The word 'occupation' has such a negative connotation. It conjures up an image of Agincourt, Nanjing, Normandy. It's the act of taking forced possession or control of a certain place, more likely than not, to the chagrin of those who were already there. It is amidst this setting that thousands have descended on a park in lower Manhattan with the purpose to "Occupy Wall Street."
They're cast as being the perennial malcontents--those who are mad as hell and who aren't going to take it anymore. They've been derided by Republican congressmen and presidential candidates as people who hate freedom. In other parts of the Fox News-Limbaugh-Wall Street Journal machine, they're painted as being spoiled rich kids who are protesting for the hell of protesting without knowing exactly what it is they're protesting about, or what it is they're protesting against. Bill O'Reilly last night said that they're being bank-rolled by George Soros, Move On, and unions. That's interesting. Their mere presence is being dismissed as a sideshow executive produced by the Democratic Party, and their grievances ignored.
Let's take a quick look at the recent past and at the birth of the Tea Party. Many of its adherents were people unemployed or underemployed who saw that the banks were being bailed out, but not them. These were people who lost it all or were on the verge of losing it all, and they saw that those on Wall Street who were also on the verge of losing it all, were rescued, not once but twice. There was simmering anger and hatred at the banks and at the government that came to their rescue. And those in Corporate America saw this as an opportunity. They highjacked the movement, bankrolling a number of groups to drive the myth that the reason for their hurt was "Obamacare," and that the reason that they don't have a job is because of government regulations. See Koch, David H. and Charles G. The New Yorker this week had an article on another "titan of industry" who's bank-rolling extreme-right candidates and holding extreme-right positions in North Carolina, while hiding behind Mickey Mouse think-tanks that he's built, and buying influence in what's left of the education system that his groups have been helping to destroy--all the while claiming his groups merit tax-exempt status. The abhorrent Citizens United decision ignored a century of jurisprudence and stare decisis, allowing for an unregulated and worrisome flow of money into politics. Today more than ever the candidate with the most money backing them is inevitably the most likely to win.
And back to the bailouts. There's a poignant scene in "Too Big to Fail" by the Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin where Bernanke is fretting about whether or not the massive government rescue undertaken to save the economic system of this country--and indeed the world--will propel the banks to loosen up the credit markets, allowing for small businesses and others to continue to borrow, and you know, little things, like make payroll. Hank Paulson staring blindly outside his window, says something along the lines of they will, they have to.
They didn't. These banks gambled with the economic security of this country, after successfully financing three decades worth of deregulation. They've treated the Federal Reserve as their private piggy-bank, and the Fed, because acting otherwise would risk the Republic, had no choice but to comply with their desires. These Wall Street corporations risked big and lost big. And instead of taking the losses, they asked for a rescue. And they got it. They had to. Moral Hazard went out the window.
But what about the millions of homeowners who can't afford their homes--you can't rescue them, say the banks, because of Moral Hazard. But what about the millions of Americans who live in abject poverty and despair--it's their fault that they're not wealthy, says Herman Cain. But what about those without health insurance, would you let them die--yeah, screamed the crowd at the Republican Presidential Debate.
And when mere months after the bailouts, the news broke that the financial industry was still handing out massive bonuses, they all came out on Fox News and in editorial after editorial in the Wall Street Journal saying that the bonuses are in their employees' contracts, and that you can't break contracts. When public-sector unions were under siege from municipal governments--in most cases now run by so-called "businessmen"--they all came out on Fox News and in editorial after editorial in the Wall Street Journal saying that you had to break the contracts, that the free-ride that teachers, cops, and firefighters enjoyed for so long has ended.
We live in the Age of Hypocrisy.
We rescue the financial industry from what would have been a catastrophic loss to both them and us, and instead of saying 'thank you, we won't do this again,' they're back to their old habits, fighting Dodd-Frank and its measly regulations which would prevent them from jeopardizing the Republic once again. We bailed them out and gave them money and they've used that money to lobby Congress and bank-roll "free-market" organizations. They road-blocked Elizabeth Warren from being nominated to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and now are planning on filibustering any nominee. Their Republican advocates keep saying that regulations are to blame for no jobs. No, not exactly. It's the trillions of dollars that corporations are sitting on and their tying up the credit markets preventing small businesses to borrow and flourish. They've noticed that they're doing pretty well again.
They hide behind their screams of 'redistribution of wealth' and 'socialism'--their default scare tactics. They want us to ignore that the only redistribution of wealth taking place in this country is from the poor to the rich. Those well-off are terrified to death on only the mere threat of returning to Clinton-era tax rates--one of them comparing the president to Hitler because of this, and Warren Buffett now becoming persona-non-grata. These same corporations who cry about moral hazard, are dependent on millions of dollars in government subsidies and tax loopholes--the really hurt-some welfare state that exists in this country is corporate welfare. And it's not just Republicans; Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana) is backed by the oil industry, and is one of the Democratic votes against ending oil subsidies. Never mind their record profits. In Britain, the top tax rate is now 50%--this in a Tory Government. The Economist last week had an article in which it stated that the tax rate doesn't worry the wealthy in Britain as much as any possibility of closing any tax loopholes, because now they'll be expected to actually pay for things that they've gotten away with since Thatcher.
And to add insult to injury, Bank of America unveiled its latest gouging plan last week in which it stated that it will start charging its "customers" $5 a month just for the privilege of using their debit card. They claim that's due to government regulations, but in fact, studies have shown that they'll be making a $2 Billion a year profit on this scheme, much more than they were making before, when their former gouging plan was to charge merchants 44 cents per transaction in fees, for something, which as Joe Nocera in the Times called, mere pennies.
This is what those protesting on Wall Street are mad about. The banks and corporations keep winning and everyone else keep losing. They keep living paycheck to paycheck if they have a paycheck at all, they still don't have health care, they're burdened by student loans which they can't repay, and are still stuck in a tragedy of debt from which they can't escape. They're mad that the government isn't listening to them, but those on Wall Street have the government on speed-dial.
Will the Occupy Wall Street movement succeed? I hope so. But it's too early to say. They have to stop the honest-to-God freak shows of them dressing up like zombies, or flashing passers-by. This country still hates hippies. They need to come out dressed in their normal day-to-day clothing, and talk about the real economic grievances that they have. The We Are the 99% Tumbler is a good model. Like Carville said, it's the economy, stupid. And it's their economy. They need to stress their pocket-books, how they struggle to make rent, pay for utilities, and have to decide whether to buy medicine or food.
What should they be calling for immediately? They need to ask Congress to pass the Jobs Bill. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have so far. The Jobs Bill is a bail-out, but at least the one's being bailed out now are them. They need to march on Congress to pass the Jobs Bill and they need to Occupy Wall Street and tell those corporations who caused this whole big mess to begin with to stop financing opposition to the Jobs Bill. What else should they be calling for? The Bush Tax Cuts to expire and a return to Clinton-era tax rates, which, if I'm not mistaken occurred in pretty good economic times. They need to call for these tax rates and end corporate subsidies and corporate welfare. Make no mistake, this is a time for sacrifice, and everyone is going to have to sacrifice something. Some government programs will be cut, they're going to have to be, but they should also be protesting against cutting fundamental programs that target areas such as health and education.
The Occupy Wall Street movement can succeed. It's getting Too Big to Fail. But the freak shows and the side shows need to end. They need a cohesive message. Where the Tea Party had as theirs being opposition to "Obamacare," they need to have as theirs being the passage of the Jobs Bill and calling for more equitable tax rates.
That's a start.
0 comments:
Post a Comment