Green Party Resolutions
Part II, R-8 to 12


See: http://www.gp.org

Resolution 8 - A Proposed Resolution on a Definition of Sustainability

Environmental and Economic Sustainability

In the late 20th Century, with ecosystems around the world unraveling, and more and more people living in poverty, a Green proposal that is rapidly coming into popular consciousness involves creating a sustainable economy. The problem with this is not that a sustainable economy is a bad idea or goal, but that the descriptions of sustainability being circulated are fuzzy, inaccurate, and generally do not lead to good policy decisions. A clearer definition of sustainability then, integrated into policy decisions, needs to be understood and adopted.

The working definition of sustainability here is that any harvest or take of biologically renewable resources must be less than the natural production of the resource. Examples make this much easier to explain.

The annual catch of fish must be less than the reproduction and growth of fish. If on a year to year basis fish populations that are being harvested remain stable or increase, the harvest is sustainable. If fish populations or biomass decrease, then the harvest is not sustainable. This applies on both the ecosystem and species level and harvesting is only considered sustainable if every species in the ecosystem is maintaining its population.

When harvesting the forest by cutting trees, harvesting is considered sustainable if the volume of wood in the forest increases from year to year and there is no reduction in the biodiversity or stability in the system.

The other aspect of sustainability that we must consider is the amount of waste that sinks can absorb. The sustainable use of sinks means that the ecosystem can absorb a given amount of waste each year without any impact on either the ability of the system to continue to absorb waste, and there are no rises in the amount of the waste in the system. We may be able to continue to put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, and the atmosphere continues to absorb it. But the amount of C02 in the atmosphere continues to rise, and it is therefore definitely NOT sustainable.

A more general way to measure sustainability is to look at the amount of the world's primary productivity (die amount of solar energy converted to green plant growth) that is absorbed by humans. Looking strictly at terrestrial systems, humans absorb about 40% of the primary productivity of the planet. We are all aware that with humans absorbing 40% of the primary productivity ecosystems are crashing and plants and animals me becoming extinct at an alarming and accelerating rate. When we consider that the amount of primary productivity that humans are absorbing has more than doubled in the last 50 years, and even at a 20% rate ecosystems were crashing, it is obvious that the amount of the primary productivity of the planet that humans can take must be dramatically reduced if we are to approach sustainability. We must reduce the amount of productivity that we utilize and we must engage in serious ecological restoration as a part of any plan to achieve sustainability.

Part of the misuse of the term sustainability is that economists and civic leaders regularly refer to sustainable growth. When we consider that ecosystems are already crashing from overuse and that natural sinks are already being overwhelmed, and that it is impossible to grow the economy without using up resources or putting more stress on sinks, sustainable growth is a term that is completely meaningless and should be eliminated from the lexicon.

Agricultural sustainability is a category that falls between the cracks of the above definitions. It is not harvesting wild resources, and it is not necessarily excreting waste products to sinks. Truly sustainable agriculture uses only products derived from the farm to maintain sod fertility and uses no chemical inputs other than natural products for either fertility enhancements or the control of pests. Farm derived animal and plant wastes are composted and used to maintain soil fertility, there is no off farm runoff of organic wastes, soil erosion is kept below the level of soil building, and neither hybrid or genetically altered seeds me used.

We don't want workers to pay the cost of declining environmental industries. It should be the responsibility of the corporations and their owners, who profited from the environmentally damaging industry.
[support] [do not support]


Resolution 9 - A Proposed Resolution on Youth Rights

All human beings have the right to a life that will let them achieve their full potential. Young people are one of the least protected classes of human beings, yet they represent our future. We must ensure they have an upbringing that allows them to take their place as functioning, productive and self-actualized members of their community.

The Green Party supports the rights of youth:

[support] [do not support]


Resolution 10 - A Proposed Resolution to Endorse a Statement by the International Forum on Globalization

The Green Party endorses the International Forum on Globalization's statement of purpose as follows: [We] advocate equitable, democratic, and ecologically sustainable economics. [We oppose] a globalized economic system dominated by supranational corporate trade and banking institutions that are not accountable to democratic processes or national governments.

These current trends toward globalization are neither historically inevitable nor desirable. Globalization policies lead to a number of negative outcomes, including: The rapid diminishment of the powers of local and indigenous communities, states, and even nations to control their futures as economic and political power is transferred to global and transnational institutions.

The acceleration of modes of economic development that give scant attention to issues of equity, or the health of the natural world, and that have already brought the planet to the brink of economic, social and ecological catastrophe.

The reinforcement and expansion of the economic colonization of southern countries by northern countries, while widening the gap between rich and poor in all countries.

A sharp increase in unemployment in both the North and the South, as work is increasingly mechanized and automated, as corporate farming and biotechnology replace traditional small-scale agriculture, and as corporate activity becomes more mobile, unrestricted, opaque, and unaccountable.

Massive population shifts from rural to urban areas, with commensurate poverty, famine, ethnic friction, and degradation of living and working conditions and human rights.

The accelerated invasion of the earth's remaining wilderness, bringing a loss of biodiversity, depletion of natural resources and the breakdown of the planet's life support systems, as is already evident in ozone destruction, global warming, loss of species and habitat, depletion of forests and oceans, and the loss of the lands and rights of native peoples.

Worldwide homogenization of diverse, local and indigenous cultures, social and economic forms, as well as values and living patterns that reflect the efficiency needs of the new global monoculture; simultaneously, the homogenization of diverse landscapes, as they are transformed to suit the global market. [We] view international trade and investment agreements, including the GATT, the World Trade Organization (WTO), Maastricht, NAFTA and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), combined with the structural adjustment policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to be direct stimulants to the processes that weaken democracy, create a world order that is under the control of transnational corporations, and that devastate the natural world.

We advocate the following principles:

Revitalization of local communities by promoting maximum self-reliance, economic and political control, and environmental sustainability.

Establishment of economic enterprises and accompanying institutions that enhance people's abilities to exercise democratic control over all decisions that affect them, while promoting meaningful and sustainable livelihoods for all.

Replacement of economic policies based on such concepts as "comparative advantage," which have destroyed local economies through emphasizing regional specialization and environmentally disastrous global transport activity. We urge emphasis on the use of local resources for local production and consumption to produce a better balance between local commerce and long-distance trade.

Abandonment of the paradigm of unlimited economic growth-which is blind to ecological limits and seeks to maximize consumption and material output.

Recognition of the rights and sovereignty of indigenous peoples.

Encouragement of biodiversity, cultural diversity, and diversity of social, economic, and political forms.

Development of autonomous, regional and local cycles of production and consumption based primarily on renewable resources of energy and raw materials, and recycling all types of wastes, thus preserving natural resources for future generations, as well as the wisdom and beauty of nature.
[support] [do not support]


Resolution 11 - A Proposed Resolution on Reform of the Internal Revenue Code

The pervasive, corrupting and degrading influence of money in the political process; the prevalence of corporate welfare, the need for campaign finance reform and/or term limits, are manifestations of the deleterious effects of the present tax collection system. We cannot continue to deplore the manifestations while we neglect to address the causative factor.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) spends millions of dollars every year to maintain an inadequate and complicated tax collection system. The seven million word tax code is so convoluted the Internal Revenue Service itself has trouble understanding it. Corporations spend millions of dollars on tax compliance, much more than they actually spend on taxes. Many millions more are spent on lobbyists to secure passage of favorable tax legislation and/or subsidies More millions are donated to political parties and candidates for the same purpose, contributing to the moral morass that encouraged the sale of access to the White House to monied interests and foreign investors. Billions of dollars are wasted on non- production related activities which in turn, increases the cost of production of consumer goods, and, in the final analysis, consumers eventually pays for all these expenses because they are included in the price of merchandise and services.

The deficiencies of the present incomprehensible, convoluted and loopholes riddled tax code is obvious, many attempts have been made to simplify, rectify and/or amend it but no substantial improvement have been achieved. In 1997 a Heritage Foundation study found that there are more than 577 billion reasons to reform the Internal Revenue Service. In 1998 they found more than 159 billion new reasons to reform the Internal Revenue Code bringing the total number of reasons to more than 737 billion.

Pandering to the misconception that the accumulation of wealth automatically stimulates the economy and creates jobs, the basic difference between thecurrent tax initiatives revolve around the amount of anticipated budget surpluses that should be returned to taxpayers. Unfortunately, the posturing of the presidential candidates does not effectively address the real issue, tax simplification.

In recent years several regressive tax systems have surfaced, including: a flat tax, a value added tax, a consumption tax and/or a national sales tax, these taxes would unfairly burden low-income and moderate- income families and would not effectively address elimination of the national debt (debt service on the national debt consumes more than 25% of the budget). While a flat tax on wages would simplify individual tax returns, it does not address the complex, expensive and corrupting aspects of the current system. Sales taxes and property taxes are extremely regressive and should be repealed.

In theory, a truly progressive income tax is the best system. In practice, we have the attempt at progressivity of the present system which has evolved into the massive and complicated system we have today. In the words of the Kemp Commission, the present tax code "is beyond repair - it is impossibly complex, outrageously expensive, overly intrusive, economically destructive, and manifestly unfair....We believe [it] cannot be revised, should not be reinvented, and must not be retained."

Apparently, the favorite pastime of our legislators is to dream up tax collection schemes that will not arouse too much opposition from a usually apathetic electorate. If this trend continues we may soon pay taxes for the air we breathe. Ridiculous? Remember, once water was free for the taking. Today, because of pollution and urbanization - in the name of progress - we are compelled to pay taxes for the water we use. The time has come for the repeal of both the sales tax and the property tax. Middle-class citizens and the poor are the ones most adversely affected by these regressive taxes while the rich are not paying a fair share

We propose a three tiered tax system for individuals and corporations that is neither truly flat nor truly progressive but truly simple, and introduces into the economic system, the principle of checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution. It also provides the mechanism to eliminate budget deficits and pay-down the national debt

In this simplified system, all personal income such as, wages, interest earned, dividends received, bonuses, gifts etc. are taxable. And as long as corporations are granted personhood, their income is also taxable at the same rate as personal income. Assets and/or property is not taxable.

In The First Tier:

Individuals with an income that is less than the designated Federal Poverty Level pays no tax. The current operating expenses of corporations, excluding their public relations, advertising and interest expenses are deductible.

In The Second Tier.

Individuals pay a 25% tax on personal income above the designated Federal Poverty Level. Corporations pay a 25% tax on net income after deducting current operating expenses as defined in Tier One.

In The Third Tier.

Individuals who receive more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) a year after taxes, and corporations whose net income after taxes exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100.000.000) pays a surcharge on excess income at a rate that will provide for a balanced budget and pay-down the National Debt.

Addenda.

The Federal Budget will repeal all subsidies and tax incentives, fund Social Security based on income under $100,000, extend the benefits of Medicare (regardless of age) to all residents with a valid Social Security Card, compensate for all revenue lost by the repeal of sales and property taxes, and provide at least 50% of the funds needed to build and maintain public schools and not-for-profit medical facilities.

The mandating authority must contribute at least 75% of the cost of all mandated programs.

Explanations

Individuals - For income tax purposes, married couples may file as an individual or separately to eliminate the marriage penalty and, hopefully, return to the days when a single wage earner can support a family.

Corporations as Individuals - To discourage the merger- mania and the concomitant downsizing that reduces the payroll for employees, and to encourage small business enterprises.

After Taxes - Individuals and corporations would deduct previous year taxes before computing present year tax. Net Income - Corporations would deduct all expenses excluding interest, public relations and advertising expenses from gross income to arrive at net income. The general public should not subsidize the interest on loans, public relations and advertising expenses of corporations. Surcharge - The percentage of the surcharge would be established by Congress annually to provide for a balanced budget and pay-down the national debt. The individuals and corporations subject to this surcharge are the ones best qualified to monitor and check the excesses of Congress, hence the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution.
[support] [do not support]


Resolution 12 - A Proposed Resolution regarding Direct Democracy

We support more direct democracy because increased people power leads to better laws and policies, more responsible and involved citizens, and even a better representative democracy! We mean to make it easier for us all to propose and vote for the laws we want, modernizing the initiative power now enjoyed in 24 US States. We should use telephone and Internet voting and petitioning, extend initiatives to the other states and to the federal level, and institute quarterly voting as the Swiss have for their initiative process. We want to decrease the power of money, and increase the power of people, in both direct and representative Democracy.

There are 4 main reasons why this is important:

1. As folks like Ralph Nader, Medea Benjamin and Michael Moore have noted, the majority of Americans largely support Green values and vote for them when they can, while representatives mostly vote the way their corporate contributors want.

2. Because implementing our values by initiative will be so much less frustrating than by lobbying legislators or by litigation, people will vote and participate more, becoming more responsible citizens.

3. People will compare initiative legislation to our representatives' legislation. We hope the competition will encourage better representation from our representatives. The people will make the key policies, and legislators will carry out the more technical details.

4. Direct democracy is an educational and evolutionary process: Educational, because We the People have to live with any legislative mistakes we make, and so we have the incentive to correct those mistakes. Representatives on the other hand, usually try to cover up their mistakes, because their careers and egos are on the line. Direct democracy is evolutionary because the initiative process can be used to improve the initiative process in ways we haven't even thought of yet.

Here are steps we can take towards a more direct democracy:

1. Encourage Green candidates to make this a top talking point of their campaigns.

2. Encourage people to read and comment on the draft of the Direct Democracy Initiative (http://vote.org/us) proposed by former US Senator Mike Gravel and the non-profit Philadelphia II. The DDI would extend the initiative process to all government jurisdictions in the U.S., allow initiative campaign contributions only from individuals, and establish an Electoral Trust. The Trust would promote universal lifetime voter registration and "contemporary technology" for voting. It would administer the initiative process, providing a legislative drafting service, hearings, contribution reports, Initiative pros & cons, etc.

Philadelphia II does not intend to enact the Direct democracy Initiative by begging Congress to share their power! They intend to use "first principles" - the fact that the people, not the state legislatures, ratified the Constitution- to hold a popular vote on the Direct democracy Initiative. James Madison said "first principles" was the right of the people to "just do it." We should.

3. Encourage people to learn more about how direct democracy has worked in the 24 States with it, in Switzerland, and in other cultures, starting with the Government by the People web site at http://vote.org. Initiatives have brought us women's suffrage, better labor conditions, the Nuclear Freeze, direct election of US Senators, campaign finance reform, direct primaries, etc. In Switzerland, initiatives motivate better voting turnout four times a year than American turnout once a year!

4. Pass a petition to modernize and ease Colorado's initiative process, which has not changed significantly for almost a century. Ballot access should be facilitated by lessening the number of signatures required and/or allowing signatures on petitions from newspapers, the internet, etc. Elections by telephone and internet should be held quarterly to accommodate the expected increase in citizen legislation. Broadcasters should be required to air the issues on the public airwaves, for free. Campaigns using only volunteer signature gatherers should get on the ballot with half the signatures required of those with paid petitioners. This avoids an outright ban on paid petitioners, which the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional.
[support] [do not support]



Return to CONTENTS.