Toledo's $5 million surplus is really a $4 million deficit!

On Thursday, Toledo Mayor Mike Bell announced that the city had a $5.08 million surplus at the end of 2012.

But the 2012 budget called for $12 million to be transferred from the Capital Improvement Program fund (CIP) into the General Fund to pay for the yearly expenses.

When the budget was finalized, that transfer amount was increased to $13 million.

According to Jennifer Sorgenfrei, the city's public information officer, the total amount actually transferred into the General Fund was $9 million.

So - $9 million raided from the CIP to cover yearly costs and $5 million left over means that the city actually had a $4 million deficit.

Despite taking in more $3 million more than they expected and having $6 million less expenses than they planned, they still had to raid the CIP to cover their overspending.

And overspending it is when the outlay is greater than the income.

So, they've got $5 million left over - but that's just money that never should have been taken out of the CIP in the first place.

What will council do with this $5.08 million???

They should return it to the CIP - and plan to replace the $59 million total they've taken out of the fund that is supposed to pay for long-term projects likes roads and buildings, vehicles and infrastructure.

But they won't. They'll spend it, of course.

Faced with a choice of returning the money to the CIP or spending it on their own pet projects, our council members have shown that they always choose their own pet projects over the interests of the taxpayer.

Only in Toledo is an actual deficit characterized as a budget surplus and only here is that cause for even more spending.

Can you say 'stuck on stupid'???

Who gets a 17% raise in this economy?

Toledo refuse workers, represented by the Teamsters, if the fact finder report is accepted.

This is not a joke. A fact finder report (not made public in its entirety until either voted on by the union or the city council), recommends that the base pay for refuse workers jump two grades, going from $18 per hour to $21.09 per hour. The report also includes a 2 or 3 percent raise during the term of the contract.

And, at a time when other new hires for the city are paying their own portion of their pension in its entirety, refuse workers would have the city (meaning you and me) pay 8.5% of their personal pension contribution on top of the required employer contribution.

Oh - and remember that for 2010 Toledo had a $48 million deficit.

Four members of city council voted to accept the recommendation: Michael Ashford, Adam Martinez, Steven Steel and Lindsay Webb (who is my district representative). But since only 7 voted to reject, they did not achieve the 60% required to officially reject the findings. So Council needs to have 7 members voting to accept the report (a simply majority) or 8 members voting to reject. Another meeting is scheduled for Thursday morning.

I plan to call Lindsay Webb and share my opinion with her - I hope you'll call or email and let them know what you think.

This proposal is completely unacceptable - not just in this economy and in Toledo with it's financial situation - but in general. The city has 'me-too' clauses in their other contracts which requires the city (meaning you and me) to apply more generous compensation terms negotiation by one union to the other unions as well.

Personally, I despise me-too clauses because they give everyone the benefits, but none of the concessions, that were negotiated. And it unnecessarily drives up the costs for the taxpayer - which is part of the problem Toledo politicians have ignored for years, resulting in huge budget deficits.

If accepted, the terms will be used by the other unions whose contracts are up for negotiation. If council approves this one, how can they not approve similar terms for their other unionized workers? Aye...there's the rub.

I wonder if the Teamsters will reject this report as unsustainable? It certainly should be rejected by Toledoans and their representatives on council.

I wonder if any of the council members are regretting their decision NOT to privatize this service? And if these were not unionized jobs, do you think the city would find people who would be willing to work for the current $18 per hour to pick up the trash? I believe so. In fact, the taxpayers would be better off if the city said, 'here's how much we're offering - with unemployment in Toledo above 11%, we'll find others who will take it if you don't want to.'

We cannot afford this and, as Mayor Mike Bell said, "We have fallen into the same trap we've been in for 20 years. Our workers deserve a good living, but what we pay them has to be within our means."

New TPPA agreement just postpones the inevitable

In March, the city of Toledo declared exigent circumstances and, as a result, stopped certain compensation for unionized workers. One of those items was the pension pick-up - the employee portion of their pension plan that the city has been paying for quite some time.

Following the declaration of exigent circumstances, several unions reached agreement with the city for new terms of their contracts and the city then revoked the exigent circumstances for those unions. After the voters approved (in the May 4th Primary) a diversion of the 3/4% payroll tax capital improvement allotment to the general fund, the fire fighter unions got their concessions back. The mayor had promised, as one of the terms of that approval, that the fire fighters would be reimbursed for the pension pick-ups they'd gone without and the city would, again, pick up the employee portions for the rest of the year.

The Toledo Police Patrolman's Association claimed the exigent circumstances were actually an unfair labor practice and ended up before SERB - the State Employment Relations Board. SERB found 'probable cause' to believe that the city had committed an unfair labor practice and the city and the union reached an agreement that was approved yesterday by the union. As it is a memorandum of understanding, it does not require city council approval.

That's too bad because, for the life of me, I can't see how this new agreement is good for the city - and especially for the taxpayers.

From the news reports so far, the agreement calls for the city to again pick up the employee portion of the pensions beginning May 27; no police officers will be laid off through April of 2011; the police will get their scheduled 3.5% pay increase beginning January 1; and the overtime that officers earn will not be paid until March 2011, though when it is paid out, it will be paid at the increased pay rate being earned at the time.

This means that the only 'savings' for taxpayers is the amount of the pension payments paid by the employees between the declaration of exigent circumstances and May 27th. That amount is estimated to be about $520,000, according to a quote from TPPA President Dan Wagner (link). However, the administration is claiming they're still saving $2.6 million as a result of this agreement.

How can that be?

I don't think it can. Perhaps they mean that there will be roughly $2.6 million that the city won't have to pay out in 2010. That could be. Deferring the overtime payments would result in a reduction in the amount of money expended this year. But there are no 'savings' if the money still has to be paid in 2011.

In fact, deferring the overtime payments to 2011 and then paying it at the 2011 increased pay rates means that this little deal will actually cost the taxpayers 3.5% more than it would cost us if we just went ahead and paid it when earned!

That's not a savings!

The city may have found itself in a difficult position with the SERB ruling. Declaring exigent circumstances and then revoking it upon partial concessions from the other city unions may have also weakened the city's position. Using the exigent circumstances as a bargaining chip to get minor - temporary - concessions from the other unions proved that the city wasn't serious about the major concessions being sought from the TPPA.

Now District 2 Councilman Mike Collins wants the city to give the exempt city staff the same 'give backs' the unions have received.

All this puts the city back into the exact same position we were in at the beginning of the year: unsustainable compensation terms, too much spending and not enough revenue - and no willingness from voters to give the city any more, especially when the voters don't have it in the first place.

So how has any of this helped? Well, the administration claims that they've got a balanced budget for 2010 even with all the concessions that didn't carry through to the end of the year. But that's because they're raiding the CIP account and they increased our trash tax to cover it.

The bottom line is that the unions won and the taxpayers lost. The unions are getting their employee portion of their pensions paid by the city - meaning you and me - and we're paying more in a trash tax in order for them to have this perk. Furthermore, the 2011 city budget will be much higher than in 2010 because of already agreed-upon pay increases as high as 3.5% - and especially because the police overtime earned this year will be paid out in 2011 at that higher rate.

In the meantime, being self-employed, I have to reduce the amount I put into my pension because my taxes have increased. I won't be getting a pay increase next year and I expect the 'trash tax' will again rise because the city just won't have the money to meet its obligations without it.

But don't expect the same bargaining tactics to work again next year. Wagner has already warned of the TPPA's concern about whether the city would again ask for concessions for 2011. And having just 'won' on the terms this year, they'll be much less likely to make such concessions in the future.

This is not a good deal for the taxpayers - all it does is postpone the inevitable. Eventually the city and the unions will have to face reality: the compensation terms are unsustainable. Something will have to give and when it does, it will be very ugly.

Toledo balances its budget

Yes, the City of Toledo has a balanced budget - but at what cost?

I'm not talking about the additional tax people who live in the city but work elsewhere now have to pay...nor the $15 trash tax every home has to pay.

I'm talking about the subsequent costs everyone will incur as a result of the government taking more of our money than they did in the past.

While some will say that $15 a month in a trash tax isn't that much, to many it's a lot! The cries of "it's only...." ring hollow when you realize that you can't go to your boss and say, "Hey, the city just raised my taxes so I need another $180 a year in pay." You'll likely get some comment about being grateful you even have a job! Especially in Toledo!

So what will happen? Well, I can tell you that in our house, we'll have to cut out something we're currently purchasing in order to cover this new tax. So what will it be?

Well, we stopped going to movies quite some time ago because of the cost. There are only a couple of movies in the past several years that we've decided need to be seen on a big screen (Lord of the Rings, 2012 and Harry Potter) rather than wait for them to come out on video. So we've rented videos for about $3 each. But no more. We won't rent - and pay tax! - on five videos a month in order to cover the trash tax. If a lot of people make this decision, will that mean financial difficulties for the store and it's employees?

Or, perhaps we won't go to our favorite Chinese buffet over on Alexis. Carryout for lunch for two is about $15. People have already cut down on eating out. Will others make a similar decision and be the 'final straw' that closes this eatery?

Or maybe we won't pay the enterprising teens who come by and offer to shovel our driveway. Too bad, young entrepreneurs, but we've got a new tax to pay and the money doesn't grow on trees.

And if you're one of those live-in-Toledo-work-elsewhere people, the cuts in spending you'll have to make to cover your tax is much more severe. So sorry that Toledo politicians see you as a source of revenue and not as an equal member of the community.

These are the costs. These are the 'prices' the community pays when government decides it needs our money more than we do.

And shame on Toledo City Council for:

1) not recognizing or not caring about the negative impact of their decision, and

2) spending more than they had over the last several years and putting us into this situation in the first place.

Toledo has Issue 5 on the ballot which would allow these same politicians to divert money from the Capital Improvements (CIP) budget into the General Fund so they can continue to spend money like they have in the past.

We need to defeat Issue 5, just like we did the similar measure last November. These idiots have got to learn to live within their means just like the rest of us.

And we need to stop rewarding them for their fiscally irresponsible behavior by not 'promoting' them to other elective office (Joe McNamara and George Sarantou) and then not re-electing them to council anymore.

(I've exempted Tom Waniewski, who is running for state Senate, from that statement because he has consistently voted against the spending and the taxes.)

We cannot keep doing the same things, electing the same philosophies, and expect different results. Politicians don't bring change - only we can do that!

Toledo politicians will raise taxes - that's all they know how to do

I do not envy Mayor Mike Bell and the limited options he has to address this year's nearly $50 million budget deficit.

Part of the problem is that he had only three months in which to find solutions. While cutting spending and reducing the size of government is clearly the best choice in both the short and long term, last year's decision by council and then mayor Carty Finkbeiner put Bell in a tough spot with union contracts, leaving a rock and a hard place as choices.

The bigger problem we have is that Toledo City Council, as a body, did nothing.

Well, that's not exactly correct. They continued 'business as usual' when it came to union contracts, wages, benefits and pensions, hoping that a six-month moratorium on some of those items would buy them time.

And it bought the time: six months.

Now the situation is even worse because they've failed, over a period of years, to make the decisions necessary to address the declining revenue and skyrocketing costs.

Throughout the last several years, I've paid particularly close attention to the revenue projections and have made numerous posts here about how they cannot possibly be obtained. It comes as no surprise to me, those of you who read this blog and most ordinary citizens, that the practice of inflating revenue to justify spending is a significant problem - that Toledo politicians have known about, and embraced.

Even this year, we have some who are saying that Bell's revenue projections are too low. Can you say 'stuck on stupid'????

Better that they be too low than too high, resulting in further deficits!

Members of city council are now faced with having to produce a balanced budget by tomorrow, or the city faces dire circumstances, including the inability to expend money. Temporary spending authorizations cannot continue to be made like they are in January, February and March.

So what will council do? The cowardly thing - though they'll try to spin it as courageous.

They are going to increase taxes.

They will not make the hard choices of cutting non-mandated services. They will not repeal ordinances they've previously passed in order to eliminate boards and commissions that suck up tax dollars. They will not examine the operations of government and eliminate duplicate functions/tasks (not that they could in the two days left). They will not prioritize safety and basic services and eliminate lower priorities. They will not challenge the unions.

They will tell us they did the only they could do continue that elusive 'quality of life' they're constantly telling about. Of course, that assumes that they can define each of our 'quality of life' criteria - or that they know what adds to our quality of life better than we do. How typical of elitist statists on our council.

My 'quality of life' is certainly enhanced when I have more money in my pocket. In fact, that's the best thing I could ever hope for to enhance my quality of life. That point is too often missed or ignored by city council.

They will tell us they've made a difficult choice in raising taxes. And they might see it that way because they will (hopefully!) suffer the consequences of that decision and that could mean loss of office. (Though this is Toledo, so while that should be a given in most communities, it's not here.)

Just remember this: Whenever government raises taxes, fees, or increases its income (in whatever form), the politicians are telling you that they need your money more than you do. They are telling you that their special projects and priorities are more important that yours - including your mortgage or rent, your utilities, your food, your retirement, your children's college funds, your home improvements - everything!

And as a result of their actions, you will go with less while they brag about 'saving' city services.

Every one of them who votes for any increase in taxation - in any form - deserves to be thrown from office.

Does Toledo have the political will to do so remains an unanswered question. But I can hope. Because only by changing the philosophy of those on council will Toledo ever get out of the mess we're in.

And that goes for all of council, regardless of the political affiliation they claim.

Random Thoughts on TGIF

* The Toledo Police Patrolman's Association rejected contract concessions but the Firefighters approved them. According to media reports, the concessions included having the members pay 3% of their portion of the pension that the city is currently 'picking-up' as well as deferring overtime compensation until next year.

The overtime deferral will only buy the city and the Bell administration some time because, eventually, the money will have to be paid. This is part of the problem we have this year with a $48 million deficit - because former mayor Carty Finkbeiner and City Council accepted temporary concessions in 2009 knowing full well that the reduced levels would go back up this January...and they did.

In an interview on WSPD when I was hosting Eye On Toledo, I asked TPPA President Dan Wagner what I thought was a very pertinent question: Given the choice between keeping members employed by taking concessions or keeping existing benefits for only some members, what will the union do? His response was very telling. He said that, given his past experience, he feared they'd vote to keep existing levels and sacrifice the younger members (who would be the lowest in seniority and most likely to be laid off).

And given that choice this week, the TPPA did exactly as Dan expected. So much for unity and an 'all-for-one' approach.

* Erick Erickson at RedState.com has an excellent commentary on the fallout over the health care bill and the threats/violence directed against members of Congress:

Acts of violence against congressmen for behaving as congressmen are wholly inexcusable. We should be vigilant to police our own side because as we’re already seeing through a series of breathless and inaccurate reports, the press and Democrats are going to be quick to run most any story and the retraction will never be as significant as the initial report.

But let’s not act surprised. The only people surprised by the rage are the ones who refused to venture outside Washington to understand first hand what the voters were actually thinking before congressmen voted.

Frankly, after all the leadership threats and bullying against swing Democrats to vote for leadership, I think it is a bit ironic Democratic leaders are now decrying threats and bullying of swing state Democrats by their constituents who very clearly did not want them to vote as they did.

Full post

* It was a great debate last night that the Children of Liberty hosted for the GOP Congressional Primary. My compliments to the group for their format, their questions, their enthusiasm and the polite way in which everyone behaved.

* A quote on why our founders gave us the structure that has led to our long success as a nation:

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Unsustainable promises have consequences

Thanks to a friend, I recently became acquainted with Keith Hennessey, a former White House economic advisor, and his blog. I hope you'll become a regular reader.

His column today, "No new promises, please," has a message that is relevant to all levels of government as he talks about an 'unsustainable fiscal path':

"We are on this path because past elected officials made unsustainable benefit promises and enshrined them in law. In some cases they paid for those promises in the short run. In all cases they created programs that would grow more generous over time.

Those past elected officials enjoyed the political benefits of creating a new promise, and they shifted the burden of paying for these promises onto their successors and onto future generations of citizens.

... we are those future generations. The bill is coming due. The gap between future spending and taxes is the most important economic problem America faces. If we don’t fix it, we’re screwed."

Sound familiar? It should - this is what Toledo has done.

Even last year, City Council voted in favor of union contracts that provided six months of concessions, but went right back to the old terms as of the January. They got a six-month delay in addressing the city's deficit - but they didn't change the fact that the deficit still had to be addressed.

Of course, waiting that time also made the issue worse.

Governments cannot continue to grow and expand. I know that employees always want pay increases and don't want to have any cuts in their benefits. But government cannot be immune to what the market is doing - especially when those of us in the market are the ones having to foot the bill. We can't go to our employer and say 'give me more money.' (Well, we can but it won't result in action for the vast majority of us.)

Politicians and elected officials need to understand that the well has run dry and cuts are the only way they're going to be able to regain control of their budgets.

I know there will be people complaining because they're no longer getting their little piece of the pie. But they probably shouldn't have had any of it to begin with, and they're going to have to make do just like the rest of us.

Government needs to shrink back to the point where the expenses stop exceeding the income. And it needs to stop thinking it can always get more income - because it can't, as politicians are learning the hard way.

Follow up on TPS and Toledo budget discussion from WSPD

Yesterday while filling in for Brian Wilson on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD, we talked quite a bit about the Toledo Public School's .75% payroll income tax ballot issue as well as the City of Toledo's budget deficit and Mayor Mike Bell's plans for addressing the $48 million shortfall.

I'm not happy with some of the things being said about cuts or the additional taxation being suggesting, but I am very pleased to see the outreach Mayor Bell is doing - with both the community and the media.

As I finished the show last night, I encouraged everyone to call (419-245-1001) or write the Mayor and let him know what YOUR priorities are for the budget. Please don't call and tell him what NOT to cut - every group out there will tell him not to cut their pet project or funding line item. But he wants your input and, as citizens, we are obligated to provide it.

Now there's an easy way for you to provide direction to city officials: The Future of Toledo. (H/T Chris Myers at SwampBubbles)

From the website:

In order to stay in control of our city and avoid bankruptcy, we will balance our budget. To do this, we are bringing together citizens, leaders, experts, and stakeholder groups. Our task is to review the current deficit, innovate "out-of-the-box" solutions, and prepare a budget proposal by March 1st. Review the information below, provide your input, and join us in getting our city healthy so that we can move from problems to possibilities.

1. READ Mayor Bell's letter.

2. VOTE on 50+ Budget Balancing Ideas worth over $25m.

3. CONTRIBUTE your Budget Balancing Ideas. Tell us what you think.

4. LEARN more about the budget process.

5. INVITE download the flyer and share with everyone.
(links are provided with each of the numbered items)

Most importantly, they have budget balancing ideas you can vote on and information about the budget process. They also have a Facebook page and Twitter account you can join.

I hope you'll all take advantage of this wonderful opportunity!

***

We talked to Michael Maurer of the Ohio Citizens Accounting Standards Board about their April 15th Project to put checkbook and wages of all major taxing jurisdictions, including schools, on line.

Since TPS wants more money from us, it's our responsibility to educate ourselves about their finances.

Trading one tax increase for another

Today at Toledo City Council, Mayor Mike Bell said he no longer wants to put a .25% payroll income tax increase on the ballot. Instead, he wants to eliminate the reciprocity for Toledoans who work outside the city.

Currently, people who live in Toledo but work in another jurisdiction get credit on their Toledo income tax for what they pay to the other jurisdiction. Under Bell's proposal, those individuals would pay whatever is charged to them in the other jurisdiction and 100% of what is due to Toledo.

Additionally, he still wants permission from the voters to have complete control over how the .75% payroll income tax is distributed. Under current law, collections from that tax are split between the general fund (for police and fire and other daily operations) and the Capital Improvements Fund. The proposal to go before the voters would give the mayor and council the authority to decide how to allocate those dollars.

Last year, voters rejected Council's "Safety First" proposal to reallocate the income tax dollars. I sincerely hope the voters stand by their prior position that draining the CIP isn't the right way to run a city and reject this latest proposal as well.

Bell would also delay the scheduled reductions in the 'trash tax,' keeping them at the current rates, eliminate the Fourth of July fireworks, eliminate waivers for festival fees and implement a new entertainment tax.

In effect, he's trading one type of tax increase for another.

He still wants to eliminate all pension pickups for city employees and have them pay 20% of their health-care costs, but he has removed the 10% pay cuts from discussion.

The problem is that these items would address the 2010 budget deficit, but still do not address the more than $12 million carryover deficit from 2009.

I applaud him for the cuts he wants to make, but cannot support any increase in collections for the city - and especially oppose giving Toledo politicians the ability to determine how the .75% payroll income tax is allocated. If they get that authority, I don't believe we'll ever see those dollars going into the CIP in the future due to their reputation for spending every penny they have - and then some.

Bell's letter to Council, along with budget data, is viewable here.

Here is the press release from the Mayor's office:

Mayor Asks Council to Pull Ordinance Authorizing Tax Increase

At this afternoon's City Council Committee of the Whole meeting, Mayor Michael P. Bell recommended to members of Council that the proposed ordinance authorizing a ballot initiative to increase the city income tax be pulled from the agenda. The administration has made numerous other recommendations to resolve the 2010 deficit without increasing the income tax.

Among the items outlined in the plan sent to members of council and leaders of the collective bargaining units are a proposal to add positions to the law, finance and taxation department to pursue delinquent tax collections, negotiate vendor contracts and provide additional budget analysis for long term fiscal changes. Additionally, it eliminates the July 4th fireworks, assumes elimination of pension pickups and 20% employee contribution for health insurance for all employees in all funds. It does not include a 10% wage concession from employees. Further, the balanced budget would require sale of assets, delaying the recycling fee reductions, elimination of festival fee waivers, implementation of an events tax and would change the tax code to eliminate the 100% reciprocity for those working outside of the city of Toledo.

Mayor Bell presents updated 2010 budget with $48.2 million deficit

This just in via email:

Budget Forecast Update

Mayor Michael P. Bell today sent to members of Toledo City Council and the City's union leadership an updated forecast for 2010 revenue and the current state of the anticipated deficit. That information is attached electronically to this release. To date the administration has identified $25.6 million in deficit reduction measures.

The Mayor met on Wednesday with the union leaders to present them with the potential cost savings to be achieved through employee concessions, which would affect all employees in all funds and agencies. The concessions and deficit reduction measures, coupled with the ballot initiatives the administration has proposed for council action would remediate the 2010 deficit without seriously affecting the level of service provided to Toledo residents. All measures would nevertheless pursue a long-term improvement in the efficiency of internal operations for the City of Toledo.

On Thursday the administration will meet with representatives from the State Auditors office and on Friday there will be a budget working meeting with members of the administration, city council, department directors and union leaders. Public input sessions are also being scheduled to allow citizens the opportunity to offer suggestions and weigh in on the service priorities they feel need to be addressed.

The Mayor has committed to providing multiple draft budget scenarios to City Council by March 1 to allow them time for discussion and action before the March 31 deadline.

###

The attachment is available for viewing here. Key points from the letter:

* 2009 budget is projected to be $12.7 million - $3 million more than reported on Jan. 14.

* $1.3 million has to be added to the Solid Waste budget for costs associated with the conversion to automation and the cost of recycling.

* 2010 budget deficit is now estimated to be $48.2 million.

* The Bell administration has identified $13.6 million in revenue reductions and $12 million in revenue increases. If all these are implemented, 2010 deficit will be $22.6 million.

* Bell is still seeking concessions: $16.66 million including $ 6.7 million from elimiating all pension pick-ups, $2.86 million from employees paying 20% of their health insurance costs and $7.1 million resulting from a 10% across the board pay cut. The savings are if all departments, boards and agencies implement these cuts, including the Toledo Municipal Court Judges and Clerk.

Toledo cancels budget meeting due to snow storm

This just in via email:

Budget Working Meeting and Public Input Session Cancelled Due to Weather

Due to the inclement weather and road conditions the budget working meeting scheduled for Wednesday, February 10 in the Courtyard at Cousino's Navy Bistro has been cancelled. The meeting has been rescheduled for Friday, February 12 at 9:30 a.m. at the Bistro.

Additionally, the public input session scheduled for Thursday, February 11 at the Gesu Parish Sullivan Center has been cancelled due to weather and road conditions. The meeting will be rescheduled at a later date with notice to be provided to the public.

Public meetings for Toledo's budget

This just in via email - note the public meeting scheduled from 6-8 p.m. on Thursday.

Mayor And Council To Hold Budget Working Meetings

First Public Input Session Also Scheduled

The Mayor and City Council will continue to address the 2010 City Budget at a series of working meetings that will also include members of the Mayor's Transition Team, the Citizens Special Investigation team, union leaders and department directors.

The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 10 at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtyard at Cousino's Navy Bistro. Subsequent meetings are scheduled for February 17; February 24 and March 3. All meetings will begin at 9:30 a.m. and will be held at the Bistro.

The forum will provide an opportunity for the Mayor's administration, Council, and the Unions to work together in developing a common understanding of the current financial situation, community priorities, potential scenarios and options for addressing the deficit.

Additionally, further sessions will be scheduled at various locations around the city to collect citizen input regarding priority services and other budget related issues. The first of these meetings has been scheduled for Thursday, February 11 from 6-8 p.m. at the Gesu Parish Sullivan Center at 2049 Parkside Blvd. (emphasis added)

It's started - doom and gloom if Toledo doesn't get more tax dollars from its citizens

The front page of today's paper attempts to scare readers into thinking that if we don't support the current proposals to raise our taxes, doom and gloom will result.

That's the only outcome one can expect from saying that today's budget deficit for the city is very much like 1982. And don't forget, back then we had a massive - and perhaps, illegal - strike that burned property and resulted in the death of a bus driver.

Back then, a Republican and a Democrat got together and promoted the idea that the only solution was to approve a 'temporary' .75% increase in our payroll income tax. That 'temporary' tax was approved and has been 'permanent' ever since.

Now, Mayor Mike Bell is saying that his proposal for a temporary .25% tax is really temporary. But if that's the case, then why does the ordinance provide for a renewal?

SECTION 1. That subject to the approval of the electors of the City of Toledo, as provided in Section 718.01 of the Revised Code of Ohio, Chapter 1905 of the Toledo Municipal Code be amended as provided in this Ordinance to provide for the levy of a one quarter of one percent (1/4%) temporary tax on income for the period commencing June 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2012 unless renewed by the electors. Subject to the approval of the electors of the City of Toledo the additional 1/4% temporary income tax shall be allocated for Police, Fire, and other Safety Department responsibilities. (emphasis added)

If everyone were really serious about this being only for two years, there would be no such renewal provision in the legislation.

But take a good look at The Blade article. What you see documented are the same problems we're facing today. Back then, the costs of labor contracts had skyrocketed and unions didn't want to have any cutbacks, costs of government had skyrocketed and politicians said they'd cut everything they could. The only solution was a temporary increase in the amount of money the city government took from its citizens.

Here we are, in 2010, with the exact same problems: contractual labor obligations that cannot be sustained, increased costs in government with politicians telling us there's nowhere else to cut and a mounting campaign to make us think that the only solution is to take more of our money so government can continue to grow.

It worked so well in the 1980s - why not repeat it again today?

But look at what actually happened. If we have the same problems today as we did in back then, the solution to increase taxes did not solve the problem. If it had, we wouldn't still be grappling with it now.

Raising taxes is NOT the solution, in fact, it's part of the problem.

The focus on finding a 'solution' to the deficit means that politicians and the Mayor's Citizens Special Investigation task force are asking the wrong questions. And if you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers.

Everyone is looking for ways to get more money to the city of Toledo because the city doesn't have enough to pay their obligations. Of course, if your task is to raise revenue to the city, your best solutions will be tax increases, fee increases and maybe some cuts in spending.

The major issue Toledo faces is not really the deficit. In fact, the problem isn't that the city doesn't have enough money. That's only a symptom.

Our city is in decline and is taking everything along with it. As a result, we have fewer residents, fewer businesses, less employees and lower wages in the remaining businesses, declining property values, a declining school system, more bankruptcies, more home foreclosures, more people dependent upon welfare and food stamps and other government handouts, less of a tax base and less funds going into the public coffers.

The only answer being suggested is to take even more money from the citizens and businesses who are already suffering so. But that 'solution' will, not surprisingly, lead to more people leaving, more businesses failing (due to less customers), more unemployment, further decline in property values and even less money into the public coffers.

The very solution they promote contributes to and hastens the decline they seek to arrest.

So rather than ask the wrong question (how do we get more revenue to the government?) they should be asking 'how do we help promote the growth of the city?'

If we're interested in promoting growth, we do the exact opposite of what is being proposed: we LOWER taxes. We reduce regulations; we reduce fees; we cut government - which is a drain on the economy - to the bone; we make it easier and more profitable for businesses; we try to put more money into the pockets of citizens rather than into the government; and we encourage the private sector, not the public one.

These are the things that lead to the growth of a city and, subsequently, the increase in tax collections the city is so interested in achieving.

But if no one is asking the right question, we'll never get the right solutions - and we'll continue to face these same sets of circumstances over and over and over again.

Will new Toledo law violate Constitutional due process?

Well, it's official. The City of Toledo is seeking a law to either immobilize or impound vehicles with unpaid red light or speed camera tickets.

And here I thought the cameras were all about safety - not money. Apparently not.

Toledo has so many of these unpaid tickets that they're using it as an excuse for part of their budget woes. Recent news reports quote Police Chief Mike Navarre as saying the total amount due (dating back to 2000) is around $6 million, though not all of that money would go to the city. Some would go to the red-light camera company, RedFlex, which has a contract with the city to provide the cameras.

Last year, Toledo budgeted $2.5 million (more than they budgeted in 2008) in revenue from these cameras, but they only collected $874,308, leaving a significant shortfall. Of course, the fact that they over budgeted in 2008 should have given them their first clue about the problem.

They've tried a collection agency, but that's not working out too well. The problem isn't that the collection agency (a local law firm) isn't very good - it's that no court has ever issued a judgment in favor of the city for these civil fees, so people are ignoring them.

Under the current law, the photograph from the camera is prima facie evidence of a civil (not criminal) violation. The only way to appeal the violation is to request a hearing before a person hired by the city to serve as a hearing officer. The way the law is written, if the camera shows a vehicle and you are the owner, you are guilty. So when you appeal, the only way to get out of the presumption of guilt is to name another person as the driver.

It's no wonder this is a civil violation and not enforced under the traffic laws. If a person accused of hit-and-run were presumed guilty with the only way out being to present the actual offender, could you imagine how quickly various groups and citizens would be expressing their outrage? There's a reason why we have a presumption of innocence and due process procedures in the United States.

But when it comes to red light and speed camera violations, all those protections are thrown under the bus, ignored and flouted.

Now, without benefit of court adjudication, the city wants to confiscate property as a penalty for the violation.

Here is what the two ordinances relating to the immobilization/impoundment proposal say:

SECTION 5. That a new Toledo Municipal Code Subsection 313.12 (d)(6) is hereby enacted to read as follows:

“In lieu of assessing an additional penalty, pursuant to subsection (d)(5) above, the City of Toledo may (i) immobilize the vehicle by placing an immobilization device( e.g. a “boot”) on the tires of the vehicle pending the owners compliance with the Notice of Liability, or (ii) impound the vehicle, pursuant to TMC Section 303.08(a)(12). Furthermore, the owner of the vehicle shall be responsible for any outstanding fines, the fee for removal of the immobilization device (i.e., $75), and any costs associated with the impoundment of the vehicle.

and:

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:

Toledo Municipal Code Section 303.08 provides authority for the City of Toledo Police to remove (i.e., impound) a vehicle under certain circumstances specified. Likewise, the Section provides a mechanism for an owner to redeem his or her impounded vehicle. This proposed legislation amends, specifically, Toledo Municipal Code Section 303.08(a) by enacting a new Subsection, i.e., TMC Subsection 303.08(a)(12), to include authority to impound a vehicle of an owner who has refused or failed to comply with the civil penalty imposed pursuant to the City’s automated red light and speeding photo enforcement Sections; i.e., TMC Section 313.12,et.al.

NOW, THEREFORE,

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

SECTION 1. That Toledo Municipal Code Chapter 303, and specifically Section 303.08(a), is hereby amended by enacting Section 303.08(a)(12) to read as follows:

“When any vehicle against which two or more notices of liability has issued, pursuant to TMC Section 313.12, and the vehicle owner, as defined by TMC Section 313.12(b)(4), has failed or refused to comply with the civil penalty assessed, but after the appeal period has expired, pursuant to TMC Section 313.12(d) (4).”

Yes, that's correct. They want to come and take your vehicle - or put a 'boot' on it, depriving you of its use - without ever having gone to court.

Your failure to cater to their desire for more income will result in the confiscation of your property.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution states:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

So how is this proposed law NOT a deprivation of property without due process? You don't even have a way to appear before a judge under Toledo's current law and this new authority for the city doesn't change that fact.

Where are all the civil liberties groups on this issue? Are they even aware of the proposed law?

Chris Finney, an attorney and co-founder of COAST, Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxation, has been very vocal in opposing these cameras and might even be partially responsible for the failure of the city's budget projections.

He has advised individuals to ignore the tickets because the city has no ability to enforce them. He has also advised people that letters from attorneys threatening collection have no force unless adjudicated in a court of law. During my fill-in for Brian Wilson on WSPD yesterday, I talked to him about the plan to immobilize/impound vehicles and his response was that this was a lawsuit waiting to happen. He continued to tell people that unless they get a summons or notice from a court, the fines are unenforceable.

Obviously, he's not well-liked by the politicians, especially because he's going to mount another campaign in Toledo to repeal the law allowing cameras in the first place, with collection of signatures for the ballot measure scheduled to begin in about a month.

My hope is that individuals, attorneys and groups who believe in the Constitution and the protection of rights will vigorously oppose these two measures. Here is contact information to help you in this goal:

City Council phone: 419-245-1050

City Council emails:

phillip.copeland@toledo.oh.gov

rob.ludeman@toledo.oh.gov

joe.mcnamara@toledo.oh.gov

adam.martinez@toledo.oh.gov

george.sarantou@toledo.oh.gov

Steven.Steel@toledo.oh.gov

wilma.brown@toledo.oh.gov

dmichael.collins@toledo.oh.gov

mike.craig@toledo.oh.gov

michael.ashford@toledo.oh.gov

tom.waniewski@toledo.oh.gov

lindsay.webb@toledo.oh.gov

'Not business friendly' Post #18 - raising Toledo's payroll income tax

It's been a while since I dedicated a post to the 'not business friendly' category but the latest from the Toledo Mayor's office certainly qualifies.

Toledo is facing a huge budget deficit. The amount seems to vary daily ($38-44 million), but let's just pick an even number in the middle and call it $40 million.

The reason we have a deficit is because the city spends more than it takes in. (DUH!) They blame revenues that didn't meet projections. I blame the individuals who projected revenues greater than were logical.

One of the biggest culprits in the mess is income tax collections - the payroll tax deducted from the paychecks of all Toledo residents (regardless of what city they work in) and all Toledo workers (regardless of where they live) - which are down significantly.

The solution being presented? Raise the payroll tax!

No, I'm not kidding! They have a decrease in both the number of people paying and in the amount collected from those who still are...and they want more! As if a temporary influx from raising the tax will somehow magically solve all the underlying problems that resulted in the decreased collections in the first place.

This is insanity! I can't say it any clearer.

If a company can give their employees an instant increase in pay by moving out of the City of Toledo, why wouldn't they consider it? If companies know that their employee compensation will be attacked by the local government, why would they want to come here?

On a national level, most people think the reason for deficits is because politicians spend too much - not that taxes aren't high enough. I'd wager that sentiment applies to local governments as well!

It's the tax-hiking, 'we've-cut-everywhere-we-can-there's-no-where-left-to-cut' type of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. And the solution coming from Mayor Mike Bell's 'Citizens Special Investigation' task force is just more of the same - raise taxes. That's not 'out of the box' as the Mayor requested.

Oh, to be sure, the types of taxation they're suggesting (entertainment taxes) are a bit new - but they're still higher taxes. It's just more of the same failed philosophy that promotes the idea of government needing your money more than you do - and that's what got us into this mess in the first place.

But that's not the worst of it. Oh no!

The worst part is the hypocrisy of the elected officials when it comes to citizens paying more.

As a commissioner, I voted once to increase the amount of the dog license fee. The Dog Warden's operation was supposed to be self-sufficient and instead had been relying upon transfers from the County's general fund for meeting their budget. We had the department do some cuts and voted, 2-1, to raise the fee for the first time in years. Comm. Tina Skeldon-Wozniak voted against this saying that too many seniors relied upon dogs as companions in their old age and they might not be able to afford the extra $5 a year. But then Tina voted IN FAVOR of a new property tax that would have cost those very same seniors more than $5 a year!

It's contradictory - I know. But it's what passes for 'logic' in Toledo and Lucas County.

Why is this relevant? Because the same thing is going to happen in Toledo City Council.

Mayor Bell has drafted legislation to put an increase in the payroll income tax on the May ballot. It needs to be voted on by Council at their next meeting on Feb. 16th if it's going to make the May primary. The proposal is a 'temporary' increase of a quarter of a percent, raising the tax from the current 2.25% to 2.5%.

They say 'temporary' as they project it will expire in 2012. However, there is already .75% of the payroll tax that has been 'temporary' since the early 1980s...so much for the definition of 'temporary' in Toledo.

I have no doubt that a majority of council members will vote to put this on the ballot if it is presented to them. That's much easier than facing special interest groups packing council chambers to lobby for programs other than their own to be cut. They'll all get up and say how their program must continue and council should cut 'elsewhere.' But those groups are never asked by council what they'd do without in order to keep their funding...and if someone should challenge those groups on that point, their usual retort is 'that's council's job' to decide.

Which is why council will vote to increase taxes rather than upset all those special interests. Besides, they think they need your money more than you do. And they're hypocrites when it comes to your money.

Tuesday, council passed (with District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski (R) as the sole 'no' vote) a resolution opposing two bills in the Ohio legislature. Amended Sub. Senate Bill 162 and House Bill 276 would allow phone companies in Ohio to raise monthly rates by $1.25 every year. Council suspended the rules requiring two readings of items before council and voted immediately - because they just couldn't wait to oppose what Columbus was considering.

In support of the resolution, At-Large Councilman George Sarantou (R) said the bills were "bad news for residential phone users." He said seniors and others who might not have any other type of phone service would be "severely affected" and that the bills were "absolutely very harmful."

Now, they're talking about $1.25 a month as being too much for Toledoans to be able to handle. Their resolution even states:

WHEREAS, historically, Toledo and Northwest Ohio residents have paid some of the highest utility costs in the state of Ohio and are challenged daily with uncertain economic conditions...(emphasis added)

But these same council members are going to ask for more money from you for THEIR purposes.

If you make $10 an hour and work a 40-hour week, you'll be paying $1 more per week if they raise the payroll tax.

They're going to tell Columbus not to pass an increase of $1.25 per month on to Toledo residents, but they're going to tell voters to pass an increase of $4 per month on those same individuals?

Can you say 'stuck on stupid'???

And they do this kind of crap all the time - telling others not to take pennies out of your right pocket while they take dollars out of your left.

Now, don't get me wrong. There may be other aspects of the phone bill legislation that would generate opposition, but the major selling point being used by the politicians is the monthly increase. They look like idiots when they, in effect, say that others can't rake your earnings over the coals - only they can.

They'll hide behind the whole 'I didn't raise the rate - voters did.' What a cop-out!

I'll predict right now that most, if not all, members of council will urge people to vote for the tax increase if it's on the ballot. You won't see them going out and telling people to vote no - that's for sure!

If they truly believe that Toledoans are having enough economic issues, they wouldn't even ask for the support of the voters. They'd just vote no to putting the measure on the ballot and begin the difficult job of reducing the size of Toledo's government.

But don't hold your breath.

The sad part of all this is that I doubt anyone is going to hold these council members accountable for their contradiction in saying $1.25 a month to the phone companies is too much but (an estimated) $4 a month to the city coffers is just fine.

And they wonder why we have declining numbers of businesses, declining population, the highest unemployment of all the urban areas in the state, record foreclosures, record bankruptcies, record numbers of people on public assistance, etc... etc... etc...

This is why. And both politicians and voters have refused to admit that the same failed philosophy of government that got us into the mess is not going to get us out.

Mayor Bell, Toledo City Council to hold budget workshop meetings.

This just in via email from Mayor Mike Bell:

The Mayor and City Council will continue to address the 2010 City Budget at a series of working meetings that will include members of the Mayor's Transition Team, the Citizens Special Investigation team, union leaders and department directors.

The first meeting will be held on Thursday, February 4 at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtyard at Cousino's Navy Bistro. Subsequent meetings are scheduled for Wednesday, February 10; February 17; February 24 and March 3. All meetings will begin at 9:30 a.m. and will be held at the Bistro.

The forum will provide an opportunity for the Mayor's administration, Council, and the Union to work together in developing a common understanding of the current financial situation, potential scenarios and options for addressing the deficit. Further sessions will be scheduled at various locations around the city to collect citizen input regarding priority services and other budget related issues.

###

Laugh of the Day

Last night on WSPD, I talked briefly about buying a Mega Millions lottery ticket and how, if I won, I wouldn't need health insurance because I'd have the ability to pay for any medical treatment on my own. I wondered, then, why I'd be put in jail (under both Senate and House versions of the bill) for failing to purchase a product I clearly did not need.

That led fellow blogger Tim Higgins to send me the following message, providing the Laugh of the Day:

Maggie,

It occurred to me after listening to your discussion of a winning lottery ticket on the show today that you could win, take the smaller single payout, pay the taxes, PAY OFF THE EXPECTED $40,000,000 DEBT IN THE TOLEDO BUDGET, and still have enough left over for you and Sam to live comfortably for the rest of your days.

Maybe the city should be playing the lottery....

--
Regards,

Tim Higgins

Alas, I was not the winner.

Toledo 2010 proposed budget

Well, here it is! It's also linked permanently in the left-hand column.

It's 402 pages and in .pdf format which makes it hard to use, but at least it's on line.

I've been sick the last couple of days and just don't have the energy to sit and go through the whole thing right now, but will be evaluating the 'assumptions' made in the near future.

Some of those assumptions include:

* an increase in income tax collections of over $2 million
* the elimination of the reciprocity for municipal income tax paid to other jurisdictions
* increasing the garbage tax to $16 per year (Karen Shanahan was right - if they can impose $2 what's to stop them from making it more????)
* a new police class
* a new fire class
* eliminating 40 refuse collection positions by the end of the year
* reducing the number of beds to hold Toledo incarcerations at CCNO
* adding 18 positions in Finance and IT to handle the new financial software system

There are no actual expenditures from 2009 included in the document, so, again, it will be hard to judge whether or not 2009 budgeted numbers were appropriate prior to setting 2010 budget line items.

Stay tuned!

Another 'I told you so' on Toledo's budget

In 2008, I questioned the revenue assumptions of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner - especially the projected revenue from red-light cameras.

Item #3 from the list I sent to Finance Director John Sherburne (who never replied) was this:

3. You've doubled the number of speed cameras but the projected revenue from all those cameras is 6 times more than in 2007. Why isn't the revenue projection just double?

That was in March. By October, The Blade was reporting that the city was facing a $10 million budget shortfall for 2008:

Mr. Sherburne said the primary causes for the shortfall include:

•Income tax collections through September that were down $6.6 million.

•Overtime costs for city employees that are $2 million over projections.

•Revenue from red-light cameras that is $750,000 less than expected. (emphasis added)

•Fuel costs that are $1.5 million over budget.

But failing to learn their lessons in 2008, the city did the exact same thing in 2009. As I wrote in November 2008 (city-presented budget assumptions in bold, my comment follows):

• Red Light Camera revenue is provided for at $2.584 million for 2009. While this is the same as for 2008 it reflects an increase over actual collections for 2008.

So what makes the city think that it's going to have INCREASED collections from these cameras in 2009? Every study - even from the camera companies themselves - shows that income/revenue from the cameras decreases over time. So far, in 2008, red light/speed camera revenue is $750,000 less than expected. What evidence does the city present to document why they think they'll have 30% more income in this line item? Do they plan to add more of these cameras to get to that point? And what will happen if residents, like those in Cincinnati, pass a charter amendment to prohibit the cameras? These are the contingencies the city should think about and build into their budget projections.

Valid questions - in more ways than one - because on Friday 13ABC reported 2009 revenues from red-light cameras were were far from meeting projections.(hat-tip Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle)

The mayor left out a very important number when writing up next year's budget. Toledo's red light cameras were projected to earn the city $2.5 million in paid fines in 2009. But in reality, that number is only $600,000.

The revenue dropped because the state forced Toledo to make the yellow lights longer by one second and Toledo increased the fine to $120-- too rich for some drivers who simply refused to pay.

Police chief Mike Navarre say unpaid fines cost Toledo $1 million. "It's a problem with photo enforcement. It's a problem with parking tickets. It's a problem with people that don't show up for court on traffic tickets."

Those unpaid fines go to collection, but Toledo is now adjusting next year's red light camera revenue at just $900,000.

Note the side comment about the state requiring the city to increase the yellow light time? Most traffic safety studies show that increasing the yellow light times and going to all red in all directions for a moment prior to the lights changing to green increases safety at intersections more than cameras do. And there was much speculation that yellow light times had been decreased at camera intersections in order to generate more money in fines. But that's another topic ...

This line item is currently $1.984 million short. They overestimated their revenue by 331%!

What's even scarier is that, even with two years of data, the city is still projecting an INCREASE in revenue from this source. If they've only collected $600,000 in 2009, what makes them think they'll collect $900,000 in 2010? That's a 50% increase!!!

Does anyone in their right mind really expect a 50% increase in ANY Toledo revenue line item?

Will City Council actually question this figure this time around? They failed to do so previously and we've got pretty much the same people asking the questions.

Perhaps Toledo's best hope for a realistic budget is our new mayor, Mike Bell, and the common sense approach he showed during the campaign. I hope he and his new administration will question these outrageous assumptions and give us a budget based in reality - rather than wished-for revenues to cover the spending they just can't seem to cut.

Random thoughts of deference, dogs, destruction and deficits

It's raining where I am and there's a lot going on - so some random thoughts on various issues.

* My uncle is Chinese. He's a U.S. citizen and has been for decades. But being Chinese gives him unique perspective on the Asian cultures and the practice of bowing. President Barack Obama again made news with his 'bow' before the Japanese Emperor. He bowed at a 90-degree angle.

Now, it is appropriate to greet such individuals with a bow, participating in the customary greeting of the nation. But, according to my uncle, a 20- to 30-degree angle is acceptable and recommended. Additionally, the Emperor should greet our President with a handshake, which is our custom.

But to do as Obama did and lower himself half-way is not proper for the President of the United States. Either he is intentionally trying to send a message of submission to foreign monarchs, or he's being served very, very poorly by his protocol office.

* When I was a commissioner, I had a phone call from a woman who wanted the dog warden to do more in getting dogs at the pound adopted out. She insisted that there were many groups just waiting for dogs and they'd be glad to take them instead of having them euthanized at the pound.

Since she obviously knew so much more than me about such groups, I suggested that she contact the various groups, work out how many and what type of dogs they'd be willing to take each week and then draw up a plan for how it could work.

Despite the fact that I'm allergic to dogs (and just about all pets and furry creatures), I love the creatures and don't want to see them killed by anyone. However, I'm also a realist and know that the dog warden and pound are supposed to be self-sufficient, paying for itself out of the licenses/fines/fees for services. When dogs are kept for longer periods of time, they cost money - and someone has to pay for those bills.

I also know that the state law and Ohio Revised Code place mandates on what a dog warden must, and can, do. Those tasks must come first, as they are statutory requirements.

So, I thought that this woman would be in a perfect position to devise a plan with all these dog rescue groups and, since she was certainly passionate about the issue, that she would embrace the challenge.

However, from her reaction to my suggestion, I didn't expect I'd ever get any sort of plan and I never heard from her again.

You see, she didn't want to do what I suggested. She wanted the dog warden to do it. She was willing to call up and tell me how the dog warden could do what she thought was a better job, but she wasn't willing to put any effort into it herself.

That's part of the problem with too many people these days. They're so willing to tell others what to do, but so unwilling to apply the same directions to themselves. And it's even worse when the entity they're targeting for action is the government. Too many think government should do all things so they don't have to.

This is not to say that improvements are not needed at the dog pound - that would be ridiculous. There are always places for government to improve. But too many of the voices shouting for the dog warden to 'do something' are not willing to 'do something' themselves. Some are - but most aren't. They just want to join the chorus of condemnation without assuming any of the responsibilities for the actions they want to achieve - like the woman who called me.

But if all the people currently complaining about the dog warden instead spent that energy working with various rescue groups to come up with ways to save the dogs at the pound, wouldn't that be a more productive use of energy and benefit the dogs and our community more than one person being fired?

I hope the task force looking at the operations of the pound will take a serious look at the financial aspects of what they recommend and include funding recommendations as well. Their current recommendation for a moratorium on 'killing puppies' (sensational impact intended) has a cost that needs to be addressed. Emotion without reason and logic on the issue will get us no where.

* I saw 2012 over the weekend and very much enjoyed it. It wasn't the greatest movie I've ever seen, but the special effects did not disappoint and they needed to be seen on the big screen of a movie theater with the surround sound as well. I wasn't expecting much in terms of a plot line - it's a disaster movie with a well-known premise - so I wasn't disappointed by that. In fact, some of the melodramatic moments gave me time between tsunamis, earthquakes and general destruction to actually catch my breath.

There are some who are complaining that Christian sites were destroyed in the movie, but no Muslim ones were. While it may be true that the makers of the film are anti-Christian (I have no idea and don't really care), equating the selection of destroying the statue of Jesus in Brazil and the Vatican to some sort of Christian-bashing would be the same as saying the makers of the film were anti-American because they also showed the destruction of the Washington Monument and the White House. And those who are complaining failed to account for the destruction of the monastery on the mountain in China...

Sometimes, a movie is just a movie. And since my expectations on the plot were not very high to begin with, I was glad I saw the massive global destruction scenes inherent in the 2012 hysteria on the big screen. So if you go see the movie, enjoy it for what it is: a work of fiction best seen on a big screen.

Besides - it stars John Cusak, and he's one of my favorites!

* Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner is releasing his 2010 budget today. I received the email notice from Megan last night and asked how long it would be before the document was placed on line. I've not yet gotten a response, but Megan is usually pretty good about getting back to us on press-release questions. So stay tuned. I'll link to it when it's out and we all see what kind of deficits we're facing next year.