Bernie Sanders' Net Worth

With Bernie Sanders repeatedly talking about taxing "the rich", I thought it was prudent to take a quick look at his net worth as he declared on his annual Senate financial disclosure for 2018.  

Let's start by looking at his non-investment earnings outside of his Senate annual salary of $174,000:

City of Burlington, VT pension - $5,240.52

McMillan - St. Martin's Press book royalties - $391,000

Verso Publications book royalties - $1,810.37

Todd R. Lockwood Works royalties - $109.82

This brings Senator Sanders total non-investment earnings in calendar 2018 to $398,160.71 and when his Senate salary is included, his total non-investment earnings for 2018 were $572,160.71.

Now, let's look at his assets as shown on these screen captures from his financial disclosure:

Since the value of the assets are only declared in ranges, here are the two key numbers:

Minimum Value of Assets - $427,027

Maximum Value of Assets - $1,305,000

It is also important to note that the $250,001 to $500,000 that is currently on deposit at the U.S. Senate Federal Credit Union is being held for tax payments on the proceeds of the sale of Sanders' book.

When it comes to Senator Sanders' liabilities, there is only one:

Finally, here is a complete list of Senator Sanders' reportable agreements, all of which are royalty agreements from his books and "We Shall Overcome" album:

While Bernie Sanders makes far more than a median American household as shown here:

...his net worth (excluding the value of his homes in Vermont and Washington) is really rather modest given that his annual salary has ranged from $125,100 (in 1991 when he was the Representative from Vermont's at-large district) to its current level of $174,000.  Compared to other members of Congress like Rep. Darrell Issa (net worth $283.3 million), Rep. Greg Gianforte (net worth $135.7 million) and fellow Senator Mark Warner (net worth $90.2 million), Bernie Sanders is almost Main Street when it comes to his net worth.  If it weren't for his book writing skills, outside of his Senate salary, he would be pretty much average.

Fundraising 2016 - The American Political Pastime

Thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics and their Open Secrets website, we can easily get a glimpse into the money behind the remaining presidential candidates. 

Thus far in the 2016 cycle, all candidates have raised a total of $837 million and Super PACs that support them have raised $462 million for a total of $1.299 billion.  Here is a graphic showing the data for the remaining five candidates:

For completeness sake, here is the same data for the "also rans" who found themselves on the losing side of the primary race:

Let's look at some details for the top three candidates starting with Ms. Clinton.  Here is a graphic showing her fundraising totals and expenditures for her campaign committee as well as her political action committees:

Ms. Clinton's campaign committee has raised $229,303,008 and spent $186,841,222 leaving it with cash on hand of $42.461 million.  Additionally, outside groups have raised $84,815,067 and spent $38,332,454 leaving them with $46.483 million in the bank.  

Here is a graphic showing the source of funds:

Only 20 percent of Ms. Clinton's individual contributions have come from small contributors (i.e. Main Street USA).

Here is a table showing independent expenditures both for and against Hillary Clinton:

Organizations and individuals are allowed to spend unlimited money to either advocate for or campaign against their chosen candidate/target.  

Here is a screen capture showing both the states and metropolitan areas that have, so far, been the top donors to Ms. Clinton's run for the Oval Office:

Lastly for Ms. Clinton, here is a table showing the industries that are the top donors to her 2016 campaign:

Not terribly surprising given her penchant for speaking to the securities/investment/banking sector for quarter of a million dollar plus paydays, the Securities and Investment industry is her largest donor.  This also explains the dominance of New York as the metropolitan area that is, by a wide margin, her biggest financial supporter.

Now, let's look at the same data for Mr. Sanders.  Here is a graphic showing his fundraising totals and expenditures for his campaign as well as his political action committees:

Mr. Sanders' campaign committee has raised a total of $222,191,776 and spent $212,956,384 leaving it with cash on hand of $9.235 million.  Outside groups have raised only $610,185, a tiny fraction of the $84.8 million raised by outside groups supporting Ms. Clinton.

Here is a graphic showing the source of the funds:

Again, in sharp contrast to Ms. Clinton, 60 percent of Mr. Sanders' individual contributions have come from small contributors compared to only 20 percent for Ms. Clinton.

Here is a table showing independent expenditures both for and against Mr. Sanders:

Compared to Ms. Clinton, the anti-Sanders spending has been very small, totalling less than $900,000 compared to Ms. Clinton's anti-Clinton independent expenditures of more than $7.7 million.

Here is a graphic showing both the states and metropolitan areas that have been the top donors for Mr. Sanders' campaign so far:

His geographic spread is much less concentrated than Ms. Clinton.  In her case, she received over $50.5 million from her top donating metropolitan area (New York City) compared to only $4.849 million for Mr. Sanders' top donating metropolitan area (again, New York City).

Lastly for Mr. Sanders, here is a graphic showing the industries that are the top donors to his 2016 campaign:

Again, in sharp contrast to Ms. Clinton, the Securities and Investment industry doesn't even appear on his top 20 donors list which is actually composed of a much broader and more "Main Street" sampling of U.S. industries.

Now, let's look at the campaign financing of the last Republican man standing, Donald Trump.  Here is a graphic showing his fundraising totals and expenditures for his campaign as well as his political action committees:

So far, his campaign committee has raised $63,055,659 and spent $61,766,152 leaving it with cash on hand of $1,289,508.  Outside groups have raised only $3,294,908 and spent $2,963,523, again, a tiny fraction of Hillary Clinton's total outside spending.  

Here is a graphic showing a breakdown of Mr. Trump's campaign financing:

In contrast to his Democratic rivals, Mr. Trump has self-financed his campaign to the tune of $45,703,185 or 72 percent of the total.  Of the remaining 27 percent, 20 percent has come from small individual contributors and 7 percent has come from large individual contributors.

Here is a table showing independent expenditures both for and against Mr. Trump:

Like Ms. Clinton, there is a great deal of independent money being spent against Mr. Trump's campaign.  Thus far, over $63 million has been spent by Mr. Trump's foes, handily beating the anti-Clinton independent expenditures of "only" $7.7 million.

Here is a graphic showing both the states and metropolitan areas that have been the top donors for Mr. Trump's campaign so far:

Here are the industries that have been the top donors to Mr. Trump's campaign:

Given that his campaign is mainly self-funded, I guess we could say that the real estate industry is primarily responsible for most of his campaign funding.

In closing, when you look at the data behind the headline numbers, I find it quite interesting that two of the candidates, Mr. Trump and Mr. Sanders, are running what can best be termed a "grass roots" campaign with Mr. Sanders heavily relying on small donors from a wide range of industries funding his campaign, similar to what Mr. Trump has done if one excludes his self-funding which, in itself, is quite anomalous.  This is in sharp contrast to Ms. Clinton who has appealed strongly to wealthier donors, concentrated in one geographic region and one industry, an industry that has provided the Clinton family with tens of millions of dollars in income outside of the political theatre. 

Bernie Sanders' Tax Plan - Who Wins and Who Loses?

In part one of this two-part posting, I looked at the few details that we have from Hillary Clinton's tax plan for America.  Unfortunately, as I noted, she has not fully released her tax plan for lower- and middle-income Americans so, as it stands now, her tax plan looks far more palatable than her competitor, Bernie Sanders, who has "bared his tax soul" for all to see.

Thanks to the Tax Policy Center, we have a full analysis of Mr. Sanders' tax plan.  Mr. Sanders' plan proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll business and estate taxes and adds two large excise tax programs.  This increased revenue will be used to pay for new government programs including free tuition at public post-secondary institutions, a single-payer health care program and paid family and medical leave.  Here is a more detailed breakdown:

1.) Individual Income Taxes:  Here is a table showing how the Sanders' tax plan will impact tax rates and how his proposals compare to current tax rates:

Tax rates for all income levels are increased through the use of a 2.2 percent surtax on all taxable income.  As well, the rate of taxes on capital gains, dividends and other investment income for the top three tax brackets will rise from between 15 and 20 percent to 28 percent.  In addition, net investment income is subject to an additional 3.8 percent surtax if the taxpayer's income exceeds $200,000 or $250,000 for couples.

Here's what will happen to marginal tax rates under the Sanders' plan:

The top marginal tax rate will hit a post-Reagan era high of 54.2 percent but will still be below the 70 percent rate in effect prior to enactment of the Economic Recovery and Tax Act of 1981.

2.) Business Taxes:  The Sanders' tax plan proposes measures that will change the tax treatment of foreign profits earned by U.S. multinationals.  Under the current system, U.S. companies can defer foreign earnings until they repatriate these earnings under a scheme known as "deferral".  Under the Sanders' tax plan, deferrals will be ended.  The Sanders' tax plan will also impact corporate inversions (as discussed in the posting on the Clinton tax plan); companies with central management in the United States will be taxed as U.S. resident corporations meaning that inversions can no longer take place simply by changing where a corporation is chartered.  As well, earnings stripping (also discussed in the posting on the Clinton tax plan) will be less advantageous; the Sanders' tax plan will limit a company's U.S. interest deductions if the company’s net interest expenses for US tax purposes exceed its net interest expenses on consolidated financial statements, the same as the Clinton tax plan.  Pass-through businesses (i.e. sole proprietorships and partnerships) are currently not subject to corporate income taxes and the net income of the business is taxed only when it is declared as ordinary income by its owner.  Since a significant portion of the income received by high-income earners comes from their participation in pass-through businesses, Mr. Sanders' proposals to increase individual income taxes, particularly for the highest income earners, will have a significant impact on income earned by pass-through business owners.

3.) Estate and Gift Taxes:  Increases in the federal estate and gift taxes will be used to finance Mr. Sanders' new health insurance program.  He would restore the 2009 exemption level of $3.5 million and transfers between spouses will remain exempt.  The current 40 percent tax rate would be replaced with a tax rate based on the size of the estate, graduating from 45 percent on an estate valued between $3.5 million and $10 million, rising to 55 percent on an estate valued in excess of $50 million.  Estates valued at more than $500 million would be subjected to a 10 percent surtax.  It is estimated that approximated 10,500 estates would be impacted by these changes in 2017.

4.) Payroll Taxes:  Mr. Sanders proposes a new 6.2 percent payroll tax to be paid by employers to finance his universal Medicare program which would apply to all earnings.  He also proposes a new 0.2 percent payroll tax paid by both employers and employees on wages up to the Social Security taxable maximum.  His plan would also apply the current 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax to earnings over $250,000 to pay for his expanded Social Security benefits.

5.) Excise taxes:  The Sanders' tax proposal includes new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon.  The financial transaction tax would tax stock sales at 0.500 percent, bond sales at 0.100 percent and derivative contracts at 0.005 percent.  Revenues from this tax would be used to reduce student loan debt and make post-secondary education at public institutions free.  The carbon tax would start at $15 per ton of carbon dioxide in 2017, phasing up to $73 per ton in 2035 and rising by 5 percent plus the inflation rate in subsequent years as shown on this table:

The carbon tax would be imposed on coal, petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas.  Receipts from the carbon tax would be distributed to taxpayers as a quarterly rebate and would phase out for taxpayers with incomes over $100,000.

Let's summarize.  Here is a table showing how the Sanders' tax plan will impact federal income taxes by income level:

In 2017, the Sanders' tax plan would increase tax burdens by an average of nearly $9000 and reduce after-tax income by approximately 12.4 percent.  The average tax increase for the lowest-income families would be $165 compared to $4700 for middle income families and $45,000 for the top fifth of families.

The Tax Policy Centre estimates that the Sanders' tax policy changes would increase federal tax revenues by $15.337 trillion between 2016 and 2026 with the new 6.2 percent health care payroll tax accounting for 28 percent of the additional receipts.  If these new receipts were used to reduce the federal debt, including reduced interest costs, the debt could be reduced by $18 trillion through to 2026 and $56 trillion through 2036.  However, there is a fly in the ointment; the Sanders' tax plan proposes to use the increased tax receipts to fund new government spending programs, not reduce the federal debt.  According to TPC calculations, the new Medicare for All proposal alone would cost at least $1.38 trillion annually.  Interestingly, despite the high cost of the new plan, calculations show that the Sanders' plan would cost over $6 trillion less than the current health care system over the next ten years and that a typical middle class family would pay just $466 annually to a single-payer program compared to $4955 in premiums and $1318 in deductibles to private health insurance companies.

As we can see, thus far, Mr. Sanders' tax program has a strong social democratic lean to it.  While this offends some Americans who view it as "communist" in its approach, in fact, many of the world's "happiest countries" have strong government-mandated social programs including Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand and even Canada where they don't have death panels or set their elderly adrift on ice floes.  The upside to social democracy is that the citizens of these nations never have to worry about healthcare-related bankruptcy, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States. 

Bernie Sander's Cogent Foreign Policy

While the mainstream media focuses on Bernie Sanders and criticizes his democratic socialist domestic policies, as we will see in this posting, Bernie Sanders has a very long and very consistent policies on one key issue that goes back decades, the issue of the right and just American role in foreign affairs.  I apologize in advance for the length of this posting but I want to give Senator Sanders a fair chance to defend his foreign policy agenda. 

Let's open with this interview that Bernie Sanders gave in 1989 to CSPAN back when he was just ending the last of four two-year terms as the mayor of Burlington, Vermont:

Here's the key part of the exchange:

"INTERVIEWER: At various times the governments of Nicaragua and the previous government of Grenada have said that they were not Communist. They were socialist, Marxist, how do you relate to that?

SANDERS: I agree with that. I agree with that!  What they said, what the government of Grenada said, under Maurice Bishop is that they wanted to forge their own way. And they were overthrown by the United States government. In Nicaragua, you have a government which has...came to power and I believe has tried to do the right thing for its people in terms of health care, land reform, education. If you trace the history of the United States vis a vis Latin America and Central America, there has never been a time where a country made a revolution for the poor people where it was not overthrown by the CIA or the United States government, or the marines. Salvador Allende was democratically elected by the people of Chile. He made the mistake of believing that his job as president of that country was to represent the people of Chile. And he did his best. And he was overthrown by the CIA. So the interesting question is why does the United States government think, whether its Nicaragua or any other country in Latin or Central America that it has the right to overthrow those governments." (my bold)

Not only is it rare to hear an American politician talk about the role of CIA-led covert operations in foreign nations, it is even rarer to hear the mayor of a small American city have such a grasp on American over-reach into the politics of other nations.  Obviously, he had a very accurate assessment of the foibles of American foreign policy.

For those of you that are not aware, Chile's Salvador Allende was overthrown after he made moves to nationalize Chile's copper industry.  At that time, two of the leading Chilean copper companies, Kennicott and Anaconda, were owned by U.S.-based mining companies.  With the assistance of the CIA and U.S. government, a military coup took place which ended the life of Salvador Allende.  Allende was replaced by General Augusto Pinochet, a man whose government tortured at least 28,000 people, executed 2,279 and left 1,248 missing between September 1973 and March 1990.  In addition, approximately 200,000 Chileans were exiled.  

A little discussed committee from the 1970s took a long, hard look at the role of the American intelligence services in global affairs.  In 1975 and 1976, The Church Committee aka the United States Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities looked at the potential abuses of both law and power by the various U.S. intelligence agencies.  The Church Committee, under the leadership of its chairman, Senator Frank Church, took testimony from hundreds of people, accumulated files from the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS and other federal agencies and issued 14 reports.  Since 1992, over 50,000 pages of the Church Committee Records have been released to the public, giving us insight into how the United States has attempted to assassinate foreign leaders and otherwise influence foreign governments, spy on American citizens and infiltrate organizations that were considered "leftist" (i.e. anti-Vietnam War).  Here is a highlight from Book 1:

"Nowhere in the National Security Act of 1947 was the CIA explicitly empowered to collect intelligence or intervene secretly in the affairs of other nations.  But the elastic phrase, "such other functions," was used by successive presidents to move the Agency into espionage, covert action, paramilitary operations, and technical intelligence collection. Often conceived as having granted significant peacetime power's and flexibility to the CIA and the NSC, the National Security Act actually legislated that authority to the President.”

If you go to this link, you'll find an entire report entitled "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders" from the Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities" from November 1975.  Here are some interesting pages:

The report outlines the plot to poison Castro using pills containing botulism toxin, a method that was recommended by mobster Sam Giancana.  This is a prime example of American intelligence community overreaching 

Let's go back to the Church Committee and look at some of their conclusions.  Here they are:

"(1) The most basic conclusion reached by the Committee is that covert action must be seen as an exceptional act, to be undertaken only when the national security requires it and when overt means will not suffice. The Committee concludes that the policy and procedural barriers are presently inadequate to insure that any covert operation is absolutely essential to the national security. These barriers must be tightened and raised or covert action should be abandoned as an instrument of foreign policy.

(2) On the basis of the record, the Committee has concluded that covert action must in no case be a vehicle for clandestinely undertaking actions incompatible with American principles. The Committee has already moved to condemn assassinations and to recommend a statute to forbid such activities. It is the Committee's view that the standards to acceptable covert activity should also exclude covert operations in an attempt to subvert democratic governments or provide support for police or other internal security forces which engage in the systematic violation of human rights.

(3) Covert operations must be based on a careful and systematic analysis of a given situation, possible alternative outcome, the threat to American interests of these possible outcomes, and above all, the likely consequences of an attempt to intervene. A former senior intelligence analyst told the Committee:

"Clearly actions were taken on the basis of some premises, but they seem not to have been arrived at by any sober and systematic analysis, and tended often, it appeared, to be simplistic and passionate. In fact, thei-e was often little or no relationship between the view of world politics as a whole, or of particular situations of threat held by operatoi's on the one hand, and analysts on the other. The latter were rarely consulted by the former, and then only in partial disingenious and even misleading ways.""

Now that we've seen how Bernie Sanders regards the use of the U.S. intelligence network as a delivery system for American foreign policy in light of what the Church Committee and other Senate Committees have found, let's look at what he had to say about the Iraq War back in 2002:

Here are the key sentences:

"Mr. Speaker, I do not think any Member of this body disagrees that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, a murderer, and a man who has started two wars. He is clearly someone who cannot be trusted or believed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good.

Mr. Speaker, the front page of The Washington Post today reported that all relevant U.S. intelligence agencies now say despite what we have heard from the White House that ``Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States.'' Even more importantly, our intelligence agencies say that should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he might at that point launch a chemical or biological counterattack. In other words, there is more danger of an attack on the United States if we launch a precipitous invasion....I am concerned about the problems of so-called unintended consequences. Who will govern Iraq when Saddam Hussein is removed and what role will the U.S. play in ensuing a civil war that could develop in that country? Will moderate governments in the region who have large Islamic fundamentalist populations be overthrown and replaced by extremists?"

Bernie Sanders looks positively prescient, doesn't he?

Let's close with this excerpt from a speech given at Georgetown University in November 2015, focussing on the section regarding the current events in the Middle East:

"A new and strong coalition of Western powers, Muslim nations, and countries like Russia must come together in a strongly coordinated way to combat ISIS, to seal the borders that fighters are currently flowing across, to share counter-terrorism intelligence, to turn off the spigot of terrorist financing, and to end support for exporting radical ideologies.

What does all of this mean? Well, it means that, in many cases, we must ask more from those in the region. While Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Lebanon have accepted their responsibilities for taking in Syrian refugees, other countries in the region have done nothing or very little.

Equally important, and this is a point that must be made – countries in the region like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE – countries of enormous wealth and resources – have contributed far too little in the fight against ISIS. That must change. King Abdallah is absolutely right when he says that that the Muslim nations must lead the fight against ISIS, and that includes some of the most wealthy and powerful nations in the region, who, up to this point have done far too little.

Saudi Arabia has the 3rd largest defense budget in the world, yet instead of fighting ISIS they have focused more on a campaign to oust Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Kuwait, a country whose ruling family was restored to power by U.S. troops after the first Gulf War, has been a well-known source of financing for ISIS and other violent extremists. It has been reported that Qatar will spend $200 billion on the 2022 World Cup, including the construction of an enormous number of facilities to host that event – $200 billion on hosting a soccer event, yet very little to fight against ISIS. Worse still, it has been widely reported that the government has not been vigilant in stemming the flow of terrorist financing, and that Qatari individuals and organizations funnel money to some of the most extreme terrorist groups, including al Nusra and ISIS.

All of this has got to change. Wealthy and powerful Muslim nations in the region can no longer sit on the sidelines and expect the United States to do their work for them. As we develop a strongly coordinated effort, we need a commitment from these countries that the fight against ISIS takes precedence over the religious and ideological differences that hamper the kind of cooperation that we desperately need."

That sounds like the basis for a very cogent foreign policy to me although I rather doubt that the American military-industrial-congressional complex will see it that way.