My Favorite Result from Last Night

PROP D-CITY OF SAN DIEGO Temp. One-Half Cent Sales Tax

NO
160,154
62.05%

YES
97950
37.95%

Message to pols: We don't trust you, get to work and earn our trust.

What was up with the U-T poll calling it a dead heat? Did the desired results skew the actual results for their polling firm? That much of a difference is not explained by mere anomolies of polling.

U-T Endorses Proposition D - But Not Enthusiastically

Today's U-T editorial headline was "Prop D's Advocates Must Step Up Their Game" as if it is lack of game that has the electorate doubting the efficacy of handing over $100 million more in taxes in return for promises from politicians. The editorial makes the case for why these guys can't be trusted:

The mayor worked with Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, to get the Legislature to pass with zero scrutiny or public debate a bill lifting the limit on how much property tax revenue the city could divert to downtown redevelopment, possibly clearing the way for a new Chargers stadium.
. . .
The same holds for the City Council’s moves to block Walmart from selling groceries despite warnings from planning commissioners that it was acting hastily and without following normal procedures.

Hmm . . . violating procedures, cutting back room deals, rewarding your labor union supporters. And we're just supposed to hand over our hard earned cash to these jokers on their promise that they'll certify they have met specific conditions? As I quoted earlier:

Sanders acknowledged the financial thresholds in the resolution aren’t binding legally.

Yes, the same mayor urging you to vote yes on D.

Here's the deal with this election. The political class in this country has broken faith with the people. They have rewarded government labor unions with sweetheart salaries and pensions, they have refused to enforce the borders, they have spent your grandkid's and great-grandkid's money. Kick those bums out. Don't give them another cent until they take action on behalf of "we the people." That is why I am voting No on D, why I support Lorie Zapf over Howard Wayne, and even Christine O'Donnell, who lacks a compelling record of achievement. Anyone who has sided with the political class or government employees' unions such as the supporters of Proposition D, Howard Wayne or Chris Coons does not deserve office. It's our country, these people asked for our trust and rewarded it with treachery, throw them out or keep them out of office.

Close Vote on Proposition D

Today's U-T reports that the survey it commissioned shows the vote on Proposition D, the half cent sales tax increase, is a very tight contest. Unlike Proposition J, this only needs a 50% vote to pass. That's actually all of the bad news, because I see quite a bit of good news in the survey.

• The survey shows that the more people know about the proposition the less likely they are to vote for it.


• The survey is of registered voters, not likely voters. My belief is that Tea Party energy makes the No's more likely to vote.


• Some of those interviewed were considered reluctant supporters, who didn't trust politicians to carry out the reforms.

This last bullet reinforces my point that the best way to argue against this proposition is to demand that the politicians first keep their promises to us and pass all of the reforms that are purportedly part of the package before we give them more money. For all the reasons to vote No, please see the No on D website, and get a yard sign or donate.


Graphic courtesy of San Diego Union-Tribune.

Isn't That Cute?

Headline in the San Diego U-T:

Council commits to achieve savings if Proposition D passes

Well isn't that cute, coming from the political class that got us into this mess. They pass a resolution in which they promise to enact reform. Aren't they adorable? Don't they look so sweet when they pretend they're passing real legislation:

Sanders acknowledged the financial thresholds in the resolution aren’t binding legally.

Well they looked good doing it.


Meanwhile from KUSI:

The pension expert who revealed the outrageous payout's in the city of Bell, has analyzed San Diego's pension payout's.

Marcia Fritz compiled a report from information gathered from San Diego's pension system.
Fritz's analysis projected what the top 10 pensioners would receive over their lifetimes, using their age and life expectancy.

According to Fritz the top 10 pensioners will receive 61-million dollars over 25 years.

Here is the money quote though:

Tuesday, the council will consider one of the 10-reforms tied to the tax increase. This is to increase what elected officials pay toward their pensions. Currently they pay 8%, the reform would boost that to 23%, but the charter says they should pay 50-percent.

The council's unwillingness to enact real reform now is the reason we should vote No on Proposition D. It's really very simple, enact meaningful reform, then see where we stand. No tax increases until that happens.

Join the No on D campaign by clicking below.




More reasons to vote No are at this web site. Oppose the half cent sales tax increase.

More Reasons to Vote Against Proposition D

City strikes deal with unions to allow outside bids

. . . or so states the newspaper headline. At first, it sounds like the city council is working to keep its promises to get Proposition D, but read the fine print, as pointed out by Carl DeMaio. Although the outside bidders do not have to provide health care benefits, as previously demanded by the city's unions, two other factors make a mockery of this process:

City Councilman Carl DeMaio, who opposes Proposition D, said the managed competition guide is a watered-down version of what Sanders proposed last year and creates several opportunities for the council to avoid outsourcing city jobs, such as not requiring the city to accept the lowest bid. He also noted that, in addition to their 10 percent advantage, city workers don’t include annual pension costs in their bids — one of the most significant expenses in each department’s budget.

The 10 percent advantage is a provision that the winning bidder must be 10% less expensive than the city. Unfortunately, I don't care if they are slightly more expensive, if we could offload pension and health care obligations for city workers.

The deal isn't done either, city union members have to approve the negotiated process for outsourcing. Hard to predict how that vote will go. Taking the pensions out of the calculation gives them a significant advantage, but who knows, their salary structure still might be too high to withstand competition.

Until we see actual outsourcing, we should not be voting for tax increases.

Even Howard Wayne is Getting the Message

I got a call today from a volunteer for the Howard Wayne campaign asking me if I was following the District 6 council election here in San Diego, and if I was supporting Howard Wayne. I said no, I was definitely not. He asked why? My response was that Howard Wayne was prominently endorsed by the San Diego Firefighters and Police unions, and there was no way I would vote for the union endorsed candidate. "Most people would consider that a positive, but I understand you are concerned about the pension problem." (emphasis mine) He further argued that the reason the unions were endorsing Wayne was that he would restore the numbers of public safety personnel in the field. The volunteer also said this, "Howard Wayne is the only candidate who will aggressively negotiate with the unions on the pensions." My rejoinder was that unions don't usually endorse the candidate who is going to reduce their pensions.

The conversation got me thinking. If Howard Wayne knows to train his volunteers to take on the pension issue, then the public must really be catching on. In fact, in today's WSJ opinion section, Steve Malanga comes to the same conclusion, that association with public employees' unions are becoming political poison.

Instead, organized labor— increasingly dominated by public-sector workers—is facing a backlash from taxpayers because of widespread publicity about the rich pay and benefits of some government employees. That's made Mr. Christie's blunt campaign talk about reining in government costs a popular approach among candidates. Even old friends of labor in the Democratic Party have made public workers a target, leaving labor with fewer allies and playing defense.

Back to our race in San Diego, I am concerned about Lorie Zapf's electability. She has not really successfully rebutted issues with mortgage defaults and claims that she has filed numerous lawsuits even while leading a group called Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. I am not saying these charges show wrongdoing, just that she is not actively campaigning in a way to effectively rebut them. Further, she is losing the lawn sign war. Lawn signs aren't an accurate indicator, but the trend of fewer Lorie Zapf signs and more Howard Wayne signs in the district aren't a good trend. My fear is that we are left with a bad situation in District 6, with Wayne being the handpicked candidate of Big Labor and Zapf the hand picked candidate of Big Business. I endorsed Zapf, because labor problems from pensions are crushing the city right now, and she seemed the most willing to take on the unions. If Zapf loses, we will have the same status quo on the city council, a very pro-labor group. This is another reason to vote against Proposition D, we won't be able to trust this council to enact meaningful reform.

Programming Alert: Debate on Proposition D On September 30

Attention San Diegans against new taxes. There will be a debate on Proposition D, the proposed half-cent sales tax increase, on Thursday, September 30th at the Westin Gaslamp Quarter from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. The debate will be moderated by Liam Dillon of the Voice of San Diego. Tea Partyers who want to influence the debate can e-mail questions to Liam ahead of time. We should also show up to the debate and ask tough questions, like why the city council won't just enact reforms without the proposed increase. Liam has a pretty good take on the reforms in a companion article on the increase:

The 10 reforms listed in the ballot measure provide the start of major structural changes, not the end. The actual savings depend not only on negotiations before the tax could be increased, but also on the implementation of reforms anticipated but not required by the measure. In the end, it will come down to how hard the city's elected officials decide to push for many reforms' execution.

This is why I am opposing the measure. I want the politicians to show good faith and do some hard work for us, before we hand them more money. Eventually the economy will recover, sooner if there are significant Tea Party types in the House and Senate. The money will start rolling into the city's coffers, taking the pressure off executing these reforms. We will be stuck with the increase but without the fix. Better to force the reforms now, and see how much of an increase is really needed.

No On Prop D in San Diego

Do you think they'll figure out we should just start the reforms before we ask for the money?

The U-T got this one right on the editorial page, with the following headline:

Prop D: Does mayor really have a hammer?

The editorial board argues in essence, that Proposition D doesn't give the mayor the hammer to reform spending that Sanders and Frye argue for in the front of the Dialog section. Because this is getting adequate publicity and the No campaign seems to be adequately funded, for now, I may not spend much time on this issue, core as it is to the Tea Party philosophy. A few points from the editorial:

Given that five City Council members were ready to place the sales tax proposal on the ballot without linking it to reforms and that the council has stalled outsourcing of some city services despite a 2006 voter mandate to do so, Sanders’ comments are highly reassuring. They suggest reform savings would be on the high end of the $700,000 to $85 million-plus range of annual savings cited in ballot language.

But does the mayor really have the hammer he says? City Attorney Jan Goldsmith doesn’t think so.

This goes to my basic argument about Proposition D. Structural budget reform, pension reforms and aggressive outsourcing of city services can be performed right now, without the need for a half cent sales tax increase. If the ruling class was serious about reducing spending they would show good faith by taking those actions now, in advance of any vote. That they want the people to pony up first is prima facie evidence that they cannot be trusted. Kevin Faulconer and Carl DiMaio echo my sentiments:

Opponents, such as Councilmen Kevin Faulconer and Carl DeMaio, rightfully pointed out that many of the reforms listed in the ballot measure are those the council has been working on already for years with no success. Further, they argue, no one knows how much money the city might save by implementing all the reforms. They expressed doubt that the package alone could fix the city's mounting obligations forever. It was another example, they said, of city politicians kicking the can down the road on the backs of taxpayers.

It is analogous to the border situation. We all know that aggressively securing the border is not a sufficient condition to solve our immigration woes; but it is a necessary first step. Every day that the Congress and the President fail to perform this basic function, is another day that deepens our distrust of any "comprehensive plan" that any of them may propose. The only way to win back trust is to secure the border. The only way for our city council to win back trust is to deal with out of control spending on employees salaries and pensions. Do a good job and we might not even need to talk about a tax increase; but if it still looks required, we might be willing to listen. Until you get serious, NO DEAL!

San Diego's Fiscal Crisis and... Hooray for Newspapers

Hooray for Newspapers

Three times in two weeks, Southern California newspapers show why they are a necessary part of the political landscape, doing the job that the framers envisioned. Dean has a great post on the L.A. Times pulling data together on teachers and another on how they exposed outrageous salaries and pensions in Bell, CA. Today, the San Diego U-T, in its new styling, lays out the history of the pensions issue and points out the inescapable conclusion in their headline that the current proposal for a sales tax increase is directly traceable to the cowardly actions of former mayors Susan Golding, Dick Murphy, City Manager Jack McGrory and the pension board members. If they worked at Enron, they would all be in jail. I had previously surmised that the U-T was pimping for the tax increase, now I am not so sure. I reiterate Dean's point that only news organizations have the necessary resources and legal clout to pull together the information needed to expose the wrong doing of elected officials and government employees.

The Roots of the Crisis

The U-T article is a must read for all Tea Party types. It lays out in stark detail the shenanigans and the cost to the taxpayer of allowing the ruling class to have its way unsupervised. Some quotes:

The push for a half-cent increase to San Diego’s sales tax has just begun, but it actually goes back to past decisions by city leaders who chose short-term political expediency over the long-term interests of taxpayers. . . . For example, the highest-paid retiree in the city’s pension system, former Assistant City Attorney Eugene Gordon, would have been due an annual benefit of roughly $64,600 after his 34 service years if city leaders hadn’t significantly increased retirement benefits. . . . The design of the city’s pension changed again in 2002, but things only got worse. Golding’s successor, Dick Murphy, and the City Council established a new underfunding plan that called for a second benefit increase for retirees. Their action instantly created a $1 billion-plus pension deficit. The increase helped win the favor of pension board members, many of whom were city workers, to let the city put far less money into the pension fund than was required. . . .

Currently, the payment is $232 million, or 21 percent of the operating budget.

By 2025, it’s projected to be $512 million, or nearly 47 percent of the operating budget, if no changes are made to pensions or budgets.

Exit question: What should we do now, given the strong legal standing that the current pensioners and employees have? B-Daddy is still noodling and researching the question, but I need some input. This may be the battle of the the century.

San Diego Firefighters - Less Fight for your Buck

The local fish wrap has inadvertently performed a public service in their attempts to push the local half cent sales tax increase. To be fair, I don't know if that is really the agenda, but the wall to wall coverage they have given the issue makes it appear that they favor the tax. Regardless, they published some statistics about fire department costs in a number of large cities through out America. At first glance the numbers don't look so bad for San Diego:



Let's take a closer look at these numbers. Everyone pay attention, class is officially in session. Look at the column called sworn personnel. These are the numbers of firefighters and paramedics that will actually show up at your door to provide rescue. Notice the low numbers for San Diego? So despite comparable spending on the total budget, we actually put fewer firefighters on the streets. I have done the math for you to make the comparisons easier. Click to enlarge.



San Diego doesn't have a firefighting budget problem, we have a pay and management problem. We spend approximately the same amount per resident that comparably sized cities do. What really jumps out is the outrageous cost per sworn personnel. Our firefighting department is far and away the most expensive per sworn personnel. This mismanagement is the real reason we are idling engines. A hint as to why we have the highest expense ratio is contained in my earlier post, our firefighters are significantly over compensated, especially considering how much overtime is paid to senior firefighters.

So when asked what really caused the tragic death of Bentley Do, don't blame lack of budget for our fire department. No matter what ultimate cause is assigned, it isn't that. If people are going to blame the slow response of the fire department for this death (I am not so sure) then the root cause is the greed of the unions and the spinelessness of our politicians that allowed firefighters pay to skyrocket. It's time the city got it's moneys worth for what we pay in taxes. San Antonio gets almost double the number of personnel for only 10% more budget. Not an extra nickel to the San Diego fire department until they show they can reform their management practices.

Never Let a Tragedy Go To Waste - Local Version UPDATE

The tragic choking death of a two year old, purportedly because of slow paramedic response due to rolling brownouts of firefighting station "brownouts" is being used to push a half cent sales tax increase on the city. You can judge for yourself if the brownout was significant by viewing the linked time line. That local politicians would choose to do so is both highly cynical and sadly typical. I did not use a picture of the deceased for illustration, because this issue is really about the two illustrations pictured, a new library and new city hall. At a time when the city council is making plans for a new city hall and a new central library, claiming that the tax increase is necessary for firefighting and paramedic services is demonstrably false.

First, by refusing to make any progress on managed competition, or outsourcing, the council has failed to reap available savings. As I posted earlier, it was no coincidence that the proposal for the half cent sales tax increase surfaced on the same day as the proposed initiative to force more outsourcing failed to make the ballot.

Second, the manner in which the firefighters are paid needs to be examined. Carl DeMaio, a personal hero of mine, lays out the excessive pay and overtime in the fire department itself in the following article.

The salary list also demonstrates excessive compensation across the city's Fire Department, which is represented by what is arguably the city's most powerful union. In fact, firefighters comprise nearly half the membership in the “$100,000 Club” at City Hall. When comp overtime is factored into total compensation, the number of firefighters receiving net compensation value of more than $100,000 a year jumps to 371 – that's 40 percent of the active city firefighters earning six figures or more.

Of the firefighters who made the “$100,000 Club,” many ended up taking in between $35,000 and $45,000 in overtime during one year. One fire engineer alone was awarded $74,028 in overtime.

Michael Stetz in the Union-Tribune also looks into this issue.

In 2006, our newspaper reported how four San Diego fire officials did this nifty trick: They moved up to higher-paying top management positions for a year or two, then went back to their old jobs. That boosted their pensions by as much as $30,000 a year. For one, it kicked up his pension to $133,000 a year.

In 2008, the third- and fourth-highest paid city employees were fire battalion chiefs who earned $228,000 and $209,000, respectively — more than the police chief.

In 2009, our newspaper reported how 1,560 city employees made more than $100,000 annually during the previous year. Nearly one-third of those happened to be fire department employees.

Maybe the answer to the city's firefighting budget woes would be to pay far less overtime, and use the savings to hire entry level firefighters, reducing the number of engines that must be idled. The monumental waste evident in the fire department, as evidenced above, is a clear indicator that almost any reasonable management review could wring savings that would boost protection for the citizens who pay their salaries.

Local governments have a long history of reducing vital services when faced with tax revolts. Now that we have an active tea party movement, we won't let them get away with this.

UPDATE

Temple of Mut has her own take on the situation and calls into question the timing of tieing a toddler's death to the brownouts. She provides convenient email addresses to contact your local council member.

Half Cent Sales Tax Increase - DOA

Will a half cent sales tax increase in the city of San Diego pass this November? The fact that Howard Wayne (candidate for District 6 Council seat) has come out against it speaks volume. Here is a candidate endorsed by every employee union that matters, saying he would vote No on the proposed increase. Howard Wayne is an experienced politician, and an astute campaigner, so his read on the situation says a lot. Listen to the following report from local station KUSI.




By the way, does David Alvarez sound like a wishy washy weakling or what? Glad I'm not in district 8. I am also concerned that Lorie Zapf, whom I have endorsed, can't get herself on TV.

For those of us in the Tea Party, keep in mind the last little sentence about this tax increase only needing a simple majority vote to pass. Time to get busy, this is our issue, we are Taxed Enough Already. And what's this crap about San Diego being one of the lightest taxed cities in the nation? California has both a high sales tax rate, and a high income tax rate, fact. Sick of this union crap to extort more money from us. With the parcel tax on the ballot, we have some work to do.

I would like to thank Steve Rivera, Howard Wayne's campaign manager, for providing the link to the KUSI piece.

Pre-emptive Action Against San Diego Sales Tax Increase

Temple of Mut has information on protests to convince politicians to not even try to put a half cent sales tax increase on the ballot this November. Save the date of Monday, July 12 at 1230. (I will be in New Orleans, unfortunately.) Long time local advocate for freedom, Richard Rider is leading the charge. (I have had acquaintance with Mr. Rider for over 25 years, it was out of a sense of loyalty to him that I took so long to leave the LP.) Here is the some of the good news that Mr. Rider has to share about the opposition coming together:

Likely included as organizations will be my SD Tax Fighters, San Diego County Taxpayers Assn, the GOP, the Libertarian Party, … major “Tea Party” operations in the county, the SD Restaurant Association and hopefully several others...

I have to admit that I almost want to see this tax increase on the ballot, because it will so energize those sympathetic to the Tea Party, that it may influence the outcome of local elections, in particular, Council District 6, which looks to be close. My lefty buddies at OB Rag points out that Mayor Sanders used this issue to pillory Donna Frye in their mayoral contest. However, OB Rag doesn't appear to be opposing the tax.

(Picture of Richard Rider from "A Brief History" blog.)

San Diego Tax and Spend Alert

Not coincidentally, the same day that Carl DeMaio's outsourcing initiative failed to make the November ballot, comes news that Mayor Jerry Sanders is considering putting a half-cent sales tax increase on the same November ballot (H/T Temple of Mut.) The city council and the mayor have failed to outsource a single service to save money, even though the voters approved managed competition two years ago. The lack of coincidence is that the only reasonable way to cut the cost of government is to reduce labor costs by outsourcing. That way, the big overhang of future obligations from city pensions can start to be reduced. Carl DeMaio had this to say about the situation:

Voters overwhelmingly passed proposition C in 2006 to require the city to use regular competitive bidding on city services with the exception of police and fire. And so four years have passed, not one city service, not one function not even one taxpayer dollar in the city budget has been subjected to managed competition under proposition C.

Richard Rider discusses the idea of a ballot measure in the article about the tax increase:

Taxpayer advocate Richard Rider said any proposed tax increase from Sanders would be shot down by voters because they believe they’re already paying enough.

“If he likes to get his teeth kicked in, I guess he can go ahead,” Rider said.

Rider also said the proposed ballot measure would stop financial reforms already under way.

“Nobody is going to do anything else in terms of reform,” he said. “They’re going to hope that they can get bailed out with taxes.”

Exaclty. If there is an issue that conservatives, libertarians, Tea Partyers and taxpayers can get together on, this is it. If Sanders proposes this initiative, I will never vote for him again.

Not convinced of the efficacy of outsourcing? See Adam Summers article for the Reason Foundation. Just one example:

The City of Phoenix implemented a managed competition program in the late 1970s to address a looming fiscal crisis. One of its successful competitions was for trash and recycling collection. The city was divided into six geographic regions and collection services in each sector were put up for bid on a rotating basis. Some bids were won by the city, and others were won by private providers. As a result of the competition, the city has saved about $25 million over the past 30 years. Add in savings for competitions for solid waste transfer hauling and landfill operations and the city has saved a total of almost $40 million.

I would like to hear Howard Wayne and Lori Zapf provide their views on the proposed tax increase. I have my suspicions, but maybe we can find out.