Occupy ROTH Army

[Satan]

Are you kidding? I'm in Hell here! Daytime television is an endless source of torment for the damned.

[Kristy]

Ellen must run 24/7 in hell then.

[Satan]

There's one channel on HellCable entirely devoted to dumb talk shows. Ellen...Oprah reruns...Rosie O'Donnell reruns, Jerry Springer, Maury Povich, that bald guy that used to be Jerry's bouncer.... all of 'em.

[Satan]

Not to get back on topic or anything, but.....



...sometimes you really can say the most by saying the least.

I know right from wrong

Sums it up perfectly, doesn't it?

[Satan]

[Seshmeister]

Anyone that was smart already took their money out of the big banks.

We were away ahead of the game.

The SM was clever enough to invest everything we had in shoes and designer clothes months before this all hit.

[Va Beach VH Fan]

<object width="512" height="288"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/aol/http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.aol.com/embed/bWdvgjJaCldhvpyNxVRNFA"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/aol/http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.aol.com/embed/bWdvgjJaCldhvpyNxVRNFA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="288" allowFullScreen="true"></embed></object>

[Seshmeister]

[Dr. Love]

Back from vacation, let's get this thread back into gear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-bankers.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1320066153-H%2FmU0M96xylmMRw0ChizAQ

Did You Hear the One About the Bankers?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: October 29, 2011

CITIGROUP is lucky that Muammar el-Qaddafi was killed when he was. The Libyan leader’s death diverted attention from a lethal article involving Citigroup that deserved more attention because it helps to explain why many average Americans have expressed support for the Occupy Wall Street movement. The news was that Citigroup had to pay a $285 million fine to settle a case in which, with one hand, Citibank sold a package of toxic mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting customers — securities that it knew were likely to go bust — and, with the other hand, shorted the same securities — that is, bet millions of dollars that they would go bust.

It doesn’t get any more immoral than this. As the Securities and Exchange Commission civil complaint noted, in 2007, Citigroup exercised “significant influence” over choosing $500 million of the $1 billion worth of assets in the deal, and the global bank deliberately chose collateralized debt obligations, or C.D.O.’s, built from mortgage loans almost sure to fail. According to The Wall Street Journal, the S.E.C. complaint quoted one unnamed C.D.O. trader outside Citigroup as describing the portfolio as resembling something your dog leaves on your neighbor’s lawn. “The deal became largely worthless within months of its creation,” The Journal added. “As a result, about 15 hedge funds, investment managers and other firms that invested in the deal lost hundreds of millions of dollars, while Citigroup made $160 million in fees and trading profits.”

Citigroup, which is under new and better management now, settled the case without admitting or denying any wrongdoing. James Stewart, a business columnist for The Times, noted that Citigroup’s flimflam made “Goldman Sachs mortgage traders look like Boy Scouts. In settling its fraud charges for $550 million last year, Goldman was accused by the S.E.C. of being the middleman in a similar deal, allowing the hedge fund manager John Paulson to help choose the mortgages and then bet against them without disclosing this to the other parties. Citigroup dispensed with a Paulson figure altogether, grabbing those lucrative roles for itself.” (Last Thursday, the U.S. District Court judge overseeing the case demanded that the S.E.C. explain how such serious securities fraud could end with the defendant neither admitting nor denying wrongdoing.)

This gets to the core of why all the anti-Wall Street groups around the globe are resonating. I was in Tahrir Square in Cairo for the fall of Hosni Mubarak, and one of the most striking things to me about that demonstration was how apolitical it was. When I talked to Egyptians, it was clear that what animated their protest, first and foremost, was not a quest for democracy — although that was surely a huge factor. It was a quest for “justice.” Many Egyptians were convinced that they lived in a deeply unjust society where the game had been rigged by the Mubarak family and its crony capitalists. Egypt shows what happens when a country adopts free-market capitalism without developing real rule of law and institutions.

But, then, what happened to us? Our financial industry has grown so large and rich it has corrupted our real institutions through political donations. As Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, bluntly said in a 2009 radio interview, despite having caused this crisis, these same financial firms “are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they, frankly, own the place.”

Our Congress today is a forum for legalized bribery. One consumer group using information from Opensecrets.org calculates that the financial services industry, including real estate, spent $2.3 billion on federal campaign contributions from 1990 to 2010, which was more than the health care, energy, defense, agriculture and transportation industries combined. Why are there 61 members on the House Committee on Financial Services? So many congressmen want to be in a position to sell votes to Wall Street.

We can’t afford this any longer. We need to focus on four reforms that don’t require new bureaucracies to implement. 1) If a bank is too big to fail, it is too big and needs to be broken up. We can’t risk another trillion-dollar bailout. 2) If your bank’s deposits are federally insured by U.S. taxpayers, you can’t do any proprietary trading with those deposits — period. 3) Derivatives have to be traded on transparent exchanges where we can see if another A.I.G. is building up enormous risk. 4) Finally, an idea from the blogosphere: U.S. congressmen should have to dress like Nascar drivers and wear the logos of all the banks, investment banks, insurance companies and real estate firms that they’re taking money from. The public needs to know.

Capitalism and free markets are the best engines for generating growth and relieving poverty — provided they are balanced with meaningful transparency, regulation and oversight. We lost that balance in the last decade. If we don’t get it back — and there is now a tidal wave of money resisting that — we will have another crisis. And, if that happens, the cry for justice could turn ugly. Free advice to the financial services industry: Stick to being bulls. Stop being pigs.

[Dr. Love]

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2011/10/31/state-concedes-defeat-in-occupy-nashville-battle-judge-bans-more-arrests

State Concedes Defeat For Now in Occupy Nashville Battle; Judge Bans More Arrests
POSTED BY JEFF WOODS ON MON, OCT 31, 2011 AT 4:05 PM

In a surprise victory for Occupy Nashville today, the state of Tennessee declined to defend the governor's crackdown on protesters at Legislative Plaza and accepted a court order banning more arrests—at least for now. Federal Judge Aleta Trauger said she'd already decided to issue her temporary restraining order anyway, even if the state opposed it.
"I can't think of any more quintessential public forum than the Legislative Plaza," she said, calling the governor's actions "clear prior restraint of free speech." She said she was "most gratified" and "not too surprised" that the state was conceding the first round in the lawsuit filed this morning by Occupy Nashville and the ACLU.

The two sides agreed to negotiate ways to accommodate the protesters while maintaining public safety at the Plaza. They were given until Nov. 21, at which point they'll go back to court. If there's no deal, then Trauger will decide whether to make her injunction permanent. Oh yes, the state also agreed to return the protesters' tents, soggy sleeping bags and other possessions that troopers confiscated on the first night of arrests and tossed into the back of a pickup truck in the Plaza garage.


Judge Tom Nelson
The lawsuit catalogs all the many ways the protesters say the governor and the state of Tennessee have trampled on their rights. Free speech and free association have been denied at probably the most prominent public forum in the state of Tennessee, and it was done on the fly with flimsy legal authority and without notice, the lawsuit says.
At the same time, the curfew has been selectively enforced—raising obvious issues about equal protection of the law—with theater-goers given carte blanche to stroll freely across the Plaza just before the troopers have swept in to arrest the protesters.

Gov. Bill Haslam claims he acted to protect public safety and because of increasingly unsanitary conditions at the encampment, but protesters say that's merely his pretext for banning their free speech. They say street people were causing all the trouble, and it was the protesters who first came to the state asking for protection.

But Safety Commissioner Bill Gibbons told reporters, “We don't have the resources to go out and, in effect, babysit protesters.” So Haslam had the protesters arrested.

On both of the two nights of the crackdown, Metro Night Court Judge Tom Nelson has scolded the highway patrol, telling them to release the protesters because—in what’s become a celebrated rebuke—there’s “no authority anywhere for anyone to authorize a curfew anywhere on Legislative Plaza.” But on the first night, demonstrators still were detained for five hours. That, too, is cited in the lawsuit as evidence of what the plaintiffs are calling the state of Tennessee’s brazen disregard for the law.

“The commissioner of safety kidnapped these kids. That’s what he did,” says Patrick Frogge, one of the lawyers for Occupy Nashville. “He took them down to night court. Tom Nelson said, ‘No, release them,’ and they kept them in a bus for five hours.”

“This is like Tiananmen Square,” Frogge says. “I don’t want to overstate it, but Jesus. They sent 75 troopers two nights in a row, and they’re telling us they don’t have the resources to babysit them? They’ve outlawed free speech in the most public forum in Nashville.”

For the past two nights, troopers have left the protesters alone, perhaps because state officials realized the ACLU lawsuit was inevitable and the state’s actions are, ahem, shall we say a little difficult to defend?

After this afternoon’s hearing, we talked with David Briley, the former Metro council member who’s representing Occupy Nashville in this lawsuit. Here's some of what he said:

Q: What happened?

Briley: The gist of it was, the judge looked at what we filed and it was very clear to her from what she said that (1) the Legislative Plaza is the quintessential public forum and it has to be protected and (2) that the regulation they adopted was done improperly and they have to start from scratch on that.

Q: So now you guys are going to get together and try to figure out a way to accommodate the protesters?

Briley: Ideally, we’re going to get together and talk and see if there’s a rational and procedurally open way to establish a set of regulations that both allow legitimate public participation and expression on the Plaza while at the same time protecting the public’s interest in preserving the physical integrity of the Plaza.

Q: Would accommodating the protesters necessarily include an encampment or overnight occupation?

Briley: Obviously, that’s important to Occupy Nashville, and our clients will ultimately make the decision about what we can agree to. My personal opinion is that occupy is an important word. There’s something meaningful from the long-term presence in that particular public space. That’s important to the message of the group. My sense is that’s going to be a sticking point.

Q: What other sticking points are there?

Briley: The Supreme Court law is very clear on what sort of limitations there can be on public spaces and speech in public spaces. So we’re going to have to touch all of those bases in terms of reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. We’re going to want to ensure that it’s not cost-prohibitive to organizations that are especially pursuing speech on behalf of the impoverished and disadvantaged. There are a whole list of things.

Q: If there’s nothing by Nov. 21, the lawsuit goes forward?

Briley: As it currently stands, if we can’t reach agreement by Nov. 21 on injunctive relief we would have a preliminary injunction hearing, and the court would make a determination about whether to extend the injunction for a longer period of time.

Q: Do you think the state realized they were fighting a losing battle here and decided to surrender?

Briley: I think to his credit, the attorney for the state made it pretty clear that they looked at the facts and conceded.

Q: What do you think? The attorney general called Haslam and said, ‘Dude, you can’t do this?’

Briley: Um, I seriously doubt that was the gist of the conversation.

[Dr. Love]

One of the more interesting aspects of this movement has been the rampant use of phones to video, photo and upload content to the internet. Videos and photos go viral, and the internet goes to work.

Police officers caught engaging in violent acts against protestors are rapidly identified by the internet. Right now, it's getting certain officers suspended, but there are elements of the internet that, if so inclined, could (and would) dig up all personal info they could on these people and post it publicly. It's not a far jump from there (as this happens often when personal information is posted) for people all over the country and world to use that personal info to make the lives of these people a living hell.

I wouldn't be surprised if eventually you see people using intimidation tactics back against law enforcement and other people; It will be interesting to see if (and when) it starts to happen, how every day police officers (and others) respond to being the sudden focus of attention (and attacks) by random strangers on the internet. Will they still be so willing to intimidate and attack protestors when there is a clear and very real risk of coming under attack themselves?

[Dr. Love]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/occupy-veterans-movement-growing/story?id=14848003

Occupy Veterans Movement Growing Across U.S.

By KRISTINA WONG (@kristina_wong)
Oct. 31, 2011

Since Occupy Wall Street protests have broken out in cities across the U.S. and abroad, support has come from what might seem like an unlikely corner: war veterans.

But two of the highest-profile protesters -- each from opposite ends of the country -- had served in wars. Last week, the world watched as bleeding, dazed 24-year-old Marine Scott Olsen was carried away by fellow protesters after he was struck in the head by an object apparently fired by an Oakland police officer. And before that, Marine Sgt. Shamar Thomas was captured on video confronting a group of New York police officers he said had been too rough with protesters.

Both Thomas and Olsen have become rallying figures in the Occupy Wall Street movement -- not only among civilian protesters but among veterans whose participation in the protests has been growing, according to such veterans-turned-organizers as Paige Jenkins.

"For veterans especially, health care is paramount, yet is always on the table to be cut," Jenkins said in an interview with ABC News. "Vets in this movement don't want to fight anymore. We want to make peace and live peaceably. We shouldn't have to fight for our benefits, and if vets are fighting for their benefits then it can't be any better for nonvets.


Occupy Wall Street: Army Sergeant Yells at NYPD Watch Video

OWS Arrest on Bridge Watch Video

A Night With Occupy Wall Street Watch Video

"What do you think is going to happen in 2012 after everyone gets home from Iraq? No jobs, no benefits. This will not be a good scene," Jenkins continued. "I imagine the suicide rate will climb, and sadly, I think that some people in this country don't feel any responsibility for that."

Jenkins, who served from 1987 until 2002, first in the U.S. Navy and then in the California National Guard, said that some veterans were organizing to be "peacekeepers" and maintain "perimeter security."

"As vets, I think it is our job to protect our community through teachings of nonviolence and defensive measures like how to protect yourself from unprovoked police attacks," said Jenkins, who is currently studying military social work at the University of Southern California's Virtual Academic Center.

Another group that called itself Occupy Marines Corps recently posted on its Facebook page advice about how to protest in winter weather. According to a Tweet by @Kruggurl, the organization has offered protesters supplies for the winter.

"We are a collection of prior service Marines intent on protecting American citizens and their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights," a spokesperson for the group said.

"These riot squads deploy unlawful excessive force against Americans all service members swore to protect, and many veterans have sacrificed their lives in that honor. We at OMC will not stand idly by as these cowards continue to abuse the Constitution, hurting American citizens. We will use any nonviolent means to convince law enforcement agencies to understand that brutality will only strengthen our resolve," the spokesperson said, adding that the group acknowledged that not all Marines agreed with the group's position.

"As for Scott Olsen, we are outraged his life was nearly snuffed out by these cowards, and pray for his continued recovery and that of his family during this difficult time."

Olsen, who deployed twice to Iraq, is a member of the Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War. The Veterans for Peace issued a statement shortly after Olsen suffered his injuries.

"VFP members are involved with dozens of these local 'occupy movement' encampments, and we support them fully," it said.

On Sunday, Veterans for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C., veterans' advocacy group, issued a statement in support of Olsen.

"Veterans for Common Sense is troubled to learn that Iraq War veteran Scott Olsen was badly injured this week by police at the Occupy Oakland gathering. We wish him a speedy and full recovery. VCS supports the right of Veterans for Peace to exercise the freedoms they have defended with their service."

Last Thursday, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, a prominent, nonpartisan veterans advocacy group, called for a full and complete investigation into Olsen's injuries.


Occupy Wall Street: Army Sergeant Yells at NYPD Watch Video

OWS Arrest on Bridge Watch Video

A Night With Occupy Wall Street Watch Video

"The injury of any veteran is a serious concern to the broader veterans community -- especially when it happens on American soil. Scott Olsen and his family are in our thoughts and prayers, and we hope for his speedy recovery," the statement said.

While not every veteran supporting Olsen necessarily supports the Occupy Wall Street movement, veterans like Olsen and Thomas participate because they believe in the cause.

"I'm doing this because I believe it is the right thing to do," Jenkins said. "And if we lose at least I will feel good about having done my best to stand up for what I believe is in the best interest of current and future generations of not only my country but the world."

[Dr. Love]

http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/10/31/reporter-videos-his-own-arrest-at-occupy-nashville/

Cops making up allegations? Say it ain't so!

Reporter videos his own arrest at Occupy Nashville
OCTOBER 31, 2011 BY JEREMY BLOOM 1 COMMENT

Back in the good ol’ days, you could arrest someone and charge them with disorderly conduct or resisting arrest, maybe even charge them with being drunk in public. And you were the police – it was your word against theirs.

It must be really difficult for these guys, living in the age of cell phones and twitter. Having to suffer the indignity of being proved a liar within hours of putting out the official police statement.

Jonathan Meador is a reporter for the weekly newspaper the Nashville Scene. He was at Occupy Nashville, covering the arrests, when the police moved in. (For background, see: Contempt of court? Reporter among those arrested tonight at Occupy Nashville).

What happened, then… well, you can watch it yourself. Tennessee State Troopers came to arrest him, he identified himself as a member of the media, twice, and they arrested him anyway. They slam him to the ground (you can’t see that too clearly, since, you know, he’s being slammed to the ground) and zip-tied his hands. You can hear one of the officers on the video, saying they should charge him with resisting arrest. Resisting?

They issued him a citation that said, among other things, that he smelled of alcohol and “appeared to be intoxicated and unable to care for himself.”

But Meador was recording the whole thing. He sure doesn’t sound unable to care for himself in the video. He sounds perfectly lucid. Nor do the cops say boo about that at the time.
Tennessee Highway Patrol spokeswoman Dalya Qualls responded by email to the Tennessean newspaper, which was naturally not happy at the arrest of two of their colleagues (Middle Tennessee State University student journalist Malina Chavez-Shannon was also busted):

“We plan to review all of the materials documenting the arrest or Mr. Meador and depending on the review will respond appropriately. It is not our intent to interfere with a journalist doing his or her job.”
Meanwhile, the judge ordered the release of all the arrestees for the second night in a row. He said the state couldn’t change the rules in the middle of the protest, as that would violate first amendment rights. The ACLU is expected to file for an injunction Monday on the same grounds.

Source: Red Green & Blue (http://s.tt/13G0U)

[Dr. Love]

Wall Street - where our country is bought and sold (in more ways than one)

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_50/Wall-Street-Support-Helps-Harms-Cantor-209875-1.html?pos=hftxt

Wall Street Support Helps, Harms Cantor

By Eliza Newlin Carney
Oct. 31, 2011, Midnight

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is experiencing the upsides and downsides of a close relationship with Wall Street.


For House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Wall Street is turning into a public relations headache and a political gold mine.

Threatened protests scotched one Cantor appearance at the University of Pennsylvania earlier this month, and a speech last week at Northwestern University drew demonstrators from Occupy Chicago.
Yet Cantor's popularity among Wall Street executives has cemented his status as the top rainmaker on Capitol Hill, helping him raise an extraordinary $6.5 million for his GOP colleagues so far this year. That sum includes direct contributions and money raised on behalf of GOP candidates, a Cantor aide said.

Cantor has leveraged about a dozen interlocking campaign committees to run a quasi-party operation around the conservative Young Guns movement he launched with Reps. Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Paul Ryan (Wis.). A former Cantor aide, John Murray, is now launching an independent organization built around an unrestricted super PAC and two nonprofits to spread the Young Guns message.

Cantor's personal political action committee has collected close to $2 million so far this year, placing it well ahead of any other leadership PAC in the House or Senate. In all of his fundraising efforts, top executives at banks, hedge funds and securities and investment firms play a starring role. Securities and investment industry donors have given close to $350,000 to both Cantor's campaign and his leadership PAC this year, making them his top source of donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

But Cantor has raised millions more than that for a lucrative operation known as the Cantor Victory Fund 2012, a type of political organization known as a joint fundraising committee that may raise contributions far in excess of the individual limit of $2,500 per election. Sanctioned by the Federal Election Commission as a way for candidates to pool resources, joint fundraising committees raise big donations and then divvy up the dollars between multiple candidates and committees.

In the Majority Leader's case, the Cantor Victory Fund collects checks as large as $50,000 or more from individual donors and then parcels out the money to state and national GOP committees, to candidates in need and to Cantor's own PAC and campaign. Ten major donors, many of them top executives with finance industry firms, have given $50,000 or more this year to the Cantor Victory Fund, which has collected $2.4 million, according to the most recent public disclosures.

They include Randal Kirk, senior managing director and CEO of the investment management firm Third Security, who gave $50,200. The Cantor Victory Fund then doled the money out in chunks ranging from $2,500 to $30,200 to the Cantor campaign, the National Republican Congressional Committee and to a Virginia GOP fundraising committee that shares the same treasurer and address as Cantor's PAC.

Democrats, watchdog groups and liberal protesters have trumpeted Cantor's finance industry backing as evidence of what's wrong with Wall Street. After Cantor warned of the "growing mobs" fueling Occupy Wall Street protests — comments he later modified — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington churned out a report touting Cantor's status as one of the House's top two recipients of finance industry donations.

CREW also played up Cantor's personal Wall Street ties: His wife, Diana Cantor, is a partner with a secretive New York firm dealing in private equity and hedge funds known as Alternative Investment Management. She was previously a managing director of New York Private Bank & Trust and a vice president at Goldman, Sachs & Co., whose employees have donated generously to Cantor over the years.

A stalwart opponent of tax increases who has clashed with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joseph Biden during budget negotiations, Cantor has also led efforts to protect the preferential tax treatment awarded to hedge fund sales and to "carried interest," the money fund managers earn on investment gains.

The Majority Leader "has chosen to put himself in a position where he is a successful motivator for Democratic fundraising," one Democratic operative said. One state Democratic party organization built its "single most successful fundraising appeal of the year" around Cantor, he noted.

But for Republicans, Cantor's Wall Street money is filling an important hole. NRCC fundraising lagged behind Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee receipts last month, and House Republicans have been slow to pony up dues to the GOP committee.

Having helped win back the House by recruiting and grooming conservative Young Guns, Cantor is now stumping to defend them. He's set up more than a half-dozen joint fundraising committees, the Young Guns Victory Funds, to help candidates in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois and South Carolina, public records show, and he is hosting fund raisers for them around the country.

He's also teamed up with McCarthy and Ryan to set up another joint fundraising committee, the Young Guns Majority Victory Fund, to pool the resources of the three lawmakers' leadership PACs.

Cantor's campaign and his leadership PAC, Every Republican is Crucial, have also donated some $1.3 million to the NRCC; given $5,000 apiece to no fewer than 140 House candidates; donated more than $100,000 to the Virginia GOP; and topped that off with contributions to the state GOP committees in Nevada, New Hampshire, New York and North Dakota, according to FEC reports.

"Our fundraising is obviously not down," Cantor senior strategist Ray Allen said. "A lot of people are looking to Eric for leadership, and a lot of people support what he's trying to do in the Congress."
Allen brushed off anti-Cantor assaults from protesters and Democrats, which the Majority Leader has set out to soften with a series of PR-minded YouTube videos and media appearances: "When you are trying to change things, a lot of people are going to try to shoot at you."

[Dr. Love]

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/supercommittee-of-the-one-percent-wont-even-think-of-taxing-wall-street

Supercommittee of the One Percent Won’t Even Think of Taxing Wall Street

Dean Baker
Truthout, October 31, 2011

If anyone still questioned who owns Washington, the congressional supercommittee charged with reducing projected deficits by $1.2 trillion seems determined to end any doubts. According to press accounts, both the Republicans and Democrats on the committee support a plan to reduce average Social Security benefits by 3 percent.

While whacking our parents and grandparents with a big cut in Social Security benefits apparently draws bipartisan support, the supercommittee will not even score a plan to tax Wall Street financial speculation. No committee member from either party is prepared to make a simple request to the Joint Tax Committee of Congress that would allow a speculation tax to be one of the items considered in the mix.

It’s hard to know which part of this picture is worse. The plan to cut Social Security benefits at a time when seniors are more dependent than ever on them is incredibly pernicious. The people who would see their benefits cuts under this proposal paid for their benefits contributing to Social Security over their entire working career.

Most retirees have little other than Social Security to support them in their retirement. In large part, this is due to the economic mismanagement of the supercommittee types. If they or their friends, like former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, actually had been doing their jobs, we would not have had the huge housing bubble that wrecked the economy. The collapse of this bubble caused most of the wealth that retirees and near-retirees had accumulated in their home to disappear, leaving them with nothing other than Social Security to sustain them in retirement. Now, they want to cut Social Security as well.

This particular cut is especially pernicious since it will hit the oldest and poorest beneficiaries hardest. A person who is in their 90s and has been getting benefits for 30 years would see a reduction in benefits of close to 9 percent under the new cost-of-living adjustment formula apparently supported by members of the committee.

The benefit cut is being justified by claiming that the current cost-of-living adjustment exceeds the true rate of inflation. In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics index that measures the cost of living of the elderly indicates that the current adjustment understates the rate of inflation experienced by retirees. There should be no doubt, this is a proposal for cutting Social Security benefits; it has nothing to do with making the cost-of-living adjustments accurate.

While the supercommittee has plenty of time to think of ways to make life more miserable for seniors, it won’t even countenance the idea of taxing Wall Street speculation. In spite of the repeated pledges that everything is on the table, taxing Wall Street speculation is absolutely off the table.

In order for a tax bill to be considered by Congress, it must be scored by the Joint Tax Committee (JTC). While many members, including some very senior members from both houses, have requested a score from the JTC of a bill taxing financial speculation, the supercommittee has the JTC completely tied up meeting its requests. By refusing to include a financial speculation tax in its scoring request, the supercommittee is preventing this idea from even being included in the discussion.

Given the role of Wall Street in both creating the conditions for the crash and prospering at the expense of the other 99 percent, it might seem reasonable to include a tax on speculation in the mix of items to consider. This is not a radical proposal. The European Commission is currently on the edge of approving a financial speculation tax. Its leading proponents are the conservative leaders of Germany and France.

It is easy to see that this could be a very substantial source of revenue. The United Kingdom already has a FST. It raises the equivalent of 0.2 to 0.3 percent of GDP ($30-$40 billion a year in the United States), by just taxing stock. If options, futures, credit default swaps and other derivative instruments were also taxed, it is easy to believe that we could raise three to four times as much money in the United States.

But the supercommittee doesn’t want to think about a proposal that would impose serious costs on Wall Street. It is more interested in taking away Social Security and Medicare benefits from the old and disabled.

This contempt for the 99 percent coupled with protection for the 1 percent is the reason Congress has an approval rating of 9 percent. When both parties in Congress work against the interest of the overwhelming majority in order to protect a tiny elite, it is not surprising that most of the country would return the contempt.