A Progressive Platform
Prospects and Expectations in a Kerry Administration
Introduction: Building a "Progressive Consensus"
Our platform consists of a compilation of policy proposals submitted by Greens for Kerry (GFK) members, participantsfrom the Boston Social Forum, and the GFK steering committee (and largely based on the work and research of variousprogressive advocacy organizations). We urge Senator Kerry (and the Democratic Party), if elected, to aggressivelypursue, advocate, and implement the proposals we have outlined. They all represent, at least in some form, issues thathe's demonstrated a consistent and solid record on throughout his career, and with a mobilized and active coalition ofprogressives, Greens, and Democrats behind him, can be realized.
We hope our 'platform' can serve as more than just a list of goals we'd like to see a Kerry administration reach, butalso as a tool to unite progressives around a set of specific policy proposals we can agree upon, and that ifimplemented, would greatly benefit the quality of life of all Americans, on issues as varied as economic justice, theenvironment, public health, and electoral reform.
PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS
The Problem:
Corporations and the wealthy elite are controlling the public debate and pulling the politicians strings.Unfortunately, these are the same interests who happen to benefit from weak environmental laws, a stagnant minimumwage, inadequate funding for healthcare, media consolidation/deregulation, giant tax breaks, and offshore tax shelters.The only thing that makes them more influential than the average American is that they give a lot more money to ourpolitical representatives. These same politicians come to depend on big money contributions, and therefore look out fortheir contributors' interests over those of the public and their constituents. As long as we maintain our system ofprivately financed campaigns, public policy will continue to be unduly influenced by the rich and powerful. Accordingto the Public Campaign, every day corporations and other wealthy donors pump another $2 million into the coffers of ourelected officials in Washington and their party committees. In return they receive an estimated $160 billion a year intax breaks, subsidies, and other overly generous deals. That's approximately $1500 per taxpayer per year.
Public Financing of Elections: Returning Power to the People
Public financing of elections would end special interests' grip on our political system and create a level playingfield for all qualified candidates. This would enable, and finally ensure, that everybody would have access to thefinancial resources needed to run a viable campaign, not just the connected and the wealthy elite. Under a publicfinancing system, candidates who agree to forego private contributions and acceptstrict spending limits would receive an equal and limited amount to run their campaigns from a publicly-financed cleanelections fund. In return, voters would see an end to the undue influence of special interests and a more level andjust playing field would be created. Consequently, issues once ignored, like environmental protection, fair trade,media deregulation, economic and social justice, and others would get the fair hearing they deserve, politicians wouldvote their conscience, and a more progressive and democratic agenda would be pursued.
Public financing systems, which are currently law in Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts, New Mexico, North Carolina, andVermont, have provided new energy and focus to campaign finance reform efforts in many other states, as well at thefederal level. U.S. Representative John F. Tierney (D-MA) and fifty-one of his colleagues introduced a "Clean Money,Clean Elections" bill in the 107th Congress and are preparing to introduce another. Further, a companion bill wasintroduced in the Senate and preparations are also underway to introduce another version.
Expectations of a Kerry Administration: Actively Support Public Financing of Elections, Sign Bill if Passed
John Kerry once teamed with the late Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota to present a Clean Money bill that would havegiven candidates the option of financing their political campaigns. The measure would have removed practically allspecial-interest money from House and Senate campaigns. Kerry also supported the McCain/Feingold campaign financereform bill and is one of the only Senators in U.S. history to refuse to take any PAC money in his four senatorialraces.
As President, and with the backing of the progressive community, Senator Kerry should actively and passionately supportpublic financing of elections and sign any such bill that reaches his desk. If the Republicans still control the Houseand Senate, the prospects of passing such legislation will be extremely difficult, but bold Presidents should embracethe tough battles that must be fought for the good of our democracy, whether winnable or not. Public financing ofelections needs a leader to make the case to the public and the Congress. Kerry must be a strong advocate for electoralreform, and by the least, he will force Republicans and moderate Democrats to publicly defend their support of acorrupt and broken campaign finance system.
Source: The Public Campaign, Common Cause
INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE
The Problem:
The buying power of the federal minimum wage has declined by nearly 25% over the last 20 years. According to theEconomic Policy Institute (EPI), the prevailing minimum wage isn't high enough to afford a two-bedroom home atfair-market rent anywhere in America. Meanwhile, wages for the bottom 10% of earners fell by 9.3% between 1979 and1999. Because the minimum wage is not indexed to inflation, its value erodes each year that the government fails toact, making it more difficult for low-wage workers to make ends meet. Today, a minimum wage employee who works 40 hoursa week, 52 weeks a year, earns only $10,712 a year; that's $5,000 below the 2004 poverty line for a family ofthree. Amazingly, Congress hasn't increased it in more than six years. Since 1997, inflation has eaten away 90% of thevalue of that increase, returning the minimum wage to a historically low level in terms of purchasing power - nearly thelowest it's been in more than 50 years. The economic injustice that exists in America today rivals most bananarepublics. Unlike the minimum wage, which has dropped 25% in the past 20 years, corporate executives, who "only" made45 times as much as their workers in 1980, made 531 times what their workers did in 2001. There simply is no way torationalize paying our workers poverty level wages as the wealthiest 1% of the population owns more than the bottom 95%.
Raising the Minimum Wage: An Economic Justice Issue
The makeup of our current Congress prevents the possibility of the kind of minimum wage increase that we'd would liketo see implemented ($8-10). To highlight this fact, look what's happened to theKennedy-Boxer bill, which would increase the minimum wage to $7 an hour. It hasn't even been allowed to come to a votefor nearly a year by the Republican controlled Senate. And, even if Kennedy's bill becomes law, a full-time worker atthat salary with two children would still be living below the poverty line. As a report by EPI demonstrates, 7.2million children would directly benefit if the minimum wage were raised to $7 per hour. Also, according to EPI, 61% ofworkers directly affected by an increase would be women, though they make up only 48% of the total workforce. Moreover,15% of African Americans and 19% of Latinos in the workforce would be directly affected, though they make up only 11%and 13% of the total workforce, respectively. Finally, a recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimumwage increases found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses.
Expectations of a Kerry Administration: Actively Support Increasing Minimum Wage, Sign Bills in First and Second Terms
An increase in the minimum wage should be a top priority of a Kerry administration; we will encourage and expect one tobe signed into law in his first term. Kerry is on record as supporting Kennedy's Bill, and has said in the past that hefavors indexing the minimum wage to inflation. That is a particularly good idea, but not something we would expect ordemand as long as the Republicans control both houses of Congress. Due to this political reality, we would be satisfiedwith Kerry using all his powers of persuasion as President to help bring the Kennedy-Boxer bill to a vote (or avariation of it), work to pass it, and sign it into law.
But that won't be enough. Due to the insufficient buying power that a $7 an hour job provides, we believe Kerry,especially if Democrats regain control of the Senate and the House (perhaps after 2006), should pass another minimumwage increase (and index it to inflation) of at least $1-2 more in a second term. Raising wages for lower incomeworkers is not only critical to lifting people out of poverty and improving the strength or our economy, it's alsopopular with the American public, overwhelmingly so with Democrats and Greens. In fact, a Pew Research Center poll inJanuary found 94% of the respondents support a minimum wage increase. This is a winning issue for workers, our country,and for the politicians that support paying Americans a fair wage. We expect this to be a priority in a Kerryadministration, and one that progressives will unite behind him on.
Source: Economic Policy Institute, Pew Research Center, Fiscal Policy Institute
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL
The Problem:
Global warming has been an issue that has been relegated to the fringes of our national policy debate for too long. TheUnited Nation sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a collection of 2,000 scientists from 100 countries,conducted the most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history, and projected that global averagetemperatures will rise by 2.7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. Study after study only strengthens the casethat a global climate crisis the likes of which has never been seen is rapidly approaching, and we must act beforeconditions become more difficult to address or even irreversible.
The Kyoto Protocol: A Critical Step in Addressing the Global Warming Crisis
The Kyoto Protocol calls for industrial countries to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 5.2% of 1990 levels by 2012. Thatis an inadequate response; as British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted in 2002, "Even if we deliver on Kyoto, it willat best mean a reduction of one percent in global emissions...In truth, Kyoto is not radical enough." We agree withthat assessment, but what Kyoto will do is begin the process of a global, united effort to address the greatest threatour species has ever known. In other words, Kyoto will "get the ball rolling", and when countries throughout the worldrealize what can be achieved when working together, the shortcomings of Kyoto will be rectified, and the "emissionsreduction bar" will be set higher and higher. Britain, Canada and Germany are demonstrating this fact right now, easilymeeting, and surpassing the emission reduction goals set by the Treaty. One thing is certain: America needs to takeaction, and we need to do it now. Signing the Kyoto Protocol is a critical first step in addressing the global warming crisis.
Expectations of a Kerry Administration: Sign Kyoto Protocol, Seek to Strengthen It
Global climate change is an issue that Senator Kerry has shown particular promise. He participated in negotiations atthe Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and served in the congressional delegation to the 1997 Kyoto and 2000 Hague climatetalks. He hasn't explicitly endorsed the current Treaty as written, believing that China, and other developingcountries should be held to a higher standard than the current Protocol demands. However, Kerry is adamant onre-engaging in the "Kyoto debate", and whether the changes Kerry seeks to the Protocol are implemented to hissatisfaction or not, we expect him to sign it by the end of his first term.
As Greens and progressives we should stand ready to lobby congress and Kerry on this issue, demand action, and settlefor nothing less than Kyoto's signing within the next four years. If the Republicans maintain control of the Senate andthe House the chances of this will be diminished, which is why we need to do everything in our power to encourage andembolden Kerry and the Democrats to fight like the future of the planet is at stake (which it is), make their case tothe American people, and force Republicans and moderate Democrats to defend the indefensible.
Sources: Sierra Club, NRDC, Union of Concerned Scientist
INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING
The Problem:
Unfortunately, most U.S. elections are held under plurality voting rules in which the candidate with the most voteswins. If three or more candidates run, then the winner can have less than a majority of the vote yet rewarded with a"victory". The real question we should be asking is: was the "winning candidate" actually preferred by most voters? Theanswer to that question too often is no. Worst of all, time after time, the party that has benefited most from thisantiquated system is the Republicans, and the party that is hurt most is the Greens. Consider, in multiple-candidateraces, the more like-minded constituencies, particularly Greens, progressives, and left of center Democrats, oftensplit their vote among competing candidates, allowing a candidate with less overall support, usually the mostconservative one, to prevail.
Instant Runoff Voting: A More Democratic Electoral System
Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is a sensible reform for an election system that is in need of an overhaul. IRV allowsvoters to rank the candidates in the order that is acceptable. Next, voters' first choices are counted. If no onereaches a majority vote in that first count then the last-place votes are reallocated to the second choices on theirrespective ballots and this process is repeated until someone has a majority. In partisan races, IRV prevents thepossibility of a third party candidate "spoiling" the race by taking enough votes from one major candidate to elect theother. As described on the California IRV Coalition site, "IRV is better than plurality elections because it ensuresthe election of the candidate preferred by the most voters; eliminates the problem of spoiler candidates knocking offmajor candidates; frees communities of voters from splitting their vote among their own candidates; increases voterturnout; and promotes coalition-building and more positive campaigning."
IRV also saves taxpayers money because the winner is decided in one vote, rather than the all too often need in ourpresent election system of a runoff vote, meaning more dependence on special interests, more negative campaigning,and increased advantages to wealthier candidates. IRV would add new voices to debates that have grown stale, weaken thestrangle hold that powerful special interests have on our electoral system, and increase the power and influence ofthird parties. Together, IRV and public financing of elections represent the next step in the evolution of ourdemocracy.
Expectations of a Kerry Administration: Actively Support Hastings Bill and Jackson Amendment, Sign Bills if Pass
We believe Senator Kerry could be the first American President to at least give IRV a fair hearing. We urge him tosupport Representative Alcee Hastings (D - FL) bill that would create a commission to analyze both the size of Congressand the voting method by which representatives are elected. The bill would allow Congress to "consider whetheralternative methods of electing House Members" would be more inclusive for members of the American electorate. We alsostrongly urge Kerry to support something similar to the amendment by Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. (D- IL), which wouldensure the right to vote in the U.S. Constitution and require IRV (or another majority system) for allocating electoralvotes in states.
IRV is critical for Greens and other third parties to get a fair chance, on an equal playing field, to have their (our)ideas heard, and judged honestly by the electorate. Further, IRV also favors Democrats, and it will be progressives'job to educate Kerry and other Democrats of this fact if we're to ever make it law. As the Center for Voting andDemocracy points out, if Kerry and the Democrats could seriously back IRV related proposals they could easily forceRepublicans into defending why they seek to deny citizens the right to choose who they truly want to serve them and whythey fear competing against progressives in this country on a level playing field.
Source: Center for Voting and Democracy, California IRV Coalition, Green Party USA
CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS (CAFE)
The Problem:
The corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) of today's cars and light trucks are at their lowest point in 20 years (i.e.Cars: 27.5 mpg, Light Trucks: 20.7 mpg). The reason for this shocking statistic is due to a combination of correctablefactors, including automakers consistent violation of fuel economy laws, federal inaction on fuel economy policy, theauto industry's influence over our political leaders, and the increased marketing and purchasing of sport utilityvehicles (SUVs) and minivans. When Congress first passed the CAFE law, light trucks were allowed to meet a lower fueleconomy standard because they constituted only 20% of the vehicle market and were used primarily as work vehicles.Today, light trucks comprise nearly 50% of the new-vehicle market, and are primarily used as passenger cars.
Care and light trucks consume 40% of US oil and emit 20% of the nation's carbon dioxide. For every gallon of gasburned, 28 pounds of global warming causing gases are pumped into the atmosphere. Incredibly, CAFE standards haven'tbeen raised in decades. The problems associated with a country of gas guzzlers are as serious as any that Americansface today, such as increased consumer fuel costs; a growing dependence on imported oil (contributing to wars, globalunrest, and pending financial disaster); rising emissions of greenhouse gases, toxics, and smog-forming pollutants; arapidly increasing global climate; and a vehicle fleet that is less safe than it would have been without the massiveinfusion of today's light trucks.
Raising Fuel Efficiency Standards: Ending America's Fossil Fuel Addiction
The economic costs of our oil dependence alone, according to one estimate, totals $7 trillion over the last 30 years.Increasing the fuel efficiency of automobiles is the biggest single step the United States can take to reduceconsumption of fossil fuels and the threat of global warming. Updating CAFE standards could save an additional threemillion barrels of oil each day when fully implemented. According to the Sierra Club, "raising automobile fuel economyis like finding a new source of oil under Detroit." Studies conducted by both the Sierra Club and the Union ofConcerned Scientists clearly show that the tools and technologies exist to increase the fuel economy of the nation'sfleet of new cars and light trucks to 45 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2015 and to 55 mpg by 2020. Such an increase wouldyield significant benefits to consumers, the economy, and the environment, including lessening our dependence onforeign oil, slashing carbon dioxide emissions, reducing pressure to drill in pristine natural areas like the ArcticWildlife Refuge, cut America's trade deficit, and save consumers at the gas pump (where prices will continue to rise).
Expectations of a Kerry Administration: Actively Support Raising CAFE Standards, Sign Bill if Passes
As a Senator, John Kerry teamed with John McCain to introduce an amendment to the Senate Energy Bill that would haveincreased fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks to 36 mpg by 2015. That's an improvement, but America can dobetter. A Kerry administration should sign legislation that increases fuel efficiency standards to at least 40 mpg by2015, close the SUV loophole (i.e. so they must meet the same fuel economy standards that cars do), and provideincentives for the purchase and manufacturing of fuel-efficient vehicles. Kerry must relentlessly advocate that such abill be sent to him in his first term. We understand the reality of passing a substantial increase in CAFE standardswill be extremely difficult in a Republican and big oil controlled Congress. Nonetheless, with a mobilized progressivecoalition behind him, and a Democratic Party that is determined, we expect a President Kerry to sign a bill that willsignificantly raise the fuel efficiency of our nation's fleet of automobiles.
Sources: Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, NRDC
RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD (RES) OF 20% BY 2020
The Problem:
Few Americans realize that even today more of our electricity comes from dirty, heavily polluting, coal-fired powerplants than any other source. In fact, fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas account for over 85% of fuel use inthe United States today. These power plants spew hundreds of millions of tons of global warming pollution into ouratmosphere each year. They also contribute to numerous other pollution problems, including acid rain and smog. Whileproducing electricity, these plants also function as "global warming machines", steadily altering and intensifying theclimate of our planet. Clean, renewable energy sources like solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass, currently producesless than 3% of our electricity nationwide. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry receives huge tax subsidies andbillions of dollars in government welfare while the renewable energy industry is expected to compete with a fraction ofthose sums.
As utilities seek deregulation of the electricity industry that share could become even smaller. Meanwhile, Congressand the President have severely cut funding for research into clean technology, preferring instead to fund oilexploration projects and experiments into new ways to burn coal. To make matters worse, additional market barriersexist that make it difficult and costly for renewable energy sources to connect to the electricity grid and transmitpower to customers. But these barriers can be overcome. In states that have enacted supportive public policies,renewable energy has flourished. Until we address the issue of clean energy our country is headed towards anecological and public health disaster of monumental proportions. The longer we wait to take action, the more difficultavoiding that disaster becomes.
Renewable Energy: Nature's Solution to the Energy Crisis
According to study after study, America has the potential to produce almost all its electricity from renewable sources.Simply by harnessing energy from renewable sources like the sun and wind, we can transform the way we produceelectricity, as well as the world we leave future generations. Renewable energy and other clean technologies offer the promise of meeting our energy needs; reducing smog, acid rain, and global warming pollution; strengthening our economy; improving public health and creating jobs. By using existing technology and resources, we can provide at least20% of our electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2020. Studies by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) andthe Department ofEnergy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that consumer prices for electricity under a 20% standard wouldbe largely the same as business-as-usual. Further, it would bring huge environmental, health, security, and economicdevelopment benefits to the United States.
Over the past two decades, the price of many renewable energy technologies has declined by more than 60%. Over the pastdecade alone, the cost of wind-generated electricity has dropped by more than 80%. Despite their advantages, renewabletechnologies are not being used to the extent possible. America cannot remain a world power in the 21st century whilerelying on 19th century fossil fuel technology to generate energy. Americans must demand cleaner and safer forms ofenergy, while using that energy more wisely.
Expectations of a Kerry Administration: Actively Support 20% RES by 2020, Sign if Passed
Kerry has been a strong advocate of renewable energy and is on record for supporting an RES of 20% by 2020. The truetest of a Kerry administration will be the level of commitment, determination, and attention he gives this issue, andthe level of backing he will receive from the Democratic Party, progressive activists, Greens, everyday citizens, andeven some moderate Republicans. A national RES is backed by strong support from the public (70% in recent Mellman poll)and a wide range of business and labor leaders. There is no rational defense for continuing our nation's addiction tofossil fuels and nuclear energy.
Source: Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists
SECONDARY EXPECTATIONS: A BRIEF SUMMARY
CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY
Fight Corporate Crime
: Strengthen laws and enforcement against corporate crime with penalties that include incarceration of executives and revocation of corporate charters.
End Corporate welfare
: Close all corporate tax shelters and loopholes.
ELECTION REFORM
Endorse/Sign: "Our Democracy, Our Airwaves Act"
that would require the nation's television and radio stations to liveup to their public interest obligations by providing voters with more information about candidates and issues atelection time.
CIVIL LIBERTIES
Repeal
all egregious Patriot Act provisions.
Veto/Oppose
Patriot Act II.
INTERNATIONAL/FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Withdraw
from Iraq within 1-year of election.
Sign
the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Sign
the International Criminal Court.
Sign
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
End program
to develop a laser guided missile defense system.
End
the Economic Blockades of Cuba.
ENVIRONMENT
Restore Polluter Pays Principle
(esp. for Superfund): Tax pollution, resource extraction, and harmful products (landsites according to land value, timber and grazing lands, ocean and freshwater resources, and oil and minerals).
Energy Efficiency Increases
: Vastly increase "energy efficiency" standards, especially on air conditioners,refrigerators, and in "green building" design.
Strengthen the Endangered Species Act
and expand areas designated as wildlife refuges and wilderness areas.
Ban old-growth
logging, clear cutting, and strip mining.
End all commercial exploitation
of public lands by private timber, mining, and cattle grazing interests.
Environmental Justice
: Strengthen and enforce laws that prevent toxic industries, toxic dumps and air pollution fromtargeting ethnic minority communities.
Ban
off-road vehicles on federal lands.
Decommission
National Forest logging roads.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Vastly increase
funding for public housing.
TRADE
Renegotiate
all so-called free trade agreements, particularly NAFTA, ensuring there are strong, and enforceableenvironmental and labor standards included. Repeal those that don't.
Repeal
Fast Track trade authority.
EDUCATION
Increase
funding for public education and teach salaries.
HEALTH CARE
Pass Kerry Healthcare bill
(not perfect, but a step towards universal coverage)
back to top