As any credit card-carrying American ought to know, it's all about the details.

And that certainly goes for H.R. 627, the credit card overhaul that sailed through both houses of Congress last week, with the entire Idaho congressional delegation voting yes. President Obama signed the bill Friday.

I understand the intent. The legislation outlaws some of the credit card companies' most craven money-grabbing practices. They can no longer raise interest rates on existing balances, charge consumers for using an automated phone system to pay a monthly bill, or indiscriminately offer credit cards to students under the age of 21.

Now to the details. It is a pretty much a market-driven given that banks will find a way to recoup their losses. And that means higher fees for the rest of us - even for those of us who use cards as a convenience, and pay our bills in full every month.

Weep not for the credit card companies. I'll try my best not to.

It is a form of pooling, not unlike health insurance. Careful credit card customers will pay more, effectively supporting the high-risk and less fiscally prudent consumers.

No, I'm not thrilled about it.

I don't really fault Congress for voting for this plan. I fault the reckless consumerism that necessitated a credit card holder bailout.

WHY BAN POLITICAL GROUPS?

Brigham Young University-Idaho isn't the stereotypical college campus. The school is owned by the Mormon Church and sits in the conservative (and definitely not college townish) community of Rexburg.

Given that BYU-Idaho is a college that isn't like a lot of colleges, I'm not surprised that administrators seem to see a problem where one doesn't exist.

The school has banned campus political groups, in a remarkably wrong-in-so-many-ways decision. So much is misguided here, it's hard to decide where to start.

I guess the Constitution will do. You would think the First Amendment's protection of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" just might apply to an unassuming meeting of campus Republicans or Democrats. It is reasonable for the privately run BYU-Idaho to establish a code of conduct - students know what is expected of them at the outset. But there is a world of difference between establishing a curfew and telling students they cannot form a political group.

Not to put too elitist a point on it, but the BYU-Idaho policy really flies in the face of intellectual journey. College should be a time when students learn to think critically and prepare to find their place in the world. It should be a place where students should be exposed to new ideas and divergent opinions, not a cocoon.

A bad idea deserves a bad explanation, and BYU-Idaho officials certainly have one. Condoning the campus groups would violate BYU-Idaho's policy of political neutrality, spokesman Andy Cargal told the Rexburg Standard Journal.

"We are in the works to coordinate and organize a generic political association that everyone can be a part of," Cargal told the Standard Journal. "It will be similar to the old associations, but non-partisan."

A generic political organization? Bet that'll pack 'em in.

The partisan groups compromise BYU-Idaho's political neutrality - or so the argument goes - because campus Republicans have outdrawn their Democratic counterparts.

This simply reflects political reality. Republicans have tended to hold sway with socially conservative Mormon voters, and in the November election, Republican presidential candidate John McCain carried Rexburg's Madison County with 85.2 percent of the vote.

So what? Is this justification to disband Republican and Democratic student groups? Of course not.

As the unwitting heirs to a growing national debt, an overburdened entitlement system and a dinosaur of an energy infrastructure, college students have plenty of incentive to get involved. You would think political engagement is a good thing. But in BYU-Idaho's view of things, this is a problem, a behavior to discourage.

Kevin Richert: 377-6437