Forum Post: City of Cleveland vs. Predatory Capitalism.
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 26, 2012, 8 p.m. EST by HitGirl
(2263)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Mitt Romney did not invent predatory capitalism. It’s been around for a while.
Predatory capitalism was already alive and well in 1978, in Cleveland. That was when the One Percent who controlled the banks, and pretty much everything else of value, decided that they wanted to steal the local power company from the people of Cleveland.
By way of background, Cleveland Public Power was founded by the Mayor of Cleveland, more than a century ago. It provides the people of Cleveland with electricity -- without the price gouging, poor service, pollution and monopolization for which Big Energy seems to strive.
The One Percent didn’t like that idea at all. So they invested in a private company called Cleveland Electric Illuminating. They wanted to steal Cleveland Public Power from the people, and then jack up the rates, and make lots and lots of money.
They then issued this ultimatum:
(1) hand over the assets of Cleveland Public Power to us, or
(2) we will pull the plug on Cleveland.
By which they meant that they would boycott the City of Cleveland’s bonds as they came due, and drive the City into bankruptcy.
Which they then did. The One Percent forced the City of Cleveland into bankruptcy.
But they didn’t anticipate one thing. What the 32-year-old, first-term Mayor of Cleveland would say.
That was Dennis Kucinich. And Dennis said no.
No matter what the banks said, Dennis said no.
No matter what the City Council said, Dennis said no.
No matter what the bankruptcy court said, Dennis said no.
A newspaper on December 22, 1978 quoted Dennis as follows: “They are maneuvering to offer the city terms so bad that we will feel pressured to beg.” And Dennis would not beg.
No. Just no.
And Dennis paid a price for that. The “Boy Mayor of Cleveland” went down to defeat that year. The One Percent made sure of that. But the people of Cleveland kept their power company.
Twenty years later, the Cleveland City Council honored Dennis Kucinich for having the “courage and foresight” to stand up to the banks, for the sake of the people. They calculated that Dennis had saved the people of Cleveland $195 million in one decade alone. And Cleveland elected Dennis Kucinich to Congress.
Let me tell you something. There is not one person in a hundred -- Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, male or female, white, black, red or brown -- who would have the courage to do what Dennis Kucinich did. For the good of the people.
That’s why we need Dennis Kucinich in Congress.
Thanks to Republican gerrymandering in Ohio, Dennis is facing the fight of his career. His election is on March 6. And absentee ballots in his district will be mailed out next Tuesday.
Dennis needs your help. He needs to contact thousands of absentee voters, and that costs money. If you helped him before, then help again. If you didn’t help him before, then help now.
Because Dennis has guts. And that’s what we need in our leaders.
Courage,
Alan Grayson
Honestly, that's the kind of balls we need to see a lot more of both now and in the future. Basically the only reason we didn't do what needed to be done in 2008-09 was the combination of stiff Republican opposition (and an unwillingness on the part of the Democrats to step up to the plate when they had 60 votes) and the president's questionable decision to spend all of his political capital on healthcare when the economy was the bigger issue.
I see it as more complicated than that. Just because a politician finds it convenient to call himself a Republican or Democrat doesn't mean he will tow the party line. It doesn't do any good to be upset with the Democrats in general. It is sad that they seemed to miss the state of the economy or felt health care was a more important issue. They didn't even do a good job on healthcare. They did try to tackle financial reform. When the president tells the congress, "Remember, the American people are watching what you do." Not a good sign.
I'm not angry at the party as a whole, but I am angry at a number of its members for the way they chose to handle things when they were in power. I grew up during the Clinton and Bush years (predominantly the latter) so I saw the Republicans as the party of bulky, intrusive government and right-wing economic policies and the Democrats as the party of an slender, efficient government that took care of its people but didn't intrude on their private lives.
Watching the opportunities pushed aside by Congress when they had 60 votes hurt because I couldn't understand why they weren't using their power to do what I expected them to do, and what I thought they were going to do now that they could. Basically, my opinion of the Republicans is still where it was when I was nine, but I'm a lot more sober-eyed when it comes to the Democrats than I was six or seven years ago. If I run for office it will be under their banner, but I'm not going to have any illusions about my possible colleagues.
The link below outlines the first steps we need to take towards fixing the country. For the most part I can see it resonating among traditional liberals and others who are farther to the left, but I can see economically centrist libertarians being willing to sign on to parts of it. This is the vision I thought I shared with the Democratic party, but I must admit that I don't necessarily think our current crop of politicians (regardless of party) are all too eager to implement it.
http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=585