#OWS

There has been a lot of confusion about what Occupy Wall Street and its progeny really stand for (we'll henceforth refer to it as simply "Occupy").  People from across the socio-political spectrum have had difficulty identifying the meaning behind Occupy.  This is no surprise as members and supporters of Occupy have refused to come up with a consistent message.  Luckily, a quick look at the circumstances leading to Occupy, and the majority of the opinions that have come out of Occupy, give us a very clear answer.

The most dominant message has been the 99% versus the 1%.  This has lead people to believe Occupy is anti-wealth and anti-wealthy.  People believe this makes Occupy a socialist movement.  It doesn't.  The 99% versus 1% message is merely an attention getter.  It fits nicely on a sign, and media types like how neatly it defines the terms for them.  Occupy knows that not everyone in the 1% is evil.  This is just a convenient way to summarize the conflict.

The real message is found in the choice of locations.  For those out there who think this is about putting down the wealthy and stealing their money, think about why the name "Occupy Wall Street" and location was chosen over options like "Occupy Beverly Hills" or "Occupy the Hamptons" or "Occupy Palm Beach."  The choice of location puts the enemy squarely in Occupy's sights: Wall Street bankers.  Wall Street spent the past 15 years trading toxic assets like a game of hot potato.  Finally, in 2008, some bankers were caught with the potato.  The financial institutions that made bad bets and were eventually bailed out makes for a long list.  A bail-out is one thing.  A lot of these financial institutions were legitimately "too big to fail" (an issue onto itself).  The real insult comes in the aftermath of the bailout.  For example, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, who were caught with a large portion of the hot potato, received approximately $170 billion in bail out money.  Their executives turned around and paid themselves $35 million in salary and bonuses.  Do the executives of a financial institution that failed and were saved by taxpayers deserve any bonuses at all?  Of course not.  But this is the type of "punishment" executives at banks across America received for their significant part in running the world economy into the ground.  Over $18 billion was paid in bonuses on Wall Street in 2009 after the bailout.  This is the heart of Occupy's protest.  The people who's assets were critically devalued are paying the price.  The people who caused it are walking away with the profits they made trading those assets, the tax money they received in the form of bailouts, and the bonuses.  The people are paying.  Why aren't the executives?

The other side of Occupy's protest is directed towards Washington.  The cozy relationship between Washington and Wall Street can be summed up in one person: President Barack Obama's Chief-of-Staff is former JPMorgan Chase executive Bill Daley.  You'll recognize JPMorgan Chase from the list of bailed out banks above - and Bill Daley was there right up until the bail out came.  A closer look will reveal an even more incestuous relationship.  The government agency that is supposed to police Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has done exactly the opposite.  They've shredded records of investigations, they've called off investigations for no apparent reason, and they've had a revolving door at top leadership levels.  Where does that revolving door lead?  To big Wall Street banks being investigated.  The above article shows the stunning coincidence of investigations being dropped and the decision-makers who dropped the investigation moving from the SEC into high-paid positions with the bank that was being investigated.  Occupy knows that Washington should respond to voters, not donors.  To the people, not the banks.

Of course there have been other reported Occupy demands.  As with any movement, there are fringes.  There are the anarchist, who would otherwise be squatting elsewhere anyway.  There are the communists hoping to tax the wealthy until they're just average.

But the core of the Occupy movement is nothing of the sort.  The core has been supported by leading economists like Jeffrey D Sachs and Richard Florida.  The core wants the rich to pay its share.  Common are calls for reasonable taxation on hedge-fund traders, a small "wealth tax", a break-up of the "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions that required bail outs, and honest, meaningful enforcement of the laws designed to stop financial institutions from causing world economic collapses.

Occupy is not asking to have the 1% stripped of their wealth, for companies to forgo profits, or to end capitalism.  The wealthy are wealthy because they've earned it (usually).  Capitalism and profits are important motivators for individuals and economies.  Occupy is asking for financial institutions and others in the 1% who have been cheating to play by the rules.  Occupy is asking the super-wealthy to pay their share.  Even some in the super-wealthy are promoting this argument.

Ultimately, in spite of everything you've read so far, Occupy is about one thing: "government of the people, by the people, for the people".  When the President's top adviser is a former Wall Street executive, when Wall Street is in bed with the SEC (imagine if Al Capone and Eliot Ness were sleeping together), and when money buys politicians, it is clear that Lincoln's declaration has been ignored.  Occupy demands that its government, the US government, resume representing the people.  That is a message that I can get behind.  That should be the goal of every government: represent the people.  Until Washington gets that right, I'll continue to support Occupy.