Many young people looking at the problems in the US have heard the incessant drumbeat of "Capitalism is The Answer!" for their entire lives.
All this time that this answer has been paraded around as The Answer, the effects of removing regulations and lowering government investment into We The People have been obviously and staggeringly bad for most of us: reduced wages, reduced wealth, reduced health, reduced free time, reduced security, reduced stability.
All this time that their elders have told them, "Pick yourself up by your bootstraps!" these same elders have watered down or ended the same programs that allowed them to generate wealth, notably inexpensive college educations, strong union protections and greater government regulation.
The younger set are not completely throwing capitalism under the bus, but they have woken up to the fact that unfettered capitalism is an astoundingly poor way to keep people fed, housed, healthy and happy. The ideal of a government that supports its citizens is what they are looking for.
It's not too much to ask for, is it?
185
@Jacob Sommer I’ve had this argument for nearly 50 years with someone I used to call a friend. Capitalism is fantastic for quickly raising the living conditions of whole nations living in poverty, and China and India are the best examples. But as capitalism moves from infancy to adolescence those who profit from it get smaller in number and the rewards larger until the entire society is dominated by this “rentier” class by whom everyone else is, in one way or another, squeezed economically.
Most voters don’t see this and don’t understand that this is the larger Economic problem in which the choice of leadership becomes central to the maintenance of democracy and the prevention of a slide into oligarchy or in our case perhaps fascism.
17
@B. Rothman I take your meaning, but I must respectfully disagree with your analysis.
Yes, enormous numbers of people in both China and India have come out of poverty. Yes, both systems have had a lot more business investment over the past several decades. But, Capitalism does not inherently lift people out of poverty.
We have had capitalism in the US since before we became our own country. We had rampant poverty for centuries.
What helped blunt that poverty? Initially, free land given by the government. Then we started adding some free community baselines, like a free public education and free public libraries. Then we added free public police and fire departments. We finally started getting going in the 1930s with a lot more regulations and a lot more free stuff, like Social Security. (Yes, I know ‘free’ means ‘paid for by taxes’ here)
We put a lot more free stuff in place during the 1940s - 1960s. And we became more equal than we had ever been, with a powerful middle class.
Yet now, after weakening or even removing many public benefits and reducing regulations on our wealthiest, we have reverted to the inequality of the Gilded Age. That is what capitalism does: concentrate money and power at the top, without the need for kings.
19
Why not make it simple and go for: capitalism with social benefits! ( affordable education, universal health care, good pensions...)
19
Yes, if Bernie, in a two-person race, beats Biden from here on out, and the Democratic fat cats still steal the nomination and give it to Biden, we will surely fall. Only if the convention gives the nomination to the one of these two with the most delegates will the Dem moderates have any chance at beating Trump. And then the moderates and the fat cats and the MSM, starting with the Times, can only beat Trump by uniting fervently behind Bernie. Remember Jill Biden: "You have no choice," right?
8
Quite a day. Buttigieg gone and goes for Biden. Klobuchar gone and goes for Biden. Beto rises to support Biden. Rubin writes this column. Guess who he’ll support. I would have loved being at the meetings, and to have listened in to the phone calls, when they decided to Hades with what the people might want it’s time to get rid of Bernie. Has Bloomberg gotten the memo yet?
4
I just watched AXIOS on HBO, they were filming his recent rally in NH, it's simply terrifying to see.
Huge crowds, total adulation for a Con man, that's impossible to comprehend, really like you're transported to a different planet, they formed huge lines in any weather, stay overnight, bring their little kids, what you witness is a mass Psychosis.
Is this him or half of the country just doesn't function in a normal way.
Do they spray the air with some kind of narcotics?
What's going on???
3
You know, Bobby, you spent so much time coddling the wealthy that you made populism unavoidable. We should have delivered Old Testament justice on Wall Street in 2009. Then maybe we could have avoided this.
7
From an outsider’s perspective - from down south where everything from defaulting on your government and IMF debt to countries run by Nazi idolaters is possible - it would seem that the US has gone seriously off the political and economic rails. Banana republic style.
We look to Europe as exemplars economic health and social justice: Scandinavia, Germany, maybe even France. And indicators of well being, standard of living, education, health care bear this out. America is way down on every list here, but nobody talks about that much in political campaigns.
This socialist/capitalist flawed comparison is a political distraction, but don’t people swallow it whole. Example: The Fed is supposed to be independent, not a political tool of the government. But Trump is all over them to cut rates and buy T-bills (print money). If his “economy” and the market is so “great” then why is there so much demand for bonds that pay next to nothing?
Socialism - big government control - is good if it helps you maintain the fantasy that the economy is hunky peaches when it really floats on free-money froth, not the fundamentals that Republicans and Wall Street would have you believe to get Trump re-elected.
Believe, as in blind faith which seems to be selling like hot cakes these days...
7
Couldn’t agree more! Don’t let yourself be Putin's puppet. Unite, unite, unite! Then stay united. Multiple forces are out there trying to sow mistrust, disillusion and anger. Resist.
1
As a product of the 60's I will just have to vote Bernie with the youth of the 2020's and irk the Democratic establishment now that they have bought off Steyer, Buttigieg and Klobuchar. Get out of the way Joe, you are a dinosaur.
9
There is absolutely no room for division...we blow this one, it’s over.
3
Who is suggesting that we jettison capitalism? Nobody.
3
Rubin doesn't even mention that unfortunately 'markets' have become entirely too irresponsible. The short-term outlook, the high percentage of corporate (from Enron to Purdue to care-free fracking to Well Fargo, etc) and individual bad behavior, companies' unwillingness to responsibly support the people & communities they reside in, the massive avoidance of national & state taxes, the wanton destruction of local business, playing communities against each other for new facilities. I could go on & on - after all, the 'Bottom Line' IS the bottom line.
Serious oversight & much more regulation IS required.
4
There is nothing that stops a laborer/employee from saving money from his paycheck and buying shares of stock. This is how I became financially independent. The capitalist system works for those who approach it with correct principles. (Read Ben Graham)
I would recommend the Ragged Dick series for my millennial generation.
This isn't to say that better taxes/redistribution isn't necessary - it's important in the US now. But it's a mistake to go one step further and say the capitalist system is bad.
Democrats signed NAFTA, beginning their demise.
When they again fight for Unions, then working folks will return. Until then they cater to a small voting block.
5
Being a millennial, I'm ashamed at my generation's lack of understanding of the history of socialism/communism. Even my closest friends shock me with their support of Sanders. Better redistribution/taxes are necessary in the US now, but if you mess with the system that made America great, you will have nothing. See Venezuela, Argentina, and all the basket cases in South America.
This is the same man who was the treasury secretary under Clinton and failed to stop Glass-Segall firewall that exploded malfeasance from banks and handed over a huge fraction of our economy to banks and made hedge fund managers and not makers of things obscenely rich. Noe he hgas the gall to suggest people like Bernie are trying to eliminate "market-bsed" economy. On what planet is he living? He was responsible partly for the inequality of wealth we see today. Shedding crocodile tears is the height of hypocrisy.
8
I hardly recognize the Democratic Party of just a decade ago.
For example, Amazon wants to create 25,000 jobs in NYC, a plan backed by Democratic leadership in the state, Cuomo and DeBlasio, yet "new" Democrats fought the creation of jobs and won.
In both NYC and almost all of California there is a housing crisis not because of Republican policy but rather because of Democratic policy in both places.
In NYC, many "Democrats" on our City Council have been against fixing broken zoning laws with their zoning density restrictions creating a politically induced scarcity of housing making housing artificially expensive. This policy effectively "robs" the middle class and working class who must pay excessive rent giving their hard earned income to Donald Trump and other wealthy developers. This policy of Democrats is a major cause if not the major cause of inequality. While Trump benefits enormously, he is not to blame, rather it is Democrats who act more like Republicans.
In California, SB 50, a bill at the state level to override the local zoning density restrictions has again failed in the Democratic State Gov.
Jobs and affordable housing are the hallmark of true Democrats. FDR, JFK, LBJ & Truman would never approve of robbing the working & middle class to give to Trump. But the Democrats are doing just that by restricting housing.
[SB50] The Bill That Could Make California Livable Again
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/sb50-california/604786/
1
I will hold my nose and vote for Sanders if he's the nominee, only because his name is not Trump. If his supporters would have followed suit three years ago this would not be a discussion. He will get zero of my dollars and zero of my time however.
1
Whose way, which highway?
Wealth tax does not make good policy even though it makes good politics says the wizard who repealed Glass-Steagall and help us melt global financial markets in 2008.
In his usual “hedging is my forte” language and diplomatic skills that catapulted him to the top of the pre-IPO Goldman Sachs only to decamp and leaving poor Steve Friedman to run the place by himself as the fixed-income markets in Europe were almost taking down the partnership for good.
In his Spinx smile and language, he passed as the wise man until he was not. Check his brief tenure in Citigroup under Sandy Weill and his comp package (thanks to Google a hit on the search button away).
So now he tells us the times have changed.
Well, watch when Bernie wins tomorrow and in November.
Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism works by the way. Scandinavia is the shining example of that.
3
Republicans are united behind Trump. Democrats are currently divided between moderates and progressives. If Dems can't unite behind a single candidate, then Trump will win reelection. Simple as that.
If the Dems nominate a progressive, then some moderates won't vote for him/her, and Trump will win. If Dems nominate a moderate, then some progressives (and most Bernie Bros) won't vote for him/her, and trump will win.
Can Dems overcome their internal divisions and unite behind anyone? I hope so, but it seems unlikely.
1
I see all the Sanders supporters are circling the wagons. I want everything Sanders is offering.  I want Sen. Warren to win the nomination but if Sanders wins I will gladly vote for him with all my heart.
But just because I want everything that Sanders proposes does not mean I have to hate on all the people who don’t agree with me.
5
I don’t think the progressives are against markets but it does not help that Sanders thinks billionaires should not exist.
2
In 2016 the per capita average incomes of Sanders and Clinton voters were virtually identical. The difference between the two wings can be found in how folks feel rather than in where folks actually are. The one wing is enraged, blames the other wing for everything that has gone wrong, and is characterized by a desire to burn society to the ground. Better Trump than these Republican-lites. The voting demographic that self-identifies as very progressive is 92% white. In that regard the two wings of the party are grossly different. The only voter demographic that is more white is Trump's conservative base. Is the racial make-up of the Sanders base the source of the rage here (too)? Is that why they do not care (or simply fail even to see) that the Sanders movement is economic progressivism, at the expense of social progressivism? Is the Sanders wing angry not because of where they are right now socioeconomically but rather because white people can no longer count on effortlessly attaining what they once took for granted?
2
What’s he going on about markets? Nobody is going to take away his markets or his multi millions. It may be hard to understand if your stance is pro war and pro corporate welfare that we have a moral imperative to do the right thing for all society not just companies.
3
Robert Rubin-
Thank you. It's rare to read such a well-reasoned and nuanced Op-ed.
For those of us weary of the bellowing,
it is a relief.
First, I appreciate what you say about capitalisms' limits:
"The critics are correct that there are many critical issues — from climate change and overcoming poverty to health care costs and coverage — that markets, by their nature, will not address. "
Without question, these are areas where we need govt' intervention & regulation.
I also would emphasize what you say next:
"Our failure to meet these challenges has led to understandable . . . Anger in our nation and our party."
I empahsize the word "anger" because this is what divided both the nation and the party.
Sanders' red-faced shouting makes
reasonable discourse impossible. Some of his young followers attack those who disagree in vicious ways because Bernie's style has led them to believe that this is a war between Good & Evil
Even Warren has said that her "favorite word is "Fight."
She uses it ofen to talk about fighing
Against:
"Big Corporations", "Banks," etc.
I prefer hearing a politician talk about what she fights For
-rescuing children in cages;
-funding better public education K-12;
-minority & women's rights;
-affordable health care for all.
Finally, on raising taxes to fund all that we need to do.
"Tax the Rich" is a simple soundbite that draws widespread approval.
But we'll need a more complicated set
of increases: estate taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. etc.
Mr Rubin - there are "markets" in Scandinavia and there would continue to be markets under Sen. Sanders' "democratic socialism."
Without adjectives, your analysis is meaningless. The competing visions are democratic socialism and crony (or casino) capitalism. The latter is essentially socialism for the 0.01% and a Hobbesian form of capitalism for the remaining 99.99%.
I am a baby boomer but I share with young Americans a positive view of democratic socialism and a negative view of crony capitalism. As you are a practitioner of the latter, I can understand that you'd disagree with us on both counts.
. We understand that, under the crony capitalism that Reagan ushered in, 99.9% of Americans live under a capitalism that is Hobbesian while the other 0.01% reap the benefits of socialism.
7
Democrats must decide whether the first priority of government is to (1) protect the private investments of the oligarchy or (2) the well-being of all citizens. Mr. Rubin clearly believes that the only way to accomplish (2) is to embrace (1), however, this scorpion-and-frog bargain has failed time and again. More Americans are waking up to the reality that the government's only consistent and genuine priority is (1), and they're being massively ripped off by a political class (that includes Mr. Rubin) whose policies have failed to produce any of the promised "trickle down" effect. In fact, they don't want any genuine trickle-down, because that leads to inflation, and inflation runs counter to priority (1).
We're growing sick of boomers telling us about the success of market-based economies following WW2. US post-war success had everything to do with geographic isolation from the devastation of the war, using that advantage to consolidate global control over trade and resources such as fossil fuel energy, and forcing countries to open up their markets to the predations of a modern financial system that is rigged to ensure that the rich must always get richer than the workers.
3
Says the multimillionaire, former Goldman Sachs CEO, worth north of 100 million dollars...
It really feels strange being lectured on "no wealth tax" by this guy. However much I liked him before, it just doesn't sound right today.
3
"from climate change and overcoming poverty to health care costs and coverage — that markets, by their nature, will not address."
Why can't businesses address climate change, poverty and health care coverage? Energy businesses can invest in solar and wind energy. Car manufacturers can make cars with better energy use. Businesses can make their employees happier by raising lower wages and improving health insurance. All will improve their bottom line in the long run.
2
A wealth tax is likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court because it's not apportioned evenly amongst the states? The top Federal Income Tax Rate in 1944 was 94%. In 1956 is was 91%. The Courts were just fine with that. So I don't see what the big deal is to raise it 5 or 10% now to close the income gap. Much better for the government to do it through legislation than for the mob to do it through pitchfork & revolution, don't you think? BTW, I love Former Secretary Rubin, but even he must realize that most young folks think the post-cold war peace dividend was squandered, and responsible government really hit the skids, when Rubin and Clinton supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall and next thing you know Lehman went down and the economy crashed and hasn't recovered since. Just sayin'.
1
@Pluribus The wealth taxes being discussed are based on actual assets rather than annual income, which is where the question of apportionment comes in. Apportioned taxes are a requirement of the Constitution.
The federal income tax required an amendment, the 16th, for it to be legal.
2
Robert Rubin was the genius who assisted Bill Clinton in undoing the Glass Steagall Act. Glass Steagall was a Rooseveltian/Depression era reform that separated commercial and investment/ securities banking and protected the public by failing to ensure trading in speculative securities. The removal of Glass Steagall was the first and likely the most significant eradication of public protection from Wall Street.
Why is this hooligan talking about middle ground? There is no reason to trust his call for moderate reform. He contributed meaningfully to the kind of securities and the kind of trading that brought us the 2008 debacle and the devastation that brought us the understandable disaffection of workers and homeowners in flyover country.
To quote the moderate Biden: "Has he no shame?" The man has a history of enormous harm.....which he brought to us as opportunity.
4
How about this. The United States has increasingly slouched toward the predatory capitalism born of laissez faire (not really, we practice Corporate socialism so Corporations can be more predatory with fewer consequences when they break the system) enabled by Republican tendencies toward a kind of nihilistic kleptocracy, or maybe better, corporate plutocracy.
What we have, and what Trump is simply the perfect manifestation of, is actually a model for weak government pursuing no purpose other than ensuring government money enriches corporate predators.
Also, China demonstrates that capitalism can be grafted onto any form of government, is not in and of itself government, unless you consider default to corporate oligarchy government, and in and of itself has no intrinsic virtue, profit motive not withstanding.
Capitalism is an an engine for production and distribution. Like any engine, it requires a regulator, and from the perspective of Democrats, would best be used for good vice evil, because in America "right still matters"... as they say.
1
No, we are not divided. We are united against the Trump of the far left, Bernie Sanders. If we defeat him now we will defeat Trump in November. If he beats us now Trump will do to Bernie what LBJ did to Goldwater in ‘64. Remember that the Republicans overcame that debacle, thanks to the even bigger debacle of the VietNam war. Trouble is that Democratic senators and governors, not to mention our House majority, would be sacrificed at Bernie’s altar.
Isn't this one of the fellows who ignored Brooksley Born when she was head of head of the cftc and warned of the credit default swaps that let to the crash of 2008? First let me hear your mea culpa on that before you hand out advice.
6
I only care about one thing in the upcoming election: defeating Trump. Nothing else matters, because if Trump wins, nothing else will matter.
The question will be simple: is the Democratic candidate preferable to Trump?
Did I mention that nothing else matters? Anyone who, in a snit, refuses to vote for the nominee because he is not their favorite is an idiot. And doing the equivalent of voting for Trump.
1
Oh, brother. Yet another supposedly objective puff piece that inaccurately describes Bernie Sander democratic socialism. Wealth taxes are unconstitutional!!! Riiiight, Bob. If only.
Just endorse Biden and get it over with.
But still, we wonder, just what are the Clintons so afraid of? Could it be the wealth tax? Rubin, Summers, all of them. You hear their voices...while you see the Clinton's lips moving. HRC will lose this election, too.
Bernie Sanders can and will beat Trump. The rest is triangulated nonsense. Gore, Kerry and now Biden are losers. Bill and Hil, please just go away and stay there.
6
Rubin help ruin america
2
The best thing the Democrat party can do is divide. America needs at least one other political party. A progressive Bernie party is needed. The Blue wing can keep the name of the current party. A coalition government could help defeat the repugs. The GOP should split as well with the trumpies in one party and what ever true republicans remain could form another.
3
Hey, Robert. Do me a favor: watch Phil Ochs' "Love Me (I'm a liberal)" on You Tube then come back and teach all the Progressives in the Democratic Party how to sing Kumbaya for your preferred moderate candidate.....
1
Most of Bernie's rabid followers are not Democrats. They are Sandernistas.
2
The plan is out for everyone to see. Both Klobuchar and Buttigieg endorses Joe Biden within hours of folding their campaign. LOL
Rubin, please get out of the way. You did enough damage. Your credibility is below zero. Get a life in retirement.
4
Oh, dear, Mr. Rubin. I think you might have a typo there.
What you meant to say is that if Biden is the nominee you will work your posterior off to get him elected, and that if Bernie is the nominee you will work your posterior off to get him elected, and that at this extraordinary juncture in national and global history you implore every other sentient citizen to do the same.
Oh well. No harm done.
1
We liberals have been supporting you Republican Lites for decades. It's always the same - you can't do what we want you to do because of all the conservatives who might not like it.
Then the Republicans blame the liberals in the Democratic Party for everything. WE HAVE NEVER HAD ANY POWER!
A point of confusion may be "liberal economics" - it's not something liberals endorse. "Liberal" economics is 'Free" economics - the freedom to do what they want without being encumbered by government. They hate government, not us liberals.
Well our government is now nearly gone as we wallow in the swamp of REPUBLICANISM.
Can you honestly blame liberals for the FACTS that the U.S. now has more people in jail than any other country? That we are taxed for war more than they entire rest of the world pays in total for defense? That we are now the most unequal of advanced democracies. Can you even blame Donald Trump for that?
It's all you stinking conservatives whether Democrat or Republican. You suck, really, really suck.
3
"This concerns me: No country has succeeded economically in the postwar era without a baseline commitment to markets."
Well, I would say Tsarist Russia had a baseline commitment to markets and didn't survive because they didn't have a baseline commitment to social welfare.
The argument on the extreme right of the democratic party, represented here by Mr.Rubin, is simply that the people should be happy with things as they are while the party serves the corporate hand that feeds it.
No, sorry, that's not good enough and 4 more years of Trump should cure Mr. Rubin of his delusions.
1
So, say, Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality meant neoliberalism, which defined Czarist Russia and destroyed the Romanov dynasty? Yes, if they’d have only had Medicare for All, 1917 could have been avoided. And Alexei Nikolaevich would have overcome his hemophilia and had a fetching fine son, securely enthroned in St. Pete this very March morning, glorying, in his golden years, in the praise his beneficence bought.
1
If Sanders wins the majority of the delegates in the Democratic primary but somehow is not nominated on the Democratic ticket, there will be no unity in the Democratic party. I’m convinced a number of people will simply not vote on Election Day in that scenario. That is the reality facing the Democratic party.
3
>"No country has succeeded economically in the postwar era without a baseline commitment to markets."<
With the exception of healthcare, none of the candidates are advocating abandoning markets. They all are advocating, to different degrees and with different methods, regulating markets. Healthcare should never have been a market based undertaking in the first place.
Of course the biggest problem with this piece is the author and his track record in government. As others have remarked, a more appropriate place to find him than the opinion pages would be jail. That we should take advice from Mr. Rubin on how to rectify income inequality would be laughable if his policies and tenure hadn't proven catastrophic for so many.
3
Why do opinion pieces like this one limit solutions to economic inequality to tax policy? Why not empower the salary dependent class through legislative initiatives that once again require employers to pay their employees a level of compensation that reflects their value to the enterprise? Taxpayers complain about government subsidies paid to working people in the form of food stamps, earned income tax credits, and medicaid. The question is, why are taxpayers subsidizing employers, like Walmart, when Walmart should be providing living wages and benefits to their work force? Think of the tax savings and deficit reduction that could be achieved by making business pay its own bills.
1
The only place where I see progressives as, in effect, against markets is in places where markets don't make sense, like healthcare.
Think of it this way, if your child will die without a certain operation, what is the market price of that operation? Is it not everything you own, and maybe more?
Market forces cannot operate when the consumer is not free to walk away, when walking away means death or the loss of the ability to work and support oneself. It isn't like buying a tv.
1
All of this piety, ostensibly on behalf of Party unity, to demonize a wealth tax. Why do I think this is so Bill Clinton?
1
The damage that you and Larry Summers managed to inflict on American society in general and on the American economy in particular during your days in the Clinton administration dwarfs any of the barbarism that Donald Trump has done so far. The two of you were wildly successful in reshaping federal economic policy to the benefit of Wall Street and to the detriment of everyone else. Never mind income inequality, we are talking about lowering the standard of living of the middle class, bankruptcies, suicides, and general desperation. However the current situation is resolved, you can rest assured that your contribution to it will never be forgotten. Your name will live in infamy.
3
Guided by capitalism as religion and profit as god, the market based system values are reflected in the obscene, colossal and growing inequality of opportunity, income and wealth, where the richest .1 percent take in 196 times more than the bottom 90 percent...
https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/
As one of the architects of America's grotesque inequality, Robert Rubin, like those other warmongering, Wall Street supporting, status quo protecting Establishment Moderates, is most likely oblivious to the death of the American Dream decades ago.
Likely Democratic presidential primary voters in Texas and California—the two states with the most pledged delegates to award on Super Tuesday—view socialism more positively than capitalism, according to a CBS News/YouGov tracking poll released Sunday. The survey showed 56% of Democratic primary voters in Texas and 57% in California have a favorable view of socialism. Just 37% of Democratic voters in Texas and 45% in California have a positive view of capitalism, the poll found, signaling widespread discontent with the vastly unequal economic status quo.
The time for change is now!
President Sanders 2020!
A Future To Believe In!
Sanders supporters don't expect miracles.
As President, Sanders will reignite idealism, and that, by itself, is desperately needed.
America will become a better more hopeful country.
There will be change,
How much will depend on all of us.
Democrats are fractured like the surface of Triton. The notion that Sanders supporters will support Biden as the nominee is laughable. And vice versa. For 2020, the Democrats have shanked the election into the weeds. See you in 2024 where they'll lose in a landslide to Nikki Haley, the first female President of the USA.
Vote Blue, no matter who! Especially if you are a woman who wants to have control over your body.
2
Robert Rubin is not a Democrat!
Is too! Is too!
1
What about expanding the social security levy to all income above the current limit and to capital gains? We could then lower the retirement age, increase benefits for all and equalize the huge disparities in wealth while giving our hard working citizens something to look forward to.
1
Amazing.
The GOP has put together a coalition of Christian conservatives and Wall Street bankers. Union members from Pennsylvania and Michigan with "Right to Work" supporters.
Farmers hurt by Trumps trade wars with climate change deniers. Trump was not even primaried.
The Democrats on the other hand?
Progressives, Liberals, moderates, Green Party supporters. Some women voters who resent another male Democratic candidate receiving the nomination if that's where the outcome of the Democratic primaries takes us.
If only they could put their differences aside like the GOP supporters, Democrats would win in a landslide.
But can they? Will they?
Or will the anti-Trump voters divide and let Trump and the GOP conquer?
A Democratic party divided against itself cannot stand.
1
Southern cotton oligarchs were against the income tax that was created during the civil war, with the argument that it interfered with private property. Northern industrialists like JP Morgan and Alfred Sloan were against it and created an anti-income tax association in NY. The income tax was repealed in 1871 but a new thrust for it came along in late 1800's. The logic of the opposition was the same- that it was anti-property, but the congress enacted the income tax again in 1913, the rates being just about 10% of income initially but rates rose to as high as 90% in an effort to fund the WWII. The property taxes have been in existence far longer- as almost all personal property - including expensive gems, clothing,etc were taxed in the 1800's. The property tax is a wealth tax. All who own houses pay it. So the objection that property tax will be hard to implement because appraisal of property will be difficult, does not make sense. Most of the property is self declared and assessment on it is also self declared and the IRS will audit in case of suspicion and levy fines etc if appraisal found to be significantly below market value. This does require a role for the government and anti-government forces do not like it. Mechanism to tax real property exists now, so what is the real objection to taxing some very valuable property of oligarchs? They just do not want to pay and use the smoke screen that it will be impossible to implement it. Such arguments have always been there.
Mr. Rubin, you are addressing the wrong audience. The majority of citizens of both parties would support many of your "more reasonable" ideas to address the repressive financial inequality in this country. You need to convince your friends and colleagues on Wall Street and in the Republican power base to change. You know as well as anyone they actively and secretly use all their power and money to crush any meaningful change. They may win this election but history suggests if they keep it up it will not end well. The current political-financial power base is driving the US toward a model close to how Russia is now run. How is that working?
3
I don't buy the wealth tax is unenforceable. I do buy that its likely unconstitutional (don't know why none of the debate moderators asked her about that, as far as I know). I like to know more about how the tax on all that wealth could be collected apart from estate taxes. I read the book, "triumph of injustice". I'd like to see something proposed to offset all the taxes the bottom half pay today: sales, payroll, excise, property (indirectly thru rent), local and other "taxes" like usury rates of banks taking advantage of lower income people. Wouldn't that boost the economy?
1
As a New Jersey voter (relocated in New Zealand), I'm pretty sure our primary occurs after the general election, but whomever the nominee is, I will vote for that person, as I have done for five decades.
I hope my fellow Democrats will as well.
The presumption by many is that if Sanders wins, his socialist agenda will be run roughshod over Congress.
Probably not. More likely that he won't be able to get the votes he'll need for most of the legislation he wants.
Will President Sanders be able to resist using Executive Orders to get what he wants? Legislation that comes from the presidential pen doesn't have staying power—Obama used his pen and it has been relatively easy for Trump to undo Obama's legacy, because of lack of congressional consensus.
That’s not how it works.
I would hope the corporate funded smart news people who know everything about how an election will play out could understand that. Bernie has built the millions of people who lovingly support his platform, and he fills stadiums with 250,000 adoring supporters at a time. They work tirelessly generating content and energy to push his campaign forward. His campaign has run on small donations and he’s stayed head to head with the dem establishment’s billionaire financed machine. Millions of people find hope in Bernie.
Biden can barely fill a cafeteria. When he does they heckle him. He has garnered votes because the corporate media tries to scare people into voting for republican-lite dems. He has no organic support. He is not adored by millions. He insults millions of people by claiming Bernie and his supporters aren’t democrats. They will of course work against him. Millions of people feel the DNC has done everything to rig yet another primary to protect their donors investment. He scoffs at higher wages, free education and universal healthcare. He is in essence the front man for the cult of lowered expectations.
Bernie’s supporters won’t support him anymore than they would a Tim Kaine VP pick. They will actively work against him for third parties. They won’t generate online content. They won’t defend him on social media. Millions of young people will quit the party.
Proven losing strategies seem to be the DNC’s bread and butter these days.
2
James Tobin renewed his call for a tax on foreign currency transactions in 1991 -- after currency crises in Mexico, East Asia, Russia, and elsewhere, just four years before you became Treasury Secretary, Mr. Rubin. Since that time, Spain, Greece, and Ireland have been among the list of victims of the unregulated financial sector, with nearly everyone making that list as a result of the '08 crisis. It's remarkable now to see a financial transactions tax put forward in a positive light. If you, Secretary Rubin, had heeded Tobin's call to throw some "sand in the wheels of international finance" when you had the post, we might be living in a better world.
1
Let's all line up. The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend. This Galvanizes the Sanders Opposition. Not a Positive Message. It's how to stop Sanders. Sanders isn't just a man, he's a movement.
If the Democratic Party takes advice from the likes of Rubin it deserves to lose. Time to stop listening to those who, like Clinton, made the Democratic party a version of Republican-lite. Which in turn made it possible for the GOP to turn itself into what we see today. This country needs a sharp break with the past, and Rubin is on the wrong side of that chasm.
3
Once these Republican-lite Democrats go away and are replaced by Castro-lite Democrats, things will be better.
You guys needed to figure this out months ago. Long before anyone allowed 26 or 27 candidates to enter the mess. Best of luck now.
Robert Rubin should just now be getting out of prison for his crimes against ordinary Americans who lost everything due to Rubin’s criminal policies during the 1990s global financial meltdown.
5
I would love to see the Democratic establishment get whole-heartedly behind Bernie.
7
I’d love to see Bernie get wholeheartedly behind the Democratic establishment.
Cries of ‘don’t kill the golden goose’ ring hallow. America has lavished income and tax advantages on corporations and the wealthy and admonished the poor for being poor. It’s time that corporations and the wealthy paid their fair share. This isn’t socialism. This is equity and a correction to decades of misguided policy.
3
Bernie is espousing policy that has worked in all the Nordic states for over 50 years. These governments are all true democracies (unlike ours) and they are all capitalist market economies. They are also the most educated,healthiest, and happiest people in the world. That could be us if you just don't buy in to the red baiting propaganda...most people don't anymore that's why Bernie's winning ....Bernie the real populist will beat the sham populist with the fake tan...
4
This coming from Robert Rubin, the guy who convinced Bill Clinton to sign the Graham-Leach-Biley Act, that effectively killed the Glass-Steagall Act, that was a big factor in creating the Great Recession. Deregulation and unbridled capitalism are a dangerous mix. It not only leads to economic instability but also to a poor environment and bad health.
7
There is common ground. I call it progressive capitalism. Though everybody must compromise--all of the candidates and all of their supporters. The short speech that Joe Biden gave in South Carolina after his victory there was the best speech by any candidate during this interminable primary season. It was the embodiment of generosity and tolerance, humility and thankfulness, decency and respect, unity and welcome, hope and promise. I am very progressive especially when it comes to social issues like women's rights, civil rights, voting rights, gun control. I am also head-to-toe practical. If Bernie Sanders with his silly socialist schtick is the nominee, then, whether or not he wins in November, we will not win back the Senate, and we will in all likelihood lose the House. Even if he wins in November, that would be no victory at all. This bone weary and utterly exasperated voter is sick of division, unbelievable promises, yelling, my-way-or-the-highway movements, intimations of violence, online swarms of bullies, indifference in the face of racism and sexism.
3
Such a great example of what Anand Giridharadas points out in his award winning book Winner Takes All. First a wealthy person causes a problem then they appoint themself the leader in how to solve it.
That Mr. Rubin, Mr. Blankenfein and so many people like them lack the self awareness that might come from even reading their critics (Giridharadas, Saez, Zucman, etc.) is why they are getting the feeling that no one is listening to them any more.
7
It doesn't matter which Democrat wins the nomination because the supporters of the losing nominees simply won't vote. At this point Democrats hate each other more than they ever hated any Republican. Nothing will make Sanders voters endorse anyone else and we all know it. Meanwhile the Fox news crowd will turn out in record numbers. This will be a landslide for Trump. I'm so tired of getting text messages from campaign bots I'm switching to unaffiliated. Good luck with your train wreck.
I love that Nancy Pelosi recently said she couldn't imagine Trump being reelected. You don't need an imagination Nancy, you just need a calculator.
Huh, no mention of the billionaire "Democrat" who's trying to buy the Presidency. Kind of tough to unite when the Democratic Party changed the rules to let this guy in. They have no problem with his constant ads suggesting that Obama has endorsed him. They have no problem with him being sickeningly sexist and racist. They just want to win at all costs. I remember when Debbie Wasserman-Schultz quit when it was shown that she caused the Democratic Party to get Bernie Sanders out. Kind of tough to respect the Democratic Party at all anymore.
2
Mr. Robert Rubin who pushed for more leverage in the financial system. Who takes anything he says seriously.
2
Dear Democratic Party candidates for President,
It takes one blatant malintent in Office to tear this Country down further than could have been imagined and it will take a mighty team to build it back up. As attributed to Aristotle,"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts". More than one personality and her/his ideas and solutions are required to succeed in November. Trump has no interest in letting up his war on manipulating truth, cheating etc. Pick the team captain who is adept at working with all the different egos and personal preferences. Take these great candidates who will not have the nomination and announce ahead of the November election how each will have a place in the next Administration. It needs to be clear that it's a Tsunami of highly adept public servants coming to clean up the koolaid swamp. We need to better than this and what brought us to it.
The DNC has chosen its candidate (Biden, duh). No matter how many support Sanders, or even how many primaries Sanders wins, the DNC will make sure that Biden is the candidate (super delegates). I am a lifelong Democrat but will not vote for Biden. DNC: don't assume that you have us in your pocket because of our desire to see Trump out of office. Fool me once (Hillary) shame on me. I won't be fooled again.
1
Democrats should just do what the guy from Goldman Sachs and Citibank says to do -- that always works, right?
1
Warren for me. Only fence mender. Actual Democrat. Big ideas. CFPB. Expert on Middle Class recovery. Regulated capitalism
Let me tell you a little secret Mr. Rubin.
You sit there in your ivory tower and you lecture the minions about how they need to sit down..shut up..and get in line or else.
That's how authoritarian regimes operate.
How about you take this white space in the NYT and make the case to Nancy Pelosi and her slew of 80 year old Leaders to pack it up and move back home?
That would be a more authentic message about how Democrats should feel about democracy, which is giving everyone a seat a the table when it comes to Representative government.
The Republicans seem to have sorted this out..while the Revolution is about to explode in Milwaukee for the D's.
Whereas the R's in the HOuse have term limits for their leaders, the Democrat Establishment won't cede an iota of power to EE; or Everyone Else.
The fact Democrat House leadership is 24 years older than Republican House Leadership seems to be lost on Mr. Rubin, who could very easily mount a campaign to oust Pelosi.
I mean, it's not like any of her Generals are going to lose seats to Republicans..so the balance of power between parties won't change.
But what it will do is realign the balance of power between the top of the hierarchy and the rest of the hierarchy and give the upstart Populists a fair shot at having their ideas and opinions heard in the House.
Rubin misses the mark here.
He's aiming at the wrong target.
2
Looks like RR has had a slight change of heart.
For those people who are only Bernie. Would they please tell us just how Bernie has prepared himself to be President of the United States? Just as in 2016 his main opposition in the Democratic Party is so much more qualified for the office than he is. Biden is certainly not the ideal candidate, but electing someone just because he attracts big crowds and stirs up his base isn't what is needed now. We already have a person who does this and he's the poorest excuse for a President as this country has ever had.
Rubin's only concern here is to prevent a wealth tax, which he would have to pay. I would have expected more from a former Treasury secretary and prominent Democrat.
1
No one is advocating the elimination of markets. No one is advocating for nationalizing for anything other than paying for health care and the vast majority of countries with advance economies have long since done that - and are far more efficient than the US in health care. Those countries provide better medical care for most people at far lower cost; have more flexible economics since no one is tied to their job by health care insurance and no one goes bankrupt fsimply because they had the misfortune to get sick. Both Britain and Canada among others have gone far further and have nationalized the entire health care market. "Markets" aren't the issue, how markets are regulated, operated and for whose benefit - the American people or a few billionaires is the issue.
"But the solution is not to abandon market-based economics, which is perhaps the only way to achieve long-term, inclusive growth."
Given that no candidate is advocating the end of market-based economics, one could only infer that Mr. Rubin is being dishonest.
1
In the “winner-take-all” we have, a party does need a big tent to get a majority, that is the given. We’re facing a situation now that has been progressing since the Reagan era where the New Deal gains made in the 30’s to 60’ have been erased. The wealthy have consolidated a great proportion of the nation’s wealth and simple increases in income taxes on the wealthy won’t cut it. It’s a different world than the Great Depression and its aftermath.
Whatever the very vociferous left wing of the democratic party says the Clinton years were overall very good and the country was left with a surplus. Obama was also a great president that managed to get us out of the great recession and gave us Obamacare!. Both Clinton and Obama were moderates and a moderate by definition is in a better position to accommodate and compromise to get things done. We don't need a revolution but a return to normalcy!
4
I am thoroughly convinced the Democratic Party - which is likely only 4-6 years away from a generational tipping point is headed towards a schism.
On one side you have moderate Democrats who have led the party since Clinton. Their policies are timidly liberal and still corporatist. Their policies will continue a growth in inequality and climate change although at a slower pace. They believe in the past - from which most of them came - rather than the future. They don’t understand the growing animosity towards a paternalistic white birth right led government.
On the other side you have progressives - those that recognize and understand the precipice we are so close to crossing. As former candidate Governor Inslee said “Our house is on fire.”
Progressives have been ignored because of faulty math that says they will vote Democrat. 2016 should have been a lesson on that. Either they will attempt to overwhelm the GOP or they will stay home.
Either way, the center/center right game of chicken is about to find out what happens when you try to drive down the middle of road.
3
Rubin pushed deregulation, preached the gospel of balanced budgets, and opposed regulating derivatives trading. 'Nuff said.
1
Which candidate supports as much state control of markets as China has?
Certainly not Sen. Sanders. He is more for free trade than the others, and his M4A plan would, he said, bring salary increases to workers via the markets.
It is the so called moderates who want the form ofstate capitalism called crony capitalism.
Bernie 2020 and Amy McGrath for Kentucky senate.
1
There was a we are all in this together attitude that was shared across party lines in 1960. Nobody who came of age during or after Reagan's administration has an grasp of this. Their experience has always been about factions who saw all others as adversaries. For the younger voters, they just do not see why they should compromise in a winner takes all world view. The idea of minorities accepting majority decision making with confidence that their interests will be respected is bizarre for them, winning means doing as one pleases for as long as one can. Trump was elected according to this perspective and Sanders' support is according to this perspective.
The simple fact is that a liberal democracy requires that government be by the consent of the governed, all of them, not just 50% plus one.
2
Really don’t think the Democratic Party needs more advice from a guy who spent his business career at Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and ran Treasury for Bill Clinton. Rubin was one of the industry insiders Bill hired to dismantle the regulatory structure that kept finance safe and boring after the Great Depression. He made out like a bandit running Citigroup right through the 2008 recession and walked away with $126 million for his service to vulture capitalism. He’s not en elder statesman or an august sage of the business community. He’s just another greedy jamoke who’s scared his marginal tax rate will go up. He’s got about as much credibility on how to run the economy as the recently pardoned Michael Milken.
5
Sanders will support Biden if Biden is the candidate chosen by the Democratic Party, but a lot of his supporters will not. Biden will support Sanders if he is the candidate, but a lot of centrists will be discouraged and may just not vote for Sanders. So regardless of what happens, next, Trump has a very good chance of winning as he did in 2016. The Democrats have not come up with a candidate who they can expect will be overwhelmingly popular and able to defeat Trump with a very high degree of reliability.
2
I am really starting to feel like only Bernie can actually beat Trump. He is the only one actually getting people passionate about 2020. Now, seeing all these moderates hand wringing, and another article about tech billionaires seemingly more likely to support Trump than Sanders, I see where all this democratic angst is coming from--people with wealth who have not been negatively impacted by the long-term trends of this economy, but who might be culturally offended by Trump's behavior.
I'm not sure most of the electorate cares about what those people think, feel, or want. I'm sure they understand that the feeling is mutual.
2
I hope everyone remembers who Mr. Rubin is: he diverted Clinton's presidency towards the promotion of the financial sector -- the "financialization" of the economy. This is now one of the main reasons that wages are low and finance dictates to production, instead of being the servant of production. In addition to the overstatements about getting rid of markets that others have pointed our, listen to him at your cost if you work for a living.
9
People who vote won't be thinking in abstract terms about markets; instead, they will vote for the candidate they believe will represent and fight for their personal interests.
4
A step in the right direction...if you would admit that what is practiced in America today is a moldy, deformed version of capitalism. Certain companies and individuals are favored over others by way of subsidies and other favors which skew the rules of engagement for everyone. A big farm with a subsidy will eat up a small farm without one any day, and subsidies of fossil fuel providers have slowed down conversion to alternative energy. If these companies had been required to compete on an even playing field, things would be different. The student loan miasma and privatization of prisons, schools, and the Army is capitalism gone nuts.
Maybe it would help if Sanders just acknowledged that he'd have to get his plans through Congress .
7
Many of the changes Trump has made haven’t gone through Congress.
1
If the Democrats were much more interested in the well-being of the very people who fueled Trump's populist rise, then maybe the Neo-Liberals would have better sentiment among them. The economic reality of people lower-down on the Meritocracy ladder has been sliding down a slippery slope for 40 years. It has become nationally and internationally evident over the past 10 or so. No solutions from Democrats were given besides more college, more college debit and don't be too much different from the Republicans. Their best answers were : 'gays can marry', 'stop global warming' and Let the Market Work.
You can betray your class , or you can watch the underclasses of this nation destroy it underneath you.
8
Should have written this four years ago, and maybe Sanders' supporters wouldn't have voted Trump, stayed home, or voted third party and given the Presidency to Trump.
2
@Travelers This is a smear. Sanders supporters were more loyal in 2016 than Clinton supporters were in 2008. And while we're talking about loyalty, how about the "moderate" candidates make an effort to win progressive votes instead of taking them for granted?
4
Well the GOP fell line behind their party's deplorable nominee after a bitter and even more nasty primary. Why do people believe Democrats wont be as united. God I don't like Sanders, but I would vote for him over Trump in a heartbeat. In a heartbeat. A Democratic house and hopefully Senate will temper his programs. If there is a GOP Senate he will get little done.
People should be equally interested in the senate races and keeping the house.
9
If the subtext of this column is "I hate the Bernie stuff but I commit to vote for him if he is the nominee" I think it would be far more useful to just come out and say it. And if that's not the subtext, then party unity is going to escape you....
7
Rubin wrote, "The Democratic Party is not bound by a rigid ideology". Well, the Party (as a corporate structure) may not be, but about half of the people voting in the Democratic primaries ardently support a candidate who is the most rigid of ideologues. Those Sanders supporters even worship his "consistency" and "authenticity", both characteristics that make progress impossible. And neither he nor they are Democrats in any meaningful way:
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds
I despise Trump, but if Sanders is the (D) nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for him as the known, and therefore lesser, evil. Any other (D) nominee gets my vote.
4
@Charles Becker Bernie's been in congress for decades, and you still think he's unknown? Take five minutes to look at his record, and if you still think Trump would be better then you're a Republican.
I’m sure Robert Rubin understands that many Democrats don’t want to hear from him, Rahm Emanuel, and Terry McAuliffe, the banker wing of the party. You guys lost much credibility after advocating for deregulation several years prior to the financial crisis.
19
Aren’t you the guy who sought and got the repeal of Glass-Steagall?
“Rubin sharply opposed any regulation of collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps and other so-called "derivative" financial instruments which—despite having already created havoc for companies such as Procter & Gamble and Gibson Greetings, and disastrous consequences in 1994 for Orange County, California with its $1.5 billion default and subsequent bankruptcy—were nevertheless becoming the chief engine of profitability for Rubin's former employer Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms.”
17
A fabulously wealthy man arguing against taxing himself and his wealthy friends.
23
Opinions from Rubin and Shalala both on the same day! How could I be so lucky.....
5
The average American knows the government policies of the past 40 years have failed, and failed miserably.
Since 1980 federal debt has increase from 32% of GDP to 110%. To balance the budget we would need to increase revenue 33% or decrease spending 25%. We are adding almost 5% of GDP to the debt every year
Healthcare costs in 1980 were 9% of GDP with the rest of the advanced economies between 6 and 9% of GDP. Today US healthcare costs are 18% of GDP with the rest of the advanced economies between 9 and 12%. The US spends $10,000 per person per year on healthcare. Medicare is projected to be insolvent in 6-7 years. Healthcare costs, as a percentage of GDP, have increased since the ACA became law.
And the author thinks taxing the rich is the solution?
Just a continuation of the failed thinking of the past
1
“But the solution is not to abandon market-based economics, which is perhaps the only way to achieve long-term, inclusive growth.”
We’ve been following market-based economics for decades and it’s given us atrocious levels of inequality and disparities based on race.
Capitalism is a volatile mess that is only tolerated because it works quite well for the wealthy.
13
Democratic Socialists never worry about healthcare costs, education costs, child care costs, or retirement costs. None of it.
Just like Robert Rubin.
Unlike the majority of Americans.
Progressives and Centrists need to listen to one another.
Centrists need to know liberal and progressives want to vote FOR something more than they want to vote AGAINST something. This puts Democrats at disadvantage, because Republicans can just latch their opponent on the latest boogyman conjured up by Fox News and they're good. You need more than the "I'm not Trump" argument. Read the Afghanistan Papers, before you say "how are you going to pay for it?" Nobody said that question in the run up to invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Healthcare and education is not "free stuff", improving access to them is critical in our economy. People are in financial ruin because of healthcare costs. People are a degree or certification away from being productive members of society.
I like to tell Bernie supporters, Joe Biden is not a monster. A Biden presidency will mean kids will not be in cages, better judges, and more people will have health insurance. All the moderate candidates ran on platforms that was left of Obama's 08 campaign. Medicare 4 All is not the only way to have equitable healthcare. Switzerland's system is similar to Obamacare, and the Netherlands have a highly regulated private insurance market.
2
The centrist Republican lite enterprise of not progressive democrats is a failure. A bust. Dead. It is Biden v sanders. I assume if Bernie wins you will support him.
2
@Joe B
will you do the same in return?
2
Let's all listen carefully to this advice from someone who is among the most culpable for the steps that led to the 2008 financial crisis.
7
Robert Rubin hints the progressive side of the Democrats is a threat to market-based economics? Huh? Where has he heard this one? That's never been on the table and is essentially the rant and rave focus of the Limbaugh world and his cohorts. So, Sanders's free state college tuition plan, single payer insurance plan, and a progress income tax structure as a means to create a wider security net are in essence New Deal expansions. Oh, and climate change policy is science and should not, I am dreaming, be a partisan issue. Now, I do not agree with all progressive points, and I am willing to vary speeds of implementation knowing we are not as socio-centric as other nations. In any case, Trump is a constitutional wrecking ball and must be defeated.
4
Nice try Mr. Rubin. Fully 1/3 of your op-ed was about the wealth tax. One issue here is concentration of wealth, inter-generationally. For years Republicans attacked the"Death tax" until they managed to gut the inheritance tax system. This creates inequality in the system going forward. And it is related to another issue, corruption. Very few are against "markets". In fact what does it mean to be against markets? Do you mean completely unregulated markets? Or markets that are stacked in favor of some? The aftermath of '08, with the lack of any meaningful consequences for those who gamed the system, demonstrated to me that 1) those involved had very little remorse for their role in causing the situation and 2) we can not trust them to police themselves going forward. This leads me to the conclusion that government regulations are needed to balance the greed and sociopathy of those in "the markets". When people in your position demonstrate some understanding of the lack of ethics of what goes on in the white collar sector- mostly currently legal, let me add -which is why I did not call it criminal, then I will be more inclined to listen. Until then, this looks like an apologia for more of the same. So don't drag the red herring of "markets" in an attempt to divert from issues like structural inequality or corruption. I, for one, have had enough.
9
"..perhaps the only way to achieve long-term, inclusive growth"
Interesting. do you have any sort of ETA on when that's supposed to come along?
This is too little, too late. If you had done this before the moderate contingent started to get worried, I might buy this shtick. But as it stands now, the centrists are going to have to concede a lot more to even look slightly credible in all of this. Lessons on the glories of the market simply aren't going to cut it anymore.
3
Bernie calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Here in Canada he would be a member of a party like the New Democratic Party - which is Social Democratic similar to parties in Scandinavia. But, Socialism is nothing new in the US. And it is not Communism. If you come from a city like Schenectady, New York, as I do, then you grew up enjoying some of the benefits brought in by the Socialist mayor, George R. Lunn, and Socialist City Council, more than a century ago. For instance - the Common Council, as it was called, purchased the large tract of land for Central Park (one of the finest urban parks in the country), opened free health clinics, brought in free municipal garbage collection, built affordable housing, concerned themselves with helping out the thousands of new immigrants who came to work for ALCO and GE, built new schools, cleaned up the environment, sponsored municipal grocery stores, and eliminated graft and corruption in the city. Pretty wonderful, I think.
3
Americans are not giving Donald Trump enough credit for showing America what a totalitarian state will look like. We need to come together as a nation and vote for Democracy over Fascism, good government over corruption, science over fairy tails and the 99.9 percent over the.1 percent. The differences among each of the Democrats is nothing compared to living under Donald Trump's bumbling dictatorship.
10
While Rubin carries some gravitas as he was the last Treasury Secretary to preside over an actual budget surplus, the gist of his message is, "let the markets stay in control of the average American's fate." Given that the markets are now data-driven, and not labor-driven, that economic dog won't hunt. Time to bring on a new breed that WILL hunt, not for the mega-rich, but for the lower and middle classes who truly make this nation great — one that won't trade progress on social issues, as recent Dems have, for keeping the status quo on the financial side. My first choice would be Warren, but looks Bernie is that "new" breed.
4
I’d like to challenge the current thinking that Democrats must unite around a so-called centrist. I lived in wonderful Norway, where most US Democrats would be considered corporate conservatives far right of center. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders would be more considered moderate. Their ideas are in line with the FDR-style government that once made America and her middle-class thrive. So instead of asking the large percentage of Bernie Sanders supporters to compromise again, I feel the rest of the Democrats should let go of their losing middle-road candidates and support Sanders and Warren, the two candidates who have vision and solid plans for getting America back on her feet. Moreover, Sanders and Warren have a devoted support base who are not going to change their votes no matter what. If you are serious about uniting and winning in 2020, then YOU are the ones who need to change your vote instead of constantly asking Warren and Sanders supporters to do so... don’t you see?
9
Fair enough, but this isn't Norway, and judging what can be achieved politically in America by the standards of other countries is ridiculous.
7
@Susan I disagree. Norway is much like what America once was -- a modern social democracy with a thriving middle class and healthcare, services and protections for all. I think what's truly ridiculous is that Americans are so obtuse or closed-minded that they aren't willing to (or can't) see what can be achieved politically in America by examining and integrating the standards and successes of today's current advanced leading nations, like Norway and Denmark.
1
Ultimately the choice is between the incumbent and whoever the Democratic candidate is. Then people will know if they actually support the party or not.
Another “watch out for Bernie” column.
NYT, thou dost protest too much!
15
Remember when the Democrats had leaders like Roosevelt and Johnson who took bold action to address big problems and didn’t just stick their finger up in the air to see which way the wind was blowing?
6
Both FDR and LBJ were master politicians who knew they had the support for the positions they took.
2
And there you have it in a nutshell.
One of the principle beneficiaries of the incestuous relationship between government and "markets" writes a piece about keeping the party together that, when he finally gets down to it, is little more than an attack on the wealth tax.
Take heart, Mr. Rubin, it isn't a wealth tax, capitalism, or markets that's driven millions into Senator Sanders' corner, IT'S YOU.
For the last 40 years, business hasn't been content to let the power of markets determine outcomes, it's spent billions to no longer merely, quaintly "co-opt" government regulations, but to complete CAPTURE representation.
Through campaign money donations, you and your cronies, buy politicians in bulk (hey, the economies of scale, amirite), who then take your calls (when they aren't calling you for more money) and install you and your people in policy making positions, to ensure that, regardless of whether the actual victims who policies are ostensibly intended to help, YOU GET YOURS.
It seems as though capitalists are the ones who gave up on capitalism.
Spare us your false piety.
9
Why are having to listen to Robert Rubin, the guy who along with Lawrence Summers, was instrumental in causing the 2008 Big Recession that has crippled so many American families? Rubin feathered his nest by arranging for Citigroup to get the regulatory environment it needed to form a mega bank. Then what does Rubin do but become chairman of the very same bank with a nice little payout of $126 million when he left. Are our memories so short that we cannot remember that Rubin is a villain in the piece and not to be listened to, let alone allowed to write an op-ed for the NYT.
11
When aggregate greed (the markets) told us that the housing bubble would lift all boats and the wealth would trickle down, you and all the other crony capitalists failed to see "the flaw" that Greenspan admitted to until it was too late. What was this flaw? That we can't trust a very few super rich to regulate the market fairly in the interests of the population at large. Your article is one more instance of crony capitalists using their power to keep themselves in power, in spite of the bald hypocrisy of such efforts. What does your article amount to except an attempt to appeal to the average person to continue supporting a system that works so obviously against their interests. Nobody relies more on the government than you and your ultra-rich friends. Real socialists (not the straw-man version you've painted here, nor the rich socialists like you who feel entitled to so much government help) can and have and will use markets just as well as your crony capitalists have done; the difference is that they will regulate markets so that the benefits are more widely shared, instead of concentrated so disgustingly among the few rich like you, Rubin. It is not markets that fail us: it is those who feel they are beyond the reach of law and morality -- the ultra rich. What do the tax-cuts that you so passionately and hypocritically defend actually do for the ordinary person except entrench a system that needs reform. FDR and Bernie are the true Democrats. You're a Republican.
6
I find it interesting that Establishment Dems are now all mouthing the rhetoric about income inequality, when it's been a fact for nearly 40 years now. What could have made them finally wake-up and listen to Americans? Oh yea, the Progressives.
That said, keep in mind that Moderate and Progressive Democrats MUST find a way to build a governing coalition together. Neither can defeat the other. Neither can win without the other. Neither can govern without the other.
If they don’t join together — if the Democrats opt for a circular firing squad — you can kiss the America you grew up in goodbye.
2
@kladinvt I'm all in for Bernie -- even campaigned for him in 2015. However, rest assured that Trump is so egregious, so vile, that I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
4
Where were you, Robert Rubin, in 2009 when Obama bailed out banks and put none of the fraudsters in jail? He did not help people keep their homes but helped transfer wealth toward your group. And then your class freaks out when the peasants want justice.
2
It's the team, people. The simple solution is to fill out your preferred executive staff organizational chart. Some of us have. And have alternates. AG, Harris or Schiff. Warren, VP, HHS or Treasury. Buttigieg, Defense, and so on.
You cannot choose a POTUS without considering the team they will create. The lead candidate should be able to lead a team you approve of and announce most of the team by July.
https://www.usgovernmentmanual.gov/ReadLibraryItem.ashx?SFN=Myz95sTyO4rJRM/nhIRwSw==&SF=VHhnJrOeEAnGaa/rtk/JOg==
Candidates: Please Present a Presidential team. We need certainty, constancy, and trust across the board. Who is on your team?
Will, you hit the ground running on day one and have fully vetted candidates willing to commit to the Democratic platform for the full term?
1
This needs to be the presidential campaign blueprint going forward.
One thing, among many we’ve learned, is that who the president surrounds himself with is just as important as the person who would lead them. Such a team presented up front would also allow the Office of the Presidency to highlight its commitment to racial, economic and political diversity. It is one of the needed features and advantages of a racially and religiously diverse democracy. I we realize that now too.
It would also help us see how the Office of the Presidency intends to express its ideas.
1
It's amazing that the western European countries are able to combine markets with extensive social safety nets for their people. Amazing but true!
The western European countries are far better places to live, too, for many reasons. One of them is that you can go to the movies without worrying about getting killed by a gunman!
Holy cow. Americans are 50 years behind Europe.
2
This is more plaintive negotiation by the Democrat moderates who have failed to deliver in the past. I also see not plan for addressing healthcare or student debt. The young people voting for Sanders have been shafted by boomers (I am one), and the party is not willing to address their concerns.
Now, Sanders and his supporters threatens to upset their corporate influence machine. These vague articles are just more third stage grief generated by the fact that both political parties are breaking up because their voters don’t trust them anymore.
The NYT won’t stop until every slightly well known DINO in America writes a cautionary column on “going left.”
It just makes me want to see what true liberalism looks like for once in my life.
1
I believe that Bernie supporters often forget that the combination of capitalism with strong government has led to the greatest transformation in human history. Through this recent coupling billions of lives have been improved in the last 200-300 years. This does not mean that capitalism is a perfect system - it has failed to address climate change, allowed for gross inequities between the rich and poor, and has still left many behind and unable to catch up. But those failures ought not define capitalism. Rather they should be addressed as shortcomings of an imperfect system which can be fixed. There is no need to throw away a wheel with a flat tire. We must except that flat tires occur and the tire can still roll if we appropriately patch up the holes.
Furthermore, Bernie seems to believe that corporations and capitalists are always greedy while governments are always benevolent. We should be reminded that governments, not corporations, have caused the most horrific cruelty the world has ever seen. That does not make government inherently bad either. Instead, capitalism and a strong-federal government should work together. Together, with new vision, new collaboration, and new understanding of capitalisms failures, we can fix the problems with our society and world.
2
Mr. Rubin writes: "strengthening the estate tax (including by eliminating stepped-up basis, a tax code provision that allows heirs to minimize estate taxes)"
Firstly, it is the estate that pays the estate tax, not the heirs (though obviously any tax paid cuts into their inheritance).
Secondly, Mr. Rubin shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the reason for the provision, which is surprising for someone who is supposed to know so much about the economy.
Stepped-up basis does not help anyone avoid estate taxes. The benefit only comes when heirs decide to sell those assets. Capital gains are calculated using that stepped-up basis, affecting the capital gains tax (not estate tax) they must pay.
Finally, in the U.S. there has been a long-standing, general policy that it is not fair to tax the same assets twice. If appreciated assets are included in the value of a deceased's estate and subject to the estate tax (with whatever level of exemption exists at the time) levying capital gains tax on those same assets without a step-up in basis amounts to double taxation.
1
And I should add that I am not someone who necessarily favors minimizing taxes on wealth. But if you're going to attack a problem, you need to know what that problem is and accurately describe it.
1
This message is a little hard to stomach, at least coming from this messenger. Just as Trump is learning that past lies mean lack of current trust, hearing a series of proposals from someone who had the power to enact -- or at least advocate - those proposals back when it would have made a difference, but didn't, eaves me in disbelief.
I hear you saying it Mr. Rubin, but I have no confidence your ilk (by which I mean Joe Biden, who also was in a position to push your suggested remedy but did not) will get it done.
I am a Warren survivor, but if I need to compromise make no mistake, it will be in favor of Bernie, not Joe. I like your proposals instead of a wealth tax. But it is Bernie, not Biden, who will actually try to accomplish them.
3
Get a grip, not one candidate has talked about about banning markets. If we are going to continue with this economic arrangement whereby the all the income and wealth goes to the top 10% then there will have to be some sort of wealth tax or there will be revolution, possibly violent. The majority of Americans cannot go on this way - without access to good healthcare, education or opportunity. Don't kid yourself that those things are out here for the average American if we just work harder. Working harder for the last 40 years has gotten us nothing, in fact, less than nothing. We earn less than we did 40 years ago.
85
Robert Rubin and his ilk, and their actions during the Clinton administration, are the sources of the 2008 crash and ultimately of Trumpism. They are not Democrats, they are plutocrats.Yes, they don't mind social change, but they have pushed the increasing gap between rich and poor hand in hand with republican plutocrats. Clinton abandoned the traditional link between the Democratic Party and the union movement and loosened the rules on banks in order to compete for Wall Street money. That way lies doom for Democrats and for the country.
4
No. The debate is between doing something about reducing inequality and playing lip service to doing it. I'll vote for any Democrat who gets nominated, but reducing inequality is going to be uncomfortable for the VERY comfortable. They aren't going to like it. We need a candidate that can look past the wealthy gnashing their teeth - I don't see biden doing that.
9
"This concerns me: No country has succeeded economically in the postwar era without a baseline commitment to markets."
Kevin Phillips may have nailed it in 2002 when he wrote in “Wealth and Democracy” that every modern empire from the Spanish to the Dutch to the English began its decline by transitioning from wealth creation via manufacture and trade to wealth creation through investment and expansion of the financial sector. The result was a widening of the gap between a wealthy elite and the increasingly disaffected middle classes.
That said: Vote blue, no matter who.
6
"Party Unity" espoused in this piece comes down to the old saw:
"Be reasonable. Do it my way."
5
This article states that Bloomberg has proposed a financial transaction tax “supported by many leading progressives.” Let’s be clear, both Sanders and Warren have proposed a financial transaction tax.
This article also endorses cooperation between markets and governments. Sanders and Warren are the only candidates calling out the corruption of fossil fuel industries. These “market-based” industries, having caused climate change, need to be sued and shut down to pay for climate change remediation, not to be collaborated with. In my hometown’s Council meeting, ConocoPhillips inundated the meeting with representatives and walked away with contracts to frack up to 300 gas wells within the city limits over the next decade, subverting any environmental action. It’s happening all over the country.
The authors reference “socialism – however amorphously defined.” To clarify, all countries of the world are capitalistic economies, participating in the markets. There is not one socialist economy in the world, if there ever even was one. Sander’s Democratic Socialism defined is a capitalistic economy with government organizing social programs like healthcare. Remarkable are all the successful capitalistic countries of the world being able to fund universal healthcare and with better outcomes.
4
A wealth tax is just another version of the estate tax which has been part of the US tax code for more than a century. All Congress has to do is to say the tax is paid in installments. It is clearly administrable and constitutional just like the estate tax. Since the current estate tax has been gutted by the creation of trusts that do not have limited to the life of a living person at the time the trust is created (rule against perpetuities) it can be crafted as an estate tax reform. This type of wealth tax is needed because the wealthy can avoid the "ordinary" income tax imposed on wages by converting that income to capital gains. The author is wrong in saying that it shouldn't be the only option. It is the only practical option for closing the wealth gap.
2
When asked, Bernie says he's not calling for a "Revolution" revolution, just a "political" revolution; it's not "Socialism" but "Democratic" Socialism.
No one presses him for a coherent explanation on that, least of all his ardent followers. But then, they don't seem to be asking many specific questions. Like, for example: "What is there in your last 30 years as Congressman and Senator that gives any credible reason to believe that you would be effective as President?"
Because the answer, if you gave him truth serum, would have to be :"Very little." To Bernie-ites, it's more about the excitement of being part of "the change" and declaring "what you are for" and less (if at all) about what will actually be accomplished--same as the diehard Trump believers.
4
With the current appeal to banks to help the market slump, we will see more of this rhetoric, I fear. Those who make anti-capitalist statements may even want the stock market to fail. Problem is that things will get much much worse, and it won't bring about a revolution. Just more death, despair, poverty, and an increased disparity in wealth, probably moved offshore permanently.
I'm NOT saying that the candidates themselves are saying this. But anti-capitalist statements by followers are a slippery slope. While we do need a capitalism more like the European or Scandinavian countries we need to stop referring to these countries as if they were primarily socialist.
In addition, democratic socialism or social democracies are very different. But should either one be seen as a march toward pure socialism? This is the intent if you read the definitions. Making slippery definitions is part of the ice on the slope headed down.
The disparity between rich and poor is a huge deal that we need to solve right quick! but not rashly! Not in ways that will make things worse. If a tax is unconstitutional, it will get bogged down in our now-conservative courts. And then someone will be laughing all the way to the bank.
1
This voice: Robert Rubin, is a voice from the netherworld, only now he is one of Paul Krugman's leading "Zombies" beckoning Clintonites to follow him to the dark places. Yes our threats are real and they won't be solved by going back; Neo means: we tried that but let's make it better now. A song gone stale.
Markets are not exclusive to capitalism. Socialism does not per-se exclude markets. This entire article appears to originate from a failure to understand these two points. If the author had merely read the wikipedia article for "socialism" he would not have written this.
1
Good Lord! That’s not what he did when he was in power. It’s because of people like him that we have Trump. God save us from hypocrites!
4
Bob, no one has a problem with capitalism. At least how real, actual capitalism is supposed to work. What we all object to is the crony capitalism that is the reality of today's America. Point in fact, that's pretty much always been the reality of America. The inordinate gain of the few at the expense of the many. From carpet baggers to robber barons, this inequality and exploitation has existed here for far too long.
And no, social democracy is not socialism. So stop conflating the two. Good and accessible health care, education, clean and safe places to live. What on earth is so terrible about people wanting that? Homelessness abounds yet almost a trillion dollars a year is wasted, wasted on the Military-Industrial Complex. 57% of the entire annual US budget goes to the MIC, include Veteran Affairs and that becomes a staggering 64% of all discretionary spending! And what pieces of the pie do all the other actual important things like housing, education, science, health care, et al. all account for? Less than 5% each in most cases. You don't see the problem inherent in that?
Anyone - of the 99% - who's ever traveled from the US to a social democracy usually has their mind blown and realizes 'Hey, there actually is a better way to live for the majority!' And it's not like you can't get rich in those countries either, you just have to actually pay your fair share like the rest of us slobs. And no, we don't need a wealth tax. We need to eliminate tax loopholes. Period.
8
Agreed. I would have you back as Treasury Secretary in a Sanders administration.
A couple additional thoughts:
1) We’ve lost ground as a nation because we haven't invested. We spend excessively on defense and a very expensive healthcare system. At the same time we haven’t invested massively in education or infrastructure—the stuff that pays the biggest return.
2) The money is now in the wrong hands. 1% on ten year Treasury notes? Wow! Says money hoarding to me...and none available for true entrepreneurs and innovators.
3) In the shadows behind this debate stage is the elephant waiting to smash everything, climate change. If we don’t get a chain around it’s leg, none of our conversation or hand-wringing over how to divide the pie is worth five seconds of our attention. Best just put full time and effort into finding and fortifying a spot on higher ground.
2
I agree that there needs to be more of a focus on common goals. Healthcare for all should be a Democratic goal. Addressing climate change should be a Democratic goal. Reducing income inequality should be a Democratic goal. I would like to hear the candidates talk about how they will address these issues and not spend so much time tearing down their opponents.
Democrats have been running away from the L and T words since the ascendancy of Ronald Regan, leaving behind workers and the middle class, and enabling the greed of the 1%.
I will vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination. But if Bernie wins and then loses to Trump I will blame the moderates for setting the Republican table by demonizing Bernie and his proposals that are popular and in effect in our peer countries.
2
This election is about Trump, Trump, and Trump, in that order. Unfortunately, social platforms and policy must take a back-seat to the fundamental issue of this election. Thomas Friedman's unity landslide strategy is the only path to unseating Trump. Without one, we already how it will play out. Trump will claim the election was rigged against him, refuse to leave, and incite civil disorder.
3
You guys--by which I mean traditional political elites--just don't get it. You waited too long, you let the system get too far out of whack. Moderation and careful, plodding policy responses are no longer enough, either to contain inequality or to satisfy the political demands of the populace. The party structures that have existed for the past 60 years are breaking. The coalitions that defined Democrats and Republicans are shifting under your feet. There is going to be a real realignment of political interests for the first time since Democrats lost the South, and it is going to be one driven by populism. When you talk about Democrats--or Republicans for that matter--"unifying", you miss the mark. The voters you want to unify behind your message are no longer interested in the product you are selling. We intend to unify with each other, and if you insist on maintaining a focus on the incremental policies of the past, we will unify you right out of the new system we are creating. personally, I expect that 20 years from now, there will be a party responsive to the demands of a populace unconcerned with traditional divides like those between capitalism and socialism and a party seeking to advance and protect the interests of those who control the resources. At this point, I'm not at all sure which current party will morph into which new one.
2
A brokered nominee will guarantee Democrats lose the election. Not only that, but it would rip apart the party.
2
There are no two western democracies moving apart as rapidly as Canada and the USA. I will leave the discussion of whether the USA is still a Western democracy to another day.
Our Conservative party is for all intents and purposes the DNC and men like Clyburn, Biden and Bloomberg and they represent a little over 30% of our electorate. The other 60 % of those who have political preferences made sure we had as much equality and basic human rights suitable to the 21st century as possible while retaining as much individual freedom as possible.
I see virtual all of Canadian politics in the Democratic Party and only the Republican Party is our American expats who started arriving here as United Empire Loyalists during the revolution and today arrive as Mormons and biblical fundamentalists and blue eyed oil sheikhs.
We know what the problems are and frankly the GOP has no desire to address the problems because our problems are their meat and potatoes.
A united Democratic party may be able to defeat the amoral Nihilism of today's GOP but cannot address the existential problems of 2020.
The future demands healthcare for all, access to quality education for all and basic security for all. Canada's latest right is access to broadband for each and every Canadian which is not broadband but access to broadband.
Obama/Biden gave you neither healthcare as a right nor a privilege. Maybe the GOP blowing it all up is better than trying to find a compromise between rights and privileges.
1
Bernie Sanders will never make any concessions which is why Bernie Sanders will never get anything done. Yes……….there is income inequality in this country and it needs to be addressed. But there are other ways of addressing it beside turning this country into a socialist state. We’ve done pretty well over the last 240+ years as a mixed capitalist economy and those who want change should seek to make it better; not tear everything down with a social and an economic revolution!!
1
Are you kidding me? Robert Rubin...deficit hawk, deregulator par excellence, banker extraordinare? He writes as if he has had no role to play in creating the mess he now wants us to fix, with his guidance, of course. (And what of the tens of millions he made from the debacle?)
His career illustrates the rot in the Democratic party. A Rubin Dem Party: RIP.
It's been a real blast watching the rhetoric in this opinion section swing back and forth from "Never Bernie" to "Democrats must unite" in such a short periods of time.
Before I even read the article I knew "if we remain divided" meant progressives were wrong. But I can appreciate that the author actually proposes alternative (and practical) means to taxing the wealthy and reducing income inequality.
@Richard
Who cares about taxing them?
They stole our money for decades and impoverished us; we want all our money back, every penny.
We need to strip them down and let them sleep under a bridge, but we'll occasionally throw them a bone so we can watch them fight over it, just as they do to us.
Ok, just how does the author propose to get around the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder, which is exactly what a wealth tax would be?
It's fascinating how Social Democracy gets conflated with Socialism. What many people want (from all political groups) for example, is a Healthcare system that channels money to care, not greedy Insurance executives & bureaucracies, rapacious Big Pharma companies, & the legions of middlemen driving up costs ridiculously, not to mention billions more wasted on direct to consumer advertising. Europe, Scandinavia, and Canada have proven it's feasibility. And the associated so-called "rationing" that opponents claim certainly wouldn't be worse than what we have in the US now. As for taxation, this piece suggests many possibilities. But the bottom line is the same. The Rich must pay more. Those who benefit most from the system should be obligated to support it more. And although many of the right-wing billionaires don't think the government does much more than take their money & give it away to lazy people, it actually does a lot for THEM. Things like airports, seaports, rail systems, sewer/water systems, police & fire departments, national defense, public health, emergency services, education & training, and roads/bridges to name a few. When the US had a progressive tax system requiring more of the rich, we all prospered. Now with the rich paying less & less, we find problems like huge deficits, mass homelessness, millions without health insurance, & soaring "deaths of despair." Wealth inequality must be addressed or the US becomes a pathetic Banana Republic. Embarrassingly.
4
Sanders is not a Marxist who wants to abandon market economics - this strawman trope needs to stop. He's pretty much FDR policy-wise, if even that.
2
Who is calling for the abandonment of markets?
1
More Democratic candidates must withdraw for the good -- the survival -- of our nation as a free, democratic republic. We must unite to crush, politically, this pathological president (elected by a deficit of 2.8 million votes).
Are you truly concerned, Mr. Rubin? Fantastic. Tell it to the DNC, to this newspaper and to MSNBC, whose hosts have either ignored Sanders or compared his campaign to Nazi invaders. Tell it to Democratic Party superdelegates, who have astonishingly indicated their intention to subvert the will of the voters.
This disrespect and hatred toward the Sanders campaign is pervasive among the Washington establishment and the mainstream news media outlets, despite Sanders leading in the national polls and having by far the highest favorability rating of any candidate for president. It is shameful, to say the least, and division appears to be the goal.
1
You see an opportunity to compromise, I see more class warfare. Your dishonest analysis of the progressive frame betrays your real intent. Decommodifying aspects of our life is NOT an abolishment of the market or anything approaching it, it’s a pragmatic act after an abundance of evidence that it makes sense. Your gaslighting is disgusting and transparent. The 90’s are over, jump on the next wave or sail off into the sunset, we have actual problems to solve.
1
Come on, Robert Rubin? The Citibank guy? Really, NYT?
Why not just have Bloomberg write a "vote for me" Op-Ed?
5
What a load of it. We do need to unite, behind the frontrunner, Sanders. Biden and Bloomberg are losing candidates. I have no idea why we are still trying to reinvent a new male Hillary, since she deservedly lost.
3
This article was a promotional item for Mike Bloomberg.
Not that I have a problem with the man, but let's face it, paid advertising should have such a disclaimer.
1
Media like the NYT are largely responsible the democratic 'division'. You guys praise and scorn a different dem every day...And never give Warren a chance.
Most actual democrats (and decent people in general) plan on either voting blue no matter who just to end Trump's reign.
2
Homo sapiens is a reciprotarian species. They will tolerate inequality if there is some benefit -- rich guys who create good jobs are just fine. Ditto feudal lords who supply security. But there is a limit and the US is well past it: income inequality in this country has exceeded levels deemed to create social unrest (per CIA) for decades. Elizabeth Warren's original message (now hopelessly garbled) is right: the political system is 'corrupt' in the sense that it creates and maintains socially unacceptable and economically unjustifiable levels of income inequality.
1
Do you want the left wing to unite with you? Then stop the socialism-bashing and red baiting! Stop equating Bernie with Stalin! Admit that Castro did some good for the people of Cuba! And where did you get the idea that democratic socialism is opposed to markets? You moderates are the ones who are freaking out and becoming totally unhinged, not us.
We shouldn't even TRY a wealth tax because it MIGHT be unconstitutional? That has been the problem with you moderates for the past 40 years: compromising with the right before you've even engaged with them, moving three-quarters of the way to their position before the compromising starts. Don't like a wealth tax? How about a 90% top tax bracket, as we had under Dwight Eisenhower? Capitalism was doing very well with that.
3
@John
Moderates never fight for the People, instead they compromise and collaborate with the enemy. They go into a negotiation with a "split-the-difference" mentality that shafts the People every time - then they say, "We tried!" and their weak-minded Moderates reelect them.
"Mr. Rubin was the secretary of the Treasury from 1995 to 1999."
Enough said. If you're a Clinton Democrat, you probably respect Rubin's opinion. Every one else is asking, "Can this guy be serious?" Clueless is an understatement.
2
"No country has succeeded economically in the postwar era without a baseline commitment to markets. "
Anyone who writes this is obviously pushing and agenda deviod of facts....unless you think China is committed to free markets.
Epic fail.
3
Sounds like an endorsement of Elizabeth Warren’s worldview
I’m for Bernie. I’m not voting for anyone else shake your finger all you want. My family needs Medicare for All.
2
It doesn’t matter how and what the article is written about. Berniebros will just respond in their convoluted and disingenuous way that the only messiah is Bernie. And only he can save the country and the world.
2
@Mark
So you believe the status quo will give up their massively entrenched power and money if we just ask them nicely? You'll be lucky if they throw you a bone.
No one gives up power willingly - it must be taken.
Back to basics. Hailing from France, which has had its share of socialist governments, I feel the Democratic Party is moving in the wrong direction. I get it that you envy our safety net and paid vacations. But you are cherry-picking. Big government is too often synonymous with inefficient government. Work hard in France, try to set up a company, and you will see a large part of every extra euro you earn gobbled up by taxes and levies and social contributions and what not, long before you are “rich” . We have inherited wealth and a coterie of well connected magnates who are able to milk the system. It is no coincidence that many talented French people choose the US as the place to succeed. Be careful what you wish for!
2
Rubin makes the case for why Democratic primary voters should STOP trusting the moderate corporatists wing. They will do anything, lie, cheat, to hold onto power.
1
"No country has succeeded economically in the postwar era without a baseline commitment to markets"
None of the current candidates want to change this. Please stop the hysterical scaremongering
3
The temerity of the author, who advised the newly elected Clinton that he had a choice between health care reform and NAFTA and that he should expend his newly earned political capital on passing NAFTA, because it was better for the economy and giving his wife,who, at the time had no political experience, the health care issue, to offer any opinion about economic policy, is down right astounding. Shameless. His lip- smacking greed contributed greatly to the growth of the neo-liberal Democratic Party that abandoned the middle and working class.
1
No one is talking about moving away from a market based economy. So what are you babbling about? The only difference is creating a stronger safety net and protect the those without wealth or political power from exploitation. The markets will continue and the wealthy will still get more but more of our production will go to assuring the average worker is taken care of before they take their larger cut. Its that simple.
2
It's good to read this let's-compromise-and-get-things-done piece by Rubin, but at the same time many years have passed and Democrats have not made reform to the unfair tax structure a priority. If income inequality and its infinite attendant problems are worse today, then WHY? No one inside the power structure has pushed for change. If Sanders is the nominee, he will have to campaign within the national context and realism will emerge. The same thing will happen once he's elected President. The country needs someone fiercely pushing against the entrenched, self-promoting status quo.
2
Robert Rubin, before making this argument, should take some responsibility for unleashing the atomizing force of under regulated finance on this country and the world. Prior to Bill Clinton's election, the Republican Donor Class tried for decades to demolish the New Deal. Rubin's efforts helped them to deregulate finance, allowing the inherent physics of money to create blackholes of concentrated wealth and power that mutilate well-functioning markets.
2
Bernie Sanders is clearly not a real socialist. He does not advocate wholesale transition of the means of production to the government. He truly is a social democrat, in the European mold, who advocates increasing government presence in providing social services, such as medical care, not in eliminating private investment in business and industry.
The difficulty is that medical care in the US is an extremely large private business, and his Medicare for All plan would target that business for elimination, a problematic implementation under the best of circumstances. Clearly, moving health care to the public sector in any comprehensive manner will require years of carefully implementation, a prospect that does not fit well with the attention-deficit nature of politicians. The bottom line is that it can’t be done quickly, if it can be done at all.
Meanwhile, the more urgent agenda needs to be reigning in the power of corporations and leveling income inequality while adding the public option to the ACA and increasing its coverage. In these areas modest steps over time would make important improvements.
1
The Democrats are united in supporting a constitutional republic where there is rule of law. Bills get proposed, debated, and enacted in Congress. Laws get executed by a President. The courts say what the law means and all abide the result.
The Republicans are united in supporting a would-be strongman dictator with no regard for the rule of law. Congress is ineffectual, with no power to oversee the President's actions. The courts are rubber stamps for the President's unhinged and lawless actions.
That's what this election is about, not nit-picking over policy prescriptions that may or may not be put in bills that may or may not be enacted.
5
With the seeming popular desire to return the country to the 1950s moral values, why has no one proposed returning to the income tax schedule of the era? Even after adjustments are made for inflation, that would make a great dent in the deficit plus help reduce income disparity.
3
Rubin doesn’t like socialism, even though he recognizes that markets cannot address our most pressing problems.
And Rubin doesn’t like a wealth tax, even though he recognizes we have to do something to address wealth inequality (not just income inequality).
And Rubin doesn’t like debates about how we can do better, even though he recognizes that we haven’t been doing good enough.
But most importantly: Rubin doesn’t like that progressives might win the nomination, even though they have better ideas and enthusiastic support and more actual votes.
And so Rubin likes the idea that moderates can just appropriate all of that for themselves, but in a “moderate” way that doesn’t try to do too much, so that we won’t get called tax-and-spend socialists who’ll promise everything but do nothing.
Sorry Rubin: it just doesn’t work that way.
4
@Adam Well said, Adam. Yeah, unfortunately we're way past Bob's Goldilocks approach to what is the reality of America today. People like him should go spend a month - or several - working for minimum wage, living in a slum, not eating well, not having health insurance, and see if that doesn't revise his world view. The problem with elites like Bob is poverty is nothing but an academic abstraction to be mulled over at cocktail parties. They have zero idea first hand of what it means to be poor.
1
It's the primaries. We are divided because we're in the middle of the process of determining who we are going to unify behind.
1
You’ve got to hand it to the left. Whether they’re for or against capitalism, for or against Medicare for All, for or against a wealth tax, or for or against socialism - none of them ever ever ever mentions how mass immigration impacts equality.
Why is that?
Do they really think that huge numbers of people willing to work below minimum wage doesn’t drag down the wages of everyone else? Do they really think that having armies of low wage serfs doesn’t make it easier for the rich to get richer? Or do they think that if they mention it, they lose critical support?
And how has this position even helped them? It was the single most salient piece of Trump’s “America First” platform, and he used it to trounce 15 pro-immigration Republicans before using it to trounce pro-Immigration Hillary. Do they think it’s lost salience and appeal?
Or do they realize it’s an electoral deal breaker, hence their silence. Maybe they’re terrified of Bernie because he promises to abolish ICE, decriminalize border crossings, and extend Medicare for All to the undocumented as well as citizens. Honestly, any candidate who runs on nonsense like this will be curb stomped by most voters. It’s not the socialism of Sanders, but his rhetoric on immigration.
But you know what? His immigration rhetoric isn’t that different from Biden and Warren’s.
But best of all is going to be watching the Democrats implode before we even get to the general. They’re too diverse at this point to even function, lol.
3
This is a great piece. It helps clarify why our President will beat the Dems once again in November.
Thanks for your support for the reelection of our President.
5
I wish more Americans could have the experiences I have had working abroad. For example, the Mexican system of corruption is currently being used as a model for the US GOP.
But mostly I refer to the time I spent working a living in Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, and others, including Russia (also lots of countries in Asia). I do not believe any one working for any time in Scandinavia would choose the American systems of healthcare, education, child care, retirement. Even everyday working is entirely different. In Europe, people are encouraged to stay home when they are sick. In USA, workers are encouraged to come to work no matter how bad the symptoms of the corona virus are. American workers are just faceless soulless commodities. Only the socialists seem to object.
1
Mr. Rubin ignores the elephant in the room, because he rode it as SecTreas:
The issue with wealth inequality isn't that the wealthy HAVE it, it is the method(s) by which they OBTAINED it.
And for at least the last generation and a half, the vast majority of uber-rich have collected their wealth via machinations of the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) markets engineered by the Federal Reserve system and the Treasury Department itself.
When the Fed floods the economy with cheap money, the entry point is the investment and money center banks, who also collaborate with the insurance companies and also buy and package mortgages. Then, without performing any service of tangible value, the banks push that money to a lower rung on the economic ladder, at a higher interest rate, until it finally reaches the consumer several percentage points higher than the bank received it from the Fed. THAT is where the seven-, eitght-, nine-figure bonuses for bankers are coming from.
Restoring sound money, or at a minimum prohibiting profiteering by Primary Dealer investment banks, would address income inequality within a maximum timeframe of twenty-four months.
3
Yes, the post war years saw great economic growth in America. Then people realized that with the capitalism of the day came the high price of environmental destruction. So that radical Republican, Richard Nixon, signed into law a bi-partisan bill creating the EPA.
The law changed the way corporations functions for the benefit of society. Corporation screamed in terror at the coming end of capitalism and economic stagnation. But, capitalism didn't come to a crashing halt. Companies and corporations adapted, businesses remained successful and profits increased. An entire new industry was born that contributed to economic growth.
It's time again to correct obvious market externalities of income inequality and shrinking opportunity and once again enact new laws to regulate capitalism for the benefit of all Americans.
The world will continue, profits will be made and capitalism will flourish.
The social democracies (eg Denmark) that Bernie references, all fund their social safety nets and national healthcare systems with a highly regressive 20% VAT (or value added tax) payable by every citizen, rich or poor, on everything they buy. . If Bernie wanted to be honest with the American people, he would come out and acknowledge that, to implement his proposals, need to immediately increase the price of every good and every service sold in the US, by 20%, by means of a new Federal VAT (IN ADDITION to all existing Federal and state income, sales, property etc taxes AND the other new taxes Bernie has in mind for the 'rich'). Until he makes that clear, he is a Pied Pier fraud.
4
The candidate's who are talking about socialism are the GOP and their talking heads in right wing media trying to tarnish democrats. Nobody is seriously considering abandoning our economic system and advocating for full on socialism. The fact that you are suggesting that people are thinking that is part of the problem.
Speaking of income inequality, aren't you the same person who juiced the derivatives markets by pushing deregulation and the repeal of Glass Steagall Act. That didn't work out great for most of us in '08... You made a tremendous amount of money at Goldman, and then at Citi when you left the Clinton Administration. When you talk of candidates embracing socialism, don't you see how that looks like a Clinton surrogate taking a shot at Bernie...
3
I'm no Robert Rubin fan, though he's right. Democrats and thoughtful independents need to keep it simple and unify to defeat Trump. Looks like that means nominating Biden. As hard as it is, let's adopt Reagan's 11th commandment - speak no ill of another Democrat. Figure out the policy and personnel details after the threat of Trump is gone.
3
Sanders/Warren offer Democrats the anchor position, in negotiation parlance. The anchor position is the standpoint from which alternatives are measured. After more than 4 decades of policy decay for workers, we need the strongest possible anchor position to ensure measurable progress.
Biden's anchor is the status-quo. If you want the oligarchy train to continue running full steam, vote for him.
If you want real change in favor of workers, vote Sanders/Warren.
2
Most of the developed nations in the world have been able to retain market based economies while addressing its complications. It make eminent sense to me that those who benefit the most from the way a society's economic activity is structured should be expected contribute to maintaining a level playing field for the next generation. This enables what Thomas Jefferson referred to as the "natural aristocracy" of every generation to rise to leadership rather than allowing an inbred hereditary aristocracy to arise.
Sanders wants to do away with market economy. He says it every time he opens his mouth. There is nothing “amorphous” about socialism: this is what it means. Everything else is social democracy or welfare state or safety net. Socialism means that the government controls the economy. And immediately afterwards comes the governmental control of information. I challenge anybody to name one country which had the state’ s ownership of the means of production AND was democratic and free. There has never been one. Now, I don’t think Sanders can implement his takeover of the economy even if he is elected but he will try and it might destroy the country. If you think living under capitalism is bad, try socialism. As for me, I have a European passport and I can move to a country that is an actual social democracy and which socialists have about 6 percent of the popular vote. Good luck with poverty, hunger, violence and oppression - the four horsemen of socialism.
2
Robert, I don't disagree with your arguments, but all you pundits who deride Bernie as a "Socialist" can't continue to ignore the successes of the great social democracies of Canada, Scandinavia, and Western Europe. C'mon, even Cuba manages to provide healthcare as a right to all it's citizens.
1
Actually, a wealth tax is great policy. But I certainly understand, given Mr. Rubin's long history as a staunch neo-liberal ideologue, why he doesn't support it. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Mr. Rubin's contribution to the nation's economy was to bring us to the 2008 crash which still reverberates to this day. I think the we would do well to heed the advice of Mr. Rubin or his philosophical cousin Alan Greenspan and do the opposite.
2
Wealth tax advocacy is pure demagoguery when the administrative unfairness is considered. Identical residential properties in California for example can have hugely disparate assessor valuations based upon the term of ownership. Why not more focus on closing loopholes as Democrats succeeded in 1986. Here as we’ve witnessed with so called real estate professionals like Trump there’s huge opportunity. For a start, why are these guys allowed to charge non cash depreciation against unrelated wage and passive income?
Like so many analysts, Mr. Ruben fails to acknowledge the effect of nontaxable fringe benefits.
Senior executives and business owners are taxed at a marginal rate of 0% on the first, roughly $50,000 in compensation they receive in the form of nontaxable or partially tax-free fringe benefits. Plus, the companies they run or own get the tax benefit of expensing that compensation.
These tax benefits can extend to items that virtually all of us need for work or everyday use: The Lower 99 pay for their own mobile phones, wireless phone and Internet service, cars, car repair and maintenance, virtual or actual newspaper and magazine subscriptions, and even home security systems. Plus they are taxed on the income needed to pay for those items.
Freebies for the wealthy should be viewed on a grossed up basis to account for their tax-free nature. Thus the before tax value of such nontaxable or partially taxable compensation can approach $50K and beyond. SEC disclosures on noncash benefits grossly understate the true value of those benefits.
3
@Wm Schlecht
My apologies. I misspelled former Treasury secretary Rubin's last name.
Judging from the tone of many, if not most, of the responses to Mr. Rubin’s piece, I can see the Democratic circular firing squad assembling. Almost makes me regret abandoning my 40 plus years as a non-affiliated voter just so I can vote in N.Y.’s Democratic primary this year. By the way, good luck with all that...
I find it laughable that a banking executive is lecturing people about unity and markets. The wealth gap grew enormously under Obama while he bailed out banks but refused to bail out homeowners during the financial crisis. No one is saying the government should take over markets--but our unfettered check on markets has lead us to the point where we are risking our very lives--for the first time ever, our life expectancy has DECLINED in the USA--so that rich people can get richer.
9
Of the solutions now available, only Biden/Warren is likely beat Trump in the Electoral College. The Perfect is the Enemy of The Good. And right now, we need The Good.
1
The recommendations and pleas for common ground written here don't align well with those who scream for "revolution." The lead cheerleader for "revolution" has a notoriously bad reputation in the Senate for refusing to compromise. As a consequence, his record of legislative achievements is quite sparse.
Egged on by Fox news and radio gasbags, it now clear that the GOP members of Congress no longer are interested in compromise. However, that should not be the case for the factions in the Democratic Party. I have no interest in any candidate whose dominating philosophy is "my way or the highway."
2
How and why are we divided? Several lesser known statistics are enlightening. In 2016 the per capita average annual income of Sanders and Clinton voters was virtually identical. We aren't divided by actual differences in our average incomes. Roughly 90% of the folks who self-identify as very progressive are white. The only block of voters that is more white is Trump's conservative base. A disproportionate share of the Sanders base is younger, with lower incomes. The remainder of the Sanders supporters is older and relatively well off. Trump supporters and to a lesser extent Sanders supporters are uniquely characterized by the desire to "burn society to the ground" (as reported here). The vast majority of Sanders voters like his focus on economic progressivism at the expense of social progressivism (or fail to see it) because, frankly, they are white and disproportionately male. His older supporters who are not mostly motivated by (that is, angered by) the loss of white prerogatives are motivated mostly by their ideals. His younger voters who are not mostly motivated by ideals are motivated (made angry by) their limited prospects, particularly in light of the opportunities that young white well-educated people might have once taken for granted. In short, the more progressive idealists and the less progressive pragmatists should be able to find common ground. Unless Sanders addresses this now (and he should), the party might have to write off his more enraged fringe.
1
Rubin is implying that Sanders and maybe even Warren want to do away with markets, which is patently false.
11
Like all billionaires, Rubin is freaked out that he and his ilk will actually have to go back to paying their taxes. That's his animus towards Bernie. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one.
9
It is hard for me to seriously take advice from one of the major architects of income inequality on how to reverse income inequality. Mr. Rubin says, "When I served in government, Americans were wary of taxing the very wealthy", but that is simply not true.
Mr. Rubin jointly with Lawrence Summers (Mr. Rubin's successor) and the Clinton administration crafted policy and laws (see the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act) that made possible our current economic inequality.
The long succession of like minded Secretaries of the Treasurey (Rubin and Summers under Clinton, O'Neill and Paulson under Bush, and Geitner under Obama) paved the way and sustained the stupendous rise in inequality.
Jointly they created the toxic economic environment that lead to the election of Trump.
I want Trump out, but I don't want these guys or their acolytes back!
4
One thing is for sure. There are no easy answers to the problems of capitalism. And it is for certain that no sound bytes will do the trick either. The central issue here is ignorance. In some cases it is intentional; in some, accidental, in some determined; in some due to inadequate education. The US was founded at a time when the primary focus of most voters was parochial, and the alternatives were usually pretty clear to most of them. That time has long passed. Many of the issues we face today are far more complex and confusing, so too many of us seek simple answers; just the kind that demagogues like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are expert in delivering.
Unregulated capitalism or very minimally regulated capitalism is a communists dream.
The constant tumult of it and the harm that does to the vast majority of people who have no control or ability to cope with that tumult outside of self government is the justification for communism. Thus only a pro communist could possibly advocate for that kind of capitalism.
The American Capitalism that we had from 1932 until 1980 is the well regulated and well managed with foresight/planning for the long term stability of that economy and the needs of all of the people, free market system people like Mr Rubin wants you to think of when he talks about capitalism.
What he is in fact advocating is the unregulated tumultuous kind of capitalism he made his money in and spun with lies and propaganda to make it seem like it is the well regulated kind.
1
And why should we take seriously someone who equates any of the candidates with China? That's not the structure they're suggesting.
2
So don't be divided.
Get behind Bernie.
5
Sanders could win the election no doubt, Problem is he has NO, Zero, Zilch chance of getting ANY of his policies through Congress. He is short and will be short on allies in the Democratic party (much less the republican party) That he wouldn't be able to get a bill renaming an outhouse in the Bitterroot National Forest. Much less passing bills for all the Free Stuff he's promising. Without a strong a strong cadre of allies & supporters in congress his bills & policies are irrelevant. And he doesn't have that cadre or supporters. Our congress KNOWS where it's bread is buttered and it ISN'T with socialism Democratic or otherwise.
2) Note going on about Scandinavian Socialism & how they do things in Denmark & Europe is utterly Nauseating... A WASTE OF TIME, Not to mention irritating. Folks this ISN'T Scandinavia!! We have neither the Social Cohesion, Homogeneous (relatively speaking) Population, Nor the trust in government that That version of government requires. And Frankly the Government ISN'T trustworthy. The Democratic party is NO more honest & Trustworthy then the Republicans.
3) A wealth tax ISN'T going to happen folks it's pure FANTASY. It would require a constitutional Amendment for cryin out loud. You know what? There aren't the votes in Congress for it much less the support of 38 states. So it's basically a joke not a policy that could actually pay for the lefts fantasies. Despite Sanders & the other speeches there will be NO such tax &THEY KNOW IT!!!
4
I will vote for the nominee, unconditionally.
As for unity among the Democrats, good luck. I think I just saw a pig soar over a neighbor's house and scare off a bunch of starlings.
2
Disguised as an appeal to Democratic unity, this is really a diatribe on why not to pursue a wealth tax -- and that's after acknowledging that the 0.1% have run away with stealing the bounty of the nation!! C'mon. Sounds more like you your buddies don't want to pay more taxes.
3
Here's the deal...
"Moderates", a word used for its propaganda positive- centerist, also inaccurate, would be a more neutral term- have to embrace the idea of anyone but Trump. Meaning if Bernie leads he wins. Instead there is a scramble to control perception, using MSM.
It is not hard to equate the SURGE talk with the football commentators trying to hold an audience (for the beer and car ads) when one team is behind by 17. & all the talk of the big shift from Buttiegieg...well...odds are some stay home, some vote for him anyway, "his" female supporters shift to women. Here's the thing....a few points may propel Biden from 3rd to distant also ran, or, more importantly, that he edges past the 15% line (CA, MA, CO &...)
Despite all the pundit spin, Tuesday was pretty much baked in. Bernie will take a huge share of delegates. And remember that new marker- "he leads in popular vote". I think if I were on Biden's team I'd have put a coneofsilence on that one...
Now, centerists are "coalescing". Progs need to say a vote for _____ is a vote for Biden, and act on that knowledge, now.
As the Supremes take on the case that will bury ACA this summer...too late then for any new plan, except to ship Insurers whatever "subsidies" they want...
Then we better vote for Bernie. Time for the others to drop out.
1
I had to swallow hard a couple of times while reading this to keep down the contents of my stomach. Bob Rubin, of all people, asking us po' folks to come together and vote for Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar, because, well, we're always the ones who have to give in, right? Bob, if you don't want another term of Trump, then how about giving in to us working stiffs for a change? 'Moderates', come together around Bernie and Liz Warren, and give a little of your own riches for a better country. We tried it your way, and it's gotten us to where we are now. Back them, and use your influence to give us a fair election, and I'll start to think about respecting you again.
3
A three-card monte player and former Treasury Secretary
tells us what to do after savaging Brooksley Born when she warned in the mid-90's that derivatives would sour the economy. He succeeded in muzzling Born and her office because he wanted his former employer, Goldman Sachs, to continue to reap profits while engaging in the derivative market processes until it all blew up in 2008. It seems that today's "brahmins" think we're all stupid enough to believe anything they opine.
3
@willw i agree and would like to add that goldman was one of the few firms not hurt in the '08 recession. the gov't bailed out aig and goldman was made whole on all those derivatives contracts aig couldn't pay
3
Don't be fooled by Rubin's crocodile tears. He loves socialism for the rich, but when it comes to a little socialism for the poor and working people he is "concerned," i.e. scared, and calls for unity, i.e. the centrist candidate.
Rubin was the co-head of Goldman Sachs who made millions if not billions directing the rich man's game of making money for nothing on investments for himself, his mega wealthy clients and the firm. The term Goldman Sachs next to anyone's name would usually condemn someone in mainstream circles, but the Times puts this man and his ideology of the rich of neoliberal free market capitalism front and center. So once again the Times is engaging in class warfare by looking out for the interests of the oligarchs. Both Rubin and the Times want the status quo to continue where all wealth and profits keep going to the rich, and to no one else.
As Clinton's Treasury Sec. he orchestrated the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act and advised Clinton not to regulate derivatives. Both of these actions led directly to the housing bubble and collapse of 2009. Millions of lower income people lost their homes, their saving and had to start over and many never recovered. And this is the man the Times puts on its front page to advise its readers? This is the man the Times puts forth on the eve of Super Tuesday?
Rubin is a class warrior for the rich. The Times is the newspaper for the oligarchs.
Bernie for the poor and working people!
2
A lot of words to say almost nothing.
2
Please coach Biden on speaking in complete sentences, that's all the voters ask.
Ah yes, I remember well the great successes sensible Democrats had with Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis. Well, I guess writing this stuff is better than taking the same time to ruin the financial lives of millions.
3
Oh good...Robert Rubin, one of the architects of the 2008 crash who was joined at the hip with Alan Greenspan in fighting CFTC oversight of credit derivatives, who also (with Larry Summers) maneuvered to get Glass Steagal repealed, and who was obscenely financially compensated for driving Citigroup into the ground forcing a government bailout...is here to share his expertise and insight!
What next...an op-ed on navigating the North Atlantic from the Captain of the Titanic? Lessons in dirigible safety from the pilot of the Hindenburg?
Robert Rubin and his ilk ARE THE PROBLEM, not who we should be turning to for solutions.
5
As long as Bernie-the-spoiler and his brothers are involved, wave unity goodbye.
He'd sell his soul to the devil to get the nomination, and if he doesn't, he'll be as ill-mannered and grudging and reluctant as he was in 2016.
I want him out of my party, and home taking care of his dicky heart.
2
Rubin was plucked from his govt job right after Glass-steagal was repealed. Coincidence? Nope. That repeal played a huge role in the unnecessary risk taking that banks took that led directly to the financial crisis of 2008. And Rubin was paid HUNDREDS of MILLIONS. For what? His ability to lobby the Govt. Corrupt capitalism. This is what happens in the deep state.
Because the NYT loves him they will give him a voice when he deserves none.
Free markets are the answer and that's not free markets.....
1
What about tax cut for the poor. Relief is needed Now! No tax for $40,000 and below. Ridiculous to strangle the financially strangled......
3
Good luck to Joe trying to convince Bernie's supporters that underneath his Robin Hood cape really lurks a dirty old man in a trench coat who he's willing to partner with.
1
And if Democrats fall, democracy dies.
OK, billionaire banker.
7
Mr. Rubin, you and the Media keep talking about unity and spreading fear about “who can beat Trump.” Millions of us, Democrats, independents and NeverTrumpers are working on getting the vote out! HOW DO WE DEFEAT TRUMP? WE! THE PEOPLE VOTE IN NEVER BEFORE SEEN LARGE NUMBERS! Stop with the hand wringing, the freaking out, the ridiculous op-Ed’s of “what if” or fear!
“Never underestimate the power of a small group of thoughtful committed citizens to change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has.” ~ Margaret Mead
1
"Capitalism’s critics are correct that there are many critical issues ...that markets, by their nature, will not address."
It's more than not addressing them. Capitalism has been on steroids since the 1980s. It has not just exacerbated problems; it has created them.
Capitalism helped to create a strong middle class--but it was unions that fought for fair wages, a 40-hour work week, overtime, safety regulations, and a host of other things.
The "new" capitalism--the one that said the only goal was quarterly profits and return to shareholders--helped destroy all that, along with much of our middle class, over the last 4 decades.
In my mind, a politician can be summarized as supporting or not supporting TPP. That is a very good stand in for where they will go.
3
It is always good to hear from a man who cashed out on Wall street and when the banks were going under. He knew more than anyone about what would happen to the rest of us when the collapse came. His advice to the party that claims to care about the common person shows just what that party suffers from: talk like you care about us all in public, and ride the limo to the bank the rest of the time.
4
Likely Democratic presidential primary voters in Texas and California—the two states with the most pledged delegates to award on Super Tuesday—view socialism more positively than capitalism, according to a CBS News/YouGov tracking poll released Sunday.
The survey showed 56% of Democratic primary voters in Texas and 57% in California have a favorable view of socialism. Just 37% of Democratic voters in Texas and 45% in California have a positive view of capitalism, the poll found, signaling widespread discontent with the vastly unequal economic status quo.
Guided by capitalism as religion and profit as god,
the market based system values are reflected in the obscene, colossal and growing inequality of opportunity, income and wealth, where the richest .1 percent take in 196 times more than the bottom 90 percent...
https://inequality.org/facts/income-inequality/
As one of the architects of America's grotesque inequality, Robert Rubin, like those other warmongering, Wall Street supporting, status quo protecting Establishment Moderates, is most likely oblivious to the death of the American Dream decades ago.
The time for change is now!
President Sanders 2020!
A Future To Believe In !
Sanders supporters don't expect miracles.
As President, Sanders will reignite idealism,
and that, by itself, is desperately needed.
America will become a better more hopeful country.
There will be change.
How much will depend on all of us.
3
As you know full well, when young Americans say they favor socialism, they mean that they favor a European style economy--a capitalist core with a much stronger social safety net than the United States currently has. Those economies are doing just fine and they incorporate buffers against downturns that would be the envy of any American who does not have an income equivalent to, well, sorry, yours. Moreover, you are in a position to heavily discount climate change because you'll be dead when the worst hits. Americans in their twenties won't be. Perhaps you should reconsider your own positions.
3
Waffle, waffle, waffle. You should recognize that the progressives in the race agree with your position, as do all the moderates except Biden, who believes the past was perfect, so all we need to do is return to it.
My question--as a currently registered democrat--is what the democrats have done for me recently that makes them feel so entitled to my vote.
To the DNC, I say this--be happy that Bernie Sanders is campaigning as a democrat. There is no other way me and the large portion of the electorate want to associate with you anymore for any other reason.
I am tired of mainstream media and the DNC requesting my undying allegiance to a party that is not any better than the GOP when it comes to economics but talks a sweet talk on cultural themes that don't matter to the pocket book of most Americans. This time around, we are alert to the garbage being peddled by mainstream democrats.
7
Ugh! United we stand claptrap.
Bottom line, everyone knows that if we don't want another four years of Donald Trump, then every eligible voter needs to get of his/her duff and VOTE.
1
Mr. Rubin blithely notes that opinions of taxing the wealthy have changed, that the politics have changed. He does so as if this just happened. In fact it is the real life results of tax policies that so heavily favored the wealthy, and that were advocated by powerful people like Mr. Rubin, that have changed opinions. People were hurt by these policies, your policies, Mr. Rubin. Shame on you for pretending otherwise.
3
Senator Warren should unite the Democratic Party by dropping out now and supporting the only candidate who can defeat Trump: Biden.
Party division is a problem. The solution is for centrists to stop trashing the front-runner. If there's another candidate you're excited about, by all means, promote them. But get ready to lend your full-throated support to Senator Sanders if he is the nominee.
2
Do the majority of you commentators railing at Rubin here not understand that you're basically proving his point? Trump and his team are sitting back and chuckling.
In primary season, there are only two choices: competition or an anointed one. Competition is healthy. We had an anointed one last time and it worked very badly for us. I'm willing to wait until after Super Tuesday, at which time I expect Klobuchar and Warren to drop out. Thank you, Mayor Pete for not trying to collect enough delegates to play kingmaker, same for Mr Steyer. Thank you, Mike Bloomberg, for pledging your honor and fortune to whoever wins the nom. Tulsi, just go, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. And then, may the best ancient white man win.
While I respect you sir, you were part of the mess. This carried on into the Obama administration, which proved that a black man could be as conservative and uncaring as the rest of the so-called moderate democrats. The election of 2016 revealed a level of cheating by Clinton as bad as it gets for a democrat.
If the corps of the diehard conservative (not moderates) can refrain from cheating and let democracy prevail we may yet produce a candidate everyone can follow.
Make it so.
1
I am saddened by the (multiple)opinion columnists on the times telling me to choose one of the two 77+ year old white men in order to be a true democrat. I plan to vote with my brain and my heart, and not pander to your fear-mongering about "4 more years of Trump." Let the American people make their own decisions and shame on you for suggesting that by not voting for one of these about to be octogenerians that somehow, we are not practical.
1
I'm so very relieved that the comments here demonstrate that people remember what those in power like Rubin did to the country in the 90s, setting us up for our current state of affairs. When I saw his name as a guest columnist, I was rather outraged. Why doesn't the Times just print another column from Dick Cheney explaining the wisdom of invading Iran?
2
America's distorted Capitalism has resulted in extreme income inequality, with the one-percenters holding almost as much wealth as the middle- and upper-middle classes combined!
No wonder a recent Gallup poll found that "a majority of young Americans have a positive view of Socialism and their opinion of Capitalism has declined" !
To defeat Trump in a landslide and take our country back from the wealthy and big business, the Democrats must follow Thomas Friedman's advise and "do something extraordinary - forge a national unity ticket, the likes of which they have never forged before" !
If the Democrats remain divided and fail to join together and protect our democracy, then they should be replaced and then pure Socialism will be our last resort !
1
Problem is young people don't know what socialism is and it sound good because they don't have anything yet. If you don't have anything of course you are envious and want other people's stuff. It was also quite annoying to read an interview of hispanic immigrants that they were supporting Bernie because they liked free college and healthcare. So you are new to this country; you don't understand our culture; and you are already lining up for more free stuff. Sorry that doesn't play well in Peoria. So much for Sanders. No wonder people are voting for him.
1
America's distorted Capitalism has resulted in extreme income inequality, with the one-percenters holding almost as much wealth as the middle- and upper-middle classes combined! That's why people are voting for Sanders !
in the primary vote for whoever you think is the best choice and is still running, then in November vote BLUE no matter what!
A completely predictable position piece from the uber-wealthy Wall Street class. Yeah, we know, Bernie is after a small bit of your money. Now go away.
3
There is no question that Elizabeth Warren would make an ideal president. Bernie should cool his jets and recognize that his age and his health are limiting factors for his candidacy. He made the error of labeling himself as a democratic socialist which in this politically ignorant country has been converted into "Communism" by the right wing and even so-called "moderates". He should join progressive forces with Elizabeth Warren.
Biden may be a moderate but he transmits the impression that he is not all that sharp and/or not all there. Bloomberg is a Republican at heart and is trying to take advantage of the Democratic Party's lack of unity. He is however, still light years ahead of the ignorant, incompetent Donald Trump with his Dictatorship staffed by his GOP lackeys who have totally betrayed America.
At the end of the day, the key message to all Americans who care about the future of this nation, including the Bernie bros that sat out the 2016 election, is Vote Blue, No Matter Who. Vote Blue...or its game over!
2
The false premise of the article is just cover to attack Bernie Sanders as if your lies are his ideas.
Sanders ideas are in essence the same ides that FDR gave us and also brought on the 47 best years this nation ever had. That ended in 1980 when the fake capitalists finally succeeded in taking control of our government and destroyed the government FDR gave us.
Only a communist cold desire uncontrolled unregulated commerce driven by "the market" which I guess is upper class Ivy League code for La Cosa Nostra (Our Thing). Which is what the communist were and still are.
2
Didn't the NYT recently advocate Warren or Klobuchar? With either you get pragmatic with different degrees of progressive--not a bad choice.
In a way, Elizabeth Warren is « Hillary Clinton, version 2.0 ».
She should drop out too.
" ... vicious debates that yield pyrrhic victories and fail to deliver real change ... "
As an Independent, I saw the debates this way:
" ... in Tuesday’s South Carolina debate ... With only one exception, the Democratic candidates for president shouted, bullied and blustered their way through an embarrassing two hours. Mike Bloomberg — an accomplished businessman who led New York City as mayor for twelve years — was the only person on that stage who had the guts to speak the truth. The only grown-up in the room ... he may not be the most practiced debater. He doesn’t make speeches for a living, unlike the political insiders running against him. But as a smart, accomplished manager, he is second to none ... " (Judy Sheindlin former supervising judge of Manhattan Family Court & the presiding judge of the Emmy-award winning series "Judge Judy", USA today 1Mar2020)
Sander's candidacy has caused a significant increase in the soiled underwear of the Clintonista's and the Never Trumpers as this column suggests. Rubin was a poor Treasury secretary in an over admired Clinton presidency. A banker who helped crater the financial markets. The NYT has already begun to sound the Trumpets for Biden, the man who bears some responsibility for the downward slope of the Democratic party since JFK and LBJ. Under Biden, the rich will continue to get richer, the health care turmoil will not abate and the planet will continue to get warmer. He may come out on top over Sanders but younger citizens and people of color are awakening and they will prevail in the end as the wizened white rust belt denizens pass on.
3
Let's put aside semantics when it comes to the loaded terms "capitalism" and "socialism." Let's talk about reality on the ground: a ruthless, exploitative, and deceptive ruling class engaged in propagandist myth-making in order to convince the majority of the population that whatever "this is" is not only normal, but a system to which "there's no alternative."
And what is it? A neoliberal/neocon ideology that for last 40-plus years has decimated the regulatory (i.e., protection of people and environment against the excesses of the "free market") as the result of "regulatory capture" (corporate donations, revolving door corruption, lucrative "consulting" gigs as payoff to public officials who toe the corporatist line while in office).
An ideology that normalizes oligarchy, plutocracy, cruelty (and now fascism); an ideology that leads not only to the concentration of wealth and power (to neo-feudal levels), but to massive monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels, and endless wars for profit. An ideology that leads to a reality on the ground that violates almost every single precept about "free market capitalism," whether we're talking about "competition," "innovation," "class mobility," or "level playing field."
But no, apologists of this brutal system would rather divert the conversation towards facil dichotomies between capitalism ("good") and socialism ("bad").
3
Maybe we should just nominate an actual Democrat.
Problem solved.
91
@michaelm Do you think that Democrats ought to consider why a former Republican and a current Democratic Socialist are among the party's most interesting choices? Should Democrats reflect at all their own potential shortcomings here? I'm a lifelong Dem supporting Sanders because he is arguing for what I think "actual Democrats" have always wanted but never been able to achieve.
32
@michaelm :
"I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." Will Rogers passed away in 1935.
6
An FDR Democrat, one that responds to the pressing issues of most American families: the exorbitant cost of for profit health care and the yoke of high interest student debt that will take our children decades to discharge
18
It’s the Dem way. We argue but we will come together when the time comes to vote. The consequences of not doing that are extreme.
Warren and Klobuchar need to quit circling the drain and get out while they have time to convince their people to support someone else. If they wait until the last minute their supporters won't have time to come to terms with it and they won't vote. This is the point in the game where we really see if these candidates are the good public servants they claim to be. Will they be gracious or will they want to burn the place down? Maybe they are waiting for a shot at VP.
3
If the responses to Robert Rubin are symptomatic of the state of the primary election electorate this year, Donald Trump should bring out the Champaign. The left wing supporters in this group of commentaries seem to have more contempt for center-left Democrats than they have hatred for the President. If their comments are representative of the state of the Democratic electorate this year, perhaps it is time for Mr. Rubin and other centrists to plan for the formation of a third party—where the candidate for President is not selected by the kind of process that we have seen in 2016 (on the GOP side) and in 2020.
Absent the emergence of a “Sensible” third party, future historians will be left to ponder why the Parties deferred to CNN, et al to tilt the primary election process to the “best performer” ( rather than the most experienced and qualified candidate) —and how this eventually led to the end of our system of government.
@REM : It's more the other way around. The two great voices of the political establishment, The New York Times and The Washington Post, publish daily anti-Bernie arguments, sometimes more than one per day. It almost feels as if the day is incomplete without the morning's dose of concern trolling.
Rubin wants to compromise and unify....so do we all.
That's why we'll vote in a Sander's candidate and his/her administration. THEN it's your turn to compromise and unify Rubin.
We've tried your shell game, your Trickle Upon nonsense for decades now.
We're done waiting much less believing.
Change is here.
Change is NOW. Before it's too late.
Compromise and unify...great.
Work with us; not against.
Time for a 2nd New Deal.
Not the same old deal.
1
Robert Rubin is trying but he really doesn't get it. He is part of the elite who have benefitted from wealth inequality. Suggesting that Bernie or Warren are suggesting eliminating markets is absurd fear-mongering. The Democratic Party should embrace Bernie's and Warren's progressive agenda and become the party of the workers once again - instead of the feckless GOP lite policies that the "moderate" (read "corporate") elements of the party have pushed. The Democratic Party will either become a progressive party or it will become irrelevant.
3
There's absolutely common ground among the Democrats but Sanders isn't a Democrat and he's the only one who is unwilling to compromise. Sanders would rather see Trump in the White House for a second term than moderate his positions to meet the majority of Democratic voters. That's fine but let him stop stealing resources from the Democratic Party and run alone as a Democratic Socialist.
1
You don’t understand. Medicare for all is a life and death issue for many of us. My expensive for profit “healthcare “ almost killed me. I just received my 4th GoFundMe request. Medical bills. Only in the USA.
The Democratic Party needs to return to our New Deal roots, before Robert Rubin and his Wall St peers took over the Party.
Rubin's Op Ed is simply attempting to frighten readers into believing that Sen. Sanders is a threat. He is not. NO candidate, including Sen. Sanders is proposing to eliminate the market system, nor curtail it.
Sanders (and Warren) are proposing to use the power of government---the power of DEMOCRACY-- to limit the perogatives of Wall St.and the ultra wealthy who dominate our market. They are proposing to use the market to benefit ALL of us--SHARED PROSPERITY--instead of the ultra wealthy. Sanders and Warren are proposing solutoins to RESTORE THE MIDDLE CLASS.
Obviously, Rubin and other Wall Streeters would prefer to continue to govern our nation. But in a democracy, we have the alternative of electing our decisionmakers.
8
What I like about these responses is that we seem to actually be having a discussion about how we, as Democrats, can look at the problems in front of us and debate them. We need to find a way to address the concerns of the progressives and the moderates (Bernie vs Biden) instead of fighting with each other, tearing each other down and having 4 more DJT years.
What I don't like about Rubin's column is that it thinly veils his lean toward moderates and against Sanders/Warren. It would be a lose for all of us if we refuse to take into consideration and make compromises.
My advice for the candidates still remaining in the race:
Attack the policy, not the person. More kindness, less anger.
My advice for future debates:
Insist that the broadcasting network give a minimum of three minutes for candidates to address a question. This will cut down substantially on the food fights we've been seeing while giving the audience to take a deep breath and really hear what a candidate has to say.
And as we move towards the finish line--aim your fire at Trump. Both the policy, and especially the person.
1
A very big part of Mr. Rubin's argument is based on a belief that to work we have goodwill across the 1/99% gap. The vast majority of the 99% do not believe we have that here. The complexity of our tax system seems only there to be played by wealth. The obscene notion that capital gains is a different kind of income and thus taxed differently. The idea of Corporation and Corporate citizenship. The way we see it play out. You and your ilk take our billions and kill a few, people and just a poor neighborhood, or a large part of an ecosystem and at most that are paid back is a few hundred thousand dollars if that, and we are still dead. It is as clear as day if you just look at the Dakota Access. Rights and Treaty are very thin protection against Billions of Dollars and Lawyers with their modern version of the Small Pox Blankets of old. All of our originalist on the Supreme Court think the blankets a swell idea. So now that you see all the folks with the torches and pitch bucket at your door you must realize they did not come there by their own choosing. You guys kicked them out of their house and they just needed to go somewhere.
2
Moderates, regardless of the nominee: "Vote blue no matter who!"
Progressives, if Bernie Sanders is the nominee: "Vote blue no matter who!"
Progressives, if Bernie Sanders is not the nominee: "I'm not voting for the corporate, DNC candidate!"
Sigh.
1
@Mike You left out the ones who say "If Sanders is the nominee, I'm voting for Trump." I have seen such sentiments in the comments of this very paper. I see them as morally bankrupt.
3
@Mike
Reading through these comment sections makes your comment false; and your divisiveness noted.
Sigh...
2
Perhaps “centrists” should listen more carefully to what progressives are saying. Americans need Medicare for All. Do “centrists” really think it’s ok that their server, cashier, sales clerk, Uber driver, nanny, doorman, their mothers home aide, housekeeper—and even their neighbors—can’t afford to see a doctor? Even those with expensive for profit insurance can’t afford the deductibles. Yet “centrists” think this is ok. Even with a pandemic looming.
1
Capitalism is simply a way to organize money, it's not a political ideology. A market based economy only works well when there is a normal distribution of wealth. Billionaires don't shop at the stores where I shop, and the stores where I shop are going bankrupt because their is not enough wealth left in the bottom half of the population to keep them profitable.
4
The biggest surprise of 2019 was the fracturing by the media of the democratic candidates. It was a boon for the other side who were united, whereas the democrats were given five candidates with issues which would prevent their gaining the nomination. The media also divided the country in its constant attacks on Trump rather than focus on what was wrong with both of the parties that allowed Trump to win the 2016 election. Trump stands to win reelection because the media directed no alternative for the democrats with which to appose Trump in Novembers. The divisions in our system are really on the media, which will be held accountable for the no path forward failure the country will suffer in 2020.
While I agree with Mr. Rubin in principle, his editorial taken as a whole seems to be more of an example of the problem he decries than a way forward. For example, he suggests a wealth tax may be unconstitutional and difficult to administer, but rather than saying that means we need to pursue multiple strategies rather than just one while testing the workability of a wealth tax approach, he takes his claim of unworkability as a given and argues for his own preferred policies. At the same time he implies that those who support a wealth tax are doing so because it’s the politically popular approach rather than the right policy and does not address any of the arguments for why the more limited actions he recommends are unlikely to be effective. Based on the evidence of this article, Rubin’s basic argument seems to be, “we should all stop arguing like this and just agree to do what I want.”
3
Bla-bla-bla, "party unity."
The right wing of the Democratic Party coddles the wealthy and ignores the poor, enacts modified Republican ideas (the ACA, welfare reform, NAFTA), repeals safeguards against exploitation, coasts on the achievements of the 1930s through the 1960s, preaches the illusory goal of "bipartisan cooperation" with the gang of bullies that is the current Republican Party, and continually scolds the left wing of the party for being "unrealistic" and "too far left."
But when election time rolls around, we're all supposed to be good little worker bees for yet another corporate candidate.
The "moderates'" approach of capitulation has led to the decline of the Democratic Party and only Sanders, Warren, and "the squad" seem to be giving it any visibility or vigor.
Maybe it's time to try it our way. Look at who is getting the most financial support from small donors. It's not Biden, and it's sure not Bloomberg, who is trying to buy his way into the nomination.
If the Democratic Party allows Bloomberg to buy the nomination, I will vote for him just to get rid of Trump, hate myself for being so desperate, and then hope that the Democratic Party dies and is replaced by a new party that cares about the 99% instead of letting wealthy and corporate donors dictate the boundaries of acceptability.
11
I'm all in for supporting Democrats, but Bernie is NOT a Democrat and for that reason I will never support him!
2
@American Abroad
if he is the nominee and you don't, you are among those to blame if 45th is reelected.
1
@American Abroad
He is more of a democrat than any leader in the party since LBJ.
2
He’s an FDR Democrat and for that reason I have come back to the Democratic Party to vote for him. You still think expensive for profit “healthcare “ is the way to go. Never mind that millions of Americans can’t afford to see a doctor. And you think it’s just great to yoke our young college graduates with onerous high interest debt that will take decades to discharge.
Ignoring the needs of the people is what brought us Trump in the first place
2
Interesting and balanced piece. The responses are interesting. Some Sander's supporters see it as an attack on Sanders, others deny that Sanders and Co. do not oppose "markets," others wonder why the centrists don't have more of Sanders ideas as part of their platform. But it is those reactions that hint at the potential for disaster in November. They are largely defensive and antagonistic. Many folks outside the Sanders camp see him and his supporters as being for a wealth tax and read the rhetoric from many supporters about how evil capitalism is. True or not, perception is reality. From outside the Sanders camp comes the question "why does Sanders not include some of the Centrist proposals as part of HIS platform?" which is just as valid as the opposite question.
This opinion piece is not an attack on Sanders at all. It simply points out that as long as the left and center of the Democratic party ignore common principles and continue infighting and to demonstrate lack of flexibility and willingness to compromise, that they will fail in November. In the end, if Democrats want to make any progress at all, they need Dems and Indies to win. After winning, we can flesh out the principles into workable plans of actions and make a difference. In the end, either "vote Blue no matter who" or vote for trump. There is no sitting out, because sitting out is a vote for trump and the status quo...hardly a revolutionary position.
These are great thoughts.
Only 2 problems with them.
1) The redistribution pendulum is WAY off center. For the past 40 years, all of the incremental benefit of economic growth in the US has gone to a thinner slice of the rich and super-rich. We aren't going to fix that, or the political problems that accompany it, by aiming for the middle.
2) Bernie and his people don't want to make nice with anybody. Not the center-right, not the center, not the center-left, not the pretty-far-left-but-unconvinced-of-Bernie's-Immaculate-Infallibility. If Bernie is the nominee, his Movement's shibboleths and purity tests, combined with $1 billion in Republican oppo ads, will destroy any chance of a Democratic White House, Senate, or House.
1
Don’t be ridiculous. The two most pressing issues for the majority of all American families: the cost of for profit “healthcare “, the most expensive “healthcare “ on earth, and the cost of higher education for their children.
Do you actually think it’s ok that your server, your Uber driver, grocery store cashier, your mothers home health aide, your retail store clerk and many of your neighbors can’t afford to see a doctor when they are sick? They can’t afford to stay home from work either.
Why shouldn’t Americans have what citizens of every other first world nation on earth have had for decades? “Centrists “ never answer that question. But of course we know why. $$$$$$
According to T Piketty when income inequality was least the economy grew the best. Post ww2 taxation was astronomical towards the wealthiest. Yet for 30 years the US had perhaps its best period of growth in its history. Its simply not true that taxation is an onerous burden on the wealthy by a profligate gov't. Only in the last 30 years has this revolution of tax cuts led to social safety net, college tuition state support and other middle class program to be cuts which have slowly eaten away at the middle class. Now we have situation in which it is clearly apparent that income inequality is having a serious impact on the middle class and the poor. The GOP screamed that Obama was taxing the rich to help pay for the ACA. Health insurance and housing are terribly expensive to the middle class persons budget. The Citizens United Supreme Court decision has made things worse allowing the very wealthy to have a much more serious impact on elections. Sanders' grass roots campaign has given hope that democracy can be used to bring the benefits of this very rich nation to all citizens.
3
As a progressive I have always been a committed registered Democrat, and have always resigned myself to voting most of the time for Democratic candidates who are less progressive, often far less progressive, than I am. I have done so, sometimes in the name of voting for a lesser evil, often in the spirit of unity and compromise. For a change, I would like to see more of these so called "moderates" commit to voting for a candidate who may be much more progressive than they are, especially in this upcoming election, where the re-election of Trump would be a national and global catastrophe. Whenever these "moderates" talk about "unity" they appear to be taking about us progressives once again, lining up for the centrist candidate. I pledge that I will vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever they are. Will these "centrists" do the same?
8
Wealth tax not constitutional? Why would it be any different than a property tax (which goes up with the value of the property).
6
@margaret_h :
In many places property tax is regressive. The more land one has, the less one pays per sq. ft. Even worse with large box retailers, like Walmart, who endeavor to pay the least possible property tax, while consuming a lot of local resources ("We have lots of sub-living wage jobs with no health insurance!").
Dear Mr. Rubin,
If you don't think we need to tax the wealthy then your understanding of The Gilded Age isn't very deep.
Taxation in general was one of the ways we stopped the original one and grew a solid middle class and kept the wealthy from becoming perennial aristocracy which is where we are now in Gilded Age 2.
If your candidate isn't dead serious about real action on Wealth Disparity and Climate Change, they are the wrong representatives for 2020.
4
Rubin was a Goldman Sachs banker for 26 years before his four years as secretary of the Treasury. Surely his mindset was formed by those 26 years on Wall Street, which believed wealth accumulation by a few will trickle down and so benefit all of society.
This was the mindset of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that brought the tax rates for the wealthy down from as much as 90% to 28%. Saez and Zucman argue in "The Triumph of Inequality" that taxes are a means of wealth redistribution and that the 1986 decrease in tax rates for the wealthy initiated our past 40 years of economic inequality.
They describe periods when taxes were declared unconstitutional, when they were considered the price of civilization and when tax evasion was penalized and when they were accepted. So taxation is what we believe it to be; it is not written in stone by Wall Street.
I'm encouraged Rubin finds Warren's plan (2% on wealth over $50M) accepted by 74% of Americans, including a majority of Republicans. So this is a plan that can unite us while decreasing the gap between the haves and the have nots, as well as providing for much needed infrastructure, building up small businesses and funds for education, medical care, housing,
I can't think of any more significant in uniting us than making our taxes fair.
He states "74% of American voters, including a majority of Republicans, support a 2% wealth tax..." for wealth over $50M (exactly Warren's plan). Yet he
3
None of the candidates--including Sanders--is saying that we need to abandon markets. The progressives, i.e. Sanders and Warren, are saying that markets need stronger regulation and we need a stronger social safety net. Are you listening to them? It is hard to 'trust' some of the moderates because they were the ones who were complicit and sometimes led the rollback of regulatory mechanisms and labor protections that got us to where we are now, i.e. gross inequality, growing economic insecurity, and an ability for the middle class to afford a historically middle class lifestyle. We know the progressives are serious about the proposals. It's hard to believe that Bloomberg is sincere about some of his ideas and how strongly he would advocate for them. I think people need to be less worried about the term 'socialism' and all it's historical baggage and instead think about the future and who we can trust to right this ship.
520
@Ellen Mayor Pete has patriotically shown that our choice is between Sanders & Biden. Both want stronger and better regulations, a decrease in wealth disparities, equal justice, etc. Re: your doubts:
Bloomberg wrote a sincere NYTimes opinion piece outlining great and workable tax code changes that are not constitutionally dubious and are readily enforceable.
How is Sanders not responsible for rollbacks in the safety net and labor protections that came with the Republican electoral waves? Moderates cast bad votes, mitigating votes and votes to improve such protections. Sanders cast several votes against gun safety and protections for immigrants.
I have no doubt Sanders is for protections from gun violence and for immigrant rights and that Biden would champion pro labor legislation and try to reduce wealth disparities.
I am not afraid of socialism. I am terrified Dems will convert the election from a referendum on the evil of Trump to one casting Trump as Protector of American capitalism vs, That Socialist and make Republicans the protectors of people's health insurance.
We should not be judged by our worst decisions but by the arc of our lives. I find Sanders' "policies" mere populist political slogans with no method for enactment. I think his ego risks the House and the senate. I think he is serious about his proposals and the mis-named "Moderates" are, in my view, more serious about actually enacting change to address the crises we face.
36
@Ellen
At a minimum Sanders is most certainly and explicitly stating that we need to abandon markets which provide healthcare. That's an enormous part of our overall economy.
He is demanding a "revolution" and suggesting it won't require revolutionary disruptions or pain from anyone but "the billioinaahs." The generous take on his unwillingness to let us know what will be required to get to the promised land is that he's naive or fantastical.
19
@Ellen Here's the win: Biden/Warren with a full pledge by Bloomberg of effectively any amount of money needed.
This isn't ideal, but it is possible if Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg and Biden are capable of selfless rationality.
3
You misunderstand markets if you think "socialism" means the elimination of markets. Young people are talking about public economics. Democrats in the "five decades" Rubin has been involved in politics are talking about private economics. The two things are fundamentally different but they both involve markets.
In private economics, you create a cost-benefit analysis on corporate and business growth. This private maximization provides government revenues to help people at the margins. We're talking about policy personified in Bill Clinton. If we grow the pie bigger, government programs will help [name the demographic] find prosperity.
Public economics says something completely different. The key determinate is public benefit versus public cost. That's our cost-benefit analysis. Stock markets, health care and climate denial all understate the public cost of their current optimization. We're still speaking the same language as Keynes here. The market is simply defined differently.
We care more about collective outcomes, social outcomes, than financial ones. That's how Bernie Sanders captured the attention of an entire generation. He's talking about helping everyone as best we can. That's "socialism" through the Keynesian lens. We've experienced five decades of abject failure. Time for something different.
There's not a single candidate running who has taken a hardline position against "markets" and it's disingenuous to suggest so.
573
@Area Man I know. Seriously. How often does Bernie Sanders talk about state ownership of small businesses?
(Answer: Never.)
132
@Area Man
To unite Democrats, I suggest a new democracy wave.
I mean an effort to enhance democracy in the nation.
Trump destroys democracy and dictatorship spreads globally. Trumpism is like a highly contagious virus, attacking democracy.
I suggest, the "Democracy" song, of Leonard Cohen.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
I hope the Times focuses on a democracy for Democrats.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
4
@Area Man Respectfully, I hear it differently every day. Each day I see or hear rhetoric about how evil and unfair capitalism is. That's pretty much anti-market. There is no question about how unbalanced the tables are now, and definitely they are stacked in favor of the "Haves" against the "Have Nots". And some candidates are playing that theme to the populist hilt. And there have been proposals to heavily and disproportionately tax the rich to pay for programs. So while no one may have mouthed the words, "I hate markets", the rhetoric implies that feeling pretty clearly - because in populist psychology terms, it creates an "out group" on which negative energy can be focused to keep a group cohesive and relatively unquestioning. trump uses that tactic all the time, just FYI.
19
Taxing capital gains the same as earned income would go a long way to addressing income inequality. So would raising the top tax bracket to, say, 60% on income above $2 million.
If you own a home, you pay property tax. Mine is roughly 1% of the value of my home annually. I see no reason not to add a 1 or 2% wealth tax on the very richest. And I am not a Sanders or Warren supporter. I will likely vote for Biden.
1
This article is merely trickle down economics camouflaged in sheep's clothing.
Gettting rid of markets or bringing down the rich hasn't been brought up. It just seems to me that when we find that the rich pay a lower rate of income tax than salaried employees, adjustments are necessary.
The suggestion that rather than government involvement in addressing economic inequality rich people should take responsibility too. Don't hold your breath. Economic inequality has been increasing since the 1980's and we haven't seen even a slight move by the rich to do anything but increase that inequality.
The huge recent example is Trump's tax break for the rich and corporations. Republican talking points were that it would pay for itself and create jobs. Really? Deficits went up by $400B/yr and the overwhelming majority of the tax savings went into stock buybacks and dividends for the rich. Low unemployment? Low paid service jobs, not manufacturing as advertised. Manufacturing is in recession in the US.
3
It might have been worth mentioning that Bernie Sanders has long proposed a financial transaction tax rather than giving Bloomberg credit for this idea.
7
I'm not sure what the first part of this article is about since literally no candidate espouses complete disregard or dismantling of markets in favor of a government-controlled economy. Sanders and Warren simply ask that we take a look at what other industrialized countries have successfully implemented, especially in regard to health care. Also, yes we should raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for our endless wars, rising costs of health care and Social Security, and education and infrastructure. However we do it is up for debate - as the rest of the article lays out.
3
Robert,
For years you were with the Clintons & connected to Obama. You saw the Donald with his female role model Ivanka coming; but you didn't do anything to address their cultural power -why?
Hillary crashed.
On the University side, are we sufficiently up-dating economic theory for consolidation pressures related to technological advancements; and do we visualize a world where 1,000 billionaires (many beneficiaries of the 'natural consolidation') go to Davos each year to verbally commit to benchmarks for global progress?
1
It's easy to advocate unity. Tell that to Bernie who completely rejects any solutions, especially on healthcare other than his own.
AOC said if she couldn't get Medicare for All, she'd take the best she could get. That means Bernie is to the left of AOC.
Please recognize that as a Democratic Socialist, Bernie is not even in the party he wants to represent. It seems to me he considers both Republicans and establishment Democrats the enemy, so I'd advise not holding your breathe waiting for him and his supporters to be enthusiastic about unity.
It also looks like a very good chance that the convention will be deadlocked, and establishment Democrats will decide on one of their own, almost certainly Biden and not a billionaire who was directly responsible for treating Blacks as presumptive criminals. I don't think it's a question of issue by issue what Biden if for. Let's go back to Biden's original promises, I can beat Trump and I will restore decency to America. He was far from my favorite candidate when there were dozens, but right now, I will settle for that as a start.
Also, everything is not about political solutions. Trump will be very hurt is the coronavirus is badly managed, he will be damaged if the stock market crashes, and he will be in a bad place if the Taliban get out of control before November. All of those things will matter more than "unity."
3
Robert Rubin, chief architect or the financial crisis of the 90s and paragon of corrupt neoliberalism that destroyed the Democratic party is concerned about protecting capitalism. What a surprise.
2
Ahhh. Robert Rubin, unsurprisingly shilling for a barely regulated oligarchic economy.
Is this the same Robert Rubin who pushed for repeal of depression era laws separating banks from investment risks?
Is this the same Robert Rubin who joined the Bill Clinton era battle to successfully oppose greater regulation of the derivatives market, which contributed mightily to leveraging the 2008 financial crisis?
Is this the same Robert Rubin who played a role in the Obama administration in coddling Wall Street Big Shots, none of whom shared any legal responsibility for the criminal recklessness of the firms they led?
Count on the New York Times, which views Wall Street as its hometown industry, to protect the Street with only mild criticism and regular attacks on Bernie Sanders by discredited capitalists who had a big hand in separating the Democratic Party from the needs of the working man and woman. It is like a Detroit newspaper in the 1960s running op-eds by auto executives accusing Ralph Nader of undermining corporate America by demanding safer automobiles.
We have big problems in this country and this world which neither moderate Democrats or moderate Republicans (remember them?) have adequately addressed. It is that frustration which produced Trump. Trump has upset the norms. New ones must be created. Rubin represents the problems, not the solutions.
7
I'm very moderate, and either Bernie or Biden would easily get my vote. Both are so much better than Trump, there is no comparison. I do not understand the people who will vote their candidate or no-one - That is a recipe for another disastrous 4 years of lies, incompetence, and corruption.
4
I think what this article really says is that the corporate wing of the democrat party doesn't like Sander. They don't want someone who bad mouths the wealthy. And maybe, just maybe they might allow themselves to be taxed higher if only the people picked a candidate that didn't talk bad about them, pragmatic if you will.....
If we don't all get around Biden then it is going to hurt the party because they are going to have to find a way to Sanders another way.
Look he has not said anything about abandoning markets. He has believes in expanding some rights. A lot of them are economic rights which involve taxation and some form or redistribution, but in no way abandoning markets. I know the wealthy don't like the masses to have rights like that because they can not make money off of it, in fact they lose some.
What I am curious of is when are the democrats going to actually have any ideas. This article was at least an attempt at one, but how about a candidate. Biden can't even explain why he wants to be president yet speak at links about his vision for America. Everyone knows he is a status quo candidate that won't do anything for another four years.
2
The Democratic Party needs to purge itself of Sanders and his most virulent supporters. He is our Trump and they are Sanders' version of MAGA hardliners. Giving voice is to authoritarian candidates unwilling to compromise and welcome people to a big tent and recalcitrant, hardline, my-way-or-the-highway supporters is an anathema to the principles of the Democratic Party. It may cost us the White House, but it's required to save our souls.
The sooner Sanders' softer supporters recognize the dangerous elements of the candidate and his base of rabid supporters, the better. Sanders and these supporters put Trump in the White House, and like Trump and his hardcore supporters, will not be satisfied until the Republic is gutted, burned to the ground, and transformed into their narrow vision of an ideologically pure fantasy state.
Besides, Sanders isn't a Democrat and never has been.
3
When ALL the Democratic Candidates are 99% better for the country than the sad man who is currently POTUS, there is NO reason to withhold your vote for the Democratic winner.
Please, if you're feeling intensely pure in your ideals and feelings for YOUR candidate, remember that fact. The Nation need your participation to recover from this mess.
4
This article is utterly pointless. Most liberal voters don’t care how a tax on wealthy people is structured, but we also know that it is not nearly enough to make our economy work for us all. It is hard to imagine a figure who has done more to destroy capitalism in this country than Mr. Rubin. By continually supporting the hyper-financialization of our economy he helped destroy a normal banking system that sought to use its capital for productive means, rather than idle speculation. Notice how he recommended no fundamental changes to banking, and no reinforcement of labor rights, or monopoly regulation. Just a tweak in taxation. Let the economy keep working for the few, but they just pay higher taxes. He fundamentally misunderstands why people dislike him and his “moderate” ideas. His ideas are/were a dead end; us “radical leftists” are just trying to save capitalism from itself, and people like him keep asking for half measures.
1
Amusing. There is no way to "unite" Democrats. Dems do not "fall in line". Dems "fall in love", and everyone likes different things. Dems can only get some kind of consensus, eliminating some of people. Jill Stein or Ralph Nader voters, for example.
Mr. Rubin is for Rich Corporatists Democrats that want to do business the GOP way. Bernie is for people who do not have much and know a different way is possible, thanks to real world examples (unlike "small government, low regulation, low tax" countries that do not exists in the real world).
Democrats... like herding cats.
Vote Blue, no matter who.
1
It needs to be said that Robert Rubin is one reason why Clinton's moves to corral out of control CEO pay didnt succeed.
1
Although I see the point for making the case for 'in party unity' towards the center, I find the argument to be ultimately lazy in political thought. Nothing significant has ever come or been achieved in politics by cutting out the rough edges and lowering the argument. Even if I don't agree with major Bernie and Warren's agenda I support their voice to forcefully move the consciousness of the party left (by vote impact), in a good and radical way. I can see nothing good on sticking to a center agent/candidate who will keep the same policies and ideas of the last 30 years at play. Trump didn't win that way on the right. Democrats will certainly not win that way by smoothing corners. The argument is ultimately lazy and disingenuous because it keeps pounding on the outside evil/danger/enemy *Trump* and stoking fear of him winning trying to keep voters stuck with old *safe* policies and afraid and stifling the voice of new policies from Bernie and Warren.
99
@Raga Your support for the "voice" of the party left is not one with which anyone should argue. Voices are important for change. But your assertion that a center candidate will "keep the same policies and ideas of the last 30 years" says something that none of the center candidates has proposed and that history generally does not support.
Change is inevitable. How it is accomplished is the hard question. It is as silly to think that a center candidate will not be a change agent as it is to think the party left will drive the party over a cliff.
In making a judgment about what should be changed and how the political system in a democracy should accomplish it requires a better historical perspective than as short a period as thirty years. And it should have a more realistic understanding of the last thirty years than to believe the time was static.
The Republican party has proved that allowing an ideological extreme to take over a political party is injurious for the party and a disaster for the country. The Democratic party would be wise to avoid the same mistake. Rubin has said nothing more than that. The country will be well served if the Democratic party listens and proves it is a better choice to lead.
9
@Raga From the point of view of game theory, especially the Electoral one now being played, losing this election means "Game Over" permanently for any of the policies you support.
Of the choices available right now, a unity ticket of Biden/Warren with the full support of Sanders on the Left and Bloomberg to the right, is the only play with a positive expected value.
I urge you to choose The Good over The Perfect.
7
@Raga
So the answer to one form of extremism is another?
What ever happened to compromise and comity?
4
Secretary Rubin presided over the dot-com speculation bubble. This fueled tremendous income inequality and utlimately led to the dot-com crash. We don't need economic advice from someone who won't even admit his tremendous failings while in office.
1
Bernie is not a Democrat. He is a Socialist and clearly demonstrates his contempt for Democrats by calling himself a Socialist. He's had decades to change his mind.
4
I believe Rubin is a Dem for social reasons. I believe Robert Rubin actually believes that all humans are worth something and should be given chances. He probably thinks women are worth the same as men. That is why he sides with Dems.
On economic issues, I am more with Krugman and Stiglitz. While I disagree with his economic views, I certainly would rather have his efforts and money on the Dem side than the GOP side.
I suspect this is also true of Jamie Dimon of Chase, but very different from Warren Buffett. Billionaires are not monolithic either.
There is such ideological rancor within the Democratic Party's ranks that it appears we've conceded Trump's reelection.
As a life-long Democrat who has moved more to the middle in search of electability I certainly prefer Joe Biden (or Mike Bloomberg) over Bernie Sanders. And in emotional moments I find myself saying I'd never vote for Sanders as he's too far left to carry a general election.
But the truth is, I always exercise my voting franchise and I am "true Blue". So with a sense of foreboding as to the outcome, if Sanders does secure the Party's nomination, I will vote for him.
Now let me finally start hearing the Sander's activists say the same thing about Biden. Or would they really prefer four more years of Trump instead?
1
Baloney. I have heard much well-deserved and truly earned criticism of markets as part of the current \under-regulated system of sheer-greed capitalism that has led to nearly unprecedented levels of income inequality. However, I have yet to hear from any candidate a plan to tear down our market economy and replace it with a centralized system. Neither Sanders nor Warren (particularly) have any expressed desire to do that, and it isn’t the democratic socialist model Sanders has espoused. The only clear exception to that would be the health care system, and no one would accuse the U.K. or Canada of being centralized economies on the classic Soviet/Chicom model. We need this in health care to some significant degree, since the current system has failed miserably in serving average citizens. Trump is correct, the rich and famous want private, exclusive health care, because they don’t want to deal with any inconvenience associated with any widely available programs, but for the rest of our country something radical must be done.
1
Pendulums return to a central moment of inertia.
Whoever the Democratic nominee, they better start talking a credible private sector economic growth plan that can offer something to 500k voters in 6 states. The rest of us are just passengers on this bus.
Re wealth tax - 40 years of the wealthiest siphoning off ALL the cream, and a lot of the milk - something has to give, and give back. Until then, the pitchforks will remain close at hand. People aren't THAT angry for no reason whatsoever.
1
@Brian :
The only thing that will help the voters in the swing states are government programs. Sorry, that is a fact. Private industries have no interest. The "Free Market" has shown that.
I do believe that the world must suffer tremendously before humans can learn to be good to one another. A fall is necessary.
The Reagan democrats have failed at every turn. A fall for the poor is no fall at all. What we are really talking about is well to do democrats who like their republican friends, don't want give up one nickel of their money. It's their money and they are going to keep their money. So, don't you go after their money.
They also do think that the government owned by the corporations keeps them safe from chaos and having to view the great unwashed that they despise.
5
Mr. Rubin's column is reasonable and measured. But the problem in the Democratic party is huge - and reasonable and measured is now largely passe. Consider the Times article the other day about the Chapo Trap House podcast. Just reading it made me cringe. The guys doing that podcast made it clear that it was Bernie or no one. I find that kind of dogmatism sickening. It's so against everything that has made this country great - pragmatism and compromise, namely. Yes, everyone wants their revolution - thank goodness no one has gotten theirs, is all I can say. And I know from talking to friends in Michigan and Ohio that they will not vote for it. Anyone can easily predict the attack lines - socialism will turn us into Venezuela! etc. Of course it won't and I'll vote for Bernie if he's the nominee. Sadly, the left-wing nuts will not acknowledge what is obvious to anyone: this is a center-right country. It has shifted rightward for 40 years. On what theory are they operating that Americans - absence a national crisis - will suddenly lurch the other way? Inequality is a serious problem - but enough so that Americans will want to dismantle capitalism? "Dismantle capitalism" sounds extreme - but that's how it's coming across from Bernie and his supporters - and undoubtedly how the GOP will frame it as things heat up. I hope the ardent Bernie supporters start measuring their language and considering if 4 more years of Trump is worth all the purity.
1
@Joe
Can you explain to me how a country where most people now approve of same-sex marriage, numerous states have either legalized or decriminalize marijuana, and where fewer and fewer people attended church or identify as Christians has "shifted rightward in the last 40 years"
It would seem this point of view points to a generational contrast in America. Most people age 50 and over may be center right. But the younger generation is decidedly more progressive socially and politically. The fact that Bernie Sanders consistently polls as the leading candidate among those age 65 and younger also points to this.
Change is coming to America, it may not happen in 2020, but the fact that Bernie Sanders currently leads in the delegate count and poised to maintain that lead through Super Tuesday should put America on notice. The younger generation does not deem the status quo of moderate democrats as sustainable. If you don't move over you will be ran over.
1
The rise of Bernie is largely because Wall Street bankers got off scot-free after the 2008 crash. A possible way to fend off the Bernie challenge if for moderate Democrats to acknowledge that there is rot in the corporate world. Yes, there are honest folk too, but the rot must be rooted out. That is Bernie's singular message and without that he's got little else to propose.
85
@Cynical
That is NOT Bernie Sanders singular message, and if you believe it is you simply have not been paying enough attention.
He is the only democratic candidate that consistently advocates for working class people in his stomp speeches. You can clean up corporate America all you want. But there are millions of American that want a $15 an hour minimum wage and medical insurance that doesn't force them to go into bankruptcy or force them to decide which bills not to pay in a give month to get their medication.
17
@Carl 'in his stomp speeches.' This gave me a laugh. He's often accused of being angry, but I hope he's not stomping.
4
@Cynical Uh, that horse left the barn, 12 years ago.
2
A new poll just released says that 65% of potential voters feel that Trump will get re-elected. This is not a reflection of their preference for Trump but rather their opinion of about the viability and relevance of Democratic candidates. The Democratic Party has truly lost its way. The principle factors that contribute to this include: the party’s embrace of class warfare, its acceptance, in various degrees, of socialism, it’s obsession with all things Trump, it’s constant fear mongering and the Party’s lack of focus on the real problems of voters. That’s a lot of ground to make up in a short period of time and neither of the current front runners have the personality or intellectual capacity to rebuild a relevant political ideology and bring the Party into better alignment with voter expectations.
There is no way to achieve long-term, inclusive growth. Endless growth is a myth. We are overusing natural resources at an unsustainable rate. Population growth will eventually stop, and economic growth will have to stop as well. We will have to figure out how to maintain a sustainable economy at equilibrium.
1
That's right. So let the also-rans follow Buttigieg’s example and bow out gracefully so we can concentrate our efforts on electing one Democrat who can actually beat Trump. And let the billionaires help fund that Democrat if it isn't them.
4
Sadly, culture trumps strategy. For political realignment to occur American culture needs to evolve and helping shepherd it is part of leadership it is absent from the platforms of any of the candidates. Fundamentally, the issue is not about capitalism or socialism, it is about whether Americans are concerned with the common good (a societal perspective ) or whether it is still all about the individual. This is critical since the "Dream" is predicated on equal opportunity while the much talked about inequality is largely the result of the emergence of a class system, entirely to be expected as a country matures. The class system means that the lottery is often won at birth and that unspecified "college" or hard work are no longer critical success factors but relevant skills are. Americans first need to accept that the days of someone with a tenth-grade education and no special skills earning $23 an hour plus benefits were an unsustainable aberration due to the unique circumstances post WW2 and not because of any form of exceptionalism. By the same token, allowing financial engineers to pay little tax on billions of "profits" is not Capitalism, it is irresponsible and unfair fiscal policy. Once Americans understand their reality it should become clearer that both winners and losers are often the results of luck or circumstances and not smarts and relentless effort. Only then will "unity" and a shared set of societal and personal goals be possible.
What divides the Democratic Party is not a conflict over socialism versus markets, even Bernie Sanders doesn't oppose markets, but a division over corporate control of politicians. The Sanders' wing hates the center-left mostly because they believe the center-left is corrupted by accepting corporate contributions and had hijacked the Democratic Party and now goes along with Republicans on key issues such as corporate deregulation. The party will be divided, I don't think there is any question about that unless all Democrats stopped accepting money from corporate lobbyists which isn't likely. The center-left will back Sanders or Warren if they are nominated but what is unclear is whether Sanders' supporters will back a center-left candidate even if it means helping Donald Trump complete a white supremacist authoritarian takeover of the US government and in effect creating a fascist state for the benefit of white Christians with all others being excluded as first class citizens.
Some ten percent of Bernie voters voted for Trump in 2016. https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds
In short, they are responsible for giving us Trump.
At this point in our nation, we are teetering toward a dictatorship because some Dems wanted to have their tantrum because their guy didn't get the nomination in 2016. His rival, by the way, got 4 million more primary votes than he did, but then, facts just don't seem that important to many Bernie Bros. They believe he "deserved" the nomination anyway.
We are headed for a replay. Bernie Bros, many young white males, know their own lives will be little changed under a continuation of the Trump presidency. They know they'll never be racially profiled. They know they'll never be raped and be forced to carry their rapist's baby to term. They will never have to fight for equal pay for equal work. And their precious "conscience" only includes themselves. People of color, women, religious minorities - these Americans have never been on Bernie Bros "conscience".
I'm a woman of color in my 60's. And my life, and the lives of tens of millions of other Americans like me is measurably more difficult with Trump in office, than had his opponent won. I speak for many millions of people without the privileges that Bernie Bros have, to vote their "conscience". So Bernie Bros, how about having some of the rest of us on your "conscience" in November?
2
@JS
Most of those folks would NOT vote for a conventional Democrat. They were Republicans, Independents, and others who saw a need for great change and would support only candidates who would bring about big changes.
Robert Reich in the WAPO:
"What I heard surprised me. Twenty years before, most said they had been working hard and were frustrated that they weren’t doing better. Now they were angry — at their employers, the government and Wall Street; angry that they had not been able to save adequately for retirement, and that their children weren’t doing any better. Several had lost jobs, savings or homes during the Great Recession. By the time I spoke with them, most were employed, but the jobs hardly paid any more than they had years before.
I heard the phrase “rigged system” so often that I began asking people what they meant by it. They spoke about the bailout of the banks, political payoffs, insider deals and out-of-control CEO pay. The resentments came from self-identified Republicans, Democrats and independents; white, black, Latino and Asian American; union households and non-union. The common thread was that everyone was either middle or working class.
... the people I spoke with repeatedly mentioned Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. They said Sanders or Trump would “shake things up,” “make the system work again,” “stop the corruption” or “end the rigging.”"
As you are making your mind up take a look around you. Do you think the person making your sandwich or cutting your meat, cleaning your home have insurgence? If they are sick can they afford to see a doctor or get screened for the virus or take a day or a week off work? $3400 dollars for the test is multiples of what 60% of the country has in the bank.
This virus the the best case for national healthcare. So we dont have to depend on Trump or Republicans to coordinate this coming disaster. It would be a national response by professionals. Be prepared to fend for yourselves .
1
With Coronavirus/CORVID, we are moving toward a major global crisis of both health and economics.
Trump is completely incompetent – things will continue to get worse.
But could Sanders really deal with a crisis of world financial markets?
We need an American leader who can work together with our allies and trading partners on this.
Biden, as a boring but reliable unifier, is looking better and better.
2
Where the Left is wrong, in my view, is talking about issues on their merits, only, and ignoring or dismissing the electoral context, that is, the readiness of a majority to accept those issues.
Anything is possible if you can bring enough people along to support it. Purity tests won’t do it. Fist-shaking denunciations won’t do it. Promises, especially without dollar signs attached, won’t do it.
To make real change you first have to get elected, and then you have to PERSUADE a majority to support your proposals. That is why those of us behind a public option are the real champions of Medicare-for-All. We know it will get us there eventually.
Those who promise to do it in five or ten years are either self-deluded or opportunistic liars, using the issue solely to gain power. They have no credibility with a majority of voters, who see through them. They especially have no credibility with the swing voters—independents, suburban women and moderate Republicans—who will decide the Electoral College in a few swing states.
Tomorrow, I will vote to reject the false promises of the Left, and the dark sea of disappointment and disillusion they will lead us to.
1
I am very wary of corporate-centrist Democrats who use words such as "pragmatic". In my experience, that's code for telling idealistic Democrats of the FDR school, like myself, that what we want just isn't going to happen.
At this point, the Democratic Party made great by the accomplishments of FDR, Truman, and LBJ has been lessened by the likes of the Clintons, Obama, and the author of this piece.
Now is not the time for timidity. Now is the time to recognize that the system, long propped up by neoliberal Democrats, is corrupt and must be gotten rid of. I'll support any Democrat over Trump, but having to support Biden will make me feel sick.
195
@Vesuviano "I am very wary of corporate-centrist Democrats who use words such as "pragmatic". In my experience, that's code for telling idealistic Democrats of the FDR school, like myself, that what we want just isn't going to happen."
What we want just isn't going to happen.
- a corporate-centrist Democrat
@Vesuviano It's not "code," its telling you what the rules of the game being played require. The loser of a chess game doesn't get to complain that he took more pawns off the board than the winner.
Here's the winning play: Biden/Warren ticket with Sanders full support, amplified by Bloomberg's money.
Nothing less will work.
(PS You surely know there's a reason that Trump has laid off Sanders up to now. "Mother Jones" is a left-oriented news source with a reasonable reputation for integrity. Read: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-freeman-sexual-freedom-fluoride/ from 2015, and then imagine what comes next from the Republicans).
5
@Vesuviano Problem is, the vast majority of Americans do not want to 'get rid of the system'. Can you not see that?
7
Another corrupt billionaire (or almost, I don't care), lecturing us about how inconvenient is a wealth tax...open season on Bernie disguised as "unity" call
2
Wrong idea of socialism.
Socialism is not the opposite of capitalism.
4
@Leonardo - Bill Maher describes socialism as "capitalism, with benefits".
1
@DReeck,
capitalism benefits from socialism
Democrats divided? Of course they are. There are loads of corporate apologists like Rubin and Jamie Dimon, and loads of young Democratic Socialists who want to be run like the Happiest Countries in the World. And, yes, they are mutually exclusive, except for their regard for the Rule of Law, which no GOPer will ever support.
2
Gee...I don't care at all what Rubin thinks. This is a guy who helped create the inequality we suffer from now. This is the guy who helped destroy an economy that left millions of people without work. This is a guy who should be in jail along with Mr. Blankfein. Pay your fair share of the taxes, Mr. Rubin and then go away.
2
The only semi-admirable, political type quality I find in a Republican is their discipline. Maybe it comes from their “check your brain at the door, we’ll tell when and how to vote”, mentality, but they have no trouble falling in line behind an issue or a candidate. Republicans have no trouble with prioritizing discipline over intelligence. Then, every democrat seems to believe they’re smarter than every other democrat. So, why do we continue to lose?
1
@J Because people are lazy and prefer not to have to critically think. Sad but true.
The race boils down to Sanders and Biden.
If you've seen Biden this campaign season, you know he can barely string a thought together. He's been open to cutting Social Security his entire time in the Senate. He voted for the Iraq War, and to strip bankruptcy protections from student loan deferrals. He misses an easy layup by opposing marijuana legalization. The above, plus the Hunter Biden scandal, give him similar weaknesses to Hillary Clinton. Trump has a (lying, insincere, likely effective) populist arsenal against Biden. And finally, Biden's theory of change is that Republicans, once freed of Trump, will come to their senses and work across the aisle. How's that for pie in the sky!
Sanders is offering real change in the face of climate catastrophe, and affordability crises in healthcare, education, and housing. Mega hospital bills for coronavirus patients are laying bare how unacceptable our healthcare system is. Young people are fully behind Sanders, and if you believe in voting blue no matter who, he's your best bet.
5
Yeah, and young people don’t show up to vote.
I am starting to think you guys ought to be required to issue these little screeds accompanied by kazoo music.
1
@Robert
The kids have been made apathetic by the corporate ownership of the government and of both parties.
Just like the tens of millions of older voters who are apathetic and do not vote. Can't blame them.
Most of the social programs proposed by the democratic candidates would help businesses operate more efficiently and effectively. Yeah, people say they like "socialism". What they mean by that, in America, is that they like a functional government that does stuff for the people, not crony capitalism.
Government healthcare saves businesses huge costs and administrative overhead. Healthy employees perform better / are more productive. Investments in infrastructure reduce the cost of communications and moving goods. Subsidized childcare frees middle class parents to work and increase personal spending. Mitigating climate change is basically paying less up front to head off huge reactionary spending in the future.
None of this stuff is anti-market. If anything it's forcing the current slate of wealthy people to make room for a new generation of wealth, at some nominal cost to themselves.
2
Democrats excel at the circular firing squad. They didn't learn with Hillary in 2016 who, even though she was unfairly railroaded by he GOP, she was still damaged goods and now, teetering on Bernie, a 78 year old socialist with a heart condition.
Despite progressive self delusions about some revolution coming, the country overall is still overwhelmingly moderate and leans slightly to the right. Chose the candidate wisely (a moderate Democrat), or we will have four more years of the disaster known as Trump.
3
All people want out of "socialism" is to add health care to the list of 75 or so services that are already socialized in the United States. The "fundamental structure of the market-based economy" isn't being debated, but there is concern over the failure of government to regulate it in such a way that we have a level playing field. Sanders would try to fix both these things, Biden won't try. Which is exactly why the DNC Party bosses have been planning to have Biden nominated. The status quo is working great for them and everybody else except the 99%, and Biden won't rock the boat. My preference is Warren, but... anybody but Trump. Ineffective is an improvement over disastrous.
3
You know, I can buy that it isn't really "markets" that are the problem, but it is a problem with who has control over the markets. There is no reason why CEOs, bosses, or shareholders should rake in obscene amounts of wealth at the expense of their low waged workers. If workers had some control over their workplaces, I could see markets being used. In other words, the people who actually labor and produce the profits for the company should get their fair share.
4
I know it's difficult to separate the message from the messenger, and Rubin is a particularly bad one for this message. I'm not going to assume he has seen the progressive light, but the strength of progressive ideas regarding income inequality in the Democratic Party and the inability of pure market-based capitalism to address the problems of health care and climate change are indeed impossible to ignore.
Nancy Pelosi is too practical to write op-eds about how the Dems need to address their differences as allies, but this op-ed is basically her approach.
Keep the factions together under the "big tent" of the Democratic congressional caucus or nothing will get done.
Keep the diverse Democratic electorate together no matter who is at the top of the ticket or there will be no Blue Wave in November.
Progressives need to prove our strength in local races and build that caucus in Congress. This may mean conservative Democrats and others less progressive than voters in their own districts get "primaried" against the wishes of the DNC, but there must be conflict at times or change will never happen.
Choose battles carefully, and negotiate the terms of each truce. Demographic trends and the truth are on your side. Look how far we've come from the Rubin of the 90's.
1
Robert Rubin, one of the authors of the financialization of the US economy and an enabler of the Great Recession, is a Democrat?
5
@F. Craven
That should tell you everything you need to know about how much the corporatist wing of the Democratic Party want to control the party and this nomination process.
It's also probably an indication that we may have reached the end of the "Big Tent" incarnation of the Democratic Party. People who truly believe in progressive issues may have to either force the corpratist out or leave the party and join an existing party or establish a new one.
"Focusing on our shared goals is Democrats’ best hope to beat President Trump in November, and the only way the next Democratic president could enact his or her agenda."
I must disagree with the latter half of this statement. Until the Senate and house are devoid of members like Mitch McConnell, people who, for what ever reason, are willing to ignore their Constitutional duties and oaths, no agenda will be enacted with any true force that will heal the economic rifts the GOP has wrought.
3
Is Robert Rubin even a Democrat? Oh, yeah, he's one of those Democrats who is really a neoliberal-crat doing Wall Street's bidding. Rubin helped create the great wealth divide in this country and helped undercut what bit of a safety net we have. If we nominate someone endorsed by Rubin and his ilk, then we might as well just give the election to Trump. There will be no one working on the ground for a Democratic neoliberal candidate.
6
So Mr. Rubin is concerned that young people are giving socialism a look? Perhaps he should have thought of that possibility when he pushed the Financial Services Modernization Act which led directly to financial crisis of 2008 and the bailout of the big banks. When progressives say that we have socialism for the big banks and rugged individualistic capitalism for the middle class and poor, they are exactly correct and the efforts of Mr. Rubin played a large role creating that environment. I would humbly suggest to Mr. Rubin that now might be a good time for him to be quiet.
9
An oddish comment, since Rubin’s only criticism of socialism is that it isn’t a panacea, and that Sanders’ “wealth tax,” is probably un-Constitutional.
I’d also suggest that “progressives,” might try bringing a little more to the table than telling everybody who disagrees with them in the least jot or tittle to just shaddap, O Enemy of the People.
Rubin lives in his mind, where the GOP still functions as a party. His appeals to pragmatism reflect a system that collapsed 5 years ago and then imploded in 2016.
9
I like what I'm reading. If moderate Democrats had been like this in my thirty years, I'd happily be one. The best possible result for the progressive resurgence, I think, would be just this awakening of moderates.
3
@Roarke
Every Progressive was once a programmed Moderate who eventually woke up.
Moderates are a shrinking minority, every day a few wake up and become Progressives, but not a single Progressive ever goes back to being a Moderate.
Moderates still think they're a majority because 1) they are living in the past, 2) the Progressives have voted with them (80% voted for Hillary), and 3) they have the mainstream media.
Moderates are 25% of Democrats, Progressives are 46%.
And the Democratic Party now represent only 28% of the electorate, same as the Republican party; the Democratic party used to be larger than the Republican party.
Over the past 20 years Progressives have sharply gained and Moderates have precipitously declined. This trajectory will continue and likely accelerate.
Independents are 41% of the electorate and have been steadily gaining at the expense of Republicans and Democrats.
Progressives are the majority in the Democratic party and they also own the Independent Party. Bernie is the leader of both the Democrats and the Independents, not to mention also the leader of the People.
Progressives are the future of this country, whereas Biden is an oldster from the last millennium. South Carolina was the last hurrah of the Moderates and their lyin' con-man corporate politicians.
Robert Rubin, architect of the abolishing of the Glass-Steagall act as well as pushing neoliberal policies aimed at helping financial institutions and the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us. Who would listen to this guy?
"The Fifth Risk" by Michael Lewis has a great chapter on Mr. Rubin and his disastrous policies. If he wasn't opposed to helping the middle and lower classes why didn't he push to aggressively raise the minimum wage when he was Sec of Treasury under Bill Clinton.
He is a dishonest broker.
18
"If we remain divided, we will fall", true. But if we endorse Democrats that are neoliberal autocrats that allow Wall Street to run the country, then all we have are Republicans.
16
@Red Tree Hill You have no place in the Democratic Party if you refuse to admit that even Wall Street has a role to play in the country. If you think Wall Street should be excluded from the Democratic Party, you are more interested in anarchy than reform.
@Mack
I said Wall Street doesn’t have a place governing the country. That’s not Democracy. If you support plutocracy, then go vote for Trump.
1
After Super Tuesday we should have - in my opinion - Sanders and Bloomberg as the two sensible alternatives to chose from in the rest of the primaries. The rest needs to bow out.
3
@CitizenTM, Bloomberg is not even polling close to the top three. Hate to break to you, but it’s a loud NO to buying the presidency!
@CitizenTM Did I miss something? Did Bloomberg win the South Carolina primary? He bought an obscene amount of ads, looked terrible in the debates, and is thoroughly unlikable.
@CitizenTM
After Super Tuesday Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders will have more delegates than Michael Bloomberg. Michael Bloomberg is never going to a significant percentage of the black and Latino vote, the youth vote, or the progressive vote. That will be blatantly obvious after the results of Super Tuesday.
William Jefferson Clinton was elected because he promised healthcare, and other services, to a populace suffering from stagnant wages, decaying schools and infrastructure and a lack of support services. Mr. Rubin came along to disabuse Clinton of such fanciful notions. Instead Mr. Rubin set about ending welfare as we knew it and cutting services to the bone to achieve the surplus Republicans touted as the Holy Grail. As soon as they could, after “sensible” Democrats lost their elections, Republicans showed their true intent by running up deficits to record levels giving them reason to cut services even more while eyeing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Did Mr. Rubin misread Republican intent or was he in accord? Nothing he did during the 2008 financial crisis inspires confidence. Is he advocating more of the same? I don’t see that as a winning strategy. It’s time for his sort to step aside.
20
@Jc : Pres. Clinton's HC efforts failed due to opposition in Congress, even on the Dem side. US does not want to change their HC system.
3
@gratis Ok, good, I'll buy that. There's no way to provide health care or insurance to people who don't have it or don't use it because it costs so much. Thanks for setting me straight.
1
@Jc : Do not get me wrong. I have been for single payer since Bill Clinton. I am as disappointed at America's choices as any 69 yo democratic socialist.
1
For everyone of those taxes Mr. Rubin proposes, there are no doubt many smart tax lawyers already conferring with their 1% clients on ways to get around them.
We may not need for full throated socialism, which, by the way, Sanders is not calling for, but we do need a fundamental change in the economic system of this country to make it much fairer to the vast majority of people.
And if a system is failing to address what are truly life and death issues for ourselves and future generations, I think that that is another reason we need marked change.
10
Why is it not surprising that Rubin would be opposed to a wealth tax himself?
He was and is the ultimate Wall Street Democrat - a banker and like Clinton, whom he served, one of the architects of de-regulation which almost ruined the economy.
We should not forget that he was a major proponent of job-outsourcing as well.
20
For those too young to remember, Mr. Rubin is the man who convinced President Clinton to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act that segregated mortgage and investment banking. No single act did more to create the mortgage bubble and Great Recession that followed. However it also led to obscene wealth for himself the investment banks that he led both before and after his years of "public service." That money, of course, ultimately came from the poor and middle class working men and women of this country.
So when Mr Rubin tells you he (and fellow "Capitalists" like Joe Biden or Michael Bloomberg) are standing up for Capitalism, just remember that his goal is to continue transferring wealth from the workers to the Capitalists like himself. If you want to stop rising income inequality, you'll have to vote for Bernie or Liz.
24
@Rick REfusing to work with Wall Street will guarantee a Republican victory in 2020 and you can kiss any hope of moderating income inequality goodbye.
Mr. Rubin says, " a majority of young Americans have a positive view of socialism — while their opinion of capitalism has declined. This concerns me: No country has succeeded economically in the postwar era without a baseline commitment to markets."
This is either serious confusion on the part of Mr. Rubin or intentional obfuscation.
Clearly, what attracts many to Sanders' call for democratic socialism are such things as quality health care for all at a reasonable cost, fair taxes, and policies to mitigate global warming. Nobody is talking about doing away with markets, private property and businesses.
Historically all markets have been combinations of price setting markets and politically influenced markets. Sanders has only talked about adding some political control (regulations) over those markets that have gotten out of hand and which deal in such things as health care, pollution, incarcerating prisoners, and the military.
And also demonstrating Mr. Rubin's confusion is the equation of "capitalism" with "markets". There were markets since the earliest trade was begun, and many so-called socialist or communist economies have contained substantial amount of markets.
The "capitalism" that has been criticized is not "markets", it is that which has allowed abuse of workers, polluting of our air and water, the exorbitant amount of power of big business to lobby and to control governments for the good of the wealthy and big corporations and financial institutions.
24
I agree with some aspects of this and have real concerns about a "revolution"--which ensures unintended consequences, and likely entails unnecessary human damage.
But I can't for the life of me imagine a worse messenger for it than Robert Rubin, the embodiment of every justified attack by the Sanders left on the Clinton-era center. Just lean back on that huge pile of money and sit this one out.
15
A wealth tax is unconstitutional. We need a value added tax, with income tax credits for the poor.
3
@Jim Smith :
We need the poor to earn a living wage first.
No more Corporate Welfare like income tax credits.
10
If any of the late stage septuagenarians (Biden, Bloomberg or Sanders) wins that person would be likely to serve only one term. How is Mr Sanders at 78 going to stage a socialist revolution? He can't. All he could do it build a base or foundation upon which the millenial generation build if they chose. He probably could not even nationalize health care, nationalizing other industries would take years if not decades
4
Yes "divide and fail" is the suicidal version of "divide and "conquer". But it's also true that the general election won't be decided by whether all Democratic candidates share the same aims. It will be decided by public perception of the eventual nominee, aided (or hindered) by Republican propaganda and the media's need to attract eyeballs.
"Vote blue no matter who" but at the same time try to imagine yourself in the shoes of the rest of the electorate.
3
"The Democratic Party has long advocated strong government, paired with the power of markets, to achieve broad economic well-being." They have failed miserably. So why should I vote for the "status quo moderate candidates" who essentially offer more of the same. I am with the young people, something has to change and change in a big way. Call it a wealth tax, a restructuring of the income tax or a transaction tax I don't really care.
9
@Steve Really? Failed miserably? Tell that to the millions of Americans who rose out of poverty after World War II.
@Mack
The growth in the economy after WWII can be attributed to the return of soldiers home and the incredible building of homes and infrastructure that ensued. I believe that this was largely a result of President Eisenhower's efforts.
1
Another scare tactic from the center/right of the Democratic party.
Yes people are angry -- the rich have gotten much richer under the watch of the last three administrations, while the rest of us are just hanging on. I support a wealth tax. I support a higher tax rate on obscene income and greater contributions to Social Security. I support higher education and health care for all Americans. Contrary to what Mr. Rubin argues, we cannot afford _not_ to have those things.
Not one candidate is saying they are going to undermine capitalism in this country. But they are going to try to regulate it better. Like FDR before them, Warren and Sanders will save capitalism and possibly the country itself, not destroy it.
26
@avrds I'm going to say that this has been happening for at least the last six administrations. What we're currently experiencing is end-stage Reaganism. You remember that "a rising tide lifts all boats"? Yeah, that completely ignored the people already barely treading water. The rising tide drowned them, it didn't lift them up. Now that their bodies are littering the beaches, people are finally starting to get it.
9
@Patti O'Connor
Excellent point. Reagan sold the American people a bill of goods and they (we) are still paying for it.
4
@avrds This comparison with FDR is ludacris. If FDR were running today, you people would label him an out-of-touch capitalist billionaire.
1
There is a time for all-important unity. That will happen when we have a nominee if, and only if, most of us feel it is in fact a nominee emerging from a legitimate process and not an insider assignee in direct conflict with the majority of voters. I can only hope the DNC does not again arrogantly defy voter wishes and run a less popular or tainted candidate. As it is a billionaire oligarch has hired super delegates in Texas and California. Such obvious conflicts of interest hardly inspire confidence or trust.
4
Rubin puts into parentheses that China's economy is a complicated mix of State and Market aspects. So is, and always has been, the US economy. State organized the removal of occupied land so it could be "free." It capitalized transportation networks. It organized vast military spending which served to concentrate capital and create new products and it facilitates medical research leading to major breakthroughs, much of which goes into the hands of the already wealthy. Most if not all modern societies run by means of complicated mixes of activities.
3
“Robert Rubin, the former financial superstar once lionized for his global crisis-fighting prowess, was scolded Thursday over the mortgage-securities disaster at Citigroup when he was a top executive there. His claim he didn't know of the risks piling up drew a sharp retort.” — Seattle Times
Before we take too much advice from Robert Rubin, let us not forget that he was instrumental in the Financial Crisis of 2008, and not in a good way.
47
No need for the Democratic elitist/establishment lecture, Mr. Rubin. We’re already united for Bernie!
Not Me. Us.
24
@Zareen Simply saying that doesn't make it happen. It could happen, but it likely won't. Please tell us how Bernie will bring in the moderates. Berating them and pretending isn't really gonna do it.
@GreystoneTX
Come November, the so-called moderates will have a choice: Sanders or Trump. If that does not bring them into the Sanders camp, it says more about them than him or his policies.
"No country has succeeded economically in the postwar era without a baseline commitment to markets."
Socialism can use the market mechanism. The market is about distribution. Socialism is about ownership, profits, control, priorities. They are different things.
Furthermore, the "amorphous" use of the word "socialism" is less about ownership at all, and more about priorities, as in health care for everyone, child care for everyone, decent living wages for everyone's full time work.
Yes, we need unity. How about we unite by moderates going with old line Democratic reforms of the New Deal style?
No, moderates want "unity" to mean give up on any reforms and leave things as they were.
Moderates say Bernie can't win, but really they fear he can.
Moderates say Bernie could not really get reforms through Congress, but really they fear his past practices of compromise and amendment just might get a lot of those reforms.
Moderates sometimes admit they just don't want reforms. They are comfortable, and just want to get back to before Trump, when they liked what Hillary offered, more of the status quo ante Trump.
Well, no, many of us did not want that then, and won't unite for it now.
Reform, or lose. There is your unity.
17
@Mark Thomason
Moderates are those that wish the "status quo" mainly because they have benefited from it.
14
The financial transactions tax is a great idea, since its first effect would be to curb the rampant speculation that has marred our markets for decades. As for the rest of the tax proposals, a tax solely on the super wealthy strikes me as a penalty for being successful. How about keeping income tax rates for the wealthy the same as now (I believe it's 39% at the top end, deductions notwithstanding), but lower them considerably for the middle class, unleashing more money for spending or to pay down personal debt. The tax that would be added would be a general sales tax - basically a tax (modest) on consumption. Here in Canada it is not imposed on the necessity of food, or the resale of homes. A sales tax of around three to five per cent on all things sold in the United States (with a GDP of 21 trillion $) would bring in hundreds of billions of dollars. Money that could be reinvested in anything ranging from education, health care, low income housing, student loans, infrastructure, or to bring down the national debt. Americans do not like taxes, but perhaps one uniformly applied could be more politically palatable.
2
@Rick Morris
Sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation.
That's is why we have always had a progressive tax system.
The problem is that is has become less, and less progressive over the last 50 years.
9
@ExPDXer
Forty five states have general sales taxes. So how regressive is it? Especially if middle class incomes are taxed lower than now. If we can afford a federal sales tax of close to 15% on everything we buy here in Canada, I think 3 to 5% in the US would be affordable. No?
Ruben has hit on a critical point. Any candidate the Dems put forward is a much better alternative to Trump. If the process is fair, the winner should be supported by all Dems. The congress will tame any of their ideas and none of these candidates will radically use presidential powers to attempt to fundamentally change government. But, Dems need to remember this goes both ways. Moderates would need to support a progressive candidate as well as progressives needing to support a moderate candidate.
3
So, who does he recommend I vote for? I gather it's not for one of the progressives. But are all the conservative democrats equal? Do they all have the same economic outlook? Could use some advise here?
1
The candidates and debates emphasize the differences. But there is a large area of overlap: expanding health care coverage, addressing climate change, anti-corruption, reducing inequality, investing in infrastructure, education, children, research.
There might be different approaches to reach those goals among the candidates. But they are shared goals.
I partly blame the media that thrives on conflict and theatrical events.
And some cult like members of some of the candidates. Be gracious to people supporting other candidates. Even if your person wins the nomination, you will need the other candidates supporters to show up and vote in November. So don’t alienate them.
8
@Lisa Alexander Thank you for your voice of sanity.
I would agree that the media - especially the networks and the moderators of the televised debates, but even the print-based pundits - seems to delight into turning the debates in a bloodsport. "Who won" and "who lost" designations do little to delineate the specific policy positions that people need to make an informed decision.
And you're right in the use of "cult-like" to describe some supporters. Not all, of course. But every person who says "[Fill in the blank] or no one" is essentially ceding his vote to Trump in November. And THAT would be the nightmare.
4
@Lisa Alexander
"Be gracious to people supporting other candidates."
Absolutely agree.
Here's is an example of not being gracious:
"And some cult like members of some of the candidates....."
We don't have a market based economy - we have a cronyism filled, corruption based, capitalism, that rewards the wealthy, and those who will do anything to build their bank accounts, while dismissing as inferior the working class that provide the steam, the muscle, and the labor to grow the already obscene wealth of the 1%
As only one human being on this planet, I can mostly live with the concept of capitalism and the free market. The problem is, it is not a free market - it is set up and designed to favor those who are already wealthy, and who can manipulate both legislation and the markets.
I've never had a problem with someone taking $1 and a good idea, and turning it into $10. It is corrupt that the game now protects an individual from ever losing the $1, while also never having to divvy up the $10 fairly.
The Democrats do have good ideas, and do speak, mostly in muted and timid tones, about some of the big issues of the day. And compared to Trump, they downright dazzle with boldness and insight.
As a world, let alone a nation, we continue to see our planet as disposable. If you are 19, stuck in an economic class that is withering, not prospering, how can you believe leaders who don't see the peril of climate change, of the immorality of mass extinctions?
We live in a time that what is best for building wealth is also what is worst for what sustains us. Who can build the bridge between survival, literally, and the need to put food on the table our and dignity?
32
Is this the same Bob Rubin who advised Clinton not to support colleges because they were so popular people would pay from their own pockets for them? BTW, the stepped-up basis mitigates later income, not present estate, taxes.
10
Excise the discussion of income inequality. The 1% has managed to get itself exempted from paying taxes across the board. What little is owed by statute is evaded for the most part, to the extent that if taxes due through the years were magically to appear in the treasury there would be no national debt. Forget the wealth tax too. Restore the 90% top rate income tax and a matching estate tax. Rich people are far more of a threat to democracy than terrorism and all foreign powers combined.
24
@John Stevenson
Corporations too, they only pay 9% of net tax receipts, most of which they get back in subsidies.
10
I agree and that is why Democrats need a "unity ticket". If Bernie wins the nomination, Pete or Amy; if Uncle Joe wins, Amy or Pete.
Both Amy and Pete are from the Midwest and represent groups that have not yet served as Vice-President, let alone President. Both are young enough to position themselves for the top spot if Bernie or Biden choose to run for a second term - or not.
1
@Chevy I applaud your idea, and I agree that the choice of running mate is even more critical than usual if you're talking about a President who will be entering his ninth decade in a couple of years (not to be morbid).
The problem comes with the "Bernie or no one" crowd who are conditioned to think that his is the ONLY way. Both halves of the ticket should be a balance that moderates and progressives can accept, even if its not their first choice.
What do you or anyone think of Stacy Abrams as VP in place of Buttigieg or Klobuchar? It would send a powerful message that might make a difference. (I think Pete has a load of potential, but I'm not sure this is the year to run two while males on the ticket, even if one is gay.)
2
@Chevy I don't think Joe and Amy is a "Unity Ticket." That's like Clinton and Tim Kaine.
1
@Chevy You won’t get a “unity ticket” under Bernie. In his own way, he is as rigid and angry and convinced of his own correctness as Trump and is unlikely to acquiesce to such a notion.
1
What we currently have is a corrupt capitalist system that takes money from the middle class and poor and gives it to the wealthy and corporations in the form of subsidies and tax breaks.
The average middle-class person has 4k of their taxes go towards subsidies for the already rich and powerful which in essence means socialism for those entities and serfdom for everyone else in the lower 80% of income earners.
Until capitalism is heavily regulated again, those on the lower rungs can never get ahead.
Until we can break up the monopolies and oligarchies, no one is safe from unregulated capitalism which seeks to extract every dollar it can in the search of extraordinary profits.
Capitalism has a blind spot which is the ever-increasing need of short term gain at the loss of long-term sustainability. We are currently at the point where those in the bottom 60% of income earners keep losing the ability to make ends meet even if they do qualify for and receive help. This isn't sustainable and eventually, the pitchforks will be coming out once those at the bottom realize they have nothing to lose as they have already lost everything.
Crony capitalism is what we currently have and both the Republicans and the Democrats keep promoting at the cost of those who have no power to change things except at the ballot box. The current crop of centrist Democrats is no different than Republicans in this malignant system.
We need another FDR like leader now.
56
@quantum
It's far worse than that. Sure our taxes go back into the pockets of the rich in the form of subsidies and more.
But they steal vastly more from our labor and our time before we are taxed. Our taxes are just icing on their cake.
16
@quantum: You just proved the thesis of the article. You have a political point of view that you believe in to the point that any any information challenged that view is automatically corrupt. BTW FDR was a lot closer to the Republican political position than anyone running for the Democratic nomination has been in the last 20 years.
1
Another "elite" Democrat, otherwise known as a Republican in sheep's clothing. Rubin and Trump were probably bosom buddies in the 1990s. Lower taxes on capital, the end of Glass-Steagel, and the "capitalism on steroids" that produced Enron, WorldCom, and the crimes of the tech bubble.
This entire opinion piece is written in "oligarchic code". This is how the masses are controlled by the wealthy elite. Tax the rich and you just might lose your job! It will be the end of economic growth, never mind that unchecked economic growth is not only the driver of massive inequality, but also a key contributor to climate change.
The endowed rich are rally, really afraid of Sanders. I would take my advice from Robert Reich over Robert Rubin. The NYT, by publishing this rhetoric of the privileged class, is an assessory to the racket the con-men promote.
34
@Winemaker Economics is not an either/or situation. The Scandinavian countries manage quite nicely to provide a secure floor for the mass of their population and still have some formidable corporations.
So long as most Americans think of our practice of capitalism as “sacred” the mass of American workers will suffer from insecurity in housing, health and even food. The rich are not the enemy, but the use of their money power to undermine the lives of the other 98% of the population is what kills democracy.
You can have a social support system and a growing economy but not when the laws are made by and for the wealthiest and many voters are convinced of the “goodness of capitalism” unfettered. That road leads to insecurity for many and lots and lots of anger eventually directed at unresponsive governing. This is true all over the world. We are not unique in our anger at unresponsive and/or corrupt government. It is something that Republican legislators and voters ignore at our national peril.
Decades upon decades of the same old rhetoric and yet we still have tremendous income inequality, soaring health care , expensive and sometimes unattainable higher education, climate change and the list goes on. These issues will not be solved by capitalism and the markets alone as we have already witnessed, the government needs to step in. The problem is we have a hybrid government working for special interest, Wall Street and people with a heavier concentration on the former; we need a government that works for the people. As far as the Democrats finding common ground, they need to find a balanced combination of progressive and moderate ideas and approaches and they need to act fast instead of attacking one another. To date, the Democratic debates have been terrible and there are still too many players that need to leave the race.
9
Yes, but the only way to get the kinds of taxes Rubin proposes in this reasonable essay is by terrifying folks like Rubin with the possibility of an impending wealth tax.
9
@Michael Milligan You are spot on. It was the fear of truly radical ideas that prompted the arch-conservative Otto von Bismarck to introduce old-age and disability benefits (social security) in 1881 Germany. https://www.ssa.gov/history/ottob.html
And it was surely a factor in FDR’s success in ramming through similar legislation.
Both Bismarck and FDR faced, and ignored, the rabid cries of “socialism”.
1
@Michael Milligan: the term "wealth tax"is meaningless. The US already has a graduated tax rater where the more income one has the higher the tax rate. Socialism and soaking everyone who has more money than you have is not the answer.
Kind of ironic that we're hearing this from Robert E. Rubin, the former Wall Street banker and economic advisor for President Clinton who pushed for NAFTA. Greenspan's bubble-forming low interest rates, and de-regulation of the banking sector and derivatives - all of which have left our country so bitterly divided over the past few decades along almost every line (geography, age, race, political party). Who are we going to hear from next - Henry Kissinger on the need for reduced military spending? I'm a millenial, and though Sanders isn't my first choice for the nominee, there is really a good argument to be made that a lot of these older political advisors are just too oblivious about the current political and social reality that they need to bow out and let some newer voices in.
38
Wait, Robert Rubin? Former Chair of Goldman Sachs Robert Rubin? Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup Robert Rubin? The first director of Bill Clinton's National Economic Council and then his Secretary of the Treasury, central figure in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, who then used his influence to encourage too-big-to-fail banks to rep toxic assets as legitimate, making them vulnerable to ruin if those toxic assets collapsed in value? That Robert Rubin? I'm surprised Trump isn't calling him "Subprime Bob" on Twitter. In any case this is one of the worst people in the country to have influence over how the left conducts its affairs. Out of respect for everyone whose lives were ruined by the policies he pushed so the rich could get richer, no thank you.
177
@Zack Completely agree
7
" No country has succeeded economically in the postwar era without a baseline commitment to markets. "
Perhaps. But the US no longer has any baseline commitment to markets. For one thing, US businesses are ruled by monopolies and cartels.
For another, the US has a commitment to markets over literally everything else, especially human beings. Facebook lies, Amazon exploitation, Boeing and Wells Fargo disregard for customers and opioid production over humans rules the USA.
And the most successful countries, countries that will pass a better infrastructure to their kids than the current generation received, are the highest taxed, most regulated on Earth, with an 85% voting participation. Mr. Rubin is simply too rich to understand this.
30
@gratis "The US no longer has any baseline commitment to markets."
"... the US has a commitment to markets over literally everything else..."
Huh?
@Jim : Check the roster of the SCOTUS.
@Jim
When companies pay no taxes for the public goods they consume, when Facebook is not responsible for the stuff it publishes, when Amazon is not responsible when they sell defective goods, when opioid companies have to pay out only pennies of their profits for the death of thousands with no one getting any jail time, yeah, pretty much.
1
It's funny how, after watching all of the debates and reading the platforms of all of the candidates, I cannot find a single one that is advocating for or even suggesting abandoning market-based economics. Yet I have no trouble finding articles written by people much wealthier than me arguing against this straw man. (Sorry, I keep forgetting that the definition of capitalism is vague and open to interpretation, but socialism is rigidly defined as the opposite of all the parts of capitalism that we like.)
I'm bet Congress can figure out how to levy a wealth tax, so let's set aside the obligatory assertion that estate taxes --- sorry, force of habit --- wealth taxes are complicated and explain why wealth taxes are bad policy (other than the obvious harm to McDuckian money-vault divingboard makers). We can certainly lower the estate tax exemption from $11 million, throw in some financial transaction taxes and raise capital gains taxes, but why not toss a wealth tax in there, too?
I happen to be living in Western Europe at the moment where I am taxed if my combine bank accounts exceed €25k and, perhaps surprisingly, market-based economics are functioning just fine here. Of course, my out-of-pocket medical costs are capped at €400, there is no risk of being sued into oblivion for serving someone coffee that is too hot and my kids' after school care is almost entirely covered by subsidies, so my rainy day fund isn't as important as it was when I was living in the US.
24
Thank you for clear and simple discussion of the limits of a wealth tax.
What is so unsettling about national primaries and presidential elections is the shallowness of discussion and the shallowness of news coverage.
The primary debates were exceptionally demoralizing in that regard. A nice way to show differences in personality and communication style. Tiring for their lack of content.
I suppose we won't need to worry about them in the general election, because Trump will opt out. I for one will not be watching Mike Pence debate his rival.
1
@robin :
"Shallowness"?
"Small government, low taxes." "You can spend your money better than. the government." "Common sense solutions to complex problems." "Trickle Down Economics"
Shallowness seems to work exceptionally well for GOP voters.
1
Unity for the Democratic party must, above all, be reflected in the ticket as well as its proposed policies. That means that the ticket must contain both a moderate and progressive, and given the diversity of the party, a woman and as well as a male. Hopefully a young woman of color will be the running mate assuming that the nominee will be a either Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders both aging white males. The mostly likely women are Stacey Abrams, Kamala Harris, and my "audacity of hope" choice, Michelle Obama.
3
@Paul Wortman You are dreaming. The young far left "Democrats" and "Bernie supporters" are ridged in their position that the Democratic Party has either adopt everything they want or they will not vote for a Democrat. That is why Trump and the republicans control our government.
Robert Rubin, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, was on the frontline of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999.
As such, he bears a portion of the blame for turning the US into the disintegrating mess that we are today.
The real divide has nothing to do with Democrats versus Republicans.
It’s the plutocrats and their minions and supporters versus all the rest of us.
The only good news here is that people around the world are increasingly viewing the United States as a medieval backwater, and Americans are rapidly waking up to the fact that we’re really an oligarchy.
Early 20th century Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis, said we can have massive wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or we can have a democracy, but we can’t have both.
The only question is if enough of us can wake-up fast enough to prevent our nation from complete disintegration.
If the neoliberals like Robert Rubin get their way, the answer is no, because the plan is to throw the occasional scrap to prevent people from sharpening the pitchforks.
Assuming we have an organized future ahead of us, Robert Rubin will not be remembered well in history books.
He served the plutocracy well.
Thanks for nothing, Mr. Rubin.
22
Yes. Rubin is correct and everyone must get behind Bernie Sanders. He unites this country. Our population has moved beyond neoliberal corporate Dems
9
@Jack Ox
Absolutely, just another neo-liberal whom during the Clinton administration helped with the de-regulation and removal of the FDR protections aimed towards the financial industry and let derivatives start to run wild ultimately leading to the financial meltdown of 2008.
People are tired of receiving unsolicited advice from bankers telling the voter what they should be doing especially when it comes to democratic party neglect leading to the election of Donald Trump and Rubin is the LAST person one would want advice from.
This is just another example of every time an individual like Rubin gives advice, it should spur on people sending donations to Bernie Sanders, the only candidate whom will actually do something to reign in these crooks.
1
He is correct and everyone must get behind the democratic nominee...regardless...
Trump and Sanders both speak in grand platitudes. At least Sanders does not lie day in and day out. But neither is very specific about how we should accomplish those "grand platitudes."
If you say "Make America Great Again" or "Medicare for all" to a group of thousands, with no specifics, each person is free to interpret that platitude in any way that appeals to that person. The reaction is then "Guess who agrees with ME?"
The other problem that Bernie has (and that the Cult of Trump has solved) is that there are not enough candidates running for seats in the House and in the Senate who would vote for the more extreme positions that Bernie espouses (but if there were a Republican majority of Trump enablers in both the House and the Senate, he likely would get legislation that he demands passed by the Republican personality cult).
Please take a look at the candidates for the House, and the 34 running for the Senate, and explain to me what electoral outcome would make it possible for Bernie to get his legislation passed.
As a consequence, I predict that no matter what happens, the "Bernie Bros" are not going to be happy with the outcome.
Trump has to go, so I support Vote BLUE, no matter who. Even Bernie if he is the nominee.
5
@Joe From Boston
If you think a corporate/establishment moderate centrist democratic nominee is going to make everyone happy and beat Trump, you are in for a very rude awakening.
The only common ground is Power and old age.
The top three is a isolationist socialist outsider, an authoritarian pro-business billionaire, and an befuddled establishment figure.
The 2016 and 2020 elections should be wave election for the democrats - that they are not is an indictment of the leadership.
1
Anyone who references Europe to support the Sanders agenda should learn more about how things work in Europe.
In Europe, private insurance/medical car operates in nearly all countries side by side with public health care (saving the UK where people have a love/hate relationship with the NHS).
College and university is less expensive, but restricted (compared to the US) to a much smaller class of participants (who usually must pass exams to attend).
Most European countries are moving away from overly generous pension and benefit schemes which are reducing public investment and lowering productivity by transferring money from the young to the old and have created classes of nearly permanent unemployed.
Europeans vote with their feet with many more coming to the US seeking opportunity than US persons going to Europe to do the same.
The European model has certain benefits, but comes at certain costs.
5
@OneView
All very rational. Bernie has called for a revolution including against the Democratic Establishment.
Look at Trump. A conservative that doesn't support him asked 20 of his supporters if they thought he has ever told a lie.
None did.
Bernie make concessions? When?
Both sides hate each other.
@OneView The best working healthcare systems in Europe indeed have a private/public mix. With MFA, it would be similar: corporate healthcare plans would complement coverage with private hospital room, travel, etc.
College is not restricted in Europe, but it is harder than in the US. The battle is usually not to get in, but to pass the exams. High school kids have a better time on the other hand, with much less pressure to build a curriculum.
Countries like Belgium and France have been overgenerous with their pension systems, especially towards government employees who often retire with 80% or more of their last salary guaranteed.
This can't be generalized though, as the pension system of the Netherlands is generally considered the best in the world, with Denmark second, for example.
Expats are folks with highly marketable skills, not average folks. It's normal that those gravitate more toward the US than the other way around, seeing they do not need government services but they do like low taxes.
@OneView :
Of course, it "Comes at certain costs".
IMO, having lived and worked in several EU countries, yes. The costs is mostly money. The benefits are human lives. The US literally throws away the lives of young people, waiting for "better times", "better policies". I'm 69 yo. I am angry at this waste due to corporate greed. People matter, not money and corporations. Humans do better in Europe.
But that is what makes me a liberal. I totally get the "money is worth more than people" thing, and reject the GOP morality.
1
I consider myself a humanist and my heart goes to Bernie; compassion is the gist of his policies, not taking revenge on the rich. I worked for Bernie's campaign in the last presidential elections.
But as I was a businessman since high school, and since I escaped a communist Romania and made it in America I know how businesses are created and sustained - market forces are the determining factor in the health of a community, indeed of a nation.
Here's where Bloomberg earned my attention. His language is constantly of management. It is this word, this term "management" which is lacking in the political discourse. Mike is using it constantly - he is a competent manager!
Management is addressing and resolving the issues, it is functional administration, it is good governance. Without management politics are just that, empty words, politics!
As in a well run city, the mayor is the political arm but it is the city manager that runs the administration. The two cannot be separated. They must be united!
So, if only we have the policies of Bernie crossed with Bloomberg's managerial abilities we would have a winning team.
Can we have a co-presidency?! Or a new post, National Manager?! That would go to Bloomberg! And yes, Bernie as President would give capitalism a good name.
1
@Nicholas
I worked for Bloomberg. He has zero "managerial ability."
His workplace was run via fear and intimidation. Employees were videotape and recorded everywhere, at all times.
No one spoke honestly, and if you made efficiency suggestions (which meant acknowledging that things weren't already perfectly efficient), everyone would literally, physically run away from you lest they be caught on-camera talking to a "traitor."
Bloomberg the Manager is a fraudulent, dangerous myth.
He's as bad as Trump.
More government, fueled by more taxes, isn't going to solve income inequality or any of the real underlying problems (delusions) that drive the adverse symptoms of a market-based economy: human population growth can and should continue unchecked; consumption of planetary resources (including other living beings that we view
as "resources") has infinite capacity; and the belief that continuous "growth" driven by consumer demand is "good." This planet cannot support 8 billion humans each striving to drive 2 cars; eat steak, chicken and fish every day; consume endless disease care; own a single family home; and play video games and Facebook their friends on 6 different mobile devices.
1
@JCX :
The Happiest Countries in the World, the most economically fair, are the most heavily taxed and most heavily regulated. There are no advanced countries that govern by low taxes, low regulations. None. That is just a fact.
15
@gratis
Low taxes and low regulation are in countries where legalized bribery is the norm and the wealthy can dictate the terms and conditions of how their government operates at the expense of everyone else.
That country is America, the "poster child' for it all.
4
"the fundamental structure of our market-based economic system is being seriously debated."
It should have been debated long ago. Markets allocate power based on how much money someone has, even when "someone" is a nonhuman business corporation. It is thus incompatible with democracy, which says that power should be distributed equally among real people. The more "income inequality" develops, the larger the discrepancy.
7
As a resident of Vermont I have voted for Bernie Sanders many times over the past 35 years. I'm very disappointed in his attempt to change the basic rules concerning nomination at the national convention. Very disappointed.
4
@rocky vermont
How is he changing the rules? Democrat party insiders are plotting to do everything in their power to negate Sanders from getting the nomination even if he has the highest vote total and largest number of delegates and in doing so, it would be the first time it has ever been done.
2
What causes income inequality in the US?
You can believe Sanders that it is the failure to tax wealth of the billionaires. I do support higher taxes on the wealthy.
But I believe the primary reason for income inequality is illegal immigration.
There are simply too many people in the US. That population increase has been driven by illegal immigration and pro-natalist policies in the US, including a welfare system which rewards having children more than working.
From a global perspective, it is population growth which is the primary cause of global warming. It makes no sense to try to address the gut-wrenching poverty in Guatemala City with higher levels of immigration to the US.
The population of Guatemala has quadrupled since 1960. This problem needs to be addressed directly, possibly with direct aid from the US for economic assistance and family planning.
Both parties are wrong. Trump says it should be America First, forget the third world.
Democrats deplore the "children in cages" while ignoring the poverty in the slums of Karachi and Delhi and Cairo and Kinshasa and a dozen other overpopulated urbanizations around the globe.
Democrats have NOT ALLOWED FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION on these issues, arguing instead that it is racism or bigotry to oppose open borders.
I have already voted for Bloomberg by absentee ballot.
I cannot sleep at night with the realization that Democrats are about to throw this election away on Sanders.
Sanders is too partisan.
3
@Blaise Descartes
Inequality in America is now at the same level it was during the "Gilded Age: of the early 1900's, long before there was a significant number of immigrants to create the situation you claim.
America has the highest number of billionaires of any country on the planet, it also has the worst inequality of any country in the industrialized world. There is a co-relation between the two and that is caused by a very unequal distribution of America's wealth and it is getting worse and to believe Bloomberg has any interest at all dealing with this inequality issue is laughable.
1
@Blaise Descartes
Apparently you don't know that we are losing more people than we are gaining - that immigration is net negative and has been since 2009.
And that immigrants, undocumented or not, pay more money into our treasury than they get back. Or that the most valuable resource in the world is human capital.
@Blaise Descartes
I'll start by saying that I do not believe you are a racist based solely on your opinions around illegal immigration. That said, I can see why others would draw that conclusion. Why? Because the preponderance of research on the topic indicates that illegal immigration does not contribute meaningfully to rising income or wealth inequality among the native born. To believe otherwise does suggest some kind of bias against immigrants simply because it involves dismissing the accumulated evidence in favor of a negative "gut feeling" about immigrants and their impacts on their host counties.
I'd ask that you do some research on the topic of immigration and income inequality. Please focus on peer reviewed research papers from reputable, non-partisan sources as there is a lot of garbage out there on this topic from the various partisan "think tanks". What you'll find is that immigration, and illegal immigration independently, contribute somewhat to total income and wealth inequality (immigrants + native born) because immigrants tend to cluster at the high and low ends of the wage spectrum, but that the impact of immigration on the wages and wealth of the native born is minimal. This is borne out studies conducted with both cross-city and time series methodologies. I'm confident that once you examine the research, you'll reconsider your beliefs about illegal immigration's impacts on inequality.
The question I want answered is - Capitalism, are we here for it or is it here for us? I'm for the US side of this and as such I support Bernie. Properly regulating Capitalism will benefit all of US.
14
@george
Forget capitalism, it was designed by the rich for their benefit. Just consider how capitalism works.
The rich buy capital equipment and then pay us a subsistence wage to run it. They pay us enough so we won't starve, but not enough so we can save and buy our own capital equipment.
Capitalism institutionalizes slavery. Before you can free yourself from your Master's control, you have to free your mind from the idea that a system designed by the rich to make the rich richer by the maximal extraction of your time, life, labor, and money, benefits you.
2
The rich received three enormous tax cuts under Reagan, W. Bush and now Trump. It would have been helpful if either Democrats had stood against them or rolled them back. It is not an accident of the market that rich people have become very rich.
11
@Daniel A. Greenbaum
The richer get richer and more power comes along with it which results in further influence of government to strictly serve their interests.
1
"When I served in government, Americans were wary of taxing the very wealthy,.."
By Americans, you mean elected officials, right?
Many ordinary Americans were wary that trickle down economic policy would never trickle down to them.
And they were correct in that assessment. A
That's why
"public opinion — and the politics of taxation — has changed. "
46
"No country has succeeded economically in the postwar era without a baseline commitment to markets"
Hmmmm almost as if the United States has made a concerted effort over the last half century to topple every burgeoning socialist experiment from Latin America to the Middle East to Southeast Asia.
Another point: Sanders brand of socialism seeks to appropriate the Nordic Model- a model which maintains a strong and vastly popular social welfare system in addition to a "baseline commitment to markets".
Enough with the hysteria.
60
Capitalism is like fire. It's a great tool that can be very useful, but that can also do great harm if not properly managed. It will insist that it will probably be most effective if not impeded at all, and it's probably right about the short term, though the long term is bleak. People who have been burned by it understandably hate it. And we can probably get along totally without it, but life might become more or less unpleasant, depending on location, so we should ignore those who want to totally get rid of it, while kindly understanding where they are coming from.
2
@Robert David South
it is not so much capitalism is the problem but, "crony capitalism" where bribery and influence rule the day.
UCal-Berkeley economist and former Treasury official Brad DeLong's famous tweet: "On the center … those like me in what used to proudly call itself the Rubin Wing of the Democratic Party — so-called after former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, and consisting of those of us hoping to use market means to social democratic ends in bipartisan coalition with Republicans seeking technocratic win-wins — have passed the baton to our left. Over the past 25 years, we failed to attract Republican coalition partners, we failed to energize our own base, and we failed to produce enough large-scale obvious policy wins to cement the center into a durable governing coalition. We blame cynical Republican politicians. We blame corrupt and craven media bosses and princelings. We are right to blame them, but shared responsibility is not diminished responsibility. And so the baton rightly passes to our colleagues on our left. We are still here, but it is not our time to lead."
20
@Sam Great comment.
An important summary of your message: Democrats need to unite. We have ONE goal!
We need to be certain, no matter who we select in this primary, that the candidates and their policies are all about compromise. Compromise! They need to listen to each other. They need to realize their policy is not the ONLY right one.
3
I'm not a supporter of Bernie. However, he needs to give a serious speech about his philosophy re socialism. Is he advocating that our country become socialist? Or is Democratic Socialism a completely different thing? He needs to put it on the table.
And for what it's worth, the fate of the women in this primary is telling me the Democratic Party has a problem with misogyny. When I listened to the metric tons of nasty comments about Hillary from Democrats in 2016, it was always accompanied by, "I'd love to vote for a woman, just not her." Ok, what is the problem now?
5
@Madeline Conant
Forget the labels and look at the policies. Bernie just wants to be more fair and have government work for everyone, not just the wealthy and corporations which because of legalized bribery, is exactly what it is doing now.
3
@Deus
No, sorry. Just telling us to forget the label does not work. Bernie needs to explicitly describe what his "socialism" means and what it would mean for America.
@Madeline Conant Its almost like he's being doing that for 40 years... Oh wait he has been. You can answer all your own questions with about 5 minutes of reading.
Gosh I miss the Clinton years... Thank you Mr. Rubin for injecting some common sense to the current debate. Like you, I think that both Senator Sanders and Warren have very strong arguments reflecting societal anxieties such as increasing income inequalities, absence of comprehensive and affordable healthcare, a thirst for inclusiveness and empathy, etc. But I must say that the inflexibility, aggressiveness and lack of civility during the primary season, especially at the debates coming from the self proclaimed progressive candidates make me wonder. A wealth tax? For god sake even France abandoned this a couple of years ago as it's very expensive to implement and makes no sense. Reversing the Trump tax reform, increasing the marginal tax rate to 45% and closing the carried interest loophole is a great start re reducing the inequality gap.
7
@FCH - I agree, a wealth tax is very difficult to implement and likely to be evaded, it may prove to be unconstitutional. A transaction tax on stock/bond trading would be a way to force the market to favor long term investing, I think Bloomberg has suggested this.
Clearly, this piece is a thinly veiled argument against Sanders and a wealth tax, and is so disingenuous, it's nauseating. Robert Rubin is the poster boy for crony capitalism.
From Wikipedia:
"During the Clinton administration, Rubin oversaw the loosening of financial industry underwriting guidelines which had been in place since the 1930s.[1] His most prominent post-government role was as director and senior counselor of Citigroup, where he performed advisory and representational roles for the firm.[2] From November to December 2007, he served temporarily as chairman of Citigroup[3][4] and resigned from the company on January 9, 2009. He received more than $126 million in cash and stock during his tenure at Citigroup,[5] up through and including Citigroup's bailout by the U.S. Treasury."
185
Income inequality is not an evil in itself.
Poverty, crime, drug abuse, bias, lack of access to health care and education are.
Focus on the real problems.
7
Finland is a strong capitalist country: here is a quote from this newspaper from some American-finish people who went back to Finland to live:
"What we’ve experienced is an increase in personal freedom. in Finland, we are automatically covered, no matter what, by taxpayer-funded universal health care that equals the United States’ in quality (despite the misleading claims you hear to the contrary), all without piles of confusing paperwork or haggling over huge bills. Our child attends a fabulous, highly professional and ethnically diverse public day-care center that amazes us with its enrichment activities and professionalism. The price? About $300 a month — the maximum for public day care, because in Finland day-care fees are subsidized for all families. And if we stay here, our daughter will be able to attend one of the world’s best K-12 education systems at no cost to us, regardless of the neighborhood we live in. College would also be tuition free. If we have another child, we will automatically get paid parental leave, funded largely through taxes, for nearly a year, which can be shared between parents. Annual paid vacations here of four, five or even six weeks are also the norm."
Surveys show that Finland has some of the happiest people in the world. America has a horrid capitalistic economy and half of us know that and fee that. Doom will come for both political parties is they do not wake up.
92
@Frank: I am familiar with the Swedish model, which is similar to the Finnish model, having married a Swede and spent much time there since the 70's. Nordic countries do not have the racial and religious divides that we have. Racism has continued to keep the poorest of our citizens down, and Republicans have stoked the religious divide between secular and fanatic believers.
A real wealth tax in the U.S. will always be unlikely since off-shore holdings will continue to be used to shield the rich from progressive taxation. This is true in Scandinavia (in Cyprus, Monaco, Switzerland) to some extent as well, but to a minor degree.
Whatever Sanders stands for, it will pale in scope when compared to Nordic social and capitalist democracy. But it will be vastly better than Trump and associates' joke of a "government."
10
@M.A. Braun
But the Finnish educational system through high school is quite different from the Swedish (and the Norwegian) in that it was not set up by politicians.
1
Great. True. So you change YOUR mind. My mind is set. I know what I know. If you come around to my point of view WE can all benefit. I want my steak rare. You want it well done. Let's get it medium. No, I'll order the chicken if that's the case. When the music stops who wants to be left without a chair?
1
the article states "But the solution is not to abandon market-based economics," - Well, medicare for all (TRUE medicare for all) is not an abandonment of markets. (to use a common recent illustration, are public schools and libraries an abandonment of markets ? certain things should be guaranteed human rights etc.) Being guided by the ideas of the Green New Deal is not an abandonment of markets. No matter what "ism" it's labeled with.
47
@reader
Government programs like Medicare and Social Secuirty are funded by taxation of income. When income increases through greater profits for businesses and higher individual incomes, tax revenues should increase and these programs would be strengthened and expanded.. The problem is not so much a market economy as the resistance of those in power, generally the Republican Party, to any fair taxation of high corporate and individual income or increases in wages for workers. Though both Clinton and Sanders in 2016 advocated increases in the federal minimum wage (she to $12 per hour, he to $15) the federal minimum is still $7.25. It was not Democrats who passed the Trump tax giveaway to the top 1%. It's disingenuous for Sanders and his followers to portray the Democrats as equally responsible for income disparity.
1
Thanks for this thought piece.
You name some, only some, of the problems of capitalism. The horrid disparity in wealth must be corrected or both major parties will see themselves heading for a crash.
"Too many people have been left behind—struggling to get by, with little hope for a better future. Fifty million Americans live on incomes below the federal poverty level, including one in every four children." From Oxfam. "Although health care expenditure per capita is higher in the USA than in any other country, more than 37 million Americans do not have health insurance, and 41 million more have inadequate access to care." Recent Yale study. As you mention, environmental disaster is upon us because capitalism fights against solutions to stop climate change as the economic effects start to strongly appear. Our own military states climate disaster could be a huge problem for our country. It is a massive problem for the entire world. Overpopulation problems grow (e.g. disease epidemics)and capitalism can only exacerbate those.
Your polite and mild points of discussion are not enough and will not do the control of capitalism we need. One can look at Denmark and Finland and numerous other capitalist based countries with more government control and happier people. Lots of studies. And it is done simply by more redistribution of wealth to help the average working class person.
As I say, if we do not get this started soon, particularly with climate disaster upon us.
11
Mr. Rubin's policies, and the influence (or better, inordinate power) that he and his friends wield are exactly why we have Donald Trump.
I am not sure he is the best adviser on how to defeat Donald Trump.
46
Rubin makes some good points, but taking his advice is like asking Mike Bloomberg for his advice on how to repair race relations.
It was during Rubin's tenure that the capital gains and dividiend taxes were slashed to below the tax rate on actual work: socialism for the rich! It was during Rubin's tenure that the Glass-Steagall protections against banking fraud were struck down, and you can draw a straight line from that change to the fraud that caused the Great Recession.
In other words, Robert Rubin is not just a Clinton/Third Way/ Goldman Sachs Democrat, he is one of the architects of those policies that caused our current crisis of wealth inequality. It's a shame he doesn't admit as much in this Op-Ed.
247
@Unconventional Liberal - Great points, from your opening line to the last. Always consider the source.
6
@Unconventional Liberal
Absolutely right. If these Corporate Rule "Democrats" were serious about winning over those who recognize the destruction they've wrought on our society, they'd start by acknowledging the mistakes they've made and the thinking behind them. Robert Rubin? Nothing doing.
4
@Unconventional Liberal
yes, you are right - very good points - the Glass-Steagall act was put into place by Roosevelt, and it worked tremendously. If that were still in place in 2008, perhaps the crash would have been avoided.
Rubin should no longer be given high profile platforms to air his views. They are rubbish.
2
I think it's perfectly acceptable for any candidate to draw a clear boundary between what his/her ultimate vision is and how it differs from the opposition candidates. We all have to be clear on what we are voting for and what we are voting against. We all agree that Trump must be removed for the sake of our survival as a nation.
We really have not been in this situation before. The hysteria arises from the fear of losing to a corrupt and highly incompetent man, and it drives the level of alarm so that we can't separate the wheat from the chaff any longer.
The media has been fueling the fear to a fever pitch, and I now am in constant dread. I am not alone.
What if we stopped exaggerating all of this? What if?
I believe the country needs an overhaul. Too many of our fellow citizens are suffering. This is an opportune time to re-envision what a just and humane society should look like.
I believe Sanders is the one to carry this out. However, Warren is also highly capable.
But the media are conducting themselves as if this primary was Armageddon.They are doing it for their self-interests. None of our candidates are demonic, for goodness sake.
We have to vote for a candidate and respect the outcome. We need to surrender for the common good and our sanity.
I believe that voters will crawl to the polls to rid themselves of Trump, no matter who the candidate is.
We cannot maintain this level of fear. It is dangerous and counterproductive.
Do what you can and let it be.
9
There is more commitment to the 1% than there is to the rest of Americans.
The tax Reform bill is just a part of it. You cannot have a tax structure to underwrite business, churches, universities, NGO, non-profits or private schools.
You cannot have a tax system with all manner of tax loopholes that provide numerous "outs" for companies that make Billions in profit and take it overseas. You cannot have a tax system that favors those individuals that pay zero in taxes who are also Millionaires and Billionaires.
This is called unfettered Capitalism, which gives wealth a very bad reputation.
I am not against wealth, but I am against inequality.
I agree that the Democrats need to seriously get together with a plan to ease inequality, making sure Voting Rights are protected, an Education system that works for all students and a National Health system for all.
I think the one person that could broker this is Robert Rubin. He understands both sides of the problem.
10
You are a former banker and was a Secretary of Treasury under Bill Clinton. Got it. You are one of the people who ruined our country and helped create all this wealth inequality in the first place.
This op-ed is too carefully and diplomatically phrased. I get a strong sense that doing what Rubin suggests will only benefit centrists, not progressives.
Consider me one of those young people, at the youthful age of 36, who has a positive view of socialism. Capitalism as it is currently practiced has made me and many others far worse off. The 1% has been very successful thanks to the USA commitment to markets and GDP growth. Everyone else is struggling and stressed. How about you actually create an economy where people my age can afford to buy a house and raise a family? You want to increase capital gains and the estate tax? Good. So why haven't you done it already?
265
@James I’m 56 and have had a positive view of democratic socialism since I came of voting age. But I see young people doing quite well, better off than I was in my twenties and thirties. I am not sure if this is true but I know part has to do with how my generation struggled to give our children a better life than we had, raising their expectations that the world should be handed to them when it wasn’t handed to us. We often had nada. I’m all for Bernie, but you might consider this.
3
@ScaredyCat
The generations younger than you may on average have had an easier start to life than you did; some better and some worse. But they are at risk of accruing unmanageable debt by their mid-20s with no assets to show for it largely due to the Education market; one of a number of services including healthcare that work only to increase disparity
1
@Allan I guess you’re right. When I graduated from Northwestern 35 years ago I had a $10,000 debt. I lived with less I suppose. First apartment had a sofa I took off the street, worked while husband accruedhuge medical school debt. Not certain how different that is from today—ten thousand in today’s dollars.
2
On the one hand, it’s nice to read a call for unity, an endorsement of a financial transactions tax, and a critique of the wealth tax from somebody who really understands the economy. On the other hand, Rubin was a factor in the financial deregulation that led to the 2008 crisis. So what he says has to be taken with a grain of salt. But I hope other members of the establishment come out in favor of a financial transactions tax, which seems like a no brainer.
61
I agree that Sanders himself has not advocated for abandoning markets. BUT an alarming number of his supporters have, and frankly, until Sanders frankly denounces the very idea of abandoning markets and democracy to such an extent that this isn't even a discussion anymore, he is doing the US a disservice. The numbers from the most recent Victims of Communism Memorial Fund poll should give you very serious pause. The problem with being the leader of a Revolution is that sometimes the masses bypass the revolutionaries. I say this as an older MILLENNIAL - these numbers are scary. Period. Please do not downplay valid concerns regular citizens have about a cohort of voters who would very much abandon the markets. An example? 1 in 5 millennials in the poll believed we would be better off abandoning private property. So, yeah. That scares me. Poll link posted below:
https://www.victimsofcommunism.org/2019-annual-poll
9
@Lauren If you want Millenials to believe in capitalism then you need to show them that the system benefits them. Otherwise why should they support it? The crony capitalism represented by Rubin has destroyed the prospects of our generation, and now he complains that we're trying to undo the damage he caused.
Trump and his Palace Guard represent an existential threat to the democratic values enshrined in our Constitution.
That should suffice as a rallying cry for unity.
The economic injustices and hardships that have given rise to conditions that make King Trump seem like a good idea to many must be addressed.
We don’t need candidates who promise much but can deliver on little. Real tax reform, affordable health care, and reduction of student debt should be achievable.
But first, let’s recognize that none of te above will be achieved without a functioning Constitutional democracy.
26
@Rita Our so-called debates do not reveal the skills needed to lead because the questions asked are not used to pit one candidate against the other for a common purpose. They elicit candidate commentary. If there is one reason not to vote for Bernie it is that he was not an effective leader in Congress for the decades he served there and unaddressed in the debate.
Biden is a nice person inclined over the years to give away too much in compromising with the Right, and over the long haul the Party ended up weakened because they didn’t deliver enough to the middle class. I’m thinking now of the outrage I felt for homeowners who were abandoned by the government during the financial collapse in 2008-2009 in favor of letting the market, i.e. those with money, come in to refinance or buy out at pennies on the dollar. Yeah, the banks were “backed” by the government but the mortgage payers were left holding the bag! I’ve seen this “making nice” to the markets by “reasonable” Democratic leaders too many times. The power of money without government regulations to rein it in means that ordinary people are sacrificed. Bernie didn’t get legislation and Biden is too nice a guy to bargain on behalf of the common man.
Warren and Klobuchar are ironically the only two candidates that have gone head to head with Republicans to get legislation done, but our anti-women bias will bar their way and prevent the Party from having a moderate fighter for the average guy head the ticket.
"The solution is to pair markets with strong and effective government that meets our challenges." That basically sums up Bernie Sanders' platform. Instead of using the "S" word as a slur against him and settling into strawman arguments that might as well have come from a Donald Trump mailer, you could write about what's actually being advocated by the candidates.
267
@Chris - Then why does he insist on using the "S.." word? He is handing the GOP ammunition to shoot down his campaign. Also, why hang onto unpopular ideas like a 'wealth tax' and forcing people off the insurance they now have for a new, unproven Medicare for All plan. Ask any doctor or administrator of a hospital and they will tell you that Medicare does not pay the bills. Most independent clinic doctors I know say they cannot afford to have more than 30% of their patients on Medicare, it does not pay enough to cover their costs.
1
@WJ
Dig a little deeper into doctors and hospitals, and they'll tell you they spend 30% of *all money that comes in* "dealing with insurance."
It's probably higher in reality- clinic notes in the US are 4x longer than in EU, and most of that padding is there to get paid. Someone has to write that stuff, and it's more waste in our system.
Over half of US docs complain of burnout, due to "too many bureaucratic requirements."
Those aren't from government, they're from insurance. google "Article 44 MCO Sepsis Guidance" and remember that hospitals spent a substantial amount of time reminding doctors to write notes a particular way so they could get paid for what they were doing, time that could have been spent on improving care instead of fighting to get paid.
The US Federal gov ALREADY spends as much per person on health care as Canada, Australia, etc., pay to cover EVERYBODY. Just eliminating the waste would provide all the money we need to cover everybody.
3
Trying to speak fact and truth about Bernie will not outrun Trump and the Republicans. It’s the 2020 update to Obama’s birth certificate dog whistle.
Unfortunately Sanders has become associated with Socialism and it will work against him in the general election.
2
Agree. We have common goals of affordable health care for all, shrinking the disparity in income and wealth, ending institutional racism & sexism, improving voting rights and methods, ending for profit prisons, putting upward pressure on wages by increasing the minimum wage and union rights, promoting equal justice and addressing climate change and the general evidentiary realities routinely denied by Republicans.
How to do so? Vote Blue
(And make sure your neighbors vote too.)
14
"But the solution is not to abandon market-based economics"
I stopped reading right there, as it was obvious where the author was headed.
Bernie Sanders want to infuse a healthy dose of Europe into the vulture capitalism that is now dominating the US.
Nothing less, nothing more.
We need it, and his agenda is becoming more urgent every day, not in the least universal healthcare.
313
@Liz
Mr. Rubn harmed "market based economics" leading up to the crash in 2008.
3
@Liz I suppose we are supposed to allow "the best and the brightest" to keep doing what's worked out so well for the declining American middle class? I'll take some change, please. Sanders or Warren.
Why, yes, Sec. Rubin, if you and your fellows scare people into nominating a centrist, I'll have no alternative to vote for them.
1
@Liz So, if Biden gets the nomination will you support him? If the answer is "no" then you're saying you want Trump to pick the judges that will be around for years and will keep some future Bernie from ever getting you to where you want to be. It will be the courts who will decide if Universal Health Care goes forward. I prefer Biden, but I will vote for Bernie because you need the judges to be able to do anything down the road. Just look at how the USC is taking up the ACA, yet again.
2
A commitment to markets is not exclusive to capitalism and none of the candidates have advocated abandoning market-based economics. This is a straw man argument.
As the author himself says, some critical issues cannot be successfully resolved by market forces. Democratic socialism allows us to target some issues using other means; it does not demand that market forces not be utilized under any circumstances.
128
Yes, Let’s get together. As a Sanders supporter I am wondering why moderate Democratic Party candidates are not including Sander’s ideas in their platforms to attract more voters. I am hearing a lot of conflict when I should be hearing how they are going to fix our health care system, how they are going to open the path to accessible university, help the poor and the homeless. Give me something to vote for!
98
@Linda McKim-Bell They include plenty of his ideas. Most call for universal health care, all call for sharply higher taxes on the rich, infrastructure is high on the list.
But why does Bernie still defend the filibuster and the Supreme Court's current composition?
10
@Linda McKim-Bell FIrst, they're not Sanders' ideas - they've been Democratic Party ideas at least since Hillary Clinton (yeah, that one) chaired an effort to effect healthcare reform during the late 1990s. ALL of the Democrat candidates have strategies - Warren's is the best, I believe - to achieve healthcare for all. Please inform yourself.
8
@Linda McKim-Bell
Why was Bernie pro-guns for so long in VT?
Oh, wait, ... he was anti-gun in his very first election, and he LOST. (Smacks forehead.)
He has had a decades long history of being pro-guns. NOW he is all for gun control.
How is that for "principles"?
4