Angelides/Westly

The David Westly bus caravan came through Chico this week as the the race with Phil Angelides drew closer. Even as he stepped off the bus, Westly had to be asking himself:

Why are our Democratic women still undecided?

A new Public Policy Institute of California poll (get to a .PDF link here) showed Angelides pulling ahead of Westly 35 % to 32% after trailing in the most recent LA Times poll.

They're basically deadlocked with a couple of weeks to go to the June primary.

What was pretty amazing is the high number of undecideds, almost 33%, and the biggest bunch of the undecideds are women. The poll's authors seem to think women aren't sure of the type of leadership they want. Maybe so.

I was a little surprised Angelides had shown significant growth in his numbers since he had positioned himself to the left of the California electorate with his talk of tax increases.

I have to say I've been miffed by Westly's TV ads which have, in my opinion, a Stooges "here's a finger in your eye" quality to them. (in the interests of disclosure, I donated a little to Westly a while back).

Still, I want to be able to say I can support either candidate regardless of who wins the primary. Today, I can say that. I just hope neither campaign goes into a "first strike" mode which could result in mutual assured destruction that benefits Steroidsenegger in the general election.

--Drzal

Thin Edge of the Wedge

The President went on TV last night to say he wasn’t militarizing the border with Mexico when everyone knows the government has been militarizing the border since Clinton. Bush is simply upping the stakes by rotating military forces in and out of the Border States for the next two years.

Or so he says.

The 9/11 Commission recommended a substantial increase in Border Patrol agents nearly three years ago. The commission said 10,000 more agents were needed to secure our borders. But Bush and the Republican Congress didn’t do much with border security in the 2004 budget. Neither did much with border security in the 2005 budget.

Now, it’s a crisis even though things aren’t appreciably different today than they were three years ago. What Bush and the Republicans have is a political crisis, and Bush is calling on the military to bail out him and the Republicans out.

I think it’s too little, too late.

Bush also called for a guest worker program to provide the business wing of his party with the cheap, exploitable labor it desires. Otherwise those folks would have to pay more to attract American workers.

Guest worker programs do not deter illegal immigration; in reality, it would cement in place existing incentives for immigrants to come here illegally.

If there is work, they will come. Try this hypothetical: take two equally qualified immigrant workers, both willing cross the border illegally. One gets to come in as a guest worker. The other is told to stay home because there are no more slots left in the program. Does anybody think that person will not try to come in illegally?

What bothers me most about this is that countries that use their militaries for law enforcement without question have a lack of respect for human rights.

We already know Bush values his presidential powers over our constitutional rights.

The border today; what “war” will we be fighting tomorrow that will require the deployment of military troops on our soil?

That’s the thin edge of the wedge.

--Drzal

The Decider

O.K. Beatles fans. Sing along:




I am me and Rummy's he, Iraq is free and we are all together
See the world run when Dick shoots his gun, see how I lie
I'm Lying...

Sitting on my own brain, waiting for the end of days
Corporation profits, Bloody oil money
I'm above the law and I'll decide what's right or wrong


I am the egg head, I'm the Commander, I'm the Decider
Koo-Koo-Kachoo

Baghdad city policeman sitting pretty little targets in a row
See how they die when the shrapnel flies see mothers cry
I'm Lying...I'm Ly-ing...I'm Lying...I'm Ly-ing

Yellow cake uranium, imaginary WMD's
Declassifying facts, exposing secret agents
Tax cuts for the wealthy leaving all the poor behind

CHORUS

Sitting in the White house garden talking to the Lord
My thoughts would be busy busy hatching If I only had a brain

CHORUS

By Paul Hipp

Thanks to http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

--Drzal

Herger's Class Warfare

Herger and the Republicans are up to their old tricks again – a game of warfare against the middle class they’ve played since they’ve come into office. For Herger, that’s almost 20 years.

The right wingnuts voted “wealth over wages” in the House by extending tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, assets held by the wealthiest in America. Those assets will be taxed at 15 percent. Most wage earners, like a firefighter or police officer, will pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes (detailed here in a previous post).

The extension means thousands of dollars in savings for upper bracket earners – people who push real estate or paper wealth around – and maybe a tankful of gas for people making $50 -$70,000, which is most people.

Those who can afford taxes less pay more. Those who can afford taxes more pay less.

It will add $70 billion more to the deficit, and the Republicans will have to raise the national debt limit to almost $10 trillion. Try wrapping your head around that. You can bet the farm that Herger will be voting to raise the debt limit and borrow even more from China to cover the debt.

Defenders of this monstrosity will say things like you can’t pull up low wage earners by keeping down high wage earners. Complete crap.

If the tax burden, meaning the percentage of income paid to taxes, shifts to wages, then obviously there will be less disposable income for everyday working people.

Herger’s cynical idea is to make the burden so great working taxpayers will rebel against taxes and “agree” to large reductions of government.

It’s what they’ve been after all along.

I have to laugh everytime Herger goes on a district road show. All those supporters nodding their heads when he lambastes some Washington outrage, not bothering to notice the conservative knife being stuck in their backs.

--Drzal

Moussauoi

Like a lot of people, I’m sure, I was surprised the Virginia jury didn’t sentence Moussauoi to death for his role – a very limited role, to be sure – in the 9/11 attacks. But when the thing dragged on, the writing seemed to be on the wall. Usually, a jury will give a day or two so a death verdict doesn’t look rushed. But the longer they go, the less likely they are to come back with a death sentence.

Anybody who reads this blog knows I oppose the death penalty. Life without possibility of parole ain’t a walk in the park either, and I hope he lives out the rest of his life very anonymously.

Making a martyr out of him isn’t real smart, though he and his supporters will claim he’s a political prisoner. Still he wanted to be a martyr, but he ain’t gonna get what he wants. That’s good.

I’ve also viewed death cases as window into the workings of our criminal justice system and how it reflects the values of this society. Often, the case is a reflection of us just as much as it is about the bad guy. And I’m talking about the worst of the bad guys.

One thing that sticks out in the Moussauoi case is that the Bush conservatives wanted to hand out the death penalty for lying. But the real bottom line is they wanted the death penalty for somebody who refused to incriminate himself during interrogation. That’s a slippery slope. You have the right against self-incrimination in this country. At least for now.

And, if the issue is lying that results in the loss of American life, then I can think of somebody else who should be held to account for his actions.

But the Moussaoui case was really a show trial. Virtually everyone from all viewpoints on the political spectrum admit he was a minor player. For the terrorists, he was an unreliable fringe player in the whole 9/11 tragedy.

You want a death penalty case? Put Kahlid Shiek Muhammad(spelling?), the mastermind of 9/11, on trial. He’s in the American gulag somewhere (I say “American” because an uncomfortably large number of people, by their silence, is endorsing an overseas secret prison system). Rather than put the 9/11 families through hell for a fringe actor, put the mastermind on trial.

Of course, he’s been tortured, and the Bush boys – not men – boys don’t want that coming out at trial. Nothing would be admitted into evidence anyway.

What a bright bunch of boys they are. I’d say they all should be forced to look themselves in the mirror. That would be their torture. But on second thought, I doubt there would be a reflection in the mirror.

What a sad bunch, from the shamed Oval Office on down.

--Drzal

Dem Good Idea

There’s a pretty good idea going around Sacramento that would change the way California elects the President and Vice-President. It wouldn’t do away completely with the Electoral College. But it would require California’s electors, 55 in all, and the largest bloc in the country, to cast their votes for the Presidential candidate with the highest number of votes.

Which is the way it should be. Every other office in the country from Senator to dogcatcher goes to the guy with more votes than the other guy. Democracy. Simple.

Let’s face it. The Electoral College is whacked. Gore had a half-million more votes that Bush in 2000. Bush needed the Supreme Court to appoint him President. The last thing we want is judges appointing Presidents.

In all fairness, and I am that kind of guy, a change of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have made Kerry president, even though he lost the popular vote by 2.9-million votes.

I won’t go into every reason for this idea. One standout reason is it forces the candidates to campaign in a state like California.

You know, we are the gold standard for this country. Culturally, economically, lifestyle – all that stuff. We give the country more tax dollars than the country gives back to us. Californians account for 10 percent of the votes cast in a presidential election. How many times did Bush or Kerry campaign in California in the last month or two of the campaign?

Once or twice, maybe.

That’s because both campaigns knew Kerry had California in the bag. The entire game is played out in a dozen or so swing states – states that could go either way – mostly in the Midwest. If the President were elected by a national popular vote, candidates couldn’t afford to ignore California.

And we’d become less of an ATM for the campaigns.

In addition to California, the states of Louisiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Colorado are also considering legislation to make it happen.

It’s AB 2948, by Tom Umberg. It’s a good idea. Check it out.

--Drzal

The Internet

Seems like Republican Congresscritters are pushing a bill that would forever change the way you use the Internet. The bill would do away with a concept called "Net Neutrality." Save the Internet explains:

Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech. If the public doesn't speak up now, Congress will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign by telephone and cable companies that want to decide what you do, where you go, and what you watch online.

One way of thinking about this is that cable and telephone giants want to put toll boots at the on-ramps to the Internet. You might pay more to get on, or be directed to the slow lane, or if you want to go to a competitor of the guy in the toll booth, you might get turned back.

Another group working on the issue is publicknowledge.org

This is a serious threat.

--Drzal

Wal-Mart Chokehold on Chico

Word is environmental review of two – not one – two Wal-Mart supercenters for Chico is nearing completion at City Hall, which means the issue will soon explode in full view of the community. As I understand it, Wal-Mart wants to convert the Forest Avenue “box” into a supercenter, and build a second supercenter somewhere near Garner Lane and Highway 99.

I think that’s less than 10 miles up the freeway.

The only real difference between the current Wal-Mart and a Wal-Mart Supercenter is the latter has wider aisles and a grocery.

Looks to me like Wal-Mart thinks it needs two of these behemoths to take out the Holiday Markets, Wincos, Safeways, Albertsons and other grocery chains that provide their workers from Chico and Butte County far better pay and benefits than Wal-Mart will ever provide theirs. I believe some of the mentioned grocery chains are unionized, but I don’t know which ones and to what extent.

Yeah, these are your friends and neighbors this predator is going after.

The real truth about Wal-Mart and the retail sprawl it creates is that Wal-Mart represents economic displacement, not economic development. When a Wal-Mart comes to town, the net effect is the replacement of good quality jobs with low quality jobs, inefficient land-use, and decreases investment established downtown commercial areas. In addition, the projects often forces costly infrastructure development at the edge of towns, and lowers residential and commercial property values.


Wal-Mart has turned traditional American economics on its head, and has abused its power to the detriment of workers and communities.

"Wal-Mart has reversed a hundred-year history that had the retailer dependent on the manufacturer," explains Nelson Lichtenstein, a professor at the University of California Santa Barbara. "Now the retailer is the center, the power, and the manufacturer becomes the serf, the vassal, the underling who has to do the bidding of the retailer. That's a new thing." –from Frontline: “Is Wal-Mart Good for America?”

The Los Angeles Times, in a Pulitzer Prize-winning series a few years ago, described how Wal-Mart forced a fan maker in Chicago to outsource jobs to China. The company put tremendous pressure on the fan manufacturer to lower costs. He cut benefits, lowered pay, begged suppliers to lower the cost of components. When it wasn’t enough, the fan maker shipped jobs to China. Either that, or fold up. Read about the entire episode here.

Is Wal-Mart invincible? Hardly. Communities from Eureka, California to Middletown, Rhode Island and from Gainsville, Florida to Mesa, Arizona have stopped Wal-Mart projects in their communities. Across the country, some 277 Wal-Mart projects have been blocked.

Activists who took a stand for their community stopped those stores. A group is already forming in Chico. It is Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy (CARE). Learn more about care by sending an e-mail to info@chicocares.org CARE does not oppose the current Wal-Mart in Chico, but opposes the two proposed supercenters.

Other grassroots groups might also come together to oppose the supercenters. The necessary ingredients for beating a big box like Wal-Mart are a broad-based coalition; hiring of land use experts; constant visibility in the media and in the community; and raising money to hire the experts. More about organizing can be found at an excellent anti-retail sprawl website, Sprawl-Busters.

Shop at Wal-Mart, and you are importing cheap labor, just the same as if you went to Mexico or South America and recruited an illegal immigrant to mow your lawn for you. Shop at Wal-Mart, and you are helping to kill an American job, somewhere.


--Drzal

Pat Tillman

Tomorrow is the second anniversary of the death of solider Pat Tillman, the pro football player who left the Arizona NFL team to join the military in the fight against terrorists based in Afghanistan.

You probably don’t know that the Pentagon has now launched its fourth “official” investigation into Tillman’s death.

When Tillman died, the Pentagon concocted a phony story about the Army Ranger having died in a firefight with the Taliban enemy. They awarded Tillman the Silver Star.

Only later, after some investigative journalism, did the Pentagon begin to tell the truth: Tillman was killed by “friendly fire.”

Tillman was blown to pieces by .50-caliber rounds fired by his fellow Army Rangers. When was killed, Tillman was on a canyon wall, screaming his name, waving his arms, and setting off smoke grenades to signal he was an American soldier.

So, a terrible, tragic accident. And terrible, tragic accidents do happen in a war zone.

So, why did the Rangers burn his blood-soaked uniform and body armor, and destroy other evidence?

Tillman’s father, Patrick, told the New York Times the Pentagon covered it up because they had blown up “their poster boy.”

In other words, the Tillman story of leaving a lucrative football career to fight for his country was more valuable for recruitment purposes and maintaining public support for the war than honoring his sacrifice with the truth.

Said Mary Tillman, “The fact that he was the ultimate team player and watched his own men kill him is heartbreaking and tragic. The fact they lied about it afterwards is disgusting.”

The Tillman’s are divorced, and shun the publicity the story has generated. They kept quiet for months believing that was the honorable thing to do. They’ve kept their anger and agony to themselves.

I told a friend of mine, a WW II veteran I admire and respect, about the Tillman case. He said it was nothing compared to the cover-up of military accidents that claimed the lives of many more servicemen than Pat Tillman. He was not swayed by my argument that the Pentagon’s conduct was reprehensible.

Regardless, the fourth official investigation is underway, and my friend agreed with me on one point, somebody below the top echelon of the Pentagon will take the fall. The chickenhawks at the top will come away unscathed.

--Drzal

Herger's Take on Immigration

Rep. Wally Herger talked to the Enterprise-Record about immigration legislation Monday. The article was pretty standard fare for the E-R, with its chronic hands-off treatment of the Congressman. Larry Mitchell’s article went pretty easy on Herger, but that’s been SOP for years. What was noteworthy was what wasn’t discussed in the article.

Let me fill in a few of the blanks.

There was no mention of the mass of people involved in the immigration debate, which is as complex as it is heated. There’s something like 12 million people that are going to be affected by what, if anything, comes out of Washington.

The first thing that’s going to change is the provision in the House bill making a person here illegally a felon. That’s coming outta’ the House bill. Herger knows it, but he didn’t go there. And, apparently, Larry didn’t ask.

Now, Herger said the House bill he voted for contained “somewhat tougher” restrictions than he wanted, including, I presume, the felon provision. I wished Larry had asked Herger how he was going to track down those 12 million felons, or where he would find the billions of dollars required for such a program.

Oh, the felon idea was ridiculous all right, but Herger and the Republicans had a chance to stoke their base. Turn up the fire on this thing. Get people hot and mad. Get a little more ill will directed at Latino immigrants, legal or not.

And that’s what they did.

The article also touched on Democratic Leader Harry Reid, and Herger making some vague statement about Reid allowing the Senate bill to move forward. I covered this in another post on immigration, but it was the Republicans that blocked the bill because they couldn’t get behind a deal negotiated by Reid and Frist, the Republican leader.

Less than six hours after going before the news cameras to announce a deal had been struck, Frist began backtracking. He wanted to allow up to 100 votes on amendments that would scuttle the deal he had just reached with Reid.

Talk about a double-dealer.

Even worse, Republicans are now running ads on Spanish radio and TV accusing Reid and House Democrats of pushing the felon provision. This is really amazing.

House Republicans voted up the bill to make being in this country illegally a felony. (Mitchell correctly reports being illegal now results in a civil deportation action.) Herger was there for the team. Democrats voted against it because they didn’t want to make being an illegal alien a crime.

Later, Republicans offered an amendment to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor. Democrats voted against the amendment because they are against making being an illegal alien a crime. So the original Republican felony provision stayed in.

Voila! Democrats who refused to make criminals out of illegal residents are responsible for the felony provision.

This is really amazing, bald-faced lying.

Republicans were supposed to go out during this break (when are they not on break?) and blame Reid and the Democrats for the felon controversy, but there was none of that in Mitchell’s article.

Oh, I bet Herger tried, but Mitchell left it out, which is why he’s a good reporter.

--Drzal

The Generals

Well, the retired generals have a real anti-Jones for Donald Rumsfeld. Could it be the generals, soon after retiring, joined the left-wing blogosphere that has been so (rightly) critical of Bush?

Don’t think so. It is truly extraordinary that so many generals with experience in Iraq have concluded the national security credentials of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crowd are bogus. These generals, by speaking out, are putting national security first.

Bush, as we know, puts his political security ahead of our national security.

The general’s criticism and call for Rumsfeld’s resignation started after learning some of their current brethren, who can’t – and shouldn’t – speak out ,think Bush and his insiders have a “messianic” view of the Middle East. The current military brass wanted the nuclear strike option removed from the war contingency plans for Iran. Bush refused to take it out.

Bush calls it “wild speculation,” but he hasn’t said “no” to the nuke option, or disputed the accuracy of the reporting soon to be released in The New Yorker, has he? Sy Hersh quoted insiders as saying Bush believes only he can solve the Iran problem and only he has the courage to do it.

Delusions of grandeur. That’s scary stuff.

I think the retired generals think Rumsfeld is just neo-nutty enough to pop a mushroom cloud over Iran. Bush has an evangelical-bent that may or may not include a thirst for Armageddon. If Rumsfeld told him to do it, well, I believe he is capable of anything.

Bush: "I hear the voices. I read the newspapers.“I’m the decider. And I decide what’s best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain the secretary of defense.”

That’s reassuring.

The generals are right to see if they can get rid of Rumsfeld. I’d feel a lot safer if Bush was the one signing a letter of resignation.

Bush: "I hear the voices."

We know you do.

--Drzal

California Minimum Wage

Even Oprah is on the side of an increase in the minimum wage. That woman can move mountains, so she recently devoted an entire show to the mimimum wage issue.

In California, the minimum wage($6.75/hr.)issue is back after the Governor vetoed an earlier Democratic bill to raise the state minimum wage $1 to $7.75/hr. Remember that.

Democrats have a bill to raise the minimum wage to .50 cents now, .50 a little later, and make future increases automatic by tieing the wage to inflation. So, all that’s on the table is the $1 increase Schwarzengeer vetoed last fall, plus the indexing.

It is the indexing that has Schwarzenegger threatening to veto the bill. A lot of hand-wring is going on in Republican circles, including over on the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial page. They’re accusing Democrats of playing politics by adding indexing to the legislative stew.

I think the Democrats were correct to add indexing. I don’t see why they should give Schwarzenegger a pass when he had a chance to approve the same wage hike WITHOUT indexing. Democrats are right to up the ante.

Schwarzenegger didn’t care about minimum wage earners when he vetoed the increase. He didn't need to: His $50-million special election was on the horizon; his roadmap to reelection had been drawn. But the special election boondoggle blew up in his face, so he needs all the help he can get. Now, he’s worried about minimum wage workers.

Democrats might be playing politics. Republicans are playing cynical politics.

California’s minimum wage is an embarrassing travesty.

California’s minimum wage is two to three times below the hourly wage required to live a modest lifestyle. And, when the mythmakers say, “that’s all right, only part-time high school students are being paid minimum wage,” don’t believe it.

In fact, California’s low-wage workers are predominately adults working full time. In 2003, more than six out of ten California workers earning within one dollar per hour of the state’s minimum wage were age 25 and older, while only one out of six were teens.

My source for these numbers are the California Budget Project. You can read their reports here and here.

CBP found California’s median income to be $15.00/hr. To maintain a modest, no-frills lifestyle, a family with two parents and two children, where one parent works, had better be earning $24.60/hr. For a single parent with two children, the gap between the median and required wage($25.96/hr) is even greater.

In the Sacramento Valley region, single parent families and two parent families (with one working parent) had better be earning around $20.00/hr. just to maintain a basic family budget.

These hourly pay scenarios are for the basic expenses like food, housing and transportation, and allow little to no room for “extras” such as college savings, vacations, or emergencies.

So, when we talk about a minimum wage, remember that is doesn’t even come close to a living wage. There are folks that work two, three minimum wage jobs – and have no health insurance. If employers don’t pay a decent, living wage, then people are more likely to end up on some form of government assistance. Or in emergency rooms. Wal-Mart doesn’t provide health benefits to a lot of their employees Their corporate policy is to deny health benefits, thus shifting their workers into state medical insurance programs for the indigent.

Republicans often warn that raising the minimum wage will force small businesses to close their doors; in effect, raising the minimum wage is a job killer. But when a Wal-Mart comes in and the locally-owned supermarket goes out of business; or the hardware store; or the vacuum cleaner shop; or the paint store; the Republicans never say a peep about the loss of those jobs.

There’s a real disconnect there.

In fact, paying a living wage is good for local communities. Workers will have more purchasing power and circulate more dollars in the local economy, benefiting all small business. Businesses then can re-invest and expand. This is a good thing for the community.

Sometimes we hear from conservatives that employers deserve tax breaks and other adulation because they provide jobs. I think the employer’s reward for providing a job is the profit he/she realizes from the difference between what an employee is compenstated and the actual value of the work performed. Consider also, that business could not operate if not for the infrastructure – roads, bridges, airports, the post office – paid for by employees with their tax dollars. Shouldn’t business recognize this contribution to society by paying taxpaying employees a decent, living wage?

Many businesses large and small do, in fact, take care of their employees in a decent and honorable way, and they should be commended. I do. I try to shop at their businesses.

But some don’t, and threaten to go out of business, if the minimum wage is increased. (We’re not even talking living wage here).

Perhaps the bottom line should be this: if a business can’t do right by the workers that makes their business possible, maybe they shouldn’t be in business in the first place. Maybe we shouldn’t mourn their passing.

Just maybe employers who understand the value of good workers, honorably paid and well treated, will move in to fill the void.

And our communities will be better for it.

--Drzal

Westly Leads Angelides

The latest Field Poll(pdf) had a fairly significant “pucker” factor for Phil Angelides, the Democratic establishment’s favorite son for Governor. Angelides was locked in a fairly tight primary contest with Steve Westly, the state controller who wants the right to challenger Mr. Special Election in November.

Well, it ain’t fairly tight now: Westly has an 11 point edge over Angelides. That’s not huge and there’s still six weeks to go, but Angelides had to be expecting to be looking down at Westly, not looking up.

The wind is at Westly’s back.

I’ve been most interested in knowing the two Democrats haven’t beating up on each other. A brawl could hurt our chances of taking out the very vulnerable Mr. Special Election. I hope Westly and Angelides don’t go negative, and if one or the other does, I plan to call that person out.FWIW.

I haven’t seen Westly on the stump. (I missed a chance to see him Chico, though I donated to his campaign).

I did hear Angelides on Air America when Al Franken was in Sacramento, I think it was.

I wasn’t impressed with what I heard. Overall, his performance had a Bob “steamroll anything and everything in my way” Mulholland feel to it, which shouldn’t surprise since Angelides and Mulholland are good friends. Angiledes’ passion seemed forced. On top of that, Angiledes was refusing to say if he would support the Democratic nominee and was doing stuff like refusing to mention Westly by name. Dumb stuff.

So, I thought Angelides was having a bad day, and maybe that’s all it was.

Then again, if polls are to be believed, maybe not.

--Drzal

Dem Pesky Earmarks

Citizens Against Government Waste is out with its 2006 Congressional Pig Book. According to CAGW, Congress critters snuck some $29 billion in subterranean spending called, in D.C.-speak, “earmarks.” Most people know them as pork barrel spending. Earmarks are what got Duke Cunningham, the corrupt Congressman from down south, into trouble. He was taking bribes to stick these spending items into, mostly defense contracts, into law. The “Dukester” does have a few years to think about how wrong it was to do that.

These earmarks are a little different than the transportation pork barrel projects funded with the 18-cent federal gasoline tax. Herger, Doolittle, et al voted to send millions of dollars in taxes you paid on a gallon of gasoline off to other states. Something on the order of $250 million, just a little more than was needed to build a bridge in Alaska to an island inhabited by 50 people. Boxer and Feinstein abstained when it came time to vote on the transportation pork barrel bill. Even that project was too much for those two wild, overspending, fiscally irresponsible Democrats. Which brings me to Feinstein.

CAGW says Feinstein got $56 million in dubious spending inserted into the budget. Here’s the list:

**$11,650,000 for construction of the Santa Ana River Mainstem;
**$10,000,000 for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Project;
**$7,000,000 for the UCLA Institute for Molecular Medicine;
**$3,000,000 for the American River Watershed;
**$3,000,000 for the San Ramon Valley Recycled Water Project;
**$2,900,000 for regional wetlands in Lake Tahoe;
**$1,440,000 for the San Francisco Bay Long-Term Management Study;
**$1,250,000 for the Long Beach Desalination Project;
**$1,000,000 for the Sacramento River Division Study;
**$1,000,000 for a water reclamation project in Orange County;
**$500,000 for the Arnold Palmer Prostate Center;
**$400,000 for the California Hydrogen Infrastructure Project;
**$300,000 for Surfside-Sunset and Newport beaches

Feinstein had told reporters, “The problem with earmarks is they’re put in the dark of night and they are unknown. I recognize that earmarks have been abused.”

Well, she knows what she’s talking about.

Now, some people would say a lot of that spending is justified. It would be wrong to call it wasteful spending because one person’s wasteful spending is another person’s worthy spending. You also know that, if Feinstein didn’t grab up the money, somebody else would have. And, for gosh sakes, California already donates more money to the government than is returned to the state. (They call us a “donor” state. I think we’re nuts for going along with it.)

There, now I’m defending an essentially corrupt, unprincipled practice that wastes tens of millions of taxpayer’s dollars year in and year out in the nation’s Capitol.

What I really want to know is this:

What the heck is the Sacramento River Division Study?

--Drzal

God's Party

I’ve been a big fan of Kevin Phillips for a long time, even going back to the days when he did commentary on a regular basis on National Public Radio. Mr. Phillips, a long-time Republican, just called it like he saw it, and he didn’t care if pricked the skin of the Democrats or the Republicans.

Phillips isn’t on NPR anymore. Phillips was too critical of Republicans, so NPR doesn’t air his commentaries anymore. But he is out with a new book “American Theocracy: The Perils and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century.” I haven’t read it yet. But the Portland Oregonian gave Phillips half of an editorial page for a lengthy piece on the new conservative dynamo or scourge, depending on where you sit. Here’s a link to the commentary.

From where I sit, the stuff Phillips is writing about made me pucker up.

Phillips writes that a confluence of religious fundamentalism, oil and national security concerns and massive debt are driving today’s Republican Party. Phillips thinks the country is “approaching” theocracy because the elected leader believes himself to speak for the Almighty; the ruling political party, in control of all three branches of government (four branches, if you count the media), first and foremost represents religious true believers; and the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion.

I also was intrigued by the many millions of religious voters who think Armageddon is near, and would even welcome a conflagration in the Mideast where, according to biblical interpretations, is where the “end-times” will occur.

I’d like to quote this passage because it really caught my eye:

The potential interaction between the end-times electorate, inept pursuit of Persian Gulf oil, Washington’s multiple deceptions, and the financial crisis that could follow a substantial liquidation by foreign holders of U.S. bonds is the stuff of nightmares. To watch U.S. voters enable such policies – the GOP coalition is not likely to turn back – is depressing to someone who spent many years researching, watching and cheering those grassroots.

I agree with Phillips. I don’t think the Republican Party – God’s Party? - is turning back either. The question is: how far to the right does it want to go, and how far it will go to achieve its aims.

Personally, I ain’t interested in finding out.

Regardless, the book should be one heck ‘uva read.

--Drzal

Leaks and Lies

Uh-oh.

Looks like the President lied again. Bush lies seem to come out daily these days. The latest is the Washington Post’s report of April 12th which describes an intelligence report on the two mobile trailers found soon after the fall of Baghdad. Why, those trailers were proof of a WMD biological weapons program, Ari Fleisher told the Washington lapdog corps. Bush himself declared on May 29: “We have found the weapons of mass destruction.”

That’s some declaration considering the field report of the government fact finders was transmitted to Washington on May 27.

They determined the trailers produced helium or hydrogen for balloons. However, it’s more scary when you scream “anthrax” or “botulism” from the White House lectern. Fleisher eventually retracted, but Bush and his crowd continued to lie about the trailers for more than a year.

Earlier this week, Bush went to Johns Hopkins to claim the “key judgments” extracted from a national security document and leaked by Scooter Libby to Judith Miller contained “the truth.” No, he declassified the document so he could spread information widely disputed in the government for the sole purpose of undermining an Administration critic, Joe Wilson. Very little of what was given to that shill, Miller, was “the truth.” (Miller was being used, and if she did it willingly, that raises serious questions about her and the New Pravda Times.)

By the way, whose idea was it to put stumblin, bumblin’ Bush in front of a group of Johns Hopkins international studies students who know more about foreign policy than he does?

Finally, it is pathetic that the President of the United States would put his political fortunes ahead of the national security of the country. I don’t care if it was legal or not. When the press secretary releases it to the press corps, that’s an authorized disclosure. When you give it to a reporter, on the sly, it’s a leak.

Patrick Fitzgerald had a few interesting remarks in his court filing:

Fitzgerald asserts there was “a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House,” to undermine Wilson.

Fitzgerald talks not of an effort (by leaking) to level with the American people but of “a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Wilson.”

Fitzgerald concludes, “It is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to punish Wilson.”

Fitzgerald knows who outed Wilson’s wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, who worked in the identity-protected Office of the Directorate at CIA, to right wing hack and zombie movie extra Robert Novak, who sold out her and Brewster Jennings, a CIA front company working on nuclear counter-proliferatiion issues. Might be nice to have them working on that Iran situation right now, wouldn’t it?

Will Fitzgerald prosecute the leaker? I hope so, but I doubt it.

Now, for a change, it’s time for straight talk from a Bush. But it has to come from the old man himself:

“Even though I’m a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.” - George H. W. Bush speaking at a dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence

How delicious the irony would be if it were not so completely overshadowed by the disgrace this intellectually and morally inferior President and Administration has brought on our country, our democracy, and our Constitution.


--Drzal

Butte County Supertroika?

Some thoughts about the contest for the east Chico seat on the Butte County Board of Supervisors…….

I’ve been wondering what impact Chuck Kutz will have on the race. Clearly, he’s not part of the county Republican establishment or he wouldn’t be in the race. Mary Andrews is Republican establishment, and when the establishment told her to get lost, she got lost.

What few votes Kutz will draw will come at the expense of Steve Bertagna, the erstwhile Chico councilman who passed on a run for the seat when it really counted. Certainly, Kutz isn’t the wildcard TV weatherman Anthony Watts was. Celebrity is a weird factor, and Watts played it well for a seat on the Chico School Board. Anthony is a nice, well-intentioned guy – politics are wrong, of course – who realized he had over reached.

Maureen Kirk had to smile when Watts dropped out and Bertagna dropped in. Given that weird celebrity thing, I’m sure she would rather run against Bertagna. In a comparison of their records and personalities, Kirk wins hands down. Kirk is not the polarizing figure Bertagna is.

I understand Kirk also picked up the endorsement of Mary Ann Houx, the outgoing supervisor from the 3rd District. Houx dispatched Bertagna four years ago when he challenged her reign of incumbency. It’s not likely Houx forgot that. Kirk is plenty smart enough to find out from Houx before declaring her candidacy if Houx would support her. So, Kirk’s campaign gets a nice boost from Houx because Bertagna had the audacity to challenge Houx. Either that, or the Girls Rule thing is still going around.

You have to question Bertagna’s commitment to this thing. He was already giving indications he was burned out on Chico city politics. Now, he wants to join political head-case that is Butte County government? It’s also unusual for somebody to run again for a seat he/she had just lost. Nobody likes a two-time loser. I don’t think he’s in it for the money, though the big pay raise the Supes gave themselves probably helped him change his mind.

Maybe, just maybe, Bertagna said he would run if the Board pushed through a big pay raise. You know, to make it worth his time.

Nah.

Bertagna got in because the county Republicans needed a candidate. For whatever reason, Watts was tanking, and the Republicans needed somebody to run against Kirk. So they talked Bertagna into it, maybe promising him a spot in line when term limits catch up to Keene. And, Bertagna did them a solid by getting in the race just before the deadline.

So, you wonder about Bertagna’s commitment. I also wonder about his independence. Will Bertagna go to Oroville and form a three supervisor troika with Josiassen and Yamiguchi? Those two teamed with Bob Beeler(no longer on the board) and set in motion a cabal that decimated the planning department, let the Sheriff’s Office wither, ruined the county’s reputation, and tried to run Jane Dolan out of her safe, cushy district. Fat chance of that.

Josiassen, Yamiguchi and Bertagna are all cogs in the local Republican machine, such as it is. If the club can pressure Bertagna into running, can the club pressure Bertagna into forming a new majority triumvirate with the Deadly Duo?

We can say this:

Bertagna may or may not aspire to form a majority troika with Josiassen and Yamguchi.

We KNOW Kirk will never sell out her independence.

--Drzal

Immigration, One More Time

The immigration debate probably boils down to a melding of a repulsive bill with a repugnant bill.

The House bill, voted up in December of last year, makes illegal immigrants felons. Sure, Herger and Doolittle voted for it. Lungren even sponsored it. Never mind that 70 percent of them have been here more than five years, pay taxes, obey the law, and have American-born children who are American citizens.

The Senate bill creates three classes of illegal immigrants. Now the U.S. Senate is doling out rights based on a phony scale of who’s been here longest. Good thing these folks weren’t around when yours and mine ancestors came to this country.

Just a quick word about the Bush hooey that Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, is blocking the bill. Reid and Frist agreed to a compromise. Reid had the Democrats lined up. Frist didn’t have the full support of the Republicans, who are badly divided on the issue. So, Frist wants to poison the deal with a bunch of amendments that would force Democrats to abandon the compromise, and allow Republicans to claim Democrats are against immigration reform. That’s politics for you. I hope the Chico Enterprise-Record editorial page writer so concerned about Democrats playing politics with the state minimum wage is paying attention.

The Chico News & Review had an excellent editorial on immigration last week. Read it here. It dissected the House wingnut’s desire for a “Berlin” wall on the border to keep’em out.

A draconian bill passed by the House would add hundreds of miles of fencing to the border, at huge costs, despite evidence that such barriers are more effective at keeping illegals in this country once they've arrived than keeping them out. It would also turn being here illegally and providing humanitarian aid to illegals into felony crimes.

The editorial continued:

Yes, we need to exercise greater control over our borders. But the best way to do that is to make it harder for employers to hire workers who lack documentation. Fake ID cards are too easy to make, and employers are too willing to accept them. Until this situation is changed, poor people from Mexico and points south will continue to risk their lives in search of greater opportunity. All the fences in the world won't stop them.

No, fences won’t stop them, but fences will become a huge black mark on what this country stands for.

The tough medicine required to solve this seemingly intractable problem is raising wages so Americans will do the jobs illegals currently perform, and cracking down on employers who hire illegals, both of which will increase costs to consumers. That’s the price of solving this crisis. That’s the tough medicine.

I don’t see anything that suggests the country is even close to taking it.

--Drzal

Supposed Rights

Wally Herger barnstormed the district last week. He held open forums in the major towns of Northern California, but managed to overlook Chico. It was Herger’s version of hand-selecting his audience. Skipping Chico, maybe he thought the bloggers weren’t friendly enough.

The town hall-style meetings coincided with the release of his Spring Newsletter. You know, the one that has those baloney polls. They always contain questions worded to elicit the response that suits Herger’s right-wing agenda.

Here’s a good one:

Do you believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should continue its current program of monitoring international communications between suspected terrorists abroad and individuals in the United States?

Well, duh. Of course, we want the NSA monitoring international calls. I really don't care who's call they monitor overseas as long as there's a legitimate reason for it. It’s the monitoring of people in the U.S. WITHOUT A WARRANT as required by federal law that is the issue. Bush thinks he can monitor anyone he wants for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism. Without national security court (FISA) review, the monitoring of Americans is being hidden under a shroud of secrecy. That’s exactly what Herger and the extreme right wing want.

That is why I believe it is entirely appropriate and wise to continue the NSA surveillance program. To disrupt possible threats, we must be able to monitor the international communications of all suspected terrorists. Only Americans who are talking to suspected terrorists need be concerned about the NSA monitoring their calls.

Now, he’s being dishonest. At least 5,000 Americans have been subjected to warrantless spying, including the Quakers, other religious organizations, peace groups and groups opposed to the war. Where are the arrests of these terrorist sympathizers or enablers? Is Al-Quada actually stupid enough to talk to all of these people over the telephone?

The president is not above the law, and safeguarding the constitutional rights of Americans shouldn’t be an afterthought during war.

Oh yeah? Too bad that doesn’t square with what Herger recently told the Redding Record-Searchlight.

"I am very alarmed with what I might see happen in the interest of people’s supposed rights," he said. "I don’t think a suspected terrorist has rights."

As I wrote in this post, Herger sees your rights as "supposed" rights. That’s troubling enough, but then he says, "I don’t think a suspected terrorist has rights."
So, any American mistakenly named a “suspect” under Bush’s eavesdropping program wouldn’t have any rights. Can it happen? Can someone running the spy program make a mistake and brand an innocent American a suspected terrorist? You bet.

Take the case of loyal American Brandon Mayfield, a Portland, Oregon attorney wrongly accused of participating in the terrorist bombing of a train station in Spain. The FBI determined a fingerprint recovered from a bag of detonators matched Mayfield’s fingerprint. The FBI entered his house, conducted a "sneek and peek" of his office and computer, followed him, and eventually took him into custody. In the meantime, Spanish authorities were telling the FBI they didn’t think the fingerprint was Mayfield's.

Yet, the FBI continued to insist the fingerprint was Mayfield's, and kept him in custody. As little as month before his release, the FBI was insisting they were right. Later, they admitted they were wrong and apologized to Mayfield. The Justice Department inspector general's full report on the Brandon Mayfield case can be found at www.usdoj.gov/oig/new.htm

The point in all this is that Mayfield was very lucky another government was involved in the case. It was the Spaniards that convinced the FBI the fingerprint belonged to an Algerian terrorist. Otherwise, the FBI would still be clinging to its mistaken fingerprint match and Mayfield would still be in jail.

And, if Herger was to have his way, Mayfield would have no recourse to the courts to attempt to prove the fingerprint was not his. Mayfield would remain wrongly imprisoned, and that would be fine with Herger.

Let me repeat what Herger said: "A suspected terrorist doesn't have rights."

In my opinion, Herger needs to review the oath of office he took years ago, and he needs to clear his head of the fervor clouding his head, because as it stands now, his brand of right wing extremism is a danger to American freedoms,the U.S. Constitution, and innocent Americans.


--Drzal

Bill Falzett on Air America Radio

"The voters of this district aren't sure who is in control of our government. I don’t believe they are Republicans." - Yuba City Democratic challenger Bill Falzett on Air America Radio

Indeed. Certainly not Republicans in the traditional American sense.

Fighting Dem Bill Falzett of Yuba City appeared on Air America radio April 4 with Majority Report host Sam Sedor and Markos, proprietor of the DailyKos, the most visited blog on the Internet.

Kos has been introducing Fighting Dems to a national audience for a couple months. Fighting Dems are the now more than 50 men and women military veterans running as Democrats in the fall Senate and Congressional election.

Falzett, who served in the U.S. Air Force and whose youngest son served in Iraq, should easily win the Democratic primary for the right to challenge Rep. Wally Herger in the general election.

They asked a lot of questions, and they talked fast. I took notes as best I could. Falzett handled himself well for a guy talking for the first time to a national audience. He was assured, concise and clear. Best of all, he talked like you and me. It wasn't some politic-babble politicans hone to a "T" after 20 years in office.

Sedor asked Falzett why he is a Democrat:

Bill said he grew up on the tough streets of El Paso, Texas. Realized he had choices available to him. Joined the military in the late 50’s –early 60’s. Went to college and became a physcotherapist. "Choices were important to me. Democrats love choices. Welcome choices. Republicans don’t like choices."

Kos asked Bill to describe CD-2 of Northern California:

Bill says the district is the 10 counties in the central part of Northern California, following generally the I-5 corridor. It’s a rural farming and recreational district. The district has the highest unemployment and the lowest family income of any district in the state. About 86% of the families in the district have incomes of less than $50,000. "What I hear often is how people are upset with the incumbent who votes for the Bush-Cheney line and doesn’t do much for the district."

Bill supports single payer health insurance. "People are very worried about their health care." Insurance companies have multiplied greatly. They now tell him how to treat his patients.

Sedor asked Falzett for his thoughts on the war:

Bill said people in the district are mixed on the war in Iraq. Many think it’s the wrong place, wrong time. His youngest son joined the military before the war. "I really started sweating when the war started."

"We just can’t go in and impose our will on someone," Falzett continued. "We can’t cut and run, but we can’t stay on this course either. The failure is in diplomacy and administration."


Falzett said gun control is a big issue in the district. "People are told Democrats are going to take your guns away. Well, we’re not. There’s the Consitution. They use a lot of wedge issues."

Abortion is another wedge issue. Republicans have effectively convinced their supporters to vote those issues and ignore issues such as exporting jobs overseas and warfare on the middle and lower classes.


Bill said he needs to tap into a tremendous grassroots to help offset a huge funding disadvantage. "There’s a whole bunch of Democrats in the district. I have to get them out of the weeds."


And that really is the right approach. Step 1 is to turn out Democratic voters, many of whom have thrown up their hands and given up, believing a Democrat can’t win in Northern California. Which is what the Republicans have worked hard to get them to believe. Republican Kool-Aid.

Step 2 is to turn out Republican moderates who are as disgusted with this Republican Party as the Democrats are. The district isn’t close to as extreme as Wally Herger is, but moderate Republicans always fall into line and vote for the right-winger that comes out of the primary.

Bill Falzett gives them a reason not to.

--Drzal