California Economic Summit

Great Minds meet to discuss how to "cultivate job growth through innovation, entrepreneurship...."

Yesterday the important people (and you know who they are) met for a series of talks and panel discussions on the future of "economic development" in the San Joaquin Valley of California. I wasn't expecting to find a libertarian tea party, but I was surprised by the level of talk that revolved around protectionism, heavy handed government meddling and economic shortsightedness. Particularly because some of the presentations were billed with names like "unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit." It was more like unleashing the power of government to protect entrenched interests!

After some introductory remarks about the "entrepreneurial spirit" and the wealth of the area by Congressman McNerney, the mayor of Stockton gave a few remarks.

Mayor Chavez held up the recent decision of the City of Stockton to deny Wal-Mart permission to build a new larger store in the city as an example of the wonderful things the city was doing to help the poor people of the area. He repeated the theme that "we won't be bullied or intimidated by Wal-Mart" and said something about the "threat" of Wal-Mart. He ended with "we won't let Stockton be known as 'the discount city!'" Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but it didn't seem to me that the crowd responded very positively to the thought of an outright ban on Wal-Mart.

The question in my mind is "what power does Wal-Mart have?" How can Wal-Mart threaten anyone or intimidate? The mayor's comments are 180 degrees from reality. Wal-Mart can't force anyone to shop at their stores, they don't have the power to make anyone do anything. Wal-Mart, like every other store, has to rely on persuasion to try to entice a free person to shop there. Contrast that with the threats from Wal-Mart's competitors. The competitors organize "grass roots" efforts through threats and intimidation, they make anti-Wal~Mart websites and even an anti-Wal~Mart movie. The labor unions, who depend on Wal~Mart's competitors, threaten political leaders with promises of organizing against elected leaders unless they exercise governmental power to force people to shop at their stores. In other words, it's the labor unions and competitors who tell the political leaders "either keep out Wal~Mart or you won't be elected again."

So, I ask, who is intimidating whom? Who is the bully here? It isn't even the labor unions or the activists; they may act like bullies and talk like bullies, but really, the labor unions and the activists have no power to stop anyone from shopping anywhere. No, only the government is the real bully here. The government is acting as the codependent enabler for the bullying activists and labor unions by stopping people from shopping where they prefer and by stopping a successful legitimate business from operating. Only the government has that sort of power. That's what's so insulting about the mayor's comments.

Next, the panel on "unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit" spoke. One of the panelists, a member of the "winegrape commission," complained about the terrible effects of cheap wine from Australia "coming in." The irony seemed to be lost on most people. No one questioned why the entrepreneurial spirit of the Australian winemakers is suddenly a bad thing if it competes with the members of my group.

I was waiting, maybe foolishly, for the next panel on "Encouraging 'Smart Growth'" to explain or at least make some argument why so-called "smart growth" is better than non-smart growth, but I was disappointed. The issue of "smart growth" is a book in itself, but in a nutshell, it's a set of mandates designed to keep the moderately successful people away from good places to live, and to reserve the best land and homes for the truly deserving super-wealthy. All others are directed by government policy to live in high rise apartments (high density) next to bus lines that take them to their government designated "power centers" or "employment centers" (to achieve the government mandated jobs/homes "balance"). So called "smart growth" is really an incredible set of principles, you should look it up on Google. The last time these principles were used was in the Soviet Union.

The idea that many of the government leaders seemed to fully embrace, without discussion or debate or thoughtful consideration, the collectivistic principles promoted by this "smart growth" group is frightening.

One of the principles mentioned a few times was how we have to "preserve agriculture" because it's such an important part of our economy. Sounds fine, except that if a farm is making money, why does the law need to command someone to "keep farming?" No one ever answered that question. Made me think of the ideal of the simple pastoral people promoted by both Thomas Jefferson and the communist Chinese.

After the break, we heard a stirring lecture on the benefits of "renewable" energy. Which was sort of great until they started explaining how all these fantastic technologies -- bio-diesel, wind and solar power -- need government "help" or tax money. If someone can make a device that creates electric power, won't people buy it? That's the fallacy that panel was trying to sell us on. In other words, what they weren't saying was that "we can make power that is not as good, and costs more than what we have now -- but we have a sincere belief that people should buy our product even though they don't want to -- and we would like the government to force people to buy our product." (Presumably, because people are too stupid to know what is good for them?)

Lastly, the panel on education told us how much better the schools are doing than in 1999. There were some stats provided that I haven't evaluated. So who knows, maybe student performance has improved slightly since the dismal nadir of '99. I sort of got the impression that it got so bad that Johnny couldn't count to four back then, but today he can count to seven, so it's a "great improvement."

The Dean of Workforce and Economic Development at Delta College defended, after a question, the "nurse lottery system" where people are accepted in the nursing program by a roll of the dice. She explained this wasn't as bad as it sounded and not just anyone can apply. All the applicants have to be "good enough." It was heartening to know that the sick and elderly would be cared for not by people who are the best qualified, but don't worry, mom's nurse is "good enough." I can see that in a new slogan: "San Joaquin, the land where most critical medical people are probably good enough."

I wish I could have asked a question of that last panel, but they yammered so long they ran the clock out on questioning. But I was impressed by the comments of John Solis, Director of the Workforce Investment Board. He told us how hard it was to find jobs for young people and that he hears how they don't have the skills or work ethic. My question would have been something like this: "Mr Solis, if a Fortune 500 company wanted to expand their operations in Stockton and hire 800 people, with a large number of those jobs being offered to anyone who wants to work hard and be paid a fair wage, wouldn't that help young people get a start in the working world? And what if that company comes from Bentonville, Arkansas?

Words from the commissar

If you want to see the most elitist, arrogant argument ever made by a public official, check out the video of the Stockton City Council meeting. They voted to start the process to "keep Wal-Mart out of Stockton." View the video here. And also, this argument is the next runner up for "most ignorant commentary."

Manteca's "degenerate art"

The City of Manteca has reached an agreement with the California Public Art and Mural Symposium. The city will give the artists hosting this event $3,500 and in return the artists agree to let the Manteca Police Department review the art and determine what type of art is proper! In fact, from questions and answers at the council meeting, the artists said they would require the "spray paint artists" to submit complete sketches in pencil of their proposed art and the police "gang unit" would approve or disapprove the art. The artists said they would be looking out for "gang art" or "gang symbols" or "certain colors."

So now the artists in Manteca can only produce government approved art?

Does anyone see any historical parallels here? Although there have always been controversies over "public funding of art" those were usually involving the commissioning of some large projects and involved criticisms of the art after it was produced. You can't please everyone, and what is "art" is often in the eye of the beholder.

But in Manteca, there are some distinctions. First, instead of complaining about if the art is good or not after it's made, by pre-approving sketches the city government is participating in the art process. And secondly, instead of the art being judged by the public process or city officials, city policemen will be making judgments as to what kind of art the participants are allowed to make. Art being produced literally at gunpoint. And, this is no slam against the fine Manteca Police Dept., but I didn't know that Manteca police officers were skilled artists or somehow qualified to judge, much less dictate, what kind of art is permitted.

One aspect of art is supposed to be an expression of something that can't be said in words. A form of communication of feelings or thoughts on a different level, sort of like music or poetry. The idea that the government can, or should, only let people produce only approved art is an anathema to free expression.

I know what some would say. That we just can't let these kids make any art they want. They might make "gang art" or something. Well, so what? Isn't that the purpose of art? To express whatever is on the mind of the artist? And if it's gang symbols, well, frankly I'd be curious to know that. On the other hand, what if the young participants were allowed to produce whatever art they wanted to without a policeman standing over them? And what if they produced some fantastic creative art? Then we would have some true idea that maybe young people aren't all gang members. But as planned, the participants will be forced to produce police approved "good" art at gunpoint. So, what does that really tell us about the inner feelings of the artist? Nothing! You'll always get the result you're looking for, and this nullifies the whole purpose of making art -- to find learn the true feelings of the artist.

If you really want to draw some historical parallels, this policy is not that different than what Hitler did in the 1930's. The Nazi's were obsessed with art. And the storm troopers kept and eye out for "degenerate art." Hitler preferred certain art forms that glorified the German State, and the superiority of the "Aryan race." Common themes that were permitted were muscular blond haired men and women, living in health and beauty (usually without clothing) under the wonderful Nazi system. Other types of art, and the artists were persecuted and their art purged from public galleries. Even today some of the art the Nazi's didn't like is on display in special galleries of "degenerate art."

I also fault the Manteca Mural Society. In order to get a few dollars they are apparently willing to give up their right to free expression and instead are willing enablers of the government's plan to control the art. Bear in mind we aren't talking about a mural or art project commissioned by the city -- in that case of course the city would specify what they want produced. But in this case, they are advertising this "art symposium" as some kind of free competition between artists. Even they probably recognize the shame of the arrangement, because I notice no where in their promotional literature do they mention that the "competition with other artists" will be under the watchful eye of police officials who will order you to produce art that is pleasing to the government.

In addition an artist from Manteca would probably be put on a list if they defiantly paint the wrong color or draw the wrong thing. The MPD "gang unit" spends a lot of time compiling this list of "known gang members and associates" and if you get two or more "gang indicators" on your record, you are considered a "gang member." One of those hits for the list is displaying "gang colors." So how's that for a formula for creative expression? Come to Manteca's art competition, where you will ask a policemen for permission to draw something, and if you deviate from the approved colors or symbols in your art, or if the art expert/critic/policeman doesn't like your art, you go on "the enemies list" where you'll be watched like a hawk by the government for at least the next two years. Sounds like just the kind of thing young people would like to participate in! Sign me up!

But for some reason, the promotional mailings don't mention this, I can't figure out why!?

This can't be true! Shocking!

From the Department of This-Explains-a-Lot:



From the Manteca Bulletin opinion page, a letter writer chastising the editor for not "respecting education." The letter writer's comment: "It's a degree in journalism which gives Mr. Wyatt the background and credibility to run a newspaper, and I respect that."

I guess to be fair I should add that not being indoctrinated by "Journalism School" is actually a good thing. Some of the most respected journalists proudly proclaim they haven't been told what to think by some journalism school. Examples such as Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, John Stossel.

Hunger Awareness Day

The Second Harvest Food Bank held an open house and tour. All the city big wigs and everyone else seemed to be there.

Like most charity operations of this type, I didn't really learn much about the economics of how such an operation works. All we heard about was in sweeping terms of how food is "donated" by rich corporations and "given" to the poor and hungry. It would have been interesting to critically evaluate how the operation works, with an eye toward answering the question "does an enterprise like this really do any good?"

I suspect the answer is they do some good.

California is, believe it or not, one of the stingiest states in this one area of welfare. The "food stamp" program gives out very little, anyone making over $405/month is disqualified. Anyone convicted of any drug felony, no matter how long ago, is forever barred from getting food stamps. Note that this prohibition only applies to drug crimes, it doesn't matter if you killed somebody or hold up liquor stores at gunpoint; you are fine to get food stamps.

A speaker on NPR this week was bemoaning the fact that California, because of its strict rules, can't give away food stamps and much of the budget is unused.

Maybe there is a lesson here for the libertarian. When government withdraws from an area of "giving," other private persons step up to fill the gap. The reverse of this process was noted by controversial state supreme court justice Janice Rogers Brown. Her comments from a speech was repeated by pundits and used against her to show how "anti-government" she is (and presumably this makes you less qualified to be a judge?). She noted: "where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies..."

Here we see the reverse, where government gets out of the way, charity and giving thrive. My guess is that people who may have been caught with a marijuana seed in the '70's, and are now forever unworthy human beings according to the state, may find some relief of their food insecurity by this operation of private individuals.

Honoring Memorial Day

How to best honor those who died to give us the chance to be free?

It's often said that on Memorial Day we honor and remember those who fought to make us "free." Every Memorial Day politicians fall over themselves in speeches and press releases to proclaim their "support for the troops." The streets of Manteca are filled with flags, and the bumper stickers are on display. A nearby church even has a full scale styrofoam replica of the tomb of the unknown soldier.

I'd like to take this Memorial Day to re-affirm my own support for "our troops" who fought and died and remember that no one gives us freedom. Defending our nation in war is required for a nation to be free. However, no amount of fighting in any war, no matter how just or how horrific, has ever given us "freedom." It would be more proper to say that our military gives us the right to freedom, not freedom itself.

There's nothing magical about destroying the enemy on a foreign or domestic battlefield that automatically makes us free -- or gives us any particular political system. The political system we live under is up to us to make. Military security preserves our right to live as free people or, conversely, allows us to squander that right and live as slaves. It's up to us, not the military. All the battles in all the wars ever fought have never, by themselves, made a single person free unless that people decide by their own will to live as free people. Military security is necessary but not sufficient to ensure our freedom.

So, this Memorial Day, when the politicians are loudly proclaiming how we are free because so many died to give us that freedom, and urging us to honor that gift of freedom, ask yourself, "how free are we?" If the answer is that we're not very free, then what does that say about our personal commitment to honoring those who fought for that right to be free?

It's my belief that freedom doesn't come from politicians in Washington D.C. or from the president, or the senators or congress, or from Sacramento, the county or from any of the plethora of commissions and councils that infest California. Freedom starts right here, in Manteca, with us. What have you done to increase our freedom? I ask the political leaders the same question. When deciding any of the various political issues that always seem to "come up" in a small town, how much do we consider the question, "which side of the issue is most consistent with American freedom?"

By choosing or permitting ourselves to give up a little freedom, usually for some promise of a better "quality of life" or "security" or some other high minded collectivist goal, are we dishonoring those who fought and died to give us the right to life as a free people? By failing to take upon ourselves the burdens of freedom, are we dishonoring those sacrifices? And sometimes freedom is a burden because living free often means doing for yourself instead of accepting the easy promise that some government agency will do something for you. Freedom is messy, you have to tolerate things you don't like and fight the urge to make everyone, at gunpoint if needed, live in a way you would prefer, or some social expert tells you ought to prefer.

So when you're pondering where you're going to put your support the troops ribbon, wave your flag or complain about high gas prices, think about how a free people should have decided local issues that we have faced in the last years:

Ask yourself:

• Why are your children educated in prison-like compounds, with wire fences, searched, sniffed by dogs, wanded, with frequent "lockdowns" and taught by a policeman who may or may not have finished high school himself, who often has his own office in many schools and is paid more than most teachers. Young people are indoctrinated to do and say and think as they are told. You are forced to pay staff in California schools more than anywhere else in the nation, yet students score near the bottom in performance.
  
  
  
  
• Why does it take the permission of a dozen commissions to start a business, or build a house? Why can't you run a hot dog stand or a "taco truck" without running afoul of some regulation? Why can't you sell a teddy bear, or a flower or tamale on the street corner for one day? Why can't you park a restored historic truck on your own property? Why can't you pursue your own happiness or your own dream or your own "vision" unless it meets with the approval of a commission of experts and deal with a gaggle complainers? Why can't you protect yourself from those who may attack you on the street or at your home?
  
  
• Why are you not only denied the opportunity to work as you see fit, but also you are forced to pay, through your tax dollars, to help pay for someone else's dream or vision. The poor people of Manteca are being forced to pay as much as $61 million to "help" the immensely prosperous Bass Pro Shop just to build a store here. You are paying another roughly $60 million (after interest on the debt) to pay for someone else's "Big League Dreams" ballpark/bar/restaurant. To build a house you have to pay thousands of dollars to an unnamed mysterious farmer to "mitigate" the so called "loss of farmland." The owner of the downtown movie theater is forced to pay taxes that go to help his competitor -- some of his money is given to the movie theater at the "lifestyle mall" project.
  
  
• Why are you subject to relentless propaganda from all directions, government and the "free" press? Persuading you by telling you what you think has become an art form in the age of power wielded by popular delusion. We are constantly told, and many accept, that all this freedom is bad for you, and you should give up your freedom to "the greater good" or the "quality of life." Someone's quality of life is improved, but that someone is usually not you. Unless you are one of the politically favored few.
  
  
• Why are you sent to prison for choosing to take the wrong medicine or growing the wrong plant, or various other (sometimes unwise) life choices? Why are more persons in prison (per capita) in California than any society on earth or in the history of mankind, including the old Soviet Union, South Africa or communist China? Is California the most criminal society that has ever existed?
  
  
• And other seemingly endless threats to our freedoms.
  

The politicians, the expert consultants, the committees and commissions have decided not only where and how you should work, but also what store you should shop. Milton Friedman put it best when he wrote, "What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

This Memorial Day, honor the sacrifice of those who fought for our right to freedom by getting informed, then getting involved and then telling the government to get less involved. Demand that leaders honor the fight for freedom by actually preserving our freedoms.

Or you could have a barbeque on Memorial Day. I recommend the bison burger.

Have some water

Some consultants developed a new "water plan" for Manteca and presented the results of their study at the city council meeting. As usual with these kinds of presentations, they brought some powerpoint slides and spent most of the time simply reciting the requirements of CEQA and talked very little about the actual results of their study.

Only a few details were given. It looked like they thought the public didn't need to know too much. But my favorite was when they noted the "substantial and unmitgatible impact" of "population growth." They said this (presumably bad) "impact" was caused by the fact that the main goal of the project was to facilitate the growth of the population. In other words, what the high priced environmental experts told us was that this project designed to help the population grow will have the effect of increasing the population. Hmm.

Thank you to all of you who have sent me supportive comments. (I've gotten more comments from people in Manteca about that Q&A session than any other for some odd reason.) Since the Q & A session degenerated into a debate of the meaning of a "public hearing" some were wondering what I was "getting at?" Am I opposed to the water plan? Is the cost too much? Is the plan wrong somehow?

Well, the simple answer is I don't know, that's why I was asking the questions. I don't know if $110 million is a lot. It is for the water supply for 130,000 people, and paid over 20 years. That could be anything from $7 or $20 a month extra for each household. Water isn't free, so who knows. Maybe the plan is great. But I still don't know because they never addressed any other question.

What I asked was three questions. First, what was the estimated cost? (they said about $110 million over the years to 2030). By the way, even getting that answer was difficult, they started in with a song and dance about how it was to spent over many years, etc etc and I had to rephrase the question to "if we were to build all these things today, what would it cost, about?"

That was when the mayor interrupted and told the consultants they didn't have to talk to me anymore. But anyway, I also asked if the end result of the project was 39,000 Ac-ft/yr of water, how much do we have now? It was a simple question -- Does that $110 million give us a lot more water or just a little more water? That's why I was asking what's the capacity of the water supply now. The last question was where they came up with that 39,290 Ac-ft/yr figure. They really didn't like that question for some reason. I must have stumbled onto something but I don't know what yet. Maybe it's related to the way that water will be obtained.

Let me explain one other thing. Why ask such questions? Most questions at the public meeting fall into two classifications. One is the questions from consultants, builders, "stakeholders" etc. These are usually highly technical discussions about some particular aspect that affects their business. The other type of questions are the "personal" type. Things like "you'll have to tear up my cow pasture to put in that line..." and so on.

The questions I was asking were neither of those. But I want to make clear, there is a purpose for them. It's not my intention to waste the time of the public officials or the people who make the effort to attend the public hearings. The questions I was asking were what, in my view, were the questions that would be important to you the readers and you, the people of Manteca.

That's why I asked the simple questions that were basically "What will this cost?" And, "What benefit do we get for that cost?"

If you were there, did you notice that I pointed out that the purpose of this public meeting is to provide the public the opportunity to ask questions, and people have a right to have those questions answered! (any reasonable question that is).

After I took my seat and my "time was up" the mayor asked city manager and clerk to clear that up. I'll have to review the tape but one or both of them said that the purpose of this meeting is just to take public comments and they have no obligation to answer or address anything.

Which is completely wrong: Check out the "staff report" on this very issue. This document was issued by the city in preparation for this particular meeting. It tells what the purpose of the meeting is, what is to be discussed, etc. Go to page 92 in the pdf , look under the instructions for this very item. It says:

1. Hold a Public Hearing to respond to questions or receive comments relative to the 2005 Water Master Plan and the 2005 Water Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.

Note the phrase "respond to questions."