Refuse the Juice

Why I didn't comment on EPE

If you were asking that - good question. 

When the sale of the publicly traded company made news I had an interest in what was going to happen.  I also had conversations with people who had many questions as to what would happen if the company sold.  I did a little digging and read what was available. I came to the conclusion that since I am not a stockholder that it was probably not much I could say about the situation.  After all, it's the board and the stockholders who control the company.  

Bottom line - the people with money in the game voted to sell the company.  What more can I say?  They bought in with the understanding that they would have the privilege of guiding that company's decisions.  Whether it was a good or bad decision is not relevant.  If you buy a TV and decide to use it as a boat anchor - what right or privilege do I have to tell you that you're wrong?  It's not my TV.  It wasn't my money that bought the TV.  Therefore I have no say over its future uses or possession. 

Yes, I heard the rumor that some major bank that had been fined before was involved.  That rumor was fed by an few news pieces that really confused me.  The gist of the argument is that the major bank was a silent/secret partner of the buyers.  However, it seemed rather clear that the reporters easily ascertained the major bank's involvement with the buyer group.  I tend to question how secret something is when it's pretty much written all over publicly available material put forth by the buying group.  It seemed none of the "investigative reporters" had to do much "investigating" to find out the obvious connection between the major bank and the buyer group.  Call me cynical, if you want, but I work for a living in a world where real dark money from mysterious benefactors exists.  Just because you don't like their involvement as an adviser to the buyer group doesn't mean the situation is secret or otherwise nefarious.  I really didn't find that to be an angle that held much of a story and it certainly wasn't a "gotcha" moment. 

The only thing you have to worry about is if the new owners have better lawyers than your lawyers when it comes time to fight rate increases.  When it does come time to state their case in front of the state officials, you're going to want to have a better team than they do.  Unfortunately for you, there's no budget to hire that kind of team.  Fortunately for them, they've got a big budget.  

Somewhere in this non-story is a bigger story about utility deregulation and the competition that comes with that.  I'm a fan of choice.  I think choice drives down prices while lifting quality and service.   The ins and outs of this issue are quite complicated given the way we originally established utility easements in  public right of ways etc.  The conversation is sure to be the audible equivalent of four Tylenol PMs chased by a fifth of vodka.  Imagine how awful it would look in blog form.  We're best just drinking the vodka by itself and proclaiming loudly to our friends "somebody ought to do something about that!"  

Ms. Tamayo - the fighter you probably don't need

The lovely Ms. Tamayo filed to run for the District 76 house seat on the actual first day you could sign up (November 9th).  I'm a fan of her eagerness and a bigger fan of her campaign staff not letting this little detail slip.   Oddly enough, I can't figure out what day is the last day to sign up to run.  Maybe you'll have better luck understanding this - https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/2020/dates2020.shtml.

I forgot to mention... I know that Ms. Tamayo filed her paperwork because she sent me an email with pictures and graphics and all kinds of cool stuff to let me know.  Within that visual masterpiece was a smattering of words... which is the best way I can describe them because they are basically nonsense. 

Her first words:

"This week, I heard from many voters about the issue of rising property taxes in our community. A major contributing factor to this rise in property taxes is our state's refusal to adequately fund public education. During the last legislative session, state leaders passed HB 3, an omnibus education bill aimed at improving public education funding in Texas. HB 3 is a solid start but our state can do more."

Uh... so our property taxes are high because the state doesn't spend enough on education?  WHAT?  Does she not know where the state gets their money?  Does she know what property taxes are?  What they pay for?  Who pays them?  You have to be kidding me here.  On what planet do you hear someone say "I hate paying high taxes" and you tell them the key to paying less taxes is to spend more tax dollars????  Seriously, Mike Apodaca needs is supposed to be the campaign guru of all campaign gurus and the fact he let this out the digital door is absolutely appalling. 

And just a side note... There's no way the state could sell stealing tax revenues from other districts to apply to El Paso - one of the largest districts in the state.  That's robbing Peter to pay Peter.  Besides, the local tax burden is from all the damn bond issues the schools keep easily passing.  If you're mad about education, ask them what they are doing with nearly a billion dollars in bonds over the last decade.  

Bottom line - Tamayo is absolutely clueless here. How does one work for a state senator and state representative and not understand basic taxation?

Things only get better as she threatens to start throwing punches on your behalf:

"The demographics of our region demand that the state properly funds educational programs for all children in Texas. We need leaders who are not going to shy away from fighting for adequate funds next session. I am ready to fight for an increased share of state funding for public education. Our students deserve to have well-funded programs and our residents shouldn't have to bear the brunt of funding public education." 

From a historical prospective a person might see the "fighting" or "fight for" mantra as a lost cause in Austin. Might be better to just ask them for favors first.  You don't punch everyone in the room first and then expect them to do you a favor.  Doesn't make much sense.

Unless...

This is all just campaign rhetoric bullshit every candidate spews.  "I'll fight for you!"  No you won't.  And if you try, you'll be relegated to a powerless committee and given an office by the dumpster.  When you are trying to overthrow a government - you fight. When you are trying work within government, you ask politely. There's a big difference. 

What a low energy, low effort email on Tamayo's part.  She should be schooling the local girl on state level policy and she's clearly not capable.  

Update on the former mayor

I got word over the weekend that the former mayor trying to be the next mayor will not hire Lily Limon in any capacity if he wins.  This is good news.  However, I still don't get why she's connected in any way to his campaign.  Limon did not do things as a city council member that anyone I know would want to be associated with.  Between the odd interaction with staff and the constant threat to business owners she didn't like, she was a walking talking red flag of political liability - if not legal liabilities as well. 

I also hear that he's okay with the current city attorney.  I think that's a good sign.  The last one is the reason for a lot of the headaches we have right now.  This arena thing was exasperated by that administration.   Blaming the current mayor or city attorney for the problem is simply ignorant - ignorance of recent history, at least.  

My only concern is that the former mayor will be in no better spot than the current mayor if he wins.  Future city councils will seek to raise taxes every year and there's nothing the mayor can do about it.  Even worse is that the morons in the local blogosphere blame the mayor for something he doesn't even get a vote on.  He vetoed it and they ran right over that veto. Yet they blame the mayor. They'll blame the former mayor just like the blame the current one because they are...(drum roll)  ignorant as to how things actually work.   It's like they're out of oil and they keep putting air in the tires hoping to solve the problem. 

And another thought on that....

For some reason Rich Wright and friends want to go after Ordaz on taxes when Svarz and Annello wanted a $4 million slush fund for pet projects among other huge increases originated at their request.  Not a word against them???  I guess if you'll support Grossman's Duranguito protest, you can escape any earned criticism on budget and taxes.  Makes it hard to trust these people when they pick and choose who to apply their values to. 

You gave them permission to take $100 million more

I hate to say it, but I can't feel sorry for those of you whining about another certificate of obligation (CO)vote for tens of millions of dollars.  You keep electing these people.  Guys like Max Grossman who complains daily about taxes is a huge fan of several city council members that are the drivers of this spending.  I guess Duranguito is more important than your tax dollars... I guess you already knew that. 

The cold hard fact is that every single election you fail to put up a viable candidate and  in every single election you elect a tax and spender.  In the mean time you guys never go after the factions that are spending all the money.  Not once have you guys gone after the Escobar/Byrd dynasty that wouldn't mind a 100 percent tax rate on your property.  After all, they know better what to do with your money than you do.  

And I find it odd bedfellows with some other bloggers who like to have drinks in foreign places with his progressive friends, yet comes back and cries about the taxes his progressive friends love so much.  Couldn't he just ask his progressive friends to stop supporting candidates that support high taxes?

Of course, if you ask one person a question and another person the same one - you might get two different answers.  Case in point - I'd say some council members aren't for higher taxes, they just want more spending!   No one is going to say they'd like to see higher taxes.  

It would have been nice for someone on council try to defend the CO by detailing how something they'd buy with the money would raise the dough to pay it off.  Since that is not happening, I'm going to assume nothing this CO buys is generator of revenue.  

Bottom line - we have not seen an election in more than a decade that said "stop spending!"  Your representatives noticed that too and are acting accordingly. 

Lost Dog Lawsuit

The city pigeonholed the Lost Dog Land Thieves at the last meeting when Svarzbein gave a completely misleading presentation about conservation easements.  Basically they decided to pretend to "study the issue" longer in order to end the meeting.  They have no intention of doing anymore "studying."

After the meeting an email gets sent around to the Lost Dog people whining that the city didn't vote that day to grant them a conservation easement.  I guess whatever planet they live on things like conservation easements happen with a snap of a finger.  That is surely not the case here.  In that email Bonart says he's going to sue the city over the matter.  

Oh boy... 

If Bonart goes the way of Grossman and tries to sue his way around the democratic process, he's going to piss off everybody at the city.  Any friends he did have, will be gone.  And there are some other issues...

1.  What legal standing does he have to compel the city to modify the designation on land that the city owns?  Can I sue because I'd like convention center declared a spaceship?  I could file the lawsuit, I guess. I don't think any judge would let it go very far.  

2. The other parties who own the mineral rights on the land etc.. will be brought in on the suit and that will piss them off.  A conservation easement is completely reliant on them giving up those rights (either for money or out of the goodness of their cold dark corporate hearts).  He's not just picking a fight with the city - he's picking a fight with all parties.  Parties he desperately needs on his side to get a conservation easement in place. 

3. The finality of a legal judgment like this could do more harm to the cause than good.  Once a judge punts this out of court he'll likely not be able to file again without having to pay penalties for losing yet again.  Knowing this, the city would likely do whatever they want with the land without fear of Bonart's lawyers.  (Which may happen anyway - Leeser, if elected, will have to generate revenue in order not to be a tax raiser and that land will be his first option.)

4. Patience with guys like Grossman and Bonart are wearing thin.  They are being called out by local business leaders for their disruption.  The local business leaders are chastising their buddies for not standing up to these bullies.  A lawsuit like this could bring the kind of hell only rich white men in the 60s can conjure.  

The other problems with the conservation easement have become apparent to me after talking to the kind of people who do this work.  They say they've never heard of a city doing this - like a private/public partnership and are unsure if the state courts would allow it.  The guy I talked to said it would be much easier and much more acceptable to simply designate the area as a park and issue certificates of obligations to get it maintained properly - or a small bond issue.  It's going to cost you a lot of money either way. 

The guy I talked to also said that most all land under a conservation easement has heavily restricted access.  Why?  Because the land is supposed to be conserved in its natural state.  You can't have people wandering around messing with crap and keep that natural state ideal in place.   In fact, the guy said it would be impossible to allow people unlimited access to the park like you do with regular parks.  You can't have mountain bikers cruising around wherever they want.  You can't have hikers blazing new trails.  You can't have boy scouts making little fires.  Basically, every conservation easement is very tightly controlled and unfettered access is not allowed. 

Bottom line - Bonart doesn't want a park. If he did, he'd go for parkland designation.  What he and his people want is simple - no more houses with undesirable people moving in.  He doesn't think YOU are good enough to live near him.  That's the only reason he'd be suing for a conservation easement here - to keep YOU off land YOU OWN! 

Y'all love taxes

Well... pretty sure the "people have spoken" and they said they want higher taxes.  I can't wait for the folks who claimed the Lost Dog vote was approved by the majority of voters to start crying about how the bond issues were approved by less than seven percent of registered voters.  In either case there was nowhere near a mandate if you're talking about the whole universe of voters.  You can't have it both ways.  

What's odd to me is that the off-year elections usually only attract the angry crowd.  You know, the crowd that is angry about taxes and general government bureaucracy and potholes and strangers parking in front of their house and bizarre art along the freeway.  So it's weird to me that the people who showed up  yesterday were the type of people happy to pay more in taxes. 

I have a bigger theory about Americans today and their ideas about who pays for what.  The Democratic primary is full of expensive promises and folks seem to believe that those candidates have some kind of plan to finance all those promises without hitting the average American's pocket book.  Some pesky voters have actually had the audacity to ask exactly who is going to pay for all the goodies and most of the candidates aren't answering that question. 

And that brings me to my own variation on the old saying "if you can't figure out who the dumbest person in the room is, then it's probably you."  As this goes - if they won't tell you who is paying for it, then it's probably you.  I'm not sure the people voting for these tax increases understand they have to pay for them, not some mythical set of rich people.  A smart guy in the Swamp (DC) once told me "the bulk of the taxes are paid by the people with the bulk of the money - and that's the middle class."  You see, the only reliable taxpayer out there is the middle class.  They reliably make a set amount of money every year, aren't rich enough to dodge taxes or move away from them.  They are a captive audience, you could say. 

I know what you are saying "but who is going to fight against money for schools and first responders??"  Nobody.  No matter how good your argument is, you look like an asshole saying no to school bond issues.  Doesn't matter if the kids or teachers won't see a dime of that money - you're still an asshole. And don't get me started on police and fire.  

Knowing you guys, you'll blame the mayor even though he didn't vote for any of this nor has he voted for a single budget you're so mad about.  It's like cursing the refrigerator because you burnt the turkey.  One of these days you might figure it out.

--------

Friday I'll fill you in on some Lost Dog litigation action that may happen.  I'll also let you in on some info about conservation easements I just learned. 

"Transparent" doesn't mean what it used to, I guess...

The lovely Ms. Tamayo put out a fundraising email and it's straight out of political central casting.  We've got education, taxes, health care - the whole family is here!

Politicians think you are stupid so they throw these campaign patois out there so you can qualify them as a "good candidate."  I mean, who doesn't love education and health care and hate taxes?  After 100 years of this rhetoric nothing has ever been improved by a politician on any of these topics. That's why I think it's funny that Tamayo is leaning on boiler plate bullshit to attract voters in a district where nobody even knows who she is.  

Let's break down here plea for dough here...

"During the past several weeks, I have enjoyed visiting with you about what issues are important to you in this campaign. Whether it's expanding access to health care, improving our public schools, or ensuring our government is fair and transparent, there are so many challenges and opportunities that we need to address in Austin."

Oh boy... I think the transparency part could be ensured right now if Tamayo fessed up to conspiring with Rodriguez and Blanco to push locals out of the District 76 race by running her and then threatening anyone else interested in getting into the race.  Does Ms. Tamayo think "fair and transparent" are backroom deals made in Austin to favor politicians instead of the people of District 76?  If this is her idea of transparency, District 76 is in for some real ugly days of disfranchisement ahead.

"November marks the start of Open Enrollment for the Affordable Care Act. Through this program, hundreds of thousands of Texans have gained access to affordable, life-saving health insurance. You can find more information on the enrollment period at https://www.healthcare.gov/."

It appears that Tamayo doesn't know the difference between "health insurance" and "health care."  At no time would a doctor in an emergency room apply your health insurance policy to an ailment and expect you to stabilize.  Usually they use medical instruments, drugs, blood etc. to heal people.  It's odd that she somehow thinks insurance can save your life.  It can not.  People who have health insurance die as frequently as people who do not have it.  In fact if you look at the numbers - 30 million without insurance and 150 million  with it - and you know how statistics works... more people will die in America today having health insurance than not having it.  (Tamayo doesn't get correlation versus causation.)

Bottom line - she's using a really false equivalency here that is made for fear mongering.  Health insurance is a financial tool to pay for catastrophic medical emergencies.  Health care is the act of treating someone with an ailment.   

"Health care is a basic human right, and improving access to health care is one of my biggest priorities. Unfortunately, Texas still leads the nation with the highest percentage of uninsured residents, including children. 

Oh boy, someone did not pay attention in civics class at all.  "Health care" is not a basic human right.  You do not have the right to another person's labor.  Hell, a "right" can not be granted if it includes, or is based solely on, the actions of others.  You do not have a right to compel another person to attend medical school, go through a residency and obtain a license so they can take care of your medical needs.  It is absolutely ignorant to assume you have the right to someone else's labor.  Hell, you don't have the right to food or water or any other basic human need.  Those are not "rights" they are personal responsibilities.  If you look at the Bill of Rights you'll see that it's mostly a list of things you're allowed to do and says nothing about you getting goods or services (free shit).  You have to question her ability to legislate if she doesn't understand the basic premise of what a "right" is.  

Do I need to tell you that Texas' CHIP program is begging for people to enroll their kids in the program, yet every year they have excess funds and we bitch about uninsured kids???  They advertise on radio, TV and everywhere else and people still choose not to sign up. That's not something the legislature can fix and the real reasons why Texas has high uninsured rates is not something people want to hear, so I'll keep that to myself. 

Despite this, the state has continued to refuse to expand Medicaid, losing billions of dollars in federal funds and leaving around 800,000 Texans without health care coverage they would otherwise have. In addition, medical debt is the biggest factor driving personal bankruptcy.

Again, Tamayo really doesn't understand how a basic government 'thing' like Medicaid works.  No, Texas didn't "lose" billions in federal dollars.  That's not how medicaid works.  Medicaid matches the state dollar for dollar (not exactly, but close in some cases) on Medicaid spending.  So the only way for Texas to have received a billion dollars from the federal government would have been to spend a billion dollars.  That doesn't sound at all like "losing billions," which any person with a basic understanding of Medicaid would know.  Good thing a state rep doesn't need to know anything about Medicaid... oh wait, it's likely to be one of the most important issues they will discuss in each session.  Does Tamayo sound ready to talk about this?

As for the medical debt being the biggest factor driving personal bankruptcy - PURE B.S.  That was a made up statistic from a 2005 "survey" of people who ask for, and were granted, a bankruptcy.  You can read the facts here https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/medical-bankruptcy-myth.  It's a flat out lie.  And I'll leave you with the big proof.  Canadians actually declare brankruptcy slightly more frequently than Americans and they have a completely free health care system... Something doesn't add up.  Again, she doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation. 

Texans deserve to have access to affordable, quality health care regardless of income, geographic location, or sexual orientation. Texas can not thrive without healthy residents. We must elevate the voices of El Pasoans at our state capitol to ensure our community has access to the health care we deserve."

"or sexual orientation" - Am I missing something here?  When's the last time a doctor asked if you were gay and then kicked you out based on your answer?  I'm really wondering where the hell she is coming up with this crap.  If anything, the medical community in the U.S. has been the leader in acceptance of alternative lifestyles because they have an oath to keep and in order to keep that oath, they have to accept and treat people who are gay. I think she was mixing up "health care" with "health insurance" here again and actually trying to go back to 2006 and fight the same sex benefits fight that has been over and done for 13 years.  Talk about pandering!

Also, health care nor health insurance has anything to do with Texans being healthy.  Diet and exercise is the cure.  The fact she doesn't understand that should scare you.  Tamayo thinks if she takes more of your money (taxes) and throws more of it at perceived health problems, you won't get cancer.  Good luck with that.  Steve Jobs had a billion dollars and still died of cancer.  

I've ranted enough.. I think Tamayo makes a poor effort here to trick voters into thinking their lives suck and she's the only cure.  Fact is, their lives don't suck and they don't need any cures.