The 99% Deficit Proposal Published

The 99% Alternate Deficit Proposal
Prepared by Occupy Washington DC
Freedom Plaza, November 2011

The disconnect between Congress and the people is vast. For decades, Congress has been passing laws that benefit the 1%, their campaign donors and big business interests, rather than creating a fair economy that serves all U.S. citizens. With this report Occupy Washington, DC shows that Congress is out of touch with evidence-based solutions, supported by the majority of Americans that can revive the economy, reduce the deficit and wealth divide while create millions of jobs.

OccupyWashingtonDC.org seeks a major transformation to a participatory democracy in the economy as well as in government. For forty years, concentrated corporate interests have acted with intent to take over government and other institutions. We seek an end to the rule of concentrated wealth and corporate power by shifting control, wealth and ownership to the people.

This report puts forward evidence-based solutions that will re-start the economy and avoid placing financial burdens on future generations. For the most part these ideas are not new. They are well accepted by economists and are consistent with the views of super majorities of Americans on key issues. Further, more than three-quarters of U.S. citizens say the country’seconomic structure is out of balance and “favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country.” They are right. The solutions to our economic crisis are evident but they are blocked by those who profit from the status quo and control elected officials through the corrupt U.S. political system and its money-based elections.

The elites in Washington, DC seek to erase deficits that were caused by increases in war and military spending, tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, the increased cost of health care, as well as bank bailouts, and increased costs and lost revenue from the economic collapse. The bi-partisan elites seek to cut $1.2 trillion in deficits even though there is no outcry for such cuts or evidence in the economy that they are urgently needed. They are proposing cuts in services to seniors, students, the poor and middle-working class households who did not cause the crash but already suffer from its consequences. This report shows that we can get the economy moving, reduce the wealth divide and control government spending while helping the 99%.

This report should not be considered the demand of the Occupy Movement. It was prepared[1] by one Occupation, Freedom Plaza in Washington, DC and it does not reflect even that Occupation’s full demands. Most of this report provides solutions to the deficit questions the Congressional Super Committee is attempting to address while also re-starting the economy. The difference between the Occupied Super Committee report and the Congressional Super Committee report will be stark and further demonstrate the corruption and dysfunction of government. While this report’s recommendations would benefit the 99%, the report that will come out of the congressional Super Committee will benefit the 1%.

Creating a Fair Tax System That Shrinks the Wealth Divide

The United States does not have a lack of financial resources; it has an intentionally unfair distribution of resources. The federal income tax has become less progressive and the rate paid by the wealthiest has been cut dramatically in recent decades. From 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963. In 1964, the top marginal tax rate for individuals was 77%. From 1965 through 1981 the top rate was 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% for tax years 1982 through 1986 and today it is just 35%.

The tax on investment income, capital gains, has also been dramatically reduced. The maximum statutory rate on long-term capital gains was 28% in 1991, 20% in 1997 and has been merely 15% since 2003.

The wealth divide has become extreme over the past three decades and tax policies have exacerbated this trend; much of the tax code exemplifies policies for the 1% at the expense of the 99%. The wealth divide is one of the foundational reasons why the economy no longer works and is in steady decline for most people in the United States. The tax code inadequately funds government, but that is the result of unfair tax cuts, not because America is broke (it isn’t). As Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute testified “Income per capita has jumped 66% over the past 30 years, and is projected to grow another 60% over the next 30 years.” The country needs to put in place policies that reduce the wealth divide and share wealth fairly so that when the economy grows it benefits all citizens, not just the 1%.

The recommendations below begin to correct the unfair policies of the last three decades, but these are only first steps to the transformational changes that are needed.

Tax the highest income households: From 1960 to 2004, the top 0.1 percent of U.S. taxpayers — the wealthiest one in one thousand — have seen the share of their income paid in total federal taxes drop from 60% to 24.3%. America’s highest income-earners — the top 400 people who have wealth equal to 154 million Americans — have seen their federal income tax drop from 51.2% in 1955 to 18.1% in 2008. If the top 400 paid as much of their incomes in personal income tax as the top 400 of 1955, the federal treasury would have collected $50 billion more in revenue from just those 400 taxpayers. If the top 0.1% of taxpayers — Americans with incomes that averaged $4.4 million — had paid total federal taxes at the same rate as the top 0.1% paid these taxes in 1960, the federal treasury would have collected an additional $250 billion in revenue.
Merely not extending the Bush tax cuts would add nearly $500 billion each year in tax revenue. Thus in just over two years the goal of the deficit committee would be met. This would be insufficient to correct the wealth divide and does not go as far as Occupy Washington, DC advocates.
A tax of a half of a percent or less on Wall Street speculation could raise over $800 billion in a decade. The Speculation Tax on the purchase of stocks, bonds and derivatives would be a tiny tax with a big impact. People in the U.S. pay much higher taxes on purchases of food and clothing; it is only fair that the wealthy pay taxes on purchasing wealth instruments.
A fair tax on capital gains, treating it as ordinary income would raise $1 trillion over a decade. Wealth-based income and work-based income should be treated equally under the law as it used to be. Warren Buffet has received a great deal of attention for pointing out that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary or anyone who works for him. The reason for this is that investment income is taxed at a much lower rate than income from labor. The United States needs to tax wealth more and work less.
Congress should enact a “pure worldwide” tax system, in which all profits of U.S. corporations, whether they are generated in the U.S. or abroad, would be taxed by the U.S. This would end “deferral,” i.e. where taxes are deferred until money is brought back into the United States. U.S. corporations would continue to receive a credit against any taxes they pay to a foreign government (the foreign tax credit) so that profits are not double-taxed. Under a pure worldwide tax system, corporations would have little or no tax incentive to move jobs offshore because the U.S. would tax profits of corporations no matter where they are generated. The Treasury estimates that deferral of U.S. taxes on offshore corporate profits costs close to $50 billion each year, and many experts think this estimate is substantially understated.
Ending deferral does not even address the hundreds of billions lost through tax havens. Tax havens should be shut down through the passage of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act. In fact, the U.S. Treasury estimates this costs $100 billion each year. In 2006 the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported that Americans now have more than $1 trillion in assets offshore and illegally evade between $40 and $70 billion in U.S. taxes each year through the use of offshore tax schemes.

Closing corporate tax loopholes would return the fair share of taxes paid by corporations to the funding of government. Declining corporate taxation is another prime factor in increasing deficits. Corporate income taxes have fallen from roughly 4.8% of GDP in the 1950s to only 1.8% of GDP over the past decade. Ending just two large breaks, deferral of overseas revenue and accelerated depreciation would raise about $114 billion over a decade. The Treasury Department lists $365 billion in corporate tax breaks being gifted annually — that’s $3.65 trillion over the next 10 years. Due to tax loopholes, corporations pay record low tax rates — they actually pay 21% on average. Indeed, a recent report by Citizens for Tax Justice found that Wells Fargo received $18 billion in tax breaks, while both Verizon and General Electric paid negative taxes. Earlier Citizens for Tax Justice reported that 12 major companies which together made $171 billion in profits from 2008-2010 paid a negative $2.5 billion in taxes, thanks to $62 billion in tax subsidies.

The taxes described above would generate at least $600 billion annually. The goal of the Joint Deficit Committee of $1.2 trillion over ten years could be met in two years. The United States has more than enough wealth to meet the needs of its people.

Cutting Spending for Economic Security

Military spending, found in the Department of Defense and other departments, has increased dramatically during each year that George W. Bush and Barack Obama have been president, roughly doubling during the past decade both as measured in real dollars and as a percentage share of discretionary spending. Military and related “security” spending is now at over $1 trillion per year and comprises well over half of federal discretionary spending. It is also very nearly equal to the military spending of all other nations on earth combined. Ending our two most costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before the 2013 fiscal year budget would save $1.8 trillion, as compared with ending those wars on the currently planned schedule, with savings of $108 billion per year.

The U.S. should only spend what it needs to defend itself. The military budget can be cut significantly by replacing private contractors, closing some of the more than 1,100 foreign military bases and outposts and eliminating weapons systems many of which the Pentagon says it does not need.

The Sustainable Defense Task Force recommended modest cuts of $1 trillion over the next decade, not counting savings from ending the current wars. U.S. military spending could be cut by 80% and still be comfortably well ahead of any other nation’s military spending. See Creating Jobs and Restarting the Economy below on how these funds could be used to create jobs, restart the economy and provide much-needed services and infrastructure to the country.

Corporate tax subsidies through tax breaks and giveaways are a form of spending that needs to be cut.[2] The U.S. needs to end corporate tax subsidies and repatriate overseas funds. According to Citizens for Tax Justice, the 280 most profitable U.S. corporations received tax subsidies amounting to $222.7 billion from 2008-2010. These companies sheltered half their profit from taxes. The result: 30 companies paid less than 0 taxes despite $160 billion in pre-tax profits; 78 of the 280 companies enjoyed at least one year in which their federal income tax was zero or less; weapons maker’s paid a mere 10.6 percent rate in 2010; financial services received the largest share (16.8 percent) of all federal tax subsidies over the last three years.

Negotiating better prices with Big Pharma would save more than $200 billion over ten years in pharmaceutical costs. Reforms of Medicare could offer much larger savings. Expanding to an improved Medicare for all system would control the cost of health care spending while covering all in the United States reducing significant financial burdens often resulting in bankruptcy and foreclosure.

Creating Jobs and Restarting the Economy

One in six people who would like a full-time job are unable to find one. The unemployment rate of 9% greatly underestimates unemployment. If the pre-1994 measures were used, e.g. including discouraged workers who want jobs, as well as part-time workers who want full time jobs the underemployment and unemployment rate would be 23%. The measures listed below would effectively create jobs and restart the economy. Job loss means less tax revenue and more expenditure by the government. A critical ingredient to reducing the deficit is job creation.

One million jobs could be created annually by writing down all underwater mortgages to market value. Correcting housing mortgages to the real value of homes would inject $71 billion per year into the economy and save families $6,500 per year on mortgage payments. This would also fix the housing crisis which is an anchor holding back any recovery, according to a new report by The New Bottom Line. One in five mortgage holders owe more on their mortgage than their home is actually worth. Banks should not continue to be able to profit from housing bubble prices – a bubble they created with their poor and unethical lending practices. Adjusting mortgages to the real value of homes is a fair way to fix the housing market.

Failure to stop the foreclosure crisis will ensure a stalled economy. It is an essential step to economic repair. Thiscould be done without Congress as Fannie and Freddie together hold $1.5 trillion in housing loans or mortgage-backed securities which could be directed to fix the mortgages. The Federal Reserve has just under a trillion and could unilaterally correct loans to reflect real value. And, the banks could be pressured. Last year, the nation’s top six banks paid out more than twice the cost of re-writing mortgages to make them fair ($71billion per year) in bonuses and compensation alone ($146 billion in 2010). The nation’s banks are sitting on a historically high level of cash reserves of $1.64 trillion.
A fundamental reason for job stagnation is relying on the private sector to create jobs and refusing to engage in direct government job creation in the public sector. According to Business Week, “Since the end of the recession, government employment–including federal, state, and local jobs–has fallen by roughly 600,000. State and local governments have particularly felt the pain, according to a report released this week by the Census Bureau, which shows that there were over 200,000 fewer state and local government jobs in 2010 than in 2009.” The most recent jobs report shows a continued downward trend in government jobs. State deficits and federal inaction ensure these job losses will continue.

As public sector jobs are created, the country must also strengthen the public sector in ways that will require new democratic reforms to put publicly owned or financed enterprises under popular control. A long-term goal should be to democratize the economy so the people of the United States share in wealth and ownership as well as influence over the economy. See below Democratizing the Economy, Shifting Economic Power, Wealth and Ownership to all in the United States. There is a desperate need for a mass public works program, not only to create jobs, but also to meet the urgent needs of the country.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimated that failure to fix the nation’s infrastructure has created serious damage so extensive that $2.2 trillion will be required by 2014 just to meet current demands. The ASCE gave the nation’s infrastructure an overall grade of “D.” Its report cited cracking levees, a quarter of the nation’s existing bridges sagging, leaking pipes losing billions of gallons of drinking water per day, aging sewers releasing human waste into rivers and lakes, horrendous traffic congestion and air and water pollution. This is not “make work” but urgently needed work. A public works program modeled after the depression era Works Progress Administration would create 15 million jobs and build the infrastructure needed to create a sustainable economy.
Spending on the military is a drag on the economy, not just because it makes up 55% of federal discretionary spending, but because more jobs would be created by spending on education, infrastructure, green energy, or even on tax cuts for non-billionaires. Converting a fraction of current military spending to other industries and tax cuts could produce29 million new jobs, one for every unemployed or underemployed person in the United States, even after finding new employment for everyone displaced during the conversion.
Putting in place improved Medicare for all would provide a major stimulus for the U.S. economy not only by controlling the cost of health care and reducing deficits but by creating 2.6 million new jobs, and infusing $317 billion in new business and public revenues, with another $100 billion in wages into the U.S. economy.
Erasing student loan debt would have an immediate stimulating effect on the economy. As Mychal Smith writes: “[C]onsider the potential impact on the economy if all of a sudden 35 million people were able to add to their monthly budget anywhere between $400 and $1000 that they no longer needed to satisfy exorbitant student loan repayments. . . . Debt free degree holders would allow for more risk taking and innovation.” As Robert Applebaum, an advocate of forgiving student loans writes: “the ‘educated poor’ are not buying homes, not starting businesses or families, not inventing, investing or innovating and otherwise engaging in economically productive activities.” And, as Cryn Johannsen of All Education Matters points out, this would be a long term stimulus because college debts are multi-decade in length. Johannsen describes a “crisis that is affecting millions of educated Americans. We are indebted for life. Most of us will never be able to pay off our loans for college.” Education is a critical building block for the economy and going forward the United States must develop a system of higher education that does not require students to go into debt just to receive an education. Rather than a loan-based system the U.S. needs a system based on grants, scholarships and public funding.

These recommendations would create millions of jobs and get the economy moving again. As the economy develops and expands, programs need to be put in place so that new wealth is shared more fairly; workers have greater control over their work through employee ownership and protections for collective bargaining; and so some of the profits created by public investment (i.e. by tax dollars) are shared among all U.S. taxpayers. See below Democratizing the Economy, Shifting Economic Power, Wealth and Ownership to all U.S. Citizens.

Protecting and Improving Social Security

Saving Social Security is not a traditional left-right battle. Polls consistently show that people across the political spectrumoverwhelmingly support Social Security and do not want to see it cut. Even the vast majority of Tea Party Republicans support these programs. Cutting Social Security is a Wall Street agenda of the 1% that opposes the interests of the rest of us. As Dean Baker writes “There is a bipartisan consensus among the elites that these programs should be cut. The guiding philosophy of this drive is that public money that goes to programs for middle income and poor people is money that could be in the pockets of the wealthy.”

Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. Social Security is financed by a designated Social Security tax and there is more than $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund. The efforts to cut Social Security to fix the deficit are a fraud designed to enrich Wall Street financiers by forcing people into the private retirement market.

The temporary payroll tax cut will create some jobs, but not enough to get the economy moving and is not the most effectivetax cut stimulus. Further, it unnecessarily puts Social Security in jeopardy by reducing taxes designated for Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cut will reduce federal revenues by $112 billion over the next two years. The government will have to borrow to fill that hole in the Social Security trust fund, giving opponents of Social Security another argument against the program.

Social Security faces no immediate threat of insolvency. The Congressional Budget Office just released new projections showing that the Social Security trust fund is fully solvent through the year 2038. Even after that date, the program would have enough money to pay 81% of scheduled benefits for the rest of the century. Below are recommendations that would strengthen social security.

The funding of Social Security is easy to fix. Currently, the tax on wages subject to the tax is capped at $107,000. The upward redistribution of income over the last three decades has caused a large share of wage income to escape taxation. If all wage income were subject to the tax, then it would leave Social Security fully solvent for its 75-year planning period.
The Social Security tax has not kept up with the wealth divide. In 1983, the Social Security tax ceiling was set so the tax would hit 90% of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90% figure was built into the 1983 Greenspan Commission’s fix of Social Security. Requiring the ceiling to rise with inflation was expected to result in the Social Security tax continuing to hit 90% of total income. But, in 1983 no one predicted the extreme wealth divide that exists today. The richest 1% of Americans got 11.6% of total income in 1983. Today the top 1% takes in more than 20% of total income and as a result the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 83% of their total income. The tax should go back to covering 90% of income. That would mean the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.
Social Security should be strengthened in ways that increase the retirement security of people in middle-and working-class. Particular attention should be paid to improving the living standards in retirement of workers in poorly compensated jobs, who typically have little or no retirement savings outside of Social Security. The average Social Security benefit of $14,000 is only about 30% above the poverty line. Indeed, 21% of Social Security beneficiaries receive Social Security benefits that fall below the poverty line. In 2011, the Commission to Modernize Social Securityproposed increasing benefits for all retirees by a uniform amount equal to 5% of the average benefit, about a $700 annual increase for beneficiaries today; that workers who have worked at least 30 years should receive benefits equal to 125% of the poverty threshold when they retire at the full retirement; providing at least five years of dependent care credits through Social Security as women (and some men) spend part of their working years caring for children and elderly parents; reinstating the post-secondary student benefit that existed until 1983 and allowed students who were receiving Social Security due to a parent’s death, disability, or retirement to continue until they were 22 years old if they were in college; and increasing the survivor’s benefit for widowed spouses to ensure that they receive at least 75% of the benefit amount they received when their spouse was still alive.

Improving Medicare and Expanding it to Provide Health Care to All in the United States

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes “Medicare isn’t the nation’s budgetary problems. It’s the solution. The real problem is the soaring costs of health care that lie beneath Medicare. They’re costs all of us are bearing in the form of soaring premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. Medicare offers a means of reducing these costs.”
Medicare bears the burdens of existing within an [private] insurance-based health care that fails to control costs and creates tremendous bureaucracy. While there are short-term fixes to Medicare, what is needed is an end to the current insurance-based approach. The United States spends the most per capita per year on health care yet a third of the population is either uninsured or underinsured so that they face financial ruin if a serious accident or illness occurs. Health care spending in the U.S. is rising 2.5% faster than GDP.

Expanding and improving Medicare so it covers all in the United States is a key component to controlling health care costs and government spending; as well as ending the deficit problem of state and federal budgets. Estimates of how much would be saved on administrative costs alone by extending Medicare to cover the entire population range up to$400 billion a year. This savings plus the inherent cost-controls of a single payer health system would offset the cost of providing everyone in the United States with access to lifelong, comprehensive, quality health care. Controlling health care costs would sharply reduce the long-term budget crisis, as well as foreclosures and bankruptcy.
Even without improving and expanding Medicare to cover all, the program is not in crisis. The Medicare Trustees say that the program faces a modest shortfall over its 75-year planning horizon. The projected shortfall is around 0.3% of GDP or less than one-fifth of the amount that annual military spending was increased since September 11^th, 2000.
Economist Jack Rasmus points out that all it takes to cover the Medicare shortfall is a mere 0.25% increase in the Medicare share of the payroll tax for the next ten years and another 0.25% starting in the eleventh year. The Medicare tax rate is currently 2.9% for the employee and the employer. These tiny tax increases would make Medicare secure.
In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculates that the Medicare system in its current form is far more efficient than the privatized system advocated by a bi-partisan consensus of political elites. CBO’s projections showthat switching from Medicare to a privatized system would add $34 trillion to the cost of buying Medicare equivalent policies over the program’s 75-year planning period.
Medicare provides efficiency. Reich reports: “Medicare’s administrative costs are in the range of 3%. That’s well below the 5% to 10% costs borne by large companies that self-insure. It’s even further below the administrative costs of companies in the small-group market (amounting to 25% to 27% of premiums). And it’s way, way lower than the administrative costs of individual insurance (40%). It’s even far below the 11% costs of private plans under Medicare Advantage, the current private-insurance option under Medicare.”

Democratizing the Economy, Shifting Economic Power, Wealth and Ownership to all Citizens in the United States

Big finance corporate capitalism is failing. It is concentrating ownership and wealth as well as domination of the economy in the wealthiest Americans. New approaches are needed to share wealth, ownership and economic power more fairly. The grass roots protests, whether from the Occupy Movement or the anger from the conservative Tea Party, are based on the same realities: economic insecurity and economic unfairness. A full discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this report but it is time for the people of the United States to be asking critical questions:

What is the next evolution of the economy?
What can be done to reduce economic insecurity and economic unfairness?
How can it be reshaped so that people gain greater control of their lives and greater influence over the economy?
What new forms of ownership can be developed to shift economic power to the people?

The answers to these questions lie in the conflict of our era – participatory democracy vs. concentrated wealth. There is growing evidence and experience that shows a democratized economy is the fairest, most sustainable and effective approach which results in a shared prosperity.

Democratizing the economy would move the United States away from concentrated corporate capitalism and create an economy in which wealth is more equitably shared. This change is already happening under the radar of U.S. media coverage. A democratized economy already has a foothold in the United States. There is a lot of experimentation going on regardingworker ownership, democracy in the work place and sharing in the profits of corporations; with communities working together to control development through non-profit land trusts; with public banking, democratizing money and community banks; with public utilities and democratizing energy; and with participatory budgeting. These are a few examples of the democratization of the economy that is building a new economic model of more widespread ownership of assets and participation and wealth. As one of the witnesses of the Occupied Super Committee, Gar Alperovitz writes:

“Over the last three decades, for instance, more workers have become owners of their own companies than are members of unions in the private sector; indeed, 5 million more. Simultaneously, there has been increasing experimentation with unions within such firms, and with new ways to increase participation and control. There are also more than 4,500 nonprofit community development corporations that operate affordable housing and other neighborhood programs. Approximately 130 million Americans are members of co-ops. In Cleveland, an innovative group of linked cooperatives has set new standards for community-building economic change. ‘Social enterprises’ are developing in communities throughout the nation that transform the ownership of capital into businesses, the sole purpose of which is to provide community services.

One form of new ownership is cooperatives. There are 130 million Americans who are members of some types of co-ops, most commonly credit unions. Another widely shared experience is joint-ownership is Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) which give employees ownership of companies through stocks, while these do not usually include management by employees they do provide a share of the profit. There are more than 13 million people who are part of ESOPs – meaning there are more employee stock owners than there are members of private unions. Worker-owned co-ops go further and give workers a say in the management of the company. Worker owned co-ops are at the cutting edge of democratizing the economy and provide some of what we need to transform the economy.”

At a national level, despite comments of some in the corporate media and some elected officials who speak for big business interests, the truth is that national programs like Social Security and Medicare have worked well. As described in previous sections of this report, these programs can be improved and expanded but they are also models on which to create programs that respond to national needs. Further, the bail out of the automobile industry, which included some public ownership, has succeeded in saving that industry and returning it to profit. However, more could have been done to serve the public good by continuing public representation on the boards of automobile companies, requiring taxpayers share in the profit as investors and directing those industries to build mass transit and create jobs.

The Occupy Movement seeks a radical transformation to a new economy and political system. A close examination of what is happening in the United States shows that this transformation is already underway.

The Lessons of the Super Committee: Corruption Rules Dysfunctional Government

The proposals in this report show that it would not be difficult for the so-called “Super Committee” to achieve the requirement of at least $1.2 trillion in savings over the next decade. And, that it can be done in a way that corrects wealth disparity and re-starts the economy. But, in many ways, the super committee is “occupied” by corporate interests and cannot act for the people. The make-up of the committee and the tens of millions of dollars members have received from entrenched corporate interests ensure that the committee will exemplify the corruption in Congress – which is why people are occupying public spaces across the country.

The Occupation of Washington, DC at Freedom Plaza expects the commission’s recommendations, if they are able to make recommendations, to reflect the interests of their donors. We urge the public and the media to review their recommendations with these political donations in mind.

The twelve Members of the Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction have received $41 million from the financial sector during their time in Congress, according to a report by Public Campaign and National People’s Action, “Wall Street and the Supercommittee: The $41 Million Question.” At least 27 current or former aides for the “super committee” members have lobbied on behalf of financial firms.

The 12 members of the super committee have received at least $41 million from the finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sector during their time in Congress.
They have received nearly $900,000 from three of the top U.S. banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo
Since 2000, the industry has spent over $4 billion lobbying elected officials.
Nearly 30 former aides to the 12 members work as lobbyists for financial industry interests.

The ten biggest contributors to the super committee members include:

Club for Growth $990,066
Microsoft Corp. $810,100
University of California $629,495
Goldman Sachs $592,684
EMILY’s List $586,835
Citigroup Inc. $561,081
JPMorgan Chase & Co. $494,316
Bank of America $349,566
Skadden, Arps, et al. $347,356
General Electric $340,935

The largest donor, the Club for Growth, opposes any new taxes on the wealthiest in the United States. As a result, despite the abhorrent wealth divide, the committee is unlikely to recommend the obvious, fair taxes on the wealthiest people who fund their campaigns.

The members of the committee received more than $3 million total during the past five years in donations from political committees with ties to weapons contractors, health care providers and labor unions. They received more than $1 million overall in contributions from the health care industry and at least $700,000 from weapons companies. This presents a problem for the super committee because if they fail to find $1.2 trillion in savings over the next decade it will result to mandatory cuts that will impact health care and weapons makers. This means the committee is likely to make a bad deal for the United States, in order to avoid cuts to their major donors.

Throughout the time when the committee has been meeting they have been holding fundraisers across the country. This open money-taking while making decisions that affect those who are giving money is the kind of open corruption that has led to a loss of faith in government.

It is not only donations that will impact the committee, but a major lobbying onslaught by 400 groups who report lobbying the Super Committee. About 30% of these organizations — 118 groups in total – were from the health sector. The finance insurance and real estate sector ranked third, with 40 companies within that sector reporting lobbying activity during the third quarter that targeted the super committee. And 39 groups in the energy sector reported lobbying the super committee. Both the communications and electronics sector and the general business sector saw 26 companies and organizations explicitly mention the super committee in their third-quarter lobbying reports. These are many of the same concentrated corporate interests that have funded the campaigns of super committee members.

Conclusion: Revolt against Economics for the 1%

Once again, the people of the United States will see corruption reign supreme. Despite evident solutions to the deficit and the economic collapse, the Congress will show its corruption and dysfunction and be unable to put forward real solutions.

We issue this report to alert everyone – the political system is broken. It is corrupted by the power of concentrated wealth, campaign donations and corporate power. The job of the occupations across the country is to build an independent nonviolent movement that replaces this corrupt system with one in which the people rule. The battle between concentrated wealth and participatory democracy will be heightened by the evident corruption of the Super Committee which will not challenge the unfair policies of the 1% while requiring austerity for the 99%.

The economic and political elite should expect protests to grow. We are at the beginning of what will be seen as a historic revolt against status quo elites that will transform this economy as well as how the United States is governed.

[1] The evidence-based solutions in this report come from people who are experts in the fields addressed as well as the views of people affected by the policies. We relied on a range of sources and have provided links to those sources in the on-line version of this report. In addition, Occupy Washington, DC held a public hearing on Wednesday, November 9^th. You can see the public hearing at: CSPAN Coverage of Occupied Super Committee Hearings. Participants included: Kevin Zeese an organizer of Occupy Washington, DC and co-director of It’s Our Economy and co-chair of Come Home America; Andrew Fieldhouse of the Economic Policy Institute; Carl Conetta of the Project on Defense Alternatives; Kenneth Peres is an economist with the Communications Workers of America; Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research; Margaret Flowers an organizer of Occupy Washington DC and congressional fellow for Physicians for National Health Program; Gar Alperovitz is a founding principal of the Democracy Collaborative and with the National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives.

[2] This is commonly known as corporate welfare. All corporate welfare should be stopped until the Congress passes laws transforming corporate welfare into taxpayer investment. There are reasons for government to invest in building the economy, for example there is a need to invest in a new energy economy, but the profits from these investments should not only go to the 1% who own energy companies, they should be treated as taxpayer investment and all taxpayers should share in the profit from the investment. Such a system could be modeled after the Alaska Permanent Trust which has existed for oil exploration on state lands in Alaska since 1980. Such a system could develop into a guaranteed national income that would lift people out of poverty and provide a safety net to all. This is a critical part of a democratized economy. See: Agenda for a Democratized Economy, http://itsoureconomy.us/issues/.

ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it. Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”. (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Criminalizing OWS Protesters

By Stephen Lendman

In today’s America, anything can be criminalized, including protests for environmental and animal rights. CCR called the 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (ACTA) “unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.” It criminalized legal politically motivated actions.

On November 14, the Northern California ACLU and National Lawyers Guild (NLG) sued the Oakland Police Department (OPD) in federal court for “egregious constitutional violations” against Occupy Oakland protesters. A temporary restraining order was sought to stop them. On November 14, hundreds of riot gear clad police forcefully evicted encamped Oscar Grant Plaza protesters at 5:00AM. At a same day press conference, Mayor Jean Quan said:

“We have to bring the camp to an end.”

The ACLU-NC and NLG sued OPD on behalf of videographer Timothy Scott Campbell. Other plaintiffs include Kerie Campbell, Marc McKinnie, Michael Siegel, and NLG Legal Observer Marcus Kryshka.

On November 2, all faced excessive force. Campbell said:

“I was filming police activity at Occupy Oakland because police should be accountable. Now I’m worried about my safety from police violence and about retaliation because I’ve been outspoken.”

According to NLG attorney Rachel Lederman:

“OPD’s unconstitutional actions against protesters were wholesale and flagrant violations of Oakland’s Crowd Control Policy.”

It strictly limits force and prohibits indiscriminate use of shot-filled beanbags and other projectiles against peaceful protesters and crowds.

In fact, authorities nationally want OWS demonstrations ended. On November 15, Occupy Wall Street.org countered, saying:

“You cannot evict an idea whose time has come. We are the 99%. We are everywhere. We are a global movement that is reclaiming our humanity and our future.”

America’s First Amendment affirms everyone’s free expression and assembly rights. Fourth Amendment freedom prohibits unnecessary excessive force.

No matter. On November 14, billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg used goon squad cops to evict protesters. Hundreds earlier were beaten, pepper-sprayed, maced, tear gassed and arrested.

Days earlier, police attacked nearby Berkeley, CA Occupy Cal protesters. Students and youths were beaten, one seriously. About 40 were arrested. Similar crackdowns are happening nationally. Thousands have been arrested.

On October 26, Oakland, CA police attacked nonviolent protesters with tear gas, flash grenades, beanbag shotguns, and rubber bullets. Officers also threatened use of unspecified “chemical agents.”

Veterans Against War member Scott Olsen sustained a serious skull fracture when struck on the head by a tear gas canister. Children, elderly and disabled bystanders were affected. Police helicopters patrolled overhead.

America’s violence roots are deep. Wars are glorified in the name of peace. Pacifism is considered sissy and unpatriotic. Among Western nations, its homicide rate is highest. Gun owning is considered an inalienable right.

Violent films, video games and sports are some of its most popular. With good reason, its society is called a “rape culture.” Constitutionally guaranteed human rights, civil liberties, common dignity and personal safety are more illusion than fact.

“Indispensable state” credentials, exceptionalism, and moral superiority are manipulated false notions to force our ways on others globally.

Kids are weaned on violence. Television and films feature it. Before age 18, the average child watches 200,000 violent acts, including 16,000 murders. Moreover, studies show homicide rates doubled 10 – 15 years after television was introduced. What better way to teach how to kill, beat, brawl and abuse.

Some kids grow up to be cops. From pre-adolescence they’ve been conditioned to accept violence as normal. They’re used to it when asked to quash dissent.

Americans’ Free Expression Right to Dissent

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) advances and protects constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. It creatively uses law “as a positive force for social change.”

In October 2011, it issued a report titled, “Restore. Protect. Expand: The Right to Dissent,” saying:

US history is littered with repressive laws “at the expense of constitutional protections and civil liberties.” The 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts restricted First Amendment freedoms.

So did 1919 anti-communist Palmer raids, the 1934 Special Committee on Un-American Activities, its House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) successor, secret FBI COINTELPRO crackdowns, the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the 2001 USA Patriot Act, and other post-9/11 measures.

These and other police state measures expanded government surveillance, eroded habeas rights, formalized military tribunals, permitted torture-extracted confessions, and sanctified violence in the name of national security.

As a result, nonviolent civil disobedience can be called terrorism. Patriot Act provisions criminalized dissent. Innocent people have been arrested, indicted and imprisoned for pursuing their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Using so-called “terrorist profiles,” the FBI can investigate anyone for any reason. So can local police working cooperatively with them or alone.

Abrogating constitutional rights entirely may come next. Occupying America against financial terrorism and corporate greed can be criminalized. America’s right to dissent is endangered.

Attacks on Nonviolent Protests

In 1999, attacking Seattle global justice protesters was a harbinger of things to come. Tens of thousands rallied for environmental, worker and other rights. Police did what they do best.

Tear gas and pepper spray saturated city streets. Hundreds of riot gear clad cops fired bean bag bullets, rubber bullets and paint balls at peaceful demonstrators. Others were beaten with batons and pepper sprayed. Hundreds were arrested. A state of emergency and curfew were imposed. Parts of Seattle looked like war zones.

In 2003, similar violence targeted Miami nonviolent protests against the Free Trade Act of the Americas (FTAA). Thousands of militarized police filled city streets. More than 40 law enforcement agencies were involved.

Streets were cleared lawlessly. Hundreds were arrested, including journalists and legal observers. Red squad police surveillance and infiltration were used. Congress provided funding.

CCR and others filed lawsuits. In Killmon v. City of Miami-Dade, et al a major settlement was reached. Nonetheless, the “Miami Model” and its Seattle predecessor became prototypes for future crackdowns like those ongoing now.

In today’s America, anything can be criminalized, including protests for environmental and animal rights. CCR called the 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (ACTA) “unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.” It criminalized legal politically motivated actions.

“Green Scare” entered the vocabulary earlier. First used in 2002, it referred to legal and extralegal government actions against animal liberation and environmental activists.

The ghost of COINTELPRO returned, including intensive surveillance of political activists, false arrests, and police brutality. What the 1974 Senate Church Committee condemned, Patriot Act and other legislative measures restored.

In 2009, police cracked down hard against Pittsburgh G20 protesters. For two days, the city was on lockdown. Dozens of University of Pittsburgh students were arrested. Police used batons, pepper spray, beanbags, OC gas (similar to tear gas), sound cannons, and rubber bullets.

Ahead of the meeting, thousands of police and National Guard troops were marshaled. Requested permits were denied. Similar measures are employed against IMF and World Bank protesters, others for global justice, some against war, and when Republican and Democrat political conventions are held.

Each time, constitutional rights are denied. Police violence and other repressive measures are used. OWS demonstrators are now targeted and treated like criminals.

On November 13, Portland protesters were evicted. Despite supportive thousands on downtown streets, camp sites in two parks were forcefully cleared. In Salt Lake City, police used bulldozers against protesters. In Berkeley, police used truncheons against peaceful students trying to set up a camp.

Nationwide, thousands of arrests were made. Numbers mount daily. Tent cities are being cleared. Reasons used are bogus. Alleged health and safety issues are raised. So is talk about enforcing local ordinances.

At issue is police state thuggishness, beating up on people for Wall Street and other corporate favorites. Constitutional freedoms are denied. Popular protests globally are targeted.

“Total policing” met London students protesting tripled tuition fees and abolishing the weekly 30 pound low-income family allowance. Entire areas were blocked off. The city was on lockdown.

Section 60 of the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act “gives police the right to search people in a defined area at a specific time (and) provides powers to require the removal of disguises at public order events.”

Protesters trying to set up camp at St. Paul’s Cathedral and Finsbury Square were arrested and dispersed. Erected digital screens told people they broke Section 12 of the 1986 Public Order Act. Some demonstrators were constrained, others attacked.

None of it’s justified. In America and across Europe, constitutional provisions, criminal and international law provide effective tools against lawbreakers and potential threats. Why abuse the law when what’s on the books works fine. However, nothing there warrants police crackdowns against lawful protests.

Millions across America, Europe, and the Middle East are fed up and want change. At issue is social injustice, political corruption, banker occupation (aka financial terrorism), and repressive blowback against popular opposition to austerity, inequality, and growing human need.

Feigning support, Obama and congressional allies sold out constituents for Wall Street and other monied interests. Unemployment, poverty, lost homes, and other social injustice issues drive protesters for change. Sustained struggle is the only way forward.

No matter what obstacles they face, there’s no turning back now. There better not be to have any chance of succeeding.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Resisting Expropriation of the Occupy Movement

The B u l l e t
Socialist Project • E-Bulletin No. 571
November 18, 2011

Matthew Brett

The occupy movement is currently being forcefully dismantled by police across North America and Europe. The pretext for these police interventions are health and safety concerns, but the reality is that public space is being re-occupied by the status quo. This is a status quo that would rather see public spaces pacified and vacant. This is a status quo prepared to use police violence to expropriate those most in need of the community that the occupy movement provides. These expropriations also reaffirm the fact that challenges to the prevailing order are generally met with brute force. There is a pressing need to assist and participate with those still entrenched in the occupations, and there is an equally pressing need to discuss where to go from here.

Municipal officials have served eviction notices to occupants across North America and Europe over the past three weeks. A more honest account would call these evictions what they really are: expropriations. The 99 per cent are being expropriated of their right to freedom of speech and assembly. The liberated commons are gradually being re-occupied by those in power. It is critical to note that these expropriations are not simply ending the occupations. These expropriators are ending one of the most creative uses of public space in recent North American history. These occupy communes offered a radical alternative to the prevailing and increasingly delegitimized social order.

Liberating the Commons

It would be wrong to place the occupation movement on a pedestal. People have died at the occupations in North America, revealing the social ills that many of the 99 per cent face on a daily basis. A critical look at its achievements thus far is nevertheless revealing. A recent poll by Nanos confirmed that 58 per cent of Canadians have a favourable or somewhat favourable impression of the movement. More importantly, the occupy movement has fundamentally changed the nature of public debate. Conservative and liberal pundits alike are openly challenging rising levels of inequality and social malaise in Canada. People are questioning the longevity of a system that places profit over the planet.

In this respect, the occupy movement is certainly a source of fundamental social change. As with any social change, it is necessary to foster a change in thinking before concrete realities can alter. The occupy movement has very effectively brought capitalism and its neoliberal variants into question across a fairly broad stratum of society. The last time an ideological challenge of this nature occurred was arguably with the introduction of neoliberalism in the 1960s and 70s, which was only possible to introduce in places like Canada and the United Kingdom because neoliberal ideas were fostered and resonated with broad segments of the population.

We may be witnessing a pendulum swing away from these ideas, and the occupy movement has fostered this change in thinking to a considerable degree. However, it would be a grave oversight to neglect the root causes of this gradual ideological shift. People are questioning the prevailing order because of the latest crisis of capitalism, which continues to have widespread and often fatal consequences for the 99 per cent. The occupy movement was a manifestation of the crisis tendencies of global capitalism.

The changes fostered by the occupy movement also extended beyond ideological gains. Namely, a social system was created within these public spaces which encourages participants in the movement to contribute to the collective needs of the commune. Free food and basic needs are produced and distributed in a spirit of cooperation and equality. Artistic projects are flourishing along with regular workshops and popular education projects. Regular public discussions are being held with substantial attendance from a broad cross-section of society. These discussions are highly participatory and address issues ranging from fiscal austerity to the future of our education system and the growing prison system in Canada. Workshops are being given on shoe-making, writing and a variety of other practical skills. The decision-making process is radically horizontal and non-hierarchical.

In short, a new social system has been created within these communes that take the principles of equality, democracy and freedom seriously. Dismantling the occupations is not therefore simply ‘cleaning out’ a public space. These physical evictions are an abrupt and deliberate attempt to end a political movement and the seeds of an alternative future. All of this is being expropriated by resorting to state power and police force.

Expropriating the Commons

Eviction notices were served on November 15 in Toronto and occupations have already been physically dismantled across the United States, Halifax and London, Ontario. A standard trend is for public authorities to first delegitimize the occupations. Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson called the west-coast occupation “squalid,” and recent media coverage has emphasized the presence of drugs, abuse and criminality.

These concerns are legitimate but one-sided. Church and intervention groups are increasingly active on site to address these concerns. It is also worth noting that the occupy movement has sought to address these concerns from its inception by focusing on inequality. By dismantling the occupation communes, municipal and city officials are simply sweeping these social issues from the public eye rather than addressing their root causes. Clear parallels can be drawn with the Harper Conservative’s tough-on-crime agenda. Rather than trying to address the root problems of crime, the Conservatives are creating draconian laws and building super-prisons, which effectively sweep social issues out of sight by criminalizing inequality.

Once the occupations are sufficiently delegitimized in their particular locales, an overwhelming police presence arrives and forcefully dismantles the entire commune. Canadian activist Derek O’Keefe rightly congratulates the 1 per cent for this resort to violence:

“Congratulations for demonstrating, with this cynically timed manoeuvre, that when push comes to shove the police exist to serve and protect your vested interests. Congratulations on teaching a new generation this painful but necessary lesson about the true function of the police in a capitalist society. You deserve thanks for proving that when consent falters you’ll resort to force to maintain your hegemony – liberal democracy, when it is by and for the 1 per cent, must have its limits.”

Occupy and the Future

These evictions should not be regarded as the end of a movement. The occupations continue to spark a desperately needed discussion about the state of the world and our natural environment. These police evictions should be regarded as a re-occupation by the status quo after roughly a month of liberation and popular discussion. Participants and supporters of the occupy movement should actively support and engage with existing occupations with materials, physical presence and intellectual engagement. Ongoing movements must address the delicate issue of tactics when thinking about the future of the movement.

There have been encouraging signs on some of these counts. Two members of the local Oakland government resigned in protest against the violent expropriations there. “The people who are working for these mayors and police and so on are doing Wall Street’s business for them, and we need to stand up against it,” said Dan Siegel, a member of the Oakland mayor’s legal counsel. Nevertheless, more can and should be done in the immediate future to support and stand alongside the occupy movement.

Dissident academic Slavoj Zizek is also right to challenge people who argue that the occupy movement must crystallize toward some concrete ends. He argues that “what one should resist at this stage is precisely such a quick translation of the energy of the protest into a set of concrete pragmatic demands.” At the same time, he quotes GK Chesterton as saying that “the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” The occupy movement currently faces the prospect of having its mouth forcefully shut. Our pressing task is to insure that this mouth remains open wide for as long as possible.

The movement has clearly begun to close its teeth on something solid as well. The movement is rightfully not chomping down on little morsels like minor banking and social reforms. Indian writer and activist Arundhati Roy makes very clear that people have begun to demand “the dismantling of this particular model, in which a few people can be allowed to have an unlimited amount of wealth, of power, both political as well as corporate. You know, that has to be dismantled.” The occupy movement has radicalized new segments of the population and inspired widespread popular support. It appears that these ideas are crystallizing into general strikes and economic disruptions in the United States, Québec and elsewhere. These are encouraging signs worthy of support. •

Matthew Brett is a political science graduate student at Concordia University and is on the organizing committee for the Montreal-based Forum to Resist the Conservatives.

ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

OWS Survives the Eviction

Greetings From Zuccotti Park

by DAVID KELLEY
6:15 pm, November 15
Zucotti Park, New York City

As I approached Zuccotti Park in the drizzle I could see that others were as tense as I was. I had no idea if I would even be able to get there after the 1:00 am police evictions of the previous night. The thought of my first arrest at the age of 66 did enter my mind if the police prevented me from walking to the site.

I wanted to see the park and the young people I had so grown to admire over visits over the past month. However, discretion was always the main component of my valor and I shelved the idea of an arrest rationalizing that the world needed me at a computer.

In the dead of night with most of the world asleep, the police had staged a coordinated raid on the park just 17 hours earlier. Authorities had shut down subway stations nearby and blocked off pedestrian traffic to the site. Pepper spray was reportedly used. There was a report that a squad from Homeland Security had appeared. The police told the media that they were being kept from the eviction for their own safety. A military style invasion for a group that espoused and practiced non-violence was clearly nothing less than an attempt to harass and intimidate the youthful protestors.

Later a policeman told one of the protestors who questioned him about the suspicious timing of the eviction that police do their raids at night. When the protestor explained that it made sense if you were going into a drug house but that was not the case here. The police officer seemed confused by the response which basically asked him: Who do you think you are dealing with?

Clearly, the protestors had adopted and maintained a completely non-violent approach – despite the disinformation and lies spread by many. As I had learned in my previous three weeks on site, any criminal activity in the area was attributed to the Occupy Wall Street movement. When a drunken couple walking by and got into a fight, they were deemed part of the OWS movement. When a female OWS protestor was raped and was aided by other protestors who reported the assailant, it was laid at the feet of OWS.

The eviction was clearly meant to dishearten the protestors. Like so many other moves by the authorities it would prove to be a miscalculation. One I was thrilled and inspired to witness minutes later. The tents had been indelicately ripped down and personal goods treated with less than concern. Around 200 protestors had been arrested and some 60 still remained in jail. The 5,000 book library was reportedly pitched into a dumpster along with the food and medical supplies. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that the eviction was his idea alone and that the city was generously giving protestors two days to pick up their personal possessions. Receipts establishing ownership of their personal property would be appreciated. We all keep those don’t we?

The mayor had repeated the perfunctory pretexts for the eviction: concerns for the health of everyone involved, the unsanitary conditions, the rights of the park owners. Frankly, I found concerns about violence coming from a man who had been a cheerleader for an illegal and immoral war in Iraq which had cost tens of thousands of lives a little hard to swallow.

Then I remember the Egyptian girl from Tahrir Square who had spoken at a OWS think tank discussion the week before. She warned that the authorities would use any pretext to drive the protestors out. Ironically, so many of those who cheered on the Egyptians would demonize their own countrymen when it suited them. Fox News did not worry about businesses in the Tahrir Square area losing business any more than it worried about the 45,000 Americans who die each year from a lack of health care.

Still, seeing the park stunned me. Everything was gone except for the people. They had returned but none of the tents or tarps were there. The park I had memorized was gone. I later learned that the second judge had ruled that camping equipment would not be permitted and that the park rules established after the occupation began would be enforced.

Police in riot gear with face masks down milled about while uniformed officers stopped pedestrian traffic they did not like. It took me five minutes to circumnavigate the small park to find the single entrance.

The police tower with its photographic equipment was up and occupied. The NYPD camera that has recently been placed on the Broadway side of the park was still there.

The police at the entrance were using hand held cameras to photograph all those who entered. Those attempting to enter ran a gauntlet of police. They were not the smiling community outreach police I had met the previous week. The ones who told me they admired the resiliency and resolve of the young people there. One had even said: God bless them.” The people with drums in front of me were turned away as the drummers explained that the police interpretation of the judge’s ruling was overly broad and arbitrary.

They didn’t buy it. One turned to the drummers and asked: “Do you know what they call someone who hangs around with musicians and protestors?” He didn’t wait for a reply and answered: “a drummer.” While that joke was not actually offered I couldn’t resist tailoring one of my favorites lines for the occasion to make a point. Over the next four hours I came to believe as did many of the protestors that the movement had grown stronger as a result of the eviction. Maybe the drummers were not the heart of the movement.

The signs I would later see such as “We’re still winning,” “You cannot evict an idea whose time has come,” and “Grand re-opening under new management” were later backed up by comments made during the meeting of the New York General Assembly which I carefully estimated at over 800. One speaker, I think it was the charismatic Sully ,said: ”We are a lot stronger from this whole situation.”

As I walked over to the entrance I learned that some 20 minutes earlier a judge had reversed an earlier court ruling allowing demonstrators to return with their camping equipment. The new judge, however, did say that people could return to the park and they had. I raced around the park and could not quite recover my equilibrium because nothing and no one was where I expected them to be. The media tent was gone and the library next to it. The tarped food kitchen was now garbage I learned as well as the medical tent. I kept looking for familiar faces and saw only several. They looked like they had much on their minds and I left them alone.

Several union tradesmen stood nearby. One in particular caught my eyes because he was covered in dust. Then I learned that he had been a first responder on 9/11 as a union plumber and had never washed the clothing out of respect for those that died. His sign said: “Hey NYPD I am a real 9/11 WTC first responder wearing the dust of your friends and families from 10 years ago. SHAME.” A carpenter, Dave Buccola, was standing there and I thought his face was familiar. We had several interesting discussions as he talked about coming in from Brooklyn over the past two months and staying at some times.

Then I hunkered down on the steps waiting for the New York City General Assembly to meet at 7:00 pm. I felt that the meeting would be historic but I was later surprised at how emotionally stirring it was at well. I had come expecting to see a group of despondent young people. Instead, I saw people, well-scubbed people of all ages, with determination in their eyes. Earlier, I had talked with Jay who explained that perhaps the eviction would strengthen the movement explaining that “No matter what happens here we see it as good.” He laughed and said: “They just don’t get it. They think that the movement is just here when it is really about changing the consciousness of Americans and this crackdown helps focus attention on the movement.”

The meeting started promptly at 7:00 pm. Sully, Eileen and Nishira kicked it off with an upbeat presentation that because of the police action people had “lost a lot” and that many people “don’t know where they are sleeping tonight.” He also reminded the assembly that “We have a lot of friends who are in jail tonight.” Then came a remarkable 15 seconds of silence: “I would like to ask for 15 seconds of silence in recognition of our suffering and the many suffering that our movement represents.”

Nishira was eloquent in noting: “In recognizing our suffering, we must also recognize our strength. So today if you lost a little bit of spring yesterday, you are in the right place to get some of it back.”

The National Lawyers Guild appraised the large group about the legal developments. Discussions were going on whether to sue the city or do little. Clearly, the lawyers were moving to reestablish the camping rights of the protestors. For those unfamiliar with the movement the first speaker explained the hand signals that the assembly effectively uses and how – because they are not permitted loudspeakers – speakers speak in short phrases which are repeated throughout the assembly like the waves from a rock thrown into the water.

One of the speakers focused on how confusing the movement must look to the authoritarian folks looking at it.

“We are a horizontal movement. The cops think that power looks like shouting orders. We do things differently here. We use consensus processes. There means we create space to hear as many voices as possible and seek decisions that are not just majority decisions but decisions that everyone consents to.”

A ton of practical concerns were addressed. Where people could sleep, where they could eat, who they could turn to for help, where the medical people were, etc.

But most of all the speakers focused on the fact that OWS is a movement for change. They noted that November 17^th is their call for action day which is being coordinated with many labor groups. It will all start at 7:00 am at Zuccotti Park and will have a 5:00 pm meeting at Foley Square. One of the objectives is to non-violently march to the New York Stock Exchange in an effort to shut it down.

The movement speakers know that their efforts will meet fierce, perhaps violent opposition, but know that a movement dies when it stop moving. Hopefully, you can join us either here or at your closest rally on Thursday.

Dave Kelley has served as the issues and policy advisor to the Dennis Kucinich campaigns. He was a registered principal with the National Association of Securities Dealers and an expert witness on pensions over 1,300 times. Typically, he writes either issues papers or books for attorneys. He can be reached at davidikelley@yahoo.com

ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________