Pages

Pages

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Bingo — It's the corruption, stupid.


The protesters occupying Wall Street have been famously without a formal manifesto. But if they wanted one, firebrand Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig's new book about how money has corrupted Congress might be a contender.

Lessig had hoped to lay the underpinnings for a popular mobilization in his book. Instead, on the day of the book's publication, he is headed to what could be that movement's nascent heart. "I'm going to go down there and hang out and do whatever I can," he told the Huffington Post on Thursday, from the train.

Lessig's contention in his book "Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress -- and a Plan to Stop It" is that Congress's overwhelming addiction to special interest money is at the root of the problems facing the country and the unprecedented levels of disillusionment with government.

In a Thursday morning blog post on The Huffington Post, Lessig cheered on the protesters. "#OccupyWallSt, Then #OccupyKSt, Then #OccupyMainSt," he wrote, calling the mass arrests on Saturday possibly "the first real green-shoots of this, the American spring."

But at the same time, Lessig said he is worried that the protest "will become too diffuse and not focused" on that root issue. "The key messaging strategy here is to try to get people to focus on what is the core problem," he said.

Similarly, for a protest to work, it needs to grow, he said. This one will only grow "if a wide range of people can be part of it." And that means coalescing around an issue "as fundamental as the corruption of the system," he said.

"People realize that it's a show; it's a charade," Lessig said of the modern American political process. "When you just look a little bit deeper, it's clear that what's driving both parties is whatever is the thing that's going to maximize the money."


Harvard redeems itself?

11 comments:

  1. definitely kickass.

    I love the smell of Freedom in the morning...ahhh...

    thank you Occupy Wall Street. Thank you.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIuuzK4XyDA

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well there is the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

    Quote:
    As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

    As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clonal wrt this declaration: "when corporations, which place" they are "personifying" a human legal construct...

    and they write of govt receiving "power" which is wrong govt has 'authority'.

    They seem to be too focused on "corporations".

    To me, the problem is with out of MMT paradigm govt policy. A full employment economy would benefit "corporations".... to the extent that moron mgmts continue to advocate for austerity and the associated mass unemployment, they are breaching their fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders...

    Resp,

    ReplyDelete
  4. Larry Lessig, eh? He's definitely a first round pick. The other day he wrote a "small donor reform" piece for Bloomberg, I dropped him a line (and he was kind enough to write back thanking me for the comment) suggesting he recast his public campaign financing plan from direct spending to the use of tax credits (in particular for campaign advertising, to be taken by broadcasters) instead of direct spending. The phrase that pays is Pigouvian virtual subsidy. :o)
    1. Spending must be appropriated every year, tax expenditures roll on forever.
    2. Campaign finance reform would require 60 Senate votes, tax bills only require 50.
    http://www.bloomberg.com
    /news/2011-10-04/to-save-politics-adopt-small-donor-reforms-commentary-by-lawrence-lessig.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. agreed Matt. I expect everyone to be out of paradigm though and the occupy wall street is progress by definition imho. If we get tax hikes for big corps and a stop to many subsidies then that will be good for everyone. So that is good. I agree austerity is not good for anyone...including the rich...but I guess this society takes things one at a time.

    I like what Martin Armstrong says at the end of this interview here...b/c I think he's right. We'll faulter and hesitate and try all sorts of dumb-ass things but when it's really all about to fall apart, they'll bring out the right plan (which they already know now btw) and things will be off to the races again. Very interesting view b/c it's both optimistic and skeptical at the same time. I like Armstrong for that reason. He's all about trading gold but not about a gold standard. He seems to find real "sweet spots" amongst the cacophony of voices out here in "the wilderness." I really respect that. Here's the link to his interview (just out of jail recently too! What a dude):

    http://www.kingworldnews.com/kingworldnews/Broadcast/Entries/2011/10/2_Martin_Armstrong_files/Martin%20Armstrong%2010%3A2%3A2011.mp3

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Beowulf

    interesting idea B. I'm always trying to catch up with your ideas. ;)

    So by "tax credits" how do you mean? Usually a tax credit is a dollar for dollar reduction in your tax liability. I am not catching how a tax credit would help to fund anything since it's a tax reduction. Obviously I'm missing something....

    ReplyDelete
  7. A tax deduction reduces your taxable income, a tax credit reduces your taxes due.

    An existing one is the Job Opportunity Word Credit. If you hire a long-term unemployed person, you get (IIRC) an $8,000 tax credit for their first 12 months of employment (works out to be a $4/hr wage subsidy). Now the govt doesn't have to send you a check, you just deduct $8,000 from what you'd otherwise wire in to Tsy as tax payments (which for an employer is both sides of FICA, employee income tax withholdings and corporate-level taxes). Its a virtual subsidy since the govt doesn't actually send money out.

    Now imagine if the wireless carriers got the green light from the FEC with their plan allow cell phone subscribers to text up to $50 in political donations. As I mentioned to Lessig, Congress could give carriers a $50 tax credit for NOT passing through the donation cost to the monthly subscriber. That's harnessing the power corporate welfare and tax expeditures for good and not evil.
    Likewise, for any candidate who agreed to Lessig's voluntary limitations (no more than $100 raised per person, etc), they could go to any TV, radio, internet or outdoor advertising outlet and get "free" ad time. Meanwhile, advertising outlets could be given a tax credit for the market value of any free ads given to qualified candidates. I'm fairly sure a TV station owner would be just as happy with a $100,000 tax credit as he'd be with a $100,000 ad buy. Either way, its money that flows to his bottom line.
    Remember govt spending is more or less indistinguishable from tax credits, the difference, spending is typically appropriated (or not) annually, while tax expenditures (like the artillery) keeps rolling along.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Job Opportunity Word Credit"
    Sorry, should be Work Opportunity Tax Credit
    http://www.doleta.gov/business/incentives/opptax/

    That one happens to be a 40% tax credit (presumably to lull employer into thinking he's getting a bigger benefit than he really is), for the examples I used above, I was assuming a 100% tax credit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I just uploaded Mike's recent appearance on Fox Business.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBHzoGGOcTI&feature=channel_video_title

    ReplyDelete
  10. No jack. What do you think people become politicians for? To serve a bunch of yakking peasants? Of course its to serve the people who give them money.

    Stop regurgitating a formula that has been pervasive throughout the history of mankind. The only thing that surprises me is that Americans have had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long and have only just woken up to the fact that hey, the government actually works for special interests, corporations and rich individuals (and then themselves).

    Wow, eureka - what a discovery!

    ReplyDelete
  11. neat and interesting ideas B. I like it and the thought process behind it too. Another Beowulf tax specialty!! LOL

    ReplyDelete