>
Article snippet: The rules of baseball can be pretty simple, especially when it comes to “three strikes, you’re out.” That type of thinking shouldn’t be limited to baseball though; there are other places where these rules could apply—such as Washington. If a law fails to live up to expectations, doesn’t benefit consumers, and harms small financial institutions, we should get rid of that policy. Yet, as the House demonstrated just weeks ago, that doesn’t always happen. When faced with the opportunity to end the Durbin amendment and bring relief to consumers, the House has removed repeal of the policy from the Financial CHOICE Act. The Durbin amendment—added to Dodd-Frank at the last minute, without a hearing or analysis of the rule’s impacts—has earned more than three strikes over the past six years it’s been law, yet Congress squandered an opportunity to relieve consumers from the burden they’ve been shouldering for years. Although the impact of the Durbin amendment was never studied, many claimed the benefits would be far-reaching: consumers would see lower prices, businesses of all sizes would benefit, and community financial institutions would be exempt from the harmful impacts. Six years later, the opposite has happened. Truthfully, this should not come as a shock: price controls never work and this policy is the rule, not the exception. While the largest retailers have seen savings—estimated at $6 to $8 billion each year—they failed to follow through on their promises to lo... Link to the full article to read more