What do OWS protesters want?

TO SOME IT MAY APPEAR THAT the Occupy Wall Street movement has no message, a lack of direction, and a haphazard way of presenting itself. I can agree that this characterization bears some resemblance to the truth, but the big picture is that there is “real trouble in River City” for most Americans and the intentions of the discontented, who are taking to the streets and public parks across this nation and the globe, are noble and just. They could get their message across better by employing a corporate public relations consultant and a professional group organizer; having in hand a cache of big bucks would also be a welcome boon to their cause. Yet not having these things in many ways proves their legitimacy. These are the people. There is indeed a class struggle in this country, even if the right wing elite refuses to publicly admit it — or seeks to delegitimize it before it gains traction with the “silent majority” of Americans. They may be too late. The following data shows why a major change in our present political system is swiftly needed. • Until 1974, real incomes of working class people kept pace. Between 1974 and 1995, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, real incomes (adjusted for inflation) dropped to $550 per week. At the end of 2007, weekly incomes increased by approximately 10 percent to $612. Meanwhile, from 1979 to 2006, the incomes of the top 5 percent — those making more than $191,000 per year — rose 87 percent, while the incomes of the bottom 40 percent — those making $47,000 or less — rose only 16 percent. As women entered the workforce, family incomes increased a moderate amount but never kept pace with the incomes of the wealthy. • Political influence in Washington has swayed significantly to the benefit of the elite. The number of lobbyists paid by corporate America has increased to more than 35,000. In 2010, political contributions by big business amounted to approximately $1.3 billion, while the contributions from labor unions — the only major political outlet for working people to press their needs, improve workplace safety, and steward the environment —amounted to only $92 million, or 7 percent. • The income tax structure favors the rich far more now than it has in decades. Our present tax structure would make taxes paid by the elite during the Reagan years look like the pejorative “socialism.” According to the IRS, from 1992 to 2007 the top 400 elite households saw their effective tax rates drop from 27 percent to 17 percent. The effective tax rates of those earning more than $1 million dropped from 26 percent to 22 percent. Consider this: The top 400 taxpayers in the 1950s faced a 90 percent federal tax rate. Now it’s barely 16 percent. • The big banks have gotten too big to fail, too politically influential, too diverse in services, and are becoming less competitive to the sacrifice of the consumer. During the bank failures of the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration and Congress enacted the Glass-Steagall Act to regulate banks and limit their ability to expand horizontally and vertically. Until the 1980s we had a relatively stable financial industry that stayed within limited geographic confines, with banks only lending, S&L’s lending on real estate, insurance companies only insuring, and the securities industry only selling stocks and bonds. Under Reagan and Clinton, Glass-Steagall was first defanged and then repealed — causing the S&L crisis of the late ’80s and the present mega financial industry crisis and meltdown of the real estate and other markets, and requiring hundreds of billions in bailouts. • Unemployment has reached dangerous levels. Is there a faint light of hope on the horizon, with joblessness levels slowly dropping and real private job creation improving? Perhaps. With reasonable regulations that protect the environment and the consumer foremost, capitalism can be an effective financial model for innovation and economic growth. But it is vital that basic needs such as health care, energy, minimal housing, food, and infrastructure be in the public domain. Call it socialism or whatever, but outcomes are what is most important. When taxpayer funds and facilities are used for the benefit of the masses, whatever it’s labeled, it’s a good thing. We bailed out the big Wall Street banks and protected the billionaires from ruin. Now we are being asked to make good on the debts they caused, while the super-rich get even richer — some making more than $2 million an hour! It would take more than 47 years for the average family to make as much as the top 10 hedge fund managers make in one hour. And that’s what OWS is fighting to change.

The devil I know

AS AN INDEPENDENT VOTER, I am supporting Barack Obama this year, not because I believe he is a sterling example of integrity and leadership, but because he is the devil I know, and I believe he will do the least harm to most Americans and the world at large. I say to people with whom I talk at our local coffee shop, “Obama is like a broken finger, compared to Romney being a broken leg. Pick your poison.” I would want Romney to run my business, but my business is not the culture of diversified needs and unique stakeholders that is America. I believe based on the data and past history of Obama’s behavior that if you are like most Americans in the “99%,” Obama is the best choice to represent your interests. All presidents lie to some degree. It’s a job skill required by the “shadow elite” who pull the puppet strings. Reagan lied about Iran Contra and Grenada, Clinton lied about covert CIA operations in Africa, Bush lied about WMDs and 9/11. The extent of Obama’s lies will become clearer with time. Regardless, here we are in probably the most corrupt, warlike nation in today’s world (based on dollars and covert incursions), trying to decide who is the best criminal liar to lead our country. Generally, the issues at the forefront in the upcoming election are the economy and job creation, the environment and climate change, women’s and gay rights, foreign affairs and national security, social responsibility, taxation and consumer protection. Most of these distill down to economics, human empathy and justice. The sole issue, for someone out of work or underemployed, is job creation. And for those with the “big bucks” — like Mitt Romney’s friends who are able to avoid paying income taxes by sheltering their money in the Grand Caymans or Luxembourg — are concerned about continuing crony capitalist subsidies, avoiding taxes, keeping the military strong and creating profit-making enemies, and removing controls on banking and business. Women, gays and people of color want government out of their private lives — except where it can create a level playing field in the job market and in educational opportunities — and would like a helping hand to enable them to survive in our society. Then we have the predominately older, male white Christian extremists who would prefer that we regress a couple hundred years to a time when women were property who had no reproductive dominion over their bodies, minorities were kept in their subordinate places and the rule of law was primarily influenced by “fire and brimstone” beliefs. This group of radicals has helped move our country so far to the political right that someone such as Nixon or Reagan would now be seen as moderate and would have great difficulty getting elected. They’ve even managed to push a moderate like Mitt Romney to the fringes. Based on his track record, I consider Romney a right-wing moderate. After all, he supported single-payer health care when he was Massachusetts governor, believed women’s reproductive rights were only a medical, not a government issue, and avowed that gay marriage was not a priority for him. But his choice of running mate Paul Ryan, an extreme tea party type and the darling of the Koch brothers, exemplifies how concerned Romney is with pandering to right-wing extremists — and the more he panders, the more he simply becomes one of them. Ryan is no Sarah Palin ignoramus; he is a very bright and articulate politician whose agenda is to destroy Obamacare, eliminate Social Security and eviscerate union and other working class rights. But Ryan may have more serious problems than mere stupidity. He has been documented as participating in insider trading with the likes of Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs — a serious allegation that speaks to Ryan’s lack of integrity. Ryan may be fast on his feet, bright and articulate, but I believe he will turn out to be a millstone around Romney’s neck. Fourteen years of obscurity in the House of Representatives means Ryan could not possibly have been totally vetted before Romney chose him. When it comes to foreign policy, both Obama and Romney are way too hawkish for the needs of America, but we need to understand that the military industrial complex, corporate America and international bankers, now bolstered by Citizens United, dictate what happens in government. In the mix, Obama is more moderate and would be more inclined to scale back military spending and American imperialism. Meanwhile, on social and human rights issues, Romney has had to embarrassingly “flip flop” because of pressure from the far right. After nearly four years, Obama has finally gotten the courage and political sense to come out in support of gay rights, and in particular gay marriage, finally following the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who said, “Injustice for one is injustice for all.” To have a prosperous and civilized nation, we need to do whatever we can to empower those who are in the minority so they can fulfill their intellectual and economic potential, and participate in our society to the fullest. The influence of backward religious dogma is not beneficial to American society. Obama is more supportive of keeping the influence — and prejudices — of religion out of government. On another front, health issues that are the result of environmental factors and poor nutrition habits have become epidemic in the U.S., with the obesity rate now exceeding 30 percent. Obama advocates stricter food labeling laws, transparency in food ingredients, higher air quality and, generally, stronger environmental stewardship. Romney advocates laissez faire regulation in all these areas, inviting greed and abuse. One of the most important jobs of a president is the appointment of Supreme Court justices. With the court presently stacked with right-wing corporate lackeys and an elderly liberal, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, headed for retirement, this country does not need anymore “bench puppets” to give the corporations and banks more power. Citizens United was an egregious error and a stain on our nation’s character; Romney has said he would appoint justices in the mold of that abominable decision’s most ardent defenders. The biggest issue for most of us is the economy. “Trickle-down economics” for the most part is a myth perpetrated by those in the “1%” who do not want to pay taxes. I agree that a certain amount of investment capital is critical for funding new research and building manufacturing infrastructure. At present many corporations are flush with cash, and wealthy individuals have the liquidity for new investment opportunities. Capital finds the best return balanced with a modicum of risk — it has no patriotism or desire to create jobs, only return on investment, sometimes to the detriment of human beings and the environment. Approximately 70 percent of our GDP comes from middle-class spending. If we want to create jobs and jump-start the economy, we need to lower taxes for the 99% and increase taxes on the 1%, whose lifestyles will not be materially affected. Romney, whose net worth is estimated at $250 million, paid approximately 13 percent in taxes in recent years — or so he claims — largely because his income mostly derives from investments. This unconscionably low tax rate for the privileged few is an insult to the human value of working people. A working person has a payroll tax of 7.65 percent applied up through $106,800 of earnings; why should a CEO making million of dollars per year receive an exemption of more than $890,000 on income not subject to payroll taxes? This amounts to $68,000 per year that the elite may use to send their children to the best private schools and colleges, while the working class struggle to pay tuition, or their children become saddled with loans that are not even dischargeable in bankruptcy. Obama favors economic policies that favor the working class, while Romney has a real conflict of interest in raising the capital gains rate from a present historic low of 15 percent to above the weighted average of 25 percent. Why should working people be in a higher tax situation than the privileged wealthy? In the final analysis, we must bring America back to the center, halting its move in a dangerous direction of fascist oligarchy. I urge everyone to vote for the “broken finger,” because the “broken leg” will cripple the dream of the American middle class.

My ‘Occupy’ experience — and the rest of the story

AMERICANS, AND I AM SURE to a lesser degree people worldwide, often complain about their corrupt and deceitful governments while doing little to participate or solve the problem. I consider myself a doer, and to some extent an activist for progressive change. My goals for change do not necessarily run along political party lines but rather along moral and ethical ones. Those who know me either applaud me as a moderate liberal activist or demonize me as a “communist un-American socialist traitor.” Fortunately, most people see me as a moderate, reasonable person, though they may not agree with everything I espouse. The bottom line is that the “99%” — and even some of the reasonable “1%” like Warren Buffett — know that our way of doing socio-politico-economic business in America is broken. The time is long overdue for major changes in our corporate government system — and Occupy Wall Street is the forefront of that coming wave of progressive change. While a small portion of activists may behave in an uncivilized fashion, damaging property, impeding traffic, assaulting others or leaving debris in public areas, it’s important to remember that democracy is usually not an efficient process. Sometimes things get messy. The actions of a few immature or unstable people do not tarnish the whole movement, which is overwhelmingly intent on peaceful, meaningful change. Compared to the egregious machinations of government war criminals and government-aided corporate greed, a few messy parks are inconsequential. Of course, we see mostly slanted reporting from corrupt corporate media that depicts the unacceptable behavior of a small minority of Occupiers. Those who operate with a political agenda seek to tarnish the movement for other, equally nefarious reasons. Yet despite these and other ill-informed efforts to portray the Occupiers in an unfavorable light to the electorate, as the movement grows it continues to draw more support and participation from the 99%. I have made a commitment to be part of the solution, and to date have participated in two local protests. Several weeks ago, on “Occupy Bank Day” I participated in a very peaceful demonstration with about 30 other local residents in front of the JPMorgan Chase Bank in the main Vallejo shopping center across from Target. Many of us had signs — “Audit the Fed,” “Take your money out of big banks,” “Stop corporate corruption of politics,” “We are the 99%,” etc. — and we walked in a circle in front of the bank for several hours. It was very encouraging to see many people drive by, honking their horns in solidarity and showing support in other ways. I met a bright, enthusiastic community organizer I plan to connect with a consumer financial protection organization. Then, last month, my partner Jane and I participated in Occupy Martinez in front of the post office on Alhambra Boulevard at the junction of Highway 4. We counted approximately 100 respectful participants carrying signs and chanting slogans on both sides of Alhambra. I spoke with a volunteer named Frank who paid for the sign materials and personally made more than 75 signs. I was so moved by his dedication that I offered to donate two dozen cans of spray paint to aid him in making more signs. At that moment I felt hopeful that if enough people participate in this positive movement, there is a possibility of real change coming to our broken political system. Violence by protesters and police is unacceptable. The recent incident at the University of California-Davis, and uncounted incidents like it, should never have happened. But it is telling that this blatant abuse of power is seen as an isolated incident, while few discuss the ramifications of the timely donations of millions of dollars to the NYPD Foundation by JPMorgan, Bank of America, Barclays, Jeffries & Co. and other banking institutions. These banks know, it seems, who is keeping them from having to face the growing crowds who seek economic justice for having driven the economy into a ditch from which it has yet to recover. This, of course, highlights the OWS protesters’ chief complaint: that the rules don’t apply equally to all, that the Friedman/Thatcher/Reagan “trickle down” myth never really worked, that “corporate personhood” is an affront — and that capital protects itself by engineering the curtailment of constitutional rights. But there is a message and focus of the Occupy movement that is stronger and more powerful than the sum of its parts, and this cannot be curtailed. That message is that the “99%” will sleep no more. We are fed up with the corruption, exploitation and deceit and we are ready to take steps to effect change. My partner and I plan to participate in many more nonviolent demonstrations in our local communities, be it Vallejo, Benicia, Martinez or Concord. I strongly urge any of you who have not yet participated to demonstrate your patriotism and be part of the solution. Show your support in your local communities. One of the biggest threats to democracy and justice is not only the government, but the silence of good people. An active majority can definitely make a positive difference in our society. I am getting out there to be an active participant for change, and I hope you will, too.