Priorities, not special interests

For the 2008-09 fiscal year, Ohio will spend $21.9 million on the Ohio Arts Council. That's down from their original biennial budget of $24.9 million, as a result of the state's budgetary issues.

In case you've never heard of the OAC, they are "a state agency that funds and supports quality arts experiences to strengthen Ohio communities culturally, educationally and economically. With funds from the Ohio Legislature and the National Endowment for the Arts, the OAC provides financial assistance to artists and arts organizations."

Some of the local recipients of funding from the OAC include the Young Artists at Work program through the Arts Commission of Greater Toledo, small amounts to Bravo Magazine, and college professors/instructors who've received fellowships (usually $5,000 or $10,000). They have provided operational support to the Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo Opera Association, the Toledo Orchestra Association, Inc., Toledo Ballet, Toledo Jazz Society, Toledo Botanical Garden and the Arts Council Lake Erie West. Money from OAC has also supported performing arts seasons at Lourdes College and Toledo Cultural Arts Center.

I have always had a problem with government funding of 'the arts.' I don't believe that government should fund any particular industry and the arts are certainly a particular industry. My basic premise is that individuals who so choose would fund arts - and probably be more capable of doing so if the government didn't take so much of their personal funds in the first place. Additionally, as with anything governments do, the bureaucracy established to 'administer' any dedicated funds takes its own percentage off the top, resulting in less funds than what individuals could provide without the third-party costs of government.

But - that's really not the point of this post. My point is priorities. Even if you believe government funding of the arts should be done, is it the most important thing government should do – and at the expense of other government spending?

In January of this year, Governor Ted Strickland announced $733 million in budget cuts due to the economic condition of the state. One of the biggest budget reductions was $31 million from the Department of Mental Health. Could the state have eliminated the OAC and, instead, funded the Department of Mental Health? Yes.

Another cut was to the Department of Aging which was to lose $17.9 million in FY 2008. Could the state have eliminated the OAC and, instead, funded the Department of Aging? Yes - and with some money left over.

What about the $25.8 million that was earmarked for the state Department of Development? Such funding is key to Ohio's chances of attracting and retaining businesses and their jobs, politicians tell us. What would have been a better use of limited tax dollars: attracting new businesses or subsidizing 'starving artists'?

Instead of going through the state organization and eliminating unnecessary or non-mandated functions, departments had across-the-board cuts. As a result, everyone was equally unhappy, but the size and scope of government was not really reduced. The hard part of governance is setting priorities and sticking with them. Every organization that receives funding through the OAC will lobby for continued funding. Everyone who gets funds will say 'don't cut us.' But politicians and decision-makers rarely ask: if we don't cut you, who should we cut? And if they do, the response is almost always: don't ask me - that's your job.

Well, if that's the case, then go through and eliminate the non-mandated expenditures. It's actually a very easy criterion to meet, but often so very hard to get politicians to do because they don't want to risk alienating any group of constituents who might decide to oppose them in their next re-election bid.

The City of Toledo is facing the same circumstance. We had city council members insist on funding the city's Youth Commission ($2 million in 2008) and pools (about $500,000). Council is now faced with a $10 million budget deficit to address before the end of the year, including a reduction in the number of recruits in the new police class.

So what is more important: pools and 'hip hop' concerts or police officers?

I pick police every time - and I think most people would, considering that, without police, pools and concerts might not be safe places to be.

And that's the point: priorities. we don't have good ones when it comes to government spending. What we have is the priority of elected officials to try and placate everyone so as not to make enemies, thus ensuring they continue to have support for staying in office. These elected officials stop representing us when their priority is such as this - and we are to blame, because we reward them with re-election while our city and state continue their slide to the bottom in terms of growth, population, employers and jobs.

So - what do you think our priorities should be? And what are you willing to do to ensure the politicians support them?

More struggles with Toledo's budget

Want to know why the City of Toledo yearly faces budget deficits? It's because of decisions like these:

"Part of the reason for the increased 2007 budget is to pay for a 2 percent city employee pay raise that took effect Jan. 1, and to pick up an additional 2.25-percentage point share of police officer and firefighter pension contributions.

In 2008, city employees are to get a 3 percent pay raise, and police and firefighters would get an additional 1.5 percent pension pickup."

This is from today's Blade article which relates the latest proposal to deal with our city's budget. And while I realize the economy is booming in just about every place BUT here, I have to question the logic of a 2007 4.25% and a 2008 4.5% pay increase for our police and firefighters. Now don't get me wrong, I don't know if you can really pay such individuals too much for the jobs they do, but in these difficult financial times?

The article's main point is Council President Rob Ludeman's proposal to have employees incur a payroll deduction of $25 each pay period to help pay for their insurance. He says that employees have "the Cadillac of benefits." And with taxpayers who foot the bill rarely enjoying the same level of benefits, especially in today's marketplace, he's right.

But the idea of a medical payroll deduction could be dead on arrival with the unions.

"Don Czerniak, president of the 870-member American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 7 union, rejected Mr. Ludeman's suggestion.

"My opinion is a flat-out no. I am not taking that to my members. I have helped in the past. As a thank-you for doing something, my members have suffered layoffs," he said."

I'm certain the Local 7 employees have tried to help in the past by making concessions, but my fear is that they would rather maintain a high level of wages and benefits for SOME of their members than keep ALL of them employed.

Beginning the discussions, however, would be good. But there's a twist. In exchange for the mayor beginning discussions with the unions to make this possible, Ludeman is willing to support a $4 trash fee, down $2 from the mayor's original proposal.

My preference would be that no 'revenue enhancements' (meaning taxes) would be up for discussion until every last unnecessary expense was eliminated. And if the four Republicans on council teamed up with Democrats Frank Szollosi (who's correctly said repeatedly that Toledoans are taxed too much), Michael Ashford (who says the 2007 budget contains 'pork') and Ellen Grachek (who has demonstrated a willingness to fund essential priorities first), perhaps we could actually have a budget in line with our ability to pay.