Local Dems ignore truth, parrot Obama lies about Reagan and Buffett Rule

In recent speeches about his proposed Buffett Rule, President Barack Obama has invoked President Ronald Reagan three times in the hopes of convincing conservatives and Republicans to support his new tax.  As if that would help.

The Buffett Rule would set a minimum tax rate of 30% for anyone who earns $1 million or more in a year.

Obama said he'd change the name to the Reagan Rule if it meant gaining such support:

"I'm not the first president to call for this idea that everybody's got to do their fair share. Some years ago one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong.

So this president gave another speech where he said it was "crazy" – that's a quote – "that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multi-millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10% of his salary."

That wild-eyed socialist, tax-hiking, class warrior was Ronald Reagan.

He thought that in America the wealthiest should pay their fair share and he said so.

I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we're calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility, everybody doing their part.

And if it'll help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan rule instead of the Buffett rule."

The only problem is that, like so many other historical references the President has made, he completely distorts the facts and truth of the matter, as Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner explains:

Yes, it’s true that on June 28, 1985, Reagan gave a speech to Bloom High School in Chicago Heights, Illinois about problems with the tax code in which he told an anecdote about an executive who was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. But if you read the whole speech, it’s clear that Reagan was telling the story as part of his pitch for tax reform.


“Lower, flatter tax rates will give Americans more confidence in the future,” Reagan said that day. “It'll mean if you work overtime or get a raise or a promotion or if you have a small business and are able to turn a profit, more of that extra income will end up where it belongs -- in your wallets, not in Uncle Sam's pockets.”


So there are several key differences with Obama. To start, Reagan was talking about simplifying the tax code, whereas Obama’s Buffett Rule would add another layer of complexity. Reagan was arguing for allowing people to keep more of their own money and reduce the burden of government. By contrast, Obama is arguing for instituting the Buffett Rule so that more money is available to pay for government programs.


Reagan’s push for tax reform helped lead to landmark reform legislation the following year that broadened the tax base, consolidated the nation’s 14 brackets into just two and lowered the top marginal income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent. This is actually pretty close to the framework that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., outlined in the House GOP budget and couldn’t be more far off from Obama’s Buffett Rule gimmick.

But the facts didn't stop local Democrats from jumping on the bandwagon.  Lucas County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz and Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak defended the President's call to tax the rich more.
 

The county treasurer stated even the late President Reagan believed the rich should pay their "fair share" of taxes.

Lucas County commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak stated the Buffett Rule ensures billionaires pay their fair share alongside the middle class. The comments come ahead of a U.S. Senate vote Monday on the president's proposal and was part of an organized statewide effort by the Obama re-election campaign.

As a treasurer, certainly Kapszukiewicz should understand the difference between income tax and capital gains taxes. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than payroll income - they are not comparable.

Anyone who gets a paycheck pays payroll taxes.  In Ohio, a person earning $1 million per year from a paycheck would actually pay 31.4% in federal income tax while that same person earning $15/hour would pay only 5% in federal income tax.

Using this payroll tax calculator, I found that a married person filing jointly with two exemptions and earning $1 million per year - or $19,250/week - would pay $6038.36 each week in federal income tax.  That's 31.4%

But that same married person filing jointly with two exemptions earning $31,200 per year - or $600/week - would pay $29.78 each week in federal income tax.  That's 5%.

Apparently Skeldon-Wozniak, who said, "It's not fair for the bus driver to pay 10% and the millionaires to pay nothing," hasn't got a clue what the tax rates are or what people actually pay.

Now, when these two individuals file their 1040s, they will be eligible for certain credits and deductions based upon their individual choices (charitable contributions), spending (unreimbursed business expenses and out-of-pocket medical costs).  Those deductions and credits (most available to both earners equally) will determine if they receive any of their paid taxes back as a refund - or if they owe more.  But the tax rate - the amount they must pay before they get their take-home pay - clearly shows that the millionaire would pay six times as much as the middle income earner.

What I didn't see in any of the news reports on the statements from the President and the parroting by our local Democrats is a question about the people who don't pay any federal taxes at all.

As this chart shows, "...“The percentage of people who do not pay federal income taxes, and who are not claimed as dependents by someone who does pay them, jumped from 14.8 percent in 1984 to 49.5 percent in 2009.”

That means 151.7 million Americans paid nothing in 2009. By comparison, 34.8 million tax filers paid no taxes in 1984."

So I sent an email to both Kapszukiewicz and Skeldon-Wozniak to ask them two simple questions:

Since nearly half of the nation does not pay anything at all in income tax, what is the 'fair share' of that group?

How much should those who are currently paying nothing at all be required to pay in order for them to pay a 'fair share'?

I will publish their responses if and when I receive them.

These are the facts.  Obama, Kapszukiewicz and Skeldon-Wozniak don't want to talk about the millions of people who don't pay anything, much less their own 'fair share.'  They just want to get more out of the people who are already paying.

And they stupidly think that taking quotes from Ronald Reagan out of context and trying to distort Reagan's clear record in support of lower, flatter tax rates will somehow help them accomplish that goal?

Who is advising these people?!?

Sadly, this again demonstrates what we already know:  that our local elected officials care more about politics than anything else. 

The scary part is that Kapszukiewicz is part of the Obama for America Truth Team.  Perhaps he and Skeldon-Wozniak should learn the truth instead of just repeating false political rhetoric.

Art loan program cancelled due to lack of participation

Well, it was a bad idea to begin with.

In my original post on the subject, "So wrong on so many levels" in June, 2007, I detailed how the program was supposed to work:

Under the new 'economic development' program, individuals who qualify can get a loan of between $500 and $2500 at an interest rate of 1% to purchase a piece of local art. The maximum amount that Key Bank will loan under this program is $25,000.

And why would Key Bank make such a program available? It's because they're going to get a $250,000 investment from the county in the form of a certificate of deposit...and they're only going to pay 1% interest for the CD.

So...instead of the County Treasurer, Wade Kapszukiewicz, getting the best rates for the county, he's agreeing to this investment which, according to his office, means that the county treasury will be out $7,881 (the difference between the going interest rate and the 1% that will be paid).

Then, in July, our local paper did its best to push the program, even quoting from my original post on the subject. I again detailed all the problems with the program, including the fact that it was NOT economic development.

One of the major points of my first blog on this was that the priorities of the County, in putting this program above everything else, were misplaced. They still are misplaced, in thinking that this program will spur any economic development. True economic development and growth don't come from an artificial market demand. And no government program can create a true demand for a product. But they can certainly spend your tax dollars in a failed effort to do so.

In March, I did some research on the program to find that only three people had even applied, and only one had been approved - but for a higher amount ($3,500) than what was originally stated as the maximum loan. I guess that was because no one else was qualifying. What I wrote at the time is still true:

Now, it seems to me that someone who can afford to spend $3,500 on a piece of art really doesn't need a low-interest loan financed by the county taxpayers to do so. And if someone was going to qualify for this particular loan, isn't it likely they'd qualify for a more conventional loan that you and I didn't have to subsidize?

So the program is being cancelled, since the term of the collateral, the $250,000 Certificate of Deposit, is over. This program was not successful by any definition of the word, but, according to today's paper, it wasn't a bad idea - just a bad economy.

"It's just a very tough time to sell art right now," (Commissioner Ben) Mr. Konop said. "There was just no purchasing going on in the art world."
...
Nevertheless, Mr. Konop said believes Art Assist was "definitely worthwhile" as an attempt at stimulating the market for local residents' artwork.

He attributed the low participation to a worsening economic picture - both regionally and nationwide - and to tighter bank lending practices that kept some prospective buyers from getting applications approved.

"Everyone is trying. There is no shortage of effort. It's just that selling the merchandise in this economy is very difficult," Mr. Konop said.

So the fact that Lucas County's economy is usually worse than the rest of the state, and that our major issues only started this year (not last year when the program was begun), are the problems. The myriad of failures of logic within the program itself, and that fact that it was NOT economic development, are not even remotely contemplated as a cause.

No - if we admit the problem was the program itself, it means we also must admit that the elected official who proposed it really has no clue about true economic development, or about Economics 101, or about supply and demand or that government spending does not equal economic development - and we certainly can't have that! A politician saying my idea was a bad one? Heaven forbid!

And "if only" they'd done better promotion, people would have participated:

The program also had no marketing budget, and for publicity it relied on flyers, media attention, and promotional visits to galleries by an unpaid county intern, he added.

Ah, yes, it was the marketing of the program...and, though it's not mentioned in the story, I'm sure this was somehow "all Bush's fault."

Then there is the tug at the heartstrings:

One program participant, Michelle Carlson, 26, said she found it helpful in allowing her, through monthly installments, to buy a $500 painting by local artist Michael Arrigo.

Ms. Carlson, who works as programs coordinator for the Arts Commission of Greater Toledo, said it was by far the biggest art purchase that she has made.

"With limited finances, it's hard to just shell out a lot of cash," said Ms. Carlson, herself an artist of prints and handbound books. "It's actually up in my apartment as we speak. I get many comments on it."

Does anyone else find it slightly ironic that one of the three participants who couldn't afford art without a loan is actually a 'struggling artist' herself, and someone who works for a tax-payer funded program, the Arts Commission of Greater Toledo?

The Blade article does make one of the most important points, but waits until the very last paragraph to do so:

The commissioner said the Art Assist experiment also highlights the importance of local artists reaching out beyond Lucas County to sell their work.

As I wrote in July:

And then there was this quote:

"Some artists who have had trouble selling work in Mr. Zaleski’s galleries have traveled to Chicago and sold their pieces for double or triple the original price tag. When the artwork was on sale in Toledo, people seemed to place a lower value on it, he said."

Wow - your work doesn't sell well here, but it does sell well elsewhere...so why are we subsidizing - with tax dollars - purchases here? (And don't say it's for the sales tax - the County's portion of the sales tax on $25,000 is only about $300.) Why aren't the artists traveling en masse to Chicago? And how smart is that, especially in an industry that doesn't rely upon location for success? Would any type of analysis of our local market have shown this as a factor?

Thanks for playing...

My only consolation is that the program is being cancelled. The County Treasurer has an obligation to seek out the most amount of interest income in the safest of investments. The County is laying off people because revenue sources are declining. Would the $7,880 that the County didn't get in interest because of this program have saved one of those jobs? Maybe not all of a position, but certainly part of it.

The County should never have embarked upon such a ridiculous idea, especially under the guise of 'stimulating the economy.' It was easy to predict how much of a failure it would be in accomplishing the stated goal - and now we, and Konop, know the truth, even if Konop refuses to admit it.

Debunking "Eight Years of Economic Pain"

As to be expected, two Lucas County officials yesterday held a press conference to denounce President George W. Bush as part of a partisan effort in the 2008 presidential campaign. That Bush is not running this year seems to be missed on Commission Pete Gerken and Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz, but that's a discussion for another post.

As proof of the 'Bush is evil, McCain's the same' mantra, they produced a 'report' that claims to document "Eight Years of Economic Pain, How GOP Economic Policies in Washington have Devastated Ohio." Media covered the press conference and have referenced the 'report' but without the clarification below.

The first thing you need to know about this report is that it wasn't done by any independent body or researcher, it was done by the Ohio Democratic Party and the Ohio Campaign for Change, which is the Barack Obama campaign. This is not an objective analysis, it is a partisan attempt to portray the Democrats' view of things.

It contains a listing of all companies that either closed or laid off workers since 2001. According to the report:

The bulk of the data on factory, company and operation shut downs and layoffs is a result of Ohio’s Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The WARN Act provides protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. WARN notices are provided by employers to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, Bureau of WIA, Rapid Response Section. This current and historical data can be found at http://jfs.ohio.gov/warn/.

This initial State of Ohio data was supplemented by private service databases, including Lexis‐Nexis, online searches, BuildCentral information, archived business directories at the local library, and business street address information from InfoUSA’s business databases. This information was then compiled into a master database used for the analysis.

They admit two problems with the data: 1) it doesn't include companies that are exempt from the WARN requirements, and 2) it doesn't account for companies that issued WARN notices, but then did not lay off all notified employees or actually close.

Based upon this clarification and the methodology identified, I find no reason to challenge the actual data. Attributing the data to a specific reason, however, certainly deserves to be challenged.

The report is primarily charts and graphs with the data broken down by county, Congressional District, House District, etc. Of the 80 pages, there are only five that contain wording: preface page, overview page, why John McCain is wrong for Ohio, Appendix A with the methodology and Appendix B with the McCain quote references.

The report never explains any specific policy that results in the job losses. In fact, the report does not even attempt to identify any reason why a particular company or industry laid off workers or closed. The closest they come to any analysis or explanation is a single bullet point on the overview that many of the jobs left the U.S., "moving to to countries such as China, Mexico,Taiwan, India, and Columbia, to name a few." But they don't identify any of those companies specifically.

In fact, a cursory review of the listing of lost jobs raises more questions than it answers when it comes to WHY those companies closed and WHY it is the fault of GOP economic policies.

For example, they cite the closing of the Farmer Jacks stores in Toledo in 2006. But those stores were closed as part of a larger company restructuring decision decision by Montvale, N.J.-based Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, according to a May 11, 2005 Blade report.

Also from the story:

"Shamie Singh of Maumee said the problem at Farmer Jack was their prices seemed high.

"If they had good prices I'm pretty sure they'd have had more customers. People will go elsewhere for better prices," said Ms. Singh, who also shops at Kroger and Meijer."

Obviously, there was more to this particular closing than presidential policies.

And then there is the listing of St. Anthony Villa, also in Toledo, which closed in 2001. This agency ran a chemical dependency program and a residential behavioral program that handled about 600 youth a year. They were closed by their parent company after receiving reduced funding from the United Way, though they stated that the loss of funding was not the reason for the closing. According to press reports at the time, there were not enough youth going through the programs.

Now, this would seem to be a good thing, that less youth are in need of chemical dependency programs, but not if you're the Ohio Democratic Party looking for another example to represent your claims.

Chrysler is another Toledo company on the list. Their layoffs had more to do with the American automotive market, their sale by Daimler, and their regular shutdowns than anything else. And then, with the increase in the price of gas and the decline of the SUV market, is it any wonder that they had longer than normal shutdowns on the Jeep lines?

General Mills is another large employer from Toledo listed in the report. They were purchased by International Multifoods in 2002 which sold the entity to J.M. Smucker in 2004. The job losses were a result of the sale and the consolidation within the new companies.

Other Toledo firms listed:

Craft House International - according to a story in the Toledo Blade at the time:

Craft House is best known for paint-by-number sets, but sells more than 300 activity toys, craft and hobby kits, and outdoor sport toys.

An industry expert said the action in Toledo could be linked to problems at several retail chains that carry the firm's craft products. Ames, Zany Brainy, and Jo Ann Fabrics & Crafts have experienced difficulties recently, said Michael Hartnett, publisher of Creative Leisure News in Tremont, Ill.

"The industry has been fairly flat and is going through difficult times," he said.

Jacobson's Department Store - closed after filing for bankruptcy. The Toledo store was one of the chain's worst performers and all the stores in Ohio were closed as part of their efforts to restructure their financing.

CVS Pharmacies - they were a victim of the 'drug store wars' when multiple drug store chains inundated the Toledo regional market in an effort to gain part of the $328 million spent annually at drug stores in the metro area (dollar amount from 2001). Some intersections in the city had a different drug store on every corner. According to the chain's spokesman at the time, these stores were all low-performing.

Convergys - a call center that was closed in 2003 as part of the company's world-wide restructuring, including consolidation of locations.

The reasons these companies closed had more to do with their industries or their own internal operations than with any presidential policy.

But that's not the purpose of the 'report.' The purpose is to provide quotes to be used by elected officials and reported in the media to promote Barack Obama over John McCain.

Their 'proof' of their choice - again, not surprising since they are the Democrat Party - is a single page that is supposed to document their positions.

On the "McCain wrong for Ohio" page, they cite his votes in favor of free trade, including NAFTA, though they fail to explain why McCain is wrong on a policy that was implemented by Democrat President Bill Clinton. They also criticize McCain's positions against many union-sponsored and promoted initiatives like minimum wage increases, prevailing wage requirements and extension of unemployment benefits.

Of course, none of this should come as a surprise considering the differing platform and philosophical positions of the Democrat Party and the Republican nominee.

Something else they don't tell is how many jobs were created in Ohio during that same time frame. We all know that politicians love to take credit for jobs created by the private sector. But to include the number of jobs created might give you more information than they want you to know.

According to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the yearly average number of people employed in Ohio has risen steadily since 1992. Two years, 2002 and 2003, saw the numbers decline, but even then, the 2003 employment numbers were higher than any year between 1992 and 1998. By 2006, Ohio had more people employed than they did in any year going back to 1992.

Toledo's average employment numbers increase from 1992 to 1998, and hit their peak in 1999. Since 1999, the average number of people employed in Toledo has been in steady decline. In fact, from 2002 through 2007, Toledo has not even reached its previous low (in the time frame examined of 1992-2007) which was in 1992.

Interestingly, despite the state's decline in average employment in only two years, Lucas County and Toledo had 8 years in which their employment declined. So the question that should be asked is this: what is different between Toledo/Lucas County and the rest of the state? Does it have anything to do with the Democrat leadership that has held almost all elective offices in the city and county since that time? Or is it really 'all Bush's fault'?

I'm currently awaiting the job creation figures from ODJFS and will include them upon receipt.

CONCLUSION: This 'report' is nothing but a compilation of unrelated factors presented by a partisan organization in an attempt to generate news/media coverage that is beneficial to their candidate and detrimental to their opponent. The question is, will the media - and the public - fall for it?

Is the Art Assist program paying off?

Hopefully you remember this 'wonderful' idea proposed by Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop to provide low interest loans to individuals to purchase art. My original post on the subject contains the details of the offering, but to recap...

The County will take money that could be earning a higher rate of interest and will purchase a certificate of deposit that pays only 1% interest. They will purchase this CD from Key Bank who, in exchange for the non-market interest rate, will make low-interest loans available to individuals who want to purchase art.

According to the original information, under this new 'economic development' program, individuals who qualify can get a loan of between $500 and $2500 at an interest rate of 1% to purchase a piece of local art. The maximum amount that Key Bank will loan under this program is $25,000.

As I wrote at the time,

"So...instead of the County Treasurer, Wade Kapszukiewicz, getting the best rates for the county, he's agreeing to this investment which, according to his office, means that the county treasury will be out $7,881 (the difference between the going interest rate and the 1% that will be paid)."

As this program is costing the County $7,881 and since it's been about 6 months, I wondered how successful it's been to date. A couple of emails regarding this public information and I got an answer.

Since it was announced, only three people have applied for the low-interest loan. Only one loan has been issued and it was for $3,500, which is higher than the original parameters for the loan amounts.

Now, it seems to me that someone who can afford to spend $3,500 on a piece of art really doesn't need a low-interest loan financed by the county taxpayers to do so. And if someone was going to qualify for this particular loan, isn't it likely they'd qualify for a more conventional loan that you and I didn't have to subsidize?

I contrast this costly program to the recent - albeit, legitimate - concerns about county travel expenses. Sales tax revenue in the county is down from estimates (which should have been expected considering all the doom and gloom we hear from elected officials about how bad off everyone is) so the commissioners want to restrict travel expenditures, though their authority in this regard is somewhat limited.

This makes sense - but if they're going to go to such measures on the travel line item, I'd like them to pay attention to these types of headline-grabbing programs that are costly and do not generate anywhere near the return on investment they are touted to have. If we're really serious about cutting costs in the county, let's not waste precious investment income on a commissioner's pet project, either.

Is EITC just re-distribution of wealth?

Our local elected officials have a big push on in Lucas County to make sure individuals and families take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). There's even a letter to the editor in the local paper from Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop and Lucas County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz, who are spear-heading this effort.

But what exactly does the EITC do and is it a re-distribution of wealth from those who pay taxes to those who don't?

I started with an Internet search and found a website that helps you determine eligibility and estimate an amount of EITC for which you may qualify. But using that site required earnings, and other financial data, so I created a hypothetical and here's what I found.

My hypothetical is a single mother earning $8/hr. in a 35 hour/week part-time position. She has 1 child, no alimony nor other income. Her yearly gross income would be $14,560. According to 2007 withholding tables, if she claimed 2 exemptions (herself and her child), she would have had $510.50 withheld from her pay for federal taxes.

If she used the 1040EZ form, filing single, she'd be able to use the standard deduction of $8,750, making her taxable income $5,810. (I did not calculate her taxes using a standard 1040 form so I do not know if the form used would have made a difference in her taxable income.)

According to the tax tables, she would owe a total of $583 on taxable income of $5,810. As she already had $510.50 withheld, she'd be writing a check to the federal government for the difference of $72.50.

But ... she's eligible for the EITC - an estimated amount of $2,850.

The way the form is set up, that $2,850 dollar value is a credit and gets added to what you've already paid in taxes through your withholding. This gives my hypothetical mother a total of $3,360.50 'paid' ... significantly more than the $583 the tax tables show she owes.

So, in this example, my single mother will be getting a refund of $2,777.50.

Now, she only paid $510.50 and she owed $583...but she'll be getting a check from the government for $2,777.50. That's 48% of her taxable income that she's getting 'back.'

We all know that government has no money of its own - only what it collects from others. This means that people who pay taxes are the ones who are giving this 'refund' to my single mother. And by 'pay taxes' I mean all of us who have taxes withheld and either get back less than what we paid in - or actually owe more (on top of our withholdings) when we prepare our 1040s.

In this example, the EITC is a re-distribution of wealth. And I cannot help but wonder why we, as a nation, think this is okay, acceptable, appropriate, fair, or any other word you'd like to use to describe this action.

And does anyone else have a problem with our elected officials going around and telling people to claim this re-distribution of wealth in the guise of 'bringing money into our local economy'? From the letter to the editor:

"Families and individuals deserve to keep what they've earned and this free tax preparation will make that happen.

Even if you don't qualify for the EITC, the benefits to our local economy are enormous. The EITC is truly the best economic stimulus available. If everyone who qualified for this money took advantage, we'd bring millions of dollars into our local economy, supporting local businesses, jobs, and wages."

Um - I'd like to keep what I earn as well, but this program makes my family pay so others can have our money instead.

Your thoughts?

So wrong on so many levels - low-interest loans to buy art

Well, it's been a couple of days since this story was in the local paper, The Blade, but it got me so angry on so many levels that I've just now been able to blog about it.

Apparently, our county commissioners don't think that enough people are buying art, so they've decided that they're going to help. (Nice of them, huh?) You see, people who want to buy art, aren't always able to because of the cost - so, according to Comm. Ben Konop, there's now a program to make it 'more affordable.'

Under the new 'economic development' program, individuals who qualify can get a loan of between $500 and $2500 at an interest rate of 1% to purchase a piece of local art. The maximum amount that Key Bank will loan under this program is $25,000.

And why would Key Bank make such a program available? It's because they're going to get a $250,000 investment from the county in the form of a certificate of deposit...and they're only going to pay 1% interest for the cd.

So...instead of the County Treasurer, Wade Kapszukiewicz, getting the best rates for the county, he's agreeing to this investment which, according to his office, means that the county treasury will be out $7,881 (the difference between the going interest rate and the 1% that will be paid).

And please don't advance the argument that "it's only" a small amount of money...in this case, the issue is not the amount of interest that's NOT going into the county treasury, it's the mistaken philosophy that public funds should be used to advance social issues.

From the article:

"County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz said he is always looking for ways to use the "financial resources of the treasurer's office to move the county forward.""

In doing research on this, I could find nowhere in the Ohio Revised Code that detailed this as one of the responsibilities of the office of treasurer. But I did find plenty of references to 'safe' or 'secure' investments including the following:

"Safety, liquidity and earning a market rate of return on the county's money are primary responsibilities of the Treasurer."

Further, the State Auditor has issued a manual for county treasurers which states:

"The main goal of the county treasurer is to coordinate the county spending with the active/inactive funds. The desire is to match short-term needs with the short-term deposits, and to match long-term needs with long-term investments. It is fiscally irresponsible to invest short-term funds in a long-term investment. This matching can be achieved by coordinating spending with estimates of income. Open communication is necessary between the auditor and the treasurer to plan the timing of the investments. The portfolio should be managed to maximize interest rates while keeping risk to a minimum." (emphasis added)

So, if the investments should be managed to maximize interest rates, has our treasurer done this? Nope! He's decided that, instead of maximizing interest rates, he's going to help people buy art.

Then there is the whole issue of a the program itself. If the county commissioners were going to provide a program of low interest loans, is buying art the best target of those loans? What about purchasing a vehicle - that would generate more than the $300 in sales tax that they estimate the art sales will provide. Or maybe a recent high school graduate would like a $2500 loan at 1% interest to help pay for college. Or maybe you'd like to redo your kitchen - wouldn't YOU love to have a 1% interest loan for that? How about any other purpose - landscaping your yard, putting up a new fence, buying a new big screen tv, or even a vacation?

And what are the qualifications for such loans? The article doesn't say, but is it likely that people who qualify aren't really in NEED of a loan to purchase art? And do we think that people who don't NEED a loan to purchase art will still take advantage of this program?

If I was planning to purchase a piece of art at $2000, I could invest $2000 in any number of ways that would generate more than 1% interest, but let's use the county's rate of 4.157%. Such an investment would give me about $83.

Then, I could take out the loan at 1% and purchase the artwork. The interest on the loan will only be $20. So I get the artwork AND I make $63 doing so. And I do this at the expense of the county treasury and all the county taxpayers. Sounds like a great deal to me!

I know that there are a lot of people who are firmly convinced that the best investment for a community is art - everything from subsidized rent to this kind of a program. But 'art' is in the eye of the beholder and it's so completely subjective.

My preference is that we prioritize better.

Our county jail is in serious need of attention - individuals with multiple court cases are never held to account because their crimes are non-violent misdemeanors so they are released without ever going to court due to the Federal Court Order on overcrowding in our jail - not to mention all the security issues and recent problems well documented in our local media.

Our historic County Courthouse has needs that have been detailed for years by the judges. What about all the individuals who've appealed their property tax valuation - any decrease in property valuation means a decrease in property taxes resulting in less money in the county treasury. I'm sure there are many other things that you think would be more important than using county tax dollars as a guarantee for artwork loans.

But as of today, other than the media report on the day of the announcement, no one's said a thing. So remember - any lack of opposition to a decision is perceived by our elected officials as being support for the decision, leading to similar types of actions in the future. Make your opinions known.