Econ 101 - Should We Trade At All?

Once again, by pointing out the absurd, Professor Walter Williams illustrates a fundamental principle of economics: voluntary exchange as a tool to maximize scarce resources. Dr. Williams also demonstrates how voluntary exchange (trade) can be altered irrationally by a motivated and focused interest group. It is unfortunate that politicians will abandon core principles (e.g. the free market) and make irrational decisions to appease narrowly focused groups – be they farmers, textile companies or teachers unions. Inevitably the intervention and protection by government statute or regulation provides a benefit only to those seeking protection at the expense of everyone else. This is one very good argument for the need to limit the size and scope of government!

Should we trade at all
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, October 25, 2006

There are only a handful of products that Americans import that cannot be produced at home and therefore create jobs for Americans. Let's look at a few of them.

We import cocoa from Ghana and coffee from African and Latin American countries. We import saffron from Spain and India and cinnamon from Sri Lanka. In fact, India produces 86 percent of the world tonnage of spices. There's absolutely no reason these products cannot be produced by Americans, and we could be cocoa, coffee and spices independent.

You say, "Williams, that's crazy! We don't have the climate and soil conditions to produce those products. Many spices, for example, require a moist tropical environment." No problem. We have the technology whereby we can simulate both the soil and weather conditions. We could build greenhouses in which to grow cinnamon trees and get our scientists to create the same soil conditions that exist in Sri Lanka. Greenhouses could also be built to simulate the climate conditions in Africa and Latin America to grow cocoa and coffee. In the case of cocoa, the greenhouses would have to be Superdome size to accommodate trees as high as 50 feet.

You say, "Williams, that's still crazy! Imagine the high costs and the higher product prices of your crazy scheme." I say, "Aha, you're getting the picture."

There are several nearly self-evident factors about our being cocoa, coffee and spices independent. Without a doubt, there would be job creation in our cocoa, coffee and spices industries, but consumers would pay a much higher price than they currently do. Therefore, nearly 300 million American consumers would be worse off, having to pay those higher prices or doing without, but those with the new jobs would be better off.

So let's be honest with ourselves. Why do we choose to import cocoa, coffee and spices rather than produce them ourselves? The answer is that it is cheaper to do so. That means we enjoy a higher standard of living than if we tried to produce them ourselves. If we can enjoy, say, coffee, at a cheaper price than producing it ourselves, we have more money left over to buy other goods. That principle not only applies to cocoa, coffee and spices. It's a general principle: If a good can be purchased more cheaply abroad, we enjoy a higher standard of living by trading than we would by producing it ourselves.

No one denies that international trade has unpleasant consequences for some workers. They have to find other jobs that might not pay as much, but should we protect those jobs through trade restrictions? The Washington-based Institute for International Economics has assembled data that might help with the answer. Tariffs and quotas on imported sugar saved 2,261 jobs during the 1990s. As a result of those restrictions, the average household pays $21 more per year for sugar. The total cost, nationally, sums to $826,000 for each job saved. Trade restrictions on luggage saved 226 jobs and cost consumers $1.2 million in higher prices for each job saved. Restrictions on apparel and textiles saved 168,786 jobs at a cost of nearly $200,000 for each job saved.

You might wonder how it is possible for, say, the sugar industry to rip off consumers. After all, consumers are far more numerous than sugar workers and sugar bosses. It's easy. A lot is at stake for those in the sugar industry, workers and bosses. They dedicate huge resources to pressure Congress into enacting trade restrictions. But how many of us consumers will devote the same resources to unseat a congressman who voted for sugar restrictions that forced us to pay $21 more for the sugar our family uses? It's the problem of visible beneficiaries of trade restrictions, sugar workers and bosses, gaining at the expense of invisible victims -- sugar consumers. We might think of it as congressional price-gouging.

Dr. Williams articles are published at Townhall.com; a list of his articles can be found here.

Lyn Nofziger, R.I.P.

On March 27th America lost a great man. If I were capable, I would eulogize Lyn Nofziger, but I don't feel close to adequate. Peter Robinson did a fine job on National Review's webpage. The following is a snippet into the world of a man whom I have always held in the highest of regard...

From Lyn Nofziger's own webpage:

I'm Lyn Nofziger and this is my website.

If you're looking for a female exhibitionist with a digital camera you've come to the wrong place.

On the other hand, if you want some conservative opinion laced with exasperation, an occasional limerick or other piece of doggerel, or are interested in the books I have written you're in the right place. All you have to do is click on "Musings."The odds are you've never heard of me, which is all right because I've probably never heard of you either, so let me tell you a little bit about myself.

R.I.P, Lyn Nofziger.

Socialized Preschool Losing Support

Perata has second thoughts on preschool initiative
By Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee 2/28/06

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, one of the state's leading Democrats, said Tuesday he is reconsidering his support for a June universal preschool ballot proposal in another blow to Rob Reiner's initiative campaign.

The full story here.

I had previously asked if Democrats would have the courage to openly oppose Rob Reiner's socialized preschool initiative (now Prop. 82). I am glad to see that Senate Pro Tem Don Perata is moving in that direction. I can’t say that Senator Perata’s reasoning is sound; he thinks that a lack of means testing is the problem. Translated… he thinks that it is unfair to take from the “rich” and give to the middle class; after all, real socialism calls for more extreme redistribution of wealth. Perhaps concerns raised by many in the education community that dumping billions into preschool is not good for a struggling K-12 system is the real reason driving some common sense into elected Democrats, and now they are scrambling for reasons to run away from Prop. 82.

Hiatus...

Hiatus - an interruption in the intensity or amount of something.

Please forgive the hiatus, it will continue for the unforeseeable future or until I can't handle life without this outlet to vent. Seriously though, with some changes afoot and an extremely busy time, I will be out for a short while.

Please, if you are one of the two or three people who actually visit here regularly, check in and see when the hiatus is over. If you would like me to email you when I do start adding content, please send me an email so I know.

Until then, my friends...

Keep fighting for freedom and having fun!

Kennedy and Ethics

For Republican Party activists the appointment by Governor Schwarzenegger of leftwing political activist Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff was a philosophical problem. She has worked her entire life to defeat and destroy candidates and public policies that we have embraced and promoted.

With the volume of noise focused on philosophy and party loyalty; the concern about Kennedy’s ethics was nearly drowned out. Questions about Kennedy’s ethics were raised here and in other sources, but mostly complaints have been focused on her role as a political operative.

It has been less than three months since Susan Kennedy took the reins of leadership in the Governor’s office and questions about her ethics are now drowning out the issue of her radical leftist philosophy.

The following two stories provide insight into why Susan Kennedy was wrong for the chief of staff job, regardless of whether she is serving Arnold Schwarzenegger or her old boss Phil Angelides.

Water Firm Awash in Political Influence
Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times

(Keith) Brackpool is the chairman and chief executive of Cadiz Inc. For years, Cadiz tried to entice the Metropolitan Water District into a $150-million scheme to store surplus water from the Colorado in the Mojave Desert. The skeptical MWD, which serves most of Southern California, finally nixed the project in 2002.

But Brackpool has never gone away, possibly because he hopes to exploit his political connections to revive the plan. Over the years, he has hobnobbed with Democratic politicians ranging from former Gov. Gray Davis to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

The latest moth caught circling his flame is Susan Kennedy, Gov. Schwarzenegger's chief of staff. As my colleague Robert Salladay reported last week, Kennedy, a Democrat, received $120,000 from Cadiz as a "consultant" in 2005 while serving on the state Public Utilities Commission. The PUC doesn't directly regulate Cadiz, but it has a considerable voice in water policy, a topic that also falls within Kennedy's current portfolio.

Read the full story here.

Kennedy May Be More of a Liability Than Help to Gov.
George Skelton, Los Angeles Times

This probably was not what Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had in mind when he signed up Democrat Susan Kennedy to be his chief of staff.

…The last thing Schwarzenegger needed was for his and her ethics to be questioned. And that's what is happening.

To recap: Since her appointment, it has been reported and acknowledged that Schwarzenegger is supplementing Kennedy's $131,000-per-year public salary with $7,500 a month in political money. That's supposed to pay for her political advice (which she should be offering as chief of staff anyway) and for explaining the governor's agenda to donor groups (that she shouldn't be going near).

Turns out, in December, while still a California Public Utilities commissioner — a $114,000 job — Kennedy was slipped $25,000 from Schwarzenegger's campaign account for political advice. That came three weeks after AT&T donated $25,000 to Schwarzenegger. The donation was made four days before Kennedy voted to approve AT&T's merger with SBC. Nobody is alleging a quid pro quo, but it's a putrid perception.

Read the full story here.

How 'bout some Dom Perignon with that pork?

The following are two stories to highlight a commonly-known reality; people are willing to spend big when somebody else is paying the check. When that occurs on the company credit card, it is an issue between the executive, the company comptroller and the employee. When it happens with your tax dollars; hmmm, well, everyone screams about it - and nothing gets done!

There are hundreds of stories like the two below; they can be found regularly in newspapers across the state. Stories highlighting the unjustifiable spending of taxpayer dollars by public officials who love living large; meanwhile Democrats are demanding more of your money through tax increases to fund even more largesse. Huh? How about managing the money already in the bank with some integrity before confiscating more or ours!

Never forget; when the government spends money somebody else is always paying the check.






Florez questions First 5 spending
By SHELLIE BRANCO, Bakersfield Californian

Can one man eat $400 worth of food in three and a half days?

How about when his lunches and breakfasts are already provided?

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, is once again grilling First 5 Kern on its spending habits. The commission, which uses state tobacco-tax money for programs to help children through age 5, approved on Feb. 1 a plan to bring in a consultant for a county training session on curbing prenatal alcohol and drug use.

...The Kern commission has been criticized in the past for spending millions of dollars on consultants and out-of-town travel and meals, and added on "cost-of-living" salary boosts.

First 5 Kern plans to fly, lodge and feed a Chicago consultant and his assistant at a price tag of over $26,000 for a few days.

Read the full story here.

Schools chief's credit conflict
Some commissioners call Ackerman's charges excessive
by Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle

Outgoing San Francisco schools chief Arlene Ackerman racked up $45,625 in credit card charges in 2005 -- mostly in meals, airplane tickets and hotels -- which have been reimbursed by the San Francisco Unified School District at taxpayer expense.

Ackerman, a member of many national education organizations, took 32 work-related trips around the country last year, often staying in luxury hotels and eating at high-priced restaurants.

While in San Francisco, she paid for scores of working lunches and dinners -- frequently at such well-known restaurants as Jardiniere, Hayes Street Grill, Palomino and Morton's.

...Ackerman was blunt on Wednesday: "I have nothing to be ashamed of. People can nitpick if they want to, but I didn't do anything I think was wrong."

Read the full story here.

Oaff: On the Arlene Ackerman story; three quick observations:

1. She spent about $10,000 more on travel and food than I earned in a year as a teacher.
2. Her arrogance, when her spending is called into question, is typical.
3. In the headline, Some commissioners call Ackerman's charges excessive - SOME? That's incredible! How could there not be universal agreement that a school superintendent does not need to eat at Mortons on the school district dime? How about a reasonable agreement that school district money should never be spent in a restaurant where they don't print the prices on the menu? Seem reasonable? Hmmmm?

Batteries Not Included

Heard about the e-waste recycling deadline? (Didn't think so)
by By Marjie Lundstrom, Sacramento Bee

Beginning today, anyone with a used battery*, fluorescent light tube, old cell phone - the list goes on and on - can no longer toss the thing into the trash, bound for the landfill. (emphasis added)

...From now on, we Californians are responsible for laying to rest our kids' oh-so-last-year iPods, light-up sneakers and singing greeting cards. We're in charge of funeral arrangements for that closet full of old oven cleaner, dead VCRs and iffy AA batteries.

Read the full story here.

*Yes, we’re talking about that AAA in your television remote control. And, under the law fines for violations can be as high as $25,000! Of course, "officials" say they won't be going door-to-door to enforce the law; their focus will be on small businesses. So, I guess that means you can all rest easy that the enviro police won't be shutting down your household, instead they'll be going after your job - what a comfort.

I suspect, once they realize that most people will not store household batteries, etc. until they have enough to justify a trip to the hazardous waste disposal center (located somewhere in their city or county), they will implement a curbside pickup procedure - a bonus to your local labor union!

The following legislators were authors of this law:

Senator Byron Sher (retired)
Senator Gloria Romero
Senator Sheila Kuehl
Senator Liz Figueroa
Assembly Member Hannah-Beth Jackson (retired)
Assembly Member Patty Berg
Assembly Member Judy Chu
Assembly Member Paul Koretz
Assembly Member John Laird
Assembly Member Mark Leno
Assembly Member Lloyd Levine
Assembly Member Sally Lieber
Assembly Member Fran Pavley
Assembly Member Lois Wolk

I have an idea. As you gather your AAA, AA, C, D and 9-volt batteries to take them to the city or county hazardous waste collection center (where you will be charged a fee); deliver them, instead, to the authors of this law. Heck, just to be an honest person, find out what the fee is and send it along (in pennies) so they won’t get stuck paying the tab.

A Super (Bowl) Message

Among all of the hype about which Super Bowl ad was the best (ususally the funniest), I think one ad was overlooked. It was not funny, but it communicated an important message.



In the commercial (advertising a hybrid Toyota Camry) the conversation starts when the son asks, “Papa, why do we have a hybrid?”

The father replies, “For your future.” He then goes on to explain that the hybrid is “good for the air” and that it saves them money by using both electricity and gasoline.

The boy then says, “Like you with English and Spanish.”

(Smiling) Papa says, “Si.”

His son then asks, “Why did you learn English?”

Papa says, “For your future.”

Given the attitude of so many in the “bilingual” movement which seeks to preserve Spanish as the primary language and advocates for long-term instruction in Spanish thereby depriving many youngsters the opportunity to become proficient in English, I was surprised that Toyota was willing to weigh in on the issue. Their statement, promoting the idea that learning English is in the best interest of one’s future is both a correct and, in my opinion, bold statement. It is bold only because those who oppose the idea of English as a primary language almost always engage in labeling any dissenters as racists and xenophobes. Usually, corporations like Toyota seek to avoid any circumstance that might be deemed offensive.

I encourage you to watch the advertisement yourself.

An Essential Read for Republican Partisans

I commend to your attention this article, A Party With the Courage of no Convictions, by John Kurzweil who is the editor of the California Political Review.

An excerpt...

"California Republicans have spent most of the past decade trying to bring about a revolutionary reversal of direction in the political culture of one of the world's most powerful and influential political entities with less clear thinking, research, preparation, and attention to detail in execution - and, indeed, with little evidence even of realizing the magnitude of the job they have undertaken - than one typical small businessman would employ in opening a single hamburger stand. This Republican approach might somehow prove adequate if the opposition were similarly trifling, but not when the other side is willing and able to spend and to do whatever it takes to win, as California Democrats have repeatedly shown themselves to be."

The full article can - and should - be read here.

Cal Races Provides a Great Service

For those who can't get to the SOS's office, or would rather spend their time doing something else... Cal Races has posted a downloadable spreadsheet of the year end campaign finance totals for candidates from Gov to Assembly. Excellent work MPI!

Reiner Initiative Will Damage Preschools

Reiner initiative bad for preschoolers
By Alan Bonsteel, OC Register 2/6/06

It's now official: Californians will see a Preschool for All Act initiative on the June ballot sponsored by Hollywood personality Rob Reiner. Unfortunately, while the evidence for the benefit of preschool is strong, even those who favor publicly financed preschool will want to see Reiner's bungled effort defeated.

Just as director Reiner's latest film, "Rumor Has It," was a box-office flop ($42 million domestically) despite the talents of Jennifer Anniston because of an incoherent screenplay, Reiner's initiative is similarly fatally flawed by his incoherent drafting and ignorance of educational policy.

... Even voters who passionately support publicly funded preschool will want to turn thumbs-down on this turkey and wait for a high-quality and thoughtful initiative.

Read the full story here.

Dr. Alan Bonsteel is the President of California Parents for Educational Choice.

Ethics Reform in Congress

Following a Little Advice from Davy Crockett Would Solve the Problem

Congress in Crisis
It is not news that Congress is embroiled in a number of ethical troubles; the biggest problem has been bribery and the perception of influence peddling. As members of Congress rush to address the problem they are dancing all around the issue; they have stopped access by members-turned-lobbyists to the House floor, they are proposing to stop gifts to members from lobbyists (including buying a meal), they have and will again propose forms of campaign finance reform, and they are addressing the practice of earmarking.

All of the issues revolve around limiting the ability to grant financial favors to member of Congress by those who seek government funding for their pet project or program and limiting the ability of members of Congress to reward favored constituents by earmarking federal funds. Most of the proposals will do nothing – nothing – to stop the practice because there is too much at stake not to influence outcomes. Today President Bush released his budget; it proposes to spend $2.7 trillion! How could you expect interested parties not to do everything they can to make sure they get their piece of the pie?

It happens at every level of government. In California the Governor has proposed a massive $68 billion infrastructure spending plan. Shortly after the release I had several conversations with major lobbyists about the prospects for the 2006 legislative session; all of them said the same thing, “This year the game is all about getting in on the governor’s bond package.” These lobbyists are not bad people; in fact they are generally honest people doing exactly what they get paid to do – get government to take your money and give it to their clients (or association members, e.g. the California Teachers’ Association or the California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association).

The Best Solution
Limit the role of government. If Congress were not throwing $2.7 trillion around, there would be a lot less interest in courting members of Congress. I realize that rolling the federal government back to a manageable size; or more appropriately to its Constitutional role is a monumental task. But, I submit, no more monumental than trying to stop the lobbyists from influencing the now-oversized government. The bottom line is, if you want to limit corruption and influence pedding in Congress you have to limit the size and scope of government.

Learning from History
Below is the text of a speech delivered by Tennessee Representative David Crockett about the proper role of the federal government. If we were to learn from his remarks and demand that our Congress adheres to the limits placed upon it by our Constitution, we would do away with almost all of the need for lobbyists; as such we would do away with the need for the Byzantine type reforms proposed to address the problem today.

Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett," by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.

We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the emblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

"If I don't, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in ernest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. 'This Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.

"'Well I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"'My name is Bunce.'

"'Not Horatio Bunce?'

"'Yes

"'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before."

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

"Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens - it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. "There is one thing which I will call your attention, "you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Susan Kennedy A Look at the Left's Response

For those who think that only Republicans are upset about Governor Schwarzenegger appointing a pro-abortion zealot and the former Executive Director of the California Democrat Party as his chief of staff, take a moment to read this little tidbit from the left.

Here's an exceprt from Phoblographer*

I certainly don't agree with calls for law banning anyone paid with taxpayer money from campaign work on the side. For most people lower than Kennedy, it's a necessary way to supplement meager salaries. And, frankly, a certain level of shared experience between the two sides of public service is necessary.

But on a substantive level, Kennedy doing this work? Please. She's a lifelong Democrat who has chosen to play for the wrong team. A team with a proven record of failure. How can it be worth it? For any of us?

Read the full post here.

John Madden Elected to Football Hall of Fame

Madden living a dream
Ex-coach expected a call but learned of Hall of Fame selection from TV
Ira Miller, Chronicle Staff Writer

John Madden is never at a loss for words, but he was close Saturday. He stood on a podium in a hotel ballroom, arms flying, waving, gesturing, talking not in complete thoughts but in stream of consciousness.

This was the essential Madden, the Everyman to football fans, trying to keep from losing it while explaining what it meant to be elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, 27 years after he coached his final game with the Oakland Raiders.

"I know as a coach that it's all about players," Madden said. "I firmly believe that. The game isn't about a lot of stuff on the outside. It's about players, and I had great players. ... They all made this possible. As a coach, if you ever start to think any other way than that, you're off base."

The Hall of Fame induction is scheduled for Aug. 6 in Canton, Ohio. Madden said he probably would choose Raiders' owner Al Davis or Madden's son, Mike, to make his presentation introduction. When Davis was inducted to the Hall of Fame in 1992, Madden made the presentation, but Davis may not be up to it physically to reciprocate.

Read the full story here.

John Madden was a great coach and all around super person; his focus and his attention was always on his players. I hope Al Davis will be healthy enough to do the induction presentation; it would be appropriate. As a Raiders fan, this about the only good thing that happened this year.

More Proof...

...Social liberals are usually just that, liberal.

Those who so often claim to be "moderate" Republicans, meaning they are socially liberal and fiscally conservative more often than not turn out to just be liberals. They will "hold the line" on fiscal matters for a while, but they are almost always the first to "compromise" when push comes to shove. Below is a letter written in 1998 signed by then-Brea Mayor Lynn Daucher opposing the repeal of the car tax. Two years later, by taking advantage of the blanket primary and seeking Democrat votes to win the Republican nomination, Ms. Daucher won an Orange County Assembly seat in 2000. Termed out at the end of 2006, Ms. Daucher is seeking the Republican nomination for the 34th Senate District. This time she will have to run in a closed primary and she will face Assemblyman Van Tran, a stalwart Republican and popular conservative. The letter by Ms. Daucher opposing the repeal of the car tax will not help her.

Even The Left Questions Reiner’s Socialized Preschool Scheme

Preschool Initiative's Misguided Approach
By Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times

Considering how hard it is to find prominent individuals with a selfless impulse toward public service, we shouldn't begrudge the film director Rob Reiner his efforts to expand preschool education in California.

But that's not to say that Reiner's Preschool for All initiative, which will appear on the June ballot as a constitutional amendment, is a good idea. On the contrary, it's another attempt at ballot-box budgeting featuring misleading PR and misguided pied-piper appeal.

I’ve posted several columns on OAF Blog concerning the socialized preschool initiative, for your reference they are:

Econ 101 - TNSTAAFL
Cal Chamber Opposes Preschool Initiative
Reason Foundation on Universal Preschool
Socialized Preschool Headed for California Ballot
Socialized Preschool: Where are the Democrats?
Marjie Lundstrom Lacks Education in Economics and Irony

There's Nothing Humane About This Abusive Law Suit

The Humane Society of the United States, a $99 million tax exempt organization, is suing the State of California in an attempt to deny chicken farmers the state sales tax exemption for the purchase farm equipment; an exemption that is available to all farmers in California (and should be extended to all forms of manufacturing). Bear in mind, unlike the Humane Society, poultry farmers do pay plenty in income and property taxes.

The Humane Society claims that the sales tax exemption should be denied to poultry farmers because state Board of Equalization regulations prohibit the sales tax exemption to those engaged in illegal activity - in this case the Humane Society claims animal abuse. Fair enough, if poultry farmers are breaking the law then charge them with a crime. But, the Humane Society knows better and instead they turn to the San Francisco Superior Court, seeking a liberal judge and hoping that judicial activism will trump the law so they can strike a blow to the poultry industry.

If They Don't Like It, They Should Compete in the Marketplace
The truth is poultry farmers are not breaking the law; the Humane Society simply does not approve of their legal farming operations. Given their assets and income of nearly $100 million the Humane Society could get into the business of chicken farming and compete, providing consumers a choice between their more costly "humane" eggs and other eggs. I suspect they know that the bulk of consumers do not care, and would buy the cheaper (and actually equally humane) eggs. Further, it would not make sense for the Humane Society to enter the poultry business because it is not what they do; I understand. But then, get the heck out of the business of telling those who actually farm poultry how to do their business.

Fighting the Battle on Multiple Fronts
I suspect it won't be long until some Democrat in the state Legislature introduces a bill at the request of the Humane Society to refuse the sales tax exemption to poultry farmers. The good news is that such an effort would require a 2/3 vote of the Legislature as a tax increase. Farmers should be happy to have Republicans in the Legislature to protect them from such heavy-handed tactics.

Harvesting Support From the Faaaaaar Left

Phil Angelides cleverly planned an announcement of support from a plethora a Chico’s Mayors and City Council members to coincide with the day that Steve Westly cleverly planned to campaign in the “backyard” of Mr. Angelides’ chief political hack Bob Mulholland. I applaud Mr. Angelides and his team for their adroit political maneuver.

However, I noticed among those listed as Angelides supporters were former Chico Mayor Michael McGinnis and former Council Member David Guzzetti. McGinnis and Guzzetti are the two comrades who organized fundraisers for the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) at Guzzetti’s old restaurant the Kramore Inn.

What next Mr. Angelides; endorsements from Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez?

California Teachers’ Association June Primary Endorsements

On January 28th the California Teachers’ Association, a labor union, released its’ endorsement list for the June Primary election in California. The labor union endorsed the following candidates:

Democrat Primary
Governor – Phil Angelides
Lt. Governor – John Garamendi
Attorney General – Rocky Delgadillo
Treasurer – Bill Lockyer
Board of Equalization Dist. 1 – Betty Yee
Board of Equalization Dist. 4 - Judy Chu

Republican Primary

Woops, there was no mention of any endorsements in the Republican primary election. Hmmm, I wonder… is that because the teachers’ union is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party? Their decision to only endorse in Democrat primaries is evidence that they behave more like an affiliate of the Democrat party than an organization that represents teachers of all political philosophies and party affiliations. Shameful!

Woolsey a Shameful Representative – Sheehan a Shameful Megalomaniac

One More Reason to Support Joe Nation

I do not live in the Bay Area, nor am I a Democrat. But, I would love to see center-left Assemblyman Joe Nation (right) defeat radical anti-American leftist Representative Lynn Woolsey in the Democrat primary for California's sixth congressional district.


Yesterday, Woolsey gave the disgraceful Cindy Sheehan (left) a ticket to sit in the gallery of House of Representatives during the President's State of the Union address. In her "look at me, look at me" fashion, Ms. Sheehan managed to get herself arrested for violating the House rules. Don't think for a moment that this megalomaniac didn't know she was creating a scene; or that she didn't know that she would be arrested if she refused to abide by the rules. That was her goal.

I have been blessed with three children, all of whom have at one time or another tried to gain attention by acting out in inappropriate ways (commonly called "child-like behavior"). I disciplined them and taught them better ways to gain attention. I have been rewarded by watching my three children grow into healthy and delightful people. Perhaps, Ms. Sheehan could benefit from a little old fashioned parenting.

(Pictured on the left) Woolsey's hatred of the Bush Administration and her left wing anger toward America has caused her to behave in disgraceful ways. Giving Ms. Sheehan her one ticket to the House gallery so that Sheehan could make a fool out of herself is just one more example. It is also one more reason why I hope Joe Nation wins that Democrat primary.

Truth in Advertising... Please!

This rant brought to you by the Sacramento Bee.

Once again, I went nuts reading this headline in the Sacramento Bee…

Westly: Free tuition for 2-year college

TNSTAAFL!
Free? According to the story, “Westly predicted that it would cost $100 million to $200 million to make community college degree programs free, depending on student enrollment.”

Who’s $100 million to $200 million? That’s right, yours! You, the taxpayer, will have to pay the bill. Not the student who benefits from the college education. Not the parents who want their child succeed in the marketplace. Not an employer who wants a better educated employee. You.

Truth in advertising would require the newspaper headline and Mr. Westly to correctly identify this proposal as a fully taxpayer subsidized community college program. I emphasize fully subsidized because the community college program is already massively subsidized - a student only pays approximatly $1,560 in tuition for a two year degree ($26 per unit x 60 units).

Buying Your Vote
Mr. Westly’s proposal proves one thing – he has already started stumbling over himself to compete with Phil Angelides for the title of big government liberal. As each mighty Lilliputian bids the other up in an effort to win the Democrat nomination, keep your hand on your wallet. After all, somebody has got to pay for all of this free stuff.

Representative Doolittle – Please Explain

According to the Associated Press, published in the San Jose Mercury News, Representative John Doolittle intervened on behalf of two Indian tribes who were clients of Jack Abramoff.

From the Mercury News, “GOP Rep. John Doolittle wrote Interior Secretary Gale Norton in June 2003 criticizing the Bush administration's response to a tribal government dispute involving the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa. In October 2003, Doolittle appealed in a letter to the secretary for quicker action for a Massachusetts tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoag, that was seeking federal recognition.

“Both tribes signed on with Abramoff's lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig, that year. Sac & Fox hired the firm in May, the Wampanoags in November. Neither tribe appears tied to Doolittle's rural Northern California district, and Doolittle is not on the House committee that handles Indian issues.”

According to the Sacramento Bee article, “In lodging a complaint against the closing of a casino, Doolittle appeared to contradict a career-long stance against gambling.

“Aides pointed to his opposition to gambling two months ago as an explanation for why Doolittle had signed a separate congressional letter aimed at blocking the Jena tribe of Choctaw Indians from opening a casino in Louisiana. Two of Abramoff's tribal clients viewed that casino as competition.

“With scrutiny of Doolittle's ties to Abramoff on the rise, his aides said he had signed the letter not to help Abramoff but because he opposed gambling.

“"It should come as no surprise that Congressman Doolittle would sign a letter opposing Indian gaming, since he has an established 25-year record of fighting against the expansion of all forms of gaming here in California and across the country," said Laura Blackann, Doolittle's communications director.”

I have no problem with candidates accepting money for re-election; and I believe principled people can accept a check from anyone and then go vote their conscience. I have defended Congressman Doolittle to anyone with whom I have discussed this issue because I believe him to be a principled man and a man of conviction. But, the letters cited in the AP article and the Sacramento Bee article are cause for concern. When an elected official does something out of character it raises questions. Those questions will have to be addressed to the public; it is my hope that there is a simple explanation.

This Is a Stickup I’m Running For Office – Give Me Your Money

Today the Assembly passed an “intent” version of Assemblywoman Loni Hancock’s taxpayer funded political campaigns bill, AB 583. The bill was stripped down to state the “intent” of the Legislature and then moved to the Senate by a vote of 47-31.

Rules, We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Rules
The reason the bill was stripped down to “intent” language was to remove the appropriation necessary to give taxpayer dollars to political candidates and to make the bill no longer an actual amendment to the Political Reform Act (PRA). Amendments to the PRA and an appropriation both require a 2/3 vote; a pesky little constitutional problem as Democrats see it. Realizing they couldn’t move AB 583 out of the Assembly before the “two-year bill” deadline (January 31st), Democrats stripped the bill down to “intent” language (thereby removing the appropriation and effectively no longer amending the PRA) allowing the bill to pass by a simple majority vote. The purpose of moving a bill in this fashion is to bypass those pesky rules and that pesky constitution; nobody believes that the bill will not have its’ language restored in the Senate. The bill will die an appropriate death in the upper house, but moving the “intent” language keeps the bill “in play;” so much for following the rules, or at least the spirit of the rules.

Public Financing is a Bad Idea
I commend your attention to two previous posts in this forum: First, Nurses’ Union - A Shameful and Blatant Political Power Grab; and second, Political and Campaign Finance Reform.

I also found the commentary, Soggy Bucks by Jerry Davis at CaliCapia amusing.

"Windfall" Profit Penalty Killed on Assembly Floor

AB 673 (Klehs), an attempt to punish California’s oil producers, failed today on the Assembly Floor. The final vote is yet to be determined because the bill is currently “on call.” But, given the lack of “aye” votes on the first ballot and the fact that this tax increase requires a 2/3 vote of the Assembly, it is safe to declare that this bad idea is dead… for now.

Where Have All the Children Gone?

The Impact of Liberalism

The recent criticism of Assembly Public Safety Committee Chairman Mark Leno caused me to think about a story from last year; a story about San Francisco and the dwindling number of children in the city by the bay.

An Exodus of Children
In March of 2005 the San Francisco Chronicle carried a story about Mayor Gavin Newsom’s efforts to stem the exodus of families with children from San Francisco. According to the 2000 census San Francisco’s child population is about 14.5% of the city’s population – that is about half of the average for cities across the state and the nation. In response to the dwindling population, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom formed a council to address the underlying issues that drive families with children away from the city.

A Digression
The liberal left has an insatiable appetite to answer every problem by forming a government council or commission to "study" the problem and then propose more government spending in an effort to implement "solutions" identified by the government council or commission. I remember when the state of California decided to form a commission on families with the original intent to address issues that were contributing to the breakdown of the nuclear family. It took the commission months to even define what constitutes a family – and the final definition was so broad that it would have included two members of the same college fraternity. Disgusted by the process, Assemblyman Tim Leslie resigned from the state commission.

Of Course Families with Children Are Fleeing
Perhaps if San Francisco wants to better understand why families with children have fled the city and why families with children refuse to move into the city, they could take a moment to meet Assemblyman Mark Leno. It has become fashionable to criticize Mr. Leno for his avid protection of perverts who possess child pornography and criminals in general. The criticism is appropriate and accurate; but my point is a little broader.

Mark Leno is not an aberration; he is typical of those who make up the political class in San Francisco. The same political class that has brought the people of San Francisco (for example) the Bay to Breakers run (pictured on the right) where hundreds (if not thousands) of people run around the city in the nude, and the San Francisco gay rights parade. It is a city where “tolerance” of anything sexual is acceptable, and “intolerance” for the norms of society is celebrated. As a father, I am hesitant to take my children to San Francisco and I can’t even imagine permenantly moving them into the city which, due to its’ extremist political class, has become a cesspool of perversion.

Lois Capps - U.S. Term Limits Headed for a Showdown?

When Rep. Lois Capps Fails to Keep Her Promise Will U.S. Term Limits Care?

Three terms, that’s what she promised in 1998. Of course, when Lois Capps made that promise everyone knew she didn’t mean it; everyone except U.S. Term Limits. It was the financing from U.S. Term Limits that helped Lois Capps defeat Republican Tom Bordonaro.

Tom Bordonaro, a conservative, supported term limits, but refused to sign a pledge to self limit. Lois Capps did not, and does not, believe in term limits, but signed the pledge by U.S. Term Limits stating at the time that she’d likely not run for a fourth term due to her age.

It has been six years - three terms; will Lois Capps keep her promise? If she doesn’t will U.S. Term Limits help defeat her? In 2000 U.S. Term Limits spent some where in the vicinity of $1 million going after Republican George Nethercutt for breaking his pledge. Allowing Lois Capps to slide by after her cynical signing of the term limits pledge will leave a bad taste in the mouth of California Republicans who remember very well how U.S. Term Limits delivered an important victory to the Democrats in 1998.

Political and Campaign Finance Reform

Political reform again in vogue, but history bodes ill for 'clean money'
By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist

“The political reformers term their current cause "clean money" - providing public funds to candidates if they agree to limit spending to the amounts provided, modeled after fairly new programs in a couple of other states.

“At least (Assemblymember) Hancock and her allies are sincere, if misguided. The California Nurses Association, however, is being cynical by cherry-picking portions of her measure, and the "clean money" title, for its new ballot initiative… (emphasis added)

“It's been said before, but bears repeating: The only "reform" that makes sense is complete and immediate disclosure of contributions, with draconian penalties for obscuring their amounts or sources, then letting the chips fall where they may as voters are told who's giving to whom.”

Read the full article here.

Dan Walters is correct; I wrote a very similar commentary earlier this week which can be read here.

Getting It Right

From today's Roundup...

Guess who may get involved in California's next clemency hearing? No less than former special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, according to the Bee. "Starr could not be reached for comment Thursday. An ACLU press release said Starr is getting involved in the Morales case because the condemned inmate "immediately took responsibility for his actions, was distraught with remorse and has made impressive and consistent efforts to atone for his crime while in prison."

See Bill? All you had to do was take some responsibility.

The Roundup commentary (See Bill?...) is absolutely true - they get it right! Had President Clinton actually just admitted to his affairs and not perjured himself in sworn testimony, he never would have been impeached. I also think that while most people would have been disgusted by the President having sex with an intern in the oval office, they would have probably forgiven a truly repentant President. Bottom line, Bill Clinton's scandalous behavior was not the cause of his impeachment; it was his unwillingness to take responsibility for that behavior that led him to commit felony perjury in a court of law. I don't know if the Roundup staff realized it, but what they wrote is absolutely correct.

Spotted Under the Dome

Former U.S. Representative Dick Gephardt in the capitol today - when I saw him he was ducking in the Senate Pro Tempore Don Perata's office. Anybody know what Mr. Gephardt was doing in town? Is he a player in the 2008 Democrat presidential primary? Too bad he moved so far to the left during his years in the House - when he first arrived on Capitol Hill he was a good vote for life.

Battle of the Lilliputians

State Controller Steve Westly is launching his first television ads in his bid for the Democrat nomination for governor. Reportedly, his ads will air in Chico. This is funny, because Chico is home to Jane Dolan's husband Bob Mulholland. Bob Mulholland is also, by the way, a dirty tricks specialist for the California Democrat party and a senior advisor to gubernatorial wannabe Phil Angelides. I am sure the "small market test" of Mr. Westly's campaign message in the back yard of Mr. Angelides' chief advisor was no accident. I give credit to Mr. Westly and Garry South for this stunt. So starts the battle of the Lilliputians.

Torn Between Two Lovers
Having cast himself as a "pro-business moderate" Steve Westly's biggest challenge will be capturing the base of Democrats in the party primary election in June. To emerge victorious, he will have to convince party loyalists that he has not abandoned his very liberal roots without destroying his chances of appealing to moderate voters in the November general election.

Phil Angelides' credentials as a card-carrying leftwing looney are totally in tact. He not only countenanced the abhorrent behavior of Bob Mulholland during his stint as Democrat party chairman, he has brought his buddy "Baghdad" Bob onto the campaign - that alone makes him good with party activists. The challenge Angelides faces is not winning the affection of party loyalists; rather it will be in convincing party financiers that he can actually win in November.

The Remaking of Westly
Make no mistake about the liberal credentials of Steve Westly. His transformation from a leftist Jimmy Carter delegate to "moderate" eBay business executive was one that occurred not by choice, but instead due to the thwarting of Mr. Westly's political ambitions by former governor Jerry Brown.

As a young man, just 24 years old, Steve Westly was elected Treasurer of the California Democrat Party (CDP); he advanced steadily serving as the Northern California party chairman, and later party vice chairman. Westly was in line to be party chairman of the nations' most liberal state Democrat party, and he was counting on his chairmanship to launch his career in elective office.

But, a funny thing happened on the way to the bank; Jerry Brown decided that he needed to reinvent his political career. Joined by the party's moneyed interests, Jerry Brown challenged Westly for control of the CDP. Westly appealed to party activists and ran to the left of Jerry Brown, but with the support of establishment party money Brown beat Westly.

After losing the bid for party chairman Steve Westly retreated to his alma mater Stanford to teach at the graduate business school. Through contacts he was able to be involved in some high tech startups, and eventually landed with a little company called eBay where he made his $100 million fortune.

With money in hand and no longer a need for the gritty work of rubbing elbows with party activists, Westly has been able to jumpstart his dream of running for public office. His independence from the party structure has allowed him to portray himself as a moderate; but, in doing so he also runs the risk of losing his own party nomination.

It is interesting that party moderates defeated Steve Westly in his first path to elective office, and now it appears that liberal party activists might prove to be the roadblock on this new path.