In the 1976 movie, Network, anchorman Howard Beale implores his viewing audience:
Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"
We're mad as hell and we're not going to take this anymore. That is the message of the sit-ins by U.S. Uncut, the protests against Bank of America, the occupation of Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. to protest the war, Occupy Wall Street and the growing numbers of #Occupy demonstrations around the country.
We're mad at the devastation wrought in the last four years by the toxic combination of unrestrained greed and concentrated wealth. Twelve to fifteen million families have received foreclosure notices. Seven to ten million more are unemployed. Median household income has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade while the poverty rate is at a 17-year high. The number of homeless in New York City rose to an all-time high last year -- higher, even, than during the Great Depression.
We're mad at Wall Street for taking our money and giving nothing back. Banks have received nearly $10 trillion in bailouts. In 2010, they handed out $149 billion in bonuses and compensation, near an all-time high. But lending has fallen by nine percent since 2008.
One percent of Americans now take in more than a quarter of the nation's income every year. In New York City, home to Wall Street, the top one percent took for themselves close to 44 percent of all income in New York during 2007 (the last year for which data is available).
"We are the 99%" is a fitting slogan for the new movements.
Conservatives have been remarkably successful in persuading us that government is the enemy. The 99 percenters know that is true only inasmuch as the government is captured by the 1 percenters. We are angry at government, but what makes us more angry is that in this system you get the government you pay for and 99% of us aren't able to do any buying.
We're mad at government, but we haven't given up on governance, on the right to make the rules.
Last week the General Assembly of Occupy Wall Street adopted a declaration of principles that will inform the new rules:
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.
We come to you at a time when corporations -- which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality -- run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
From that declaration of principles a program will emerge. The conversation about what that program will consist of has started. To contribute to that conversation I propose that it include five new rules: two constitutional amendments and three laws.
1. Corporations are not persons
The 14th Amendment gave African-American the constitutional right of citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States.... No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In 1886, a court clerk wrote a headnote to a case that case that had nothing to do with corporate personhood:
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
Some 65 years later Justice William O. Douglas observed that "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions...Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives." And they made the most of these new prerogatives.
In the next 20 years, relying on the 1886 "precedent," the Supreme Court steadily expanded the number of Constitutional rights accorded to this new type of person. In 1893 the Court accorded corporations the right of due process under the 5th Amendment. In 1906 it extended the protection against search and seizure in the 4th Amendment. In 1908 it gave corporations the 6th Amendment right to a trial by jury.
By the 1940s Justice Felix Frankfurter could that "artificial or not, corporations have won more rights under law than people have -- rights which government has protected with armed force."
In early 2010, the Supreme Court gave corporations the right, as persons, to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.
We need a new four-word constitutional amendment: corporations are not persons.
2. Money is not speech
In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Today money has corrupted our political system. Political scientist Thomas Ferguson observes, "Public opinion has only a weak and inconstant influence on policy. The political system is largely investor-driven, and runs on enormous quantities of money."
When states or the federal government have tried to make elections fairer, the Supreme Court has stood in the way. Vermont passed a law to cap campaign expenditures for state offices. The Court struck it down.
Congress tried to stop billionaire candidates from spending an unlimited amount of their own money on their own campaigns. The Court struck down the law. Speaking for a 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Alito told Congress that trying to "level electoral opportunities for candidates of different personal wealth" is not "a legitimate government objective."
Combine the Supreme Court rulings that money is speech and that corporations are persons and you have a lethal cocktail. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland state senator and law professor at American University points reports that Fortune 100 corporations had profits in 2008 totaling about $600 billion. If they spent only one percent of their profits on elections, a trivial sum to protect and foster their interests, the total comes to $6 billion. That is more money than was spent for and on behalf of all congressional and presidential candidates in 2008.
We need a new four-word constitutional amendment. Money is not speech.
3. Tax financial transactions
In 1936, John Maynard Keynes first proposed a financial transactions tax. "The introduction of a substantial Government transfer tax on all transactions might prove the most serviceable reform available, with a view to mitigating the predominance of speculation over enterprise in the United States," he wrote.
Economist Dean Baker suggests that a modest tax (0.25 percent) could easily raise more than $100 billion a year. "A small increase in trading costs would be a very manageable burden for those who are using financial markets to support productive economic activity. However, it would impose serious costs on those who see the financial markets as a casino in which they place their bets by the day, hour or minute," Baker says.
4. Tax all income as ordinary income
Billionaire Warren Buffett has commented on the unfairness of his having a lower tax rate than his secretary. That occurs because most of his income derives from dividends and capital gains taxed at half the rate as income from work.
In 2007, the 400 Americans with the highest income -- nearly $345 million -- were taxed at less than 17 percent -- less than half the ordinary income tax rate of 35 percent because most of their income was derived from investments. If we were to require that all their income be taxed at the 1999 tax rate of 39.6% this alone would generate an additional $300 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.
5. Declare a moratorium on foreclosures
Foreclosures hurt individuals, neighborhoods and the economy. Dumping millions of homes on the market depresses the overall value of all real estate, increases unemployment and disrupts lives and neighborhoods.
The most effective way to stop the tidal wave of foreclosures is through permanent, sustainable loan modifications. In a 2010 report, National Peoples Action proposed one strategy:
"Across the country, some 11 million homeowners are $766 billion under water with their mortgages. Paid off over 30 years this means $73 billion a year needed to reset all underwater homeowners' principals and interest rates would be about half of the $143 billion the top six banks alone are getting ready to pay in 2010 in bonuses and compensation. Even if the top six banks were to absorb the full cost of modifying all underwater mortgages in the country, they would still have $70 billion left for bonuses and compensation."
The Wall Street occupiers have taken a stand against monied democracy and corporate power. We would do well to join them. Make your voices heard. And demand new rules that will honor the 99% and restore democracy to the nation.
Valarie Kaur: This Is What a Groundswell Looks Like
Bob Edgar: A Cause to Unite Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party
Andrew Cooper: Bill Gates Pushes Financial Sector to Pay its Fair Share
This is patently false! What the Citizens United decision did was to invalidate an unConstitutional law that limited political speech in the last 30 days preceding an election. Further, it struck down an unConstitutional law that prevented ANYONE from commenting on certain aspects of politics and politicians.
If you are going to write an article which purports to be a cry for support, honesty should be your first goal.
Semper fi
2. You offer no defense of the claim that money corrupted the political system other than vaguely implying the above. See: Edsel. Let me guess...the government will decide by force of arms how much money it's okay to have when running for office? Ridiculous.
3. By "raise 100 billion a year" you mean take it out of the markets—and put it where? Welfare mothers? How about some suggestions that try to help the stock market instead of looting it (for ill-defined purposes) while it struggles?
4. Yeah...you know why they don't hit people so hard for capital gains, certain funds, and so on? Because that's the money that enables banks to do their work! The whole system relies on it. You want to eat your seed corn.
5. Oh, here's what it comes down to: you want an economic system where you can borrow money, then decide later if you want to pay it back, but you get to keep the house anyway. Just like the Occupy Wall Street protestors who claim they are being "held hostage" because they borrowed money for student loans and don't feel they should have to pay it back.
When even New York Magazine calls your demands "Marxist drivel," you know you've got a severe problem.
With the proceeds, we can rebuild our infrastructure, fund the infrastructure bank proposed by Obama's Jobs bill, and fund the SBA for small business loans.
I do agree with the other provisions. Let's stop recognizing corporations as people because they aren't. These are reasons to elect a progressive majority to Congress and to re-elect President Obama. We also need to reform the filibuster rules in the Senate and impeach Justices Thomas and Scalia for bribery.
How myopic.
Gold's value is in its intrinsic properties, properties that have been harnessed via INNOVATION beyond gold's role in jewelry.
How are those great corporations built? Through the execution of visionary plans of founders who INNOVATE.
Between labor and capital are the innovators. Without innovators, no new jobs can be created.
We are very much in the world that Ayn Rand described in her book 'Atlas Shrugged', however in our case, the innovators did not go on strike, rather they are all disenfranchised.
The late, great Steve Jobs was credited with somehow making Apple into the most valuable company in the world, despite having no support from the corrupt US government. That Apple manufactures in China is no coincidence. Simply the capital for Apple's supply chain came from Overseas, not from the USA.
Ergo, the smartest innovators in the USA have not gone on strike, they just took the path of least resistance and chose to set up shop in more welcoming countries overseas, where they can fulfill their dreams without having to wade through enless red tape and stifling regulations, endless headaches with labor and a corrupt government run by bankers.
It is always interesting to see government-manufactured economic crises placed at the feet of free market capitalism. The fed’s artificial credit expansion, combined government attempts to manage the housing market and broader economy through intervention and bad policies has put us on this ruinous path, not free market capitalism, not greedy bankers, not corporate America.
A few points:
1) Corporations Are Not Persons: True but they are organized groups of persons, much like unions, charities, universities, non-profit organizations. I agree that there should be some type of campaign finance rules but then these should be equally applied to all individuals and groups. As such, if banks cannot spend, than either can unions, or the AMA, or ActBlue, or individuals. If rights of individuals and groups are going to be abrogated, and I am not for that at all but ‘if’, then they should be done so in equal accord. This could be easily addressed by improved regulations, and Obama made an attempt—but then he started making carve-outs for unions, the NRA, AT&T, etc. and his duplicitous efforts to protect ‘his party’s ’ special interests undermined its legitimacy.
2) Money Is Not Speech: True again. And I agree again. But if we are going to limit the rights of one group to use money in influencing an election, which everyone will agree is bad, then we must do the same for all groups and individuals looking to do the same, unions, AARP, vets, NRA,& individuals
1. Corporations are NOT people NOR do they represent PEOPLE. They represent a tiny microscopic number of people in contrast to Labor Unions who represent hundreds of thousands of workers by voice and action. Not just for greed but labor conditions.
2 Money is not speech. Corporate money is certainly is not speech. Because corporations do not represent and idea they represent greed. AARP represent PEOPLE with MULTIPLE ideas. Same for Vets who btw do not fit into a political category. NRA is an ideology AND a corporation so their access and level of voice should be limited. But of course we don't live in a Federal Democracy anymore we're in corporate Oligarchy.
I've been through this arguement with you before so I'm going to entertain it a 2nd time but the readers need to know your perspective has an opposition and a falsehood woven into it's premise.
2. All speech requires money. Therefore, money is speech! And your idea of who is or is not a corporation is humorous. You do exactly as Kai says we should not do, with which I agree. You wish to carve out exceptions for those you like, and hit hard at those you do not like. This is patently un-American.
Semper fi
I work for a bank. They partially pay us in shares so as to impute the risk of our actions to our pay. I am an owner of my business. The employees are the shareholders of the bank, as they are for many companies. About 50% of Americans own shares in their company and other companies through retirement accounts and 401K. Even the auto unions own shares of GM…they are owners of that company.
Private union members represent 6.9% of the workforce, shareholders represent 50%...using YOUR logic, unions should have less voice in America politics because they represent less people…right?
I agree with the last part of your paragraph but much of the campaign finance now days down not come in the form of campaign finance…it comes in in-kind services…the kind that Huffington Post gives by talking up the Democrats and talking down the Republicans, etc. This type of campaign in-kind support is worth more than 1K, and corporations and groups can set up tons of sites like this. How would you control for it?
Kai
Semper fi
4) Tax All Income As Ordinary Income: I totally agree, but then get rid of corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and dividend taxes. It simplifies everything, and just tax people what they make net of all business expenses, etc. That being said, drop income tax and reduce government spending, fiscal consolidation. We suffer a spending problem, countries that have had similar fiscal crises such as ours had better results with limiting spending than increasing taxes. Low tax jurisdictions have better economies, in general, and our associated with lower unemployment.
5) Declare A Moratorium On Foreclosures: This is where you completely get it wrong. The governemnt needs to stop intervening in this market, trying to prop it up, and instead we need to let foreclosers continue, market processes work, and let house prices continue to drop to a sustainable level. More artificial involvement in this area is just adding more damage to already ruinous policies that got us here in the first place. Bad borrowers need to lose their houses and bad banks need to take a write down on their loans.
Kai
Markets need to be free to operate in the best interests of the average consumer. All the problems he has solutions for were a result of manipulation of a market.
Progressives are so close to the truth, they are just skipping over the key culprit that prohibits prosperity, the very government they want increased.
A much better plan would be to force every bank to correctly value the underlying collateral for every loan and book that value. If it is less than the mortgage, banks would be required to write down the book value of the loan. If the loan is non-peforming the asset should be re-valued to the value it would have if bought at a foreclosure sale.
For many institutions, this would mean a huge drop in their corporate value. Possibly some banks would be bought at a discount to avoid bankruptcy and others would go under. This has the additional advantage of giving banks no reason not to rewrite underwater or non-performing mortgages.
Capitalism works perfectly well if you just let it.
The only way would be to increase the cost of the loan to cover that risk. Also a huge number of these loans are held by Fannie Mae. So tax payer's would have to absorb the costs.
Great plan.
The follow on is that Fannie and Freddie do what they originally intended back in 2008. They buy at a slight discount and re-negotiate the non performing or underwater mortgages of anyone who lives in their mortgaged home. These loans would be purchased from the entity which took over the failing bank.
If this means a write down, there is always a shared equity policy which could be implemented. When a home is sold the bank and the homeowner share the equity 50/50 up to the amount of the write off and then the homeowner gets everything over that.
I am not one of those advocating the elimination of either Fannie or Freddie. Provided they remain as the secondary market for conforming loans there should be no danger in a spike for interest rates for owner occupied houses.
If you will recall the 80's when the RTC had to take over failing banks due to poor commercial lending practices it did not cause commercial rates to spike either.
can any capital produce labor? (yes)
he who holds the gold rules.
It will take some time, but we will also come to reject might-makes-right in an economic context. And who knows, if this depression turns out to be serious enough, it may not take that much time.
if any labor could produce capital, there would virtually be no unemployment.....at some point in human history, just about any labor could produce some form of capital...(food, goods, etc.) the government has made it so we are scared to hire our neighbors for fear they may not be legal, or they may sue us if they get hurt, or whatever other reasons for folks not to trade amongst themselves.
That should have been added as a rule No. 6. You've been fav'd.
Semper fi
As a Trader, I already pay almost everything at regular Income Tax rates as do most active traders.
As for Keynes, his ideas aren;t even taught by most Professors any more as a Viable economic model, because its failed every time.
With all these changes..nothing would change...because the LAWS haven't been changed...everything they want is LEGAL...not moral but legal...
Complaining about Wall Street Banks, is like blaming sidewalks for causing it to rain...
Subtracting x from both sides (and switching the two sides of the equation)
0.8 * x = .0025
Multiplying both sides by 1.25
x = 0.003125
Checking:
0.003125 * 1.8 = 0.003125 + 0.0025
0.005625 = 0.005625
The desired number is 0.003125 or 0.3125%. Adding 0.25% to 0.3125% is the same as increasing 0.3125% by 80%.
1) Raise gas prices by over 300% which caused
2) Defaults on mortgages and loans because of the sudden increase across the board to utilities, transportation and food, which caused
3) Lower demand for goods and
3a) More restricted loans, which caused
4) Layoffs and a now widening circle of defaults...
Wall Street is utterly to blame.
The only time you see almost all the politicians out and about among the people is when they are bull sh--ting and promising the moon to get votes and be re-elected.
One reason the 1% rule over us so effectively is that the oligarch owned media has done a wonderful job (for them) of turning ordinary Americans against each other.
They demonize teachers and other public sector workers, pit lower income Repugs against lower income Dems, AND get people all riled up on abortion, welfare cheats, immigrants, gays, and other divisive issues.
It is really something when all this media propaganda manages to convince people to vote against their own best interests.
And while the Dems aren't innocent, the Repugs are worse.
They all do not have to be taxed.
Buying and selling stock and dealing in derivatives can be taxed.....and ordinary banking transactions by regular Americans can stay untaxed.
Semper fi
I want a new Wall Street where only real capital is allowed. Let the gamblers have their Vegas stock market but don't let it screw things up for the rest of us.
Did anyone consider breaking up the banks and making derivatives illegal with the great Financial Reform Act? Nope. The last Congress was too worried about being re-elected again.