by Jules Boykoff

As the public-space prairie fire known as Occupy Wall Street spreads across the country from New York to Portland, it’s becoming glaringly apparent activists are pinging the political target. In the face of both predictable right-wing detractors as well as high-profile liberals who want a crisp list of specific demands, activists have rejected top-down, slicker than slick press-release politics in favor of messy, slow, ground-up politics — the essence of radical democracy. Because the movement is leaderless, it has left the media rudderless.

At first many journalists were befuddled, wondering what the movement stood for. This is a bit odd. After all, the movement is called Occupy Wall Street and one of its central slogans is “We are the 99 percent.” People are fed up with the wealthiest 1 percent reaping the economic rewards, with the super-rich stuffing their pockets while the rest of us — the 99 percent — are left holding the bag.

Let’s not forget, corporate America is squatting on $2 trillion. According to the Federal Reserve, this is the biggest corporate stockpile since the 1950s. Meanwhile, Wall Street “banksters” and financiers have had their bonuses restored to pre-recession levels, while the unemployment rate clicks upward. Talk about gall.

When the media weren’t ignoring Occupy Wall Street, they’ve been busy attacking it. Many journalists slid into the well-worn ruts of covering dissent: treating activist outliers as movement spokespeople, maligning them for having too many disparate causes, deriding them as ignorant, zany, or disruptive. Naomi Klein dubs such mocking and deprecation “a sick cultural ritual” perpetrated by the press.

Right-wing columnist Rich Lowry offered an extreme caricature of the attack-dog punditocracy when he wrote, “The left’s tea party is a juvenile rabble, a woolly-headed horde,” a band of “stereotypically aging hippies and young kids who could have just left a Phish concert.” Notice what gets lost: actual ideas.

Such coverage is reminiscent of 1999 when New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman called the anti-WTO activists in Seattle “a Noah’s ark of flat-earth advocates, protectionist trade unions and yuppies looking for their 1960′s fix.” We’d be wise to note, though, he went on to write a book called “The World Is Flat.”

Even National Public Radio — the trusty barometer of bourgeois sensibilities — conspicuously ignored OWS only to start covering it with metronomic predictability. In one recent segment, an NPR correspondent went to Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park, where she homed in on a scrappy cigarette salesman who said, “Everybody is supporting it because they know it keeps people calm, you know, everybody needs their nicotine.” How this helps us understand why people have taken to the streets is a mystery. Then, in a flimsy gotcha moment, the journalist pointed out how anti-corporate activists were using the restroom at McDonald’s and corporate mobile phone firms. What an insight.

The media — and the rest of us, too — have been primed to expect shiny, focus-group-tested activism with sharp, calculated messaging and snazzy graphics. We’ve been taught that the economic ends justify the political means.

With its real-deal grass roots approach and consensus-based decision-making, OWS — and its offshoot movement Occupy Portland — explodes these expectations. The movement is a dynamic process, not a static thing. They don’t have behind-the-scenes bigwig funders. These activists are showing us how to slow down, take each other seriously, and identify the real culprits in our economic debacle — they shouldn’t also be expected to concoct policy.

On the gerbil wheel of Twitter and Tumblr this might seem quaint or lacking goal-oriented ambition. But for those who take an open mind down to Occupy Portland’s vibrant encampment at Chapman Square, you’ll find people courageously living by Edward Abbey’s maxim that “Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul.”

Plus, if the movement were more decidedly focused, they’d likely be derided as a single-issue group. If they had a list of precise demands, they’d be criticized for being too wonkish. The quizzical insistence that it enumerate concrete demands is an expression of the instant-gratification-is-too-damn-slow mentality that pervades our thinking today.

Slavoj Zizek recently wrote in the London Review of Books: “We are often told that privacy is disappearing, that the most intimate secrets are open to public probing. But the reality is the opposite: what is effectively disappearing is public space, with its attendant dignity.”

The Occupy Wall Street moment, which has flowered into an Occupy Together movement, has done us the favor of reclaiming public space. It has also reclaimed the political energy of this country. And it may well help us reclaim our collective dignity in the face of Wall Street’s systematic rapacity.

People across the political spectrum are tired of legalized plunder. And they’re tired of the politicians who bail out the banks and lock out the workers. Politics have become shambolic, and the Occupy Wall Street movement aims to inject some humanity into what’s become a cruel, corrupt political-economic system, some modicum of consensus into a polarized shout-festival. This movement deserves our keen attention, not knee-jerk derision.

Jules Boykoff chairs the department of politics and government at Pacific University.

At 12 noon tomorrow, Thursday, October 6th, Occupy Portland will assemble at Waterfront Park and SW Ankeny Plaza, just south of the Burnside Bridge, where Portland Saturday Market touches the river.  (Those taking the MAX should get off at Skidmore fountain and walk east to the Waterfront.)

Be there or be square!  And while you’re there, join us in gathering signatures on the Tax Wall Street Traders petition.

The Occupy Salem event is Saturday, October 10^th in the park on the west side of the Capitol.

Salem Tax Fairness advocates, please also print out the petition and gather signatures there.

Eugene activists are in the process of planning a similar event, see Occupy Eugene.

Tax Fairness Oregon will be there with petitions, gathering signatures in support of Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio’s bill, H. R. 4191, the Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act.

Some background: In recent years rampant speculation and high speed trading have come to dominate Wall Street.  Focusing on very short-term gains, this kind of trading has severely threatened our economic stability.  A minimal tax on financial transactions would steer Wall Street back toward its traditional role of making long term investments and loans to American businesses.  A similar tax existed from 1914 to 1966 and was doubled during the Great Depression. Warren Buffett and many other prominent investors have supported bringing back a similar transaction tax.  In order to ensure that the tax is properly targeted at high volume speculative traders on Wall Street, H.R. 4191 specifically exempts average investors and pension funds.

Please print out and bring a copy of our petition and talking points and your clipboard to the actions around the state, and help us gather signatures to deliver to each member of the Super Committee and to the Oregon delegation.  We are asking them to cosponsor H.R. 4191.

A HUGE THANK YOU to each of you for your service to the citizens of Oregon this session.  It felt like a horse race all the way through, and the compromises had to hurt.  You did a lot, thanks.

I want especially to thank you for your “Nay” on SB 817, the cleverly titled “Low income community jobs initiative.”   As you know, under New Market Tax Credits, most of the funds end up in the pockets of the financial community, not the pockets of either job holders or business owners, unlike our other loan programs.

I hear some of you are getting some push back for your vote.  Your response might include:  As a state we know how to loan money to businesses, and already do so regularly, and far more efficiently than   SB 817.  In fact, this session we added an additional $16 million to the state’s loan program operated through OBDD. The Department of Energy operates a loan fund as well.  They’ve made loans of over $270 million since 2001. And for those of you in Portland, you could mention that the PDC has a loan portfolio of $104 million.  The state knows how to loan money.  And we do it in ways that are far cheaper for the tax system and far easier for the business owner than SB 817.

In each of our programs, the state can get its interest and principal back and can re-loaning it to another business.  With SB 817, the money goes to the financial community in the form of tax credits, and then it’s gone, they only need to loan it to an Oregon business for seven years, and then it is theirs.  It doesn’t come back to be re-loaned by the state to another business.

Also this session, you added $8 million to the Governor’s Strategic Investment Fund, some of which will likely be loaned.  All of it will go to business development, and not on a first come first serve basis.

It’s isn’t that you did nothing.  It’s that you voted wisely.  And we thank you.  We hope you “nay” sayers are picking up the phone or sending an email asking the Governor to veto SB 817.

The last two months have been good. I’ve watched as the Joint Tax Credit Committee, whose work this session has been so arduous, cut excessive tax code spending in place after place. They’ve done difficult and excellent work.

But as their final act of the year, they turned around and passed out of committee SB 817, creating the ironically titled “Oregon Low Income Jobs Initiative,” a bill that will actually give $78 million to an out-of-state money management firm and others like it, because they in turn agree to loan no more than $66 million to businesses in Oregon. Think what the Oregon State Bank might have done with that lost $78 million.

The travesty in this ill-considered bill is that if the state itself loaned the whole $78 million out, it could not only be more selective about what businesses it supported, it would get back the $78 million plus interest, and be able to loan that money out again and again. But with SB 817, Advantage Capital and a few other financial management companies will get the $78 million, loan out $66 million for six years or more, and after that, the whole $78 million plus all interest earnings are theirs.

The businesses that will receive the loans set up by SB 817 need not be anything special, need not hire any new employees, need not serve needy Oregonians. They do need to place themselves in lower income areas in Oregon–but the legal definition in the bill includes every acre of several counties and much of downtown Portland, Medford, Eugene, Beaverton and many other communities.

The Oregon New Market Tax Credit (NMTC) piggybacks on the unsuccessful Federal NMTC. According to a GAO report last year based on NMTC’s own data, it’s impossible to know whether its projects would have taken place even without the tax credit. Under the guise of helping needy communities, the Federal NMTC has funded projects like Portland’s Gerding and Schnitzer theaters and the Nines Hotel atop Macy’s.

In the hearing Thursday only one legislator, Rep. Phil Barnhart, asked a single substantive question that showed careful reading of the bill. He rightfully identified the full cost of the bill as $78 million. Reps Bailey and Brewer insisted he was wrong, that it was only $16 million. But Barnhart was right. When they later learned that the cost of the bill was nearly five times more than they thought, Bailey, Brewer, and every other committee member except Barnhart voted for the bill. It now moves to the Senate and House with a “do pass” recommendation.

There is still time to stop this travesty on the Senate and House floors. It may be voted on today! Please contact your State Legislators now and tell him or her that Oregon doesn’t need a tax giveaway that has already been discredited at the Federal level. Instead, let’s use our limited tax revenue for essential services.

Do it, just act.

Contact:

• Larry Scruggs, larrygscruggsphd@aol.com, 503 317-4968
• Jody Wiser, jodywiser@gmail.com, 503 810-6654
• Shannon Moriarty, smoriarty@faireconomy.org, (617) 824-0069

Report: Invert State Tax Structures To Eliminate State Budget Deficits

United for a Fair Economy Releases Flip It to Fix It:

An Immediate, Fair Solution to State Budget Shortfalls,

Documents Current Regressive State Tax Structures

Salem, Oregon (May 25, 2011):

“Flip it to Fix it,” a new study released by United for a Fair Economy, found that $1.8 billion a year could be available to Oregon, if only we could flip our taxes, and expect  the highest income Oregonians to pay what the lowest now pay in local and state taxes.  It’s hard to imagine the push back if legislators tried to do this, but why aren’t the poorest Oregonians pushing for it?

By inverting all local and state taxes, the highest income earners would start paying 8.7% of their income in taxes as currently do the lowest income earners.  In turn, the lowest 20% would pay 7.3%, which the highest income earners currently pay.

Taxes for the bottom 50 percent of households would be reduced or unchanged.  Meanwhile state and local revenue for Oregon would see a 14.5% increase, immediately avoiding the serious consequences of most budget cuts for cities, counties, schools and the state.

“Flip It to Fix It: An Immediate, Fair Solution to State Budget Shortfalls” attributes a large part of states’ current deficits to the regressive tax structures that the report shows are designed to fail. “Trying to raise adequate revenue through a regressive tax structure—where a greater percent of income is demanded of the poor than the well-off—is like trying to squeeze water from a stone,” said Karen Kraut, coordinator of state tax policy at United for a Fair Economy and co-author of the report.

In Oregon the lowest income 20% pays 8.7% in state and local taxes while the highest income 20% pays 7.3%.  Yet while draconian cuts are being made to budgets, a bill reducing estate taxes is moving forward in Salem.  “Obviously, making it so that only one half of 1% of estates pays the estate tax would only make matters worse,” testified Larry Scruggs, a member of Tax Fairness Oregon Monday at a Senate Finance and Budget Committee meeting on HB 2541A, which would give a tax break to 75% of estates. “Letting even fewer pay the estate tax is no more sensible than creating a tax break for capital gains — each of these would only make our regressive tax system worse.”

“The inadequacy of regressive tax structures puts everything we value at risk: the well-being of families, the future competitiveness of the American workforce, and the nation’s ability to rebound from the recession and prosper,” said Kraut.

The report contends that an inverted tax structure not only solves budget crises, but increases equity and spurs steady and strong economic activity.

“We would not be making steep cuts in services, closing schools or laying off teachers if our tax system were just flipped,” according to Peggy Woolsey.  “Those of us at Tax Fairness Oregon believe that to be equitable, taxes should weigh more heavily on those with higher incomes.  But as this report shows, it’s the opposite way around.  The lowest income Oregonians pay a larger portion of their income in state and local taxes than do the highest income.”

The report calls on states to adopt its proposed progressive tax reforms, many of which are immediately achievable and will help solve state deficits.

The full report and state-by-state information is now available at http://www.faireconomy.org/flipitreport.

To schedule an interview with the authors of the study, please contact Shannon Moriarty at smoriarty@faireconomy.org or (617) 824-0069.

Oregonians available are: Larry Scruggs, larrygscruggsphd@aol.com, 503 317-4968

and Jody Wiser, jodywiser@gmail.com, 503 810-6654

Video statements are also available at http://www.faireconomy.org/flipitreport.

###

Tax Fairness Oregon advocates for fair, adequate and stable taxes.  Active daily in the state capitol during legislative sessions, Tax Fairness Oregon’s volunteers address tax issues on the federal as well as state level the rest of the year.  We are a partner of United for a Fair Economy through its program, the Tax Fairness Organizing Collaborative, a network of statewide organizations in 24 states working to reduce economic inequality through progressive tax reform. More at www.TaxFairnessOregon.org.

United for a Fair Economy is a national, independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located in Boston, MA, which works to rein in economic inequality and promote a more broadly shared prosperity. More at www.faireconomy.org.

“The editorial ‘A win for city and state’ (May 17), on the expected startup of SoloPower manufacturing in Portland, praises Mayor Sam Adams for giving the company ‘an even sweeter deal’ than Wilsonville might have offered. Adams’ $18 million Portland property tax abatement is also celebrated as ‘a handsome package.’ If the company does not fold or move to China — CEO Tim Harris has made no legal commitments — it is expected to produce as many as 481 jobs paying $51,000 a year. That’s about average pay in Multnomah County.

“Even if SoloPower sticks around and eventually produces these jobs, it will take decades for the deferred taxes to be repaid. There are also Oregon state subsidies like the $20 million from the notoriously profligate business energy tax credit (BETC). Talk about government ‘entitlements’ — what should Portland taxpayers celebrate about the mayor’s giant giveaway?”

PATRICK STORY
Southeast Portland

As you may already know, the Oregon tax kicker “kicks” revenue back to taxpayers when the state economist underestimates the coming two years of revenue by anymore than 2%! For example, if the state economist predicts the state will receive $100 million in revenue and it actually receives $103 million, the kicker kicks. How many of us can guess what our income will be–within 2%–for July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2013? It’s no surprise then that the kicker kicks even when we’re in an economic downturn, and unfortunately that is a possibility we can no longer afford.

There are ways to fix the kicker that are fair to taxpayers and also accumulate a rainy day fund for the state—without also giving a new tax break to Oregonians who have capital gains. It’s time for all of us to barrage our House representatives with calls, questions at town halls, and personal appointments. Please urge your representative to act on kicker reform without a giveaway on capital gains.