Occupy Wall Street: In Support of the Message

    In thinking about the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is useful to focus on the main impetus rather than the presence of the crazies, the supportive statements of folks like Nancy Pelosi, the litany of issues addressed on the OWS web site, or the effort to get attention by various unions and anti-capitalism activists.  (Living in San Francisco I see enough protests to not be bothered by the trash heaps left behind by the environmentalist protesters or the verbal conformity demanded by the "free speech" groups.)

    We do have a problem - a big problem - that has not been addressed by the Obama administration or by the Republican presidential candidates: Wall Street almost brought our whole economic system down; they got bailed out at great public expense; nothing significant has changed; and the bankers have been able to thumb their noses at us.

    The why is easy. Barack Obama receives more campaign donations from Wall Street than any politician in history - millions more than his Republican opposition in 2008. Thus far for 2012, financial bundlers are leading Obama's fundraising which may reach $1 billion.  This is not news. If the Democrats weren't the largest recipients, the New York-based media might be harder on the New York-based financiers, but what is is. And everybody knows it.

    The Obama administration has given us a sop in Dodd-Frank which addresses the small things which directly affect consumers - credit card fees and the like - while huffing and puffing about transparency and accountability.  But look at what has not been done:

    1. The Depression-Era Glass - Steagall Act which prohibited investment banks (which issue and trade securities) from owning commercial banks (which loan to individuals and companies) was repealed under President Clinton and has not been reinstated. The casino owners have access to our money. (The"Volker Rule" which would limit banks using deposits to speculate for their own accounts continues to get discussion, but has not been decided upon.)

    2. "Too big to fail" banks have not been broken up. In fact due to the acquisitions that occurred during the 2008 crisis - Lehman Brothers; Countrywide; Merrill Lynch; Chase; and many others - the six largest banks now control assets equal to 60% of GDP, up from 20% in the 90's.   

    3.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain in place as the purchasers of bundled mortgages, without the discipline brought by originating banks holding their commitments. So far this has cost the taxpayers $130 billion with no plan for fundamental change or accountability for the politically-connected leaders.

    4. The rating agencies - S&P, Moody's, and Fitch - continue to be paid by the issuers of the bonds that they are rating. The only punishment thus far is directed at S&P which had the temerity to state that USA debt wasn't AAA.

    5. Hedge fund managers, some of whom made billions by accelerating the near-collapse of 2008, continue to have their income taxed at the 15% capital gains rate rather than the marginal 35+ % that mortals pay.

    6. Nobody has gone to prison for the blatant fraud (for example, Goldman Sachs touting mortgage-backed securities which they were shorting on their own account) that preceded the 2008 collapse. In contrast, over 1000 folks were jailed after the Savings and Loan scandal of the 90's.

    The center-right Tea Party movement, focused on small government and fiscal responsibility, has done a very good job of policing itself, disappointing the Left by not going after social issues or allowing right-wing crazies on the stage. If the center-left component of the Occupy Wall Street movement can keep their crazies out and force movement to really reform Wall Street, more power to them.

    As for the politics of attacking Wall Street, it is hard to see how the attention can help a president who is owned by the enemy. On the Republican side, it is probably not good for Bain Capital's Mitt Romney.

                                                            -----

    This week's video lightly touches on the political corruption of the Solyndra loan, which included a perhaps illegal restructuring to place the government last in collecting any residual value. The larger principle: government support of targeted research is essential; serving as a venture capital fund to pick companies inherently leads to corruption and failure.

 

bill bowen - 10/14/11

Comments

[brad]

"Bill McCormick Bill McCormick" - A New Revolution Earth Social Media Site has been built to help support the occupiers and to transition the protesting to an online format. The Occupy Movement is our chance to create equality and this time it doesn't have to be violence that creates change, we have the internet now :-). If we all get involved or at least participate we will grow and we really could make a difference.....http://www.rev-earth.org.

[Bill McCormick]

FROM LAS VEGAS---

Got a close up look at the Wall Street Crowd --Las Vegas Version-- and the Tea Party People here in Las Vegas this week for the Pesidential debates. My impression: at least here -- the Tea Party are mostly scared old people worried about losing Medicare and Social Security. The Wall Street Crowd mostly very liberal kids with little idea of what they are protesting ranging from global pollution, to banks, to unemployment, to war, to tax the rich for us and -- to stop the old generation from making us pay for them. This is not a testiment to the open discussion of ideas but more a display of how far we have come in fostering a lack of understanding of solutions in favor of pushing an agenda. But, it is clearly an open display of the freedom to assemble America allows and the voices of the far left and far right minorities of both parties.

[DickG]

CAIN & GINGRICH; Two winners from "FAMILY FEUD". "When all about you are losing theirs'"

[Harrycat]

Is there any hope for a party that greatly prefers Herman Cain over Jon Huntsman for President?

[Harrycat]

Need more of this. However characterizing the Tea Party types as center-right is just not reasonable unless the center has moved a lot more than I think. Their social perspective has certainly nothing to do with center. In my group, which covers all types here in Maine, no one would call themselves a Tea Party advocate.

[LisainStLouis]

It looks as if the debate is not even a "game show" format. It appears to be "Family Feud".

[DickG]

NO RVN GUILT NECESSARY MR McC; '64- USN Destroyer Escort floating barges ashore along the DMZ to allow (Vietnamese) Budhists,Catholics etc to climb aboard while being machine gunned.Thats all I needed. Whatever the 'politics of mischief' were; we extended the 38'th parallel to the 17th-15th. Still pretty close. (Want to feel even better-keep reading)
Let me relate an incident in or around 1971. A noted radio host from WBZ (Peter Meade) in Boston was aghast at the fact that the scheduled anti-War demo was devoid of demonstrators. A few clergy were there alone. It was a FIRST. IT WAS ALSO THE FIRST SCHEDULED DEMONSTRATION FOLLOWING PASAGE OF THE "BILL" which ceased personnel DRAFT for RVN. A little Earth shaking; as they revealed their true motivations. The WAR was still raging. Never ,ever forgot it.

[Bill McCormick]

On the wall Street Mess--- Really reminds me of our young days and the Vietnam protests. For many it was a legitimate chance to express the problem of facing death in service to a country that seemed to have forgotten the value of their lives. To others a chance to party, take off their clothes and rebel on drugs and alcohol. Despite being a graduate of a Military Academy it was easy to relate to the protestors then as many friends died in that war we fought not to win. Very similar to the war we are fighting in Afghanistan and Pakistan now. We were told that our friends and classmates were dying to stabalize a valid government in South Vietnam. In fact they were just dying for us to decide why we were fighting and how we could get the hell out. The frustration was immense even for us Hawkish military minds. Today the frustration is immense with wars everywhere, $3 trillion of unpaid student loans on the books, and a lack of good jobs for young adults. And, then marginal work for many of their parents as well. In the end wall Street is about the furstration of all of it and the appearance that our elected officials don't care about anything except money and getting campaign contributions to keep their jobs. The President leads the way with his constant campaigning. For 2 1/2 years he has spent most of his time on the campaign trail raising money from the people these kids are frustrated with. And, now they see each night the reports of the millions that the 8-9 Republican candidates are raising. We no longer talk of Millionaires but Billionaires. No kid can rightly imagine what a Billionaire takes home each month. And then there's the frist Black President who rarely visits the inner city where the young Blacks are facing 46% unemployment and 75% of the babies are born out of wedlock most to teens. Bill Clinton never made that mistake. And, yet few Black kids have joined the ranks of Wall Street. And, of course 99% of Americans are watching in disgust or sympathy--take your choice. Agree or disagree this reminds me very much of the leadership--less days of Lyndon B Johnson. Obama has spent his capital on trying too change the nation into his vision of twenty years from now at a time when the country needed a CEO for today with a vision of tomorrow.

[RightinSanFrancisco]

For Smiling Jack Ross: I try to provide documented facts; readers are encouraged to provide other facts. Thank you for that aspect of your comments. The Right in San Francisco site attracts a variety of readers - some liberal; some conservative. We disagree about priorities and methods, but the objectives of a prosperous, safe, and fair society are shared. Readers appreciate civility and the avoidance of vulgarity found on some sites. Thank you for respecting the wishes of other readers in the future.

[Smiling Jack Ross]

RightinSF presents some valid points. However, it's convenient to "blame" all of this (- nothing has changed) on Obama because of the record campaign contributions he took (a fact - no denying), but NO Presdient just flips the CHANGE switch and it happens. There are a few hundred other politicians - many of whom are also owned by Wall Street - who make their living jerking-off on company time - that's a large part of why very little, if anything, ever changes. ("checks and balances")

By the way, although the Glass-Steagall was repealed under Clinton, Phil Gramm (R-Texas), Jim Leach (R-Iowa), and Thomas Bliley (R-Virginia) broughy up the bill that was passed by a Republican majority in the Senate. And, let's not overlook the Fed - "In December 1986, the Federal Reserve Board, which has regulatory jurisdiction over banking, reinterprets Section 20 of the Glass-Steagall Act, which bars commercial banks from being "engaged principally" in securities business, deciding that banks can have up to 5 percent of gross revenues from investment banking business. The Fed Board then permits Bankers Trust, a commercial bank, to engage in certain commercial paper (unsecured, short-term credit) transactions...In the spring of 1987, the Federal Reserve Board votes 3-2 in favor of easing regulations under Glass-Steagall Act, overriding the opposition of Chairman Paul Volcker. The vote comes after the Fed Board hears proposals from Citicorp, J.P. Morgan and Bankers Trust advocating the loosening of Glass-Steagall restrictions to allow banks to handle several underwriting businesses, including commercial paper, municipal revenue bonds, and mortgage-backed securities...In March 1987, the Fed approves an application by Chase Manhattan to engage in underwriting commercial paper, applying the same reasoning as in the 1986 Bankers Trust decision...In August 1987, Alan Greenspan -- formerly a director of J.P. Morgan and a proponent of banking deregulation -- becomes chairman of the Federal Reserve Board." (Fuck Alan Greenspan.)