Weekend Music Chill

The Memorial Day Weekend kicked off the traditional summer season last week, so the Mighty Waynok is hankering to put in some time at the beach and on the surfboard. He asked for some classic surf music, so we're doubling down with two videos from the Ventures one of the all time classic surf bands.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Well, actually I don't, because in some ways, it seems like you never left.

OK, that's a little harsh, but this week's headlines remind me of the continuity of previous policies, failed or otherwise that seem to transcend Democrat or Republican administrations. First, by filing suit against Arizona over the mandatory use of e-Verify, the Obama administration continues the failed Bush policy of paying lip service to immigration enforcement, but not actually enforcing anything. This lawsuit totally gives the lie to any belief that the feds are in any way serious about the border. As if we needed more proof, ditto to the sending of National Guard troops to the border, only to fill administrative jobs.

Second, in a move that brings to mind, ... drum roll please... Richard Nixon, Obama is invoking executive privilege in withholding papers on Elena Kagan, from when she worked for Clinton, now nominated to be a Supreme.

Third, we get political cluelessness in the face of a disaster in Louisiana. I am not getting into blame here, for either Bush or Obama, but you have to admit that they both got their political rear ends handed to them over Katrina and BP Oil Spill respectively.

Finally, no headlines, but Obama continues to increase the national deficit started under Bush. I guess I do wish the deficit was only as large as when Bush left office; maybe I am missing him.

Even More On Zapf

My previous article on Lorie Zapf's difficulties was quoted in the San Diego CityBeat, an alternative newspaper. My comments were taken as a withdrawal of my endorsement of Lorie Zapf. I want to make clear that they were not. Lorie Zapf is walking a fine line and I am concerned that she doesn't understand that serving the people in elected office is a privilege that requires not only actual propriety but the appearance of propriety. There is no shortage of candidates for public office, she should understand that she is on a job interview and the public is the panel.

I was hoping my comments would get Zapf to clean up her act. I have serious issues with every candidate in the District 6 race; but electing someone with the fortitude to scale back pensions and outsource services is my number one issue, and Zapf appears to be the best positioned to do so. In more normal times, I might be endorsing Kim Tran, but I think that Kim is, by nature, just a little too nice of a human being, and someone with a little anger and edge is going to be needed to take on the unions. The budget crises faced by the city, state and nation are unprecedented because they are all happening simultaneously, not due to some catastrophic misfortune, but due to the lack of courage to take on the clamor for ever increasing spending. I am looking for candidates willing to make cuts in city government, even on firefighting and police, and willing to use every legal means available to scale back the costs of services, including outsourcing, raising employee pension contributions, and re-negotiating contracts and benefits.

Desert Discomfort

I have been a bit quiet on the Arizona law regarding illegal aliens (SB1070) for a number of reasons. First, I am sympathetic to a state that has been over run by crime exported from Mexico across a border that the federal government of both administrations has refused to patrol. The legal definition of national sovereignty is:

The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.

Note the last line, regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference. This implies a control of its own borders, because if its borders are not under control, then logically, the state (in this case the United States) have left them open to foreign interference.

Next, the wikipedia definition of a failed state includes this bullet:

• Loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,

Note the emphasis of physical control of its own territory. This isn't some right wing definition either, it was proposed by noted lefty Noam Chomsky. Both the U.S. Constitution and customary law puts the onus for enforcement of the border on the federal government. Further, its failure to enforce its borders calls into question the sovereignty of the of the federal government.

However, this is part of my trouble with the law. It is manifestly not the proper province of local government to enforce the border. Now technically, AZ is not really performing border enforcement, merely requiring that police check the legal residency status of persons stopped for other reasons by law enforcement. However, the federal law governing illegal aliens do not make it a criminal offense, only a civil issue, which penalty is deportation. The Arizona law:

Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

I think this goes slightly too far, I would prefer that the immigration status only be checked if the suspected illegal is in a custodial situation. Checking on background for all contact seems onerous and interfering with officer's daily routines and opens the potential for abuse. In general, I am not in favor of increased police powers, I believe they have enough at their disposal.

But is this the greatest injustice in the land? No. Does it send a message that the federal government is failing in its responsibilities? You betcha. I just think that the law could have been trimmed a little to achieve those ends. Further, if it was written as I proposed, I guarantee it would survive every court challenge and that the federal government would lose in court if they failed to receive illegals brought to them by the state. So I don't support the Arizona law wholeheartedly, but also I oppose the opposition to the law, because it is being opposed for the wrong reasons, namely as a wedge issue to introduce open borders. I favor vastly increased legal immigration, but not open borders, for reasons previously cited.

A second and less commented upon part of the law requires:

...E-Verify, which allows employers to electronically confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired employees. LAWA requires all Arizona employers to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of new hires. Proof of verifying the employment authorization of an employee through E-Verify creates a rebuttable presumption that an employer did not intentionally or knowingly employ an unauthorized alien.

[LAWA is the Legal Arizona Workers Act, a 2007 law.] The Obama administration is attempting to block this provision in court. This puts them in the interesting position of arguing that e-verify is essentially voluntary, and therefore worthless as an enforcement tool, despite previous Congressional efforts to make it mandatory. Interestingly, this law has survived every constitutional challenge. [See Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d856 (9th Cir. 2009), petition for cert. filed, 78 U.S.L.W. 3065 (U.S. July 24, 2009) (No. 09-115).] That reference offered without editorial comment. Key issue in the administration's legal challenge, Congress re-authorized the bill in 2009 after Arizona passed its own law. We can assume that the Congress was aware of the AZ law, but re-authorized e-verify anyway, meaning that the Congress intended to allow states to make it mandatory. Lengthy analysis at The Volokh Conspiracy.

I look forward to seeing the administration smacked down by the Courts.

Tea Party Issue for City Council Races

After interviewing Kim Tran and thinking through the issues facing the city of San Diego, I have decided that the Tea Party litmus test issue for city candidates must be the immediate implementation of the managed competition initiative passed by voters in November, 2006 with a 60% majority. There is no other way for the city to quickly reduce expenses and reduce future pension obligations simultaneously. Every city worker removed from the payroll immediately removes that worker from the defined benefits pension program that is wrecking the city budget. Even if the workers are immediately re-hired by a private firm at the same rate of pay, the immediate shift to a defined contributions plan and off of defined benefits reduces future liability.

Maybe Carville Has a Point

The White House, through Robert Gibbs, is saying that BP is not being "forthcoming" about the oil spill, particularly the possibility of a faster leak after the latest efforts to stop the leak. I heard a rumor that the Coast Guard also does not believe BP has been forthcoming either, which shouldn't be surprising. Here is my question for the administration, "If you don't believe BP, why aren't you deploying assets like the Nereus to ascertain the true conditions on the sea floor?" The Nereus was developed with federal dollars, so it should be available.

Maybe Carville has a point about Obama not doing everything he could.

Happy Memorial Day

Union Battle Flag - Civil War.

Happy Memorial Day, light blogging today. Check out my other blog for a little inspiration.

Interview with Kim Tran - City Council Candidate District 6

I interviewed Kim Tran today at a local Starbucks, at her son's request. My endorsement of Lorie Zapf generated a little heat due to Ms. Zapf's issues with a delinquent second mortgage and Kim Tran supporters feel that she is not getting the "love" from the Republican establishment she deserves. I got some comments and a request to interview Kim Tran, I think in part because of my criticism for her not debating that I said that I did not understand Kim's positions, because she had not made them clear publicly. She brought her campaign manager Robert Sutton and her son AJ Sutton.*

Before starting the discussion, she re-iterated her reasons for not debating, referencing the way Sarah Palin was made to look bad by the way her interviews were edited during the 2008 campaign. She said that she was not invited to the very first candidate forum and felt that she was being deliberately frozen out. She discussed that she was elected to the Republican Central Committee, with about 11,000 votes, even though she was not on any slate of candidates. She also mentioned that she was still involved in charitable work this week, including cooking ethnic foods for nursing home patients.

We then got into the questions:


B-D: What do you intend to do about the pension issues for city workers? Do you think bankruptcy is an option?

Tran: This is the big huge issue. Chapter 9 bankruptcy won't allow us to discharge pension obligations in bankruptcy. To qualify, we would have to spend spend $100 million in lawyers fees, this is a very costly option. I don't promise people a rose garden.

The employees expect to be vested in their pension, but it is a fund where the both government and employee are contributing and the money invested. In good times, the excess in the pension fund was used to pay for other projects. Now that the stocks are down, there is a deficit in the funding. We should make it so that city employees are fully funding their contributions. There is not any one solution, we can't just say, this is it. The labor unions are very powerful, so we have to be diligent and analyze our options and talk to everyone involved, and bring in the city attorney. We must negotiate a solution with all cards on the table.

People are concerned over the $75 million deficit. I will become your voice, I know your concerns. I am not owned by any group, I am independent, I have no string on my nose. My strengths are my ethics and my honesty. [ed. note, Ms. Tran was really animated by this point.]

People ask about contracts bringing in private entities [to perform city services.] This must be done openly. I supported the initiative that allowed outsourcing, but it has been stopped by this city council. I will bring it out, to allow it go forward. People have to list everything and negotiate, all parties involved including the city employees.


B-D: Your website says that police and firefighters are your priorities, however, their pensions are as much of a problem as other city workers. What will you do to reduce the cost of police and fire protection?

Tran: Safety of people are my priority. There are a lot of prisoners out of prisons, we must protect public safety. I do not want to cut firefighting and police. However, their pensions are part of the same problem as the all the city, they are not separate. I would deal with their pensions as part of the overall city pension problem. But the budget priority is public safety and firefighting. We could see about citizen patrols and other volunteer activities to reduce the costs. But people are telling me that other priorities are potholes and trash collection.


B-D: What are your priorities for city government?

Balancing our budget is number 1, it is a big and huge problem. The current city council is working hard already, but more work needs to be done. I would use the Independent Budget Analysts program to look in depth at all city programs. I will analyze where we can save work with all parties to review the budget. Right now, we have plans to build a huge new city hall, but can we afford it. We have to consider balancing the budget first.


B-D: If you could ask Lorie Zapf one question in a debate, what would it be?

Does she think she can proclaim herself as someone with fiscal responsibility, with a city budget so big, how could she be responsible, but cannot balance her own personal check book? Even though she was a leader of CALA, she has sued or been sued several (seven?) times, why? [Robert chimed in that the definition of a serious lawsuit is one you file, a frivolous lawsuit is when someone sues you.] Also, is she suggesting that some people shouldn't sue, for example over an issue like handicap access?

I have very ethical behavior. I knew about her [Zapf's] default in Nevada a long time ago, but I did not bring it out. I thought, a lot of people in San Diego are in the same situation, I didn't want to inflict a wound. [In the context of the discussion, I thought she was also saying not inflicting a wound in the Republican party.]
Now she has another default and continues her mismanagement. It might be a scam action to take a loan with intention to default, if the intent is not to pay it back. Strategic default is a scam. In Nevada, there is an allegation of rent skimming, collecting rent, but not paying a mortgage. Maybe or maybe not if this is a crime in Nevada. The people of San Diego need to make a judgment.



At the end of the interview, she talked about how proud she is of her family, including AJ who was with us. She has a daughter flying F-18s and thinks about her this Memorial Day weekend. She tells her family the same thing that she tells people she meets campaigning, to always fight and never give up. If she can just get people to open their eyes, we can solve our problems.

At the end of the interview, Ms. Tran asked me what I thought the priorities should be. I was a little surprised but had a ready answer.

1. Solve the pension issue by reducing the numbers of city employees. Keep a very close watch on the actual count of employees and keep that down.
2. Initiate the outsourcing that the voters approved. I know from personal experience as a federal manager that outsourcing can lower costs.
3. Don't spend any money on big projects we can't afford, no new library, no new city hall, no spending for a stadium.


My overall impression, is that Ms. Tran's heart is in the right place. She brings incredible energy to San Diego politics and due regard for fair process. I have to admit that I found her accent to be difficult to understand at times and this is a real issue for any political leader, because communications are such a big part of the job.

Given the controversy surrounding Lorie Zapf, am I changing my endorsement? I find this challenging. Clearly the Republican establishment has put their money behind Zapf (maybe that should be a warning), and it takes money to win the election. Also Zapf seems to have the right personality to take on the key issues. But the ethics issues look serious, and she and her husband have yet to take action that would clear them up.


I asked Mr. Sutton to take a picture at the end, my official photographer was unavailable. If he was, it wouldn't have looked like this.

AJ Sutton, B-Daddy, Kim Tran after the interview.

*That is how Robert Sutton and Kim Tran were introduced to me, Google search seems to indicate that Sutton and Tran are husband and wife.

Tea Party Christianity

Because it's Sunday, I thought I would take on the leftist tool over at HuffPo, Jim Wallis, who presents a very weak case that somehow the Tea Party ideology is inconsistent with Christian principles. He does so by distorting core beliefs of both the Tea Party and Christianity, an impressive feat in one article. He bills himself as a Christian leader for social change. Ever notice that when lefties put the word social in front of anything, the modified word ceases to mean what it formerly meant, think social justice, for example.

He starts off by conflating the Tea Party with libertarianism, and although there is large overlap, they are not synonymous. He says that the movement enshrines individual choice as the highest virtue, which he calls un-Christian. In fact, the Tea Party enshrines individual choice as a political virtue, which is very different. Further, Christianity enshrines individual choice as a key virtue as well; every individual is called to make a choice to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, no amount of social justice gets you to heaven, only that personal choice. He condemns the Tea Party for ignoring injustice to the poor, because we want to shrink the size of government. But if you really look at the statist policies of Obama, it is the poor who are hurt worst, because the rigid structures of the economy create a permanent underclass, often filled with minorities, like present day France.

Wallis states that anti-government rhetoric is unbiblical, and he has a point. But what is being protested isn't all government per se, but the reality that present size and scope of government leads inevitably to a form of tyranny and injustice. Government of the size proposed by Obama is inherently unjust, because it will rule so much of our lives. The Bible is replete with examples of God's unhappiness with governmental injustice.

Wallis echoes Pope John Paul with his next objection:

The Libertarians' supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. The exclusive focus on government as the central problem ignores the problems of other social sectors, and in particular, the market.

But the Tea Party isn't asking for an end to regulation, just a level of regulation that is reasonable. The reason that our focus is on government is that it has proved to be the major problem in modern times. In fact, we find most examples of supposed free market failure to actually be the result of some combination of collusion between big government and big business or regulatory capture (see my article on the gulf oil spill.) Truly free markets turn out to be the enemy of big business, because they expose big business to the disruptive technologies from new companies. Regulation tends to be used to prevent the introduction of new products, tending to protect entrenched businesses. Competition has proved more bracing and producing Christian outcomes than excessive regulation.

Wallis then gets to the heart of the difference of how left and right view compassion differently:

The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian. "Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money" is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage. And those who need help are central to any Christian evaluation of political philosophy. "As you have done to the least of these," says Jesus, "You have done to me."

For Wallis, and other lefties, the only compassion that matters is government compassion. In the immediate aftermath of Indonesian tsunami, I saw immediate criticism from the left on ABC's "This Week" over our government's initial response to that tragedy. When George Will pointed out that Americans had already donated hundreds of millions of dollars as private citizens, the Cokie Roberts or George Stephanopoulus said that the outpouring of generosity by our nation's citizens didn't count, because it didn't come from our government. This philosophy that we are only as generous as our government allows us to be is in fact directly in contravention to what Jesus preached. When the Samaritan meets the robbery victim on the road, he doesn't lobby for more police or roadside hostels; he reaches into his own pocket and helps the man. Ask yourself this, would the poor really better off under government entitlements programs that leave them no incentive to improve their condition, or under private charitable programs, that because of their limited resources, push them back into the work force?

Finally, being a true lefty, Wallis has to trot a version of the racist smear, saying that the movement is overwhelmingly white, and explicitly calls the movement racist. He manages to say something that is at its core not true and irrelevant simultaneously. See some data on demographics from Gallup to see the fundamental slander being slung here. Amazing, no matter how polite lefties start out, they just can't seem to hold back a little bile. It makes you wonder about why they crave giving government so much power, perhaps they have issues and are looking for government to provide a little vengeance against their supposed enemies. How Christian is that?

Blaming Bush?

If you thought Democrats running against Bush in 2008 was lame, dig this.

“Many of the people appointed in the Bush administration are still burrowed in the agencies that are supposed to oversee the [oil] industry,” Pelosi said when asked if Democrats could have prevented or mitigated the crisis by keeping a closer watch on the industry.

And whose fault is that, even if her whiny excuses were in fact, the truth? The Democrats have had overwhelming majorities in both houses, so the President should be able to get any appointees through that he needs. Who are these hold overs any way? Pelosi continues with her politically tone deaf commentary.

…I’ve heard no complaints from my members about the way the president has handled it,” Pelosi said.

Apparently, there are no Democrat House members from Gulf Coast states, and this guy isn't a Congresscritter:



Ladies and gentlemen, the always entertaining James Carville.

Programming Alert - Kim Tran Interview (District 6)

I was able to speak to Kim Tran on the phone this afternoon to discuss getting an interview. She asked that I send her questions in advance and said that we will talk some more. However, I was able to ask why she did not participate in the Clairemont debate. My question was "I covered the debate at Clairemont High and found the questions to be relevant and straightforward, why didn't you participate?" Kim Tran responded that she felt that she felt it much more worthwhile to listen directly to the people and didn't want intermediaries, like a reporter getting her message to the people.

She said, "I want to listen to voters directly, there are not enough people at one debate. It's more important to walk the precinct. I find out many things from the people and find that their concerns are my concerns." She mentioned that potholes were a big concern and that the city has a deficit of $75 million and people worry about retirement. She emphasized a number of times that "I take it very seriously," referring to listening to the voters in the district. Other news reports I have read indicate that she really does spend some serious time campaigning by walking through the district.

She was very gracious, asking me if I had children in the military. I don't. She thanked me for my service as a veteran over this Memorial Day weekend. She asked what I thought of the debate. I told her I found the debate very informative and talked briefly about Hadley"s performance and that I was able to learn things about the candidates I wouldn't have otherwise known. She said "My campaign manager informed that the questions weren't necessarily the concerns of the people."

Her accent may have something to do with her desire not to debate. While it's true that some people have prejudices, and that might hurt her chances, she really needs to let people see her speaking publicly, because it is such a big part of elected office. I will publish results of the follow on interview when it happens, hopefully before the end of the weekend.

Oily Sleazy Talk*

Dean has aptly commented on Obama's political problems that are represented by the Gulf oil spill, riffing off more insight from Peggy Noonan. I agree with Dean that even if one gives Obama the benefit of the doubt,

The reality of the situation now is, we will wake up tomorrow with a 10% unemployment rate, a crappy economy, pending nanny-state legislation with higher taxes and anti-growth consequences and still the very real possibility of an evolving, years-long ecological and economic meltdown in the Gulf.

I agree, and have a hard time not gloating over the crap sandwich that looks very much like the Katrina sandwich served up to George Bush. But I also want to point out something else brought out by Noonan:

His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet the need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"

This is one of the reasons I haven't piled on Obama over the spill. In fact, the federal government, by its nature is not really capable of preventing and responding to every disaster that might befall us. If we excoriate Obama for failing to prevent this, or failing to respond appropriately, aren't we saying that we believe that disaster prevention is the province of the federal government? Now in this particular case, the regulators in the Lake Charles, LA office seemed to have cozy relationships with the regulated:

Employees of a federal agency that regulates offshore drilling—including some whose duties included inspecting offshore oil rigs—accepted sporting-event tickets, meals, and other gifts from oil and natural-gas companies and used government computers to view pornography, according to a new report by the Interior Department's inspector general.

The report—published Tuesday on the inspector general's website—describes a culture in which inspectors assigned to the Lake Charles, La., office of the Minerals Management Service have moved with "ease" between jobs in industry and government, drawing on relationships that formed "well before they took their jobs" with the agency.

This is typical of government attempts to regulate industry. As industry becomes more complex, it is difficult to find those with the ability to perform adequate technical oversight without drawing on the industry it is regulating. This is known as regulatory capture, and happens frequently, as W.C. would point out in the banking industry. Another consequence of regulatory capture is that it creates a false sense of security and a dilution of responsibility. In this case, one might ask, who is responsible for the mistakes or poor practices that led to this disaster? Doesn't the federal government bear some portion of the blame for failing to regulate? If not, why are we regulating at all?

What is the solution? I think that we have to be clear in tort law that BP would be fully responsible financially for the environmental damage they might cause. Might this bankrupt them? Perhaps, but it provides a better incentive than lax regulation.

Meanwhile, graft, oil and sleaze mixing in the Big Easy? Who knew?

*Reference for the title comes from one of my favorite MST3K episodes of all time.

Weekend Music Chill

Happy Memorial Day weekend and welcome to friends and family of Kim Tran, the poll is on the right. Kim has deep roots in the community and many loyal followers; they are clearly checking in to this blog. I hope that she makes more clear some of her policy positions in the future, so that I could vote for her. Meanwhile, I want to enjoy some music for the long weekend.

Wouldn't You Know It - More on Zapf

I went out on a limb a bit and endorsed a candidate for City Council, and as luck would have it, just as I do so, I find she is involved in a mini-scandal. I am not withdrawing my endorsement, as yet, but this is the kind of thing I worried about, with a novice candidate who had already shown a little inexperience. (I'm thinking about Rand Paul as I write this.) So what's the scandal? From the local fishwrap:

Council candidate Zapf defaults on loan

The latest revelation, which could prove devastating to Zapf’s campaign, is that her family is in default on a second mortgage for its Clairemont home.
...
In an interview with All in Favor, Zapf acknowledged that she and her husband, Eric, are in default by about $7,000 on their $230,000 mortgage but dismissed its significance. She said it is simply a strategy to lower the loan’s interest rate.

“We’ve been working with the bank for many months but because there is such a huge volume of people doing loan modifications and reductions, I think it’s well known that banks are just overwhelmed so it’s just taken longer than expected,” she said.

From the comments in my previous post, there were some choice words for Zapf.

From Zapfers:

Clearly you missed the stories about Lorie Zapf defaulting on her mortgage in order to negotiate a better deal.

AJ said:

Zapf is playing the victim card. I don't vote for victims. She will go down in flames if she makes the runoff. Read the below link which clearly shows she lied in her interview with channel 10. I don't vote for liars.

Reading the link provided by AJ reveals some troubling information. I get the impression that her husband, who is in the real estate business may have ethical challenges. Unfortunately, they may taint the candidate as well, since her name is on the legal documents involved in a prior Las Vegas default. However, I believe that if Zapf just pays off the Home Equity Line of Credit that they are in default on, then all of this will blow over. There are two issues here. First, are the Zapfs guilty of ethical lapses of which Lorie should have known? Second, doesn't she get that running for office means that her own house must be in order? That she doesn't seem to, is pretty serious in itself. Also, her explanations have been contradictory.

But I am still looking for the candidate that will assertively take on the unions, including police and firefighters, who have the city in a stranglehold. Zapf seems the best candidate to do so. Kim Tran may be a nice person, but her web site and public statements say squat about her plans to deal with the unions and pensions. She talks about police and firefighters being her priority. Huckabone is unwilling to undo some of the worst pension excesses and supports cutting a deal to keep the Chargers at the Q. Howard Wayne has also the union endorsements and Steve Hadley is temperamentally unfit.

Stay tuned.

BTW, I took down my poll in light of these revelations and my poor wording of it. Please take a look and vote at right.

B-Daddy Endorses Lorie Zapf

After lengthy consideration, I have decided to endorse Lorie Zapf for City Council in District 6 in San Diego. The B-Daddy endorsement has been shown to be worth as many as five votes under carefully biased research conditions.

Little new information informs this decision since the debates; you can read my previous coverage of the District 6 council race here. This came down to a process of elimination. First, Steve Hadley showed himself not ready for the dignity of the office with his cheap shots and lack of knowledge despite lengthy time in City Hall. Kim Tran, despite some great community backing never showed up at the debates and hasn't put out enough specific material to make up for the lack of knowledge about her positions. Her web site talks about police and firefighters being a priority, but their pensions are part of the problem. Ryan Huckabone is a likeable enough guy, and we hope to see him in some future forum. But he is too gung-ho about keeping the Chargers at the Q and unwilling to take drastic action to deal with pension issues. I appreciate his position that we have cut a deal, but even Howard Wayne has pointed out that that is to simplistic a position. We can ask the employees for a greater contribution to their own pension fund and still be within the bargaining agreement.

That brings me to Howard Wayne, former assemblyman and deputy attorney general for the state of California. He is knowledgeable but carries the very, very heavy baggage of employee union endorsements, including local firefighters, the local "labor council," the San Diego Police officers association and assorted progressive groups. Sorry, but endorsements by any employee unions are going to earn the enmity of B-Daddy and other Tea Party members. As chronicled in these pages unions have been fleecing state and local taxpayers for decades. Despite Wayne's good impression in the debate, I can't trust him to take on the unions. Further, Wayne seems to change his tune depending on his audience.

Which brings me, finally, to Lorie Zapf. She is a bit more combative than I might normally like in a local office holder, but these are tough times and she has done the hard work of starting her own business. Her heart is clearly in the right place, from her prior work with Californians against lawsuit abuse. I predict a run off between Zapf and Wayne, which is the CW. She needs to step up her debate game if she is going to win in November.

Fixing the Deficit.... With more debt

Democrats in the California State Assembly have a brilliant plan to avoid spending cuts and tax increases to close California's $19 billion budget deficit, borrow money! Dang, why didn't I think of that? Because when I'm in a hole, I don't keep digging. Here are the basics of this brilliant plan:

Perez's proposal was anchored by a nearly $9 billion loan from the state beverage recycling fund, along with borrowing from the state disability insurance fund. The state would repay the loans over several years, largely using a new tax Perez is proposing on companies that extract oil in California.

Under the plan by Perez, the state would get a one-time revenue of $8.9 billion from Wall Street by securitizing the California Beverage Recycling Fund for 20 years. The fund comes from recycling deposits collected on glass, aluminum and plastic beverage containers.

Securitizing? As in borrowing? So who is going to buy these bonds from a state that is theoretically bankrupt, because tax receipts don't cover ongoing programs? I'm just asking. There is also an increase in the "severance tax" for oil taken out of the ground in California. If oil prices collapse again, can we really count on this revenue?

This is the kind of creative accounting that got Greece to it's current state. Meanwhile the Democrat state Senate is proposing an additional $5 billion in taxes, largely from an extension in the "temporary" increase in vehicle license fees, and delaying corporate tax breaks. Neither Assembly nor Senate Democrats are proposing any reforms to pensions nor any real spending cuts. California is famously known for its Mediterranean climate, I guess in more ways than one.

Financial Reform That Isn't

Why am I not surprised that the financial reform bill fundamentally reforms nothing?

Judd Gregg unloaded on the bill:

“The bill is a disaster because it doesn’t address the fundamental underlining causes of the economic issue, which were real estate and underwriting,” he said. “This bill became, ‘I want to score the most points against Wall Street.’ Most of the initiative of this bill wasn’t directed at solving the problem, but it was directed at scoring political points."

As previously discussed in this blog, the ultimate issue is how the bill deals with to big too fail. The linked article claims that this bill gives the feds new powers and "authorizes regulators to impose restrictions on large, troubled financial institutions. It also creates a process for the government to liquidate failing companies at no cost to taxpayers." Color me skeptical, lacking supporting detail, given prior regulatory failure, and political incentives in the bill to turn banks into engines of social justice, I don't see any hope for change at all. I think things will get worse. Note that financial markets have reacted to this "reform" bill as a non-event, focusing on the collapse of socialism in Europe instead.

Meanwhile, gold is hovering near record highs against all major currencies, the traditional investor response to global instability. Debt caused by socialist and quasi-socialist policies is the common ingredient fueling loss of confidence world wide. The Democrats in Congress are doubling down on these failed policies like some compulsive gambler convinced that the next card turned over will be the ticket to a lifetime of riches.

The fight is not over on the final details. But the fundamental approach seems flawed, whether you prefer the House or the Senate version:

The firms would face tighter regulation, such as having to keep higher capital reserves. If they failed, certain creditors would be made whole to protect the financial system, but shareholders and unsecured creditors would bear losses and pay the costs of winding them down. It would create a $150 billion fund financed by large financial companies to pay for the dissolution of failing companies. The Senate version originally included a $50 billion fund, but that was removed after critics said it would encourage bailouts and possibly limit the government's ability to assess more fees on firms.

The problem with either version is that they either implicitly or explicitly guaranty to creditors of big firms that they will be bailed out by the feds. This perpetuates To Big Too Fail as follows. The surety provided by the feds to creditors lowers the cost of capital of the "too big" firms. This yields a competitive advantage to these firms that encourages them to just keep growing bigger and to take bigger risks. Ultimately the moral hazard of To Big Too Fail is not addressed. Creditors to large firms need to realize the same risks as any other creditor in the market place.

We need a law that explicitly prevents the federal government from bailing out more firms. To prevent contagion, we may need an orderly way to divest the assets are still performing, even as the holding firm is bankrupt. Part of the problem is that in the chaos of a massive bankruptcy, assets cannot be properly valued to allow creditors to receive a just portion of the divested assets. Slowing this process may be necessary, it prevents a form of fraud for you libertarians, but I remain adamantly opposed to my taxpayers ponying up to prop up this process.

This is why I oppose this so-called reform, even though it continues to be incrementally improved, it does nothing to fix the underlying issues behind this crisis, in fact, the consumer protection agency looks like a way to double down on Fannie and Freddie foolishness.

The Nationalist Ideal

Nationalism has come in for a bad name in the history books. Hitler, Mussolini, and Napoleon are excoriated for the death and destruction wreaked in the name of nationalism. One might understand the left's aversion to all things nationalistic, especially since it is often associated with ethnocentrism and national purity. Indeed, Obama could not bring himself to wholeheartedly endorse the concept of American exceptionalism by saying “I believe in American exceptionalism — just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Hardly a ringing endorsement. He betrays the leftist roots of his intellectual journey in that one remark. E. Thomas McClanahan cites numerous examples of how the left's aversion to identifying with the nation and its fight, indeed, feeling that they somehow operate in a moral plane above that of the nation results in euphemisms, because they can not bear to speak the words that show their heart is in the fight for our nation. Eric Holder can't admit that radical Islam is responsible for recent attacks. Janet Napolitano speaks of man-caused disasters not terrorism. In Obama's recent West Point speech, he trots out notions of collective security, lumping the war on whatever with global warming as a national security concern, except that he omits the word national.

As understandable as the left's instinctive aversion to nationalism might be, it is misplaced in the case of America. The notion of American nationalism is an ideal worth defending. We are a nation of nations, ironically enough, bound together not by the traditional fascist symbols of nationalism, race, ethnicity, or empire; but by ideals embodied in the greatest political documents ever written, the Declaration and the Constitution. The left sees our riches and feels guilt, assuming they are the result of plunder. In fact, they are the result of trade, invention and industry. We see historically that free societies that engage in trade were the richest. The ideals of individual liberty and responsibility, of tolerance for other religions, of democracy, of free markets have made this nation rich. These ideals, along with a belief in the supremacy of our armed forces' will to defend these ideals, form the basis of our nationalism. These are ideals worth defending. It is no coincidence that they are the very ideals for which we are attacked.

Abraham Lincoln laid out the meaning of the nation during the war he fought to save it.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

David Brooks Almost Gets It

David Brooks is a smart guy, but has a reputation of being a pseudo-conservative columnist. But he is still worth reading periodically because he can still provides occasionally brilliant insight. Consider this discussing a hypothetical and angry voter named Ben, who isn't tied to any political party (the whole article is worth a read):

For Ben, right and wrong is contained in the relationship between effort and reward. If people do not work but get rewarded, that’s wrong. If people work and do not get rewarded, that’s wrong. But Ben believed that America is fundamentally a just society. He loved his country because people who work hard can usually overcome whatever unfairness is thrust in their way.

But when Ben looked at Washington, he saw a political system that undermined the relationship between effort and reward. People in Washington spent money they didn’t have. They just borrowed it from the Chinese. People in Washington taxed those with responsible homes to bail out people who’d bought homes they couldn’t afford.

People in Congress were caught up in a spoils system in which money was taken from those who worked and given to those with connections. Money was taken from those who produced and used to bail out the reckless, who were supposedly too big to fail.

Brooks has captured the essence of the Tea Party with those paragraphs. But he can't bring himself to endorse the Tea Party itself after so eloquently portraying the dismay and disgust of average Americans for the current political mess. He somehow believes that sending Tea Party endorsed candidates to Washington will only exacerbate the current mess and that somehow, "centrists" who are passionate will solve the problem. What? In fact, only those who are passionate about the issues of debt and spending will make a dent and centrists, as well as liberals, have shown a deafness to those concerns over the years.

The passion is needed because there will always be pork barrel incentives. When people aren't paying attention to the big picture, they can be bribed with a few pieces of other people's money. But as the nation and electorate become more self-aware and mature, they realize that such a path is unsustainable. The result is a bi-partisan movement to reign the size of government, because it is its size that allows to be the affront to the values of Ben.

Updated Analysis on Employer-Sponsored Insurance

In a previous post, I opined that employers would not necessarily drop coverage of health insurance for employees despite weak mandates. I was responding to a column by W.C. who felt the weak mandates would have that result. I still think I am right, but not in the way I originally thought. It is very possible,even likely, that the structure of employment will be changed by Obmacare. John C. Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis has a very insightful piece in today's WSJ. What did I miss? I didn't understand the structure of the subsidies the government will pay lower wage earners to participate in the new exchanges.

The incentive become easier to understand, once you understand the subsidies. Bottom line:

In general, anyone with a family income of $80,000 or less will get a bigger subsidy in the exchange than the tax subsidy available at work.

The subsidies, explained in the previous post, have to do with the fact that no taxes are paid on the employer sponsored benefits. Given the subsidies under Obamacare, employers of people making less than the $80,000 are better off letting those folks go on the government exchange. However the law requires no discrimination in the offering of health coverage. So what's a profit seeking CEO to do? It makes very good sense for the bottom line to restructure the employment situation, so that workers at the lower end of the wage scale get outsourced as contractors to companies that do not provide the health insurance benefit.

Take a hotel with maids, waitresses, busboys and custodians all earning $10 or $15 an hour. These employees can qualify for completely free Medicaid coverage or highly subsidized insurance in the exchange.

So the ideal arrangement is for the hotel to fire the lower-paid employees—simply cutting their plans is not an option since federal law requires nondiscrimination in offering health benefits—and contract for their labor from firms that employ them but pay fines instead of providing health insurance. The hotel could then provide health insurance for all the remaining, higher-paid employees.

Ultimately, we could see a complete restructuring of American industry, with firms dissolving and emerging based on government subsidies.

BTW, I have a little experience with this personally. I am a manager in the federal government. A little over half of my work force consists of contractor employees. Many of them are in the very lowest paid, basic positions in my organization. This keeps my budget down, because I know that the contractor pays very little in the way of health benefits to its employees, especially when compared to the benefits paid by the federal government. It makes no sense to fill those positions with government employees. I find that as I move up the salary scale, the health and other benefits tend to equalize, but contractor profit starts to dominate. So for the middle tier employees, I have more of a government work force. Then at the high end, I find that I cannot pay some of the most experienced, technically qualified employees enough, because of government salary caps, so those employees tend to be contractors again.

Despite the Democrats supposed dedication to helping the lower wage earners, they are actually hurting them, because the government exchanges are unlikely to provide the quality of coverage that employers do. Ironically, the end result of Obamacare may be an exacerbation of a have vs. have-not situation.

Definitely read the whole article, there are also good points about emergency rooms and the shortage of doctors.

P.S.
W.C. also has some local dirt about what's going on at Qualcomm in response to Obmacare. Too many reports from corporate America are trickling not to believe that huge swaths of the public are going to lose their employer coverage.