Mayhem in Madison Wisconsin

Well, I don't claim to be an expert, though I have been to Madison many times and have even visited the now quorum-less State Senate chamber, but here are some thoughts on the unrest in Wisconsin in response to Governor Scott Walker's proposals to make state employees pay more towards health care and pensions, and to strip them of most of their collective bargaining rights.

IMO, asking them to pay more towards health care and pensions is eminently reasonable.  According to a WSJ analysis, the proposed increases would be "roughly the national average for public pension payments, and it is less than half the national average of what government workers contribute to health care".  Currently, Wisconsin public workers pay nothing towards their pensions, and a mere 6% for health-care benefits.

As for rolling back collective bargaining rights, this is a tactical political mistake and an unnecessary overreach that allows opponents, such as President Obama, to readily portray this as an "assault on unions". In the short run, the real need is to restrain costs.  Worry about obscure fine points (at least, to many outside observers) of collective bargaining rights later.  If Governor Walker had been willing to settle for a partial victory, he might have it already, as many in the union are willing to accept the cuts but not the broader provisions.

At least some rhetoric from the left has been misguided.  Democratic State Sen. Bob Jauch called Mr. Walker's move "the end of the democratic process" during the committee debate on Wednesday night.  He then showed his magnificent support for the democratic process by fleeing across the border to Illinois to deny the republican controlled senate a quorum.  Protesters, ignoring recent calls for civility in political dialog (most of which I think are misguided), are shouting "Kill the bill".  Fortunately, their actions have been civil, as there have been no incidents between them and conservative opponents.  Interestingly, even the liberal NYT admits in that article that the union's protests "have been more organized than organic" i.e. more "astroturf" than "grassroots".

Governor Walker, compromise.  Propose that the unions accept the pay cuts to pay for health care and pensions, but leave their broader collective bargaining powers alone.

For the record, I'm waiting for our newly elected California governor, Jerry Brown, to ask public employee unions to face some of the pain of the immense state budget deficit.  I even voted for him, thinking he might have a chance to succeed: just like only somebody with impeccable conservative credentials (Nixon) could open relations with mainland China, it may take a governor with solid liberal credentials (Jerry Brown) to successfully tackle California's public employee crisis regarding pay, benefits, and pensions.

California Business Taxes

There's a lot of talk, at least from the right, about California being "hostile" to business.  I've been thinking of converting my little consulting business into a one-person LLC.  Some investigation revealed that there would be a minimum $800 per year tax on the LLC. It goes up as you make more money. This is in addition to the normal state income tax.  Seems a bit steep.  If a "typical" small business is making maybe $50000 a year, that's an effective 1.6% tax rate.  What do other states charge?  Yesterday I was at the local library browsing the NOLO book Form Your own LLC.  Only 11 states (including California) charge any special yearly LLC tax at all.  Here is the complete list.  A value of "yes" means that the exact number varies and was not in the book, a "+" means "or more".

Alaska	$50
Arkansas	$150+
California	$800+
Delaware	yes
Illinois	$250
Kansas	yes
Massachusetts	$500
New Hampshire	$100
North Carolina	$200
Pennsylvania	$380+
Wyoming	$50+
Alaska	$50

As you can see, not only is California somewhat unusual in charging a yearly tax at all, it's tax is the highest.

Pentagon Report on Don't Ask Don't Tell

I support repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, if it doesn't cause significant loss of combat effectiveness.  The New York Times tells us that the recent Pentagon report proves just that, stating that "Only 30 percent of the serving military believes that open service would be harmful".

While that number may be true overall, what concerns me are the opinions of combat troops.  The troops who are facing the most danger, and must live in close quarters in rugged conditions with their fellows.  Here the results are much more negative.  For example, on page 81, Table 17, Question 68c, 48.9% of Army Combat Arms and 59.7% of Marine Combat Arms respond negatively.

I have never served in the military.  Here I'd defer to the troops.  Much as I regret saying it, our serving combat troops are not ready for a repeal of DADT, especially in the middle of two wars.  I hope that ten years from now the results will be more favorable and the military will be ready.

Alternatively, it seems like the Air Force is the most ready to accept homosexuals.  Let it repeal DADT, and let's see the results in a few years.  If things go well, the other services will follow.

Most of us have to pay for our own lawyers

Charlie Rangel, (D, N.Y.) walked out of his House Ethics Panel trial today, making the serious claim that he was being denied his Constitutional right to have a lawyer.

Well, actually, just because he hasn't had time to let others pay for his lawyer.

"I am being denied the right to have a lawyer right now because I don't have the opportunity to have a legal-defense fund set up,'' the New York Democrat said. "I truly believe I am not being treated fairly.''

In his defense, Rep. Rangel has already paid 2 million dollars to lawyers, out of his campaign funds.  When those ran out, the lawyers abruptly, and unprofessionally, left the case, leaving him in the lurch.  But he could choose to pay them out of his own personal money, which is what most of us normal schmucks have to do.  Maybe it is unfair for finances to play such a role in a trial, but welcome to the real world Rep. Rangel.  Besides, I don't think this is a partisan "witch-hunt" without any foundation, it is his own party still in charge of the House.

This sense of entitlement by our representatives is appalling.  Somehow they don't feel like they should pay for anything, it should all be provided as a government benefit and expense account, or by generous donors.  Of course, all those donors are altruistic and would never expect any corrupt favors or benefits in return.

Sad State of Journalism

Today, one day before the election, the San Jose Mercury News has a front-page news article about Carly Fiorina.  Apparently, in person at least, she's not "a heartless corporate bigwig who blithely fired her workers and sent their jobs overseas".  The article, somewhat correctly, criticizes Fiorina's campaign strategy.

But in a state as vast as California, only a sliver of voters actually see candidates in person; their main exposure is in TV ads. Fiorina never aired a biographical ad about herself. She did appear in several spots but never gave voters a real sense of herself,

 But, but, but...  isn't the media supposed to do some of this work for us?  Don't they spend time with the candidates?  Why the heck didn't they report this?  Well, the Merc did provide information on their fact check page.  

Boxer also neglects to note that Fiorina's turnaround strategy at HP -- huge acquisitions and relentless cost-cutting -- eventually succeeded in making it the largest technology company in the world. ... her (Fiorina's) broader vision has been largely vindicated by time.

However, they cannot bring themselves to actually endorse her.  Citing, amongst other things, that "Fiorina was fired from HP after a tempestuous tenure" and her support of Prop 23, which is a state issue, not a national one.  They praise Boxer for pushing cap and trade, then admit that "she was ineffective at pushing through her legislation".

O.K., so Fiorina's turnaround strategy at HP "succeeded", her vision was "vindicated", and Boxer was "ineffective".  Why can't they listen to their own facts and recommend Fiorina?  Because she's a Republican.  The Merc endorsed seven democrats and only two republicans, and the republicans for less powerful positions.

California High Speed Rail - A Far Too Reasonable Proposal

The California High Speed Rail Project (official site, wikipedia) proposes to link San Francisco and Sacramento, via the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego.  But they are getting a lot of grief from cities along the San Francisco Peninsula, who don't want ugly, noisy, perhaps elevated tracks through their downtowns .  Tunnels are not currently on the proposals, due to cost.  You'll find lots of link with a Google search, here's one (see pages 20-29).  The cities dislike the proposal so much that they are suing.  Menlo Park is suing for the second time!

In an ideal, well-planned world, carrying the line the whole way to SF would be good.  But, in the real, poorly-planned world, does it really makes sense to waste years on lawsuits, impact statements and permits, then spend billions of dollars on construction through some of the priciest land in the country?  No.  Terminate the high-speed line in San Jose, not San Francisco.  That will easily save several billion, probably tens of billions.

Use some of that saved money to "spruce up" and electrify Caltrain, which is desperately needed for its survival, and estimated at less than a billion.  Use some of the saved money to accelerate the BART extension from Fremont to San Jose.

How much will this impact San Franciscans who want to take the train to L.A?  They will need an extra transfer, which is annoying and wastes some time - say 10 or 15 minutes with good scheduling.  The train ride will be slower.  Caltrain "baby bullet" trains take an hour to run from SF to SJ.  But electrification is thought to save 10 minutes or so from that.  BART takes 50 minute to run from downtown SF to Fremont. So getting to San Jose is probably a bit over an hour.  However, there are many BART stations in San Francisco, so for most people, they are much more convenient than getting to the train station which is at 4th and King on the far east side of town.  Bottom Line: Caltrain, with a transfer, is slightly over an hour, BART is more convenient for most but would take more like an hour and a half.

How long would a "High Speed" rail trip take?  Though the trains may be capable of a couple of hundred miles and hour, the actual speed along the Peninsula would be limited to around 90 MPH.  The distance as the crow flies is 42 miles,  Let's say half an hour.  But there are possible stops planned for SFO, Redwood City and/or Palo Alto.  With those, we're talking more like 40 minutes.

The net benefit of high speed rail along the Peninsula is small.  For San Franciscans using the downtown train station, they'd save about 20 minutes.  San Franciscans who live near BART and far from 4th and King could well save time by taking BART.

My proposal saves California taxpayers billions of dollars in money, and years in costly construction delays.  Plus, we get BART to San Jose, truly circling the Bay, and save and enhance Caltrain.

To the politicians and special interests in California - can you put reason and logic first?

Paul Krugman Deliberately Misleads, Again

In today's editorial, Paul Krugman lashes out at NJ Governor Chris Christie for cancelling a 8.7 billion dollar tunnel project.  The project sounds like a good idea, and much of the money is coming from the Feds, (only three billion from NJ) so, if you just read his editorial, the project does sound completely rational.  What is this irrational, "destructive", and "incredibly foolish" Christie up to anyway?


A trivial Google search (I typed in "christie tunnel hudson river") reveals something that Krugman somehow fails to mention: The project is facing potential cost overruns of up to 5 Billion Dollars, all of which would be paid by the State of NJ.  The very first hit is entitled "NJ governor kills Hudson River tunnel due to costs".  Am I to believe that Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman didn't know that?  Or is it more likely that he deliberately intended to mislead his readers?


Another article states that the project may still move forward.

Christie and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood will meet today “to discuss a path forward on the ARC tunnel project"

Presumably, Christie will seek a deal where the Feds will help pay for some of the overruns.  Suddenly, Christie is the one who seems eminently rational, not the misleading Krugman.