Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.

Day 17

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

A Deficit Hawk and Flood Funds

The GOP and California’s Levees

by SETH SANDRONKSY

"Inexcusable" is what Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently called the lack of federal funds to improve the state’s system of flood control. In late February on a trip to Washington, he had asked for $56 million for emergency repairs on 24 levee sites eroded by rising river waters in Central and Northern California.

Following heavy rains in March and April, Schwarzenegger had declared a state of emergency in counties along the San Joaquin River in the central part of the state. People there scrambled to evacuate before a flood surge was forecast to arrive.

They dodged the flood bullet as state funds slated for future upgrades to the levee system were diverted to emergency labor. Workers placed tarps and sand bags on levee sites, watching 24/7 for breaks.

The governor’s recent news-conference rhetoric referenced the federal failure to protect people from the floods and storms of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. The specter of this awful disaster was as a potential sign of things to come in Central and Northern California, he added.

And who could argue? Obviously, flood prevention is the best medication.

The governor promised to make his case for federal funding for flood protection to President George W. Bush during their meeting a week after Good Friday in California. Yet again, the Bush administration rejected Schwarzenegger’s request for emergency funds.

Despite the evidence, there are no grounds for declaring an emergency, with no new federal funds for flood prevention measures offered, according to the White House. Confused?

Consider this; the $56 million the governor sought is 0.002% of the projected 2006 federal budget. Perhaps the real reason for the administration rejecting Schwarzenegger’s plea can be found in deficit hawk thinking.

What? For a deficit hawk, government borrowing crowds out other, more productive capital investments, while increasing the cost of borrowed money.

Yet growth of the federal budget under President Bush has not caused interest rates to skyrocket. In fact, low interest rates have been an economic stimulus, with the home building and mortgage refinancing booms two examples.

In California and nationwide, people are taking advantage of low interest rates to borrow on their homes, harvesting new cash that, of course, must be repaid in the future. Businesses have welcomed the increased buying power of these homeowners.

A deficit hawk that roosts in the minds of some officials on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. may be challenged to explain this trend of low interest rates with a high federal budget deficit. That is, if reporters ask such a question.

Back in California, tens of thousands of people live in floodplains behind weak levees, some more than 100 years old. Contrast such real facts with a deficit hawk’s theory that the federal government is acting with fiscal prudence by failing to provide California with emergency funds to upgrade its weak levees.

Seth Sandronsky is a member of Sacramento Area Peace Action and a co-editor of Because People Matter, Sacramento’s progressive paper. He can be reached at ssandron@hotmail.com