Standard & Poor's Standard Poor Rating

Standard & Poor's "downgrade" of U.S. bond ratings outlook Monday caused a real media stir, coming as it did after President Obama forcefully pushed back from Paul Ryan's Medicare-killing budget proposal. S&P explained it's reasoning thusly:

Our ratings on the U.S. rest on its high-income, highly diversified, and flexible economy, backed by a strong track record of prudent and credible monetary policy. The ratings also reflect our view of the unique advantages stemming from the dollar's preeminent place among world currencies. Although we believe these strengths currently outweigh what we consider to be the U.S.'s meaningful economic and fiscal risks and large external debtor position, we now believe that they might not fully offset the credit risks over the next two years at the 'AAA' level.

. . .

Despite these exceptional strengths, we note the U.S.'s fiscal profile has deteriorated steadily during the past decade and, in our view, has worsened further as a result of the recent financial crisis and ensuing recession. Moreover, more than two years after the beginning of the recent crisis, U.S. policymakers have still not agreed on a strategy to reverse recent fiscal deterioration or address longer-term fiscal pressures.

. . .

The compromise agreed upon in December likely provides short-term support for the economic recovery, but we believe it also weakens the U.S.'s fiscal outlook and, in our view, reduces the likelihood that Congress will allow these tax cuts to expire in the near future. We also note that previously enacted legislative mechanisms meant to enforce budgetary discipline on future Congresses have not always succeeded.

Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4 trillion, 10 years, but via different methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's plan seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by cutting non-defense spending. The plan also includes significantly reducing the scope of Medicare and Medicaid, while bringing top individual and corporate tax rates lower than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

. . .

Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures the Congress and the Administration might conclude are appropriate. But for any plan to be credible, we believe that it would need to secure support from a cross-section of leaders in both political parties.

. . .

The negative outlook on our rating on the U.S. sovereign signals that we believe there is at least a one-in-three likelihood that we could lower our long-term rating on the U.S. within two years. The outlook reflects our view of the increased risk that the political negotiations over when and how to address both the medium- and long-term fiscal challenges will persist until at least after national elections in 2012.

In other words, mushy blather. Not one word in S&P's lengthy pronouncement, however, spoke to either (1) the U.S.'s ability to repay the debt; and (2) the likelihood (however improbably) that the U.S. would actually default on its debt. Those two omissions, alone, render the rationale worthless.

But this isn't the first time S&P has made worthless pronouncements. In 2002, for example, they downgraded Japan's bond rating, and the world yawned. In January 2011, they downgraded Japan's debt again, and the world yawned again.

More to the point, however, during the mortgage scandal of 2002-2006, Standard & Poor's was slapping a triple-A rating on any mortgage-backed collateralized debt obligation (CDO) or other instrument coughed up by the likes of Lehman, UBS, Goldman Sachs and others, financial instruments that subsequently imploded. Why should anyone trust them now? In fact, their actions leading up to the mortgage meltdown were fraudulent, bordering on, if not actually, criminal. They are currently being sued by the SEC for that fraud.

So we should assume that the current "negative outlook" by S&P is similarly tainted. The question then becomes: who is doing the tainting? Well, it's pretty obvious these days that there is a renewed push in Congress to "reform" Social Security (that is, privatize it). Privatizing even part of Social Security would be an enormous boon to the financial industry (of which S&P is a part). Thus, it becomes an easy step to suggest that one or more of the major financial players on Wall Street--Goldman Sachs comes to mind--"encouraged" S&P to make its announcement in order to push the Republicans' budget-slashing approach.

More as the story develops.

DISCLOSE Now!

I'm going to borrow CAclean.org's banner for a moment because they are doing something very important right now: pushing for passage of the California DISCLOSE Act ("DISCLOSE" stands for "Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections").

There is a meeting about the DISCLOSE Act anyone in the San Francisco area can attend:

Trent Lange, President of the California Clean Money Campaign, and Ruby Reid, the Northern California Field Manager, will join local Clean Money leaders to help kick off the San Francisco campaign for the CA DISCLOSE Act.

WHAT: CA DISCLOSE Act San Francisco Kickoff

WHEN: Saturday, April 23rd, from 1-3pm

WHERE: Potrero Branch Library, 1616 20th St.

between Connecticut & Arkansas. Muni #10

RSVP or Question: SF-Info@CAclean.org

If you can't attend the meeting, go to the CAclean website linked above, and email, Twitter, and/or Facebook the page to your friends.

What does the DISCLOSE Act do?

As proposed, the California DISCLOSE Act would:

Replace current deceptive "Paid for by" disclosures with real disclosure:

· "Stand By Your Ad": Require top funder of television and radio ads (e.g. the CEO of an organization or a millionaire) to appear and say that they approve of the message. E.g. Instead of saying "Paid for by Yes on 23, California Jobs Initiative" in fine print, Yes on 23 ads would have said:"I am Bill Klesse, the CEO of Valero Energy Corporation, located in Texas. Valero Energy helped pay for this message and approves it."

· Disclose other major funders in a clear and obvious fashion

2) Include serious new disclosure requirements for slate mailers

· E.g. Require slates that appear to represent parties to say, e.g.:

"This is a commercial mailer. This is not the official slate of a Democratic Party Organization"

In other words, corporations or groups of corporations, or very wealthy individuals, couldn't pay for political advertising while hiding behind bland- or deceptive-sounding attributions like "Paid for by Yes on 23" or "Paid for by Californians for Success". Instead, they would have to name themselves for everyone to see.

This is particularly important in a post-Citizens United world in which the Supreme Court thinks that (1) money equals free speech, and (2) corporations can spend as much as they would like, anonymously, on political campaigns. If money equals free speech, and speech equates to political power, then corporations have far, far more free speech and political power now than you could ever hope to have.

The only potential counterweight to corporations' political power in this environment is information - information available to the voters that the corporations don't want known. And the most valuable political information voters need is who, exactly, is paying for the political ads--the points of view--they see on the TV and hear on the radio in saturation quantity during election seasons. That kind of information makes it much easier for a voter to judge whether or not corporate-sponsored political advertising is worthy of any attention.

Joe Crowley's Brilliant Speech

Joe Crowley (D-NY) delivered a brilliant one-minute speech on the House floor on Thursday - and he didn't say a word:

Everyone else, take notes.

New California Redistricting Tools

Healthy City has assembled a new website, ReDrawCa.org (click through the user agreement), to assist the people of California to comment about redistricting at the community level. The site includes:

• A commenting tool allowing users to post information about their communities - this allows not just commenting, but tagging your comment to a particular geographical location in the state;
• A data access tool allowing users to view, in map form, census data about their local communities, or the state (under "Map thematic data" and "Map points of interest")
• A mapping tool that allows users to redraw districts (under "Edit area").

As the site explains:

ReDrawCA.org gives you the tools to share knowledge about your community’s needs, research and map key redistricting data, and share ideas with other community members or grassroots organizations. You can also draw your own district lines, then see how fourteen different data variables in your proposed district stack up against the data from the existing district. It also allows you to collaborate with other people or organizations to re-draw district boundaries, and then share your maps and data. And if you want to testify to the Citizens Redistricting Commission, ReDrawCA gives you the tools to communicate your local knowledge to the CRC in a way they can easily understand, and gives you access to the data to back up your argument. It’s free, easy to use, and tutorials and technical assistance are available!

. . .

ReDrawCA.org lets you share your work with individuals or groups that you specify, or allows you to make your work public to anyone using the site. Share your research and proposed districts to get feedback and insight from other organizations, and work together to draw the district you think will be the most equitable.

Healthy City itself is a community-based organization that acts as clearinghouse for community information on a number of different levels. According to their site, "California's information + action resource for service referrals and social change. You can search for community services, research and share community data, and consult our team for strategic advice." Healthy City itself is a part of Advancement Project, founded as a civil rights project.

We suggest that all Californians interested in the redistricting process visit the site to see how they can learn more about the process and provide input.

Obama Gets Tough, Republicans Get Nervous

Caught in a supposedly unguarded open-mic moment at a fundraiser last night, Obama had some choice things to say about Republicans:

"I said, 'You want to repeal health care? Go at it. We'll have that debate. You're not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we're stupid?' ... Put it [planned parenthood - Editor.] in a separate bill. We'll call it up. And if you think you can overturn my veto, try it. But don't try to sneak this through."

And, of Paul Ryan, who has cobbled together a dystopian scorched-earth future of a proposed budget, he had this to say:

"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill — but wasn't paid for. So it's not on the level."

(Besides gutting Medicare by replacing it with insurance vouchers instead of direct payments to doctors, Ryan's budget increases the national debt to 100% of GDP by 2043. That's some way to be fiscally responsible.)

Republicans have been caught totally off guard by the Obama of the last 48 hours. First, his speech at Georgetown University two nights ago unexpectedly broadsided them:

GOP leadership followed the speech by delivering a reaction that can best be described by Ryan’s comment that the president wasn’t “building bridges but poisoning wells.” Ryan admitted that he had high expectations for Obama’s speech, saying “I was excited when I was excited when I was invited to his speech today” adding that he saw it as an “olive branch” but found it to be “excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate and hopelessly inadequate to addressing our country’s fiscal challenges.”

An olive branch? Really? The Republicans really must have thought they had Obama rolled by now; they likely would not have attended the speech otherwise. Their initial meeting with Obama in January 2009 didn't go so well for them.) Rush Limbaugh was even gracious enough to refer to Obama's speech as a "personal bitch slap" to Republicans present. Honesty comes from surprising places.

Perhaps smarting from the speech, House republicans passed the Ryan budget plan anyway, with no Democrats at all supporting it, and shedding four of their ranks, to boot. (Interestingly, House Democrats tried to get Republicans to pass the Republican Study Committee budget proposal, which was even more conservative than Ryan's, by switching their votes from "no" to present; although Republican leadership hadn't expected the measure to pass with Democrats and Republican "no" votes, the Democrats' switch left Republican "yes" votes in the majority. The leadership yanked the bill before it could be passed.) Reid has already indicated the Ryan bill is D.O.A. in the Senate.

In short, Obama has played his advantages to the hilt in the last two days, and shown the Republicans to be out of their league. He's also shown his base--and his big-money donors--what they've been needing to see for a long time -- that he's the kind of leader that will openly stand up for Party principles and against those who would pull down the social safety system.

Now if we could just get him to rationally resolve the increasingly-unconstitutional Bradley Manning detainment, he'd be about perfect.

Earmarks Are Bad Unless You're Darrel Issa

Darrel Issa has spoken out against earmarks. So what's he doing requestingseveral for his district? Especially when it directly benefits him? Our friends at Think Progress explain:

One of Issa’s most valuable properties, a medical office building at 2067 West Vista Way in Vista, California, is called the Vista Medical Center, and was purchased in 2008 for $16.6 million. Described as “a long-term investment,” the property was bought by a company called Viper LLC, a business entity operated by Issa’s family that Issa has up to a $25 million dollar stake in.

Around the same time Issa made the Vista Medical Center purchase, the congressman began requesting millions of dollars worth of earmarks to widen and improve the highway adjacent to the building. In 2008, he requested $2 million to expand West Vista Way, the road in front of his “long-term investment,” but only received $245,000 from the government. The next year, Issa made another earmark request for improving the West Vista Way highway next to his building. He earmarked another $570,000, bringing his total to $815,000, to add parking lots, widen the road, add bus stops, improve the sewer system, and other utility work.
. . .
As ethics experts have explained, lawmakers should avoid earmarks in the immediate area of their own business interests.

Issa attempted to rebut the Think Progress report, stating he had not asked for any earmarks after purchase of the building, but the record shows otherwise:

– February 2009: A few months after closing the deal on his multi-million dollar Vista Medical Plaza office building, Issa pushes for his West Vista Way earmark in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. Unlike any of Issa’s other earmarks, Issa secured two separate earmarks for West Vista Way into the bill: one for $245,000 and another for $570,000.

– February 2009: Although Issa publicly listed over $200 million in earmarks for the FY2009 budget, he only secured a few. He did not obtain a million dollar Boys and Girl grant, nor did he secure one for a flood control grant in his district. Out of all of the earmarks he publicly listed, the West Vista Way one seemed to fair better than most.

– March 11, 2009: President Obama signs the Omnibus into law, granting a total of $815,000 to the West Vista Way project for Issa. Issa later begins advertising his Vista Medical Plaza and its “Excellent Access with Freeway Visibility.”

It's clear that Issa continued to ask for earmarks that would specifically benefit his interests well after he bought the building.

The North County Times, a San Diego/Riverside county local newspaper, took the local Tea Party to task for not criticizing Issa:

In October 2008, Issa's family business purchased a $16.6 million medical complex on West Vista Way, less than two miles from two other Issa investment properties and smack dab in the middle of $2 million in earmark requests that Issa had sponsored earlier that year. When the Omnibus Appropriations Act passed in February 2009, it included $815,000 in Issa-sponsored earmarks for West Vista Way.

In March 2010, just months before calling tea partiers "not angry enough," Issa famously swore off earmarks, declaring, "An earmark is tantamount to a bribe."

Apparently, Darrell Issa was for bribing himself with your tax dollars, before he was against it.

Considering the tea party's silence, we can only presume it agrees.

This just demonstrates two things. First, Issa will do what's good for Issa, regardless of the interests of his constituents, or morality. Second, the Tea Party is not interested in good governance; they are interested in no governance. Darrel Issa's kind of governance.

[Editor - Updated to correct my previous misspelling of Mr. Issa's first name. Apologies, Mr. Issa.]

We Finally Have A Democrat For President!

We were gratified to hear Obama's policy speech on the deficit and budget yesterday. He very much sounded like the Democrat we were certain we had voted for in 2008! His speech was somewhat short on specifics, but speeches like this always are--they are meant to lay out a basis for policy, not a blueprint for a budget vote.

He started with a distinctly Republican theme:

From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity. More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.

This myth of "rugged individualism" is pervasive in conservative circles, and belies the fact that the earliest Americans, as well as the founding fathers, were building a new nation, not a collection of individualists that did anything they wanted. There was very much the emphasis on the collective, not just the individual. In any event, it has been clear since the Great Depression, when the "free market" failed us so badly, that Americans have come rightly to rely more and more on their government.

And so, Obama appropriately replied:

But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves. And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we are a more prosperous country as a result.

And early Americans were deeply, deeply suspicious of the power of corporations, with which "rugged individualism" has unfortunately been conflated:

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1816 letter to George Logan: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Andrew Jackson: "Mischief springs from the power which the moneyed interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges... which are employed altogether for their benefit."

Without naming them, Obama laid the current deficit problems squarely at the Republicans' feet:

But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription drug program – but we didn’t pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts – tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country; tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.

To give you an idea of how much damage this caused to our national checkbook, consider this: in the last decade, if we had simply found a way to pay for the tax cuts and the prescription drug benefit, our deficit would currently be at low historical levels in the coming years.

Republican presidential challengers have been calling Obama's address "unserious," but this was a body blow to not just Republicans, but the Republican style of governing. Nice work, Mr. President.

He followed with a dose of reality, much needed these days:

But that starts by being honest about what’s causing our deficit. You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys. Most of us, regardless of party affiliation, believe that we should have a strong military and a strong defense. Most Americans believe we should invest in education and medical research. Most Americans think we should protect commitments like Social Security and Medicare.

. . .

The fact is, [the Republicans'] vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. As Ronald Reagan’s own budget director said, there’s nothing “serious” or “courageous” about this plan. There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill. And this is not a vision of the America I know.

The America I know is generous and compassionate; a land of opportunity and optimism. We take responsibility for ourselves and each other; for the country we want and the future we share. We are the nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shrouded in darkness. We sent a generation to college on the GI bill and saved millions of seniors from poverty with Social Security and Medicare. We have led the world in scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives.

He proposed, uniquely among recent presidents, cuts to the military. However, he did follow with a statement that gives us pause:

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cuts to that 12% alone won’t solve the problem. So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget.

This sounds like a signal Medicare and Medicaid are on the table. However, he clarified:

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care – not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

All in all, he laid out a distinctly progressive, distinctly Democratic vision of budget priorities. We applaud him for doing so before the real fight about the debt ceiling gets underway. The trick now will be to convince Democratic Senators to follow suit and not waver on the ideals Mr. Obama laid out so clearly.

Civil War, Rich Man's War

Yesterday was the official commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War.

"The War Between the States triggered generations of disputes and controversies between regions, races and cultures," said state Sen. Glenn McConnell, president pro tempore of the South Carolina Senate and a Civil War re-enactor.

"Why was the war fought? Was it about slavery or states' rights? What does the Confederate battle flag stand for? Is it a symbol of bigotry or a memorial to the valor of fallen soldiers," he asked about 700 people gathered at a ceremony commemorating the first shots of the war. "Many of the emotional issues still rage."

The Confederate Flag, in our view, is hardly a memorial to the "valor of fallen soldiers". Instead, given the treatment by slaveholders in the old South, it represents a vile regime in some respects as bad as the Nazis'. Watching some folks in the Old South states drive around in Confederate Flag-festooned pickup trucks is similar to imagined images of Germans driving around in Volkswagens with Nazi flags taped to their rear windows.

However, a different view of the Confederate South is emerging. It wasn't all pro-slavery, and it wasn't all pro-secession. Instead, the move to secession was driven by a moneyed few who dragged the rest of the populations along with them. This important article at DailyKos explains many of the details:

At no time during the winter of 1860-1861 was secession desired by a majority of the people of the slave states. . . . Furthermore, secession was not basically desired even by a majority in the lower South, and the secessionists succeeded less because of the intrinsic popularity of their program than because of the extreme skill with which they utilized an emergency psychology, the promptness by which they invoked unilateral action by individual states, and the firmness with which they refused to submit the question of secession to popular referenda.

. . .

In Georgia, voters actually preferred to stay in the Union by a margin of about 1,000 statewide. Yet, somehow, a secession convention was called, with slave holders comprising 87 percent of the delegates – even though they comprised only a third of qualified voters. As Williams writes, “Similar statistics at all the conventions virtually guaranteed secession regardless of the popular will.”

. . .

The key for the secessionists was, as Freehling explains, South Carolina, where anti-Union oligarchs with extensive commercial ties to England has been promoting secession since the 1830s Nullification Crisis. Votes on secession had been held in South Caroline in 1832-33 and again in 1850-51 but had never come close to a required two thirds majority. After John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry in October 1859, secessionists had quietly begun forming armed militias. A year later, whenever hostility to secession surfaced, these militias soon arrived to squash opposition, forcefully branding dissent as disloyalty to the South and her proud institutions. When South Carolina’s U.S. Senator James Hammond wrote a long public letter against secession, a coterie of editors helped Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell and leading secessionist, to suppress it. Aldrich openly averred that they could not wait “for the common people when a great move was to be made—We must make the move and force them to follow.”

Go read the rest of the article; there is much more in there. The Civil War was actually fomented by rich slaveholders, a small minority of the population, who stood to lose the most should abolition succeed.

Perhaps the best way to remember the Confederate South, therefore, is not the valor of fallen soldiers or famous battles. Instead, it should be remembered as a war generated by the moneyed, powerful few who, lying and suppressing dissent, sacrificed hundreds of thousands of their countrymen in a stupid and destructive war the successful outcome of which would have benefitted only of themselves.

In short, never let the super-rich and powerful run the country. Sadly, we seem to have forgotten that lesson completely.

Clinically Insane?

In an exchange on CNN today with Monica "not yet gellin'" Yellin, Saxby Chambliss, Republican Senator from the unfortunate state of Georgia, uttered the following:

Yellin: Senator Chamblis do you believe that Senate Republicans will agree to a [debt reduction] package that includes any sort of tax changes?

Chambliss: Well, the fact of the matter is that you can't solve this debt problem just with reductions in discretionary spending. You can't solve it just by attacking and reforming entitlements. You've got to look at the revenue side also.

What we are looking at proposing is actually a reduction in corporate rates and personal individual income tax rates, which will put more money in people's pockets and we're going to do that with the reduction in tax expenditures. Every time we've done that in years past whether it was under President Reagan or president Bush we have seen revenues increase. And we've got to have an increase in revenues if we are going to retire this debt... revenues have to be on the table if we're serious about attacking that debt.

(Emphasis is the Editor's.) So Saxby's "serious" approach to reducing the deficit is by reducing tax rates for at least his corporate owners, the idea being the old, hoary Republican fantasy that decreasing taxes increases revenues. This old lie has been disproven so many times, it should be included in the DSM IV as an indication of clinical insanity. It's clearly a break from reality.

This old lie is so prevalent, however, that Yellin didn't even catch it. Instead, she called it a "big concession" by Republicans. Her break from reality is almost as clean as Chambliss'.

Actually, the simpler explanation is that Chambliss is a Republican hack paid by his betters to push tax cuts for them. Yellin? Maybe she's playing for the same team.

California State Parks You Should Know - Cuyamaca Rancho State Park

One of my favorite San Diego-area State Parks is Cuyamaca Rancho, a 26,000 acre tract of land lying in the mountains about 50 miles east of the City proper. The park has it all - hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, grassy meadows, rocky mountains, streams--and ghosts of pine forests left by the 2003 Cedar Fire.

I split my time at the park roughly 3:1 mountain biking to hiking. Over the last couple of weeks, I visited twice, first hiking the Cold Spring Trail (about a 3 mile round trip), then mountain biking the Upper Green Valley Fire Road/Upper Green Valley Trail combination (about an 11.5-mile roundtrip). If you'd like to take the time, I'd like to share some photos of the two trips with you.

The Cedar Fire
To understand the condition of the Park in 2011, you have to know a little recent history - specifically, about the 2003 Cedar Fire. 2003 was a very dry year, and tinder lay in the forests of Cuyamaca Rancho like a match waiting to be struck. A hunter in the hills west of Cuyamaca became lost, and set a signal fire in an attempt to be found. Within hours, strong Santa Ana winds (blowing form the desert towards the shore) blew the fire west to burn over 100,000 acres. Those winds were replaced by shore winds that blew the fire back east towards Cuyamaca Rancho.

To get an idea of the size of the fire, see the video at this link, and the time-lapse video below, taken from the weather station at Mount Laguna, about 12 miles east of Cuyamaca Rancho. The three peaks in a row on the right side of the fire are, from left to right, Cuyamaca Peak, Middle Peak and North Peak, which lie in a row on the west side of the Park. At some points, you can see the fire practically explode when it hits the pine-forested slopes of the three peaks:



The fire burned so hot it not only killed the trees, but their seeds, as well. I remember going to the Park for the first time in 2005, and noticing how the trail surface was powdery and ashy; the fire had been hot enough to burn even the organic material in the soil. In an effort to mitigate the damage, Cal Fire and partners have begun planting seedlings to help reforest areas of the Park:



Since then, Cuyamaca Rancho has experienced a significant recovery. Follow me for two outings to get an idea of where the Park is now, and how valuable it still is.

The Cold Stream Trail
The Cold stream Trail starts at the Park Visitor Center and follows Highway 79 north. The trail initially follows a small grassy meadow. While some of the trees along the trail have been long dead:

the meadow, and much of the surrounding forest, have made a remarkable comeback:


Stonewall Peak, a scenic highlight of Cuyamaca Rancho, is visible in the background.


There's been a fair amount of rain and snow in the Cuyamaca Mountains the last couple of months, so Cold Stream was running pretty well over a small set of falls, the last feature before a turnaround point we took (the trail extends another mile or two northward):



* * * * * * * * * *

Upper Green Valley Trail
The next weekend, I hopped on the mountain bike and rode one of my favorite routes in the Park, the Upper Green Valley Trail, which starts from the same parking area as the Cold Stream Trail. The trail, which starts out as a fire road, roughly parallels the ambitiously-named Sweetwater River (it's no more than a creek) up Green Valley. The valley is wide and lush at the beginning:



Along the way, I stopped by an area where rangers had protected tree seedlings:

The riverbed itself is an interesting mix of freshly-growing desert scrub (mostly creosote bush), grasses, and burned trees still standing from the cedar Fire:



Following the trail up (it's a more or less continuous climb up the valley), you eventually break out of the trees and up to a pass between the two ridges defining the valley. Looking back, you can see the trail on the right, the valley spread out in the centers, and a private access road to the left:


This part of the trail gives you a panoramic view that is especially scenic on a partly cloudy day (it was quite windy when this footage was shot):


* * * * * * * * * *

These two trails are only a small sampling of the looks Cuyamaca Rancho State Park gives visitors. I'll post other trails in the future when I get to them. In the meantime, get outdoors and enjoy the trails close to your home; it will connect you to yourself as well as to the land.

Retired? They're Coming After You

Republicans aren't just looking to kill Medicare and Social Security. They're looking to dismantle any organization that supports these programs.

Representatives Dave Reichert (R-WA), Wally Herger (R-CA) and Charles Boustany (R-LA) sent a letter on Friday to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman requesting that the IRS investigate the Association for the Advancement of Retired Persons (AARP) to see if the organization actually qualifies as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization.

Herger provided a false-flag motivation for the request:

Over and over during the healthcare debate, questions arose about why AARP was appearing to lobby in opposition to its members," said Herger, who chairs the panel's health subcommittee. "We couldn't understand why AARP would support a healthcare reform bill that would threaten access to doctors (and) hospitals and could force seniors out of the plan they know and like ... We believe that AARP operates in direct opposition to the needs of their senior membership, and that seniors ought to be aware of these practices.

Like most Republicans, however, Herger lied about Obama's health care reform: it never threatened access to doctors, and never would have forced seniors out of a plan they know and like. Which were two of the reasons AARP supported the reform.

The real reason, of course, is that Republicans want, desperately, to privatize Social Security and Medicare. They've been trying for the last two years to make a case that Social Security is contributing to the deficit, even though it does not. And Representative Ryan has just proposed a plan that would privatize Medicare. And AARP is opposed to both such moves.

But not every Republican thinks going after AARP is a good idea:

In an op-ed in POLITICO earlier this month, former House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Bill Tauzin (R-La.) implored Republicans not to push for an end to AARP’s tax status on both policy and political grounds.

“[I]f one of the largest non-profits in existence becomes an expendable political casualty for short-term political gain coming out of congressional hearings, every non-profit organization would be left wondering if they’re going to face similar inquiries,” Tauzin wrote. “This won’t help Republicans long-term and it won’t help seniors in the short term.”

Tauzin is right. For Democrats, this attack on AARP can't be but a good thing. Republicans won big in 2010 partly by stoking seniors' fears that Democrats were cutting Medicare. This attack on AARP, coupled with Ryan's move, should signal to seniors that Republicans are the real party to fear.

Fraud in Wisconsin

Well, the Republicans couldn't afford to lose the (non-partisan) Wisconsin Supreme Court race between Republican-backed justice David Prosser and Democratic-backed challenger JoAnn Kloppenburg. And, as it turns out, they won't, thanks to County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus. To quote ABC:

But officials in heavily Republican Waukesha county now say they discovered a counting error that, when rectified, gives Prosser an additional 7,582 votes.

Waukesha county clerk Kathy Nickolaus blamed the error on her failure to save results from the Milwaukee suburb of Brookfield on her database. She told reporters, "This is human error which I apologize for."

Bullshit. Prosser looked to be losing by a razor-thin margin of 204 votes, and Nickolaus suddenly magically pulled an additional 7,582 Prosser votes out of thin air?

Then again, it would have been easy; she was keeping the election results on her personal computer, not the county's election computer system. Makes adjusting vote totals with a few keystrokes that much easier. And that much harder to verify or audit.

Wisconsin Assembly minority leader Peter Barca didn't exactly say bullshit about the results, but you could find it between the lines in his statement:

The way Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus revealed her discovery of 14,300 previously uncounted votes raises disturbing questions, particularly in light of her past partisan history. She has been the subject of multiple complaints from other Waukesha officials on how she handles elections and keeps public information to herself outside the official county system where others can verify it.

The new Supreme Court race vote totals she "discovered" during canvassing not only swung the election but also put the race just barely past the amount needed to trigger a state-financed recount.

It is especially troubling that she waited more than 24 hours to report the startling discovery and then did so at a press conference and only after she verified the results. This makes it all the harder to challenge and audit the integrity of the vote. . . .

County Clerk Nickolaus, who worked in the Assembly Republican Caucus under then Minority Leader and Speaker David Prosser, has a history of clashing with county officials over her election responsibilities. She has drawn criticism from the County Board Chairman and other County Supervisors as recently as January for her unwillingness to adhere to audit recommendations.

(Text bolded by Editor.)

If it looks like fraud and smells like fraud...it is fraud. This election was stolen, pure and simple.

PS - For those of you paying attention - why was Prosser's lead suddenly Nickolaused to +7500? Because Prosser needed just about that much to avoid a recount under Wisconsin state law. Pretty effing convenient.

Back In The Saddle

Well, a week-long business trip plus a death in the family equals not much time or inclination for blogging. Even when a hell of a lot is going on, like the Ivory Coast, Libya, Ryan's attack on the elderly, and the impending Republican-led government shutdown. Well, I'm back. Apologies to my readers for going dark for a few days.

California - The Cuts Begin

Governor Jerry Brown today signed thirteen budget bills that, in total, would reduce the state's budget deficit by over $11 billion.

What was cut?

Come July, welfare grants will be reduced by 8%, and parents will be kicked off the rolls after four years instead of the current five. Assistance for the elderly and disabled, in their homes and at senior centers, will also be reduced. State-subsidized child care for 11- and 12-year-olds will be eliminated. Brown sought to use the "painful" cuts he signed to make his case that Republicans should support the plan to ask voters to pay more taxes to bridge the remaining shortfall. "It's going to be much, much worse if we cannot get the vote of the people and the tax extensions," Brown said.

Already, roughly $2 billion will be shifted away from voter-approved mental health and early childhood programs to reduce the deficit. Community college fees will rise from $26 to $36 per unit next fall. And funding for state university systems will be slashed by $1 billion.

But California Republicans aren't going to help Brown in any way. They'll sit around Sacramento with their thumbs up their asses until it's too late to call a special election for June to let the voters decide on extensions of existing temporary tax increases. They really wish they could be in Wisconsin, or Florida, or Ohio, or Michigan, where Republicans have run amok with budget-slashing.

However, the voters in those states (at least Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan) have started to turn on the Republicans, generally giving them failing marks in recent polls. California voters, who didn't like the Republicans much in the 2010 elections (the Republican wave came to a crashing halt on our shores) will likely like them even less in 2010, just in time for them to vote in newly-redistricted districts. Compared to Brown's willingness to do what it takes to help the state, they look like complete losers at this point.

Governor Brown Checks In With The People Of California

Governor Brown has released a statement on YouTube:

[Unofficial transcript:] It's now been over three months since I was inaugurated as governor of California. I thought it was time to check in and give you a report.

Some big things have been going on in our capitol. Yes, there's some fighting among the parties, but, amazingly, there's been a lot of cooperation, and a lot of progress. So far, the Legislature of California has made cuts, billions of dollars, that many of you, and I myself, very much like, and we'd like to avoid these cuts, but it can't be done. We've been kicking the can down the road, you've been treated with evasions, with smoke and mirrors, and it's time to balance our books. Whether it's California, or most of the other states, or even the United States government, there's been a tendency to avoid reality, and you can't do that forever. We have a gap. In Sacramento, that gap is as high as $26 billion. About half of it has been reduced by some courageous moves by the California Legislature.

But more has to be done. We're only halfway there. In order to really put our books in balance, we need to either make drastic cuts to our universities, to our education, to our health care, to police services, to fire services, and many, many other things. I don't want to do that, and I don't think it should be done to you without your voice.

During the campaign, I said if we're going to have any taxes, or any big, major decisions, I'd want to check in and hear what you, the people of California, what do you want?

And so, my proposal, and what I'm asking the Legislature, both Parties, to give We The People, all of us in California, as voters, the opportunity to vote whether to extend some temporary taxes that were enacted two years ago, or whether to double up on our cuts and make some, I think some, drastic alterations in the very fabric of our public service.

This is a matter that's too big, to irreversible, to leave just to those whom you've elected. This is the time when the people themselves can gather together in a special election, and make the hard choice.

There will be a debate; you'll hear from many different points of view, but it will be bold, it will be a robust exchange of ideas, and something that I think has to be a precondition to making these tough choices. This is a matter of We The People taking charge, and voting on the most fundamental matters that affect all of our lives.

So let me know--let your Legislators know--would you like the chance to cast this vote? Or would you feel it's appropriate to shut out the people of California? I don't see this as a Democratic or a Republican issue. This is a matter of all of us thinking as Californians first, and acting in solidarity to grapple with problems that have been avoided too long. If we pull together, if we make the tough decisions, If we exercise the measure of discipline that the times call out for, Californians will continue to prosper in the years ahead.

Thank you.

Brown makes a compelling case for a special election; what, exactly, will be decided, once one gets into specifics, is another matter. However, given the relative approvals/disapprovals of Brown vs. the Legislature, it's a pretty fair bet Brown will get his way. According to Tuesday's Field poll of 898 registered voters:

Voters hold a very favorable view of how Jerry Brown is performing as governor. A Field Poll survey completed last week shows by a greater than two to one margin (48% to 21%) voters approve of Brown’s performance as governor. Another 31% have no opinion.

By contrast, just 16% of voters approve of the job that the state legislature is doing, while 70% disapprove.

State Republicans, however, the slightly-more-than-1/3-of-the-Legislature tail wagging the dog, are not budging on taxes. The State Republican Party just finished it's three-day convention, at which it decided to oppose the tax extensions, even if tied to reforms they do approve of.

Meanwhile, the appetite of California voters for tax extension is likely pretty weak; voters wouldn't even approve 2010's Proposition 21, a very modest vehicle license fee (eighteen dollars a year!) to help support State Parks. So any special election will probably be decided against raising, or extending, any taxes.

If that is the case, well, Brown and the Democrats will have done all they can reasonably do to save the state, and California will go down in flames at the hands of the voters. We hope we are wrong in our prediction, however.

Flustercluck!

Courtesy of Tom Tomorrow over at This Modern World, we now have the perfect name for our firm, unswerving Afghanistan policy. Click the link right now to see the rest of the strip, and the rest of his work.

He could have been talking about Libya, for that matter, but since it's so new, we suppose it's a different kind of flustercluck. Time will tell.

Fukushima Radiation In Southern California: Hardly Detectable So Far

A March 21, 2011 Global Security Newswire article reports that only minimal amounts of radiation have been detected by the EPA as of last Friday.

The EPA RadNet system -- established to supply scientists with real-time notifications of heightened radiation levels -- had not found any "radiation levels of concern," the release states. Similarly, an Energy Department initiative has found no radiation levels that prompt concern. . . .

A radiation monitor in Sacramento, Calif., on Friday found trace amounts of iodine isotopes that measure "approximately 0.0002 disintegrations per second per cubic meter of air" and do not represent a threat to public health, according to the release.

Well, iodine (Iodine-131) was one of the radioactive elements of concern (Cesium-137 is another). But what does "0.0002 disintegrations per second per cubic meter of air mean? Well, a "disintegration" is the process by which the nucleus of the iodine changes to produce radiation. Radiation is not produced continuously; one particle of radiation is produced per disintegration.

So 0.0002 disintegrations per cubic meter of air means 1 disintegration per 5000 cubic meters of air. How much is 5000 cubic meters of air? Well, if you have a 2000 square foot house with 8-foot ceilings, you have about 16,000 cubic feet of volume, which converts to about 453 cubic meters of air. So the figure provided equals about one disintegration per about 11 houses worth of air, per second. It's a pretty low number of disintegrations, and a pretty low amount of radiation.

But wait--this was on Friday, the first day the radioactive particles were predicted to arrive. What about today? The EPA has radiation monitoring stations in California, including in Anaheim, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego. According to this map, the monitoring station in San Diego is offline, but the stations in Anaheim, Los Angeles and Riverside are actively monitoring.

The Riverside monitoring station shows no evidence of an increase in radiation levels over the last three days:

Beta and gamma are two different types of radiation. According to the EPA website, the gamma radiation is broken up into different energy ranges to help determine which radioactive isotopes might be present. The word "gross" means "total," and "count rate" indicates relatively how much radiation is present; the higher the count rate, the more the radiation. What is important in looking at these charts is the average amount of radiation over several days; it appears to be approximately the same before and after March 18, the date when radiation was supposed to first reach California. There does not, yet, appear to be a trend of increasing radiation.

The Los Angeles charts tell a similar story:

Same with the Anaheim monitoring station:

The EPA cautions that:

As you view the data, be aware that there are often large differences in normal background radiation among the monitoring locations because background radiation levels depend on altitude and the amount of naturally occurring radioactive elements in the local soil. What is natural in one location is different from what is natural in another.

Thus, it appears that Southern California, for now, is seeing no discernible increase in radiation due to the Fukushima nuclear facility disaster. We will monitor the situation ourselves over the next couple of weeks to see if things change.

Elizabeth Warren - Through The Wringer

In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.

-- Republican Representative Spencer Bachus (AL), Wednesday December 8, 2010.

Given his posture of obeisance to bankers, Bachus was undoubtedly unhappy to see Obama place Elizabeth Warren, Harvard professor and chair of a Congressional Oversight Panel investigating the 2008 bank bailouts, in charge of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB):

Elizabeth Warren stands for transparency. After decades of abuse, consumers of financial products deserve prices that are clearly stated up front, risks that are plainly visible, and absolutely nothing buried in the fine print. This kind of transparency allows people to comparison shop in an effective way; it will also spur market competition and encourage the kind of innovation that really benefits consumers. It’s time to end the deception that comes packaged with complicated agreements wrapped around hidden fees and all kinds of nasty surprises.

Republicans are now winding up on Elizabeth Warren. The CFPB's job--and her job--is to regulate consumer credit markets. House Republicans held a hearing on Wednesday with Warren as star witness:

She may or may not be nominated by the president to serve as its first director when it goes live in July, but in the here and now she’s clearly running the joint.

And thus the real purpose of the hearing: to allow the Republicans who now run the House to box Ms. Warren about the ears. The big banks loathe Ms. Warren, who has made a career out of pointing out all the ways they gouge financial consumers — and whose primary goal is to make such gouging more difficult. So, naturally, the Republicans loathe her too. That she might someday run this bureau terrifies the banks. So, naturally, it terrifies the Republicans.

The banks and their Congressional allies have another, more recent gripe. Rather than waiting until July to start helping financial consumers, Ms. Warren has been trying to help them now.

. . .

At the request of the states’ attorneys general, all 50 of whom have banded together to investigate the mortgage servicing industry in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, she has fed them ideas that have become part of a settlement proposal they are putting together. Recently, a 27-page outline of the settlement terms was given to banks — terms that included basic rules about how mortgage servicers must treat defaulting homeowners, as well as a requirement that banks look to modify mortgages before they begin foreclosure proceedings. The modifications would be paid for with $20 billion or so in penalties that would be levied on the big banks.

Naturally, the banks hate these ideas, too. So the Republican members of the subcommittee had another purpose as well: to use the hearing to serve as a rear-guard action against the proposed settlement.

Senate Republicans have also indicated they would strive to block her nomination as head of the CFPB. It's clear that Congressional Republicans hate the very thought of protecting consumers against banks. In fact, they hate the idea of any financial reforms, whatsoever, arising from the banks' fraud, malfeasance, and mishandling of not only their own businesses by the American economy, including the Dodd-Frank bill, which created the CFPB:

The home page on the House Financial Services Committee’s Web site has been turned into a screed against Dodd-Frank. Clearly, the committee is going to spend this session trying to minimize the effect of the legislation, starving agencies of the funds needed to enact the regulations mandated by the new law, for instance. In fact, that effort has already begun.

It’s not just the House Republicans either. Already the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has reverted to form, becoming once again a captive of the banks it is supposed to regulate. (It has strenuously opposed the efforts of the A.G.’s to penalize the banks and reform the mortgage modification process, for instance.) The banks themselves act as if they have a God-given right to the profit they made precrisis, and owe the country nothing for the trouble they’ve put us all through. The Justice Department has essentially given up trying to make anyone accountable for the crisis.

The bankers' actions leading up to the Great Crash of 2008 were clearly criminal; they just haven't been so adjudicated in a court yet. And yet the Republicans in Congress are gunning for the one person in the one governmental Bureau that is designed to help protect you against those same banks.

To put it bluntly, Republicans have no problem at all with big banks fucking you over however they like.

And yet, having said that, certain members of the Obama administration, too, are not so keen on Warren:

If anything, Mr. Geithner at this stage is more pro-banking lobby than even Mr. Bachus. During the Dodd-Frank reform debate, Mr. Geithner would frequently argue that “capital, capital, capital” was all we really needed to fix the financial system.

. . .

And having Elizabeth Warren on the scene – providing an alternative pro-consumer perspective – is apparently increasingly inconvenient to Mr. Geithner. For example, he has expressed displeasure at her engagement in the mortgage settlement process.

. . .

Will Mr. Geithner go for the trifecta? He was instrumental in bailing out the big banks without any strings. He held back serious attempts at legislative reform. Will he now prevent Elizabeth Warren, our potentially most effective modern regulator, from even coming up for a vote in the Senate?

As recently as late last month, Warren publicly (and rightly) disagreed with Geithner's assessment of the strength of the banking sector:

"We have more concentration in the banking industry than we had before [and] we're going to have a ‘too big to fail' problem lurking around the edge of this financial system until we've demonstrated how we're going to deal with financial institutions who take on too much risk."

Just the kind of demonstration Geithner is dead-set against. Geithner, after all, helped to defeat the Brown-Kaufman Amendment, which limited the size of banks to protect the economy from their failure.

So far, Obama has made no moves to nominate Warren as head of the CFPB (her appointment now is temporary). Whether he does or not will indicate fairly clearly whether he stands with American consumers, or with the Republicans and the big banks.

Conservatives On Social Security - They Hate You

If you have any belief that conservatives really are thinking just about the budget when they mumble about reforming Social Security and Medicare, think again:

The hole in the government finances, the utter mess of ObamaCare, the coming Medicare maelstrom: how did we get in this mess? The short answer is that it all started in about 1850 when sensitive people started worrying about the poor suffering workers. Oh no, they cried. We have to do something. They were sensitive, those people, but they were not smart. Their "do something" always ended up as some centralized administrative government program, with government taking money from its least favorite citizens and giving it to its most favored citizens, and calling the result compassion.

Earth to sensitive people. Scientists have not called humans "social animals" for nothing. "Society" is not an administrative mechanism but a living organism in which each human participates in complex acts of cooperation, social mores, and, as a last resort, force. The "trick," as climate scientists put it, is to get as many people as possible acting out of cooperative and moral motives.

Let's put this in evolutionary, Darwinian terms for our liberal friends. The reason that all human societies have adapted to feature cooperation and religion is because these social inventions reduce the need for force and its administrative horror show. In our age we are foolish enough to put this to the test. We have created a mechanical monster, the modern centralized administrative state, to rumble over society, tearing up its complex social interactions with unstoppable force. Pay for the government's Social Security plan or go to jail. Join the government's universal health plan or go to jail. Send your kid to government school or go to jail. The result is like an Asian tsunami, a debris field of broken dreams and promises.

(Excuse me while I wipe the spittle from my cheek.)

No, they hate Social Security and Medicare. They hate the very idea of those two programs, and they have a fundamental contempt for their fellow Americans that not only like those two programs, but rely on them. And they have a fundamental contempt for Americans that actually care about other Americans.

Honestly, these people really think we would be better off back in the social Middle Ages, when "every man for himself" was the rule of the day. These are people who honestly believe that society would be better off if it would just cut its weaker members loose. They also hate the idea they might have to contribute to the betterment of any aspect of society. Judging by the quote above, they hate a lot of the very things that are the reasons people emigrate to this country.

Interestingly, one commenter to the article quoted above stated:

I've been making forced contributions to social insecurity for 34 years, since I was 15 years old. I would like to get back at least what I put in, but the money is gone and we are going to have to face up to that fact sooner or later. My husband and I would gladly agree to give up all we have been forced to pay in if the corrupt government would agree not to take any more social insecurity taxes from our paychecks or our childrens' paychecks.

To the commenter: you might as well go ahead and tattoo a big, fat, red "S" on your forehead right now, because you're a sucker. You drank the Konservative Koolaid on Social Security, and you're ready to do what they want--give it all up. Congratulations on making it through retirement...maybe your kids can support you.

Your Social Security - They're Coming After It

Social Security is, right now, a safe, secure, over-funded government program. It is in no danger of default, and it is in now way "broken" as so many talking weasels on TV would like you to believe.

However, your Social Security is in danger right now. Both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill are about to start a massive push to "reform" entitlements--which, in their mind, necessarily includes Social Security.

On Friday, 60 Senators from both parties wrote a letter to President Obama urging him to think more seriously about reducing the deficit:

Dear President Obama:

As the Administration continues to work with Congressional leadership regarding our current budget situation, we write to inform you that we believe comprehensive deficit reduction measures are imperative and to ask you to support a broad approach to solving the problem.

As you know, a bipartisan group of Senators has been working to craft a comprehensive deficit reduction package based upon the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission. While we may not agree with every aspect of the Commission’s recommendations, we believe that its work represents an important foundation to achieve meaningful progress on our debt. The Commission’s work also underscored the scope and breadth of our nation’s long-term fiscal challenges.

Beyond FY2011 funding decisions, we urge you to engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit reduction package. Specifically, we hope that the discussion will include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform.

By approaching these negotiations comprehensively, with a strong signal of support from you, we believe that we can achieve consensus on these important fiscal issues. This would send a powerful message to Americans that Washington can work together to tackle this critical issue.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

(Emphasis added.) The letter was signed by Senators Mike Johanns (R-NE) and Michael Bennet (D-CO). In addition to Johanns and Bennet, the letter was signed by the following Senators:

Republicans:

Lamar Alexander (R–TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Scott Brown (R- MA), Richard Burr (R -NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsay Graham (R-SC) John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rob Portman (R-OH),? James Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Richard Shelby (R-AL), John Thune (R-SD) and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Democrats:

John Kerry (D-MA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Mark Begich (D-AK), Thomas Carper (D-DE), Mark Udall (D- CO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Jon Tester (D-MT), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), Al Franken (D-MN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) , Kent Conrad (D-ND) , Mark Warner (D-VA), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tom Udall (D-NM) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

You'll notice that California Senator Feinstein signed the letter, but California Senator Barbara Boxer did not. Good for Senator Boxer. (Interestingly, both Johanns and Bennet joined the Senate in 2009, so the group of Senators has chosen its youngest, least experienced (and most politiclaly sacrificable?) members as spear-carriers in this effort.)

However, despite the letter's concern that Obama "send a powerful message to Americans" that they can work together on the deficit, Americans, by and large, don't effing care about the deficit right now. Especially at the expense of Social Security:

Less than a quarter of Americans support making significant cuts to Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country's mounting deficit, according to a new [March 3, 2011 - ed.] Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, illustrating the challenge facing lawmakers who want voter buy-in to alter entitlement programs.

In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

(Emphasis added.) Note the bolded text above. Lawmakers of both parties have already decided to cut Social Security. They just need to find a way to convince suckers in the voting public that cuts are necessary. There is a big push now, in Washington and in the Beltway media, to convince you that (1) Social Security is broke; and (2) Social Security is causing deficit problems. Neither one is true. Both are lies. Both are designed to convince you to part with your money, much as a scam artist uses fast talk and pressure to bilk you.

First, Social Security is, according to the Social Security Administration, fully funded until at least 2037. Talking-head weasels like Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post will try to convince you otherwise because the Social Security Trust Fund is composed of special Treasury Bonds. Those special Treasury Bonds were issued by the federal government as promises to repay funds that were borrowed for general expenses from an overfunded Social Security program. To restate: the federal government, for years, saw that Social Security was taking in more of your money than it was paying out to retirees, and borrowed your money, giving you a bond--a promise to repay, with interest--in return. But little talking-head weasels like Krauthammer are arguing that those bonds don't mean anything--there really isn't any money there at all! Only stacks of meaningless paper! Too bad, so sad!

Those special Treasury Bonds, the ones Krauthammer says aren't important, are promises from the federal government to the American people. And not just promises--they're just about the most important promises the government has made to you because you gave that money up on the premise that you'd get it back when you were too old to work anymore. If the government renegs now--if those 60+ Senators, and the weaselly Krauthammers of the world, get their way--it's effectively stolen your money. And left you with nothing in return.

Look, the only way people like him can take your money is if you let them convince you the money is gone, and you can't ever get it back. People like him should be fighting for you to keep your money, all that money you paid into the Social Security system, but they're not. How come?

Because they and their buddies never wanted you to have it in the first place. People like them hated the idea of Social Security from the very beginning on muddle-headed moral grounds. And now they've apparently convinced a lot of Republican and Democratic Senators you shouldn't have it, too. And those Senators are starting to work hard with the little Krauthammers of the world to take your money from you.

Social Security is no more broke now than back in 2005 when the Republicans tried to privatize it then.

Second, Social Security isn't causing the deficit. It's fully-funded at this point. It is funded by its own tax. Even Republicans who want to cut your Social Security acknowledge it

is not causing a deficit - here's Paul Ryan last month:

Social Security is not a contributor to our deficit of any material right now. Social Security is not a big driver of our debt problems.

So if the Senators above are all concerned about the deficit, why do they appear to be laying the groundwork for going after Social Security? Privatization.

In 2005, Republicans, having control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, tried to push Social Security privatization through--and the American people didn't want it. They're getting ready to try the same thing now, only they've managed to convince some Democrats to follow them now that the economy has been trashed by the Great Crash of 2008.

As recently as March 15, 2011, Republicans, with a few Democrats, defeated a bill in the House that would only have prevented privatization of Social Security. The bill was defeated 271-158, with all but one Republican voting it down. Which San Diego-area House members voted (essentially) for privatization? Bilbray, Hunter and Issa (all Republicans). Which ones voted against privatization? Davis and Filner (both Democrats).

Who would control Social Security if the fund is privatized? Banks. Private banks. You know, the same ones that gambles with everyones' money in the real estate market runup from 2002-2006, and caused the Great Crash of 2008, the crash that destroyed so many people's hard-saved earnings and destroyed so many jobs. Those banks. Those same banks that have so thoroughly corrupted our political system today.

Do you want them controlling your Social Security money? Do you want those 60+ Senators who signed that letter to Obama, or those 271 House members, to let them?

Me neither. Be sure to contact Feinstein, Bilbray, Hunter and Issa and let them know.

Fukushima Radiation Really IS Expected To Hit Southern California!

An article in the New York Times today reports a United Nations forecast of the path of radiation from the crippled Fukushima Nuclear Plant in Japan, which:

shows it churning across the Pacific, and touching the Aleutian Islands on Thursday before hitting Southern California late Friday.

Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule.

The projection, by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, an arm of the United Nations in Vienna, gives no information about actual radiation levels but only shows how a radioactive plume would probably move and disperse.

All experts agreed that the threat of harmful radiation exposure was minimal, if not nonexistent. We suppose that's reassuring, but color us a little skeptical; our respective governments--and their experts--have a knack for not telling us exactly everything we need to know, when we need to know it. At least the Environmental Protection Agency is setting up additional radiation monitoring in the Western U.S., and, at least as of March 16, radiation levels in San Diego were normal (however, keep in mind that the radioactivity, according to the article above, would hit on Friday March 18, if it hits at all).

What is distinctly not reassuring is reports that the Japanese are losing control of the situation:

Officials around the world are increasingly concerned that Japan's mounting nuclear disaster is out of control. . . . Japanese military helicopters are today dumping tons of seawater on the plant in a desperate bid to avert a nuclear meltdown, but CBS News notes that TV footage shows the wind apparently causing much of the water to disperse. Australia's ABC News adds that the last-ditch attempt to cool the reactors appears to have had no major effect, with only two of the four drops hitting their mark. . . . "The next 48 hours will be decisive."

We're not out of the woods yet.

Why Isn't Wall Street In Jail?

If you haven't seen Matt Taibbi's massively important article in Rolling Stone "Why Isn't Wall Street In Jail?" yet, go read it now - it's that important.

Over drinks at a bar on a dreary, snowy night in Washington this past month, a former Senate investigator laughed as he polished off his beer.

"Everything's fucked up, and nobody goes to jail," he said. "That's your whole story right there. Hell, you don't even have to write the rest of it. Just write that."

. . .

he rest of them, all of them, got off. Not a single executive who ran the companies that cooked up and cashed in on the phony financial boom — an industrywide scam that involved the mass sale of mismarked, fraudulent mortgage-backed securities — has ever been convicted. Their names by now are familiar to even the most casual Middle American news consumer: companies like AIG, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley. Most of these firms were directly involved in elaborate fraud and theft. Lehman Brothers hid billions in loans from its investors. Bank of America lied about billions in bonuses. Goldman Sachs failed to tell clients how it put together the born-to-lose toxic mortgage deals it was selling. What's more, many of these companies had corporate chieftains whose actions cost investors billions — from AIG derivatives chief Joe Cassano, who assured investors they would not lose even "one dollar" just months before his unit imploded, to the $263 million in compensation that former Lehman chief Dick "The Gorilla" Fuld conveniently failed to disclose. Yet not one of them has faced time behind bars.

There's a lot more; go read the rest of the article. Have a couple of stiff drinks handy for when you do.

No, these people didn't go to jail, and that's a measure of how thoroughly and deeply our government--on both the Republican and the Democratic side--really is. And it's a measure of how powerful the deeply corrupt banking sector of our economy is these days that they can blunt any effort to prosecute them.

If there were an ounce of justice in the world, they'd have long ago been lined up along a cinder block wall, blindfolded, and...well, you get the picture. But they bought up justice in this country years ago, and it doesn't see them any more.