One of my close friends called me to complain that she had over $100 in overdraft fees because of a total of $16 worth of Red Bull, cigarettes, and chips -- all paid for at different times. She hadn't realized how close her checking account was to a zero balance, and was assessed a separate overdraft for each purchase, even though they were as low as $.69. It's hard for me to see those fees as anything other than a bank milking a young, inexperienced client (no, customer) for money she couldn't afford. When I talked to her dad about it, the word he used was "evil."

These overdraft charges are not a convenience to prevent bounced checks. As Laura Rowley writes, "Do the math. You may find that you paid an effective 3,000 percent annual interest rate on a courtesy loan you never asked for."

Ms. Rowley makes a number of points about how abusive the system is, and I agree with all of them. Banks should be less evil, and the Consumer Overdraft Protection Fair Practices Act should be passed.

But there's another side to this. As Rowley points out, most people who suffer from overdraft charges are lower-income. Many have their credit cards through separate banks, and don't use the bank for mortgages or other cash-cow services that banks provide. So how can a bank make a buck off people with little in the way of assets? Overdraft fees -- a game of "gotcha" that is absolutely predatory. But can you really blame them that much?