The Process & The Consultant

A few weeks ago I published a post on the extremely dubious efforts of a paid consultant to begin a renewed effort to raise a new sales tax in Fullerton. The consultant is an operation called FM3.

We’ve seen this movie before. Many times.

In an effort to build momentum toward justifying a new tax a consultant is tasked with cooking up a poll, a survey that is worded in such a way as to make the question of a new tax sound not only plausible but even desirable.

The information that is collected is meant to probe the electorate’s weak spots, just like an army might send out reconnaissance to figure out where to attack.

Another benefit is to begin the process of developing ballot statement language that will push and persuade voters to the correct decision – a decision that will always be to vote for the tax. The reasons will be a short recital of the usual, low-hanging fruit, public safety being at the top of the list, but with no explanation that our public safety corps – emergency medical personnel (formerly known as :firefighters) and cops already suck up the majority of Fullerton’s General Fund. Mention of parks, quality of life, libraries and now “homeless” will be thrown in to the pot; and infrastructure maintenance will be included, disingenuously, to get support of the more hard-headed voter, just like last time.

Measure S Covid Lie
Let me count the ways…

And of course this language will be also be used by the inevitable political action committee formed to wage the propaganda war.

Make no mistake about it. The consultant hired to undertake this effort will know at the outset what his mission is. He knows who hired him and he knows what his employer wants.

Here’s a fun little Aussie video that spells out the process succinctly:

And so it goes. The start of a charade in which the taxpayers foot the bill to be “educated” into supporting a pre-determined outcome. The line between education (legal) and propaganda (illegal) is not bright, as asserted by Councilmember Bruce Whitaker. The fuzzy demarcation is exploited all the time by government agencies – always based on information collected in the original poll.

No On S
Don’t Reward the City’s Stupidity

The hopeful part of this is that the electorate is not always as easily persuaded as is supposed by the would be taxers. This was demonstrated in Fullerton in 2020 when voters rejected the ill-considered Measure S, and property tax-based bond floats by Fullerton’s two school districts.

In the end the Council (Jung, Zahra and Charles) voted, vaguely, to keep the “education” process going, a process that we know is nothing other than political propaganda aimed at persuading a majority of voters and coordinating with a special political action committee set up to scare, cajole, and bamboozle the voters.

33 Replies to “The Process & The Consultant”

  1. Ballot initiatives are due to the Registrar of Voters by mid-August and this is a presidential election year. Look for the City Council to vote to approve placing the initiative on the ballot sometime in late Spring once the “education” process has concluded and the politburo is satisfied it has just enough support to pass it. Then watch them trot out the firefighters to sell the tax measure to the boo hoo community with the message that they are hero and deserve. Of course they’ll leave out but for their own greed the city finds itself in near financial ruin. The 25% pay raise they received last year won’t make its way into that conversation I’m sure. The boo hoos will buy anything anyone in a uniform is selling but more skeptical voters were able to drown out the boo hoo vote in 2020.

    1. That about sums it up.

      It’s up to Fred Jung at this point who seems to want more investigation. What this means is unclear because nobody spelled that out, but we are reasonable to conclude that the pollsters and City staff will figure out some way to chisel us out of some more fees.

      Will Jung support putting the tax on the ballot? In his election year? Seems pretty unlikely. Still we should assume that he will.

      1. What will Jung do? That’s the unstated point of the post, isn’t it?

        If he doesn’t support the tax, Zahra and the boohoos will try you to gin up a fake Korean competitor while running their own stooge.

        If he does support the tax he will run afoul of a lot of conservatives in D1.

        I can’t think of one good reason he voted to continue this issue unless he thinks he’s wasting Zahra’s time by stalling.

      2. He can vote to place the measure on the ballot by stating he’s simply allowing the public a chance to vote. He doesn’t have to support the tax measure because he’s using the old “let them vote” get out of jail free card as political cover.

        1. True, but he’s running for reelection. He’s going to have to say whether he’s against it or for it.

          1. Will he tho? You don’t think old Fred has already gamed out how he’s going to not directly answer that very question?

  2. ” with no explanation that our public safety corps – emergency medical personnel (formerly known as :firefighters) and cops already suck up the majority of Fullerton’s General Fund.”

    How is that relevant point? The need for additional revenue is based on having a deficit versus an ideal budget that would cover enough spending to catch up with backlogged items like road maintenance or other new priorities.

    The fact that public safety is expensive is a fact. But so what? Are you saying we’re overspending on it? Relative to what? Need? Other communities like Brea? Anaheim? Orange?

    There is a local market for police and fire personnel and we will either pay the going rate or cut service.

    And there is clearly a backlog of road work. Do we want it caught up or not?

    The message underlying this article is increased taxes = bad, but as usual it’s just ideology. You have no ready alternative to get things done. Of course that’s because there is no alternative. There is no cutting that will maintain services and accomplish other demanded priorities too. But never mind reality when you can just act disgusted.

    1. Pensions were, are and forever more will be the problem. People like JRH and the boohoo community created the problem and they have no real solution. They are a one trick wonder — demanding taxpayers pay more and get less and less because, well, because!

      1. I didn’t create the problem but I could imagine solutions. Compensation would have to be regulated at a state or county level, for one, because otherwise it’s simply a fact that the market will decide compensation.

        And it’s not a normal market. Those arranging the compensation increases are not the ones on the hook to pay.

        But again, sticking with, say, bad roads because you think public safety is too richly compensated doesn’t make sense to me.

        1. Those arranging compensation increases were bought and paid for by the unions.

          Only in government does upper management dance to the employee’s tune.

          1. Exactly. Which is why there should be no public employee unions at all.

            The crescendo of this tower of terror is when government management itself becomes unionized.

          2. JRH is too ignorant to see how the system is rigged and to acknowledge the giant gaping holes in his logic.

    2. It’s a relevant point because if they knew how the cops and fireslugs got so rich they would never fall for the “public safety” scam that will inevitably be rolled out. Goddam you’re stupid.

      1. If we don:t use a consultant and don’t pass the tax will that correct the public safety employment market to your satisfaction, or even do anything about it all?

        If not, it’s not really relevant to the decision.

      1. I don’t make new years resolutions. If a change is worth making I don’t wait for the year to roll over.

        Also dumb is in the eye of the beholder, and you’re just another anonymous asshole.

        1. Busted. Oh, well. In 364 days you can make the same resolution all over again. But is still will only last one day.

    3. “There is a local market for police and fire personnel and we will either pay the going rate or cut service.”

      Wrong. Again. Placentia got the Heroes out of the paramedic business and are doing fine.

      1. How much did they save and if we did the same thing how much would it address Fullerton’s road maintenance backlog?

        Again this is irrelevant. Reforms are probably necessary but it’s a separate track and the real savings could only be made by fixing the broken market at a wider scope.

        1. Millions.

          But you are right about one thing. It wouldn’t address Fullerton’s awful roads (made awful by the negligence of your pals in City Hall). The bureaucrats would just waste it somewhere else. Like Trails to Nowhere and Poison Parks.

      2. That’s absolutely correct. Fullerton could very easily do what Placentia did with paramedic services and save millions of dollars every year. Those savings could then be directed to street maintenance and there wouldn’t be a need for a tax measure.

        Fullerton may not have a choice in the matter soon anyway. The fiscal train wreck is coming, that much is certain. Placentia has shown everyone that their system is far superior to anything the fire heroes could ever provide, at a fraction of the cost.

        1. That comment may be too stupid to live. Placentia also passed a sales tax increase. Knowing is half the battle mister know it all.

  3. Jung is going down anyway so his future votes won’t matter. Keep supporting the do nothings and just say nos like Nick and Bruce who think a billion in street repairs will be fixed by cutting overtime for firefighters. The plan is grossly inadequate.

    1. That would be inadequate. What would be much better is to get the Heroes out of the paramedic business as has been mentioned already.

      Big savings, no loss of safety.

      1. I see the fire heroes are already triggered by hearing these tough questions. Getting them out of the paramedic business is key. Save a ton of money and get much better service. You could probably cut 30% of the entire department.

  4. If the Council will promise and deliver public chastisement of JRH and sentence him to 365 days in the stocks on the corner of Harbor and Commonwealth, we will vote to approve new taxes. The City must also provide the rotten produce and animal scat to throw at JRH’s face.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *