Embedded deep within all legislation are wondrous penumbras and other emanating clauses that bestow on Congress the ability and power to foul up your life, big time. So it's no real surprise that such things slip past our notice only to be uncovered when the new regulations interfere with our life as we choose to live it. Such is with folks under 21 who are clamoring for credit. Better apply soon, because the window will close on February 22nd. Patrice Peyret writing at the HuffPo acknowledges the unjustness of the law, but rather than advocating for its withdrawal, counsels how to deal with the new rules.

It's unfair. At age 18, you can vote for president, go to jail as an adult and join the army. But beginning Feb. 22, you can't get a credit card. Why? Because some banking executives got greedy and Congress passed new restrictions.

Some of that has to do with what Peyret's company does.

If the Internet is part of your daily life, consider opting for an online prepaid card account. (In the interest of full disclosure, my company offers this kind of account.) This is similar to a checking account plus debit card, but without overdraft fees or physical bank buildings.

While I disagree with blaming banks specifically for bad debt, I don't think the solution is to accept the new normal and adjust. Limitations on the commencement of contracts between to parties should be rare, and only when an overiding benefit to societal interests is obvious. The arbitrary nature of this provision, punishing responsible 19 year-olds while giving a pass to irresponsible 22 year-olds, gives rise to the worst one-size fits all fears of government regulation. Rather than approaching individuals as individuals, pass a blanket law to protect everyone from themselves, much like we do with drinking and drugs and even smoking, where the responsibility of parents is abrogated in favor of a simpler system where the correct answer to "why can't I have a beer/smoke/toke?" is in fact "because I said so" with the the role of "I" played by Uncle Sam. no comments

From the don't quit your day job files comes this remarkable piece from noted actor and left-wing partisan, Alec Baldwin. Baldwin is a terrific entertainer, whether chewing scenerey in feature films or the small screen. But his policy idea, seemingly summed up in the snippet below that concludes his piece, leaves much to be desired.

Putting a major oil company out of business. That's a war worth fighting.

I'm not sure Baldwin's reasoning, or if such a thing exists. But I'm going to guess "Because too many Americans have jobs, dammit" isn't it. Still that would be the result of a major oil company going bankrupt. First, thousands of Americans would lose their jobs. Secondly, with fewer providers, the costs of fuel would increase, which seems to escape Baldwin's thesis.

My biggest problem is that I agree with much of whaty Baldwin says here.

Energy policy is the lynch pin of nearly all of our other economic problems. And our dependence on oil is the tragic path that we are are still on, two wars in the Middle East in twenty years later, in order to deliver oil. Oil that costs so much more than what you read at the pump. You factor in both of those wars, the deaths of our brave soldiers, and the looming bill that our society will have to pay for our lack of maturity, foresight and courage on this front, the costs are incalculable.

We continue to indirectly fund terror by literally pumping wealth into a region of the world that is inherently unstable. Because we need that which they provide, we cannot take a hard stand on their malfeasance. Whether the wars were fought for oil as Baldwin claims, is largely irrelevant. Our choice has been to rely on others for the sustenance of our lifestyle, rather than providing for ourselves. That's hardly a conservative position. It's definitely not a libertarian one. Still, getting to the reasonable goal of energy independence by pushing people out of their jobs because the company they work for is perceived as "evil" is hardly the way to go. And in a pair of sentences, a reasonable argument careens off the tracks. no comments