It's common knowledge that San Francisco has thousands of homeless people living on the streets and a shortage of not just housing, but even temporary shelter space. San Francisco also has a government-run school system that includes over a hundred schools occupying public space, each with multiple buildings that are vacant and unused at night.
Last month San Francisco lost one of its best leaders, perhaps the only elected official in the city truly worthy of that description.
"Prosecutors, with near unlimited resources and the full backing of the government, are trying to take away a citizen's freedom. That's a big deal and something we want to get right," he wrote in a 2014 op-ed piece in the Sacramento Bee.
It's kind of amazing that something so central to many of the issues we see and read and hear about in the news every day, something on which billions of dollars and countless hours of scheming by political "professionals" are expended every year, continues to be so widely misunderstood. Yes, that description can be applied to government itself, but here I'm simply talking about voting.
In my dialogues with defenders of statism, online and off, I routinely encounter people – usually though not always on the political right – who express feelings of anger, disgust, contempt, etc., toward those whom they characterize with terms like "lazy", "bums", "freeloaders", "parasites", "anti-social", "welfare queens", "druggies", "illegals", "junkies", "leeches", "the homeless", "non-productive members of society", etc. Most of the criticisms seem to boil down to resentment that the people who are the objects of their ire are in some way being assisted or provided for by government at the expense of others.
Usually it's the other way around – heartless Republicans trying to screw the poor, and Democrats trying to "help" them (but without addressing the actual source of the problem, and often making it worse).
But yesterday's Examiner (March 4) had a kind of "man bites dog" story – Assembly Bill 503, authored by Republican Assemblyman Tom Lackey of Palmdale and signed into law last year, requires local agencies to offer payment plans to poor people burdened by government fines they cannot afford.
To give local Democrats their barely-deserved slice of credit, once this GOP-originated crutch became law, SF's Democrat city Treasurer, Jose Cisneros, added extra padding to make the crutch a little easier to use by implementing a plan that goes further in some respects than what the law requires. Which his spokesperson was not too modest to tell the Examiner:
As implemented locally by Cisneros, the plan goes "far beyond what was legally mandated"