Showing posts with label Social and Economic Inequality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social and Economic Inequality. Show all posts

Saturday, January 7, 2012

'It's All Political': Eviction and Arrests of Global Revolution Livestreamers Part of Pattern of Crackdowns on Alternative Living | | AlterNet

Released from jail after their arrest at a Brooklyn collective living space, livestreamers affiliated with Occupy Wall Street tell their stories.

A sign in Foley Square, November 17th 2011 Photo by Sarah Seltzer
Photo Credit: Sarah Seltzer
"It's all political," said Jai, one of the Global Revolution livestreamers arrested in the eviction Monday, January 2nd, of the 13 Thames collective art space that was housing the Occupy Wall Street-affiliated media crew.
After he was released from prison Wednesday night, Jai told AlterNet, "The fact is, I'm homeless now."
Global Revolution is the international network for the independent media from Occupy movements across the globe. While the eviction and arrests could have been another tactic to target and silence Occupy media, another possibility looms: Before Global Revolution, before Occupy, 13 Thames was a communal home in Bushwick, Brooklyn with a punk-anarchist edge, where tactical media projects were produced, and radical ideas were exchanged and practiced. Activists by lifestyle, inhabitants at 13 Thames created a space for communal living, rejection of norms, and demonstration planning.
Out of 13 Thames came not only Global Revolution, but musicians and artists of all sorts, as well as the Glass Bead Collective, a tactical media group that projected images of political prisoners onto the FBI building, and filmed Amy Goodman’s arrest at the 2008 Republican National Convention. If the order to vacate was not a tactic to disrupt Occupy livestreamers, it may still have been issued to strike down yet another radical space.
On Monday night, two representatives from the Department of Buildings and two NYPD officers showed up at 13 Thames, demanding they do an on-site inspection while they were in the building to inspect the neighbors at 15 Thames. The visit stemmed from an outstanding vacate order for the first floor of both 13 and 15 Thames. It was last addressed in May of 2010, but the inspectors appeared determined to take care of it immediately.
"I didn't let them in," Jai said. "They barged in on Monday, with the police, without our consent or a warrant to come into our home." Then, he said, the Department of Buildings called the fire department, who checked the sprinklers, and determined they were functioning. Unsatisfied, the inspectors decided they wanted an additional sprinkler in the hallway between the front and back rooms. "We've had inspections before, and they never said anything about sprinklers in the hallway," Jai said.
According to Jai, the need for an additional sprinkler was enough for the building inspector to declare the space "perilous to life," and they were ordered to leave right away. Vlad Teichberg, a 13 Thames resident and cofounder of the Glass Bead Collective and Global Revolution Livestream, explained to AlterNet the circumstances of the vacate order. On January 2nd, "The Buildings Department and Fire Department arrived at 8pm -- on a holiday -- which is very strange. These are not normal working hours," Teichberg said. Teichberg and Jai also said they heard an inspector say he had received a phone call that day, ordering him to take care of the old issue immediately.
Teichberg said inspectors immediately showed interest in the media equipment, and made comments like "What were you filming here?" before telling residents they could no longer "occupy" the space. "It was very strange," said Teichberg.
The next day, after having an argument with the landlord -- who residents say had entered the space without permission -- Teichberg was arrested on his way out of the space, after having gathered some legal documents to challenge the vacate order in court. He and his wife, Nikky Schiller, a livestreamer/revolutionary transplant from Spain who came to see America’s uprising, were en route to an appointment for their baby's first ultrasound. "It's a really important part of becoming a father, to see the baby for the first time," said Teichberg, "but the appointment had to be postponed."
A friend of 13 Thames and tactical media activist who goes by the name Spike was also arrested, but according to Jai, he was not even in the building -- instead videotaping from the sidewalk -- when the police were rounding them up. "He was charged with trespassing, but how can you be trespassing when you're on the curb?" said Jai. Another arrestee, who goes by the name Acadia, was also filming on the sidewalk.
Video of the arrests, shot by a colleague named Luke,* has already been responsible for getting “resisting arrest” charges against the residents dropped. "They adjusted their narrative to information that was publicly available," Teichberg told AlterNet, "The voice of the police has a lot more weight than the voice of citizens in court, but the truth is on our side."
The landlord charged Teichberg with assaulting him, but he disputes the claim and says he has footage for most of their argument. Regardless, he can't go back to 13 because there is a restraining order against him.
"Because of false accusations, I can't go back to the space," he said.
"My theory is that the city made the call, and the landlord decided to take the opportunity. The landlord saw an opportunity to get rid of us -- by vacating and arresting us, distracting us." He also says, "The police were acting on the landlord's orders. He was pointing out who to arrest."
"He is an acting one percenter," said Teichberg, referencing his ownership of multiple restaurants in the Bushwick neighborhood.
13 Thames has long been embattled in a legal case to determine the nature of their residency, and the vacate order could have been the result of a tumultuous relationship with their landlord and city agencies. By the end of September, the landlord had withdrawn an eviction order, but 13 and the landlord were still arguing over who is responsible for repairs. According to Fiona Campbell, a resident who was deeply involved with the space's legal issues, "There's been a lot of confusion between the tenants and the landlord, which is a trickle-down effect, because there is no dialogue between the buildings department and the loft board."
The buildings department and the loft board, she said, have different standards, confusing the landlord. Campbell said the building is full of code violations, but, "The landlord wants to be told by the city that he has to fix stuff, but the loft board doesn't tell him to. It's just a mess. If there was something set that made sense between the loft board and the buildings department, it would be a much simpler process."
Still, she says, communication must go both ways: 13 must be willing to pay rent, if the landlord is willing to make renovations. Otherwise, they must make renovations themselves, and pay whatever price of the building is left over to buy it out. But Campbell is not sure whether the raid is completely related to problems with the landlord, or whether residents' involvement with Occupy provoked the raid. "The two times they came in and raided everyone were before the Anarchist Book Fair, and now this," she said.
Regardless, "We were there legally, as residents of that building." said Vlad. Now, at least eight people are homeless.
"I can't say that the department of buildings and the fire department doesn't have a legal right to enter into space in the city of New York. They clearly do, but I believe that there's more at play here. I think that this is a politically motivated situation," Wylie Stecklow, an attorney for the livestreamers, told AlterNet. 13's inhabitants, Stecklow said, had been utilizing the space with impunity for years, all the while working regularly with the fire department to make sure it was not a dangerous space. "Nothing occurred in the days or weeks leading up to the vacate order that was now again put on here for the 5th or 6th time that made it all of a sudden dangerous or perilous to life," said Stecklow, who believes the order to vacate was issued from people in power, higher up than the inspectors or fire department who made the visit to 13 Thames.
Whether the vacate order was an attempt to shut down the Global Revolution livestream, the byproduct of a nasty fight with the landlord, or a combination of both, the story runs much deeper.
Inside 13 Thames
I embarked on a journey to 13 Thames before Global Revolution found its home there, and as integral as Global Revolution has become to the space, 13-1, as it is also called, was much more than Occupy's livestream station. And like 13 is more than Global Revolution’s home base, its eviction is part of a larger framework.

13 Thames was an experiment in living; it exemplified another option. Its inhabitants, dwellers, and weary travelers, many of whom used 13 to crash for a day or two (or much longer), had created a space similar to Zuccotti Park, long before it became Liberty Square. Radical ideas were rampant, leadership was shunned, and community and sharing were necessities, because money was tight. To provide one small example, Jai walked me to the subway at the end of every visit I paid to 13 Thames, to swipe me onto the subway with his unlimited metro card.
I first visited 13 Thames in May, when my desire to write about punk culture in New York led me to Nick James (who would only give his first and middle name), and Ryan Perry (stage name as former member of the punk band Total Chaos: Ryan Rebel) two homeless street punks who seemed much younger than their mid-twenties. They had both been homeless since around the age 12 or 13, and met in upstate New York when they were 16 and 17, while Ryan was living in a bus with his mom and her boyfriend, and Nick was sleeping in a yurt. Nick and Ryan were crashing at 13 Thames when I first met them, and they often had nowhere else to go. 13 Thames was like a shelter, but without the sense of charity. It was welcoming, and there, Nick and Ryan shared their music, and their stories, with people who cared.

13 Thames was designed to accommodate parties and residency, so that the artists and activists who lived there could pay the rent promoting their passions and enjoy a communal life. In each other, they found mutual inspiration and support, an effective achievement of self-sufficiency. For youths like Ryan and Nick, whose histories should have condemned them to reliance on our broken social system, this was especially important. Someone always had their backs.

The residents have shifted some since I wrote about 13 Thames in May (Schiller is one example) but the substance of what I wrote then holds:
They use this space to be free -- to make art and seek refuge from a society that does not serve them. In the midst of the devastated economy, they are able to hold their own. Kids like Nick, whom society failed, find a way to live free and be happy. At 13 Thames, one might meet at a Trinidian black metal kid who grew up in Bed-Stuy, a punk rock woman mechanic who worked for six years at a law firm, a dreadlocked community gardener, or an interestingly “off” German man. They come together to accept people that society fails and rejects, and they pride themselves on open-mindedness.
And then they party – often with a conscience. They throw film screenings, noise, metal, and punk shows, art galleries, showcasing whatever parcel of the underground they deem cool enough.
Residents were activists, artists, and musicians -- many of them people of color -- who shared a desire to reject the mainstream and experience alternative living. But they struggled within the confines of a society that demands one lifestyle, and overwhelmingly champions the pursuit of individual wealth and accomplishments. 13 paid the bills hosting rock shows, but when the Department of Buildings and police presence demanded they stop the music, they were forced to pool their resources to survive, and abandon part of their dream -- to have a free, creative space. The change added considerable pressure to 13 Thames, as money to secure rent and pay bills became tighter, and dwellers without economic means scrambled to find new ways to contribute. And still, they survived.

That is, until Monday, when the space was issued a vacate order for being “perilous to life.” But it wasn't life that the collective threatened. 13 Thames was perilous to the very leadership that ultimately dismantled it -- as was Occupy Wall Street -- by exemplifying the possibility of another life, away from the dog-eat-dog lifestyle of capitalistic gain.
At the very least, spreading the merits of anarcho-community threatens the egos and self-worth of those in power. The media‘s role in this process of presenting new possibilities is crucial, and the 13 Thames crew understood that, becoming media makers themselves.

Nigel Parry, an independent media pioneer and Global Revolution affiliate, said he is not one to believe that the NYPD is always out to shut down media, but added “They definitely targeted the media in Zuccotti Park. That's why they do this code violation bullshit. It seems completely unrelated and reasonable -- they're worried about health and safety.” Both inhabitants of 13 Thames and Liberty Square, as well as occupations around the country, were forced out of their spaces under the official, bogus pretext of health concerns (Look at Occupy Oakland -- are tear gas, flash bang grenades, and rubber bullets not more physically damaging than mass cohabitation?).
"There is a concerted effort to deprive people of the Occupy movement, and those in their media team, of their First Amendment rights," said attorney Stecklow. On November 17th, at least seven members of the Occupy media team were arrested while streaming, and Teichberg considers the police force an attempt to stop independent media. In the weeks leading up to the raid, most of the Global Revolution equipment was in the unit next door, 15 Thames, where "People were coming in from all the country, and all over the world, to spend a few days with us working and learning how to edit the channel. The space is shut down, but people are streaming all over the world," Teichberg said.
"Just like we saw in Russia, like we saw in these Arab countries, we're seeing it here in New York," said Stecklow, who noted that because Global Revolution connects the Occupy movement worldwide, "it is clearly the media team behind the Occupy movement."
Teichberg agreed. "Independent media is under attack worldwide - in Syria, Egypt, and now in the USA. People on our media team have been arrested five times,” he said, "It's an attempt at censorship."
Breaking Up Radical Spaces
But Liberty Square and 13 Thames are not the only communal spaces the Bloomberg administration has targeted. While maintaining a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) space has always been turbulent, breaking them up has become increasingly common. As the Village Voice recently reported, new rules enforced by new task forces have become somewhat of a tool “to force out New York's bohemian culture in hopes of creating a future perfect Gotham.” The Voice explains:
Not long after the new Quality of Life Task Force began to crack down on long-unenforced cabaret laws during the Giuliani administration, the Social Club Task Force—established after the 1990 Happy Land fire—evolved into the Multi-Agency Response to Community Hotspots (MARCH), overseen by the New York Police Department. "Unauthorized dancing" was now only one of many potential infractions.
According to the Voice, when Bloomberg took office in 2002, “MARCH activities rose immediately by 35 percent and kept growing.” The Voice continues:
"If you listen to stories about what led to this homicide or what led to this assault, you would be surprised how many stem from nightclubs," Robert F. Messner, a police commissioner who oversaw club shutdowns, told the Times. "We don't want those places in New York. We make it very clear." In 2003, the smoking ban went into effect, outlawing one of the city's longest-running cultural institutions: the smoky jazz club. Regulations have kept creeping into other bastions of the old, free New York. The Algonquin Hotel has had to confine its lobby cat to a space behind the check-in counter, and don't even think about trying to have a bar dog.
This is all despite the fact that DIY spaces have been a staple of New York’s creativity since the art scene flourished in the 1960s. As the Voice explained,
Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, and the Almanac Singers had live music at their communal Almanac House on West 10th Street as early as 1939, but history records a December 1960 gathering on Chambers Street organized by Yoko Ono as the first proper loft show.
Alcohol infractions, too, have become reasons to shut down DIY spaces. In April of 2010, cops raided one of Bushwick's most renowned DIY spaces, the Market Hotel, and shut it down after "receiving a tip that alcohol was being served without a license," according to the Brooklyn Paper. The Market Hotel was the brain child of Todd Patrick, AKA Todd P, who has been credited with inspiring the DIY scene in New York. The Arch Collective, too, was legally reprimanded in April, for “operating an illegal bottle club” while serving wine and beer to party guests. That same month, the Trailer Park, a neighboring collective to 13 Thames, was shut down for fire code violations.
The Silent Barn, also in Bushwick, was raided in July. A DIY/living space like 13 Thames, its residents were temporarily homeless after a Department of Buildings inspection ended in a vacate order. When they returned the next day, the front door was wide open and $15,000 worth of equipment and personal possessions was stolen or destroyed, the Voice said, adding that "Despite security-camera footage of three men loading equipment into a van, police were less than helpful."

For 13 Thames, this latest brush with the law was not their first time. Police raided their space in April of last year, just days before they were scheduled to host an after-party for the Anarchist Book Fair. Residents said the police entered without a warrant, checked IDs, and arrested some with outstanding warrants.

One of them, Johnny Ludolph, 19, told the New York Times he was arrested for old, unpaid tickets issued for drinking beer on the sidewalk. But when he arrived at the police station, Ludolph told the Times the police seemed most interested in asking him about fliers for the NYC Anarchist Film Festival, with 13 Thames Street listed as an address.

Proof that the eviction of 13 Thames was entirely Global Revolution-related is limited. Nevertheless, what is clear is that across the country, people in positions of power are using minor violations and health code ‘concerns’ to evict ideas. That Bloomberg and others either do not understand the thriving livelihood of these spaces, or are so threatened by their ideology they try to suppress it, should not be a surprise. Occupy and 13 Thames derived wealth from creativity and art; they defined their value by contributions to community. Bloomberg’s wealth stemmed from self-promotion, and is measured by money.
Yet shutting down the space hasn't stopped the Global Revolution crew from working. Immediately following their release, Jai said, they were "back to the studio," preparing to find the stuff they stashed away and keep on working. Their release guarantees the resumption of their activities -- without a home -- but with more attention.
As Teichberg said after his arrest, “We can do all of this from laptops," not to mention smart phones.
"You can hit us, but you can't stop us, because we're everywhere," he said, "This will only make us stronger."
*Editor's note: An earlier version of this piece incorrectly identified the videographers..
Kristen Gwynne covers drugs for AlteNet. She graduated from New York University with a degree in journalism and psychology.

'It's All Political': Eviction and Arrests of Global Revolution Livestreamers Part of Pattern of Crackdowns on Alternative Living | | AlterNet

Friday, January 6, 2012

Occupy 2012 Roundup: NDAA, Victories Against Corporate Personhood, Descending on DC, General Strike! | NationofChange

Nathan Schneider

Waging Nonviolence / Video Feature
Published: Friday 6 January 2012


This is a tall order, but if people can remember that political power begins in themselves, perhaps it’s not as tall as it sounds.
The Oc­cupy move­ment is busy. Far from being dor­mant for the win­ter, oc­cu­piers are find­ing them­selves with all sorts of new ac­tions, chal­lenges and plans. Though most of the 24-hour en­camp­ments have ended, the move­ment is be­gin­ning to focus much more on ac­tions di­rected to­ward con­crete de­mands. Last night I at­tended Oc­cupy Wall Street’s Spokes Coun­cil—now fi­nally ac­tive after weeks of tur­moil—and caught the above video of doc­u­men­tar­ian Michael Moore’s un­planned speech. In it, he re­minded the 100 or so peo­ple pre­sent that the fight ahead is a long one, and that they’re only just get­ting started. Here’s a glimpse at how the fight will be un­fold­ing in the com­ing months:
  • The day after Oc­cupy Wall Street’s Gen­eral As­sem­bly passed a Res­o­lu­tion to End Cor­po­rate Per­son­hood by con­sen­sus, the New York City Coun­cil ap­proved its own res­o­lu­tion against cor­po­rate per­son­hood on Jan­u­ary 4. This comes after sim­i­lar res­o­lu­tions in sev­eral cities, in­clud­ing Los An­ge­les, as well as Mon­tana’s vow to up­hold a ban on cor­po­rate cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions, de­spite the Supreme Court’s Cit­i­zens United de­ci­sion. Cor­po­rate per­son­hood is the focus of Oc­cupy the Courts, a na­tion­wide day of ac­tion on Jan­u­ary 20, the eve of the sec­ond an­niver­sary of Cit­i­zens United, spear­headed by the pre­ex­ist­ing coali­tion Move to Amend.
  • A num­ber of events are planned around Mar­tin Luther King Day, in­clud­ing a world­wide “can­dle­light vigil for unity” on Jan­u­ary 15, protests at all 13 Fed­eral Re­serve sites around the coun­try on Jan­u­ary 16, and Oc­cupy 4 Jobsac­tions on Jan­u­ary 14 and 16—which pur­port to ful­fill King’s hope just be­fore his death to mount a mass ac­tion against un­em­ploy­ment. Posters about Oc­cupy 4 Jobs are among the first Oc­cupy posters I’ve seen in my pre­dom­i­nately African-Amer­i­can neigh­bor­hood, sug­gest­ing that the move­ment is en­larg­ing its de­mo­graphic reach.
  • Oc­cupy Wash­ing­ton DC, the oc­cu­pa­tion at Free­dom Plaza that began on Oc­to­ber 6, has just an­nounced plans for its own “Phase II,” which in­cludes sev­eral new or­ga­niz­ing spaces, an Oc­cupy Media pro­ject, a “co-op­er­a­tive sub-econ­omy” fundrais­ing pro­gram, and NOW DC, a re­newed na­tional oc­cu­pa­tion in Wash­ing­ton start­ing on April 1.
  • Chicago will see ac­tion in the spring, too, with protests being planned for the G8 and NATO sum­mits May 19–21 by an­ti­war groups like United for Peace & Jus­tice and UNAC. Oc­cupy Chicago has called for a sub­se­quent Oc­cupy Spring mo­bi­liza­tion on April 7.
  • On May 1, there’s a call for Oc­cupy May Day—a world­wide gen­eral strike.Thou­sands have al­ready signed up on Face­book.
The defin­ing chal­lenge that the move­ment in the US will face in 2012 will al­most cer­tainly be the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion. With bil­lions of dol­lars being poured into di­rect­ing the whole coun­try’s at­ten­tion at the can­di­dates non­stop, the Oc­cupy move­ment has to find a way to make the is­sues that mat­ter to it take prece­dence over the per­son­al­i­ties and ad­ver­tise­ments of pres­i­den­tial hope­fuls. Oc­cu­piers in Iowa, who called on peo­ple to vote “un­com­mit­ted” in the cau­cuses, ap­pear to have had lit­tle im­pact at the polls. (Oc­cupy the New Hamp­shire Pri­mary is now gear­ing up with some­what dif­fer­ent tac­tics.) It is al­ready taken as a given in the move­ment that there will be mas­sive protests at both Re­pub­li­can and De­mo­c­ra­tic con­ven­tions. But if these are to be con­struc­tive, rather than sim­ply chaotic, the move­ment will need to be able to offer peo­ple some­thing more hope­ful, more com­pelling and more tan­gi­ble than any pres­i­den­tial can­di­date can promise to de­liver.
This is a tall order, but if peo­ple can re­mem­ber that po­lit­i­cal power be­gins in them­selves, per­haps it’s not as tall as it sounds.

Occupy 2012 Roundup: NDAA, Victories Against Corporate Personhood, Descending on DC, General Strike! | NationofChange

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Jobless Take Their Grievances Directly to Congress | NationofChange

Article image

Amer­ica's un­em­ployed work­ers brought their mes­sage of frus­tra­tion and de­spair di­rectly to the U.S. Capi­tol on Tues­day as they filled the con­gres­sional of­fices of dozens of law­mak­ers and re­fused to leave until they met with their elected rep­re­sen­ta­tives.
The sit-in style con­fronta­tions were the open­ing salvo of a three-day protest event dubbed "Take Back the Capi­tol," which is spon­sored by a coali­tion of pro­gres­sive or­ga­ni­za­tions.
The groups want Con­gress to pass Pres­i­dent Barack Obama's jobs bill, ex­tend the fed­eral pay­roll-tax break for work­ing Amer­i­cans and ex­tend the fed­eral emer­gency un­em­ploy­ment-in­sur­ance ben­e­fits that are slated to ex­pire Dec. 31.
While the protests over­whelm­ingly tar­geted Re­pub­li­can law­mak­ers who op­pose the Obama jobs plan, the groups also vis­ited with lead­ing con­gres­sional De­moc­rats such as Rep. Heath Shuler of North Car­olina and House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives Mi­nor­ity Whip Steny Hoyer of Mary­land.
Un­daunted by a steady morn­ing driz­zle, hun­dreds of pro­test­ers emerged from their "tent city" on the Na­tional Mall and trekked to the Capi­tol, where they made good on their promise to "swarm the halls" and track down mem­bers of Con­gress to de­mand com­mit­ments on their pet is­sues.
"If they don't pass the jobs bill, we will get rid of them," said Oliver Hen­dricks, an un­em­ployed iron­worker from Boston who was among 250 Mass­a­chu­setts res­i­dents who came to protest.
As the Mass­a­chu­setts group made its way through the Mall chant­ing, "We are the 99 per­cent," Hen­dricks said he was anx­ious to chal­lenge Mass­a­chu­setts Re­pub­li­can Sen. Scott Brown's op­po­si­tion to the pres­i­dent's jobs bill and Brown's pre­vi­ous vote against ex­tend­ing job­less ben­e­fits.
"He has voted against every bill that would help us," said Hen­dricks, who hasn't found work since he lost his job in March 2010.
Hen­dricks, 56, said he'd lost his home of 16 years to fore­clo­sure re­cently when the bank backed out of a loan mod­i­fi­ca­tion plan with­out no­tice and then tried to auc­tion off his prop­erty. He re­mains in the home while he chal­lenges the ac­tion in court, but he must pay monthly rent to the bank until his ap­peal is re­solved.
The cri­sis is test­ing his met­tle. "I'm a Chris­t­ian and I'm liv­ing only by the grace of God," Hen­dricks said. "I'm fight­ing for every­thing right now. I'm fight­ing for my life."
In many of the of­fice meet­ings with GOP law­mak­ers, staffers were po­lite but dis­mis­sive, telling pro­test­ers that the con­gres­sional rep­re­sen­ta­tives or sen­a­tors they sought were out of the of­fice or too busy to meet with them. At that point, most pro­test­ers de­cided to oc­cupy the of­fices or camp out until the law­mak­ers showed up.
Capi­tol Po­lice ar­rested at least one pro­tester for un­law­ful entry at the of­fice of Rep. Vicky Hart­zler, R-Mo.
About 40 pro­test­ers faced "strong op­po­si­tion" from staff at Cal­i­for­nia Re­pub­li­can Rep. Dar­rell Issa's of­fice be­fore se­cu­rity es­corted them away, said pro­tester Rikki Bradley, a Cal­i­for­nia state em­ployee with the De­part­ment of Hous­ing and Com­mu­nity De­vel­op­ment.
The staff for Rep. Dan Lun­gren, R-Calif., was much more hos­pitable, Bradley said. Lun­gren emerged from his of­fice after sev­eral hours and shook hands with the re­main­ing four or five pro­test­ers who'd de­cided to wait for him.
When pressed on his vot­ing record, Lun­gren said he'd voted for nu­mer­ous bills to cre­ate jobs in Cal­i­for­nia, Bradley said.
"Then we asked, 'What about the ex­ten­sion of un­em­ploy­ment ben­e­fits?' to which he turned around and walked out. He made a left out of the of­fice and kept going," Bradley said. "We were sur­prised he even talked to us, but we felt like he just heard us. He didn't lis­ten."
When 40 peo­ple showed up at Florida Re­pub­li­can Sen. Marco Rubio's of­fice, they de­clined of­fers to meet with the sen­a­tor's se­nior staff mem­bers.
"The staff has al­ways promised us that they'll get back to us and the sen­a­tor will even­tu­ally meet with us. This has gone on for months. We want to meet with the sen­a­tor now," said Jose Suarez, a spokesman for 1Mi­ami, a coali­tion of pro­gres­sive grass-roots or­ga­ni­za­tions.
"One hun­dred fifty peo­ple got on buses, took time out of their lives, left their fam­i­lies back in Miami for 18 hours to come and do this today, so we're not going to meet with any­one but the sen­a­tor," Suarez said. At 6 p.m. Tues­day, the group was still wait­ing. Suarez said they'd re­turn Wednes­day.
John Reat, 62, from Wor­thing­ton, Ohio, was among the 40 or so who were camped out out­side the of­fice of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, just off the Capi­tol Ro­tunda. Since he lost his in­for­ma­tion tech­nol­ogy job in De­cem­ber 2009, Reat has re­ceived un­em­ploy­ment in­sur­ance ben­e­fits. But they'll ex­pire next month un­less Con­gress agrees to ex­tend the fed­eral emer­gency ben­e­fits.
Be­cause his wife still works, Reat's fam­ily isn't in dire fi­nan­cial straits. But as one of the face­less "99 per­centers," Reat said it was im­por­tant to come to Wash­ing­ton to make his voice heard.
"I just got up off my couch and said, 'I've got to say some­thing,' " Reat said. "I'm part of the 99 per­cent who play by the rules. We pay taxes. We save for re­tire­ment. But the 1 per­cent is play­ing fast and loose with the mort­gages, fast and loose with the re­tire­ment plans, and fast and loose with the jobs. And this just sim­ply has to stop. It can't con­tinue this way."
The protest ac­tiv­i­ties con­tinue Wednes­day, when the group walks to K Street to protest the po­lit­i­cal in­flu­ence of cor­po­rate lob­by­ists. On Thurs­day, it'll host a na­tional prayer vigil for the un­em­ployed on Capi­tol Hill.

Jobless Take Their Grievances Directly to Congress | NationofChange

Monday, November 28, 2011

"It's a fraud problem, not a business cycle problem" Everything you ever wanted to know about the meltdown but the bullshit news media will never tell you

William Black put over 1,000 bankers in jail
during the S & L crisis

When someone takes the time to explain it to them, people get it.

This is not a class struggle.

It's a struggle between a deeply entrenched criminal class and the productive class, the vast majority of people who work hard at work, at home and in school.

The US is being gutted from the top down much in the same way the USSR was gutted at the end of its life by its elites.

We're not dead yet and thanks to people like William Black and tools like the Internet, we may have a chance yet.

Takeaway: "It is not a few bad apples. It is an orchard of 1%'ers who a rotten to the core."

If we don't stop this now, the US as we know it (opportunity for the honest and hard working) is done for.

I try not to be too judgemental (yeah, right), but anyone who doesn't get this basic fact is an idiot.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

The New Progressive Movement

By JEFFREY D. SACHS

OCCUPY WALL STREET and its allied movements around the country are more than a walk in the park. They are most likely the start of a new era in America. Historians have noted that American politics moves in long swings. We are at the end of the 30-year Reagan era, a period that has culminated in soaring income for the top 1 percent and crushing unemployment or income stagnation for much of the rest. The overarching challenge of the coming years is to restore prosperity and power for the 99 percent.
Thirty years ago, a newly elected Ronald Reagan made a fateful judgment: “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” Taxes for the rich were slashed, as were outlays on public services and investments as a share of national income. Only the military and a few big transfer programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans’ benefits were exempted from the squeeze.
Reagan’s was a fateful misdiagnosis. He completely overlooked the real issue — the rise of global competition in the information age — and fought a bogeyman, the government. Decades on, America pays the price of that misdiagnosis, with a nation singularly unprepared to face the global economic, energy and environmental challenges of our time.
Washington still channels Reaganomics. The federal budget for nonsecurity discretionary outlays — categories like highways and rail, education, job training, research and development, the judiciary, NASA, environmental protection, energy, the I.R.S. and more — was cut from more than 5 percent of gross domestic product at the end of the 1970s to around half of that today. With the budget caps enacted in the August agreement, domestic discretionary spending would decline to less than 2 percent of G.D.P. by the end of the decade, according to the White House. Government would die by fiscal asphyxiation.
Both parties have joined in crippling the government in response to the demands of their wealthy campaign contributors, who above all else insist on keeping low tax rates on capital gains, top incomes, estates and corporate profits. Corporate taxes as a share of national income are at the lowest levels in recent history. Rich households take home the greatest share of income since the Great Depression. Twice before in American history, powerful corporate interests dominated Washington and brought America to a state of unacceptable inequality, instability and corruption. Both times a social and political movement arose to restore democracy and shared prosperity.
The first age of inequality was the Gilded Age at the end of the 19th century, an era quite like today, when both political parties served the interests of the corporate robber barons. The progressive movement arose after the financial crisis of 1893. In the following decades Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson came to power, and the movement pushed through a remarkable era of reform: trust busting, federal income taxation, fair labor standards, the direct election of senators and women’s suffrage.
The second gilded age was the Roaring Twenties. The pro-business administrations of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover once again opened up the floodgates of corruption and financial excess, this time culminating in the Great Depression. And once again the pendulum swung. F.D.R.’s New Deal marked the start of several decades of reduced income inequality, strong trade unions, steep top tax rates and strict financial regulation. After 1981, Reagan began to dismantle each of these core features of the New Deal.
Following our recent financial calamity, a third progressive era is likely to be in the making. This one should aim for three things. The first is a revival of crucial public services, especially education, training, public investment and environmental protection. The second is the end of a climate of impunity that encouraged nearly every Wall Street firm to commit financial fraud. The third is to re-establish the supremacy of people votes over dollar votes in Washington.
None of this will be easy. Vested interests are deeply entrenched, even as Wall Street titans are jailed and their firms pay megafines for fraud. The progressive era took 20 years to correct abuses of the Gilded Age. The New Deal struggled for a decade to overcome the Great Depression, and the expansion of economic justice lasted through the 1960s. The new wave of reform is but a few months old.
The young people in Zuccotti Park and more than 1,000 cities have started America on a path to renewal. The movement, still in its first days,  will have to expand in several strategic ways. Activists are needed among shareholders, consumers and students to hold corporations and politicians to account. Shareholders, for example, should pressure companies to get out of politics. Consumers should take their money and purchasing power away from companies that confuse business and political power. The whole range of other actions — shareholder and consumer activism, policy formulation, and running of candidates — will not happen in the park.  
The new movement also needs to build a public policy platform. The American people have it absolutely right on the three main points of a new agenda. To put it simply: tax the rich, end the wars and restore honest and effective government for all.
Finally, the new progressive era will need a fresh and gutsy generation of candidates to seek election victories not through wealthy campaign financiers but through free social media. A new generation of politicians will prove that they can win on YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and blog sites, rather than with corporate-financed TV ads. By lowering the cost of political campaigning, the free social media can liberate Washington from the current state of endemic corruption. And the candidates that turn down large campaign checks, political action committees, Super PACs and bundlers will be well positioned to call out their opponents who are on the corporate take.
Those who think that the cold weather will end the protests should think again. A new generation of leaders is just getting started. The new progressive age has begun.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and the author, most recently, of “The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/the-new-progressive-movement.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print

Friday, November 11, 2011

Forbes: Koch Brothers Now Worth $50 Billion

Forbes estimates that Tea Party petrochemical scions Charles and David Koch have a fortune of $25 billion each, making them the fourth richest Americans, behind only Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Larry Ellison. Their combined wealth of $50 billion is exceeded only by the Microsoft founder’s $59 billion fortune. Buoyed by aggressive speculative trading on volatile energy markets, the Koch brothers accumulated $15 billion in wealth since March 2010, a 43 percent increase.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

We are the 1% ... And We Stand with the 99%

By Jesse Estrin

I first realized that I came from wealth when I discovered that not everybody’s family had more than one house.
It was a further revelation when, growing up, it dawned on me that not everybody else went to the same kind of school I did. I began to understand that my experience of elementary and high school – going to nicely furnished schools with state-of-the-art facilities in a safe neighborhood of West L.A., and with very little diversity and an obsession with getting students into Ivy League colleges—was not the experience of the majority of other children my age. When you are surrounded by peers in the same financial bracket as yourself, it can take some time to recognize the bubble that separates you from the rest of society. This bubble is what I eventually came to understand as privilege.
It was a long and bumpy journey to come to terms with what this privilege of wealth meant, especially in light of the glaring differences of experience that I began to see all around me. By the time I made it to college, and began to get involved with social and environmental activism, I would find myself in the confusing position of listening to angry insults and generalized stereotypes about “rich people.” My new friends—people I respected and admired—were adamant about social justice but had a great amount of anger and resentment toward people with wealth. It was extremely awkward for me, and I found myself keeping my background hidden—even to close friends—and never outing myself as someone who came from wealth. I felt a tremendous amount of embarrassment and shame around it. Interestingly, I discovered that many of my friends who also came from wealth felt the same way. It was actually very isolating. It wasn’t cool to be a rich kid.
It wasn’t until I discovered Resource Generation, an organization that works with young people to leverage wealth and privilege for social change, that I found a network of other young people with similar backgrounds who wanted to talk about these taboo issues in order to make a difference in the world. Attending a conference they put on and meeting other young folks who came from the upper class and who shared a passion for social and economic justice was incredibly meaningful. I realized that for most people today, money remains a taboo subject that no one ever wants to talk about openly.
This is often especially true for those who have money, and many of the people I met at Resource Generation had families that were strict about never talking about wealth or where it came from. To break out of the silence and actually talk about money was itself a liberating experience.
Furthermore, talking about the ways it was most often accrued (through an unjust economic system with complex and subtle relationships to racism, classism, and oppression) was incredibly challenging, but at the same time empowering. It was through my own inner work around these issues—through workshops, conferences, and conversations with others—that I came to realize my shame and embarrassment about coming from wealth didn’t need to paralyze me and keep me silent. Only after I did this did I feel empowered to try and understand how I could best use my resources to change the social issues I felt most strongly about.
When the Occupy Wall Street protests began, I decided it was time for me to step up, publicly out myself as a part of the 1%, and share my outrage at the injustices that are occurring globally. I have to admit that this was scary for me, because I didn’t know what kind of reaction I would get. After all, this was a movement of and for the 99%, many of whom seemed to have anger towards the 1%. With the streets of San Francisco crowded with protesters shouting “We are the 99%!” and “Whose streets? Our streets!” I was less than excited to walk out into the open with a giant sign confessing my status as the 1%.
I remember my heart beating as I made my sign, and seeing my friends—many of whom I had never told about my economic status—reading it for the first time. It took them a moment to process it. I was surprised and relieved to feel supported by all of them, who encouraged me and commented that it was a powerful form of solidarity.
And this is the same reaction I found at the protest itself: Most of my fears quickly subsided as I found myself welcomed and embraced by the whole range of diverse people marching that day. I was embraced as an important part of the equation whose voice also needed to be heard, and whose solidarity is needed in the collective call for equality and justice. And although I know that cross-class alliances may not always be easy or smooth—considering the tensions that can often exist—I realized it is important for me to speak out about my story, even in the face of struggles or challenges that can come with it.
As it became clearer how, by being born into the upper class, I was given many unfair advantages in jump-starting a successful career, I became appalled at the accusation that many people aren't “successful” because they don’t “work hard enough.” While I and many others have more than we need, I am surrounded by friends who are struggling to make ends meet, get health care, and pay back massive student loans. While millions are struggling for survival, taxes for the wealthiest 1% have gone down! This is simply unacceptable. And the thing is—it is unacceptable to every other person of wealth that I know. That is why I—and many others in the 1%—are standing with the 99% in demanding a more just and equitable distribution of wealth. This will require effort from all sides—100%.
Social activist and Buddhist Joanna Macy writes about what she calls the “Great Turning,” our current moment in time as an epochal and historic transition toward a life-sustaining civilization. As I have tried to make sense of the suffering and injustice I see all around me, I am realizing that if we are to survive, we will have to see a rapid and major shift that includes not only economic change, but ecological and spiritual transformation as well.
One of the sayings that my grandmother used to tell us, over and over, was “to one whom much is given, much is expected.” I come from a family deeply committed to philanthropy and social justice, and have recently joined the board of my family’s nonprofit foundation dedicated to progressive and grassroots philanthropy. I have come to believe that those of us who have benefited the most from the system need to step up—especially at this point in time—and give back. As people who have first-hand knowledge of how the economic system is tilted in our favor, we have an obligation to speak out about it rather than remain silent and continue to receive its benefits.
Advocating for more equal taxation is one of the few concrete ways that those with wealth can stand up united to give back to the whole. This is critical if we are going to build a large and cohesive movement around redistribution of wealth and long-term change to our economic system.
At the end of the march in San Francisco we ended up on the front steps of City Hall. I found myself drawn to a group of people playing drums, singing, and dancing. Somebody came over and handed me a drum, and before I knew what was happening I was pulled through the pulsing rhythm and into my heart in the way only music can do. With our signs laid on the ground, suddenly we became a group of people using our bodies and voices to express our dissent, our desire for change, our anger, and our pain; but also our hopes, our dreams, and the pure, untouched human impulse to celebrate and make music in the face of it all.
Here for me was the defining image, the common heart of the movement, where all class difference falls away, where race and gender and sexual preference merge and entwine, and it is simply hearts coming together to forge a new way forward. This was enough to fill me with inspiration and with hope for the future.
Long after I picked up my sign and headed home, it was this image, this feeling of the pounding drums and stomping feet, that stayed with me and made me feel connected to and included in the very heart of this movement. And for this I feel grateful.

This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/we-are-1-and-we-stand-99-1320942128. All rights are reserved.

Occupy Movement is Spreading and Growing

By Dave Johnson

Our captured government won’t do its job. It doesn't keep Wall Street and banks and giant corporations from ripping us off and doesn't prosecute them after they do. It doesn't stop polluters - even as the effects of climate change increase. It doesn't enforce employment and labor laws, so all of us who work fall further and further behind. It doesn't take care of those in need even as more and more of us are in greater and greater need. It just helps the connected rich get richer. So people finally got fed up, and started "occupying." Now the occupy movement is spreading to more and more cities, growing with more and more people, and expanding people's understanding of the power that comes from speaking out.
It started with Occupy Wall Street, people rising up over the greed and inequality, the1% vs 99%. Labor joined, adding their voice and grievances. Veterans, teachers and others are showing up in greater and greater numbers now. Others are joining. Now it's everywhere: Hundreds of towns like Occupy Orlando and Chicago and Portland and Nashville and Asheville and Oakland and even little towns like Redwood City.
People are getting arrested as the powers-that-be react to the spreading and growing crowds. According to Chris Bowers at Daily Kos,
Arrests in Chicago, New York City, Fresno, Eureka, Denver, Portland, Boston, Seattle, Oakland, Ashville, Riverside and more cities over the weekend has brought the total number of arrests of Occupy protesters over 3,350.
Globalization Of Protest
The world feels the effect of their common wealth draining to shock-doctrine attacks from the 1%. Economist Joseph Stiglitz writes at Al Jazeera that in reaction to this we are seeing The globalisation of protest,
The protest movement that began in Tunisia in January, subsequently spreading to Egypt and then to Spain, has now become global - with the protests engulfing Wall Street and cities across America. Globalization and modern technology now enables social movements to transcend borders as rapidly as ideas can.
And social protest has found fertile ground everywhere: A sense that the "system" has failed, and the conviction that even in a democracy, the electoral process will not set things right - at least not without strong pressure from the street.
Stiglitz writes that around the world these protesters are sounding an alarm:
They are right that something is wrong about our "system". Around the world, we have underutilized resources - people who want to work, machines that lie idle, buildings that are empty - and huge unmet needs: Fighting poverty, promoting development, and retrofitting the economy for global warming, to name just a few. In America, after more than seven million home foreclosures in recent years, we have empty homes and homeless people.
The protesters have been criticized for not having an agenda. But this misses the point of protest movements. They are an expression of frustration with the electoral process. They are an alarm.
... On one level, today's protesters are asking for little: A chance to use their skills, the right to decent work at decent pay, a fairer economy and society. Their hope is evolutionary, not revolutionary. But, on another level, they are asking for a great deal: A democracy where people, not dollars, matter, and a market economy that delivers on what it is supposed to do.
Seniors Occupying Over Social Security & Medicare Cuts
More groups are expressing their own dissatisfaction with the captured government cutting back in order to preserve the tax cuts and other benefits of the top 1%. At The Huffington Post, Lizzie Schiffman reports in, Seniors Join Occupy Chicago, Protest Cuts To Medicare, Social Security
More than 1,000 senior citizens and their supporters marched from Chicago's Federal Plaza to the intersection of Jackson and Clark Street Monday morning to protest proposed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
… Amid chants demanding that the cuts be forestalled -- with suggestions for alternatives, including tax hikes -- 43 demonstrators were escorted from the intersection (see video, above) by police and issued citations for pedestrian failure to "exercise due care," or for blocking traffic. Those cited included four protesters using assisted mobility devices and at least one centenarian.


Moving Money From Banks
In conjunction with the Occupy Movement, people have started to move money from the too-big banks to non-profit credit unions that exist to actually serve the customers instead of the few at the top. 650,000 people moved from banks to credit unions just in October -- more than all of the prior year -- and early estimates of the recent November 5 action calculate that perhaps $60 billion was moved.
Occupy The Super Committee
Congress' supercommittee of the 1% is discussing how much money to take out of the economy of the 99% by cutting back on the things our government does for We, the People. They want to cut the deficits that resulted from tax cuts for the rich and huge increases in military spending -- without undoing those. So now a group is setting up to occupy the supercommittee. The Occupied Super Committee Hearing of the 99%
OccupyWashingtonDC to hold Occupied Super Committee Hearing for the 99%
Wednesday, November 9th at 11:00 AM
OccupyWashingtonDC.org will hold a hearing on the economy for the 99% that will examine how to create a fair economy for all Americans.
The Occupied Hearing will contrast with hearings on Capitol Hill which are destined to enrich the 1% and protect major donors.
The Occupied Super Committee Hearing for the 99% will examine critical issues facing the economy and the federal budget. The hearing will include testimony from people with great understanding of the issues facing the country as well as comments from the 99% who are directly affected by the economy.
Hundreds Of Thousands Of Views Of A Congressman's Occupy Video
How often does a member of Congress put a video on YouTube and quickly get hundreds of thousands of views? Keith Ellison (D-MN), Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, made a video for the "Congressional Youtube Town Hall" series, talking about the Occupy Wall Street movement. The video has received 340,000 views as of Tuesday morning.

 
Occupy Everywhere And Everything
Possible new Occupy actions include places that the government is ignoring its responsibilities, and people are sick of just taking it. Some ideas:
  • Occupying polluting companies, until they stop polluting.
  • Occupying privatized public functions -- jobs that have been handed to private contractors in order to pay people poverty wages, while making a few at the top very, very rich.
  • Occupying companies that refuse to hire the unemployed.
  • Occupying companies that refuse to hire people over 40.
    Encouraged by the Occupy Movement, more and more people are finding their voice and speaking out.
This article was published at NationofChange at: http://www.nationofchange.org/occupy-movement-spreading-and-growing-1320853000. All rights are reserved.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Pew Report on Young-Old Wealth Gap is Misleading and Divisive; Could Fuel Intergenerational Class War

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet

Posted on November 7, 2011, Printed on November 8, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/153012/pew_report_on_young-old_wealth_gap_is_misleading_and_divisive%3B_could_fuel_intergenerational_class_war

A new study purporting to show that older households are doing much better than younger ones in terms of wealth and income threatens to spark an intergenerational class war, pitting Americans of different ages – people who have all been devastated by the crash caused by Wall Street's recklessness -- against one another. But there are serious flaws in how the research is being interpreted.
The analysis, by Pew Research, is being spun as evidence that the government “spends too much” on the elderly while leaving younger Americans hanging out to dry. It's already becoming another weapon in the corporate right's long-running battle against Social Security.
There's no doubt that this economy is especially grim for young people. Unemployment among young adults continues to hover around 18 percent, and a report by the Federal Reserve found that full-time undergraduate students are borrowing 63 percent more for school than they did a decade ago. (Outstanding student-loan debt broke the trillion-dollar mark for the first time this year.) Young people have few prospects for decent jobs. This bleak situation is clearly a driving factor behind the emergence of the Occupy Wall Street movement; studies suggest that the “occupiers” skew young, don't have a lot of income and suffer from a much higher rate of unemployment than the country as a whole.
The Pew study's main finding is that, “in 2009, households headed by adults ages 65 and older possessed 42% more median net worth (assets minus debt)" than they did in 1984, but that trend was reversed in younger households. In 2009, “households headed by adults younger than 35 had 68% less wealth than households of their same-aged counterparts had in 1984."
As a result, whereas older families had 10 times the accumulated wealth of those headed by people under 35 back in 1984, that ratio has now risen to 47-to-1. The authors acknowledge that people accumulate wealth as they get older, and that young people didn't have a lot of it back in 1984, but economist Dean Baker told AlterNet that this fact renders the finding little more than a bit of trivia. “The idea of using a ratio is really problematic in this context,” he said. “Young people have no wealth. They had no wealth in 1984 and they have no wealth now. The fact that the ratio of the wealth of older households to younger households has increased hugely tells us almost nothing.”
It tells us even less because, as Baker noted, the study contains a serious flaw. Back in the 1980s, traditional, employer-managed pensions were the primary means of saving for retirement in the United States, but during the intervening years there was a huge shift toward 401(k)s (and similar accounts), which now represent over 80 percent of private retirement savings. Traditional pensions weren’t counted as part of a household’s net-worth, but 401(k)s are. So comparing the wealth of older households that didn’t include their nest-eggs in 1984 to those in 2009 which count the money people have socked away as part of their net worth is like comparing apples to oranges.
“It’s incredibly dishonest that the Pew study didn’t mention the impact of the switch from defined benefit pensions to defined contribution plans,” Baker said.
What’s more, 1984 was a very different point in the business cycle than 2009. Back then we were in the second year of a robust recovery following the 1981-'82 recession, with real economic growth of over 7 percent and an unemployment rate that was under 8 percent and falling rapidly. The recent crash officially ended halfway through 2009, giving way to an anemic recovery. Economic growth for the year was negative, and unemployment for the year stood more or less steady at 9.3 percent.
Most of the difference between older and younger families' net worths relates to housing wealth. Half of homeowners over 65 bought their homes before the run-up of the housing bubble began in the late 1990s, while many younger families with homes bought while the bubble was inflated and were badly hurt when it popped. Almost two-thirds of those over 65 who have a home own it free and clear with no mortgage.
So, stripping away the sensational headline numbers, what you get is that the median household headed by people 65 and over saw the values of their homes increase by about $50,000 over the past 25 years, but were able to accumulate little in the way of other assets. Somewhat buried in the study is the fact that when you exclude housing wealth, the median net worth of households headed by older Americans is a third lower today than it was back in 1984.
Another, longer-term factor in younger families' lack of wealth, note the authors, is that people are waiting longer to get married and are starting their careers later – “two markers of adulthood traditionally linked to income growth and wealth accumulation.”
The other finding, perhaps more dangerous in the hands of demagogues seeking to loot Social Security and shift more healthcare costs onto the elderly, is that while the incomes of households headed by people over 65 has risen by 109 percent since 1984, households headed by people under 35 have only seen their incomes increase by 27 percent – a dismal reflection of a stagnant middle-class.
The Associated Press – which has published several wildly dishonest hit-pieces on Social Security this year (see here and here) – quoted Georgetown University economist Harry Holzer saying, "It makes us wonder whether the extraordinary amount of resources we spend on retirees and their health care should be at least partially reallocated to those who are hurting worse than them." But the idea that older Americans are lucky ducks living the high life while younger people struggle is flat-out wrong. While it's true that without Social Security, the poverty rate among older Americans would be almost 50 percent, that's simply a sign of how successful the program has been.
People over 65 are still struggling badly in this economy. As I wrote back in May, studies show that one in three seniors can be classified as “economically insecure.” And according to the Census Bureau's new poverty metric – which does a better job factoring out-of-pocket healthcare costs – the elderly population has a poverty rate of almost 16 percent, close to double what it was using the Bureau's traditional methodology.
Almost all of that increase is due to out-of-pocket healthcare costs, a problem that would increase dramatically if Medicare were “reformed” because the “reforms” discussed in Washington do nothing to lower the cost of healthcare in the United States (costs that are growing more quickly in the private sector than in the Medicare system). They simply shift more of the burden onto the backs of seniors themselves. Social Security, meanwhile, remains solvent. The government doesn't “spend money” on these benefits, working people pay a tax dedicated to finance them.
The Pew study also notes that the percentage of Americans over 65 who are still working rose by 60 percent between 1984 and 2009. That correlates with a long-term decline in employer-provided retirement benefits. Our elderly are struggling to retire, which is anything but good news for people who have spent a lifetime in the labor market.
The authors of the Pew study write, “households headed by older adults have made dramatic gains relative to those headed by younger adults in their economic well-being over the past quarter of a century.” The key bit here is “relative to” -- older households in the middle of the pack have gained nothing over that period; they've simply treaded water. Their incomes have doubled and their wealth has increased by 40 percent during a period in which the size of the American economy doubled.
The real story here is that younger families in the middle of the pile have fallen way behind, as those at the top have grabbed an ever-increasing share of the nation's income. As Dean Baker put it, “the ratio of the wealth of the top one percent to the rest of the population has risen by much more than that of people over 65 and those under age 35.”
The way these findings are being interpreted can only stoke young people's sense of resentment and divide the vast majority of Americans who are suffering through the same economic catastrophe. It can only feed the politics of grievance, which is ultimately just what the “granny-bashers” want.
Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy: And Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America. Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.
© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/153012/
http://www.alternet.org/story/153012/pew_report_on_young-old_wealth_gap_is_misleading_and_divisive%3B_could_fuel_intergenerational_class_war?page=entire

Thursday, November 3, 2011

CHART: Thanks To The 99 Percent Movement, Media Finally Covering Jobs Crisis And Marginalizing Deficit Hysteria


Raucous protests across the country are refocusing media attention.
Part of the reason economic policymakers have failed to properly address the poor economy is because the nation’s news media has not properly covered the unemployment crisis. For example, at the beginning of August, when Washington, DC was debating the debt ceiling crisis, the national debt dominated the airwaves. While it was appropriate for the media then to be covering the deficit due to the debt ceiling debate at the time, there was a stunning lack of coverage of the jobs crisis. A ThinkProgress review of the media coverage of the last week of July found that the word “debt” was mentioned more than 7,000 times on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, and “unemployed” was only mentioned 75 times:
Yet now, things have changed. With the debt ceiling debates behind the country and thanks partly to the pressure being brought upon politicians and the media by the 99 Percent Movement and the occupations taking place all over the country, it looks as if the press is finally focusing on the jobs crisis and the behavior of Wall Street instead. A ThinkProgress review of the same three networks between Oct. 10 and Oct. 16 finds that the word “debt” only netted 398 mentions, while “occupy” grabbed 1,278, Wall Street netted 2,378, and jobs got 2,738:

When Occupy Wall Street started last month, a wide variety of news outlets complained that the protesters would not accomplish anything or that they did not have clear goals. It now appears that the resulting 99 Percent Movement has scored at least one victory: successfully re-framing media coverage onto the jobs crisis and real economy rather than trumped-up fears about the national debt or deficit.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/18/346892/chart-media-jobs-wall-street-ignoring-deficit-hysteria/

GRAPHS: Inequality And The Truth

Want to upset your conservative friends who deny there's an inequality problem in America? This is the graph for you. Of course, they're also partly right…

As Derek Thompson of The Atlantic recently published, the income inequality in America isn't a myth, as some on the right think it is. As Thompson points out about our current income inequalities, "The upshot is that the average 99th percenter makes more in a year than somebody in the bottom quintile would make in 150 years." His chart reflects an uncomfortable reality most conservatives would rather ignore.



Of course, as Thompson also notes, the top one percent pays four time mores than the bottom forty percent in federal income taxes - something that tends to upset some on the left.

Thompson isn't the only one who's been debating whether economic inequality even exists lately. Jonathan Chait in New York magazine points out several blowhards and experts from different sides who've been battling over this issue lately.

Chait gets the last word in this debate, however, as he also points out that even if you're right, "[debunking] some blowhard isn’t going to make the blowhard admit he’s wrong."

It's still good to know you're right though, isn't it?

Courtesy Randi Rhodes:
http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=9331495