Toledo pools will open - without government funding

Apparently, the City of Toledo has learned a valuable lesson:  It open city pools and doesn't have to spend limited tax dollars to do so.

According to today's paper, six pools and a splashpad, that were not funding in the city's 2015 budget, will open due to an influx of donations from companies, unions and others.

The Blade also reported that the cost of opening the pools this year would be around $400,000.

As I've previously noted on this blog, the pools are a huge money drain for the city and even the paper and administrators have finally noted that attendance has been falling over the years.

According to City of Toledo Finance Director George Sarantou, last year the pools too in only $11,437 leaving a deficit of about $350,000.

According to District 5 Councilman Tom Waniewski, that's $3,000 per child who used the pools.

The city needs to do more of this and find ways to NOT spend tax dollars, especially since it's still raiding the Capital Improvement Plan funds to pay for every day expenses.

Who is responsible for your health?

This ad is from the CDC which is no longer
just the Centers for Disease Control,but is
now the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.

Forgive me for getting this wrong, but I always thought I - and I alone - was responsible for my health.

Sure, genetics play a role, but whether I was overweight or underweight , ate junk food or fruits and vegetables, exercised or not ... all that was on me.

Apparently I'm wrong.  Well, at least according to today's lead editorial in The Blade.

Yes, they do say our individual health is partially on us and the decisions we make, but they also say:

"The report notes that Ohio ranks near the top in the percentage of its adults who smoke, and of children exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes. Such things are as much a matter of individual responsibility, or its absence, as of inadequate public policy.

Really?  Inadequate public policy is to blame if you or I smoke?

Who DOESN'T know that smoking is bad for you?

In fact, people who do smoke, do so in spite of the fact that they know it's bad for them and for anyone who lives in their smoke-filled house.

How can inadequate public policy be to blame for that?

They even write:

"But it isn't just the responsibility of government to make Ohioans healthier and more productive."

Hmm... I guess I missed that responsibility in the U.S. Constitution as well as the state constitution.

For the record, I don't smoke - never have.  Neither has my husband. My sister does, but she doesn't smoke in my house and has never asked to do so.  Most smokers are considerate in that respect.

But no amount of government spending is going to make her stop. In fact, I doubt that anyone has decided to stop smoking because government spent money on an advertisement bemoaning the ill effects of the practice.

People stop smoking when THEY want to. They are the ones who must make the choice, which means it is entirely an individual responsibility and action.

The primary reason for the editorial is to call for "greater public investment" - that means spending - arguing that the more government spends on preventive care, the less it should end up spending on actual, more expensive, care as a result of bad habits.

You see, the 'logic' is that if government spends more money up front telling people how to be healthy, they'll have to spend less treating these people when they end up with costly diseases like cancer, heart disease, etc...

But first the people have to actually head the direction from the government to lead healthier lives - and that certainly isn't the case, at least, not for the majority of people.

There's an easy solution to the state spending so much money on actual care of illnesses that are preventable:  Don't.

What if the government warned people ahead of time that if they get cancer from smoking none of their health bills will be covered?  In fact, what if the government said that the cost of any illness or disease that was the result of self-inflicted activity wouldn't be covered?

Would people make better decisions knowing they'd be responsible for all the costs associated with bad habits, or that they might have to go without treatment if they couldn't afford it?

It's an interesting question and one that too few stop to consider.

But the government is all too happy to pay because, in doing so, they develop justification for telling you how to live. It is the 'logic' they use for controlling your life:  We're going to end of paying for your health care so we have the authority to tell you how to keep yourself healthy so we don't have to pay so much.

Oh, they might not say so in so many words, the bottom line is control - of your eating habits, exercise regimen and decisions.

Just look at Michele Obama's Healthy Hunger-Free Act which, as of a year ago, had 1 million kids leaving the school lunch line.

It doesn't stop.

And sadly, too many editorials are all to happy to jump on the bandwagon and advocate for even more government involvement in our daily lives, because (clearly) they know what is best and its for our own good.

Council members should reimburse city for contributions, candidate Ron Johns says

Toledo council candidate Ron Johns

In July, Toledo City Council voted to give $50,000 to two local charitable (non-profit) organizations. There is no policy guiding such expenditures and other organizations were not given the same opportunity to receive public funds. I'm opposed to government making charitable donations and thought that is the organizations were so "worthy," council should have given their own money - not ours.

I emailed council members to ask about whether they'd spent their own money in addition to ours.

Rob Ludeman explained his vote by saying both organizations were "worthy" but admitted he had not given any of his own money to them because they hadn't asked.

D. Michael Collins, also a candidate for mayor, balked at answering such a personal question, then personally attacked me for having the gall to question him.

Council President Paula Hicks-Hudson claimed the money sent to the charities wasn't a donation - but what was it then?

Now council candidate Ron Johns wants the members of council to reimburse the city for the donations.

Here is his press release (as issued) calling for a "F.A.I.R." resolution:

“The F.A.I.R. Resolution”
Fair Allocation of Internal Revenue (FAIR)

July, 23th of 2013, eleven out of twelve Toledo City council members and the mayor voted to give public monies to two private charities they saw fit of receiving it. The two charities were The African American Legacy fund who was given $20,000 and the University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center who received $30,000 equating to $50,000 of public monies given away to private charities.

The mayor and 11 members of city council obviously saw these charities as doing a large amount of good, however they gave money that was not theirs to give. Our legislators had full intent to fund private organizations that they individually saw as worthy causes off of the taxpayers’ back, even if they didn’t agree with it. For that very reason I am today introducing the F.A.I.R. resolution to allow local politicians to give back the fair amount of money to the community from which they took from.

The FAIR resolution has been designed to point out what is fair and what is not, to illuminate the true role of government and reveal blatant misuse of city funds. The resolution is just a resolution, however if the mayor and eleven members of council who voted in favor of the donations really believe in the tax dollars it gave to private charities then they shouldn’t mind giving it themselves.

The resolution states that “If a vote is not held to cancel the donations before money is transferred, the Mayor and 11 City Council members who voted in favor of the donations shall be required to pay 1/12th of the final total of donations granted in reparations to the City of Toledo, or $4,167 per individual.”

Ron Johns will hold a press conference to discuss the F.A.I.R. resolution by the Civic Plaza fountain in front of 1 Government center Saturday, August 31st, beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 1:30 p.m.

For more information contact: Ron Johns/419-481-3568
############
-30-

Taxes - how it all began

It's not often that I'd share a bit of information from Accounting-Degree.org, but I thought this infographic about taxes and the IRS was pretty interesting...


Source: Accounting-Degree.org

Is it time for an Ohio Financial Responsibility in Government Act?

I received the following press release about a bill that Rep. Lou Terhar wants to introduce in the Ohio House. It *sounds* good, but the devil is always in the details.

One detail extremely important to Toledoans is whether or not the language would allow the city to transfer funds from the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to the General Fund in order to cover their overspending - as in spending more than they take in.

Inquiring minds....guess we'll have to wait for the actual language, but if it would ban such a transfer, expect to see huge pressure from municipalities to defeat the bill.

Press Release:

Rep. Terhar Announces Financial Responsibility in Government Act

COLUMBUS—Rep. Lou Terhar (R- Green Township) announced today that he will soon be introducing legislation, the Financial Responsibility in Government Act, and that he will be seeking co-sponsors during the next ten days.

The proposed legislation will focus on financial requirements that would apply to three main areas:

1. All governmental subdivisions in the state will be required to operate their annual budgets without any deficit spending. The balanced budget requirement applicable to the state under the Ohio Constitution will also be applicable to all of the state’s political subdivisions.

2. Indebtedness undertaken by any political subdivision in Ohio must comply with the total indebtedness restrictions and funding requirements that are applicable to the State of Ohio.

3. All political subdivisions of the State of Ohio that sponsor any type of pension plan must comply with the actuarial requirements that are currently in place for the State of Ohio.

“The bankruptcy of Stockton, California and more recent filing in Detroit serve as reminders that we should not leave Ohio’s political subdivisions open to this type of potential budget crisis in the future. Municipal bankruptcies hurt not only the city, but also negatively affect the economic health of the region. State resources are stretched thin due to new unemployment claims, added health care costs and a whole host of social services. We in the legislature have an obligation to protect our constituents,” said Representative Terhar.

“The state itself is required by the Ohio Constitution to balance its operating budget,” Representative Terhar continued. “It only makes sense that the political subdivisions of the state have balanced budgets as well. Therefore, I will be introducing legislation requiring Ohio’s political subdivisions to balance their budgets in the same manner as the state is required to balance its budget.”

An official bill has yet to be released but is expected to be introduced before the end of the legislative recess.


-30-

Money to charities not a donation, council president says

Hicks-Hudson says donation
not really a donation.

After 11 members of Toledo City Council voted on July 23 to give $20,000 to the African American Legacy Project and $30,000 to the University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center, I wrote to them asking why.

After raising our water and sewer rates, not reducing the trash tax to zero as promised, putting a parks and recreation levy on the ballot last year because they just didn't have enough money, and continuing to raid the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) fund in order to balance the yearly budget, you'd think additional spending would be rejected.

Not our council. So I asked them:

If these organizations are so worthy of support that you must give them our limited tax dollars, how much of your own money have you given to them?

At-large councilman Rob Ludeman said they were 'worthy' organizations, but he hadn't given to them of his own personal funds because he had "never been asked."

District 2 councilman and mayoral candidate D. Michael Collins balked at answering such a personal question, despite an earlier press conference in which he released his credit report and said candidates' finances are relevant:

Mr. Collins opened the door into his personal finances during a morning news conference, when he said the candidates’ finances are relevant for voters. “The next mayor will become CEO for the city of Toledo and will be in charge of nearly a half-billion-dollar budget,” Mr. Collins said. “Transparency on how mayoral candidates handle their personal finances is key for the citizens of Toledo in making their decision on who is best qualified to lead the city.”

He didn't give to the AALP of his own funds either, though he is a donor to the University of Toledo, but not the UAC specifically.

At-Large Councilman
Tyrone Riley

At-Large councilman Tyrone Riley responded with this:

Thank you for writing me with your concern. I support both organizations. The organizations in question serve a viable and important role in our community.

But does 'support' mean in principle or with actual personal funds? I'm still waiting for the answer to that.

Council President Paula Hicks-Hudson was late in responding, but apologized. Her positions is that these are not 'donations.'

I wanted to let you know why I supported the two ordinances. Sorry for the delay. The African American Legacy Project is an organization that is working to preserve, restore and exhibit the contributions of African American Toledo citizens. They moved into the Ascension Church building and are working toward providing a stabilizing asset to this corridor. As you know, the Toledo Art Museum is less than ½ mile from the location. These funds will assist the Project in its mission and will be an asset for all people in this community. The funding to The Urban Affairs Center is actually an agreement for research and technical assistance for city council. Council is somewhat limited in its ability to acquire best practices, specific research on various issues that we face in our roles on council. Thus it is not a donation.

Further, I do not view the funds to the AALP as a donation. But, as part of their annual fundraising efforts, I have contributed to the project, as well as others.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

I can understand her belief that the money sent to the UAC was not a 'donation' because they do perform various research projects on numerous issues. They also do surveys and polling. But according to their website, they charge a fee for those specific projects to the requesting entity. Toledo has not asked for anything specific, so the $30,000 was for the overall work they are doing. What determines the exact nature of the payment is whether or not it was sent to the UT Foundation, as instructed on their web site:

Individuals interested in supporting the UAC may make tax-deductible contributions to:

The UT Foundation
Driscoll Alumni Center Rm 1002
MS 319
The University of Toledo
2801 W. Bancroft Street
Toledo, Ohio 43606
utfoundation@utoledo.edu

If this is where the city sent the money, then it's a tax-deductible donation, regardless of what Hicks-Hudson says.

And since this is tax dollars, where are the charitable donation receipts for each Toledoan?

Hicks-Hudson also writes that she "doesn't view the funds to AALP as a donation."

Which begs the question: if you do not consider it a donation, what would you call it?

And that's what I asked her in my reply.

Perhaps she should re-read Ordinance 331-13 (emphasis added):

Authorizing the disappropriation of $20,000 from the General Fund, Safety Administration and the appropriation of said amount to the General Fund, Office of the Mayor; authorizing the expenditure of $20,000 from the General Fund as a contribution to the African-American Legacy Project; and declaring an emergency.

I also asked if council had a policy regarding such donations/expenditures that set forth the criteria for consideration and, if not, when they would be developing one.

I'll let you know if I get a response.

No matter what they call it, this is an unacceptable use of our limited tax dollars.

Council has no business picking and choosing charitable winners who get public funds. The fact that there is no criteria for determining what organizations, if any, are the recipient of the council members' largess with other peoples' money is completely beside the point, but it makes this particular action worse.

Our personal favorite charity is Mobile Meals of Toledo. While we donate to a number of charities, this one receives our time as well.

What if they asked council for $20,000? Certainly they're 'more worthy' of funding than a department at a publicly-funded university, right? MM feeds people after all - would could be more worthy than that?

Would they get $20,000? Or would the fact that they don't have a personal connection to either the mayor or members of council mean their request would be ignored - or not be given the same priority?

If you're wondering about that last reference, you need to read this:

What was interesting is that in 2006 the organization's total contributions were $24,476 and only $7,467 in 2009. That makes a $20,000 contribution from City Council look even more suspicious. And it gets better.

On the form's list of "Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Key Employees" (none of whom, according to the form, received compensation), I found two familiar names--Dr. Cecelia Adams and Norman Bell, Sr. Isn't that interesting? Geez--I bet it's only a coincidence that a TPS board member and the mayor's father are key individuals in the African American Legacy Project.

Perhaps every 'worthy' charitable organization in the area should ask for $20,000 of taxpayer funds. Maybe then council - and the mayor - would realize what a huge mistake they've made.

On second thought - maybe not. They'd probably have to borrow even more money from the CIP to do so.

Collins balks at answering 'personal' question re: giving tax dollars to charities

Collins balks at being asked
'personal' question about
his vote to give tax dollars to
charities.

After Toledo City Council voted to give a total of $50,000 to two local charitable groups, I sent an email to the 11 members who voted yes. I wanted to know:

If these organizations are so worthy of support that you must give them our limited tax dollars, how much of your own money have you given to them?

At-Large Councilman Rob Ludeman was the first to respond and, after a couple of back-and-forths, admitted that no, he doesn't give his own funds to these groups, but he was happy to give 'other people's money' to them.

District 2 Councilman and mayoral candidate D. Michael Collins was the second to respond with this:

In response to your e-mail, I respectfully offer you the following. The University of Toledo’s, Urban Affairs Center, performs valuable research into best practices of municipal government, urban social options, challenges and pathways to successful governance. I have had the opportunity in my office to look at some of the 95 (since 2012) publications they have produced and found them to be of value. In terms of The African American Legacy Project, I strongly believe a robust community is one of diversity, cultural and leadership foundations. Toledo and Northwest Ohio must demonstrate that we are strengthened and enhanced because of these efforts.

To close, the quality of sound scholastic research can never be undervalued; in fact, this regions future will be to a major extent defined within the relationships between government and higher education.

Respectfully,

D. Michael Collins

Respectfully, he didn't answer the question - and I told him so:

Thank you for your response extolling the virtue and value of the organizations. Their 'worth' was not questioned.

The question, to which I am still awaiting a response, was this: If these organizations are so worthy of support that you must give them our limited tax dollars, how much of your own money have you given to them?

Interestingly, I was copied on an email another citizen sent to Collins. He just forwarded this first answer he gave to me. He didn't even bother to cut to and paste the answer, just forwarded the entire email. Talk about poor constituent relations....

Collins did send another email after I told him he hadn't answered the question:

I hesitate to answer your personal question, however if you must know, my wife and I are members of the President’s Club at the University of Toledo. If you not familiar with this, it is a commitment of $1,000 a year for ten years. We opted to continue our support as 2013 was our final year.

As to the African American Legacy legislation, since that legislation was from the office of the Mayor, you may be better served in asking him as to his belief in its value.

Best wishes,

D. Michael Collins

Really? He 'hesitates' to answer the personal question? Perhaps if he weren't voting to give away our money for pet projects that he deems 'worthy' he wouldn't be asked such 'personal' questions in the first place.

And this is an elected city councilman who is also running for mayor who just recently released his credit report:

Mr. Collins opened the door into his personal finances during a morning news conference, when he said the candidates’ finances are relevant for voters. “The next mayor will become CEO for the city of Toledo and will be in charge of nearly a half-billion-dollar budget,” Mr. Collins said. “Transparency on how mayoral candidates handle their personal finances is key for the citizens of Toledo in making their decision on who is best qualified to lead the city.”

And now he's complaining about answering a question directly related to a vote he cast?

And then he said I should be talking to the mayor because it was his legislation. Did Collins somehow forget, in the span of the electronic conversation, that he voted yes on it? Sadly, this type of deflection, diversion and condescending attitude has been my experience with Collins over the years.

Collins is to be commended for financially supporting the University of Toledo. But that begs the question of why a department of UT, a taxpayer-funded public university, needs additional 'donations' for one of its departments. Doesn't it charge for studies it does on behalf of its clients? Why are they even asking for money in the first place? (I think I'll leave that to a separate post.)

The conversation continued with my follow-up:

Thank you for the response regarding the University of Toledo.

As for the other, it doesn't matter who presented the legislation, you voted for it. You voted to take limited tax dollars and "donate" it to a cause you deemed worthy. I believe taxpayers are entitled to know if you support the organization with your own dollars as well as theirs. Are you refusing to answer the question as it applies to the African American Legacy Project?

I don't know how much clearer I can make the question.

His response:

You have my answer to both questions, I might add when you held elected office I have no recollection of you being as transparent in your personal issues as I have been!

Seriously? A personal attack? This is how a mayoral candidate and sitting councilman responds to his constituents?

As an elected official, I was extremely transparent. But more importantly, I refused to vote to give tax dollars to charities.

During my term as County Commissioner, one of the local food banks was robbed. My fellow commissioner, Tina Skeldon-Wozniak, hastily drafted a resolution to give the food bank $1,000 from the county general fund to help them replenish their shelves. Commissioner Harry Barlos was ready to go along with the plan. I wasn't.

First, boards of county commissioners have limited authority. As the local arm of state government and an administrative body, not a legislative one, they can do only what the Ohio Revised Code permits. If the Ohio Revised Code is silent on an issue, commissioners cannot act.

So when the resolution was presented in our BCC meeting, I pointed this out to my fellow commissioners. I then challenged them: if they wanted to give $1,000 to the food bank, certainly a "worthy" and deserving entity, I'd be happy to split the amount with them and donate from my personal (not my campaign) funds and help the food bank restock their shelves.

There was silence from my fellow commissioners.

Then we moved on to the next item on the agenda.

I did give the food bank my share...but my fellow commissioners did not.

This told me an awful lot about the two individuals and about politicians in general. We all know they spend 'other people's money' very readily, but when it comes to spending their own on all these 'worthy' causes, most of them fall short - very short. Which is why I asked the question in the first place.

At-Large Councilman Tyrone Riley also replied, but I needed to clarify his response and will share his emails when I receive them. I've not heard from anyone else and I'm not optimistic that I will.

Just remember, Toledoans, these people work for you. If your boss sent you an email asking you to explain your actions, would you just ignore him? And if you did, would there be no consequences?

Tax dollars went to 'worthy' charities, Ludeman says

Councilman Rob Ludeman first to
respond to request.

Toledo City Council voted to make a 'donation' (their word, not mine) to two local organizations: $20,000 to the African American Legacy Project and $30,000 to the University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center.

I blogged about how wrong it is for council to spend our money in this manner and wondered if these 'worthy' organizations had been 'worthy' enough to get any of the council members' personal funds. So I asked them.

Here is the email I sent to the 11 members who voted in favor of both ordinances:

Yesterday 11 of you voted to make donations with our tax dollars to the African American Legacy Project and the Toledo Urban Affairs Center.

If these organizations are so worthy of support that you must give them our limited tax dollars, how much of your own money have you given to them?

I must say, though, that I'm not optimistic that even half of you will bother to respond even though it's an extremely valid question that deserves an answer.

Yes, I admit that I'm cynical when it comes to responses from my elected representatives, but apparently justified.

At-Large Councilman Rob Ludeman was the first to respond:

Hello Maggie. I got your e-mail and as I do am sending a reply. We vote on a lot of legislation in each meeting and it is interesting when members of Council are criticized over individual votes. The two that have come up this week are the $30,000 for the Urban Affairs Center and $20,000 for the African American Legacy Project. President Paula Hicks Hudson introduced the Urban Affairs legislation. During my tenure on Council the city has partnered in many ways with UT and the Urban Affairs Center. They have done numerous studies for and with us to help with different aspects of our city. The Mayor introduced the other piece. There was a question last week if it could be funded from a different fund source but it could not. In difficult times of potential racial divide this project may help make a difference in our community. Looking at the overall picture both seemed worthy of my support. Many cutbacks have occurred in our city government in the past ten years. I am proud to be a part of avoiding a $48 million dollar deficit in my first year back on Council in 2010. Every department has made severe cuts with not a single person laid off. We are back on track and assisting viable components in our community on a much smaller scale than in the past is a prudent investment in our future. Having been a district councilman and now at large, I know that every district council member has lobbied hard for projects in their neighborhoods. Each request is scrutinized and questioned before a Council vote, as were these two ordinances, and a decision is reached. I know not every vote I make will be appreciated by every citizen. But I have never voted without knowledge of the issue.

As far as my record on donating to worthy groups and organizations, Elaine and I give a substantial amount of our hard earned dollars to a multitude of charities as well as our church. We believe in giving back to our community in both time and money.

I did want to respond and let you know my thoughts.

Take care, Rob

While I appreciate that Ludeman replied, he didn't answer the question, though he did extol the virtues of the recipients.

My reply back:

Thanks for your reply, but you did not answer the question: How much of your own money did you give to either of these organizations? I ask it again, especially in light of your comment: "Looking at the overall picture both seemed worthy of my support."

As for the UT Urban Affairs Center, when they have conducted studies on behalf of the City, did you not pay them for the work at the time it was done?

No one has said the two organizations are not good entities nor that the work they do is not important. That is not the question.

When the City (not specifically you, but as an entity) is constantly telling us they don't have enough money for essential services, insists on raising rates on water/sewer, imposes a trash tax which was supposed to be reduced to zero but now seems to be a forever charge, and cannot seem to fix numerous potholes, why do 'we' have money for charitable organizations? And if these are 'worthy,' are you going to give to every charity that puts its hand out?

I'd really appreciate an answer to the original question.

And Ludeman did respond with an answer:

No, but have never been asked by either entity.

So he hasn't given of his own funds because he hasn't been asked, but he gave of our funds because that's what they asked for?

Perhaps that's a cynical conclusion that Ludeman doesn't deserve, but I cannot help but be incredulous over the 'logic.'

Ludeman did not answer the second question that arose: If these organizations are 'worthy,' are you going to give to every charity that puts its hand out for taxpayer dollars?

My guess is that the answer would be 'no,' but if so, how does council decide where to draw the line?

Will all charities who get a council member to support them get funds? Where is the 'fairness' in giving to one but not to all?

Will council support charities of fellow Democrat members and reject charities of Republican ones? Who doesn't believe politics plays no role in this?

What about the charities I support versus the ones I don't? Why should my tax dollars be used to support charities I might not favor? And can the charities I like get $20,000 too?

Does the city really have enough money to accommodate all the requests for charitable donations? And if not, should any get taxpayer dollars?

Here's the thing that really gets me. If the African American Legacy Project really needed $20,000 so badly, couldn't the 11 council members and mayor (who appears to support the 'donation') have given or raised it personally?

It's only $1667 per person.

Don't council members have the gravitas to raise that much for a 'worthy' cause? They certainly seem able to do it for themselves when it comes to their campaigns.

Mayor Mike Bell should veto this.

As then-Representative James Madison said in a speech on the House floor during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees":

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

Hey Toledo City Council: make donations with your own money, not the taxpayers'!

Does Toledo really have money to burn?

Would you like to make a donation to the African American Legacy Project?

The majority of Toledoans have probably never heard of it, but here is a summary of the group from their web page:

a) Vision Statement
The African American Legacy Project (AALP) shall be the innovative multi-disciplinary epicenter, celebrating the triumph and spirit of the African-American experience. The African American Legacy Project exists to:
• Be a vehicle for raising the historical and present cognizance levels of African Americans in Northwest Ohio communities
• Be a motivator and promoter of community development
• Be a resource and repository for historic, current, and cultural inquiry
• Be an avenue for nurturing unity and the creative process

b) Mission Statement
The AALP pledges to stimulate the intellectual, socioeconomic and participatory growth in communities wherein African Americans reside

c) Statement of Purpose
The purpose of The African American Legacy Project is to bring together people who are interested in documenting and preserving the history of northwest Ohio’s African American communities and their impact and influence upon Toledo and the greater world community. Additionally, The African American Legacy Project will examine and record the socio-economic and cultural impact of African Americans for present and future generations of African Americans as we as the broader world society.
The primary function of The African American Legacy Project is to discover, document and preserve artifacts and historical information demonstrative, representative, and reflective of life, lifestyles and culture of Toledo’s African American community.

They are a 501(c)3 so all donations to them are deductible and they have a link on their site to donate, as well as a long listing of supporters/sponsors for their Easter Egg Hunt event earlier this year. They seem to be a good group - right? So how 'bout making a donation?

But Maggie, you say, I've got increased water and sewer rates, gas prices are still high and I have a tire to fix after hitting that huge pothole up the street that I know is there, but seem to forget until I actually land in it. I'm not interested in giving away my money to any group right now, no matter how worthy.

That's okay - because the City of Toledo just did that for you.

Last night every member of Toledo City Council except District 5 representative Tom Waniewski voted to give $20,000 of your tax dollars to this organization.

They voted the same way when it came to a request for $30,000 for the University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center, which already receives funding from the University. According to the ordinance granting the "donation," the Urban Affairs Center a valuable community resource.

In case you're not familiar with the UAC, here is their mission:

The Urban Affairs Center is an applied research unit of The University of Toledo and a member of the Ohio Urban University Program. The mission of the Urban Affairs Center is to enhance the economic vitality and quality of life of Toledo and its metropolitan region. We do this by identifying challenges and facilitating solutions in the areas of neighborhood, urban, and regional development.

UAC lists their community advisors which is a who's who of Democrat office holders, though it is outdated, and includes Republican councilman George Sarountou. Apparently, he didn't think it was a conflict of interest to vote to give money to a group he advises.

These donations came out of the city's General Fund - which is supposed to pay for everyday expenses like office supplies, salaries, etc...

Remember the Recreation Levy the Democrats on city council just had to have because they didn't have enough money to properly care for our parks?

And the transfers out of our Capital Improvement Budget in order to cover huge deficits in the General Fund?

At last count, they'd raided a total of $50 million from the CIP with another $12 million planned for 2012. Since the audit for 2012 isn't published yet, I don't have a final figure, but they planned to raid an additional $14 million for 2013!

They must believe they have money to burn.

This is not the role of city council - to take our hard-earned and limited tax dollars and give it to charities of their choice. They weren't elected to donate money to causes they deem worthy. They were elected to run the city and oversee the administration of the police and fire departments, the taxation department, and other necessary functions.

Here's the question no one asked, but I'm dying to know the answer to: how much of their own money have these city council members donated to these 'worthy causes'????

I've sent an email to them to find find out, and will share with you any response, but I'm not optimistic about getting an answer.

How much do you want to be the answer is $0?

Toledo gets $2.4 million rebate from BWC

The City of Toledo, like many other employers in the state, is getting a refund from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation...the question, though, is what they're going to do with it. Spend it, is my guess, which is confirmed by a press release issued by the city. The bigger question is this: once you spend the money on increased safety forces, how will you pay them in the future?

Press release:

City of Toledo receives $2.4 million rebate from Bureau of Workers’ Compensation

Toledo Mayor Michael P. Bell today accepted a check in the amount $2,498,478.33 from the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. The funds come as a rebate announced by Bureau as a result of greater than anticipated dividends on investments.

Mayor Bell thanked the Bureau and Governor John Kasich for their efficiency in managing the agency and for returning the dividends to the municipalities and businesses required to purchase the state provided insurance.

“This rebate will reduce the amount of money allocated to our workers’ compensation fund from the general fund and provide additional funding to increase manpower in our safety forces,” said Mayor Bell.

Thanks in part to the BWC rebate, the city now plans to hire a class of 50 firefighters in August. The original 2013 general fund budget called for a class of only 30 recruits. A class of 65 police officers is budgeted to begin in October 2013 as well. Since taking office, Bell has hired 142 firefighters and 115 police officers. The 2013 classes will bring those totals to 192 firefighters and 180 police officers hired during his inaugural term as mayor.

###

Toledo's $5 million surplus is really a $4 million deficit!

On Thursday, Toledo Mayor Mike Bell announced that the city had a $5.08 million surplus at the end of 2012.

But the 2012 budget called for $12 million to be transferred from the Capital Improvement Program fund (CIP) into the General Fund to pay for the yearly expenses.

When the budget was finalized, that transfer amount was increased to $13 million.

According to Jennifer Sorgenfrei, the city's public information officer, the total amount actually transferred into the General Fund was $9 million.

So - $9 million raided from the CIP to cover yearly costs and $5 million left over means that the city actually had a $4 million deficit.

Despite taking in more $3 million more than they expected and having $6 million less expenses than they planned, they still had to raid the CIP to cover their overspending.

And overspending it is when the outlay is greater than the income.

So, they've got $5 million left over - but that's just money that never should have been taken out of the CIP in the first place.

What will council do with this $5.08 million???

They should return it to the CIP - and plan to replace the $59 million total they've taken out of the fund that is supposed to pay for long-term projects likes roads and buildings, vehicles and infrastructure.

But they won't. They'll spend it, of course.

Faced with a choice of returning the money to the CIP or spending it on their own pet projects, our council members have shown that they always choose their own pet projects over the interests of the taxpayer.

Only in Toledo is an actual deficit characterized as a budget surplus and only here is that cause for even more spending.

Can you say 'stuck on stupid'???

Toledo claims $5.08 million budget surplus for 2012

According the following press release, the City of Toledo has completed their books for 2012 and is showing $5.08 million in surplus as of the end of the year.

What is not mentioned is whether or not any funds were transferred from the Capital Improvement Projects Fund (CIP) as planned in the original budget. The city originally budgeted a transfer of $12 million from the CIP into the General Fund to cover everyday expenses. If they transferred the full $12 million, it would bring the total amount diverted from the CIP to $62 million.

So if there is $5.08 million left over and the DID transfer $12 million, then they spent $7 million more than their income.

If they did NOT transfer any funds out of CIP and they've got $5.08 million left over, then they need to put that money back into the CIP to replace a small portion of the $50 million they've taken from the fund in the past several years.

I've emailed the city's public information officer to inquire about the CIP transfer. I'll let you know when I hear back.

Now that the year-end financials are finished, the auditors will review it and issue a final report.


Here is the press release:

Mayor Bell announces 2012 year end financials, $5 million fund balance anticipated

Mayor Michael P. Bell today announced the 2012 year end financials that have been sent to independent auditors for review and certification. Those figures include a report of income tax revenues totaling $158.5 million and an anticipated positive General Fund balance of $5.008 million.

“We’ve come a long way from where we started when I took office in 2010,” said Mayor Bell. “This city faced a $48 million budget deficit and that required us to make a lot of difficult and unpopular decisions over the last four years. If we had done nothing we would be in the same position as Detroit or Cincinnati. Instead we are seeing growth, increasing our safety forces, cleaning up neighborhoods and paving roads.”

The city faced a $48 million budget shortfall as Bell took office in 2010. Since that time, the city has worked to balance the budget and to restore the rainy day fund. Additionally, 165 police officers and 172 fire fighters will have been hired between 2010 and the end of 2013, more than the previous 12 years combined. The city in 2012 built a new fire station #6, and in 2013 will renovate fire station #3 and build a new fire station #12. More than 1,150 blighted structures have been demolished since 2010 to eliminate nuisances in Toledo neighborhoods.

In contrast, Detroit is facing bankruptcy and layoff of significant numbers in their safety forces. Cincinnati recently narrowly avoided police and fire layoffs after a one-time budget fix. Columbus in 2009 increased their income tax by 0.5% in order to restore services and forestall layoffs among safety forces. Toledo has not increased taxes or enacted mass layoffs under the Bell Administration. Unemployment in Toledo in January 2010 was 13.8% but has dropped to 8.4%; a net gain of approximately 4,500 jobs in the city.

The 2012 financials mark only the second time in a decade that the city’s General Fund ending balance has increased two years in a row. The city ended 2011 with a General Fund balance of $326,000. The strong financial position at the close of 2012 is attributed in part to income tax revenues coming in above budget and expenditure levels below budget.

In addition to the fire station construction, part of the City’s 2013 capital plan includes 61 lane miles of street repaving and reconstruction. Major street reconstruction is already underway on both Secor Road in west Toledo and Collingwood Boulevard in the central city. In total, $45 million will be invested in Toledo streets in 2013. Residential streets will comprise $10.5 million of that, or 22.8 lane miles. Due to the positive fund balance the Mayor has requested the Division of Engineering Services to compile recommendations for additional streets that could be addressed as part of the 2013 plan.

The 2012 financials have been submitted for review and await final confirmation from the independent auditor and the Ohio Auditor of State. Once certified they will be made available through publication of the comprehensive annual financial report. The city is projecting $163 million in income tax revenues for 2013, up from a 2009 low of $141 million, but still lagging from a 2007 high of $169 million.

###

Just what is this 'fiscal cliff' thing and what does it have to do with addiction?

To understand what the 'cliff' is and why everyone is worried and talking (not actually doing anything) about it, you have to go back to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

In 2001, President George W. Bush pushed for - and Congress passed - tax cuts for all income brackets. The Democrats demonized the package claiming it was 'for the rich' and the media happily went along with the spin.

In 2003, there was some follow-up legislation and, again, the left howled about 'tax cuts for the rich.'

Unlike other programs and laws which go on and on forever (whether they should or not), these measures had a sunset clause. They were all set to expire in 10 years. So, unless Congress acted, as of January 1, 2011, taxes for everyone in all income brackets, as well as taxes on capital gains, dividends and estates, were going to rise - or, more specifically, go back to the higher rates under Pres. Bill Clinton.

So in 2010, realizing that they weren't tax cuts just for the rich like they'd told everyone originally, Congress extended the cuts for two years - until January 1, 2013, which is just 14 days away.

If it were just the Bush tax cuts, they might manage to work out a deal to extend them again, even with Democrats and Pres. Barack Obama demanding that millionaires and billionaires pay more. Oh yeah - those millionaires and billionaires are people (and many small business owners who file as individuals) making $250,000 a year - not $1,000,000.

But there's more.

In 2011, the United States was about to reach it's debt limit. For those of you who are unsure, that's like the maximum amount on your credit card. You can spend up to that amount, but they don't let you go over it. In the case of the U.S. government, that's the amount of money the nation has the authority to borrow. We borrowed to the max and, unless we raised the limit so we could borrow more, we wouldn't be able to pay the bills (like to social security recipients, medicare providers, contractors and employees).

This is different than the yearly deficit which is the amount of money government spends every year that is greater than the amount of money it takes in. Spending more than you take in results in a deficit that must be covered, so the U.S. government borrows money to pay the bills. The cumulative amount of money borrowed over the years to cover the individual yearly deficits gives us the debt, which was $14.294 trillion in 2011. We hit that mark on May 16 of that year.

Clearly, cutting spending wasn't an option for Washington so Republicans and Democrats struck a deal. We'll raise the debt ceiling now and form a committee to identify what cuts should be imposed, they told the American people. The normal process in which congressional committees make such decisions was bypassed in favor a "super committee" consisting of 12 individuals and named the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.

They were supposed to reduce the deficit by $1.2 - $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

What made us think that this committee was going to be different than the regular congressional committees? Congress included the policy of sequestration - automatic cuts that would kick in if other cuts were not identified and passed.

As Idea Money Watch explains, the 'super committee' was no different than the other congressional committees and they failed:

Announcing its inability to reach an agreement on November 21, 2011, the members of the bipartisan committee stated that "after months of hard work and intense deliberations, we have come to the conclusion today that it will not be possible to make any bipartisan agreement available to the public before the committee's deadline."

So, as established in the BCA, sequestration was triggered when the super committee failed to reach an agreement. Sequestration generates automatic cuts for each of nine years, FY 13-21, totaling $1.2 trillion. Without Congressional action to prevent sequestration, the first round of cuts will take place Jan. 2, 2013.

The 2013 cuts apply to “discretionary” spending and are divided between reductions to defense ($500 billion) and non-defense ($700 billion).

So, taxes are scheduled to go up and spending is scheduled to be cut as of the first of the year.

That's the cliff - a double whammy on you and me and everyone else in the nation.

But that's not all....

Our current debt limit is a whopping $16.394 trillion - and, as of Tuesday, we were just $63 billion short of reaching it. Since the government spends about $10.5 billion a day, we'll reach the debt limit Dec. 23. Merry Christmas!

Of course, there are things the government can do to postpone actually hitting that limit, but Pres. Obama doesn't want to deal with those. He'd rather bypass Congress and have the ability to raise the limit all by himself.

This new power is part of the “deal” the President offered to House Republicans on the fiscal cliff. His “deal” is massive tax hikes, more government spending, and the ability for him to send that government spending skyrocketing through the stratosphere without any vote of Congress. One White House official describes this proposal as “resolv[ing] the debt limit without drama.”

See? It's easy - raise taxes on the 'rich,' spend even more money, and let Obama borrow whatever he wants without limit or check&balance by Congress.

Now Republicans - well, House Speaker John Boehner, specifically - are talking about pushing off the debt ceiling debate for another year, so long as they get spending cuts greater than the debt increase.

But remember - the spending cuts from the last increase are the ones they're trying to avoid taking now!

The American people were promised cuts in spending at least equal to the amount of additional borrowing granted in 2011. Those cuts are supposed to happen, but politicians in DC are trying to stop them.

It has been reported that one of President Ronald Reagan's biggest regrets was agreeing to small tax increases 'now' for cuts in spending over time. The cuts in spending never came.

The same holds true today. Just last year Congress and Pres. Obama agreed to spending cuts in exchange for being able to borrow more money. Now they're talking about borrowing even more money and raising taxes in order to avoid those 'future cuts' from 2011.

It never ends.

Terry Jeffrey puts numbers to the madness, proving that government doesn't have a revenue problem, since revenue has actually increased - they just spend a lot more (and that 'more' amount continues to grow) than they collect.

According to Obama's OMB, federal revenues will be $2.57 trillion this year. In nominal terms that is about $1.58 trillion more than the $991.1 billion in federal revenue for 1989. Even adjusted for inflation, it is $830 billion more.

But, again, federal spending has grown faster. According to Obama's OMB, the federal government will spend $3.83 trillion this year, running a deficit of $1.27 trillion.

Adjusted for inflation, the $152.6 billion deficit of 1989 equals $268.4 billion in current dollars. That means the $1.27 trillion deficit Obama plans to run this year is almost five times larger in real terms than the deficit Reagan ran the year he left office naming the deficit as the only regret in his farewell address.

When Reagan left office in 1989, federal spending was 21.2 percent of gross domestic product. This year, the Obama administration plans to spend 25.1 percent of GDP.

The spending is growing faster than the revenue, which means even more borrowing to cover the expanding gap. Yes, this qualifies as 'stuck-on-stupid.'

And Boehner seems poised to agree to this instead of holding the line, not just for the conservatives who helped elect him, but for our nation and our children.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

...

Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.

That was Barack Obama in 2006 when he was a senator from Illinois and Bush was president.

Obama was correct then, but he - and just about everyone else in Congress - have succumbed to the spending addiction that hits individuals once they get to the logic-free zone of Washington, D.C.

Now we - and our children and grandchildren - are going to suffer, one way or the other, because those people we elect to represent us just can't make the hard decisions necessary to return fiscal sanity to the government. They keep kicking the can down the road, think the road will go on forever.

It doesn't - and that's where we are today.

For another perspective on this, be sure to check out this post by Tom Blumer at Bizzy Blog.

Toledo 2013 budget to raid another $14 million from CIP

Toledo Mayor Mike Bell presented the 2013 budget today and it plans to raid $13.96 million from the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) fund while spending more money on parks and recreation.

Despite the rejection of a levy to support parks and recreation, the city will allocate approximately $175,000 more in the 2013 budget to support recreation activities for Toledo residents.

Yes, you read that correctly. They don't have enough income to cover the existing expenses, but they're going to spend MORE money on recreation - clearly an unnecessary expense.

If they raid the CIP this year as planned and divert another $14 million in 2013, we will have lost $76 million out of the CIP simply to pay for overspending in the general fund.

And there are no plans to ever repay these funds at all.

Here is the press release:

Bell administration releases 2013 operating budget

Recovery remains slow but steady, lost state revenues hamper growth

Mayor Michael P. Bell today released the City of Toledo’s 2013 proposed operating budget at a press conference that included his finance staff, safety force leaders and top administrators. The Mayor made clear that 2013 will pose fiscal challenges, but acknowledged that the city remains on a slow and steady path to economic recovery.

The 2013 proposed budget continued a commitment to public safety with additional police and fire classes. The Toledo Police Department currently has a class in the academy and will offer a police officer civil service exam on December 1, 2012. The exam will provide a new list of candidates, at least 45 of which will be selected to begin training in 2013. The Toledo Fire and Rescue Department will begin a new class of recruits on December 3, 2012 with a class of 30 to begin in 2013. The 2013 police and fire classes would not begin until current classes have completed their academy training.

The administration also maintained a commitment to quality of life issues affecting residents. Despite the rejection of a levy to support parks and recreation, the city will allocate approximately $175,000 more in the 2013 budget to support recreation activities for Toledo residents. The increase of 14% will support programs and staffing will remain steady.

The finance department is forecasting approximately 3.4% growth in income tax revenue over 2012. The budget anticipates nearly $163.9 million in revenue from income taxes supporting total general fund revenues of $243.5 million. The city will however be negatively impacted by the loss of local government funds and estate taxes shared from the State of Ohio as well as a significant decrease in property taxes paid to the city, following the countywide revaluation issued by the county auditor. If the levels for the Local Government Fund, property taxes and estate tax were the same as in 2011 a CIP transfer would not be needed. The lost revenues represent approximately $14.7 million. The administration expects to transfer approximately $13.96 million from CIP to the General Fund.

Despite the need for CIP transfer, the administration is expected to present a proposed capital budget in December recommending $32 million in major street and residential road construction and resurfacing, representing approximately 51 lane miles. The 2012 CIP budget allocated $28 million for streets. Funding will additionally be allocated for renovation of the existing Fire Station #3 and to build a new Fire Station #12 in order to address a gap in coverage in the northern part of the city. A request for proposals has been issued for the design of the two fire station projects.

“When I took office in 2010 the city faced a deficit of $48 million,” said Mayor Bell. “We faced the unthinkable prospect of having to lay off police officers and firefighters. This budget presents a far different story. We’ve continued to hire police and fire, held the line on taxes and fees, are providing the quality of life services our citizens deserve and have reestablished our rainy day fund.”

The mayor also recognized Toledo City Council for their diligence in passing the 2012 budget by the end of January and asked that council and the administration again work together and move swiftly to solicit community input, hold committee hearings, and pass the 2013 budget in January to provide department directors greater opportunity to monitor their budgets early in the year.

The City of Toledo Charter requires that the mayor present to City Council a proposed budget by November 15 each year. Also by charter, council has until March 31 to pass the operating budget.

The City of Toledo operating budget will be available online at www.toledo.oh.gov.

###

Bribing adults with midnight basketball

A lot has been said - both pro and con - about offering midnight basketball as a way to keep kids off the streets and away from crime.

I'm of the opinion that IF this is an effective program, it's best offered by churches and private-sector groups - NOT the government.

Toledo tried it years ago, and is now doing it again. This is the press release issued yesterday:

Mayor joins community recreation advocates to recognize late night basketball program

Toledo Mayor Michael P. Bell will join representatives of the Toledo Community Recreation Program today to recognize a Late Night Basketball program being offered in community centers around the city. The press conference will be held at 1 p.m. at the East Toledo Family Center.

The program is running for six weeks and is focused on providing positive alternative programming for teens and young adults during those hours of the night most common for the occurrence of youth crime. The sites will rotate throughout the week and play will run from 9 p.m. until 1 a.m. with site supervisors providing staffing and support. Participating sites include East Toledo Family Center, Believe Center, Chester Saluki Center and the Frederick Douglas Center.

The timing is questionable, considering the city's completely unnecessary brand new 10-year, 1-mill levy request is on the ballot on Nov. 6th.

So this is a bribe, and it's not really for kids. It's for adults since the games are geared to 18-24 year olds and run from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m.

Why are we bribing adults? If they're that old, shouldn't they be able to get such games together on their own? And these are not 'youths' despite what organizers call them.

This is promoting a further dependency on government, for 'entertainment' no less.

Think about it: these adults could get together and set up the games with these same facilities. They'd just need to cover the costs. To do so, they'd need jobs so they'd have disposable income to pay for their entertainment. But why should they do any of this on their own when the government will do it for them and pay for everything?

So the city of Toledo is paying $60,000 for midnight basketball for adults and claiming it will help stop 'youth' violence.

That the program is popular with as many as 100 people at a time at the facility is not a surprise. But if it is that popular, can't it be self-sufficient?

But if people have to pay, they won't come, we're told. Aye, there's the rub.

And what about people who don't play or like basketball? Will we have to have programs for every adult between the ages of 18 and 24 in order to avoid any discrimination charges? And where are the programs for women?

Midnight basketball won't address the problems that lead to crime, especially among adults, even when they are called 'youth.' It starts in our families and continues to our schools and into the marketplace with jobs.

Midnight basketball is a band-aid on a gaping wound that needs surgery - but as long as it's free, it will continue to be popular.

Maybe Mayor Bell doesn't want the new parks and recreation levy to pass

Perhaps Toledo Mayor Mike Bell doesn't want the new, 10-year parks and recreation levy to pass after all. If he did, why would he jeopardize the plea for a new property tax by proving the city doesn't really need the money after all?

How did he prove it?

He just gave raises to 55 of his administrators - and they total $295,000 a year!

If the city has the money to give raises of nearly a third of a million dollars, surely they don't need any more tax money from us to pay for parks and recreation - right?

And this is after Toledo City Council refused to increase the pay ranges of many of these same employee, claiming there was no need to increase the range when the individuals holding the jobs were not at the top of the existing range. At that time, Bell told council he wasn't going to be giving wholesale pay increases.

Apparently, he changed his mind. The Blade reports:

The raises include all three deputy mayors — Steve Herwat and Shirley Green, whose salaries increase from $90,002 to $92,500, and Paul Syring, whose salary increases from $85,001 to $92,500.

Not surprisingly, he blames Council for not following his lead to "comprehensively update Executive Exempt pay ranges."

The worst part is Democrat Joe McNamara's response, as reported by the paper:

Council President Joe McNamara said the mayor should concentrate on raising the “economic positions” of Toledo’s residents. The increases will cost the city $62,000 through Dec. 31.

“I think the tone of the mayor’s letter is out of touch with the lives of most Toledoans who would be thrilled to be making $92,500,” he said. “He has the authority to do it. The fact that he did it shows one of the reasons why council was so concerned about giving the latitude to do 20 percent [pay-range increases], because he pretty much maxed out everybody.”

Really? If McNamara was so worried about "raising the 'economic positions' of Toledo's residents," why did he vote to put a brand new, 10-year property tax levy on the ballot?!?

That's not going to do anything but bring DOWN the economic position of Toledo's residents.

Hypocrisy thy name is Joe McNamara!

Then there is Republican George Sarantou, chairman of the council finance committee:

Councilman George Sarantou said the Bell administration has a plan to pay for the increases this year.

“They said this has already been budgeted by virtue of the fact that it was announced [Tuesday] that they are expecting a $900,000 surplus that they will carry over to 2013,” Mr. Sarantou.

Now the city has a budget surplus? I thought they had no money to pay for parks and recreation?!?

And how did we get this surplus? Did we NOT raid the CIP fund as they planned? Did they repay the advance they took on the CIP when the casino didn't open in time?

Have they thought that maybe reimbursing the $50 million or so they previously raided from the CIP might be a bigger priority to citizens than "valuing" administrators that have better pensions, vacation time, holidays and pay than they do?

This definitely earns a "stuck-on-stupid" designation!

This is insanity and just proves that no matter how much money you give to politicians, they will spend it and continue to ask for more.

Vote NO on Toledo Issue 5!

Why do we pay a 'death gratuity' for members of Congress?

This came to my attention the other day - we actually have a law that requires a Death Gratuity be paid to the survivors of a member of Congress who dies in office.

The amount paid is equal to one year’s salary, so when Sen. Robert Byrd died, his family got $193,400 from taxpayers.

When Sen. Ted Kennedy died, his family (already rich by Pres. Obama's standards) got $174,000 in taxpayer funds. Rep. John Murtha's family also got $174,000.

Why?

Originally, it was supposed to be a form of life insurance, and it has been compared to what many private sector employers offer to their employees. But with all the the other 'perks' that go with Congressional elective service, is this really necessary?

The Senate handbook details what is to be done following the death of a member in office: “in the next appropriations bill, an item will be inserted for a gratuity to be paid to the widow(er) or other next- of-kin, in the amount of one-year’s compensation.”

The House amount is "equal to the Member’s annual salary, payable to the deceased Member’s widow or widower, or children."

In both cases, the gratuity is considered a "gift" per U.S. Code.

Most people will find this atrocious, especially when 'average' Americans are charged a death tax when they die.

In 2010, Rep. Bill Posey introduced a bill to end the death gratuity. It was a target of the Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) Sunset Caucus. As Posey told the Daily Caller when he introduced the bill:

"We’ve got soldiers dying that don’t get customary benefits like that. That is not right so we are going to see if we can repeal it.

"Nobody knows about this program. It is not that the public is demanding that something be done about this, but if they did know about it, then they would be demanding it."

Indeed.

On Oct. 10, 2011, Posey's bill was referred to the House Committee on House Administration, where it awaits action.

Maybe it's time to bring it to a vote.

Hey TPS - I want a 'cushion' too!

Friday the Toledo Public School board decided to reduce their levy request - partly due to an 'unexpected' surplus of $11.22 million that was over $8 million more than they projected and partly due to resistance to their huge, permanent levy.

In their coverage on the issue, The Blade mentioned some of the discussion at the TPS Finance Committee meeting Friday morning:

Board member Bob Vasquez questioned during a finance committee meeting this morning whether a levy request that would leave the district with no breathing room was wise, or if it was better to keep a 6.9-mill request so that unforeseen circumstances wouldn’t force the district to come back to voters again, or return to the budget cuts of recent years.

“We are coming down to exactly what we feel we can manage with right now. No cushion. This provides no cushion,” Mr. Vasquez said. “I don‘t want to come back here and start cutting.”

Apparently, Vasquez thinks he needs your money more than you do. He wants a "cushion" for TPS to address "unforeseen" circumstances.

Well, so do I.

I'd love to have a cushion for unexpected circumstances - like a new roof for my garage or for when my dryer finally gives up the close (which it's close to doing). I'd love to have some breathing room for my expenses, but I can't go to my employer and just say 'I need more money' like the TPS board is doing.

Based upon increases I have no control over (gasoline prices, food prices, trash tax, other property taxes that a majority vote to take from me) along with a 25% reduction in the value of my home which reduces my overall wealth, I have significantly less money for my own costs. As a result, I'm cutting my spending.

So, Mr. Vasquez, why can't you and the other school board members do the same? Why do you think raising taxes on the poor and middle class is the only answer?

What makes you think that you don't have to behave like everyone else and cut spending?

You don't have to take it from the kids - you can do an across the board salary cut for your exempt employees. You could do a state performance audit. You could address your miserable audit (here, here and here) and maybe find savings along the way. You could tell all your employees that since their bosses (the taxpayers) aren't getting any increases in wages, they won't either.

What novel ideas!

The people cannot always pay for expanded government growth - there's just no money left, especially in a city that has over 8% unemployment and an untold number who are out of work but no longer counted in the statistics.

Since the 2007-08 school year, TPS has spent more per pupil than they took in. The costs per pupil have increased steadily from $11,979 in 2007-08 to $13,859 in 2010-11. That's a 16% increase - 5.3% each year ... during a recession, no less.

It's time TPS does a state performance audit and reduces costs - rather than tell us they need to keep growing and taking more from people who just don't have anything left.

The attitude of “I don‘t want to come back here and start cutting” just doesn't cut it anymore.

Mayor Bell wants to use General Fund dollars to cover CDBG shortfall

Look for fireworks tomorrow as the Toledo city council again tries to figure out how to split up limited - and reduced - funds among a large group of prior recipients - or maybe not.

From the agenda (emphasis added):

On July 3, 2012 City Council was unable to reach a consensus on funding allocations from the Community Development Block Grant to various Public Service Activities, Community Development Corporation Activities, and City Departmental Allocations. In addition, the Council was unable to reach a compromise, despite voting on six different amendments or proposals, to provide additional funds for homeless shelters and EOPA.

The result of this inaction by Council the Public Service Agencies, Community Development Corporations and City Departments are uncertain of their funding for the period from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. To resolve this deadlock the Mayor has proposed this compromise ordinance.

This ordinance retains the funding recommendations of the Citizens Review Committee and the Department of Neighborhoods for allocation of the 38th year Community Development Block Grant. In addition, this ordinance provides funding in the amount of $215,000 from the General Fund to homeless shelters and EOPA to address critical needs in the community.

For background, EOPA, the Economic Opportunity Planning Association has faced financial troubles in the past and had, until earlier this month, been in negotiations with Toledo Public Schools for a partnership in running the Head Start Program. Under new federal rules, Head Start will seek bids for providing the services and TPS had indicated an interest in bidding for the $13 million program. The linked Blade article adds:

However, more ultimately could be at stake for EOPA. The $13 million Head Start grant makes up the bulk of the agency's $19.5 million budget; many at the agency have said losing the grant would threaten the organization's very existence. EOPA also operates heating-assistance programs, home-repair assistance, a fatherhood program, and other social services.

So now the city - which put a 1 mill recreation levy on the ballot for November because it didn't have enough general fund dollars to cover their desired spending for parks and recreation - wants to take nearly a quarter of a million dollars out of the general fund to cover the reduction in federal funding.

The politicians just don't get it!

Families and businesses in Toledo are cutting back because of the economy. Many are without jobs - and job prospects. Governments and government agencies at all levels are overspending and a lot are asking for even more money. Toledoans in Lucas County will see a whopping seven - yes, seven - levy requests on the ballot.

And what is Toledo doing? Refusing to cut back its spending and taking even more money out of the general fund which is supposed to pay for essential city services.

Don't forget - the 2012 City of Toledo budget calls for $12 million to be transferred out of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) budget just to balance the planned spending in the General Fund.

This transfer of nearly half a million dollars was NOT part of the original budget - so where are they getting it from? They're borrowing from the CIP.

If they should claim that additional tax revenues have come in, then the question all taxpayers in Toledo should ask is this:

If you've got extra money, why aren't you replacing the over $50 million you've raided from the CIP over the past several years - or putting it into the rainy day fund which you depleted before you started raiding the CIP?

The taxpayers of Toledo should be the first priority if the city has extra income - not special interests who want always want 'more, more, more' - no matter how noble their cause may be.

If all the levies on the ballot should pass (and I sincerely hope they do not), my taxes will be increased by nearly $700 because of the value of my home and its extra lot.

That's $700 that will go to various governmental entities, including the City of Toledo, to pay for THEIR spending priorities - not my own, because I'm not getting a pay increase and neither is my husband. And that $700 will be on top of the additional health care costs we're incurring due to Obamacare and state rules, as well as the food inflation that will require more of our funds to pay for the food we eat.

As a result of the government taking more money from me, I will have no choice but to reduce my expenditures. How will that affect others? Will I not spend $700 eating out at local restaurants? Will Webber's - one of our favorite places to get a perch sandwich - see less of us? How about any of the other places where we love to eat out?

Will we reduce our charitable giving? Will we have to cut back on our financial support to Mobile Meals and their annual Wine Gala fundraiser? Will we have to stop donating food to the Northwest Ohio Food Bank?

Or maybe, we don't spend the money to do the renovation our kitchen so desperately needs. We've been saving up for that, but all these additional costs could have us putting it on hold. How many businesses (Lowe's, Home Depot, Ace Hardware in Point Place, the granite supplier) will go without our money as result?

Now multiply that across every home in the city. There's no wonder why Toledo is in decline.

Remember the 'Broken Window Fallacy'? This is similar, as the politicians are only looking at the money they're going to give to the CDBG recipients and not looking at the places that won't get spending from me as a result of having to pay higher taxes so the city can afford to have the extra funds for the CDBG spending.

The recipients of the CDBG funds are not bad organizations, but their priorities are not mine - nor are they the priorities of a majority of Toledoans. They are special interests feeding off the taxpayer through the government.

It does not matter if they are doing good work in the community or not. Their insistence that they continue to receive the same (or more) funds than they have in the past simply because they're 'doing good' means that government has to prevent all of its citizens from doing their own good so the government can take citizens' money for this particular 'good.'

It also means that Toledo, as an entity, will continue down its wrong path of increasing taxes on the poor and middle class; raiding the CIP fund thus reducing funding for future needs like for roads and infrastructure; and issuing debt to cover regular expenses - all so that a limited number of special interests don't have to face the cuts that the majority of their funders have to deal with.

There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Sherrod Brown's 'stuck-on-stupid' economics

In yesterday's Washington Post, our Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown said:

“Everybody knows that government creates jobs.”

I kid you not.

He continued:

“Government creates jobs in highways. We hire private contractors. That creates other jobs. It builds an economic foundation for job creation.

“During the fifties, the sixties, the seventies, the eighties, the United States had great infrastructure programs. We were the envy of the world. Those are clear formulaic job creating strategies that we know.”

Can you say 'stuck-on-stupid'?

To be fair, he is technically correct that government spending can create temporary jobs - but he fails a basic economic lesson when he refuses to acknowledge that such spending comes at a cost to the private sector, which is the only true place where growth can occur.

You see, there is a difference between jobs and growth.

Government could pay us all to dig ditches. And if they wanted to employ us for a long time, they could give us only spoons to move the soil. Think about how many people could be employed if only the government did that!

But growth - the economic engine that results in long-term jobs and employment - does not come from government. It comes from the private sector when a company creates a product that others choose to purchase, creating the need for supplies and employees and transportation and marketing, etc... This is what builds "an economic foundation for job creation."

Government infrastructure projects do best when they're responding to the needs of the private market - not when they are 'busy work' in order to artificially inflate employment numbers or when they are nothing but pork or special interest projects of politicians (high-speed rail, anyone?).

Josh Mandel, Brown's opponent for the Senate seat in November, obviously has a better grasp of economics (emphasis added):

"Sherrod Brown's statement demonstrates that after two decades in Washington and 38 years running for political office, he is out of touch with struggling private sector job creators and millions of Americans looking for work but can’t find it. I believe the only way forward is to empower hard working Americans. If more wasteful Washington spending was the answer, the problem would have been solved long ago."

No matter where you stand on any other issue, the fact that Brown thinks more government spending is the solution to our economic woes should cause you to vote for Mandel in November.