Bernie Sanders's Blog, page 6

United Against the War on Women

The history of American democracy, to say the least, has been checkered. Our nation was founded at a time when people of African descent were held in bondage. After slavery was abolished, they were forced to endure legal discrimination for another 100 years.



When our country was formed, women were not just second-class citizens. They were third- or fourth-class citizens. Women couldn't vote or play a significant role in the political life of the nation. Women, in many cases, couldn't own property and were legally regarded as subservient in marriage. The educational and economic opportunities open to women were extremely limited. And, of course, women were unable to have control over their own bodies.



In the last 50 years, as the result of an enormous amount of effort on the part of the women's movement and its male allies, we as a nation have made significant progress in the fight for gender equality. Clearly, much, much more needs to be done, but few would deny that our country has come a very long way in this struggle. In Vermont, Governor Madeleine Kunin has given years of service to our state after becoming the state's first female governor in 1985. She is an inspiration to girls throughout Vermont and the country in allowing them to know that the opportunities they have are unlimited.



At rallies in Vermont and across the country this weekend, our message was clear. We are not going back. Not only are we not going to retreat on women's rights, we are going to expand them. We are going forward, not backward.



We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions, when countless women died or were maimed. The decision about abortion must remain a decision for the woman, her family and physician to make, not the government.



We are not going back to the days when women could not have full access to birth control. Incredibly, here in the year 2012, that is exactly what the Blunt Amendment, which we defeated last month in the Senate, was all about. The Blunt Amendment would have allowed any employer who provided health insurance, or any insurance company, the right to deny coverage for contraception or any other kind of procedure if the employer had a "moral" objection to it. While I am glad that we defeated this horrendous amendment, it certainly was a sad day in our country when every Republican, save one, voted for it.



We are not going back to the days of wide-scale domestic violence, even if 31 Republican men in the Senate recently voted against the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act because it expanded coverage to the gay community and Native Americans.



We are not going back to the days when it was legal for women to be paid less for doing the same work as men, even if the governor of Wisconsin recently signed a bill to repeal that state's pay-equity law.



Further, not only are we going to protect and expand those laws which deal directly with women's rights, we are going to vigorously defend the important laws and programs which protect all working people in our country -- women and men alike.



In the midst of this terrible recession we say NO to cuts in Social Security, a program which is so important to all of our seniors, but especially to women.



When 50 million Americans have no health insurance we say NO to cuts in Medicare and Medicaid which protect tens of millions of Americans, but are especially important to women and their children.



The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win.



But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive.



Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders, on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America.



Let us wage a moral and political war against the gross wealth and income inequality in America, the worst in the industrialized world, which is tearing this country and our economy apart.



Let us wage a moral and political war against a dysfunctional health care system and fight for a Medicare-for-all single-payer system.



Let us wage a moral and political war against war itself, so that we can cut military spending and use that money for human needs.



Finally, let understand that when we stand together, we will always win. When men and women stand together for justice, we win. When black, white and Hispanic people stand together for justice, we win. When straight and gay people stand together for justice, we win. When young and old stand together for justice, we win. When working families stand together, we win.



Vermont is a national leader in the fight for a new health care system, for the transformation of our energy system, and in support of family farming and organic agriculture. We were the first state in the country to pass a civil union law and the first state to pass gay marriage legislation without a court order.



Now, we must continue and expand our efforts to be national leaders in the fight for gender equality.



I have seven beautiful grandchildren, four of whom are girls. Let us all work together in making sure that those four girls, and every girl in our state and country, has the same opportunity as anyone else to fulfill their dreams and live their lives without gender discrimination of any kind.

Vermont Is Helping to Lead the Nation in Transforming Our Energy System

We come from Vermont. We know our small state cannot reverse global warming on our own, but we can provide a model for America which helps lead our nation and the world to a more sustainable and secure energy future.



We see three major imperatives.



First, we must act to reverse global warming. The scientific consensus is clear that global warming is real, that it is caused by human activities and that it will only get worse if we do not take bold efforts now. At a time when many members of Congress do not even acknowledge that global warming is happening, in Vermont we are taking action. Vermont has more than 100 grassroots citizen-led town energy committees that are working with state agencies to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and such clean sources of sustainable energy as solar, geothermal, biomass and wind.



Second, at a time when our nation is trying to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, we must seize the opportunity of creating millions of new jobs by making our homes, buildings and appliances more energy efficient. We must also invest heavily in public transportation and rebuilding our rail system. Further, there are enormous economic opportunities not only in the installation of wind and solar projects, but in building these products here in the United States, not China.



We are proud that according to a recent U.S. Labor Department estimate, Vermont leads the nation in green jobs per capita. That's one reason Vermont's unemployment rate is among the lowest in the nation. From the well drillers who now see the installation of geothermal heat pumps as a new opportunity to expand their businesses, to loggers in the woods who are helping to keep our schools and homes warm, to our innovative solar and wind companies that compete nationally and even internationally, our small state is home to a burgeoning network of new green businesses. This did not happen by accident. We have put in place policies that support clean-technology businesses in Vermont.



Finally, we must grasp opportunities to lower energy and fuel bills by moving away from foreign oil toward energy independence. We know this from first-hand experience. We live in a state where roughly half our homes are heated with oil. We live in a region of the country where electricity prices exceed the national average. Of the $1 billion spent every year to heat our homes and buildings in Vermont, 80 percent of that money goes out of state and in some cases to other nations that may not have our best interests in mind. By comparison, 80 percent of what we invest in energy efficiency stays in Vermont to purchase local goods and services and create jobs.



The challenge is to turn these principles into practice.



Up-front costs pose a steep barrier to home owners and businesses converting to cleaner sources of energy or weatherizing homes and workplaces to make them more energy efficient. For an average working family, it is hard to come up with the $5,000 or $10,000 that might be needed to cut fuel bills by 25 to 50 percent. That's why we brought together energy providers, investors and consumers at a first-of-its-kind Clean Energy Investment Summit. Vermont's efforts to move forward with innovative financing tools like on-bill financing and Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) will provide more households and businesses access to energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies.



We're already doing a lot of other things right. Our state is ranked No. 1 by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy in terms of energy efficiency policies. Our electric utilities sell less kilowatt-hours or power than they did a few years ago, saving consumers tens of millions of dollars. We also have been a leader in weatherization for low-income families, with about 15,000 homes weatherized in the last decade. That saves energy and money; about $916 per year per household. If every state over the next 10 years matched what Vermont accomplished over the last decade, our nation would need 390 fewer coal-burning plants and American consumers would save $170 billion. Further, we will soon be the first state in the country with near-universal smart meter coverage -- opening the opportunity for more gains in energy efficiency.



And we are making progress on sustainable energy. Maj. Gen. Michael Dubie of the Vermont National Guard recently discussed, with considerable pride, the 1.45 megawatt solar photovoltaic system which the Guard recently installed. This project, one of the largest military solar installations in the nation, is not just good for the environment; it is saving the Guard an estimated $250,000 a year in energy costs. Further, in a state where so many buildings heat with oil, 47 Vermont schools are saving money and protecting the environment by heating with biomass harvested right here in New England.



For the nation, like Vermont, moving forward aggressively in energy efficiency and sustainable energy is a win, win, win proposition. We protect our environment by cutting greenhouse gas emissions. We save homeowners and businesses money on their heating and cooling bills. And, in the middle of a recession, we create jobs here at home, not in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Stop the Nuclear Industry Welfare Program

This nation is facing a $15 trillion national debt, and there is no shortage of opinions about how to move toward deficit reduction in the federal budget. One topic you will not hear discussed very often on Capitol Hill is the idea of ending one of the oldest American welfare programs -- the extraordinary amount of corporate welfare going to the nuclear energy industry.



Many in Congress talk of getting 'big government off the back of private industry.' Here's an industry we'd like to get off the backs of the taxpayers.



As a senator who is the longest-serving independent in Congress, and as the president of an independent and non-partisan budget watchdog organization, we do not necessarily agree on everything when it comes to energy and budget policy in the United States. But one thing we strongly agree on is the need to end wasteful subsidies that prop up the nuclear industry. After 60 years, this industry should not require continued and massive corporate welfare. It is time for the nuclear power industry to stand on its own two feet.



Nuclear welfare started with research and development. According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, since 1948 the federal government has spent more than $95 billion (in 2011 dollars) on nuclear energy R&D. That is more than four times the amount spent on solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, and hydropower combined.



But federal R&D was not enough; the industry also wanted federal liability insurance too, which it got back in 1957 with the Price-Anderson Act. This federal liability insurance program for nuclear plants was meant to be temporary, but Congress repeatedly extended it, most recently through 2025. Price-Anderson puts taxpayers on the hook for losses that exceed $12. 6 billion if there is a nuclear plant disaster. When government estimates show the cost for such a disaster could reach $720 billion in property damage alone, that's one sweetheart deal for the nuclear industry!



R&D and Price-Anderson insurance are still just the tip of the iceberg. From tax breaks for uranium mining and loan guarantees for uranium enrichment to special depreciation benefits and lucrative federal tax breaks for every kilowatt hour from new plants, nuclear is heavily subsidized at every phase. The industry also bilks taxpayers when plants close down with tax breaks for decommissioning plants. Further, it is estimated that the federal costs for the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste could be as much as $100 billion.



Even with all of those subsidies, the private sector still will not agree to finance a new nuclear plant, so wealthy nuclear corporations recently secured access to $18.5 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Maybe the Wall Street banks agree with the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated the risk of default on nuclear loans at above 50 percent. The nuclear industry's financial troubles are not new. In the 1960's and 1970's, 100 reactors were cancelled due to cost overruns. Things were so bad Forbes called it "the largest managerial disaster in business history." Despite this history, some want to dramatically increase federal loan guarantees for nuclear plants.



It is shocking that the nuclear industry continues to receive so much federal support at a time of record debt. Of course nuclear subsidies benefit some of the wealthiest and most powerful energy corporations in America, which may explain the persistence of nuclear welfare.



For example, Exelon, which takes in $33 billion in revenue annually, is the leading operator/owner of nuclear reactors in the United States. Entergy, with revenues of more than $11 billion annually, is the second largest. Together, these two companies own or operate almost one-third of U.S. reactors, and based on their revenue they are doing pretty well. Why do they need endless federal welfare for their industry year after year after year? Will it ever end?



Well, as Secretary of Energy Steven Chu confirmed at a recent Senate hearing, without federal liability insurance and loan guarantees, no one would ever build a new nuclear plant. Whether you support nuclear energy or not, we should all be able to agree that with record debt, we cannot afford to continue to subsidize this mature industry and its multi-billion dollar corporations. If the nuclear industry believes so fervently in their technology, then they and Wall Street investors can put their money where the mouth is. Let's let them finance it, insure it, and pay for it themselves.

We the People

If you are concerned about the collapse of the middle class, you should be concerned about how American campaigns are financed. If you wonder why the United States is the only country in the industrialized world not to have a national health care program, if you're asking why we pay the highest price in the world for prescription drugs, or why we spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined, you are talking about campaign finance. You are talking about the unbelievable power that big-money interests have over every legislative decision.



An already horrendous situation was made much worse two years ago this month when the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. the Federal Elections Commission that multinational corporations have a constitutional right to spend whatever they want to influence election outcomes. A bare 5-4 majority lowered the floodgates on unchecked, unlimited, unaccountable corporate cash in political campaigns. Corporations were equated with people. A century of laws regulating business spending on elections were upended. In one fell swoop, five justices fantasized for corporations a right never conceived by the founders whose preamble to our Constitution begins with the words, "We the people..."



The ruling not only poisoned our political process. It contaminated the legislative process. It cast a permanent chill over all policymaking. Will the merits or the money tip the balance when an issue comes before Congress? What do you think? If the question is on breaking up huge banks, for example, every member of the Senate and the House, in the back of their minds, will ask themselves what the personal price would be for taking on Wall Street. Am I going to be punished? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my state? They're going to think twice about how to cast that vote. Not to put too fine a point on it, you will see politicians being adopted by corporations and becoming wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate entities.



We already have seen what kind of damage Citizens United can cause. In the first election after the decision was handed down, corporations in 2010 poured hundreds of millions of dollars into independent organizations not formally affiliated with parties or candidates. About half of the $300 million spent by independent organizations came from undisclosed sources. In 60 of the 75 congressional races in which power changed hands, the unaccountable outside groups backed the winners. They spent freely and overwhelmingly on negative ads. The early phases of this year's elections bear witness to projections that the Citizens United effect will be much worse. Karl Rove has announced plans to raise $240 million. The Koch brothers promise to spend $200 million. It's fair to assume the Chamber of Commerce will spend at least as much. The Super PAC supporting President Obama, Priorities USA Action, aims to play in the same league. Hundreds of millions more will be in play.



It's a virtual certainty that all of this spending will fundamentally distort our democracy, tilting the playing field to favor corporate interests, discouraging new candidates, chilling elected officials and shifting the overall policymaking debate even further in the direction of giant corporate interests and the super-wealthy.



So now we face a choice. Americans can let Citizens United remain the law of the land, or we can have a functioning democracy. We can't have both. We choose democracy. With no reason to think that this court will reconsider its decision, we need a constitutional amendment.



Yes, legislative reforms could mitigate the damage. We should require better disclosure rules. We should make shareholders approve corporations' political spending. We should provide public financing of elections, but entrenched money interests have thwarted that for decades.



But nothing can truly cure the problem unless Citizens United is overturned with a constitutional amendment.



The Saving American Democracy Amendment in the Senate and a companion proposed in the House by Florida Representative Ted Deutch would do just that. The amendment would establish that constitutional rights belong to real people, not for-profit corporations. The amendment would prohibit corporations from making election-related expenditures. It would clarify that Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign spending, overturning the doctrine that election contributions and expenditures constitute First Amendment-protected speech and therefore may be subject only to limited restrictions. And it would affirm that nothing in the amendment limits freedom of press.



It's no easy thing to enact a constitutional amendment, but momentum for an amendment is building. People who have honest differences of opinion understand that there is something profoundly disgusting with what is happening in Washington and that there is something wrong with American democracy when you have a handful of billionaires and businesses putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the political process. Very few people think that has anything to do with American democracy. The American people desperately want to restore our democracy and return to rule by all of the people, not corporations and the superrich.



Bernie Sanders is a United States Senator from Vermont. Robert Weissman is the president of Public Citizen.



Sign the petition to support Sen. Sanders' Saving American Democracy Amendment.

America Must Not Back Down on Sustainable Energy

If you read just the headlines these days, you might think renewable energy in America is going the way of Solyndra. Don't take our word for it: a recent headline from Fox News declared "ENTIRE Solar Industry on Brink of Collapse."



We cannot allow long-time opponents of renewable energy to focus the discussion only on Solyndra (whose higher priced panels could not compete as solar costs came down) when we should be thinking about competing with China to win the next energy revolution. Why? Because the race is on to put the right policies in place so hundreds of thousands of new, good-paying renewable energy jobs will be created here, and not in China. With Bloomberg New Energy Finance reporting that for the first time ever, global investments in renewable electricity have exceeded investments in fossil fuel power plants, the question is not whether renewable energy is creating jobs; it is which country is going to lead the clean energy jobs revolution. We want it to be America.



The truth is we can win this race. The American solar energy industry is thriving, as is the renewable energy industry more broadly. Just look at the facts: we have doubled the number of solar jobs in America since 2009, and today more than 100,000 Americans work in the solar industry, at more than 5,000 companies in every single state. These include manufacturing, installation, and supply chain jobs.



Last year, we installed nearly 1,000 megawatts of solar power in the United States, more than double the amount installed in 2009. With the solar industry growing at a rate of 69 percent annually, it is one of America's fastest growing industries and is creating jobs all across the country. The cost of solar panels has fallen 30 percent over just the last two years, continuing a long-term decline in the price of solar.



As solar becomes more cost-competitive with conventional fossil fuels, everyone from Walmart to the United States Marine Corps is looking to solar. Walmart is installing solar panels at 130 stores in California and says "Walmart has reduced energy expenses by more than a million dollars through our solar program." The military is using solar energy with battery storage to fully power forward operating bases in Afghanistan, and Marine Colonel Bob Charette says for the Marines renewable energy is "about saving lives" by reducing the number of dangerous fuel convoys needed for resupply.



The wind industry is also growing rapidly. Texas alone has more than 10,000 megawatts of wind energy installed, which is equivalent in capacity to 10 nuclear reactors. Iowa now gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind. There are 75,000 wind energy jobs in America today, and more than 400 manufacturing facilities in 43 states. The price of wind energy has dropped by 90 percent since 1980, and wind electricity today is competitive with fossil fuels at 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. At the same time, we are increasing American manufacturing of wind turbines, and now 60 percent of turbine components installed in the United States are made in America, up from 25 percent in 2005.



In these tough economic times, the story of renewable energy in the United States is actually a rare good news story. Renewable energy is helping to create hundreds of thousands of jobs, is making our nation more energy independent, and is cutting pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.



As with every energy technology in the past, federal policies play an important role in supporting renewable energy in America. Key among those policies is a provision known as the Treasury Grant Program (or 1603) which turns an existing wind and solar tax credit into a grant. This provides better financing options for American renewable energy developers and has helped to attract nearly $23 billion in private sector investments in renewable energy, supporting 22,000 projects. Unfortunately this program is set to expire at the end of this year, unless Congress acts to extend it. What is at stake in this fight? If this program expires, one study shows that financing for renewable energy projects would be cut in half, just at the time when renewable energy is experiencing explosive growth.



Although Solyndra is the major headline right now, the real challenge is that Congress is debating whether we can even extend the Treasury Grant Program and other important renewable energy incentives for another year.



Meanwhile, China outpaces the United States by a 2-to-1 margin in clean energy investments according to Energy Secretary Steven Chu. America needs to out-compete China on solar and wind, not surrender to China. At a time of nagging unemployment, with the middle class squeezed, and greenhouse gas emissions rising, it is imperative that our nation take the lead in creating clean energy jobs right here in America.



It is time to put in place stable, long-term policies to support these critical industries. Rather than fight to turn one energy company's demise into partisan points, it is time to point the way towards our energy future -- so that all Americans win.

Saving Our Democracy

Today I introduced a resolution calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A similar resolution has been offered in the house by Rep. Ted Deutsch of Florida.



I do not do this lightly nor have I ever done this before. The U.S. constitution is an extraordinary document which has served our country well for over 200 years. In my view, it should not be amended often. In light of the Supreme Court's disastrous 5-4 decision in the Citizens United case, however, I see no alternative but a constitutional amendment.



I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision.



In my view, a corporation is not a person.



In my view, a corporation does not have first amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign.



In my view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries, spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.



I do not believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be about.



I do not believe that that is what the bravest of the brave from our country fighting for democracy fought and died to preserve.



Almost two years ago in its now infamous Citizens United decision, the United States Supreme Court upended over a precedent, taking a somewhat narrow legal question and using it as an opportunity to radically change our political landscape, unleashing a tsunami of corporate spending on campaign ads.



Make no mistake; the Citizens United ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy. It has further tilted the balance of the power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when the wealthiest people in this country already never had it so good. In my view, history will record that the Citizens United decision is one of the worst in the history of our country.







At a time when corporations have more than $2 trillion in cash in their bank accounts and are making record-breaking profits, the American people should be concerned when the Supreme Court says that these corporations have a constitutionally-protected right to spend, spend, spend shareholders' money to dominate an election as if they were real, live persons.



If we do not reverse this decision, there will be no end to the impact that corporate interests can have on our campaigns and our democracy.



Infinitely more money is going to come into the political process through non-disclosed donations funding political ads on TV screens in our states.



According to an Oct. 10, 2011, article in Politico, "the billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million -- potentially much more -- to conservative groups ahead of Election Day 2012."

Does anybody really believe that that is what American democracy is supposed to be about?



When an issue comes up that impacts Wall Street, like breaking up huge banks. What will senators be thinking about when they decide to vote?



Every member of the Senate, every member of the House, in the back of their minds will be asking this: If I cast a vote this way, if I take on some big-money interest, am I going to be punished? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my state?



It's not just taking on Wall Street. Maybe it's taking on the drug companies. Maybe it's taking on the private insurance companies. Maybe it's taking on the military-industrial complex. Whatever powerful and wealthy special interests members of Congress are prepared to take on -- on behalf of the interest of the middle class and working families of this country -- they will know in the back of their mind that they may be a flood of money coming in to their state. They're going to think twice about how to cast that vote.



The Constitution of this country has served us well for more than 200 years, but when the Supreme Court says that for purposes of the First Amendment, corporations are people, that writing checks from the company's bank account is constitutionally-protected speech and that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger.



I am a proud sponsor of a number of bills that would respond to Citizens United and begin to get a handle on the problem. But more needs to be done, something more fundamental and indisputable, something that cannot be turned on its head by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.



We have got to send a constitutional amendment to the states that says simply and straightforwardly what everyone except five members of the United States Supreme Court seem to understand, that corporations are not people with equal constitutional rights. Corporations are subject to regulation by the people. Corporations may not make campaign contributions -- the law of the land for the last century. And Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.

Making AIDS Treatment Affordable

When World Aids Day was first observed in 1988, there was no truly effective treatment for what was almost always a deadly disease. Today the biggest problem in caring for those with AIDS is no longer mainly a medical or scientific problem. The crisis is access to affordable drugs. Despite medical breakthroughs, AIDS drugs cost way too much for way too many to afford. Fortunately, there is a promising solution. We must break the link between rewards for research and the prices charged for new drugs.



There have been tremendous scientific advances, but AIDS has not gone away. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are more than 1.1 million persons living with HIV/AIDS in the United States, and that 56,000 persons are newly infected every year. Globally, the numbers are more staggering. The World Health Organization says more than 33 million persons are living with HIV/AIDS, and 2.5 million are infected each year. Ninety percent of HIV+ persons live in developing countries, some 29 million persons. Only 6 million of those receive the most effective treatment for AIDS, the antiretroviral drugs known as ARVs.



Matters are likely to get worse. The United States is backing off its commitment to the successful Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Other countries are following suit. Just last week, the Global Fund announced that it will not be able to reach more people suffering from these devastating diseases until 2014.



The problem with access to affordable care is not only a third-world concern. It's a problem right here at home. A three-drug regime like ATRIPLA costs less than $200 to make but sells for $24,000 per patient per year in the U.S. Some newer combination therapies are even more expensive. Funding shortfalls for federal- and state-subsidized AIDS drug assistance programs, however, have caused waiting lists to grow. A list that was whittled down to 361 people a year ago grew to 6,595 people in 12 states as of last month. Many more are simply being thrown off the waiting lists due to stiffer eligibility requirements.



The big winners under the current system have been the pharmaceutical companies. The lucrative incentive for drug makers to invest in research and development is a 20-year monopoly on a profitable new invention. Many people thought this approach was necessary to stimulate R&D. It's not. There is a better way. Many economists, in fact, are now questioning the costs and benefits of old-fashioned pharmaceutical monopolies and look to a new model as a way to reward innovation and make affordable medicine available to millions more people.



I introduced a bill in the Senate that would test this new approach on drugs developed to treat one disease: HIV/AIDS. The measure (S. 1138) would eliminate legal barriers to generic competition for HIV/AIDS drugs, and reward innovation directly, through a $3 billion a year prize fund. It would unleash unprecedented advances in medical innovation in decades to come by also requiring that at least 5 percent of the prize money go to any individual, business or non-profit organization that openly shared information, data, materials or technology that contributed in a positive way to the development of new drugs.



The prize fund approach recognizes that we need to foster and reward medical innovations, but separates the market for innovation from the market for the drugs themselves. This approach has many benefits, dramatically lower prices being the most obvious. Experts estimate that the $10 billion U.S. market for AIDS drugs can be supplied at generic prices for anywhere from $500 million to $1.5 billion. So, even after spending $3 billion per year on the prize fund, there will be a huge overall savings.



Saving money isn't the only reason this is a good idea. The prize fund also will stimulate innovation. It will give larger rewards for drugs that improve health care outcomes, and smaller or no rewards for duplicative, "me-too" drugs that are medically insignificant. It also would eliminate incentives to engage in wasteful marketing activities. Prize fund rewards will be based on evidence that drugs actually work, and work better than alternatives.



The prizes would be funded by the federal government and private health insurers in an amount proportionate to their share of the HIV/AIDs drug market. Insurance companies and self-insured employers should welcome the new model. The cost of the prize fund would be considerably less than the cost of buying drugs at monopoly prices.



From the beginning, the HIV/AIDS pandemic has presented very difficult challenges. The current challenge is to make access to treatment sustainable for more than a million persons in the U.S. and tens of millions of people in developing countries. The prize fund model reconciles innovation and access. If the U.S. can transform its domestic market for HIV/AIDS drugs, it will certainly transform the world market, and make HIV/AIDS drugs more affordable for everyone, everywhere.

Democrats, Stop Caving In

Here is something we all can agree on: Federal deficits are a serious problem.



Here is something no one seriously disputes: Today's big deficits were caused mainly by big tax cuts for the wealthy, two unpaid-for wars, a horrible recession caused by Wall Street greed, and an expensive prescription drug program rigged to favor pharmaceutical companies.



Here is something we should not agree to do: Cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.



There is surprisingly broad consensus among Americans (except inside the corporate-dominated D.C. beltway) on what to do about deficits. In poll after poll, strong majorities favor making the wealthiest Americans, who, in many cases, have never had it so good, share the sacrifice and pay a little more in taxes. Increasing taxes on the wealthy is overwhelmingly supported by Democrats and independents. A majority of Republicans and people in the Tea Party movement also support taxing millionaires to help bring down deficits. Even many millionaires say they should be paying higher taxes. At a time when many profitable corporations pay nothing in federal income taxes, there also is widespread support for closing corporate tax loopholes. Taking a hard look at mushrooming defense spending also enjoys widespread support.







For far too long, the Washington agenda has been set by powerful corporate interests and a right wing that do not represent the needs and aspirations of most Americans. For too long, the Democrats have gone along with Republican demands and caved in to these powerful special interests. The American people are frustrated and disgusted. They want Democrats to fight back.



As a Thanksgiving deadline nears for action by the powerful Super Committee on deficit reduction, I hope (but doubt) that Republicans will listen to the American people and support deficit reduction in a fair and responsible way. I hope (but doubt) that Democrats will not once again capitulate just for the sake of an agreement - but that's been the pattern.



In December -- when Democrats controlled the Senate, the House and the White House -- Congress and President Obama not only extended Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthy but also gave new breaks to heirs of the super-rich.



In April -- with a Democrat in the White House and Democrats still in the majority in the Senate -- Republicans threatened to shut down the government and delay the processing of new Social Security benefits for senior citizens unless their demands were met. Democrats went along with $78 billion in cuts from the president's budget request.



In August, in an outrageous display of unprincipled gamesmanship, Republicans put the United States on the brink of bankruptcy. Instead of invoking clear 14th Amendment powers to honor our nation's debts, the president and most Democrats agreed to a $2.5 trillion deficit-reduction package.



That's how we got to where we are today.



Incredibly, throughout all of these negotiations -- in December, in April, in August and again today -- the wealthiest Americans and the country's major corporations have not yet been asked to contribute one penny toward deficit reduction. That is despite huge cuts in life-and-death programs for working families.



The American people have had it. The Occupy Wall Street movement is growing. A virtual popular uprising forced Bank of America to drop an unpopular $5 monthly debit card fee. On Election Day 2011, in Ohio and many other states the American people said NO to right-wing extremism and corporate greed.



The American people are very clear. They do not want Democrats to reach another 'grand bargain' with representatives of the rich and powerful that eviscerates the most successful and popular social programs in the history of this country. They want Democrats to stand up for the 99 percent, not the 1 percent.



If the president and Democrats on the super committee go along with cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the three pillars of the New Deal and the Great Society, and permanently extend the Bush tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent, the American people will shake their heads in disbelief. They will arrive at the reasonably valid conclusion that there are no significant differences between the two parties controlled by corporate interests.



This is a pivotal moment in American history. The rich and large corporations are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing. Now is the time to answer the question that the Woody Guthrie song poignantly asked, "Which side are you on?" The Democrats must answer boldly that they are on the side of working families and the middle class and that they will fight to protect their interests.



What if the super committee ends in stalemate? Across-the-board, automatic cuts are set to kick in. That so-called sequestration wouldn't start, however, until 2013. That would make 2012 one of the most important election years in modern American history.



If Democrats stand with ordinary Americans and make it clear that they are prepared to take on the wealthy and the powerful, they could win both houses of Congress. They could give Obama a fresh infusion of boldness as he enters a second term in the White House.



Somehow I recall a few years ago millions of Americans chanting, "Yes, We Can." Now is the time to hear their voices.

The Veil of Secrecy at the Fed Has Been Lifted, Now It's Time for Change

As a result of the greed, recklessness, and illegal behavior on Wall Street, the American people have experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs, homes, life savings, and ability to send their kids to college. Small businesses have been unable to get the credit they need to expand their businesses, and credit is still extremely tight. Wages as a share of national income are now at the lowest level since the Great Depression, and the number of Americans living in poverty is at an all-time high.



Meanwhile, when small-business owners were being turned down for loans at private banks and millions of Americans were being kicked out of their homes, the Federal Reserve provided the largest taxpayer-financed bailout in the history of the world to Wall Street and too-big-to-fail institutions, with virtually no strings attached.



Over two years ago, I asked Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, a few simple questions that I thought the American people had a right to know: Who got money through the Fed bailout? How much did they receive? What were the terms of this assistance?



Incredibly, the chairman of the Fed refused to answer these fundamental questions about how trillions of taxpayer dollars were being spent.



The American people are finally getting answers to these questions thanks to an amendment I included in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill which required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit and investigate conflicts of interest at the Fed. Those answers raise grave questions about the Federal Reserve and how it operates -- and whose interests it serves.



As a result of these GAO reports, we learned that the Federal Reserve provided a jaw-dropping $16 trillion in total financial assistance to every major financial institution in the country as well as a number of corporations, wealthy individuals and central banks throughout the world.



The GAO also revealed that many of the people who serve as directors of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks come from the exact same financial institutions that the Fed is in charge of regulating. Further, the GAO found that at least 18 current and former Fed board members were affiliated with banks and companies that received emergency loans from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis. In other words, the people "regulating" the banks were the exact same people who were being "regulated." Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse!



The emergency response from the Fed appears to have created two systems of government in America: one for Wall Street, and another for everyone else. While the rich and powerful were "too big to fail" and were given an endless supply of cheap credit, ordinary Americans, by the tens of millions, were allowed to fail. They lost their homes. They lost their jobs. They lost their life savings. And, they lost their hope for the future. This is not what American democracy is supposed to look like. It is time for change at the Fed -- real change.



Among the GAO's key findings is that the Fed lacks a comprehensive system to deal with conflicts of interest, despite the serious potential for abuse. In fact, according to the GAO, the Fed actually provided conflict of interest waivers to employees and private contractors so they could keep investments in the same financial institutions and corporations that were given emergency loans.



The GAO has detailed instance after instance of top executives of corporations and financial institutions using their influence as Federal Reserve directors to financially benefit their firms, and, in at least one instance, themselves.



For example, the CEO of JP Morgan Chase served on the New York Fed's board of directors at the same time that his bank received more than $390 billion in financial assistance from the Fed. Moreover, JP Morgan Chase served as one of the clearing banks for the Fed's emergency lending programs.



Getting this type of disclosure was not easy. Wall Street and the Federal Reserve fought it every step of the way. But, as difficult as it was to lift the veil of secrecy at the Fed, it will be even harder to reform the Fed so that it serves the needs of all Americans, and not just Wall Street. But, that is exactly what we have to do.



To get this process started, I have asked some of the leading economists in this country to serve on an advisory committee to provide Congress with legislative options to reform the Federal Reserve.



Here are some of the questions that I have asked this advisory committee to explore:



1. How can we structurally reform the Fed to make our nation's central bank a more democratic institution responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans, end conflicts of interest, and increase transparency? What are the best practices that central banks in other countries have developed that we can learn from? Compared with central banks in Europe, Canada, and Australia, the GAO found that the Federal Reserve does not do a good job in disclosing potential conflicts of interest and other essential elements of transparency.



2. At a time when 16.5 percent of our people are unemployed or under-employed, how can we strengthen the Federal Reserve's full-employment mandate and ensure that the Fed conducts monetary policy to achieve maximum employment? When Wall Street was on the verge of collapse, the Federal Reserve acted with a fierce sense of urgency to save the financial system. We need the Fed to act with the same boldness to combat the unemployment crisis.



3. The Federal Reserve has a responsibility to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions and to contain systemic risks in financial markets. Given that the top six financial institutions in the country now have assets equivalent to 65 percent of our GDP, more than $9 trillion, is there any reason why this extraordinary concentration of ownership should not be broken up? Should a bank that is "too big to fail" be allowed to exist?



4. The Federal Reserve has the responsibility to protect the credit rights of consumers. At a time when credit card issuers are charging millions of Americans interest rates between 25 percent or more, should policy options be established to ensure that the Federal Reserve and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau protect consumers against predatory lending, usury, and exorbitant fees in the financial services industry?



5. At a time when the dream of homeownership has turned into the nightmare of foreclosure for too many Americans, what role should the Federal Reserve be playing in providing relief to homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages, combating the foreclosure crisis, and making housing more affordable?



6. At a time when the United States has the most inequitable distribution of wealth and income of any major country, and the greatest gap between the very rich and everyone else since 1928, what policies can be established at the Federal Reserve which reduces income and wealth inequality in the U.S?



Given the growth of the Occupy Wall Street movement and given the concerns of millions of Americans about Wall Street, we now have a unique opportunity to make significant changes to one of the most powerful and secretive agencies of the federal government. One thing is abundantly clear: Americans deserve a Federal Reserve that works for them, not just the CEOs on Wall Street.

Wall Street Protests

The Occupy Wall Street protests are shining a national spotlight on the most powerful, dangerous and secretive economic and political force in America.



If this country is to break out of the horrendous recession and create the millions of jobs we desperately need, if we are going to create a modicum of financial stability for the future, there is no question but that the American people are going to have to take a very hard look at Wall Street and demand fundamental reforms. I hope these protests are the beginning of that process.



Let us never forget that as a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, this country was plunged into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs, homes and life savings as the middle class underwent an unprecedented collapse. Sadly, despite all the suffering caused by Wall Street, there is no reason to believe that the major financial institutions have changed their ways, or that future financial disasters and bailouts will not happen again.



More than three years ago, Congress rewarded Wall Street with the biggest taxpayer bailout in the history of the world. Simultaneously but unknown to the American people at the time, the Federal Reserve provided an even larger bailout. The details of what the Fed did were kept secret until a provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that I sponsored required the Government Accountability Office to audit the Fed's lending programs during the financial crisis.



As a result of this audit, the American people have learned that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in low-interest loans to every major financial institution in this country, huge foreign banks, multi-national corporations, and some of the wealthiest people in the world.



In other words, when Wall Street was on the verge of collapse, the federal government acted boldly, aggressively, and with a fierce sense of urgency to save our financial system from collapse with no strings attached.



Now that the middle class is collapsing and a record-breaking 46 million Americans are living in poverty, the Federal Reserve has failed to act with the same sense of urgency to make sure that small businesses receive the affordable loans needed to put millions of Americans back to work and prevent millions of Americans from losing their homes.



As a result, Wall Street is back to making record-breaking profits, handing out record-breaking compensation packages, and taking the same risks that caused the financial crisis in the first place. Meanwhile, 25 million Americans are unemployed or under-employed; middle class families are making $3,600 less than they did 10 years ago; the foreclosure rate is still breaking new records; and the American people are still paying over $3.40 for a gallon of gas.



The financial crisis and the jobs crisis have demonstrated to the American people that we now have a government that is of the 1 percent, by the 1 percent and for the 1 percent, as Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz eloquently articulated. The rest of the 99 percent are, more or less, on their own. We now have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major, advanced country on Earth. The top 1 percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent, and the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.



Now that Occupy Wall Street is shining a spotlight on Wall Street greed and the enormous inequalities that exist in America, the question then becomes, how do we change the political, economic and financial system to work for all Americans, not just the top 1 percent?



Here are several proposals that I am working on:



1) If a financial institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. Today, the six largest financial institutions have assets equal to more than 60 percent of GDP. The four largest banks in this country issue two thirds of all credit cards, half of all mortgages, and hold nearly 40 percent of all bank deposits. Incredibly, after we bailed out these big banks because they were "too big to fail," three out of the four largest are now even bigger than they were before the financial crisis began. It is time to take a page from Teddy Roosevelt and break up these behemoths so that their failure will no longer lead to economic catastrophe and to create competition in our financial system.



2) Put a cap on credit card interest rates to end usury. Today, more than a quarter of all credit card holders in this country are paying interest rates above 20 percent and as high as 59 percent. When credit card companies charge 25- or 30-percent interest rates they are not engaged in the business of "making credit available" to their customers. They are involved in extortion and loan-sharking. Citigroup, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase should not be permitted to charge consumers 25- to 30-percent interest on their credit cards, especially while these banks received over $4 trillion in loans from the Federal Reserve.



3) The Federal Reserve needs to provide small businesses in America with the same low-interest loans it gave to foreign banks. During the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve provided hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign banks and corporations including the Arab Banking Corporation, Toyota, Mitsubishi, the Korea Development Bank, and the state-owned Bank of Bavaria. At a time when small businesses can't get the lending they need, it is time for the Fed to create millions of American jobs by providing low-interest loans directly to small businesses.



4) Stop Wall Street oil speculators from artificially increasing gasoline and heating oil prices. Right now, the American people are being gouged at the gas pump by speculators on Wall Street who are buying and selling billions of barrels of oil in the energy futures market with no intention of using a drop for any purpose other than to make a quick buck. Delta Airlines, Exxon Mobil, the American Trucking Association, and other energy experts have estimated that excessive oil speculation is driving up oil prices by as much as 40 percent. We have got to end excessive oil speculation and bring needed relief to American consumers.



5) Demand that Wall Street invest in the job-creating productive economy, instead of gambling on worthless derivatives. The American people have got to make it crystal clear to Wall Street that the era of excessive speculation is over. The "heads, bankers win; tails, everyone else loses" financial system must end. Most important, we need to create a new Wall Street that exists not to reward CEOs and investors for the bets they make on exotic financial instruments nobody understands. Rather, we need a Wall Street that provides financial services to small businesses and manufacturers to create decent-paying jobs and grow the economy by productive means. Think of all of the productive short- and long-term investments that could be made in our country right now if Wall Street used the money it has received from the federal government wisely. Instead of casino-style speculation, Wall Street could invest in high-speed trains; fuel-efficient cars; wind turbines and other alternative energy sources; affordable housing; affordable prescription drugs that save people's lives; and other things that America desperately needs. That is what we have got to demand from Wall Street.



6) Establish a Wall Street speculation fee on credit default swaps, derivatives, stock options and futures. Both the economic crisis and the deficit crisis are a direct result of the greed and recklessness on Wall Street. Establishing a speculation fee would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and significantly reduce the deficit without harming average Americans. There are a number of precedents for this. The U.S had a similar Wall Street speculation fee from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied a 0.2-percent tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled that tax to help finance the government during the Great Depression. And today, England has a financial transaction tax of 0.25 percent, a penny on every $4 invested.



Making these reforms will not be easy. After all, Wall Street is clearly the most powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. From 1998 through 2008, the financial sector spent over $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to deregulate Wall Street. More recently, they spent hundreds of millions more to make the Dodd-Frank bill as weak as possible, and after its passage, hundreds of millions more to roll back or diluter the stronger provisions in that legislation.



The Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are shining a light on one of the most serious problems facing the United States -- the greed and power of Wall Street. Now is the time for the American people to demand that the president and Congress follow that light -- and act. The future of our economy is at stake.