Outsider in the White House (29 page)

During the last week or two of the campaign, many of the newspapers release their endorsements. Predictably, the two major Republican papers in the state, the
Catedonia Record
in St. Johnsbury and the
St. Albans Messenger
, endorse Sweetser. The big surprise, however, is that the largest paper in the state, the
Burlington Free Press
, endorses Jack Long. I had an unpleasant interview with their editorial board, and am not surprised by their endorsement. For many years, and up until the early 1980s, the paper's editorial page was very right wing. In the mid-eighties it became more balanced and moderate, but is now moving back to a position as defender of the state's monied interests.

The good news is that we received very strong endorsements from the
Bennington Banner
and the
Brattleboro Reformer
, as well as editorial support from some weeklies. For the second campaign in a row the
Rutland Herald
refuses to make an endorsement in the congressional race—despite going through the endorsement interview process.

On October 30, a new poll comes out from the
Rutland Herald
. It has us ahead by only 13 points, which is significantly less than other polls had indicated. The poll's results are Sanders 50 percent, Sweetser 37 percent, and Long 4 percent. Are we losing ground? Does Sweetser have some momentum that could carry her over the top? We think not. For whatever reason, throughout the entire campaign, the
Rutland Herald
poll has Sweetser doing much better than the other polls, including our own polls. In fact, this poll shows exactly the same thirteen-point spread as the last poll they did a month before. The
Herald
itself concludes that there does not appear to be much movement in the race.

We have finally decided
not
to use the new ad that Tad has sent us. It is well crafted and balanced, and given the fact that there are now four negative ads on the air attacking me, it would be a very useful antidote. But we have gone this far in the campaign using our TV ads in a strictly positive way—talking about our ideas and our vision. We think that's what Vermonters want. And that's the way we'll end the campaign.

Finally. It is November 5, Election Day. Thank God. The campaign is over. This has been a very, very long campaign.

On Election Day, I follow a pretty established routine. In the morning Jane and I vote at St. Mark's Church. David votes with us. (Levi votes at another polling station, and Heather and Carina have already sent in their absentee ballots.) The media knows what time I will be voting, and I say a few words to the TV cameras. I am surprised at how nervous I am. My remarks are forced.

I then drive around alone to all of the other six polling stations in Burlington, an old habit from when I was mayor. I say hello to the candidates and campaign workers who are assembled outside the stations, check on the voter turnout, and do a little campaigning for the Progressive candidates—four of whom are running for the legislature from Burlington. I then go to the campaign office, where Phil, Tom, Martha, David, and others are coordinating what seems to be a very smooth get-out-the-vote effort.

In the afternoon, Jane and I drive thirty miles up to St. Albans, where John Gallagher, our Franklin County coordinator, tells us that things look good. He feels more optimistic than he did two years ago, when he also coordinated the campaign there. I say hello to some folks, learn about the local races, and shake a few hands.

We return to the house. I rest up, and do some reflecting on the campaign. I think I'm going to win, but I'm not 100 percent sure. I thought I would win the last election easily, and only squeezed home by three points. Could I lose tonight? Absolutely. I don't think I will, but it's certainly possible. Maybe Vermonters will believe that barrage of negative TV advertising and that glossy piece of literature that the corporate interests have sent to what appears to be every household in the state, including a couple to my own home. During the last few days I've told my family and co-workers not to be too disappointed if we lose. We worked hard and ran a damn good campaign. We should win, but we could lose.

I make some phone calls, and then head out again to Burlington's polling stations. I spend some time at the Barnes School, in the heart of Burlington's Old North End. This is a strong working-class area, and has lent more support to me over the years than any other district in Vermont. They gave me overwhelming victories when I was mayor, and have continued to back me strongly in the congressional races. As the campaign comes to an end, win or lose, it's nice to be with friends.

The weather is not good. There's a steady drizzle. And I'm concerned about this. We do best when the voter turnout is high.

I stay out until the polls close at 7 p.m., and then head home. Our election night gathering is at Mona's restaurant, on the waterfront, but I won't be going there until I know for sure if we've won. I'll get the results at home with family and a few friends. Phil and some other people will be calling them in as soon as they hear from our campaign workers around the state. In the house, we have the TV and a few radios on. People are munching on cold cuts.

January 7, 1997. I am sworn in for my fourth term as Vermont's representative. Still the only Independent in Congress. Still an outsider in the House. There is much to do, and for an Independent there is no established trail to follow.

But after three terms in Congress, I know what my job is. Vermont is a small state with only one representative: me. Like every one of my colleagues, I must first represent my state. So I'll be looking out for the particular needs and concerns of Vermont and the Vermonters who elected me. I'm going to fight for everything to which my beautiful state is entitled.

I have a second responsibility. I must continue to defend the rights of all working people when the issues affecting them come before the Congress. I must continue to stand up for the needs of the great majority of Americans: workers, the middle class, the poor, the elderly, the nation's children. All Americans are entitled to live lives of decency and dignity, and I will not abandon that struggle.

The longer I have been in Washington, the more clear a third responsibility has become. As the only Independent, I must do my best to force discussion of matters that the entrenched powers and big money interests do not want discussed. I must insist that we address these issues even though commitment to these concerns is not on the agenda of official Washington. Many of these problems are complicated, and I'm not so smart that I have all the solutions. But I do know this: these difficult questions will not be resolved until millions of Americans, as well as the United States Congress, join in the debate. That's what democracy is supposed to be about.

Honest people have differences of opinion as to what they believe are the most important problems facing this country. Let me tell you straight out the way I see it. Here they are: the unfair distribution of wealth, the decline of decent-paying jobs, the erosion of our democracy, the unchecked power of the corporate media, the insufficiency of our health care system, the inadequacies of American education. Obviously, there are other enormously serious problems facing this nation, but these are the ones at the top of my list. In my view, if we could address these problems forthrightly, our nation would become the great society it has always had the promise of becoming.

Why don't we just roll up our shirtsleeves and start addressing these concerns?

Let me begin by presenting two rather startling facts, and then posing a few questions. Fact 1: in 1993, Michael Eisner, the president of Walt Disney Corporation, earned $200 million. Fact 2: 20 percent of America's children live in poverty. Now, why is neither of these facts—the outrageous vulgarity of Eisner's salary or the unjust condemnation of almost a quarter of our children to a life of poverty—at the forefront of public dialogue? Why do we hear more about O. J. Simpson or the Superbowl or a plane crash than we do about the fact that in a period of declining wages for working people the average CEO of a major American corporation makes more than $3 million a year? Could there be any relation between what we see on the
ABC Evening News
and the fact that Michael Eisner runs Disney and that Disney in turn owns ABC?

I'm not trying to sell you a conspiracy theory. I doubt that Michael Eisner (or Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner) decides what specific items will be aired on an evening news broadcast. Still, there
is
a convergence. Big money interests own the media. The media plays an enormous role in shaping our view of reality. Our view of reality too often turns out to be that the nation's problems are insoluble. And because these problems are insoluble, democracy is no longer relevant.

Let's take a hard look at some of America's major problems.

While the Rich Get Richer, Almost Everyone Else Gets Poorer; the Standard of Living of Most Americans Is in Decline; Democracy Is in Crisis, and Oligarchy Looms; What We Know Is Determined by the Corporate Media; Our Health Care System Is in Shambles; Our Educational System Is Facing a Crisis

The picture looks grim. In America we have the most inequitable distribution of wealth in the entire industrialized world. The middle class is shrinking, the working class is scraping by, and the poor are ever more deeply mired in poverty. Our democratic institutions are so endangered that a clear-eyed observer might well conclude that we live not in a democracy but an oligarchy. The media, which informs and shapes our perceptions of social problems, is owned by a very small number of powerful corporations with deeply vested special interests. Millions of Americans are uninsured, while the quality of health care delivery has declined dramatically just in the past few years. Our democratic system of education, once the gateway to economic and political equality, often fails to provide children with even the rudimentary skills and may soon be dismantled.

But in spite of the magnitude of these problems,
each of them can be addressed and solved
. This, and not a vindictive scapegoating campaign like Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, should form the basis of our nation's legislative agenda.

No Industrialized Nation Has as Great a Gap Between Rich and Poor as the United States

The richest one percent of Americans now own 42 percent of the nation's wealth, compared with 19 percent in 1976. That top one percent own more than the bottom
90 percent
. Between 1983 and 1989, 62 percent of the increased wealth of this country went to the top one percent, and 99 percent of the increased wealth went to the top 20 percent. The CEOs of major American corporations now earn 170 times what their workers make, the largest gap between CEO and worker of any major nation. In 1982 there were twelve billionaires in the United States. Today there are 135.

Meanwhile, the past twenty years have seen declining or stagnant income for
80 percent
of all American families. In fact, adjusted for inflation, the average pay of four-fifths of American workers plummeted 16 percent in twenty years. The inflation-adjusted median income for young families with children—headed by persons younger than thirty—plunged 32 percent between 1973 and 1990. Twenty years ago, American workers were the best compensated in the world. Today, American workers rank thirteenth among industrialized nations in terms of compensation and benefits. In 1973, the average American worker earned $445 a week; twenty years later, that same worker was making $373 a week. And they are working harder for less money. U.S. workers put in about 200 more hours per year than West European workers, who typically obtain four- to five-week vacations, often legally mandated.

Americans at the lower end of the wage scale are now the lowest paid workers in the industrialized world. Eighteen percent of American workers with full-time jobs are paid so little that their wages do not enable them to live above the poverty level. The majority of new jobs created in America today pay only $6.00 or $7.00 an hour, offer no health or retirement benefits, and no time off for sick leave or vacation. One-third of the nation's work force is now “contingent” labor, without any job security.

But enough statistics. The simple fact is that today's economy, which works very well for the super-rich, is not meeting the needs of ordinary Americans.

Reversing these obscene and terrifying trends is not as hard as the experts make out. The solution involves, among other things, talking about taxes. Have you ever wondered why the first words out of any Republican's mouth are always, “No new taxes”? The reason is that a progressive tax policy is the most efficient and powerful way to ensure that wealth is distributed more fairly. The Republicans and many Democrats are not in favor of an equitable distribution of wealth, though of course they never say outright that they favor inequality. They just repeat their mantra, “No new taxes.”

To begin reversing the growing inequality in the distribution of wealth, we can rescind the tax breaks given to the rich over the last twenty years. From 1971 to 1981, the combined Social Security and income tax bills of median-income families shot up 329 percent, while the combined tax bills of individuals and families with income of more than $1 million fell 34 percent. Reagan, with the support of a Democratic Congress, cut the top federal tax rate for the richest Americans from 70 percent to 28 percent. Meanwhile, Carter and Reagan substantially raised the regressive Social Security tax for working Americans. From 1977 to 1990, the social security tax was raised nine times—an increase of 31 percent. In 1953, corporations contributed 33 percent of all tax dollars. Today, they contribute less than 10 percent. During the 1980s, some multibillion-dollar corporations did not pay one penny in taxes.

As Citizens for Tax Justice has indicated, nine out of ten Americans would have paid
less
in federal taxes in 1992 if Congress had done nothing to “reform” the tax system since 1977. Yet, incredibly, the government would have brought in almost $70 billion
more
a year—a substantial portion of the federal deficit.

What is needed today is a reversal of the policy direction of the last twenty years and the development of a truly progressive tax system in the United States. At a time when this country is seeing a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires, the rich must start paying their fair share of taxes. To give President Clinton credit, his first budget in 1993 did precisely that. It raised taxes on the wealthy and lowered taxes for the working poor by increasing the earned income tax credit. But that was only a small step forward—one which he does not seem likely to repeat.

We need to establish a more progressive income tax. The more you earn, the more you pay. Not only is that a fair principle, but greater progressivity would lessen the inequities in income that currently afflict us. There is no reason that those who earn over $200,000 a year should not pay a significantly larger percentage of their income in taxes than they currently do. Of course, the greed of the wealthy knows no bounds. They and many of their conservative mouthpieces are even trying to sell the nation on a flat tax, allowing a billionaire to pay at the same rate as a mother of two earning $5.50 an hour in her service-sector job. That is precisely the
wrong
direction to take. We need to reaffirm the just principle that those who benefit the most economically from our society should pay the most to sustain it.

It is also time, high time, to establish a tax on wealth similar to those that exist in most European countries. Simply stated, a wealth tax would require the very wealthiest Americans, people worth millions of dollars, to pay taxes on their accumulated wealth, rather than enabling them to get ever richer without giving anything back to the society that makes their wealth possible. A tax on wealth could raise tens of billions of dollars a year.

We can also reverse the inequitable distribution of wealth by closing loopholes in corporate taxes. If we eliminated tax breaks for corporations, corporate subsidies, and other forms of corporate welfare, we could save $125 billion a year. Those savings could be applied to health care, education, social services—and to balancing the budget. By slashing special breaks for corporations, we could help working families immensely—and ordinary Americans would not have to pay a cent more in taxes.

Why don't the great majority of Americans elect a government that will look out for their interests and fight for a fairer distribution of wealth? We can only answer that question if we look the unpleasant truth straight in the eye. And the truth is that the fabric of American democracy is currently extremely fragile, and that the U.S. government as currently constituted does not represent the interests of ordinary citizens.

Although the corporate media doesn't discuss it too often, the facts are quite clear. In the presidential election of 1996, less than half of all eligible voters cast their ballots. Two years earlier, when the Gingrich-dominated Congress was elected, only 38 percent of Americans voted. This compares with over 70 percent participation in most other major industrialized countries. In South Africa, millions of black citizens waited patiently in line, some for as long as three days, to exercise their right to vote for the first time. Overall voter turnout figures tell only part of the story. Voting among the poor is almost nonexistent. Among different age groups, the young vote in lower numbers than any other group. Public cynicism about the democratic process has never been greater, and individual belief in the possibility of democratic change has never been more threatened.

What does this tell us about the health of democracy? Today, America is in danger of becoming an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is a form of government in which a small group of people hold power. It seems clear that a smaller and smaller group of citizens are determining our nation's future. The poor are disenfranchised, not by law, but in fact. The young think that voting has little to do with them or their prospects. Ordinary citizens have decided that the political process is likely to fail them, and so they vote in ever smaller numbers.

In recent elections, the concept of “one person, one vote” has been supplanted by the influence of big money. The more money you have, the more power you have. Some citizens participate by contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to the politicians and parties of their choice. Most citizens contribute no money and do not vote. To paraphrase Orwell, some citizens are clearly a lot more equal than others.

It is in the interest of those who have great wealth and immense corporate power to weaken democracy. The less power the people have, the fewer checks there are on those who already control the American economy and its resources. The greater the belief that participation in the political process doesn't really make a difference, the more likely it is that people will give up hope that we can ever attain a just society and a decent standard of living.

Make no mistake about it: the wealthy and their political representatives are working hard to keep people away from the voting booths. They have vigorously opposed legislation that would make it easier for people to vote. They have corrupted campaign financing, so that citizens have lost faith in the political process. They have turned negative campaigning into a high art, with the result that huge numbers of voters demonstrate their disgust with gutter politics by refusing to vote on election day. They have begun the process of dismantling social programs so that citizens increasingly feel that government cannot and will not do anything to meet their needs.