Why Bernie Sanders Objects to Obama's Treasury Nominee
Bernie Sanders campaigned, hard, for Barack Obama’s re-election.
But the independent senator from Vermont is not going to rubberstamp the president’s selection of Jack Lew, a supporter of banking deregulation who has passed back and forth through the revolving door from Wall Street to Washington, as the nation’s seventy-sixth secretary of the Treasury.
While Sanders caucuses with the Democrats, he represents the people who elected him. And he swears an oath to a Constitution that requires—not “allows,” requires—the legislative branch of the federal government to check and balance the executive branch.
snip* Here’s how Sanders explains his opposition to the Lew nomination:
“Jack Lew is clearly an extremely intelligent person and I applaud his many years of public service to our country. I believe that he will be confirmed by the Senate. Unfortunately, he will be confirmed without my vote. At a time when the middle class is collapsing and millions of workers are unemployed, I do not believe he is the right person at the right time to serve in this important position.
“As a supporter of the president, I remain extremely concerned that virtually all of his key economic advisers have come from Wall Street. In my view, we need a treasury secretary who is prepared to stand up to corporate America and their powerful lobbyists and fight for policies that protect the working families in our country. I do not believe Mr. Lew is that person.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/john-nichols
on edit to correct multiple paragraphs.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I keep waiting for him to toss his own hat in the ring. What could possibly be the reason for his reluctance? 
I don't "think you know" what you're talking about. SS cuts? So much hyperbole, so little substance. 
to fund tax breaks for the rich!
What a rube!
Regards,
Third-Way Manny
the job of POTUS is a surefire way to get your agenda through divided government, why doesn't he run? That's a pretty simple question, no?
the POTUS blew 'em both out of the water in their own backyard. I think he was beating Dean by 30+ points, and Sanders by 20+. Bernie would enjoy the same success as did Michelle Bachmann, and Herman Cain in a presidential run. There would be the initial embrace by the far left, and when he seriously came under media scrutiny, he would fall apart. I think anyone who is as opinionated as Bernie, and who seems to feel he can run things a lot better, owes it to his fans to at least run.
As an aside, do you know of any meaningful legislation that Bernie has authored, got it through the House & Senate, and made it to the president's desk for his signature?
If you don't know the answer, then I certainly understand. Another DU hero, Dennis Kucinich, is good at delivering red meat, but has no significant legislative successes to speak of. Being principled is great, but if you can't persuade the body of Congress, of which you're a part, then does that make you ineffective?
voters have no say in that, right? Far be it from me to disagree, but we've witnessed what a real grassroots campaign is capable of, and I don't buy that it's just money. If enough people believe in you, and your vision, they'll make huge sacrifices to ensure that you're able to compete. So no, "money is NOT everything". 
Alternative Investments unit, a proprietary trading group. The unit he oversaw invested in a hedge fund "that bet on the housing market to collapse."[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Lew
Business people universally suck in public leadership positions.
The last thing We the People need is another Wall St. plutocrat gatekeeper as Treasury Secretary.
