Occupy: We are the 99%
Oct/110
The Occupy movement is awakening our nation to the rotten nut of our current democracy. The energy and fury is palpable, and it is growing by the day. Yet, still, national media personalities are criticizing the movement as lacking a demands or specificity. My response: just wait. The movement is evolving organically, and this very process of slow deliberate consensus-building steps is a core part of the message itself. Maybe it’ll take another two weeks, or two months, or heck, maybe even two years.
Even so, that’s not the point, not yet. We as the 99% need to gain a bit of self-awareness first, an orientation of why we are in the position that we are in in this country. I can understand onlookers being impatient and wanting them to produce their demands and show their teeth. I am actually chomping at the bit myself to ensure that the Occupy in Boston gives serious consideration to fundamental money-in-politics reforms (like citizen-funded elections), competitive-elections reforms (like ranked choice voting) and other great voter empowering policies.
The critique with which I have the most impatience, however, is this notion that the Occupiers don’t really have a clear sense of what their grievances are, or what they are protesting. Are you kidding me?
And how about the way the financial sector extracted trillions of dollars in corporate welfare — welfare — from we the people, when their shoddy investments went south, and of the TARP itself, the American taxpayer is still out $235 billion.
Then there’s the problem of the top income earners having in many cases a lower tax rate than wage-earning people, as billionaire Warren Buffet has explained, urging Congress to raise his taxes. He flatly states how “these [extraordinary tax-breaks] and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.”
Now, why exactly do legislators in Washington coddle the rich? Take a walk around Capitol Hill some day, and maybe you’ll see why.
11,000+ lobbyists spent $1.6 billion on influencing our federal legislators in 2011, and we still have three months to go. The money pours in when Congress works on major industry-specific bills. This results in some of the most blatant legislative special-interest manipulations I’ve seen in my lifetime.
And let’s take a look at income disparity across the population since the 1920s (see below). Bottom 80%: flat. Above that, inched higher. Top 1%? Skyrocketed. Wait… haven’t we been in a recession?
And what kind of legal structure would allow this kind of income inequality to spiral so incredibly? Isn’t a rising tide supposed to lift all boats? Or was it, “yachts”?
Here is a little bit of analysis from The Economist.
What you’ve read above is just a smattering of thoughts I could jot down. I’ll add more to this list when I have more time. But folks, please, do some research on how the sausage is actually made in Washington before you swallow the bait of the “critics” and turn against your own allies, taking time and energy to go out and fight for the people’s interests — your interests.
Steve Grossman takes $45K from the liquor industry he regulates
Oct/110
After reading in the Globe about how Massachusetts State Treasurer Steve Grossman attended a fund-raiser for lobbyists, I posted the following on his Facebook fan page. But first, the article’s most delectable quotation:
In his biggest one-time haul of political cash since he took office, state Treasurer Steve Grossman accepted $45,000 at a fund-raiser earlier this month from package store proprietors, bar owners, and liquor distributors, industries his office heavily controls and regulates.
Grossman took donations from executives across the state, all of whom have a financial interest in the decisions and policies set by the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission, the agency he oversees as treasurer.
The donations represent nearly one quarter of the entire $187,000 Grossman has raised since he took office in January.
Steve, return this lobbyist cash to where it belongs: out of my government. Put it back into the hands of these self-interested business tycoons and leave it there. This is an absolute conflict of interest. And, it is an insult to the intelligence of all of us — hardworking taxpayers — that your political director Dawson would try to deny this. He claims: “No one should have any illusion that they would get special treatment from Treasurer Grossman or his office because of any campaign contributions.” The only illusion here is your denial of a forehead-slappable fact: if you raise 25% of your warchest from an industry you regulate, this will influence your regulatory decisions, to the detriment of public interest.
Dawson also said: “His only concern is and always will be the interests of the people of Massachusetts.” What is this, the Boy Scouts? We’re just supposed to take your word — Scout’s honor — that this won’t influence your public duties? And it’s funny, how eerily similar this quote is to convicted felon Sal DiMasi’s speech the day he was indicted: “Every decision I ever made as speaker or state representative was always made in the best interests of my constituents and of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” Sal is serving eight years in prison. Steve, let’s hope you’re not following in his now-shackled footsteps.