freedom here means a loss for everyone.