Bernie Sanders's Blog, page 8
March 13, 2011
Deficit Reduction Requires Shared Sacrifice
The rich are getting richer. The middle class and poor are getting poorer. What is the Republican solution to the deficit crisis? More tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Savage cuts in programs that are desperately needed by working families.
There is another approach, which is why I've just introduced legislation imposing a surtax on those households earning a million dollars or more and the elimination of tax loopholes which the big oil companies take advantage of.
Everyone agrees that this country has a major deficit crisis, but few discuss how we got there. When George W. Bush inherited the White House from Bill Clinton we had a significant surplus. Now we have a $1.5 trillion deficit. How did that happen?
First, against my vote, Bush and Congress launched a war in Iraq. By the time we take care of our last veteran that war will end up costing us some $3 trillion. When the war drums were beating do you recall any of our Republican friends wanting to know how that unnecessary war was going to be paid for? I don't.
Second, Republicans for years have pushed for huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people. I didn't hear them ask how that was going to be paid for.
Third, under President Bush and a Republican-run House, Congress passed a $400 billion-plus Medicare prescription drug program. Written by the insurance companies and the drug companies, it barred the government from negotiating better prices. It drove up drug costs, padded pharmaceutical company profits and added to the deficit.
Fourth, again over my objection, Congress voted for a massive bailout of Wall Street. I didn't hear too many people talking about how we would pay for that $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I didn't hear them worrying that it would drive up the deficit. Wall Street, having destroyed the economy through their reckless and illegal behavior, needed a welfare check and Congress provided it. End of story.
Those are some of the reasons we now have a deficit crisis, reasons Republicans don't talk much about when they provide soaring rhetoric about the dangers of large deficits.
The corporate media have been very lax in describing the devastating and unprecedented pain that the Republican House passed budget bill, HR 1, would bring about for low and moderate income families. Let me briefly mention just a very few of their cuts.
The Republicans want to decimate the Head Start Program. Every working family in America knows how hard it is today to find affordable childcare or early childhood education. At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, the Republican solution is to slash Head Start by 20 percent, throw 218,000 children off the program and lay off 55,000 Head Start instructors.
The cost of college education today is so high that many young people are giving up their dream of going to college, while many others are graduating deeply in debt. The Republican solution? Make a bad situation much worse by slashing Pell grants by $5.7 billion and reducing or eliminating Pell grants for 9.4 million low-income college students.
Social Security is another target. We get calls in my office every week from senior citizens, people with disabilities, widows who are having a hard time getting a timely response to their Social Security claims. It takes much too long to process the paperwork today. What is the Republican solution? They want to slash the Social Security Administration, the people who administer Social Security, by $1.7 billion. That means half a million Americans who are legally entitled to Social Security benefits will have to wait significantly longer to receive them. (Become a citizen member of the Defending Social Security Caucus)
When it comes to health care, we have 50 million Americans with no insurance today, and 45,000 Americans die each year because they don't get to a doctor in time. Last year, as part of health care reform, I worked very hard to expand community health centers so that more and more low-and moderate-income people could walk into a doctor's office, get health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, mental health counseling. What is the Republican response to the health care crisis? They want to drastically cut-back funding for community health centers and deny primary health care to 11 million Americans.
For the poorest of the poor in our country, the Community Services Block Grants provide the infrastructure, the mechanism to get out emergency help for food, heat, housing and other very basic necessities of life. With homelessness and poverty increasing, the Republicans want to slash $405 million from the Community Services Block Grant Program.
In cold weather states like Vermont, where the weather can get to 20 below zero, home heating assistance is critically important. In fact it is a life and death issue. At a time when home heating oil costs are soaring, the Republicans want to cut $400 million from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
After decades of progress cleaning up our air and water, and preventing much illness, the Republicans want to slash the EPA by 30 percent and undercut enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
Republicans also want to cut the WIC program, which provides supplemental nutrition for women, infants, and children. They want to cut that by $750 million.
Everybody understands we have problems with education right now, including large dropout rates. At a time when states are laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers, Republicans want to cut $5 billion from the Department of Education.
On and on and on it goes.
In my view, we do need to boldly address our deficit crisis, but we need to do it in a way that is fair -- that is not on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children and the poor. In other words, we need shared sacrifice. The wealthiest people in this country, who are now doing phenomenally well, are also going to have to help us with deficit reduction. That is why I introduced legislation which would place a 5.4 percent emergency surtax on income over $1 million. The revenue would go into an Emergency Deficit Reduction Fund. Just doing that - asking millionaires to pay a little bit more in taxes after all the huge tax breaks they have received -- will bring in up to $50 billion a year.
I think that is a good idea, but it is not just me. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll recently asked the American people about the best ways to go forward on deficit reduction? Eighty-one percent of the American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to impose a surtax on millionaires to reduce the deficit. My legislation also would eliminate tax loopholes that enable the big oil companies from avoiding their fair share of taxes.
The American people get it. They understand that we cannot move toward deficit reduction just by cutting programs that working families, the middle class, and low-income people desperately need. They understand that serious, responsible deficit reduction requires shared sacrifice. They know that at a time when the top 1 percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent, that when the effective tax rate for the rich is now lower than at any time in recent history, that it is absurd not to ask the wealthiest people in this country to provide additional revenue to help us lower the deficit.
The federal budget is not just a bunch of big numbers. It is the document that speaks to the values of our country, our national priorities and our hopes for the future. At a time when the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider, it is a moral abomination to give more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, while cutting programs for the most vulnerable people in our society -- the children, the elderly, the sick and the hungry. The Republican budget proposal must be defeated.
Join Sen. Bernie Sanders' Facebook community, the largest in the U.S. Senate.
Join @SenatorSanders by tweeting the most alarming GOP-proposed cuts. You can cull you #DailyCut from this list.
There is another approach, which is why I've just introduced legislation imposing a surtax on those households earning a million dollars or more and the elimination of tax loopholes which the big oil companies take advantage of.
Everyone agrees that this country has a major deficit crisis, but few discuss how we got there. When George W. Bush inherited the White House from Bill Clinton we had a significant surplus. Now we have a $1.5 trillion deficit. How did that happen?
First, against my vote, Bush and Congress launched a war in Iraq. By the time we take care of our last veteran that war will end up costing us some $3 trillion. When the war drums were beating do you recall any of our Republican friends wanting to know how that unnecessary war was going to be paid for? I don't.
Second, Republicans for years have pushed for huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people. I didn't hear them ask how that was going to be paid for.
Third, under President Bush and a Republican-run House, Congress passed a $400 billion-plus Medicare prescription drug program. Written by the insurance companies and the drug companies, it barred the government from negotiating better prices. It drove up drug costs, padded pharmaceutical company profits and added to the deficit.
Fourth, again over my objection, Congress voted for a massive bailout of Wall Street. I didn't hear too many people talking about how we would pay for that $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I didn't hear them worrying that it would drive up the deficit. Wall Street, having destroyed the economy through their reckless and illegal behavior, needed a welfare check and Congress provided it. End of story.
Those are some of the reasons we now have a deficit crisis, reasons Republicans don't talk much about when they provide soaring rhetoric about the dangers of large deficits.
The corporate media have been very lax in describing the devastating and unprecedented pain that the Republican House passed budget bill, HR 1, would bring about for low and moderate income families. Let me briefly mention just a very few of their cuts.
The Republicans want to decimate the Head Start Program. Every working family in America knows how hard it is today to find affordable childcare or early childhood education. At a time when we have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, the Republican solution is to slash Head Start by 20 percent, throw 218,000 children off the program and lay off 55,000 Head Start instructors.
The cost of college education today is so high that many young people are giving up their dream of going to college, while many others are graduating deeply in debt. The Republican solution? Make a bad situation much worse by slashing Pell grants by $5.7 billion and reducing or eliminating Pell grants for 9.4 million low-income college students.
Social Security is another target. We get calls in my office every week from senior citizens, people with disabilities, widows who are having a hard time getting a timely response to their Social Security claims. It takes much too long to process the paperwork today. What is the Republican solution? They want to slash the Social Security Administration, the people who administer Social Security, by $1.7 billion. That means half a million Americans who are legally entitled to Social Security benefits will have to wait significantly longer to receive them. (Become a citizen member of the Defending Social Security Caucus)
When it comes to health care, we have 50 million Americans with no insurance today, and 45,000 Americans die each year because they don't get to a doctor in time. Last year, as part of health care reform, I worked very hard to expand community health centers so that more and more low-and moderate-income people could walk into a doctor's office, get health care, dental care, low-cost prescription drugs, mental health counseling. What is the Republican response to the health care crisis? They want to drastically cut-back funding for community health centers and deny primary health care to 11 million Americans.
For the poorest of the poor in our country, the Community Services Block Grants provide the infrastructure, the mechanism to get out emergency help for food, heat, housing and other very basic necessities of life. With homelessness and poverty increasing, the Republicans want to slash $405 million from the Community Services Block Grant Program.
In cold weather states like Vermont, where the weather can get to 20 below zero, home heating assistance is critically important. In fact it is a life and death issue. At a time when home heating oil costs are soaring, the Republicans want to cut $400 million from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
After decades of progress cleaning up our air and water, and preventing much illness, the Republicans want to slash the EPA by 30 percent and undercut enforcement of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
Republicans also want to cut the WIC program, which provides supplemental nutrition for women, infants, and children. They want to cut that by $750 million.
Everybody understands we have problems with education right now, including large dropout rates. At a time when states are laying off hundreds of thousands of teachers, Republicans want to cut $5 billion from the Department of Education.
On and on and on it goes.
In my view, we do need to boldly address our deficit crisis, but we need to do it in a way that is fair -- that is not on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children and the poor. In other words, we need shared sacrifice. The wealthiest people in this country, who are now doing phenomenally well, are also going to have to help us with deficit reduction. That is why I introduced legislation which would place a 5.4 percent emergency surtax on income over $1 million. The revenue would go into an Emergency Deficit Reduction Fund. Just doing that - asking millionaires to pay a little bit more in taxes after all the huge tax breaks they have received -- will bring in up to $50 billion a year.
I think that is a good idea, but it is not just me. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll recently asked the American people about the best ways to go forward on deficit reduction? Eighty-one percent of the American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to impose a surtax on millionaires to reduce the deficit. My legislation also would eliminate tax loopholes that enable the big oil companies from avoiding their fair share of taxes.
The American people get it. They understand that we cannot move toward deficit reduction just by cutting programs that working families, the middle class, and low-income people desperately need. They understand that serious, responsible deficit reduction requires shared sacrifice. They know that at a time when the top 1 percent earn more income than the bottom 50 percent, that when the effective tax rate for the rich is now lower than at any time in recent history, that it is absurd not to ask the wealthiest people in this country to provide additional revenue to help us lower the deficit.
The federal budget is not just a bunch of big numbers. It is the document that speaks to the values of our country, our national priorities and our hopes for the future. At a time when the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider, it is a moral abomination to give more tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, while cutting programs for the most vulnerable people in our society -- the children, the elderly, the sick and the hungry. The Republican budget proposal must be defeated.
Join Sen. Bernie Sanders' Facebook community, the largest in the U.S. Senate.
Join @SenatorSanders by tweeting the most alarming GOP-proposed cuts. You can cull you #DailyCut from this list.
February 14, 2011
Struggling Through the Recession
Some economists and politicians say the recession is over. That's not what we're hearing from families throughout Vermont.
I recently asked Vermonters to share their personal stories with me -- explaining how the recession, which started more than three years ago, has impacted their lives. In my small state more than 400 constituents have responded. We've also been hearing from people around the country.
Their messages are clear. People are finding it hard to get jobs or are now working for lower wages than they used to earn. We heard from older workers who have depleted their life savings and are worried about what happens to them when they retire. We heard from people in their 20s and 30s who are not earning enough to pay down college debt. And we heard from people whose confidence in the "American Dream" is quickly eroding. We heard from people of all ages, all walks of life, from each corner of Vermont -- and some from other states as well.
One mother, who is working two jobs and raising two children outside Burlington, Vt., wrote: "I cringe when my son's friends invite them to birthday parties, which means I have to come up with money for a gift." A woman from Windsor, Vt., who saw her business go bankrupt wrote: "We do not seem to be 'recovering' at all. We just exist on the fringes of life."
The letters are revealing and they are painful. People are fighting to keep their homes from falling into foreclosure. They are struggling with credit card debt. Marriages have been postponed. Lives have been derailed. Vermonters wrote about raiding their retirement savings to pay college tuition, keep their businesses afloat, or simply to keep gas in their car and pay their bills.
While these letters are often difficult to read because of the personal and family pain that people are sharing with us, it's important that we do so and that the reality of these lives, and the stress that millions of people are living under today, is understood as much as possible. That is why I intend to read many of these letters on the floor of the Senate. I want my Senate colleagues to hear these stories and I want America to hear these stories.
Sharing difficult personal circumstances is not an easy thing to do, so I am very grateful to those who told us about their experiences. The simple truth is that if we do not know the reality of what is going on in our country today, in terms of the struggles that people are facing, it will be impossible for us to develop -- and generate public support for -- policies which can enable us to go forward and address these horrific problems.
I hope that people around the country hear these voices from Vermont as we debate what to do about the collapse of the middle class, the increase in poverty in America and the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else.
To read the collection of the letters on my Senate Web page, click here.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook: www.facebook.com/senatorsanders
I recently asked Vermonters to share their personal stories with me -- explaining how the recession, which started more than three years ago, has impacted their lives. In my small state more than 400 constituents have responded. We've also been hearing from people around the country.
Their messages are clear. People are finding it hard to get jobs or are now working for lower wages than they used to earn. We heard from older workers who have depleted their life savings and are worried about what happens to them when they retire. We heard from people in their 20s and 30s who are not earning enough to pay down college debt. And we heard from people whose confidence in the "American Dream" is quickly eroding. We heard from people of all ages, all walks of life, from each corner of Vermont -- and some from other states as well.
One mother, who is working two jobs and raising two children outside Burlington, Vt., wrote: "I cringe when my son's friends invite them to birthday parties, which means I have to come up with money for a gift." A woman from Windsor, Vt., who saw her business go bankrupt wrote: "We do not seem to be 'recovering' at all. We just exist on the fringes of life."
The letters are revealing and they are painful. People are fighting to keep their homes from falling into foreclosure. They are struggling with credit card debt. Marriages have been postponed. Lives have been derailed. Vermonters wrote about raiding their retirement savings to pay college tuition, keep their businesses afloat, or simply to keep gas in their car and pay their bills.
While these letters are often difficult to read because of the personal and family pain that people are sharing with us, it's important that we do so and that the reality of these lives, and the stress that millions of people are living under today, is understood as much as possible. That is why I intend to read many of these letters on the floor of the Senate. I want my Senate colleagues to hear these stories and I want America to hear these stories.
Sharing difficult personal circumstances is not an easy thing to do, so I am very grateful to those who told us about their experiences. The simple truth is that if we do not know the reality of what is going on in our country today, in terms of the struggles that people are facing, it will be impossible for us to develop -- and generate public support for -- policies which can enable us to go forward and address these horrific problems.
I hope that people around the country hear these voices from Vermont as we debate what to do about the collapse of the middle class, the increase in poverty in America and the growing gap between the very rich and everyone else.
To read the collection of the letters on my Senate Web page, click here.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook: www.facebook.com/senatorsanders
December 10, 2010
LIVE STREAM: My Filibuster of the Tax Deal
I think we can do better, and I am here today to take a strong stand against this bill, and I intend to tell my colleagues and the nation exactly why I am in opposition to this bill. You can call what I am doing today whatever you want -- you can call it a filibuster, you can call it a very long speech. I'm not here to set any great records or to make a spectacle. I am simply here today to take as long as I can to explain to the American people the fact that we have got to do a lot better than this agreement provides.
Follow Sen. Sanders on Facebook: www.facebook.com/senatorsanders
Follow Sen. Sanders on Facebook: www.facebook.com/senatorsanders
December 6, 2010
NBC-Comcast Merger Not in the Public Interest
At a time when a small number of giant media corporations already control what the American people see, hear, and read, we do not need another conglomerate with more control over the production and distribution of news and other programming. What we need is less concentration of ownership, more diversity, more local ownership, and more viewpoints.
The proposed mega-merger of General Electric's NBC Universal, one of the largest media companies in the country, with Comcast, the largest cable television provider in America, would be a giant step in the wrong direction. The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") should block the deal. That is exactly what thousands of people have said in letters to the FCC, sent through my website in the past few days.
The FCC may sign off on the merger and transfer the license to use the public airwaves only, according to the threshold set by law, if it determines that the arrangement serves "the public interest, convenience, and necessity." Far from meeting that standard, the takeover of NBC by Comcast would create a monolithic media superpower and cause irreparable damage to the American media landscape and society as a whole. Furthermore, it is likely that the merger of these two media giants would precipitate other media mergers and make a very bad situation ever worse.
Citizens in a democracy need diverse sources of news and information. The sale of NBC to Comcast would lead to less local news, fewer points of view, and less competition for viewers and advertising, not just in Comcast's network but throughout the country.
There are other reasons to oppose combination of NBC and Comcast. Chief among them is that it would drive up consumer costs. One study by a former chief economist for the FCC found that consumers would pay $2.4 billion more in fees if the merger were completed. As the country struggles to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, it is unconscionable to ask millions of consumers to spend more while receiving virtually no tangible benefits. At least in my view, the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" would not be served by a regressive transfer of $2.4 billion from ordinary citizens to one of the largest and wealthiest corporate entities in the United States.
The deal also would have a negative impact on the development of new programs. Comcast already is the nation's largest distributor of video services. NBC Universal is one of the nation's largest producers of video content. The merger would create what economists call vertical integration and put other content providers seeking access to Comcast's customers at a distinct competitive disadvantage.
Comcast, of course, has dismissed these concerns. The cable operator, which has a history of jacking up rates for even the most basic services, would have us believe that consumers somehow will benefit from the merger with lower prices. Yeah, right. Comcast contends that combining the largest video distributor and one of the largest producers of video content into a single media entity would increase diversity of programming. The company also defies logic by arguing that centralizing ownership would by some mysterious process enhance local control. These non-sequiturs are nonsense.
In the past few days, we've seen ominous signs of what's to come if the FCC okays the merger. Even in the midst of two extensive federal review processes, at a time when you would think Comcast would be acting with the utmost caution, the company has continued to throw its weight around to the detriment of its competitors.
Comcast reportedly told a Netflix affiliate that it will not stream Netflix video to Comcast subscribers without substantial new fees. Why would Comcast do such a thing? Why wouldn't it want to continue offering its customers Netflix? Perhaps because Comcast has its own business streaming video to consumers, a business that directly competes with Netflix.
Then, according to a complaint filed Monday with the FCC, Comcast will not let subscribers buy modems made by Zoom Telephonics until Zoom pays for a battery of expensive tests. Why would Comcast want to deny its subscribers access to Zoom modems? The answer is just as obvious as in the Netflix scenario. Comcast rents modems directly to consumers, thereby competing directly with companies like Zoom. It has every reason to make Zoom modems more expensive or even to drive companies like Zoom out of business.
We shouldn't be surprised. These are the kinds of things that happen when a company like Comcast wears too many hats. The fact that Comcast continues these practices even while it is under scrutiny by the Department of Justice and the FCC, however, should give us pause. We need to recognize that if Comcast is acting like this now; things will be far, far worse if the merger is approved.
Perhaps the reason that Comcast has continued its anticompetitive practices, apparently without fear that they will jeopardize its merger approval, is that Comcast has a keen sense of how Washington works. Campaign contributions from those who work for Comcast doubled this year. In fact, if you can believe it, Comcast donated to three-quarters of the members of the House of Representatives and half of the members of the Senate. Is it a coincidence that so many members of Congress have supported the merger? You be the judge.
Fortunately, the FCC's clear mandate is set by statute. Another media merger that would reduce competition and stifle creativity in TV programming, the cable industry, and on the Internet is clearly not in the public interest.
Given the enormity of the issue, it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to the proposed merger. As the FCC nears the end of its review process, it is the time for the American people to speak out and send a loud and clear message: Stop the merger.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook: www.facebook.com/senatorsanders
The proposed mega-merger of General Electric's NBC Universal, one of the largest media companies in the country, with Comcast, the largest cable television provider in America, would be a giant step in the wrong direction. The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") should block the deal. That is exactly what thousands of people have said in letters to the FCC, sent through my website in the past few days.
The FCC may sign off on the merger and transfer the license to use the public airwaves only, according to the threshold set by law, if it determines that the arrangement serves "the public interest, convenience, and necessity." Far from meeting that standard, the takeover of NBC by Comcast would create a monolithic media superpower and cause irreparable damage to the American media landscape and society as a whole. Furthermore, it is likely that the merger of these two media giants would precipitate other media mergers and make a very bad situation ever worse.
Citizens in a democracy need diverse sources of news and information. The sale of NBC to Comcast would lead to less local news, fewer points of view, and less competition for viewers and advertising, not just in Comcast's network but throughout the country.
There are other reasons to oppose combination of NBC and Comcast. Chief among them is that it would drive up consumer costs. One study by a former chief economist for the FCC found that consumers would pay $2.4 billion more in fees if the merger were completed. As the country struggles to recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, it is unconscionable to ask millions of consumers to spend more while receiving virtually no tangible benefits. At least in my view, the "public interest, convenience, and necessity" would not be served by a regressive transfer of $2.4 billion from ordinary citizens to one of the largest and wealthiest corporate entities in the United States.
The deal also would have a negative impact on the development of new programs. Comcast already is the nation's largest distributor of video services. NBC Universal is one of the nation's largest producers of video content. The merger would create what economists call vertical integration and put other content providers seeking access to Comcast's customers at a distinct competitive disadvantage.
Comcast, of course, has dismissed these concerns. The cable operator, which has a history of jacking up rates for even the most basic services, would have us believe that consumers somehow will benefit from the merger with lower prices. Yeah, right. Comcast contends that combining the largest video distributor and one of the largest producers of video content into a single media entity would increase diversity of programming. The company also defies logic by arguing that centralizing ownership would by some mysterious process enhance local control. These non-sequiturs are nonsense.
In the past few days, we've seen ominous signs of what's to come if the FCC okays the merger. Even in the midst of two extensive federal review processes, at a time when you would think Comcast would be acting with the utmost caution, the company has continued to throw its weight around to the detriment of its competitors.
Comcast reportedly told a Netflix affiliate that it will not stream Netflix video to Comcast subscribers without substantial new fees. Why would Comcast do such a thing? Why wouldn't it want to continue offering its customers Netflix? Perhaps because Comcast has its own business streaming video to consumers, a business that directly competes with Netflix.
Then, according to a complaint filed Monday with the FCC, Comcast will not let subscribers buy modems made by Zoom Telephonics until Zoom pays for a battery of expensive tests. Why would Comcast want to deny its subscribers access to Zoom modems? The answer is just as obvious as in the Netflix scenario. Comcast rents modems directly to consumers, thereby competing directly with companies like Zoom. It has every reason to make Zoom modems more expensive or even to drive companies like Zoom out of business.
We shouldn't be surprised. These are the kinds of things that happen when a company like Comcast wears too many hats. The fact that Comcast continues these practices even while it is under scrutiny by the Department of Justice and the FCC, however, should give us pause. We need to recognize that if Comcast is acting like this now; things will be far, far worse if the merger is approved.
Perhaps the reason that Comcast has continued its anticompetitive practices, apparently without fear that they will jeopardize its merger approval, is that Comcast has a keen sense of how Washington works. Campaign contributions from those who work for Comcast doubled this year. In fact, if you can believe it, Comcast donated to three-quarters of the members of the House of Representatives and half of the members of the Senate. Is it a coincidence that so many members of Congress have supported the merger? You be the judge.
Fortunately, the FCC's clear mandate is set by statute. Another media merger that would reduce competition and stifle creativity in TV programming, the cable industry, and on the Internet is clearly not in the public interest.
Given the enormity of the issue, it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to the proposed merger. As the FCC nears the end of its review process, it is the time for the American people to speak out and send a loud and clear message: Stop the merger.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook: www.facebook.com/senatorsanders
December 2, 2010
A Real Jaw Dropper at the Federal Reserve
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from the Federal Reserve, how much they received, and the exact terms of this assistance. He refused. A year and a half later, as a result of an amendment that I was able to include in the Wall Street reform bill, we have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at the Fed and the American people now have this information.
It is unfortunate that it took this long and it is a shame that the biggest banks in America and Mr. Bernanke fought to keep this secret from the American public every step of the way. But, the details on this bailout are now on the Federal Reserve's website and this is a major victory for the American taxpayer and for transparency in government.
Importantly, my amendment also required the Government Accountability Office to conduct a top-to-bottom audit of all of the emergency lending the Fed provided during the financial crisis to be completed on July 21, 2011, which will take a hard look at all of the potential conflicts of interest that took place with respect to this bailout. So, in many respects, details that the Fed was forced to divulge on Wednesday about the $3.3 trillion in emergency loans that until now were totally kept from public scrutiny, marked the beginning, not the end, of lifting the veil of secrecy at the Fed.
After years of stonewalling by the Fed, the American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions and how we can make our financial institutions more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans and small businesses.
What have we learned so far from the disclosure of more than 21,000 transactions? We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $ trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.
We also learned that the Fed's multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald's, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota, and Verizon.
Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations including two European megabanks -- Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse - which were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed's purchase of mortgage-backed securities.
Deutsche Bank, a German lender, sold the Fed more than $290 billion worth of mortgage securities. Credit Suisse, a Swiss bank, sold the Fed more than $287 billion in mortgage bonds.
Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world?
The Fed said that this bailout was necessary to prevent the world economy from going over a cliff. But three years after the start of the recession, millions of Americans remain unemployed and have lost their homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college. Meanwhile, big banks and corporations have returned to making huge profits and paying their executives record-breaking compensation packages as if the financial crisis they started never happened.
What this disclosure tells us, among many other things, is that despite this huge taxpayer bailout, the Fed did not make the appropriate demands on these institutions necessary to rebuild our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans.
For example, at a time when big banks have nearly a trillion dollars in excess reserves parked at the Fed, the Fed did not require these institutions to increase lending to small and medium-sized businesses as a condition of the bailout.
At a time when large corporations are more profitable than ever, the Fed did not demand that corporations that received this backdoor bailout create jobs and expand the economy once they returned to profitability.
I intend to investigate whether these secret Fed loans, in some cases, turned out to be direct corporate welfare to big banks that used these loans not to reinvest in the economy but rather to lend back to the federal government at a higher rate of interest by purchasing Treasury Securities. Instead of using this money to reinvest in the productive economy, I suspect a large portion of these near-zero interest loans were used to buy Treasury Securities at a higher interest rate providing free money to some of the largest financial institutions in this country. That is something that we have got to closely examine.
At a time when Wall Street executives are now making more money than before the financial crisis, how many big banks that paid back TARP funds in 2009 to avoid limits on executive compensation received no-strings attached loans from the Federal Reserve?
At a time when millions of Americans are paying outrageously high credit card interest rates, why didn't the Fed require credit card issuers to lower interest rates as a condition of the bailout?
The four largest banks in this country (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) issue half of all mortgages in this country. We now know that these banks received hundreds of billions from the Fed. How many Americans could have remained in their homes, if the Fed required these bailed-out banks to reduce mortgage payments as a condition of receiving these secret loans?
We have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at one of most important agencies in our government. What we are seeing is the incredible power of a small number of people who have incredible conflicts of interest getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country while ignoring the needs of the people.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook: www.facebook.com/senatorsanders.
It is unfortunate that it took this long and it is a shame that the biggest banks in America and Mr. Bernanke fought to keep this secret from the American public every step of the way. But, the details on this bailout are now on the Federal Reserve's website and this is a major victory for the American taxpayer and for transparency in government.
Importantly, my amendment also required the Government Accountability Office to conduct a top-to-bottom audit of all of the emergency lending the Fed provided during the financial crisis to be completed on July 21, 2011, which will take a hard look at all of the potential conflicts of interest that took place with respect to this bailout. So, in many respects, details that the Fed was forced to divulge on Wednesday about the $3.3 trillion in emergency loans that until now were totally kept from public scrutiny, marked the beginning, not the end, of lifting the veil of secrecy at the Fed.
After years of stonewalling by the Fed, the American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions and how we can make our financial institutions more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans and small businesses.
What have we learned so far from the disclosure of more than 21,000 transactions? We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $ trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.
We also learned that the Fed's multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald's, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota, and Verizon.
Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations including two European megabanks -- Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse - which were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed's purchase of mortgage-backed securities.
Deutsche Bank, a German lender, sold the Fed more than $290 billion worth of mortgage securities. Credit Suisse, a Swiss bank, sold the Fed more than $287 billion in mortgage bonds.
Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world?
The Fed said that this bailout was necessary to prevent the world economy from going over a cliff. But three years after the start of the recession, millions of Americans remain unemployed and have lost their homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college. Meanwhile, big banks and corporations have returned to making huge profits and paying their executives record-breaking compensation packages as if the financial crisis they started never happened.
What this disclosure tells us, among many other things, is that despite this huge taxpayer bailout, the Fed did not make the appropriate demands on these institutions necessary to rebuild our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans.
For example, at a time when big banks have nearly a trillion dollars in excess reserves parked at the Fed, the Fed did not require these institutions to increase lending to small and medium-sized businesses as a condition of the bailout.
At a time when large corporations are more profitable than ever, the Fed did not demand that corporations that received this backdoor bailout create jobs and expand the economy once they returned to profitability.
I intend to investigate whether these secret Fed loans, in some cases, turned out to be direct corporate welfare to big banks that used these loans not to reinvest in the economy but rather to lend back to the federal government at a higher rate of interest by purchasing Treasury Securities. Instead of using this money to reinvest in the productive economy, I suspect a large portion of these near-zero interest loans were used to buy Treasury Securities at a higher interest rate providing free money to some of the largest financial institutions in this country. That is something that we have got to closely examine.
At a time when Wall Street executives are now making more money than before the financial crisis, how many big banks that paid back TARP funds in 2009 to avoid limits on executive compensation received no-strings attached loans from the Federal Reserve?
At a time when millions of Americans are paying outrageously high credit card interest rates, why didn't the Fed require credit card issuers to lower interest rates as a condition of the bailout?
The four largest banks in this country (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) issue half of all mortgages in this country. We now know that these banks received hundreds of billions from the Fed. How many Americans could have remained in their homes, if the Fed required these bailed-out banks to reduce mortgage payments as a condition of receiving these secret loans?
We have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at one of most important agencies in our government. What we are seeing is the incredible power of a small number of people who have incredible conflicts of interest getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country while ignoring the needs of the people.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook: www.facebook.com/senatorsanders.
November 19, 2010
The Billionaires Want More, More, More
The billionaires are on the warpath. They want more, more, more.
In 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income -- more than the bottom 50 percent. Not enough! The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent nearly tripled since the mid-1970s. Not enough! Eighty percent of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent. Not enough! The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Not enough! The Wall Street executives with their obscene compensation packages now earn more than they did before we bailed them out. Not enough! With the middle class collapsing and the rich getting much richer, the United States now has, by far, the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth. Not enough!
The very rich want more, more and more and they are prepared to dismantle the existing political and social order to get it. During the last campaign, as a result of the (Republican) Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, billionaires were able to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of secret money into the campaign -- helping to elect dozens of members of Congress. Now, having made their investment, they want their congressional employees to produce.
Republicans in Congress, needless to say, are all on board. The key question is whether a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate go along to get along, or whether they draw a clear line at protecting the interests of the middle class and vulnerable populations of our country while tackling our economic and budgetary problems in earnest.
In the next month, despite all their loud rhetoric about the "deficit crisis," the Republicans want to add $700 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years by extending Bush's tax breaks for the top 2 percent. Families who earn $1 million a year or more would receive, on average, a tax break of $100,000 a year. The Republicans also want to eliminate or significantly reduce the estate tax, which has existed since 1916. Its elimination would add, over 10 years, about $1 trillion to our national debt and all of the benefits would go to the top 0.3 percent. Over 99.7 percent of American families would not gain a nickel. The Walton family of WalMart would receive an estimated tax break of more than $30 billion by repealing the estate tax.
That's just the start.
The billionaires and their supporters in Congress are hell-bent on taking us back to the 1920s, and eliminating all traces of social legislation designed to protect working families, the elderly, children and the disabled. No "social contract" for them. They want it all.
They want to privatize or dismantle Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and let the elderly, the sick and the poor fend for themselves.
They want to expand our disastrous trade policies so that corporations can continue throwing American workers out on the street as they outsource jobs to China and other low-wage countries. Some also want to eliminate the minimum wage so that American workers can have the "freedom" to work for $3.00 an hour.
They want to eliminate or cut severely the U.S. Department of Education, making it harder for working class kids to get a decent education, childcare or the help they need to go to college.
They want to rescind the very modest financial reform bill passed last year so that the crooks on Wall Street can continue to engage in all of the reckless behavior that has been so devastating to our economy.
They want to curtail the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy so that Exxon-Mobil can remain the most profitable corporation in world history, while oil and coal companies continue to pollute our air and water.
They want to make sure that billionaire hedge fund managers pay a lower federal tax rate than middle-class teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers by maintaining a loophole in the tax code known as "carried interest".
We know what the billionaires and their Republicans supporters want. They've been upfront about that. But what about the Democrats? Will President Obama continue to reach out and "compromise" with people who have made it abundantly clear that the only agreement they want is unconditional surrender? Or, will he utilize the powerful skills that we saw during his 2008 campaign for the White House and bring working families, young people, the elderly and the poor together to fight against these savage attacks on their well-being? Will the Democrats in the Senate continue to pass tepid legislation, or will they use their majority status to protect the interests of ordinary Americans and, for a change, put the Republicans on the defensive?
The time is late. The stakes are extraordinary. While it is true that the billionaires and their supporters are "fired up and ready to go," there is another more important truth. And that is that there are a lot more of us than there are of them. Now is the time for us to stand together, educate and organize. Now is the time to roll back this orgy of greed.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook here.
In 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners in the United States made 23.5 percent of all income -- more than the bottom 50 percent. Not enough! The percentage of income going to the top 1 percent nearly tripled since the mid-1970s. Not enough! Eighty percent of all new income earned from 1980 to 2005 has gone to the top 1 percent. Not enough! The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Not enough! The Wall Street executives with their obscene compensation packages now earn more than they did before we bailed them out. Not enough! With the middle class collapsing and the rich getting much richer, the United States now has, by far, the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth. Not enough!
The very rich want more, more and more and they are prepared to dismantle the existing political and social order to get it. During the last campaign, as a result of the (Republican) Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, billionaires were able to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of secret money into the campaign -- helping to elect dozens of members of Congress. Now, having made their investment, they want their congressional employees to produce.
Republicans in Congress, needless to say, are all on board. The key question is whether a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate go along to get along, or whether they draw a clear line at protecting the interests of the middle class and vulnerable populations of our country while tackling our economic and budgetary problems in earnest.
In the next month, despite all their loud rhetoric about the "deficit crisis," the Republicans want to add $700 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years by extending Bush's tax breaks for the top 2 percent. Families who earn $1 million a year or more would receive, on average, a tax break of $100,000 a year. The Republicans also want to eliminate or significantly reduce the estate tax, which has existed since 1916. Its elimination would add, over 10 years, about $1 trillion to our national debt and all of the benefits would go to the top 0.3 percent. Over 99.7 percent of American families would not gain a nickel. The Walton family of WalMart would receive an estimated tax break of more than $30 billion by repealing the estate tax.
That's just the start.
The billionaires and their supporters in Congress are hell-bent on taking us back to the 1920s, and eliminating all traces of social legislation designed to protect working families, the elderly, children and the disabled. No "social contract" for them. They want it all.
They want to privatize or dismantle Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and let the elderly, the sick and the poor fend for themselves.
They want to expand our disastrous trade policies so that corporations can continue throwing American workers out on the street as they outsource jobs to China and other low-wage countries. Some also want to eliminate the minimum wage so that American workers can have the "freedom" to work for $3.00 an hour.
They want to eliminate or cut severely the U.S. Department of Education, making it harder for working class kids to get a decent education, childcare or the help they need to go to college.
They want to rescind the very modest financial reform bill passed last year so that the crooks on Wall Street can continue to engage in all of the reckless behavior that has been so devastating to our economy.
They want to curtail the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy so that Exxon-Mobil can remain the most profitable corporation in world history, while oil and coal companies continue to pollute our air and water.
They want to make sure that billionaire hedge fund managers pay a lower federal tax rate than middle-class teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers by maintaining a loophole in the tax code known as "carried interest".
We know what the billionaires and their Republicans supporters want. They've been upfront about that. But what about the Democrats? Will President Obama continue to reach out and "compromise" with people who have made it abundantly clear that the only agreement they want is unconditional surrender? Or, will he utilize the powerful skills that we saw during his 2008 campaign for the White House and bring working families, young people, the elderly and the poor together to fight against these savage attacks on their well-being? Will the Democrats in the Senate continue to pass tepid legislation, or will they use their majority status to protect the interests of ordinary Americans and, for a change, put the Republicans on the defensive?
The time is late. The stakes are extraordinary. While it is true that the billionaires and their supporters are "fired up and ready to go," there is another more important truth. And that is that there are a lot more of us than there are of them. Now is the time for us to stand together, educate and organize. Now is the time to roll back this orgy of greed.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook here.
November 8, 2010
The Olbermann Suspension and Corporate Media
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hundreds of thousands of progressives and others who demanded that Keith Olbermann be reinstated to his position at MSNBC. These people understand the enormously important role that the media play in contemporary American politics. They know the recent ascendancy of the Republican Party and right-wing politics had less to do with the leadership skills of Mitch McConnell or John Boehner and far more to do with the enormously powerful role played by Rupert Murdoch, Fox News and right-wing talk radio.
Progressives know there is something very wrong when a nation divided politically has one major network operating as a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists.
If there is a silver lining in the action of MSNBC against Keith Olbermann, it is that people will now pay more attention to the political role of corporate media in America. While commentators on Fox and right-wing radio have the backing of Rupert Murdoch, a major Republican contributor, and other conservative corporations, progressives understand that their position is extremely vulnerable. Keith Olbermann was suspended by General Electric's MSNBC for a bogus reason. What will prevent the same thing from happening to Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and other progressives?
General Electric, NBC's parent, is one of the largest corporations in the world with an anti-labor history of outsourcing jobs and with financial links to military and nuclear power industries. Surely we understand that GE is not going to provide the same backing for MSNBC commentators that Rupert Murdoch provides for his mouthpieces at Fox News.
What has not gotten a lot of attention in the midst of this controversy is that GE's NBC Universal, one of the largest media conglomerates in the country, is in the process of merging with Comcast, the largest cable television provider in America. The new head of that company would be Stephen B. Burke, Comcast's chief operating officer and a "Bush Ranger" who raised at least $200,000 for the 2004 reelection campaign of President George W. Bush.
As Vermont's senator, I intend to do all that I can do to stop this merger. There already is far too much media concentration in this country. We need more diversity. We need more local ownership. We need more viewpoints. We do not need another media giant run by a Republican supporter of George W. Bush. That is the lesson we should learn from the Keith Olbermann suspension.
If you agree, please "like" Bernie's Facebook group: "Stop the NBC/Comcast Merger" .
Progressives know there is something very wrong when a nation divided politically has one major network operating as a propaganda arm of the Republican Party and 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists.
If there is a silver lining in the action of MSNBC against Keith Olbermann, it is that people will now pay more attention to the political role of corporate media in America. While commentators on Fox and right-wing radio have the backing of Rupert Murdoch, a major Republican contributor, and other conservative corporations, progressives understand that their position is extremely vulnerable. Keith Olbermann was suspended by General Electric's MSNBC for a bogus reason. What will prevent the same thing from happening to Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and other progressives?
General Electric, NBC's parent, is one of the largest corporations in the world with an anti-labor history of outsourcing jobs and with financial links to military and nuclear power industries. Surely we understand that GE is not going to provide the same backing for MSNBC commentators that Rupert Murdoch provides for his mouthpieces at Fox News.
What has not gotten a lot of attention in the midst of this controversy is that GE's NBC Universal, one of the largest media conglomerates in the country, is in the process of merging with Comcast, the largest cable television provider in America. The new head of that company would be Stephen B. Burke, Comcast's chief operating officer and a "Bush Ranger" who raised at least $200,000 for the 2004 reelection campaign of President George W. Bush.
As Vermont's senator, I intend to do all that I can do to stop this merger. There already is far too much media concentration in this country. We need more diversity. We need more local ownership. We need more viewpoints. We do not need another media giant run by a Republican supporter of George W. Bush. That is the lesson we should learn from the Keith Olbermann suspension.
If you agree, please "like" Bernie's Facebook group: "Stop the NBC/Comcast Merger" .
November 5, 2010
MSNBC's Disgrace
It is outrageous that General Electric/MSNBC would suspend Keith Olbermann for exercising his constitutional rights to contribute to a candidate of his choice. This is a real threat to political discourse in America and will have a chilling impact on every commentator for MSNBC.
We live in a time when 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists, when the Republican Party has its own cable network (Fox) and when progressive voices are few and far between.
At a time when the ownership of Fox news contributed millions of dollars to the Republican Party, when a number of Fox commentators are using the network as a launching pad for their presidential campaigns and are raising money right off the air, it is absolutely unacceptable that MSNBC suspended one of the most popular progressive commentators in the country.
Is Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz next? Is this simply a 'personality conflict' within MSNBC or is one of America's major corporations cracking down on a viewpoint they may not like? Whatever the answer may be, Keith Olbermann should be reinstated immediately and allowed to present his point of view.
UPDATE VIA TWITTER #1:
@senatorsanders @KeithOlbermann Keep the faith. We'll do everything we can to get you back on the air ASAP. Your strong progressive voice is missed.
UPDATE VIA TWITTER #2:
@senatorsanders Congratulations to the hundreds of thousands of #progressives who took on Big Media demanding that #KeithOlbermann be reinstated. #msnbc
We live in a time when 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists, when the Republican Party has its own cable network (Fox) and when progressive voices are few and far between.
At a time when the ownership of Fox news contributed millions of dollars to the Republican Party, when a number of Fox commentators are using the network as a launching pad for their presidential campaigns and are raising money right off the air, it is absolutely unacceptable that MSNBC suspended one of the most popular progressive commentators in the country.
Is Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz next? Is this simply a 'personality conflict' within MSNBC or is one of America's major corporations cracking down on a viewpoint they may not like? Whatever the answer may be, Keith Olbermann should be reinstated immediately and allowed to present his point of view.
UPDATE VIA TWITTER #1:
@senatorsanders @KeithOlbermann Keep the faith. We'll do everything we can to get you back on the air ASAP. Your strong progressive voice is missed.
UPDATE VIA TWITTER #2:
@senatorsanders Congratulations to the hundreds of thousands of #progressives who took on Big Media demanding that #KeithOlbermann be reinstated. #msnbc
July 23, 2010
No to Oligarchy
The American people are hurting. As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, millions of Americans have lost their jobs, homes, life savings and their ability to get a higher education. Today, some 22 percent of our children live in poverty, and millions more have become dependent on food stamps for their food.
And while the Great Wall Street Recession has devastated the middle class, the truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000-2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.
But, not everybody is hurting. While the middle class disappears and poverty increases the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class which has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country.
The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last 15 years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.
Last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses, and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. Warren Buffett, one of the richest people on earth, has often commented that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
But it's not just wealthy individuals who grotesquely manipulate the system for their benefit. It's the multi-national corporations they own and control. In 2009, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in history made $19 billion in profits and not only paid no federal income tax -- they actually received a $156 million refund from the government. In 2005, one out of every four large corporations in the United States paid no federal income taxes while earning $1.1 trillion in revenue.
But, perhaps the most outrageous tax break given to multi-millionaires and billionaires happened this January when the estate tax, established in 1916, was repealed for one year as a result of President Bush's 2001 tax legislation. This tax applies only to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of our population. This is what Teddy Roosevelt, a leading proponent of the estate tax, said in 1910. "The absence of effective state, and, especially, national restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.... Therefore, I believe in a ... graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate." And that's what we've had for the last 95 years -- until 2010.
Today, not content with huge tax breaks on their income; not content with massive corporate tax loopholes; not content with trade laws enabling them to outsource the jobs of millions of American workers to low-wage countries and not content with tax havens around the world, the ruling elite and their lobbyists are working feverishly to either eliminate the estate tax or substantially lower it. If they are successful at wiping out the estate tax, as they came close to doing in 2006 with every Republican but two voting to do, it would increase the national debt by over $1 trillion during a 10-year period. At a time when we already have a $13 trillion debt, enormous unmet needs and the highest level of wealth inequality in the industrialized world, it is simply obscene to provide more tax breaks to multi-millionaires and billionaires.
That is why I have introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act (S.3533). This legislation would raise $318 billion over the next decade by establishing a graduated inheritance tax on estates over $3.5 million retroactive to this year. This bill ensures that the wealthiest 0.3 percent of Americans pays their fair share of estate taxes, while making sure that 99.7 percent of Americans never have to pay a dime when they lose a loved one. It also makes certain that the overwhelming majority of family farmers and small businesses never have to pay an estate tax.
This legislation must be passed because, with a $13 trillion national debt and huge unmet needs, we cannot afford more tax breaks for millionaire and billionaire families. But even more importantly, it must be passed because the United States must not become an oligarchy in which a handful of wealthy and powerful families control the destiny of our nation. Too many people, from the inception of this country, have struggled and died to maintain our democratic vision. We owe it to them and to our children to maintain it.
This piece was first published in The Nation.
And while the Great Wall Street Recession has devastated the middle class, the truth is that working families have been experiencing a decline for decades. During the Bush years alone, from 2000-2008, median family income dropped by nearly $2,200 and millions lost their health insurance. Today, because of stagnating wages and higher costs for basic necessities, the average two-wage-earner family has less disposable income than a one-wage-earner family did a generation ago. The average American today is underpaid, overworked and stressed out as to what the future will bring for his or her children. For many, the American dream has become a nightmare.
But, not everybody is hurting. While the middle class disappears and poverty increases the wealthiest people in our country are not only doing extremely well, they are using their wealth and political power to protect and expand their very privileged status at the expense of everyone else. This upper-crust of extremely wealthy families are hell-bent on destroying the democratic vision of a strong middle-class which has made the United States the envy of the world. In its place they are determined to create an oligarchy in which a small number of families control the economic and political life of our country.
The 400 richest families in America, who saw their wealth increase by some $400 billion during the Bush years, have now accumulated $1.27 trillion in wealth. Four hundred families! During the last 15 years, while these enormously rich people became much richer their effective tax rates were slashed almost in half. While the highest paid 400 Americans had an average income of $345 million in 2007, as a result of Bush tax policy they now pay an effective tax rate of 16.6 percent, the lowest on record.
Last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers made a combined $25 billion but because of tax policy their lobbyists helped write, they pay a lower effective tax rate than many teachers, nurses, and police officers. As a result of tax havens in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and elsewhere, the wealthy and large corporations are evading some $100 billion a year in U.S. taxes. Warren Buffett, one of the richest people on earth, has often commented that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
But it's not just wealthy individuals who grotesquely manipulate the system for their benefit. It's the multi-national corporations they own and control. In 2009, Exxon Mobil, the most profitable corporation in history made $19 billion in profits and not only paid no federal income tax -- they actually received a $156 million refund from the government. In 2005, one out of every four large corporations in the United States paid no federal income taxes while earning $1.1 trillion in revenue.
But, perhaps the most outrageous tax break given to multi-millionaires and billionaires happened this January when the estate tax, established in 1916, was repealed for one year as a result of President Bush's 2001 tax legislation. This tax applies only to the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of our population. This is what Teddy Roosevelt, a leading proponent of the estate tax, said in 1910. "The absence of effective state, and, especially, national restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.... Therefore, I believe in a ... graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate." And that's what we've had for the last 95 years -- until 2010.
Today, not content with huge tax breaks on their income; not content with massive corporate tax loopholes; not content with trade laws enabling them to outsource the jobs of millions of American workers to low-wage countries and not content with tax havens around the world, the ruling elite and their lobbyists are working feverishly to either eliminate the estate tax or substantially lower it. If they are successful at wiping out the estate tax, as they came close to doing in 2006 with every Republican but two voting to do, it would increase the national debt by over $1 trillion during a 10-year period. At a time when we already have a $13 trillion debt, enormous unmet needs and the highest level of wealth inequality in the industrialized world, it is simply obscene to provide more tax breaks to multi-millionaires and billionaires.
That is why I have introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act (S.3533). This legislation would raise $318 billion over the next decade by establishing a graduated inheritance tax on estates over $3.5 million retroactive to this year. This bill ensures that the wealthiest 0.3 percent of Americans pays their fair share of estate taxes, while making sure that 99.7 percent of Americans never have to pay a dime when they lose a loved one. It also makes certain that the overwhelming majority of family farmers and small businesses never have to pay an estate tax.
This legislation must be passed because, with a $13 trillion national debt and huge unmet needs, we cannot afford more tax breaks for millionaire and billionaire families. But even more importantly, it must be passed because the United States must not become an oligarchy in which a handful of wealthy and powerful families control the destiny of our nation. Too many people, from the inception of this country, have struggled and died to maintain our democratic vision. We owe it to them and to our children to maintain it.
This piece was first published in The Nation.
July 20, 2010
Why Do Republicans Want to Raise the Deficit?
Today, I gave the following speech speech on the floor of the United States Senate. "Mr. President" refers to the president of the Senate.
Each and every day, it gets harder and harder to listen to my Republican friends who race to the Senate floor telling the American people how "concerned" they are about the $13 trillion national debt and how "we have to get our financial house in order."
As you know, under the leadership of George W. Bush, these same Republicans turned a record-breaking federal surplus left by President Clinton into record-breaking deficits. Back then, their rallying cry was "deficits don't matter" articulated by then-Vice President Dick Cheney. This "deficits don't matter" philosophy gave us two wars that were not paid for -- and there are estimates that the Iraq War alone will end up costing some $3 trillion, $700 billion in tax breaks to the richest one percent, a $400 billion unpaid for prescription drug program written by the pharmaceutical industry, and a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.
But under President Obama, Republicans have seemingly taken a 180-degree turn. Now, apparently, deficits do matter. Now, they say we can't afford to extend unemployment insurance to two million Americans who lost their jobs in the worst recession in modern history. And, they say we can't create new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure or transforming our energy system.
And the Republican hypocrisy is about to advance to a whole new level. In the name of "fiscal responsibility" they are opposing virtually every effort to help the middle class and working families of our country. But, when it comes to the needs of millionaire and billionaire families, they have no problem reducing revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars. In other words, they are deficit hawks when it comes to the needs of ordinary people, but they are big spenders when it comes to the needs of the rich.
Mr. President, four years ago, every Republican but two voted to completely eliminate the estate tax -- a tax that has been in existence since 1916 and impacts only the very richest families in the country -- the top three-tenths of one percent. This huge tax break for the wealthy, if passed, would increase the national debt by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year period.
Let me tell you who the major beneficiaries of this tax break would be. Would it be the average middle class worker who during the Bush years saw a $2,200 decline in his income? No. That person would not get one penny of help by repealing the estate tax. Would it be a single Mom trying to save up to send her daughter to college? No, I'm afraid not. Not one penny for that person.
Would it be one of the millions of senior citizens who are struggling to survive on Social Security? No. No help for them from this Republican tax break.
And I should add here sadly that there are also a few Democrats who are supporting this giveaway.
So, Mr. President, who are the major beneficiaries of the repeal of the estate tax or as the Republican pollsters like to call it the "death tax"?
Well, if we completely repealed the estate tax, it would provide an estimated $32 billion tax break for the Walton family -- the founders of Wal-Mart.
So, let me make a contrast here with regard to Republican philosophy. They believe that it is a good idea to give a $32.7 billion tax break to one family worth $86 billion, but when it comes to providing $35 billion for an emergency extension of unemployment benefits to some two million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, the Republicans are just not there. One family gets almost $33 billion in tax breaks, two million working class Americans get nothing. Maybe that makes moral sense to somebody, but not to me.
But, Mr. President, it is not just the Walton family that our Republican friends and a few Democrats want to help.
Permanently repealing the estate tax would also provide an $11 billion tax break to the Mars candy bar family, a $9 billion tax break to the Cox cable family; and a $2.5 billion tax break to the family that founded Campbell's Soup. No one in the bottom 99.7 percent of the population would gain one cent from these tax breaks.
Today, while they may not have the votes to permanently eliminate the estate tax Republicans are working feverishly to push legislation to substantially lower the tax. In fact, they have already succeeded in eliminating the estate tax this year (and this year alone) as a result of President Bush's $1.35 trillion 2001 tax cut legislation. Wiping out this tax in 2010 has already allowed four billionaire families to receive their entire inheritance without paying a dime in federal estate taxes including the family of George Steinbrenner.
Mr. President, at a time when this country has a $13 trillion national debt, the highest level of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, a crumbling infrastructure, a desperate need to transform our energy system which would create millions of new jobs, it is beyond comprehension that anyone would advocate huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.
And, that is why I have introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act with Senators Harkin, Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown and Franken. This legislation would raise $318 billion over the next decade by establishing a graduated inheritance tax on estates over $3.5 million.
I actually can't take credit for this legislation. It is an idea that was developed 100 years ago by Republican President Teddy Roosevelt who said: "The absence of effective state, and, especially, national restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power ... Therefore, I believe in a ... graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
In order to gain support for the permanent repeal of the estate tax, or a major reduction in estate tax rates, the Republicans and lobbyists representing the super-rich are doing what they do best -- distorting reality. They have created a mythology that a responsible and a fair estate tax (or as they call it, a "death tax") will somehow destroy family farms and small businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. As usual, they are using their old tactic of pretending to worry about the needs of ordinary people as a smoke screen to serve the wealthy special interests.
In terms of the preservation of family farms, something that I feel very strongly about, the American Farm Bureau was asked to come up with an example of a single family farm being lost as a result of the estate tax. They couldn't find one farm that had to be sold as a result of the estate tax. Not one. My bill provides even more protections to family farms than previous law.
In terms of small businesses, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center has estimated that only 80 small businesses and farm estates throughout the country paid an estate tax in 2009 -- representing 0.003 percent of all estates. In other words, virtually every single small business and farm in this country would not pay any estate taxes under my bill, and because of protections in the tax code their effective tax rate was only 14%. And, the relatively few people who inherit small businesses that pay an estate tax are given 14 years to pay it off. They don't have to pay it all in one year.
What this debate is really all about is which side are you on? And the Republicans have answered loud and clear. When it comes to the needs of the unemployed and the uninsured, when it comes to protecting the interests of the struggling middle-class, the Republicans are deficit hawks. But if you are a billionaire family who needs a huge tax break that will cost hundreds of billions, no problem.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook: www.facebook.com/senatorsanders
Each and every day, it gets harder and harder to listen to my Republican friends who race to the Senate floor telling the American people how "concerned" they are about the $13 trillion national debt and how "we have to get our financial house in order."
As you know, under the leadership of George W. Bush, these same Republicans turned a record-breaking federal surplus left by President Clinton into record-breaking deficits. Back then, their rallying cry was "deficits don't matter" articulated by then-Vice President Dick Cheney. This "deficits don't matter" philosophy gave us two wars that were not paid for -- and there are estimates that the Iraq War alone will end up costing some $3 trillion, $700 billion in tax breaks to the richest one percent, a $400 billion unpaid for prescription drug program written by the pharmaceutical industry, and a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street.
But under President Obama, Republicans have seemingly taken a 180-degree turn. Now, apparently, deficits do matter. Now, they say we can't afford to extend unemployment insurance to two million Americans who lost their jobs in the worst recession in modern history. And, they say we can't create new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure or transforming our energy system.
And the Republican hypocrisy is about to advance to a whole new level. In the name of "fiscal responsibility" they are opposing virtually every effort to help the middle class and working families of our country. But, when it comes to the needs of millionaire and billionaire families, they have no problem reducing revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars. In other words, they are deficit hawks when it comes to the needs of ordinary people, but they are big spenders when it comes to the needs of the rich.
Mr. President, four years ago, every Republican but two voted to completely eliminate the estate tax -- a tax that has been in existence since 1916 and impacts only the very richest families in the country -- the top three-tenths of one percent. This huge tax break for the wealthy, if passed, would increase the national debt by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year period.
Let me tell you who the major beneficiaries of this tax break would be. Would it be the average middle class worker who during the Bush years saw a $2,200 decline in his income? No. That person would not get one penny of help by repealing the estate tax. Would it be a single Mom trying to save up to send her daughter to college? No, I'm afraid not. Not one penny for that person.
Would it be one of the millions of senior citizens who are struggling to survive on Social Security? No. No help for them from this Republican tax break.
And I should add here sadly that there are also a few Democrats who are supporting this giveaway.
So, Mr. President, who are the major beneficiaries of the repeal of the estate tax or as the Republican pollsters like to call it the "death tax"?
Well, if we completely repealed the estate tax, it would provide an estimated $32 billion tax break for the Walton family -- the founders of Wal-Mart.
So, let me make a contrast here with regard to Republican philosophy. They believe that it is a good idea to give a $32.7 billion tax break to one family worth $86 billion, but when it comes to providing $35 billion for an emergency extension of unemployment benefits to some two million Americans who lost their jobs through no fault of their own, the Republicans are just not there. One family gets almost $33 billion in tax breaks, two million working class Americans get nothing. Maybe that makes moral sense to somebody, but not to me.
But, Mr. President, it is not just the Walton family that our Republican friends and a few Democrats want to help.
Permanently repealing the estate tax would also provide an $11 billion tax break to the Mars candy bar family, a $9 billion tax break to the Cox cable family; and a $2.5 billion tax break to the family that founded Campbell's Soup. No one in the bottom 99.7 percent of the population would gain one cent from these tax breaks.
Today, while they may not have the votes to permanently eliminate the estate tax Republicans are working feverishly to push legislation to substantially lower the tax. In fact, they have already succeeded in eliminating the estate tax this year (and this year alone) as a result of President Bush's $1.35 trillion 2001 tax cut legislation. Wiping out this tax in 2010 has already allowed four billionaire families to receive their entire inheritance without paying a dime in federal estate taxes including the family of George Steinbrenner.
Mr. President, at a time when this country has a $13 trillion national debt, the highest level of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, a crumbling infrastructure, a desperate need to transform our energy system which would create millions of new jobs, it is beyond comprehension that anyone would advocate huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.
And, that is why I have introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act with Senators Harkin, Whitehouse, Sherrod Brown and Franken. This legislation would raise $318 billion over the next decade by establishing a graduated inheritance tax on estates over $3.5 million.
I actually can't take credit for this legislation. It is an idea that was developed 100 years ago by Republican President Teddy Roosevelt who said: "The absence of effective state, and, especially, national restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power ... Therefore, I believe in a ... graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
In order to gain support for the permanent repeal of the estate tax, or a major reduction in estate tax rates, the Republicans and lobbyists representing the super-rich are doing what they do best -- distorting reality. They have created a mythology that a responsible and a fair estate tax (or as they call it, a "death tax") will somehow destroy family farms and small businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth. As usual, they are using their old tactic of pretending to worry about the needs of ordinary people as a smoke screen to serve the wealthy special interests.
In terms of the preservation of family farms, something that I feel very strongly about, the American Farm Bureau was asked to come up with an example of a single family farm being lost as a result of the estate tax. They couldn't find one farm that had to be sold as a result of the estate tax. Not one. My bill provides even more protections to family farms than previous law.
In terms of small businesses, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center has estimated that only 80 small businesses and farm estates throughout the country paid an estate tax in 2009 -- representing 0.003 percent of all estates. In other words, virtually every single small business and farm in this country would not pay any estate taxes under my bill, and because of protections in the tax code their effective tax rate was only 14%. And, the relatively few people who inherit small businesses that pay an estate tax are given 14 years to pay it off. They don't have to pay it all in one year.
What this debate is really all about is which side are you on? And the Republicans have answered loud and clear. When it comes to the needs of the unemployed and the uninsured, when it comes to protecting the interests of the struggling middle-class, the Republicans are deficit hawks. But if you are a billionaire family who needs a huge tax break that will cost hundreds of billions, no problem.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook: www.facebook.com/senatorsanders
Bernie Sanders's Blog
- Bernie Sanders's profile
- 1445 followers
Bernie Sanders isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
