A note from the editor: David Prescott is a long-time friend and colleague; a retired businessman from Princeton, NJ; a big thinker and an ardent environmentalist now living in Santa Fe, NM;  and a man of impeccable integrity. David sent me the following article for my review and I asked him for permission to publish it on this page. What do you think about David’s ideas? What would you add?

What Do The 99% Want?

By David Prescott

The Occupy Wall Street movement has prompted me, among many, to ask what the objectives of the movement are.  No doubt, there are top of the mind legitimate grievances. At the head of the list is joblessness.  The official national jobless rate is around 8.6% as of this writing, but many economists say that after taking into account those who have given up looking for work and those who are working part-time, but want full time work, the actual number is closer to 17% or 18%.

The numbers are antiseptic—they simply can’t convey the struggles of real people trying to put food on the table, pay the rent or mortgage, educate their children and often care for aging parents. We know that jobs is an issue in most of our country (and in much of Europe as well).

Compounding other grievances is the dysfunction of our Federal government.  Partisan wrangling has paralyzed the House and Senate for months; compromises on how to deal with the Federal debt are unattainable and the Administration’s proposed stimulus bill to create jobs is dead.

Most recently, the Congress cannot even seem to get together on an extension of withholding tax reductions, an objective both parties claim they favor.  Beyond that, the Federal Reserve has no more tools in its tool-kit to stimulate job creation or get the economy growing again.

The situation in many states is not any better. Large budget deficits have forced decreased state spending, frequently in education, worsening the already bad situation of a huge number of school systems. Teachers, parents and students feel severely underserved. Indeed, frustration is high and rightly so.

The Occupy Wall Street movement seems disparate and lacking a coherent message or agenda.  The wonder of it is that it is so broad (international in scope, actually) though perhaps loosely connected.  I do not pretend to speak for movement, its leaders or participants, but I can outline what I believe are a few desirable objectives, based on my own study and reflection over the last few years.

The items that concern me are listed below in no particular order.  My purpose in articulating them is to stimulate thought, discussion and debate.  Some may view the suggestions as provocative, some as a threatening radical or left wing agenda and I will admit that they would not find favor in some more conservative political circles.

I hope, however, that the proposals will not be dismissed out-of-hand.  Rather, weigh in on the subject in as public a way as possible and let us get a far ranging discussion going.

Here are the ideas:

 Stop the privatization of education; fund public education at levels that make it accessible and affordable to all who want to participate; recognize that in learning one size does not fit all; emphasize critical and individual talent and achievement, including in arts.

Since before the advent of “No Child Left Behind,” efforts to privatize education, supported by for-profit corporations and rightist foundations, have grown as has criticism of public education, its costs and its unions. Some believe the purpose of this “industrial education model” is to routinize educational processes to the detriment of critical thinking and creativity that will challenge the status quo.

Indeed, some believe that such is the desired outcome of those in power. (See the work of Emanuele Corso, University of Wisconsin-Madison; in particular Education for Sale, The Light of New Mexico, October 15-November 15, 2011.)  It is well documented that American students are less and less able to compete with students from other countries at the same level whose basic educational achievements are generally greater than students of the US.

This situation can only grow worse with the increased cost of higher education (and the risk of cutbacks in grants and loans) and the related decreased availability of a college education to lower income students.

Stop relying on for-profit media companies to provide the free and independent press that the maintenance of a robust democracy demands.

Allowing the marketplace to determine journalistic public good betrays the whole notion of a free and independent press, whether print or digital.  The Economist “Democracy Index” ranks the US 17^th of 26 nations considered democratic.

Those nations that see a free press as a public good and subsidize it, irrespective of the views expressed, rank the highest.  (Note the efforts to de-fund public radio and television which took a mere $409 million (chump change) of the Federal budget.  Note also the high quality of BBC, supported heavily by British tax dollars.) See The Death and Life of American Journalism, McChesney and Nichols, Nation Books, 2010.)

Address the growing wealth gap with equitable and progressive tax policies.

Currently the top 1% of Americans own 36% of the wealth and while they have prospered financially over the past decade, the other 99% have seen a decline in both real net worth and real wages.  Economic inequality in the US is great and growing.

The average American CEO pay is 475 times that of the average worker; in Germany it is 12 times; in Japan, 11 times. (See Fortune, November 7, 2011.)  Additionally, many international businesses pay no taxes at all—GE being the most notably mentioned recently—despite earning billions in profit.

Taxing policies supported by well compensated lobbyists sustain a tax structure which is basically unfair.  Traditionally, taxes fell most heavily on those who benefitted most from the US economy.  Now the burdens fall unfairly on those who have benefited least while the well-to-do, both individuals and corporations, amass huge amounts of wealth without paying their fair share of taxes.

Bail out over extended homeowners, not just banks that lent them mortgage money.

The Federal government encouraged home ownership with lax credit rules and unsustainably low interest rates.  Unregulated investment bankers created debt instruments that no one could understand, bundling good loans with bad ones, tainting the entire mortgage lending industry.  Debt was easy for many to accumulate and while many who did so, expected that their financial conditions would get better, the truth has been just the opposite.  Loan to value ratios dropped dramatically; many loans well exceed the value of the properties they finance.  While debt laden big companies were bailed out with government financing (think TARP), no such opportunities have been available to hard working individuals who are over their heads in debt.  “Too big to fail” and “too little to care about” seems to be the government’s motto.

Create greater transparency in the electoral process by requiring super PACs to make timely disclosures of the true names of their donors, their business affiliations and the amounts given. 

As a result of the Citizens United and SpeechNow decisions, unlimited money can flow   into super PACs, effectively removing the limits on campaign contributions to candidates in Federal elections. Super PACs spent more than $65.8 million in the 2010 election cycle.  American Crossroads, a known supporter of Republican candidates alone spent  28.7 % of all super PAC spending.  Since then, the number of super PACs registered with the Federal Election Commission has doubled.

While super PACs are not permitted to coordinate their “independent expenditures” with associated electoral campaigns, the migration of former campaign workers to super PACs that support the candidates they previously worked for raises real questions about their actual independence.  Reporting requirements are lax: quarterly in election years and semi-annually in non-election years.

Beyond that, contributors can hide their identities by channeling money through nominees, such as trade associations.  In effect, through the use of super PACs, campaign contribution limits are a sham and donor identity easily covered. (See “Super PACS” in Federal Elections: Overview and Issues for Congress, R. Sam Garrett, Congressional Research Service, October 6, 2011.)

Have an open and honest discussion about the failures of capitalism in the US without vilification.

Our market driven, capitalist system has been exalted for years by members of both political parties; the basic economic principals under which our society has operated is considered sacrosanct. Economists fall into two groups—those who say “leave the system alone” and those who favor “tinkering.”

The first group wants to reduce regulations, cut government spending, cut taxes, etc.  The second group also believes that the system is fundamentally sound, but needs a bit of tinkering here and there to keep it operating optimally.  They favor government intervention in the form of spending, regulations and targeted taxes to achieve desired results.

No one questions the basic assumptions under which our system operates.  Those who dare question the fundamental viability of the model are pejoratively labeled as “anti-American” or “socialist” or “communist.”  In my view, this refusal to raise and discuss fundamental propositions is a mistake.

Every great business, every great sports team, even the US military engages in rigorous analysis when something goes wrong.  They challenge assumptions.  Many feel that capitalism as we know it has failed to provide sufficient meaningful jobs and has led to a lowered quality of life and lack of opportunity.

We should look closely at every element of our current system and decide what needs to be changed.  (See Occupy Wall Street and the Crisis of Choice, Gabe Zicherman, Huffington Post, November 22, 2011; Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It, Richard D. Wolfe, Olive Branch Press, 2010.)

Treat global warming as the urgent environmental crisis it truly is and actively seek means to deal with the dangers it poses.

Mainstream scientists agree that the earth’s surface is warming and that human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels (truck and auto emissions, coal fired power plants) and extensive land clearing are all contributors.

The result of this warming trend is glacial melting and a consequent rise in sea levels, fresh water shortages in critical agricultural areas (the Mekong Delta, for example), severe floods and droughts, an increase in vicious storms, hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons, to name a few.

A modest rise in sea level, which most scientists predict to occur by 2030, could displace millions of people, dramatically exacerbating the consequences of global population growth and food shortages.

Global warming deniers—moneyed interests that control sources of oil, gas and coal, and those who profit from associated enterprises (pipelines, transportation companies, service businesses, etc.) and the politicians who serves as their handmaidens—must be addressed head on before it is too late. (See Union of Concerned Scientists website at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/ and Plan B 3.0, Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute, W.W. Norton & Co, 2008.)

Reform the dysfunctional Federal legislative system; provide for the direct election of the president based on the national popular vote.

Based on Congressional performance (or lack thereof) over the last year or so, it is clear that our government is badly broken.  Partisanship takes precedence over everything else.  Arcane rules in the Senate allow for “secret holds” on nominees for public office and cloture rules create a continuous obstacle to getting legislation passed.

Reform efforts (led by New Mexico’s Senator Tom Udall) in the Senate have so far failed. Moreover, the national will with respect the electing the president is frustrated by the Electoral College rules.  Hence, Al Gore, popularly elected, never occupied the White House.

We need both a change in Congressional personnel and a change in operating procedure. (See The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track, Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Oxford University Press, 2006.)

I advance these few suggestions in an effort to stimulate conversations about topics I believe are important to be dealt with if we want our nation to provide the opportunities and quality of life that our founders envisioned and that our children and grandchildren deserve. Please add your ideas below.