You've probably heard before that if you're getting a big, fat tax refund check, you're doing something wrong. Now there's a new reason to fine-tune those payroll withholding elections. The economic meltdown is hitting statehouses around the country so hard that some are holding their residents' tax refund checks hostage.

Budget crises in Kansas and California have already forced those states to halt tax refund processing. In California, there's even been talk of sending out government IOUs instead of money.

In New York, state officials insist they have enough money set aside to pay tax refunds, but tax preparers in the state say refund checks are taking an awfully long time to arrive. And around the country, with 46 states facing budget crises, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, some taxpayers worry that their refund checks might be withheld as well.

When Camarillo, Calif., resident Christine Hughes logs in to check on the status of her refund, all she sees is this disheartening message:

"Your refund cannot be issued at this time. Due to the state's persistent cash flow problems, the State Controller has directed (this agency) to stop sending refund requests to the State Controller's office for processing."

Hughes says she and her husband are awaiting $1,000 in refunds from California.

"It's pretty ridiculous, but what can we do?" she said.

California officials suspended tax refund payments in January to free up $2 billion for state operations as the state's budget crisis reached epic proportions -- with a $42 billion deficit and coffers essentially running on zero for 17 months. Despite the budget compromise forged on Feb. 19 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state Legislature, it's still not clear when refund payments will resume.

This is the message California taxpayers get when logging in to check the status of their tax return.

In Kansas, refunds were halted temporarily by a budget battle pitting Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius against the Republican-controlled Legislature. The lawmakers passed a budget with spending cuts of around $300 million, but Sebelius refused to sign it. At the same time, she had asked to borrow $225 million from another government agency to cover the refund payments, but Republicans blocked that. The two sides reached a deal last week and state officials there say refund checks should be sent out shortly.

Placing tax refund payments in limbo could make states liable for interest payments, but many state governments have given themselves a wide grace period – much more than your bank gives you. In California, residents who are forced to wait for their returns are entitled to interest payments only if the delay extends 45 days beyond April 15.

Hughes said she thinks it's unfair for state officials to treat her refund like a free loan. She plans reduce her paycheck withholding for state taxes until her refund arrives.

"If they can't pay the taxpayers back what we are owed, we should not be obligated to give them any more of our hard earned money to mismanage," she said.

Red Tape Wrestling Tips: A withholding cautionary tale
Of course, residents of any state with an income tax would have nothing to fear if they'd set their paycheck tax withholding amounts to the appropriate level. Many people don't, and in fact relish the thought of a big refund check every spring. That's wrong-headed.

BankRate.com says that last year, the average federal tax refund check was $2,700, meaning the average taxpayer gave Uncle Sam $225 too much every month. Fine-tuning that withholding amount could be your very own stimulus package.

But don't overdo it. If you underpay your taxes this year and owe a big bill next April 15, in most cases you'll be charged underpayment penalties.

You can change your withholding amount at any time by getting a W-4 form from your employer. The IRS offers a handy withholding payment Web-based calculator. This form will only help you fine-tune your federal tax payments, but state tax payments are generally based on similar formulas, so the tool is still helpful.

If you haven't examined your withholding elections for a while, now is a good time to look. In this economy, you should keep as much of your money in your own hands as much as possible.

Leave your comment below or visit Newsvine and join the Red Tape Raiders.

Click for the entire series

Cheryl Clymer knew her luck was about to run out. For several weeks she'd been walking a tight rope on her checking account balance, paying bills at the very last moment and depositing checks as soon as possible. But last week, with the power company threatening to turn off her lights, she had to pay her $260 electric bill even though she knew that her car payment -- scheduled to be automatically withdrawn that same day -- would push her account into the red. There was a slim chance, she figured, that one of the payments wouldn't be debited right away, and the paycheck coming in two days would cover her, but she fully expected she would be hit with a $35 overdraft fee.

But when she checked on her account a few days later, her heart sank. She'd been hit with $185 in fees -- five separate $37 charges.

Clymer was victimized by an extreme form of what's called "high-low" check processing, a term that's becoming better known as more U.S. consumers find themselves living close to that checking account edge.

Clymer knows her neighbors are having similar struggles – the unemployment rate is more than 10 percent in her hometown of Toledo, Ohio. While she looked over her bank statement in disbelief, she couldn't help but think about the billions of dollars in taxpayer money being spent to prop up banks right now.

"Don't they know I have buy gas to go work and food to eat?" she said. "Don't they have any idea what they are doing when people are on the verge of losing homes and getting utilities shut off (and) they gouge their customers like this?"

Here's what Clymer said happened to her account. The weekend before the car payment was due, she had made four small debit card withdrawals over a three-day weekend. But they were not deducted immediately. In fact, the bank "saved" these charges, and only debited her account after she paid the power bill. That meant all those charges hit after her account was in the red, and each incurred a $37 charge.

The way Clymer sees it, her account was in the black when those weekend withdrawals occurred, so she shouldn't have to pay overdraft fees on them.

"I had the money on the day my four debits were done. ... Why am I penalized for five transactions instead of the one transaction that I realized was not going to clear?" she said. "Why am I the victim of their whims of their timing schedule? I am so angry that I am shaking."

High-low processing has been a sore point with consumers for years. If several transactions hit on the same day, banks will debit the largest one first, then proceed downward. This creates situations like the one that Clymers was caught up in: If her small transactions were processed first, only one would have occurred while her account was in the red, triggering one overdraft fee. By processing the largest first, the bank was able to charge five separate fees.

An average of $368 every year
Most banks offer "free" checking accounts, but as Clymer discovered, these free accounts can be expensive. Last year banks collected a stunning $37 billion in overdraft fees, according to a study by bank consulting firm Bretton-Woods Inc. That works out to $368 per account holder every year.

Bankrate.com has conducted an annual survey of bank overdraft fees for nearly 20 years. Only twice during the span have overdraft fees not risen; it goes without saying that they've never shrunk. Fee income is an essential part of banks' revenue now, and at some institutions it has replaced interest margin earnings as the main source of income. In fact, fee income doubled from 2004 to 2008, and the number of individual overdraft items more than doubled -- from 619 million to 1.3 billion -- over the four-year span.

Consumers who want to save money on banking need to think like a financial institution. You have two sources of trouble: fees and opportunity costs. Let's start with fees.

Cut out the fees
Given the wide availability of free checking accounts, the majority of bank fees that consumers pay are punitive. The Bretten-Woods survey indicates about 80 percent of all bank fees are overdraft fees. That makes overdraft fees avoidable in most cases, which is how the banking industry defends them.

"Only (account holders) know what checks they have written, automatic payments they have authorized and debit card transactions they have approved. Simply put, consumers are in control of their finances and can avoid overdraft fees," Nessa Feddis, counsel for the American Bankers Association, said at a congressional hearing on bank fees last year.

But banks have designed their fee structures to force consumers into a game of account balance roulette. Remember, punitive fees are critical to banks' bottom line now – their very survival depends on winning this game. So bankers spend endless hours trying to concoct new rules and booby traps to trip consumers. And when they do slip up, the banks exact a pound of flesh.

It's reasonable for banks to charge fees for overdrafts. But tales like Clymer's are the rule rather than the exception, meaning the punishment often doesn't fit the crime. The fact that banks now make their living by punishing their customers should tell you all you need to know about this industry.

Here's how to avoid their traps.

For years, consumer advocates have advised account holders that the best way to avoid "courtesy" overdraft fees is by linking savings or credit cards with their checking accounts. If an overdraft occurs, consumers with linked accounts will essentially be paying the fee with their own money.

While linked accounts are still a good option, banks have caught on to the fact that consumers are wising up and are reacting accordingly. Citibank, for example, last year initiated a $10 fee for each linked transfer – a steep charge for merely transferring consumers' money from one account to another.

It's important to know all the various ways that overdrafts can occur, particularly if you are new to living on the edge of a bank account. Many consumers don't realize that they can trigger an overdraft by making a debit card purchase or withdrawing money from an ATM. Once upon a time, banks would reject transactions or withdrawals that exceeded balances, but now most banks will approve negative balance transactions and charge fees. To avoid them, tell your bank that you decline "courtesy" overdraft protection.

Of course, that's no help if you're in Clymer's situation. Consumers who require an overdraft to get through the month should look hard for other alternatives. Payday loans and credit card cash advances are a terrible option for paying monthly bills, but in Clymer's case they would have been cheaper. If you consider that an overdraft charge is really a fee for a short-term loan, the effective interest rate can be nearly 1,000 percent.

Consumers also should be aware that the bank is likely to orchestrate the order of transactions in its favor. Banks will always cash the largest check or debit the largest transaction first, enabling them to layer on the maximum number of overdraft fees.

For this reason, consumers should avoid using a debit card for purchases. A credit card is a better choice for those close to the edge. Paying in cash is still best, but it's a good idea to minimize cash withdrawals by planning ahead.

It's also important to recognize that your banks' fee structure may be radically changed if it's been absorbed by another bank recently as part of the massive industry consolidation under way. As surviving banks swallow failing ones, watch the mail carefully for notifications of changes to fee policies. You can bet the news won't be good. Larger banks almost always charge higher fees than smaller banks.

A recent study by Moebs $ervices found that banks with more than $20 billion in assets charged an average of $33 per overdraft, while smaller banks with under $100 million in assets charged an average of $24.

The bleaker things get for banks, the more aggressive you should expect them to be in assessing fees. Anecdotally, readers report that fee waivers are much harder to obtain now. Still, if you are hit with cascading fees, visit your local branch and plead for leniency. Even better, plan ahead for such an occurrence. Make sure to visit your local bank branch from time to time and say a friendly hello to the bank manager or receptionist. It's always easier to ask for help from someone who knows you.

A proposal to reign in overdraft fees was considered by banking regulators when they issued new credit card rules earlier this year, but it was set aside. Legislation working its way through Congress right now, known as the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights, includes provisions that would limit some of these overdraft practices. Call your congressional representative and voice your support for the law if you'd like to see some change.

Opportunity cost
Many consumers don't think much about opportunity cost, which in this case might be defined as what you miss out on while you're parking your money in the equivalent of a mattress every month. Interest rates at most banks now must be measured with an electron microscope. Returns of less than 0.1 percent annually are typical. Obviously, that means interest-bearing checking accounts aren't worth the trouble, particularly if they come with a high minimum balance. Those accounts force you to fork over $1,000 to $3,000 or more for the bank to use. You can't touch the money and, once again, if you slip up even for one day, the penalty is severe. Using such an account places you at risk for a $12 monthly service charge when some rainy day arrives. Dump that risk and sign up for the cheapest no-interest, lowest minimum balance account your bank offers.

You'll probably have to badger a teller to get instructions on how to sign up for the no-frills package. But all banks have them.

After you sign up, pay close attention. Banks have been known to end such basic options and "upgrade" accounts without much warning. Watch for that.

Your 'staging' account
Many banks offer fee-free checking to anyone who signs up for direct deposit. That's often the best way to get free checking. But this account should be used only for temporarily parking your salary and to pay the big monthly bills, like your mortgage or car payments. I call this the "staging" account.

Consumers who use their checking account for everything inevitably run into trouble. It's too hard for most people to keep a firm grasp on their balance while buying $4.50 lattes every day, making electronic payments, and depositing small checks. Bankers call this "velocity," and most people have too much of it. That's a recipe for disaster, and it almost certainly costs you interest income.

If you really must use a debit card for purchases, set up a second account – or an "allowance" account -- and transfer money into that each month. Then use a debit card to draw money on that. This keeps your main life balance sheet clean and simple. That's the best way to keep track of how you're doing every month, and how at risk you are for an overdraft charge. No consumers' primary checking account should be littered with 30, 40 or 50 transactions every month.

Next, make sure your leftover money is working for you. There are many ways to accomplish this. If you haven't yet considered an Internet-based savings account like ING Direct or HSBC Direct, you're really missing the boat. Rates on these accounts have shrunk too, in concert with Federal Reserve rate cuts, but they're still above 2 percent. They are easily linked to your primary, or staging account. And they are still FDIC insured. Two percent guaranteed should sound pretty appetizing when you think about everything else going on in our economy. If you keep an average balance of $5,000 in an interest-deprived checking account, you're throwing away more than $100 a year by not opening one of these accounts. And when the coming wave of inflation arrives, you'll be in position to earn much more.

Much the same can be accomplished by linking your primary checking account to a money market account at another financial institution or your brokerage, but keep an eye on those interest rates. Many money market interest rates have shrunk to anemic levels too.

Have you been hit by huge bank fees? Or do you have an idea for saving money on bank accounts? Leave your comment below or visit Newsvine and join the Red Tape Raiders.

I know a computer science professor who runs the same Facebook experiment every semester. He invites his students to stand up in front of the room and show everyone their Facebook page on the big screen. No one has ever taken him up on the offer.

Why? They're embarrassed, of course.

Moments later, the irony sinks in. Every one of them seems happy to share all those funny photographs, witty Wall postings and status updates with everyone on the planet. They just don't want to do it in public, in person.

Facebook puts a lot of people in a lot of twisted situations, including those who try to rationalize their use of the site (Want to be safer on Facebook? There are tips below).

Studies show that about two-thirds of Americans say they care a great deal about their privacy, yet fewer than 10 percent ever do anything about it, such as destroy a store loyalty card or browse the Web with an anonymizing tool.

So it is with Facebook. This week, a dust-up -- no, a tornado -- hit the service when users found out about a subtle change to Facebook's terms of service. A blogger at the Consumerist Web site posted the change, noting that Facebook now asserts the right to "copy, publish, store, retain," anything you contribute, and that the firm's rights to your material survive "any termination of your use of the Facebook Service."

In other words, whatever you put on Facebook cannot be deleted. Even closing your account, removing all your pictures, and "de-friending" your friends doesn't get your data back from the Facebook.

Everyone seems shocked by the idea that Facebook is forever, but that's nothing new. In fact, I believe Facebook deserves some kudos for finally fessing up and including this concept in its terms of service. I'm thrilled that people are now discussing this issue.

You just can't kill it
For years, enterprising folks who wanted to delete their Facebook pages found their only real alternative was to "deactivate" their accounts. That's not a subtle distinction. Facebook's terms of service say this:
"Individuals who wish to deactivate their Facebook account may do so on the My Account page. Removed information may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time but will not be generally available to members of Facebook ," it reads.

Obviously, there is a hole so big there that Facebook lawyers could drive a truck through it. And in fact, for years Facebook users who wished to delete their accounts were told they had to manually delete every picture, minifeed item, friend, and so on. For an hysterical and sad account of this, read "2,504 steps to closing your Facebook account."

Special series: Privacy Lost

Last year, Facebook tried to address a groundswell of frustration over account deletion and added a process for doing so. Users who follow a link and fill out a form are now told their accounts have been deleted. Even that advance arrived with hiccups, as many who initially tried the process were still able to find their accounts on Google. Facebook said it was a glitch, since fixed. (I'll leave it to readers to consider why Facebook refuses to add a simple "delete my account" button on its site.)

But even after following this deletion process, users might be disappointed. Facebook accounts are so intertwined that traces of deleted members' activities – such as wall posts -- can still appear all over the site and remain on Facebook servers indefinitely.

And of course, with some data, there's just no way to remove it:

"Where you make use of the communication features of the service to share information with other individuals on Facebook, however, (e.g., sending a personal message to another Facebook user) you generally cannot remove such communications," the Facebook terms of service agreement reads.

This should give pause to any Facebook user who plans to get a job or have children some day. Heaven forbid you decide to run for Congress 20 years from now. And we haven't even mentioned Facebook's Beacon disaster, which saw the company introduce an advertising platform that followed users around the Web and reported their behavior to friends. Facebook quickly backtracked after a similar uproar.

Facebook and privacy don't mix
By now, it should be clear that I'm a Facebook hater. I think there is no way to use the site and maintain control of your privacy. In fact, I think there is essentially no way to stay off Facebook now, which offends my sensibilities. More than once I've arrived at work and had someone say something like this: "Hey, I saw you were at Murphy's last night," because someone I barely know posted a bunch of pictures of a happy hour. That's spooky.

I have a friend who is a foreign diplomat; she takes rather Draconian steps to prevent such a Facebook oops from occurring. At the end of every party, she walks around, grabs everyone's camera, and deletes any pictures of herself.

I know many of you believe that you have nothing to hide, and the idea that your children might some day see your Facebook page doesn't (currently) bother you at all. But here's the problem with any privacy-related choice: it's usually impossible to assess tomorrow's consequences today. Or, to be blunt, you just never know what might come back and bite you in the butt.

What if employment background companies someday discover that anyone with more than 500 Facebook friends tends to come in late to work? No, there's nothing illegal about that. What if you change career paths at some point and decide you want to work for a U.S. intelligence agency? You'll have to answer for every foreign friend linked to you on Facebook – and any who ever were linked to you on Facebook.

As a general rule, you should never put anything on your Facebook account that you wouldn't mind showing to a room full of co-workers or students.

If you must Facebook, follow these rules
That said, the company has quietly been improving its privacy controls and now does offer users a wide set of tools to protect them from each other. There is a long list of options on Facebook's settings pages --probably far more than you're aware of -- that users should deploy when using the site. These prevent perfect strangers from knowing you've left your girlfriend and can also prevent your boss from seeing pictures of last week's happy hour.

These options are elegantly summarized in a post on AllFacebook.com written by Nick O'Neill. No one should use Facebook without adjusting these settings. These include removing yourself from Google searches, using friend lists to control who sees your pictures, and how to keep your friendships private.

If all this appropriately spooks you, you can delete your account by following this link.

Interestingly, when you visit it, you'll be presented with this surprising plea for reconsideration.

"Are you deleting because you are concerned about Facebook's Terms of Service? This was a mistake that we have now corrected," the page says before asking users for their e-mail address and password.

Breaking up is hard to do, it seems. Alas, in life, nothing lasts forever. Except on Facebook -- and on the Internet -- where everything lasts forever.

Web surfers who used Google.com to search for information on President Barack Obama on Tuesday afternoon were presented with a racial slur. The slur originated from Obama's Wikipedia entry, after a user had removed all content in Obama's entry and replaced it with three repeated words: a derogatory term for African-Americans.

Wikipedia.com's revision history records show that slur was only live for two minutes, with the Obama page edited to include the slur at 4:44 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time (just before midnight ET) and the original content restored at 4:46.

But the slur lived on in Google search results. Anyone who Googled "Obama," "Barack Obama," or "President Barack Obama" was presented with a link to the Wikipedia reference page showing the racial slur , sometimes as high as the second result. It was removed about 4 p.m. ET after msnbc.com made inquiries to Google.

The slur was contained within a blurb of text called a "snippit," which Google presents on its initial results page to show users what they will see if they click on the link. Google's Wikipedia snippits generally include the first sentence or two of the Wikipedia entry.

Even though the slur was visible nearly 16 hours after the Wikipedia entry was changed, Google spokesman Eitan Bencuya said it's unclear how long it appeared on Google's site.

Google scans the Web constantly, updating its database of links and snippits. Unfortunately, Google grabbed the slur during the two-minute period that Wikipedia displayed it, he said. But Bencuya said it could have taken hours after it was indexed for it to appear on the site.

"I imagine it wasn't on there for very long, otherwise we would have received a lot of complaints," he said.

Wikipedia did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Wikipedia is collectively edited by its registered users, and nearly any entry is subject to such attacks. Politicians and other public figures are frequent targets of such attacks. Entries with racial slurs are normally removed quickly by other editors.

Companies often advertise one price to lure customers into their stores, then charge a higher price. In days gone by, this was called "bait and switch." Now, it's called fees and surcharges.

On the Internet, this tactic has another fancy name: "landing price." Advertisements include a low price to persuade customers to land on their e-commerce site. But by the time shipping and handling is piled on, the "out-the-door" price is substantially higher.

This tactic is most clear in the world of online florists, and most prevalent during Valentine's Day. A quick survey of the top online florists shows that consumers using the two top sites typically pay at least 50 percent -- and often as much as 100 percent -- higher than the advertised price.

Take ProFlowers.com, which this week was running nearly ubiquitous ads with offers like this: $29.99 for a dozen roses and a free vase. But any consumer wanting the arrangement delivered on Valentine's Day will pay at least $55, after shipping, taxes, handling and a Saturday delivery fee are added. Shoppers who agree to early delivery on Feb. 12 will save $10, but will still pay around $45 (when $10 shipping, $1.99 handling and about $3 in taxes are added in). That's still 50 percent above the advertised price.

Making matters worse for shoppers: The total price isn't revealed until the last possible moment -- after the recipient's name and address, credit card number, billing address and even the "Love, Bob," note are entered. This reporter counted seven screens before the real price was unmasked. After all that typing, consumers are less likely to abandon the transaction.

ProFlowers says all its advertisements indicate customers will face additional fees

"ProFlowers advertising...clearly states that shipping and handling are additional costs," spokesman Mike Rosen said in an e-mail. He said the company has not received any complaints that its advertisements are deceptive.

Rosen also pointed out that consumers can add the total cost on their own within the first click or two. But to do that, consumers must notice and click on a link named "details" while picking the delivery date.

"I don't think you give consumers enough credit," Rosen countered. "In this day and age customers understand this process better … and expect to pay shipping charges."

At FTD, $19.99 flowers cost $42.77
ProFlowers' strategy is relatively standard in the flower business. Shoppers at FTD.com may arrive at the site lured by the promise of Valentine's arrangements that cost $19.99. But that price doesn't include an additional $19.99 "service charge." By the time customers click "order," they are told the $19.99 flowers really cost $42.77.

But at least customers at FTD.com see the full price before they are asked to enter their credit card numbers.
Robert Apatoff, president of FTD, said his company was "transparent" about its pricing.

"People get that they pay for shipping and handling. You can't just ship for free," he said. "There's nothing new about price point advertising…it's consistent with the practices of the vast majority of online and offline retailers."

He also said that $19.99 was a reasonable service charge when the additional costs of special handling and Saturday delivery are factored in.

After these two disappointing experiences, consumers might be too disheartened to try the third major online florist, 1800Flowers.com. That's too bad, because on Tuesday the site advertised a $39 arrangement with free shipping. The actual price: $39, plus tax of a few dollars. A $34 arrangement without the free shipping offer would cost $50 for delivery on Valentine's Day, but that additional charge was made clear the moment a delivery date was picked.

Our wilting economy
Shopping for Valentines flowers is a study in why the U.S. economy is so broken today.

In the end, the prices at all three sites are quite similar. Yet consumers shopping for flowers must jump through near-impossible hoops to actually comparison shop. (Only a reporter with too much time on his hands is likely to do it.) That means many consumers won't make rational economic decisions based on quality or price, but rather will choose based on which company's advertisements are most compelling -- or, some might say, deceptive. In the end, it's almost certain that the most up-front company, 1800Flowers, will lose sales because consumers think they are getting a better price from a competitor when they really aren't.

Some might argue this is simply capitalism at work. In fact, the opposite is true. If this were a free market, all information about the transaction would be transparent, and the best product with the best price would win. Instead, the most convincing advertiser wins. Ultimately, this economic system -- which is not capitalism -- will put honest companies out of business and reward deceivers. The current list of troubled banks, home builders, mortgage brokers and retailers is a "Who's Who" of well-marketed companies that had unsustainable profits built on false advertising. Their business models were a house of cards destined to eventually fail.

When the new administration in Washington wants to renew the promise of America and create change all consumers can believe in, it will focus considerable attention on creating a true free market, which will be made obvious by its transparency and lack of unfair trade practices.

RED TAPE WRESTLING TIP
All three of the big flower sites have dynamic front pages, which change depending on how a customer arrives at the site. Make sure to click through an advertisement or enter a discount code before ordering, or you may not be presented with the cheapest price.

Have some Red Tape you need untangled? Ask the Red Tape Raiders for help! Or become a consumer advocate!!

As you scan your monthly bills -- rent, car loan, home phone -- I'll bet one sticks out like a sore thumb: pay TV. The average American now spends $1,000 a year on television. And suddenly, that's a luxury many people just can't afford.

But there's good news for long-suffering television viewers. The era of cable/satellite domination was already dying a natural death, with real competition like Verizon's FIOS service finally reaching many cities in America. But now the Internet appears ready to drive a stake through the heart of the cable/satellite duopoly. Thousands of TV shows are available for free on the Web, and the technology needed to watch is getting cheaper and simpler all the time.

These developments mean you don't have to pay the average $84.59 monthly cable bill anymore. Even if you elect to keep buying a television service, you can pay less. Finally, consumers have real bargaining power. So let's deal with both options: lowering your monthly bill or cutting the cable completely.

Click for the entire series.

You may have heard that some of your favorite TV shows are available on the Web but haven't felt up to the hassle of hooking your laptop up to your flat-screen. Later I'll try to persuade you it's not so bad. But even if you are committed to paying for your television, I want you to know how these new trends can help you.

The cable television industry is running scared. Time Warner, for example, lost 119,000 subscribers in its fourth quarter. You'd be scared, too, if you ran a business and someone suddenly started giving away the product you sell.

The mistake nearly all paying cable and satellite customers make is not re-evaluating their bills frequently enough. We all know this story: A year ago you signed up for a $29-a-month service, but somehow your bill is now $105. Those HBO channels that were free suddenly cost $15 each month. The service itself is now $65 a month. And there are other fees that you don't even understand.

How did this happen? The $29 price is a teaser rate, of course, designed to suck you in and then suck you dry. And it works. Many people are busy and forgetful, and they just keep paying those high bills.
Here's how to lower your bill. Pay close attention to these teaser advertisements. I know they always say, "For new customers only," but that shouldn't stop you. At least once each year, you should call up your provider and ask for their advertised teaser rate. You'll be rejected on your first attempt, but keep trying. Eventually, you'll succeed, if you take advantage of your newfound leverage.

That means you must be ready to threaten to cancel your service ... and be willing to follow through. Front-line operators at many pay TV companies don't have the authority to give you a discount on your current rate. But if you are transferred to the "cancellation department," also often known as the "customer retention department," you will be playing a new ballgame. These people have all sorts of magic powers to keep you as a customer. You may not get the rock-bottom teaser price in the end, but you'll almost certainly end up with a better price than you are paying. Sure, this might take an hour of annoying phone calls. But remember, saving just $20 each month means saving $240 a year. Who among us would turn our nose up at a $240-an-hour job right now?

For a great example of what could be called the "just ask" strategy in action, visit Jeffrey Strain's Personal Finance Advice blog and read how he got his mom's cable bill cut from $79 to $39 per month with one phone call.

The key to success is taking advantage of your real bargaining power. Don't make the "just ask" call unless you have a competitor's offer in your hand, and you willing to follow through on the threat if you have to. So if you plan to call Comcast, have a DirecTV or FIOS ad in your hand and know that you can make that switch.

While we're on the subject, , here are a few other things to watch out for on that monthly bill: with the advent of HDTV, a whole new set of fees are in play. Many consumers are paying an extra monthly fee for HD service and rental of set-top boxes. Only pay for boxes you need! If your TV is already HD-ready, you don't need a digital converter box, for example. Don't expect the cable provider to tell you that. If you sign up for service with the promise of free installation, watch your bill for several months to make sure installation charges don't show up. And if you expect a refund or rebate as part of a sign-up package, make sure you understand the terms. Many rebates contain cleverly disguised early cancellation fees: you only receive them as credits if you continue to pay for the service.

Finally, cable customers shouldn't forget that they can file complaints about service and billing problems with their local government's "cable franchising authority," a surprisingly effective way to get satisfaction. The phone number is on your bill. Satellite customers aren't so lucky and can only complain to the Federal Communications Commission.

TV for FREE
In the past, many consumers who made these "just ask" phone calls were making idle threats because they had only one pay TV option. For example, about 30 percent of the U.S. population lives in multi-unit dwellings like apartment buildings, where it's often impossible to sign up for satellite TV, according the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

But that is changing, and changing fast. Even if you are committed to pay TV for now, you should read on. Understanding the free TV phenomenon will give you much more leverage the next time you call your provider and ask for a better price.

A host of new services are racing to make Web TV easier to use. Some TV networks, like NBC, Fox, and Comedy Central, have taken downright aggressive steps. Hulu.com users are now treated to free, instant viewing of such shows as "House," "The Office," "Heroes," "The Daily Show" and hundreds more popular shows.

Hulu – owed by Fox and NBC -- is just one option, however. (msnbc.com is a joint venture of NBC Universal and Microsoft)

Subscribers to the popular movie rental firm Netflix can now view thousands of TV shows on their computers instantly. The list of networks is impressive, including ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, The Discovery Channel, and many more.

You might recall that Web TV passed an important milestone last fall, when more consumers watched Tina Fey's impression of Sarah Palin on "Saturday Night Live" online than on TV. Still, the number of people dropping their pay TV service for Web TV is tiny.

There are a long list of caveats about free Web TV: No one wants to watch TV on a computer; it's not as easy to use as a TV; it's hard to find programming; the shows are only available "after" the initial viewing on "real" TV; sports fans have severely limited options; the quality isn't as good; it's really difficult to make Web TV work on multiple TVs around the house; and the kicker: "I don't want to trade in my remote control for a keyboard!"

All these things are true, but are becoming less true over time. Netflix, for example, now sells a $100 set-top box named Roku, which makes its service work just like traditional television, remote control included.
What may be the best recent development is also free: the CancelCable.com Web site, which has a fantastic TV Guide-like service called "Showfinder."

The site makes it easy to find your favorite shows and Web locations (many are available on multiple services). You'll be stunned at the variety of available programming.

The site also has a clever calculator to show you how much you'll save if you stop paying for TV, including a calculation of interest earned on money saved. For example, a consumer who drops a $110-a-month cable bill and instead saves the money while earning a 3 percent return will have built up a kitty of $7,111 in 5 years.

Yes, you can get live TV for free
The main drawback to Web TV is the delay. Understandably, many fans don't want to wait a day to see their favorite programs. But there is another free solution.

Despite all the chaos surrounding the switchover from analog TV to over-the-air digital TV, it's really a boon for consumers. Here's one secret about over the air digital TV that you may not have heard: The picture is amazing. In fact it's so good that many aficionados prefer it to cable or satellite HDTV. Why? There's more bandwidth available to TV broadcasters over the airwaves than to cable or satellite providers trying to squeeze hundreds of channels down their pipes. That means pay HDTV signals are compressed. Many viewers probably won't notice the difference, but even if you are paying for cable (and pay extra for HDTV), you should occasionally switch to free HDTV to get a better picture.

Getting over-the-air HDTV is easy. For about 90 percent of U.S. consumers who own an HD-ready TV, and old-fashioned UHF antenna will provide great reception. If you've never tried it, you should.

Now, combine the free, first-run programming you can get with an antenna with the free programming you can get on the Web and you may very well conclude that you'll lose very little by dropping that $1,000-a-year pay TV luxury. And even if you aren't ready to deal with the hassle of experimentation, knowledge of the alternatives can help you bargain with your current provider. You'll be able to make a compelling argument why their service is only worth $400 or $500 each year to you now. And if you are successful, that's the kind of savings most consumers could really use right now.

Have some Red Tape you need untangled? Ask the Red Tape Raiders for help! Or become a consumer advocate!!

Ed McMahon appeared in this advertisement on Super Bowl Sunday.

Ed McMahon once traveled the country telling lucky families they'd won a huge cash prize through a sweepstakes. On Super Bowl Sunday, he told viewers they can turn old jewelry into money by sending it to a company named Cash4Gold.

But one blogger who's critical of the firm McMahon is touting has recently discovered that sometimes words can be more valuable than gold.

Web satirist Rob Cockerham stumbled into the bizarre and sometimes aggressive world of search engine optimization recently after he published a blog entry that criticized Cash4Gold; the firm then offered him money if he'd remove the site.

A few months ago, Cockerham posted the tale of a man who claims he sent $180 worth of gold to Cash4Gold only to receive a lowball offer of $60. The item was read and linked to by so many Web users that it quickly climbed the rankings at search engines like Google. That caught the attention of Cash4Gold, a Pompano Beach, Fla. company.

Just a few days before the Super Bowl – and the airing of McMahon's Super Bowl ad -- Cockerham revealed that a Cash4Gold representative had sent him an e-mail offering him "a few thousand" dollars to take down his critical Web site.

"I'm still marveling over it," Cockerham said. "They sent me a bribe e-mail."

Cash4Gold is one of several companies that have emerged in recent months offering to exchange old jewelry for cash. The process is simple; consumers contact the firm, receive a special envelope in the mail, send in their jewelry items and receive a check. Consumers can either cash the check if they accept Cash4Gold's offer or reject it and ask that their jewelry be returned. Cash4Gold customers also have the option of receiving payments instantly and electronically, bypassing the negotiating step.

A lowball offer?
Cockerham's blog alleging that Cash4Gold made the lowball offer included detailed documentation of the transaction provided by a consumer named Brent Kutz.

"I had some gold I was going to sell anyways so I was thought I would keep track of the details for insurance in case of loss and to give (Cockerham) the information for one of his articles," Kutz said. So before he mailed the jewelry to Cash4Gold, he took it to a local pawn shop and received an offer of $180. "I really didn't think I would have a problem with the amount before I did it. I was more looking at it from what I could get locally and then from Cash4gold as they advertise paying higher amounts," he said

Kutz said Cash4Gold sent him a check for $60. When he called and balked at the offer, it was increased to $180. He then sent the evidence to Cockerham.

"This tells me (consumers) should never accept Cash4Gold's first offer," Cockerham said.

Most customers satisfied, company says
Cash4Gold CEO Jeff Aranson didn't dispute Cockerham's account, though he said he no specific knowledge of the transaction because his company processes thousands of requests each day. But he suggested that Brent may have "bullied" a telephone operator into increasing the firm's offer for his jewelry.

He added that his company does not aim to compete with pawn shops. Instead, it allows consumers to liquidate their unwanted jewelry with ease and privacy. And he said jewelry can often be sold at five or six times the "melt" value, so wide price discrepancies in appraisals can be common. In other words, a pawn shop might get a higher price for old jewelry after cleaning it than Cash4Gold would get by melting it down.

Cash4Gold has sent checks to 500,000 consumers in the past 12 months with only a handful of complaints, Aranson said.

"I view us as the world's largest appraisal service," he said. "Only one-tenth of 1 percent complain that they are not happy."

'Aware of what was going on'
Aranson confirmed that Cockerham was offered financial compensation for removal of the negative Web site. But he said the e-mail was written by an employee of a third-party company who was acting independently, and that employee is no longer associated with Cash4Gold.

"We had no idea it happened at the time," he said. "I wouldn't have done it and I don't endorse it."

The man who sent the e-mail, Joe Laratro of marketing firm Tandem Interactive, challenged Aranson's account.

"Everyone (at Cash4Gold) was well aware of what was going on," he told msnbc.com.

Laratro said his company provided search engine optimization for Cash4Gold, a field in which tactics can range from simply adding keywords to a Web site to improve search engine performance to creating fake Web sites so a competitor or critical blogger is pushed off page of Google results.

Laratro also denied that the offer was intended as a bribe, saying it was meant to be a part of a chatty negotiation.

"Anything within reason we would have done," he said, adding that companies regularly contact consumers who have posted negative information on Web sites and try to satisfy their complaints. "This was about what we could do to make this guy happy." He even suggested the firm would make a donation to Cockerham's "favorite charity."

Cockerham, however, would have none of it. Instead, he posted Laratro's e-mail on his Web site, alongside the rest of the saga.

Cockerham regularly pulls such "gags" on his blog, Cockeyed.com. Many are designed to embarrass companies he feels are misbehaving. One such stunt earned him an entry in the Red Tape Chronicles two years ago, after he ripped up a credit card application, taped it back together to simulate the behavior of dumpster-diving identity thief and then mailed it to the bank. A few weeks after he returned the disheveled application, he received a credit card.

But Cockerham said in a recent entry, titled "Cash4Gold would like to melt down and recast their reputation," that in his relatively long history as a critical blogger, "This was the first time someone else was trying to buy me out of their Google search results."

The offer, he said, wasn't the sort of reward he was looking for.

"This is my declaration of not selling out. I think it will work out better this way, don't you?"

Leave a comment below or become a member of the Red Tape Raiders and be a consumer advocate!

Maybe two years ago you could let that $10 late fee slide or forget to question that $29 overdraft fee. But the world has changed. Now, everyone is taking a much closer look at their finances and their monthly bills. We're here to help.

Click for the entire series.

Today, we begin an in-depth series exposing hidden "gotchas" in your financial life. The "How to Save Money On…" series will offer detailed steps and suggestions to avoid booby traps and preserve your hard-earned cash. We begin with one of America's main financial menaces: Credit cards.

Americans hold just shy of $1 trillion in revolving debt on their credit cards now, a steep jump from 2005, when revolving debt was $824 billion. The Federal Reserve shows the level of credit card debt has remained mainly flat since the middle of 2008 though, indicating that as the screws started to tighten on the economy in 2006 and 2007 many Americans turned to credit cards to get through the tough times. That spigot is now being slowly turned off, as banks tighten lending standards and lower credit limits. At the same time, interest rates for many cardholders are skyrocketing, so the squeeze is coming from all directions.

That's why it's more important than ever to use good habits around this bad debt.

I know half of you pay your credit card bills in full each month and think you have nothing to learn from a story about saving money on credit cards. I wish that were true. But card-issuing banks are continually using new tricks to force consumers into occasional slip-ups. Some of these tricks will be barred by new bank regulations, but not until July 1, 2010, so you need to know about them now.

Those who don't pay your balances in full each month are paying interest charges. Some are "serial revolvers," who always carry a balance on their cards; others are "occasional revolvers," who borrow through credit cards once in a while. I call this group "holiday credit card users," because they only run up big balances once a year, perhaps around holiday gift-giving time.

Either way, both groups can benefit from the three tips below. And even those with their credit card house in order should read on because you're not immune from late fees. The third tip will help you avoid those.

1. Keep a "clean card"
There's a point when a credit card user flips from a borrower to a revolver: When you start focusing more on your monthly payments than your total debt. No matter how large your debt, if you keep a grasp of the total and keep on top of your plan for paying that off, you are building toward something. If you focus on your monthly payment, you are in survival mode. The "I don't care, I owe so much anyway" mode isn't far behind. You must avoid this slippery slope.

The clean card strategy is one way. It’s based on this simple premise: You should never pay interest charges on everyday purchases. Instead, always have at least two credit cards in your wallet -- think of one as your everyday "clean card," and one as a line of credit.

Why? Let's say you generally pay your bill every month, but this year you spent $3,000 on travel and gifts for Christmas. Then, when your bill came due Jan. 22, you paid the usual $1,000 and figured you'd pay the rest over the next few months.

At this point, most consumers just keep right on spending with that debt-laden credit card, buying lunch and train tickets as usual, racking up their usual $1,000 in monthly expenses. That's exactly what credit card issuers want you to do, but it's a big mistake.

Consumers who pay their bill in full and on time every month enjoy what's called a "grace period." They never pay interest, and have about 30 days grace before charges kick in. But consumers who fail to pay on time fall from grace. From that point onward, they pay interest on every single purchase they make. That stinks, and it's a very bad way to use credit cards. Buy lunch for $5? You're paying interest on that money before you eat the first French fry.

Back to the example above to see what that means in real dollars. Let's say you typically spent $1,000 a month and paid in full -- until the holiday spending spree. To keep the math simple, let's use a 30 percent interest rate. That $1,000 in everyday spending, borrowed for an extra 30 days during the month, will cost you $25 each month. If you take four months to pay off those holiday charges, it'll cost you $100. Take all year to catch up and it costs $300. The larger the debt, the larger the grace period "penalty." If you carry a $3,000 balance -- perhaps from a misguided quest to accumulate miles or points -- you could be spending $1,000 per year in unnecessary interest charges.

Instead, use the "clean card" strategy. Always have one credit card in your wallet that you pay in full each month. That way, you'll always have "grace." In the example above, you'd stop using that primary credit card the day you couldn't pay the bill in full any more. You'd switch to the clean card and enjoy interest-free French fries.

Obviously, at some point during the catch-up period, another unexpected cost may arise, such as an expensive auto repair. Keep that off your "clean card," so it stays clean. Instead, use the second "line of credit" card. If you've planned ahead, this card also has the lowest interest rate of any in your wallet. You might even call and negotiate a lower rate, as one Red Tape reader recently did ("Want a better rate? Just ask") – though as we've mentioned, those are getting hard to come by.

The main idea of the clean card strategy is to pay for regular expenses like restaurants and gas as you go. But the benefits go beyond saving money on interest. You will gain a firm grasp of your total debt. Even if the news is dismal, it's always better to know what you owe, and that number will stare up at you until you pay it off. If that figure is split between 15, 20, or 30 small purchases on several cards, it severely confuses matters. I think it's the chief reason most credit card users lose track of what they owe, and how long it will take to repay their debts.

For an accurate accounting, use a repayment calculator, like this one, to determine how long it will take to repay your credit card debt.

Consumers may see similarities between the clean card plan and other advice you'll see about using a debit card for purchases to avoid running up credit card bills. That can be effective for consumers who just can't control their credit card spending, but using debit cards for everyday purchases is asking for trouble. It's far too easy to lose track of your checking account balance and run the risk of pricey overdraft fees. (I've covered the debit vs. credit debate before).

2. When you pay (and buy) matters
Most consumers who owe money on their credit cards wait for their monthly statements to make payments. But that's unnecessary. Credit card companies add interest to your balance every day and compound it. So on Day 2 of the month you are paying interest on your Day 1 balance, plus the interest charged on Day 1.
Paying early is a great way to save money. Here's one example: A full month's interest on $3,000 at 29 percent is $74. Make the payment two weeks early and you'll only owe $33.37.

A more realistic suggestion is to send in partial payments during the month -- perhaps half the money on the 15th, and then the rest on the 30th. Using the example above, you'd owe $53.

For a more detailed look at how much early payment can save you, look at the No Credit Needed blog, which contains a handy downloadable spreadsheet that mimics credit card average daily balance calculations and contains settings for interest rate, beginning balance, etc. Try out various repayment scenarios yourself.

One thing you'll find is that when you make purchases also matters. Purchases made late in the billing cycle cost less than those made early in the billing cycle.

Here's an example: two consumers with a $2,000 balance and a 29 percent interest rate make a $3,000 purchase during the month. One buys on the 5th, the other on the 27th. The first consumer pays $113.62 in interest; the second about half that: $61.18.

This is probably obvious on some level: You pay less interest if you borrow money for a shorter time. But because we've been trained to think in terms of monthly credit card cycles even though banks charge us every day, they have an advantage. Understanding how banks calculate credit card interest can help you save a lot. So, if you can, buy that new refrigerator near the end of the month and pay your bill early in the month.

3. Auto-pay
Even credit card users who pay their bill in full every month or rarely charge more than a few hundred dollars can benefit from automatic payments through online banking. Let's face it, none of us are perfect. We all get busy, go on vacation or occasionally lose a piece of mail. The day will come when you forget to mail the credit card check on time. And when it does, you'll be slapped with interest charges and a late fee.

While you are probably very concerned about the interest charges, it's really the late fee you should worry about.

A frugal card user with a $400 balance and a 15 percent rate would only owe $2.79 after a month. But the late fee could be $30, $35 or even $39.

There was a time when credit card issuers would offer one-time waivers of late fees to good customers. Some still do, but facing sinking revenue, many have eliminated such largesse. That means avoiding late fees should be a top priority.

Doing so is easy. You know every month you'll have to send a check to your credit card company. In fact, you probably have a rough idea of how much that is -- say, you always spend at least $300 each month. Set up your online banking account to automatically send $300 to your bank every month, at least five days before the due date. Why five days? Because many banks occasionally shrink their repayment timeframes by a day here or there, triggering late payments. You want to stay ahead of that.

Each month, you can go in and manually adjust the amount so it reflects your bill. But that one month you forget -- you'll be covered. You'll have to pay interest on the unpaid balance, but that will be small potatoes compared to the late fee you've avoided. And, if you send the full payment as soon as you realize your error (as opposed to waiting until the next bill arrives) you'll save even more money.

Leave a comment below or become a member of the Red Tape Raiders and be a consumer advocate!