Sen. Sanders Balances Opposition to Lockheed Corruption With Energy/Labor Partnerships W/Affiliates

[bigtree]

The growing influence of corporations made the emerging relationship between Sandia Laboratories and Bernie Sanders somewhat perplexing. Sandia was managed by Lockheed Martin for the Department of Defense, had roots in the Manhattan Project and a history of turning nuclear research into weapons. Most of its revenue still came from maintaining and developing defense systems. Beyond that, as Sanders himself had frequently charged, Lockheed Martin ranked at the top of the heap in corporate misconduct. Between 1995 and 2010 it was charged with 50 violations and paid $577 million in fines and settlements. Sanders, an opponent of the Iraq war and wasteful military spending, had been a vocal congressional critic for more than a decade. It exemplified corporate excess and the one percent.

In the mid-1990s, he’d led the charge against $92 billion in bonuses for Lockheed Martin executives – nearly $31 million of that received from the Department of Defense as “restructuring costs” – after the corporation laid off 17,000 workers. He called that “payoffs for layoffs.” In September 1995, after his amendment to stop the bonuses passed in the US House, Lockheed launched a campaign to kill the proposal. When the amendment came back to the floor, Sanders decided that it still contained too much for the military and opposed it himself.

In 2009, he was still going after Lockheed in the Senate...

Learning to love Sandia

In January 2010, Sanders led a delegation to Sandia’s New Mexico lab for a closer look. The group included the CEO of Green Mountain Power, the state’s leading private utility; the vice president for research at the University of Vermont; the co-founder of successful alternative energy companies; and the head of the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, which runs Efficiency Vermont.

Lockheed’s proposal to the city focused on “the economic and strategic challenges posed by our dependence on foreign oil and the potential destabilizing effects of climate change.” Their partnership would “demonstrate a model for sustainability that can be replicated across the nation.” Meanwhile, the Vermont Sandia lab, simultaneously being developed at UVM with Sanders help, would focus on cyber security and “smart grid” technology...

By 2011, Sanders was also supporting the Pentagon’s proposal to base Lockheed-built F-35 fight jets at the Burlington International Airport...


read more: http://2vr.org/2015/06/05/lockheed-in-vermont-bernie-sanders-corporate-conundrum-by-greg-guma-feelthebern/


...the article should be read in full. It goes on to point out that the current energy technology relationship between the Sandia lab and Lockheed is a tangential one, with most of its visible ties severed. Moreover, there's the Senator's overriding goal of employing the lab in Vermont to develop a new generation of renewable energy which is well in line with some of the more commendable and reasonable ambitions; not anything associated with the worst of Sandia's military associations with its former parent company.

Still, it's an interesting tightrope Sen. Sanders is walking in promoting Sandia labs as a responsible corporate citizen; something which might take a leap of faith from those who have opposed Sandia and it's relationship with the corrupt Lockheed corporation to now argue that the lab is operating independently and in our best interest.

"For many activists and progressives, it sounded more like corporate “greenwashing” than a bold step forward."

There are undeniable benefits to developing renewable energy technology, and it's understandable that Sen. Sanders and others would welcome and encourage government and industry to locate those efforts in their state which has been a leader in alternative energy advances. Yet, the alliances required for this deal raise questions about the ability to maintain sufficient walls between the compromised corporate influences Sen. Sanders has correctly fought against in his career and the partnerships he's seeking to forge with elements of those very corporate entities.

[bigtree]

1. Greg Guma, a Vermont writer and activist (writer of the article)

...is the author of The People’s Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution. He ran for mayor of Burlington in 2015. This article is a chapter from Progressive Eclipse, developed for the Campaign for Preservation & Change.

[Avalux]

2. Bernie's words are not empty.

He has a record to back them up.

I think people are starting to wake up and realize that actions speak louder than words. It's a phrase we've all hear since childhood, but not many actually live their lives this way. Bernie does, and it's resonating with people. He's the genuine article.

[bigtree]

3. I don't understand what that has to do with this article

...which doesn't appear to claim that his words are 'empty.'

What it does highlight is an evolving relationship with Lockheed and a questioned alliance with a former affiliate which may still have ties with the corporate giant.

[hootinholler]

4. Ok, I'm dense

I'm failing to see the problem here.

[bigtree]

5. that's the problem with the discussion here

...there are very few gray areas of debate in discussing the priorities of these presidential candidates.

The article, and my own summary, makes clear that the goals are commendable, but the associations and past affiliations of Sandia labs with the corporate giant raise questions about the ability to maintain sufficient walls between the corrupting and objectionable influence and practices of Lockheed and the renewable energy ambitions Sanders supports. Also there's a bit of a highlight of the compromise directly with Lockheed by Sen. Sanders when it came to military industry jobs in Vermont building the controversial F-35 fighter jets for the Pentagon.

[hootinholler]

8. I think you're making an assumption that's not in evidence

AFAIK, it was locating some of the F35s in Vermont, not funding the program, which would be part of a larger DOD funding package. IDK if Bernie voted for it or not, but I'm certain if he did it was the best deal that could be had at the time.

[bigtree]

10. facts asserted in the article in evidence

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

BURLINGTON, Vt., Dec. 3 – Vermont’s congressional delegation – Sens. Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch – along with Gov. Peter Shumlin issued the following statement today after the Air Force announced its decision on basing F-35 aircraft at the Vermont Air National Guard:

“The Air Force decision to base its newest generation of planes in Burlington is a tribute to the Vermont Air National Guard, which is the finest in the nation. It reflects the Guard’s dedication to its mission and long record of outstanding performance. The Air Force has made clear that this aircraft, which will anchor our national air defenses, is the Air Force’s future. Now the men and women of Vermont’s Air National Guard have been chosen for a vital role in that future. The decision ensures the Vermont Air Guard’s continuing mission and protects hundreds of jobs and educational opportunities for Vermonters while securing its significant contribution to the local economy. We appreciate the Guard’s commitment to continue working with its airport neighbors to address legitimate concerns about noise and other environmental concerns.”

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/delegation-statement-on-f-35s


Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on F-35 Support Days After Runway Explosion

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

Me: “You mentioned wasteful military spending. The other day ... I’m sure you’ve heard about the F-35 catching fire on the runway. The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?”

Bernie Sanders: “No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.”

That was the exchange I had with US senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a town hall in Warner, New Hampshire, this past weekend (skip to the 45:30 mark of this video to hear my question). Sanders came to New Hampshire to gauge the local response to his economic justice-powered platform for a presumed 2016 presidential campaign. While his rabid defense of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and takedown of big money running politics was well-received, he contradicted his position of eliminating wasteful military spending while defending the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 is the epitome of Pentagon waste. The program has already cost taxpayers roughly half a trillion dollars, with $700 billion or more to come during the program’s lifetime. During an interview, Pierre Sprey, a co-designer of the F-16, went into great detail about how the F-35 was a lemon aircraft. Sprey explained that the fighter is an excessively heavy gas guzzler with small wings, a low bomb-carry capacity, low loiter time, is incapable of slow flight, is detectable to World War II-era low-frequency radar, and costs $200 million apiece. And just a little over a week ago, the F-35 caught fire on a runway at Eglin Air Force Base.

To his credit, Sanders acknowledged that the program was “wasteful” in his defense of it. The contention over the F-35 in his home state of Vermont is that the program is now responsible for jobs in his hometown of Burlington, where he served as mayor before running for Congress. Some front doors of homes in the Burlington area are adorned with green ribbons, signifying support for the F-35. Sanders, like his colleagues in 45 states around the country, doesn’t want to risk the wrath of voters angry about job losses related to F-35 manufacturing, assembly, and training if the program were to be cut. And that’s where Lockheed Martin’s political savvy comes into play.

read: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion


from the Atlantic:

Whatever its technical challenges, the F-35 is a triumph of political engineering, and on a global scale. For a piquant illustration of the difference that political engineering can make, consider the case of Bernie Sanders—former Socialist mayor of Burlington, current Independent senator from Vermont, possible candidate from the left in the next presidential race. In principle, he thinks the F-35 is a bad choice. After one of the planes caught fire last summer on a runway in Florida, Sanders told a reporter that the program had been “incredibly wasteful.” Yet Sanders, with the rest of Vermont’s mainly left-leaning political establishment, has fought hard to get an F-35 unit assigned to the Vermont Air National Guard in Burlington, and to dissuade neighborhood groups there who think the planes will be too noisy and dangerous. “For better or worse, the F-35 is the plane of record right now,” Sanders told a local reporter after the runway fire last year, “and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.” It’s going to be somewhere, so why not here? As Vermont goes, so goes the nation.

read: http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/

At times, Sanders has even showed a willingness to compromise that's disappointed longtime ideological allies. He has supported the F-35, Lockheed Martin's problem-plagued fighter jet that has led to hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns, which just so happens to be manufactured in Vermont. "He became what we call up here a 'Vermont Exceptionalist,'" Guma says, of the candidate's pragmatic streak.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/young-bernie-sanders-liberty-union-vermont

[ismnotwasm]

6. This is what he'll have to do as president

It's what any president or politician has to do, form unlikely partnerships, compromise ideology, hold ones nose at fundraisers. If elected, he'll be elected into a system already entrenched. Like Obama, he'll meet with great resistence. He'll make unpopular decisions as well as popular ones. He'll be called a sell out by the left.

He will be absolutely hated by the Republican/conservatives constituents, not as hated as Hillary already is, I don't think, but loathed. Always a good sign though.

The media will rip him up. One slip is all it will take.

It's good he has strong grass roots organizations going for him because if he is our nominee, the now underground swell is what's going to save him.

Articles like this worry me. I'm not surprised at it, it's a politician's move, I worry for his base and the expectations of what he will be able to accomplish, vs what he stands for.

[bigtree]

7. there's also a host of these balancing moves made by Sen. Sanders in the Senate

...and it's unclear if he'll be able to generate enough of a people's revolution to apply the pressure needed to move the legislature. Still, there is the power of his own convictions, which is a rarity in politics today, that could serve as a backbone against resistance in Congress.

I think the analogy with Barack Obama is a correct one. The degree that Sen. Sanders is willing to compromise will be the distinguishing feature of a potential presidency. We've witnessed the tension generated among Democrats and progressives from many of the compromises Pres. Obama has made. I do think it's important to be cognizant, as we consider Bernie's candidacy, of the degree to which the Senator has been willing to bend, so far. That goes for ALL of our presidential choices.

[ismnotwasm]

9. Exactly

Thats about where I'm at with him, or any other candidate. I recognize candidates say what they say to get elected--broad ideological statements, but having a workable platform as well as workable political relationships is absolutely crucial.

It will be interesting, to say the least, to contrast and compare the candidates as the season heats up. I get the love for Bernie, but I also get the sense some people may be a wee bit impractical given the actual system we have.

[bigtree]

11. »

[Jefferson23]

12. I look forward to a journalist who will ask the good Senator to speak about this a bit further:

(Despite the confident presentation, however, the launch ended abruptly after a single question was asked about the city’s aborted partnership with Lockheed Martin. Before a TV reporter could even complete his query Sanders interrupted and challenged it. Lockheed is not “a parent company” of Sandia, he objected.

Then, as often the case when fielding unwelcome questions, he declined to say more – about Lockheed Martin or the climate change agreement Mayor Kiss had signed, the standards adopted by the City Council, the mayor’s veto, or Lockheed’s subsequent withdrawal from the deal. Instead, he turned the question over to Stulen, the man from Sandia, who offered what he called “some myth-busting.”)




For Sanders, who has been working towards this campaign for a long time, it will be interesting to hear
how he managed the riff raff ( Lockheed ) with a bit more detail as one can't necessarily ignore these
giants in our economy..who ends up controlling who is key.

No matter what the result, the Sanders campaign is sounding the alarm for Americans on the corruption
in our political system..I do hope enough of us respond appropriately.