From the Publisher/Arnold G. York
City council election
After much huffing and puffing, and criticism, resignations and firings, just about everyone who was in the heat of the recent controversies about Measure M opted out of the city council race. I’m frankly puzzled why so many people I know are interested in the city and its politics would stick a foot in the water and then at the last minute balk at taking the plunge. It’s both saddening and makes me angry. Malibu has always had a problem with many who are more than willing to criticize city policy, but then find reasons not to run. My congratulations to Councilmember Jeff Jennings and Mayor Ken Kearsley who threw their hats back in. I can well understand Councilmember Joan House’s decision not to run again. After 12 years on the council, she is entitled to a well-deserved rest and a thank you from all of us for her many years of service. My congratulations to Walt Keller, back from Elba, because with Walt in there we know it’s going to be an interesting campaign. We have three new faces making their first run for political office-Jay Liebig, Pamela Conley Ulich and Bill Winokur-so the forums and public appearances take on an extra importance because it’s a way for all the candidates to introduce themselves and for us to hear what they have to say.
The national budget
I always used to think the Republican Party was the party of fiscal conservatives and therefore could be counted on to sit on unnecessary spending. I understand that the definition of “unnecessary” is often in the eye of the beholder, but still, when it comes to public moneys, the Republicans are typically cheaper than the Democrats. In the state of California, the old Republican adage of fiscal conservatism is probably still reasonably true. And though in recent years it looked to me that even though the state Republicans hated to tax, they didn’t seem to have much problem with bonds. Why taxes are terrible, immoral and wasteful, and bonds are considered prudent and wise has never made any sense to me, which may be why I’m not on Wall Street. The bad part about bonds always seemed to me that you spent it now and paid for it later. That might be OK if you can handle the debt, but it’s sort of like credit cards. The vice isn’t that you can run up the debt, the vice is that credit card companies let you make small enough payments that you never get to retire the debt. Besides, in the interim, rather than tightening your belt you just keep buying. I fear the state’s going to continue to keep right on spending no matter what. The effect of bonds is to push everything off into the future, which I assume must eventually come.
But then you go to the national economy and there seems to be a different set of economics at work. What happened to all that Republican fiscal conservatism that was going to keep us disciplined? Suddenly the president is proposing we endorse a budget that includes everything-both guns and butter. He’s proposing a budget that’s going to keep us in a deficit until at least 2009, and possibly longer. The response of the White House appears to be that the deficit doesn’t matter. Why a deficit matters a great deal in California and not at all in Washington, D.C. is a very perplexing question. What they’re saying, if I understand it correctly, is it doesn’t matter because the deficit, which really is borrowed money, will make the economy grow. And then, as the economy grows, it will be easier to pay off the debt. I have grave doubts that’s true. I can’t believe we can run in the red for at least five years with no economic impact and without big risks. Besides, things happen. Wars, floods, weather changes and who knows what else. If anyone out there thinks they can explain this in 700 words (about the length of my column), please do so and send it in.
Déja vu?
This was a very interesting weekend. When you think about it, we’re en route to picking a Democratic candidate to oppose the president, the war in Iraq is showing every indication of being long, drawn out and virtually insoluble and the president is talking about putting us deeply in debt for the next decade. And what’s the public dialogue all about? Why, Janet Jackson’s boob, of course. I think if we put her boob on the ballot we probably could get it elected to Congress. Karen’s theory is that we’re becoming like the end of the Roman Empire, nothing but bread and circuses. I’m beginning to wonder if she’s right. We were in the Roman Coliseum a couple of years ago and a very good guide was showing us around. The events in the Coliseum had gotten bigger and bigger and more expensive every year. There was high unemployment among the Roman citizens and the slaves who were cheaper than Roman citizens did all the hard work. Some of the jobs had also flown to the provinces or overseas to captured territories. Apparently, the circus kept people amused or at least distracted until the barbarians came along. Does this sound like a familiar scenario?