????鑒于經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家和政策制定者們目前都忙于解決房?jī)r(jià)和按揭負(fù)擔(dān)等問(wèn)題，消費(fèi)支出似乎是拉動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的不二選擇,。

????然而,，決策者們?cè)谶@方面忽視了一個(gè)極大的機(jī)會(huì)，沒(méi)有看到抑制普通消費(fèi)者支出的另一負(fù)擔(dān)——信用卡利率,?？傮w而言，當(dāng)前利率水平處于歷史低位——自2008年12月至今,，美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)（Fed）一直將目標(biāo)利率保持在0.25%,，30年期按揭利率也不到4%，處于過(guò)去聞所未聞的低水平,。

????但根據(jù)跟蹤市場(chǎng)上所有1,000多種信用卡的網(wǎng)站LowCards.com的首席執(zhí)行官比爾?哈德卡夫提供的數(shù)據(jù),，當(dāng)前信用卡平均利率高居14.26%，大大高于2009年5月的11.64%,。如果希望消費(fèi)者有更多支出,，解決資不抵債的按揭貸款或許有幫助，但降低涉及數(shù)以百萬(wàn)計(jì)的美國(guó)人支付的信用卡利率,，或許會(huì)更管用,。

????2008年金融危機(jī)爆發(fā)前開(kāi)始，消費(fèi)者們就在縮減債務(wù)負(fù)擔(dān),，償債支出占可支配收入的比例已從2007年10月的17%降至今年夏季的11.5%,。最新的美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)數(shù)據(jù)顯示，美國(guó)人的信用卡債務(wù)繼年初有所增加后，繼續(xù)下降,，8月份下降4.6%,。2010年和2009年，循環(huán)債務(wù)分別下降4.4% 和1.7%,。所有美國(guó)人都在減少負(fù)債，確保個(gè)人財(cái)務(wù)正常,。

????這是件好事,。但（消費(fèi)）支出匱乏對(duì)于經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)而言卻是個(gè)問(wèn)題。第三季度消費(fèi)支出意外大增（2.4%）,，一度提振了美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì),，但要讓美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)擺脫低迷仍有很長(zhǎng)的路要走。而且,，在政府沒(méi)有大規(guī)模的經(jīng)濟(jì)刺激措施來(lái)創(chuàng)造就業(yè),、促進(jìn)新興產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展的情況下，只能靠消費(fèi)者增加支出來(lái)拉動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng),。消費(fèi)增加會(huì)帶動(dòng)銷(xiāo)售稅增長(zhǎng),，減輕地方政府的壓力，并在零售和制造領(lǐng)域創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì),，讓更多的人重新有能力擴(kuò)大消費(fèi),。而那些消費(fèi)的人們，他們的經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況可能得到改善,，從而能夠承擔(dān)更高的負(fù)債,。當(dāng)前的問(wèn)題是如何啟動(dòng)這個(gè)良性循環(huán)。

????不妨來(lái)看看信用卡利率整體下調(diào)有可能釋放的購(gòu)買(mǎi)力,。目前,，美國(guó)人的循環(huán)債務(wù)為2.44萬(wàn)億美元。以當(dāng)前平均利率計(jì)算,，每年利息支出高達(dá)3,720億美元,。如果信用卡利率降至10%，可立刻釋放1,200億美元的購(gòu)買(mǎi)力,，相當(dāng)于1.12億美國(guó)家庭每戶(hù)約1,100美元,。上周發(fā)布的、修訂后的按揭（救助）方案的估算效應(yīng)雖然是其兩倍,，但最多只能惠及500萬(wàn)戶(hù)美國(guó)家庭,。

????誠(chéng)然，要實(shí)踐這一想法仍有很多障礙：比如,，如果發(fā)卡行不愿主動(dòng)降低信用卡利率,，就需要政府下令強(qiáng)制實(shí)施。這也不是沒(méi)有先例——大多數(shù)州都設(shè)有利率上限，2009年美國(guó)政府還下令信用卡還款應(yīng)首先用于償還利率最高的債務(wù),。但這并不是最理想做法,，哈德卡夫稱(chēng)，“每當(dāng)銀行在某一領(lǐng)域的盈利能力受到限制,，它們就會(huì)另辟途徑,，把這筆錢(qián)賺回來(lái)。問(wèn)題還是會(huì)踢給消費(fèi)者,?！笨纯串?dāng)前的一波借記卡收費(fèi)潮就可以知道了——由于監(jiān)管部門(mén)對(duì)銀行向零售商收取的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)費(fèi)設(shè)定上限，一些銀行開(kāi)始向持卡人收取服務(wù)費(fèi),。非常遺憾的是,，許多大銀行已決定不追隨美國(guó)銀行（Bank of America）、富國(guó)銀行（Wells Fargo）和其他幾家銀行采用收取高額月費(fèi)的方式,。

????或許還有其他方法,。1986年稅改之前，所有人的信用卡付息都能享受課稅減免政策,。重新恢復(fù)這一政策或許能減輕中產(chǎn)階級(jí)過(guò)于沉重的稅負(fù)壓力,，淡化他們捉襟見(jiàn)肘的感覺(jué)，更多地找到點(diǎn)沃倫?巴菲特的感覺(jué),。

????Judging by how economists and policymakers appear to have locked in on fixing housing prices and mortgage burdens, consumer spending looks to be the best bet for jumpstarting the economy.

????Policymakers are ignoring a huge opportunity on that front, failing to see another burden that caps the spending by the average consumer: credit cards interest rates. Overall, interest rates are at historic lows -- since December 2008 the Fed has kept its target rate at 0.25% and 30-year mortgages are at previously unheard of sub-4% levels.

????Yet the average credit card interest rate is now 14.26%, according to Bill Hardekopf, CEO of LowCards.com, which tracks all 1,000-plus credit cards in the marketplace. That is up sharply from 11.64% in May 2009. If you want consumers to spend more, fixing the mortgages of those underwater may help. But lowering the interest rate millions more Americans pay on their credit cards would help much more.

????Since before the financial crisis of 2008, consumers have been cutting back on their debt loads, with the debt service payment to disposable income falling 17% from October 2007 by this summer to 11.5% of disposable income. The most recent Federal Reserve data continues to show Americans are cutting back on their credit card debt -- it fell 4.6% in August, after rising earlier in the year. In 2010 and 2009, revolving debt fell 4.4% and 1.7%, respectively. We are all setting our personal finances right by carrying less debt.

????That's a good thing. But that lack of spending is a problem for economic growth. The economy was bolstered during the third quarter by a surprisingly strong surge in consumer spending -- up 2.4% -- but we still have a long way to climb out of the sluggish economy. And absent a massive government stimulus to create jobs and spark new industries, it falls to consumers to spend more to grow the economy. Spending more in turn generates sales taxes which lowers pressure on municipalities, it creates jobs in retail and manufacturing, getting more people back toward being able to spend more themselves. It also likely boosts the fortunes of those spending, making the higher debt level more manageable. The issue at hand is getting that cycle started.

????Consider the spending power unleashed by an across the board cut in credit card interest rates. Americans now carry $2.44 trillion in revolving debt. At the current average interest rate, that costs $372 billion in interest payments in one year. Drop card rates to 10% and it immediately frees up $120 billion for Americans to spend. That's about $1,100 for each and every 112 million U.S. households. By comparison the revamped mortgage program announced earlier this week is estimated to generate about twice that benefit, but for just 5 million households at best.

????Granted there are huge hurdles to the idea: for one, if issuing banks didn't cut rates voluntarily, it would then fall to the government to mandate lower credit card rates. Still, that's not unheard of -- most states do cap interest rates and in 2009 the government mandated credit card payments go to highest interest rate debt first. But it's not ideal, says Hardekopf. "Whenever banks are restricted in making money in one area, they find another way to make that money. It comes back to haunt the consumer." Just look at the current spate of debit card fees in reaction to caps on network fees charged to retailers. It's bad enough that many big banks have decided not to follow the lead of Bank of America (BAC), Wells Fargo (WFC) and a few others in charging steep monthly fees.

????Maybe there's another way. Until the tax reform of 1986, credit card interest was a tax deduction for everyone. Bringing it back may be just a way to lighten the middle class's excessive tax burden, making them feel less like paupers and a little more like Warren Buffett.