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.

Moving to Dallas from Victoria, TX. (pop. 55K) was an eye-opener in many ways for this twenty-one-year-old.  There were infinite things to do, places to shop, work opportunities, etc.   

Though I’d grown up with kids of Asian, African, and Latin descent, I had very little, if any exposure to homosexual people.  That’s probably why a friend thought it would be amusing to stick a pride colors bumper sticker on my truck once I’d settled into the Metroplex.

It was a while before I found out, but when I did, I distinctly remember thinking “meh.”

This memory came back to me when the Stonewall Democrats, San Antonio’s “voice of the LGBTQIA community,” invited me to fill out a questionnaire and take part in their forum for candidates for mayor and city council.  The same day, the House of Representatives passed the “Equality Act.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the third question on their survey asked if I supported it.

Around the time of the bumper sticker, I went to a predominantly gay club for the first time, The Village Station (now called Station 4).  I spent that night holding my friends’ (most straight) coats while just observing.

A couple years later, after I had removed the sticker, The Village became a regular stop on my personal club circuit.  To say it was a vibrant atmosphere would be an understatement. 

I made friends there, some of whom went with me to my beloved heavy metal concerts.  I took dates there.  People just wanted to have fun.  Any negative pre-conceived notions about the community that I'd heard up to that point quickly evaporated. 

I also lost some friends.

One night my girlfriend and I had some folks over to our apartment.  One of the them was the top IT guy where I worked.  He was a very cool guy.  He was also gay. 

I also invited a college/golfing buddy.  As soon as he walked in the door and saw my friend from IT, he stiffened up, turned around and walked right back out the door, literally minutes later.

"I just wish you would have told me" he said.  I never played golf with him again.

I've shared that story with my four daughters a couple times when telling them that the best way to affect change is to live it.  It therefore would come as no surprise to them that I answered “yes” when Stonewall asked if I’d hire someone from the LGBTQ community. 

All that matters to me is a person’s competency to do the job.  I could care less what they do on their own time or who they do it with, as long as no one is being harmed or compelled to participate against their will.

And that is part of the reason I said I did not support the “Equality Act.”

I’ve no doubt that gender dysphoria is a real thing.  To the extent it affects children, it’s yet another affliction that makes me ache for them.  Having biological boys compete directly with biological girls in sports however, is not the answer.

There’s more to it than that though.  There’s a violation of free will, and freedom of association. 

I reminded my girls of when they participated in “pee wee” sports: soccer, t-ball, tae kwon do, etc.  During those days, playing co-ed is common.  The playing field is fairly even.

When puberty hits, boys experience a testosterone boost that infuses them with physical advantages.  That’s generally when sports leagues start to split between gender, or biological differences if you will.

If the criteria of a boys or girls sports league includes a requirement that participants’ biological sex match that of the league, that’s their call. 

If they eventually change those conditions, fine.  If not, so be it. 

Just like any other demographic group in a free society, transgender folks or parents thereof, are free to create their own league.  To compel existing organizations to change their ways is fundamentally wrong. 

Too often however, when confronted with such a situation, we fall prey to the buzzards circling above that take human form as sue-happy lawyers and power-hungry politicians.  These vultures are on a constant lookout for opportunities to get quick, cheap riches and notoriety.

Going this route only breeds resentment amongst nearly all involved, except of course the aforementioned predators.
 
We’ve made great strides regarding equal treatment of the LGBTQ community.  Granted, my view is largely informed by my daughters’ actions.  It’s heartening to see that who they choose as friends isn’t determined by such inconsequential characteristics. 
​
It certainly didn’t take requiring The Village Station to admit straight people like their old man to change hearts and minds.