tagged w/ HR 3962
-
Recently, the house and the senate have drafted opposing legislation on this matter into the new health care legislation (HR 3962). Black liquor is a toxic by-product of making pulp for paper production. It has been burned by paper companies as fuel for decades.
After mixing it with diesel, it's burned by the paper company as fuel, which qualifies them for a tax credit, enacted in 2007.
According to wikipedia, for one large company (International Paper) this could amount to as much as $3.7 billion in benefits per year.
This is another example of massive tax breaks for large companies that are not in the interest of the American public. Burning black liquor has a major negative effect on the environment, not to mention the additional consumption of diesel fuel. Additionally, smaller companies that produce 100% recycled post consumer paper cannot compete (they don't produce or use black liquor/diesel fuel so they can't get the massive tax break).
I encourage you to contact your representatives on this matter.
more at the article above and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liquorRecently, the house and the senate have drafted opposing legislation on this matter... more
-
-
WHOO! The Democrats in Congress passed a bill! Healthcare for all! Awesome! Right? ...right?WHOO! The Democrats in Congress passed a bill! Healthcare for all! Awesome! Right?... more
-
-
asherp
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
We shouldn't have been surprised. I'm right now working on a book that exposes anew our corporate-owned government, which didn't change in any way when hope was reported to have prevailed a year ago. The new day in Washington when lobbyists would supposedly take backseats to citizen needs became instead The Washington Post calling last summer the Summer Of The Lobbyist. We're seeing now that insurance industry lobbyists did their work well.
Thus, I wouldn't get too excited about health care reform just yet. The word "historic" has been liberally tossed around everywhere since the House bill passed by five votes on Saturday night, but commentators in other countries noticed before the bill even made it to vote that it's ludicrously light fare compared to citizen health coverage in other countries.
The House bill -- which is more ambitious than the Senate bill -- does almost nothing to contain runaway health care costs. Those are what threaten to consume one-fifth of the US gross domestic product in coming years. Health insurance companies are surely laughing themselves silly as the bill would force people to buy insurance from them. The remnant of the public insurance option is pretty barebones, so those unable to pay for insurance won't be well covered.
Nothing is law yet and it remains to be seen if reform will get through, but even if it does, it's almost guaranteed to turn into another bonanza for health corporations, more national debt, and little improvement in access to health care. That's the worst of all combinations, but seems to so often be the one we get. More spending with real benefits would be good, less spending and thus less collected in taxes so we have more left over to get our own coverage would be good, but more spending and little new coverage is not good.
I'm afraid this will end the way so many issues end, with corporations winning while citizens get screwed.
In my opinion, the best summary of what's wrong with the ramshackle attempt to reform American health care was presented by Ohio Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich in his article, Why I Voted No. I recommend that you read it. At just 770 words long, it's worth your time.We shouldn't have been surprised. I'm right now working on a book that... more
-
-
asherp
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
There were plenty of cowardly votes in the House last night but there was only one truly brave one. The unsung hero of the night was Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. Despite enormous pressure to support H.R. 3962, Rep. Kucinich did the right thing and voted 'no'. Unlike the Blue Dog votes against the bill, he did it for all the right reasons.
In a principled and practical statement, Rep. Kucinich said what a growing number of progressives have realized as we've watched real health care reform be compromised again and again.
During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The "robust public option" which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.
Personally, I supported President Obama in the primaries and the election but do not support him on this corporate giveaway built on broken campaign promises. I voted for the Barack Obama who opposed the individual mandate, who said the negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN and who campaigned against backroom deals with PhARMA.
Conservatives have expressed outrage for months about the way the health care bill was handled. Their anti-government anger is misplaced because the lets the insurances and drug companies who really helped drive this bill off the hook. But I understand their sense that this bill was passed despite the people. [cont'd at link]There were plenty of cowardly votes in the House last night but there was only one... more
-
-
asherp
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
The Affordable Health Care for America Act was approved by the U.S. House Saturday night with overwhelming support from progressive Democrats who serve in the chamber and from a president who was nominated and elected with the enthusiastic support of progressive voters.
But that does not mean that informed and engaged progressives are entirely enthusiastic about the measure.
In fact, some are openly and explicitly opposed to it -- among them former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and CPC member Eric Massa, D-New York, both of whom broke with the majority of their fellow Democrats to vote "no" when the House approved the measure by a narrow 220-215 vote Saturday.
How can this be?
Isn't this a fight between Democrats and Republicans? Between reforming liberals and tea-party conservatives?
How can there possible be any subtlety or nuance to this debate?
Well, of course, the debate over this 1,900-page behemoth of a bill is more complicated than the easy spin of political insiders -- and media cheering sections -- would have Americans believe.
Key interest groups, such as the National Organization for Women, and key congressmen who have been long-term supporters of reform, such as single-payer backers Massa and Kucinich, argue that the bill is not the cure for what ails the U.S. health care system.
Indeed, they suggest, the bill as it is currently constructed could make a bad situation worse.
Many sincere progressives in the House, and outside of it, chose to back the bill as the best that could be gotten. Others supported it on the theory that flaws could be fixed in the Senate and in the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills.
But those repairs will only be made if activists are conscious of what ails this bill.
For that reason, even supporters of the House legislation would be wise to consider the criticisms of it by groups that advocate for the rights of women, patient advocates, unions and some of the most progressive members of the House.
Here are six smart progressive complaints about the House bill: [con't at link]The Affordable Health Care for America Act was approved by the U.S. House Saturday... more
-
-
asherp
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
