Whereas the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement is generally regarded as the left wing of American politics, the Tea Party is considered its right wing counterpart. Although the media tries to draw comparisons between the two, both sides rebuff the other. Their tactics and general philosophy may be different, but the two are actually not as far apart as you might think. To illustrate, OWS organizers recently articulated a list of demands they want the government to implement (see "The 99 Percent Declaration"; alternate Site).
Interestingly, their grievances are essentially no different than the Tea Party's; for example:
* Both sides want to implement campaign reform and revision of lobbying laws.
* Both sides want to enact term limits for government officials.
* Both sides want to implement reforms to our current tax system.
* Both sides want to reduce the national debt.
* Both sides want more jobs for Americans, and curb outsourcing.
* Both sides want to reform our immigration policies.
* Both sides want to ease excessive costs resulting from our military policing of the world.
* Both sides want an end to currency manipulation.
* Both sides want to implement banking and securities reforms, not to mention ending the Fed.
* Both sides want to reform public education.
* And believe it or not, both sides are interested in protecting the planet.
The two sides are far apart on some issues though, such as universal health care, forgiving student loans, mortgage foreclosures, and abolishing the electoral college. However, they are actually not as far apart as you might believe.
The difference between the two groups though is HOW these issues should be addressed. The 99% Declaration lists specific remedies for solving these problems which I believe is a fatal flaw in their declaration. Instead, it should simply define what the problems are as they see it. Maybe their solutions are acceptable, and maybe they are not. The point is, there is too much of a temptation in this country to "leap before you look", to try to offer solutions before we understand the problem. That is like prescribing a treatment before having a doctor examine you. As a patient, it is your responsibility to try to articulate your perception of an ailment to a physician; in contrast, it is the doctor's responsibility to interpret your symptoms, diagnose the problem, and prescribe a suitable treatment, and there may very well be several different treatments to solve a particular problem.
Let me give you an example, Article 4 of the Declaration's grievances discusses, Term Limits: "Members of the United States House of Representatives shall be limited to serving no more than four two-year terms in their lifetime. Members of the United States Senate shall be limited to serving no more than two six-year terms in their lifetime." That is a solution. The problem is that people are tired of career politicians who make their livelihood from politics and become less responsive to the interests of their constituents. Their solution may be flawed as well, e.g., are terms to be consecutive? Can they go from one chamber of Congress to another? How about simply abolishing their Congressional pensions instead? Why this particular combination and not something like, "no more than twelve years in Congress" (and let them figure out how to spend it).
In other words, I believe the 99% Declaration should contain nothing but a definition of the problems and then hold a separate convention to discuss alternatives and formulate a suitable solution. Instead, the 99% Declaration is another prime example of "Fire, Aim, Ready" that plagues this country.
As someone who has taught planning and has read many feasibility studies over the years, I commend the OWS for their efforts in producing the 99% Declaration, and recommend all concerned parties read it carefully, including the Tea Party. It is a good first draft, but it needs a considerable amount of polish to make it palatable to Americans as a whole. My recommendation to the authors: concentrate on defining the problem as precisely as possible, deliberate on alternatives, select a suitable solution, and then pitch it to the country. Just remember, it's "Ready, Aim, Fire"; any other sequence is counterproductive.
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M. Bryce & Associates (MBA) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
For Tim's columns, see:
http://www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Tune into Tim's THE BRYCE IS RIGHT! podcast Mondays-Fridays, 7:30am (Eastern).
Copyright © 2011 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
Back in the 1980's a generation of young MBA's were unleashed on the corporate world and turned it on its ear. These "whiz kids" slashed costs wherever possible, particularly in training programs, mentoring, and reduced administrative personnel. Although their tactics did indeed save money in the short run, they created long-term headaches down the road, such as creating morale problems which lead to a disconnect between workers and their employers, which ultimately lead to outsourcing many jobs overseas. Quality in manufactured goods and services also suffered as a result of less training. Whereas employees had previously been empowered to overcome problems under a spirit of teamwork, managers began to closely supervise workers which today is commonly referred to as "micromanagement." The point is, the whiz kids of the day made a name for themselves simply by implementing short term changes which were highly visible on the next quarterly P&L statement. Although they could show short-term benefits rather quickly, their bean counter approach had devastating long-term effects on many businesses which haunted companies for years.
Whenever I have somewhere to go with friends or family, I normally volunteer to drive. When people ask me why I do so, I explain it is not simply because I enjoy the act of driving, as much as I somehow appreciate the equality involved. Let me explain. It occurred to me a long time ago that driving is one of the few venues in the world that doesn't recognize a socioeconomic class structure, race or religion. Regardless if you are a multimillionaire driving a Rolls Royce or Lamborghini, a bum driving a jalopy, or anything in-between, driving requires everyone to behave equally. Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief, everyone is on the level and must behave as such in order for this important transportation system to work. And for some reason, knowing I can start each day on the level with everyone else is encouraging to me.
Most Americans are familiar with the vast debt our country has compiled ($14.8T as of this writing and growing steadily). We are also acutely aware of the burden of mortgages and credit card debt, particularly in this age of high unemployment. As if things weren't bad enough, a new statistic has emerged courtesy of the College Board who reports student loans are about to cross the $1T threshold as students are borrowing twice as much as just a decade ago and the outstanding debt has doubled in the last five years alone. The debt is growing so rapidly that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York recently calculated this will make Americans owe more on student loans than credit cards, which is a frightening thought (see 
I conducted my first wedding ceremony recently. As a Notary Public in the State of Florida, you can perform such a service, and we are but one of three states that permit this (the other two are South Carolina and Maine). I became a Notary a couple of years ago as it comes in handy to process legal paperwork, but I had never imagined doing a wedding service. Earlier this year, a young friend approached me about doing a service for a friend of hers. At first I was startled by the request, but then said, "Why not?"
The people currently protesting under the banner of "Occupy Wall Street" contend they represent 99% of the people being ruled by the 1% super rich who somehow manipulates the government and the economy. This of course is a gross oversimplification of the class structure in our society. Back in 1897, Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. "Pareto's Principle," as it came to be known, or the "80/20 Rule" relates to the ratio of input to output; e.g. 20% of the people are normally responsible for producing 80% of the work, and from an economic perspective, 80% of the wealth is generated by only 20% of the people. This number has remained reliable over the years, which means under a capitalistic society there will always be a 20% group representing entrepreneurs and business leaders. Of the remaining 80%, there will always be approximately 15% who will remain poor. Despite the billions of dollars the country has spent on the war on poverty, this number has varied ever so slightly over the years. This leaves a middle class of approximately 65% of the populace.
As the country grows increasingly frustrated over its worsening economic condition, the public points an accusing finger at the super rich, and capitalism which is often vilified as the principal cause of the problem. Frankly, capitalism is getting a bad rap by its detractors and, unfortunately, there are naive people who gullibly believe it to be guilty of a number of sins. The fact is, capitalism propelled America past the rest of the world by creating a substantial middle class thereby creating an engine to power the world's economy. Unfortunately, capitalism is misunderstood. Some see it as nothing more than focused on profits at all costs. True, the goal of capitalism is to be successful and profits are a measurement of success, but there is more to it than just profits, much more.