Category Archives: Blogs

State of the Union: Presidents Never Mention the Fault Lines

state of the union 2020
President Donald Trump delivered last night his version of the nation’s report card, and as expected, he followed his predecessors’ prescriptions: talk about the successes, talk about some outstanding folks, and stay mum about the real bad stuff nobody wants to hear about.

Highlights of the Successes

President Trump’s successes are substantial from a producer’s point of view. Those who make a lot of money, and theoretically produce a lot of jobs did well partially thanks to tax cuts. Workers also did well, if we consider the present low unemployment rate a good measure. Investors certainly did well considering gains in real estate and stock prices.

Niche issues saw progress. The administration endorsed alternatives to traditional government schools, expressed hopes to plant an American flag on Mars, reiterated efforts to curb illegal immigration, and started work to reform legal immigration by reintroducing previous rules by which only immigrants who can prove they would not be public charges are admitted.

As always reducing welfare rolls is viewed as success by conservatives and heartless failure by liberals.  There was no difference in reaction this time around.

Showmanship

Tradition dictates showmanship in State of the Union addresses, and the President delivered as expected.  The audience responded with great enthusiasm to the presence of 100 year old Tuskegee Airman and retired Brig. Gen. Charles McGee. Awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom during a State of the Union speech was unprecedented, as the visibly surprised recipient Rush Limbaugh seemed to attest. Sentiment was palpable at the mention of Task Force 8-14 that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – August 14 was the birthday of American aid worker Kayla Mueller, who was kidnapped and murdered by ISIS.

Mum’s the Word on Serious Structural Challenges

Not a word was said about the serious structural challenges this nation is facing. President Trump ended his speech saying that we Americans are pioneers, people who are not afraid to take on difficult tasks. He did not mention that such courage needs to go towards fixing what will eventually bankrupt the country – the unsustainable national debt, cheap money that enables worker-unfriendly monopolies, and irresponsible pension liabilities that are already bankrupting states.

The President did not mention a dysfunctional Congress unable to control spending, reform entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, stem the growth and power of federal agencies, or stop uncivil bickering of word and action.

Speaker Pelosi as Example

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a great match for the President’s showmanship.  Liberals lauded her behavior during the speech, while conservatives saw it as evidence of dysfunction.

The Speaker extended her hand when receiving her copy of the speech expecting a handshake from the President, even though he had not shaken Vice President Mike Pence’s hand.  She shuffled papers while Trump spoke, and deliberately tore up her copy of the speech at the end of the President’s presentation.

Her later assessment of the President’s speech as a “pack of lies” was superficial as expected – no mention on her part either of the serious fault lines.

And the Show Goes On

Donald Trump was not the first and will likely not be the last President to paper over fault lines during a State of the Union address. Correction of structural challenges is difficult and entails financial pain. Therefore, as a rule, neither leaders nor the people ever want to deal with corrections. The show goes on until it stops on its own, as it did in 1929.

Moms 4 Housing vs. Private Property

Moms 4 Housing

Sameerah Karim raises her fist with supporters after filing a claim to fight her eviction notice at Alameda County Superior Court. (Molly Solomon/KQED)

The Story, Once More

Hundreds of news articles have reported for the last couple of months the saga of four homeless moms and their children who moved last November into a vacant house owned by the investment firm Wedgewood Properties in Oakland, California.

Given that the estimated number of unsheltered people in the U.S. is nearly 200,000 (45% in California), one could assume that many take shelter unobtrusively in vacant property. However, quiet occupation was not the intent in this story.

The moms immediately received strategic and legal help from Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), admiration from public officials, and support from cheering crowds outside the house. They founded the collective Moms 4 Housing, and in the name of one of the moms, Dominique Walker, defended an eviction notice in court.

Dominique Walker’s argument was that the court must grant right of possession to the women occupying the house with their children, because housing is a right, the house had been vacant for two years, and the alternative to occupying the house would be living in the streets. Walker requested the court’s permission to offer expert testimony on the right to hosing based on federal and international law.

Judge Patrick McKinney on January 10, ruled that Dominique Walker had no valid claim to possession of the house, and eviction could take place. He indicated that Walker’s argument of housing rights under federal and international law were “outside the scope of this proceeding.”

Alameda County Sheriffs then conducted a pre-dawn raid with full swat regalia and battering rams, while many supporters of Moms 4 Housing surrounded the house and the press took it all in. Two moms and two supporters were arrested and soon released. Dominique Walker was not in the house at the time of the raid, since she was attending an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now.

Although Wedgewood Properties offered to pay for a few months of shelter for the moms they refused to negotiate the mom’s request to purchase the house through the Oakland Community Land Trust “for exactly what they paid for it.”

Rights Under Federal and International Law?

There are a number of U.S. federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in housing, provide home-buying assistance, and help with rent payments. None of these statutes mandate a roof over everyone’s head or indicate that housing is a human right.

There are numerous trans-national declarations of human rights. Most of these declarations were implemented by the United Nations, including one of the most notable, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In spite of its mane, the Declaration of Human Rights does not mandate a home for all who need one; instead it speaks of economic, social, and cultural conditions that should be respected. Perhaps most pertinent to the Moms 4 Housing case is the Declaration’s Article 17: ”Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

The Legal Perspective

The U.S. Constitution is clear on matters of property: no one can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public good without just compensation.” (Amendment 5, Section 1). The prohibition applies also to States: ” …nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, without due process of law…” (Amendment 14, Section 1).

Judge Patrick McKinney’s decision in the Moms 4 Housing case should have been anticipated, given the case’s lack of a Constitutional basis, lack of U.S. statutes affording possession of other people’s property due to an occupier’s hardships, and the fact that international declarations (as opposed to international treaties) have no standing in U.S. courts.

Economic Realities and Progressive Solutions

The U.S. Constitution’s clarity in matters of private property has always been a stumbling block to those who favor a more communal ownership of property. They make a distinction between classical liberals (presumably outdated liberals) who defend unrestricted private property, and contemporary liberals who adjust the concept of private property to modern times. Corporate ownership of property, the function of wealth in political power, and rising economic inequalities are realities of modern time cited by contemporary liberals.

Contemporary ‘classical liberals’ (and related, ‘libertarians’) still defend the classical conception … However, most contemporary liberal authors accept private property as a fundamental right but supplement this acceptance of unrestricted private property rights with a set of social rights. This supplementation strategy also reflects the practice of many international human rights documents and national constitutions. Social rights (to housing, health care, etc.) are meant to counterbalance the harsh effects to vulnerable individuals resulting from only recognizing unrestricted private property rights.” Private Property and Political Power in a Liberal-Democratic Society, Dutch Research Council, 2016.

The largely supportive response from the press and from public officials that Moms 4 Housing received evidences that private property is no longer universally viewed as the unrestricted right of owners. However, Judge Patrick McKinney’s court order was based on the classical concept of property. According to the research paper mentioned above, such dichotomy could be remedied by implementing an “institutional translation” of “abstract proposals for a fair wealth distribution.” In other words change the nation’s Constitutional and statutory framework to reflect a concept of communal, rather than private, property.

Remedy Worse than the Disease

The Just Vote No Blog has pointed out in several articles that although the U.S. is overall still economically powerful and politically free, there are serious underlying challenges that need correction. Such challenges have the perverse effect of benefiting some and devastating others. Profligate government spending, an unsustainable national debt, cheap money, stocks valued at several times earnings are root challenges that will not be corrected by simply distributing property. Moms 4 Housing and their supporters are sadly on the wrong track.

2020 Resolution: Get Out of Media Echo Chambers

Suffragettes

Feminism Portrayed as a War With Nature

Tucker Carlson is currently enjoying his 15 minutes of fame in our hyperbolic, fact-challenged media world. Thus, his recent proclamation on feminism made headlines:  “I don’t think anything has changed our society more for the worse … What we are describing is a war with nature.”

Carlson issued his invective during an interview with Suzanne Venker, and in response to Ms. Venker’s declaration that “we had that study several years ago that came out and showed that women are decidedly less happy than men after of course this last 40 years of supposed so-called liberation.”

First, let’s hope that Ms. Venker is happy, in spite of the fact that she can vote and is free to compete in the market place as a successful author and relationship counselor.

Secondly, let’s note that the echo chamber ran with Carlson’s declaration. The Washington Examiner published an opinion piece, sequel to Carlson’s interview with Ms. Venker, listing ills of feminism such as ideas that women don’t need men and children don’t need fathers. Those ills, Ms. Venker said have led to complete breakdown of marriage, relentless gender war, an explosion of kids in day care and home alone, and a full-scale war on men.

Thirdly, these dire proclamations sell well in conservative circles, just like grim predictions of climate change advocates sell in left-leaning spheres. Climate change alarm acts as a successful method of exercising control over populations. Attacks on the undefined principle of “feminism” serve the same purpose. Promoters of both issues are not shy about spurious claims, like climate change is the cause of deadly wildfires or feminism is the cause of today’s overflowing jails.

The Just Vote No Blog has discussed the view of climate change as method of control. Now, here are a few thoughts on the alleged evils of feminism.

That Study Several Years Ago

The study to which Ms. Venker refers is titled The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, written by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, and published in May 2009 (a decade ago).

The study is really quite interesting. It documents changes over time in women’s responses as to how happy they are. Indeed, the responses allude to a decline in happiness that coincides with the period in which women’s participation in the workplace increased. However, as expected of any bona-fide scholarly paper, the study does not take political or social sides. It only provides possible explanations for the apparent decline in women’s happiness during 1972 – 2006. Here are some of the principal explanations in the study.

* Women experienced increased participation in the market, but no decrease in responsibilities at home. This is the “Second Shift” syndrome discussed by Arlie Hochschild and Anne Machung in their best-selling 2003 book.

* Men were no longer solely responsible for providing for their family’s financial support. Women acquired some of that responsibility, along with the accompanying worries previously suffered mostly by men.

* Contraceptives decreased the incidence of shotgun marriages, and increased the pressure for out of wedlock sex.

* Women’s competitive arena grew, and so did inevitable comparisons of abilities and performance.

* The period under study was a time of economic and wage volatility – stagflation in the 1970s, inflation and the savings and loan institutional crisis in the 1980s, recession as well as great prosperity in the 1990s, and the dot-com bust in the early 2000s.

None of these findings in the study in question appear to have anything to do with women suddenly feeling they did not need men or fathers for their children. Even more damning for the blame-it-all-on-feminism crowd is one of the study’s conclusions:

If the burdens of entering the workforce are playing a role in declining female happiness then perhaps the decline in happiness will be concentrated among women who are employed. [But] both women who are employed and those who are not have experienced roughly similar declines in subjective well-being …

Once again, we see similar trends in happiness across these groups, casting doubt on the hypothesis that trends in marriage and divorce, single parenthood, or work-family balance are at the root of the happiness declines among women.

So much for the study as proof women choosing other lifestyles than full-time homemakers is the cause of much societal evil.

More Economic Reasons for Unhappiness

The study discussed above offers several economic reasons that could result in women’s unhappiness. One more economic event could be added, globalization and the migration of manufacturing jobs out of the U.S.

Jobs in manufacturing, mostly held by men, were the backbone of America’s middle class. Those jobs started to migrate out of the U.S. around the 1970s. Contrary to the prediction of the hopeful manufacturing workers did not easily flow into emerging technology industries. Not only did manufacturing workers lose well-paying jobs, but they also lost benefits such as health insurance.

Households affected by globalization need to regroup, which might mean two working parents and children in day care or home alone. This is hardly a problem with feminism.

Two Reasons Other Than Economic

Besides the economic events mentioned above, there were two legislative decisions that forever transformed our society.

Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty

The War on Poverty, a cluster of legislation implemented during the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson, could easily be described as the war on the poor. It decreased the tragedy that concerned President John F. Kennedy, children going to bed hungry, but it unleashed the welfare state – the curse behind much of the societal dysfunction that Tucker Carlson attributed to feminism.  The following quote is from a Forbes article published May 2014, The War on Poverty Wasn’t a Failure – It Was A Catastrophe.

… the War on Poverty has not just been a failure, it has been a catastrophe. It was supposed to help America’s poor become self-sufficient, and it has made them dependent and dysfunctional.

What turned the War on Poverty into a social and human catastrophe was that the enhanced welfare state created a perverse system of incentives, and people adapted to their new environment.

The adaptation of the working-age poor to the War on Poverty’s expanded welfare state was immediately evident in the growth of various social pathologies, especially unwed childbearing.

Richard Nixon’s War on Drugs

President Richard Nixon established the Controlled Substance Act of 1970. In 1971 he declared drug abuse “public enemy number one.” In 1973 he established the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), a special police force that targets illegal drug use and drug smuggling. Thus the War on Drugs was born. It popularized swat teams, filled up prisons, and removed Dads from homes.

According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 45.3% of inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses. For comparison, that percentage is followed by 19.2% of inmates in prison for offenses involving weapons, explosives and arson.

Understanding the Word “Feminism”

The word “feminism” should not be used without specific context, since it describes several distinct events. To say that feminism is a “war with nature” is to say that women should not be allowed to own property, vote, go to college, or make decisions on behalf of their family. This is control in the name of saving children and the family.

Controlling any group means preventing members of the group from effectively obtaining rights and privileges enjoyed by individuals outside the group.

Feminist events, often called “waves,” gradually afforded to women rights and privileges enjoyed by men.

The First Wave:

The middle 1800s brought women basic individual rights such as owning property and filing patents under their own name. During the 1800s universities started allowing women to attend. Prior to that few women attained higher education, and those who did attended female institutions.

The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified in 1920 granted women the right to vote, previously enjoyed only by men.

The Second Wave:

Historians usually view the Second Wave of Feminism as a movement that started in the early 1960s and ended in the early 1980’s. Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique and President John F. Kennedy’s Commission on the Status of Women are considered the movement’s first salvos.

In her book, Friedan reported anxiety and discontent experienced by suburban homemakers. As a result of her research, Friedan helped found the National Organization for Women (NOW), which lobbied for and achieved several landmark pieces of legislation, such as the Women’s Educational Equity Act of 1972, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.

Kennedy’s Commission on the Status of Women, enacted in 1963, recommended legislative action to correct inequities experienced by women. Among the most notable recommendations was expanded adult education, public childcare, equal opportunity employment practices, expansion of widows’ benefits under Social Security, and paid maternity leave.

The Third Wave:

This latest wave is said to have started with the Anita Hill incident during Clarence Thomas’ Senate confirmation hearings. A journalist by the name of Rebecca Walker wrote in Ms. Magazine,

So I write this as a plea to all women, especially women of my generation: Let Thomas’ confirmation serve to remind you, as it did me, that the fight is far from over. Let this dismissal of a woman’s experience move you to anger. Turn that outrage into political power … I am not a post-feminism feminist. I am the Third Wave.

Unlike the First and Second Waves, the Third Wave deals with numerous micro-issues affecting micro-populations.  The First Wave won the major Constitutional battle — women’s right to vote.  The Second Wave won major legal battles of equal protection under the law.  Therefore, the Third Wave is left to fight a myriad of disparate social issues that go far beyond the early objectives of the First and Second Waves.

From the day of its publication, Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique was criticized by more radical feminists for being elitist. The charge arose out of the fact that the book dealt with suburban homemakers who were mostly white, well educated and relatively well-off economically.

The Third Wave moved beyond those constraints and became open ended. Today battles for transgender rights, for fluidity of gender identification, against perceived male social aggression, and numerous other issues dominate what was once a movement for equal Constitutional and legal rights.

Suggested Resolution for 2020

Being informed of latest events is a good thing. However, today’s purveyors of news appear to reside in compartmentalized echo chambers that encourage their audiences to become equally compartmentalized.  Tucker Carlson’s recent attack on “feminism” is an example of a sound-bite pretending to stand for a wide and complex subject.

A good New Year’s resolution might be to acquire more of a 2020 vision, and think of alternative reasons for events described by your favorite news sources.

Merry Christmas – There, We Said It

ShepherdsJoy3b

This is Christmas Eve, when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus. It is a time of joy and sharing. The joy comes from the birth of the long-awaited Messiah predicted in The Book of Isaiah 7.14. The sharing is a practice started by the Three Wise Men, who as told in Matthew 2:1-12, guided by a magnificent star reached the Baby Jesus in Bethlehem bearing gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Nicholas, a monk born around 280 AD in what is now modern-day Turkey, furthered the sharing tradition. He is said to have used his inherited wealth to help the poor and the sick. For his good deeds he became St. Nicholas, a patron of children. As time went by, his name, Sinter Klaas in Dutch, became Santa Clause.

Not to be forgotten are other traditions of joy and sharing. Burning the Yule Log is a Nordic tradition going back to the Middle Ages. And that tradition evolved from the Pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice on December 21, the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere. To keep away bad spirits during the year’s longest night, and to observe the rebirth of the Sun, Druids lighted bonfires.

In the Southern Hemisphere, December 21 marks the Summer Solstice, and the longest day of the year. There is no snow or strong traditions associated with Santa Claus. In Spanish-speaking countries, children receive their presents on January 6, in remembrance of the day the Three Wise Men – also called the Three Kings or the Magi – reached the Baby Jesus.

Druids celebrated rebirth of the Sun on December 21, and 12 days after that, when the Sun was thought to stand still for that period of time. Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25, and 12 days after that the arrival of the Three Wise Men.

Whether you celebrate Christmas, the Winter Solstice, Hanukkah the Festival of Lights, or the Birth of Mithra the God of Light in Persian tradition, you are celebrating the triumph of Light over Darkness.

Of course, you need not celebrate any of these events at all to choose Light over Darkness, Joy over Hopelessness.  The choice is yours.

Ayn Rand Could Come in Handy Today

Pictured

Ford Motor Company: In 1914 Henry Ford acquiesced to his workers’ demand for $5 per hour ($128.67 in today’s dollars) as a result of rising competition in the automobile industry.

McDonalds Company: After a 5-year war against any proposal to raise the government-mandated minimum wage to $15, McDonalds and other large corporations gave up fighting. In the absence of real competition, businesses see no reason to raise wages significantly, and wait until forced to do so by government.

The Keynesian Zeitgeist

Anyone harboring expectations that the U.S. can be saved from the ultra-progressive interpretation of Keynesian economics must feel extremely disappointed. Spending, borrowing and regulating in good times and bad at all levels of government seem to be the majority’s solution to every economic challenge.

Why would the U.S. need eventual salvation from such “solutions?” Exuberance over high stock prices, low unemployment, and a decent GDP has masked since the end of the Great Recession vanishing private sector jobs and an unsustainable national debt.

Keynesian solutions discourage businesses and prop up consumer spending with various government-mandated benefits. To sustain such benefits there has to be very high levels of taxation. In the absence of taxation, public debt is the only other alternative.

Ah, but Keynesians say supply-side economics only serves to enrich the already rich. True, supply-side economics cannot benefit workers in a rigged, monopoly-dominated market where cronyism passes for capitalism. It is no wonder that the bulk of the increase in jobs in the last few years has been in low-paying and part-time jobs. No business competition means no good jobs. Even self-described free-market fiscal conservatives end up in the Keynesian camp when real competition vanishes.

Any Hope in Sight?

* How are the Two Great Decisions of the Past Decade Working For You?

Obamacare? Many people unable to obtain health care before Obamacare were pleased, but the many who saw their premiums double were not.

How about the Tax Cut and Jobs Act? The tax cuts were not accompanied by commensurate spending cuts, so the national debt continues to grow. Small businesses, which generate a lot of new jobs, got a tax cut that will expire in 2025 (6 years away). Large corporations got a permanent tax cut, but have not so far produced the jobs or innovation hoped for. The lack of substantial results is not surprising, since no business it its right mind would commit to significant increases in workforce or capital investment based on the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. Congress has been determined since 2016 to impeach President Donald Trump one way or another, and re-elections are never a certainty. Should the President be ousted, the next effort will surely be to repeal the tax cut.

*  2020 Presidential Candidates’ Spend-Borrow-Regulate Meter

Today, there are two major Republican challengers. William Weld is a former two-term Governor of Massachusetts and 2016 presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket. Joe Walsh is a former one-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois and conservative talk show host. Both candidates talk in general terms about market innovation and fiscal responsibility. Weld’s most specific proposal is to substitute the current complicated tax system with a flat tax. Walsh speaks of advocating for a balanced budget amendment, free-markets, and a “sensible safety net.” Neither speaks of any radical measures necessary to bring down a $23 trillion national debt or end the cronyism that today produces substantial corporate bonuses but low worker wages.

The Democratic field is dwindling as expected, but there are 15 candidates still in. Although these candidates furiously argue with each other on the debate stage, their differences are of degree not substance. They all espouse the same core principle: let government provide all wants and desires by controlling and taxing pretty much everything in the economy. The seriousness of an unsustainable national debt does not seem to be a concern to the candidates.

The talking point voters mainly choose to hear is that Democratic candidates have plans to “eat the rich” to provide benefits for workers. Although that is not entirely the case, it is close enough. The working middle class will also be expected to chip in via such things as loss of stepped-up value on inherited homes (you will not keep a heck of a lot after you sell that San Francisco home your Grandma left you). Also, rich corporations are not the only one who will be required to follow new mandates such as a $15 Federal minimum wage. However, the candidates’ plan main thrust is indeed to tax corporations and wealthy individuals, implement more regulation on businesses, and redistribute wealth to workers and non-workers.

Let’s Talk About Ayn Rand

Fiction has a way of being ahead of life. In 1957 Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, which showed in detail how Big Government has a habit of generating policies that create problems and then attempting to fix those problems by generating more problematic policies. Take the minimum wage: government increases the minimum wage, the more vulnerable workers are laid off, government increases taxes on businesses to support safety-nets for vulnerable workers, businesses lay off more workers to keep their level of desired after-tax profits.

In 2009, the Wall Street Journal ran an opinion piece the author Stephen Moore called Atlas Shrugged’: From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years. Note that the date of this op-ed falls during the Great Recession.

In a very brief WSJ video commentary, Stephen Moore talks about the article. He equates the economic downward spiral in Atlas Shrugged with the economic mess that was the period 2007-2009. Piles of regulations in Rand’s imaginary world obliterated innovation, strangled production, promoted inept cronyism, and brought down an entire economy. To Moore, those events looked like heaps of failing sub-prime loans encouraged by pools of mortgage backed securities mostly created by Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

As noted above, the economy is strong, but plagued by rising public debt and wealth inequality. Such ills are versions of things falling apart as envisioned by Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged.

Shrugging Happens in Real Time

Today, we see outmigration of large businesses from high-tax high-regulation states to low-tax low-regulation states. Large businesses generally only migrate to costly states if taxpayers fork over billions of dollars in tax breaks and other incentives. We have seen what happens when cost of labor increases beyond what businesses want to pay – they outsource to lower-cost countries.

In other words, when forced to carry more burden than they want to, businesses shrug. They leave. The employed are now unemployed. The good or service previously provided is gone.

There is no evidence that the Atlas of Greek mythology ever gave up and shrugged off the Heavenly Sphere he was ordered by Zeus to carry forever, but common sense would say that he probably eventually did.

Progressive Policies: How they Thrive

PromisesThe U.S. liberal strongholds exercise considerable influence over the nation’s attitudes and policies. The saying “As California goes, so goes the nation” suggests as much, and the popularity of high-profile progressives like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez boosts liberal solutions nationwide.

But There is a Sorry Scenario

Coexisting with the leadership scenario California enjoys is the state’s march toward being the first third world state in the county, given its overwhelming incidence of homelessness, drug addiction, and general quality of life decay. High taxes and high living costs add to the state’s list of ills.

New Yorkers do not fare much better in the quality of life scale, suffering from similar ills as California.

On August 29, 2019, Bloomberg News reported a substantial exodus of people from New York City, but noted that such exodus is also occurring in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose (CA), and Washington DC.

Forbes fills in some details,

These statistics make sense to anyone living in these places. The costly living expenses, crumbling infrastructure and high tax rates are a big problem for residents.

Odd Contradictions?  Not Really

It would seem odd that officials making policy decisions in cities and states that live with costly living expenses, crumbling infrastructure, and high tax rates would not at some point come to the conclusion that something is amiss, something is not working. The situation is odd perhaps, but totally understandable.

Voters who are fed up with the status quo in progressive strongholds leave, some that know they will benefit arrive and join those that stay in fighting for more of the same – more subsidies at greater levels of the income scale, more employment and pension benefits, more tenant protections, more drug addiction support, more leniency toward low-level crime.

They get more of the same, since a crucial job of an elected official is to ensure his livelihood by ensuring his re-election, and a vital job of a bureaucrat is to grow the bureaucracy in order to justify his employment.

Really quite simple.

Reformer District Attorneys: Know What You Are Voting For

Chesa Boudin speaking to reporters

An especially progressive district attorney was recently elected in San Francisco. Chesa Boudin received some national press, mostly focused on his radical-left parents and his pledge not to prosecute “quality of life” events like public urination and prostitution.

Although such information is important, also significant is for voters to be aware that Chesa Boudin is not an isolated example of committed progressive reformers being elected throughout the U.S. in the last five or so years. Moreover, a voter’s political persuasion – whether conservative or progressive – is not the issue. The issue is understanding the forces propelling progressive DAs into office and what these DAs represent.

The article published November 19, Reformer DAs – What’s So Bad About Public Urination? in a popular on-line news publication California Political News & Views briefly discusses the new wave of reformer DAs.

The article has a strong and heartfelt introduction by Steve Frank, committed conservative and publisher of CPN&V. The Just Vote No Blog hopes readers will take a few minutes to read the article as well as the introduction.