More Important than OWS?

[oddlots]

When talking about reform the key thing from which all else follows is, to my mind, getting moneyed interests out of politics. This seems encouraging:

http://unitedrepublic.org/2011/annou...ited-republic/

Via boing boing:

"We aim to transform our nation’s outrage over corruption, gridlock, and cronyism into a powerful political force that can demand and deliver lasting change. We will hold politicians accountable; expose how corporate lobbyists hurt ordinary Americans; build a coalition of supporters from left, right and center; and provide financial support to the best people and organizations working on solving the problem.

Already our coalition is growing. In the fall of 2011, we joined forces with Rootstrikers, a group founded by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig that shares the goal of ending the domination of Big Money over the political process. The group’s name is inspired by the Henry David Thoreau quote, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” And we've recently merged with the Get Money Out campaign, an effort started by MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan that shares similar goals."

[we_are_toast]

Re: More Important than OWS?

When talking about reform the key thing from which all else follows is, to my mind, getting moneyed interests out of politics.

Occupy Wall Street is squandering an incredible opportunity to bring the critical issue of how corrupt our electoral system is, to the forefront of a discussion. I think other groups will now start coming forward and co-opt the thunder of OWS. And you can believe the Oligarchs have their bullhorns tuned up and will be funding more groups that will try to divide any opposition to their power. It's kind of a race to see who will continue on from where OWS has left off.

This sounds like a good group, but I didn't read anything about how their going to stop the influence of big money. I know they're just getting off the ground, but it kind of sounds like they're going to try to fight against big money campaigns with their own campaigns, which I don't believe will work. The solutions need to be more long term, which starts with a change in the Supreme Court, and ends with a constitutional amendment.

[dcarrigg]

Re: More Important than OWS?

When talking about reform the key thing from which all else follows is, to my mind, getting moneyed interests out of politics. This seems encouraging:

http://unitedrepublic.org/2011/annou...ited-republic/

Via boing boing:

"We aim to transform our nation’s outrage over corruption, gridlock, and cronyism into a powerful political force that can demand and deliver lasting change. We will hold politicians accountable; expose how corporate lobbyists hurt ordinary Americans; build a coalition of supporters from left, right and center; and provide financial support to the best people and organizations working on solving the problem.

Already our coalition is growing. In the fall of 2011, we joined forces with Rootstrikers, a group founded by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig that shares the goal of ending the domination of Big Money over the political process. The group’s name is inspired by the Henry David Thoreau quote, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” And we've recently merged with the Get Money Out campaign, an effort started by MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan that shares similar goals."

Would you donate money to our lobby so we can lobby to get money away from lobbies? Each dollar donated to lobby against special interests will be matched by grants from generous rich and famous special interests. Let's lobby the lobby system to oblivion.

[oddlots]

Re: More Important than OWS?

Would you donate money to our lobby so we can lobby to get money away from lobbies? Each dollar donated to lobby against special interests will be matched by grants from generous rich and famous special interests. Let's lobby the lobby system to oblivion.

How else would it occur (if at all?)

[dcarrigg]

Re: More Important than OWS?

How else would it occur (if at all?)

I was just pointing out the irony of trying to raise millions of political dollars to help get dollars out of politics.

The head of the page [almost] literally says "Get money out of politics: Donate now!"

I don't know what the answer is exactly, but it has got to be legislative or constitutional. Somehow I don't think it will involve a "Deputy Communications Director" or an "Associate Web Editor." If 50% of the money goes to grants to get work done, where does the other $5M in the kitty go?

It feels very much like an economic development agency or something like that. Lots of money sloshing around - lots of titles handed out - lots of talking. Kickstarter already does small grants. Granted, these are small grants for a specific purpose. But I can't see how it changes the game at all.

If they simply used the $10M for targeted TV ads maybe they could sway public opinion a bit. But the groundswell is already there. It's in the polls. That still won't force congress to vote on anything. But eventually, if things work the way they should, someone will come along and realize that they can score points by leading the charge on this.

It will be telling to watch campaign ads for congress this year. That's where the rubber hits the road (and where $10M doesn't look like much).

That being said, I wish this group luck and encourage them to pleasantly surprise me.

[stetts]

Re: More Important than OWS?

+1!
Stetts

[Stroebel]

Re: More Important than OWS?

Occupy Wall Street is squandering an incredible opportunity to bring the critical issue of how corrupt our electoral system is, to the forefront of a discussion.

You may be right. But OWS started the conversation.

Now who is going to take this up?

Thanks for speaking out.

[Stroebel]

Re: More Important than OWS?

I agree that is seems like more hacking at the branches, to borrow from Thoreau.

How to strike at the root? No more business as usual? How inconvenient do things have to become to get change?

[metalman]

Re: More Important than OWS?

I agree that is seems like more hacking at the branches, to borrow from Thoreau.

How to strike at the root? No more business as usual? How inconvenient do things have to become to get change?

ah... college memories... give me convenience or give me death!



Track listing

1. "Police Truck"
2. "Too Drunk to Fuck"
3. "California Über Alles" (single version)
4. "The Man with the Dogs"
5. "Insight"
6. "Life Sentence"
7. "A Child and His Lawnmower"
8. "Holiday in Cambodia"
9. "I Fought the Law"
10. "Saturday Night Holocaust"
11. "Pull My Strings"
12. "Short Songs"
13. "Straight A's"
14. "Kinky Sex Makes the World Go Around"
15. "The Prey"
16. "Night of the Living Rednecks"
17. "Buzzbomb from Pasadena"

[lektrode]

Re: More Important than OWS?

ah... college memories... give me convenience or give me death!

Track listing
....
2. "Too Drunk to ....

SNORT!!!!
heheheheh...

ahhh Mister metalman - yer irreverence, sir, is truly inspiring...

now eye know you _must _ be a true New Hampsterite!

and dont ya just luv politix, 'south of the border' style...
i just hope miz warren dont fall into this lil 'sand trap'

[Stroebel]

Re: More Important than OWS?

ah... college memories... give me convenience or give me death!

Good one!

The AP ran an article yesterday on the OWS march; the first sentence highlighted the traffic delays caused by the protesters. Clearly, this is getting serious.

I think Jello Biafra also sang, on a different album, that "Police can riot all they please."

[lektrode]

Re: More Important than OWS?

oh yes, very definitely Serious

not sure why, but this guy's stuff has suddenly appeared, couple times now, in the morning fishwrappper this week...
cant say there's much (for me anyway) to disagree with here - comments?
dc? (i look to you to keep me on the straight and narrow on this one, as i sincerely appreciate your POV and willingness to address both sides of these 'equations' for us = priceless obs & commentary, big guy and i thank you for it)

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/65510

Ambrose: Occupiers: Chop off their heads!


(eye esp like his ref'g the 'big french cheeze slicer' here ;)

Some poor guy in New York was trying to get to work, and some Occupy Wall Street people were blocking his way, and one of them explained why. "This society is stopping a lot of people from going to work," the person told a Los Angeles Times reporter. "It's OK that we're stopping people one day."

No it's not, but the rationale sums up a whole lot that's wrong with a movement that seems to believe the First Amendment guarantees a right to harass pedestrians, block traffic for hours, destroy public property and damage small businesses through customer deterrence and restroom havoc.

I think the First Amendment guarantees other things, such as free speech and free press, and I am going to take advantage of those rights in explaining why I think the Occupy mobs differ from the unfairly, viciously castigated Tea Party in roughly the same way the American Revolution differed from the French Revolution.

Both revolutions aimed at equal rights and liberty, but Americans exacted no horrific vengeance on Tories after the fighting was done, and soon established a republic that has stayed intact to this day. It wasn't long before the French Revolution evolved into the Reign of Terror, during which those seen as enemies of the dictatorship got to see what a guillotine felt like. It was the rich, the aristocrats, who were most hated, though what happened fairly quickly was a different kind of aristocracy under Napoleon.

Some Tea Party activists have had their problems with Wall Street bailouts, but few are yelping about using tax hikes to get even with some 1 percent supposedly shirking their share and lording it over the rest of us because of their wealth. They want limited government, not still more regulatory, ever-demanding excesses, and they have been orderly. Some objectionable signs have been seen and there was an unverified incident of maybe a few people using a racial slur, but that is about it.

To the extent that you can ferret out meaning from the rhetorical escapades of the Occupiers, they want unending freebies at the expense of the rest of us and think capitalism a horrible system. They believe the rich are ripping everyone else off by not getting taxed their fair share and assume these rich people are the ruling equivalent of Louis XVI. At least figuratively, they want their heads chopped off. They see more government as a way out, and their mode of operation is French mob chaos. I am not sure what percentage are anti-Semitic. Let's hope those worrying about "Jewish bankers" represent a tiny number.

The movement was egged on in its envy and resentment, you know. In a style that would make Huey Long proud, Barack Obama and the aristocracy of academic elites around him have been barking about greedy Wall Street, overfed CEOs and corporate evils since 2008. He has said the rich don't pay their fair share when in fact he absolutely has to know that the rich pay most of the taxes in this country and that his predecessor, George W. Bush, did more to relieve middle and low-income groups of tax burdens than he has dreamed of.

This joblessness we are now suffering was primarily instigated not by too little government, but by too much -- as in trying to enable those who cannot afford home mortgages to get stuck with them anyway. What we need from government now is not more of the same -- as in Obama promising a million of those owing student loans that the taxpayers will relieve them of much of their obligation -- but less of the same, as in Congress agreeing to a debt fix involving both tax and entitlement reform.

A number of Democrats have already aligned themselves with these Occupiers, but it just may be that the average voter will not like being pushed around anymore than that guy on his way to work in New York, and average voters count for more than the rich any day.

(Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in El Paso, Texas, and Denver, is a columnist living in Colorado.

not incidently, he also renews my faith in CO... with/in-spite-of boulder always pushing them ever closer to the edge...

[dcarrigg]

Re: More Important than OWS?

oh yes, very definitely Serious

not sure why, but this guy's stuff has suddenly appeared, couple times now, in the morning fishwrappper this week...
cant say there's much (for me anyway) to disagree with here - comments?
dc? (i look to you to keep me on the straight and narrow on this one, as i sincerely appreciate your POV and willingness to address both sides of these 'equations' for us = priceless obs & commentary, big guy and i thank you for it)

http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/65510



not incidently, he also renews my faith in CO... with/in-spite-of boulder always pushing them ever closer to the edge...

Well, my issue with him is simple. He's all one-sided, in the traditional way.

Republican vs. Democrat.

Who cares if you're on the left or right side of the rope when you're teetering on the edge of a cliff?

Here's the most recent numbers on the Tea Party & OWS (remembering that at this moment one is a national movement voluntarily aligned with an American political party and the other is an international movement that some from an American political party want to align with).



The problem with the chart above is that it now has more Dems and less Independents than before. That doesn't bode well for the OWS.

Moreover, it may be a generational split. This also does not bode well.

Of course, there's only so much one should take from one poll - but here's my reaction to the latest in real time:

Americans are deeply divided along partisan lines in their evaluations of these movements, although Republicans are significantly more likely to say the Tea Party shares their values than Democrats are to say the Occupy Wall Street movement shares their values.

Approximately 6-in-10 (59%) of Republicans say the Tea Party shares their values, compared on only 14% of Democrats; 78% of Democrats say the Tea Party does not share their values.
Only 4-in-10 (40%) Democrats say the Occupy Wall Street movement shares their values, compared to 47% who say it does not share their values. Only 17% of Republicans say the Occupy Wall Street movement shares their values, compared to 71% who say it does not.
Less than 3-in10 Independents say either the Tea Party movement (26%) or the Occupy Wall Street movement (29%) shares their values. Americans who identify as political moderates, however, are more likely to say the Occupy Wall Street movement shares their values (33%) than to say the Tea Party movement shares their values (22%).

So there you have it. OWS loosing support from independents but picking it up from Dems. All in a month.

Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants are the most likely to say that the Tea Party movement shares their values (49%), but nearly 4-in-10 (39%) say it does not. Nearly 4-in-10 (38%) of religiously unaffiliated Americans say the Occupy Wall Street movement shares their values, compared to 34% of minority Protestants, 30% of white mainline Protestants, 29% of Catholics, and only 18% of white evangelical Protestants.

This is slightly interesting. WASPs come out more heavily for the Tea Party. Religion, or lack thereof, still doesn't show significantly in OWS.

Americans who are part of the Millennial generation (ages 18-29) are significantly more likely to say the Occupy Wall Street movement shares their values (34%) than to say the Tea Party movement shares their values (26%).

The generational split has been obvious. And it's well known that the 60+ crowd is more likely to favor the Tea Party. Underlying reasons? Probably internet.

Approximately 8-in-10 (79%) Americans believe the gap between the rich and the poor has gotten larger over the past 20 years, 14% believe it has stayed the same, and only 4% believe it has gotten smaller. There is broad agreement across political, religious, and other demographic categories on this point.

This is important. Politicians ignore supermajorities at their own peril. This is why you see some Republican presidential candidates backing off from earlier hard-line statements on OWS. Now they will say "some of the issues are important, but we don't like the tactics."

That makes sense. But if you don't actually put forth a plan to address the issues...

Americans, however, are more divided about the impact of this perceived rise in inequality on the idea of the American dream: that if you work hard, you’ll get ahead.

This is interesting. I cannot recall the statement above being controversial before 6 months ago. It's also a possible tectonic shift.

A majority (56%) of Republicans believe the American Dream still holds true, while 39% say it once held true but does not any more, and only 4% believe it never held true. In contrast, only 36% of Democrats believe the American Dream still holds true, and a majority (56%) of Democrats believe the American dream was once true but is not any more; 6% believe it never held true.

Barely a majority of Republicans here. Looking at these numbers (and without independent numbers) I would guess that a majority of Americans no longer buy the American Dream. Yikes.

There are also large divides by race, gender, and education level. Hispanics stand out as the most optimistic group: 52% of Hispanics say the American Dream still holds true, compared to 44% of whites and only 33% of black Americans. Nearly 6-in-10 (58%) black Americans say the American Dream once held true but not anymore. Men (50%) are significantly more likely than women (38%) to say the American Dream still holds true.

Women are particularly pessimistic right now. Even though employment and wage losses have been less harsh for them. More questions are needed. Are they worrying about children here more than men are?

Two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, compared to 31% who disagree.

This is barely a supermajority, but it's there. Again: ignore at your own peril.

There is a striking 40-point gap between Republicans and Democrats on this question. More than 8-in-10 (83%) Democrats agree that the government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, compared to only 43% of Republicans; a majority (54%) of Republicans disagree. Independents’ attitudes mirror the general public.

Getting closer and closer to an even split amongst Republicans in regards to closing wealth inequality gap. This is worth paying attention to.

Majorities of nearly every demographic group—including all major religious groups, age groups, and education groups—agree that the government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

Self-explanatory.

Approximately two-thirds (66%) of the general population also say the government should do more to help students pay for college and pay off student loan debt.

Wait until people realize that student loan debt was dischargeable in bankruptcy not so long ago. This is a real issue that's growing. The youth vote doesn't matter so much. But if more parents start paying for it...

However, the public is also conflicted about the effect of government assistance programs; approximately 7-in-10 (71%) say poor people have become too dependent on government assistance programs.

This number is slightly up. As foodstamps and UI proliferate, so does their stigma. This can be expected.

Americans are evenly divided in their evaluations of the responses of churches and clergy to the economic crisis. Forty-six percent say churches and clergy have not provided enough moral leadership on the country’s most pressing economic problems, compared to 45% who disagree. With the exception of minority Protestants, all major religious groups are divided on this question. Sixty-four percent of minority Protestants agree that churches and clergy have not provided enough moral leadership on economic problems.

Also interesting. We've recently seen the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury come out in favor of reforming the world financial system and taxes on financial transactions and speculation...

Nearly 7-in-10 (68%) of Americans say that in order to reduce the deficit, it’s fair to ask wealthier Americans to pay a greater percentage in taxes than the middle class or those less well off.

Again there's a supermajority here. Americans understand the concept of shared-sacrifice very well, even if the nuevo-rich don't.

More than 8-in-10 (81%) Democrats and 68% of Independents agree that asking wealthier Americans to pay a greater percentage in taxes than others is fair. Republicans are nearly evenly divided on this question (50% agree, 49% disagree).

These are absolutely overwhelming numbers. This is almost a can't loose argument. More people believe the moon landing was fake than the that wealthy shouldn't be asked to pay more in taxes.

Majorities of nearly all other demographic groups, including all major religious groups, agree that it’s fair to ask wealthier Americans to pay a greater percentage in taxes than the middle class or those less well off.

Progressive taxation is still popular, despite the prevalence of "flat-tax" options from Republican primary candidates.

When considering measures that would help reduce the nation’s budget deficit, Americans favor increasing taxes on Americans making at least $1 million dollars per year (69%) and eliminating tax breaks for large corporations (57%).

There are large partisan divides on each of these questions, with Democrats and Independents strongly favoring these proposals and Republicans nearly evenly divided. Strong majorities of every major religious group favor both of these proposals.

Supermajority says tax the millionaires. Simple majority says tax corporations. People are still worried that taxing corporations will cost jobs...but not religious people...who are they? CATO/Neocons? Mfg workers? Where are they from? These results are strange.

Americans oppose cutting funding for the military (74%), cutting federal funding for social programs that help the poor (67%), and cutting federal funding for religious organizations that help the poor (66%).

There you have it. Austerity sucks. A supermajority knows it. You might get elected on austerity. You probably won't get re-elected on it.

There are interesting divisions over cutting federal funding for programs that help the poor, depending on whether the funding is going to religious organizations. Nearly 7-in-10 (68%) Republicans oppose cutting federal funding to religious organizations helping the poor, but only 46% oppose cutting general federal funding to help the poor. Among Democrats, there is an opposite, though less pronounced, pattern: 83% oppose cutting general federal funding to help the poor, but only 66% oppose cutting federal funding to religious organizations to help the poor.

The above is somewhat to be expected. Although one should suspect that most who do not use government services will not care intensely about cuts despite the numbers above.

So there you have it from the Public Religion Research Institute. The differences between the parties are in some ways less pronounced than the similarities on issues that are not being dealt with.

Praising the Tea Party and bashing OWS or visa-versa is pointless. One is older, WASPier, and national the other is younger, more diverse, and international. They are both signs of discontent.

Both parties are on the other side of a supermajority of Americans. They both promote policies that squeeze the middle class to favor the rich - and to a lesser extent - the poor. They both lie about statistics and tell you there's no inflation when the middle class really feels it. And they are both infiltrated by FIRE cronies who will tell you what you want to hear, but know where their bread is buttered.

Of course, it has all been done before. It reminds me of Rome, but green with cash rather than red with blood.

Shame on the age and on its principles! The senate is aware of these things; the consul sees them; and yet this man lives. Lives! aye, he comes even into the senate. He takes a part in the public deliberations; he is watching and marking down and checking off for slaughter every individual among us. And we, gallant men that we are, think that we are doing our duty to the republic if we keep out of the way of his frenzied attacks.

You ought, O Catiline, long ago to have been led to execution by command of the consul. That destruction which you have been long plotting against us ought to have already fallen on your own head...

...and shall we, who are the consuls, tolerate Catiline, openly desirous to destroy the whole world with fire and slaughter? For I pass over older instances, such as how Caius Servilius Ahala with his own hand slew Spurius Mælius when plotting a revolution in the state. There was -- there was once such virtue in this republic, that brave men would repress mischievous citizens with severer chastisement than the most bitter enemy.

Interestingly, Catiline was arguing for debt relief. Ciciero himself wrote in De Officiis that outstanding debt had never been greater than it was in 63 B.C. Catiline gathered a group of plebs and veterans who wanted debt written down. When the Senate would not hear it, they accused him of conspiracy. Later, there was an actual failed conspiracy. Interestingly, one Gaius Julius Caesar argued against his execution. This gave him popularity with the lower classes.

Of course, the older aristocrats would not hear it. Debt would not be written down. Real Estate values collapsed.

At this point, it didn't matter which side of the senate you sided with. They were far out of touch.

(Oh yeah, and civil war came via Caesar).

When Caesar took over 14 years later, he ordered all property revalued, cancelled rent payments for a year, forbade any person from holding more than 60,000 sesterces (silver dimes) in savings, and cancelled all interest payments on loans outstanding as of 49 B.C.

This is not too dissimilar from what the Fed has done, when you think about it. Lower interest rates to zero. Encourage people to refinance. Discourage savings. Prop-up housing, etc.

Then of course, Caesar had the inevitable resultant unemployment problem. His solution was to cut the amount of grain given to the poor who didn't emigrate by half (cut food stamps if people didn't leave high-unemployment areas essentially). He then ordered public works projects built to spur employment.

This is not too dissimilar with cutbacks in state-aid in the hard-hit areas here. And it's not too dissimilar to the stimulus either.

-We're Here-

Of course, the debt problem wasn't solved until 1) Julius Caesar died and left 300,000 sesterces to each citizen (functionally a progressive wealth transfer since he was the richest man of the time on a scale greater than we even have now), 2) and most of the sesterces handed out didn't really weigh as much as they were supposed to, 3) Augustus came along and 20 years later and swapped out the silver sesterces for big bronze coins - inflating the rest of the debt away, and 4) the military took care of most of the unemployment problems.

There are a few morals to this story that are applicable here:

1) When people talk seriously about a debt holiday, ignore them at your peril
2) Given how things played out, wealth transfer and inflation are probably required if there is to be no debt holiday
3) Debt crises are dangerous times

[astonas]

Re: More Important than OWS?

Thanks, dcarrigg, for your detailed and thorough evaluation of the current political mood!

However, I note that you draw an analogy between our current position and the birth of the roman empire:

Of course, the debt problem wasn't solved until 1) Julius Caesar died and left 300,000 sesterces to each citizen (functionally a progressive wealth transfer since he was the richest man of the time on a scale greater than we even have now), 2) and most of the sesterces handed out didn't really weigh as much as they were supposed to, 3) Augustus came along and 20 years later and swapped out the silver sesterces for big bronze coins - inflating the rest of the debt away, and 4) the military took care of most of the unemployment problems.

While this is of course possible, I tend to put us closer to ~280 AD, just before Diocletian:

Not all Diocletian's plans were successful: the Edict on Maximum Prices, his attempt to curb inflation via price controls, was counterproductive and quickly ignored.
wikipedia

The main difference being that with 'ol Julius, the best days of Rome were just getting started, but Diocletian, in desperately doing what he had to to stave off total collapse, invented feudalism. The worst part is, I'm not even sure we can hope for his ending:

In spite of his failures, Diocletian's reforms fundamentally changed the structure of Roman imperial government and helped stabilize the Empire economically and militarily, enabling the Empire to remain essentially intact for another hundred years despite having seemed near the brink of collapse in Diocletian's youth. Weakened by illness, Diocletian left the imperial office on May 1, 305, and became the only Roman emperor to voluntarily abdicate the position.
ibid

There are a few morals to this story that are applicable here:

1) When people talk seriously about a debt holiday, ignore them at your peril
2) Given how things played out, wealth transfer and inflation are probably required if there is to be no debt holiday
3) Debt crises are dangerous times

These lessons, are, of course always valid. But Diocletian shows us what happens when government tries to enforce solutions from the top down that fail to work: Total monetary collapse, a return to bartering, and eventually serfdom. Still it wasn't completely bleak:

Building on third-century trends towards absolutism, he styled himself an autocrat, elevating himself above the Empire's masses with imposing forms of court ceremonial and architecture. Bureaucratic and military growth, constant campaigning, and construction projects increased the state's expenditures and necessitated a comprehensive tax reform. From at least 297 on, imperial taxation was standardized, made more equitable, and levied at generally higher rates. [Emphasis added.]
ibid

Not too far off, I think.

[Sutter Cane]

Re: More Important than OWS?

Thanks for that post dcarrig. I appreciate the thought and effort that went into constructing it.