Ed Schultz: Welcome back. Thanks for watching tonight. Now if you have a son or daughter that’s getting ready to go off to college, what’s on your kitchen table. I can tell you what’s going to be on your kitchen table, and that’s a student loan debt because it has climbed to an all-time high in this country of $1.2 trillion. It is the fastest growing form of consumer debt in this country.
Now if we are going to lead as a country globally, the way we are going to do it is to make higher education more affordable and completely free. This is the new wave of thought in this country.
Which is exactly what my next guest, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, is aiming for. Earlier today the Presidential candidate introduced legislation to make four-year public colleges and universities tuition free.
And here’s the big kicker in the whole deal. College costs could be paid through a new tax on Wall Street transactions. This is what Senator Sanders is all about. Sanders wants a so-called Robin Hood tax on stock transactions to fund the federal share of tuition for every American student. The plan calls for a 50 cent tax on every $100 of stock trades on stock sales. Lesser amounts would be collected on transaction involving bonds, derivatives and other financial instruments.
Now this is clearly a step forward in the right direction as I see it. Why not try it for a year? Well, of course it would work, and then the Republicans would be against it.
Joining me tonight to give us more on this is the Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, and candidate for President. Senator, good to have you with us tonight.
This is a very forward thinking, problem solving issue as I see it. It’s what every American families are dealing with every summer: how is my kid going to go to college. But the number that I think people have got to consume is where the debt is: $1.2 trillion. And I have to ask the question, Senator, if we don’t do something, where are we going to be in five years, and where are we going to be in ten years?
Senator Bernie Sanders: Ed, this is a disastrous situation. It’s really an embarrassment for a great country like ours. We’ve got hundreds of thousands of bright young people who now have given up the dream of going to college. We’re losing all of their intellectual potential.
And as you just mentioned, we have millions more who are leaving school?—$30,000, $50,000?—I talked to a young doctor last year, she is $300,000 in debt. This is insane.
So it’s time for us to learn what countries around the world are doing—Germany, Scandinavia, countries all over the world—and they are saying that they want to capitalize on the intelligence and energy of their young people, that all young people deserve the ability to get a higher education, regardless of the income of their family, and that furthermore young people should not be strangled by this oppressive debt around their necks, which go on year after year after year.
Schultz: Senator, those who oppose this plan are going to be saying why do we have to shake down Wall Street. Why is Wall Street the target here? Your thoughts.
Sanders: Well, the answer is two-fold.
Number one: folks on Wall Street and people who were trading in huge amounts of stocks are becoming phenomenally wealthy. Hedge fund managers are doing extraordinarily, extraordinarily well, and they have got to help us deal with some of the major crises that we face as a nation including making college affordable.
Second of all, Ed, what this legislation does is not only raise a very substantial sum of money in a fair and progressive way, it also puts a damper on this speculation that is rampant on Wall Street. So it serves a purpose in that direction as well.
Schultz: So it’s a two-for-one. You’ve always been concerned about the speculation on Wall Street and this would be throwing some cold waters on the Hot Tin so to speak, which of course would bring down the risk on our economy.
All right now what has been the response since you’ve announced this legislation and the mechanism you want to use?
Sanders: It’s been extraordinary. I think all over the country young people are writing us and their families are writing us in terms of emails, in terms of signing the petition that we have out there.
Look as you’ve just indicated, every parent about sending their kids to college is scared to death and worried about what kind of a debt their children are going to incur and what kind of a debt they are going to incur.
This is a no brainer. If you want a strong economy, you have to have the best educated workforce in the world. It is insane to tell kids that they can’t get that education.
Schultz: All right, so tell us about the second Robin Hood bill, which is similar to the one introduced by Congressman Keith Ellison.
Sanders: Right, it’s the same bill as Keith introduced. And essentially you know it’s the same bill. And we’re introducing it independently but also introducing it to pay for all of this higher education refinancing bill, oh, and by the way we will raise enough money to do some other things as well.
Look the bottom line here, Ed, is that the rich are getting much richer, you have corporations making huge profits, these guys are going to have to start paying their fair share of taxes so we can address the major issues facing our country and that includes making education affordable and lifting the yoke of debt that so many of our young people are dealing with.
Schultz: Senator if I may profoundly point out in the news in the last week other candidates are talking about war; you’re talking about kitchen-table issues. Where do you think the public is?
Sanders: I think the public understands that we need to fundamentally reshape our priorities.
That we cannot, cannot, cannot get involved in an endless war in the Middle East, which will cost us lives, which will cost us trillions more of taxpayer dollars.
That we have got to address, Ed, the crisis facing a disappearing middle-class and that’s where we’ve got to put our effort: we have got to create millions of decent paying jobs rebuilding our infrastructure.
We have to raise the minimum wage to a living wage.
We have to make college affordable. We got to deal with student debt.
You have to deal with climate change.
We can’t keep pushing these issues aside and get involved in more and more wars.
Schultz: Are you enjoying running? You know, I know you thought a lot. You’re early into it. Are you enjoying it?
Sanders: It’s quite a trip to tell you the truth. It’s very interesting, yes. The answer is I am and I’m looking forward to getting out all over this country, into New Hampshire and into Iowa. We’re going to make a formal announcement next week in Burlington Vermont.
Schultz: Senator Bernie Sanders, always a pleasure here on The Ed Show. Thanks so much Senator.
WASHINGTON, May 19 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced legislation to make 4-year public colleges and universities tuition free.
“We live in a highly competitive global economy. If our economy is to be strong, we need the best educated work force in the world. That will not happen if every year hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college and if millions more leave school deeply in debt,” Sanders said.
Under the legislation, $70 billion a year in assistance – two-thirds from the federal government and one-third from states – would replace what public colleges and universities now charge in tuition and fees. The federal share of the cost would be offset by imposing a tax on Wall Street transactions by investment houses, hedge funds and other speculators.
The legislation also would overhaul student loan programs so students and their parents could reduce crushing debt loads which now exceed Americans’ credit card debt. Federal profits on loans would be eliminated, work-study programs expanded and incentives offered for colleges and universities to keep costs down.
“We once led the world in the percentage of our people with a college degree, now we are in 12th place.” Sanders said. “Countries like Germany, Denmark, Sweden and many more are providing free or inexpensive higher education for their young people. They understand how important it is to be investing in their youth. We should be doing the same,” he added.
Tuition at 4-year public colleges and universities rose by 50 percent in the United States during the past decade. As state governments have cut support for higher education, the burden has shifted to students and their parents.
With this spring’s college commencement season underway, the class of 2015 is the most indebted class in American history, according to Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of Edvisors, a website on college costs and financial aid.
Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act
Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. This legislation would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities.
Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost.
To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.
States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty, and provide professional development opportunities for professors.
No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based financial aid, or the construction of non-academic buildings like stadiums and student centers.
Student Loan Reforms. Restoration of Historically Low Student Loan Interest Rates. The College for All Act would lower student loan interest rates by restoring the formula which was in effect until 2006. Student loan interest rates would be cut almost in half for undergraduate students, dropping from 4.32% to just 2.32%. In addition, the legislation would ensure rates never rise above 8.25%.
Student Loan Re-financing.The College for All Act would enable borrowers to refinance their loans based on the interest rates available to current students.
Work Study Reforms. Today, the federal work study program receives less than $1 billion per year, and serves nearly 700,000 students. This legislation would expand the number of students and colleges that can offer part-time employment and participate in the federal work study program, and focus funding on schools that enroll high numbers of low-income students.
Simplifying the Student Aid Application Process. The bill would create a pilot program to eliminate the requirement that students re-apply for financial aid each year, simplifying the application process and removing significant barriers faced by low-income students.
Fully Paid for by Imposing a Robin Hood Tax on Wall Street. This legislation is offset by imposing a Wall Street speculation fee on investment houses, hedge funds, and other speculators of 0.5% on stock trades (50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1% fee on bonds, and a 0.005% fee on derivatives. It has been estimated that this provision could raise hundreds of billions a year which could be used not only to make tuition free at public colleges and universities in this country, it could also be used to create millions of jobs and rebuild the middle class of this country.
Statement by Senator Bernard Sanders on the College for All Act
We have a crisis in higher education today. Too many of our young people cannot afford a college education and those who are leaving college are faced with crushing debt.
It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of young Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it. This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong competitive economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end.
In a global economy, when our young people are competing with workers from around the world, we have got to have the best educated workforce possible. And, that means that we have got to make college affordable. We have got to make sure that every qualified American in this country who wants to go to college can go to college — regardless of income.
Further, it is unacceptable that 40 million Americans are drowning in more than $1.2 trillion in student loan debt.
It is unacceptable that millions of college graduates cannot afford to buy their first home or their first new car because of the high interest rates they are paying on student debt.
It is unacceptable that, in many instances, interest rates on student loans are two to three times higher than on auto loans.
Let’s be clear: other nations around the world understand the benefits of having an educated workforce that isn’t burdened with enormous student debt. Other countries recognize that allowing all qualified students, regardless of income, to achieve a higher education is an investment in the economic prosperity of their people.
For example:
Last year, tuition was eliminated in Germany because policymakers believed that charging $1,300 per year was discouraging students from attending college. $1,300 per year, and that tuition was eliminated.
In Denmark, not only is college free of tuition and fees, people who go to college in that country actually get paid to go to college.
In Finland, Norway and Sweden, tuition and fees are free not only for their citizens, but in many cases, foreign students as well.
And, Chile, which has the highest level of income inequality in Latin America, will
implement free college tuition next year, and pay for it by increasing taxes on
corporations.
But, it’s not just other countries around the world that are doing the right thing. There was a time, not so many years ago, when we in the United States understood the importance of making college available to all qualified students, regardless of income.
A generation ago, our nation’s public colleges and universities were the pathways for all students, no matter their family background, to enter the middle class.
For example, the University of California system, considered by many to be the crown jewel of public higher education in this country, did not begin charging tuition until the 1980s.
In 1965, average tuition at a four-year public university was just $243, and many of the best colleges — such as the City University of New York — did not charge any tuition.
And this investment in higher education worked – the United States once led the world in the percentage of young Americans with college degrees. Sadly, today, we are in 12th place.
It is time for a fundamental change in how we approach the financing of higher education, and the legislation I will introduce today will do just that.
The College for All Act will provide free tuition at every public college and university in this country.
This means that ANY student, regardless of his or her background or income, who has the ability and desire, will be able to get the education they need and the education they deserve. This legislation opens the door for a middle class life to millions of young Americans and will make our economy stronger and more productive.
This legislation will establish a partnership with states by developing a matching grant program which would provide $2 in federal funding for every dollar that states spend on making tuition free higher education in public colleges and universities.
This legislation would also expand the federal work study program.
This legislation not only addresses the crisis of college affordability, but it also deals with another issue of huge consequence for millions of families in this country. And, that is the incredibly oppressive burden of crushing student loan debt.
This legislation will allow every American with student debt to refinance their loans, so that borrowers will always be able to take advantage of favorable interest rates. It makes no sense to me that Americans can refinance their homes when interest rates are low, and that somebody can purchase a car at two percent interest rates, but millions of college graduates are stuck with interest rates of 5, 6, 7 percent sometimes for decades. That makes no sense. That is grossly unfair. This bill would cut student loan interest rates in half and lower the rate to about 2 percent for undergraduates.
In addition, this legislation would eliminate the obscene profit that the federal government makes through the student loan program – some $89 billion over a ten year period. The federal government should not be profiting off of student loans provided to low and moderate income families.
The truth is that providing free tuition at public colleges and universities, and reducing the burden of student debt in this country is an expensive proposition. So how are we going to pay for it?
How are we going to pay for this estimated $750 billion over the next ten years?
And, here’s the answer. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, at a time when trillions of dollars in wealth have left the pockets of the middle class and have gone to the top one-tenth of one percent, at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have made huge amounts of money from risky derivative transactions and the soaring value of the stock market, this legislation would impose a Wall Street speculation fee on Wall Street investment houses and hedge funds.
More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a financial transactions tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, China, India, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Brazil.
My legislation would impose a Wall Street speculation fee of 0.5 percent on stock trades (that’s 50 cents for every $100 worth of stock), a 0.1 percent fee on bonds, and a 0.005 percent fee on derivatives.
It has been estimated that this legislation would raise up to $300 billion a year.
We must revolutionize our nation’s higher education system. We must invest in the young people today, because they are our nation’s future doctors, teachers, engineers, scientists and senators – so they can ensure our economy and our nation as a whole have an edge in the 21st Century.
Wolf Blitzer: Income inequality certainly a major issue in the 2016 Presidential race. Hillary Clinton has made headlines over the revelation that she and her husband the former President Bill Clinton made about 30 million dollars since last year alone in speaking fees, five million dollars for the book that she wrote. Listen to what she said about that when she spoke to reporters just a little while ago.
Reporter: On your income disclosure recently that just came out on Friday, you were in the tip top echelon of earners in this country. How do you expect everyday Americans to relate to you?
Hillary Clinton: Well obviously Bill and I’ve been blessed and we’re very grateful for the opportunities that we had, but we’ve never forgotten where we came from and we’ve never forgotten the kind of country that we want to see for our granddaughter, and that means that we’re gonna fight out to make sure that everybody has the same chances to live up to his or her own God-given potential.
So I think that most Americans understand that the deck is stacked for those at the top and I’m running a campaign that is very clearly stating we want to reshuffle that deck. We want to get back to having more opportunities for more people so that they can make more out of their own lives.”
Blitzer: Well let’s talk about that and more with the Vermont Senator, a Democratic Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. Thanks very much for coming in. What’s your reaction when you hear her say that about income inequality, which is a huge issue for you.
Bernie Sanders: It’s an issue I have been talking about for many, many years, and I think what we need to do is be very specific about what we’re gonna do about it. Today, Wolf, 99% of all new incomes is going to the top 1%. The top one-tenth of one percent …
Blitzer: Would you put her in that top 10 percent, one-tenth of one percent, is that what you’re saying?
Sanders: I don’t know exactly, they may be. I don’t know if they are that high but …
Blitzer: Is that a problem though? Is that a problem that she and her husband made thirty million dollars for the past 16 months for speaking and writing a book?
Sanders: Well it’s a problem, but the more serious problem is what do we do about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality in America today. So what do you have to do?
What we need to do is create millions up decent paying jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.
What you need to do is say to the wealthiest people in the largest corporations, you know what, you gonna have to start paying your fair share of taxes; you can’t stash your money in the Cayman Islands.
What you’re gonna have to do, if you really want to grow the middle class, is say that everybody in this country, regardless of their income, if they have the ability, they’re going to get a college education. And today I just introduced legislation that would make public colleges and universities tuition free.
Blitzer: Where’s the money going to come from?
Sanders: A tax on Wall Street speculation and that’s exactly where it should come from.
Blitzer: Talk about that. What does that mean a tax on Wall Street speculation?
Sanders: What it means is right now you have people who are becoming phenomenally wealthy by speculating in derivatives and every other type of esoteric instrument that they can. People are getting very rich on Wall Street. What we are going to impose is what exists in dozens of countries around the world is a very modest tax on the transference of large amounts of stock.
Blitzer: What does that mean, a very modest tax? Is that going to pay for tuition free education?
Sanders: More than that. This is a very effective and progressive way to raise money. The estimate is that it could bring in as much as $300 billion-a-year.
Blitzer: Do you think Republicans are going to go along with this?
Sanders: Of course not.
Blitzer: Well if they if they’re not going to go along with this, it’s not going to become the law.
Sanders: No, well, I don’t think it’s going to be passed tomorrow. But what I think what we have to do is the American people will go along with it. The American people think it’s absurd that our young people are leaving school deeply, deeply in debt and young people can’t afford to go to college.
Blitzer: Is Hillary Clinton committed to this cause as are you?
Sanders: Wolf, you will have to ask her.
Blitzer: But what do you think?
Sanders: I don’t work for her. I don’t know.
Blitzer: But you know her, you know her position.
Sanders: I just introduced legislation. I don’t know where Hillary Clinton is coming on this. I believe we got to join Germany, Scandinavia, and many other countries around the world and say, if you have the ability, regardless of your income, you are going to be able to go to college tuition free.
Blitzer: So you want to raise taxes.
Sanders: On the very wealthiest people in this country? Absolutely.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Now to our series of interviews with the men and women running for president in 2016.
Tonight: Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent seeking the Democratic nomination.
Welcome to the NewsHour, Senator Sanders.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (I) Vermont: Great to be with you.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, you are an independent. You call yourself a Democratic socialist. How is that different from being a Democrat?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I have been in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate for over 24 years.
But, as an independent, my views, in fact, are a little bit different than many of my Democratic colleagues. I worry very much that we have a billionaire class now which has enormous power not only over our economy, but over our political system as well, as a result of Citizens United Supreme Court decision.
So, my own view is that we have got to be very, very bold in taking on big money and creating a situation where government begins to work for the middle class and working families of our country, rather than just the wealthy and the powerful.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So that’s the main difference that you would make.
Why are you running for president?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Judy, I’m running for president because, in my view, this country today, our country, faces more serious problems than at any time since the Great Depression.
And if you throw in the planetary crisis of climate change, it may well be that the problems today are more severe. Look, for the last 40 years, the great middle class of this country has been disappearing. Median family income today is significantly less than it was in 1999. Millions are working longer hours for lower wages.
And, at the same time, we have seen a huge shift of wealth to the top one-tenth of 1 percent. So, today — today, 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent. The top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. That is immoral and unsustainable.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Now, and speaking of that, I want to ask you about that. One of the issue is taxes. You have talked about raising the capital gains rate and the tax on dividends for the top 2 percent.
In fact, you talked about, I think, nearly doubling it. Critics say that is going to put a big damper on job creation and on the growth of this economy.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I know. Critics are often paid by large corporations or corporate think tanks.
The fact of the matter is right now in America we’re losing about $100 billion every single year because very profitable corporations are stashing their money in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tax havens. And that has got to end. Second of all, we have a situation where hedge fund managers, guys that are making many, many millions of dollars a year, are paying an effective tax rate lower than what nurses or school teachers are paying.
And Warren Buffett makes the point that his effective tax rate, as a multibillionaire, is lower than his secretary’s. That’s got to end. The wealthiest people in this country are in fact going to have to start paying their fair share of taxes if I’m elected president.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Another issue is trade. You have been very critical of the trade bill President Obama is vigorously pushing. Hillary Clinton, your rival, has not yet taken a position on this.
Today, just today, CBS News reported that she has taken $2.5 million in speaking fees from organizations that are promoting this trade bill. Is that a problem?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Sure it’s a problem.
The problem that we have now is that our political system is increasingly dominated by a billionaire class and by super PACs, who have unbelievable influence over what goes on politically. It is a huge problem.
But in terms of this trade agreement, in my view, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement is a continuation of other disastrous trade agreements, like NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China.
These trade agreements, among other things, have contributed to the that we have lost almost 60,000 factories since 2001 and millions of decent-paying jobs. And I think enough is enough. We have got to rebuild our manufacturing base, not send it to China or other countries.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Does it matter — we said Secretary Clinton has not taken a position. What does it mean if she doesn’t take a position on this before the Congress votes on it?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think that’s a very fair question. And I think the American people will have to decide.
If you are asking me why it is that the middle class is disappearing and we’re seeing more income and wealth inequality than any time since the 1920s, trade is a very important factor, not the only reason. And it is hard for me to understand how any serious candidate for president, Hillary Clinton or anybody else, can duck this issue. You can’t. You can be for it. You can be against it. But it is being hotly debated right now in Congress. You have got to have a position on it.
JUDY WOODRUFF: In this race, you are going up against someone who is literally part of a political juggernaut in this country in Secretary Clinton. Why do you think you would be a better president than she would be?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I have spent the better part of my adult life standing up and fighting for working families.
I have taken on virtually every element of the big money establishment, whether it’s the Koch brothers, and the big energy companies, whether it’s the industrial complex, whether it’s Wall Street. You’re looking at the guy who has introduced legislation to break up the largest financial institutions in this country.
I have taken on the drug companies. I have taken on the insurance companies. I happen to believe that we should move to a Medicare-for-all single-payer system, similar to what other countries around the world have.
So, I think if people understand that establishment politics just no longer is working, that we need some bold ideas, that we need a mass movement of people, millions of people to stand up and say, you know what, enough is enough, this great country belongs to all of us and not just to a handful of billionaires, if people believe that, I will win this election.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And you’re saying she can’t do that?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I don’t think she can, yes.
JUDY WOODRUFF: One other thing I want to ask you, Senator, about foreign policy.
ISIS, they just achieved a major victory in Iraq in taking over a big city, Ramadi, over the weekend. You have said you don’t think the U.S. should be leading the charge against ISIS. Does that mean that raids like the one that took place last week where the U.S. took out one of the top ISIS leaders and the ongoing airstrikes in Syria and Iraq shouldn’t go on?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: No, no, no, I have supported those efforts on the part of the president.
I voted against the war in Iraq. And I think, if you go back and you read what I had to say way back when, you know, it will sound pretty prescient in terms of the destabilization that we have seen in the Middle East.
So my view is, the United States has got to play an active role in defeating this barbaric organization, but at the end of the day, it’s going to be the Muslim countries themselves, supported by the United States and other Western countries, that will defeat ISIS and bring some degree of stability into the Middle East. It cannot be American troops on the ground.
And I will tell you what I worry about. I think too many of my Republican friends are into perpetual warfare in the Middle East. And that scares the bejesus out of me.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, the raid last week that took out the ISIS leader, you would — you support…
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: And I supported the airstrikes as well. But I do not want to see perpetual warfare in the Middle East. I do not want to see American combat troops on the ground in the Middle East.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Senator Bernie Sanders, candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, we thank you.
HAYES: At a round table with high school students yesterday in
Nevada, Hillary Clinton outlined a position on immigration that delighted
immigrant rights activists. Clinton didn`t just offer a clear and an
unequivocal support for a path to full citizenship for undocumented
immigrants, she went further than that, saying that as president, she would
do everything she legally can to help them.
She put herself, in fact, to the left of President Obama, promising to
expand his executive order of protecting so-called DREAMers from
deportation, to include the parents of undocumented immigrants brought to
you U.S. as children as well, even though the Obama Justice Department has
indicated it views such a move as illegal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There are more people,
like many parents of DREAMers and others, with deep ties and contributions
to our communities who deserve a chance to stay, and I will fight for them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: This is not the only issue where Hillary Clinton has staked
out a position on the left, on tax rates, criminal justice reform and other
issues. Clinton has sought to align herself in the early goings, with the
liberal base of her party. Just this morning, her campaign manager Robby
Mook indicated she supported the push for debt-free college education.
Now, if Clinton seems to be acting like she is facing a primary
challenge from the left, that may be because — well, she is facing a
primary challenge from the left. There are currently two declared
candidates in the race for Democratic presidential nomination — the other
being Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
And despite the long odds Sanders would seem to face against Clinton
who boasts high name recognition and strong connections to donors and party
leaders, Sanders who only announced his campaign last Friday has had a very
good first week. “Huffington Post” reported he`s raised $3 million in just
four days. He has brought in a crew of former aides to President Obama to
help with his campaign.
Today, he unveiled legislation to break up big banks, drawing at least
an implicit contrast with Clinton who some progressives view as too closely
aligned with the financial sector.
Also today, Sanders sent a letter to President Obama asking him to
cancel a trip to Nike headquarters. Quote, “Given Nike`s legacy of
offshoring American jobs and exploiting low wage workers.”
And joining me now is Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, candidate for
president.
All right. Senator, let`s start with immigration reform. Do you —
if — as president, would you take the same position enunciated by Hillary
Clinton yesterday in terms of executive action to protect the parents of
those people who were brought here as children who were protected in the
president`s first executive action?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The short answer
is absolutely. And I applaud the secretary for taking that position.
Look, I voted and fought for immigration reform, voted for the Senate
passage of that legislation. We have 11 million people in this country
living in the shadows, living in fear. That`s got to end. We need a path
towards citizenship for all of those people.
And the best way forward, of course, is legislation rather than
executive action, but I certainly would go forward with that type of
executive action.
HAYES: OK. Not to — I don`t want to tarry on this too long. But
you and now — you and now Secretary Clinton are endorsing a position that
the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has rejected as unlawful,
just to be clear here. I mean, did they get it wrong?
SANDERS: Look, the courts are the people who determine what is legal
or not. And I think what you need is an administration that fights for
justice, fights for what`s right, takes the case to the courts and you do
your best to win that case.
HAYES: You introduced a bill today to break up too big to fail banks.
Is this an area of differentiation between you and Secretary Clinton?
SANDERS: Well, I suspect it is. But what`s most important, we have
to deal with the reality that you`ve got six financial institutions in this
country that have assets equivalent to 60 percent of the GDP in America.
They issue about half of the mortgages and one-third of the credit cards in
this country.
And in my view, if a financial institution is, quote/unquote, “too big
to fail”, it should be too big to exist. I think if Teddy Roosevelt, a
good Republican, were here today, he would say, break them up. They simply
have too much power. They are an island unto themselves. They are not
doing good service for the American economy.
HAYES: You, I think, are seen by progressives as a fellow
progressive. You have an identity that`s very associated with the liberal
wing of the Democratic Party.
I want to talk about your stance on guns. “Slate” had a headline,
“Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut”. They go through your record. They talk about
how you voted against the Brady Act. How you voted to allow guns on
checked bags on Amtrak. How you`ve actually gotten fairly high scores from
the NRA.
Are you, in fact, Senator, a gun nut?
SANDERS: Well, actually, if you check it out, the last rating I got
from the NRA to the best of my knowledge was an “F”, was an “F”. That
doesn`t quite make me a gun nut.
In my state of Vermont, we are a very rural state where guns are about
hunting, target practice, antique guns, and we have a pretty low crime
rate. I do believe, obviously, that nationally, guns in Baltimore and guns
in Los Angeles are very different. I have voted against the importation of
assault weapons. And I understand not every part of America is the state
of Vermont.
HAYES: There is a big controversy brewing over the Trans Pacific
Partnership, specifically Congress giving “fast track” authority to the
executive, to be able to essentially strike the deal and vote on it in
full. Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was asked how the campaign,
the Clinton campaign, would deal with the trade deal. He joked, “Can you
make it go away?” Which I thought was a pretty funny line actually.
You have been an outspoken opponent to it. Do you want to respond to
Podesta`s joke there?
SANDERS: Yes, John. It ain`t going to go away. In fact, we`re going
to be voting on it fairly soon.
Look, ever since I have been in the Congress, what I have understood
is that all of these trade agreements, NAFAT, CAFTA, permanent normal trade
relations with China and now the TPP — these are proposals that by and
large are being pushed by corporate America, they`re being pushed by Wall
Street, they`re being pushed by the pharmaceutical industry.
Since 2001, Chris, we have lost almost 60,000 factories in America,
millions of decent paying jobs. Trade is not the only reason for the
deindustrialization of America. It has played an important part.
In terms of TPP, I do not want American workers involved in a race to
the bottom, competing against people in Vietnam where the minimum wage is
56 cents an hour. We need a trade policy which helps poor people around
the world, but you can do that without losing millions of jobs in this
country or driving wages down.
HAYES: All right. Senator Sanders, there`s a lot more I wanted to
ask you, including your brother`s campaign in England right now and the
Green Party. We`re going to have to save that for — someone told me about
it today and I said, what? But we`re going to have to save that for the
next time that you and I talk. You`ll be on the campaign trail, so there
will be lots of opportunities.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Senator Bernie Sanders joining me now and, Senator, we are expecting your formal announcement into the race here in a little over a week. You’ve acknowledged that you don’t have the cash, that you don’t have the campaign infrastructure that Hillary Clinton, say, has and certainly as you enter the race, she is the one that you have your sights set on.
What’s your path to victory?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I – VT): Well, my path to victory is to talk about the issues that impact the lives of millions of Americans. Brianna, the reality is that for 40 years, the American middle class has been disappearing? people today are working longer hours for lower wages while at the same time 99 percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 of 1 percent owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.
KEILAR: Hillary Clinton talks a lot about income inequality, how you differentiate yourself on this from her?
SANDERS: Well, it’s one thing to talk about it. It’s one thing to act on it. I have been helping to lead the fight for the American middle class for the last 25-30 years. We have introduced legislation that would rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create up to 13 million new jobs.
In the Senate I’m leading the effort to raise the minimum wage up to $15 an hour so that people who work 40 hours a week will not be living in poverty. We have presented legislation right now which will say to the wealthiest people and largest corporations you know what, you can’t continue to avoid paying your fair share of taxes.
KEILAR: Your candidacy was assessed by “U.S. News and World Report” like this. It said,
“Like Obama in 2008, Sanders can serve to help define Clinton and make her a stronger candidate. Unlike Obama, Sanders can keep Clinton on her game without getting her tossed out of it.”
You look at that assessment. Are you a spoiler here?
Are you aiming to be a shaper of the debate? Or do you think that you really have a pathway to victory?
SANDERS: I think that there is more discontent with establishment politics, with the greed of corporate America than many people perceive. I think we have a good I’m
not going to deny for one moment that I’m going into this race an underdog? Hillary Clinton will have a lot more money that we have.
But let me say this, even in terms of money, we’ve been in this race for a couple of weeks? we’ve raised over $4 million because people are sending on average not $1 million, not $10,000, $43 per contributor to berniesanders.com we have now 100,000 contributions.
I think we can raise millions of those small contributions.
KEILAR: I just wonder is this going to be a civil debate with Hillary Clinton? Even if you’re talking about issues and not personality or the fact that she’s establishment, you have to go after a leading candidate with a hard edge. Are you prepared to do that?
SANDERS: Well, Brianna, let me turn it around to you, OK.
I’ve never run a negative political ad in my life. People in Vermont know that I run in many, many campaigns. I don’t believe in ugly 30 second ads. I believe in serious debates on serious issues. I’ve known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. Maybe I shouldn’t say this. I like Hillary Clinton. I respect Hillary Clinton. Will the media, among others, allow us to have a civil debate on civil issues? Or is the only way to get media attention by ripping apart someone else? I certainly hope that’s not the case.
KEILAR: Trade a big issue
SANDERS: Trade is a big issue
KEILAR: In the Senate and now we’re looking towards the House, where Republicans, oddly enough, may not have the votes along with Democrats for this initiative of President Obama’s, something you oppose. You have come out and said this is a terrible idea. Hillary Clinton has not. She is on the fence. Should she take a position?
SANDERS: Absolutely. You can’t be on the fence of this one. You’re either for it or you’re against it. No fence-sitting on this one.
Here’s the reality. When we talk about why the middle class is disappearing and why the gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider, you’ve got you
have to talk about disastrous trade agreements that have allowed corporate America to shut down in this country and move to China ,Mexico and other low-wage countries.
KEILAR: I want to ask you about George Stephanopoulos, the host of This Week, who has been in the news. You appeared on his show on May 3rd and on that program he asked you about your concerns over the money raised by The Clinton Foundation. You have said that The Clinton Foundation fundraising is a fair issue to discuss. He had donated
$25,000 over three years or $75,000 in total, $25,000 each year. He didn’t disclose those donations. And to viewers, to superiors at ABC. He didn’t tell you either, even though you discussed it.
SANDERS: Well, I think he should have made that public. (INAUDIBLE) what he should have done. I have to file a financial disclosure reform form and I think George should have done that. I don’t – between you and me, I don’t think it’s the biggest deal in the world.
KEILAR: If you take her at her word, Elizabeth Warren’s not getting into this race? Are you looking to gain that pocket of support to Hillary Clinton’s left?
SANDERS: Elizabeth Warren is a good friend of mine. I’ve known Elizabeth for many, many years. She’s doing a fantastic job in the Senate.
I think on many of the same issues, on many of the issues, Elizabeth Warren and I come out on the same page.
KEILAR: Overall, I don’t hear a lot of forcefulness from you? a lot of people who observe politics say this is a contact sport. You have to have sharp elbows. Even if it’s not going fully negative in character assassination
(CROSSTALK)
SANDERS: Brianna
KEILAR: and there may be somewhere in between are you –
SANDERS: Brianna, Brianna, you are looking at the most progressive member of the United States Senate. I have led the effort in taking on Wall Street. I have led the effort in taking on disastrous trade agreements. I have led the effort in fighting for universal health care. I have led the effort in terms of trying to reverse our approach toward climate change
and move away from a fossil fuel society.
I’ve led the effort on many of those issues. I’ve taken on every powerful special –
KEILAR: But are you prepared to sharply point out where your Democratic opponents have not, in your opinion?
SANDERS: Of course I am prepared to engage in serious debate. But let me throw it back to you. I’ll tell you something else. The American people want to hear serious discussions on why they’re working longer hours for low wages. They want to know about why year after year we have these disastrous trade agreements, why the rich get richer and
everybody else gets poorer. Are you in the media prepared to allow us to engage in that serious debate? Or do I have to get media attention by simply making reckless attacks on Hillary Clinton or anybody else? I don’t believe in that. I believe in serious debates on serious issues.
KEILAR: Senator Bernie Sanders, thank you so much for being with us. We appreciate it.
SANDERS: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. MR. PRESIDENT, AT 2:30 THIS AFTERNOON THE SENATE WILL BE VOTING ON A MOTION TO PROCEED TO THE FAST TRACK BILL THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECENTLY OPPOSED APPROVED. I WILL BE STRONGLILY OPPOSING THAT LEGISLATION. HERE’S WHY
IN A NUTSHELL HERE IS THE REALITY OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY TODAY. WHILE WE ARE CERTAINLY BETTER OFF THAN WE WERE SIX AND A HALF YEARS AGO, THE TRUTH IS FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS HAS BEEN DISAPPEARING. THE TRUTH IS THAT TODAY WE HAVE SOME 45 MILLION AMERICANS LIVING IN POVERTY, ALMOST THE HIGHEST RATE IN THE MODERN HISTORY OF AMERICA.
AND WHILE THE MIDDLE CLASS CONTINUES TO SHRINK, WE ARE SEEING MORE INCOME AND WEALTH INEQUALITY THAN AT ANY TIME IN OUR COUNTRY SINCE 1929, AND IT IS WORSE IN AMERICA THAN ANY OTHER MAJOR COUNTRY ON EARTH. TODAY, 99% OF ALL NEW INCOME IS GOING TO THE TOP 1%. TODAY, THE TOP .1% OWNS ALMOST — ALMOST AS MUCH WEALTH AS THE BOTTOM 90%. IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, MR. PRESIDENT, THE 14 WEALTHIEST PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN THEIR WEALTH OF $157 BILLION. THAT $157 BILLION IS MORE WEALTH THAN IS OWNED BY THE BOTTOM 130 MILLION AMERICANS.
HOW IS THAT HAPPENING? WHY IS THAT HAPPENING? WE HAVE SEEN A HUGE INCREASE IN TECHNOLOGY, PRODUCTIVITY IS WAY UP, AND THE REALITY IS THAT MOST WORKING PEOPLE SHOULD BE SEEING AN INCREASE IN THEIR INCOME AND YET MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME HAS GONE DOWN BY ALMOST $5,000 SINCE 1999.
HOW DOES IT HAPPEN? WHY IS IT HAPPENING THAT IN THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, ALMOST ALL OF THE NEW WEALTH IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE FEW WHILE THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE WORKING LONGER HOURS FOR LOWER WAGES? HOW DOES IT HAPPEN?
WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS BUT LET ME TELL YOU THAT OUR DISASTROUS TRADE AGREEMENTS — NAFTA, CAFTA, PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA — ARE CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS WHY THE MIDDLE CLASS IS IN DECLINE AND WHY MORE AND MORE INCOME AND WEALTH GOES TO A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE ON THE TOP. PRESIDENT, MR. PRESIDENT, THE — MR. PRESIDENT, THE SAD TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS MANY OF THE NEW JOBS CREATED IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY ARE PART TIME AND LOW-PAYING JOBS.
30 OR 40 YEARS AGO, WORKING PEOPLE WHO MAYBE HAD A HIGH SCHOOL DEGREE COULD GO OUT AND GET A JOB IN A FACTORY. THEY NEVER GOT RICH, IT WASN’T A GLAMOROUS JOB, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THEY HAD ENOUGH WAGES AND BENEFITS TO MAKE IT INTO THE MIDDLE CLASS. BUT SINCE 2001, WE HAVE LOST ALMOST 60 THOUSAND FACTORIES — 60,000 FACTORIES IN AMERICA. AND TODAY WHEN YOUNG PEOPLE GRADUATE HIGH SCHOOL THEY DON’T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK IN A FACTORY AND HAVE A UNION JOB AND MAKE MIDDLE-CLASS BEIGES WAGES. THEIR OPTIONS ARE WAL-MART, McDONALD’S, LOW WAGES, MINIMAL BENEFITS, COMPANIES THAT ARE VEHEMENTLY ANTIUNION.
PRESIDENT, THE SAD TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT WE ARE IN A RACE TO THE BOTTOM. AND NOT ONLY HAVE OUR TRADE AGREEMENTS COST US MILLIONS OF DECENT-PAYING JOBS, BUT THEY HAVE DEPRESSED WAGES IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE COMPANIES AND VIRTUALLY EVERY MAJOR MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION IN THIS COUNTRY HAS OUTSOURCED JOBS, SHED MILLIONS OF AMERICAN JOBS. WHAT THEY SAY TO WORKERS IS IF YOU DON’T LIKE THE CUTS IN HEALTH CARE, YOU DON’T LIKE THE CUTS IN WAGES, WE’RE GOING TO GO TO CHINA AND WE CAN HIRE PEOPLE THERE FOR A BUCK AN HOUR. SADLY, MR. PRESIDENT, THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT FOLLOWS IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THESE OTHER DISASTROUS FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE FORCED AMERICAN WORKERS TO COMPETE AGAINST DESPERATE AND LOW-WAGE WORKERS AROUND THE WORLD.
PRESIDENT, OVER AND OVER AGAIN — AND I HAVE HEARD THIS SO MANY TIMES — I HEARD IT JUST ON THE FLOOR THIS MORNING — SUPPORTERS OF FAST TRACK HAVE TOLD US THAT UNFETTERED FREE TRADE WILL INCREASE AMERICAN JOBS AND WAGES AND WILL BE JUST A WONDERFUL THING FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. SADLY, HOWEVER, THESE FOLKS HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG AND WRONG AND WRONG TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME. I HEAR THE SAME LANGUAGE AND EVERY TIME WHAT THEY SAY JUST PROVES NOT TO BE TRUE. LET ME JUST MENTION TO YOU SOME QUOTES FROM THE SUPPORTERS OF NAFTA. THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE WERE TELLING US ABOUT HOW GREAT THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT OR THE NAFTA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WOULD BE.
ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1993, PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON SAID THE FOLLOWING — HE WAS, OF COURSE, PRESIDENT PUSHING NAFTA IN THE SAME WAY THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA IS TODAY PUSHING THE T.P.P. THIS IS WHAT CLINTON SAID — AND I QUOTE — “I BELIEVE THAT NAFTA WILL CREATE 200,000 AMERICAN JOBS IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF ITS EFFECT. I BELIEVE THAT NAFTA WILL CREATE A MILLION JOBS IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF ITS IMPACT” — END OF QUOTE.
IN 1993, IT’S NOT JUST LIBERALS LIKE BILL CLINTON, HERE’S THE VERY CONSERVATIVE HERITAGE FOUNDATION IN 1993. THIS IS WHAT THIEVED — AND I QUOTE — “VIRTUALLY ALL ECONOMISTS AGREE THAT NAFTA WILL PRODUCE A NET INCREASE OF U.S. JOBS OVER THE NEXT DECADE” — END OF QUOTE.
1993 THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY, OUR MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH McCONNELL, SAID — AND I QUOTE — “AMERICAN FIRMS WILL NOT MOVE TO MEXICO JUST FOR LOWER WAGES” — END OF QUOTE BY MITCH McMcCONNELL.
IS WHAT PRESIDENT CLINTON, IS WHAT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, IS THAT WHAT MITCH McCONNELL SAID TURN OUT TO BE CORRECT? OF COURSE, IT DID NOT. WHAT HAPPENED WAS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THEY SAID.
ACCORDING TO THE ECONOMISTS AT THE ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE, NAFTA HAS LED TO THE LOSS OF MORE THAN 680,000 JOBS. IN 1993 THE YEAR BEFORE NAFTA WAS IMPLEMENTED, THE UNITED STATES HAD A TRADE SURPLUS WITH MEXICO OF MORE THAN $1.6 BILLION. LAST YEAR THE TRADE DEFICIT WITH MEXICO WAS $53 BILLION. SO ALL OF THE VERBIAGE THAT WE HEARD ABOUT NAFTA BEING SO GOOD FOR AMERICAN WORKERS TURNED OUT TO BE DEAD WRONG.
WHAT ABOUT CHINA? WE WERE TOLD MY GOD, THE CHINESE MARKET WILL BE OPEN, BILLIONS OF PEOPLE, WHAT A OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE GOOD PAYING JOBS IN AMERICA. THIS IS WHAT THE PROPONENTS OF PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA HAD TO SAY.
PRESIDENT CLINTON AGAIN IN 1999, BILL CLINTON — QUOTE — “IN OPENING THE ECONOMY OF CHAIN THE AGREEMENT WILL CREATE UNPRECEDENTED OPPORTUNITIES FOR AMERICAN FARMERS, WORKERS AND COMPANIES TO COMPETE SUCCESSFULLY IN CHINA’S MARKET. THIS IS A 100-0 DEAL FOR AMERICA WHEN IT COMES TO THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES” — END QUOTE.
CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS AT THE CATO INSTITUTE IN 1999, THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID: “THE SILLIEST ARGUMENT AGAINST PNTR IS CHINESE IMPORTS WOULD OVERWHELM U.S. INDUSTRY. IN FACT, AMERICAN WORKERS ARE FAR MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN THEIR CHINESE COUNTERPARTS. PNTR WOULD CREATE FAR MORE EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES FOR AMERICA THAN FOR THE CHINESE” — END OF QUOTE.
WOW, WERE THEY WRONG. THE ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE HAS STATED THAT PNTR WITH CHINA HAS LED TO THE NET LOSS OF 2.7 MILLION AMERICAN JOBS. GO TO ANY DEPARTMENT STORE IN AMERICA, WALK IN THE DOOR, WHERE ARE THE PRODUCTS MADE? CHINA, CHINA, CHINA, VIETNAM, OTHER LOW-WAGE COUNTRIES. IN FACT, IT IS HARDER AND HARDER TO BUY A PRODUCT NOT MADE IN CHINA.
SO ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO TOLD US WHAT A GREAT DEAL PNTR WITH CHINA WOULD BE TURNED OUT TO BE WRONG, DEAD WRONG. IN FACT, OUR TRADE AGREEMENT WITH CHINA HAS COST US ALMOST THREE MILLION JOBS. IN 2001, THE TRADE DEFICIT WITH CHINA WAS $83 BILLION. TODAY IT IS $342 BILLION.
IN 2011 — ON ANOTHER TRADE AGREEMENT — U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, BIG PROPONENTS OF UNFETTERED FREE TRADE, STRONGLY SUPPORTING T.P.P. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TOLD US WE HAD TO PASS A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH SOUTH KOREA BECAUSE IT WOULD CREATE SOME 280,000 JOBS IN AMERICA. 280,000 JOBS, A LOT OF JOBS. TURNS OUT WRONG AGAIN. IN REALITY, ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE RECENTLY FOUND THAT THE KOREAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT HAS LED TO THE LOSS OF SOME 75,000 JOBS.
AND NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAYS TRUST US. FORGET WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT NAFTA. FORGET WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT KOREA. FORGET WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT CHINA. THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT. REALLY, REALLY. CROSS OUR FINGERS, HOPE TO DIE. THIS ONE IS REALLY, REALLY DIFFERENT.
YES, IT MAY BE TRUE THAT EVERY CORPORATION IN AMERICA, CORPORATIONS THAT HAVE SHUT DOWN FACTORIES IN THIS COUNTRY, MOVED TO CHINA, THEY’RE SUPPORTING THIS AGREEMENT. YEAH, IT’S TRUE THAT WALL STREET, WHOSE GREED AND RECKLESSNESS HAVE ALMOST DESTROYED THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, THEY’RE SUPPORTING THIS AGREEMENT. YES, IT IS TRUE THAT THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY WHO CHARGES US THE HIGHEST PRICES IN THE WORLD FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, THEY’RE SUPPORTING THIS AGREEMENT. BUT NOT TO WORRY, WE SHOULD TRUST THESE GUYS. THEY REALLY ARE THINKING OF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS AND WORKING FAMILIES. TRUST US.
WHEN THEY TELL US A TRADE AGREEMENT WILL BE GOOD FOR WORKING PEOPLE, YES, WE SHOULD REALLY TRUST THEM. MEANWHILE EVERY TRADE UNION IN AMERICA, THE VAST MAJORITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS IN THIS COUNTRY, THEY ARE SAYING BE CAREFUL ABOUT T.P.P. VOTE “NO” ON FAST TRACK.
PRESIDENT, HERE IS THE REALITY OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. SINCE 2001, WE HAVE LOST 60,000 FACTORIES IN THIS COUNTRY AND WE’VE LOST OVER 4.7 MILLION MANUFACTURING JOBS. IN 1970, 25% OF ALL OF THE JOBS OF THIS COUNTRY WERE IN MANUFACTURING. TODAY THAT FIGURE IS DOWN TO 9%.
AND THE POINT HERE IS THAT BY AND LARGE, ESPECIALLY IF THERE WERE UNIONS, THOSE MANUFACTURING JOBS PAID WORKING PEOPLE A LIVING WAGE, NOT A WAL-MART WAGE, NOT A McDONALD’S WAGE.
OUR DEMAND MUST BE TO CORPORATE AMERICA, WHO TELL US EVERY NIGHT ON TV TO BUY THIS PRODUCT, TO BUY THIS PAIR OF SNEAKERS, TO BUY THIS TELEVISION, TO BUY WHATEVER IT IS, THAT MAYBE, JUST MAYBE THEY MIGHT WANT TO START MANUFACTURING THOSE PRODUCTS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PAY OUR WORKERS A DECENT WAGE RATHER THAN LOOK ALL OVER THE WORLD FOR THE LOWEST POSSIBLE WAGES AT WHICH THEY CAN EXPLOIT WORKERS WHO ARE DESPERATE.
PRESIDENT, I WAS VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA CHOSE THE HEADQUARTERS OF NIKE TO TOUT THE SO-CALLED BENEFITS OF THE T.P.P. NIKE EPITOMIZES WHY DISASTROUS UNFETTERED FREE TRADE POLICIES DURING THE PAST FOUR DECADES HAVE FAILED AMERICAN WORKERS. NIKE DOES NOT EMPLOY A SINGLE MANUFACTURING WORKER WHO MAKES SHOES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. NOT ONE WORKER. 100% OF THE SHOES THAT ARE SOLD BY NIKE ARE — THAT ARE SOLD BY NIKE ARE MADE OVERSEAS IN LOW-WAGE COUNTRIES.
WHEN NIKE WAS FOUNDED AND THIS IS THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE AMERICAN COUNTRY, WHEN NIKE WAS FOUNDED IN 1964, JUST 4% OF U.S. FOOT WEAR WAS IMPORTED. IN OTHER WORDS, WE MANUFACTURED THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SHOES AND THE SNEAKERS THAT WE WORE. TODAY NEARLY ALL OF THE SHOES THAT ARE BOUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES ARE MANUFACTURED OVERSEAS. TODAY OVER 330,000 WORKERS MANUFACTURE NIKE’S PRODUCTS IN VIETNAM, WHERE THE MINIMUM WAGE IS 56 CENTS AN HOUR.
AND I HEAR PRESIDENT OBAMA AND OTHER PROPONENTS OF T.P.P. TALKING ABOUT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. WE HAVE TO COMPETE ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. DOES ANYBODY THINK COMPETING AGAINST PEOPLE, DESPERATE PEOPLE WHO MAKE 56 CENTS AN HOUR IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, IS FAIR TO AMERICAN WORKERS?
OF COURSE WE WANT THE POOR PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD TO SEE AN INCREASE IN THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING, AND WE’VE GOT TO PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THAT.
BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO DESTROY THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS TO HELP LOW-INCOME WORKERS AROUND THE WORLD. IN VIETNAM, NOT ONLY IS THE MINIMUM WAGE 56 CENTS AN HOUR, NONPARTISAN — INDEPENDENT LABOR UNIONS ARE BANNED AND PEOPLE ARE THROWN IN JAIL FOR EXPRESSING THEIR POLITICAL BELIEFS. IS THAT THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA AND OTHER PROPONENTS OF UNFETTERED FREE TRADE ARE TALKING ABOUT?
BACK IN 1988, PHIL KNIGHT — PHIL KNIGHT IS THE FOUNDER AND OWNER OF NIKE — HE SAID THAT NIKE HAD BECOME SYNONYMOUS WITH SLAVE WAGES, FORCED OVERTIME AND ARBITRARY ABUSE. PHIL KNIGHT WAS RIGHT. IN FACT, FACTORIES IN VIETNAM WHERE NIKE SHOES ARE MANUFACTURED HAVE BEEN CITED BY THE WORKERS RIGHTS CONSORTIUM FOR EXCESSIVE OVERTIME, WAGE THEFT AND PHYSICAL MISTREATMENT OF WORKERS. TODAY MR. KNIGHT IS ONE OF THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET, WORTH MORE THAN $22 BILLION.
WHILE MR. KNIGHT’S NET WORTH HAS MORE THAN TRIPLED SINCE 1999, THE AVERAGE VIETNAMESE WORKER WHO MAKES NIKE SHOES EARNS PENNIES AN HOUR. THAT IS PRETTY MUCH SYNONYMOUS WITH WHAT UNFETTERED FREE TRADE IS ALL ABOUT. A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE LIKE PHIL KNIGHT BECOME MULTI, MULTIBILLIONAIRES AND POOR PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD ARE EXPLOITED AND PAID PENNIES AN HOUR.
PRESIDENT, IT IS NOT JUST NIKE AND IT IS NOT JUST VIETNAM. ANOTHER COUNTRY THAT IS PART OF THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP IS MALAYSIA. TODAY THERE ARE NEARLY 200,000 ELECTRONICS FACTORIES IN MALAYSIA WHERE HIGH-TECH PRODUCTS FROM APPLE, DELL, INTEL, MOTOROLA INSTRUMENTS ARE MANUFACTURED AND BROUGHT BACK TO THE UNITED STATES. IF THE T.P.P. IS APPROVED, THAT NUMBER WILL GO UP SUBSTANTIALLY.
WELL, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THAT? IT TURNS OUT THAT MANY OF THE WORKERS AT THE ELECTRONICS PLANTS IN MALAYSIA ARE BEING FORCED TO WORK THERE UNDER HORRIBLE WORKING CONDITIONS. ACCORDING TO VERITE WHICH CONDUCTED A TWO-YEAR INVESTIGATION INTO LABOR ABUSES IN MALAYSIA, AN INVESTIGATION WHICH WAS COMMISSIONED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 32% OF THE INDUSTRY’S NEARLY 200,000 MIGRANT WORKERS IN MALAYSIA WERE EMPLOYED IN FORCED SITUATIONS BECAUSE THEIR PASSPORTS HAD BEEN TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE THEY WERE STRAINING TO PAY BACK ILLEGALLY HIGH RECRUITMENT FEES. IN OTHER WORDS, AMERICAN WORKERS ARE GOING TO BE FORCED TO COMPETE AGAINST PEOPLE IN MALAYSIA, IMMIGRANT WORKERS THERE WHOSE PASSPORTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY, WHO CAN’T LEAVE THE COUNTRY, WHO ARE WORKING UNDER FORCED LABOR SITUATIONS.
SO, MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME CONCLUDE BY SAYING THIS. ALL OF US UNDERSTAND THAT TRADE IS GOOD. IT IS A GOOD THING. BUT I THINK MOST OF US NOW HAVE CAUGHT ON TO THE FACT THAT THE TRADE AGREEMENTS PUSHED BY CORPORATE AMERICA, PUSHED BY WALL STREET, PUSHED BY THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY ARE VERY, VERY GOOD IF YOU ARE THE C.E.O. OF A MAJOR CORPORATION, BUT THEY ARE A DISASTER IF YOU ARE AN AMERICAN WORKER.
SO IT IS MY VIEW THAT WE HAVE GOT TO REBUILD MANUFACTURING IN AMERICA. IT IS MY VIEW THAT WE HAVE GOT TO CREATE MILLIONS OF DECENT-PAYING JOBS IN AMERICA. IT IS MY VIEW THAT WE NEED TO FUNDAMENTALLY REWRITE OUR TRADE AGREEMENTS SO THAT OUR LARGEST EXPORT DOES NOT BECOME DECENT-PAYING AMERICAN JOBS.
SO I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE “NO” ON THE FAST-TRACK AGREEMENT. LET US SIT DOWN AND WORK ON TRADE AGREEMENTS THAT WORK FOR THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, THAT WORK FOR OUR WORKING PEOPLE AND NOT JUST FOR THE C.E.O.’S OF THE LARGEST CORPORATIONS IN THIS COUNTRY.
AND WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD YIELD THE FLOOR, AND I BELIEVE NOTE THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
Bernie Sanders offers a real deal to the middle class, not the raw deal of Hillary Clinton. Unlike Hillary Clinton, but like Teddy Roosevelt, Bernie Sanders will break up the big oligarchic corporations stifling our economy, controlling prices, outsourcing jobs overseas, evading taxes, and buying our government and politicians. Like Teddy Rooselt, Bernie Sanders will protect and preserve America’s environment. Unlike Hillary Clinton, but like Franklin Roosevelt, Bernie Sanders will create jobs here in America by rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.
Bernie Sanders’ prime targets are the big banks, better known as banksters, who have been bailed out with American taxpayers’ tax dollars because they were too big to fail, and who have been “bailed out of jail” by Congress and the Administration because they were too big to jail with their big political contributions.
Unlike Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton’s Super Pac will accept political contributions from big money, including wealthy individuals and huge corporations. Unlike Bernie, she has not denounced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, which is destined to outsource another 40 million jobs overseas over the next generation’s lifetime. Unlike Bernie, she has not voiced opposition to the Keystone Pipeline. Unlike Bernie, she has not stated unequivocally that she will not put American ground troops in the middle east.
Bernie Sanders offers the middle class of America a Real Deal, like the Square Deal of Theodore Roosevelt and the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, like her recent predecessors, once again offers working Americans just another Raw Deal!
Don’t believe me? You be the judge; here are their records and positions:
BOB SCHIEFFER: We turn now to the Democratic side, and Hillary Clinton finally got a declared challenger. He is not a Democrat, Vermont– Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. He’s called himself an independent socialist. Senator, welcome. Let me just start out by asking you, what is a socialist these days? I mean, I remember when a socialist was somebody who wanted to nationalize the railroads and things like that.
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vermont/Democratic Presidential Candidate): That’s not the case.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Is that what you have in mind?
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: I am proud of being the longest serving independent in the history of the United States Congress. I’m proud that my state of Vermont allowed me to do that. When we talk about Democratic socialism, I think it’s important to realize that there are countries around the world like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, who’ve had social democratic governments on and off for many, many years. And we can learn a whole lot from some of those countries. For example, the United States is the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people as a right. And if you look at the health care systems in those countries, you know what? Not only do they cover all their people, much more cost effective than we are. We end up spending almost twice as much as they do, in terms of education, Bob, all of those countries; in Germany, Austria, many other countries. You know what they say? They’re in a highly competitive global economy. All people, regardless of their income, should be able to get a college education. College education is free in those countries. That makes a lot of sense to me. In terms of childcare, our childcare system today, talking about Mother’s Day, is a total disaster. Those systems are much better by and large. What they do is many of these countries have higher voter turnouts than we do. They have governments which do a lot better job representing their middle class, rather than a billionaire class, which have so much power today in our economic and political system.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, would you do consider yourself more liberal than the most liberal Democrat?
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: I think it’s fair to say that I am perhaps the most progressive member of the United States Senate. And by the way, Bob, I have made a decision to run within the Democratic primary process and I will abide by all of the regulations that come down in each of the states. I made that decision. That’s what we’re going to do.
BOB SCHIEFFER: So in states where you have to be a Democrat to run in (INDISTINCT) you will be–
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: I am going to run– I am running as a Democrat in the Democratic primary process.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask you right now, do you really think you could beat Hillary Clinton? And, if so, how and where is she vulnerable?
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Okay. Great question. The answer is, yes. And the answer is, because there is, in my view, massive dissatisfaction in this country today with corporate establishment and the greed of corporate America and an incredibly unequal distribution of wealth and income which currently exists. Bob, when you have ninety-nine percent of all new income generated today going to the top one percent, when you have the top– you have the top one-tenth of one percent, only– almost as much income as the bottom ninety percent, people working longer hours for low wages and all of the money was going to the people on top. You know what people don’t think that’s a good idea. In terms of the politics of America, as a result of this disastrous Citizens United, Supreme Court decision, clearly, the billionaires, Koch Brothers and others, are owning the political process. They will determine who the candidates are. Let me say this thing. If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice. And that nominee will say that we are all going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision on Citizens United because that decision is undermining American democracy. I do not believe that billionaires should be able to buy politicians.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Hillary Clinton says she is going to have a super PAC, says she has to do it, she didn’t like it but she has to do it to compete. What about that?
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: I understand where she is coming from. I will not have a super PAC. Look, we announced a week and a half ago, Bob, and since that time, we have had two hundred thousand people go to BernieSanders.com to sign up for the campaign. We’ve had close to ninety thousand contributions. Do you know what the average contribution was? It’s about forty-three dollars, forty-three bucks, for middle-class working families, so I don’t think we are going to outstand Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush or anybody else but I think we are going to raise the kinds of money that we need to run a strong and winning campaign.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, threshold question, why– why would you be better in all of that than Hillary Clinton?
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, first of all, let me say that I– I have known Hillary Clinton for twenty-five years. I respect her and I admire her. But I think we are living in a very strange moment in American history. And that is the problems facing us, in terms of income and wealth inequality and the fact that real employment is eleven percent; youth unemployment, seventeen percent. In terms of the fact that climate change is threatening the very foundations of our planet, that we need strong and bold leadership, I would ask people to take a look at the roles that I’ve been playing for the last twenty-five years standing up for working families and I have had a record which is taking on the billionaire class, taken on Wall Street, taken on the private insurance companies, and the drug companies.
BOB SCHIEFFER: But why are– the question was why are you better at it, what– what’s wrong with Hillary Clinton? Is she– where is she vulnerable?
SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I’ll give you an example. Right now, as you know, Congress is in the midst of a debate on– on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I am strongly opposed to that trade agreement because I think it follows in the footsteps of other disastrous trade agreements which have cost us millions of jobs. In terms of foreign policy, Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. I voted– not only did I vote against it, I help lead the effort against what I knew would be a disaster. In terms of climate change, I have helped lead the effort against the Keystone Pipeline. I’m not quite sure that Hillary Clinton has come out with a position on that. So those are just some of the areas where we differ.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Bernie Sanders, we thank you for being here. Hope to talk to you again as we get down the trail. And we’ll be back in one minute with more on the campaign.
The Barefoot Accountant recap:
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders explains why he thinks he thinks his record of “strong and bold leadership” could help him best candidate Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
Bernie Sanders believes that he can beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic Presidential primary because many Americans are upset and angry about the gross inequality of income and wealth in their country, with 99% of the income going to the top 1% and with one-tenth of 1% of the population owning nearly 90% of the wealth in their country.
It is important to note that Bernie Sanders differentiated himself from Hillary Clinton on the following issues:
He is against the Keystone Pipeline, implying that Hillary Clinton has not spoken out against it.
He voted against the War in Iraq while Hillary Clinton voted for it.
He is opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which will outsource another 40 million more jobs overseas while Hillary Clinton has not spoken out in opposition to this trade agreement and while Bill Clinton endorsed NAFTA.
He will not take any money from Super PACs while Hillary Clinton will be taking big money from them.
So if you are for the Keystone Pipeline against the position of environmentalists; if you are for continued wars in the Middle East; if you are for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which will outsource 40 million more jobs overseas; and if you are for Citizens United and Super PACs buying elections; then you should vote for Hillary Clinton.
The Barefoot Accountant at Accountants CPA Hartford, Connecticut, LLC presents Senator Richard Blumenthal’s response to my letter urging him to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Have you written your letters yet? I am still awaiting responses from Senator Chris Murphy and Congressman John Larson. Please write in opposition to the TPP, and let your members in Congress know that you will not vote for them if they vote for the TPP and ship millions of more jobs overseas. Don’t you care about your children’s future?
Thank you for your message regarding Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). I appreciate hearing from you.
I oppose Trade Promotion Authority, which would remove the ability of Congress to modify trade agreements such as the TPP. While TPP negotiations have been conducted without Congressional oversight, the outlines of the agreement under discussion suggest that the TPP will do little to create employment opportunities in Connecticut and could pose unacceptable risks to American workers and the environment.
You may be interested to know I joined 11 of my Senate colleagues in the 113th Congress in sending a letter to Senator Harry Reid, then Senate Majority Leader, expressing our concerns about any TPA proposal, such as the 2007 framework, that lacks sufficient transparency. The TPA frameworks of the past decade simply have not allowed for sufficient transparency, consultation, or Congressional involvement. Our letter also stressed that the Senate should only consider new TPA proposals alongside broader, essential reforms to our trade policy, including measures to bolster our manufacturing sector, protect workers, and strengthen trade enforcement. Soon after we sent this letter, then-Majority Leader Reid indicated his opposition to bringing TPA up for a vote in 2014.
As negotiations on the TPP and other trade agreements move forward in the 114th Congress, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. I will continue fighting for a better trade policy that creates jobs here at home and establishes a more level playing field for our businesses and workers. Thank you again for your message. If you have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me again.
Sincerely,
Richard Blumenthal
United States Senate
Ask yourselves how American labor can compete against Vietnamese workers earning on average $0.56 per hour. 30 to 40 million more jobs are expected to be outsourced overseas over your children’s future. Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren oppose the TPP. Hillary Clinton has not come out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It has been reported that the Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars in contributions from foreign governments. Do you trust Hillary Clinton as your next President?
TRUMP TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THERE ARE THE SECURITY STATE AGENTS WHO THINK THAT THEY RUN THE GOVERNMENT AND HE STOOD UP TO THEM AND CHALLENGED THEIR ORTHODOXIES AND PIETIES AND SHOWED AMERICANS, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ON THE RIGHT, THAT THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT NOBLE OR BENEVOLENT BUT ARE HIGHLY PERNICIOUS. THEY […]
Joe Biden said, if you're fully vaccinated, the chances that you can get severely ill, not even die just get severely ill, are very low. And the statistic that he gave is, out of every 160,000 people who have been vaccinated, only one ends up going to the hospital with a serious illness. So the […]
Glenn Greenwald: "So you have huge number of journalists who believe that, they have the right to lie and even when they get caught, they don't care because they know their audience won't hold it against them." Continue reading →
THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE USING JANUARY 6TH. IT'S DEMENTED TO COMPARE 9/11 AND JANUARY 6TH BUT IT'S SO CENTRAL TO THE AGENDA OF THE SECURITY STATE, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, TO ESSENTIALLY INITIATE A SURVEILLANCE REGIME, A DETENTION REGIME, AGAINST PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT WHO ARE AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT. AND THEY’RE ALREADY DOING IT. AND THEY […]
Carlson: So now we’re arming the Taliban and marooning our own citizens in Afghanistan. Who could possibly have seen that coming. Glenn Greenwald is one of the few journalists who did see it coming. He writes for Substack where all … Continue reading →
And so that is what I call the birth of this woke industrial complex. It is a new leviathan, a new monster, that is far more powerful than what Thomas Hobbes might have envisioned 400 years ago, and it is the biggest threat to individual liberty today. It is not big government alone. Its conservatives […]
FBI CIA NSA are not only spying on American citizens but also are illegally unmasking their identities to journalists who support our fascist government Continue reading →
The government is instructing social media companies what should and shouldn't be allowed to be on the internet, these are the people least competent to judge what is misinformation. Continue reading →
Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution. Congress is giving Big Tech immunity and more power in exchange for it censoring […]
THE SECURITY STATE HAS EXISTED SINCE THE END OF WORLD WAR II. THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING IN SECRET AND WITH NO DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EIGHT OR NINE DECADES NOW. DWIGHT EISENHOWER WHEN HE LEFT OFFICE WARNED THE COUNTRY ABOUT THE DANGERS THAT THEY POSE. Continue reading →
Darryl Cooper, AKA @MartyrMade, is a podcaster who had a Twitter thread go viral with 13k retweets and 20k likes of the first Tweet alone. This one is 36-Tweets long. It makes very cogent arguments of not only why millions of Trump supporters believe the 2020 election was stolen, but also why we are justified […]
COVID-19 antibodies have been found in blood samples as early as September, 2019. China knew about the virus' transmission to humans months before it announced such to the world. Why has the media and our government not investigated this gross negligence, if not mass murder? Continue reading →
Democrats and elites are making straight white men the enemy of their new world order. Blacks, hispanics, gays are now the good guys; straight white men are the bad guys. Continue reading →
This ruling class of administrative state, big tech, corporations: all of these people think that they can get rid of Trump and we'll go back to normal. They're wedded to a broken system that has sold out the American people. And now they're going to try to sell out the American people and the middle […]
The real threat is collusion. When journalists strike secret alliances with the very people they're supposed to be holding accountable, we are in deep trouble. Lies go unchallenged. Democracy cannot function. And that's what we're watching right now. Continue reading →
The CIA from the very first days of the Trump administration, even before he was inaugurated, devoted themselves to sabotaging the administration because Donald Trump questioned just a few of their pieties. And that can't be done in Washington. Whoever does that must be destroyed. And so the CIA and the Deep State operatives became […]
The problem is the corruption that is absolutely pervasive in the U.S. news media. There are newsrooms all throughout New York and Washington DC, where top editors are explicitly saying they do not want this story investigated. And they're being clear that the reason that they don't want to investigate it is because they think […]
So Apple isn't fighting for diversity. They're doing exactly what they appear to be doing: they're trying to keep wages down and keep their workers compliant by importing labor from abroad.This isn't about diversity. It's about exploitation. It always is Continue reading →
Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC
Accountants CPA Hartford Connecticut is an accounting firm in Hartford, Connecticut offering a variety of accounting & tax services.
10
Accountants CPA Hartford, LLC