Richard Rider Rant

1. Win a Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore did it – you can too!
2. Bring Back Gray Davis! He Would Be Better than Arnold.
3. Media bias? Yes, But Perhaps Even Worse Is Reporter Laziness.
4. I Mean It! Gray Davis WAS a Better Governor than Arnold. Just Ask Gun Owners.
5. Further Proof Arnold Is a Terrible Governor. He Lied About Supporting Open Government.
6. The Hidden Cost of Depreciation in Public Works.
7. Trolleys FAR More Crime Ridden than Buses.
8. Portland, the Smart Growth Model for Central Planners, Gets Thoroughly Debunked.

1. Win a Nobel Peace Prize. Al Gore did it -– you can too!

Reason Magazine, Jesse Walker
http://www.reason.com/news/show/122958.html

2. Bring Back Gray Davis! He Would Be Better than Arnold.

RIDER COMMENT: Admittedly I've been hard on the San Diego Union-Tribune of late. Well, actually, they’ve been hard on themselves.

But sometimes the paper gets it right. Below is a link to their editorial of 10/11/07 concerning California’s growing budget deficit, coupled with the governor’s insane proposal to set up DE FACTO single payer health care -– with the taxpayer getting the bill. The worst part of this effort is that the Governor and his allies are simply lying through their teeth about the true cost – they aren’t even making a token effort at being honest.

Below that superb editorial is a blog from U-T editorial writer Chris Reed (who almost surely wrote the editorial as well) on a little-known aspect of Arnold’s plan -– providing government health insurance for under-ten person firms for an amazingly low 1% employer fee (vs. the employer paying about 12% for private insurance). Between the proposed low 4% "normal" employer government insurance fee and the 1% under-10 employee giveaway fee, doubtless almost every sane employer in California will opt to drop their private health plans and instead go with the fee that supposedly covers the state health package.

This is a classic (and disastrous) example of static economic analysis. The proponents blithely assume that almost no employers will opt out of their expensive private health insurance plans and instead take the state up on its Faustian bargain. But clearly the lowball price will move most employers into the government’s incredibly underfunded plan. Costs will soar far beyond the bogus projections.

Guess who then pays for all this? Hint: Not the Easter Bunny. Once everyone is on the government teat, it will be hard to reverse the situation, with employers backing any broad-based tax increase to subsidize their health insurance costs.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071011/news_lz1ed11top.htm

3. Media bias? Yes, But Perhaps Even Worse Is Reporter Laziness.

RIDER COMMENT: One of my pet peeves is reporters' tendency to take government press releases and simply rewrite them as news stories. Since government PR flacks generally are considered by the media to be reputable –- indeed unimpeachable –- sources, no fact checking is carried out. Reporters, who love to think of themselves as cynical "question everything" sleuths, too often become lazy mouthpieces for the advocates of Big Government.

Such reporters become sleuths only when they receive information from Big Government opponents. Then they dutifully rush to the other side to get rebuttal statements, which fill a good portion of the article. I really don’t have a problem with that –- it's just that they should do the same thing when they get propaganda from Big Government advocates, and give both sides an equal hearing. They don’t.

Then these incorrect stories become the source for misinformed editorials and letters to the editor.

Consider this recent example. On 9 October, the SD U-T ran an education story on California and local school enrollment trends, written by reporter Helen Gao. The story claimed that "It's estimated that San Diego district schools [K-12] on average receive $6,000 to $7,000 per student annually." Presumably this figure was passed out by the PR department of the local San Diego Unified School District [SDUSD], which doubtless was the source of the story.

But unmentioned is that this nebulous figure is primarily the ADA (average daily attendance) figure school districts get per student -– one of many, many sources of school funding. This is the favorite educrat figure to disseminate, so that it sounds like public schools are only modestly funded. And the press buys it every time.

Indeed, if the reporter and her editors simply read her own story more critically, they'd get closer to the truth, and instantly know that the $6K to $7K figure is a lie. The U-T story reports that the SDUSD K-12 enrollment is 131,493 students, and that "the district has a yearly general fund budget of nearly $1.26 billion." Divide the dollars by the students, and you get a per student funding figure of $9,582 –- counting just the "general fund" district money.

As one might suspect, even that generous figure significantly understates TOTAL per student funding. See below.

Need more proof? The California Legislative Analyst's Office report of August 2007 says that "the ongoing Proposition 98 K-12 spending is $8,563 per pupil in 2007-08—an increase of $345, or 4.2 percent, over the current year" [2006-2007].

http://www.lao.ca.gov/2007/major_features/major_features_2007.aspx

And that’s just the state Prop 98 spending. FYI, Prop 98 was the unwise earmarking proposition passed by the voters, requiring that 40% of state general fund revenues must be spent on K-12 and community college education.

Not included in this Prop 98 figure is all the state spending that is NOT mandated by Prop 98 (yes, the state spends significant "extra" money on K-12 education over and above Prop 98 requirements). Then there is the mushrooming federal funding for K-12. There are scores of federal programs funding public schools -– especially low income schools. Plus there is local tax funding for public education -– especially supplemental property taxes to pay for building and maintaining schools.

The total spending figure per student from all government sources is hard to pin down, but the low side figure is about $12,000 per student, and it probably comes closer to $13,000. Is that enough to provide a quality education? Certainly it is enough to pay the tuition in 97% of the area’s private schools.

Indeed, give a THIRD of that amount to parents in the form of vouchers or tax credits (I prefer tax credits over vouchers, but that’s another story), and the supposed overcrowding of schools disappears -– big-time! Plus, we'd save a boodle on education costs.

Yet the U-T, whose editorial board had backed school choice for years, dutifully parrots the dishonest "$6,000 to $7,000" per student spending figure, without perfunctory fact-checking, or querying school choice advocates. Then, as if on cue, a letter to the editor appears lamenting this low spending amount, calling for ever-higher taxes for public education.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071011/news_lz7e11lets.html

4. I Mean It! Gray Davis WAS a Better Governor than Arnold. Just Ask Gun Owners.

RIDER COMMENT: When I wrote that we limited government types would have been better off with Governor Gray Davis than Arnold, I meant it. Now gun owners, one of the last conservative groups to doggedly prefer that Schwarzenegger -– a supposed moderate gun rights advocate -– remain in office, just found out what betrayal is all about.

Over the weekend the Governator signed an insane bill to effectively ban new clip fed handguns in California. At the very least, it will make such handguns too expensive for 90% of the population to buy -– and that assumes the new "microstamping" guns can even be produced. Or even that the gun industry will try to invent such a weapon for one state's law. Below is a detailed summary of why this law makes no sense, including the fact that, as it reads, buyers of such guns can face felony charges if the microstamping wears out or doesn’t work.

This bill should have been vetoed. Instead, Schwarzenegger signed the bill –- plus another bill to effectively ban hunting in large parts of California.

If you plan to ever own a handgun, or want your children or grandchildren to eventually have the option of owning a handgun, you would be wise to make your purchases before this law takes effect. Plenty of time -– it doesn't start to take effect for a couple of year, if then.

One truly remarkable lie by the gun grabbers was that adding this technology to new firearms would cost "$1 to $2" per handgun. Why should such obvious liars be believed?

Current weapons will be grandfathered -– for now. But as we well know, gun banning is an incremental process, and the next step (probably more than a decade away) is to confiscate (a mandatory "buy back") older guns, but that political battle will be easier for us to fight. I hope.

No rush to buy your "old style" firearm, as this law will not take effect for a couple years (since the new guns don't even exist), but plan ahead.

http://www.gunownersca.com/Newsletters/PDFs/20073Qpdf

5. Further Proof Arnold Is a Terrible Governor. He Lied About Supporting Open Government.

RIDER COMMENT: Here's yet another area where Schwarzenegger postured for one thing while running, and then did something quite different once elected. This one's a puzzler, as there was no reason to veto the two public records access bills -– but he did anyway.

Read the Sacramento Bee editorial of October 13, 2007.

6. The Hidden Cost of Depreciation In Public Works.

RIDER COMMENT: While the private sector understands, calculates and forecasts depreciation, it is a nonbudget item for government. ALL cost "analysis" of such projects don’t include depreciation (including sports stadiums). But eventually the cost does become apparent.

For instance, the vaunted San Francisco area BART rail system is wearing out. No one budgeted for this certain eventuality. Now they system is scrambling to come up with funding sources for $11.4 BILLION needed to replace worn out rails and trains.

Contra Costa Times
BART gets rusty: Aging system lacks billions for infrastructure
By Denis Cuff
http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ci_7025246?IADID=Search-www.contr...

7. Trolleys FAR More Crime Ridden than Buses

RIDER COMMENT: Randal O'Toole, the bane of light rail transit, runs a clunky-looking but quite functional, information-packed website with endless hard facts and studies demonstrating the folly of the trolley. ALL trolleys. Too bad rail lovers don't read his stuff.

Not that it would sway their opinion. I've come to view many light rail supporters as similar to global warming fanatics. In both cases, their support for their pet project does not rely on facts so much as a semi-religious faith that simply refuses to consider logic, reason and facts -– and distains skeptical viewpoints.

Below is a recent O'Toole piece, pointing out that light rail is loved by criminals, for soooo many reasons. Of particular note is a police officer saying he'd never ride the risky rail line in idyllic Portland, and that he's always ARMED! Click on the URL to the story and the website for more detailed information.

At least consider this excerpt from the article: Light rail is far more susceptible to crime than buses. National Federal Transit Administration data for 2004 indicate that, per passenger mile, light rail is involved with more than 3 times as many aggravated assaults, 26 times as many burglaries, 7 times as many rapes, and 10 times as many robberies as buses. The numbers for 2002 and 2003 are similar.

One reason why buses are safer is that the bus driver is in the same compartment as the passengers and acts as a moderating influence on passenger behavior. Light-rail drivers have their own secure compartments safe from passengers trying to hijack their trains, ask for directions, or get help from muggers.

Light rail is also associated with property crime near rail stations. The chief of police in one of Portland's suburbs told me that they are very aware that, every time a new light-rail station opens, burglaries, vandalism, and similar crimes increase in that neighborhood. One reason may be that transit agencies run rail lines far more frequently than buses, and that frequency allows juveniles (who commit most such crimes) a fast ride away from the scene of their activities.

In Portland, America's poster child for light rail.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=248

8. Portland, the Smart Growth Model for Central Planners, Gets Thoroughly Debunked.

RIDER COMMENT: Portland, Oregon is also the poster child for "smart growth" in general. Government bureaucrats LOVE Portland's central planning policies, with a strong emphasis on Draconian land use control, light rail reliance and supposedly environmentally friendly policies. But for a devastating critique of Portland’s claimed success, read O'Toole's July 2007 Cato study:

Debunking Portland
The City that Doesn’t Work
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-596.pdf