Weekend Music Chill

This weekend's music is dedicated to those lucky hobos in Seattle, Washington who live in the bunks for drunks house. Before our music, let's set the mood with some excerpts from the article (H/T W.C. Varones):

The government-subsidized housing project in Seattle caters exclusively to 75 hard-core alcoholics who came from the streets and are allowed to keep drinking, snub treatment and still keep a roof over their head.
. . .
Seattle's 1811 Eastlake program, however, goes further. Not only is the building limited to extreme inebriates, but the building's staff also will go on booze runs for some residents and then methodically dole out the beer, wine, vodka and other preferred intoxicants like medicine.

Here's our music

How's That Stupak Deal Working Out?

I have a post tonight on Beers with Demo on the consequences of the Stupak deal on abortion funding in the Obamacare bill. Note to "blue dogs" in OH and PA, dudes, you've been Stupaked.

The Meaning of our Choice in November

On this coming election day, there is a choice between an inexperienced new comer to politics who has had some explaining to do about her past, including personal debt against a more experienced Democrat. (I'm not talking about the Delaware Senate campaign either.) The new comer, a Republican, has come out for reducing union pension costs and for competitive bidding on city services. The Democrat has shown a detailed understanding of the pension problem and the inner workings of city government, and has promised to also tackle the pension problem. However, he is backed by the very unions that are at the root of the problems and his votes in the state assembly supported legislation that was part of creating the pension problem in California.

Of course, I am talking the San Diego District 6 Council race between Lorie Zapf and Howard Wayne. We have to decide if we are willing to accept Howard Wayne's word that he opposes Proposition D and will work to force the city employees to increase their pension contribution share, despite his record and endorsements. Or will we go with Lorie Zapf, who has been consistent in her statements on competitive bidding and union clout, but has been slow to respond to allegations.

B-Daddy's position is that this is the year that we toss out the old politicians who have gotten us into this mess and bring in new people to reform the process. I welcome your comments on the matter.

Lorie Zapf Stopped By This Evening

I was starting to wonder what was happening with the Zapf campaign, but who should ring my doorbell but the candidate herself. Unlike when I saw her in the debates she was much more relaxed and personable in person. She had a young man in tow who I thought might be her son, but couldn't tell for sure. He had visited before, so this was a return visit.

Zapf, a slight woman full of energy, said she had been walking the district for about a year. She asked if I had concerns about the election. I introduced myself as the author of this blog and said that I had endorsed her. She asked what concerns I had about the election. I told her that her problems with mortgages had not been sufficiently rebutted, that basically I had not seen an adequate rebuttal. She said that her second mortgage on her home was being renegotiated and that it was a mistake for the bank to have issued the notice of default. She asserted that the bank has since wiped out any back fees owed since she got the new second. She also said that the issue in Las Vegas had to with her husband's real estate transaction on a short sale.

Honestly, she seemed believable, but I am nervous about the situation. Zapf looked at the young man accompanying her and they both agreed that there would be a statement on her web site soon. In my opinion, this very slow response is hurting her campaign. She pointed out that much of the negative press comes from the San Diego City Beat, which she said has been hostile to her candidacy. Candidates probably need to have blog sites, twitter, facebook and youtube accounts so that the can swiftly respond to mud-slinging by their opponents. Regardless, I look forward to reading more of her response.

I told her that my key issue was the pension mess. I pointed out that Howard Wayne seems to be the most knowledgeable candidate on the nuances of the issue, but I didn't trust him because of the union endorsements. She pointed out that Howard Wayne voted for the very pension increases that have gotten the state of California into budget trouble. Read a little about that here.

I am still convinced that I will vote for Lorie Zapf, but I am disappointed in the way her campaign has handled controversy. My make or break issue this year is the issue of pensions and who will be the most aggressive in dealing with the mess prior politicians have left us.

Coincidentally, Kim Tran endorsed Howard Wayne today over the very issue of pension reform among other reasons. You can read the whole article here:

Howard has given me his word that he is committed to revitalizing our communities by creating middle class jobs, restoring fire and police protection and repairing our streets. He is also committed to reforming the pension and reducing the budget deficit.

I interviewed Kim Tran last May and was very sympathetic to her candidacy. I think she is making the classic mistake of going on simple trust when Howard Wayne's endorsements and previous record indicate that he is the worst candidate on the pension issue. A possible motive for her endorsement?

Tran quit the San Diego County Republican Party’s central committee last month, calling the party leaders the committee “ineffective, unethical and tyrannical” and complaining that she was being targeted because she had refused to leave the race after the party endorsed Zapf.

I don't doubt that there are Republican committeeman that are ineffectual, as Kim states, but I am disappointed by her actions. Kim seems like she would feel at home with the Tea Party and we need more people like her on the inside of both Democrat and Republican organizations. I hope to see Kim active in politics in the future; but I hope that Zapf will win this race even more.

Furloughs Upheld

In some rare good news for taxpayers, the California Supreme Court ruling that furloughs for state employees are not a violation of the state constitution. (Some workers get every other Friday off as unpaid leave.) This will give Meg Whitman an opportunity to have some tough negotiations with the unions, because she will have a good hand. She can threaten more furloughs if the unions aren't reasonable over salaries. If Jerry Brown is elected, forgot about it.

From the U-T article:

The latest furlough order exempts departments that collect revenue, such as the Franchise Tax Board, and provide public safety protection, including the California Highway Patrol.

It also exempts about 37,000 workers in six unions that recently reached tentative labor agreements with the Schwarzenegger administration. Those unions agreed for their members to contribute more of their salaries toward their pension benefits and to take one day of unpaid personal leave a month, the equivalent of a nearly 5 percent pay cut.

Is there any doubt that those concessions would not have been won without the furloughs?

I have been thinking about how to deal with the pension issue for a while. Couldn't the state negotiate new agreements with current employees to immediately reduce the burden of pensions on the state budget? Of course they could, but what about negotiations over pensions earned in the past for employees who have not yet retired, could a retroactive change be lawful if their union agreed to it?

Satirical Logo of the Month - At Least

Over at LCR I saw the best satirical logo of the month, in an article on Objectivism by Les Carpenter of Rational Nation USA. Here it is:

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.

Question of the Day

The Tea Party worked hard to purge racists from its ranks. So why it is acceptable for the left to include the Communist Party in their weekend "One Nation" rally? There was a time in this country when labor unions purged communists from their ranks.



BTW, Left Coast Rebel, Temple of Mut, and Shane Atwell have some great coverage contrasting the One Nation Rally with Glenn Beck's August event.

Took Only One Day

Yesterday I predicted that the new California budget would stink. If rumor is to be believed, I was wrong, it stinks to high heave. W.C. beats me to the scoop with this great synopsis:

Step 1: Assume robust revenue growth.

Step 2: Assume huge federal bailout.

Step 3: Sell off state assets to plug this year's budget, and don't worry about the fact that you'll increase future deficits by having to lease back those same assets.

Proof that no serious budget cutting will be forthcoming comes from the AP article:

Democrats said they were able to minimize cuts to schools, child care, welfare and other social programs, without giving details even to rank-and-file lawmakers who were briefed during conference calls Friday and Saturday.

So we aren't cutting back on any of the big ticket items that load up the budget. It's just a matter of time before the state defaults on some debt. The only good news is that both sides appear to acknowledge that pensions are a big part of the problem.

Both sides claimed victory on one of the biggest sticking points: pension reform.

Democrats expect the Republican governor to complete negotiations within days to win pension concessions from Service Employees International Union Local 1000.

The 95,000-member local represents nine of the 15 state bargaining units that lack a contract. If it agrees to benefit rollbacks, Democrats expect the remaining bargaining units to go along.

Once they do, Democrats could meet Schwarzenegger's demand that they repeal an 11-year-old law that authorized increases in public employee benefits.

The above paragraphs are all speculation, so I don't expect results soon, but at least there is an acknowledgment of the biggest problem.

Decriminalization of Marijuana

By now, you are probably aware that Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill to decriminalize marijuana possession of less than an ounce. While I support the measure, I have to ask, why in the heck is this a legislative priority a vastly overdue budget and a state struggling with a ballooning pension problem? Some other fabulousness from your state legislature you may have missed, while they were busy not passing a budget. (Much like the Federal congress, and both institutions have heavy Democrat majorities, hmmm.) Some examples from the WSJ:

• A bill that would ban filming cows in New Zealand.
• A long debate over whether to save "serpentine" as the state rock.
• Motorcycle Awareness Month.
• Cuss free week. (I shit you not).
• Finally, and without any sense of irony, April was Financial Aid and Literacy Month.

Rumor is out there that a budget deal has been reached, but it is being kept secret. Easy to predict that it will stink, use gimmicks to close the budget gap and kick long term problems down the road where they will only get worse. I got five bucks on this, any takers?

Quote of the Week

Comes from Peggy Noonan, talking about the fissures in both parties, but especially the Democrats. She opines that the Democrats are going way negative, as predicted, but it will have little impact:

The primary reason is the severity of the moment. But another is that negative ads worked so well in the past. For a generation, the American people have been told their politicians are lowlifes. You know what they now think of them? They think they're lowlifes! People don't really expect high character from their political figures anymore. "Congressman Smith cheated on his wife." That's her problem. Cut my taxes.

Weekend Music Chill

In honor of Dean's road trip and a shout out to my sister, her husband and two of the cutest nieces in the world, here is John Denver extolling the virtues of Colorado.




Mrs. Daddy and I need to get out there too.

Blog Post of the Week

Shane Atwell blogs about the truly scary Cass Sunstein, Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. If his job title doesn't scare you, you should listen to his views on the First Amendment and Free Speech. Shane's article is worth a read as he points out that Sunstein is advocating that free speech be regulated for the "common good," that bloggers should have to link to "opposing views" whatever they are, and that government agents should be lurkers and trolls on internet sites. Amazing.

BTW, I've added Shane's blog to my favorites at the right.

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.

Following Up on the Pledge

A legitimate criticism of the the Pledge to America is that it doesn't get specific about how to slash the size of government, except for repealing the stimulus and Obamacare (not bad starts, however). Reason magazine steps into the fray with this month's issue appropriately titled "How to Slash Government Before It Slashes You." If Republicans are too get serious about governing they need to look at some of the best ideas (my picks, there were many more, so go subscribe already):

1. Reform Medicaid by changing the funding from a matching grant to a block grant. Matching funding encourages the states to just spend more, rather than getting costs under control.
   
2. Reduce federal education spending back to 2001 levels. The federal government doesn't educate a single child, but the Education budget has risen 80% in the last decade.
3. Switch to defined contributions pensions at the federal, state and local level. (This has been partially accomplshed at the federal level.) It won't solve the immediate issue, but the shift will pay long term benefits to both employees and taxpayers. (Meg Whitman has proposed this, I may vote for her yet.)
4. End Davis-Bacon "prevailing wage" laws. The requirement was originally a racist attempt to deny blacks jobs on federal projects, its impact is to increase the cost of all federal contracts to the benefit of union shops.
5. Bust up Fannie and Freddie. Because these agencies operate with the backing of the Federal Reserve, as well as the Treasury, they will continue to be a drain on the economy. Like a compulsive gambler with a trust fund, they will always take on excess risk and leave you, the taxpayer, stuck with the bill.
   
6. Just start cutting. In the 1990s, Canada, under a Liberal government even, mandate actual cuts in the size of government to deal with a ballooning deficit. The key was a concerted campaign by the Prime Minister to convince the public of the need for cuts. This might have to wait until after Obama is defeated in 2012, but it can be done.

I would like to add my own:
Reduce regulation and then fire regulators. Not only will this save money, but it will grow the economy as businesses are unburdened from the overwhelming number of new regulation that has piled up over twenty years.

There, the GOP needs to take a look at some of these ideas and get ready to govern. They better cut spending, or they will find themselves with primary challenges again. The Tea Party has shown its clout, time to use it for the good of the Republic.

Defunding Obamacare - Thin Slicing the Budget

Republicans have promised to defund Obamacare if they take control of both Houses of Congress. This is a worthy goal but tricky. On the left, they think that the inability to override a veto by Obama will prevent this from taking place. From Donny Shaw at OpenCongress as quoted by Rick Ungar at Forbes:

A Republican-led Congress would send Obama an appropriations bill minus the money for enacting the health care law and dare him to veto it. If he vetoes it, no funds are appropriated and unless Congress folds and sends it back with the health care money included, funding for the government would start to run out. Most of the health care funding would be contained in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, which funds a lot of the programs that get the most use, like public schools, low-income heating assistance, unemployment insurance, job training, and public broadcasting, so it would be a very high-stakes game.

Republicans who have long memories remember how Clinton used the government shut down after the 1994 elections to bludgeon the Republicans over budget cuts. At the time and now I believe there is another way.

By custom spending bills originate in the House, Republicans have an easy means to shape the debate, but it takes work. There is constitutionally no limit to how many appropriations bills can be submitted, even though traditionally the appropriations bills accrue to the thirteen "substantive" committees. To avoid the government shutdown, there is no reason the Republicans can't fund a portion of the Department of HHS budget that doesn't involve enforcing Obamacare. This will take extra work on their part, but is worth the effort, because it puts Obama in the awkward position of having to veto a bill because of what it does not contain.

Republicans need to think this through ahead of time or they will stand accused of not keeping their campaign promises. Getting ready to govern is hard work. Is our man up to it?

Aussie Rules Football

Light blogging as I am exhausted from watching AFL Grand Final last night, one of the most exciting sporting events I have ever witnessed. It was right up there with this year's Lakers-Celtics game 7. Big difference, the NBA finals wouldn't end in a draw, details at my other blog.

Department of Injustice - Racially Discriminating Enforcement (More Material)

For some time, Dean has been campaigning for a special wing in the Political Hall of Shame for Eric Holder and his so called Justice Department. Today, we have sworn testimony before the Civil Rights Commission by a senior attorney in the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, Christopher Coates, that Obama appointees were and are actively hostile to a race neutral interpretation of the nation's voting rights laws. You can read the whole testimony at Pajamas Media, but here are some highlights. A little background is in order, first. Essentially, Coates investigated Ike Brown in Noxubee County, MS for systematically violating the rights of white voters in Democrat primaries. Complaints first aired in 2003 eventually resulted in a civil injunction against Mr. Brown and his cronies to prevent further harassment of white voters and candidates. Outright hostility to the decision to take legal action by career attorneys as well as outside pressure groups made this case a particularly good precedent, showing that the government was committed to race neutral enforcement of the law. However, after Obama's election and the appointment of Holder as Attorney General things changed. Coates testimony follows:

When I became Chief of the Voting Section in 2008 and because I had experienced, as I have described, employees in the Voting Section refusing to work on the Ike Brown case, I began to ask applicants for trial attorney positions in their job interviews whether they would be willing work on cases that involved claims of racial discrimination against white voters, as well as cases that involved claims of discrimination against minority voters.
. . .
However, word that I was asking applicants that question got back to Loretta King. In the spring of 2009, Ms. King, who had by then been appointed Acting AAG for Civil Rights by the Obama Administration, called me to her office and specifically instructed me that I was not to ask any other applicants whether they would be willing to, in effect, race-neutrally enforce the VRA. Ms. King took offense that I was asking such a question of job applicants and directed me not to ask it because she does not support equal enforcement of the provisions of the VRA and had been highly critical of the filing and prosecution of the Ike Brown case.

The election of President Obama brought to positions of influence and power within the CRD [Civil Rights Division] many of the very people who had demonstrated hostility to the concept of equal enforcement of the VRA [Voting Rights Act].

I think this testimony speaks for itself. We have elected an administration that feels free to follow a policy of racial discrimination. Only oversight by the opposition party controlling the Congress will prevent further abuse.

More Material

RightKlik, at fellow SLOB blog Left Coast Rebel, has additional material and commentary and ties in that clown Colbert.

Weekend Music Chill

I chose this weekend's music just because I'm in a nasty mood, disgruntled with Republican Senators who won't strip Murkowski of her position and who seemingly would rather be a minority party than get behind the principles of the Tea Party and whole-heatedly support our candidates. Message to the Republican Political Class, if you don't get with the founding principles of your party and of the Republic, we're coming after you. To quote Pops, "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you." Yeah, we're out to get you.

Pledge to America - Some Conservative Blowback - UPDATE

I noticed a smattering of blowback from the right against the "Pledge to America" unveiled by the Republicans. I think Greta Van Susteren asked the toughest question on her Fox News show, when she asked Paul Ryan "Why isn't there a pledge against earmarks?" I thought that was a great question and Ryan's answer of essentially, "trust us" doesn't really cut it.

Another commenter that I respect, Eric Erickson at RedState has this to say:

The plan wants to put “government on the path to a balanced budget” without doing anything substantive. There is a promise to “immediately reduce spending” by cutting off stimulus funds. Wow. Exciting.

I thought that was a little harsh. The pledge includes a roll back of the stimulus and Obamacare, as well as rolling back federal spending to 2008 levels. Not intellectually challenging perhaps, but necessary first steps.

Richard Viguerie of ConservativeHQ and direct mail mastermind from the 1980's had this to say in an email to me (how BDaddy got on his email list, I don't know.):

This new promise is mostly about Republicans promising not to do things they relished doing in the last decade. But if the GOP does not push hard in the new Congress to return America to small, constitutional government, expect most Republican incumbents to be seriously challenged by Tea Party candidates in 2012.

Agreed, but again, it is still a step in the right direction. Glenn Beck makes the same point right now his TV show, by saying that returning to 2008 spending levels is insufficiently bold. Viguerie goes on to say the document is a good first step.

Was this the year to be even bolder with this pledge? Would the Democrats attacks have been more vicious or less? Who cares? As a way to change the debate, I think the document is almost brilliant. It focuses on the real issues, even if it doesn't have too many specifics. It keeps the focus on the right issues, for the most part, and puts the left on its heels.

Michele Malkin is among those on the right who liked the pledge.

Left Coast Rebel links to a pretty decent set of proposals, that unfortunately might be construed as too radical right now from Doug Ross. Don't get me wrong, he has great ideas, but I question if we have sufficiently changed the terms of the debate for a major party to issue a manifesto like his.

• We will repeal the Democrat health care bill and, if vetoed by the President, will de-fund every aspect of that bill until such time as the American people have input into a sensible health care reform process.
• We will slash the size of the federal government bureaucracies (Commerce, Education, Energy, the EPA, Labor, etc.) by 20% in 2011 with a goal of reducing each by 50% over the next three years, thereby saving hundreds of billions of dollars.
• We will secure the border with physical fencing suitable to repel drug smugglers, human smugglers, and terrorists, while encouraging legal immigration and enforcement of the law.
• We will confront the entitlement crisis -- Social Security and Medicare -- by preserving benefits for those who depend upon them and moving to privatized options for younger workers. Anything less condemns future generations to mountains of debt and economic catastrophe.
• We will strengthen our armed forces, space and missile defense programs to retain our unparalleled superpower status.
• We will begin the process of paying down our debts, spending within our means every year.
• We will ban public sector unions, which exist solely to wage war against the taxpayers who fund their operations.

UPDATE

Jonah Goldberg hopped on my bandwagon and reviewed the conservative reaction to The Pledge albeit much more eloquently than me. If you thought this article was worthwhile you ought to give his round up a read as well, to put some perspective on the whole effort.

Bottom line, I think Republicans can look forward to crushing the Democrats this fall and the Pledge will be somewhat helpful in both doing so and in claiming a policy mandate.