Op-Eds Speaking Truth to the Powers-That-Be

The Oakland Effect on the Occupy Movement

The Oakland Effect on the Occupy Movement

The “Occupy” movement was born out of frustration with lies, gridlock, and a federal political agenda that had nothing to do with healing the economy and putting people back to work.  Oakland has been the focus because the collateral violence there justifies the Right media’s bias, and their attempt to silence the 99% in the mainstream media. 

There have been handfuls of comparisons to this movement and the Tea Party movement of the last three years. Usually, the media implies that the movements are not the same, are not born of the same frustrations with the system and are generally not people looking for handouts.

The Occupy Movement is not in search of any handouts. It is not particularly interested in re-distribution of wealth. It is about taking back what was taken from us: Equality and our shot at the American Dream.

The American tax payers bailed out the banks and the economy still tumbled and fell apart. The banks now refuse to do their part; they are still foreclosing on homes using deceptive business practices, they are trying to levy ridiculous fees against us and blame laws that stop them from hiding the fees.

These affronts may have been taken in stride if we were employed and not struggling to feed our families. But a great deal of the 99% are doing just that: struggling.

Many thought that the Republican/Tea Party promise of “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” during the 2010 mid-term elections might give us a path to lift us out of this economic muck. There was a great deal of fighting about austerity measures that generally had no new revenue attached. Republicans said that we needed austerity, slashing government to pay for the trillions in bills that they already rung up during the George W. Bush administration, or as a response to the financial catastrophe that Right-wing regulatory reform brought to Main Street from Wall Street.

The GOP spent weeks proposing many new laws, most aimed at lessening personal freedoms, particularly for women, with which the far Right did not agree. The remainder were attempts to roll back regulations and restrictions on the special interests which paid big money in 2010 to get Tea Party congressmen elected.

Did the new Republican majority in the House fight for jobs, though? No, they did not.

President Obama proposed the American Jobs Act on September 8th in a Joint Session with Congress. It is now early November. Still no jobs have been created.

Why not, one might ask? Because the plan will cost $447B.  Any spending, any increase in the size of government, is a non-starter for Republicans. This is especially true of many Tea Party congressmen and senators who recognize that they may only be there one term, but they are determined to bring their vision of hobbling government into oblivion to pass.

Yet Mr. Obama promised that the $447B used for projects like repairing our crumbling bridges, fixing schools across the country, repairing roads and putting teachers and first responders back to work would be revenue neutral.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office,CBO, estimates that the plan as originally proposed would cause the deficit to decrease by $6 Billion over the period of 2012-2021. If the plan is adopted as modified by Senate  Majority Leader Harry Reid, adding the “Millionaires Tax”, it would increase revenues by $453B over the period of 2012-2021.

It is an investment in the very infrastructure of our country that corporations and their wealthy managers use daily to make money to which they cannot and do not contribute normally.

According to the Washington Post, the Millionaire’s Tax is a 5% tax on the gross adjusted income of households making more than $1 million combined or $500,000 for married couples filing separately.

The vote in the Senate went down party lines. Two Democrats voted with the GOP. No one was really surprised, although many who were already angry became furious. Nearly two months after the plan was first announced, people were beginning to revolt against the 1%’s well-bought Teflon suit that keeps them from shouldering their weight as American citizens.

The Occupy Movement was born.

On September 17, 2011 the Occupy Wall Street protest began in Zucotti Park. This movement began with people dissatisfied with politics as a whole, angry that we bailed out the banks and are still losing our homes and jobs.

Over the last six weeks the Occupy Movement has spread out to cities across the world. The movements have had clashes with the police that have resulted in hundreds of arrests.

There is one Occupy group that the whole country is watching with keen interest at the moment: Occupy Oakland.

On the other side of the San Francisco Bay in California, Oakland is famous for protests where violence erupts, and police routinely either incite or escalate.

Occupy Oakland has had a series of explosive clashes with police where the recorded video of the incidents resembled the Arab Spring occurring in the Middle East more than the West Coast of the United States.

After having a dispute about the times that the protesters could occupy Frank Ogawa Plaza, a curfew was attempted by the City Government.  Protestors were awakened at 5 am and forcefully ejected from the park. Police fired rubber bullets and bean bags into the crowd, injuring Iraq War Veteran Scott Olson with some sort of gas canister projectile that struck him in the head. Mr. Olsen was sent to the hospital with a fractured skull after the incident where he remained in critical condition with impairment to his ability to function normally. [1]

Oakland activism has had its difficulties with the police, and perhaps this movement was the spark that re-ignited a long-standing tension between the community and its police.

A Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officer shot Oscar Grant on New Years Day 2009 at the Fruitvale BART Station in Oakland.  Grant was unarmed and restrained.  The officer, Johannes Mehserle, was only convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  He was sentenced 2 years in prison, and then released after serving only one year.[2]  BART authorities agreed to 127 changes in transit police policy and retraining on crisis management for all officers as a result.[3]

In 2011, though, on the other side of the bay, San Francisco had a similar incident with a BART police officer. In July, two BART Officers shot and killed Charles Hill, a homeless African-American man in possession of a bottle of alcohol and two knives, one of which was in his hand at the Civic Center Station in San Francisco. Questions as to why police, who were not named, did not use a Taser or other less lethal weapon on Mr. Hill were not resolved.

The Oakland police department has been plagued with questionable officer-involved shootings, killings, and corruption scandals. Oakland’s Mayor, Jean Quan, was herself a victim of police violence, and became the first Asian-American mayor of that city largely on a campaign to reform the Oakland P.D.  The interim Chief of Police, Howard Jordan, is in place because of the myriad incidents of violent discriminatory practice that rocked the Oakland community.

This is the stage upon which Occupy Oakland is playing. The mistrust, disdain and wariness for the police had already been growing in the area. The raid on Frank Ogawa Plaza to eject the protestors forcibly was the spark that lit the flame.

On November 2, 2011, the Occupy Movement conducted a “General Strike” of Oakland.   The aim was to shut down the city and one of the country’s largest ports.

The mission was accomplished. There are many estimates for the number of participants in the General Strike, with some reporting seems to vary between 3000 and 5000. However large the group was, they closed the port for that day.

There was even support from Oakland’s Mayor Jean Quan, in the wake of calls for her to resign in the wake of the Scott Olsen police attack,  to allow city employees to join the strike as well. [4]

After about twelve hours of peaceful protest, the event was infiltrated by an anarchist group.  They broke windows, and spray painted graffiti on  stores and banks.

Occupy Oakland disavowed a connection with the group and many protestors tried to stop the damage while it was happening.  They linked arms to keep the anarchists away from some buildings. They also returned to clean up the mess left by the splinter group.

There are those who would try to make this sound as though it were unsuccessful. There are many that wish this movement would simply go away, and that all of its  for income and political equality would go away with it.

One would suspect that those who disagreed with the movement would tend to be older, well to do, suburban Caucasians, since many who dislike the movement believe that it is simply young and minorities who just want a hand out.

Occupy Oakland, with its largely poor population and recent skirmishes with  law enforcement already struggling with its handling of race and poverty, may not be the best example of how diverse the Occupy movement really is.

Let’s look at a nearby community, still in the Bay Area, about 15 minutes outside of Oakland.

Walnut Creek California has a population that is 82% Caucasian. 95% of the population, 25 years old and above, have high school diplomas and 56% have a bachelor’s degree or higher. The median household income is $76,522.[5]

This is a city that is home to a Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom and a Tiffany & Co. In this area, where I also happen to live, I saw the most wonderful sight that I’ve seen in some time.

Less than 100 white, middle-aged protesters, a lot for the area, protesting in front of the Tiffany’s and Neiman Marcus about being part of the 99%.

This movement has gained steam.  It is not going away.  It has brought people together who never would have been together. They are a reaction to our politicians and the special interest groups controlling them who are destroying the American Dream for the majority of our citizens and stepping on our civil rights.

Whether you believe it or not, you too are likely one of the 99%… Embrace it. Returning the government of this country to the people  is change  we all can, and should, believe in.

About LPB

This is a "what's going on in the world" type of blog. Any and everything that interests me could make the cut! Politics, current events, fashion, television...we'll just have to see how I'm feeling that day.

3 comments on “The Oakland Effect on the Occupy Movement

  1. thedrpete
    November 9, 2011

    There is so much ignorance and misunderstanding in your post, Ms. Phillips, so I’ll limit myself to just one or two points, depending on how one counts.

    Washington has a language of their own, that for the specific and intentional purpose of obfuscating and keeping you ignorant. Here are a couple of examples.

    Congress employs what they call “baseline budgeting”. Under “baseline budgeting” if they increase their spending by 5% next year, that will be reported and discussed as a 4% cut. When you talk of a $400 billion + increase, given “baseline budgeting” what that means is that, since we planned to spend $500 billion, what we call $400+ billion is actually just undet a $trillion.

    Then there’s the “non-partisan” CBO (Congressional Budget Office). The CBO is required BY LAW to ignore reality. What Congress sends them they must accept as true. You may have heard “garbage in, garbage out”? If Ms. Phillips you can clearly understand the following, you will have discovered the folly there. If you tax the “evil rich” (Sorry for the redundancy) at a 100% tax rate, the Treasury will receive exactly the same revenues from them as if you tax them at a 0% rate.

    According to the U.S. Treasury and its IRS the top 1% of earners now pay 39% of all federal income taxes. The top 25% pay 86%. The top 50% pay 97%. How much of this 50% is in the 99%. How much are the 24% in the top 25% identifiable with the “99%? How much are the 47% of American households who pay zero-or-less in federal income taxes deserving of protesting those who do?

    • Latrice Phillips
      November 9, 2011

      So much for your ban of my page. I would suggest that you refrain from calling people you don’t know ignorant, didn’t you have any home training?

      The Congressional Budget Office is a non partisan body. Your opinion on the matter does not make it less so.

      Why is it that when anyone suggests that wealthier people pay taxes, because let’s be honest with all of the breaks in the tax code things always manage to come out better for people with money, you people always claim “oh so you want to tax us at 100%!” Um, hyperbolic much? Get a grip Pete, I’m sure your pennies are fine.

      Once again, if I’m so “ignorant” then by all means, find someone else to harass and who cares what you think.

      Later Pete, although I think never will be better.

    • Brian Ross
      November 11, 2011

      The Congressional Budget Office was put in place to provide a reality check on the claims of Congress. There is no law the precludes them from doing their job. In fact, they have routinely bucked both parties on hyperbolic claims, making the agency the only reality line since the mainstream media abandoned that function to allow Republicans to come on programs unscathed by the “gotcha” media.

      You danced some numbers by that are wholly inaccurate. The top federal tax rate is 36%, not 39%. Even with that, since large amounts of compensation for the 1% is via capital gains, which are 15%, and via municipal bonds not subject to tax, along with other loopholes the effective rate that most of these people pay is somewhere between 0 and 22%. That’s lower than the next payment tier at 28%. You conflate the top tier’s rate with the “top 25%” whom you say pay the majority of the federal tax. That may be true, because they earn 86% of the money. The poor do not pay federal income tax, but they pay payroll tax, and sales tax, and via rent the property tax of their landlords. By that standard, they pay, proportionate to their income 22% to 39% of their income in some form of tax. This is why both parties, back in the days of sanity, supported not taxing the poor further. They also did this because if you tax these people, you are doing exactly what Republicans apparently don’t want: You have to put it back out to them in support and social services.

      Watching less Fox News might be helpful. Change the dial to your favorite form of music and leave Rush out of your presets too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


This entry was posted on November 8, 2011 by in 2011, Civil Protests, Ideologies, Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party, Years.

The Past on T2P

Stay Connected.

Catch up. Catch on! Text T2Power to 22828!

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Top Posts & Pages

Get Forward Thinking

Sign up here for Forward Thinking, a monthly newsletter delivered to your email box with special features from the various RossGroupFT publications, including new titles from RossBooksFT.
For Email Marketing you can trust

Copyright Notice

The (T2P) website and all text, design and artwork elements not part of the standard WordPress template or an article, and all T2P logos and trademarks are copyright ©2011 and future years by TheRossGroupFT, LLC. All rights reserved. All articles' text is the copyright of its author. T2P is a forum for free speech of its invited authors, and the opinions and information that they present are their own. TheRossGroupFT, its principals, agents and assigns are not responsible for the opinions or content of any article.
TheRossGroupFT - Forward Thinking for New Media

Writing for T2P

We're looking for passionate, out-of-the-box, outside-the-Beltway writing and thinking. To find out more about how to audition your work for us, click here.

Follow t2PTweets on Twitter!

About Truth-2-Power

A phrase coined by the Quakers during in the mid-1950's, "Speak truth to power," was a call for the United States to stand firm against fascism and other forms of totalitarianism; it is a phrase that seems to unnerve political right, with reason. The Founding Fathers of United States risked their lives in order to speak truth to the power of King George and the mighty British Empire. It was and is considered courageous. Join us!

LIKE us on Facebook!

The Forward Thinking Store

Get your t2p gear at the Forward-Thinking Store

Share us on LinkedIN

%d bloggers like this: