Credit card companies are, and always have been, sleazy — though nowhere near as sleazy as health insurance companies (perhaps I’ll share my spittle-flecked manifesto on that subject at some future date).^*

Of course, it’s our own dang fault for running up our accounts and then wondering why we cannot get out from under all that crushing debt via faithfully making our minimum payments — all the while charging and charging until we exceed our credit limits, and our credit card companies start collecting even more fees.

However, the ethical conundrums of credit cards, personal responsibility, and blame and punishment aside, it is what it is and there’s not much left to do but to make a plan for paying off credit card debt.

Since the new credit card regulations have gone into effect, my credit card company web site now has a little calculator into which I enter my payment amount so that it can tell me how long it will take to pay off my balance and how much interest I will pay.

So, if I pay the minimum payment, here’s how it works out:

Balance as of last statement: $35,331.19
Minimum payment due: $762.00
Estimated payoff date: May 2053 (519 Months, or over 43 forking YEARS!)
Estimated total interest: $45,404
Estimated total cost: $80,735

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!!!

OMG! WTF!

Okay, I’m gonna calm down now ’cause the handy dandy calculator reveals some powerful truths:

By upping my payments by just $238 per month (and either not using the card or implementing a pay/go system in which any new purchases are added to the regular monthly payment), substantial savings can be had:
Fixed Monthly Payment: $1000
Estimated Payoff Date: Nov 2013 (45 months)
Estimated Total Interest: $9025
Estimated Total Cost: $44,356

If I add just another $100 to that:
Fixed Monthly Payment: $1100
Estimated Payoff Date: Jun 2013 (40 months)
Estimated Total Interest: $7,967
Estimated Total Cost: $43,298

And if I up the payments to $1500
Fixed Monthly Payment: $1500
Estimated Payoff Date: Jun 2012 (28 months)
Estimated Total Interest: $5,455
Estimated Total Cost: $40,786

But what if I can only afford to add an extra $100 per month?
Fixed Monthly Payment: $862
Estimated Payoff Date: Aug 2014 (54 months)
Estimated Total Interest: $11,077
Estimated Total Cost: $46,408

Or simply to round up the minimum payment of $762 to $800 — an increase of only $38 per month?
Fixed Monthly Payment: $800
Estimated Payoff Date: Feb 2015 (60 months)
Estimated Total Interest: $12,352
Estimated Total Cost: $47,683

So, even paying just a little bit more every month (and doing pay/go with new purchases) makes a HUGE difference.

AMAZING!

^*unless Congressional Democrats evolve into vertebrates and pass health insurance reform sometime before I die.

Well, color me surprised! Five, count ‘em, five members of the party of “NO” actually said “Yes” to something.

Scott Brown (R-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Kit Bond (R-MO) and George Voinovich (R-OH), in a stunning spectacle of unimaginable bipartisanship voted to block a filibuster on a $15 billion jobs bill.

The relatively small, yet hardly insignificant, jobs package includes a Social Security tax break to encourage hiring, and allows small businesses to write off, instead of depreciating, purchases of large equipment. It will also replenish the Highway Trust Fund and expand the Build America Bonds program, which will help to create much-needed jobs.

On his blog, Mr. Brown writes, “This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work.”

Wow, principles.

And what does Mr. Brown get for having them (at least on this one, possibly only, occasion)?

Blog flames galore — as of this writing, 27 pages worth of mostly negative comments — including accusations of dishonesty and demands for refunds of campaign contributions. Of course, there is also the usual name calling; “RINO,” “sellout,” and even “marxist.”

Maybe it’s just me, but I think Mr. Brown’s detractors might be overreacting just a bit as Mr. Brown only voted in favor of letting the jobs bill go to the Senate floor, and he may still vote “no” when it comes time to actually pass the jobs bill.

I’m sure everyone’s all shocked and shaken by my startling confession — NOT.

After all, who likes paying taxes?

Anybody? Anybody?

[chirp] [chirp] [chirp]

Didn’t think so.

Okay, next question. Who wants to defend the likes of Joe Stack, the whacko who posted his spittle-flecked anti-IRS, anti-government manifesto/suicide note on the Internet, set his house on fire, then crashed his plane into an Austin, Texas office building, killing himself and IRS Manager, Vernon Hunter?

Apparently lots of people who also hate paying taxes.

Of course, most have done so with the caveat that they did not agree with how this anarchist kook expressed his grievances against the IRS, but they’re nonetheless empathizing/sympathizing with the sentiments of a crackpot whose troubles with the IRS were of his own making, not because of some government policy — other than the one that deals with folks who don’t pay their taxes.

Now, I did sorta, kinda understand the nutjob’s daughter, Samantha Bell, saying she regards her father as a hero for his anti-government position, even though she considers his final actions to be “inappropriate” and “wrong,” as grief can do strange things to people sometimes — which is a good reason for grieving people to stay well away from the media.

But this woman, in a classic demonstration of how those proverbial acorns don’t land very far from the trees from which they fell, also said, “if nobody comes out and speaks up on behalf of injustice, then nothing will ever be accomplished,” as if there’s “injustice” in the IRS going after people who don’t pay their taxes.

“I do not agree with his last action with what he did,” she said, “But I do agree about the government.”

Well, what about the government? That it expects all the people to pay their fair share of taxes, whether they like it or not, and that it will go after those who believe that they are above the law and refuse to pay theirs?

Or has it got something to do with how railing against the government is especially fashionable these days?

‘Cause there’s lots and lots of people who’re pissed at the government about something or another that most can’t quite articulate.

Sure, the economy sucks and the Congress can’t seem to get anything done because it’s populated with Republican “party of ‘NO’” douche bags and Democrat weenies who’re all wetpants scared of ‘em.

But America has a government that is of, by and for the people, so we, the people, really have no one else to blame but ourselves, and our pride.

And that’s exactly what it is. It seems that a number of our Congresscritters — Republicans as well as Democrats (never let it be said that we subscribe to any sort of partisanship, for we are loyal to no political party)– are representing the insurance companies rather than we, the people.

And what are these two “tough” issues? Believe it or not they are abortion and immigration — as if!

Now health care reform — or rather, health insurance reform — is supposed to extend coverage to tens of millions of Americans who do not have health insurance by requiring that almost everyone buy health insurance, while obliging businesses to cover their employees, and providing subsidies for lower-income people. It is also supposed to keep insurance companies from turning people away (or canceling their existing polices) due to their health status.

But now the House has to dither over the relatively minor issues of abortion and immigration.

The anti-abortion Democrats (yes, such creatures do exist) aren’t satisfied with the language regarding prohibitions against the federal funding of abortions. They say the stipulation that people will have to use their own money for abortions isn’t straightforward enough. Oh well, at least they don’t seem to be looking to outlaw abortion entirely, just a more solid declaration against use of federal funds for abortion.

They still cannot make up their minds about whether or not illegal immigrants would be allowed to buy insurance in some new purchasing exchange — whatever that’s supposed to be in its present incarnation. Regardless of rude Congressmen who shout “you lie” at the president, the White House doesn’t want illegals to have access to the exchange.

Of course, abortion and immigration, in and of themselves, are important issues, but they shouldn’t be holding up the larger issue of a very urgent need for insurance reform.