Be careful what you wish for  

Be especially careful when you are asking folks to vote for what you’re wishing for.

Charter input toward bankruptcy

I see letters to the editor, blogs, and comments insisting that the Charter should have been developed by groups of citizens. According to the Wall Street Journal on 12 July of this year, the Charter cities declaring bankruptcy had provisions favoring Big Labor written into their charter – by citizens’ groups. It should be easy to foresee bankruptcy if you include a clause guaranteeing an automatic raise when neighboring towns got a raise, even if the clause is on everyone’s wish list.

Or away

The proposed Charter for Costa Mesa is written to reduce expenses, and to insure that debacles like Bell don’t happen. And, it doesn't have the Labor-supporting clauses that may well have tipped Stockton and Compton and the others toward bankruptcy when the economy went south. Not bad to put on your wish list.

Input from whom

What if we followed candidate Stephens’ wishes, and the demands of CM4RG, and developed a charter with more input “from the citizens?”

Would the citizens they envision developing a “better” charter be members of the AFL-CIO which endorses and supports Mr. Stephens?  Would the group include a member, from CM4RG, who sings protest songs in City Council meetings?

Perhaps such a group would develop a Charter that would help send Costa Mesa down the same path as Stockton et al. That should be foreseeable  so it seems wise to avoid that path. 

But, delaying the Charter for a few more years to “study it,” and get more “citizen input” would be very likely to send us that direction as well – it’s foreseeable. So it’s not wise to wish for either of these choices.

It's good, why do they hate it

Decreasing our expenses now to use more money improving streets and parks does seem wise, and good for our wishlist. Why the opposition?

The proposed charter cuts some excess power away from the public employees’ unions, and makes some union officials’ jobs more difficult—they have to convince employees to donate to their political causes instead of just levying assessments. So, it helps the citizens of Costa Mesa and inconveniences some unions – while current employees keep their benefits.

Would the fact that public employee unions endorse and are supporting three candidates have anything to do with their opposition to the Charter?

Would the “fear mongering,” the appeal to vague and misquoted authority, and the repetition of simple slogans in all of their blogs and letters and comments demonstrate wishing to mislead sincere people into irrational views?

Consequences

There’s a consequence for shaping others’ beliefs, and if you try to influence them when you are mistaken, that’s sad. Such an error could get you fired if you worked outside of government.

But if you try to manipulate emotions to change beliefs, knowing you are misleading the people who believe you, well, that’s evil. Not the kind of evil a local blogger ascribes to Council members who disagree with his views. 

No, it’s real evil, the kind that has disasters and debacles as foreseeable consequences. The kind of evil that lead to the Bell debacle, and Stockton's bankruptcy.

Careful with that wish

Be careful what you wish for in politics until you have solid facts, not opinions and slogans.