Jonathan Kantrowitz

Political activist, health nut

Archive for May, 2011

Study: Biodegradable Products May Be Bad For The Environment

by:

Research from North Carolina State University shows that so-called biodegradable products are likely doing more harm than good in landfills, because they are releasing a powerful greenhouse gas as they break down.

“Biodegradable materials, such as disposable cups and utensils, are broken down in landfills by microorganisms that then produce methane,” says Dr. Morton Barlaz, co-author of a paper describing the research and professor and head of NC State’s Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering. “Methane can be a valuable energy source when captured, but is a potent greenhouse gas when released into the atmosphere.”

And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that only about 35 percent of municipal solid waste goes to landfills that capture methane for energy use. EPA estimates that another 34 percent of landfills capture methane and burn it off on-site, while 31 percent allow the methane to escape.

“In other words,” Barlaz says, “biodegradable products are not necessarily more environmentally friendly when disposed in landfills.”

This problem may be exacerbated by the rate at which these man-made biodegradable materials break down. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines call for products marked as “biodegradable” to decompose within “a reasonably short period of time” after disposal. But such rapid degradation may actually be environmentally harmful, because federal regulations do not require landfills that collect methane to install gas collection systems for at least two years after the waste is buried. If materials break down and release methane quickly, much of that methane will likely be emitted before the collection technology is installed. This means less potential fuel for energy use, and more greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, the researchers find that a slower rate of biodegradation is actually more environmentally friendly, because the bulk of the methane production will occur after the methane collection system is in place. Some specific biodegradable products such as bags that hold yard waste and are always sent to composting or anaerobic digestion facilities were not included in the study.

“If we want to maximize the environmental benefit of biodegradable products in landfills,” Barlaz says, “we need to both expand methane collection at landfills and design these products to degrade more slowly – in contrast to FTC guidance.”

The paper, “Is Biodegradability a Desirable Attribute for Discarded Solid Waste? Perspectives from a National Landfill Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model,” was co-authored by Barlaz and NC State Ph.D. student James Levis, and was published online May 27 by the journal Environmental Science & Technology. The research was supported by Procter & Gamble and the Environmental Research and Education Foundation.

Citizens United Party Demands Reapportionment Consideration

by:

Last week, I issued the following press release:

New Political Party in Connecticut

Queue, Inc., a Connecticut corporation with offices in Stratford, CT, announces the formation of the Citizens United Party, a new political party. Membership in Citizens United Party will be limited to corporations and LLC’s. Citizens United intends to field a full slate of candidates in the 2012 election in Connecticut. Corporations seeking to run for public office should contact Queue, inc. at jdk@queueinc.com.

Jonathan Kantrowitz, spokesman for the new party, declared “If, as the Supreme Court has recently declared, corporations have the right to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political candidates, it follows logically that they also have the right to vote, to form political parties, and to run for political office. The era of second-class citizenship for corporations must come to an end. After all, we pay taxes just like everyone else. The formation of the Citizens United Party springs from a basic principle of American democracy: no taxation without representation.”

A reporter for one of our esteemed CT business publications didn’t quite get the joke:

He wrote:

Got more details? Please ring me.

I responded:

It’s tongue-in-cheek.

He wasn’t pleased:

Wow, Jonathan, your sense of humor on this is appalling. We were treating this as news. We’re way too busy for such stupid tricks. Urge you to rethink yourself next time. Please don’t bother to follow up – we’re not interested.

The Secretary Of The State’s office also called, after an inquiry from AP, to see if I was serious, but had the good sense to realize that I probably wasn’t.

Nice, accurate coverage from Christine Stuart’s daily free newsletter: Morning Coffee & Politics: (You can sign up for Morning Coffee & Politics here.)

Now that the Connecticut for Lieberman Party is defunct, former vice-chair and progressive activist Jonathan Kantrowitz has launched his next political party called the Citizens United Party. The party is named in honor of the Citizens United Supreme Court case and will only be open to corporations and LLCs. Kantrowitz issued a release saying the party will have a full slate of candidates for the 2012 elections, but will they make it onto the ballot? Bring on the 2012 election brouhaha.

Here’s the next press release :

Citizens United Party Demands Reapportionment Consideration

Citizens United Party, the new Connecticut political party formed of, by and for corporations, has issued a demand that the state legislature include corporations in its population counts when re-apportioning legislative seats.

“If, as the Supreme Court has recently declared, corporations have the right to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political candidates, it follows logically that they also have the right to be counted in allocating legislative seats. The era of second-class citizenship for corporations must come to an end. After all, we pay taxes just like everyone else. This demand of the Citizens United Party springs from a basic principle of American democracy: one “person”, one vote.

New Estate Tax Rules Should Expire After 2012

by:

We’re giving to much away to the rich already

The tax-cut compromise enacted in December established estate tax rules for 2011 and 2012 that are considerably weaker than those in effect in 2009, the last year before the tax temporarily expired in 2010. The new rules will cost about $23 billion more than reinstating the 2009 rules over the same two years, yet will benefit only the largest one-quarter of 1 percent of estates, since they are the only ones that that would owe any estate tax under the 2009 rules.

Taxable estates will receive more than $1 million apiece in tax breaks this year from the new rules, on average, and estates worth more than $20 million will receive an average of nearly $3.8 million apiece. In light of the nation’s serious long-term budget problems — and proposals to slash a wide range of government services, particularly Medicare, Medicaid, and programs for low-income Americans — it would be irresponsible to extend these new rules beyond 2012.

Tax Had Already Weakened Considerably Under 2001 Law

The 2001 tax legislation phased down the estate tax considerably. By 2009, the value of estates exempt from taxation had risen to $3.5 million for individuals (effectively $7 million for couples), up from $1 million for individuals ($2 million for couples) scheduled under prior law, and the marginal tax rate on the value of an estate above these thresholds fell from 55 percent to 45 percent. As a result, a tax that affected only the country’s largest 2 percent of estates in 2001 touched only the largest one-quarter of 1 percent of estates by 2009.

Due to the peculiarities of the 2001 law, the estate tax expired in 2010 but was scheduled to return in 2011 under the rules set by pre-2001 law, with an individual exemption of $1 million and a top rate of 55 percent. That was forestalled by the tax-cut compromise enacted in December (P.L. 111-312), which raised the exemption level to $5 million for individuals ($10 million for married couples) and lowered the marginal rate to 35 percent for 2011 and 2012.

Come 2013, the estate tax is once again scheduled to return to pre-2001 levels. While that outcome is unlikely, the scheduled reversion will provide an opportunity to revisit estate tax policy in the context of the hard fiscal choices the nation faces.

2009 Rules Were More Than Generous

Even under the 2009 rules, very few estates paid the estate tax. According to recent estimates from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC), only 6,460 estates nationwide — one-quarter of 1 percent of estates — would have owed any estate tax in 2011 had the 2009 levels been extended; fully 99.75 percent of estates would have been passed on tax free. Thus, 99.75 percent of estates will not benefit from the more generous exemption level and lower rate instated under the tax-cut compromise.

Moreover, the small number of estates that will benefit from this compromise would not have owed particularly high taxes even under the 2009 rules. Because the tax applies only to the value of the estate that exceeds the exemption level (and because of other tax breaks built into estate tax law), estates’ effective tax rates are generally far lower than the statutory tax rate.

Read more: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Health reform essential to young adults: Nearly half can’t afford needed health care

by:

Young adults ages 19-29 are struggling to get the health care they need more than almost any other age group, demonstrating the need for Affordable Care Act provisions, some already in place, that will expand health insurance and make it more affordable, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. The report found that in 2010, 45 percent of young adults couldn’t afford the care they needed, meaning they didn’t fill a prescription, didn’t go to the doctor when they were sick, or skipped a test, treatment, or follow-up visit, up from 32 percent who went without needed care because of cost in 2001.

The Affordable Care Act is already making a difference for young adults. Early reports by five national insurance carriers indicate that more than 600,000 young adults have obtained new insurance coverage since a key provision allowing them to stay on their parents’ health insurance until age 26 went into effect in 2010. The authors say that number is certain to climb through the summer as young adults graduate from high school and college and more employers open enrollment to this age group. Young adults will see the biggest benefits from health reform in 2014 when expanded Medicaid coverage begins and health insurance exchanges with premium subsidies for private plans are launched, providing nearly universal coverage for the nearly 15 million 19- to 29-year-olds who are uninsured.

“This is not an easy time for young adults—they are struggling to find employment in a difficult job market, and are among the age groups hardest hit by rising health care costs,” said Commonwealth Fund Vice President and lead report author, Sara Collins. “But the Affordable Care Act has made things better for hundreds of thousands of young people, including this year’s college graduates many of whom can remain on or join their parents’ plans until they find a job that provides health insurance. In the past these young people would have had to go without insurance, or pay high prices for bare- bones coverage on the individual market.”

Struggling With Medical Debt

Using findings from The Commonwealth Fund’s 2010 Biennial Health Insurance Survey, the report, Realizing Health Reform’s Potential: How the Affordable Care Act is Helping Young Adults Stay Covered, also found that 40 percent of young adults had problems paying medical bills, had been contacted by a collection agency over unpaid bills, had to change their way of life to pay medical bills, or were paying off medical debt over time. Of those with medical bill problems or medical debt, one-third had to deplete their savings to pay their bills and one in five had to take on credit card debt.

Uninsured, Moderate Income, And Low Income Young Adults Struggle Most

Uninsured young adults had the hardest time among young adults affording the health care they needed. Fifty-eight percent of uninsured young adults delayed getting needed care due to cost, compared with only 34 percent of young adults who were insured all year. In addition, half (52%) of uninsured young adults had problems with medical bills or debt, compared to one-fourth (25%) of insured young adults.

The report found young adults across the income spectrum but particularly those in low- and moderate-income families, were having an increasingly hard time with health care costs: 53 percent of young adults earning less than $10,830 for a single person couldn’t afford the health care that they needed, up from 32 percent in 2001, and 52 percent of young adults in households earning between $10,830 and $21,660 couldn’t afford their health care. There was also a marked increase in not getting needed care among young adults with slightly higher incomes: in 2010, 38 percent of those earning more than $21,660 delayed care because of costs, compared to 25 percent in 2001.

How the Affordable Care Act Helps Young Adults

In 2014, when all of the Affordable Care Act provisions are fully implemented, an estimated 13 million young adults could gain health insurance coverage, most of it subsidized Some of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act that will help young adults include:

* Starting in 2010, young adults can remain on or join their parents’ health insurance if it includes dependent coverage until age 26. An estimated 1.7 million young adults will become covered under par¬ents’ policies by 2013.

* Starting in 2012, college health plans will have to follow most of the same rules that private individual market health plans now face under the Affordable Care Act—eliminating lifetime coverage limits and rescissions and phasing out annual limits, though at a slower rate than private plans. As a result, the estimated 1.6 million young adults enrolled in health plans offered by colleges and university will be better protected by their health insurance.

* Starting in 2014, Medicaid will cover all adults with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty level—$14,404 for a single person—expanding coverage to an estimated 7.2 million uninsured young adults.

* Starting in 2014, state health insurance exchanges will offer comprehensive private health insurance with an essential benefit package that will include maternity benefits with subsidies to help low and moderate income young adults afford health insurance, expanding coverage to 4.9 million young adults who would qualify for the subsidies. Insurance companies will be banned from charging higher premiums on the basis of health or gender.

“Young adults are among the groups most in need of the Affordable Care Act—being uninsured or unable to afford health care puts their health and long-term financial security at risk,” said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. “However, things are changing for the better, and in 2014, nearly all young adults will have access to the comprehensive and affordable health insurance they need, allowing them to pursue their life and career goals without the worry that one serious illness or accident could derail their future plans.”

Himes Votes Against Unlimited New Presidential War Making Authority

by:


Votes against National Defense Authorization Bill that expands presidential authority for military action and includes no plan for Afghanistan

Congressman Jim Himes (CT-4) today voted against FY2012 Defense Authorization bill. Although Himes has voted in favor of such authorization bills in the past, he opposed today’s bill because it gives the President unbridled new military authority, it increases defense expenditures, and it includes no plan to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

“The Authorization of Military Force provision of this bill gives the President unprecedented and nearly unlimited power to wage war anywhere in the world, at any time, without Congressional approval. The President himself, a constitutional scholar, strongly opposed this dangerous provision,” said Himes, “It also increases baseline defense spending and includes no plans to wind down our presence in Afghanistan. I will always stand unconditionally with our troops and for our security. But having just attended a memorial service for Spc. David Fahey and met his family, I will not vote for a bill which eliminates Congress’ oversight of war making and which will make the tragedy of Spc. Fahey’s death much more common in the future.”

Today the U.S. House of Representatives considered H.R. 1514, the National Defense Spending Authorization Act. Dozens of amendments to the bill were offered, but important provisions that would have protected Congress’ power to oversee military action, reduce defense spending or draw down troops in Afghanistan failed.

Himes voted in favor of an amendment that required ground troops to withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving just those who are involved in small, targeted counter-terrorism operations within 60 days. It also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a withdrawal plan to Congress within 60 days.

Pawlenty Supports the Republican Plan to End Medicare as We Know it

by:

Today, former governor and current Republican Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty said he would sign the Republican plan to end Medicare as we know into law if elected President. In response, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said:

“Just two days after the people of New York’s solidly Republican 26th Congressional District roundly rejected the Republican plan for ending Medicare, Governor Pawlenty said that he would sign such a plan into law – a plan even Newt Gingrich called ‘radical.’

“Governor Pawlenty has ducked questions of his support for the Ryan plan since joining the campaign – but now it’s clear that he would ignore the wishes of the American people and the best interests of this nation and its seniors in order to win the approval of the far right. Governor Pawlenty may have passed his party’s primary litmus test by voicing his approval of a plan to end Medicare – but he has failed a critical leadership test.

“If he can’t stand up to the far right of his party on issues as central to Americans’ well-being as Medicare, how does he expect us to believe he would exercise independent, reasoned judgment as President? It’s clear that if Governor Pawlenty were elected President he would embrace far-right Republican policies, piling additional burdens on America’s seniors, young people, and working families in order to provide additional benefits to big oil and the wealthiest few.”

NEW YORK’S 26TH CD LOSS THE FOURTH CONSECUTIVE FOR GOP

by:

Voters in Wisconsin, Maine, New Hampshire and now in New York’s 26th congressional district are speaking – and loudly.

New York’s 26th congressional district was one of the state’s most solidly Republican districts. Besides New York, conservatives have lost three special elections in as many weeks. In Wisconsin, a Democrat captured a General Assembly seat that had been held by Republicans for more than a decade. In Maine, a Democrat beat her opponent for a state Senate seat by more than 30 percentage points. And in New Hampshire, a Democrat easily captured a state House district that was ranked as the 16th strongest Republican district in the state.

In state after state, voters are telling us they want an end to tax cuts for the super-rich. They want an end to corporate loopholes. And most importantly, they want to preserve Medicare and the vital services that are key to maintaining a healthy, vibrant middle class. For voters, the massive cuts that are happening at the state level and in Congress mark their season of discontent.

Voters in Western New York sent a strong message that Medicare needs to be protected, that tax cuts for billionaires and big corporations won’t be accepted, and that in order to make our communities stronger, we must come together to build an economy that works for everyone. Kathy Hochul’s election to Congress doesn’t just mean that New York will have another great representative in Washington. Her election also proves a public desire for a government that puts its people before corporate profits.

Voters want a fair wage, a decent life and hope for the future. Programs like Medicare and Social Security help secure our freedom by protecting our dignity if we get sick and as we grow older.

The One Problem I Had With Chris Murphy – Resolved!

by:

Letter from Chris:

I’ve received quite a bit of email over the past few months wondering how I’d vote when the Patriot Act reauthorization comes up later this week.

So, I wanted to let you know first – I’ll be voting against the bill.

The Patriot Act does not strike the right balance between protecting our nation while safeguarding the cherished civil liberties we hold dear. I have voted to give Congress time to find an appropriate balance in the past, but extending the most unjustifiable provisions in the act with no additional oversight for an additional four years is a bridge too far for me.

Good for you Chris! Way to go!

Page 1 of 812345...Last »