Credit card bills have become an awkward source of agreement in Washington. As interest rates have soared above 20%, lawmakers from both parties are campaigning to limit what lenders can charge borrowers already struggling with everyday expenses.

According to a recent report from the New York Fed, credit card delinquencies were approaching their highest level since 2011. More than 40% of adults carry balances from month to month, leaving them exposed to interest charges that can turn routine purchases into lasting debts.

Republican Representative Anna Paulina Luna has pushed legislation imposing a 10% ceiling. Democrats have championed similar limits, while Florida Senate candidate Angie Nixon favors 8%. President Trump proposed a 10% cap during his presidential campaign and revived it this year, though the White House has since retreated from the idea.

Banks maintain that restricting rates would force them to reduce lending, particularly to riskier customers. Voters appear less troubled: a May Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found 72% supported a 10% cap lasting one year. Bipartisan bills have been introduced, but no cap has yet become law.

Credit cards are a costly substitute when income does not stretch quite far enough. For households trying to cover necessities, they can be a costly alternative, as high interest rates eat into budgets quickly. The resulting squeeze can persist long after the original price increases have slowed…

Elon Musk is on record predicting this new opportunity is set to be 180 times bigger than the SpaceX IPO.

That IPO minted 4,400 millionaires overnight.

If this is 180 times bigger…

Just imagine how many more Americans will become millionaires.

Will you be one of them? Click here now.

While a rate cap promises to interrupt that cycle, its appeal conceals a difficult choice. Borrowers who retain their cards could pay less, while others could find that lenders respond by lowering limits or refusing applications. The banks’ objection deserves some scrutiny, though their commercial interest in preserving high rates hardly makes them impartial witnesses.

The shifting political winds are notable, as Republicans who once treated price controls with suspicion are joining Democrats in demanding them. This suggests that affordability has weakened familiar ideological boundaries. However, agreement on a ceiling poses the difficult issue of how to offer cheaper credit without excluding the households most dependent on it. A popular limit is only the first step toward a workable policy.

The household most dependent on a credit card is often the least able to replace it. A car repair charged today preserves the ability to get to work tomorrow. That makes access valuable even when the terms are punishing, and explains why a cheaper loan and an unavailable loan are different propositions.

Much would depend on where displaced borrowing went. Supposing banks tightened approvals, customers might turn to installment loans or juggle several payment plans. The cost of borrowing could become harder to compare even as the advertised card rate fell. Successful reform would need to reduce the total burden of debt, not just place it elsewhere.

There is a limit to what cheaper borrowing can accomplish for consumption. Interest savings would give indebted households more spending power, but using that room for new purchases would postpone their financial recovery. The lasting dividend would come when less of each paycheck was already spoken for before it arrived.