QOTD: Core beliefs

"These things I believe:  That government should butt out. That freedom is our most precious commodity and if we are not eternally vigilant, government will take it all away. That individual freedom demands individual responsibility.  That government is not a necessary good but an unavoidable evil.  That the executive branch has grown too strong, the judicial branch too arrogant and the legislative branch too stupid.  That political parties have become close to meaningless.  That government should work to insure the rights of the individual, not plot to take them away. That government should provide for the national defense and work to insure domestic tranquillity.  That foreign trade should be fair rather than free.  That America should be wary of foreign entanglements.  That the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That guns do more than protect us from criminals; more importantly, they protect us from the ongoing threat of government. That states are the bulwark of our freedom.  That states should have the right to secede from the Union.  That once a year we should hang someone in government as an example to his fellows." ~  Lyn Nofziger

Quote of the Day - George Washington on amending the Constitution

People call our Constitution a living document, saying we must 'interpret' it in today's environment. What they really mean is that the Constitution should justify what they want the government to do, regardless of the limitations placed upon it by the Constitution.

George Washington, and our founding fathers, recognized the danger of such a perspective, but anticipated a potential need for modifying the Constitution, so they built into the document the ability to modify it, should we desire to. To modify the powers of government in any other way was considered usurpation - the wrongful seizure or exercise of authority.

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield." ~ Pres. George Washington in his Farewell Address of 1796

Sadly, too many abuses of the legitimate powers and too many violations of the limitations specified in the Constitution have resulted in a federal government more like the one the United States fought a war to escape from than the 'more perfect union' our founders left us.

Introducing the New Federalist Party

Press Release:

THE NEW FEDERALIST NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Defending Liberty and the Constitution for All Americans

Introducing the New Federalist Party - we seek to restore our Country and our government to that which our Founding Fathers created.

• Return the Federal government to acting within its enumerated and limited powers.

• Establish a more efficient and smaller Federal Government to uphold the Constitution.

• Return the United States Senate to its original purpose as the voice of the sovereign States.

• Return to the sovereign States the powers usurped by the Federal government.

• Repeal and stand against all laws, amendments, and acts that are in conflict with the principles and ideologies of The United States of Americas’ founding; including those principles shown to exist by The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America.

All Citizens who love our Country, our Constitution, and the Rights, Freedoms, and Liberties enshrined in, and protected by, our Founding Documents, are hereby invited to join the New Federalist Party.

Contact: Laura Mielcarek, Public Relations

info@thenewfederalistparty.org

http://www.thenewfederalistparty.org/

http://www.facebook.com/thenew.federalistparty

From their Facebook page:

Currently legally we are a "group" of individuals. We are currently gathering funding to file for Incorporation in the state of Florida, file 501c4 status with the IRS and upon reaching a $2000.00 donation received mark. Filing with the Federal Elections Committee as required by law.

Politically speaking we have yet to finalize our Thirty-Three Articles which will be presented before the committee for official voting and official adoption at the convention, whenever that shall be held. As the Federal Elections Committee has determined various requirements for a convention. One of which they have not is location. Being that the majority of our volunteers are in vast geographic locations through-out the country. It has been decided that the convention shall be held via web meeting and conference call. Of which any and all are invited to attend on a first come and first serve basis. Details will be announced as soon as we nail down the last few articles that remain to be polished.

This Party will fall as a subordinate to what will be legally known as The New Federalist National Committee. This is why you see a blatant name difference in the Facebook page and the Website address versus the Website Title. With all of this being addressed and spoken of. If any of you wish to donate towards our group so we can truly begin to show that the citizens are tired of Constitutional Cherry-picking and we do not want change. We want what was already ours to begin with. he link is below.

http://fundly.com/reclaim-america-for-the-citizens-campaign

Quote of the Day - Jefferson was right

You have to wonder if he was psychic, or just very, very smart as, clearly, we have become what he warned against.

"The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in ... the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing it’s noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. ...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." ~ Thomas Jefferson

A tale of three cities: Houston, Detroit and Toledo

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." ~ George Santayana

Mario Loyola has a great column on NationalReview.com that takes a look at two cities and their different approaches to similar circumstances.

He writes:

What Houston did for itself is not merely a model for any city facing the danger of sudden economic decline: The policies that Houston and Texas have followed are proof of concept for the conservative vision of government, which is, essentially, to keep the government off the people’s backs and let a free society find its own way to prosperity.

Detroit, conversely, is proof of concept for the liberal vision of government, which seeks to solve every problem through government, to shape economic development through government, to redress grievances through government, to attain social justice through government, and, finally, to insinuate government into every aspect of our lives. The problems Detroit faced in the latter half of the 20th century would have been enormously challenging no matter what policies it embraced. But it embraced the worst ones and so plunged recklessly down the slope of decline.

Each city has offered a nearly pure exposition of a particular philosophy of government and a vivid demonstration of the results. In the degree of collusion between business and government, in the power of labor unions, in the method of economic development, in the burden of taxation and regulation, in the tolerance for diversity — in all these ways and more, the two cities stand as diametric opposites in the choices a society can make.

Loyola then recites the histories of the two cities, citing their problems and how government officials responded to them. He concludes:

As the next election looms, Americans should consider how rapidly we could unleash the power of American industry and bounce out of this recession, if instead of taking our cue from Detroit, we follow Houston.

But there is a message for Toledo as well. Many have called us 'little Detroit' - and not in a good way. We've not been as reliant upon the auto industry as Detroit was/is, but we still depend upon it as one of our major employers in the area.

Unfortunately, our political leaders are more like Detroit's than Houston's. They tend to adopt the liberal vision of government, "which seeks to solve every problem through government, to shape economic development through government, to redress grievances through government, to attain social justice through government, and, finally, to insinuate government into every aspect of our lives."

If you don't believe me, I challenge you to find any example where our political leaders and the local paper (an opinion 'pusher') have ever embraced a 'leave it alone' approach to anything.

We have two very clear examples with plenty of historical facts and measurable outcomes in Detroit and Houston. We can repeat Detroit's mistakes or we can grow by copying Houston's approach.

As Loyola writes, the choice - and the outcome - is up to us:

But as Oscar Wilde lamented as he languished in Reading Gaol near the end of his life: “I must say to myself that I ruined myself, and that nobody great or small can be ruined except by his own hand . . . Terrible as was what the world did to me, what I did to myself was far more terrible still.”

Quotes of the Day - role of government

It's the start of the Fourth of July holiday and I'm going to play a bit this weekend.

I hope to see many of my readers at the We The People Convention in Columbus which is today and tomorrow. I know they have confirmed Herman Cain as the speaker for Saturday's PAC dinner and, having heard him in person several times, I know he will deliver an excellent keynote address. He's going to be at the convention during the afternoon to meet attendees and perhaps participate in some of the breakout sessions. So this is a chance to have personal access to him.

I'm heading there later tonight and will be introducing Saturday's lunch speaker, John Fund from the Wall Street Journal. I'll also be moderating and participating in the blogger panel during the Americans For Prosperity-Ohio mini Right On Line break-out session following lunch.

So, in anticipation of a patriotic event that encourages us to take responsibility for our governance, and celebration of the birth of our nation, here are two quotes relating to the role of government. The first, from our founding father, Thomas Jefferson, on the limits of government and the second from Sir Richard John Cartwright, a member of the Canadian Parliament and Senator, taken from his comments during Canada's founding debates.


"It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. [The Constitution] was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"I think that every true reformer, every real friend of liberty, will agree with me in saying that if we must erect safeguards, they should be rather for the security of the individual than of the mass, and that our chiefest care must be to train the majority to respect the rights of the minority, to prevent the claims of the few from being trampled under foot by the caprice or passion of the many." ~ Sir Richard John Cartwright

No on Issue 2

My post opposing Issues 1 and 3.

Issue 2 is a constitutional amendment to create a 13-member Livestock Care Standards Board to prescribe standards for animal care and well-being that endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families.

Issue 2 - summary, full text and pros and cons begins on page 9 of this link.

It comes as no surprise that groups like the United States Humane Society (USHS) oppose this because, in their words, it doesn't go far enough, while many legislators (Republicans and Democrats) are supporting it.

What does surprise me, however, is the support from traditional 'limited government individuals' - primarily out of fear that more restrictive rules could be enacted if they don't support this measure. Many of these individuals cite what the USHS has done in California - as if Ohioans would really embrace the bankrupt state of California as an example we must follow.

But representatives of the Humane Society said last week that this measure will not prevent them from seeking, through citizen initiative, more restrictive rules if Issue 2 passes. They admitted that passage would make their goal harder to achieve, but they will pursue it anyway.

And then there is the conundrum that supporters will find themselves in if Issue 2 fails - and even if it passes. Having supported one form of government intrusion into the area, they will be hard pressed to oppose any other form. So the idea that they can prevent the USHS standards by creating their own puts them in the position of not having any credibility if they later decide to oppose any USHS-written measure.

So the reasoning presented is basically this: "We need to embrace an expansion of government in order to prevent an expansion of government."

Rather logical isn't it? Of course, the 'logic' falls apart the minute it is reduced to the basic premise.

I oppose Issue 2 based upon two principles - that amending the Constitution of the State of Ohio should not be done, except in the most serious of circumstances; and that a limited government is most desirable.

I reject the idea that a government agency should be enshrined in our state's constitution. The Constitution details such things as the inalienable rights of citizens, the election, replacement and duties of the branches of government and other such details for the organization of the state. It currently requires only a board of education and a ballot board, which is responsible for approving the ballot language for issues to be voted upon.

It does not require any other such boards, so to do so now would be an aberration in our document.

If there is truly such a need for this type of body, why not just make another department within state government? Great question, right?

Well, the answer is because there already is one - the Department of Agriculture which, interestingly, has the ability, per Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 901, to do exactly what this measure purports to accomplish.

So why do we need to amend our Constitution if the ability to implement the proposed idea already currently exists?

Sadly, the proponents of Issue 2 have not explained this. Instead, they are using 'fear' of extreme action by the USHS to encourage support of the measure.

But more importantly, the government of Ohio does not need to be expanded.

I'd oppose such expansion in a good economy, but to create a new board, a new bureaucracy, add new costs and impose new regulations in an already faltering economy makes absolutely no sense.

The state legislature recently voted to 'delay' planned tax cuts because they don't have enough money to balance the budget. As State Auditor Mary Taylor warned, the budget was based upon nearly $5 billion (yes, billion with a 'b') in one-time funds that will not be here in the next biennial budget. So where does anyone think we'll have the funding for another - new - bureaucracy? The simple answer is - we won't.

So either the state will have to cut something else in order to have this new board, or they will have to raise more taxes. Either way, Ohioans will not be happy.

Expansion of government is never a good idea - and this one is no exception.

There are plenty of other reasons to oppose Issue 2, but these are the principled ones. I hope you will vote NO on Issue 2.


*** If you'd like to know where the issues stand in terms of endorsements, be sure to check out the Ohio 2009 issues page on Ballotpedia! Positions taken by bloggers and newspapers are listed.

Commissioners have no authority to interfere in YMCA

According to a story in today's paper, the residents who want to save the South Toledo YMCA from closure want the Lucas County Commissioners to form a task force that will examine the finances of the organization.

The only problem is that county commissioners have no such authority.

There is nothing in the Ohio Constitution or Revised Code that gives a board of commissioners the authority to examine the books, receipts, expenditures, etc... of a private organization.

A resolution submitted earlier in the month to the BCC to establish a task force was tabled. The Commissioner used the Zoo Task Force as a reason for this action. However, the Zoo is a different animal, so to speak. As a quasi-governmental entity, it exists solely to provide zoological services, under contract with the County, in accordance with the ORC. The YMCA doesn't. (Even then, I voted against the terms of the contract with the Zoo that mandated government appointments to that board because I believed it was outside the authority of the Commissioners to do so.)

The YMCA is a private organization and while they do get some public dollars for certain programs, those programs already have financial oversight and auditing, as required by the contract for those limited programs. If the YMCA did not bid to provide such programs, it would, unlike the Zoo Board, still exist.

The Commissioners should reject any request to interfere in the operations of a private organization - no matter what a few neighbors may think - and, in doing so, should remind that public that government is not always the solution to their problems nor a hammer to be used to force others to conform to a small minority's wants or desires.

However, should the Commissioners bow to the limited public pressure and attempt to exceed their authority, the YMCA should refuse to comply with any such efforts. If the Y allows a government-formed group to examine their internal, private information, they set the stage for other similar intrusions in the future. Such a precedent (and it will be a precedent) will enable the Commissioners and other governmental bodies to expect compliance with such encroachments in the future.

This cannot be allowed. All citizens, business owners, board members and others who do not want to see the heavy hand of government exceed its parameters should vigorously oppose this meddling, overstepping of authority.

Contact information for the Commissioners:

Pete Gerken: pgerken@co.lucas.oh.us
Tina Skeldon Wozniak: twozniak@co.lucas.oh.us
Ben Konop: bkonop@co.lucas.oh.us
Phone number: 419-213-4500

Central dispute between Right and Left over health care

Greg Mankiw, a professor of economics at Harvard University with a blog of 'random observations for students of economics,' has done a good job, I think, of summing up the central dispute between Left and Right over health care.

Perhaps a lot of the disagreement over healthcare reform, and maybe other policy issues as well, stems from the fundamental question of what kind of institutions a person trusts. Some people are naturally skeptical of profit-seeking firms; others are naturally skeptical of government. ...

I tend to distrust power unchecked by competition. This makes me particularly suspicious of federal policies that take a strong role in directing private decisions. I am much more willing to have state and local governments exercise power in a variety of ways than for the federal government to undertake similar actions. ...

Most private organizations have some competitors, and this fact makes me more comfortable interacting with them. If Harvard is a bad employer, I can move to Princeton or Yale, and this knowledge keeps Harvard in line. To be sure, we need a government-run court system to enforce contracts, prevent fraud, and preserve honest competition. But it is fundamentally competition among private organizations that I trust. ...

A central question in this and perhaps other debates is, Whom do you trust?

It's called 'savings' for a reason

Dictionary.com defines 'savings' as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'The bacchanal wil continue...'

At Bloomberg.com, Kevin Hassett writes:

"It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors."

I hope you'll read the entire article linked above

Kaptur makes Drudge headline for pork in energy bill

Here's the Drudge Report with a link to a story on Rep. Marcy Kaptur's 'sweetener' for her vote in favor of the Waxman-Markey energy bill (bottom left column):


According to the story from the Washington Times (be sure to read the comments, too), Kaptur was undecided until this was added. Her spokesman said it was a factor in her decision.

But not everyone from Ohio liked the idea:

"Although the program would benefit his home state, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, also of Ohio, criticized the provision during a more-than-hourlong speech Friday evening. He said an Ohio-based power authority was unneeded because electricity already flows well through Ohio without a new federal power authority.

"We do it today," he said. "We are doing it already." "

My problem is with the logic of her request - the federal government is doing this sort of subsidizing elsewhere, so we should get money and the program, too.

I think that's part of what's wrong with government - everyone trying to get funding for their special interest because someone else got funding. Instead, legislators should be working to eliminate such federal spending on pet projects and return the money to the taxpayers, who wouldn't need such 'help' if the feds weren't taking so much of their own money to begin with. But that's just me...

However, in this case, we're going to be stuck paying a $3.5 billion bill for a pet project of a legislator in exchange for her vote on a law that will cost of dearly in terms of increased energy expenses on everything. What a bargain!

Another form of slavery?

For a couple of months now, my husband and I have been discussing the idea of government as a slave owner, with people, dependent upon the largess of the politicians in charge, as slaves.

We've not fully fleshed it out, but have skirted around the edges of the concept with questions like:

* If government gives you housing and food, tells you where you can send your kids for day care or school, and tells you where to go to a job or training, are you really 'free'?

* Is today's welfare 'society' (for lack of better term) the same as a slave plantation from the 1850's? The 'master'(government) takes care of all your needs and you, in return, do as they say. You may not be out in the fields working, but you're going through the programs they dictate and following their rules in order to maintain your handouts...

* How is today's welfare system any different from slavery? Is it the same concept with a nicer package and the 'illusion' of freedom?

We've been wondering about these things and talking about the differences and similarities. And then today I found Star Parker's column, "Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation," and I realized that others are considering the same things - but in a broader way.

Parker, whose personal story is inspiring, expanded the scope of the idea from the individual to industry and she hits the nail on the head with this observation:

"Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich America on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism."

I hope you will read her full column and that it will cause you to also consider the long-term implications of when government 'help' becomes 'control.'

Bailout 'scope creep'

It's a term most often heard in engineering, architectural and technology projects: scope creep. It's when you make your plans and start your project only to find, along the way, a bunch of new 'wants' or ideas that participants want included.

Since you're re-doing this, why not re-do that at the same time? It's not always that easy and it usually ends up costing a lot more than anticipated.

That's exactly what is happening with the bailout. The legislation was supposed to be limited to the financial markets - to provide liquidity in the financial sector so loans could continue to be made and institutions that were critical to the liquidity/credit areas would be solvent.

Now, it's the automotive industry. Remember when they got their own legislation for $25 billion? Well, that just wasn't enough. Now automotive CEOs and many in Congress are saying that some of the $700 billion in the bailout bill should go to the auto industry.

"In a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) asked Paulson to "review the feasibility . . . of providing temporary assistance to the automobile industry during the current financial crisis."

The letter notes that Congress granted Paulson broad discretion to use the bailout money to "restore financial market stability. A healthy automobile manufacturing sector is essential to the restoration of financial market security," the letter continues, as well as to "the overall health of our economy, and the livelihood of the automobile sector's workforce."

If the request is granted, it would expand the federal government's role in private enterprise far beyond the financial sector."

That's scope creep.

The logic is that survival of the American auto industry is critical to the economic health of the country. The problem is, that logic can be applied to any number of industries - and the expansion is never ending. Fortunately, the Treasury Department, so far, is restricting its focus to entities that are subject to federal regulation.

Friday, General Motors reported a $2.5 billion net loss for the third quarter. Ford's quarterly loss was $129 million.

GM has lost $57 billion since 2005. Ford has lost $24.5 billion since 2006. But these losses are only part of the problem.

"Going into the third quarter, GM had 21 billion dollars on its books. By the end of September, that had plunged to 16.2 billion dollars, coming perilously close to the 11 billion to 14 billion dollars it says it needs on hand to keep the company operating.

Ford burned through 7.7 billion dollars in the quarter, though its reserves are nearly twice as richer thanks to a massive line of credit it acquired last year.

Though it doesn't report its full financial data, the privately-held Chrysler LLC is also thought to be fast running out of cash: one reason, analysts believe, why its parent, Cerberus Capital Management, was so eager to sell Chrysler to GM.

That deal, however, was scuttled by GM, and observers believe Cerberus may now rush to find another buyer as the economy continues to worsen."

So my first question is: what have they been doing since 2005/6 to address their obvious problem? And why must I, as a taxpayer, save them when they haven't indicated their willingness to do what is necessary to save themselves?

They're already getting a $25 billion low-interest loan package to help them retool their factories to produce fuel-efficient vehicles that meet tough new emissions standards. (That Congress passed new emissions laws whose compliance needs to be funded by said Congress is a problem in the first place.) These are funds coming from you and me to reward them for not paying attention to the market and our wants in terms of vehicles over the past several decades.

"But the seeds of the current crisis date back to the last big oil shock, of 1979, which helped the Japanese gain a foothold for small, fuel-efficient products.

As gas lines faded from memory, the Asian automakers continued to gain ground by focusing on quality, something GM, Ford and Chrysler have only recently come to grips with -- and with varying degrees of success.

Further compounding the situation, Detroit has been consciously slow to embrace changes in the American automotive marketplace, especially the shift from big trucks to small, fuel-efficient passenger cars.

And even where it has, lamented Consumer Reports' auto analyst David Champion, it has needed "more models that were exciting for people to buy.""

Yes, the auto makers have started their redesign efforts which is why they say they need additional money. Their new designs, which they hope will lead to long-term success, need the influx of capital in order to bring them to market. Without such cash infusions, they are likely to cut back on the very designs the market desires in order to save money.

And there is some relief in labor costs anticipated beginning in 2009, which will also help. But the argument is that this industry is 'too big to fail.'

Again, that's scope creep.

Many criticized the warnings being shouted by others of the 'slippery slope' the government was approaching. It's here - and it will be even harder to stop the slide now that we've begun.

'You make me sick,' councilman tells business owner

Yes, it's true, but probably only in Toledo.

At-large Councilman Joe McNamara held a press conference yesterday in front of a gas station to criticize local carry-outs that sell miscellaneous items that some people use as drug paraphernalia. He claimed the stores were selling crack pipes and that new regulations are needed to prevent sales to kids.

According to this news report, McNamara got emotional when the owner stated he wasn't breaking the law by selling such items.

"You better stop selling crack pipes … next to kids," Mr. McNamara said. "You make me sick!"

Note that McNamara does not want to outlaw the sale of the items he claims can be used for drugs, nor is he calling for increased enforcement of the existing laws relating to illegal drug usage. No, he wants to regulate the business.

It will come as no surprise to you, I'm sure, that McNamara has gone after other such items - like plastic storage bags - for the same reason. Or that Toledo's land contract regulations were also sponsored by McNamara.

What do these things have in common - besides the obvious, that is?
They're all part of the recommendations from Toledo's Housing Task Force.

This group is dominated by neighborhood groups, city of Toledo administrators and even the spouse of sitting County Commissioner (which explains her strong support of the recommendations). While the chairman of the group is a builder and there are two banks represented, the remaining members have their own agendas when it comes to what they think is best for a neighborhood, and none of those include free-market principles. The group also includes individuals known to affiliate with more government regulation, rather than more freedom.

Here are some of the recommendations they make:

Objectives
1-A Promote use of available incentives for market-rate and affordable housing to local and regional housing developers.
1-B Provide a more effective enforcement tool to ensure that rental properties are brought up to code by strengthening TMC Section 1763 by adding substantial civil fines: $250 for 1st offense, $500 for 2nd offense & $1,000 for 3rd offense.
1-C Provide a more effective enforcement tool to ensure that properties being sold through land contract be brought up to
code, including substantial civil fines: $250 for 1st offense, $500 for 2nd offense & $1,000 for 3rd offense.
1-D Inventory and secure vacant properties by drafting and passing an ordinance that requires registering vacant properties and that they be secured to specific standards.

Sound familiar? They should - the city has either implemented or is considering implementing these ideas.

Sadly, their recommendations aren't just about improving the housing stock in Toledo, they also include social engineering:

1-I Work with the Toledo Housing Fund in their efforts to secure adequate funds that are non-federal, dedicated, and ongoing for market rate rehab and new construction within the City of Toledo and to disperse low and moderate-income households outside of Toledo.

The Toledo Housing Fund is just another bureaucracy used to funnel dollars - and now they are recommending that Toledo export it's failed policies. For a Toledo task force to meddle in the affairs of other jurisdictions by telling them what type of housing they should provide is unacceptable. But then, the idea that white people are fleeing Toledo to avoid being near African-American neighborhoods is routinely promoted by many within our community, including former mayor Jack Ford. And others have expounded that the only way to address such 'inequities' is to insist that low-income housing be imposed upon those other jurisdictions.

This group also wants to continue the failed policies that got us into our current housing mess:

Objectives
2-A Assist low or moderate income households become first-time buyers by reducing the amount of cash needed at closing in down payment assistance or to assist CDC’s in selling their new or rehabilitated homes to homeowners.
2-B Create a City of Toledo Employer-Assisted Housing Program to which the City would match $1 of City funds for each $1 of an employer’s fund, up to $5,000, to enable an employee to purchase a home in the City of Toledo.

2-D Create a linked deposit program to fund incentives to retain and attract middle-income and professional households, empty nesters, young professionals, and urban pioneers to all Toledo neighborhoods, especially target neighborhoods.
2-E Help low-income seniors and/or handicapped home owners remain in their homes by providing grants for emergency home repairs.
2-F Help low-income homeowners (especially female heads of household) remain in their homes by providing grants for emergency repairs.

While I can understand these ideas and recognize the value such assistance might have to overall neighborhood successes, I object to the method: to use public tax dollars to benefit some at the expense of others. The only solution appears to be more government spending - not a reliance upon private or charitable entities to accomplish the objective.

They also want to resort to civil penalties for violations - even if said violations are already against the law. In addition to the ones listed above, they include:

3-A Improve the effectiveness of TMC Section 554 eliminate discriminatory/steering real estate practices by amending it to include civil fines and civil law suits.

And then there is the social engineering - with no mention of free-market ideals:

Objectives
4-A Encourage developers of new subdivisions to set aside between 5% than 10% of the units for low and moderate-income families by providing additional incentives to the developers.
4-B Disperse low- and moderate-income housing throughout Lucas County and the City of Toledo. The Mayor should work with the Lucas County Commissioners, the Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions and other leaders within the region to expand the policy of inclusionary zoning.1
4-C Strategic dispersal of individual housing tax credit units throughout a neighborhood at densities not to exceed 15 percent of the housing units on a block.
***1 “The establishment of zoning regulations which create incentives or requirements for affordable housing development. This can include set-aside requirements or density bonuses for developers.”

Many of the goals of the task force are commendable. But the way they are implemented ignores several vital factors:

1. The citizens of Toledo have not approved this approach. This is a government task force, dominated by big-government thinkers who are pushing their agenda into law with the help of one of the task force members who is also a member of city council.

2. Despite their goal of 'diverse' neighborhoods, the task force is highly lacking in diversity with limited or no representation from business owners and 'average citizens' ... not to mention the absence of political or philosophical diversity.

3. The solutions favor government control over free-market principles. To subsidize a particular type of housing because politicians and special interest groups want it results in a housing stock that buyers and sellers may reject. Perhaps the group subconsciously recognizes this fallacy. Understanding that people have left Toledo for various reasons, they recommend instituting Toledo's failed policies in surrounding jurisdictions. Of course, that will just cause people to leave those jurisdictions as well.

4. The thinking behind these recommendations result in attacks (like McNamara made) against business owners. The effort to 'improve' neighborhoods in these manners breeds a contempt for the wrong entity - the business - and not for the true source of the problem - the city and its policies.

The reason people have drug use, loitering, trash, etc. in their neighborhoods is not because of a business but because of the people who live in the neighborhood. Repeated phone calls to police do not result in enforcement of the existing laws, but a growing frustration that existing laws are not enough because the city does not have enough police to follow through with the enforcement. To address the symptom, people try to close down the business, failing to recognize that the activities will continue - just in front of a closed-up building instead.

But this how government operates in opposition to free choice: establish a task force, pack it with people who share your goal, come up with recommendations to expand government, use the force of government (though laws, taxation and taxpayer-funded 'incentives') to mandate the ideas, claim you're doing things for the 'common good,' and then scratch your head and call for more of the same when the results are not as expected.

I wish the goal of this task force had been to increase freedom for Toledoans - maybe it would have saved McNamara from his temper tantrum.

Ohio sponsors missing from Enumerated Powers Act

"The 'Enumerated Powers Act' (H.R. 1359) would compel Congress to identify their Constitutional authority for every law they pass," writes Jim Babka of DownsizeDC.org this week. "It wouldn't stop them from passing bad laws, but it sure would highlight the fact that most of what they do has no Constitutional authority at all.

"When we last reported to you," Babka continues, "the 'Enumerated Powers Act' had 47 co-sponsors in the House. Well, now it has 52. But there's even better news. Senator Tom Coburn introduced a Senate version (S. 3159) on June 19th, and 22 out of 100 Senators have already signed-on as co-sponsors." Compliments of Mr. Babka, here's the list of co-sponsors from each side of Congress...

Co-sponsors in the Senate

Sen Allard, Wayne - 6/19/2008
Sen Barrasso, John - 6/19/2008
Sen Brownback, Sam - 6/19/2008
Sen Burr, Richard - 6/19/2008
Sen Chambliss, Saxby - 6/19/2008
Sen Cornyn, John - 6/19/2008
Sen Crapo, Mike 22697 - 6/19/2008
Sen DeMint, Jim - 6/19/2008
Sen Dole, Elizabeth - 6/19/2008
Sen Ensign, John - 6/19/2008
Sen Enzi, Michael B. - 6/19/2008
Sen Graham, Lindsey - 6/19/2008
Sen Grassley, Chuck - 6/19/2008
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey - 6/19/2008
Sen Inhofe, James M. - 6/19/2008
Sen Kyl, Jon - 6/19/2008
Sen McCain, John - 6/19/2008
Sen Sessions, Jeff - 6/19/2008
Sen Sununu, John E. - 6/19/2008
Sen Thune, John - 6/19/2008
Sen Vitter, David - 6/19/2008
Sen Wicker, Roger F. - 6/19/2008

Co-sponsors in the House

Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 3/6/2007
Rep Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] - 12/5/2007
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 3/6/2007
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 3/5/2008
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 3/6/2007
Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] - 4/24/2007
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 2/13/2008
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 6/9/2008
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 3/6/2007
Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 2/25/2008
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 3/6/2007
Rep Cubin, Barbara [WY] - 3/5/2008
Rep Davis, David [TN-1] - 3/27/2007
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 3/5/2008
Rep Duncan, John J., Jr. [TN-2] - 3/7/2007
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 4/24/2007
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 3/6/2007
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 3/6/2007
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 3/14/2007
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 3/6/2007
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 3/6/2007
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 3/6/2007
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] - 9/7/2007
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] - 8/1/2007
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 12/12/2007
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 3/6/2007
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 12/4/2007
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 12/4/2007
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 3/31/2008
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 12/12/2007
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 3/6/2007
Rep Mack, Connie [FL-14] - 12/12/2007
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 3/6/2007
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 3/6/2007
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 3/6/2007
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 12/12/2007
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] - 3/6/2007
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 3/6/2007
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 10/25/2007
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 3/12/2007
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 3/5/2008
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] - 6/3/2008
Rep Sali, Bill [ID-1] - 12/5/2007
Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] - 5/15/2008
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 4/23/2008
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 4/9/2008
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 5/23/2007
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 4/24/2008
Rep Walberg, Timothy [MI-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 4/4/2008
Rep Weldon, Dave [FL-15] - 5/1/2007
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 3/6/2007

Are your congress-critters on these lists? My representative, Marcy Kaptur, is not. Neither are Ohio Senators George Voinovich and Sherrod Brown.

What limits our federal government?

"[W]e are confirmed in the opinion, that the present age would be deficient in their duty to God, their posterity and themselves, if they do not establish an American republic. This is the only form of government we wish to see established; for we can never be willingly subject to any other King than He who, being possessed of infinite wisdom, goodness and rectitude, is alone fit to possess unlimited power."

Instructions of Malden, Massachusetts for a Declaration of
Independence, 27 May 1776 {Reference: Documents of American History, Commager, vol. 1 (97)}

When I read this quote from The Patriot Post's Founders' Quote Daily, I couldn't help but wonder what limits still exist on our federal government?

When was the last time Congress or the president said 'no' to anything because they didn't have the authority to do it? Other than Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), do you know of any member of Congress who has cast a no vote because the item in question wasn't authorized as a specific duty of Congress?

Does our federal government now possesses unlimited power? If not, where is the proof?

Quote of the Day

In light of the way our local budget hearings are going, I found this quote particularly instructive. Maybe I should post this for all the residents to see as they enter into the various budget meetings...

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Why Are Americans Giving Up Their Freedom?

This is a column published in Townhall.com by David Strom, the President of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. Until recently he was President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, one of the largest and most successful state-based taxpayer advocacy organizations in the country. It's a powerful commentary that we should all heed, which is why I'm reprinting it here.

Are Americans tiring of individual liberty?

It sure seems so. How else can you explain the proliferation of laws that regulate the most mundane aspects of our lives, and the mostly passive reaction of Americans to the ever increasing micromanagement of our lives?

Liberty has always been a tougher sell than many of us assume. We all want the freedom to do as we like, but few of us are as committed to allowing others to act contrary to our notion of right and wrong. Majorities have always sought and often found ways to impose their views upon minorities. The most vocal minorities have often been successful in imposing their will on the majority, at least for a time.

So there is nothing new about threats to Individual liberty being a daily part of our lives. What is new is that the institutional barriers to regulating our daily lives have effectively broken down. It took a Constitutional Amendment to pass prohibition of alcohol (and repeal it). Who today expects a Constitutional fight over smoking, obesity, trans-fats, or any of the myriad personal issues now under the purview of government control?

America was founded on the belief that government power should be strictly limited, because the alternative to limited power was unlimited power. The framers of the Constitution were rightly concerned that without strict institutional barriers to the expansion of government powers there would eventually be no barriers at all. Power, in any form, longs to be absolute.

Unfortunately, the concept of limited government is becoming an anachronism in today’s America.

There are no limits on what government can regulate because we have accepted the notion that there are no limits to the benefits government can and should bestow upon us. Fifty percent of health care is paid for by the government—including universal health care for all of us over 65. Your trans-fat laden donut today could mean higher taxes for me in the future. Ditto for smoking and other risky behavior.

The pervasiveness of government power over our lives is so complete that at times it becomes invisible. Today only the most obvious and egregious violations of our liberty seem to get people riled. For instance, Californians rebelled at the idea of government control over their thermostats, but Americans have in the main meekly submitted to massive social engineering in their daily lives.

Americans have made a bargain with the devil. Dispensing with the idea of limited government in realm of benefits has meant dispensing with the idea of any limits to government power at all. Once we accept the notion that government should ensure that our pursuit of happiness succeeds, we have accepted the notion that government has the right to define what a happy life should look like.

We can call this trend the encroachment of the “nanny state,” which it is, or the spread of “liberal fascism,” which it also is. But it is also the inevitable result of Americans’ increasing desire to have government guarantee that more and more aspects of our lives turn out all right.

Limiting government power requires limiting the benefits that government can bestow upon us, and right now that seems a bridge too far for some Americans. The revival of the conservative movement will not depend upon conservatives making peace with the welfare state, as some are arguing. It will depend, instead, on tapping into Americans’ uneasiness regarding the encroachments of the State into more and more aspects of our private lives.

Can conservatives succeed in convincing Americans that government benefits, and hence power, should be limited? Perhaps. But only if they remind Americans (as Barry Goldwater did) that a government big enough to give you everything you want is one big enough to take away everything you have.