Bernie Sanders Puts Barack Obama to Shame

[Ben]

Bernie Sanders Puts Barack Obama to Shame

In an era of Democratic waffling and compromise, the Independent from Vermont actually stands up for what he believes in


By Matt Taibbi
ROLLING STONE Magazine...
December 15, 2010

Not long ago I was sitting at home writing something for publication – I won’t say what, except that it was a passage about a certain politician on the Hill. Out of habit I launched into a description that was full of nasty and personal language, and I was about to press on to the next part of the piece when suddenly I hit a mental speed bump. A voice in my head whispered – this really happened – “If you write that shit and Bernie Sanders sees it, he’s going to be disappointed in you.” So I went back and removed the gratuitous body blows from the article.
I thought about this when I watched Bernie go through his amazing one-man filibuster against the Obama tax cut deal last week. Week after week, month after month, we watch politicians who disappoint us, not just as leaders but as people, failing to achieve the basic life-competency standard we expect of most grown-ups, doing things we wouldn’t tolerate from 15-year-olds. Whether it’s Mark Foley writing sexy letters to little boys, or Charlie Rangel or Duke Cunningham or Jerry Lewis doing the pay-for-play game, or even assholes like Orrin Hatch roaring with partisan excitement when the individual mandate – his own idea – was recently declared unconstitutional by a federal judge (who himself has financial stake in the health care business), these guys fail the common decency/honesty test with unnerving regularity. It’s sad but true, but in 99.9% of all cases, you wouldn’t think of looking up to an elected official as a moral role model. Which is why Bernie Sanders is such a rarity, and people should appreciate what he’s doing not just for his home state of Vermont, but for the reputation of all politicians in general.
I was in Washington last week and visited Bernie in his office, mainly to talk about the incredible results of the Federal Reserve audit, about which I’ll be writing more in the upcoming weeks and after the New Year. The audit of the Fed was undertaken because Bernie and a few other members of congress fought very hard during the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform debate to force open Ben Bernanke’s books, and as a result we now know the staggering details of the secret bailout era. We know that Citigroup received $1.6 trillion in loans, and Morgan Stanley $2 trillion, and Goldman Sachs – the same Goldman Sachs that bragged about how quickly it paid back its $10 billion TARP bailout – over $600 billion. We know that hedge fund billionaires who moved their corporate addresses to the Cayman Islands to avoid U.S. taxes were rewarded by their buddies in government with huge Fed loans; we know that the U.S. government likewise has been extending massive loans to a variety of Japanese car companies at a time when many American auto workers in Detroit have seen their wages cut in half, to $14 an hour. There’s that and there’s more on the outrage front, and we know it all because Sanders kicked and screamed and stamped his feet about Fed secrecy until just enough other members of the Senate decided to go along with him.
I’m bringing this up now to put into context what Bernie did on the floor of the Senate last week, standing up for eight hours and 37 minutes to make a case that the hideous deal that Barack Obama cut with the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts was an outrage to the very qualities that matter most to this politician, common decency and common sense. While everyone else in Washington was debating the political efficacy of the deal – the Hill actually published a piece talking cheerfully about how CEOs found a “new friend” in Obama, while the New York Times shamelessly ran a front-page “analysis” talking up the deal’s supposed benefits to the middle class and the political benefits from same that Obama would enjoy – Sanders blew all of that off and just looked at the deal’s moral implications. Which are these: this tax deal, frankly and unequivocally, is the result of a relatively small group of already-filthy rich people successfully lobbying an even smaller group of morally spineless politicians to shift an ever-bigger share of society’s burdens to the lower and (what’s left of the) middle classes. This is people who already have lots of shit just demanding more shit, for the sheer rotten sake of it. Here’s how Bernie put it:

"How can I get by on one house? I need five houses, ten houses! I need three jet planes to take me all over the world! Sorry, American people. We've got the money, we've got the power, we've got the lobbyists here and on Wall Street. Tough luck. That's the world, get used to it. Rich get richer. Middle class shrinks."

I contrast this now to the behavior of Barack Obama. I can’t even count how many times I listened to Barack Obama on the campaign trail talk about how, as president, he would rescind the Bush tax cuts as soon as he had the chance. He stood up and he said over and over again – I can still hear him saying “Let me be clear!” with that Great Statesman voice of his, before he went into this routine – that the Bush tax cuts were wrong and immoral. He said more than once that they “offended his conscience." Then, just as he did with drug re-importation and Guantanamo and bulk Medicare negotiations for pharmaceuticals and the issue of whether or not he would bring registered lobbyists into his White House and a host of other promises, he tossed his campaign “convictions” in the toilet and changed his mind once he was more accountable to lobbyists than primary voters. He pulled an Orrin Hatch, in other words, only he did it serially.
I can live with the president fighting for something and failing; what I can’t stand is a politician who changes his mind for the sake of expediency and then pretends that was what he believed all along. You just can’t imagine someone like Sanders doing something like that; his MO instead would be to take his best shot for what he actually believes and let the chips fall where they may, budging a little maybe to get a worthwhile deal done but never turning his entire face inside out just to get through the day. This idea that you can’t be an honest man and a Washington politician is a myth, a crock made up by sellouts and careerist hacks who don’t stand for anything and are impatient with people who do. It’s possible to do this job with honor and dignity. It’s just that most of our politicians – our president included, apparently – would rather not bother.

[Ben]

[south ov da border]

He still go on Thom Hartman for bruch with Bernie? I'm sure he does, I don't mind him...

[onmyknees]

Bernie Sanders Puts Barack Obama to Shame

In an era of Democratic waffling and compromise, the Independent from Vermont actually stands up for what he believes in


By Matt Taibbi
ROLLING STONE Magazine...
December 15, 2010

Not long ago I was sitting at home writing something for publication – I won’t say what, except that it was a passage about a certain politician on the Hill. Out of habit I launched into a description that was full of nasty and personal language, and I was about to press on to the next part of the piece when suddenly I hit a mental speed bump. A voice in my head whispered – this really happened – “If you write that shit and Bernie Sanders sees it, he’s going to be disappointed in you.” So I went back and removed the gratuitous body blows from the article.
I thought about this when I watched Bernie go through his amazing one-man filibuster against the Obama tax cut deal last week. Week after week, month after month, we watch politicians who disappoint us, not just as leaders but as people, failing to achieve the basic life-competency standard we expect of most grown-ups, doing things we wouldn’t tolerate from 15-year-olds. Whether it’s Mark Foley writing sexy letters to little boys, or Charlie Rangel or Duke Cunningham or Jerry Lewis doing the pay-for-play game, or even assholes like Orrin Hatch roaring with partisan excitement when the individual mandate – his own idea – was recently declared unconstitutional by a federal judge (who himself has financial stake in the health care business), these guys fail the common decency/honesty test with unnerving regularity. It’s sad but true, but in 99.9% of all cases, you wouldn’t think of looking up to an elected official as a moral role model. Which is why Bernie Sanders is such a rarity, and people should appreciate what he’s doing not just for his home state of Vermont, but for the reputation of all politicians in general.
I was in Washington last week and visited Bernie in his office, mainly to talk about the incredible results of the Federal Reserve audit, about which I’ll be writing more in the upcoming weeks and after the New Year. The audit of the Fed was undertaken because Bernie and a few other members of congress fought very hard during the Dodd-Frank regulatory reform debate to force open Ben Bernanke’s books, and as a result we now know the staggering details of the secret bailout era. We know that Citigroup received $1.6 trillion in loans, and Morgan Stanley $2 trillion, and Goldman Sachs – the same Goldman Sachs that bragged about how quickly it paid back its $10 billion TARP bailout – over $600 billion. We know that hedge fund billionaires who moved their corporate addresses to the Cayman Islands to avoid U.S. taxes were rewarded by their buddies in government with huge Fed loans; we know that the U.S. government likewise has been extending massive loans to a variety of Japanese car companies at a time when many American auto workers in Detroit have seen their wages cut in half, to $14 an hour. There’s that and there’s more on the outrage front, and we know it all because Sanders kicked and screamed and stamped his feet about Fed secrecy until just enough other members of the Senate decided to go along with him.
I’m bringing this up now to put into context what Bernie did on the floor of the Senate last week, standing up for eight hours and 37 minutes to make a case that the hideous deal that Barack Obama cut with the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts was an outrage to the very qualities that matter most to this politician, common decency and common sense. While everyone else in Washington was debating the political efficacy of the deal – the Hill actually published a piece talking cheerfully about how CEOs found a “new friend” in Obama, while the New York Times shamelessly ran a front-page “analysis” talking up the deal’s supposed benefits to the middle class and the political benefits from same that Obama would enjoy – Sanders blew all of that off and just looked at the deal’s moral implications. Which are these: this tax deal, frankly and unequivocally, is the result of a relatively small group of already-filthy rich people successfully lobbying an even smaller group of morally spineless politicians to shift an ever-bigger share of society’s burdens to the lower and (what’s left of the) middle classes. This is people who already have lots of shit just demanding more shit, for the sheer rotten sake of it. Here’s how Bernie put it:

"How can I get by on one house? I need five houses, ten houses! I need three jet planes to take me all over the world! Sorry, American people. We've got the money, we've got the power, we've got the lobbyists here and on Wall Street. Tough luck. That's the world, get used to it. Rich get richer. Middle class shrinks."

I contrast this now to the behavior of Barack Obama. I can’t even count how many times I listened to Barack Obama on the campaign trail talk about how, as president, he would rescind the Bush tax cuts as soon as he had the chance. He stood up and he said over and over again – I can still hear him saying “Let me be clear!” with that Great Statesman voice of his, before he went into this routine – that the Bush tax cuts were wrong and immoral. He said more than once that they “offended his conscience." Then, just as he did with drug re-importation and Guantanamo and bulk Medicare negotiations for pharmaceuticals and the issue of whether or not he would bring registered lobbyists into his White House and a host of other promises, he tossed his campaign “convictions” in the toilet and changed his mind once he was more accountable to lobbyists than primary voters. He pulled an Orrin Hatch, in other words, only he did it serially.
I can live with the president fighting for something and failing; what I can’t stand is a politician who changes his mind for the sake of expediency and then pretends that was what he believed all along. You just can’t imagine someone like Sanders doing something like that; his MO instead would be to take his best shot for what he actually believes and let the chips fall where they may, budging a little maybe to get a worthwhile deal done but never turning his entire face inside out just to get through the day. This idea that you can’t be an honest man and a Washington politician is a myth, a crock made up by sellouts and careerist hacks who don’t stand for anything and are impatient with people who do. It’s possible to do this job with honor and dignity. It’s just that most of our politicians – our president included, apparently – would rather not bother.

Solid Idea Ben.....you and uber lib Matt Taibbi cast your lots with Bernie Sanders and keep pulling Obama further to the left and in 2012 and Conservatives we'll surely take the Senate!!!!! . Check the results of last November lately ? Why do you call him and Independent? He's a Socialist, and freely admits it. When will you progressives stop dividing us on race and class? If guys like you and Bernie want what the rich folks have....figure out a way to provide them goods and services they need or desire and stop trying to get the government to do it for you. If your're successful and make 1,000,000.00 a year and file as a head of household, you paying nearly 500,000 in State, Federal, County and City taxes to the Treasury. How much more do you suggest the government confiscate? Would 70% satisfy you ? It's called a "progressive" income tax for a reason !!!!!!!!!!!

[Ben]

Solid Idea Ben.....you and uber lib Matt Taibbi cast your lots with Bernie Sanders and keep pulling Obama further to the left and in 2012 and Conservatives we'll surely take the Senate!!!!! . Check the results of last November lately ? Why do you call him and Independent? He's a Socialist, and freely admits it. When will you progressives stop dividing us on race and class? If guys like you and Bernie want what the rich folks have....figure out a way to provide them goods and services they need or desire and stop trying to get the government to do it for you. If your're successful and make 1,000,000.00 a year and file as a head of household, you paying nearly 500,000 in State, Federal, County and City taxes to the Treasury. How much more do you suggest the government confiscate? Would 70% satisfy you ? It's called a "progressive" income tax for a reason !!!!!!!!!!!

I think under Republican Eisenhower it was 90 or 91 percent for the TOP marginal income tax rate. How could a Republican have it so high??? ha! ha! Well, both parties have shifted to satisfy business interests. Except for Republican Pat Buchanan who critiques free "corporate controlled" trade:



And Republican Ron Paul:



And why did we bail out the banks? Because that goes AGAINST capitalist orthodoxy. I mean, when the lender lends he -- or she -- assumes the risk. And if he -- or she -- loses, well, they take that loss. We've socialism for big -- and TRANSnational -- corporations and free enterprise for everyone else.
We have monopoly or state capitalism. We don't have a free market. (And the absolute core of free trade, according to ADAM SMITH, is the free circulation of labor. Which means you can go anywhere you want.)

[Ben]

Bernie Sanders Advocates a Free Market in AIDS Drugs

Monday, 07 May 2012 09:23 By Dean Baker, Truthout



Drugs are cheap. Patent monopolies are expensive. These are simple facts that everyone should know, but for some reason few do.
The point here is simple; the vast majority of drugs are cheap to produce. Chain drug stores sell hundreds of generic drugs for $5-$7 per prescription. They can do this profitably because few drugs require expensive chemicals or manufacturing processes.
However, many brand drugs sell for hundreds or even thousands of dollars per prescription. This is due to the fact that drug companies have patent monopolies on these drugs. The government will arrest anyone who produces these drugs without the permission of the patent holder. Since drugs can be essential for people's health and/or life, if they can find a way to pay any price demanded by the drug companies, they will.
The higher prices due to patent monopolies are the reason that many people have difficulty paying for drugs. If all drugs were sold in a free market as generics, paying for drugs would not be a serious issue except for the very poor.
Of course, patent protection is the way in which drug companies finance their research. It costs a lot of money to research new drugs and then test them to establish their safety and effectiveness and bring them through the Food and Drug Administration's approval process.
However, there are more efficient mechanisms than patent monopolies to finance drug research. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is proposing one such mechanism, a prize system, be adopted to support research on AIDS drugs.
This system, which has been proposed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, among others, would set up a $3 billion a year prize fund to buy out existing and future patents for AIDS drugs. The fund would compensate drug companies and researchers for their work. The patent would then be placed in the public domain so the drug could be sold in the free market as a generic. AIDS patients would no longer have to struggle to find ways to pay for their drugs; they would be sold at prices comparable to other generic drugs.
This may sound like some big socialist give away, but only to people who have difficulty understanding economics. Under our current system, the government is giving something of enormous value to the drug companies: a patent monopoly. It will instead be buying out this monopoly and allowing drugs to be sold in a free market. As any economist can tell you, eliminating the monopoly and allowing a free market should lead to enormous savings.
In the case of AIDS drugs, much of the savings would accrue directly to the government, since the government pays for the bulk of AIDS treatment through Medicaid and other programs. The savings to the government from getting AIDS drugs at free-market prices is likely to vastly exceed the money spent on the prize fund.
We will be able to put a more precise dollar amount on these savings if the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) can be persuaded to score Senator Sanders Bill (S.113). There will be a hearing on this bill later in the month, which will include testimony from Professor Stiglitz, among others.
It is worth noting that a prize fund is not the only alternative to patent-supported research. The government already spends $30 billion a year supporting biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This research wins praise from across the political spectrum for its high quality and cost effectiveness.
While most NIH funding is devoted to basic research, there is no reason that this funding could not be expanded to cover the cost of developing and testing new drugs. The research could even be contracted out to existing drug companies or new ones that want to compete for funding.
The advantage of this system over a prize system is that all of the research findings would be immediately placed in the public domain. A patent prize system encourages secrecy as companies try to prevent competitors from benefiting from their work. This secrecy has led to enormous waste and duplication in the research process.
By contrast, if the government was funding the research upfront, it could make full disclosure of all research findings a condition of accepting the funding. Not only would any patents resulting from the research be placed in the public domain, but all the research that was relevant to the drug's development would also be in the public domain.
We can argue over the relative merits of different alternatives to the system of patent-supported research in prescription drugs; however, it is essential that we start this discussion. Currently, we spend close to $300 billion a year for drugs that would cost around $30 billion in a free market. The $270 billion difference is approximately five times as large as what is at stake with extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
This is where the real money is and we should be talking about it. The hearing on Sanders' bill is a good start. CBO's scoring of the bill would be an excellent follow-up.

[Ben]