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.

Social Security Is Insurance

Republicans and conservatives are fond of referring to Social Security as "handouts" and "welfare" (and just for the record, Robert Samuelson, you are an idiot) in an effort to make the program seem morally wrong. President Reagan taught us to hate welfare because a lot of African Americans get it (even though the majority of recipients are caucasian), so calling it "welfare" rubs us the same wrong way. And who approves of anyone getting "handouts"? Republicans hate dealing with anyone needy enough to need help--you know, like the elderly.

Well, Social Security is neither welfare nor handouts. It's insurance. It's insurance you buy all during the course of your working life against the possibility of not having enough money to live on after you retire. You pay the premiums; you deserve the payoff when you get old enough to collect benefits. The fact that it's a pay-as-you-go system doesn't change this characteristic of the program one bit.

Imagine if you bought car insurance from XYZ Insurance Corporation. You pay your premiums faithfully for 20 years. Then one day, you get into an accident, and your car is totaled (you're OK). You go to your XYZ representative and say "It's time to retire the car, per the policy - please write me a check." However, a funny-looking guy in the lobby looks at you and tells you you really shouldn't be asking for welfare. Besides, he continues, it's not fair. Your premiums have already been used to pay other drivers, and more drivers have been having accidents lately, so everyone's going to have to cut back on what they expect to get out of their insurance contracts. You should have been more careful, he continues. Maybe if you'd saved up some money, you could have paid for the damage to the car yourself rather than asking him for a handout.

Your agent calls the guy an idiot, and gives you the check because, you know, you have an insurance contract. Just like seniors do with Social Security.

Anyone who tries to convince you that Social Security is "welfare" or a "government handout" is either an idiot who doesn't understand the system, or is actively trying to discourage you from collecting your money. And you really should step back and ask them why they don't want you to have your money, and what they want to do with your money instead.

In the "marketplace" of political ideas, it's caveat emptor all the way. Especially if the seller is a Republican.

Your Biggest Investment

They say most peoples' biggest investment is their home. Wrong.

Most peoples' biggest investment is their government. You pay a mortgage on your government every year of your working life. And the Republicans, especially the Tea Party Publicans, are trying to burn your investment down.

What would YOU do if an arsonist tried to burn your house down?

California Redistricting - Redistricting Assistance Sites Opening Soon

The Redistricting Group at Berkeley Law is opening up six Redistricting Assistance sites around the state:

View Redistricting Assistance Sites in a larger map

According to RedistrictingCA:

The Redistricting Group at Berkeley Law (affiliated with the Statewide Database) is opening 6 sites in the following locations: San Diego, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Fresno, Sacramento and Berkeley, that will have computers with redistricting software available for use by the general public. The sites are designed to encourage public participation in the state redistricting process, and can be used to develop map submissions or testimony for the redistricting commission. This is a project funded by The James Irvine Foundation to increase access to data, software and information about the 2011 Redistricting Process.

More on this tomorrow.

Michigan Republicans Go Off The Deep End

According to Rick Snyder, wealthy businessman and freshly-minted Republican governor of Michigan, the state, which is approximately $1.4 billion in the red, requires "shared sacrifice" to solve its budget problems. So how does that shared sacrifice work?

*His $45.9 billion proposal includes spending cuts for schools and would eliminate many personal tax breaks while slashing business taxes. Among the proposals: ending exemptions from the state income tax for most pension income.*

OK, we get it - You sacrifice your tax dollars, and your school funding, and he shares the proceeds with his business buddies.

This shouldn't be a surprise - businessmen make lousy, lousy governors precisely because they think like businessmen. They think in terms of businesses, not people; their natural affinity is to other businessmen, not to the workers that make up the vast bulk of their constituency. The bottom line is profit, not people. People don't count that much to businessmen like Snyder, particularly people that can't work anymore:

“Lansing politicians say everyone must share in the sacrifices, yet the only ones making the sacrifices in this unfair budget are seniors, schools and ordinary families,” said Henry Lykes, a retired Marine and retired Wayne County public service worker. “Lansing politicians must stop exploiting Michigan’s budget as an excuse to attack ordinary Michigan families, seniors and our children. I know a retiree in Westland who is struggling to get by. If Gov. Snyder taxes her retirement, she may have to cut back on her medicines, or even food. That’s just not fair.”

And with that sole motive comes a disdain, if not an outright dislike, of working people, especially union people, which is why he's been moving to bust unions in the same way Scott Walker has in Wisconsin.

All of which sets up the really seriously radical, undemocratic, un-American moves Snyder is pushing for, along with the Republican majority in the Michigan Legislature:

Newly elected Republican governor, Rick Snyder, is set to pass one of the most sweeping, anti-democratic pieces of legislation in the country – and almost no one is talking about it.

Snyder’s law gives the state government the power not only to break up unions, but to dissolve entire local governments and place appointed “Emergency Managers” in their stead. But that’s not all – whole cities could be eliminated if Emergency Managers and the governor choose to do so. And Snyder can fire elected officials unilaterally, without any input from voters. It doesn’t get much more anti-Democratic than that.

Except it does. The governor simply has to declare a financial emergency to invoke these powers – or he can hire a private company to declare financial emergency and take over oversight of the city. That’s right, a private corporation can declare your city in a state of financial emergency and send in its Emergency Manager, fire your elected officials, and reap the benefits of the ensuing state contracts.

Think about that for a moment. These are a dictator's powers Snyder is seizing. Simply by declaring an emergency, the Governor, by fiat, can dissolve local governments, hire a corporation from out of the state to come in and tell everyone what to do and how to do it, and you're forced to pay for it. The good people of Michigan, who have been designated "sacrificers" in the new regime of "shared sacrifice," will have absolutely no say in how their town or county is run.

And how will the Emergency Managers, these Republican commissars empowered by Snyder to so dismantle local governments, perform their duties?

Because the bill establishes no process for how appointees can carry out their new powers and specifically lays out that Emergency Managers need not consult with a community’s elected representatives, some worry that corporate managers, appointed by the governor, could liquidate community assets to cover debt and leave towns no better off than they were.

What values will guide these individuals or firms as they work to balance budgets?

How will a manager decide whether to sell off an ice rink or a library?

The Treasury Dept. is in the process of training potential Emergency Managers, so the Messenger asked for some details of the training in hopes of better understanding the motivations and priorities of the folks who may soon take over our schools and towns.

It turns out the training itself was mostly outsourced to the law and accounting firms — Plante & Moran, Plunkett & Cooney, Miller Canfield, Foley & Lardner — already involved in emergency financial management of Michigan towns.

And none of this is about the budget. It's all about busting up unions, and, even more importantly, selling off state functions to corporations. Because as we mentioned above, businessmen think only of profit, and there's no profit in letting a government perform a government's functions. Republicans like Snyder want only to privatize your government so they and their buddies can make a profit off of you.

The inimitable Rachel Maddow has more:

This is Republicans showing their true colors.

Fukushima Radiation - Update

If this is true, it's pretty frightening. From FishOutofWater over at Daily Kos: Breaking - Spent Fuel Fire At Reactor 4, Hydrogen Explosion & Radiation Release:

This is live coverage of the HNK feed. I'm doing my best to make sense of the translation. Apparently there is an ongoing fire that may be a spent fuel fire. This is very concerning. Evacuation has been ordered up to 30 km (20 miles). A spent fuel fire has the potential of causing far greater radiation release to the environment than a reactor accident.

The number 4 reactor was not operating at the time of the earthquake according to NHK. However, the loss of power that occurred when the tsunami wiped out the diesel generators caused the spent fuel pools to lose water circulation. Heat from the spent fuel would have eventually boiled off the water once circulation was lost. When spent fuel is uncovered it can heat up to such high temperatures that its zirconium alloy cladding catches fire. That appears to have taken place. Moreover these conditions apparently led to hydrogen generation which caused an explosion that destroyed the roof of the reactor 4 building.

. . .

NOAA particle trajectory modeling indicates the possibility of low levels of particles from the accident vicinity reaching the Pacific northwest of the U.S. in 84 hours. Levels in the U.S. would likely be diluted to very low levels by dispersion and mixing.

Most radioactive particles will probably end up in the Pacific Ocean.

(Emphasis added.) Go to the link above for more details, and contingency wind pattern diagrams.

A New Civil Rights Movement

Two videos out of Wisconsin are definitely worth the time to watch today.

In the first, a Wisconsin farmer, Tony Schultz, explains, among other things, that the previous "support" from farmers for Scott Walker's plan to gut Badgercare (Wisconsin's implementation of Medicare) were actually from large factory farms; family farmers from Wisconsin would be hurt by Walker and his Republican cronies:

WATCH THIS VIDEO and please share it widely. Republicans have ruled red and rural America for a generation, playing off of fears, driving wedges, creating sterotypes. And Democracts, it must be said, have too often given them an open field to do so. It took Scott Walker and his minions to bring it fully to the surface here in Wisconsin. Tony passionately states the common threats we face, and the opportunity we have to rebuild the connections across the landscape for a progressive future. Ironically, Scott Walker is ignorant of rural and small town Wisconsin, and the social fabric that keeps small town life healthy -- the schools, health care, environmental stewardship, the local cops and firefighters. Tony reveals that here.

In the next video, Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) breathes the fire of the righteous in his address to the Madison Workers' Rights Rally when he lays out for all to witness how our American democracy is being sold down the river to corporations, primarily by the Republicans:

What we have here today in Wisconsin is the beginning of a new civil rights movement.

Best line of the speech? "Economic democracy is a predicate to political democracy!" Will post a transcript when one becomes available.

By the way - where are Obama and the Democratic leadership on the labor rights protests in Wisconsin? Where are they on supporting workers' rights? Silent. Mute. Absent without leave. It's as if they don't care about the millions of Wisconsoners that elected them. The uncomfortable, but most rational, conclusion to draw is that they approve of Walker's actions. And why should Obama support workers' rights, after all? He was never a worker himself, only organizer, professor, and professional politician.

It's time we demand that the Democratic Party return to its roots as a party of the people. It's time the people took its party back.

California Potentially In Path Of Fukushima Radiation

Up to six cores at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Sendai, Japan may have already experienced meltdown. Unfortunately, this looming disaster raises the possibility (and at this point, it is just that, a possibility) of wind carrying airborne radioactivity as far as California:

California is closely monitoring efforts to contain leaks from a quake-damaged Japanese nuclear plant, a spokesman said Saturday, as experts said radiation could be blown out across the Pacific.

. . .

"At present there is no danger to California. However we are monitoring the situation closely in conjunction with our federal partners," Michael Sicilia, spokesman for California Department of Public Health, told AFP.

. . .

Experts have suggested that, if there were a reactor meltdown or major leak at Fukushima, the radioactive cloud would likely be blown out east across the Pacific, towards the US West Coast.

"The wind direction for the time being seems to point the (nuclear) pollution towards the Pacific," said Andre-Claude Lacoste of the French Nuclear Safety Authority, briefing journalists in Paris on the Japanese crisis.

Time to recall that Southern California has two nuclear reactors of its own at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Let's hope the Big One never hits here.

Japan - Six Fukushima Cores Melted Down?

Reuters tweet: FLASH: #Japan chief cabinet secretary says risk of explosion at building housing #Fukushima Daiichi No. 3 reactor

AUToday tweet: #fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. No.3 reactor now of concern. The power company has raised the warning leave to 4 on a scale of 0-7. #eqjp

United for Peace of Pierce County: Core Melting Presumed at Multiple Reactors as Six Cores Lost at Fukushima:

Efforts to cool nuclear fuel rods appeared to be failing at three reactors at two nuclear power plants in Japan's Fukushima prefecture, 150 miles north of Tokyo, in the aftermath of the devastating Mar. 11 earthquake (upgraded to 9.0 on the Richter scale, and now said to be the biggest within the boundaries of the North American and Pacific tectonic plates in 1,200 years) and tsunami, the London Guardian suggested.[1] -- "Kyodo News quoted Tepco as saying that the up to three meters of MOX fuel rods were exposed above water at the Fukushima plant," Justin McCurry said. -- "Shaun Burnie, an independent nuclear energy consultant and forner head of nuclear campaigns at Greenpeace, said the presence of a percentage of fuel core loaded with plutonium MOX fuel in the No. 3 reactor posed a grave threat to the surrounding area. 'Plutonium MOX fuel increases the risk of nuclear accident due the neutronic effects of plutonium on the reactor,' Burnie told the Guardian. 'In the event of an accident -- in particular loss of coolant -- the reactor core is more difficult to control due to both neutronics and higher risk of fuel cladding failure.'" -- China's Xinhua news agency reported that "the TEPOC reported that the No. 3 reactor at the plant lost its ability to cool the reactor core, becoming the sixth reactor that lost the function after No. 1 and No. 2 reactors at the No. 1 plant and No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 at the No. 2 plant had suffered the same trouble." -- Bloomberg Businessweek downplayed the fears about the nuclear emergency.[3] -- But the New York Times called the "widening nuclear crisis" the "worst involving a nuclear plant since the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago."

CNN: Quake moved Japan's coast 8 feet closer to the U.S.

NASA photo of Sendai flooded areas:

Japan quake upgraded to 9.0. Now tied for 4th most powerful quake in recorded history.

Iowa - Leave No Mentally-Defective Gun Owner Behind

Iowa Republicans are making love to their guns again:

Republicans this week revived a proposal that would allow Iowans to carry weapons in public without permission from a sheriff, without background checks and without training requirements. The legislation, House Study bill 219, is known as “Alaska carry,” which is law in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming.

Republican Jeff Kaufmann joked that the law was the "give-a-handgun-to-a-schizophrenic bill".

No background checks and no training requirements? Honestly, why don't they just pass a law stating we can drive 120 while downing a bottle of Jack Daniels? We'd be just as safe.

Of course, we're missing the psychology here; a law about being able to carry weapons in public, with Johnny law unable to say squat about it, is all about pissants projecting personal power to make up for a four-inch pecker.

California Citizens' Redistricting Commission - Who Are The DTS Members? Focus on Forbes

The California Citizens' Redistricting Commission has 14 members. Five of the members are Democratic, five are Republican, and four are "DTS,' or Decline To State party. One requirement for the DTS commissioners was that they had to have been consistently registered with a political party or DTS for 5 years prior to their appointment; as such, they couldn't merely state on their application (for example, for purposes of loading the commission with one party or another) that they were DTS.

So who are the DTS members of the Commission? They are Stanley Forbes of Esparto; Connie Galambos-Malloy of Oakland; Michelle R. DiGuillo (Stockton); and M. Andre Parvenu (Culver City).

I always wonder about "decline to state" voters. Do they truly hew to neither the Democratic or Republican Parties? Do they tend towards a third party? Are they really Democrats or Republicans, but some aspect of state or local politics irritated them enough to change their preferences on their voter registration? Such motivations are not necessarily a part of the public record. However, some information can be gleaned from simple web searches.

Today, we'll focus on Stanley Forbes of Esparto. Forbes is white, male, lives in Esparto in Yolo County and earns between $35,000 and $75,000; has a Bachelor's degree in history from the University of Southern California, and a Master's in history from UCLA. He holds a law degree from Vanderbilt University School of Law. He is co-owner of The Avid Reader bookstore in Sacramento; and owner-operator of Forbes Ranch.

According to the Citizens' Redistricting Commission website:

Mr. Forbes is a co-owner of Avid Reader, a small retail bookstore. There he selects merchandise, sells and markets books, provides customer service and attends to financial matters. Mr. Forbes also has spent the last 32 years operating a family ranch, managing crop selection, market research, financial planning, equipment operation, irrigation, chemical and air quality regulation compliance, pruning and raking almonds. Mr. Forbes received a Bachelor's degree from the University of Southern California, a Master's degree from UCLA, and a Law Degree from Vanderbilt University. Mr. Forbes is registered as Decline-To-State.

"I am applying to serve on the Citizens Redistricting Commission out of a deep concern that unless reformed, California may be unable to effectively address the problems it faces as well as maximize the opportunities that will enable the people of California to pursue and fulfill their potential."

Well, the last statement sounds nice, but substance-wise is little more than political pablum. Granted, the California state Legislature is largely gridlocked now (primarily because the 2/3 majority requirement for raising any fees or taxes give the 36% of Republicans in the Legislature undue influence). However, how does Forbes plan to correct the situation?

Perhaps his Supplemental Application holds some clues. To explain why he wanted to serve on the Commission, Forbes explained that:

Legislative districts should represent communities of interests. This is inherently difficult in California given its regional and demographic diversity. As Mark Baldassare put it in his book, “California in the New Millennium”, California is in many ways four states with mutually suspicious ethnic communities all of which distrust the government. I believe these differences can be overcome provided the districts are based on communities of interest criteria: geographic, ethnic, economic and many others. As it stands now however, the primary community of interest is political party registration. This effectively results in many single party legislative districts that may not represent communities of interest that reflect our common interests in solving the problems facing the state. With single party districts and typically low turnout primaries, party activists who are more ideologically, rather than consensus or compromise, driven exercise a disproportionate influence on who is nominated and therefore who is elected than the public at large in their districts. This results in a Legislature excessively polarized and gripped by legislative gridlock.

California cannot successfully address its problems and build on its opportunities without ridding the Legislature of this partisan paralysis. This paralysis can only be overcome by developing legislative districts that are based on community of interest criteria other than political parties so that compromise and consensus building can be returned to our political process.

So Forbes appears to believe that political affiliation does not represent a "community of interest"? Political party affiliation is a reflection of commonality of interests and values, both economic, social. There's a reason Republican Districts are drawn to encompass wealthier, more upscale, and/or more socially-conservative neighborhoods and areas; that's how they tend to think generally. Political party affiliation is not a cynical substitute for "communities of interest" cooked up by the Legislature; it's the result of communities of interest.

In any event, Forbes looks like a Commissioner who will not just ignore political party affiliation in redrawing district lines, but will actively break political party-based communities whenever possible.

Forbes is right with respect to one community of interest: the 2001 redistricting has been rightly accused of not just preserving incumbents' seats, but acting to suppress the burgeoning Latino vote. We expect the Commission will have, as a primary task, rectifying this situation. Forbes seems attuned to this:

California is our nation’s most diverse state, and there is every reason to believe that that diversity will only increase given immigration and the higher birthrate of our new residents. This can and should be a source of strength, energy, and vitality. But the benefits are not automatic. Left unrecognized, diversity can be a source of social and political corrosion that can result when a population feels alienated and excluded from the political process and proposals made to address California’s opportunities and problems.

Given the remainder of his Supplemental Application, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's alluding to Latinos and not to Republicans. However, the letter of recommendation from Pam Nieberg points to the former interpretation:

Stan, in his work on the [Davis] School Board and City Council, made efforts to recognize the diversity of our citizens and to accommodate that diversity. While on the School Board, Stan strongly supported and voted for the Spanish Immersion Program in our schools and encouraged diversity in hiring. He also studied demographic data to help determine where schools would afford the greatest ethnic and economic diversity. On the Council, his concern for economic diversity encouraged him to ensure that all were represented in the political process. He also worked on policies that ensured that 25% of our housing in all developments qualified as low income housing.

So what else does Forbes believe?

[California] suffers from a taxation system that many consider overburdens business and is too volatile.

I have no idea what "volatile' means here, but complaints about the effects of taxation on business are standard, meat-and-potatoes Republican fare. Consistent with this, according to Davis Wiki, Forbes was registered as a Republican until 2006.

Forbes does, however, appear to have a reputation for patiently listening to all sides of a particular issue. According to research by the Bureau of State Audits:

Bureau staff contacted Pam Nieberg, the author of one of Applicant’s letters of recommendation . . . [S]he witnessed Applicant working in his capacity as a council member, and joined him to support local candidates in campaigns for the Davis City Council and the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Nieberg indicated that Applicant operates as a consensus builder. When faced with an opposing viewpoint, Applicant tends not to hastily argue the matter and force his views on the other person, but instead works toward reaching agreement on a solution. Ms. Nieberg stated that Applicant considers all viewpoints when solving problems, as he tries to “get people to agree logically.” Ms. Nieberg also stated that Applicant is known for working well with others.

Nieberg's letter of recommendation states similar views, as does recommender Joseph Martinez'. (Curiously, W. Vasey's letter is not available for inspection; the page comes up blank.)

Although not much more is discernible about Forbes from a simple web search, our take on Forbes is this: He has Republican leanings and sympathies. However, his main focus is getting government to provide solutions that work, both in the sense that they are logical and that they serve the community. We would hazard a guess that his apparent inclination for practicality outweighed, and would outweigh, whatever partisan leanings he has (which might be why he switched from Republican to Decline-To-State). In that sense, Forbes looks like a reasonably non-partisan, practical-minded addition to the Commission. We'll follow his input with interest.

Wisconsin - A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Recall

Wisconsin state senator Randy Hopper (R-Fond-du Lac) has been a big supporter of Governor Scott Walker's push to deny Wisconsin public employees' collective bargaining rights. Hopper is now a recall target because of his votes. So when protesters showed up at his Madison, Wisconsin house to argue the matter...well, I'll let the blog folkblum's rambles and rants take it from there:

Recall target, Sen. Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac), talks a good game about family values.

But protesters outside the Hopper house this week in Fond du Lac were met by his wife who reportedly came out and told them: Hopper no longer lives there, but with his 25-year-old mistress in Madison.

No confirmation on whether the divorcing wife signed that petition to recall Hopper who represents Wisconsin Senate District 18.

Hopper has been a close ally with Gov. Scott Walker whose billionaire-funded attacks on Wisconsin families is drawing international attention and widespread condemnation.

I'm betting Hopper's wife wants him recalled, too, if perhaps for other reasons.

Massive Earthquake Hits Japan

A powerful earthquake, 8/9 on the Richter scale, hit northern Japan last night.

At least 60 people are confirmed dead.

There are tsunami warnings for California's West Coast - La Jolla is expected to see a tsunami at approximately 8:48 PST this morning (an hour and a half from now); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has issued a Tsunami Advisory for our part of the California coastline.

More updates here (keep checking for more updates as time progresses). Our best to the people of Japan.

Apportionment - What Is It?

The Census Bureau has put out a helpful video explaining what apportionment is (hint - it's not the same as redistricting):

California Redistricting - Bay Area Could Lose A Congressional Seat

The 2010 Census Redistricting Data for California was published today. The population of California grew from approximately 33 million in 2000 to almost 38 million in 2010:

And California is stuck with 53 Congressional seats for the coming decade, meaning that population shifts, alone, will account for much of the redistricting done in California in the next few months. Experts are predicting that, because of the obvious growth of the Central Valley relative to other parts of the state, the Bay Area stands to lose at least one Congressional seat:

The dramatic population shift under way in the state, redistricting experts say, will make plain that the Bay Area should probably lose a district. The population in the ascendant Central Valley has grown roughly 15 times as fast as the population in the San Francisco Bay Area over the last decade, according to federal population estimates.

However, any redistricting in the area may be a double-edged sword:

The congressional districts that the Bay Area already shares with the Central Valley — 1, 3 and 11 — could be stretched farther into the Central Valley, some political scholars say. But the pendulum may well swing the other way. Republicans say they fear that portions of Contra County [sic, Costa] County, like Congressional District 10, a heavily Democratic area represented by John Garamendi that is known as the “seahorse” for its odd shape, may be reconstituted to include localities like Danville and San Ramon — currently in the 11th District — making it even harder for Republicans to get elected.

[Editor's note - District 11, represented by Jerry McNerney, looks more like a seahorse to me, but I'm not a professional at these things.] Congressional Districts 1, 3 and 11 are presented below for reference:

Certainly, the western end of District 3 will be lopped off and potentially added to a new District; such a reformed District 10 would still be reliably Democratic. District 11 is almost certain to be radically recast, particularly the portion encompassing only part of Stockton (similarly, District 18, which represents the central portion of Stockton, would be significantly redrawn, as well). My guess is that District 10 would be redistributed among Districts 1, 7, 9 and 11 to reduce the number of Bay area Districts, while a new Central Valley District would be formed from portions of existing Districts 11, 18 and 19.

I've been focusing on potential redistricting in Southern California, but it looks like the Sacramento-area Central Valley will be a hotbed of redrawing as well.

Why Businessmen Make Lousy Governors

Rick Scott, newly-minted Teabagger-approved Governor of Florida, is pissing off his Republican allies in the state:

“The governor doesn’t understand there is a State Constitution and that we have three branches of government,” said State Senator Mike Fasano, a Republican from New Port Richey who upset Mr. Scott with rough handling of his staff during a testy committee hearing. “They are talking about the attitude that he is still the C.E.O. of his former health care corporation, and that is not going to work in this state, in Tallahassee, in my district. The people believe in three branches of government.”

Republican lawmakers in Florida were hoping for a smoother transition. Instead, they say, they got top-down management from a political novice.

This is after Scott killed job-creating high-speed rail in Florida, slashed education to benefit his corporate buddies, and generally showed himself to be a lying sack of crap.

It shouldn't be any surprise he's acting this way, however. He was a billionaire CEO of HCA/Columbia before buying the governorship, and the way he is running the state indicates how CEOs think about the rest of us. Everyone else exists to serve them; the state's voters can be cast aside like workers in an economic downturn. CEOs are paid pretty highly to not care about the people that work for them. Meanwhile, his corporate buddies--whom he obviously sees as investors--are showered with your tax dollars. CEOs don't care about people; to them, people are tools to be used. The only people that matter are other corporate leaders, particularly other CEOs.

Elect a CEO, you elect the guy that fired you in the last recession, and the guy running your cable TV and mobile phone companies, not to mention the guys who sent Enron, WorldCom and a host of similar companies into the ground in flames. Who would ever think someone like that would be effective at running a state for the benefit of its people?

More Deep Republican Stupid

Florida State Senator Jim Norman (R-Tampa) wants to make it a first degree felony to take pictures of farmland without permission. Apparently this was done to help keep factory farm practices secret.

This is what Republicans do when they get into power. For all their foaming-at-the-mouth blather about how much they want smaller government and to "get government off our backs," they're more than willing to throw the full weight of government against you and your rights to protect one of their corporate benefactors.

This is more evidence that Republicans simply can't govern. They cannot run a state, or the federal, government for the benefit of the people that live there, only the people who helped them get elected.

Secession?

Even the assholes are bigger in Texas.

California Redistricting - What Is A "Community Of Interest" Anyway?

California's Proposition 11, passed in 2008, removed the California State Legislature's authority to redraw California state Assembly and Senate district lines, and handed that authority to a Redistricting Commission. Proposition 20, passed in 2010, further transferred authority to redraw federal Congressional district lines form the Legislature to the Redistricting Commission.

The criteria the Redistricting Commission are expected to use in order to redraw district lines are as follows (from the text of Proposition 20):

(1) Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution. Senate Congressional districts shall achieve population equality as nearly as is practicable, and Senatorial, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts shall have reasonably equal population with other districts for the same office, except where deviation is required to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act or allowable by law.

(2) Districts shall comply with the federal Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971 and following).

(3) Districts shall be geographically contiguous.

(4) The geographic integrity of any city, county, city and county, local neighborhood, or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes their division to the extent possible without violating the requirements of any of the preceding subdivisions. A community of interest is a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process. Communities of interest shall not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.

(5) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with the criteria above, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness such that nearby areas of population are not bypassed for more distant population.

(6) To the extent practicable, and where this does not conflict with the criteria above, each Senate district shall be comprised of two whole, complete, and adjacent Assembly districts, and each Board of Equalization district shall be comprised of 10 whole, complete, and adjacent Senate districts.

The first two criteria are set in law, and any district lines today--even heavily gerrymandered ones--meet constitutional and Voting Rights Act standards. Similarly, the third criterion, geographical contiguousness, is met even in heavily gerrymandered districts (if only barely, in some cases). The fifth criterion is patently ridiculous, as it encourages drawing district lines by esthetics, which is a nonsensical criterion to determine representation.

Therefore, the first main criterion that is expected to differ from criteria used by the Legislature in previous redistricting efforts is that of keeping "communities of interest" together. But is that really much different than how the Legislature redraws boundaries? Lets take a look at two California Congressional Districts, District 39 (Linda Sanchez, D) and District 50 (Brian Bilbray, R). (For some of this discussion, please refer to www.govtrack.us, which has good-quality expandable district maps that are, unfortunately, not permalinkable.)

Bilbray's District 50 encompasses the relatively wealthy coastal region of Southern California from the village of Carlsbad to just below Solana Beach (where property values are quite high), and continues to central La Jolla (situated on and around mount Soledad), where the wealthy enjoy ocean views, but skips coastal La Jolla with it's university of California at San Diego student population and renters. It continues east from La Jolla through relatively conservative Clairmont Mesa, and up through wealthy Torrey Highlands and Carmel Valley (roughly between the i-5 and I-15 shields on the map below), and up through even wealthier Rancho Santa Fe and 4S Ranch, up into the relatively conservative communities of Rancho Bernardo, Escondido, and San Marcos.

So what is the "community of interest" in this case? Clearly, the District was designed to encompass as many high-earners, upscale professionals and business people as possible. Undoubtedly, the wealthy in La Jolla would feel they have more in common with the same groups of people in Rancho Santa Fe and 4S Ranch than the college students populating the UCSD area and the La Jolla coastline. If one just looks geographically, however, the southernmost section of Bilbray's district would seem naturally to extend to the coast, and to incorporate the UCSD areas.

So "gerrymandering" is not necessarily a bad thing, if you simply look at the interested communities within a District.

District 39 has similarly been accused of being highly gerrymandered. The 39th District is shaped like a horseshoe:

For a description of the 39th District, I'll defer to Larry Andre, "Former nominee Republican 39th Congressional District," who ran against Sanchez in 2010 and posted this public comment on March 3, 2011:

This district just happens prime example of how gerrymandering has hurt our state. The District starts in the west in South Los Angeles and sweeps around in a gigantic horseshoe shape ending in the east in Whittier. The district was obviously drawn to be safe Democrat and it has lived up to expectations, being 50% Democrat, 25% Republican, 25% DTS, and over 60% Hispanic, it was drawn in such a manner that included high Hispanic and high Democrat areas. This is only the beginning of the inequalities of the district. The western portion is primarily blue collar with high school education or lower, working poor to lower middle class, and immigrant, with the majority of the populace being Hispanic and to a smaller degree African American. This portion of the district includes the cities of Lynwood, South Gate and Paramount, The eastern portion of the district[,] a small sliver of North Long Beach, Lakewood, Hawaiian Gardens, Cerritos, Artesia, La Mirada, and 62% of Whittier are middle class to upper middle class, high school education and higher, with a mix of white, Asian, Hispanic, and others, The eastern and western halves of the district have few common bonds that would be required by the new redistricting law.

It's evident that a substantial portion of Andre's missive is sour grapes; the voters of that particular District rejected him. He was obviously unhappy the District comprised 60% Hispanic voters, despite the fact they are an increasingly-important voting bloc in the state. And the way California politics works these days, it would be hard to argue the Hispanic community does not constitute a 'community of interest".

Of course, the voters rejected Andre because they didn't like his politics and his positions on the issues, not because the District was "shaped funny". It's quite likely that had Andre adopted policy positions (and actually believed in those positions) that were more in line with his District's interests, he would have had a shot at winning the election. At its root, therefore, Republicans' interest in getting a Commission to redistrict California is borne from their failure to accept that most of the voters in California don't like them. They don't seem to like the increasing influence of Hispanics in the state, either.

What he, and a lot of people in the state, fail to realize, is that the interests, beliefs, values and outlook on life of a bloc of voters constitutes a "community of interest" every bit as much as do neighborhood, work or commuting patterns. Republicans tend to congregate with Republicans, and Democrats with Democrats, because they tend to think alike. There's a reason Districts are "safe": the majority of people in the District like who is representing them.

However, the more generally-stated reason for handing redistricting duties to the Redistricting Commission is not so much to keep "communities of interest" together, but "to create voting areas with more logical, consistent boundaries – such as including all of a city instead of just the Democratic or Republican areas of it – to promote more competitive races among the parties." (Emphasis added.) This quote from the OC Register, which plies its trade in one of the more consistently Republican areas of Southern California, essentially translates into "we want Congressional Districts that are easier for Republicans to win!" And that in itself is a problem, because the Redistricting Commission is explicitly constrained, by the language of Proposition 20, from considering Party voting patterns in drawing District lines.

In short, "communities of interest" doesn't appear at this time to be a cogent basis on which to redraw District lines, and, at worst, represents a fig leaf covering the more direct desire to artificially attempt to make Congressional races more "competitive".

However, the present system of Legislature-drawn lines likely benefits Republicans more than the CRC's efforts will. Republicans currently represent 19, or about 36%, of the 53 California Congressional Districts. Compared to the percentage of Californians registered as Republicans, 30.8%, California Republicans are arguably over-represented in Congress (however, 35% of likely voters are registered Republican). Republicans also fared particularly badly in 2010 (despite a Republican wave in other parts of the country), failing to win any statewide races. The hope of making California Congressional Districts more competitive for Republicans is, therefore, likely nothing more than a pipe dream.

In fact, one person, using Dave's Redistricting Application, predicts that redistricting will actually reduce the number of Republican California Congressional seats, with only 17 seats being designated as safe GOP, likely GOP, lean GOP or toss-up.

After the Redistricting Commission is done, Republicans may wish the Legislature was still drawing District lines.