By
Josh Sager
One common theme among those who criticize the
“Occupy” movement is to point out the monetary costs of the occupations to the
public. It is undeniable that the protest camps that have sprung up across the
country require a police presence as well as several other accommodations by
the local governments; these costs are eventually passed to the public in the
form of taxes, fines, and other charges.
According to a recent study, published in the
Associated Press, the total cost of the response to occupations nationwide is
around $13 million. A vast majority of the costs incurred by the occupied
cities was paid to police officers, who have been receiving overtime to watch
the “Occupy” camps. Cities where there have been significant police actions
against the protest camps account for large amounts of the $13 million total,
due to the massive police presence necessary for the actions. In addition to
funding the police, money has been spent to clean the areas around the
occupation which have been used far more than usual (bathrooms, parks, etc.).
Regardless of whether or not one agrees with the responses of the police to the
protests, the fact that significant amounts of city funds have been allocated
to deal with the protests.
It is undeniable that the occupations around the
country are expensive for cities, but how do these costs compare with the costs
of the actions of the other occupants of Wall Street: The bankers and stock
brokers. According to the estimates of the IMF [International Monetary Fund], the
recent banking collapse and subsequent recession have cost the world economy
approximately $4.1 trillion dollars. A toxic mixture of deregulation and greed
created the perfect environment for unscrupulous bankers to make gigantic
profits at the expense of society as a whole.
The occupiers have been extremely vocal about the
need to regulate banking and market speculation so as to prevent a future
crash. When you compare the costs incurred from the actions of the two
residents of Wall Street, the occupiers and the bankers, it gives necessary
perspective as to the costs of the occupations. Would you rather have to pay
$13 million now, to allow protesters to work towards economic change, or pay
another $4.1 trillion later, when the banking system collapses due to a lack of
reform? The recent unscrupulous actions of bankers have cost society
approximately 315,385 times more than the actions of those who have stood up to
protest the banks; in face of the numbers, who truly deserves the ire of the
population at large for wasting society’s resources?
Even if one agrees with the ideals of the protests
or simply believes that they have the right to protest, the fact remains that
millions of dollars have been spent containing and regulating the protests. In
order to retain a balanced budget, as is mandated by most cities, revenue must
be increased in some way to offset the costs of police overtime. One possible
method of funding the costs of the reaction to the “Occupy” protests is through
a federal block grant funded by a slight reduction in some of the Bush tax
cuts: As calculated by the think tank AmericanProgress.org, the Bush tax cut
for millionaires reduces tax revenue by approximately $120 million per day ($5
million dollars per hour); this means that the total costs of the police
reaction to the occupation could be recouped by cancelling 156 minutes of the
Bush tax cuts received by millionaires.
It makes no logical sense for people to point out
the costs of the occupations when there are far more expensive issues for them
to focus upon. When compared to the problem that they are protesting, the
occupations cost an insignificant amount to society. Everybody who comments on
the costs of the occupations in the future should simply consider that the same
amount of money is lost every two and a half hours that the Bush tax cuts are
extended for millionaires.
No comments:
Post a Comment