Sanders’ Surge Marks Public Outrage With Rigged System

[beourbud]

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2016/2/sanders-surge-marks-public-outrage-with-rigged-system.html

 

February 10, 2016 2:30PM ET

by Mark Weisbrot   @MarkWeisbrot

Bernie Sanders’ campaign is something that we have never seen: a candidate for president who is relying on small contributions from millions of supporters rather than corporate money and successfully challenging someone who has all the power and money of the Democratic Party establishment. It is a powered by a grass-roots movement of mostly young activists using social media. The Hillary Clinton campaign is in panic mode. No more is it looking ahead to the general election; the focus is on Sanders approaching in the rearview mirror. Clinton’s policy positions and speeches have become more calibrated for the progressive primary voter. She declared, after some pressure, that she “won’t cut Social Security” — an upgrade from the previous, equivocal “no plans to cut Social Security.”

Yet he is gaining on her every day. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Saturdayshows the two in a statistical dead heat nationally, with Clinton at 48 percent and Sanders at 45 percent. And that was before his landslide victory in New Hampshire last night, by more than 20 percentage points, in which he wonnearly every demographic.

Why is Sanders’ challenge succeeding now? Today’s mass movement arises not only from nearly four decades of upward redistribution of income and wealth — which he denounces tirelessly — but also from the increasing awareness of the rigged rules by which it has come about. Dean Baker has written severalbooks on the problem, and he and the Center for Economic and Policy Research, where we both work, have published numerous papers on it. This research shows that what are generally perceived as market outcomes are really a result of the rich using institutional and legislative changes (including misnamed “free trade” agreements, patents and copyrights and other monopolies, bankruptcy and labor law) to, yes, rig the rules in their favor and against everyone else. But the conventional wisdom even on the liberal side has been that these were market outcomes driven by changes in technology, skills and the global economy and the only way to deal with them was to use the government to change the post-tax, post-transfer income distribution. This, of course, became increasingly difficult as income and wealth grew more concentrated, giving the rich even more power to rig rules in their favor. Only recently have more liberals and economists begun to talk about the deck being stacked.

In terms of stacking the deck, Bill Clinton’s presidency mostly continued the structural changes that began under President Ronald Reagan. It brought us the North American Free Trade Agreement, the World Trade Organization, welfare reform and financial deregulation. These were so important and regressive that it is fair to count the Clinton presidency as part of the Reagan-Bush-Bush era, a long march transforming the United States economically into a much more unequal society and politically into more of a plutocracy. It’s true that the macroeconomy, including overall employment, did well during the Clinton years. But this was mostly because of a stock market bubble and a change in Federal Reserve policy. (In late 1995, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan rejected the prevailing economic theory that inflation would accelerate if unemployment went below a certain level, at the time believed to be about 6 percent, and therefore lowered interest rates and allowed for the rest of the record-long 1990s economic expansion.) The lasting legacy of the Clinton administration was the rigging of rules by powerful special interests and the negative consequences for the vast majority of Americans. Unless Hillary Clinton chooses to disassociate herself from that legacy, she is going to have a tough time with many Democratic primary voters. And her record as “the candidate of the war machine,” as economist Jeff Sachs describes it — on Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Russia and more — won’t help her with these voters either.

Here in the US, we have a certain American exceptionalism: Our most damaging corruption has mostly been legalized.

The other historical moment that is driving this “revolution” (as Sanders calls it) is one that the U.S. is sharing with many other countries all over the world. From Malaysia to South Africa to Spain to Guatemala, corruption has sparked political unrest and upheaval. The forms of corruption differ by country — bribes, kickbacks, the siphoning of public funds to foreign bank accounts, the use of the legal system for private gain, etc.

But here in the U.S. we have a certain American exceptionalism: Our most damaging corruption has mostly been legalized. Many have pointed to the $153 million that the Clintons have gotten from corporate and other special interests for speeches or the more than $21 million in donations that Hillary has received so far from Wall Street for this presidential race. But the corruption is deep at every level. Of the members of Congress who left office in 2012, about two-thirds of those who found employment were working for lobbyists or for lobbying clients. It would be naive to think that these post-public-service incomes are anything other than a deferred bribe. In fact, they are in some ways worse than the kickbacks and outright stealing in developing countries because they have more influence on policy. Witness the financial deregulation and lack of oversight that caused millions of Americans to lose their homes and pushed the economy into the Great Recession. The officials who brought us this mess, in the executive branch and in Congress, were rewarded when they left office — but only because they did what their post-government benefactors wanted.

This corruption has fueled a vicious cycle that has increasingly disenfranchised the public, in which “wealth begets power, which begets more wealth,” as Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz put it. The spiral has led to an extraordinary discrediting of most of the nation’s political class as middle- and working-class Americans have been fleeced.

To break this cycle, the next president will have to be as bold about rewriting the rules as the corporations who wrote the rules of NAFTA, the WTO and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership. He or she will have to use the bully pulpit and mobilize millions of individuals to take on some of the most powerful people and corporations on the planet. And as Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, a committed president at the same time can produce some serious results using executive authority, even without Congress. Hence the appeal, once again, of a candidate who represents “the audacity of hope.”

 

[Greg Rx]

"MANCHESTER, N.H. —Although Bernie Sanders won the first-in-the-nation Democratic primary by a landslide margin of 60 percent to 38 percent over Hillary Clinton, the former Secretary of State may end up with as many New Hampshire delegates to the Democratic National Convention as he does, and possibly more." No corruption here.

[Greg Rx]

(CNSNews.com) – Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said that although the Democratic Party “wants to give every opportunity to grassroots activists... to participate” in its presidential nomination process, superdelegates “exist... to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists."

[cristinew]

Debbie Wasserman-Schult  Is a disgrace to democracy 

[t-pain]

she is terrible.

[outsideinthecold]

No doubt the Republicans are the party for the elites.

 

But haven't D W-S and the Clinton DNC have made the Democrats a party run by its elites?

 

In spite of my distaste for what I consider his unaffordable 'everything for free' programs, Bernie would get my vote simply because, like Trump he does represent the people who support him and not the party.

 

But unlike Trump, Bernie has no chance of getting the Democratic nomination.

 

In seventy years I have only donated to one politician's campaign. That was in 2008. One-hundred bucks to the then Senator from Illinois, who at that time was another outsider running against Hillary.

 

Delicious irony, isn't it.

 

Not my best investment but if Bernie gets nominated and I am not broke, I'll give him at least that much and more depending on the Republican nominee.

 

I guess I am an ABC voter; anybody but Cruz, Christie, Carson, Christian Conservatives or Clinton.

Edited February 13, 2016 by outsideinthecold

[Greg Rx]

 

 

I guess I am an ABC voter; anybody but Cruz, Christie, Carson, Christian Conservatives or Clinton.

Carson?

Edited February 13, 2016 by Greg Rx

[outsideinthecold]

Dr. Ben Carson. Great backstory, nice man. But I just can't vote for anyone who says with conviction God told him to run. The founding fathers wisely chose to separate religion and governance in my view. To much evil, including MJ Prohibition has sprung from twisted religious prejudices as evidenced by the many reverends and preachers who support the Arrest and Punishment Industry. Not to mention the Conservative Christian Right-Wing Republican zealots who are backing him.

Edited February 14, 2016 by outsideinthecold

[Restorium2]

No doubt the Republicans are the party for the elites.

 

But haven't D W-S and the Clinton DNC have made the Democrats a party run by its elites?

 

In spite of my distaste for what I consider his unaffordable 'everything for free' programs, Bernie would get my vote simply because, like Trump he does represent the people who support him and not the party.

 

But unlike Trump, Bernie has no chance of getting the Democratic nomination.

 

In seventy years I have only donated to one politician's campaign. That was in 2008. One-hundred bucks to the then Senator from Illinois, who at that time was another outsider running against Hillary.

 

Delicious irony, isn't it.

 

Not my best investment but if Bernie gets nominated and I am not broke, I'll give him at least that much and more depending on the Republican nominee.

 

I guess I am an ABC voter; anybody but Cruz, Christie, Carson, Christian Conservatives or Clinton.

We need to get out and vote at the (D) primary.

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/

[suneday11]

http://map.berniesanders.com/?source=homepage_organize#zipcode=&distance=50&eventtype=R&eventtype=CW&eventtype=O&eventtype=D&eventtype=CV&eventtype=B&eventtype=CPOOL&eventtype=RV&eventtype=E&daterange=all-events&sort=distance

 

There is a volunteer organization event at the avenue cafe in lansing on tuesday. Bernie will also be at EMU in ypsi on Monday. I suggest doing more than voting in the primary to give bernie a shot. We have poor turnout often and something as simple as phone banking has a huge impact on turnout

[imiubu]

Someone want to pick me up?  Too cold to take the bus after sundown

[beourbud]

Come on down to Eastern Michigan University. 2:30pm today!

 

There are Dems and there are fknrepublicans , and Then There's Bernie!

 

The crowds are huge at Bernie Rallies.

 

Something establishment republicans and democrats can only dream of.

 

Bernie Sanders , the People's Choice!

Edited February 15, 2016 by beourbud

[garyfisher]

im feelin the fracking bern!

[t-pain]

i'd question the headline, does sanders' surge really mark a public outrage with a rigged system?

 

or does it only indicate that sanders is a candidate that is better than the rest?

 

i think we would see other indications of rigged system outrage. unless they are talking specifically about wall street ? but "occupy" would be the mark i'd say.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign is something that we have never seen: a candidate for president who is relying on small contributions from millions of supporters rather than corporate money and successfully challenging someone who has all the power and money of the Democratic Party establishment.

this is obviously false, ron paul was relying on small contributions from millions of supporters. he set records in 2008 for raising internet contributions.

 

weak sauce article but whatever i'm just a grouch.

[beourbud]

i'd question the headline, does sanders' surge really mark a public outrage with a rigged system?

or does it only indicate that sanders is a candidate that is better than the rest?

i think we would see other indications of rigged system outrage. unless they are talking specifically about wall street ? but "occupy" would be the mark i'd say.

 

this is obviously false, ron paul was relying on small contributions from millions of supporters. he set records in 2008 for raising internet contributions.

weak sauce article but whatever i'm just a grouch.

Thinking it is not an either or but a both.

When it comes to resonating with We the People. Bernie is In Tune

Timing is everything,

It's time!

Bernie Sanders 2016

Edited February 16, 2016 by beourbud