Bernie Sanders introduces 'Stop BEZOS Act' in the Senate
The bill's acronym is a dig at Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and stands for Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies Act.It would establish a 100 percent tax on government benefits received by workers at companies with at least 500 employees, the former presidential candidate said on Wednesday.
(snip)
"Amazon is worth $1 TRILLION," Sanders tweeted Tuesday. "Thousands of Amazon workers have to rely on food stamps, Medicaid and public housing to survive. That is what a rigged economy looks like."
(snip)
The bill follows similar legislation introduced in Congress last summer by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The Corporate Responsibility and Taxpayer Protection Act currently has nine co-sponsors, including democratic Reps. Barbara Lee of California, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, and Eleanor Holmes Norton of the District.
"All this legislation is saying, is: Taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for paying the expenses of workers employed by multi-billion dollar companies," Khanna said. "The basic premise of the American dream is that if you work hard and you work for a company that's doing well, you should earn enough to support your family. Instead, we have an absurd situation where companies with a trillion dollars in market cap -- the wealthiest in the world -- with employees who don't make enough to support the basic needs of themselves and their families."
(snip)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/05/bernie-sanders-introduces-stop-bezos-act-senate/?utm_term=.3e481d0f5e71
dlk
(11,574 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,386 posts)comradebillyboy
(10,174 posts)by my reckoning.
Uncle Joe
(58,386 posts)to Bezo's value any minute now.
Power 2 the People
(2,437 posts)radical noodle
(8,010 posts)reminds me too much of trump.
Uncle Joe
(58,386 posts)depend on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid and other government programs to cover their families' basic needs.
I believe Bezos to be the wealthiest individual in the world and Amazon the second most valuable corporation at just over a trillion dollars next to Apple, so it makes perfect sense.
radical noodle
(8,010 posts)calling it BEZOS is over the top.
Uncle Joe
(58,386 posts)Whether he likes it or not Bezos has become a PRIME inspiration for this bill.
If the marketing moves the American People to act whether in protest or the voting booth, then even without the Republican Congress taking the bill up in this session, progress will still be made.
George II
(67,782 posts)Give me a jingle when it comes out of committee.
Thanks!
QC
(26,371 posts)He was pretty mean to the plutocrats!
JHan
(10,173 posts)He didn't alienate anyone, he was a coalition builder - building coalitions at times with problematic political allies ( like the Dixiecrats) And progressives weren't satisfied with him, The New Republic constantly attacked him.
FDR's economic approach was a balance of attracting business interests and pushing monopolies while expanding the federal government. He liberalized international trade, he saw it as a way to advance American Interests.
You can't judge a man by one speech he gave, FDR was about Balance and Triangulation
QC
(26,371 posts)He never alienated anyone, well, except for the oligarchs who tried to mount a military coup against him, and the wealthy anti-Semites who called him "Franklin Delano Rosenfeld."
When he said that he welcomed the hatred of those responsible for such evils as "business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking" and "war profiteering," he didn't really mean it. Mere dramatic license.
FDR truly was a Sensible Pragmatic Centrist and would probably be on the board of directors at Third Way if he were alive today. Any assertion to the contrary is fake news.
JHan
(10,173 posts)He ran in 1933 as a contrast to hoover, as challengers are wont to do. He promised to clean up corruption and FDR prevailed, not just because of his campaign strategy but also because Hoover was so awful.
As for Hoover, as Assistant Sec. of the Navy under Wilson, FDR once remarked that Hoover ( who was head of the US Food Administration) is a "wonder, and I wish we could make him President". If the net existed then, and FDR emailed that to a buddy, and it got leaked, all hell would break loose and people would say that Hoover and FDR are the same. ( but I digress)
FDR's speech in 1936 was a moment where he dipped in the well of populism, but that one speech is not the singular defining moment of his presidency. He liberalized trade because he saw it as a path to establish U.S dominance - unlike what some try to argue, free trade is not some modern clinton invention.
There's great irony in mentioning "the third way" to contrast FDR, when FDR was very much into triangulation. Historian Leuchtenburg described Roosevelt's "determination to serve as a balance wheel between management and labor
Despite the radical character of the 1934 elections, Roosevelt was still striving to hold together a coalition of all interests, and, despite rebuffs from businessmen and the conservative press, he was still seeking earnestly to hold business support."
And the New Deal itself was a story of compromise and triangulation. Social Security was not enough to cover all originally, and because of racism at the time, it marginalized jobs depended upon by many black people - jobs in agriculture and domestic labor. The reason for this was the Democratic Coalition which was an uneasy alliance between Southern Dixiecrats and Northern Liberals. And Roosevelt didn't want to antagonize the Dixiecrats too much - In the following mid-terms after that '36 speech, Dems suffered blowback to the New Deal, the '37 recession probably had a lot to do with it, and it was the Northern Liberals who got hit, not the Southerners.
See I don't view Presidents through rose colored glasses, neither do I engage in politics of nostalgia. FDR was a monumental leader, and he moved the country forward, but the 30's and 40's were a different era, with different challenges. And he wasn't a flawless President - there isn't a leader or politician on the planet who isn't "flawed" in one way or many ways.
The habit of lionizing FDR to shame modern Democrats or lionize modern politicians who we like is folly.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)it's about us. And about how back then we did amazing but imperfect things in the face of enormously imperfect political realities that nevertheless ushered in the greatest period of wellbeing and prosperity America's had to date.
Our turn.
JHan
(10,173 posts)"Imperfect political realities"
George II
(67,782 posts)samir.g
(835 posts)Along with facebook and twitter
Igel
(35,332 posts)Based on the simple fact that they deserve it, not the other person.
JHan
(10,173 posts)So I guess the goal here to have the Government force Amazon to sell its stocks to a public entity while giving a Scandinavian country people idealize the middle finger.
Genius.
Gothmog
(145,465 posts)Why am I not surprised that sanders is wrong on this http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/09/bernie-sanderss-bezos-bill-would-hurt-the-working-class.html#comments
The Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies (BEZOS) Act, which Sanders has co-sponsored with left-wing House Democrat Ro Khanna, imposes a tax on large corporations equal to the value of the social spending specifically, Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), rental subsidies, and free or reduced-price school meals collected by their employees. Its intent is to force these firms to raise their employees wages high enough so that they no longer qualify for public assistance, in order to avoid paying the new tax.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a center-left think tank, points out several crippling flaws in this proposal. Penalizing firms who have employees receiving federal benefits would create several perverse side effects. Those firms would have an incentive to avoid hiring employees more likely to receive Medicaid and other forms of assistance i.e., employees who have families or expensive medical needs. They would also be incentivized both to pressure their employees not to sign up for public assistance and to lobby politically against the expansion of social welfare benefits. State Medicaid expansion would become a large new cost to these companies, and the BEZOS Act would give them a new incentive to oppose it.
Cha
(297,462 posts)Thank You!
JHan
(10,173 posts)but raise objections or the possible effects from bad legislation risks you getting called a hater- risks you getting called a "neoliberal" , risks you getting called all the other nonsensical insults.
Since Rose Twitter likes to harass anyone who dares to raise concerns about any of Sander's proposals, I expect some Dems to publicly endorse while quietly rolling their eyes.
It's funny how Bezos has become public enemy no.1 for both Trump and Sanders. Amazon doesn't even employ half as much workers as Walmart, yet Sanders felt it necessary to use a backronym to name his bill targeting Bezos. How is Amazon symbolic of a Welfare subsidies drain?
Gothmog
(145,465 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Gothmog
(145,465 posts)The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank, raised some notable concerns about the bill. https://www.cbpp.org/poverty-and-inequality/sanders-khanna-bill-risks-unintended-side-effects-that-could-hurt-lower
In addition, some employers might pressure employees not to sign up for Medicaid or other benefits. And elements of the business community would likely lobby policymakers to reduce their tax bills by restricting eligibility and benefits for core low-income programs, which would be equivalent to a corporate tax cut. Large corporations also could become leading opponents of efforts in states to adopt the Affordable Care Acts Medicaid expansion, which, if adopted, would become a large new cost to firms under this bill.
The legislation also likely would not do much to raise wages. Companies that raise wages would have to do so for all workers in particular job categories, not just those who receive public benefits. That would be more expensive to companies than paying the tax penalty. In addition, some employers would likely seek to evade the tax penalty by contracting out to smaller firms, or otherwise outsourcing, various functions that their low-wage workers (many of whom may be eligible for the benefits in question) currently perform. The protections in the bill against contracting out arent likely to be very effective.
Moreover, the additional taxes that employers would pay under this legislation would not go to raise wages, unlike a minimum wage increase under which the additional cost to employers goes directly to raising workers pay. The legislation also would prove extremely difficult for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to administer.
brer cat
(24,588 posts)unemployable people.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Link to tweet
The CBPP has apparently sold out to the Waltons because they dare , they dareeeee to point out the flaws in the bill. How very dare theyy.
As one of the replies said, "Probably no think-tank has done more to explore/expose the impact of policy on the poor & middle class. "
They dare raise concerns, Gunnels' response is to not answer these concerns in any kind of thoughtful way.
Gunnel cannot argue that Sanders' history of sponsoring and co-sponsoring progressive bills are evidence that we should ignore CBPP's concerns and not approach this as if we were in a "policy vacuum" ( lolwut?). In any case, Sanders has no bona fides here, since these bills never passed Warren
Gunnel then misconstrues valid points about the impact of the bill on workers who depend on public assistance as some kind of stigmatization of poor people. Then he taps into populist outrage by declaring how bad all these billionaires are and we really oughta show them when grievance should never be the impetus of legislation. Pointing fingers at the chosen enemies of the Populist should never be the point of legislation. Legislation is implemented to improve conditions, not blame individuals.
The best part though..
"It doesnt allow corporations to discriminate against low-income workers. If any corporation discriminated against hiring workers who could qualify for public assistance their CEO should face stiff criminal and civil penalties." - Translation: "no way, it don't do that, no matter what you say it don't do that" . Well here's an idea: why wasn't this outcome stipulated or mentioned in the bill? Maybe that's something you should do, come up with a bill which addresses that??
"Its absurd to think this bill will spur CEOs to lobby for cuts to the social safety net. News flash: CEOs have been lobbying to privatize or cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and virtually every other program benefiting the working class since the 1930s." -
Actually, Corporations have been happy to let the government take up the slack. The Koch Brothers don't represent ALL Corporations Warren.
So in Gunnel's world: on the one hand, it's absurd to think CEO's will lobby cuts to the social safety net, but on the other hand, they've been lobbying for cuts to the safety net since the 1930's. With one sweeping contradictory tweet, he validates CBPP's concerns and he doesn't even realize it.
But let's be real here: The purpose of highlighting this bill is not to actually get it passed. When it doesn't get passed, and when Dems raise the very concerns the CBPP have articulated, it gives Sanders the excuse to once again frame critics of the bill ( who actually know what they're talking about and are acting in good faith) as "establishment" and part of the "elite" who have "lost touch with the common man" . In other words, we're going to see a repeat of 2016. Kind of like when Planned Parenthood didn't endorse him and he decided to call them the establishment.
Look, he needs to come better than this and his supporters should demand better.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)entity who did the analysis.
As we saw here on DU when factcheck.org was called "a gullible tool of the Koch bros" when it came to finding that something Sanders claimed was not supported.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,113 posts)instantly disappeared, please?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Factcheck.org, Politifact, CNN and WAPO for having the gall to fact check a statement by Senator Sanders and finding it lacking in accuracy.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016213850#post74
Eliot Rosewater
(31,113 posts)I dont want to take one more OUNCE of it in HERE!
Repeatedly sending up bills that cannot pass, CANNOT, solves nothing. In fact one could argue there is an agenda wrapped around the very fact that the bills cant pass and have a certain flavor to them.
Personally, I want single payer universal HC and believe it is doable and affordable and in the SAME way as the Nordic states even though we are bigger and all that other stuff.
I am also in favor of eliminating guns along the same manner Australia has done.
I could go on.
However, in this current climate neither of these can even be discussed let alone achieved. So, logic LOGIC dictates you proceed with small steps and you massage the egos and ideas over a few years and I could explain further but what you dont do is OVER and over submit bills you know cant pass.
Weird. do we have a head scratcher emoji?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)on the left.
2016 shot that theory to hell.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,113 posts)would have nixed ACA.
The you know who's decided right then and there he was no good, that they would NOT show up in 2010 to help him.
Then folks came along and reinforced that LIE about Obama that he was no good, too much like the other side.
That gurgled over into the 2016 campaign, making it near impossible for Hillary to get the full support she deserved.
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)Almost all businesses that fall into those categories pay minimum, or as close to minimum as they can get away with, and have since before I first started working back in the mid 70s. Plus they hire mostly part time and often don't offer benefits or very few.
If Bernie truly cares for the American working class, poor, seniors, disabled, veterans, etc than he should push harder for a federally mandatory 'Living Wage' not a 'Minimum Wage' and universal health care that covers all types of medical needs including dental, optical, mental health and low cost prescriptions.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)different than all those Democrats and progressive NGOs who have been working more effectively for the middle class and the poor.
Certainly he promotes the narrative that he and he alone has the answers, and is being attacked by nefarious forces like factcheck.org and and non-partisan independent think tanks who do the work of checking his statements ad legislation.
This legislation certainly was "different" and the analysis of it being harmful for the middle class was held up as a "corporate attack on Bernie for being so effective!"
That's fundraising gold.
It's an election year, and Tad Devine doesn't work for cheap.