Maine Green Independent Party

Portland Green Independents Champion Rejection of Corporate Personhood

2012-01-21T11:57:00.000-08:00

The Portland Green-Independent Party commends the Portland City Council for its passage of a resolution calling for a Constitutional amendment abolishing the concept of “corporate personhood.”

The Council passed the resolution in a 6-2 decision Wednesday night. The resolution specifically calls on Maine’s Congressional representatives to support a Constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court’s recent, highly controversial decision, Citizens United v. FEC. That ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertising, thus further entrenching the influence of powerful business interests in elections. Councilor and Green Party member, David Marshall introduced the resolution, which he helped draft with members of the Portland Greens, the League of Young Voters and Occupy Maine protesters. The resolution was co-sponsored by Councilor Kevin Donoghue and Mayor Michael Brennan.

Though the resolution is largely symbolic, it nonetheless generated over an hour of public testimony from concerned citizens from in and around Portland. While Councilor Cheryl Leeman, one of the two dissenting votes, along with Councilor John Coyne, questioned whether it is the City Council’s place to take a stand on such a broad, national issue, most of the resolution’s proponents who showed up for the vote believed it is.

“It is absolutely the business of the City Council,” said Portland Green, Anna Trevorrow in her public comments. “The community has come together and asked you to make a statement.”

The Portland Greens offer their gratitude to the City Councilors who voted in favor of the resolution and to Councilor Marshall for proposing the measure. We also extend our thanks to the various local progressive groups who worked with us on crafting the language of the resolution—specifically members of Occupy Maine and the Portland branch of the League of Young Voters.

"The PGIC looks forward to taking this fight to end corporate personhood to the next level. We hope others will join us in our efforts," said Adam Marletta, Chair of the Portland Green Independent Committee.

A letter to Governor LePage from our Chair

2011-12-30T18:54:00.000-08:00

Dear Gov. Paul LePage,

I have been following the stories in the media that talk about your agenda ever since you took office. In the interest of keeping a civil discourse with you and your administration, I will only comment today about the recent story that you would like to spearhead efforts to reduce Maine’s dependency on oil in half. Let me start by saying that I commend this notion.

For far too long, politicians have maintained that they care about the people they are elected to represent, and that they care about the environment. I hope that this time, Gov. LePage, you are truly looking out for the best interests of the people and our planet, and not just the companies that want to sell natural gas and wood pellets.

In case you are unaware, there is great controversy surrounding the method of extraction of natural gas, called hydraulic fracturing. Hydrofracking, or fracking as it is commonly called, involves digging wells up to 8,000 feet deep, way past the depth of water wells, and introducing millions of gallons of water and chemicals to extract the gas. According to the filmmaker Josh Fox, who created the documentary Gasland, many times the wells will leak because safety precautions have not been taken or from weak well casings. The chemicals used to extract the gas, which are often lethal, can end up in the water supply with the gas itself.

In order to truly reduce Maine’s dependence on gas and oil, we need to invest in changes in our energy system that will operate on renewable, clean energy that will have little to no impact on our environment, including drinking water. We can also start with weatherization of government buildings and schools that include replacing old doors and windows with more energy efficient ones. There are also easy ways to help our state get off oil completely, such as replacing old water boilers with electric ones and connecting them to solar panels. Ground-source heat pumps (sometimes referred to as geothermal heating) can be used to heat homes and buildings, as has been done with the new section of the Portland International Jetport and the new Hampden Academy Project in Hampden, completely eliminating the need for oil to be used for heat.

The startup costs for switching to new technologies such as these can be daunting. However, if you look at the history of our infrastructure, I am sure you will see that wherever there has been significant progress made in infrastructure development, it is has been an accomplished collaborative between government entities and the private sector. From railroads and trains to cars and airports, our government has chipped in its fair share to help the common good.

What I would propose is a 2 cent gas fee to every gallon of gasoline sold in the state. This could be set aside as an “alternative energy fund,” and used to help fund the changes necessary to help reduce our oil dependency. I stress the need to help our schools because with rising gas and oil prices, we cannot afford to wait to invest. We need strong political will to make the changes necessary and to avoid cutting services as well as teaching positions that are vital to our communities. We also need to remember that the state is supposed to be paying 55% of its share to schools, something it hasn’t done ever since the legislature voted on it, and even after the people of Maine voted on a ballot initiative, ordering the state to do so.

With the money put into schools to install newer, more efficient heating systems, it is likely that those school districts would find themselves with a lot more money in their budget without having to pay so much for oil. This could be a starting point for helping fund the 55%.

I know that raising taxes is a politically dangerous idea, especially during a recession. The reason this taxation should be applied to gasoline is to spread out the tax burden more evenly and with only two cents per gallon, an average customer will only need to pay between 20 and 60 cents more per fill-up. But given that the money would be used very wisely – to reduce energy costs and help our government and schools save money, the overall energy savings would be realized by all taxpayers and celebrated when we reach the goal of reducing oil use by half.

If there are other ways of raising revenue for this idea that don’t include making cuts to other expenditures, I would like to hear them. I extend this letter to you and hope it will be well received. We must take strong and quick action to reduce our dependency on oil, domestic and foreign. We must stop the destruction of our environment in order to extract oil and natural gas. We must hold all elected officials’ feet to the fire when it comes to representing the best interests of all Americans and not just the interests of a few wealthy corporations.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter, Governor. Please let me know if I can help implement these ideas and how the Green Independent Party can assist. Please also know that we are watching how things are shaping up for the upcoming legislative session and that we will be vocal about who is and who is not representing the interests of all Mainers.

Sincerely,

Nathan M. Shea

Chair

Maine Green Independent Party

Maine Greens call on Governor to protect Mainecare

2011-12-15T18:48:00.001-08:00

The Maine Green Independent Party denounces Governor Paul LePage’s attack on Mainecare.

The LePage administration and their allies in the legislature created a false crisis in our budget by pushing through massive tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy in our state and now LePage seeks to place the burden of these giveaways on the backs of the working and poor, by ending healthcare coverage for 65,000 ordinary Mainers. This is nothing but a stark reversal in the movement for universal, non-profit health care.

We call on the LePage administration to act for the benefit of working class Mainers, not the wealthiest 1%. The Green Independent Party calls on our government to treat quality health care as a human right, not as a privilege that politicians can take away. Since our founding in 1984, the Green Independent Party has worked towards establishing a system of health care for all which, unlike the status quo in Augusta and Washington D.C., will protect all residents from having to make the choice between health or housing, between medical bills or food.

Green Party Thanks 2011 Candidates

2011-12-13T11:51:00.000-08:00

During the 2011 election, the Maine Green Independent Party endorsed three candidates for municipal office in Portland.

David Marshall sought the newly created office of directly-elected mayor. Marshall, who has served on the Portland City Council since 2006, was one of the primary catalysts for the directly elected mayoral position. He ran his campaign speaking about five issues: investing in school buildings, growing population in the downtown districts, getting homes and businesses off of oil, stimulate economic development with better mass transit and creating a 24 hour pothole guarantee. He ran an extremely competitive campaign in which a number of candidates raised more money than he did, but several of them finished well below him. He finished in fourth place of 15 candidates after knocking on 20,000 doors and having thousands of conversations with people across the city. His campaign also trained many new activists to the Portland committee and established a citywide information database which will help all Greens who seek office in Portland in the future be more competitive.

Josephine Okot sought to become the first person of African birth to ever hold office in Maine by seeking the school board at-large position. A mother of two, Okot ran on the promise that when elected, she would force the city’s school board to focus more on the issues of school violence and bullying. She also sought to increase city graduation rates by helping more students meet mentors. Lastly, Okot wanted to save taxpayer money and create a culture of public transportation by getting middle and high school onto public transit whenever possible. She ran a strong, Green campaign and met many people who strong support the notion that Portland’s immigrant community needs a voice on the school board. She gained nearly 5,800 votes and won several polling precints against the incumbent while finishing with just under 40% of the vote.

Dr. Jack (John) Safarik sought the office of Water District Trustee. Safarik, who has run as a Green Independent in the past for State Representative, pushed forward the issues of maintaining the watershed and making sure that large water companies such as Nestle and Poland Spring would not be able to compromise the regional water supply. Safarik obtained about 33% of the vote in a two-way race.

The Portland Green Independent Committee and the Maine Green Independent Party are extremely proud of our 2011 candidates and appreciate all of the hard work and dedication they put forth. The issues they supported are not forgotten and will continue to change Portland for the better. We look forward to the 2012 campaign and the struggle for a more sustainable and just future.

Youth Uprising by Roy Meredith

2011-10-02T17:28:00.000-07:00

Roy Meredith is a member of the York County Greens and Founder of the SMCC Greens

One of my friends, Jennifer, has three jobs. Often, the only time I get to talk to her is midnight, before she heads off to work. Even then, speaking with her reveals a young woman who is about to collapse. Her share of the dialog often consists of nothing more than “hmm” or barely audible affirmatives. On top of all this, she suffers from a multitude of serious medical issues, and nobody is there to help her except her boyfriend.

But Jennifer is hardly unique. Many of my classmates work at least two jobs in addition to attending college full-time, jobs which thanks to lax regulation are not unionized and offer little security. And once we graduate, most of us are tens of thousands of dollars in debt and face dismal prospects for careers that suit our education. Already, we’re projected to have a shorter life expectancy than our parents, a first in this country’s history. By any measure, the standard of living for young Americans has dropped significantly.

What we’re dealing with, however, is not a complicated problem. The laws which shape our lives are made by people who, more often than not, are at least in their forties. They are voted into office by people who, more often than not, are also at least in their forties. Is it any surprise that their policies usually only benefit those who are older than 40? The median age for a member of the 112th Congress today is the highest it has ever been in the history of the institution.

Some of examples of this callous indifference are deeply disturbing. In July this year House Majority Leader Eric Cantor demanded that college students start paying interest on their loans - while still in school. In August, the Maine attorney general and the chair of the Maine Republican Party accused college students of widespread voter fraud. And anybody who followed the massive crackdown on voting rights in red states this year knows exactly what this means. Such an accusation is meant to set the stage for tougher restrictions on college students in the voting booth.

How does that old saying go? Use it or lose it? That’s the funny thing about rights. The only reason why lawmakers like Cantor or Charlie Webster are able to get away with their disgusting proposals is our own apathy. In 2010, for example, there was a 60% decline in voter turnout for ages 18 and 19.
Whenever I talk to Jennifer or some of my other friends about politics they try to change the subject. Sometimes they even tell me I shouldn’t care. And that’s exactly the problem. Too many young Americans are unable to connect the commotion in Washington to their poor fortunes. That kind of ignorance is incalculably dangerous. Almost everything that impacts our lives is determined by politics, including military drafts, regulations on student loans, federal student aid, affirmative action, and job security. It isn’t sane - let alone wise - to leave those decisions to people are generations apart from our needs and concerns. It’s time to get active again.

But that goes beyond voting or protesting. The people of Generation Y need to start running for elected offices on a massive scale. Federal offices are mostly out of the question – in order to be a senator one has to be at least 30 years old – but local and state positions of leadership are certainly up for grabs. In Maine, the minimum age for a state house representative is only 21. There’s nothing to hold us back from taking control over our own lives.

The moment for optimism is now. Students and other youthful activists were the bulk of Arab Spring earlier this year. Within 18 days, a single age demographic managed to bring down a corrupt dictatorship in Egypt that had ruled with an iron fist since 1982. The task we face in America isn’t even half as difficult. This country still is, after all, a democracy. Let’s get moving.

American Legislative Exchange Council ’s long arm reaching into Maine policy

2011-10-02T17:25:00.000-07:00

Posted By UnBylined On September 15, 2011 (7:05 pm) In Contributors, Opinion

Eric Russell’s story on the American Legislative Exchange Council (BDN, Sept. 14) leaves open more questions than it answers. Are our laws outsourced? Does it matter? Are our legislators taking their direction from deep-pocketed corporate interests? Does it matter that legislators’ travel and hotel costs are typically funded (all-expense-paid vacations) by ALEC to their national meetings? Yes, yes, yes and yes.

Thanks to the investigations of the nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy, alecexposed.org, we know of several Maine legislators with ALEC task-force assignments: Sen. Brian Langley (education), Rep. James Hamper and Sen. Mike Thibodeau (telecommunications and information technology), Sen. Deb Plowman (civil justice), Sen. Doug Thomas (energy, environment and agriculture), Sen. Chris Rector (international relations) and Rep. Ryan Harmon (tax and fiscal policy).

ALEC has task forces also on public safety and elections; commerce, insurance and economic development; and health and human services, so it would not be surprising to find other Maine lawmakers serving in those areas.

From the Dirigo Blue website we learn of numerous Maine bills taken from ALEC templates that promote school privatization. Indeed, ALEC advocates privatizing not only education but other public benefits such as health and medical care, transportation, consumer safety and environmental quality.

Tellingly, one of ALEC’s model bills would repeal zoning authority over “rural” counties (abolishing LURC in our state). And at least three bills call for state councils to streamline agency performance and outsource services to the private sector.

We have already seen such a council formed to decide the fate of LURC, and that commission is hand picked to do the bidding of leading Republican policymakers. Its constituency fits the description of ALEC’s proposed Environmental Priorities Council — a panel that would include no scientists or public-interest environmental delegates.

We will be watching closely for ALEC legislation calling for such a council, proposed to have just five members: a representative from the state Chamber of Commerce, an agency (DEP?), a representative selected by the governor, one Republican, one Democrat and an economist to chair the group and ensure that decisions are based on cost-benefit analysis, not on concerns for water quality, air pollution and other threats to public health and safety.

There are some 1,000 bills from ALEC’s playbook to be scrutinized, but here are a few that raise red flags for their potential impact on Maine’s environment and quality of life:

A bill to give polluters the opportunity to correct violations before issuance of “notice” or penalty.
A bill opposed to recycling laws on packaging (e.g., Styrofoam) and solid-waste reduction.
A bill that would favor private labs (reliant on corporate clients) over independent, low-cost government lab testing.
A bill that gives farms using corporate practices immunity from “nuisance” liability (from air or water pollution or animal abuse) as long as they follow industry-drafted best management practices.
A bill that advocates vegetative filter strips to minimize movement of pesticides, sediment, etc., out of growers’ fields (vegetation must tolerate pesticides used on farm fields).
A bill for groundwater protection that would give the Agriculture Department shared responsibility with DEP and would mandate standards less stringent than federal laws.
Several other agriculture bills promoting biotech (GMOs) and corporate timber harvesting.
Energy bills promoting nuclear power, LNG, fracking and oil/gas drilling on the outer continental shelf.
A number of ALEC bills bear directly on current proposals to protect wilderness areas in Maine. One opposes federal acquisition of public land (specifically, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act). Another resolves that local government must consent to national monument designation.

Yet another authorizes state governments to appropriate federal public lands (national parks, etc.) for oil, gas and coal extraction. The establishment of an ombudsman office within Maine’s Legislative Council would oppose any zoning perceived as threatening private-property rights.

And ALEC proposes bills criminalizing environmental activism that might be construed by law enforcement as “eco-terrorism.”

Although legislators typically do accept stipends from ALEC to attend their national gatherings, we are told by the director of Maine’s Legislative Council that Rep. Andre Cushing went to New Orleans last month on the taxpayer’s dime. Why?

I hope we can count on the BDN to dig deeper into this evolving story.

Jody Spear lives in Harborside.
Article taken from Bangor Daily News - http://bangordailynews.com
URL to article: http://bangordailynews.com/2011/09/15/opinion/american-legislative-exchange-council-%e2%80%99s-long-arm-reaching-into-maine-policy/

Maine Green Party Leader Attends Occupy Wall Street Protests Encourages Protesters To Run for Office

2011-10-02T16:54:00.000-07:00

Portland, ME - 9/30/2011 The Maine Green Party stands in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protests, and the upcoming October 6th Protests in Freedom Plaza in Washington DC, and asks protesters to run as Green Party candidates in 2012.

“There is a real excitement surrounding these protests, a feeling that a better world is possible,” said Maine Green Party activist Asher Platts. Platts will be attending the Occupy Wall Street protests on his way down to the October 6th occupation of Freedom Plaza in Washington DC, where he will be filming a documentary about these occupation protests.

The Maine Green Party recognizes the influence of Wall Street on both major political parties. The financial sector has contributed over $5 billion in the last decade to assert political influence.(1) Goldman Sachs gave over $1 million to President Obama’s 2008 campaign and over $200,000 to John McCain’s campaign.(2) In contrast, the Green Independent Party does not accept corporate campaign contributions.

“The Green Party has long recognized that the wealthy elite have polluted our electoral system with unlimited campaign contributions,” said Platts. “This in turn has perverted the act of public service, as politicians put the needs of Wall Street before those of the people they are elected to serve.”

“These peaceful protesters are very much aligned with the Green Party’s platform and values.” said Asher Platts. “I want to see the people occupying Wall Street bring about the major reforms they are demanding. It’s my hope that they will carry this energy and excitement to their home towns, build their local Green Party, and run as candidates in 2012. And in 2013 we hope to see them occupying their state capitols not as protesters, but to claim seats of power in government.”

Greens Come Out On Top in League of Young Voters’ Endorsement Slate

2011-10-02T16:38:00.000-07:00

The Maine League of Young Voters announced their endorsements last week for Portland, municipal candidates including the historic mayor’s race. The Portland Green Party’s slate of candidates came out on top in every race in which they are running.

In the race for mayor, both Green Independent candidates, sitting city councilor David Marshall and former Green state legislator John Eder, received endorsements within the top 3 rank recommendations, with Marshall receiving the first-place League endorsement.. The mayoral election will be decided by ranked-choice voting.

Josephine Okot, the Green Party candidate for at-large school board who is seeking to become the first African immigrant to win office in Maine, earned the League’s endorsement over the incumbent candidate.

John (Jack) Safarik, PhD., the Green Party candidate running for water board of trustees on protecting the local watershed from privatization and pollution, also earned the League’s endorsement.

Breaking Party Ground: Okot for School Board

2011-09-21T08:06:00.000-07:00

A Letter from Portland Greens' Chair, Anna Trevorrow

Dear Friends and Fellow Greens,

I am writing today to tell you about a dynamic Green candidate who presents an exciting opportunity for the Green Party in Portland, Maine. Josephine Okot, Green candidate for At-Large School Board, first came to Maine as a refugee from South Sudan at the age of 12. She navigated Portland Public Schools, benefiting from mentoring programs that helped her to catch-up with classmates and cope with school bullying. Now 29, she has a two children with one in Portland’s public schools and works as a multi-cultural youth educator for United Somali Women of Maine. Josephine is running for Portland’s School Board on a platform of promoting holistic approaches to address school bullying, expanding mentoring programs to encourage higher education, and safe & cost-efficient alternative transportation for students. When elected, Josephine will be the first African immigrant to serve in Maine’s history and a beacon for Portland’s burgeoning immigrant communities.

In a public school system where students speak more than 40 languages, and in a city with an increasing population of immigrant residents, Josephine’s election is instrumental in bringing much needed representation to the School Board and to Portland’s city government. But even more than that, Josephine is a keen thinker with real-policy ideas to address fundamental issues.

This past Sunday I had the pleasure of knocking on doors with Josephine. We kicked-off her campaign by canvassing her neighborhood and were pleased to identify 65% of voters that we spoke with as affirmative supporters. Not bad right out of the starting gate! Over the next seven weeks Josephine will continue to pound the pavement, develop campaign literature, attend events and candidate forums, put up signs, and work hard in every way possible to ensure success on Election Day.

But in order to make it all possible, Josephine needs YOUR Support! She has a fundraising goal of $3,000 in order to print literature, paint signs and run her campaign. In a citywide race with at least 20,000 projected voters this November, broad name recognition is extremely important and Josephine will need every last sign she can purchase. Electing Josephine, who has been a Green for a many years, sends the message that the Green Party is serious about putting strong and diverse candidates into office. After canvassing with her today, I was so inspired that I personally made an initial campaign contribution of $50 and pledged another $50. Please join me in digging deep to support this amazing young woman’s candidacy! It is as important to the Green Party’s goals as it is to the City of Portland.

See below for details on how YOU can make a contribution to Josephine’s campaign. Thank you for your continued work and support for the Green Party!

In Solidarity,

Anna Trevorrow
Maine Green Independent Party

Donate Online: http://josephineokot.blogspot.com/

Donate by Check:
    Payable to: Josephine Okot
    Memo: Campaign Contribution
    Mail To: Tom MacMillan, Treasurer
          Josephine Okot for School Board
          8 Salem St. # 8
          Portland, ME 04102

Portland Green Independents Announce Four Candidates for 2011

2011-08-31T08:27:00.000-07:00

The Portland Green Independent Party is proud to announce that four of its members have qualified for the 2011 municipal ballot.

Monday morning Josephine Okot, a candidate for At-Large School Board, and John (Jack) Safarik, candidate for Water Board of Trustees received word from the City Clerk’s office that their nomination papers had been certified. Both registered Green Independents will appear on the November, 2011 ballot.

“Okot and Safarik make experienced and dynamic candidates for municipal office this year. Portland Greens are proud to provide individuals that not only will offer common sense yet progressive policy ideas, but also come with such rich, sophisticated backgrounds,” said Anna Trevorrow, Chair of the Portland Green Independent Committee.

Okot, a resident of the Back Cove neighborhood, supports anti-bullying and mentoring programs in our schools. Having moved from Africa to Portland at 13 years old, she is a mother of two Portland public school children and a graduate of King Middle School, Portland High, and USM. She is a multi-cultural youth coordinator by profession in Portland. Safarik, Ph.D., is a retired civil servant, teacher, and science writer. He resides in East Rosemont. His platform includes maintaining a clean and public water supply safe from runoff and other hazards.

Okot and Safarik bring the total Green Independent municipal slate up to 4 this year. Earlier this month, two Green Independent candidates for Mayor, former State Representative, John Eder and sitting City Councilor, David Marshall’s nomination papers were also certified.

Bombing Tripoli is Wrong: Recommended Guidelines for Green Thinking and Action

2011-07-11T16:46:00.000-07:00

By John Rensenbrink, Senior Advisor to the Maine Green Party

The continuous NATO bombing of Tripoli must stop. It’s wrong. It’s criminal. It’s self-defeating. It’s unutterably stupid. Bombing has never won a war. The bombing is a major departure from the United Nations R2P (Responsibility to Protect) resolution. The R2P gave no authorization of any kind to bomb and bomb in order to bludgeon the Gadaffi regime into submission and elimination and thus achieve a regime change. The R2P resolution by the UN Security Council was to protect civilians in imminent danger.

If NATO, and the Obama-led hawks in Washington, had really wanted to protect civilians, and if they had really wanted to stave off the suppression of the rebellion by Gadaffi (as they say they did), why wouldn’t they have taken action to prevent the flow of all arms to Gadaffi; and, in order to do that, worked diligently through persistent diplomacy to persuade all nations to desist allowing arms to find their way to Gadaffi. That could be effective and in keeping with R2P.

Green Parties in many places are in internal turmoil about this. Tempers are flying. Accusations abound. Some more reasonable voices say don’t get involved since both sides stink; and besides, we don’t really know enough about what is actually going on. Others say it’s a a clear instance of intervention and Greens should condemn all interventions.

This seems plausible. But I’d like to know more. Does being against intervention include being against non-military intervention, too? Is supporting the people of Gaza, and thereby supporting Hamas, with shiploads of goods and medicines something that should not be done since it’s an intervention? If nations were to take critical non-military sanctions against the Syrian government, should that be opposed as intervention? The action by the World Court to bring leaders of governments to the bar of justice – should that be opposed as intervention?

My answer to these questions is the need to distinguish carefully and sharply between military and non-military interventions, opposing the former and learning to judge each case of the latter with the following principle in mind: does the non-military intervention protect and help people in their struggle for freedom and justice with governments who use violence against them. If so, then such intervention should not be opposed and can be actively promoted.

When U.S. Greens, and other Greens in the world, declare strong opposition to military intervention (meaning physically violent actions) by the U.S. government, do they also mean that we should oppose military intervention and violent means of any kind by any nation or insurgent group? I hope so. Or is only the United States doing it that’s bad? I favor a clear stand of being opposed to military and any form of violent coercion by physical means by any government or insurgent group in the world. U.S Greens can get so mad at their government that they get mesmerized by their own anger and say or do what seems to be, and is often taken to be, unvarnished anti-Americanism. We can do better than that.

Report From Netroots Nation By Asher Platts

2011-06-27T15:15:00.000-07:00

Asher Platts is a Steering Committee Member of the Maine Green Independent Party

In the past few months, I learned that I won a scholarship to attend Netroots Nation through the organization “Democracy For America.”

While in Minneapolis, I learned a lot and met with many amazing people from all around the United States, all working for a better country, through a wide variety of means.

The first panel I attended was on wage theft, which as a worker and lounge-chair economist was of particular interest to me. While I thought it was going to be about framing the argument around how average wages for working people have remained flat since 1965 while the cost of living and CEO pay has ballooned, I was surprised to learn that in addition to that, things are much more overtly terrible in the USA today.

Through abuse and intimidation, vulnerable low-income workers such as single mothers and undocumented immigrants are coerced into working without overtime pay, work off the clock, work full time without benefits, and much more, with the threat of being fired hanging over their heads. It was illuminating to learn that here in the United State of America, we have a dirty underground labor market, akin to slavery. In fact, there are instances uncovered by those on the panel that actually were legally prosecuted cases of slavery rings, where immigrants from eastern Europe are tricked into renting apartments from a temp agency, in which rent is purposefully higher than their wages, forcing workers into indentured servitude. What’s worst of all is that this occurs in plain sight, in places you wouldn’t think-- high end retail stores and shopping malls, in the high-rent districts of cities like New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

I would be remiss in my duties as a Green not to attend the panel on Dirty Energy. There was little new information, though that didn’t make the stories of small victories from panelists like Tim DeChristopher, Mary Anne Hilt, and Michele Boyd, any less compelling. This panel was both encouraging and discouraging simultaneously. Encouraging because the energy issues that the Green Party has been pushing for years, issues on which Greens have been marginalized for being “extremist” or “soft-headed hippies,” are now being adopted by the progressive mainstream on the whole. It was also discouraging, because the Green Party has been pushing these issues for decades now with little electoral or legislative gain to show for it. Now that the issues are gaining mainstream traction, it is my hope that activists and organizations don’t become satisfied with action-less rhetoric from politicians in the Democratic Party, as is too often the case.

The main purpose I attended Netroots Nation was the wide variety of classes taught on campaign best practices put on by Democracy For America and Wellstone Action: online analytics and testing, advanced strategies for social media, power mapping and targeting, targeting without a model, and “constructing kick ass emails.”

I was glad to find that these classes offered for me a mixture of reaffirming what I felt instinctually were best practices, as well as both filling in gaps and illuminating new information, techniques, and free campaign services.

The last day of the conference, several volunteers and I headed to Hudson, Wisconsin to canvass in support of the recall effort against Republican incumbent Sheila Harsdorf. Shelia Harsdorf was one of the instrumental authors of that terrible bill in Wisconsin that stripped union workers the right to collectively bargain, and increased taxes on working families to pay for massive tax breaks to corporations, as well as grant Governor Walker the authority to give away public property without a bidding process. Despite the doubts of local organizers about “a bunch of bloggers” coming to help out, the 17 of us who came from Minneapolis to help in the canvass were able to knock on every door in the town of Hudson, Wisconsin in just 2 hours. I am proud to have helped serve in the recall effort, both because I hope that the people on the ground in Wisconsin who are fighting back against kleptocracy will be victorious, but also because we are fighting against the same bad policies here in Maine, without the benefit of a recall process. Their fight is our fight too.

Most of all, I’m excited and energized; I’m looking forward to bringing back with me from Minneapolis a honed set of campaign and organizing skills to aid in the fights that we face ourselves here in Maine, to build the Maine Green Independent Party, to push in coalition with others for meaningful legislative and electoral change, and to win victories for the people of Maine.

Green Party Demands Mural's Return

2011-03-30T14:48:00.001-07:00

The Maine Green Party strongly condemns the unwarranted removal of the labor mural in Augusta by Paul LePage. This action, taken by a governor elected by only 38% of Maine's voters in the last election, is an insult to all Maine people - to Maine's artists and its hundreds of thousands of Maine working people. It is a gratuitous and uncaring assault on Maine's proud history. The Maine Green Party questions why so much energy is being spent by Governor LePage on symbolic attacks on working people instead of devoting his efforts to policies that would improve the lives of Maine's working people by bringing sustainable jobs to our state. The Maine Green Party strongly opposes this symbolic attempt to revise and delete Maine's rich labor history. We demand the mural's immediate restoration and an apology by the Governor.

Municipal Green

2011-02-27T07:22:00.000-08:00

By Antonio Blasi

Take it from me. Being a Green Party member in municipal office is no fun. I've done it for over 10 years straight! The choices are Selectboard (SB), Planning Board, Town Clerk, Town Manager, Election Clerk, and various committee members. For me it's Planning Board (PB) and Election Clerk (EC). Most PB are appointed, which can lead to severe ingrainment of influence (corruption and conflict). In my town we are elected, unless SB appoints to fill an interim vacancy.

Most PB are Republican party members (R, not GOP). Republicans run everything now, it seems. As EC, a glaring reminder of this is that R has a candidate for EVERY office, while the other two Maine parties do not. More than that is the ethical consideration I constantly face.

Since the Maine Green Independent Party (MGIP) Platform calls for elected party members to uphold the 10 key values while serving in public office, an MGIP member is compromised upon entering the municipal building to take their seat when the other parties are in control, which they are everywhere. Our first value, Ecological Wisdom, the one that distinguishes us from Democratic (D) and R parties, is immediately assaulted. How can MGIP on PB (where land use issues are the most frequent agenda items), or in other municipal offices, make the best use of their time while upholding the platform?

When I first started as an appointed PB associate, I walked into a situation that reeked with old-boy politics, if not ambivalent corruption. The PB chair eventually won an SB seat, and from there sued the town over a land use issue claiming his family had owned a certain parcel for generations, he did not like the Resource Protection zoning the town voted upon his undeveloped coastal wetlands under DEP regulations—that kind of thing. This guy was my abutting neighbor, too. With tongue in cheek, I began learning the ropes, not realizing I was getting the R perspective, because these folks were my neighbors, I socialized with them sometimes, and they, like everyone else, knew I was MGIP, since I announced it during a previous SB campaign I was in. Part of the depression in most towns is the apathy by the residents, to the point that I knew these PB would be reelected because no one else was motivated to take out nominating petitions and campaign for the PB seats that were vacant. Or, others would be appointed by SB if no candidates emerged. I believe it's like this in rural areas; people who move into a rural area want to keep low profiles in general. Those already there want the State to keep out of municipal affairs, and the SB is the primary culprit for keeping the status quo.

I got appointed because a D on the SB was involved with the recycling center that I had run some years before. In other words, I was hired to run the operation as an outsider purposely by its Board of Directors. I was taking up residence in the community my wife had grown up in, so that was my ticket. During that term I ran for SB, while doing good deeds (like keeping the operation from being privatized, and expanding the facility's products and infrastructure), a PB vacancy existed, I was appointed. After that term, I got elected to PB. The first thing I concluded was that the distinction between "native" and "flatlander" is bogus. All residents of my town, Hancock, are from away, as we have no registered tribal members. That's a stigma of oppression that needs to be reversed by reminding those who consider themselves natives and acting in the town's best interests when supporting development in undeveloped areas, are similar to lobbyists taking out-of- state money in the current political situation.

Only after a few years of seeing similar types taking vacant seats did I realize I'd have to educate myself on alternative rationale I could use to vote no on land use issues that would compromise Ecological Wisdom, and go beyond sustainable land use. I got my first lesson in sustainability when my colleagues struck "sustainable" from a draft warrant article my subcommittee proposed. It took a few meetings for me to get the word added again. I tried the same wording in the Mission Statement of the County Planning Commissioner I serve on as appointed by SB to represent my town, Hancock. The Executive Director told an executive committee member that the word is too controversial, and the current “’sound’ land use" clause would have to remain.

PB makes $39 per meeting (down from $42), and I get a pay check with deductions from the municipal treasurer. Although a thankless job bound by state regulation and the zeal of R for development ("Jobs"), PB makes a good jumping off place for someone to run for SB, County Commissioner, State Representative, Senator, and to seek appointment for other municipal and state or county agencies, and non-profits--like land trusts and bay management groups (as I have done). So MGIP can plot a course in public service and make the best of the stacked political odds.

The mental constraints one feels when serving in these conditions give a certain meaning to one's life--like how to cope, not burn out. I look at each agenda item for where I can verbalize for sustainability and recommend permit conditions on an application, or vote against a waiver my colleagues support, or urge the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO), who attends PB meetings, to bring a matter to SB attention (where directions for issuing violations or fines are given by law).

Sometimes MGIP on PB can utilize an opening in the political climate to start something in the town that would never happen on its own. In my case, I pushed for a moratorium to prohibit commercial water extraction. I helped word the moratorium, attended SB meetings to make sure they approved it and sent it to town meeting. 4 times during the progression of my moratorium all votes for its passage were unanimous. For 2 years the moratorium against Nestle has been in effect, and the PB wrote a regulatory ordinance, which I told them I was against.

Muni Green will only progress through motivated research. No opportunities for preventing development exist under state statute. There is always room for compromise with an applicant. Muni GIP must learn what potential alternatives exist, weigh the political ramifications, and spend life energy to prepare them for Board and Committee consideration, convince their placement as agenda items, prepare warrant articles, gather signatures, and be willing to get grilled by a board of R's. It's one thing to be an R's peer, and another to be in the position of convincing R's as a member of the public. Not all Muni Greens are cut out for something like I'll now describe. I think that sooner or later they will consider what they are getting out of their public office experience to the point of attempting something like the following.

In hoping my PB credentials would somehow assist my effort, and being thwarted when presenting this to PB colleagues, I decided to present the Rights-Based Prohibition on Commercial Water Extraction to SB independent of PB. If they considered my politics, they would realize that prohibition on commercial water extraction is a MGIP platform. So there was a lot at stake. My actions in this case invoked the Ecological Wisdom, Future Focus, and Grassroots Democracy values.

Getting on the agenda was a feat, preparing the warrant article (which I took from the town of Newfield website) petition for the warrant article, and Rights-Based Ordinance that Newfield (and Shapleigh) had approved, gathering the signatures, and preparing my argument to SB was a several month experience that I don't regret, and that is now in the Muni record.

My request was for them say they would place the Article and "illegal" Ordinance on the Warrant, before I would gather the remaining signatures the effort would need. The ordinance would have stood next to the PB's regulatory ordinance (that I was on record against) on the town meeting warrant. Voters would have a choice to allow Nestle to begin regulated extraction or they would prohibit it. It all boiled down to whether Hancock would be liable for lawsuit now due to an "unconstitutional home rule provision," or whether Hancock would be liable for lawsuit in the future when Nestle would be able to sue the town under NAFTA for being a barrier to international trade when it wanted more water for its bottles than the town could give. Even after I told them the story of how the Newfield SB placed the Rights-Based Ordinance on the warrant on their own volition, and how the voters approved it, and how saltwater pollution is inevitable when water is extracted in coastal areas in the huge quantities Nestle requires, they deliberated very carefully, and voted it down 25 minutes later. I could see they knew they were affecting the town's future big time. The one original D who advocated for my original PB appointment almost 10 years earlier abstained. That turned out to be another Muni Green impetus-generating event, because I decided to invest the time in working to make the Regulatory Ordinance the strictest of any municipal ordinance statewide (from having seen the other town's ordinances that Nestle sits in on), all the while telling my PB colleagues I would ultimately vote against it.

The only recourse for MGIP/Muni Green when SB acts like Hancock's and Shap-leigh's on any issue that folks in town support is to organize a Notary Town meeting as happened in Shapleigh, where SB's Warrant Articles can be equalized with voter's Warrant Articles. When Shapleigh placed the Rights Based Prohibition on Commercial Extraction on the Notary Town Meeting Warrant, it was approved, making it the law. (The Shapleigh SB countered with the Nestle-assisted Regulatory Ordinance on the Warrant at the regular town meeting two weeks later. Shapleigh has both ordinances on their books awaiting legal procedures to be sure.) When a town adopts the Rights Based Ordinance these days, Nestle and other Multinationals keep legal tabs on what to do next, but move on to the next town to avoid negative public image.

So, if you're MGIP looking for challenge and adventure, try getting appointed to anything in your town, getting written in, or taking out nominating papers. You may want to attend several meetings to get the local color, but put the notion of "flatlander" vs. "native” out of your mind because you're a taxpayer, and you are definitely representing a good percentage of people in your town if you get the job. You being in office will taint the minutes of the board you're on in the most progressive ways ever. You could choose to play it low key, take it to the SB if the 10 keys well-up (no pun intended) on any issue (try asking your state rep to introduce a bill allowing you to vote no on major subdivisions), write letters to the editor inviting the media to attend your board meetings, get them televised, urge your constituents to attend board meetings to share the festivities, because you sitting there will make each meeting special. Expect to get yelled at by Rs, but know you are doing things for your town that no one else would, and you represent folks who APPRECIATE it!

US Greens celebrate Egypt's success

2011-02-13T18:22:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party of the United States congratulated the Egyptian people and called President Hosni Mubarak's resignation a huge step towards democracy, human rights, and stability for their country.

"The Egyptian revolution is a victory for the people of Egypt, and also the victory for an idea -- the idea that violent regimes can be overthrown through nonviolent means," said Romi Elnagar, member of the Green Party of Louisiana and wife and mother of Egyptian-Americans. "While police and rampaging pro-Mubark thugs killed 350 and injured thousands more, the protesters themselves remained overwhelmingly peaceful."

US Greens hoped for an end to the 30-year-old 'emergency decree' and for a broad-based transitional government that embraced opposition parties, to begin the work of dismantling the brutally oppressive Mubarak regime. The next step will take place when the military relinquishes power and Egyptians establish a civil government with a constitution, free and fair elections, democratic institutions, and the means to solve problems like unemployment and poverty.

Greens also urged the Obama Administration to cooperate in an investigation of the alleged $70 billion that Mr. Mubarak's accumulated during his corrupt regime and to freeze any of his assets that are held in the US.

"We call on the US government to avoid meddling and respect the right of Egyptians to rule themselves. Aid for Egypt must be for humanitarian purposes, not military, and without strings attached. If the Obama Administration tries to press the new Egypt into subordination, to satisfy the US's strategic military and economic interests in the region, we will betray the Egyptian people and their right to democratic sovereignty," said Laura Wells, 2010 Green Party candidate for Governor of California.

US Greens noted that much of the conflict in the Middle East and resentment of the US by Egyptians and other populations in the region centers around the unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

"Since making its 1979 'cold peace' with Israel, the Egyptian government has supported Israel's ongoing apartheid and dispossession of Palestinians, most recently complying with the siege of Gaza, in return for billions in aid from the US. We look to the formation of a democratic Egypt which adheres to international law and reflects its citizens' long-standing opposition to Israel's oppression of Palestinians," said Dr. Justine McCabe, co-chair of the Green Party's International Committee (http://www.gp.org/committees/intl).

Green Party response to State of the Union

2011-01-27T19:49:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Green Party leaders offered comments on President Obama's 2011 State of the Union speech to Congress and the nation, scheduled for Tuesday, January 25. The Green response covers major issues the President will discuss in his speech, as well as topics he won't address.

"There's a lot of talk about Democrats and Republicans 'reaching across the aisle' during the State of the Union. What about the gap between Washington and the rest of the country, much wider than the aisle between the two Titanic parties?" said Carl Romanelli, 2006 Green candidate for the US Senate in Pennsylvania.

HEALTH CARE

Should the Democratic health care reform bill be repealed? Yes, say Greens, and replaced with a Medicare For All plan -- legislation for single-payer national health care, covering everyone regardless of ability to pay, age, or prior medical condition, while allowing freedom to choose one's physician and hospital. Medicare For All reduces costs dramatically by enabling price controls and because Medicare's overhead is only about 3%, while the for-profit health insurance bureaucracy -- the real "death panels" -- pad costs by up to 30% for administrative overhead, executive bonuses, and profits for investors. Medicare For All would help business and stimulate the economy by relieving employers of the burden of providing health benefits.

Obamacare and the Republicans' effort to overturn it demonstrate that the leadership of both parties care more about profits for the insurance cartel, Big Pharma, and other corporate interests than high-quality low-cost health care for everyone. The Obamacare mandate (originally a Republican idea from the 1990s) forces people who can't afford it to purchase defective, inadequate coverage from private insurance companies, while doing nothing about skyrocketing costs.

The narrow Democrat vs. Republican debate on health care, which refuses to allow even the argument for Medicare For All, proves the need to get Greens elected to Congress and state legislatures.

THE ECONOMY

There are millions of jobs waiting to be created in alternative energy, retrofitting of buildings and other forms of conservation, and expansion of public transportation to reduce car traffic, say Greens, but this can only happen with a 'Green New Deal' with public investment in these ideas at national, state, and local levels. All of the Green New Deal proposals have become vitally necessary in the century of global warming. See "Fast Forward to Renewable Energy" by Cecile Lawrence (http://www.greenpapers.net/?p=58).

Such measures face a huge political obstacle: opposition from Republicans and "moderate" Democrats who insist -- contrary to all evidence -- that the best way to stimulate the economy is to reduce government spending (by $100 billion, according to the GOP), slash taxes on the highest income brackets, privatize essential public services and resources, and send taxpayer-funded bailouts to reckless Wall Street firms.

The White House and Congress can reduce the deficit drastically by ending the wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, cutting military spending and the number of US bases on foreign soil, and taxing the wealthy so that they pay their fair share. Future meltdowns can be averted by breaking up the "too big to fail" financial firms into smaller locally-based companies. The Green Party's goal of a decentralized economy, based on Main Street rather the Wall Street, will restore economic stability and security to the US.

Instead of shilling for Wal-Mart's grocery section, First Lady Michelle Obama would do far more good by promoting local produce, small farms and businesses, local banks and credit unions, union jobs with good benefits at stores like Walmart, extended compensation for the unemployed, and aid for people dealing with home foreclosures, said Greens. Ms. Obama's promotion of Walmart coincides with efforts by the chain to open four department stores in Washington, DC, over the objections of many local residents and merchants.

CORPORATE 'PERSONHOOD'

On the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision upholding the legal status of corporations as person under the US Constitution, Green Party leader Sarah 'echo' Steiner announced that she intends to take the Supreme Court at its word and honor her marriage when she finds a suitable candidate. See "First Ever Marriage to a Corporation Contemplated by Single, Female, 39" (Jan. 18 press release, http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=384), as well as an interview and other links on the Green Party's home page (http://www.gp.org).

The decision, which abolished limits on corporate spending for political campaign ads, severely damages the integrity of US elections and caused a flood of misleading and offensive corporate-sponsored ads in the 2010 election season.

President Obama and some other Democrats initially criticized the Citizens United ruling but have taken no further action. Greens have urged the President and Congress to recognize that the growing power of corporations threatens democracy, economic stability, and human rights and freedoms in the US and abroad. The Green Party, along with Move To Amend (http://www.movetoamend.org), supports passage of an amendment that limits constitutional rights and protections to humans and makes corporations accountable to their own charters and to the public good.

Release: Green Party Election Results

2010-11-08T21:04:00.000-08:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Maine Greens congratulate candidates for running strong campaigns, strengthen the call for electoral reform

Maine Green Independent Party Candidates who ran for the office of state house and state senate ran strong campaigns, often finishing a close second in the race Tuesday night. Fred Horch, of Brunswick, ran a close second with 34% of the vote in District 66.

In Portland, voters approved the work the of the Portland Charter Commission that calls for the election of a mayor using instant runoff voting, a method of voting that allows voters to choose their preference of candidates by number.

"This is a great victory for the people of Portland and those of us who worked for this reform on the commission," said Anna Trevorrow, a Green Independent candidate who finished second in her race for state house in district 120, against incumbent Diane Russell.

"This also provides us the opportunity to use instant runoff voting as a starting point for electoral reform in the city and as a model for the state," said Trevorrow who also serves on the state steering committee. Eliot Cutler, the gubernatorial candidate that finished second in Tuesday's race, was quoted today on MPBN that he would like to pursue a method of electoral reform in Maine that included a runoff.

The Maine Green Independent Party has always favored instant-runoff voting as a more democratic way of voting, since it eliminates the need for a second election between the candidates who receive the top percentages of the vote and allows voter to rank their preference of candidates in order from one to the amount of total candidates. It would also mean the winner would have to get just over 50% of the vote to be declared the winner, thus encouraging all candidates to run positive campaigns.

"Although the initial investment in changing over to instant-runoff may be costly, it would be well worth it, especially if people are going to look into the idea of having a runoff election. The runoff would take place by the election workers and require no additional voting, no second election," said Nate Shea, media chair for the Maine Green Independent Party (MGIP). "It would also encourage greater civic participation and would mean that candidates would need to soften their tone to attract a wide-range of voters, not just their base," said Shea.

The MGIP plans to pursue the idea and implementation of instant runoff voting for future elections. Party leaders and members plan to contact members of the legislature as well as key political players who have expressed an interest in the reform. Anyone who is interested and would like to express their support for or learn more about instant runoff voting is encouraged to visit our website at www.mainegreens.org and click on the "contact us" tab or call the Portland office at (207)699-1321.

###

Contact:
Nate Shea, Chair - Media Committee
Maine Green Independent Party
(207)745-4517

Spokesperson:

Anna Trevorrow, Secretary - Steering Committee

Maine Green Independent Party

(207)699-4141

Release: Green Independent Party Platform in line with Election Results

2010-06-10T21:01:00.000-07:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Greens score 100% on Election Day ballot issues and congratulate Mainers on voting for Question One. Maine Green Independent Party in line with mainstream Maine values.

Portland, Maine - June 10, 2010 -- Members of the Maine Green Independent Party were pleased to find that every ballot issue they supported on Tuesday's election has won. Residents in Maine continually prove their alignment with MGIP's values: grassroots democracy, ecological wisdom, social and community-based economic justice, personal responsibility and sustainability.

"Hopefully this will indicate to Mainers how relevant our party is and get them thinking outside the box on political matters. Voters are looking for something new in Augusta, and they'll find genuine change by voting Green in November," stated Jeremy Keith Hammond of Auburn, Secretary of the State Steering Committee.

Maine Greens understood the implications of the tax reform bill passed by the Maine House and Senate last year and partnered with proponents of the repeal to collect signatures to get the People's Veto on the ballot this June. The MGIP congratulates Mainers in successfully overturning what would have been an unfair flat tax, resulting in an extensive cut for the wealthy and replaced by increased consumption taxes. This burden would have been carried by Maine's small businesses, working families and the poor. Like many Mainers, the Green Independent Party believes in comprehensive tax reform, but the law Mainer's voted to repeal on Tuesday did not fall in line with the values of the majority of Mainers.

Erin Cianchette, Chair of the Maine Green Independent Party said that, "MGIP has supported the tax repeal from the outset, favoring an equitable income tax structure, and taxes on wealth, which apply to those that can most afford to pay into the system."

The MGIP feels strongly that legislators need to continue working towards real and equitable tax reform. It is clear that after Tuesday's repeal of the tax law and support for all bond issues that Mainers are not only interested in a fair system of taxation but also investing in this state.

"The legislators who voted this tax law must not retreat and throw up their hands, but reach out to their constituents for input on real tax reform, not just shifting the burden towards those who can least afford to pay taxes. There are plenty of Greens on the ballot for November who would love to show this state what it means to be a Green Independent legislator, independent of the major two parties," said Nate Shea, steering committee member and Media chair.

Residents of Maine and the Green Independent Party supported the four bond issues because clean energy, clean water, well paying jobs and transportation infrastructure are just what our state needs to help it through these difficult economic times. The Maine Greens consider the bonds as Maine's own stimulus package, but with wiser goals. The gains from these projects will improve our way of life and make it easier for Maine to repay the debt incurred.

"The Maine Green Independent Party is elated to find that every ballot issue they supported has won. The bond issues promote alternative energy programs, good jobs, help for schools, and other initiatives supported by Greens," said Jon Olsen of Jefferson, a member of the state Steering Committee and long time activist in the Green Party.

MGIP is more than a political party. We are Mainers who believe that values are what can save this State, its People, this Country and the World. Values are what we place our belief in, what we raise our families on, go to our jobs with, and expect our voted officials to uphold.

Maine Greens represent ten key values: grassroots democracy, social justice and equal opportunity, ecological wisdom, non-violence, decentralization, community-based economic justice, gender equity, respect for diversity, personal and global responsibility, future focus and sustainability. As a political party, we as Mainers seek to make change, increase accountability, and elect officials that vote to uphold these ten key values.

For more information about the Maine Green Independent Party visit www.MaineGreens.org or call our Portland office: (207)-699-1321.

# # #

Contact:
Nate Shea, Chair - Media Committee
Maine Green Independent Party
(207)745-4517

Single-Payer: The solution to the health care crisis

2010-05-24T20:58:00.000-07:00

The Maine Green Independent Party has always advocated that health care must be a human right for all, and not a privilege for those who can pay, or a source of profit-making. We further believe that health is both a personal and a community responsibility.

Under a universal national single-payer health care system, we would pay less and receive more. The administrative waste of private insurance corporations (37 per cent of health dollars) would be redirected to patient care. The General Accounting Office of Congress has concluded that: "If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer plan ... the savings in administrative costs would be more than enough to offset the cost." According to Harvard researchers, the United States would save more than $200 billion dollars a year if we converted to a national universal single payer health care system. A single-payer system would allow the reorganization of existing health care expenditures toward substantial savings and broader coverage.

Businesses currently providing employment-based benefits would see their costs reduced. State and local governments would pay less because they would receive reimbursement for services provided to the previously uninsured, and because public programs would cease to be the dumping ground for high-risk patients and those rejected by HMO's when they become disabled and unemployed.

Most importantly, the people of America will gain the peace of mind of knowing that needed health care will always be available to them. No longer will people have to worry about facing financial disaster if they get seriously ill, get laid off their job, or are injured in an accident. No longer will anyone have to put off addressing serious health problems for lack of coverage. We will all receive the same benefits that people in all the other developed countries have enjoyed for a long time: better quality health care, more preventive services, less cost, predictable coverage, and hopefully improved health statistics.

A universal, comprehensive, national single-payer health plan will provide, with no increase in cost:

Lifetime benefits for everyone
No one will lose coverage for any reason
No co-pays
No deductibles
No bill for service
Freedom to choose whatever type of health provider you wish, providing a wide range of health care services in private offices and public institutions
A publicly funded and administered health care program
Health decision-making back in the hands of health providers and their patients, where it belongs
Comprehensive benefits, as good or better than existing plans, including dental, vision, mental health care, audiology, hospice, long-term care, substance abuse treatment and prescription medication coverage.
Emphasis on preventative health care to promote healthy behaviors and practices
All licensed and/or certified health providers may participate, subject to standards of practice in their profession
Health plan benefits are portable; they go wherever you go
Primary and preventive care are priorities in the plan
Greatly reduced paperwork for both patients and providers
Providers receive fair and full reimbursement for their services in a timely manner
Preservation of all health care services currently available
Cost controls via streamlined administration, global health care budgets, national fee schedules, bulk purchases of drugs and medical equipment, and coordination of capital expenditures
Hospitals can afford safe staffing levels for registered nurses

Establish national, state, and local Health Policy Boards consisting of members representing health consumers and providers to oversee and evaluate the performance of the system, expand access to care, and determine research priorities. All meetings of the boards shall be open to the public.

Establish a National Health Trust Fund and channel all current Federal payments for health care programs directly into the Fund, in addition to employers' and employees' health premium payments.

Funding to provide two years of salary benefits and retraining to people whose jobs are eliminated due to implementation of the new system.

Recognizing that human health is also affected by the health of our environment, the Maine Green Independent Party supports policies that would promote both human health and the health of our ecosystems:

Eliminate the emission of toxins that pollute the environment and harm our health

Improve identification and regulation of agricultural and industrial pollutants

Eliminate the use of herbicides

Mandate the labeling of all 'foods' that have been genetically engineered, irradiated, or to which chemical pesticides have been applied

Fund research into the cause, prevention, and treatment of disease, including the ways in which toxic chemicals cause disease

Implementation of a national single payer health care system would create 2.6 million jobs in the national economy; this is a net figure that takes into account jobs that would be lost. Indeed, establishing a single payer health care system could pull the economy out of its quagmire by creating new jobs doing meaningful work, thus solving two crises at once.

Green Independent Party Opens New Office!

2010-05-01T21:08:00.000-07:00

Progressive politics in Maine has a new home. The MGIP announces its new office located in the heart of downtown Portland's Government district.

415 Congress Street, Suite 202
Portland, ME 04101
207-699-1321

Entrance

Reception

Office & Conference Room

Mountaintop Industrial Wind is not Green

2010-04-24T20:52:00.000-07:00

By Jonathan Carter, Director of the Forest Ecology Network

I have been advocating for wind power for decades. I never thought I would see the day when I would be opposing wind power development. However, the current frantic rush to install industrial wind on every viable mountaintop is both shortsighted and ecologically damaging. All one has to do is look at the impact of the Kibby TransCanada industrial wind operation in the remote Boundary Mountains of western Maine. This is nothing more than industrial wind mountaintop removal. It is being driven by dollars and cents, not ecological sense. To call mountaintop wind operations "farms" is nothing more than PR. Farms suggest a positive relationship with the land. The industrial wind operations are nothing less than massive electrical generating facilities that destroy the quality of place and pose serious health problems for both humans and wildlife.

When John Baldacci announced the formation of the Governor's Task Force on Wind Power, I thought, "good idea John". Never in my wildest dreams did I think this task force would submit to the legislature an Expedited Wind Permitting Law which fast tracks industrial wind development in an area covering two thirds of the state. This bill was passed by the legislature in fifteen days with little to no public involvement or debate. The fact is that the Expedited Wind Law was to a large extent written by the wind developers whose primary interest is green money, not green energy.

This law gives the go ahead for potentially 360 miles of industrial wind turbines on Maine mountaintops. This would result in the building of thousands of miles of additional power lines and roads. It would require the clearcutting of over 50,000 acres of carbon sequestering forestlands. Literally the tops of the mountains are blown-up in order to establish a bedrock base for the massive concrete pads need to support 400 to 500 foot turbines (over 40 stories high and higher than the Statue of Liberty!)

In addition to the destruction of habitat, these massive wind machines, which individually move at over 180 miles an hour sweep more than an acre of space, broadcast high volume sounds which have literally driven people in Maine from their homes. It is not only audible sounds which cause a problem to people and wildlife, but probably more damaging are low frequency sound waves that are emitted from these industrial power plants. It is well documented that the low frequency sounds and shadow flicker, which can travel miles from the turbines, pose serious health risks. The neurological health problems have been labeled as Wind Turbine Syndrome (WTS). People experiencing WTS can exhibit elevated heart rates, memory problems, visual blurring, nausea, sleep disturbance, and chronic headaches.

The proposal by Independence Wind for the Highland Mountains is a perfect example of how the new Expedited Wind Law will open the doors for wind developers to destroy the essence of a rural community by turning the mountains of Maine into something more analogous to Portland Jetport. The Highland Mts. are right next to the Bigelow Preserve. This development would undermine the wild character of hundreds of miles of the Appalachian Trail. The whole Bigelow Range would be confronted with, upfront in your face, a string of 48 turbines with their noise, shadow flicker, and flashing red lights In leveling the Highland Mountains 1.6 million cubic yards of blasted debris, enough to fill a 100,000 truckloads, will be moved. If these trucks were lined up, they would stretch all the way to North Carolina! If you like to hike, hunt, or fish, do you honestly think your experience is going to be enhanced by the high decibel sounds, the shadow flicker, and flashing red lights of turbines? North Carolina has put a moratorium on mountaintop turbines because they recognized that turbines would degrade the mountains, which define their state and are a major economic driver in the form of tourism and outdoor recreation. What has Maine done? It has passed an Expedited Law that fast tracks industrial mountaintop wind.

In defiance of the Migratory Bird Protection Act, turbines routinely kill birds and bats The Highland Mts. area is home to many Bald Eagles, the rare Bicknell Thrush, and the threatened Canada Lynx. It is well documented that turbines kill bats and birds and that a string of turbines is going to destroy fragile mountain habitat. The emerging studies on wildlife indicate that the audible and low frequency sounds may impact fertility rates, feeding behavior, predator avoidance, and communications.

Some environmentalists have been drawn into believing that if you are not for covering the mountains of Maine with wind turbines, then you are acting against the unfolding disaster of climate change. This is a false dichotomy. Global warming is a catastrophic crisis, but the solution is not to destroy the pristine character of the Maine Mountains. The industrial wind mountaintop frenzy sweeping across Maine is not tied to shutting down an oil or coal power plant. It is simply feeding our gluttonous consumption of more and more energy. It makes no sense to destroy our mountaintops to feed this appetite. In addition, carbon reduction benefits from mountaintop industrial wind are marginal. Since wind only produces electricity intermittently - when the wind blows -- wind turbines require keeping back-up power available and fired up. Coal and oil plants are not shut off. In fact, it has been estimated that if California is to reach a goal of 20% wind energy, it will have to build at least 40 new conventional power plants (probably carbon producing -- and expensive).

There are better alternatives -- the first being CONSERVATION. It is no secret that if the federal subsidies (as much as 60% of cost) being poured into industrial wind were invested instead into efficiency and conservation projects, the reductions in carbon emissions would dwarf those potentially created by mountaintop industrial wind. It would also create thousands of more jobs for local communities. If these funds were used for forest restoration the reductions per dollar expended would be even greater.

Maine, a state with one of the highest renewable energy portfolios, already produces more than enough energy. In fact, we export energy. It has been estimated that Maine and the rest of New England will have excess capacity for the next fifteen to twenty years. Residential and community based wind projects hold a lot of promise. At a local or community scale turbines are much smaller, emit a lot less sound, have reduced shadow flicker, do not require flashing red lights, are less damaging to migratory birds, and, if placed properly, will not destroy fragile habitat. Decentralizing electricity production would have the added benefit of fostering locally owned generating facilities.

It is time to take a stop the mountain slayers and profiteers. If we allow this mountaintop wind gold rush to continue, after the rush has played out, Mainers will be left with the tailings of a despoiled landscape and the magic of the mountains gone forever.

Jonathan Carter, Director of the Forest Ecology Network

fen@207me.com, www.forestecologynetwork.org

Please join the fight to Save The Highland Mountains and Protect the Bigelow Preserve

Outlook 2010

2010-01-24T19:26:00.000-08:00

By John Rensenbrink, Green Horizon Foundation

The Maine Green Independent Party entered the year 2010 with high hopes for a strong year, led by Lynne Williams their candidate for governor, a well spoken, widely acclaimed, and down to earth lawyer active on behalf of many grassroots groups in the state. But in January and February their hopes were blunted and at first seemed dashed altogether. Lynne's campaign was not able to qualify for Clean Election Funding and, in spite of heroic efforts on the part of several signature gatherers, with John Olsen in the forefront, did not get enough signatures to put Lynne on the ballot. For the first time in five gubernatorial election cycles, MGIP will not have a candidate on the ballot in November.

But the disappointment soon turned to renewed hope and a resurgence of energy. Party activists, spurred by Ben Chipman and Anna Trevorrow, the Party Chair, were able to recruit and assist 18 Greens around the state to gain qualified ballot status as candidates for the state House and Senate. Not only that, but Lynne Williams was able to shift her sights from the race for governor (a very long shot) to a possibly winning campaign for a Senate seat in Hancock County.

But just as important, the disappointment also led to creative soul searching -- seeking to learn from what happened. The party needs to re-focus its thinking on the grassroots and now turn its attention in a serious way to building the party starting at the town level and on up to the county level. Town committees need to be formed in as many towns as possible, starting with the nucleus of one or two party members in the 93 towns in which ballot signatures for Lynne Williams were gathered -- and moving on from there to other towns and then also the forming of county committees.

It has come to be realized that the party had been depending on gubernatorial campaigns to jump start locals, when what is needed are local committees in many, many towns, these committees then being able to know who and where the Green party members are in town so as to expedite the efficient gathering of signatures. Gubernatorial campaigns do help but are no substitute for active, on the ground, town and county committees. Active town and county committees, up and running when the next gubernatorial campaign takes place in 2014, will make the gathering of signatures for the Green candidate, from year-round Greens, a much more feasible proposition. Their absence was a significant factor in coming up short of the 2000 signatures needed to put Lynne Williams on the ballot.

Another major factor, however, a factor bitterly experienced by Green fund raisers, was the legislation last year, pushed through primarily by leading Democrats, that required candidates for governor to raise $40,000 from private sources in order to qualify for Clean Election funds. For a small party with only a very small number of even reasonably well-to-do people (they, too, being limited to no more than a $100 donation), this was a daunting hurdle. It proved impossible. But the effort in finding this out threw off the timing of the campaign to such a degree that it affected the entire planning and execution of the campaign as a whole, including then as well the gathering of the required 2000 signatures to get on the ballot.

The overturning of this unprincipled hurdle will be a critical priority for Green Party action. It is unprincipled because it violates the fundamental intent and letter of Clean Election law, which is to reduce, if not eliminate, private interest money in elections.

The Maine Green Independent Party can and will go forward with renewed vigor, born of a tough experience and finding strong pathways for action and for deeper, greater, grassroots party organization.

Water Rights

2010-01-24T19:25:00.000-08:00

Water is essential for life, both for people and for ecological systems, which give life to all species. We all have a duty to safeguard the water both on and beneath the Earth's surface, and in the process protect the rights of the people in the communities of Maine, and the rights of the ecosystems of which we are a part.

The Maine Green Independent Party is dedicated to the principle that access to clean water is a human right. All water is held in the public trust as a common resource to be used for the benefit of the people of Maine and for the benefit of the natural ecosystems.

The Maine Green Independent Party opposes the commodification and corporatization of water supplies. We believe that privatization of water and large-scale extraction of ground water resources for corporate profit should be prohibited, especially when it causes damage to natural communities and ecosystems.

We recognize that multinational corporations are interested in controlling Maine's abundant water resources because they are positioning to capitalize on the emerging crisis of global water scarcity.

The Maine Green Independent Party believes that corporations should not be allowed to usurp our rights by asserting that they have the same civil and political rights that people have. Corporations should not be allowed to block our local authority and democratic processes in order to profit from our water resources, which are held for the common good. Therefore, the MGIP believes that corporations should be prohibited from holding the rights of personhood under the law.

Water rights activists in Maine have organized very effective opposition to these attempts at corporate exploitation of water resources by passing ordinances that protect local home rule.

Local communities and indigenous peoples must at all times have local democratic control over decision-making regarding water issues. We recognize the stake that future generations have in those critical decisions.

We depend on a finite supply of fresh water. We recognize the importance of prioritizing the availability of affordable drinking water and water supply needed for agriculture over industrial uses.

We must protect the diversity of plant and animal life that depends on long-enduring ecosystems, and recognize the necessity of water systems to all life.

The threats to our waters are many, from depleted aquifers, to pollution of surface waters, to the degradation of oceanic waters that have been treated as international waste dumps.

We support efforts to protect watersheds, outlaw pollution, promote conservation, protect local control, and integrate sustainable land use with water supply.