7.18.2003

The Morality of Liberty



Part of what PM Tony Blair told Congress yesterday:

This is a battle that can't be fought or won only by armies. We are so much more powerful in all conventional ways than the terrorists. Yet even in all our might, we are taught humility. In the end, it is not our power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs.

There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior. Members of Congress, ours are not Western values. They are the universal values of the human spirit, and anywhere--anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack.

And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify around an idea. And that idea is liberty.

We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. Abraham Lincoln said, "Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."

And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.
I can really begin to like this guy, liberal as he is.

7.17.2003

California and the woe of budget



My state is in a world of hurt, and it is everyone's fault except the Governor's. Just ask him, he'll tell you. He isn't responsible for a damn thing. Which sounds like a good reason to recall him, if you ask me.

You see, I'm a big fan of personal responsiblity. If I screwed up, then I screwed up; no need to try and blame someone else. Which is why the phrase "society is to blame" has always made my skin crawl. No, you stupid bastard, you are the one who robbed the damn bank, not society; now stand there and take it like a man. (Oh, sorry, you already did! That's why you're here....)

Anyway, here's the governor of the largest state in the Union. We have fiscal wealth that rivals that of other countries (what, seventh largest economy in the world, or something like that). And we are in a world of fiscal hurt and it is not the fault of the state's chief executive. That doesn't make sense. If a corporate CEO makes decisions that cost the company money, it's his fault. Nevermind the outside influences and such, the job of the CEO is to anticipate those occurences and plan accordingly. Failure to do so results in job failure, which in The Real World is known as, "You're fired!"

In the Artificial World (i.e., the "public sector"), that's never the case. You're not allowed to blame anyone for anything, which is why they have the reputation that they have, the rep of being selfish, lazy, uncaring, slow, etc. I've worked in the public sector for some fourteen years now, and I know that that for most the reputation is a lie. For others, it is earned and deserved. Gray Davis is one of the latter.

Let's face it, people, he panicked. When 9/11/01 happened, it was immediately foreseeable that nothing was going to be the same. We depend on our elected officials to respond accordingly. Instead, we saw many of them pretend that the only thing that was going to change was their ability to spend even more money. Enter, Gov Gray.

He has delayed, stalled, or ignored the state budget issues ever since he was first elected, nevermind his recent re-election. The former state controller, a fellow Democrat, even points this out. She warned him (and us) time and again that there was a reckoning a-comin', and the sooner we start to take care of it, the better.

But, no. Gray continued to spend. He didn't just spend on existing programs, he created new ones. He had a multi-billion dollar fund, financed from gasoline and other transporation taxes, from which he could dispense highway projects, presumably to those he owed, er, a favor to. More generously, this projects were special ones (to him) that he reserved the right to pick and choose. When the money started getting tight, this shifting of revenue continued.

Fiscal 2001-2002 was going to be tight, but nothing was done. Fiscal 2002-2003 was patched with lies, half-truths, borrowed money, and the complete ignoring of the budget crash already in progress. If you want to say that state Republicans are equally to blame for that lack of reaction (or responsibility), go ahead; lots of blame to go around. But Gray is The Boss, or so he continually trumpets. And his budget projections were spectacularly rosy, because, well, he wanted to get re-elected.

Know how he says he's not cutting funding for public safety? Liar! The budget for the California Highway Patrol has been chopped 10%, their academy has been shutdown, and some 500 or so officers have received letters that they are "surplus" and may be subject to layoff starting this coming September (the state's Department of Personnel Administration [DPA] has to give that much warning prior to layoffs occuring). In addition, some 300 non-officers of the CHP received a similar notice. It's an interesting letter; I'm holding one, the one addressed to me.

No cuts in public safety funding? Liar!

There is some illusion out there that the Governor didn't give any state workers a raise last year, that he held the fiscal line, and that a lot of state workers are pissed off because he's opposing a 5% raise. Wrong. Last year, state workers' unions agreed to waive a 5% raise. In return, the state would pay 100% of their retirement contribution. This was effectively a 5% raise, but on paper it didn't look like one; no one's gross pay increased, just their net take home. The deal was this would only last one year, that this year the retirement deduction would go back into effect and there would be a 5% raise to offset that, thus resulting in a tiny (1%?) increase in net, take home pay. That deal was signed, passed by the state legislature, and put into effect.

What Gray is trying to do now is renig on the deal. He wants the employee's to forego the 5% raise and pay 100% of their retirement contribution. This means an effective 5% pay cut from what people have been receiving for the last year. This is what the state employee unions are screaming about.

When the local shop steward explained the deal last year I laughed. I knew Gray would try and pull something like this, that he was paying for union support of his re-election. This is why I won't join the stupid state's union; it's so blatantly partisan, and so utterly shocked when it gets slapped in the face and stabbed in the back. Poor, silly bastards.

This is exactly what Gray did with the "energy crisis". He panicked, signed huge deals with the power companies, and was "shocked" when he saw how rotten the deal he had negotiated was. He's still trying to re-negotiate those contracts, poor silly bastard.

And people wonder why I want him recalled? For god's sake, he's worse that incompetant, he's dangerous. He took a massive surplus and turned it into a history-making state deficit. That was bad enough, but he knew it was coming. He hid the true size and knew it was going to get bigger. And bigger.

And bigger.

There are some 30+ states running deficits this year; California's is larger than all the others combined. California's deficit is larger than most state's entire budgets. It is so huge and out of control, the mind boggles.

My motorcycle will cost $400+ to register next year. That's one of Gray's "cures" for the deficit. To pay for the (coming) increase in other taxes, and because of the possibility that I'll be laid off, I can no longer afford the monthly payments for the motorcycle. I'm selling the motorcycle, dropping my 45mpg vehicle and converting to a 25mpg vehicle. The car is paid for, and after the registration increase will cost under $200 to register next year. Thus we see how tax increases will stimulate the economy.

And pigs can fly....

Please don't tell me that we can't afford a recall. It's a deficit of $38+ billion (rumors put it close to $50 billion, but those are rumors). The cost of a recall election is approximately $26 million. Do the math. The cost of this election will add 0.07% to the existing deficit. Whoopee. And well worth it to get rid of the Gray.

Please don't tell me this is a Republican plot to steal a legitimate election (egads, just like 2000....). In my mind, Gray stole the election. Face it, the Republicans nominated an idiot--and he came within a whisker of winning! If he had kept his mouth shut, he would have won. Plus, look at all the budget manipulation that Gray engaged in leading up to the election. There was already a deficit, but it ballooned (again and again) starting the day after his re-election. Hmm, odd, that.

Certainly, it can get worse. Frankly, I expect California to go bankrupt. That will make for an interesting situation. Exactly, how does a state go bankrupt? Fiscally, I mean, because at a governmental level, we're already morally bankrupt.

UPDATE:

I forgot a few details. In the CHP, lieutenants and above have been given a 10% pay cut; sergeants got a 5% pay cut. Remember what Gray loves to say and repeat, no cuts in public safety. 'Tis the big fib, I think.

Do not tell me that this "twarts the will of the people". The People signed the recall petitions. If those signatures pass muster and the recall makes it to the ballot, The Will of the People will speak again. If Gray is tossed out on his ass it will be due to the "will of the people."

That entire "will of the people" argument, coming from politicians like Gray, makes me nauseous. Prop 13, the one that cut property taxes almost 25 years ago, was the will of the people, yet public officials like Gray continue to lament about it, fight against it, and seek ways around it. His concern for the people extends precisely one step short of his concern for his own political career. That is, he is concerned about The People only when, and in the context of, it furthers his own political goals.

7.03.2003

Anti-American Pollsters



Opinion Journal has this editorial from Fouad Ajami, which reads in part:

In the days that followed the attacks of Sept. 11, a young Palestinian gave expression to the image America holds out in places where its shadow falls: the boy passing out sweets in celebration of America's grief wondered aloud as to the impact of the bombings on his ability to get a U.S. visa. He felt no great contradiction. He had no feeling of affection or loyalty for the land he yearned to migrate to. He grew up to the familiar drums of anti-Americanism. He had implicated America in his life's circumstances. You can't reason with his worldview. You can only wish for him deliverance from his incoherence--or go there, questionnaire in hand, and return with dispatches of people at odds with American policies. You can make foreigners say the sort of things about America you wanted to say yourself.
Very good point. Something to think about when the next Pew survey comes out.