Chase Blueprint offers certain cardholders the ability to calculate the amount of money that they will save by paying more than the minimum payment each month. After you tell Chase how quickly you would like to pay off the debt, it tells you how much you should pay monthly in order to reach your goal.

In my view, the more helpful part of Chase Blueprint is the section which allows you to avoid paying interest on certain categories of purchases. As I understand it, you can tell chase that you want to pay off all of your purchases at gas stations and grocery stores every month, while making just the minimum payment on all other purchases. By doing this, you can avoid making interest payments on the money that you charged at gas stations and grocery stores even though you do not pay off the balance on the credit card each month.

In effect, this tool on Chase Blueprint allows you to avoid monthly interest rate charges on select categories of purchases that you intend to pay off every month without the hassle of opening up a second credit card for these purchases.

While I’m not a big fan of the glorified payment calculator which seems to be garnering most of the attention in the news stories that I saw, I actually like the idea behind the portion of Chase Blueprint known as “Full Pay.” I don’t particularly care whether Chase Blueprint was introduced in order to deflect some of the negative media attention that happened during the Congressional debate over the new credit card rules, or a more self-interested attempt to capture market share. It seems like a small step in the right direction - and I welcome it. I just hope that there isn’t any fine print that negates this benefit.

You can read more about the new tools and sign up on the website for Chase Blueprint. Chase Blueprint is available on Chase Slate, Chase Freedom, Chase Sapphire, Chase Platinum, and Chase Ink credit cards. If you have questions about whether your card qualifies, Chase also says you can call the number on the back of your credit card and ask.

The de facto policy of the federal government, if I have read the situation correct, is that a homeowner on unemployment must race to find another job before the bank can proceed through the foreclosure process to take their home. If they are able to find work again before the bank forecloses on their home through the judicial process, at a salary somewhat sufficient to support the home, the homeowner can then apply for a loan modification from their mortgage company. If they can’t find work, they are left with the option of pursuing a quick short sale or losing their home.

That policy just doesn’t make much sense.

When the Federal Government passed the economic stimulus plan in March, it provided temporary relief in another area that had burdened families hit by unemployment: health insurance. COBRA has offered laid off workers the right to continue their corporate sponsored health plan if they picked up the tab for many years. The problem with the system was that the health insurance premiums were so high and the weekly unemployment benefits so low that many were unable financially to take advantage of continued coverage through COBRA. As part of the stimulus plan, the government offered to subsidize 65% of the cost of COBRA health insurance for unemployed workers for up to nine months. It was a great idea and one that should be extended beyond its current limited term.

The federal government should create a similar provision for troubled homeowners who have been laid off. By subsidizing mortgage payments for those who have lost their income, the burden on the courts, the financial system, and the real estate market of the unemployed could be diminished.

The premise behind unemployment is that workers need a temporary solution to bridge the gap between the paycheck from their next job and the one that they have just lost. Why then does the mortgage modification program treat these homeowners as if they are a lost cause who will never be able to afford their home again? And why should society pay the cost of these foreclosures through higher interest rates and lower home prices when a government solution could cost less?

Why would I care enough about unemployment to break the silence here? Unfortunately, I’ve had a great deal of experience with unemployment. I’ve filed for unemployment twice and spent a shockingly high percentage of time after college graduation living on a government paycheck. Based on this experience, I fully support efforts to extend the length of time in which individuals are covered by unemployment. I also support efforts to increase the amount payable weekly on unemployment, but like Congress I’ll leave that debate for another time.

The nation’s unemployment is also a highly appropriate topic to be discussed here. Bankruptcy, foreclosure, and defaults on credit card debt are often tied to the loss of income when one’s job disappears. And if individuals are to tackle their debt problems, they need jobs that are stable and pay a sufficient amount to allow them to pay their creditors.

It is also an interesting time for the debate about unemployment benefits to be happening. AIG shares soared today on rumors of a proposal to (again) restructure the government’s deal with AIG. There has been discussion about the credit markets easing one year after they froze following the collapse of Lehman Brothers. And this recession has already lasted well past the average length of a recession (about a year). Is the wave of articles about unemployment in newspapers and the increase in the nation’s unemployment rate simply a lagging indicator from the recession that some believe is ending or simply the start of what some fear will be a double dip recession?

From the figures that I have seen discussed in news stories, 400,000 on unemployment will run out of benefits by the end of September. By the end of 2009, that number could rise to 1.5 million.

Congress has already done some great things for the unemployed so far, like extending benefits from 26 weeks to a maximum of 79 weeks, as well as subsidizing health insurance coverage through COBRA. At the same time, it is hard to argue about the greatness of a system that pays an average of $300 a week. I also don’t think that anyone can argue that there have been sufficient efforts to help the unemployed from losing their homes to foreclosure.

The House bill sponsored by Representative McDermott would extend unemployment benefits for another 13 weeks in states with unemployment rates above 8.5 percent. Let’s pass it and start considering how to reform the system so that half a million people can worry about finding a good job and keeping their home rather than simply surviving.

I haven’t had a chance to read the full bill, but the key provisions of the credit card law as I understand them are:

• Banks may only raise interest rates on existing balances if the cardholder is 60 days late on a payment. If a credit card company does raise your interest rates, it must return it to the original interest rate if you make 6 consecutive on-time monthly payments. No more surprise interest rate increases after you have charged purchases at a low interest rate!

• The interest rate on future credit card purchases can only be increased with 45 days notice. I believe there are also new rules governing teaser rates - the initial, low or no interest rate credit card rates can’t be raised for the first year after opening a credit card account.

• Payments on credit cards with more than one interest rate must be applied first to the debt with the highest rate.

• The bill requires credit card applicants who are under 21 (in other words, college students) either have the ability to repay the money borrowed or have a parent will cosign for them.

• The legislation also requires plain language disclosures so that contracts are easier to understand.

• No fee for paying a credit card bill by online or through an automated phone system.

• No fee may be charged for purchases made which put you over your credit limit unless you are notified that it will put you over the limit and you authorize the charge to your card anyway. I’ve also seen this worded slightly differently - in that there will be a system to allow you to opt in if you would like charges over your limit to go through but the bank will be limited to charging three fees per incident.

We’ll have plenty more information on the changes in the next few days and weeks. Don’t forget to subscribe to our rss feed or our email delivery so that you automatically get our new posts. Here are just a few of our recent posts that may be of interest to you in the meantime:

• Senate passes credit card bill.

• A real credit card bill of rights.

• Credit card compromise considered by Congress.

Today, newspapers are reporting that President Obama’s administration is actively discussing the creation of a financial products regulator to act as a consumer protection agency related to mortgages, mutual funds, and credit cards. The announcement of the Obama consumer protection plan, as I have seen it called already, will likely be an opening salvo in the battle to increase regulation of financial institutions in the wake of the credit crunch.

Details for the new financial regulator are still murky, as the turf battle between government regulatory bodies to maintain their power is expected to be fierce. Already, the Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman has publicly questioned the transfer of some of the SEC’s consumer protection powers to a new regulatory body.

To get a better picture of the idea behind the proposal for a new financial watchdog, you should check out the work of Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren, who has been given credit for the idea since she proposed a Financial Product Safety Commission to protect consumers engaging in financial transactions in 2007.

The headlines in the newspaper and margin of victory in the Senate suggest that the tide has swung against the credit card lobby … but has it really?

The key provision of the credit card bill passed by the Senate eliminates surprise interest rate increases on existing credit card balances. The interest rate on preexisting credit card debt may only be increased, under the legislation, if the cardholder is 60 days past due. However, if the cardholder then makes six consecutive on time monthly payments, the credit card company must restore the original interest rate. The legislation also codifies portions of the Federal Reserve regulations on credit card practices which were scheduled to be implemented in July 2010, as the House bill does.

Travis Plunkett of the Consumer Federation of America called the bill “landmark legislation” in an article on the Washington Post website today. The legislation is a giant step forward in the regulation of the constantly shifting terms and conditions of the credit card industry. But I’m not sure that I would go nearly as far as Mr. Plunkett has, however. News stories that I read this morning indicated that credit card companies will increasingly charge annual fees and eliminate grace periods for the imposition of interest charges in response to the government’s efforts to crack down on financial institutions’ credit card practices. Although these stories indicate that the bank’s best customers will be required to pick up the tab for the bill’s protection of troubled borrowers, I have no doubt that they will find methods to squeeze additional profits from the average American who carries a monthly balance on the credit cards. The bill jst isn’t all that comprehensive.

The bill could have been much more restrictive on the practices of the credit card companies. The Senate amendment to cap interest rate charges on credit cards was defeated by a vote of 60 Senators last week. And to my knowledge, the bill offers no protection for those carrying debt from the interest rate increases which they are likely to face on their existing balances between now and the implementation of the new credit card law. Although we won’t know when the new legislation will go into effect until the differences between the House and Senate bills are worked out, credit card companies will likely have another 9 to 12 months before the majority of the rules go into effect.

It reminds of a deal between a reluctant parent and a willing child, where the parent gives the child enough to satisfy the child but not nearly as much as the child would like. Congress has given the American public “landmark legislation” with provisions that improve the balance between creditors and debtors, but it is still unclear whether the legislation will put credit cardholders on an equal footing with their lenders. Or even … gasp … tilt the balance of power in favor of consumers.

Important? Yes. Landmark? That remains to be seen.

Reform of the credit card industry is long overdue, but I now hope that the final bill isn’t called the credit card bill of rights. I’ve liked the idea of a set of basic principles which everyone can agree should govern interactions between consumers since I first heard the name. However, as the Senate bill is debated, and the House bill already passed, I don’t think that the legislation holds a candle to its predecessor - the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. So I decided to come up with the 10 principles that I would use to craft credit card and debt reform.

In other words, here’s my first crack at a real credit card bill of rights:

1. A credit card company must fully disclose details about its credit cards before entering into a contract with a consumer for credit. Like a company is required to pass information along to its shareholders and potential shareholders, the credit card industry needs to be more transparent to those with whom it does business. Here’s the type of details I think consumers would need to make a fully informed decision: (a) the average interest rate of all cardholders, and cardholders in the consumers credit score range; (b) the average interest rate increase for cardholders from the promotional rate and when this increase usually occurs; (c) the annual fee, if any; (d) the percentage of consumers serving a penalty rate; (e) the amount of money the bank expects to earn from the consumer yearly; (f) the number of consumers with that card who pay off their bill every month; (g) the average balance of those consumers who don’t pay off their balance every month; and (h) the number of people who are more than 30 days late.

2. A credit card company may only report limited information to a credit bureau. The credit card industry holds consumers hostage with the threat of a negative report on their credit history. Let’s diminish the credit score’s importance by limiting the type of information financial institutions can report (is one late payment really creditworthy?), the amount that they can report (perhaps every 90 days?), and other short term measures that may have little relevance on creditworthiness.

3. A credit card company must credit a payment to the consumer’s account upon notification a payment has been made. In the age of the internet, does anyone believe that a payment made at 4:59 PM should be treated differently than a payment made at 5:01 PM? Or that a payment has to be scheduled 2 days in advance to work? No. They are both ridiculous and need to be put to rest.

4. A credit card company may not charge a fee to collect a payment. Cash, Check, Debit, Electronic Payment, Over the Phone, or any other method should all be the same price: Nothing.

5. A payment processor may not charge more than a negligible amount for processing a transaction. One amendment today sought to make it easier for stores to prefer cash over credit. Let’s put a stop to talk of a two price society by giving both consumers and merchants what they want: cheap credit transactions.

6. Late fees may not be unreasonable in size or timing of implementation. $35 for one or two days late sounds a bit excessive to me, don’t you think?

7. Unilateral changes to a cardholder agreement by the credit card company are not permitted. Let’s put a stop to “fixed” variable payments, take it or leave it changes to card terms, increased interest rates on existing balances, and other credit nonsense. I’m not sure the best system to permit changes that both parties desire, but that’s why we’d have a Supreme Court to interpret this bill of rights.

8. A creditor may not make endless telephone calls and letters to a consumer about their unpaid debt. There’s no need to harass a debtor who doesn’t have the money to pay or has chosen not to pay. Let’s put an end to the creditor’s collection tactic of choice - call until a consumer pays them money to get them off the phone. Let’s give them one call and one letter a year after the first three months to communicate that a debt is owed and that the consumer is obligated to pay it. I don’t think most people take advantage of the law which allows them to have all communication in writing - so let’s change it.

9. All power not expressly granted by the government to the credit card companies are retained by the consumer. If the credit card industry has too much power, we need to find a way to transfer some back to the consumer. Let’s give the credit card companies (especially those that have become too big to fail) the same terms that we gave the government - they are restricted from doing everything that we don’t expressly permit them to do.

10. The courts should interpret disputes between credit card companies and consumers in favor of consumer protection. For years, consumers have argued that credit card company actions were unfair and the courts ignored them. Now, the majority of the legislature seems to agree that card issuers were out of control. Let’s give the courts instructions not to wait for legislative action next time.

How’s that for a first draft of a real Credit Card Bill of Rights. What would you change? What did I miss?

I bet one of the things you are wondering is why I don’t have a cap on interest rates as part of the bill of rights. It was the subject of two amendments today - one capping rates at 15 percent and one at 36 percent. But I’ve written my “bill of rights” to focus on providing the consumer information and limiting the consequences of the parts of credit that people don’t plan for (like late fees and increased interest rates). But as much as I believe that interest rates shouldn’t be allowed to be usury, I also think that a person should be able to make their own decisions about whether they are getting a good deal on the terms of their credit and debt. It’s the changes and unplanned implications of those terms (like late fees) that I’m primarily concerned with more than the terms at the beginning. So I’d be willing to limit increases in interest rates, but not well informed decisions by consumers who need credit and are willing to pay a higher price for it. For example, at the height of the subprime mortgage boom, a borrower could get a fixed interest rate for a mortgage at around 7 percent. Even though that may be outrageous compared to today’s under 5 percent rates, it’s a much better deal then during the 1970s. So it’s all relative, and in the future a cap of 15 percent might be ridiculous. A bill of rights should be written to transcend these changes.

I’d also like to have restrictions on reductions in credit lines by credit card companies. For example, Advanta essentially told its small business credit cardholders today that it would no longer allow them to use their card for credit transactions after June 10. Essentially, one million small businesses just lost their funding. To me, that’s the 21st Century equivalent of a bank during the Great Depression closing (before FDIC deposit insurance). But which one would you remove in order to make room for it?

On Saturday in his weekly radio / internet address, President Obama demanded that Congress send him credit card reform legislation to sign by Memorial Day. I was a bit disappointed when I first heard about Obama’s call to action. I know it may be idealistic, but I expect the President to present a bill to Congress to pass on an issue as important as credit card reform. Sure, he’s got some “talking points” out there on the subject, but I don’t consider that leadership. To compound his lack of a plan, a timetable for action of under thirty days seemed to be setting himself up for another demonstration of his lack of real political capital (isn’t that bankruptcy cramdown bill still floating around somewhere?). I might be a little bit more forgiving of Obama’s demand without a plan if the House of Representatives hadn’t already demonstrated that the best that 400+ of our elected officials could do on the issue of credit cards was pass a measure to implement the Federal Reserve’s coming regulations a bit sooner than would have otherwise happened.

Now, there’s been a flurry of news reports about a compromise between Senator Christopher Dodd and Senator Richard Shelby that would have our new credit card law, as I understand it, ban interest rate hikes on existing credit card balances unless the cardholder was more than 60 days past due. At that point, the interest rate on the balance of the debt could be retroactively increased. However, if the consumer made 6 consecutive on time monthly payments, the credit card company would be required to lower the interest rate back to the pre-penalty rate.

In theory, I like it. I just worry that (a) it won’t be enough and it will sap the momentum for credit card and debt reform; or (b) it will be like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and impose a lot of cost onto the system without making credit any more affordable.

Why do I worry that it won’t be enough? It doesn’t do anything to lower rates on current credit card debt. If you’ve been suffering through a high interest rate because you missed a payment and the interest rate on your existing balance got raised, will you be able to have it lowered under the plan? Or will you have to still call the credit card company on your knees and grovel (that’s “ask for a lower rate” in newspaper columnist debt-advice-speak)? Or will you have to find a lender that will be willing to allow you to transfer your debt to a new card to take advantage of the rules?

Why do I worry that it will be like the SOX? Because the aim of Sarbanes-Oxley was to increase corporate transparency and improve accounting after Enron and other corporate financial scandals, yet less than a decade later we’ve discovered that our financial institutions were in pretty severe trouble and only a select few (who shorted the stocks and made a fortune) believed that they were insolvent until (in some cases days) before they had to reveal that it was true. If the banks find another way to charge cardholders outrageous fees in order to secure their profits ($100 late fees anyone?), then the bill will only have put the monster to rest for a little while.

That’s not to say that I’m opposed to the compromise. I like the idea but I’d like to see more details about how the bill is going to tie everything together. The credit card lobby is strong, and I’d like to see the loose ends tied up while there’s some momentum for it in government.

I have thought about writing down my own opinions about President Obama’s start since hearing the first story about two weeks ago. I’m a pessimistic optimist at the moment. I’m inspired when Obama speaks and I think he articulates an interesting and exciting vision of the world. In reality, I just don’t know if he’s a strong enough leader to take us there. I think he and his office have tripped over their own feet a few times and gotten very little done in the face of massive economic problems. I doubt that he can accomplish what he says he will accomplish. And I’m scared that if he gets us there, it won’t be as good a world as promised.

When I look back at what he’s done so far, what he’s promised to do, and what he’s been unable to do, I just haven’t been motivated to write about it. Of course, there’s reason to care that actions are taken swiftly to address the problems of credit card debt and foreclosures. Families are no doubt losing their home to foreclosure every day. Banks are slashing credit lines to customers and raising interest rates on remaining debt. And every day of debt is additional interest owed to the banks.

But, in some ways, our need for, and expectation of, immediate gratification has gotten us into this mess. We shouldn’t expect to reverse the course of the nation and the economy so quickly.

I see the fight to improve the financial position of households in the United States as a marathon, not a sprint. The officials don’t stop a marathon after the first mile and declare the winner of the race. In reality, the leading runner so early in the race might not even finish amongst the fastest runners.

If this were a basketball game, every year of the president’s term of office would be a quarter, and the first 100 days would probably mark around the amount of time before the first television timeout. Just enough time to get your starters warm but usually not enough time to win or lose the game.

I simply don’t care that much how Obama’s first 100 days have gone. He’s no doubt made some mistakes. He’s probably even got a few things right. What I really care about is whether he recognizes when a mistake is made, learns from it, and avoids the same type of mistake in the future. He hasn’t lost the game in the first 100 days - and in this economy that’s saying alot.

I would have liked a stronger regulatory approach to the problem of foreclosures. I would have liked him to meet with the credit card executives earlier in his term. I would have liked the economic stimulus package to create an internet superhighway rather than start shovel-ready projects. I would like to have heard that there is no longer any truth to the claim that the banks aren’t lending.

There’s going to be alot of opportunities to win or lose the game over the course of the next four years. With the problems he has to tackle, it is probably going to be a see saw battle most of the way. But in the end, I really only care if he makes the shots that count. You know - the one with ten seconds left in the game to tie it, and then the one that follows it up in overtime to win it. There’s still 3 years and 200 plus days left in President Obama’s first term. Plenty of time to learn from mistakes and improve.

In other words, I’ll be fine with credit card reform on day 101.

It’s the day on the government’s fiscal calendar in which the government can no longer claim to be spending money that it will take in over the course of the fiscal year. Every dollar spent from now until the government’s fiscal year ends on September 30 adds to the national debt.

In the past few years, Debt Day has fallen between July and September. Deficit spending this year accounts for just over 5 months of the government’s budget.

While I’m generally in favor of government spending in a recession to offset the contraction of the economy, I think we can all agree that our government’s spending is out of control. It’s pretty sad that the only entity capable of bailing out the banks from their balance sheet problems is itself in pretty bad financial shape. There is no larger entity that can bailout the government if it gets itself in trouble. The debt will be passed on to us as taxpayers.

So, Happy Debt Day!