Progressive Politics and a Sustainable Environment - News items and opinions.

"I Have Sex" — students speak out against attack on Planned Parenthood

2011-03-10T13:58:00.000-06:00

&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Now that we have your attention, this is a very important &lt;br&gt;

Maine Governor LePage Trivializes BPA Health Risks with "Little Beards" Comment

2011-03-01T13:03:00.000-06:00

By Larry West, About.com Guide since 2005

Wednesday February 23, 2011

With one quick quip, Maine Governor Paul LePage recently dismissed both scientific claims and consumer concerns about the dangers of bisphenol A (BPA), the controversial chemical that is commonly used as an additive in many consumer products--from baby bottles to the lining in canned food and beverages to the coating on cash-register and credit-card receipts.
Rejecting research findings that BPA, an endocrine disruptor, can lead to serious health issues such as heart disease, diabetes and liver abnormalities in adults as well as brain and hormone development problems in fetuses and young children, LePage said last week that there is no reason to consider a ban on BPA because, at worst, exposure to the chemical would cause some women to grow "little beards."
"Quite frankly, the science that I'm looking at says there is no [problem]," said LePage, who last month offended many people when he told the NAACP to "kiss my butt" in response to a Martin Luther King Day invitation,. "There hasn't been any science that identifies that there is a problem."
"The only thing that I've heard is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen," LePage added. "So the worst case is some women may have little beards."
LePage's reassurances that his reading of BPA research shows no evidence of health risks would be more believable if his statement didn't reveal such ignorance of basic science.
BPA mimics estrogen, a natural female hormone, and fools the body by stimulating reactions that are unnecessary and potentially harmful. But causing women to grow "little beards" isn't one of them.
Excess facial hair, or hirsutism, in women is caused when their male hormone levels are significantly higher than their female hormone levels. BPA might create a semblance of too much female hormone, but would not create the conditions required for "little beards" to grow.
LePage's comments were a response to current debate in the Maine legislature about whether to ban or restrict products that contain BPA. Such bans have already been implemented in eight U.S. states, Canada and the European Union, often because of concerns about the health risks for children, who are more vulnerable than adults to the effects of endocrine disruptors. Last year, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection recommended banning the sale of reusable food and beverage containers containing BPA, starting in 2012, which sparked the current discussion among Maine lawmakers.
LePage isn't alone in believing there is no need for an outright ban on BPA--both the World Health Organization and the European Food Safety Authority have indicated that a ban on BPA would be premature--but it is irresponsible for LePage to claim that there is no scientific evidence of possible health risks from BPA.
"BPA is one of the most well-studied chemicals, and it is just ludicrous to ignore the science," said Susan Shaw, a toxicologist at the Marine Environmental Research Institute, in an interview with the Bangor Daily News following LePage's comments. Shaw, who has been studying the effects of toxics on humans and animals for more than three decades, added: "There is a large body of evidence about the hazards of BPA that is irrefutable."
Also Read:

State of the Union Trend Analysis

2011-02-03T00:46:00.010-06:00

- by FutureMoneyTrends.com

Last night President Obama urged law makers to redouble their efforts in putting money into roads, education, research, fuel efficient cars, and public transportation. Yet, in the same speech he also called for a domestic spending freeze for the next five years. Only in Washington D.C. can you call for a spending freeze and spending increases in the same speech.

One thing we really liked was President Obama's decision to follow the lead of House Speaker John Boehner in not passing any bill with earmarks. Though we are naturally skeptical of any promises from Washington, this may be one that has a chance of being kept since both sides will be trying to impress the 2012 electorate on who is going to be tougher on wasteful spending. If the House Speaker follows through with his promise, then President Obama should never have to worry about vetoing a bill because of earmarks. Of course, with President Obama saying that he would veto any bill that includes earmarks, he certainly raised the stakes for Mr. Boehner. Any bill with earmarks at this point will get a lot of media attention and could be a death blow if it came from the republicans, since the tea party that swept them into office is very critical of any spending coming out of Washington. Imagine a scenario where the conservative party proposes a bill with earmarks only to have it vetoed by President Obama. This would most likely destroy Tea Party support for the republican party, which is why we see this as the first promise in decades that may actually be fulfilled by our politicians.

Social Security was mentioned, but only in passing, the typical call for an unknown solution was made, but nothing was said about raising the retirement age, partial privatization, opt out options, or cutting benefits. FutureMoneyTrends.com has zero faith in our politicians to reform our entitlement programs that if left unchanged will eventually bankrupt our nation. Currently, in order to pretend that the system works, the government is borrowing 42 cents for every dollar it spends. According to economist John WIlliams from ShadowStats.com, seniors are already being screwed because of the changes in the way we calculate CPI. John Williams points out that the cost of living indicator has now turned into the cost of survival; even as costs are rising for food and energy, the government finds a way to report little to no price inflation. According to Shadowstats.com, if the government accurately accounted for price inflation, social security payments would have to be 40% higher than they are today. Not accounting for real inflation also fudges our GDP numbers including projections that the congressional budget office uses. This is one of the reasons most bills in congress, like healthcare reform, are completely bogus when it comes to cost. Using government statistics and projections is like putting vaseline on your eyes and then describing what's in front of you. Remember, when Medicare was created in 1966 the government estimated that the cost in 1990 would reach $12 billion per year. The actual cost in 1990 ended up being $107 billion, the government was off by 792% and today Medicare costs over $400 billion annually. Remember, we are now at a point where even if Americans were taxed at 100% of their incomes, the government would still not be able to balance the budget. Unfortunately, the cuts that need to be made have almost no chance of happening in our opinion, and as of last night, the cuts that are needed are not even being discussed.

So far, Wall Street is taking last night's speech quite well, mainly because of the calls to lower corporate tax rates making the U.S. more business friendly. The U.S. currently has the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world and hasn't lowered rates for 25 years. FutureMoneyTrends.com believes even something as simple as this will not happen since the President also called for the reduction in corporate tax loopholes prior to any tax cuts. Loopholes lead to big money and big money leads to our politicians' re-election campaigns, so any tax reform is probably not coming anytime soon.

Earnings that have been reported so far have mostly been disappointing, yet Wall Street continues to shake off the bad news. A FOMC statement is expected later today with no changes to QE2 or interest rates. It will be interesting to see what the Fed has to say about price inflation. Several companies, including McDonalds, have recently announced that they can no longer absorb wholesale price inflation and will begin to raise prices for customers. Of course, the Fed can always just blame the weather on rising gas, food, healthcare, tuition, and other costs faced by consumers who live in a non-core inflation world.

Focus on the trends and share the wealth, forward our emails to friends and family.

FactChecking the State Of The Union

2011-02-02T14:03:00.002-06:00

Friends,

Here's the FactCheck.org analysis of the President's State Of The Union address.

http://factcheck.org/2011/01/factchecking-obamas-address/

Joe Dubaniewicz
joeduban.yahoo@blogger.com

The Radical Right media is Killing America

2011-01-23T00:13:00.000-06:00

Media Matters: Changing The Tone, Or Changing Our Understanding?
Before the full scope of the tragedy at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' (D-AZ) event in Tucson this weekend had been realized, the media were buzzing about what was to be done. The debate quickly landed on issues of tone and violent language and maps with crosshairs and who's to blame and who isn't. Loud and angry confrontations broke out over whether the tone of our national discourse motivated a lone gunman. Such things are difficult to determine with any sort of accuracy. Regardless, the occasion of a brutal attack on a politician and her constituents is as good a reason as any to reexamine how we discuss politics in America.
It's easy to get wrapped up in your own cynicism, to hear the impassioned calls to curtail the talk radio bomb-throwing and Fox News scare-mongering that for years have provided the background noise to our national discourse, and be utterly and justifiably unsurprised when the volume is instead turned up. Or you can feel frustrated for harboring the hope that if any good could possibly be leached from a horrific act of violence it would perhaps be that the pundits and partisans might tone it down a bit, and then seeing that hope dashed by the immediate resumption of scathing vitriol.
I can confess to experiencing both of these contradictory emotions in the past week. But after watching President Obama's speech at the memorial service in Tucson and seeing the right-wing reaction to it, it has become clear that calls for changing the tone of our political discourse invariably fail because they place the responsibility on the same hyperpartisan actors who are paid quite well to debase it.
And let's not fool ourselves with the forced symmetry of "both sides do it," which is all too often employed in the media's overriding quest for "balance" at the expense of accuracy. On Monday, the New Yorker's George Packer observed:

In fact, there is no balance -- none whatsoever. Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side's activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can't stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

Consider, briefly, Rush Limbaugh, who can make a legitimate claim to being the most influential pundit in America. In response to the pleas for civility that arose in the aftermath of the shooting, Limbaugh went on a deliberate crusade to make AM radio as ugly as possible. He said the alleged shooter has the support of the Democratic Party, intimated that the health care reform bill was intended to foment violence of the sort we saw in Arizona, brashly declared "we don't need to heal," and attacked the president for delivering hopeful news about Rep. Giffords' recovery.
Sentiments such as these are ineffably crass and are antithetical to calls for "more civility" -- but what else should we expect from Rush Limbaugh? As if to reaffirm that his existence is dedicated to poisoning public dialogue, he even revisited this week one of his low watermarks from years past, defending his attacks on Michael J. Fox's struggle with Parkinson's Disease.
So no, we can not expect right-wing pundits to police their own rhetoric. But if the punditry won't change on its own, what's to be done? The hope lies instead in drawing contrasts and hopefully, by doing so, changing how people come to view political dialogue.
A good example can be found in the right's longstanding efforts to impugn President Obama's patriotism. The idea of "American exceptionalism" has been used as a cudgel against the president since before his election, and it's had some effect -- a poll from late 2009 found that 26 percent of Americans (including 48 percent of Republicans) did not believe that Obama "loves America." The issue of Obama's patriotic bona fides has promised to be the major talking point of the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Before this week, it was commonplace for conservative pundits and politicians to blithely assert Obama's anti-American leanings and not face any scrutiny for the allegation.
But the shock of Saturday's shootings left America looking to the president for guidance, and his speech urged the country to find solace in the greatness of American strength and decency. That message made the churlish attacks on Obama's patriotism look even pettier and more divorced from reality than they already are. The desperate, false attacks on Obama's speech from his determinedly partisan detractors were aggressively debunked by the mainstream press and even denounced by right-wing bloggers. It was one of those rare moments in politics in which reality scored a crushing defeat over caricature.
That's where the power to affect positive change in the discourse lies. This week America saw the overheated rhetoric of the right for what it is: misleading, incendiary, and false. But the conservative media aren't going to pack up their chalkboards and golden microphones anytime soon, so it's up to the mainstream press to continue being as aggressive in challenging those distortions as the right is in promulgating them.
Of course, it's entirely likely that this moment of clarity will remain just that -- a moment. And it's certainly not encouraging that the media have, to date, been as (if not more) likely to adopt false right-wing narratives as debunk them. But that's no reason to give up hope, and it's certainly no reason to stop telling the truth.

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Gunslinger's rights

2011-01-13T13:00:00.017-06:00

Congressman Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas, knows what to do to ensure

that an assassin's killing spree like that in Arizona doesn't happen again. He is proposing

a law allowing his colleagues in the House and the Senate to carry their own guns at all

times, even on the benches of their debating chambers.

Media Matters: Louie Gohmert (1/13/2011)

The hallowed halls of Capitol Hill are one of the very few places in all of the 50 states of
America where no one but a policeman - not even a President or Defense Secretary - may
carry a gun. That, says Gohmert, must change.

To most of the world, the idea of curtailing a culture of political violence by escalating the
personal weapons arms race seems completely bonkers. That the ban on guns on Capitol
Hill was put there to safeguard politicians – remember Lincoln, the Kennedys Jack and Robert,
Reagan et al – seems to make sense. Not to Americans – well, not to all of them, anyway.

Gohmert is a former judge, no less, and he is serious. He is writing his bill specifically to allow
elected representatives to "carry concealed weapons". It will be fine, however, if your
Senator prefers to wear his 9mm semi-auto visibly on his hip, like a cop, or his long-barrelled
Colt in an open holster, like John Wayne.

The former judge is not the only congressman reaching for his gun.

As President Obama and his host of cabinet secretaries dispersed to dispense empathy
this week, Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, and Heath Shuler, Democrat of North
Carolina, were filling in the gaps in the news programmes by telling the nation that from
now on they would be carrying their guns whenever they were back home among their
constituents.Both men already have their "concealed carry" licences. Schuler got his
after a death threat in 2009. Chaffetz has had his for years, and sometimes has a gun
in his pocket, sometimes not.

The official platitudes of national grief after a killing spree such as this one have it that
such mayhem is un-American, a travesty to the peaceful values of the nation which
cannot be destroyed by either terrorist or looney and that, with prayers and goodwill,
America will "heal".

The truth is that Gohmert and his gunslingers are the real representatives of the American
Way. Violence has always been endemic to the culture, and the gun has always been the
symbol of "freedom". That is why the Second Amendment with its "right to bear arms" has
proved so successful a fountainhead for the sophistry that has made America uniquely
dangerous among developed nations. Americans have been voting for the Gohmerts with
their 'pocket books', the most powerful vote of all. Since the shooting, sales of all guns
have spiked in Arizona, and there has been a run on Glock automatic pistols – the Tucson

shooter's weapon of choice - around the country. After all, you can't get better

advertising than real-life proof of how good a pistol is at killing.

The aberrations come when there is a gun law. Among the lonelier voices raised since

Gifford took a bullet in the head in Tucson, and six others died, is that which calls for at

least a ban on the multi-bullet magazines that allow one shooter to kill a dozen or so with

a single blast. There are magazines that load as many as 17 slugs in a gun you can still

slip under your belt.

Those who call for the ban on 'multi-bullet magazines' point out that they are used not for

hunting, nor even protecting the wife from the rapist/burglar/terrorist, but solely for killing as

many people as possible as quickly as possible. These protesters have not been doing their

home work. Twenty years ago, to the fury of the gun lobby, such a law was passed,

prompted by the slaughter of 23 in a spree-killing in a cafeteria in Killeen, Texas. But that

law, the Assault Weapons Ban, was simply allowed to expire as the right-to-bear arms

joined the ranks of the "wedge issues" which so successfully brought the Republicans to

Washington dominance.

The Brady Laws on semi-automatic handguns, inspired by the attempted assassination of

Ronald Reagan, have since been eviscerated by decrees of "conservative" courts ruling in

the same climate. You can win votes by toting sub-machine guns and shooting moose, but

you can lose office fast if you vote for a gun law.

Only last year, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a ban on guns in the

recreational parks of the city of Seattle, a city ordinance inspired by a gang battle that left

a dozen dead. Good to know that an American has a right to bring his Glock along to make

sure his kids are safe on the swings and roundabouts. And the year before, Congress voted

to allow visitors to bring their guns to the National Parks such as Yosemite and Yellowstone.

(The Indians are long gone, most of the bears were shot years ago, and there are other

laws prohibiting shooting the elk or the wolves.)

The rest of the world may shake its head in wonder, but to Americans this makes perfect

sense. After all, when you go for a drive you want that pistol in the glove compartment.

Why would you leave it at the gates to the park?

By Charles Laurence

LAST UPDATED 4:24 PM, JANUARY 13, 2011

Link to this article

Media Matters: Fox News' 2012 GOP Influence

2011-01-12T23:52:00.002-06:00

In a November ad for their special series "Fox News Reporting: The Challengers for 2012," Fox News promised "unrivaled access" to "the GOP's top White House contenders." Such access, however, isn't hard when correspondents just have to walk down the hall.

That Fox News helps Republicans get their message across to their conservative base -- long documented and publicly acknowledged by Republican officials -- is nothing new. But what's unprecedented is the level of influence one news organization can exert on a party's presidential primary, and the rest of the media's coverage of that primary, by simple fact of who is on its payroll.

Fox News employs five Republicans considering runs for the GOP nomination: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and John Bolton. All five regularly appear on the network through exclusive contracts and all five have used their employment to position themselves for their respective runs.

Take the cases of Rick Santorum and John Bolton -- two potential candidates who have so little chance of winning the nomination that Fox didn't even include them in their twelve challenger profiles.

Both would largely be out of the public spotlight if not for their Fox News contracts, yet Santorum -- who lost his Senate seat to Bob Casey (D-PA) by 17 points in 2006 -- has appeared on the Fox programs America's Nightly Scoreboard (twice), America's Newsroom (twice), The Willis Report (twice), America Live, On the Record (twice) and Varney & Company (twice, as a "special guest") in the past two weeks.

During the same time, Bolton has appeared as a foreign policy and national security expert on America's News HQ (where he has a regular weekly slot), Follow The Money, America's Newsroom (twice), America Live, Fox & Friends, Hannity, On the Record, and Varney & Company (as a "special guest"!).

On the other side of the spectrum is Sarah Palin, who has little trouble attracting attention. But as her TLC program and public comments indicate, Palin prefers a certain type of attention in which she can tightly control the messaging. It's no wonder then that her media appearances have mostly come within the friendly confines of Fox News, where she can pass on debunked theories and pal around with conservative opinion makers like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

After leaving public office in disgrace, Newt Gingrich signed his "first television deal since leaving Congress" with Fox News in 1999. Since then, Fox News has treated him like royalty during his attempted rehabilitation. Gingrich has hosted Fox News Specials on college costs, religion, international gangs and bird flu (yes, bird flu). On one day in 2009, Fox dispatched a reporter to provide round-the-clock coverage to a Gingrich-convened "Jobs Summit." Last year, during a typical softball interview, a Fox "straight news" program directed viewers to Gingrich's GOP tour and website.

Mike Huckabee is the only Fox candidate with a regularly scheduled show, the weekend talker Huckabee. Huckabee's show has always been closely tied to his political machine: the show was first announced in a statement posted on his political action committee and, according to the New York Post (via Nexis), "not, as is customary, from the network."

Since then, Huckabee has unsurprisingly used his program to position himself for a potential political run. The former Arkansas governor has used Fox News' airwaves to grow his PAC and email lists directly (he touted the address of an email catcher website run by his PAC) and indirectly, through regular solicitations to give "feedback" to MikeHuckabee.com, which conveniently links to his PAC and an email signup page. Huckabee has also used his program's guest list as an extension of his PAC. But why wouldn't Huckabee run? Again, Fox News' influence comes into play.

In November 2009, Huckabee remarked on Fox News Sunday that if he doesn't run for president, it's because "this Fox gig I got right now" is "really, really wonderful." Last month, conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote that there's "growing buzz" that Huckabee "may not run because he's got a big new contract with Fox News in the works" (a Huckabee aide responded that there were no Fox talks). Financial considerations could also come into play for Palin, who reportedly makes $1 million a year with Fox News.

According to Politico, Fox "indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network." ABC's George Stephanopoulos noted that the Fox candidates may actually delay their announcements to reap the benefits of the Fox cocoon for as long as possible. Reporter Claire Shipman replied that Fox's "very healthy platform" allows the Fox candidates to keep visible without spending money early. The potential delay of their "official" announcements means that the Fox candidates can also compile staff and resources while still cashing a paycheck.

Huckabee, Palin and Gingrich have Fox-promoted groups ready to convert to campaign mode if each chooses to run. Santorum has already hired a staff member (for his PAC) in the important primary state of New Hampshire and, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader, is "expected to formally" announce "in the spring." And Bolton is reportedly "very serious about a presidential bid and has begun to speak with potential staff."

During this non-"official" period, the Fox candidates can also cite their Fox contract as a reason to decline appearances on other news organizations who may offer a tougher environment than Fox (a low bar). Indeed, Politico reported that "C-SPAN Political Editor Steve Scully said that when C-SPAN tried to have Palin on for an interview, he was told he had to first get Fox's permission -- which the network, citing her contract, ultimately denied. Producers at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all report similar experiences."

Fox's 2012 situation has a parallel in something that happened in the 2010 midterms with former Fox News host and contributor John Kasich.
After leaving Congress in 2001, Kasich openly considered running for higher public office and joined Fox News to keep himself in public view. A former Kasich pollster told the Columbus Dispatch in 2002 that Kasich was "leaving himself in a position so that if something happens, he is as well-situated as somebody else."

On March 27, 2008, the Dispatch reported that Kasich announced "he is paving the way now for a gubernatorial bid" and quoted Kasich stating: "I'm going to go forward even more aggressively, and we're going to continue to ramp it up (for a gubernatorial run)." But Fox News didn't take him off the air -- presumably because he still hadn't "officially" announced his candidacy -- and by the time he formally announced his bid on June 1, 2009, Kasich had logged more than 100 Fox News segments as a guest host or contributor.

In a column last November, Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race author Dick Morris wrote that the "GOP primaries of 2012 will be held on Fox News. ... we will see all the candidates on Fox News. Not just in debates, but in frequent appearances on the opinion and news shows on the network." For once, it seems Morris is right.

The Viral Spiral of 2010 - FactCheck.org

2011-01-04T01:51:00.009-06:00

Ever since FactCheck.org first launched in late 2003, they’ve been fielding questions from their readers about anonymous e-mails that travel from inbox to inbox like some kind of plague. They get so many that they launched their Ask FactCheck (link) feature three years ago. In 2008, they advised readers (link): "Assume all such messages are wrong, and you’ll be right most of the time." That advice still holds in 2010.

Often, the message itself includes major red flags that should alert readers that the author is not to be trusted. Here are just a few of what we’ll call Key Characteristics of Bogusness:

The author is anonymous. Practically all e-mails we see fall into this category, and anytime an author is unnamed, the public should be skeptical. If the story were true, why would the author not put his or her name on it?
The author is supposedly a famous person. Of course, e-mails that are attributed to legitimate people turn out to be false as well. Those popular messages about a Jay Leno essay (link) and Andy Rooney’s political views (link) are both baloney. And we found (2006 link) that some oft-quoted words attributed to Abraham Lincoln were not his words at all.
There’s a reference to a legitimate source that completely contradicts the information in the e-mail. Some e-mails will implore readers to check out the claims, even providing a link to a respected source. We’re not sure why some people don’t click on the link, but we implore you to do so. Go ahead, take the challenge. See if the information you find actually backs up the e-mail. We’ve examined three such emails (1) (2) (3) in which the back-up material clearly debunks the e-mail itself. One message provided a link to the Tax Foundation, but anyone who followed it would have found an article saying the e-mail’s figures were all wrong. Another boasted that Snopes.com had verified the e-mail, but Snopes actually said it was false.
The message is riddled with spelling errors. Ask yourself, why should you trust an author who is not only anonymous but partially illiterate?
The author just loves using exclamation points. If the author had a truthful point to make, he or she wouldn’t need to put two, three, even five exclamation points after every other sentence. In fact, we’re developing another theory here: The more exclamation points used in an e-mail, the less true it actually is. (Ditto for excessive use of capital letters.)
The message argues that it is NOT false. This tip comes from Emery, who advises skepticism for any message that says, "This is NOT a hoax!"
There’s math involved. Check it. One message that falsely claimed more soldiers died during Bill Clinton’s term than during George W. Bush’s urged, "You do the Math!" We did (2008 link). It’s wrong.

Check out the "Best of" the Viral emails of 2010:

http://factcheck.org/2010/12/the-viral-spiral-of-2010/

Note: if you ever want to check out the veracity of an email, simply go to http://www.factcheck.org/ and do a search for the topic in question.

Alternately, you can put it in the form of a question at: http://wordpress.asc.upenn.edu/ask-factcheck/ask-us-a-question/ .

Celebrating The New GOP Majority

2011-01-03T23:45:00.008-06:00

- By E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 1/3/2011

WASHINGTON -- Welcome to the Republicans who take over the House of Representatives in 2011. Since it is a new year, let us be optimistic about what this development means for our nation.

There is already a standard line of advice to Speaker-to-be John Boehner and his colleagues that goes like this: Democrats overreached in the last Congress by doing too much and ignoring "the center." Republicans should be careful not to make the same mistake, lest they lose their majority, too.

This counsel is wrong, partly because the premise is faulty. Democrats did not overreach in the last Congress. On the contrary, they compromised regularly. Compromise made the health care bill far more complicated than it had to be and the original stimulus bill too small. Democrats would have been better off getting more done more quickly, and more coherently.

And majorities are elected to govern according to their best lights. Like it or not, Republicans won the House in last year's election. They can be expected to do what they said they would do. And, yes, they have the advantage of knowing that if they pass truly outlandish stuff to satisfy their base, most of it will be blocked by the Senate or President Obama.

Republican House leaders are going in for a lot of symbolism, and why not? Symbols matter in politics.

Thus the new majority will open the next Congress with a full reading of the Constitution and establish a rule requiring that every new bill contain a statement citing the constitutional authority behind it.

My first response was to scoff at this obvious sop to the tea party movement. One can imagine that the rule's primary practical result will be the creation of a small new House bureaucracy responsible for churning out constitutional justifications for whatever gets introduced.

But on reflection, I offer the Republicans two cheers for their fealty to their professed ideals. We badly need a full-scale debate over what the Constitution is, means and allows -- and how Americans have argued about these questions since the beginning of the republic. This provision should be the springboard for a discussion all of us should join.

From its inception, the tea party movement has treated the nation's great founding document not as the collection of shrewd political compromises that it is, but as the equivalent of sacred scripture.

Yet as Gordon Wood, the widely admired historian of the Revolutionary era has noted, we "can recognize the extraordinary character of the Founding Fathers while also knowing that those 18th-century political leaders were not outside history. ... They were as enmeshed in historical circumstances as we are, they had no special divine insight into politics, and their thinking was certainly not free of passion, ignorance, and foolishness."

An examination of the Constitution that views it as something other than the books of Genesis or Leviticus would be good for the country.

As for the House Republicans' plan to gut pay-as-you-go budget rules by not requiring offsets for tax cuts, it's ridiculous by the ordinary rules of mathematics. Tax cuts add to the deficit no less than spending increases do.

But here again, the Republicans' approach might bring a certain clarity to our muddled fiscal debates. It could force them to show -- more quickly than their pollsters might like -- how much they would have to eviscerate government to cover the costs of their tax-cut obsession.

One other thing: When Democrats held the majority, their control depended in part on holding moderate-to-conservative districts. This created a running story line about the disaffection of vulnerable Democrats with various liberal policies.

The new Republican House majority, by contrast, depends on holding moderate-to-liberal districts. As Shane D'Aprile usefully reported last week on The Hill's Ballot Box blog, Thirty-one (31) of the newly elected Republican House members represent districts that Obama carried in 2008, bringing to 62 the number of House Republicans hailing from Obama districts.

Reapportionment may change this a bit, and there is no guarantee that Obama will carry all those districts in 2012. Still, a large number of GOP House members will have to look at least occasionally over their left shoulders. How the House leadership accommodates this brute political fact will be one of the best stories of the next two years.

So let's celebrate. It can only be good for democratic deliberation if holding the majority requires House Republicans to show their policy and philosophical cards. They'll legislate. You'll decide.

===============================================

E.J. Dionne's e-mail address is ejdionne@washpost.com

Reasons for Unemployment and a Bad American economy

2010-12-16T12:59:00.000-06:00

I posted the following on a Fantasy Football League Message board in Facebook:

Give BIG tax cuts for the working folks and HIGHER taxes on the Lucky Sperm Club ($250K and above). Those making less than $250K are either working for or are running those small businesses. Then, let's play Fantasy Football and drink some beer. YEAH!

An interested blogger responded:

On what planet does it make sense to punish productivity? And, a homeless person never offered me a job, taking away incentive for business owners to earn more profits just might affect their growing the business and hiring more employees. Tax based on consumption with poverty level spending exempted: www.FairTax.org

Here's how I responded:

The reason Corporate America exists is to make money, right? If they can make more money shipping jobs overseas, they'll do it, regardless of the American economy.

Here's a practical economic theory that may make sense to you (maybe not). If they show a profit after all valid deductions are subtracted, they MAY hire if it makes sense to do so. But, if they are taxed at a HIGHER rate on their net profits, they will logically put their profits into building their business by hiring or investing in new money-making equipment. That invested money is written off as a business expense and lowers their taxes due. If their tax rate is LOWER, they will want to take the money OUT of their business and invest it elsewhere to make more money than they would by investing in their business. So, HIGHER tax rates means more hiring. Crazy, huh?

Also, small businesses work on the same principal, but their hiring and money-making investments are done in America, which grows the American economy remarkably efficiently.

The whole story about a flat tax to replace the income tax or corporate tax is a pretty radical idea, and I just can't see how a usage or sales tax is fair to lower income people. It has to be progressive, which the website says it is, but I don't see it other than being regressive. A family with an income of 40K per year (the MEDIAN income. by the way), spends MOST of that income on the necessities of life. The high income people (I hesitate to call them workers) spend money on the necessities too, but they should have a lot left over. What they do with the excess money is their own business and if they spend it all, that's great for the economy. But, they'll probably invest it some way to make more money. That's called capitalism (making your capital to make you more money). Investing is a good idea, but in my opinion the patriotic thing to do is invest in America by keeping jobs here. Sadly, many would not care and instead, make money where ever that can make it, even if it's overseas. Lower income workers spend ALL of their money in America. Heck, they don't even have enough money to pay into 401-ks or IRAs.
My career is littered with off-shoring events and over the last ten years, 40,000 manufacturing companies have disappeared. Not 40,000 jobs, 40,000 companies. That is why we have an unemployment problem.
Thanks for "listening". If you agree with this, spread it around. If you disagree, then keep your thoughts to yourself.

Any other opinions?

FactCheck.org - The Truth about Health insurance premiums

2010-12-16T00:16:00.000-06:00

http://factcheck.org/2010/11/the-truth-about-health-insurance-premiums/

The new law has brought increases for some. But GOP leaders exaggerate.

Summary

Leading Republicans in Congress are blaming the new health care law for double-digit rate increases being sought by insurance companies in Washington state, New York and Connecticut. But insurance regulators, leading health care experts and the companies themselves mostly blame an old culprit: rising medical costs.

Improved benefits required by the new law are responsible for a relatively small portion of the increases. Furthermore, the increases apply mostly to those buying policies individually, not the majority who get private insurance through employers. Those with employer-provided plans won’t see as much of an increase in premiums, since many of their policies already include the required benefits, a spokesman for an insurance trade association told us.

Some Republicans have claimed the law is responsible for "whopping" premium increases, but they have misrepresented the facts in the process. For example:

House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner said premiums will "skyrocket" because of the law, citing a report on rising premiums by the Kaiser Family Foundation. But the Kaiser report covered increases that took effect before the law was signed.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell points to a news story about a Washington insurance provider that blamed premium increases on the health care law. But the state insurance commissioner says the increase had "absolutely nothing to do with health care reform," and the insurance company later admitted the law is only partly at fault.
Both politicians refer to premiums for new plans on the individual market, where only about 6 percent of those with insurance now get their coverage.

Stories about some big increases may come as a shock to those who recall President Barack Obama’s often-repeated promise that the new law would reduce most people’s premiums and bring about lower medical costs — optimistic promises that remain question marks at this point. Still, Republicans go too far when they say the law, rather than rising medical costs, is chiefly responsible for big premium hikes.

Analysis

Premium rates for many in the individual market are going up. But state insurance commissioners and health care experts told us the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is responsible in most cases for only a small portion of these increases. The main cause of double-digit rate hikes is rising medical costs.

A health policy analyst with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners told us that "as a general trend across all carriers in a state … there’s about a 1 to 2 to 3 percent increase" in premiums in the individual market due to the health care law. If the legislation hadn’t been enacted, the bulk of the reported premium increases still would have occurred. "The real driver of the premiums is the costs, and you have to get the costs under control," the NAIC analyst said.
These premium increases are mainly in the individual market, where about 14 million people buy their own insurance. That’s only about 6 percent of those with health coverage (non-elderly) in the U.S.
Stephanie Marquis of the Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner told us that rate changes requested because of the health care law are expected to be less than 5 percent, while increases in premiums due to rising medical costs average 13.12 percent for individual plans and 15.54 percent for small-group plans.
Stephanie Marquis, Nov. 5: The large cost driver in what people are paying does not have to do with health care reform, it has to do with things that were happening well before health care reform and would continue to happen regardless of whether we had health care reform.
In New York, Insurance State Board spokesman Andrew Mais reported similar results. Letters that health insurance providers have sent to customers say that premium increases are largely the result of annual trends in medical care.
Aetna Health Inc. in New York told its customers in the individual market that it had requested premium increases of 10 percent to 12 percent due to rising costs, plus separate rate changes due to the health care law that "may" result in an additional 4 percent increase in policies covering families.
Also in New York, Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan described increases of 10.1 percent to 11.5 percent for HMO small-group plans resulting from trends in the medical field, and a 2.5 percent increase attributable to the new federal law and state mandates.

Most of the new law has yet to go into effect — and it won’t until 2014 — but some provisions affecting insurers were instituted this fall. So far, insurers can’t deny coverage to kids because of preexisting conditions, and they must allow dependents to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26. They also must provide free preventive care and eliminate lifetime and certain annual monetary caps on coverage.

This has had some effect on premiums, particularly in the individual market, which offers plans that are less likely than employer-provided policies to include these features. But, as we’ve said, the vast majority of the premium increase is due to medical costs. Republican leaders in Congress, however, have pinned all the blame on the new law, and they’ve left the false impression that the premium increases they tout will affect all, or most, of the insured, instead of just those buying insurance on their own.

On the Senate Republicans’ website, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell claims that the law is responsible for “whopping rate increases.” McConnell highlights a quote from a Washington state man who says that the health care bill “went into effect and my rates went through the roof.” But that’s highly misleading. In fact, Washington Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler is quoted in the very news story McConnell cites as saying that that particular rate increase "has absolutely nothing to do with health care reform." Kreidler, a Democrat, was elected to his position.

The Washington man in question was reacting to a letter he received from Regence Blue Shield, blaming the large rate increases on the new federal law. The Regence letter — which was not approved by insurance regulators — made no reference to any other factor contributing to the rate increases. In a revised letter approved by the state insurance department, Regence told policyholders: "Premium increases are due in large part to rising medical and prescription costs. High rates of use, technology, and changes to federal and state regulations also have an impact on premiums."

House Republican Leader John Boehner, the presumptive House speaker in the next Congress, issued a press release Sept. 7 that highlighted a Seattle Timesstory about “whopping” rate increases in Washington state and a report on rising premiums by the Kaiser Family Foundation as evidence rates will “skyrocket” because of the new federal law. But his examples are bogus.

Boehner, Sept. 7: [B]etween reports from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Seattle Times indicating that health care costs will skyrocket under ObamaCare, the Democrats’ claims that their government takeover of health care will make health insurance more affordable doesn’t pass the straight-faced test.

Not true. The Kaiser report gave absolutely no indication that “health care costs will skyrocket under ObamaCare.” It found that premiums for families with employer-sponsored health care plans rose a modest 3 percent in 2010, but workers’ share of the cost jumped 14 percent as companies shifted health care costs to employees during the recession. None of those increases had anything to do with the new federal law. The Kaiser report was the result of an annual survey of more than 3,000 companies that was conducted between January and May of 2010 — before the mandated changes in health care coverage went into effect on Sept. 23. In fact, these increases reported by employers took effect before the law was even signed.

Furthermore, the Seattle Times story refers to the Washington state increases that we’ve already mentioned. They have less to do with the new federal law than they do with trends in the health care industry.

Boehner and McConnell aren’t the only Republicans making inflated claims of this sort. GOP Rep. David L. Camp of Michigan sent out a press release with the headline: “Democrats’ Health Care Law to Sharply Increase Premiums — by as Much as 20 Percent Next Year.” But the Sept. 8 release concedes that the increases were only “in part” because of the law.

Impact of the Law

The Obama administration estimated that changes brought about by the health care law so far would cause a 1 percent to 2 percent increase in premiums — an average that includes both individual and employer-provided policies. But some companies are claiming that the law has had a bigger impact than that.

For example, in a Wall Street Journal article in September, Aetna said new plans it would offer — in the individual market — would have to include extra benefits that would raise rates from about 5.5 percent to 7 percent in Nevada and California. Those who already have individual insurance can avoid the increases by keeping their existing, "grandfathered" plans even if those plans don’t meet new requirements, such as free preventive care. But anyone who switches plans or buys a new one will have to purchase one with the increased coverage, at higher cost.
Plans on the individual market vary greatly in terms of benefits offered and cost, as well as the health status of those covered. That variation makes it "difficult, if not impossible, to make generalized statements of the effect of the new law on premiums," Linda J. Blumberg, a senior fellow with the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center, wrote in a July report on the law’s impact on the small group and individual markets.

For instance, the ban on lifetime coverage limits would only affect some plans. Those that now have lifetime limits of $2 million or more, Blumberg writes, would see an increase in premiums of less than 1 percent. But, she says, "according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, the vast majority of individual market plans have limits of $5 million and above, making it highly unlikely that this change will cause a noticeable impact on non-group premiums."

As for the impact on employer-provided policies, economist Gail Wilensky says the surveys she has seen indicate there will be an 8 percent to 9 percent increase in premiums, of which she attributes about 2 percent to 3 percent to the health care law. Wilensky was the head of Medicare during the George H.W. Bush administration and is now a senior fellow at Project HOPE, a health training and humanitarian organization. She cites three factors that she sees as increasing costs: more use of care, higher costs of care, and the provisions of the health care law. Her projections are in line with those of Hewitt Associates, a human resources consulting company, which estimated that there would be an average premium increase of 8.8 percent in 2011 for employer-provided plans, with 1 percent to 2 percent of that attributable to the health care law.

Wilensky says "the dominant reason" premiums go up "is because we use more [medical care] and we use more expensive stuff." She adds, "Unless we do something that changes that behavior … it’s going to be harder to stabilize health care spending, let alone reduce it." The provisions of the legislation that aim to do that — evaluating and implementing new payment models — are going to take much longer. "If we can start seeing positive effects in the second part of the next decade, we will be doing exceedingly well."

In the individual market, some companies currently sell very cheap plans with limited benefits, geared to healthy adults. Those benefits must now be upgraded significantly.

John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group (a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group), told us that overall the effect on premiums "should be closer to what the administration has said,” a 1 percent to 2 percent increase. But Sheils says the increase would be higher for those insurers that currently offer stripped-down plans costing perhaps $50 or less per month. He and others say free preventive care would be the one change that would produce a noticeable difference in premiums for these individual market plans.

Kenneth Thorpe, professor and chair at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University, puts the increase for preventive services in “the 1 to 3 percent range,” higher if the current preventive package isn’t very good. The impact of the other changes insurers have had to make so far “are very small,” says Thorpe, who worked in the Clinton administration. But overall, "clearly the key drivers [of rate increases] are underlying health care trends — rising rates of chronic disease."
The analyst for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, however, told us preventive care wasn’t having as large an impact as the bans on certain annual coverage limits and preexisting condition exclusions for children, a provision that was affecting insurers that offered children-only plans. (NAIC told us its policy was to not have staff members quoted by name but to attribute the information to the organization.)

Overall, for some consumers on the individual market, total out-of-pocket costs might not change much because of the health care law, since benefits are getting better. Thorpe points out that because of the free preventive coverage, for instance, consumers may pay more in premiums but would no longer pay copays or deductibles for that preventive care.

Jonathan Gruber, professor of economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was paid by the Obama administration for health care analysis work, says consumers "have to decide is it worth the trade off." Are the better benefits worth the higher cost? But he doesn’t believe high rate increases can be attributed to changes in the law. "These increases are basically coming from the cost of medical care."

Premiums in the individual market were rising rapidly even before the law was signed. According to a late March survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, three-quarters of those in this market said insurers recently had raised their premiums by 20 percent on average. Some policyholders switched to a cheaper plan. While the average cost for a single policy in this market was less than the average for employer-sponsored insurance, the average deductible was four times that of employer coverage, according to the survey.

For employer-sponsored coverage (where 157 million have health insurance), family premiums went up just 3 percent in 2010 from the previous year, and 5.5 percent in 2009, according to Kaiser. Workers’ contributions to those premiums have also been increasing — that contribution went up 14 percent in 2010.

It remains to be seen, after the law is fully implemented, whether it will "reduce" premiums or lower costs, as Obama has claimed again and again. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that premiums for most persons won’t change significantly because of the law. And the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said overall health spending would go up by less than 1 percent over the next decade, because insurance coverage, and the use of medical services, will expand.

A Case Study: Connecticut

Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade association that represents insurance companies, said the impact of the new health care law on rates depends on where you live and what kind of coverage you have.

"For some people, including those in large employer plans, they already have many of the new benefits that went into effect in September. Those people aren’t going to see as big an increase in their premiums," Zirkelbach told us. "But a number of people in the individual market who tend to be price sensitive — they will see a bigger impact. Those people have chosen lower benefit plans in exchange for lower rates."

One case study is Connecticut, where one insurer has proposed substantial increases for some new policies. But these are accompanied by improved benefits, and other policies are seeing very small increases.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Connecticut’s largest health insurer, has proposed only minimal increases for "grandfathered" renewals of existing policies. If approved, those plans would go up just 0.2 percent on Jan. 1, 2011, as a result of the new federal law — a result of the requirement that insurers cover adult children of policyholders up to age 26. The rate filing request said two other requirements of the federal law would have a "negligible impact" on rates. They were: "unlimited lifetime maximum" (eliminating monetary caps on coverage) and the "rescission changes" (prohibiting companies from canceling policies for undisclosed preexisting conditions).
New customers are seeing larger increases, which vary depending on the type of policy. The company’s low-benefit plans, in particular, went up substantially to cover the cost of better benefits.

In September, Connecticut regulators approved Anthem’s request to raise rates for its non-grandfathered individual plans, effective Oct. 1, 2010. The Anthem filings show the new federal law raised rates from 5.5 percent to 36.4 percent, depending on the type of coverage. There were no increases for the unlimited lifetime maximum and the rescission changes, and only a slight increase (0.2 percent) for dependents who remain on their parent’s policies until age 26. “Current Connecticut law requires dependent coverage to age 26 excluding married dependents,” the filing said in explaining the slight increase.

Where the biggest increases occurred for non-grandfathered individual plans:

Requiring coverage for preexisting medical conditions raised rates 4.8 percent for all plans.
Free preventive care raised rates from 0 percent to 8.5 percent, depending on the plan.
Lifting the cap on how much insurers will pay each year for “essential benefits” raised rates from 0.5 percent to 22.9 percent, depending on the plan. In its filing, Anthem said “the largest impact to claim cost is the removal of the pharmacy annual maximums for each product.”

In explaining the significant increases for new customers who purchase individual plans, Anthem spokeswoman Sarah Yeager said: "Low cost low benefit plans experienced a higher rate adjustment because with the health care reform provisions the plans now offer richer benefits. Other plans that already offered rich benefits did not experience as much of an adjustment."
Once the law is fully implemented, the individual market will see the biggest changes in terms of premiums and benefits, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. More people will also get insurance through this market, such as through the state-based exchanges. CBO estimates 32 million will be in this individual market in 2016.

CBO said premiums for the large and small group markets (those are employer plans) won’t change significantly because of the law — they may go up or down slightly or not experience a change, strictly due to the health care law. But the average premium per person in the individual market will increase by 10 percent to 13 percent. The reason is that required benefits will make these plans more generous, by and large, and a good portion (57 percent) of those buying these policies will get federal subsidies, which will encourage them to get a more expensive plan than they otherwise would. In the end, for those who get subsidies, out-of-pocket premium costs will be lower than what they would have paid without the health care law.
– by Lori Robertson, Eugene Kiely and Kelsey Ferguson

Sources

New York State Department of Insurance. "Rate Change Notice Index." Updated 1 Nov 2010, accessed 16 Nov 2010.
"NY Individual Advantage Rate proposal letter for HMO Plans." Letter to policyholders. Aetna Life Insurance Company. 27 Sep 2010.
Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan. Letter to policyholders. 11 Aug 2010.
"Fact Check: President Obama On Premiums." The Leader Board blog. Senate Republican website. 22 Sep 2010.
"Health Law: More Broken Promises." The Leader Board blog. Senate Republican website. 14 Oct 2010.
"AUTUMN OF DISCONTENT: Democrats “Run Away” From ObamaCare, Americans Run For Cover." Blog. Office of House Minority Leader John Boehner.7 Sep 2010.
Ostrom, Carol M. "Steep rate hikes on way for individual health insurance." Seattle Times. 6 Sep 2010.
The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust. "Employer Health Benefits 2010 Annual Survey." 2 Sep 2010.
"A New Day for American Consumers." Press release. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 23 Sep 2010.
"The Affordable Care Act Did Not Cause Unjust Premium Increases." White House Blog. 8 Sep 2010.
"Filing at Glance." Anthem Health Plans, Inc. 1 Nov 2010.
Sturdevant, Matthew. "Anthem Approved For Health Rate Hikes As High As 47 Percent." Hartford Courant. 14 Oct 2010.
Casaday, Jennie Keith. Letter to Paul Lombardo, Actuary, Life and Health Division of Connecticut Insurance Department. 30 Jul 2010.
Congressional Budget Office. Letter to Sen. Evan Bayh. 30 Nov 2009.
Foster, Richard. Estimated Financial Effects of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” as Amended. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 22 Apr 2010.
Sheils, John, senior vice president, The Lewin Group. Interview with FactCheck.org. 8 Nov 2010.
Wilensky, Gail, economist and a senior fellow at project HOPE. Interview with FactCheck.org. 17 Nov 2010.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Interview with FactCheck.org. 16 Nov 2010.
Gruber, Jonathan, MIT professor of economics. Interview with FactCheck.org. 8 Nov 2010.
Thorpe, Kenneth, professor of health policy, Emory University. Interview with FactCheck.org. 10 Nov 2010.
Blumberg, Linda J."How Will the PPACA Impact Individual and Small Group Premiums in the Short and Long Term?" Urban Institute. 6 Jul 2010.
Hewitt Associates. U.S. Health Care Cost Rate Increases Reach Highest Levels in Five Years, According to New Data from Hewitt Associates. press release. 27 Sep 2010.

Posted by Lori Robertson and Eugene Kiely on Friday, November 19, 2010 at 11:59 am

MoveOn.org: Top 5 Problems with the Tax Deal

2010-12-14T15:48:00.003-06:00

Dear MoveOn member,

Everyone knows that the "deal" that President Obama agreed to with Republicans will extend George W. Bush's reckless millionaire tax bailout—but what a lot of folks don't realize is that there are lots of other terrible parts of it, too.

Unemployed Americans desperately need their benefits extended to get by in this economy—so Republicans held them hostage to force through a slew of horrible economic policies in this deal. Here are just a few that you might not have heard about.

Share the list by going to http://pol.moveon.org/taxdealproblems?id=25497-17469748-xS9jSSx&t=3

If you're on Facebook, share it by clicking here. If you're on Twitter, tweet it here.

President Obama and Big Business - November 2010

2010-11-26T00:10:00.000-06:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Global Warming - This is What Global Warming looks like.

2010-11-17T20:58:00.000-06:00

National Resources Defense Council - Action Center

2010-09-21T20:17:00.000-05:00

National Resources Defense Council

The Earth's Best Defense

NRDC's mission is to safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends.

Click on any link below to send a pre-written message (you can edit it any way you like).

Tell President Obama to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

In April the Environmental Protection Agency finalized vehicle emissions standards that will make millions of new cars, SUVs, minivans and pick-up trucks use fuel more efficiently, but President Obama has instructed the EPA to take these standards to the next level. Urge President Obama, before the September 30th proposal deadline, to make sure his administration sets the bar high for both cars and trucks in order to reduce our dependence on oil and cut global warming pollution.

Urge your senators to eliminate toxic BPA in baby products

Bisphenol A (BPA), a widely used toxic chemical, has been linked to a range of health problems by hundreds of independent studies, but it remains unregulated. Urge your senators to support and vote Yes for Senator Feinstein's amendment to the Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510) to eliminate the use of BPA in infant formula, baby food packaging, baby bottles and sippy cups.

Tell Congress not to weaken Clean Air Act protections

As the EPA prepares to set standards for global warming pollution from power plants, refineries and other major polluters, some members of Congress want to weaken the Clean Air Act and give industries free rein to dump harmful pollution into our air. Urge your senators and representative to hold polluters accountable for their emmissions and oppose any legislation that would undermine the Clean Air Act.

Californians: Urge Governor Schwarzenegger to sign important environmental bills

The California legislature finished its work on August 31st and sent hundreds of bills to Governor Schwarzenegger, including several that would benefit the environment and public health. Urge Governor Schwarzenegger to sign AB 1405, SB 346 and AB 737 to increase investments in low-income communities most harmed by air pollution, reduce copper in waterways and increase recycling.

Tell your senators not to abandon comprehensive climate and energy legislation

Thanks to a handful of Republican and Democratic obstructionist senators, the Senate failed to act on legislation that would have strengthened our economy, increased our national security and reduced the dangerous pollution causing global warming. Tell your senators that you will not accept failure in the face of one of the biggest crises of the 21st century.

Urge your representative to co-sponsor the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act

The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act would strengthen the current law regulating the use of industrial chemicals, which was enacted in 1976 and is in serious need of overhaul. Urge your representative to co-sponsor the Toxic Chemical Safety Act (H.R. 5820).

Tell the EPA to strictly regulate dangerous coal ash disposal

The EPA is considering two options to regulate coal ash waste, which contains toxics such as arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury. Urge the EPA before the September 20th comment deadline to choose the stronger option that would set protective and federally enforceable regulations for coal ash disposal.

Tell President Obama to stop letting industry dump mining waste in our waters

Across the Appalachians, coal mining companies are destroying entire mountains in a practice known as mountaintop removal mining and are polluting thousands of miles of streams and rivers as they dump the waste into our waters. Urge President Obama to reinstate the previous longstanding prohibition on dumping mining waste into streams and lakes.

Tell Congress to help end mountaintop removal mining and protect the Appalachian Mountains

Because of weakened provisions in the Clean Water Act, waste from mountaintop removal mining may be dumped into nearby valleys and streams, but now the House of Representatives has the opportunity to restrict this dangerous process. Tell your representative to support and co-sponsor the Clean Water Protection Act (H.R. 1310).

Tell Congress to increase funding for global clean water

Safe drinking water is essential for human health and economic development, but dirty water causes disease and death around the world, especially in children. Tell your senators and representative to increase funding for global clean water projects.

Urge your representative to co-sponsor the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act

Polluted stormwater runoff threatens water quality across the nation, but we can put rain water back into the ground where it falls by increasing natural systems like trees, green roofs and rain gardens. Urge your representative to co-sponsor the Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act (H.R. 4202).

Tell Congress to close the "Halliburton Loophole" to protect drinking water from contamination

The "Halliburton Loophole" exempts hydraulic fracturing, an oil and gas production method that has been linked to water contamination, from Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. Urge your senators and representative to co-sponsor legislation to repeal the Halliburton Loophole.

Tell your senators to save our waterways from uncontrolled pollution

The Clean Water Restoration Act would restore Clean Water Act protections to vital water bodies declared unprotected because of Supreme Court decisions. Tell your senators to co-sponsor the Clean Water Restoration Act.

BP Says Limits on Drilling Imperil Spill Payouts

2010-09-03T22:38:00.000-05:00

Published New York Times: September 2, 2010
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and JOHN M. BRODER

BP is warning Congress that if lawmakers pass legislation that bars the company from getting new offshore drilling permits, it may not have the money to pay for all the damages caused by its oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The company says a ban would also imperil the ambitious Gulf Coast restoration efforts that officials want the company to voluntarily support.

BP executives insist that they have not backed away from their commitment to the White House to set aside $20 billion in an escrow fund over the next four years to pay damage claims and government penalties stemming from the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. The explosion killed 11 workers and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the gulf.

The company has also agreed to contribute $100 million to a foundation to support rig workers who have lost their jobs because of the administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium. And it pledged $500 million for a 10-year research program to study the impact of the spill.

But as state and federal officials, individuals and businesses continue to seek additional funds beyond the minimum fines and compensation that BP must pay under the law, the company has signaled its reluctance to cooperate unless it can continue to operate in the Gulf of Mexico. The gulf accounts for 11 percent of its global production.

“If we are unable to keep those fields going, that is going to have a substantial impact on our cash flow,” said David Nagel, BP’s executive vice president for BP America, in an interview. That, he added, “makes it harder for us to fund things, fund these programs.”

The requests keep coming for BP to provide additional money to the Gulf Coast to help mitigate the effects of the spill. This week, Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, reiterated his request that BP finance a five-year, $173 million program to test, certify and promote gulf seafood.

BP has already agreed to pay for some measures that exceed its legal obligations. For instance, to help promote tourism in affected regions, it donated $32 million to Florida’s marketing efforts and $15 million each to Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

But the company, which is based in London, now appears to be using such voluntary payments as a bargaining chip with American lawmakers.

The full report: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/business/03bp.html?emc=na

Department of Justice Sues Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for Refusing to Cooperate With Investigation

2010-09-03T21:52:00.000-05:00

Friday 03 September 2010

by: Nadia Prupis, t r u t h o u t | Report

The US Justice Department (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against controversial Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Thursday for alleged civil rights violations and refusal to cooperate with a federal probe.

Arpaio, who leads the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) and calls himself "America's toughest sheriff," has drawn both criticism and support as one of the country's most outspoken opponents of illegal immigration. Arpaio is also an active participant in 287(g) - a program funded by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that trains and authorizes state police departments in enforcing federal immigration laws. The MCSO has deported more than 26,000 immigrants in the past three years, one-quarter of the national total of 115,841.

Since March 2009, the DOJ has attempted to investigate Arpaio for a litany of alleged civil rights abuses, including racial profiling, unconstitutional searches and seizures and enforcement of English-only policies in his jails, but Arpaio's office has refused to produce all the requested documents. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits federally funded programs such as 287(g) from discriminating on the basis of race, color and national origin, and grant recipients are required to provide the DOJ full access to documents, facilities and staff during investigations. To receive federal funds for its participation in 278(g), the MCSO signed contractual agreements that assured its compliance with Title VI and promised its full cooperation with discrimination probes.

More of the story: http://www.truth-out.org/department-justice-sues-maricopa-county-sheriffs-office-refusing-cooperate-with-investigation62930

Energy Efficiency - How to Save $200 Billion a Year

2010-09-03T19:56:00.001-05:00

From SustainableBusiness.com

Greater energy efficiency is the way to meet growing energy needs worldwide, according to a special report in the New York Times.

Energy efficiency should not be confused with energy conservation. Conservation is turning of the light when you leave the room. Energy efficiency is swapping a 40-watt incandescent light bulb for a compact fluorescent that uses 9 watts, or an LED that uses even less.

Unfortunately, energy efficiency--which has the potential to halt the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions--has taken a back seat to the issue of fossil fuels and dependency on foreign oil.

Cathy Zoi, the Obama administration's so-called energy czar says part of the problem is that energy efficiency is difficult to discuss, because it is not a concrete thing that can be produced.

“We spend about $1.1 trillion each year on our utility bills in this country,” said Ms. Zoi, of the Energy Department. “And let’s just say we could really easily reduce this by 20%. That’s an extra $200 billion you could put into productivity of other things like health care, schools, businesses that grow.”

Read the full story on the NY Times website:
www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/global/02iht-rensave.html?_r=1

What's The Matter With Kansas? - 2009 Film Trailer

2010-08-25T17:53:00.001-05:00

Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) flip-flops on JOBS Bill - August 2010

2010-08-12T23:28:00.000-05:00

U.S. Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) said in Illinois that he was inclined to support the recent JOBS bill because it was "deficit neutral" and would save thousands of teachers' jobs. Then, he went to Washington D.C. and 24 hours later he voted AGAINST the JOBS bill he just praised. This is Washington politics at its worst, and Mr. Kirk should be ashamed of his actions.

By voting against the JOBS bill, Mr. Kirk also voted to keep tax breaks in place for corporations that ship American JOBS overseas. His position is completely hypocritical. My own career in IT has been sidelined twice in the last few years because of "off-shore" hiring practices and I've been out of work for two years.

Mr. Kirk has long supported extending the 2001 and 2003 temporary Bush tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans that will add $36 billion to the deficit if reinstated, yet he refused to support teachers when this deficit REDUCTION bill came up for a vote. Once again, Mr. Kirk has abandoned the working middle class in favor of big corporate interests.

Finally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly opposed the JOBS bill and has been running ads supporting Mr. Kirk in his bid to be elected the junior Senator from Illinois in 2010. Clearly, Mr. Kirk favors the whims of his corporate supporters over the needs of the working middle class and WILL NOT support them, even if it is also good for the nation. - Sent to the Daily Herald newspapers (Arlington Heights, IL) 8/12/2010.

Buy American and End Multinational Corporate influence on our lives

2010-07-29T13:21:00.000-05:00

Let's get some jobs. Home-grown American jobs. Maybe making American products. Keeping our money and jobs here in America instead of shipping them overseas. That seems like a no-brainer, right?

There are households today that refuse to buy products made in China. Maybe the presence of lead paint in toys scares them off (it should!). Maybe they think products made in China are the result of sweat shops (many are). Maybe they've experienced that products made in China are inferior in quality (many are). Maybe they think the balance of trade is unfair to Americans (it is).

On the other hand, some households always look for the best bargains, regardless of where they were made. They can buy more with less money. In this recession, where unemployment and job security have affected people so dramatically, families are cutting back on their expenses.

Which side do you take? Do you feel multinational corporations are pro-American or pro-profit?