Deconstructing The Blade's drug-pusher mentality on changing county government

Like a drug pusher trying to get you to get you hooked, The Blade is out with another editorial touting the benefits of bigger government and their 'revised' version of uni-gov. They've already sewn up the Toledo market (strong-mayor form of government they pushed) so now they want to expand into the county as a whole.

Like this effort, they pushed a strong-mayor form of government for Toledo telling us, in numerous 'news' articles and editorials, that a bigger city council with both district and at-large members along with a strong mayor who would appoint professionals to run Toledo would be a good thing.

Along with help from the Lucas County Democratic Party (who saw the inevitable outcome being more elected Democrats), they convinced a majority of Toledo voters and we were rewarded with the same 'stuck-on-stupid' thinking we've always had, except now from a larger, more costly government.

Oh - and we also had to suffer through two terms of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner, one term of Mayor Jack Ford, and another term of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner before getting a reasonable person, current Mayor Mike Bell, to hold that office. In case you're mathematically challenged, that's 16 years of two politicians from the same party with a council also dominated by Democrats, despite districts being drawn to supposedly provide for 'balanced' representation.

And how did all that work out? Well, they don't call us 'little Detroit' for nothing....

But if that's not enough to make your want to run screaming away from the county charter petitioners, let's take a look at what the unsigned editorial says about this proposal:

If you haven't yet endorsed the petition, you have every reason to do so.

Reform proponents need at least 14,500 signatures of registered voters, approved by the county board of elections, to advance their proposal for a new home-rule charter. Late last week, the grass-roots campaign said it had collected about 20,000 signatures. It seeks as many as 22,000 to fend off inevitable challenges by champions of business as usual.

Actually, no - you don't have 'every' reason to do so. In fact, the outcome from pushing for a similar structure for the city of Toledo should give you every reason NOT to.

Note the way they characterize people opposed to the idea: "champions of business as usual." Just because people like me - for valid reasons - do not support the proposal, it does not necessarily infer that we support the status quo. This is a logical fallacy - and someone who manages to make their way to the editorial board so as to write such attempts at persuasion ought to know that. Perhaps the author does, but expects readers not to know. What does that say about what they think of their readers?

I do want change in county governance - but I have yet to see any evidence that changing the form of the structure of our county government will give us anything different in terms of the policies, positions and actual governance of the county.

In fact, the study done by the self-appointed group that is recommending the change admits that, even under their structure, it boils down to who you elect - not the office you elect someone to. Given that admission from the study group, why are we going any further?

The reform plan would enable voters to exchange their 18th-century county government for a more-efficient structure. The new charter envisions a government that saves tax dollars, makes elected officials more accountable, and promotes economic growth and job creation.

This is the standard line from the limited supporters and it's what they've told their petitioners to tell people when they ask them to sign the petition.

But there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the new structure will save tax dollars. They've not done a financial analysis; they've not shared fiscal comparisons of the two structures; they've only used a total spending comparison between Lucas County and one of the counties that has gone to a charter form of government and concluded that Lucas spends more per person than Summit County does,

This may be true - but they didn't compare Lucas County to the other 86 counties that don't have a charter form of government to see if we spend more per person than any of them. Is it likely that successful counties, like our neighbor Wood County, have a more efficient government than Lucas does without changing their form of government?

I don't know - but I question (and so should you) that if per person costs of government are the standard, why didn't the group compare Lucas to all counties to see where we stack up? The answer is that doing so might have shown that other counties have a less-costly government without going through such a change and that wouldn't fit with the goal of the paper to achieve the uni-gov dream they've had for decades.

They claim the new structure will "make elected officials more accountable." How, they don't say. Right now, specific elected officials are accountable for the actions of their office and we get a chance, every four years, to judge them on their actions and either re-hire them (elect them) or fire them (elect someone new).

Just like with a city council - how are we to hold individual members of council accountable for the failed action of a particular department - such as the Department of Neighborhoods? We can't. We can make one or more of their votes an issue in an election, but that will not change what a bureaucratic department is doing.

Some may say we can hold the mayor accountable for a department's action and, in the case of a charter form of county government, we would hold the county executive accountable. But even that's not a good enough answer (can you say three terms of Carty Finkbeiner?) as people will often overlook one or more issues because they agree with the elected official on so many others.

Additionally, with the majority of the proposed county districts incorporating the city of Toledo, how will a suburban community like Waterville hold the body accountable when they decide to do something that benefits Toledo to their detriment?

It's much easier to hold three county commissioners accountable than it is to hold six county council members and a county executive accountable. And having the ability to judge the individual performance of people elected to the offices of treasurer, auditor, recorder and sheriff means those individuals are directly accountable for the functions of their office to the citizens - not to some other group of elected officials who can escape blame in various ways.

The Blade also claims changing our form of government "promotes economic growth and job creation." Again, they provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this claim - but it sure sounds good, doesn't it? After all, job growth is what the area needs.

The hypocrisy, however, is something that cannot be overlooked. Economic development is not a function of the structure of government - it is a function of the policies the government puts in place. Elected individuals can implement policies that encourage or discourage economic development.

Sadly, too few elected individuals in Toledo and county government have any experience whatsoever in the business world so they make decisions that feel good (recreation levy) or that benefit a certain constituency (government unions and other groups that rely upon government funding for their existence) to the detriment of the business community which hurts their ability to grow, prosper and provide jobs.

The Blade did not oppose Toledo's living wage ordinance. While supporters claimed this was a good policy, it was - in effect - a mandate on employers and unnecessarily drove up the cost of contracts the taxpayer ended up paying. That's not-business-friendly and it hurt job providers. No doubt the paper will push for such a policy county-wide.

The Blade did not oppose the county's most recent plan to mandate Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on all county contracts, despite having done so when the matter was first brought up. In case you're not familiar with that, it's when the county mandates that you must have a union agreement with your workers - whether you are a union shop or not - for the project you do for the county and the county will negotiate that contract for you to be sure it's consistent with what other contracts say. But it goes further and also mandates the same thing on any sub-contractors you may use. (Background and more details are available here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Talk about increasing the cost per person of county government! Bet the committee didn't look at that aspect before concluding that our government costs more than Summit. But I digress....

In fact, many of the numerous 'not-business-friendly' policies and votes that work to the detriment of economic development and job growth have been supported by The Blade. I've heard our local daily referred to as the "single most destructive force in the county" because of its many stances in favor of things that have hurt economic development and job growth in the area.

So how, exactly, will changing the form of government help? Are we to assume that a new county council (made up of a majority of Toledo elected officials who are term-limited, I predict) will repeal such anti-business policies in order to free our job providers from unnecessary costs and mandates? (That sound in your head is called hysterical laughter.)

Here's where one of the supposed 'champions of business as usual' believes change for the better could be made - and it doesn't require a change in structure. Just repeal all these anti-business rules, quit saying yes to every tax increase that comes along, lower property taxes and sales taxes and get out of the way of the people who are actually providing jobs in the county. See???

Like the authors of the study admit, it depends upon electing the right people.

The proposal would abolish the three-member Board of County Commissioners and seven of the county's eight elected -- but largely invisible -- row offices. The current government structure encourages wasteful fragmentation and redundancy, and leaves taxpayers wondering who's responsible for what.

Again, the editor clearly thinks people in the area are stupid if we don't know who is responsible for what. As for 'encourages wasteful fragmentation and redundancy,' this is incorrect. As a former county commissioner I can tell you that any redundancy in county government is a factor of governance - not of structure. And having been in the office, there is not as much redundancy as some claim and the ability of the commissioners to control the budgets of the other elected officials means that the commissioners can insist upon elimination of duplication - if they have the will to do so. Again, it comes back to the people - not the structure.

The ballot plan calls for an elected, nonpartisan county executive who would appoint professional administrators rather than politicians to head county offices. It also would create a county council whose nine members would mostly be elected by districts rather than at large. Those elections would occur in November 2013, and the new officials would take office the following January.

"Nonpartisan county executive who would appoint professional administrators rather than politicians" ... Yeah - because that's worked out so well with Toledo and the county already. Just take a look at who the elected officials surround themselves with - partisan individuals who support the partisan or electoral efforts of the people who appointed them.

Lucas County had one of the most respected and admired county administrators in John Alexander. But when Pete Gerken was elected to the board of county commissioners, he and Tina Skeldon-Wozniak told Alexander they didn't want him anymore. Alexander graciously went away and is now benefiting Perrysburg. The county got Michael Beazley - a former Democratic Party officer - and when he left for an even higher paying position in Oregon, they hired Peter Ujvagi, former Toledo city council member and former state representative who was termed out and had, in his background, the bankruptcy of his family business. So much for 'professional administrators' - I can't wait to see who they hire next!

So do you really think that if someone like Pete Gerken gets elected the county executive that he's going to hire all professionals? Again, that sound you're hearing in your head is hysterical laughter.

A similar structure in Cuyahoga and Summit counties has cut costs of county government. It also has encouraged central cities and suburbs in these counties to cooperate in providing regional public services, thus reducing duplication, and discouraged them from raiding each other for businesses and jobs.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that costs in Summit and Cuyahoga have been cut as a result of the change in government structure. As for cooperation in providing regional public services, The Blade forgets the cooperation and collaboration that already exists.

When Mayor Jack Ford decided to push The Blade agenda of uni-gov, then-County Administrator John Alexander made a list of everything the county and its jurisdictions cooperated on. The list was two pages long! It included everything from joint purchasing of items like office supplies and road salt, to the first-in-the-nation completely integrated criminal justice computer system. The paper isn't going to tell you about the ways the municipalities do work cooperatively because that might make you question their premise that a change in government structure is needed.

But the real kicker is this: "discouraged them from raiding each other for businesses and jobs." The Blade has long opposed what it perceives as suburban communities raiding Toledo for businesses and job - even residents. They believe Toledo needs to dominate the area and be the focus of the region.

There is a lot to be said for strong cities, but in today's world and with the technology now available to us, that concept is as antiquated as they claim our structure of county government is.

It also presumes that businesses should have no other choice but to be inside the city limits, despite the more business-friendly policies of surrounding communities and whether or not surrounding communities would better meet the needs of the business.

Since Toledo is showing it really can't compete with the surrounding communities because of the bad decisions Toledo has made (usually with the strong backing of the paper's editorial board and publisher) The Blade's solution is to make the entire county like Toledo. And note that they have no problem with Toledo raiding other communities for businesses and jobs - just the other way around.

But here's the rub: businesses who found refuge from bad Toledo policies by moving to the suburban communities can also move to Wood, Fulton or Ottawa county if those bad business policies are exported, as I expect they will be, into county government.

The businesses, if they are to survive, will find the place that provides them with the tax, fee and regulatory structure necessary to support their legitimate goals of growth and profit. The Blade will then start complaining about how the surrounding counties need to support Lucas instead of 'raiding' them. Do you see where that is going?

The reform plan would make the Lucas County executive a focused, high-profile agent of economic development in northwest Ohio.

Oh my - where to start on this one? The structure of government will not make any person a focused, high-profile agent of economic development. The only way to get someone like that, as the study authors reluctantly admit, is to elect someone who is already like that. Duh! And what if we elect someone like Carty Finkbeiner or Jack Ford? Or like the new Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald who, in his first term under a brand-new governmental structure, is already "sending strong signals" that he's interested in running for governor in 2014. I'll bet his attention is fully focused on economic development.

Advocates argue plausibly that it also would make county government more diverse and bipartisan.

"Plausibly"??? Really??? Take a look at this proposed district map and tell me how in the world we'd get a more bipartisan body.

It may be true that we'd get one Republican county council member out of six - but I'm living proof that a Republican can be elected Commissioner - one of three. So to say we'd get 'more' bipartisan representation is false. One of three is greater than one of six, so just electing a Republican in the current structure would actually be better if numbers of R's and D's are all we're looking at.

The problem is that party affiliation and skin color are immaterial to what we really need, which is a diversity of ideas and perspectives. What we'd get with proposed districts like these is Toledo-centric domination - and Toledo doesn't have a very good track record of saving tax dollars, making elected officials more accountable, and promoting economic growth and job creation.

The four months until Election Day will provide ample time for a thorough public debate on the merits of county reform. But that can't occur unless county voters give themselves the opportunity now to opt for positive change and modernized government in November. That means adding your signature to the petition drive.

Somehow I can't help but think of Rep. Nancy Pelosi's statement that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."

The fallacy - again - is thinking that we should have a measure on the ballot before we have a "thorough public debate" on the merits and that such debate "can't occur" unless we sign the petitions.

What they really mean is that if the measure makes it on the ballot, they can use the 'support' of the signers as 'proof' that people want the change. They've done that before, when it suited them. If The Blade really wanted debate on the issue, they'd seek out and publish the valid arguments against the proposal and allow the people to decide, rather than demonizing those of us who oppose it.

But tell me - what news article have you seen (out of the dozens they've published on the subject), that 'focused' on any argument against this proposal? What news article have you seen that provides for any 'public debate' on the issue? I'd wait while you search, but you won't find it, so you might as well keep reading.

The problem is that what they're putting on the ballot is flawed - in original premise and, thus, in conclusions. They write:

“Simply put, we believe government must lead.”

They don't say why, they don't explain any other option, but with this as their premise, the study group obviously had no other choice but to conclude that:

Lucas County needs a single unifying leader. The absence of such an office and such a person makes reversing our condition more difficult and perpetuates a fragmented decision-making environment.

So rather than look at the decisions - or the people who make those decisions - that make our current condition a bad one, they conclude we must change our form of government so we can elect a perfect person to lead us to salvation.

So sign those petitions so ignorant people can be swayed by fallacious arguments like these to do The Blade's bidding and achieve uni-gov once and for all!

Okay - back to the facts...

The Blade and the study have failed to demonstrate a need, failed to identify and analyze various methods to meet the need and failed to document why their preferred option is the best. They have just decided and are expecting everyone else to just fall in line.

But fortunately, this tactic of theirs is too well known and, hopefully individuals in Lucas County will reject The Blade's belief that they know what's best for us and refuse to sign the petition.

Hypocrisy thy name is Nancy Pelosi

I awoke this morning to a Fox News update on WSPD and immediately broke into a fit of laughter.  It was not the deep belly, happy laughter that has you rolling on the floor, but one of derision and disbelief.

What was it that so abruptly wrenched me from my drowsy awakening?  This quote from House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi:

"We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul."

She was referring to the Republican plan to cut Obamacare to pay for the cost of extending a low interest rate on student loans:

On Friday, the House will vote on a Republican bill to keep Stafford student loan interest rates at 3.4 percent. The $5.9 billion proposal would be paid for by cutting money from President Obama's healthcare overhaul.

The Democrats, on the other hand, "would pay for a one-year interest rate cut by increasing Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on the top earners and owners of some privately held corporations."

How is taxing top earners and business owners to pay for someone else's college loans NOT robbing Peter to pay Paul?!?  Can you say 'stuck-on-stupid'?

The entire quote from Pelosi gives us a better understanding of her position:

“We will not support a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul, which ostensibly supports a middle-class initiative while making those very same people pay for it.”

So let's get this straight - she doesn't want the people who are going to benefit from an intiative to have to pay for it, but she believes other people should?  Sorry, Nancy, but that's "robbing Peter to pay Paul."

The fact is that both positions require others to pay for the lower interest rates - both rob Peter to pay Paul, so Pelosi's statement is sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy.  And why didn't anyone at her press conference call her on it?

The other fact is that government has nothing that it didn't first take from someone else.  Our entire governmental structure is, ostensibly, based upon robbing Peter to pay Paul.  Some of those payments are justified by the authority of the Constitution (national defense, for example).  But others, like government loans for college, are not.

The problem is that too many do not understand that government has to first take from some before it can give to others.  Eventually someone has to pay ... and it is usually the ones who don't benefit from the expenditure who are forking over the dough.

How much is 'enough' when it comes to a death tax?

Apparently, about half - for now...

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted in favor of keeping a 45% death tax on estates valued over $3.5 million. The $3.5 million is NOT indexed to inflation. The tax was scheduled to be repealed next month.

Our rep, Marcy Kaptur, joined 25 other Democrats and all Republicans (including Bob Latta) in voting against the measure.

Now, you may think that anyone with an estate worth $3.5 million can certainly 'afford' to pay more taxes, but that's not the point. Nor is the fact that 'it only' impacts a small number of estates.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, the bill is "founded on the ideas of equality and opportunity."

Really?

How is it 'equal' to tax some people at 45% and others at nothing? How does taking half of a person's inheritance match the idea of 'opportunity'?

Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colorado, was even more onerous. He said:

"This bill gives our nation's wealthiest families the ability to know exactly what their obligation to the nation that fostered their wealth will be, and it is fair and it is just."

So the nation's wealthiest families have an 'obligation' to give half of what they've earned and worked so hard for to the government? How in the world can anyone think that is even remotely 'fair' or 'just'?

Remember, these inheritances are often assets which have already been taxed when they were acquired or accessed/sold. Many of the assets of a family are not easily disposed of, meaning that property or small family businesses (one example was the owner of as few as four convenience stores) would have to be liquidated in order to meet the tax obligation.

Of course, this is just the federal government. In Ohio, the estate tax is $23,600 plus 7% of the excess over $500,000. So for a $3.5 million estate, you'd have to pay $233,600.

***Side note: The City of Toledo has a budget revenue line item for estate taxes, but the Taxation Department wasn't aware of a specific form for paying inheritance tax. I was transferred to a person in the Finance Department who said she'd investigate this for me and respond. If there is a Toledo tax, I'll include it when I get the information.***

Combined, you'd have to come up with at least $1,808,600 in cash to pay your state and federal obligations. Again, if the inheritance is in property or machinery or inventory, you'd have to liquidate to meet the obligation.

How 'fair' and 'just' is that? And does this really represent the foundations upon which this country was based - foundations of 'equality' and 'opportunity'??? I don't think so.

As Randall Holcombe wrote, "Once you have earned something, it should be yours, and it is unfair for the government to confiscate it when you die."

Democrats who passed the bill are spinning this 'taking' as a positive. Prior to the President Bush tax cuts in 2001, the rate was 55% on anything above $1 million. In December, the tax was to be repealed for at least one year. Without a further vote making the death tax permanent, the tax would have reverted to the 55% rate in 2011. Republicans were hoping to make the repeal permanent, but Democrats have instead voted in the 45% and are touting it as a 'cut' from the 55% that will "cost" the federal government $235 billion over the next decade.

The real problem is the expectation of our politicians that they have any claim whatsoever to your inheritance - or that you 'owe' everyone else in the United States because your relatives worked hard and established a business or made money.

While they say it isn't a 'sin' or a 'crime' to be rich - they sure do want to penalize you for achieving their concept of that status.

Hopefully, the Senate will be too preoccupied with health care to address this before the end of the year. Maybe it will give Republicans and the American public time to pressure all of them into repealing this destructive death tax entirely.

What is about politicians and spending tax dollars on flowers???

The Drudge Report has a link to this story from Politico about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spending $2,993 on flowers.

At first, I thought, that's not bad, considering that she's the speaker and she probably has to send flowers to people who are sick, who just had a baby or to funerals.

But then I found out that it's taxpayer money!

When I was in office, it never even occurred to me to spend public money on flowers for my office. In fact, if I wanted flowers for a special guest or some special event, I paid for them myself. I also used my personal funds for flowers for funerals, births, and other such events, even though I know that many elected officials use their campaign funds for such expenses (which is allowed under Ohio law).

Then there was this explanation:

"...about a third of her flower expenses this quarter were for Jack Kemp’s funeral."

Why in the world would any tax dollars be spent on Jack Kemp's funeral, much less nearly $1,000?????

This is insane! Especially from an elected official who can certainly afford to pay for these things from her personal funds.

According to 2008 Roll Call article, Pelosi's net worth was almost $19 million in 2007.

The Californian’s net worth rose nearly 16 percent in 2007, adding $2.5 million to her personal wealth.

Among her assets, Pelosi lists a Norden, Calif., town house valued at $1 million to $5 million and a real estate investment in Napa, Calif., worth at least $500,000.

In addition, her husband owns a commercial property in San Francisco valued at $5 million to $25 million. In 2006, the property was listed as worth $1 million to $5 million, so that property alone added $4 million to Pelosi’s net worth last year.

The couple also owns a vineyard in St. Helena, Calif., valued at $5 million to $25 million.

The Speaker’s husband also increased tenfold his holdings in Apple Computer Inc. stock to at least $5 million, up from a minimum of $500,000 in 2006.

Pelosi and her husband also owe mortgage debt on several of their properties, including the vineyard, totaling at least $8.75 million.

Other debts listed by Pelosi include lines of credit totaling at least $3.5 million.

And she has to spend tax dollars on flowers for a funeral????

That's not all:

Pelosi, who has come under fire in the past for spending on flowers, also spent roughly $30,610 in food and beverage and about $2,740 on bottled water...

But she's not the only one. According to the article:

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) racked up about $24,617 in catering costs. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) spent about $1,561 in bottled water and House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) spent no money on water but a touch over $18,000 in food. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) spent about $24,116 on food and beverage.

We've got politicians and media celebrating the number of people who are dependent upon government for food via the food stamp program, and bemoaning the fact that too many who are eligible are not signed up. They spin this saying it indicates that too many people in the country are going hungry. But they think nothing of spending the hard-earned tax dollars of those very same people on food for themselves and staff and some guests?

Hey - here's a thought: Maybe if the government didn't take so much money out of the pockets of those taxpayers, they'd have enough funds to pay for their own food!

The good news, though, is that this report, which usually takes up 4 printed books about 3 inches thick - each quarter, is now on line. I've looked through the books in the past, as they are only available in person in a room in the basement of one of one of the Congressional office buildings.

But now, you and I and everyone else will know exactly how our representatives are spending our money - and it won't take a trip to D.C. to find out.

The largest expenses for our area representatives, Marcy Kaptur and Bob Latta, are their staffs. Kaptur has 17 full-time and one part-time employee. Latta has 15 full-time employees and two listed as 'shared staff.' Here are their expenses (you can click for a larger image):

If my addition is correct, Kaptur spent $1,065.61 on food, beverages and bottled water in the third quarter. Latta spent $874.19. It appears that much of the food & beverage expenses are reimbursement to staff for various meals. Latta has higher equipment expenses because he is still paying for the computers for his office, being a new congressman. The 'other services' category covers software and web hosting. The 'franked mail' all has to be approved by another congressional office to ensure that it is appropriate for tax funding.

Copies of all franked mail are available in that same basement office, but they are not yet on line. What I found interesting when I looked at these files earlier in the year was that even letters sent out are sometimes considered 'franked mail' when they are sent to multiple individuals. Most of the franked mail are newsletters, though notices of local meetings are also included.

I didn't see anything that looked outrageous in the Kaptur and Latta expenditures, though I will wait until the fourth quarter to see if Kaptur again uses public money to purchase and imprint calendars to give away like she's done in the past.

The fact that these reports are now available electronically is both good and bad news. Good - in that we can keep track of how our elected officials spend our money. Bad - in that we see how outrageous some of those expenditures are.

The information is there - it's up to us to take advantage of it.

If health care bill just like Social Security and Medicare, how long until bankruptcy?

In looking at the news coverage of Saturday's vote on the Pelosi health care bill, nearly all reports include this statement:

"A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later."

And I just have to shake my head and wonder what happened to the brains these people were born with.

Why in the world would anyone liken this bill to two failing and bankrupt programs?

Do they not care that both Social Security and Medicare are insolvent and are paying out more than they're taking in? Do they not care that people who are paying into the system now are probably never going to see any benefit from those taxes they've paid?

Do they not understand that these two programs are just ponzi schemes that would put them into prison if they were in the private sector? As the Wall Street Journal reports:

The House also contains a new government long-term insurance program that starts collecting premiums in 2011 but doesn't starting paying benefits until 2016 and then runs out of money in 2029. North Dakota Democrat (Senator) Kent Conrad called it "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of" in an interview with the Washington Post in late October.(emphasis added)

Maybe they understand all this - and are doing it BECAUSE of these facts. After all, we've continued to let them. And the more people they put onto the programs, the more support they have for extending them.

Under these rules and outcomes, they expect the same thing with health care. They'll make Americans dependent upon the government for health decisions and can then make all the decisions for the American people. We let them do this with our retirement, so why not health?

And when we are dependent upon government - that is, the politicians - we'll vote for the ones who promise to give us more, even if there is no way to pay for it.

Eventually, there won't be anyone left to tax to pay for the 'free' services others are getting. Then what? Will the politicians just borrow the money from China? And what if China stops buying debt?

Ah, those pesky 'what if' questions that politicians avoid like the plague.

If this health care bill is just like Social Security and Medicare, you can be sure it is not sustainable, will result in higher taxes, have limited service and, eventually, will result in bankruptcy for the program.

Pelosi said so herself.


Side Note: The Wall Street Journal has a great take on this as well.

When policies fail, demonize

The health care 'reform' that Democrats and President Barack Obama are pushing is failing to gain support among the American public.

Citizens, outraged over the issue, are angrily confronting their representatives in town halls and forums within their districts. As a result, representatives are calling out the police and acting indignant over the outrage and opposition they're getting from their bosses - but that's another subject for another day.

So what's a politician to do?

Create an enemy.

Start talking about how some entity is "taking advantage" of you, or is "evil, immoral and villainous" in how they deal with you. Demonize a particular industry so you can rally the masses in an emotional appeal 'for' you and 'against' someone else.

It's a tried and true tactic from a political perspective, though usually it's used on prior officeholders. Democratic Party strategist Liz Chadderdon recently said:

"I think Bush-bashing has been alive and well since '07 and, since it keeps working, why not use it? Voters have short memories..."

So if it works, why not?

And that's the game plan for the health care bill.

Sen. Dick Durbin jumped on the bandwagon attacking insurance companies.

“The health insurance companies are some of the most profitable businesses in America. By fighting change they're protecting their bottom line.”

Yep - there's a profitable business industry employing and providing services for millions. They must be bad.

Now, remember, these are for-profit organizations. You pay them an agreed-upon amount in the hopes that you never have to take advantage of what they are guaranteeing in return. And if you do have to take advantage of their coverage, you're pretty sure the total you've paid them over time is going to be less than what they end up paying on your behalf. That's the way insurance works.

But Durbin wants you to think negatively about these companies - because they want to make a profit on behalf of their shareholders (who probably include many individuals very similar to you). If he's going to get you to support his plan to put them out of business - and that's what the legislation will do - he has to get you to hate these companies, or at least distrust them so you want what he's offering instead.

Hypocritical House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went so far as to call these businesses, 'the villains':

"It is somewhat immoral what they are doing. Of course, they have been immoral all along how they have treated the people that they insure," MSNBC's Luke Russert quoted her as saying. "They are the villains in this."

Of course, taking campaign donations from such villainous, immoral entities is perfectly okay for her - but we shouldn't trust them. Oh no!

I hate the class warfare approach to politics these days. I don't believe that people with money are evil because they have more than me. I don't believe I'm entitled to the fruits of their labor simply because they have more fruit. I believe I should be rewarded for my hard work and my labors. I should not have my fruit taken and given to others who haven't worked as hard or for as long as I have.

I also don't believe that profit is a dirty word, or that for-profit companies are evil because they exist to make money on behalf of their shareholders and owners. I don't believe I need to have an enemy to make me 'feel' positively about a policy that's being promoted.

Most importantly, I believe that the need to create an enemy in order to get people on a particular side of an issue clearly demonstrates the weakness of that position in the first place. And our immediate reaction to such a ploy should be distrust and rejection the tactic, the person using it and the policy.

But with many people, appealing to their emotions and using the politics of envy and greed, works. I just hope we can stop 'feeling' and start 'thinking' before it's too late.

The 'appearance' of economic growth

This morning on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD, a caller had a question for Rep. Bob Latta who was scheduled to call in to discuss his no vote on the stimulus bill.

The caller wanted to know why Latta would vote no on the bill when there was a sod company in his district that might have benefited by one of the provisions in the bill - to spend $20 million on sod for the National Mall.

Latta explained that the bill as a whole was bad and wouldn't do what was promised - but there's an even better answer that demonstrates the reason why conservatives don't support government spending as 'economic development.' However, given time constraints, Latta probably wouldn't have been able to give it.

Suppose, for instance, that the local sod company decided to go through all the headaches and red tape of doing business with the federal government and then actually got part of the contract for supplying the sod. The owner would have a single large order paid for with tax dollars.

Now, those tax dollars have to come from somewhere, so either the government borrows the money (increasing our debt and subtracting dollars from future projects in order to meet the interest payments) or it taxes us more in order to raise the funds. It could also print up more bills, leading to inflation.

Regardless, the government 'takes' (in one form or another) the money from us. That means that none of us have the funds to replace our own sod. The local company has the single order which probably won't be duplicated. Potential customers in this area are left with less funds so they won't be ordering from him. Government - in spending this way - creates the appearance of economic growth, but no growth has actually occurred.

Now, if the government gave every taxpayer (not every citizen, but everyone who actually pays taxes) a reduction in their tax rates, every taxpayer would have more money. Those taxpayers would then either spend it, invest it or save it. If they spend it, they generate the activity that leads to economic growth, creating a demand for products and services. If they invest it, it provides the equity and funds for companies to do capital projects, like upgrading equipment or facilities. Again, that generates the activity that then leads to economic growth. If they save it, the bank they use has higher assets and can loan more.

And the local sod company would have many potential clients with more disposable income to provide a long-term customer base for their own growth.

And all of this would happen without government spending a dime - all government would have done is change a policy.

So which is the best way to 'stimulate' the economy?

I'd say the tax cuts, but then we're dealing with a Speaker of the House who believes that food stamp handouts "bring a bigger return than the tax cuts." No wonder the stimulus bill passed.

Of course, I'm reminded of the quote from President Ronald Reagan who said:

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Pelosi is brain dead? Notes on RightOnline #7

"We will not convince Nancy Pelosi because she's brain dead."

Rep. John Carter (R-T31) on convincing Congress to focus on a good energy policy taking advantage of our resources, during his speech at RightOnline Summit.

UPDATE: How ironic that at the time Rep. Carter was making his statement, Pelosi was addressing the Netroots Nation meeting across town. For anyone not familiar, Netroots Nation is the left's attempt at what we're doing at the RightOnline Summit - except they're getting their marching orders from leaders of the Democratic Party and we're talking about how to spread the word about freedom, lower taxes and smaller government. Think her ears were burning?