The Blade's blue bag blight

Why isn't this litter?

These bags are delivered every weekend and remain on sidewalks for a period of time before finally being disposed of.

Actually, 'delivered' is not correct. They are tossed from a vehicle and only make it to the pubic sidewalk or sometimes a couple of feet into a yard. Zoom in on the picture and you'll see where they tend to land.

Toledo Municipal Code 963.15, which mirrors state law, says this is illegal:

963.15. Littering from vehicles.

(a) No person, while the operator of or passenger in a vehicle, shall deposit litter upon any public place or private premises.

But Maggie, you say, it's The Blade, the local daily newspaper.

Except it's not. According to The Blade's web site, these blue bags are distributed only to homes that do NOT subscribe to The Blade, and they do NOT contain the newspaper. In fact, this is what is inside:

They're filled with flyers for various stores (most of which are available at the store when you walk in the door) and, in only one of the last 10 that I've received, some coupons. Pretty much, it's garbage unless you happen to *want* what is inside - and I don't.

If you're not a subscriber to the daily paper, why in the world would they insist upon littering your property with unsolicited ads? Or even think that you might want this blight? And apparently, from the number that litter the streets in our neighborhoods, there are a lot of non-subscribers.

I've called and asked to have this litter stopped only to be told that it isn't litter and while they'd pass along the request, it probably wouldn't stop.

And why isn't it considered litter by The Blade?

Because Toledo Municipal Code contains an exemption for newspapers under the handbill definition.

963.18. Handbills.

(a) Public Places.
No person shall deposit or unlawfully sell any handbill in or upon any public place. Provided, however, that it shall not be unlawful on any public place for any person to hand out or distribute without charge to the receiver, any handbill to any person willing to accept it.

(b) Private Premises.
No person shall deposit or unlawfully distribute any handbill in or upon private premises, except by handing or transmitting any such handbill directly to the occupant of such private premises. Provided, however, that in case of private premises which are not posted against the receiving of handbills or similar material, such person, unless requested by anyone upon such premises not to do so may securely place any such handbill in such a manner as to prevent such handbill from being deposited by the elements upon any public place or private premises, except mailboxes may not be so used when prohibited by federal postal law or regulations.

(1) Exemption for newspapers and political literature.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to distribution upon private premises only of newspapers or political literature; except that newspapers and political literature shall be placed in such a manner as to prevent their being carried or deposited by the elements upon any public place or private premises.

Except there isn't a newspaper in the packet.

So it appears this qualifies under the definition of litter, not handbills. It's tossed primarily upon the public sidewalks and sometimes onto private property from a vehicle and contains unsolicited advertisements that most people would consider the equivalent of junk mail, to be thrown away usually without even looking twice.

It seems like it violates the law - now all I need is a police officer to write the ticket.

Blade bias, Board of Elections and abuse of process

or otherwise titled:

Everything you didn't want to know about what's going on at the Lucas County Board of Elections

Alas, it should come as no surprise that news coverage of the recent brouhaha at the Board of Elections is biased. The Blade, for whatever reason, continues to support Lucas County Republican Chairman and BOE board member Jon Stainbrook.

People have wondered for years what Stainbrook might have on publisher John Robinson Block to make the man so supportive of Stainbrook, who some go so far as to call a sociopath.

Sadly, the voters of Lucas County - all of them, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof - are the ones to suffer.

Let's recap, in case you've been otherwise occupied...

Jon Stainbrook engineers a majority of central committee members and gets himself elected as chairman of the Lucas County GOP. After years of struggle (I'm not exaggerating), he manages to finally get himself appointed to the Board of Elections. He also gets someone he believes will be his crony, Anthony DeGidio, appointed as the second Republican on the four-member board.

Along the way, he tries to fire everyone at the BOE he deems an enemy. Several individuals were his victims. Then he gets his 'sometimes girlfriend' (as The Blade identified her numerous times) appointed at the director of the BOE. No conflict of interest there, I'm sure (which is important as you will read in a moment).

Together, they announce they're going to 'clean up the board.' But that's hardly what is happening.

Instead, they're using the BOE and its resources to continue to go after those Stainbrook has deemed 'enemy.' And Stainbrook loves to hold a grudge, never forgetting a perceived slight or wrong.

But then comes the Secretary of State who oversees all the voting - and the local Boards of Election - in the state. They realize things are amiss in Lucas County and send in a Republican and a Democrat to take a look and make recommendations.

Not surprisingly, the report they issued calls for Gallagher and the Democratic assistant director to be fired.

This does not sit well with Stainbrook - for without his FoS (friend of Stainbrook) in the director position, how can he fulfill his vendettas? Plus, if rumor is to be believed, she shares income and earnings with him and I'm sure neither of them want to go without her $85,000+ salary.

What did surprise everyone, though, including his fellow Republican board member DeGidio, was Stainbrook's motion when the SoS report came before the full board.

Stainbrook made a motion to fire everyone at the board EXCEPT the two recommended by the report.

Seriously.

The motion did not get a second, but discussion did follow. After a brief recess, the board returned and no other action regarding the report was taken.

I can only imagine the conversation - more likely bullying - Stainbrook did during that recess to try to get DeGidio to second his motion.

I also presume that was the point at which DeGidio stopped being a FoS and became an enemy - and a target.

Suddenly, DeGidio is persona non grata and must be removed from the Board of Elections.

He doesn't live in the county.

He has a young, Filipino girlfriend.

He has an ethics complaint against him at the Supreme Court (which has nothing to do with his eligibility to serve on the BOE, but is apparently just cause for removal in Stainbrook's eyes).

And in case you missed it, let's repeat all those things until you believe DeGidio is an evil, evil man who must be removed from the BOE so we can avoid the zombie apocalypse.

Enter John Marshall, another FoS and failed candidate for Lucas County Commissioner.

Marshall files a challenge to DeGidio's eligibility to vote in Lucas County. He produces, according to The Blade, hundreds of pages of so-called 'proof' that DeGidio doesn't reside in Lucas County. Some of the 'proof' was before DeGidio was even on the elections board, so it was irrelevant to the challenge.

But all the so-called evidence was not enough to overcome a Supreme Court ruling about residency that says regardless of where you might stay/live on a temporary basis, it is your intent to be a voting resident of your home county that matters. (The Court said a lot more, but you get the drift.)

Accordingly, the BOE voted 2-1 against the challenge, with the two Democrats voting to dismiss it and only Stainbrook voting to uphold it. DeGidio wasn't present - and couldn't have voted anyway - though he was represented by an attorney for the hearing.

Here's where The Blade comes in, right on cue to join with the character assassination so desired by Stainbrook.

First came the article that Stainbrook wanted DeGidio off the Board, alleging all sorts of evil things (see list above).

Then came the story about the official complaint by Marshall.

Then came two stories (here and here) about the board's vote to dismiss the complaint.

Then, despite a rather firm decision, The Blade attempts to make readers 'question' the decision with yet another article raising - you guessed it - 'questions.'

It's a long sordid story, but necessary to go over the details so you can see why various information being omitted in the Blade coverage is vital to truly understanding what is going on in this most important government agency.

In reporting on the hearing, The Blade wrote:

Attorney James Perlman, who represented Mr. DeGidio at the hearing, tried to cross-examine Mr. Marshall and the legitimacy of the documents several times, but Mr. Marshall refused to answer any of the attorney's questions. Mr. DeGidio did not attend the hearing. "I'm not going to talk to you anymore," Mr. Marshall said when asked how he obtained such things as Mr. DeGidio's insurance records.

When Mr. Rothenbuler explained that cross-examination is part of the hearing process, Mr. Marshall told him, "I'm not going to answer his questions."

Mr. Marshall did acknowledge to Mr. Perlman that he launched an investigation of Mr. DeGidio after speaking with Mr. Stainbrook and Meghan Gallagher, the Board of Elections' director.

Further down in the article, is this:

Mr. Stainbrook expressed frustration with the board's decision. He said Mr. DeGidio's absence from the hearing undermined the proceedings because Mr. Marshall couldn't question him.

Did reporter Federico Martinez bother to ask Stainbrook why he didn't then object to Marshall refusing to answer questions from DeGidio's attorney? Isn't that a double standard for Stainbrook? Where is that coverage?

Then there is this, from the 'questions' article that says the decided residency issue isn't over (though I'm pretty sure it is).

Evidence produced by Mr. Marshall, through subpoenas issued by the elections board...

"Subpoenas" - plural???

Since when do staff members at the Board of Elections have the authority - without direction from the board itself - to issue subpoenas???

Why isn't this questioned by DeGidio's attorney and the Democrat members of the board - and The Blade?

Mr. Stainbrook, a former ally of Mr. DeGidio, said he felt it was his duty to tell Mr. DeGidio to move back to Lucas County.

I understand that Stainbrook has known all along about DeGidio's back and forth between Lucas County and his parents due to his parents' age and health. Why doesn't the reporter ask Stainbrook how long he's known about this issue and why it's just now an issue? Why doesn't the reporter ask Stainbrook if all this is just being brought up because DeGidio wouldn't second his motion to fire the entire staff rather than Gallagher and the Democrat assistant director.

Aren't those very valid questions to ask and extremely pertinent to the story?

The article references log-ins to DeGidio's BOE email, with only six of the 88 being from an Internet address within Lucas County. Did Marshall file a public records request to obtain that information or did BOE staff provide it to him in an effort to get rid of one of their bosses?

How much time did BOE staff spend on assisting Marshall with his challenge?

If the reporter is going to list all the documents and say they 'raise questions' why didn't he also ask how much BOE time employees and resources were used?

The challenge was by Marshall not the BOE. Because of this, the BOE is limited by statute to investigating only whether or not DeGidio was on the records at a proper address. The rest is supposed to be prepared by Marshall as the challenger to the voting eligibility.

Why doesn't The Blade mention that Marshall was assisted throughout the hearing by Kelly Bensman, another FoS? In fact:

Turns out Marshall was responsible for almost nothing. Someone else had assembled all the information he was presenting and was sitting next to him handing it to him.

Clearly it would not do for Bensman to have filed the challenge - that would be too obvious.

In fact, Marshall even said during the hearing that he didn't care about challenging DeGidio's right to vote but just wanted to get DeGidio off the board.

But that presents another serious problem for Marshall: abuse of process.

Abuse of process is where a legal process is used for an unlawful purpose.

Doesn't using a residency challenge to someone's right to vote in order to get them thrown off a Board of Elections because they won't agree with another board member fit that description?

And if Stainbrook has known all along about DeGidio's care of his parents and that it didn't have anything to do with voting residency but instructed Marshall to file the challenge, is Stainbrook also not guilty of abuse of process? What did he know and when did he know it?

What about BOE staff improperly using subpoena authority to get rid of one of their bosses?

I know I've developed a reputation for asking good questions, but why isn't anyone else asking about these things?

Clearly, we can't expect The Blade to do so, but surely the Secretary of State should be wondering.

There's another matter as well: Gallagher's grievance complaint with the local Bar Association against DeGidio, her attorney on a injury lawsuit.

Apparently, DeGidio, who has represented Gallagher, Stainbrook and Bensman in various lawsuits in the past - hence the title FoS - had filed suit on behalf of Gallagher over a car accident where she was hit from behind. The suit for $25,0000 claims:

* Gallagher has suffered - and continues to suffer -" headaches, numbness, stiffness, limitations in movement and pain with movement" as a result of injuries to her shoulder, neck and head in the accident.

* Gallagher has suffered "permanent physical injury and will continue to experience severe pain and suffering for the rest of her normal life."

* Gallagher will "suffer life-long pain and suffering and will require life long medical treatment."

One wonders how she can manage to work at the BOE?

Interestingly, on March 5th, DeGidio requested to withdraw as her attorney. His filing says notified her three times - in March 2012, November 2012 and January, 2013 - that he needed to withdraw and that she needed to find a new attorney to represent her in the case. On March 3rd, he emailed her and told her that he could no longer wait for her to find a new attorney, filing the motion to withdraw two days later.

The nature of the grievance against DeGidio is confidential, but the effect is very public. With DeGidio facing a grievance, he has a conflict of interest with Gallagher and cannot ethically vote to fire her.

What I want to know is this: when did Gallagher learn the SoS report was going to recommend her firing and when did she file the grievance against DeGidio to 'conflict him out' of the vote? I'm certain the two directors were notified before the report was made public so they would not be surprised by the findings and the recommendation. Is this another abuse of process?

And if DeGidio has a conflict of interest because of the grievance complaint, doesn't Stainbrook also have a conflict of interest if Gallagher is his 'sometimes girlfriend' and if he accepts monetary support from her as is rumored?

See, told you that conflict of interest would be important, especially because Stainbrook and Gallagher have denied a relationship, but no one at The Blade chose to research what they previously had documented about the two.

Clearly, there are conflicts all around.

The bottom line

Stainbrook should be removed from the BOE. DeGidio, with his on-going health problems and need to care for his parents and himself, should probably step down. But he shouldn't do so when Stainbrook will be responsible for naming his replacement.

The SoS recommendation to fire Gallagher and the Democrat assistant direct needs to accepted and the two need to go.

The SoS needs to bypass the local GOP in order to name two new Republican board members.

Stayed tuned...there is certainly more to come!

Oops! Were Blade's spellcheckers part of budget cuts?

The picture says it all...surprising how many people had to look at this and miss the incorrect spelling - in a headline, no less.... Wonder if this is just the on-line version or if the error made it into print as well:

Blade bias #12 - waits until last paragraph to identify indicted commissioner as a Democrat

I started reading the story and, since I didn't know the indicted commissioner, I wondered if he was a Republican or Democrat. However, as I kept reading and the reporter didn't give a party affiliation, even after mentioning the man was on the ballot and how old he was, I knew he had to be a Democrat.

And sure enough, in the last paragraph, there it was. He's a Democrat.

Was there no place in the preceding 20 paragraphs to give us this detail?!?

You see, this is common practice for The Blade - if the individual in trouble is a Democrat, they bury the party affiliation. But if it's a Republican, the party affiliation is in the first several paragraphs or even the headline - so you can be sure not to miss the 'bad' association with Republicans.

It's certainly not a subtle bias - it is their modus operandi. It's also probably one of the reasons they, and other papers like them, have such declining readership.

It's bad enough if a reporter makes such a stupid error - it's worse when the editors allow it to go through.

Here are screen shots of the rest of the article just to prove the party affiliation wasn't earlier in the story.

I certainly don't expect The Blade to end this horrible practice in their supposedly objective news, especially when pointed out by #justablogger. But I do hope continually pointing out their bias (so often evident that I resorted to numbering my posts on it) will rightly educate any still-remaining subscribers and advertisers about what they may read.

Give Stainbrook enough rope....

It was only a matter of time.

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has placed the Lucas County Board of Elections under administrative oversight. But it's much more than that.

The BOE has been under administrative oversight in the past and I believe some (though certainly not all) of that was purely political, having more to do with internal party politics than actual running of the board.

Under the urging of The Blade, two good Republican members were chased off the board. Patrick Kriner and Lynn Olman had done phenomenal work in straightening out the BOE and putting it back on the path of running elections - not worrying about partisan politics.

They were aided in their efforts by the Democrat board members, Rita Brown and Gary Johnson - and then Ron Rothenbuler, who also focused on their responsibilities to run the elections.

But Jon Stainbrook ended up the chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party and made it part of his mission to get the BOE job for himself and his cronies - many of whom had been promised jobs at the BOE for supporting him, if rumors can be believed.

He worked within the rules - for the most part - in getting his executive committee to appoint him to both seats - but not before having 'deemed' Kriner and Olman to have resigned. He also claimed one seat was not properly filled and actually filed suit to have Kriner removed. The Executive Committee voted to Stainbrook in that seat.

Then Olman's term expired and Stainbrook had his executive committee appoint him to that seat as well.

Talk about confusing...and whatever happened to that lawsuit anyway?

He finally managed to actually gain the BOE seat, but it was only a matter of time before things started to unravel. Unable to work with Stainbrook and unwilling to take his abuse, Democrats appointed to the BOE resigned.

Recent Stainbrook appointees to staff positions, including Megan Gallagher, were quickly advanced to supervisory positions and then Gallagher ended up director, despite having no experience whatsoever in either the BOE or in any supervisory position.

The failure of the board to perform such basic tasks, like create an organizational chart, was a clear testament to the incompetence of the people Stainbrook wanted in control.

And for his own part, other than being able to turn out people (either for phone banks or at the central committee meetings to get his way), Stainbrook has no experience in managing or running anything.

He failed in his responsibility as chairman of the party to properly file the paperwork to put Jan Scotland on the ballot.

He failed in his responsibility as chairman of the party to properly file the party's campaign finance reports.

He has failed in his responsibility as chairman of the party to train and recruit qualified candidates.

He has failed in his responsibility to raise money to support those candidates (though he somehow finds party money to pay for his own personal campaign for the state central committee).

He has failed in his responsibility to advance the limited-government, lower-taxation principles of the Republican Party, supporting measures that expand government and endorsing tax increases.

He has failed to grow the party, resulting in fragmented groups going out on their own, often in contradiction to what he wants, in order to engage Republicans and support Republican principles.

He has failed at even keeping the party's web page current.

You can search on his name for my blog posts on all of these failures - they're too numerous to link to here, which is an indication of just how bad things have been.

Considering all these failures, I'm not surprised at his failure on the BOE, though I am surprised that it took Husted this long to act. Perhaps it was just a matter of giving Stainbrook enough rope with which to hang himself.

The sad part isn't that all of this was predictable. Nothing in Stainbrook's past performance indicates that he was ever going to be able to be a good board member intent on performing a reliable election process.

The worst part isn't even the devastation his actions have had on good people along the way - though that's clearly bad enough.

No, the worst part is that the integrity of the voting system in Lucas County is at risk.

The BOE hasn't hired an IT manager. I was told the other day when I was in the office that because no one had been hired, the staff hadn't been able to post the campaign finance reports from January on the BOE website. Being able to access those filings is part of what allows citizens to hold their elected officials accountable. That clearly wasn't - and still isn't - a priority, though bickering about who said what to whom still is.

At least Husted is assigning someone to handle the IT responsibilities, which include preparing all the voting machines for use. Of all things, this should have been top priority for the board, but they're too busy bickering over nonsense - which is what Stainbrook has always done.

So while everyone has been waiting for Stainbrook to put that rope around his neck and tighten the noose, voters in Lucas County are suffering and what was a smoothly-operating office (despite what you might have read in the local daily who distorted every issue in order to make the case that Stainbrook was "needed" on the BOE and the other members had to go) is now chaos with early voting beginning in less than 60 days.

Sometimes, the only thing you can do is to give enough rope. It's just too bad that so many have to suffer in order for the majority (and The Blade) to find out just how bad Stainbrook's tenure as chairman and on the BOE really is.

Guess who wants uni-gov?

Actually, they'll probably tell you that the move to change Lucas County to a charter form of government isn't 'technically' uni-gov, but when you're trying to make government larger and less accountable and consolidate more power into the county structure, uni-gov is what it is.

The Blade, like a drug pusher, has touted this idea for decades - that we know. A group with the friendly-sounding name of 'Better Lucas County' is the organization behind the campaign.

Their campaign finance report, turned in yesterday in compliance with Ohio law, tells us who else wants a larger, less accountable government. And it might surprise you.

The committee reports donations of $56,850 and expenditures of $50,128.32 - primarily on gathering signatures, something they didn't do very well. They have $6,721.28 on hand as of the end of June.

Here are the listed donors and the amounts:

* $5,000 from Buckeye CableSystems, owned by Block Communications, parent company of The Blade. Joseph Zerbey, President and General Manager of The Blade, served on the Advisory Panel for the study which - surprise - recommended the change to a charter form of government.

* $10,000 from Catholic Health Partners

* $10,000 from ProMedica, one of the sponsors of the study

* $5,000 from 5/3 Bank, a sponsor of the study

* $5,000 from Key Bank, also a study sponsor

* $5,000 from Health Care REIT and $1,000 each from two of the companies executives, Frederic Wolfe and George Chapman

* $10,000 from the Alliance of Construction Professionals

* $1,000 from Paul Ormond, Chairman, President and CEO of HCR Manor Care

* $1,000 from Richard Rupert, retired, a member of the Study Committee

* $500 from Marna Ramnath, an employee of the Toledo Zoo and chairman of the Study Committee

* $500 from Olivia Summons, an employee of Sunoco and co-chair of the Advisory Panel

* $500 from The Mosser Group Good Citizenship fund

* $250 from the following:

> Dustin Shively and Cathy Sheets, employees of Plante Moran
> Tom Palmer, attorney and member of the Advisory Panel
> Findley Davies, a human resources consulting firm. The entry includes the name Scott Hamner.
> Melissa Hamner, wife of the above Scott Hamner

* $100 from Marlene Bell, attorney and member of the Advisory Panel

These are the people and organizations who think creating a larger county government with the ability to tax you and impose laws (like living wages) is a good thing.

Buckeye Institute shows how Blade is wrong on health care exchange

I was going to take apart the recent Blade editorial chastising Gov. John Kasich for not accepting federal monies for a health care exchange, but the Buckeye Institute has done a nice job already with "Obamacare, Politics and the Myth of Free Money," so why duplicate efforts?

Here's what they have to say specifically about The Blade's warped thinking:

Second, the underlying argument assumes that federal spending is somehow “free” money and that the offer of expansion is simply to good to pass up.

In a rather rich case of projection, Innovation Ohio accuses Governor Kasich of playing politics while Ohio loses millions. The ideologically sympathetic Toledo Blade follows a similar line, accusing Kasich of politics on the issue rather than taking the generous federal money and immediately implementing Obamacare in Ohio.

The irony is that this mindset is what has gotten us to where we are today. It is a belief that federal dollars are free and Ohioans should grab every penny lest they be scooped up by other states. The history of Medicaid is one of states getting hooked on federal dollars only to have the program gobble up their budgets even as it offers less and less flexibility and reduced quality of care.

But state taxpayers are federal taxpayers. These dollars don’t magically appear in Washington to be doled out to states, the money comes from individuals in those very same states. Ohioans are rightly concerned about the federal deficit and about paying higher taxes. Increased spending in Washington impacts Ohioans to pretend otherwise is to ignore fiscal reality.

The Blade casually tosses aside the fears of increased Medicaid enrollment through a woodworking effect as if the dollar amounts are not significant. But those numbers are big enough to give governors across the country, both Republican and Democrat, pause. And whose numbers should we trust, state experts or liberal think tanks who support Obamacare?

These governors understand that Medicaid is a deeply flawed system that hooks states on a process of expanded enrollment with the promise of federal funds. Once on this path any attempt to reign in spending or control costs means giving up not only the state’s share of spending but the feds as well.

And is it really realistic to assume the federal government will never attempt to roll back the amount it covers? Half the assumed savings of Obamacare comes from reducing Medicaid reimbursement rates. Facing a deficit beyond what many of us can conceptualize, will Washington continue to pay out vast sums to states already committed to expanded coverage for their citizens?

In reality, what underlies this debate is a mix of politics, policy disagreements and deep uncertainty about the future. Governors understand that what is good for Washington is not always (rarely?) good for the states. They understand that Medicaid is a failed program that has devastated state budgets, increasingly involves reduced flexibility, and carries with it perverse incentives.

I especially love the point that "state taxpayers are federal taxpayers. These dollars don’t magically appear in Washington to be doled out to states, the money comes from individuals in those very same states."

You'd think whoever wrote The Blade editorial would know that - and know that Toledoans know that as well.

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.

Of student loans, fact-checking, personal responsibility and perspective

On Friday, The Blade had an editorial bemoaning the cost of a college education.

They wrote:

This week, the New York Times made Ohio the poster child for the nation's student-debt dilemma. At Ohio Northern University, a small, Methodist-affiliated private university in Ada, students graduate with an average debt of $48,886.

Apparently, they don't bother to fact-check such data, as Tom Blumer, writing at Watchdog.org, did:

Of ONU, the Times writes: “Here at Ohio Northern, recent graduates with bachelor’s degrees are among the most indebted of any college in the country.”

It just so happens that yours truly has a relative who is attending ONU. That relative was quite offended at what Martin and Lehren wrote, reacting as follows to the “among the most indebted” claim:

“ONU has come under fire by many groups because our students graduate with more debt that most other colleges. They do not take into account that about 30 (percent) of our students are in pharmacy school which requires that you go 6 years (they get a Doctorate of Pharmacy Degree) at $40,000/year in tuition. And about 15% of our students are engineers. About a third of them ‘co-op’ where they basically intern for a whole year instead of doing classwork. This co-oping forces them to go 5 years total and thus incur another year of debt. These stats are not taken into account when ‘lists of worst colleges for debt’ are compiled.”

All other things being equal, of course a school at which almost half of its students attend for five years or more is going to have higher-than-average student loan debt. Martin and Lehren didn’t mention that mitigating factor, and should have.

So instead of reporting the truth and defending our state and it's colleges from smear tactics, our local paper jumps on the bandwagon and uses dubious statistics as a reason to bemoan 'poor college graduates who are too dumb to realize that when they borrow money it has to be paid back.'

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disagreeing with the fact that colleges and universities have plenty of room to cut costs and make a college education more affordable. Clearly there are costs, programs and even degrees that are not necessary - or are unproductive - and could be eliminated.

And yes, there are probably some parents who can save more for their chidren's education, but who don't. (Though why it is a 'given' in today's world that a parent must pay for a child's college education is beyond me. This is a relatively new trend.)

The editorial may be right when it says, "Too often, college marketers underplay debt and overplay career opportunities to fill classrooms."

The Blade is right when it says, "Public universities should focus on their original mission: to educate the state's young people, prepare them for careers in the modern world,..." though I disagree with the last part of that sentence, "...and equip them to be effective citizens." I don't believe it is the role of the 'state' or state colleges to teach people how to be effective citizens.

But there is a big disconnect in all these editorials, commentaries and news stories about student debt: personal responsibility and perspective.

Are we really graduating kids out of high school who do not understand the concept of loans and debt? Though now that I think it about, that may indeed be the case.

Do they really have parents who can't explain what incurring all the debt will mean upon graduation? Again, now that I think about it....

Too often, students borrow money they don't need. Rather than live at home, they choose to live in a dorm and borrow money for housing and food. Many choose to be a 'full-time student' without working to offset costs. Too often, parents encourage that approach. And too often, loaned money is used for things unrelated to the actual college education. Students often brag about how their spring break was paid for with their college loan money.

These are irresponsible behaviors and decisions - and they unnecessarily inflate the amount of debt a student has upon graduation.

Yes, I had student loans when I attended college. But I attended part-time for two years because I couldn't afford to pay for more classes. I also worked full-time and lived at home so I wouldn't have to borrow too much money.

And when bills like a car repair (for my very old, very used Ford Pinto station wagon), car insurance, books and tuition fees all fell in the same month, my parents, who were in a position to do so, did help me. But they didn't just give me the money - they loaned it to me, keeping a running tab. I was required to pay 'something' toward that debt every paycheck - even if it was only $5. Having that experience while in school certainly taught me about incurring debt and paying it off - and I was much better prepared than some are today for my college loan obligations after graduation.

We fail our children when we don't teach them such personal responsibility.

We also fail when editorials and commentaries and news stories along with politicians and parents continue to treat these adults like children by bemoaning the 'huge debt' that they now have and expect - one way or another - for that debt to just go away.

The Blade editorial says:

"Sixty percent of OSU undergraduates borrow to pay for college. On average, they owe $24,840.
...
Today, more than two-thirds of graduates get a loan-repayment book with their diploma. On average, new graduates owe $23,000."

According to FinAid, the federal college loan programs have a minimum monthly payment ($50 for Stafford Loans, $40 for Perkins Loans and $50 for PLUS Loans), though you can pay more to save interest costs. The loans also have graduated repayment plans (start off with lower payments and they get higher as your income increases) and repayment plans that are contingent upon your income.

So why is having such debt and being responsible for paying it off such a huge problem?

And here's something rarely mentioned in all the stories: a large portion of the debt is actually owed by the parents. PLUS loans are made to the parents - not the student. As FinAid explains (using 2007-08 data - emphasis added):

Among graduating 4-year undergraduate students who applied for federal student aid, 86.3% borrowed to pay for their education and the average cumulative debt was $24,651. (For just federal student loan debt, excluding PLUS Loans, the figures are 61.6% and $17,878.) Average cumulative debt increased by 5.6% or $1,139 a year since 2003-04. When one includes PLUS loans in the total, 66.0% of 4-year undergraduate students graduated with some debt in 2007-08, and the average cumulative debt incurred was $27,803. (About two in fifteen (13.5%) of parents borrow PLUS loans for their children's college education, with a cumulative PLUS loan debt of $23,298.)

Get that? Students only had an average debt of $17,878. It was the loans to the parents that increase the debt totals, yet have you ever heard it broken out that way?

Even if the college student doesn't understand the consequences of debt, certainly the parents should.

Additionally, there's a comparison to other debt that is lacking.

This article in Forbes.com, says that the average price of a new car in 2012 is $30,303. Autoblog reports that the average selling price of a new car in March 2012 was $30,748.

Both of these are higher than the average college debt that most students have, yet we think nothing of a new college graduate getting a car loan to pay for a new car.

How is it that we can be so callous about new car loans yet so outraged over less when it just happens to be college loan debt?

So let's put things in perspective:

* College and university costs have gone up and these entities could and should lower their costs by streamlining operations and eliminating programs/degrees that are unnecessary or unproductive. Not every college needs to offer everything to everybody.

* Government has contributed to the problem by taking over the college loan industry and offering more money as a result of rising tuition. This leads to both inefficiencies and burdensome rules (what does a government bureaucracy actually do well?) as well as to a vicious cycle of escalating costs and loans. Tuition goes up and government loans more money; more money is loaned thus colleges raise their tuition; repeat regularly.

* Students and parents have either been stupid, inattentive or willfully negligent in understanding the loan obligations and their own personal responsibility in the transaction.

* Actual student debt isn't anywhere near the size of the debt that the parents have assumed.

* Even with student and parent debt combined, it's less than the cost of a new car - and considerably less than the $40,000 car the politicians are pushing.

* The minimum payments on the loans are either $40 or $50, certainly not equal to the payment on a new - or even a used - car.

Given these facts, what is the crisis?

Isn't a college education more valuable, in the long run, than a new car? It certainly lasts longer.

Even in today's economy, do we really think that not being able to pay $50 a month toward your college loan is a dilemma that needs government involvement and action? Granted, $50 is probably not even enough to cover the interest, but I wouldn't expect that the $50 is all a student or parent would ever pay per month over the life of the loan. Certainly, as a student's income rises, they'd increase that amount, eventually paying off the debt.

This is only a crisis if you believe the hyperbole being pushed by politicians who want to offer a "solution," the 'lapdog' media willing to push the political agenda and whiny students who've not yet learned to be responsible for their own spending.

Blade Bias #11

I was forwarded this column by The Blade's ombudsman, who is supposed to help monitor 'fairness' in the newspaper.

To say that it hurts my head to read the column would be an understatement. Contradiction and anti-logic abound. If this is the twisted and contorted reasoning the ombudsman applies to his task, perhaps it's no surprise that this is the 11th column I've written on the bias in the paper, at least since I resorted to just numbering the columns.

Let's start with the first sentence:

For many years, The Blade has worked hard to see that its news coverage is free of partisan bias.

Actually, this cannot be true when, in a negative story, the Republican is identified immediately as a Republican but the Democrat descriptor waits until the end of the article - or never appears at all. Or when the political party of a prosecutor is emphasized, but the political party of the indicted individual is not.

Or how about the adjectives used to identify partisan philosophy? The paper routinely identifies the Buckeye Institute as a conservative think tank, but fails to identify the Center for American Progress as a liberal (progressive) one.

Clearly, these examples prove that the news coverage is not "free of partisan bias." But perhaps the ombudsman is correct that they "work hard." They just fail.

The next 'logic' is that deciding what stories to cover is not based on 'fairness.'

Now, the ombudsman may have a point in that a decision to cover the actions of elected officials in Toledo may result in more stories about Democrats than Republicans, which is not 'fair.' But that's based upon the fact that there are more elected Democrats, so it's not 'unfair' to end up with a disproportional number of D to R news stories.

But a quick look at headlines for the 2009 Toledo mayoral race shows that 'fairness' clearly isn't an aim when it comes to headlines and identifying the Republican and Democrat candidates, as I've previously documented:

Note the not-so-subtle bias of including some candidate names in the headline versus others and note which candidates get their names listed first. Also, do you really think the selection of an advertising firm is a news story (as in Wilkowski's case)? The selection of any particular firm will have ramifications for the other candidates because a firm isn't going to have two mayoral candidates as clients. Do you know who the other candidates have selected? Not from The Blade.

Also, look at the nature of the headlines - whether it's positive or negative. On Wilkowski, you have 'pitches wind-testing program,' 'adds advisory panel,' 'leads in cash,' 'suggests tax credit,' and 'vows aid to small firms.' On Bell you have 'resign' and 'draws flak.' On Konop you have an appeal to sympathy as 'critics' attack him. On Moody you have 'seeks special plates' and 'privatize' along with 'businessman' and 'businesslike.'

The impression from the headlines is one of specific and positive ideas from Wilkowski, but not so much from the other candidates. While it's still early in the race and Wilkowski, as I noted above, has more time as a candidate, those factors do not account for today's Moody headline of 'GOP mayoral hopeful offers plan.' They could have used any number of headlines (like 'Moody offers turn-around plan for city,' 'Moody offers plan to retool city,' or even 'Moody offers 5-point plan for city') that included his name and some description of the plan. They even could have focused on just one aspect of the press announcement and used a paragraph to say that other ideas, including x, y, z, were also presented. But they didn't.

These are specific ways in which the coverage is slanted and biased.

Again, if 'fairness' is the aim, then The Blade is failing miserably.

But anti-logic comes to the rescue, as the ombudsman explains:

But it's important to remember two things -- fairness, which is what I, as the ombudsman, am supposed to monitor, doesn't have anything to do with choosing what stories the paper should focus on.

...

But if the sports editor thinks one team or another is more worthy of coverage, that isn't necessarily unfair but is that editor's call, based on his news judgment and knowledge of the area.

Apparently, using this anti-logic, when a news editor decides what to cover, there is no bias present, despite an editor making a judgment call as to what constitutes 'news.' This article explains the bias well:

Bias through selection and omission: An editor can express bias by choosing whether or not to use a specific news story. Within a story, some details can be ignored, others can be included to give readers or viewers a different opinion about the events reported. Only by comparing news reports from a wide variety of sources can this type of bias be observed.

For example, if people boo during one of President Clinton's speeches, the booing can be described as "remarks greeted by jeers" or the boos can be ignored as "a handful of people who disagree".

As in my example above about the headlines, it was an editor's decision that the selection of an advertising firm by a favored candidate in the 2009 mayoral race was news - but only for the favored candidate, not for all candidates.

Then there was this story about union violence against a business owner. Strangely, The Blade failed to report any of the information that indicated a potential union connection.

Clearly, editorial decisions about what to cover and how to cover it are not always based on objectivity. Again, the paper has failed miserably in both bias and fairness.

In his next point, the ombudsman takes exception to a writer who points out the hypocrisy of the editorial board. He writes:

The paper does not, however, have a right to be hypocritical, and one longtime critic of the newspaper complained the newspaper is doing just that. He notes that on Christmas Day, David Kushma, the editor of The Blade, cautioned letter writers to "be civil," adding, "Name-calling is not argument. One-word labels are not ideas."

True enough. Yet the writer was upset because the newspaper nine months earlier criticized those "Luddites in Congress, mainly Republicans," who were trying to repeal the law ordering the phasing out of old-fashioned, energy-wasting incandescent light bulbs.

He is correct that the paper does not have a right to by hypocritical, but then defends the hypocrisy by saying, basically, it's not 'name-calling' if the description is accurate.

When a description is completely accurate, it is not unfair name-calling.

Huh? The editor of The Blade writes an editorial that says "name-calling is not an argument. One-word labels are not ideas" and when the paper gets caught doing exactly that - name-calling and using a one-word label, the ombudsman says 'that's okay because when we do, it's just being descriptive and accurate.'

I guess calling voters unwise and implying they're stingy when they don't support an endorsed tax levy is 'just being accurate,' as is calling the local United Way board 'rash', or when they say local business leaders are not displaying leadership and exhibiting a 'lack of resolve' because they don't jump on board the paper's push for a charter county form of government.

You may say that these are 'descriptive' from the editorial point of view, but they're name-calling just the same.

It is this type of convoluted exception-making that makes my head hurt - and part of the reason why these types of articles in the paper have to be emailed to me for me to know about them.

But is it any wonder why The Blade has such bias and 'unfairness' in their news and editorial pages when this is the contorted and illogical reasoning of their ombudsman?

Holding Stainbrook accountable to his own standards

I've had some communications that state my prior post, "If he follows his own logic, Stainbrook should resign from BOE," might be a bit 'harsh.'

I reject that wholeheartedly and have only this to say to those who believe Stainbrook shouldn't be held to his own standards:

If Ben Marsh, Patrick Kriner or Lynn Olman had been the members of the Board of Elections when the improper certification of Lindsay Webb had been approved, do you think Lucas County Republican Party Chairman Jon Stainbrook would be saying it was the fault of the staff?!?

Of course not - he, and The Blade, would be calling for their heads on a platter!

All I'm asking for is consistency - rather than hypocrisy - in positions. Stainbrook, himself, set the standards and he needs to be held accountable to the same ones he sought to impose on others.

But as I said in my original post - I won't hold my breath.

Ohio's credit outlook upgraded

This is such good news for Ohio and it's a testament to the success of Gov. John Kasich's new budget which he balanced without raising taxes.

Article in Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services upgraded Ohio's credit outlook on Friday, a forecast that bodes well for the economically challenged state's future borrowing needs.

S&P kept the state's rating at AA+, but improved the outlook from negative to stable.

The change means S&P expects Ohio to be a better credit risk going forward, said Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols, and if the state's rating is eventually upgraded to AAA, the highest rating, that should mean lower costs of borrowing and a savings to taxpayers.

The article also includes a quote from Kasich:

"This is great news for Ohio," the governor said in a prepared statement. "Standard & Poor's decision to improve Ohio's credit outlook for the first time in two years is a real show of confidence in the positive things we're doing. It's encouraging that our accomplishments are beginning to move the needle like this and be noticed by independent financial analysts like those at Standard & Poor's."

This is also a repudiation of our local paper's criticism of the governor's policies. In the linked post is this from Editor David Kushma:

I can’t believe that the Ohio the governor and Republican lawmakers envision is a state where most of us want to live. But I could be wrong.

Apparently, it's not just the editors of the Wall Street Journal - and a majority of Ohioans - who think Ohio is heading back to the right path.

More positive views of Ohio's budget than you'll find in our local paper

Yesterday, I pointed out the hypocrisy of The Blade's Sunday editorial in which David Kushma criticized just about every action John Kasich has taken since becoming Governor of Ohio.

I wanted to add to the discussion by sharing with you what other newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, have said about the very same actions. Apparently, I'm not the only one who sees major flaws in our local newspaper's editorial position.

A Columbus Dispatch editorial about the reforms in the budget said many of them were long overdue. It points out that, for decades, the game of politics was played in our state and many common-sense reforms were delayed. The Dispatch called the budget 'historic' and, rather than complain and repeat Democrat talking points, said:

"Ohio lawmakers have approved a budget that should set the state on a far better course for the future.

It's a two-year spending plan that erases an $8 billion deficit left by the Strickland administration, doing so without raising taxes, a campaign pledge by Gov. John Kasich that many doubted was possible. But it also is a transformational budget containing fundamental policy changes.

Kasich is expected to sign the bill this afternoon. When he does, his administration will be equipped to tackle and resolve tough issues that past governors and lawmakers have allowed to fester.

...

Most important, the budget provides ways for all public entities to serve the public more efficiently, with less reliance on ever-escalating taxes.

It will reset government spending to a baseline that taxpayers can afford.

...

Kasich and this legislature came into office in January facing a disaster: an $8 billion deficit left by former Gov. Ted Strickland and lawmakers who failed to put the state on a sustainable fiscal basis by matching spending with revenue. Instead, they kicked the problem down the road, using federal stimulus money to paper over the problem.

Putting the state back on a sound fiscal foundation, with the tools to keep it that way for the foreseeable future, is an extraordinary accomplishment."

National publications weighed in as well. In a news story on the new governor, the New York Times article contained the following:

"In Washington, Congress may still be fighting over the national budget, but in Ohio, where Republicans control the House, the Senate and the governor’s office, the budget passage has been about as smooth as a knife through butter.

...

On Thursday night, he signed his $56 billion budget into law, with few major changes from the version he had originally proposed and neatly ahead of a July 1 deadline. On Friday, he held a news conference in Columbus to celebrate.

“We faced our problems and took them on,” Mr. Kasich said. “We have now stabilized the state. It is a new way, and it is a new day and, we are delivering.”

It was a fireworks finale to a legislative season steered by Mr. Kasich, who is among the closely watched class of new Republican governors in key electoral battle-ground states. His stewardship of the state budget could have outsize political implications, influencing the mood of voters and their economic circumstances, which will help set the backdrop for next year’s presidential election.

In his five months in office, Mr. Kasich, a former congressman and Lehman Brothers executive, has established himself as a get-things-done governor who has expansive powers and is not afraid to use them."

And then there was the Wall Street Journal editorial which says that Kasich's balanced budget, which cut both taxes and spending, ought to be a lesson for Washington:

"The reform-minded GOP Governors across the upper Midwest have sustained a lot of political damage lately, but at least they're delivering on their campaign promises and will be judged on the results. The latest is Ohio's John Kasich, who signed an ambitious budget late last week that will help the Buckeye State's economy and finances.

Mr. Kasich took office this year facing the largest deficit in Ohio history, close to $7.7 billion. His predecessor, Democrat Ted Strickland, had avoided any serious reform in advance of the 2010 election, despite a shrinking economy and tax base, and had concealed fiscal holes with federal stimulus dollars that have now run out. To close the gap with revenue alone, the Ohio tax department estimated that income rates for the average family would need to rise 56%.

Mr. Kasich's budget is bringing Ohio's finances into balance by cutting spending while also cutting taxes, which ought to be a lesson for Washington.

...

The reform-minded GOP Governors across the upper Midwest have sustained a lot of political damage lately, but at least they're delivering on their campaign promises and will be judged on the results. The latest is Ohio's John Kasich, who signed an ambitious budget late last week that will help the Buckeye State's economy and finances.

Mr. Kasich took office this year facing the largest deficit in Ohio history, close to $7.7 billion. His predecessor, Democrat Ted Strickland, had avoided any serious reform in advance of the 2010 election, despite a shrinking economy and tax base, and had concealed fiscal holes with federal stimulus dollars that have now run out. To close the gap with revenue alone, the Ohio tax department estimated that income rates for the average family would need to rise 56%.

Mr. Kasich's budget is bringing Ohio's finances into balance by cutting spending while also cutting taxes, which ought to be a lesson for Washington.

...
Mr. Kasich's approval ratings have fallen sharply as he's pursued budget and labor change, though challenging the status quo is always disruptive. On the other hand, voters didn't reward Mr. Strickland for making the problem worse by doing nothing."

Cheers and Jeers - Zoo's levy request for Wood County

Cheers - in fact, BIG cheers to the Wood County Commissioners who said no to placing a levy for the Toledo Zoo on the ballot. They listened to their constituents, performed their duty to make a decision, looked at the bigger picture (the impact of additional taxes on their county) and said no. Oh, to have such vision and responsibility in Lucas County.

Jeers - to the Toledo Zoo for thinking that simply because people from an area visit their location that they should tax themselves to pay for the entity. Zoo officials could have done multiple things before seeking a levy, but they didn't bother. They didn't:

* start a membership drive: A single membership is only $42, a family membership is $71. At least then they'd have people who WANTED to support the zoo, rather than taxing people who have no interest in supporting them.

* raise prices: The current admission is $11 for adults, $8 for children & seniors. They could have raised the rates for non-Lucas County residents (who already support the Zoo via a tax levy) and generated more income to help address their financial issues. The last time they raised prices was in 2009 and most people would find a three-year time frame to the next increase quite reasonable, even in this economy. But Zoo Director Anne Baker has said in the past that it was 'too much work' to try and determine Lucas residents from other residents at the admission gate. That's easily solved. All they need to do is put a notice on all admission notices that Lucas County residents should present their ID for their discounted price. Obviously, any person presenting an ID is a Lucas County resident who should be charged the lower rate. No additional work required.

Additionally, there is a serious contradiction in Baker's logic/position on the issue. If it's too hard to determine the residency of the visitors, how in the world can she state that a significant number of Wood County residents visit the Zoo each year? Both cannot be true.

* do a host of other drives (sponsorships, estate planning bequests, etc...) before deciding to come to voters.

Instead of taking such steps, the Zoo is choosing to force people (through taxation) to fund an organization they don't want to support with membership dollars.

Jeers - to the woman who, at the hearing yesterday (as heard on WSPD this morning), said not putting the levy on the ballot was acting like Hitler. As one Wood County resident said:

"If there's so many supporters of the zoo out there that want to vote, here's the way you vote. Pick up the phone and donate more money to the zoo," suggested David McClough, a father of two and a zoo member.

Cheers - to David McClough for such clarity of position!

Cheers - to the commissioners for taking the position that 'letting the people decide' would have been the abdication of their responsibilities. Under state law, boards of commissioners have the obligation to decide whether or not to put levies on the ballot. They should certainly heed the input from their constituents, but the decision is still theirs to make. In Lucas County, the commissioners set up a 'citizen levy review committee' to do such work for them - abdicating their responsibility to an unelected committee and pushing the accountability off to them.

Jeers - to the distortion of the concept of a 'regional attraction.' Yes, the Zoo is a regional attraction. People come from all over the region to attend it and some will come for the sole purpose of visiting the Zoo and its special events/exhibits. But being a regional attraction does not mean you get to mandate money from the entire region. Just because people are willing to come and pay admission to the Zoo doesn't mean that everyone in a specific county (or multiple counties) should be taxed to maintain/operate it. If this logic were to hold, there would be no limits whatsoever on taxation for any entity that could claim such a description.

Cheers and Jeers - to The Blade for a similar distortion of 'regionalism.' I say 'jeers' because they continue to advance the distortion as described in the above point, and because they believe, as explained in this editorial, that the Commissioners should have punted the issue to the voters. There's a reason we're not a democracy, but a representative government. It prevents the tyranny of the majority, which is what all levy requests end up being: a majority of people deciding that others should pay for what they don't support simply because the majority wants it.

But I say 'cheers' because they have revealed, for all to see, that The Blade's concept of 'regionalism' means that others need to pay for the failures (fiscal and otherwise) of Toledo and Lucas County governments and entities.

Their editorial uses the Zoo's excuse that "dwindling revenue from a deteriorating Lucas County tax base" is cause enough to seek funding from non-Lucas County tax bases - as if it is somehow the fault and/or responsibility of surrounding communities to solve the problems of Toledo, which is quickly gaining the reputation of 'little Detroit.'

This issue alone is a perfect example of the paper's concept that successful communities should bear the brunt of the bad decisions made by the paper's hand-picked politicians in Toledo and Lucas County government. Fortunately, the other communities have been immune to this redistributionist perspective and have soundly rejected it.

Finally, cheers - to Wood County residents who took the time to attend the hearing, write or call their commissioners to express their opinions. It is their involvement which made the decision for the commissioners so clear - and defensible.

The Blade vs. The Constitution

Recently, Lucas County commissioners decided to form a storm-water district to address mandates from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The district encompasses several of the county's townships, including Sylvania Township.

The proposal is to charge all the property owners in the district for the costs associated with the EPA requirements - about $48.72 per year for residences with businesses being charged based upon the size of their paved areas, roofs, etc...

The problem is that Sylvania Township has looked at the requirements and determined that it can meet their EPA obligations at less cost, so they don't want to be a part of the district. And why should they? The obligation of Sylvania Township Trustees to represent their residents - and meeting these EPA mandates on their own will cost their residents less. And the EPA doesn't care how the requirements are met - so long as they are.

But that doesn't sit well with the socialists/collectivists at The Blade. They slam Trustee Kevin Haddad for, basically, doing a good job on behalf of Sylvania Township.

In their editorial, they admit that Sylvania Township can perform their EPA obligations at roughly half what they'd pay as part of the district. But that's a bad thing, according to unknown author of the editorial who points out:

It is not known what effect removing the most populous community from the water district would have on the cost in the other six townships.

There you have it.

The Blade has, for a long time, believed that other communities should subsidize the efforts of the major city, Toledo. And here is another example where it believes that well-run, proportionally-taxed communities should pay for the things other jurisdictions have to do - but have no money with which to pay for them. And, just to be sure we're clear, the reason many of those 'other' communities don't have the funds to do these mandates is because their elected officials are too busy jumping to spend money on things the paper promotes.

The Blade has also been a proponent for regionalism, including a push for a county-wide council to govern the entire 88 square miles of Lucas County. But in their push for uni-gov, they forget a critical component - cost. You see, to the editors at our local daily, the idea is the critical thing and the costs are to be born, regardless.

Mr. Haddad has an odd idea of regional cooperation. He says he is all for it — as long as his community doesn’t end up subsidizing work anywhere else. In February, he trashed the county commissioners’ regional refuse-collection plan, calling it a ruse by the City of Toledo to get other municipalities to subsidize its garbage collection.

No community wants to subsidize the outcome of another community's bad fiscal decisions - and they shouldn't!

But that's not the worst of it. The reason they promote these types of illogical ideas is because they start from an incorrect premise. It's no wonder they come to bad conclusions. Here, in their own words, is the problem - their idea of the function of government is not constitutionally based - but rather based upon the failed socialistic perspective:

One of the reasons governments exist is to collect resources from a broad base and redistribute them, not necessarily equally but rather where they are needed most.

Note how closely that aligns with Karl Marx's "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

And compare that to the U.S. Constitution, which explains why we established our government:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Unlike the editors, our founders created our form of government to 'secure the blessings of liberty' not to redistribute the wealth.

The Blade and its editors have a warped sense of government. Even in the clause, providing for the common defense, they are talking about doing so in order to protect the individual liberties of the people within the nation.

If they want to try and twist their position into saying it's to 'establish justice,' they would fail as there is nothing 'just' in taking from one to give to another. In fact, that is routinely called 'theft' when done by anyone but the government these days.

Even if they tried to claim their philosophy was to 'promote the general welfare,' well, perhaps a study of James Madison quotes about that phrase would be educational:

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

...or Thomas Jefferson:

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

The scary part is how close we are today to the warning in the second quote from Madison.

But here we are, with a local paper that clearly has no concept of the proper function of government and is excoriating a local elected official who has the temerity to suggest that bigger is not better simply because it's called 'cooperation' and believes that the overreaching federal government mandates can be met at less cost to his constituents if he doesn't capitulate.

The Blade is on the wrong side in this issue, but when you believe as Marx did, is it any wonder?