You know what we really need in these tough economic times (besides guaranteed, affordable health care, affordable housing, jobs)? How about rational credit card policies that would make it harder for the banks to gouge their customers?
That's supposedly what the Senate just passed. Here's some of what the credit card reform legislation could do for American consumers:
The Senate measure would require that consumers get 45 days' notice before any new interest rates, fees or finance charges went into effect. Interest rates couldn't be increased during the first year an account is open, and promotional rates must remain in effect for at least six months.
It would prohibit issuers from imposing retroactive rate increases until consumers are more than 60 days behind in payments. After six months, if the consumers have paid the minimum balances on time, the lower rates would return.
The bill also would require parents or guardians to guarantee any debts assumed by cards issued to most people younger than 21, unless the young people have sufficient independent income.
It's not the bill it could have been. Originally, the bill's author, Senator Chris Dodd, would have banned all interest rate increases on existing balances, but in the give and take process of getting a bill that could garner enough support to overcome a Republican filibuster, some of the provisions got watered down.
What no one was expecting was the attack to come from the far right in the form of Tom Coburn, who seemed to be doing the bidding of both the banks and the NRA simultaneously by attaching the most extreme version of an already controversial bill to allow guns back in national parks, overturning a Reagan-era rule. That's where the cynicism comes in--tying such a hot-button issue as guns (one which Democrats have no interest in pursuing) in it's most extreme form to a bill that is important to helping Americans.
Coburn's amendment goes far beyond what the Bush administration tried to do, which was to allow loaded, concealed weapons in parks for people with concealed carry permits. That was disturbing enough to former park officials and park rangers, and for a federal judge who blocked implementation on the rule because none of the required environmental review had been done before the government tried to enact it. Coburn's bill goes as far as to allow openly carried rifles, shotguns, and even semi-automatic weapons in parks, depending on whether the weapon is in compliance with state law.
Coburn's stated purpose for the bill is “to protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges,” and about allowing park visitors to protect themselves from attacks from other visitors and animals. This is a somewhat specious argument considering "crime statistics indicate the rate of violent crime in the parks comes to 1.65 per 100,000 park visitors. The national crime rate comes to 469.2 per 100,000 people." On top of that, the proposed law does not alter the current prohibition on shooting wildlife in national parks and refuges.
Not surprisingly, a coalition of groups have organized against the effort, sending a letter to President Obama asking him to halt the bill. The National Parks Conservation Association, The Humane Society of the United States, Violence Policy Center, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence are among the groups signed onto the letter. Most compelling is the argument from Scot McElveen, a retired chief park ranger and current president of the Association of National Park Rangers, which represents 1,200 current and former park rangers.
“Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting,” said Mr. McElveen.
“One of our members reported to me that in Yellowstone National Park, rangers found an 11-year-old kid on the side of the road illegally shooting at squirrels with his dad. When confronted, his dad said, 'I always carry a loaded pistol, and these are just squirrels.' If he had not been carrying a readily-accessible, loaded firearm, I don’t think this incident would have happened,” he added.
“The presence of a loaded weapon is one of the only clues available for rangers to discover and prosecute those who illegally kill wildlife,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. “Allowing loaded weapons in national parks will put wildlife—and possibly park visitors—in the crosshairs, as well as create even more law enforcement challenges for already overtaxed park rangers.”
What President Obama could, or would be willing, to do at this point is unclear. He wanted a clean bill reforming credit cards on his desk before Memorial Day. The House has already passed a version of the bill, one without such "poison pills" attached. President Obama could insert himself into the debate, but it's unlikely. On the House side, Steny Hoyer has basically cried "uncle" on the gun issue. It will pass despite the opposition of strong progressives like Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Westerner who clearly understands the gun issue and at the same time recognizes a "gotcha amendment" and whose primary concern is that this will make the parks a more dangerous place.
Democrats showed that they really don't want to have this debate, which means just one good thing for Americans: the banks didn't get the help they wanted from Coburn to kill the bill, so that cynical ploy failed. And nobody will care until park rangers or park wildlife start getting mowed down.
Note: a pre-passage version of this post ran at New West.