The is an unalterable truth to parenthood: No matter what time you get in on Saturday night, Sunday morning at 7:00, your bedroom door will quietly open and your seven-year-old will crawl into bed with you and give you a wake-up hug. And you'll be torn between the desire to burrow deeper under the pillows and feign a coma and the automatic reflex to hug back and ask how he's doing today. In my case, the reflex always seems to win, which pleases me for some reason.
While I certainly partied more when his older brothers were his age, we did a pretty good job last night, getting home from Linse's Casa Ain't No Bad Dude about 0215 Sunday morning.
That's testimony to what a good time we had.
A wide array of blogger and writer talent was there, starting with Cathy Seipp and her precocious daughter Maya (sadly, I hadn't brought Middle Guy, which is probably good because he'd have fallen in love with her and his grades would collapse and he'd wind up barely getting into a community college just as they raised their tuition to something rivaling Harvard), Martin Devon, Kevin Drum, Bill Whittle, Matt Welch & Emmanuelle, and lots more.
TG bonded with a female friend Brian's for much of the evening, causing much concern for both Brian and I as we worried about what secrets were being shared out on the patio; we'll find out soon.
Meanwhile, the most amusing part of the evening was a - conversation - between a dapper gent who identified himself as a journalist and Bill Whittle, Howard Owens, one of the Samizdata crew, and myself. I'll blog a bit of it over at WoC.
I've just finished building a Zoid with Littlesy Guy, and now I have to go marinate steaks for Middle Guy's birthday dinner tonight...back to blogging tomorrow.
OK, it's time to make a confession. I'm remiss in not getting to this sooner, but Joe Katzman yanked my chain on it, and it's time to say something.
I was a member of MEChA. Yup, back in my college days in the early 70's, back when it was being started. As you may have noted below, I have a bunch of Hispanic in my background (even though my Spanish - now almost all gone in favor of French - sounds like California elementary-school Spanish, which it is), and while at school, I tended to hang out with the political kids. I was a member for a quarter or two, until my political interests became more theoretical, and I realized that talking identity politics with a bunch of poor Latino kinds from the Central Valley was a little hypocritical for the half white boy from Beverly Hills.
So MEChA.
Back in the early days (as I dimly recall), the black students were well-organized, and they had their positions down. Simply being black trumped all other political arguments (remember this was at U.C. Santa Cruz, where Huey got his PhD). The Latino students felt .... how else can I say it? ... left out. Brown Power and Chicano identity issues were beginning to get attention, and so, voilá, MEChA.
My recollection was of a group with three themes: a political identity discussion group, a fairly mainstream ethnic 'interest group' and mutual support group, seeded with a tiny group of radicals, lacking only the courage to cross the line into terrorism. While that described MEChA, it also pretty much described every left-of-center campus political group, Jewish, Christian, feminist, gay, etc. etc. during the early 70's. Whatever brush MEChA can be tarred with can equally apply to the entire range of the campus Left from about 1969 to 1978, the time with which I had contact with it. By '78 it had become institutionalized, as we see it today, with the ASB budgets diverted to identity-politics-pork.
But in the early years, it definitely held an edge.
Anyone my age (50) ought to be able to look back on a campus littered with fervent leaflets talking about the imminent collapse of Western civilization as THE REVOLUTION arrives. I'm pretty sure that the undergraduate engineering group did some as well, I know the physics support group did.
I'm sure there were some nutball Aztlan fanatics among the early members of MEChA. I'm equally certain that for the most part it served as a benign support network for a bunch of poor Latino kinds, newly offered the opportunity of a U.C. education thanks to affirmative action, who have gone on to become realtors, dentists, Rotary members, and semi-corrupt state politicians.
So while I'm no fan of Cruz in many departments, this is certainly a weak attack to make, and I can personally attest to that.
In case you've been napping, California is broke. California isn't alone...go Google "state budget crisis 2003", in the first three pages, you'll see references to California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Now I'm no budget or tax analyst, but a few things ought to be obvious.
If everyone's having the same problem, that doesn't mean it's not a problem - but it does mean that you have to look to systemic, rather than specific factors to understand what's going on.
Before you get all up in my face about "Well if it's a systemic problem, why are you for recalling Davis? It wasn't his fault!" let me point out that what I expect from elected officials at a level above the minor-city-scandal-level is some form of behavior better than that shown by John Belushi in his tender, romantic scene with Carrie Fischer in the Blues Brothers:
Jake Blues: No, I didn't. Honest. I ran out of gas! I had a flat tire! I didn't have enough money for cab fare! My tux didn't come back from the cleaners! An old friend came in from out of town! Someone stole my car! There was an earthquake! A terrible flood! Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!"...which is pretty much what we're seeing right now. A decent Governor would have stood up last year - before the election - and told the truth. Davis didn't.
I can't testify to the other states, but what's been going on in California is simple: We've been running deficits in the $10B range for about two years, since the dot-com implosion. We assumed that our straightened state was a temporary one, and that the revenues would come back Real Soon.
They didn't. They aren't going to, anytime soon.
And meanwhile, we have two bothersome tendencies: We keep trimming back on taxes, because it buys votes, and we keep hiring new state employees, because that's what bureaucracies do.
We've faked our way through this like a bankrupt Web designer clutching a LOTTO ticket, sure that salvation was coming next Saturday. And we've borrowed against the credit cards...and worse, we've borrowed against the kid's cards as well.
I'm not talking literally about the future inhabitants of our great states, I'm talking about the dependent governments below the state level - the counties, townships, and cities.
What's gone on is a massive transfer of obligations from the feds to the states - so the Federal budget looks better, because the high-cost, high growth programs are suddenly state programs. And the states, dancing for their fiscal lives, are transferring programs downstream to the counties and cities in a series of budget "realignments".
Now, three things are clear: Revenues don't meet expenses, which means we have a fundamental fiscal discipline problem (we need to raise taxes or lower expenditures); we've faked it over the last several years with a series of creative financial mechanisms which essentially involve hypothecating assets (vide. the Tobacco Settlement) or future income in order to cover current shortfalls, with the notion in mind that things have to get better - or at least the current legislators won't be on the hook any longer.
In the case of California, one of the issues has been the over reliance on income tax revenues from the highest-income Californians. This is a good thing in the sense that they can afford to pay more taxes (after all, their income has overall grown a whole lot faster than the income of the lowest 20%); it's a bad thing in that the income is somewhat volatile, and worse because the ever-diminishing pool of taxpayers is altering their behavior - even moving out of state, like Layne, to minimize the tax burden.
I'm thinking about a budget and tax strategy (I don't know enough detail, except in a very few areas, to actually propose tactics), and I'll propose two basic goals:
1. Budget Integration. We need to look at State, county, and city budgets in some integrated way, to deal with the - transfers - between the levels which tend to mask spending and growth in a number of areas.
2) Tax stability. California is mandated to carry a balanced budget. We need to relook at our tax programs to attempt to get a more stable revenue stream for the state. This implies that we shift from personal income to corporate income, sales, and property taxes. This is pretty obviously nontrivial is so many ways...but I'll suggest one point in each of these three areas that could make a difference.
From the California Budget Project:
Over the past two decades, the burden of funding state services has shifted from corporate to personal income taxpayers. The personal income tax is forecast to provide 48.9 percent of state General Fund revenues in 2003-04, up from 34.8 percent in 1980-81. Corporate tax receipts are expected to provide 9.2 percent of General Fund revenues in 2003-04, down from 14.4 percent in 1980-81. New, increased, and expanded corporate tax breaks are responsible for the decline in the share of state revenues provided by the corporate income tax. Tax reductions enacted between 1998 and 2002 alone will reduce 2002-03 revenues by $4.6 billion.We hammer corporations with regulations and worker's comp costs, but they save on Prop 13 property taxes (business property changes hands less often then personal property, and so is reassessed less often) and corporate income taxes. We need to look at the level of corporate income taxes, and more importantly specific corporate income tax expenditures (targeted tax breaks) very carefully and consider eliminating the breaks and raising our overall level of tax collections.
Sales taxes are anathema to progressives, because they are inherently regressive...lower-income household have to spend most of their income to survive, and so wind up paying a far higher percentage of their income in sales taxes. But they are stable, and more importantly, they are the means whereby those who earn in the cash economy contribute their share. Simply put, we ought to bump the state sales tax by a fairly significant amount, and rebate it back to lower- and middle-income taxpayers, possibly by covering some portion of their payroll taxes with it. Note that some burden will fall on lower- and middle- income taxpayers; that can't be avoided, although it can be meliorated. Further note that those who live in the cash economy - who include illegal immigrants - will be disproportionately affected. Good; they need to pay their share, too.
On Prop 13, one major loophole is the ability of commercial property holders to keep properties in partnerships and corporate ownership, and to restructure or sell the corporation or partnership, thereby selling the property without triggering reappraisal. I believe that Prop 13 is untouchable in the near and intermediate future, but this is a shopping-center sized loophole that needs to be closed.
So I've been emailing my friends in Sacramento as they get ready to come back into session, and one of my big issues, as noted before, over at WoC, is "what do folks think of Cruz". My informal poll - one elected, three staffers, and a journalist elicits two basic themes:
1) Not the sharpest tool in the shed ("box of rocks" was used, but I think that person was a bit overwrought);
2) Enmeshed in the special-interest culture.
His trial balloon - cut the car tax while raising cigarette taxes and taxes on the wealthy - doesn't exactly rock my world. Increasing "sin taxes" to unsustainable levels can only raise so much, and encourages the state to injure it's citizens by promoting the sins (lotto, gaming) in order to get the revenue. The 44,000 California millionaires can only pay so much in taxes before they all join Ken Layne and move to Reno. What will we do then?
Weintraub had a great column on the state's overdependence on tax income from the wealthy 0.5%:
Nobody knows how those wealthy taxpayers would react to such an increase. If they stayed in California, and didn't change their behavior, the state treasury and those who rely on it for services would be better off. And certainly a tax increase of a few thousand dollars on someone making a half-million a year would seem unlikely to drive them from the state.So it looks like my support, at least, is up for grabs (and I'm guessing that I'm pretty typical), and if Arnie does a few things right - he'll get it.But if the increase prompted just a few thousand of the wealthiest taxpayers to flee California, then the revenue decline it would cause could make the past year's drop seem mild. The truth is you could put thousands of laborers to work at good wages and probably not compensate for the lost income tax from one departed millionaire.
Even if it worked as intended, raising taxes on the wealthy would push California out on a fiscal limb that everyone already knows is weak. Had the higher rates been law during the late 1990s, the revenue growth the state experienced would have been even greater. And the decline, when it came, would have been even steeper.
Going further in that direction would make the state's masses even more reliant on the good fortune of a few than they are today. And as the last few years have shown, in the long term that can be a very risky proposition.
He did one right thing today; he got prominent investor and Democrat Warren Buffett to agree to act as his fiscal advisor. His presence raises some interesting issues, since CALPRS and CALSTRS, the large public employee and teacher's pension funds doubtless are deeply intertwined with Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett's investment company.
Here's what I see as his "issues" and some quick steps he could take to make them go away.
1. Race.
Arnie is a rich white guy who lives in Brentwood, and makes his living in an industry that has lots of minorities everywhere except the executive suites.
It won't be hard to paint him as a guy who sees Latinos as gardeners and blacks as drivers. His own history of rising from a penniless immigrant won't protect him against that, and in the key suburban counties in Southern California and the Bay Area - where the soccer mom and dad votes are - many moderates will be turned off if he's seen as Pete Wilson redux (more on that in a moment).
He can easily immunize himself against that; to do so, he needs to do three things:
1) Find his own Condi Rice and Colin Powell. There are smart ethnic neoliberals in California, and there ought to be a few of them publicly advising Arnie from key strategy and policy roles. Let's get this done next week, please. I'll do some digging and propose some names over the next day or so.
2) Come up with his own message to the Latin and Black communities. Talk about how he wants to create real lasting opportunities for them in education (where he has some track record) and small business and jobs. Talk about what he'll do to reduce what racial barriers may exist, and how he'll challenge their kids to meet high, rather than low, expectations. Talk about how they in their communities are the most vulnerable to crime, and how he'll work with progressive law enforcement to make sure that murders in South-Central get investigated as aggressively as those in Brentwood.
3) Take the message to the media that will reach the communities - go on KKBT and talk to Steve Harvey (hell, make him one of your advisers). Go on KSCA and KSSE and don't wait to be challenged on the issue, take your case to the public and put it to rest.
2. Experience
John F Kennedy once said about experience
"One hundred years ago Abraham Lincoln was not running on a platform of experience. It was clear that his opponent had far greater experience, as Lincoln's experience was confined to a few obscure years in the House of Representatives. But the country was then suffering from a President with experience, James Buchanan, who had been Congressman, Senator, Ambassador, and Secretary of State. He had been in public service for almost 42 years.Your case to the public is that those three qualities - the ability to lead and unite the people of California in facing the severe problems we face today; the courage to challenge the web of special interests that has bound our state like Gulliver in Lilliput; and the foresight to create and sell a dream of what California can become - are qualities that you have. Can you show them?Herbert A. Garth, the historian, has written, and he mistakenly believed that he had been learning all the time [laughter], "I don't think experience necessarily counts" [applause].
The three great qualities which characterized Lincoln's Presidency were leadership, courage, and foresight, the three qualities that the next President of the United States is going to need in full measure if this country is going to meet the challenges at home and abroad."
More than anything else, this recall election is about people's disgust with the machinations of interest group politics, in which unions, businesses, and other large interest groups manage to tilt the table so that they get what they are looking for and the state as a whole suffers.
You have to oppose that, and start to explain how electing you will start the painful process of breaking that machine.
3. Character
This is shorthand for 'immunity to sleaze'. You have two answers to that - your wife, who needs to take the issue on publicly as your proxy - demonstrating that whatever you may have done, it was done within the context of a permanent and loving relationship; and people you have done business with for years who ought to be able to testify as to your reliability and willingness to build and work within long-standing relationships. If you can't make those two things happen, this is going to be a large hole through which you will take water.
4. Partisanship
The news today is all about your dependency on Pete Wilson and his core group of advisers. If Davis or Bustamante can paint you as a 'pretty face on Pete Wilson's politics', you're in trouble. You shouldn't run against the GOP, but you have to make it clear that you transcend traditional California partisanship.
There are a couple of disaffected Democrats out there you ought to be able to capture, and you not only need their endorsement, you need them to be seen visibly working as a part of your policy and campaign team.
That's a start. There'll be more over the next few days.
…(pause for 10 seconds) See! Now he’s all nervous…worried about what I’m going to say…
Traditionally, this is in two parts; a short speech to the couple, and then a toast to their wedding and for a successful marriage.
I want to do it in three parts.
I’ll talk to each of the couple. I’ll talk about the marriage. And I’ll give them a toast.
First, I want to talk to Suzy about Greg.
To understand my brother, you must first understand the Cheeto.
Cheetos are colorful, they are flavorful, they are fattening, and you can never get enough of them. And you can’t get them out of the sofa once they're in it, either.
And everyone loves them.
So once you truly understand the Cheeto, you’ll understand Greg.
Now I want to talk to Greg about Suzy.
Bro, we’ve always been told that as men, we want girls. You went out looking for a girl, and you somehow found a woman. Guys like girls because they’re cute (Suzy is beautiful); because they play with us (Suzy will make a life with you) and because they don’t demand much (Suzy will demand everything you have and more). And for everything they demand, they’ll give back more than you can imagine.
We’re here to celebrate their wedding – Greg and Suzy’s formal and public statement that they are a family.
It’s a funny thing; for much of my life I wasn’t very interested in family. I had other things that occupied my attention and my heart.
That’s not true today, and one thing I want to do is to publicly thank my brother for that.
He has always been the glue that cemented our wacky tribe. He’s been on the phone, in our faces, sleeping on our couch.
He’s the one who taught me to wrestle with my sons, who taught me that play is probably the most important part of being a parent, that fun is the most important part of being a partner, and that laughter is the real tie that cements us as a family.
He taught me that a family is a place where you can be regardless – angry, sad, happy, successful, frustrated, scared, whatever – that it was somewhere where there was always room at the table, always someone on the other end of the phone, always someone to share your burdens or joys.
It wasn’t an easy lesson. I’ve got stories, and we’ve both got scars.
But he’s always been there for me, and I’m happiest of all to be here for him today.
I’m happy to see Suzy join him and give him a true home. I’m happy to have Suzy as a part of my family, and to be a part of hers.
And I’ll leave that as my final toast:
To our families, together always.
To Suzy and Greg, my sister and brother.
Inspired by a link to Tedman's blog I found on LA Blogs, I decided to come up with a quick list of my own favorite restaurants in L.A. and what I remember (not looking at menus, so if I'm wrong, sorry) as my favorite dish.
In alphabetical (hence no particular) order:
Chez Melange, 1716 South Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach
Great, imaginative upscale food in a motel restaurant on a nondescript commercial street a mile from my house. Discovering this place made moving to the South Bay from Venice a lot easier. Come for the Sunday brunch, eggs and smoked salmon sound boring but they make kind of Platonic version of them.
Chinois on Main, 2709 Main Street, Santa Monica
Seems like it's been here since everyone in L.A. had a BMW and a coke habit; the food is more than good enough - you won't think it's original, but along with the much-missed Restaurant Lyon, it defined California pan-ethnic cuisine. Catfish, duck...
Four Oaks, 2181 North Beverly Glen Boulevard, Bel-Air
Beautiful, quiet, slightly better-than-decent food, but an amazing date restaurant when you're old enough to want a quiet, romantic evening. Salmon cakes.
Gallo's Grill, 4533 Cesar E. Chavez Ave
Awesome Mexican grill. Get the arrechera asada. Cheap, superb, if only they had beer. Well worth the drive, even from our place..
Geoffrey's, 27400 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu
When people visiting from out of town ask for a 'quintessential L.A. restaurant,' I suggest this one, secluded in a canyon above the beach in Malibu. The food and service are not quite as good as they used to be (but try the tuna tempura); but it's such a pleasant place to eat that I still enjoy it. Plus a bunch of my friends were in a movie there...there's a key scene in the movie 'The Player' that takes place there, and the cycling team from Ernie's was in the shot.
Gutter, 5621 North Figueroa Street, Los Angeles
The anti-Geoffrey's. A perfect restraurant for a great old punk venue located in a bowling alley (Mr. T's). Try the hippie scramble, and the homemade ketchup.
Hal's, 1349 Abbot Kinney Boulevard, Venice
High-end yuppie comfort food. When I lived in Venice, we used to try and walk there once a week...one advantage of being an armed liberal. Great food, comfortable atmosphere, great grown-up bar scene.
Hide Sushi, 2040 Sawtelle Boulevard, Los Angeles
No atmosphere, no rock n' roll, no attitude, just amazingly good sushi at semi-reasonable prices.
Hu's Schezewan, 10450 National Boulevard, West L.A.
At the corner of National and National (really!) is this great neighborhood Chinese restaurant. try the Schezewan dumplings, and save the garlic sauce to pour on your rice. Then General Tso's chicken.
Mimosa, 8009 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles
I want to resent this hangout of the beautiful people, but I can't because the food is so damn delicious. Old-school French, with the intensity of flavor that I remember from France. Cassoulet!
Ocean Seafood, 3209 North Broadway, Los Angeles
The dim-sum mother ship. Try the crunchy shrimp in salt...all feet and eyes.
Paco's Tacos, 4141 South Centinela Avenue, Los Angeles
Homey local Mexican chain. Hand-made flour tortillas, do I need to say more?
Phillip's BBQ, 4307 Leimert Blvd., Los Angeles
Burnt ends. Hot links. No seats, just carry-out. I never make it home, so we just eat at the side of the road.
Riviera Mexican Grill, 1615 South Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach
Funky surfer reinvention of a Mexican restaurant. Nothing authentic at all, but damn good. Smoked chicken burritos...
Tacos Delta, 3806 West Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles
As authentically Mexican as it gets. Amazing carne asada gorditas.
Taylor's Prime Steaks, 3361 West 8th Street, Los Angeles
I keep looking for Jack Vincennes. The culotte steak, slightly more than medium. Straight out of Ellroy's L.A.
The Pit, 5309 South Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles
Brisket sandwiches, ribs. Oh...and burnt ends. You can sit and eat here, so even though I like the BBQ at Phillip's a bit more, I can get a more immediate fix here.
The Shack, 185 Culver Blvd. Playa del Rey
Shack-burger. Polish sausage and a cheeseburger; why didn't someone else think of this? Don't go to the depressingly yuppified Santa Monica location; head down to the beach at Playa.
Woo Lae Oak, 623 South Western Avenue, Los Angeles
Korean BBQ. My martial-arts school used to have banquets there; whiskey and kimchi weren't designed to be consumed together. The kinchi/scallion pancake is memorable, as are the short ribs.
Zankou Chicken (all over town)
Armenian roasted chicken...the garlic paste...the garlic paste...
That's just off the top of my head...I'm sure you've got some suggestions to leave in the comments...