Misfit, I don't get the political reference.

U.S. Government military aid to the "Axis of Evil." At bargan basement prices...!

---

Account frozen...

Misfit, I don't get the political reference.

Evidence of the bloody shoe tied to the man who wore it.

---

me@rescam.org

Cut the baloney
Governor must be candid about budget

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

January 16, 2007

Optimism is a great quality in a leader, and Arnold Schwarzenegger has it by the boatload. Our governor likes to declare that everything and everyone are “fantastic,” progress is always at hand, and all problems can be resolved with just a little good will and hard work.

But if this optimism is so unfounded that it is untethered from reality, then it can become a negative. That's just what has happened this month on the budget front. Schwarzenegger unveiled a $103 billion plan for fiscal 2007-08 that he said “eliminated” the deficits that have plagued California for years.

Except it didn't. Once you discard the accounting sleight-of-hand by which the governor claims some spending isn't, it's plain the plan calls for the state to pay out $1.8 billion more than it takes in – and relies on revenue forecasts that are much more bountiful than those of independent analysts. Besides the huge basic problem with revenue assumptions, the Legislative Analyst's Office pointed out Friday that the governor is counting on all sorts of unlikely developments in 2007-08 – winning legal cases over pension payments, securing a more lucrative deal with Indian casinos, getting legislators to approve a shift of $1.1 billion in transit funds, etc. A sober look at the numbers suggests we'll see a deficit of about $4 billion next fiscal year – nowhere close to what Schwarzenegger claims. In other words, the state will have to get out the credit cards – again.

Now here's the really bad news. If the state government operated with the same accounting honesty required of corporations, the deficit estimate would be much closer to $10 billion than to zero. According to a February 2006 LAO report, the state has a staggering $40 billion to $70 billion in unfunded liabilities for health care for retired state employees – promised benefits that it has no way to pay for. This is why the LAO urged the state to immediately start putting aside $6 billion a year to prepare for this coming nightmare – a recommendation the governor blithely ignored in his 2007-08 budget, even though the longer the state takes before addressing the problem, the worse it gets.

Nonetheless, on Friday afternoon, even as questions about Schwarzenegger's budget math were making headlines around the state, Finance Director Mike Genest was declaring in a conference call with editorial writers that California's long-term structural deficit problem had been tamed.

This is a fantasy. It must not become conventional wisdom. It's just not true.

In a subsequent phone interview Friday, Genest insisted that the Schwarzenegger administration was appropriately alarmed about the coming health-cost crunch. But there was the governor on ABC News on Sunday, once again spreading the baloney about his “shining” stewardship.

Enough is enough. Happy talk can't hide a broken budget. Happy talk can't make that $40 billion to $70 billion in long-term, so-far-ignored debt go away. Please, Arnold, find the exit from Fantasyland. We need you here.

---

me@rescam.org

Cut the baloney
Governor must be candid about budget

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

January 16, 2007

Optimism is a great quality in a leader, and Arnold Schwarzenegger has it by the boatload. Our governor likes to declare that everything and everyone are “fantastic,” progress is always at hand, and all problems can be resolved with just a little good will and hard work.

But if this optimism is so unfounded that it is untethered from reality, then it can become a negative. That's just what has happened this month on the budget front. Schwarzenegger unveiled a $103 billion plan for fiscal 2007-08 that he said “eliminated” the deficits that have plagued California for years.

Except it didn't. Once you discard the accounting sleight-of-hand by which the governor claims some spending isn't, it's plain the plan calls for the state to pay out $1.8 billion more than it takes in – and relies on revenue forecasts that are much more bountiful than those of independent analysts. Besides the huge basic problem with revenue assumptions, the Legislative Analyst's Office pointed out Friday that the governor is counting on all sorts of unlikely developments in 2007-08 – winning legal cases over pension payments, securing a more lucrative deal with Indian casinos, getting legislators to approve a shift of $1.1 billion in transit funds, etc. A sober look at the numbers suggests we'll see a deficit of about $4 billion next fiscal year – nowhere close to what Schwarzenegger claims. In other words, the state will have to get out the credit cards – again.

Now here's the really bad news. If the state government operated with the same accounting honesty required of corporations, the deficit estimate would be much closer to $10 billion than to zero. According to a February 2006 LAO report, the state has a staggering $40 billion to $70 billion in unfunded liabilities for health care for retired state employees – promised benefits that it has no way to pay for. This is why the LAO urged the state to immediately start putting aside $6 billion a year to prepare for this coming nightmare – a recommendation the governor blithely ignored in his 2007-08 budget, even though the longer the state takes before addressing the problem, the worse it gets.

Nonetheless, on Friday afternoon, even as questions about Schwarzenegger's budget math were making headlines around the state, Finance Director Mike Genest was declaring in a conference call with editorial writers that California's long-term structural deficit problem had been tamed.

This is a fantasy. It must not become conventional wisdom. It's just not true.

In a subsequent phone interview Friday, Genest insisted that the Schwarzenegger administration was appropriately alarmed about the coming health-cost crunch. But there was the governor on ABC News on Sunday, once again spreading the baloney about his “shining” stewardship.

Enough is enough. Happy talk can't hide a broken budget. Happy talk can't make that $40 billion to $70 billion in long-term, so-far-ignored debt go away. Please, Arnold, find the exit from Fantasyland. We need you here.

Fun with Numbers


It's the governor's job to inspire optimism, confidence, and to attract investment. Nobody has a crystal ball, nobody knows how much income and revenue will finally be attracted to offset the liabilities.

These Doom and Gloom soothsayers always seem to sound so intelligent, so knowlegeable, so detailed in their analysis. And eventually, the doom they predict may even come to pass..ten or fifteen years later than they called for it. At which point they leap up and shout, "See? I told you so!"

When the Governor hangs his head and says "Things are tough, we've got to start really cutting jobs and stop fixing the roads", THEN you should vote him out.

---

---

Account frozen...

That would be the most stupidest move. They all say get out but no plan
to get out.....

---

Lam's forced exit

Deplorable politics claims U.S. attorney

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

January 17, 2007

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has performed a stunning disservice to San Diego by forcing U.S. Attorney Carol Lam from her job without cause. With her aggressive prosecution of political corruption, Lam had justifiably earned the respect of the law enforcement community and the gratitude of all of San Diego.

Her resignation yesterday cannot paper over the disquieting truth that she was the victim of strong-arm political pressure from Washington, where officials apparently wanted to hand her job to a partisan operative for the last two years of the Bush administration. The Justice Department's shabby treatment of Lam sends a message that the politicization of federal prosecutors is proceeding apace – despite Gonzales' claim yesterday that “nothing could be further from the truth.”

At least seven U.S. attorneys appointed by Bush at the start of his tenure are now being forced to resign without justification. The only reason for their stepping down is that the Bush administration wants to reward other supporters by giving them high-profile positions as federal prosecutors. In Little Rock, for instance, the U.S. attorney was pushed out and replaced with a 37-year-old protege of White House political adviser Karl Rove.

Playing politics with the important job of U.S. attorney, who holds in his or her hands the vast prosecutorial resources of the United States government and the power to abuse them, sets a highly dangerous precedent. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is right to resist it.

Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Feinstein correctly pointed out that Lam was engaged in a critical probe of public corruption stemming from her prosecution of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham on bribery charges. High-ranking members of Congress are targets of the expanding investigation. Last month Lam issued subpoenas for thousands of pages of documents from the House Appropriations, Armed Services and Intelligence committees, to the consternation of congressional leaders.

Referring to Lam's probe, Feinstein stressed that it “interrupts the flow of the prosecution of these cases to have the present U.S. attorney be forced to resign....(T)he U.S. attorneys' job is too important for there to be unnecessary disruptions, or, worse, any appearance of undue influence.”

A recent change in federal law appears to be spurring the Bush administration's unseemly cronyism. An amendment to the reauthorized Patriot Act allows the president to appoint an interim U.S. attorney when a vacancy occurs, and the appointee is not subject to Senate confirmation. Before the change in the law, the U.S. District Court appointed interim prosecutors until the president's replacements were confirmed by the Senate.

Senate scrutiny of the president's choices for U.S. attorney through the confirmation process serves as a crucial check on the politicization of the office. Feinstein and the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have introduced a bill to end the administration's circumvention of the confirmation process, which is stipulated by the Constitution.

The Bush administration's squeeze against Lam and other U.S. attorneys on purely political grounds underscores in stark terms why Feinstein's measure is needed.

---

me@rescam.org

Prosecutors, others defend offender plea

Wednesday, January 17
BENNINGTON — A child molester received a plea deal from the state in part because the 4-year-old victim's competency to stand trial was in question, say prosecutors.


More

---

That would be the most stupidest move. They all say get out but no plan
to get out.....

Get out is the plan...turn around and leave...cut your loses and take your licks. Like in Vegas, the worst things you can do is try to win back what you've already lost...you just end up losing more. And by now, it should be obvious to all, that Bush is incompetant and doesn't know how to play the game correctly even from the start.

---

Account frozen...

Lam's forced exit

Deplorable politics claims U.S. attorney

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

January 17, 2007

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has performed a stunning disservice to San Diego by forcing U.S. Attorney Carol Lam from her job without cause. With her aggressive prosecution of political corruption, Lam had justifiably earned the respect of the law enforcement community and the gratitude of all of San Diego.

Her resignation yesterday cannot paper over the disquieting truth that she was the victim of strong-arm political pressure from Washington, where officials apparently wanted to hand her job to a partisan operative for the last two years of the Bush administration. The Justice Department's shabby treatment of Lam sends a message that the politicization of federal prosecutors is proceeding apace – despite Gonzales' claim yesterday that “nothing could be further from the truth.”

At least seven U.S. attorneys appointed by Bush at the start of his tenure are now being forced to resign without justification. The only reason for their stepping down is that the Bush administration wants to reward other supporters by giving them high-profile positions as federal prosecutors. In Little Rock, for instance, the U.S. attorney was pushed out and replaced with a 37-year-old protege of White House political adviser Karl Rove.

Playing politics with the important job of U.S. attorney, who holds in his or her hands the vast prosecutorial resources of the United States government and the power to abuse them, sets a highly dangerous precedent. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is right to resist it.

Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Feinstein correctly pointed out that Lam was engaged in a critical probe of public corruption stemming from her prosecution of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham on bribery charges. High-ranking members of Congress are targets of the expanding investigation. Last month Lam issued subpoenas for thousands of pages of documents from the House Appropriations, Armed Services and Intelligence committees, to the consternation of congressional leaders.

Referring to Lam's probe, Feinstein stressed that it “interrupts the flow of the prosecution of these cases to have the present U.S. attorney be forced to resign....(T)he U.S. attorneys' job is too important for there to be unnecessary disruptions, or, worse, any appearance of undue influence.”

A recent change in federal law appears to be spurring the Bush administration's unseemly cronyism. An amendment to the reauthorized Patriot Act allows the president to appoint an interim U.S. attorney when a vacancy occurs, and the appointee is not subject to Senate confirmation. Before the change in the law, the U.S. District Court appointed interim prosecutors until the president's replacements were confirmed by the Senate.

Senate scrutiny of the president's choices for U.S. attorney through the confirmation process serves as a crucial check on the politicization of the office. Feinstein and the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have introduced a bill to end the administration's circumvention of the confirmation process, which is stipulated by the Constitution.

The Bush administration's squeeze against Lam and other U.S. attorneys on purely political grounds underscores in stark terms why Feinstein's measure is needed.

LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL

Three days after Nevada's two senators said the Department of Justice had forced out Daniel Bogden, U.S. attorney for the district of Nevada, Bogden broke his silence on the matter, confirming that he will be leaving his post next month.

Bogden's announcement late Wednesday came one day after Natalie Collins, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, belatedly responded to questions about the matter by saying that Bogden was still the U.S. attorney in Nevada.

Collins also claimed that media reports regarding Bogden's ouster were "erroneous."

In the issued statement, Bogden, who was appointed to the job by the Bush administration in 2001, said his resignation is effective Feb. 28.

Neither Bogden nor Collins has addressed whether Bogden was forced out of office as the senators contend, and if so, why.

He is one of at least seven U.S. attorneys around the nation whom senators say have been forced to resign in the last couple of months.

One of them is Bogden's counterpart in San Diego, Carol Lam, who received her walking papers from the Department of Justice, too.

Lam, who has been in charge of federal prosecutions in Southern California since September 2002, said Tuesday that she will leave her job Feb. 15.

Like Bogden, Lam had overseen federal prosecution of public corruption cases involving Michael Galardi, who owned strip clubs in Las Vegas and San Diego.

Lam, a former judge, also oversaw the corruption prosecution of former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Republican.

On Wednesday, The Associated Press reported that the U.S. attorney in San Francisco, Kevin V. Ryan, has submitted his resignation, too.

Ryan's notable prosecutions included the BALCO steroids case.

His office also launched investigations of Silicon Valley giants Hewlett-Packard Co. and Apple Inc.

Mahlon Brown, a former U.S. attorney for the district of Nevada who now leads the National Association of Former United States Attorneys, said the wave of unexpected resignations has him "in shock and awe."

"It has always been that no one gets fired like this unless they did something goofy, if they broke the rules," Brown said. "And from what I'm picking up, even they have no idea why they've been fired. No one knows."

Brown was the U.S. attorney in Nevada from 1977 to 1981.

He was appointed by the administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter and forced out when Ronald Reagan was elected president.

Brown said it is not unusual for U.S. attorneys to lose their jobs when presidential administrations change, but he said he had never seen a large turnover of U.S. attorneys in the midst of a presidential term.

Brown said the job of a federal prosecutor is not supposed to be impacted by politics in any way.

He said he sees the spate of forced resignations as further evidence that the Bush administration is not interested in following precedent when it comes to how such judicial appointments are made.

"I think it sends the same message that's been sent the last eight years: 'We'll do it our way and forget how it's been done before you,'" Brown said.

"You don't have to be a general in Iraq to realize your job is on the line everyday, and U.S. attorneys have never had to work under that type of environment before."

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., who recommended Bogden for the job, said Wednesday, "The White House and the Department of Justice had their reasons, and I discussed it with them, and it's their call."

Ensign did not say what the reasons for Bogden's dismissal were.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the treatment of Bogden was unfair and "a terrible shame."

"Do you realize that his career is now ended as a U.S. attorney? He can't go back there, so he's going to have to do something else," Reid said. "What a shame."

Reid said he heard nothing but praise about Bogden's job performance and could not understand why he had been removed.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice did not return a phone call from the Review-Journal seeking comment Wednesday afternoon.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Tuesday told The Associated Press the removal of the federal prosecutors was not politically motivated, as many Democrats have speculated.

"We in no way politicize these decisions," Gonzales said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Tuesday that at least seven U.S. attorneys have been forced to resign without explanation.

She accused the Bush administration of trying to circumvent Senate confirmation of their replacements.

Such appointments were subject to Senate review until last year when the Patriot Act was reauthorized with a provision that allowed the U.S. attorney general to appoint longer-term, interim replacements without Senate approval.

The departures, Feinstein said, come at a sensitive time when federal prosecutors are pursuing political corruption cases.

"The U.S. attorney's job is too important for there to be unnecessary disruptions, or, worse, any appearance of undue influence," Feinstein said.

Feinstein said she planned to bring up the issue today at a Senate Judiciary committee hearing at which Gonzales is scheduled to appear.

A Justice Department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, said senators would be consulted before the nomination of replacement U.S. attorneys, as has been the routine since the law was changed.

"It is inconceivable for a member of Congress to believe that use of an appointment authority to fill a vacancy is in any way an attempt to circumvent the confirmation process," Roehrkasse said.


And another article in the oped section of the LVRJ...

JANE ANN MORRISON: Bush administration's ouster of U.S. attorneys an insulting injustice


Perhaps Senate Democrats can get a clearer answer today about why the Bush administration demanded the resignation of various U.S. attorneys, including Nevada's Dan Bogden.

Fat chance. It's far more likely that the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee seeking answers from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will see him do the dance of the seven veils as he insists there's no way the administration was engaged in political games.

U.S. Sen. John Ensign, who nominated Bogden, learned about a month ago that Bogden's services no longer were needed by this administration. The senator asked for reconsideration, arguing to no avail against removing someone doing a good job. Bogden became one of at least seven federal prosecutors getting the boot for no stated reason.

The most vocal critics of the forced resignations have been California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, both Democrats, who object that the Patriot Act is being used to remove the U.S. attorneys and replace them with interim appointees without Senate confirmation. They're not defending the current Bush appointees as much as they are defending the process of checks and balances.

From what I know, there was no misconduct on the part of this career prosecutor who took charge on Sept. 10, 2001, one day before terrorism became law enforcement's priority. There was no suggestion that he was playing politics with the office.

A GOP source said Ensign was told that the decision to remove U.S. attorneys, primarily in the West, was part of a plan to "give somebody else that experience" to build up the back bench of Republicans by giving them high-profile jobs.

So, yes, it is politics at play, despite Gonzales' claims that this isn't political.

It's no secret that the appointment of a U.S. attorney is a political appointment. The party that controls the White House gets to name the U.S. attorney, usually based on suggestions from the state's senior senator of that party.

After that, the job is not supposed to be political. It's supposed to be independent. Prosecutions are supposed to be based on crimes, not party affiliations.

Under Bogden, the prosecution of four Clark County commissioners was an unqualified success. One was a Republican. Three were Democrats. His news release Wednesday announcing that his resignation will take effect Feb. 28, summarized the work that his office of 40 attorneys did in prosecuting gang members, gun offenders, 1,067 drug offenders, 163 child sex offenders and more than 1,000 immigration offenders, plus collecting more than $57 million in fines and forfeitures.

His office has not always been victorious, with one major securities fraud case dismissed for prosecutorial misconduct because of discovery that wasn't provided and the Hells Angels case settled with plea bargains that the defense attorneys considered victories. Bogden isn't media savvy or the fastest gun in the West. But he's a solid prosecutor who doesn't deserve this.

To change the process now so that an administration can yank a U.S. attorney out of office on a political whim is wrong. It also will make it harder to find good people to take the job. First-tier people won't want the job; political hacks might.

If it's true that this is a ploy to showcase more Republicans and build up the political back bench, it's a disservice to our justice system. What once was a prestigious job in which a prosecutor hoped to make a difference shouldn't become a training ground to highlight aspiring politicians.

On Jan. 11, Gonzales gave a speech to the U.S. Attorneys' National Security Conference, saying, "The president nominated you because of your courage, your leadership and your commitment to the rule of law and securing our neighborhoods. I am proud of you." Talk about a disconnect between what Gonzales said and what he did by demanding the resignations.

I've thwacked the U.S. attorney's office a time or two for cause, but what the Bush administration is doing here is wrong. We want prosecutors who don't play politics, who go after bad guys and gals without consideration of party. Bogden did that.

To use the Patriot Act against U.S. attorneys charged with enforcing it is an insult.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. E-mail her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0275.

---

Account frozen...

Get out is the plan...turn around and leave...cut your loses and take your licks. Like in Vegas, the worst things you can do is try to win back what you've already lost...you just end up losing more. And by now, it should be obvious to all, that Bush is incompetant and doesn't know how to play the game correctly even from the start.

More accurately, what should be obvious is that Dubya is just politics-as-usual, be it Carter or Bush, Reagan or Clinton. Except that Dubya doesn't even bother with the pretense of pretending he cares what his opponents think.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Get out is the plan...turn around and leave...cut your loses and take your licks. Like in Vegas, the worst things you can do is try to win back what you've already lost...you just end up losing more. And by now, it should be obvious to all, that Bush is incompetant and doesn't know how to play the game correctly even from the start.

More accurately, what should be obvious is that Dubya is just politics-as-usual, be it Carter or Bush, Reagan or Clinton. Except that Dubya doesn't even bother with the pretense of pretending he cares what his opponents think.

Or how many human beings lose their lives...for nothing...definiately not for "Freedom & Democracy." If you still think that's going to happen you need to make an appointment...

---

Account frozen...

---

Account frozen...

Displeasure with Iranian leader rises

---

me@rescam.org