marym in IL

Last active
9 hours, 31 minutes ago
  • marym in IL commented on the diary post Turn Left for Earth by David Swanson.

    2014-09-21 11:36:15View | Delete

    Capitalism! Freedom ! Markets! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/what-ever-happened-to-pub_b_633585.html

    The Energy and Policy Institute released a report last week documenting how and where fossil fuel companies and front groups have attacked renewable energy standards and net metering policies throughout the country in 2013 and 2014. Our report is the first roadmap of a shadowy network of front groups, a majority [...]

  • marym in IL commented on the diary post Turn Left for Earth by David Swanson.

    2014-09-21 11:34:10View | Delete

    Nobody has to give up living in houses. As far as cars, how is it again that we became so dependent on them? We need good public transportation. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-robbins/what-ever-happened-to-pub_b_633585.html

    Today, with the exception of a few of our larger cities, most notably New York, U.S. public transit systems have been profoundly neglected. A third of all [...]

  • marym in IL commented on the diary post Turn Left for Earth by David Swanson.

    2014-09-21 11:18:09View | Delete

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3181:the-military-assault-on-global-climate

    By every measure, the Pentagon is the largest institutional user of petroleum products and energy … Yet, the Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements … … Barry Sanders observes with a load of tragic irony that, while many of us assiduously reduce our carbon footprint through simpler living, eating locally, recycling [...]

  • marym in IL commented on the diary post Turn Left for Earth by David Swanson.

    2014-09-21 08:40:06View | Delete

    My thoughts aren’t clear enough to weigh in on big picture recommendations for priorities or strategy. I am sure though that the interconnectedness of issues, and the need for solidarity are key.There are important linkages between climate and war (as there are on other issues) and people seriously active in any of those areas should [...]

  • marym in IL commented on the blog post Providing Context for the People’s Climate March Sunday

    2014-09-20 13:42:26View | Delete

    Why not direct your ire to the people who are actually creating the problems and preventing solutions?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabe-elsner/why-and-how-fossil-fuel-a_b_5398410.html

    The Energy and Policy Institute released a report last week documenting how and where fossil fuel companies and front groups have attacked renewable energy standards and net metering policies throughout the country in 2013 and 2014.

    Our report is the first roadmap of a shadowy network of front groups, a majority of which receive funding from fossil fuel interests, that have been the primary advocates of rolling back state-level renewable energy policy across the country.

    Let’s start with why fossil fuel and utility interests are attacking clean energy: They are concerned about the rise of cheap clean energy and are financing efforts to delay the growth of a market competitor, including spreading disinformation about the cost of clean energy.

  • marym in IL commented on the diary post Changes to MyFDL by Jane Hamsher.

    2014-09-20 10:45:59View | Delete

    edit:

    Well, that was poorly worded. Didn’t mean to imply your voices weren’t just as important before the change, in case that wasn’t clear.

  • marym in IL commented on the diary post Changes to MyFDL by Jane Hamsher.

    2014-09-20 10:38:58View | Delete

    Feedback from a non-diarist: Good luck to all of you who have reported problems above at this post and at yesterday’s OE, and others who may also be having problems – hope everything is resolved for you quickly. With the loss for now of the possibility of an ad hoc diarist dropping by to share [...]

  • We shouldn’t have needed to elect socialists. FDR and LBJ and the Congresses they worked with weren’t socialists, but they managed to fight for and pass programs that benefited millions, across generations. We elected a President, Congress, and party that supposedly cared about healthcare (and jobs, education, retirement security). They failed to fight for and pass good programs of their own, most of them are ready to dismantle those of their betters, none of them has acknowledged their failure or suggested remedies for even the most egregious of the problems with the bill, and their loyalist cheerleaders have not demanded that they do so.

  • Where do you find the basis for your assertions? The US already pays more for healthcare than any other country. No one suggested a free lunch, a regressive form of a payroll tax increase, a regressive VAT tax, or having most people pay even more for healthcare than they’re paying now.

    2013 PNHP summary of HR 676

    Families and individuals will pay less
    …Fiscal studies by economists Dean Baker (2007) and Gerald Friedman (forthcoming) have estimated that under H.R. 676, 95 percent of U.S. households would be paying less than they now for all health care costs.

    Most businesses would pay less too.
    Containing annual health care costs, while covering all Americans
    Savings from reduced administration, bulk purchasing, and coordination among providers will allow coverage for all Americans while reducing health care inflation in the long term. Annual savings from enacting H.R. 676 have been estimated at $387 billion (Baker, 2008) to $589 billion (Friedman, forthcoming).

    Friedman study (PDF)
    http://www.pnhp.org/sites/default/files/Funding%20HR%20676_Friedman_7.31.13_proofed.pdf

    HR 676 Section 211 (c) Funding

    Existing sources of Federal Government revenues for health care
    Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners
    Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income
    Instituting a modest tax on unearned income
    Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions

    Congressman Conyers website suggestion for funding

    Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
    Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75% (includes present 1.45% Medicare tax)
    Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners, 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
    ¼ of 1% stock transaction tax
    Close corporate tax loopholes
    Repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners

  • I don’t follow the national party much. In IL they’re running 2 candidates for the House, and several local position. As far as I know the rest of the slate for Governor and other state offices and US Senate is losing the ballot access fight – petitions challenged, and lawsuit dismissed, I think, but some of them will run as write-ins. It’s really, really difficult to fight for ballot access – I’m not active, so I can’t say if they did it well or poorly, but armchair criticism won’t help.

  • Democrats spoil the chances for the Democrats.

  • link above @ 29

  • marym in IL commented on the blog post More on Private Insurance Whac-A-Mole

    2014-09-19 12:56:28View | Delete

    The cited Cato study dated 2008 does contain the phrase about insurance companies not required to be non-profit since 2002, but doesn’t say one way or the other what the OECD and other info seem to say – that they can’t profit on the basic plan. Footnote 250 in your link describes the insurance companies as “for-profit” (in quotes) which also seems to indicate some degree of not-for-profit-ness.

  • In addition 68 percent rate their plans as at least good, which is a decent number, but significantly less than the 86 percent of Americans who rate their employer coverage positively.

    68% seems like a shameful number, since it means that 32% are worse off than they were before.

    As far as employer coverage, the supposed excuse for why we were supposed to want to preserve the existing system in which so many “like their plan”, just what are we expecting as large employers move employees to exchanges?

  • Those of us thinking about voting “third”* party in 2016 should also be thinking now about how to make that possible. Contact your local altenative party of choice, or the nationsl party to find out. Ballot access is extremely difficult, and even when some outrageous number of required petitions are filed, the D’s and R’s throw up further roadblock challenges. Getting a certain percentage of the vote can qualify the party for a permanent ballot line in the next election, so it’s worth considering that as well.

    Even if people have little faith in the electoral process as a productive avenue for change, a political party as part of a broader social movement is an important consideration. Consider how well alternative parties, primary challengers, and independent candidates in your state match up on the issues that matter to you, and vote for them where you can.

    * at correntewire some posters use the optimistic phrase “emergent parties.”

  • You’re welcome. Here’s the House roll call.

  • Women in Iran can work, get university educations, vote, serve in government, get maternity leave and pay, and drive (even buses and taxis in Tehran, according to the Leveretts in Going to Tehran).

    (This is fyi, not a defense of gender inequality and human rights violations in Iran, of course).

  • Both my Senators confirmed my opinion of them. Does that count as disappointment?

  • Nays

    Baldwin (D-WI)
    Barrasso (R-WY)
    Begich (D-AK)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    Cruz (R-TX)
    Enzi (R-WY)
    Gillibrand (D-NY)
    Heller (R-NV)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Lee (R-UT)
    Manchin (D-WV)
    Markey (D-MA)
    Moran (R-KS)
    Murphy (D-CT)
    Paul (R-KY)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Roberts (R-KS)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Sessions (R-AL)
    Warren (D-MA)

  • Load More