Contact
Knowing the difference between red and blue
Carter Bundy
One activist at a recent Occupy Wall Street protest held a sign saying, ‘Red or blue, they screw you.’ Talk about undiscerning. Changing the country is going to take more than protests. It means knowing who is on the side of 99 percent of us and who is not.
Earlier this month, I happened to drive past an Occupy Wall Street event that had been scheduled for the same time as another event I’d attended. The OWS event, to their great credit, was four hours old and still had upwards of 50 people waving, singing, chanting and holding signs.
I loved most of the signs. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the housing bubble’s root causes knows that the lack of regulations in the home-loan industry, coupled with lack of oversight of Wall Street gambling, were the prime causes of a recession that has ruined literally tens of millions of American lives. (Read “The Big Short” by Michael Lewis if you think that the causes were Fannie, Freddie, or the Community Reinvestment Act. They weren’t).
The pain right now is real. Foreclosures, homelessness, unemployment, underemployment, adult children moving in with parents and vice versa. There’s a real crisis going on in America, and there’s no question about who is responsible for it. Most protesters hit the nail on the head.
I had to object to one sign, though.
One young activist held a sign saying, “Red or blue, they screw you.” Talk about undiscerning. There’s no doubt that the corporations and Wall Street firms who oppose regulation are masters of trying to buy off both parties, and that some Dems take the bait.
But there are real differences, and there’s no one happier than Wall Street and Republicans to see protesters lay blame equally on Democrats and Republicans for our current mess. It allows Republicans to escape accountability for their actions, and punishes Dems for having the courage to fight against Wall Street’s pressure to stay largely unregulated.
Financial-sector regulation, consumer protection and jobs
Democrats passed the strongest financial-sector regulations and consumer protections since the 30s. Guess who is trying to undo that work? Virtually every Republican in Washington, including Congressman Steve Pearce. Yet we’re supposed to treat Pearce the same as Congressmen Ben Ray Luján and Martin Heinrich, and Senators Tom Udall and Jeff Bingaman?
YouTube Elizabeth Warren, Obama’s hand-picked architect of many of our new consumer protections and now a Democratic Senate candidate in Massachusetts, and ask yourself if she sounds like Republican Wall Street deregulation advocate Heather Wilson.
In addition to financial-market regulation and consumer protection, the parties couldn’t be more different when it comes to solving issues like unemployment.
President Obama’s American Jobs Act was a consolidation of three major ideas that have garnered widespread bipartisan support for decades. Republicans used to love tax cuts of any kind, including cutting payroll taxes, until they were offered by President Obama. Suddenly Republicans find themselves in favor of raising taxes (mostly on the middle class and low-income families, of course).
Even stranger is the GOP opposition to infrastructure projects. Roads, bridges, airports, sewer and water systems, schools, prisons, and other essential infrastructure need to be upgraded anyhow, and badly. So why not do it now while money is cheap, people need jobs, and the cycling of money through the economy is precisely what the private sector needs to get back on its feet?
The third major part of the American Jobs Act is rehiring laid off police, firefighters, and teachers. There was a time when the Republican Party supported things like smaller class sizes, crime fighting, and public safety. No longer. Republicans scapegoat even workers who themselves are often Republican (or used to be) for a crisis whose causes had absolutely nothing to do with sewage plant workers, corrections officers, nurses, policemen, firefighters and teachers.
The American Jobs Act is a golden opportunity for a bipartisan solution that is primarily rooted in bolstering private companies and helping employees in the private sector, and Republicans are acting as if Obama had just nominated Karl Marx as the new chair of Apple.
Playing politics and protecting the wealthy
Why? Here’s what the Republican’s senior leader in Washington, Senator Mitch McConnell, said about a third of the way into Obama’s presidency: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
In fairness to the GOP, it’s not just politics. There’s a second goal that’s always in their minds: protecting the fortunes of millionaires and billionaires, no matter the circumstances.
The American Jobs Act is paid for, in large part, by restoring progressivity to our tax code. Senate Democrats propose that the only people who would see a tax increase are those making over $1 million a year (many of whom are on Wall Street). Obama has proposed merely reverting to the same top marginal rate that was paid during the Clinton years, when the rich did just fine.
When many millionaires and billionaires pay a lower percentage of income in taxes than their secretaries, that’s hardly class warfare. It’s fair play. Still, the idea that millionaires and billionaires share in even a penny’s worth of sacrifice while so much of the country suffers is anathema to the Republican Party of 2011.
Changing the country is going to take more than protests, as important as those are. It means knowing who is on the side of 99 percent of us and who is not. And knowing the difference between the two come Election Day.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.
11 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Abraham Lincoln put it best Mr. Bundy. “You can not make a poor person wealthy by making a wealthy person poor.”
Sir, one has to be of limited mental capacity to think that “government” and unions like AFSME do not promote re-distribution of wealth and are not themselves greedy.
I mean seriously, don’t your union and it’s members have your own seperate interests to try to get the best wages and benefits for your members…Isn’t that a form of greed?
We are all greedy sir. It’s part of being a human condition. So what make you think that your union is such a “wise” allocator of scarce resources?
By the way would you care to share with the rest of us how much of your union dues go to promote your political agenda? Where can we obtain this information? Can any one join your union without paying dues?
Please inform me what great achievements have come from AFSME. I would like to lear something important your organization has done…Do you have a Steve Jobs type leader?.
Please study your economics and you will see that in countries that have relatively free trade, and established property rights, individuals do well. Not every one…but they have the opportunity.
I guess you can say that our current economic climate rewards those that manipulate the system Mr. Bundy. Do you somehow think that a re-distributionist system rewards virtue?
Do you somehow think that Susana Martinez or Barak Obama select their appointees based on virtue? Or is it based on their political donations and clout?
Is your political self interest and that of your union better than economic self interest of capitalists?
So once we redistribute wealth what group of people can we find to allocate those resources most efficiently? I wonder whom you might select. There must be a saint amongst us sinners somewhere.
No.
Clinton was a supporter of the act, because of additions he had made. To wit:
Here is the signing statement: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=56922#axzz1bqL5i69M
And Clinton’s Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, had suggested repealing Glass-Steagall some four years earlier:
It’s still not clear to me what portion of the problem was GLB – there were a lot of other players and factors.
But BC was certainly a contributor.
skeptic– this vote was taken after some deal-making…. also note that there was no point in Clinton’s vetoing it, as it had, as you point out, passed with enough votes to override the veto. He would merely have looked futile if he had done so. It does not mean he supported it.
wedum
84% of Senate democrats and 75% of House democrats voted FOR the deregulation overturning Glass Stegall,
providing the super majority necessary. Then a democrat president signed the measure.
Yes there is blame for the republicans as well.
Just as there is blame for investment banks, ratings agencies, mortgage lenders, mortgage borrowers, financial media,
the ‘Flip this House’ program, greedy investors ( both on Wall Street and on Main Street where people were greedy to flip their houses ), real estate agents, and the press, you and I for not making it an issue.
And yes, democrats were culpable as well for the three most significant de-regulations of mortgage lending, investment banking, and derivatives trading.
It is worth remembering, though, that Canada did not have a credit crisis, EVEN THOUGH:
1. they had no glass-stegall – Investment banking and commercial banking were not separated there
2. they had ‘Too Big to Fail’ – Canadian banks were a few conglomerates that were just as intertwined with the economy
The reasons that Canada did not have a crisis is because mortgage lending remained appropriately strict
and bank capital requirements remained conservative.
I was mad as hell when this happened for my own losses but also for the unemployed from the recession we knew was coming.
But the anger is somewhat diffused by the realization that the culpable include a wide array of participants.
And both republicans -and- democrats.
Skeptic writes:
“* it was Democrats who went along with overturning Glass-Stegall regulations in 2000
* it was Democrat Bill Clinton that singed above deregulation ( Gramm-Leach-Bliley) in 2000″
“went along with,” so who sponsored it? Note, as below, BOTH houses of Congress were controlled by the Republican party at that time.
Gramm, Leach, and Bliley are all Republicans. The bill passed in 1999. BOTH houses of congress were controlled by Republicans: House 221 to 207, Senate 55 to 45. Be warned: more of this kind of legislation will be passed if Republicans regain control of both houses. For a detailed history, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act.
[BTW, something is wrong with the font translation on this site, when I copied and pasted the above link, several extraneous characters were inserted. Hopefully I have fixed this, but just Google "Gramm Leach Bliley Act" to get the info.]
The same article states: “During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming “too big to fail.” Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.”
Well, the choices have become those on the radical extreme right and just the right with a few social issues thrown in as bait.
Take this last jobs bill. The Democrats decide to break it up and try to pass it piece-meal with the result of passing those parts considered to be the concessions to the “right” which are really corporate mandates.
Out from under our noses with objections from both the Tea-party and the 99% the trade agreements with S. Korea, Panama and Columbia pass first thing.
That so called tax cut provision considered another concession to the right, is just a back door means to gut our social insurance programs. The White House has been pushing a hard sell on that one and has convinced those on the left that would somehow be a prudent move. Well, this Liberal does not buy it.
The tax raises on those making more than a million bucks? The vast majorities of people on both the left and right support raising the taxes on the the rich. Obama brings this up NOW? He knows that the bought off congress that is comprised of the Republicans and the Blue Dog Democrats will not let that pass. Obama missed his chance to do this when it should have been done and he knows it.
The fact is, the people on both the left and the right are feeling demoralized when our pols don’t listen to our populist positions and instead use social wedge issues to divide and conquer us even as the un-patriotic multi-national banks and financials control our government.
No, we can’t elect the radical crazy theocrats on the right, but the Democrats are paid off too.
“Red or blue, they screw you” isn’t as wrong as you might think. Politics has evolved into a game of money: those who have it can influence and buy votes; pay for media propaganda spouting why big oil is doing so much good with all its profits; “pay to play” on government contracts; etc. And Wall Street and the banks get bailed out after reaming the American public. Money influence happens at all levels of government regardless of party and politics. So, Occupy Wall Street is appropriate and so is the directed anger: at politics and politicians in general – all bought off by big money, and average Americans, red and blue, are damn tired of it.
Mr. Bundy….I must applaud you on MOST of this article. But….the protestor you referred to with the sign, “red or blue they both screw you” ….pretty much hit the nail right on the head. When President Obama picked Tim Geithner to head treasury, I knew then, nothing was going to change for reals. You made some good points, however, I’m going to stick with the sign that actually and in all reality does represent the 99%’ers.
Those who understand the credit crisis know that it was multi-factorial.
Republicans, particularly Phil Gramm for authoring bills but also Alan Greenspan for Lasez Faire
philosophy whilst overseeing the real estate bubble, share in the blame.
But since your article paints a multifaceted color picture in black and white,
lets add these facts to the discussion:
* it was a Democrat Congress that passed adjustable rate mortgage deregulation in 1980
* it was Democrat Jimmy Carter that singed above legislation
* it was Democrats who went along with overturning Glass-Stegall regulations in 2000
* it was Democrat Jeff Binagaman who voted for above deregulation
* it was Democrat Tom Udall that also voted for above deregulation
* it was Democrat Bill Clinton that singed above deregulation ( Gramm-Leach-Bliley) in 2000
* it was Democrats ( and Obama economic advisers ) Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin that supported the CFMA
* it was Democrat Bill Clinton that singed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000, which de-regulated derrivatives
To be sure, Republicans were in on all these acts.
But lets open our partisan blind spots.
I am not sure where to start, maybe once again saying that there is blame to go around to everyone involved and the end result is people taking advantage of the laws that were in place while the government tried to engineer some sort of social justice by once again moving into areas they have no business trying to operate in. Carter, in your zest to be as partisan as possible, you forget the role Democrats played in Freedie and Fannie! Kevin Hassett in his September 22, 2008 article form Bloomberg points out the huge problems Freddie and Fannie had and the movement by Republicans in 2005 to try and change the laws and allow for tougher regulations of both entities. Sorry Carter but once again you are either misinformed or trying to mislead the readers because it was the Democrats who killed the reforms on a party line vote in the Banking Committee, that is the facts not my opinion!
Carter you also fail to mention that while Wall Street supported Republicans, and Democrats in some cases at a greater margin, it was Fannie and Freddie who were writing checks of support to the very people, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd who were fighting to prevent greater regulation of an industry that all indicators back then suggested future problems coming!
“Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.”
US News, no great Conservative Journal, also writes about the amount of times President Bush called on tighter regulation for Freddie and Fannie, by the way that number is 17! Once again it was folks like Barney Frank who said “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing”? Never mind that at the time he was in a relationship with a high-ranking Fannie Mae executive, talk about a conflict of interest!!!! (US News, Politics October 6, 2008)
Carter I can go on for hours but I will spare the readers, once again you fail to recognize the facts just like you have before in discussions about things like race and politics! In the final analysis you may be right the kids sign is undiscerning but I would argue the fact is Democrats got us to this point, it was their desire to support those paying them in conjunction with their belief that there isn’t a problem the government can’t fix attitude. Is Wall Street to blame, yes they share culpability but your inability to see the true cause of this problem, along with many others like you, assures us we are destine to repeat this and that is what is scary……….
https://sites.google.com/site/erikhawkes/Home/red-is-blue
RED is BLUE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_color
The terms “red states” and “blue states” came into use in 2000 to refer to those states of the United States whose residents predominantly vote for the Republican Party or Democratic Party presidential candidates, respectively. A blue state tends to vote for the Democratic Party, and a red state tends to vote for the Republican Party, although the colors were often reversed or different colors used before the 2000 election.
This unofficial system of political colors used in the United States is the reverse of that in most other long-established democracies, where blue represents right-wing and conservative parties, while red represents left-wing and social democrat parties.Blue, particularly dark blue, is often associated with Conservative parties, originating from its use by that party of the United Kingdom.
In the United States, since the year 2000, the mass media have begun to associate blue with the Democratic Party, but the party has not adopted the colour in any official sense.
Red is traditionally associated with socialism and communism; see Red flag.
In Europe and Latin America, red is associated with parties of social democracy, and often their allies within the Labour movement.
In the United States, since the year 2000, the mass media has begun to associate it [red] with the Republican Party, but the party has not adopted red in any official sense.
There you have it.
Black is White. Up is Down. Red is Blue.
What else did you miss?
http://classiclit.about.com/od/nineteeneightyfour/a/aa_1984quotes.htm
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3