OccupyDenver, BlogCon11, protests and dog biscuits

I've never been the subject of a protest, but it appears that may change today.

I'm in Denver, CO, for the FreedomWorks' BlogCon11, a training session for bloggers. Apparently, OccupyDenver thinks I and my fellow bloggers are worthy of protest because FreedomWorks asked people to sign a petition opposing the hate being shown to the Jewish people.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it???

Here is the OccupyDenver Facebook post:

Occupy Denver
http://www.freedomworks.org/blogcon-2011 -- THIS JUST IN: Koch Brothers Tea-Party pet acquisition "FreedomWorks" is hosting BlogCon at the Crown Plaza Hotel TOMORROW ... and WE'RE gonna be there!!! 5:00 PM ~ 1450 Glenarm downtown. Let's show some right-wing media thugs some Occupy solidarity!!! Bring your signs and be ready to make noise! Not sure if this is something to get behind? Check THIS out >>> http://action.freedomworks.org/5478/reject-occupy-wall-street/

So, OccupyDenver is asking its supporters to 'get behind' their protest of us because of this particular post from FreedomWorks:

It’s time we reject the hate coming from Occupy Wall Street, a movement, which claims to represent 99% of Americans.

Beyond the class warfare rhetoric of the radical left, Occupy Wall Street is now lashing out at the Jewish people.

We reject Occupy Wall Street’s hate toward people of the Jewish faith.

Stand against anti-Semitism. Sign this petition to say that Occupy Wall Street DOES NOT speak for you.

How in the world can the Occupiers NOT support this call to stop the hate? They talk about being 'peaceful' and 'welcoming everyone' and then use a call for tolerance as a reason to protest?

One of the biggest problems with the Occupy groups is that in being so 'tolerant' of everything, they end up standing for the idiocy and the hate and the intolerance of others within their midst.

By not opposing the hate and the violence and the intolerance, they support it.

And then they twist it into a reason to protest.

There is something seriously wrong with these people who think that somehow makes sense.

And then there is the whole "right-wing media thugs" description. Obviously, they've not met us to know that we're far from "thugs" unlike the rapists and others in their midst. Perhaps they should first deal with the "thugs" in their own group before they worry about *potential* thugs here at BlogCon11.

But again, that would make sense and common sense is something that seems to be sorely lacking among the Occupiers.

So we'll see what they're able to muster in terms of a protest against bloggers who are clearly not part of their evil 1%.

And we will have dog biscuits for their leader.

The obsession with high-speed rail

I don't understand it. I don't know why so many politicians are obsessed with putting high-speed rail across the United States.

I do believe it makes sense, including economically, in some areas of the country (like the East Coast or California). But it certainly doesn't make sense for Ohio, as I explained in this post:

In Ohio, we're having the on-going discussion about so-called high-speed rail.

I write 'so-called' because the latest proposal to spend $400 million in federal stimulus dollars would give us a system that connects only three of Ohio's major cities; costs more than $400 million to build; won't be 'high' speed as it is projected to be slower than actually driving; and, worst of all, will require Ohio taxpayers to subsidize it to the tune of $17 million a year! Oh - and that $17 million of taxpayer funds it will need is only if the rail system actually meets its ridership projections. And that's the supporters' own projection of costs!

Incoming Governor John Kasich is opposed to the plan and wants to use the $400 million for other transportation purposes. But the federal government is threatening to 'give' the money to another state if we don't do what they want us to do with it.

But in last night's State of the Union address (prepared remarks), President Barack Obama again pushed the idea:

"Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail. (Applause.) This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying –- without the pat-down. (Laughter and applause.) As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway."

So we'll have 'access' ... but that does NOT ensure usage. In fact, people who already have access to rail do not use it for any number of reasons including schedules and price.

And at what cost? Well, in Ohio we know that the 'privilege' of access will cost taxpayers $17 million a year - on top of what the system itself is supposed to generate. That's a price that's too high.

But liberals just love this idea. In fact, our local paper still supports the idea for Ohio, conveniently ignoring the facts as well as the costs of the proposal.

Why - in spite of studies and data on rail projects which show such projects are boondoggles at best:

Over the past four decades, American cities have spent close to $100 billion constructing rail transit systems, and many billions more operating those systems. The agencies that spend taxpayer dollars building these lines almost invariably call them successful even when they go an average of 40% over budget and, in many cases, carry an insignificant number of riders. In a new study, Cato scholar Randal O'Toole uses the latest government data on scores of rail transit systems to evaluate the systems' value and usefulness to the public.

When you have individuals pushing an idea that we know cannot be self-sufficient, doesn't meet the projections for usage and requires billions of dollars over and above revenue to operate, a reasonable deduction is that they have an obsession with the idea.

Logic and reason are not being considered because, if they were, these people wouldn't be jamming the projects down our throats.

In spite of facts, figures, data, financial estimates, rider estimates, objections from states and individuals, they keep pushing the idea. One can only conclude that there must be ulterior motives we do not yet know. How else to explain the efforts of the President and many in Washington to insist on massive amounts of spending for high-speed rail? Especially when we're clearly broke?

Is it that they think they know better than we do? Is this part of the long-term effort to eliminate our reliance on oil? Is this a way to make us more dependent on government and government-run transportation? Do they just like it and are using the power of their offices on a personal preference?

I don't know - but I do know that if they succeed, it will cause us more harm than good.

I hope the governors will say no to the federal greenmail and that the new makeup in the House of Representatives says no to this unnecessary spending.

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.

Do recalls equate to fascism?

The Sam Adams Alliance has a daily email of their feature called "Common Sense" written by Paul Jacob. Today's column features a quote by an op-ed writer, Jack Lessenberry (who is also the ombudsman for our Toledo Blade newspaper) about the petition drive to recall Michigan legislators who voted for the recent tax hike in that state.

Recalling Mussolini!

October 26, 2007

Leon Drolet and the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance are not very popular . . . with politicians and Lansing insiders.

But they were clear. Michigan taxpayers told legislators they would launch recalls against those who voted to push big tax increases against citizens.

So, after legislators did hike taxes, what could they expect?

The Michigan Taxpayers Alliance is now working with local leaders on recall petitions against those who voted to raise taxes. Recalls have already been filed against six legislators, and MTA promises that ten — five Democrats and five Republicans — will face recall in what the group calls the “first round.”

Citizen action sure can make a difference.

I love seeing voters hold elected officials accountable. Some folks? Not so much. Remember all the moaning by insiders over the recall of California Governor Gray Davis? Today, in Michigan, there’s even more hysteria.

In Detroit’s Metro Times, Jack Lessenberry impugns the recalls as “a form of fascism.” He compares recall to “When Benito Mussolini . . . [and] his Blackshirts used to intimidate and kill members of Parliament. . . .”

Amazing! Petitioning one’s government for a vote of the people to determine who will represent those people gets equated with political death squads murdering their opponents in cold blood. Who’d think that?

Someone without a good argument. Get a grip, Mr. Lessenberry.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Here is Lessenberry's original column with the second item, "Political terrorism, Michigan-style:", featuring the quote.

Also, in my search for Lessenberry's original column, I came across this commentary on the issue. While it has some interesting email exchanges between the author and Lessenberry, I find myself agreeing with the following two statements:

"While I have mixed-feelings about recalls generally, there is no question in my mind of the People's right to use them at will..."

"Whether a recall is right should only be judged by whether enough people sign petitions asking for one."