“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.

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, that I’m therefore not working for it is misplaced at best.  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 of, 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.