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 - Obama Admirer System

American Extremists - The ruler that proves the exception

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


OPP calls for 28th Constitutional Amendment: Corporations are not people and money is not speech

The Oregon Progressive Party calls for a U.S. constitutional amendment which declares in clear and unequivocal language that:
 
Corporations Are Not People and 
Money is not Speech
 
American history is a long battle between democracy (We the People) and elitist power of corporations and the wealthy.  The balance has been tilted in favor of the wealthy 1% and the national/multinational corporations by various U.S. Supreme Court cases.  In a series of decisions beginning with the 1886 Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad, our rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights have been declared by the courts to belong to corporations, the artificial creations of the states. These decisions have given corporations constitutional rights

Party Issues Statement on Body Cameras for Policy

The OPP has issued a Policy Statement on Police Body Cameras supporting required use of body cameras to record police interactions with civilians.

Former Top Enron Energy Trader Funds 69% of Measure 90 Campaign (Top Two Primary)

Manipulating energy markets was not enough
Now the agenda is manipulating Oregon's elections

Update:  John Arnold has ponied up another $275,000, making his total Measure 90 contribution = $1.75 million.

Former top-level Enron energy trader John Arnold has now contributed $1,500,000 to a new political committee, the "Open Primaries Committee." Arnold doubled his previous $500,000 contribution two weeks before with another $1,000,000 contribution just filed today. The Committee's only mission is to support Measure 90, the "top two" primary plan backed by corporations and the wealthy.

John Arnold made his mark on society as one of the top managers of the Enron energy trading operation. That was the bunch who caused the phony "West Coast Energy Crisis" of 2000-2002 with fraudulent trades, resulting in rolling blackouts and huge electricity rate increases. Later studies showed that it cost the California economy alone over $42 billion. For its impact on Oregon, see Enron Corruption: The Special Oregon Connection.

John Arnold is Measure 90's biggest financial backer, by far. Of the total raised to support Measure 90 between its two committees ($2,189,719 so far), John Arnold personally has contributed 69% of it.

"Burn, baby, burn. That's a beautiful thing." That is what Enron traders were recorded as saying as a fire approached a major transmission line, because it caused the line to be "derated" or shut off, thus drastically increasing electricity prices. See this New York Times article: Word for Word? Energy Hogs: Enron Traders on Grandama Millie and Making Out Like Bandits for more information. Or remember this from the Enron energy traders:

"They're f------g taking all the money back from you guys?" complains an Enron employee on the tapes. "All the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California?"

"Yeah, grandma Millie, man"

"Yeah, now she wants her f------g money back for all the power you've charged right up, jammed right up her ass for f------g $250 a megawatt hour." [emphasis added]

See the CBS News article Enron Traders Caught on Tape.

John Arnold received a $8 million bonus in 2001, one day before Enron declared bankruptcy. In his 2005 deposition, he took the 5th Amendment and refused to answer any questions, except basically his name. He formed a hedge fund, Centaurus Advisors LLC, and hired, among others, John Forney, who had pled guilty to manipulating electricity prices from Enron's now-defunct trading office in Portland, Oregon. See the CBS News piece Enron Energy Trader Pleads Guilty.

For more information on why Measure 90 is bad for Oregon (but somehow apparently good for former Enron energy traders) see:

Save Oregon's Democracy
Protect Our Vote

OPP Candidate for Governor Debates Other Hopefuls

A written description of this debate, conducted by the Oregon League of Cities, is available at KATU.  Our candidates are shut out of most televised debates.

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.