Category Archives: ~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

The Amazon approaches its moment of truth … a message from Greenpeace Activist

4 Comments

I’ve written a few blogs since I’ve been on the Rainbow Warrior, but my time in Brazil has given me enough material for thousands more. I worked as a journalist before Greenpeace and that is how I have approached this trip, trying to tell you the stories that happen every day in this magical country and do some justice to the people who live in it.

Today I produced a more personal account of my work as well as my impressions of this truly unique place. I wanted to do this because on Friday the President of Brazil will make a decision that could affect this amazing rainforest for decades to come. I believe that the people I have met here want the world to know what is at stake, so I tried to explain how the past few weeks have affected me.

The Rainbow Warrior sails through the Amazonas river.

As I’ve learned, changes to Brazil’s forest code could be one of the worst things to have happened to the Amazon for years. I also know that the concept of zero deforestation is tantalizingly close to becoming a reality.

I hope you enjoy the film, but more importantly I ask you take action with us.

Together we can do it. Together we can all save the Amazon.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

State Tabacco Taxes – done right it can be a win win solution


U.S. State and Local Issues

State Tobacco Taxes

A Win-Win-Win Solution

photo

Tobacco tax increases offer a win-win-win solution for states, especially as they face a severe fiscal crisis and work to balance budgets while preserving essential public services.

Health Win: Tobacco tax increases are one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking and other tobacco use, especially among kids. Every 10 percent increase in cigarette prices reduces youth smoking by about seven percent and total cigarette consumption by about four percent.

Budget Win: Every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue, even while reducing smoking. Higher tobacco taxes also save money by reducing tobacco-related health care costs, including Medicaid expenses. States can realize even greater health benefits and cost savings by allocating some of the revenue to programs that prevent children from smoking and help smokers quit.

Political Win: National and state polls consistently have found overwhelming public support for tobacco tax increases. Polls also show that, when it comes to balancing budgets, voters prefer raising tobacco taxes to other tax increases or cutting crucial programs such as education and public safety.

Progress, But More Work to Do

In recent years, almost every state and the federal government have increased tobacco taxes. The average state cigarette tax is currently $1.46 per pack, but rates vary widely from 17 cents in Missouri to $4.35 in New York.

On April 1, 2009, the federal cigarette tax increased by 62 cents, to $1.01 per pack.

Every state and the federal government can achieve significant health and revenue gains by further increasing tobacco taxes. Governments can raise even more revenue — and reduce all tobacco use — by increasing taxes on other tobacco products, such as smokeless tobacco and cigars, to parallel the rate on cigarettes. This discourages all tobacco use.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Trends in the Distribution of Household Income, 1979-2007


Congressional Budget Office

 Presentation to the National Tax Association 2012 Spring  Symposium – Click on link below

http://p.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/812526/27858637/4189362/http://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/t/0/0/cbospublications/~http://www.slideshare.net/cbo

After-Tax Income Grew More for Highest-Income Households

After-tax income for the highest-income households grew more than it did for any other group. (After-tax income is income after federal taxes have been deducted and government transfers—which are payments to people through such programs as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance—have been added.)

CBO finds that, between 1979 and 2007, income grew by:

  • 275 percent for the top 1 percent of households,
  • 65 percent for the next 19 percent,
  • Just under 40 percent for the next 60 percent, and
  • 18 percent for the bottom 20 percent.

Shares of Income After Transfers and Federal Taxes, 1979 and 2007

The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.

  • The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
  • Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
  • All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points.

Market Income Shifted Toward Higher-Income Households

Shifts in the distribution of market income underlie most of the changes in the distribution of after-tax income. (Market income—or income before taxes and transfers—includes labor income, business income, capital income, capital gains, and income from other sources such as pensions.)

  • Each source of market income was less evenly distributed in 2007 than in 1979.
  • More concentrated sources of income (such as business income and capital gains) grew faster than less concentrated sources (such as labor income).

Government Transfers and Federal Taxes Became Less Redistributive

Government transfers and federal taxes both help to even out the income distribution. Transfers boost income the most for lower-income households, while taxes claim a larger share of income as people’s income rises.

In 2007, federal taxes and transfers reduced the dispersion of income by 20 percent, but that equalizing effect was larger in 1979.

  • The share of transfer payments to the lowest-income households declined.
  • The overall average federal tax rate fell.
~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Will the EPA Choose Political Influence over Science?


Rainforest Action Network
 
Tell Obama’s EPA not to cave to industry pressure on palm oil and climate change.
EPA Science
Take Action

The EPA recently confirmed that the destruction of rainforests for palm oil is having a devastating impact on our climate. In fact, this deforestation, in large part for palm oil plantations, has led Indonesia to become the third largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, just behind China and the United States.

These severe climate and forest impacts should ensure that palm-oil based biofuels stay out of the EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard, which mandates that American motorists use 36 billion gallons of biofuel in their cars and trucks by 2022. But not if the powerful palm oil lobby has anything to do with it. A massive lobby effort led by palm oil companies Cargill and Wilmar is being waged to persuade the EPA to overturn its own climate science on palm oil.

Tell Obama’s EPA not to cave to industry pressure on palm oil and climate change.

Palm oil companies know this is jeopardizing news to their multi-billion dollar industry. In the United States, the EPA’s decision could also determine to what extent the U.S. becomes a major palm oil buyer. Consumption of palm oil in the United States is growing at a much faster rate than anywhere else in the world–making sense that industry reps from Indonesia and Malaysia are concerned about protecting palm oil’s reputation here.

The palm oil industry will do whatever it takes to maximize profits at the expense of destruction of the forest, species, and communities of Indonesia and Malaysia–where 85% of the world’s palm oil is cultivated.

Please urge the EPA to adhere to its own scientific findings over listening to palm oil industry giants such as Cargill and Wilmar.

Ashley Schaeffer

For the forests,
Ashley Schaeffer
Rainforest Agribusiness Campaigner
~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Pelosi – House Dems and Congress in the Newsroom JUNE 2012

5 Comments

It’s been more than 250 days since the GOP took control of the House, and Americans are still asking: Where are the jobs, House Republicans?

The middle class is hurting, and the Republicans’ only answer is a plan to end Medicare and give tax breaks to Big Oil and companies that ship jobs overseas.

Learn more about the legislation the House has considered this Congress:

The Republican Default Act»

H.R. 1315 – Assault on Consumer Protections»

H.R. 2560 – GOP Cut, Cap & End Medicare Act»

H.R. 2018 – Undermining Clean Water»

H.R. 1309 – Flood Insurance»

H.R. 2417 – BULB Act»

H.R. 2219 – Defense Appropriations»

H.R. 2021 – More Giveaways to Big Oil, Not Lower Gas Prices»

H.R. 672 – Ending the Election Assistance Commission (EAC)»

H.R. 2112 – FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Bill»

H.R. 2055 – FY 2012 Military Construction/VA Appropriations Bill»

H.R. 1229 & H.R. 1231 – More Gifts To Big Oil»

H.R. 1230 – A Gift to Big Oil»

Restricting Women’s Access to Health Care»

Reducing Access to Health Care For Small Businesses & Uninsured»

Reducing Access to Health Care for Young People»

Upton-Inhofe Weaken Clean Air Act»

The FAA Job Loss Bill»

DC Private School Vouchers»

HAMP Termination Act»

GOP Spending Bill»

Build America Bonds»

GOP Patients’ Rights Repeal Bill»

H.R. 359 – Placing Control of Our Elections More Squarely Into the Hands of Special Interests»

Learn more about Democratic motions the House has considered this Congress:
On certain bills, House Democrats are allowed to offer a Motion to Recommit amending the pending bill before the final passage vote. Democrats have offered many motions this Congress ranging from increasing combat pay for our troops to protecting Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Democratic Motions to Recommit in the 112th Congress»

As Speaker Boehner continues his legal boondoggle to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act in the federal courts, he is batting 0 for 4. Today’s ruling in Windsor vs. U.S. marks the fourth loss for his lawyers as the court ruled that DOMA serves no rational purpose and is unconstitutional.

In Windsor vs. U.S., Speaker Boehner intervened in the case of Edie Windsor who was penalized by DOMA to the tune of $350,000 after the death of her spouse, Thea Spyer, of 44 years.

When Thea died, the federal government refused to recognize their marriage and taxed Edie’s inheritance from Thea as though they were strangers. Under DOMA, only an opposite-sex spouse who dies can leave her assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes.

Boehner’s lawyers have now intervened in 14 cases and spent over $700,000 in taxpayer funds, but have now lost four cases in a row:

February 22, 2012 – U.S. District Court in California declares DOMA unconstitutional, in Golinski v. United States, ruling in favor of Karen Golinski who sought to enroll her wife in the federal employee health plan

May 24, 2012 – U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California rules DOMA unconstitutional and held that federal tax law cannot limit the participation of same-sex married couples and domestic partners in a long-term care insurance plan in Dragovich v. U.S. Department of Treasury.

May 31, 2012 – U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston rules DOMA unconstitutional in Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

June 6, 2012 – U.S. District Court in New York rules DOMA unconstitutional in Windsor vs. U.S.

More background and a timeline of Speaker Boehner’s indefensible DOMA defense are available here.