I like that our City Council passed a resolution in solidarity with
the Occupy Minnesota (or Occupy Minneapolis?) movement. I will
remember, and tell all my friends about, who voted against this
toothless resolution and who made a point of not being present. (Does
anyone else notice how frequently Don Samuels misses important
votes?) I don't recall seeing any notice of this vote in my expensive
daily print newspaper, but Janet Nye has done us a favor by giving us
the whole text.
What could the Mpls City Council do to go beyond a verbal expression
of its awareness of the Occupy issues, and solidarity with the
protest? Where does it actually have power to effect anything that
would break some of power the super-wealthy hold over our civic and
political system? Does anything local contribute to the problem, and
can Council do something about it?
For example: Let's look at Big Bank money, and the city. Our local
Big Banks are three: U S Bank, Wells Fargo, and TCF. Where does
Minneapolis keep its money, and where does it go for bonding issues?
Does Minneapolis have discretion about where it stores and borrows
money (i.e., are there state limitations on the city's discretion?),
and how big an issue is Minneapolis money (our tax and fee money) for
the Big Banks' fiscal health? Can the city negotiate anything
(threatening to move its money and its bonding) with the Big Banks
that would improve anything in the city? Say, mortgage
restructurings. None of our local Big Banks is, as I understand it,
doing much of anything to help people facing foreclosures. Does the
city have the backbone to ask U S. Bank or Wells Fargo to keep a
certain number of Minneapolis homeowners out of foreclosure (or a
certain percentage of outstanding mortgages that are in trouble) by
"taking a haircut" on those mortgages, or actively seeking to
lengthen the mortgage term and lower the interest rate? Or the city
would take its money elsewhere.
That would be actively to seek some tiny portion of a national
solution to the Big Banks making so much money off the mortgage
scandals. And, folks, I hold stock in U S Bank, and they are rolling,
forgive me, but absolutely rolling in profits these days. I know that
eastern banks like Bank of America, Citybank, etc., are doing very
well, thank you. We bailed them out, even U S Bank which says it
didn't want the money and didn't need it but isn't doing much to help
anybody out there in foreclosure, either. They could do more
small-=business lending, too, even helping out with weak business
plans they know how to strengthen.
So: Pressure on the Big Bank money with some city money.
Then, too: can Minneapolis do anything to not permit Big Money from
dominating and controlling who gets elected in Minneapolis?
This one might be harder for people, because there may be some 1%-ers
who contribute to our city campaigns. (Not that they necessarily live
here.) Transparency in funding campaigns, and especially transparency
in non-campaign ads and fliers by private groups, is a vital issue.
Nationally, the Big Money is fighting every effort toward forced
revelation of who gives what money to which electoral campaigns. If
Minneapolis can't pass ordinances to effect total transparency in
electoral money issues, then it can pass a resolution to lobby at the
legislature, and nationally, for laws that prohibit secret
contributions to anything that impacts our campaigns and elections.
We can lobby, as a city, for a national law that would contradict the
Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, that gave corporate entities
the free speech that our founders thought would be for those who have
physical mouths and unique human brains. Not paper entities. Can we
lobby on that? Is such a law possible?
So, let's start thinking of specific ways the Minneapolis City
Council can go beyond its rhetoric, to actions that might begin
making a dent in our nation's inequalities and in Big Money's control
of our civic life. We'll let the protesters make the points, and
we'll try to follow up. Right?
Connie Sullivan
Como, in Southeast Minneapolis
--