Propositions B & C in San Diego - Slow Death for Shipbuilding

With the June 3, primary election approaches, I want to touch on Propositions B and C which are not getting enough attention.  These propositions deserve a No vote, because they would codify the City Council's approval of a plan that would limit commercial zoning in Barrio Logan; and in my opinion start the slow strangulation of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry in San Diego.  Naturally, I am opposed.  The key issue is that the plan calls for a buffer between the current industrial area and the housing surrounding it.  However, this buffer will effectively drive out some of the businesses that are currently part of the shipbuilding ecosystem of the area.  From the U-T:

Shipyard leaders have expressed concern that the new plan could drive up suppliers’ costs, make San Diego less competitive and possibly prompt the Navy to contract ship building elsewhere.

Even the left-leaning VOSD acknowledges how the plan impacts shipbuilding related industry:

The major disagreement is over that dark purple band north of Harbor Drive. The plan makes it a place for commercial properties only — not industrial businesses or homes — so there would be a “buffer” between heavy industrial activity and residences. 

Right now, that’s home to companies that support the shipyards. Those companies could stay, but they’d have limited expansion options, and new companies trying to open there would need a special permit, which the community would have a say on.

Since businesses always come and go, the plan amounts to a long term path to squeeze industrial businesses out of the area north of Harbor Drive.  The linked article has some decent maps showing the impact.

The other argument on the No side is that it would put new homes near the I-5 causing health concerns for those residents.  I am not as concerned about this issue, as people can choose to live near freeways if they want.  My real concern is for jobs in this city.

Is my headline a bit of hyperbole? Sure, but so is the argument that this won't impact a job producing industry in the long run.  I am voting no on Propositions B & C.  There are quite a few retired admiral's who care about the Navy's presence in San Diego who agree with me.

Photo courtesy of No on B & C website.

Memorial Day Reflection - Socialized Medicine for Veterans

As we reflect on the service of Americans who gave their lives in war this Memorial Day, I also reflect on the care given those who sacrificed a great deal and must now depend upon the Veterans Administration to treat their service related injuries.  You can read for yourself about the scandal of longer and longer wait times; and the lying about those facts.  Boiled down to its essentials, the scandal is about rationing care through wait times and lying about rationing care and those same wait times.  Bernie Sanders, self avowed socialist and chair of the Senate VA committee, essentially admitted to the first part by saying that there weren't enough resources to provide care.  News flash - When the Government provides goods and services we always seem to run out.

This goes to the heart of the larger issue.  Democrats have always claimed they were the party you should elect to run government competently.  But the government has grown so vast and complex, it is impossible to do so.  Obama's surprise at finding each new scandal in his administration is almost understandable, given the federal government's vast size. But the solution must come from getting government smaller, and definitely shedding its role as direct provider of services.

With regards to veterans, we clearly need to provide them with insurance alternatives to allow them to make use of private sector medicine.  They deserve to be freed of the incompetent monopoly provisioning of health care by the federal government. John McCain has said that he will make such a proposal.  Count on the left to oppose this move.  They have touted the VA as a model for single payer in the past.  To allow out-sourcing would undermine their arguments for socialized medicine, as Krugman calls the VA system in the linked article.

Reason.com gives a great synopsis what passes for "success" in the VA's socialized medical system.

How could a bloated government bureaucracy achieve such low-cost success? As we found out recently, it's by quietly sticking veterans on a waiting list and putting off their treatment for months—sometimes until the patients are far too dead to need much in the way of expensive care. Which is to say, calling it a "success" is stretching the meaning of the word beyond recognition.

On this Memorial Day, although a time for reflection about those who have died; we should support the living veterans as well, by prising their health care from the monopoly of the federal government.

What You Should Be Reading

• KTCat equates moral relativism Houston Astro fandom.  Read it, it makes sense.
• Left Coast Rebel has great hashtag for Obama on the VA scandal.
• For Memorial Day, I am embedding one of the greatest speeches for the occasion ever given, by Ronald Reagan, of course. (The text of a different but great speech here.)

Weekend Music Chill

Since I haven't been blogging regularly, I have also not been posting weekend music.  This is a mistake.  One of my favorite bands from the 1970s was ELO; here is some of their lesser known work that I have always admired.  For some reason, I can't get an ELO channel to produce consistent results for a Pandora channel.

Kuiama



Here is the 10538 Overture, which seemed an appropriate ending tune for American Hustle, a film that I really liked.  Jennifer Lawrence pleasantly surprised in a supporting role.

Unions Fund Libertarian

. . . Campaign Flyer.  Who'd a thunk it?  This flyer showed up at my house.

Unions are getting involved in the San Diego City Council District 2 race and spending money to help the Libertarian candidate, Mark Schwartz. Let's be clear, Schwartz has no chance of being elected.

If you read the fine print at the bottom, you will see that the San Diego - Imperial Counties Labor Council sponsored this flyer, along with the city Municipal Employees Association.  When I saw this show up, I was immediately suspicious.  I was a libertarian for a long time, and slick campaign flyers were almost always outside of the budget wherewithal of our candidates.

Why would the unions fund Schwartz?  It is pretty obvious, in my opinion.  They are hoping to drain enough votes from Zapf to prevent her from winning the primary outright against Progressive darling Sarah Boot.  The unions want minimum wage increases, banning of managed competition and an end to pension reform, which puts them in opposition to Zapf.  Do they really want Schwartz elected?  Here is a little of what he says on his campaign website: "I will"

- Support free market economy and free enterprise locally by working to reduce tax burden and permitting costs to San Diego businesses.
- Champion cutting tax waste with privatization of city services (managed competition,) opening small businesses bid opportunities to fill city needs.
- Vote NO on any proposed ordinance that increases tax burden on citizens. I will speak out against any new propositions or bonds to be levied on the citizens that infringe on property rights and freedom.

No way do unions support these positions.  In fact, they are exactly the positions already taken by Zapf, only she has actually taken action.  For example, she personally collected signatures to rescind the linkage fee.  I just wanted to point out to readers that voting for Schwartz is essentially a vote for Sarah Boot and an endorsement of the union platform for city government.

What You Should Be Reading

• The WSJ has been documenting vast prosecutorial over reach in the suppression of the first amendment rights of groups to advocate for issues.  Their editorial pages documents the latest smack down of Democratic prosecutors in the Badger state. 
• Dalrock has an expert takedown of Ms. Obama's pouty faced hashtag photo.  You know the one.
• The mindless leftist idiocy, but I repeat myself, of commencement speaker protests is reviewed by Daniel Henninger in Bonfire of the Humanities.  Liberal Arts as a major is imploding, because no one wants to hire people whose sole education has been to repeat stupid (and untrue) slogans.  Even the mere presence of camels is considered racist on today's college campus.
• KTCat goes to New Jersey and discovers heteronorming patriarchal oppression among the Osprey population. (The birds, not the aircraft.)

Update From Bob Brewer Campaign on Handgun Issue

I asked the Bob Brewer for DA campaign what the candidate's position was with regards to Drake v Jerejian, which revolves around requirement by the state of New Jersey that permitted handgun owner show "justifiable need" to be issued a permit to carry in public.  I did so because one of my beefs with Bonnie Dumanis during her tenure as DA was signing an amicus brief asking the courts to deny an individual right to bear arms in Heller v District of Columbia.  Drake v Jerejian was being considered by the Supreme Court at the time I asked the question, but has the petition to hear the case was subsequently denied.  Regardless, here is Bob Brewer's campaign manager's (Alex Roth) response to my query:

After Heller and McDonald, we were not surprised to see the Supreme Court taking up Drake v. Jerejian.  We don’t believe that the District Attorney should be filing amicus briefs on the issue – like Bonnie Dumanis did in Heller when she filed an amicus brief supporting DC’s (thereafter overturned) ban on keeping firearms in the home for self-defense.  We can’t be certain of the ruling or scope of the Court’s review in Drake, and Peruta allowed individuals to have a CCW without “good cause.” Therefore, this is the current state of the law.  As District Attorney, Bob Brewer is committed to enforcing the law.

That is probably as good as I was going to get from an attorney running for public office.  I appreciate that he wouldn't file amicus briefs against 2nd amendment challenges.  Certainly the reference to Peruta v County of San Diego is good; still, I was hoping for a more robust defense of the 2nd amendment in the response; but certainly better than Dumanis.

Sarah Boot - Progressive?

Oh yeah, and by progressive, that means a person of the left as opposed to a mere SWPL-y person of pallor.

Sarah Boot is running against quasi-incumbent Lorie Zapf for San Diego City Council in District 2.  For full disclosure, recent redistricting moved my home from District 6 to District 2, like Zapf. I am very interested in this race. San Diego City Beat has this to say about Boot:

In 2010, she was selected as a fellow for the San Diego chapter of the New Leaders Council, which aims to train “progressive political entrepreneurs” for leadership roles, elected office among them. She’s also a founding member of Run Women Run, a local organization focused on getting politically progressive women in office. [emphasis mine.]

On her campaign web site, Boot promises to work for neighborhoods and public safety.  Both Mayor Faulconer, the former Council-member from the district, and Council-member Zapf made this a priority in their campaigns as well.  You have to go to her issues page to find the evidence of left-leaning tendencies.  Even what you find there is pretty mild.

I will work to provide all San Diegans with good paying jobs in industries of the future not dead end jobs of the past.  These are jobs in “green” industries such as alternative energy like solar and wind and retrofitting our public buildings and “blue” industries that take advantage of our port and ocean front maritime trades.  Whether its promoting “green” or “blue” technologies or championing our local biotech businesses, San Diego needs a city government that is forward thinking and uses our economic development dollars wisely.

But there is not a word about the key issues which have divided the city council of late, the minimum wage debate, the zoning in Bario Logan, pension reform, the hotel tax, linkage fees nor managed competition.  So a little research is in order.  By the way, green jobs are a myth.  I notice that the left has always had a tendency to hide their positions, but I digress.

On the issue of the linkage fee, dumbest tax ever, Boot made her support known in the OB town council debate.  Her stance on the linkage fee is disqualifying, in my opinion.  I can't find reference to Boot's stance on managed competition, although Zapf vigorously supported the concept in the PB and Clairemont forums.  On the issue of the minimum wage, Boot makes her progressive bona fides clear by supporting some sort of increase in an interview with Frank Gormlie in the OBRag. She also discusses the importance of climate disruption change (maybe she hadn't gotten the memo) and other progressive shibboleths.  In the same interview she exhibits hostility towards outsourcing, although not the same as managed competition, might certainly be an indicator.

If Sarah Boot is elected to the city council, we can expect major intrusions by city government and a very union friendly 6-3 Democrat majority on the council.  It means no to any more pension reform, managed competition or any other efforts to keep city costs under control.  Further, plastic bag bans, changes to how we get our electricity, raising minimum wages so my son can lose his job and general interference in our lives will be on its way.  I think Lorie Zapf has been great on the City Council, but even if she had been mediocre, I would still be endorsing her over Sarah Boot.

What You Should Be Reading

• Giving us hope for this generations of collegiate students, UNC Sophomore Timothy Bame writes about the myth of clean energy.  45% of the electricity generated in the United States is through the use of coal. It is also by far the cheapest form of electricity and the easiest to obtain, yet it remains in plentiful supply. (H/T College Insurrection).  I would add that the shift to natural gas has reduced carbon emissions by more than any "green" technology ever will.
• Meanwhile, despite repeated claims that we need all that solar and wind because of peak oil, America is on a path to achieve its highest rates of petroleum production, evah!  
• State Rep Joseph Gibbons of FL points out that California's net-metering policies are subsidizing solar power providers because they avoid paying for the electrical that they depend upon.  As someone who has recently received some quotes for solar, I worry that a change to a rationale policy for connecting to the grid will change my savings calculations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am still doing more research before I endorse.

Our Inspiring Heritage - My DC Trip

The flagrancy of leftist tom-foolery, for which they feel no embarrassment, left me without the desire to blog for a while, because I don't like to blog angry, and there has been much to be angry about.  However, I just returned from Washington DC, and was inspired by the monuments and memorials that I saw.  In marble, granite and bronze we have memorialized the ideas and ideals that have made our country great; and by that I mean free, even when not rich; and aspiring to greater moral character, even when falling short of perfection. 

I believe the importance of increasing liberty in a time when it is decreasing.  In such times, the sights in DC reminded me of that perseverance in the cause of liberty is necessary for its triumph.  George Washington's history, on display in the National Museum of American History, reminded me of the willingness to make great sacrifice against long odds in the cause of liberty.  My favorite quote was from King George III:

When King George III heard Washington would resign his commission to a powerless Congress, he told the painter Benjamin West: “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

He did so because he believed more in the cause he served than in himself.  Today, we need such leaders in the liberty movement, but certainly our cause is more likely to give rise to such men and women than leftism and socialism. 

At the Iwo Jima memorial, I marveled at what moved very ordinary men to risk their lives hoisting our country's flag.  Half of the six would later die on that island.  Our country still produces such heroes.

When our imperfect country could not come to grips with the evil of slavery, Lincoln explained why war was necessary to preserve the Union.  There are those who have argued that secession might be a right of the states under a legal reading of the constitution, but Lincoln made clear that a secession to perpetuate an evil that had been intended by the framers not to endure, was illegitimate. 

I also visited the crypt of John Paul Jones. Here was a man who adopted our cause as his own, even thought he was a Scotsman and therefore a British citizen.  I am convinced that the call to resist tyranny will continue be attractive to men of character even into our age.  It was fitting that Theodore Roosevelt ordered a state funeral for him when his body was returned to the United States.

Photo courtesy of U.S. Naval Academy.

I don't intend a travelogue of my visit, I just wanted to share that I was inspired.  A trip to Washington in April is certainly good for the soul.

Economic Pictures Still Sucks - Especially If You're Young

I am going to get a little wonky in this article. If you don't want to read the details, here is the summary: Older folks (55+) are staying in the work force more, younger people (25-) are not in the work force and the net effect is that the total percent of people working has declined. You may now skip to What You Should Be Reading below

Net effect graphically:

U.S. Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate. Source bls.gov.

An interesting article by Ben Casselman at 538 about the declining labor force participation rate reminded me that all the happy talk about the unemployment rate is pure bunk.  He applies some modeling to conclude that of the 8 million missing jobs illustrated by our graph above, some were lost due to demographic trends and things like fewer teens. Ben's somewhat charitable assessment of the Obama recovery:

Our final tally, then, is that 2 to 4 million of our original 8 million “missing workers” might return to the labor force as the economy improves. That’s a lot of people: If all of them were considered unemployed, the unemployment rate would now stand at between 7.8 percent and 9 percent, down significantly from the worst of the recession, but high enough to suggest an economy that is still far from fully healed.

However, fellow SLOB, W.C. Varones pointed out on Twitter that Ben's explanatory model was also bunk.  The situation is actually worse.

@wcvarones @NYTimeskrugman great article on missing jobs and real unemployment rate from 538. http://t.co/G2W29QNmYA
— B Daddy (@BDaddyLiberator) March 27, 2014

The link is to a great article by the indomitable Zero Hedge that looks at the data underlying the top level statistics.  I downloaded my own data from the BLS to illustrate.

Here is the civilian labor force participation rate for the geezers since 2000:

U.S. Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate for age 55+. Source bls.gov.

And here is the same data for the youngsters (16-24).

U.S. Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate (16-24). Source bls.gov.

It is pretty obvious that the drop in participation rate is far great for the younger age population.  Demographic trends of the older folks retiring is pure bunk.  These statistics bode ill for the future because we aren't getting youth employed when they should be starting their working lives.  The "real" unemployment rate?  Who knows, but just based on the 8 million lost jobs, it would be 11.8%.  Even if you don't think that is a fair analysis, that represents lost production in the economy and lost income to the population as a whole.  It's a little late in the game for Obama to be blaming Bush.  And as for you millenials who keep voting for Obama and his cronies, what is wrong with you?

Late add:  You know what would really help youth unemployment? Increasing the minimum wage to further disconnect their pay from their skill levels.


What You Should Be Reading.

• Dean updates us on the High Speed Choo-Choo debacle. Bottom line, maybe not so fast.  I love Neel Kashkari's retort to someone who claimed the voters approved this. "They voted for a train about twice as fast and half the price."
• College Insurrection, because they cover the college scene from a unique conservative perspective.
• About Bob Brewer's campaign for District Attorney, because maybe we need a DA who didn't oppose gun rights in D.C. v Heller and will work to normalize the medical marijuana situation in the city.  (This is not an endorsement of Brewer, I just have issues with Bonnie Dumanis who was also weak on Prop D as well.)

My Son May Lose His Job

. . . If the city of San Diego passes a minimum wage hike.  The San Diego City Council has taken the first step to put a separate minimum wage hike on the ballot.  This is a terrible idea beyond the usual arguments against a minimum wage increase.  But, first the issue with a hike at all.  The argument gets made that there is some right to be paid a certain amount of money just because one work's a full time job.  It doesn't matter if the worker's skills can command that amount compensation.  The practical effect of increasing the minimum wage is to pick some winners and some losers.  Some employers have said that they would cut staff.  My son makes minimum wage; I don't want him to lose his job if his employer makes that choice to keep down labor costs.  From the WSJ:

Just over half of U.S. businesses that pay the minimum wage would hire fewer workers if the federal standard is raised to $10.10 per hour, according to a survey by a large staffing firm to be released Wednesday. But the same poll found a majority of those companies would not cut their current workforce.
About two-thirds of employers paying the minimum wage said they would raise prices for goods or services in response to an increase, the survey by Express Employment Professionals found. About 54% of minimum-wage employers would reduce hiring if the federally mandated rate increased by $2.85 per hour. A smaller share—38% — said they would lay off employees if the wage increase favored by President Barack Obama becomes law.

Expressed graphically from the same article, here are the percent of companies responding to the yes/no question: If the minimum wage were to increase to $10.10 per hour, would your company . . .

The argument for the minimum wage hike is couched in terms of the earning power of a single individual making that wage providing for a family.  If that is the argument, then why isn't the minimum wage different for teenage students living at home.  Why isn't it different for a bunch of single men or women sharing a small apartment?  What if you have a chronic illness? Shouldn't you get paid more?

In fact none of those circumstances matter, because they ignore the justice for the employer, who needs to get productive labor from the work force to stay in business.  It's also unfair to consumers who will have to pay more.  It's unfair to those workers who will lose jobs.  It's unfair to the unemployed who might not get a chance to get a job.  If you are going to argue fairness why isn't fairness for those groups mentioned?

Finally, increasing the minimum wage just in the city limits is ludicrous.  Our city has a hard enough time competing because we live in California, but to lose jobs to Poway and El Cajon is egregiously stupid.  Do Democrats want their party to be synonymous with unemployment?  It would seem so.

What You Should Be Reading

• KT Cat and Dean both discuss the disgusting burning of human fetal remains in England.
• Waves of banker suicides around the world?  Leading indicator that is time to cash out capital gains from this bull market? H/T WC Varones.
• For a dying party, the GOP seems curiously successful.
• James Poulos examines the role of Asian-American Democratic legislators in killing affirmative action legislation for California public universities in Cal Watchdog.  From the comments: Democrats cannot take Asians votes for granted as they do the Black voter, . . .

Mayor Faucloner Meets my Neighbors in South Clairemont

And some of them were a tad rude.

Kevin Faulconer wearing his SDSU Aztec tie at South Clairemont Rec Center

I attended the inaugural "Meet the Mayor" session yesterday and was impressed with the Mayor's focus.  Since I can't find any press coverage, I am providing a summary and a little editorial comment of my own.  (I'm a blogger not a journolist.  Misspell intentional.)  I had to leave a little early, and I left a little earlier than I had to, which I will discuss later.

There were about 75 people on hand for the event.  Faulconer took the stage and joke about being feeling even taller than usual.  He summarized some key early accomplishments and efforts from his new administration.

• The appointment of new Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman is going to result in clear standards of conduct for officers and clear expectations.  The new budget will have funds for recruiting and retention of officers.
• The mayor met with the mayor and city council of Tijuana, an important regional relationship.  Manufacturing on either side of the border can result in increased jobs for the region.
• He will emphasize open government.  He has killed the policy on deleting emails after one year.  
• The U.S. Open is coming to San Diego in 2021. He can't guarantee as exciting a finish as Tiger Woods vs Rocco Mediate in 2008. 
• He appointed of Kris McFadden to start fixing issues with storm water and the streets as head of Storm Water and Transportation.
• He has one month to prepare the city budget.  The budget priorities will be on investments in neighborhoods that have been neglected, continuing pension reform and competition for services.  Specifically he will target more street repairs, library hours and recreation center hours.  The recovering economy and reforms are paying off. 
• He wants to bring a customer service attitude for all of the city.  The city is delivering services for the taxpayer who pays the bills.  
• His major focus is on getting San Diegans back to work. Not only getting new companies to come to the city, but allowing existing companies to expand operations.  A healthy economy is key to providing the money to pay for the needed services the city provides.

He then opened the floor to Q&A:

Q: [I had a little difficulty understanding this first question] What are we doing with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding with regards to neighborhoods?

A: The mayor discussed using some of the money to repair sidewalks by shifting a greater percentage of the money to the city.

Backstory here.

Q: Rambling question about Sea World and reading from an LA Times editorial about orcas in captivity.  Faulconer politely asked what the question might be.

A: Sea World's 50th anniversary was cause for city recognition.  They are a national leader in conservation.  The city council unanimously recognized Sea World with a proclamation of March as "Sea World" month.

This was the first PETA activist question.  This was Q&A for the mayor, not a forum to grandstand.

Q: Clairemont-Mesa Blvd and Morena have huge potholes that need fixing. [Ed comment: Oh yeah! and add Clairemont Dr.]  Also many of the boards and commissions run by the city need members.

A: "I love fixing pot holes."  [This drew applause and laughter.]  Faulconer discussed a process improvement that the audit committee helped discover in geographically grouping pot hole repairs. [Ed. note: That it took the audit committee to help figure this out is more reason for managed competition.]

Faulconer said the city's web site had information on commission and board opportunities.  He said that he had started on the board of Mission Bay Park, which is right near us.  "Maybe the next mayor of San Diego is in the audience."  [Ed note: I found a little challenging to find these opportunities when searching the web site and they are scattered on various pages.]

A follow on discussion on the Balboa park celebration ensued.  He said that the celebration would be something San Diegans could be proud of and would be affordable.  It will focus on the park and museums and San Diego's heritage.  A grandiose "international" celebration is not in the works.  He noted that if an L.A. firm had been involved as the key planner, that is no longer the case.

Q: Pulling permits is arduous and difficult process. It's a horrible process.  What can you do?
A: "We can do something." Faulconer promised the city will have clear rules of the road and will play no favorites in the permitting process. He added that the city will speed up the process and make known the stage of the process through an on-line system.  "Time is money." Getting permits process improved is tied to economic development in his view.

Q: A Sorrento Vally man asked why there was not community signage for Sorrento Valley, unlike Clairemont or other neighborhoods.  He said that the city seems to have no rules and no process to make this decision.
A: "I don't like to hear 'no rules, no process.'" [Ed note: I loved that this was his first instinct.  We need this in the mayor's office after Filner's multiple illegal debacles.] He directed his aide to put it on the board to look into.

Q: Where are we at with the Oversize Vehicle Ordnance?
A: The mayor said that although the council has approved the ordnance, it must still be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission.  However, San Diego is the only large coastal city that lacks such a law.  He anticipates a late summer or early fall decision and the city will present a full defense of the law.

Q: Some crank started to talk about the courts and the banking system and rambled on.
A: Faulconer answered patiently that the courts were not in the mayor's jurisdiction.  He noted that Chief Zimmerman was re-instituting a professional standards unit for the police.

At this point two more questioners, obviously from PETA started in on Sea World again.  They were reading prepared statements, in one case off their cell phone.  At one point, the mayor asked if there was a question in there.  He stated that he respected their right to their opinion, but that there was obviously a difference of opinion.  He handled with all the class the previous mayor lacked.

I was not so sanguine.  At this point I walked out of the meeting, and I admit to uttering a profanity sotto voce on my way out.  (I was the tall guy in blue shirt and tie, if you were there.) I don't respect PETA activists because they do not deserve respect when they hijack a question and answer session for the community with their grandstanding.  In general, PETA uses violent and illegitimate methods because their belief that humans are lower than animals is illegitimate.  Its clear to me that the activists at the meeting were mentally damaged already, so my display of pique wasn't going to change that.

Overall, Mayor Faulconer was the excellent communicator and level headed, classy guy I voted for.  This was a great event.

Weekend Music Chill - Covers

For the life of me, I can't understand why I haven't posted these two versions of the rock classic "Mony, Mony."  First, the original with Tommy James and the Shondells.



And the remake with Billy Idol.



Comments welcome.

Today's Adventure in Government Health Care

I have government provided health care.  If you know me or read this blog, you can probably figure which program I am under.  On Christmas Day last year, my credit card was involved in a fraudulent transaction, possibly due to the Target breach, but I don't have any hard evidence as to the real culprit.  I didn't notice the fraud until January 12th, unfortunately.  When I reported it, my card was canceled and a new number issued.  So far, so not so bad.  Of course, recurring charges against the card stop as well.  One of the charges was for health insurance.  I will admit I should have checked what recurring charges that I had, but thought I had a little time.

On January 31, my coverage was canceled.  I didn't get a notice of cancelation until sometime in mid-February.  I immediately faxed in a re-enrollment form along with my new credit card information, thinking that I had solved the problem.  No chance that it would be easy. This was not accepted, in spite of my willingness to pay, because my case had to be "adjudicated." On March 12, I got a notice that I could submit a request for reinstatement, different from re-enrollment, which I promptly faxed, again with my credit card payment information and valid legal signature.   Then I was mailed a letter that arrived today, March 17, that congratulations, you are reinstated but could you please provide us a payment.  I can't seem to give these people my card enough times. Anticipating that they would again screw up, I had already tried to pay online on March 16.

On March 17, Mrs. Daddy needed an appointment, but of course she couldn't get one at our primary care, no insurance. She called the health benefits administrator and again, they asked for a credit card payment, which they finally took over the phone.  (Can't do it online or with a faxed, signed authorization, but we can take your card over the phone.)  She waited a few hours and called back for an appointment.  Nope.  The woman taking appointments said, I can see that you paid, but the charges haven't gone through, so we can't make an appointment.  Of institutions that accept credit cards, no one but the federal government won't accept my credit card for payment for services at the time I make the payment.  Even the stinking DMV doesn't wait for the payment to process.

Mrs. Daddy will try to get an appointment again tomorrow.  I am not keeping anyone updated, because this just sucks enough.

Anyway, these guys are being put in charge of everyone's health care insurance now, so, good luck.

Dean, you need to alert Harry Reid of another liar over here.

What You Should Be Reading:

• Left Coast Rebel, with the best headline to sum up the administration's response to the Crimea situation.
• How about a little forcible anal rape in support of the "War on Drugs."
• Lying government statistics hide the "rot in the jobs numbers."
• Dalrock's observation: He must have been a very bad dog.
• Zerohedge presents more evidence that China's economy is unwinding and it will end badly.

What You Should Not Be Reading or Watching:

• Anything about twerking, cats, the first lady or other nonsense being used to promote the ACA.

ACA Repeal UPDATE - Sebelius Denies, BDaddy Checks the Facts

The Hill reported that HHS Secretary Sebelius is denying that she repealed Obamacare.  That wasn't the actual question, but she did say that there was not plan to delay the individual mandate until 2016 as the WSJ reported yesterday and I repeated on this blog.  That prompted me to review the policy in question.  Turns out... it's complicated.  But this is the ACA, what else would we expect?
If you want to read the relevant documents they are here, here, and here.  Here is how I break it down.

The March 5th memo states:

On December 19, 2013, CMS issued guidance indicating that individuals whose policies are cancelled because the coverage is not compliant with the Affordable Care Act qualify for a hardship exemption if they find other options to be more expensive, and are able to purchase catastrophic coverage.³ This hardship exemption will continue to be available until October 1, 2016, for those individuals whose non-compliant coverage is cancelled and who meet the requirements specified in the guidance. 

In English: hardship for cancellations extended.  The footnote links to the actual December 19 memo which applies only to cancelled policies that did not meet the ACA standards.  The actual change in policy is that the exemption for cancelled policies is extended to 2016.  The WSJ makes the point that there seems to be a lax standard for proving that one's cancelled coverage is a reason to opt out.  But that depends on how much scrutiny HHS gives to such hardship applications. Not mentioned is the real possibility, in my view, that such applications may be denied. Also, it is clear that the rule change only applies to exemption category 13, cancellations on the HHS Exemption Form.  This makes the sub-headline misleading: HHS quietly repeals the individual purchase rule for two more years.  What is not discussed in the article is that the cancellation process is different from other processes, because the individual must submit the hardship exemption to another insurer who offers catastrophic coverage before the exemption can be considered.

So what of the realities of the individual mandate.  Hardship exemptions do seem fairly easy to obtain, but the rub is that since the process is so arcane, no one is going to know how to do this ahead of tax filing time.  As a matter of fact, it seems likely that only the better educated and therefor more well off will file an exemption.  Here are some comforting words from the HHS on getting your exemption, from the "What happens next?" part of the form.

 Except for cancellations, send your complete, signed application to the address on page 4. We’ll follow-up with you within 1–2 weeks and let you know if we need additional information. If you get this exemption, we’ll give you an Exemption Certificate Number that you’ll put on your federal income tax return. If you don’t hear from us, visit HealthCare.gov, or call the Health Insurance Marketplace Call Center at 1-800-318-2596. See page 4 for next steps for cancellations. 

So what if you just don't pay?  Here is what the IRS has to say about that:

The IRS routinely works with taxpayers who owe amounts they cannot afford to pay. The law prohibits the IRS from using liens or levies to collect any individual shared responsibility payment. However, if you owe a shared responsibility payment, the IRS may offset that liability against any tax refund that may be due to you.

So, you are better off owing the feds taxes, which I have always told people, because they can't impose a lien.  

Bottom Line:

How much of an actual mandate still exists is a matter of conjecture and based on unknown future behavior of citizens and the HHS.  This is a set up for both tyranny and revolt.  

A Whimper not A Bang - ACA Quietly Repealed by Sebelius

So this is what victory over the Affordable Care Act looks like.

But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you "believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy" or "you consider other available policies unaffordable."
This lax standard—no formula or hard test beyond a person's belief—at least ostensibly requires proof such as an insurer termination notice. But people can also qualify for hardships for the unspecified nonreason that "you experienced another hardship in obtaining health insurance," which only requires "documentation if possible." And yet another waiver is available to those who say they are merely unable to afford coverage, regardless of their prior insurance. In a word, these shifting legal benchmarks offer an exemption to everyone who conceivably wants one.

Well that was weird.  The ACA individual mandate, the whole Supreme Court fight, if you recall, was about its core essentiality to the success of the law.  And now the same Sebelius, defendant in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, has very quietly gutted the individual mandate. As the WSJ article quoted above points out, the longer the mandate isn't enforced, the less likely that it will EVER be enforced.  And I thought we were going to have to wait until 2017 to have a chance at repeal.

Katherine, we've got to gut this thing before the GOP can.

Republicans should publicize this ruling far and wide, declaring victory over this hated law.  Then they need to work on real health care reform, because the problems with health care that has caused the electorate to tolerate the Democrats aren't going away either.  As I have published before, here is a start:

Liberty Movement Health Care Plan (first published in 2011):

Here is the plan that John Mackey of Whole Foods proposed, my comments in italics.

1. "Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts." Patients who have skin in the game and market knowledge will reduce costs faster than any government program.
2. "Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."
3. Allow competition across state lines.
4. "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover."
5. "Enact tort reform."
6. "Make costs transparent."
7. "Enact medicare reform." Medicare policies that are mimicked by the private sector are strangling the medical profession.
8. Revise tax law to make it easier to donate to those without insurance.

To expand on these points.

1. The government could help lead this effort by reforming first Medicaid, by turning it into an insurance subsidy program for the poor. But the program would require those in the program to pay a high copay until a low catastrophic cap was reached. Such a system would create a market for a system where people have more incentive to shop for best value in medical care. This system could then be applied to Medicare.
2. The next big issue is that health care is tied to employment. My first impulse is to forbid the offering of insurance through employment, but that would make a conservative social engineer, instead of a liberal one. Removing the tax advantage would at least set a level playing field. To date, the portion of employee compensation that comes in the form of employer health insurance isn't taxed as compensation. This ties employees to their companies and needlessly. You would think that liberals would be opposed to a scheme where tax policy gives corporations leverage over employees. However, I dislike schemes whereby the government imposes on employee relations, so I will settle for leveling the playing field.
3. Interstate competition is not the norm in insurance. Surely the federal government has the right to "regulate" as in "make regular" this portion of interstate commerce, by insuring that any insurance offered for sale in a state would be available in the fifty states. Increasing competition will probably be opposed by the insurance industry, but freer markets benefit consumers.
4. One size never fits all. So mandating coverage should be banned. Insurance is always tricky business, even homeowner's insurance, as Road Dawg can attest to. Along with no mandates will be the need to enforce clear language in policies and communications with policy holders. I am a libertarian, but not so naive as to believe that some insurance companies won't try to wriggle out of agreements to save money. Court is expensive for individual consumers, so regulation that enforces good practices of transparency and clarity will be necessary. But regulation should always aim for simplicity and this also needs to be part of a reform package.
5. With regards to tort reform, we have seen positive results in Texas, where access to care increased after passage of reform.
6. Cost transparency is important to enable process improvement and allow patient choice. Most people don't know the true cost of a medical visit, even after the visit is over. Here again, Medicaid reform could lead the way, by insisting that patients receive better notice and understanding of their bill.
7. Medicare policies with regards to reimbursement are arcane and lead to huge misunderstandings on what is covered and unexpected bills. Transforming Medicare to save it for those who truly need it, into an insurance subsidy scheme, will get the government out of the rule writing business and free up insurance plans to compete.
8. Allowing Americans to donate to those who need health care insurance might make little difference, but maybe not. I see lots of do-gooder millionaires wanting to pay more taxes. Maybe they could pay for poor people's insurance in the interim.

Visiting Carl DeMaio's Campaign

Mrs. Daddy and I visited Carl DeMaio's campaign headquarters today, meeting up with family there.  I got a minute to chat with DeMaio about the campaign. I told him that I appreciated his work on Proposition D and Proposition B.  He related that the effort to reform county pensions in Ventura County had run into problems because of unions trying to block signature gatherers.  A little research on that issue revealed that the Ventura County sheriff had joined the union protestors, which any taxpayer or advocate of free speech should find disturbing.  DeMaio said that "we" had been able to get the intimidation and blocking to stop.  I was not clear as to whom he was referring to, as this was not an interview.

He also discussed the possibility of a future ballot measure to fix pensions state-wide, which would include public votes on pensions.  His take was that politicians get re-elected with union help, in part by approving generous pension benefits.  When the bill comes due, those politicians are long gone, having reaped the electoral benefits, but leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.  This is why the public should get to vote on pensions.  He also said that pension increases should be limited to the increases of the CPI.

Tony Krvaric was also there, it was good to shake his hand.  I congratulated him on his win in the San Diego Rostra mayoral prediction contest.  He described Faulconer's mayoral campaign as "flawless." 

What You Should Be Reading:

• Costa Mesa city council members are involved in a fight with the police union over contract negotiations.  The truth about whether the union and its legal team were behind a false report of drunk driving against a council member may come out soon when the P.I. who phoned in the complaint is deposed. 
• Not Craig Gustafson, formerly of the U-T, who is now Mayor Faulconer's Press Secretary.  I thought he had done a great job covering local politics at the U-T. Congratulations and sorry to see him leave reporting.
• Kathy Hamilton at CalWatchdog.com provides details that prove there is really no money for the high speed choo-choo.

Reporters who want to receive Mayor Faulconer's news releases, please email me at cgustafson@sandiego.gov if u don't get them already.
— Craig Gustafson (@gustafsoncraig) March 7, 2014

Weekend Music Chill

This week's music somehow snuck into my 80's mellow station on Pandora, even though released in 2005.  I find this version pretty relaxing.

Here is Sufjan Stevens with the Adult Contemporary Version of his hit Chicago.



From the same Pandora station here is Bryan Ferry with Don't Stop the Dance:




P.S. I seeded this Pandora station with a single song and it has been by far my consistent and favorite.

When Are Those Poor People Going To Give Up?

An old joke about the war on poverty is that we won't win it until those poor people give up.  Given that this war is 50 years old, the joke is getting old.  So are government programs that never achieve their goals but are never abandoned.  Occasionally, it's good to reflect on the decades of fail.

• War on Poverty - 50 years, no end in sight.
• War on Drugs - 42 years, no end in sight.
• War on Terror - 12 years, no end in sight.  (The enabling legislation is still on the books.)

I didn't object to waging war to dislodge the Taliban from Afghanistan, but waging war on something as nebulous as terrorism was always going to be an excuse for never ending appropriations, not to mention a rapacious approach to violating our civil rights.  When politicians want to launch a "war," we should be very afraid.

So how do we think the battle to ensure every American has health insurance is going to turn out?  How much is our government really going to effect global warming?  Will federal action do anything to reduce income inequality? (In fact, it will increase the inequality by lining the pockets of already wealthy K street lobbyists.)

Epic fail after epic fail and the left continues to cling bitterly to the belief that more government will solve more problems.  How leftism can be seen as hip escapes me, is it hip to be a moron? 

What You Should Be Reading

• Professor Perry helpfully points out that all low wage jobs added in the last year were for less than 30 hours a week.  
• Ilya Somin, blogging at Volokh Conspiracy, has a good take on the situation in the Crimea.  I think that some of the hysteria is overblown, but that some retaliation is in order.
• KTCat has an even more succinct summation of the Ukraine's position.

Can We Kill This Choo-Choo Project Already?

Under the heading of "What You Should Be Reading," Cal Watchdog.com certainly comes to mind.  They have great coverage of key California state issues from what appears to be a conservative perspective, but that might be the result of all the bad governance by the lefties that run this state.  Chris Reed is a frequent contributor and covers California politics with a sharp eye.  He has come to the conclusion that California's "Top Dems" want the high speed rail project killed because they aren't applying their usual thugishness in propelling it forward.  Calling it the "Dog That Didn't Bark," he cites two main facts.  First, the handling of the initiative intended to shut down the train:

The Secretary of State’s Office released the official title and summary for a proposed anti-bullet train ballot measure prepared by the AG’s office, and it seems downright reasonable and fair.

Second, he cites inept lawyering by the California AG in answering the question of how Jerry Brown is going to kill the train without appearing to be doing so on purpose.

How are they going to pull this off? Through intentionally inept lawyering.
. . .
For five months after Judge Kenny’s ruling, the Brown administration didn’t question its legal reasoning one bit. Now the administration accuses the judge of ‘erecting obstacles found nowhere in the voter-approved bond act’ of 2008 that provided $9.95 billion in bond seed money for the project. Huh? How can the governor and attorney general make this argument now when they didn’t before? 

Well, maybe.  The problem with this theory is that it makes Jerry Brown out to be some Frank Underwood super-pol.  (I just started watching Season 1 of House of Cards, and yes, I am hooked.) David  Burge has other ideas about U.S. pols in general.

Most laughable thing about House of Cards: politicians portrayed as Machiavellian super-geniuses. Real DC pols are 92-IQ shameless thugs.
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) February 20, 2014

But we Californians are due a break.  I know, we keep electing leftist thugs.  But could we at least kill this train before it destroys businesses and farmland in the Central Valley.  God has punished them enough with this drought.

What You Should Be Reading

• Holman Jenkins explains why, even if you believe in man-made global warming, getting the government involved is a huge mistake. Bottom line, there is no government action which will solve this problem faster than the free market.
• KTCat views the vetoed AZ religious liberty law through a lens crafted in Riyadh. 
• Fellow SLOBs give their perspectives on Bitcoin, theoretical and practical.  Meanwhile some idiot at Thinkprogress does no thinking in writing that Bitcoin is about (drum roll please) white male privilege.  Ms. Strasser is thoroughly schooled in the comments. Women and minorities for whom she condescendingly thought to speak point out that they are capable of making economic decisions for themselves.
• Dalrock dissects the realities of declining SMV for divorcées. 
• Kimberly Strassel reveals the latest ongoing Obama IRS assault on conservatives and Tea Partyers.

My Enemy's Enemy

. . . Can still be my enemy.  The left has set out to stifle my free speech on social issues.  I am compelled to recognize homosexual unions as marriages.  I am compelled to subsidize insurance plans that cover abortion. If I am a Catholic organization, I am compelled to pay for insurance for contraception.  All of these are attacks intended to delegitimize my social beliefs through government coercion.  So shouldn't I be thankful that there is a world leader ready to fight for the value of social conservatives?  Owen Matthews reports:

In his annual state of the nation speech to Russia’s parliament in December, Vladimir Putin assured conservatives around the world that Russia was ready and willing to stand up for ‘family values’ against a tide of liberal, western, pro-gay propaganda ‘that asks us to accept without question the equality of good and evil’. Russia, he promised, will ‘defend traditional values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilisation in every nation for thousands of years’. Crucially, Putin made it clear that his message was directed not only at Russians — who have already been protected from ‘promotion of non-traditional relationships’ by recent legislation — but for ‘more and more people across the world who support our position’.

Well, maybe not so much.  Here's the problem; Putin is a corrupt tyrant who has blood on his hands.  Other than that, he makes a great champion of family values.  Holman Jenkins recounts the tale of Alexander Litvinenko, who had evidence that Putin benefited from a series of bombings that the Russian state security apparatus manufactured themselves but blamed on the Chechens.  We see Putin's heavy hand in the Ukraine, where he has used bribery and economic pressure to undermine the desires of the Ukrainians for greater prosperity through economic ties to Europe.  (Whether that will lead to prosperity is anyone's guess, but it is their right to make the choice.)  Putin's machinations are well chronicled.

Taking up with the likes of Putin is never morally acceptable, nor it will it prove to be a winning strategy.  As much as I see the leftist tile of this administration as tyrannical (who else would be unashamedly suing the Little Sisters of the Poor?), throwing in with tyrants only weakens our cause.  The Russian Orthodox church has seen fit to again make an alliance with a tyrannical Russian government.  Historically in Europe, the alliance between church and state ultimately weakened the church, as it lost focus on its founder and became enmeshed in politics.  Some on the Christian Right, such as the World Congress of Families and Bryan Fischer are praising Putin.  I can not let this pass.  Our point of view will prevail, because it is grounded in fundamental and eternal truths, not because we find tyrants to help enforce our ideas.  We don't need to make a deal with the devil.

What You Should Be Reading

• The nomination of Vice Admiral Mike Rodgers to head both the NSA and U.S. Cyber Command has opened the door to more revelations about the extent of Iranian penetration of U.S. Navy networks.  I warned that our tacit admission regarding Stuxnet would have consequences. 
• Dean adds more to the leftism = fascism meme that started this post.  The problem with your California high-speed choo-choo? Apparently, not enough Mussolini. 
• The most under-reported story in America? The tragedies that the divorce industry wreaks on the American family. H/T Temple of Mut.