Ridiculous commercials, lack of propriety and loss of manners

As I was watching TV last night, I was struck by two things regarding the commercials: the ridiculousness of some of the legal requirements for prescription drugs and the complete lack of decorum or propriety for some items.

Between ads for erectile dysfunction (a term that just about every child has heard) and post-menopausal symptoms, I couldn't help but wonder why an advertiser needs to provide disclaimer information for people already taking a drug they are advertising.

Most of the e.d. drugs include some statement about contacting your doctor if you experience certain symptoms when taking the drug. The one I saw last night for osteoporosis geared toward post-menopausal women included a disclaimer that you shouldn't take the drug if you're pregnant or thinking about getting pregnant. Huh??

If you're advertising to try and get people to consider taking a particular prescription, aren't such disclaimers relevant only to those already consuming the drug? And wouldn't it be reasonable to presume that your doctor has already told you about possible side effects relevant to you before actually prescribing any medicine?

Normally, I tune out when such ads come on, but last night they seemed constant, intermixed with ads for feminine, sexual and incontinence products. When I was younger, I could never imagine ads on TV for tampons, condoms, sexual lubricants or adult diapers.

It wasn't that I didn't know about those things - it was just that there were some things you 'didn't discuss in polite company' as my grandmother and mother used to say. There were times and places to discuss such things, but it wasn't through an advertisement on television that invades an otherwise enjoyable evening of favorite shows.

To be quite honest, I still believe some things should remain personal or private. I would like to maintain some sense of propriety - when it is or isn't appropriate to discuss certain topics, issues or products - and I don't want to forgo the limited number of TV shows I like or be forced to invest in a Tivo in order to do so.

Sadly, I see these ads as an indicator of a bigger problem: the loss of manners in society. The proliferation of cell phones results in me knowing more about other peoples' issues, schedules and work than I would prefer. And it makes me extremely uncomfortable to be in a public restroom when someone in the next stall is on the phone carrying on, of all things, a work discussion while toilets flush around them.

At the grocery store the other day, I was standing in front of the milk refrigerators. A child - perhaps six or seven years old - squeezed between my cart and the door, opened it, and got out a milk. Seeing him, I moved my cart to make it easier, but he never said 'excuse me' or any other such comment - nor did he even acknowledge that I was in his way, except to push my cart. If he was being taught manners at home, he wasn't practicing them. And if he wasn't being taught such things, his parents are contributing to the decline of civil society.

Today, many substitute political correctness for manners. But if people were using manners, I don't think we'd have a need for 'politically correct' language or behavior.

Sadly, I appear to be in the minority when it comes to such perspectives, and I think our society is in decline as a result.

'Not business friendly' Post #9 - convenience stores, again

I just don't understand what the members of Toledo City Council have against convenience stores. They've already passed a licensing law for these types of stores (though the effective date has been postponed due to a lawsuit filed), and now they want to cut down on the 'proliferation' of such stores.

According to today's paper,

Councilman Joe McNamara has proposed an ordinance prohibiting a convenience store from operating within 2,000 feet of another convenience store, or within 1,000 feet of a school, public library, or other places established for minors.

Establishments that do not sell tobacco or tobacco products would not be affected, Mr. McNamara said.

"In 1993, spacing requirements were added to the Toledo Municipal Code and, in 2004, it was taken out as a comprehensive rewrite of the zoning code," he said.

"We are just going back to what we originally had since there has been a proliferation of convenience stores in the central city since 2004."

Yes - you read that correctly. We've got businesses starting in the city and now that's a bad thing that must be addressed through zoning restrictions to prevent it from happening. And they think the problem is in the central city, but the law will affect all areas of the city, equally.

It seems to me that there must be a need for such stores or they wouldn't be opening. And, with gas prices the way they are, it should come as no surprise to council members that individuals might choose to walk to a neighborhood store rather than drive elsewhere.

The supporters of such regulation are using the same arguments they used to support the licensing law:

"Supporters of stricter regulations argue that convenience stores have saturated Toledo and are attracting crime, alcoholism, prostitution, drug use, and other unsavory elements.

Critics say some Toledo stores stock drug paraphernalia, such as disguised crack pipes and small plastic bags for powder drugs."

Note that it's not the behavior they're trying to stop, nor are they calling for more police officers and better enforcement of laws against prostitution, drug use or loitering. No, they're trying to drive job providers out of the city.

Sidebar
Just because some drug addict finds a drug-related use for a normal grocery item like small bags does not mean the seller of the small bags is stocking drug paraphernalia. I use those small bags quite often and NOT for drugs!
Sidebar

Council members need to stop catering to the anti-business demands of these neighborhood groups and start looking at the real problem. If crime in these areas is the problem, the solution is not to drive business owners away - it's to increase police patrols, enforcement and prosecution.

Shutting down a business will not change the behavior of the people who patronize such establishments, but it might be an easier decision for politicians because then they can say they 'did' something - even if what they 'did' doesn't solve the problem.

Toledo can't afford more anti-business decisions, and calling the city a 'business friendly city of the future' doesn't make it so.

Another law to protect us from our own ignorance

Toledo's new land contract law takes effect today. And it's another example of government deciding to create a law to protect us from our own ignorance.

You see, our government officials believe that individuals who purchase a home under land contract are stupid, so they really don't know what they're doing when they make such a decision.

Councilman Joe McNamara, who sponsored the ordinance, said the law would protect unsuspecting buyers.

"It's a very bad situation when unscrupulous businesses take advantage of people, take advantage of poor people," Mr. McNamara said.

How condescending! According to this quote, McNamara thinks that only poor people get taken advantage of...

Any home buyer in Ohio can pay for a home to be inspected. But that's not good enough for Toledo politicians. Since some buyers don't take advantage of the ability to have a home inspected, that responsibility now falls the seller of the property, under penalty of law. Additionally, if an inspection shows problems, all the problems must be fixed prior to the closing.

While there is a provision for 'fixer-uppers,' there are only six months to make improvements, which might not be feasible especially in this economy. And you know how many home sales this applies to? Last year, it was 311 or 1.6% of all homes sold in Toledo.

As is usual in Toledo, the city doesn't have the required list of inspectors ready to go...

This is certainly not business friendly. At a time when home sales are in a slump, the City of Toledo just made it more difficult and more costly to sell a home - all to 'protect' its citizens from their own failure to make an informed decision about a major purchase.

I guess in today's nanny state, caveat emptor is no longer applicable and the government will protect us from ever making a mistake - and then will bail us out if we do.

$108 million for new arena

According to a draft document filed with the Ohio Cultural Facilities Commission, the projected cost of the new Lucas County arena is $108 million.

The OCFC is holding about $5 million in state dollars for the project, but does not release their funds until final financing plans are filed with the agency and approved by their board.

Estimated costs include:

$ 74,202,369.00 for design and development
$ 19,835,400.00 for General conditions

Total of above construction costs: $ 94,037,769.00

$ 5,650,000.00 for Architect fees

$ 385,000.00 for Demolition and Remediation of Buildings

$ 363,877.00 for Testing

$ 2,187,000.00 for Lucas County general conditions like waste, utility, legal notices, etc...

$ 1,554,100.00 for Professional Services including legal, consultants

$ 4,000,000.00 for project/owner contingency of 5%

with Total Expenditures estimated to be $108,177,746.00.


Still no word on where the county will get another $28 million to cover the extra costs ....

'Not business friendly' - Post #8 - Payday Lending

My last guest on Eye On Toledo was Jamie Frauenberg, Executive Vice President of Checksmart Financial and President of the Ohio Association of Financial Service Centers. (Pod cast should be available here.) We discussed HB 545, a new Ohio law regulating payday lending.

Among the various provisions of the law, which was passed by the House and is under consideration in the Senate, are a limit on Annual Percentage Rate (APR) of 28%, restricting borrowers to no more than four loans per year, and a requirement for borrowers to participate in a state-mandated financial education class prior to a third loan.

Accordingly, in order to keep track of how many loans people take out and whether or not you need to be financially educated, there is a requirement for a state-wide data base to track such activity - and the state must develop and provide such financial education classes.

Opponents of the law have some very valid points:

* APR is only applicable to long-term loans which payday lenders don't offer. If our state legislators are so worried about usury, then maybe they should look at other types of fees that have higher APRs - like bad check fees (as high as 1400% APR) or even the late payment requirements for government utility/water bills (as high as 1200% APR). Both of these costs are equivalent to the $15 fee charged for borrowing $100 - an APR of about 391%.

* In both North Carolina and Georgia, the number of bad checks written went up after payday loans were similarly regulated.

* Using payday lending is a choice. For some people, it is a good financial choice that is cheaper, easier, more convenient and more logical than other options. There are some individuals who abuse the choice, but such individual action should not be the reason to limit the choice for everyone in the state.

Proponents make points which are based upon, imho, emotion and the idea that individuals who make poor choices need to be prevented from doing so and held harmless from any consequences:

* They routinely trot out a small number of individuals who have serious financial difficulties and have not used the option of a payday loan responsibly. They imply that most - if not all - payday loan customers are the same.

* They say that individuals are going into debt and that the state must break the cycle of debt by prohibiting these types of choices that they believe contribute to the cycle of debt. (note: eliminating one option that may contribute to some people's debt does not mean that those individuals change their spending habits nor that they stop borrowing.)

* They claim it is morally wrong to charge so much for a loan and, as a result, such companies are predatory and need to be prohibited from doing so.

Not Business Friendly

The payday lenders say this new law will put them out of business, resulting in the loss of about 6,000 jobs in Ohio. Elected officials (Rs and Ds) say they need to act in order to 'help' the citizens of Ohio and to 'protect' them from making such a financial mistake.

Even the Toledo Blade got into the act with their editorial calling these job providers 'legal loan sharks.' Of course, the editors there truly believe that government needs to take care of us and prevent us from having a choice we could abuse (smoking, mortgages, payday lending) - after all, they certainly know what's good for us, even if we don't.

"Payday industry backers claim the interest-rate cap would put Ohio's 1,600 stores out of business and 6,000 Ohioans out of work. To that we say good riddance. The state, as well as the people suckered into using their services, will be better off."

Yes, you see, The Blade thinks that running companies - employers - out of the state is a good thing!

But that's not the only anti-business comment they make.

"As we noted a year ago, the watchdog groups Policy Matters Ohio and Housing Research and Advocacy Center reported that check-cashing and payday-loan outlets have been growing like a plague in Ohio for a decade..."

This industry is growing - obviously because they are meeting multiple needs of the people who utilize them. And not every customer can be as portrayed by the proponents of the law because, if they were, these companies would be bankrupt themselves.

National Campaign

But note the description of Policy Matters Ohio? It's not described as the liberal, union-backed think tank that it is. (Seven of the 12 board members of Policy Matters Ohio are current or former members of unions - or represent unions in their jobs. State Sen. C.J. Prentiss, D-Cleveland, is a founding member.) It's called a 'watchdog group.' What they don't tell you is that Amy Hanauer, the founding Executive Director of Policy Matters Ohio, is on the board of Demos another liberal think tank whose latest focus/issue is debt.

"Demos is a national, non-partisan (and nonprofit) public policy, research and advocacy organization. Based in New York City, Demos publishes research reports and books, hosts public forums, and works with advocates and policymakers around the country in pursuit of three overarching goals: a more equitable economy; a vibrant and inclusive democracy; and a public sector capable of addressing shared challenges and working for the common good."

(Sounds like the other socialist, anti-capitalistic groups with whom they affiliate.)

They, along with several other organizations, want increased government regulation on credit cards, pawn shops, payday lenders and just about any other company that provides various choices for individuals.

They don't believe that such debt is the consequence of frivolous spending or irresponsible finances, but because there is too much 'inequality' in the world and poor and middle class 'families' (they never use the term 'people') are being preyed upon by such industries.

Accordingly, these national organizations are reaching out to like-minded state groups to promote laws that conform to their opinions of what financial options should be available to citizens. They've even included the National Council of Churches, which is why so many ministers have joined the debate.

Their quiz on their "new thrift" website that claims the 'most valuable current pro-thrift idea' is 'alternatives to payday lenders.'

Of course, if one industry is under attack, it's very likely that another will benefit. So, it should come as no surprise that the credit unions will be the 'vehicle of choice' for the state's new lending programs and that they, too, are intricately involved in the 'new thrift' initiative (through the National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions - a CDCU is a credit union with a specialized mission of serving low- and moderate-income people and communities).

Interestingly, credit unions are not subject to the same truth in lending laws that payday lenders and banks must follow. And credit unions also charge 'fees' which have high APRs - but since they're part of the 'solution,' such issues are being overlooked by the proponents and the legislators.

Political Wrangling

From a state perspective, the Republicans were afraid that the Democrats might own this issue during a critical state/national election cycle. So, despite significant opposition to the proposed regulations, in light of a forced vote on the issue, the GOP leadership decided to lower the targeted APR from 36% to 28% and then get behind the bill. So the bill passed with significant GOP support.

From a national perspective, this is more about controlling the economy and limiting individual choice to 'approved' industries, ones that are community-owned rather than 'for profit.' And Ohio's state-wide groups are more than willing to be a part of the effort.

Bottom Line

Ohio is losing population and businesses. We certainly don't need to pass more laws that force particular industries out of the state.

The goal - of 'saving' citizens from these 'evil predators' so they 'break the cycle of debt' - will not be met. Removing an option that serves many responsible individuals does not mean that irresponsible individuals suddenly change their behavior.

The government should not create a state-wide data base of individuals utilizing a specific lending service. Furthermore, the state should not be mandating financial classes in order to obtain a loan. Nor should the state spend taxpayer dollars to do these things.

It is the height of arrogance to believe that the state can make a better decision than the individual when it comes to what type of loan best serves a person. And with all the criticisms of government tracking coming from the left side of the political spectrum, I find it highly contradictory and hypocritical that these same left-leaning groups are supporting a state-wide data base of people who borrow money.

This is a bad law whose intent is to eliminate payday lending in Ohio and will not accomplish the goal of 'helping' people who are financially irresponsible in the first place. The Senate should reject this and, especially, the emotional appeal being presented by the proponents.

If you agree, you can share your thoughts with our elected officials here.

Other perspectives:

* interest rates reflect risk and by limiting possible returns to a set interest rate, you effectively forbid legal loans to any group of people whose collective risk rate exceeds that rate.

* Testimony to Ohio General Assembly - Senate Finance and Financial Institutions Committee on May 7, 2008, by Tom Lehman, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Economics in Marion, Indiana

* In defense of payday loans

Happy Mother's Day!

Happy Mother's Day to my mom, my sister and my aunt ... and to every mother!

My mom is a neverending song in my heart of comfort, happiness, and being. I may sometimes forget the words but I always remember the tune. ~ Graycie Harmon

I love my mother as the trees love water and sunshine - she helps me grow, prosper, and reach great heights. ~ Adabella Radici

[A] mother is one to whom you hurry when you are troubled. ~ Emily Dickinson

A mother is a person who seeing there are only four pieces of pie for five people, promptly announces she never did care for pie. ~ Tenneva Jordan

The phrase "working mother" is redundant. ~ Jane Sellman

Being a full-time mother is one of the highest salaried jobs in my field, since the payment is pure love. ~ Mildred B. Vermont

Sweater, n.: garment worn by child when its mother is feeling chilly. ~ Ambrose Bierce

The heart of a mother is a deep abyss at the bottom of which you will always find forgiveness. ~ Honoré de Balzac

The real religion of the world comes from women much more than from men - from mothers most of all, who carry the key of our souls in their bosoms. ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

When you are a mother, you are never really alone in your thoughts. A mother always has to think twice, once for herself and once for her child. ~ Sophia Loren, Women and Beauty

A mother is the truest friend we have, when trials heavy and sudden, fall upon us; when adversity takes the place of prosperity; when friends who rejoice with us in our sunshine desert us; when trouble thickens around us, still will she cling to us, and endeavor by her kind precepts and counsels to dissipate the clouds of darkness, and cause peace to return to our hearts. ~ Washington Irving

A little girl, asked where her home was, replied, "where mother is." ~ Keith L. Brooks

All that I am or ever hope to be, I owe to my angel Mother. ~ Abraham Lincoln

A new job

Several years ago, my husband and I formed a company to provide consulting engineering services. Despite the lack of opportunity within the Toledo area, we found that many areas of the country are growing and expanding - and so did the business.

It is now to the point that it requires the full-time attention of both us. As a result, I have decided to leave my radio job as host of Eye On Toledo. I could do both jobs, but would not be able to do either of them well - and both of them deserve someone who gives them their full attention.

I am tremendously grateful to Brian Wilson and WSPD for giving me the opportunity, and for the advice and guidance which helped me do it well. I also appreciate the freedom to do as I wanted with the show, focusing on topics that interested me and allowing me to speak my mind even if it didn't quite agree with the other hosts.

All the people at WSPD and Clear Channel were great to work with - providing help, support and constructive criticism. This area is fortunate to have the voice they provide - and that's true even if you don't agree with the positions the talk shows take.

I have been asked to fill-in during vacations or other occasions and have agreed to do so when I can arrange my schedule accordingly. Right now, it looks like I'll be subbing for Fred LeFebvre when he goes on vacation around the Fourth of July time frame.

I will continue my column in the Toledo Free Press - and my blog, of course - as those can be done at any time, day or night.

I appreciate all who listened and participated in Eye On Toledo and I hope their participation will continue. Thank you!

FOIA Friday - May 9, 2008

For quite some time, I've been tracking the spending and financial plan for the new arena being built by the Lucas County Commissioners.

The first (and, so far, only) public document on the financing of the arena was a part of the 'study' done in 2006 when I was still on the Board of County Commissioners. I analyzed the financial plan and shared my observations and concerns. I've done numerous follow-ups on the subject as bits and pieces of information were released by the commissioners.

The County Commissioners have a good website and Jody Balogh, Clerk of the Board, is extremely timely in updating the agendas and meeting reports of the Commission. I used the search function and located all resolutions relating to the arena project. I then created a spreadsheet of all the spending that's been authorized for the project.

So far, the Commissioners have approved (although not all the money has been expended) $31,750,000 in spending for the arena. However, the only source of revenue they've voted upon is the $18,500,000 in bonds issued by the County Treasurer to provide 'seed money' for the project. Even this amount really can't count as 'revenue' because the money was borrowed and will need to be repaid. This means they are currently about $13,250,000 in the hole.

Even if they transfer the money collected from the additional 2% hotel-motel tax, that's only about $1 million from 2007, so they're still in the hole.

Taking advantage of Ohio's public records law and the excellent service the public gets from the County Auditor's office, I requested information on all monies into and out of the arena account. This was easy to do as the account number for expenditures is listed on the County Commissioner's resolution.

The information from the Auditor's office shows that there is a budget of $33,206,455.66. So I asked where that $33 million came from if the only revenue has been the borrowed $18.5 million from the bonds. The answer? That additional money was from the Commissioner's budget.

So I'm now in the process of tracking down the source of the additional $14.5 million, especially in light of the public statements that the arena must pay for itself and no tax dollars (other than the hotel-motel tax) were going to be used for funding.

I've been working on this for about a week already and will keep you posted on what I find.

Other FOIA Friday posts from around the blogosphere:

Skip Murphy's efforts to get his local school board to put data on their website. I guess Chris Myers isn't the only person fighting this good fight.

Ohio's medical buy-in program for kids

This comes from the "things I learned en route to other destinations" category....

Ohio has a medical buy-in program for kids in families earning more than 300% of the Federal Poverty Level, or more than $42,000 for a single parent and one child.

This program is funded entirely by state General Revenue Fund dollars (no Medicaid monies) and is managed by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Monies for the program were appropriated in the last biennial budget bill.

According to the JFS website,

"Ohio’s Children’s Buy-In (CBI) program is a state-funded health care program for certain uninsured children in families with income over 300 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Applications for CBI are now being accepted, with enrollment beginning June 1, 2008. The program was created as part of Governor Strickland’s plan to “Turnaround Ohio,” to provide more uninsured Ohioans with access to affordable health care. It is expected that 5,000 children will be enrolled in this program by June 30, 2009."

In order to be eligible, children must be younger than 19, must be a U.S. citizen and an Ohio resident, the family’s household income must be more than 300% FPL and the child must have been uninsured for the previous six months.

Additionally, the child must meet at least one of the following criteria:
* Unable to obtain insurance coverage due to a preexisting condition
* Lost the only available insurance coverage because of a lifetime benefit limitation
* Cost of the only available insurance is more than twice the premium for CBI
* Child participates in the Ohio Department of Health’s Program for Medically Handicapped Children (also known as “BCMH”)

This program requires the family to pay a monthly premium for the insurance that ranges from $250 - $500, depending on income.

Thoughts: I'm concerned about this, as my tax dollars are being used to provide health insurance for families with kids who might be able to obtian their own insurance. Not all participants are in this particular category - but some must be - otherwise they wouldn't include the criteria that the 'cost of the only available insurance is more than twice what the state charges.'

So if you can get insurance for your child, but it's expensive, the state will subsidize this for you - using my tax dollars.

I guess I go back to the issue that if I want to donate my money to people who need help with such things, I'll do so on my own. I don't need the state to take my money through taxation in order to provide charity to others.

And no, I'm not being a heartless, evil conservative. I do want to help my fellow Ohioans. I just want to do so in a different way: giving as I choose, where I choose and how I choose - rather than having my limited funds taken from me and given as politicians in Columbus choose.

Sidebar: I could not find the cost of this specific program. But I did find this analysis:

Ohio’s FY 2008-2009 budget, signed by Governor Strickland on June 30, 2007, includes several provisions that will extend access to health care to more children, including:

* Raise the Medicaid eligibility for pregnant women from 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 200% FPL.
* Raise the Medicaid/SCHIP eligibility for Ohio children from 200% FPL to 300% FPL.
* Allow Ohio children aging out of the foster care system to keep Medicaid coverage until age 21.
* Create a new program that allows uninsured children living in families with incomes over 300% FPL to buy public health coverage on a sliding fee scale.

Approximately 32,000 uninsured Ohio children could benefit from this expansion; the Administration estimates that 19,695 children will enroll during the biennium. Estimated cost is $5.6 million (all funds) in FY 2008 and $38.6 million (all funds) in FY 2009.

Ohio school levies suffer worst primary election beating in 25 years

From the County Commissioners Association of Ohio:

As reported by the Ohio Department of Education, just 46.1% of the school tax issues on the March 4 primary ballot passed. That passage rate is the lowest for a primary election in the last 25 years, according to the Education Tax Policy Institute. The approval rate in the last two primaries was 54.3% in 2007 and 58.8% in 2006.

But will school boards learn anything from this other than that they must 'scare' people more in order to gain passage???

Are you really a Republican if you support tax funded universal health insurance?

Last night, this resolution was passed unanimously at the Toledo City Council meeting:

RES. 256-08

Recognizing Cover The Uninsured Week 2008.

WHEREAS, Cover The Uninsured Week 2008 will be April 27- May 3, 2008; and

WHEREAS, 1.3 million Ohioans, including 43,700 adults and 6,200 children in Lucas County do not have health care coverage; and

WHEREAS, eight of 10 people who are uninsured are in working families and Ohio no longer offers medical assistance to low-income non-elderly adults without children at home, unless they are totally and severely disabled; and

WHEREAS, viable solutions to these problems are within our reach; and

WHEREAS, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid are successful programs that provide cost-effective coverage that saves both lives and taxpayer dollars through preventative care and early treatment; and

WHEREAS, insured children are twice as likely as uninsured children to get the medical care they need, when they need it; and

WHEREAS, as costs continue to rise, Ohio’s individuals, working families, and small businesses need help paying for coverage; and

WHEREAS, Ohio is poised to make historic progress in children’s health coverage through expansions passed in the FY2008-2009 budget; and

WHEREAS, Ohio’s leaders are on the verge of taking meaningful action to find common ground between providers, consumers, businesses, and insurers to create a sustainable plan that will assure affordable, accessible, high quality coverage to hundreds of thousands of Ohioans; NOW, THEREFORE,

Be it resolved by the Council of the City of Toledo:

SECTION 1. That Toledo City Council urges Governor Strickland and Ohio’s legislative and administrative leadership to take all necessary steps to reach affordable, accessible, and adequate health coverage for all Ohioans, and hereby declare April 27-May 3, 2008 as COVER THE UNINSURED WEEK in TOLEDO, OHIO.

SECTION 2. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after the earliest period allowed by law.

Such a resolution isn't unusual in the liberal/Democrat-dominated Toledo City Council, but what is unusual is that this resolution passed with the support of the three Republicans.

I have no idea why Republicans would vote to urge state government to provide health insurance, considering that a core Republican principle is LESS government involvement in our daily lives, not to mention the idea of LESS taxation...

What's more puzzling is the lack of discussion about this 'whereas': "...the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and Medicaid are successful programs that provide cost-effective coverage that saves both lives and taxpayer dollars..."

Taxpayers would save MORE if these programs didn't exist, but I guess that's beside the point.

And how anyone can claim that these bloated bureaucracies, which are about to go bankrupt, are 'successful programs' is just beyond my (apparently) limited understanding.

Perhaps our GOP representatives will say that they voted to name the week - a meaningless action in which all governmental bodies partake (and I've done so myself when a County Commissioner). But if they were just voting to name it "covered the uninsured week," they could have asked for the policy issues to be excluded from the resolution. That's what I've done.

As it stands now, George Sarantou, Betty Shultz, and Tom Waniewski are on the record as supporting state-provided (read taxpayer funded) universal health insurance coverage. It's no wonder many Republicans believe they have no representation on Toledo City Council.

See what happens when you get in the way of government spending?

State legislators have voted to dismantle the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation, and Gov. Ted Strickland is expected to sign the bill. This isn't about reducing the size of government, though. This is payback for daring to challenge the State on how the monies would be spent.

Never mind that the state was supposed to use tobacco settlement funds for future medical costs...

Never mind that government really can't stimulate the economy by spending more...

Now that the agency doesn't exist, it can't sue the legislature. As reported in today's Blade,

"Once the agency ceases to exist, it will have a difficult time being able to sue us,'' Sen. Bill Seitz (R., Cincinnati) said shortly before the Senate voted 29-3 to kill the quasigovernmental body. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill last week.

I'm not in favor of the agency continuing, but that's because I didn't think it should have been created in the first place. My issue was with the original lawsuit and the settlement agreement. However, as a result of that suit and settlement, this agency was created and many of the legislators voting to dismantle it are also the same ones who voted to create it in the first place.

I also question why Ohio needs to spend $40 million every year in tobacco prevention education. We have laws about the sale of tobacco to minors which means that only adults should be using the product - and they're capable of making up their own mind about their actions. Even when minors illegally engage in such activity, there are laws to address it - and parents, too.

There is no doubt that smoking causes health problems - and every package contains various warnings about how bad it is for you. I really don't think there is anyone in the country who doesn't acknowledge this fact, even if they know of one or two people who've suffered no ill effects from this habit.

Further, the $40 million per year obviously isn't having an impact on the number of smokers if, according to the CDC, the percentage of smokers in Ohio has actually increased from 22.3% in 2005 to 23.1% in 2007.

Of course, this battle with the OTPF isn't about the purpose of the funds, it's about the umbrage state elected officials took at one of their creations challenging them on how to spend the funds.

"The wellness of the people of Ohio is a jobs issue, an economic issue. They are not separate,'' said Sen. Kevin Coughlin (R., Cuyahoga Falls), one of the three negative votes. He argued that the state had reneged on the commitment it made to Ohioans to use part of its national settlement with tobacco companies to fight smoking.

Sen. Jeff Jacobson (R., Vandalia), however, challenged Mr. Coughlin's suggestion that a government bureaucracy will not be able to fight smoking better than the quasigovernmental foundation.

"If I had hundreds of millions to spend, I could manage to spend some of that money effectively…,'' he said. "The money still belonged to the people. They treated it callously as their own property."

Um...isn't that what state legislators are doing ... treating our tax dollars and these settlement funds as their own property to be spent as they want, regardless of the promises made???

The lesson here is bigger than the use of the monies. Had our Republicans in Columbus actually stood by their (supposed) limited-government principles, we never would have entered the lawsuit, or created the agency. And we would then be spared from having the discussion of how government was going to spend all the money it has at its disposal. Starve the beast, because if you don't, it will spend everything it can.

What good is council if they can't do their job?

Among the myriad of agenda items for tonight's Toledo City Council meeting is consideration of a purchase agreement between the City and Tetra Tech, a local company who wants to develop the Swan Creek Area.

It really isn't a purchase agreement, but a 'hold in place' contract whereby the City will agree to hold on to various properties in the area - for $5,000 - for up to 18 months while Tetra Tech does their due diligence on the idea.

This is a terrific agreement for Tetra Tech and I certainly do not fault them one bit for working out a contract that is all to their benefit.

Toledo City Council rightly has questions on the contract and the potential financial obligations. So one council member, Joe McNamara, has suggested that council hire an outside attorney to review the contract on behalf of the council members.

First of all, that's what a city law department is for - but making this suggestions will fit nicely with the perspective some on council are trying to promote that the law department is working for the 'mayor' and not the 'city as a whole,' including 'council.'

Aside from the political strategy, Joe McNamara is an attorney, so I fail to see why he feels it necessary to have someone with legal expertise examine the contract. Can't he do that himself???

And other council members seem to be warming to the idea.

If our council members are so lacking in ability to read, examine and evaluate an agreement as so simple as this particular contract, it scares me to death to think they also vote on bond issues, budgets, grants, etc.

I read the proposed contract and saw several things which weren't spelled out. One example is the environmental issue. The actual purchase is dependent upon several items as part of a feasibility analysis. One of those is the stipulation that the properties have no environmental issues - or the issues are addressed. This particular clause does NOT say WHO is responsible for addressing the issues - the buyer or the seller. Even though the city's attorney assured council during their agenda meeting last week that it was the buyer, I would have asked that such clarification be incorporated into the language of the agreement. And, if it's already understood that the buyer is responsible, including such written documentation of that understanding shouldn't be a problem.

See how easy such things are? And I'm not even an attorney. So why would members of council not be capable of reading the document, asking such questions and then informing the law department what additions/subtractions they'd like included in the contract? Granted, the law department will have to take the recommendations back to Tetra Tech, but I'm sure Tetra Tech is expecting such actions.

What bothers me most is the implication that members of council are not qualified to read, evaluate and then make recommendations on such a simple, straightforward contract. If they can't do that, what else are they incapable of doing - and why are they still in office if they can't perform such basic functions?

Pilot program for automated garbage pickup

I'm in the pilot area for the automated garbage pickup. I like the container that's been provided and think it will be fine for us, even when we have larger gatherings.

Yesterday was the first day of pickup and photos of the truck and process are below. The driver was a bit slow, but he said he expects to get faster as he gets used to the truck and the process. Since these trucks have arms only on one side, he has to take two trips down the street to get the garbage on both sides. This is expected to change if the pilot is expanded to the city as a whole.












Of the 17 cans on my side of the street, only three of them ended up with open lids after being emptied. If you'd like to hear yesterday's conversation about the program, you can listen to a pod cast of Eye on Toledo here. Conversation about the trash program starts at 6:15.

UPDATED: Tobacco settlement was for health-related expenses

Well, I thought so!

Earlier I posted about the state's idea to take tobacco settlement money as part of the funding for a supposed 'economic stimulus' plan. And I questioned why we'd be taking money out of a fund that was supposed to pay for future medical-related expenses.

Today's Blade has an article about the tobacco companies making their yearly payment for the funds and it reiterates that these funds are for health-related expenses.

So if the state wins their lawsuit and raids these funds for a nebulous economic stimulus, where will they get the money to pay for all these health-related expenses that they sued over?

Inquiring minds....

UPDATED: Apparently, Tennessee has the same problem with their tobacco funds, as Blue Collar Muse reports. What a surprise that government spends everything it gets for its own purposes, even when money is supposed to be earmarked?