Platform—National

Madison, James, “The Federalist #45,” 1/26/1788. “We have heard of the impious doctrine in the old world that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the new, in another shape, that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever, has any other value, than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.”

We believe that corporations, properly regulated, provide a sound and productive basis for a successful society. However, we are also convinced that over the past 50 years large corporations have escaped from effective regulation; that they have captured all three branches of government at the federal, state and local levels; and that they are responsible for our growing inequality, our polarization, and for the perversion of, damage to, and/or destruction of many of our vital industries, institutions, and rights. From farming to law, from air travel to medicine, from media to manufacture, from housing to education, from democracy to privacy, large corporations have been altering our landscape, our culture, our values, and our lives in unattractive ways. The solution is to reregulate large corporations, but since both the Democratic and Republican parties are beholden to and have been captured by corporate America, neither of the two will ever pay more than lip service to the need. If we want to win back our country, we must stop voting for lesser evils, stop voting for Democrats or Republicans, and vote instead for third party candidates who do not take money from large corporations, PACs or the rich.

We do not want to predetermine in too much detail what our future incumbents will do. Assuming that we choose them wisely, once they again view their responsibility as government of, by, and for the people, they can be trusted to do what’s right. However, we will propose here some principles and a few ideas in the form of a flexible platform to suggest our general intent.

We believe that all our citizens have a right to food, shelter, health, education, work, and the enjoyment of each of them. On analysis we think that they can all be helped by providing living wage work to everyone who wants it. As a result, our primary suggestion is that we consider establishing a new entitlement program: a federal job guarantee. Rather than propose a minimum basic income, why not promise those who are unemployed a well-paying government job with benefits? It is not like there is a shortage of tasks that need doing. When Amazon or Wal-Mart or Pfizer or Intel or Citigroup lays off a thousand workers, instead of putting those workers on unemployment, why not put them to work, ideally near their homes, using skills they already have—to improve our infrastructure, build or refurbish and upgrade housing, solar and wind farms, libraries, schools, city halls; improve the electric grid, teach, provide support in areas of their training for federal, state, and city functions. etc. If a federal job were to pay $20 an hour with generous benefits, a new minimum wage would be established, and no one fit and wanting to work would be denied a job. In Jacob Hacker’s formulation, it is a form of pre-distribution rather than redistribution, which seems preferable. At present, our Federal Reserve makes sure that at least 4% of those actively looking for work will not find it, not to mention those who have given up. (The Fed operates on the theory that when the unemployment rate drops below approximately 4%, inflation begins to rise, though historical evidence shows that even at times of full employment, as during the two 20th century World Wars, inflation did not occur. As long as the work is productive it does not cause inflation—see The Deficit Myth by Stephanie Kelton.)

One foundation of capitalism is competition—competition provides incentive, the engine that drives innovation and cost reduction. Of course inherent in competition is insecurity. There are always winners and losers in any competition and so continual vigilance and continual uncertainty at work (when they are subject to genuine competition, an increasing rarity) are the constant companions of the CEOs and executives who today decide how to manage our affairs as a nation. Since insecurity was once a primary factor in their working lives (and continues to be publicized as such—their home lives, of course, are extremely secure) and is viewed by them as a motivator, and since the decision makers have won the competition, they, most of them, argue that insecurity is salutary and will help average citizens help themselves. Perhaps that is why we are plagued by various insecurities: of, for example, food, health, housing, education, money, privacy, law, and influence. However, insecurity for the average person is not salutary. We don’t have the support systems that buoy the executives making the rules. To be productive we need reliable resources, all that our leaders have, by design, been making insecure for fifty years. That’s why we have a Bill of Rights: rights, not privileges that we have to earn or can be taken way without due process.

To re-establish security and address our other rights, we are notionally in favor of Medicare for All and free public college education; access to housing should improve with a living wage but if not, we would encourage other approaches to make housing affordable—rent control, for example, has worked in various places at various times.

We favor encouraging competition between corporations, discouraging monopolies, and feel that limiting the size of corporations deserves consideration. Where monopolies are appropriate, either the government could run such enterprises or the corporation offered any meaningful monopoly should, like AT&T with Bell Telephone provide a return of value to society. Moreover, options and buybacks should be reconsidered. The Friedman inspired single-minded focus on stock price and profit should be abandoned and the mission of corporations should once again include a responsibility for employees and society as stakeholders.

Perhaps it is better to focus on goals rather than means to get there. The goal of reestablishing regulation of corporations has a primary purpose—to channel them toward products and services that benefit the citizens of our country and not just their executive staff and investors. Their goal cannot remain only to optimize profit. We feel that the needs are: a job for everyone who wants one; affordable and attractive shelter, food, energy, and education, universal health care coverage and high quality health care, true public health (with control of the various industries toxifying our food and our world with plastics, fertilizers, pesticides, and the like), privacy, safety, and security. (Perhaps both sides should have equal legal representation in court and equal funds and time to research the case: one lawyer on each side, each receiving equal pay.)

We should not worry about where the money will come from. Anything that increases productivity (and most of the above will) can be paid for without creating inflation. And since we are no longer on the gold standard and are not tied to any other value standard, our government can print as much money as it wishes without any risk except inflation. Inflation can be corrected by raising taxes on those who can easily afford to pay. That way the Federal Reserve doesn’t have to fiddle with interest rates, nor do people have to lose their employment (see again Stephanie Kelton as above).

As long as corporations are paid a reasonable fee for their services, they can be employed to help us reach the goals listed above.

Platform—State

Our goals are to improve the impact of the average citizen on state government, to increase equality of opportunity and reward in our state, and to improve the health, safety, and security of all the citizens of Oregon.

Some policies that might be helpful:

1. Encourage and support referenda to approve star voting.

2. Encourage and support referenda to increase corporations taxes.

3. Attempt to improve the public spiritedness of the charters of companies chartered here in Oregon.

Platform—Local

Each year when it comes time to vote we party members find ourselves with too little information to make an informed decision. We suspect many of you may find yourselves in the same predicament. There is much that seems less than ideal about our city government; and we suspect that that may have to do with the politicians who occupy the offices that administer the city, many of whom ran unopposed. As individuals we have felt disempowered and uncertain how to proceed.

As a growing group of concerned citizens, we now plan to present the problems we identify on this web site; to learn as much as we can and offer what we learn about the various elective positions in our city and about the people who occupy them at present; to promote discussion about these issues; and to field candidates with more promising approaches to public service wherever that seems appropriate.

Some of the offices that may benefit from new management are EWEB, the City Council, the County Commission, Judgeships, and the Mayor’s office. As we have considered EWEB, we have been struck by the controversy over smart meters; and the fact now that they’ve been imposed against substantial community resistance, we customers and owners of EWEB have seen little benefit from their advent. The increase in our monthly bills has continued unabated with further increases promise. We have also discovered that industrial companies pay less than half as much for electricity and substantially less for water than residential customers (commercial companies pay an intermediate fee per kilowatt hour; the reason given is that they use more, but why we would want to encourage companies to use more electricity is unclear—it seems that the more you use the more you should pay. Nor is it clear why our representatives would choose to make the difference so extreme, when a lot of us owners find it hard to make ends meet, something that is a lesser problem for the companies that get to pay less than we.

We also have concerns about other local issues including

A. Telecom

B. Light Rail

C. Zoning

D. Land Use

E. Housing

1. Need more affordable housing: costs like food,

electricity and water, insurance, and

property taxes being components of this problem

2. Rental costs

3. Housing clusters in countryside

4. County and city zoning laws

F. Parking and parking meters

Of course, on the local, state and national levels, all politically responsible action will become much easier when our elected public officials are motivated by working of, by, and for the people. However, we also intend to try to introduce new ideas and new approaches to addressing the frustrations of our community when trying to get our problems and concerns attended to. If we all work together, we can improve the approach to various issues that seem to be problematic at present. We would like to hear your ideas and have your help in pursuing these projects.