NEW YORK (MainStreet) — The Occupy Wall Street protest has evolved from a ragtag group of activists with no clear message and minimal media exposure to a multi-city movement with more than a thousand participants in New York City alone, plenty of coverage on the major networks and newspapers and… still no clear message.
When the protestors first moved in to downtown New York, the group posted a message to its “unofficial defacto” website OccupyWallSt.org declaring its goal to not “let corporate greed and corrupt politics set the policies if [sic] our nation.” In the two weeks since, the message has only become more confused as hundreds more protestors have joined.
Those marching down Wall Street have professed their desire for everything from student loan amnesty and greater taxes on the rich to the need to “prosecute the Wall Street criminals” and reverse the Citizens United decision that allows corporations to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns.
Each of these issues surely merits a certain amount of outrage and could be reason enough to spark a protest on its own, but collectively it sounds like a laundry list of disparate demands, some of which have only a limited relationship to Wall Street. Student loans, for example, are a huge issue but one that arguably has at least as much to do with the colleges that set tuition as the banks who make the loans. Meanwhile, raising taxes on the rich is something the president is already pushing for. Protestors looking to see this particular cause through would probably do better to march down to Washington and picket outside the offices of Congress members who don’t support the policy.
End Too Big to Fail
It’s been three years exactly since President Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program into law, essentially providing a round of bailouts to the nation’s largest financial institutions. So what better time to stage a protest down on Wall Street to remind legislators that bailing out financial firms anytime in the future with taxpayer money will not be tolerated. To their credit, the Dodd-Frank financial reform package and a recent set of FDIC rules will require banks to outline how to unwind their businesses should they go bankrupt, thereby establishing a pathway around the “too big to fail” principle, but there is still nothing on the books technically preventing government from bailing out a financial firm should they deem it necessary.
The Glass-Steagall Act was passed in the aftermath of the Great Depression to prevent commercial banks from offering investment services, thereby limiting the size and scope of America’s banks and preventing institutions that handle the savings and loans of millions of households from engaging in riskier activities like underwriting securities. This regulation was undone in the late ’90s under President Clinton’s tenure in the White House, helping Wall Street boost profits. But some like Citibank became too big for their own good and when they wound up on the brink of collapse, countless Americans found their nest eggs at risk. Pushing Wall Street and Washington to re-establish the division between commercial and investment banks would be a worthy cause for the protesters.
Push for a Stronger CFPB
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was one of the few good things (for consumers) that came out of the financial crisis. The entire function of the new government agency is to act on behalf of Americans for important issues ranging from credit card reform to military members struggling to keep their homes. Unfortunately, many in Congress made it their mission to weaken the CFPB to the point where it would operate within the Federal Reserve – rather than as its own entity – and be subject to veto authority from an outside group of 10 regulators. In fact, some in Washington would like to see the bureau’s power limited even further, which is why the protesters should take it upon themselves to urge Washington to continue working to make the CFPB more autonomous rather than less.