AMY GOODMAN: On November 6th, 1990, Bernie Sanders won Vermont’s only seat in the House of Representatives, defeating a Republican incumbent by a sweeping 16% margin. The first independent elected to Congress in 40 years, Sanders won a historic victory for progressive politics in the United States, the first Democratic Socialist in modern American politics to defeat candidates from both major parties in a statewide election. Sanders won his third term in office on November 8th, 1994.

Now, it seems a little strange, in the midst of the Republican primaries that we’ve been covering, to be talking about progressive politics, to be talking to a Democratic Socialist, but what could be more appropriate right now is to hear a different voice. Bernie Sanders is also the founder of the Progressive Caucus, the Progressive Caucus in Congress.

And we welcome you to Democracy Now!

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Amy, it’s very nice to be with you.

AMY GOODMAN: I also want to let our listeners know that Salim Muwakkil is joining us from Chicago, Salim Muwakkil who is senior editor at In These Times and a columnist with the Chicago Sun-Times, and he’ll be joining in the discussion. Well, what is your reaction to what we’ve been seeing over the past few weeks, not just Arizona, but the primaries and caucuses so far?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think Larry made the basic points. I think the first point to be made is that the fabric of democracy in this country is now very, very weak. Let’s remember that the so-called Gingrich mandate came in with 38% of the people voting. Sixty-two percent of the people didn’t bother to vote. The vast majority of low-income people no longer participate in the political process or believe the process is relevant to their lives.

And the other point that Larry made that needs to be reiterated is the role of money in politics. Poor Bob Dole, who has for his whole life represented the rich and the powerful, is now on television bemoaning the fact that Steve Forbes bought the election. But that’s what the system is about. You have the money, you buy it. You buy big houses. You buy big cars. You buy big companies. You buy the presidency. Forbes, I believe, has spent something like $25 million. And remember, he’s spending most of that money only on a few states. He’s owning the television networks in those states, bombarding people with 30-second ads about the so-called flat tax, which is an absurd proposition. So, that’s — you have money in politics.

And the third issue that is also pretty frightening is, there was a study done recently by The Washington Post and some other groups talking about what people know about the political process. And it is frightening. And I think people who follow politics, who are involved in politics, don’t really realize what’s going out there, and not only the contempt, but the turnoff, the intellectual turnoff, that the vast majority of the people have toward politics. You have a situation where something like 75% of the American people cannot name the two senators from their state, two-thirds of the people cannot name who their congressperson is. They’re sure that everybody is doing a good job or a bad job — that, they know — but they just don’t quite know who it is. You have millions of Americans do not know today that the Republicans control the United States Congress. So you have a vast majority of our people who don’t know very much what’s going on, who are heavily influenced by 30-second ads.

Then you mix that with what the most important issue is. And that is that the corporate media and the two-party system, in a certain sense, have been lying profoundly to the American people about what’s going on in their economy. Just the other day, I read the umpteenth article — I think it was in The Washington Post — “Should Bill Clinton get credit for our booming economy?” These people are crazy. In other words, they keep talking about how the economy is doing very well. And they talk about the stock market being at record-level heights. They talk about corporate profits. They talk about unemployment being low, inflation being low. But what they are not talking about is that for 80% of the American people, since 1973, their income, their real income, has either stagnated or has gone down. Real wages for working people has declined by 18% since 1972. The gap between the rich and the poor has grown profoundly and is now wider than any other country on Earth. The new jobs being created for the young people, it is absolutely scandalous. When we talk about real wages in decline, it is a collapse for the young working people. Young male workers, leaving high school, going out in the job market, are making 30% less than was the case 15 years ago.

So, what the Democrats and Republicans and the corporate media are completely ignoring — and that’s an issue that Buchanan has picked up on — is that for the average American, that person is working longer hours for lower wages. That person is in an economic collapse.

SALIM MUWAKKIL: Representative Sanders, you know, we go back. I interviewed you when you were back in Vermont as mayor of Burlington. And one thing that always entranced me about you is how you manage to sell progressive policies to the so-called working people of Vermont. And it seems to me that that’s what progressives need to be able to do, I mean, to counter the kind of appeal of Buchanan. Why do you think that the right-wing populism or the appeal of someone like Buchanan, who brings a reactionary edge to this complaint, is finding so much success, and progressive forces aren’t?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Good question, Salim. And I think the answer is, in Vermont — what I think has to be done throughout this country — we talk about class issues. In fact, in Vermont, people go crazy. They say, “Bernie, don’t talk about it again. We’re tired of it,” because what we understand — and I think is true — is the average American is hurting, is frustrated, is furiously angry.

Pat Buchanan has not a clue about any solution to the problems facing the working class. But all he does do is tap on the anger. So he wants us to hate everybody, and that will be the solution to our economic problems. What you and I and progressives understand is, yes, people are angry. They should be angry. They should be furious. In my state, you have people now working not one job, not two jobs; you have people working three jobs. You have women who would prefer to stay home with the kids now being forced to go into the workforce. People are working longer hours for low wages. Our family farmers are being driven off of the land. People should be furious. They look to the future for their kids. What do they see? If you’re making $20,000 a year, how do you spend $25,000 a year sending your kid to college? People don’t have health insurance. So they are furious. And then Buchanan comes along, and it is a reactionary, racist, sexist, homophobic way. Well, the problem must be gays in America, must be Blacks in America, must be Japanese, Jews. You got the people, we’ll hate them.

And obviously, what we are trying to talk about to the workers of Vermont, with some success, is we ignore, you know, what the big shots say, and we say, “Yeah, you have a right to be angry. Let’s talk about a progressive agenda.” Pat Buchanan talk about raising the minimum wage? Of course not. Does Pat Buchanan talk about growing the trade union movement, helping workers organize? Of course not. Does he talk about a single-payer national healthcare system? Of course not. He has nothing to say. So, in Vermont — and I don’t want to overdo it — let me tell you, we have a lot of problems in Vermont — but what we have focused in on is the class issue.

AMY GOODMAN: But do you feel like there’s a candidate out there? I mean, on the one hand, you have Pat Buchanan, who is racist and a bigot, but he’s also anti-corporate, putting out a line that you don’t —

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: He’s a phony anti-corporate. In other words, the only thing — let’s be clear about this, OK? Let’s — what Buchanan has a right point on — I was one of the leaders in Congress against NAFTA. I think NAFTA has been a disaster. I think when we have a $160 billion trade deficit, I think we have to be terribly concerned about making radical changes in our trade policy. But Buchanan does not go further than that. A lot of his anti-trade — his anti-trade policy has to do with being anti-foreigner. I was watching television last night. He apparently threw foreign correspondents out of a room. I mean, so a lot of that stuff is phony on his part, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to talk about how you feel about President Clinton. While this is only one issue, in fact, he was extremely fiercely for NAFTA and paid off a lot of congressmembers, to the tune of millions of dollars, to buy their votes. But right now we have to take a break. You’re listening to Congressmember Bernie Sanders, three-termer from Vermont, the only Democratic Socialist in Congress, and founder of the Progressive Caucus, which we’re also going to be talking about. And on the line with us from Chicago is In These Times columnist, senior editor, Salim Muwakkil, who will be continuing to join us after the break. And then it’s Juan González of the Daily News, who will be talking to Dennis Rivera, who’s head of 1199, the local health and hospital workers’ union in New York, one of the most powerful unions, and they’ll be talking about national labor politics, all coming up on Democracy Now!

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: And you’re listening to Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. Joining me in the studios here at WPFW in Washington is Vermont Congressmember Bernie Sanders to comment on national politics and his own struggle within the Congress. Also, Salim Muwakkil of In These Times on the line with us from Chicago. And again, coming up, Dennis Rivera, head of 1199, with Juan González. Following up on that question about Bill Clinton and his pro-NAFTA stance, possibly the most corporate president we’ve had, how do you feel about him and his politics?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think you’re right. Clinton, clearly, probably worked harder for NAFTA than any single piece of legislation that we have seen. He is pro-GATT. His views on trade, if anything, are worse than George Bush. I think what we have to — I supported Clinton four years ago, because what I said, and I believe to be true, that four more years of Reaganomics and all the implications of that would have been a disaster for the American working class. We’re in a very, very difficult position. Very few people that I know have a great deal of confidence in Bill Clinton.

We give him credit for some things. He has been consistently pro-choice. He has not gotten this country, although the temptation is there, into any wars, where, you know, in the past, we invaded little countries, and you go up in the polls by 10 points. He has not done that. He has been reasonable on — when he first came in, for example, his original budget, which was much criticized, in fact, raised taxes on the rich, did the right thing, put some money into children’s programs. To some degree, he’s trying to defend education and so forth.

But, clearly, we know that, at best, Bill Clinton is a centrist president, heavily influenced by the big money interests, and on many of the key issues is not defending working people. And very few people have any enthusiastic support for Clinton.

The question is: What do we do now, and where do we go? And I think where we must begin to think is it’s in the direction of people like Tony Mazzocchi in the Labor Party, and talk about a third party which is based on working people. New Party is doing a good job in various areas of the country, building a grassroots movement. In the state of Vermont, we have been involved in third-party politics for 20 years. I was mayor of the city of Burlington for eight years as a third-party mayor. A third-party mayor is in power right now. So I think we’ve got to move in the direction of a broad-based, working-class third party. It is very, very difficult to do. We should not kid ourselves about how easy it would be. But I think that’s the direction that we’ve got to go.

SALIM MUWAKKIL: And also, in regards to that, some of Clinton’s failings, he also hasn’t spoken to issues of race. But, really, nor has the Democratic Party in any really substantial way. I think that failure to address this continuing problem has allowed the Republicans to kind of define the issue and, I think, open the way for Buchanan’s rabid expression of it. How do you respond to that?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I tend to agree with you. I think what’s happening, there is a huge gap out there. I think what Clinton is trying to do now is say, “Vote for me. I am not Newt Gingrich, and I am not Pat Buchanan.” And he’s not. I mean, he’s not Newt Gingrich, and he’s not Pat Buchanan.

But does Bill Clinton speak to the aspirations and the hopes of people of color, of working people, in general? And the answer is very clearly not. And therefore, you have this huge gap out there. I mean, what this election probably will be about is Bill Clinton may well win because he’s not a total reactionary. But then you have tens and tens of millions of people who are hopeless, who are frightened about the future, have nowhere to turn.

SALIM MUWAKKIL: Exactly.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: And that is — that’s the dilemma of American politics right now.

And I think there are two things that we’ve got to do. Number one, in my view, Salim — and, you know, people may agree or disagree with me — I think that the class issue is the fundamental issue. And I think that the great secret that we’re not allowed to talk about on corporate media — and I want to congratulate Radio Pacifica; you know, we don’t congratulate ourselves enough, but the fact that you have a national radio network that is allowing serious people on the left to talk is extraordinarily important — is that what goes on in America — Larry talked about it a few moments ago — is the role of money in politics.

You have — just stay — you know, take a step back, and you look at the absurdity. Steve Forbes is — nobody knew who Steve Forbes was in two months — two months ago, and probably four months from now, nobody will know who he is again. It’s a question of buying elections. Ross Perot buys elections. Twenty-five percent of the great revolutionary freshman class are millionaires themselves, broke all the records for getting corporate PACs. Big money dominates the economic life of our country. They decide whether our jobs go to China or reinvested in America. They own the political system. Republican Party had a fundraiser here last month, $16 million in one night. Gingrich goes out around the country, $10,000-a-plate fundraising. That’s the issue. And the — I’m sorry.

SALIM MUWAKKIL: Well, Representative Sanders, that issue is — I agree. I mean, it’s very compelling when — it’s one that apparently attracts attention, because Pat Buchanan demonstrates it. But it seems to always be trumped by issues of race. I mean, during — when the populists put the farmers and the working people together, race came in and destroyed that whole notion of unity. It seems that we are hung up on an issue that we refuse to face and deal with. And I’m wondering: Is there any — is there any sense on your part that we need to be more explicit in the way we deal with issues of race?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: I think, absolutely. I mean, of course we do. But I think, ultimately, a lot of what white — you know, I don’t think that a white baby wakes up, you know, at 2 months of age and says, you know, “I’m going to dislike people of color. I’m a racist.” I think what the Buchanans of the world are able to do is, when — is racism thrives. You remember what happened in the South in the ’40s and the ’50s. The white working class in the South was the lowest-paid, most exploited white workers in the entire country. Correct? What did they have going for them, if they had terrible wages, terrible education, terrible living conditions? They could drink out of a white water fountain.

SALIM MUWAKKIL: That’s exactly right.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: They could go to a white bathroom. Boy, wasn’t that terrific! That’s what they had. And it’s no secret. So I think that racism has been used historically — and you know this better than I do — to divide working people. And our goal is to bring — you know, is every Black businessman a progressive? I don’t think so. But the goal is to bring Black and white workers together.

And we have seen it. In the early days, you know, way back when, it was very interesting. I attended a UAW meeting in Black Lake, Michigan, some years back, and what really impressed me, a lot of the older workers were there, retired workers, and you had people who had worked together in the ’40s, you know, when there was an enormous amount of racism going on in this country, where half — you know, the South was segregated. These people were close, on a very deep level, a lot more than liberals sometimes get together. They were close because they struggled together on the picket lines, and they knew their families, and so forth and so on.

So, I think, ultimately, yes, we’ve got to deal frontally with the ugliness of racism, but we’ve also got to understand that Black workers and white workers and the middle class have come together to take on the big money interests.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Sanders, you talk about Pat Buchanan and the ugliness of his bigotry. But isn’t he really, actually, a very good thing for the Republican Party, because it makes people like Dole look like they’re not the things that Pat Buchanan is? But, in fact, Pat Buchanan has got the hot air, he’s got the words, and that can shape public opinion, since he’s got CNN when he’s not running for president. But you’ve got Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, who is passing legislation. You’ve got people like Newt Gingrich in the House, who’s been pretty quiet on Pat Buchanan. But you’ve got them, who are — they may not be using the same exact words, but they are going after the very same people Pat Buchanan is going after.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: That’s right. And there’s no question. I mean, no question that what’s going on now — and you’re right, there’s an irony here, in that — you know, we keep thinking — it’s funny. Now people call Bob Dole a moderate. Bob Dole is not a moderate. Bob Dole is an extremely conservative person. Newt Gingrich is almost looking like a moderate compared to the right-wing freshman members, because then now you’ve got Pat Buchanan making them all, you know, great left-wingers here. But if your point is that the whole Republican establishment has moved extremely far to the right, let — I know we don’t talk about the Contract with America. That’s now old news, because we have Pat Buchanan to talk about. The Contract with America and the Republican budget is the most atrocious attack on working people and low-income people in the history of the United States of America. And I suppose that doesn’t look so bad compared to Pat Buchanan. But that is the reality.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s talk about some of the issues you’ve taken on over the years, the issues that we do not hear in the media almost at all — for example, your call for a slashing of the military budget.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: One of the disgraces that’s going on — oops, I’m sorry, knocked the microphone. One of the disgraces that is going on is that at a time when the Republicans are talking about savage cutbacks in Medicare and Medicaid and education, environmental protection, so forth, and Clinton is going halfway toward their goals, at the same time both Clinton and many Democrats and almost all Republicans are supporting a $60 billion increase in defense spending over a seven-year period, including — I mean, you’re really off into the far end now. I mean, you’re really off into Loo Loo Land. The Cold War is over. The Soviet Union doesn’t exist. Communism virtually does not exist, at least in Europe. We continue to put $100 billion a year to defend Europe and Asia. No one quite knows what we’re defending there, but $100 billion a year. And then the Republicans want to build 20 new B-2 bombers at a billion-and-a-half dollars a plane. The entire budget of my small state of Vermont is about a billion-and-a-half dollars for one year. Twenty new B-2 bombers that the Pentagon doesn’t even want. And then they tell us that they have to cut back on education, they have to cut back on programs for low-income people, nutrition, and so forth and so on. You’re really off in Loo Loo Land. And this is an area where there has been bipartisan support, no question about that.

AMY GOODMAN: How often are you called — how often are you called by the mainstream media to debate this issue?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Military, not very much. That has not been an issue. You know, I get on occasionally in the mainstream media. But the issue of the military spending, or the CIA — Major Owens of Brooklyn and I brought forth what I think is a pretty conservative resolution that would have called for a 10% cut in the intelligence budget, CIA and the other intelligence budgets. We got less than a hundred votes this time. That issue is — that’s consensus. That’s bipartisan. We all know that despite the end of the Cold War and the needs of working people in America, that we must spend another $60 billion on the — everybody agrees on that, right? You know, the media does, the Democrats do, and the Republicans do.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Sanders, before we move on, we have a little surprise for you.

MAYOR BERNIE SANDERS: [singing] As I went walking that ribbon of highway
I saw above me that endless skyway
I saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me.

CHORUS: [singing] This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York island.

AMY GOODMAN: Bernie Sanders, if you ever want to run for president, you could subsidize your campaign by selling your tape.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: Bernie Sanders and 30 Vermont artists in “We Shall Overcome” and other pop favorites.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: And as people can clearly hear, the good voices were theirs; the poor voice was mine.

AMY GOODMAN: You’re listening to third-termer, Bernie Sanders. Did you sing this before you went into Congress?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: I spoke it.

AMY GOODMAN: Spoke it, excuse me.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: I don’t even try to sing. Yes, I was mayor at the time.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re also joined by Salim Muwakkil, who is senior editor at In These Times in Chicago, as we talk about a progressive politics in this country. Salim, I heard you wanted to say something before that lovely aria.

SALIM MUWAKKIL: I just wanted to hear what Bernie’s idea — how he felt about E.J. Dionne’s contention that a progressive era is upon us.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Yes and no. I think it’s not impossible. I think if we can get — what we have to understand — and I think as you’ve already stated and as Larry stated earlier, nobody believes in what’s going on right now. You know, Steve Forbes spends $4 million, he wins a primary. Harry Jones will spend $12 million, he’ll win a primary. Three weeks later, no one remembers who these guys are. Most people — I mean, the polls show this over and over again. Nobody believes in the Democratic Party. Nobody believes in the Republican Party. Then, what the media tries to do, by the way, it’s a riot. For years, people like myself and many others said, “We need a third party in America.” And everybody goes, “Don’t be silly. America is a two-party system. That’s the way it is. That’s the way it has always been.”

Suddenly, when the two-party system collapses, then they want a third party with Ross Perot, with Bill Bradley, with Colin Powell, people who are exactly, you know, moderate Republican types. So, I think the feeling is now that people don’t look to the two-party system. The feeling is that people are angry and frustrated. It is intolerable. Nobody can defend, Salim, it seems to me, a situation where the richest 1% of the population now owns more wealth than the bottom 90%, where the CEOs of the major corporations now make 200 times what their working people make, right? No one can defend that.

SALIM MUWAKKIL: No one can defend it.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: And no one even tries to defend it. So, the question, though, is: People’s frustration is there; do we have the infrastructure, the resources to get the word out to build a third party? And is it possible? I think it is possible. Is it sure that we’re going to be able to do it? No, it’s not.

AMY GOODMAN: How did you do it in Vermont? When you first ran for mayor of Burlington, you were an independent.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, Amy, what you should know — and this is an important point to know — we are not like Steve Forbes. My daddy and mommy did not leave me $500 million. They didn’t leave me anything.’

AMY GOODMAN: They didn’t love you?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: They loved me very much, but they didn’t quite leave me the 500 million.

So, what we did is — and it was done before I was involved. In 1968, I believe, in Vermont — and you have to remember, though, Vermont is a small state. We have probably 25 different radio stations, in small towns that have, you know, 8,000 people. We have 11 daily newspapers, and so forth and so on. But in the late ’60s, both out of the opposition to the Vietnam War and also the plight of working people, in Vermont, a number of people came together, they started a party called the Liberty Union Party. I ran for governor and senator for that party in the early ’70s, ’71, ’72, ’74, ’76, got up to 6% of the vote. But in all of the races, you had three parties. Vermonters, now for over 20 years, are used to at least three people being in the debates. They have seen alternatives to the Democratic and Republican Party.

I was elected by 10 votes in 1981 running as an independent. The day after I won, I knew that we had to build a movement if we were going to go anyplace. And that movement is now probably — it is — the dominant political force in the city of Burlington. We have a statewide coalition, which is not a political party. It is strong. I don’t know that we’re as strong as the Republicans in terms of our grassroots support. But, you know, we have our problems there. But I want to point out, we have been doing it for 25 years in one small state. And that’s how you make up for the lack of $500 million. So, you’ve got to do it over and over again. People, I think, on the left, you know, get discouraged: “Gee, we did something, and, golly, gee, we didn’t succeed. I’m all burnt out. I’m going home.” It takes a long time and a lot of hard work and determination to build a progressive movement.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about these caucus hearings that are going to be taking place on International Women’s Day, on March 8th, the Progressive Caucus? Now, Progressive Caucus is made up of 50 members. That’s 10% of the House?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: That’s right, a little bit more than 10%. Let me just say a word on it. Thank you for asking me, because we consider this to be very important. When I was first elected in 1990, one of the things that surprised me is that we had all known about the Black Caucus being essentially the Progressive Caucus in the Congress, but it seemed to me there were a lot of white members, there were a lot of Hispanic members, there were a lot of other people who also were progressives. So, what we did, after I was elected, I sat down with folks like Ron Dellums of California and Maxine Waters of California and Pete DeFazio of Oregon and Lane Evans of Illinois, and we sat down and said, “Let’s build a Progressive Caucus, as well, to bring more people together.” We started with five. We now are — with the election of Jesse Jackson Jr., we’re now up to 50.

What we are going to be doing on March 8th, I think, is very, very important. The rough title of the hearing is going to be “The Collapse of the Middle Class: What’s Going On, and How Do We Remedy It?” What we are going to do is bring working people, low-income workers, middle-class workers, the people who are being laid off from Lockheed Martin, the people who are being laid off from AT&T, the people who are trying to get by on five or six bucks an hour, and they’re going to tell us how great this economy is. You know, we hear about all the jobs that are being created, the economy is booming. Well, they’re going to tell us what happens to a 50-year-old worker who’s making $30,000 or $40,000 a year and loses his or her job. And we’re going to find out about how you survive on five or six bucks an hour.

And then what we’re going to do is we have some people who, you know, have some economic background. I think, in fact, former Governor Mario Cuomo will be testifying, as well, who’s done some work on us, talk about what’s going on in terms of the income gap and the growing gap between the rich and the poor. We’re going to have [Wallace] Peterson, who wrote a very good book called the Silent Depression, which is, I think, a very apt title for what’s going on right now. We’re going to have some folks from the Economic Policy Institute analyzing what’s going on.

So, we’re going to do it both from a human point of view — we’re going to talk to workers who are really suffering the brunt of what’s going on in this economy, and economists who can perhaps explain to us what’s going on. And also we want some ideas as to how we can turn the economic situation around, get wages to rise in this country, get companies to reinvest in America. And it’s going to be a very important hearing.

SALIM MUWAKKIL: And an excellent opportunity to draw a distinction between your ideas and those of Pat Buchanan.

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: You got it. You got it, Salim. That’s exactly right.

AMY GOODMAN: What’s your alternative to Steve Forbes’s flat tax?

REP. BERNIE SANDERS: It’s a very old-fashioned idea. I know, I’m kind of boring and old-fashioned about this, but I think when the richest 1% of the people, who are basically getting all of the increased income now, and the richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 90% — I know this will shock people — I kind of think it’s appropriate to tax those people who have the money. So I believe in an old-fashioned idea called the progressive income tax. I think it should be simple. I think we do away with all of the corporate loopholes. I think corporations should be starting to pay their fair share of taxes. In that way, I think you can stabilize and/or lower taxes on the middle class and on working people. Right now if you had the same tax rates as we had in 1977 for the upper-income people, we’d have $80 billion more a year coming into the federal coffers alone. So I believe in a simple, straightforward progressive income tax.

AMY GOODMAN: Bernie Sanders, we want to thank you very much for joining us, third-term Vermont congressmember, founder of the Progressive Caucus. And I want to remind our listeners that every single Wednesday, we will be bringing you members of the Progressive Caucus and other members in debate and discussion. Last week, it was Eleanor Holmes Norton talking about a future vision of America, which might be beginning right now. Salim Muwakkil, senior editor of In These Times in Chicago, thanks for joining us, and we’ll see you tomorrow. We’re headed out to California, as well, where we’ll be broadcasting tomorrow and Friday from the Media and Democracy Congress to talk about media and bringing democracy to the media, which is a critical point in this day and age. You’re listening to Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. Coming up in just a minute, Juan González of the Daily News and Dennis Rivera, union leader in New York.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: And you’re listening to Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. By the way, that “We Shall Overcome,” that was narrated, I guess you could say, by Bernie Sanders and 30 Vermont artists, you can get a copy of the tape, if you’d like. You can call White Crow Records at 802-658-1270. That’s 802-658-1270.