The 18% Solution

PROPOSAL:  If elected U.S. president in 2008, I will vigorously promote an 18% cap on credit card interest rates.

TEETH:  Giving "teeth" to my 18% cap proposal will be my refusal to sign into law any bill Congress cares to present to me, unless I get this 18%. [I have already promised that I will use these "teeth" - calling them a nuclear option on my recent post concerning Free National Health Insurance.]

According to their websites:

Hillary Clinton would: "Immediately impose an annual interest rate cap of 30 percent and work toward a lower cap."

Barack Obama would: "Cap Outlandish Interest Rates on Payday Loans and Improve Disclosure: Obama supports extending a 36 percent interest cap to all Americans." [NOTE: Obama does not, however, say anything about imposing any kind of interest rate cap on credit cards.]

About that 30% cap: How they voted:

On March 3, 2005 [wow, 3 long years ago!], Senate Amendment 31 to S.256 came to a vote: Purpose: "To limit the amount of interest that can be charged on any extension of credit to 30 percent."

Clinton supported it, while McCain and Obama voted against it.

How they'd handle the Credit Card Outrage, if elected president:

McCain: Since he worships the false god of the unfettered and deregulated marketplace, forgetaboutit...

Clinton: Hillary's use of the word "immediately" will be used to club her into submission. Citing the state of the economy, the sore-loser GOP will accuse her of being irresponsible for any attempt to "immediately impose an annual interest rate cap of 30 percent." GOP will further taunt her by shrieking, "How low does she intend to go?" in response to her pledge to "work toward a lower cap." By fusing these two concerns - "undue" haste and "unreasonably" low cap - the GOP will cow the ever-waffling Democrats into inaction.

NOTE: Anyone who still thinks the Democrats won't wilt under pressure hasn't paid much attention to how easily the Dems gave Bush every dollar he'd asked for in pursuit of his war in Iraq.

Obama: Barack will become guilty of trying too hard to please everybody. Though he might follow through on promoting at least some of the various reforms posted on his website, he will not impose caps because he does not want to alienate the financial services industry. In fact, Obama will not want to alienate anybody, in his eagerness to build a broad-based coalition in support of his presidency. Even though Obama will say NO to rate caps, he will say it eloquently thereby earning further accolades for his speechifying skills. [And we just love hearing him speak, don't we!]

Would I really insist on a cap of 18%, if I become president?

Yes I would, even if credit card companies insist that they would grant credit to only the most creditworthy Americans at that rate. Even if they threaten to take their entire credit-card business overseas. My response to these threats? I would ask the Congress to add special provisions to my Omnibus Credit Reform Act:

• Prohibitions against US card companies from shifting their business overseas

• Incentives to allow smaller banks and smaller private equity firms to pool their resources to take the place of the big lenders who decide to cut off the "uncreditworthy."

• Incentives to allow foreigners to engage in credit card operations in the United States.

In addition, I would move against the major US credit card companies in terms of anti-trust actions in court. Yes, I'd sue the bastards, which is more than you - as an ordinary citizen - can do since you don't happen to have a Justice Department at your disposal.

One thing truly does lead to another

I'm going to come out right now and declare to the world: "I am a simple man."

I am so simple, I just don't understand how the price of oil gushes up from $10 a barrel in 1998 to over $120 now. Everybody agrees that oil is such a vital commodity. Yet magically, we were quite capable of absorbing this twelve-fold increase within a ten-year period of time. I'm almost afraid to ask this question (almost, but not quite): "How high can oil be priced before our economy just can't take it any more?"

One thing truly does lead to another, especially questions from me. And this is a good thing, but only if you'll elect me as your next president thereby empowering me to ask. This, in turn, will force others to answer. Powerful others. Others, who would rather remain silent, but from whom I (as President) can pry some long overdue answers.

Hillary Clinton will not ask any provocative or embarrassing questions.

Ditto for that Sweet-Talkin' Coalition-Buildin' Machine, Barack Obama.

John McCain? Puh-leeze!

Can you imagine Mac III asking why our military budget is so high? According to the CIA Factbook (as quoted in the May/June 2008 issue of Adbusters):

Military spending by the U.S. in fiscal year 2008: $623 billion.

In the same year, the nefarious Russians spent only $5 billion more than that formerly great colonial power France (which spent $45 billion). [Why so much by the French? Do they want their colonies back?]

What about those fiendish orientals? The Chinese, I mean. The Red Chinese, I meaner. They aim to do us dirty by spending the lordly sum of $65 billion, which is more than we'd earmarked for our Adventure in Iraq in that same period. [What do the Red Chinese really want? Our women? Well, they do have too many young men and not enough...]

Yet, not a single one of the Dem/Pub presidential wannabes even thinks to question our addiction to things military. Or any other fundamental assumptions. In fact, I'm sure they would panic at the thought of the recessionary impact of demobilization. I've often wondered how a society (any society) could find it profitable to divert large numbers of young men and women in the prime of their lives in order to do nothing. That is, do nothing which contributes to the economic well-being of (I'll go for it here) the entire planet.

There are even those who believe we can't afford to more than slightly reduce the manpower in our armed forces, since our job market wouldn't be able to absorb them. We have to rethink this: Maybe the money freed up by reducing our massive military expenditures could be plowed back into the civilian economy thereby creating jobs for those ex-soldiers. Maybe those ex-soldiers, with proper training and education, could become visionary forces for peace by acting in their best capacity - as liberated human beings in pursuit of their dreams and a greater good.

You've got to have the right man in the right place to ask the right questions

I'm the right man. The presidency is the right place. I'll ask the right questions.

In addition, though, I'll listen to suggestions. Case in point: Suppose Congress and my economic advisors (help wanted: any takers?) convince me that an 18% cap on credit card interest rates isn't possible. Suppose they convince me that 20% is the best I could hope for, without "wrecking" the economy. Would I sign such a bill into law?

If Congress presented such a bill to me (with a 20%, not an 18%, cap), I would sign it into law. I am not an unreasonable man, though I will say this: They'd have to really convince me.

What about my campaign promise? In exchange for your vote in this election, I'm promising an 18% cap. Violating my promise by settling for 20% would mandate that I lose my office. The sanctity of my written word is the lynchpin of my entire campaign as well as my particular brand of reform politics. However, keep in mind how my contract is to be enforced: My enforcement mechanism depends on Congress impeaching me if I violate the terms of my written contract.

Wouldn't that be ironic? By signing into law a bill that Congress itself approves, I open the door to my impeachment. Indeed, I would plead guilty during my impeachment trial, meaning Congress would encounter absolutely no resistance from me. They would be free to remove me from office.

Of course, that would mean they would have to contend with my vice president who, by taking my place, would then become president. And they might not like her as much as they'd like me. But more than that: I dare say Congress wouldn't dare to impeach me under such a circumstance. And you'd be right if you would draw this conclusion: "Steven Searle doesn't think much of Congressional fortitude, does he?"

Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2008

The Best Party Available

"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer - only because We-the-People allow this to happen" - Steve.

Contact me: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Contributions to my campaign are welcome: Go to:

http://bpa-cinc.gaia.com/blog/2007/12/for_sale_my_free_books_title_page

Open Invitation: I hereby waive all copyright protection for any material I've posted on Zaadz/Gaia with these exceptions: I reserve the right to disseminate this material, claim authorship credit for it and any compensation I can negotiate. However, if anyone wishes to use these essays, they are free to do so. I do not require that advance permission be obtained, that I be paid any royalties, or that I receive author's credit or even be notified of intent to use. I truly want anyone "out there" to feel free to use these essays, in original or modified form, for whatever purposes they deem worthy.