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.

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.