Why Government Doesn't Work

Consider this little gem. The White House is directing the all federal agencies to increase diversity in human capital or something. Tell me if you can figure it out.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

ESTABLISHING A COORDINATED GOVERNMENT-WIDE INITIATIVE TO PROMOTE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote the Federal workplace as a model of equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Our Nation derives strength from the diversity of its population and from its commitment to equal opportunity for all. We are at our best when we draw on the talents of all parts of our society, and our greatest accomplishments are achieved when diverse perspectives are brought to bear to overcome our greatest challenges.

A commitment to equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion is critical for the Federal Government as an employer. By law, the Federal Government's recruitment policies should "endeavor to achieve a work force from all segments of society." (5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(1)). As the Nation's largest employer, the Federal Government has a special obligation to lead by example. Attaining a diverse, qualified workforce is one of the cornerstones of the merit-based civil service.

Prior Executive Orders, including but not limited to those listed below, have taken a number of steps to address the leadership role and obligations of the Federal Government as an employer. For example, Executive Order 13171 of October 12, 2000 (Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government), directed executive departments and agencies to implement programs for recruitment and career development of Hispanic employees and established a mechanism for identifying best practices in doing so. Executive Order 13518 of November 9, 2009 (Employment of Veterans in the Federal Government), required the establishment of a Veterans Employment Initiative. Executive Order 13548 of July 26, 2010 (Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with Disabilities), and its related predecessors, Executive Order 13163 of July 26, 2000 (Increasing the Opportunity for Individuals With Disabilities to be Employed in the Federal Government), and Executive Order 13078 of March 13, 1998 (Increasing Employment of Adults With Disabilities), sought to tap the skills of the millions of Americans living with disabilities.

To realize more fully the goal of using the talents of all segments of society, the Federal Government must continue to challenge itself to enhance its ability to recruit, hire, promote, and retain a more diverse workforce. Further, the Federal Government must create a culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility, and fairness to enable individuals to participate to their full potential.

Wherever possible, the Federal Government must also seek to consolidate compliance efforts established through related or overlapping statutory mandates, directions from Executive Orders, and regulatory requirements. By this order, I am directing executive departments and agencies (agencies) to develop and implement a more comprehensive, integrated, and strategic focus on diversity and inclusion as a key component of their human resources strategies. This approach should include a continuing effort to identify and adopt best practices, implemented in an integrated manner, to promote diversity and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity, consistent with merit system principles and applicable law.

Sec. 2. Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Initiative and Strategic Plan. The Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in coordination with the President's Management Council (PMC) and the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), shall:

(a) establish a coordinated Government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the Federal workforce;

(b) within 90 days of the date of this order:

(i) develop and issue a Government-wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan (Government-wide Plan), to be updated as appropriate and at a minimum every 4 years, focusing on workforce diversity, workplace inclusion, and agency accountability and leadership. The Government-wide Plan shall highlight comprehensive strategies for agencies to identify and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity that may exist in the Federal Government's recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional development, and training policies and practices;

(ii) review applicable directives to agencies related to the development or submission of agency human capital and other workforce plans and reports in connection with recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional development, and training policies and practices, and develop a strategy for consolidating such agency plans and reports where appropriate and permitted by law; and

(iii) provide guidance to agencies concerning formulation of agency-specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plans prepared pursuant to section 3(b) of this order;

(c) identify appropriate practices to improve the effectiveness of each agency's efforts to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and train a diverse and inclusive workforce, consistent with merit system principles and applicable law; and

(d) establish a system for reporting regularly on agencies' progress in implementing their agency-specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plans and in meeting the objectives of this order.

Sec. 3. Responsibilities of Executive Departments and Agencies. All agencies shall implement the Government-wide Plan prepared pursuant to section 2 of this order, and such other related guidance as issued from time to time by the Director of OPM and Deputy Director for Management of OMB. In addition, the head of each executive department and agency referred to under subsections (1) and (2) of section 901(b) of title 31, United States Code, shall:

(a) designate the agency's Chief Human Capital Officer to be responsible for enhancing employment and promotion opportunities within the agency, in collaboration with the agency's Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and Director of Diversity and Inclusion, if any, and consistent with law and merit system principles, including development and implementation of the agency-specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan;

(b) within 120 days of the issuance of the Government-wide Plan or its update under section 2(b)(i) of this order, develop and submit for review to the Director of OPM and the Deputy Director for Management of OMB an agency-specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan for recruiting, hiring, training, developing, advancing, promoting, and retaining a diverse workforce consistent with applicable law, the Government-wide Plan, merit system principles, the agency's overall strategic plan, its human capital plan prepared pursuant to Part 250 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and other applicable workforce planning strategies and initiatives;

(c) implement the agency-specific Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan after incorporating it into the agency's human capital plan; and

(d) provide information as specified in the reporting requirements developed under section 2(d).

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted to a department or agency or the head thereof, including the authority granted to EEOC by other Executive Orders (including Executive Order 12067) or any agency's authority to establish an independent Diversity and Inclusion Office; or

(ii) functions of the Director of OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 18, 2011.

So what impact will this really have, except to divert resources to filling out bully quotas. I especially love the caveats where no law is to be changed. Since the federal government's hiring processes are very tightly controlled by law, this order changes squat. Further, it doesn't allow agencies to really do anything that differently because they must live within "availability of appropriations." All that will happen is that management attention will be taken away from pressing issues to show the appearance of compliance.

Sorry to bore my readers, but sometimes its worthwhile looking closely at the sausage of government rule making to reinforce our conclusion that government should be in charge of as little as possible.

Programming Note

What's up with the Obama ads on The Liberator Today? I noticed them this morning after I updated a post. Some of my fellow SLOBs had said that they had received form letters (emails?) from Google saying that their blogs did not meet Google's standards for adverts. I decided to click the monetize function on blogger to see what would happen. I honestly didn't think I would qualify either, but somebody must be asleep at the switch at Gulagoogle, I'm in. I have seen a lot of chatter as to how Twitter, Facebook and Google attempt to steer a progressive narrative in subtle ways and often overtly. (See the disappearance of #attackwatch from Twitter trends as an example of social(ist) media influence.) So I wonder why my blog is "under the radar?"

I am not allowed to click the ads myself under the terms of my agreement with Google, so if you are a reader who has a sincere interest in those ads and clicks one of them, let me know what happens in the comments.

Pension Reform Qualifies for San Diego Ballot

This is no longer news, but nevertheless important. Carl DeMaio announced that the pension reform initiative had over 145,000 signatures, with 93,346 needed to qualify. It appears likely that the initiative will qualify for the ballot. The furious counterattack by labor on even allowing a vote on the measure has been curious. Clearly they see a huge threat in this initiative. The left of center OBRAG had this to say:

The proposed initiative would eliminate pensions for all new city hires except police officers and replace them with a 401(k)-type plan. It also includes a five-year salary freeze on the pensionable pay of current workers and a cap on future police pensions, among other things. City workers would not be eligible for Social Security under the plan.

The proposal is strongly opposed by organized labor, who characterize the plan as a punitive measure that places the solution to the city’s fiscal crisis unfairly on workers. Labor groups went so far as to send volunteers to popular canvassing locations to argue their point of view after receiving reports of petition gatherers making significant misrepresentations about the petition that they were asking people to sign.

A fair characterization, no doubt. OBRAG also asked a question that perplexed me.

Even though supporters of the ballot measure have known for several weeks that they’d passed the threshold for needed signatures, the campaign has continued using a “we’re desperate” meme. Why? It turns out that signers information was being shared with the DeMaio Mayoral campaign. It’s probably illegal, but unlikely that the consequences will outweigh the benefits.

I'm not sure I believe that, but I'd like to hear from DeMaio and the organizers as to why the tone of desperation. I went so far as to predict rough sailing, based on my reading of DeMaio's Facebook posts.

Meanwhile, the arguments against placing the initiative on the ballot by San Diego City Beat were that it would pass if it got on the ballot. From the comments.

Bob, I think you missed a key part of the article. See the end of the first paragraph. If the measure makes the ballot, it'll pass, because it's a complex issue for the average voter to process. There are a number of misleading statements being made by the pro CPR folks. We think the debate needs to happen now.

Bradley Fikes responded on sdrostra.

The CityBeat interpretation is that that the pension reform measure will pass if it qualifies for the ballot because it’s too complicated for voters to understand. (A nice way of saying the voters are stupid and gullible).

Comments and articles from both sides of the issue make me believe that even if the initiative qualifies, there will be millions more spent by both sides. There will also be some carping about how expensive and unseemly all the spending is. Too quote Dean, "Democracy is, like, hard."

Ultimately, the question is whether 401(k) pensions are fair. The left's argument is that just because you as a private sector worker have a pension subject to the vagaries of the stock market, it doesn't mean you should make government employees suffer that injustice. Some flaws in this thinking:

• 401(k) plans don't have to invest in the stock market. My own plan is only in the market 65%.
• The new generation entering the work force will learn out how to handle this, in fact they already are. My 22 year old son has a 401(k) as well. We have discussed dollar cost averaging and sector averaging and balancing a portfolio. I have faith in their ability and intelligence. I wish I had thought to start investing at that age.
• Workers will own their own pensions, and won't be dependent on politicians and union bosses to ensure that they receive pensions promised.
• Over the course of twenty years, investing in a broad basket of stocks will produce safety and high yield. The market performance of the last few years is part of the normal up and downs.

Look at this graph from visualizingeconomics.com


Most 401(k) plans have the investor re-invest dividends. There isn't a 20 year period when you would lose money when re-investing dividends.

So why do the unions and left oppose? They fear the loss of power, because the average employee won't need them anymore.

Of Course They Are

Democrats push tax hikes first in deficit talks

Or so says the Reuters headline. More "dog bites man" stuff, as discussed previously. But it appears that the Democrats haven't demanded that the tax rises be front loaded, only that they be discussed first.

To reiterate, the Republicans should say, "Sure, phase out all deductions starting in 2016 and lower marginal rates somewhat while were at it. Vastly simplify the tax code. This will increase taxes on the rich, just like you want. Now can we discuss some budget cuts to take immediate effect and agree on some entitlement reform while were at it? Because we're only going to accept $1 in tax increases if there is a matching $3 in spending reduction." After the Republicans blow out the Democrats in 2012, because there will be punishment for their handling of the economy, then keep the simplification and lower the rates further.

Republicans shouldn't be idiots, they could easily turn these negotiations to their advantage. This could be a teachable moment after all.

Weekend Music Chill

It's Collingwood vs Geelong tonight for the Grand Final championship of the AFL. The Magpies (Collingwood) are the defending champs and finished the ladder with the best record, recording only two losses. Unfortunately, they were both to the Cats (Geelong) who were the class of the league for a few years, winning the Premiership in 2007 and 2009. We are Collingwood fans, by dint of association with Mrs. Daddy's Aussie relations. This is Mick Malthouse' (what a great name) last game, so it is sure to be emotional.

Here is a little inspirational music for tonight's match (this afternoon, if you are reading down under.)




Here is the full version of the song, which gets cut off in the preceding video.



Game is on ESPN2 with a scheduled start time of 9:30 p.m. PDT.

Farewell Mick, win or lose, you done us proud.

Rufus the Hipster Dufus and the Donation Deadline

I received this fundraising email today from Rufus, purportedly fundraising director for Organizing for America.

Friend --

I'm the national finance director here at OFA.

I know we've been sending you a lot of email lately. That's because we're staring down a critical fundraising deadline tomorrow at midnight.

You know what that means for your inbox, but let me give you a sense of what that looks like around here.

The staff and I are working around the clock, powered by too much coffee. It's been way too long since we called our moms. And we've all had more pizza and bad takeout in the past few weeks than anyone should have in a year.

No one's complaining; that's what we signed up for. And we're not doing this just because it's our job to make sure the campaign has the resources it needs. We're doing this because it's part of what defines this movement.

From the beginning, we've refused to take money from D.C. lobbyists and corporate special interests. Our operation is fueled by people inspiring each other to take ownership of this campaign.

That's why we've been emailing this week, and that's why I'm obligated to remind you once more that the deadline is coming up in a matter of hours.

If you're able to, will you chip in just $3 today?

For all of us here at HQ, and all of the staff and volunteers across the country counting on these resources, I really appreciate your help.

Rufus

So why the fake deadline and the continued spam bombarding my inbox, to which Rufus freely admits? He freely admits there is a deadline, but just doesn't tell us what is the nature of the deadline. Turns out, it is the end of quarter reporting required by the FEC and the campaign wants to make a big show of all the little donations to Obama. So they are basically bribing people with a lottery to donate so the campaign looks like a "grassroots" movement. Professor Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection nails it:

But it does seem desperate, bring as many people in for $5 then spin the results even if the dollars are below expectations. An alternative theory being advanced is that Obama has done so well with big donors, the campaign is afraid of the image.

Later Jacobsen warns people that the raffle price will drop to $3, so don't go for the $5 ticket.

The $5 doesn’t go to the government to help pay down debt, it goes to Obama’s campaign. It’s a way to gin up the “small donor” and total donor numbers, and as before, it comes just before the end of a quarterly reporting period.

But I have a warning to those considering paying $5 for the chance.

Hold out until the final days.

And you will get it for $3. Plus a Slurpee.

But back to Rufus, note as well the whole breathless, were just a bunch of college hipster dufuses partying for Obama. Didn't call his mommy? Too much pizza? Oh my. Is there a computer program that generates these things to appear to be from a certain, shall we say demographic. (No offense, Dean to your blog's title.) I was looking for a picture of Rufus, but this will have to do.


No wait, here is the actual picture, and a little information about our intrepid fundraiser.



Banker's son mines gold for Obama

CHICAGO - By his own account, Rufus Gifford’s early life was everything you would expect of the son of a patrician New England banker. Privileged North Shore upbringing. Elite schools. In the summer, tennis on Nantucket.

But things shifted for the third child of Chad Gifford, who ran some of Boston’s biggest financial institutions, after Father’s Day weekend in 1993, when his family discovered he was gay. Rufus Gifford says now that coming out to his parents allowed him to pursue a less traditional path, launching him toward California and ensuring that he would never wear the starched shirts and gray business suits of his father.

. . .

Now he spends much of his time in a Chicago office tower, home to Obama campaign headquarters. The president’s reelection hinges in substantial part on Gifford’s ability to persuade a big slice of American industry - from Wall Street’s players to Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurs - to pour as much as $1 billion into the coffers for what is expected to be the most expensive campaign in history. Obama set the record in 2008 when he raised $745 million.

The Wimpy Way to Deficit Reduction

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today," Wimpy of Popeye fame is often quoted as saying. The implication of course, was that Wimpy was never going to come up with the cash on Tuesday. With the Gang of Twelve meeting the last two days, but apparently having no comment on their actual discussions, Rodger Hedgecock helpfully summarized things today. The Democrats will offer three dollars of future spending cuts for a dollar of tax increases today. The Republicans will be split between this "bipartisanship" approach and those who want to stand firm on any tax rises. It reminded me of Wimpy's proposition. Rodger reminded us that this is the standard Democratic trick, used against George H.W. Bush when he reneged on his "no new taxes" pledge. The spending cuts never come.

But why can't the Republicans reverse this game. We'll give you a dollar in tax rises tomorrow for three dollars of spending cuts today. Now Grover Norquist might start screaming that we shouldn't vote for any tax increases, ever. But he needs to understand my methods. First, as a matter of good politics, if we don't at least promise modest tax rises to pay for the coming spending cuts, then we will lose the political battle. The Economist makes this argument persuasively in this week's leader. Second, this presents an opportunity to reform the tax code. We should back load a phase out of all deductions and all of the other special goodies in the tax code. We should offset some of the increased revenue with lower marginal tax rates, which would be permanent. Third, if spending cuts and entitlement reforms produce the economic recovery that I expect, we can later vote for even lower marginal rates, in effect cancelling the tax hikes. Finally, we can argue that tax hikes now would harm the economy, so they have to be back loaded.

I have always believed that no tax hikes are needed to balance the budget. But sometimes the packaging is very important in selling the plan. Phasing out the deductions after giving people warning is a fair way to reform the tax code and reduce cronyism. Further, if we calculated decreases in the marginal rates that were exactly offset by the phase out of deductions in a static analysis, it would actually result in revenue growth for two reasons. First, the inefficiencies that are caused by hiding income would be wrung out of the system, resulting in greater growth than static analysis would predict. Second, because people would not have ingenious means of hiding income, but marginal rates were actually lower, reported income would rise.

The deficit commission can easily achieve the $1.2 trillion in cuts over ten years if such an approach were taken. The hard part would be to get the Democrats to go along, but I think the public would like it.

Palin Not Running? Enthusiasm Gap for the Field

HotAir is speculating that Sarah Palin will not be running for President. They cite this clip during an interview with Greta Van Susteren as evidence.



After listening to what Sarah Palin says, I am inclined to agree. I also agree with Palin's seeming self-assessment that she can be more effective as an activist, although she didn't speak in the first person.

I am struck by who is not running in the Republican field, Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Sarah Palin. It seems that each of these potential candidates has a cache of highly enthusiastic supporters that none of the current crop, Ron Paul excepted seems to bring to the race. The good news is that Republican voters tend to be grown-ups about these choices and are less likely to fall in love with a candidate who is all show and no dough like the incumbent. The bad news is that this will leave the tea party movement split, whose energy will be needed to unseat Obama. Further, since the eventual nominee is unlikely to please the tea party to the extent that Palin might have, the movement may suffer a loss of enthusiasm for participation in the political process. The other bit of bad news is that Republicans have shown a certain trend over the last 20 years. Two Bushes, McCain, and Dole all have that "I'm a conservative, but maybe not one to limit government growth and interference in the markets when it suits my purposes" quality. Right now my low bar is the nominee who will:

1. Beat Obama.


2. Sign the Obamacare repeal.


3. Deal with entitlements in a common sense manner.


4. Keep a lid on other spending.

I'd like to add secure the border and a bunch of other tests, but frankly we need to keep focused on the core issues of our coalition that are a threat to the nation.

This is why I think it is wise of the SCTRC to not endorse candidates. By influencing the course of the debate, we can shape the process better than through a cult of personality. Further, we need to keep in mind that the assault on the constitution by the progressive movement has been going on for over 100 years. To think that two years of effort will result in a permanent roll back is naive, and something I would expect out of leftist rank and file. (They are apparently disenchanted with Obama, but you know how they will vote.) We probably need over a generation's worth of effort to make significant in roads. I am personally in this for my as yet to be born grandkids, (here that boys?), so please don't take the 2012 election as the end of the road, regardless of the outcome.

Christie Taking Questions at Reagan Library

I saw a tweet from W.C. Varones that Chris Christie was speaking at the Reagan Library and that it was being live cast. I tuned in at the end of his prepare remarks to hear him say that we need straight talking leadership to solve our problems. He then took some questions.

He was asked his position on dealing with the problem of educating illegal immigrants. He called for secure borders. He also spoke against in state tuition for children of illegals. In a swipe at Perry he said its not heartless to not subsidize tuition at the in-state level for children of illegal immigrants.

The second question was about him running for President. He joked that the audience wasn't up to standards, since it took two questions to get there. He pointed out the Politico web site on running for President. It seems pretty clear he won't run. Dawn will be happy, W.C. not so much.

The third question was on how to fix federal entitlements; how to wean people off. He responded that in New Jersey, the equivalent are public sector pensions and health care, which were $122 billion under funded when he took office. "I put out a specific plan, not 'I propose to reduce these expenses and if I can come together with the other side, I'll let you know what my proposal is.'" He said that he provided specific details of making employees pay into these pensions and took away COLAs until the shortfall was made up. New Jersey firefighters were unhappy, and he went to their convention, with 4000 of them. "I didn't get the reception you all gave me tonight." There were lots of boos. Christie told the "I understand feel scared, angry and betrayed." Every governor before had made promises to increase their pensions, but had not funded the increases. "Why are you booing the first guy who came in here and told you the truth." His basic argument was that these promises were empty, but he is making good on them by facing the facts of the situation.

The truth is that medicare, medicaid and social security to a lesser extent, are draining the treasury. Christie said the common sense solution is to reduce benefits, means test, and get people who don't need it to stop taking it so that we can give to those who need it. To which I add, amen. The problem is that every time a candidate says anything real about the subject they get vilified, so they re-think their position. It will take real leadership on this issue to fix it. "Real leaders don't read polls they change polls." This is what draws me to Christie. He is telling the truth about the really big issues that we in the Tea Party have said is the crisis facing America, namely the deluge of debt due to the orgy of spending, including unsustainable entitlements.

Two people implored him to run for President. The second woman was particularly impassioned. "We can't wait until 2016." She literally pleaded for him to run for President, saying to Christie that you're country needs you to run for President. This got lots of applause.

His response, not verbatim, was, "I'm just a kid from Jersey who feels like I'm the luckiest guy in the world to be governor of my state. Anyone who has an ego enormous enough to say please stop asking me to be leader of the free world is incredible. So I am flattered at your request and it is not a problem for me. But your heartfelt request isn't reason enough for me to run. That has to come from inside, and that feeling is not inside of me. Even though I did not meet President Ronald Reagan, he must have felt that he was uniquely called to his moment in history. I don't have that feeling."

My final thought; only a man who feels like this should be President. All the guys with egos that outstrip their talent shouldn't be in the field. Unfortunately this is all mooted by the fact that he isn't running.

San Diego Taxpayers vs Leftists and Unions - UPDATE

Lots of local political news in San Diego today, revolving around the struggle to reign in the cost of local government, much of it involving Carl DeMaio. First, DeMaio announced that the "fair and open competition" measure had qualified for the ballot in an article on sdrostra.com (Full disclosure: I sometimes cross-post there, also, I signed that petition.) This measure would enjoin the city of San Diego from entering into Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) as a condition to allow bidding on a contract. PLAs generally require agreed upon rules about union participation, prevailing wage rates and other working conditions for each city construction project. See my earlier description.

Later in DeMaio's rostra article, he mentioned that of course, the unions are counterattacking at the state level. "An important note: Union-backed members of the State Legislature have introduced legislation which would overturn local bans on PLAs."

Second, I learned via a tweet from councilmember Lorie Zapf, that the city council had voted to move forward on managed competition. I learned from other sources that the Miramar landfill will go through the process. As Zapf points out, the city employees may win the competition, so I don't know why there is such hubbub from labor and environmentalist groups. OK, I do know, but the taxpayers should win. If this works like the federal government's process, the city department affected may be allowed to present a plan for reorganization that would result in lower costs to the city by shedding excess jobs. If the city employees win the competition with a "most efficient organization" concept, then we still win through reduced costs. From Craig Gustafson in the U-T:

The landfill operation is the latest — and most controversial — service to be placed under managed competition, a process that has generated passionate debate at City Hall since voters approved it in 2006. It allows private firms to compete against city workers to provide certain services, with the goal of reducing costs for taxpayers no matter who wins the competition.

Of course the labor unions and enviros are opposed. Their argument that the city will be liable for the inevitable unsafe practices of the private operator are of course crap. The contracting process can require that the winning bidder carry liability insurance that would survive a bankruptcy.

The debate was apparently not without acrimony, even among those voting in favor. A tweet from Craig Gustafson (which didn't make it into his U-T article) said that Tony Young gave Carl DeMaio a scolding over his handling of the debate. Waiting to see hard news on what that was about.

On the pension reform front, I am concerned that the required signatures won't get gathered prior to the mid-October deadline. No new news, is probably not good news. The last I checked, the initiative was 30,000 signatures short. This morning on the radio, I heard the local firefighters union advertising against the initiative. Their basic argument is that no young person will want to become a firefighter because the pension will be so bad, so we will have all these really old firefighters trying to put out fires, but they'll be too old to lift the hoses. Really? I think in this economy, which looks to continue its present pathetic course for some time, plenty of applications will be received for firefighting positions. Besides 401(k) can be better for employees anyway. (I know the city workers don't get social security, but that's going to become a straight up welfare program anyway.)

Finally, the student journalists (or should I say pseudo-journalists) at the Mesa College newspaper printed these lies about the pension reform measure, as if this were straight reportage:

Yet the changes DeMaio is proposing will completely wipe out pensions for people who are already receiving it and for the city workers who are due a pension once they retire, it will also make them ineligible to collect social security. Instead a forced 401K will replace the pension, which will likely leave them with less than they are currently getting.

Read the measure here, and show me where people who are already receiving a pension will be wiped out. If this is the standard for journalism in our colleges, then the MSM is clearly on a clear path to oblivion. I submitted the following comment to the Mesa Press, which is awaiting moderation:

The statement that the pension reform will wipe out pensions for people already receiving them is flat out incorrect. Nothing in the measure changes existing pensions, read it for yourself: http://www.realpensionreform.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=93.

Further, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits such changes to contractual pension obligations. "No State shall . . .pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." This applies to cities as well, as creations of the states. Please perform basic research.

I'll let you know if I get published.

UPDATE

My comment is still awaiting "moderation." You have to wonder about the teaching for journalism these days.

Weekend Music Chill

Hooray for Republican debates. I am struck by how much the "conversation," as Google would call it, has moved towards the libertarian vision of strictly limited government. Even Jon Huntsman made some good points, the inclusion of Gary Johnson lifted my spirits, and Rick Santorum got no traction. I will say that Rick Perry sounded positively drunk when saying something about "which Mitt Romney" are we dealing with.

So in a celebratory mood, here is some party music.



And from the same era, proof that the French are capable of more than good cooking, here is Jacques Dutronc.

Rick Perry Drinking Too Heavily?

Rick Perry sounds drunk starting about 1:25. Maybe the worst moment of the debate. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard it the first time.



H/T Michelle Malkin

Barack Obama - Progressive

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

Dear MoveOn member,

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

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

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

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

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

[gratuitous fund raising link deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grocery Workers Voting on Contract

I would urge any grocery workers who may read my blog to vote in favor of the deal reached between the union leaders and the grocery chains that operate Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons. The contract preserves their own health care fund, although I am not sure how affordable it will remain under Obamacare. Although there might never be a good time for a strike, the following U-T headline indicates that striking now would be especially unfortunate:

Poverty rate in county hits 30-year high

More county residents faced financial hardship last year than at any other time in the past three decades, a record reflected in the poverty rate’s sharp rise and stagnating median household incomes, according to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

I am also afraid that the housing market will also remain down until the government stops intervening, as predicted in today's Wall Street Journal.

Economists, builders and mortgage analysts are predicting the weakened U.S. economy will depress housing prices for years, restraining consumer spending, pushing more homeowners into foreclosure and clouding prospects for a sustained recovery.
Home prices are expected to drop 2.5% this year and rise just 1.1% annually through 2015, according to a recent survey of more than 100 economists to be released Wednesday. Prices have already fallen 31.6% from their 2005 peak, as measured by the Standard & Poor's Case-Shiller 20-city index.

Our current problems starting with the mess in the secondary mortgage markets, partly the result, partly the cause of an overheated housing market. Continued efforts by government to prop up the market will cause more economic weakness which will in turn continue to push people into poverty. Somehow, keeping home prices high is compassionate.

Exit question, does a double dip in housing prices forecast a double dip recession?

Programming Note

I have added a widget to this blog site that allows you to to view famous people mentioned in the post and vote on them and make comments about those individuals. This only works when you view the article by itself, not when viewing the whole blog. If you click on the title above, "Programming Note" you will see how this works. I frequently comment on people like Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Barack Obama or locally, Carl DeMaio and Bob Filner. The widget that enables this is from a web site called SendLove.to. They invited me to give this a try since they claimed to have too many liberal web sites subscribed and were looking for balance.

If you like this widget or find it annoying, let me know in the comments.

Regards, B-Daddy

Why Liberals Should Hate Obamacare

Imagine, if you will, that you are a liberal, that your conscience tells you that no one should be denied medical treatment because they lack the ability to pay. Imagine that you examined the facts of the U.S. health care system in 2009, before the passage of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Would you support its passage? Of course not.

I got thinking about this subject after discussing it with my niece's husband, who holds such beliefs. I decided that even liberals (as opposed to leftists) were sold a bill of goods regarding this execrable measure. The pressing social issue that Obamacare was supposed to solve was the problem of the uninsured. This problem set included subgroups of those who supposedly couldn't afford insurance and those who couldn't get coverage because of pre-existing conditions. But what were the facts? In 2009, it was widely quoted that 46 million Americans lacked health insurance. But this fact requires some explanation. First, almost 1o million of those were not actually American citizens. One might argue that we have a duty to also cover the non-citizens, but it doesn't change the fact that this part of the problem wasn't created in our country. Second, many of the uninsured have annual household incomes above $50,000 to the tune of close to 18 million (admittedly using 2007 data.) Many other of these people were actually eligible for government insurance programs such as Medicaid, almost 14 million. (See American Spectator for source material.) I'll let the reader do the math, but that means that the number of Americans who cannot afford health care is rather small compared to the total population. One could also remember that medicaid provides health care to the very poorest Americans and no emergency room may turn away a patient with an a life threatening condition.

So what could have been about the problem that remained. The U.S. population in 2009 was 305 million. That meant the vast majority of Americans had health care through their jobs, private funding or eligibility as a family member. If one were to attack the alleged problem of the uninsured then a program to subsidize those who were poor but not in poverty and a law to allow portability of health care when changing jobs to prevent pre-existing conditions from being a cause to deny care would have achieved those ends.

What did we get instead? So much more than we knew was in the bill. But consider this gem, despite Obama's promise that you would be able to keep your health care, we get this admission from Dr. Howard Dean.

Dean told Morning Joe, “The fact is it is very good for small business. There was a McKinsey study, which the Democrats don’t like, but I do, and I think its true. Most small businesses are not going to be in the health insurance business anymore after this thing goes into effect.”

This admission gives the lie to the promise that we could keep our current insurance. Further, it will blow a hole in the deficit reduction efforts. Why should liberals care? Because the increased burden on the federal budget will cause people to be denied care through queuing or other methods designed to limit access and therefore cost. The deficit math is compelling and no amount of increased taxation will totally close the federal deficit, so it is inevitable that increased participation in government funded health care will result in cost containment. If your goal was to increase health care insurance, your result was less of it.

Liberals have been sold a lie by the left. Obamacare is a Peronist take over of an industry disguised as compassion. The endless rules that only the Secretary of HHS can waive have led to a waive of cronyism regarding those waivers tied to campaign contributions and other forms of support for the administration (see Darden restaurants.) Further, why would liberals love a program in which the end result is an explicit transfer of the cost of doing business from corporations to the tax payer? How is that liberal? Or conservative, for that matter? I would ask my liberal friends to re-think their support of Obama and leftism. It does their cause no good and undermines their desire to provide a social safety net for all Americans.

The President Puts Party Before Country

President Obama's $1.5 trillion dollar tax increase plan makes no sense. He signed an extension of the Bush tax cuts and two social security tax holidays, but now as election approaches, he wants to "tax the rich." His threat to veto entitlement reform makes the job of the "gang of twelve" deficit reduction committee much harder. Does he want it all too fail? Does he think that another crisis will get him re-elected? He's not likely to be running against a member of Congress next year, but a governor or former governor, so he won't have the luxury of demonizing the Congress for his own failures. Speaking of creating the conditions for failure, here's what Alexis Simendinger said in RCP today:

The president, in effect, decided to make the deficit-cutting job more challenging for Congress. The 12-member joint panel now negotiating to reach a deal under the rules set up by the debt-ceiling pact can ignore Obama’s deficit ideas and his rhetoric, but probably not his veto threats. The president set the overall target higher than the panel’s mandate (at a net total of $4 trillion); added $1.5 trillion in “comprehensive” tax reform to the mix, but with tax hikes in addition to tax cuts; and in a direct bow to his Democratic base, removed significant entitlement changes from a 10-year plan to curb the deficit.

The public understands that we have to start on entitlement reform now, because it is a serious long term threat, DailyKosters excepted. This is a loser for the President.

My most likely explanation is that Obama is just talking tough to play to his base. But when he sees his poll numbers tanking because this approach will create a crisis, he will just cave. Then his base will be even more demoralized. All Republicans need to do is stand firm and tackle some real reform and some more progress can be made in the long effort to dismantle federal excess.

Palin on Crony Capitalism - Daniels on the Red Menace

Two prominent Republicans who are not declared candidates for President are making their mark on the national debate. Sarah Palin has been highlighting the issue of crony capitalism of late and Mitch Daniels new book is a serious look at the mountain of debt he sees as a threat to the Republic.

Even before the recent Solyndra blow up, here was Sarah Palin diagnosing our current ills on September 4th in Iowa.

Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money – to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. There is so much waste. And there is a name for this: It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power.

Palin attacks the key issue that unites ordinary individuals left, right and center, the use of government to further enrich the already rich and powerful. It is the challenge of our time to convince those on the left that it is constant government meddling in the economy and the immense regulatory regime, not free markets, which lead to this outcome. Probably better to start with those in the center, who might be more open to this line of argument. The GOP needs to go on the offensive against crony capitalism, unfortunately they have been guilty just as have the Democrats in purchasing favors for special interests. However, the time is ripe for this message. We could start by stripping out all of the special favors in the tax code. Starting over with a lower corporate tax rate, but no special exemptions would go a long way to restoring public belief in the party who proposed that plan.

While Palin attacks the most politically compelling issue, Daniels attacks on the debt, on which he is unusually well qualified. His book, Keeping the Republic, Saving America by Trusting Americans is brilliantly titled. The tagline, Change that believes in you cleverly turns Obama's promise on its head. I am really thrilled that he has adopted my ideas on means testing social security and medicare. (OK, probably not, but I feel vindicated since few other prominent Republicans have supported my position.) He also makes the point that the whole of the federal budget should be under consideration, including defense. This issue of defense spending is going to split Republicans, but it needs to be considered, since it comes in at $700 billion plus per year.

More important than any policy prescription offered by Daniels, is his understanding of the need to limit the scope of the federal government and return to a philosophy of self governance.

The coming debate is not really about something so mundane as tax policy or health care or energy choices. It is about things more fundamental: who is in charge, the people or those who supposedly serve at their sufferance?

Answering that it is the former, requires the people to be capable of managing their own affairs. They are in fact so capable. But we should remember that it is ingrained in the language of the left that all mankind's ills: sickness, poverty, old age, sloth, and gluttony are not solved by individuals or capitalist institutions, only by government. But a government powerful enough to solve such issues would be a fearful master indeed, and we would be subjects, not citizens. It is good of Daniels to remind us.

Local Roundup

I thought the grocery unions might be on strike at the time of this writing, and they still might by the time you read this. However, a 7:10 p.m. deadline came and went today without a strike. This is great news, and perhaps a strike can be averted. Despite my antipathy for the union position and belief that they will do immense harm to themselves by striking, a strike will be bad for the region given all of our other economic stress. From today's U-T:

"Our workers will stay on the job until at least midnight, and possibly longer if negotiations are moving ahead," Mike Shimpock, spokesman for United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770, told The Associated Press.

This sounds like we might catch a break with some good news.

Carl DeMaio has come up with the single most brilliant fund raising idea I have ever seen for San Diego. He is hosting a fundraiser at Phil's BBQ, with the tagline (from his Facebook page):

Skip the line at Phil's BBQ -- and support our campaign for Mayor! Hope to see you Tuesday!

I have to give DeMaio kudos for making good use of Facebook and Twitter in his campaign. I follow him on both forms of social media. He has been effective. Also, skipping the line at Phil's is pretty close to going to heaven. I love Phil's but seldom like to brave the line, often opting for take out instead.

Carl DeMaio's other big effort, besides running for mayor, is getting the pension reform measure on the ballot. The unions have tried to undermine the effort with radio ads falsely implying that a petition signer might be the victim of identity theft. The U-T Watchdog (one of my favorite local sources) checked out the ad campaigns.

The Watchdog set out to determine who was behind the ad.

The domain for the group’s website is registered to the same address and phone number as the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, a labor union coalition. The council’s president, Bob Balgenorth, said the identity theft group is separate but he financially supports the effort, helped to organize it, and believes the concern is real.

. . .

Beth Givens, director of San Diego-based consumer advocacy organization Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, said, “The ad is a clear case of dirty tricks. Signing your name and address to a ballot petition does not put you at risk for identity theft. They are using fear mongering to attempt to suppress people who do sign ballot petitions.”.

Meanwhile, the fact that DeMaio continually pitches the effort leads me to believe that the effort may be in trouble. Right on cue, I found the following U-T article headline:

Pension petition drive faces challenges

The article discusses the difficulties facing the drive.

It’s widely viewed as a slam dunk for passage should it appear on the June 2012 ballot, but that may not happen because of the high degree of difficulty in collecting the required 94,000-plus signatures from registered city voters in the six-month window provided under election law. Adding to that burden is the strong opposition from local labor unions that are admittedly putting up as many roadblocks as possible to thwart the effort.

I agree with the assessment that the proposition will pass if it gets on the ballot. If you want to contribute money, you can visit the pension reform web site.

Meanwhile, DeMaio and Dumanis, the two leading Republican candidates, skipped the mayoral debate Saturday at Liberty Station. As expected, Filner came out against pension reform, with Fletcher supporting. I hope DeMaio doesn't skip such events indefinitely, because the public needs to see the candidates airing out the issues. I found it interesting that medical marijuana has surfaced as somewhat of a hot topic, because it is not high on my list of priorities, although I support decriminalization in general. Good to hear that there was no appetite for taxpayer funding of a new stadium.

That's all for the weekend political news. One last recommendation, if you go to Phil's for take out, get their early and have a beer at their bar, they have a pretty decent lineup, including some good local selections.

Happy Constitution Day

It's a good day to reflect on the structure of our constitution. Specifically, the fact that the document was intended to constrain the federal government through a number of mechanisms. First, Congress was only granted enumerated powers. Note the amplification of the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It was never intended that the sweep of federal power would be unlimited. Progressives have attacked this notion for well over a century. Today we see it in Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing in which she can think of no constraint that Congress might face in regulating commerce. If Congress can compel any action under the guise that it somehow affects interstate commerce, Congress could grant the President the power to make us "eat our peas" or any other stupidity.

Another constraint is the separation of powers. The President is granted authority as Commander in Chief, but the power to declare war is reserved to the Congress. This is to limit the ability of the President to wage war on his own recognizance. It seems that this has become a dead letter to the Democrat party, which argued so assiduously for the war powers act. The President in turn can veto new legislation from the Congress. Sometimes this results in gridlock, which I think would have pleased the founders, because they designed a document in which large changes could only come when there is a consensus. Finally, because we have a federal system in which states retain sovereignty, federal power is further constrained. I was arguing health care with a friend of mine who was born a British citizen. He seemed to think that of course health care was a national responsibility. But he lacked understanding that in our system of government, the states were in fact the ones who had the responsibility for this part of the social safety net; part of the reason I found Obamacare unconstitutional. I pointed out that the unabridged name of his native country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That it is a single kingdom means that there is only one sovereign government. Our full name is the United States of America. The plural form of the word state implies that each state retains sovereignty and responsibility. This is different from most other nations.

Further constraint comes from the power of the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of laws passed by the Congress. Although this is not found explicitly in the document, the power of the courts to review the law and hear appeals constrains the executive branches ability to obtain convictions through dint of greater spending on their own legal resources.

One of the greatest successes of the tea party movement has been to restore a discussion of constitutionality to our national political discourse. The constitution is both a conservative and a libertarian document. It is conservative in that it preserves our political structure through separation of powers and a difficult amendment process. It is libertarian in that it constrains the power and authority of the federal government, guarantees individual rights and in turn constrains the states as well. A political alliance of conservatives and libertarians, fighting socialism and progressives would of course turn to the plain meaning of such a document as the first line of defense against the forced march down the "road to serfdom" that the statists desire for our citizens. (I don't mean to impugn all liberals here; but those that are true believers in leftism have shown their colors over the years.)