Tag: Bernie Sanders

Don’t Let the Imperfect, become the Frenemy, of …

Don’t Let the Perfect become the Enemy of the Good” — it’s common knowledge, right?

Important words of wisdom with Great Historical Significance, right?

OK, if you say so …

François-Marie Arouet, better known by his pen name Voltaire, was a French writer, deist and philosopher.

Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.

* The better is the enemy of the good.   — La Bégueule (1772)

 Variant translations:

   The perfect is the enemy of the good.

   The best is the enemy of the good.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/V…

Voltaire

Author and Philosopher, 1694 – 1778

Francois Marie Arouet (pen name Voltaire) was born on November 21, 1694 in Paris. Voltaire’s intelligence, wit and style made him one of France’s greatest writers and philosophers.

[…]

In 1726, Voltaire insulted the powerful young nobleman, “Chevalier De Rohan,” and was given two options: imprisonment or exile. He chose exile …

Woooo, some drama … could be a notable lesson here?  

Bernie Sanders may filibuster if there ISN’T a ROBUST public option for everyone

Crossposted at Daily Kos

    The ONE Senator that I can safely say is NOT bought off, the one Senator that we can be certain is NOT owned by the banks is Bernie Sanders (I-VT). It looks like good ole Bernie is putting his left foot down on the public option and threatening a filibuster of his own if there isn’t a ROBUST public option that is available to everyone in the Senate version of the health care bill.

    I think this is GREAT news, and I’ll explain why below the fold, where you can find a full transcript of this video as well.

Sen. Bernie Sanders: “The Middle Class is Collapsing” (Updated and Crossposted)

Crossposted at Daily Kos

When Bernie speaks, he speaks the TRUTH (capital TRUTH)

    And though his words are not sugar coated he says five words that every American should hear Loud and Clear.

    “The Middle Class is Collapsing”


HuffingtonPost.com

    More below the fold

Bernie Sanders on Single Payer — Take Action

Bernie Sanders is circulating a petition advocating Single Payer.  Here’s what the good Senator has to say about it in his e-mail.  

Please read it and go to his web site and show your support for Single Payer.  We may have to settle for the fall-back position of a Public Option, but we should show them our true desires anyway.  

A PETITION TO CONGRESS

Supporting Single-Payer Health Care

Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world. Today, 46 million people have no health insurance. Even more are underinsured with high deductibles and co-payments. Close to 20,000 Americans die each year because they don’t have regular access to a doctor.  

The time is now for our nation to address the most profound moral and economic issue we face.  

The time is now for our country to join the rest of the industrialized world and provide cost-effective, comprehensive quality health care to every man, woman and child in our country.  

The time is now to take on the powerful special interests in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and pass a single-payer national health care program.

Sign the petition

Tell Bernie your experience with health care and insurance.

For more background information, see my diary from a few days ago Healthcare: The Big Issue, The Big Test for Obama

We’ve got to keep pushing, keep yelling, keep demanding.  YYEELLLL!!!

No More Excuses: By Ralph Nader

Read it here: http://rjones2818.blogspot.com…

Just the Beginning: A Note from Bernie Sanders

I received a note from Bernie Sanders yesterday to say thanks for supporting and signing on to his letter to Secretary Paulson.

Sanders is clear in saying this is not the end, but the beginning; and he asks people to remain involved.  In the months ahead we need to correct the many flaws in the final passage of H.R. 1424, The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 as we all know this is not stabilization at all but, rather, a very volatile weapon of mass destruction which could wreck much greater havoc at any moment.

Nevertheless, so long as we are all still here, I think it is of value to do all we can to try to sustain and restore life.  In this matter, Sanders wants to continue to work to implement his 4 point plan for the economy:

    1) A temporary, 10% surcharge on the ultra-rich.

    2) Extensive re-regulation and oversight.

    3) A WPA type program of job creation in infrastructure repair & sustainable energy

    4) Limits on business size so they are not “too big to fail.”

See more about what he wants to do beneath the fold.

 

Bernie Sanders’ Sane Solution: Between Bailout and Collapse

Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed what looks to me like the most sane and reasonable solution to our financial mess.  

Instead of being between a rock and a hard place, between a fraudulent bailout of the criminal banksters and a total collapse, Great Depression 2, destruction of the financial systems of the U.S. and the world, we have the middle ground sanity of Bernie Sanders.  His proposal for, if not solving, at least helping to heal our dire financial straits is the best I’ve seen.

Wall Street Bailout – 09/26/2008

There is little public support for President Bush’s $700 billion bailout. Just 30 percent support Bush’s package, according to an Associated Press poll released Friday. More than 4,000 of you have taken our survey, and those results are even more remarkable. Are you confident that taxpayers would be treated fairly if Congress and the Bush administration agree on a bailout? You aren’t. Do you think a bailout would help the economy? No. Do you favor a surtax on individuals who make more than $500,000 a year and couples earning more than $1 million to pay for a Wall Street bailout? More than 91 percent agree with the proposal by Senator Bernie Sanders. What’s more, as of late Friday, more than 40,000 (as of late Friday)of you co-signed Bernie’s letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson suggesting a tax on the very wealthy.

Follow below the fold to learn more and see if you want to sign on and support Sanders’ proposal.

Congressional Poverty Scorecard – Anti-Poverty Legislation Blocked

On Monday, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law released its 2007 Congressional Poverty Scorecard. The President of the Center, John Bouman, noted that in states with the highest poverty rates, their congressional delegations tended to score the worst.

“Poverty is everywhere in America, but it is interesting that in states with the highest concentrations of poverty, the Congressional delegations seem least interested in supporting initiatives that fight poverty,” said John Bouman, president of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, which released the study. “This appears deeper than simply opposing spending. A member could have opposed any of the measures we analyzed that called for new spending and still could have voted to support half of the poverty-fighting measures on our list.”

Former presidential candidate John Edwards was also on the center’s conference call with reporters.

“We can get the national leadership and we can get the congressional leadership we need,” Edwards said. “But first voters need to be educated as to who is doing the work and who is not.”

Will Congress now back Gore & the IPCC? Let’s pressure them to!

Amidst all the excitement about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the questions and dreams about a possible presidential campaign, and the inevitable criticism from right wing cynics (demonstrating, once again, that they neither understand nor even like the concept of peace), let’s not lose focus on what really matters. It is not about the man, it is about his cause; and he is the man he is because he puts the cause above any personal considerations, and whether or not he runs will undoubtedly be determined by his best assessment of whether it will be the best way to serve the cause! We need also keep that priority straight! The coming weeks are critical, and we can help!

Largely because of Al Gore and the IPCC, global warming and climate change have now come to be frontline political issues. Bush no longer ignores it, and now tries to spin it (the best he will ever do on any political issue), and Congress is finally crafting legislation to address it. For now, this is where we need focus.

Mark Hertsgaard, the environmental correspondent for The Nation, puts it directly:

Now that Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, will the US Congress take the IPCC’s scientific advice on how to fight global warming? The IPCC holds that the world must reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 80 percent by the year 2050. Few in Congress seem prepared to go that far, however. And judging from the discussion at a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, even lawmakers who personally embrace the “gold standard” of 80 percent reductions are prepared to endorse a weaker measure in the name of getting some form of climate legislation moving in Congress.

If we take Al Gore seriously, and we take seriously his Nobel Prize, we need to immediately begin lobbying Congress to do the same. This is no time for the compromises that define the usual failures of our political system. With the issue in the headlines, we need let our Congressional representatives know that we are watching, and that we are expecting more than lip service.

The question is, what bill will reformers get behind? How ambitious will they be? Will they demand what the scientific community says is the minimum necessary to enable our civilization to (perhaps) avoid the worst future scenarios of global warming: deep cuts in emissions by 2020 on the way to 80-90 percent cuts by 2050? Or, in the name of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, will they favor a more modest and gradual approach?

The weak, ineffectual compromise approach is being championed by those champions of political weakness and ineffectual compromise, Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Joseph Lieberman (?-CT). Their bill would mandate emission reductions of 10 percent by 2020, and 70 percent by 2050. That they would, for some reason, decide on an approach that falls 10 percent short on such a critical goal says everything. It won’t solve the problem, but it will make nice window dressing. It’s not just embarrassing and absurd, it’s dangerous!

Not only do these provisions fall short of the scientific standard; there is even less here than meets the eye. The bill, as described in briefings and press accounts, contains a number of loopholes, including provisions that (1) will give rather than sell greenhouse-gas-emissions permits to polluters, thus violating the “polluter pays” principle of environmental accounting, and (2) count so-called carbon offsets–that is, paying someone else to reduce emissions while continuing to emit oneself–as genuine reductions.

An alternative has been proposed by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bernard Sanders (I-VT), with a similar bill in the House being sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). Their bills mandate the 80 percent reductions, on real terms, rather than with carbon offsets, and they make the polluters pay. Hertsgaard links to the World Resource Institute’s comparison of these, and other, proposals.

Of course, only one of the bills is getting traction, on Congress.

According to sources speaking on background because of the confidential nature of the discussions, most Senate Democrats and many environmental and other public interest groups are preparing to support the Lieberman-Warner bill, despite misgivings about its shortcomings.

.

While some in Congress apparently believe it is important to pass something, anything, environmental writer Bill McKibben disagrees. Since Bush is likely to veto even Warner-Lieberman, McKibben believes that even passing it will only serve to lower the bar, for the next Congress and the next president. It will make Warner-Lieberman appear to be the proper standard. Clearly, that would be unacceptable.

As McKibben explained to Hertsgaard, in a previous interview:

Since Bush is going to veto it anyway, there is no reason to make [a climate bill] less ambitious than what science requires. Climate change isn’t like other issues. It doesn’t do any good to split the difference to reach a deal everyone can live with. Climate change is about the laws of physics and chemistry, and they don’t give.

We’re all thrilled that Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s time for us to help them leverage that prestige, by pressuring Congress to do what is right. Call your senators and congresspeople. Tell them that Warner-Lieberman is unacceptable, and that the only valid options are Boxer-Sanders and Waxman. We now have the political momentum. Let’s not waste it!

Load more