SUBSCRIBE: Get weekly episodes by Facebook, Twitter, Podcast or email:   Zip Code:
Senator Sanders Unfiltered
by Senator Bernie Sanders | December 4th, 2009

The American people overwhelmingly voted last year for a change in our national priorities to put the interests of ordinary people ahead of the greed of Wall Street and the wealthy few. What the American people did not bargain for was another four years for one of the key architects of the Bush economy.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, in charge of the central bank since 2006, could have demanded that Wall Street provide adequate credit to small and medium-sized businesses to create decent-paying jobs in a productive economy, but he did not.

He could have insisted that large bailed-out banks end the usurious practice of charging interest rates of 30 percent or more on credit cards, but he did not. He could have broken up too-big-to-fail financial institutions that took Federal Reserve assistance, but he did not.

He could have revealed which banks took more than $2 trillion in taxpayer-backed secret loans, but he did not.

The American people want a new direction on Wall Street and at the Fed. They do not want as chairman someone who has been part of the problem and who has been responsible for many of the enormous difficulties that we are now experiencing. It’s time for a change at the Fed.

We need a new chairman. We need somebody who is going to pay attention to small- and medium-sized business, somebody who is going to do everything he or she can to grow our economy and create decent paying jobs, somebody who is going to protect consumers against outrageously high interest rates on their credit cards, and somebody who is going to stand up for ordinary people.

I am going to do my best to see that Mr. Bernanke’s nomination is defeated.

  • Nancy
    Dear Senator Sanders,
    I've brought up an idea on two "progressive" radio shows and quite surprisingly received the same answer, one that would require a Constitutional amendment, while my idea would only require a replacement of one law for another. My idea is to repeal the law that restricts the number of representatives to 435 and replace it with one that will grow as our population does as the Constitutional had originally intended. Not only do I get the same answer, they cut me off in mid-sentence and would not answer my subsequent calls. Before the cut-off, I told them that I had looked into other countries to find out how many people were represented per representative (cause somehow they get labeling on their foods as to whether they are GMO's, and they get to test their beef (all their beef) for mad cow) and found out there are about 200,000 people to one representative. Our average, according to the host, is 800,000. Montana is more than one million. Wyoming provides 200,000, but that is per Senator! In my opinion, our corruption could be ended by putting more people in the house and I've contributed my ideas to a site: www.thirty-thousand.org. I differ from them because they say they need a Constitutional amendment to make the change and make it stick. I still maintain the less involved method of just replacing the law, but I don't know how to make this idea available to the public, and is it so dangerous an idea that it would warrant fear for my life? The award winning author of "Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers", addresses her concerns of how hollow India's democracy is. Couldn't this be applied here? When I questioned my Representative (who happened to be in the same 4th of July parade) of how many people's signature on a petition it would take for him to co-sponsor a bill to impeach the president he laughed in my face and bragged that he had 700,000 constituents and that the number didn't matter, he had made up his mind and he wasn't going to change it. Now, is that what anyone would call representation? After I complained in an e-mail that my and my husband's jobs (white collar, technical) were being outsourced to Russia (the very same design center that Secy Clinton proudly visited), he didn't bother to create a local task force, but said that the GAO made a report that blue collar jobs were being outsourced, so he had no proof of my allegations! He couldn't have just had a meeting? Microsoft jobs were being taken by H-1B visa holders whose numbers had been so conveniently lost by the government. He certainly would have heard an earful. Also he convened his healthcare meeting outside his district. And now he calls himself a progressive. Makes me sick, he's a Democrat, but I want another. He's spent most of his adult life in government. If you think this is too inflammatory to be discussed, please don't take it on yourself. As for me, it is something that constantly nags me. We need you to fight for us. Don't take any private airplane trips! By now Bernanke has been reconfirmed, but Elizabeth Warren would have been a better or Spitzer.
  • Hey everyone -- we have to get more active especially when there is depressing news. Center for Media and Democracy has a reform site, but even better a video: "Its NOT Such a Wonderful Life" at http://www.banksterusa.org - it's worth sending around. We think it's the perfect message this holiday season with 16 million out of work. People are psyched about the video, and we need to reset our economy. We hope you can watch and send around to people who will appreciate learning more about the crisis.

    See the petition too: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/632/p/dia/...
  • I can think of a number of people right off the top of my head....Brooksley Born, Elliot Spitzer,(Yeah, yeah we know all about his little head getting ahead of his big head...So what...join the human race)

    Any woman actually.

    I believe in my heart of hearts, women should be made the leaders of major institutions, including the Catholic Church. (i.e. molestation of children) I guarantee you, the "good ole boy" network would end, and we'd have a much more even-balanced, more clear headed down to earth semblence of how fairness works, who gets what, and who's worth it.
  • FloridaPat
    You keep blaming everyone for the sky high interest rates on a lot of institutions. On the banks because there is no longer competition. On the Fed for not telling the banks to lower their rates. How about the real people who are responsible for the outrageous interest rate - congress! When Reagan was president and the prime rate was 21% you folks in congress too over the management of bank credit card interest rates by eliminating the state laws that held interest rates at 10%. And for the last almost 30 years you folks have renewed that law. And it only applies to banks! If I loaned someone money and charge them 30% I would go to jail for usury. How about just canceling you own law and letting the interest rates on credit cards just plain go back to the state level where it belongs. You people in congress are responsible for the 30-40% rates banks are now charging.

    And is anyone but me wondering how a bank can charge 30% and go under? What is wrong with our entire financial institutions? Is congress ever going to do anything to regulate the greed that is rampart in banking?
  • Nancy
    I think what happened Pat, is that the Supreme Court said that the credit card companies could charge what ever rate the state their credit card originated sets, so one of the Dakotas decided it would not set a rate, so therefore, the credit card companies can charge whatever interest rate they please, because they all sent their operations there. States used to set rates, mine was 12%, but not anymore. The federal Congress would have to write and pass a bill limiting interest rates, but as you see from the bailout, it ain't gonna happen unless we all inundate the capitol with letters, e-mail, petitions, etc. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.
  • Mac
    The deregulation began under Carter and continues on today. Remember though, even though Congress is complicit in this system, to get Congress to change the Fed Reserve is the tail wagging the cat.
  • Mac
    You are only getting part of the issue. The federal reserve is a system designed to financially enslave the population. It keeps a few people very wealthy and most people working to pay off debts that cannot be paid - ensuring competition and that a hierarchy of wealth forms. It is devious and makes life easy at the top. Read: Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country.
  • Mac
    You are only getting part of the issue. The federal reserve is a system designed to financially enslave the population. It keeps a few people very wealthy and most people working to pay off debts that cannot be paid - ensuring competition and that a hierarchy of wealth forms. It is devious and makes life easy at the top. Read: Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country.
  • I'm 100% with you, Senator Sanders, but I'm wondering who would be a good replacement.

    So, rather than be simply negative and reactive, posit a positive solution in the form of a person who is not a product of wall street, but who has a desire to restore our main street economy.

    Personally, I like Elizabeth Warren, the chair of the Congressional Oversight Committee. She'd be just about perfect.
  • Miranda Carvalho
    I had my doubts about the bailout, but like many others I was convinced that it was necessary. The problem lies with what Bernanke and Geitner have done proceeding that decision. They continue on about the difficulties of their job, but seem content giving our money to the banks so they can prosper. Let's not forget that regulations exist, they just choose not to enforce them. Elizabeth Warren is someone I would love to see as head of the Fed because I believe she is more concerned about the welfare of the American people than she is about making the banks happy.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Brave New Films Brave New Studios