Small, but Needed Step, to Greater Government Transparency

In a significant step towards greater government transparency -- and how our taxpayer dollars are being spent -- the stimulus bill requires government agencies to report disbursed monies via an optional RSS feed.

For each of the near term reporting requirements (major communications, formula block grant allocations, weekly reports) agencies are required to provide a feed (preferred: Atom 1.0, acceptable: RSS) of the information so that content can be delivered via subscription.

Real time reporting of how money is allocated will provide advocate organizations greater ammunition to push for a more effective, productive use of government resources -- and our tax dollars. I fully expect this development to create a few firestorms in the blogging world... which will consequentially be covered by radio, broadcast and print media outlets.

Hat tip: Steve Rubel

The People's Republic of Santa Monica

One would think if you were going to subsidize social services for the homeless and mentally-ill woman you would look to minimize costs not related to the service to maximize outreach. This basic logic apparently does not exist with the public policy makers in the city of Santa Monica.

In 1973 the city purchased a mixed-use building a block away from the Santa Monica pier with ocean views. Since then the building has been used by nonprofits to provide services to the homeless and mentally-ill woman. One would think if the city sold this property they could use the proceeds to find a building that is not in a prime commercial real estate area to increase the center's size and scope of reach. Not in Santa Monica however:

More than 35 years after purchasing a mixed-use building on scenic Ocean Avenue, City Hall is preparing to lease the property for affordable housing.

The City Council is expected tonight to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a lease with OPCC and allocate $100,000 to the nonprofit homeless service provider for architectural, legal and consulting purposes...

City Hall purchased the 19-unit property at 1614-1616 Ocean Ave. in 1973, leasing the rent-controlled spaces to residents and OPCC's Daybreak Day Center, which offers social service programs to homeless and mentally-ill women. About seven units are currently vacant to make way for future building rehabilitation.

Taking the merits of the program aside, is it really in the best interests of taxpayers to be subsidizing ocean front views for the homeless?

Is Santa Monica the only city in the state not to face a budget crisis?

Chronicles of Politicians Gone Mad

I could not make this up... per the Independent Institute's blog The Beacon:

Earlier this month, Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would ban camera phones from having a silent mode when taking a picture.

The Camera Phone Predator Alert Act (H.R. 414) would “require any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken.”

You know you have been in office far too long when you introduce crap like this. Leaving aside the issue on whether the government should be regulating the free market in the first place (if consumers wanted the feature a phone company would certainly enable this option -- it's just a simple software update) can anybody -- somebody? -- please explain to me why it is in the public's interest for the government to get involved in something as trivial as this.

Why I am against the Proposed Bailout of the Big Three

Reposting my thoughts I e-mailed to a few friends the other day. The remarks in quotations are statements from a really good friend of mine.
------

"No other industry has been similarly crippled because external circumstances - fuel prices - don't have such a major effect on the health of any other industry."

Fuel prices are NOT the reason the American auto industry is having problems. That is an absurd argument. Why are Toyota, Honda and other foreign manufacturers still in the black? The foreign companies have achieved profitability in America mainly by setting up their factories in Southern and border states where they could avoid the UAW, and thereby introduce efficient methods of production.

"The automakers also rely heavily on loans and bonds to operate; the complete collapse of the credit market was another factor beyond their control."

Not really. Only a couple of years ago, GM was paying $5 billion per year in health benefits to retirees and current employees. The UAW was intent on saddling GM, Ford and Chrysler with absurdly high benefit liabilities knowing if all else failed government would pick up the tab.

There is a reason foreign automobile companies have easier access to credit -- they are simply run better and limit the power unions have.
-----------
Back to the principle point at hand.... why bankruptcy is the needed cure and why the bailout is a bad idea.

Bankruptcy Needed

1. Bankruptcy would help GM and Ford become more competitive by allowing them to rip up significant parts of their labor contracts with the UAW. Allowing the big three to dramatically reduce their health care liabilities to past and present workers and reduce the wages of current workers would lead to dramatic cost savings. I doubt this is possible without declaring bankruptcy.

Here is an analogy for you... United Airlines. By entering bankruptcy it was able to reduce its inflated cost structure by breaking contracts it had with the pilots union and other employee unions. It exited bankruptcy a slimmer and more efficient airline. Although it remains to be seen if UA can still survive, it is in much better shape to compete than before it entered bankruptcy.

2. Bankruptcy would force a massive reorganization. The current management would be forced out and allow the firms to reorganize and become more productive and efficient firms.

Why Bailout Bad

1. A bailout of the big three without forcing fundamental change in how these firms are managed will only result in another round of $25-$50 billions checks in the very near future. It is simply a terrible idea to simply write a check to the auto industry without demanding major, major restructuring of its labor contracts. Without that the money will simply go down a rat hole and the automakers will just be back again in a year or two asking for more money. Why should we as taxpayers subsidize a business model imposed on the big 3 by the UAW that is fundamentally not feasible?

The Democrats need the mid west for political power, and rely on the UAW and other unions to get out the vote. No way are the Dems going to get the needed massive concessions out of the UAW to allow the Big 3 to be able to compete without subsidies against foreign car companies that are profitable without massive government subsidies.

2. Government is inherently bad about picking economic winners and losers. Rewarding political patronage and enhancing electoral power is more important than creating a viable profitable business.

3. What is the objective of the bailout? To save jobs? At least with the bailout of the financial sector we have an objective of keeping banks capitalized enough where they can continue to lend money. Pretty straightforward.

We just don't have any good blueprint for what we want them to do!!!
----

"what matters is getting the policy right so that we don't put too many people out of work, on the one hand, or waste the government's money on the other."

I would argue that a bailout in of itself is a waste of taxpayer money. Government should not be in the business of deciding economic winners and losers -- that my friend is socialism.
-----
Bottom line is Detroit needs to dramatically cut production, wages and health care costs.