=========BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE=========
[*****PNEWS CONFERENCES****]
From: Ellisen Hays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Progressive Caucus Promise of Fairness
The following is an alternative to the Contract "On" America
advanced by the Progressive Caucus of the U.S. House of
Representatives.
I received it from the Institute for Policy Studies. Unauthorized
reproduction is encouraged. Please repost it to any appropriate list.
PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS
THE PROGRESSIVE PROMISE: FAIRNESS
In contrast with the GOP's Contract with America, we shall offer a
positive legislative alternative during the first 100 days of the
104th
Congress to extend a "fair shake" to all Americans on the Progressive
Promise. Our plan shall be rooted in the principles of social and
economic justice, non-discrimination, and tolerance. It shall embody
national priorities which reflect the interests and needs of all the
American people, not just the wealthy and powerful.
1. THE FISCAL FAIRNESS ACT
To allow waiver of the balanced budget requirement in any fiscal year
when the national unemployment rate exceeds 4%, thus sustaining our
long-standing national commitment to full employment.
2. THE EQUAL JUSTICE BEFORE THE LAW ACT
An anti-crime package that retains key aspects of the anti-crime
legislation enacted in 1994 to prevent crime as well as punish that
which
happens; to crack down on white-collar crime (e.g. S & L bailout,
defrauding federal government on procurement, criminal penalties for
willful violation of child labor laws by employers that result in
serious
bodily injury or death of minors in the workplace, eliminate
deductibility of legal expenses when a company is accused of a crime)
and
on drug trafficking and abuse.
3. THE CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY ACT
To cut corporate welfare in the form of special subsidies and tax
loopholes of benefit to many of America's welathiest corporations, to
require companies to internalize pollution clean-up and other costs of
production instead of continuing to foist them on the American
taxpayer,
and to reform basic labor laws to restore collective bargaining rights
and balance employer-employee relations.
4. FAMILY FOUNDATION
Enable parents to get decent paying, stable jobs in order to afford
child
care and health care for their families; to raise the minimum wage and
index it fo inflation; to strengthen child support collection; to
abolish
financial penalties for two-parent families; to protect the sanctity
of
the family and safeguard the health and well-being of all our
children;
and to ensure that all Americans are well-fed.
5. THE AMERICAN HOMEMAKERS AND CAREGIVERS ACT
Target IRAs and other savings incentives on middle and low-income
Americans; special provisions to extend generous IRA options to
spouses
who stay home to nurture children under six years of age, thus
recognizing the importance of parental child-rearing; to allow
penalty-free IRA withdrawals for home health care, education expenses,
or
to start a small business; and targeted deduction for child care
expenses.
6. THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC SECURITY ACT
To cut the Pentagon and CIA budgets and Star Wars spending in favor of
shifting limited resources to meet domestic social needs and
investments
to strenghten the U.S. national economy.
7. THE CRADLE-TO-GRAVE HEALTH CARE ACT
To require a vote on sense of the Congress resolution against cuts in
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; to establish a state-based,
single-payer health care plan that provides cost-effective,
comprehensive
and affordable health care for all Americans, including long-term care
and prescription drug coverage; and to stress disease prevention and
health promotion in our communities.
8. THE JOB CREATION AND INVEST IN AMERICA ACT
To create at least 1 million jobs in the U.S. in each of the next two
years from $127.2 billion in new investment to re-build and upgrade
America's physical infrastructure and clean-up the environment; to pay
for these investments by closing tax loopholes for offshore production
while rewarding U.S. companies that invest, produce, and create jobs
in
the U.S.; to require the wealthiest U.S. corporations and citizens to
pay
their fair share of taxes, and to establish a national commission to
find
ways to encourage social investment of billions in pension funds to
meet
domestic needs in America.
9. THE TAKING BACK OUR CONGRESS ACT
To curb influence-peddling and special interest lobbying through
tougher
lobbying restrictions and campaign finance reform; to prohibit
ex-members
of Congress and executive branch officials from lobbying on behalf of
foreign governments and companies; to improve ballot access so more
Americans can run for office; and to authorize some public funding of
congressional elections to make it more affordable for more candidates
to
run regardless of personal wealth.
10. THE PUBLIC INTEREST LEGISLATURE ACT
To strengthen financial disclosure requirements and to prevent
financial
conflicts of interests in voting decisions by members of Congress.
11. THE EXPORT AMERICAN PRODUCTS, NOT AMERICAN JOBS ACT
To eliminate/limit special tax and trade incentives and
taxpayer-backed
programs that reward U.S.-based multinational corporations for
producing
offshore; no new fast-track and trade agreements without enforceable
worker rights, environmental, agricultural, and safety/health
standards;
to prohibit importing child and forced labor products; and to reduce
U.S.
trade deficit by eliminating unfair trade barriers to U.S. exports.
VETO THE CONTRACT "ON" AMERICA! ENACT THE PROGRESSIVE PROMISE OF
FAIRNESS!
______________________________________________________________________
_______
Hays Ellisen : CLOSE THE SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS!
Michigan Law Student :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] : FREE LEONARD PELTIER AND MUMIA ABU-JAMAL!
313-764-9079 :
551 South State St. : FIGHT THE CONTRACT "ON" AMERICA!
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 :
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
member: Coalition Against the Contract "On" America/ National Lawyers
Guild
______________________________________________________________________
_______
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
***** PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS ******
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
There are FOUR *PNEWS CONFERENCES* and approximately 1,200
participants:
<P_news> on FidoNet, <p.news> and <p.news.discuss> on PeaceNet,
and <PNEWS-L> on InterNet.
Three of these conferences are gated together and also carried on
APC
Networks world-wide.. [There are about 20,000 subscribers on APC
Networks]. The list on InterNet is also carried as a separate
conference
at many sites.
PNEWS CONFERENCES are for discussion and serve as conduits
for articles [and poetry] from *LEFT* wing publications
and other sources.
PNEWS CONFERENCES provide radical "alternative" views with an
emphasis on justice, humanitarian positions, protests,
boycott alerts, activism information, etc.
****************
To subscribe, send request to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--Boundary (ID g0+Egq4VsJi9t9cxJr/mPA)
Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 21:27:50 EST
Importance: normal
A1-type: DOCUMENT
RFC-822-headers:
EPIC66.DEP.STATE.FL.US
(PMDF V4.3-7 #7204) id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Thu,
Thu,
--Boundary (ID g0+Egq4VsJi9t9cxJr/mPA)--
--Boundary (ID jfEY+xekOoCyzZMvC/1a+Q)--
=========END FORWARDED MESSAGE=========
Carol Meeds
Jupiter, FL
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 11 07:00:25 MDT 1995
via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950511135959.320;
From: J M Brough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:00:29 GMT
Subject: Re: power communication
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Confirm-Reading-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-pmrqc: 1
Return-receipt-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mary Simmons said about my recent post:
>
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is not
> exactly what Kylie said. All jobs paying the same implies that we regard all
> work as equally valuable. This would remove a pesky heirarchy inherent in our
> western civilisation. I do not think this "absurd".
>
I can only say that I don't regard all work as equally valuable. I
believe it is absurd that we pay TV chat-show hosts far more than we
pay doctors (at least that's the case in Britain, I can't speak for
the USA). It's not just that inequalities exist, but to give
everyone the same pay would create just as many injustices.
Sincerely,
June Brough.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 11 07:53:40 MDT 1995
via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950511085753.480;
From: "Jackie Van Brocklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: UTA Libraries
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
J M Brough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 08:57:44 CST
Subject: Re: power communication
I agree with you, June - all work is not equal. I do believe,
however, that it would be a VERY beneficial thing if there were
some UNIFORM standards set for a certain amount. This is extremely
difficult (the gov. already attempts to do this, but it is only for
very specific types of jobs), but we need to look at the ACTUAL
work performed, REAL qualifications, etc., etc.
Trouble is, I don't believe that American businesses today will be
that honest about it (I've seen few "honest" job descriptions) - or
would even assist in this endeavor.
IMHO, "bizness" is where we need to focus - NOT the government! After
all, the government is (supposed to be) *US*! (?)
Jackie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 11 09:08:36 MDT 1995
via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950511160856.864;
From: J M Brough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 16:09:55 GMT
Subject: Re: communism
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Confirm-Reading-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-pmrqc: 1
Return-receipt-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re JWNWright's comment on my previous post:
> This argument seems very problematic to me, so I'll try to understand
> it.
>
> First, I am fairly certain that Marx was not the originator of the "from
> each..." quote, but rather it was a slogan conceived by the French
> anarchist Proudhon. Do you know otherwise?
Marx didn't originate it but he did use it in the form I have quoted.
The original, very slightly different form was first used by a
French anarchist, though I don't think Proudhon was his name.
> Second, given the enormous debates about the meanings of "communism" and
> "socialism," it is unclear to me what is meant by the phrase "'true'
> communism." What is "true" communism? Marx, Lenin, Mao, and many others
> have had contrasting perspectives.
I meant in the form described in Marx's statement - exactly that,
each person giving according to his/her abilities (Marx only said
"his" of course) and receiving according to his/her needs. As I
said, within a family, kinship or close community group this
usually works well, but beyond that it doesn't.
> Third, are you assuming that Marx was opposed to democracy? It sounds
> like you are arguing that communism = totalitarianism. But it is pretty
> clear from Marx's own writings that he didn't want to replace capitalist
> hierarchies with state hierarchies ...
All the attempts at "communism" have resulted in totalitarianism.
Pre-Gorbachev USSR was not a democracy, although they had "elections"
(with only communist organisations allowed to nominate candidates).
China isn't exactly my idea of a democracy either. People seem fairly
desperate to get away from Cuba too. Marx believed
that the state would automatically wither away once communism was
established but (possibly because true communism has never been
tried), that didn't happen.
>
> Finally, in what sense did Marx forget about human nature? Are you
> arguing that humans are rapacious and will compete each other to death,
> and therefore cannot be trusted to living as socialists?
I wish it wasn't the case, but - look at the former Yugoslavia, and
the bloodbath happening right now in central Africa, not to mention
Mozambique, Chechenya - do you need any more evidence? If people
want or need something badly enough they will fight for it. I am not
saying that socialism automatically means physical violence, but any
system that has to be imposed forcibly on human society is unstable.
> I don't want to critique this argument if I am misunderstanding it, but I
> will contribute to the discussion by saying that I believe that
> ecofeminism ethics should be socialist. Are we in agreement?
Not entirely!
Sincerely, June Brough
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 11 09:14:40 MDT 1995
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: power communication
In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 09:18:34 -0600
From: "Mary C. Simmons, Hydrologic Assistant, Albuquerque, NM
"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Why isn't all work equally valuable? I certainly agree that talk-show hosts
are absurdly overpaid, as are all athletes, movie stars, and politicians. We
also have a severe inequity in almost all other fields. Why are dostors paid
SO much more than nurses? Why are financial planners paid more than teachers?
Why are day-care providers paid only barely above minimum wage? I think, if
we REALLY look at people's work, as well as realize that everyone "has a place
at the feast", we would change our valuing system, and perhaps we could get
rid of these baffling disparities in pay.
Mary.
On Thu, 11 May 1995 09:31:16 GMT
J M Brough said:
> Mary Simmons said about my recent post:
> >
> > "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is not
> > exactly what Kylie said. All jobs paying the same implies that we regard all
> > work as equally valuable. This would remove a pesky heirarchy inherent in our
> > western civilisation. I do not think this "absurd".
> >
>
> I can only say that I don't regard all work as equally valuable. I
> believe it is absurd that we pay TV chat-show hosts far more than we
> pay doctors (at least that's the case in Britain, I can't speak for
> the USA). It's not just that inequalities exist, but to give
> everyone the same pay would create just as many injustices.
>
> Sincerely,
> June Brough.
