Trash tax and broken promises: we told you so!

Well, well, well... I really hate it when we warn people what's to come in terms of taxation and we're right.

In this case, the "we" is me, Karen Shanahan, WSPD and any other person who commented on the radio or on the blogs about the trash tax never going away. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised about the most recent broken promise on the trash tax considering all the other statements made that have been 'modified' since the tax first went into effect.

As part of the budget debacle, Mayor Mike Bell recommended and Toledo City Council passed (not unanimously) an increase in the trash tax. They all call it a fee, but it IS a tax. For those (like me) who recycle, the fee went from $1 per month to $15 per month. We were promised that, if we passed Issue 5 on the primary ballot May 4th, the $15 would be reduced to $8.50 per month. The measure passed 55% to 45%.

They lied.

The ordinance introduced at last night's city council agenda meeting:

Amending Section 963.03(b) of the Toledo Municipal Code to revise the monthly refuse collection fees; and declaring an emergency.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
Upon passage of Issue 5, the Administration is proposing a revised refuse fee structure of $5.00 per month for residents who are eligible for the Homestead Exemption as determined by the County Auditor and $10.00 per month for other City residents.

Yes, you read that correctly: $10 per month.

In case you're mathematically challenged, that's a 900% increase.
It's also an 18% increase over what was promised. And why, exactly, is the administration reneging on their promise?

It's easier for them.

"Easier"??? They've been doing two fees (recycling and non-recycling) for several years now, so how is this suddenly 'easier'? They've established fines for people who say they're going to recycle and then don't. They've given us (and charged us) for two different containers to make it 'easier' to recycle. They've told us that recycling rates are up. They even voted to sell landfill space because we've increased our recycling which has given us space in the landfill that can generate income.

Maybe they should think about how 'easy' this tax is for us to pay? Because it's not - and the last thing most of us are concerned about is paying more to make it 'easier' for the politicians!

Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle has a summary of the conversation during the agenda meeting. From her notes:

"(Councilman Steve) Steel said the administration plan is different than before, (Deputy Mayor of Operations Steve) Herwat said it was, that they felt a standard across the board would be easier to administer."

This is a broken promise, plain and simple.

A majority of voters approved Issue 5 based upon the promises made regarding the roll-back of the trash tax. While I oppose the trash tax in any amount and opposed Issue 5 for its diversion of Capital Improvement Program funds into the general fund, I expected the promises made to be kept if the measure was approved. As did all city residents.

The fire fighters had agreed to pay their employee portion of their pensions as part of the concessions negotiated during the budget process. If Issue 5 passed, they were promised reimbursement of those amounts as well as a return to the city picking up everything they paid prior to the concessions.

Do you think the administration is going to break that promise the union?

No - but they're perfectly willing to break their promise to the taxpayers!!!!

Perhaps those who are cynical about elected officials' promises have every reason to be...

Also in the news was the rejection of the contract negotiated between the city and Teamsters Local 20 for the refuse workers. They rejected the agreed-upon terms unanimously.

And of course they did! The other unions, through one means or another, have gotten back all they originally gave up so why should the refuse workers not stand pat on their current benefits and wages?

So now the taxpayers are screwed - again - and the city unions are not really making any concessions whatsoever. So much for the 'shared pain' everyone was talking about in March.

And as I write this, I'm listening to Mayor Mike Bell being interviewed on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD. And he's saying that yes, he's managed to get a balanced budget for this year and will look at all the costs he's pushed into 2011 between now and the end of the year when he hopes to see increased revenues as a result of an improving economy.

But as so many are fond of asking, "what if" we don't see an improved economy in Toledo and those hoped-for revenues don't materialize? All we've done is postpone the inevitable.

How much do you think the trash tax will increase then?

No wonder we're losing population faster than we can count. People are disgusted and who can blame them?

***Note: This post probably doesn't reflect just how angry, livid, irate I am over the issue. But there really aren't words for the level of outrage I'm feeling.
***

Post-primary thoughts

I've been a bit busy the last several days and haven't had time to do a post, so my apologies to those who sent me a message asking if things were okay. Yes, they are - just busy with clients who actually pay me. :)

So our primary is over and the political parties have their representatives for the general election.

Several things stand out in this election, so let's get right to them:

Lucas County Commissioner Race:

* George Sarantou's name recognition was clearly an advantage over his two competitors for the Republican nomination for Lucas County Commissioner. I did a dawn patrol (putting out candidate signs prior to the polls opening) and saw that he had most - if not all - the polling locations covered. Dan Steingraber had signs at the polls, but George had signs at all the entrances to the locations. There is something to be said for 'local' knowledge. I did not see any Andy Glenn signs, but that could have just been a timing issue. I guess endorsements from The Blade and Joe the Plumber didn't count for much among Republican voters.

* Carol Contrada's win on the Democrat side surprised quite a few people, considering how strongly The Blade pushed Ben Krompak. Carol is well-respected and has a good reputation, even among Republicans who disagree with her philosophy of government and some of her votes. Perhaps after witnessing Ben Konop's performance in office, Democrats decided to reject a similar type of individual and go with something a bit more 'proven'? I don't know - not being a Democrat - but I expect the race between Carol and George to be less 'exciting' than one between any Republican and Krompak. I also expect the race will focus more on issues than personality and I'm curious to see how Carol will use the 'not from Toledo' advantage against George who will use the 'not a Democrat' one.

(Yes - I know ... there are many who think George is a democrat, but that doesn't mean they'll pick Carol over him....)

State Issue 1:

I'm disappointed that this passed, but not surprised. The last thing Ohio needs is more debt. But with both political parties and just about 'every one who is anyone' saying it will create jobs - what did I expect?

Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog pointed out the serious problem with the numbers being touted:

QUICK UPDATE: One hears Mr. Harris brag about fuel cells. Here’s a related PR release from a year ago –

Ohio Third Frontier has invested over $80 million in fuel cells through a variety of different programs, which has resulted in the creation or retention of 430 jobs with an average salary of $68,431. Overall, the Ohio Third Frontier has created, capitalized or attracted more than 600 companies, has created nearly 55,000 direct and indirect jobs and helped create $6.6 billion in economic impact in Ohio, a 9:1 return on investment.

Points relating to the bolded items:

* $80 mil for 430 jobs is $186,000 per job.
* This claim only works if you believe that 8,527 direct jobs magically create 46,473 more indirect jobs. C’mon. This is the same type of math abuse promoted by the Obama administration to claim mega-gazillion “created and saved” jobs in the bogus stimulus plan — and it’s only theoretically “valid” when unemployment is 7.5% or lower. In Ohio, it’s really 11.5%. This “created and saved” nonsense seems to have become so embarrassing that even Team Obama has been recently ramping back the hype.

I also couldn't stand the commercials and advertisements touting this as 'not government, but people.' Who are they kidding? It's obviously a government program if I'm voting on whether or not the state can borrow money to give to selected companies. Roland Hansen had quite a bit to say about this aspect, as well.

I even had a conversation with a friend who supported the issue because it has really 'helped' a group he belongs to. That's all well and good, but obviously you support a program that gives you money.

So many people succumb to the idea that government can create jobs. If they rightly reject that presumption, they still believe government can 'help' create jobs. But the right way to 'help' create jobs in Ohio is not to borrow money and distribute it to selected companies or specific industries. The right way is to have a business-friendly environment that makes it easy for ALL companies and industries to make money.

Thanks to Issue 1, my company - and my husband's, and my neighbor's - will be taxed (one way or the other) to repay the principle and interest on these bonds. However, because none of us are in a 'fad' field, we'll never see any of the monetary assistance that a select few will. That's NOT how you 'bring' jobs to the state.

But don't you feel good knowing you voted for "jobs"???

Issue 3 Toledo Public School Income Tax:

A bright spot on election day - the voters actually saying NO to a tax increase! Of course, TPS officials are threatening to cut things that matter most to parents (like transportation and athletics) but not even mentioning across-the-board spending cuts or cuts in salaries/wages/benefits.

I heard a news clip of Board President Bob Vasquez saying they just have to have 'new money.' Where in the world does he think the taxpayers are going to get the 'new money' to give to him? Obviously, voters 'get it.' But I expect this will be on the ballot again with a larger push for passage. And Toledoans have a habit of finally giving in when it comes to taxes (remember COSI that took three times on the ballot to get passed?).

Issue 5 Toledo re-allocation of the 3/4% Payroll Income Tax:

Like many others, I strongly objected to giving Toledo Council and the Administration the ability to divert money from the Capital Improvement Fund to the General Fund if they 'need' it. To me, this was short-sighted and only serves to allow them to continue spending money they really don't have.

Additionally, I despised the fact that I have to pay more in a Trash Tax to support unsustainable expenditures by the city.

Adding insult to injury was the fact that the concessions given up by the unions earlier this year are going to be 'returned' now that the measure has passed. So the unionized employees of the city won't be paying their full employee portion of their pensions and most will pay nothing at all, with us picking up both the city's portion and theirs!

But I'm paying a 750% increase per month in a trash tax so they can have this unsustainable (there's that word, again) perk.

I do believe, however, that many voters who said yes to this might be inclined to give Mayor Mike Bell the benefit of the doubt on this measure. He's said it's temporary and he's known to be a man of his word. Even though Toledoans have a serious problem with the definition of 'temporary' when it comes to taxes, they may have decided to give Bell this time to work on the overall city budget without having to scramble for millions at the last minute.

We shall see...

Friday Round-Up 4-23-10

There are just too many issues I'd like to blog about and not enough time in the day, so here's a round-up:

* George Sarantou, a sitting Toledo city councilman and candidate for Lucas County commissioner, is urging people to approve Issue 5 on the May ballot which would divert monies from our Capital Improvement Fund to the General Fund. Oh - and he's a registered Republican.

Sarantou has been chairman of council Finance Committee for quite a while now, during which time the city has had increasing yearly deficits. He says that allowing the money to be diverted from our long-term needs like roads and major improvements, will allow the city to reduce the new trash tax of $15 that he supported. Yes - he voted to increase our taxes.

However, approval of Issue 5 will only reduce the new tax to $8.50 per month for people who recycle. However, that's still an increase over the $1 per month we're currently paying. So he's supporting a tax increase. And, he supporting diverting money into the general fund because they (the city council) is still spending more money than they take in! It's just a shell game, moving money around because they will not do what is necessary to bring spending in line.

* Exigent Circumstances. It's a term Toledoans have learned over the last several months. Having the city declare 'exigent circumstances' allows it to impose cuts in wages/benefits/pension contributions outside of the collective bargaining process. City Council voted in favor of exigent circumstances and set some criteria for those cuts.

Since then, several of the city unions have agreed to voluntary concessions, though some of those concessions are only for the remainder of the year and some of them will be restored if Issue 5, discussed above, is passed by voters.

It appears that 'exigent circumstances' was a very clever bargaining tool to get the unions back to the table and agree to cuts. However, now that these unions have done so (only the police unions - patrolmen and command officers - have voted down the proposals), the exigent circumstances have been removed and the new agreements approved by council.

The problem is that the financial deficits of the city have not be fully addressed. We have unsustainable obligations and not enough money and many of those obligations will be back up to the high levels as of January 1, 2011. This is part of the reason Sarantou and other members of council want to take money out of the CIP budget...

If exigent circumstances was used only as a negotiating tool, it cannot be used again. The unions have now seen that card played and will not make the same mistake in 2011. If, however, Mayor Mike Bell uses the rest of the year to truly bring the contracts into line with available funding, it will have been a card well-played.

We'll see what happens between now and December 31.

* There's something wrong with the people supporting Ohio's state Issue 1. The proponent radio ads are promoting this as 'people' and not 'government.' However, this is a government program, so I guess perhaps I'm just too logical to 'get it.'

Issue 1 would allow the state to issue bonds - read: borrow money - to offer to businesses for certain types of 'economic development.' The borrowed money has to be repaid, including interest. This means that the state's general fund dollars - our tax dollars - must be used at some point in time to make those payments. While this may not be a 'new' tax, it is still a program that relies upon limited and declining tax dollars to fund it.

It also means that government - whether by an appointed board or by elected officials - will determine who gets the money from the account. Government will be picking winners and losers in terms of the funding. This is not the role of government.

Instead of taxing Ohioans to pay for borrowing and interest in order to give money to selected organizations or companies, why not just lower the overall tax rate so everyone benefits? That would certainly do more to promote economic growth and jobs than anything else. And it wouldn't put government in the position of deciding who gets to succeed thanks to help from the government - and who doesn't.

Even in you believe Issue 1 is a good idea that should be supported, you must agree that commercials saying it's people and not government doing this are wrong and intentionally contradictory to the truth.

Ballot Board attempts to block health care freedom amendment

This in via email:

For Immediate Release
Friday, April 9, 2010


Ballot Board Attempts to Block Health Care Freedom Amendment

Constitutional Rights Legal Center to File Action with Ohio Supreme Court

Columbus - Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and the Ohio Ballot Board today ruled a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at protecting Ohioans from forthcoming health care regulations should be split into two parts. As a result, the board rejected the proposed amendment and told its sponsor, the Ohio Liberty Council, to start over.

The move places the Ohio Liberty Council in the untenable position of restarting the amendment language approval process and collecting two sets of 402,275 signatures by June 30. The group will ask the Ohio Supreme Court to block the Ballot Board's action.

"The Ohio Ballot Board got it wrong today," said Warren Edstrom of the Ohio Liberty Council. "We will ask the Ohio Supreme Court to uphold our amendment language and correct this error."

Maurice Thompson, executive director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, drafted the amendment language and represented the Ohio Liberty Council at today's hearing. "The Ballot Board's decision is contrary to the law and its past precedent," said Thompson. "I am at a loss to find any logical reason for the board's decision other than its own policy preferences. Board members cited concerns with the single subject rule regarding the amendment. However, if different parts of an amendment address a common purpose, the single subject rule is satisfied. And, this amendment's common purpose is to allow Ohioans the right to choose their health care."

On March 22, the Ohio Liberty Council began the process of the placing a health care freedom constitutional amendment on the November 2010 ballot. The group filed petition summary language and nearly 3,000 signatures from registered voters in 48 counties with the Ohio Attorney General, who later approved the language as truthful and accurate.

The amendment provides that:

* In Ohio, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system;

* In Ohio, no law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance; and

* In Ohio, no law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.

The Ohio Liberty Council is a statewide coalition of non-partisan grass roots groups in Ohio including Central Ohio 9/12 Project, Cincinnati Tea Party, Young Americans for Liberty, Dayton Tea Party, Ohio Freedom Alliance and many more grass roots organizations. By working together, the member groups of the Ohio Liberty Council seek to achieve real results to protect and promote liberty in Ohio. More on the Ohio Liberty Council can be found at http://www.ohiolibertycouncil.org.

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law is non-profit, non-partisan legal center dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of Ohioans from government abuse. The 1851 Center litigates constitutional issues related to property rights, voting rights, regulation, taxation, and search and seizures. More on the 1851 Center can be found at http://www.ohioconstitution.org.

-30-

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!

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.

This epitomizes what's wrong with Toledo

In today's Blade, the editorial board addresses the issue of the Toledo Public School income tax proposal that will be on the May ballot. In doing so, it epitomizes exactly what's wrong with this area.

They are correct that TPS needs to answer questions about their finances, but the questions The Blade wants answered are the wrong ones. They want to focus on what the schools will have to go without if they don't get more of our money. They should be more worried about what the taxpayers will have to go without if another government entity gets even more of our limited funds.

The school district needs to show parents and other voters, in grim particularity, how the district would have to cut its budget without the new revenue the tax would raise.

Really? They're suggesting that TPS board members scare the voters in order to get a tax passed. But they don't just suggest it - they come right out and say the voters should be threatened:

But unless voters feel threatened - unless they are convinced that the failure of the tax measure would make things unacceptably worse for themselves and for the pupils who attend city schools - they will vote no. That shouldn't be so hard to understand.

And not just once:

The district doesn't want to scare voters? If it wants its tax, it had better.

This is just unbelievable! Or, perhaps, it's completely believable as the only tactic that will work.

But what does it say about The Blade and the elected board members if the only way you can gain support for a proposal is through threats, intimidation and scare tactics?

They write that an emotional appeal won't work - yet fear is an emotion and they are actually recommending what they then dismiss. Where's the logic in that?

The Blade admits that things are tough all over. And they're right. But the solution isn't to badger and coerce voters into making it even tougher for themselves. The solution is to cut government spending so people have more of their own funds to spend.

Wealth in a community is not created by confiscating private funds for government spending.

The real questions the paper should be asking are all about TPS spending and why they're spending more than all but one other school district in the county and still need more. Where are the in-depth examinations of the finances of the system? Where are the investigative reports? Where are the tough questions for school board members and administrators about the (alleged) theft by a former administrator and how TPS has - or has not - changed their internal policies to prevent such actions in the future?

I guess it's just so much easier to tell TPS their best approach is to browbeat and bully voters than to actually expect them to share what's going on in the TPS checkbook. Of course, if we knew how TPS spent our money, we'd probably be less likely to give them any more. And if that's a possibility, no wonder plan is intimidation.

Has The Blade ever met a tax it didn't like? I don't recall, but it seems like every tax hike or additional government spending that's been presented in the last 15 years has had their support.

And now the city and TPS both want more and the editorial board thinks you should be bludgeoned into giving it to them. No wonder The Blade's lead story today says "U.S. ranks Toledo as nation's 8th-most impoverished."

The final straw?

The Toledo Public School Board decided to put a .75% payroll income tax on the May ballot to help them with a $30 million deficit. The City of Toledo is still considering a .25% increase to their payroll income tax to help with their $40 million (or so) deficit.

Will these people never learn?

Probably not - this is Toledo, which never met a tax increase it didn't like.

Maybe this time the voters will let these idiots know that enough is enough.

The problem is that the politicians in TPS and One Government Center are looking only at what THEY need - not at what WE need. They keep saying they need the money. In doing so, they're saying they need our money more than we do.

The TPS payroll tax will only apply to people who live in the TPS district. Do the politicians understand that people who live in Toledo actually have a choice and can maintain a Toledo address outside the TPS district? Washington Local Schools are perceived as a better school system, so if you could, why not move into their jurisdiction and instantly save money in your paycheck?

Toledo's mayor and council fail to understand that the same consequences apply to them. Toledo is already losing residents and businesses. An increase in the payroll income tax is not going to help stop that loss. In fact, it's more likely to hasten it.

Families have cut expenses in order to meet today's obligations. We really haven't seen evidence of politicians doing the same. They'll claim that everything they do is 'needed.' But we know that's not true.

Here are the general fund expenses from the most recent version of the city's budget:

2006 $234,312,215.50
2007 $242,752,864.71
2008 $240,632,123.04
2009 $249,369,653.02 (projected - actual not yet available)
2010 $241,255,794.49

The city's spending increased $8.4 million in 2007. Then, despite facing huge deficits in 2008, they only reduced spending by $2.1 million dollars in 2008. In 2009, again facing huge deficits, their budget had an additional $9 million in spending. For 2010, they're projecting much less than in 2009, but it's still more than what they spent in 2008.

The politicians will tell you they did cut spending, but if that's true, where is the evidence that the spending is truly less?

Well, they say, they cut over what it could have been. That's like you and me saying we cut our expenses because we didn't take that round-the-world trip we wanted to take, even though we really didn't have the funds to pay for the trip in the first place. Some 'savings'!

As for TPS, they can't possible have a good handle on their spending or budget. If they did, they would have known about one of their administrators (allegedly) stealing money. Yet these same people who had no idea about the thefts are now telling us they need more money from us? Talk about zero credibility.

And just how many people in the TPS district and the city of Toledo will actually be paying these taxes versus the ones who don't have any income or who are exempted? And how many who won't pay the taxes will vote for them because they have no costs associated with doing so?

Despite claims of 'feeling the pain' of their constituents, these politicians obviously don't care that Toledo has the highest unemployment of all the urban areas in the state, record foreclosures, records amounts of people on welfare, record requests for help from various non-profit and social service agencies, record amounts of requests to food banks for help, etc... etc... etc...

They still want you to pay more.

This may be more than we can take. While I was born in Nashville, I've lived here almost all my life. My husband was born in Toledo, though he grew up in Lasalle, MI. I went to Toledo Public Schools. We both were graduated from the University of Toledo. We chose to stay here. We started both our businesses here. We've purchased two homes and spent a lot of money renovating them, making both homes better than what we bought. We've invested time, money and effort in local charitable organizations. We buy things here. We hire people who live here. We've paid our taxes on time.

We're two college-educated entrepreneurs - the very type of people Toledo says it wants to attract. And if these taxes pass, we're ready to chuck it all and leave. And we're not the only ones who are considering this option. I guarantee there are others for whom this will be the final straw.

This is not because we don't want to pay to support the services we receive or because we don't love the city, the people, the location - even the weather. We really don't mind if we're getting value for the dollar. But Toledo is no longer providing that value.

Our property value is decreased because we live in the TPS district. TPS is a drain on the potential selling price of our property - yet they want even more money for their operations.

The city seems to understand nothing when it comes to growth, except the growth of government. Even Mayor Mike Bell fails to understand that giving some people raises, though the budget for the mayor's office is less than last year, doesn't sit well with people who've had no pay increases for a couple of years.

(Yes, I understand that the city has established pay rates for commissioners, directors and managers and that putting someone into those positions on a permanent basis (as opposed to 'acting') requires that they be paid according to the established rates or it gets you in trouble with the civil service commission. But they completely failed on the PR aspect, especially when asking for concessions from unions and tax increases from citizens.)

So while saying they want to have an environment that leads to growth and prosperity in the city, their actions prove they want the exact opposite - or that they are completely clueless as to what leads to success. Either way, these are not the people we want in charge of making decisions for us - and elections only give us more of the same philosophy, even when the faces are different.

So what is left? Continue bashing your head against the brick wall or leave, like so many others have already done?

The politicians are making the choice easier every day. Hopefully, voters will recognize the downward spiral and say NO!