Bernie Sanders Speech 2/14/1998

radical Republican bodies, wealthy people contributing huge sums of money. So the dynamics of what democracy is becoming in America is number one, vast majority of people do not have a clue about what's going on. Number two, most people don't vote, including the people mostly. And number three, the people who have the money call the tomb increasingly in both political parties. Now, maybe these people who contribute $50,000 to play in the fundraiser do it out of their civic responsibility. Maybe they do, but I think they'll be more belie. Clearly, the reason they do that is to influence the political process and to gain access and to be able to have an agenda which represents their needs. Now, I can assure you these guys know the $50,000 plate fundraising business, what they're not talking about is the need for a national healthare system for raising the minimum wage or protecting the environment. Trust me, they're not talking about that. What they're talking about is how millionaires can make even more money, how corporations can pay even less taxes, how corporations can pollute our environment even more, and so forth. That's what they talk about. And obviously they have been very successful because that is what has been happening in this country for the last many years. So of all of the issues that concern and there are many all the issues that I'm going to talk about tonight the most important struggle that we face and relevant to every other issue is the preservation of democracy and the need to convert the presently dormant system into a vibrant democracy where we have 70 or 80% of the people voting where we have young people actively involved in the political process where we have serious political disord source in our media, in our political uh arenas all over this country. Now, just stop for a moment and think what America would look like if we had a voter turnout of 70 or 80% which is what we exist in certain European countries of what it would mean for the young people if they were seriously talking about the political issues facing our country. We would be a very very different country than we are today. What's going on in Washington and Sacramento would be very, very different. Now, it ain't easy to make that change, but I trust that all you being here tonight working with the various restaurants here in San Diego understand the need to bring about that change to reach out to working people to middle class people to young people to explain to them the relevance of politics in their lives and all of the issues that we face. That's the issue I think we've got to focus much most of our energy on. Now the second issue that I want to touch on is an issue that is also not talked about. And one of the characteristics of contemporary American politics is that in general the most important issues are not talked about. The least important issues are talked about whole life. Monica Lewitzky everybody is familiar with in America. We're all familiar with that. We're all familiar with OJ Simpson. We know everything that we've ever wanted to know about the late Diana and so forth and so on. But on issues such as distribution of wealth. I would say majority of American people have even clue what that concept means. What does it mean? What are we talking about? So let's talk about it just a little bit. Ultimately, after all is said and done in terms of economics, the question comes out as to who wins and who loses. You know, you have the San Diego Chargers here at the end of the game. They either won, they lost, or they tied. It's pretty clear. Basketball, you win, you lose. But what happens in economics? Well, roughly speaking, the same thing happens. Some people win, some people lose. Well, who is winning in America? Who's losing in America? what's been going on in the last 20 or 25 years. But for a start, ultimately in economics, what ends up happening is you end up accumulating wealth. Or is as often the case, you don't accumulate wealth. In America today, we have by far, not even close, the most uneven distribution of wealth and income in the entire world. Now when we were kids and we were in elementary school and high school, they all taught us about the class society that existed in Great Britain. You know, kings and queens and boos and lords and all these funny titles. You know these guys have all very stuffy. What was that television program upstairs society? But let me break the bad news. The distribution of wealth in England is much fairer today than it is in the United States of the current. We now have a worse distribution. We have a situation in which 1% of the population owns 42% of the wealth. Got that? 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 90%. Now, last year, just to give you an example of what's going on in America, last year, Bill Gates, the owner and founder of Microsoft, had a very good very Bill Gates increased his wealth in one year by about 23 billion. That's a big $23 billion. To put that into perspective, you could take about 25 million middle class not middle class workers and take all of their increase income of that year and it will be less than what Bill Gates saw as an increase in his wealth in Okay. So what goes on in America today is that we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires. We have seen in recent years the middle class shrink and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world. So on one hand a growth in millionaires in billionaires and on the other hand children living in utter poverty. Furthermore for the middle class in the midst of some of you have heard all of you have heard that the United States is enjoying the great economic boom right? You've heard that every day. You hear that from the newspapers. There was an article. I remember there was an article recently, a couple months ago. Guy said, "Who can we possibly give credit to for this extraordinary economic?" Is it Gaming? >> Is it President Clinton? >> I mean, who has this is unbelievable. These minds are so good. Will we ever see them again? >> And then there was the television commentator was recently talking about your average American family with $100,000 a year ago. and on and on it goes. Okay, so they keep talking, the president keeps talking about this economic. Now, what's going on in the economic pool? Are there some things that are good? Very clearly there are. Unemployment is lower today than it was 7 years ago. That's good. Inflation is low. States and cities and the federal government are bringing in a whole lot of money which is reducing deficits. All of that is very, very good. But what they forget to ask when they talk about an economic boom, it seems to me is the simple question, what's happening to the average middle class? Right? It would seem to me that common sense would suggest that if you're having a home, the person in the middle class would be making more money, would be working fewer hours, would be having better healthcare, would be having more opportunity to send his or her kid to college, better child care, more time for vacation, and so forth and so on. Well, if you look at economics from that perspective, then you find that most people are not boomed. That in fact, the average American today is working longer hours for lower wages. The average American is making less money today than before the so-called economic boom began. Funny kind of economic boom. Last year in the midst of the economic boom, the average male worker actually ended up making less money than the year before women made more money. Okay. So bottom line is that in the last 25 years the real wages inflation accounting for wages the average American worker has gone down. Distribution of wealth has become more and more unfair. More children living in poverty. More people without health insurance harder to get to pay for college education. Doesn't sound like an economic boom for the middle class. On the other hand, we must confess that the people on top, we have to give them that are in fact. We have found those. We have searched far and wide. It is not the lower income people, not the middle class. It is our friends at the top. And we can see them. They are real boom. Now last year for example, the CEOs of major American corporations saw a 56% increase in their compensation. That, my friends, is a boom. That is really good. At the same time, the average American workers are about 3% increase. That's CEOs of large corporations now earn over 200 times what their workers are making. I don't know if I would call that a boom. I would say that's pretty greedy, pretty selfish. In 1960, that gap was 12 to1. Now it's over 200 to one. So the bottom line of the current economic period is that the people on top they never in American history have a civil at least not since the 1920s. They are really making out on standards. They control large degree both political parties and so forth and so on making all kinds of money but the middle class is continuing to hurt very badly. I can remember Bob Filman can remember. Many of you can remember and it's important to remember these things. When some of us were growing up around 56, it was assumed to be a natural thing that one bread winner, usually the man, in a family, could support the entire family by working 40 hours a week. Remember that? >> I know that seems like ancient history, right? Can you imagine that? One person working 40 hours a week, bringing in enough money to take care of the kids and the family, but obviously that's ancient history. That doesn't go on anymore in my state. You know, people don't work one job. People don't work two jobs. You have people working three jobs. You have people working 60, 70, 80 hours a week. On average, as a nation, we now work 160 hours a year more than we did 20 years ago. That means over time, two jobs. And you hear it all over the place. You hear me, I'm working 60 hours a week. I'm working 70 hours a week. Friends, that is not natural. They fought for the 40. They fought for the 48 hour work week. What? The turn of the century? A little later than that. So in the early 1900s, we had a 40-hour work week. Now we have a 60 hour work week. I'm not sure what what is booming about that. So I think we should put all the economics into perspective. Focus on what's happening for the middle class. Ask the hard questions. We'll discuss that later why, but to acknowledge that the middle class is not moving. Millions of people are hurting and we got to change that situation. Third issue I want to touch upon briefly again hardly ever discussed and hardly ever discussed for obvious reasons is corporate control over the media. It's hardly on the agenda to be discussed but it is very very important. When the Soviet Union was alive and well, all of the public on television always used to laugh about the media of the Soviet Union. It was very very funny. They made the point which was true that the Soviet Union could had many newspapers. Each of the towns and cities had a newspaper, radio station, the television stations. The only problem was that all of the media was controlled by either the communist party or the Soviet Union or the government of the Soviet Union. That was it. So you have all of the newspapers, all of the radio stations. The problem is they all have party line. That is that exactly the same as what's going on in the United States today? No, it is not. There are alternative points of view that can compare of publications which have you know very different perspectives. We have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But having said that if you look at how the average American gets his or her news, it becomes pretty scary. Most people get their news from television. NBC is owned by General Electric. CBS is owned by Westinghouse. ABC is owned by Disney. Fox television is owned by Rubet Murdoch, a right-wing billionaire. So basically, most Americans are getting their news from television from a very strong corporate filter. And then it's not only television, it's radio, it is book publishing, it is magazines. go to food shop and you'll see zillions of magazines, but then you end up finding out who publishes the magazines and you find out there are not all that many publishers. So, it is of great concern to me that we have fewer and fewer people controlling the flow of information in America. Now, how does that manifest itself? How does that manifest itself? Well, it manifests itself in terms of what we end up seeing and hearing and reading about. In my view, it is not an accident that we heard more about the OJ Simpson trial than we ever wanted. It's not an accident that we hear about Monica Lewinsky or the Super Bowl or the NCAA fired for and all of this stuff over and over and over again when at the same time there are whole elements of human discourse that we hear virtually nothing about. How often do we hear about distribution of wealth in America? How often do we hear about the role that trade unions, for example, we're delighted to be here in trade union hall tonight? The trade unions, more than any other institution in America, help create the middle class, help protect the middle class. Do they have the problems? Of course they do. But they have been the backbone of the struggle to create a strong middle class in America. Have you ever seen Have you ever seen once in prime time television one program talking about the role that unions have played to make a better country for working people? You haven't seen that program 13 million people in the AFLCI alone. But somehow you don't see that. You turn on public so-called public television and I use so-called very strongly because that is also largely controlled by the corporate media. Wall Street Review and how to make millions of the stock market and how to manage this one program dealing with the needs of working people. And I've got minority people on that are also Republicans for some strange reason. So what you have in the television is the focus. They focus issues on where they want and by and large that focus does not deal with the reality of the average American worker. How many programs do you see which talk about how we can build a political movement to get working people power in country? If you ever saw that on television, you probably dropped dead and said, "What's going on?" Smack the television must be from laws. I mean, you'll be unheard unheard for a fine fine television program, you know, for 60 minutes. This is how working people can organize and take political power. Brought to you by General Electric. Not going to happen. Not going to happen. But it is a very very important issue because the bottom line is that what television does is trivialize the political process. It suggests that anybody who's really involved in politics is a crook or a dummy or or or a fool. Uh and the message gets out. It gets out I think to young people that uh that they really should not be involved. They really should not be involved. They should be drinking Budweiser beer going off to Florida and partying and and entrepreneuring and doing all of these things. Uh but they should not be paying attention to what's going on in their world and trying to determine how they can make uh a better world. So it is an issue that we have got to politicize. Corporate control over the media is as important a political issue as is homelessness, as is racial discrimination, uh as is the trade or many other issues. And I would hope you recognize it as a political issue. The television networks are not neutral, giving you information for you to debate and digest. They are owned by corporate interests and they play a role in protecting and promoting a corporate agenda and they should be seen that way and they should be protested and we've got to figure out a way how to deal with that, how to strengthen an alternative medium. So, not easy stuff, but I think that's an issue that we've got to work with. I want to say a few words uh about an issue that I've become recently involved in. Uh and it started off with the Asian bailout, but then it's got me deeper and deeper into the IMF uh and into the whole issue of the global economy, which is an issue that we also need to understand a lot better. Uh a word on the Asian mail. Uh as you know uh the IMF says that they bailed out the nations in Asia that were suffering severe economic problems. Uh more to the truth, the IMF has bailed out large multi-million dollar banks who made a fortune doing business in Asia uh and then when their loans went sour went running to the United States Congress for their welfare checks. Uh, and some of us think that especially in the Gingri climate when Bob and I have heard so much and you all have heard so much about personal responsibility and the need for those welfare moms to stand up on their own two feet and to finally understand that the United States government can't do it all for us anymore. If you're old and you can't afford your prescription drugs, don't come running to the United States government. If you're a mom trying to bring up your low-inccome kids, don't come running to the United States government. But if you're the Chase Manhattan bank, >> hey, there's the door. You come right in and we're ready to give you $18 billion. But this is not only corporate welfare and it's worse. It's not only folks who have made huge sums of money investing in Asia now that they've lost the money want more back. It's even worse than that. And I don't claim to be the world's greatest expert, but let me just share a few thoughts with you. Some of you may know that one of the demands that the IMF and some of our conservative friends are making to the Asian economies is they're saying you've got to open up your economies. You know, you can't hold those old ways of doing business. So what's going on right now as we speak in Korea and other countries is many large American corporate interests are now moving into those countries and are buying banks and businesses at bargain basement prices. So what you're seeing now is an enormously strong move by American capital to take over much of the industry and businesses in those countries. And there's a growing resentment because these people are saying, "Wait, wait a second. These banks lend us all this money. Then we couldn't repay the money. Then they get back all of the money they lend from their own government. And now is one of the conditions for us to get the loans to pay them back. We've got to open up our economy and they buy our industries at very low prices." Bad stuff. And then that takes you to the whole role of the IMF. How many people have some familiarity with the IMF? They bought something. When I was in Congress, when I first got in, I was amazed that the average member of Congress, and I don't get to be an expert, knew very, very little about the IF. In fact, you talk to some good people say, "Oh, oh yeah, the IMF is helping poor people around the world." That was And I'm on the committee that deals with this stuff. People had a clue. So, what's going on with the IMF? Well, if you check the record, and this is an interesting point, >> if you check the record about what the IMF has done in country after country, they put in what they call their uh structural adjustment programs, the SAPs. And what these structural adjustment programs do is tell the countries number one, they have to open up their markets and quote unquote liberalize. Number two, there's foreign investment coming in. And number two, they've got to cut back on their programs that go to subsidize food, housing, healthcare, education, so their people become more miserable. And three, they've got to export more so they get the currency to pay back the loans that have started this whole business. Now, it's an interesting thing. I mentioned a moment ago that the middle class and the working class of this country have seen a sign significant decline in their standard of living in the last 20 years. Interestingly enough, take a look at what's happening around the world in this new global economy which we are told is going to pave the way for freedom and justice and economic security for every man, woman, and child on this planet. Take a deep breath and think about it. In America, huge gap between the rich and the poor declining middle class, people working longer hours and low wages. What about Latin America which has had all of the benefits of structural adjustment for a number of years. Significant increase in poverty and misery in Latin America. Mexico just one case in point where as you know in recent years unemployment is up, wages are down, child poverty significantly increased, million, not millions but many thousands of small businesses driven into also one of the benefits of the recent uh bailout so-called bailout in Mexico. Canada is hurt as well. North America is not doing well in the global economy. Well, North America is not doing well. Latin America is not doing well. Let's go over to Europe. How's Europe doing? Well, you look in Europe, what do you find? You find unemployment very, very high, 12%, France, Germany. You find that the benefits that the workers in Europe had struggled for for so many years, national healthcare, long vacation periods, good wages are being undermined every single day. Large demonstrations in France and Germany to try to protect those benefits. So the standard of living of work is in Europe is like Swed which have done so much under socialists has had to cut back many of their programs as well. Well global economy is not working so well for Europe. What about Africa? Well Africa as you know has been an economic disaster. It is worsening. I didn't want to go this is so sad. I was over in Africa a couple of months ago. As poor as those countries are under the IMF they've been forced to cut back on healthcare on education. You talk to people in some of these countries where they have to bring their own blankets to get into the hospital where drugs used to be provided for them. There are no drugs now drugs. They have to pay $105 for a drug. They can't afford that. That's could be a billion dollars. Terrible economic misery in Africa. The projection is it is going to get worse. And then finally we come to Asia. And Asia for years had been the model. policy. The IMF just a year ago is telling us how wonderful the economic development programs were in Korea and Thailand and Indonesia. But now, as you know, those countries are in economic meltdown, tremendous increase in unemployment. Wages are going down, cutbacks of all their programs. It's going to be enormous amount of social unrest in Asia. So, you got North America, you got South America, you got Europe, you got Africa, you got Asia. I don't know what's going on in Australia, but you got most of the world that is not doing well in the global economy. You know, if in fact, you know, we as Americans would not be happy if our standard of living was going down, we looked around the rest of the world and said, "Well, gee, at least in Latin America, Africa, Asian, most poor countries, they're going up a happy." So if the global economy is not working in any continent on the planet, for whom is it working? Is it working for somebody? Yeah, it is. And then you look at these horrible statistics that come out of Africa, that come out of Latin America where countries are paying in some cases 10 times more in debt repayment to the bloody corporate banks than they are spending on education for their own people. So what you got now is an extraordinary situation where you have a global economy which the IMF itself controls dozens and dozens of countries where a handful of corporations make or break the economies of many other countries. You have a casino type world economy where money comes in, money comes out, countries and people suffer and small numbers of people control what happens. Now what does democracy mean? What does democracy mean in Korea? If in fact the IMF can dictate major economic programs in that country. What does that say about their democracy? It says that the banks have significant influence of what goes on in their countries far more than their own democratically elected leaders. So I think and I say this without being you know national economist. I say that it's important that we learn about the global economy. It's important that we understand and not accept the argument that gee in the United States we have got to be more competitive with China. Gee, that's what we have to do because you know the Chinese people are being forced to work for 20 cents an hour now. We cannot beat that. Are we prepared to go to 15 cents an hour? We can do it. >> We can do it. Mexico, I was over in Mexico a couple months ago seeing people working the door at 70 cents an hour. You ready to go now? 50 cents an hour. Those companies will reinvest in here. We can get them back 50 cents an hour. Now, somebody was mentioning before about bailout. I think you were mentioning about bailing out billionaire sports, right? And it's the same game that's played in the United States. You have these companies that go to the governor of Vermont. They go to the governor of California and they say, "Listen, we are thinking of going somewhere, maybe to Vermont, maybe to California. What are you going to do for us? How much are you going to pay for those jobs? What kind of welfare are you going to do? And they have Iran competing against California. They have the United States competing against Mexico. They literally now Mexico very concerned. Latin America's concerned about competition from Asia where labor is even more. And that's what they got. They got a game where poor people all over the world are cutting each other's throats so that the guys on top make more and more money. And that's an issue that is not discussed, not discussed much in the United States Congress, certainly not discussed much in the media, and deserves a lot of discussion. Bottom line is that in a world with all of this new technology, you know, you hear about on television, everything about all this new technology, this extraordinary technology out there. Why isn't the standard of living of people all over the world going up rather than going down? Why aren't people working fewer hours rather than longer hours? Why aren't people having better health care rather than worse healthare? These are issues that we've got to talk about. And I think the issue has to do with relatively small numbers of people who now not only control the economy of the United States but control much of the economies of countries throughout the world. Issue we have to engage. The last point that I want to make, happy to answer any questions that that people may have and that deals with what's going on in Iraq right now. Uh I think we should make no mistake about the fact that Saddam Hussein is a very very bad news guy and what he has done to the people of his own country is a horror. Uh this is a man who has used poison gas. This is a man who's invaded other countries. This man who has killed people who have attempted to rest political power from him. This is a tyrant of the worst kind. However, having said that, I think and I'm deeply concerned about the president's movement toward unilateral military action against Iraq. I think that that IS I think it's wrong for a number of reasons. I think it's wrong because if we want to get rid of Saddam Hussein, if we want Iraq to become the democratic country, I think it is possible and I'm, you know, I could be wrong and I don't think anyone knows all, you know, has any magical answers, but I think that by wrecking more havoc on the people of Iraq could well lead to a solidification and an increase in his political power language because all he has to do is say, "I'm trying to defend you. we have these big bad Americans dropping bombs from all over the place. So I think if the goal is to get rid of Saddam Hussein that may not be the best way to do it. The second issue which probably concerns me even more than this and why I opposed strongly Gulf War in 1991 is the following. You know, when the cold war ended, there was a hope that many people had throughout the world really did that maybe after 50 years of pouring huge sums of money into arms that maybe we can now start reinvesting in healthcare and education and human needs all over the world, not just into the United States. And that maybe also we can in given the fact that thank God there was never a major war between the United States and the Soviet Union communism and capitalism that maybe the world can learn to solve its problems in ways other than through violence. You know violence is more than something that has plagued humanity for thousands and thousands of years. And maybe the world is learning something. Maybe we can strengthen the United Nations, have people come together, yell and scream at each other, but work things out peacefully through voting rather than killing each other. And that's why one of the reasons why I opposed the Gulf War because I thought we could have gotten Iraq out of Kuwait without that type of violence. And I I fear very much that when the president says he wants to he wants to implement and make sure that Saddam Hussein uh abides by as he should the UN resolution which calls for inspections uh of chemical, biological and nuclear facilities. And I believe that that's absolutely appropriate. The president is right in making that demand. But the president now does not have will not have United Nations behind him. So what you're saying now is in a sense the United States acting unilaterally to get United Nation law enforcement. But the United Nations is not involved in that process. And I think then what happens is the signal goes out to the whole world. that goes out to Russia and to China and to France and any other country that when you feel you have a right to go to war, if you think you have a good reason, you can go to war. You don't have to come to the United Nations. You don't have to have international agreement, but if you think you have a cause, you can go to war. So the fact that the United States is going to war essentially with Great Britain and a few other countries unilaterally without the support of the United Nations is also the the great uh concern to me. And lastly, I become nervous again with the political instability that this action the president is contemplating is bringing about the the re the growth in tension with with Russia, the increased instability in the Middle East right now. There are harsh words that are going on between uh PLO and Israel and we have heard for many many years. And I think when you just start that process all over the world, people will become more warlike and and less prepared to talk to each other. So I hope that it may well be I mean I think what we can say for President Clinton unlike some of his predecessors he's been president for is that he has not been a warlike president. He has shown with some exceptions a lot of restraint. He hasn't invaded too many countries lately unlike his predecessors. Uh and I hope and it may well be by the way it may well be and it would not suffice that maybe what he is doing is really trying to push Saddam push down and scare Saddam's does open up and allow the UN inspectors to do their job and I hope to God that is the case. Uh but I would be very concerned if they could allow action and I hope that the president does that. So that's the end of my speech and I thank you very much for your indulgence and we HAVE THERE ARE pieces of paper going around for questions that you might write for the congressman. You can see why we need to keep Bernie Sanders in the Congress with such a clear statement. While we are collecting those questions, let me just say the speech you just heard is not one that's calculated to raise vast sums of money by the pack community, as we call it, to fund campaigns. We all have to run for office every 2 years. If you want to help Bernie run for office, there are campaign uh envelopes in the back. He relies on average people giving average sums of money for his campaigns as opposed to a few people giving large sums of money. So, if you can help out there, it would be greatly appreciated. By the way, if you live in my district, don't I'm not asking for money. I need 3,000 signatures to get on the ballot. So see me before you leave tonight. I have some petitions I would like you to sign. You don't have to give me a check. I just need your signature on my petition. You have to live in my district. And under the new rules, you you can be uh just register to vote. Doesn't matter what party or what lack of party you're in. Let me also say about the groups that have sponsored this. I think we all know from recent history, even though Bernie and I feel we are great important people as members of Congress, when it came to enlarging the civil rights of Americans who were not white, the Congress did not take the lead. It was the people of America. And when it came to questioning the Vietnam War, it was not the US Congress that took the lead. It was the American people who got organized. And when it comes to campaign finance reform and some of the other issues that Bernie Sanders talked about tonight, it's not going to be the Congress that basically is going to be the American people. And we have to organize the American people through local grassroots activity. And that's the exact activity that the groups here tonight are involved in. So, please sign up and join and participate with the groups that are sponsoring Bernie Sanders tonight. Read the San Diego Review. You can subscribe in the back. Join San Diego Citizens Action. Mel Shapiro will explain what is going on there. Join the first chapter in a local community of the progressive caucus and work for the agenda that Bernie Sanders uh laid out tonight. and I am working with him to uh implement. So, please join the grassroots movement. That's what's going to change the American Congress and help Bernie Sanders and me talk about these things in the Congress. Uh lastly, buy Bernie's book at at the uh Groundworks bookstore. And uh please uh if you heard anything of the significance of what Bernie Sanders said tonight, join these local groups and get involved locally. To quote a Democrat, if my name tip Tip O'Neal, former speaker of the house, said all politics is local. He meant it in a little different way than we're talking about tonight, but it's local organizing that will affect the national agenda. So, please get involved. Paul, you're going to organize questions. Thank you. Before we take a very short break through the questions, if you have any more questions, make sure you write them down and give them to to Vivian. Uh, you know, my two mentors are Joe Stern who's doing this tomorrow and some of you may remember Victor Sal, the Catholic priest, the tortilla priest. So, we have a can I heard this from Victor circulating out here and u I know the religious right to tithe 10%. I know that progressives tonight are going to help support this event and pay for the winal and start something new along progressives. So, we have some free cookies that hopefully help us support the side. Someone ripped off our coffee machines. So, there's some sodas I believe and the door will open. Let's keep to about 10 10 15 minutes. Heat. Heat. Looks like we have more questions. Question. What can you do about the WTO World Trade Organization that corporations have to turn protective cause of labor requirements in democratic countries into reasons for relief from strikes? Uh that's an issue we've had some success on. But the but the questioner most people believe the WTO is the referee for the for gas. Uh and there's great concern is that socal free trade laws can override local laws of environmental or labor protection that has already happened right now. For example, there's a war in Massachusetts which would prohibit uh businesses that are doing business under the dictation in Burma from bidding on state contracts in Massachusetts. Vermont is considering such a law. A number of communities actually like our cities in California have that law. Uh countries have gone before the WTO to say that that is in violation of GAP. uh we have passed legislation to managed to get something passed which begins to address the issues. But this touches on this touches on the whole issue another aspect of the global economy that is the economy of the United States. It would seem to me to be a tremendous blow against grassroots democracy and what government is supposed to be about for the WTO in Switzerland, Geneva to be able to say that the state of California cannot pass environmental legislation that it felt was appropriate that could not pass legislation to protect our dairy farms which we have done. So that is an issue of enormous significance. We've had a little bit of success but there's a long way that has to go. That takes us to the whole trade issues. Uh question, what will you do to get the DoD and the VA to start treating those golf vets who are infected with micropplasma u ironically Bob Fner is doing a lot of work on that issue. I was in a meeting with Bob in his office today with the Nicholson's two doctors who are working on the issue. Bob and I have both been working a lot hard on the whole issue of Gulf of War illness and this touches on it. A bottom line of fact that the VA have done an abysmal job and abysmal job dealing with Gulf War illness. I invite you to see that the research gets taken out of the VA and about 70,000 Americans who are sick today. They're not getting treated and the VA after 6 years still doesn't know uh the cause of their illness. Very serious problem. Uh question. Would you support laws that compel people to vote? You know, that's an interesting issue. You know, what countries would do that, by the way? >> What countries do that question? Australia does. Does it work in Australia? >> Yeah. You know, if I when I've been asked this in the past, my initial thought is no, but I'm not so sure. I mean, some of you know I could at least it would raise the issue perhaps it would maybe raise the issue about what voting is about Asian people about their democratic rights. Certainly not the direction that you would like to go but given what's going on here uh we might want to question what oh I see one guy five questions here let's read all his or her questions what would you do to redistribute your common assets in America well I think basically progressive income tax. And when I have a wife, I'm imposing a tax on wealth. So all of you, all of you who have access to a million wall, watch out. S is coming for you. Okay. What are you doing to either combat or monitor the welfare reform act in your state or nationally? Uh it's an issue that folks in Vermont uh are paying a lot of attention to. We are concerned about the number of children who would lose their benefits. And in Vermont, I I can't believe I personally believe that in Vermont, we have a number of people who are looking at certainly an issue that we've got very closely nationally. I think well it's a great approach. How do we stop the US from bombing Iraq? Uh I think people should move pretty quickly and think about demonstrations. I think you know as the president has to make up his mind a lot of things that he has got to consider. I think if he feels that the American people um have real reservations about that and he'll be just another argument for those people within his administration who are not sympathetic to the bomb. They're all those people. So they need some support. The president, you know, calculates these things. What do you gain, what you lose? And if there are millions of Americans who are expressing their views, uh he will be less likely to do. I know that in my local newspaper today, this was faxed to me. There was a whole page full of uh letters in opposition. The calls that are coming into my office are running 50 to one. Of course, that's the more culture, but they were 49 to1 against I don't think that necessarily reflects the whole country. Uh how the question is how do you get publicly financed campaigns that I certainly did not legislation did that we're proud of legislation. I think we have created a climate in the state of Vermont that uh we have enough progressives in the legislation to say we don't want wealthy people by violations. We pass the most progressive campaign of financial reform in the country. Um we know the San Diego chapter of California for Disability Rights would like to thank Boba for attending the 77 meeting and protesting against Social Security's abuse of people with disabilities. I think I talked to a gentleman who wrote that. He makes a very good point is that very often what the Social Security Administration does is deny people with disabilities then they appeal and most of the times they appeal but people only appeal most of the times maybe they should not deny disabilities in the first place. uh that touches on an issue of being discussed before tonight. I wanted to very briefly mention the issue of social security in general. There is a savage multi-billion dollar effort on the way to destroy the social security system. >> And every day we turn off the television all year about the social security crisis, right? Not telling the social security system, right? Let me give you a brief speech about the social security license. So, you ready? It's a short speech. There is no crisis. This year, the Social Security system had a $73 billion surplus. 73 billion more came in than went out. No matter the hell of a crisis, Social Security will be able, it has a $500 billion trust fund. It will be able to pay out all benefits to all qualified Americans, all of those who went back to the benefits every meal for the next 30 years. Now, do we have to make changes so that our children and grandchildren will get them? Yeah, we don't. Are fewer people going to be working to support more people who are older? Yeah. So, we have to make changes. No, we do. We always do. One fear is that I would propose is right now as you all know if somebody makes a million dollars and somebody makes 65,000 they both pay the same amount to the social security trust. So it's a pretty regressive mechanism for funding. If we lifted that ceiling of 65,000, some more money came in. We also make what about collecting tax incentives back from companies before letting them take their jobs abroad. Give a tax break to companies opening jobs in the cities. That's a very good idea and some of us are working on that. That has to do what we know some of us are saying is that we spend in this country $125 billion in foreign welfare and a lot of that money if you believe it really goes to companies with this running all over the third world exploiting people there not investing in America. So I think what we should do is say that those companies that are just going to China and all over the place they're not going to get tax breaks. those companies that want to reinvest in America will get tax breaks. So I think that makes a lot of sense. How would the Congress and political process react if we did have a 70 80% voter turnout? Can the people's real needs and issues still be addressed? Would the system be manipulated with the real citizen input? All I can say is is this. I think that when poor people vote, and they are largely disenfranchised now, my suspicion is they're going to vote for issues like national healthcare, higher minimum wage, child care, affordable housing, and all of those issues. And if they are involved in the process of voting for their own needs, the likelihood is you're going to have a far more progressive Congress than what you have right now. Doesn't mean to say everything we want. No. But I think the Congress will be a lot better when you have 37% of the people voting and wealthy people cause a lot of questions. It's a very intellectual group in San Diego. Would you ever consider flying at the airport? True. Uh, question. At a time when practically every person running for public office promises to get quote unquote special interests out of office, how does a truly progressive candidate distinguish him or herself from other candidates who spew the same rhetoric? How does a truly progressive candidate get around the cynicism of the people about this kind of special interest rhetoric? It's a good question. Um, you know, I propose this question. Everybody who runs your office talks about campaign finance reform. Nobody does. Nuke Gingri talks about campaign finance. He doesn't he really doesn't. And N is, you know, in some ways I like Duke because he's pretty straightforward when he says what he makes. And when Nuke talks about campaign finance response, the point that he makes, his point, this is what he says. He says, "The problem today is there is not enough money in politics." And then he proceeds to talk about how much money we spend on cat food and dogs and how a fraction of that goes into the political process. The American wants we can certainly contribute more money process. So new things we need more money and we should you know make that easy to raise you know right now there's a max of 2,000 a person spend an individual candidate or those who want to raise that higher and higher. I think the, you know, all politicians who are smart have the record. I mean, they're pretty good. And in California, we understand as I understand, you know, much of politics takes place in 32nd television. So, these people will never go to, you know, there'll probably be running the state office who've gone to less political meetings in California than I have cuz I've been to at least one. You know, they put ads on television all the time. Uh, and I think, you know, the bottom line of all of that is that citizens have got to know what the important issues are. And if your politicians are speaking to them, support it. And if they're not, come don't support them. They will talk to you about everything under the sun except the real issue, some of which we're talking about today. Do you believe in a fair distribution of wealth? You raise about most politicians, they don't know what the hell you're talking about. You know, do you believe in a national healthare system? Yes or no. Do you believe we raised the minimum wage? Do you believe you strongly find protection? You believe in protecting women's rights and so forth. So I think we have got to be very specific and if candidates are not prepared to deal with specificity and to generalities then you assume they're not going to vote for you on the real issues of the matter. And I think citizens should be more aggressive too. We should take it from the politicians except but I think the issue should be is listen you come to us every two years you want our votes these are our concerns now and if you don't address them don't come to us in November of any number of years uh what do you think a scenario about Asian financial bailout may also be applicable to Americans and average people who do their 401ks mutual funds and variable uh annuities have uh caused the stock market to go into the while in science and corporations are liquidating and wash out who's going to buy our products if purchases uh standards of compensation is in reality declining green span was correct we are really in the deflationary economy I think I don't usually agree with green uh I think but I again you know we don't have I get all of these issues. Um what our Republican friends will say, what people will say which which has truth to it is that if we don't protect Asia and the American stock market will go down and all people who have investments in the stock market, including some middle class people, will be hurt. I think we've got to think that through a little bit and I think we do have to nothing but I suggest and I suggest to you that we ignore what's going on in Asia. what's going on in Asia is very important. But I think there are other ways to protect the people of Asia. There are other ways to make sure that they purchase products than the current client has scenario. And that's what I was was talking about. Alan Griezmann is the word. I don't usually go around attacking people personally. You know, I just thought it's not respons. And I think what we should ask ourselves and talk something about political systems why disagree with respect in the political process. Alan Greenb is a right-wing republic. That is not my opinion. That is a fact. Alan Greenspan was active in Ronald Reagan's campaigns and he this is what I said to him. He didn't deny him. It's a fact. Alan Greenspan has contributed to Jesse Jones's campaigns. He didn't know that. It's true. somebody in my office in excellent research and be founded by a measure of conscious spending modernization. So the interesting point is in my viewman has spent much of his political career protecting corporate America in the very green in responding to a question for me said he does not believe in raising the minimum wage. Greenspan believes in zero um tax on capital. Um Greenspan uh his whole career has been to protect big money interest. We should ask ourselves how a guy like that ends up head of the Federal Reserve to be appointed by Democratic president. Uh, you said you were copy of casualties review congressional investigation of the FDA. A gentleman spoke to me about that concern. a lot of concerns about the FDA and how uh the drugs that are approved and the drugs that are not approved end up and the very expensive process that small uh inventors or doctors have to go through to get their drug onto the market and the fact that the process right now really benefits the large pharmaceutical companies I think that's true that's an issue that some of us are working on. We think it seems to me there's been an explosion in interest in alternative health and different type of of protocols medical protocols other than what the medical establishment gives us. Some of us working that process please comment on the multilateral agreement on investment and tell us what the status is of this agreement uh at this time. Uh somebody hope you know something about it. the Clinton administration is going to ease up and not go forward on that which is a good thing. It's just not a good agreement and it's part of this global economy uh and allowing corporations to have freedom to do than even one in any country on earth. Uh individuals who are individuals etc responsible for the US policy toward Iraq. I don't believe this is the president's policy. US imperialism proceeds administration. Um well certainly that's right what has been going on has been going on for many years the president did not Clinton doesn't criticism is implicated that's a long story I mean I think there are a lot of factors in be too long uh it is wonderful to have at least one socialist who goes congress will not take a new party labor party it's a freedom type body to replace the undemocratic democrats Will you help build that point? Uh, no. I'm not going to help build that. Uh, and the reason is that I made a decision in a bond with the people of Vermont a number of years ago. They were very kind like the first independent in Congress 40 years and my opponents said that Bernie Sanders like that he's going to go around the country starting a third party. told people in the month that I be the best congressman that I could be for the people and I'm not going to go around the country building a third party. So I'm here in San Diego tonight building a third party. I think we need an alternative party. I think those bodies well labor party doing a new party or doing body instances really good work. Uh but I myself just I don't have the energy. I work very hard. It's hard to do what I do. I've got to represent my state. I'm not going to be that person. Uh but if the future for socialism in the world has the fall of communism, given capitalism, cod to rear its ugly head, I would say the latter is is true. Uh very few of us were defenders of communism, but I think with the class of the Soviet Union uh big money interests are just going all over the world as very fast as they can. On the other hand, on the other hand, we should be mindful that France is a socialist government, that Great Britain has a conservative democratic socialist government, his candidate, Sweden has a socialist government. So, I think uh there seems to be a resurgence of leftwing thinking around the world. I think when when the impact of globalization uh is felt by people over the world throughout the world and you can see more progressive movements. Uh it's been said no political system has ever been dramatically changed from within that system. Keeping that in mind the fact that political parties are groups of likeminded people who try to capture control of government. Do you think that citizen activists should focus on creating and nurturing viable alternative bodies or that they should invest more energy into working within the existing system in hopes that change might actually occur? I would just pick up a point that Bob Fner made a few moments ago is that um real change has always occurred at the grassroots level whether it's been changes labor law the rights of working people uh minorities civil rights movement gigs and so forth Congress has been the least has always been at the end of the process millions of people take to the streets that Congress ends up impacting and I think there's been a debate in this country for from Eugene Debs before that is whether people should work within the Democratic party should work with Deb as you know was an advocate of the socialist party and I tend to agree that I think we need a strong third party in America but irregardless of what your views may be there's no question that the way political change ultimately comes about is through strong grassroots Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not develop the new deal millions of workers taking over factories striking organizing created process. Martin Luther came and did not develop the civil rights movement that came even below and then Lyndon Johnson signed the papers but all of the efforts come from the grassroots and that's that's where we should focus on the people laughing and actors in the movie complain about HMOs. I saw that movie. Uh what was that name? >> Yeah, that was right. And that was uh that Burlington people did applaud that. Uh you're absolutely right. Uh CEOs on TV say obvious lies. What does Congress have to say? Well, Congress has to say is please insurance companies give us more money. Uh we get money from pharmaceutical companies and so forth and so on. I think uh just as I was mentioning a moment ago, the people I think are not happy with uh managed care with the current healthcare system. Uh but the medical interest has tremendous power. Congress grassroots movement. I was just talking to a reporter from Radio Pacific a few moments ago. He was talking as I knew that it was a an in California for singlepayer which lost value but that the insurance companies spent was nine times more than the singlepayer advocates. And that's the problem. I don't know that you're ever going to win. These guys have nine times more money uh than than our side has. And that takes us back to the issue of of campaign finance. Filing bilingual education uh widely as a verdant in the nation as it is in California. Severe misinformation is being out on a daily basis and supporting unfair uh initiatives. What's your take on this problem? 30% limited English speakers are involved by the legislation. I think that again my statement this is not as big an issue as it is in Vermont just a little bit of mail but I think one of the things that King and his friends have done is if you protect the wealthy and the powerful and you really want to you need to get votes from the middle class and working class. What you come up with is a series of policies which reflect attention from the real issues and you come up with what some of us call a scapegoating type chapter of my book just on that issue. And if you follow the language and strengths we're doing, it was not only against immigrants. It was against gays. It's against blacks. You pick apart different people and it's guns and all of these things. Their basic problem is they represent 5% of the population or 3% of the population, but they need middle class folks to win. So they come up with a whole series of proposals to play one group off against other groups. The whites against the immigrants and the blacks, the straits against the gays, the men against the women, gun owners versus guns, you know, go on. These guys spend millions of dollars in polling to figure this stuff out. It's pretty complicated. So then basically it's divide, divide, divide. coming up to win elections to which I end up representing very very much and I think that's what is there uh what suggestions do you have for reducing the power authority of major corporations in this nation we need to find we need to find a way to get the public in general to call depression the power authority of corporations make social policy affecting the distribution of laws and that that's exactly right it's a very good question a very good Right. Um, you know, I think we need to be thinking about alternative economic models. We need to be thinking about hard questions like a sustainable economy rather than a consumer oriented economy. We need to be thinking about ways to provide meaningful lives for people. And that is not only there, they have material needs in terms of food, shelter, clothing and so forth, but sustain them emotionally, culturally as well. And the current model basically is go out and buy and buy and buy and work longer and buy and buy from Detroit environment. You can buy and buy and buy. and you get drunk and drugs or chocolate because you're really inside now feeling something about yourself. So I think we should try to figure out if there is another way and I think that is what we call sustainable environment, sustainable economy, producing you know what we need uh treating other people with respect um and certainly decentralizing a lot of the activity that takes place there. We always have talked about corporations running America. Now corporations all over the world are running much of the world. That's something that economically is that politically people have less and less power. So if our goal is to empower people, make them feel better about themselves. We need fundamental changes in the economic system. We need to have working people controlling the places that they stay. >> Yes. conference senators this morning. This was we had one canist. >> Yeah. Last question. I only have two more. Is there a significant difference in voter turnout? Say as a function of the income in Vermont that would account for your success in the house. How could other people hope to elect similarly progressive representatives? Is it more than a matter of getting out the working vote? Um, in Vermont, we have a higher than average voter turnout, but not spectacular. We're eighth place in the country. Um, when I roll, the voter turnout is usually very high because a lot of my supporters come out. A lot of my haters come out. The end result is uh that the voter turnout goes to. Um when I was running for reelection with Mayor Earl did in 1983, we double the voter turnout of what had happened in 4 years before. That's pretty good. And um we get a lot of the media is sufficiently bad not to analyze this issue, but if you check my books, they overwhelmingly come from from working people. There are districts in my own city where running a three-way racing 80%. So, uh, to my mind, what successful progressive politicians have got to do is talk primarily class issues, issues that affect the middle class and working people. And after you make promises, keep them. Thank you very much. Thank you. last terrible capitalism first advance the socialism. Some people tried to steal my vote while I was here. you know, uh, property is theft, but theft is also theft. I'm just kidding. But if you would like to, uh, order Bernie's book, if you leave your name and address with grounds, I still say ground works. Bernie will make sure you get an autographed copy of the book. A lot of people ask me about buying. If you leave your name and address with ground works, we will get an autographed copy of the book to you. Thank you so much for coming. Is that tank going to be available? Well, I can if you give me your if you give me your phone number, I can and for the price of a blank tape, I'll make you one. >> Okay. >> Couple of bucks for a blank tape and I'll like right now I don't I don't have any tape myself, but I'll find a deal on some. I'll buy some. >> Okay, let's see. I got I've got all kinds of people who