Summer Style: Ikat

Ikat, aka that strange kind of Aztec looking print, has become very popular for this season. Now, we had never even heard of Ikat until recently, but from what we understand it is not really the print, but the method of weaving. Ikat is created using a process very similar to tie dying by tying off bundles of fabric and then dying them.  The process creates these patterns and they can be done in one color or, more often, many colors. These days it's kind of hard to pull off tie dye, but an Ikat print can give you similar blurred lines and a carefree look in a way that is still totally sophisticated.

1. Scoop | 2. Modcloth | 3. Lord & Taylor | 4. Macy's |

5. J. Crew | 6. Anthropologie | 7. Bloomingdale's| 8. Banana Republic | 

XOXO

Jen & Saira

Perelman Tonight: "Move over, Asia" -- Part 5 of "The Swiss Family Perelman"

Illustrations by Al Hirschfeld

The Insurograph: A mechanism similar to a jukebox,
vending insurance at a quarter a throw

The social life of the [movie] industry . . . had changed little in two years. It still consisted of an endless round of buffets full of people one had met the previous evening, all of them exactly one day older. Dinner-party conversation in a manufacturing center like Lowell, Nashua, or Wilmington usually deals with shoes, blankets, or smokeless powder, relieved with gossip about the foreman of the bleaching room niggling up to the stockroom babes. In Beverly Hills it dealt with previews, credits, and the boudoir escapades of any couple who had failed to attend that evening.

-- from the conclusion of "Low Bridge -- Everybody Down"

by Ken

Last night we left the bound-for-the-Orient Perelman clan visiting SJP's despised old stomping ground, Hollywood, most recently visited two years earlier on his round-the-world trip (documented in Westward, Ha!). However, in tonight's installment we're reminded that this is 1949, meaning that we're in the early phase of one of the unhappiest chapters in the movie industry's history: its trial by, and capitulation to, the red-baiting witch hunts.


FOR THE CONCLUSION OF "LOW BRIDGE --
EVERYBODY DOWN," CLICK HERE

COMING UP IN DWT LATE NIGHT:

We'll catch up with our Siam-bound travelers in future "Perelman Tonight" installments.

In tomorrow night's "Sunday Classics" preview we begin preparing for a special conjunction of artist (conductor Bruno Walter) and repertory (Wagner's Siegfried Idyll).

Come Sunday night, I'm thinking it might be a good time for some more Will Cuppy -- say, from The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody.

THURBER TONIGHT (including BENCHLEY, WILL CUPPY, WOLCOTT GIBBS, RING LARDNER, BOB AND RAY, E. B. WHITE, JEAN SHEPHERD, and PERELMAN TONIGHT): Check out the series to date

#

The genius of Democrat governance: 'Massive error' in new California tax code causes triple taxation on small businesses

When you've lost the San Francisco Chronicle...

California and Governor Jerry Brown made a massive error in the formation of a California Online Tax, that amounts to triple taxation in the state for online S-corporations. Amazon and Overstock aren't the only ones hurt by the new tax, and it should be challenged in court...

Unfortunately, Governor Brown has signed into law the bill that we emailed you about earlier today. As a result of this, contracts with all California residents participating in the Amazon Associates Program are terminated effective today, June 29, 2011...

...Frankly, while the law itself has many affiliates hoping mad, it was bound to happen. But the law's got a nasty bug in it that must be cleared up. I'll use my online sports game company as an example.

The State Of California has already taxed my Internet company for income earned. All of our sales are online. Plus, they get me for a personal income tax!

Under the new law, an online company like mine could be taxed three times: for total income tax, corporate, tax and then for sales tax. That's too much.

There's nothing in the law preventing such a scenario from happening, because there's to language to restrict the State Of California from such an action. If you're an online legal California Corporation, you're going to get taxed three times. It's that simple.

...It sets up a massive incentive for thousands of California Corporations to just quit the state and find other homes... One day next year, Governor Brown's going to wake up to the reality of no new taxes collected, and a massive exodus of Internet vendors. By then, any retro action would be too little, too late.

That's okay.

Send the businesses our way. We need smart, talented entrepreneurs who want to live in a free state. I mean, a Red State.

How's this for a deal: contribute $193K to your pension over your entire career, receive $130K pension salary for life. Welcome to Illinois!

When it comes to Illinois teachers' pensions, does the term ludicrous ring a bell?

...how can a 54 year-old Music teacher retire on a pension of $130,000 after working only 33 years and contributing only $193,000? Since he retired in 2009 he has already received more than he contributed ($225,000). That does not seem reasonable to the 95% of IL workers who are not in the state pension system. The cash value of his pension is 8 times what Social Security would be for the same salary and years worked. Why does any public employee deserve more than 8 times Social Security?

In fact, when you see the union hacks protesting, please consider the following:

Pensions four to seven times Social Security are not “modest”.

Here are the stats for the “average” retired teacher:
1. Average TRS [Teachers' Retirement System] pension – $46,000.
2. Average age at retirement – 58.
3. Average years worked – 25.
4. Average salary final year $61,000.

Mark Levin has a funny and uncannily accurate catch-phrase: "Liberalism is the philosophy of the stupid."

And every day we seem to gather more confirming evidence.

Want Jobs and Higher Salaries? Move to a Right-to-Work State

Do you prefer slavery or freedom? I ask that question because the modern-day version of slavery in this country is being forced to join a union -- and pay union dues -- against your will. And, as it turns out, in "union/slave states" there are provably fewer jobs and lower wages.

The business world is abuzz over the National Labor Relations Board's complaint vs. Boeing's new South Carolina production line. For NLRB critics, the case boils down to one thing: "right-to-work" laws.

Right-to-work states have generally lower unemployment, higher job growth, lower taxes and better business climates. They have growing populations and have been attracting businesses from other states.

In most states, once a workplace is unionized, employees are required to join the union or they can't work there. But 22 states, including South Carolina, have passed laws that give employees the right not to join. Hence the term "right-to-work."

Unions dislike these laws for the obvious reason: It reduces their membership.

Critics like the Chamber of Commerce say a union-friendly NLRB is simply punishing Boeing for choosing a right-to-work state, a charge the agency has rejected.

But if the complaint stands, it could stop firms in heavily unionized states from expanding or moving to right-to-work states. [And these states seem] to be a good deal for the workers, too. The U.S. unemployment rate is 9.1%. In right-to-work states the average is 7.9% — 8.6% adjusted for population.

Between 1977-08, employment grew 100% in right-to-work states vs. the national average of 71% and 56.5% in non-right-to-work states. That's according to a January study that Ohio University economics professor Richard Vedder did for the Indiana Chamber of Commerce.

In this period, real per capita income in the right-to-work states grew 62.3% vs. the national average of 54.7% and 52.8% for non-right-to-work states... Between 2000-09, about 5 million people moved to right-to-work states from other states. The population of 25- to 34-year-olds in right-to-work states has grown 16%, according to an American Legislative Exchange Council study, indicating that they "attract the most productive members of society."

Union members: it's time to throw off your shackles. The Democrat-Union Boss alliance -- and their oppressive regulations from the EPA, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Labor, and dozens of other useless bureaucracies -- are funding your destruction.

Fight back.

As the NJ Democratic Party shows, people who say Dems have no principles are wrong. The principle is: What's in it for me?

UPDATE BELOW: Sign on to Adam Green's pledge to find and support a progressive challenger for Steve Sweeney

NJ State Sen. Dick Codey: He was the state's most popular pol when he served concurrently as acting governor and Senate president. How did he get, first, muscled out of running for governor, then pried out of the Senate presidency? It's a nasty story, with nasty consequences.

by Ken

So in the final days of New Jersey's fiscal year Democratic legislators rediscovered a modicum of backbone, or perhaps of shame, and refused to give the state's Republithug governor everything he was demanding, to solidify the hold of the state's overprivileged elites. They passed a somewhat less inhumne budget, and the governor shortly thereafter announced that he was using his statutory line-item veto power to strike out the things he doesn't like, having already gotten the things he wanted most.

Which brings us back to the story of how important elements of the state Democratic party rolled over and played dead for him (and maybe raises the question of whether increasing public attention to the seamy machinations of the state's Dem power brokers played a role). Last night, while writing about the governor, Chris "The Stench of Corruption" Christie, I waded into the morass of some pretty stinky NJ Democratic power-brokering that goes a long way to explain some otherwise hardly scrutable developments in the politically always-swampy Garden State. I noted in particular two questions that have occupied Salon's Steve Kornakci in a pair of recent pieces, "Chris Christie's Democratic helpers" (June 24) and "The rise of the Chris Christie Democrats" (June 29). The wording that follows is mine, not his, but I don't think Steve will feel misrepresented:

Question 1: *Did Democratic State Senate President Stephen Sweeney (who engineered the breakaway of enough Senate Democrats to pass the savage-the-unions portion of the governor's budget plan) simply fold up like a cheap suitcase?

Question 2: What happened to Gov. Jon Corzine in his unsuccessful reelection bid?

Working backwards, I know we thought we knew the answer to the second question: that Corzine was understandably unpopular, between his own character, er, traits, his own blundering, the churn of the economic meltdown, and the presence of a vote-siphoning third candidate. It turns out, though, that there's a crucial element left unmentioned here: that the election of the right-wing Republican Christie suited quite well the growing power of two state "Democratic" (even though "Democratic" no longer means much, to the extent that it means anything we kind of need to be using quotation marks when it comes to these fellows) political, er, operatives -- okay, bosses, South Jersey's George Norcross III and Newark's Steve Adubato Sr. (Kornacki writes: "It's a widely held view by insiders from both parties in New Jersey "that Norcross and Adubato essentially left Governor Jon Corzine to wither on the vine in the '09 campaign, boosting Christie's prospects in the Democratic state.")

And so the answer to Question 2 turns out to have a heavy bearing on the answer to Question 1, which seems to be that -- with Corzine's reelection defeat and the ouster of widely popular Democratic Senate President Richard Codey (more about this in a moment) -- the new Senate president, Stephen Sweeney, became the state's highest-ranking Democratic official. (I would agree that NJ's two Democratic U.S. senators are higher-ranking officeholders, but they're not state officials, and really don't seem to have much input into state government or politics, which may be one of the reasons Corzine gave up his Senate seat to run for governor in the first place.) And Sweeney is Norcross and Adubato's man in Trenton.

Which brings us to Question 3, one that Steven Kornacki asks explicitly:

Question 3: How did the Norcross and Adubato camps gain so much power within the Democratic Party?

And while some of the particulars are NJ-specific -- there really isn't any escaping the Tip O'Neill dictum that "all politics are local" -- a lot of it seems to me of a piece with the increasing replacement of whatever principles the Democratic Party might once have stood for with the single overarching one: "Hey, rich white dudes, we can be your bitches just as good as the Republicans, or almost." As I wrote last night:

Who is George Norcross III? No, he's not an elected official, and you man not have heard of him, but you've heard about some of the South Jersey Democratic boss's accomplishments, like helping get Republican Chris Christie elected governor and swinging a bloc of State Senate "Democrats" behind him.

Kornacki takes us back to that gubernatorial election cycle.

Christie, whose gubernatorial ambitions were well known years in advance his 2009 campaign, began cultivating friendly, symbiotic relationships with two key Democratic bosses well before he even became governor: South Jersey's George Norcross and Steve Adubato Sr. from Newark. . . .

In fact, Christie's first public appearance after his victory that fall was with Adubato [above] in the heart of his political/educational/social services empire in Newark's North Ward. On the public employee benefits and public television votes this past week, just about all of the Democratic defections can be linked to the Norcross and Adubato camps.

Here's one way of measuring the clout of the Norcross and Adubato factions:

[T]he president of the state Senate, Stephen Sweeney, is a Norcross loyalist, while the Speaker of the Assembly, Sheila Oliver, also holds an $83,000-a-year job working for Adubato's protege, Essex County Executive Joe DiVincenzo. But if either the Senate or the Assembly were run by non-Norcross/Adubato loyalists, the past week might have played out very differently -- and Christie's benefits overhaul might have been dead on arrival.

And it all goes back, says Kornacki, to "an only-in-Jersey backroom deal that was struck at the height of the 2009 campaign -- one that dethroned Richard J. Codey, the long-serving Democratic Senate president, in favor of Sweeney and set up Oliver to claim the Speaker's gavel." From here I think we should just let Kornacki tell the story his own way, from the June 29 piece.

When news of the deal broke that fall, it marked yet another embarrassment for the beleaguered Corzine, who was locked in a tight race with Christie and facing intense voter skepticism about his leadership skills. Corzine was pleading with voters that he was focused on rescuing the economy -- but here was his party in Trenton, preoccupied with who would have what title in the next legislative session.

The deal itself was years in the making, the culmination of the rise of Norcross [right] and his South Jersey operation. A wealthy insurance executive who counts Donald Trump among his friends, Norcross has mixed business and politics to slowly build a massive, lavishly-funded Democratic machine in South Jersey.

Over the last two decades, Norcross has built a stable of thoroughly loyal state senators and assemblymen, often using truly shocking sums of cash to win over Republican-held seats -- more than $4 million in one state Senate race in 2003. As Norcross assembled a turnout machine and amassed clout in Trenton, he became a kingmaker in state Democratic politics. For instance, when Senator Robert Torricelli, his poll numbers ruined by an ethics scandal, abruptly withdrew from his reelection bid five weeks before the 2002 election, Norcross was one of a select few Democratic leaders who huddled with then-Governor James McGreevey to choose a replacement candidate.

Ideologically, Norcross is all "New Democrat," uneasy with the party's close identification with minorities and public employee unions and committed to making it marketable to suburbanites. His critics on the left believe he is philosophically aligned with the Republican Party but that he saw an opening to amass more influence by seizing and building what had been a feeble South Jersey Democratic operation.

His goal had long been to move loyalists into the three plum spots in Trenton -- Speaker, Senate president, and governor. After the 2001 elections, he took his first step, working with Governor-Elect McGreevey to oust a North Jersey Democrat named Joe Doria as the party's Assembly leader. Norcross still didn't have the numbers to install his own choice as Speaker, but a compromise was struck: A backbencher from North Jersey named Albio Sires would take over as Speaker for a term or two, at which point it would be safe for Norcross' candidate -- Joe Roberts -- to take over. Sires played along, serving two terms, then stepping aside. He was rewarded with a congressional seat, which he still holds today. Roberts became the Speaker in January 2006.

Norcross' next goal, the Senate presidency, was tougher to come by, mainly because Codey, who first came to Trenton in the early '70s, was so entrenched and skilled at self-protection. To say that Norcross despises Codey would be putting it mildly. Throughout the 2000s, he made it clear that one of his chief missions in politics was to get rid of Codey. Norcross tried in 2003, but Codey outwitted him. Then came McGreevey's shocking resignation in August 2004, after which Codey was elevated to acting governor for 15 months -- a period of time in which New Jersey residents seemed to fall in love with the self-deprecating, youth basketball-coaching, accidental governor. Codey wanted to extend his interim term and to run for a full term in 2005, but he was forced to back down months into his stint when Norcross and the state's other Democratic bosses all lined up with Corzine (who plied virtually every county and municipal Democratic organization in the state with money). So Codey deferred to Corzine, racked up a year of enviable press, and left office as one of the state's most popular politicians.

He still had the Senate presidency, though (New Jersey didn't yet have a lieutenant governor), and with his sudden fame and popularity, he was impossible to dislodge. So Norcross bided his time and waited for the right moment -- which finally came in 2009.

By that point, Codey's celebrity had faded a bit, and so had his grip on his colleagues. And then there was the Adubato/DiVincenzo factor: Norcross had waded into Essex County (which encompasses Newark and the surrounding area) to support DiVincenzo in the Democratic primary for county executive. Codey and most of the Essex Democratic establishment backed DiVincenzo's rival. When DiVincenzo won, Norcross suddenly had a powerful and grateful ally in a key county -- an ally who came through for him seven years later, when Norcross made his run at Codey. 12 Senate votes were needed to oust Codey, and two of them ended up coming from Essex: Teresa Ruiz, who also works as DiVincenzo's deputy chief of staff; and Nia Gill, who does legal work for Essex County.

That two Essex senators would turn on Codey was shocking, given that Codey is from Essex. But as part of the deal, the job of Assembly Speaker would be vacated by Roberts and given to a Democrat from Essex County -- Oliver, who also works for DiVincenzo. So it was a good deal for DiVincenzo and Adubato. Sure, their county lost the Senate presidency, but they'd never liked or gotten along with Codey, and now their lieutenant would be running the Assembly. And it was a great deal for Norcross, who was able to claim a big prize for one of his proteges, Sweeney, while still having wide influence with the Assembly Speaker. With this deal, George Norcross -- an unelected backroom player -- became the most powerful Democrat in Trenton.

And now we are seeing the results. If Dick Codey were still running the Senate, the benefits overhaul would surely never have reached the floor, and the outcome of the public television bill -- only one more vote would have killed the giveaway -- would have almost certainly been different. But instead, Codey is now a backbencher, so all he could do was vote against Christie's agenda -- and watch as some of his fellow Democrats provided the crucial votes to make it law.

Isn't that a pretty story? And see what wonderful things it's done for New Jersey?


UPDATE: JOIN THE ADAM GREEN'S PLEDGE TO FIND AND
SUPPORT A PROGRESSIVE CHALLENGER FOR STEVE SWEENEY

I don't read much, so I'm just catching up with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee's Adam Green's Tuesday DailyKos post, "Defeat the top Democrat who helped Chris Christie attack workers." (Don't try clicking on the button in the graphic which says, "CLICK HERE." The link in the post should work, however, or you can follow the DailyKos link, or go directly to the PCCC's website.)

I'm from New Jersey and I'm outraged. I don't think I'm alone.
I'm outraged that top NJ Democrats like Senate President Stephen Sweeney worked hand-in-hand with Chris Christie to pass an anti-worker bill that some say is worse than Wisconsin's -- which Christie signed into law about two hours ago.

Democrats...were the deciding votes to block NJ workers from negotiating for better health care.

Today, I'm pledging to do everything I can to help a bold progressive candidate defeat Stephen Sweeney when he seeks the Democratic nomination for governor. Will you join me? Click here.

Please pass this diary to every progressive you know. As more and more of us take the pledge, not only will Stephen Sweeney feel the heat but every Democratic politician in NJ will be on notice.

Over 1,000 2,000 people have taken the pledge on the PCCC's website so far -- that's a lot of volunteers!

I was the NJ Democratic Party's communications director several years ago. But today, I am disgusted and outraged at what some party "leaders" are doing. . . .

#

Best Line Ever?

The tragedy -- one of open borders and cop-killers -- is no laughing matter. But the line is a keeper

An illegal alien, in Polk County , Florida , who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop, ended up "executing" the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state-wide manhunt ensued. The murderer was found hiding in a wooded area. As soon as he took a shot at the SWAT team, officers opened fire on him. They hit the guy 68 times.

Naturally, the liberal media went nuts and asked why they had to shoot the poor, undocumented immigrant 68 times. Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel: "Because that's all the bullets we had." Now, is that just about the all-time greatest answer or what!

The Coroner also reported that the illegal alien died of natural causes. When asked by a reporter how that could be, since there were 68 bullet wounds in his body, he simply replied: ... "When you are shot 68 times you are naturally gonna die."

Snopes confirms the story, which was was too good to check anyway.


Hat tip: CBullitt.

Alaska to EPA: Suck It

The anti-energy policies of the Obama administration range from illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to revoking properly issued coal mining permits in West Virginia -- and everything in between.

Thankfully, states are starting to fight back, Alaska serving as only the latest example.

Big energy news was broken at today's press conference at the Chamber. Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell... and Alaska Commissioner of Natural Resources Dan Sullivan announced the state would allow drilling off a strip of state-owned land, expanding energy production:

It would allow the state to start allowing drilling in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, up to three miles off the federally protected regions of ANWR and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, bypassing the need for federal permission...
…
While the state has no control over drilling in ANWR, it does own the three miles of Arctic Ocean just off the coast—after those three miles, the federal government owns the waters. Officials say it stands to reason that that three-mile ribbon likely cuts through the vast oil deposits believed to lie beneath ANWR and the Arctic Ocean. Alaskan officials and oil companies hope that by drilling in that strip, they can tap into up to a dozen giant oil pools that would otherwise be off-limits.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA (***cough*** ***wheeze***) HHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH AHHAHA (***erp***) HAHHAHA AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA (***owww***)

I think I just wrenched my clavicle, I was laughing so hard.

Well, this is certainly going to piss off the Obama administration.

To which I say: too damn bad. Maybe the entire bureaucracy could move to another country... one that enjoys restricting access to its own vast energy reserves.

Oh.

You say there aren't any?

Tuck in your tweets

It seems like just about everyone and their mother involves themselves with some sort of social media. Even the Pope has joined the ranks of twitter. I actually have an account with (for some reason) followers even though I've never actually "tweeted." I may never get the urge, but I try not to use the words "never" when referring to something I don't want to do. I usually eat them.

Not that I'm against Twitter or facebook or other social media, like blogging. I actually like the latter two. And I think those can be great tools to disperse good information and connect with folks, provided they only supplement, not replace, visible community. 

But there is a dark side of them that is oft overlooked, but not by N.Y. Giants Defensive End Justin Tuck. You may remember him from some Subway commercials. In response to Eagles running back LeSean McCoy calling Tuck's teammate Osi Umenyiora "soft" and "overrated," he fired back with this overall reaction to social media.

“I honestly think social media has made people cowards,” Tuck said on Mike and Mike in the Morning, via Philly.com. “Where I’m from, if you had a problem with somebody, you said it to their face and that was it. I think now people are hiding behind computers and smartphones to get out something they got on their chest.”

How true. Social media doesn't just reveal our stupidity, it often reveals our cowardice. People like to hide behind things. Sin makes us do that, and has since the beginning when we first started by hiding behind fig leaves. Soon after we tried to hide from God.

Social media does expose a latent cowardice in all of us. It's not just with facebook or twitter, but it comes with texting and emails. It's easier to hide behind a text message when giving someone news that they don't want to hear (b/c you're scared to enter into a place of disagreement). I've given and received texts like this, so I've got fingers pointed at myself (you'll just have to take my word for it). 

Tuck's reminder to us has a biblical odor. If we have a problem with a brother, we are to go to that brother or sister (Matthew 18). If a brother or sister has a problem with us, we are to go (not text or tweet them) to that brother/sister (Matt 5:23). Sometimes I wish we had an "out," but it doesn't look like we do.

Pastors who seem to regularly call out other pastors before picking up the phone, athletes who call others "soft" (which I guess is the worst thing a football player can be called), and Christians in general would do well to examine their own cowardice. 

The gospel, when we believe it, makes us both bolder (we've been declared righteous before God and others) and gentler (God has been gentle to us, not treating us as our sins deserve). Thus it frees us up to use, not hide behind, various forms of social media.

For once, the Supreme Court doesn't back up Justice Nino in saying "f**k off" to victims of corporate depredation

Justice Nino speaking in Milwaukee in September 2010

"Robert Peck, the Washington-based lawyer representing the Louisiana smokers at the Supreme Court, recalled thinking Scalia had made unwarranted assumptions about the case. 'I was really rather surprised he would issue the stay,' Peck said of Scalia's order blocking the judgment from taking effect."

-- from an AP report today headlined on ABC News' website "Scalia's Pro-Tobacco Order Tossed by High Court"

by Ken

As we know, the Supreme Court hardly ever has to explain itself about lots of things, and one of the things it especially doesn't have to explain in any way, shape, or form is its decision not to grant certiorari -- i.e., not to hear a case that a petitioner would like it to.

Since we know that it takes four justices to get a case on the Court docket, when the verdict is, "Sorry, babe," we can infer that there weren't four justices willing to listen, bearing in mind, of course, that justices aren't committing themselves to any outcome with such willingness; it simply indicates that they've got some interest in hearing the case in full. But on any given case -- among the large number the Court is petitioned to hear -- we don't know who was on which side or what anyone's thinking was. All we know is that if cert is granted, there were four justices saying OK, and if not, there weren't.

Every now and then, though, even without any more information, the decision not to hear a case tells us that something went on in the inner sanctum, and today the AP's Mark Sherman sifted out this nugget from the batch of docket matters released Monday, the final day of the Court's current term -- while most Court-watchers were focused on the final, "best for last" rulings of the term: striking down the Arizona election-law provision providing additional funds for candidates accepting public financing who face free-spending non-publicly-funded candidates ("free speech! free speech!", and the thumbs-down on California's attempt to bar sales of especially violent video games to minors ("free speech! free speech!").

At issue, as the AP's Sherman explains, was --

a state court order requiring the tobacco companies [Philip Morris, Brown and Williamson, R. J. Reynolds, and Lorillard] to pay $270 million to start a smoking cessation program in Louisiana. The payment was ordered as part of a class-action lawsuit that Louisiana smokers filed in 1996. They won a jury verdict seven years ago. . . .

Not only did the justices say Monday they were leaving the state court order in place, there were not even four votes to hear the companies' full appeal. And the court provided no explanation of its action.

Again, it's not clear to me why Sherman is so agog about these last bits. When the High Court chooses not to hear a case, it is by definition leaving the ruling of the last court, federal or state, in place, and it never has to explain, and usually doesn't.

What's interesting here, though, is that in apparently extraordinary circumstances one justice had written officially that he thought it "reasonably probable that four justices will vote to grant certiorari," and went so far as to describe it as "significantly possible that the judgment below will be reversed." If I give you, say, four guesses, I'm sure you can identify the justice in question, but if you think a moment, I'll bet you can get it in one.

Think: Who's the most overbearingly self-absorbed blowhard on the bench? Right you are! It's Nino baby -- none other than Justice Antonin Scalia.

Now our Nino wasn't just flapping his gums for the fun of it. The case he was ruling on came before him as the Supreme Court's judicial overseer for the U.S. Fifth Circuit, which includes Louisiana. The ruling he issued in September was in response to a petition by the tobacco companies to delay making any payments while their appeal to the Supreme Court was still pending. (Say, isn't that Doonesbury's Mr. Butts? I can't think what he would be doing here, except that he does have a habit of turning up in places where he isn't wanted.)

Where it gets interesting is that, as Mark Sherman expressed it in his AP lead, Justice Nino "exercised a rarely used power," explaining later: "On a court that almost always acts as a group, Scalia singlehandedly blocked" the state court order, on the grounds we've already noted, that granting of cert seemed to him "reasonably probable" and that he thought it "significantly possible that the judgment below will be reversed."

From the AP report:

Justices have the authority to act on their own to issue an order that blocks another court’s decision from taking effect, often in cases that are being appealed to the high court.

But in recent years they rarely have done so. The last time a justice acted alone in similar circumstances was in 2006, when Justice Anthony Kennedy blocked a court order to remove a giant cross from a public park in San Diego while the matter remained under appeal. The cross case still is working its way through the courts.

In fact, Robert Peck, "the Washington-based lawyer representing the Louisiana smokers at the Supreme Court," recalled being "rather surprised [Scalia] would issue the stay." Thomas Goldstein, "a Washington lawyer and close observer of the court," described this as "a very rare and unusually assertive ruling by a single justice." Goldstein observed that "the later briefing in the case seems to have persuaded the court, and maybe even Scalia himself, not to get involved.”

Again, we have no way of knowing who thought what in the decision not to grant certiorari, just that there weren't four justices willing to do so. But we do know what Justice Nino was thinking in September. He was gleefully applying the legal doctrine of Screw the Whole Effing Lot o' Youse Bums which has come to govern most of the thinking of the radical right-wing Supreme Court majority in cases involving Big Business vs. the people it screws.

Mark Sherman puts it more tactfully: "Scalia noted national concern over the abuse of class-action lawsuits in state courts and raised concerns about the companies’ legal rights," worrying specifically "that without delaying payment, the companies might not be able to recover all their money if they ended up winning in the Supreme Court."

Even our AP scribe gets in a shot, though:

A Louisiana appeals court had a different take on the subject of delay, noting that the plaintiffs are aging and dying at a significant rate.

One of the two named plaintiffs, Gloria Scott, was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2000 and died in 2006.

Sherman notes prominently that Justice Nino is a smoker, and while one might wonder whether that affected his thinking on the case, I'm not persuaded. Hasn't Nino been pretty relentlessly consistent over his quarter-century on the Court (and four years before that on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals) in his view that corporations, especially big ones, have the right of free something-or-other to do any damn thing they want to us? And if we don't like it, the Roberts Court has reserved for us the legal right to . . . uh, well, to lump it.

#

It's Not About Austerity-- It's About Democracy vs Fascism (Again) [continued]

Now we hear from Bernie Sanders



In his 6am PT post, Howie returned to a passage from the book that has made such an impression on him, Glen Yeadon's Nazi Hydra in America, which included this:

Fascism is an inherent problem of any economy based on capitalism. . . . Fascism always assumes power in gradual steps. It destroys our rights one at a time until suddenly it blossoms into full-blown fascism, a totalitarian society controlled by the corporate elite.

He returned to this as a prelude to taking an extensive look at an account that Arianna Huffington just wrote, "Postcard From Greece: This Should Not Be About Austerity, It's About The Future Of Democracy," about the political and social ferment she found on a recent visit to her Greek homeland, including this:

The question [Prime Minister George Papandreou] is facing is whether any politician remotely associated with the old guard-- however well-intentioned-- can be the one to tap into these resources and build on what has been awakened. Yes, Greece is corrupt, and the problems exist at all levels. It's a place where playing by the rules came to be seen as for suckers only, creating a system of clientelism, in which attaching yourself to a powerful individual or political machine for income was seen as the smart thing to do.

But now people are rushing, quite literally, to reengage in civic life. They want to start fresh and awaken the public good. They want a real democracy again. And my daily interactions with Greeks during my visit were a reminder of the incredible talents and abilities and resources that are being wasted.

Nevertheless, the media's focus is on the shrunken and pinched debate about austerity. . . . In fact, austerity is not the answer even in the purely economic debate. . . .

To (literally) bring this home, Howie needed us to consider a landmark speech made this week in the Senate by Vermont's Bernie Sanders. We rejoin him at this point. -- Ken

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT):

"MR. PRESIDENT . . . "

We can't leave out the speech Bernie Sanders (I-VT) made on the Senate floor Monday. Notice the "I" after his name; it isn't a "D."

Mr. President, this is a pivotal moment in the history of our country. In the coming days and weeks, decisions will be made about our national budget that will impact the lives of virtually every American in this country for decades to come.

At a time when the richest people and the largest corporations in our country are doing phenomenally well, and, in many cases, have never had it so good, while the middle class is disappearing and poverty is increasing, it is absolutely imperative that a deficit reduction package not include the disastrous cuts in programs for working families, the elderly, the sick, the children and the poor that the Republicans in Congress, dominated by the extreme right wing, are demanding.

In my view, the President of the United States of America needs to stand with the American people and say to the Republican leadership that enough is enough. No, we will not balance the budget on the backs of working families, the elderly, the sick, the children, and the poor, who have already sacrificed enough in terms of lost jobs, lost wages, lost homes, and lost pensions. Yes, we will demand that millionaires and billionaires and the largest corporations in America contribute to deficit reduction as a matter of shared sacrifice. Yes, we will reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending at the Pentagon. And, no we will not be blackmailed once again by the Republican leadership in Washington, who are threatening to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States government for the first time in our nation's history unless they get everything they want.

Instead of yielding to the incessant, extreme Republican demands, as the President did during last December's tax cut agreement and this year's spending negotiations, the President has got to get out of the beltway and rally the American people who already believe that deficit reduction must be about shared sacrifice.

It is time for the President to stand with the millions who have lost their jobs, homes, and life savings, instead of the millionaires, who in many cases, have never had it so good.

Unless the American people by the millions tell the President not to yield one inch to Republican demands to destroy Medicare and Medicaid, while continuing to provide tax breaks to the wealthy and the powerful, I am afraid that is exactly what will happen.

So, I am asking the American people who may be listening today that if you believe that deficit reduction should be about shared sacrifice, if you believe that it is time for the wealthy and large corporations to pay their fair share, if you believe that we need to reduce unnecessary defense spending, and if you believe that the middle class has already sacrificed enough due to the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, the President needs to hear your voice, and he needs to hear it now.

Go to my website: sanders.senate.gov and send a letter to the President letting him know that enough is enough! Shared sacrifice means that it's time for the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations in America to pay their fair share and contribute to deficit reduction.

Mr. President, as you know, this country faces enormous challenges.

The reality is that the middle class in America today is collapsing and poverty is increasing.

When we talk about the economy, we have got to be aware that the official government statistics are often misleading. For example, while the official unemployment rate is now 9.1%, that number does not include the large numbers of people who have given up looking for work and people who want to work full-time but are working part time.

And, when you take all of those factors into account, the real unemployment rate is nearly 16%.

Further Mr. President, what we also must understand is that tens of millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. The reality is that over the last 10 years, median family income has declined by over $2,500.

As a result of the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, which caused this terrible recession, millions more have lost their homes, their pensions, and their retirement savings.

Unless we reverse our current economic course our children will have, for the first time in modern American history, a lower standard of living than their parents.

Mr. President, we throw out a lot of numbers around here. But, I think it is important to understand that behind every grim economic statistic are real Americans who cannot find a decent paying job, and are struggling to feed their families, put a roof over their heads or to just stay afloat.

Last year, I asked my constituents in Vermont to share their personal stories with me-- explaining how the recession, which started more than three years ago, has impacted their lives. In a matter of weeks, more than 400 Vermonters responded and I also heard from people throughout the country who are struggling through this terrible recession.

Their messages are clear. People are finding it hard to get jobs or are now working for lower wages than they used to earn. Older workers have depleted their life savings and are worried about what will happen to them when they retire. Young adults in their 20s and 30s are not earning enough to pay down college debt. People of all ages, all walks of life, from each corner of Vermont-- have shared their stories with my office.

Let me just read a few of these letters:

The first is from a 51 year old woman from West Berlin, Vermont who wrote "Dear Mr. Sanders, Don't really know what to say, I could cry. My significant other was out of work for a year, now he works in another state. I've been out of work since April. Our mortgage company wants the house because we can't make the payments. I can't find a job to save my soul that will pay enough to make a difference. How bad does it have to get! My mother went through the Great Depression and here we go again. I figure that I'm going to lose everything soon! I'm a well educated person who can't see through the fog."

A gentlemen in his mid-50's from Orange County, Vermont wrote: "After being unemployed three times since 1999 due to global trade agreements, I now find myself managing a hazardous waste transfer facility that pays about 25% less than what I was making in 1999. My wife's children have moved back in, unemployed. And we are saving very little for retirement. If things don't improve soon we will likely have to work until we die. We consider ourselves lucky that we are employed. Our children's friends tend to show up around meal time. They are skinny. We feed them. This is no recession, it's a modern day depression."

A woman in her late 40s from Westminster, Vermont wrote: "I am a single mom in Vermont, nearly 50. I patch together a full time job making $12 an hour and various painting jobs and still can't afford to get myself out of debt, or make necessary repairs on my home. No other jobs in sight, I apply all the time to no avail. Food and gas bills go up and up, but not my income. I have no retirement at all, can't afford to move, feeling stuck, tired, and hopeless."

And a 26 year old young man from Barre, Vermont wrote: "In 2002, I received a scholarship to Saint Bonaventure University, the first in my family to attend college. Upon graduation in 2006, I was admitted to the Dickinson School of Law at Penn State University, and graduated in 2009 with $150,000 of student debt. In Western New York I could find nothing better than a $10 an hour position stuffing envelopes ... I live in a small studio apartment in Barre without cable or internet ... I have told my family I don't want them to visit because I am ashamed of my surroundings ... My family always told me that an education was the ticket to success, but all my education seems to have done in this landscape is make it impossible to pull myself out of debt and begin a successful career."

Mr. President, just over the last two weeks, nearly 500 people from Vermont and throughout the U.S. have written me about their experiences with trying-- often in vain-- to find affordable dental care. One wrote: "I can't afford health insurance so dental work is definitely out. I agree [that] ... we are so backward in this country, even though studies have linked bad dental care to heart problems and cancer."

Mr. President, when the Republicans are talking about trillions of dollars in savage cuts, this is what they are talking about. They're talking about throwing millions and millions of people off of Medicaid. Let me tell you what that means.

Earlier this year Arizona passed budget cuts that took patients off its transplant list. As a result people who were kicked off the list have died. Not because they couldn't find a donor but because the state decided it could no longer afford to pay for their transplants. To make matters worse Arizona's governor has gone further, asking the federal government for a waiver to kick off another 250,000 from its Medicaid program.

They're talking about making it impossible for working class families to send their kids to college. They're talking about cuts in nutrition programs which will increase the amount of hunger in America, which is already at an all time high. According to a 2009 study, there are over 5 million seniors who face the threat of hunger, almost 3 million seniors who are at risk of going hungry, and almost 1 million seniors who do go hungry because they cannot afford to buy food. The Republicans in Congress would make this situation much, much worse.

Mr. President, this is a lot of pain that the Republicans are tossing out while they want to protect their rich and powerful friends. In my view, the president has got to stand tall, take the case to the American people, and hold the Republicans responsible if the debt ceiling is not raised and the repercussions of that.

That, Mr. President, is what's going on in the real world. People fighting to keep their homes from falling into foreclosure; struggling with credit card debt; marriages have been postponed; lives have been derailed; and retirement savings have been raided to pay for college tuition, to keep their businesses afloat, or simply to keep gas in their car and pay their bills. That is what is going on in the real world.

And, Mr. President, while the middle class disappears and poverty is increasing, there is another reality and that is that the gap between the very rich and everyone else is growing wider and wider. The United States now has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth.

Today, the top one percent earns over 20 percent of all income in this country, which is more than the bottom 50 percent earns. Over a recent 25 year period, 80 percent of all new income went to the top one percent. In terms of the distribution of wealth, as hard as it may be to believe, the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class continues to disappear. That is what is going on in this country in the year 2011, and we have all got to understand that.

Mr. President, everybody knows this country faces a major deficit crisis and we have a national debt of over $14 trillion. What has not been widely discussed, however, is how we got into this situation in the first place. A huge deficit and huge national debt did not happen by accident. It did not happen overnight. It happened, in fact, as a result of a number of policy decisions made over the last decade and votes that were cast right here on the floor of the Senate and in the House.

Let's never forget, as we talk about the deficit situation, that in January of 2001, when President Clinton left office, this country had an annual federal budget surplus of $236 billion with projected budget surpluses as far as the eye could see. That was when Clinton left office.

What has happened in the ensuing years? How did we go from huge projected surpluses into horrendous debt? The answer, frankly, is not complicated. The CBO has documented it. There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post on April 30, talking about it as well. Here is what happened.

When we spend over $1 trillion on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and choose not to pay for those wars, we run up a deficit. When we provide over $700 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country and choose not to pay for those tax breaks, we run up a deficit. When we pass a Medicare Part D prescription drug program written by the drug companies and the insurance companies that does not allow Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices and ends up costing us far more than it should-- $400 billion over a 10-year period-- and we don't pay for that, we run up the deficit. When we double military spending since 1997, not including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we don't pay for that, we drive up the deficit.

Further, Mr. President, the deficit was also driven up by the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street, which caused the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and revenue was significantly reduced as a result.

Mr. President, the end result of all of these unpaid-for policies and actions-- year after year of the deficits I just described-- is a staggering amount of debt. When President Bush left office, President Obama inherited an annual deficit of $1.3 trillion with deficits as far as the eye could see, and the national debt more than doubled from when President Bush took office.

The reality is, Mr. President, if we did not go to war in Iraq, if we did not pass huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, who didn't need them, if we did not pass a prescription drug program with no cost control written by the drug and insurance companies, and if we did not deregulate Wall Street, we would not be in the fiscal mess that we find ourselves in today. It really is that simple.

In other words, the only reason we have to increase our nation's debt ceiling today is that we are forced to pay the bills that the Republican leadership in Congress and President Bush racked up.

Now, Mr. President, given the decline in the middle class, given the increase in poverty, and given the fact that the wealthy and large corporations have never had it so good, Americans may find it strange that the Republicans in Washington would use this opportunity to make savage cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition assistance, and other lifesaving programs, while pushing for even more tax breaks for the wealthy and large corporations.

Unfortunately, it is not strange. It is part of their ideology. Republicans in Washington have never believed in Medicare, Medicaid, federal assistance in education, or providing any direct government assistance to those in need. They have always believed that tax breaks for the wealthy and the powerful would somehow miraculously trickle down to every American, despite all history and evidence to the contrary. So, in that sense, it is not strange at all that they would use the deficit crisis we are now in as an opportunity to balance the budget on the backs of working families, the elderly, the sick, the children and the poor, and work to dismantle every single successful government program that was ever created.

And, that's exactly what the Ryan Republican budget that was passed in the House of Representatives earlier this year-- and supported by the vast majority Republicans here in the Senate just last month-- would do. Here are just a few examples:

The Republican budget passed by the House this year would end Medicare as we know it within 10 years.

The non-partisan CBO estimates that under the Ryan proposal, in 2022, a private health care plan for a 65-year-old equivalent to Medicare coverage would cost about $20,500, yet the Republican budget would provide a voucher for only $8,000 of those premiums. Seniors would be on their own to pay the remaining $12,500-- a full 61% of the total. How many of the 20 million near-elderly Americans who are now ages 50-54 will be able to afford that? This approach would transfer control of Medicare to insurers and there would be no guaranteed benefits, essentially ending Medicare as we know it.

The Republican budget would force 4 million seniors in this country to pay $3,500 more, on average, for their prescription drugs by re-opening the Medicare Part D donut hole.

Under the Republican budget, nearly 2 million children would lose their health insurance over the next 5 years by cuts to the Children's Health Insurance Program, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

At a time when 50 million Americans have no health insurance, the Republican budget would cut Medicaid by over $770 billion, causing millions of Americans to lose their health insurance and cutting nursing home assistance in half - threatening the long-term care of some 10 million senior citizens.

The Republican budget would completely repeal the Affordable Health Care Act preventing an estimated 34 million uninsured Americans from getting the health insurance they need.

At a time when the cost of a college education is becoming out of reach for millions of Americans, the Republican budget would slash college Pell grants by about 60% next year alone - reducing the maximum award from $5,550 to about $2,100.

At a time when over 40 million Americans don't have enough money to feed themselves or their families, the Republican budget would kick up to 10 million Americans off Food Stamps, by slashing this program by more than $125 billion over the next decade.

At a time when our nation's infrastructure is crumbling, the Republican budget passed in the House and supported by all but a handful of Republicans here in the Senate would slash funding for our roads, bridges, rail lines, transit systems, and airports by nearly 40 percent next year alone.

Yet despite the fact that military spending has nearly tripled since 1997, the House Republican budget does nothing to reduce unnecessary defense spending. In fact, defense spending would go up by $26 billion next year alone under the Republican plan.

Interestingly enough, at a time when the rich are becoming richer, when the effective tax rates for the wealthiest people, at 18 percent, are about the lowest on record, at a time when the wealthiest people have received hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks, at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high and major corporations making billions of dollars pay nothing in taxes, my Republican colleagues, in their approach toward deficit reduction, do not ask the wealthiest people or the largest corporations to contribute one penny more for deficit reduction.

In fact, the Republican budget would keep the good times rolling for those who are already doing phenomenally well - it provides over $1 trillion in tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires by permanently extending all of the Bush income tax cuts; reducing the estate tax for multi-millionaires and billionaires; and lowering the top individual and corporate income tax rate from 35 to 25 percent.

Mr. President, the Republican idea of moving toward a balanced budget is to go after the middle-class, working families, and low-income people, and to make sure the millionaires and billionaires and largest corporations in this country that are doing phenomenally well do not have to share in the sacrifices being made by everybody else. They will be protected. The Republican approach to deficit reduction in Washington is the Robin Hood philosophy in reverse: taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

And it's not as if it's good for our economy. Mark Zandi, the former economic advisor to John McCain when he was running for president, has estimated that the Republican budget plan will cost 1.7 million jobs by the year 2014, with 900,000 jobs lost next year alone.

The House Republican budget is breathtaking in its degree of cruelty.

But, don't take my word for it.

In a letter to Congressional leaders after the House GOP plan was introduced, nearly 200 economists and health care experts wrote, "turning Medicare into a voucher program would undermine essential protections for millions of vulnerable people. It would extinguish the most promising approaches to curb costs and to improve the American medical care system."

Jeffrey Sachs, an economics professor at Columbia University, who was a key economic adviser to the World Bank, the IMF, and the World Health Organization, told MSNBC last April that the House Republican plan, "goes right out to destroy Medicaid within the next few years, slashing it drastically. And then on Medicare, it delays [cuts] for 10 years, and then [the House Republican plan] goes out to destroy it, to make sure that elderly people will not have a guaranteed access to health care. They will be getting some premium [support] but they`re going to have to put a lot of money out of pocket."

Robert Greenstein, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said last April that the House Republican budget "proposes a dramatic reverse-Robin-Hood approach that gets the lion's share of its budget cuts from programs for low-income Americans - the politically and economically weakest group in America and the politically safest group for Ryan to target- even as it bestows extremely large tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. Taken together, its proposals would produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history, while increasing poverty and inequality more than any measure in recent times and possibly in the nation's history."

Ezra Klein, a columnist at the Washington Post, wrote last April that "the budget Ryan released is not courageous or serious or significant. It's a joke, and a bad one. For one thing, Ryan's savings all come from cuts, and at least two-thirds of them come from programs serving the poor. The wealthy, meanwhile, would see their taxes lowered, and the Defense Department would escape unscathed. It is not courageous to attack the weak while supporting your party's most inane and damaging fiscal orthodoxies. But the problem isn't just that Ryan's budget is morally questionable. It also wouldn't work."

Harold Meyerson, a columnist for the Washington Post, wrote on April 5th that "If it does nothing else, the budget that the House Republicans unveiled provides the first real Republican program for the 21st century, and it is this: Repeal the 20th century ... Ryan achieves the bulk of his savings through sharp reductions in projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid ... Ryan's budget would also reduce projected spending on discretionary domestic programs - education, transportation, food safety and the like - to well below levels of inflation ... The cover under which Ryan and other Republicans operate is their concern for the deficit and national debt. But Ryan blows that cover by proposing to reduce the top income tax rate to just 25 percent. He imposes the burden for reducing our debt not on the bankers who forced our government to spend trillions averting a collapse but on seniors and the poor."

Mr. Meyerson, concludes by saying this: "There's talk that we have a president who's a Democrat-- the party that created the American social contract of the 20th century. Initially, he focused on reshaping and extending that contract into the 21st. Now that the Republicans want to repeal it all, he's nowhere to be found. Has anybody seen him? Does he still exist?"

Mr. President, the deficit has been caused by unpaid-for wars, tax breaks for the rich, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, the bailout of Wall Street, a declining economy, and less revenue coming in. The Republican "solution" in Washington is to balance the budget on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the children and the poor, to cut back on environmental protection, to cut back on transportation, while providing even more tax breaks to the wealthy and well connected. That is unacceptable and that is what we have got to stop.

Mr. President, it's not just rich individuals who are making out like bandits. As hard as it may be to believe, some of the largest, most profitable corporations in this country are not only avoiding paying any federal income taxes whatsoever, but they are actually receiving tax rebates from the IRS. And, the Republican response to this reality is to provide even more tax breaks to these corporate freeloaders. That may make sense to someone. It does not make sense to me.

Earlier this year, my office published a top ten list of the worst corporate tax avoiders in this country. I would like to take this opportunity to read this list. These are just a few of the corporations that the Republicans want to protect, while they are trying to deny millions of Americans health insurance, a college education, and nutrition assistance. Here are the top ten corporate freeloaders in America today:

1) Exxon Mobil. In 2009, Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profits. Not only did Exxon avoid paying any federal income taxes that year, it actually received a $156 million rebate from the IRS, according to its SEC filings.

2) Bank of America. Last year, Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS, even though it made $4.4 billion in profits and just a couple of years ago received a bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department of nearly $1 trillion.

3) General Electric. Over the past five years, while General Electric made $26 billion in profits in the United States, it received a $4.1 billion refund from the IRS.

4) Chevron. In 2009, Chevron received a $19 million refund from the IRS after it made $10 billion in profits.

5) Boeing. Last year, Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS.

6) Valero Energy. Last year, Valero Energy, the 25th largest company in America with $68 billion in sales last year received a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS and, over the past three years, it received a $134 million tax break from the oil and gas manufacturing tax deduction.

7) Goldman Sachs. In 2008, Goldman Sachs paid only 1.1 percent of its income in taxes even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion and received an almost $800 billion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury Department.

8) Citigroup. Last year, Citigroup made more than $4 billion in profits but paid no federal income taxes, even though it received a $2.5 trillion bailout from the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury.

9) ConocoPhillips. ConocoPhillips, the fifth largest oil company in the United States, made $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, but received $451 million in tax breaks through the oil and gas manufacturing deduction during those years.
10) Carnival Cruise Lines. Over the past five years, Carnival Cruise Lines made more than $11 billion in profits, but its federal income tax rate during those years was just 1.1 percent.

In other words, Mr. President, at a time when major corporations such as General Electric and ExxonMobil make billions of dollars in profit, and pay nothing in federal income taxes, the Republican plan is to provide them with even more tax breaks.

Mr. President, large corporations are sitting on a record-breaking $2 trillion in cash. The problem is not that corporations are taxed too much. The problem is that consumers don't have enough money to buy their products and the Republican agenda would make that far worse.

Corporate tax revenue last year was down by 27% compared to 2000, even though corporate profits are up 60 percent over the last decade.

Large corporations and the wealthy are avoiding $100 billion in taxes every year by setting up offshore tax shelters in places like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the Bahamas. Ending that anti-American shell game could raise $1 trillion over 10 years toward deficit reduction.

In 2005, 1 out of 4 large corporations paid no income taxes at all even though they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue. The simple truth is that if we are going to reduce the deficit in a responsible way, we have got to make sure that profitable corporations pay their fair share.

Now, I understand that my Republican friends, and quite frankly some of my Democratic friends, will do everything they can to protect the wealthy and the powerful, even if it means destroying the lives of millions of Americans in the process.

But, what we need to understand, what the President needs to understand, is that poll after poll after poll shows that the Republican plan to make savage cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and education, while providing even more tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations, is way out of touch with what the American people want.

Let me just read to you a few of these polls.

According to a recent Boston Globe poll of likely voters in New Hampshire, perhaps the most anti-tax state in this country, 73% support raising taxes on people making over $250,000 a year; 78% oppose cutting Medicare; 71% oppose cutting Medicaid; and 76% oppose cutting Social Security.

Now, Mr. President, you may be saying to yourself well, that was just one poll, and it was only polling one state. Clearly, that must have been an aberration.

Wrong. National poll after national poll have almost mirrored what New Hampshire voters are saying.

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found the following:

* 81 percent of the American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to impose a surtax on millionaires to reduce the deficit.

* 74 percent of the American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to eliminate tax credits for the oil and gas industry.

* 68 percent of the American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to phase out the Bush tax cuts for families earning over $250,000 a year.

* 76 percent of the American people believe it is totally acceptable or mostly acceptable to eliminate funding for weapons systems the Defense Department says are not necessary.

* 76 percent believe it is totally unacceptable or mostly unacceptable to cut Medicare to significantly reduce the budget deficit.

* 77 percent believe it is totally unacceptable or mostly unacceptable to cut Social Security to significantly reduce the deficit.

* 67 percent believe it is totally unacceptable or mostly unacceptable to cut Medicaid to significantly reduce the deficit.

* 77 percent believe it is totally unacceptable or mostly unacceptable to cut funding for K-12 education to significantly reduce the deficit.

* 56 percent believe it is totally unacceptable or mostly unacceptable to cut Head Start.

* 59 percent believe it is totally unacceptable or mostly unacceptable to cut college student loans.

* And, 65 percent believe it is totally unacceptable or mostly unacceptable to cut heating assistance to low income families.

And, while the leaders of the Tea Party movement in Washington are fighting to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid and getting the vast majority of Republicans in Congress to follow their marching orders, 70% of those who identify themselves with the Tea Party outside of the beltway oppose cutting Medicare and Medicaid to reduce the deficit, according to a recent McClatchy Poll.

Mr. President, here is the last poll I would like to highlight. It was done by the Washington Post and ABC News, and here is what it says:

* 72% of Americans support raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 to reduce the national debt - including 91% of Democrats; 68% of Independents; and 54% of Republicans.

Yet, Mr. President, there does not seem to be one Republican in Washington, DC, who would support raising taxes on the wealthiest two percent of Americans-- those earning over $250,000 a year to reduce the deficit. Only in Washington is it considered a controversial idea to make the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share.

Instead of listening to millionaire and billionaire campaign contributors, it is time for our leaders in Washington to start listening to the overwhelming majority of Americans who want the wealthiest people in this country and the most profitable corporations in this country to contribute to deficit reduction. It is time for shared sacrifice. The middle class, the elderly, the sick, the children, and the poor have already sacrificed enough in terms of lost jobs, lost wages, lost pensions, and lost homes. When are the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations going to be asked to pay their fair share? If not now, when?

And, the fact of the matter is, Mr. President, that moving towards deficit reduction in a way that's fair is not quite as complicated as the American people have been led to believe by the corporate media and right wing think tanks.

In fact, if you are not beholden to Wall Street, large corporations and wealthy campaign contributors, and you are not scared to death of the unlimited number of 30 second ads they may run against you, it is actually quite easy.

I know many people have different ideas about how we might move towards a balanced budget. I am not saying that I have all of the answers. But, let me just give a few examples of how we can reduce the deficit by more than $4 trillion dollars over the next decade that asks the wealthy and large corporations to pay their fair share and does not unfairly harm ordinary Americans.

First, if we simply repealed the Bush tax breaks for the top two percent, we could raise at least $700 billion over the next decade. The Republicans claim that repealing these tax breaks would increase unemployment. They are wrong. These tax breaks have been in place for over a decade and they have not led to a single net private sector job. In fact, under the eight years of President Bush, the private sector lost over 600,000 jobs and the deficit exploded. When President Clinton increased taxes on the top two percent, over 22 million jobs were created, and the revenue generated from this policy led to a $236 billion budget surplus.

Secondly, a 5.4 percent surtax on millionaires and billionaires would raise more than $383 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Tax Committee. As I said earlier, a millionaire's surtax has the support of 81 percent of the American people according to NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Third, Mr. President, the U.S. government is actually rewarding companies that move U.S. manufacturing jobs overseas through loopholes in the tax code known as deferral and foreign source income. This is unacceptable. During the last decade, the U.S. lost about 30% of its manufacturing jobs and over 50,000 factories have been shut down.

If we ended the absurdity of providing tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, the Joint Tax Committee has estimated that we could raise more than $582 billion in revenue over the next ten years. Right now we have a tax policy that says that if you shut down a manufacturing plant in America, and move to China, the IRS will give you a tax break. That may make sense to corporate CEOs. It doesn't make sense to me.

Fourth, Mr. President, if we ended tax breaks and subsidies for big oil and gas companies, we could reduce the deficit by more than $40 billion over the next ten years. The five largest oil companies in the United States have earned about $1 trillion in profits over the past decade. Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the very largest oil companies in America like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, as I pointed out earlier, have paid absolutely nothing in Federal income taxes. In fact, some of them have actually gotten a rebate from the IRS. That has got to stop.

Fifth, Mr. President, if we prohibited abusive and illegal offshore tax shelters, we could reduce the deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next decade. Each and every year, the United States loses an estimated $100 billion in tax revenues due to offshore tax abuses by the wealthy and large corporations. The situation has become so absurd that one five-story office building in the Cayman Islands is now the "home" to more than 18,000 corporations. That is wrong. The wealthy and large corporations should not be allowed to avoid paying taxes by setting up tax shelters in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas or other tax haven countries.

Sixth, Mr. President, if we established a Wall Street speculation fee of less than one percent on the sale and purchase of credit default swaps, derivatives, stock options and futures, we could reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade. Both the economic crisis and the deficit crisis are a direct result of the greed and recklessness on Wall Street. Establishing a speculation fee would reduce gambling on Wall Street, encourage the financial sector to invest in the productive economy, and significantly reduce the deficit without harming average Americans.

There are a number of precedents for this. The U.S had a similar Wall Street speculation fee from 1914 to 1966. The Revenue Act of 1914 levied a 0.2% tax on all sales or transfers of stock. In 1932, Congress more than doubled that tax to help finance the government during the Great Depression. And today, England has a financial transaction tax of 0.25 percent, a penny on every $4 invested.

Number seven, Mr. President, if we taxed capital gains and dividends, the same way that we tax work, we could raise more than $730 billion over the next decade. Warren Buffet has often said that he pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary. And, today the effective tax rate of the richest 400 Americans, who earn an average of more than $280 million each year, is just 18 percent, lower than most nurses, teachers, firefighters, and police officers pay. The reason for this is that the wealthy obtain most of their income from capital gains and dividends, which is taxed at a much lower rate than work. Right now, the top marginal income tax for working is 35%, but the tax rate on corporate dividends and capital gains is only 15%. Taxing wealth and work at the same rate could raise more than $730 billion over a ten-year period-- and it's the right thing to do.

Number eight, if we established a progressive estate tax on inherited wealth of more than $3.5 million, we could raise more than $70 billion over 10 years. Last year, I introduced the Responsible Estate Tax Act that would reduce the deficit in a fair way while ensuring that 99.7 percent of Americans who lose a loved one would never have to pay a dime in federal estate taxes.

Number nine, we have got to reduce unnecessary and wasteful spending at the Pentagon, which now consumes over half of our discretionary budget. Since 1997, our defense budget has virtually tripled going from $254 billion to $700 billion.

Defense experts such as Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, has estimated that we could achieve significant savings of around $100 billion a year at the Pentagon while still ensuring that the United States has the strongest and most powerful military in the world.

For example, as a result of four separate investigations that I requested, the GAO has found that the Pentagon has $36.9 billion in spare parts that it does not need and which are collecting dust in government warehouses. We have got to do a much better job than that.

And, much of the huge spending at the Pentagon is devoted to spending money on Cold War weapons programs to fight a Soviet Union that no longer exists. That has got to stop.

Further, we also must end the unnecessary War in Iraq and the War in Afghanistan as soon as possible. These wars have gone on long enough. Reducing Pentagon spending by at least $900 billion over 10 years is something that we can and must do.

Number 10, if we required Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, we could save over $157 billion over 10 years. As a result of the Medicare Part D prescription drug legislation signed into law under President George W. Bush, Medicare is prohibited from negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug prices for seniors. This is wrong. Requiring Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices could save the federal government and seniors over $15 billion a year.

Number 11, if we enacted a robust public option or a Medicare-for-all health insurance program, we would be able to save more than $68 billion over the next decade and provide affordable health insurance coverage for millions of Americans.

Number 12, Mr. President, as almost everyone knows, China is manipulating its currency, giving it an unfair trade advantage over the United States and destroying decent paying manufacturing jobs in the process. If we imposed a currency manipulation fee on China and other low wage countries, the Economic Policy Institute has estimated that we could raise $500 billion over 10 years and create 1 million jobs in the process.

Finally, Mr. President, I think just about everyone agrees that there is waste, fraud, and abuse in every agency of the federal government. Rooting out this waste, fraud, and abuse could save about $200 billion over the next 10 years.

Mr. President, if we did all of these things we could easily reduce the deficit by well over $4 trillion over the next decade, if not much more. It would be done in a fair way, and it would not unnecessarily and needlessly ruin the lives of millions of Americans who are struggling desperately just to make ends meet.

Mr. President, the radical right wing agenda of more tax breaks for the wealthy paid for by the dismantling of Medicare, Medicaid, education, nutrition, and the environment may be popular in the country clubs and cocktail parties of the rich and powerful, but it is way out of touch with what the overwhelming majority of Americans want.

Mr. President, as you know, late last week, Congressman Eric Cantor, the Republican Majority Leader in the House and Senator Jon Kyl, the Republican Minority Whip in the House walked out of the budget negotiations being led by Vice President Joe Biden.

And, the reason they walked out was clear. They were not willing to close one single loophole in the tax code that allows the wealthy and large corporations to avoid paying taxes by stashing their money in the Cayman Islands. They were unwilling to stop tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, or close tax loopholes that give billionaires like Warren Buffet the ability to pay lower effective tax rates than their secretaries.

There is apparently no end as to how far the Republican leadership will go in Washington to protect their wealthy campaign contributors, even if it means allowing the federal debt limit to expire and causing another depression.

My sincere hope is that the President will use this Republican walkout as an opportunity to rally the American people and make it clear that he will never support Republican demands to move toward a balanced budget solely on the backs of working families, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor.

But, I don't think that the President will do this unless the American people send him a message that enough is enough! The American people have got to write to the President and tell him not to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable people in this country. Do not decimate Medicare, Medicaid, Pell Grants, education, and the environment to pay for more tax breaks for the rich and powerful. Stand up for the millions, who have seen their homes, jobs, and savings vanish, instead of the millionaires, who have never had it so good.

For those of you who are listening to this speech, if you believe that enough is enough, if you believe in shared sacrifice, if you believe that it is time for the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations to contribute to deficit reduction, go to my website: sanders.senate.gov. At this website, you will find a letter to the White House that you can sign-- let me read what it says:

"Dear Mr. President,

"This is a pivotal moment in the history of our country. Decisions are being made about the national budget that will impact the lives of virtually every American for decades to come. As we address the issue of deficit reduction we must not ignore the painful economic reality of today - which is that the wealthiest people in our country and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well while the middle class is collapsing and poverty is increasing. In fact, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth.

"Everyone understands that over the long term we have got to reduce the deficit-- a deficit that was caused mainly by Wall Street greed, tax breaks for the rich, two wars, and a prescription drug program written by the drug and insurance companies. It is absolutely imperative, however, that as we go forward with deficit reduction we completely reject the Republican approach that demands savage cuts in desperately-needed programs for working families, the elderly, the sick, our children and the poor, while not asking the wealthiest among us to contribute one penny.

"Mr. President, please listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who believe that deficit reduction must be about shared sacrifice. The wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations in this country must pay their fair share. At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction package must come from revenue raised by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit large, profitable corporations and Wall Street financial institutions. A sensible deficit reduction package must also include significant cuts to unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon spending.

"Please do not yield to outrageous Republican demands that would greatly increase suffering for the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society. Now is the time to stand with the tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to survive economically, not with the millionaires and billionaires who have never had it so good."

If you're listening out there, and agree with what I am saying, but are wondering what you can do to make a difference, I would urge you to consider signing this letter. Staying silent and doing nothing is not an option. Your voice needs to be heard and you can make a difference.

Mr. President, we have seen this movie before. The Republicans, led by their extreme right wing, have been successful in getting their way because of their refusal to compromise and their willingness to hold the good credit and economic security of the American people hostage.

In December, the Republican leadership was prepared to hold the middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits hostage in order to extend the Bush tax breaks for the top two percent. The Republicans won and as a result over $200 billion was added to the deficit over the next two years.

Specifically, the December tax cut agreement extended the Bush income tax rates for those earning more than $250,000; maintained lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends; and lowered the estate tax which only benefits the top 0.3 percent.
Let me remind, my colleagues who the biggest winners were from last December's tax cut agreement.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, extending the Bush tax breaks for the top 2 percent has provided Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation, with an estimated $1.3 million tax break.

Tom Donohue, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who has urged American corporations to ship jobs overseas, will receive an estimated $215,000 tax break from this deal.

Jamie Dimon, the head of JP Morgan Chase, whose bank received a bailout of over $160 billion from the Federal Reserve, will receive an estimated $1.1 million tax break from this deal.

Vikram Pandit, the CEO of Citigroup, a bank that got more than $2.5 trillion in near zero interest loans from the Fed, will receive an estimated $785,000 tax break by extending the Bush tax cuts.

Ken Lewis, the former CEO of Bank of America, a bank that got nearly a trillion dollars in low interest loans from the Fed, will receive an estimated $713,000 tax break.

The CEO of Wells Fargo (John Stumpf), whose bank got a $25 billion bailout, will receive an $813,000 tax break from this deal.

The CEO of Morgan Stanley (John Mack), whose bank got more than $2 trillion in low interest loans from the Fed, will receive a $926,000 tax break from this agreement.

The CEO of Aetna (Ronald Williams) will receive a tax break worth $875,000.

The CEO of Cigna (David Cordani) will receive a $350,000 tax break. And, on and on it goes.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class disappears. That is what is going on in this country today.

Then, Mr. President, In April, the Republicans in Congress were prepared to shut down the government, disrupt the economy, and deny paychecks to 800,000 federal workers if they couldn't get their way in slashing programs for low and moderate income Americans. As a result, the President and this Congress agreed to virtually everything the Republicans wanted by enacting a budget that slashed $78 billion from the President's request.

Let me give you just a few examples of what kinds of cuts were included in this year's spending agreement:
At a time when college education has become unaffordable for many, Pell grants are now being reduced by an estimated $35 billion over 10 years.

At a time when 50 million Americans have no health insurance, at a time when we have a crisis in access to primary care, and at a time when 45,000 Americans die each and every year because they delay seeking care they cannot afford, the 2011 spending agreement cut $600 million from community health centers and $3.5 billion from the Children's Health Insurance Program.

At a time when we should be putting Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, federal funding for new high-speed rail projects was eliminated. In other words, the rich get richer, while the needs of ordinary Americans are attacked.
And, today, the Republican Leadership has made it clear that, unless they get their way on implementing a significant part of the Ryan budget in 2012, they are prepared to vote against raising the debt ceiling. If the debt ceiling is not extended, the United States will, for the first time in history, default on its debt and likely plunge the world's financial markets into a major crisis. Yet that is just what the Republican leadership and its members are threatening to do. Shame on them.

Mr. President, in many ways, the Republicans in Washington have been acting like school yard bullies. And, as we know, bullying is a serious problem in our schools. Every educator worth his or her salt will tell you that when you're dealing with a bully, you must not give into their tactics or tolerate their temper tantrums - you have to deal with them sternly and consistently. You cannot allow them to win by dictating the rules of the game and trampling over everyone else if they don't get their way.

Mr. President, we have a serious deficit problem that must be solved, no one would deny it.

But the problem is not that we spend too much on the needs of the elderly and have to slash Social Security; the problem is that we have provided hundreds of billions in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires who don't need them and in many cases don't want them.

The problem is not that we spend too much money on financial aid for college and have to slash Pell Grants. The average college senior today is graduating with $24,000 in debt. The problem is that each and every year, large corporations and the wealthiest in our society are avoiding $100 billion in federal taxes through tax shelters in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other places throughout the world.

The problem is not that we are spending too much on childcare. Childcare is increasingly becoming out of reach for too many American families. The problem is that about one out of four large and profitable corporations in this country do not pay any federal income taxes, and in many cases get a tax rebate from the IRS.

The problem is not that we spend too much money to reduce childhood poverty in this country. We have the highest childhood poverty rate in the industrialized world! The problem is that when all is said and done we will have spent $3 trillion on the unnecessary and misguided Iraq War.

Mr. President, the problem is that this deficit was caused by actions voted for by nearly all of my Republican friends: the wars, tax breaks for the rich, Medicare Part D, and the Wall Street Bailout. In the middle of a recession when the middle class and working families are already hurting, when poverty is increasing it is not only immoral, it is bad economics to balance the budget on working families and the most vulnerable people in this country.

When people are hurting, when they have lost their jobs, when their incomes are going down, you do not say to those people: We are throwing you off Medicaid. We are going to end Medicare as we know it, we are going to cut back on Federal aid to education so your kid cannot go to college. That is not what you say in a humane and fair society.

On the other hand, at the same time as the wealthiest people are becoming phenomenally wealthier, and when large corporations are making huge profits, and in many cases not paying any taxes at all, it is entirely appropriate-- in fact, it is a moral imperative-- to say to those people: Sorry, you are also American. You have got to participate in shared sacrifice. You have also got to help us reduce the deficit.

That is where we are right now. We are at a pivotal moment in the midst of a major debate, but it is not only on financial issues. It is very much a philosophical debate. It is a debate about which side you are on. Do you continue to give tax breaks to the very rich and make savage cuts for working families, for children, the elderly, the poor, the most vulnerable?

Mr. President, another thing that is rarely mentioned on the floor of the Senate is the $3 trillion Federal Reserve bailout, that was only fully made public after I inserted an amendment into the Dodd-Frank Act last year to require that it be made public.

As it turns out, while small business owners in the State of Vermont and throughout this country were being turned down for loans, not only did large financial institutions receive substantial help from the Fed, but also some of the largest corporations in this country also received help in terms of very low interest loans.

And, here is something we also learned: this bailout was not just about American banks and corporations but foreign banks and foreign corporations also received hundreds of billions of dollars from the Fed as well.

Then, on top of that, a number of the wealthiest individuals in this country also received a major bailout from the Fed. The "emergency response,'' which is what the Fed described their action as during the Wall Street collapse, appears to any objective observer to have been the clearest case that I can imagine of socialism for the very rich and rugged free market individualism for everybody else.

In other words, if you are a huge financial institution, like Goldman Sachs, whose recklessness and greed caused this great recession, no problem. You get almost $800 bilion in near zero interest rate loans from the Fed. If you are a major American corporation, such as General Electric or McDonald's or Caterpillar or Harley-Davidson or Verizon, no problem. You received a major handout from the U.S. Government.

But if you are a senior citizen living in a nursing home paid for by Medicaid, well, guess what, you are on your own.

If you are an elderly person who cannot afford to heat their homes in the winter when the temperature is 20 below zero, tough luck. We don't have any money for you. But, if you happen to be the state-owned Bank of Bavaria-- not Pennsylvania, not California, but Bavaria-- the Federal Reserve has enough money to loan you over $2.2 billion by purchasing your commercial paper.

The Fed said this bailout was necessary in order to prevent the world economy from going over a cliff. But over 3 years after the start of the recession, millions of Americans remain unemployed and have lost their homes, their life savings, and their ability to send their kids to college. Meanwhile, huge banks and large corporations have returned to making incredible profits and paying their executives record-breaking compensation packages, as if the financial crisis they started never occurred.

Mr. President, everyone understands that over the long-term we have got to reduce our record-breaking $14.2 trillion national debt. But, we must reduce the deficit in a fair way and not balance the budget solely on the backs of the middle class, the sick, the elderly, the children and the poor.

That means we absolutely must tell the wealthy and large corporations that it is high time that they to pay their fair share in taxes. And, that means that the President has got to stand tall and stand firm and let the American people know that if we do default on our debt obligations, if America and the world economy is plunged into a depression, it was because the Republicans refused to raise the taxes of the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations in this country by one red cent.

Shared sacrifice isn't just good public policy, it is also what the American people want. Overwhelming majorities of the American people believe that the best way to reduce the deficit is to end tax breaks for the wealthy, big oil, Wall Street, and that we must bring our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's about time that Washington listened to the American people. Let's reduce the deficit. But, let's do it in a fair and responsible way that requires shared sacrifice from the wealthiest Americans and most profitable corporations.

I thank the President and I yield the floor.

BERNIE ISN'T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, BUT . . .

. . . he'll be fighting a Senate reelection battle next year. Think his voice needs to continue to be heard? You can help out here... while you listen to Mojo Nixon's perspective on banksters.

#