Bloomberg's Opposition To Bernie Is all About Class... And The Toxic Greed Of The Billionaire Class

Early yesterday, Axios posted a Jonathan Swan blurb about a Bloomberg stop in Compton, California-- Bernie country. Bloomberg-- whose very mediocre $11 million Super Bowl ad was rated the 60th best out of 62 ads that ran (beating just Pop Tart's Fixed the Pretzel and Trump's Criminal Justice Reform)-- sees himself as the candidate from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party to stop Bernie after Biden implodes, the first manifestation of which was shown Monday night in Iowa.

Although Bloomberg-- a notorious liar-- told Swan that he'd support Bernie over Trumpanzee if those were his two options, people should understand Sanders at this moment is "so far to the left it's not practical" [and that] "what he wants to do would never get through Congress... I don't agree with him on virtually anything. But I have committed to support the Democratic candidate because I find Trump so unsuited for the job."

He added that he hopes "that if Bernie did win he would change some of his policies, or Congress would make him change some of his policies." There you go-- the voice of an American oligarch who should be running in the primaries of his own party-- the GOP-- rather than as a Democrat. Bloomberg views the Democratic Party as a transactional-- and easily purchased-- vehicle for his own ambitions.

So what does Bloomberg see as so disqualifying in Bernie? Basically... Bernie's entire platform, which is geared towards the 99% of Americans who are not multimillionaires and billionaires. Bloomberg does not want to see people of his class paying for healthcare, education, amelioration of the Climate Crisis (that they created), housing... and he sure doesn't agree with Bernie's tax on extreme wealth, a tax on people with a net worth over over $32 million that would raise over $4 trillion over the next decade and "cut the wealth of billionaires in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class." The plan also ensures that rich criminals like Trump and Bloomberg "are not able to evade the tax by implementing strong enforcement policies." Bernie:

Today, the United States has more income and wealth inequality than almost any major country on Earth, and it is worse now than at any time since the 1920s.

At a time when millions of Americans are working two or three jobs to feed their families, the three wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of the American people.

Over the last 30 years, the top 1 percent has seen a $21 trillion increase in its wealth, while the bottom half of American society has actually lost $900 billion in wealth. In other words, there has been a massive transfer of wealth from those who have too little to those who have too much. For the sake of our democracy and working families all over America who are struggling economically, that has got to change.

In order to reduce the outrageous level of inequality that exists in America today and to rebuild the disappearing middle class, the time has come for the United States to establish an annual tax on the extreme wealth of the top 0.1 percent of U.S. households.

This wealth tax would only apply to net worth of over $32 million and would raise an estimated $4.35 trillion over the next decade. Anyone who has a net worth of less than $32 million would not see their taxes go up at all under this plan.

...This tax on extreme wealth would have a progressive rate structure that would only apply to the wealthiest 180,000 households in America who are in the top 0.1 percent.

It would start with a 1 percent tax on net worth above $32 million for a married couple. That means a married couple with $32.5 million would pay a wealth tax of just $5,000.

The tax rate would increase to 2 percent on net worth from $50 to $250 million, 3 percent from $250 to $500 million, 4 percent from $500 million to $1 billion, 5 percent from $1 to $2.5 billion, 6 percent from $2.5 to $5 billion, 7 percent from $5 to $10 billion, and 8 percent on wealth over $10 billion. These brackets are halved for singles.

Under this plan, the wealth of billionaires would be cut in half over 15 years which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small privileged class.

Under current law, the IRS is already required to assess the net worth of the wealthiest Americans when they pass away, to calculate estate tax liability. A federal wealth tax would require the IRS to make the same assessment on an annual basis for the wealthiest Americans. Steps would also be taken to streamline the process for purposes of the wealth tax.

For assets that are difficult to appraise, the Treasury Department would have the option of allowing taxpayers to have appraisals done periodically instead of annually. The Treasury Department would establish the average rates of appreciation for several classes of assets. Those appraised only every few years would be assumed to appreciate in the intervening years at the average rate established for their designated class.

Assets placed in a trust would be treated as owned by the grantor of the trust (by the person giving assets to the trust) until that person’s death.

...The reality is that we already have a wealth tax in America – the property tax -and it disproportionately impacts working class families. One of the biggest sources of wealth for middle-income families is owner-occupied homes, which are taxed in most states at rates that can be as high as, or even higher than, 1 percent. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the wealth owned by the top 0.1 percent of Americans is not housing or real property and is not subject to any sort of property tax.

This proposal would ensure that assets owned by the top 0.1 percent are taxed the same way as much of the wealth owned by the middle-class is already taxed.

This was probably as big a reason for Mini-Mike to through his hate into therein as his out-sized ego. Here how his news network covered Bernie's wealth tax announcement 3 months ago. Note the billionaire's moron tool (anchor) laughing strategically:

Are There Too Many Multimillionaires In Congress-- Out Of Touch With Ordinary Americans' Concerns?

Almost nothing passes unanimously in the House. I was surprised that H.R. 4695, the bill imposing sanctions on Turkey over the invasion of Syria-- which did pass yesterday with a 403 to 16 veto-proof majority still had 15 die-hard Trumpists-- like Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Barry Loudermilk (R-GA) and Pence's brother (R-IN)-- willing to vote know to please Señor Trumpanzee.

But that same day, the House managed to pass a bill-- a significant, consequential and important one-- unanimously. Katie Porter (D-CA) of Orange County wrote the Help America Run Act. When it becomes law, it will make it easier for working parents to run for federal office, clarifying that candidates are permitted to use campaign contributions to pay for child care, elder care, dependent care, and healthcare premiums and passed the House with unanimous, bipartisan support.

House Administration Committee Chairperson Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said "The Help America Run Act is a simple, cost-free, commonsense measure to make America’s representatives look more like the everyday Americans we are here to represent. Americans caring for their children or parents today must weigh the option of running for office to serve the nation against the risk of losing coverage. It is precisely those everyday Americans that I want to see join us at the decision-making table. I’m proud to join Representative Katie Porter, the very first single mother of young children ever to serve in U.S. Congress, in supporting this important legislation. The ranking Republican on the committee, Rodney Davis (D-IL), agreed and urged, successfully, his party to back it. Though the NRCC is targeting Katie Porter as one of the top 5 democratic freshmen they want to replace, Davis publicly said that "I commend my colleague, Rep. Katie Porter, for this important legislation that I believe will allow more hardworking Americans to run for Congress. Strong candidates should not be limited by their circumstances to the point that it prevents them from representing their communities in Congress. Representatives of this body should come from all backgrounds to allow for equal representation of all who make up this great nation."

Katie, one of the most active of the freshman class, said "As a single working mom myself, I am acutely aware of the challenge it can be to balance running for office and taking care of a family. I’m proud to be a member of a historic freshman class that more closely reflects the diversity of the people we represent, but there’s still more work to be done. I’m pleased that a large number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have come together to help break down the barriers for Americans who want to serve their communities in federal office."

One of the big problems in Congress is that few working class candidates can afford to run. That has a lot to do with how many millionaires there are in Congress. And remembers, millionaires tend to be more conservative than normal people. Here are a bunch of the richest members of the House:

• Gil Cisneros (New Dem-CA)- $266 million
• Mitt Romney (R-UT)- 250 million
• Rick Scott (R-FL)- $232 million
• Greg Gianforte (R-MT)- $135.7 million
• Michael McCaul (R-TX)- $113.0 million
• Mark Warner (D-VA)- $90.2 million
• Dean Phillips (New Dem-MN)- $77 million
• Vern Buchanan (R-FL)- $73.9 million
• Kevin Hern (R-OK)- $36-$92 million
• Mike Braun (R-IN)- between $35- $96 million
• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)- $70.0 million
• Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)- $58.5 million
• Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN)- $50.1 million
• Paul Mitchell (R-MI)- $37.7 million
• Scott Peters (New Dem)- $32.0 million
• Don Beyer (New Dem-VA)- $31.2 million
• Suzan DelBene (New Dem-WA)- $28.4 million
• Roger Williams (R-TX)- $27.7 million

In 2012 the Center for Responsive Politics reported that, for there first time more than half the 534 members of Congress had an average net worth of $1 million or more (268 of them). The median net worth for the members of Congress was $1 million. They have different problems and experiences of life than the vast majority of Americans do.

Illinois single mom Rachel Ventura is very much the kind of working citizen-candidate Katie Porter's bill is meant to assist. She's running for a Chicagoland seat occupied by a wealthy New Dei, Bill Foster, who represents the interests of other wealthy people, not of working families. This morning, Rachel told us that "It's a sad day when you look up and realize that your congressman is worth $10 million dollars and that he is not the richest one. Sadly, he is only the 34th richest member of Congress and it should scare people that 33 others have accrued more wealth than he has. Running for office as a single mother is not easy and I am glad to see that Katie Porter is proposing some modest solutions. I applaud these efforts, but honestly, we need to overturn Citizens United with a constitutional amendment and pass serious campaign finance reform that makes it easier for qualified candidates to run. Creating a system where our representatives can reflect what the country's make up in gender and race is, will create a government of shared values and diverse policy. In contrasts, how in the world can a multi-millionaire identify with working people who are living paycheck to paycheck, and why would we ever trust the super wealthy to do what is in our best interest when they are padding their campaign coffers with corporate cash?"


UPDATE: Montana

State Rep. Tom Winter is the progressive Democrat running for Montana's at-large open congressional seat this cycle. "Our Congress," he told me, "is now older and richer than ever before. Is it surprising that working people haven’t gotten a raise since before I was born when the people running things look like Greg Gianforte-- old enough to be my grandfather, and rich enough to be his boss? I get asked all the time: How can a young Democrat really relate to a voter from Glendive, Montana? And I always turn it around: Has anybody ever even tried? They’ve done it the easy way with all this fake cowboy posturing from our rich elected officials-- Gianforte, Rosendale, the whole political establishment in this state. Their clean boots get us nowhere, and their trophy ranches don’t relate to those of us who work for a living.  Our working communities deserve representatives who will work for them. That’s what Democrats used to do-- work for working people. That’s what I’ll do in Congress."

Since Trump Occupied The White House, Income Disparity Between The Very Rich And The Rest Of Us Has Gotten Worse

The Census Bureau released a report late last week that shows income and wealth inequality worsening and the gap between the 1% and everyone else widening. Every year Trump has been in office that gap has gotten worse which makes complete sense considering his policies.

The gap between the richest and poorest... how long has Bernie been talking about that-- living in that lane, unlike, say Biden, who is part of what's wrong... not as bad as Trump, but plenty bad.

Income inequality in our country was "significantly higher" in 2018 than in 2017, the Census Bureau's American Community Survey reported. The states with the worst statistics on this widening gulf are both red and blue-- Alabama, Arkansas, California, Kansas, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas and Virginia. Basically, the take away from this report is that despite economic expansion inequality gets worse. Why? Obviously, Republican Party tax policies favor wealthy people (and corporations) at the expense of working people. And the anti-union agenda conservatives have pushed have made it even worse for working families.

How to fix this? Easy answer and just one answer: replacing conservatives with progressives-- replacing Trump with Bernie; replacing Republicans with progressives-- here are 17 that would make an amazing difference in the House:

• Replace Blue Dog Jim Costa with Kim Williams in California
• Replace Trump-Republican Michael McCaul with Mike Siegel in Texas
• Replace Blue Dog Dan Lipinski with Marie Newman in Illinois
• Replace Trump-Republican George Holding with Jason Butler in North Carolina
• Replace New Dem Gregory Meeks with Shaniyat Chowdhury in New York
• Replace New Dem Derek Kilmer with Rebecca Parson in Washington
• Replace New Dem Bill Foster with Rachel Ventura in Illinois
• Replace New Dem Eliot Engel with Jamaal Bowman
• Replace Trump-Republican Doug LaMalfa with Audrey Denney in California
• Replace Trump-Republican Fred Upton with Jon Hoadley in Michigan
• Replace Trump-Republican Steven King with J.D. Scholten in Iowa
• Replace Blue Dog Kurt Schrader with Mark Gamba in Oregon
• Replace Trump-Republican Donald J Bacon with Kara Eastman in Nebraska
• Replace New Dem Stephen Lynch with Brianna Wu in Massachusetts
• Replace Blue Dog David Scott with Michael Owens in Georgia
• Replace Blue Dog Henry Cuellar with Jessica Cisneros in Texas
• Replace Trump-Republican John Katko with Dana Balter in New York

Rebecca Parson is the progressive candidate running in Washington state, in a district held by a hard core, anti-working class New Dem. She was blunt about the differences between herself and the conservative incumbent when it comes to dealing with income disparity. "In our district," she said, "the working class is getting further and further behind. People are working multiple, low-wage jobs to survive. Unions are under constant attack, and Rep. Derek Kilmer doesn't help. He's voted against unions' wishes-- he voted to fast track the TPP, and in the state legislature, he voted to weaken unions' political power. By contrast, I'm fighting to strengthen unions with policies like repealing Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act, supporting card check, and giving federal workers the right to strike. Strengthening unions will strengthen the working class and lower income inequality in our district and across the country."

Kim Williams is also running against a fake Democrat-- Blue Dog Jim Costa, one of the worst of the worst... and never any help when it comes from lightening the burden on working families. "We are one of the poorest congressional districts in the U.S. with some of the highest high school dropout rates and some of the worst air pollution in America," explained Williams. "All of this is the direct result of years of political neglect and because the incumbent has directed all of his energy and focus towards rich farmers like himself. But for the first time, voters in this Valley will have a real choice, and we will finally have a chance to elect a representative who will support Medicare for All, debt-free college, universal Pre-K, and a Green New Deal. Costa is betting on the fact that this solidly blue district is still too conservative to accept progressive policies, but progressive policies are exactly what is needed to lift our families out of poverty and grow the middle class."

Shan Chowdhury is a progressive taking on one of the most corrupt and useless New Dems in Congress, Gregory Meeks. Please consider helping Queens voters replace Meeks with Shan by clicking on the thermometer just above. "Black and Latinos make up majority of the working class," he told us this morning. "As the wealth gap continues to widen between the rich and poor, Black and Latinos are continuously forgotten when we talk about wealth disparities. A high earning white family in the US will still make ten times more than families of color. I do agree we need to replace Trump with Bernie, we need to tax the rich, and get rid of billionaires. However, we also need to address the racial economic injustice done to people of color. In Congress, I will propose a baby bonds program to address the racial wealth gap. Every child in the US will be assigned a trust fund through public resources depending on the wealth of a family. A child can access their trust fund when they reach their young adulthood years which will help them start financial endowment permitting them to have greater economic security over a lifetime."

Jamaal Bowman is the progressive trying to win a Bronx-Westchester seat that borders on AOC's. His opponent spends more timing worrying about Israel's Likud Party than about his own hard-pressed constituents. Bowman told me that his mother raised him "in a culturally rich working class community on her postal worker’s salary. My wife and I are able to provide our children with a middle class culturally rich upbringing because like my mom we are part of a healthy and vibrant labor union. Our democracy thrives when the middle class is vibrant and it is a crime that companies like Amazon get away with not paying corporate tax. Democrats like Eliot Engel continue to sell out the people in his district and across the country by taking corporate PAC money and compromising our democratic values for greed. Its urgently time for a change in NY-16."

Bernie rolled out a new policy campaign initiative-- something he's been working on for decades. Bernie: "The American people want corporations to invest in their workers, not just dividends, stock buybacks and outrageous compensation packages to their executives."

In the 1950s, CEOs made 20 times more than their median employees. Last year, the average S&P 500 CEO made 287 times their median worker pay. Workers in this country should not be paid totally inadequate wages while CEOs make outrageously high compensation packages.

Bernie’s Income Inequality Tax Plan raises taxes on companies with exorbitant pay gaps between their executives and typical workers.

Today, the SEC requires companies to disclose their CEO-to-median-worker pay ratios. As a result, we now know that:

• Walmart’s CEO made $23.6 million last year, 1,076 times more than the median Walmart worker’s $21,952.
• Jamie Dimon made over $30 million last year, 381 times more than the median JPMorganChase employee’s $78,923.
• Home Depot’s CEO made more than $11.4 million, 486 times more than the median Home Depot employee’s $23,389.
• Nike’s CEO was paid over $9.5 million in 2018, 379 times more than the median Nike employee’s earnings of $24,955.
• American Airlines’ CEO made almost $12 million last year, 195 times more than the median American Airlines employee’s $61,527.

Under the new Sanders plan, companies with large gaps between their CEO and median worker pay would see progressively higher corporate tax rates with the most unequal companies paying five percentage points more in corporate taxes.

Specifically, this plan would impose tax rate increases on companies with CEO to median worker ratios above 50 to 1. If the CEO did not receive the largest paycheck in the firm, the ratio will be based on the highest-paid employee. The tax penalties would begin at 0.5 percentage points for companies that pay their top executives between 50 and 100 times more than their typical workers. The highest penalty would kick in for companies that pay top executives over 500 times worker pay. These rates, if current corporate pay patterns continue, would raise around $150 billion over 10 years.

How companies' corporate taxes would increase if their compensation ratio is:

• Between 50 and 100: +0.5%
• Between 100 and 200: +1%
• Between 200 and 300: +2%
• Between 300 and 400: +3%
• Between 400 and 500: +4%
• More than 500: +5%

If this plan had been in effect last year:

• McDonald’s would have paid up to $110.9 million more in taxes.
• Walmart would have paid up to $793.8 million more in taxes.
• JPMorganChase would have paid up to $991.6 million more in taxes.
• The Home Depot would have paid up to $538.2 million more in taxes.
• American Airlines would have paid up to $18.8 million more in taxes.

This plan would apply to all private and publicly held corporations with annual revenue of more than $100 million. The Treasury Department will be required to issue regulations to prevent tax avoidance, including by changing the composition of a firm’s workforce. In addition, the pay ratio data for privately held corporations will be made public in the same manner that it is currently disclosed for publicly held corporations.

The revenue generated from this income inequality tax will be used to pay for Bernie’s plan to eliminate medical debt. But the goal of this income inequality tax is not just to raise more revenue. It is to send a message to corporate America: stop paying your workers inadequate wages while CEOs make outrageous compensation packages.

Didn't heard about it on TV? That's right. Corporate media is talking about impeachment gossip and not about Bernie's agenda for change. Please consider contributing to Bernie campaign by clicking on the DownWithTyranny For Bernie thermometer on the right.


Kara Eastman is the progressive in Omaha trying to win back the district after years of conservatives. Her progressive agenda is oriented towards working families. "Donald J Bacon," she said, "has proven he is not the right representative for NE-02. In typical 'Bait and Switch Bacon' fashion, he says he supports bipartisan policies, but then votes with Trump 97% of the time. His policies have given a hand out to millionaires and large corporations, put our farmers on welfare, and seek to take away healthcare from Nebraskans. He parrots the talking points of his party because he simply has no backbone when it comes to representing his district."

Kara and Iowan J.D. Scholten bonded in the 2018 cycle their races were two of the closest in the country and both feel 2020 is the year to finish what they started last year. J.D. reminded us that "DC has failed to have an answer to globalization as it affects the working class. Until we do so, we will continue to have economic injustice! We need to elect folks who will fight for the 99%."

Jason Butler is new to politics, but not new to organizing working families. His North Carolina district is ripe for a progressive agent of change like himself. "People," he said, "ask me why a progressive pastor and grassroots organizer would run for Congress? My answer is always simple: I care about people. Right now, people all over our country, and especially my district are suffering deeply. This economy is not only not working, its actually creating suffering. I’m no socialist, but I see that capitalism used to create wealth for the many but now its just the rich capitalizing on the suffering of the rest of us. This is breaking my heart. My dad is 66 years old and can’t retire. He has a torn ACL and a hernia in his gut. But he can’t afford to go to the doctor and still, every day he literally goes out and digs ditches. He has no retirement, no healthcare, and no hope. I’m running for folks like him because we need people in Washington that have enough moral courage to stand up to big business and special interests and say enough is enough! I’m not in this to get rich or build my personal network-- I’m in this to be a voice for the people who have been marginalized and pushed aside. I’m in this for us-- not George Holding and the rest of his rich friends."