Outsider in the White House (28 page)

Loopholes

•
Change how income of multinational corporations is allocated between nations: increased income—$143.5 billion.

•
Eliminate foreign tax credit for multinational corporations and subsidiary income exemption: increased income—$82.5 billion.

•
End U.S. firms' delay of tax on income of foreign subsidiaries: increased income—$5.7 billion.

•
Close loopholes for foreign-owned firms in the United States, including bond-interest exemptions: increased income—$1.9 billion.

•
Repeal housing and wage exemptions for U.S. citizens working abroad: increased income—$7.2 billion.

•
Eliminate the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC): increased income—$.560 billion.

•
Subject major foreign stockholders in U.S. companies to capital gains tax: increased income—$7 billion.

•
Reduce Export-Import Bank subsidies to foreign purchases of U.S. products, increase fees based on credit risk and direct loans to worthy firms in growing countries: increased income—$1.4 billion.

•
Tax capital gains at regular rate: increased income—$49 billion.

•
Repeal exemption on income earned by U.S. firms in Puerto Rico and other U.S. possessions: increased income—$19.7 billion.

Subsidies

•
Cap the home mortgage interest deduction at $300,000: increased income—$34.8 billion.

•
Reform standards allowing corporations to deduct equipment faster than it wears out: increased income—$160 billion.

•
Cap deductions for CEO pay, counting excess salary/stock options/perks as taxable profit: increased income—

$50 billion.

•
End deduction of advertising costs, instead depreciating 20 percent as a capital cost to build recognition: increased income—$18.3 billion.

•
End nuclear weapons production and test site costs: increased income—$3.06 billion.

•
Terminate the Advanced Neutron Source Project, Tokomak experiment and Gas Cooled Reactor: increased income—$9.1 billion.

•
Phase out grants for fossil and nuclear energy development: increased income—$2.3 billion.

•
Suspend purchases for Naval Petroleum, Oil Shale Reserve, Strategic Petroleum Reserve: increased income—$1.4 billion.

•
End funding for Clean Coal Technology research: increased income—$.330 billion.

•
End 1872 Mining Act's patent provision and set an 8 percent royalty on minerals recovered from public lands: increased income—$.300 billion.

•
Phase out Senatech and Technology Reinvestment Project subsidies: increased income—$1.5 billion.

•
End NASA's subsidy of U.S. aerospace firms: increased income—$1.8 billion.

•
Discontinue subsidies to foreign purchasers of U.S. defense products: increased income—$2.5 billion.

•
Raise fees to cover Securities and Exchange Commission and commodity market operation costs: increased income—$.400 billion.

•
Reduce subsidy of wealthy farmers by limiting payments to $50,000 per person: increased income—$.760 billion.

•
End subsidy of produce purchased by foreign consumers: increased income—$4.2 billion.

•
End subsidy of overseas advertising campaigns and trade shows for U.S. firms: increased income—$.5 billion.

•
End tobacco subsidies: increased income—$287 million.

•
Raise fees for grazing on public lands: increased income—$.280 billion.

•
Rescind new funding for highway projects that do not qualify under state transportation plans or highway grant programs: increased income—$2.6 billion.

•
Conduct competitive bidding for operating concessions at National Parks: increased income—$.280 billion.

Defense

•
Stop funding for 20 additional B-2 bombers: increased income—$30 billion.

•
Stop funding for Star Wars and space stations: increased income—$35 billion.

The total seven-year savings for such a budget deficit program is over $800 billion—enough to balance the budget in the year 2002. And these are only
some
of the savings that I, and other members of the Progressive Caucus, came up with. There was no question that we could move this country forward to a balanced budget without decimating the safety net on which tens of millions of Americans depend.

In October 1995, I introduced HR 2534, the Corporate Responsibility Act, which contained many of these provisions. While the fight against corporate welfare has been led by progressives in Congress, we've also had support from honest conservatives who are rightfully appalled at this waste of taxpayer dollars. As a result, the concept of corporate welfare is now filtering into the mainstream, and some legislation has been passed which is beginning to chip away at this outrageous waste of money.

I may not have the majority leader of the U.S. House campaigning for me, but I do have some of the funniest people in America lending a hand. In Washington, Al Franken, a star of
Saturday Night Live
, and author of
Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations
, does a fundraiser for us at the Eastern Marketplace and about 100 people show up, including a number of long-lost Vermonters. I had met Al during our joint appearance on the show
Politically Incorrect
with Bill Maher. (Although why I went on that show I will never know.) Al Franken is one of the funniest people in America, and he does not like Newt Gingrich and right-wing Republicans. He gives a hilarious performance.

Back in Burlington, Michael Moore, the filmmaker, television producer, and writer, is here to help the campaign, and I'm proud to have his support. His film
Roger and Me
is one of my favorites, and one of the most successful documentaries in American history. Moore is one of the very few media people in America with serious politics, a great sense of humor, and an ability to utilize the media effectively.

We only charge seven dollars for admission, so this is not going to raise a lot of money, but that's not the purpose. We want to bring out and politically energize a lot of young people who might have been familiar with Moore through his program
TV Nation
. Three hundred people turn out to see Moore in his now legendary baseball cap. There is no front to this man—he is exactly what he appears to be. Whether he's up on the stage, writing inscriptions in his bestselling book,
Downsize This! Random Threats of an Unarmed American
, or having dinner with Jane and me, he
is
unassuming, down to earth, and very funny. Moore is a big hit in Burlington. Unfortunately, there is almost no interest in his presence on the part of the local media.

But despite all of the lively fundraisers that we're having, I'm getting nervous. Sweetser now has not one but two negative ads on the air attacking me. How should we respond? (On a personal level, it is the damnedest thing to be lying in bed, watching TV, and out of nowhere comes an ad attacking you. If I live to be 500, I will never get used to that.)

In my view, and in the view of people who talked to me, the ads we're running are very good. Produced by Shrum, Devine and Donilon, they are straightforward and positive—addressing themes that I have long been associated with. I'm not sure how they did it, but they've even managed to make me look cheerful, optimistic, and friendly.

They show me with Vermont workers, senior citizens, and young people. They talk of my opposition to the Gingrich agenda. The ads speak to my concerns and effectiveness. One of them is sixty seconds, the rest thirty seconds. The
Burlington Free Press
conducted a focus group comparing Sweetser's ads to mine. The almost unanimous opinion of the group was that our ads were much better. But that was before the recent bombardment of Sweetser's negative spots. What impact are they having?

I have never run a negative TV ad in my life. I have never run a TV ad for the express purpose of attacking an opponent. I don't believe that Vermonters want to be subjected to a mudslinging campaign nor do I want to participate in one. But how do we respond to all of the dishonest ads that are now flooding the airwaves? Can we afford to ignore them? Should we respond? If so, how?

Our consultants tell us that their general rule is that you don't allow a deceptive ad to go unanswered; in one way or another you must respond. I discuss the options with my campaign advisers. Should we go negative on Sweetser? Nobody thinks we should. We decide to respond by exposing her inaccurate premises, and we ask our media people to produce an ad that corrects the record but does not attack Sweetser personally.

On October 22, we have a great event at the University of Vermont. Gloria Steinem is here to campaign for me, and over 500 students and community people overflow a large auditorium to hear her. I'm stunned and delighted by the size of the crowd, which is our largest of the campaign. Over and over we are being told that college students and Generation X are politically apathetic and concerned only about themselves. Well, not today. It's a beautiful sight.

Gloria is introduced by some of the most active people in the Vermont women's movement, Sally Conrad, Martha Abbott, and Judy Murphy. Her message is both analytic and deeply radical. She tells the students that it is no accident that there is a feeling of discouragement and disillusionment in America today. The Republicans, the right wing, the press with its insistence on sensationalism are all powerful forces that are changing the nature of politics.

The strategy of corporate America, Steinem tells the young people, is no longer to convince people to vote Republican or conservative. The new strategy is to convince them that there is no reason to vote at all, that everyone is crooked, nothing works right, that politics is corrupt and inefficient. But don't get discouraged, she tells them: progressives must fight
for
democracy or democracy will be eroded from under our feet. It is self-destructive for progressives to allow themselves to become disillusioned by the current political process. If the left does not participate, the right wing will only grow stronger.

The young audience listens intently and is very responsive to her message. Gloria makes me an “honorary woman,” and congratulates me “for having survived the 104th Congress.” It is one of the nicest moments of the campaign.

Sally Conrad, a popular former state senator from Chittenden County, is also very supportive. She says, “As we know, to be a feminist a person does not have to be a woman. A feminist is a person who challenges the power structure of our country. Bernie Sanders is that kind of feminist.”

Susan Sweetser, on the other hand, is not quite so kind regarding Steinem's visit: “What is really interesting to me is this is somebody who is supposed to be an outspoken advocate for women, and she comes here to campaign against the only woman who is running for statewide office here in Vermont.”

The new thirty-second spot responding to Sweetser's ad has come back from Tad Devine, the very talented media consultant with whom we're working. It's not quite what we had in mind. Jane and I talk to Tad on the phone. While the ad is by no means a “negative” ad, we still think it's too hard, and we ask him to soften it.

Now a group calling itself The Coalition: Americans Working for Real Change has started spending tens of thousands of dollars in “independent expenditures” and is flooding the airwaves with more negative TV ads against me. This group was formed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and is part of a coalition of thirty-three big business organizations. These wonderful folks, representing some of the biggest money interests in the country, have opposed raising the minimum wage and the Family and Medical Leave Act. They are down the line in support of the Gingrich right-wing agenda. And now they're spending a fortune trying to defeat me.

I read in a Washington newspaper that I am one of twelve members of Congress—two senators and ten members of the House—to be targeted by this group. Between their ads and Sweetser's there are now
four
different negative spots attacking me. Sweetser is also running positive ads. It is clear that big money is now rolling into her campaign. Her recent FEC report indicates that she has raised $26,000 in large contributions in the last week. Also, we learn that the NRA is making automated phone calls to their members in Vermont and has called for my defeat in its publication. The National Right to Work Organization, the major anti-union group in America, is sending an ugly letter around the state to the owners of small businesses.

Interestingly, WCAX-TV, the most Republican station, is refusing to accept the ads from “The Coalition.” WCAX has a longstanding policy against “independent expenditure” advocacy ads. From a civil liberties point of view, I have mixed feelings about this because groups advocating causes and positions are denied access to the airwaves, even when they are prepared to pay the going ad rates. For the moment, however, I must confess that “intellectual consistency” is taking a back seat to political reality. I'm delighted that corporate America cannot flood the largest station in the state with negative ads against me. I do
not
call up WCAX protesting their policy.

We get another version of the response ad back from Tad, our media consultant. It's more appropriate than their first try, and we discuss among ourselves whether we should air it. It is delivered to all of the TV stations—and is ready to go.

Meanwhile, we have now begun our radio advertising, which, given the dozens of radio stations in the state, takes an enormous amount of time to coordinate. Angela McDonald, Peter Timponey, and other campaign workers help to drive the ads to those stations where we want them to air immediately. We are running five separate radio ads. One is a soundtrack of our TV ad, another is a very funny ad done by my good friend, the great Vermont storyteller Mac Parker, and one is an ad on the environment featuring Robert Redford, which was arranged for me by the League of Conservation Voters. The others are straightforward statements by me of my views on the major issues of the campaign. I write the ads in the morning and record them in the afternoon.