In a discussion I had with fellow columnist Neil Weinberg, I admitted I couldn’t tell him exactly what the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protesters were against, or what the desired outcome was for the demonstrations, but I did know they were protesting in the right place.
I still can’t answer the first two questions; because of the decentralized nature of the movement there isn’t a list of demands. However, after reading the many signs and listening to the protesters (who are informed on the issues), I think I have a few clues.
I don’t think it’s capitalism the protesters are trying to overturn as my colleague Clement Daly opined back in October, but rather crony capitalism. The 99 percent are attempting to break the stranglehold the “financial aristocracy” – as Daly correctly called them – or the 1 percent has on the U.S. government.
CNN contributor and RedState.com blogger Erik Erickson launched a counterattack on OWS saying: “Suck it up you whiners. I am the 53 percent subsidizing you so you can hang out on Wall Street and complain.” This 53 percent Erickson cites refers to the share of all households who pay federal income taxes, compared to those who don’t.
Unfortunately, Erickson ignores the fact the other half of the 53 percent are retirees, people without an income and those who don’t earn enough to be taxed at the federal level. The other 47 percent still pay sales tax, state income taxes in some cases, and they contribute to payroll taxes, which are regressive – so everyone contributes to the system.
Other detractors, as well as Erickson, also turn blind eyes to the indisputable fact the U.S. economic policy over the last few decades has been directed towards the top 1 percent – the very wealthy.
An analysis of the 2001-08 tax changes by the Economic Policy Institute showed “the top 1 percent of earners (making over $620,442) received 38 percent of the tax cuts.” In the Bush expansion from 2002 to 2007, 65 percent of economic gains went to the richest 1 percent.
Today the 400 wealthiest Americans have a greater combined net worth than the bottom 150 million Americans, and the megabanks that caused the financial crisis in 2008 have accumulated even more lucre.
I don’t think it is outrageous the OWS protesters feel a sense of unfairness; as the wealthy rebound from the financial crisis, the lower and middle classes are pushed further to the bottom – widening the already vast economic inequality in the country.
According to people like Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, the OWS protesters should blame themselves if they are out of work and should “move the protest to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave,” because in his mind Wall Street didn’t write the failed economic policies of the last few years.
But they did, every time Goldman Sachs, Bank of America or Citigroup endorsed a candidate with campaign donations, they indirectly wrote the rules. This is why, if this were a classic who-done-it scenario with the financial crisis, Wall Street would have been charged with the actual robbery, while the U.S. government aided and abetted.
And it isn’t as Newt Gingrich says, where the U.S. government and Congressman Barney Frank are to blame for Wall Street’s behavior, because Congressman Frank was in the minority in the House when most of the subprime mortgages were written, and the U.S. government didn’t force the banks to make poor loans and swindle investors.
The Occupy Wall Street protesters are not calling to punish the wealthy, but rather to stop the top 1 percent from using all of that wealth to influence our government to enact socialism for Goldman Sachs and capitalism for the rest of us.
The rest of this month I will try to answer the questions I admittedly couldn’t answer before, and I will opine what I think the desired outcome should be for the OWS protesters.
