[March 27, 2012] – One of the founders of Occupy Jackson Hole, Pete Muldoon, sits down with Wyoming Chronicle to talk about the movement, what he hopes to accomplish, his hopes for the future and Foster Friess this Friday at 7:30 p.m. on Wyoming PBS.

Pete Muldoon was raised all over the country in a military family, and then joined the Army himself at 17 before attending Northwestern State University in Louisiana, where he studied journalism, engineering, math, philosophy, and music.

Muldoon moved to Jackson in 2000, and is now the owner of an audio engineering company. He’s been following and writing about politics and economics most of his life, but has only recently become involved in activism. Muldoon is also a singer, songwriter, guitarist, and keyboard player in five local bands, and tries to find time to ski, bike, and paraglide in between work, activism, and gigs.

Muldoon, along with Seadar Davis, Shawn Cooper, Amy Kallaugher, Colleen Thompson, and David Swift is a founding member of Occupy Jackson Hole. The group was founded in late September, 2011.

Occupy Jackson Hole is part of the leaderless, larger movement, Occupy Wall Street, which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park in New York City. The protests are against corruption, social and economic inequality, greed, high unemployment, and the undue influence of corporations on the government. OWS was initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters.

In Wyoming, there are Occupy movements in Jackson Hole, Sheridan, Casper, and Cheyenne. There is also an Occupy Wyoming. While Occupy protestors have been arrested elsewhere, there have not been any arrests made of Occupiers in Wyoming.

Occupy Jackson Hole holds weekly meetings that are open to the public. More information about the weekly meetings can be found at www.occupyjacksonhole.com.

Wyoming PBS is a non-commercial, educational institution and cultural resource dedicated to connecting and enriching Wyoming lives through innovative media. Wyoming PBS can be found on various channels across Wyoming; for more information, check local listings, or go to www.wyomingpbs.org for a complete schedule of channel numbers.

I’d like to start off by saying I’m generally sympathetic to the historical concerns of the Democratic party, and I’d say that a good number of the people I’ve met in the Occupy movement are, as well. I voted for Obama in 2008. Many of us did. And yet we now find ourselves working outside the party, and we believe that on a national level the Democratic party is as much a part of the problem as the Republican party is.

In a nutshell, we no longer believe that we live in a democracy, but, rather, in a plutocracy. Or, perhaps more precisely, a kleptocracy. The political struggle has, throughout human history, been between those with wealth and power and those without. For a number of years, the Republican party represented people with wealth and power, and the Democratic party represented those without.

But this dynamic has now changed. Corporations and the elite now undeniably control the establishment apparatus of both parties, who, on most of the big issues, are now in complete agreement.

The Democrat and Republican leadership alike are united in their will to do whatever wealth and power commands them to do. There is very little daylight between the leadership of the two parties on policies such as cutting social security and medicare, waging perpetual and illegal war,  growing the outrageous prison-industrial complex, asserting the power to spy on and even execute American citizens with zero judicial oversight, bailing out big banks at taxpayer expense (while refusing to prosecute even the most blatant financial crimes), slashing regulations that could hold corporations responsible for the destruction of both our economy and our environment, and acting not as representatives of the people of the United States, but as proxies for the corporations and rich elite that now control the political system of this country.

There was a time when policies like these would have been controversial. You could always count on Republicans to do what big business told them to do, but they were at least honest about it. And the Democratic party could be counted on to at rhetorically oppose them. But now that the Democrats are on board, there is very little opposition to any of this. There is no longer a political entity in this country which can be counted on to protect the rights and interests of the 99%, of people like you and me.

And yes, we all are the 99%. I have friends who are relatively well off, who have asked me in private if I think that they are among the elite whose actions we oppose. And of course they are not. It’s important to note that it is not wealth which the Occupy movement opposes, it is using that wealth to seize control of the political system. We don’t oppose or resent success—we believe that the institutions and the society which generations of Americans have sacrificed so much to create and maintain have put all of us just a few feet from the finish line, and while it’s commendable to cross it, we must never forget our own responsibility to the society that has made that success feasible.

I’m a small business owner and veteran. Everyone that I have met in this movement has a job, often two or three. We admire creative, successful people. We don’t want handouts. We want justice. I personally don’t believe that the elite who control our political system are evil—they are just humans who have deluded themselves into believing that they deserve more power than the rest us. In another life, that could easily be me, or any of us, and it would be just as delusional to think otherwise. It is their actions that we should oppose, and yet we look around and see that neither national political party is opposing any of these actions in a meaningful way, or giving a voice to the 99%.

It is within this void that the Occupy movement has grown. I believe that many of you are Democrats because you believe that all Americans should have rights and should have a voice, and that justice is something worth fighting for. The professed ideals of the Democratic party are consistent with this belief, and yet its actions no longer are.

It is critical that this country have at least one functional opposition party. For all practical purposes, there is none today. The elite control the terms of the debate, they control the candidates that you will be allowed to vote for, and they control the very machinery of government, whether it be the presidential administration, the regulatory agencies, Congress, or, now, the Supreme Court. They spend obscene amounts of money on candidates for office, and on lobbyists to buy politicians in what is quite literally legalized bribery.

The elite care nothing about social issues like reproductive rights, gay rights, or religion except as a way to divide those Americans who would otherwise be united against them.

We need a strong Democratic party in this country. We need that party to live up to its ideals. We need it to fight for what it believes, even if that means losing an election, or losing some money. What good will it do to act like a Republican in order to win an election?

The Occupy movement is prepared to work with principled Democrats or, in fact, principled people from any party who share our vision of a more just society and are willing to work for it. We believe that there is much common ground with grass-roots Democrats on issues like war, health care, Wall Street reform, campaign reform, government transparency, education and so on.

We intend to work hard to get the message out, to bring awareness to the public. We expect to be vigorously and, at times, violently opposed by those in power, who will have much to lose when the truth wins out. We accept this as our role. But we can’t do it alone. Not everyone can stage sit-ins and occupy public spaces. But it’s imperative that Americans recognize these problems and work, in their own way, towards solving them. The Democratic party is a natural ally of the Occupy movement in particular, and of the American people in general. We call on Democrats to join us in making this a more just and democratic country. We cannot do it without you.

There is a national movement to do an end run round this archaic institution.  Many people do not know that the EC was established in the Constitution, so it would require an amendment to abolish it. However even more people do not know that the allocation of EC votes is determined by each state.

The National Popular Vote movement is working to have states change how they award their votes; California was the most recent, in August 2011. In January 2012 the Department of Justice cleared the National Popular Vote bill under the Voting Rights Act.

The National Popular Vote law has been enacted by states representing 132 electoral votes, almost half of the electoral votes needed to activate it. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes. Wyoming’s 3 votes would put the bill over the halfway point. In polls in every state, 68% to 83% favored the new law (Wyoming was 69%).

It’s ironic that in the U.S., the standard-bearer for democracy on the planet, our leader is elected using an undemocratic system. I have lived in Wyoming for 40 years, and my presidential vote has never mattered. It would be nice to change that.

Occupy Jackson Hole is encouraging people to contact their state legislators to urge support for the National Popular Vote bill.

–Colleen

If you’re a Teton County Republican who plans to vote in the presidential election next November, you should outraged be at what local billionaire hedge fund manager Foster Friess has been up to lately.

Politico has reported that Friess has funneled over a half million dollars to Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign. If you’re a local Republican, Rick Santorum might not be the guy you want on the ballot in November. Maybe you’d rather vote for Romney, or Gingrich, or Ron Paul. But you might not have that choice, because you don’t get to decide who is on the ballot. Foster Friess and his rich buddies get to decide that for you, unless you happen to have a few hundred grand lying around that you don’t need.

How is this possible? Well, after years of ever-weakened anti-corruption laws, the final blow was delivered two years ago with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizen’s United. Today, in America, anyone can buy any political candidate they want to-as long as they can afford it. There is literally no limit to the amount of money that can be spent to help get your cronies elected, and you can do it all anonymously.

Most of us, of course, can’t afford buy to politicians. The policies of people like Friess have made the rich richer and the middle class poor, which means that he has lots of extra money to buy presidents with, and you don’t. If you’re a Ron Paul supporter (or a Romney or Gingrich supporter) who can afford to give $100, then Foster Friess has just negated the vote of you and 4,999 of your friends. This is not democracy-this is the kind of political system you would find in the Soviet Union-sham elections in which you have the choice of voting for whichever two candidates the rich and powerful allow you to choose from.

Occupy JH is fighting back against this corruption. We believe that Foster Friess should have a voice, but that he has no right to drown out the voices of the rest of us. This week we are launching the Move To Amend petition drive, which will petition our local governments to take a stand against money in politics. Look for us on the web, or on the streets. Sign the petition. We believe that, whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, or one of the rapidly growing number of people who realize that both parties are corrupt, your opinion matters just as much as the opinion of a billionaire. Please join us in this fight!

On our Facebook group page, Margaret suggested a petition urging revocation of Citizens United. What a great idea! Part of the Move To Amend’s strategy is

…using the municipal resolution strategy to build a movement to abolish corporate personhood. “Local resolution campaigns are an opportunity for citizens to speak up and let it be known that we won’t accept the corporate takeover of our government,” said David Cobb, a national spokesperson for Move to Amend. “We urge communities across the country to join the Move to Amend campaign and raise your voices.”

So far the resolution has been passed in many towns and cities, including Los Angeles, Madison Wisconsin, and New York City.

Rather than giving the courthouse people a week’s worth of signatures–if the courthouse is even open on Friday–let’s collect signatures with an eye to presenting them to the Town Council when we propose they pass the resolution. It will also help if we have a good number of supporters there then, so we should plan on doing that several weeks from now.

Here is the Move To Amend press release, the model resolution language, and the text of the proposed amendment.

How about this for our petition:

We, the undersigned, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, instead believing that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. Further, we urge the Jackson Town Council to pass the following resolution:

RESOLVED, the People of Jackson, Wyoming, stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country to defend democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate power by amending the United States Constitution to establish that:

   1. Only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights, and

   2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the People of Jackson, Wyoming hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.

To sum up: We ask for volunteers to carry the petition and collect signatures and hand out the one-page press release. On Friday 1/20/2012 we demonstrate in front of the federal courthouse, doing more of the same. Until we’re organized with a contingent to attend a Town Council meeting to present our petition and resolution, we keep collecting signatures. Letters to the Editor would be a plus. As would perhaps manning a table one or two days in front of Whole Foods (if they’re amenable) or other sympathetic businesses. Anyone who wants to help or comment on the petition language, please comment, or email occupant at occupy jackson hole dot com.

I see from the Move To Amend site that Wyoming also has a referendum process. Let’s look at that too.

–Colleen

People have been asking about how to learn more about economics and finance, and there really isn’t anything more important than understanding the basics of those fields, for it is here that our destinies are written.

The following are links to a six part series of essays which appeared on Naked Capitalism a few weeks ago. This is probably the most important work that’s been done regarding political economy and monetary theory in a long time, because it takes a complex subject and makes it accessible. Please take the time to read it; I promise you’ll find it worth the effort.

Part One: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/public-money-for-public-purpose-toward-the-end-of-plutocracy-and-the-triumph-of-democracy.html

Part Two: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/public-money-for-public-purpose-toward-the-end-of-plutocracy-and-the-triumph-of-democracy-part-ii.html

Part Three: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/public-money-for-public-purpose-toward-the-end-of-plutocracy-and-the-triumph-of-democracy-part-iii.html

Part Four: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/public-money-for-public-purpose-toward-the-end-of-plutocracy-and-the-triumph-of-democracy-part-iv.html

Part Five: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/public-money-for-public-purpose-toward-the-end-of-plutocracy-and-the-triumph-of-democracy-part-v.html

Part Six:  Public Money for Public Purpose: Toward the End of Plutocracy and the Triumph of Democracy – Part VI

—Pete Muldoon

We hire politicians to write laws for us to make our lives better. But then we foolishly allow them to work (at the same time) for other people who don’t care about making our lives better, and who often want to make them worse if it helps them make a few more bucks. These people, of course, have more money than us, so the politicians end up working for them, instead of us, as they should.

We also pay politicians relatively little money, and then allow them to go work for whoever they want to after they work for us. Human nature being what it is, we should expect these politicians to make deals while they are in office so they can go “work” for people who can pay them more once they are out of office.

In the business world, many companies will require you to sign an employment contract which stipulates that you will not be allowed to work for the competition if you leave the company. But we stupidly give politicians great pensions up front and then allow them to go and work for the competition*, while we continue to pay them.

We should require that all elected officials, for starters, never work elsewhere again. Ever. Or at least for, say, 20 years. And then provide them the means to do so. Nor should they be allowed to receive money or gifts of any sort outside of their congressional pension ever again, which we should ensure is more than enough to live on. Of course, this might not be as lucrative as the wholesale selling of government is. But then, government service should be just that-service. Not some scheme undertaken to enrich oneself at the expense of everyone else. And can anyone doubt that that is what is happening today?

Maybe this ban on working sounds extreme. But consider, if you will, the grave responsibility bestowed on those in, say, the Senate. 100 people are responsible for making decisions for 300,000,000 Americans, a ratio of 1 senator to 3 million citizens. With this sort of power comes great responsibility, and it is not asking much at all for someone to prove that they really care about public service by offering to forgo any other career in the future.

I have one other suggestion, and that is that pensions for elected officials work like this. Everyone gets a primary pension, with health care and everything else, but it’s not obscene. Say $150,000 per year. But there is also a secondary pension, and this one can range from, say, zero to $1,000,000 per year for national officials. The actual amount depends on the percentage of the vote they receive in their last election. So if you lose an election with 30% of the vote, you get $300,000 per year. If you retire after getting 80% of the vote, you get $800,000. This will be a democratic way of deciding what to pay people.

This may seem like a lot of money, but you really can’t put a price on having a government that works for the people, instead of some rich banker. Right now we are paying these politicians up front, and not putting any restriction on what they can while in office or afterwards. It’s insane. And it should go without saying that we should publicly fund campaigns, instead of letting corporations just buy them.

The idea of paying elected officials less is very seductive. After all, most of them have completely sold us out. But maybe this is because we’ve fallen prey over the years to the idea that we can just keep cutting pay and expecting people to do a good job. We should have learned by now that this just doesn’t work.

 *Yes, multinational corporations are the competition, as are most of the elite. They are not properly considered American; they keep their money offshore, they ignore American laws, and they hardly pay any American taxes. They belong to a global elite, and we have much more in common with our Canadian working counterparts than we do with “Americans” like Lloyd Blankfein. Or our Chinese ones, for that matter.

Apparently, there are some angry people somewhere in the world who are such a threat to the American Way that we should just go ahead and toss out the Bill Of Rights.

Are there no real terrorists left anywhere? Apparently not. But then why is there no hope in sight for an end to the insane War On Terror?

As usual, instead of asking why America does stupid things, it’s more useful to ask who is making a bunch of money from those stupid things.

Today, I’d just like to point out that when the Bush administration privatized many of the War On Terror operations, they created a big group of people who are making a really nice living from this War On Terror. And those people sure as hell don’t want to actually “win” that war, whatever that would even mean.

Because the one thing it would mean is that the gravy train is over for them.

Just like the insane Drug War War On Americans Who Use Drugs, the War On Terror is really not much more than a big welfare program for well-connected friends of the government. And of course it has the added benefit (for 1%ers  in power, anyway) of making sure that every week or so we lose more and more of our rights to protest and to free speech*. This is clearly a feature of the War On Terror, and not a bug.

— Pete Muldoon

*It is currently a crime to speak out in favor of a terrorist organization. This assault on the first amendment might not bother you, but then again you may not know that the London Police have declared the Occupy movement to be a terrorist group.

I’d like to ask Foster if there is an upper limit to the benefits of inequality. Would it be better if 1000 people in the US owned 80% of the wealth? 100? 10? If no, than why not? And does he not see that there could be a small problem with concentrating that much wealth power in the hands of a relatively few people, who will be accountable to no one?

Isn’t this what led to the American revolution in the first place?

Also, Friess insists that we all get out there and work harder. Here’s the thing; I don’t want to live in a country where my choices are A) Work 90 hours a week in the endless pursuit of money so I can be part of the 1% or B) not be able to afford health care or food.

Why are we all working harder than our parents did? How were middle class families able to prosper with one wage earner? Could the fact that the top marginal rate was once around 90% have anything to do with it? That rate is now 1/3 of that, and it’s effectively much lower, as the rich just buy whatever tax breaks they need.

— Pete Muldoon