Broken promise

In Dover, NH, on September 12, then-candidate Barack Obama said:

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly told audiences that "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

However, today one of the largest tax increases took effect and it's going to hurt lower-income families more than most.

Taxes on a pack of cigarettes increased $.62 today to a total of $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases. The tax is going to be used to fund an expansion of SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, though the expansion will cover, in some states, people (not just children) in the top 25% of wage-earners in the country.

During the campaign, Pres. Obama told Americans they could have affordable health insurance without raising taxes on anyone but the rich. However, cigarette taxes are an increase on people who don't qualify as 'rich' and have a huge impact on lower wage earners because they are more likely to be smokers.

Then there is the anti-logic of taxing a product that you're trying to get people to stop using - trying so hard, in fact, that you're spending other tax dollars on the effort - and counting on what will obviously be declining revenue to fund a long-term expansion of a growing program. Can you say 'stuck on stupid'? (And no, this is not an April Fool's joke...)

The only remaining question is this: will Obama supporters who smoke see this as the breaking of promise? Or will they make the excuse that it's okay because it's 'for the children'?

'Not business friendly' post #15 - the results of bad policy

As you can see from the title of this post, I've done of lot of posts about Toledo and Ohio being 'not business friendly' in terms of their policies, laws and taxation.

Whether it was increased spending on frivolous or unmandated items, perpetual increases in property taxes in the name of 'the children,' new licensing requirements and threatened closure of businesses they don't like, or the actual takeover of private business in order to generate 'income' for the city (yes, they actually think that's what happens), there was bound to be a impact that could be measured in objective terms.

And that's exactly what was shown during yesterday's Toledo City Council Finance Committee Meeting.

According to the handout:

"Business Net Profits for the month of September were 17.31% lower than the same month last year, resulting in a year-to-date decrease of 24.67%. We expect no improvement in this category until the economic cycle clearly turns the corner.

The Individual Net Profits category for the month of September was down 21.83% from the same period last year. The year-to-date result is still in the -13% range."

While I will not discount the partial impact that the national economy has on us locally, even when Ohio's and the nation's economy was good, Toledo was losing population and businesses. The local politicians like to blame everyone but themselves for this, but the evidence is clear.

Toledo is losing not just the businesses, but also the revenue from those businesses.

And despite looking at a deficit that is now estimated to be around $10 million, our expenditures are up: overtime by fire, refuse and police; salaries and wages; pension costs; and utilities account for most of it. Even medical costs are higher, though they are still within the budgeted amounts.

It's the spending, stupid.

But still it's not the fault of the politicians. No, they expect that the local economy will improve when the 'broader economic climate' does. However, such an expectation requires the 'willing suspension of disbelief' and the ability to disregard the historical evidence. For about 20 years, Lucas County has led the state with the highest unemployment numbers of all the urban counties - and that's through good and bad economies and both republican and democrat presidents and governors.

And they would never admit that their socialist, anti-business policies, rules, regulations and laws have anything to do with it, even though reversal of such would certainly have a positive impact on tax collections.

Unfortunately, upcoming legislation in Toledo doesn't seem to reflect the lesson waiting to be learned. Whether it's shutting down businesses if they violate a more restrictive noise ordinance or putting new restrictions on convenience stores as an alternative to better or more enforcement of existing laws by our police department, or moratoriums on home day cares, Toledo City Council seems poised to take their anti-business stance to the next level.

This is not business friendly. One can only hope that the impact on what they consider to be 'their' checkbook, i.e., the city's general fund, will eventually make them change their ways.

Faulty logic???

It should come as no surprise that government and elected representatives use faulty logic when it comes to justify intrusive, onerous laws. But when the people mimic the same comments, I begin to worry.

Many have said that red-light and speed cameras at intersections are not a problem. If you're not breaking the law, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. And if you are running a red light or speeding, you ARE breaking the law and the government should use any means to penalize you when you do.

While both these positions may be true, it masks the underlying question of whether or not the government should use cameras - instead of police officers - to enforce criminal violation via a civil penalty strictly as a means of revenue enhancement. (Background on the Toledo red-light/speed cameras is available here in several pod casts starting January 8th.)

Further, the concept of 'slippery slope' becomes a point of discussion as communities begin to explore the use of cameras in parks. A simple Google search for 'cameras in parks' will generate enough stories to fill your day with reading. And again, the logic is that if you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't mind that cameras are watching you.

We can certainly debate the laws, 'Big Brother' and the numerous indications this has for privacy and even more intrusive coverage of the behavior and actions of citizens. But the logic that we should allow such laws if we aren't planning to break them completely escapes me.

Now, that same logic is being applied to a new license requirement in Toledo - and not to the idea of the camera. I've written several times about the new convenience store licensing law and, most recently, about the lawsuit to overturn it. Today's Blade has an article about the lawsuit (four days after the fact) in which Council President Mark Sobczak uses this faulty logic as an excuse for the law.

"Council President Mark Sobczak yesterday declined to comment specifically on the complaint. He said the ordinance was modeled heavily after a similar law in Minneapolis.

"They had problems with carryout owners not running very good businesses. They were selling stuff that led to crimes, and they weren't responsible," Mr. Sobczak said.

"I think most of the reputable operators have no problems with the [new] restrictions since the vast majority were already doing all that we're asking."

See? If you're not doing anything wrong - or if you've already got cameras in store - you shouldn't object to the creation of a new and costly regulation. Never mind that they can close you down if you don't comply with these new rules, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Yeah...right!

I'm not a convenience store owner and the ones in my neighborhood are good for our community. But it's not MY neighborhood stores they're targeting...even though they are still subject to the laws, fees and fines.

And I do object to these efforts to create new ways of generating revenue for the government, new rules and regulations which drive up the cost of business and subsequently the cost of the products they produce or sell, and a more intrusive government. And so should you. Numerous examples exist where a supposedly simply, common sense rule has become a method for government control of the behavior of citizens (no smoking in planes led to no smoking within the jurisdiction of a city, red light cameras led to speed cameras and now cameras in parks and other places in cities).

If Toledo can impose a license requirement for convenience stores in order to control the behavior of people shopping there, what area or industry is next? Malls? Grocery stores? Because you can rest assured that if they get away with this one, they will look to duplicate it somewhere else, using a lack of objection - and faulty logic - to assume that since no one objected, the citizens must approve.

More anti-logic from Columbus - SCHIP and Medicaid

Here's what I don't get:

Gov. Ted Strickland is upset because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rejected Ohio's plan to expand Medicaid eligibility to more families in Ohio. In fact, the state's plan would have increased the eligibility threshold from 200% of poverty level up to to 300%, meaning that families of four earning $62,000 per year would be eligible. In fact, he said he was 'appalled' by the decision.

He now plans to revise the request, increasing the eligibility threshold from 200% to 250% of poverty level. If the request is funded under SCHIP, the state would have a 30% match requirement. If the request is funded under Medicaid, the state would have a 40% match.

But then, there was today's Blade article in which the state's Medicaid struggles are detailed:

"...the governor who made expanded health care a priority angered supporters by delaying plans to restore promised dental Medicaid benefits to low-income adults that were eliminated two years ago.

As Medicaid rolls increase at a clip faster than expected, the governor also delayed promised fee increases for medical professionals providing Medicaid services.

And on Friday, the governor learned that the state likely will have to spend $207 million more for Medicaid than the budget anticipated, indicating that even more belt-tightening is to come."

So, if we've cut Medicaid services like dental benefits, delayed fee increases for medical providers and will have to spend $207 million MORE than budgeted, why are we asked the feds for permission to expand eligibility?

People making $62,000 per year are, according to IRS data, at the top end of the definition of middle class. Only 25% of wage earners make more than that - meaning that Strickland's rejected proposal was NOT covering 'low-income' families, but was, in fact, a request to cover all middle-class families - some of whom already have private insurance. And he wanted to do so while keeping cuts in services to people already enrolled in Medicaid.

The state cannot afford to meet its current commitments as budgeted, but they want to add more people onto the Medicaid rolls. Where is the logic in this?

Pack neatly? Who are they kidding?

Yes, we are now being 'urged' by the TSA to pack neatly to reduce our time in line during the busy holiday travel season.

This, in addition to taking off our shoes, carrying very small bottles of liquids and face cream and deoderant...

Gotta tell ya - our lines would be greatly reduced if they looked for suspicious PEOPLE and BEHAVIOR instead of potentially dangerous toothpaste.

But to tell us to pack neatly??? Wonder if the 'powers that be' who issued this advice ever bothered to take a look at a bag after a TSA agent was finished rummaging through it?

Does this qualify as another anti-logic post? You decide.

Anti-logic: Toledo ambulance runs

Well, here goes another post on the anti-logic so prevalent in today's governmental actions.

On Sunday, The Blade had an article with a terrific headline: Ambulance runs will pay off for city, fire officials assert. New service squeezes private transporters.

Doesn't that just about say it all?

But that was just the headline. In the second paragraph you see that perhaps the headline is a bit misleading.

"But so far, basic life-support ambulances - which began their full operation last month - haven't brought in any profit and are projected to cost the city nearly $1 million over the next five years to lease six rigs."

Granted, the article is filled with quotes and estimates that the profit will be there, despite a projected collection rate of only 40%. But I can't help but wonder if the 'profit' that is projected was ever balanced with the lack of payroll taxes, income taxes and other taxed due to the city caused by the elimination of jobs and income by the private ambulance companies.

Certainly someone looked at that DECREASE in tax revenue, even though it was never discussed by city council. Perhaps not, though, as that would have required city council members to think of such a question in the first place.

But the real zinger is the false claim that better patient care is a result of this decision - based upon the following:

"Jim Martin, president of Toledo Firefighters Local 92, said first responders are able to more quickly return to service. In the past, fire engines were out of service while they waited for a private ambulance to arrive.

"Now, they turn around and go back into service," Mr. Martin said.

Rescuers were called to a West Toledo apartment last week and were able to quickly transport a 3-year-old boy, who had fallen and hit his head, to Toledo Hospital.

Previously, first responders would have arrived, assessed the scene, and then called a private ambulance company to transport the boy - which sometimes took up to 20 minutes, Mr. Harman said.

Within minutes of the call, the little boy was buckled into a child safety seat inside the rig and was on his way to the hospital.

"He might still be there waiting for the private ambulance [and] now he's at the hospital," Mr. Harman said. "That's where the patient care gets better.""

If the main 'problem' government was trying to address in taking over this task was the delay waiting for the arrival of the basic life support ambulance run, it would have been easy to fix. Ambulance companies have, for years, asked to be dispatched at the same time as the rescue squad, with the understanding that they'd respond without lights and sirens. They even offered to cover any internal expenses as a result of getting to the scene only to find that they might not be needed. But if they were needed, they'd be present and ready to transport, allowing the fire unit to return quickly to service.

But that idea was routinely rejected by the fire department without much explanation - or at least none that made a lot of sense.

And here's where the problem with article comes in. The article explains that:

"Basic life-support units and first responders are dispatched simultaneously, which also reduces the amount of time it takes to get patients to the hospital, said Luke Harman, a firefighter and EMT at Station 9 in South Toledo."

Did you note that? Under the city-run transport services, they're now dispatching the tranport unit AND the first responders at the same time - and then they're using this as an example of 'better patient care.'

Of course, they could have agreed to this dispatching protocol without going to expense of leasing ambulances and then staffing them ... and without significantly impacting local private companies. But where's the fun in that?

Again, it's anti-logic. It doesn't make sense to say that 'governmentizing' such tasks results in better patient care when a simple change in protocol was all that was needed. Face it - this really had nothing to do with patient care or time at the scene because both these issues could have been addressed by implementing the protocol the city changed - dual dispatching.

So why did government have to take over this function? I'll let you decided - and comment accordingly.

ASIDE: background on this issue is available here and here.

Interesting tidbits

Here they are, global, national and local:

*** "House Democrats, convinced that President Bush blundered by vetoing an expansion of a children's health care program, plan to approve a very similar bill this week even as the administration offered new concessions Tuesday," reports the Associated Press. "The Democrats' revised bill would reduce the number of adults and higher-income families potentially eligible for the health insurance subsidies, presumably making it easier for Republicans to back it while saving face. But on the key issue of spending, Democrats say they will not budge from the original $35 billion pricetag." (emphasis added)

Umm...how do you reduce the number of adults and the number of higher-income families and still need the same amount of increase???? Anti-logic!

*** House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., announced today some proposed changes in tax law. Among them:

- a repeal of the alternative minimum tax starting Jan. 1, 2008 - Good!
- a 4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple - bad, because it contributes to the philosophy that the 'rich,' defined by income rather than assets, should pay more.
- an increase in the value of the child tax credit for those earning too little to owe federal income taxes - questionable, because I don't understand why people who don't owe federal income taxes in the first place need more of a federal tax break.
- extension of the research-and-development tax credit, tax breaks for teachers buying schools supplies and a deduction for state and local sales taxes - Good!

Rangel doesn't expect this to come to a vote this year, so we can watch and see how his plan works out in terms of specific legislation. As they say, the devil is in the details.

*** California wildfires are thought to be the work of an arsonist...SICK!

*** China has surged ahead of Germany for the first time to become the world's top exporter. They vaulted past the US at the beginning of this year. Machinery, equipment and cars now make up 46% of their total exports, while textiles are fading from the picture.

But in a related story, Palm Bay, Fla., may ban the purchase of products made in China. Residents would still be free to purchase whatever goods they want, but the city itself would face restrictions. Mayor John Mazziotti cites the questionable quality and safety of the goods, China's rights abuses, its record of pollution and the fact that American manufacturing jobs have been lost to China as reasons for proposing the ban.

*** Toledo's Westgate Mall is adding The Fresh Market ... woo hoo! Westgate owner Liz Holland said Fresh Market signed a lease last week. According to Holland, surveys of residents in the Westgate area showed the first preference was a gourmet grocer. Their stores feature a meat department with a butcher on duty, a European-style delicatessen, a bakery, a produce department, and fresh seafood flown into stores six times per week.

*** Toledo's ABLE plans to transform a downtown landmark that's been mostly vacant since the 1970s into a Center for Equal Justice. They want to raise $5 million over the next year to turn the former Western Union building their new headquarters for the work they do in 32 Ohio counties. Legal Aid of Western Ohio will join in the fundraising efforts.

They're offering naming rights for certain levels of donations and plan to raise half the amount from the legal community and the other half from the general public. And, so far, they've not asked for any tax dollars - how refreshing!

*** On a personal note, I had a pleasant conversation with my former colleague and current president of the Board of County Commissioners, Tina Skeldon Wozniak. She reminded me of a comment she made last year, predicting that I'd end up in radio at some point in the future. Yes, Tina, turns out you were right. And we both had a good laugh over how many times I've said that to her...

More anti-logic - this time on SCHIP

Congress has chosen a source to pay for the bulk of their proposed $35 billion increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program - cigarette taxes.

According to numerous reports, expansion of the program (which would allow families with income up to $82,000 to qualify) would be financed with a 156 percent increase in the federal cigarette tax, taking it to $1 per pack from the current 39 cents.

And this tax will impact recipients of the SCHIP program more than others. Low-income people smoke more heavily than do wealthier people in the United States, making cigarette taxes a regressive form of revenue. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers, compared with 23.5 percent of those above the poverty level, according to government statistics.

So we allow expansion of the program to those who are not 'low income' or in poverty by imposing a tax that impacts low income and the poor more than others. Where's the logic in that?

But the biggest anti-logic of this expansion is the lack of any discussion or debate about basic demographics and their impact on this bill - maybe because there is little sympathy, in Congress or the nation as a whole, for taxing such a vice.

So consider this: you've got the U.S. Department of Education, the Centers for Disease Control, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) all providing grants and funding for anti-smoking campaigns. There are numerous opportunities at the state level for anti-smoking funds as well. Everyone, it seems, is spending money to get people to stop smoking - or to prevent them from starting in the first place.

And then you have this quote from Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who said, during the House debate,

"And in order to get enough money to pay for this, it would require 22 million new smokers."

Spend money over here to get people to not smoke while spending money over there counting on an increase in smokers...Anti-logic!