Trash tax and broken promises: we told you so!

Well, well, well... I really hate it when we warn people what's to come in terms of taxation and we're right.

In this case, the "we" is me, Karen Shanahan, WSPD and any other person who commented on the radio or on the blogs about the trash tax never going away. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised about the most recent broken promise on the trash tax considering all the other statements made that have been 'modified' since the tax first went into effect.

As part of the budget debacle, Mayor Mike Bell recommended and Toledo City Council passed (not unanimously) an increase in the trash tax. They all call it a fee, but it IS a tax. For those (like me) who recycle, the fee went from $1 per month to $15 per month. We were promised that, if we passed Issue 5 on the primary ballot May 4th, the $15 would be reduced to $8.50 per month. The measure passed 55% to 45%.

They lied.

The ordinance introduced at last night's city council agenda meeting:

Amending Section 963.03(b) of the Toledo Municipal Code to revise the monthly refuse collection fees; and declaring an emergency.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
Upon passage of Issue 5, the Administration is proposing a revised refuse fee structure of $5.00 per month for residents who are eligible for the Homestead Exemption as determined by the County Auditor and $10.00 per month for other City residents.

Yes, you read that correctly: $10 per month.

In case you're mathematically challenged, that's a 900% increase.
It's also an 18% increase over what was promised. And why, exactly, is the administration reneging on their promise?

It's easier for them.

"Easier"??? They've been doing two fees (recycling and non-recycling) for several years now, so how is this suddenly 'easier'? They've established fines for people who say they're going to recycle and then don't. They've given us (and charged us) for two different containers to make it 'easier' to recycle. They've told us that recycling rates are up. They even voted to sell landfill space because we've increased our recycling which has given us space in the landfill that can generate income.

Maybe they should think about how 'easy' this tax is for us to pay? Because it's not - and the last thing most of us are concerned about is paying more to make it 'easier' for the politicians!

Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle has a summary of the conversation during the agenda meeting. From her notes:

"(Councilman Steve) Steel said the administration plan is different than before, (Deputy Mayor of Operations Steve) Herwat said it was, that they felt a standard across the board would be easier to administer."

This is a broken promise, plain and simple.

A majority of voters approved Issue 5 based upon the promises made regarding the roll-back of the trash tax. While I oppose the trash tax in any amount and opposed Issue 5 for its diversion of Capital Improvement Program funds into the general fund, I expected the promises made to be kept if the measure was approved. As did all city residents.

The fire fighters had agreed to pay their employee portion of their pensions as part of the concessions negotiated during the budget process. If Issue 5 passed, they were promised reimbursement of those amounts as well as a return to the city picking up everything they paid prior to the concessions.

Do you think the administration is going to break that promise the union?

No - but they're perfectly willing to break their promise to the taxpayers!!!!

Perhaps those who are cynical about elected officials' promises have every reason to be...

Also in the news was the rejection of the contract negotiated between the city and Teamsters Local 20 for the refuse workers. They rejected the agreed-upon terms unanimously.

And of course they did! The other unions, through one means or another, have gotten back all they originally gave up so why should the refuse workers not stand pat on their current benefits and wages?

So now the taxpayers are screwed - again - and the city unions are not really making any concessions whatsoever. So much for the 'shared pain' everyone was talking about in March.

And as I write this, I'm listening to Mayor Mike Bell being interviewed on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD. And he's saying that yes, he's managed to get a balanced budget for this year and will look at all the costs he's pushed into 2011 between now and the end of the year when he hopes to see increased revenues as a result of an improving economy.

But as so many are fond of asking, "what if" we don't see an improved economy in Toledo and those hoped-for revenues don't materialize? All we've done is postpone the inevitable.

How much do you think the trash tax will increase then?

No wonder we're losing population faster than we can count. People are disgusted and who can blame them?

***Note: This post probably doesn't reflect just how angry, livid, irate I am over the issue. But there really aren't words for the level of outrage I'm feeling.
***

Basic questions to ask before implementing a new law

"[W]here there is no law, there is no liberty; and nothing deserves the name of law but that which is certain and universal in its operation upon all the members of the community." ~ Benjamin Rush

I recently read Leslie Carbone's book, "Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform," and while it deals with the issue of taxes and developing a better tax system, it includes some questions that I think are pertinent and should be asked whenever a new law is considered.

I was thinking about this in relation to Issues 1, 2 and 3 on the November ballot, as well as the texting while driving ordinance before Toledo City Council.

What I'd like to know is this: who has asked - and answered - these questions (paraphrased from the book) on these proposals:

* What does the Constitution say?
* What are some of the unintended consequences? Does it promote dependence or laziness? Does it make immoral behavior easier or attractive?
* Does it pervert justice?
* Is it true reform or just tinkering? Will it increase or decrease complexity?
* Is it impartial, simple, transparent?
* Is it a proper function of government? Is it a good idea? Can the government do it well? What is the track record in similar areas?
* Does it inhibit economic growth?
* Is the government likely to keep its promises regarding the matter?
* Will it expand the power of the state? Does it set up a new state apparatus that could do damage to individuals, liberty or freedom - sooner or later?
* Will it erode privacy - financial or otherwise?
* Is it the best solution or just the quickest fix.

And my question: how does the proposal increase freedom, liberty and encourage personal responsibility? The goal, after all, is freedom.

Before you vote on the state-wide issues, ask yourselves these questions. And before Toledo City Council passes a new law, ask the members of council what the answers to these questions are - or if they've even considered these questions as part of their deliberations on the law.

We'll have a better city, county, state, and nation, if we think about these things before, rather than after, laws have been put into place.

And think, too, about this point: when was the last time a government actually repealed a law - voluntarily???? If we wait until after laws are passed, it's too late.

It's called 'savings' for a reason

Dictionary.com defines 'savings' as:

–noun
5. a reduction or lessening of expenditure or outlay: a saving of 10 percent.
6. something that is saved.
7. savings, sums of money saved by economy and laid away.

Pretty simply, isn't it? Common sense? Definitely. If you have cost 'savings,' it means money not spent.

Except when it comes to politicians - especially in our area.

The most recent example is Lucas County Commissioner and mayoral candidate Ben Konop's idea for garbage.

You see, he doesn't think that anyone over 62 or disabled is capable of putting out their trash on a weekly basis - so government needs to do it for them.

Let's start with the condescending attitude that age equates to infirmity. My parents are both over the age of 62 and are perfectly capable of taking out their garbage, even in bad weather. Now, I recognize that not everyone over 62 is in good health, but to set an age limit doesn't make sense.

It does make sense to address those with disabilities. But if a person has a disability, how are they taking care of their garbage right now? The new cans will have wheels which make them easier to maneuver - and residents have the option of smaller sizes to fit their needs. So the new cans aren't any more difficult than whatever is being used right now by people with disabilities.

The suggestion that people with disabilities need help might also be offensive to those with disabilities who prefer to think of themselves as 'differently abled' and who have made accommodations for such routine tasks as taking out their garbage.

Konop also suggests that it's not 'morally right' to 'force' someone to take care of their garbage:

"It's not morally right to force a 95-year-old grandmother in the city of Toledo living alone to take one of these to the curb by herself," Mr. Konop said, pointing out the increased difficulty of doing it in winter.

This is the same Konop who thinks he has 'no moral obligation' to appear on WSPD radio, so I'm not sure about his judgment when it comes to 'moral' issues. But even if you think he's right about the grandmother, does that mean that you and I need to pay taxes in order to meet what Konop believes is a 'moral obligation'? (And just how many of these grandmothers do we actually have in Toledo????) Aye, there's the rub...and the point of this post.

He didn't have a cost estimate. "If there are additional costs, I think we can generate it from savings," he said.

I do not understand why it is that politicians, and Konop in particular, think that finding savings in government operations means that the money can be spent in another way that they think is equally, or more, important.

Konop has suggested savings in county government operations in the past - some of which I believe deserve further examination and discussion. But he didn't want to have savings in order to reduce the overall cost of government. No, he wanted those savings so he could spend the money on his pet projects (can you say government funded scholarships). And his suggestion for his latest 'bold, fresh, new' proposal is to again use taxpayer funds for what he thinks is a better use.

Konop isn't the only one - politicians do this all the time. They decide they want X so they take money from Y or generate 'savings' from cutting Z and then put the money toward what they want (or what they've told their constituents they can get them) and they think all is well. Obviously, if government has the money it needs to spend it. Heaven forbid that they actually return any of it to the taxpayer who provided it. And they only look for 'savings' when they have another need for the funds - they rarely, if ever, decide to reduce the cost and size of government 'just because' it's the right thing to do.

What they all fail to realize (or maybe they do realize and just don't care) is that savings created should not be spent in the first place - they should be used for either the long-term needs of the mandated - and limited - functions of government, to cover down times like we're having now so we jurisdictions don't end up laying off police officers, or returned to the public from whence it came.

That's what we all do with savings. Think government will ever learn that lesson?

Why must we continue to fund increasing government expenses?

Why is it that we must continue to pay high taxes in order to preserve 'public services'?

When we, as individuals, are strapped for cash, we start cutting back. When was the last time you actually saw government 'cut back'? And I don't mean by delaying pay increases or reducing certain types of service. I mean seriously cutting?

Over the last 20 years, numerous companies have restructured, laid off employees, reorganized, etc... Do you recall our local government ever doing anything like that? I don't!

The City of Toledo's Development office has three development specialists, a senior development specialist, a real estate specialist, a manager of real estate, an administrator-finances/project compliance, and a commissioner. That's an eight-person department in addition to the Lucas County Improvement Corporation, the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority and the Regional Growth Partnership - all of whom do economic development.

And does the mayor really need all these 'assistants' and staff?

Mayor's Office Robert Reinbolt Chief of Staff
Mayor's Office David Moebius Assistant Chief of Staff/Safety Director
Mayor's Office Thomas Kroma Assistant Chief of Staff
Mayor's Office Brian Schwartz Executive Assistant to the Mayor
Mayor's Office Barbara Sperr Administrative Assistant to the Mayor
Mayor's Office Pam Knight Administrative Assistant to the COS
Mayor's Office Carmen Watkins Secretary
Mayor's Office Lesa James Secretary
Mayor's Office Claudia Mitchell Mayor's Assistant
Mayor's Office Ryan Reiter Mayor's Assistant
Mayor's Office Katerina Bekyarska Mayor's Assistant
Mayor's Office Nicole Adler Receptionist
Mayor's Office Sarah Velliquette

How many supervisors, superintendents, managers, commissioners and directors does one city really need? Does the city really need a public Youth Commission? Isn't this something that the numerous youth organizations in the city can be responsible for?

How about an Arts Commission - do we need to take limited tax revenues to pay for public art? What about the Mayor's Commission on Disabilities? Is it really the role of city government to:

* promote the value of diversity, dignity and the quality of life for people with disabilities.
* assure that people with disabilities receive services and other assistance and opportunities they need to achieve their maximum potential through increased independence, productivity, and integration into the community.

How much could the city save by eliminating all but the most basic of services?

Such elimination would certainly result in cries and moans from various groups who believe that such government departments are a necessity. But many of these tasks are done to cater to special interests - not to meet the basic government service requirements. And many of these departments might be nice, but with dwindling tax revenues, extremely tough local economic conditions and the corresponding limited funds available to residents, they do not constitute a priority for the city as a whole.

So why must we forever be expected to continue to fund government in spite of our own decreasing incomes? That's a question I'd love to have our Mayor and City Council members answer - especially when it comes to the vote on the 3/4% payroll income tax.

Think any of them would actually answer - or would tap dance music be required?