

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
How convenient that seemingly everyone in
the liberal blogosphere, and even at many points to the right, got to
use Jim Bunning as a scapegoat. The venom of the attacks suggests that
the maverick Republican senator from Kentucky provided a welcome
alternative to the real villains: bankers much closer to the centers of
power. As if Bunning's denial of unanimous consent to a stopgap
extension of unemployment insurance-easily overcome, as was
demonstrated Tuesday night-is at the root of our economic crisis.
How convenient that seemingly everyone in
the liberal blogosphere, and even at many points to the right, got to
use Jim Bunning as a scapegoat. The venom of the attacks suggests that
the maverick Republican senator from Kentucky provided a welcome
alternative to the real villains: bankers much closer to the centers of
power. As if Bunning's denial of unanimous consent to a stopgap
extension of unemployment insurance-easily overcome, as was
demonstrated Tuesday night-is at the root of our economic crisis.
It isn't, and it is vicious nonsense to
transform Bunning, who has a long record of opposition to the
bipartisan policies that caused America's financial mess, into a poster
boy for economic heartlessness. The issue was not one of extending aid
for another month to those whose benefits had run out but rather
holding the government accountable for the means of payment.
Bunning's action was a sideshow, a
boneheaded symbolic gesture that backfired with slight consequences.
Yet the senator was made to look the dangerous fool in media accounts
while many of those who enabled the financial catastrophe continue to
be treated as reasonable experts after being rewarded for their folly
with the highest posts in both the Bush and Obama administrations.
The real issue here is the banking
bailout, a bipartisan swindle that Bunning opposed and that has led to
a dangerously spiraling deficit without providing relief to ordinary
folk. It is the same issue that carried Texas Gov. Rick Perry to
victory Tuesday in his state's Republican gubernatorial primary, in
which he defeated U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in part because of her
support of the bank bailout.
As with the January defeat of the
Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts election for a U.S. Senate
seat, the message from voters is loud and clear: The political
establishment cares only about the fat cats and not the people who are
hurting. Bunning's gesture was not intended, as his critics insisted,
to increase that pain but rather to hold the government accountable for
the money it is spending. He has consistently blasted the bailout as a
shameless gift to the Wall Street hustlers and urged that the money
being wasted on them instead be spent to aid homeowners and other
victims of their greed.
This is not the first time that Bunning has stood alone in Congress. He
was the sole member of the Senate to vote against the nomination of Ben
Bernanke to be head of the Federal Reserve. That appointment came from
Republican President George W. Bush, and yet it was Republican Sen.
Bunning who warned that Bernanke as a Fed governor had been allied with
then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in his disastrous policymaking.
That was four years ago, when Greenspan
was still being lionized by most Democratic and Republican politicians
as well as by much of the media. On Jan. 28 of this year, Bunning once
again rose in the Senate to challenge Bernanke, this time after
President Barack Obama had nominated him for a second term:
"Chairman Bernanke ... bowed to the
political pressure of the Bush and Obama administrations and turned the
Fed into an arm of the Treasury. ... Instead of taking that money and
lending to consumers and cleaning up their balance sheets, the banks
started to pocket record profits and pay out billions of dollars in
bonuses. ... So if you like those bailouts, by all means vote for
Chairman Bernanke. But if you want to put an end to bailouts and send
a message to Wall Street, this vote is your choice."
He is right to point out that enormous
sums always seem to exist to aid Wall Street but that assistance to
average Americans has consistently been only an afterthought. And he
does have a point in noting that if the latest spending extension was
felt to be so important, why wasn't it funded in a timely manner or in
an orderly procedure by his congressional colleagues from both parties
who are now trouncing him?
The money is always there when they want
it, as we have witnessed throughout the banking bailout when enormous
sums have suddenly been made available to those who least need it. The
Treasury Department managed to find $200 billion last week to deposit
with the Fed to increase the purchase of toxic mortgages to $1.25
trillion to make the bankers whole.
But the level of vituperation unleashed
against this senator is so disproportionate to his role in the economic
catastrophe as to raise questions of motive. The overreaction to
Bunning's protest was never anything more than a ploy for Democratic
and Republican leaders to profess great sorrow for the folks on Main
Street while they continue to coddle Wall Street.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
How convenient that seemingly everyone in
the liberal blogosphere, and even at many points to the right, got to
use Jim Bunning as a scapegoat. The venom of the attacks suggests that
the maverick Republican senator from Kentucky provided a welcome
alternative to the real villains: bankers much closer to the centers of
power. As if Bunning's denial of unanimous consent to a stopgap
extension of unemployment insurance-easily overcome, as was
demonstrated Tuesday night-is at the root of our economic crisis.
It isn't, and it is vicious nonsense to
transform Bunning, who has a long record of opposition to the
bipartisan policies that caused America's financial mess, into a poster
boy for economic heartlessness. The issue was not one of extending aid
for another month to those whose benefits had run out but rather
holding the government accountable for the means of payment.
Bunning's action was a sideshow, a
boneheaded symbolic gesture that backfired with slight consequences.
Yet the senator was made to look the dangerous fool in media accounts
while many of those who enabled the financial catastrophe continue to
be treated as reasonable experts after being rewarded for their folly
with the highest posts in both the Bush and Obama administrations.
The real issue here is the banking
bailout, a bipartisan swindle that Bunning opposed and that has led to
a dangerously spiraling deficit without providing relief to ordinary
folk. It is the same issue that carried Texas Gov. Rick Perry to
victory Tuesday in his state's Republican gubernatorial primary, in
which he defeated U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in part because of her
support of the bank bailout.
As with the January defeat of the
Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts election for a U.S. Senate
seat, the message from voters is loud and clear: The political
establishment cares only about the fat cats and not the people who are
hurting. Bunning's gesture was not intended, as his critics insisted,
to increase that pain but rather to hold the government accountable for
the money it is spending. He has consistently blasted the bailout as a
shameless gift to the Wall Street hustlers and urged that the money
being wasted on them instead be spent to aid homeowners and other
victims of their greed.
This is not the first time that Bunning has stood alone in Congress. He
was the sole member of the Senate to vote against the nomination of Ben
Bernanke to be head of the Federal Reserve. That appointment came from
Republican President George W. Bush, and yet it was Republican Sen.
Bunning who warned that Bernanke as a Fed governor had been allied with
then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in his disastrous policymaking.
That was four years ago, when Greenspan
was still being lionized by most Democratic and Republican politicians
as well as by much of the media. On Jan. 28 of this year, Bunning once
again rose in the Senate to challenge Bernanke, this time after
President Barack Obama had nominated him for a second term:
"Chairman Bernanke ... bowed to the
political pressure of the Bush and Obama administrations and turned the
Fed into an arm of the Treasury. ... Instead of taking that money and
lending to consumers and cleaning up their balance sheets, the banks
started to pocket record profits and pay out billions of dollars in
bonuses. ... So if you like those bailouts, by all means vote for
Chairman Bernanke. But if you want to put an end to bailouts and send
a message to Wall Street, this vote is your choice."
He is right to point out that enormous
sums always seem to exist to aid Wall Street but that assistance to
average Americans has consistently been only an afterthought. And he
does have a point in noting that if the latest spending extension was
felt to be so important, why wasn't it funded in a timely manner or in
an orderly procedure by his congressional colleagues from both parties
who are now trouncing him?
The money is always there when they want
it, as we have witnessed throughout the banking bailout when enormous
sums have suddenly been made available to those who least need it. The
Treasury Department managed to find $200 billion last week to deposit
with the Fed to increase the purchase of toxic mortgages to $1.25
trillion to make the bankers whole.
But the level of vituperation unleashed
against this senator is so disproportionate to his role in the economic
catastrophe as to raise questions of motive. The overreaction to
Bunning's protest was never anything more than a ploy for Democratic
and Republican leaders to profess great sorrow for the folks on Main
Street while they continue to coddle Wall Street.
How convenient that seemingly everyone in
the liberal blogosphere, and even at many points to the right, got to
use Jim Bunning as a scapegoat. The venom of the attacks suggests that
the maverick Republican senator from Kentucky provided a welcome
alternative to the real villains: bankers much closer to the centers of
power. As if Bunning's denial of unanimous consent to a stopgap
extension of unemployment insurance-easily overcome, as was
demonstrated Tuesday night-is at the root of our economic crisis.
It isn't, and it is vicious nonsense to
transform Bunning, who has a long record of opposition to the
bipartisan policies that caused America's financial mess, into a poster
boy for economic heartlessness. The issue was not one of extending aid
for another month to those whose benefits had run out but rather
holding the government accountable for the means of payment.
Bunning's action was a sideshow, a
boneheaded symbolic gesture that backfired with slight consequences.
Yet the senator was made to look the dangerous fool in media accounts
while many of those who enabled the financial catastrophe continue to
be treated as reasonable experts after being rewarded for their folly
with the highest posts in both the Bush and Obama administrations.
The real issue here is the banking
bailout, a bipartisan swindle that Bunning opposed and that has led to
a dangerously spiraling deficit without providing relief to ordinary
folk. It is the same issue that carried Texas Gov. Rick Perry to
victory Tuesday in his state's Republican gubernatorial primary, in
which he defeated U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in part because of her
support of the bank bailout.
As with the January defeat of the
Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts election for a U.S. Senate
seat, the message from voters is loud and clear: The political
establishment cares only about the fat cats and not the people who are
hurting. Bunning's gesture was not intended, as his critics insisted,
to increase that pain but rather to hold the government accountable for
the money it is spending. He has consistently blasted the bailout as a
shameless gift to the Wall Street hustlers and urged that the money
being wasted on them instead be spent to aid homeowners and other
victims of their greed.
This is not the first time that Bunning has stood alone in Congress. He
was the sole member of the Senate to vote against the nomination of Ben
Bernanke to be head of the Federal Reserve. That appointment came from
Republican President George W. Bush, and yet it was Republican Sen.
Bunning who warned that Bernanke as a Fed governor had been allied with
then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan in his disastrous policymaking.
That was four years ago, when Greenspan
was still being lionized by most Democratic and Republican politicians
as well as by much of the media. On Jan. 28 of this year, Bunning once
again rose in the Senate to challenge Bernanke, this time after
President Barack Obama had nominated him for a second term:
"Chairman Bernanke ... bowed to the
political pressure of the Bush and Obama administrations and turned the
Fed into an arm of the Treasury. ... Instead of taking that money and
lending to consumers and cleaning up their balance sheets, the banks
started to pocket record profits and pay out billions of dollars in
bonuses. ... So if you like those bailouts, by all means vote for
Chairman Bernanke. But if you want to put an end to bailouts and send
a message to Wall Street, this vote is your choice."
He is right to point out that enormous
sums always seem to exist to aid Wall Street but that assistance to
average Americans has consistently been only an afterthought. And he
does have a point in noting that if the latest spending extension was
felt to be so important, why wasn't it funded in a timely manner or in
an orderly procedure by his congressional colleagues from both parties
who are now trouncing him?
The money is always there when they want
it, as we have witnessed throughout the banking bailout when enormous
sums have suddenly been made available to those who least need it. The
Treasury Department managed to find $200 billion last week to deposit
with the Fed to increase the purchase of toxic mortgages to $1.25
trillion to make the bankers whole.
But the level of vituperation unleashed
against this senator is so disproportionate to his role in the economic
catastrophe as to raise questions of motive. The overreaction to
Bunning's protest was never anything more than a ploy for Democratic
and Republican leaders to profess great sorrow for the folks on Main
Street while they continue to coddle Wall Street.