Frazgo, Centinel, Publius and I have been very busy with family, work, school, and other obligations (both voluntary and compulsory). Daily photos will resume in mid-August, as will hyper-local reporting, FC-interest news and the “hard hitting” commentary that most of you have come to ignore.

Excerpted from The Economist:

Q: Do you see blogging as an inferior form of journalism?

A: I only wish more bloggers would do journalism. Meaning: independently check (alleged) facts before publishing them. Ask people for comment before printing claims about them or attributing hearsay to them. Leave the house and find things out, preferably things that surprise and confound one’s initial predispositions. Try to provide some balance. Understand that people can be hurt or even ruined by what writers write, so there is some real need for compassion and caution. Understand that an all-purpose snarky attitude is no substitute for the specialised knowledge that comes from working a beat. Newsrooms teach these values. The blogosphere seems, too often anyway, to teach contempt for them. I suppose I’ll get a flood of comments (some abusive, proving my point, but never mind) saying I paint with too broad a brush. Fair enough. Some bloggers do good work. And of course the medium is still young. But it’s already old enough, I think, so we can say it is no substitute for the newsroom journalism that is in such trouble today.

And special thanks to Faria! for her jacaranda collage. (Yes, the two are totally unrelated; so there.)

Bill and his father-in-law (pictured) rode down the San Gabriel River. Check out some of his stats:

Total Distance: 48.22 km (30.0 mi)
Total Time: 2:51:28
Moving Time: 2:01:33
Average Speed: 16.90 km/h (10.5 mi/h)
Average Moving Speed: 23.80 km/h (14.8 mi/h)
Max Speed: 40.50 km/h (25.2 mi/h)
Min Elevation: -33 m (-109 ft)
Max Elevation: 111 m (364 ft)
Elevation Gain: 200 m (658 ft)
Max Grade: 3 %
Min Grade: -5 %
Recorded: Sat May 09 07:14:02 PDT 2009
Activity type: cycling

Click the photo to find a link to a Google Map he made of the ride.

Some of you may have heard the phrase, “This is a republic, not a democracy.” The speaker no doubt was voicing some sort of complaint about the nature of our politics, or at least the pandering policies of the politicians. But this nice catch-phrase sits at the heart of a debate that Western Civilization has been having since the time of classical Athens. I’m also reminded of another catch-phase, but from the 19th Century: “The people have spoken, the bastards.”

I’m not trying to chastise the electorate for voting down the propositions yesterday, I voted no on some of them too. I’m just not so sure that constant voter referendums are an effective way to pass critical legislation.

Initially, the pleblicite (a simple yes/no vote by all the men) was rejected by the Framers of the constitution. They feared that it would be a stepping stone towards dictatorship by acclamation. Napoleon Bonaparte did indeed use them as a way to harness the opinions of the mob to legalize his regime. The specter of “mob rule” was one the Framers consistently sought to limit. To them, democracy was not an end to itself, but a tool to limit corruption and block tyranny.

But what did they know? They were just a bunch of rich white land owners interested in protecting their property rights. California’s system should be evaluated on its own merits, not those of the 18th Century.

I’ll spare you all the detailed parsing of the election returns. No doubt that there will be plenty of that in the days and weeks to come, especially as the state now has a $21,000,000,000 deficit instead of $15,000,000,000. What is obvious on the face of it is the intense level of disaffection in the electorate. For me, I was quite turned off by measures that sought permanent changes in order to achieve short-term solutions. Take 1B for example. As much as it would be useful to borrow against the lottery, that money would not be there next year, nor would the revenue. Likewise, I remain unconvinced that the “upgrades” proposed would yield the dramatically higher ticket sales needed for the scheme to pay off, so to speak.

I find this “direct democracy” quite unsatisfying. A simple choice of yes/no on an issue as complicated as the budget is absurd. It’s the equivalent of being a sitting legislator but not being allowed to introduce amendments of my own or forge a compromise where everyone gets something. And the only people listening to my speeches are my personal staff, not the full chamber. If anything, this whole fiasco, the constant referendums, ballot initiatives, deficits, late budgets, legislative gridlocks, is all a perfect case for not having these complex issues come before the voters directly. And the budget process is not the only example of this: too often, a complex measure comes before the voters and both proponents and opponents over simplify to one “issue” or another (they rarely agree). Three-Strikes, the Gann Amendment, Prop 8, Prop 13, Prop 187 just to give a short-list, are anything but simple; even when the text of the law is short and understandable, what is left out is how it will interact with existing law.

The ideal was to create a way to short-circuit the corruption of public officials. It seemed to work, sort of. The Initiative/Referendum process came on the scene along with a number of other reforms like the recall, state regulation of political parties, the direct primary and campaign finance disclosure laws. All of it went a long way in breaking the power of local political machines and the bosses that ran them.

Today, officials in Sacramento blunder about trying to put together a budget, but no one can agree on anything, it seems. Some point to the fundamental problem of revenue versus spending. While the public screams whenever cuts are made to services (and the interest groups make sure that a mighty howl goes up), there is a mixed reaction about increased taxes. More and more, politicians look at what happened to Grey Davis and blame his recall on the controversial vehicle registration fee increase. So they pander to what they think the public wants, no tax hikes. But this is not the whole picture: what the public reacted to so powerfully in 2003 was not a tax hike, but such a sharp sudden multiplier in absolute dollars being paid. Witness last year’s Measure R: a modest tax-increase that people understood. And while, yes there is a reluctance to pay more in taxes, what I keep hearing from politicians is talk about “getting our fair share from Washington,” making sure that corporations and the wealthy, “pay their fair share.” Every now and again I hear of anther tax increase on top income earners. While I’m all for equity and “fairness” in our tax policies, I’m not an expert and have no way of knowing when or where this just becomes a whipping-boy. It also brings up an interesting point about the function of government: if everybody is just getting back what they pay in, what is the point of government at all?

For those who don’t know, The Cumquat gained notoriety in 2007 when the local and vulgar humorist Jim Snyder became involved in local city politics, particularly over the contentious Measure V. Snyder died unexpectedly at the beginning of last year, but not before his involvement left deep divisions on the small community. Where some saw only immature satire, others viewed Snyder and the Cumquat as an arm in an increasingly dirty campaign by a small club to push an agenda that would only serve the few. Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times even did a lengthy piece on the controversy.

Sir Eric has pointed out that this is not the first time that the Cumquat has come back from the dead. But each time, it was on some free server space and was rapidly and inexplicably shut down. (I should note that within days of Snyder’s death, the original Cumquat was totally wiped off the internet, even on the Way Back Machine archives.)

His post sums up with this bit:

A friend stopped by to help me with some of the technical aspects of this post. I ran through what I discovered, and he scratched his head. “These people really aren’t all that smart, are they?” No, they’re not. Lowlife creeps? Sure. But definitely not long on intellect. After all, if they were, would they be attempting to return once again to the same losing strategy?

I could pass on the first couple of pages of the City Manager’s Report: the subjective writing style, his personal take on events and people but even that will sometimes contain a few pieces of information you might not get anywhere else.

The last couple of City Manager’s Reports have had some items I couldn’t resist.

1. After the election, the April 24th City Manager’s Report gave an run-down of the event: the piece that stuck out was the comment that “Mr Kirby would not seek nor accept an appointment to the Council”. It was good to hear there wouldn’t be repeat of Councilmember Kirby’s first appointment but - I don’t know, it seemed presumptuous of him to think it was his call to make - and turn down. Being a big fan of letting the voter decide, I will be interested to see how the Council addresses this issue of election appointments - how do I know they will? The May 8th City Manager’s Report said so

2. Before the Election I wrote something on campaign contributions. One donor that kept popping up was Jay’s Shell. Seemed odd a gas station would give: $250 to Mary Ann Lutz, $250 to Joe Garcia, $250 to Dan Kirby, $150 to Paul Larsen, and $200 to Becky Shevlin. Hmmm…nothing to Mr. Shaw. Oh yes, - now I remember — Page 4 of the May 8thCity Manager’s Report (CMR) has a Community Development Update on the sale of Beer and Wine at Jay’s Shell. I can’t recall if it was something I read or heard - but my impression is this is an action Clarence Shaw is opposed to - possibly because of his proximity to the location? - not sure - but then that would make sense as to why Jay’s supported everyone else, except him. The update mentions a total of 6 residents were against this (two in person and 4 via email)…but after reviewing State Law, ABC regulations, police reports and other similar businesses - it was sent on to Planning with a recommendation for approval. After Planning - maybe headed to the Council - I wonder how the one candidate that didn’t receive money from Jay’s Shell will be voting?

3. The Police Blotter usually seems to be fairly light on entries. I don’t think I would call it a “Blotter” more of a “Blot-ette”. This past week in the May 8th CMR lists three events that stood out: FIGHT/DRUNK IN PUBLIC May 3rd  1:25am at a bar at the 300 block of South Myrtle, DRUNK IN PUBLIC May 3rd at 1:54am at a bar at the 400 block of West Foothill Blvd, and finally FIGHT IN PROGRESS May 3rd at 2:09am at a bar at the 300 block of South Myrtle. Sheesh - what the heck was happening that evening and early morning?!? Early Cinco de Mayo celebrating? - in any case, it was a party I missed. I was at the Clifton fundraiser that evening supporting our middle school. I wonder how often calls to the unnamed bar at the 300 block of South Myrtle happen and aren’t on the City Manager’s Report, Police Blotter section?

Check out the City Manager’s Report.

Posts more recent than the ones below aren’t gone. MediaTemple swears they will be recovered. I swore…well, at MediaTemple mostly. Long and short: looking for a new hosting company that doesn’t obliterate this site at random.

Sincere apologies.

Because that’s what I’m interested in talking about. California has a peculiar system of often overlapping tax districts, and a stranger system of limitations on both spending and revenue generation. I’ve seen some states get by just fine without an income tax, or even sales taxes. Then we have the perennial problem of “going to the voters” to balance the budget. The fact of the matter is that the people we elect (quit whining about gerrymandering for 10 minutes and own up, folks) are unable to make a budget work.

Think about it: the state’s budget system is so ridged that the legislature is constantly forced to go back to the electorate with a slate of confusing ballot propositions. If even one of these fails, we are told, it sends the budget back into deadlock. Of course, instead of rationally discussing the issue and crafting a compromise where everybody wins, the legislators are asking the great unwashed to be budgeteer for a day, and not just pitch in a helpful idea, but take the wheel of the ship of state for a spin. Why be surprised when California ends up in a muddy ditch?

Despite the claim that we pay more in taxes than other people, we don’t.
We Californians merely perceive that we pay higher taxes. This is probably a function of the fact that 58% of the state’s revenues come from income taxes, 2% from property taxes and the rest filled in with tiny sales taxes and other fees (if you think our sales tax is bad, get on a plane and visit a place with 17% VAT). Unlike relatively flat sales or property taxes, income taxes are levied on a sliding scale based on income (the logic behind this really does make a lot of sense, but I don’t want to bore you with economics).

Without getting sucked into a debate over the merits of the flat tax, the problem arises from the flurry of deductions permitted. Unlike sales or property taxes, you can manipulate the numbers to reduce your effective income tax burden. Cheating under this system is not only rampant, it seems religious at times. Whole books have been written on the moral issue of paying taxes honestly when you “know” that the guy next door isn’t. There exists a general perception that everyone outside your social circle is sticking you and your friends with the bill. Tom Clancy once joked that the Federal Income Tax Code is so big, that if stacked on a big table correctly (or incorrectly, I should say) it would collapse under its own weight. Hell, cabbage regulations are a multi-volume affair!

But to cry foul at all this ignores that life is complex. Ten Commandments may work when establishing moral absolutes for the ages, but for a bustling economy of 300,000,000 (or the Golden State’s 37,000,000), a complicated system is to be expected. Only after really getting into the law behind the tax does one begin to appreciate the two-sided simplicity of the 1040 form.

But back to policy. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times analyzes the fickle mind of “the taxpayer.” It seems that when pressed, Californians would rather reduce abstract services for “other people” than pay more in taxes. This is not the tax-and-spend-limo-liberal attitude usually associated with the Left Coast, but the hands-off-my-Real-America libertarianism that vaulted Reagan and Nixon into the White House, a side of California that usually gets ignored.

So have at it. Rules for comments are simple: no talk about illegal immigration without talking about Prop 187 too. No complaints of “waste” in government without specific programs to cut. And someone please answer my question: what good does Prop 13 do? Governments will just raise revenues elsewhere.