Maggie's Farm

When I left New York City in 1968, after graduating college, I like many of my fellow graduates from working and lower middle-class families sought our opportunities elsewhere, and most metropolitan elsewheres were better than NYC.  The job market was still strong in NYC, but opportunities for advancement better elsewhere, the costs of living and taxes lower, the public services better, public safety higher.

Today, the New York City disease has spread more widely around the country.  Most major metropolitan areas, the hub of most states, have seen their infrastructure serving the upward mobility and the financial and personal security of their upward-striving or holding-on working and middle class deteriorate over the past 40-years.

Still, there’s striking differences among the states, and the results show.

William Voegeli writes in today’s Los Angeles Times, "The Golden State isn't worth it."  Voegli compares California to Texas, “Our high-benefit/high-tax model no longer works, especially compared with low-tax states like Texas.”  Voegeli says, “These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over what it means to get the size and scope of government right….[T]he superior public goods that supposedly justify the high taxes just aren't being delivered.”

It’s not ideologues who are moving.  For example, I recently ran into a couple I was friendly with in San Diego during the ‘90’s, he a French doctor-scientist and she a Dutch-Indonesian.  They compared San Diego favorably in all respects (except cuisine) to living in Europe, and were happy to be here.  Then they moved to a better job in Silicon Valley, where despite higher income they could afford a house half the size and they felt surrounded by selfishly aggressive strivers.  Then they moved to Austin, Texas, where they could afford a much larger house for their family, in an excellent neighborhood with top schools, the cultural life is vibrant, and the daily courtesies among residents are welcoming and provide good role models for their children.  These products of Europe are a reality test of America.

Voegeli continues: “Overall, the Census Bureau's latest data show that state and local government expenditures for all purposes in 2005-06 were 46.8% higher in California than in Texas: $10,070 per person compared with $6,858.”  Between 2000 and 2007, “16 of the 17 states with the lowest tax levels had positive "net internal migration," in the Census Bureau's language, while 14 of the 17 states with the highest taxes had negative net internal migration.”

Why?

The high-benefit/high-tax model can work only if things are demonstrably not equal -- if the public goods purchased by the high taxes far surpass the quality, quantity and impact of those available to people who live in states with low taxes.

Today's public benefits fail that test, as urban scholar Joel Kotkin of NewGeography.com and Chapman University told the Los Angeles Times in March: "Twenty years ago, you could go to Texas, where they had very low taxes, and you would see the difference between there and California. Today, you go to Texas, the roads are no worse, the public schools are not great but are better than or equal to ours, and their universities are good. The bargain between California's government and the middle class is constantly being renegotiated to the disadvantage of the middle class.

How?

None of this happens by accident. California's interlocking directorate of government employee unions, issue activists, careerists and campaign contributors has become increasingly aggressive and adept at using rhetoric extolling public benefits for all to deliver targeted advantages to itself. As a result, the political reality of the high-benefit/high-tax model is that its public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good. Instead, the beneficiaries are the providers of the public services, and certain favored or connected constituencies, rather than the general population.

What to expect?

The recession will eventually end, and California's finances will get better. Given its powerful systemic bias against efficient and effective public services, however, the question is whether the state will ever get well. California's public sector has pinned its hopes for avoiding fundamental reform on increased federal aid to replace dollars the state's fed-up taxpayers refuse to surrender. In other words, residents in the other 49 states -- the new 49ers? -- would enjoy the privilege of paying California's taxes. Their one consolation will be not having to endure its lousy public services.

If, on the other hand, America's taxpayers (and China's bond buyers) succumb to bailout fatigue, California may reach the point at which, after every alternative has been exhausted, it is forced to try governing itself competently.

It’s not just California, or New York City, but throughout much of America today that we’re seeing the hollowing out of the infrastructure and services and opportunities that built America’s uniqueness and success compared to the rest of the world.  And, big-government advocates are clamoring for yet higher taxes. The New York Times reports today that “Faced with anxiety in financial markets about the huge federal deficit and the potential for it to become an electoral liability for Democrats” the White House and congressional Democrats are seeking some way to reduce the huge federal deficits they have created, and that more taxes are their prescription.

Government  workers and their unions are prime beneficiaries of our heavy taxes. Most of even the made-up stats recently released about jobs saved or created by the federal appropriation of the near $1-trillion “stimulus” show relatively few and most of those among government workers.  The $1-trillion, likely to be much more, cost of the wholesale upheaval of 1/6^th of the US economy in health care – which really only serves about the 25% of those who truly need it who don’t have insurance at the expense of the 85% of Americans who do have coverage -- will fall heavily upon the working and middle class.  The $trillions of indirect and direct taxes of the “cap-and-trade” illusory environmental bill will also add $thousands each year to each American's costs of living, to the economic benefit of profiteering fat cats and their politicos who garner contributions.

At root this may be an ideological battle, as Voegeli says.  But, it is really a practical battle between those who aspire and work for a better life and those relatively few who would squander its underpinnings for their own greedy benefits.  The real populist revolt is already shaking Washington and state capitals, and much more is to come.

President Obama’s appointee, Rocco Landesman, as Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an ignoramus, whose own words keep reaffirming his lackyism and lack of knowledge.  One might not think him unqualified by reading his official NEA bio: Yale PhD in Dramatic Literature, Yale assistant professor, president of a company that owns five major NYC theaters, successful Broadway show producer, board membership on several prestigious arts foundations.  But, that impressive background has not stopped him from saying some outrageously idiotic and incorrect things in excess praise of President Obama’s purported literary skills.

Scott Johnson, of PowerLine blog, critiqued Landesman’s assertions: “Well, so what if Landesman is a bootlicker? Landesman is also an idiot….It would be hard to pack so much ignorance into one short paragraph if one were really trying.”

Today, Johnson gives Landesman space for reply.  Landesman’s reply displays further ignorance of what he speaks, and Landesman’s attempt to slipperly elide from his previous stupid statement.  Johnson comments: “It's the bootlicking, the ignorance, and the higher illiteracy that are Rocco's problems, not the lack of an editor. He really need not worry. Those of us concerned about the politicization of the cultural agencies and intrigued by the phenomenon of Obama worship will continue to find Rocco of interest.”

Remember, this is the NEA that a few weeks ago was caught trying to elicit pro-Obama propaganda from its grants beneficiaries. Now, the trail back to the White House is being exposed.

A couple I’m friendly with teach drama at a prestigious university.  They are politically quite liberal, supporters of President Obama.  Both are quite knowledgeable about literature and the arts, a pleasure to discuss these topics with, and also very well versed in political and other topics.  Either would have made a superior appointee to Landesman.

So, why weren’t they?  Simple.  They are not rich and highly connected contributors to President Obama.

Michelle Malkin delves deeper into what she titles, “No Bundler Left Behind.”  Despite, as in other areas, Obama’s campaign pledges otherwise, he has stuffed his administration with rich sycophants, some clearly unqualified, acting nefariously, or displaying embarrassing inanity.

In earlier administrations, certainly Republican ones but Democrat as well, we might have seen media exposes and uproars over NEA and this wider pattern of appointments (not to mention VP Biden's inanities).  Instead, the media is behaving like relatives at a poorly performed way-off-Broadway production starring favorite incompetent relation Barack Obama.

Democratic Congressmen and Senators should think twice about whether they'd rather have an angry wife by lining up for Pelosi and Reid.

In a recent poll of women, Obamacare is rejected by most women.  This is important because there are more female than male voters, because women are usually more involved with and sensitive to medical coverage, and because women are most influential in making decisions about medical coverage.

Although John Hinderaker’s conclusion is telling that the various ObamaCare proposals from Congressional Democrats all add up to socialized medicine, the rejection of ObamaCare in this poll is even high among Democrat women.  The poll identifies political leanings, but the questions are not ideological.  Practical and personal concerns are polled, and are primary over ideology.

After several decades of experience in health insurance brokerage and consulting, I can tell you that women are far more concerned and demanding as to their coverage.  At least before middle-age, women have more health care issues and make more visits to their doctors.  Women  are most often the decisive influence on the choice made in the workplace, including that most HR people are female, and the wives of the senior executives or owners make their desires quite clear to their husbands. For example, try to separate a woman from her favored gynecologist or their children from their favored pediatrician and the broker usually faces  a fight, the women willing to even pay higher premiums to retain their favorite personal doctors.

A conservative-leaning organization, The Independent Women’s Forum, hired an independent pollster to question in depth what appears to be a representative national sample of female voters about their preferences in the health care legislation debates.  The poll analysis is here, and more details of the questions and responses are here.

Some of the key poll results:

75% want few to no changes to their own healthcare (40% ?? be modified, but mostly left as is; 35% ?? be left as?is) while 19% want it to undergo dramatic overhaul.

67% of women agree with the following statement: “I would prefer that United States Senators and Member of Congress not support poorly?crafted or rushed healthcare legislation. It is more important to get it done right than to get it done fast.”

When asked how much should be spent on healthcare reform, most put the acceptable amounts in the thousands (16%), millions (24%), or billions (16%). Only 10% say that $1 trillion (5%) or more than $1 trillion (5%) should be spent on healthcare reform.

66% of women describe the quality of their health insurance as “excellent” or “good.” 74% use the same terms to describe the quality of their healthcare. 29% say their health insurance is “fair” or “poor” while 24% say the same of their healthcare.

By a margin of 64%?27% of women would “rather have private health insurance than a government?run health insurance plan.”

55% think that the CBO projection of $829 billion is an underestimation of how much will ultimately be spent on healthcare reform. 17% think the figure is too high and 12% think the guess is about right.

46% of women predict that “increased federal involvement in healthcare” will result in more doctors leaving the practice of medicine while 12% think it will cause more to join; 34% think the ranks will remain unchanged.

58% disagree and 29% agree that “more federal involvement in healthcare will improve the relationships members of my family have with their doctors.”

51% of women think more federal involvement will cause declines in the quality of healthcare they and their families receive; 15% feel it will lead to improvements; and 28% believe the quality will remain unchanged.

Among Independents, 73% would be less likely to support a “candidate for Congress knowing he or she favored moving people from their private healthcare plans to government?run healthcare plans.”

Among Independents, 47% would be less likely to support a candidate “knowing he or she supports this new $829 billion healthcare bill,” 31% would be more likely.

Among small business owners, 65% trust that the private sector does a better job of providing choice in healthcare; 25% think the federal government does.

Among small business owners, 56% believe the private sector can offer lower costs while ensuring high quality healthcare; 36% give the federal government the advantage.

Majorities of voters in all age, regional, and educational attainment cohorts believed the private sector to be superior when it comes to providing choice in healthcare. Pluralities of selfidentified Democrats (45%) and liberals (49%) agreed, as well as majorities of self?identified Independents (64%), Republicans (81%), moderates (54%), and conservatives (74%).

Two?thirds of women objected to government paying for abortions in the healthcare bill, including majorities of women of all ages, races, regions, marital and parental statuses, and political parties (55% of self?identified Democrats, 66% of Independents, and 84% of Republicans). Even 39% of “prochoicers” qualified their views with their unwillingness to pay for it.

When informed that “one of the reasons why the deficit is expected to decrease is because the federal government is going to decrease how much it spends on Medicare,” 77% of women deemed this tactic a “mostly bad” one. Just 13% considered this approach a “mostly good” idea. Majorities of women of all ages, races, regions, marital and parental statuses, incomes, educational attainments, political parties, ideologies, and regions considered these cuts to Medicare to be a “bad idea.” At least 70% of women in every age cohort not benefitting from Medicare rejected this.