Progressives Look to Filner to Whack at San Diego's Economy

Kelly Davis of CityBeat has performed a public service in detailing some areas where Bob Filner's philosophy will have a negative impact on the city's economy.  Of course, Davis doesn't take that view, but a review of potential "progressive" action items doesn't bode well for the local economy.

• Development. Progressives complain about the city reorganization that saved some money and by moving the planning department to a division in the development department.  The building industry is supposedly in favor of the move, because of the potential to steam line the permitting process.  However, the move seems to draw the ire of progressives for lack of "transparency."  But faster permitting would seem to promote economic growth, so what is the real complaint here?
• Transportation. Progressives are hoping that Filner will pour even more money down the rat hole of the public transit system.  Our Attorney General, Kamala Harris, supposedly doesn't like the fact that SANDAG's transport plan has too much emphasis on freeway widening.  A shift in emphasis and funding away from freeways to public transport will of course just cause more traffic jams.
• Housing. The liberal belief is that the way to increase affordable housing is to subsidize the production of low income housing.  Despite the city's budget woes related specifically to the changes Jerry Brown gutted the redevelopment agencies, the left is hoping Filner will divert money to low income housing.  Steven Greenhut details the way in which government run housing projects decrease the stock of housing available to the poor in Reason.  The best way to increase affordable housing is to increase the total amount of housing being built.  The increased stock acts as increased supply, and the laws of supply and demand drive down the overall cost of housing.
• Electrical Power Production.  Progressives were upset with Sanders' support for two power plant projects and look to Filner to take their side.  How the city is supposed to get less dependent on importing power over "single point of failure links" is not spelled out.  Having lived through the disaster September 2011, I am acutely aware of the risks we face.  The FERC study on that disaster points out that the system is subject relatively too few nodes for transmission of electricity, as I have reviewed.  If this stand is in the name of environmental protection, then how much air pollution occurs when thousands of people fire up their portable gasoline generators, break out charcoal bbqs, and toss out food when we lose power?
• Tourism.  Look for the hotel tax increase that funds tourism outreach (under the Tourism Management District) to come under assault.  Filner advocated shifting the money to "public safety" in an October debate, questioning the legality of the tax.  I question the legality as well and would propose repeal.  However, Filner reveals his instincts are those of a big government thug, when rather than rescind a tax the hoteliers imposed on themselves, he wants to seize the cash for the city.  Either the tax is illegal and gets repealed or it should stand and be used for tourism.

Kelly's article opened with a discussion of Filner proposing providing subsidies for families of students who couldn't afford the $36 per month bus pass.  It makes a nice sound bite, but I really question how many students fall in that category.  Where is the study?  Where is the evidence?  How many employees will be hired or diverted from other work to run a small bureaucracy to determine which students are truly needy enough to get free passes?  If we base the decision on income, who will audit compliance with federal privacy laws when these people provide their income tax returns as proof of need?  If we don't require proof, how are the subsidies not going to drain the transit system coffers as students line up to collect the free passes?  Will my son, who lives at home, but is unemployed and goes to a community college get a pass?  If so, why? we are relatively well off.  If not, why not? Are we discriminating based on the basis of family origin?  Nobody asks these questions when politicians just announce some fabulous free crap.  Maybe if we always did, they would be embarrassed into working on real issues, like how are we going to implement a budget that works.

A Filner administration may give me ample material for my blog, but that is cold comfort when his policies won't be helping an economy that badly needs it.

Quote of the Week

Comes from Walter Russell Mead:

The question before the country isn’t whether the law will stand. It is headed for failure; the question is whether the Supreme Court will kill it quickly and at a relatively low cost, or will it impose huge costs and inefficiencies across the country as its contradictions and inadequacies are successively revealed.

The whole article is worth reading, it is a scathing critique of the poverty of thinking of modern progressivism.

Barack Obama - Progressive

The President's class warfare rhetoric is showing Gotham his true colors. . . And guess who is applauding. My pals at MoveOn.org sent me an email:

Dear MoveOn member,

He's back. Yesterday, we saw the Barack Obama who left millions of us fired up and ready to go.

Rather than trying to compromise with Republicans, the president laid out a clear, progressive vision for the economy. It's based on the simple rule that we have to stop letting billionaires pay lower taxes than middle class families.

But the only way we'll get this "Buffett Rule" passed is by going big and calling out those whose only goal is protecting tax breaks for billionaires.

So we've already got a rapid-response ad urging Congress to adopt the Buffett Rule—and it's getting a ton of notice. But we'll only be able to air it widely if we raise $150,000 today.

Can you contribute $5 to help make the rich pay their fair share?

[gratuitous fund raising link deleted]

For months, MoveOn members have been joining with other members of the American Dream movement to demand that Washington pay attention to the real crisis in this country: the millions of people who can't find a job. And it's working.

President Obama and progressives in Congress have both proposed significant job creation plans, to be paid for by taxing the rich. That idea isn't supported just by members of the American Dream movement—it's overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

And despite ridiculous claims of "class warfare," the fact is, Republicans want to end Medicare to protect billionaires. The president and progressives in Congress want to tax billionaires to create jobs. That's a clear choice, and we know where the American people will come down.

We just have to keep the choice front and center—and that's exactly what our new ad does. But we need to make sure we have the resources to air it broadly. Can you chip in $5 today?

So which lie should we attack first? Let's start with the idea that millionaires pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. This is demonstrably false. Here is the data from the IRS:

What about Warren Buffet? Professor Mark J. Perry at Carpe Diem debunks:

I think Warren Buffett distorted and misrepresented the tax issue by using himself as an example, implying that his case as a CEO paying a lower tax rate (17.4%) than his secretary was typical, when that is not the case. Buffett’s case is an extreme outlier and not at all typical of a CEO because: a) Buffett takes only a $100,000 salary, and b) gets about $40 million of income annually from dividends and capital gains taxed at 15%.
That’s how Buffett reports a 17.4% tax rate, but he never explained in his NY Times article (or elsewhere) that his case is NOT typical for salaried CEOs.

Ending Medicare? To protect billionaires? Let's face it, medicare is going broke and will soon be unaffordable. You could tax billionaires at 100% (assuming they would keep working) and not pay for medicare. Further, the only way medicare is going to survive for those seniors who need it most is through reform as proposed by Paul Ryan. Making medicare a block funded program and giving seniors control over how they spend their insurance dollars is going to save the program, not end it. Doing nothing will end it.

Note the big emphasis on what a progressive Obama is. I love the internet, because these "below the radar" campaigns to rally the faithful can be exposed. The last thing Obama wants advertised in the general election is what a "progressive" he is. I don't think that's going to win him votes, any more than comments about us hicks clinging to our guns and religion.

He can cling to his progressive image and see how far that gets him.