Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
Retribution Against the Financial Elite!

"Rep. Gwen Moore" is Code for "Corporate Shill"

Posted 9 months ago on July 18, 2013, 3:29 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Tags: Wall Street, Wisconsin, poverty, ALEC

Rep Moore: You can only pick one: fight poverty, or defend Wall Street

Politicians being bought and sold by Wall Street is nothing new. Most readily sell their souls in exchange for campaign dollars, hoping to win tough races. But what about those who are in safe seats, who sell of their morals off to the highest bidder anyway?

Rep. Gwen Moore, a Democrat from Wisconsin, recently came under fire by her own hometown paper for courting big Wall Street money. An article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel by Daniel Bice, “Wall Street support puts Gwen Moore on hot seat,” pointed out that while Moore represents the poorest district in Wisconsin, she has been leading the charge on behalf of Wall Street when it comes to deregulation. It points to her support of HR 1256, a bill that recently passed the House of Representatives that makes it easier for Wall Street to dodge new rules by simply moving risky derivatives trades overseas. Consumer groups nicknamed it the "AIG Bailout Certainty Act," because AIG was taken down by derivatives they sold out of a small office in London, but was still bailed out 100 cents on the dollar by U.S. taxpayers.

And, you guessed it, Rep Moore is being rewarded handsomely for her efforts. The Sentinel reported, “Moore's campaign fund took in more than $83,000 from the banking and finance industries in 2011-'12, with her leadership committee receiving $15,000 more — meaning she received more from these special interests than any other Wisconsin rep except U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, long a darling of Wall Street.”

Rep Moore was very bothered by this exposure of her corporate capture. So bothered, she drafted a defensive letter to the editor in response. In it, she insists that she is “painfully aware of the poverty level in my district.”

But is she? It was, after all, Wall Street deregulation that led to the financial crisis, which cost the country $12.5 trillion and left 46.2 million Americans in poverty, the largest number recorded in the 52 years the Census has tracked poverty. And the impact was even worse on communities of color. Rep Moore's district is 44% Black or Hispanic. But it was Wall Street's boundless appetite for risk and mortgage-backed securities was responsible for eliminating 66% of the wealth in Hispanic households and 53% of the wealth from Black households between 2005 and 2009.

The predatory lending that savaged communities of color was no accident. Bank of America paid $335 million to settle with the Department of Justice for charging higher fees to over 200,000 Black and Hispanic borrowers than they did to non-Hispanic white borrowers of the same credit profile. Wells Fargo settled with the Department of Justice for $175 million over equally discriminatory practices. Wall Street looked at communities of color and saw an opportunity to rip their faces off. So why is Rep Moore working so hard to make life easier, and more profitable, for these Wall Street firms?

Another bill that Rep Moore championed, HR 992, allows banks to hold almost any kind of risky derivative in the same part of the bank where depositor funds live. It also happens to make the cost of doing business substantially cheaper for Citigroup. So it should come as no surprise that Citigroup wrote the bill. If Rep Moore is concerned with the poverty in her district, why would she want to make life easier for Citigroup? In 2007, the NAACP sued Citigroup and Ameriquest (which was later acquired by Citigroup) for discriminating against Black borrowers by steering them into higher interest, subprime loans while giving more favorable loan terms to white borrowers. Assisting a company with a history of such blatant profiteering and exploitation is nothing less than a biting slap in face to Rep Moore’s constituents.

Rep Moore ended her letter to the editor with the insistence that “my vote is not for sale.”

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

In the same letter, Rep Moore states that she is a “vocal advocate and champion on issues surrounding poverty and the needs of the hardworking families of Milwaukee.” But if Rep Moore and other politicians were truly concerned with fighting poverty, they would look at the complete picture. Fighting against austerity is simply an attempt to stop the bleeding. It helps Democratic politicians because it makes them look caring, and in tune with their constituents. But it’s nothing more than shoving a bandaid on a hemorrhaging wound.

The knife causing these wounds is Wall Street. Deregulating Wall Street devastated the economy, and now, the (false) answers proposed are austerity, bleeding the government dry, and allowing corporations to swoop in and charge us for basic needs and basic rights.

If Representative Moore were truly interested in fighting poverty, she wouldn’t just try and stop the bleeding. She would stop sharpening the knife.

Wisconsin Poverty 101

PS: We don't know for sure if she is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council, but it would not surprise us.

6 Comments

6 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by msbpodcast (4) 9 months ago

Parties don't matter and haven't since Eisenhower. Wether you're crank is being yanked by Republican or a Democrat hasn't make a damn bit of difference since Truman defeated Dewey in spite of the headlines.

This is a fascist republic/oligarchy, and there's NOTHING WONG WITH THAT as long as its properly organized.

Lets examine the three systems of economic organization:

• Free Enterprise, where capital goods are owned by private owners and controlled by private owners,

• Fascism, where capital goods are owned by private owners and controlled by the state,

• Socialism, where capital goods are owned by the state and controlled by the state.

Clearly, the economy is set up for the few % who own almost everything. To put in terms you can understand at a glance:

180,000,000 poor Americans own/control as much wealth as

…………400 rich Americans

120,000,000 lower middle class Americans own/control as much wealth

………12,000 upper middle class americans.

…60,000,000 middle class Americans own/control as much wealth as is left.

These 3 systems are separate constructs from the four forms of government:

• Anarchy (rule by no one,) (Examples of this are called Failed States)

• Dictatorship or Monarchy (rule by one person,)

• Oligarchy (rule by a few persons, like we currently have here,) We call it a Republic, a Constitutional Monarchy, a Confederation or a Federation.

• Democracy (rule by the majority, aka "tyranny of the masses") We call this doing things by Plebiscite. It quickly becomes unwieldy unless you have an intelligent and educated populace (not on this planet.)

None of these socio-economic systems are mutually exclusive in the larger context of a political systems.

In fact, it is necessary to combine the three because there are features of each which complement and fill in the blind spots in each.

A successful country is one where the systems are successfully blended.

An unsuccessful country is one where there is an unnecessary bias towards one or another.

For example, that is why we have a unified power grid but each utility/corporation cooperates in maintaining the unified power grid while trying to minimize the costs, possibly to maximize their profitability.

This cooperative feature is arrived at regardless of the economic system or political system.

Our economic problems arise from a misunderstanding of what a politicians jobs were by our oligarchies (the people some, not all but merely some of us, held our noses and elected.)

Repubes or democraps, our politicians are equipped with the morals of gutter cats.

The problem with republics is the same as with monarchies. After a while, the noble intentions at the start are as dead as the noble individuals which founded the kingdom or the republic. (The methods of creation for either are equally bloody.)

If we want a representative government, we’ll have to RE-create it. (There were no parties in 1776.)

If we want smaller government, we'll have to take out the incentives for its growth too.

The error of (y)our ways is that, despite the evidence of hundreds of years of history, you keep on electing self-selected, self-anointed members of the millionaires club, people who have no understanding of what the lives of the citizens of this country are like.

That fits in with Einstein's definition of insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

Lets examine how the situation has really devolved since the founding of this country.

We've become a government

• OF the thousandaires (the 99%, that would be me and thee,)

• BY the millionaires (the 1%, that would be the extremely insular privileged overlords and bosses,)

• FOR the billionaires (the 12,400 individuals identified by the IRS as the people who count (though they don't really count as they hire some thousandaires to run machines to do that.)

How is this different than the political situation that led to the founding of the United States?

It isn't, really.

One system had privilege being a condition of one's birth.

The situation in the United States is the (cess)pool of nobles has expanded to people that the corporations like and are willing to fund.

The first thing we do is change from an ELECTED to a SELECTED form of government.

Pick names at random out an eligible citizen pool and they’re stuck with doing the job for one, and only one, four year term.

There could/should/would be no such thing as a career in politics. (The only thing worse than getting stuck with somebody who didn’t want the job is getting stuck with some idiot who did, figuring it was going to lift him a few rungs up the social/economic ladder.)

And don't give me that bullshit about average citizens don't know enough about politics.

Average citizens know right from wrong and are likely to at least read a bill before they sign and pass it on.

Average citizens know enough to be suspicious and not so venial and blinded by the lure of undeserved re-election.

Eligibility requirements are:

• were you born here or are you a naturalized citizen?

• are you a permanent resident in a village, town or city within our borders?

• are you above the age of 25?

• are you healthy enough? (you don't suffer from any clinical health issue(s) or mental impairment(s) which would prevent you from fulfilling your duties?)

• have you never served on the government before?

• have you never been found guilty of a violent crime?

• have you never been found to be clinically insane?

Answer yes to all of these questions, you’re eligible for selection.

Don’t want to be bothered?

Go live elsewhere or STFU!

That would get rid of all PACs, K Street lobbyists, a lot of graft, waste and expense that WE'RE all paying for.

[-] 0 points by TikiJ (-38) 9 months ago

Excellent post.

"There could/should/would be no such thing as a career in politics. (The only thing worse than getting stuck with somebody who didn’t want the job is getting stuck with some idiot who did, figuring it was going to lift him a few rungs up the social/economic ladder.)"

So true.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17898) 9 months ago

''The cost of the Wall Street caused Financial Collapse and ongoing Economic Crisis is more than $12.8 Trillion'' [Report] :

Gwen Moore and more and more for her and her Wall St. friends and less and less for her long suffering constituents !!! Worra Fkn Utterly Traitorous Douchebag !! Now can an Independent Labor Based, 99% candidate challenge this POS in her Wisconsin fiefdom ?! Here's an arguably unlikely insight into the power of democracy and voting and why The 0.01% want to curtail it :

e tenebris, lux ?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1278) from Milwaukee, WI 9 months ago

I live in her district, or should I say 'fiefdom'. I suppose where you live is a utopia.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17898) 9 months ago

Are you defending her ? And btw, re. my environs no it isn't - either ! Are you demoralised ? If so, you aren't the only one in The U$A ...

But it is always darkest before dawn - so as The Democrap Party (as opposed to decent but desperate Dem Voters) are ever more seen for what they are - ie. ersatz Republicons and Class Traitors, then the possibilities of a Real Labor Based 99% Party and 99% Independents challenging The Infernal Duopoly increases ever more incrementally ! Can you dig that ?!! Occupy Your Imagination !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by msbpodcast (4) 9 months ago

Corporations are supposed to be PEOPLE right?

Wy not NOMINATE a corporation for electoral office?

Put the shoe on the other foot.

If corporations are supposed to be people, lets put them in REAL charge.

Let's ELECT Mc Donald's to be head of agriculture. What are their policies on stuff that isn't a hamburger?

Let's ELECT British Petroleum to be in charge of our energy policy. What are their their policies on electricity?

Or better yet, give them responsibility for something unrelated, like putting Coca Cola in charge of foreign affairs.

That would be a real kick in their pants.