An Open Letter to Barack Obama: Do Not Define Occupy Wall Street

Barack Obama should clean his house before he attempts to sum up the meaning of Occupy Wall Street.

Yesterday, many of us read or heard President Barack Obama’s statements on Occupy Wall Street following Wednesday’s march to City Hall where protesters joined forces with unions. While many probably welcomed Obama finally weighing in on Occupy Wall Street, it should be viewed with much skepticism.

Barack Obama, you might claim that Republicans have been obstructionist on Capitol Hill—and, to an extent, you would be right. But you, as President of the United States, are empowered to investigate and bring to justice every last individual and firm who was responsible for the 2008 crash. You say, “obviously that’s not my job; that’s the Attorney General’s job.” No. It is your job. You appoint the Attorney General, now demand that he do his job.

You say that what Wall Street bankers and investors did was not “necessarily illegal.”

Please explain to us how the bundling of hundreds or even thousands of bad mortgages together, certifying them as AAA by credit-rating agencies, and selling them as securities while simultaneously betting against them isn’t fraudulent and thus prosecutable? No law on the books provides a legal recourse for this sort of behavior? Please. It’s fraudulent behavior and it should be prosecuted as such by your do-nothing Attorney General.

And what have you got to show for this power? Bernie Madoff, who turned himself in, and Fabrice Tourre, Goldman Sachs‘s patsy. Good job.

Three years: That’s the amount of time you’ve had to get something done about Wall Street corruption as well as address the problem of the Federal Reserve—that it’s an enabler of irresponsible and unsound financial behavior and consequently a very, very big problem. It encourages bankers and investors to behave like cowboys with taxpayer money.

You say, “We have to have a strong, effective financial sector in order for us to grow.” The financial sector is strong. It alone is strong in this recession that, granted, wasn’t of your making, President. It is everybody else who is weak, from the middle class down to those mired in poverty.

And, what has this strong financial sector done for the poor? Nothing. Down at Occupy Wall Street they are feeding all who come to Liberty Plaza; which means they are feeding the poor. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. That, Sir, is humanity—something your fleet of revolving door ex-Wall Street advisors could only vaguely picture in their stunted MBA imaginations.

The financial sector and the Republican party might have fought you “every step of the way,” but you could have fought harder for us. You could have showed some Russ Feingold-esque backbone and stumped the shit out of this country even more than you already have.

You could have gotten angry, but you betrayed the people who believed in you when you brought the enemy into your house. Think on that while you dine in the White House built on 235 years of American blood, sweat and tears.

You, Sir, need some Fighting Bob La Follette in you and you need it fast.

You say Occupy Wall Street represents frustrations and “the protestors are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.” Nice political rhetoric but the problem has already been diagnosed and your second opinion doesn’t help us.

Act.

We need more of this stated over and over again and then acted upon:

“Now, what’s true is we’ve also got to rein in our deficits and live within our means, which is why this jobs bill is fully paid for by asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. Some see this as class warfare. I see it as a simple choice: We can either keep taxes exactly as they are for millionaires and billionaires, with loopholes that lead them to have lower tax rates in some cases than plumbers and teachers, or we can put teachers and construction workers and veterans back on the job.

We can fight to protect tax cuts for folks who don’t need them and weren’t asking for them, or we can cut taxes for virtually every worker and small business in America. But we can’t afford to do both. That’s the choice that’s going to be before the Senate.”

And thank you for stating that we can’t have the financial sector “competing on the basis of hidden fees, deceptive practices, or derivative cocktails that nobody understands and that expose the entire economy to enormous risks.”

And giving tax breaks to the middle and lower classes while increasing taxes on the rich is a start.

At least you’re getting specific now.