Politics Like Water

Pour a glass of water on a table and as it spreads imagine instead of water it is politics, for they are similar. Without restraint it flows outward until restrained only by its own surface tension holds it back. It cuts into rock creating new streams and rivers reaching far into continents of mass. We are surrounded by it and it lays constantly under the surface. Life cannot exist without it.

Having beat the metaphor to death, the politics of water has constantly been a source of tension, money and emotions in California. Water is constantly in the news and lately the water news is as constant as it ever was.

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is constantly in discussions in Southern California, I am guessing more so than many other areas that are not located on the Gulf itself. Our Pacific Ocean border gives us the ability to imagine tar on our own beaches, our own wonderful pelicans covered in oil, our own businesses impacted. The politics of the Gulf spill therefore are also of interest and conversation, unusually quiet in regards to any criticism of the governments response, not surprising but quiet nonetheless.

Arizona passes SB1070 and shakes up the immigration debate across the country. In Southern California that debate includes water. Our shared border with Arizona is water, the Colorado River, source of life for both states and California's agriculture in the region. Even debates on illegal immigration, state sovereignty and interstate commerce include water in California.

A continual debate and mired in politics is the Delta in Northern California. Hundreds of millions in bond measures pass to shore up levys that are as decrepit as those that failed in New Orleans several years ago. Politics of national versus state's rights and jurisdictions, economic and environmental interest lawsuits and the value of water for all versus life for a fish smaller than your finger.

Debate now begins on whether California's decade long drought is finished, living in Southern California I believe there is no drought but rather normal conditions of living in an arid climate and reclaimed desert. The drought debate comes to for as water companies have enacted policies to restrict water use, encourage conservation and raised rates.

Water. As one philosopher said, man values gold but if dying of thirst would give it all for a cup of water. It is our most precious commodity and we cannot sustain ourselves, or our lifestyle, our culture, our communities without it. We cannot make water, though we are trying to convert ocean water to potable water, we are not there yet.

We drink it, we water our property with it, we play in it, on it and under it, we eat from the bounty it sustains, we clean ourselves in it. Water is the focus of some much of our lives, and because of our ocean neighbor, perhaps more so than most parts of the country.

Locally we have had a debate for years regarding a tremendous breakwater that was constructed by the federal government over seventy years ago. The purpose of the breakwater was to create a huge anchorage for ships to make harbor in Long Beach. Then a major Navy town, sailors and soldiers embarked from Long Beach to fight in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Home to the busiest port complex in the world, ships sit at anchor in the calm waters created by the breakwater before off loading goods from abroad or loading up on American goods.

For many years some of the residents have advocated deconstructing the breakwater and letting waves come crashing on our Long Beach shores once again. The picture above is Long Beach from sometime in the 30's before the breakwater was built, and also the condos and other developments. The Remove The Breakwater (RTB) crowd posits that our community will become flush with tourism dollars as those looking to enjoy the ocean flock to Long Beach rather than Huntington Beach or the South Bay beaches.

The Long Beach is bordered by two rivers, the Los Angeles and San Gabriel. Of particular interest in this breakwater debate is the LA River, more importantly the pigs and slobs who live upstream and dump their trash, crap and junk into the river bed, or that is washed off their streets and into the gutters, through the sewer lines and into the river. Because of the lack of wave action, the RTBs argue, the junk ends up on Long Beach shores. Remove the breakwater and all that junk will no longer be on our beaches and we will have clean ocean water.

Because of the politics and water, in this case water is a giant highway and primary mode of transportation of goods, the Port of Long Beach has a somewhat complex set of policies and restrictions as to where its profits and revenues must go. One would think that because it is in Long Beach, on property in the City of Long Beach and governed by appointments from Long Beach City Hall that Long Beach would benefit greatly from the profits and revenues of the Port. One would think. Because of some politics involving water several decades ago this is not the case. From time to time the City of Long Beach must go to the Port of Long Beach, hat in hand and ask for money. Money to cover development projects such as the Aquarium of the Pacific that cannot meet bond obligations is an example. The Port is like the City's rich uncle who under certain circumstances may help you buy a new car to get to your new job.

The City of Long Beach faces its annual budget deficit crisis. I believe the current number is $19 million but I may be off a few million. We have aging infrastructure that needs replacement and repair, so much so that a bond measure was put before voters specifically to complete infrastructure repairs and replacement because decades of no vision by those at City Hall, elected and appointed, failed to properly budget such expenditures. It failed, and so we are stuck with broken sidewalks, potholed streets, unpaved alleys, failing water and sewer mains.

Last night the City Council of Long Beach voted unanimously, well almost one member was absent, to spend $4 million on a feasibility study. The $4 million price tag is half the cost of the study with the Army Corps of Engineers picking up the other half of the study. The purpose of the study is to determine if the breakwater can be reconfigured to allow waves to return to Long Beach, while protecting existing property and residences and also not interfere with the commerce of the Port by retaining a safe and calm anchorage.

Here are some issues that I have not seen addressed by those most ardent about the breakwater and want its removal.

Isn't the Army Corps of Engineers the organization that was doing feasibility studies and repairs on the levies in New Orleans?

For $8 million of government funds, i.e. taxes, i.e. funds that could be spent on other projects, all we are getting is a survey, a study, paper.

What guarantees do we have that those overseeing the survey, the Army Corps of Engineers, do not have a preconceived outcome that the breakwater cannot be reconfigured? What happens then when our community is $4 million poorer and still have a breakwater?

Assuming the desired outcome from those in favor of spending the money on the survey results, i.e. the breakwater can be reconfigured, what next? Does anyone think that to go through the reconfiguration process will not cost a billion dollars? We are talking about a government project, it costs the government $400,000 to pour concrete for a skatepark or basketball court.

Where is the money to come from to pay for reconfiguring the breakwater? Will the City of Long Beach suddenly become flush, or will the Port of Long Beach be strong armed into coughing up the cash? After all the survey will take four years, then we will have years of planning, during this time several Port Commissioners will be up for re-appointment, or replacement.

Will the number of people going to the beach increase exponentially with the sudden addition of wave action at our beaches? Or will the local economies of Seal Beach, Huntington Beach and the South Bay suffer? Does that matter?

With our civic history of not being very good at budgeting and fiscal control, a scaling back of Marine Department personnel, staffing levels at Long Beach Police Department, the maintenance department and other workers who actually work in the city instead of City Hall, looming because of deficits; where do the funds come to keep the beaches now filled with people clean and safe?

The vision of enabling waves to return to our shores while enabling the vital Port traffic to continue and the property and residences to not be washed away in storms is quite compelling. Spending $4 million of public funds in our current economic state with no plans for what happens next seems short-sighted and wasteful.

The emotion and passion of the water has overcome our city leadership to enter into the agreement for a study. I would prefer that there had been some thought as to how to pay for reconfiguration, how to pay for increased personnel needs, how to manage and mitigate possible traffic and parking issues, had been discussed and thought out before committing to spending what amounts to 25% of our current deficit. On a study.

The lack of "what next" discussions exemplifies the biggest problem with all levels of government. Consequences of decisions and votes are not looked at and analyzed. Votes are made to make supporters happy, to satisfy an immediate visceral cause, and little heed is paid for "what next." How do we pay for what needs to happen next if the study says, yes the breakwater can be reconfigured? If we do not have the answer to that question then the study is a waste of money not matter what it determines.

You've spent the $4 million, now it is up to you, the City Council, to begin work right away on answering the "what if" and "what next." You have four years.

Of course by then we will have a new members of City Council and probably a new Mayor due to term limits and it becomes their problem. Politics.


DCS06232010

What If We Ignored Politicians?

I believe that we are surrounded by perfect solutions to all situations at all times. Our humanness either prevents or inhibits our ability to see the myriad of solutions. Our race consciousness overrides the openness required to move beyond what we know, what we think we know, and our innate self-interest so we are receptive to all solutions available. Only by stepping out of ourselves and putting aside our personal history, our demographic identifiers, our prejudices, our expected outcomes, can we then be open to alternative solutions to problems and issues.

Accepting this process of solution finding, what if we ignored our politicians? What if we ignored the solutions that they present to problems that often they themselves have created? What if we ignored solutions that are formed often not because of their worth but rather because of what they can do--raise money and votes? What if we who are closest to most of the issues and problems looked inside ourselves and our immediate community rather than outside for the perfect solutions which exist by we have not seen?

Our problems are a lot different than they used to be. While many problems remain through history, poverty, illiteracy, quality housing for all, the percentage of our population afflicted with these problems are smaller than they were before. Consider the conditions in major urban areas such as New York City, Chicago or San Francisco one hundred years ago and know we have made great strides in education, sanitation, and safety.

But as our problems have changed so has our problem solving. It seems to me that over the years, especially the past few decades, we have ceded more and more of our problem solving and solution providing to those further and further away from ourselves and where problems exist. Instead of looking within our communities to solve our problems with solutions that exist locally, collectively we have removed ourselves and our communities from the process with the exception of a ballot cast every two or four or six years. Rather than having a local issue that needs addressing being addressed by local residents coming together to discuss the issue and the range of solutions, more and more residents have taken the path of waiting for the government to identify and solve the issue.

What if we lived and acted not out of selfish self-interest but out of what is right, ethical, moral? Can we even do this anymore? Our education system has curriculum designed and required by bureaucrats and politicians not in our community. Our health care delivery system has mandates and requirements that place incredible control in the hands of bureaucrats not in our communities protected by politicians residing far away most of the time. Our public safety is more and more detached as local communities interact less and less with those working to protect them. What solutions that we as a community have are even brought forth much less able to be enacted?

What if we ignored our politicians? What if we ignored the attachment identity that not only they have but that many, most, of us have as well. Attachment and detachment identity. What if we ignored politicians who stake themselves to one solution, in doing so their most ardent supporters stake themselves too, inhibiting the free commitment to the myriad of solutions that surround issues. Too often the solution is conceived by political party officials or workers so far removed from the problem being addressed that they have no concept of the issue much less any possible solutions. Too often the solution has very little to do with the actual problem and more to do with the individuals or groups that enable election and re-election.

What if we ignored the solutions offered by politicians to problems and instead required them to offer their philosophy of problem solving? What if instead of them telling us what problems we have and how they plan to solve them we demanded they tell us instead of what role the government should have in solving problems that exist in our community? What if instead of telling us who supports them we demanded instead that they tell us why that support exists? What if we broke down from the required political dialogue of what can you do for me/us and instead learned what can you do that allows me/us to do for ourselves?

Politicians have one purpose, to determine how much of our money they can acquire through taxes and then to determine how that money will be spent. Our money goes to the city, the county, the state, the federal government, with the belief by those given the power to collect our money that they can spend our money better than we can to solve problems that affect us more than them. What if we were able to use that money ourselves to solve these problems ourselves in our own communities? Are we capable? Would we be able to transcend selfish self-interest sufficiently to enact community self-interest and do what is right? Would we see a greater amount of accountability and personal responsibility within ourselves and our community?

Yesterday as we walked into Ralph's grocery store my eight year old asked me, "Dadda, if we are a free country why do we have laws?" I explained to her the value of laws, to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to be free so some of us do not restrict or stop the freedoms of others. But then I thought, she's is on the right track, but I ask "if we are a free country why do we have so many laws?" Because we are enabling our politicians to create more and more laws by ceding more and more control of solving our problems to them.

What if we ignored our politicians and began finding the perfect solutions that exist within ourselves and our own communities? What if our politicians recognized that more laws and more money do not solve problems, but individuals and communities with recognized common values, common morals, common principles of integrity, accountability, personal responsibility and trusteeship can solve problems?

We are surrounded by perfect solutions, are we open to seeing them? Do we have the internal integrity and courage to recognize them and implement them? Can we ignore our politicians and create our own solutions?


DCS06212010

Energy

We use a lot of energy. Twenty million barrels of oil a day. Approximately 1 million tons of coal per year, almost all of it for electricity production. We us a lot of energy. The energy we use is a tremendous economic engine as well. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are tied to energy: production, distribution, transportation and delivery. Billions of dollars in taxes are generated by energy: corporate tax, dividend and capital gains tax, income tax, sales tax, state tax, local utility tax, property tax.

We use a lot of petroleum products besides gasoline for our SUVs, SmartCars and Hybrids. Plastics, paint, technological hard ware, look around where you are sitting right now and try to find something that is entirely natural with no petroleum distillates added. Ignoring the petroleum required to power the manufacturing plants and modes of transportation of the items we use every day, the items themselves are made almost wholly or in part by petroleum distillates.

The food we eat is dependent on oil. Not just to power the tractors and harvesters for farming, or the trucks that transport it from distant farms to our local stores. But also in most of the fertilizer that is used to grow crops.

What is happening in America, and around the globe, is an inability to separate "oil" from "energy." This lack of separation is welcomed by the "global warming" crowd and those who seem bent of removing all fossil fuels from our economies and use. But it is important that we consider the energy issue as two issues: oil for consumer consumption and energy for the production of electricity.

Oil is the current dirty word due to the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico as we turn on our televisions and see the gushing oil from the ocean floor. Knee-jerk reactions were unsurprising to call for the cancellation of all off-shore drilling and some calling for the cessation of all drilling in our country. In the next breath these same people decry our dependence on oil produced abroad. But we consume 20 million barrels of oil a day. But we are not permitted to produce what we consume at home. Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, are just a few nations willing to continue to extract oil from the earth and send it to America to fill the gap between our domestic production and consumption.

We need to drive less and have more energy efficient cars. How much? What is an acceptable amount of oil consumption? Fifteen million barrels per day? That's a 25% cut in consumption, pretty steep. A fifty percent cut to ten million barrels per day? We can cut our driving and increase the efficiency of our automobiles that much? Maybe use more Hybrid vehicles. But don't they actually have larger "carbon footprints" due to their production?

Let us assume that Americans through economical driving habits and advancing technology of automobile manufacturing are able to reduce our gasoline consumption by fifteen percent. Does that cut the oil consumption by fifteen percent? When we are consuming more and more goods made by petroleum by-products? We are replacing books with little plastic devices. We are replacing our plastic cellular phones every year or two depending on your calling plan. We replace our laptops and home computers every few years to keep up with the changing technology. We are buying new iDevices that are somewhere between our laptop, Kindle and handheld phone/calendar/camera. We buy new printers that are cheaper than purchasing ink for the old printer.

Our entire economy and personal consumption habits are dependent on oil, petroleum, fossil fuels buried in our earth. Our political climate is such that we are shutting down the exploration and extraction of this commodity from the earth within the boundaries of the United States. We are becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign nations and companies for the commodity that is most important to our economy.

We have oil, plenty of it. Oil we can get to without deep water drilling, which is what has created the problem in the Gulf. Had the same incident occurred closer to shore on a slant drilling rig the nation would be talking about the financial reform bill working through the House and Senate and not the oil rig accident that was capped in a few days. Had the same type incident happened on a drilling rig on dry land you never would have heard of it. This disaster is a disaster because of where it is located: one mile under the surface of the ocean.

As politics and extreme environmentalism shuts down the ability to operate drilling and extracting operations in relatively safe environments the likeliness of future drilling disasters like the one now occurring increase. We have plenty of oil, off the Atlantic coast, off the Gulf coast, off the Pacific coast, throughout Alaska, we have oil that can be drilled and extracted without incurring anywhere near the disaster of what is happening now. Last night President Obama spoke about the relationship between oil companies and politics and said something to the effect that we need political "courage and fortitude" I believe were the words used, to break our oil dependency.

What we need is political courage and fortitude to encourage and support production of our oil supply within our nation's boundaries and be serious about reducing our reliance on foreign production--much of it in the control of tyrants who repress their citizens. We are not going to reduce our reliance on foreign oil by reducing our consumption if we continue to reduce our domestic production. What we needed to hear last night from President Obama regarding oil production and consumption was a commitment to utilize our nation's national resources for safer and cleaner extraction of this commodity upon which our economy and way of life balance.

Regarding energy production for our electricity needs, Obama gave us the standard pablum of "green jobs" and increasing solar and wind technologies. Which take up huge swaths of land to provide their relatively clean energy (solar panels and wind propellers are mostly petroleum based in manufacturing) and in California are being opposed by environmentalists so they won't be in production any time soon.

What about nuclear energy? Zero mention of this clean energy that is one reason Europe consume less petroleum, natural gas and coal per person than Americans do--most of their energy is now coming from nuclear power plants. We have entire fleets of decommissioned nuclear submarines that can be converted to provide electricity to our coastal communities. Entirely clean and safe. We have approximately twenty nuclear power plants across the country that are stalled from being put into play because of government and legal issues.

We have the solutions to our national energy "problems." Our issues are not lack of solutions, it is lack of implementation. Our issues are due to dishonest discussions that bend public opinion into keeping us trapped in our dependency of foreign oil production and out of date and dirty energy production. Until President Obama and others in politics break themselves away from the extreme environmentalists we will not be able to implement solid strategies that solve our two issues of energy consumption.


DCS06162010

Coyote Activity Will Increase Bixby Knolls

I had the pleasure of playing golf at Virginia Country Club this Sunday. We teed off a little early, a bit after 6:30, and about 30 minutes later as we approached the 4th green we saw a coyote running parallel to the fairway and into the brush on the hill between the 4th green, 5th tee (Ladies), 16th tee and 15th green.

When I saw the coyote I said to my playing partner, "Looks like we have some company." He said that evidently there is a litter of pups in the brush in that area. Perhaps Mama was out foraging for her youngsters.

Later in the round we heard many "yips" that those who have heard them first hand know are definitely the sound a pack of coyotes make. Virginia Country Club is abundant with wildlife enjoying the brush, ponds and fields. Besides the coyote we saw a hawk doing lazy circles in the sky, copious amounts of squirrels and several varieties of birds busy in the morning hours. Plenty of feeding opportunities for a family of coyotes.

Also plentiful is the colony of feral cats that I believe still abound between Virginia CC and the Los Cerritos Rancho.

But no matter how abundant the current food supply may be for a mom and her young pups, eventually the hunting grounds will start to expand and when it does residents in the Los Cerritos area, and then Bixby Knolls east of Atlantic and then south of Carson, can expect some increased coyote activity as the summer gets going full swing and the little ones begin to mature.

As they roam the area at night they are looking for easy prey, which includes domesticated animals out for the night. If you see one or more during your morning or evening walks make plenty of noise, yelling, whistling and clapping, and usually they will trot off away from you.

One antidote for them coming onto your property is to spread human urine on your yard, garden or perimeter--sounds like a good excuse for the neighbors to come together for a "Make Coyote Repellent Party!"

For those golfers reading this, after spotting the coyote I two putted from the back of the green to the front pin location for par and my buddy knocked in his uphill eight footer for birdie. Mama Coyote was good luck, and we needed her for one more hole as we proceeded to double and triple the par 5 fifth.

Watch your pets.

DCS06152010

Credit or Debit?

A question we are used to answering as we pay for our goods and services at coffee shops, grocery stores, barber shops and book stores. The assumption by retailers is that you will not be paying cash for your transaction, but rather that you will swipe either a credit card or a debit card tied to your bank account. With over $1.63 Trillion in debit card transactions in 2009 according to J. D. Power & Associates survey, compared to $20 billion in credit card transactions, Americans are saying "debit" more frequently.

With consumer spending dropping in the recent recession, so to has consumer debt. Seeing an increase in debit card usage and decline in credit card usage for purchases is not surprising as consumers begin to reign in buying "wants" and stick to "needs." Through all of these transactions is a myriad of companies and fees that scrape a little off the total bill of $43.56 you just paid at Trader Joe's to handle the transaction and make your check out so easy.

There are different fees for debit cards and credit cards and most retailers prefer the debit card transaction as it costs them less per transaction. With the rising numbers of debit card transactions, retailers are facing a choice, or have already slowly implemented their choice: raise prices or lower profit margins, because of the rising costs of doing business with a consumer that is moving away from cash. Years ago AM/PM made the move to give the consumer the choice: pay cash or pay $0.45 more on your transaction to use a credit or debit card. The choice most retailers are making has been an incremental increase in prices, a penny hear a nickel there to cover their increased operating expenses due to decreasing cash transactions.

When you swipe your card at the cash register the merchant pays a fee up to 2.95% of the total transaction cost plus a flat fee up to $0.15 (fifteen cents). Larger retailers such as Home Depot or Kroger's, have a better rate than smaller merchants that may have only one or two, or even ten, stores. The percentage rate can, and usually does, vary by the size of the transaction with the higher rate being for smaller purchases. A stand alone coffee shop with an average transaction of $4.32 will most likely pay the highest fees for offering the convenience of card transactions, using the $4.32 transaction up to $0.28 (6%) can be for fees so you can use your card. In addition to the swipe fee the retailer has standard bank fees for statements, transfers, etc.

Looking forward the retailers and banks realize that the use of debit cards for transactions are likely to increase as more and more consumers become used to using them, essentially as those who grow up with debit cards make them an integral part of their financial habits, just like on-line bill pay. Banks and Visa/MasterCard have been increasing their marketing to use debit cards because of the billions in fees collected by the use of these cards through the interchange rates per transaction. Retailers have been supporting their use to an extent, as banks have been raising their fees for debit cards the convenience offered customers balanced against the higher fees offset by a recession that makes raising prices very difficult, retailers are in a difficult financial position. Especially smaller retailers.

This huge financial industry that is integral to almost all of our lives now has a new factor with which to contend: politics. President Obama, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi have found a silver lining in the Gulf oil disaster, it has completely obfuscated all news on their financial reform bills. As complex, confusing and disjointed as the health care reform act, the financial reforms coming out of yet another multi-thousand page bill have seen little scrutiny by the media. As a result most Americans are completely ignorant of many provisions that will impact their daily lives. In fact many industries are still trying to learn how they will be impacted if the bills are passed as they currently stand.

One aspect of the current bill in the Senate is to limit the fees that can be charged retailers for interchange fees. The purpose of this is, of course, to "protect the consumer." The principle being to limit the fees that banks and credit card companies can charge retailers will limit the charges passed onto consumers for debit charges through higher prices needed to off-set the bank fees. This works very well for the retailer and the large banks such as Chase and Bank of America, but not so well for many consumers and the smaller community banks and credit unions.

Under the proposal the government will set the interchange fees for debit and credit card purchases and the supposition is the fees will be much lower than they are today. Seeing the billions of dollars to the banking and credit card industry in these fees that ultimately are paid by consumers through prices at retailers, the politicians feel having government control of these fees will lower the costs to consumers by taking them out of bank profits. But like taxes, fees or inability to collect fees to maintain profit margins, are always passed along to consumers.

Small banks and credit unions are strongly opposed to the government intervention in the interchange fee market and especially forcing lower fees. They are communicating to their customers that such a reform will result in their having to raise their bank fees to depositors, and/or charge a fee for every debit transaction they process to individual accounts to make up for lost fees from retailers. They argue that retailers most likely will not lower their costs to make up for the lower fees imposed by the government, so in the end consumers will pay the same retail costs plus higher bank fees for the convenience of using debit cards.

Retailers, particularly small retailers, have long complained of the high costs of debit and credit card fees paid to banks, fees that have become increasingly more noticeable to them as the number of cashless transactions they process has risen. Banks count of the fees to ensure profitability, or at least lower operating costs; as has been seen in the past few years many banks are on the verge or have been past the verge of profitability. Caught in between, as always and as the market system is supposed to work, are the consumers. Choosing between quality, price and service consumers make their choices known by where they swipe their cards. With the pending legislation impacting bank fees consumers will then be faced with making their choices on which banks to use based on what charges will accrue to them for the convenience of using debit cards for their transactions.

Since 2007 we have heard "too big to fail" in many different ways. In looking ahead to the future for American consumers and their financial options, it appears Congress and the Administration would rather have a few very large banks, lets call them huge, versus an economy with many small community banks and credit unions serving local populations. By moving the charges to consumers for using debit cards from the retailers to the banks, the pending legislation will move consumers from smaller banks to larger banks that will be able to use economies of scale to offer lower fees to a larger customer base.

As a consumer that uses a debit card significantly more than cash for my purchases, I would much rather pay the retailer for any interchange fees as part of the price of the goods and services I am purchasing than have additional fees added to my monthly bank charges. For one in any given month I do not know how many such charges I will have making it difficult to properly budget these fees.

Do you use mostly cash or debit/credit cards for your everyday transactions? Would you rather pay for the convenience of these transactions at the cash register or through your bank fees? Click on "comments" below (itty-bitty next to "Posted by Dennis C Smith...") and let us know will you go back to cash or stick with debit card if fees change?

DCS06142010