In my last post, I asked for questions or topics that people would like to know my Green Party perspective on. This was also sent into Twitter-land. A gent who follows me on twitter, let's call him "ThoughtfulRINO"* asked me two rather tongue-in-cheek questions. At least that's what I first thought. But then I realized they are not so tongue-in-cheek after all. The two questions speak to common misperceptions of the Green Party, and illustrate values and policy areas that we need to communicate more effectively about.
Ok, now on to the questions. First, a disclaimer: All thoughts and opinions expressed in this post and all other posts are solely my own. They are not official statements from any Green Party organization or election campaign. Whew! I feel better, don't you?
ThoughtfulRINO: @DarylNorthrop what do you guys love more: taxing the rich or cutting defense?
Misconception about Greens: We hate the rich and we hate the military. My opinon as a Green: I would love to be rich some day, and I honor and respect our soldiers - for they have pledged their life to defend the nation and me from harm.
Taxing the wealthy or cutting defense spending are meaningless actions considered on their own. They are only budgetary and economic tactics. Tactics are generally without political orientation. A Green Party strategy of fiscal responsibility, peace, and social justice might feature the tactics of taxing the rich or cutting defense spending. Over the past 30 years, income taxes for the wealthiest earners have fallen dramatically, corporate tax rates have fallen, and capital gain taxes have fallen, while defense spending (and other government spending) has risen to levels not seen since WWII. It is not a coincidence that social programs have been cut, the tax burden on the poor and the middle class has increased (often in the form of sales tax hikes, property tax increases, auto registration fees, gas taxes, etc).
Now, the question is What Is To Be Done? The answer is to first identify the American values that we seek to apply to the situation. Fairness, Equity, Respect for Future Generations. In a nation that has a large budget deficit, an ambitous foreign policy of leadership, and pressing infrastructure needs at home - everyone should pay their fair share in taxes, from the poorest individual to the wealthiest, and from the small businessman to wealthy multi-national corporations that have facilities here. Early in the 20th century, the progressive income tax was implemented. As a Green, I support the progressive income tax. Why? Because it shifts the tax burden on to those who benefit most from society and those who have the most ability to pay without suffering ill-consequences. Further, a progressive income tax is needed in a modern capitalist economy due to the tendency of wealth to accumulate in a very small segment of society. In order to function properly, a capitalist economy must have a measure of reinvestment of income from the rich to the middle class and the poor. Some may argue that taxing the wealthy at a higher percentage than the middle class or the poor is unfair, but lets look at the historical record - the US has taxed the wealthy at a much higher rate than the middle class and the poor for nearly 100 years. We also have the wealthiest nation on the planet, with a large middle class, and more millionaires than we know what to do with. However, during the past 30 years, the tax rate on the wealthy has been cut by nearly 50%. Not coincidentally, more and more wealth has accumulated in to the hands of the few, and that means that more and more political power has accumulated there as well.
Is that fair? Is that equality? Is that healthy for our democracy and our economy? No.
ThoughtfulRINO: @DarylNorthrop i've got another for your green friends: if you could boycott or tax into oblivion 1 corporation, which one would it be?
Misconception: Greens hate big business and think all corporations are bad and evil and should be run out of business. My opinion as a Green: business should be conducted in a way that honors our values of fair trade, respects the environment, and treats employees with decency and dignity.
Another good question. But, punishing corporations is another action, or tactic, that does not have much meaning without context. Corporations can either be operated within the bounds of the law, and in an ethically positive manner. Or, they can be operated outside the law, exercise unhealthy influence over the government, engage in non-competitive or monopolisitic business behavior, and cause severe environmental damage. Which type of business would you rather buy from, be employed by, or have located in your community? The answer is obvious - the lawful, ethical, environmentally respectful company. However, we hear daily of companies that lie to their shareholders, deceive the financial markets through phony sales and profit reports, damage the environment, and treat their workers inhumanely.
Businesses, large and small, should operate within the bounds of the law, and in a way that builds real value in the economy, which is part of the larger society. Companies that do break the law, pollute the environment excessively, deliberately build dangerous goods, and demean their workers should be punished in a way that stops the destructive behavior and corrects their future actions. The value in effect here is accountability. Business and the economy in general do not operate in a vacuum devoid of values, morals, ethics, and effects on the society in general. My high school macro-economics teacher summed it up simply when he said that the economy is made up of land/environment, labor/workers, and capital. If you degrade or damage any one of those components, you damage the economy and the society in general.
So thank you for the questions, even the tongue-and-cheek ones. Keep 'em coming!
*The whole "RINO" reference is an inside joke. For those that don't know, RINO stands for Republican In Name Only, and is generally used by conservative and reactionary members of the GOP to deride more moderate conservatives who dare to vote in a non-ideological manner, and that apply commonsense along with conservatism when legislating.
---
Daryl Northrop
Monday, November 14, 2011 at 10:14PM 
