On December 10, 2010, Bernie Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont who caucused with the Democrats, disagreed with a tax cut bill President Obama had brokered with Republicans that would cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
This was, in part, a Democratic concession so that the GOP would allow for the extension of unemployment benefits during the recession. Sanders greatly favored the UI extension, but in noting that such provisions had routinely been adopted during periods of high unemployment, he felt that the deal on the table was unjustly weighted to benefit the wealthy.
So, at the age of 69, Bernie stood and spoke.
For 8-1/2 hours.
Essentially, if not officially, a filibuster.
The next time insomnia strikes, you can read the
entirety of his speech here, or
watch it in full here, but despite knowing he did not have the political capital for his one-man protest to effect any actual impact, Bernie Sanders stood in place for nearly 9 hours and said things like:
"I have four kids and I have six grandchildren. None of them has a whole lot of money. I think it is grossly unfair to ask my kids and grandchildren and the children all over this country to be paying higher taxes in order to provide tax breaks for billionaires because we have driven up the national debt. That is plain wrong."
"It is important to point out that extending income tax breaks to the top 2 percent is not the only unfair tax proposal in this agreement. This agreement between the President and the Republican leadership also calls for a continuation of the Bush era 15-percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends, meaning that those people who make their living off their investments will continue to pay a substantially lower tax rate than firemen, teachers, nurses, carpenters, and virtually all the other working people of this country. I do not think that is fair."
As you might imagine, during his lengthy oration, Sen. Sanders railed against many of the economic inequities he is assailing in his presidential campaign, including decrying that the proposed bill to extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 more years--which did subsequently pass--would provide JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon an additional $1.1 million in tax breaks on his $89 million yearly earnings, yet not one Senate Republican supported Sanders' bill to provide a $250 one-time check to seniors and disabled veterans who had gone over two years without a cost-of-living-adjustment on their annual social security income of approx. $15,000-$16,000.
I can't recall if some progressive friends had mentioned Bernie Sanders to me before the "filibuster" speech, but that is when I first came to hold him in high regard.
Regardless of how closely my, or anyone's, beliefs were aligned, there was something refreshing about seeing a U.S. Senator, especially an older and rather disheveled-looking one, standing up--literally, and quite lengthily--for his principles, and those of ordinary, oft-disenfranchised Americans, in the face of Republicans, Democrats and even a President I wound up voting for twice.
Given the huge corporate money and proliferation of lobbyists that greatly influence American politics, and my perception that despite all the polarization between the parties in Congress, Republicans and Democrats essentially feed from the same trough, it was gratifying to see a senator--already iconoclastic and independent--go to bat for, essentially, us.
If nothing else, Bernie has balls few others in our electorate have so resolutely and autonomously demonstrated on C-SPAN.
But more than any other presidential candidate I've ever supported, including Presidents Clinton and Obama, I believe what I believe Bernie Sanders believes.
I really do not like labels. I think they oversimplify our multifaceted individuality and can serve to curb discussion, consideration, contemplation and compromise beyond our polarized classifications.
But based on my voting record, in every election and primary since I was 18 in 1986, I would be described as a staunch Democrat.
And while I think each of these terms is loaded with unnecessary, imprecise and even inaccurate connotations, my beliefs would definitely get me called a lefty, liberal and progressive, and even a radical with traces of revolutionary.
Think derisively of any or all of these terms, or Democratic Socialist as Bernie Sanders labels himself, and feel free to imagine that we hate the rich, want you to downsize your home, deprive you of your Lexus SUV, take away your guns, fire every police officer and kill babies.
I don't want, or believe, any of these things.
However it gets me labeled, I simply believe we are all equally entitled to a good, comfortable and productive life.
I am no better, more important or more entitled than anyone else, anywhere, but particularly--for purposes here--among those currently residing in the United States of America.
I don't care where you were born, what you look like, how or when you came to the U.S., who you sleep with, what gender you are or identify with, who you pray to (or don't), how much money you have or make, how much education you received, where you work (or don't) or what you believe.
Yes, sadly, I know that some people aren't good, and a few desiring of doing evil, but nothing has shown me that this is particular to any group, and shouldn't castigate anyone who isn't engaging in deplorable actions.
These feelings have generally seemed more in line with Democrats than Republicans, and thus I have
consistently voted that way.
To be fair, though, among personal acquaintances and interactions--i.e. not politicians--I have known Republicans, conservatives, right-wingers, etc., who are wonderful people, and Democrats, liberals, leftists, etc., who are terrible people.
Nothing is cut and dried, including labels. Or political party affiliation.
But without wanting to get into specifics about Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich or any other GOP candidates for President, I hope the last few paragraphs explain why I am odds with what they--variably, to be fair--espouse.
It's not that I cannot support a Republican, rather that I never have and don't now.
Yet part of why I support Bernie Sanders, for President, but even more so just in general, has to due with some dissension derived from the Democrats, including President Obama.
I voted quite enthusiastically for Barack Obama in 2008, and was deliriously happy--in person, at Grant Park--when he became our first African-American president, with messages of "Change We Can Believe In" and "Yes We Can."
I think President Obama has achieved much, especially in the face of considerable Republican obstinance and vitriol, and I voted for him again in 2012.
But with full regard for the fact that what Obama "got done" in the White House doesn't represent everything
he would have liked, let alone me, personal experiences make me perceive many of his greatest accomplishments--Obamacare, the considerable improvement of the economy and lowering of the unemployment rate, the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act--as only somewhat effective, or accurately portraying the ongoing reality.
I do not blame President Obama for my being downsized out of a good job in 2009 and never since acquiring one of comparable "permanence," responsibility, duration or pay.
If I can fairly believe that a successful career creating compelling recruitment advertising went to shit at the same time the economy and job market did, then the subprime mortgage crisis and malfeasance of Wall Street, AIG, etc. in either duplicitously hawking or stupidly betting on collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) made up of crap, certain-to-fail mortgages but which Moody's and S&P colluded to rate AAA or low-risk, the shenanigans that was allowed to go on during the George W. Bush administration--abetted by the repeal of the
Glass-Stegall Act under Bill Clinton's presidency--is far more to blame for my own economic downturn than anything President Obama did or didn't do.
 |
Especially if you liked the movie, read the book.
You'll better understand what Bernie is decrying. |
But to better understand the causes of the economic crash of 2008, I read numerous books--
The Big Short by Michael Lewis,
Griftopia by Matt Taibbi,
The Price of Inequality by Joseph Stiglitz,
Predator Nation by Charles Ferguson,
Stop This Depression Now by Paul Krugman--several articles (mostly by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone) and watched documentaries such as
Inside Job,
Capitalism: A Love Story and
Casino Jack and the United States of Money.
All these sources pretty well corroborated the culprits, egregious corruption and wide-reaching consequences of the meltdown, for which--as Bernie recently noted regarding Goldman Sachs--huge, though relatively small, fines have been paid, but there have been no criminal prosecutions of those who perpetuated the malfeasance.
In some ways that have yet to recover, the world economy was decimated, but when the banks got bailed out in part to re-open credit to small business entrepreneurs, they kept the money, paid themselves ostentatious bonuses and continued to trade in the type of risky derivatives that caused the bust.
Putting us at risk of an even greater financial calamity.
I don't think President Obama has done nearly enough to curb Wall Street excesses, penalize the criminal perpetrators of the crash, break up or reign in the "Too Big to Fail" banks, take steps to even out the playing field between Wall Street and Main Street, nor help average citizens recoup the jobs, income and/or savings that were lost...while the rich keep getting richer.
While understanding that there were many systematic and legislative injustices beyond his control, including the
Citizens United case in which the Supreme Court held that corporations could make vast, largely unrestricted campaign contributions--i.e. control the political process through great wealth--I took President Obama to task for not being tougher on Wall Street and income inequality in a
Sept. 2012 article in which I considered abstaining from voting that November.
I wound up voting for Mr. Obama's re-election, but have remained nearly as disillusioned by the Democrats inability to enact real change as I am by the contrarian beliefs of the Republicans.
Even in areas where I applauded newfound progress--such as marriage equality--it felt like matters of basic human decency were too latently adopted into law, and to whatever extent "the state" can be conjunctively condemned, too little has been done to address the racial divide, discrimination, vitriol and epidemic of murder at the hands of law enforcement officers.
More than any presidential candidate I've come across before, I believe Bernie Sanders wants to correct all of the above, without the obstacle of being beholden to corporate donors or moneyed interests.
Some, including those whose opinions I greatly respect, may believe Hillary Clinton has similar aims, and as she's still the Democratic frontrunner as of this writing, I sure hope so.
One of those--admittedly dubious--online tests that assess who you support based on your beliefs on various issues and topics showed that I was 99% aligned with Bernie, but 94% aligned with Hillary.
I believe Hillary Clinton is a incredibly smart, accomplished and driven woman who has served this country well. I don't hate her.
And I cringe when thinking about all the vitriol she has faced from the right, as First Lady, U.S Senator from New York, Secretary of State and Presidential candidate.
All the years she supported her husband while patiently waiting in his shadow, her crushing defeat to Obama in seeking the 2008 Democratic nomination and the excessive hatred that has always been thrown her way make it hard not to admire her steadfast ambition to become President of the United States of America.
Whatever one thinks of her, and I don't particularly like her simply as a matter of perception--arbitrary and perhaps immaterial, but maybe not--she is not choosing the easiest, nor most properous route, for the next 5-9 years of her life.
Her resume, particularly when it comes to foreign affairs, is impressive, more so than Bernie's. I
accept as valid the argument that she may be better prepared to assume the presidency, and I can more readily see her standing up to Putin, Kim Jong-il and others on the world stage.
That she seems more realistic about what can actually get done in the highest office of the land, with a still highly split, contested, contemptuous, likely GOP-controlled and wealth influenced Congress, is also a sound opinion.
But here's the same thing, I don't want the same old song and dance.
I don't want meet "the new boss, same as the old boss."
I, and seemingly large portions the the U.S. populace, particularly among younger demographics, want to believe that we can return a truer sense of fairness, decency and dignity to America, in terms of jobs, wages, taxes, racial & religious tolerance and who & what controls Congressional decisions.
Go ahead, roll your eyes at terms progressives throw around such as "corporatocracy," "oligarchy" or simply income inequality, but they represent realities that have--directly or indirectly--had crippling effects, not only in terms of the ridiculousness of people forced to sleep on streets while others have multiple mansions, but from the poisoning of water to the price of groceries to the erosion of arts education in schools.
So when Bernie speaks of his campaign representing a "political revolution," damn right, that's what I want.
This doesn't mean that I hate anyone who has a good job, or even owns a sports franchise.
If you make under $250,000, nothing that Bernie is proposing should negatively affect you, and if you earn a bit to bazillions more--especially as you're likelier to derive substantive income from investment gains, which are taxed much lower than employment income--I think you should pay more in taxes.
Same goes for corporations who use all sorts of loopholes, overseas subsidiaries and other devices to make people at the top wealthier at the expense of the middle class.
I'm not going to run through Bernie Sanders' entire platform; he does a good job of it himself--and unlike Hillary seems to be incredibly consistent in what he believes and supports, even going back decades.
Many of the things Hillary now says with which I'm in concert seem to have initially and more emphatically--and yes, believably--been espoused by Bernie, whose been steadfast in raising concerns about climate change, supporting gay rights, decrying racial injustice and opposing the influx of money into politics.
She has, in fact, taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees, and campaign contributions, from Wall Street and other moneyed interests, including notably Goldman Sachs, a.k.a. the
Vampire Squid.
And as exacerbated in the past few days between her initial--and subsequently withdrawn in the name of truth--
praise of the Reagans for their fictitious advocacy during the AIDS crisis, to her saying "I don't know where he was when I was trying to get health care in '93 and '94" only to have photos and video released showing Bernie Sanders
standing literally right behind her as she gave a speech on health care reform, Hillary has repeatedly shown herself to be a misinformed at best, dishonest at worse, candidate.
To which many might say, 'sure Hillary has her flaws, but she's well-intentioned and practical, while Bernie--though wonderfully idealistic--is floating completely unrealistic ideas.'
My rebuttal is to truly consider the current reality and start believing in a better one.
Honest
Unrealistic
Revolution
Grass Roots
Class race divide
Good
Bad
Age
Foreign Policy
Revolution
Wall Street
Wealthy
Friends
Reich, Springsteen, Moore, Taibbi
Michael Lewis
Obama
Racism
Socialism
Guns - constituency
Taxes
Military Spending
Education
Rahm
Donations
Oligarchy
Corporatocracy
Income Inequality
Hate the Rich
Contentious
Top 1%
Hillary
Healthcare
TPP
Glass-Stegall
Gay Marriage
Gun Control
AIDS
Climate Change
Email
Contributors
Trust
Right-bashing
37%
Woman
Jewish
Trump
Groundswell effect
Hope
