The fires in the West are nearing the US Air Force Academy (click title to entry - thank you)

June 26, 2012 
USA Drought Monitor

Stage 2 fire restrictions enacted in Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forests (click here)

June 27, 2012
The Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests are now under stage 2 fire restrictions, as well as a recreational shooting ban.
“We have a major fire burning on our forest,” said forest supervisor Glenn Casamassa. “Protecting people and homes is our main priority. Since fire danger is at an all-time high, doing what we can to prevent additional ignitions is imperative.”
As part of the shift to stage 2 restrictions, a forest-wide restriction on discharge of firearms began June 25. This prohibition restricts all discharge of firearms on the forest and grassland, except for people shooting at game while carrying a valid hunting license during the established legal hunting season....


How many Americans know their USA Treasury receives income from their National Forests.

Besides the obvious tourism, the National Forests are thinned regularly and sold to private logging concerns. The last time I checked, which was about two years ago, the ratio of standing trees to those harvested for National Forests was 5.7 to 1. 

June 29, 2012
Current Large Incidents (click here)


The incidents are fires.


Yep, the National Forests are good to us. We receive excellent services from them. 

Residents asked to conserve water, delay yard and garden projects (click here)

June 29, 2012

High temperatures and a lack of rain are taking their toll on the Evergreen water supply....

Most citizens don't appreciate how well managed their National Forests are managed by the US Forest Service to provide timber when needed. These fires are NOT caused by excessive fuel on the forest's floor. It is caused by drought which has resulted from the Climate Crisis.

Conserve water. If only the petroleum industry would preserve water, too. But, anything goes for profits. 

June 26, 2012 
Regional Drought Monitor

That is true of State Forests as well. Most State Forests are as well managed as the National Forests, but, the state treasuries receive incomes from logging in managed forests. The State Forests use the same methodology as the National Forests in thinning their forests to prevent excess fuel on the forest floor. It is just that State Forests are thinned more often then National Forests. Some of the states, like Michigan have poor ratios. Michigan's ratio is about 2 trees standing for every one logged. That is cutting it close and it should not be a one to one ratio. A one to one ratio would create sparse conditions for seedling development.

The Weather Channel
30 Day Temperature for May 2012

Pine Ridge Fire updates (click here)

Staff Report
Rifle, CO Colorado

For the latest information and status of the Pine Ridge Fire, burning west of De Beque and the source of smoke in the air in Rifle and surrounding areas, go to this web site:

http://www.inciweb.org/

It is updated very frequently with the latest on the fire, traffic closures and evacuations that may be taking place. Find and click on "Piine Ridge" from the list of fires....


The forests of the USA are natural resources, they provide a great many SERVICES to this country. They need to be valued for today and for the generations yet to appreciate them. The natural resources of any country don't really belong to the current generation so much as the children and their children. The current generation usually has received their portion of the natural resources.

The Weather Channel 
30 Day Precipitation Map for May

This is a picture taken today of President Obama surrounded by our fire fighters and ash. The fire fighters are trying to stop the burning of our forests and homes in the wake of the fires. President Obama is bringing federal help to the tragedy.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services needs to make the federal exchanges available to citizens in states where there are none.

It would seem as though some states have been unable and/or unwilling to protect the lives of their citizens. I can't think of states more in need of health care than some of the most impoverished in the Southeast USA.


My only concern is the funding states like Louisiana have already received under the Affordable Care Act and will not use as in the manner intended.


Citizens in states hostile to health care reform should have options open to them. I remind there are many families in Louisiana working as independent contractors to the petroleum industry living at the poverty level. The federal exchanges could serve as a means to health care insurance.


There needs to be an understanding at the federal level the South has a large number of independent business people with their service as their only income. That does not mean these are wealthy people or have the ability to achieve a wealthier status. The South really does impose a standard of living that requires good people to squeak by in life. An insurance requirement may be a burden to them unless there is an understanding the federal exchanges can actually help their status and not hurt them. 


The definition of independent business person in the South is far different than it would be in other states of the nation. These people can be impoverished while primarily keeping their businesses afloat over and above their own well being and that of their families. 


While I am on the subject, there are families in a quandary in North Carolina over what path they should take in regard to marriage to protect their children from any aggressive state policy following the passage of Amendment One. Marriage actually works against the most impoverished in this region of the country, even though they are independent business people. The circumstances are simply terrible and Jindle is a prime example as to why.


And let's get something straight. When a state legislature does not believe contraception needs, that was NEEDS, to be an option in health insurance and stigmatizes abortion and seeks to disenfranchise 'victims of harm' from reasonable legal recourse there is absolutely no way those elected are practicing governance. The North Carolina legislature is practicing victimization of its citizens for their cronies and the money they use to become elected.


The southern legislatures are about as lousy as they come. North Carolina will remove children conceived without the benefit of contraception, Plan B or affordable abortion from their mothers because they aren't married under the statute of Amendment One. They are ludicrous and stupid. Eric Rudolph the proud son of North Carolina's right wing nuts.


True story of southern victimization of the innocent. Ready? 


There is a car accident. Four cars involved. It was literally bumper cars with one woman charged with reckless driving. Her insurance company postponed litigation for five years. Refused to negotiate with anyone for the first three years forcing all to the end of the three year statute of limitations. 


The soft damage was significant and people were receiving treatment during this time. No one was killed. But there were injuries that worsened over time. After five years, people were placed on Social Security Disability due to their injuries. 


Ready for this? The liability for the insurance company was the cost of treatment plus the MAX of pain and suffering of $10,000. The lawyers get one third, the doctors and hospitals get one third and the victim gets one third. Lives were destroyed, but, the insurance company walked away with minimal liability. Living is rough enough in North Carolina, but, it is hideous when one realizes the corruption throughout the state legislature is entrenched so deep people have lost their rights to compensation after other's mistakes.


It is horrible. The tort reforms the Republicans love so much have become victimizing. There is no balance in the governments in the south anymore, simply corruption.


Who is carrying all the liability for the dense corruption of the southern USA? The insurance companies? No. Their subscribers? No. The federal government carries all the liability for these states through Social Security Disability, Medicaid and Medicare. 


The arbitrator in one of the cases was told the victim was now disabled and can't work due to the accident and was receiving SSD. The arbitrator/mediator stated, "Congratulations."


True story.


Then the Right Wing Tea Party victimizes these people further by attaching a social stigma of laziness and pathetic neediness. Amazing. Simply amazing.


When a state has disparaged lives through legislative cronyism there should be a mechanism whereby peer review by other states, a consortium if you will or the federal government, can determine the outcome to the liability when it ultimately results in federal spending of disability income. There needs to be a statute somewhere assigning liability equally regardless of the state where the damage happened, be it medical malpractice or auto accident. State Rights needs to have limits when the cronyism devastates peoples lives through no fault of their own.

Department of Justice dismisses Congressional Charge against AG Holder.

Joking.


The Assistant Attorney General already TESTIFIED before Issa's committee there was no reason for a Special Prosecutor.


Whatever.


Maybe the DOJ can hold Issa in violation of his job description.

"Starbucks" is about creating jobs and marketing.

He has already created jobs in the USA by manufacturing the bracelets costing $5.00 each.


Starbucks has suffered losses of stores over the years while independent operators have opened their own shops, custom breweries and employed their own employees.


Many Wall Street enterprises that thrive on local franchise for their sales and profits face the same consequences. 


Starbucks is seeking to increase the bi-partisan expression in communities across the USA in a renewed effort to improve the mission he began last year. 


I think Starbucks has a different mission not yet realized by CEOs hoping to win back their lost clientele; they need to blend more into the community themselves. I would think the best outcomes for companies like Starbucks facing competition is to offer independent contractors the opportunity to serve their coffee along side their own. 


The benefits of local economies are more than obvious. They can establish profitable businesses serving the community with real benefits of sustainable growth and tax incomes to their governments. There aren't disappearing Wall Street shops anymore to impact communities when they are 'growing their own.' The local 'talent' combined with 'investment' has found a real place in the communities across the USA. It is up to companies like Starbucks to realize they have an opportunity by 'sourcing' independent shops agreeable to include these brews or ice cream or hamburgers with their own. 


I admire the opportunity Starbucks is offering the community with microloans. I think it is a great idea, but, the relationship can go beyond what was started whereby Wall Street can survive along with independent operators in the local community. It might be a difficult sell and the market share might not be what they hope, but, it is worth exploring. The danger of course, would be a take over by Wall Street AGAIN, but, independent operators can control the extent such brews are incorporated into their profit structure. It may be a bad idea if Wall Street ambition is willing to dwarf the abilities of local economies to sustain the new businesses now flourishing.


It is a known fact Wall Street has caused the loss of Americana across this country and offered a bland landscape of big box stores and unrealistic competition with opportunistic warehousing. Small shop owners could not compete until the dominance of Wall Street actually destroyed local economies, poor paying jobs, with little to no benefits and imploded tax bases for communities when their doors were closed in a merger or some hideous action for more profits.


It is a good idea to look at how Wall Street can incorporate their goods into the economies of local shops, but, not to the end of the shop and it's contribution to the tax base of their communities.

AG Holder has no obligation to place the demands of records by Congress ahead of necessary litigation authority of his department.

The Murdoch network states Officer Brian Terry was murdered. I do believe he was killed in the line of duty. So, let's begin there. There is no record of others bringing light to a family very verbal about the Attorney General. I don't know why they expect him to bring justice to this more than has already been done. Officer Terry was killed as other have before and after him. Finding those that killed him is difficult. They have been difficult to find and I am sure the Mexican government is involved in trying to end this mystery.


In order to empower the Terry Family to have a clear message I think there needs to be an understanding as to what is possible in finding the criminals involved and what the Legislative Branch of the government can do to protect the Border Officers.


Officer Terry was involved with a very dangerous aspect to the Drug Cartel border issue. He knew he was heading into a no go zone and I question the mission he was on in the first place. Who ordered him and his colleagues into the area? That is where my questions start. There are definitely No Go Zones along the border of the USA because of the armed members of the drug cartel. These people are vicious, they kill each other as well as uniformed border officers. Officers heading into these areas need more than uniforms and guns, they need Humvees to say the least.


The drug cartels use armor, they use semi-subs, they are well equipped because their profits are incredible and enforced by all kinds of munitions. It is this that is at question, not the fact AG Holder may have signed off on funding for a program started in 2005. The entire dynamic of what occurred with Officer Terry is yet a mystery to most of us. Disarming the drug cartels is important, but, sending our Border Officers on unrealistic missions is just as important.


Also important is the understanding this problem existed long before gun walking was a method to obtaining information as to the mechanism of the cartels to obtain weapons. The gun walking dynamic did prove beyond a doubt there were weapons leaving the USA to be used by cartels in carrying out their crimes. The fact these guns were found at a firefight with Border Officers; a firefight causing the death of Officer Terry; is more than any country should tolerate in its' struggle to provide adequate Second Amendment rights to citizens while protecting their national security and the lives of citizens and officers.


These are the questions and resolves the USA needs to hear. It not only needs to hear them, the nation needs policies and laws that provide a margin of safety to their Border Officers. There have been deaths of Border Officers in a variety of way including gun deaths dating back to the 1990s. This has gone on too long and that may be the real problem. The longer the drug cartels have been effective the worse the wars have gotten both in Mexico and along our border and in our border towns. 


Attorney General Holder has nothing to do with the problem, it existed a long time ago. The resolve to prove what was happening with weapons from our manufacturers in the USA started under the previous administration and to their credit or discredit depending on how it is viewed there is information used today to prove our case against the dynamics at our border with our manufacturers. The arms industry in the USA is on the side of the government in seeking solutions to end the arming of the drug cartels. We need to work with them to find solutions to end this horrible reality in the lives of the Mexican people.


To date, none of the investigations by the Issa committee has conducted effective work to end the nightmare. Instead, Issa has steered the focus away from the gun industry/manufacturers and the NRA and displaced the entire problem as a focus on Attorney General Holder. I trust my President. If he states there is nothing in any of the confidential record that will resolve this problem and there was no wrong doing, then there was none. The real enemy here, besides the drug cartels themselves, is the political rantings of the Right Wing and their willing displacement of their authority at the intimidation of the NRA.


The Political Right Wing has no backbone to stand up to the NRA and ask the tough questions so much as the political questions. This investigation has gone on for some time now with a crescendo designed for pre-elections of 2012. These investigation have yet to solve the problems of the field agents of the ATF and provide a real strategy to end the dangers to our Border Patrol Officers while disarming the drug cartels. The investigations are not valuable. Issa needs to resign his focus to someone actually willing to do the real work.

...“The Terry family takes no pleasure in the contempt vote against Attorney General Eric Holder. Such a vote should not have been necessary," the statement reads. "The Justice Department should have released the documents related to Fast and Furious months ago. Eric Holder’s refusal to do so and President Obama’s assertion of executive privilege have stood in the way of justice and the answers we seek into the death of fallen Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

"Given the Obama administration’s steadfast refusal to level with the American people, Congress was left with no choice but to vote Mr. Holder in contempt."

Heyer and Terry's mother, Josephine Terry, appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor" Thursday evening to further share their reactions to the vote. 

When asked about the Democrats' walkout during the voting, Terry said she was "shocked."

"But I think it was a disgrace to them and not my son," Terry said....

Let's see where I left off on The American Jobs Act. May as well read it Congress is on vacation 24/7 these days.

Subtitle D -- Repeal Oil Subsidies


...Sec. 434.  Section 199 Deduction Not Allowed With Respect to Oil, Natural Gas, or Primary Products Thereof



Section 199, Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (click here)
The “Domestic Production Deduction”
Jack C. Butler, Esq.


Hm. This is interesting. The WTO ruled against the narcisstic laws of Republicans to prevent taxation of domestic oil and gas production. But, in retaliation the Bush/Cheney Republican Congress in 2004 circumvented the WTO ruling. Well, that isn't nice at all. Predictable, of course. Nice, no.


In 2004, to ameliorate the repeal of a tax benefit for U.S. exporters (in response to a World Trade Organization ruling that the "extraterritorial income exclusion" violated international trade laws), Congress created a new deduction for U.S. businesses. The deduction, allowed by Code Sec. 199 for both the regular tax and the alternative minimum tax (AMT), doesn't have an official taxcode name. It's been referred to as "the U.S. production activities deduction," the "domestic production deduction," and the "domestic manufacturing deduction."  It appears that from the literature “domestic production deduction” is the more prevalently used name.  Throughout this presentation we will call the deduction the “199 deduction”.


The 199 deduction is allowed to all taxpayers - - individuals, C corporations, farming
cooperatives, estates, trusts, and their beneficiaries. The deduction is allowed to partners and the owners of S corporations (not to partnerships or the S corporations themselves), and may be passed through by farming cooperatives to their patrons. And, it's fully available to taxpayers who don't export.


Oh, dig this, the deduction goes up instead of down. I would think the largest investment period is the beginning, yes? Yes. But, that isn't the way it is structured. Oh, wait a minute. Oh, how tricky can the Republicans be?


-for years 2005, 2006:  3% of lesser of (a) qualified production activities income      
or (b) taxable income for the taxable year.
·  for 2007 through 2009:  6% of lesser of (a)  qualified production activities 
income or (b) taxable income for the taxable year.
·  for 2010 and beyond:  9% of lesser of (a) qualified production activities income      
or (b) taxable income for the taxable year.


Why provide all the deduction in the first year? The first year is when the costs without deduction can be taken off the income. So, by deferring the deduction to later years, the petroleum industry maximizes it's first year expenses as leveraged against incomes and then takes greater deductions when costs are down. How very, very clever.


This is an offset, so it is to increase the monies received and/or kept by the USA Treasury. This is more of the subsidies received by the petroleum industry. It is amazing the monies this industry DOES NOT pay to the USA Treasury on domestic production of land 'the people' lease to them.


Section 434 reads:



(a) In General.—Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to income attributable to domestic production activities) is amended--

SEC. 199. INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES. (click here)

(c) QUALIFIED PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES INCOME- For purposes of this section--

(4) DOMESTIC PRODUCTION GROSS RECEIPTS-

(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include gross 
              receipts of the taxpayer which are derived from--
             (i) the sale of food and beverages prepared 
                 by the taxpayer at a retail establishment, 
             (ii) the transmission or distribution of 
                 electricity, natural gas, or potable water, or
             (iii) the lease, rental, license, sale, 
                   exchange, or other disposition of land.

(1) by striking “or” at the end of clause (ii),
(2) by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting in lieu thereof “, 
or”, and
(3) by adding at the end thereof the following new clause:
“(iv) the production, refining, processing, transportation, or distribution of 
oil, natural gas, or any primary product (within the meaning of subsection (d)(9)) 
thereof.”.

Section 434 removes the deductions for all the above without exception. The petroleum industry, especially when fracking uses huge amounts of water. They take that as a cost to production, so there is absolutely no incentive to use less water. Rather, there is an incentive to use more than necessary to increase cost ratios over production incomes. So, all those incentives to use our natural resources with abandon for profits is returned to the treasury. The American Jobs Act innocently believes all the water, etc., cited by the petroleum industry as a necessary expense is HONESTLY required. Or, in sophistication actually sought to end the exploitative use of same. I have to consider the fact this is to pay for the increase in support of jobs, so I have to go with the idea the Jobs Act actually believes the petroleum industry honestly reports. Hm.

Sec. 435.  Repeal Oil and Gas Working Interest Exception to Passive Activity Rules



That just ends everything on New Years Eve 2012

Sec. 436.  Uniform Seven-Year Amortization for Geological and Geophysical Expenditures

(a) In General.—Paragraph (1) of section 167(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

(relating to amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures) is amended by striking “24-month” and inserting in lieu thereof “7-year”.

Maybe I covered this section before, but, it extends the 24 month (2 years) to 7 years, hence lowering the amount of deduction annually. Two years is ridiculous. That is a frank gift to the petroleum industry.

Sec. 437.  Repeal Enhanced Oil Recovery Credit


Self explanatory through New Years Eve 2012. See these credits are suppose to give incentive to the activity. Let me ask this, "Does anyone believe the petroleum industry WON'T recover oil?" Could BP make it more clearer that every drop of the oil recovered from the Deepwater Horizon will go to USA shores? Honestly, now does the petroleum industry actually need an incentive?


Sec. 438.  Repeal Marginal Well Production Credit


Oh, this one is beautiful. MARGINAL WELLS is what hydrualic frackering is all about. Hello? Do we want fracking? Do we care about marginal wells? Do we as a country give a flyin' hoot if the lousy stuff is left in the ground? NOOOOoooooooo........ 


Do we actually believe the petroleum industry WON'T FRACK without this incentive? NOOOOooooooooooo..........


I'll pick up with Subtitle E of Title IV next.

US House Rep. Buck McKeon voted for the military cuts in the budget ...

...because he never believed they would actually happen.   : )


Now, McKeon is trying to scare everyone by saying there will be 1.5 million jobs lost of those cuts happen.


Hm. They must be with NASCAR.

Congressman Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, (click title to entry - thank you) Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, accepted the prestigious Eisenhower Award last evening. Given by the National Defense Industrial Association, the award recognizes leaders “in support of the military services and other security-related agencies.” Past recipients include former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers and Colin Powel, General David Petraeus, and former HASC Chairman Ike Skelton.

Sour Grapes.

...Why did he do it? (click title to entry - thank you) Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature....


The Political Right Wing derives its' identity from the past, the decisions regarding the individual began with the Burger Court. Previous to the Burger Court there was little recognition of how a minority as small as one citizen mattered to the outcomes of the laws of the USA. 


The Right Wing likes to use labels to simplify their ranting and call this liberalism. The USA Framers were individuals, they were few compared to the number of House and Senate members today, but, they carved out an understanding of the rights of individuals from their first words in Amendment One.


The Affordable Care Act recognizes the rights of individual citizens to hold their health in esteem and receive assurances they can protect their own lives. That is the greatest right of any citizen in the USA. The act is complicated because health care is complicated. There are numerous checks and balances throughout the Affordable Care Act. It seeks to understand the health care needs of the individual in this country. It has many panels charged with the task of reviewing records of life and death while improving on the outcomes of all diagnosis and diagnostics. The Affordable Care Act is incredibly important to the vitality of this country and to that end the five Justices wrote an opinion to support the new law while honing its rough edges.


The practice of law is as much an art as a science, if not more of an art than a science. The semantics of language was obviously not important when, in the opinion, of the Political Right Wing, the word 'fee' was not a tax when listed on a form used by the USA IRS to collect taxes since 1861 Sixteenth Amendment.


There was nothing political about the opinion by the five justices of the Supreme Court, there was deep political reasoning in the decent. Justice Roberts has backed the law because the brevity not to was staggering. In the opinion of the Political Right Wing the wellness of citizens and the lack of health insurance by more than 10% of the population was ludicrous and continues to be so. 


The responsibility of the USA Constitution is to uphold the sovereignty of the USA. Well, hell, if health of the citizens and the vitality of the nation isn't a sovereign issue don't ask me what is. The responsibility of the Supreme Court is to uphold the depth of the USA Constitution and its brevity to the citizens of the USA. In a day when there exists an overtly hostile Plutocracy in the USA intent on carving out every advantage to it's bottom line the citizen has to be placed as a center piece to the laws of this country in order to have them survive.


Everyone wants to dance the political hoedown when in fact the so called Liberals carved out huge reliance on capitalism in their majority decision. The majority opinion ruled to uphold an individual mandate which the insurance industry dearly loves and strike down the requirement to expand Medicaid which the insurance industry despised from the beginning. The audacity to think this majority hasn't improved the bottom line of capitalism in the USA is a desperate political agenda.


The idea the Supreme Court has to hold a political loyalty to a Right Wing out of control of their own moral compass is ridiculous above all else. God forbid the Supreme Court should do the right thing as if the original framers never demanded the same from them. The decision to uphold The Affordable Care was morally correct as well as correct in honoring the original document from the beginning of the nation. 


I haven't read the analysis which states, three ladies on the court has definite impact on the integrity of our nation as well as our Constitution. This session has been a blow to the macho persona of the court. It shows in most all the decisions since this session began. The change is refreshing and welcome.