Sunday, October 23, 2011


I wrote earlier in the month questioning the motives and agenda of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.  While I agree there is way too much corporate greed as far as executive pay packages and bonuses, I think the whole protest may be misdirected. 

If you give the matter a little thought before jumping in to the fray, what seems to have triggered the movement were the outrageous bonuses paid out in the financial industry immediately following the government bailout.  If this is the case, then protesters should be occupying Capital Hill instead of Wall Street.  If the government had not bailed out banks and financial companies with taxpayer dollars then these companies would not have had the money available to pay out unearned and undeserved bonuses in the first place.  Obviously if you hand over taxpayer dollars to people who already make way more in income than the national average, they're most likely to look for ways to put some or all of this money in to their own pockets. 

I think the protesters should move their camps to Washington D.C. and change the name to Occupy Capital Hill.  After all, which is worse, bilking shareholders through overly generous compensation plans or handing over taxpayer dollars taken from the pockets of people who no longer have jobs or have much lower paying jobs than before? 

No comments: