Transcript: Mayor de Blasio Delivers Remarks at Premier of "Hedge Funders vs. Kindergarten Teachers: Whose Side Are You On?"

September 10, 2015

Mayor Bill de Blasio: Thank you. Thank you so much, Lynn. Lynn, thank you for calling me honorable – that meant a lot to me. Thank you, everyone. Lynn, thanks for leading us today. I want to thank everyone for being here and being a part of this discussion today, and it literally, as Lynn said, could not be on a more important topic. I want to thank Pace University for hosting us. I want to thank the wonderful folks at Brave New Films – you’ll see their handiwork in a moment, but they do extraordinary work illuminating the issues of the day. 

We have some members of my team here today, including our Commissioner for the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities Victor Calise, Pauline Toole, our commissioner for the DORIS office, and Lori Sutton, our commissioner of the Mayor’s Office of Veterans Affairs. And I want you to thank all of them for being here – and Council Member Corey Johnson, a great progressive in the City Council. Let’s thank all of them for what they do. 

[Applause]

Brave New Films does amazing work. They have a board member who I think the world of because she helps to foster some of the most important progressive coverage and discussion in this country. I am speaking of Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor of The Nation magazine – 150 years The Nation has been illuminating key issues, including inequality – and let’s thank Katrina for the great work that she does. 

[Applause]

We are going to hear from Robert Greenwald in a moment, the director of this film who has an amazing career. And we’re also going to hear from someone who can speak with real authority on the topic before you – a New York City kindergarten teacher, Lena Lombardi, who just started school yesterday. And you’re going to hear why this stark contrast between 25 hedge fund managers and 150,000-plus kindergarten teachers around our nation really should tell us all we need to know about the challenge of inequality in our times. 

And the solution we’re talking about today is one that is straightforward and gaining currency more and more literally, it seems, every day. 

But let me just ground this for a moment in the experience we’re having here in New York City. Look, I ran on the pledge of addressing income inequality. And I talked about the Tale of Two Cities that New York City has experienced for years and this country has increasingly experienced, where we see growing inequality and the corrosive impact of it. 

And you know, when you talk about inequality, it’s not an abstraction. It’s not a matter of philosophy to say wouldn’t we like more equality versus less. No, it’s something much more tangible. 

Growing inequality undermines our cohesion as a nation. It literally takes away the opportunities and the possibilities of our people. 

This nation has been strongest and most unified when there was opportunity for more and more people. We’ve seen that possibility narrow in recent years – the exact opposite of what should be happening. 

You know, I like to quote different folks across the spectrum on these issues because it’s not just progressives talking about it. One of the most powerful statements I heard in the last year on income inequality was by Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman Sachs – not a leftist by any measure – and he said growing income inequality was destabilizing the United States of America – a very powerful choice of words, but a very apt one. 

So we said here in this city we have to use every tool possible to address it. And I’ll tell you, I think we’re making some headway, but I always said any one city can only go so far. The real big solutions are to some extent in our state capitals, but most especially in Washington D.C.. The biggest, most high-impact actions can only be taken by our federal government.

And that’s why this film, putting this into such stark contrasts, is a wonderful call to arms to people all around the country to recognize we have to change federal policies fundamentally. 

Now, in the city – look, again, everything we could find to help fight inequality, we are using. 

We got paid sick leave to a half-million more people.

We, for the first time ever, had a rent freeze for over a million New Yorkers who were living in rent-regulated units, and had seen their rents go up unfairly over the years – they finally got some relief from that. 

We are creating an affordable housing plan – 200,000 units preserved and built over the next ten years, enough for half-a-million people.

You think about things like that, you think about this wonderful step forward we made yesterday – pre-k – universal pre-k, full-day, for every child in our city – 65,000 kids started pre-k in New York City yesterday – full-day pre-k. 

[Applause]

So you think about these very big investments, these very big changes, and you say, well, wow, that’s – that’s a lot, that’s going to add up. It does help. It helps a lot. It helps that we have an aggressive living wage executive order and we’re expanding it to more and more people – all of these things help, but the big holistic solutions come from changing federal policies, from making investments in our people, from progressive taxation that would actually give government the resources it needs to address these problems on a much greater level. 

So I’m proud of what we’re doing here, but the real challenge for all of us is to take all the great examples from cities and states around the country and use them to create pressure on Washington for change, and to bind together so many kindred voices who believe in fairness. 

That’s why I joined with others back in May to create the Progressive Agenda. 

The Progressive Agenda is a gathering of leaders of all stripes from around the country who believe in things like closing the carried interest loophole or making $15 dollars the national minimum wage or pre-k for all, all over this country – core concepts that really would get to the heart of the matter when it comes to income inequality. 

I will just take a moment for a plug – if you’re interested in the Progressive Agenda, try progressiveagenda.us and you’ll get all the facts. [Laughs] You can clap for that. 

[Applause]

But let me tell you, at this moment, where New York City has embarked on something absolutely wonderful – and our pre-k effort is every neighborhood, it’s every kind of person, every walk of life, and I’ve heard from parents what it means for them – it’s a reminder that when you have the resources, we can do things that change peoples’ lives. 

Pre-k is an example. Pre-k would cost $10,000 dollars, $15,000 dollars for a parent to get if they had to go out and get a seat at a local nonprofit or a local school. How many parents in this city have $10,000 dollars or $15,000 dollars to spare when so many people are having trouble making ends meet? So that’s something the public sector should cover. That’s something the city should cover. That’s something that should be covered all over the nation as a fundamental need of the people. Pre-k should be the norm, but how do you pay for it? Well, this film’s about to give you a simple suggestion that could pay for something like pre-k for all, or could pay for some of the other crucial investments we need to make as a nation. 

It’s very simple. When we say “close the carried interest loophole” – now I must admit, this film is going to make it as sexy as it gets, because it is not the sexiest topic – but Robert did a great job with his team breaking it down and making it straightforward, and basically explaining that, unshockingly, some very, very privileged people got themselves a special tax consideration that meant they spent less in tax dollars, they’d have to pay less in taxes than other people who should, bluntly, be held to the same standard. So what happened is some very privileged people paid a lower tax rate – and pay today a lower tax rate than all the rest of us who work, because they make their money though hedge funds. 

Now, I think the American sense of fairness is that however you make your money, you should pay a fair level of taxes so we can support all the work we have to do on behalf of our whole society and all of our people. And Lord knows, there shouldn’t be special breaks for those who have the most. 

You know, I invoked Lloyd Blankfein before. Let me talk about Warren Buffet, who said, when he talked about the Buffet Rule, that no millionaire should pay less in taxes than his own secretary – shouldn’t pay a lower tax rate than his own secretary. 

Well, here’s another example of that – why should there be a special loophole allowing hedge fund managers to pay a lower tax rate than working people? It makes no sense. And what it means is resources that could go to making this a better country simply aren’t available, because these folks, who have done fabulously well, aren’t paying their fair share. 

I’ll do the Warren Buffet equivalent here – you’re going to see some examples of these well-known hedge fund managers in this film, and I will say it this way – they pay a lower tax rate than the woman who cleans their summer house or the guy who flies their private jet. That’s what’s going on here, and it doesn’t make sense, and it doesn’t conform to our values as Americans, and it has to change. 

Now, we have a moment where this discussion has suddenly gotten very ripe and very powerful, because the public can understand – if you had billions of dollars you could invest in pre-k or kindergarten or so many other good causes, good powerful things that our people need, well, who wouldn’t want to see both the fairness and those resources bought to bear to help working people and their families? 

So there’s something going on here that’s causing people to pay a lot more attention. And all over this country, the discussion about income inequality is getting more and more powerful, and it’s being brought forward to candidates for office and the people in office. The demand is being put on them to address income inequality, to talk about tax fairness and say what they would do. 

Now, you might say, well, wait – sure, there are some progressives who might respond to that, but a lot of other people, a lot of other candidates – maybe more conservative folks – would turn away and not even want to talk about the issue. 

Well, just when you thought things were really black and white, very interesting few developments in our nation the last couple of weeks. 

I must admit I did a double take when I saw Donald Trump speaking out for closing the carried interest loophole. That was not in the Donald Trump lexicon I was used to. But he did it – I’ll give him credit, he did it with passion, and he pointed out that it just didn’t make sense that this small group of individuals paid a lower tax rate. 

Well, okay, you could say Donald Trump, you know, he’s known to be a bit controversial. We’re glad it was good controversy in this case. 

But then you wake up today and you see Jeb Bush calling for an end to the carried interest loophole. 

So once in a while, it might be possible to imagine that fairness breaks through – that the light breaks through and a basic matter of what’s right comes to the fore. 

And maybe another way to think of it is the demands that the people make actually break through, because all over this country you hear people demanding more fairness. You hear them demanding more economic equality. You see it in the actions of local governments all over the country. You see it in referenda, even in red states – referenda for higher wages and benefits. 

So maybe Donald Trump and Jeb Bush and a lot of other people are finally realizing the people are speaking and they’re speaking loudly on this issue. 

So the call to action in this wonderful film is that every presidential candidate should have to speak up on this issue, and every candidate should take a simple pledge that in their first 100 days in office they will close the carried interest loophole once and for all.

[Applause]

But this film will say it much more eloquently than I could, and I want to introduce to you the man who brought it to us. 

Robert Greenwald is the founder and the president of Brave New Films. He has won more awards and more different kind of awards for his work in film and TV, for his documentaries than I could possibly name. 

And what’s powerful about Robert is he had a thriving career in the film and TV industry, but he felt called more and more to make documentaries that would shed light on the issues we’re facing. He was particularly moved by the 2000 presidential election and the fact that the will of the people was not heard – and he made a great documentary then and he’s continued since. 

He has been many times awarded for his work. It’s been seen all over the globe. It’s been influential for its power, its clarity. He’s earned 25 Emmy nominations for all that he has done. A great artist, a great thinker, a great progressive – very proud to say one of the inaugural signatories of our progressive agenda – and someone who really sheds light in a nation that could use some more – ladies and gentlemen, Robert Greenwald. 

[…]

Moderator: So, the question I have for you Mayor de Blasio – a lot of people argue about what drives income inequality. Liberals say well, maybe it’s because of low wages or weakened unions or CEO pay. Conservatives tend to point to things like technological change and a perceived lack of skills on the part of workers. Why is this particular driver something that people across the political spectrum, as we’ve heard, find so unjustified and unfair?

Mayor: Very powerful question –because it’s interesting, I’ve heard that fault line. And I think it’s important to look it in the eye. No one that I know – I certainly don’t believe that technological change has nothing to do with this; or globalization has nothing to do with this. I think – I believe the mature approach is to say, look, a lot of different things have come together. But the fact that technological change or globalization are contributing factors does not, in a sense, excuse the other realities. Globalization and technological change emanated in many cases from governmental policies that were not necessarily just to begin with. And we certainly see a lot of that playing in the debate over trade right now. Are we going to have policies that encourage further globalization and further dumbing down of wages and benefits; and less power in the hands of the people, and more power in the hands of corporation. So, I think even if you see there’s something analytically important to acknowledge about historical trends that does not for a moment take away the fact that a lot of them are grounded in policies that favored those that already had power. And the other side of your question is crucial here. We, in this country, once taxed the wealthy at a much higher level. And it had great impact on our society as a whole. During the Eisenhower administration – so just to ground this we’re not talking about Che Guevara here – during the Eisenhower administration wealthy people were taxed at a much higher rate. It was one of the realities that allowed us to invest in infrastructure, invest in research, invest in education. There’s a cause and effect here. The union movement was much stronger, obviously, for most of a half century – say from the ‘30s through the ‘70s and ‘80s. And that kept bring up the middle class, bringing up wages and benefits. There was an assumption, through much of government that government actually had to constantly reinforce the standard living of our people and open up more opportunity for working people and for people who had been historically left out of the economy. So, what’s so interesting in this discussion is, we have a body of evidence of what worked. I’m not saying it was a perfect, gauzy time – as my wife Chirlane always reminds me, the “good old days” were not the “good old days” for a lot of people. But there were some real, specific better elements of our society, including the level of investment our government made; the way we asked those who had done very well to pay their fair share; and a fundamental belief that government was supposed to work to improve wages and benefits across the board. Those are the things we have to get back to.

Moderator: Thank you very much. And I’ll just ask you one final question, because I know your time is limited. What do we stand to lose as a society if we’re not able to change these policies, like carried interest? What – how is it going to change us?

Mayor: I appreciate that question deeply. One, I point to the destabilization point again – the quote from Lloyd Blankfein. Again, this is – we’re not going to succeed as a nation, as a people, if there is not opportunity. In fact, if you can see before your eyes opportunity shrinking, and more and more people unable to make ends meet – and Robert, I give you such credit for the stories you told, even so briefly, in the film – but these teachers who are giving their all, and particularly the one who said, you know, at the end of the month, she was in debt $5 dollars, $10 dollars – that’s the thin margin that so many Americans are living on. So you look at that, and you say, how could that be a strong and stable country? How could that be the right direction? And honestly, even the most recent economic data proves, unfortunately, working people continue to go backwards in real economic terms. It’s not like, you know, the recovery quote-unquote “recovery” has suddenly righted the ship, and prosperity is being shared. Even years after the Great Recession, so many working people continue to go in the wrong direction economically. So I think we have to think, on the hand, about the destabilization element. The second part of the equation is what we’re losing because we’re not investing. So, go all around the country, go all around our city – we’re not investing in infrastructure because the resources aren’t there. There resources aren’t there, in part because we’re not asking those who have done so well to pay their fair share. If we’re not investing in infrastructure, we’re actually stymieing our economic possibilities and our future growth possibilities. We’re also not providing a lot of jobs that would be provided if we were building. And that’s what we did for decades, and a lot of people were able to feed their families because they had those jobs. We’re not investing the way we could in education. We’re thrilled that we got to full-day pre-k for all in New York City, but let’s face it – we’re a rarity. In many, many cities and states, full-day pre-k, even part-day – you know, half-day pre-k is not available. So kids aren’t getting the education they need to be competitive in the world and have the futures they could have. So you look at what’s been lost because the dynamic in Washington has devolved down to, how could we avoid spending money, and how could we avoid asking people to give their fair share for the good of all? It’s stymieing us as a country. And if you, as a New Yorker, or anywhere you come from, you feel quality of life, in terms of things like infrastructure, getting worse, there’s a literal cause and effect. And Robert’s pointed out in the film, there’s a literal cause and effect between the wrong kind of taxation policies and what we’re not able to do for the good of all.

With that, I want to thank the panel. Forgive me that I have to move on, but I just want to ask one thing, if I may. I really think it’s important that we not only thank all the panel, but thank everyone at Brave New Films, because this is a powerful work of art. Thank you so much, Robert. Let’s give them another round of applause.