As sure as the sun rises, we can count on a study showing how the economy does better under democrat presidents than republican ones.  And so it goes with David Leonhardt in the New York Times recently. 

Ever since I’ve been studying economics, one of the most important, recurring precepts is to keep things simple. 

“As you may have already, and will no doubt see in the future,” I tell my students regularly, “there’s much in real life (politics) that mucks things up.”

That said, if my students voted for a bonus class at the end of the semester, where they asked me to elaborate on the government’s effect on the economy, it would go something like this …
---
When you pay taxes, a couple explicit things happen, and a couple implicit ones don’t. 

Every dollar the state takes is one less you have to spend on a good or service someone else worked to create.  It’s one less dollar of income for that person or entity.  Consequently, she is one step closer to laying off an employee, or going out of business altogether. 

Or, it is one less dollar you can invest in yourself.  It could have been learning to paint or play guitar, or going back to school.  Furthermore, it’s one less dollar you have to invest in your own idea for a new product or improvement thereon.

It could be someone else’s idea to which you’re one less dollar able to pledge.  It could be as simple as your kid’s pet grooming venture, or as big as a Fortune 500 company.

It’s one less vote of confidence in an enterprise that has created such value for society that additional employees are needed.  It’s a little less business for that machinery company that produces the capital needed to help the booming company’s employees satisfy customers.

In the end, it’s one less dollar of a return for you.  Instead, that dollar finds a couple different dead-ends.

First, it might go toward enlisting the assistance of a tax specialist to ensure you don’t run afoul of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  For many of us, this can cost more than $100. 

As importantly, it’s an hour or more not spent with your kids, on hobbies, or more industrious endeavors. 

And that’s just for us on the demand side.

I also emphasize to my students that the supply side is of at least equal importance to market equilibrium.  Even though just a handful of us exist there (excluding the labor we supply), it demands the same respect.

These folks spend more time and/or money complying with tax authorities.  That is many less dollars that could be spent improving their business, hiring additional help, etc.

It’s many less dollars they could donate to a scholarship fund, or fewer hours they could spend serving on a school board. 

Instead, all these resources are vacuumed into the black hole of government, where wealth and productivity go to die.
---
There are good people who work in government and the tax compliance industry.  But their talents are wasted serving a public bureaucracy not subject to two phenomena that make the private sector hum while generating prosperity: competition and a profit motive.

Instead, they’re tasked with turning what’s left of the eroded wealth back out into society, where it deadens, continuously, much of what it comes into contact with.  Individual or entity, doesn’t matter.

If an enterprise could survive in a competitive environment, it wouldn’t seek any government largesse.  Domestically, we see this in the postal delivery industry, and when activists become convinced of the superiority of renewable sources of energy. 

It’s a cruel irony that their subsidies come courtesy of the taxes paid by their private competitors.  It’s poetic justice when the latter prevail anyway, particularly when aided indirectly by activists’ policy preferences in other areas.    

It manifests itself on the international stage when legacy firms cling to the good ole days at the expense of innovation.  Consumers indirectly subsidize this complacency by paying prices that are artificially inflated by tariffs on more efficient competitors. 

In an increasingly free and interconnected world, they invoke national security, like the steel and aluminum industries.  Or, they appeal to base, red-meat instincts like “Buy American,” nevermind the damage done to larger domestic companies that use such resources as inputs.

If this welfare sounds like an unfair advantage, that’s because it is.  All the favored companies need to do is stay in good with their political benefactors so they continue to tilt the scales.

This incentivizes organizational dependency just the same as it does for individuals. 

One “bold” proposal that made the rounds during the presidential campaign for example, especially among democrats, is financial relief for child care.  Some proposed an outright universal entitlement. 

If this were to go directly to parents, say in the form of beefing up the child care tax credit, they would certainly be able to pay more.  It would not be long however, before preschools would raise their prices in order to balance the market.

If public options, to borrow a phrase, opened their doors, current operators would be increasingly likely to close theirs, undercut by artificial price ceilings. 

Throw in social justice warriors’ drive for above-market wages, likely unionization, and Uncle Sam’s deceptively deep pockets, and you have another line item putting pressure on the fiscal budget.

Distorted price signals and artificial demand, one way or another, eat away at our earnings.  Contrary to what some folks may hope, no law can be passed to prevent any of this. 
---
My students are not that much older than my teenage daughters.  Most of their life has come with rules via parental guidance.  No doubt some may wonder why a law can’t simply be created to deal with market shortcomings, real or perceived.

When I ask “how do/did you like being restricted by those rules yourself,” they pause for a bit.  It’s as desirable to be subjected to them as adults as it was when minors.  Only in later years, there is collateral and financial damage that comes with them.

This is when it’s especially important that they put themselves in the shoes of suppliers.  As youngsters, and sometimes consumers, we don’t feel the brunt of regulation as much. 

Imagine though, getting a creative spark one day.  You discover an idea for something that seems quite useful, or it simply satisfies you in some way. 

It snowballs from there by delighting your friends and family, some of whom might say “you should try to sell that and make a mint!”

Now all you need to do is make sure that no more than 25% of your home is used for this venture.  Also, no non-residents can be enlisted to help you, paid or not.

At any rate, you can’t make food or fix furniture at home for pay.  No music lessons of two or more students, either.
You’d also need a license if you want to sell your creation on the move. 

It might be advisable, and is often suggested, to employ the assistance of an attorney to navigate these, and other requirements.

These are a handful of examples at just a local level.  Beyond that, and fifty states across the country, there are almost 90,000 pages and over 3,000 rules at the federal level by which Americans must abide.

More than simply the monetary and labor costs of compliance, redirected from productive to non-productive purposes, regulations tug at the fabric of the community.

When a business has to hire help at a rate in excess of the skill set required, a degree of anxiety is introduced into the equation.  That employee may very well work out.  Or, they may not, at which point the costly turnover process begins. 

This only hastens the inexorable drive toward automation.

There’s the burden of responsibility shifted from the employee to the employer when the latter must divert potential pay for the former to unemployment taxes.  This in turn incentivizes the employee to more frivolous consumption at the expense of diligent savings put aside for a rainy day.

To a degree, the employer assumes a paternalistic role as the employee shrinks back toward dependency, as when it is compelled to offer health insurance in the absence of a freer, more flexible market. 

We forgo the most organic way to weigh on a member of the community if we believe he/she is erring in their business practices; hitting their bottom line by depriving them of patronage.

Instead, businesses are caught in a triangular firing squad of onerous regulations, potential lawsuits and bad press.  No wonder so few take the dive to start one.
---
If elitists in academia, the media and government were truly interested in lifting people up, their best course of action would be to set their models, and hence their egos embedded within, aside.

In lieu of that, they could at least give a comprehensive picture with the measurements they cite.

I caution my students that, when they read the news, oftentimes there is a gauge in the shadows that is at least as important as the one in the spotlight.  The labor force participation rate (LFP), and foreign direct investment (FDI) immediately come to mind.

The headline unemployment (UE) rate is the sexy figure that gets all the attention.  However, a 5% UE when only 60% of able-bodied adults are in the labor force means 43% of the populace still isn’t working. 

That 5% UE with a 70% LFP means only a third of people are inactive. 

As to the latter, the trade deficit (TD), to the extent one exists, is nearly always cast in a negative light.  Nevermind that it signals heightened purchasing power, necessarily the result of economic growth (one of the reliable ways to decrease a TD incidentally, is a recession). 

Part of the reason for that growth is the level of FDI, the counterbalance to the TD.  It reflects the fact that investors, domestic as well as foreign, see the U.S. as a most desirable place for their financial capital. 

If politicians’ scare tactics about the TD work on you, the best way to remedy it is to save more and consume less.  Otherwise, enjoy the inexpensive toys that accrue to your work effort.
---
Leonhardt is certainly correct when he says “the economy’s performance stems from millions of decisions made every day by businesses and consumers, many of which have little relation to government policy.”

That’s why we can’t ascribe too much to one person’s actions, even a president.  That said, what a president does, or says, isn’t totally without effect. 

Perhaps no area is more indicative of his or her utterances than the kind of dollar they want.  Reagan and Clinton proved as much.  They wanted a stable, even strong dollar, and they got one.  As a result, those were the last times we saw authentic economic growth.

And they came from different political parties.
​
Attaining genuine prosperity really isn’t all that complicated.  It’s an easy story to tell to my daughters and students.  Adults would do well to declutter the white noise of politics and keep things simple when attempting to surmise which policies are desirable, and which ones are not.

My daughters continually make me proud.  From top academic standings, to leadership positions in extracurricular activities, the hits keep rolling.

I was particularly stoked recently when, not only did my oldest start a job at Chick Fil A, but her sister told me she was going to apply to Home Depot.  “It’s certainly a (labor) seller’s market,” I told her.

Uncle Sam is doing his darndest to make it so, albeit not in the ideal way.

Ever since pounding the economy into submission with overbearing lockdowns, misallocated spending, and burdensome rules, erroneously blaming the pandemic the whole time, he’s been attempting to patch up the damage with enhanced unemployment benefits, ‘stimulus’ checks, etc.

I’m reminded of a nephew pushing one of his brothers almost out of a moving truck.  After catching him, he bragged to their mother “I saved him!”

The core reason my girls can command high starting wages is because they’re competing against relatively fewer workers.  When employers are faced with that reality, they have to pay more to acquire labor.    

To state the obvious, high wages are good. 

In a free society, they’re the natural outgrowth of higher market value produced.  In some cases, they attract more capital investment that allows us to do more and/or create value in other, newer areas.

When they’re the result of pro-active government policy however, they unfairly threaten the existence of the employers forced to pay them.

Big Business can typically manage the nuisance.  Their bottom line is big enough to absorb the hits.  They also have more resources to automate some processes over the long haul.

Not so much for the little guy. 

Getting an enterprise off the ground means heightened pressure to keep a lid on expenses.  That’s why it’s not uncommon for owners to refrain from taking (much of) a salary at the outset.

But even the distinction between big business and small business can be blurry.

A friend who franchises a major North American hair salon told me that stylists have “not all come back” to work.  “Unemployment is really hurting us.”  I’ve heard similar concerns from franchisees before.

It’s a microcosm of what’s going on across the country, where an hourly wage of almost $17 is “in line with what many people receive (in) unemployment benefits.”

One could be forgiven for mistaking that as a backdoor push for a minimum wage beyond $15.

Not content to rest on their laurels (to the extent that they can be seen as such), Democrats in Washington D.C. want to pile on.

Among other ‘free’ stuff they want to bill to higher taxes on the rich is a $225 billion paid sick leave program.  Part of that would mandate employers provide seven days per year.

They also want to strip some autonomy from those franchisees by tying them closer to their corporate sponsors.  Part of the fallout there would be a greater susceptibility to unionization of their employees. 

To keep their doors open, some businesses have to pass subsequent increased costs on to consumers.  While we finance this bloat on one hand, we subsidize the unemployed on the other.

Though most are not wired to abuse the system, there are just enough who selectively pass on more than 8 million job openings. 

And these are just the folks counted in the labor force. 

When it comes to macroeconomic measurements, I implore my students to get the whole picture.  Though the unemployment (UE) rate gets the headlines, there is another, equally important figure that gets less attention; the labor force participation rate (LFP).

A 5% UE is good, but when only 60% of able-bodied adults are in the labor force (with a job or actively looking), 43% of the populace still isn’t working.

That same 5% UE applied to a 70% LFP means only a third are inactive. 

Before governments overreacted to the coronavirus, the LFP was rising while UE was setting record lows on a monthly basis.  Now, both are sputtering: the former two points lower; the latter, three points higher, respectively. 

To his credit, President Biden recently said unemployment benefits are at risk if a “suitable job” is turned down.  In the same breath however, he doesn’t “see much evidence” that they deter the job search.

For a group of fellow travelers who routinely talk about “common sense” policy, they seem to lack the core component.

If my daughters benefit from these ill-conceived policies, so be it.  After all, a chunk of their earnings will eventually be used to pay for the wreckage wrought by the government on college tuition.  Ironic.
​
Still, it’d be ideal in the long-run if elitists in government and academia set aside their models, and hence their egos, and simply let people work for/with each other unobstructed.

“Was that the BLM guy?”

His name is Pharoah Clark.  He had come over to fist-bump me on his way out of the KLRN studios.  Candidates were there filming our respective explanations for running for city council. 

He and his Uniting Wisdom group stepped to the forefront during last summer’s protests following the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.  I introduced myself when I entered the waiting area.

Though we had a few minutes to chat, I didn’t have the chance to tell him that it was his declaration in November that started my wheels turning about doing the same, albeit for different reasons.

He’s probably the candidate most closely associated with one of the propositions on this May’s ballot.

If passed, Prop B would strip police officers of the ability to collectively bargain for wages and benefits.  Fix SAPD, which spearheaded the petition drive, believes passage will hasten reform within the force. 

The police and their supporters feel it amounts to defunding. 

It’s not every day an issue pits traditionally-allied liberal constituencies against each other.  Rarer still is when divisions show within both ends of the political spectrum.

“When seconds count, the police are minutes away.”

I’ve answered many questionnaires, and attended several candidates’ forums, mostly right-leaning.  Unsurprisingly, I’ve seen a few attendees donning sidearms.

It goes without saying that we’re a safer community when people carry.  It’s only when we are robbed of the natural human right to defend ourselves that trouble starts to boil over.

That’s why I’m somewhat curious about conservatives’ general opposition to Prop B, especially when a jittery person could sic the police on them for so little as a misinterpreted glance, nevermind the prospect of what’s going on up in Ontario.

It is a basic municipal function to have officers of the peace.  Just as with the protection of private property rights, it’s a key to economic growth.  As such, I fully support its existence. 

I also get the wariness however, that some folks have of those who voluntarily sign up to enforce laws that regulate victimless crimes, such as gambling.

At the end of the day, I don’t support defunding the police, whose budget actually went up last year.  Unless I’m missing the part where it deprives them of being adequately equipped to do their job, I don’t see where this proposition does that.

Would it “defund” some police?  Perhaps, and here’s where some confusion reigns.

“Just because there’s one bad cop, it doesn’t mean they’re all bad, because they’re all good.”

Pro-freedom forces recognize the right of the people to associate with others.  It’s a source of unions’ legitimacy.  Pro-market forces have seen the drag though, that they tend to exert on economic dynamism, and subsequently prosperity. 

They have countered this by enacting right-to-work laws, which allow an individual to enter into employment (an association itself) free of compulsory union membership. 

As their rolls have declined in the private sector, organized labor has retained a foothold in that of the public.  Regardless of the industry, they tend to protect the lowest common denominator.  We’ve seen this in teachers’ unions. 
Conservatives used to recognize this.

Now we have them on the national stage encouraging the organization of Amazon employees, and on the local stage defending the ones in the public sector.

Some are so anxious to get elected that they compare defunding a whole entity like the police department, with doing the same to a doctor.

It’s especially odd when coming from a small business owner who knows they could certainly be “defunded” if they don’t satisfy their customers.

And that’s what we’re talking about here; removing the protective shield of collectivization, when individuals would more likely to be held accountable. 

I’m still wrestling with Prop B.  A debate recently between FixSAPD and the SAPD didn’t help all that much. 

Between the former wanting to essentially add another layer of public bureaucracy, and the latter seemingly wanting to stay in a cocoon because there are no “guarantees” in life, it’s still muddy for me. 

Maybe without collective bargaining, only the most gung-ho would join the force, a scenario that’s not all that palatable to those who feel some cops are already too much so.

Perhaps incentivizing cooler heads to join the force, with above-market-equilibrium compensation, is worth the calming effect they would have.

I wish I’d had a few more moments to chat with Mr. Clark.  We were just two dudes beginning to pick each other’s’ brain about our respective campaign experiences, neither of us feeling the need to throw red meat to our respective crowds. 
​
I suspect we’d be able to affect positive change better that way.

When George W. Bush not only won reelection in 2004, but saw his republican majority in the senate padded to fifty-five, I started daydreaming about the possibilities. 

While he went the direction of reforming social security, a necessary venture for which he pushed the good idea to return some control to taxpayers, my mind drifted toward tax reform. 

He’d cut them right out of the gate, and then again in 2003.  Though he campaigned on dropping the top marginal rate from almost 40% to 33%, the legislative sausage-making process spit out 35%.

That was better than nothing, but it made me wonder: why not lob the opening salvo from the most ideal territory, like a flat 5% rate?  The same principle applies to property taxes, but I’d go further, to 0%.

We don’t tax food, and we have the occasional sales tax holiday for clothes (there could probably be more of those); why do we tax the roof over our head?  Why not tax only luxuries?

The tired response you’ll typically hear is that a tax on consumption is “regressive.”  That means that the lower a person’s income, the higher the effective tax rate they would pay.

Even though taxing income and property deters the behavior that creates widespread community wealth, the word “regress” is politically calculated to tug at emotional heartstrings. 

In actuality, resisting a consumption tax implies an entitlement to goods and services above and beyond necessities.
 
The irony is, despite politicians’ manipulative ploys, the level we pay on our purchases would likely not have to rise to compensate for the lost property tax revenue.  We might actually be able to cut it.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa!  How could we possibly have enough tax revenue to fund government then??”

Your standard political slickster (mostly on the left, but a disconcerting number on the right) would whip out the political canard that “tax cuts do not pay for themselves.” 

This is part self-serving, part flat-out ignorance.

As to the former, the vast majority of politicians will always fear not having enough money to spend, the act of which is always and everywhere the sole reason for debt and deficits. 

If they could be cured of the illusion of virtuousness they derive from failing to realize their good intentions with others’ money, public balance sheets would take a turn for the better.

The latter manifests itself in their disrespect for wealth-creating citizens, and their static worldview.

They do have a clue that when we’re taxed less, we have greater purchasing power.  Where they slip, and regrettably peddle to the masses, is the notion that consumer spending powers the economy. 

It does no such thing.  It literally destroys the value created by the real fuel of prosperity: production. 

This process is spearheaded by the precious few amongst us who have the requisite intestinal fortitude.  The least government could do is stop robbing them of the incentive to take the dive.

When these visionaries plow $1 more into their idea, that’s $1 more of capital they need to invest to keep the proverbial assembly line going.  It’s $1 more they need to spend on the human capital to operate it.

It’s $1 more that other employers will have to spend to compete for/retain this labor.  Except by this point, anyone who gives more than a moment’s thought knows we’re talking about more than $1 more.

There are some influences in this area that are beyond our control.

Loose monetary policy set forth by Washington D.C. tends to drive investors into safer, more stable assets.  Oil is one, housing is another.  This in turn artificially drives up their respective prices.

Short-term market fundamentals are another. 

If the value of your home is rising, it’s a sign that you are where people want to be.  Opportunities in general are abundant.  Taken at face value, who doesn’t like to see the value of their assets appreciate?

Government wanting to wet its beak more as a result is the only problem, and doing it via property taxes isn’t fair to anyone.

Along with the culture and character of historic neighborhoods, it’s a main source of the concern regarding gentrification.  It tilts the scales away from longtime residents when apartment developers get an exemption.  

Plus, it’s an unequal, uneven way to fund public education. 
​
We should be serious about property taxes, and that means starting the conversation from their total elimination.  Anything else is an exercise in keeping alive a political football to provide all sides red meat to throw to their respective camps.

During this campaign for city council, I’ve had interviews with a few special interest groups.  Some have been rocky; some have been smooth. 

I was somewhat nervous going in to the one with the San Antonio Board of Realtors (SABOR), expecting it to be about topics I was still brushing up on.  To my relief, I was reasonably well-versed in the subject matter. 

Plus, after calling dozens of them and/or their clients (property owners) requesting permission to place my signs on their property, I’d unexpectedly been handed an issue that I thought would be salient with them; my opponents were doing it without extending that courtesy. 

Not only was this borderline trespassing and vandalism, but it violated city code.  Plus, there were some basic constitutional implications involved.  Alas, they endorsed Councilwoman Melissa Cabello Havrda. 

Being a rookie at this, I didn’t dwell on it.  Since then, however, I’ve connected some dots that have led me to an “ah-ha” moment.

Councilwoman Havrda recently earned a real estate license.  She also voted in February to put Prop A on the ballot, a proposal widely expected to give the city more leeway to get into the “affordable housing” industry.

Turns out SABOR “supports candidates and legislation that are favorable to” them.   

This is what corporate welfare looks like at inception.  The fact that Mayor Ron Nirenberg has added his voice to the growing, preposterous chorus of those including everything under the sun as “infrastructure” drives this home.

To be clear, having a career in the private sector while serving the public is a good thing, ideal even.

Candidates for public office come from all walks of life.  They are a microcosm of community.  Engineers, entrepreneurs, policemen, veterans, etc.  It’s a wholesome mix of people who have excelled in diverse fields, pushing society forward. 

These are the ideal folks to have in policymaking positions.  Unlike those who have merely reported (media) or done studies (academia) on, or been in government their entire adult life, these professionals have actually gotten their hands dirty.

That is of course, unless they failed in industry, and intend to change the rules of the game once elected.  Or, they go to cook up a gravy train, made easier in my lifetime as budgetary discipline has given way to the public credit card. 

Either way sets them up for a cushy post-political career, whether in helping a company navigate the bureaucratic thicket they helped create, or guiding them to the trough of pork.

When/if citizens start to detect a stench of corruption, they and their colleagues can simply throw a couple laws at the issue to show that they’re “doing something.”  Bans on future lobbying work come to mind.

As with most issues in our politics however, that’s merely putting a band-aid on a wound that needs to be closed with stitches; the festering gash known as government spending.

As long as we have politicians pilfering productive citizens, thinking they’ll be the ones to finally solve the riddle of central planning, we’ll have cronies lobbying for a spoonful of the slop that taxes and borrowing become.

The only real skill they need is schmoozing.

The government and its beneficiaries don’t have to labor in a competitive setting, nor does their survival depend on pleasing the customer.  All they need is their mole on the inside to keep the scales tipped in their favor.

If this imbalance isn’t properly corrected, but instead continually papered over with more “anti-corruption” legislation, we’ll arguably end up with more of the worst revolving door of make-work citizen legislators: lawyers. 

Ever wonder why we have more of those than any other country on the globe?

Folks that engineer this boondoggling aren’t necessarily corrupt.  But as the late John McCain lamented regarding his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, “the appearance (of) impropriety (is) just as important.”  

At the very least it sets the stage for crony capitalism.  This in turn emboldens government activists, who’ve either been played for fools, or are in cahoots with their policymaking benefactors.
​
It gives them the ammunition they need to claim that “capitalism is broken,” when the only thing that’s really broken is government.

Though my microeconomics class ended a few weeks ago, one of the topics we covered has lingered as I’ve turned my attention to the city council race for district six: “rational ignorance.”

Oxymoronic as it sounds, it’s probably familiar to most folks when they think about their typical day.

We go to work, see our kids off to school, workout, run errands, etc.  After dinner and homework, how many of us gather around the T.V. to watch politicians, analysts, et al spar with each other?

Probably not a lot. 

If that’s what it takes to make an informed vote, to many, it’s just not worth it.  It’s entirely possible that this phenomenon is what contributes to low voter turnout.

Naturally, that’s unfortunate.  Political junkies however, seem to take the wrong message from this, and actually may be exacerbating the problem.

I’ve been solicited dozens of times by offers to market my campaign.  Text bombs, banner ads, robo-calls, physical mailers, etc. 

As a voter, I reflexively recoil every time I’m on the receiving end of this stuff.  Why would I want to be on the firing end? 

I was warming to using doorknob hangers, until I was reminded that might run afoul of some neighborhoods’ “no solicitation” warnings.  I’m not going to disrespect that any more than I would property owners’ rights by planting campaign signs on their land without consent. 

Having secured the permission of some, I do have a few of those out. 

Aside from that, you can find me where I’ve always been; amongst you.  Grocery shopping, on runs around the area, dining out, ferrying my daughters to/from school and extracurricular activities, etc.

If you see someone wearing my campaign shirt, that’s me.  Or, you may see campaign magnets on my mobile HQ parked somewhere.  In any case, stop me, like a fireman did recently, and let’s chat.

It would be the most important part of my job interview.

Too often, candidates beseeching citizens to “get out and vote” is self-serving.  You hear phrases like “when you’re the last one to the table, all you get is crumbs,” but that carries a horrible connotation.

Some of those “crumbs” no doubt have legitimate purposes, like sidewalk repair, pothole-filling, or erecting a park.  But others are more likely to comprise a wasteful trough full of pork.

If prospective voters want a stereotypical, smooth-talking, fake-smiling politician promising to bring home some of that bacon, I’m not the guy for the job (I’d ‘tax’ the pig less, but that’s another story). 

To imply however, as a supporter of one of my opponents has, that I’m therefore not working for it is absurd.  I’ve arguably been working for this the entire 21st century that I’ve lived in this great city. 

The backbone has been a career in the Texas energy industry, the last thirteen years of which have been riding the booms and busts of the oil services sector.  Over nearly all of it, I’ve been putting in overtime.

I’ve raised four daughters, the oldest of whom is poised to be one of the top ten graduates from Warren High School this June.  She’s blazed a trail for her sisters, who also rank at the very top of their respective classes. 

Perhaps as importantly, their mother and I have taught them to be independent thinkers, immune to the slanted nonsense that reigns in the mainstream media, and the herd mentality of social media. 

I’ve strived to do the same in the classroom. 

Shortly before my oldest was born, I started graduate school at U.T.S.A., eventually earning a master’s in economics.  After becoming regularly disenchanted with election outcomes, I started teaching in 2014.

I typically teach one class in the spring, and two in the fall at Northwest Vista College here in district six.  That I’ve garnered support for my campaign from several former students is a testament to my success.

Outside of all that, I spend time trying to extend those lessons by writing for various economic/market-based publications.

If that’s “couch-potato-ish,” then my vernacular is more out of date than my girls think!

Back in 1999, Reese Witherspoon portrayed a goody-goody, student body presidential candidate in Alexander Payne’s “Election.” 

After declaring to them that she cares about “each and every one of” her classmates, one of her opponents asks “who cares about this stupid election?  The same pathetic charade happens every year.”

A standing ovation ensued. 

No election, whether local, state or national, is stupid.  They are our opportunity to register our approval or disapproval with the direction of our community.  But the point is taken on the “charade.”

Thoughtful citizens are tired and desensitized to political platitudes.  Their mere utterance diminishes every one that came before, and every one that will come after it.

So you won’t see me spouting such meaningless cliches, interrupting your yardwork, or rapping at your door doing the same to dinner.  It would go against the whole premise of my message; to get the government to leave you alone.
​
This is about YOU, not me.

I like Councilwoman Melissa Cabello Havrda. 

In the Facebook videos I’ve seen, and firsthand in the candidate forums we’ve participated in, she seems like a genuinely nice lady.

It’s what she does within city council chambers that gives me pause.  We have some fundamental, philosophical differences of opinion.

First and foremost was the government’s reaction to the coronavirus pandemic.  Some would say overreaction, and I count myself amongst them.

Without question, the pandemic threw everyone for a loop.  Elected officials could almost be forgiven for taking as drastic measures as they did.  Almost.

Leaders should be the cooler heads in the room.  They should set an example, provide guidance.  What they shouldn’t do, is wield such power that dictates a person’s movements, or who they associate with.

Occasionally when I take that stance, I get accused of “putting profits over lives.”  But that’s a shortsighted view that misses the point.

In the short-run, profits aren’t what puts food on the table for your children.  They’re not what keeps a roof over their head, or a light on for them to read.  Simple employment does, and too much of that was needlessly swept away with the lockdown orders.

Instead of pushing back against the governor, in deference to San Antonians’ autonomy, the city routinely appealed for the ability to tighten further.  It was misguided at best, unforgivable at worst. 

For what it’s worth, profits foster widespread prosperity.  They also instill in politicians and bureaucrats’ delusions of grandeur that they can create, with the subsequent tax revenue, market goods like so-called “affordable housing.”

City council voted in February, almost unanimously, to put before voters a change to the city charter to expand what they can do with borrowed funds. 

There are indeed larger forces at work when it comes to the price of housing.  One of them is a weak dollar policy set forth from Washington D.C. 

When Uncle Sam fiddles with the value of the dollar, peddling the false notion that it confers a strong trade position, investors tend to shift their capital into established assets.  We’ve seen the bubbles that subsequently materialize in the oil market, for instance.  Housing is another example. 

When that house of cards inevitably comes crashing down, as we saw a dozen years ago, recession is more likely to ensue.  Not only do public balance sheets turn red (or redder), but the clamor for government to “do something” grows.

It’s a vicious cycle, and politicians, either out of simple ignorance or a thirst for power, seize the opportunity to be seen as the savior.  They end up compounding matters, sometimes by coercing private business to “offer” more entitlements, like paid sick leave (PSL).

When I started on the labor ladder, I was grateful for the opportunity to earn some money when my marketable skill base was low.  It never occurred to me to demand more than I was offered. 

Had such a diktat been in place back then, my first day of employment might very well have been pushed into the future, due to being too expensive to hire.

As the great Thomas Sowell once said, the “real minimum wage is always zero.”

Councilwoman Havrda claimed that her “constituents wanted it.”  Fair enough.  It’s important to have your finger on the pulse of the community, especially when you live amongst them. 

Issues like these however, are unique.

The Founding Fathers set up a republic where the rights (the real ones, not the ones pulled out of thin air on a seemingly daily basis) of the minority are protected against the will of the majority.

This is why I would like to see article four section thirty-four of the city charter amended to put citizens’ and entities’ duly-earned, or acquired, resources and property out of the reach of those who want to vote themselves a portion of it.
​
A local elected official must be attentive to constituent concerns.  Potholes should be filled.  Sidewalks should be smooth.  Public spaces should be maintained, etc.

Some humility is in order though.

They must realize that their forays into the private sector distort the free, efficient flow of goods, services, and information.  Such incursions are also highly likely to be counterproductive.

The last thing public “servants” should be doing is restricting or violating the liberties of their constituents.  The only person that serves is oneself.

Back in December, the Houston Chronicle interviewed Alicia Caballero, a hazardous waste quality assurance professional in the Corpus Christi area.  The report was centered on her drive to increase the pay of Texas legislators so that citizens with “normal jobs” could “serve fellow citizens through policymaking."

It brought to mind former Mayor Ed Garza’s effort in 2004 to (if memory serves) “professionalize” San Antonio city council by raising their salaries.  Just enough voters eventually consented in 2015. 

This strikes me as bad of an idea now as it did then, regardless of jurisdiction.

One thing all elective bodies have in common is that rare are their actions that contribute to the well-being of their respective constituents.  More often, they’re detrimental.

The impetus for Ms. Caballero’s quest was a “dystopian future glimpse” borne of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ growing wealth during the pandemic.  The expiration of a wage bump for Amazon employees “felt like a ridiculous imbalance” to her.

Right away, it became clear she felt she would be a better manager of enterprises in which she has no personal stake. 

Lacking was a dash of humility in recognition of the fact that the vast majority of us don’t have the intestinal fortitude necessary to lift a company off the ground, much less keep it going.

Moreover, one detects a whiff of ingratitude toward an organization that, to a degree, has made life easier during the shutdowns and government-caused recession.

Instead, these fellow travelers do a disservice to prospective constituents by trying to persuade them that businesses/economies are better off when centrally planned by the state.

This is nearly always a counterproductive exercise, succeeding only in being self-serving.  It entrenches the orchestrating political class, as they continually expand their dockets of things “to do.” 

It’s no surprise then when the cabal lobbies for greater compensation.  It’s a perverse cycle.

There is no doubt an element of sacrifice that comes with throwing your hat in the ring for elected office. 

Some of your life, and that of your family, falls under a spotlight.  You trade leisurely pursuits for attention to, and the demands of your constituents. 

Contributing to the genuine betterment of the community via the private sector and continuing to support your constituency at home, to your maximum potential, should not be one of the sacrifices. 

It doesn’t have to be, and it’s not really the salary that’s the obstacle.

While it’s not the same as removing oneself to Austin for six months every other year, the council schedule injects kinks into an otherwise normal workday.  And this occurs weekly, every year.

It’s certainly true that 8-5 schedules have become more flexible over time.  Technology has allowed us to spread our work over more hours per day, and more days per week. 

There are many of us however, that need to be plugged in during traditional work hours.  Some provide goods and services for which the demands during this time are constant. 

To pull them away from that for two-to-five-hour morning and afternoon sessions is not optimal.

Speaking as one who spends almost three hours one or two evenings each week teaching college, pushing regular council meetings beyond dusk is eminently doable.  It might even provide kids a good civics lesson to do homework at city hall while mom or dad fulfills their duties.

If staff needs to be there to assist, excessive council salaries could be redirected to them as overtime, or they could flex their own work schedules.  If more guidance than that is needed from council, it’s a decent indicator that the public sector is “doing” too much. 

Elected representatives are meant to reflect the will of their respective constituencies.  They’re there to set the tone.  They shouldn’t be grinding the gears of bureaucracy to the extent that was cited as justification for the salary hike of a few years ago. 

Incidentally, should the effort to have local government retreat in scale and scope prevail, the area median wage to which salaries were set would arguably rise. 

As the predictable gulf between community prosperity and political interference grows, some of the exorbitant compensation could be returned to the taxpayers.

If this sounds too pie-in-the-sky, bear in mind how predictions of rainbows-and-unicorns resulting from public sector action usually turn out to be more like storms and mules.
​
As history has shown repeatedly, getting the state off our collective back is usually what results in a full-bloom blossoming of citizens.   

The policy chapters have long been my favorites to discuss in class.  I’ve never really probed why, but I suspect it’s because they animate additional personality traits within me.

I have to restrain the cynicism and sarcasm since government policy messes with the topic of the happiest chapter we cover: growth.

There is nary a downside to economic expansion.  It means prosperity.  Rising incomes.  Technological advance.  More leisure.  More arts.  It’s a virtuous cycle. 

Policy, by definition, means politicians getting in the way of that.

They penalize our work effort through taxation, diverting our time and resources through a labyrinth tax code.  Rules and regulations devised “for our own good” absolve us of personal responsibility, and weigh down our pursuits of happiness.

Government programs set up in benevolence serve mostly to rob us of the incentive to make our way, and in the process keep us addicted to the same.  Politicians also restrict our ability to trade with each other.

There are a few basic things though, that government can, and should do to foster growth. 

The law should be clear and fairly enforced.  Parties to private contracts should be held to them, and private property should be respected.

The importance of the latter is why it was so disheartening to discover recently that some elected officials, and candidates for office, prop up their signs without seeking permission from property owners.

There are fundamental constitutional and human rights issues involved.

Property rights are a key underpinning of the “right … to be secure in (our) houses … against unreasonable search and seizure.”  There are also first amendment concerns.

Imagine you’re not engaged in the political process. 

When you work, have kids to raise, are active in your church, or maybe have a side-gig, the last thing many of us want to do in our free time is tune in to a bunch of smooth-talking, fake-grinning politicians trying to sell us a load of doo-doo, arguing with each other all the way.

Reading a book, playing music, gardening, running, poking yourself in the eyes … almost anything is more preferable. 
That’s why economists call it rational ignorance.

How would you react if one morning you awoke to find a campaign sign in your yard?  Worse yet, what if you ARE engaged, and it’s for a candidate you do not support?

Not only has your property been trespassed upon, and arguably defaced, but the expression of your values has been hijacked and misrepresented.

The cynic might say these candidates have actually displayed how well-qualified they are to carry out elected office in the manner to which we’ve regrettably become accustomed. 

To add insult to injury, some of the property owners I spoke with told me they have to spend a couple hundred dollars to have the signs removed.  That’s time and money that could have been spent bolstering the community.
 
Having your own property, or even a domicile you rent, is the key to security.  From that derives stability, and a greater ease to go about making a meaningful contribution to society by maximizing your talents and ambitions.

Sometimes that means developing your property to meet the demands of those who want to trade with you the product of their own toil.

A candidate for public office wantonly driving a stake into the land of another, or affixing their sign to their fence, may not seem like a big deal.  In fact, it betrays a disrespect for our fellow citizens. 

Long ago a buddy joked that it’s better to do and ask forgiveness, than ask permission and risk being turned down.  Politicians very rarely ask forgiveness because, in their world, when their heart is in the right place, they think they did no wrong.

Look where that’s gotten us.
===
Check out my take on the issues important to San Antonio (please tell me what's important to you), about me in general, and why I am running.
You can follow me on Facebook, Twitter and reach me via email.