Progressive Party Positions

Progressive Party Positions

We are VERY different from the Establishment parties.

Our 2014 Voters Pamphlet Statement

 

Dem

Rep

Progressive

Real campaign finance reform NO NO YES
Oppose extension of income tax cuts for the rich NO NO YES
Oppose Wall Street bailouts NO NO YES
Oppose Cuts in Social Security Benefits NO NO YES
Employment for All (WPA style) NO NO YES
Increase minimum wage to living wage ($10 or more) NO NO YES
Single Payer comprehensive health care NO NO YES
Oppose Cuts in Medicare Coverage NO NO YES
End wars in Iraq and Afghanistan NO NO YES
Oppose use of mercenaries ("contractors") NO NO YES
Cut military spending NO NO YES
Equal rights for all; same-sex marriage NO NO YES
Oppose NAFTA & WTO; encourage local sourcing of products & services NO NO YES
Oppose spying on American civilians NO NO YES
End occupation of Palestine NO NO YES
Oppose shipping coal for export through Columbia Gorge NO NO YES
Oppose offshore drilling NO NO YES
Clean energy; no nuclear NO NO YES
Repair, improve infrastructure (transportation, water systems, etc.) NO NO YES
End the drug war NO NO YES
End the Senate filibuster; restore majority rule NO NO YES
End “corporate personhood” NO NO YES

 OREGON ISSUES

1)    We have worked for real campaign finance reform, not the phony bills promoted by the Democrats and Republicans, both of which opposed the 2006 Oregon campaign finance reform ballot measures.

2)    We want a State Bank to invest in jobs for Oregonians and to stop the State Treasurer and the Oregon Investment Council from jumping into bed with corporate raiders and fast-buck artists who lavish luxury travel and gifts on State employees.

3)    We want fair taxation.  Oregon has the 4th highest income taxes of any state on lower-income working families and is still at the bottom in taxes on corporations.  

4)    We want to stop government promotion of gambling (including video poker and video slots) and stop giving away $100 million per year in ridiculously high commissions to shops with video machines.

5)    We want to make the initiative and referendum again available to grass-roots efforts, instead of making it so complicated and expensive that only corporations and unions can afford to use it.

6)    We want to improve K-12 public education by giving parents and teachers more rights  to manage their neighborhood schools.

7)    We want social justice systems that are inclusive and that promote responsibility, safety, trust-building and equality.

8)    We advocate abolishing the Oregon Senate, leaving the 60-member Oregon House of Representatives.  Splitting the Legislature into two bodies allows both of them to play games and avoid responsibility.

9)    We want the Oregon Legislature to adopt the National Popular Vote plan so that Presidents are elected by popular vote.

What exactly does the party

What exactly does the party mean when they say that they oppose the use of mercenaries. Because the entire U.S. military today is made up of mercenary soldiers. They are paid to fight for our country. By opposing mercenaries, does the Progressive Party oppose the use of these people paid to fight? Do they want a strictly volunteer army? Or is it that they want the U.S. to stop using private armies run by individuals?

Progressive Party opposes military private contractors

Our shorthand "oppose use of mercenaries" means that we oppose the U.S. military hiring private companies to kill people or "provide security." It is not a comment about a volunteer army. We also advocate the quickest possible withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Generally it's a politics and

Generally it's a politics and it's there since then. It's a very old brand new things to us. It repeats again and again. The bottom line is what we can do the best is to help our nation. Let change starts at ourselves and spread it eventually. Big change always has a small beginning.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

American Extremists

American Extremists - National man of mystery

American Extremists - Non, je ne regrette rien

American Extremists - About face

American Extremists - Dis appointment

American Extremists - If only the czar knew!

American Extremists - Cutter's way

American Extremists - Circle game


Statement on U.S. Military Intervention in Iraq and Syria

The United States needs to:

Get out of Iraq.
Stay out of Syria.

Twelve years ago the Bush Administration and the corporate media launched a huge campaign to convince Americans that a regime in the Middle East was such a threat that it required military intervention and occupation of the area.  "Sadam Hussein even gassed his own people," we were told, along with the falsehoods about weapons of mass destruction.  The United States has already suffered nearly 4,500 Americans dead and 35,000 Americans injured, not to mention the effects on Iraqis:  over 175,000 dead, untold numbers injured, displacement of over 1.5 million from their homes, the devastation of the Iraqi economy and infrastructure, and the leveling of Iraqi cities.  It has cost over $2 trillion of U.S. taxpayer money.

Now the same hype job is back, to ensure continued profits of the military-industrial establishment.  Now, again, there is a regime in the Middle East (ISIS) that is claimed to pose a threat to the entire world.  "The brutal, insane ISIS regime has beheaded two American journalists!  We must respond by sending our military back to Iraq!"

The Oregon Progressive Party says no.  American policy should be:

Get out of Iraq.
Stay out of Syria.

The Obama Administration now says we have to do the same thing we already did in Iraq for over a decade.  But this time somehow military intervention in Iraq (and Syria) will work, instead of just continuing to make the situation worse for the U.S. and for those who live in Iraq and Syria.  Not to be outdone by the Bush folks, Obama wants to expand U.S. military strikes into Syria and to arm "the moderate Syrian opposition."  The CIA has already been trying to do that, but the weapons seem to end up in the hands of ISIS.

And, say the hawks, we have to "train and equip the Iraqi Army," which we already did for 10 years--before they ripped off their uniforms and turned over their weapons to ISIS.  And, although until about a week ago the two worst regimes in the Middle East were supposedly Iran and Syria, now the U.S. is allying itself with those Shiite regimes against their Sunni enemies.

The only reason the war hawks care about Iraq and adjacent areas is because somehow a lot of Arab sand got deposited on top of our oil.  Protecting the oil there does not benefit consumers; it only secures more profits for the oil companies.

Get out of Iraq.
Stay out of Syria.

Koch Brothers Provide Significant Funding to Top Two Primary (Measure 90) Supporters

Oregon Progressive Party Press Release: 9/16/2014

The Koch brothers, through their firm Koch Industries, are providing significant funding to a major supporter of Measure 90, the top two primary proposal.

The political committee of Associated Oregon Industries (AOI PAC, ID #10) reported on September 3 receiving a $10,000 contribution from Koch Industries.  The AOI PAC on September 2 reported giving a $50,000 contribution to Vote Yes on Measure 90 (ID #17001), making it at that time the largest financial backer of the measure.  It was later topped by the $60,000 contribution from the Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Administrators.

Koch Industries, at $25,000, is the third largest aggregate contributor to the AOI PAC, behind only Daimler Trucks LLC and ESCO Corp.

"The Koch brothers join a parade of corporations, corporate executives, and big-time financiers in bankrolling Measure 90," said Seth Woolley of the Pacific Green Party.  "They correctly perceive Measure 90 as a way for the corporations to control Oregon."

The largest contributors to the Yes on Measure 90 PAC are:

The Udall Resolution to Amend U.S. Constitution is Inadequate

On September 11, the U.S. Senate voted 54-42 to break the filibuster on the resolution to send to the States a proposed constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.  The Democrats all voted to break the filibuster but did not invoke the "nuclear option" that would allow that 54-42 vote to prevail.  Instead, the Democrats allowed the Republicans to "win" with only 42 votes, thereby blocking a vote on the resolution itself.  Thanks, Democrats.  Of course, since such a resolution requires 2/3 affirmative votes in both houses of Congress, it would not be adopted by the current Congress.

The piece below shows that the resolution left much to be desired, anyway.

-- Dan Meek

As the US Senate moves to vote on the Udall proposed constitutional amendment to address the effects of the US Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, let's be clear.

by David Delk

We need a single constitutional amendment that says:
*Corporations are not people and do not have constitutional rights, and
*
money is not speech, it is property and shall be subject to regulation at all levels of government.
 
From the sounds of the letters received as well as the emails, our democracy can only be saved from the plutocrats and corporatists if we sign the petitions and contribute some money to endorse passage of Senate Joint Resolution 19, the so-called Udall amendment. According to the letter dated August 13, 2014, from Public Citizen, “Senators Cantwell and McCaskill just announced that they will vote for our constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, McCutcheon and all the other disastrous Supreme Court decisions that are handing effective control of our democracy over to giant corporations and a tiny cabal of super-wealthy individuals.”
 
We agree with Public Citizen that this is a crucial time for our democracy and that urgent action is required. But is Senator Tom Udall's (D-NM) Amendment (SRJ19) the right amendment? Will it do what it is hyped to do?
 
Oregon Progressive Party says “Get some teeth in that”
 
We need a proposed constitutional amendment with some teeth, something that will really do what Public Citizen suggests the Udall Amendment will do, but actually would not.

Vote No on Measure 90: Destroys Minor Parties

Here is the joint Voters' Pamphlet statement of Oregon Progressive Party and Pacific Green Party:

Oregon’s Grassroots Political Parties Say “Vote NO” on Measure 90: “Top Two Primary”

The big business backers of Measure 90 want to restrict your right to vote for the candidates and political parties of your choice. They want only Democrats and Republicans on the November ballot.

Measure 90 will allow only two candidates on the November ballot in each race. Both candidates can be from the same party.

 Under “Top Two” in Washington and California, there have been:
ZERO minor party or independent candidates
on the general election ballot for
any statewide office

and

ZERO minor party candidates for any office,
including the Legislature, when two major party candidates
ran in the primary election.

Washington elects 147 legislators and 12 Congress members; California elects 120 legislators and 55 Congress members. In November, voters in those states could vote for only Democrats and Republicans in races where at least 2 of them ran in the primary. In California there will be 28 races this November between 2 Democrats or between 2 Republicans.

In practice, “Top Two” means just Democrats and Republicans, period.

The impartial Oregon Citizens’ Review Committee voted 14-5 to oppose Measure 90, in part because:

“Measure 90 has several drafting errors. The most significant appears to eliminate minor parties. Because M90 bars parties from nominating candidates, their legal status is in jeopardy.”

Measure 90 backers claim it will increase voter turnout and produce “moderate” legislatures. But, under Top Two, California and Washington just suffered the lowest voter turnout primaries in their histories. A 2014 study by professors at Princeton and Georgetown ranked the California and Washington legislatures #1 and #4 in most polarization among the 50 states. Oregon ranked #18.

Oregon has a long and proud history of grassroots political parties and independent voices. Voters need real, meaningful choices on the November ballot. That’s why we’re urging NO on Measure 90.

VISIT SAVEOREGONSDEMOCRACY.ORG

Oregon Progressive Party     progparty.org
Pacific Green Party of Oregon     pacificgreens.org

Party Endorses Some Oregon Ballot Measures, Opposes Others

The Oregon Progressive Party has endorsed these measures on the 2014 Oregon general election ballot:

Measure 88 (referendum): Provides Oregon resident "driver card" without requiring proof of legal presence in the United States.

Measure 89 (initiative): Amends Constitution: State/political subdivision shall not deny or abridge equality of rights on account of sex.

Measure 91 (initiative): Allows possession, manufacture, sale of marijuana by/to adults, subject to state licensing, regulation, taxation.

Measure 92 (initiative): Requires food manufacturers, retailers to label "genetically engineered" foods as such; state, citizens may enforce.

The Oregon Progressive Party opposes these measures on the 2014 Oregon general election ballot:

Measure 90 (initiative): Changes general election nomination processes: provides for single primary ballot listing candidates; top two advance.

Party Elects New State Council

The Oregon Progressive Party has elected a new 5-person State Council, which is generally in charge of all party matters. The new council members are:

Alaina Melville
David Delk
David Hess
Jason Kafoury
Liz Trojan

Dan Meek Debates Top Two Primary Proposal on KATU

Click on the image below to start the program.

Former Clinton Aide says: "My Party has Lost its Soul" to Wall Street Cash

Bill Curry, former Clinton White House aide and twice the Democratic candidate for Governor of Connecticut, writes at Salon that "Democrats lost their way chasing Wall Street cash" and that Democrats need to ally themselves with Ralph Nader. He says:

One reason we know voters will embrace populism is that they already have. It’s what they thought they were getting with Obama. In 2008 Obama said he’d bail out homeowners, not just banks. He vowed to fight for a public option, raise the minimum wage and clean up Washington. He called whistle-blowers heroes and said he’d bar lobbyists from his staff. He was critical of drones and wary of the use of force to advance American interests. He spoke eloquently of the threats posed to individual privacy by a runaway national security state.

He turned out to be something else altogether. To blame Republicans ignores a glaring truth: Obama’s record is worst where they had little or no role to play. It wasn’t Republicans who prosecuted all those whistle-blowers and hired all those lobbyists; who authorized drone strikes or kept the NSA chugging along; who reneged on the public option, the minimum wage and aid to homeowners. It wasn’t even Republicans who turned a blind eye to Wall Street corruption and excessive executive compensation. It was Obama.

Community Forum about Drones, Our Local to Global Future, What will Oregonians Decide?

The use of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), is a controversial issue. Most public discussion of drones has focused on military use. Less attention has been paid to the expanding use of domestic drones. Oregon passed HB 2710, restricting public agency use of drones, but with no guidance on private use.

To help us understand the safefy and privacy concerns associated with drones, Oregonians for Drone Control is hosting a panel discussion moderated by Steve Duin between nationally known panelists - a retired US colonel, a drone industry leader, a national robotics expert, and an Oregon legislator - on the uses and limits on drone technology, and who should decide.

Community Forum on Drones
Real Talk on Drones - What Will Oregon Decide?
DOWNLOAD
THE
FLYER
Thursday, August 7,  7:00 - 9:00 PM
First Unitarian Church, SW 12th and Salmon, downtown Portland

Speakers:
Retired Army Colonel Ann Wright will address the use of drones - domestically and internationally, in war and in peace, by police and civilians, by the state and by private corporations. Col Wright famously resignes as a US diplomat in protest of the Iraq War in 2003. She is the author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience.
Brian Whiteside, industry leader and Vice President of the award-winning Cascade Chapter of the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.
Peter Lumsdaine, researcher and frequent speaker on the use of robotics in warfare and social control; and founder of ARROWS, Alliance to Resist Robotic Warfare.
Rep. Jennifer Williamson, Oregon State Representative and member of the legislative work group that developed HB 2710, intended to provide guidance on drone uses and limits.

Sponsored by Economic Justice Action Group of 1st Unitarian Church, Oregonian for Drone Control, Alliance for Democracy, KBOO Community Radio, Oregon Progressive Party, others.

Admission: $5-20 sliding scale; no one turned away for lack of funds
Doors open at 6:30. Come early and visit the tables of our sponsors.