Are the Police Part of the 99%?

By Chris Murphy
Many people in the Occupy Wall Street movement believe the police are part of the 99%. They say that their friends and family have joined the force and are good union people who want to help the community and see Occupy succeed.
This article will attempt to show that the police are on the other side.  We need to consider the police as an institution.  Within the institution of law enforcement, a single police officer is not allowed to be an individual and cannot be swayed to join the side of the Occupy movement until he or she retires or quits the force. Just like other workers within the capitalist system, they must follow the orders of the boss. This article will argue that their boss is the 1%.
It is not just local police departments that have acted against Occupy and against the 99 percent, but a larger law enforcement spectrum of Homeland Security, ICE, Federal Protective Service, FBI, fusion centers and the CIA. Law enforcement has routinely been on the side that has committed violent and oppressive acts which violate civil liberties. For example, the Oakland police brutally attacked Occupy Oakland, critically injuring an Iraq War veteran. The LAPD has confirmed that, in the run-up to the raid on Occupy LA, dozens of undercover officers were gathering intelligence on site. In Occupy Providence, infrared cameras have been used to determine how many people were currently at the People’s Park.
The state repression leveled against OWS by law enforcement is something that communities of color face on a daily basis. This racism leads to the breaking up of families with two million people in jail, the majority people of color. In New York City, there is a well-known “Stop and Frisk” policy that overwhelmingly targets minorities. In 2011, according to the NYPD, there were so many “Stop and Frisk” searches of young black men that they exceeded the number of young black men actually living in the city! Within Rhode Island, it is also well known that the police search vehicles of black and Latino residents at a much higher percentage than white people, even though contraband is found in a higher percentage of the stops of white people.
The Obama administration deports over 1100 people a day through collaboration of local and federal police departments. Even U.S. citizens are increasingly being deported. A 14-year-old Texas girl who was missing for months was mistakenly deported to Colombia by immigration agents.
The Central Intelligence Agency works with the NYPD to illegally monitor and infiltrate mosques under the guise of “homeland security.” In the same week that Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a Boston Muslim-American pharmacist was convicted of material support for terrorism. The reason for his prosecution was that he refused to be an informant on the Arab and Muslim community for law enforcement.
Tens of millions of dollars goes to homeland security, but what resources address violence against women and children here in our country today? This is not a top priority. Officers also abuse power when interacting with women. For instance, the global Slutwalk protests began when a Toronto officer told a young woman “not to dress like sluts.”
Yes, it is agreed that police do respond to all types of calls. But, ultimately, to serve and protect whom? This author’s opinion is that their purpose is to make sure the status quo remains, and the status quo is about protecting the one percent’s property. For example, Goldman Sachs provided the NYPD with millions of dollars in funding during the beginning of OWS. At Occupy Providence’s Textron rally in downtown Providence, it was the police who ordered marchers off the steps of Textron’s headquarters.
Although Occupiers have chanted “The police are the 99%”, and tried to sway officers by saying “You are one of us, join us”, the evidence I’ve cited argues that law enforcement’s presence in our community is meant to act as a deterrent, in order to control people, hoping to limit the number of people who participate in struggle and who what is possible through their own collective power.
Now, you might say that law enforcement has been nice to us at Occupy Providence. However, we might consider other possible explanations for this situation. I would suggest that nobody in government wanted to take on OP: the new governor was reeling; the mayor had lost his “political capital” because of his decisions about his budget crisis; there was no acting police chief; and the public safety commissioner had coordinated a raid of the Narragansett tribe, a sovereign nation, not long ago. Given law enforcement’s spotty record of late, one would have to wonder.

An Interview With Former Civil Rights Organizer, Charles Cobb, Jr.

Interviewed by Gavroche Allen.

I was privileged to have an moment to talk with a person who participated in one of the turbulent if not inspiring times in recent U.S. history. Prof. Charles Cobb Jr. was one of the community organizers in Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in the South during the civil rights era of the 1960s. Professor Cobb is now a part time teacher in the Africana studies at Brown University and now resides in Florida. He relates to me some personal accounts during that time. He also gives some insight on how we as activists can move forward.

Professor Cobb, can you tell me about your life before you joined SNCC?    
When the first sit-ins happened in the early 1960s I was in high school in Springfield, Mass. When I first saw what happened to them on television, my first reaction was that they look like me. Not in a racial but in a generational sense. They were young and engaged in Civil Rights activities.
If you were black in the 1960s, you planned to go to a historically black college. Only a handful of blacks went to white schools like Brown. Most blacks went to black schools, and the odds were overwhelming that you were going to the South. That meant you were going to sit in segregated public places. The question was: what you going to do about it?
My family was a politically active family. I was predisposed. When I got to Howard, I become involved the sit-in movement. It is through that involvement that I got into SNCC. It was Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), which was also active in the Civil Rights Movement, that invited me to a workshop in Texas and handed me some money for a bus ticket. This bus ticket gets me all through the South, and I decided to see all through the South. I get off the bus at Jackson, Mississippi, to meet with the students sitting in. The reason I get in Mississippi is that it is entirely associated with Emmett Till’s murder. To make a long short: I thought the state was so dangerous I wanted to meet these students. They convince me to stay in the state.

Can you describe SNCC and how they played a part in the Civil Rights Movement in the South?
They are three important things you have to understand about SNCC that made it unique in its time. First, it was an organization of young people. First time you got to see young people working 24/7 for change. Second, it was a movement of a grass-roots organization. It was an organization of organizers from student protest. Third, it was a radical organization. Not radical in an ideological sense but in the people we worked with. They were maids and sharecroppers. The poorest of the poor, in the most racist of societies.

What were the main goals of SNCC during the 60s? Do you think SNCC succeeded in accomplishing those goals?    
We saw ourselves as organizers, not leaders. Our goal was to help people speak with their own voices instead of being spoken for by others. And also to organize for themselves. In some ways we were successful but not entirely successful, because there is still a struggle in this country.

You had such dynamic leaders such as Stokely Carmichael and Ella Baker in the movement back then. How did these leaders shape you as a community organizer?
Stokely Carmichael and Ella Baker were two key components of SNCC. The key person in SNCC was Ella Baker. She, of course, was from an older generation. But she recognized when the sit-ins erupted that the student energy was important. She was the one that pulled us together. As a result, thus began the creation of SNCC. She was the one who steered us into grassroots organizing. To quote her, “Strong people don’t need strong leaders.”

What are the similarities and differences between movements in the 60s and the Occupy movement today?
The obvious similarity is the issue of protest. The kind of protest Occupy is making resembles some of the protests in the 60s. So far the differences outweigh the similarities. I can’t know every single Occupy movement in every city. It seems to me so far this movement has not figured out what it wants in regard with community organizing. It has not figured out how to find a language or a method to begin to speak in organizing in the communities. These communities may not understand or agree with the Occupys.
Look at the evolution of SNCC. It evolves from an organization of student protestors into an organization of organizers impeding in the communities. You cannot sustain a movement with protest.

By assessing the last six to seven months, where do you see the Occupy movement heading?
Simple answer: I don’t know. I can’t know its real internal dynamics. Unless Occupy figures out how to really organize in the community, they will be marginalized.

There has been a spark of interest about people of color and abuses of law enforcement, for example, the murder of Trayvon Martin and the wrongful execution of Troy Davis. Do you think this recent outrage will develop into another Civil Rights Movement?
Again, I don’t know. First, we need to see these things are not uncommon. The whole issue of violence of authorities directed at young black males has been with us for decades. You see the Trayvon protests and do you know who I see speaking: old men.  Maybe it is my prejudice, but I do not believe you get a movement out of old men like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. You get a movement when young men and women take leadership on this issue.

What final advice do you have for the new generation of young activists?
Take the lead! It’s your future. People talk about passing the torch. No! Take the touch!

Deficits, Debts and Demagogues

By Richard D. Wolff

Government budget deficits and the national debt are occasions more for demagogues to preach than for serious analysis. The usual suspects, conservatives and liberals, are gearing up for the election. Each side uses the large federal budget deficits and fast-accumulating national debt to beat its tired ideological drums. Conservatives insist that deficits and debts require huge cuts in government jobs and job benefits (especially pensions) and in social programs (especially Medicare and Medicaid). Liberals push for less drastic cuts in federal employment and programs because “the economy still needs stimulus.” Liberals promise that when prosperity returns and Washington’s tax revenues rise, we can painlessly use them to reduce the accumulated debt.
The two sides have been promoting these positions for decades, long before the current deficits and debts arrived. The latter are just opportunities exploited by both sides to repeat old sermons to their faithful. However, there are important political lessons to learn by connecting deficits and debts to the demagogues using them these days.
What are the actual causes of recent years’ high deficits that have boosted the national debt? The first cause is the capitalist crisis. When millions are fired, their lost income means lower individual income taxes flowing to Washington. When businesses lose sales, their incomes also drop and thus also their income tax payments to Washington. Lower sales mean lower sales taxes flowing to state governments. Our collapsed housing market lowers property values, and that drops the property taxes on which local governments depend. Second, even as government revenue shrank because of the crisis, Washington undertook extremely costly bailouts of large banks and other corporations as part of stimulating a crisis-ridden capitalist economy. Washington also sent more money to states and localities to offset a part of their revenue loss because of the crisis. Crisis-induced revenue losses plus crisis-induced expenditure increases are the major causes of today’s large deficits and national debt increases.
The third major cause of federal deficits and debts has been huge reductions in corporate income taxes and individual income taxes on the richest Americans. At the end of World War II, for every dollar paid to Washington in individual income taxes, corporate profits’ taxes amounted to $1.50. Today, the ratio is very, very different: for every $1 paid in individual income taxes, corporations pay $ 0.25. Despite the effects on statistics of S corporations and other tax loopholes for businesses and executives, the bottom line shows a massive shift of the federal tax burden from business onto individuals. Over the same period, the top rate of the federal individual income tax fell from 94 percent to 35 percent: a massive federal tax break for the richest Americans.
The result was and remains obvious: the middle of the income distribution­— the majority that is not rich and not (or not yet) really poor— had to pick up the burden. No wonder that a majority of the population is upset, angry, talks endlessly about “tax revolts” and deeply distrusts politicians of all stripes who imposed the twin massive tax shifts upon them. The majority correctly fears being driven down into the mass of the poor. As that process unfolds, the majority becomes increasingly resentful and angry and looks for whom to blame.
The job of the demagogues is to deflect that anger onto a credible scapegoat. Their goal is to protect corporations and the rich (1) from the return of the tax rates they paid in the past; (2) from paying for the crisis since 2007 that they helped to cause; and (3) from paying for the government bailouts they demanded, received, and that saved them from very serious, crisis-induced problems.
The demagogues’ preferred scapegoat is the public sector of our economy. So, they attack government employees and the public services they provide. Chief among their current targets are the pensions paid to retired public employees. These are denounced as primary causes of the deficits of local, state and federal budgets. Democrats and Republicans agree to cut those pensions as a way to reduce the deficits.
Yet, this scapegoating is easy to expose. Public employee pensions have not risen in any dramatic way over recent years, so they could not and did not cause the government budget deficits to zoom upward. Those pensions did not cause our national debt suddenly to soar. Capitalism’s second-worst crisis in 75 years and the government’s bailout program for large corporations and the stock market, that’s what caused the deficits and the exploding national debt.
Attacking workers’ pensions is preferred because it protects corporations and the rich from blame in this time of mounting economic difficulties for most people. It pits government workers against private-sector workers. Attacking public workers’ pensions undermines retirement programs to which they contributed, benefits they accepted in place of wage increases from their employer. Conservatives use lower pensions in the private sector to argue for parallel reductions in public employees’ pensions; next they will use reduced public pensions as arguments to lower private-sector pensions.
Cutting public employees’ pensions makes workers pay for a crisis they did not cause and for the massive government bailouts they did not get. How convenient for corporations and the rich that Democrat and Republican demagogues are “concerned about the problem of government pensions.” Instead of scapegoating public workers, they could remember the lessons of the last time US capitalism crashed.
In the 1930s Great Depression, powerful unions, socialist and communist parties got the government to raise taxes on corporations and the rich. Those tax revenues helped fund a New Deal for most Americans by (1) creating the Social Security system for the millions over 65, (2) creating the unemployment compensation system for the millions without jobs and (3) creating and filling over 12 million federal jobs.
As corporations and the rich rolled back the New Deal over recent decades, they created conditions for another massive crisis. Now, they aim to turn their crisis into another chapter in that roll back. When capitalism delivers these results, it has outlived its usefulness for all but the few beneficiaries of that system.

Occupy Providence— A Survey of People Involved

Survey conducted by Annie Rose London

In late December and January, Occupy Providence participants were asked to fill out a survey, and 128 individuals completed it. We believe that the sample represents Occupy Providence participants fairly well, including those who were physically occupying Burnside, those who regularly attended General Assemblies, and those who participated in the movement primarily online. From the responses, it is possible to gain insight into the composition of those in Occupy Providence at one point in time, to determine what OP activities people were engaged in, and to find out what goals inspired people to participate in this movement.

PARTICIPATION
What first brought you to Occupy Providence? (129 responses; someone replied twice?)
Answers:     Rally or march  25%  |  General Assembly 23%  |  General curiosity 19%  |  Workshop/discussion 2%   |  A meal 0%   |   Other 31%      (The “Other” responses were usually listed as experience at other Occupy locations, most frequently Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Boston.)
What working groups have you participated in? (193 responses, of which 47 were “zero”, leaving 81 respondents reporting 146 working group participations or nearly two per person)
Answers:     Direct Action 24  |  Safety & Support 19  |  Women’s/Trans/Genderqueer Caucus 15  |   Food 12  |   Facilitation 11  |  Media 11  |  Visioning 11   |  Sanitation 10  |  Health & Caring 9  |  Legal 7  |  Creative Interdisciplinary Art 8  |  Political Action 7  |  Queer Caucus 5  |  Coordination 4

Are you satisfied with your current level of involvement in OP? (124 responses)
Answers:     Really prefer to increase 27%  |  Prefer to increase 42%  |  Totally satisfied 27%  |  Prefer less 3%  |  Really prefer less 0%
What are some factors that would enable you to participate more?
Top solution: indoor locations.
Next most frequent: events on different topics, in different formats, and with varying co-sponsors.
Others: translation to other languages, shorter events, less gendered oppression, and more coordination.
What skills/talents/resources could you imagine contributing to OP?
Answers:     Cook, build, write, network, build websites, write grants, run workshops, mediate, contribute materials, and many more.
How do folks stay connected to OP? (290 responses)
Answers:     Email listserv 79  |  Facebook 67  |  Coming to the People’s Park 58  |  Word of mouth 55  |  OP website 20  |  Local newspapers 10  |  Twitter 1

How has your level of involvement in OP changed since you first became involved? (123 responses)
Answers:     Increased greatly 6%  |  Increased 22%  |  Stayed the same 24%  |  Decreased 26%  |  Decreased greatly 23%

Leading causes for decreased involvement:
other obligations, accessibility, challenges with finding a way to contribute,
internal structural conflict, most often in the form of oppressive behaviors.
IDENTITY
What gender do you identify as? (129 responses)
Answers:     Female 59 (46%)  |  Transgender 3 (2%)  |  Male 60 (47%)  |  Other 7 (5%)
What racial, ethnic, or national background are you most likely to identify as?
Answers:     Over half identified themselves as white, while about 15% viewed themselves as persons of color.
Another 15% did not identify themselves by race or ethnicity at all.
What is your age? (129 responses; someone replied twice)
Answers:     Half of all respondents reported themselves to be in their 20s, with another 20% in their 30s.
Smaller percentages of people ranged in age from their teens to the 70s.
What other identities are important to you?
Answers:     Parents, environmentalists, activists, Providence residents, and immigrants.
How would you describe your political views? (categories created from open responses)
Answers:     Far left 22%  |  Socialist 21%  |  Radical/revolutionary 19%  |  Liberal 16%
Anarchist 15%  |  Progressive 12%  |  Libertarian 9%  |  Democrat 7%  |  Feminist 4%
VOTING
Are you registered to vote? (114 responses)
Answers:     Yes 86%  |  No  14%
Did you vote in the 2008 presidential election? (122 responses)
Answers:     57% voted for Obama  |  1% for McCain  |  16% for another  |  26% didn’t vote.
Do you plan on voting in the 2012 presidential election? (118 responses)
Answers:     Yes, and I feel strongly 47%  |  Yes, but I don’t feel strongly 28%
No, but I don’t feel strongly 6%  |  No, and I feel strongly 20%
OPINIONS
What are the issues that have most motivated your involvement in OP? (590 responses or about 4 per person on average)
Answers:     Economic inequality 108  |  Economic influence on politics 96  |  Housing & Foreclosure 82  |  Systemic transformation/Revolution 82  |  Jobs 81  |  Foreign war and occupation 75  |  Political corruption 75  |  Environmental justice 73  |  Racial inequality 70  |  Education 69  |  Healthcare 69  |  Immigration 64  |  Food justice 60  |  Gender inequality 59  |  Constitutional rights 55 |  LGTBQ rights 51  |  War on drugs 42  |  Foreign trade agreements 38  |  Animal rights 25  |  Other 17
What change in the world do you want to see?
Most common response: A desire for equality among all people.
Common: true democracy, solidarity and community, environmental sustainability, responsible government, and the end of the domination of capitalism.
Somewhat less common: culture shifts and human consciousness shifts.
What change do you hope to see in your own life?
Most common: desire to trust and empower oneself, increased job stability, meaningfulness, increased compassion towards others, bettering one’s political awareness, and community.
What do you think the next steps for should be for OP? (665 responses or about 5 per respondent)
Top responses:
Focus on community outreach 83  |  Focus on coalition-building with other organizations 60  |  More actions/rallies 58  |  Occupy indoor locations 57  |  Focus on public education about relevant issues 56  |  Focus on political pressure 54  | Create alternatives to current systems (e.g., provide free childcare) 52  |  Hold the G.A. in public spaces (such as City Hall, for example) 50  |  Focus on local 1% (e.g., Brown U, Textron) 50

It’s Time to Tax Brown

By Lindsay Goss

Brown university’s administration is probably wishing it had taken Mayor Taveras’ back-room deal when it had the chance. While accepting the agreement would have cost Brown at least $4 million more per year in contributions to the city, it would have avoided provoking a very public debate about why that number isn’t much higher. Brown, an elite institution with a $2.5 billion endowment, is not currently legally obligated to pay any property taxes, even on its income-earning properties. And so, ever since the news broke in early January that Brown had rejected the city’s request, the question has shifted from “why won’t a benevolent in- stitution like Brown give more money to the city?” to “why aren’t we taking that money from them in the form of property taxes?”

According to a recent investigation by Stephen Beale for GoLocalProv.com, Brown enjoys a unique status, even relative to the eight other universities, colleges, and hospitals from which Mayor Taveras is also seeking increased payments. Because Brown’s 250-year-old charter declares, “the College estate … shall be freed and exempted from all taxes,” Brown skirts the exceptions that usually apply to property owned by non-profits. These exceptions include property larger than one acre, and property not used directly for educational purposes; for example, 121 Main Street, a section of which Brown rents out to Hemenway’s Restaurant. As a result, Brown “voluntarily” pays a mere $1.6 million in property taxes. If it didn’t enjoy any pre-1776 exemptions, it would owe at least $4.6 million under the current policy; if Brown were fully taxed on all its properties, the bill would be more than $38 million annually. Taveras just wants 25% of this last figure— a little less than $10 million a year. In an attempt at damage control, Marisa

Quinn, spokesperson for the Brown President’s Office, cites the fact that Brown does pay taxes on more recently acquired, income-producing properties. However, according to the agreement Brown reached with the city in 2003, those properties do, eventually, cease to be taxable. Brown will make “voluntary contributions . . . according to an agreed-upon schedule: five years at 100 percent of the property’s existing taxes at the time of purchase; five years at 66.67 percent and five years at 33.33 percent.” After fifteen years of ownership, all of Brown’s properties are ulti- mately removed from the city’s tax rolls, potentially permanently.

In fact, it seems the university doth protest a little too much. A letter— released on January 13, 2012, by the Brown president’s office— a) chastises the city for its “high employee and re- tiree costs”; b) points readers to Brown’s “current contributions” (which include employing people, hiring construction companies, and having students who do volunteer work); c) suggests the city follow Brown’s lead by laying off workers and freezing pay; d) offers to pay $2 million more a year for five years; e) says “we really don’t have as much property as people think”; f) points out that Providence gets money from other institutions and from the state; and g) argues that Brown contributes to Providence by providing stable employment (see “c” above).

But most companies employ people, contract with other local companies, have employees that do community service, and also, in fact, pay property taxes. The real PR problem for Brown lies less in dispelling myths about what it “actually” contrib- utes to the community than in convincing the average person that it is not a contradiction in terms for Brown, tax-exempt because it is a “nonprofit,” to have administrators (and Goldman Sachs board members) on its payroll that make hundreds of thousands of dollars, while providing a service so expensive that the vast majority of Providence residents can’t begin to afford it.

Brown is a corporation, and like any other corporate entity that has to compete for its market share, Brown shorts the city because exploiting tax loopholes makes good business sense. This is why it shouldn’t be up to Brown whether or not it pays for the city services it uses. Brown should be taxed, just like the rest of us.

So what do we do? We can support the city council members who are pursuing changes in legislation that would require property tax payments, and we can put pressure on Brown to make bigger “voluntary contributions” in the meantime. We need more pickets like the one on January 12, 2012, when over one hundred Providence residents, including city workers and students, picketed outside 121 Main Street.

In addition, we have to recognize that the students, faculty and staff of Brown Univer- sity are not automatically the bad guys. In fact, most staff and faculty members would benefit just as any other resident would, from Brown ponying up its share; and students have long been a radical force in society, helping to pressure institutions from the inside. Everyone who believes in economic justice should join this fight— and we should welcome them.

An early Occupy Brown meeting (http://occupyricampus.wordpress.com/)

Why We Should Support Public Transportation

By Barry Schiller

Buses have considerable environmental advantages over cars, cost less for people to use, and promote economic development by helping people get to work, school, and shopping. They also promote public health through encouraging moderate physical activity by walking or biking to bus stops. These points are well known. In a rational world, our leaders, in preparing Rhode Island for our future, would have already acted to preserve and expand Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) bus service. But there is also an even bigger reason to help RIPTA. Justifying public transit is part of the larger debate about the legitimacy of all government services.

Thirty years of tax cuts for the 1%, deregulation of banks and corporations, and cuts to public service have created a seriously unbalanced situation. The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the policies that perpetuate it are shameful, and contrary to what should be our shared values and treating others as we would wish to be treated. Meanwhile, the government is starved of the revenue needed to secure a basic standard of living for all our people, just as the ranks of those needing assistance have grown to epic proportions.

Thus we are at a delicate moment in our nation’s history when this lack of balance has created an atmosphere of uncertainty, fear, distrust, and anger. The dominant narrative has been that the government is broke, the people are broke, and we can no longer afford the social safety net. The dominant prescription has been to subsidize our failed financial industry and other mega-corporations while sacrifices are demanded of the people— the very policies that have brought us to this point. Fortunately, now the Occupy movement has arisen to challenge this dangerous narrative.

Contrary to myth, the US economy is bigger than ever, and its gross domestic product is over $14 trillion. The country is rich, but the money is largely in the hands of a small privileged group. Does it really make sense to coddle them and cut services for the rest of us? Since our economy is so driven by consumer spending, doesn’t it make sense to give help where it is needed?

This is an area where those who care about the 99% should not back down. RIPTA is a battleground where we must stop appeasing the bullies and start pushing back and arguing for public services. And winning this battle will give us momentum for the next cause, and there are many waiting.

Unless the US Congress and the RI General Assembly act soon to provide adequate and sustainable funding for public transit, RIPTA will face massive service cuts next summer when a $10 million deficit looms. RIPTA’s funding stream is largely based on a fixed-cents-per-gallon gas tax that has not only not kept up with inflation, it has actually declined in dollars as folks drive less or use more efficient vehicles. Indeed, over the last six years or so, the revenue per given cent of gas tax has declined from about $4.8 million/year to about $4.2 million, just as RIPTA’s diesel fuel costs have approximately doubled. If this is not addressed, RIPTA projects the next few years will see the loss of all holiday service, most evening and weekend services, and longer waits on many remaining lines. ADA “RIDE” van services for the disabled will no longer be available to complement the discontinued services.

We have until the end of the legislative session in June to stop this from happening and we must start now. A first step is to go to your nearest computer and type “save ripta petition” into your favorite search engine or visit http://www.change.org/petitions/save-ripta to sign the petition. To do more, get involved with the new RIPTA Riders group (for infor- mation, call the RI Sierra Club office, 521-4734) or contact your local state Senator or state Representative and let them know you care. We do have real support from riders, community groups, and even some politi- cal leaders. Together we can save RIPTA!

Barry Schiller is a former RIPTA Board member and a member of RIPTA Riders.

Community Day Center Opens

Occupy Providence Members tour Emmanuel House

Occupy Providence Members tour Emmanuel House

The following speech was delivered to the people of Providence and the media on the steps of City Hall on January 24, 2012, by the Occupy Providence movement after successfully negotiating a community day center for the winter months.

We the people of Occupy Providence have successfully occupied Burnside Park since the 15th of October, 2011. After maintaining a 24-hour-a-day protest, 7 days a week, for more than 100 days, we proclaim that the park is truly the people’s park. Today we celebrate another vic- tory: Occupy Providence has reached an agreement with the City of Providence to open and fund a day center at Emmanuel House for Rhode Islanders who are currently without housing for the duration of winter, in exchange for Occupy Providence agreeing to temporarily suspend the overnight tent occupation in Burnside Park. Occupy Providence is energized and committed to continue organizing, defending the right to protest, and bringing awareness to economic injustices in our country. We are looking to 2012 as a year of great change for the working class, and we intend to be pivotal to that change.

Our decision to accept the City’s counter-proposal for opening the day center does not reflect upon the entirety of our goals in protest- ing a system where the top 1% controls 46% of the wealth, and the richest 10% controls more than 90% of the wealth. Homelessness is a profoundly important issue that our city, our society, and our country need to address. For too long, homelessness and poverty have been treated like a personal deficiency rather than a failure of our economic system. In today’s economic climate, with many foreclosed upon who never thought they’d find themselves in the streets, we need to get honest about the true face of homelessness and poverty in America. It is all of us. It is the 99%. The day center is a first step in recognizing the needs of marginalized Rhode Islanders who find themselves homeless.

The City, the diocese and advocates all coming together on this agreement is an encouraging new beginning.

However, this is only the beginning. We will continue to go after this culture of corporate greed, “too big to fail” banks, government bailouts, and economic inequality, which is especially egregious in regards to race, sex, gender, age, and class. We will take every opportunity to stand against human-made climate change, and the systematic destruction of our global ecosystems by the exponentially expanding industrial and military pollution now threatening our world. We find these issues to be self-evidently interconnected, and we are proud to announce the victory of opening a day center for persons who would otherwise be up against the elements, day in and day out, during the harsh New England winter.

We hope this move can inspire the people of Rhode Island to realize that the voice of protest is a powerful one and that together we can achieve the changes we wish to see in our society. This day center is just one tangible piece of proof that a group of concerned citizens can and will change the world. Occupy Providence will continue to stand in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement and the hundreds of other ongoing occupations around the country and the world. We send our deepest thanks to those who’ve supported us along the way, and we invite you to join us in continuing the struggle in 2012. We are the 99%. Another world is possible.

Living in the Story of the Wizard of Oz

By Lisa Roseman Beade. Adapted from a speech given at Occupy Providence, November 2011

The American Dream for workers lasted only thirty years, from the 1940’s to the 1970’s. That was a time when America made things. Unions were strong, workers were valued, and livable wages prevailed. Like the rest of us, corporations and the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes to support a strong nation. Paying taxes was patriotic. Owning a home and not struggling to raise a family was considered wealth. At least some of us lived in Kansas, and it was called the middle class. American workers moved into it proudly.

The wizards of deregulation began achieving the upper hand in the 1960’s. In 1980, the tornado picked up force with Reagan’s election, and dropped us into Oz. Real wages, which had been rising steadily, began to decline even as profits soared. Given free rein, the wizards of banking took the soaring profits we had produced and began lending it back to us as credit. The wizards of commerce lured us to borrow with the glitter of cheap goods and cheap food, bought with unlimited credit from our declining wages, thereby making themselves more profits. They teased us with the promise of easy payments and vast wealth.

By the late 1980’s, as manufacturing’s decline led to shrinking investment opportunities, real estate became the new get-rich scheme. Soaring housing prices and mortgages without equity fueled inflated expectations of return. Anyone could buy, especially when mortgage brokers being offered enormous kickbacks began falsifying lenders’ information. By 2007, a great majority of mortgages were what the banking industry itself called “liar loans.” When, finally,

the bankers’ greed burst its seams and the debts were called in, they were caught like deer in the headlights. But the crooks were the ones that got bailed out!

We continue to be robbed blind; there are no bailouts for those of us who trusted the process and played by the rules. With the vacuum power of tornadoes, these wizards are sucking out every single drop of capital we contribute to sustain our society and keep it working. And they are sucking up not only our economic, but our civic capital, as well. Not only do we now have the economic profile of a third world nation, but, by creating an atmosphere of terror, these criminals have either bought or coerced our politicians and judiciary into sabotaging our government and suspending our Constitution.

David Intrator, a New York business consultant, recently pointed out that global corporations have no allegiance to nation states, but “only have allegiance to their shareholders and so there is a built-in contradiction to [any allegiance to the United States of America].” They are not only un-American but anti-Capitalist. To see it that way would explain the worldwide nature of the problem as an interna- tional putsch. This is Corporatism, led by global corporations and fi- nancial institutions with no national allegiance. They have used their tornado-force power to mesmerize us, crushing our hopes and dreams and leaving a path of devastation among working people worldwide. In this country just 400 families control 43% of the GNP.

Yet, I’m ecstatic, because brave people of the Occupy movement are hunkering down in public places to protest the theft of our dream and our democracy. We, the people: Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion, have found our collective heart, brain, nerve and courage. We‘ve come out of the poppy fields and have drawn back the curtain. We know who you are, Wall Street! Despite the brutality of your mercenary police departments, in New York, Chicago, and Oakland, we’re going to remain peaceful and we’re not going away. We have finally awakened to our own power and discovered that we are the wealth of this nation and our shift has hit your plan!

So now, I’m calling on you, the 99%, to unite against our oppressors: stop scapegoating your fellow workers; strengthen the unions; don’t castigate those with benefits, demand those benefits for all; support teachers and government workers; and boycott corporate goods and services! Circulate money into your communities (for every $1 spent locally, 45 cents stays in the community). Small banks and credit unions lend to small businesses, so use them. Ask local businesses to carry local food and goods. Remember: cheap goods are produced by cheap labor, so buy less and buy local!

Our resources may be few, but we are the 99%: United, our pennies are riches. I never thought I would call myself conservative, but here’s my dream: I want to go back to Kansas, to a time when I know who produces my food and my goods. I want to treat them respectfully and pay them the living wage and benefits that I would want for myself. I am proud to be a part of the Occupy movement. Please join us!

Lisa Roseman Beade is the author of The Wealth of Nations: A People’s History of RI, a project commissioned by the RI Historical Society, which tells the story of immigration to RI and the struggle & rise of the middle class.

RI Company, Textron, Makes Cluster Bombs

By Layne Frechette

Photo by Chris Mongeau (chrismongeauphoto.com)

The following is a copy of a speech that I gave on November 19, 2011, on the steps of Textron’s headquarters in downtown Providence in protest of Textron’s manufacturing and distribution of certain weapons and of its practice of outsourcing. We are here today to protest the actions of the Textron Corporation. Originally, Textron was a yarn-making company; now, however, it is in the business of making deadly and inhumane weapons that are sold to both the U.S. military and to oppressive governments around the world. Textron is a maker of cluster bombs, weapons which kill innocent civilians; in particular, children who pick them up accidentally long after the fighting ends. Cluster bombs are banned in many other countries: in fact, Textron is under sanction by countries including Bel- gium, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, and Norway for its dealings in cluster bombs. Textron claims that its new “sensor-fuzed weapon,” which is designed to do wide-area damage, is not a cluster bomb; however, the U.S. military refers to it as CBU 97 or CBU 105– CBU stands for cluster bomb unit. In the past, Textron has sold its attack helicopters to oppressive regimes, such as Turkey in its war against the Kurdish minority and to Central American dictatorships in the 1970s. Textron’s only justification for these actions was profit. Moreover, again in the name of profit, Textron has shipped many of its American jobs overseas to countries like China. Despite all this, Textron has been allowed to back its own charter school in town, the Textron/Chamber of Commerce High School, which is named in Textron’s honor. How is such a tyrannical war-profiteer being honored by our community? We want jobs, not war!

Photo by Chloe C

Dangers on the Road to Foreclosure

By Joan d’Arc

Rhode Island has the highest home foreclosure rate in New England. If your home has been foreclosed, or you are considering “walking away,” for instance, to rent or move in with family, there are some legal facts of which you should be aware. Perhaps, even, you’re in the middle of one of those long, drawn out “short sales” or you’re thinking of joining the new wave of voluntary or “strategic defaulters” who have decided to stop investing in your underwater home.

But how fast can you run from “deficiency judgments” and “banking recourse” laws? In Rhode Island, maybe not fast enough.

Homeowner beware: approximately forty states have laws on the books that are blatantly bank-friendly. Rhode Island is a “recourse state,” meaning the bank has recourse to file a lawsuit in court to grab your personal assets, such as other properties, land, or bank accounts, and may even garnish wages. These asset grabs and wage garnishments by banks may have not yet begun, but there is reason to believe they will begin as soon as the banks catch up with the foreclosure free-fall.

The business of banking in many common-law countries is not defined by statute, but by common law. World Law Direct explains: “Several states continue to adhere to the common-law rule that when a foreclosure sale does not yield at least the amount of the mortgage obligation, the mortgagee is entitled to a deficiency judgment measured by the difference between the foreclosure price and the mortgage obligation.” Common law allows lenders to sue borrowers directly, as well as file mul- tiple actions on the same mortgage default.

In the DEPCO v. Macomber case, which occurred during the infamous Savings and Loan scandal in the early 1990s, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reiterated that the homeowner must pay a deficiency judgment to the bank based on the amount owed on the mortgage minus the “sale” price of the home. In the approximately eleven non-recourse states, the bank can only take the property, and cannot sue in court for any deficiency claimed to be owed to the bank. The states that can be classified as non-recourse for residential mortgages are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington (and recently joining the list, Nevada). Thus, one task ahead of Occupy Providence is to explore how Rhode Island can go about becoming a non-recourse, anti-deficiency state.

If you go with the short sale, current home sales in Rhode Island are taking way over a year if they sell at all; usually way past the period of time the homeowner can survive financially. During this time, the bank will expect payments on time, and will likely reject any reasonable short sale offer. Why? Because banks are holding the cards and have lots of options; among them, selling the mort- gage to a possibly related entity, or suing the home-owner for deficiency judgment in the state courts.

And there is yet another beast set upon the weary homeowner following foreclosure. Regardless of whether the mortgage is recourse or non-recourse, the deficiency judgment is taxable by the IRS. You will receive a 1099 from the bank on which will be reported your “income” from the sale of the house. That’s right. The IRS considers the bank’s write-off on their books as income on your books. Nothing else quite makes as clear the notion that money is not real.

For the moment, a Congressional bill put forth in 2007 put a stop to this phantom tax until 2010, and then extended it to December 31, 2012. It is currently unknown whether this date will be extended. Other options might be Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Chapter 13 reorganization, or the simple fact of insolvency: that is, if you don’t own any property, bank accounts, trusts, etc., there’s nothing to take from you.

There is no real incentive for banks to spend the billions of dollars they got to help people. The money goes around but does not stop in your hands. We ask anyone interested or knowledgeable in these subjects to please join us in this fight. After all, you are the 99 percent!

Burnside: Our Statue But Not Our Hero

By Patricia Raub. /// Historical Photos courtesy of Rhode Island Collection at Providence Public Library.

Photo by Chloe C

In 1887, Providence dedicated an equestrian bronze statue in the city’s center to Ambrose E. Burnside, who had died a few years earlier. The monument was the work of Launt Thompson, a well-known New York sculptor. It depicted Burnside with his signature side-whiskers, in military uniform and holding binoculars, presumably to monitor a battle unfolding below. The statue was mounted upon a twenty-eight-foot-high granite base.

The statue and base cost $40,000. About $16,000 of the cost was borne by the City and State. The rest was raised by private subscription, with donations ranging from twenty-five cents to $1,000. Rhode Island veterans of war— many of whom had served under Burnside— marched in the ceremonial procession to the dedication site where several dignitaries gave speeches. While we have only the words of the One-Percent from this event, one assumes

that the 99% were proud of their native son, too. They helped raise the funds to build the monument, and they “voted with their feet” by participating in the dedication ceremony.

The monument stood for nearly twenty years in Exchange Place, facing City Hall, with horses, wagons, and carriages moving in all directions around it.

When the new railroad station and federal building were built at the turn of the century and the open area was transformed into a park, the statue was moved further north and set upon a reconfigured base designed by local architect William R. Walker.

Over the years, not everyone treated the monument with the respect that some felt it deserved. During the annual Arts Festival in 1969, the statue was “dabbed and splashed and brushed with almost all the colors there are,” giving it a “psychedelic” look. Many complained that the painting spree was a “desecration and an insult to General Burnside’s memory.” While the horse and rider were embellished with water-based paint, the base was decorated with enamel paint that required sand-blasting to remove. The Superintendent of Parks, however, seemed unfazed, commenting that “much worse things have been cleaned up. I don’t think there will be any problem, and I’ll follow through on it.”

Over forty years later Occupy Providence has again focused attention on the Burnside Statue, holding its General Assemblies at its base, covering the monument with signs and banners, tying a mask over the statue’s face, and affixing a flag to the horse’s tail. Most of the signs and banners have since been removed so that masking tape will not damage the surface of the structure. Nevertheless, the statue has become the visual symbol of Occupy Providence, with tents clustered around it in all directions.

Whose statue is this? It is clearly our statue! When it comes to Burnside himself, however, most Occupiers know little about him besides the fact that he initiated sideburns and he was a Civil War general, apparently not a very good one. So. . .who was Burnside?

Burnside was, variously, the founder of a rifle works company, an officer for the Illinois Central Railroad, president of the Providence Locomotive Works, a three-term governor of Rhode Island, and, at the end of his life, a U.S. Senator. However, Burnside was primarily a career soldier who worked his way up to the rank of Major General during the Civil War.

It is for his actions during that war that Gen- eral Burnside is remembered. At the time of the monument’s dedication in 1887, Burnside was a hero to Rhode Islanders. Yet, few outside the state regarded him favorably. Lincoln’s lukewarm assess- ment of Burnside was that he was a “most meritorious and honorable officer”— whom the President had relieved of his command of the Army of the Potomac after his disastrous defeat at Fredericksburg.

More recently, Civil War historians have consistently ranked Burnside among the ten worst generals of the war, labeling him “a military dunderhead” with a “disturbing record of failure.” Burnside is scarcely a hero.

As a professional soldier before the war, he was responsible for the murder of Apache in New Mexico. During the war, he led his men unprepared into battle, and through his strategic incompetence contributed to the deaths of more than 900 soldiers at Fredericksburg. Later, he denied the right to free speech to anti-war advocate Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham, by arresting him. Later, he tried to close down an anti-administration newspaper in Chicago.

In civilian life, Burnside was an industrialist and likely to have been no friend of labor. As a Governor and then U.S. Senator, Burnside was part of a select group of prominent native-born white men who looked out for their own interests rather than the interests of the average Rhode Islanders, a growing number of whom were working-class immigrants.

Whose hero is Burnside? Not our hero. For that matter, not anyone’s hero.

_______________________

Sources

“The Burnside Statue.” New York Times. (June 26, 1887: 9).

“A Clean Base for Burnside.” Providence Journal-Bulletin (June 19, 1969: 25)

Knight Edwards. “Burnside: A Rhode Island Hero.” Rhode Island History (January 1957).

Robert Freeman and Vivienne Lasky. Hidden Treasure: Public Sculpture in Providence
(Providence, 1980).

“General Burnside’s Death.” New York Times (September 16, 1881: 1).

William Marvel. Burnside (Chapel Hill, 1991).

John Nanlon. “Burnside a Hit—Generally Speaking.” Providence Evening Bulletin (June 2, 1969: 2)

Horatio Rogers. Dedication of the Equestrian Statue of Major-General Ambrose E.
Burnside: In the City of Providence, July 4, 1887, with the Oration of General Horatio
Rogers; Together with Some Account of General Burnside’s Funeral, and of the
Movement Resulting in the Erection of the Statue (Providence, 1887).

Craig L. Symonds. “Who Were the Worst Ten Generals?” North & South: The Magazine of Civil War Conflict (May 2004).

How Documentaries Can “Occupy” Our Minds

By Robert Goff

As a follower of the Academy Awards ceremony each year, I’ve noticed that Hollywood bestows more acclaim on documentaries about marching penguins or distant events in history than on those on contemporary political issues. However, some political documentaries have actually won awards in recent years, and the Academy has reluctantly given their makers a televised platform to amplify their message. For instance, Michael Moore delivered— before interruption—a memorable speech condemning George W. Bush when Bowling for Columbine won in 2002. In 2007, Al Gore spoke out about global warming after his Inconvenient Truth (directed by Davis Guggeheim) won an Oscar.

At the 2011 ceremony, Charles Ferguson, the director of Inside Job, bravely took the opportunity to reach a global audience when he accepted the award for Best Documentary with these words: “Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong!” I like to think that Ferguson’s message was heard by a billion people around the world and fueled some of the present anger at the One Percent.

On Inside Job’s 2010 release in Providence, I was reminded of the power of documentaries when an audience at a Sunday matinee at the Avon Cinema burst into spontaneous applause at the end. The film is about the origins of our current financial crisis, a subject we all need to understand but one I never dreamed had any entertainment appeal. Yet Inside Job clearly succeeded in providing not only enlightenment, but also inspiration for a large Providence audience. Our engagement with the subject of economic meltdown was not due to the narration by a Hollywood star, Matt Damon, nor the better-than-average cinematography but, I think, more about our collective realization that deceitful human agency was behind the mind-boggling financial losses on a global scale. There was also the satisfaction that came from following the film’s lucid explanations of previously bewildering economic complexity.

By the end of the film, the concept of the global economy was no longer only an abstraction and I actually had some inkling about the meaning of the term “derivatives.” Moreover, I could now associate the concept of “unimaginable greed” with a few more faces than Bernie Madoff’s. With the help of the film’s excellent website (http://www. sonyclassics.com/insidejob/) and its countless links to supporting documentation on the crisis, I became surprisingly confident that I could argue with right-wing colleagues in the economics department of my own college.

The film Inside Job continues to instruct and incite as it circulates around Occupy camps across the nation and— most probably— the world. Here in Providence, the cameras of members of the Occupy movement such as Paul Hubbard, Phil LeStein and Robert Malin have documented the evolution of the encampment at Burnside Park, recorded our frequent political actions, and live-streamed video to audiences outside of Rhode Island. Maybe the revolution will not be televised, but documentary films made here in Providence, and elsewhere, can help to inspire it.

Ever since Michael Moore’s 1989 film Roger and Me examined the consequences of deindustrialization and dared to question the decisions of then-CEO of GM, Roger Smith, American audiences have shown an eager appreciation of documentaries informing them about economic forces shaping their lives. In hindsight, the cinematic image of Moore’s blue-collar “everyman” in a baseball cap railing against corporate decision-making and showing sympathy for the unemployed sowed the seeds for the Occupy movement to flourish some twenty years later. It is no accident that Moore was an early supporter of Occupy Wall Street and helped to finance The Occupied Wall Street Journal, which was the inspiration for this publication.

Over two decades, Moore’s films have occupied the minds of ever-larger audiences with their entertaining lessons on the workings of capitalism, observations on the lunacies of a right-wing culture and open defiance of the militaristic tone of American foreign policy. The native of Flint, Michigan, has also made us laugh in dark times. The massive box-office success of Fahrenheit 9/11 demonstrated that Americans wanted an alternative voice to Bush-era presidential news confer- ences or the views of conservative pundits appearing on corporately owned news media.

I can still remember the undercurrent of audience anticipation for a first showing of Fahrenheit 9/11 at the Providence Place Mall in 2004. It was clear then that politically engaged documentary films, especially on a large screen in a movie theater, could be as exciting as fictional films and also lot more informative than following the mainstream news from day to day. Good documentaries reveal the big picture of what is going on in the world and, sometimes, help to connect us to each other— just like the Occupy movement.

Robert Goff teaches in the School of Continuing Education at Providence College.

DEATH OF DEMOCRACY

By David Slavin

Photo by Chloe C

As I sit here writing, we the people have lost one more freedom. Occupy Oakland has been shut down by authorities citing public safety issues, and a New York court has judged that public safety supersedes the first amendment rights of the protesters. How have we gotten to this point; the point where a right, so fundamental as to be mentioned first in the Bill of Rights, is set aside to satisfy some ephemeral concept such as public safety? Maybe I missed that day in civics class, but where is this public safety restriction mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and what other rights are subject to this restriction? Perhaps trial by jury or due process? How about freedom of religion, or maybe we should suspend the right to vote, because people might elect the wrong guy?

Sadly, this is not the first time in recent history that pub- lic safety has been a reason for abridging the enumerated rights of the people. Every day, people are unreasonably and intrusively searched at airports around the country. Police offi- cers use this excuse to justify so- briety and seatbelt roadblocks. Crumbling cities around the country, like Detroit or Youngstown, contemplate forc- ing people from their homes in the name of public safety. As I sit here today writing, my soul cries. It cries for the death of this fundamental right. It cries for the inevitable loss of the others. It cries because I know the eventual endgame. That all of our rights will be subject to the whim of capricious bureaucrats, who will throw around terms like public safety, national security, and terrorism to consolidate their power. And so begins the death of our democracy. A death by inches.

Corporations Versus the Free Market

By Chris Gagnon

We’re all familiar with the tired argument against progressive and liberal policies; they’re labeled “socialist” and “anti-capitalist” by the conservative right. Even the Occupy movement, while not aligned exclusively to the left or right, has been accused of being a radical, anti- capitalist movement. So, if the biggest problem conservatives have with liberals is that they are anti-capitalist, then conservative thought must be a haven for Capitalism in its truest sense, right?

It appears that way on the surface, but once you get past all the phony laissez faire rhetoric, a different reality becomes evident. The conserva- tive economist would tell you that corporations like Wal-Mart, Bank of America, and Exxon Mobil are the epitome of Capitalism. And whether they believe what they say or not, they’re wrong.

When Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, he made sure to make an example of the 18th-century equivalent of Wal-Mart: the East India Company. Smith was skeptical of a company like the East India Company that could, and did, bend state policy to benefit the few at the expense of the many. In his writing, Smith called for corporate reform that would prevent what he called “irresponsible, reprehensible, and im- moral behavior” on the part of the corporation; behavior such as to- day’s Wal-Mart forcing their suppliers to outsource jobs in order to keep up with its demand for perpetually lowering prices, or General Electric paying absolutely nothing in federal taxes on the billions of dollars they made in profits.

Adam Smith wrote of corporations, “Directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than of their own, it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners of a private co- partnery watch over their own . . . negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail.” (Smith, Wealth of Nations). The economic free-fall in 2008 is a perfect example of what Smith meant by that sentence. Massive deregulation of financial institutions led to the creation of corporations being “too big to fail,” and, thus, the economic bailouts so widely hated by Americans. The argument is that the bailouts were necessary to pre- vent the so-called “Great Recession” from becoming any worse. That may be valid; however, the real point is that under true Capitalism a few companies wouldn’t have been allowed to come to dominate the market and make the bailouts necessary when and if they failed.

The term “too big to fail” is one of the most horrific affronts to Capi- talism in recent years. This concept admits that certain corporations have achieved a sustainable competitive advantage and that it’s okay! Not only are we acknowledging that these businesses have transcended perfect competition, but we are also making it clear that this type of thing should be allowed in order to preserve our capitalist system. That’s the economic equivalent of trying to clean a dirty window with a used tissue.

Another development Adam Smith would have been horrified to see is the concept of corporate personhood. This idea has been around since the 19th century, when the first few court cases in America concluded

that the words “people” and “person” in various amendments to the Constitution ought to apply to corporations as well as people. This argument has been used in court to make it more difficult for state, local, or federal governments to protect the public from corpora- tions. Allowing corporations to be considered people has brought us to a modern era where an executive of Monsanto can step down from their position at Monsanto and walk right into a position in the Food & Drug Administration or the US Department of Agriculture, the very government agencies that are meant to regulate them. And as if that isn’t bad enough, he or she will probably still be on Mon- santo’s payroll, albeit a less official one.

Significant parts of Smith’s legacy are overlooked or forgotten if it is believed that they no longer apply to our modern world, when, in reality, they apply now more than ever. Oftentimes, his biggest ac- complishment is said to be the defining of things like the “invisible hand” of the free market or the creation of the belief that greed is good. But it is important to remember that while many consider Smith to be one of history’s first economists, he was, in fact, not an economist, but a philosopher. And as a philosopher, he always put the good of society over the good of the individual.