I Seriously Vetted Paffrath on Policy: He’s a Doofy Poseur (Part 1)

.

.

.

When I tell people that Kevin Paffrath — currently the highest polling Democrat in the replacement election portion of the recall race for Governor — is a YouTube multi-millionaire with a series that doles out real estate investment advice, they tend to shrug.

When I tell them that Paffrath is only 29-years old … they seem surprised.

When I then tell them that he is as viciously pro-recall as anyone in the race, then they mayconnect the dots. This is not someone running for Governor because he wants to save the state from the likes of a Larry Elder.  This is a guy who sees a rarely available path for a non-politician to sneak into the Governor’s chair — and who is trying to take advantage of it with all he’s got.  (Unfortunately, he ain’t got much civics education.)

He doesn’t want to see Newsom lose because Newsom deserves to lose, although a case can be made (even if solely on character rather than policy grounds), or even because he is politically in synch with the recall proponents. He wants to see Newsom lose because he wants to be Governor, without having done a lick of preparation for it, and Newsom’s losing happens to be how he can make it happen.

I accept that he is, as he claims, a Democrat from when he first registered to vote (about a decade ago), because that’s pretty much the default position in California. (And maybe it’s because his parents are Democrats — or because they aren’t. Doesn’t matter.) And the Democratic Party surely has a tender place for people whose focus is on making huge money through real estate investment — even if it prefers for them to be donors.

He’s certainly smart enough to understand what Gavin Newsom and his adviser  Gary South did not: that the party can’t actually decree that no Democrat will be on the replacement ballot, and that Democratic voters will l0ok for their best possible choice, regardless of what the party wants, and will likely vote for that person.

But is he a Democrat at heart? Does he favor Democratic ideals?

I, god help me, read his website, did some background research, and watched some of his videoes — literally “so you don’t have to.”

If you’ve never seen one of his videos, he looks like a failed clone of Ben Affleck whose head didn’t properly inflate and he sounds like a 19-year old fanboy imitating Will Forte imitating Martin Short.  Here’s one with him practically giggling about the huge prospects for Bitcoin. This is who people who want to vote in Part 2 for “the leading Democrat” (without even considering a Berniecrat running as a Green) might elect!

OK, enough of that. Let’s get down to business.

Paffrath’s Campaign Website

On his “MeetKevin.com” website — that’s name of his YouTube series, and he is unfailingly on-brand, Paffrath is now leading with a less strident anti-Newsom message than he once did.  But the stridency is still there and not hard to find. This next indented section is all from Paffrath:

Why we Need New Leadership.

False Claim: The Governor claims we have a $75.7 Billion-Dollar Surplus, suggesting CA is flush with money.

Fact #1: Our Governor counts $37.7 billion of federal funding set for schools as part of his “surplus.” Therefore, the State’s surplus is barely half of what’s stated by Newsom. Fact #2: California is going $12 billion more in DEBT thanks to the Governor’s short-term spending, including forgiving traffic tickets before the election. This shows the Governor’s willingness to mislead Californians while we go into more debt.

False Claim: Governor Newsom claims success in massive fire prevention work on 90,000 acres in 2020, suggesting we’re winning the fight against wildfires.

Fact #3: NPR found Governor Newsom mislead us. California only worked on 11,399 acres in 2020. This proves the Governor’s willingness to mislead Californians on fire prevention. Newsom OVERSTATED wildfire prevent by 690%.

False Claim: Governor Newsom says: “The vast majority of homeless in SF come from Texas.” This suggests California isn’t causing its own homeless problems.

Fact #4: The truth is, 70% of homeless lived in SF, 22% lived in CA elsewhere, 8% came from out of state, evidencing why the Administration’s policies have failed to understand, let alone fix, homelessness.

False Claim: Governor Newsom says he deserves “equal protection” and to be treated like other candidates. He claims his own campaign deadline is “unfair.”

Fact #5: Governor Newsom is suing his own administration for a law he signed into effect. The deadline he claims is “unconstitutional” is a deadline he signed into law. Now, because he missed his own deadline, he’s suing his administration. Yet ironically, competing candidates can only raise $32,400 in donations. Governor Newsom can raise unlimited funds, including $3,000,000 from the co-ceo of Netflix. Netflix was given special filming privileges during covid to stay open by Governor Newsom. Update: the Governor lost his lawsuit.

I’m not sure which of his claims about the Governor are untrue — but it’s clear that anyone who ventures to Paffrath’s website is being pushed hard to support the recall.  Nothing within them impels me to do so, though.

On #1: Uh, that federal funding is rightly categorized as party of the state’s surplus. It supplants state funds that would otherwise be spent on schools. Newsom doesn’t get credit for creating it, but he does correctly cite it to note the effect of the other spending on California’s economy.

On #2: Yes, Newsom does seem to have adopted a populist “shovel money at people” strategy as a way of fighting the recall, and it can get unseemly.  But an economy-strangling pandemic is one example of a “rainy day” that rainy-day funds are for, and some of the spending (like accepting Medicare expansion from the federal government, and expanding demand-side programs to prime the economic pump. In any event, this does not justify a recall (and it makes me wonder what Paffrath would do instead.)

On #3: Without a cite to a specific statement from Newsom, I can’t tell whether he was being misleading.  I don’t know whether, for example, that 90,000 acres includes measures that are legitimate, but less effective, than those in the 13,999 acres category. As for “we are winning the war on wildfires,” even if that’s hyperbolic piffle, it’s not a good basis for a recall.

On #4: I can believe that Newsom said this, but it seems as likely to come from distraction or stupidity as from malice. (I also don’t know what he may have been quoting and whether he was referring only to the percentage non-Californian homeless, so for all I know Paffrath could be misquoting an accurate original statement.  In any event, not the basis for a recall.

On #5: This criticism is flat-out dishonest. Reading it, don’t you think that the deadline had something to do with with the amount of money that Newsom can legally raise or spend more than other candidates. It doesn’t: it has to do with his right to identify himself as a “Democrat” on the ballot. And even if were true: not the basis for a recall.

Paffrath seems not to understand that the biggest problem with a Gubernatorial recall is not that it’s anti-Democratic, but that it’s anti-democratic.  Without a real scandal, it’s wrong to remove someone from office because a recall election will almost invariably attract a lower proportion of Democratic voters. This is not vile the way that most vote suppression is, but it’s still taking advantage of people’s nature, just as all polling places being deep inside inner-city neighborhoods, with poll hours being only at night and voters required to walk solo down a series of alleys, would disproportionately deter Republicans from voting.

Now let’s go to his policy statements — the creating of which I would bet heavily, for reasons that will become apparent, that Paffrath had outsourced. The first few aren’t entirely horrible, but then we get into Shake My Damn Head territory.

1. NO Homeless on Our Streets within 60 Days.

• Optional, Emergency Housing for All Homeless within 60 Days via Emergency Powers (think Javits-Center Style).

• Centralized medical & substance, mental-health, and educational support immediately available, specifically in coordination with Future Schools.

• 3 meals per day, showers, and hygiene supplies for free.

• No one lives on the streets of our State within 60 days.

• Partnership with corporations, non-profits, and the public, coordinated by the Governor’s Office, to END homelessness.

• The National Guard will be tasked with compassionately serving our homeless community during the first 60 days of Kevin Paffrath’s administration. Day 1, construction will also begin on 80, new Emergency Facilities capable of housing 160,000 homeless. These facilities may be new or converted, existing/vacant commercial buildings, since so many businesses went out of business during California’s lockdowns. During the first 30 days, the National Guard will also be deployed to serve our homeless communities where they are located. The Guard will provide food, supplies, and temporary bathrooms, providing reasonable and humane safety and services. After 30 days, our transition to housing begins. Modern Emergency Facilities will include: mental-health facilities, detox facilities, educational facilities, and canteens to provide medical support for ALL Californians as a bare-minimum, social safety net.

• These facilities are OPTIONAL. However, NO homeless person will sleep on the streets of California after 60 days (this is already illegal). This means if someone passes out on a street, an ambulance would bring them to an Emergency Facility where anyone can sleep, eat, shower, and leave. Mental-health services and substance-abuse services will also be provided. The NYT found that for every $1 spent on drug treatment, up to $3 are saved on crime reduction. Jails or lockdowns are NOT the answer. Real help and treatment is the solution. We expect 98% of homeless to use Emergency Facilities freely. Those who are incapable of caring for themselves will be admitted to an Emergency Medical Facility (separate) for care and recovery until they’re capable of caring for themselves with the new services provided.

• Options will be available for families, single men, single women, and those with pets.

Except for honoring the desire of some homeless people to sleep outside — more secure from the drug use, Covid vulnerability, and sexual assault of inside facilities — this is a decent plan!  However, it would also be expensive — which doesn’t fit well with Paffrath’s attacks on Newsom for spending.  (These are socialistic measures, Kevin!)

2. Massively Reducing Crime through New Community-Style Policing & Integration with Future Schools.

• Focus on community policing by reintegrating trust with law enforcement and communities though fully funding better training and social work. We will fully fund our police and fire departments to ensure we are the safest, most-beautiful state in the country. This means better training, more training, and more jobs. This is critical for our economy, locals, and tourism. We will NOT overfund the police or encourage the over-policing of impoverished communities. Traffic stops that specifically target minorities via vehicular profiling will END under my administration. We will integrate with communities, providing presence and deterring crime with police-installed lighting in high-crime areas to help reduce loitering and create safer spaces. Police will finally be present, as helpful members of the community, specifically near or at stores that have been targeted in crime. The goal is to serve and protect, not “over police.”

Additionally: Non-violent inmates in jails/prisons will have the option, if qualified, to work community service in neighborhoods they committed crimes in, under police supervision. Prisoners should contribute to our society; society shouldn’t only contribute to them.

• Inmates will clean our streets, roads, towns/cities, and remove graffiti. This presence also helps us integrate into our communities, thereby again reducing crime by being present, without over-policing and perpetuating poverty.

• Inmates will have the option to attend separate Future Schools to minimize repeat offending (separate from 16-18 year olds). This has the potential of providing criminals an option for a career path after release and guaranteed job placement to help prevent future crime.

Focus on training, social support, and community.

Much of this is good — though it leaves out the really important things like requiring police to have individually issued insurance policies that will follow them around from job to job, and limits on qualified immunity — though the “inmates will clean our streets” should be clearly integrated with the previous one to ensure that such work is entirely voluntary rather than forced, coerced, or accepted under duress.  Paffrath also seems not to recognize that most of this has been tried (and failed, often by not being well-implemented, like some “community policing” initiatives) and has also faced substantial opposition from public employees unions, and others whose jobs might be supplanted by prison labor. His writing suggests that he has no idea about what the problems of implementation would be — or he’d probably have said something about, for example, massively reducing the power of police associations.

3. Future Schools & $2,000 PER MONTH for Each Attendee over 18.

• Future Schools combine college, trade school, high school, & financial education. They might be separate facilities or combined with our existing educational infrastructure (as a curriculum choice).

• Students at 16 will have the choice to graduate debt free, for free, at 18, ready for career placement, and business partnerships ready to provide those careers.

• In partnership with small, medium, and large businesses, unions, and non-profits throughout CA, helping keep manufacturing and business IN California in exchange for providing educated Californians to work for those companies.

• For example, here are just 3 high-demand careers Future Schools will teach (Future Schools will teach DOZENS of opportunities and provide licenses, but here are 3 examples).

• A computer programmer in CA makes $71,000-$120,000 as a starting salary.

• An electrical engineer in CA makes between $43,000-97,000 as a starting salary.

•A nurse in CA makes between $57,000-91,000 as a starting salary.

•And NONE of these individuals require welfare, food stamps, or most other government subsidies like Medi-Cal. Currently, 33% of Californians are on Medi-Cal.

•We need to invest in Californians.

• Practically: at 16, students will have a choice to attend a Future School. Students will learn communication skills, business skills, financial education, basic accounting, and life-prep skills. In addition, students will study and intern for a career. Some days of the week may be set aside specifically for interning with businesses, non-profits, government offices, and unions.

• For enrollees over 18 years old, students will receive $2,000 per month for attending Future Schools. This is expected to dramatically reduce poverty, and crime, to create a path towards financial freedom for Californians. $2,000 per month sounds like a lot, but it’s just a $48,000 investment into a Californian over 2 years. Compare that to $240,000 we spend baby-sitting prison inmates over 2 years.

• All Californian’s [sic] are eligible. If a student does not have a tax payer identification number (TIN), Future Schools will work with the Federal government to provide students a path to legal citizenship.

• Also, consider this: Instead of guessing what businesses need: businesses, unions, governments, and non-profits of all sizes will work with our Future Schools to share with our teachers exactly what they are looking for in students. This will enable teachers to educate our students on material that will actually lead students to a profitable, wealth-building career. Traditional universities will still be an option for students who attend Future Schools AFTER they graduate.

Funding Future Schools: See our plan on Ending Unaffordable Housing. Additionally, consolidating or upgrading our community colleges and high schools will free up funding for Future Schools. Future Schools will also take advantage of virtual learning days for lecturing, with in-person learning for hands-on skills

While this is (inevitably) nebulous — do any “Future Schools” even exist anywhere, so their track record could be assessed? — there are some good ideas here! It combines an Andrew Yang-style Basic Income (for school attendees) — talk about doling out money to get votes! — with a mercantilist approach allowing companies to specify what sort of curriculum they want their projected future employees to follow. (My guess is that liberal arts are not likely high on that menu.)

Here as elsewhere, the problem that Paffrath seems not even aware of obstacles to his plan. For example, he promises to work with the federal government to ensure a pathway to citizenship for DACA attendees.  Well, first — that’s unlikely to happen, both because of conservative opposition and because liberals will not agree that special favors for those willing (or coerced) to be trained to be dutiful workers. So, again, it sounds nice, but it also sounds like an empty promise, if it’s intended mainly to get in elected, rather than intended to succeed.

4. Making Housing Affordable.

• We have unaffordable rents and housing due to a LACK of homes.

• To breakeven [sic] with our housing needs, California needs 300,000 homes per year. Currently, we build just 80,000 new homes per year. California needs to enable building 500,000 homes per year to get ahead. The easiest way to do this is to provide options for streamlining the government, therefore speeding up permitting.

• There are 482 cities in California. This is an average of just over 1,000 homes per city (more units obviously in denser areas). This also INCLUDES speeding up building-department approvals AND redeveloping existing, unused commercial spaces for homes.

• To facilitate this: The State will provide streamlined, state-wide building and safety review options for a fee, to provide building permits within 2 weeks. This will honor existing, local zoning and design ordinances, but will streamline engineering and safety, simplifying the building and safety process while trading developers fast approval process for a building acceleration fee. Developers are likely to pay this since developers usually waste 5-10% of their project funds on “holding costs” while waiting for City / County approvals. Instead, these funds can be used to help fund our Future Schools. Essentially, we’re trading faster, streamlined approvals, with more housing, for a fee that helps us fund better schools. This is win-win-win (developers win, those seeking affordable housing via more housing win, and students/society win).

It amazes me that the Building Trades are not promoting Paffrath, given this proposal, but maybe they don’t actually want to build houses where the plans have only had two weeks allotted to allow their approval. Homeowners who buy houses with such expedited approval — which I predict would get a bad name before long as aspects that would have been caught with more attention cause problems, and of course those local agencies can take their sweet time with approving major repairs — will be left holding the bag well after developers are gone.

This is basically an anti-regulation proposal — because, guess what?, the people who work on these expedited approvals will be strained like Domino’s Pizza delivery drivers facing a “30-minutes or its free guarantee” deadline, and people are not angels — that serves developers well but not necessarily anyone else. Again, what Paffrath leaves out is what gives away the game: nothing about density; nothing about low-cost housing. (Hey, would lawsuits trying to keep low-housing out of certain areas also be prohibited as part of the expedited approval process?  No?  Then … it’s not really going to be “expedited,” is it?)

Use of the word “homes” — which in theory includes apartments, but in practice often does not in these discussions — probably means “houses” (including condos and “up and down” developments with stores at street level) rather than high-density housing. California needs that more than it does so many more single-occupancy homes. But, as local zoning and such will be left in place — this applies only to building and safety review — I guess that single-family houses is mostly what it means.

5. Ending Bad Traffic with Better Roads, that also Pay Us.

[I’m going to start interspersing my comments, in italics, rather than leaving them until the end.]

Would you be surprised to learn that Paffrath wants more toll roads?  Would you be surprised to learn that he doesn’t seem to know how many people can’t afford them?

• Create NEW roads starting with the MOST congested areas FIRST, reducing traffic jams, commute times, and pollution in those areas w/ toll roads paid for by private enterprises.

So Paffrath is a “Lexus Lanes” guy?  Allow people to pay (potentially high) rates to exit the collective solution of free roadways, and the free roadway system will be allowed to go to hell.

• Create OPTIONAL, variable-direction toll roads. Some new roads may be built in partnership with private companies as toll roads, allowing private businesses to invest in roads themselves and share toll revenues with the state.

This is almost impressive in its unacknowledged anti-environmentalism — South Orange County Toll Roads style. Will approval of roads through ecologically sensitive areas also be expedited? How not, if not?

• One option may be building tunnels under existing freeways. Tunnels can be built for approximately $10 million per mile in areas where we need them (congested areas) vs. the high-speed rail, which costs an average of $125 million per mile and up to $200 million per mile in hilly regions. Ironically, many of the areas the high-speed rail would service are not high-traffic areas. The CATO Institute also found that the high-speed rail’s economic benefit will be a breakeven at BEST and also take 71 years to become climate/economically neutral.

Being better than high-speed rail is a pretty low bar, but this may not even clear it. HSR is really designed as an alternative to flights from LA to the Bay Area. Going to build a tunnel that long? Personally, I’d love to see a tunnel under the Tehachipi Pass, and would even pay a reasonable toll for it as it allows bringing a family of 4-5 on a trip for less money than renting a car there — but I really doubt that that cost is as low as Paffrath seems to expect.

• Tunnels are safer in earthquakes than roads or bridges. Tunnels are easy to build and help speed up public transportation by allowing busses [sic] FREE ACCESS to these toll-road tunnels.

I’d like to see a citation for that first point, which probably depends on there being relative few of them, restricted to the most provably safe areas. (In other words: the lowest-hanging fruit has been harvested, and the results for them cannot be generalized to more difficult areas.) No mention here of the “first mile/last mile” problem for public transport. As for “Tunnels are easy to build”: Kevin, look up “The Big Dig” from Boston. Took only 16 years for a project that included a 1.5 mile tunnel.

• Thereby, private individuals seeking to travel throughout California faster can pay for that right, helping fund the repair of our schools and roads WITHOUT raising gas taxes. Instead, we seek to lower taxes.

Honestly, “raising gas taxes” (and reducing demand for combustion engines) is good for global warming, although it requires some adaptations to subsidize people in need.

•We’ll also speed up public transportation.

Fascinating! No details offered, of course ….

•Variable direction roads are also efficient: the direction of these roads is specifically designed to flow WITH the direction of traffic or rush out (with brief off periods to transition the road automatically).

Yes, this is a good idea, used elsewhere, notably on New York bridges, and if I recall correctly also in some places in CA. But it’s not a huge proposal, though, as there are only limited places this sort of system could work.

These are Meet Kevin Paffrath’s Five-Year Priorities.

6. No State Income Tax on the first $250,000 of Income.

• Removes the CA State Income Tax on the first $250,000 earned.

Uhhhh, seems unnecessarily extreme.  A properly graduated income tax — as where (spitballing this) people pay 0% on their first$50,000, 1% on their second $50,000, 2% on their third, etc. — would retain some income from people who can afford to pay.

• An INSTANT pay raise for all workers.

Yes — to a literally minor extent for those on minimum wage.

I’m breaking this next one into its constituent bullet points.

• Funded by streamlining / reducing regulation and red tape throughout California.

Oh, Lord — again with the anti-regulation! We’ve had 23 years of Republican Governors in the past 38 years, and they all call for this. and it never works out as promised — when it even actually takes place at all.

  • Additionally: legalize gambling

Useful if done the right way. (The referendum up next year is not the right way!)

  • end the high-speed rail

Notably, no money has been budgeted for high speed rail this year.

  • consolidate educational spending with Future Schools

Wait — you didn’t mention “consolidation” before. Are you eliminating current schools as opposed to making your new schools optional?

  • raise revenues with toll roads

Addressed above.

  • & ending OVERPAYING on services.

Always promised; rarely executed.

  • ALL CA projects, in the future, will have 100% public transparency, where we publicly & transparently weigh quality and cost.

To the extent this can happen at all — there are laws! — it will be covertly circumvented in thousands of different ways — like with bogus procured “expert reports” like Anaheim used to have during the Kris Murray “power behind the throne” years.

  • This ends crony capitalism (backroom deals) and corruption.

You dear sweet innocent boy. We don’t actually know the specifics of your proposal, if any exist, but the likelihood of it eliminating “backroom deals” — even if it illegally outlawed all lobbying — is essentially nil. Having people in place with understanding of the abuses in the process and the integrity to stand against them helps a lot — but so far you have not demonstrated either.

  • Never has a Governor been 100% transparent.

Riiiiiight — except that it’s not at all clear what you mean. Ha-ha, do you mean that the Governor should be on video every day explaining … um —

  • Kevin would institute a daily “vlog” to document Kevin’s work as governor.

JEEBUS JUMPING THUMPINF TRUMPING CALAVARES COUNTY FROGS!  THIS CANNOT BE YOUR ACTUAL PROPOSAL FOR POLITICAL TRANSPARENCY!  PROPOGANDA VIDEOS ARE NOT REFORM!!!

7. Fully Legalize Gambling.

• Legalize online and in-person gambling.

Does Paffrath not know that (1) most in-person cardroom and casino gambling is legal, (2) online gambling would require a Constitutional amendment to legalize, (3) an initiative from the casino-operating tribes seeks to limit at least sports betting to in-person gambling at their casinos, (4) under the current “compact” with the state government, we can’t go building casinos everywhere because tribes have a monopoly to build them on their own land, and (5) tribes are not going to give up that monopoly in a negotiation with a Governor easily, if at all?  I’m thinking that he doesn’t and is just blurting out some similarly ignorant contractor’s talking point. 

• Build casinos THROUGHOUT California. Las Vegas Strip style entertainment, restaurants, and business in various areas of California in partnership with Casino Builders, our Tribe Communities, Union workers, and more.

Other policy considerations aside: You. Cannot. Do. This. Without. Compact. Renegotiation. (I’m wondering if he knows as little about his other proposals.)

• $5-10 billion in tax revenues expected after construction and buildout.

Be transparent, Meet Kevin: Do you have a source for this, or did you just make it up, Trump-style?

Consider This: Today, millions leave California to travel, vacation, and gamble elsewhere. Why not do as states should do, become competitive with other states, and provide Californians and Americans an opportunity to enjoy gambling IN California. We welcome Everyone.

Now I’m thinking that Meet Kevin doesn’t know that there are profitably operating casinos operating in California that do have Last-Vegas style shows and other amenities and do keep gambling revenue in California.  Have you heard of Pechanga (in Temecula), Morongo (in Cabazon), San Manuel (in Highland), Pala (in Pala),  Agua Caliente (in Rancho Mirage) and dozens of other smaller ones, many of them up north of Sacramento, Meet Kevin?

By the way, there are strict limitations on taxation of casino income or profits, as well as on shares of profits going to members who live (often luxuriously) on the reservations of tribes owning such casinos. This operates effective as continuing reservations — though little trickles down to smaller tribes without casinos. You really want to mess with that?  They’re very influential, so you’ll need a lot more support than you’d have in a recall replacement election!

8. Fixing our Immigration Issues

Also breaking this one up and interspersing commentary:

  • We have a massive immigration problem.

Lord, please don’t him turn out to be an anti-immigration zealot.

  • Much of this is due to an antiquated “legal” immigration process.

That does not exactly clear up what side he’s on. And what about it is “antiquated”? Why is “legal” in scare quotes? Does he think the process itself is illegal?  If so … why?

  • We will be the first to prioritize working with the Federal Government on SOLVING our immigration crisis, by being the first state to provide an accelerated, faster, LEGAL immigration process.

Ohhhh — holy molé — does he really think that California can establish its own immigration policy? Not just refuse to let state employees help the feds find and capture people, which we already do, but to decide who gets into the country legally?

We wouldn’t be the first, by the way: Arizona and Texas both tried it during the Trump Administration, but they were on the wrong side … from me, anyway. (Hey, did you ever say which side you’re on?  Could you clarify? And explain why you were vague?)

  • In exchange, we’re seeking support from the Federal government to help us fund our water pipeline plan to ensure we can double the flow of water to our Colorado River.
  • [Note: actual archived quote from his site: “Our present plan calls for a 14-foot-diameter pipeline from the Mississippi River to California to double the flow of water to the Colorado River. Arizona and New Mexico are likely to participate, we’ll pay for cheaper and cleaner water, and it will only take 11 power plants to get the water here.”]

This references Paffrath’s plan to install a pipeline — the kid loves to dig! — and divert money from the Mississippi River to the Colorado River.  This proposal actually came from the Arizona legislative, and has been enthusiastically mocked. While perhaps not technically impossible, assessing it would require a rudimentary knowledge not only of distance across a two-dimensional map, but also a third dimension: altitude.  Could someone please ask Tweet Kevin and ask him where he thinks he would take the water from the Mississippi River and where he thinks it would empty into the Colorado River.  DO NOT ASK HIM FOR THE ALTITUDES OF EITHER SITE!

9. No More Blackouts.

  • Building smart-grids especially in new communities with a focus on solar & wind farms, plus utility-scale battery storage.

Wow! Yes! Small scale local projects and a focus on capacitors is the way to go!  Umm. any specifics in mind?

  • Modest upgrades to our existing peaker plants to prevent blackouts at peak times, currently estimated to increase natural gas efficiency 8x, lowering costs for homeowners.

Umm. I’m not sure what technology you have in mind — and I think I probably would have heard about it. What are you talking about?  How do you prevent blackouts at peak times?  What does “increase natural gas efficiency 8x” mean here?  Are, um, you referring to the chemistry of how it burns?  Are you talking about getting rid of mandating “scrubbers”?  You know that methane is a bigger global warming threat, molecule to molecule, than CO2, right?  Right? 

  • Expediting the authorization of improvements to existing infrastructure to help transition us to a fully-green grid as soon as possible.

Is this the “we’re not going to fuss over health and safety regulations” thing again?  When you say a “grid,” do you actually know how a “grid” works?  You want fewer safety regulations over that?

  • No more red tape stopping our green transition! We will connect solar and wind farms to our cities to lower costs for ALL Californians

So now we’re talking about big power transmitters, not community based?  Do you understand this at all?

I was going to do the entire website, but this is already over 5000 words; I’ll stop there, call this Part 1, and continue later.

I’m not telling you not to vote for Paffrath; I’m just saying that, based on what I have read so far, Paffrath doesn’t even seem to understand just how ignorant of governance processes and policy issues he actually is. He seems like an amiable doofus who thinks he can bluff his way through any situation.

We recently finished four years of an administration that proved that bluffing policy doesn’t work. But at least this bluffer is amiable.  Jaw-droppingly arrogant and ambitious, true … but amiable!


About Greg Diamond

Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-retired due to disability, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally runs for office against bad people who would otherwise go unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that. Corrupt party hacks hate him. He's OK with that too. He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)