Supporting Walmart - UPDATED

I love Walmart. Every time I shop there, which isn't that often because they don't have enough locations in San Diego convenient to me, I am surprised by some new low priced item. However, the San Diego City Council, by overriding the mayor's veto of the "Big Box" ordinance doesn't think I should be able to get the most for my shopping dollar. In brief, this ordinance is aimed directly at Walmart.

Walmart and other ordinance opponents said it would create a de facto ban on retailers that have are least 90,000 square feet and dedicate at least 10 percent of its floorspace to nontaxable items like groceries and prescription drugs.

Even supporters of the ordinance admit that this is the goal of the ordinance. Note too, that the primary supporters of preventing Walmart supercenters in San Diego are all Democrats. I also note that most African-Americans support Democrats. But here is what happened at the council hearing on the matter.

And then the tone in council chambers changed sharply as one after another black resident approached the microphone to appeal to the council, painting a drab, disheartening portrait of the dearth of opportunity that exists in one of the city's most economically struggling districts, the one represented by Councilman Tony Young, and the one they said could most benefit from the arrival of a supercenter like Walmart. They asked the council not to make it harder for the company to move in.

Dominic Littleton told the council he was the father of six children, and that he had lost his union job 3 years ago and been unemployed ever since.

Taesha McCall said she needed a job, and that she thought Walmart would help her community.

Note this fact as well:

In Los Angeles, no superstore applications have been submitted since the city adopted a similar ordinance in 2004.

Fortunately, it appears that there will be a petition drive to put a measure on the ballot to overturn this ordinance.

Walmart is going to the voters to get its supercenter stores in San Diego. A signature drive began this morning at Walmart's four stores in the city.
. . .
The signature gathering started at the Walmart store in Murphy Canyon this morning. Walmart has 30-days to collect 31-thousand signatures.

I will definitely be heading to Walmart to sign a petition. Maybe I'll wear that yellow T-shirt. Watch this video to hear more gory details.



I hope to also contact Lorie Zapf's office to ensure that she would be a vote to repeal the Walmart ban. She certainly campaigned hard against union special interests during the recent campaign.

UPDATE:

Commenter Scott notes that I misspelled ordinance as "ordnance" in the original post, which I have corrected. However, in my feeble defense, it seems that the law is actually "ordnance" aimed at Walmart.

Outreach to Occupy - A Fool's Errand? UPDATE

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

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

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

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

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

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






UPDATE

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

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

Walmart San Diego - Labor's Flawed Logic

Lorena Gonzales makes some absurd arguments in today's U-T editorial section on the law to block WalMart from setting up "big boxes" that sell groceries without a special economic impact analysis that no other business is subject to. Here is the core of her argument, Superstores have unknown and potentially economic impact, so they should be required to submit to a special analysis before being approved. News flash, all new businesses have an unknown economic impact. If they didn't then the central planning of the former Soviet Union would have made it the richest nation on the planet. Further, even if an analysis is performed, it is unlikely to predict the true effects of any new business. After scaremongering and passing along numerous lies regarding Walmart, she accuses the business of "bullying" the City Council with its petition drive. Bullying? Really? Exercising constitutional rights when being subjugated by local government is bullying? Remember this, which also applies to local government:

Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a rebuttal by W. Erik Bruvold, Big-box ordinance unfairly targets one retailer, on the opposite side of the paper. While good, it doesn't really capture my outrage. So here are my rebuttal points:

1. There is already a planning process. Use it. Stop targeting a business that competes with union shop grocers.
   
2. New business is disruptive, so what? Henry Ford didn't submit an impact analysis on the carriage industry.
   
3. Lot's of businesses thrive near Walmarts.
4. Walmart provides wages and benefits that are usually better than the small businesses they supposedly supplant. Like it or not, and I don't, California's minimum wage laws guarantee this.
5. People want to pay less for groceries. Poor people need to pay less for groceries. Why don't you care about the poor?
   
6. Why are labor unions leading the charge against Walmart if the negative impact is allegedly against small businesses, who usually lack union shops, by the way.
   
7. An economic analysis is a ban. Look at the experience in Los Angeles. Quit obfuscating.
8. Labor is going to get thumped again if this goes to a vote, leaving them with less money to make my life more miserable.

I look forward to seeing how the City Council handles this issue.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com

Surprising Veto by Jerry Brown - SB 469

I was alerted by a tweet from my councilmember Lorie Zapf that Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed the anti-Walmart legislation sponsored by Juan Vargas, SB-469. Despite any rhetoric to the contrary, this bill was designed to make it harder for cities to approve Walmart supercenters that sell groceries, in direct competition with the largely unionized grocers like Ralphs, Vons and Albertsons. Labor's support of the legislation is the key indicator that this bill was all about protecting union jobs from competition. From the U-T:

“We are disappointed but not surprised that we couldn’t defeat the millions spent by Walmart against this bill,” said Lorena Gonzalez, secretary-treasurer of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council. “We will continue to do more to work with small businesses and local decision makers to find a solution that protects local economies from supercenters.”

Protects local economies from supercenters? As long as the supercenters aren't given sweetheart tax deals, like say, sports franchises, then they will generate sales tax and property tax for local government, while saving shoppers real dollars due to increased competition. With the NY Times reporting that household incomes are continuing to drop, despite the "end of the recession," why wouldn't we want to help those hardest hit by getting more competition in the grocery business.

As an additional item that I find offensive, we have Juan Vargas explicitly using state legislation to meddle in local affairs.

The measure was introduced statewide after the San Diego City Council rescinded its ordinance that would have required superstores to undergo an extensive economic impact analysis as part of the permit process.

Despite all the rhetoric about how this is about transparency, it was not. It is commonly understood that adding bureaucratic layers of review is the best way to kill a proposed business project. Walmart's supercenters should enjoy equal protection under the law, and face the same scrutiny as any other land use proposal in any city. Is equal treatment for all businesses too much to ask?

Jerry Brown's second governorship is proving interesting if nothing else. He has vetoed legislation to allow card check to ease union organizing of farm workers, as well as legislation limiting paid signature gathering for petitions. On the other hand he signed the California Dream act legislation giving in state tuition rates to illegal aliens. He is certainly proving hard to predict. Exit question: How would a Meg Whitman governorship been substantially different?

OK, one more question, what do #OWS types think? Do they believe in equal treatment for all businesses?

Walmart San Diego Update

As I posted earlier, the San Diego City Council voted to require extra hurdles before Super Walmarts that sell groceries can set up shop in San Diego. The hurdles all but guarantee that lower priced groceries won't be coming to a neighborhood near you if you live in the city limits of "Enron by the Bay."

Richard Rider likes Walmart's chances and is predicting a smack down for the City Council. He says it's a foregone conclusion that Walmart will gather the necessary signatures to put a repeal measure on the ballot. He is also predicting that at least one Democrat will flip and the measure will be repealed. If you haven't done so yet, get out to Walmart and sign the petition. I love nothing more than seeing this City Council get slapped down when they run roughshod over the desires of the people.

Walmart Ordinance Repealed

The San Diego City Council, as predicted, repealed the big box economic analysis ordinance this afternoon, on a 7-1 vote. The VOSD has an editorial inveighing against the so called subversion of democracy this represents, because somehow Walmart had the temerity to pay for signature gatherers. News flash, they would have got the signatures with out without paid gatherers. I would have volunteered myself. Leftists trying to shut down Walmart underestimate the depth of loyalty of their shoppers.

Marti Emerald (District 7) was on the losing end of the vote and is reportedly angry:

Emerald accused Walmart of lobbing a “constant volley of attacks” on the council’s character and unfairly depicting the supercenter debate as a battle between labor unions and businesses. For example, she said the retailer urged elderly people to call her office to complain that the councilwoman was opposed to them having access to fresh food.

It was a battle between labor unions and business. The patina of "concerned small business owners" was never convincing and the speakers at council hearings did not claim to represent small business:

Numerous times, opponents identified themselves as "worker advocates" and stated, "I didn't vote for Wal-Mart to set policy in this city. I voted for you to do that. I can't fight Wal-Mart alone."

This doesn't mean that new Walmarts will be opening in my neighborhood, but it is a step in the right direction.

More Proof That This City Council Can't Be Trusted

One of the successful arguments against Proposition D was that we couldn't trust this city council and mayor to deliver on their promises to reform city government. The day after Prop D went down to defeat, Todd Gloria introduced legislation to ban Walmart Supercenters in San Diego. And the Democrats on the City Council mimic the underhanded methods used by their fellow partisans in Congress in passing Obamacare. From the U-T (the whole editorial is worth a read):

But if it is so benign, why did Gloria and his City Council allies put the measure on a fast track with few if any precedents? Why did they ignore complaints from members of the Planning Commission that the rushed process didn’t allow for a proper vetting of the proposal? And why did Council President Ben Hueso already schedule a vote early next month to override Mayor Jerry Sanders’ expected veto of the ordinance just before Hueso and another council Democrat, Donna Frye, depart office?

So what's the damage from Walmart Supercenters? The real answer is that they threaten the one area where private sector unions still hold sway, grocery stores. The alleged reason is that they destroy small businesses. And how do they do that? By offering lower prices than their competitors. So let me get this straight, when the federal government negotiates lower prices on drugs for medicare patients, buying from the low cost provider, that's good. When you want lower prices on groceries and go to WalMart, that's bad? Why? Because you are a selfish racist, but the federal government is only filled with noble purpose, dedicated to helping others. Get it? This is the narrative the left always uses. If the government is helping people, its all good. But people helping themselves? Clearly evil.

If this passes, who is up for a proposition to overturn this law?

Walmart San Diego Update

In a sign that the repeal of the big box supercenter economic analysis stupidity is inevitable, Walmart announced plans to build a dozen stores in San Diego, strongly hinting that they will build in under-served District 4, represented by Council President Tony Young. This is great news for the city, bringing jobs and better shopping to our town.

While repeal of the law doesn't guarantee that Walmart will start building, if it stayed on the books, it would guarantee that we wouldn't be getting any new Walmarts. The city planning process could still gum up the works, but this is great news.

As the left liked to say in 2008, elections have consequences. I don't think we would be having this discussion if Lorie Zapf hadn't beat Howard Wayne in swing district 6, here in San Diego. Also, it's nice to see that Tony Young is seeing how the interests of unions diverge from the interests of his relatively poorer constituents. Maybe this is another trend that work in the Tea Party movement's favor. Big government policies have always hurt the poor, because they generally lack the resources to have the same impact as the rich and middle class. Getting them on board for some issues can only strengthen our coalition.

San Diego City Hall - Reading the Tea Leaves

Two articles in today's U-T point to the growing realization by the City Council that the issues of fiscal responsibility raised by the Tea Party are the new reality.

Item 1. The council appears poised to rescind the big box economic analysis law in the face of Walmart's successful petition drive. Key swing vote, Tony Young, council President is quoted as saying:

“With the city facing significant unemployment challenges and historic budget deficits, it is difficult to see the sense of spending over $2.5 million for a special election,” he said in a statement. Young said the money could be better spent elsewhere as the city faces a $53 million budget deficit.

The key issue is the cost of the election. Nice to see the council member thinking about cost. The U-T reports that DeMaio, Zapf, Faulconer and Lightner are solid votes to repeal, so this is looking good for a repeal. To give credit where it is due, Richard Rider has been predicting this outcome.

Item 2. City Trims Its Pension Shortfall Craig Gustafson is also reporting that the City Council has decided against paying $100 million in illegally obtained benefits to current and former city employees. The background:

The benefit at issue is called the “purchase of service credit” program, enacted in 1997 under then-Mayor Susan Golding. It’s still in effect, although not for new hires.

Employees can buy as many as five years of service that they didn’t work. For example, a 15-year worker could retire with 20 years of credit. The move increases future pension payments and, in some cases, allows workers to retire earlier.

The pension system wasn’t charging workers enough for the credits between 1997 and 2003 to cover its costs.

The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System board voted on Aug. 15, 2003, to increase the rates and delayed implementation for more than two months. Word spread quickly and nearly as many people bought credits in that brief window as in the previous six years combined.

However, the state constitution forbids gifts to employees which is what the award of the pension credit without adequate pay in amounts to. Good to see the city council shaving $8.8 million off its annual bill. By the way, how is this different from the case of Judie Italiano getting $700,000 in unearned pension benefits? Also, what is wrong with the pension board? They had asked the council last November to approve the illegal pensions. Can't we fire these jokers?

But over all, I pretty happy. The way I see it, that's a nice deficit reduction of $11.3 million. Plus, I might get to shop at a Walmart SuperCenter in my home town some day. The one I visited in North Charleston was pretty sweet.

Image of Tony Young at top right courtesy of San Diego CityBeat.

Cross-posted to sdrostra.com.

Odds and Ends

Lorie Zapf makes good on another campaign promise to focus on ways to strengthen public safety without increasing spending. She calls for changing the working hours of firefighters in recognition of the fact that there are almost no calls for firefighting between midnight and 7:00 a.m.

As the City wrestles with ending the brownouts at two engine stations, the City should consider staffing one engine with normal 3/24 hour shifts and the second engine should be alternatively staffed with firefighters who are on 4/10 hour shifts or some similar type of alternative staffing. The city could leave the second engine idle from the hours of midnight to 6 a.m. on weekdays and 2 a.m. to 8 a.m. on weekends.

Stand by for major gas from the firefighters union, as this would cut into overtime pay, as I understand it. (Looking for anyone with more knowledge of union staffing rules to correct me, if necessary.)

Darrell Issa is the new bête noire for liberals, because he, gasp, wants to investigate wrongdoing by government officials. The left's response, full on smear attack, of course, with professional smearers. We should expect nothing less.

Walmart is a global force for good, so how do you explain Boston Mayor Tom Menino's unrelenting hatred of an organization that deserves the Nobel Peace Prize (it's been awarded for far less than Walmart has accomplished.) From Michael Graham:

Effete Boston liberals hate Wal-Mart, the unions hate Wal-Mart, and so Menino does, too. And if that means poor families struggle to find work or buy food, well .  .  .

Good Timing for a Grocery Strike? UPDATE

Yesterday's U-T headline announced that San Diego County's unemployment rate had increased to 10.5% during the "summer of recovery."

Unemployment in San Diego County ticked up in July to 10.5 percent, up from a revised 10.4 percent in June, reaching a high not seen for nearly a year, according to data released Friday by the state Employment Development Department.

So imagine my surprise this morning when I read that local grocery workers had voted to go on strike against Vons, Albertsons and Ralphs. One would think that the supermarkets will have no problem getting replacement workers.

More than 90 percent voted to reject the supermarkets' offer, which could affect scores of stores in San Diego County and across Southern California. The vote was open to more than 62,000 workers across Southern California, but union officials did not reveal the exact turnout, only saying it was a "record high."

I presume the key issue is the desire on the part of the grocers to have their employees pay more for their health insurance. Union President Mickey Kasparian, from the same article:

Under the grocery chain’s proposal, some workers would go from having no paycheck deductions to having an average of $92 per month deducted for health insurance, although it would vary depending on family size and other factors, Kasparian said.

Is this the result of the passage of Obamacare? I don't have hard evidence to prove that, but I wouldn't be surprised. Businesses are facing rising health care costs since the passage of the bill that we needed to pass to see what was in it. Everything I have read about the negotiations for the grocery workers lead me to believe that health care costs are the key sticking point. Costs are going up and neither side wants to pay for them.

Meanwhile, the stores are getting ready for a strike, some are putting up signs asking for applications for replacement workers. Since my youngest son has been having trouble finding work, he took the opportunity to go to one of the local stores to fill out such an application. He said it was a difficult endeavor, because he didn't want to ask current employees how to apply to be a replacement worker. Instead, he made his way to the manager's office to fill out an application there. Even though there were media reports of signage asking for replacement workers, this Vons in Clairemont had no such signs. The manager gave out a standard employment application form, no different than under non-strike conditions. Perhaps they are hoping for an 11th hour settlement and don't want to unnecessarily upset current employees.

I lived through the grocery strike eight years ago (2003-2004), and remember the unions not doing very well when the results were in. From the lib.com website.

59,000 UFCW members voted on the three-year contract over the weekend of February 28-29. By any standard, the settlement must be considered an important employer victory. While the supermarkets did lose $2.5 billion in income during the strike, they established a precedent for many pending contracts around the country, and not merely for supermarkets. Wall Street greeted the settlement, and Safeway stock prices remained firm throughout the strike.

The new contract provided for a two-tier system. Current employees will receive no pay increase for the first two years of the contract, but will receive a ratification bonus. In the third year, they will begin making monthly payments for the family health plan. New employees will have lower wages and will receive only limited health coverage. The two-tier contract will thus open the way for pushing older employees out the door. Finally, the contract allowed the supermarkets to fire up to 630 UFCW members for “misconduct” on the picket lines within 36 hours of ratification.

I personally crossed the picket line and was interviewed on local TV about why I did so. The answer was simple, we needed groceries for a party and didn't feel excessive sympathy for the worker's position. At the time, Walmart was starting to move into the grocery business and the big grocery chains needed to contain costs in order to compete. I think the problem for the grocery store workers is that it doesn't appear that high levels of education or training are necessary to perform their work. As a result, they will constantly be under competitive pressure. This is not meant as disparagement, I am on friendly terms with many unionized grocery workers and they treat me very well. They work in a field where economists would say there are low barriers to entry into that workforce, unlike health care, for instance. Ultimately, the price I pay for my groceries is a good part of the consideration of where I decide to shop. Regardless of their helpfulness, prices that are too high will send me elsewhere.

I sincerely hope the strike ends soon, but I don't see how the workers are in any better position to win concessions than they were eight years ago. Further, I wonder how they will explain to their unemployed neighbors that they went on strike because their health care costs went up. Isn't that true for almost everyone?

UPDATE

Apparently, Verizon workers are returning to work without a contract, although negotiations will continue. The striking Verizon workers are in the land line portion of the business, which is under great strain because of the shift to wireless. This makes their situation similar to the grocery workers, being in an industry of increasing competitive pressure. That they felt it necessary to return to work is not a good omen for our local UCFW folks. Health care costs were also a big part of this strike as well. Seems Obamacare isn't a good deal for private sector unions.

In Other Good News for San Diegans

In addition to the vote on Walmart, Lorie Zapf tweets that the City Council also voted to move forward on managed competition. Channel 10 News reports:

The San Diego City Council Tuesday approved a plan to bid out the functions of its Fleet Services Department, which maintains more than 4,000 city-owned vehicles, including police cars and fire truckss.
. . .
The city is also putting out its printing division for bid. The mayor said last month that street sweeping, road repair and some functions of the Public Utilities Department will come next.

As I have said, even if the city division wins the bid, they can only do so by instituting savings. Either way, the taxpayers win.

U-T Endorses Proposition D - But Not Enthusiastically

Today's U-T editorial headline was "Prop D's Advocates Must Step Up Their Game" as if it is lack of game that has the electorate doubting the efficacy of handing over $100 million more in taxes in return for promises from politicians. The editorial makes the case for why these guys can't be trusted:

The mayor worked with Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, to get the Legislature to pass with zero scrutiny or public debate a bill lifting the limit on how much property tax revenue the city could divert to downtown redevelopment, possibly clearing the way for a new Chargers stadium.
. . .
The same holds for the City Council’s moves to block Walmart from selling groceries despite warnings from planning commissioners that it was acting hastily and without following normal procedures.

Hmm . . . violating procedures, cutting back room deals, rewarding your labor union supporters. And we're just supposed to hand over our hard earned cash to these jokers on their promise that they'll certify they have met specific conditions? As I quoted earlier:

Sanders acknowledged the financial thresholds in the resolution aren’t binding legally.

Yes, the same mayor urging you to vote yes on D.

Here's the deal with this election. The political class in this country has broken faith with the people. They have rewarded government labor unions with sweetheart salaries and pensions, they have refused to enforce the borders, they have spent your grandkid's and great-grandkid's money. Kick those bums out. Don't give them another cent until they take action on behalf of "we the people." That is why I am voting No on D, why I support Lorie Zapf over Howard Wayne, and even Christine O'Donnell, who lacks a compelling record of achievement. Anyone who has sided with the political class or government employees' unions such as the supporters of Proposition D, Howard Wayne or Chris Coons does not deserve office. It's our country, these people asked for our trust and rewarded it with treachery, throw them out or keep them out of office.

Quick Hitters

Today's headlines and comments offer such a broad range of topics, I can hardly focus on any one in particular.

Thoughtful commenter Steve, who often challenges me and Dean asks "What alternative plan would get more people to engage in end of life planning?" in response to my objection to government incentives to have this discussion. My response, nothing. The discussion shouldn't be the subject of government incentives because it pollutes the discussion. Further, medicare needs to be fundamentally changed because the government has an incentive for people to die early. If we are going to subsidize elderly health care, then we would be better off providing them a voucher to purchase their own health insurance, to which they could add their own funds. The health insurers could offer plans that include the counseling or not and the individual patients could make the decision.

According to the New York Post, union sanitation workers deliberately slowed the clearing of city streets to protest budget cuts, and the demotion of supervisors. There are indications that the demoted supervisors were culpable. Thanks for making the case for privatization gang. If private firms were contracted to do the work, this would not have happened if proper incentives were in the contract. (A big if, but I know of many ways to put proper incentives in contracts.)

I am worried about the economic recovery. The Wall Street Journal has some contradictory indicators. First, loan activity to businesses is increasing, usually something that is a lagging indicator for economic for recovery. Contrariwise, we see home prices stalling which could presage a double dip recession. My intuition is that housing prices were never allowed to fall far enough to allow for the economy to recovery. Peter Schiff makes that case today, but a picture is often worth a thousand words:


The efforts to prop up the housing market are going to come back to bite this administration, as falling prices and loss of equity choke off recovery.

Finally, more government action to help you die more quickly, at least if you have breast cancer. The FDA is forbidding the use of Avastin in the late treatment of breast cancer, on the basis that it is not "sufficiently" effective. Sufficiently in this case means that it costs too much. When did the FDA get into the business of deciding which drugs are too expensive? Avastin is good enough to treat other forms of cancer, and the FDA has not been aggressive in the past about off label use, so why the rush now? Does Obamacare have anything to do with it? Rivkin and Foley lay out the whole sordid tale.

However, there is some good local news. Walmart collected enough signatures to put the big box ordinance on the ballot. Now the City Council is going to have reconsider their folly. I hope they will repeal the ordinance and spare us the expense of an election. Another opportunity for new council member Lorie Zapf to shine.

Another Set Of Reminders - On Wisconsin

To clarify a few points on the debate in Wisconsin.

• Collective Bargaining is not a "right." If it was, federal workers would have the right, they do not.
• Collective Bargaining is not a "right." If it was, then all state employees in the U.S. would have the right, they do not.
• Collective Bargaining is not a "right." Nowhere is it enshrined in the Constitution, it was granted by legislation in Wisconsin, by executive order in some other states.
• State workers are protected from arbitrary firing and have numerous other protections in Wisconsin.
• Collective bargaining, combined with pay check deductions and public employee union contributions to political candidates forms a taxpayer subsidy to the Democratic party. That is unfair. If I don't like Walmart's political views, I can boycott their stores, but I can't stop paying taxes to slow the flow of my money to a party I intensely dislike.
  
• Scott Walker has been criticized for wanting to bust unions. They say that like its a bad thing, it is not.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com.

Solving the Deficit Crisis

In my previous post on this subject, I tried to give a sense of how vast and difficult solving our deficit problem has become. To recap, even with draconian measures, closing the gap to 2.2% of GDP is the best that the co-chairs of the deficit commission can come up with. Putting it into family budget terms, it is like having a family income of $100,000, spending $150,000 and funding the difference with a line of credit on which you already owe $575,000. Except it's even worse, because that only includes the debt that is admitted to, other unfunded liabilities might put your future liabilities closer to $4,500,000.

Clearly drastic action is needed, but it will not be enough. As the graph below shows, the gap is monstrous. What is to be done?

It seems obvious to me that trying to increase tax receipts by raising the tax rate that each individual pays is self defeating. This is because those taxes become a drag on economic growth, and because people are incredibly ingenious at avoiding them. KT has often blogged on the need to avoid debt in financing the government, and I agree. But that need not imply that raising marginal tax rates is a particularly good way of doing so. Further, we have seen an historical trend where federal income tax receipts have been unable to break the 20% of GDP barrier, regardless of the marginal rate structure. I previously discussed Hauer's Law last June and why increased tax rates are useless.



But the need for additional receipts can not be denied. This is why I believe that aggressive action is needed to grow the economy and the work force. Lest the reader think that I am suggesting that growth alone will pull us out of this crisis, I am not. The recommendations of the deficit commission co-chairs or something like them will also be needed. The problem has grown so large that growth alone won't solve it. But it is also so large that it is unlikely that the cuts proposed will not solve it either.

In broad brush, the federal budget requires many more people to contribute to receipts. That means that work force participation must rise dramatically from where it is today. By work force participation, we must mean in the legitimate work force, because that is what generates the revenue. Getting Americans back to work is key, but so is increasing the total size of the work force. Look at this graph from economicpopulist.org


We are on a scary trend line that is causing federal receipts to fall. Is part of the trend demographic? In other words, is an aging U.S population causing the labor force participation rate to fall? Since those 65 and over have only a 15% chance of being employed, this sound plausible.

It seems likely that the only way to bring in new receipts to the federal government to close the deficit is to bring participants into the work force. Where should they come from?

The Unemployed. This is the most pressing need. The official unemployment rate is at 9.6%, but this vastly understates how bad the problem is. economicpopulist.org says it best:

U6, defined as total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, (table A.15), was 17.0%, a -0.1% decrease from last month. This number is obscene.

Getting these people back to work has to be the most important task. However, as Sharon Angle pointed out, government can not directly create the needed jobs, but has to get out of the way. Government can promote business by the consistent application of the rule of law and protection of property rights. Here are some things to aid in job creation.

• Uncertainty over the effects of Obamacare and other new regulation. A moratorium on new regulation for at least four years is needed.
• The housing market was not allowed to hit bottom. Only when prices are low enough to attract investors will new money pour into the market. I have seen this locally, where prices are not low enough for me to want to invest. Prices are still sitting at well over 20 times rent. Bust up Freddie and Fannie and let housing prices fall. With new investors in the market, then home improvement will start helping the economy.
  
• Stop rattling the markets with inflation fears through quantitative easing. I don't agree with the abolish the fed movement, but if they keep this up, I might change my mind. The fed should be most interested in a stable money supply, which will help businesses plan. Drudge links to a supposedly secret Walmart study that inflation is already here.
  
• Simplify the tax code or better yet, abolish the income tax and replace it with a value added tax (having both is unacceptable, however.) The efficiency of the tax code is relevant to economic growth, because it allows people and business to plan their economic activity in a non-distorted manner. Further, the more complex the tax code the more chicanery and bribery accrue to those getting the tax breaks. It is no coincidence that Reagan and Rostenkowski's success in simplifying the tax code and reducing rates resulted in one of the great uninterrupted economic expansions since World War II.
• Repeal Obamacare since it is responsible for both new complexity in the tax code and absurd amount of new regulation.
  

Those over 65 currently not working. It may seem cruel, and I am not advocating using force, but many of those over 65 are still able to work. Note the trends in this graph:


Labor force participation is already on the rise for those over 65. We need to look at policies that discourage that trend. For example, we tax social security benefits based on earnings of those already receiving social security. This discourages work by the elderly. Wouldn't we be better off if they were working. Raising the retirement age is a good idea, but will take significant time before that has any impact.

Immigrants. Here is the sticky wicket. First, illegal immigrants mostly participate in the labor force, however, only two-thirds of them pay social security taxes according to the only source I could find on this subject. While the article was emphasizing the two-thirds who do pay, I am concerned about adding 4-5 million people to the roles who do not.

But right now, we can't solve this problem, because we will undermine the rule of law through an amnesty. The American people deserve a secure border. But the secure border can also allow us to have the discussion needed about the role of immigrants. Those who are here illegally should not be granted citizenship, that would reward their illegal behavior, but we need to get them to all pay their share of social security taxes.

Further, a discussion of legal immigration is also needed. To help prevent the outsourcing of jobs and to increase the ratio of those paying social security taxes to those receiving, we need a massive influx of new immigrants with salable skills. The H-1B visa program has been a joke for a long time, more a lottery than a policy. I would like to see us bringing 5 million new young, skilled immigrants per year to jump start the economy. That will make a significant dent in the deficit gap and also create more jobs in America. This country still provides the greatest opportunity for upward mobility in the world. Attracting skilled immigrants should not be a problem.

I have put out a lot of opinion that is sure to be controversial. But we Tea Partiers said that we were serious about tackling the deficit. The problem is massive and challenging. Cuts alone won't do it. Cuts and tax hikes won't solve the problem. Time to think out of the box and create some growth.

How Your Support for Gay Marriage is a Threat to Craft Beer

Alternate title:
The Left and Government Sanctioned Destruction of the Culture

The key insight that brings conservatives and libertarians together in an alliance against the left is that liberty in a constitutional republic can only be predicated on a conservative culture. A conservative culture constrains the bounds of behavior so that government can exercise a light touch over a society that will still function properly. This is why the left is seeking to destroy the pillars of conservative culture in America; marriage and family, the Christian church, and the language. This is being accomplished through government aided destruction of those institutions; while simultaneously "solving" the problems so created and simultaneously growing government.  I am not making an accusation of conspiracy; merely stating that there is a shared realization on the part of the leaders of the left, whether intuitive or explicit, that traditional American culture is a bulwark against their desire for a socialist society.  Hence the movements to delegitimize the keepers of this cultural flame.

The Christian religion, and in particular, the Northern European interpretation of it, has led to a culture of individualism. In this interpretation, one's salvation is determined by an individual decision to follow Jesus. This relationship with God, an intensely personal one, without the benefit of an earthly mediator, leads directly to the conclusion that each man and woman is responsible for the ordering of his or her own life within the constraint of belief. This gives the individual the mental freedom to be entrepreneurial which is usually disruptive to the established order.  Further, within this theological understanding, the grace granted by God should lead to good works in this life as evidenced by one's hard work and frugality.  This idea of this Protestant work ethic being related to the rise and success of capitalism is not new, having been proposed by Max Weber in 1905.  There is a natural cultural pairing of Christianity and capitalism, especially in America. The left, which is nothing if not anti-capitalist, naturally views traditional Christian belief as embodied in the conservative church as an enemy.

This Christian culture is not going to survive without actual Christian belief, so the left seeks to attack both Christian belief and institutions at every opportunity.  Gay marriage is only the latest example.  The move to legalize gay marriage was followed without pause by a public campaign of persecution against those who have religious and moral objections to that outcome.  In some cases, the persecution has taken the form of state sanction against bakeries.  The seamless transition to persecution gave the lie to the notion that this was about equal rights. The gay marriage movement was clearly a ploy to delegitimize traditional Christian belief.  In the meantime, there is no parallel movements against Muslim belief, even though Islam is much more harsh in its treatment of gays than Christians. Why? Because the Left sees Muslims as potential allies to attack the traditional Christian culture.

Destroying traditional pillars of culture and morality results in the need for more government control to make up for the lack of self-control in the population. This is a feature, not a bug, of the process of destroying the culture and is embraced by the left. For example, rampant sex between undergraduates on college campuses is the norm today, or so we are led to believe. While perhaps that has always happened to some extent; it was far less in degree and done with far greater discretion in times past.  But since this behavior gives rise to sex under questionable circumstances, we have the California have the California State Legislature considering how to regulate sex on campus. Here is KTCat's take:

Of course, as we all know, freedom isn't free. No, there's a price to be paid for freedom. We must maintain eternal vigilance lest the dark powers of Christian morality and its wretched partner, chivalry, attempt to come back.
Well, vigilance and affirmative consent rules, ruthlessly enforced by the State, that is. After all, we need something to do the job of a national culture based on Judeo-Christian objective morality.

The same groups who demand that government, to include colleges acting in loco parentis, stop prohibiting sex are now those who demand that government become involved in sex at college.  Why the shift?  This has to do primarily with feminism, which seeks the destruction of traditional gender roles in society and is almost always allied with leftism for that reason.  The initial calls to deregulate sex allowed women more sexual freedom.  Coupled with the wide-spread introduction of no-fault divorce, and state support for single mothers; this shifted economic power away from bread-winning males to the state.  (Time precludes a full exposition of this theory, see Dalrock for more detail.) I note that the government has taken to jailing fathers who don't pay child support in fairly large numbers, further shifting power away from men to the government.  This is necessary because it is men who are likely to be the revolutionaries that rise up against state power.  Now, the new change in attitudes with regards to sex on college campuses is to make it easier for women to accuse men of rape and for consequences to be meted out, without the benefit of trial.  Again there is power shifting towards women, who can claim rape without having to go to trial. The shift of power to single women suits the left just fine, because they tend to be reliable supporters of left-wing candidates.  Married women are much more conservative, because the power of government robs their family of provisioning resources, since intact families are much more likely to be paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits from the state.

So how does the left act in power?  They seek to regulate all facets of society to shift ever more power to the government, in the name of protecting the ordinary worker and consumer, often harming those same groups in the process.  It is not a coincidence that the same political groups that set themselves against traditional culture are the ones who also argue for larger government.  I may add examples later, but the fight over uncontrolled illegal immigration has to do with how fast our society can today assimilate immigrants without damaging our current culture.  Those who favor amnesty and open borders that would inevitably bring in more immigrants call their opponents racist; claiming that is the only reason that traditionalists would wish to control immigration. But society can only assimilate immigrates so fast.  So the call for amnesty and open borders is a cal to subvert traditional American culture by overwhelming it with immigrants who have not had the time to assimilate.  For the most part, those supporting amnesty also support increased government spending and regulating, such as the Affordable Care Act. In turn, government spending and regulating is destructive of free markets.  The left consists of an alliance of groups such as union leaders, environmentalists, and feminists seeking to both increase the scope of government and undermine traditional society.  These goals are complimentary not separate.

Which brings me to craft beer.  My observation is that craft beer is largely a pursuit of white males who are just starting to disrupt the current market for beer dominated by large corporations like AB-InBev.  Budweiser's Super Bowl commercial was evidence that the big companies are taking notice.  AB InBev has a large contract with the Teamsters in North America.  If craft beer threatens union jobs, how long before craft brewers come under pressure?  There will be calls to raise wages, to increase regulatory scrutiny and to change alcohol distribution laws to protect the big boys and the union jobs.  (Look at what Walmart endures.)  Further, the whiteness and maleness of the industry will come under attack by the cultural marxists. (Don't believe me, perform a search on "San Diego Craft Brewers Guild" under images and look at the faces in the various pictures.) The guardians of political correctness will seek to make sure that craft beer will be seen as somehow racist or anti-feminist or some other pejorative.  When craft beer is seen as a threat, and that is just starting, then the persecution will begin.

So this is why your support for gay marriage threatens craft beer.  By supporting gay marriage you are joining an alliance that views entrepreneurs, such as craft brewers, as a threat and who wish to destroy the culture that allows free markets to thrive.  You are voting for socialism, whether you like it or not.

Yes, that's a picture of Jesus watching over my craft beer drinking.