There are two basic ways to look at the spending priorities of a government institution.
The first is to examine the public's underserved needs to determine where money should be allocated. The second is to consider where the money comes from to pay for it all.
Both perspectives are critical, and both perspectives help to shape the impacts of government policy. But few who analyze policy spend much time on the latter view.
Spending time only on the first part of the equation is the basic flaw in liberalsm. I call it first-order thinking.
To a first-order thinker, the obvious way to meet a need is through spending money on it. This applies to everything -- health coverage, education and pensions to name a few.
Sadly, economics follows its own thermodynamic principal. And, aside from recent actions by the Federal Reserve, the government lacks the power to simply invent money out of thin air and then spend it. By and large, governments must raise money they want to spend through taxation, borrowing or both.
Both taxation and borrowing involve taking money from one set of people and allocating it to the government's spending priorities. Those whose money is taken or borrowed must then adjust their priorities accordingly. This is a second-order effect, and it is not one a liberal is likely to consider.
This effect is the basic reason why the New Deal did little to fix the Great Depression, and Obama's stimulus package will do little to help the present national economy.
In fact, most economists view the negative second-order effect of government spending as more harmful than any benefits derived from the spending itself. This is because those whose money was taken or borrowed probably would have invested it in projects aimed at profitability.
Such for-profit projects are the engine of a capitalist economy. When the government substitutes its judgment for that of the invisible hand of the market, a less efficient outcome is nearly always the case.
So, the stimulus package will probably delay the economy's recovery.
But this is a local blog, so I want to address another second-order effect that is unique to the layers of government below the federal level.
Few probably remember Prop 63, the Mental Health Services tax which passed some years ago. This initiative imposed a 1 percent tax surcharge on Californians whose incomes exceed $1 million per year. It raised the top income tax bracket to 10.3 percent -- by far the highest in the country.
While my income means I have not been burdened with this tax, I opposed it because I suspected its second-order effects would mean more harm than good would come out of it.
My reasoning was based partly on the concept of the Laffer curve -- which says that there is a point in taxation where raising the rate actually nets the government less in revenue. This is because high taxation crowds out profitable investment opportunities. This then lowers the total income of the society, thus lowering the amount of tax to be found.
For Prop 63, the effect is even more pronounced, because these "millionaire households" need only to move to another state to avoid this tax.
And move they have. Since the tax passed, more than 7,000 such households left Los Angeles County. This flight hurts government revenue at every level. It means these people probably sold their houses, depressing property tax revenue. The same kind of thing goes for sales tax revenue.
Worse yet, it means they now pay zero income tax to California. At least $100k in taxes per year per family is gone from the state revenue base. That's $700 million per year, assuming each household makes around $1 million a year, which is a conservative estimate.
What does this analysis mean for places like Oakland, where all three of property, sales and income taxes are at the highest levels in the country?
Well, it probably means tax revenue will continue to fall, in spite of efforts to pass tax after tax. And it means the blight will grow. Why would anyone in their right mind relocate to Oakland or start a business here, knowing the level of taxation they're likely to encounter?
What should the state and local governments do? Lower taxes, and accept the short-term consequences to spending priorities. Doing so will actually increase the long term revenue to the government by drawing in individuals and businesses seeking more reasonable taxation.
It's clear as day to me that if Oakland lowered its ridiculous business taxation, reduced its property tax level to a more normal 1.1 percent (from 1.35 percent) and declared itself willing to do whatever it takes to attract businesses and wealthier residents, every aspect of the city would fare much better over the next decade than it will under the present course.
The problem, of course, is there is no clear constituency to advocate for such policies. The public employee unions will always advocate for higher spending. The anti-gentrification and socialist elements will always clamor for taxing the rich (until they all leave). But who is left to advocate for the right course of action when the second-order effects dictate that higher spending will only leave us with less to spend in the future?
I encourage my readers always to think about second-order effects in any government policy. Don't just consider where the money goes. Consider also where it comes from.
Consider how people's behavior changes when the government takes a larger share of the economy. Don't just consider one side of the equation, because doing so leads to the sort of short-sighted policies which have sunk Oakland and are slowly drowning California.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
To Drain The Cesspool, Legalize Drugs
An interesting phenomenon took place over the past two weeks, as our new president was pressed on the question of legalizing marijuana.
To his credit, his administration has reversed the policy of pursuing local pot clubs because they are violating federal law. To his discredit, he indicated that he did not favor legalizing drugs, as he did not expect it would assist the economy.
Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Keeping drugs illegal has been the single most effective policy in keeping inner cities poor and ensuring that ethnic minorities in America fail to rise to their full potential.
Nowhere is this phenomenon more obvious than in Oakland, where "cash crops" such as pot, meth, crack and heroin make up a significant portion of the local economy.
My understanding is that those who support keeping drugs illegal fear that legalizing them might cause a catastrophe, as millions of Americans who never touched drugs before start using them and become unproductive.
There's a simple solution to this fear -- change the law incrementally. That approach is exactly the one our president inscrutably rejected last week. One can only presume he did so because he knows that solution doesn't poll well.
In my opinion, prohibition has several effects, all of which are negative.
First, it spreads policing manpower too thinly, forcing them to arrest people for owning or consuming certain substances. Targeting these victimless crimes prevents the cops from enforcing laws which have a greater impact on the public at large -- those against burglary and murder, for example. It is well known that Oakland's police don't even really investigate burglary cases. Our "war on drugs" is a major reason.
Second, it discourages addicts from seeking treatment, and it decreases the amount of money allocated for treatment by funneling that money to police and prisons instead. Obviously, if someone knows he can be arrested for what he is doing, he is far less likely to seek treatment.
Third, it does little or nothing to decrease drug use. My evidence here is empirical. Drugs are trivial to obtain in the East Bay, despite heavy enforcement.
Finally, and most importantly, it ensures a large steady stream of money toward the least desirable types of people in society, including the drug cartels in northern Mexico which are carrying on a war against Mexican authorities at this very moment. Closer to home, most of the slayings in Oakland each year are drug related, and it is well documented that the profitability of drug dealing is what draws most young black men away from honest lifestyles and toward a life of imprisonment and violence.
Legalizing drugs would eliminate the money going to these gangsters. Ever noticed how you don't hear much any more from the gangs which ran alcohol during prohibition in the 1930s? The same thing would happen to our current crop of inner-city gangs.
Furthermore, drugs could be taxed, with that money applied toward treatment and education programs. I think it's quite likely that this diversion of resources could decrease the number of drug users below current levels.
But most importantly, doing so would change the face of poverty in America, providing people with a real incentive toward honest lifestyles rather than drug dealing and violence.
To his credit, his administration has reversed the policy of pursuing local pot clubs because they are violating federal law. To his discredit, he indicated that he did not favor legalizing drugs, as he did not expect it would assist the economy.
Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth. Keeping drugs illegal has been the single most effective policy in keeping inner cities poor and ensuring that ethnic minorities in America fail to rise to their full potential.
Nowhere is this phenomenon more obvious than in Oakland, where "cash crops" such as pot, meth, crack and heroin make up a significant portion of the local economy.
My understanding is that those who support keeping drugs illegal fear that legalizing them might cause a catastrophe, as millions of Americans who never touched drugs before start using them and become unproductive.
There's a simple solution to this fear -- change the law incrementally. That approach is exactly the one our president inscrutably rejected last week. One can only presume he did so because he knows that solution doesn't poll well.
In my opinion, prohibition has several effects, all of which are negative.
First, it spreads policing manpower too thinly, forcing them to arrest people for owning or consuming certain substances. Targeting these victimless crimes prevents the cops from enforcing laws which have a greater impact on the public at large -- those against burglary and murder, for example. It is well known that Oakland's police don't even really investigate burglary cases. Our "war on drugs" is a major reason.
Second, it discourages addicts from seeking treatment, and it decreases the amount of money allocated for treatment by funneling that money to police and prisons instead. Obviously, if someone knows he can be arrested for what he is doing, he is far less likely to seek treatment.
Third, it does little or nothing to decrease drug use. My evidence here is empirical. Drugs are trivial to obtain in the East Bay, despite heavy enforcement.
Finally, and most importantly, it ensures a large steady stream of money toward the least desirable types of people in society, including the drug cartels in northern Mexico which are carrying on a war against Mexican authorities at this very moment. Closer to home, most of the slayings in Oakland each year are drug related, and it is well documented that the profitability of drug dealing is what draws most young black men away from honest lifestyles and toward a life of imprisonment and violence.
Legalizing drugs would eliminate the money going to these gangsters. Ever noticed how you don't hear much any more from the gangs which ran alcohol during prohibition in the 1930s? The same thing would happen to our current crop of inner-city gangs.
Furthermore, drugs could be taxed, with that money applied toward treatment and education programs. I think it's quite likely that this diversion of resources could decrease the number of drug users below current levels.
But most importantly, doing so would change the face of poverty in America, providing people with a real incentive toward honest lifestyles rather than drug dealing and violence.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Cop-Killing In Oakland For Fun And Profit
Everyone knows by now that a friendly neighborhood "ex"-con here in Oakland shot and killed three veteran police officers today.
The swat team did apparently track down and kill the responsible party -- a positive development, but too little too late for our city. I will not list the dead cretin's name, but suffice it to say that he will not be missed.
On behalf of the reasonable citizens of Oakland, let me extend thanks, condolences and outrage to our dead officers: Sgts. Erv Romans, Dan Sakai and Mark Dunakin. Let it be known that there are ordinary Oaklanders who will mourn these officers and would like to clean up the streets if only we had the leadership and direction to do so.
In a place like Oakland, there is no way to discuss this story without reference to the young man killed by a Bart police officer at the beginning of the year. No one will soon forget the public outrage and rioting which followed that slaying, which ironically saw the same actors playing opposite parts -- an ex-con killed by a cop.
Neither will we soon forget that the first response to today's incident by the residents of the eastern part of our fair city was to heckle the officers who arrived to investigate the murder of two of their bretheren.
And never mind the fact that the two shot officers had to wait for someone to call 911 and for an ambulance to come transport them to the hospital. What, do east Oaklanders not own cars? Is not a single one of them capable of scooping up a shot cop and racing to the hospital?
No, I suppose all we can expect from denizens of these neighborhoods is a phone call, if we're lucky, and then the predictable middle finger from the squalid street-corner dwellers whose only defining characteristic seems to be their contempt for society.
Honestly, I'm amazed at the decorum of the police department following this act of evil. It would be only natural, in my opinion, to strap on the jack-boots and start knocking down doors in the wake of this atrocity.
Were I an officer, I'd have brutality on my mind. I'd want to transform my holding cells into a mini Abu Ghraib.
But no one will act on such an impulse -- that much you can count on. Our public servants may be overpaid, in this blogger's opinion, but they are a professional bunch, and I know they will handle this situation with the decorum befitting their position.
The same cannot be said for our citizenry -- pock-marked as it is with robbers, theives, pimps and murderers. There will be no candlelight vigils for these fine policemen. John Burris will not lift even one of his bejewelled fingers to help right the wrong that has been committed here. No car windows will be broken, no tear-gas will be deployed.
Oakland will fail to mourn this tragedy, because this is exactly what our citizens expect. We expect our police officers to die. We construct rules and regulations which are nearly impossible to follow, and when an officer fails in his duty, we dust off our signboards and slogans and take to the streets.
So there you have it. This is our Oakland, a lawless Terrordome whose residents would rather pursue ridiculous Leftist ideology than save lives.
What should we do instead?
For a start, how about mourning these fine men in proper fashion. How about a focus on enforcement, not this ridiculous notion of "community" policing.
Our city should adopt a new policing slogan: "Not in my city." Policing, and the police department, should be expanded with a sole focus on eliminating troublemakers through rigorous enforcement of all the laws on the book. We need either to lock these people up or run them out of our city.
But most of all, we need not to stop this pointless activism aimed at proving the police are "brutal." If anything, this incident proves that they are not brutal enough.
When criminals in your city feel they can pull out a gun and murder three cops, you have a serious problem requiring serious action.
Something needs to change. Enough is enough.
The swat team did apparently track down and kill the responsible party -- a positive development, but too little too late for our city. I will not list the dead cretin's name, but suffice it to say that he will not be missed.
On behalf of the reasonable citizens of Oakland, let me extend thanks, condolences and outrage to our dead officers: Sgts. Erv Romans, Dan Sakai and Mark Dunakin. Let it be known that there are ordinary Oaklanders who will mourn these officers and would like to clean up the streets if only we had the leadership and direction to do so.
In a place like Oakland, there is no way to discuss this story without reference to the young man killed by a Bart police officer at the beginning of the year. No one will soon forget the public outrage and rioting which followed that slaying, which ironically saw the same actors playing opposite parts -- an ex-con killed by a cop.
Neither will we soon forget that the first response to today's incident by the residents of the eastern part of our fair city was to heckle the officers who arrived to investigate the murder of two of their bretheren.
And never mind the fact that the two shot officers had to wait for someone to call 911 and for an ambulance to come transport them to the hospital. What, do east Oaklanders not own cars? Is not a single one of them capable of scooping up a shot cop and racing to the hospital?
No, I suppose all we can expect from denizens of these neighborhoods is a phone call, if we're lucky, and then the predictable middle finger from the squalid street-corner dwellers whose only defining characteristic seems to be their contempt for society.
Honestly, I'm amazed at the decorum of the police department following this act of evil. It would be only natural, in my opinion, to strap on the jack-boots and start knocking down doors in the wake of this atrocity.
Were I an officer, I'd have brutality on my mind. I'd want to transform my holding cells into a mini Abu Ghraib.
But no one will act on such an impulse -- that much you can count on. Our public servants may be overpaid, in this blogger's opinion, but they are a professional bunch, and I know they will handle this situation with the decorum befitting their position.
The same cannot be said for our citizenry -- pock-marked as it is with robbers, theives, pimps and murderers. There will be no candlelight vigils for these fine policemen. John Burris will not lift even one of his bejewelled fingers to help right the wrong that has been committed here. No car windows will be broken, no tear-gas will be deployed.
Oakland will fail to mourn this tragedy, because this is exactly what our citizens expect. We expect our police officers to die. We construct rules and regulations which are nearly impossible to follow, and when an officer fails in his duty, we dust off our signboards and slogans and take to the streets.
So there you have it. This is our Oakland, a lawless Terrordome whose residents would rather pursue ridiculous Leftist ideology than save lives.
What should we do instead?
For a start, how about mourning these fine men in proper fashion. How about a focus on enforcement, not this ridiculous notion of "community" policing.
Our city should adopt a new policing slogan: "Not in my city." Policing, and the police department, should be expanded with a sole focus on eliminating troublemakers through rigorous enforcement of all the laws on the book. We need either to lock these people up or run them out of our city.
But most of all, we need not to stop this pointless activism aimed at proving the police are "brutal." If anything, this incident proves that they are not brutal enough.
When criminals in your city feel they can pull out a gun and murder three cops, you have a serious problem requiring serious action.
Something needs to change. Enough is enough.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Want To Ride Your Bike In Oakland? Try Piedmont Instead
Today I decided to go for a nice 15-mile ride on my road bike.
As I usually do on such occasions, I took a direct route to Piedmont and cycled around the lovely homes, parks and schools of that well-maintained community.
I'd like to bike near my house, since I live in a location where there are plenty of challenging hills. But in most cases I cannot, because the roads are so poorly maintained here that I would quickly pop a tire or hit a pothole and fall down.
In fact, one of my favorite spots in Oakland is a location along Skyline where someone has actually drawn a circle in fluorescent spray paint around a crack that runs along the road. If you're riding along Skyline and put a tire in that crack, your tire isn't coming out, and you're going to fall down and potentially bend your wheel.
Another spot I love is the place along upper Broadway Terrace where, either due to an underground spring, a break in the water main or a break in the storm drain, there is a constant trickle of water coming out of the asphalt. It appears that the city occasionally slaps some new pavement on the location, but for some reason they'd rather not actually fix the underlying problem.
Contrast this with Piedmont. There, most streets have been resurfaced within the last few years. And many of the streets are wider than their Oakland counterparts.
One can easily tell when crossing the Piedmont-Oakland border, even though it is not well marked. No markings are needed. All you need to do is look down and notice when the road turns from smooth asphalt to warmed-over rubble.
I'm sure the folks at city hall can spin a good explanation for this. Undoubtedly it involves a dearth of funding for basic services.
The real problem is that Oakland's leaders don't put a priority on basics like roads and schools. Rather than putting the first dollar they receive into items like this, they spend their first dollars on pet projects and, apparently, nepotism.
And it's a good thing, too. Who needs roads when we have to keep Deborah Edgerly's entire family employed shuffling paper?
As I usually do on such occasions, I took a direct route to Piedmont and cycled around the lovely homes, parks and schools of that well-maintained community.
I'd like to bike near my house, since I live in a location where there are plenty of challenging hills. But in most cases I cannot, because the roads are so poorly maintained here that I would quickly pop a tire or hit a pothole and fall down.
In fact, one of my favorite spots in Oakland is a location along Skyline where someone has actually drawn a circle in fluorescent spray paint around a crack that runs along the road. If you're riding along Skyline and put a tire in that crack, your tire isn't coming out, and you're going to fall down and potentially bend your wheel.
Another spot I love is the place along upper Broadway Terrace where, either due to an underground spring, a break in the water main or a break in the storm drain, there is a constant trickle of water coming out of the asphalt. It appears that the city occasionally slaps some new pavement on the location, but for some reason they'd rather not actually fix the underlying problem.
Contrast this with Piedmont. There, most streets have been resurfaced within the last few years. And many of the streets are wider than their Oakland counterparts.
One can easily tell when crossing the Piedmont-Oakland border, even though it is not well marked. No markings are needed. All you need to do is look down and notice when the road turns from smooth asphalt to warmed-over rubble.
I'm sure the folks at city hall can spin a good explanation for this. Undoubtedly it involves a dearth of funding for basic services.
The real problem is that Oakland's leaders don't put a priority on basics like roads and schools. Rather than putting the first dollar they receive into items like this, they spend their first dollars on pet projects and, apparently, nepotism.
And it's a good thing, too. Who needs roads when we have to keep Deborah Edgerly's entire family employed shuffling paper?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Taxes, Schools and the A's
When you get right down to it the East Bay is really composed of two totally separate communities.
The flatlands consist largely of "diverse" neighborhoods fighting day-to-day battles against urban problems such as crime and joblessness. Then there are the hilly areas to the east, which look a lot more like the wealthy suburbs of the peninsula.
Those living in the latter regions look at the East Bay as an area ripe for all kinds of visionary improvements, given its proximity to San Francisco. Sadly, those in the flatlands know that such change cannot and will not take place -- not, at least, without displacing large numbers of them.
I believe it is this dichotomy which makes many elements of the public discussion boring and a bit silly. The reality is that passage of a new parcel tax to fund cops or parks or education won't have much impact on the community at large. This is because the hills dwellers are already largely unaffected by each of these elements of public policy. And, most of the flatlanders just don't have much time or inclination to seek out the benefits such policies could provide.
Simple demographics indicate that the wealthier residents of our area have little voice in the process. This is actually the number one reason why parcel taxes frequently pass, even though everybody knows they will have no positive impacts and the funding mechanism is actually regressive. Since most voters are renters, they perceive the measures as having no costs to them. So, why not vote yes?
In other words, we live in a community with have-mores and have-nots, and very few people in the middle. This is problematic because the former set of people largely tune out because they just view this as a bedroom community, and the latter set of people mostly view public policy as a way to get money from the "system." Too few residents really behave as stakeholders in what happens to their city.
A number of issues have arisen recently which make a lot more sense when viewed through this lens. The issues involve taxes, schools and the Oakland A's. But rather than address them individually, I'd like to make the broader point so you can see the way I look at these things.
Most of the local bloggers like to sit around and discuss the nitty-gritty of these proposals.
Recently, I had an interesting online discussion in this vein with V Smoothe of A Better Oakland (who subsequently removed her link to this blog). Her point to me was that I could not comment intelligently on the California budget mess without knowing the details of funding formulas and revenue sources. My point to her was that she was trapped in a box by thinking about things at such a level of detail.
For example, I know that the tax burden on an average citizen in California vastly exceeds that in Nevada. I know this because I own houses in both places, and I spend time in each state. But, if I attempt to make a case for lower spending in California, such an argument can be easily rebuffed with reference to thousands of individual pieces of data about various programs, services and taxes.
But such a line of argumentation ignores the forest for the trees. The fact remains that a family living in Nevada and making $100k a year pays maybe $10k a year in combined sales, property and income taxes. In California, the same family pays $20k or more.
It's a frustrating situation, and it saddens me that similar lines of thinking have infected our local discourse. There is no room for "big picture" thinking, because we're always busy screwing around with Dullums' latest idiocy or the Bart shooting.
I realize such issues matter a lot to some people, but in a decade or two they will be irrelevant and forgotten.
Perhaps it's time for some of us to start talking about big things that, if accomplished, would make a difference to our region for years to come.
For starters, Oakland taxes its residents too much and provides far too little in return. In fact, it occurred to me recently that, as a ratio of school quality to property taxes, Oakland is probably the worst deal in the entire country.
If a family buys a house for $500k in East Oakland, they immediately must pay around $8000 a year in property taxes. That same family would likely be crazy to send kids to the local schools with API scores of 600 or less.
What's the big-picture thinking here? How about reducing property taxes to the California average and starting magnet schools at the elementary, middle and high school levels?
I'm sure people can give me all sorts of minutia-type arguments as to why this is impossible. But everyone knows it's completely possible given the right leadership and the right set of laws.
Another example is the Oakland A's. Yes, I know that city government would rather blow the money on anti-violence social programs. Yet, here we are with an enormous federal stimulus program that is supposedly aimed at "shovel-ready" programs. Well, how about we hit up the government for money to redevelop an area of Oakland with a new stadium?
People tell me that new stadiums don't help economically. Then I ask them why the South of Market area of San Francisco has revitalized so quickly, and they tell me that's a special case. And, by the way, there are a million environmental and urban-planning restrictions on the books that make such a move impossible.
This kind of thinking is exactly why nearly every single piece of compelling urban art or architecture in the City of Oakland dates from the 1950s or earlier. Go take a look at the Rose Garden, Joaquin Miller Park, City Hall and the (closed) convention center. The list goes on and on. Oakland has no big-picture thinkers.
So, I'd like to challenge readers and other bloggers to try and get past the minutia of the day-to-day issues and consider a vision for what big things you'd like to see happen here. I'd be very interested to read about it.
The flatlands consist largely of "diverse" neighborhoods fighting day-to-day battles against urban problems such as crime and joblessness. Then there are the hilly areas to the east, which look a lot more like the wealthy suburbs of the peninsula.
Those living in the latter regions look at the East Bay as an area ripe for all kinds of visionary improvements, given its proximity to San Francisco. Sadly, those in the flatlands know that such change cannot and will not take place -- not, at least, without displacing large numbers of them.
I believe it is this dichotomy which makes many elements of the public discussion boring and a bit silly. The reality is that passage of a new parcel tax to fund cops or parks or education won't have much impact on the community at large. This is because the hills dwellers are already largely unaffected by each of these elements of public policy. And, most of the flatlanders just don't have much time or inclination to seek out the benefits such policies could provide.
Simple demographics indicate that the wealthier residents of our area have little voice in the process. This is actually the number one reason why parcel taxes frequently pass, even though everybody knows they will have no positive impacts and the funding mechanism is actually regressive. Since most voters are renters, they perceive the measures as having no costs to them. So, why not vote yes?
In other words, we live in a community with have-mores and have-nots, and very few people in the middle. This is problematic because the former set of people largely tune out because they just view this as a bedroom community, and the latter set of people mostly view public policy as a way to get money from the "system." Too few residents really behave as stakeholders in what happens to their city.
A number of issues have arisen recently which make a lot more sense when viewed through this lens. The issues involve taxes, schools and the Oakland A's. But rather than address them individually, I'd like to make the broader point so you can see the way I look at these things.
Most of the local bloggers like to sit around and discuss the nitty-gritty of these proposals.
Recently, I had an interesting online discussion in this vein with V Smoothe of A Better Oakland (who subsequently removed her link to this blog). Her point to me was that I could not comment intelligently on the California budget mess without knowing the details of funding formulas and revenue sources. My point to her was that she was trapped in a box by thinking about things at such a level of detail.
For example, I know that the tax burden on an average citizen in California vastly exceeds that in Nevada. I know this because I own houses in both places, and I spend time in each state. But, if I attempt to make a case for lower spending in California, such an argument can be easily rebuffed with reference to thousands of individual pieces of data about various programs, services and taxes.
But such a line of argumentation ignores the forest for the trees. The fact remains that a family living in Nevada and making $100k a year pays maybe $10k a year in combined sales, property and income taxes. In California, the same family pays $20k or more.
It's a frustrating situation, and it saddens me that similar lines of thinking have infected our local discourse. There is no room for "big picture" thinking, because we're always busy screwing around with Dullums' latest idiocy or the Bart shooting.
I realize such issues matter a lot to some people, but in a decade or two they will be irrelevant and forgotten.
Perhaps it's time for some of us to start talking about big things that, if accomplished, would make a difference to our region for years to come.
For starters, Oakland taxes its residents too much and provides far too little in return. In fact, it occurred to me recently that, as a ratio of school quality to property taxes, Oakland is probably the worst deal in the entire country.
If a family buys a house for $500k in East Oakland, they immediately must pay around $8000 a year in property taxes. That same family would likely be crazy to send kids to the local schools with API scores of 600 or less.
What's the big-picture thinking here? How about reducing property taxes to the California average and starting magnet schools at the elementary, middle and high school levels?
I'm sure people can give me all sorts of minutia-type arguments as to why this is impossible. But everyone knows it's completely possible given the right leadership and the right set of laws.
Another example is the Oakland A's. Yes, I know that city government would rather blow the money on anti-violence social programs. Yet, here we are with an enormous federal stimulus program that is supposedly aimed at "shovel-ready" programs. Well, how about we hit up the government for money to redevelop an area of Oakland with a new stadium?
People tell me that new stadiums don't help economically. Then I ask them why the South of Market area of San Francisco has revitalized so quickly, and they tell me that's a special case. And, by the way, there are a million environmental and urban-planning restrictions on the books that make such a move impossible.
This kind of thinking is exactly why nearly every single piece of compelling urban art or architecture in the City of Oakland dates from the 1950s or earlier. Go take a look at the Rose Garden, Joaquin Miller Park, City Hall and the (closed) convention center. The list goes on and on. Oakland has no big-picture thinkers.
So, I'd like to challenge readers and other bloggers to try and get past the minutia of the day-to-day issues and consider a vision for what big things you'd like to see happen here. I'd be very interested to read about it.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Oakland School District's Latest Poverty Ploy
I'll be the first to admit that I don't really know where the money goes in the Oakland school district.
Somehow, no matter what happens at the state or local level, the district is always out of money. And it always underperforms other nearby districts by a significant margin.
Like most people, I have read anecdotal reports suggesting that Oakland's bureaucracy is top-heavy and inefficient. I also know that the Oakland teachers' union is very powerful. Owing to an extremely liberal electorate, there is no real check on that power. Parents support the union, even as it abuses their children.
Regardless of the exact spending patterns, I think it's safe to conclude the district's money is not being spent in a particularly efficient fashion.
For example, since I started this blog, I have called for the school district to create some sort of magnet high school. This would lure more affluent students back into the district, it would improve scores districtwide and it would provide an excellent school that high performers from lower-income neighborhoods could attend.
There's no real argument against such an idea, yet the district won't implement it. The closest they come is the excellent Paideia program at Oakland Technical. But that's just one relatively small program at one school.
This weekend I read an article in the East Bay Express about many Oakland's schools not having heat in the classrooms this winter.
Apparently, this problem is a consequence of the school district laying off two of its four "steamfitters" -- the people who turn on the boilers when they are needed. Presumably this is a unionized job, so the district is prevented from just hiring these people as contracters during the busy winter months.
I looked up the job on Wikipedia, and it looks like the only facilities that need full-time steamfitters are places like nuclear power plants. But, I digress.
There's a reason why the school district was unable to turn on the heat this winter, and it has nothing to do with budgetary problems. They did it on purpose.
But what purpose could this possibly serve? Why make the classrooms cold?
It's simple. The Leftists in the government want to get as much money as possible -- not to run a great school district but because they're following the bureaucratic imperative. To do so, they need to make it clear to Oakland residents that there is a budgetary problem that can only be solved by tax increases.
How best to do this?
Oakland's school district has a time-tested strategy when it comes to fundraising. They simply cut things that matter to the vast majority of stuents and parents.
No, they'll never cut out car allowances for the superintendent or bonus pay for principals -- that's not the kind of stuff that will get noticed. Instead, they cut out front-line teachers, they cut music programs and they turn the schools into iceboxes.
The police department does the same thing, incidentally. What better way to get more money out of taxpayers than to allow the city to descend into a lawless disaster zone?
I know many out there will accuse me of looking for conspiracies. But, honestly, how else can you explain this kind of absurd failure? And, honestly, why doesn't the city have a magnet high school? No one has ever explained this to me, in spite of repeated queries to numerous people in and out of government.
I know liberals want to make the charitable assumption that those in leadership positions in government have our best interests at heart.
But it's just not true. All they want is your money and their car allowances. That's the way the game is played in the big city.
Somehow, no matter what happens at the state or local level, the district is always out of money. And it always underperforms other nearby districts by a significant margin.
Like most people, I have read anecdotal reports suggesting that Oakland's bureaucracy is top-heavy and inefficient. I also know that the Oakland teachers' union is very powerful. Owing to an extremely liberal electorate, there is no real check on that power. Parents support the union, even as it abuses their children.
Regardless of the exact spending patterns, I think it's safe to conclude the district's money is not being spent in a particularly efficient fashion.
For example, since I started this blog, I have called for the school district to create some sort of magnet high school. This would lure more affluent students back into the district, it would improve scores districtwide and it would provide an excellent school that high performers from lower-income neighborhoods could attend.
There's no real argument against such an idea, yet the district won't implement it. The closest they come is the excellent Paideia program at Oakland Technical. But that's just one relatively small program at one school.
This weekend I read an article in the East Bay Express about many Oakland's schools not having heat in the classrooms this winter.
Apparently, this problem is a consequence of the school district laying off two of its four "steamfitters" -- the people who turn on the boilers when they are needed. Presumably this is a unionized job, so the district is prevented from just hiring these people as contracters during the busy winter months.
I looked up the job on Wikipedia, and it looks like the only facilities that need full-time steamfitters are places like nuclear power plants. But, I digress.
There's a reason why the school district was unable to turn on the heat this winter, and it has nothing to do with budgetary problems. They did it on purpose.
But what purpose could this possibly serve? Why make the classrooms cold?
It's simple. The Leftists in the government want to get as much money as possible -- not to run a great school district but because they're following the bureaucratic imperative. To do so, they need to make it clear to Oakland residents that there is a budgetary problem that can only be solved by tax increases.
How best to do this?
Oakland's school district has a time-tested strategy when it comes to fundraising. They simply cut things that matter to the vast majority of stuents and parents.
No, they'll never cut out car allowances for the superintendent or bonus pay for principals -- that's not the kind of stuff that will get noticed. Instead, they cut out front-line teachers, they cut music programs and they turn the schools into iceboxes.
The police department does the same thing, incidentally. What better way to get more money out of taxpayers than to allow the city to descend into a lawless disaster zone?
I know many out there will accuse me of looking for conspiracies. But, honestly, how else can you explain this kind of absurd failure? And, honestly, why doesn't the city have a magnet high school? No one has ever explained this to me, in spite of repeated queries to numerous people in and out of government.
I know liberals want to make the charitable assumption that those in leadership positions in government have our best interests at heart.
But it's just not true. All they want is your money and their car allowances. That's the way the game is played in the big city.
Daily Planet's Tiny Dose Of Balance
I can usually rely on the Berkeley Daily Planet for a political viewpoint which is 100 percent Leftist.
An example of this is an article published in the commentary pages this week titled, "Capitalism: A Self-Devouring Beast." I'm not going to bother linking you to this article, for fear of encouraging more people to find it via search engines. But, suffice it to say that its content is every bit as idiotic as its title implies.
But every so often, the Daily Planet publishes a refreshingly rational commentary. This week, I was somewhat shocked to see an article penned by a student at UC Berkeley arguing in favor of restraining government spending.
Here is a link to the article. The author makes the point that the only way to stop politicians from spending the public's money poorly is to simply take the money away from them by lowering taxes.
While the author makes this point in reference to the state of California, it is equally applicable locally. Each time East Bay residents vote in favor of tax increases, all they are doing is encouraging a misallocation of resources by the government.
Because the government is inherently incapable of overcoming such obstacles as special interests and pet projects, it is better simply to cut off the money supply.
I have never really heard a liberal counterargument to this point that made much sense. Liberals generally will tell you how great it would be to see their programs funded.
But they have no response to the reality that the government has no capacity to accomplish what looks so useful and effective on paper.
Anyway, I encourage my readers to read the article in the Daily Planet.
An example of this is an article published in the commentary pages this week titled, "Capitalism: A Self-Devouring Beast." I'm not going to bother linking you to this article, for fear of encouraging more people to find it via search engines. But, suffice it to say that its content is every bit as idiotic as its title implies.
But every so often, the Daily Planet publishes a refreshingly rational commentary. This week, I was somewhat shocked to see an article penned by a student at UC Berkeley arguing in favor of restraining government spending.
Here is a link to the article. The author makes the point that the only way to stop politicians from spending the public's money poorly is to simply take the money away from them by lowering taxes.
While the author makes this point in reference to the state of California, it is equally applicable locally. Each time East Bay residents vote in favor of tax increases, all they are doing is encouraging a misallocation of resources by the government.
Because the government is inherently incapable of overcoming such obstacles as special interests and pet projects, it is better simply to cut off the money supply.
I have never really heard a liberal counterargument to this point that made much sense. Liberals generally will tell you how great it would be to see their programs funded.
But they have no response to the reality that the government has no capacity to accomplish what looks so useful and effective on paper.
Anyway, I encourage my readers to read the article in the Daily Planet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)