 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 21, 2008 at 10:14:06
Promoted to Headline (H2) on 9/21/08: by Bernie Sanders Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
This proposal as presented is an unacceptable attempt to force middle income families (and our children) to pick up the cost of fixing the horrendous economic mess that is the product of the Bush Administration's deregulatory fever and Wall Street's insatiable greed. If the potential danger to our economy was not so dire, this blatant effort to essentially transfer $700 billion up the income ladder to those at the top would be laughable.
Let us be clear. If the economy is on the edge of collapse we need to act. But rescuing the economy does not mean we have to just give away $700 billion of taxpayer money to the banks. (In truth, it could be much more than $700 billion. The bill only says the government is limited to having $700 billion outstanding at any time. By selling the mortgage backed assets it acquires -- even at staggering losses -- the government will be able to buy even more resulting is a virtually limitless financial exposure on the part of taxpayers.) Any proposal must protect middle income and working families from bearing the burden of this bailout.
I have proposed a three part plan to accomplish that goal which includes a five-year, 10% surtax on the income of individuals above $500,000 a year, and $1 million a year for couples; a requirement that the price the government pays for any mortgage assets are discounted appropriately so that government can recover the amount it paid for them; and, finally, the government should receive equity in the companies it bails out so that when the stock of these companies rises after the bailout, taxpayers also have the opportunity to share in the resulting windfall. Taken together, these measures would provide the best guarantee that at the end of five years, the government will have gotten back the money it put out.
Second, in addition to protecting the average American from being saddled with the cost, any serious proposal has to include reforms so that we end the type of behavior that led to this crisis in the first place. Much of this activity can be traced to specific legislation that broke down regulatory safety walls in the financial sector and allowed banks and others to engage in new types of risky transactions that are at the heart of this crisis. That deregulation needs to be repealed. Wall Street has shown it cannot be trusted to police itself. We need to reinstate a strong regulatory system that protects our economy.
Third, we need to address the needs of working families in this country who are today facing very difficult times. If we can bail out Wall Street, we need to respond with equal vigor to their plight. That means, for example, creating millions of jobs through major investments in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and creating a new renewable energy system. We must also make certain that the most vulnerable Americans don’t freeze in the winter or die because they lack access to primary health care.
Finally, we need to protect ourselves from being at the mercy of giant companies that are "too big to fail," that is, companies who are so large that their failure would cause systemic harm to the economy. We need to assess which companies fall into this category and insist they are broken up. Otherwise, the American taxpayer will continue to be on the financial hook for the risky behavior, the mismanagement, and even the illegal conduct of these companies' executives.
These are the last days of the Bush Administration, the most dishonest and incompetent in modern American history. It is imperative that, at this important moment, Congress stand up for the middle class and for fiscal integrity. The future of our country is at stake.
www.sanders.senate.gov/buzz
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 15 comments |
|
Whatever Happened to Anti-Trust Laws.
I though the old and quaint anti-trust laws were to prevent any one company from controlling the economy. Sort of not putting all our eggs in one basket. We see larger and larger banks, communications etc. These laws are there, just need enforcement and this wouldn't have happened, by Hosea McAdoo (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 9 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 11:38:51 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Whatever Happened to Anti-Trust Laws
The anti-trust laws of the 20th Century are still on the books; they were never repealed. What's been lacking is enforcement of these laws. The Bush/Cheney Regime has refused to enforce them since taking office back in January, 2001. And, Senator Sanders, it's up to you and your colleagues to remind Bush/Cheney (and Henry Paulsen) in no uncertain terms that the anti-trust laws of the first half of the 20th Century are STILL ON THE BOOKS and MUST BE ENFORCED. It is their fault, as well as the fault of greedy corporate CEO's and financial speculators for the dire straits of this economy; and, as such, it is THEY who must bear the consequences of their recklessness, not middle class families - who are still suffering from the housing and credit crises. by eileen kuch (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 151 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 3:25:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Corporate Size
Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000168 EndHTML:0000001977 StartFragment:0000000489 EndFragment:0000001960 Some time ago I made up a spread sheet listing in order, corporate revenue along with State and Country GDP. Using 2006 data Exxon Mobil at $340 billion was larger than 197 countries of the world and 42 of the States within the U.S. The financial ship is now sinking and we can only hope that the various experts including Bernie Sanders can plug enough holes to stabilize the ship. Once (if) stability is achieved we then need to completely review our laws concerning corporate size. The laws now are based on size as related to monopoly or restraint of competition. It should now be apparent that economic damage upon failure also has to be included as a criteria. We would all do well to re-read E. F. Schumacher little book Small is Beautiful first published in 1973. by William Peterson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 1:39:59 PM (0+)
|
|
SOME COMMON SENSE FINALLY
This is the first time I have heard some common sense out of an elected official. If we have to bail it out, we own it! That is only fair. Why shouldn't government be an equal competitor in the marketplace. The Republicans claim government screws everything it does up, so they should have no fear of competing with a government owned enterprise. UPS, Fed Ex, and the Postal Service are excellent examples of how a publicly owned enterprise can compete with privately owned businesses making all of them more efficient and cheaper. by W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 537 comments [52 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 5:29:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: At First This Sounds Good - But
The Government Does Nothing Well. To Assume Benevolence Is Foolish. When The Government Is Out To Make A Profit The Citizen Becomes Worthless And A Nuisance. If you think it is difficult to fight the corporations that have a hold on the Government through the Lobbyists - You Will Effectively Have ZERO CHANCE When The Government Itself Is Out To Profit; Not Just Those Wielding The Power. Wish More People Would Have Debated Ron Paul Rather Than Dismissed Him. Debate Is The Distillation Of Reality. When You Are Able To Create Money Out Of Thin Air You Can Buy Governments. by Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [11 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 4:59:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Bush declares a national emergency
BY declaring a national emergency, the country is in danger, this time the wall street bankers need help, Bush has positioned himself once again to get whatever he asks for and more than he asks for. He knows how to do it since 9/11. WHAT will Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, and Hoyer do? Well, of course, give Bush EVERYTHING HE ASKS FOR AND MORE THAN HE ASKS FOR! JUST NAME IT! ITS A DONE DEAL! Be patriotic. Support the president. by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 347 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 7:42:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Hmmm
How about this. Government can offer to buy the property of anyone facing foreclosure by using money it creates without debt (out of thin air like the Fed does), like Lincoln did with the Greenbacks (just have to make it legal tender for all domestic payments). The homeowner can then stay in the house, paying rent (say 20% of their income) and the property taxes and insurance. This eliminates foreclosure, gives the banks back the principal which they created, and prevents people from being thrown out of their homes, and ensures local communities get their property taxes. The government has a source of revenue, based on money he created out of thin air, another plus. Only losers are the Fed and their shareholders in the system who do not get to create this money. The only losses are the interest which does not get paid. But since nobody creates money for the interest, thats no great loss. Of course, the securities based on these mortgages that get sold are devalued somewhat since no interest is being paid, but at least the losses are minimized, and the principal is salvaged. Makes more sense than what Paulson proposes. by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 8:52:55 PM (0+)
|
|
Just Throwing Something Out There
Couldn't an agreement be made where the profits of these companies that are being bailed out could go right into the US Treasury for many years to come? It sounds kinda out of the box, but all of this is unprecedented as far as I know. by Sean Fenley (7 articles, 41 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 264 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 11:01:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Wonderful idea Senator Sanders
This is a wonderful idea by Senator Sanders. Pity you will be fighting the sell-out and pathetic pandering leadership of the Democratic Party in your uphill battle to prevent the total bankrupting of the United States of America. by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 21, 2008 at 11:51:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Now here's my plan...
The financial crisis is one of confidence in the financial institutions, and worry that they may fail. Why is there worry they might they fail? Because they hold financial instruments (tranches, CDO’s, MBS’s) which contain an unknown mixture of probably good paper and subprime mortgage paper that will fail because homeowners may default on their loans, and credit may tighten up as a result. If the government bails out the financial institutions, credit will still tighten up as foreclosures proceed, with no guarantees for the homeowners who are, to some extent, victims of predatory lending practices. This prolongs the financial crisis indefinitely. If, instead, the government backs the homeowners, by guaranteeing – to some discussable degree – their mortgages, and by insisting that their loans be renegotiated to terms they are more likely to be able to meet, then the financial instruments that contain that subprime paper become more secure, less likely to be worthless. In this way, by “investing” in guarantees at the low-cost end of this (the homeowner end), the government can restore confidence in these financial instruments and the institutions that hold them. Such a solution addresses the underlying worries of both homeowners and financial institutions instead of helping one at the expense of the other, which is what the Bush Administration's plan does. by Jim Hill (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 2:09:37 AM (0+)
|
|
De-facto Dictator
By bush declaring a National Emergency, under the directives of PD-51 bush has now complete control over every aspect of government, financial, commerce, transportation, and avenue needed to run this country. If congress doesn't give him what he wants he'll simply over-ride them and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. Not that this ineffectual group of criminals would anyway. Know this; this was a planned take-over of our government. We are now at the mercy of a homicidal maniacs. No bail-outs or vote will get us out of this mess. There is now only one way to get our country back. The question is do we have enough people with courage to do what is necessary. by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:18:37 AM (0+)
|
|
RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT TOO TIMID
It is obvious that the goalposts have been moved too far to the right. I support the general outline of this proposal by Senator Sanders, but the increase in income taxes should not be limited to those who earn more than $500,000 ($1,000,000 for couples). A couple earning $600,000 per year is not in the middle class, and protecting people at that level of income only sends a message that the criminals in Congress are not addressing the problem seriously. by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 8:51:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Interesting ...
It looks like some of the amendments that Bernie Sanders is proposing are already filtering down to both sides of the aisle. Interesting article in CNN that just came out. [reference] by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:34:43 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Leep the innocents are already being penalized .....
Many got duped into taking untenable loans by greedy mortgage companies and now ALL taxpayers of all stripes are being penalized because they have to pay for the bailout. I don't feel sorry for the top 1% at all. Regardless of what is done innocents will be penalized. by E. Nelson (40 articles, 8 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 511 comments [57 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:17:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: DO NOT BE A CHUMP
You should not worry so much about high-income taxpayers because they are not worried about you. Many high-income taxpayers may not be directly responsible for the crisis in the financial markets, but high-income taxpayers have the most at stake in the plan to rescue reckless financial institutions, and high-income taxpayers will suffer much less than you will from the Bush Administration plan to reward reckless financial institutions and reckless investors. Even if the Bush Administration financial rescue plan succeeds according to a definition of success that would be acceptable to the Bush Administration, there will be very little money available for any discretionary spending by the Federal government (such as for infrastructure repairs and maintenance), and the financial crisis will be used as a hammer to advance the long-term goals of the Bush Administration to destroy programs such as Social Security and Medicare. You have more important things to worry about than rich people. Yes, we are in a class war, and our side is losing. by Blaine Kinsey (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 181 comments [80 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:44:40 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
