Nader Youth Spokesperson Blasts Major Parties, Launches College Speaking Tour

http://votenader.org/media/2008/09/19/sanders/

Nader Youth Spokesperson Blasts Major Parties, Launches College Speaking Tour
Friday, September 19, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Marc Abizeid, 831-818-7736, marcabizeid@votenader.org

NADER YOUTH SPOKESPERSON CRITICIZES MAJOR CANDIDATES; INTERVIEWS AVAILABLE; ARTICLE FOR SUBMISSION

As part of the Nader campaign's Get Out The Vote college speaking tour, Ashley Sanders, youth spokesperson, will be traveling around the country speaking to college audiences on the differences between Ralph Nader's platforms and the platforms of the two major-party candidates. She's introduced Mr. Nader at several events including the Open Debates Rally outside the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Check out her address before hundreds of people in Salt Lake City.

The young, articulate Sanders recently authored a piece urging youth to read past the cliche slogans and empty rhetoric spouted by the Republican and Democratic candidates, and take a critical look at what a McCain or Obama presidency would mean for their futures.

Sanders argues that the national media is politically bigoted, refusing to cover Nader even though he represents the opinions of most Americans. "10 million Americans currently support the Nader campaign, but millions more don't even know he is running. This is the fault of an exclusive, corporate-dominated media," she said.

Sanders calls on college media to make up for the faults of the national media, and urges them to inform the critical college bloc about their options this election.

The campaign also invites college newspapers to publish Sanders' article. Call 831-818-7736 with questions or to schedule an interview with Sanders.

-----------

Rock the Vote by Rocking the Boat: A Case for Ralph Nader
By Ashley Sanders

With less than two months before the election, Republicans and Democrats are driving it home: this is the election of the century.

And they're right: there is a lot at stake this year. This could be the year we change the lives of 47 million Americans by providing them with decent health care and millions more with a living wage. It could be the year that we listen to 68 percent of Americans and 84 percent of Iraqis and withdraw occupying forces. It could be the year that we cut the near-trillion dollar defense budget, repeal NAFTA, revoke the Patriot Act and the illegal wiretapping FISA bill, build a green energy infrastructure, discipline runaway corporations, and reign in the manic speculation driving the current food and housing crises.

That is Ralph Nader's plan, anyway -- to offer Americans what the polls show they want.

So, while McCain sings about bombing Iran and Obama uses rhetoric about 'smart' and 'dumb' wars to stay in dumb wars and start new 'smart' ones, Nader stands for strongly negotiated peace in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. While Obama dismisses his earlier commitments to fair trade as "overheated," Nader would replace NAFTA with uniform environmental and labor standards. And while McCain chants "drill, baby, drill" and Obama prepares to replace Big Oil with Big Corn or Big Nukes, Nader calls for a renewable infrastructure.

But the Democrats tell us that we cannot vote for Nader because there is too much at stake this year. After eight years of Bush, the argument goes, we cannot afford another Republican. We must rally behind the change party. And for the most part, students are buying it. Emphatically anybody-but-Bush and unfamiliar with the Democrats' duplicity, these students mistakenly believe that ousting the current administration will exorcise the demons of war, jingoism and economic imperialism they represent.

History, unfortunately, tells a different story.

In 1992, Clinton ran an uncannily 'Obamaesque' campaign, branding himself as a change candidate and peddling a vague but comforting populism. Convinced, progressives rallied behind him. Clinton won, but progressives lost. Wage disparities between CEOs and workers ballooned from 113 - 1 in 1991 to 449 - 1 in ten years. Clinton pushed NAFTA, costing 525,000 US jobs and devastating Mexican farmers. And, as a flourish on the way out, Clinton repealed the Glass Steagall Act, allowing the mergers of banks and investment companies that are at the heart of our current financial crisis. In short, progressives got eight years of soft imperialism and a corporate dream economy that Clinton admitted "helped the bond market and hurt the people who voted us in." But that's not all. Progressives fell for the same stuff in 2000 and then again in 2004, when anti-war Democrats voted in droves for a candidate who had no intention to end the war -- who, rather, believed Bush was doing "too little" in the war on terror -- and lost both the election and the muscle of the peace movement.

It seems that pretty words do not make pretty presidents. Advisers and financiers are the best indicators of the tone and direction of a future presidency, and Obama's are sending clear signals that things will be business as usual after election day.

Bewilderingly, Obama plans to solve the nation's problems by recycling the architects of its moral and economic decline: Madeleine Albright, advocate of unilateral aggression against Iraq, who said that US sanctions which killed 500,000 Iraqi children were ­"worth it"; Warren Christopher, who refused to use the word genocide during the Rwanda crisis because the US had no "strategic interests" there; Lee Hamilton, who stopped the Iran Contra investigation before it could lead to the impeachment of Reagan; Robert Gates, Saddam Hussein's chief weapons supplier and author of violent intervention schemes in Libya and Nicaragua; and Jason Furman, who favors decreasing corporate taxes, partial privatization of Social Security and the so-called Wal-Mart model of 'prosperity.'

Unlike average Americans, corporations don't have to hope for change. They can buy it, as long as the public remains too distracted by false promises to demand the real stuff.

But we don't have to simply hope for change, either. If we did nothing more than vote our own interests, we could win.

Will we vote in our interests, or will we refuse the easiest revolution -- the ballot box -- because we don't know if others will join us?

Change has never been certain; it has always been a fight. We can start now, or we can defer yet again, but the difference will be the difference between real change and the chump change we'll get from selling the movement to buy the machine.

Nader Officially on 45 State Ballots + DC

http://www.votenader.org/media/2008/09/18/ballotline
Nader Officially on 45 State Ballots + DC
Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Toby Heaps, 202-441-6795, toby@votenader.org

RALPH NADER ON A RECORD 46 BALLOTS FOR THE 2008 ELECTION

Voters will be able to choose or write in Nader in 49 states plus D.C.The campaign of independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader announced today that the Nader/Gonzalez ticket will officially be on the ballot in 45 states plus the District of Columbia this November. Voters will also be able to write in Nader/Gonzalez in four more states: Texas, Georgia, Indiana and North Carolina, for a total of 49 states plus D.C.

"This means 85 percent of the American electorate will actually see the names Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez on their ballots," said Michael Richardson, the campaign's national ballot access coordinator.

This is an historic first for the lifelong consumer advocate. It is the most ballots Nader has ever been on. In his two previous runs for president, Nader was on 34 state ballots plus D.C. in 2004, and 44 plus D.C. in 2000.

The Nader ticket was missing from several key state ballots in 2004 where the campaign has succeeded in gaining ballot access this year including: the populous California and the swing states of Oregon, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Arizona, as well as Hawaii.

In California, Utah and Iowa, Nader will appear on the ballot line of the Peace & Freedom Party, in Oregon, the Peace Party, in New York the Populist Party, in Florida the Ecology Party. In all the other states, voters can find Nader/Gonzalez on the Independent or Independent Party line. The only state where voters can't vote for Nader is Oklahoma, because they don't allow write-ins.

"This is quite a feat since states generally make it really hard for third-party candidates to get on state ballots," Richardson said. "But in every state, our volunteers collected more than enough signatures to qualify. The response has been positive -- much better than in 2004. It's obvious that there is national interest in more choices and independent candidates outside the two-party system."

Nader is also polling stronger this year than he was at the same time in 2004 or 2000. According to new Time/CNN polls, Nader/Gonzalez is polling at 6 percent nationally, and as high as 6-8 percent in key battleground states of Colorado (7%), Michigan (6%), Pennsylvania (7%), New Mexico (8%), and Nevada (6%).

"It's clear that Ralph Nader could again have a significant impact on the Presidential race -- though in highly unpredictable ways," Time/CNN pollsters concluded.

On overcoming more ballot-access hurdles than any other third-party candidate, Ralph Nader, commented: "This has been a Herculean effort and one of the purposes of our campaign is to clear away these ballot access hurdles and open up the ballots to diverse candidates -- to third-party and independent candidates who are not afraid to stand up for issues, like single-payer Medicare for all, living wage, and our Constitution -- all crucial areas where the two parties act against the will of the majority of America."

To see where other non-major party candidates have achieved a ballot line visit: http://www.ballot-access.org/ballot-chart.html

For more information on the campaign, visit votenader.org.

Nader Challenges Groups to Stand up for Low-Income Families

http://www.votenader.org/media/2008/09/18/LIHEAP/
Thursday, September 18, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Marc Abizeid, 831-818-7736, marcabizeid@votenader.org

RALPH NADER CHALLENGES BLACK AND HISPANIC CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUSES TO URGE BIG OIL TO HELP WARM LOW INCOME HOMES THIS WINTER

Ralph Nader yesterday sent letters to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, and the American Petroleum Institute urging members to press the multi-billion dollar oil industry to donate $5 billion to the grossly underfunded Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps millions of low-income families keep from freezing during winter. The price for heating oil is projected to be at an all-time high this winter, $4.34/gallon, which is a 31% increase over last winter. In the past, these groups have ignored similar requests.

The Nader/Gonzalez campaign calls on reporters to recognize and fulfill their responsibilities to serve the public interest by exposing what our leaders and big business are doing, and not doing, to address poverty-related issues especially in minority neighborhoods where unemployment and poverty rates are most stark. Below are the two letters sent yeserday to the Black and Hispanic Caucuses, and to the President of the American Petroleum Institute (API). There is also a letter attached written to the API by Senator Charles Grassley in 2005.

----

Sept. 17, 2008

To:

Elsie L. Scott, Ph.D.
President and CEO
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc.
1720 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick
Chair, Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc.
2264 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Esther Aguilera
President and CEO
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute
911 2nd St. NE
Washington, DC 20002

Rep. Joe Baca
Chair, The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute
1527 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Leaders,

Enclosed is a letter I sent to the American Petroleum Institute requesting it to urge its members to collectively contribute $5 billion dollars to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to help keep low-income families from freezing this Winter.

This urgent request comes at at time when the price for heating oil is forecast to cost $4.34/gallon during the wintry season -- a 31 percent increase over last Winter. And as you may know, the super-wealthy oil industry is rolling in record profits. The top five oil companies -- ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and ConcoPhillips -- took in net profits of $123 billion dollars last year and are on track to significantly break that profit record this year.

I am writing to your Caucus, as I did last year, to encourage you to raise the profiles of these requests in the court of public opinion and with your voters back at home. If Republican Senator Charles Grassley, then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 2005, can make such a request to the API (see attached), then many members of the House should strive to make a more insistent demand of big oil to supplement taxpayer monies.

Several follow up requests to you for a response last year elicited only silence. Given that some of your constituents in need during a freezing winter deserve more assistance than is in the LIHEAP budget, I am releasing these two letters to local media and community groups.

I look forward to receiving an encouraging stand.


Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

PO Box 34103
Washington, DC 20043
202-471-5833

Cc: Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Senator Charles Grassley, and other interested parties.

----

Sept. 17, 2008

Mr. Red Cavaney
President and CEO
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW, #900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Cavaney,

I'm writing to you with the urgent recommendation that you press the members of your association to make a vital contribution to help keep this country's poor from freezing during the coming winter.

The price of heating oil and natural gas is increasing dramatically. The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration calculates that the 2008/2009 price for heating oil will cost $4.34/gallon -- a 31 percent increase over the previous year, and 125 percent higher than the average cost between 2002 - 2007. Similarly, the price of natural gas is expected to spike sharply this winter.

To manage skyrocketing energy bills, millions of Americans rely on aid provided through government programs like the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), whose appropriations amounted to less than $2 billion last year -- not nearly enough to pay for what your industry charges.

Meanwhile, your oil industry is setting record profits. Last year, the top five oil companies -- ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and ConcoPhillips -- took in net profits of $123 billion dollars and according to a report by the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, those companies are on track to set a new record this year of about $160 billion.

I ask you to communicate with the members of your association, and especially urge those major companies to make a combined donation this year of $5 billion -- a modest 4 percent of last year's top five profits -- to LIHEAP where the funds are urgently needed. U.S. oil companies should do far more than Venezuelan-owned CITGO has done for low income people in this country.

When Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote you in 2005 (see attached) making a similar request, you ignored him and proceeded to count your mounting profits. That was a demonstration of the "arrogance of power," and should not
be repeated. You can do better than that for sure.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader

PO Box 34103
Washington, DC 20043
202-471-5833

Cc: Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Senator Charles Grassley, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron and ConcoPhillips, and other interested parties.

-----

November 1, 2005

Mr. Red Cavaney
President and CEO
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW, #900
Washington, D.C. 20005


Dear Mr. Cavaney:

I'm writing to urge the members of your association to do their part to assist America's seniors and low-income households by providing contributions to energy assistance programs like fuel funds to supplement the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. As record 3rd quarter profits are announced across the oil and gas industry, your members have an opportunity to demonstrate that they're good corporate citizens by giving a fraction of their profits to help the less fortunate.

Millions of families across the country are going to see sharply higher home heating costs this winter. Midwestern households that use natural gas can expect a nearly 50 percent increase from last year. Propane users can expect an increase of 30 percent over last winter, and heating oil users can expect an increase of 32 percent. Many low-income and elderly families across the country won't have the ability to absorb these costs. I know you'll agree that no one should have to choose between paying their heating bill and buying food or medicine.

Industry analysts have estimated that the 29 major oil and gas companies in the Standard & Poor's stock index are expected to earn $96 billion this year. That's up from $68 billion in 2004 and $43 billion in 2003. In fact, those companies that have reported 3rd quarter profits so far have earned more than $20 billion, up more than 50 percent from last year.

You have a responsibility to use these record profits to invest in more exploration, production and refining capacity to increase supply of petroleum products. Beyond that, you have a responsibility to help less fortunate Americans cope with the high cost of heating fuels. It's not unreasonable to expect corporations with 50, 75 or 100 percent growth in earnings this quarter to contribute a mere 10 percent of those profits to fuel fund programs that supplement LIHEAP. This is especially true in the case of some of the largest integrated oil and gas companies that currently have tens of billions of dollars in cash on hand.

Please relay my request to each one of your members. I look forward to hearing from you with an update and a status report on your association members' charitable contributions.


Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
United States Senator

----

-End-

Nader Releases 10-Point Plan to Recover from Financial Crisis

http://www.votenader.org/media/2008/09/16/meltdown/
Nader Releases 10-Point Plan to Recover from Financial Crisis
Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM

Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Toby Heaps, 202-441-6795, toby@votenader.org

RALPH NADER PREDICTED WALL STREET MELTDOWN 8 YEARS AGO

Eight years ago, consumer advocate Ralph Nader correctly predicted that the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) were on track to follow the savings and loan industry of the 1980s and 90s into a big financial heap of trouble. Nobody listened, and taxpayers are now at risk of losing tens of billions of dollars. Wall Street is being shaken to its foundation. American International Group Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer by assets, is now teetering on the brink of ruin after suffering losses of $18 billion in the past three quarters, largely due to its sub prime mortgage exposure.

"Nader Rips Mae and Mac," declared the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal on June 16, 2000. "Ralph Nader, warning of a potential taxpayer bailout similar to the savings and loan crisis, urged lawmakers to cut government benefits to mortgage-market giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which he called 'poster children for corporate welfare.'"

This year Nader, who is also running for president as an independent, is getting credit for his prescience.

"Give one presidential candidate credit for identifying the problem and getting the policy right -- and doing so before the twin government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into the tank in mid-July," wrote Lou Dubose in The Washington Spectator on Aug. 1. Dubose went on to quote Nader's June 15, 2000 Congressional testimony about HR 3703, a bill that would have reigned in some of the most dangerous tendencies of GSE's, had it passed.

In a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox in 2006, Nader also criticized the exorbitant salary of GSE executives Jamie Gorelick, Daniel Mudd, Robert Levin and Timothy Howard, and noted that their financial incentives were in direct conflict with consumer financial security because of the grave moral hazard created by accounting manipulations they sanctioned that benefited their personal wealth, with no penalty for being caught.

"As you continue to investigate the Fannie Mae accounting debacle, we are writing to urge you to seek civil sanctions, including disgorgement, from senior executives who profited directly from the misconduct at Fannie Mae, and that you urge the Department of Justice to give careful consideration to criminal prosecution of these individuals," wrote Nader.

Candidate Nader has called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and unconditional taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and a start to the aggressive prosecution of corporate criminals.

Today, in his prepared remarks for New York Times editors in its Washington Bureau, Nader stated : "Given the contrast between the 'free market' ideology of the Republicans and the corporate or state socialism that is their increasing practice, the time is ripe for full Congressional hearings next year on the organized power, greed and lack of regulation that is shaking the foundations of Wall Street."

Nader added, "What we need to do now is find a just way to deal with the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure and make sure that this level of financial market manipulation does not happen again." He elaborated a 10-point plan to cool off the financial markets meltdown:

Immediate Changes Required for Any Bailout
- No bailouts without conditions and reciprocity in the form of stock warrants.
- No more lobbying for any company that is bailed out.
- No golden parachutes and get out of jail free cards for guilty executives.
- No bailouts without public hearings.

Changes to Housing Market
- Reduce the moral hazard in U.S. mortgage markets by introducing covered bonds for the majority of mortgage products as they do in Western Europe. That gives institutions that finance mortgages an incentive to be prudent, because they cannot just unload them and wipe their hands clean of the liability, but are instead on the hook if the homeowner defaults.
- Maintain neighborhood stability and housing security by passing a law with a sunset clause allowing below median-value homeowners facing foreclosure the right to rent-to-own their homes at fair market value rates.
- Avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than 15-20 times the annual fair market rent value of the home.

Structural Changes to Financial Markets
- Make the Federal Reserve a Cabinet Position, so it is accountable to Congress, as well as making sure all Federal Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the President and answerable to congress.
- Reduce conflicts of interest by taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment.
- Implement a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives to deter casino-style capitalism.

For more information, visit votenader.org.

Sources:
RN's response to bailout on Vote Nader Web site:
http://www.votenader.org/blog/2008/09/10/bailing-out-fannie-and-freddie
Politico: Nader on bank woes: "I predicted this" Sept. 15, 2008
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13459.html
Washington Spectator - Ralph Nader was right (Aug. 1, 2008)
http://www.washingtonspectator.com/message.cfm?msg=notsubs2&PageName=Articles%2F20080801GSEs.cfm
Ralph Nader's letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox Sept. 25, 2006:
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/669-Letter-to-SEC-Chairman-Cox-Regarding-Fannie-Mae.html
Ralph Nader's testimony on H.R. 3703—to the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommitteeon Capital Markets, Securities, and Government Sponsored Enterprises (June 15, 2000)
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba65224.000/hba65224_0f.htm
2000 American Enterprise Institute book about Fannie & Freddie Mac in which Ralph Nader wrote a chapter:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.58,filter.social/pub_detail.asps
Serving Two Masters, Yet Out of Control - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
http://www.aei.org/books/bookID.233,filter.all/book_detail2.asp
Ralph Nader's chapter: "How Fannie and Freddie Influence the Political Process." (starts on pg. 110)
http://books.google.com/books?id=SNhE9GCXTGMC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=%22Serving+two+masters%22+and+%22Nader%22&source=web&ots=n_9cMLWE6C&sig=EXbGRoAPVFP7glg1rUn9mU1Vvoo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA110,M1

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (WI) (from June 2000)
Nader rips Mae and Mac Published: June 16, 2000
Ralph Nader, warning of a potential taxpayer bailout similar to the savings and loan crisis, urged lawmakers to cut government benefits to mortgage-market giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which he called "poster children for corporate welfare." But some lawmakers said that acting hastily could raise the cost of buying a home by increasing borrowing costs for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are called government-sponsored enterprises. Copyright 2000 Journal Sentinel Inc.

Big Banks Go Bust: Time to Reform Wall Street

http://www.truthout.org/article/big-banks-go-bust-time-reform-wall-street
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008093815/big-banks-go-bust-time-reform-wall-street
Big Banks Go Bust: Time to Reform Wall Street
Monday, September 15, 2008
Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research

With the demise of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, IndyMac, Bear Stearns and now Lehman Brothers, we've been treated to the failure of more major financial firms than during any year since the Great Depression. The sight of rich bankers getting the boot might be lots of fun if it were just a spectator sport. Unfortunately, we are in the game with these clowns.

As a result of their incompetence, irresponsibility and greed, the housing bubble was allowed to grow to dangerous proportions. Its collapse threw the economy into recession, putting millions of people out of work and lowering the wages of those who still have their jobs. The plunge in house prices has destroyed much of the life savings for tens of millions of people nearing retirement.

Meanwhile, the bankers who messed up and destroyed the companies who hired them are still multimillionaires. Most of them are still in their old jobs getting multimillion-dollar pay packages. This is a sector that badly cries out for reform, and there is no better time than now to put it into place.

The first target for reform should be the outrageous salaries drawn by the top executives at financial firms. The crew that lost tens of billions at Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and the rest have received tens of millions, possibly even hundreds of millions, in compensation for their "work" over the last few years.

There is a general problem in corporate America of stockholders being unable to effectively organize to rein in top management. This problem is most serious in the financial industry.

Thankfully, the credit crisis gives us the tools we need to rein in executive pay. Currently, the major surviving investment banks (e.g. Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs) are operating on life support. They are drawing money at below-market interest rates from the Federal Reserve Board's discount window. This privilege (for which they pay nothing) can easily be worth billions of dollars a year.

These banks are also operating with an explicit guarantee from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to their creditors that he will honor their loans in the event that an investment bank, like Bear Stearns, goes belly up. This guarantee is enormously valuable. Investors who make loans to Merrill Lynch or Morgan Stanley don't have to worry about the health of these companies because Bernanke has said that, if necessary, he will use public money to pay them back.

While we don't want a chain reaction of banking collapses on Wall Street, the public should get something in exchange for Bernanke's generosity. Specifically, he can demand a cap on executive compensation (all compensation) of $2 million a year, in exchange for getting bailed out. For any bank that is not on board, Bernanke could make an explicit promise to their creditors - if the bank goes under, you will get zero from the Fed.

This can be an effective way to restore sanity to the salaries paid on Wall Street. And, this can be a good example for setting executive pay more generally. Any time a company comes to the public for a handout, like tax breaks for oil companies or low-interest loans for auto companies, the $2 million cap on all compensation goes into effect.

This is important directly because much of the country's wealth has been steered into these folks' pockets, but also because the outrageous compensation packages on Wall Street distorted pay structures throughout the economy. Presidents of universities often get over $1 million a year, and even top executives at private charities can often earn near $1 million a year. These salaries seem low when compared to their counterparts in the corporate world, but they are outrageous when compared to the paychecks of typical workers.

Of course, we must go further in fixing the financial sector - most importantly by downsizing it. The financial sector accounted for more than 30 percent of corporate profits in 2004. Back in the 1950's and 1960's, the country's period of most rapid growth, the financial sector accounted for less than 10 percent of corporate profit.

The financial sector performs an incredibly important function in allocating savings to those who want to invest in businesses, buy homes or borrow money for other purposes. But shuffling money is not an end in itself. The explosion of the financial sector over the last three decades has led to a proliferation of complex financial instruments, many of which are not even understood by the companies who sell them, as we have painfully discovered.

The best way to bring the sector into line is with a modest financial-transactions tax. Such taxes have long existed in other countries. For example, the United Kingdom charges a tax of 0.25 percent on the purchase or sale of share of stock. This is not a big deal to someone who holds their shares for ten years, but it could be a considerable cost for the folks who buy stocks in the morning that they sell in the afternoon.

Comparable taxes on the transfer of all financial instruments (e.g. options, futures, credit default swaps, etc.) could go a long way in reducing speculation and the volume of trading in financial markets. Such a tax could also raise an enormous amount of money - easily more than $100 billion a year. This would go a long way toward funding national health care insurance or a major green infrastructure project.

And, this tax would be hugely progressive. Middle-income shareholders might take a small hit; but it would be comparable to raising the capital gains tax rate back to 20 percent, where it was before it was cut to 15 percent in 2003. The real hit would be on the big speculators and the Wall Street boys, the folks who gave us the housing crisis. Given what the Wall Street crew has done for us, this is change that we can believe in.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer" (www.conservativenannystate.org). He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues. You can find it at the American Prospect's web site.

Nader Issues Statement on 9/11 Anniversary

http://votenader.org/media/2008/09/11/investigation/Nader Issues Statement on 9/11 Anniversary
Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Toby Heaps, 202-441-6795

NADER CRITICIZES 9/11 COMMISSION, PROPOSES INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION

Statement by Ralph Nader on the 7th anniversary of 9/11:

The Massacre of September 11, 2001 -- before, during and after -- continues to raise many questions among millions of Americans who believe they have not been told the truth about what really happened that day. These questions include ones relating to the procedures of the 9/11 Commission, its independence, the depth of the inquiry, and the scope of the explanations as to what happened in each of these three stages.

From the beginning, public skepticisms were fed by the early refusal of the Bush Administration to authorize an independent investigation into the attacks -- a response that would have been automatic for a prime minister of Canada, the United Kingdom or Australia, for example. Only the tenacity and probing efforts of the bereaved families changed the White House's mind. Then the 9/11 Commission aborted its expected or prudent objectives by announcing at the outset that it would neither name names nor assign responsibility for various segments of the sequences that led to the tragedy and delineated its aftermath. By failing to name names, or assign responsibility, the commission betrayed its duty to the American public.

The White House helped to fan the flames of skepticism further by initially allocating only $3 million for the 9/11 Commission's work, a paltry sum compared with, for example, the $50 million spent to investigate the Columbia shuttle disaster -- a far less complex, deadly event.

Public confidence was additionally eroded by unexplained concessions to the closed, secret testimony by President Bush and Vice President Cheney which was not under oath. No recording was made of the session, no stenographer was allowed in the room, and no transcript exists.

Not surprisingly, when public confidence in such a commission's work erodes, criticism ranges from the very sound, to the heuristic, to the plausible to the outlandish. Plausibility is not evidence. But that does not vitiate the need for more evidence -- an insufficiency only partly of the Commission's own making. But partly is still significant in an episode with many dimensions and penumbras.

Closing the books on the federal government's 9/11 Commission is a syndrome nourished by fatigue and the desire for "closure" or "for putting it behind" the nation. Unfortunately, the sense that the commission was unnecessarily incomplete and unfinished seems to be growing with more commentary, criticism, documentaries, rumors and charges. Other jurisdictions may see the need for extending the investigation -- most notably New York City, New York State, Virginia and Pennsylvania. An effort to establish such an independent commission of inquiry, by registered voters backing a referendum, seems to be continuing in New York City.

It helps our country little to stereotype the critics of the 9/11 Commission categorically. Their range covers nearly the entire spectrum of the human imagination, critical analysis, and capacity for suspicion. That is to be expected with major sudden traumas to a society. What should not be expected is to use stereotypes as the basis for dismissal of all the critics, regardless of the quality of their procedural and substantive queries. A further authoritative and properly funded inquiry is in order.

For starters, why not a four hour debate at the National Press Club (with an intermission) between a leading proponent of the 9/11 Commission's performance and a leading critic on the other side? This may join, clarify or jettison issues that have festered.

Nader Speaks at Ron Paul Press Conference

http://votenader.org/media/2008/09/10/paulpress/
Nader Speaks at Ron Paul Press Conference
Wednesday, September 10, 2008 at 12:00:00 AM
Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Toby Heaps, 202-441-6795, toby@votenader.org

RALPH NADER SPEAKS WITH RON PAUL AT PRESS CONFERENCE WHERE THE CONGRESSMAN URGES VOTERS TO BACK INDEPENDENT/THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES

Statement by Ralph Nader:

Today, along with other third party candidates, I joined Congressman Ron Paul to endorse a common agenda that stands up for the US Constitution by ending illegal wars and protecting the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We also jointly called for an immediate halt to the increase in the national debt, an end to corporate subsidies and taxpayer bailouts of corporations, and to start aggressively pursuing prosecution of corporations that commit crimes and frauds.

Both Congressman Paul and I also support holding President Bush and Dick Cheney to account for their transgressions against our Constitution.

Today's coming together of third party candidates marks the beginning of the realignment of American politics.

While Congressman Paul and I do not agree on all things -- such as health and safety regulations, health insurance systems, and how to handle areas where the market fails or is not up to the task of getting the best outcomes for the American people -- on the overriding foreign policy, reckless waste financed by deficit spending, and civil liberties issues of the day, we stand together. He is a stalwart who has consistently stood up for what he believes in and never wavered when he is opposed by the legions of commercial interests and lobbyists that swarm the Capitol.

Congressman Paul said today, "the strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems." He also called on his supporters to vote for Nader/Gonzalez or one of the other non-establishment, principled candidates, who support the joint statement issued today.

For all the millions of people who have broken free from the establishment parties' domination over our dwindling democracy, Nader/Gonzalez presents a clear choice. We welcome those who want to support a candidate who will stand against the war and stand up for civil liberties and privacy that have been trampled on by the notorious, misnamed, PATRIOT Act, the FISA 'snoop' Bill, and the unilateral dictates of the Bush/Cheney regime.

Some unfairly paint the Nader/Gonzalez candidacy as being for big government. Nothing could be more untrue. Nader/Gonzalez supports a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We agree with Congressman Paul that government is rife with waste and corporate demands, and needs to be scaled back in many areas -- most of all the bloated, wasteful US military budget, which is half of the government's total operating budget.

We are also against big government doling out hundreds of billions in corporate welfare, subsidies, and bailouts to companies.

We support abolishing income tax on the first $50,000 of income to be made up with a fraction of a percent Wall Street speculation tax, especially on derivatives.

The Nader Campaign was proud to stand today with Congressman Paul and other third party candidates to highlight the many fundamental positions where the two "major" parties are increasingly estranged from the American people.

For more information, visit http://votenader.org/media/2008/09/10/paulpress/.