The power of one, part I

This is simply an accounting of the events of Sep 14, 2010, at the Meeting of the South San Joaquin Republicans.

The Manteca Bulletin, at first, reported that for some inexplicable reason, some madman just got up and disrupted the meeting.  It was only after I demanded the correct story be told that the Bulletin re-wrote their accounting of events.  Maybe I’m just sensitive, but there’s something about being called a “meeting disrupter” that bothered me.  I went to the meeting just to hear and support my candidates in peace; I brought a camcorder because it might be interesting, I guess, I really didn’t have any reason.  But there were dozens of both still and video cameras going in that room. 

I know this is a boring accounting but here it is.  By the way no one now disputes this what really occurred so I don’t know why I bother, but just for the record:

  About an hour into the meeting, I’ve been sitting there filming whatever I thought might be interesting.  I’ve been filming for 31 minutes, 22 seconds when some guy sits down next to me and tells me he’s going to ask me to leave if I don’t stop filming.  I pointed out the obvious (I’m invited, the leader of the meeting knows I’m filming and never complained, everyone else is filming, etc..  So I’m confused and just “thanked him” for letting me know.)  But continued filming on and off, just as I did for all the other candidates there.

Note I’m clearly in the back of the room, in a chair, minding my own business.  The “harassment” from this “guy” has been going on for 4 minutes, 20 seconds.

So I get up and move from the back, and this guy gets up to follow me.  This is at :36 minutes, 00 sec.

He followed close.  Only 4 seconds to catch me.

 

trying to block my view, and you can see, again, I’m still at the back of the room.

 I’m moving toward the front now, a look back – see who’s following me?  And who else? At the front, but even here, note I’m on the left front, not directly in front of the speaker.

But I’m “pushed” closer to the center.

Now someone is on the move, see the figure in the rear right?  (under the “2” in 0:37:02)

We have our little dispute.  Some words are said.  You don’t have to lecture me, I know there are always better ways to handle things; but cut me a break, I’m being harassed here!

So now I’ve moved to the back again.  Now a 2nd guy starts jumping in my way, blocking my view.

  Now the same guy hasn’t given up! 

He’s still harassing me.  And wait a sec, who’s that other body on the right that’s stepped in front of me?

Next:  Part II: The Power of One.

Plunder! Dissects Government Unions

This might help the Manteca Bulletin readers sort things out. 

Do policemen die early?  Is being a cop a “dangerous job?”  Do government unions “protect the worker?”  I suggest the answers are no, not really, and no!  You can read why in this well researched article.

Plunder! Dissects Government Unions by John Seiler

Signs

I wonder what this sign means.  Did the Manteca Bulletin say something about downtown businesses not being supportive enough?

And what exactly does it mean to “support” the efforts of the police dept?  I thought the job of the police dept was to protect the businesses, not the other way around.  hmmm

There were a few of these signs on Yosemite Avenue in the windows of more than one establishment.

Ooops: Fixed name of street.

Manteca Bulletin - Free car wash for veterans Wednesday

As far as I’m concerned, Quicki-Kleen can keep their free car wash for veterans. I see no reason to participate in any public relations stunt that brings credit to the people who orchestrated the bullying of a fellow citizen who wanted to open up a competing car wash.

The owner of Quicki-Kleen was listed among those who led the “cause” of blocking a new car wash from opening in the 300 block of Yosemite Ave a few months ago.

What does this have to do with veterans you ask?

Well what veterans fought for was freedom. That means the freedom to do business back at home. Anyone who would try to block a competitor using socialistic arguments and questionable “petitions drives” is nothing more than a freedom hating bully. All the free car washes in the world won’t make up for that.

Manteca Bulletin - Free car wash for veterans Wednesday

More on cable customers taxed

Two other things I forgot.

Regarding the cable TV tax, the editor claims “There is little doubt the revenue is needed.” Little doubt? “Needed” by whom? For what? There are a lot of us who don’t believe the tremendous growth of government over the years has been a good or “needed” thing.

Next, he says “No one in Manteca at this time should have the stomach to push for new taxes. In time, though, the need will come.”

Why will the need come to raise new taxes? What is going to happen that will cause such a need?

Let me dispel two myths of why people think “new taxes” are “needed.” What about growth of the population? Does that cause the need for “new taxes?” NO! If there are more people, more houses, more businesses, then the government collects more taxes from the new people, houses, etc., in exactly the proportion of the growth.

If the population of Manteca goes from 60,000 to 120,000 there will theoretically be no need for “new taxes!” Why? Because there are twice as many people using government “services” and there will be twice as much tax collected. It all evens out.

Of course this never stops the government propaganda machine from telling us a new tax “is needed” because of “the growth in the population,” but that’s just the way it is.

The other excuse sometimes used is “inflation.” We need to raise taxes because “inflation” has made everything cost more. Sounds half-logical until you think about it. If a loaf of bread costs $1 today they collect x taxes. If the price of a loaf of bread goes to $2, then they collect 2x taxes. In other words, if the cost of everything doubles, then the taxes collected doubles. Once again, everything “evens out.”

No, the real question was raised by the author of A Monetary History of the United States; namely, why were taxes more or less stable at about 7 percent of GDP for the first 150 years of the nation, and then suddenly started skyrocketing in the later part of the 20th century. What was so “needed?” And why is the growth in the cost of government so “inevitable?”

Manteca Bulletin - Cable customers ‘taxed’ by Manteca, satellite users aren’t

Manteca Bulletin - Cable customers ‘taxed’ by Manteca, satellite users aren’t

A couple of comments in this editorial caught my eye.

Nothing illustrates how we underestimate the huge burden of taxation and regulation than the example of the cable TV provider in town (Comcast) and the proliferation of satellite TV.

Sure, the tax is just a few dollars per person. But it adds up when there are thousands of customers! And what about the regulation? We don’t usually think about regulation costing anything, but it’s not cheap to get city permits, to be authorized as the franchise, comply with all the rules and such.

I don’t have to list the costs. The reason is evident: The taxes and regulations are so burdensome that it was less costly to launch a complex scientific device into geo-stationary orbit above the Earth than to pay the taxes and deal with the regulatory hurdles governments put between them and their customers! Not to mention the costs of the receivers in each home capable of decoding signals from outer space.

And the editor bemoans how “unfair” it is that the genius innovators at the satellite TV company “don’t have to pay the cable tax.” Duh! They invented a way to distribute their content without cables. No cables, no tax.

Manteca Bulletin - Cable customers ‘taxed’ by Manteca, satellite users aren’t

p.s. The first person who suggests that the taxation was good because it spurred on innovation will get 20 lashes with the Milton Friedman noodle.

SSJID make glorious revolution!

 
The text reads: SSJID will give glorious power and the people make great harvest.*

SSJID retail power will help agriculture survive & thrive

*accuracy of translation subject to variations.  Could also mean: We will take the power from the oligarchs!  Not for our glory!  But for YOU!  Only for YOU!

Manteca tells visitors to stay the hell away

In the Manteca Bulletin yesterday, Dennis Wyatt says "There’s an extra incentive now for out-of-town residents to drive safely in Manteca" referring to the recent city council decision to charge a fee to anyone who doesn't live in Manteca and needs emergency fire services while traveling here. http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/6748/

How will Manteca advertise this incentive? Afterall, if out-of-towners aren't aware of this new incentive, then why would they be more likely to drive more safely? Will they be putting up billboards or signs advertising it as visitors enter city limits? Maybe a prominent sign at the entrance of Bass Pro Shop warning customers to get the hell out of Manteca before they get nabbed for having an accident. One in front of Big League Dreams too.

BLD isn’t a drag on budget??????????????

Manteca Bulletin's editor asserts Big League Dreams “pays” the city $380,000 a year! Saves $500,000 in “maintenance.” And the money given to BLD, about $31,000,000, came from a magical pre-existing “pool of money” that’s “not being paid back.” (Yet in the next sentence he says all RDA funds are “borrowed.”)

I want to hear more about this magical pool filled with money that has been discovered in Manteca. I’d like to go for a swim. Especially if it’s money you don’t have to pay back.

How can the city officials make such an outlandish claim, you ask? What they mean is that there’s not a budget line item called “pay back the loan for BLD.” Therefore, that particular money isn’t actually being paid back out of some fund that they decide “counts.” But make no mistake, when you borrow $31 million, it has to be paid back. That “paying back” may occur at some stage and under some convoluted structure before the money reaches the city general fund, but it still costs just as much no matter what word games are used to snow the council and the public.

By the way, about how much is this loan pay back every year? Just estimating with a financial calculator and the current bond rates, the loan payments (debt service) for BLD is somewhere in the range of $1.7 to $1.9 million each year.

The city officials, with the help of the Bulletin, hope you’ll be bamboozled with large numbers. So let me break it down for you:

Let's say you open a pizza shop. You rent the store front and pay employees. The rent and employees costs $1,900 a month. You sell $380 worth of pizzas. Have you made money? Well, you could say you took in $380 or use some other evasive language. But, in fact, you would be losing money, you wouldn’t even be able to pay the rent with the amount of pizzas you sold.

The editor would have us believe that only “critics” of the project count the loan payment, and proponents of the project count the “income.” As if the numbers depend on your feelings. The BLD costs $1,900,000 a year and “brings in” $380,000. Those numbers add up to a loss of over $1.5 million each year and it doesn’t matter if you “like” the BLD or if you’re a “critic.”

I haven’t even gotten to the crazy claim that it saves the city $500K in “maintenance.” First of all, look at how much BLD budgets each year for maintenance. The last time I saw their budget, which was a few years ago, it was just a little over $100K. That’s like your boss asks you how much you spent on gas to go on a business trip, you spent $100 but you tell the boss you spent $500.

But more importantly, the “savings” isn’t a savings at all. Building the thing incurred the cost of maintenance (i.e., if they didn’t build it there wouldn’t be any maintenance costs!). In addition, the logic is wrong, it’s simply a mental construct….

I would explain more but I have to go out and mow the lawn. In fact, I’m saving the city $100/month by mowing my lawn. After all, that’s what it would cost the city to mow my lawn, so I’m “saving” the city that money. hehehe

BLD isn’t a drag on budget

Manteca introduces new “we won’t put you out of business” program.

Good news! Manteca city official have decided it no longer makes sense to do everything they can to close every local business. From now on, this treatment will only be reserved for ordinary people.

Previously, city officials have caused businesses to fail by requiring them to, among other things:

• Tear up the sales lot of a car dealership and plant trees instead. The cars, the city felt, were unpleasant to look at.
• Deny a permit to a car wash because the other car washes in town didn’t like the idea.
• Revoke the permit for a dance hall because there was too much dancing and music going on.
• Require a fitness center to purchase and build a larger parking lot because they moved a machine from one room to another.
• …. and so on….

But city officials vow to end such abuses and put an end to the poverty enhancement policies that have plagued the past. Even the mayor is quoted as saying he thinks private enterprise is important! A new day dawns!

However, there are a few strings attached to getting your new permission to operate in Manteca. Here’s a quick checklist to see if you qualify to not be driven into poverty by city policy:

• Do you have plans to expand? Do you draw in a lot of tax money? Has the city demanded at least a $million in fees or else?
• Have you threatened to leave Manteca? It’s not enough to just say you’ll leave; have you actually found land in another jurisdiction and put up a “For Sale” sign?
• Are you friends with the director of a politically well connected charity? Friends with the husband of the finance director? (regular people need not apply).

If you meet all the above requirements, you’re in luck! You simply need to have your friend ask his wife to talk to “some people” at city hall. Chances are that $million in fees will soon be “Did we say a million dollars? hmm… how about half that… no, tell you what, make it $400,000 and we’ll call it good.”

Good luck! Enjoy your new prosperity!

Manteca saves 130 jobs

Lets do lunch -- in prison!

Does anyone believe, as the Manteca Bulletin asserts, that prisoners eat better food and have better medicine than the taxpayers? How bad would the taxpayers' food and medicine have to be?

What's odd is that the editor admits in the next paragraph that the prison guard union spews forth propaganda in their TV ads in an effort to get more money and acknowledges the guards are making extra money selling "cell phones" to prisoners.

How do you assert that the guards are manipulators and corrupt and at the same time tell us to believe the story about how the prisoners eat great food and get the best medical treatments?

That's what propaganda is. It isn't a statement that people don't believe -- effective propaganda tells us what we want to believe. We don't like to think that our society is evil or has corrupt institutions, so we are willing and long to believe that that we wouldn't treat prisoners in any but the most humane ways. We're Americans after all!

But open your eyes and look at the facts. Read about the slop prisoners are forced to eat and the deplorable medical negligence. The medical system in California prisons is so bad the federal government has been trying to put it under their control to bring it up to constitutional standards -- with little success.

Why is the press practically locked out of the prisons? Why do the courts and jails not permit inspections by third parties? Why do the prisons hold Potemkin tours of their jail facilities for the press showing the wonderful humane treatment everyone gets. It's like when the Red Cross would inspect a Nazi prison, they would always have new blankets and clean clothes and good food. Yet we find corpses being dragged out the San Joaquin jail with boot marks on their backs.

At least Sheriff Arpaio has the decency to actually say he feeds the prisoners for 40 cents a day and justifies it.

The government will "cease to exist?"

The editor of the Manteca Bulletin has a good idea recommending "no" on all the May 19 special election ballot measures. But I don't know what to make of his statement that if they don't pass "California government as we now know it will cease to exist." There's nothing in the measures that would cause the government to "cease to exist." At most, if you vote "no" it would cause the legislators to have to rethink things and start paying reasonable prices for government "services."

The real clue in in the first measure which couples a promise to spend less with extending the new tax increases beyond two years. Think about it, they are saying "we promise to spend less, so please give us more money; trust us, just give us more money and this time we'll spend less." Nonsense! If they are going to spend less, then they don't need more tax money!

The only measure I'm still thinking about is it might be an idea to re-purpose the special "mental health tax." I'll get back to you on that....

Gas stations required to be works of art.

The heavy hand of city "planners" makes gasoline (and many other things) more expensive in Manteca.

If you want to start a business in Manteca, the city government will "help you" by mandating your style of architecture and even offer you the helpful suggestion of what color you must paint it.

First, where was this "public outcry" about "ugly gas stations" mentioned in the Bulletin? I don't recall any groundswell of complaints about the appearance of anything.

Next, how did the city officials become experts on what is pleasing or good? Sort of like a bureaucratic aesthetic judgment panel?

Why do people believe that such a thing is necessary? Doesn't every business have a motivation to build a pleasing business? Isn't the whole idea of a business to encourage customers to come and patronize the business? Who is in the best position to determine what is a "good appearance" or "good color" that will attract customers to his business? Is it the business owner who has his own money at risk or is it the disinterested bureaucrat? Why would the city "know better" than the owner what a business "should look like?"

The city is demanding that the gas station use style and color to "blend in" to the surroundings. Maybe they've been watching What not to Wear too long, but correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the idea of a business to stand out and attract customers and not to hide from view?

By the way the Manteca Bulletin report gets an extra propaganda point for use of the word "standards" instead of what they actually are: "requirements."

Oh, and an extra point to the city for using the term "work with" (as in "we are working with the developer"). In this context, "work with" means "making demands under threat of denying you the privilege of doing business unless you do as we say."

nice tree in the middle of the road.

By my reckoning, the residents of the "Union Ranch" development voted 178 NO and 38 YES, thus approving the special tax to pay for the trees in the street. (I observed the back room counting at last night's city council meeting.)

You read that right. The large majority of residents voted NO. Yet it was approved. Why? The answer is that one person had the power of 1,018 votes because he was much wealthier than anyone else. You see, in the formation of special districts, one man doesn't have one vote. Under edicts of the People's Republic of California the number of votes you have is determined by the value of the property you own.

The "rationale," if you want to call it that, is that the rich man pays more in taxes, so he should have more say. And, in fact, the tax is based on the value of the property. But it still seems downright un-American. And it is, especially the way these districts usually work in the real world of land development.

It was only because of a bureaucratic snafu that the election made news with residents attending the council meeting complaining. Normally, the way the city likes to do things is that they hold the "vote" before a single house is sold. That way, all the parcels are owned by one person (the developer) who votes yes and it's recorded at "100 percent in favor of the special tax" for that area.

Then, we are told, people moving in are "fully disclosed" about the fact that the developer voted for a new tax that you, the new home owner, are obligated to pay. I don't know why I didn't think of this convenience sooner, I think I'll ask the local rich guy to vote for me all the time and save me the trouble of actually deciding anything.

We didn't even get into the issue of how the developer is "forced" to cast his single powerful vote under threat by the city. They usually include language in the "development agreement" that lets them revoke or deny building permits unless the developer exercises his free will in this free and fair election and votes the correct way.

Welcome to democracy California style.

---
By the way, there's a story on this issue in the state run news service. Also I've visited Union Ranch and it looks like Disneyland on acid or the planet that shot spores at Spock and turned him emotional.

The hits keep coming

Today's Manteca Bulletin has an article about whether Lathrop should have an elected mayor or go back to the old days where members of the city council rotated the duties of the mayor. In an interview with one person, planning commissioner Dan MacNeilage, the Bulletin gives publicity to the League of Extraodinary Gadflies and their neverending quest to destroy Mayor Kristy Sayles. Nevermind that the voters overwhelmingly decided they wanted an elected mayor back in 1994 and nevermind that the voters also overwhelmingly elected Sayles to be their mayor in the last two elections. Since the mayor's term of office is only 2 years, they must be afraid the citizens of Lathrop might elect her to a third term. The League of Extraordinary Village Idiots thinks they know what's best for Lathrop, not the voters.

This latest attack comes after an attempt to keep Mayor Sayles from going on a lobbying trip to Washington DC this month as part of the regional One Voice group that includes representatives from Manteca and neighboring cities.

One question for the Bulletin and reporter Rose Albano-Risso: Why are you giving these detractors so much time and column space in your newspaper? Could it be that Albano-Risso is friends with developers Tom and Cathy Luckey who allegedly bankrolled the vicious website that attacked Mayor Sayles and her family last year? The Luckeys have deep ties to MacNeilage and one of the other League members, "Chaka" Santos, another bully critic of the mayor. Santos also ran for mayor last election but lost by a landslide. The article decries the name-calling and mudslinging that went on during the election, but blames it on Mayor Sayles! Anyone who follows this blog knows where the name-calling and mud-slinging came from and it wasn't from the mayor.

Shame on the Bulletin and Albano-Risso for spreading such nonsense and for being an accomplice in this continued bullying smear campaign against Lathrop and its mayor.

The League of Ignorant Villagers are bullies. Maybe in person Commissioner MacNeilage is a nice friendly guy but behind the keyboard he becomes a vicious bully who threatens to knock some teeth out when he doesn't like something. MacNeilage was one of the biggest posters on the website against Mayor Sayles last year and claimed it was all in good fun but seems he can't take it when some fun is poked in his direction.

Defending the superintendent's salary

Friday's Sun Post reported that MUSD superintendent Jason Messer is getting a raise in salary from $161,822.39 a year as assistant superintendent to $186,222.38 a year for his new job as superintendent for the 22,800 student Manteca school district. The district's previous superintendent, Cathy Nichols-Washer was making $207,415.80 a year before she left for a $230K job with Lodi's school district.

Some people, including Manteca resident Steven J. Catalano, think Messer shouldn't be getting a raise while the district is cutting teachers' jobs and salaries. I'm going to defend Messer's raise, odd as that may seem. When the former superintendent left for $greener$ pastures, Messer took over the job with no increase in pay or title while the district searched for Nichols-Washer's replacement. Messer has done a good job and was recognized by being appointed permanent superintendent. Along with that job goes the salary and benefits the district budgeted for the position. Because he worked hard and was promoted from within the ranks, should he be penalized? Afterall, had an outsider been hired, they would have been offered the same pay. That's not to say I think the salary isn't overly generous, but it is what it is right now and it would be unfair to expect Messer to decline the raise that goes along with the job and title.

Messer's raise will be short-lived. He has already agreed to reduce his salary starting July 1 (the start of the new fiscal year) to $176,441.51 through June 30, 2011. Messer also turned down benefits that included a monthly expense account and declined to join an administrators union that would cost the district $1,700 in union dues. Why administrators need a union is beyond me, but I applaud Messer for staying independent. The district will also eliminate mileage stipends for administrators starting in July, including $650 month that Messer currently gets.

Meanwhile the teachers and their union bosses, the elitist of the elite because they went to college and some have masters degrees, are still fighting any reduction in raises or pay that would save jobs and help the schools. They'd rather see fellow teachers with less seniority lose their jobs and the kids go without. There's another view from Manteca resident Stacie Silveira in today's Bulletin that's worth reading.

Said what?

Dennis Wyatt writes:

"Former Mayor Carlon Perry told the committee he thought 'the City Council has done a good job so far ....'"

What meeting was Mr. Wyatt at? I was there and former mayor Carlon Perry didn't say anything about the city council. From what I recall, he said the city staff had "done a good job" in cutting a few million dollars from the budget and to continue that.

The quote could just as easily read the former mayor says staff has done a good job cutting 2 million; now go back and cut some more!

Central planning

In this otherwise routine story, the MB writer quotes a Manteca landowner asking the city officials at the dept. of central planning:

“Tell me what I can do to keep this place up,” he said he asked city
officials. “Anything, tell me what is the legal use and
landscaping. What can I do to use the property, then I can develop
it.”

This reminds me of a story recounted by Milton Friedman in his book/TV show Free to Choose. He asked a university student in the Soviet Union what did he plan to do with his future. The student answered, "I don't know, they haven't told me yet!"

Again with the shrimp

This is the second time the Manteca Bulletin has complained bitterly about the "extravagance" of the Lathrop party organizers. Now it's the shrimp cocktails that's the "problem." You would think the mayor just bought a private jet and is being served shrimp cocktail by oiled Laotian boys while cutting deals with ex-Enron execs.

This falls under the classification of "tell the people what sounds like it should outrage them." Just look at that shrimp! The parties! This kind of opinion/reporting is why the public is so misinformed as to how tax dollars are spent.

(I previously mentioned last week in comments to the Sun Post that everyone at the school board meeting wanted the board members to cut their pay and give it to the poor workers sitting next to them. The public was ignorant that the poor worker next to them was making over forty times as much money as the board members. )

Did Mr. Wyatt ever consider the cost of the personnel and building being used for this public reception? And what benefits to the public there may be? Is the plate of shrimp cocktail (a few dollars at save-mart) really "the problem?"

All the high level city people (except the mayor and council!) are being paid well, roughly in the neighborhood $50 to $100 each hour. Let's just take round figures, let's say $80/hour for high level administrators and department heads. How many of them are there at these receptions open to the public? A dozen? (e.g., the head of planning, the police and fire chiefs, city clerk, city manager, etc., etc.). Now add in the cost of the building. From one source, the rough estimate is $500 for "a meeting." (I think the mortgage payment for the new city hall is in the ballpark of $2,000 each day.)

Let's just round it off and the back-of-the-napkin guesstimate for the cost of any meeting with all the city officials present is several thousand dollars each hour. Save that napkin, we're going to need it for the shrimp plate that cost 32 dollars or that terrible plate of cupcakes that costs $12.

Is the cost of the shrimp plate and the cupcakes really significant or a problem? And isn't there some benefit to the public? Think about it: Go down to city hall and ask for a meeting, for an hour, where you can meet with and ask questions of your city leaders. All of them: the mayor, the city manager, the department of tree trimming, whatever. Go ahead. Call up city hall and ask what that will cost you. I'll save you the trouble: you can't afford it.

But the so-called "wasteful extravagant" reception - which is open to you - is the same thing. Anyone (even you!) gets to saunter on in and meet with all those people in a cordial setting. What if you have a problem with your neighbor's chihuahua yapping all night or you want to build a swimming pool for your ferret or think some law is wrong and needs to be changed? There's your chance to -- if not discuss the issue at length -- at least meet people who you can later make an appointment with and discuss things.

Can a plate of shrimp help educate the public?

Many people are so uninformed they don't realize simple things about how their government works. Like, for example, they don't realize the mayor doesn't decide everything on a day-to-day basis. They may not even know there's a city manager or what he does or what the other departments do. The receptions are a great education for the public about how their government works. I can't help but think that if there are complaints with some department, it can never hurt to meet first in a cordial way, share a shrimp cocktail before talking about what the problem is.

And if having a plate of cupcakes there helps bring in the public then it's money well spent.

----

We haven't even talked about the distortions in the Bulletin hit piece.

The real purpose of the receptions is to recognize some achievement of city people. It builds morale. How would you like to work for some enterprise for 20, 30 or more years and then they throw you a retirement reception and say "sorry there's not even a cupcake here -- we didn't want to waste 12 dollars on you. Have a glass of water. At the water fountain."

The other distortion in the Bulletin diatribe was the implication that these were city fat cats stuffing themselves with your tax-paid-for "shrimp cocktail." The implication is that it's some expensive treat (which it is not) and that it was for them. But really, it's for the participants at the party -- the person being honored and YOU, the taxpayer. If it's open to the public, that's a completely different thing -- why didn't Editor Wyatt mention this?

It worked great in '29

This week the Manteca City Council will debate it's own version of "Buy American" protectionism. Under consideration is a new policy that cut bidders for government projects "a break" if they are "local."

I know that some consider this a "no brainer" and if that's the case, you might be surprised if you do some research on what economists say (and most importantly, understand the reasons). Most economists pretty much agree that any attempt at protectionism, which is the proposed Manteca policy, will actually increase unemployment, lower wages, cost more in taxes -- make us poorer in any way you can measure it.

I know this isn't a "popular" idea and I'm sure some are ready to boycott companies that "outsource" and complain bitterly: But the economics are clear, if we try to give special breaks to "local" people and "keep money local" we are chasing a false idea.

Well don't just take my word for it. If you have some time, you can listen to this talk and read more from two very smart economists. If there are any questions feel free to ask.

The Manteca plan sounds harmless enough. The "local guy" is allowed to try to match the lower bid of some "outsider" under some circumstances. Well unintended consequences abound! If you haven't listened to the podcast just think of what will happen when the guy who won the contract by entering the low bid suddenly has his contract ripped away from him? After all that work to prepare a bid? How likely will he be to jump into the next contract the city offers? The result? Only the "local favored guy" bids and knowing there's likely to be less competition and he can later snatch away the contract even if his bid is too high; his incentive will be to enter a high bid (rip off the taxpayer). And this is just one possible consequence. There are many others we don't have to go into.

The U.S. government tried this kind of policy very similar to what Manteca is considering to "help the economy" in the '30's. You know, keep the jobs here, keep out those foreign competitors, what could possibly go wrong? The result was something we now call "The Great Depression" that lasted more than a decade.

Manteca should keep the current bid policy and not enter into the dangerous realm of protectionism.

(The issue will be discussed Tuesday at 7 pm at city hall)