Ohio bill would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving in-state tuition rate

Rep. Matt Lynch

Ohio Rep. Matt Lynch (R-Bainbridge Township) and Rep. Wes Retherford (R-Hamilton) have introduced legislation today that will reverse the recent decision by the Ohio Board of Regents to grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants in Ohio.

“The recent decision by the Board of Regents will cost Ohio taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, and blatantly ignores a requirement in administrative code that defines a resident as someone who is qualified to vote in the state,” Lynch said. “Illegal immigrants in the so-called DACA program do not have lawful status and cannot vote, and therefore should not be granted in-state status.”

On June 15th, 2012, the White House issued a memorandum ordering U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to exercise prosecutorial discretion and defer action against certain individuals found to be in the country illegally. This action, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), did not grant lawful status to the individuals - it simply gave them legal presence in the country.

On July 29th 2013, the Ohio Board of Regents announced that DACA recipients would be eligible for in-state tuition at public universities. This decision came despite the fact that the Ohio Administrative Code defines a resident of Ohio, for purposes of receiving in-state tuition, as someone “who is qualified as a resident to vote in Ohio.” Because DACA recipients do not have lawful status and therefore cannot vote, the Board of Regents decision stands in violation of its own administrative rules and necessitates the legislation. Without legislative action, Ohio taxpaying citizens will be forced to subsidize students who are admittedly in the state illegally.

Rep. Wes Retherford

“It is unfortunate that we must take this step of filing legislation because of this egregious decision,” Retherford said. “The Board of Regents can still do the right thing and reverse the decision, but we will work quickly to move this bill through the legislative process in order to prevent this from continuing any longer.”

When the legislation is assigned a bill number and referred to a House committee, it will be linked here.

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.

Hypocrisy thy name is Nancy Pelosi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hardened criminals and college co-eds

No - it's not a porn movie, though you might question the intent after reading this....

It's actually a college-level program designed to bring college students and incarcerated individuals together as equals to discuss various issues. It's called the Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program. According to their website, it:

"...increases opportunities for men and women, inside and outside of prison, to have transformative learning experiences that emphasize collaboration and dialogue, inviting participants to take leadership in addressing crime, justice, and other issues of social concern."

It came to my attention thanks to an article in our local paper (link) about the class being sponsored by The University of Toledo and the Toledo Correctional Institute. The paper said four other colleges in Ohio also offer the program.

From the program website, we learn about the purpose and coursework of the class:

Inside-Out brings college students together with incarcerated men and women to study as peers in a seminar behind prison walls. The core of the Inside-Out Program is a semester-long academic course, meeting once a week, through which 15 to 18 “outside” (i.e.: undergraduate) students and the same number of “inside” (i.e.: incarcerated) students attend class together inside prison. All participants read a variety of texts and write several papers; during class sessions, students discuss issues in small and large groups. In the final month of the class, students work together on a class project.

Inside-Out is an opportunity for college students to go behind the walls to reconsider what they have come to know about crime and justice. At the same time, it is also an opportunity for those inside prison to place their life experiences in a larger framework. Inside-Out creates a paradigm shift for participants, encouraging transformation and change agency in individuals and, in so doing, serves as an engine for social change.

Through college classes and community exchanges, individuals on both sides of prison walls are able to engage in a collaborative, dialogic examination of issues of social significance through the particular lens that is the “prism of prison.”

But the newspaper article gives you a different sort of view:

"Inside-Out instructors prefer to be called "facilitators" rather than professors, because they start the class with ice-breaker exercises to spark talking and laughing before student-led discussion begins. Lucas County Assistant Prosecutor Dean Mandros and University of Toledo Interim Dean of Students Michele Martinez were among the civic leaders, university administrators, and prison personnel to participate in the final session Tuesday that started with questions such as, "What is your most embarrassing moment?" and "How would you like to improve yourself?"

After the exercise, participants sat in a circle and were asked how the exercise made them feel. Answers ranged from anxious and overwhelmed to comfortable and enlightened."

How they "feel"??? And here I thought college was all about learning how to think critically.

Having worked with the criminal justice system during my political career (as a clerk of court and as a county commissioner), I'm familiar with many types of rehabilitation programs. As a member of a criminal justice committee for the National Association of Counties, I was particularly interested in re-entry programs, so I'm supportive of the efforts to not only help incarcerated individuals when you have them as a 'captive' audience, but also the need to provide specialized assistance upon their exit from the system to reduce the likelihood that they will re-offend.

So I don't want to criticize a program based upon what I read in our local paper, which doesn't have the most stellar reputation for sharing all the facts. But the majority of Toledoans - and others who may read this - will do just that. And the impression is not good, especially when it includes quotes like this:

Liz, a University of Toledo senior majoring in political science, said she isn't curious about the crimes that resulted in her classmates' imprisonment. The experience left her reconsidering law school, in favor of furthering her education to teach in the prison system.

"All I see are people, and all I see are great people," Liz said. "And I don't want to ask that, I don't want to know. You don't have to know someone's past to know them."

Really? Your past is what forms who you are today. But this student, for some odd reason, professes not even curiosity about what her 'classmates' may have done to get them into TCI.

Interestingly, 949 of TCI's 1165 inmates are classified into level 3 Close Security (1 is minimum and 4 is maximum security). I couldn't find any listing on the Dept. of Corrections website that details what types of crimes get a person placed in Close Security, but considering it's one step down from Maximum, I'm pretty certain it includes crimes of violence.

And while the classroom setting inside the prison may be a relatively 'safe' environment, I would be cautious of someone if I knew that their past crime involved murder, or rape or assault. That would certainly make a difference to me and how I handled myself around the individual.

And it apparently matters to others, as well. From the comments on the article:

"What exactly are they learning? According to this article they discuss polictical and social issues for credit. The ice breaking questions sound like therapy not college class. This is a joke. The inmates are just gathering mental porn for when they go back to their cells and the girls get to brag about how they hang out with criminals to make their parents nervous. What a waste"

"Send your daughter to college...
...so she can meet a convict. I believe in rehabilitation as much as the next guy, but; no thanks."

"Does getting perps and co-eds together to play pictionary serve a clear, distinct purpose in the education of either? Really? The wrap-up was prisoners singing love songs and students reciting anti-prison system poetry and stories about "getting close?" The nice thing about this is that it relieves me of the nagging need to return my alumni appeal gift."

"Forget the fox watching the hen house
Just bring the little chickies to the foxs den!"

And if you're a parent paying for your child's education, is this what you expected from a political science class? Or better yet, how many of the participants got federal grants or loans using taxpayer money? While this isn't the worst of classes I've seen offered, it certainly doesn't inspire confidence, especially when the newspaper highlights this:

Before the conclusion of the course, a prisoner sang and performed a love song on the keyboard, and a college student read a poem about the flaws of the prison system.

Our educational system has serious flaws - and I know our penal system is far from perfect. But I don't believe that this type of program is the way to address either of those issues, especially when the focus is on feelings rather than critical thinking and acceptance rather than discernment.

Surprise! (not) More hypocrisy in government

"When times are tough, you tighten your belts," the president said. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college." - President Barack Obama (source)

This is very true, but the President obviously doesn't believe his own words.

(Side note: and what, exactly, does the President have against Vegas????)

The most recent proposal by Obama is to limit the amount of monthly payments graduates have to make on student loans and forgive them after 20 years - reduced to 10 years if you happen to go into 'public service.'

If you know that you're not going to have to repay all your college loans, why not go to Vegas? If you're not going to be responsible for paying off your debt, you can take out as many loans as possible and then spend your 'other' dollars - well, in Vegas, if you want.

As for buying a boat when you can't pay your mortgage, the message is the same.

While people may not be buying boats, they know that if they just stop making their mortgage payments, the banks, which are being forced by governments to renegotiate loans, will have to do something to relieve homeowners of their contracted obligations. This leaves homeowners free to spend those dollars elsewhere.

The message coming from federal, state and local politicians is that you are not to blame for not being able to meet the obligations you entered into - it's all someone else's fault. It's not your fault you borrowed more than you could repay, you were taken advantage of by evil .... (fill in the blank).

Then those same politicians start allocating other people's money to 'help' you because it 'purchases' your support at the next election. And you, being grateful for their magnanimous behavior, no longer have to honor your obligations. So you have all that extra money for boats or trips to Vegas ...

Think this is just the lunatic rantings of a raving conservative? Look at what one individual had to say about free cell phones from the government:

"If they would give us free phones, that would be fantastic," said Lester Frasier, outside a welfare center in Los Angeles. "It will free up more money for me, that's one less bill for me."

The President's words tell you to spend your money wisely, but his actions tell you that you don't have to worry about doing so because they'll bail you out if you don't.

And what happens inside the logic-free zone of Washington D.C. is completely contrary to those very same words. The new Obama budget is outrageous in terms of spending, despite what he claims are cuts.

In what Obama and many members of Congress claim is the worst economy since the Great Depression, the federal government's payroll is at a record 2.15 million.

And when it comes to those same politicians actually acting in the fiscally responsible manner they tell you that you should adhere to - forget it!

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) says he's not a 'big supporter' of freezing congressional pay until after the budget is balanced. And the worst part about Congressional pay is that increases go into effect automatically, unless Congress votes to freeze them. How convenient!

You all know the joke about how to tell when a politician is lying...(his lips are moving). You also know that actions speak louder than words - so be sure to pay attention to what these politicians actually do while preaching to us and spout off about fiscal accountability.

ICYMI - another government takeover

In Case You Missed It....

The Wall Street Journal had a very interesting article on the 12th about a government takeover few are noticing. The headline:

The Quietest Trillion
Congratulations. You're about to own $100 billion a year in student loans.

The details:

The Obama plan calls for the U.S. Department of Education to move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans. The remaining 20% of the market that is now completely private will likely shrink further as lenders try to comply with regulations Congress created last year. Starting next summer, taxpayers will have to put up roughly $100 billion per year to lend to students.

Why, exactly, would private lenders be barred from making such loans? What is the purpose of eliminating the private market from the equation? Isn't this the same type of 'public option' being promoted in the health care bill? And where, exactly, will the government get $100 billion a year to cover this plan?

According to the article, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has reviewed the numbers and says that the programs will cost a fortune for the government to run and that the savings projected from the takeover are not anywhere near the official budget estimate, also called the 'score.' Despite the CBO assertions that the accounting is bogus, the accounting remains the official 'score' under the budget rules, "even though the official scorekeeper says it is wrong."

So when our representatives talk to us about the impact of this takeover, which numbers do you think they'll use????

The conclusion:

All of this is certain to pass the House, and the only chance for stopping it is in the Senate. If it passes, parents will soon have no choice beyond a Washington bureaucracy to borrow money for their college-bound children, and taxpayers will pay a fortune for the privilege.

I hope you'll read the entire article and then call your representatives and see if they can identify where they'd get the money to cover this additional cost - and you can also ask them how they can support a plan whose Enron-style accounting would land the private sector in jail.

An oldie but goodie - Konop should read it

With both Lucas County Commissioner (and mayoral candidate) Ben Konop and President Barack Obama touting a taxpayer-funded college education for all, I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at this oldie but goodie from the Foundation for Economic Education.

The article, "No More Subsidies for Higher Education" by George C. Leef, was published in FEE's magazine, The Freeman, which is also available on line.

The author makes several excellent points:

* He tears apart the 'social justice' argument that higher education is something that society 'owes' to low-income and other 'under served' populations.

* He points out that a 'good education' does NOT equate to a college degree, especially considering the lack of 'quality' education many students are getting in today's public schools.

* He looks at employment outlooks that show many anticipated job openings are in fields that might require specialized training, but do not require a college degree.

* He questions why existing opportunities are not sufficient to meet the demand. (And note that neither President Obama nor Comm. Konop have indicated a 'demand' for more college graduates - especially in such fields as women studies or English literature.)

While the article is from 2002, the points are as valid today as they were then. Even if you look at the 'green job's' being touted by the President and Konop, you'll see that many of them are for tasks that certainly do not require an 'advanced' degree. Does a window or insulation installer need a four-year bachelor's degree - or just some on-the-job training?

Konop should read the article ... but I won't hold my breath waiting for his 'rebuttal.'

Encouraging signs from America's campuses

Quite often I look around and get rather discouraged at what I see happening with our young people. Teaching them moral relativism to the 'superiority' of Marxism while neglecting the basic principles upon which this nation was founded is creating a generation that is more interested in their feelings than in facts, reason, logic or even thinking.

But then I come across something that makes me think all is not lost.

Ashley Herzog has two columns that show reason is not yet dead on America's campuses. In Socialism, College Style, she takes a look at applying the socialist 'spread-the-wealth' concept to grades...much to the surprise of students who willingly embrace the idea when it comes to money but reject it when it actually applies to them and their grades.

She follows up with Part II, applying the concept to the way professors run their classrooms - exposing the hypocrisy of what is taught versus what is practiced.

Then there is Dr. Mike Adams, a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington, who seems to be the lone conservative voice crying in the wilderness of political correctness and socialism in our university systems. His most recent column, however, is what gives me encouragement.

In Revolt in East Lansing, he writes about a group of Michigan State University instructors who have formed The Conservative Faculty and Staff at MSU to "protect and defend the values articulated in the Declaration of Independence here at Michigan State University."

That college professors are beginning to speak out for their ideals and for the free exchange of ideas and concepts in what is supposed to be an open forum and 'safe' place to do so, is just fantastic. I, like Dr. Adams, hope this idea catches like wildfire and spreads to all American campuses.

Maybe it's not so discouraging after all....

Konop's college conspiracy

Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop issued the following press release last night to announce his new program to fund a college education for all Lucas County residents - and he says he can do it without raising taxes.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Konop to Outline Program for Free College Education for all Lucas County Residents...Without Raising Taxes

Common sense proposals would fund $70 million dollars worth of college scholarships for students and displaced workers

Seeking to seriously change the direction of our local economy and the future of our community--without raising any taxes--Commissioner Ben Konop will today outline an aggressive $70 million program to help guarantee all Lucas County high school graduates and displaced workers the chance to get a college education for free.

"In the 21st Century, the best way to truly get our economy moving again, and get our people back to work, is to invest in college education for all Lucas County residents," Konop said. "Through a more efficient government, we can generate a $70 million scholarship fund for Lucas County residents that would enable us to compete and win in the global economy."

Under Konop's proposal, county departments would go to a four day work week, the county would adopt energy efficiency measures and open source software, and adopt a privatized EMS ambulance service. Together, these savings would allow $4 million dollars a year to be dedicated to a bond issuance which would then fund the scholarship program. This would, based on conservative estimates, generate $70 million dollars. The recipients, college graduates and displaced workers, would only receive the scholarship funds if they agree to return to Lucas County for a period following graduation.

"We are at the critical juncture in our community's history," Konop said. "If we are really serious about putting people to work and improving the local economy long term, we have to invest, right now, in Lucas County's best asset--its people."

WHAT: Konop Outlines Program For Free College Education for County Residents

WHEN: Monday, December 15, 2008 / 12:00 p.m.

WHERE: Toledo Bar Association Luncheon / Georgio's Restaurant, 426 N. Superior / Downtown Toledo

My first question would be, as it always is, where does the county get the authority to do this sort of thing. I know that there is no provision in the Ohio Revised Code that gives a county the ability to expend tax dollars to provide a college education. But I also know that many unauthorized expenditures are made under the guise of 'economic development' which has few restrictions for how 'economic development efforts' are funded. So to claim this is somehow related to economic development in order to provide some authority for doing it would not come as a surprise.

My second question is whether or not government should provide a 'free' college education for some while taking tax dollars from others in order to do so. Why do we think people who want to go to college should be allowed to do so at no cost to themselves? You appreciate what you've earned more than you appreciate what's been given to you. And those of us who've had to pay for our own education certainly know it's possible to obtain a college education if you're willing to work and even, for some of us, go to school part-time if that's all you can afford.

But other questions also arise.

The ideas to cut expenses in the county are admirable. I'm still not sold on open-source software, but a four-day work week, energy efficiency and privatized EMS ambulance service are terrific ideas. (I must remind Comm. Konop, though, that he opposed new windows for one of the county buildings - windows which would have improved the energy efficiency of that building.)

But if you can do these things and save $4 million, why don't you do it anyway, even if you don't pay for college for everyone? And since the county is planning on laying off people as of the first of the year, why aren't we already taking such steps to save money? And if you can save $4 million a year, the county can certainly lower the taxes (sales or property) so taxpayers don't have to pay so much. I'd much rather have the county apply such savings to my tax bill so I can further my own education - rather than pay for someone else's.

The scheme would require students to "return to Lucas County" for a period of time following graduation. Does this mean they get to go to an out-of-county or out-of-state school? And are they required to return even if they don't have a job? Would they be able to collect welfare if they don't have a job upon their return to the county? Would they be required to take any job they could find, even if it wasn't related to their major?

And just how much would the oversight of such a program cost? Will there be a staff person who disburses the funds and keeps track of the graduates, where they live and whether or not they get jobs? Will that person (or persons since there would be so many people to track) also be responsible for 'directing' students into specific degrees? It might not start off with such restrictions, but you know government - would such 'direction' end up being part of the package, especially if it would ensure a viable job upon graduation? Or would there be outrage by taxpayers if students got degrees that didn't qualify them for viable employment within the county? How many job openings do we have in Lucas County for Medieval Studies majors?

I'm all in favor of the county saving money, but I don't want those savings to be spent providing someone else a benefit that I don't have access to. I'm paying taxes and I worked full-time so I could pay for my own college education, taking five years to get my degree as a result. If I, and thousands of others, can do it, it can be done - without spending my taxes to do so.

My fear is that Konop's idea will be reported, but not analyzed, as have so many of his ideas. Main stream media will cover his speech, say a few words and praise him for coming up with 'bold, fresh, new' ideas, as they've done in the past. But this idea is just more of the spread the wealth, socialism concept being promoted by so many on the left. And it means that government expands while taxing all to provide a benefit for few.

I wish Konop much success in privatizing EMS ambulance services. I think that should be done because it will save tax dollars.

I wish him success in going to a four-day work week, if mandatory functions can be performed and money can be saved while doing so. I also think everyone should work to improve the energy efficiency of their buildings, our own homes included. I hope that a cost-benefit analysis will be performed to ensure that expenditures will actually result in savings - and not just sound good and get good headlines.

But, if the county saves money by doing any of these things, it needs to reduce the amount it collects from all of us - not conspire to find new ways to spend those dollars. Give the savings back to the people who paid for it in the first place - and let us decide how to spend those dollars. We may further our own education, start a new business that provides jobs for those hoped-for graduates, spend the money within Lucas County generating more sales tax income for the county, or even save it for our retirement.

We are better at spending our money than government ever can, or will, be.