Reasons for Unemployment and a Bad American economy

 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

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

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.

Top 5 Problems with the Tax Deal

Problem #1: The deal is a stealth attack on Social Security.

The deal will lower the payroll tax—the tax that funds the Social Security trust. This is a trap for Democrats. Republicans have been coming after Social Security for years and this cut is the biggest threat to the vital program in decades. It will cut one-third of Social Security's funding this year alone and when we need to restore the payroll tax back to its current level, Republicans will cry "tax increases" and could gut it permanently. ¹

Problem #2: For nearly one in three workers, it's a tax increase.

Nearly 50 million working Americans—including all workers making less than $20,000 per year—and millions of federal, state, and municipal workers will see their taxes go up because of the deal.²

Problem #3: The deal has not one but TWO millionaire bailouts. 

In addition to extending all the Bush income tax breaks for the top 2%, the deal will slash the estate tax. If Congress did nothing, next year the estate tax would be 55% and apply to everyone inheriting $1 million or more. But the deal reduces it to 35% and only people who inherit more than $5 million will have to pay. This second bailout will give a gigantic tax giveaway to a few thousand of the richest families in the country and add hundreds of billions to the national debt.³

Problem #4: Unemployment help is insufficient and inadequate.

While the deal extends unemployment benefits for another 13 months for people currently receiving it, millions of unemployed workers who've struggled the most and been out of work more than 99 weeks—since the giant Wall Street banks wrecked the economy—will get no help at all under the deal.⁴ It's a gamble that there will be jobs in the next 13 months when the insurance runs out, but the tax cuts will go well beyond that. Better to just pass a stand-alone unemployment extension to help all struggling Americans.

Problem #5: Tax giveaways to the rich are a terrible way to create jobs.

Tax breaks for the rich are the least efficient way to create jobs and help the economy grow. In fact the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says extending all tax cuts would lower unemployment only 0.1% to 0.3% over the next year⁵ and that the cost of the tax deal would be $900 billion over the next five years.⁶

We've got to stop this deal and make sure everyone understands what's really in it. Can you share this list now?

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Robin, Milan, Wes, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1."Tax Cut Deal A Hidden Threat To Social Security," The Huffington Post, Dec. 8, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205508&id=25497-17469748-xS9jSSx&t=6

2. "Obama-Republican Deal Could Mean Tax Hike For One In Three Workers," The Huffington Post, Dec. 10, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205509&id=25497-17469748-xS9jSSx&t=7

3. "Estate tax deal: worst part of a bad tax compromise," The Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205510&id=25497-17469748-xS9jSSx&t=8

4. "Unemployment benefits: Extension won't help '99ers'," The Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 7, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205511&id=25497-17469748-xS9jSSx&t=9

5. "The Deal," Paul Krugman, The New York Times, Dec. 7, 2010
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/the-deal/

6. "CBO score shows tax plan ups deficit $900 billion in 5 years," CNN.com, Dec. 10, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205512&id=25497-17469748-xS9jSSx&t=10

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

---

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

President Obama and Big Business - November 2010

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

Global Warming - This is What Global Warming looks like.

National Resources Defense Council - Action Center

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?