As obvious through a recent PR Release, Rep. Carolyn Maloney believes that sugar-coating status quos will change what we have grown to know (as facts): “That 45-day period gives you nearly two billing cycles to do more than complain — to shop around for a card whose rate and terms of service you prefer.” Wow! Is it change — with teeth? (Please.) We have already been doing that for more than two years – while hearing foreign customer service agents of “banks” like Citi and Capital One tell us “If you don’t like it, you can close your account.” Were interest rates capped? No. Since passing the Credit CARD Act, has First Premier Bank escalated a sub-prime rate to 79.9%, Legally? Yes. “Laws like the CARD Act are reasonable and allow markets to function as market enthusiasts imagine they should: with less friction, more transparency, and with bad actors being driven from the field.” As a historic “bad actor,” was First Premier “driven from the field,” or, was it (like “prime” providers) emboldened? Having collectively witnessed and experienced the results of a rampant savaging of our world’s citizens and overall economic system, is it “reasonable” to “allow markets” to go forward, basically unfettered with any returning or meaningfully modified regulation? Moreover, how insulting (and detrimental) is it to have Representatives selling such a premise? After 100 million people (including the best tier of customers) were gouged into 29.9% (Usury) rates, as redress, did they seek what was “reasonable” in the view of their predators? “Once interest rates, terms and conditions are clearly stated . . . the consumer can make a clear-headed decision about what card to choose.” Got that? New language! New (“responsible”) consumer choices! Same results: “If you don’t like it, you can close your account.” In July of last year, Rep. Maloney seemed to be amazed that Citi, Chase, and BoA, were continuing their predatory practices: “Issuers during this crisis should be using this period to adapt . . . , not raising rates and changing terms on those who are already meeting their obligations.” Yet now, she is praising them – because they are making terms “easy to understand” (with notices): “There are some companies that seem to get it. Chase and Citi have added cards and services to their lineup which are simple and easy to understand. Bank of America sent notices far in advance to their customers explaining the new rules.” Let us respond – vociferously. In this collusive scenario, our incensed reactions and motivated decisions are just as “clear-headed” now as before. When the Act failed to take effect immediately, and did not cap rates or fees, all the relevant “actors” indeed “[got] it” – as we, the public, proceeded “[getting] it” in our updated terms (so to speak).