San Diego District Attorney's Race - Can Brewer Close the Deal?

Bonnie Dumanis ran unopposed in her last run for District Attorney; this year she faces opponents Bob Brewer and Terri Wyatt. I am unhappy with Dumanis, but not ready to endorse an opponent.  First my airing of grievances against Dumanis.

• Prior to running for mayor, Dumanis had the opportunity to make her voice heard on Proposition D, the half-cent sales tax increase; she demurred.  Carl DeMaio's strong support stood in stark contrast and was a key element in my support for his mayoral bid.
• She joined an amicus brief against arguing against gun rights in DC v Heller. The argument presented was that we need to violate the 2nd amendment because it would harm our ability to prosecute gun related crime.  I have zero sympathy for that position.  Law enforcement that does not take seriously upholding citizen's rights while enforcing the law sets precedents for tyranny.
• Her prosecutions in the area of medical marijuana have not helped San Diego normalize this situation.  Further, her office claimed that a number of arrests were to protect military families when in fact they were medical marijuana patients.  Further, she appears vindictive in her attitude towards the "crime" of medical marijuana use.  I have been made aware by family members and by a doctor of how medical marijuana can be helpful to people suffering.

In short, Dumanis appears to act with disdain towards the subjects citizens who elected her.  In fact, she has held office for too long; it's not healthy.  In general, I believe in term limits.

Of Dumanis' challengers, I am less sympathetic to the candidacy of Terri Wyatt.  Her case is that she is a career prosecutor and not a politician.  So what?  The office is political.  It should respond to the people.  Part of the problem with Dumanis is her lengthy stay in office.  Why would I expect a career prosecutor to be any more sympathetic to my concerns over individual rights than Dumanis?

But I am also not overwhelmed by what I see with Bob Brewer. His first TV ad touts law enforcement endorsements; I find the endorsements of public employee unions to be a negative.  Bob Brewer is claiming that Dumanis' run for mayor in 2012 showed that she can no longer run the DA's office. I don't think that matters, unless he can show that this led to unethical behavior as DA.  His pledge not to make endorsements as DA is more salient.  The DA can easily be required to investigate the city attorney or mayor, and not having to recuse herself, as Dumanis had to with the Filner issues, would be a big plus.  Brewer accuses Dumanis of cronyism in her operation of the District Attorney's office.  This is hard to prove, although the U-T wasn't sympathetic early in her tenure. This issue with a researcher who endorsed a Dumanis opponent also looks fishy.

I am actually more sympathetic to Brewer's life experience as a Vietnam War veteran, prosecutor and then defense attorney.  His varied career, and the personal hardship he has overcome make me more confident in his judgement.

I am still doing more research before I endorse.

San Diego Mayoral Race - Why Would It Be Close?

The U-T is reporting that the issue of workers pensions is roiling the mayoral race.  Read this quote about Filner:

Filner, 70, has long been a champion for public employee unions which have been major donors to his campaigns over the past two decades. He opposed Proposition B ahead of the public vote, calling it a fraud that unjustly threw employees under the bus for the sins of past administrations.

As a taxpayer, I don't understand why Filner's candidacy isn't dead on arrival.  Ultimately, as a taxpayer, I am one of the employers who pay the city workers wages.  I want the best deal for my money.  It's as if a candidate for CEO of Ralph's touted his credentials for getting big pay raises for the unionized work force.  What board of directors in their right mind would hire such a person.  Yet here is Filner, supposedly in a tight race, telling voters that his support for unions should make us vote for him.  Sorry, but I want a tough negotiator who will cut the best deal for me.  This is why I am supporting Carl DeMaio for mayor.

DeMaio fought hard against the half cent sales tax increase, Proposition D.  He fought hard to bring pensions under control with Proposition B.  Despite what he says, I guarantee that Filner will undermine the city attorney's legal case on Prop B in order to get it off the books.  We can't trust Filner to fully support a law he so adamantly opposed.  I expect him to pull a stunt like Obama on the DOMA, where the executive abdicates his duty to argue the law to the Supreme Court.

San Diego Mayorial Race

As we close in on the June 5 primary that will most likely determine the two candidates to compete in November for mayor of San Diego, media interest is heating up. My complaint? Lack of focus on the key issues for the campaign; how will we reform pensions and in general control spending in the city. Over at sdrostra.com, a mainly Republican local blog site (to which I am occasional contributor), most of the recent posts have been about the race, but in my view only peripherally. Instead the discussion has been dominated by "insider" discussion about who is working for whom, the role of SD GOP chair Tony Krvaric and the education plans of the would-be mayors. A reminder to San Diego residents: The mayor has no voice over the school system. All the polling I have seen, leads one to conclude that we are headed for a run off in November between Republican Carl DeMaio and Democrat Bob Filner, in the officially non-partisan race.

DeMaio was an early and vocal opponent of Proposition D, the half cent sales tax increase that lost last year. His issues web page features the budget and pension and jobs as his top two priorities, matching my own. With regards to jobs, he correctly makes the connection between tax and fee increases and job losses. He has been a consistent supporter of streamlined processes to allow businesses to get started.

Bob Filner's website calls out his first three priorities as Jobs, Education and Neighborhoods. Of course he trots out the "green jobs" agenda that is already a failed joke nationally. Also, Filner is against any pension reform, calling it fraudulent. Richard Rider commented that Filner will release his plan as soon as the union's tell him what it is. Electing Filner will give us more of the same on pensions and the budget. Filner, as the only Democrat in the race, will get the enthusiastic support of the workers' unions, but as I have previously discussed, I think the interests of the workers and their unions diverge.

Fletcher and Dumanis have yet to provide me with compelling reasons to consider their candidacy. Their past views on Prop D form my litmus test for today. Those who supported the initiative have been proven spectacularly wrong. Dumanis' and Fletcher's failure to vigorously oppose the initiative should be considered disqualifying by conservatives and libertarians and even moderates.

Incompetent Polling on Brown's Tax Hikes - UPDATE

Lest you get depressed over the stupidity in the headline in today' U-T that a big majority approves of Jerry Brown's proposed tax hikes, let me return you to reality, and a much better outlook. Here is the main quote.

Nearly two-thirds of Californians favor Brown’s tax hike, but fewer than half of them think he’s doing a good job as governor, according to a survey released Monday by the nonprofit Public Policy Institute of California.

First, remember that this a poll of "adults," allegedly, not likely voters, not even registered voters. Such a poll is bound to vastly over estimate the support for new taxes. Likely voters are going to be more conservative than "adults."

Second look at the actual wording of the question:

Governor Brown has proposed a plan to help close the state’s budget deficit over the next five years. The plan, which would be put before voters in November, would raise $7 billion annually through a temporary four-year half- cent sales tax increase and a temporary five- year income tax increase on those earning more than $250,000. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?

They might as well have said Do you support the heroic Governor's surefire plan to cure our deficit woes? What kind of polling is this?

Third, in my experience, polls always over estimate the support for tax increases. Remember how Proposition D, the half cent sales tax increase was supposed to be a squeaker? The U-T published a poll near election time that showed a 40% to 40% tie with a large number of undecideds. Final result? The tax increased was crushed 63-37, not even getting the 40% it polled at.

Fourth, PPIC, who performed the polling, is generally left of center. Of course they will get a result that supports tax increases.

Finally, these tax increases energize an angry public to vote no because they are sick to death of lack of accountability from government. This vote will re-energize the tea party movement in California.

UPDATE

I cross posted this article at sdrostra.com. In the comments, Tony Krvaric makes some excellent comments, here is an excerpt.

1) The question is framed in terms of deficit reduction, even though real world experience shows that there’s no correlation between raising taxes and reducing the deficit (or else California certainly would have no deficit by now.)

2) The poll tries to state as fact that Jerry Brown’s plan will, for certain, produce $7 billion in new tax revenue, even though again, real world experience shows that tax increases rarely, if ever, produce the revenue its predicted they will.

3) Is it really necessary for a pollster to underline that four year and five year tax increases are “temporary?” Doesn’t their descriptive as four year and five year tax increases already make that clear?

4) Look at the timing of this poll. It was released the same day that the Department of Finance director announced the budget trigger cuts.

His entire comments are worth a read.

Unacceptable Tax Hikes in California

A few days ago, I read Richard Rider's detailed post about how truly awful the California tax burden is.  A quick refresher.

California has the 3rd worst state income tax in the nation. 9.3% tax bracket starts at $46,766 for people filing as individuals. 10.3% tax starts at $1,000,000 http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59_es.pdf (election likely later this year to again raise these rates)

Highest state sales tax rate in the nation. 7.25% (as of 1 July). 7% is next highest (does not include local sales taxes) http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp60.pdf Table #15.

California corporate income tax rate (8.84%) is the highest west of the Mississippi (our economic competitors) except for Alaska.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/bp59.pdf Table #8 — we are 8th highest nationwide.

So imagine my surprise disgust, when I picked up this morning's paper to see this headline (article not yet available on line).

BROWN TO SEEK TAX-HIKE INITIATIVE

Not only is this a tax the rich scheme, but everyone will suffer with a half-cent sales tax increase. Apparently not content to be merely third worst in the nation for income tax rates, state politicians appear to want to be number one in both income taxation and sales taxation.  Further tax increases are proposed:

• Additional 1.0% for filers over $250,000 income.
• Additional 1.5% for filers over $300,000 income.
• Additional 2.0% for filers over $500,000 income.

Meanwhile California continues to lag in job creation.  Who is going to have the money to invest in new jobs?  For example, a single small business owner who makes $1.5 million per year would see a tax increase of $23,500.  That is the entire salary of one minimum wage worker, and it is small business owners who are usually the millionaires who create jobs. 

The sales tax is only going to hurt businesses as well, as all consumers will get less for their money and will end up spending less.  The end result is always that such increases end up generating less revenue than static analysis would indicate.

Meanwhile, Governor Brown and the legislature have done nothing to reform California pensions.  So here are my demands regarding state employees and their pensions before such a proposal should even make the ballot.  The Governor has proposed pension reform, but has not delivered.  Any tax hike is dead on arrival until more cuts are implemented, starting with pension reform.  Some key issues:

Brown wants to ask voters to increase the retirement age for future state and local government workers and require all employees to contribute at least half of their annual pension costs. And that's just for starters.

Some other reform proposals can be found here.

• Anti-spiking provisions, including a tighter definition of “base pay” to eliminate all the abusive overtime and non-recurring and special pay features that bloat pensions, plus a three-year averaging process which is conventional in many other states.
• No more retroactive benefits increases -- a hot button for pension reformers, because such ‘retros’ never actually “attract and retain employees” which has been the traditional baloney we’ve been fed for years about those giveaways. SB 400 in California was the millennial poster child for the failure of this selfish gambit which has since been discredited by the professional associations. . . .
• No more employer pension-contribution holidays. Just look at Illinois for proof positive on this one. When politicians cut corners in pension funding, the results are predictably disastrous. Californians need only look at CalSTRS, the state teacher’s system, for a classic example of the systematic failure of legislative underfunding.
• Felons would be ineligible for public pensions related to their government employment. This feature will win votes every time after Bell, Calif.’s compensation scandals.
• No more “air time," or purchasing service credits for time never worked in the first place.

Further, the state needs to implement a pay freeze, like the federal government has done, for all state  employees.  The state has a long way to go before they should be asking the tax payers for more money.  This ballot measure will be spark another surge in activism by those sympathetic to tea party goals in this state.

San Diego's Budget - Impact of Prop D Defeat

Last November's defeat of the half-cent sales tax measure, Proposition D, was supposed to be the warning shot across the bow that galvanized city leaders into drastic action to cut budget deficits. From the Citizen’s Fiscal Sustainability Task Force Analysis of FY2012 Budget Deficit:

In all frankness, the seeming absence of a sense of urgency demonstrated by the City leadership since the public’s November 2, 2010 rejection of Proposition D’s additional revenues as a deficit solution is disturbing. On November 3rd, the citizens of San Diego anticipated swift and aggressive actions from the City leadership to resolve what was advertised as a dire fiscal situation. With the prospect of $500 Million in new tax revenues coming from the passage of Proposition D, there was a commitment by the City to quickly implement the reforms articulated in our last report. Instead from November to December, little or no significant actions were taken by the elected officials to eliminate the Structural Deficit in 2012. When the 18 month budget was passed in December 2009, Councilman Young added an amendment requesting the Mayor present a plan by June 30, 2010 that would permanently eliminate the Structural Deficit. If Proposition D was that plan, then once Proposition D failed, it was anticipated that a new plan would be forthcoming. Instead, during the November Budget Committee meeting, when asked if the City would be developing a new mid-year budget to get a head start on new savings and reforms, City Management went on record indicating there were new positive economic results coming and a mid-year cut was not necessary (City Council Meeting November 11, 2010). In light of pre-election assurances by elected officials that Propositions D’s failure would result in drastic service and cost reductions, the decision to not address mid- year budget cuts given that Proposition D did in fact fail stands in stark contrast with these promised actions.

Almost a year later we get the following news report.

The San Diego city budget deficit for next year is shrinking and the future is a bit brighter with a projected surplus in 2017, according to the latest financial prognostications from Mayor Jerry Sanders Wednesday.

Maybe that's why the politicians didn't do much after the defeat of Prop D, they knew the situation wasn't as dire as they had claimed. But here is what Mayor Sanders had to say in 2010 about public safety if Proposition D was rejected.

Sanders says there will be significant cuts to public safety if Proposition D is rejected. “To date, we’ve spared them, by and large, but we don’t have a lot left to cut,” he said. “And there’s going to be some public safety implications, implications in terms of services throughout the neighborhoods.”

However, no such cuts materialized. Indeed, so the called fire station brown outs ended in July of this year. Clearly better not to listen to politicians asking for tax hikes to close budget gaps. Better to force them to reduce spending, it seems to work.

Opposing Tax Increases on the California Ballot - UPDATE 2

Governor Jerry Brown's plan to combine tax increases with some spending reductions appears to be popular:

A Field Poll released this week showed that 61 percent of voters, including 56 percent of Republicans, want the state to have a special election on the budget. Fifty-eight percent of voters say they would favor extending the temporary taxes.

This poses a difficult question of principle for me. Normally, I am in favor of forcing tax increases to have a public vote. However, I don't think that the public understands that public pensions are not part of the package that the governor is offering. In a little reported upon survey, Californians overwhelmingly support pension reform. From Bloomberg:

California voters support limits on public-employee pensions by a 3-to-1 margin, according to the Field Poll.

Seventy-three percent of those surveyed favor a cap on the amount of salary used to calculate pension benefits, compared with 20 percent opposed, according to the statewide survey by Field and the University of California, Berkeley, released today. Forty-two percent said the pensions are “too generous,” up from 32 percent two years ago.

Right now, the Democrats need a few Republican votes to extend for five more years the one-cent increase in the state sales tax, the ½ percent increase in vehicle license fees and the ¼ percent increase in personal income taxes that the state enacted in 2009. That's quite a few extra taxes, that cost the average family $1000 per year.

I believe the Republicans should demand concessions on pensions before this goes to a vote of the public. But I would like to know what you think? What is the principled position here? Should Republicans use their limited power to push for pension reform as the price to be paid for putting tax increases on the ballot? Please take my poll.

UPDATE

I forgot to mention that I had cross posted this article sdrostra.com. In the rostra comments, the ever reliable tax-fighter, Richard Rider, provides some additional facts:

Previously, a family with two children received a state income tax credit of $638. Under the “temporary tax increase” package, that credit is slashed to $196 — an effective annual tax increase of $442. For a middle class family suffering in today’s economy, that $442 is a MAJOR tax increase.

Moreover, this 2009 increase, along with the income tax rate increase, EXPIRED on 1/1/2011. Brown’s proposal is not an EXTENSION of the old income tax increase — it is a NEW “temporary” tax. Hence if voters REIMPOSE this expired tax, all the withholding will have to be done in the last half of the year, which will hammer modest income families the worst.

UDPATE 2

Also, W.C. Varones let me know that the Income tax hike expired Jan 1, so that is a pure tax increase. The media and the governor continue to portray the measure as a tax extension, but that is obviously not true for the income tax.

New City Hall? Call Lorie Zapf

Will we get a shiny new City Hall without a public vote? It certainly seems to be an open question according to today's U-T.

The debate over whether to build a new San Diego City Hall is expected to begin anew early next year as city leaders weigh three choices: abandon the project, put it to a public vote or bypass voters and build it.

. . . Now the project — and its projected taxpayer savings — could be revived by a new-look City Council that may be willing to forego a public vote and break ground.

Last November, when we defeated the half cent sales tax increase, we were told how essential city services were at risk if the tax increase was not passed. But somehow there is now hundreds of millions of dollars available for a new city hall? I don't put "Enron by the Bay" as my location on my blogger profile without cause.

But the worse news is that recently elected council member Lorie Zapf, who campaigned on a platform of fiscal responsibility to fund core services, is considering voting for this spending without putting it to a vote of the people. If she did so, it would be a repudiation of her campaign as well as proof that she is nothing but a tool of downtown business interests. To be fair, she has not officially marked out her position. From the same U-T article:

During the campaign, Zapf said she opposed the project but was open to a public vote. She was far less committal when her office was asked last week where she stood on the issue.

Zapf’s spokesman, Job Nelson, said the councilwoman thinks there is some merit to the project given potential savings in building maintenance and leased office space but understands why many are struggling with the notion of building a new City Hall while cuts are threatened to public safety and other services.

“We’re kind of stuck in the middle of this one,” Nelson said. “I would say we side with the community and we need to fix the strong distrust they have before we can try.”

The project’s fate likely hangs on Zapf’s final decision.

I urge my fellow Tea Partiers and all San Diegans, especially those in the 6th district to let Zapf's office know how we feel. To help everyone out, here's how we get in touch.

Email: loriezapf@sandiego.gov
Phone: (619) 236-6616
Mail:
Lorie Zapf
202 "C" Street, 10th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101

For the record, I endorsed Zapf in the primary and the general. I thought she was the candidate who had the most consistent voice speaking out against the domination of city hall by the unions. This is a chance for her to live up to her campaign promises.

More Love for Local Tea Party Activism

Tea Partyers, there is a must read in today's WSJ about Tea Party activists setting their sights on local issues. We already had some local success in San Diego with the defeat of Propositions A and J, the half-cent sales tax increase and parcel tax increase, respectively. The article makes an important point about the need to grow bench strength of local school board members and other locally elected officials to give the Tea Party future leaders. It also points out that our influence can often be even greater at the local level. A few key quotes:

Tea-party groups in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Michigan have recently voiced plans to have members run for local town boards in 2011—a bid to start a farm team of politicians who can move up to higher offices. . . . Now, the Philadelphia Tea Party Patriots plan to launch the "Watchman Project," in which members will be assigned to attend local government meetings, monitor meeting minutes and then report back to the group, Mr. Reimer said. "If there is a particular vote coming up that we support or oppose, we would all show up to influence what is going on," he said.

Locally in San Diego, Dawn, Leslie and Sarah have been very active in keeping us appraised of political developments, but it will take more of us monitoring city council meetings, school board meetings to keep the politicians honest.

Photo courtesy of LeftCoastRebel.

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.

Tea Party Ballot Recommendations Recap - Propositions and Candidates

Since many of you are voting by mail right now, I am providing a convenient summary of unofficial Tea Party ballot recommendations with links to more detail. Please get your votes in soon. It won't be enough for us to win, we have to win by more than the margin of fraud.

California Propositions

Prop 19 - Yes* (Marijuana Decriminalized)
Prop 20 - Yes (Resdistricting commission)
Prop 21 - No (Vehicle License fee for parks)
Prop 22 - No (Transport and other tricky provisions)
Prop 23 - YES, Heck Yes (Suspend Cap and Trade)
Prop 24 - No (Repeal of Tax changes)
Prop 25 - No, Heck No (Legislative majority on budget)
Prop 26 - Yes (Supermajority for new taxes and fees)
Prop 27 - No (Eliminate redistricting commission)

*B-Daddy and SoCalTaxRevolt not agreeing on this one.


San Diego Propositions

Prop A - Yes (Prohibit County project labor agreements)
Prop B - Yes (City Attorneys like civil servants) (my weakest recommendation)
Prop C - Yes (Pacific Highlands Ranch development)
Prop D - NO, Heck NO (Half Cent Sales Tax)
Prop J - No (Parcel tax increase for schrools)

Richard Rider adds:

Prop G - Yes (Citizen vote to raise pensions) Carlsbad
Prop H - No (Raise phone tax) Chula Vista
Prop K - No (School bond) San Marcos
Prop L - No (School bond) Julian
Prop M - No (School bond) Dehesa
Prop O - No (School parcel tax) South Bay
Prop P - No (School bond) Encinitas


California Statewide Office (This is more from W.C. Varones than me, I note my changes with asterisks*.)

Governor - Meg Whitman* (She made the right enemy: SEIU)
Lt Gov - Karen England (Write In)
Senator - Carly Fiorina
Secretary of State - Damon Dunn
Controller - Tony Strickland
Treasurer - Mimi Walters
Attorny Gen - Steve Cooley
Insurance Commissioner - Dave Jones (Perhaps only Dem I have ever endorsed.)


San Diego Candidates:

City Council District 6 - Lorie Zapf (Not a great campaign, but unions are heavy for Wayne)

San Diego School Board - Steve Rosen (only candidate opposing Prop J)


I realize that this isn't every race, but I don't have more to say, and "better is the enemy of good enough."

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.

B-Daddy's San Diego Proposition Guide

My ballot came in the mail over the weekend; since I am a resident of the City of San Diego, it included both the city and county propositions. Here's my run down on the initiatives, and I have to admit, it wasn't that tough. Before we start, I have to give a shout out to Richard Rider, who has been submitting arguments against tax increases for as long as I can remember, at least going back to 1985, when I was first stationed here. He worked on the argument against Proposition J and they are great and will be quoted.

One more shout out, to BallotPedia, a wealth of information about initiatives.

On to the props - I am not using the official titles, my shortened and more accurate version. Don't like my characterizations? Tough, get your own blog, free speech rocks.


Prop A - Prohibits Project Labor Agreements - YES

". . .the county shall not require a contractor on a construction project to execute or otherwise become a party to a project labor agreement as a condition of bidding, negotiating, awarding or performing of a contract."

Labor unions use project labor agreements to set wages on government projects at the union rate. This discourages firms that don't employ union members not to bid and DRIVES UP PROJECT COSTS. This is an easy call. San Diego County already has a law like this on the books, but if the Board of Supervisors shifts left, this could be repealed, so the amendment is needed as part of the county charter.



Proposition B - Makes Deputy City Attorneys Like Civil Servants - yes

This basically says that all of the attorneys below the elected City Attorney can only be fired for just cause, to "protect them from politics." Everyone is for this, even Todd Gloria AND Carl DeMaio, so I guess I should be too. It would certainly prevent the loss of attorneys we saw under Mike Aguirre. But I wonder if we will see a City Attorney bemoaning the fact that no one in the office will do what he says. B-Daddy gives this a yes, barely.





Proposition C - Waiting for Godot - Yes

This proposition is to allow the Pacific Highlands Ranch to continue development even though the current ordnance requires them to wait for Caltrans to finish the I-5/SR-56 interchange. This is currently scheduled for 2020. Of course you have to vote for this. Below is a picture of one of the things not to do while waiting for Caltrans to finish anything on time:

By the way, and speaking of Caltrans, if you were stuck in traffic today, you can thank Jerry Brown, who seriously set back our freeway building programs when he was governor previously.


Proposition D - "Temporary" One-Half Cent Sales Tax - NO NO NO

I've blogged about this extensively, do I really need to say more?





Proposition J - More Taxes for Government Schools - NO

The usual suspects are making the argument that the government schools need more funding and they promise to only spend it on classroom learning. This measure reminds me of Proposition D, they make a big deal of how well the school district will manage the extra money, but do nothing up front to address their prior fiscal mismanagement. Basically, they want to find a way to pay for a teacher salary increase of 7% that starts in 2012 along with other increased benefits. As Richard Rider and others also point out, per pupil spending has increased about 34% since 2003.


Make sure you vote, get those ballots in the mail early. There is little going on that should change our mind. If I missed a local proposition in your area, Richard Rider has some recommendations always guaranteed to keep your taxes low.

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.

Cutting a Deal on Proposition D

Jerry, Let's Make a Deal.

I have come out strongly against Proposition D, the proposed half cent sales tax increase in San Diego. However, it occurred to me that we should cut a deal to see if the politicians who put it on the ballot are serious. I'll vote for the increase if two conditions are met:

1. The city's budget is cut in actual dollars year on year, by at least 5%
2. The city outsources enough jobs to reduce the number of union workers on the city's payroll by 10%.
   

Those two measures would prove they are serious. Absent those achievements I am voting no. Talk is cheap, and the way the proposition is structured, not a single job actually has to be outsourced, giving city council members plenty of wiggle room to take our money and continue to fail. Don't let them play us for fools, vote No on Proposition D.

Good to see W.C. on board with my recommendation; He'd better be, I've got clout. You don't get to be unofficial chief ideologist just by self proclamation.

OK, actually you do, but don't tell anyone.

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.