If Someone Is Telling You There's No Difference Between The 2 Parties...

Want to make a last minute difference in the midterms? There are several progressive candidates in very close races. Here’s the list along with a way to contribute. These aren’t candidates who are out of danger or candidates with no reasonable chance. These are all candidates either up or down less than two points:

OR-05- Jamie McLeod Skinner

PA-08- Matt Cartwright

PA-17- Chris Deluzio

TX-15- Michelle Vallejo

In his Hill OpEd this week, Bernie finished with a missive that many progressives feel: “[It’s] no secret that many Americans are discouraged by what’s going on in Washington and are unhappy with both major parties. I get that. The answer, however, is not to make a bad situation worse by supporting candidates who will cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and give huge tax breaks to the rich. If we have any chance to create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1 percent, we must expand the Democratic majority in Congress and continue to push them to represent the needs of the working class, not the billionaire class.”

How does that difference between the two corporate parties manifest itself? Sometimes around the edges and sometimes not at all, but often in substantial ways— like the Democrats’ professed dedicating to saving women’s choice, saving democracy, saving racial and gender equality, saving progressive taxation, saving Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, strengthening unions, eliminating child poverty, raising the minimum wage, ameliorating the impact of the Climate Crisis. Not all Democrats are on board, but over 90% are. The Senate has creeps like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Maggie Hassan, Mark Warner, the two reactionaries from Delaware… And you’ll never hear anyone at DWT asking you to hold your nose and vote for those “lesser” evils. And in the House, we work to replace the worst of the Democrats, like Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY), Scott Peters (New Dem-CA). And, in fact, this cycle we helped dispose of Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR), celebrated the end of Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL), Abb Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ), Ron Kind (New Dem-WI) and Cheri Bustos (New Dem-IL) and watch with anticipation as Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Jared Golden (Blue Dog-ME), Tom O’Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ) and Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY) are slipping into oblivion.

That said, the difference between the two parties is still palpable, more so than ever. There are NO Republicans in the 117th Congress voting even anywhere close to the worst of the Democrats. In other words, the “best” Republicans— Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), John Katko (NY) and Adam Kinzinger (IL) have voting records that are approximately 3 times worse than the worst Democrats— Henry Cuellar, Josh Gottheimer and Jared Golden. Believe it or not, it was common in the recent past for at least a few Republicans to have better voting records than the worst Democrats. That’s over. And it’s even more pronounced in the Senate. Again, the Senate Dems with the worst 117th Congress crucial vote records:

• Joe Manchin (WV)- 84.16

• Dianne Feinstein (CA)- 91.93

• Jacky Rosen (NV)- 91.95

• Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)- 92.26

And the “best” Senate Republicans:

• Susan Collins (ME)- 32.41

• Lisa Murkowski (AK)- 21.12

• Lindsey Graham (SC)- 14.24

• Mitt Romney (UT)- 4.63

Perhaps it’s more elucidating to look at the scores of the worse Republicans and the best Democrats. Roger Marshall (KS) and Ted Cruz (TX) are tied for worst with 0.00 scores. The two best senators this cycle were tied for first place, Mazie Hirono (HI) and Elizabeth Warren (MA)— 99.38.

So let’s go back to the question of how these differences manifest themselves in real life. Yesterday, Lever News ran an essay by Jordan Uhl, The GOP Fights To Preserve Predatory Fees, in reference to a letter to the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the all Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee signed. The Republicans, noted Uhl, are fighting to preserve overdraft charges and other ‘junk fees’ that are generating tens of billions each year for their big bank donors at the expense of the country’s most desperate. The Republicans on the committee strongly objected to the agency’s stance that it should more tightly regulate overdraft fees— the practice where instead of declining a debit transaction, banks fine account holders for dipping into a negative balance. The conservative Senators tasked with overseeing the banking industry also take issue with the nickname the Biden administration and the CFPB have used to describe overdraft fees: ‘junk fees,’ calling it a “smear campaign” against the banksters.

Republicans and industry groups have tried to spin junk fees as a flexible, convenient alternative to payday or short-term loans and allege any regulation to protect consumers would “stifle innovation.” But, ultimately, these fees are revenue generators for banks, and that profiteering comes on the backs of banks’ most desperate customers. Annually, banks make around $30 billion off these “junk fees,” like overdraft charges, bounced check penalties, and late fees from people who already lack sufficient funds. Since 2010, banks raked in over $460 billion, adjusted for inflation, in overdraft fees.

With the Biden administration and CFPB repeatedly pledging to rein in this profiteering, big banks and front groups have deployed an army of lobbyists and flooded Senate Banking Committee Republicans with campaign donations.

The dozen Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee have collectively received more than $3.3 million in campaign contributions from corporate PACs representing the banking and finance industry so far this election cycle. Of that total, more than $1.5 million has gone to the four Republican committee members up for reelection — Sens. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Tim Scott (R-SC), John Kennedy (R-LA), and Jerry Moran (R-KS).

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s top business lobby, has spent $58 million on federal lobbying efforts this year, including on overdraft fees. The American Bankers Association and various other big banks and credit unions, all of whom make money on overdraft fees, have collectively spent more than another $16 million on lobbying.

While the Chamber vehemently opposes changes to or regulations on overdraft charges, claiming they would “limit innovation and consumer choice,” in reality, such junk fees can prove to be even more toxic than other financial devices that prey on people with insufficient means, such as payday loans.

A study by Moebs Services found that payday loans, while predatory, offer a lower median price— $17.65— compared to the median overdraft fee of $30. What’s more, the CFPB found in 2014 that a majority of debit card overdrafts are on purchases smaller than $24. If a $24 purchase was paid back within a few days with the median overdraft fee of $34, it would be the equivalent of a short-term loan with a 17,000 percent APR or annual percentage rate.

A 2021 CFPB report found that even with just under 9 percent of consumer accounts paying 10 or more overdraft fees a year, they account for nearly 80 percent of all overdraft revenue. More than 92 percent of banks and 61 percent of credit unions have overdraft programs. Overdraft fees account for nearly two-thirds of fee revenue in the banking industry, according to the CFPB.

Junk fees tend to hit people on fixed incomes, like retirees, particularly hard, as an overdraft fee on even a small transaction can lead to a cascade of financial consequences. This has led the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), the country’s top senior lobbying group, to call on the CFPB to enact stronger regulations on these fees.

“For too long, banks and credit unions have profited by charging excessive overdraft and non-sufficient fund (NSF) fees that can trap older Americans in a debt cycle or force them to leave the financial mainstream,” David Certner, legislative counsel and legislative policy director at AARP, wrote in a letter to the CFPB, adding that these fees “are among the most expensive and common fees charged by banks.”

With many seniors receiving Social Security checks on specific days relative to their birthdate, the timing of auto-payments for things like medical bills or unexpected yet common medical emergencies often leads to overdrafts for aging Americans. Other factors, like unfamiliarity with digital banking and cognitive decline, were found by the CFPB to be other common reasons for overdraft charges.

“I'm retired living in a rural county in Idaho. I paid a $30 NSF fee on a check for $4 that the bank bounced anyway,” Kathryn Anderson, a retiree in Idaho, told the CFPB via public comment. “Then the overdraft charges caused my checking account to become overdrawn, which in turn caused a new fee for every day my account was in the negative. The bank caused a negative loop which ended up costing me over $120 to fix.”

As consumer advocates wait for broader reforms, the Biden administration has begun taking targeted actions. Last month, Regions Bank, a nationwide chain with more than 1,400 branches, was ordered to refund more than $141 million in overdraft fees and pay a $50 million penalty for what the CFPB alleges were illegal and surprise overdraft fees.

To preemptively avoid punishment, some banks have begun to either reduce fees or eliminate them altogether. In Congress, Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s (D-NY) “Overdraft Protection Act,” which would prohibit deceptive practices by banks and restrict how and when customers could be charged overdraft fees, has languished since its introduction in June 2021.