Uncategorized Archives - Democratic Freedom Caucus

Racial Justice and the Role of Government

Democratic Freedom Caucus — Wed, 23 Jul 2025 03:16:27 +0000

Published 2020/07/10

Each person should be treated as an individual, with individual rights, instead of being viewed
merely as a member of a group.

In the history of this country, government policies have played a major role in causing racial
conflict between black and white Americans, and also the main role in the treatment of Native
Americans.

In the case of Native Americans, the British government, and later the United States
government, used military force to help American colonists take land from the people who had
been living here for centuries before immigrants from Europe arrived. The British were used to a
system of land titles with clearly marked boundaries, but that was different from the Native
Americans they encountered. A common practice among many of the tribes was to distinguish
between two different kinds of property: things that a person produced, such as a tool, were
considered that person’s property; but the view was that each person in the tribe had a right of
access to land, which none of them had produced, and was seen as being given to all of them.

In a court case in the late 1800s, the Omaha tribe was being sued for trespassing on some
vacant land. The tribe argued that wild animals were allowed to wander onto that vacant land, to
obtain food there, so it made no sense to the Omaha tribe that they could not also enter that
vacant land and do likewise.

Sometimes treaties were made regarding land, but the government often did not enforce them,
and the treaties were usually violated. The conflicts over land led eventually to either destroying
some tribes or forcefully removing them to reservations, on land that was far from prime quality.
The tribes are theoretically supposed to be self-governing on the reservation lands, but the
federal government’s Bureau of Indian Affairs tends to interfere.

Just as the federal and state governments have violated the rights of Native Americans,
government has been a major factor in causing conflicts between blacks and whites.

The first major blow against black people in this country was when the American colonies were
under British laws that allowed slavery, including being brought here against their will and forced
to be enslaved. Then after the colonies obtained independence from England, when the U.S.
Constitution was written it still allowed legal slavery. And the laws stated that runaway slaves
would be returned to the slave owners.

But an exception was the state of Massachusetts, which actually allowed a runaway slave to
have a trial by jury. The authors of the U.S. Constitution had made clear that a jury has the right
to free a defendant if the jury finds that the particular law involved is unjust or wrongly applied.
Juries in Massachusetts routinely freed runaway slaves, deciding that slavery is unjust. But in
most states a runaway slave did not get a jury trial, and runaway slaves who were captured
were forced to return to the slave owners.

Even after slavery was ended in this country, for many decades blacks were not allowed to
serve on juries, just as they were not allowed to vote. And in some cases, instead of selecting
jurors at random as they’re supposed to be, there have been cases where a jury was illegally
packed with all white jurors in the trial of a black person, or the trial of a white person who had
violated a black person’s rights.

When the U.S. finally abolished slavery, some prominent people called for giving 40 acres of
land to each family of freed slaves. But that wasn’t done. So, even though the slaves were
freed, they had no property, and as a result, that made them dependent on having to accept
whatever work they were offered by white Americans. By starting out without owning any
property, they were beginning at a significant disadvantage. That also played a role in further
racial conflict with whites, especially southern whites who also didn’t own land in states where
large plantation owners dominated, and other whites were competing for some of the same jobs
as landless blacks. Seeing blacks as competitors who were “taking their jobs” led to seeing
them as a group rather than as individuals, and led to racial conflict.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the role of land access in its relation to racial strife
and poverty: “An intelligent approach to the problems of poverty and racism will cause us to see
the words of the Psalmist– The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof– are still a
judgment upon our use and abuse of the wealth and resources with which we have been
endowed.”

For well over a hundred years, some prominent authors and economists have proposed that a
modern way to make land affordable for everyone is by means of a practical reform which since
the late 1800s has been applied in dozens of cities around the world, including about 20 cities in
the U.S. since the early 1900s. That reform works by using incentives to put a limit on land
speculation (a major force that drives up the price of land), and removing taxes on buildings
(because building taxes raise the cost of housing and other buildings), so instead of taxes on
buildings, public goods can be funded by means of a tax on the location value of land, which
provides an incentive for land speculators to either put their land to use to make housing
available or for job creation, or sell it to someone who will. That policy can include a standard
deduction so that most small homeowners would owe very little tax.

That kind of policy could have also helped In the years leading up to civil rights laws that ended
Jim Crow segregation laws. There were many cases where, for example, restaurants would not
serve black customers. It might be pointed out that, if land had been affordable to everyone by
means of the practical reform just described, then blacks could have opened their own
restaurants and run some of the bigots out of business.

Even though slavery had been ended, Jim Crow laws involved forced segregation. Yet after
those laws were finally ended in the late 1960s, the legacy of forced segregation led to some
effects that still linger. Many decades of forced segregation resulted in somewhat separate
cultures of blacks and whites, often with limited interaction with each other, many seeing the
others as unfamiliar and foreign to them.

Also, even after Jim Crow laws were abolished, federal government policy still promoted
segregation in a different way, through government “redlining” of neighborhoods for housing
loans, which further encouraged segregation, sponsored by the federal government.

As a result of such government policies, there are still many basically segregated
neighborhoods. Along with the history of government policies that have caused blacks to start
out behind economically, and policies which have promoted segregation, there has been a
related history of conflicts between police and largely black neighborhoods. In order to address
those problems, there need to be police reforms, as well as reforms that address the root
causes of economic problems and extreme inequality. (See the DFC website essay on The
Proper Role of Police, and the essay on Poverty and Inequality: Caused by Government
Favoritism.)

Besides the point that blacks in this country were forced to start out behind economically, there
are also government policies that tend to favor those who are already middle income or wealthy
– such as tax subsidies to land speculators and major land owners, special favors to certain
kinds of companies or industries, some monopolistic kinds of licensing laws, and policies that
continue to be obstacles to affordable housing .Those who were not already middle income or
wealthy are further hindered by those special interest policies, so that many black people are
affected.

Due to the many decades of segregation promoted by government, leading to somewhat
separate cultures between blacks and whites, it might be said that some of the conflicts and
mistrust between blacks and whites are about the resulting cultural separation. But there are
ways that some people have overcome that barrier, to some extent. For example, there are
musical groups with blacks and whites in the same group– the musicians are sharing
something in common, playing music together. There are also other examples of clubs and
organizations where different people together, black and white, are sharing interests and values
that they have in common, where that commonality can be a bond.

But any examination of racial justice issues needs to bear in mind the government policies that
have promoted racial conflict in this country, including government promotion of segregation and
cultural separation; the government history of preventing black families from having access to
affordable land; the failure of some judges to uphold a genuine trial by jury; policies that favor
special interests, causing poverty and inequality; the need to address police reform; and the
need to treat each person as an individual, with individual rights, instead of being viewed merely
as a member of a group.

Each policy essay is based on an interpretation of a way to apply the DFC Principles. Except
where indicated by the author’s name, the policy essays are written by representatives of
the Democratic Freedom Caucus.

The post Racial Justice and the Role of Government appeared first on Democratic Freedom Caucus.

We Stand for a Free Democracy, not an Authoritarian Republic

Democratic Freedom Caucus — Sat, 28 Jan 2023 18:00:00 +0000

With the fierce culture war that dominates our political discourse and separates us along partisan ideological lines, the stakes of each election escalate to new, unprecedented heights. Political violence is on the rise. Politics has never felt more personal or bitter. And there has never been a better time for unity in our divided United States.

Within the Democratic Party, differences of opinion are welcomed and encouraged. Even amidst the disorder, Democrats find a way to turn disagreement into strength. It is within this big blue tent that we at the Democratic Freedom Caucus have found a home. Committed to our principles of civil liberties, economic opportunity, and constitutional democracy, we are eager to contribute to the party where diversity is our strength. In our eyes, diversity is too often framed as a goal that we strive for but have always failed to achieve. But we don’t have to be something we’re not to achieve diversity. Diversity is the natural outcome of a society that allows millions of different individuals to live freely and genuinely, not bound by anyone’s notion of what should be, nor by anyone’s notion of what can be. People’s distinct characteristics emerge from the beautiful mosaic that creates our national image, as we show the whole world what is possible when we live and let live. And we will continue to break through glass ceilings and tear down the walls that block us from achieving equal representation, united as we strive to become a freer and better society.

Things are not the same on the other side of the aisle. In the Republican Party, voters face huge social pressures to hold their nose and pull the lever for power-hungry, corrupt individuals that sell brutally unpopular policies alongside hollow culture war grievances. Conformity is not just expected, but demanded – enforced by a party culture that rewards “true conservatives” and disgustedly shuns “RINOs.” Long gone is the party of limited government and individual freedoms. Nowadays, the Republican Party seeks to use the government to enforce a strict moral code that dictates who you can marry, what you can learn in school, when you can start a family, and who gets to win an election, regardless of votes.

But true unity is not enforced from above; it is accomplished when individuals decide to set aside their differences and work together under a common cause. We believe in freedom, because freedom is optimism – the faith that given the choice, individuals will tend to make the best decisions for themselves, their family, and their communities. This is the founding principle of our constitutional democracy: given the choice, people will vote for a government of, by, and for the people, not the corporations, that serves the public interest, not special interests. With the power of the vote, the sacred freedom of choice, we encourage and engage with dissent, not stifle it, so as to draw out the best within us, not cater to our darkest impulses. Through the constitutional democratic process, we will prove not only that we can strive to be a more perfect union, but that we can do so through our own free will.

While Republicans present a vision of an authoritarian republic that demands and enforces conformity in the face of chaos, Democrats present a vision of a free democracy that inspires and achieves unity in spite of disagreement from diversity. The great American story is one of freedom over oppression – of revolutionaries over monarchy, of abolitionists over slavery, of suffragists over patriarchy, of civil rights activists over white supremacy. And as we stand in unanimous opposition to the dark, authoritarian forces that have consumed the Republican Party, it has become clear that the future of freedom is in the Democratic Party.

The discussion around liberty in politics has long been tainted and mischaracterized by right-wing hypocrites who believe that freedom means a license to impose their lifestyle on others, and by selfish, myopic ideologues who would rather oppose socialism by being brutally anti-social than by addressing or even acknowledging how corporate favoritism from the government encourages corporate exploitation. Corporations spew pollutants into the air and water and lay off hard-working employees to boost profits, and news and social media companies peddle outrageous lies to boost ad revenue, as the American Dream slips further out of reach for many. At the Democratic Freedom Caucus, we believe that the best way to promote freedom is not to rail against some abstract notion of an authoritarian state, but to inspire and empower individuals to rise above oppression, no matter the source.

A classic example of oppression is how the government locks people away for possessing or smoking marijuana. But another example is how corporations exploit their workers by creating conditions so poor that the workers feel compelled to go on strike. Yet another example is how the moral panic around trans and non-binary people creates a cultural cudgel that attempts to ban books in classrooms, shame people into submission, physically threaten them in public spaces, and restrict them from marrying or adopting. We stand with the LGBTQ individuals who fight for the right to live genuinely, free from bigotry. We stand with the union workers who fight for the right to work with dignity. We stand with the folks who fight for the right to smoke marijuana without fear of losing their rights. Because we believe that there’s more to freedom than simply cutting through bureaucratic red tape. Real freedom is about allowing individuals to take control of their lives and live the American Dream. We must empower individuals to stand up for themselves, and encourage others to do the same, so that everyone can live freely without fear of persecution or harm.

With the rampant outrage and violence that terrorizes our political landscape, it can be easy to be uneasy about our future, but we must always remember, even in the bleakest moments, that we can rise above oppression. Just as the Founders declared independence from the British crown, the abolitionists defeated slavery, the suffragists secured voting rights for women, and the civil rights activists ended segregation, we, too, will meet the moment to defeat authoritarianism in this country and do our part to continue the great American tradition of expanding freedom in the face of adversity. The Democratic Freedom Caucus will fight to restore the right to privacy and bodily autonomy, to restore civility and sanity in our political discourse, and to restore faith in the very institutions that got us here. Guided by our steadfast belief in civil rights, an economy rife with opportunity for everyone, and our constitutional democracy as an expression of self-governance, we will be a leading voice for liberty within the Democratic Party, as we unite to defeat the authoritarianism that has consumed the Republican Party, and as we work to uphold America’s reputation as the land of the free.

The post We Stand for a Free Democracy, not an Authoritarian Republic appeared first on Democratic Freedom Caucus.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Democratic Freedom Caucus — Wed, 29 Jun 2022 03:05:40 +0000

The Democratic Freedom Caucus is deeply alarmed by the absence of effective protections for reproductive rights following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Gender equality has always been a central battleground in this country’s struggle for freedom; as Abigail Adams reminded John Adams before the First Continental Congress in 1776 when urging him not to put too much power in the hands of husbands: “all Men would be tyrants if they could.”

The DFC has recognized since we were established in 1996 that there is no freedom more vital to human dignity than our rights over our own bodies, including our control over the choice of how and when to bear children. To be clear: reproductive decisions should chiefly lie with the individual who must actually bear the burdens of those decisions and that individual’s doctor, not government officials.

We urge the Democratic Party to do everything within its power to immediately implement federal, state, and local protections for reproductive rights and other fundamental freedoms called into doubt by the Supreme Court and state lawmakers. And we invite every freedom-loving American to join with the DFC in working to ensure that the Democratic Party fulfills its founding mission of safeguarding and expanding individual liberty.

The post Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization appeared first on Democratic Freedom Caucus.

Beyond Left and Right: Moral Principles for Economic Policies

Democratic Freedom Caucus — Tue, 16 Mar 2021 21:15:31 +0000

The polarization between left and right is largely because neither left nor right are based on clear moral principles. So, the fruitless debate between capitalism and socialism goes on because neither has a well-grounded view of what is valid ownership.

The only consistent principles of ownership ever presented are those of John Locke. Yet neither left nor right addresses Locke’s principles of ownership. It’s as if there is an elephant in the room and no one talks about it.

Locke starts with the principle that each individual should have the right to own their own body, so that no one else has the right to control that person. From that principle then, if a person has the right to own their own body, then that person must have the right to use their body and own the fruits of the labor their body produces. So, if a person applies their own labor to some natural resources in order to produce some food, a tool, etc., then that person has the right to own what was produced by their own labor. No one else has a right to confiscate what that person produced.

Locke then addresses the question of who has a right to own the natural resources. He concludes that, since no person produced natural resources, then anyone who claims some land and natural resources is morally obligated to leave “enough and as good” land for others. That implies, if a person wants to claim more than an equal share of land and natural resources, then he owes some compensation to others, for excluding them from access to that land and its natural resources. (*Second Treatise of Government*, ch.5, sec.26-35)

All products (machines, cars, buildings, etc.) come from land and labor. So, if there is fair access to land, then people all have the opportunity to use affordable land and natural resources to produce products, or start a business, and have affordable housing.

Labor includes any human effort involved in producing products and services. So, in addition to direct production of products, labor can also include such services as planning, teaching, managing, economic analysis, investment research, communicating, etc. A person doing any form of labor should have the right to offer to trade that labor with other people, on mutually agreed upon terms.

Endorsed by prominent economists and political philosophers

Many prominent economists and political philosophers have endorsed Locke’s conclusion about owing compensation to others for claiming extra land and natural resources. Those economists and philosophers have tended to advocate the policy that a person who owns extra land can provide compensation by owing some land rent to others, based on the value of the extra land that person is claiming.

One way to provide that compensation can be by owing a land value tax, based on the location value of the land (not the buildings or improvements), while lowering other taxes as much as possible, as advocated by noted economists and political philosophers of left and right, such as: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and several prominent modern economists (see quotes below.)

But even if we didn’t have any taxes, there are ways that the principle of land compensation could still be applied, in order to uphold those moral principles. Or, if a land value tax is the method used for providing compensation, then any other taxes could be removed or at least minimized.

Close to twenty cities in the U.S. have been moving in the direction of applying that principle, some for decades; and dozens of cities around the world have also been taking that approach, such as in Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Europe, including most recently one of the largest states in Germany has voted to adopt that policy.

A variation of that approach is to have a homestead deduction for a person’s primary residence. That way, most small homeowners would owe very little compensation, if any. For example, that is the policy adopted in the state of South Australia.

To make the economy work well

Those principles are also necessary in order to have an economy work well, because otherwise a distorted land system distorts the entire economy, resulting in extreme inequality; unaffordable products, services, and housing; hindering of job creation; and unnecessary poverty. Because every product and service requires inputs of natural resources and use of a location, that means every product and service involves payments to owners of land and natural resources, even though no person produced the land and its natural resources.

Those owners of land and natural resources can then use the revenue from land in order to buy more land, as well as buying industry, resulting in further distortion of the economy. (See the links below for articles on the DFC website about the distortionary effects, if Locke’s principles are not upheld.) Requiring compensation from owners of extra land serves as a kind of antitrust policy, preventing highly concentrated ownership of land and natural resources, and therefore preventing distortion of the rest of the economy.

Most authors of left and right do not address Locke’s principles. And among the few that at least mention those principles of Locke, some of those authors misrepresent what those principles are. For example, economist Murray Rothbard went as far as to even misquote Locke, leaving out part of a key sentence about those principles.

Another factor involved is that most economists have no background in land economics – only the economics of labor and capital goods. Ironically, most economics textbooks start out by saying there are three factors of production: land, labor, and capital goods (where capital goods refer to things such as tools, machines, etc, which are used to produce products, including other capital goods as well as consumer products). But then after mentioning the three factors of production, the rest of most textbooks is only about the economics of labor and capital goods, leaving out the economics of land and its natural resources. Similarly, the pages of economic research journals mostly consist of research about the economics of labor and capital goods.

Quotes from noted economists, political philosophers, and authors, related to Locke’s principles of property:

[John Locke]:
“…Every man has a ‘property’ in his own ‘person’. This nobody has a right to but himself. The ‘labour’ of his body and the ‘work’ of his hand, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. … For this ‘labour’ being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others. …”

[editor’s note: that implies, if someone claims extra land then he owes compensation to others. A modern approach for applying compensation is described by Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, and others – see quotes below.]
(John Locke, *Second Treatise of Government*, ch.5, sec.26-35).

[Thomas Jefferson]:
“Whenever there is in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural rights. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on.”
(letter to Reverend Madison.)

[Thomas Paine]:
“[I]t is the value of the improvement, only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes the community a ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue. …The plan I have to propose…is, to create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years…a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of landed property….

“Man did not make the earth, and though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue.”

[editor’s note: that principle applies just as much to urban land.]
(Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice, 1797).

[John Stuart Mill]:
“Landlords “grow richer as it were, in their sleep, without working, risking, or economising.” It is “a kind of income which constantly tends to increase, without any exertion or sacrifice on the part of the owners.”

[editor’s note: Mill is referring to ownership of land itself (locations and natural resources), which landlords did not produce, which is different from ownership of buildings, which are products of human effort]
(John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy, bk.5, ch.2, sec.5|

[Adam Smith]:
“[G]round-rents…are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases, enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry.”
(Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Random House 1937 ed., pp. 795-6).

Quotes from prominent modern economists:

“Our ideal society finds it essential to put a rent on land as a way of maximizing the total consumption available to the society. …Pure land rent is in the nature of a ‘surplus’ which can be taxed heavily without distorting production incentives or efficiency. A land value tax can be called ‘the useful tax on measured land surplus’.” (Paul Samuelson)

“It is important that the rent of land be retained as a source of government revenue. Some persons who could make excellent use of land would be unable to raise money for the purchase price. Collecting rent annually provides access to land for persons with limited access to credit.” (Franco Modigliani)

“The user of land should not be allowed to acquire rights of indefinite duration for single payments. For efficiency, for adequate revenue and for justice, every user of land should be required to make an annual payment to the local government equal to the current rental value of the land that he or she prevents others from using.” (Robert Solow)

“Assuming that a tax increase is necessary, it is clearly preferable to impose the additional cost on land by increasing the land tax, rather than to increase the wage tax – the two alternatives open to the City (of Pittsburgh). It is the use and occupancy of property that creates the need for the municipal services that appear as the largest item in the budget – fire and police protection, waste removal, and public works. The average increase in tax bills of city residents will be about twice as great with wage tax increase than with a land tax increase.” (Herbert Simon)

“In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.” (Milton Friedman, in Human Events 38 [46], November 18, 1978, p. 14.)

“The landowner who withdraws land from productive use to a purely private use should be required to pay higher, not lower, taxes.”(James Buchanan, from a lecture at St. Johns University, New York City)

“While the governments of developed nations with market economies collect some of the rent of land, they do not collect nearly as much as they could, and they therefore make unnecessarily great use of taxes that impede their economies – taxes on such things as incomes, sales, and the value of capital goods.”

“It (land value taxation) guarantees that no one dispossess fellow citizens by obtaining a disproportionate share of what nature provides for humanity.

“Economists are almost unanimous in conceding that the land tax has no adverse side effects. … Landowners ought to look at both sides of the coin. Applying a tax to land values also means removing other taxes. This would so improve the efficiency of a city that land values would go up more than the increase in taxes on land.” (William Vickrey, past president of the American Economic Association)

“I think in principle it’s a good idea to tax unimproved land, and particularly capital gains (windfalls) on it. Theory says we should try to tax items with zero or low elasticity, and those include sites.” (James Tobin)

“The main, underlying idea of Henry George is the taxation of land and other natural resources. At the time, people thought, “not really that too,” but what was underlying his ideas is rent associated with things that are inelastically supplied, which are land and natural resources. And using natural resource extraction and using land rents as the basis of taxation is an argument that I think makes an awful lot of sense because it is a non-distortionary source of income and wealth. …

… The question is: “Would it be better if we had more taxation of land and natural resources, and more revenue from natural resource management, and I would include atmosphere and spectrum.” And less tax on income and savings. And I would say, “Yeah.” And I think many economists would agree with that. So, if you want to sell it as a “Single Tax,” then, no, you won’t get anyone to agree that there’s enough revenue there. If you look at it as a more “central” tax, then, yes, you will get most economists to agree with you. (Joseph Stiglitz, in a 2002 interview)

Land and Market Power

https://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/category/land-and-market-power/

DFC Platform (see #2: Economic Liberty)

https://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/dfc-platform/

Poverty and Inequality: Caused by Government Favoritism

https://www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org/category/poverty-and-inequality/

Prominent modern economists endorsing this policy

http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/quotable_nobels.htm

John Locke, *Second Treatise of Government*, ch.5, sec.26-35

The post Beyond Left and Right: Moral Principles for Economic Policies appeared first on Democratic Freedom Caucus.

DFC Endorses Alanna Hartzok for Congress

Democratic Freedom Caucus — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:37:32 +0000

The Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC) National CommitteeÂ has endorsed Alanna Hartzok for Congress, 9th district,Â Pennsylvania.

Hartzok’s campaign platform is compatible with the DFC’s -Â especially her stands onÂ economic issues, where her views are for an alternativeÂ to the usual left and right.

She recognizes that, for a healthy economy, with job creation and alleviation of poverty, it’s essential toÂ uphold the basic principles that labor and productionÂ should not be penalized, and that natural resources are a unique kind of property that needs to be treatedÂ differently from other property, because otherwise itÂ skews the entire economy. She is also for cuttingÂ corporate welfare.

According to an interview in the Daily American newspaperÂ in Pennsylvania, Hartzok was asked by the Franklin CountyÂ Democratic chairman if she would run for the DemocraticÂ nomination. She says there are ways to take ideas fromÂ both the right and the left, which could make ourÂ Â democracy work better.

Hartzok points out that an important aspect of theÂ stateâ€s wealth is its gifts from nature, and that weÂ have to fairly share those gifts. Environmental rulesÂ and regulatory rules need to be enforced.

She is in favor of a policy similar to the AlaskaÂ Permanent Fund, in which revenue related to the oilÂ industry is invested and some of the revenue is paid asÂ a dividend to the stateâ€s residents.

In the Democratic primary, Hartzok wasÂ Â unopposed, and won the primary.

Contact information for Alanna Â Hartzok’s campaign:
Hartzok for Congress
Box 346 Scotland, PA 17254
717-357-7617

If you send a campaign contribution, let the candidate know you were referred by the Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC).

Online via ActBlue:
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/hartzokforcongress

The post DFC Endorses Alanna Hartzok for Congress appeared first on Democratic Freedom Caucus.

DFC Endorses Jim Wildoner for County Council

Democratic Freedom Caucus — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:30:42 +0000

The Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC) National CommitteeÂ Â has endorsed Jim Wildoner for County Council, District 3, PrinceÂ George’s County, Maryland.

On Wildoner’s campaign website it says: “Jim has adoptedÂ Â the DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM CAUCUS platform
(www.democraticfreedomcaucus.org) because it generallyÂ states his political views on promoting social justice, individual liberty, constitutional democracy andÂ fiscal responsibility.”

Wildoner has previously served as a Council Member for Â New Carrollton, from 2003 to 2013, where he has held allÂ positions on the council. He has a degree in BusinessÂ Management and an MS in Finance.

Wildoner has indicated that he actually is not seeking endorsements for his campaign, because he wants votersÂ to make up their own minds. “A Vote for Jim WILDONER forÂ County Council will give you someone that is serving theÂ Â people (STP) not the government or special interestÂ groups. Our campaign committee knows that when weÂ receive 50.1% of the voters on June 24th then that willÂ Â be better ‘than 100% of the endorsements.”

Contact information for Jim Wildoner’s campaign:
PAC for JAW
P.O.Box 1244 Lanham, Md 20703.

online via Democracy.com:
https://democracy.com/WILDONERforCountyCouncil

The post DFC Endorses Jim Wildoner for County Council appeared first on Democratic Freedom Caucus.

DFC Endorses W. Lane Startin for Idaho State Treasurer

Democratic Freedom Caucus — Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:23:33 +0000

The Democratic Freedom Caucus (DFC) National CommitteeÂ Â Â has endorsed W. Lane Startin for Idaho State Treasurer.

Startin points out that what the incumbent stateÂ Â treasurer did with “mortgage-backed securities” wasÂ “irresponsible. A state treasury is not a hedge fund.Â Â Â Investments should be in low-risk vehicles, especiallyÂ Â those with guaranteed rates of return.”

“In 2006, Idaho raised its sales taxes and cut its property taxes, a scheme which is proving to beÂ Â detrimental,” including its effect on encouraging harmfulÂ Â land speculation. (The DFC agrees that decision was aÂ Â mistake. The DFC platform points out that it makes senseÂ to lower the property tax on buildings and improvements,Â Â but the tax on the value of a location is similar to aÂ Â user fee for public services such as roads, policeÂ protection, schools, etc., which raise the value of land.Â Â If that aspect isn’t there the result is large amountsÂ Â of land speculation, which leads to less job creation,Â Â Â less affordable housing, and less affordable productsÂ Â and services.)

As Startin notes, although the state treasurer doesn’t directly make decisions on such things as taxation, theÂ person in that position can have an influence, by meansÂ Â of having a “bully pulpit”.

Contact information for W. Lane Startin’s campaign:
W. Lane Startin for Idaho State Treasurer
1140 S. Phillippi St. Â Boise, ID 83705-2621

The post DFC Endorses W. Lane Startin for Idaho State Treasurer appeared first on Democratic Freedom Caucus.

Why Senator Lugar Was Turned Out

Wed, 16 May 2012 23:48:04 +0000

In Matt Welch’s CNN article about why Republican Senator Lugar lost his re-election bid in the primary, Welch points out that Lugar’s “moderation” contributed to bailouts, theÂ so-falled stimulus, and a worsening economy.

Welch also suggests that Democrats should consider using their own primary elections to toss out incumbents “for supporting the drug war, Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping and every new militaryÂ intervention under the sun”.

Here are excerpts from the article:

Why Dick Lugar was turned out
By Matt Welch, Special to CNN
Thursday May 10, 2012

Chances are that most of you reading this are opposed to at least some of the following federal laws and policies: the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the auto bailout, the serial raising of the debt ceiling, the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, marijuana prohibition, systematic increases in the Department of Education budget, Medicare Part D, sugar subsidies, obstacles to gay marriage, the nationalization of the mortgage industry and the infuriating performance (or even existence) of the Transportation Security Administration. …

Such tactical use of primarying is creating a growing but still statistically outnumbered group of politicians within the Republican tent who for the first time in a free-spending generation take seriously the notion of forcing the government to live within its fiscal and constitutional means. …

Even straight news articles portrayed Lugar’s defeat as the victory of ideological intolerance over successful and patriotic moderation. …

If it’s “ideological” to always prefer saying “no” to government intervention, why isn’t it ideological to always say “yes”? …

I have no illusions about Richard Mourdock being the next great senator, though I’m always happy to be surprised. Fiscal conservatism was part of his pitch, but so was a slew of good ol’ fashioned Obama-hatin’, which doesn’t necessarily augur well for his future as a thoughtful legislator.

But I won’t be shedding tears for any senator who… had not faced a tough primary since winning office…. From where I sit, power still corrupts, and competition (especially of the political sort) is always a good thing.

What I’d like to see more from Democrats is less condemnation of the tactic and more emulation. Who will be the first sitting Democratic senator tossed out in a primary election for supporting the drug war, Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping and every new military intervention under the sun?

https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/opinion/welch-lugar/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

The post Why Senator Lugar Was Turned Out appeared first on Democratic Freedom Caucus.

Maine’s Newest Land Baron

Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:16:20 +0000

From a recent article at The Progress Report:

A Colorado billionaire who has had a major hand in the way Americans have watched, and paid for, television in recent decades, now, thanks to his purchase of about 1 million acres of Maine forestland, is vying for a new title: the nation’s largest individual landowner.

A company set up by John Malone, BBC Land LLC, closed on the sale of about 1 million acres of commercial timberland in Maine and an additional 23,000 acres in neighboring New Hampshire.

As Progress Report editor Jeffery J. Smith notes:

“Owning land turns a profit for the owner not just by ranching cattle or logging timber.Â There’s also the tax breaks for both extractions and for conservation.Â Ironically, instead of paying landowners, government should be charging them rent, since nobody made land and everybody makes land value.Â At the same time, government should not be taxing anyone’s earnings, since that is a value one does generate by exerting labor or investing capital.”

[The DFC’s Principles state that, “since no person made the land, property in land needs to be treated somewhat differently from other types of property, to prevent over-concentrated ownership of land and natural resources.” The article above from The Progress Report suggests one way to address the problem, and there can also be alternative approaches.]

Read the entire article here.

To read even more as to why this is a problem, check out this statement by Mason Gaffney.

The post Maine’s Newest Land Baron appeared first on Democratic Freedom Caucus.

California Tax Reform Initiative

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:51:16 +0000

The Democratic Freedom Caucus is pleased to see an initiative in California entitled, “The California Tax Reform Initiative” which is being promoted by Prosper California. The initiative is now in circulation for the purpose of obtaining sufficient signatures of registered voters to qualify for the ballot next November (Secretary of State initiative #1413, A.G. File No. 09-0051).

The initiative, among other things, seeks to make exempt state personal income taxes for the first $150,000, with a maximum tax rate of 8%, to abolish state and local sales taxes, corporation taxes, and existing property taxes on real & personal property, and to shift the tax to 75% of the rental value of land.

The California Tax Reform Initiative is consistent with section 2a of the DFC’s platform which states, in part, “the least harmful tax is a tax on land location value or on extraction of natural resources, because those are not products of labor, but are fixed resources”.

For more information on The California Tax Reform Initiative, go to https://www.prospercalifornia.com/

The post California Tax Reform Initiative appeared first on Democratic Freedom Caucus.