Meetings and Events | Join Us | News Update | 10 Key Values | Green Links | Contact Us
Green Chat | Activist Issues | Electoral Issues | 1998 Green Party Candidates

Policy Committee; Green Party of New Jersey
PC#2000:01: draft #1
Moratorium on Genetically Modified Organisms
Diane Beeny

Genetic Engineering is one of the most controversial projects in today's  society.  The Policy Committee asked Diane Beeny who has been active in this field and who has spoken at many public gatherings, to produce a position paper for our use.  The following is the result of her efforts.  Please submit comments to Earl Gray (EarlGray@exit109.com; 732-219-5841) or call Diane at 908-233-7344 or post comments for discussion to gpnj-policy@egroups.com.

Due to the concerns regarding the possible far-ranging and long term  detrimental impacts from the use and spread of genetic engineering  technologies, and from the ever-increasing release of genetically modified  organisms (GMOs) into the environment, both deliberate and accidental, the GPNJ calls for a moratorium on the use of such technologies, particularly in  agriculture, forestry and in environmental applications.  The wide scale use and commercialization of these biotechnologies pose numerous hazards:  genetic pollution and gene drift through wind and insect pollination; demonstrated harm to various beneficial insect species; erosion of bio-diversity through increased use of mono-cultured crops and possible imbalances posed to fragile eco-systems; unknown long-term health and safety risks; increasing consolidation and control by large multinational corporations and erosion of democratic rights, input and control in vital aspects of life.

Therefore it is prudent to exercise extreme caution and strict controls over  all research and implementation of biotechnologies in accordance with  the Precautionary Principle.  Anything currently produced by use of genetic engineering technology or containing such elements MUST be clearly labeled as  to its origin, particularly those items intended for human or animal  consumption.  All life on this planet is the common heritage of all of its  inhabitants and NO private corporation or individuals should be allowed to patent and exclusively profiteer from the exploitation of any life form--animal, plant, human or microbial--whether genetically engineered or  otherwise.

Policy Committee; Green Party of New Jersey
PC#1999:01: draft #3
Recommended Policy for reviewing electoral candidates
David Gregory & Jeffrey Perlman: Co-authors

Introduction and background:

Because of an overwhelming need to create a process by which electoral candidates are chosen, the policy committee in conjunction with the Green Council has formulated the following document. The structure of this policy was forwarded to the Policy Committee at the close of the Green Council Meeting February 27, 1999.  The committee subsequently met on March 11,1999 taking into consideration all prior discussion on the issue.  That document was presented to the Executive Council on March 20th,1999.  This third draft addresses issues raised at that meeting.

Summary:

This policy is intended to create a process for the selection of electoral candidates.  This process includes notification, review and support. The policy allows for an ample discussion period during which the potential candidates will be evaluated followed by a vote.  In keeping with the value of Grass Roots Democracy, the responsibility for choosing candidates should  rest prominently in the individual members of the Green Party,  with appropriate oversight by the Green Council.  To that end, the concept of a 'review body' (Section 2b) has been introduced to define which members shall review candidates for all electoral races, from town council to senatorial and gubernatorial seats.

1.  Notification:

All candidates who are interested in running for an electoral office shall register with the Secretary of the Party no later than April 8th of the year of the election.  They shall also communicate their intent to the relevant local(s) through the Green Gram and other available means.  The Green Council may, by a two-thirds vote, waive the notification deadline for a specific candidate.

2.  Review

a)  All candidates must be reviewed by an appropriate 'body' prior to the Green Council meeting in May, which shall occur on or before the 15th of that month.   A one-time exception will be allowed for the review of 1999 electoral candidates at the Green Council meeting on May 23, 1999.

b)  The review body consists of all members of the most local recognized organization(s) of the Party which encompass, overlap, or are encompassed by the electoral boundary.  For statewide elections, the review body consists of all statewide members. In this case, the Green Council shall organize a special review meeting before May 15th.

c)  All review bodies shall submit to the Green Council their decision(s), including both the vote and a short statement summarizing the 'body's' discussion.  For statewide elections, the vote of the review body will occur at the May15th meeting with absentee ballots due by that day.

d)  If an electoral boundary does not have a natural 'body' as defined in (b), it is the responsibility of the Green Council to create a 'body' of Greens to review the candidate.

e)  It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure all review bodies meet prior to May 15th.

3.  Support:

a)  The Green Council shall discuss the decisions of all review bodies except for statewide elections.  A motion of support for each candidate shall be brought to a vote.

b)  For all non-statewide elections, the Green Council vote shall consist of three choices: Actively Support, Actively Oppose, or Neither Support nor Oppose. A super-majority (2/3) shall be required for active support or opposition of a candidate.  If this is not obtained, the Green Council's decision is understood to be one of neither support or opposition.

c) In the case of statewide elections (section2b), the Green Council vote shall consist of two choices only; support or opposition.  A super-majority shall be required for support of a single candidate.

This policy was drafted on March 11th, 1999.  The following Green Party members were in attendance at the Policy Committee:

Members present at the Executive Council Meeting on March 20th, 1999:

Member submission; Green Party of New Jersey
Initial draft
Reform of the Internal Revenue Code
by Joseph Mosley

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 moneyed interests and foreign investors. Alas! 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 an 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 the current 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 I 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.

New Brunswick, NJ, March 7, 2000