A Petition to Support the Saving American Democracy Amendment

http://sanders.senate.gov/

Sen. Bernie Sanders has proposed a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Supreme Court decision in a case called Citizens United vs. FEC.

The Saving American Democracy Amendment states that:

•Corporations are not persons with constitutional rights equal to real people.

•Corporations are subject to regulation by the people.

•Corporations may not make campaign contributions.

•Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.

New polls confirm Obama's Democratic base crumbles

Andrew Malcom
July 26, 2011
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/07/obama-poll-jobs-democratic-base-crumbling.html

With all of the spotlights on the high-stakes debt maneuverings by President Obama and Speaker John Boehner the last few days, few people noticed what Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders said:

"I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition."

This is political treason 469 days before a presidential election. Yes, yes, this is just a crusty old New England independent for now, albeit one who caucuses loyally with Harry Reid's Democratic posse.

But while most of the media focuses on Republican Boehner and the tea party pressures on him to raise the debt limit not one Liberty dime, Sanders' mumblings are a useful reminder that hidden in the shadows of this left-handed presidency are militant progressives like Sanders who don't want to cut one Liberty dime of non-Pentagon spending.

An Unbalanced Approach to a Balanced Approach

Using political forensics, notice any clues, perhaps telltale code words that reveal to whom he was really addressing his Monday message? Clearly, it wasn't congressional Republicans -- or Democrats, for that matter.

The nation's top talker uttered 2,264 words in those remarks. He said "balanced approach" seven times, three times in a single paragraph.

That's the giveaway. Obviously, David Plouffe and the incumbent's strategists have been polling phrases for use in this ongoing debt duel, which is more about 2012 now than 2011. "Balanced approach" is no sweet talk for old Bernie or tea sippers on the other side.

Obama is running for the center already, aiming for the independents who played such a crucial role in his victorious coalition in 2008. They were the first to start abandoning the good ship Obama back in 2009 when all the ex-state senator could do was talk about healthcare, when jobs and the economy were the peoples' priority.

Democrats lost the New Jersey and Virginia governor's offices largely as a result of that and Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in Massachusetts. And then came last November's midterms when voters chose the approach of that historic pack of House-bound Republicans.

Republicans have their own poll problems in some areas. But even without an identified GOP presidential alternative, we've had a plethora of recent polls showing Obama's fading job approval, especially on the economy.

Now, comes a new ABC News/Washington Post poll with a whole harvest of revelations, among them, strong indications that Obama's liberal base is starting to crumble. Among the nuggets:

Despite those hundreds of billions of blown stimulus dollars and almost as many upturn promises from Joe Biden, 82% of Americans still say their job market is struggling. Ninety percent rate the economy negatively, including half who give it the worst rating of "poor."

Are You Better Off Today Than Jan. 20, 2009?

A slim 15% claim to be "getting ahead financially," half what it was in 2006. Fully 27% say they're falling behind financially. That's up 6 points since February.

A significant majority (54%) says they've been forced to change their lifestyle significantly as a result of the economic times -- and 60% of them are angry, up from 44%.

To be sure, 30 months after he returned to home cooking, George W. Bush still gets majority blame for the economy.

But here's the breaking news for wishful Democrats: George W. Bush isn't running for anything but exercise.

"More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among his base," the Post reports.

Strong support among liberal Democrats for Obama's jobs record has plummeted 22 points from 53% down below a third. African Americans who believe the president's measures helped the economy have plunged from 77% to barely half.

Obama's overall job approval on the economy has slid below 40% for the first time, with 57% disapproving. And strong disapprovers outnumber approvers by better than two-to-one.

Bernie Sanders on Barack Obama

"My suggestion is, I think one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him, and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing. I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition."

Sanders: Would be 'good' for Obama to face primary challenge
Michael O'Brien
07/25/11
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/173201-sanders-says-it-would-be-good-for-obama-to-face-primary-challenge

Republicans Move to Block Ron Paul from Monetary Policy Subcommittee

http://www.prisonplanet.com/republicans-move-to-block-ron-paul-from-monetary-policy-subcommittee-chair.html

Republicans Move to Block Ron Paul from Monetary Policy Subcommittee Chair
Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 3, 2010

Ron Paul will not head up the House’s monetary policy subcommittee if John Boehner has anything to say about it.

“Five GOP leadership aides, speaking anonymously because a decision isn’t final, say incoming House Speaker John Boehner has discussed ways to prevent Paul from becoming chairman or to keep him on a tight leash if he does,” reports Bloomberg. “If Boehner, who will help determine who gets to chair subcommittees as early as Dec. 8, rejects Paul, he may have to contend with thousands of grassroots supporters and dozens of younger lawmakers who see Paul as a hero.”

Boehner and the establishment Republicans rode to victory last month on the shoulders of the Tea Party movement. Prior to the election, Tea Party activists in Maine, Colorado, and Utah focused on abolishing the Federal Reserve.

Some predicted that if Republicans were to sweep the House they would become much more confrontational with the Federal Reserve. “The popularity of Tea Party candidates in U.S. elections could spell renewed efforts to curtail the power and independence of the Federal Reserve, which has been cast as an emblem of big government overreach,” Reuters reported in late October.

Many establishment Republicans agree with senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who insists the Tea Party and its vision of less government has no long-term vision or prospects for political viability.

Instead of dismantling the Federal Reserve, establishment Republicans have called for reforming the private bankster cartel masquerading as a government agency supposedly answerable to the American people.

On Tuesday, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn. and Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. called for Congress to change the Fed’s “dual mandate” now requiring it to promote both price stability and full employment and instead focus on keeping inflation low and not worrying about reducing unemployment.

“It is time that we work to clarify the mandate of the Federal Reserve,” said Corker, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement announcing his support for the change. “Providing our central bank with a clear and explicit focus on keeping inflation low will serve America better than the broader mandate approach we have today,” the National Journal reports.

Corker and Pence proffered their milquetoast bill after it was revealed the Fed gave a big chunk of its multi-trillion dollar Wall Street bailout to foreign banksters and transnational corporations.

“We now know that the Fed loaned trillions of dollars at zero or near-zero interest rates not only to the largest financial institutions in the country, but also to many of our largest corporations — including GE, McDonalds and Verizon,” said an outraged Bernie Sanders, the socialist senator from Vermont.

“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,” he said. “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.”

Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul may take a serious look at the Fed. But we shouldn’t expect the rest of Congress to support an effort to cut out the cancer that plagues the economy.

In July, Paul’s Federal Reserve Transparency Act that would have eliminated restrictions on GAO audits of the Fed and open its operations to congressional oversight was defeated.

“Since its inception, the Federal Reserve has always operated in the shadows, without sufficient scrutiny or oversight, while Congress has kept its hands off and its eyes closed,” Ron Paul wrote after language from his bill failed to make it into a conference report on the so-called financial reform bill (that ultimately gave the Fed more power, not less). “The Federal Reserve has presided over the near-complete destruction of the United States dollar. Since 1913 the dollar has lost over 95% of its purchasing power, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Transparency Act would achieve much-needed transparency of the Federal Reserve System.”

Now that Republicans are in charge of the House, they join the Democrats and make sure the Federal Reserve continues to operate in the shadows and remains unanswerable to the American people. The globalist financial train wreck will continue until it accomplishes its goal of pauperizing the American people and preparing the country to be merged into their world government scheme.

“The current Globalist Financial Crisis is a Financial False Flag operation,” writes Alfred Lambremont Webre. “It is a controlled collapse of the globalist economic system, engineered by an international war crimes racketeering organization…. The Financial False Flag [is] designed to accelerate the deterioration of First World economies, democracies, and prosperity, in aid of a larger program of global depopulation. The same powers who control the Federal Reserve Bank are intent on depopulating between 1/3 and 2/3 of the current human population, in service to a grotesque covert elite plan.”

Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and a handful of other House and Senate renegades who are not reading from the bankster script like John Boehner and the establishment Republicans will not be allowed to hold the Federal Reserve to account.

It will take the collective outrage of grassroots supporters of Paul’s End the Fed movement to force Congress to reconsider moving against the banksters and their cartel.

A Real Jaw Dropper at the Federal Reserve

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/a-real-jaw-dropper-at-the_b_791091.html

Sen. Bernie Sanders
Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont
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 $1 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.

Sanders Calls For Progressive Meeting, Alternative To Fiscal Commission

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/12/sanders-calls-for-progres_n_782879.html

Sam Stein
stein@huffingtonpost.com
Sanders Calls For Progressive Meeting, Alternative To Fiscal Commission
11-12-10

WASHINGTON -- Clearly displeased with the initial deficit-reduction recommendations offered by the fiscal commission chairmen, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced on Friday that he will craft and introduce his own proposals as an alternative.

The Vermont Independent said that he will work with members of Congress, labor unions, seniors' organizations and others to develop alternative suggestions. And while he didn't get into the weeds, he did offer a few general areas that he hopes to target, including ending Bush-era tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, chopping off Cold War-era Pentagon programs and eliminating of tax credits for big oil companies.

Of the ideas pushed by the commission co-chairmen -- former Sen. Alan K. Simpson and Erskine Bowles, former President Bill Clinton's former chief of staff -- Sanders offered the following:

"It is no surprise that these two favor draconian cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the needs of our veterans, and education while proposing tax reductions for the wealthy and large profitable corporations... Simpson is a darling of the Republican right wing and Bowles is a former investment banker who made a fortune on Wall Street. Their plan was floated amid reports that the two were struggling to cobble together enough support on their own commission to go forward by a Dec. 1 deadline."

The likelihood that a progressive alternative for deficit reduction would get a vote in the Senate, let alone a hearing, is slimmer than the chances of Simpson and Bowles' recommendations making it to the floor unscathed. But Sander's effort isn't necessarily about getting a vote. Rather, there is, currently, one blueprint being offered for the task of deficit reduction and it's largely anathema to the progressive community. Having a second proposal out there serves the purpose of giving the negotiations a bit of bearing.

"We all know that there are a number of fair and progressive ways to address the deficit crisis that would not harm the middle class and those who have already lost their jobs, homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college," Sanders writes, in a letter to those he's inviting for discussions. "The time has come to put these proposals into a package so that the progressive view becomes a part of the national discussion."

Obama commission: Slash Social Security, reduce corporate taxes

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/obama-slash-social-security-reduce-corporate-taxes/

Obama commission: Slash Social Security, reduce corporate taxes
Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, November 10th, 2010

Progressives across the US are condemning President Obama's deficit-reduction commission for its proposal, released today, to cut Social Security payments while lowering corporate taxes and the highest income tax bracket.

The commission, put together by the White House in February, released a draft report Wednesday that proposes deep cuts to domestic and military spending that would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years. But the way in which the proposal goes about achieving those reductions has come in for heavy attack from progressive politicians, labor leaders and commentators.

"If you’re sincerely worried about the US fiscal future — and there’s good reason to be — you don’t propose a plan that involves large cuts in income taxes," economist Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times. Krugman pointed to an article in the Times outlining the commission's strategy:

The proposed simplification of the tax code would repeal or modify a number of popular tax breaks — including the deductibility of mortgage interest payments — so that income tax rates could be reduced across the board. Under the plan, individual income tax rates would decline to as low as 8 percent on the lowest income bracket (now 10 percent) and to 23 percent on the highest bracket (now 35 percent). The corporate tax rate, now 35 percent, would also be reduced, to as low as 26 percent.

The commission is also proposing that Social Security payments be increased, so that 90 percent of income is taxable, as opposed to 82.5 percent as is currently projected. Despite the increases in payments, the plan calls for a reduction in benefits for most Social Security recipients.

Additionally, the retirement age would be raised gradually, reaching 68 in 2050 and 69 in 2070.

The commission's proposals aren't binding, and may not necessarily end up as law. Proposals will only be sent to Congress if they garner the support of 14 of the 18 commissioners on the panel. The Hill reports that at present there isn't that level of support on the commission for the proposal to reduce Social Security.

BERNIE SANDERS: SOCIAL SECURITY CUTS 'REPREHENSIBLE'

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-described democratic socialist, called the commission's proposal "reprehensible," reports The Hill.

“The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan is extremely disappointing and something that should be vigorously opposed by the American people," Sanders said.

He was joined by Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO labor umbrella group.

"The chairmen of the Deficit Commission just told working Americans to 'drop dead,'" Trumka said. "Some people are saying this is plan is just a 'starting point.' Let me be clear, it is not."

President Obama established the commission in February of this year, in response to growing concerns about the US government's budget deficit, which is hovering above $1.3 trillion for the second fiscal year in a row.

"These are tough times, and we can't keep spending like they're not," the president said. He appointed former Clinton White House chief of estaff Erskine Bowles, and former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson as co-heads of the commission.

Followers of the commission's progress had been expecting something along the lines of today's preliminary proposals for some time now. In August, ex-Sen. Simpson was criticized for referring to Social Security as a "milk cow with 310 million tits!" in an email.

The comment was widely interpreted as a sign that the commission would move towards reducing Social Security benefits.

Bernie Sanders: I’m Prepared To Introduce Public Option Amendment

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/bernie-sanders-im-prepared-to-introduce-public-option-amendment/

Bernie Sanders: I’m Prepared To Introduce Public Option Amendment
Greg Sargent
03/11/2010

The public option just might get its straight up-or-down vote after all.

Senator Bernie Sanders, in a brief interview in the Capitol just now, confirmed to me that he’s willing to commit to introducing an amendment that would add the public option to the Senate bill’s reconciliation fix.

This is important, because as far fetched as this seems, if this amendment is introduced, a vote on it would be very hard for the Senate Dem leadership to block. The only thing that could stop it from happening, according to Senate expert Robert Dove, is for the parliamentarian to rule that it’s not germane to the Senate bill somehow — something that seems unlikely.

“I think somebody should do that, and I’d certainly be prepared to do that,” Sanders told me when I asked him if he’d be willing to commit to introducing a public option amendment. This is, in effect, a commitment to introduce the amendment if no one else does.

The possiblity that a single Senator will introduce a public option amendment — which would get a straight majority vote — is actually worrying to Senate Dem leaders. Indeed, Dick Durbin, the number two Senate Dem, yesterday told reporters that this would create headaches and even conceded that the leadership might be forced to ask liberal Senators to vote against it to ensure smooth passage for the overall bill.

Now, however, Sanders is essentially committing to doing it if no one else does. So it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the public option will indeed get its day in the Senate — and that the Senate Dem caucus may be forced to stand up and be counted on it.

Senator Sanders Offers Medicare-for-All Amendment

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/04-4

Friday, December 4, 2009
Physicians for National Healthcare Program (PNHP)
Senator Sanders Offers Medicare-for-All Amendment in Senate

WASHINGTON -- Challenging head-on the powerful private insurance and pharmaceutical industries, Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced an amendment to the Senate health reform bill Wednesday that would replace the bulk of the Senate bill's language with provisions establishing a single-payer, Medicare-for-All program.

Joining with Sanders, I-Vt., in co-sponsoring the measure, known as Senate Amendment 2837, were Senators Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Roland Burris, D-Ill. Other senators, including Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, have previously declared their support for single-payer health reform. The vote on the measure could take place in the next few days.

"This amendment starts from the premise that health care is a human right, and that every citizen, rich or poor, should have access to health care, just as every citizen has access to the fire department, the police or public schools," a statement from Sanders' office said.

The single-payer approach embodied in Sanders' amendment stands in sharp contrast to the reform models being offered by the Senate and House leadership and the White House. Those bills would enhance the central role of private health insurers.

Sanders' amendment, on the other hand, would replace the present crazy-quilt array of for-profit insurers with a single nonprofit, public financing agency, thereby slashing administrative waste in the system and redirecting the savings to clinical care.

Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program, said, "This historic move by Sen. Sanders and his colleagues - it's the first time single payer will be voted upon on the floor of the Senate - is yet another sign of the strong and growing support for an improved Medicare for All among the public and the medical profession.

"In contrast, the Senate leadership's deeply flawed bill doesn't expand coverage until 2014, would still leave 24 million uninsured, and would place no effective constraints on exploding costs," he said. "Sanders amendment would cover everyone from the start and allow for effective cost-containment.

"Physicians and patients alike stand to gain enormously from the adoption of this measure," Young said. "No effort should be spared to ask every senator to vote yes on Senate Amendment 2837."

Sanders' measure, which is largely patterned after a bill he introduced last March, the American Health Security Act (S. 703), would cover all of the 46 million Americans who currently lack coverage and improve benefits for all Americans by eliminating co-pays and deductibles and restoring free choice of physician.

Highlights of the amendment include the following:

* Patients go to any doctor or hospital of their choice.

* Comprehensive benefits, including coverage for dental, mental health, and prescription drugs.

* By eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry, along with the burdensome paperwork imposed on physicians, hospitals and other providers, the plan saves at least $400 billion annually - enough money to provide comprehensive, quality care to all.

* Community health centers are fully funded, giving the 60 million Americans now living in rural and underserved areas access to care.

* To address the critical shortage of primary care physicians and dentists, the bill provides resources for the National Health Service Corps to train an additional 24,000 health professionals.

* The program is paid for by combining current sources of government health spending into a single fund with modest new payroll and income taxes amounting to less than what most businesses and people now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.

* While federally funded, the program is to be administered by the states.

Sanders, who serves on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, is a longtime advocate of fundamental health care reform.

Bernanke Channels Willie Sutton

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/bernanke-channels-willie_n_378963.html

Ryan Grim
ryan@huffingtonpost.com HuffPost
Bernanke Channels Willie Sutton In Assault On Social Security: 'That's Where The Money Is'
12-3-09

Ben Bernanke has overseen the greatest expansion of the Federal Reserve's balance sheet in its history, pouring trillions of dollars into Wall Street firms at roughly zero interest rates.

His generosity, however, has a limit.

In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee today, where he's seeking re-appointment as the Fed's chairman, Bernanke called for cutbacks in Medicare and Social Security even as unemployment rises and the middle class is endangered.

Citing legendary bank robber Willie Sutton, Bernanke said of the retirement and health care funds that are the legacy of the New Deal: "That's where the money is."

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) sympathized with Bernanke, saying that, because of entitlement spending, "you're going to be looking at a situation where the Congress will be unable to provide any kind of fiscal discipline because of the mandatory spending. That puts an enormous burden on your plate."

"Well, Senator, I was about to address entitlements," Bernanke replied. "I think you can't tackle the problem in the medium term without doing something about getting entitlements under control and reducing the costs, particularly of health care."

Bernanke reminded Congress that it has the power to repeal Social Security and Medicare.

"It's only mandatory until Congress says it's not mandatory. And we have no option but to address those costs at some point or else we will have an unsustainable situation," said Bernanke.

Story continues below But there are several other obvious options that could make the situation sustainable -- including a transaction tax on Wall Street speculation or a slight tax hike on the wealthiest Americans.

Bernanke talks as if increasing taxes on the wealthy simply isn't an option.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) followed Bennett and pointed out that "there's only really two ways you can deflect this deficit, and that's either by cutting expenditures or raising income taxes or other forms of taxes."

Reed asked him if he could think of other ways, but Bernanke returned to entitlement money as the way to balance the budget.

"Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is, as he put it," Bernanke said. "The money in this case is in entitlements."

There's also money at the very top of the income ladder. Reed asked if Congress would be wise to tax some of it. Full of suggestions when it came to cutting entitlements, Bernanke was suddenly overtaken by a bout of policy modesty.

"Would you take taxes off the table?" Reed asked.

"Those decisions are up to Congress," Bernanke said.

"Well, your predecessor signaled very strongly that the tax cuts in 2000 were appropriate," Reed reminded him.

"I have not done that. I've done my best to leave that authority where it belongs, with the Congress," Bernanke said, just moments after telling Congress to cut entitlement spending.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who has placed a hold on Bernanke's nomination, was apoplectic when HuffPost told him Bernanke was pushing for cuts in entitlement spending. "Bernanke wants to cut entitlement spending? Well, that confirms everything I'm saying," Sanders fumed.

"The CEOs and top people on Wall Street make huge bonuses, and what? We're going to cut back on Social Security and Medicare? That's what we're going to do?"

Bernanke worked to assure the committee he had nothing against old people. "I'm not in any way advocating unfair treatment of the elderly, who have worked all their lives and certainly deserve our support and help, but if there are ways to restructure or strengthen these programs that reduce costs, I think that's extraordinarily important for us to try to achieve," he said.

Bernanke allies in the Senate are working to see he gets his way. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has been pushing hard for the creation of an independent commission that could cut entitlement spending. He has met recently, he said Thursday, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, reiterating his threat to block Senate legislation if the commission isn't created.

"We're on a course that's just unsustainable," Conrad said, but put emphasis on Medicare rather than Social Security.

While the debate about entitlement spending is often masked with high-minded talk about fiscally-responsible policy solutions, it is little more than a struggle between competing classes for scarce resources.

Sanders said he sees it for what it is. "That's the solution? To cut back on the middle class and the elderly? That only adds fuel to the fire," he said. "Look, let's be clear. The middle class in America today is collapsing. Within the confines of the Beltway, we don't talk about that too much. But that is the reality. It's not just unemployment or underemployment. People are working longer hours for lower wages. People are unable to send their kids to college. People are losing their homes. People's jobs are going to China. That is the reality."

Health Care Puts Progressives On the Verge

http://www.openleft.com/diary/14778/health-care-puts-progressives-on-the-verge-of-changing-the-power-dynamic

Health Care Puts Progressives On the Verge of Changing the Power Dynamic
David Sirota
Tue Aug 25, 2009

So, here's the deal, folks: Looking at the current state of play on health care through the multicolored lenses I acquired working on Capitol Hill and then working in politics out here in the West, I'd say it's a good bet that the House will pass a health care bill with a solid public option in it, and the Senate will pass a health care bill without a solid public option in it. I'd say it's also a good bet that the major reason - though probably not the only reason - Obama has gone back and forth on the public option is because the administration is solely focused on getting bills - any bills - passed through each chamber and into one conference committee for a final negotiation.

Once that happens, the health care shit hits the legislative fan. We won't have to speculate anymore about whether the president is really committed to the public option, nor will we have to speculate about whether top senators and House members on the conference committee are committed to the public option. At that point, their actions will be far louder than their words.

Obama will be forced to take a position on the public option as he either draws a veto line in the sand, or doesn't - and if he doesn't on the public option, it means he's willing to sell out the public option. Similarly, conference committee lawmakers will either have to vote for a public option, or vote with the insurance industry against it.

A month ago, I would have said that the administration was planning to lay low while two templates got into a conference committee, and then sell out the public option in that committee, believing that ultimately, progressives will vote for a bad health care bill (ie. one sans public option but with a few regulatory goodies) rather than kill it outright. The White House is, after all, packed with staffers like Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina who have made their careers coddling corporate lobbyists - and the president himself is a guy who has often chosen to seek common ground instead of confrontation with moneyed interests when an avenue is available to do that. That's why, for instance, this administration has exhibited two different standards for dealing with progressive and conservative Democrats - it tries to push progressives around while kissing the fat, mostly white and mostly southern asses of the so-called Blue Dogs.

A month ago, all of these forces might have made the "roll the progressives, sell out the public option" strategy a legislatively successful one, even as it would produce a bill that would likely be terrible public policy. I say that because let's be honest: the bloc of congressional progressives who the White House would be hoping to steamroll, while fighting the good fight in the lead up to key votes, has nonetheless capitulated on nearly every single do-or-die final-passage vote in recent memory (and I say that sadly, having served as an aide to Progressive Caucus leader - and dear friend - Bernie Sanders).

However, after the fantastic organizing/whipping/fundraising being done by Firedoglake, OpenLeft and Moveon and after the strong progressive media pressure on radio, TV and in newspapers, I believe the dynamic - and therefore the White House political calculus - could change.

Indeed, all the forces seem to be coming into line: Polls show local Democratic dissatisfaction with easily primary-able Democrats, putting huge pressure on those Democrats to get in line; the Paul Krugmans of the liberal punditocracy, often offering up "on the one hand, on the other hand" dithering at the end of legislative fights, have now come out pretty strong for a public option; mainstream Republican editorial boards like the Denver Post are saying the public option is necessary; the decline in Obama's poll numbers are being fueled by progressive - not conservative - dissatisfaction on health care; fundraising for the public option campaign is intensifying; and the organizing work to support the public option is in full gear.

Taken all together, the aimed at A) forcing House Democrats to pledge to vote against a public-option-free health care bill and B) getting Senate Democrats to state their support of a public option may be making the easier legislative path the one that squeezes the Blue Dog Democrats - not the progressive movement that got Obama elected.

Obviously, the pressure on the House Democrats is the most important. The Senate is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry - the best we're probably going to do is get enough members to say they support the public option, but it's probably too big a lift to hope to get many of them to pledge to vote against an insurance-industry sop, if that's what the final bill ends up being. However, that's less significant because enough House members taking that pledge - and sticking to it, rather than publicly undermining it - creates a veto power all on its own. That is, it creates a Ben Nelson Effect for the progressive movement.

What is the Ben Nelson Effect? Back in 2007 while reporting my book The Uprising, I wrote a post about progressives learning lessons from the Ben Nelsons of the world - about us learning to use the conservadem tactics of threatening to torpedo a bill to further progressive goals. Back then, Moveon and many other progressive groups as well as many congressional progressives refused to play this kind of hardball, and, as The Uprising showed, our nation paid for it in substantial blood and treasure. So I'm absolutely thrilled that it looks like we're finally embracing the kind of tactics that could force legislative change.

And that's the key word - "force." As Glenn Greenwald has said, this isn't about trust in Obama, or loyalty to Democrats or affinity for particular legislators because they happen to be nice people. This, like every political issue, is about raw power - something many of us on this site have been saying for years, something that many progressives in the throes of Democratic Party/Obama sycophancy have refused to consider (and, indeed, many of us who have been talking for years about changing from partisan to movement psychology have been the target of more than a little anger/vitriol/hate from the sycophants).

We will get only what we force both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress to give us, taking into account exactly how the Congress works. This is, once again, the "Make Him Do It Dynamic" - and right now, that requires us to build the Progressive Block, as Chris Bowers calls it. We must focus laser-like efforts on constructing a group of House members who delivers on a promise to vote against a public-option-free health care bill. If we do that, we will change the power dynamic in the health care debate by forcing the administration to use its power to make the public option a reality in the final bill that is reported out of the conference committee. And even more broadly, it may change the power dynamic on every other issue by finally establishing the progressive majority in the Democratic caucus - and not the corporate whores - as the final "deciders" on other major bill.

These are the stakes, and they are high. While they aren't going to get us all the way to single payer (which I've long said was a huge missed opportunity), they may deliver us a public option that represents genuine progress. It all depends on us. If we can ignore the professional naysayers and power appeasers in the Washington Punditburo (especially the D.C. liberals who keep going back and forth with overwrought handwringing/bedwetting), if we can substitute real pressure for partisan apologism, if we can refrain from making our typical excuses for Democratic politicians, we can actually deliver this Progressive Block and have a real shot to be successful.

And remember, I don't say that very often.

Sanders proposal for 10 million solar rooftops

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/400

Sanders leads with proposal for 10 million solar rooftops, Bush Admin puts brakes on solar projects
Tue, 07/01/2008
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Amy Weiss

While the Bush administration put a two-year moratorium on solar energy projects on public land last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and colleagues drafted a bill to promote the creation of 10 million new solar rooftops in private homes and businesses over the next ten years.

The bill, co-sponsored by Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Arlen Specter (R-PA), John Warner (R-VA), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), provides incentives for solar unit installation, covering about half the average costs.

The proposed units are photovoltaic systems that use panels to turn sunlight into energy. The moratorium suspended both photovoltaic and concentrating solar plants--concentrating plants use mirrors to direct light to power steam turbines.

Sen. Sanders said in a statement Tuesday that the benefits of the bill, known as the 10 Million Solar Roofs Act of 2008, would be numerous:

We can reverse greenhouse gas emissions. We can break our dependence on foreign oil. Transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels can be a tremendous boom for the United States economy and create millions of good-paying jobs. This is a win, win, win situation.

Solar energy companies have been critical of the Bureau of Land Management's decision to halt new solar endeavors, understanding that a review is necessary but claiming that freezing the process altogether doesn't make sense.

"It doesn't make any sense ... This could completely stunt the growth of the industry," one solar company executive told the New York Times.

The director of a renewable energy trade group said in the same article, "I think it's good to have a plan ... but I don't think we need to stop development in its tracks."

Michael Briggs, a spokesman for Sen. Sanders, told BuzzFlash that the bill was in the works before the Bureau of Land Management's moratorium. He also emphasized the importance of solar in solving current energy and environmental issues.

"Clearly we're at a time with oil prices setting records practically everyday and with the prospect of global warming that is going on," he said. "Solar energy is going to be a key part of responding to both of those forces."

Briggs anticipates the response once the bill is passed will be very positive. He said the experience in state programs that the bill is modeled after, like those in New Jersey and California, has been "that the technology is there, it's just a matter of making it available and at competitive prices. People want to do this and I think the impact would be dramatic."

Sen. Sanders, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, will participate in a hearing in Albuquerque, NM on Wednesday led by Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to "consider the value and examine the progress of electricity generation from concentrating solar power." Briggs expects the Bureau of Land Management's moratorium will come up at the hearing.