On May 3rd, I narrowly missed out on making the runoff for San Antonio City Council District 6 (<2% out of 1st).  To make matters worse, the outcome yielded one of the most untenable runoff scenarios: two candidates from the far left. 

One is a progressive, while the other is an outright socialist.

There are a couple noteworthy distinctions though.  The progressive appears more susceptible to cronyism, and socialists on the local level (at least here in San Antonio) are a different animal than they appear to be nationally.

The progressive has the endorsement of the outgoing councilwoman, who joined 26 others in running for mayor.  Her council colleagues who were also on the ballot could safely be referred to as corporatist. 

In recent years my group InfuseSA has been able to draw several lines between political donors, and votes favoring their respective interests.  The progressive in this runoff seems poised to assume that mantle.

For example, she reportedly has a “nuanced” view of taxpayer-funding for a proposed multi-billion dollar sports and entertainment district.  It’s not a stretch to say that, if this project gets the greenlight, many of the builders, contractors’, et al will appear in campaign finance reports.

Worse yet, multiple attendees (including another candidate) alleged that she used an earpiece in one of our forums.  She can also be seen constantly tapping her smartwatch.  One could be forgiven for saying that she was literally having her strings pulled.

One of those candidates who noticed a marked improvement in the progressive’s forum performances is the socialist in the runoff.

When I met with him after the election, I told him his connection to the Democratic Socialists of America gave me serious pause.  “How strong is that bond?” I asked.  “I’m all in for ‘Medicare for All’, etc.”

Fortunately, given the nature of municipal government, much of that is irrelevant.  His boss, a socialist currently on council, gives me a degree of confidence in that.

Two years ago, she voted against eminent-domaining a family’s business away from them for another revenue-generating party.  She opposed dislodging apartment residents for a new stadium for our Double AA baseball team.  All but one of her colleagues voted for those items. 

Perhaps most shockingly, she was one of only two to push back on a suggestion to raise the city’s property tax rate to plug a looming fiscal deficit.  Never in the name of Bernie Sanders did I imagine siding this much with a socialist.
To be sure, there will be many times her protégé and I will be on opposite sides. 

Regardless of the aforementioned deficit, the socialist told the San Antonio Express-News in our candidate interview that paying for travel to other states for abortion is just a “drop in the bucket” of our city’s budget. 

Despite all the evidence that it’s counterproductive, he believes taxpayers should fund more ‘affordable’ housing construction.  He favors continued taxpayer funding of preschool regardless of shaky results for such programs.

A while back I had dinner with a local activist.  The topic turned to one of those corporatist mayoral candidates and the socialist on the council.  “Who is the lesser of two evils?”

The activist felt more favorable votes could be had from the corporatist.  I countered that, while that may be true, you could still get some from the socialist.  Plus, you’d more likely know, in all sincerity, where they stand.

In the arena of ideas, a proponent of freedom could certainly get the best of someone who believes in more state control.  That’s generally a scenario where any subsequent fruit borne would be in the long-run. 

The benefits of political backscratching, schmoozing, etc. would be more short-term. 
​
That’s the choice we seem to be faced with in this runoff.

I met Chase Oliver, the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, a few months ago here in San Antonio.  My one question for him was how would he tamp down inflation.  He responded by saying he’d cut government spending and pare down the debt/deficits. 

That was the right answer to a different question. 

His campaign website offers a little more clarity.  He would stop “printing money from thin air” to “significantly reduce the money supply.”  Closer, but not quite there.  This is more or less how the rest of his economic platform is.    

Strictly speaking, inflation is caused by currency devaluation.  By definition, the greater the quantity of a particular item, the less valuable each individual item is.  In that context, he’s onto something.  But dollars are a different animal.  They’re simply a measurement. 

If I have a growing number of quart-size Pyrex containers, that doesn’t mean the cups or liters marked within change in size.  Same thing with the dollar. 

History has proven well for presidents (JFK, Reagan, Clinton) who come out explicitly for a strong, or at least stable dollar.  It would be ideal if he did same.  As it is, he arguably ties inflation too closely to fiscal policy, which itself is missing a big chunk on his website. 

Not once are “income taxes” mentioned.  Not to cut them, not to streamline them, much less to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the IRS altogether.  No one is under the illusion that the latter could be done tomorrow, but it’s at least the ultimate goal.

Now, former President Donald Trump has floated the idea of completely replacing the income tax with his favorite political weapon; tariffs.  To his credit, one bright spot of Mr. Oliver’s campaign is his call to “immediately end all tariffs.” 

I will always advocate for same, and to leverage specialization around the world for the benefit of Americans.  But tariffs are a consumption tax, and If I’m pressed to choose between them or a tax on work, I’ll go with them. 
In an otherwise solid appearance on CSPAN, he elaborated on his stance on taxes and the other side of the fiscal ledger; spending. 

“To reduce taxes as much as we can” he said, “we have to reduce the size and scope of government.  Otherwise, we’ll create the hidden tax of inflation where government will print money to cover the cost.”

First of all, Uncle Sam doesn’t cover his bills by printing money; he does it by borrowing. 

As undesirable as that is, it takes a backseat to the sheer volume of earnings and savings that the government takes from citizens in taxes.  Those should be reduced as much and as soon as possible with no preconditions.

Moreover, he appears to subscribe to the belief that lower taxes necessarily mean lower tax revenues.  Adherents to this view can look to history again, and see that the opposite generally happens.  At that point the bonus opportunity arises to slash taxes even further. 

Beyond that, his spending cut proposals are vague and insufficient.  He wants to “reduce spending to prepandemic levels to balance the budget.”  Some of that would likely result from his goal of reining in foreign intervention by the Pentagon.

However, though he has addressed it on the stump, there’s no mention on his website about the biggest driver of federal spending: entitlements.

Also missing is a stout defense of the supply side.  The only time it makes an appearance is as yet another weapon to fight inflation.

We could split hairs on “demand exceeding supply” causing inflation, as he asserts.  I grew up in the late 1970s hearing the phrase “too many dollars chasing too few goods.”  But then as now, as pointed out earlier, sustained inflation is caused by one thing; currency devaluation. 

The supply issues that contributed to higher prices in recent years were most assuredly caused by the destructive lockdowns.  They will heal when supply chains are put back together, whether globally, domestically, or a hybrid.  Production costs will come down.  Subsequently, so will consumer prices.

One could be forgiven for getting the two causes of high prices jumbled together.  But when he says “increased productivity and more efficient supply” can ease inflation on the one hand, but “supply-side policies don’t curb inflation” on the other, one is left wondering which is it?

I shouldn’t be left scratching my head this much.

When I first voted for a libertarian (Harry Browne for president in 2000), I did so because his stance on various issues was clear, and his proposals were ambitious.  I don’t think I even knew he was a libertarian. 
​
At least on economic policy, I’m not getting the same vibe here in 2024.

​One of the great movies of the 1990s was Paul Thomas Anderson’s “Boogie Nights,” the 1997 flick about the porn industry of the late 1970s/early 1980s. 

It’s always been a bit conflicting though, when you believe that the vast majority of nudity/sex we see in the movies is unnecessary.  The point can be made without witnessing the exhibitionism on camera, and being a party to the voyeurism behind it. 

A similar dilemma comes to mind with Sarah Stogner.

She’s running for the republican nomination for Texas Railroad Commissioner.  With “primary regulatory jurisdiction,” this position holds considerable sway over the most Lone Star of industries: oil and gas. 

She does appear to have the chops for the gig.

According to her campaign website, her law firm has helped “operators, service companies and landowners in complex legal disputes … for almost 15 years.”  Apparently however, she doesn’t believe those credentials are bringing her campaign due attention.

Last week it released a brief, dimly-lit video of her riding an oil pumpjack like a horse, but with barely any clothes on.  Needless to say, this shocked political observers, so much so that the San Antonio Express-News (SAEN) editorial board rescinded their endorsement of her.

And therein lies our quandary.

The SAEN asserts that “it’s an indictment of these times that a candidate would appeal to voters in such a way” when “we expect candidates for public office to model civil discourse.”  Point taken.

However, it does beg the question; do they not hold themselves to similar journalistic standards?  If so, why link the video on their endorsement withdrawal?  Clickbait?  That’s almost beside the point.

Being a father of four daughters, it might make one of us (Baecker) uncomfortable enough if one of the girls posted a “birthday suit” picture on Instagram for their birthday, as Ms. Stogner also did.  To so overtly leverage their sexuality for a political campaign would bring on heartburn. 

It’s a bit hypocritical though, when the SAEN and other media outlets endorse politicians who actually DO whore themselves out to get/stay elected.  By self-funding, it’s these very candidates that Ms. Stogner is trying to expose. 

While she’s using the “assets” she has, others, aided by their media enablers, campaign on giving freebies courtesy of an involuntary donor; the taxpayer.

Subsequent redistribution to cronies ranges from the more egregious hand-outs to industries like renewable energy, to tariff-supported trade “losers.”  There’s also the more subtle, like assistance nominally intended for the poor. 

The result is invariably to hook “beneficiaries” on government dependance, tip the scales against other market competitors, and enrich non-value-creating activists. 

But Sarah Stogner “disgraceful(ly)” lacks “decorum worthy of the public’s trust?”  Gotcha.

Seasoned politicos were also stunned when Donald Trump got elected, which itself was partly due to his capitalizing on popular anger about this establishment blind-spot.  More than one small-L libertarian we know expressly voted for him to “go be a wrecking ball” against it. 

If Ms. Stogner prevails next Tuesday (this is not an endorsement of her candidacy), or even comes close, it might not be the last time we see someone clad only in pasties and undies if it alerts voters to the real political prostitutes in our midst.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. 

Freedom-lovers could be forgiven if they blushed a little when Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen characterized President Joe Biden’s economic policy as “modern supply-side” while speaking to the World Economic Forum recently. 

The blood then likely rushed out of their faces when they caught a whiff of the exhaust fumes.

Broadly speaking, supply-side economics revolves around the ability to produce, free of excessive rules and regulations, and without fear of having subsequent earnings taken by government.  It also means that income has solid value, unmolested by currency manipulation. 

It does not include government as a major player.  Granting it an outsized presence is like putting Chris Farley on equal footing with Patrick Swayze at Chippendales tryouts. 

The state has already damaged the areas Secretary Yellen indicated it wants to bolster.

Going back at least a generation to Hillary Clinton’s social demotion of women who “baked cookies” while staying at home with their children, there’s been this assumption that if only there was “affordable” child care, they could achieve more independence by getting a job. 

Regardless of whether or not elites actually suffer from this delusion, their prescriptions to remedy this supposed problem makes matters worse. 

First, when they talk about increasing “access,” they typically mean doling out taxpayer-funded assistance.  This is in addition to the child-care credits available when we file income taxes.  Actual access already exists by virtue of the mere presence of child-care centers/preschools.

The very money politicians and bureaucrats throw at it causes prices to rise artificially.  Providers see the gravy coming at no direct expense to parents.  This phenomenon is also found in education, another area they want to help … more. 

Plus, the regulations already in place increase compliance costs. 

If and when this all becomes too much for local operators, the temptation naturally grows to either close their doors, or sell to a larger enterprise.  The larger the company, the more ability it has to absorb such costs.

The cynic would say politicos are aware of this prospect.  Big business is more amenable, and open to the likelihood of the resulting regulatory capture.  It secures their position in the marketplace at the expense of the smaller operations they might very well gobble up.

Those less cynical give them the benefit of the doubt that they are simply clueless, slim as their experience is in the real world they’re attempting to regulate.  Their lofty academic credentials provide them a cocoon of obliviousness. 

There’s a reason this industry is found in the upper echelon of Mark J. Perry’s inflation graph. 

Secretary Yellen raises more eyebrows when she claims that “achieving a high topline growth number … is unsustainable.”  History says otherwise, as we experienced just such growth during the last two decades of the 20th century, when the economy almost doubled in size. 

We went out on a bang largely because of advances in computing and the commercialization of the internet.  In the eyes of her fellow travelers however, that’s a problem. 

Citing the “pandemic-induced surge in telework,” hastened by the government shutdowns, she relays a “concern” that “productivity growth” stemming from “technological advancement … may exacerbate, rather than mitigate, inequality.”

When translated into policy, this attitude throws a wet blanket on the economy.  Just the signal it sends has a dampening effect on the market.  The more-rigid economic pie they’re willing to live with might explain why growth was underwhelming the last time they held power.

Their policy preferences are self-fulfilling prophecies.

In truth, growth this whole century hasn’t been anything to write home about.  Compared to the 80s/90s boom, the economy has grown by less than half.  One not-insignificant difference between the two periods is dollar policy.

Whereas Presidents Reagan and Clinton supported a strong dollar, no president this century has been much more than lukewarm in their stance.  Some have outright preferred a weaker greenback.

Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem likely to change. 

When investors become less certain of the value of the return they’ll get, they commit less to growing, newer industries.  Fewer, more-efficient machines come along.  Productivity stagnates. 

Instead, they park a greater portion of their resources in safer, already-established assets, attempting to guard against the deterioration of the currency. 

That’s why the value of something so ordinary as the roof over our heads is susceptible to occasional surges.  It’s why we see increasing prices for energy. 

Incidentally, if “curbing CO2 emissions” is a genuine concern of theirs, they’re on the right path.  A weaker dollar is what spurred the fracking technology that unlocked the natural gas that contributed to the precipitous drop in emissions in recent years. 

Also, it arguably causes less “environmental damage” than the politically popular renewables.  Alas, this doesn’t fit the narrative. 

Viewed in this light, it’s somewhat unsurprising Secretary Yellen looks toward infrastructure (however it’s defined these days) as a new source of productivity.  The self-awareness is almost as refreshing as the likely results are depressing.

The fact that hardly any pol in D.C. has the courage to slash Uncle Sam’s seizure of private earnings close to the new “global minimum” of 15% all but makes that point irrelevant.  Nevermind that the U.S. et al strong-armed other countries to take more from their citizens to get to that level. 
​
In other words, actually discouraging them from supplying.

​The enactment of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is dependent upon a couple variables.  The first is theory.

In a perfect world, a UBI would replace all other federal welfare spending programs.  Adults would be given a monthly stipend from the government.  Rather than depend on various programs, such as for food aid, health insurance, etc. they would be free to take care of their needs as they see fit, on an individual basis.

The bureaucracy that runs and maintains these programs would be folded in favor of a check-cutting operation akin to that of social security.  The potential savings could amount to more than half of current federal government spending. 
There’s also the intangible benefit of a market working more efficiently.

In the real world however, the aforementioned savings translate into special interests, starting with 535 federal legislators in the U.S. Congress.

In the traditional sense, they’re job is simply to represent their districts’/states’ interests in the federal government, giving voice to a diverse set of American voices from coast to coast, Rio Grande to the Arctic.

In reality, with almost $7T in annual spending and 10s of 1000s of pages in the federal register, they’ve morphed into “getting things done” puppets.  They need to be seen as dispensing favors to this group or that.  If there is less to “do,” or less taxpayer revenue to dole out, they would likely feel useless, unneeded.  The prospect is no doubt untenable to some.

Then there’s the bureaucracy, staffed with 1000s of civilian employees who have jobs on the line.  The inherent nature of government expects less of them given the fact that it will never “go out of business” due to lack of competition, or profit-seeking.  That makes it too cushy of a gig to give up without a fight.

Finally there are the nominal beneficiaries of these programs, represented most vocally through various lobbying groups. 

Though those that are actually dependent on federal welfare programs might reasonably be expected to protest the programs’ demise, so would their advocates.  The reason for these activists’ 9-5 existence is lobbying not only for these programs’ continuation, but many times their expansion.

This is not to exclude all the state and local level agitators reluctant to see the federal gravy train shut or slowed down.  One ostensible principle put forth by these factions is that “we’re all Americans, and should therefore take care of each other collectively, from rich states to poor states.”

There are yet other, countervailing principles at work.

While it’s true that a UBI has garnered support from some conservative corners of the debate, it is predicated on the notion that the responsibilities of the federal government are accepted as-is.  Moreover, to one degree or another, it should ‘take care’ of its citizens.

Not everyone accepts this precept. 

Some reject this notion for multiple reasons: recipients do not have to work for it, it comes courtesy of a faceless bureaucracy, it robs them of the incentive to invest in themselves, work, save, etc.

Plus, there are multiple non-profit, private charities in that arena, who arguably do as good, if not a better job.  These charities are funded by voluntary donations, a fact that could lead to a compromise in the public sphere.

The operations of the federal government are largely funded by taxes on income and investment gains.  By definition, these levies discourage these optimal, beneficial behaviors. 

Society progresses, and people flourish, when they work, when they find a match for their passions and/or skills.  They are productive.  When they save a portion of their disposable income, some of that finds its way into the hands of those of us who have ideas for new or improved products. 

These flow back into the hands of consumers who then utilize them to make their lives easier, frequently saving them time, which in turn can find its way back into (more) productive ventures.  It’s a virtuous cycle …

… when unimpeded by obstacles such as taxation.  

To compound matters, progressive taxation tends to fall disproportionately on those who are most productive (as measured by the marketable value of respective skillsets), more able to save and keep this cycle going.  Of the various types of taxation, the ones we’d ideally frown most on are those that disincentivize the behaviors/habits society most benefits from.

That leaves consumption. 

There is the mistaken notion that consumer expenditures “drive economic growth.”  This is likely due to how Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is reported.  More than two-thirds of it is chalked up to us buying stuff. 

Consumption is literally the destruction of all that came before it.  It’s the end of the production process.  Destroying something being labeled as growth is the equivalent to the popular misconception that WWII brought us out of the Great Depression.

Alas, we do it.  After all, we’re Americans.  Part of our trade deficit is due to our preference to buy more than we save (hence the foreign direct investment which fills the gap).  We’re going to buy stuff.  Only an exorbitant level of sales tax will stop us from doing so. 
​
If we want to move forward with a UBI, repealing the 16th amendment is a crucial step.  If we want to move forward as a society, the aforementioned government programs would go away with no replacement whatsoever.

“Dad, I regret ever introducing you to that show.” 

So said my seventeen-year-old recently.  Some day she might just accept it, and give me “Great British Bake Off” paraphernalia for my birthday like her sisters did a few weeks ago.

She said she’d watch the new season with me, but that has yet to materialize.  Oh well.  Maybe she’ll join me before the finale drops.  Her and her sisters would learn about more than merely baking.

Being young ladies today, I would hope the first thing they pick up is a lesson in confidence, something series (“season,” in Brit-speak) 4 finalist Ruby Tandoh sadly, inexplicably seemed to lack.

Despite winning “Star Baker” (best overall for an episode) three times, a feat shared by only a handful of other GBBO contestants, she also seemed to shed more tears than any other. 

She was always doubting herself, approaching judgments “looking forlorn,” as former judge Mary Berry once said to her.  Always prefacing with “this is wrong, that’s off,” etc. 

It’s one thing to hold yourself to high standards.  It’s quite another to expect the worst without appearing to hope for the best.  It almost defeats the purpose.  Why continue on?  The anxiety would seem unbearable.

A similar mentality weighed on four-time SB and series 10 finalist Steph Blackwell, whose mother implored her to “start believing in herself.”  Being so cursed would have crushed the victor of her final, David Atherton. 

He is the only series champion to never win SB.  In fact, he went full Susan Lucci and came in second in the “Technical” (the only challenge unknown to bakers before each episode) five times before eventually winning.

Like many contenders over the show’s twelve-year run, he used humor to deal with continually falling short: “Second … again.  I repel first.”  “Finally got first place.  Just eight tries.” 

Laughing is a much more enjoyable way of dealing with stress than sadness, or anger.  There’s enough of that on “Hell’s Kitchen.”

After all, baking like this is presumably an escape. 

For series 9 baker Terry Hartill, it “filled that void” of “massive loss” after his wife died of cancer.  In her tearful exit (many are), series 10 alumnus Priya O’Shea recalled how she was “just gonna do the things I enjoy” when she left her job as a marketing consultant.  “You can’t go wrong.”

Still others simply want to see how they measure up against amateur bakers.  As the show grew in popularity, those applicants got better and better.  This led, perhaps unsurprisingly, to more plaudits.

For series’ 1-7, judge Paul Hollywood extended the coveted “Hollywood Handshake” for a mere eleven bakes.  That was nearly matched in series 8 alone.

Not only were three given out in the “Signature” one week, but in one “Showstopper,” Hollywood had eventual finalist Steven Carter-Bailey take his place at the judging table due to his “ridiculous”ly good “coloured-bread sculpture.” 
Then the dam burst.

Among the twelve handshakes scattered throughout series 9, an unprecedented two were handed out during the “Cake Week” SS.  “I’m disappointed with myself,” Hollywood later quipped. 

But as he indicated amidst this deluge, when the level of quality is “FAR better,” the praise is proportionate.  After adjusting to the new reality, he “raise(d) the bar” for ensuing series’.  Bakers would have to “push the boat out” farther.
This is all to the better, both in baking and in general. 

We all benefit when a few in this field or that keep testing the limits of what’s possible.  It’s how society progresses, how day-to-day life gets a little bit easier, while freeing up time for these additional pursuits.  

For GBBO, those floodgates were arguably kicked open by a champion who declared she was “never ever gonna put boundaries on (herself) ever again.”

There’s a reason why Nadiya Hussain’s series 6, and its final, were two of the most highly rated, respectively, in the show’s history.

For one, Ian Cumming and Tamal Ray joined her to produce arguably the most flawless SS ever.  “The best-tasting final we’ve ever had,” as proclaimed by Hollywood, has yet to be eclipsed. 

But there was also a build-up, as Nadiya struggled early on.

While Cumming was racking up SBs (three straight), she was finishing at the back of the pack on Technicals.   So surprised she seemed to finally win one in week 5, she waived her hand sheepishly to claim credit. 

“My kids and my husband are going to be so proud.  It’s weird because I’m never proud of myself.”  And right she was.

After her daughter charmingly listed all the kinds of cakes she liked in the family snapshot of the finale, her husband oozed support and respect for her.  It was eminently endearing. 

When your spouse tells you how “amazing you are,” and how “proud” he is of you, the sky is the limit.

He backed it up almost immediately when they moved to the London area where she’s “(made) a career out of” it.  She was even asked to make a birthday cake for Queen Elizabeth II.

The useful takeaways from this show are endless.

It’s not that I don’t watch other things.  The girls usually scatter anyway when I put on Maiden or Metallica, or even “Ozark” or “Better Call Saul.”  GBBO though, is my anchor show, when I’m winding down for the day or whatnot.
 
The purity of it, the honesty of the participants, the intense competition, the absence of manufactured drama … nothing compares to it.
​
There are many worse ways to kill time.

In a recent discussion with a group of principled, politically astute folks, the subject of property taxes came up.  More specifically, protesting them.  One of them felt it was his duty to do so.  Needless to say, there was some animosity in the room.

The topic is oftentimes hotter than the Texas sun this time of year.

A few days later, Councilmen John Courage (D9) and Clayton Perry (D10) proposed raising the homestead exemption to 5%, from the current .01%.  It was voted down.    

Our energies are being misallocated here.  These anecdotes point to why the whole property tax system should be uprooted and tossed aside. 

The first problem is with the way it is constructed.

While there are various exemptions homeowners can utilize to lower their respective bills, the one the councilmen were trying to increase is the only one available to all.  This fundamental unfairness is not without consequences.

New district 1 councilman Mario Bravo implied that the city can only afford to “protect senior citizens” with exemptions.  That “protection” though, sometimes costs non-senior households four times as much in taxes.

If some of the un-“protected” bolt city limits, those who remain face the possibility of a rate hike to make up for the subsequent shortfall.  Or, corporate landlords scoop up the abandoned houses, consolidating home ownership in fewer, bigger hands that can easily afford a higher bill.

No one would quarrel with helping seniors, or veterans for that matter, the other main beneficiary of current exemptions.  Personal contributions to programs run by groups like the United Way, or various religious organizations, or even senior discounts show as much.

But picking winners and losers via property taxes breeds resentment, and probably explains why some council members promote workshops to help citizens dispute their bill. 

However, this contributes to the next point of contention.    

We certainly don’t begrudge citizens’ efforts to minimize how much government plunders from them.  This is especially the case when the tax assessor’s appraised value is out of whack with private market estimates.

To their credit, these protesters are arguably more in-tune with the odiousness of this racket than the vast majority who have their mortgage lender escrow it for them.

But we wonder if citizens expend the same time and energy objecting to the tax itself.  If not, protesting it arguably justifies its existence, and the millions of dollars the county spends to collect it.  

In practice, the property tax is as detrimental as the income tax.  Both disincentivize and erode the ability to save and invest, the sole acts which foster the prosperity we all enjoy.

Also, whereas you could lose your freedom for not paying tax on your income, you could lose your home for not ponying up on your property.  And the cut for public schools, the only one bigger than that of the city, arguably skews K-12 education. 

Likewise, given how easy it is to punch up our respective bills, it compromises our privacy.

It doesn’t have to be this way.  A consumption tax is less distorting, less discriminating, and less intrusive.

The first and last gripe you’ll hear about it is that it’s “regressive,” meaning the lower someone’s income, the higher the effective tax they pay when purchasing non-necessities. 

But that essentially implies that consumers are entitled to that third T.V., or that drum set, or that boat, etc.

The second counter-argument is that consumption powers the economy, and therefore we can’t discourage it.  That is the height of misinformation perpetuated by the media.  Think about it.

When you consume something, you literally chip away, or outright destroy the value that it embodied.  Consumption ends production.  Moreover, you don’t have the former without the latter.  If we don’t produce, we don’t consume.

An extra $1.50 paid in tax on that sixth pair of $150 shoes could almost make up what the city would lose if it stopped discouraging San Antonians from building wealth.  But that hike probably wouldn’t even be necessary.

People spend when they’re happy.  It’s one byproduct of landing a new job, or getting promoted.  Same for the business owner when, after a lot of work and investment, their venture succeeds enough to hire that new employee.  It’s a virtuous cycle.

They’ve even invented a phrase for shopping sprees when people are sad; “retail therapy.” 

We’re Americans.  We like to buy stuff, so much so that we rent storage space for our extra stuff.  That’s not going to change, and can only be enhanced when people don’t feel like they’re being looted involuntarily.

Combine that with clearing out some of the regulatory thicket that slows down growth, and rightsizing the expenditure side of the city ledger, and tax rates wouldn’t have to go up on the toys we want. 

Politicos and entrenched interests will naturally decry this for one reason or another.  That’s to be expected since their livelihood depends in part on a misplaced confidence that they can manage citizens’ resources better than they who earned it.

We must push them to do the right thing first (abolish the property tax), adjust accordingly, and call them out when they spin it as a false choice between that and “hav(ing) sidewalks.”
===
Denise Gutierrez-Homer was an interior design and decorative artist for 25 years, is a partner in a family real estate firm, and ran for San Antonio Mayor in Spring 2021.  Christopher E. Baecker works in the energy industry, teaches college economics, and ran for city council in the same.  She is Vice President of InfuseSA, where he is Policy Director. 

Concerts are back!  It’s the somewhat less exciting news however, that has my attention: so is new music.

My buddies and I are set to see Megadeth/Lamb of God/Hatebreed, and Testament/Exodus/Death Angel, both rescheduled from last year, with bolstered lineups.  The mighty Obituary is also going out sandwiched between longtime Ozzy guitarist Zakk Wylde’s Black Label Society, and veterans Prong. 

One of the last shows I saw before the pandemic was Iron Maiden’s “Legacy of the Beast.”  They’re making a noteworthy splash of their own soon: the release of their 17th studio album “Senjutsu.”

To say bands like these, still blasting away, are an inspiration would be an understatement. 

When we see Maiden out supporting “Senjutsu,” drummer Nicko McBrain will be blowing out 70 birthday candles.  It’s mind-boggling!  A new album is just as impressive to me.

When some bands reach this point in their career, they don’t “see a reason” to record new music.  Their catalogues are plenty massive to support a week’s worth of unique setlists. 

And that’s cool.  Fans will still pay top dollar to see their favorite tunes played by (mostly) those who recorded them.

Moreover, it’s not baseless speculation that “Senjutsu” is no more likely to become part of the Maiden lore than their 2015 effort, “Book of Souls.” 

From their self-titled debut over 40 years ago, to their masterpiece “Powerslave” a few years later, to the underrated “Seventh Son of a Seventh Son,” it was then, during the 1980s, when fans swooned and became hooked. 

That bond would survive the departures of vocalist Bruce Dickinson and lead guitarist Adrian Smith, and the rough 1990s that followed.

Since both were welcomed back at the turn of the century, Maiden has put out six new albums.  Almost 400 years of life amongst the six members hasn’t slowed them down.  Nor has cancer on one of the most recognizable set of pipes in all of music.

And when they tour, they don’t do so lightly.

Not only do they spend months admirably promoting their new albums, they take to the road in ‘off’ years to play nothing but classics.  This arguably endears them to their fans.

That’s not to dismiss the real possibility however, that new stuff could click with metalheads.  The most recent offerings from Metallica and Anthrax for example, are sure to be represented in future concerts.

That can’t happen though, without first putting in the effort to write, collaborate, and record.  Oddly enough, I’m reminded of my 75 year-old dad. 

For a decade or so, he and my step-mother have been living an ideal retirement: pulling a 5th-wheel across the country.  They also sell RV supplies and accessories along the way. 

When I asked him about the latter, he told me “I feel like I still have more to give in life.”  It kind of made me proud.

I’ve never been one who’s had his 62nd or 70th birthday circled on the calendar as the day I’m simply going to stop.  Only in the last few years have I found a hobby/side-gig that I would love to do ‘in retirement’ (teaching).

It’s clear that social security and Medicare, at the very least, need reform.  Nevertheless, we don’t have to tap them and tap out of productive activities at a prescribed time.  My dad and my bands inspire me in this regard. 
​
Now if I could just get him to appreciate the beauty of a galloping Steve Harris bass line ...