Monday, December 26, 2011

California Coddles Lobbyists and Opposes Small Business

In a previous blog post, I showed how California has by far the highest yearly fees of any state for small-business LLCs.  $800 per year, plus a share of the gross.  The vast majority of states charge no yearly tax at all, and those that do typically charge $200 or less.

By contrast, California has some of the lowest fees on lobbyists.  $25 a year.  Many other states charge a bit more; here's an old (2003) compilation of lobbyist fees and here is a more recent one.  As you can see, many states charge more like $100/year, with Massachusetts at the high end at $1000.

To his credit, CA State Senator Leland Yee proposes to raise the lobbying fee.  To a whopping $50 a year.  Puhleese.  Well, he has to worry some, cause the lobbyist lobby defeated Proposition 15 in 2010, which would have, among many other things, raised fees to $350.  But $50 a year is pathetic.

This increased fee is not going to raise much revenue for California.  Prop 15 was estimated to raise $1.5  million a year.  So it wont fix our budget.  But nor would it impact the big lobbyists, for whom a million dollars, split multiple ways so it more like a thousand dollars, is chump change.  For example, PG&E is estimated to have spent $45 million in 2010.  Akin Gump et. al., a top lobbying firm (they boast of it here), made $25 million in lobbying income in 2011.

So, why does California impede small business with huge small business LLC fees, while coddling lobbyist groups?  Yes, that's a rhetorical question.  It's due to our system of government, which is corruption.  Our state representatives don't want the people to get money from the lobbyist groups, they want themselves to get money from lobbyists.  And the cheaper the fees, the more lobbyists, which means more for them.

Monday, December 12, 2011

David Schoenfield makes great case for Edgar Martinez for the Hall of Fame

A recent blog by David Schoenfield looks at the production one could expect from Albert Pujols over the next ten years.  Assuming that Albert will remain elite, the post looks into the past, finding the best players  (highest WAR), at his position (1B / DH), at ages 33, 34, ... up to age 41.  As one would expect, there is a general decline from ages 32-34, where the top WARs are in the 6.2 - 7.2 range, through ages 35-38 where top WARs average 5.6, and beyond age 38 they rapidly decline into the 2.5 - 3.5 range.  Based on this, the Angels may regret their deal after seven years.

But I was pleasantly surprised to see Edgar Martinez appear so often on the list.  For four of those ten ages (if you include age 32 which for some reason Schoenfield doesn't) Edgar was the best 1B/DH in baseball. For five of those ten years he was the second best player, by WAR.  And for two of those the "best" was Mark McGuire who deserves a large asterisk.

So, if you discount McGuire, from age 32-41, for six of those ten years, Edgar Martinez was the best first baseman / DH in baseball.  And for three he was the second best in baseball.  This is dominance over an extended period.  And Edgar wasn't too shabby in his younger days either, posting OPS+ well above 100 in 1990, 91, 92 and 1994.

Hopefully the Hall of Fame voters will take notice.  Last time he received a paltry 33%.  Which is actually a slight decline from 36% the previous year.