News, frizzy hair solutions and hypocrisy

One of my favorite organizations is the Media Research Center - though most people have probably never heard of it.

Their sole mission, according to their website, is "to expose and neutralize the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media." They don't endorse candidates and they don't lobby for or against legislation.

And they can be pretty funny in fulfilling that mission as their Newsbusted comedy show demonstrates.

They're especially good at pointing out double standards and hypocrisy, as they did with the convening of the new Republican-controlled Congress.

First they point out how Good Morning America avoided any mention of the subject, but found plenty of time to feature a new solution to frizzy hair.

Now, you may argue that frizzy hair is more important than any mention of the makeup of the new Congress - and if you have frizzy hair, or occasional issues with such a problem as I do, the new solution may truly be the only news you're really interested in.

But a Google search for Good Morning America pops up this description of the broadcast:

Co-anchors report the morning's top headlines from a set in Times Square. The show features a combination of breaking news, interviews, in-depth reporting and weather. The program covers important issues with key figures from around the world and a wide spectrum of topics, including medicine, finance, consumer issues, computer technology, education and gardening.

hmmm...breaking news and in-depth reporting. But no news story on a new Congress?

George Stephanopoulos did mention it, warning that the new Congress would be confrontational, not cooperative, though cooperation was what the new Congress *should* do.

But in 2007 when the Democrats gained control of Congress and George W. Bush was president, the message was all about standing up to Bush and *forcing* him to go along with the Democrat agenda.  The word "impeachment" was used.

Talk about a double standard... and thank goodness we have MRC reminding us of the blatant bias.

As for me, I don't watch GMA, so I really couldn't care less about what they do, or don't, feature.  I prefer to read my news, checking multiple websites and articles from all political sides as part of my morning coffee routine.

But whether from a right-leaning or left-leaning source, I do ask one thing:  Don't be a hypocrite.

If something is "bad" when Republicans do it, it remains "bad" when Democrats do it, too.  If something is outrageous or an attack on liberty when Democrats do it, it is equally outrageous and an attack on liberty when Republicans do it.

If you condemn an act or decision or statement because you are opposed to it, you can't suddenly be all in favor of it simply because it is being said or done by someone with your same political affiliation or ideology.

It is the hypocrisy, more than anything, that completely destroys credibility, as ratings clearly show.

Hypocrisy in the NC school choice lawsuit

By Maggie Thurber | Franklin Center School Choice Fellow

A North Carolina judge has decided that the state’s school choice scholarship is unconstitutional.

Of course the case is being appealed as is the permanent injunction which would put an immediate stop to the program and kick some kids out of their chosen schools.

But what’s unusual about this case is the hypocrisy by those who sued to stop the program.

You see, this school choice scholarship allows kids to attend private schools – including religious ones.

In 2013, the North Carolina General Assembly created the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) and provided $10.8 million out of the general fund budget to cover scholarships of up to $4,200 for eligible children so they could attend a private school.

There were more than 5,500 applicants for the OSP so the state held a lottery in June to determine who would get the scholarships.

The fact that there wasn’t enough money to meet the need says a lot.

Applicants had to list the school they wanted to attend. Of the 446 identified, 322 were religious schools and 117 were independent schools.

According to the lawsuit, in 32 of the state’s 100 counties, the only private schools are religious ones, and some of them will only admit students of a particular religion. As of July, the 10 schools with the most OSP enrollees were religious ones.

And that’s the problem.

Certainly, there are complaints that some of the private schools are not accredited by the state board of education and don’t follow the same requirements as public schools when it comes to credentials or degrees for teachers and principals. But part of the appeal of private schools is that they don't have to follow one-size-fits-all criteria.

True, the state constitution does have specific language about public education. But the legislature replaced the $10.8 million it originally deducted from the public school budget in order to negate the constitutional challenge about funding public education.

The bigger issue is religion. And that’s where the hypocrisy comes in.

You see, according to some, the state is funding religion with public tax dollars and that’s a no-no to them.

Except that’s not really true. Technically, the money is going to the child – or rather, the child’s parents – in order to give back to them the state tax dollars they pay toward their child’s education. The parent then chooses how to best spend that money and, for some, that’s in a private religious school.

Karen Duquette, vice president of Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, said the goal of the program is for every child to have the education that best fits their individual needs. She noted that a similar program for children with disabilities hasn’t been challenged in court and it operates the same way as the OSP.

The intent, she said, is to start educational choice with an underserved community.

“If you like your school, you don’t have to leave it,” she explained. “But if that school isn’t working for you, without some form of scholarship opportunity, you’re stuck in that school. Our obligation is to help every child, whether low income or with disabilities, so every child has access to the education that’s best for them.”

So you’ve got parents receiving funds from the state and then choosing how best to spend those funds and some of that spending happens to be at a religious institution.

How is that any different from food stamps?

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides funds for parents to purchase food. No one tells the parent they can’t exercise their choice and purchase junk food.

And what about TANF – Temporary Assistance to Needy Families?

Under that program, the government hands out cash and the family can spend it in any way that benefits the child, including the parent’s transportation and employment expenses. A parent could choose to use those funds for costs associated with a religious vacation bible school, if they wanted.

Choices abound everywhere. These are just two examples where parents get to choose how their spend government subsidies or handouts based upon their own judgment as to what is best, including religion-related activities.

But no one sues over those decisions, even though some of them are more harmful to children than sending them to a religiously-sponsored grade school.

That’s hypocrisy.

Either parents get to decide or they don’t. And if they get to decide how they spend their SNAP and TANF funds, they should get to decide how they spend their education funds as well.

Fortunately for the children – it’s “for the children” after all – already enrolled for this school year, almost all of the schools will allow them to stay while the permanent injunction against the scholarship program is appealed, Duquette said. She hoped the North Carolina Supreme Court would quickly overrule the permanent injunction as they did the temporary injunction that was previously issued.

The unconstitutionality ruling is also being appealed.

Still catering to the 2%, Toledo opens city pools today

The City of Toledo will open its publicly-funded pools at noon today. Six pools and a splash pad will be available for residents.

They are: Willys Pool, Roosevelt Pool, Wilson Pool, Jamie Farr Pool, Navarre Pool, and Pickford Pool - along with the Savage Splash Pad.


View City of Toledo Pools Map in a larger map

You'd think that since the public has already paid for the pools with their tax dollars that they'd be free, but you're wrong. It will cost $1 for those 12 and under and $2 for those 13 and older - except for the Savage Splash Pad, which is free.

Here's the thing - they don't make sense economically.

I did an analysis of pool usage in 2008 and found that Toledo pools really don't have that high of attendance with maybe about 2% of the city's population actually utilizing this 'service.'

Based upon census data and cost at the time, I found it was costing the city about $120 per person served. As I wrote at the time:

It would be cheaper to buy every kid in the city a membership to the Boys and Girls Club ($5 per year for 16-18 year olds, but only $3 for 7-15 year olds) which would give them access to ALL activities, not just the pools.

In 2009, I updated the figures and pointed out the warped priorities of our city government:

The total amount to be spent this year (three ordinances are on the agenda) is $136,398. The problem is the number of children to be served.

As I've highlighted in previous posts, the pools serve less than 2% of the population and less than 6% of the children in the city. And the number of users has declined over the last three years.

As calculated in my previous posts, the pools serve roughly 4,700 unique visitors. At that number for this year's funding, it's about $28 per person. For the same amount of money, the city could purchase a year-long membership at the Boys & Girls Club for 27,000+ kids (calculated at the 16-18 year old membership rate of $5, not the 7-15 year old rate of $3). If we really care about kids, why aren't we providing them with year-round activities instead of just a couple of months (depending on weather) of pool access?

But if the city told you that they were going to purchase memberships for kids to a club, would you support the expenditure of those dollars while we're laying off police and not planning on residential road improvements? Probably not.

It's an issue of priorities and Toledo government doesn't have a track record of setting good ones.

As the Occupy Wall Street groups gathered last year to complain about the 1%, I again examined the issue of the public pools and how they cater to the 2% all the while claiming that everyone's quality of life was enhanced by providing a service to only 2% of the population:

But on a principle basis, the claim is that these types of programs provide "quality of life" for residents. The problem is, they provide a certain benefit for some, at the expense of all. And simply saying that "all" have the "opportunity" to take advantage of them doesn't negate the fact that my quality of life is diminished by having to pay for recreation/entertainment I neither like nor want, but that is forced upon me by a significant few.

An analysis I did in 2008 showed that even under the best of scenarios, the city pools serve less than 7% of the youth population and, since we know that adults also visit the pools, less than 2% of the total population of the city.

Why are we spending money to serve less than 2% of the residents? And why would council members claim that the entire city's quality of life is enhanced by a 'service' that caters to less than 2%? Certainly the taxation of 100% in order to serve 2% isn't logical and doesn't enhance the 'quality of life' of the remaining 98%. As many of the same council members who promote this logic also supported the OccupyToledo group, you'd think they'd understand this concept.

These same council members also talk about how pools and other youth entertainment help reduce crime. However, I have yet to see a single one of them provide a single study or shred of evidence that such is the case anywhere, much less here in Toledo.

The bottom line is that they want to provide pools, so they do. That the vast majority of the public doesn't want our limited tax dollars so expended is countered by an emotional appeal to our 'quality of life.' Yet even that attempt at logic falls short with just a cursory examination.

My quality of life is negatively impacted so that council can - maybe - enhance the quality of life of the 2%. Sadly, Toledo city council members don't understand that providing a quality of life service for some means a lack of quality of life for most.

So here we are in 2013, still spending public monies to cater to a few at the expense of everyone else. And the same politicians who decry such actions when the few who are catered to are banks, or rich people, or Wall Street, will willingly embrace the concept and become hypocrites in the process.

If you want to 'take advantage' of the 'service' being 'provided' by your tax dollars, here are the regular hours and admission costs:

Willys Complex Pool
1375 Hillcrest
Tuesday – Sunday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger
$2 for 13 years and older

Roosevelt Pool
910 Dorr St.
Tuesday – Sunday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger
$2 for 13 years and older

Wilson Pool
3253 Otto
Monday-Saturday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger

Jamie Farr Pool
2000 Summit St.
Monday-Saturday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger

Navarre Pool
1001 White
Monday-Saturday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger

Pickford Pool
3000 Medford
Monday-Saturday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission $1 for 12 years and younger

Savage Splash Pad Water Play Park
645 Vance St.
Monday-Saturday
Noon till 6 p.m.
Admission free

"Tax cuts for the rich" hypocrisy

I was in elective office in 2001 when the Bush tax cuts were first proposed and then passed, so I was regularly involved in discussions about them. Opponents described them as 'tax cuts for the rich' as if only the so-called 'rich' were going to benefit.

That the cuts were across the board, applying to all income levels, was conveniently forgotten and ignored by the media and those on the left who didn't want any tax cuts at all.

Then along came 2003 when the cuts came up for revision/renewal. Again the Democrats demonized them as only 'for the rich' and the media went happily along with the distortion.

Looking back now - and even at the time - it was plainly evident that the Republicans clearly lost the PR battle, since nearly everyone still thinks the tax cuts were just 'for the rich.'

They then became an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign. Being a county commissioner, I was a local spokesman for the Bush campaign and faced an uphill battle explaining the facts of the tax cuts: they applied to everyone and not just the rich and anyone opposing them was against cuts for poor and middle-class families.

But the accepted spin about the cuts being 'for the rich' was too ingrained in the public psyche, though Democratic candidate John Kerry did take to describing his plan as 'repealing the tax cuts for those making $200,000 or more.'

Sadly, many thought he was just re-defining the definition of 'rich' - not that any tax cuts had been given to poor and middle-class families in the first place.

Now it's 2012 and those tax cuts 'for the rich' are set to expire and everyone in D.C. is scrambling to preserve the cuts for the poor and middle class.

How do you preserve cuts for the poor and middle-class if they were never part of the deal in the first place?

Clearly, they were.

Even President Barack Obama admitted the truth - though not outright.

So today media outlets and politicians who decried the cuts a decade ago are conveniently ignoring their prior descriptions and eagerly supporting what they ardently opposed.

Is it any wonder we no longer trust the media to give us the truth?

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!

Non-apology apology is all radical extremists deserve

"I'm sorry you were offended."

It's a phrase we've all heard - mainly from politicians and other politicos. A sort of apology without apologizing.

What it means is that you're sorry the person took offense. It does NOT mean that you're sorry for what you said or did that gave the offense.

You're not expressing remorse for your deed. In fact, depending upon the tone, you could actually be expressing the view that the person had no justification for being offended in the first place.

I actually hate these types of apologies - when there is actually something that needs to be apologized for.

However, there are times when such apologies are highly appropriate - like now with the attacks on our embassies in Egypt and Libya.

It all started with a film.

Actually, there might be two movies - it's hard to tell from news reports. One is called "The Innocence of Muslims" and is produced by Sam Bacile, an Israeli-American based in southern California.

It appears that Esmat Zaklama and Morees Sadek, U.S.-based Coptic-Christian Egyptians, are involved in the other one and are being supported by the Terry Jones Church in the United States.

That movie, "Mohammad, Prophet of Muslims", portrays Mohammad "as a fool, a philanderer and a religious fake. In one clip posted on YouTube Mohammad was shown in a sexual act with a woman," Reuters reported.

Many Muslims believe that showing pictures or other characterizations of Mohammad is sacrilegious - but only in other countries does the act - or even threat - of doing so result in violence and death.

The U.S. Embassy in Cairo, posted this apology on the embassy website:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Wait a minute: "...as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." Really?

Funny - I don't recall anything similar being said when Jesus was depicted in urine.

These radical extremists attacked sovereign ground of the United States - invaded our property and forced our citizens to flee. If ever there was a time for an 'I'm sorry you were offended' phrase, this was it.

But that's not what we got. We got a condemnation of our rights to free speech.

The individuals involved in the film - a work of fiction, mind you - have "abused the universal right of free speech" and "hurt" the religious beliefs of others. Rather than being sorry others were offended, our nation actually apologized for the exercise of a "universal right."

Late last night, Jake Trapper reports, the White House distanced itself from the apology:

The statement was issued before the attacks on the compound, but given the subsequent attack — and the interpretation that the statement was somehow apologizing for free speech — the Obama administration itself took issue with it.

An administration official tells ABC News that “no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn’t reflect the views of the U.S. government.”

Good for our President.

But when will Democrats call these Muslims 'extreme' and paint all Muslims as wacko and out-of-touch ... you know - like they do with the tea parties and Republicans?

A Google search for "tea party extreme" returned 24 million results in .28 seconds. A similar search for "Republican extreme" returned 38.4 million results in .29 seconds.

Interestingly, a Google search for "Muslim extreme" yields 56.4 million results in .27 seconds and the third entry, after two Wikipedia links, is this:

US Anti-Muslim Film 'Designed To Enrage'
Sky News‎ - 33 minutes ago
An extreme American film that ridicules the Prophet Mohammed and calls Islam a "cancer" provokes violence across Muslim countries.

Blaming America for the violent actions of others - what a surprise.

Clearly, I don't believe that all Muslims are extremists - just as I reject that all white people are racist and all poor people are black. Such generalities don't stand even the most cursory of examinations.

But too many liberal politicians, especially leaders in the Democratic Party, eagerly make such statements about their political opponents. I'm just waiting for them to do the same thing with these incidents. Or will they prove, yet again, their hypocrisy?

I hope the situations in Cairo and Libya can be resolved quickly and with no more loss of life. My personal preference would be to pull everything American out the countries and stop giving them any money. I realize that may not be diplomatically or politically possible, but I'll bet many Americans agree with me.

My thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families of those killed - and with President Obama as he addresses these attacks on the nation, people and principles he represents.

According to Cory Booker, the poor are unpatriotic

Newark Mayor Cory Booker was explaining the Democratic Party platform in his comments last night at their convention.

He said it contains "significant" spending cuts and ...

"... a balanced deficit reduction plan where everyone, everyone - from elected officials to the wealthy and the super wealthy - pay their fair share. When your country is in a costly war with our soldiers sacrificing abroad and our nation is facing a debt crisis at home, being asked to pay your fair share isn’t class warfare – it’s patriotism."

Really? Now it's patriotic to pay taxes to the government?

I checked three on-line dictionaries and each one defined patriotism as love of, or devotion to, one's country. And here I thought money couldn't buy love.

Notice that he says "everyone" and even repeats it, but actually doesn't mean every person. He just talks about politicians, the wealthy and the super wealthy.

If paying taxes is patriotic, why do we let so many pay nothing at all?

According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, 46.4% of Americans paid no federal income tax for 2011. This corresponds with the right-leaning Heritage Foundation's figure of 49.% paying no federal income tax in 2009.

Note - we're only talking about federal taxes because this is the national platform for the presidential election.

TPC adds that of the 46.4%, roughly 28% do pay payroll taxes. This means that they pay Social Security withholding, Medicare withhold and income tax withholding.

Since SS and Medicare are supposed to be set-asides for future payments the individual will receive, they're not a tax that is going to support the general functions of government. (At least, they aren't supposed to be, even though politicians have raided those funds for general spending - but that a topic for another post.)

So those 28% who do have income tax withheld from their paychecks either get all of it returned to them - or more. Yes, some people end up getting more in their tax refund than they originally paid in.

So, it is accurate to say that roughly half of tax filers in recent years have paid nothing to support the general obligations of the government.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

How much is their "fair share"? Do they even have a 'fair share'? Surely a 'share' can't be equal to nothing - right?

If we are to believe Mayor Booker, paying your fair share is patriotic and everyone should do it.

To the dictionary, to me - and, I would hope, to 'everyone' else - the word "everyone" means every single person; all; each of us.

That's not the definition Booker is using.

He - and the Democrats - don't mean that every one of us should have some skin in the game. He just means that people who are richer should pay more than what they're paying now and the people who are paying nothing should continue to benefit.

The people who pay no federal income taxes are not helping to support the highways they travel on. They're not helping to support the military who defends them (as Booker mentions so dramatically). They're not helping to keep their food safe, their water clean and their air free from pollutants. They're not contributing to the cost of printing money, regulating banks, or even the salaries of their elected officials. They're not funding research or maintaining our national parks. They're not securing our borders or stopping drugs smugglers. They're not supporting our space efforts. They're not helping the Postal Service - and heaven knows it needs a lot of help.

To use the Democrats' own word, they're making absolutely no "investment" in their country - but they are reaping the rewards of the investments being made by others.

And, according to Booker, because they are not paying anything at all, much less their "fair share," they're unpatriotic as well.

Who knew?

Liberal hypocrisy and early voting: one-size-fits-all...except when it doesn't

For years we've heard from Democrats, liberals and progressives that the federal government is the solution.

Regardless of the need or issue, they've supported a one-size-fits-all approach to everything from Obamacare to seat belts to gun laws, convinced that their perceived 'disparity' in local rules was unequal and a problem that only a large bureaucracy in Washington could properly address.

'Experts' in the federal government (and non-experts in the White House) think everyone should cut down on their salt intake. But what if you have a salt deficiency?

The federal food pyramid says everyone should have six or more servings of carbohydrates every day. If I ate that many, I'd be a blimp!

New ADA pool mandates say that all public pools must have two handicap accesses, including an electronic lift that a handicapped person can use without having to ask for help. This applies even to hospital pools used for therapy - where people are incapable of entering a pool without help - and campgrounds, even when their pools and facilities don't have access to electricity.

And then there's education - which is so much a one-size-fits-all that I don't know where to begin.

In all these examples, and others too numerous to list, liberals insist the federal government has to step in to make things even for all, disregarding that the actual results are usually very uneven and certainly less than 'equal.'

In the ongoing dispute over early voting hours in Ohio, Democrats complained that having different hours in different counties would disenfranchise some voters - specifically those they consider their own: minority, low income, urban.

They were angry that some of the county Boards of Elections (all comprised of two Republicans and two Democrats) voted to have different hours than others - and they argued that the Republican-leaning counties were the ones with longer times than the Democrat-leaning ones.

Clearly, despite the equal and bi-partisan nature of the BOEs, this was a GOP effort to suppress the Democrat vote.

Secretary of State Jon Husted warned the BOEs ahead of time that if they ended up with a tie vote on hours of operation for the early voting centers, he would break the tie in favor of regular BOE office hours, saying that he was not going to be responsible for mandating the costs of additional hours and overtime upon counties, especially on those without the fiscal flexibility to pay for it.

Whether coincidence or intention, certain urban areas ended up with tie votes and Husted kept his word.

But Democrats were right about unequal access and Kasich agreed: local control meant voting hours were not uniform across the state.

So Kasich, after consulting with the Ohio Attorney General to ensure he had the authority, issued a directive setting standard early voting hours for all of Ohio.

In Montgomery County, the two Democrat BOE members refused to vote for the mandated hours, arguing that since the directive was silent about any additional hours, they could follow the times set out and add others to it. Consistent with action taken by Democrat Jennifer Brunner when she was Secretary of State, Husted began the process to remove them for failing to follow his directive.

As Husted said, "While they are free to disagree with my decision, they are not free to disobey the law."

You'd think the Dems would be happy that their demands for uniformity were met. However, it wasn't their uniformity, so they continued to complain.

Yes, after demanding uniformity, they're now claiming uniformity is wrong.

Despite a history and record of supporting one-size-fits-all approaches, they're actually staying that setting standard hours for all of Ohio is going to create disparities.

Huh?

During a Wednesday press conference, House Minority Leader Armond Budish said each county has its own specific needs and voter demographics, so uniform hours are unworkable and could lead to delays. Talking of Husted's directive he said:

"He said he's leveling the playing field for voters by requiring all county boards to have the same early vote hours. Sadly, that is just not true. Setting uniform hours treats all county boards the same, but it treats voters unequally and unfairly. Secretary Husted's edicts will result in disparities, bringing back long lines in large urban counties."

Budish said having the same early vote hours for Cuyahoga County with 1.2 million residents and Morgan County with only 15,000 residents didn't make sense.

He may be right, but he and his fellow Dems certainly didn't consider that point when making their earlier demands for uniformity.

Budish said:

"Yet those same two counties each have one polling place open for early in-person voting. Treating election boards equally treats voters unequally and unfairly. And who suffers? It's minorities. It's the working poor. They'll face much longer lines. All voters will face longer lines, especially in those large urban counties. It's those folks whose votes are being suppressed."

I've previously questioned why Democrats think so little of their own supporters (they don't know how to get an ID, they can't feed their children or find housing or jobs without the government, they can't manage to vote either absentee or in-person with over 230 hours to do so and they don't have time to get to the polls on election day despite having 13 hours in which to do so)...I guess Budish shares the same perspective of his fellow Democrats who serve on the BOEs.

First, there is nothing in the directive to say that counties can have only one early voting center, so Budish makes a fallacious argument and starts with an incorrect premise which gives him an incorrect conclusion.

But, for the sake of his argument, even if they have only one early vote location, they would, by necessity, need more voting machines in Cuyahoga than in Morgan. Unless Budish doesn't trust his Democrat BOE members to properly plan the right amount of machines for the voters they expect, there shouldn't be any long lines.

In a statement, ColorOfChange Executive Director Rashad Robinson said of Husted that "he has rolled back access for Ohio voters, specifically in racially diverse urban areas like Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Dayton."

But in Lucas, Summit, Cuyahog and Franklin counties, the BOEs had tie votes on the voting hours and when Husted broke the ties, he did so in favor of regular office hours. So the directive actually increases early voting hours Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus and Akron.

How can Robinson make such a claim - and how was he not challenged on the fact by the regular media?

So after getting their way on uniform hours, they're now saying that treating everyone equally is unequal.

Sadly, the hypocrisy is lost on them.

Ohio Watchdog round-up: sales tax, hypocrisy, several tax

A round-up of article from Ohio Watchdog:

Sales tax, property tax and - oh yeah - children: Discussions about how to fund education in the state include raising the sales tax to replace the property taxes being charged locally. How much, who gets it and who decides is always the discussion - but where do the children fit into the equation?

Dear Mr. President - your campaign is out of control: The same day Ohio was celebrating being recognized as an All-Star state for our efforts to protect the military vote, the Obama For America campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party sued the state to overturn the very law that help us win the recognition.

Oh - and overlooked by everyone is the sheer hypocrisy of the ODP, along with chairman Chris Redfern, of suing to overturn a bill that every Democrat - including Redfern - voted for.

Yes, you read that correctly. The ODP is suing to overturn a bill that received unanimous support when it was passed.

Kasich renews calls for high oil, gas severance tax: I written in opposition to the severance tax, and several groups (here and here) have announced their opposition as well. This article describes the proposal and what proponents and opponents have to say. Tom Blumer also lists Another reason to oppose gas hikes on Ohio's oil, gas industry.

Lastly, Ohio Watchdog has done a series of articles exposing the bias and 'untruthfulness' of PolitiFact's truth or lie conclusions. The latest article looks at how PolitiFact slams a GOP spokeswoman's 'literally true' statement as somehow untrue. Unbelievable! But read all the posts in the series and you'll see how PolitiFact is just a tool to support liberals while criticizing conservatives. That's my opinion, but you'll see how valid it is after reading the series and you can judge for yourself.

Deconstructing The Blade's drug-pusher mentality on changing county government

Like a drug pusher trying to get you to get you hooked, The Blade is out with another editorial touting the benefits of bigger government and their 'revised' version of uni-gov. They've already sewn up the Toledo market (strong-mayor form of government they pushed) so now they want to expand into the county as a whole.

Like this effort, they pushed a strong-mayor form of government for Toledo telling us, in numerous 'news' articles and editorials, that a bigger city council with both district and at-large members along with a strong mayor who would appoint professionals to run Toledo would be a good thing.

Along with help from the Lucas County Democratic Party (who saw the inevitable outcome being more elected Democrats), they convinced a majority of Toledo voters and we were rewarded with the same 'stuck-on-stupid' thinking we've always had, except now from a larger, more costly government.

Oh - and we also had to suffer through two terms of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner, one term of Mayor Jack Ford, and another term of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner before getting a reasonable person, current Mayor Mike Bell, to hold that office. In case you're mathematically challenged, that's 16 years of two politicians from the same party with a council also dominated by Democrats, despite districts being drawn to supposedly provide for 'balanced' representation.

And how did all that work out? Well, they don't call us 'little Detroit' for nothing....

But if that's not enough to make your want to run screaming away from the county charter petitioners, let's take a look at what the unsigned editorial says about this proposal:

If you haven't yet endorsed the petition, you have every reason to do so.

Reform proponents need at least 14,500 signatures of registered voters, approved by the county board of elections, to advance their proposal for a new home-rule charter. Late last week, the grass-roots campaign said it had collected about 20,000 signatures. It seeks as many as 22,000 to fend off inevitable challenges by champions of business as usual.

Actually, no - you don't have 'every' reason to do so. In fact, the outcome from pushing for a similar structure for the city of Toledo should give you every reason NOT to.

Note the way they characterize people opposed to the idea: "champions of business as usual." Just because people like me - for valid reasons - do not support the proposal, it does not necessarily infer that we support the status quo. This is a logical fallacy - and someone who manages to make their way to the editorial board so as to write such attempts at persuasion ought to know that. Perhaps the author does, but expects readers not to know. What does that say about what they think of their readers?

I do want change in county governance - but I have yet to see any evidence that changing the form of the structure of our county government will give us anything different in terms of the policies, positions and actual governance of the county.

In fact, the study done by the self-appointed group that is recommending the change admits that, even under their structure, it boils down to who you elect - not the office you elect someone to. Given that admission from the study group, why are we going any further?

The reform plan would enable voters to exchange their 18th-century county government for a more-efficient structure. The new charter envisions a government that saves tax dollars, makes elected officials more accountable, and promotes economic growth and job creation.

This is the standard line from the limited supporters and it's what they've told their petitioners to tell people when they ask them to sign the petition.

But there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the new structure will save tax dollars. They've not done a financial analysis; they've not shared fiscal comparisons of the two structures; they've only used a total spending comparison between Lucas County and one of the counties that has gone to a charter form of government and concluded that Lucas spends more per person than Summit County does,

This may be true - but they didn't compare Lucas County to the other 86 counties that don't have a charter form of government to see if we spend more per person than any of them. Is it likely that successful counties, like our neighbor Wood County, have a more efficient government than Lucas does without changing their form of government?

I don't know - but I question (and so should you) that if per person costs of government are the standard, why didn't the group compare Lucas to all counties to see where we stack up? The answer is that doing so might have shown that other counties have a less-costly government without going through such a change and that wouldn't fit with the goal of the paper to achieve the uni-gov dream they've had for decades.

They claim the new structure will "make elected officials more accountable." How, they don't say. Right now, specific elected officials are accountable for the actions of their office and we get a chance, every four years, to judge them on their actions and either re-hire them (elect them) or fire them (elect someone new).

Just like with a city council - how are we to hold individual members of council accountable for the failed action of a particular department - such as the Department of Neighborhoods? We can't. We can make one or more of their votes an issue in an election, but that will not change what a bureaucratic department is doing.

Some may say we can hold the mayor accountable for a department's action and, in the case of a charter form of county government, we would hold the county executive accountable. But even that's not a good enough answer (can you say three terms of Carty Finkbeiner?) as people will often overlook one or more issues because they agree with the elected official on so many others.

Additionally, with the majority of the proposed county districts incorporating the city of Toledo, how will a suburban community like Waterville hold the body accountable when they decide to do something that benefits Toledo to their detriment?

It's much easier to hold three county commissioners accountable than it is to hold six county council members and a county executive accountable. And having the ability to judge the individual performance of people elected to the offices of treasurer, auditor, recorder and sheriff means those individuals are directly accountable for the functions of their office to the citizens - not to some other group of elected officials who can escape blame in various ways.

The Blade also claims changing our form of government "promotes economic growth and job creation." Again, they provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this claim - but it sure sounds good, doesn't it? After all, job growth is what the area needs.

The hypocrisy, however, is something that cannot be overlooked. Economic development is not a function of the structure of government - it is a function of the policies the government puts in place. Elected individuals can implement policies that encourage or discourage economic development.

Sadly, too few elected individuals in Toledo and county government have any experience whatsoever in the business world so they make decisions that feel good (recreation levy) or that benefit a certain constituency (government unions and other groups that rely upon government funding for their existence) to the detriment of the business community which hurts their ability to grow, prosper and provide jobs.

The Blade did not oppose Toledo's living wage ordinance. While supporters claimed this was a good policy, it was - in effect - a mandate on employers and unnecessarily drove up the cost of contracts the taxpayer ended up paying. That's not-business-friendly and it hurt job providers. No doubt the paper will push for such a policy county-wide.

The Blade did not oppose the county's most recent plan to mandate Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) on all county contracts, despite having done so when the matter was first brought up. In case you're not familiar with that, it's when the county mandates that you must have a union agreement with your workers - whether you are a union shop or not - for the project you do for the county and the county will negotiate that contract for you to be sure it's consistent with what other contracts say. But it goes further and also mandates the same thing on any sub-contractors you may use. (Background and more details are available here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Talk about increasing the cost per person of county government! Bet the committee didn't look at that aspect before concluding that our government costs more than Summit. But I digress....

In fact, many of the numerous 'not-business-friendly' policies and votes that work to the detriment of economic development and job growth have been supported by The Blade. I've heard our local daily referred to as the "single most destructive force in the county" because of its many stances in favor of things that have hurt economic development and job growth in the area.

So how, exactly, will changing the form of government help? Are we to assume that a new county council (made up of a majority of Toledo elected officials who are term-limited, I predict) will repeal such anti-business policies in order to free our job providers from unnecessary costs and mandates? (That sound in your head is called hysterical laughter.)

Here's where one of the supposed 'champions of business as usual' believes change for the better could be made - and it doesn't require a change in structure. Just repeal all these anti-business rules, quit saying yes to every tax increase that comes along, lower property taxes and sales taxes and get out of the way of the people who are actually providing jobs in the county. See???

Like the authors of the study admit, it depends upon electing the right people.

The proposal would abolish the three-member Board of County Commissioners and seven of the county's eight elected -- but largely invisible -- row offices. The current government structure encourages wasteful fragmentation and redundancy, and leaves taxpayers wondering who's responsible for what.

Again, the editor clearly thinks people in the area are stupid if we don't know who is responsible for what. As for 'encourages wasteful fragmentation and redundancy,' this is incorrect. As a former county commissioner I can tell you that any redundancy in county government is a factor of governance - not of structure. And having been in the office, there is not as much redundancy as some claim and the ability of the commissioners to control the budgets of the other elected officials means that the commissioners can insist upon elimination of duplication - if they have the will to do so. Again, it comes back to the people - not the structure.

The ballot plan calls for an elected, nonpartisan county executive who would appoint professional administrators rather than politicians to head county offices. It also would create a county council whose nine members would mostly be elected by districts rather than at large. Those elections would occur in November 2013, and the new officials would take office the following January.

"Nonpartisan county executive who would appoint professional administrators rather than politicians" ... Yeah - because that's worked out so well with Toledo and the county already. Just take a look at who the elected officials surround themselves with - partisan individuals who support the partisan or electoral efforts of the people who appointed them.

Lucas County had one of the most respected and admired county administrators in John Alexander. But when Pete Gerken was elected to the board of county commissioners, he and Tina Skeldon-Wozniak told Alexander they didn't want him anymore. Alexander graciously went away and is now benefiting Perrysburg. The county got Michael Beazley - a former Democratic Party officer - and when he left for an even higher paying position in Oregon, they hired Peter Ujvagi, former Toledo city council member and former state representative who was termed out and had, in his background, the bankruptcy of his family business. So much for 'professional administrators' - I can't wait to see who they hire next!

So do you really think that if someone like Pete Gerken gets elected the county executive that he's going to hire all professionals? Again, that sound you're hearing in your head is hysterical laughter.

A similar structure in Cuyahoga and Summit counties has cut costs of county government. It also has encouraged central cities and suburbs in these counties to cooperate in providing regional public services, thus reducing duplication, and discouraged them from raiding each other for businesses and jobs.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that costs in Summit and Cuyahoga have been cut as a result of the change in government structure. As for cooperation in providing regional public services, The Blade forgets the cooperation and collaboration that already exists.

When Mayor Jack Ford decided to push The Blade agenda of uni-gov, then-County Administrator John Alexander made a list of everything the county and its jurisdictions cooperated on. The list was two pages long! It included everything from joint purchasing of items like office supplies and road salt, to the first-in-the-nation completely integrated criminal justice computer system. The paper isn't going to tell you about the ways the municipalities do work cooperatively because that might make you question their premise that a change in government structure is needed.

But the real kicker is this: "discouraged them from raiding each other for businesses and jobs." The Blade has long opposed what it perceives as suburban communities raiding Toledo for businesses and job - even residents. They believe Toledo needs to dominate the area and be the focus of the region.

There is a lot to be said for strong cities, but in today's world and with the technology now available to us, that concept is as antiquated as they claim our structure of county government is.

It also presumes that businesses should have no other choice but to be inside the city limits, despite the more business-friendly policies of surrounding communities and whether or not surrounding communities would better meet the needs of the business.

Since Toledo is showing it really can't compete with the surrounding communities because of the bad decisions Toledo has made (usually with the strong backing of the paper's editorial board and publisher) The Blade's solution is to make the entire county like Toledo. And note that they have no problem with Toledo raiding other communities for businesses and jobs - just the other way around.

But here's the rub: businesses who found refuge from bad Toledo policies by moving to the suburban communities can also move to Wood, Fulton or Ottawa county if those bad business policies are exported, as I expect they will be, into county government.

The businesses, if they are to survive, will find the place that provides them with the tax, fee and regulatory structure necessary to support their legitimate goals of growth and profit. The Blade will then start complaining about how the surrounding counties need to support Lucas instead of 'raiding' them. Do you see where that is going?

The reform plan would make the Lucas County executive a focused, high-profile agent of economic development in northwest Ohio.

Oh my - where to start on this one? The structure of government will not make any person a focused, high-profile agent of economic development. The only way to get someone like that, as the study authors reluctantly admit, is to elect someone who is already like that. Duh! And what if we elect someone like Carty Finkbeiner or Jack Ford? Or like the new Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald who, in his first term under a brand-new governmental structure, is already "sending strong signals" that he's interested in running for governor in 2014. I'll bet his attention is fully focused on economic development.

Advocates argue plausibly that it also would make county government more diverse and bipartisan.

"Plausibly"??? Really??? Take a look at this proposed district map and tell me how in the world we'd get a more bipartisan body.

It may be true that we'd get one Republican county council member out of six - but I'm living proof that a Republican can be elected Commissioner - one of three. So to say we'd get 'more' bipartisan representation is false. One of three is greater than one of six, so just electing a Republican in the current structure would actually be better if numbers of R's and D's are all we're looking at.

The problem is that party affiliation and skin color are immaterial to what we really need, which is a diversity of ideas and perspectives. What we'd get with proposed districts like these is Toledo-centric domination - and Toledo doesn't have a very good track record of saving tax dollars, making elected officials more accountable, and promoting economic growth and job creation.

The four months until Election Day will provide ample time for a thorough public debate on the merits of county reform. But that can't occur unless county voters give themselves the opportunity now to opt for positive change and modernized government in November. That means adding your signature to the petition drive.

Somehow I can't help but think of Rep. Nancy Pelosi's statement that "we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."

The fallacy - again - is thinking that we should have a measure on the ballot before we have a "thorough public debate" on the merits and that such debate "can't occur" unless we sign the petitions.

What they really mean is that if the measure makes it on the ballot, they can use the 'support' of the signers as 'proof' that people want the change. They've done that before, when it suited them. If The Blade really wanted debate on the issue, they'd seek out and publish the valid arguments against the proposal and allow the people to decide, rather than demonizing those of us who oppose it.

But tell me - what news article have you seen (out of the dozens they've published on the subject), that 'focused' on any argument against this proposal? What news article have you seen that provides for any 'public debate' on the issue? I'd wait while you search, but you won't find it, so you might as well keep reading.

The problem is that what they're putting on the ballot is flawed - in original premise and, thus, in conclusions. They write:

“Simply put, we believe government must lead.”

They don't say why, they don't explain any other option, but with this as their premise, the study group obviously had no other choice but to conclude that:

Lucas County needs a single unifying leader. The absence of such an office and such a person makes reversing our condition more difficult and perpetuates a fragmented decision-making environment.

So rather than look at the decisions - or the people who make those decisions - that make our current condition a bad one, they conclude we must change our form of government so we can elect a perfect person to lead us to salvation.

So sign those petitions so ignorant people can be swayed by fallacious arguments like these to do The Blade's bidding and achieve uni-gov once and for all!

Okay - back to the facts...

The Blade and the study have failed to demonstrate a need, failed to identify and analyze various methods to meet the need and failed to document why their preferred option is the best. They have just decided and are expecting everyone else to just fall in line.

But fortunately, this tactic of theirs is too well known and, hopefully individuals in Lucas County will reject The Blade's belief that they know what's best for us and refuse to sign the petition.

Dem Ohio Senators call for fair pay while ignoring unfair pay in their own party

You can file this under "hypocrisy in governemt" ...

Sen. Charleta Tavares (D-Columbus) and Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) on Monday called on the U.S. Senate to pass legislation that seeks to equalize pay between men and women.

These state senators want the Paycheck Fairness Act, otherwise known as the No Privacy in my Paycheck Act, to be passed. It's primary impact would be to make it easier for women to sue their employers for wage disparity, even though the causes of such alleged wage disparity have little to do with discrimination.

Christina Hoff Sommers, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, says the statistics on pay equity are politicized and do not consider all factors.

“An analysis of more than 50 peer-reviewed papers, commissioned by the Labor Department, found that the so-called wage gap is mostly, and perhaps entirely, an artifact of the different choices men and women make -- different fields of study, different professions, different balances between home and work,” Sommers wrote.

“A core provision would encourage class-action lawsuits and force defendants to settle under threat of uncapped punitive damages,” said Sommers. “Employers would be liable not only for intentional discrimination (banned long ago) but for the ‘lingering effects of past discrimination.’ What does that mean? Employers have no idea.”

But that's not the worst of it.

Senate Democrats who are pushing this bill actually pay their female staffers less than they pay their male staffers.

I guess it's true that all animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

No - I'm not making this up. The Washington Free Beacon has the details:

A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.

Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.

Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.

That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.

A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.

Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.

You really need to read the entire article to see just how bad some of the discrepancies are, and then you'll realize the extreme hypocrisy that is being shown by the Democrats. How much do you want to bet that their proposed bill won't apply to Congress?

And they have the unmitigated gall to talk about a so-called Republican 'war on women.'

But back to Ohio and Senators Tavares and Turner.

"I applaud President Obama for standing up for equal pay for equal work. In 2012, it is unconscionable that a pay gap between women and men persists." ~ Sen. Turner

"We have pay discrimination against women which impacts their quality of life and that of their families. This in turn negatively impacts our economy." ~ Sen. Tavares

Really? So you think your fellow Democrats in the Senate are unconscionable and hurting the economy? I'm certain others will agree with that, but it's not what they mean, though it is the only logical conclusion.

Tavares, Turner and the rest of the Democrats should fix their own pay discrimination first and forget about aiding the trial lawyers lobby for an election-year stunt.

Anything less is "unconscionable."

Oh the irony: DNC requires photo ID for convention

Yes, it's true. The party that says requiring photo identification to vote will disenfranchise people is requiring a photo ID in order to enter their convention.

From Examiner.com:

Far left wing Democrats scream that anyone who is for Voter identification at the polls is a racist who hates the poor and is trying to disenfranchise voters. It is beyond ironic that Democrats are requiring photo i.d. to all who enter their convention this weekend in Springfield. From their convention materials:

Registration and Credentials
A PHOTO ID WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENTER THE MASSMUTUAL CENTER

Apparently the Left got the memo that the majority of voters, including Democrats, want voter i.d. to be put into place. Or maybe they learned their lesson from the massive Caucus fraud that occurred against Clinton for their buddy in the White House.

Irony or hypocrisy? Massachusetts Democrats give all new meaning to their party's symbol.

Irony or hypocrisy? I say both!

Evolving or flip-flopping?

Think about it: if a Republican had a position, then backtracked on the position, then modified the position, then claimed to be 'thinking' about the position and then, just before an election came back around to the original position, do you think the media - or anyone, for that matter - would be praising that?

But that's exactly what has happened with President Barack Obama's flip-flopping on gay marriage.

As the Weekly Standard's Elliott Abrams writes (emphasis added):

In fact, Obama has not “evolved”—he has changed his position whenever his political fortunes required him to do so. Running for the Illinois state senate from a trendy area of Chicago in 1996, he was for gay marriage. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,” he wrote in answer to a questionnaire back then. In 2004, he was running for the U.S. Senate and needed to appeal to voters statewide. So he evolved, and favored civil unions but opposed homosexual “marriage.” In 2008, running for president, he said, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.” Now in 2012, facing a tough reelection campaign where he needs energized supporters of gay “marriage” and has disappointed them with his refusal to give them his support, he is for it. To paraphrase John Kerry, he was for it before he was against it before he was for it again.

So he was for it, then he supported civil unions, then he opposed it, then he was 'evolving' and now he's for it again.

Really?

Do you actually believe he's suddenly seen the light? Or has he stuck his finger in the air to find out which way the wind is blowing?

And if he originally supported gay marriage, then said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman and now says he supports gay marriage again, did he ever truly believe marriage was between a man and a woman in the middle?

If you supported him because he supported traditional marriage, did you not look at his record previously?

If you support him now because he supports gay marriage, do you think he will change his mind yet again?

Had this been a true change of heart, he wouldn't be full circle back to what he believed in 1996.

We all need to be honest with ourselves and call this what it is, regardless of our political parties, position on the issue, political philosophy or who we plan to vote for in November.

This is not 'evolving.' This is flip-flopping. To call it anything else is hypocrisy.

Quote of the Day - spiking the football

A group of were discussing the recent President Barack Obama ad that mentions his decision to go after Osama bin Laden. The ad can be viewed here.

Presidents use their wartime decision-making in re-election campaign ads all the time. It's not unusual. But our discussion revolved around this president's opposition to what his predecessor, Pres. George W. Bush, had done, only to then brag about continuing along the same path.

Some, including Veterans for a Strong America, took exception to the way Pres. Obama bragged:

Which leads us to today's Quote of the Day from a friend who had just viewed both videos. Because of the type of work performed, my friend needs to remain anonymous, but did grant permission to use the quote:

The video is just perfect. And it pisses me off, even more than I was already pissed off seeing live coverage on my television 10 seconds ago watching Diane Sawyer say this is a historic night with the first Presidential address from a combat zone. These disgusting, gutless people who harped endlessly about a "Mission Accomplished" sign, who declared the war lost and wanted to cut and run before the "surge," who called our country torturers for doing what surely played a role in the eventual finding of bin Laden and now want to take credit for it all. At the expense of brave, selfless American heroes. And they do it all for the sake of political posturing. I am exercising exceptional restraint right now. I really want to rip Obama, Reid, Pelosi and lying excuses for American journalists a new one. Sometimes I really wish I could still say/blog whatever I wanted and this is definitely one of those times. It is probably better that I can't though. The only words I can think of that even come close to expressing the way I feel are the ones my husband, a Marine Corps vet, doesn't even use any more.

I think a lot of people feel the same way, which is why the ad is being soundly criticized:

Barack Obama’s “I Shot Bin Laden!” ad might be the worst political move he’s ever made. It tops the list because, unlike his many other foul-ups (50 percent structural youth unemployment, skyrocketing debt, supporting post-birth abortion), this is a rare example of him getting something completely right and then turning it into something horribly wrong. The man is so politically tone deaf he makes Joe Biden look like Machiavelli.

It's one thing to be hypocritical - it's another to do so badly.

Hypocrisy thy name is Nancy Pelosi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debbie Wasserman Schultz - against the budget before she was for it?

In an interview on Fox News Tuesday, Bret Baier asked Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz about budgets, specifically the lack of a budget from the U.S. Senate in three years.  The budget discussion begins at the 2 minute mark. 




Baier, noting that Democrats have gone out of their way to criticize the budget presented by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), said there was no Democrat budget on the table.

Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) objected stating that Pres. Barack Obama had submitted a budget.  But Baier continued saying the President's budget wasn't being voted on.

“That’s right, because House Republicans voted it down,” she said.

EXCEPT....

The vote on Obama's most recent budget was 414-0. 

It wasn't just House Republicans who voted it down - not a single Democrat voted for it, including Wasserman Schultz herself!

Hypocrisy, lies, distortions ... how does she live with herself?

Too bad Baier didn't ask her about her own vote...

Link Roundup - taxes, tyranny, tortoises and free speech

Here are some interesting stories from around the Internet that I came across and wanted to share:

* Union argues that Indiana right-to-work law infringes on free, er, subsidized speech - it's hard to believe but a union in Indiana is arguing in court that the state's new right-to-work law, which makes union dues voluntary and not a requirement for employment, impedes their right to free speech because it cuts the amount of money they have to 'communicate' that speech.

They're claiming that free speech depends on funding. As the article says:

The right to free speech does not include the right to publication, or of revenue either resulting from or in service to that speech. The act of refusing to join does not keep the union from expressing itself. It just means that they may not have access to the best platforms from which to deliver that speech, which puts them in the same boat as everyone else. Perhaps they should spend more time convincing people to support them voluntarily than in getting courts to forcibly extract cash from workers in order to pursue their own political purposes.

* Mojave Solar Project Killing Threatened Desert Tortoises - Environmentalists and conservations have documented that the have documented that the have documented that the BrightSource Energy's Ivanpah solar power project in the Mojave Desert has directly caused many desert tortoise deaths, in addition to disturbing the natural environment of all the reptiles in the area.

It's bad enough that the project is costing more than $2 billion. Shamefully, the solar energy from Ivanpah will be three times more expensive than natural gas or coal. What's even worse is that the state's Public Utilities Commission has estimated that customers will see their bills increase up to 50% for renewable energy as a result.

But the kicker is the hypocrisy of all who support the project. Could you imagine the outrage, outcries and demonization that would come from politicians and the media if this was an oil or coal plant doing the same thing?


* Women vs. the State - the National Center for Policy Analysis has summarized a recent Reason Magazine article on how women fare under many laws. What I thought was particularly interesting was the tax ramifications which many people don't think about:

• Unless a wife makes more than her husband (and 72 percent do not), the government will tax the first dollar the wife earns at her husband's highest marginal rate.

• This tax policy and the steep jump in the marginal rates as a couple's income rises discourage women from working, as they receive disproportionately low after-tax compensation.

• The effect is a marriage penalty on women's desire to work.

• According to economists Nada O. Eissa and Austin Nichols, married women increased their employment substantially in response to reductions in marginal tax rates following the 1986 tax reform, and similar results were seen again in the 1990s.

• It also explains why, despite the fact that almost 80 percent of working mothers say they would prefer to work part time, almost two-thirds work full-time instead.

And speaking of taxes, since they're are due by April 15th, this article from Cato is especially timely...

* American Income Tax Tyranny - This article details several types of tyranny in the tax code, including the lie that our taxes are imposed by the 'consent of the governed':

The United States has the most progressive (i.e., unequal) tax system in the world. The bottom 50 percent of income earners, on average, receives more in tax benefits than they pay in taxes — while the highest earners pay a wildly disproportionate amount of their income in taxes — despite the myth that Warren Buffett has a lower tax rate than his secretary. A progressive income tax only meets the test of “consent of the governed” when a majority of each class of taxpayers consents to its tax rate. Otherwise, it is tax tyranny of a low-tax-rate majority against a vote-poor, high-tax-rate minority. The apologists for the progressive income tax claim it is only “fair,” ignoring the fact there is nothing at all “fair” about taxing at a higher tax rate those who work longer and harder and/or spend more time acquiring an education and work skills. It is destructive and tyrannical for a society to tax the most productive, innovative and job-creating people at a higher rate than others.

But this is only one such tyranny. I hope you'll read the entire article.

Obama's budget, hypocrisy and 'out of the mouths of babes'

As regular readers of my blog know, hypocrisy and double standards are things I abhor.  Sadly, there are too many examples of these two things in the political and media world.

President Barack Obama's budget was recently introduced to Congress and, for the second time received not a single vote.

Despite both Obama and the media blaming the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for the failure, no Democrat cast a 'yes' vote.  And, again, this was the second time his budget got no votes.

Can you imagine the indignant claims of incompetence from the other side of the political aisle if this had been a Republican president who couldn't get even one vote from his own party for his budget?!?

Could you imagine what the media would be doing? 

Every newscast and the top and bottom of every hour would be proclaiming that, for the second time, the Republican President had failed in his budget.  There would be a line of people waiting to issue statements, go on talk shows and shout to the world that any president incapable of getting even one vote from his own party for his budget needed to go.

But we have a biased media who are clearly rooting for Obama, so you hear nothing ... or a mimicking of the spin from the White House.

To me, the issue isn't just the abysmal failure of the President (that's well-documented for anyone who cares to look at his record with an eye to the Constitution), it's the double standard of allowing/condoning/excusing something from your own party while protesting/criticizing/objecting when it is done by your opponent.

Don't get me wrong, Republicans do it, too.  It's human nature, I suppose, but it's wrong and we should all object.

Additionally, it's the media bias.  I don't mind - and, in fact, greatly appreciate - liberal and conservative opinions.  A respectful and fact-based (rather than emotional) discussion of a point from opposite perspectives is educational and allows all of us to learn and understand an issue more completely - even when the result is an agreement to disagree.

But today's media claims to be objective when they are not. 

The left criticizes people like Rush Limbaugh as an example of media bias.  But Limbaugh isn't a newscaster.  He's a talk radio host and makes no qualms about his conservative bias.  I would never use Ed Schultz as an example of media bias for the same reason - he's a talk show host.  But when the bias comes from Katie Couric or in the news sections of your local paper, that's hypocrisy because that is where it's supposed to be not just the facts, but a complete and fair/accurate reporting of both sides of the issue.

There is hope, though, which leads me to the second portion of my headline 'out of the mouths of babes.'

My friend Jason is 14 years old.  He's a tennis aficionado, as his brand new business cards explain.  At the age of two, he informed his mother (and anyone else who would listen) that he wanted to take tennis lessons.  She made him wait until he was five, thinking the interest would quickly turn to something else (or multiple other things) by then.  But on his fifth birthday, he asked if he could finally start tennis lessons.  And he did.

I'm definitely biased, but not so much as to be able to recognized that he is truly skilled in this sport.  And he loves it.  I believe he's even ranked in the boys - 14 & under group.

Jason is not just a good tennis player, he's also a good person, both on and off the court.  He's a stickler for the rules and  exhibits a true Corinthian spirit in his chosen sport.  (Corinthian - someone who plays sport with the highest possible principles, way exceeding normal sportsmanship.)

He recently decided to start a tennis blog, writing about the sport he loves.  JJ's Tennis View is well written and Jason has a good - and unique - perspective on the sport.  He recently predicted an upset in a women's match, and was correct (something he was especially proud of, being 13 at the time, because no one else did).

Jason and his mom are going to her home town of Charleston for spring break where he will be attending the Family Circle Cup.  He plans to write about the matches, but, being 14, wants to support one of his favorite players, get his t-shirt signed by others and generally be a kid.  Good for him!

His mom researched media credentials for him, thinking that might give him better access to the players for his blog.  He would definitely qualify under the guidelines issued by the Family Circle Cup - but Jason declined.

Now why, you might wonder, would a tennis fan like Jason decline special access to his favorite players?

I just thought it would be unprofessional if I was jumping up and down with signs and shirts for players as a media worker. There's already enough media bias!!!

Indeed.

But if a 14-year-old can understand this, why can't the main stream media?

Unions are one-for-all and all-for-one, except when they aren't

I've always been puzzled by the contradiction that unions present.

The general concept of joining together to advocate for things like wage scales, benefits and working conditions has a basic premise in the 'strength through numbers' idea.

Clearly, if all workers are standing together and refusing to work until some objective is reached, they are in a better position than if it was just a single person fighting for a position.

But too often, there comes a point at which the 'one for all' cry is abandoned and it's 'every man for himself.'

I once interviewed the president of a local police union during a time when the city was threatening layoffs if they didn't get wage concessions. I asked the president what he thought his members would do if the choice was to keep everyone employed at a 3% reduction in wages or to keep the current wages and lose 25 officers. His response, surprisingly honest, was that "sadly" he thought the members would pick the layoffs.

When I challenged this and asked how a union - united - could throw some members under the bus instead of suffering a shared sacrifice among all, he wouldn't make a judgment, just share what he thought the outcome of such a choice would be.

This union president is not alone in his thinking - this is what many unions choose when faced with a similar choice of cuts or layoffs.

And this is what puzzles me so: how can an organization formed to support the one-for-all approach to employment so willingly sacrifice some members so others can keep a certain level of gains. Wouldn't the idea of unionism require a general sacrifice of all in order to keep all employed?

The unions selectively apply this one-for-all approach, resulting in hypocrisy.

For instance, the Wall Street Journal is reporting a new AFL-CIO ad campaign to boost union image and membership (subscription may be required for full article):

The AFL-CIO is launching an ad campaign that seeks to bolster the labor movement's image—the first such effort in more than a decade—as unions try to reverse a slide in public approval and membership.

Labor officials say the broad campaign, which is being rolled out initially in three cities at a cost of $1.5 million, isn't political and remains separate from the AFL-CIO's election mobilization, when the federation is expected to spend tens of millions of dollars to support President Barack Obama.

...

The ads, which avoid contentious images of strikes, attempt to characterize unions as representative of all workers. "Most people…see us as a valuable check on corporations. But as to whether they see us as fresh and innovative and changing with the times, those ideas aren't really on people's minds," said Elizabeth Shuler, secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, who is heading the ad campaign.

She added the campaign is an effort "to reach out to all Americans whether they're in a union or not."

One 30-second television ad that is scheduled to air for the first time Tuesday in Pittsburgh and Austin, Texas, and in coming days in Portland, Ore. ...

So when it comes to spending $1.5 million to do a little self-promotion (in only three cities), the argument will be that it's for the good of the entity - the union itself - thus benefiting all members.

We've all heard the rhetoric: that an attack on one union is an attack on all; that any effort to reduce union wages or pensions is an assault on the entire middle class; that unions maintain the standard of living in a community and if their standard is reduced, it negatively impacts everyone. Basically, they're promoting the all-for-one concept.

But these same individuals will agree in negotiations and approve contracts with two-tiered wage scales where newer members don't get the same wage scales and benefits as the older workers.

The same union leaders who complain about cuts to wages and proclaim that having employees pick up a portion of health care costs is unreasonable, don't offer to reduce the dues their members pay in order to offset the cuts being proposed.

In fact, when have you ever heard of a union leader saying he'll take the same cut in pay he's negotiated for his members? Has that ever happened?

This contradiction - of being one-for-all and all-for-one, except when they're not - is part of what contributes to the image problem and declining membership unions are experiencing. Well, that and their unsustainable public union contracts, their behavior in Wisconsin and other areas, and their growing irrelevance (based upon the successful implementation of laws to address much of their early grievances and issues)....

I once read a rant from a local union leader who, in criticizing the Tea Party efforts, said he wouldn't want to be member of group that would have him as a member. Apparently, the hypocrisy of being a union leader and a member of group that not only had him as a member, but elected him to a leadership position, was beyond him.

It's the hypocrisy the unions need to be worried about. While many will overlook the other negatives, hypocrisy is hard to embrace - and, when given an option, too many people will refuse to pay for it.