State and Local Election Results

I was surprised and disappointed by state and local election results.  Filner's victory is really bad news for the city.  I boldly predict he will undermine the implementation of Proposition B.  Most likely, he will block the city's defense of the legal assault on the initiative by the unions.  His victory was not a landslide, but 3% is still substantial.   He doesn't care that the city will be bankrupt in a decade, he'll be probably be addled or six feet under by then.  We will see how well the real fiscal constraints he inherits inhibit his ability to reward his union supporters.  With Filner winning, it seemed inevitable that Bilbray would lose, but its still very close.  We'll see if a principled conservative can defeat Peters in 2014.  Who is ready for that challenge?

Proposition 30's victory also surprised me.  It's victory defied the trend of tax increases not passing when more than one is on the ballot.  It passed well beyond what polling would have indicated.  Make no mistake, these tax increases will not raise the revenue promised, will not be temporary and will hurt the poor more than the rich because of the sales tax hike.  Hard to imagine that it won with 54% of the vote, but there you go.  How soon will the state hit the fiscal wall?

Most of my proposition recommendations went down to defeat.  A couple of exceptions were the revision of the three strikes law and genetically engineered food labeling.

Results from the state office.  Changed the color of the props to indicate how I did, red, I lost and green my position won:

Proposition Title			Yes Votes	%	No Votes	%
Yes	30	Temporary Taxes to Fund Education	4,967,039	53.9%	4,251,558	46.1%
No	31	State Budget, State and Local Government	3,376,286	39.2%	5,229,659	60.8%
No	32	Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction	3,983,603	43.9%	5,094,492	56.1%
No	33	Auto Insurance Prices Based on Driver History	4,056,302	45.4%	4,879,954	54.6%
No	34	Death Penalty	4,276,463	47.2%	4,787,677	52.8%
Yes	35	Human Trafficking	7,324,721	81.1%	1,701,734	18.9%
Yes	36	Three Strikes Law	6,193,431	68.6%	2,832,602	31.4%
No	37	Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling	4,285,787	46.9%	4,845,291	53.1%
No	38	Tax for Education. Early Childhood Programs	2,493,398	27.7%	6,509,127	72.3%
Yes	39	Business Tax for Energy Funding	5,305,400	60.0%	3,530,537	40.0%
Yes	40	Redistricting State Senate	6,081,071	71.4%	2,431,524	28.6%

Eventually this state will come to its senses, or run out of money.

Bilbray's Call Center Needs an Upgrade

I got a call today from the Bilbray campaign, dialing me up from Del Mar (858-617-XXXX according to the caller id).  A young man asked me something that was hard to understand because the voice quality of the call was garbled.  I thought he asked if I was supporting Brian Bilbray, but in hindsight, I think he must have been asking if I would like to hear a message from the Congressman.  Then a recorded message from Bilbray started, again very garbled, although I could still tell it was Bilbray, having heard him in person.  I just hung up, a little frustrated.

I took to Twitter to voice my complaint.

Phone call from @bilbrayca50 campaign (Del Mar #). Garbled voice quality.Support him but he needs to improve campaign.
— B Daddy (@BDaddyLiberator) October 8, 2012

Since then, I have heard nothing from the campaign. I have noticed that big businesses monitor social media and often respond to legitimate complaints very quickly; but apparently this is not so with this campaign. I am posting about this because I support Bilbray, and just want him to run a better campaign. Seems that monitoring social media and monitoring the quality of one's phone bank would be helpful to that end.

Bilbray and Peters Race Reportedly Close

The U-T is reporting that Democratic sponsored polls are showing a dead heat in my home district, the CA-52, in the race between Brian Bilbray, incumbent Republican and Scott Peters, former City councilman and Port commissioner. One poll was at 40-40 and another at 45-45. While the polls are of likely voters, the real question will be what the actual turn out will look like between Republicans and Democrats. With two huge tax hike initiatives on the state ballot, I am predicting that conservative turn out will be higher because tax hikes tend to bring out those voters. Democrats will have less incentive to vote as Obama is a shoe in to take California's electoral votes. Additionally, Carl DeMaio's campaign will be emphasizing pension reform. Bilbray's campaign will be attacking Peters on that issue for his votes during the time he was on the council. I believe this tilts the field against Peters. From the U-T:

Peters has acknowledged that his vote to underfund the pension system was a mistake but said he's the only candidate in the race to do any meaningful pension reform. He has pointed to negotiating a new pension plan to save the city $23 million a year.

Sounds like a tough sell in this environment, so I am predicting a Bilbray victory, despite these polls.

California tea party Conundrum

As a tea partyer in deep blue California, it may seem that we have limited ability to influence elections. Gerrymandering keeps almost all House, Assembly and State Senate races non-competitive. However, ballot measures and local races still provide an opportunity to make our voices heard and to beat the entrenched labor/big-government establishment. Temple of Mut has provided a public service by previewing the November ballot issues; but I wanted to add a few thoughts on issues and races that matter in San Diego in particular.

Proposition 30. Jerry Brown's "temporary" tax hikes initiative. This is an easy No recommendation from the tea party. But I doubt that the final vote will even be close. Billed as another "for the children" initiative, I think that scam is up. (As satirized in a recent Hitler parody, the voters are wise to the whole "They'll put free hookers and cocaine on our health plan as long as we say it's for the children" line.) The cram down on the high speed rail while the state is going broke isn't going to help this effort. Neither will the report that reveals that the top paid legislative staffers in Sacramento are getting big pay raises. Of course, the bulk of the pay raises are going to the top 1% of the staff, just kidding, I think it is the top 5%. If I were in charge of advertising, I would lead with particular tidbit about legislative staff pay raises in a campaign against the tax hikes. It also helps that another tax measure to increase almost everyone's taxes, Proposition 38 is also on the ballot. Even those making as little as $7,300 will get hit by Prop 38. To be fair about who gets a tax increase, Brown's Proposition 30 also raises everyone's taxes through a sales tax increase.

San Diego Mayor - Carl DeMaio. The SCTRC does not endorse candidates, so this my personal recommendation. With the public employees unions and the California PERBerts challenging Proposition B in court and its attendant the cost savings in court, the city will need a vigorous advocate in the Mayor's office. Even opponents of the measure admit that it will save the taxpayers money. I have no doubt that Bob Filner would seek to gut the legal defense of the measure as well as any implementation. Reforming pensions is vitally important to the long term financial health of the city. Carl DeMaio strongly supported the measure and has been an advocate for the taxpayers in general. He first won my support for his vigorous opposition to Proposition D, in contrast to most other San Diego establishment politicians.

Brian Bilbray for Congress. This stance is also controversial with some of my fellow tea partyers. Despite his appearance at a Repeal Obamacare rally, Bilbray doesn't really light the fires for us tea party types. But I have never before been a single issue voter, but the so called Affordable Care Act has made me one. The ACA is actually an unaffordable sop to lobbyists and special interests that true liberals ought to be opposing, not just those on the right. The 52nd Congressional race is one of the few that matter in California. It is a competitive race. Brian Bilbray has promised to vote for repeal and Scott Peters has endorsed the ACA. How much clearer could our choice be? I am asking tea partyers and libertarians who aren't enthused to get behind Bilbray anyway. I will be donating to him and to Romney and Bilbray on the theory that the ACA will do decades worth of damage to the country if not repealed soon.

ACA Anti-Tax Protest Rally - Bilbray Also Speaks - UPDATE

I attended the Anti-Tax Rally today in downtown San Diego held in front of the County Administration Building. Brian Bilbray was clearly the most famous speaker invited. He is in a competitive district, as I have previously discussed. The rally started with doctors in white lab coats speaking about the harm done to health care under the law. Doctor Gary Gonsalves led off the doctors segment. (It seems that Obama's stunt at the White House has made it de rigueur to put the docs in lab coats.


Among the issues raised by the doctors were the further insertion of bureaucracy between doctors and patients, the stripping of medicare, and the imposition of more regulations that will discourage doctor and exacerbate a doctor shortage. The last doctor to speak was Dr. Gina Loudon, who was the most exciting doctor speaker, befitting her role as radio personality. She pointed out that the GOP has not always been consistent in opposing an expansion of government which led her to work in the tea party movement, as opposed to mere Republicanism. (I agree.)

Dr. Gina Loudon talks about her tea party experience.

Many of the argument about health care proffered by speakers have been covered in some of my previous posts. But I also heard some new ideas for reforming health care and health insurance.

1. Let credit card companies manage Health Savings Accounts (that use pre-tax dollars) because they are good at detecting fraud. Further, allowing HSAs to roll from year to year would encourage people to shop around and reduce health costs. As a current user of a flexible spending account for some of my health care, I like this idea. But, the current system pushes me to spend all my eligible funds in one year, leading to some wasteful spending.
2. Get the states and the AMA out of nursing licensing. Doctors and hospitals are capable of judging the quality of nurses, this just restricts supply.
3. Get the AMA out of limiting doctor licensing and medical school accreditation, because they have a vested interest in decreasing the supply of doctors.

I was very interested to hear Brian Bilbray's take on the law. He made great points. I know he has offended some purists who believe that nothing in the law should be retained because it is an affront to freedom. I agree, but politics is the art of the possible. Bilbray makes the very good point that right now, coverage for pre-existing conditions and children to age 26 are very popular parts of the legislation. But he made the point that those good ends could still be achieved without the monstrosity of so many new taxes and fees in the law. He hammered at the tax theme. He also pointed out that the law is a sop to to lawyers and insurance companies who wrote the law at the expense of the American people. His opponent, Scott Peters, is fully supportive of the law, so even if you challenge Bilbray for not being tough enough in standing against the law, his vote will be for repeal, but a Peters vote would not be. More prominent members of the tea party do not agree with my assessment of Bilbray, you can read the opinion here.

Brian Bilbray addresses tea party rally against ACA taxes.

Nick Popaditch, was a much more dynamic and absolutist opponent of the bill. I cannot do justice to his speaking style. However, he made this great point. When the leftists like Obama and Pelosi argue their positions they attack their fellow Americans. In arguing that the reason for the mandate is because of "free riders," they are attacking their fellow Americans who have exercised their God-given right not to purchase health insurance. The attacks on Americans exercising their rights is a hallmark of this administration, my opinion. (My answer for the free rider issue? Allow insurance to offer catastrophic coverage and allow hospitals to be aggressive in collecting from dead beats who can pay.)

Nick Popaditch decries the attacks on Americans by supporters of the ACA.

A few other thoughts. Chief Justice Roberts came in for more than a little criticism. His logic that the law is a tax, does not square with the Congressional language. That is legislating from the bench, as some speakers pointed out. All in all, it was an inspiring rally that is one small piece of the larger movement to limit government.

Frequent commenter arhooley also attended; she had this to say.

I just got back from it, and although it was great, I'd like to see one change at these Tea Party rallies: a secular or agnostic Tea Party speaker. Maybe even an ex-liberal. There are plenty of us out here, and we don't always feel we're being addressed or included in speeches laden with calls to religion. An added bonus is that we're not all preaching to the choir; we know how to talk to liberals about the supposed generosity of Obamacare and similar laws and movements.

I agree about not preaching to the choir, but have to say that many of the doctors couched their discussion in non-partisan, less political terms.

UPDATE

Shane Atwell also blogged about the event. He reminded me of a point made by Popaditch that I forgot to include. We can't protect people from making bad economic choices. (He used the decision to buy a Chevy Volt as an example, to much laughter.) This is a big part of the leftist argument for government regulation of health care. If people were required to suffer the consequences of poor choices, like going bankrupt as a result of foregoing health care insurance, then they might make better choices.

The U-T's Craig Gustafson has an article about the event as well. He quotes the Scott Peters campaign's insistence that somehow Bilbray is a tea partyer now. For better or worse, that is patently untrue.

CA-52 - A Competitive California House Race?

My home got redistricted into House CA-52, which was a boon for me as I had previously resided in Susan Davis' district, which was heavily gerrymandered to ensure that no Republican would ever seriously challenge her. (She has never fallen below 60% in any election effort.) Now I live in one of the few competitive districts in California, featuring a race between Brian Bilbray (R) and Scott Peters. Peters, former city council member from La Jolla, edged out environmental activist and former assemblywoman, Lori Saldaña for second place in the "open" primary system.

Brian Bilbray has been my Congressman before, when I lived at a different address in San Diego, so its kind of strange seeing his name on the ballot again, after I had moved into a Democratic district. Honestly, he has never been my favorite Republican member of Congress; but to be fair, he has always been in districts with substantial numbers of Democrats.

Meanwhile, Scott Peters has taken flack for his terms as council member and as port commissioner. Dave Maass takes up the issue of how the campaign will play out in the most recent issue of San Diego City Beat. Based on interviews with both Peters and Bilbray he sees Bilbray attacking Peters for his part in the current pension mess in San Diego, with Peters claiming that he was on the council that started to fix it. Bilbray also stated that he would attack for Peters being self funded, pouring his own money into the campaign. I think that is a laughable non-issue, Peters has plenty of other baggage and certainly many Republicans have been self funded.

But Maass makes the good point that it is going to be difficult for Peters to distance himself from pension issues. Saldaña attacked along these lines as well, so the meme is out there, as my kids like to say. Peters believes he can set the record straight, but in an interview with the La Jolla Light, Peters labels "The reconfiguration of “The Throat” (the once precarious and highly congested intersection of Torrey Pines Road and La Jolla Parkway)," as his most significant achievement while in office. Hardly resetting the narrative.

The OBRag holds out Scott Peters as a solid Democrat, with "solid Democratic values." Which is really my problem with him, becausem as defined by the left, solid Democrat means unwilling to tackle the nation's fiscal crisis with anything more than doubling down on current policy.

• Unapologetic about supporting the ACA, which represents a doubling down on a regulated utility approach to health care insurance that so far has just increased costs.
• Unwilling to discuss alternative approaches to Medicare's delivery model. Tinkering with prescription costs isn't going to solve the problem of unfunded entitlements in the system. Paying for "outcome based" health care isn't going to deliver cost reduction either. Further, no Democrat has really proposed a serious reform along these lines.
  
• Saying that social security isn't in that bad of shape.

Ultimately, we aren't going to repeal the ACA and start over on serious health care reform with Democrats in control of the House. This is the main reason I oppose Scott Peters. But could the Democrats please get serious about the looming financial crisis. Medicaid expansion is unlikely to move forward as planned given the Supreme Court ruling, but look at the rest of these liabilities and ask why they isn't serious discussion on the left about what to do.

Scott Peters dismisses Paul Ryan, but he and his fellow Democrats aren't offering any serious alternatives to the entitlement problem. See also KT Cat's blog.