Thanks but No Thanks

Let me see if I get this right.  It angered Senator Durbin and others that banks were getting so much $ on debit card transactions.  So the answer was to force reduction of those fees.  Done.  Period.

Was it broken?  Did it need fixing?  Free enterprise implies no intervention.  If the retailers thought the transaction fees (they paid them) were too high, they would have done one of two things.  Not accepted debit card transactions or build the fee into their normal cost of doing business.  Bingo.

So we all paid the extra $ for the retailer accepting debit card payments.  But don't we also cover the 2 or 3% credit card fees?  Don't we indirectly cover all of the retailer's banking fees?

If the market had no problem with these fees, why fix it?  Did Senator Durbin really want all debit card users to face monthly fees?  He stuck his thumb in the dike but it didn't need it.  So, now banks will charge for debit card usage.  So?

Users may time their usage.  Say, wait until Tuesday to buy something because that will mean I had a whole month not using the card and therefore save $5 fee for the month?

I might suggest that Bank of America will get even more $ from the $60/year charges to each account tied to a debit card.

The kicker is, Durbin picked the winners and losers.  If a bank isn't too big, it will not be affected.  Helping the little guy.

Anyone read Atlas Shrugged lately?

'til later