December, 01 2009, 08:15pm EDT
Senator Sanders' Statement on Afghanistan
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made the following
statement after President Obama announced tonight that he will send 30,000
more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
"I
agree with President Obama that it would be a setback for democracy and
stability if the Taliban regained power, but I have serious concerns.
WASHINGTON
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made the following
statement after President Obama announced tonight that he will send 30,000
more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
"I
agree with President Obama that it would be a setback for democracy and
stability if the Taliban regained power, but I have serious concerns."First,
why are American taxpayers and our brave soldiers bearing almost all the
burden in what should be an international effort? Where are Europe, Russia,
China and the rest of the world? Second, why in the midst of a severe
recession - with 17 percent of our people unemployed or under-employed
and one out of four kids on food stamps - are we going to be spending
$100 billion a year on Afghanistan when we have so many pressing needs at
home? Third, I worry about how we can forge a dependable partnership with an
Afghan government that is ineffective and corrupt."My
nightmare is that we may get caught in a quagmire situation from which there
will be no successful exit."
LATEST NEWS
Underscoring Election Stakes, Biden Admin Moves to Require Coverage of OTC Birth Control
"As Trump and his radical Republican allies restrict women's reproductive healthcare, today's action by the Biden-Harris administration shows there is a different path," said Sen. Ron Wyden.
Oct 21, 2024
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential candidate, suggested Monday that the Biden administration's newly proposed rule to expand access to over-the-counter birth control is the latest policy that underscores the stakes for reproductive justice in the 2024 election.
"While we fight to protect and expand healthcare, extremist so-called leaders are attacking reproductive freedom at every turn," said Harris.
The vice president was referring to a new rule under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) proposed by the administration to require insurers to cover all over-the-counter birth control, including the nonprescription birth control pill approved last year, emergency contraception, condoms, and spermicides.
The ACA requires health plans to cover contraception without copayments for patients, but the rule only applies to prescription birth control.
After the Food and Drug Administration approved Opill, a nonprescription birth control pill, last year, reproductive rights advocates and Democrats in Congress called on the Biden administration to make sure the pill would "meet its potential and be truly accessible."
"Federal departments must ensure that it is covered without cost-sharing and without the need for a prescription as a condition of coverage," said 48 Senate Democrats in a letter.
The Biden administration said that if the rule is finalized, it would expand access to 52 million women of reproductive age who have private health insurance.
"We should not forget that Republicans have consistently sought to undermine access to contraception and far-right extremists have even sought to limit access or even ban basic forms of contraception—this threat to our healthcare is real and serious."
"Birth control—and any kind of contraception—is just basic healthcare, and it should be covered and easy to get," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who authored the Affordability Is Access Act to require insurers to fully cover over-the-counter birth control. "Women in America should not have to jump through hoops to make sure insurance is covering their basic reproductive healthcare needs."
"We should not forget that Republicans have consistently sought to undermine access to contraception and far-right extremists have even sought to limit access or even ban basic forms of contraception—this threat to our healthcare is real and serious," added Murray. "While Republicans continue to attack standard and necessary forms of healthcare, Democrats will continue to fight to expand access to contraception and lower healthcare costs for everyone."
When Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022 by the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court—stacked with justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, now the Republican presidential nominee—Justice Clarence Thomas said the court's finding that the "right to privacy" did not extend to abortion care could also be used to overturn a 1965 case that affirmed married couples had a right to use contraception.
Senate Republicans earlier this year blocked consideration of the Right to Contraception Act, and Trump has suggested he supports restrictions on birth control.
"As Trump and his radical Republican allies restrict women's reproductive healthcare, today's action by the Biden-Harris administration shows there is a different path: expanded access and lower costs for women's healthcare," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) Monday. "I'm all in on the effort to ensure Americans across the country can get the reproductive healthcare they need without worrying about cost or prosecution by ideological crusaders."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Right-Wing Think Tank Finds Trump Plans Would Wreck Social Security
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that Republican nominee Donald Trump's campaign proposals "would dramatically worsen Social Security's finances."
Oct 21, 2024
Republican nominee Donald Trump's claim that he wants to "fight for and protect Social Security" was called into further question Monday after a conservative think tank released an analysis projecting that the former president's economic proposals and mass deportation plan would significantly damage the New Deal program's finances.
The new analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) specifically focuses on Trump's proposals to end taxes on tips, Social Security benefits, and overtime pay; implement sweeping tariffs on imports; and launch what he's described as the "largest domestic deportation operation in American history."
The think tank projected that, if enacted, Trump's agenda would "increase Social Security's 10-year cash shortfall by $2.3 trillionthrough FY 2035" and "lead to a 33% across-the-board benefit cut in 2035, up from the 23% [the Congressional Budget Office] projects under current law."
Trump's plans would also "increase Social Security's annual shortfall by roughly 50% in FY 2035" and "advance insolvency by three years, from FY 2034 to FY 2031."
"Trump has said he would close Social Security's long-term shortfall by increasing drilling for oil and natural gas and by growing the economy," the analysis notes. "However, we've shown that increased energy exploration is unlikely to have a meaningful effect on Social Security—even if the gains were deposited into the trust fund. We've also shown that it would require unrealistically fast economic growth to close Social Security's existing long-term funding gap."
Social Security Works (SSW), a progressive advocacy group that supports expanding the New Deal program, highlighted CRFB's analysis in a social media post on Monday, writing, "Donald Trump plans to slash $2.3 TRILLION from Social Security while giving massive tax handouts to Wall Street billionaires." (The Social Security Works Political Action Committee has endorsed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris for the presidency.)
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare—which endorsed Harris in July—said it is "not surprising that Donald Trump's ill-conceived plans would devastate the financial health of Social Security and lead to huge benefit cuts."
"Trump's plans are of a piece with his overall recklessness with Social Security. He suspended the payroll tax that funds the program during Covid—and hoped it would be eliminated," said Richtman. "His White House budgets would have slashed Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) by billions of dollars. He said earlier this year that he was 'open' to 'cutting entitlements,' then tried to walk it back. He once called Social Security a 'Ponzi Scheme.' Time and again, Trump has chosen political expediency without considering—or caring about—the consequences. Despite his posturing, Donald Trump is no friend to Social Security or American seniors."
In a footnote of its analysis, CRFB states that Harris' proposals thus far "would not have large effects on Social Security trust fund solvency."
The Harris campaign quickly seized on CRFB's findings. Joseph Costello, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign, said in a statement Monday that "Donald Trump's agenda poses an imminent threat to Social Security, and seniors could have their benefits cut by a third."
"This is yet another reason that Americans simply cannot afford the risk of another Trump term, where he would pursue unchecked power to use his Project 2025 agenda to hurt the American people," said Costello. "Vice President Harris is committed to protecting Social Security benefits and is the only candidate who will actually fight for seniors, not just pay them lip service on the campaign trail."
According to the latest report from Social Security's Board of Trustees, the program is currently positioned to fully pay all benefits and administrative costs until 2035. Thereafter, even if Congress does nothing to shore up the program, it would be able to pay 83% of scheduled benefits.
To bring in more revenue and ensure Social Security's solvency through the end of the century, progressives in Congress have called for raising or scrapping the payroll tax cap, which allows the rich to stop contributing to the program just weeks into each year while ordinary Americans pay in year-round.
The Harris campaign has broadly signaled support for that approach, saying in its economic policy platform that the Democratic nominee would "shore up Social Security and Medicare so that these essential programs will stay solvent in the long run by making corporations and the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes."
This story has been updated to include comment from the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire Investors Are 'Supercharging' Housing Crisis: Report
"Billionaires see housing as a way to boost their bottom line, instead of a necessity to survive."
Oct 21, 2024
A new report out Monday puts "into numbers the trend that ordinary Americans have known to be true for years," said economic justice advocates behind the analysis: "Their everyday struggles of affording a home are made worse by the sweeping influence that billionaires have over the market."
The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) joined Popular Democracy in compiling a 71-page report titledBillionaire Blowback on Housing, aiming to get to the bottom of growing concerns in recent years about how Wall Street, as Democratic vice presidential nominee and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said earlier this month, is "buying up housing and making them less affordable."
The two groups found that a small number of wealthy individuals and their investment arms, who control "huge pools of wealth," have spent some of their vast resources on "predatory investment and wealth-parking in luxury housing"—contributing significantly to the crises of unaffordable rents, out-of-reach homeownership, and homelessness.
Billionaires are "supercharging existing problems" in the housing market, according to the report.
The authors take issue with assumptions about what is driving the housing crisis, which is characterized by record-breaking homelessness in 2023 with more than 653,000 people unhoused; half of tenants paying more than 30% of their income on rent, making them cost-burdened; and a significantly widened gap between the income needed to buy a house and the actual cost of a home.
"The real estate industry would like you to believe the problem is entirely one based on supply and demand," and that regulations need to be changed to allow for the construction of more affordable housing, reads the report. But with 16 million vacant homes across the U.S.—28 for every unhoused person—"the reality is that the owners of concentrated wealth... are playing a more pronounced role in residential housing, thereby creating price inflation, distortions, and inefficiencies in the market."
Signifying the U.S. real estate market's "emerging status as global tax haven," the number of vacant units in some communities exceed the number of unhoused people partially because wealthy investors are acquiring property and intentionally leaving it vacant, found IPS and Popular Democracy.
"The reality is that the owners of concentrated wealth... are playing a more pronounced role in residential housing, thereby creating price inflation, distortions, and inefficiencies in the market."
For example, in 2017 there were more than 93,500 vacant units in Los Angeles and an estimated 36,000 unhoused residents, with vacancies treated as "a structural feature of the market thanks to the presence of a small class of wealthy investors who engage in speculative financial behavior."
Billionaires and their investment firms, such as Blackstone—now the world's largest corporate landlord—are also "taking advantage of the tight low-income rental market, lack of publicly funded affordable housing, displacement after the foreclosure crisis, and inaccessible homeownership to get into the business of single-family and multifamily home rentals, and buying up mobile home parks," the report reads.
In one section of North Minneapolis, private equity firms including Pretium Partners "snatched up blocks of single-family rental homes, added fees on top of rent, and then proceeded to neglect the maintenance and upkeep of their properties."
Blackstone now owns 300,000 residential units across the U.S. and nearly doubled its portfolio in 2021. With $1 trillion in assets, it owns 63,000 single-family homes, 149,000 apartment units, and 70 mobile home parks.
Corporate ownership of rental housing stock "has not translated into housing stability, particularly for working-class households and communities of color," reads the report. "Rather, corporate landlords have concentrated their predatory investment practices—flipping, rent gouging, habitability violations, and evictions—in lower-income communities of color."
The billionaire class and its private equity firms, said Chuck Collins, co-author of the report and director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at IPS, has "severely disrupted" the housing market.
"This is not your grandparent's gentrification—but a hyper-gentrification fueled by concentrated wealth driving up land and housing costs, expanding short-term rentals, and treating housing like a commodity to speculate on or a place to park wealth," said Collins. "The billionaires are displacing the millionaires, and the millionaires are disrupting the housing market for everyone else."
The report calls on policymakers to expand social housing—housing developed by the government or a not-for-profit entity to ensure individuals, households, and families are guaranteed housing as a human right, which cannot be sold for profit.
Social housing could be paid for by levying mansion taxes, regulating predatory practices in the real estate market, and taxing billionaires.
Local communities can also protect residents and generate revenue for affordable housing through actions including:
- Establishing "Housing First" programs to rapidly provide permanently affordable housing to the unhoused and end the criminalization of homelessness;
- Limiting corporate ownership of housing and passing laws requiring ownership transparency so corporations can no longer secretly buy up neighborhoods;
- Passing ordinances giving apartment and mobile home tenants the "first option to buy" when their communities come up for sale;
- Prohibiting owners from keeping units vacant for long periods of time; and
- Creating local Offices of Social Housing and Social Housing Development Authorities to function as supportive infrastructure, with the input of tenant unions, unhoused people's organizations, and other impacted community members.
"Billionaires see housing as a way to boost their bottom line, instead of a necessity to survive. This current system doesn't serve our communities," said Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, co-executive directors for Popular Democracy. "We need to do better. That starts with re-shaping our systems to look out for the needs and desires of working families, instead of billionaire investment and speculation. We need to safeguard renters' rights, and drastically expand the availability of permanently and truly affordable quality housing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular