Liberty Movement California Ballot Recommendations

This year's ballot measure don't excite me one way or another, so I was late to analyze them.  But they still will have their impact on the state where I reside, so here are my recommendations.  I don't always agree with the larger Tea Party groups; these recommendations are my own small contribution to increase liberty.

Proposition 1 - Water Bond - NO

In this drought stricken year, who could vote against water bonds?  Well, I can, because the taxpayers get stuck with the long term bill for Big Government projects that won't deliver much more water.  The Libertarian Party argument is:

Water projects are best managed and financed by local water boards, rather than writing grants to state bureaucrats trying to secure expensive bond monies.

Proposition 2 - Budget Stabilization - NO

Proposition 2 would require 3% of state General Fund revenue be deposited in a “rainy day”
fund, and allows up to 10% of revenue be deposited in this account. The measure would
allow the rainy day funds to be spent only in the event of a drop in annual revenue below
the preceding year, adjusted for population and inflation, or in a declared emergency.  This seems like a reasonable idea; but I don't like the way that the measure controls how local districts manage their funds.  Under this law local school districts are limited in how much they can put away in a rainy day fund themselves.  In general, more local control is better for liberty.

Proposition 45 - Healthcare Insurance - NO

This measure is designed to continue to make California an unfriendly business climate, in this case for insurers.  I didn't have to research arguments from liberty friendly groups to know this is a loser.

 • Requires changes to health insurance rates, or anything else affecting the charges associated with health insurance, to be approved by Insurance Commissioner before taking effect.
• Provides for public notice, disclosure, and hearing on health insurance rate changes, and subsequent judicial review.
• Requires sworn statement by health insurer as to accuracy of information submitted to Insurance Commissioner to justify rate changes.
• Does not apply to employer large group health plans.
• Prohibits health, auto, and homeowners insurers from determining policy eligibility or rates based  on lack of prior coverage or credit history.

So vote no to prevent even more bureaucracy and those same bureaucrats from mucking with your healthcare insurance, even more than they do so already.

Proposition 46 - Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors - NO

Even more intrusive than Proposition 45; how is it the right of the state to commit law-abiding citizens performing their jobs to submit to intrusive monitoring?  It is not.  Further, it requires doctors to check state databases before prescribing you certain types of medication.  There would never be any identity confusion or stealing of information from government run databases that track your prescriptions, would there? Vote no against this madness.

Proposition 47 - Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. - YES

Here is where I am breaking with some in the Tea Party movement.  I think it worthwhile to post the summary of the initiative as it is little known:

• Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for certain drug possession offenses.
• Requires misdemeanor sentence instead of felony for the following crimes when amount involved is $950 or less: petty theft, receiving stolen property, and forging/writing bad checks.
• Allows felony sentence for these offenses if person has previous conviction for crimes such as rape, murder, or child molestation or is registered sex offender.
• Requires resentencing for persons serving felony sentences for these offenses unless court finds unreasonable public safety risk.
• Applies savings to mental health and drug treatment programs, K–12 schools, and crime victims.

I am against three-strike laws and mandatory minimums, because too many travesties of justice have resulted.  This proposition is a good start in reversing a stupid judicial trend.  It also eliminates some felony categories for mere possession of drugs for personal use.  Restoring some reason to sentencing is worthy goal.

Proposition 48 - Indian Gaming Compacts. - Don't Care

Some Indian tribe would be helped, another hurt by this lawsuit over gaming in the Central Valley near Madera.  There will be federal court cases no matter how this turns out.  It seems unreasonable that some tribes get casinos through this process but others don't, but a vote either way on this measure won't solve the process problems.  UPDATE: My oldest, who works in the hospitality industry says that we should always vote for more casinos.  I am still not convinced.


That's all on the propositions.  I am voting for Republicans across the board for all other offices on my ballot, because the Democrats in this state have allied themselves with evil interests.

UPDATE

I am voting for Marshall Tuck for State Superintendent of Public Instruction based on the California Teacher's Association endorsement of his opponent.  From a HuffPo article on the race:

School reform groups have argued that strict work rules and powerful job protections for teachers have made it hard to fire incompetent educators or enact creative local initiatives - at students' expense.
Tuck, a former president of Green Dot Public Schools, a charter school organization, is allied with the reformers. He has the backing of former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and funding from billionaire philanthropist Eli Broad.
Torlakson, a former teacher who has been the state's superintendent of public instruction since 2010, has strong backing from California teachers unions.

Insanity in Our Back Yard - Filner Must Go

There is plenty of coverage of the allegations regarding Filner's sexual harassment.  Leslie Eastman at College Insurrection has a nice summary and sdrostra.com is chock full of articles on the subject. But Filner has demonstrated plenty of other out-of-control behavior that together paints a portrait of a man teetering on the edge of sanity.

• Most disturbing to me, because it is such an affront to civil behavior, his ex-fiancee said that  she made the "gut-wrenching decision" to break up with Filner after she said he recently started text messaging other women sexually explicit messages and set up dates in front of her.  Bronwym Ingram, the ex, said that he had lost the ability to treat anyone with civility.
• His ongoing feud with Jan Goldsmith that is harming the city.  His aggressive take-over of a Goldsmith news conference prompted me to predict he wouldn't finish the term.
• The Sunroad Centrum pay-to-play investigation is still ongoing, with the FBI involved.  Citybeat has more details.
• Jerry Navarra of Jerome's Furniture donated free furniture to the mayor's office while he has two properties in East Village that cannot be developed unless an historical designation is lifted.

Here is that Goldsmith presser video.

He has clearly shredded the norms of civil behavior.  Here is the an article about conduct disorders, including DSM-IV diagnostic criteria.  Check out these symptoms and ask how much of Filner's behavior fits:

Four types of symptoms of conduct disorder are recognized: 

(1) Aggression or serious threats of harm to people or animals;
(2) Deliberate property damage or destruction (e.g., fire setting, vandalism);
(3) Repeated violation of household or school rules, laws, or both; and
(4) Persistent lying to avoid consequences or to obtain tangible goods or privileges.

Should someone who has the symptoms of a conduct disorder be our mayor?

What You Should Be Reading:

• The Daily Caller has a sneak peak at testimony in the IRS targeting of tea party groups.  It ain't pretty and true to expectation, the trail leads to Washington.
• DooDoo Econ on exposing accounting fraud at Treasury to avoid breaching the debt limit.  He also makes a compelling case, with pictures, of why Filner will stay in office until after Comic-Con.

An Apology is not Enough - IRS Harassment of tea party Groups

The IRS finally acknowledged what conservative groups have known since early 2012, they were targeted for special scrutiny by the IRS when applying for tax exempt status.  The WSJ is reporting:

A congressional aide familiar with the findings of the inspector general's report said it concludes that tea-party groups were delayed in the application process, and were asked unnecessary questions.

The power of the IRS to ruin the life of the average citizen is well known.  Besides being a clear abuse of power, IRS harassment is a powerful tool to stifle dissent.  Nixon is alleged to have used the IRS to harass those on his "enemies list," to great and well deserved outrage.  Leftists who are the most vocal about Nixon are saying nothing or even saying that the tea party groups deserved the scrutiny because of collective guilt for being front organizations for business interests.  I won't link the Daily Kos articles that so state.

I am not alleging that this effort was directed by the Obama administration.  It matters not why the harassment took place, when it is targeted based on belief it is unconscionable.  The IRS has too much power over our lives.  The complexity of the tax code makes average citizens potential criminals.  The ACA has put an even larger burden the IRS, and at the same time made it more likely that an individual tax return will be out of compliance and subject to audit.

There will be a lot of hoopla about ensuring there is an investigation.  Much will be made of imposing new rules that ensure "fairness."  What is really needed is tax code simplification, across the board, not just in the area of tax exempt organizations.

What You Should Be Reading

DooDooEcon examines this IRS story and other Friday dumping by the administration that tends to escape notice.  

Byron York summarizes how heightened border security proposals are getting killed in Senate committee on 10 Democrats plus Graham and Flake. Lack of adequate border security will kill the usefulness of this bill.  We need to contact our House members.

Liberty Movement

Some time ago I asked about a new name for the tea party, since it had some branding problems. Some were self-inflicted, most were not. In the video below, Tom Woods, a Ron Paul supporter and author, uses the term "liberty movement" to describe what we are doing.  The term is not evocative of a political party, unlike "tea party." I think the use of "party" in "tea party" helped cement an association with the Republican party. Many of my fellow SLOBs would vehemently object to association with the GOP.  Here in San Diego, Republicans have numerous associations with crony capitalism, a favorite object of scorn and derision in our group.

If you think liberty movement better describes our efforts, I would like to hear your comments.  Much better than my original term "freedom coalition."

No Year's Resolutions

I stopped making New Year's resolutions a long time ago.  Most of what I want to accomplish in my life changes little from year to year, so I don't see the point.  For example, the purpose of this blog, from my first post in 2008 remains the same:

I started this blog to champion the principles upon which our nation was founded, as informed by my Christian belief. I intend to champion free markets, free trade, and freedom of speech, equal justice for all human beings and a constitutional republic with powers of the government strictly limited. I will propose paths forward for those who believe that expanding government is the chief threat to the freedom and wealth of the world today.

However, the new year is a decent time to reflect on how we have done and think about what we might do differently.  For example, there is some debate about rebranding the tea party movement, as the left has had some success in tarnishing our image.  If others in the movement wish to do so, I would be supportive.  My first attempt at an agenda that captured my belief that economic liberty issues should take center stage was called the Freedom Coalition Agenda, it is occasionally updated and is linked at the top of the page.  It was originally meant to be an agenda for libertarians inside the Republican party, but it certainly could be an agenda for Democrats and independents who dislike the direction the left is taking the country.

As for rebranding, distancing ourselves from the Republican party will allow us to retain independence and allow us to attract new followers.  If that means a new name, because the Tea Party has come to mean a subset of the GOP, then I am in favor.  Even though I am a Republican, I am not enthusiastic about the party, because too many elected officials are wedded to some aspect of big government.  As to a new name, Freedom Coalition seems too stilted; but something evocative of a coalition dedicated to liberty is needed.  Liberty Coalition?  I still don't like it.  Your suggestions are welcome.

My Tea Party California Proposition Ballot Recommendations

Voting by mail has started and as promised, I have put my recommendations for the ballot propositions in one post.  I consider myself a tea partyer, but the tea party is not an official organization, so my recommendations are my own.  I reviewed recommendations from Temple of Mut, LeftCoastRebel, Richard Rider and Ballotpedia as part of research for these recommendations.

Proposition 30. Jerry Brown's Tax Increase. NO
The California Teacher's Association is by far the biggest donor to this initiative, which is all we need to know to vote against it, as they are the nexus of evil, the very nadir to all that is good in politics in this state (and their ain't much good.)  Brown is hinting at horrible outcomes, like closing schools, if this initiative doesn't pass.  Since it won't, I hope he makes good.  One argument in favor is a bald face lie, that only the rich will pay, because this increases sales taxes that the poor pay.  California's schools are terrible, and not for lack of funding. SLOB consensus is also NO.

Proposition 31. Two Year Budget Cycle. YES
This is not a perfect proposition, but it's not all bad.  It reforms some of the state budget processes and shifts some revenue to local government while taking it away from Sacramento and gives local government some tools to fight unfunded mandates.  I don't like the two year cycle, which will be used by the legislature to cook the books, even worse.  The question is how much worse could it get?   That's a judgement call and call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I don't think the legislature and the governor could screw things up any more than they have done to date. SLOB consensus is mixed.

Proposition 32. Paycheck Protection Initiative. YES
I am not a fan of banning contributions to political campaigns by classes of organizations, but restrictions on corporations are already in place.  This proposition prohibits corporations and unions from donating directly to political campaigns with money collected from employee payroll deductions.  In general, this is a good idea, but the unions hate it.  Once again, the CTA is the biggest donor fighting this proposition.  This has a chance of becoming somewhat of a Wisconsin style reform that turns the tide against union control of state government.  SLOB consensus is YES.

Proposition 33. Some Technical Changes to Auto Insurance. YES
I can barely bring myself to care, since insurance companies shouldn't be subject to this kind of micro-management of their policies in the first place.  The changes make sense because they give the insurers some more options to reward good behavior and give military a chance to retain favored treatment if their coverage lapses due to deployment.  SLOB consensus is YES.

Proposition 34. Death Penalty Repeal. YES
I will state upfront that I am out of synch with many tea partyers on this one.  I feel deeply and passionately that the death penalty should be repealed.  Even though some crimes are so heinous as to deserve death, it is not good for our society to suffer that any should die with the acquiescence or action of the government.  I oppose abortion, euthanasia and the ACA on the same basis.  Some quotes from a previous post on the subject:

The tea party is nothing if not skeptical of government. Yet through the death penalty, we entrust to government the ultimate power of deciding the life or death of American citizens. I do not trust that our institutions of justice can apply the penalty fairly or without error. The thought of a man (and it is usually men) who would be wrongfully put to death is too horrible to contemplate. Yet, we have any number of cases where those on death row have been exonerated. My skepticism of government leads me to conclude that it cannot be trusted with a task such as deciding life and death, even of criminals.

SLOBs consensus is NO.

Proposition 35. Human Trafficking. NO
Human traffickers are the scum of the earth, but there are plenty of laws that already provide punishment.  I oppose any law that subverts the rule of law enshrined in the constitution.  This law limits defendants rights to cross-examination and could taint those not connected to the crime of trafficking.  Temple of Mut points out that the costs of enforcement are probably wildly underestimated.  SLOB consensus is mixed.


Proposition 36. Limits on Three Strikes Law. YES
I was never a big fan of the three strikes law, but I was more angry at career criminals being returned to the streets, so I supported that effort.  This is a reasonable attempt to reign in some of the absurd outcomes that have come out of that law.  It imposes the third strike life sentence only when the offense is violent or involved sex, drug or weapons related charges.  That seems sensible to me; the prisons are already overcrowded, I would only like to ensure that violent felons are in prison for life.  This is a management trade-off, given limited resources.  SLOB consensus is mixed, but leaning no.

Proposition 37. Mandatory Labeling - Genetic Engineered Food. NO
I don't need to do much research to know that this is more busybody legislation that will only drive up the price of food with compliance costs for agriculture and business.  Man has been genetically altering food since we planted the first crops millenia ago, all that has changed are the specific methods.  LeftCoastRebel points out that some genetic engineering reduces the need for pesticides, so shouldn't the greenies be for that?  Of course not, they only want to appear to help the environment as they tighten their grubby little socialist paws in a stranglehold on the economy.  SLOB consensus is a resounding NO.

Proposition 38. Molly Munger's Even Worser Tax Increase. NO
Since Governor Brown isn't really left wing enough to appease the California left, we actually need higher taxes than he is proposing in Proposition 30, according to the authors of this little gem.  Not content to raise taxes on "the rich," this proposition would raise taxes on most everyone.  SLOB consensus is NO.  By the way, I am happy to see two tax hikes on the ballot.  Conventional wisdom, supported by research says this makes it more likely that both will be defeated, see Ballotpedia.

Proposition 39. Complicating the CA Tax Code Further to Drive More Business Away. NO
I only had to read this line to know I would be opposing this measure: "Initially, this extra revenue would fund green energy projects, construction projects, public schools, and boost the state’s general fund."  Our very own Solyndra, funded by making life hell for businesses that have a partial presence in California.  How special.

Proposition 40. Confusing Measure Regarding State Senate Districts. NO
Here is a case where yes appears to mean no.  Voting for this measure would affirm the State Senate districts and No would overturn them.  Chris Reed documented the underhanded way in which these districts were drawn.  The question is whether overturning and letting the legislature or some other body redraw them is worth the effort.  Also, weighing on this vote is the fact that the State Supreme Court has already affirmed the redistricting process.  I am recommending NO simply as a protest against the way the process worked.  SLOB consensus is YES.

My Tea Party California Proposition Recommendations - Part 2

Here are my second set of ballot recommendations for California's November election.  I will put them all together in a single post later.  I reviewed recommendations from Temple of Mut, LeftCoastRebel, Richard Rider and Ballotpedia as part of research for these recommendations.

Proposition 36. Limits on Three Strikes Law. YES
I was never a big fan of the three strikes law, but I was more angry at career criminals being returned to the streets, so I supported that effort.  This is a reasonable attempt to reign in some of the absurd outcomes that have come out of that law.  It imposes the third strike life sentence only when the offense is violent or involved sex, drug or weapons related charges.  That seems sensible to me; the prisons are already overcrowded, I would only like to ensure that violent felons are in prison for life.  This is a management trade-off, given limited resources.  SLOB consensus is mixed, but leaning no.

Proposition 37. Mandatory Labeling - Genetic Engineered Food. NO
I don't need to do much research to know that this is more busybody legislation that will only drive up the price of food with compliance costs for agriculture and business.  Man has been genetically altering food since we planted the first crops millenia ago, all that has changed are the specific methods.  LeftCoastRebel points out that some genetic engineering reduces the need for pesticides, so shouldn't the greenies be for that?  Of course not, they only want to appear to help the environment as they tighten their grubby little socialist paws in a stranglehold on the economy.  SLOB consensus is a resounding NO.

Proposition 38. Molly Munger's Even Worser Tax Increase. NO
Since Governor Brown isn't really left wing enough to appease the California left, we actually need higher taxes than he is proposing in Proposition 30, according to the authors of this little gem.  Not content to raise taxes on "the rich," this proposition would raise taxes on most everyone.  SLOB consensus is NO.  By the way, I am happy to see two tax hikes on the ballot.  Conventional wisdom, supported by research says this makes it more likely that both will be defeated, see Ballotpedia.

Proposition 39. Complicating the CA Tax Code Further to Drive More Business Away. NO
I only had to read this line to know I would be opposing this measure: "Initially, this extra revenue would fund green energy projects, construction projects, public schools, and boost the state’s general fund."  Our very own Solyndra, funded by making life hell for businesses that have a partial presence in California.  How special.

Proposition 40. Confusing Measure Regarding State Senate Districts. NO
Here is a case where yes appears to mean no.  Voting for this measure would affirm the State Senate districts and No would overturn them.  Chris Reed documented the underhanded way in which these districts were drawn.  The question is whether overturning and letting the legislature or some other body redraw them is worth the effort.  Also, weighing on this vote is the fact that the State Supreme Court has already affirmed the redistricting process.  I am recommending NO simply as a protest against the way the process worked.  SLOB consensus is YES.

My Tea Party California Proposition Recommendations - Part 1

With voting by mail starting soon, I offer my opinions on California ballot propositions.  As I have stated repeatedly, the tea party is not an official organization, so my recommendations are my own but consonant with tea party principles of limited government, lower taxes, liberty and rule of law.  I also include a consensus among fellow San Diego tea party bloggers (SLOBs) in my recommendations.  More recommendations to follow, this is taking some time to research.

Proposition 30. Jerry Brown's Tax Increase. NO
The California Teacher's Association is by far the biggest donor to this initiative, which is all we need to know to vote against it, as they are the nexus of evil, the very nadir to all that is good in politics in this state (and their ain't much good.)  Brown is hinting at horrible outcomes, like closing schools, if this initiative doesn't pass.  Since it won't, I hope he makes good.  One argument in favor is a bald face lie, that only the rich will pay, because this increases sales taxes that the poor pay.  California's schools are terrible, and not for lack of funding. SLOB consensus is also NO.

Proposition 31. Two Year Budget Cycle. YES
This is not a perfect proposition, but it's not all bad.  It reforms some of the state budget processes and shifts some revenue to local government while taking it away from Sacramento and gives local government some tools to fight unfunded mandates.  I don't like the two year cycle, which will be used by the legislature to cook the books, even worse.  The question is how much worse could it get?   That's a judgement call and call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I don't think the legislature and the governor could screw things up any more than they have done to date. SLOB consensus is mixed.

Proposition 32. Paycheck Protection Initiative. YES
I am not a fan of banning contributions to political campaigns by classes of organizations, but restrictions on corporations are already in place.  This proposition prohibits corporations and unions from donating directly to political campaigns with money collected from employee payroll deductions.  In general, this is a good idea, but the unions hate it.  Once again, the CTA is the biggest donor fighting this proposition.  This has a chance of becoming somewhat of a Wisconsin style reform that turns the tide against union control of state government.  SLOB consensus is YES.

Proposition 33. Some Technical Changes to Auto Insurance. YES
I can barely bring myself to care, since insurance companies shouldn't be subject to this kind of micro-management of their policies in the first place.  The changes make sense because they give the insurers some more options to reward good behavior and give military a chance to retain favored treatment if their coverage lapses due to deployment.  SLOB consensus is YES.

Proposition 34. Death Penalty Repeal. YES
I will state upfront that I am out of synch with many tea partyers on this one.  I feel deeply and passionately that the death penalty should be repealed.  Even though some crimes are so heinous as to deserve death, it is not good for our society to suffer that any should die with the acquiescence or action of the government.  I oppose abortion, euthanasia and the ACA on the same basis.  Some quotes from a previous post on the subject:

The tea party is nothing if not skeptical of government. Yet through the death penalty, we entrust to government the ultimate power of deciding the life or death of American citizens. I do not trust that our institutions of justice can apply the penalty fairly or without error. The thought of a man (and it is usually men) who would be wrongfully put to death is too horrible to contemplate. Yet, we have any number of cases where those on death row have been exonerated. My skepticism of government leads me to conclude that it cannot be trusted with a task such as deciding life and death, even of criminals.

SLOBs consensus is NO.

Proposition 35. Human Trafficking. NO
Human traffickers are the scum of the earth, but there are plenty of laws that already provide punishment.  I oppose any law that subverts the rule of law enshrined in the constitution.  This law limits defendants rights to cross-examination and could taint those not connected to the crime of trafficking.  Temple of Mut points out that the costs of enforcement are probably wildly underestimated.  SLOB consensus is mixed.

The Hour is Late - Nervousness about Romney

I once quoted Peggy Noonan as saying that the tea party knew what time it is, and it was later than most people think:

The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the tea party: They know what time it is. It's getting late. If we don't get the size and cost of government in line now, we won't be able to. We're teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world—states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn't "big spending" anymore. It's ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.

Which brings me to the Republican nominee. There is no mistaking him for the tea party candidate, even if many in the tea party support him out of antipathy for Obama. But to date, he has done a poor job of defining who he is, and the Obama campaign has had some modest success defining him in a negative way. I have chaffed at his campaign for not immediately making the case for his candidacy and for not building the narrative of his life as soon as he clinched the nomination.

The good news is that the mountain of negativity has not made much of a dent. People are more sophisticated than to believe Harry Reid's McCarthyesque lies and Romney has been good at counterattacking. The selection of Paul Ryan was helpful as well. But Romney still hasn't made the case. In an environment where his opponent is trying to scare the public, he needs to do so. The hour is late.

Perhaps he has been waiting for the convention, but I am nervous. In 2008, Romney's ultimate failing was the failure to put together a credible narrative and companion policy prescriptions to set himself apart from the other candidates. I worry that he will try to do so now, as well; perhaps thinking that the public is fed up with the economy enough to dump Obama. I am here to say that they won't vote for someone who won't explain himself. They tried that it in 2008 and it didn't go well. Unfairly perhaps, the Republican candidate this year won't get away with some version of hope and change.

I will be looking anxiously to how Romney handles the convention to see where this is going. Right now, its not looking that great. Intrade has Obama at 55.6% to win. That he isn't higher is an indication of the President's weakness. That he is that high in the first place is an indication that Romney isn't making the case.

ACA Anti-Tax Protest Rally - Bilbray Also Speaks - UPDATE

I attended the Anti-Tax Rally today in downtown San Diego held in front of the County Administration Building. Brian Bilbray was clearly the most famous speaker invited. He is in a competitive district, as I have previously discussed. The rally started with doctors in white lab coats speaking about the harm done to health care under the law. Doctor Gary Gonsalves led off the doctors segment. (It seems that Obama's stunt at the White House has made it de rigueur to put the docs in lab coats.


Among the issues raised by the doctors were the further insertion of bureaucracy between doctors and patients, the stripping of medicare, and the imposition of more regulations that will discourage doctor and exacerbate a doctor shortage. The last doctor to speak was Dr. Gina Loudon, who was the most exciting doctor speaker, befitting her role as radio personality. She pointed out that the GOP has not always been consistent in opposing an expansion of government which led her to work in the tea party movement, as opposed to mere Republicanism. (I agree.)

Dr. Gina Loudon talks about her tea party experience.

Many of the argument about health care proffered by speakers have been covered in some of my previous posts. But I also heard some new ideas for reforming health care and health insurance.

1. Let credit card companies manage Health Savings Accounts (that use pre-tax dollars) because they are good at detecting fraud. Further, allowing HSAs to roll from year to year would encourage people to shop around and reduce health costs. As a current user of a flexible spending account for some of my health care, I like this idea. But, the current system pushes me to spend all my eligible funds in one year, leading to some wasteful spending.
2. Get the states and the AMA out of nursing licensing. Doctors and hospitals are capable of judging the quality of nurses, this just restricts supply.
3. Get the AMA out of limiting doctor licensing and medical school accreditation, because they have a vested interest in decreasing the supply of doctors.

I was very interested to hear Brian Bilbray's take on the law. He made great points. I know he has offended some purists who believe that nothing in the law should be retained because it is an affront to freedom. I agree, but politics is the art of the possible. Bilbray makes the very good point that right now, coverage for pre-existing conditions and children to age 26 are very popular parts of the legislation. But he made the point that those good ends could still be achieved without the monstrosity of so many new taxes and fees in the law. He hammered at the tax theme. He also pointed out that the law is a sop to to lawyers and insurance companies who wrote the law at the expense of the American people. His opponent, Scott Peters, is fully supportive of the law, so even if you challenge Bilbray for not being tough enough in standing against the law, his vote will be for repeal, but a Peters vote would not be. More prominent members of the tea party do not agree with my assessment of Bilbray, you can read the opinion here.

Brian Bilbray addresses tea party rally against ACA taxes.

Nick Popaditch, was a much more dynamic and absolutist opponent of the bill. I cannot do justice to his speaking style. However, he made this great point. When the leftists like Obama and Pelosi argue their positions they attack their fellow Americans. In arguing that the reason for the mandate is because of "free riders," they are attacking their fellow Americans who have exercised their God-given right not to purchase health insurance. The attacks on Americans exercising their rights is a hallmark of this administration, my opinion. (My answer for the free rider issue? Allow insurance to offer catastrophic coverage and allow hospitals to be aggressive in collecting from dead beats who can pay.)

Nick Popaditch decries the attacks on Americans by supporters of the ACA.

A few other thoughts. Chief Justice Roberts came in for more than a little criticism. His logic that the law is a tax, does not square with the Congressional language. That is legislating from the bench, as some speakers pointed out. All in all, it was an inspiring rally that is one small piece of the larger movement to limit government.

Frequent commenter arhooley also attended; she had this to say.

I just got back from it, and although it was great, I'd like to see one change at these Tea Party rallies: a secular or agnostic Tea Party speaker. Maybe even an ex-liberal. There are plenty of us out here, and we don't always feel we're being addressed or included in speeches laden with calls to religion. An added bonus is that we're not all preaching to the choir; we know how to talk to liberals about the supposed generosity of Obamacare and similar laws and movements.

I agree about not preaching to the choir, but have to say that many of the doctors couched their discussion in non-partisan, less political terms.

UPDATE

Shane Atwell also blogged about the event. He reminded me of a point made by Popaditch that I forgot to include. We can't protect people from making bad economic choices. (He used the decision to buy a Chevy Volt as an example, to much laughter.) This is a big part of the leftist argument for government regulation of health care. If people were required to suffer the consequences of poor choices, like going bankrupt as a result of foregoing health care insurance, then they might make better choices.

The U-T's Craig Gustafson has an article about the event as well. He quotes the Scott Peters campaign's insistence that somehow Bilbray is a tea partyer now. For better or worse, that is patently untrue.

Of Course We're Happy, But

. . . its a long way to November. The wheels seem to be coming off for the left wing of the Democratic party and the mood over Obama's re-election chances seem to be shifting. Some of my fellow tea party bloggers will be celebrating over beers this weekend, appropriate for the occasion. (Beer, as in good ones from California, seems to be the official beverage of San Diego tea partyers.) In addition to the good news from victories I mentioned yesterday, I saw that Michigan and Nevada had moved into the "in play" column on the RealClearPolitics map since I last looked. Further, Bill Clinton and Ed Rendell seem to be detracting from the Obama campaign message.

Here's Rendell:




Peggy Noonan, had this to say about Clinton's quotes.

It just all increasingly looks like a house of cards. Bill Clinton—that ol' hound dog, that gifted pol who truly loves politics, who always loved figuring out exactly where the people were and then going to exactly that spot and claiming it—Bill Clinton is showing all the signs of someone who is, let us say, essentially unimpressed by the incumbent. He defended Mitt Romney as a businessman—"a sterling record"—said he doesn't like personal attacks in politics, then fulsomely supported the president, and then said that the Bush tax cuts should be extended.

But here's the problem. As good as things look now, politicians are in the survival business and have ways of correcting their own mistakes when it threatens their re-election prospects. Team Romney might be tempted to let Obama defeat himself; but sooner or later he has to make the case for why he himself should be the leader of the free world. This is what he failed to do in 2008. I have seen flashes of inspiration in this campaign, but not enough to make the sale. I am urging him to think seriously about two things. First, what few key positions and issues does he emphasize to demonstrate his readiness to govern. Second, what will his response be to another economic shock that might develop from Europe or unexpected quarters.

Updated San Diego tea party Ballot Recommendations

I already posted my preferences for Carl DeMaio for Mayor, and on the ballot propositions, (NO on 28, 29 and Yes on A and B here in San Diego.) There is a great ballot guide out with a summary of ballot recommendations from multiple organizations published by FamilyVoterInfo. I found it very useful to make some last minute decisions.

For example, I wasn't sure about voting for John Witt for the County Board of Education, but saw that the Labor council had endorsed his opponent Greg Robinson. However, I saw that Planned Parenthood had endorsed Witt, so he was out as well. The Deputy Sheriff's Association endorsement of Garland Peed for Superior Court Office #34 sent my vote to his opponent, Gary Kreep, on the theory that I don't vote for anyone endorsed by a public employee union or group. This logic might have applied to Brian Bilbray for 52nd district, House of Representatives, but his opponents have more objectionable endorsements. Also, to win this district, a more moderate Republican is probably going to be required, this ain't Utah or even Indiana.

As W.C. Varones has pointed out, the California race for Senate isn't really interesting. I am no longer voting for Libertarian Party candidates on the theory that they need to join the Republican party and change it from within; so no protest vote for Gail Lightfoot from me. I don't think anyone is really worth endorsing, so I remain silent, only to say I will select a Republican.

San Diego tea party Ballot Proposition Recommendations

My fellow SLOB, W.C. Varones, has posted tea party recommendations for this June's ballot. Since there is no official tea party position, and everyone can claim a leadership role in the tea party, I am following suit. I am a resident of the city of San Diego, so I am not covering propositions in El Cajon, Oceanside or other areas. On to the props - I am using my own shortened and more accurate versions of the titles. Don't like my characterizations? Tough, get your own blog; free speech rocks.

Statewide Propositions

Proposition 28 - The Faux Term Limits Initiative - NO

This measure reduces the total time a legislator can serve in office (Assembly or Senate) to 12 years, down from 14 years. More term limits, hooray? Wrong. Right now, members of the Assembly are limited to 6 years in office; if they want to stay in Sacramento they have to run for the State Senate. Under this proposal, an Assemblyman will go from being limited to three terms to being limited to six terms, because the new language doesn't specify which house the term limits apply to, unlike now. Under the current system State Senators are limited to two four year terms, if Prop 28 passes they will go to three. This will actually increase the time that legislators remain ensconced in uncompetitive districts. Vote NO.

Proposition 29 - Cigarette Tax Dollars for Special Interests - NO

From the LOWV website:

This measure increases--effective October 2012--the existing state excise tax on cigarettes by $1 per pack. The total state excise tax, therefore, would be $1.87 per pack.

So the tax is set to increase by 115%. We also know that increasing tobacco taxes never generates the revenue projected. Where would the money go? Well to fund the California Cancer Research Life Sciences Innovation Trust Fund silly. Who could be against that? Well, it turns out that this will be a slush fund, where research dollars are directed by unelected officials, appointed by politicians who can pay back their supporters. From Ballotpedia.org, the members of the committee to funnel research money to close pals of the medical and political establishment are:

• 3 University of California chancellors (Berkeley, San Francisco and Santa Cruz)
• 3 "selected from among Cancer Center Directors of National Cancer Institute designated cancer centers located within the State of California" (appointed by the Governor of California)
• 1 "affiliated with a California Academic Medical Center who is a practicing physician with expertise in the prevention, treatment or research of cardiovascular disease" (appointed by the Governor of California)
• 2 "selected from among California representatives of California or national disease advocacy groups whose focus is tobacco-related illness, at least one of whom shall be a person who has been treated for a tobacco related illness." (appointed by Director of California Department of Public Health)
• A Committee to establish a peer review process for selection of grants modeled on the process used by the National Institutes of Health.

Tobacco tax dollars couldn't be in better hands, given all the politicians involved. Is the state of California going to get into the cancer research funding business, given all our other problems? Further, this is an example of ballot box budgeting. I will stipulate that the Democrat controlled legislature has not done their job for decades; but we are getting to the point where angels themselves couldn't straighten out our state budget, given the complexities of initiatives directing spending. Vote NO.


San Diego Ballot Measures

Proposition A - Project Labor Agreements Can Not be Mandatory - Yes

This explanation from the LOWV site is simple.

The ballot measure states that except as required by State or federal contracting or procurement obligation, or as a condition of the receipt of State or federal funds, the City shall not require a contractor on a construction project to participate in a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) as a contract condition.

It prevents the city from imposing a PLA condition in order to win a contract. Why this is controversial is beyond me. The bidding contractors for city work should be able to bid based on their knowledge of their own costs, without having to worry that the city will side with unions and impose additional costs on projects. Richard Rider has signed on to the ballot argument for the proposition, always a big endorsement in my view. Vote YES.

Proposition B - San Diego Employee Pension Reform - Yes

There has been a huge discussion of the details of this proposition, so I only want to make a few simple points of my own. First, even the proposition's opponents concede it will save the city and therefore the taxpayers, money. Their claim is that the savings don't come from the change to a defined contribution system. So what? This is a package deal that saves money.

Second, is a philosophical matter. Who should be responsible for the management of pensions, the employee or employer. I think our experience over the last two decades has answered the question. The employees must be in charge of their own retirement planning, because neither unions, nor businesses, nor government can be counted upon to keep their best interests first and foremost. This is how we got into this mess, unions cut deals with politicians that couldn't be kept and we ended up with a disaster. Defined benefits require pay as you go accounting, which makes the costs of pensions more transparent.

Finally, there is the question of risk. Defined benefit pensions puts the risk for future benefits on the taxpayers. If the market tanks, or politicians are corrupt or some catastrophe strikes, it puts the taxpayers at risk. I don't want the risk, I have enough of my own. Why should taxpayers, who are mostly relying on 401(k)s for their own retirement, and shouldering their own retirement risk, also should the retirement risk of employees? They shouldn't.

Vote YES.

Doggone Offended? Now How Does Hatch Feel?

It's been widely reported that Senator Orrin Hatch doesn't much care for our brand of Republicanism. From NPR:

"These people are not conservatives. They're not Republicans," Hatch angrily responds. "They're radical libertarians and I'm doggone offended by it."

Then Hatch, a former boxer, turns combative. "I despise these people, and I'm not the guy you come in and dump on without getting punched in the mouth."

Today, Hatch avoided Robert Bennett's 2010 fate in being denied the Republican nomination for the Senate in Utah. Hatch did not put down a tea party challenge in the person of Dan Liljenquist, a former state senator, because he fell short of the 60% needed to avoid a primary. Note to Hatch, real conservatives don't support bigger government and amnesty for illegal immigration.

Michelle Malkin lists some of the reasons that getting Hatch out of office is important.

He slobbered over corruptocrat Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd.

He co-sponsored the $6 billion national service boondoggle and dedicated it to his good friend Teddy Kennedy, with whom he also joined hands to create the ever-expanding SCHIP entitlement.

He supported tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner from day one, lavished praise on Joe Biden’s balls, and embraced and defended Attorney General Eric Holder’s nomination because, he said, “I like Barack Obama and I want to help him if I can.”

He was an original sponsor of the open-borders DREAM Act illegal alien student bailout and voted for the massive TARP bailout.

Meanwhile, Liljenquist has done some great work on issues near and dear to my heart. From Governing magazine.

Shortly after Dan Liljenquist was elected to the Utah Senate in 2008, he was named chair of the Senate’s Retirement Committee. . . But when the state retirement fund lost nearly a quarter of its value in the market downturn, Liljenquist changed that.
. . .
He ultimately became the architect of Utah’s pension reform, which closes the existing system to new workers and instead offers them a defined-contribution plan in which the state contributes 10 percent of a worker’s salary -- and no more. The move wasn’t popular -- thousands of state employees protested it -- but it eventually passed, and it removes the possibility of the retirement fund ever bankrupting the state in the future.
. . .
Liljenquist created a plan -- which passed by huge margins -- to switch from traditional fee-for-service payments to a managed-care approach [for Medicaid]. The idea, which is gaining traction in other states too, is that medical professionals should be financially rewarded for positive outcomes, not for racking up costly tests and treatments. The plan tries to slow Medicaid growth by limiting increases in per-member spending to the rate of general fund growth. It also includes small -- though controversial -- increases in Medicaid co-pays, to give patients more of an incentive for efficient care.

The larger lesson here is that the tea party can force the Republican party to fully renounce the position it achieved under George W. Bush of being the party of big government. Nick Gillespie at Reason magazine discusses the issue of changing the GOP on his Hit and Run blog on Reason.
we specifically discuss how change will come to electoral politics. A huge part of that is precisely what's playing out in Utah.

Libertarians need to stop going along with a feckless GOP that takes limited-government partisans for granted; they need to start ransoming their votes for candidates such as Rand Paul and Mike Lee who will actually work to deliver lower spending and less government intervention into everything under the sun.

To the extent that Hatch - who supported Medicare Part D and TARP and various other bailouts, and never met a debt-ceiling increase he didn't like until last year - is now talking about cutting government by co-sponsoring a cut, cap, and balance law with Lee, it isn't because he's always been this way. It's because he's feeling the heat from those "radical libertarians" who are starting to tell pols to go small or go home.

Even though he uses the term libertarian, I would say tea party, because we are united with true conservatives in our fight to reduce the size of the federal government. Medicare Part D and TARP were both signed into law by George W. Bush, so long time GOPers shouldn't be too smug about their small government chops.

I admit to being a little late to the game on covering this race. But it's important to the progress of the tea party to push the Republicans in the direction of consistent support for limited government (see the masthead). The alternative is Medicare Part D and the election of far lefties like Obama when the GOP is tagged as the party of big government.

Next up Richard Lugar.

Tea Party Canada? Updated Links

Canada seems poised to experience significant economic growth. The Conservative government of Stephen Harper has announced reforms to keep government spending down and entitlement spending under control. I would hope this is what a tea party government would look like in America. Part of their plan includes raising the retirement age will rise from 65 to 67 in 2023. The government also announced:

Under the plan, Canada will cut its deficit this year through "moderate" spending cuts, as the economy grows by 2.1 percent, Flaherty announced.

But much deeper cuts, including the laying off of 19,200 government staff, or 4.8 percent of the federal workforce, are planned for the coming years.

Canada's debt to GDP ratio, while good compared to other industrialized countries, at 84%, is too high for the comfort of the government. As a result they are focusing on not allowing the ratio to rise.

The deficit was projected in the budget to fall to Can$21.1 billion (US$21.1 billion) or 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013, down from a revised Can$24.9 billion last fiscal year.

1.2% of GDP? We can only dream. Finally, I like what they are doing to grow the economy.

Looking to the longer term, the minister outlined immigration reforms to attract more foreigners with skills and money to "strengthen Canada's economy," and a streamlining of the review process for major resource projects.
. . .
Since 2006, Canada has signed nine free trade deals and is now negotiating pacts with the European Union and India, as well as trying to grow its trade ties with China.

Free trade and immigration of skilled foreigners, I like this plan. The article also mentions how the U.S. is losing out by cancelling the XL pipeline and how it has strained relations between the two countries.

H/T CDR Salamander.

UPDATE

Fellow SLOB, WC Varones has some more material supporting this tea party thesis, liberated from the comments.

From August 2010:

You know why Canada doesn't have Tea Party protests?

Because they already have type of sensible government policies that Tea Partiers are trying to implement here!

Relative to the U.S., Canada has lower taxes, lower debt per capita, lower debt to GDP, and a sound banking system:

From July 2011:

In today's WSJ, Fred Barnes writes that Canada had a debt crisis in 1993 very similar to our current situation. And Canada's Liberal prime minister saved his country by doing exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing now.

Political Priorities for 2012 - One SD tea party perspective

My day job has become very challenging lately, and may continue to cause light blogging. When I have little time, it concentrates my mind on what is both important and within my sphere of influence. For example, I love following Presidential politics, but as a Californian I am going to little influence on neither the Republican nominating process nor the electoral vote totals. Here are my priorities for this year and how I am feeling.

1. Defeating Governor Jerry Brown's proposed tax increases; highly confident. Getting his execrable budget killed; not so much.
   
2. Getting pension reform passed in San Diego; highly confident.
3. Getting Carl DeMaio elected Mayor of San Diego; optimistic.*
4. Reaching out to left, right and center on entitlement reform and ending crony capitalism; cautiously optimistic.**

Notes:
* The Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition does not endorse candidates, so this is a personal endorsement.
** Kelly, a liberal commenter, comments on why this is important in the comments section on my Saturday post about Rhode Island's Democrat led pension reform.

I hope for a groundswell of support for these goals.

Dang, I can't resist, here is one reason I can't stand Santorum (H/T Temple of Mut):

Promises, Promises

Governor Jerry Brown's budget promises to cut public education by $4.8 billion if his tax increases aren't passed next November. Promises, promises. That we could get some cuts in the bloated state educracy would be welcome indeed. The California school system is not performing that well, despite spending about $8,452 per pupil per year, although I think that number is low, it is the official state budget number from 2009-2010. The shock of some budget cuts would be welcome as it might force us to evaluate why we allow the government a near monopoly in delivering education.

In a previous post on Douglas County, CO I laid out why outsourcing public education at 75 cents on the dollar would still save the state money.

Let's look at the situation in California. According to the state of California's data, there is a total of approximately $50 billion spent on K-12 education. (I am approximating, because the exact total seems a little squishy depending on the source.) This results in per pupil spending of $8452 per year. A voucher to parents of about $6300 would save the state $2100 per pupil. If only one million of the approximately 5.5 to 6 million students, the state could save $2.1 billion dollars. The more parents take advantage of the program, the more the state saves. At the state level these kinds of savings shouldn't be ignored. It might have the additional impetus of encouraging a mass exodus from failing public schools. I also note that in the review of literature for this article that only 61% of spending in California's schools goes to classroom education. That means the schools have an overhead rate of 63%. It seems obvious that parents could get a more value from 75 cents of every education dollar than they get from the public system.

[ed. note: For those doing the math the overhead rate is calculated by taking the percent of dollars not spent in the classroom divided by the percent actually spent on the classroom (like teacher's salaries), 39%/61% = .639 or 64%, a ridiculously high overhead rate.]

Defeating the tax hikes should be the number one priority of the tea party movement in California this year. Gerrymandering has essentially neutered partisan politics, but large numbers of Democrats seem willing to vote for the conservative position on ballot measures, including voting against tax increases and against gay marriage in 2008, while Obama was sweeping the state. I think the public instinctively knows two things. First, California taxes are too high. Second, when politicians threaten favored programs if they don't get their way on tax cuts, they are bluffing.

Congress - Putting the Crony into Capitalism

Walter Russell Mead, getting to be one of my favorite writers, takes down Congress and Wall Street on their extremely cozy relationship. This whole article is worth a read, because it proves the old saw that the real crime is what's legal. A brief summary.

• Hedge fund investors and other key Wall Street insiders get tipped off by Congress and staffers on legislative direction. From the WSJ: When Senate Democrats finally brokered a compromise over the proposed health-care law, a group of hedge funds were let in on the deal, learning details hours before a public announcement on Dec. 8, 2009.
• As Mead notes. Fabulous profits are there to be made, perfectly legally; legislators do Wall Street a favor by giving the hedgies an early head’s up, the hedgies reciprocate by making large campaign contributions. Everybody wins except for the pathetic losers not part of the magic inner ring, and nobody breaks any laws.
• Congresscritters in turn, personally benefit from being brought in on deals that you or I can only dream about. Nancy Pelosi and her husband were parties to a dozen or so IPOs, many of which were effectively off limits to all but the biggest institutional investors and their favored clients. One of those was a 2008 investment of between $1 million and $5 million in Visa. . .
  
• OWS got it wrong, the problem isn't Wall Street, but the coziness between Wall Street and Washington, which the Tea Party better understands. The paternalistic and benevolent government envisioned by the architects of the blue social model has morphed into a corrupt insider state that can no longer regulate or protect. The answer can’t be to give more power to people like Chris Dodd; that is what the Tea Party understands and the OWS folks too often miss.

Considering all of the advantages that Congress has, we find studies that show that members of the House of Representatives stock market returns beat the market by 6.8%. To quote Dean:

These guys write the legislation, they make the rules... and they're completely immune from taking advantage of gaming the situation in any manner they feel... and they still can't make out any better than 6 and 12 percent above the market average?

U.S. Congress: where corruption meets complete incompetence.

Mark Meckler Arrest in New York

Mark Meckler, head of the Tea Party Patriots, was arrested at New York City's La Guardia airport, after declaring that he was carrying an unloaded firearm, following TSA regulations for so reporting. He was arrested for his troubles. SarahB at Lipstick Underground has the details. Bottom line, federal law protects his transport, as he has a permit for concealed carry. New York City merely wants to harass travelers because of their animus against the Second Amendment. They will lose this court case, but all people will remember are the headlines that some tea party dude brought a firearm to the airport.

Podcast below that gives a full explanation.

KOGO Podcast

Outreach to Occupy - A Fool's Errand? UPDATE

I probably should have come to this conclusion before, but yesterday's tomfoolery at WalMart is really the last straw for any thoughts that the tea party could make common cause with #ows.  From Free Republic via Gateway Pundit.

Meanwhile, the San Diego occupiers stormed into a Wal-Mart, filled 75 carts with merchandise, disrupted shoppers by chanting their nonsense for several minutes at the cash registers, then fled the store leaving behind 75 full carts for the employees to put away.

The occupiers have been compared by the President to the tea party, but there is really no comparison.  Some friends pointed out that the fundamental difference accrues to respect for every individual and their rights that forms the basis of tea party principle, but is absent from the occupy movement.  In this occupy action against Walmart, no such respect is present.

• The occupiers presume to speak for the employees, as if they can't speak for themselves.  I know that Walmart employees can't speak out at work, but they have other avenues of protest available.
• By leaving the shopping carts filled with junk, they just create more work for those same employees, with whom they profess solidarity.
• They presume to inconvenience the shoppers at the store, infringing their opportunity to shop.
• They try to make the point that corporations aren't people, so they feel free to trespass on Walmart property.  But Walmart's stockholders are real people who own stock in the company, and as owners, they have rights too.

Besides the lack of respect for individuals, this stunt is just childish.  Chanting slogans and interfering with the workings of a business and leaving a mess?  Certainly you can do better.

That said, I will continue to make common cause with those on the left who want to oppose corporate welfare and crony capitalism, nationally or locally.  The purchase of the Union-Tribune by Doug Manchester, with the selection of John Lynch as new President and CEO, brought to light a case in point.  As has been reported here and here, the U-T will now shill for a new Charger stadium, presumably with taxpayer funding.  I will certainly make common cause with the left of center VOSD  for example, to prevent a taxpayer fleecing in support of the big business known, currently, as the San Diego Chargers.  But as for the occupiers themselves, their movement seems to have gone off the rails.






UPDATE

 SarahB at Lipstick Underground offers an assessment of the disrespect shown to the mothers shopping at Walmart.

And, as a mother, what horrifies me most, is how they boxed in families during the stunt. One mother with a stroller, a small boy and a baby in her arms, has no where to go. If that was me, I would have been angry and terrified. One wrong move by anyone in that crowd and things would have turned dangerous in a flash.