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:
- Recognize that young people have the inalienable right
of independent
existence. Youth are not the property of their parents or
guardians, but
are under their care and guidance.
- Recognize that youth have the right to survival through
the provision of
adequate food, shelter and comprehensive health care,
including prenatal
care for the mother.
- Recognize that youth have the right to be protected
from abuse, harmful
drugs, violence, environmental hazards, neglect and
exploitation.
- Recognize that youth have the right to develop in a
safe and nurturing
early environment provided by affordable child care and
pre-school
preparation.
- Recognize that youth have the right to an education
that is stimulating,
relevant, engaging and that fosters their natural desire
to learn.
- Encourage the creative potential of young people to
the greatest extent
possible.
- Allow young people to have input into the direction and
pace of their own
education , including input into the operation of their
educational
institutions.
- Provide young people, at the earliest time appropriate,
with education
regarding their own sexuality.
- Give young people the opportunity to express
themselves in their own
media, including television, radio, films and the Internet.
Young people
should also be given skills in analyzing commercial
media.
- Keep young people as free as possible from coercive
corporate advertising
at their educational institutions.
- Recognized the importance of parents, teachers and
other allies of young
people. Ample support must be provided for their work.
[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.