Alanna Hartzok Made Good Showing
for Green Party in Pennsylvania

Nadine Stoner

[Reprinted from GroundSwell, 2001]

The Green Party fielded a candidate for the first time ever in Congressional District Nine, the second largest east of the Mississippi which includes all or parts of eleven counties in rural and conservative Republican territory in the heartland of Pennsylvania. With only around 100 registered Greens in the entire district, Alanna Hartzok received 44 times more votes than there are registered Green Party members, for a 4.1% share of the votes cast. Though Republican Bill Shuster won the election with 51.9% of the votes, he failed to win a clear majority in Green Party candidate Alanna Hartzok's home county of Franklin, where she picked up about 25% of her district total.

The process leading up to the nomination of the Republican candidate, Bill Shuster, elder son of Bud Shuster and a car dealer, was widely understood to have resulted from ethically questionable and manipulative dealings by Shuster supporters. Hartzok had been considering running for this office in 2002 but when Representative Bud "King of Pork" Shuster unexpectedly resigned in January (the same day he was sworn in after being re-elected to serve again after 28 years in office), she quickly decided to jump into the race. After a rapid nomination process by Green Party locals in the district and during a statewide Party meeting, on January 29th The Green Party became the first Party to announce a candidate for the race.

During the five weeks preceding the election day on May 15 Hartzok did one to three media interviews daily either by phone or in person. Altogether she was on eight different television programs, several of which aired more than once and approximately 15 times on radio, with some talk shows of up to one hour in length. She estimates that she was mentioned in at least 50 newspaper stories with about 18 of those stories having substantial information about her candidacy and/or front page pictures.

The first televised debate lasted 60 minutes and aired in the southern portion of the district and the second one, two days later, was 90 minutes long and aired in the northern area.

Besides questions posed in interviews and debates, several newspapers sent questionnaires to District Nine Congressional candidates. Questions in the Centre Daily Times, the Altoona Mirror, and the Mercersburg Journal, covered many issues including: Prescription drug coverage for seniors, Abortion, Gun control, Campaign finance reform, President Bush's $153 billion Medicare reform proposal, President Bush's national missile defense initiative, Public funds for private school vouchers, Health care, Law enforcement, Faith-based initiatives, Education, The media, The military, and more.

Hartzok was complimented by the media for "the most coherent theoretical perspective on politics and policies," being "extremely bright and stand(ing) out from the pack," and "taking advantage of her time in the spotlight to express viewpoints sharply different from the major party candidates."

Hartzok was the only candidate who had initiated and ushered a bill through the legislative process into law (the 1998 boroughs enabling bill). She was the only candidate with experience in world affairs, having served as a United Nations Non-Governmental Representative for an international organization. She was the only candidate who had written numerous published articles on economic and public finance policy.

To prevent the dependency of District Nine workers on corporations who are moving out of the area for cheap labor in Mexico and elsewhere, Hartzok proposed to build and strengthen a local-based economy in the District. She proposed to make the entire District Nine a free enterprise zone by reducing or eliminating taxes on work, wages, income, homes, local-owned business and shifting the tax base to land values to stop speculation and keep land affordable for homes, business, industry and farming.

Considering the substantial impact that our country has on the rest of the world and how decisions that the US Congress makes impacts people all over the planet, Hartzok was dismayed and disappointed at the lack of interest in international affairs. Rarely did individual citizens or TV, radio or print news reporters ask questions about vital issues of trade and globalization, global warming, and Bush administration intentions to build up the military and launch a National Missile Defense Shield.

Early in the campaign Hartzok had talked about Pennsylvania's poor environmental record but even so, environmental issues did not strike a strong chord in the district. And even though the state had just announced a strong advisory against eating fish taken from streams throughout the state, Hartzok was the only candidate expressing concern. She campaigned to protect and restore our natural resources and to push for clean air and water and to decrease use of health damaging pesticides, herbicides and other toxins. She does not recall Republican Shuster ever mentioning environmental issues while Democrat Conklin did a good job in denouncing trash importing to Pennsylvania. Both stated their support for so-called "clean coal" development with no mention of alternative energy possibilities for the district. (Green Party's Hartzok called for wind generator, micro-hydro and photovoltaic industry development.)

Said Hartzok, "Pennsylvania has the second largest number of senior citizens in the USA (Florida is first) which explains why there was so much concern about Social Security and Medicare throughout the campaign. The Bush tax policy was another area of frequent questioning, with the major party candidates strongly supporting it. I pointed out that it was a regressive tax cut which gave the most to the wealthiest.

On the issues most relevant to taxes on land, labor, and capital, Hartzok's responses follow:

Minimum wage increase.

"Yes, but it is a bandaid. Build a fair market economy which untaxes wages and collects fees for natural resource use to discourage speculation/ spoliation and encourage broad ownership of wealth."

Social Security.

"To strengthen: (1) Cut multi-billion dollars of corporate subsidies and waste; (2) untax wages and homes so individuals can save more; and (3) collect unearned income and natural resource pay-for-use fees to finance."

The $1.35 trillion tax cut agreement before Congress.

"It gives much more back to upper income persons and so is regressive, but I do support untaxing income and payroll taxes, starting at the bottom and working up. Eliminate taxes on work and collect unearned income for public needs."

Do you support President Bush's tax cut plan? Why or why not? What tax reforms would you support?

"The Bush tax proposals are regressive, giving the most relief to the top, little or nothing to lower and middle income. The estate tax repeal primarily relieved the top 1%, not average Americans. I do support progressive income tax cuts and shifting taxes off wages and onto unearned income, particularly from land site values, oil, electromagnetic spectrum and other natural resources."

Budget surplus. With billions of dollars left over from previous budgets, what is the best way to use these funds? Should they go to bolster existing programs, create new ones, or find their way back to the taxpayers that provided the money?

"Refund the money to taxpayers and urge them to capitalize and promote local based and owned industry and small businesses to counter the problem of corporate flight to low-wage countries. Cut the unfair subsidies to big corporations and the dangerously high military budget and use these billions for low-interest revolving loans to fund renewable energy industry in District Nine, the shift to sustainable agriculture, and community based economic development."

Social Security. With the Social Security program on unsteady ground, what is the best way to save it for future generations?

"By year 2020 much more than Social Security will be at risk. The average wage for men will drop significantly from current $12 to $10.35 per hour when it will be the same as women's average wage. Currently the top 1% of people have 40% of household wealth and the bottom 90% has only 27%. We need a fair market economy that (1) cuts $50 billion of corporate subsidies, (2) untaxes work, wages, and homes, and (3) collects unearned income and natural resource pay-for-use fees for public finance."

The Kyoto Agreement requires industrialized nations to enact legally binding reductions of six greenhouse gases, one of which is carbon dioxide. Should the US set carbon dioxide emissions standards for vehicles, as called for in the Kyoto agreement? Why or why not?

"Yes, the Kyoto Agreement was carefully and painstakingly worked out by experts from all over the world. Pennsylvania, for instance, puts 1% of all global warming gases into the atmosphere and this high level of pollution is damaging our health and that of others in the world. The US has 4% of the world's population and contributes 25% of greenhouse gases. We are contributing more than our fair share to global warming and we need to be a good neighbor to the world by taking our share of responsibility by reducing emissions."

Some in Congress are calling for any tax cuts to be tied to deficit reduction; that is, in future years, if there is a shortfall in tax revenues, deficit reduction would be guaranteed and tax reduction postponed? Do you agree or disagree? Why?

"We should cut income taxes regardless of the deficit. We also need to change the monetary system so that national banks do not issue new money out of thin air and lend it to us as debt. When new money is needed the federal government itself should issue that money directly. If we do this in the future we can lower taxes and reduce the national debt."