Go to my new "leftie" Rider blog

If perchance you come across this blog with Google, please be aware that I seldom post here anymore. I have a new, more active blog:
www.RiderBlog.NotLong.com

While this blogger.com "Rider Rant" area has interesting posts from much of 2009, all my new stuff goes to the new blog.

Two reasons for the switch (including the "leftie" factor):

1. Arcane formatting differences.

2. Open Salon is a big leftie blogging area. I don't allow comments on my blog items (HUGE waste of my time). I'm driving 'em CRAZY, since I don't give them the "COMMENT" forum to post their pathetic rebuttals. Their frustration comes through to me as a few enraged progressives frantically search me out via Google and vent their collectivist spleens. Life is good.


BTW, if you haven't looked into using "RSS feeds" to read the ever-updating news and blogs -- you must do so now. Much more efficient way to educate yourself, and to waste your time more productively. As an intro, I recommend an informative if slightly gonzo 3 minute YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0klgLsSxGsU

For my "RSS reader," I use www.igoogle.com as my browser home page. This Google option offers many, many other neat services as well (all on the same page) -- stock and commodity quotes, weather for multiple locations, calculator, daily cartoons, etc.

Study reveals San Diego trolley folly

Check out the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE article of 27 September, 2009 on commuting in San Diego County. The story got little consideration, but is a blockbuster when it comes to justifying our massive trolley expenditures. The madness of this wasteful spending becomes readily apparent.


The article reveals that 90.9% drive to work. Only 3.5% use public transportation.

Of that 3.5%, only 9% of these public transit users ride the trolleys. That comes to 0.315% of all county commuters ride our multi-billion dollar trolley boondoggle. Almost 9 times as many commuters ride the buses as ride the trolleys.

It gets worse. SANDAG admits that about ¾ of the trolley riders used to take the bus. Hence only about 0.07875% of the trolley commuters are former car commuters. For you numerically impaired, that’s less than EIGHT ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT of former car commuters now do part or all of their work commute on a trolley.

For this minuscule usage, we have spent (as Carl Sagan used to so elegantly intone) “billions and billions” of dollars on trolley construction – plus tens of millions more annually in subsidies.

If we REALLY care about public transit, we should be pushing for shifting SANDAG policy (and funding) emphasis to lower cost, more efficient, far more flexible buses. Let’s end our trolley "edifice complex."

Rider blog moved to new provider

Because this blog service does not handle well bloggers' HTML postings, I've decided to move my budding blog efforts to a largely LIBERAL blog service. I can copy and paste my Word articles on the new blog, and have only minor problems with the formatting.

Go to www.open.salon.com/blog/Richard_Rider for my more recent postings. Maybe some day I'll post up all my previous "Richard Rider Rant" distributions. Every one a gem, of course.

Again: www.open.salon.com/blog/Richard_Rider

Latest California "Breaking Bad" article

The live link above will take you to my 21 August update of my constantly updating article "Breaking Bad: CA vs. the Other States," posted as an editorial on the online East [San Diego] County Magazine. I recommend this version of my article because it has "live" links to all the reference URL's in the article -- something very difficult to achieve in this blog.

The latest version update includes the depressing update figures on CA unemployment. For the Month of July we moved back up to the 4th worst unemployment rank (from 6th). We've gone up from 11.6% to 11.9% unemployment. Even more depressing (when comparing CA with the rest of the country), the national unemployment rate went DOWN slightly to 9.4% from 9.5%.

Fun online debate on library outsourcing

RIDER COMMENT: Every so often you just gotta have fun in a debate. I sure did here -- I suspect you will enjoy this.

Someone infatuated with government-run libraries wrote back to take issue with my PR on LSSI running the Riverside County libraries. Initially they wrote me to complain about my one-sided piece. Things got funner and funner after that.

ONE

----- Original Message -----

From: CHRIS
TO: Richard Rider
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: PR: Time to Think Outside the Library Box


Richard,

Kinda one-sided review in your opinion piece. I looked at your link and dug further at both county web sites. Perhaps you also tried and found Riversides line item budget less than transparent, no metrics on circulation of materials, hours of operation or customer feedback for the past decade?

Being a frequent flier at my local branch library, and occassional user of the city's libraries, I find them worlds apart. Staff at the county sites are very engaging with the public and coordinated learing activities are plentiful.

Yes, I'm interested in the almighty cost to the taxpayer, but that is only one factor worthy of our consideration. The educational and entertainment value of libraries can be measured too, it's just not reported as often.

When did you last visit the Riverside and San Diego libraries?

Christopher

---

TWO

From: Richard Rider
To: "Chris
Subject: Fw: PR: Time to Think Outside the Library Box

Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 3:50 PM


Gosh, Christopher, imagine that -- I wrote a one-sided opinion piece!

Remember, I'm not a reporter. Reporters are trained professional journalists who diligently compose objective one-sided pro-Big Government articles -- mindlessly regurgitating government press releases without seeking contrary opinions -- and they get paid for their work.

I've never visited the Riverside County libraries, but have spoken with several people up there over the years who are regular users. They are VERY happy with their libraries. (I've followed this issue for at least 8 years.) I was last in a San Diego city library on Saturday a week ago.

You seem to be assuming that somehow the Riverside system is substandard. What makes you think that? Because it's not run by the government? I've been able to find no discontent with their operation (tried Google too!). Do you have ANY evidence that such is the case.? Even hearsay?

BTW, how does one measure "the educational and entertainment value of libraries", something you assert can be done?

Oh, BTW, you might want to speak to Nancy Johnson, the the Riverside County head librarian -- the ONLY government employee involved in the Riverside County system -- she is the boss. A 30 year professional librarian, she speaks VERY highly of LSSI. She doesn't equivocate in her praise.

She'll tell you that after LSSI took over, the County Supervisors were delighted because they stopped getting calls from citizens complaining about the libraries. The one Supervisor who voted against the contract (with all the usual concerns) is now one of LSSI's biggest boosters -- his name is Bob Buster, if you wish to contact him.

Ms. Johnson goes on to praise the fact that their library employees are not under the civil service system. LSSI can reward good employees with better pay increases, while withholding same from mediocre performers -- and firing the slothful. Just the potential for firing precludes the need for having to use that tool very often.

---

THREE

----- Original Message -----
From: CHRIS
To: Richard Rider
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:17 PM
Subject: Something about that library you've put on a pedestal


So your a closet advocate for added taxes to support public services as long as public employess have been eliminated!!! (see commentary below)

Remarks by Judith Auth, Riverside Library Director

Presented to CAL-TAC Workshop, March 11, 2006

NOTE: RIDER SUMMARY -- THIS IS HOW WE CONNED VOTERS INTO RAISING TAXES FOR OUR LIBRARY EMPIRE (NO NEED TO READ FURTHER ON THIS REPORT -- SKIP TO "LAST"]

Twenty years ago when the LA author Carolyn See came to the Riverside Library to speak, she called us (Riverside and

San Bernardino Counties) the "goat counties." Today we are the fastest growing region in the United States. In 1991 the

Riverside Library participated in a Project for Public Spaces, exploring how a downtown library could be a catalyst for

social and economic change. Today I am gong to tell briefly how we became that catalyst. We presented the library not as

being in the book warehouse business, but in the people development business. We raised the expectations of our public.

And you can too.

Our 2002 ballot measure To Renew the Library was the first successful ballot measure for municipal services in Riverside

in 40 years. The success for measure C belongs entirely to the Library Board and the campaign committee. In spite of the

skepticism of our elected officials, the Library Trustees and the library constituency carried the day.

In 1998 the Library Board authorized a public opinion survey by Godbe Research. The survey results indicated modest

support for a library tax. But before the board could act on the results, several events occurred in Riverside that sidelined

the effort. You may recall the October 1998 City Hall shooting in which the mayor and two city council members were

injured. Then two months later, a nervous policeman shot to death a young black woman. These tragic events put the

City of Riverside under a Summary Judgment by the State's Attorney General.

In 2000, the library trustees met with the mayor to consider a ballot measure for the spring. But this time, it was the

School District that was determined to go out for a major bond issue and the mayor asked the library to step aside.

Undaunted, the Library Board asked for a survey update by Godbe. The results were not promising. At best, it looked as

if an $11 parcel fee could pass with the 66 2/3 approval. Eleven dollars wouldn't accomplish what the survey results said

the public wanted so an education campaign was in order.

The Library hired a local public relations firm to educate the voters and to raise their expectations. Three mailers were

designed to go to each household in the City's Public Utilities bill. The first identified what the needs were. The second

outlined the results of several community meetings identifying what improvements were most desired. The third was

delivered after the successful vote and urged residents to write in support of the library's application for Proposition 14

funds.

The campaign committee's first meeting was September 11, 2001. On that fateful day, all 13 of the invited guests showed

up and began strategizing for a successful vote in 2002. The committee chair was a retired judge, the recent recipient of

Riverside's Sunshine Award for the successful remodel of the historic 1909 county courthouse. Other members of the

committee were trustees, members of the library foundation, the county law librarian, a lawyer, a CPA, Friends of the

Library and our consultant who had prepared the educational materials.

Between September 11 and March 2, we raised more than $80,000 in cash and in-kind services for one general mailing

and ads in the local newspapers. One of our first meetings was with the Editor and Publisher of The Press Enterprise.

Together with the committee chair and a trustee, I met this formidable person who grilled us thoroughly as to our likely

prospects for success. I was later to find out that she was favorably impressed by our presentation and she gave us the

support we requested.

An even more intimidating meeting was with the City Council who had to vote to put this item on the ballot. It was a

library trustee who made the pitch, who laid on the rail between the speaker's podium and the dais for the elected officials,

a quarter, a dime and two pennies. "For 37 cents a week," he said, "We can improve our library service delivery by 12

million dollars over the next ten years. That's just a nickel a day."

For promotion we enlisted teams of community leaders, business people, and educators to pose for ads and the direct mail

piece. For the argument in favor we asked the popular president of the community college and the executive director of

Fair Housing. There was no argument against. To get out the vote, we secured a telephone bank in the lawyer's office

and called several thousand persons from the Registrar of Voter's list. We concentrated on those who had voted in the

recent successful school bond election. We crossed off any who were opposed. We sent out absentee ballots registrations.

We printed endorsements in the newspaper. We used automated calling the day of the election. We did not walk

precincts nor did we make yard signs. We did not have media advertisements other than the newspaper.

On election day we received 69% approval for the $19 a year parcel tax with a ten year sunset. In our annual report to the

community published January 14, 2006, we headlined,

Measure C Keeps Its Promises. With a 20% augmentation in funding, we have accomplished a 40% increase in hours

open and public access computers. We have increased programs and programming attendance by 66% for adults, 200%

for children.

We have a new automated circulation system, one new branch library and two more expanded facilities on the horizon.

And now it is time to plan for the renewal of Measure C. The current measure sunsets in 2012. We aim to put a new

measure on the ballot in 2007. If it does not pass, we have a couple more years to try. Our first goal is the formation of a

new committee and then the accumulation of private funds to mount the campaign. Already the survey research folks are

at work assessing the public's satisfaction with the Library's performance to date. The results due this summer should help

us frame our proposal.

In closing I would like to reflect on the power of a successful election. The Library Trustees charged with the

administration of the public library have a renewed sense of their critical role as interpreters of the public will and

defenders of the public library tradition. They recognize that libraries have been notoriously passive about funding,

accepting whatever is left over after public safety and development appropriations are made.

By capturing 69% approval, the Riverside Library is looked at with new respect by the elected officials, and the other city

departments. Two years after our successful vote, the Fire Department went to the ballot box. With help from the

catastrophic fires in the mountains that fall, they got 69% to build five new fire stations. Next year, the Parks, Recreation

and Community Services Department plans to go out for a special tax. Their success or failure will be something we will

study before mounting our next effort.

And finally, library staff understand that their performance on the job makes a difference in the public's support for

libraries.

I am confident that Riverside's residents will continue to be willing to pay for the enhanced library services they now

enjoy. Measure C has indeed kept its promises, providing more materials, more computers and more open hours.

Borrower registration and attendance are up, programming audiences have doubled. The Eastside Library and Cybrary is

open, demolition has begun for the expanded Arlington Library, and the Orange Terrace Library is on the horizon.

2007 is a year for making more promises to Riverside for its libraries, promises we are just as certain to keep as those we

made in 2002.

FOUR -- LAST BUT NOT LEAST

RIDER RESPONSE:

Chris, now THAT's a quality response. Seldom do my debaters seek out hard facts on the Internet to refute my case. My sincere congratulations!!!

Of course, you DO understand that the person giving the talk is not a private sector person, but rather a public employee -- the director of the library system. Notice how unfair it was for proponents to use the customer utility bills to send propaganda supporting a library tax increase. THREE TIMES! And note that nowhere do they mention any support or pro-tax activity by LSSI.

Naturally, I oppose such tax increases. I believe in the last decade or so I've written the ballot arguments against two county sales tax increases for libraries. I worked the media and handled the debates, and we ultimately defeated each tax. It's not unusual for government library systems to seek to raise taxes. And it's not often people accuse me of being a tax increase advocate.

Still, great job! Wonderful research! Biting zinger about the "closet advocate for added taxes"!!!!! Swell effort!!!!!!

(Can ya feel it coming yet?)

Only one teeny tiny little problem.

(Your sense of unease should be growing . . .)

The devil's in the details.

(Uh oh. . . . )

Seems one word changes it all around.

(Here it comes!)

Still, great try on your part. And I mean it!

(Okay, okay -- out with it!)

scroll down . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Your librarian's article on the parcel tax is about the Riverside CITY library system!!

MY opinion piece is about LSSI running the Riverside COUNTY library system.

Okay, I admit it -- it's not fair they both have "Riverside" in their names. An honest mistake on your part. But since you had fun with your zinger, I thought I'd have my fun as well.

Hell, for all I know, maybe the COUNTY raised taxes for their library as well. Remember, the facilities are still owned by the county. Maybe you could research that for us both. Remember -- that's COUNTY, not city.

And just to state the obvious -- the Riverside CITY library system is run by (and for) city government employees.

P.S. Nothing further was heard from "Chris."

Time to Think Outside the Library Box

by Richard Rider
12 August, 2009


San Diego County has a number of public library systems open to the general public. Two operations are quite large – the San Diego County and San Diego City libraries. In addition, the cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Oceanside, Coronado, Escondido and National City each have their own library systems.

Without exception, each jurisdiction’s library department has become a swelling financial drain on taxpayers. A byproduct has been the reduction of the hours of operation. This expanding cost – reflecting primarily the mushrooming compensation packages for public library employees – has been a growing problem in good times. During this recession, it’s become a much bigger problem.

It’s time to consider an alternative way of delivering library services. There is a company – LSSI – that operates public and private libraries. They improve the service, hours of operation and customer satisfaction. And they do it for less cost.

I’m not talking about selling off the libraries. Normally the government contracting with LSSI still owns the buildings and materials. But LSSI takes over the operation of the library, meeting the criteria set by the government.

One does not have to go far to see how well this alternative works. In 1996 Riverside County was facing operational difficulties, and so it contracted with LSSI to run their 33 branch libraries and two bookmobiles. Coincidentally, that’s the EXACT number of branch libraries and bookmobiles now operated by the San Diego County library system.

The results have been well received in Riverside County – by both patrons and politicians. Read the summary of this success story below.

But first, go to the LSSI website http://www.lssi.com/approach.html. In particular, watch their seven minute video. Click on the button “View Video.” Yes, it’s a promotion piece, but is has interviews with city managers, mayors and county supervisors who laud their services. It’s really quite illuminating.



The Riverside County Example



With 33 library branches, Riverside County, CA is easily the largest government library customer for LSSI. LSSI has operated the Riverside County libraries since 1996, and apparently is highly regarded in that county. The following is on their website:

http://www.lssi.com/riverside.html

Riverside County, California, operates 33 branch libraries and two bookmobiles serving a high growth population approaching 1 million residents in 13 cities across an area approximately the size of Massachusetts.

For more than 80 years, Riverside County contracted with the City of Riverside for library services. The library system was administered by a city-appointed Board of Library Trustees, all City of Riverside residents.

When a state mandated shift of property taxes resulted in funding reductions affecting the county libraries in the mid ‘90s, the individual cities and Riverside County Board of Supervisors sought more direct control. As a result, in 1996 the City of Riverside did not renew its contract to operate the County Library System and the County had only six months to develop an alternative plan.

The County issued an innovative and ground-breaking RFP seeking optimal library services within an established budget. After a comprehensive selection process, LSSI was selected to operate the County Library System. Riverside became the first library system in the nation to outsource its library operations to a private firm.

Through careful monitoring and control of the contract process, LSSI and the County have been able to increase library services without changing funding sources, increased taxes or additional fees. All former library system employees found positions for the same base pay rate and retained vacation time and accruals.

Key operational benefits in Riverside County of the LSSI managed system include:



· Expansion of the library system from 24 to 33 library sites

· Expansion of local employment opportunities from 119 local employees to 193

· More than doubling of total weekly hours of operation from 618 hrs/wk to 1380 hrs/wk

· Increase of book budget allocation from $180K to $1.95M$5M in additional grant funding

· Automation partnership with San Bernardino County, greatly increasing circulation access

· Development of early literacy program

· Establishment of ESL classes to meet community requirement

· Development of Latino outreach program, "Leer es triunfar" (Reading is succeeding)

· Winner of a 2005 John Cotton Dana Library Award


-----


If our politicians ever decide that our cities and counties are supposed to be run for the public rather than for the public EMPLOYEES, we can start pursuing alternative methods of delivering government services – such as LSSI. Since our local governments are running out of financial alternatives, perhaps that time is close upon us. We certainly hope that such is the case.


– 30 –

RICHARD RIDER RANT - 8/11/09

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.
Norman Thomas – 6-time Socialist Party Presidential candidate

1. Letters to editor in response to my U-T trash fee op-ed are informative in several ways
2. Government productivity often is internally frowned upon – the opposite of the private sector 3. “Time to Pull the Plug on the Library”
4. Damned planet refuses to heat up – environmentalists distraught
5. Environmental madness still rules in Congress
6. Generic political cartoon, but seems to apply to CA best
7. Massachusetts is our health care canary in the coal mine
8. British patients with stiff upper lips forced to live in agony
9. Textbooks doomed – about time!
10. Nevada produces funny, biting ads at California’s expense – California Big Government disciples, beware
11. SD Airport board members abusing expense accounts big-time
12. Sales tax on CA laptop computers can exceed 13%
13. Cash for clunkers: Trade in American, buy foreign
14. San Diego press folks finally figuring it out – they’re switching to work for government
15. Fair share? Top 1% paid more federal income tax than 95% of the rest

1. Letters to editor about my U-T trash fee op-ed are informative in several ways
RIDER COMMENT: As you doubtless recall from my last Rant, I had an op-ed published in the San Diego Union-Tribune, opposing charging a trash fee for San Diego city residential refuse pickup. My piece was printed in conjunction with another op-ed in favor of the fees.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/26/lz1e26rider225053-we-pay-more-spending-must-be-con/?&zIndex=138070

The online comments afterwards under my op-ed were lively and informative – well, MY comments and the comments from those who agreed with me were informative. You might want to check ’em out. Or not. It was good to see that only a couple of diligent city workers bothered to make comments – I thought I’d be inundated with their propaganda.

Then the following Sunday the paper ran letters to the editor about the issue. The results were optimistic from my standpoint. Six letters were on my side, only one against.

When the letters editor picks the letters to publish, he tries to pick them to roughly represent the total letters submitted. That 6-1 ratio probably roughly represented the ratio of the total letters submitted. That means that, if this thing comes to the ballot, we have a good chance of winning, even with the labor unions spending millions to raise the fees (by repealing the city’s “People’s Ordinance”).

Moreover, I didn’t plant any of the letters. I knew three of the respondents on my side – two libertarians and a LIBERAL – but they wrote on their own (and did fine jobs, I might add).
Here are the U-T letters:
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/aug/02/mz1e2letters20368-two-sides-san-diego-trash-issue/?&zIndex=142544
Letters to the Editor
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Two sides of the San Diego trash issue
Re: “Trash talk / Paying for a service many San Diegans don't get” by Leonard Martin and “Before we pay more, spending must be controlled” by Richard Rider (Dialog, August 2):

Another tax? Another fee? How about a “sidewalk tax” for people who want to walk on the sidewalk? How about a “wheelchair tax” to help pay for installing wheelchair curb-cuts? How about a “sidewalk tax” for people who have the Union-Tribune thrown on their sidewalk every morning? How about a “breathing tax”?

Or, how about cutting city expenses? That's what I have to do if things get too expensive and get out of hand.

JOHN DEL SANTO
San Diego

Expecting us to just forget about the fact that we are already paying for this service is criminal. Why not try reducing the employees' benefits and automatic annual raises. And why are we paying people to spy into garbage to see if it complies with recycling laws. I think people can follow a few rules without a snitch watching over their debris, much less paying the snitch, too.

AMY DEL NAGRO
San Diego

If the People's Ordinance of 1919 is rescinded, you can be assured of only one thing: The City Council will find creative ways to use the money for anything but trash collection.

Our city does not have a good record when it comes to spending our money. So, if you don't give it to them, they won't spend it.

ALFRED C. STROHLEIN
San Diego

Individuals who elect to live in multiple complexes that do not qualify for “free” waste services should not complain. It's a question of free choice. Fairness has little impact when a question of choice enters the mix.

Most multi-unit dwellers choose to enjoy the amenities of free laundry rooms, computer rooms, play rooms, health spas, swimming pools, Jacuzzis, barbeques, landscaping, etc. If one opts not to enjoy some of these amenities they should consider a single-family dwelling. These units continue to be in the majority.

VIC TALLARIDA
San Diego

“Tax fighter” Richard Rider offers nothing substantive regarding trash collection besides his usual diatribe against taxes, fees, city employees and unions. His opinion piece could apply, virtually unchanged, about almost any issue facing the city. In his stead, I offer a solution that remedies the inequity Leonard Marin addresses in his companion piece.

The City Council and mayor should remove trash collection from the menu of city services, just like closing library branches, removing fire rings, etc. The roughly 50 percent of households, like mine, paying for private trash collection would be unaffected. Those now receiving trash collection as a city service would be charged no fee nor would their taxes be diverted to collect my trash, presumably satisfying “one-issue” zealots like Rider. Instead, people currently receiving city trash collection would face choices and personal choice is what America is about. There would be no tax increase, no redirection of tax monies, no fees to the city, no city employee pensions involved, just plain old personal responsibility and free enterprise allowing equal treatment of all households.

DAVID COHEN
Hillcrest

Leonard Martin writes that the repeal of the People's Ordinance “will free up nearly $60 million annually, the first year and every subsequent year . . . ” How can anyone in his right mind believe that repeal of the ordinance will provide the city with an extra $60 million to spend on maintenance and other city obligations. If the ordinance is in fact repealed, which can only happen by a vote of the people, that $60 million or whatever amount is currently used to fund trash removal from city resident homes should be credited back to each and every homeowner paying taxes in the city of San Diego. In effect lowering taxes, which will be offset by a fee that is paid to a private trash hauler. Any other treatment of these funds is in fact an increase in local taxes.

GREGG LAWLESS
San Diego

George Orwell would have found a place for Leonard Martin and the Union-Tribune's vision of “free city trash service” if he were writing “1984” today. The idea that residential property owners are getting services “free” from the city is laughable. The lack of a bill with the heading “trash pickup charge” does not make the service free. So let us be honest, this isn't about apartment dwellers in City Heights being raked over the coals for the benefit of Rancho Bernardo or Point Loma. It's about finding ways to generate more city revenue without being constrained by honesty.

GERALD HOSENKAMP
San Diego

2. Government productivity often is internally frowned upon – the opposite of the private sector

RIDER COMMENT: In a comment on Chris Reed blog article about state worker compensation, BobSp raised a GREAT point about worker productivity. It's common -- even mandatory -- in the private sector that productivity should improve. In the public sector, in many instances, increased productivity is actually frowned upon.

The public employee labor unions make sure that better performance is not rewarded with higher pay. Work twice as hard (or half as hard) as your government co-worker, get the same pay. Showing up your government co-workers by "working too hard" can result in harsh words, shunning, or worse.

Perhaps more important, government managers are paid more the larger their "responsibility." And the number one criterion is how many people the managers supervise. The last thing a government manager wants is a smaller work force.

I remember my younger days as a LT in the Navy Supply Corps where I learned this lesson first hand. I suggested that by reworking my 32nd St Naval Station galley (cafeteria, to you land lubbers) work schedules and using private minimum wage food service personnel (we already used a private contractor for low level galley "mess cook" work), we could get rid of 75% of my civil service employees who were being paid for eight hours while only needing to work for three hours at most.

No one challenged the feasibility or accuracy of my proposal. But my superior (rank-wise) and his superiors were aghast at the idea.

Their thinking was that we should keep the deadwood because sometime in the future the Department of Defense might send out a "RIF" (Reduction in Force) mandate, and we'd want to have the unneeded employees to cut at that time.

Hence my civil service drones continued droning. Such is the nature of government.

Here’s the Chris Reed blog item and comments:
http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/afb/archives/034823.html

3. “Time to Pull the Plug on the Library”

RIDER COMMENT: Below is an excellent commentary opposing the proposed downtown San Diego library -- written by SD County Taxpayers Association President Lani Lutar. The title of the piece says it all.

The online reader comments are lively, with library lovers having a hissy fit. I missed out on putting in my own comments in a timely fashion – a loss to posterity.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/06/09/opinion/lutar060909.txt#info


VOICE OF SAN DIEGO
Time to Pull the Plug on the Library

By Lani Lutar

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 The proposed downtown library currently remains on life-support after receiving a temporary extension from the State Librarian. Councilmember Carl DeMaio, a vocal critic of the project, recently pointed out that significant funding shortfalls for construction continue to plague the project. Beyond the cost of construction, the city would have to find almost $6 million every year to cover increased annual operating costs.

Equally troublesome, the latest proposal includes the highly questionable use of school bond dollars to make up for a lack of private funds. Given the city's dire financial situation for the foreseeable future, pulling the plug on boondoggles like this project has never been more important.

In 2005, construction of the library was estimated to cost $185 million, more than double the 1996 estimate of $63 million. Funding for construction of the project was slated to come from $80 million in CCDC redevelopment funds, $20 million from a State grant and $85 million in private donations. When private fundraising failed to meet the December 2008 state grant deadline, project proponents suggested the inclusion of a school on the two top floors of the proposed library to make up for funding shortfalls and extend the viability of the grant.

In order to maintain the $20 million grant from the state, the city and school district are required to conduct a "feasibility study" to update construction costs and determine any redesign needs to accommodate a school as part of the building. This $169,000 study will update cost estimates and analyze any changes in design necessary to accommodate the inclusion of a school.

The city and San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) have yet to reach an agreement on the proportionate funding of the feasibility study, but before $169,000 of taxpayer money is spent to investigate whether the hybrid project is actually viable, the complete inability of the proposal to pencil out must be considered.

A recent report released by the Office of Councilmember Carl DeMaio highlighted the following:

* Adjusting the 2005 proposal for construction cost inflation only (i.e. ignoring the school component) suggests that costs have increased from $185 million to $208 million today.
* Additional construction costs associated with Field Act compliance are likely to increase construction costs by at least another 3-4 percent. This yields an estimate of $214 million today.
* Using the most conservative of these inflation adjustments ($208 million construction cost), the project is underfunded by $55 million, even after taking the additional $20 million of school bond dollars in account.
* According to the city's Independent Budget Analyst, the new main library will require $5.7 million more per year to operate than the current downtown library.


This means that the new library will add to the city's annual operating costs at a time when budget deficits abound, branch library closures have been threatened and hours have been reduced.

Private fundraisers have also promised to cover the first five years of operating cost increases, which amounts to more than $28 million. In total, private fundraisers have promised to raise $85 million for construction of the library, plus $28 million for operating costs. To date, only $33 million has been acknowledged, and far less confirmed.

Furthermore, excess space in the library was originally designed to help mitigate cost by generating revenues. Adding the school to the proposal eliminates anywhere from $950,000 to $1.5 million of estimated annual revenue that would help to offset the annual operating cost increases.

The red balance sheet outlined above tells the real story of the downtown library proposal: taxpayers are left holding the bag. Under the funding proposal in 2005, public funds (from CCDC and the State) accounted for 55 percent of the project cost. Today, assuming construction cost inflation to $208 million, taxpayer funds (via CCDC, Proposition S, the State, plus the shortfall of $57 million) would make up more than 80 percent of project funding.

Furthermore, the proposed use of Proposition S school bond dollars for the project is a desperate attempt to save this ill-advised project and a classic case of bait-and-switch. Prior to the election last November, SDUSD sought endorsements from a variety of stakeholder groups, and provided lists of projects it planned to pursue with the bond dollars. During this campaign, SDUSD clearly outlined the need for a new elementary school downtown. However, law requires elementary schools to be housed on the lower floors of buildings and the available space in the proposed library is on top floors.

Within moments of this discovery, the need for the new elementary school downtown was conveniently tossed aside by the school district in favor of a high school which could save the project.

Every aspect of the library proposal depicts a financial disaster in the making. Construction is underfunded, the city cannot afford the increased operation and maintenance expenses and library boosters want taxpayers to pick up a greater portion of the total bill. In no uncertain terms, the time has come to pull the plug on this proposal once and for all.

Lutar is president and chief executive officer of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that promotes accountable, cost-effective and efficient government. You can reach her at lani@sdcta.org .

4. Damned planet refuses to heat up – environmentalists distraught

RIDER COMMENT: There’s been considerable consternation by the environmentalists about the insufficient level of urgent concern about global warming, even among the young. After all, we’ve been warned! But perhaps our reality trumps the highly questionable “sky is falling” predictions.

The following excerpt from a recent Mark Steyn column summarizes the widespread skepticism well. BTW, Steyn – an acerbic, witty conservative columnist – is always a fun read – except for his opponents.

http://tinyurl.com/nkcukl

Behind the Times
by Mark Steyn

. . .

If you’re 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you’re graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade. There has been no global warming this century. None. Admittedly the 21st century is only one century out of the many centuries of planetary existence, but it happens to be the one you’re stuck living in. Alan Carlin, in a report for the Environmental Protection Racket — whoops, Environmental Protection Agency — that they attempted to suppress, says:

Fossil fuel and cement emissions increased by 3.3 percent per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.3 percent per year in the 1990s. Similarly, atmospheric C02 concentrations increased by 1.93 parts per million per year during 2000-2006, compared to 1.58 ppm in the 1990s. And yet, despite accelerating emission rates and concentrations, there’s been no net warming in the 21st century, and more accurately, a decline.

. . .

5. Environmental madness still rules in Congress

RIDER COMMENT: Ya know, we are just getting jaded. Bill after feel good bill works their way through Congress, costs us TRILLIONS, and does nothing for us or the environment. The article below details one of the worst ones in process.

http://www.ncpa.org/commentaries/waxman-markey-deserves-to-die


Waxman-Markey Deserves to Die
Commentary by Pete du Pont
July 26, 2009

The economy-destroying measure ekes out a House victory.
Source: Wall Street Journal online

The fresh news about Washington--the White House and Congress--is that things are not going very well. A new president in full command of public-policy matters is having problems, from health care to taxes to massive federal spending and now to the Waxman-Markey bill, one of the oddest and most far-reaching pieces of legislation advocated by the new administration.

It passed the House a few weeks ago by a 219-212 vote--not much of a margin. Most interesting was the fact that of America's 50 state delegations in the House, 28 voted no and 22 aye, and one quarter of the 219 majority votes came from New York and California. Most of America's states and communities didn't much like the bill.

No wonder, for it would regulate many things--energy, wages, imported goods, corporations, states, cities, buildings and houses, snowmobiles, lawn mowers, light fixtures, candelabra base lamps and many others--while containing broad exemptions for regulation of agribusiness, ethanol and biofuels. The Waxman-Markey bill would be without question the biggest expansion of federal government control over our economy since the 1930s.

The Heritage Foundation concludes it would reduce America's real gross domestic product by $400 billion each year--a cumulative loss of $9.4 trillion by 2035--leading to almost 2.5 million job losses, and raise inflation-adjusted electricity rates by 90%. For a household of four, it would cost on average $2,979 annually and in 2035 the total family cost would be over $4,600 for everything, including power, food, supplies, gasoline and transportation.

Our federal government would have full control over global-warming matters. States would not be permitted to create their own cap-and-trade programs, but could be given emission allowances by the federal government which they could sell to generate funds for clean energy programs.

The federal government would also have control over the carbon permit process. It would give away 85% of the permits to utility companies, refineries and other politically connected businesses, and these no-cost permits could be used by companies to continue to crank out historically high CO2 emission levels, or be sold to other companies for real money.

Next would come the expansion of American protectionism. China and India have declined to participate in global-warming control, so under Waxman-Markey we would be able to impose tariffs on their goods coming into America, something India's environmental minister pointed out to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a few days ago. The other side of that coin is of course that they could impose tariffs on our exports too. That would hurt American businesses and expand government control of our economy, products and businesses, all in the name of fighting global warming.

Of course we have seen the predecessor of the Waxman-Markey bill in the European Union's cap-and-trade regulation, a political failure as well as an economic one. As Heritage's Ben Lieberman has pointed out, it has not worked in various countries, and is now being opposed by nations that need to burn coal for their electricity generation. As the Washington Post wrote last February, European "emission targets were set too high. Too many pollution allowances were given away to industry. . . . Companies made windfall profits by charging customers more for energy while selling allowances they didn't need. And the Europeans have not had much success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

As Lieberman observes, "To the limited extent European nations have reduced emissions below business-as-usual levels it has hurt their economies. . . . Far from seeing evidence of the bright new green economy some are now promising, we are seeing that cap and trade has contributed to the harm." Waxman-Markey would operate much the same way with many of the same results in America, and that means central government planning would pull America down to European levels.

So who is in favor of this massive expansion of governmental authority in America? Labor unions of course, for tucked away is the requirement that any project receiving grants from the billions of giveaways in the Waxman-Markey bill would be required to apply Davis-Bacon union wage rules.

Environmentalists like it too, but as climate researcher Chip Knappenberger pointed out in May, neither Henry Waxman nor Ed Markey nor anyone else in Congress is arguing that "the bill is going to save the earth from human-caused climate apocalypse." It won't, and it "will have virtually no impact on the future course of the earth's climate." The Waxman-Markey reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, Mr. Knappenberger concludes, would reduce temperatures by less than one-tenth of a degree Fahrenheit by 2050.

The real purpose of Waxman-Markey is to vastly expand the scope, power and authority of the federal government. Washington would permanently regulate and dictate the performance of the U.S. economy, reward constituencies it favors and punish those it doesn't, and make more and more Americans dependent upon federal largesse.

6. Generic political cartoon, but seems to apply to CA best

http://www.bostonherald.com/galleries/index.php?gallery_id=791&p=7

7. Massachusetts is our health care canary in the coal mine

RIDER COMMENT: Unwittingly, Massachusetts signed on in 2005 to show us how the currently proposed national health insurance would actually work in America. Would that we could learn from the results.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba667


Three Lessons from Massachusetts
Brief Analysis Health
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
by Greg Scandlen

The Massachusetts experiment in health care reform offers many lessons that are applicable to the current debate in Congress. The goals of the Massachusetts plan are similar to proposals supported by Democratic congressional leaders and the Obama administration: universal health insurance coverage through greater access to health insurance.

The Obama proposals would use similar means to achieve these goals: requiring individuals to purchase insurance and creating an "insurance exchange" where they can buy heavily regulated, heavily subsidized health insurance.

Some of the lessons to be learned from the Massachusetts experience have been well-chronicled elsewhere, but there are three lessons that remain to be explored.

Lesson 1: Reform has raised costs, not lowered them. The state has indeed lowered the number of uninsured dramatically - down to 2.6 percent of the population by some estimates. But it has done so in a very expensive way that does nothing to control costs. Massachusetts has relied primarily on two factors to fund its plan: 1) state premium subsidies for almost everyone who has gained coverage and 2) the requirement that individuals enroll. This is a huge burden on taxpayers and on anyone who pays directly for health care:

* The state was able to get the federal government to pay for much of these new costs, but even with that help, state government spending has increased 42 percent since 2006.
* The Massachusetts program has cost about one-third more than projected when the law was passed.
* Before the Massachusetts health insurance reform plan was implemented in 2005, total per capita health care spending in the state was 33 percent above the national average.
* In just two years under the Massachusetts reforms, from 2005 to 2007, health care spending per capita rose an additional 23 percent.

Lesson 2: The people reform was intended to help say they are being hurt. That level of spending might be justified if it was clear that large numbers of previously uninsured people were being helped. But a survey conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health found just the opposite.

* Slightly more than half (51 percent) of those required to purchase coverage say their health care costs have gone up and only 14 percent say they have gone down.
* Some 22 percent say the law is helping them personally, but 60 percent say it is hurting them.

Although the survey found that most residents of Massachusetts support the law, the level of support is greatest among those least affected - the people who are more likely to have insurance or be able to afford coverage because of their education and income:

* Some 69 percent of those with college degrees or incomes of more than $75,000 a year support the law.
* Just 49 percent of those making $25,000 to $50,000 and only 45 percent of those with a high school or lower education, support it.

Lesson 3: Everyone else is being hurt, too. It isn't only those directly affected by the mandate who are being hurt in Massachusetts. Due to the sudden increase in demand for physicians, every resident who would like to see a doctor is being harmed. Massachusetts has by far the largest number of physicians per capita of any state. Despite this, patients in Massachusetts now have the longest waiting times to see a doctor, according to a recent survey of physician waiting times in 15 major U.S. cities. For example, in Boston the average waiting time to get an appointment for any of five types of specialists is almost double the wait in the next highest area, Philadelphia. [See the table.]

Long waiting times to see a physician have caused the use of hospital emergency rooms to soar by 17 percent to 2.5 million visits in 2007. Half of these ER visits were for nonurgent conditions. Although one of the state's goals was to increase access to private physicians for the previously uninsured, Massachusetts payments to community health centers for free care to the indigent have increased from $52.2 million in 2005 to $58.6 million in 2007.

Lessons for America. Of all these developments, the most sobering one is the soaring waiting times to see a doctor. Previously, Massachusetts enjoyed the highest number of physicians per capita of any state, and it had one of the lowest rates of noninsured in the country. If any jurisdiction could have accommodated a surge of newly insured people it should have been Massachusetts. By contrast, California has half as many physicians per capita and twice the level of uninsured. Imagine what will happen to waiting times in California if all the uninsured suddenly become insured. As in Massachusetts, if they can't see a doctor on a timely basis, patients may seek treatment at hospital emergency rooms. But California doesn't have any excess capacity there, either. Waiting times in ERs will soar. Other big states like Texas and Florida are even less able than California to serve the newly insured.

What kind of health care reform requires working people to pay for coverage, but then deprives them of the ability to see a doctor? It is the kind that will generate an enormous backlash of outraged patients. Members of Congress need to think twice before embarking on the same journey as Massachusetts.

Greg Scandlen is director of Consumers for Health Care Choices at the Heartland Institute.

8. British patients with stiff upper lips forced to live in agony

RIDER COMMENT: No, a stiff upper lip is not an English medical malady. It’s just that the wise central planning souls in charge of the UK’s national health insurance now eschew adequate pain relief for folks with lower back problems. Acupuncture is being recommended instead (cheaper – even when it doesn’t work!).

Rationing health treatment is SOP in dear old Britain – for those who cannot afford private health care.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18282

BRITISH PATIENTS FORCED TO LIVE IN AGONY

In England, the government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known. Instead the National Institute of Health (NHW) and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy, says the Telegraph.

Every year, one-in-three people are estimated to suffer from lower back pain, while one in 15 consult their general practitioner (GP) about it. Specialists say therapeutic injections using steroids can deaden nerve endings, can provide months or even years of respite from pain. Others fear that if funding, tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 (about U.S. $847) each for private treatment, says the Telegraph:

* The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year.
* NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million (about U.S. $56 million).
* But the British Pain Society, which represents specialists in the field, has written to NICE calling for the guidelines to be withdrawn after its members warned that they would lead to many patients having to undergo unnecessary and high-risk spinal surgery.

While the NICE guidelines admit that evidence was limited for many back pain treatments, where scientific proof was lacking, advice was instead taken from its expert group.

But specialists are furious that while the group included practitioners of alternative therapies, there was no one with expertise in conventional pain relief medicine to argue against a decision to significantly restrict its use, says the Telegraph.

Source: Laura Donnelly, "Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections," Telegraph, August 2, 2009.

For text:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html

9. Textbooks doomed – about time!

RIDER COMMENT: While the level of education in the U.S. has deteriorated, one area of learning has shown remarkable growth – textbooks. They’ve grown in a number of ways.

Certainly modern textbooks have grown in entertainment value compared to the drab textbooks of yore. They’ve grown in the sheer quantity of material offered (much of which is never covered by classroom teachers). Then there is all that growth in PC coverage. Robust growth can be observed in the price of textbooks. And all of this adds together – leading to the oppressive growth in the massive size and weight of textbooks – today’s textbook tomes lugged around by kids without school lockers.

It’s time to put an end to this madness – at least the madness of hard copy textbooks. The day of the personal/laptop computer has arrived. And the price for such has plummeted.

***

SIDEBAR: One ongoing canard is that the “digital divide” leaves behind the poor without computers. Nonsense! There are many inexpensive ways to buy a computer. Go on Craigslist and buy a used basic desktop computer for $125 or less. Sometimes MUCH less. Furthermore, there are charities that provide computers for poor kids for free!

Yes, the poor have fewer computers at home – but that’s a decision they make. Anyone with the slightest initiative can solve that problem for little cost. Instead most poor folks spend far too much on TV’s, cell phones and video console games. No one likes to point out that such bad decision-making is one big reason the poor are poor!

***

Let’s go back to taxpayer-paid education. It appears that some educators are figuring out that digital textbooks can be read and studied on a portable computer. Some mavens are predicting that hard copy textbooks will all but disappear within five years.

Meanwhile notebook laptops are down under $300 retail. Simple full-size laptops can be found under $350 retail. Given the cost of hard copy textbooks, it would seem that the districts can save money (and students’ posture) by buying cheap, no frills notebooks or laptops for students (the notebooks weigh under 3 pounds) and then acquire textbooks electronically. I suspect the savings on software textbooks could pay for the notebooks in a year.

School districts in Arizona have already figured out the benefits of providing laptops and avoiding costly textbooks. As we all know from our online experiences, there’s a wealth of FREE material on the Internet available for dissemination – including educational material. Furthermore, the Arizona districts are encouraging teachers to disseminate good lesson plans prepared for the computer.

Here’s a link to a May, 2009 LA TIMES editorial encouraging the digital textbook option:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/23/opinion/ed-textbooks23

And here’s a link to an encouraging (and more detailed) article in the 9 August, 2009 NY TIMES – referencing the Arizona district experience:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/education/09textbook.html

10. Nevada produces funny, biting ads at California’s expense – California Big Government disciples, beware

RIDER COMMENT: The zany folks in the Nevada Development Authority keep putting out outrageous ads pounding on how business-UNfriendly CA is. The ads – both print and video – are slick, funny and irritating – as they should be. And the gonzo nature of the ads is getting Nevada a good bit of free media coverage as well. Here’s a couple newspaper ads that I particularly liked:

To look over what the Nevada Development Authority has to say about leaving CA for the Las Vegas area, go to:
http://www.nevadadevelopment.org/

11. SD Airport board members abusing expense accounts big-time

RIDER COMMENT: A couple years ago the SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE did a fine exposé on the extravagant spending by the appointed members of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. Currently the agency has a $121 million budget, which it derives from public money – primarily from airport fees and rents.

As a result of that exposé, new spending guidelines were put in place. Guidelines, smidelines. Our airport officials don’t need no stinkin’ guidelines. Must be so, since they imperiously ignore said guidelines.

We know that such is still the case, thanks to a follow-up investigation by the intrepid Voice of San Diego. Here’s the link to their just-released article:

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/08/09/economics/846airport080909.txt

You might be wise not to read it – if you pay the fees for flying in and out of San Diego’s Lindberg Airport. Don’t want you going postal in the airport.

Perhaps the most egregious incident was when two board members flew to England for a Charger exhibition game (I’ll leave it to you to conjure up the rationale for that trip). No taxpayer expense was spared – from the $5,500 first class airline tickets to the $350 Charger reception to the $1,200 for seats (a board member and a guest -- $600 each) at the game. And just to be clear, that’s the price for EACH board member’s football two tickets, reception and airfare.

Ya gotta’ love authority Chairman Bob Watkins’ response to the Voice story – it’s just lowly-paid reporter envy. Great stuff – his elitism is insufferable.

Just in case you think the above expenses are a one-time aberration – consider this: San Diego Airport staff fly to Los Angeles for as much as $820 a ticket. And yes, that is Los Angeles, California.

Now, let’s see if these political appointees avoid being fired.

Assuming that they are not fired, surely they will be denied reappointment by the politicians who first put them there. Yeah, when pigs land on the Lindberg runway.

12. Sales tax on CA laptop computers can exceed 13%

RIDER COMMENT: Currently our total sales tax on goods in San Diego County ranges from 8.75% to 9.75%, depending on where the purchase is made. But what few people realize is that California now levies a second DE FACTO sales tax on laptops, computer monitors and TV’s. The Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003 was passed to levy an E-waste “fee” on items with a screen (anything larger than 4”). Supposedly this fee is imposed to somehow help recycle such items.

BTW, included in this law are provisions to make tossing such items in the trash a criminal offense. And that aspect of the law covers other items as well (such as computer cases with the innards included), though few know just what those items are.

The E-waste tax is crudely figured based on the size of the screen.

4” up to (under) 15” is an $8 fee

15” up to 35” is a $16 fee

35” and above is a $25 fee

This is not like some bottle or can deposit you can get back when you properly recycle your screen device. It’s money that’s disappears into state government.

I ran into one particularly nefarious aspect of this tax when this spring I purchased a laptop at Costco. I got a great deal for $450. But like most laptops sold today, my screen was a tad bigger than 15”. 15.1”, to be exact. Currently this is probably the single most popular size for a laptop screen. For that tiny incremental increase, the state doubles my E-waste fee from $8 to $16.

So what’s my total “sales tax” on that $450 purchase? 8.75% (“normal” sales tax) + 3.55% (E-waste fee) = 12.3%. If I had purchased my laptop from the El Cajon Costco, it would have cost me 13.3% sales tax.

Most people realize that they can break the law by avoiding the sales tax – buying their computers from out-of-state vendors via the Internet. But few think about the fact that such a purchase also avoids the E-waste tax – doubtless violating another law.

As this knowledge spreads, it surely will not help our California vendors sell our uber-taxable computer laptop, monitor and TV’s. Too bad.

And BTW, CA is looking at banning plasma TV sales in CA (for energy savings) – making out-of-state purchase the only alternative (yeah, and making that choice will surely break yet another law).

13. Cash for clunkers: Trade in American, buy foreign

RIDER COMMENT: The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes the “Cash for Clunkers” trade-in program. Once again, our central planners have screwed up. American taxpayers subsidize foreign car industry. Read on.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/08/10/cash-for-clunkers-trade-in-american-buy-foreign/

CASH FOR CLUNKERS: TRADE IN AMERICAN; BUY FOREIGN

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on August 10, 2009

The only part of the stimulus program that is working, the cash-for-clunkers program is, in reality, a subsidy to foreign car companies, proving that Barack Obama is the best president Japan ever had.

The Department of Transportation reports that the ten leading trade-ins are all American branded cars while six of the top ten new cars purchased - and four of the top five - are foreign. So the United States Senate is about to pass additional funds to subsidize the trade-in of American cars and the purchase of foreign cars.

DOT reports that the following are the ten top trade-ins, all American:

Ten Top Trade-Ins Under Cash for Clunkers

1. Ford Explorer
2. Ford F150 Pickup 2WD
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee 4 WD
4. Jeep Cherokee 4 WD
5. Dodge Caravan/Grand Caravan
6. Chevrolet Blazer 4 WD
7. Ford Explorer 2 WD
8. Ford F150 Pickup 4 WD
9. Chevrolet C1500 Pickup 2 WD
10. Ford Windstar FWD Van


And the top ten new car purchases, subsidized by the American taxpayer, are mainly foreign vehicles:

Top Ten New Car Purchases: Cash for Clunkers

1. Toyota Corolla
2. Ford Focus FWD
3. Honda Civic
4. Toyota Prius
5. Toyota Camry
6. Ford Escape FWD
7. Hyundai Elantra
8. Dodge Caliber
9. Honda Fit
10. Chevrolet Cobalt

It is a violation of the World Trade Organization rules to enact a public subsidy program and skew it toward only domestically produced products, so the Congress has no choice but to extend the program to all comers. No choice, that is, but to not spend the money in the first place.

Cash for Clunkers will do wonders for the Japanese economy, but its impact on the US job situation is problematic. This unintended consequence is a great illustration of what happens when the blunt tool of government subsidy is applied to the fine tuning of a free market economy. Government planners keep getting it wrong. That's why socialism is such a bad idea.

So Obama can boast of a great success in taking American cars off the road and replacing them with foreign cars. Great going!

14. San Diego press folks finally figuring it out – they’re switching to work for government

RIDER COMMENT: Normally when I conclude a speech on local politics, I ask the audience what’s the ONE thing that they should take with them out of the lecture – what ONE piece of advice could turn their lives around.

Someone eventually comes up with the right answer – “get a government job.” More specifically, get a San Diego CITY government job.

I give the same advice to media folks at the conclusion of an interview or press conference. Given the tenuous nature of their occupational job security, coupled with their stagnated compensation, such advice fits them particularly well.

As the article below demonstrates, it looks like many media pundits have indeed heeded my advice and become government employees at an accelerating rate – even more than I realized. After years of covering stories that show the stark contrast between public and private sector employment, many reporters have fled to (or been laid off and gone to) government jobs.

I’m worried that such a career pattern might give reporter cause to hesitate in doing investigative journalism, delving into our politicians’ antics. I doubt such a potential conflict is a major factor, but the number of press folks switching to public “service” is unsettling.

It also means that when the press wants info from government, it’s often their former co-workers that they deal with – which is a little too chummy for objective media coverage.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Trend-Reporters-Turned-Pols-52687452.html

Another S.D. Journalist Goes Into Politics

San Diego has experienced a noticeable shift of journalists entering the world of politics
By RON DONOHO

Updated 3:45 PM PDT, Fri, Aug 7, 2009

Next time you read a byline in a local newspaper or magazine, or watch an anchor on a nightly TV newscast, take note: Those people may soon be your public servants. Over the past few years, there’s been a steady march from the field of journalism into politics.

On Monday, Tim McClain is expected to begin working as a legislative assistant/press secretary for San Diego County District 4 Supervisor Ron Roberts. For the previous dozen years, McClain was the editor of "Metropolitan" magazine and appeared on "Editors Roundtable” on KPBS.

What’s it like to go from asking the questions to answering and/or avoiding them?

"I love journalists and writers -- I've always been a big defender of what they try to do," McClain said. "And I'll help them do their jobs from this side of the fence."

Last month, San Diego City Councilwoman Marti Emerald (District 7) hired former KGTV weather reporter Geni Cavitt to be her director of communications. You might recall Emerald was the "Troubleshooter” consumer reporter for 10News.

Within the last year, San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders snatched up San Diego Union-Tribune writers Gerry Braun and Rachel Laing to be director of special projects and deputy press secretary, respectively.

District 6 City Councilwoman Donna Frye has also double-dipped at the Union-Tribune. Former reporters Mark Sauer and Chet Barfield are now her district representatives.

Former U-T reporter Tony Manolatos was grabbed to be the director of communications for District 2 City Councilman Kevin Faulconer. District 1 County Supervisor Greg Cox has the U-T's Luis Monteagado as his spokesman. And the director of communications for the past couple years for District 5 County Supervisor Bill Horn is former KFMB-TV anchor John Culea.

And now, I'd like to announce I'm running for president ... not.

Ron Donoho is a regular contributor to NBCSandiego.com and a contributing editor to sandiego.com. His Web site (sandiegoDTOWN.com) is dedicated to news, sports, culture, happy hours and all things downtown.

15. Fair share? Top 1% paid more federal income tax than 95% of the rest

RIDER COMMENT (well, actually, mostly Bill Leonard’s comment): The Tax Foundation has crunched the IRS numbers for the most recent data available, 2007. It found the top one percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. What is remarkable about this is the share of the tax burden by the top one percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid 20 years ago.

The top one percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined. Given that we are no longer a republic, but rather simply a “majority rules” democracy, that fact does not bode well for the wealthy – as more voters feeling little pain from the income tax seek to increasingly soak the rich to benefit themselves.

The substantiating income tax data tables on the foundation’s website (links below) are illuminating. One aspect that the report did not discuss is that we had tax cuts in rates during this decade, and now the wealthy pay more taxes (a higher percent of their income), and a higher percent of the total income taxes paid. The Laffer Curve lives!

I may dig deeper into this data at another time.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/23408.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html