Gulf Countries Now Back Iran Deal; Buchanan Explains Republicans' No-Win Situation

It was already difficult to imagine Congress mustering up enough support to override a presidential veto of a bill to kill the Iran deal, but it will be impossible now that Kerry Secures Gulf Support.

Gulf Arab countries gave cautious backing on Monday to the nuclear deal with Iran, giving the White House an important diplomatic card as it seeks to gain congressional support for the agreement.

Speaking alongside US secretary of state John Kerry after a meeting in Doha, Qatari foreign minister Khalid al-Attiyah said that the agreement which the Obama administration helped negotiate with Iran would make the “region safer and more stable”.

“This was the best option amongst other options in order to try to come up with a solution for the nuclear weapons of Iran though dialogue,” Mr al-Attiyah said, speaking on behalf of the Gulf Co-operation Council. “We are sure that all the efforts that have been exerted make this region very secure, very stable.”

With that, some Democrats on the fence will likely be convinced. Republicans should too, but most won't.

Republicans in No-Win Situation 

Pat Buchanan is one of few republicans thinking clearly about Iran. Buchanan explains The GOP’s Iran Dilemma.

It appears that Hill Republicans will be near unanimous in voting a resolution of rejection of the Iran nuclear deal.

They will then vote to override President Obama’s veto of their resolution. And if the GOP fails there, Gov. Scott Walker says his first act as president would be to kill the deal.

But before the party commits to abrogating the Iran deal in 2017, the GOP should consider whether it would be committing suicide in 2016.

For even if Congress votes to deny Obama authority to lift U.S. sanctions on Iran, the U.S. will vote to lift sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. And Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, all parties to the deal, will also lift sanctions.

A Congressional vote to kill the Iran deal would thus leave the U.S. isolated, its government humiliated, unable to comply with the pledges its own secretary of state negotiated. Would Americans cheer the GOP for leaving the United States with egg all over its face?

And if Congress refuses to honor the agreement, but Iran complies with all its terms, who among our friends and allies would stand with an obdurate America then?

Israel would applaud, the Saudis perhaps, but who else?

And as foreign companies raced to Iran, and U.S. companies were told to stay out, what would GOP presidential candidates tell the business community?

Would the party campaign in 2016 on a pledge to get tough and impose new sanctions? “Coercive diplomacy,” The Wall Street Journal calls it.

Would we bomb Iran? Would we go to war? Not only would Americans divide on any such action, the world would unite — against us.

Republicans seem to be unable to grasp the changes that have taken place in this century. With the Arab Spring, the fall of half a dozen regimes, the rise of al-Qaida and ISIS, civil wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Iraq, we have a new Middle East.

Our principal enemies are now al-Qaida and ISIS. And while both have been aided by our old allies, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, both are being resisted by Iran.

All Iran had to do was prove it had no bomb program, which was not difficult, as U.S. intelligence had repeatedly said Iran had no bomb program.

Then the Iranians proved it. They agreed to cut their centrifuges by two-thirds, to eliminate 98 percent of their uranium, to halt production of 20 percent uranium at Fordow, to convert the heavy-water reactor at Arak that produces plutonium to a light water reactor that produces one kilogram a year, and to let cameras in and give U.N. inspectors the run of their nuclear facilities.

And how is Israel, with hundreds of atom bombs, mortally imperiled by a deal that leaves Iran with not a single ounce of bomb-grade uranium?

Remarkable. Iran agrees not to build a bomb it had already decided not to build, and we agree to lift all sanctions. And they pulled it off.

Does Iran Really Want a Bomb?

Buchanan also tackles the question Does Iran Really Want a Bomb?

While Iran and its allies are fighting al-Qaida and ISIS, Turkey and our Arab allies are malingerers at best and collaborators at worst.

How explain this? Not difficult.

The Shiites, a religious minority in the Muslim world -- Hezbollah, Assad's regime, Baghdad, Tehran -- see ISIS as a mortal threat and are willing to fight to kill the monster.

Our Sunni allies won't go out and fight ISIS, because that would make them allies of Iran and the Shiites, whom they fear even more.

Our Sunni friends want America to crush ISIS and al-Qaida, then to crush Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. But why is it in our interest to send U.S. troops back into any of these wars?

Is America more threatened than our Arab allies?

Rather than listening to allies who are non-combatants, we should take a hard look at the Mideast. To whom does the future belong? And with what can we live?

The Republicans want to give a blank check to Obama and any future president to fight ISIS and al-Qaida everywhere and forever. And they want the United States to treat Iran as we should have treated Nazi Germany had Hitler been about to get the bomb.

But if the GOP platform takes the neocon-Netanyahu line that we must not only fight ISIS and al-Qaida, but also Iran and Syria, the party will imperil its improving chances for 2016.

Americans don't want another war.

Though Israel has 200 atomic bombs, Iran has not produced a single ounce of uranium enriched to bomb-grade 90 percent.

U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 and 2011 declared, with high confidence, that Iran has no active bomb program.

Why would Iran test and build a nuclear bomb, when this would set off a nuclear arms race across the Middle East and put Iran in mortal peril of being smashed by the United States, or by Israel with a preemptive strike?

Question Now Moot

The question as to whether Iran wants a bomb is now moot. The deal pretty much guarantees Iran won't get one.

Yet, Republican war-mongers would rather risk war with Iran than work with a country that actually would make a better ally than Saudi Arabia.
  
Did Iran Threaten to "Wipe Israel off the Map"?

The Hitler Card players in both parties keep referring to an alleged statement by Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to "Wipe Israel Off the Map".

The problem is twofold.

1. Ahmadinejad was not the power broker in Iran.
2. The translation was not even correct.

Ahmadinejad was actually referring to a statement made by leader Khamenei in which Khamenei said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”

Anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel "must be wiped off the face of the map."

The myth still persists to this day. President Bush, and Even President Obama have used it when it suits their purpose.

And of course, every time that I have spoken favorably of the agreement, I hear the same "wipe the map" nonsense from readers.

Rare Victory for Peace

Due to political divisiveness, political leaders are never willing to say the other side did anything right.

That's why I will never be a political leader. I bash Obama often enough, and for many things. But I equally bash the warmongers who have been wrong every which way, and virtually every time!

This was a rare victory for peace.

I am proud of the fact that I stood against the Vietnam War, I was against the War in Iraq, and I have been on the right side of the Iran debate from the beginning.

I echo Ronald Reagan's former budget director David Stockman who says All Praise To Barack Obama For Stiffing The War Party—- Peace Is Finally Being Given A Chance.

I even go one step further and encourage President Obama to resume normal relations with Iran. Only good can come from such talks.

Amazingly Nearsighted Fools

Walker and Rubio are amazing fools. Sadly, nearly all the Republican candidates don't have their heads on straight regarding this deal.

Here's my simple position: I will not vote for any candidate who takes the position he or she will kill the deal if elected.

Buchanan 2016?

Perhaps Pat Buchanan should throw his hat into the ring. Why not? Everyone else has. And the war-mongering talk from the others clearly shows Buchanan is better qualified than the current field leaders.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Ukraine's Ultra-Right Militia Threatens Military Coup

Dissatisfied with alleged concessions to Russia, the leader of the Right Sector battalion, Dmytro Yarosh, seeks a nationwide no-confidence referendum in President Petro Poroshenko.

The Right Sector is an illegal battalion that Kiev tolerates because its fighters are well-trained, well-equipped, and willing to take on the separatists.

There is growing unease in Kiev over the Right Sector, because of Yarosh's call for a vote of no-confidence along with some in the group openly threatening a military coup.

Russia claims (likely accurately), Right Sector neo-Nazis were responsible for the violence in the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution that ousted then-President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. 

Please consider Fears Grow as Ukraine Rightwing Militia Puts Kiev in its Sights.

Fears are growing that Right Sector — the only major volunteer battalion Kiev has not yet managed to bring under regular army control — could turn its fire on the new government itself.

Dmytro Yarosh, Right Sector’s leader, called late last month for a nationwide no-confidence referendum in President Petro Poroshenko. He was addressing a rally in Kiev of up to 5,000 Right Sector activists, angry over what they say is the government’s slow progress in fighting corruption and excessive concessions to Moscow as it attempts to reach a settlement over eastern Ukraine.

“We are an organised revolutionary force that is opening the new phase of the Ukrainian revolution,” Mr Yarosh told the rally.

Right Sector fighters regularly drive outside the base in camouflaged jeeps, passing freely through security checkpoints despite having their own — illegal — licence plates identifying them as Right Sector.

“We could send up to 10,000 fighters to the frontline,” said Artem Skoropadsky, a spokesperson for Right Sector.

Though the group’s fighters admit they constitute an illegal armed force, they blame Ukraine’s parliament for dragging its feet in legislating to legalise them as a single elite unit under Ukrainian army command.

“It may come to a military coup,” said one Right Sector fighter — although many in the group say they would not go that far. He admitted, however, that public support for such a scenario was low. “That’s why we haven’t done it yet.”

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Wage Growth Accelerating? By How Much? Total Compensation and the Obamacare Effect

On July 24, the Conference Board asked the question: Is Wage Growth Accelerating?

The Board's answer was "All signs point to Yes!"

One big question regarding the US economy is whether wage growth is accelerating. You might think that this is a pretty straightforward question to answer, but it’s not. There are many measures of wage growth, and they don’t all point in the same direction.

For example, we can compare the year-over-year wage growth in recent years (Chart 1)according to four different measures, three from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics: the Employment Cost Index (wages and salaries), average hourly earnings (Establishment Survey), median weekly earnings (Current Population Survey), and the new Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker. Some of these measures show a significant pickup, but some show no acceleration at all. What should we make of this?

Four Measures of Wage Growth



The Employment Cost Index (ECI) line in green shows a nice looking 2.6% year-over-year growth. The Atlanta Fed model shows an even bigger gain.

Two other measures show stagnation at best. So, which two lines should one believe?

Fresh data may provide a clue.

Shocking Decline in Employment Cost Index

Economists were stunned on Friday July 31 when the Employment Cost Index came in at 0.2% vs. the Bloomberg Consensus ECI estimate of 0.6%. Worse yet, the year-over-year ECI gain plunged from 2.6% to 2.0%.

In a shocking result, the employment cost index rose only 0.2 percent in the second quarter which is far below expectations and the lowest result in the 33-year history of the report. Year-on-year, the ECI fell 6 tenths to plus 2.0 percent which is among the lowest readings on record. The record low for this reading is plus 1.4 percent back in the early recovery days of 2009 when, apparently unlike today, there was enormous slack in the labor market.

The report's two components both fell back sharply with wages & salaries moving down to plus 0.2 percent from 0.7 percent in the first quarter and benefits at plus 0.1 percent vs the first quarter's plus 0.6 percent. Year-on-year, wages & salaries are up 2.1 percent with benefits below 2.0 percent at 1.8 percent.

This report, which is very closely watched by policy makers, may very well unsettle the outlook for the Fed's rate liftoff, pushing expectations to the December FOMC from the September FOMC. For the inflation outlook, wage pressures are supposed to be an offset to still weak commodity prices. The Fed's 2 percent goal for core inflation is looking elusive.

Employment Cost Index Civilian Workers "Wages and Salaries"



Last quarter the year-over-year gain in wages and salaries was 2.52%. That fell to 2.09% in the second quarter. But what about benefits?

Employment Cost Index Civilian Workers "Total Compensation"



Obamacare Effect

Total compensation fell from 2.57% to 1.98%, larger than the decline in wages and salaries. I believe we all know the answer to this one: Obamacare.

Employers are passing on the increased costs of Obamacare to employees.

Longer Timeline Provides Better Picture

None of the above charts accurately display what is really happening with wages and salaries. The time frame is too short.

But we cannot display data we don't have. So let's take a look at a different data series that is more robust.

Average Hourly Earnings Production and Nonsupervisory Employees



The above chart puts a different perspective on the recent jump in average hourly earnings.

But what about the jump in minimum wages. Should that have a huge impact?

The next two charts will help explain.

Minimum Wage Employees



Only 3.9% of hourly workers make at or below the federal minimum wage.

Paid Federal Minimum Wage Aged 25 Years and Over



Under 600,000 employees aged 25 or under get paid federal minimum wage.

For all the brouhaha over minimum wages, the above charts help put things into proper perspective.

• Hikes in minimum wages are likely to most affect employment of teens and those in school.
• It will put some small businesses out of business.
• Job growth will slow.
• Teenage employment will likely suffer the most.

Digging still deeper, here are a few more charts to consider.

Real "Usual" Weekly Earnings, Employed Fulltime



For those lucky enough to be working fulltime, median real wages are precisely where they were in first quarter of 2002: $341 a week.

Assuming those people work 52 weeks a year (not likely), that's a salary of $17,732.

Caveats

• Benefits not factored in
• Property taxes not factored in
• Chart assumes the CPI has affected you no more than the BLS claims

Growth in Average Hourly Earnings Minus Growth in CPI

Let's now take a look at average hourly nominal earnings.

Here is a chart I put together in Fred. I took the year-over-year change in average hourly earnings and subtracted the year-over-year change in CPI.



During the recession in the 1970s, average real hourly earnings got clobbered. The opposite happened in 2001 and 2007.

Real average hourly earnings are allegedly up 1.76% from a year ago. But, the above chart is also not reflective of the true state of affairs for the same caveats noted above.

Obamacare expenses have risen, and so have rental costs. I believe both are understated in the CPI. And renters in some places have been clobbered.

Let's hone in on why real hourly earnings are supposedly up 1.76% from a year ago. Here is the same chart overlaid with the year-over-year percent change in CPI.

Growth in Average Hourly Earnings Minus Growth in CPI vs. CPI Growth



Group-Think Economic Illiterates

Average real hourly earnings are up year-over-year for the precise reason the year-over-year CPI change is up a mere 0.18%.

Those renting, those negatively impacted by Obamacare, and those struggling in part-time jobs, are likely to disagree with the notion their wages are going up more than expenses.

Couple that with high and rising student debt. Then factor in those on fixed income, struggling with retirement.

In spite of the above, economists still wonder why people aren't spending their wage hikes, and "what they save on gasoline".

What a collective bunch of economic illiterates.

The problem is not lack of rising wages, nor lack of inflation, but rather the Fed's bubble-blowing boom bust cycles for the benefit of banks and the already wealthy.

Inflation Fighting Nonsense

The red line in the preceding chart shows the absurdity of the Fed's claim they are "inflation fighters".

Moreover, and opposite of what the Fed states, and most economists believe, people benefit from falling prices!

Ironically, right on the verge of "price stability" (which I define as stable prices but the Fed defines as rising prices) the Fed desperately seeks more damaging inflation that will further destroy the middle class.

The Fed's record speaks for itself: bubbles of increasing amplitude over time for the sole benefit of banks, the already wealthy, and government bureaucrats.

Here's the final irony: The Fed rails against "income inequality" when they are its number 1 sponsor.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Bad Deal Math: I have a Product, But Please Don't Buy It

How often do you hear a car manufacturer (or any other manufacturer) tell people to "not" buy their product because they lose money if you do?

I highly suspect this is nothing more than a purposely calculated publicity stunt, but please consider California Has a Plan to End the Auto Industry as We Know It.

Sergio Marchionne had a funny thing to say about the $32,500 battery-powered Fiat 500e that his company markets in California as “eco-chic.” “I hope you don’t buy it,” he told his audience at a think tank in Washington in May 2014. He said he loses $14,000 on every 500e he sells and only produces the cars because state rules re­quire it.

So who’s forcing Marchionne and all the other major automakers to sell mostly money-losing electric vehicles? More than any other person, it’s Mary Nichols. She’s run the California Air Resources Board since 2007, championing the state’s zero-emission-vehicle quotas and backing Pres­ident Barack Obama’s national mandate to double average fuel economy to 55 miles per gallon by 2025. She was chairman of the state air regulator once before, a generation ago, and cleaning up the famously smoggy Los Angeles skies is just one accomplish­ment in a four-decade career.

Spare Me the Sap

Automakers could just as easily price this crap at a point where they make a profit. They don't, because they want the publicity.

Here's the bottom line: Companies don't beg consumers to "not buy" a line of their products, unless they think favorable publicity will make up losses elsewhere.

Moreover, I highly doubt companies (counting tax breaks) are losing what they claim they are. Can we see full cost accounting, please?

Bad Deal Math

Even if this is a bad deal for the automakers, please don't assume it's a good deal for consumers.

Government adds inefficiencies in everything it does. It's quite likely that energy mandates are a lose-lose proposition for everyone involved.

• Corporations Lose Money on Product Sold
• Consumers Overpay vs. Gasoline Pump Savings 

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Prolonged Drought and Wildfires? Massive CA Fire Jumps 20,000 Acres Overnight; Water Outing Website; 240-Year Drought?

Water Outing

Restaurants in California are not supposed to serve water unless asked. Will that make much of a difference?

The answer is no, but what about car washing, sprinklers, etc.?

To pressure citizens to not waste water, California Launches "Drought Shaming" Website.

California is launching a website that lets residents tattle on water wasters, from neighbors with leaky sprinklers to waiters who serve water without asking.

California has multiple restrictions on water use, including banning washing cars with hoses that don't shut off and restricting lawn-watering within two days of rainfall. But enforcement varies widely across the parched state.

Residents can send details and photos of water waste at www.savewater.ca.gov. Complaints are then sent to local government agencies based on the address of the offense.

Tipsters wary of being outed as the neighborhood snitch can remain anonymous. The site went online Thursday as the latest conservation initiative.

Massive Fire Jumps 20,000 Acres Overnight

MarketWatch reports Massive California Fire Jumped 20,000 Acres Overnight.

A wildfire that has been raging in northern California since last Wednesday jumped 20,000 acres overnight, and has now charred 47,000 acres and is threatening 6,300 homes. Fire officials say the massive blaze, called the Rocky Fire, in the Lower Lake area north of San Francisco is only 5% contained. Already it has destroyed 24 homes and 26 outbuildings.

California Fires Map

Google Maps and CAL Fire created this California Fires Map.



There are 21 active fires as of 3:00PM Central.

No Running Water At All

California's drought is so bad that Thousands Have No Running Water.

Thousands of people in California's Central Valley are feeling the drought much more acutely, because water has literally ceased running from their taps. The drought in these communities resembles a never-ending natural disaster, says Andrew Lockman, manager of the county's Office of Emergency Services.

What do you mean by "no running water"?

No water is coming through the pipes, so when residents turn on the tap or the shower, or try to flush the toilet or run the washing machine, water doesn't come out.

Who doesn't have running water?

While a handful of communities across the state are dealing with municipal water contamination and shortages, the area that's hardest hit—and routinely referred to as the "ground zero of the drought"—is Tulare County, a rural, agriculture-heavy region in the Central Valley that's roughly the size of Connecticut. As of this week, 5,433 people in the county don't have running water, according to Lockman. Most of those individuals live in East Porterville, a small farming community in the Sierra Foothills. East Porterville is one of the poorest communities in California: over a third of the population lives below the federal poverty line, and 56 percent of adults didn't make it through high school. About three quarters of residents are Latino, and about a third say they don't speak English "very well."

If they don't have running water, how do they function?

Of the roughly 1,200 Tulare homes reporting dry wells, about 1,000 of them have signed up for a free bottled water delivery service coordinated by the county. Homes receive deliveries every two weeks; each resident is allotted half a gallon of drinking water per day. The county has also set up three large tanks of nonpotable water, where residents can fill up storage containers for things like showering, flushing toilets, or doing dishes. Portable showers, toilets, and sinks have been set up in front of a church in East Porterville.

The free water programs are open to residents regardless of citizenship, but myths still prevents some from taking advantage of the services. When the portable showers were first installed in front of the church, says Lockman, many people suspected they were an immigration enforcement trap. Some parents haven't been sending their children to school, having heard that child welfare services would take away kids from families that don't have running water.

Are farmers taking the water?

Yes, but it's hard to blame them. Tulare County is among the biggest agricultural producers in the country, growing everything from pistachios and almonds to grapes and livestock. "If you were to just look at the landscape, it's very green," says De Anda. "You wouldn't think we were in a drought." The industry brings in nearly 8 billion dollars per year, employing many of those individuals who currently lack running water. Permits to drill new wells have skyrocketed—just this year, nearly 700 irrigation wells have been permitted, compared to about 200 domestic wells. (Wells permits are issued on a first come, first served basis.) "It's like one big punch bowl that’s not getting refilled but everybody’s been slowly drinking out of it and now we have a thirsty football team at the same punch bowl as everybody else," says Lockman. "Do we have sustainability problems? Oh yeah, absolutely."

Seven Things that May Surprise You

Truthout reports Seven Things That Might Surprise You About California's Drought.

1. Almonds Are Not to Blame

In terms of nuts, almonds don’t use the most water: it takes 4.9 gallons of water to grow one walnut, three-quarters of a gallon of water to grow one pistachio, and one gallon of water to grow one almond.

“The whole thing is completely ridiculous,” says Richard Howitt, an agricultural economist at the University of California at Davis. "Overall, almonds take about 10% of the state’s water but they produce a tremendous amount of value, jobs, income, and a healthy product. So why they became the bad guys I don’t know.”

[Mish response: Perhaps because some of us believe it makes no sense to water the desert, and deplete the water table just to grow onions, nuts, lettuce, alfalfa. When the ground table is depleted, it's gone for good, and it's vanishing at a very fast rate.]

2. California Is Sinking

In parts of California, notably the San Francisco Bay Delta, and the San Joaquin Central Valley, the land is actually sinking, the result of so much water being pumped from the ground.

According to an NBC news interview with Michelle Sneed, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Sacramento, one area of the San Joaquin Valley is sinking about a foot a year, due to accelerated ground water pumping.

[Mish response: add that to the reasons not to pump water to grow nuts]

3. Big Ag Doesn’t Use 80% of California’s Water

That 80% figure is only partially true. Take a look at this graphic from the Northern California Water Association, and you’ll see that just 41% of water goes to “irrigated agriculture.” That 80% figure includes “wild and scenic rivers,” which account for 31% of California’s water.

4. Desalinization Isn't a Solution

Desalinization involves technology that is extremely expensive, so most water officials don’t see it as a major player in improving water supplies. Still, in the city of Carlsbad, close to San Diego, what will be the nation’s largest desalinization plant is expected to begin operating next year. Producing 50 million gallons of water per day, it will be the largest such plant in the Western Hemisphere. That sounds like a lot, but actually is just 7 percent of the county’s total water needs, and at a cost of $1 billion, it seems unlikely that desalinization will provide a primary solution to the drought.

5. Water Rights Are No Longer Sacred

You may have read recently how those holders of water rights dating back over a hundred years are immune from anything Governor Brown can order. That used to be true, but not any more. Last month, California water regulators ordered farmers and others with some of the oldest water rights in the state to stop pulling water out of California’s rivers.

[Mish comment: So instead they deplete groundwater. They will do so until it's all dried up.]

6. California Lawns Are Disappearing

On July 15, the California Water Commission approved strict limits on the amount of water that can be used on landscapes surrounding newly constructed buildings, such as houses, businesses and schools: grass may only be about 25% of a home’s combined front, back and side yards.

7. It’s Not the First Time

It’s true that the past four years are being labeled the driest period in the state’s recorded rainfall history. In 2013, California received less rain than in any year since it became a state in 1850.

But that’s not the worst of it.

Scientists who study long-term climate patterns say the state has been thirsty for much longer stretches before it became a state in the US. They’ve been busy documenting several droughts over the past 1,000 years in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row. By studying tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have discovered a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.

Is California in for another megadrought? Optimists have begun talking about the mega El Nino, which could change everything. However, while this weather system looks fairly certain, we don’t know exactly where it is headed. It could bypass California altogether.

Megadrought?

Point number seven should be very scary. And what about all the water used in fracking?

Let's return to point number three. Here is the chart.



Counting rivers as a "use" for water rather than a source of water seems ridiculous. Saying agriculture "only" uses 41% is seriously misleading.

Nonetheless, let's state this in a way no one can dispute: irrigation uses 4 times the amount of water as all urban use combined.

Can Things Get Worse?

National Geographic reports If You Think the Water Crisis Can't Get Worse, Wait Until the Aquifers Are Drained.

We're pumping irreplaceable groundwater to counter the drought. When it's gone, the real crisis begins.

Aquifers provide us freshwater that makes up for surface water lost from drought-depleted lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. We are drawing down these hidden, mostly nonrenewable groundwater supplies at unsustainable rates in the western United States and in several dry regions globally, threatening our future.

Groundwater comes from aquifers—spongelike gravel and sand-filled underground reservoirs—and we see this water only when it flows from springs and wells. In the United States we rely on this hidden—and shrinking—water supply to meet half our needs, and as drought shrinks surface water in lakes, rivers, and reservoirs, we rely on groundwater from aquifers even more. Some shallow aquifers recharge from surface water, but deeper aquifers contain ancient water locked in the earth by changes in geology thousands or millions of years ago. These aquifers typically cannot recharge, and once this "fossil" water is gone, it is gone forever—potentially changing how and where we can live and grow food, among other things.

A severe drought in California—now approaching four years long—has depleted snowpacks, rivers, and lakes, and groundwater use has soared to make up the shortfall. A new report from Stanford University says that nearly 60 percent of the state's water needs are now met by groundwater, up from 40 percent in years when normal amounts of rain and snow fall.

Relying on groundwater to make up for shrinking surface water supplies comes at a rising price, and this hidden water found in California's Central Valley aquifers is the focus of what amounts to a new gold rush. Well-drillers are working overtime, and as Brian Clark Howard reported here last week, farmers and homeowners short of water now must wait in line more than a year for their new wells.

In most years, aquifers recharge as rainfall and streamflow seep into unpaved ground. But during drought the water table—the depth at which water is found below the surface—drops as water is pumped from the ground faster than it can recharge. As Howard reported, Central Valley wells that used to strike water at 500 feet deep must now be drilled down 1,000 feet or more, at a cost of more than $300,000 for a single well. And as aquifers are depleted, the land also begins to subside, or sink.

Unlike those in other western states, Californians know little about their groundwater supply because well-drilling records are kept secret from public view, and there is no statewide policy limiting groundwater use. State legislators are contemplating a measure that would regulate and limit groundwater use, but even if it passes, compliance plans wouldn't be required until 2020, and full restrictions wouldn't kick in until 2040. California property owners now can pump as much water as they want from under the ground they own.

California's Central Valley isn't the only place in the U.S. where groundwater supplies are declining. Aquifers in the Colorado River Basin and the southern Great Plains also suffer severe depletion. Studies show that about half the groundwater depletion nationwide is from irrigation. Agriculture is the leading use of water in the U.S. and around the world, and globally irrigated farming takes more than 60 percent of the available freshwater.

A recent Kansas State University study said that if farmers in Kansas keep irrigating at present rates, 69 percent of the Ogallala Aquifer will be gone in 50 years.

Scarce groundwater supplies also are being used for energy. A recent study from CERES, an organization that advocates sustainable business practices, indicated that competition for water by hydraulic fracturing—a water-intensive drilling process for oil and gas known as "fracking"—already occurs in dry regions of the United States. The February report said that more than half of all fracking wells in the U.S. are being drilled in regions experiencing drought, and that more than one-third of the wells are in regions suffering groundwater depletion.

Saudi Arabia, which a few decades ago began pumping deep underground aquifers to grow wheat in the desert, has since abandoned the plan, in order to conserve what groundwater supplies remain, relying instead on imported wheat to feed the people of this arid land.

Managing and conserving groundwater supplies becomes an urgent challenge as drought depletes our surface supplies. Because groundwater is a common resource—available to anyone with well—drilling equipment-cooperation and collaboration will be crucial as we try to protect this shrinking line of defense against a future of water scarcity.

When it's gone, it's gone. Does it make that much more sense to grow almonds in the California desert than the Saudi desert?

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Police Brutality Exposed Through "Lens of Video"; Cincinnati Prosecutor "When I indict a murderer, I don't pull punches"

Progression of the Police State U.S. Style 

More national spotlights are on unwarranted police brutality this week. Let's start with a statement made by a Cincinnati prosecutor who charged a police officer with murder.

Prosecutor Joseph T. Deters became a national hero by stating 'When I indict a murderer, I don't pull punches'

To put it simply, Joseph T. Deters, a law-and-order Republican from Hamilton County, Ohio, is not a prosecutor who's known for sending cops to jail.

When he announced Wednesday that he had obtained a grand jury indictment for murder against a police officer in the shooting of an unarmed black motorist, Deters, 58, became an instant celebrity.

His expressions of disgust and dismay at the traffic stop that left a motorist with a fatal gunshot wound to the head spread rapidly across social media.

“I've reviewed probably 100 police shootings. This was bad from the start, and you know, he's going to have to answer for it — that's the bottom line,” he said in an interview Thursday, referring to the officer involved. “I think it was a murder… I think we'll win this case.”

“This is the most asinine act I've ever seen a police officer make,” the blue-eyed, silver-haired prosecutor told reporters, before showing Tensing's body-camera video of the shooting. “Totally unwarranted. It's an absolute tragedy in the year 2015 that anyone would behave in this manner.”

Across the country, many activists who have taken on the issue of police violence against African Americans seemed to be caught off guard.

“I have sincerely never seen a white prosecutor in my entire life as outraged as [prosecutor] Deters is right now about this unjustified police murder,” Shaun King, a prominent social-media activist who monitors police shootings, wrote Wednesday on Twitter.

A top police union official said he was also surprised.

“Some of the remarks he made were way out of line,” said Jay McDonald, president of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police, which has 25,000 members and will provide Tensing's legal defense.

Not Surprised at All

I am not at all surprised by the statements made by Jay McDonald, president of the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police.

Teachers' unions defend child molesters and police unions defend murderers. No one should be surprised by unions defending their clan.

When told that union officials had disagreed with his remarks, Deters didn't flinch.

“Too bad,” he said Thursday. “When I indict a murderer, I don't pull punches.”

Deters called it “outrageous” that a traffic stop for a missing front license plate should lead to an “execution.”

“And if they don't like it, they shouldn't be police officers, and if they don't want to endorse me again, I couldn't give a s—,” Deters said of union officials.

“This was a flat-out murder, you know?” he said. “If you don't see what this is, you shouldn't be in law enforcement. I think it's horrible. That could've been your kid, my brother. I just think it's horrendous.”

Deters On Marijuana

Deters has also questioned whether marijuana should be illegal, and chaired a task force this year to examine the drug's legalization.

“We were just shocked by that — absolutely shocked by that — especially given his background and what he's done before,” said Marcie Seidel, executive director of Drug Free Action Alliance, a Columbus-based anti-drug group.

Deters says he is concerned that marijuana charges tend to “skew” more toward the black community. “I would rather a guy smoke a joint than drink a bottle of vodka.... I don't have any problem legalizing it at all,” he said.

This guy gets my endorsement for both positions.

Police Brutality Exposed Through "Lens of Video"

The New York Times has a video of the Cincinnati murder as well as numerous other police brutality cases. Please have a look.



Here is a link to the story behind the video: Glare of Video Is Shifting Public’s View of Police

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

Progression of the Police State Spanish Style: €300 Euro Fine for Calling Police Officer "Mate"; Law of Simmering Social Pots

Ministry of Truth Gag Law

On July 1, Spain enacted a "gag" law that provides for showing "disrespect to police.

Among the many new repressive stipulations is a €30,000-€600,000 fine for "unauthorized protests," which can be combined for maximum effect with a €600-€300,000 fine for "disrupting public events."

A few days ago, in Police State "Ministry of Truth" Hits Spain I noted a man was fined €600 for Calling police "Slackers" on facebook.

Progression of the Police State

Today a man was fined €300 for calling a police officer "mate" in the presence of others. The actual word in Spanish that resulted in the fine was "colega".

Reader Bran who sent me the story commented, "colega is something like 'mate' in English. Colega is not spoken with a spit of sarcasm like mate is sometimes, at worst it is questioning,  overly familiar, or as a light joke."

I looked up the Definition of Colega.

1. Colleague, co-worker (United States)
2. Counterpart
3. Pal, mate (British), buddy (United States) 

Crime and Fine

Here is the story pretty much as translated by Google: 300 Euro Fine for Calling an Officer a Colleague.

A neighbor of Malaga this July received a fine for using the word 'colleague' to address the security agents' presence of pedestrians in the area. According to the portal that has echoed the complaint, Forotransportistas, the facts occurred on July 5 during a night breathalyser test being conducted by the Civil Guard.

The sanctioned citizen was required to submit to a breathalyzer test in Street Blas Infante (Málaga) when he enunciated this colloquial nickname aimed at one of the agents.

Such behavior was described in the aforementioned fine as' contemptuous and inconsiderate. The legal text allegedly breached Article 37.4 of the controversial Public Safety Act. According to the Act, this minor minor offense shows "lack of respect and consideration to a member of the Security Forces in the performance of their duties to protect the safety."

Civil Guard



Photo of an officer of the Civil Guard. / EFE

What Not To Say

Don't say "Colleague, Pal, Buddy, or Mate" to a crossing guard, police office, or other civil official.

If you do, you are subject to a huge fine.

Law of Simmering Social Pots

The gag law may limit minor protests for a while, but it will also simmer increasing resentment over time.

The law of simmering social pots:  Putting a tight lid on a simmering social pot will eventually cause a huge boil-over, and perhaps an explosion, at some point in the future.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com