It’s a paradox of the modern financial age: There is no credit without debt, and no debt without credit. A gaudy credit score is the gateway to the American dream, because few can afford to write the check for it anymore.

Skilled debt management can lead to financial rewards, but mismanagement is ruin. Two groups – the young and the elderly – are oft-victimized by the pitfalls of the lending industry, as the lure of easy money from credit cards, or shaved payments from refinancing, can outweigh common sense.

Maine’s Legislature is now considering ways to control the debt business. Sen. John Nutting, D-Leeds, is backing legislation to mandate parental permission before anyone aged 18-20 would be issued a credit card, while House Speaker Rep. Glenn Cummings, D-Portland, is pressing harsher restrictions on unsavory subprime mortgage lenders.

Both efforts have their hearts in the right place.Young people, many of whom are debt-free and financially tethered to their parents, are attractive for credit card lenders, who tempt with low limits and introductory rates. Students especially are bound by the reality that building credit is a necessary evil for their post-college years.

And Lewiston-Auburn, a recent study by Coastal Enterprises Inc. has found, has the highest concentration of subprime mortgages in Maine. Subprime loans are regularly pitched to struggling homeowners or high-equity seniors as the panacea for their fiscal problems – usually lower incomes and high taxes – but with cataclysmic caveats.

The key difference between the bills is their targets: Nutting seeks to impact the buyer of the debt, youth; and Cummings the seller, lending companies. The latter course holds greater opportunity for success, as stemming the predatory hawking of credit cards and mortgages is likely more effective than restricting consumer access to funds.

Maine, along with several other states, has successfully sued and won settlements from mortgage lenders guilty of using unethical practices, such as monstrous prepayment penalties, subterranean fees, and mandatory arbitration that forces mortgagees to negotiate, instead of fight, to improve their status with lenders.

The incessant marketing of credit to youth is similar, as the complex convolution of rules, fees and penalties around credit card use is near shameful. Enhanced scrutiny by government of marketing and sales practices by moneylenders is practical, and should become a key platform of consumer protection.

Lawmakers can’t control consumer behavior, however, as the responsible building of credit is too important to restrict because of stories of irresponsible abuse. Nutting’s bill, though sensibly aimed, also appears to run afoul of federal legislation, according to the Maine Bureau of Financial Institutions.

These two initiatives could be aligned into a coherent review into the marketing of debt in Maine, and we urge their Democratic sponsors to consider it. Erecting barriers to credit isn’t the answer, when government can make the debt industry more transparent – and responsive – to consumers.