Ben Nelson's decision: Run for Senate again, or go get rich(er)?

For Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), already a multimillionaire, the decision about whether to run for Senate once more hinges, in part, on whether he'd like to spend the next several years legislating, or getting richer. Really. He said that; specifically, that "leaving a bigger estate or legacy" was at issue.

Political Correction considers some of his recent votes in the context of that concern for (his own) personal wealth:

Nelson has voted to filibuster jobs legislation because he doesn't want to raise taxes. But the legislation he has filibustered would raise taxes only on people with adjusted gross incomes in excess of $1 million — about 1,050 Nebraskans, for example. While the millionaire surcharge would affect only one-tenth of one-percent of his constituents, it could pose a very slight inconvenience to Nelson's "major opportunities to increase his wealth in the private sector." (It's worth noting that the vast majority of millionaires favor raising taxes on millionaires.)

And speaking of leaving behind large estates: Ben Nelson supports a full repeal of the estate tax, despite being so concerned about deficits that he has blocked unemployment benefits.

With this record, if he was a Republican, he'd be one of the poster children for how grossly venal and dedicated to serving only the wealthiest Republicans are. But Nelson is a Democrat, and one being supported by large piles of DSCC cash. And of course that's the case—the DSCC is by design an amoral institution interested solely in electing the largest possible number of Democrats to the Senate without distinguishing between the ones who are going to strengthen the party and the ones who are effectively Republicans—and Nelson is the best chance Democrats have to hold his Senate seat against an even worse Republican.

But the fact that there is literally no point at which the national Democratic Party says, "Hey, wait. This guy completely undermines our ability to draw distinctions between our party and the Republican party on bread-and-butter economic issues. Also, he's kind of evil. Maybe we shouldn't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting him"—that fact is another to be added to the long, long list of signs our political system is broken. Not just one party or one party plus one or two senators from the other party, but the system.

Also broken: Ben Nelson's soul.

AFL-CIO president: Obama is aligned with tea party, not fixing jobs

Richard Trumka, president of union giant AFL-CIO, delivered a scathing review of President Barack Obama at a press breakfast Thursday morning. He accused him of abandoning Democratic ideals and aligning himself with the conservative tea party.

"This is a moment that working people and quite frankly history will judge President Obama on his presidency; will he commit all his energy and focus on bold solutions on the job crisis or will he continue to work with the Tea Party to offer cuts to middle class programs like Social Security all the while pretending the deficit is where our economic problems really lie," Trumka said, Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler reported.

Trumka sits on the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, which "was created to provide non-partisan advice to the president on continuing to strengthen the nation's economy and ensure the competitiveness of the United States," according to its website.

Trimpka told reporters that he had all but given up hope of the panel achieving any results.

"I don't know whether the commission's making a difference or not...it's a legitimate question whether that commission has done anything worthwhile," he said.

He threatened to withdraw the AFL-CIO's attendance at the upcoming Democratic convention if the party didn't shape up and offer solutions.

"If they don't have a jobs program I think we'd better use our money doing other things," he said.

1933 - Attempted Coup against FDR - Few Americans know that during the Great Depression, some of America 's wealthiest families including the Morgans and DuPonts fearful of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies conspired to overthrow the government of the United States and install a fascist dictatorship.
The Attempted Coup Against FDR
In 1933 Major General Smedley Darlington Butler reported to Congress a coup d'etat plot against President Franklin Roosevelt, sponsored by corporate interests. Alarmed by Roosevelt's Democratic "New Deal" which would redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, Irenee Du Pont, Grayson Murphy, William Doyle, John Davis and other representatives of J.P. Morgan banks, Du Pont, Goodyear and Bethlehem Steel sought to overthrow the U.S. government with a military coup and replace it with a fascist state, based on the recent success of Mussolini and Hitler in Italy and Germany.
General Butler was immensely popular with veterans and active troops. As a war hero, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, General Butler was known as "The Fighting Quaker" and a man of unimpeachable honesty and integrity. The conspirators tried to recruit Butler , by promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot was foiled when Butler reported it to Congress.
To prevent a panic, Congress whitewashed the public version of its final report, deleting the names of the powerful businessmen whose reputations they sought to protect. The corporate owned media managed to spin the story as rumors and hearsay and the plot was generally covered up for many years. In 1967, journalist John Spivak uncovered the Committee's internal, secret report which clearly confirmed Butler 's story.
The Plot Against FDR
“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Two U.S. nuclear plants under threat as flood waters rise

Two U.S. nuclear electricity facilities, the Fort Calhoun and Cooper nuclear plants in Nebraska, are facing the threat of rising flood waters from the Missouri river.

Though safety regulators insist the plants were designed to withstand flooding and no risk of disaster exists, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been enforcing a no-fly zone over the Fort Calhoun plant since early this month, even though the plant has been shut down since early April for refueling.

That may be due in part to a reportedly minor fire at the plant which temporarily knocked out pumps that inject cool water into a pool of used nuclear fuel — or it may be due to something else entirely.

The FAA reportedly told “Big Picture” host Thom Hartmann that it was maintaining the aircraft ban for security reasons, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has insisted there was no danger to people in surrounding areas.

But that still begs the question: Why would anyone build a nuclear plant so close to a river — or any other potentially dangerous region?

This video is from Russia Today, broadcast Tuesday, June 21, 2011.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chief Blasts Agency’s Approach to Fire Safety

by John Sullivan, Special to ProPublica June 15

In a forceful critique of his agency’s approach toward fire safety, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission declared that the policy of not enforcing most fire code violations at dozens of nuclear plants is “unacceptable” and has tied the hands of NRC inspectors.

The written comments by NRC Chairman Gregory B. Jaczko [1], released last week, were made as the commission voted in late May to continue a policy of citing only the most serious fire violations at 44 of the nation’s 101 reactors that are in the process of updating fire plans, and to address old hazards.

As ProPublica recently reported [2], many of the plants are relying on fire watches and other short-term measures while they work on their new plans. But critics say the NRC’s enforcement policy has allowed nuclear companies to put off installing fire suppression, barriers and other safety features for years.

Fire is among the most serious risks to nuclear reactors, according to NRC experts. Jaczko said in the written statement explaining his vote that fires can represent as much as 50 percent of a plant’s “core damage frequency [3]”—the likelihood of an accident that affected a reactor’s radioactive fuel.

Jaczko said that the NRC should have been better prepared to review the nuclear companies’ fire plans. Instead, he said the agency had let the process drag on too long.

“The bottom line is that licensees have had years to identify fire protection deficiencies, and the commission must close this very long chapter of not enforcing all fire protection violations,” he wrote.

“But the continued willingness to tie inspectors’ hands by limiting the tools they have available to ensure we meet our mission of protecting public health and safety, is more than disappointing—it is unacceptable.”

The NRC policy, called “enforcement discretion [4],” started in 2004 as a way to encourage nuclear companies to submit to a new fire regulation that’s an alternative to the one-size-fits-all fire code.

Under the alternate regulation, companies can customize fire protection to better fit unique issues at their reactors. NRC hopes that plants enrolled in the program will have approved plans within the next several years.

The commission’s vote [5] was on whether to extend enforcement discretion for those plants while companies submit proposed fire plans for NRC review on a staggered schedule beginning June 29.

According to NRC records, there have been at least 154 fires at nuclear plants since 1995, an average of 10 a year. On June 7, a fire [6] at the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant in Nebraska temporarily knocked out cooling to a pool holding spent fuel at the site, prompting an emergency declaration.

In an interview, officials of the nuclear industry’s trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute [7], said the extended period of enforcement grace was reasonable.

Anthony Pietrangelo, the group’s chief nuclear officer, said it would be counterproductive for the NRC to issue violations for things that the nuclear companies were working to fix.

Mr. Pietrangelo pointed out, as have Jaczko and other NRC officials, that enforcement discretion does not mean that serious hazards in the plants are ignored.

The enforcement discretion policy does not extend to the most serious violations, which the NRC defines as “red.” For less serious deficiencies, nuclear companies also must put in place interim measures, such as stationing a fire watch, that are reviewed by the NRC to ensure the plants are safe.

“If there is a significant safety issue at any of these plants, it would be addressed by the licensee and the regulator—period,” Pietrangelo said.

Jaczko, a former congressional staffer and physicist who President Obama named chairman in 2009, has previously said he opposed extending enforcement discretion [8], but his May remarks are the most extensive critique of the policy to date.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. nuclear safety regulator did not break the law when he stopped a review of a proposed Nevada burial site for radioactive waste, but he "strategically" kept information from his fellow commissioners, the Wall Street Journal said, citing a report from the agency's internal watchdog.

The confidential report is being studied by Republican lawmakers who are already fiercely critical of Gregory Jaczko, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). They have accused him of helping end work on the Yucca Mountain waste site for political reasons.

The disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant in March focused new attention on how best to store nuclear waste, most commonly kept in pools near plants. In Japan, reactors and storage pools overheated after an earthquake and tsunami cut power, and officials have struggled to contain the radiation.

The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce committee will hold a hearing on Jaczko's actions and the NRC's inspector general report on Tuesday.

YUCCA FIGHT GOES ON

The U.S. Congress passed a law in 1987 promising to bury waste from the nation's 104 nuclear reactors deep inside Yucca Mountain, but the issue has been fought in courts and in Washington by Nevadans who fear the dump could pollute water and hurt tourism.

The Obama administration killed the Yucca proposal after taking office. Before his appointment to the five-member commission, Jaczko was a top aide to Nevada senatorHarry Reid, a senior Democrat and the top political opponent of the site.

A licensing board at the NRC ruled the Energy Department did not have the legal authority to pull its application for a regulatory license. That decision went to the five-member commission, but Republicans have accused Jaczko of blocking a resolution to the issue.

In the meantime, Jaczko told NRC staff to stop work on their technical review of the Yucca site. House Republicans from the Science Committee examined the confidential technical review and earlier this week said the NRC staff had concluded the site was safe.

NRC Inspector General Hubert Bell's report described Jaczko's "forceful management techniques" as making him difficult to work with, and said the other commissioners who led the agency felt he did not share enough information with them, the WSJ reported.

A majority of the commissioners disagreed that work on Yucca should be stopped, but the inspector general said Jackzo gave them "varying amounts of information" about his plans.

Earlier this week, before the report was publicized, Jaczko said the inspector general had cleared his actions in what he called "a complicated issue.

"All NRC Chairmen have the responsibility to make difficult and sometimes controversial decisions," said Jaczko, who said he hoped the inspector general's report would settle the matter.

Electrical Fire Knocks Out Spent Fuel Cooling at Nebraska Nuke Plant

A fire [1] in an electrical switch room on Tuesday briefly knocked out cooling for a pool holding spent nuclear fuel at the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant [2] outside Omaha, Neb., plant officials said.

The safety of deep pools used to store used radioactive fuel at nuclear plants has been an issue since the accident at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant in March. If the cooling water a pool is lost, the used nuclear fuel could catch fire and release radiation.

As ProPublica reported earlier, fire safety is a continuing concern [3] at the country's 104 commercial reactors, as is the volume of spent fuel [4] piling up at plants.

Officials at Fort Calhoun said the situation at their plant came nowhere near to Fukushima's. They said it would have taken 88 hours for the heat produced by the fuel to boil away the cooling water.

Workers restored cooling in about 90 minutes, and plant officials said the temperature in the pool only increased by two degrees.

The fire, reported at 9:30 a.m., led to the loss of electrical power for the system that circulates cooling water through the spent fuel pool, according to a report [5] from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A chemical fire suppression system discharged, and the plant's fire brigade cleared smoke from the room and reported that the fire was out at 10:20 a.m., the NRC said.

Mike Jones, a spokesman for the plant's owner, the Omaha Public Power District, said Fort Calhoun has a backup pump to provide water to the spent fuel in case the main system is lost. That pump, which runs on a separate power supply from the rest of the plant, was inspected and standing by on Tuesday, but plant operators restored main power to the pool before the emergency pump was needed, he said.

Fort Calhoun's single reactor has been shut down since April for refueling. The plant had already been operating under a heightened level of alert because of nearby flooding on the Missouri River, the NRC said. The cause of the fire remained under investigation this morning.

Police and firemen in Alameda, California watched a man drown on Monday after realizing they did not have proper certifications for water rescue, leaving them open to possible lawsuits if they attempted to save him.

The drowning victim, 53-year-old Raymond Zack, was apparently suicidal, according to a report from the scene. He waded out about 150 yards into cold waters off Crown Beach in Alameda and took about an hour to drown himself.

A crowd of about 75 gathered to watch the bizarre scene, which saw police and firemen just standing at shoreline watching helplessly. After the man had drowned, authorities couldn’t even go into the surf to retrieve the body. They instead recruited a passer-by for the job.

City officials reportedly blamed the incident on budget cuts and said they would have a discussion about why Alameda, an island city, does not have proper authorization to rescue people from the waters surrounding it.

It’s become apparent that the stock market is a Ponzi scheme. The entire structure is built on fraud. Why not explore the possibilities. We have two months. Cut off their Federal Reserve and Treasury lifeline and the scam scheme will collapse.

What will we gain you may ask? Freedom to run our country as we see fit without the interference and influence of money. The Royal Leeches of finance would fall away from the jugular of the American people. People that produce things and work for a living will return to their rightful places.

There was barter before there was gold. There something to be said for zeroing out the balance sheet. The overseas holders of our debt can face the US Military. We declare bankruptcy. I think one thing that will change is that Wall Street Influence will be wiped out. You can’t kill the middle class.

Come and get it.