The Day Before

Two years ago, on the eve of an historic election, there was a palpable sense of dread - a foreboding of a completely shocking turn of events: The possibility that Trump, despite bucking every bit of conventional wisdom in politics and being spectacularly unqualified for the job, could actually win.  Perhaps in a bid to pacify myself, I predicted that Hillary would win.  But I was wrong and the reverberations of that unexpected result continue to rumble through America and indeed, the world.  I tried to achieve some level of catharsis with this post after the elections, but perhaps I was even being too sanguine then.

After almost two years of overheated rhetoric and divisive politics from a President that seems to stumble from one scandal and indictment to another scandal and indictment, I must admit that I am looking ahead to another election exactly 6 years from today - Nov 5, 2024, when I can be reasonably sure that Trump will not be on the ballot.  If Trump has won a second term, he likely spent a lot of time on the campaign trail making that election also all about him, but at least after Nov 6th, 2024, he will truly be yesterday's news.

But, we have to get past tomorrow first and yes, I am trying not to think about it as much as I can.  I am already preparing myself for the potential for another painful election night and steeling myself to wait it out for two more years.  But sometimes all the self control in the world cannot help and you just want to scream.  How blatant can you get? The biggest existential threat to the mighty United States is a ragtag group of impoverished migrants almost 800 miles from our Southern border?  And wait, it gets better - they are walking here!  THAT IS SCARY!!! Of course we have to deploy the military.  Yesterday the military was laying down barbed wire across the border and today our President comments, "Barbed wire, properly used can be a beautiful sight."  Now, that is presidential.  Shall we festoon the Statue of Liberty in barbed wire too?  Maybe tear down the museum on Ellis Island and put in a golf course.  A shame to waste the beautiful views of the NY skyline to memorialize such a destructive part of our history - immigration.

Trump is not even bothering to hide his racism anymore - Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams, candidates for FL and GA governorships, respectively, are "unqualified for the job." which of course is a dog whistle for, "Hey look, they are black."  Trump is such a narcissist that he has openly stated that he is making a special effort to defeat the Democratic Senator from Montana, Jon Tester - simply because Senator Tester had the gall to point out the ethical and moral deficiencies of Trump's White House physician, Ronnie Jackson, for the post of VA Administrator.  Forget the fact that Dr Jackson had absolutely no experience in running anything, let alone a vast bureaucracy like the VA, but how do you ignore the voluminous allegations against him of repeatedly being intoxicated while on the job? But never mind, Trump lost that fight and so Jon Tester has to pay.

I am obviously just venting here, but then I have held back for almost two years now and something had to give. :-)  Let me close out with a few, somewhat more germane musings about the midterms.

Most indications (& I say this with some trepidation) are that the GOP will lose the House, but keep the Senate and may even increase their majority there.  Some commentators have been wondering why Trump is barely doing anything to avoid loses in the House and instead, is focusing almost entirely on the races for Governor and the Senate.  To me, the logic is not so inscrutable.  Trump cares about the Governorships because they control redistricting efforts and that's one way the parties have been holding on to power. He cares about the Senate because the Senate has to approve all his appointments including the judiciary, with potentially another Supreme Court seat (Ginsburg) coming open during his tenure.  And since all that matters to Trump is Trump himself, he needs the Senate to be controlled by the GOP should a Democratic House ever see fit to impeach him. 

As for the House, in a perverse way, Trump may believe that a Democratic controlled House may
actually be better for him.  They are likely to of course oppose most of his legislative priorities and he can safely blame them for any lack of progress. And he will have somebody to run against in the 2020 elections.  On the other hand, if he has had 4 years of complete control of all branches of the government, then who is is going to rail and rant against?  For, if there is one thing we know for sure about Trump, it is that he prefers the politics of blame and hate.

Despite that sobering logic, I still want the House to change hands.  If that happens, be prepared for a spate of congressional investigations and gridlock for the next two years.  Trump reduced to impotent babbling will be a wonderful sight to behold.  Could the pollsters be wrong and the Senate also fall out of GOP control? One can but hope.

2018 Midterm Elections - Voting Guide

Much as I have been trying to avoid politics in the superheated environment that Trump has unleashed, it's time (perhaps a bit too late) for another edition of my voting guide.  This is easily the most anticipated (with hope and dread, in equal parts) midterm elections that I can recall, but being a CA voter gives me limited influence at the national level, at least when it comes to being a swing voter.  We are reliably blue and far be it from me to buck that trend.

While much of state level and national level seats may be foregone conclusions in CA, there are still a few elections that are of interest.  And then there are the local ballot propositions, of course.  As always, I am going to start at the national level and make my way down the ballot.

US Senate: Due to California’s open primary, both candidates that qualified for the US Senate seat are Democrats - Dianne Feinstein, the long time incumbent, and Kevin de Leon.  I am actually somewhat ambivalent on this.  On the one hand, I am not a big fan of these long time senators - they almost end up being lifetime appointments unless something dramatic happens.  Add to that, the rather compelling personal story that Kevin de Leon brings to the table, and I was very much leaning towards going with him.  However, what gives me pause is that the other CA senator (Kamala Harris) is already a first-timer and is likely contemplating a Presidential run in 2020.  CA already has a weak voice in the Trump administration - I don’t want it to weaken further by adding another newcomer to the Senate.  Vote for Dianne Feinstein.

Governor: Gavin Newsom (Dem) vs John Cox (Rep).  Outcome is almost a given - Gavin Newsom is going to win.  Might as well vote for him, unless you want to make some kind of statement.  Vote for Gavin Newsom.

Lieutenant Governor: Sort of like the VP at the national level - the person who takes over if the Governor cannot carry out the duties of the office for any reason.  Again, we have two Democrats running - Eleni Kounalakis and Ed Hernandez.  Ed Hernandez has solid credentials.  Kounalakis touts her tenure as an US Ambassador in the Obama administration.  Those are bit suspect since these diplomatic postings are often handed out as rewards for the big fund raisers.  Vote for Ed Hernandez.

Secretary of State: Alex Padilla (D) is the incumbent and by all accounts is doing a good job.  His opponent’s main argument is that the CA voter rolls need to be cleaned up. That’s a bit weak.  Vote for Alex Padilla.

I am going to cut to the chase for the rest of the offices - I recommend a vote for the Democratic party candidate down the line, except for Insurance Commissioner.  For that, I recommend Steve Poizner - he of the SnapTrack fame.  He held this position before and is, somewhat uniquely, running as an independent.  Vote for Steve Poizner.

One more race deserves a mention: Superintendent of Public Instruction - basically, the person in charge of our public schools.  Technically, it is a non-partisan office, but one of the candidates (Tony Thurmond) has the support of much of the Democratic party establishment.  His opponent, Marshall Tuck, also has broad support, but he seems to be a Charter School guy.  I am not a big fan of that.  Vote for Tony Thurmond.

Now for the state wide propositions:
Prop 1: A $4 billion bond to pay for affordable housing, including $1 billion for veterans housing.  Housing prices in CA are a critical problem and the arguments against this prop are some rather nebulous hypotheticals.  Vote YES.

Prop 2: Another bond to pay for homes - this time a $2 billion bond to pay for homes for the mentally ill, who are also homeless.  The twist is that the bond would be financed by the proceeds of the “millionaire” tax that voters approved last year. Specifically, from the portion that is earmarked to help the mentally ill.  It is well established that mental illness is alarmingly common among the homeless and this seems like a worthwhile effort to fight that.  The opposition is very limited and their arguments don’t really hold up to deeper analysis.  Vote YES.

Prop 3:  The third bond prop on the ballot, this time a nearly $9 billion bond to pay for water supply related projects.  It seems to be a well written prop and once again, the arguments against it don’t really wash with me.  Vote YES.

Prop 4: Bond to pay for improvements to non-profit children’s hospitals.  Vote YES.

Prop 5: The first of the non-bond measures on the ballot and a hotly debated one. It is essentially a tweak to the infamous Prop 13.  Current law allows somebody over 55 (or with a severe disability) to buy a new house and carry over the tax basis of their first house.  This is obviously a windfall for anyone who has seen their property values soar, but can’t really cash in since moving means losing the low tax basis of their current house.  However, there are some strict limits on where the new house can be and, most importantly, it can only be done once.  Prop 5 wants to eliminate those restrictions and essentially allow unlimited transfers of the original cost basis.  The supporters advance some interesting arguments - that, on the surface, seem quite persuasive. But, when in doubt, follow the money (& this won’t be only prop for which you will hear me say this), and it is clear that this measure is a boon to realtors and is being heavily bankrolled by them.  The arguments in favor are rather questionable (IMO), and anyway, my inclination is to go against the side that the big money is supporting.  Vote NO.

Prop 6: Ah yes, the gas tax repeal effort.  My gut reaction was to vote against this one because a gas tax tends to be regressive (it hurts the lower income folks way more than it does the higher income folks).  However, our roads and bridges are in bad shape and *everybody* is negatively impacted by that.  Vote NO.

Prop 7: Ok, time for a silly one.  If passed, this prop would give the legislature the permission to make Daylight Savings Time permanent (all year round) or just not have Daylight Savings time at all.  Somewhat appropriately, I am writing this on the eve of the end of Daylight savings time.  While changing all the clocks in the house, twice a year, is a bit of a pain, it also adds just a bit more interest to my life.  :-) More to the point, I am mad that somebody would waste my time with a silly prop like this.  Vote NO.

Prop 8: If you have turned on your TV any time in the last few weeks, you have seen an ad against prop 8.  This fight over this prop has already become the most expensive on in CA history, but here is the kicker - the vast majority of the money is being raised by the No on 8 campaign.  The prop has to do with the price that can be charged by dialysis clinics.  It seems a rather niche one, but incredibly, something like $110 million has already been spent on this prop.  The No folks seem to be all the ones that you would trust - Nurses, Emergency Room physicians, and so on.  But again, follow the money and you quickly find that most of the No money is coming from the private operators of dialysis clinics. The actual prop seems quite reasonable to me and I am going to ignore the strong opposition to it.  Vote YES.

Prop 10 (Prop 9 was thrown out by the CA Supreme Court): Expands rent control authority of local governments.  Rent control measures have a bit of a checkered track record. This prop does not actually bring in new rent controls, but allows local governments to enact them, if they see fit.  The real test is whether you believe rent controls are a good thing or not.  I am personally not very sure one way or the other.  But, the arguments against 10 seem rather specious.  As such, I am going to support this one.  Vote YES.

Prop 11: Require private emergency ambulance employees to stay on call during their scheduled breaks: Don’t really see much of a downside.  Vote YES.

Prop 12: Establishes new standards for the confinement of farm animals.  This is a hot button issue for me. The arguments against this prop are mostly that it doesn’t do enough. Perhaps, but I had rather start with something. Vote YES.

US House: I am in the 52nd Congressional district and Scott Peters (D) currently holds that seat.  I am sticking with him.  Vote for Scott Peters.

I am not going to comment on the other districts, except to say that if you are in the 50th, you get to have the satisfaction of throwing the unrepentant fraudster, Duncan Hunter, out of office. Please don’t lose that opportunity.

State Assembly (District 77): Brian Maienschein (R) has been representing this district since 2012 and seems pretty reasonable and committed. Stick with him.  Vote for Brian Maienschein.

Superior Court Judge: Normally, I have no clue about the various judge candidates, but this time, there is an actual face off between Matt Brower and Gary Kreep to be a Superior Court judge. I have actually heard enough negatives about Judge Kreep to recommend against him.  Vote for Matt Brower.

Local Measures:
A: Not worth debating about.  Vote YES.

B: Similar to A.  Vote YES.

C: Seems like a common sense proposal - money reserved for pensions should not be reassigned to other stuff.  No real opposition against it.  Vote YES.

D: Forces certain elections to happen in the Nov (General) ballot rather the June (Primary) ballot.  This is generally a good thing since some dodgy measures (and candidates) sometimes squeak through in the June ballot simply because hardly anyone is paying attention to that election.  Could be a bit wasteful in some situations, but on balance, I am inclined to support it.  Vote YES.

E: The first of the two “What shall we do with the SDCCU (formerly Qualcomm) stadium land” measures. Measure E has also been called the “Soccer City” initiative, for the main group that is supporting this measure. This measure promises to bring a Major League Soccer (MLS) team to San Diego and throws in a bunch of parks along with a new stadium, retail space, and residential units.  It is structured as a 99-year lease, but the lessee would be allowed to purchase a sizable chunk (79.9 acres) of the land. There are reasons to like this measure, but upon closer examination, there are a number of rather sneaky aspects.  The measure actually doesn’t compel the lessee to do any development (although the odds of nothing happening are rather low), but more importantly, it doesn’t mandate any sequencing of the various promises.  The private group behind this measure would be free to do the more commercial aspects first and punt the more public spirited ones down the line.  At its core, it seems mostly like a land grab to me. Vote NO.

G: This second of the two stadium land proposals - also called the “SDSU-West” initiaitive.  This one allows the city to sell a substantial portion of the land to some entity (most likely SDSU) to put in developments that would benefit SDSU.  This one has fewer sneaky-seeming provisions and also promotes the ostensibly noble goal of growing San Diego’s biggest public university - SDSU. However, it’s not without issues.  A big one is that the funding sources are not clear. However, if both measure E and G get over 50% of the vote, then the one with the higher Yes votes will win the day.  I’d rather not see E squeak through just because enough folks did not vote for G.  Vote YES.

J: Mandates some transparency requirements for bidding on city contracts.  More sunshine, the better.  Vote YES.

K: Removes some loop holes in the term limits statute.  Always good.  Vote YES.

L: Raises the pay of the Mayor and some of the other elected officials: It’s reflexive to to object to a pay raise to any politician, but a closer look at the numbers tells a different story.  These legislators are basically being paid a pittance, largely because they were too afraid of public backlash to vote themselves a pay raise. Even if this measure were to pass, the salaries would be well within reasonable limits.  And it’s not like this would be a permanent benefit - these are all offices with term limits.  Vote YES.

M & N: Measure with no significant opposition.  Just vote YES.  And yes, I am tiring of reading and analyzing another prop. 

No wasted words

          Most mornings, I drop Arjun off in a cul-de-sac from where he can walk down to his school.  This is a very popular drop-off area for many parents and as such, the intersections are somewhat chaotic with cars stopping and kids crossing the streets. One recent morning, as we approached the last intersection, I noticed his good friend Victor crossing the road in front of us. I was a bit surprised since we had never encountered Victor over the 8 months that I had been dropping Arjun off at that spot - and you tend to see the same cars and students almost everyday. I exclaimed, "Hey, Victor is here too!" But there was no reaction from Arjun - he didn't respond or make any attempt to catch up to his friend. Now, I was not entirely surprised by this - Arjun is a somewhat phlegmatic sort, not given to idle persiflage (I had promised Abhi some Wodehousian flourishes in this blog).  Even figuring out what projects and homework are due on any given day is a diabolical variation of Twenty Questions - eliciting Yes/No responses is hard enough, but you also need to judge the reliability of each response.  I just shrugged off his apparent lack of enthusiasm.
Then, remarkably, the same thing happens the very next day: I see Victor crossing the street in front of us at the exact same spot. I go: "Wow, there is Victor again!" Again, not a peep from Arjun - he just sort gives me a look. I am a little miffed now - isn't he carrying this don't care, indifferent teenager act a bit too far? I continued: "All these months I have been dropping you here and we never once see Victor.  Then two days in a row we see him in the exact place - that's a crazy coincidence!  Don't you think?"  Still not so much as a shoulder shrug from Arjun - just a look.  Now I begin to think that he is just messing with me - maybe this is not a surprise for him?  I go: "Unless you guys planned this! Is that what's going on?" I was feeling a bit clever as well for having figured it out - this would explain it all! It seemed like I had finally hit a nerve  - Arjun turned towards me and in a calm drawl: "Well...that's not Victor. So..."

"NOT Victor? Why didn't you tell me yesterday itself? Why did you let me keep thinking it was Victor?"

"Well, I kept expecting you to figure it out yourself."

Turns out Victor takes the bus to school and the chance of encountering him anywhere else was exactly zero.