TRANSCRIPT: Our Live Chat with Senator Bill Bradley

Clearly the current environment is not conducive to implementing many of the ideas you present in the book, with one vocal group going so far as to suggest that even talking to members of the other party is tantamount to treason.

So, how do we change the dynamic? Do politicians change first and be honest with their constituents, possibly risking their reelection? Or does the public have to change first and start being honest with themselves and the officials they elect to represent them?

Thank you for participating in this forum.

I love this question.

There have been times in American history when political difference have been irreconcilable. The time right before the Civil War comes to mind. But most often, political differences are resolved through political conflict, which, though vicious, is bloodless. Usually one of three things happen: one party wins decisively and enacts its agenda, such as the Democratic Party in 1964; or if the majority is narrowly divided between Republicans and Democrats (as it has been throughout my public life), the only way progress is made is by bipartisan cooperation. The third possibility, if there is no bipartisan cooperation, and one party does not have a decisive majority, is the emergence of a third party that addresses the real problems that the public faces, as opposed to playing games and partisan posturing that produces no tangible results for hard-working people in this country. I think that if neither party addresses the question of jobs in a convincing way, or the reduction of the role of money in politics, or the need for massive infrastructure to lay the foundation for economic growth in the 21st century, or the needed deficit reduction including spending cuts and higher taxes, there will be a third congressional party. Not a presidential party, but a congressional party of like-minded individuals who care about these 4 issues, and who run candidates in 50 congressional districts. If 25 congressmen and 2 senators won from this party - let's call it the "long-term party" - they would stand at the fulcrum of power in the Congress, and could trade votes to pass legislation that was in the interests of all the people that created the jobs at higher pay, that allow us to reduce the role of money in politics, that created hope for the future. But make no mistake, democracy is not a vicarious experience, and in the internet age as all of you know since you're participating in this discussion, apathy is not an option. The power that individual citizens have, given the capacity of social networking and organizing on the internet, has never been greater. We simply need to seize that power from the special interests that dominate our system. It will not be something controlled from above, but it will arise from millions of places below, where citizens will take the initiative. In a way, democracy is like a giant river, that begins with a single drop, that flows in to a small stream, a larger stream, a river, a bigger river, until it becomes something like the mighty Mississippi. One drop is one citizen. Combined together, it is a powerful river of democratic change.

Thanks for your response. It appears you believe the change must come from us, the people. I agree. We, the people, need to start being honest with ourselves so that we can lead our representatives.

We have a long way to go.

I've been hearing a good bit about China's economic investments in Africa lately. Africa is clearly a continent with vast natural and human resources and quite a bit of political diversity, uncertainty, and social justice issues. what ideas does the senator have for US investment and involvement with Africa, either in general or perspectives on specific countries or issues?

China has invested billions of dollars in Africa because it desperately needs the resources of Africa to fuel its economy, which must feed 1.3 billion people. They're building roads and ports and many other things in Africa to facilitate their extraction of resources, and exporting them to China. That is simply part of a larger Chinese strategy to influence the world with their economic power. They are building high-speed rail lines to drain the resources of Central Asia, Siberia, and Southeast Asia. They have in their plans building dams on the rivers that come out of the Himalayas such as the Mekong, which will allow them to control the economic destiny of Southeast Asian countries who depend on water, and do so without firing a shot. And they have even attempted to buy 200 square kilometers in Iceland, a country uniquely situated between Europe and the US, and strategically important because as global warming increases and the polar ice caps melt, to allow shipping from the Pacific to the Atlantic through the northern route to take place 10 months a year as opposed to 3 months a year. Iceland's importance is obvious. So, the Chinese are moving with their economic power in the world. Last October, I saw two stories in the New York Times. One story's headline said "Europe Goes To China To Ask For Investment In The Euro Rescue Fund." It was a story of Chinese economic power shaping the world. The story immediately next to it read "Western Business Looks For Investment In Libya," which was the story of us picking over the bones of our latest Mideast adventure. As we spent billions of dollars and millions of lives in wars on the other side of the globe, it's meant that there's less money to invest in places like Africa and even more importantly, in our own citizens at home. The Chinese know that the game of the 21st century is the economy. We continue to believe that the game is military action. We need to wake up, strengthen our own economy, understand the geopolitical economic moves, and make them. Our future depends on it. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue terrorists or have a powerful navy or an adaptable army, but it means the relative importance of the economy is much higher than it has ever been. We ignore that fact at our peril. Even the defense budget depends on a strong economy that produces sufficient revenues to provide us with security.

Do you have any ideas about what to do with all the college graduates that can't find jobs, yet they have tens of thousands in student loans? Do you think a program to put these graduates to work (perhaps in jobs others won't take) in exchange for help with payments might work?

The cost of college is exorbitant. There is a direct relation between the cost of college and the abdication of government from supporting our fine state universities across the country. It used to be that state legislatures subsidized higher education in states at diverse as Texas, Washington, and Vermont. Now, those state legislatures have cut back on supporting higher education. As a result, the costs have skyrocketed for the individual. There is no free lunch. You either pay taxes and have a great state university at a very low cost for state residents, or your pay less taxes and have exorbitant payments on our best and brightest when they finish college. For too long we have made the wrong choice, with the result today being that recent college graduates have exorbitant debt and no jobs. The most important thing for the economy as a whole is to have more jobs at higher pay. We do that by encouraging non-financial corporations who hold $1.8 trillion on their books, as cash and other liquid assets, to invest some of that money to hire people, including recent college graduates. If 20% of that money was used to hire people at the median income in America which is $49,000, the unemployment rate would be 5%.

If you could completely reform one part of our government/political process what would it be and why?

Great question.

The most important reform we could make in our political system is to reduce the role of money in our politics. In 2009 and 2010, the financial industry contributed $318 million to politicians in Washington. The health care industry contributed $145 million, and the energy industry contributed $75 million in that time period. It shouldn't be a surprise that we got watered-down financial reform, no public option to private insurance in health care reform, and the Congress didn't even get around to doing an energy bill, even as we send billions of dollars every day to autocrats on the other side of the globe. Money rests at the center of our problem in politics. To change politics, you must change money. The Supreme Court makes that very difficult because it has declared that "money is speech," and since you can't limit speech under the Constitution, you cannot limit money. Today, in this election, super PACs will spend hundreds of millions of dollars in support of their particular special interest. The only way we stop this and return government to the people begins necessarily with a constitutional amendment that reverses the Supreme Court's decisions and says that federal, state, and local governments may limit the amount of money in a political campaign. The act of passing that amendment, followed by public financing of political campaigns in Congress, would return our government to the people.

Great answer, thanks.

How refreshing to hear a call for doing better. I'll be working out west during this interview but look forward to reading it later. I subscribe to the Week. My most recent issue reveals the continuing global economic meltdown, the fraud that is rife in our banks, businesses, and local communities. Here is a quote from the Business page "in a recent poll of 500 financial workers in the U.S. And Britain, 24 per cent said they believe unethical behavior could help people in their industry be successful. Sixteen percent said they would commit insider trading if they knew they'd get away with it. Reuters.com.
How can we do better in a world where cheating is the accepted way to succeed?
Poor people are suffering everywhere but political advertising this year will approach $10 billion nationwide, according to Borrell Associates, a media consulting firm. $7 billion was spent in 2008. There has to be a better way to preserve fair elections without wasting so much money on slanderous hyperbole.

In response to the question "How can we do better in a world where cheating is the accepted way to succeed?":

I do not think that cheating is the accepted way to succeed. In the recent poll that questioner asserted, it's clear that while 24% said that unethical behavior could help people in their industry be successful, 76% said no, it would not be helpful. It is that 76% that our policies should honor. The financial crisis was caused by four public policy mistakes - it wasn't simply greed, which is as old as humanity. It's the public policy mistakes that allowed greed to run rampant.

The first policy mistake was to eliminate the legislation adopted in the 1930s that separated commercial banking from investment banking. The repeal of that law allowed large financial institutions to take gigantic risks with depositors' money. It also allowed the emergence of supersized financial institutions, that included not simply banking, investment banking, and insurance, but also rogue trading operations. In 1990, the ten largest banks had 10% of the nation's financial assets. By 2010, they had 75%. The result: When the bubble exploded, and the banks entered crisis, it hurt millions and millions of Americans.

The second public policy mistake was the law that was passed in 1999 by a Republican Congress, and signed by a Democratic president, President Clinton, that prohibited the regulation of derivatives - arcane forms of insurance used in speculation as well as legitimate purposes. The result was that even CEOs of major financial institutions had no idea about their vulnerability in the derivatives trading that took place in those years. The derivatives were just too complicated for all but a few to understand. But when the system blew up, what was understood by few became the problem of all of us, hurting millions of Americans.

The third mistake was when the SEC allowed banks to increase their leverage - what they borrow and invest - from 10 times their capital base, to 30 times their capital base. With so much leverage/borrowing, the scene was set for disaster. As Warren Buffett has said, think of leverage as a sharp-pointed sword in the middle of your steering wheel, 1/8 of an inch from your chest. Everything is going fine, until you have to hit the brakes. And when you hit the brakes, you're impaled on the sword. That is what happened to the American economy in 2008-10, because of excess leverage.

The final public policy mistake was the attempt to increase home ownership by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their standards. They were encouraged to lend money to people who had no capacity whatsoever to repay it. The result was higher earnings for banks, but disaster for millions of other people in our country who lost their homes.

These mistakes illustrate why what happens in Washington is critical to what happens on Main Street, or in your home, or with your bank account.

Thanks for responding to the first part of my question and a big HURRAH for your statement to Natasha that speaks to the second part of my question. Yes Sir, I agree that the most important reform we could make is to reduce the role of money in politics today!!

Hi everyone, please post your questions here for Senator Bill Bradley! We will begin the chat at 1 pm, and will approve the comment/questions as they are answered by Sen. Bradley.

I would love to ask him what he thinks Obama should do if he gets a second term. How can he be stronger than the forces constantly opposing him?

I think he should be very precise about what he wants to accomplish, and why the country needs his program. I think he ought to identify the 30 or 40 Republicans in Congress, who by virtue of their education, past votes and background could be termed "moderate." I think he ought to know more about those 40 Republicans than their mothers. I think he should call them to higher ground, to serve the national interest, and if they decline, I think he should begin calling their mothers, brothers, preachers, major employers in their districts, major contributors, and their favorite 4th grade teacher.

I know you are not here now, but I appreciate the answer. I don't even remember my 4th grade teacher, but it's a great idea!

Hi everyone, welcome to the chat! I'm pleased to spend some time with you today and answer your questions.

It's great to see you here today. Looking forward to getting some good insight and great advice!

Thanks for participating today.

Hello Senator Bradley. Welcome to Gather! We're looking forward to chatting with you for the next hour. To start things off, can you tell us why you wrote your new book "We Can All Do Better"?

In the summer of 2011, in the wake of the debt limit debacle, continuing economic stress on middle class families and two wars on the other side of the globe, people came up to me and asked if I thought our situation was hopeless. This book is an attempt to tell you why it's not hopeless, and why we are in control of our own destiny.

What is the political middle?

How can a person tell what is moderate and what is radical anymore?

Is there even a middle anymore? The way I hear the Tea Party talk, things are all one way or another to extremes, and they seem to have decided the political terms & values for all of us to debate with. In other words, everything now seems to be a reaction to the Tea Party and its extreme agenda (or was that an extreme thing for me to say?) ...

I don't think it's an extreme thing for you to say, because I believe the Tea Party is extreme. Look at what happened when 43 Tea Party Republicans were elected in 2010. In the summer of 2011, it was these 43 Tea Party Republicans that vetoed any agreement between President Obama and Speaker Boehner, and brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy in the debt limit debacle. The middle is still very wide. It simply means dealing with what most people want, which are more jobs at better pay, an education system that is high quality and affordable, health care for their family when their children get sick, and some confidence that if they work for 50 years they will have a secure retirement. That is the agenda of the middle.

We're a few minutes early, but let's get started with the chat, shall we? We have lots of questions to get to...

Some of our participants posted comments as early as yesterday, so be sure to look above and below this message to see new questions moderated in to the chat.

The Senator will try to get to as many of your questions as possible.

Please note that comments are moderated at this time so that you can more easily follow along with the questions that Senator Bradley is answering.

Hmmm, probably why there's so few comments~sorry I missed this!

How can we address climate change and global warming in such a way that doesn't end up politicized and polarized? It's a huge issue, and the rift between the deniers and believers in such changes is widening every day.

The gap between the believers and non believers may be widening, but the number of believers is increasing. I saw a poll that 75% of Americans believe that this summer's heat wave is the result of global warming. The tide is turning against those who would deny science.

It's been a great hour. Thank you Senator Bradley and participants for joining us today. We do apologize that we weren't able to get to all questions posted.

It's been a pleasure to have you all. Please share this post with others who would like to learn more about how "We Can All Do Better."

Thank you.

I am going to read the book and share it with others. It's comforting to know that Senator Bradley is a voice of hope and sanity for the future of our country.