The Post's half arsed apology is nearly as offensive at the cartoon at the root of this kerfuffle. Nearly.

I'm a little confused as to how Obama is like Hitler in the fevered mind of that crazy Malkin bitch. I mean, it's not like Obama unilaterally invaded a sovereign country that posed no threat to the US resulting in the wholesale slaughter of thousands. I'm sure that Malkin can conjure up a false equivalency though.

Kudlow would like to roll back tghe clock to 1929.

Will the recession lead to a crime wave?

I think the Bush crime wave led to the recession.

Hey Steve, I'm glad you're hiring a web designer to help with the site. Content's great. Presentation not so much. :-)

Dale

on judis' piece --

Wouldn’t massive spending create huge government debts? Yes, certainly, but public spending can also raise national income, and that’s the only way to pay off these debts.

if goverment spending were a reliable means of increasing real national income, why would we not engage in massive deficit spending all the time?

the answer is that leverage has limits which, once exceeded, can precipitate collapse. i'm not a liquidationist, but i think we do have to recognize that the united states is currently EXTRAORDINARILY indebted (see chart). shifting as much of that leverage from the private books to the public books is one way to try to avoid deleveraging, but the debt is still there and will continue to divert significant national income overseas to the extent that our NIIP is deeply negative.

treasury yields do remain relatively low, though they have not behaved so well since treasury upped its issuance -- the price of t-bonds has actually fallen quite considerably. consider further that, with the collapse of global trade, vendor financing flows are lessening as the current account deficit closes -- meaning that the foreign need of dollar assets is declining. should issuance significantly exceed demand at some point -- if domestic savings does not make up for lower foreign demand -- the result might well be monetization and currency problems, including the tail risk of capital flight and a dollar collapse.

there is no free lunch. the price we pay for attempting to avoid delevering from high level of indebtedness is risking some probability of a fat-tail event with the currency.

over and over, i see neokeynesians (including dr. krugman) gloss over this point as if this whole thing were extremely straightforward and simple. i wish instead that the real risks of pursuing this policy goal would be more honestly portrayed for the american people.

Just waiting to hear those names on the "tax shelter" UBS customers. Wonder how many political types will be on it. Should be interesting!

The comments under the Panetta piece were telling. Gloom and doom from the readers of WSJ about how everything was going to hell now that there were people who actually took seriously their jobs, even if they joked about them. In contrast to the last eight years, when they wore their suits in the oval office and made no attempt to actually do their jobs.

NEWSFLASH Boner is a complete dumbass and Malkin is aflaming gaper.

Hey, it looks like David Shuster did what I suggested with the "Million dollars a day since Jesus" measurement.

That is, use it to measure the Bush/Republican legacy of the last eight years.

Example: Admitted deficits for Bush years = 4 $1M/D SJ.

Utah State Sen. Chris Buttars, who on Wednesday called the gay-rights movement "probably the greatest threat to America," likened its activists to Muslim radical extremists, and called same-sex relationships "abominations", was summarily removed by Senate leadership from his posts as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and as a member of the Utah Judicial Selection Commission.

Sen. Buttars had already incurred the wrath of the NAACP last year when he opposed a complex school-funding measure, saying, "This baby is black ... It's a dark, ugly thing."

What a thoroughly pleasant, fine and upstanding human being ...

Please read the piece on Democratic Underground about the forged yellowcake evidence and the payoff from Bush to the Italians. This should be read by everyone.

Insurance companies are a bunch of damn theives! Health, life, automobile, all they want is to take our money!

if goverment spending were a reliable means of increasing real national income

Properly targeted (particularly, targeted directly on creating jobs in the short term by producing infrastructure with long-term utility) spending appears to be, both theoretically and empirically, a better way of doing that than almost anything else that government can choose as an action when the private sector is in a major slump.

The rest of the time, or if the spending isn't well targeted, that is not the case.

i'm not a liquidationist, but i think we do have to recognize that the united states is currently EXTRAORDINARILY indebted (see chart).

This is a serious problem, however, it doesn't create any other way out of the present economic crisis. We still need the government to take appropriate targeted action through deficit spending in the short term, even though both the effectiveness of that and how long it can be sustained is constrained by the horrible starting position. This also means once we start a recovery, we need to work to get the debt-to-GDP ratio down as quickly as possible without taking action, either by precipitously cutting spending in the wrong ways or precipitously raising taxes in the wrong ways, that will derail the expansion.

over and over, i see neokeynesians (including dr. krugman) gloss over this point as if this whole thing were extremely straightforward and simple.

I think, at least in Krugman's case, its not a matter of underestimating the risk of massive deficit spending given how indebted the US currently is, but a proper appreciation of the risk of failing to do so given the current conditions in the economy. I think that appreciation of the problems you raise is part of why Krugman has been making very big noises about getting enough done right away, too, because if we take half-measures and let things get worse so that it will take even more to dig out, there's no way we're going to be able to do it given the debt position the government is starting from.

We've got a very limited window for government to do whatever it is going to do to get the private economy back functioning again before the wheels come off completely and government is powerless.

"The Illinois senator's already-bleak future?"

Why is it bleak? The man is a sitting US senator. What has Roland Burris ever done to you Steve, besides vote for the stimulus bill?

I like Burris. He's a trailblazer and a superstar!

if goverment spending were a reliable means of increasing real national income, why would we not engage in massive deficit spending all the time?

You seem to imply that we haven't been engaging in massive deficit spending for the past 30 years when, in fact, that's been the case since Reagan.

The real problem is that we coupled massive deficit spending with massive tax cuts for the people/corporations most likely to benefit from that spending, which means that the economic growth that was created with the deficit spending went directly into the pockets of citizens, not back to the government as revenue to pay back the debt incurred.

Now, one can argue on principle that it's better to have that money going directly to citizens than to the government, but if that's the case, then you can't have any deficit spending. None. You can't spend massive amounts of money on defense. You can't pick fights in the Middle East. Money spent on defense is still real money. If you're going to cut taxes, you have to cut off defense contractors, too.

Republicans spent the 30 years since Reagan pretending that you can spend on things Republicans want (like defense) without needing to fund it with revenue, but you can't, because you're increasing your indebtedness while decreasing your income. It's like having a credit card with a $100,000 limit and then quitting your job to work part-time at Starbucks -- you ain't going to be able to meet that obligation for long.

It's possible you're right that the plan will fail because Americans have gotten used to the idea that taxes are never necessary to run a city or a state or a nation. We think taxation is optional and then we're astounded that our indebtedness keeps increasing and our bridges keep falling down because there's no money to fix them. And yet people are going to freak out when they realize that running a government actually costs money and isn't provided for free by the Government Fairy like the Republicans told them.

This is actually a follow-up to an earlier post about Republican Governors -- including the Baroness Munchhausen -- threatening to turn down government funds.

But first some important background. the people in Western alaska -- especially the Native Alaskan villages -- and seriously in trouble. There has been a serious cold wave -- no jokes, even in Alaska 60 below is serious, and deadly -- and people are having no money for either heat or food. Many of the villages are receiving food packages from the US. If you are interested in helping, stories and info are at Mudflats.

This has been a major story in Alaska and has gotten some coverage down here. But as for the Governor, well, she has finally been shamed into going -- five weeks after the crisis started. But she's 'true to the principles of her base.' She's not taking a logistics engineer, or a member of her Administration, or legislators with her.

She's taking Franklin Graham -- yes, Billy graham's son. As the head of a private charity, she implies he would be better than the government -- or the many volunteers -- in helping the situation. (And what a GLORIOUS photo-op.)

One quote from the Mudflats piece:
"The press conference given by Palin in Juneau recently spotlighted how utterly unprepared she was to answer the question “What have you done personally� to help? Many of us have donated food, money, and personal time toward the relief effort. Palin has used her personal time for all kinds of other things - travel to Washington D.C. to attend a swanky banquet and a dinner party at the home of a GOP fundraiser. She’s given interviews, and started the Iron Dog snowmachine race. But has she donated food? Has she made a public cry for help? Not until now."

It seems Krugman's writings are often misconstrued and he spends half his time later clarifying what he meant and what he didn't.

Wouldn't it serve him to be less cryptic from the onset? His writings confuse me-at times they're blunt, and yet they are riddled with a certain elusiveness.

I certainly understand the value of just putting provocative observations out there without tying them up neatly (many can't be tied up), but it seems Krugman bends over backwards to NOT clarify exactly what he is saying. Maybe it comes with the
"nerdy" (or what's the new buzz word now--wonk?) territory, but I say he too often (and likely unwittingly) wears this on his sleeve at the expense of clarity.

That ranting guy (Rick Santelli) on CNBC:
Santelli was ranting from among a bunch of "traders" - OK, must be making capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than earned income (from doing actual work, not just flipping stuff.) So Mr. Santelli, how many of us like to subsidize your buddies' lower tax rate with our higher earned income rate?

As for the Obama and falling stock market schlock:
Do those dweebs have any idea of "what would have happened anyway"? Righties hate science and logical reasoning, that's why they have such a hard time with post hoc ergo propter hoc, and thus economic and global warming issues etc.
Well, at http://www.wowowow.com/post/liz-peek-barack-obama-economy-stimulus-214454 most commenters put in a good smackdown of the wretch Liz Peek that Drudge linked to": "Stock Market Gives Obama’s First Month An 'F'".

The right wing is already selling bumper-stickers calling for Obama's impeachment. That didn't take long.

Right up there with the John Birch Society and "Impeach Earl Warren." Likely about as effective, too. At least we'll be able to identify the morons when we see them on the road.

* Will the recession lead to a crime wave? -- Steve Benen

Probably; it usually does. And more domestic violence, which the article mentions. What the article doesn't mention is that we can also expect another baby boom. Nothing better to do and no money for contraceptives...

I like Burris. He's a trailblazer and a superstar!-- Haik Bedrosian, @18:51

You also thought -- and bet money on, IIRC -- that Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton would duke it out in the presidential race. Go play in the corner with Davie Brooks, Kristol, George Will et al.

BP invests more in cellulosic ethanol:

http://gas2.org/2009/02/20/bp-becomes-leader-in-cellulosic-ethanol-investment-adds-225m-to-verenium/#more-1788

New engines that enhance the commercial prospects of ethanol:

http://www.biofueldaily.com/reports/Orbital_And_Sygma_Alternative_Fuel_Initiatives_In_Brazil_999.html

http://www.biofueldaily.com/reports/Ricardo_Technology_Achieves_Breakthrough_Efficiency_For_Ethanol_fueled_Engines_999.html

Now back to politics:

John Boehner doesn't seem to know what he's talking about.

Yes, yes, yes, the Republicans are ingorant fools, liars, and cheats. But that is not your problem anymore. With Democrats in the White House, a Democratic majority in the House, and a near veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (so you only need 3 Republicans to vote with you on any issue), Republicans are not your problem. Your problem is to come up with policies and laws that work. With control comes increased media interest: Mollohan, Murtha, Frank, Dodd, Hastings, Burris -- and the possibly prosecutorial misconduct in the trial of Ted Stevens -- Pelosi might have to get even busier cleaning out the Augean stable of corruption.

Obama is looking golden. Now that he has actually visited Canada we know which of his primary NAFTA policies he actually meant. After his thorough review of strategies and options in Afghanistan he is carrying out the deployment he promised -- too bad NATO isn't contributing as much as he has asked for, but he's just getting started. And after reviewing the situation in Iraq with his military advisors, as he said he would, he is withdrawing American soldiers very slowly, as he said he would. His "bipartisanship" is working very well to make most of the Republicans look bad and get his own preferences written into law. He has had a good first month. If he can keep it up he can win re-election easily -- especially if the stimulus actually works.

If Wall Streeters think it's wrong for us honest decent taxpaying taxpayers to subsidize the criminally insane among us, then we ought to start taxing Wall Streeters at the same rate as everybody else.

Marler: Yes, yes, yes, the Republicans are ingorant [sic] fools, liars, and cheats.

Funny you should mention that, as I just happened to post a comment detailing a lie you told previously in an energy "update" like this one.

Yes, yes, yes, the Republicans are ingorant [sic] fools, liars, and cheats.

Apparently this statement was some kind of Freudian unburdening. I have to ask: why do you think it is you're compelled to avoid telling the truth?

Fellow Reformers,

I wanted to write one about Eric Holder. Is not the theme conservatives must stress that to blame slavery and Jim Crow for the problems in the African-American community is absurd even if there is some tiny 0.1% scintilla of truth to it? In fact, the problems African-Americans face now have their roots not in 1865 but 1965 and the Great Society Program; thus the Democratic Party of LBJ->Jimmy Carter and their like kind welfare Democats through today at the municipal and state level are to blame rather than long dead slave masters and KKKers.

The real coward is Reverend Wright (and vicariously Barack Obama as a member of the church); slandering the USA in the private sanctuary of his church with his chorus singing Allelujah.

Someone just has to say white America are not cowards; rather black America is 99.9%+ wrong to blame their plight on anyone other then either themselves or liberal Democrats.

I would use the analogy that our weight on earth is in part determined by the gravity of the moon. But credit the moon with our weights here is absurd; so too it blaming slavery and segregation for African-Americans problems ... it's effect is ridiculously small. African-Americans, statistically, have to clean up their acts, put in the hours, and put up the numbers equivalent to their other ethnic counterparts; as did for example he whom appears to have sobered up (from past drug use), worked hard, and made himself into as fine a gentleman as any politician can claim to be: Barack Obama.

TOH

We still need the government to take appropriate targeted action through deficit spending in the short term, even though both the effectiveness of that and how long it can be sustained is constrained by the horrible starting position.

that's fair, cmd, but we should recognize that the contingencies of our situation -- primarily the size of NPLs relative to GDP (greater even than japan) and the global character of the slump (we won't export our way out) -- indicate that our spending will have to be VERY large and sustained to have the intended effect. i am not optimistic we can do what is being proposed without significant risk of a tail event in the currency. as willem buiter suggested, i suspect it's actually safer not even to try -- so much more horrible would be the tail event realized than the depression undertaken to avoid.

I think, at least in Krugman's case, its not a matter of underestimating the risk of massive deficit spending given how indebted the US currently is, but a proper appreciation of the risk of failing to do so given the current conditions in the economy.

i think i follow, cmd -- thanks for the dialogue as well! -- but i don't think i entirely agree. as above, the currency event would be an order of magnitude worse than the deflationary event we're hoping to avoid. but furthermore -- the issue of speed and timing is, i think, overrated in the received wisdom; slowness has become something of a scapegoat for ineffectiveness in my view. i certainly don't think dr. krugman is being disingenuous; i think he's interpreting the evidence as suits his worldview. but i suspect even huge stimulus thrown into the maw of a full-fledged systemic deleveraging is simply overwhelmed. this is a $50tn credit bubble bursting in the US alone; already $20tn of global wealth has been wiped away. no feasible amount of government spending is going to counter the knock-on effects of that terrible reality, i fear. particularly with the banks still impaired, i suspect the multipliers are being vastly overestimated because of the almost unique nature of the event.

sorry -- i wish i could be more positive. but i do think we are faced with a situation where doing more could actually be quite a lot more damaging and destabilizing than doing less.

trex: why do you think it is you're compelled to avoid telling the truth?

In many cases, as with the Carlsbad desalination plant, I test my knowledge by making predictions.

Sometimes they are just hopes or possibilities. The San Onofre Nuclear Power plants are not slated to power desalination plants any time soon (a possibility that I mentioned once), but they would sure supply a lot of water, about 10 times what the Carlsbad desalination plant might provided. Since San Diego County and Orange County are very thirsty counties without adequate water supplies, it would surely be a good idea to start getting the water necessary to replace the reduced ration from the Colorado River.

You'll have noticed that I am very upbeat about alternative energy supplies: cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, wind and solar. The only unknown is when they start to be price-competitive against petroleum-based fuels and electricity. My expectation for cellulosic ethanol is that it will be price-competitive with petroleum-based fuel by election time 2010. If we are still conversing by then, you will be able to tell me whether I was wrong. Do you have an expectation of your own that you want to share with your readers?

I also once wrote about the "availability" of plug-in electric hybrids. Yesterday San Francisco announced the installation of charging stations for them, mostly for city-owned vehicles. As mayor Newsome said on another topic: "It's coming!" Do you think so?

You seem to imply that we haven't been engaging in massive deficit spending for the past 30 years when, in fact, that's been the case since Reagan.

indeed we have! and its product is awful, as we now see. the free-market-fundamentalism economic movement of the last forty years (which infected both parties thoroughly, even if the republicans exemplified it) has been an utter boondoggle. it weakened the government fiscal and regulatory positions while creating a massive private sector wealth disparity by punishing wage income and rewarding capital, all while complacently acquiescing to an artificially-inflated (by mercantilist trading parters) currency which created dangerous global imbalances. it will take a generation to undo the damage.

the question is, however, whether our problems can really be resolved by going yet further down that road -- cutting taxes, increasing spending, transferring private leverage and losses to the public balance sheet and cash flow statement.

Matthew,

"Yes, yes, yes, the Republicans are ingorant fools, liars, and cheats. But that is not your problem anymore. With Democrats in the White House, a Democratic majority in the House, and a near veto-proof and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (so you only need 3 Republicans to vote with you on any issue), Republicans are not your problem. Your problem is to come up with policies and laws that work."

And how would the American RightWing recognize "policies and laws that work" ?

In many cases, as with the Carlsbad desalination plant, I test my knowledge by making predictions.

That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Even had the plant passed its final environmental qualifications it would still take years to build and come online. That being the case, there is no excuse for claiming the plant was online and working, particularly if you live there.

The truth is you gave a false progress report because that suited your meme, the idea that alternative energy investments were going just swimmingly under the Bush administration.

"Testing knowledge by making predictions" = bullshitting.

Going into a lengthy discussion about electric cars when called on your bullshitting = changing the subject.

You lied, and you got busted.

That being the case, there is no excuse for claiming the plant was online and working, particularly if you live there.

I wrote that it would be producing water by the end of the year 2008. That was when it passed what the State of California called the last test. I didn't just live here, I drove past the site every day. I wrote a longer comment on the original thread.

There is nothing stupid about testing your knowledge by making predictions. Scientific theories are tested this way day-in and day-out. It is the best test of knowledge.

Going into a lengthy discussion about electric cars when called on your bullshitting = changing the subject.

As you might notice by reviewing, the engine technology was my first post on this thread.

I would make one correction to one of your listings above:

Will "the crime wave of ponzi schemes and fraudulently-rated investment packages sold to unsuspecting investors around the world that caused" the recession lead to a crime wave?

I expect riots in many cities across America this summer, as well as riots in other cities around the world.

I expect rising suicide rates.

I expect increased bank robberies.

I expect increased incidences of people "going postal," walking into businesses or wherever and blowing away whomever.

All the courtesy of die-hard deregulatory conservative Republicans, who hate(d) FDR's statutory safeguards put in place to protect the U.S. and the world from experiencing another Great Depression so much, that they wanted our nation to return to pre-1929 Stock Market Crash economic policies.

A whole lot of people, including many Republicans, are going to suffer from what the culture of corruption and greed Fortune 500 Republicans did to our country and the future of our nation's children.

And now these same Fortune 500 criminally conservative cretins who caused this rupture in our economy are trying to claim that what has happened isn't their fault but someone elses.

President Obama's stimulus plan may help a little, even after being watered down by three Republicans in the Senate (with blessings from Blue Dog Democrats), but prescient economists like Paul Krugman say it falls way short...thus, things are going to get worse, much much worse, for many American families and families in countries around the world.

So, the Fortune 500 crime wave that led to the recession will no doubt lead to a "crime wave" among the non-Fortune 500 citizen as financially-strapped desperate people resort to desperate measures to put food in their mouths and the mouths of their children...even as the Fortune 500 types who caused this economic rupture barricade themselves in their gated communities, seeking to hide and ride out this economic storm...created by them.

Gee, why does this sound so, so familiar? French Revolution? Tsarist Russia? Anyone who says that history doesn't repeat itself is a fool, because they obviously haven't been paying attention to what conservatives cause to happen all the time in their mad, selfish, egotistical quest to "own it all."

the michelle malkin link is classic rightie projection. when caught smiling for a photo next to a guy holding an obama = hitler sign she blames the left for "playing the hitler card" by making an issue of the sign!

wanting it both ways, she goes on to say that its perfectly acceptable to compare obama to hitler. of course if you object to her saying that then your just playing the hitler card. wtf?!?

The piece on the secret meetings of big business interests being sponsored by Sen. Kennedy's office makes my blood run cold. Predictably, everyone's concerns are on the agenda — except, of course, the average American's. And it's just amazing how all those smart guys manage to have solutions for everything except the actual problem.

Note to policymakers: approaching this question as a crisis in health insurance is tone-deaf and completely out of touch with the voters, many of whom already have insurance but have their claims effectively denied. The ball in this game is healthcare for all, not health insurance.

the question is, however, whether our problems can really be resolved by going yet further down that road -- cutting taxes, increasing spending, transferring private leverage and losses to the public balance sheet and cash flow statement.

It's hard to say, because we're trying something that hasn't been tried in 70 years, and the world of business and finance has changed quite a bit since then. We have a lot more people who need to be taken care of, too.

Even worse, we have 2 entire generations who have been raised on the notion that taxation is theft and government is useless. It's going to be very, very hard to turn that attitude around, because you have a lot of people who've built their lives around that belief, and now you're going to have to try and convince them that their most basic belief is totally wrong.

I think that, done smart to get actual useful things out of the stimulus money (like roads, schools, bridges, etc.), we might be able to squeak by. It's not going to be pretty, but in 10 years we'll at least be able to say we avoided the worst that could have happened. It helps that interest rates are historically low, so all of the debt we're accumulating is a lot cheaper than when Reagan did it at double-digit interest rates. More money can go towards principal and less towards interest, which is what you always want.

If people -- politicians and citizens -- stay willfully stupid and insist that we just have to try the failed policies of the last 30 years more and harder, then we're fucked. I don't know any other way to put it.

The links with crime and recessions aren't clear cut.. some types of crime increase, while others decrease, but evidence suggests overall crime drops during recessions.

Will the Recession Spark a Crime Wave?

What about government miscreants who illegally confiscate honest citizens’ income while being tax cheats themselves? I find it depressing that Mike Hamersley gets to confiscate honest citizens’ income while he himself by his own definition is a tax cheat. Misprison, it is a crime not to report a crime. Any U.S. citizen who knows of another who has committed a crime and does not report it to the authorities, is guilty of Misprison and could be subjected to years in prison for the commission of such crime. Therefore I must hereby notify all legal authorities that Mike Hamersley a high level Government official in the bankrupt state of California at the FTB (who is nationally known as a tax shelter fighting crusader) is guilty of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit tax evasion as (he defines it); guilty of theft of honest services; conspiracy to defraud creditors; possibly perjury to the Senate and other government agencies: and violation of 7216, disclosure of confidential taxpayer information to third parties. It is indeed a rather long list.

Hamersley testified to the Senate in 2003 that tax fraud involves devising transactions which allow for tax losses and “hiding the true facts from the IRS”. The transcripts are available for all to see. Hamersley also restated the same in his lawsuit against KPMG in 2003 (which is a public document).

As one example of Hamersley’s fraud, Hamersley while at KPMG gave advice to a client that tens of millions of tax losses could obtain with a 20% to 30% of success upon IRS audit if the IRS discovered the true facts of the transaction. Presumably, if the IRS did not discover the true facts of the transaction, a higher chance of success upon audit by the IRS would obtain. Hamersley was advising on a series of preplanned asset and stock transfers which involved separating assets from liabilities inside a company, transferring the assets to a foreign company and selling the stock of yet another company to the client’s lawyer for a dollar, all to achieve tens of millions in tax losses and defraud the creditors of the company from which the assets were being stripped. Hamersley’s participation in all these crimes is confirmed in an email by him dated May 24, 2000 prepared by him while working as a tax expert at KPMG.

Hamersley also further participated in hiding the true facts of the transaction from the IRS and the creditors by reviewing and approving documents prepared in June of 2000 which gave effect to the transaction back to 19999 (which based on Hamersley’s definition of tax evasion, is a classic case of backdating a fraudulent tax shelter).

In fact, the transaction approved by Hamersley is very similar to the one he claimed in his lawsuit against KPMG involving XYZ corporation (which we all now know was Occidental Petroleum) as tax fraud.

This of course creates an interesting conundrum for Hamersley, as it is likely he will claim his tax shelters were not fraudulent (not with standing his email which describes the possibility and chances of success upon IRS audit if the IRS discovers the true facts), however, if that is so, then his description of tax fraud to the Senate, other government officials, taxpayers whom he now confiscates income from and all the people he gave speeches to and articles he wrote for are being lied to. In which case, Hamersley is guilty of lying to the Senate and other government officials, perjury; outright theft of income from those taxpayer’s whom he is now confiscating income; theft of honest services from the FTB and those who he gave speeches to or wrote articles for on tax fraud; and most incredibly, conspiracy to defraud creditors by participating in a convoluted scheme to separate valuable assets from liabilities for profit at the creditors expense.

Further, Hamersley by giving a so called substantial authority opinion to his client committed outright conspiracy to commit tax evasion under his own definition because his own email discusses the possibility of the IRS determining the true facts and according to Hamersley if a tax is due and owing and you lie to the IRS in any way, that is tax fraud.

Re the crime wave... during the Great Depression, I had heard crime did NOT go up. Did I hear wrong??

If it does go up, that energy would be better spent on marching on Washington. Obama is doing well in some ways, but the people have to say they are not going to settle for lobbyists and govt as usual. Geithner is too cozy with Wall Street.

The banks ARE nationalized-- we own them. Now let's kick out the bums! I want to see some folks in jail. This is worse than Enron.

I hope the folks who put Obama into office will continue to "lead" and demand he do this. THAT will take a bite out of crime, too. People need to know they are being listened to. Otherwise, we have a Banana republic and likely, eventually, a revolution (unless folks are too busy watching their 50 inch TV sets).

another item about California water:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090220/D96FI4R85.html

California could grow its own fuel (jatropha, camelina, etc) but for now is still dedicated to growing rice and maize for export, not to mention the incredibly thirsty avocados. California is, however, switching from flood and spray irrigation to drip irrigation, so the news isn't all bad.

In the midst of the water crisis, such as it is, there are plans afoot to remove some of the dams in order to restore the original riparian environments.

It's an aside, introduced by trex and me, but California can obtain water from the Pacific Ocean relatively inexpensively by using waste heat from electric power plants to drive desalination, yet chooses not to do so. California could also be fuel-sufficient but chooses to import fuel from other nations and states in order to preserve the appearance of the Pacific Coast.

These decisions by Californians are defensible, but they are also extremely expensive, and are responsible in part for California's budget problems and exodus of business.