Reality-based tax breaks

By now you’ve heard the bitter, widespread debate over whether giving the wealthiest Americans fat tax breaks will ever create jobs.

But everybody agrees on one thing – we shouldn’t just give rich people tax breaks so they can have even more money to do whatever they like with.

Don’t we?

That’s why I was intrigued by this proposal that would tie tax breaks to the actual creation of jobs.

The proposal was floated by Benjamin Barber, a Democratic theorist writing on Huffington Post.

Barber suggests a system of vouchers to make sure they’re creating jobs with their tax breaks.

“Conservatives should certainly welcome the principle of vouchers, which they have been proffering for a long time to the poor for education, groceries and housing – and now, courtesy of Mr. [Paul] Ryan, for Medicare too,” Barber writes, referring to the Republican vice-presidential candidate’s proposal to have the government give future Medicare recipients cash to buy insurance instead of health care. “The premise has been that a voucher prevents "irresponsible behavior" by those being helped, like buying drugs instead of groceries or a golf caddy instead of private schooling for the kids. It's a way to prevent the poor from getting all that "free stuff" Mitt Romney thinks they are always conniving to acquire.

Basically, it’s so simple I’d be surprised if someone hasn’t suggested it before: If you create real jobs, you get a tax break. No job creation, no tax breaks.

While Barber appears to suggest granting the tax cuts first and taking them away if the tax break doesn’t lead to jobs, I’d flip it: base the tax cut on hard proof that the jobs have been created.

Proponents of this latest version of the trickle-down theory should have no problem with the wealthy actually having to prove they’re creating real jobs to earn their tax breaks.

Because nobody wants to give away money for nothing, right?

I think the proposal could be refined to link the quality and number of jobs to the size of the tax cut.

For example, buy a yacht: no tax cut. Enjoy your yacht.

But prove you created a significant number of high-wage jobs with health care benefits and pensions, get a bigger tax cut.

Extending the logic of Barber’s idea, if you outsource jobs, shouldn’t your taxes increase?

Barber has hit on an issue that extends beyond just tax cuts – government officials have been extending all kinds of subsidies to business owners for creating jobs without ever requiring proof that the business owners actually create the jobs, or requiring that the subsidies be returned if the jobs are destroyed.

The very notion that we’ve allowed these huge tax cuts for the wealthy without demanding proof that they lead to real, not just theoretical, job creation, suggests how far we’ve moved away from the sensible fact and data-based world into a realm based on wish fulfillment for the wealthy who dominate our politics. The notion that proponents of the tax cuts want to pay for their extension by eliminating tax breaks that help the middle class, like the home mortgage tax break, also suggest how far our political debate has gone astray. Barber’s proposal suggests a way to get it back from fantasyland.

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / Paul Ryan / Tax breaks - 08/27/2012

Tell Mitt: Don't run campaign on drug money

Imagine if U.S. politicians took financial contributions skimmed from the ill-gotten gains of bloody Mexican drug cartels and terrorists.

Imagine further that those who profited off the drug gangs used their murder-tinged cash to lobby the U.S. Congress.

You don’t have to strain yourself, this is not some sordid fantasy concocted by Hollywood to horrify and entertain you. This is the reality created by Wall Street’s finest and our leading politicians.

The latest sorry chapter in Wall Street’s waltz with the drug-dealers is laid out in a report by the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations. Officials of the British too big to fail bank HSBC acknowledged that despite repeated warnings, they failed to stop drug and terror-tainted deposits from moving through the bank.

According to the report, HSBC, one of the world’s largest banks with a strong U.S. presence, “exposed the U.S. financial system to a wide array of money laundering, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing risks due to poor anti-money laundering controls.”

In 2007 and 2008, the Senate committee found, HSBC moved $7 billion in bulk cash from Mexican to its U.S. operations, even though authorities warned that the money was proceeds from drug sales.

HSBC was doing a thriving business with well-known cash exchange businesses used by the drug cartels known as casas de cambio, despite repeat warnings that they were fronts. Years after other banks had cut them off, HSBC continued to do business with the casas de cambio.

Mexican drug cartels weren’t the only ones taking advantage of HSBC’s lax controls. Middle East bankers with links to Al Queda also found HSBC a hospitable environment in which to conduct business.

You might think that the authorities would have roast HSBC officials on a spit.

Far from it: in 2008, regulators rewarded HSBC with $3.5 billion from taxpayers in a backdoor bailout, in payments funneled to the bank’s U.S. subsidiary through AIG.

Now HSBC’s bankers have been humiliated at a public hearing and the company’s shareholders may be forced to pay as much as $1 billion in fines.

Still, from the bankers’ perspectives, you would have to say money laundering and bailouts have been very, very good to them. Even after they pay the fine, they’d have more than enough to pay for the $125,000 they’ve given to congressional candidates so far this election cycle, and the $5,700 they’ve doled out to Mitt Romney. The left-over laundered money will also help defray the costs of the $900,000 worth of lobbying the bank has done this year.

I’m confident now that the full extent of HSBC’s misdeeds has become known, Romney and the other politicians will want to have nothing to do with this dirty money and will be clamoring to give it to charity.

But just in case it slips their minds in the rush of doing the people’s business, we should help them out. Mitt can provide a good example by being the first to get rid of the drug and terror money.

 

 

 

Campaign contributions / Martin Column / Mitt Romney / Too Big To Fail - 07/24/2012

With friends like these...

Who would squawk about giving California homeowners a little more protection against bankers, who have paid billions to settle charges of outright fraud in the foreclosure process?

Well, bankers of course.

You expect bankers to fight back when state officials take steps to rein in their illegal and improper practices.

That’s not a surprise.

Even though we bailed out the banks to help them survive, we have grown accustomed to their absolute devotion to their own interests at the expense of everybody else.

But why would an Obama administration federal regulator step in to interfere in a state’s business – on the banks’ behalf?

That’s what’s happened in California, where a proposal for a “homeowners’ bill of rights” by the state’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, has faced tough opposition from the bankers.

You would think that the Obama administration, if it were going to take a side, would want to be on the side of the state’s homeowners, not to mention Harris, who has been a co-chair of the president’s campaign and one of his strongest allies.

After all, President Obama, in his populist campaign mode, has paid strong lip service to homeowners and holding banks accountable. But that’s not what happened.

Instead, the general counsel of the Federal Home Financing Administration, Alfred Pollard, weighed in with a condescending letter to Democratic legislators fighting for the homeowners measure, warning that the legislation would “restrict mortgage credit and hamper necessary home seizures.”

Harris’s proposal sounds dramatic enough, a collection of six bills calling itself a “bill of rights.” But it’s actually a modest set of common-sense protections: for example, establishing civil penalties if banks continue their illegal practice of robo-signing in the foreclosure process, giving homeowners the right to challenge a foreclosure in court if banks don’t follow proper procedure, and prohibiting so-called “double-tracking,” in which banks foreclose while they’re negotiating a loan modification with the homeowner.

Banks have already promised to stop having their employees forge other people’s signatures on documents or verify that documents are accurate when in fact they haven’t even read them. The banks got off with barely a wrist slap for robo-signing and other foreclosure fraud in the recent “settlement” with state attorneys general and the feds. The settlement only costs the big banks $5 billion out of pocket while they negotiated another $20 billion in credits for taking a variety of remedial actions, some of which the banks were doing anyway – even without getting credit.

You might think that Pollard and his FHFA colleagues, who are responsible for overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, might be more circumspect in lecturing others about screwing up the housing market.

During the housing bubble, Fannie and Freddie, which were originally set up by the government to support the housing market but went private in 1968, adopted all the bad behavior of the big banks, cooking its books, taking too much risk, throwing around their political muscle through lobbying and political contributions to stave off questions about their business shenanigans.

Then the government placed them in conservatorship, under the supervision of FHFA. Since the financial collapse, the agencies have not exactly put much muscle into helping homeowners facing foreclosure. The head of FHFA, a Bush Administration holdover named Ed DeMarco, has been particularly insistent that helping homeowners avoid foreclosure through principal reduction would be bad for taxpayers. But it turns out that in 2010, according to internal documents, Fannie Mae was about to launch a principal reduction program that its research showed said would save not only homes, as well as taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, before it was abruptly cancelled.

The principal reduction program was based on a model of “shared equity,” in which if the value of the home later rose, a homeowner would share any gains with the bank.

While the recent foreclosure fraud settlement with the big banks commits them to do some principal reduction, that agreement specifically excludes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

A couple of Democratic congressman, Elijah Cummings of Maryland and John Tierney of Massachusetts, have written to DeMarco demanding an explanation.

“Based on the documents we have obtained, it appears that the shared equity principal reduction pilot program should have been implemented years ago, and the failure to do so may have resulted in unnecessary losses to U.S. taxpayers,” Cummings and Tierney wrote. “This was not merely a missed opportunity, but a conscious choice that appears to have been based on ideology rather than Fannie Mae's own data and analyses.”

Even for an administration that has been kowtowing to the banks from day one, FHFA’s failures, and its lame venture into California’s legislative process, represent a new low.

For a start, California legislators should ignore Pollard and his FHFA’s cronies lame advice. Even better, the president should pitch him and FHFA’s entire leadership out of the administration and replace them with people who know how to support the housing market, not just bankers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreclosures / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 05/24/2012

Different strokes for different protestors

Operating on very different pieces of turf, the Occupy movement and the budding shareholder revolt are putting the status quo on notice: no more business as usual.

With May Day marches across the country earlier this month, the occupiers signaled they’re not going away. They intend to keep taking public space, protesting and reminding the country what our democracy has lost in a takeover by corporate powers.

Meanwhile, corporate shareholders appeared to be slumbering in the wake of the financial crisis, lulled by soothing predictions about economic recovery and buoyed by a stock market recovery.

But taking advantage of an advisory vote granted them in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, shareholders have recently taken highly publicized swipes at excessive compensation plans for CEOs at Citibank and British Petroleum and several smaller banks.

At Citibank, 55 percent of shareholders rejected the notion that a company whose shares dropped 45 percent over the past year, wiping out $60 billion in shareholder equity, owed its CEO a $15 million salary hike. Citibank’s board said it would carefully consider the shareholders’ concerns.

CEO compensation plans narrowly won approval at General Electric, where the value of the stock has fallen 45 percent over the past 5 years, as well as at insurance giant Cigna, but not without noisy protests. At Credit Suisse and Barclays, a sizeable minority of shareholder voted against their executives’ compensation packages.

And excessive compensation is not the only thing shareholders are upset about. Some Cigna shareholders also expressed their opposition to the $1.8 million Cigna spent lobbying against health care reform in 2009.

At Wellpoint and Aetna insurance companies, shareholders want company officials to improve disclosure of their political spending, after the Center for Political Accountability found that both companies’ disclosure policies "leave significant room for serious misrepresentation of the company's political spending through trade associations."

Four of Wellpoint’s directors who are standing for reelection also face unusual no vote campaigns because the company has failed to live up to earlier commitments to improve disclosures of their political spending.

To be sure, these actions represent only a small number of corporations so far; most shareholders are approving without a fight the executive pay plans proposed by the board of directors’ compensation committees.

But like the occupiers protesting in the public square, the shareholders at these major corporations have driven a very large, sharp stake into their turf, and these first, highly publicized steps toward more accountability and transparency are likely to inspire more like them.

Occupiers, with their horizontal leaderless anarchist principles and drum circles, and shareholders, with their focus on the bottom line, might not seem to share much other than a desire for more accountability and a sense that the system as it is, isn’t working. But both groups are equally shut out of this political season, with neither party doing anything but paying the slightest lip service to their issues.

The occupiers and the shareholders are also carrying an important message for the rest of us: democracy isn’t just a matter of walking in to the ballot box and pulling the lever for our team every four years and waiting for the politicians to fix our problems.

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Occupy / Outrage - 05/09/2012

How Mitt Could Win

Why doesn’t Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney’s free-market gospel include a ringing call to break up the too big to fail banks?

Over at the conservative American Enterprise Institute blog, James Pethokoukis suggests Romney could benefit if he did just that.

After all, this is no longer a position favored only by Occupy Wall Street.

All kinds of establishment figures now acknowledge that breaking up the big banks is needed to heal our financial system, and that as long as we don’t, taxpayers could be on the hook for another bailout.

The most recent public official to reach this conclusion is none other than Richard Fisher, the president of the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve, who last week issued a report in which he concluded: “The too big to fail institutions that amplified and prolonged the recent financial crisis remain a hindrance to full economic recovery and to the very ideal of American capitalism.”

This should be catnip for Romney, who professes to be all about ending government interference in the free market.

What the Dallas Fed’s report makes clear is that the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation and the policies of the Obama administration haven’t lessened the power of the too big to fail banks, or made them healthier – it’s helped them gain market share while doing little to force them to reduce the same risky business practices that led to the 2008 financial collapse.

While Dodd-Frank theoretically sets up a process to deal with too big to fail institutions when they get in trouble, our politicians and regulators by their actions have signaled to the big banks that they don’t have the guts to break them up or get them to change how they do business.

For a politician in Romney’s position, staking out a position against the big banks would give him the high ground against the president, who claims to be reining in the banks’ bad behavior but isn’t.

It would help him with the Tea Party activists, who rail against the bank bailouts and crony capitalism. Promising tough action on the banks would also help him with independents who understandably don’t trust all the political double-talk they hear.

But Romney doesn’t have the  guts to do it. His free market rhetoric stops right at the bankers’ door, where he must appear meekly with hat in hand, asking for donations, just like the president of the United States, from bankers who continue to prosper only because of the trillions of dollars worth of favors done for them by politicians using taxpayers’ money.

The top 5 donors to Romney’s campaign are people associated with bailed out banks, according to the Center For Responsive Politics. The president raised an unprecedented $15.8 million from the financial sector in 2008, while his administration was in the midst of bailing them out. Though Romney has the edge in Wall Street fundraising now, the president has vowed to fight back ­– including a pledge not to demonize Wall Street.

The big media and the politicians all talk about these policies as though they’re great intellectual debates about clashing views of the role of government. But when it comes to the too big to fail banks, all Romney’s free market preaching is just so much hot air.

This is the dishonest heart of our politics. What neither Romney nor the president, nor apparently the American Enterprise Institute, can acknowledge is that it’s all about the money.

 

Martin Column / Mitt Romney / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 03/30/2012

Citizens United Was Not the First (And May Not Be the Last)

Citizens United is hardly the first time that five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have granted corporations special rights under the Constitution. In fact, you can chart the twists and turns in the politics of our country by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution’s protection of big business.

During the First Gilded Age, when utility and railroad companies accreted enormous political power, the nation’s high court routinely blocked progressive reforms on the ground that they interfered with “freedom of contract.” The era is known by its most controversial decision, Lochner vs. New York, in 1905. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law that barred bakers from being forced to work more than ten hours a day.  The Court relied on a creative interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which commands “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

Just as Citizens United equates money with freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the five to four majority of the Supreme Court in Lochner equated “liberty” with the “right” of a company to impose onerous and often dangerous working conditions on men, women and children. This judicial policy of deregulation combined with speculation and greed to produce the Great Depression. But President Roosevelt’s efforts to rescue the nation from the financial abysss were blocked by the Supreme Court, until Roosevelt provoked a constitutional crisis by proposing to add additional justices to the Supreme Court (one for every justice over seventy years old!) to create a majority that would support his legislation. In effect, FDR chose to fight politics on the high court with more politics. Having impaired the Court’s integrity and independence, the pro-big business Justices backed down, permitting New Deal legislation to take effect. Twenty years later, the Supreme Court acknowledged that, “the day is gone when this court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought.”

Though the Supreme Court ultimately stopped second-guessing the policies enacted by the Legislative Branch under the guise of interpreting the Constitution, its decision in Citizens United reflects an increasingly politicized Supreme Court. And what goes around, comes around. Even as Citizens United has ignited a grassroots rebellion and calls for a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court's damage to our democracy, scholars and pundits on the corporate-funded right are promoting the resurrection of Lochner.  The legal attack on the 2010 federal health care reform can be seen as one manifestation of a revived challenge to the power of government to regulate industry.  We’ll see how this plays out with the current majority of the Supreme Court when they begin to hear arguments against universal health care later this month.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Supreme Court - 03/12/2012

The Overdogs Bite Back

Our corporate lords are a sensitive lot. They want it all. They want total control of the government and they want love and appreciation.

Who can blame them for being upset? They spend all that money to buy the government, hire all those lobbyists, all those PR people.

It’s true the politicians help them out when business is bad, but do they everything just the way the corporate overlords want? Apparently not.

Who knew?

And we don’t express enough love for them, or appreciate them enough for all the good things they say they do.

Instead, we brats just want them to pay more taxes, or put another way, the same rate of taxes they used to.

Even one of their own, Warren Buffet, tries to make them look bad by suggesting maybe they could afford to pay a little more in taxes.

Now the CEOs are mad as hell and they’re not going to take it any more.

And they've created a new more loveable name for themselves:  job creators? Who wouldn’t love a job creator?

They want to make sure they’re getting their message across about how swell they are. It’s called, wonderfully enough, the Job Creators Alliance.

In an odd coincidence, their message bears a striking resemblance to pure Republican propaganda. Even the tiniest speck of regulation appearing on the horizon, for example Dodd-Frank financial regulation, causes the job creators to tremble and quake, and stop doing the only thing they really care about – creating jobs.

The Job Creators Alliance doesn’t blame the deep recession or the lack of demand for unemployment. They blame Dodd-Frank. This mild bit of financial regulation is blasted while the CEOs tote out one of the Republicans’ favorite phony themes – the financial collapse wasn’t caused by Wall Street greed, fraud and carelessness, but by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And the other big problem? You guessed it. Mandated health insurance.

Because both Dodd-Frank and mandated health insurance tamper with one of the job creators’ real sacred cows – the free market system.

As staunch defenders of the free market system, the CEO’s web site ought to be aflame with their righteous anger at the bailout and the Federal Reserve’s secret trillions in loans that propped up so many businesses in the wake of the economic collapse. But in what I’m sure is just an oversight, the job creators’ haven’t gotten around to posting about it yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Outrage - 12/29/2011

Too Big For Justice

The too big to fail banks are still in cahoots with their regulators. That’s the message coming loud and clear from the Justice Department’s highly touted $315 million deal with Bank of America to settle racial discriminatory lending charges.

The charges stem from the actions of Countrywide, the subprime lending giant, which was bought by Bank of America after the housing collapse.

The Justice Department’s publicity offensive, labeling the deal “historic” can’t hide the stink emanating from it. Shame on the New York Times for swallowing the Justice Department’s propaganda whole.

The Justice Department concluded that Countrywide charged 200,000 minority borrowers across the country higher rates and fees than white borrowers. Countrywide also steered 10,000 minority borrowers into costlier subprime loans when similar white borrowers got traditional loans.

While $315 million sounds big in a headline, for the bankers, it’s just part of the cost of doing business, less a punishment than the latest favor in the bailout that doesn’t end.

Bank of America, which received $45 billion in bailout funds, admits no wrongdoing in the deal. Victims would get between $1,000 and $1,600 apiece under the deal.

The deal also allows Bank of America to hire its own monitor to keep track of whether the bankers live up to their Justice Department agreement.

Regulators typically whine that they just don’t have the resources to take on the banks at trial.

Regulators argue that they could never get their targets to settlements if they had to wring admissions of wrongdoing from their targets, because those admissions would be used against those targets by other litigants in future lawsuits.

Without the settlements, the crack Justice Department lawyers would be forced to, horror of horrors, try their case in court.

The reasonable response from taxpayers should be: So what? Life is hard. Do your job, which is to hold lawbreakers accountable, not make their lives easier.

The Bank of America deal is only the latest to highlight the lower standard of justice prosecutors have applied to banks. Prosecutors have become part of the government’s team whose main goal Is propping up the banks. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has yet to come up with a decent, functioning program to stem the ongoing fraud in foreclosures, or to help the substantial numbers of homeowners facing foreclosure.

According to news reports, the Justice Department has another six discriminatory lending investigations cooking. This agency would be a good target for future actions

The Bank of America deal also highlights why a strong Occupy movement is needed, outside the traditional political system: neither party, nor the president, will fight for one of the most basic notions of democracy: that lawbreakers, especially the most powerful, should not receive favorable treatment from authorities.

You can read a slightly more sympathetic rundown of the Bank of America deal here, a more skeptical take here.

 

 

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 12/22/2011

The Real "Entitlements"

For most of us, the Wall Street housing bubble popped in 2008, with painful consequences.

But for those at the top of the nation’s too big to fail banks, the party keeps rocking, even though their institutions are still in trouble and wouldn’t even exist without taxpayers’ generosity.

Take for example that wild and crazy region known as Bank of Americaland, where dwells one of the country’s biggest and sickest banks.

It’s basically never recovered from the financial collapse, which, in Bank of America’s case included a nasty hangover induced by swallowing up the king of sleazy subprime lending, Countrywide, as well as fallen investment banking titan Merrill Lynch (labeled in 2009 by the Wall Street Journal the “$50 billion deal from Hell – no link).

Here’s how Bank of America has squandered its share of the bailout: engaging in a pattern of improper foreclosures on military families and spending millions in campaign contributions and lobbying to fight regulation of its business. Most recently, the bank imposed a new $60 annual debit card on its customers.

After all, the bank’s president, Brian Moynihan, insisted, Bank of America “has a right make a profit,” which occasionally will have to be guaranteed by U.S. taxpayers.

The company is doing so poorly that it’s going to have lay off 30,000 of its employees, some of whom will spend their waning days training their lower paid, outsourced replacements. But the company isn't doing so poorly that it didn’t manage to tuck away $11 million to the ease of parting for two of its top executives.

After all, they’re executives of a floundering bank that’s made a series of poor business decisions. So they’re “entitled” to get even more money on top of their fat salaries.

Across the political spectrum, it’s become fashionable to belittle programs like Social Security and Medicaid as “entitlements,” turning that into a dirty word. But like so much about our current, out of touch with reality political debate, it’s completely upside down.

The way the debate has been framed by our political leaders and media, they’re only “entitlements” if they’re claimed by the 99 percent of Americans who have suffered in the collapse of the middle-class and economic meltdown.

We need a crackdown on “entitlements” all right, but on the real  entitlements, the ones claimed by the top 1 percent, like those Bank of America lays claim to, scooping up millions for its executives while gouging its customers and buying our political system through lobbying and campaign contributions.

But Bank of America won’t give up these entitlements without a fight, because the bankers believe that these are the benefits they’ have a right to, along with their profits.

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column - 10/13/2011

Government Under the Influence

While the media’s grand poobahs have been poopooing the Occupy movement as a bunch of clueless hippies, the occupiers themselves couldn’t be more focused on the source of their frustration.

It’s a political system addicted to corporate cash, with politicians willing to do and say anything to keep it coming.

The occupiers communicate a keen sense of just how outrageously we have been betrayed by a government captured by corporate campaign contributions, lobbyists and the cozy swinging door between government and big business.

Though the occupiers have been criticized for not arriving with a full legislative agenda in tow, the homemade cardboard signs they carry pithily describe the world that has been too often, until now, left out of the political debate between our two parties, which, just like other kinds of addicts, are unable to have an honest conversation about their substance abuse, or to acknowledge the damage it’s done.

The issue of corporate influence peddling has also been largely left out of the media’s horse race political coverage, which focuses on philosophical differences between left and right rather than what the occupiers are focused on – the corporate might that has overwhelmed our politics.

The occupiers know that at the root of our financial collapse, bank bailout, jobless recovery and continuing housing crisis is one root cause – the undue influence of bankers and corporate titans over our political system.


So it’s left to the youth camped out in parks across the country to pose the tough questions.

They’re picking up on the strong rhetoric Barack Obama himself used back when he was a candidate about the need for fundamental change in our political system. But the president abandoned that quest, and now he’s got to raise $1 billion dollars to fund his reelection ambitions.

The occupiers have also picked up on Obama’s call for civility, with their own devotion to process and making sure everybody gets heard. The cynics are having a blast mocking the occupiers’ general assembly meetings. But the atmosphere at the occupations is a world away from the toxic cable talking point battles that have gotten the country nowhere. Let’s see who has the last laugh.

Here at WheresOurMoney, we’re offering a powerful antidote to the toxic flow of corporate money that is poisoning our democracy: a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed Citizens United ruling, which said that for purposes of political contributions, corporations are just like people. This terrible decision will only make a bad situation worse and we’ve got to start the fight against it now. You can read the amendment, get more background on Citizens United, and sign a petition here.

Citizens United / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 10/06/2011