Toledo city council and the mayor are going back and forth about whether or not the mayor has to submit a balanced budget to city council in November. The political dispute over this issue between A-Team and B-Team democrats, the alliance of the republicans with the B-Team mayor and all the press conferences about the claimed 'retaliatory' actions as a result are saturating the airwaves.
Some councilmen (vote of 8-4) decided to place an amendment to the city charter on the ballot...the amendment would add the word 'balanced' to the provision for the mayor's budget submission to council in November of each year. On the surface, that appears to be a logical change in our city charter.
But if you read the actual language of the charter, you'll find the following:
Section 45. Mayor's Budget Estimate.
The fiscal year of the City shall begin on the first day of January. On or before the fifteenth day of November of each year, the Mayor shall prepare a budget estimate of the expense of conducting the affairs of the City for the following fiscal year. The estimate shall be compiled from detailed information obtained from the various departments on uniform blanks prepared by the Director of Finance, and shall set forth:
(a) An itemized estimate of the expense of conducting each department.
(b) Comparisons of such estimates with the corresponding items of expenditure for the last two complete fiscal years, and with the expenses of the current fiscal year, plus an estimate of expenditures necessary to complete the current fiscal year.
(c) Reasons for proposed increases or decreases in such items of expenditures compared with the current fiscal year.
(d) A separate schedule of each department showing the things necessary for the department to do during the ensuing year, and things desirable to do if funds permit.
(e) Items of payroll increases as either additional pay to present employees or pay for more employees.
(f) An estimate of the anticipated income of the City from taxation and other sources to meet current expenses for the fiscal year.
(g) A statement of the amounts to be appropriated: For interest on the City debt. For paying off any serial bonds maturing during the year. For the aggregate for the year of the installments required to be appropriated annually during the life of all other bonds of the City in order to pay off such bonds at maturity.
(h) The total amount of outstanding gross and net debt of the City, classified as to limits on such indebtedness, with a schedule of maturities of outstanding general bonds classified to show those for which debt service levies are made inside and outside the limits on the tax rate.
(i) Such other information as may be required by Council.
The total items of current expense in the budget and appropriation ordinance shall not exceed the amount available for such purpose as provided by law. The Mayor shall submit the estimates thus prepared to the Council and at least five hundred (500) copies thereof shall be printed for distribution to citizens who may call for them and the substance thereof shall be printed in the City Journal.
(Amended by electors 11-3-92)
Two key points: 1) "the total items of current expense...shall not exceed the amount available" means balanced. I know that it doesn't use the word 'balanced,' but the meaning is clear. 2) "Such other information as may be required by Council" means that council already has the authority to require that the mayor identify ideas and suggestions for obtaining a balanced budget.
So, since it appears the charter already requires a balanced budget and it appears that council already has the authority to make other requirements of the mayor in order to develop a balanced budget, what's all the fuss about?
It's all about political posturing. The idea of adding a word to the charter sure does sound simple - and it's such common-sense message. I mean, who wouldn't want to make sure that the charter requires a 'balanced' budget. But it's all smoke and mirrors, because the word isn't needed if the other provisions in the charter already require the budget submission to be balanced.
And the time and attention spent on this issue so far have certainly resulted in a significant amount of publicity for a lot of people...but if council had really wanted to handle the budgetary process differently, they ALREADY have the authority to require items or other things from the administration - and they could have done so without amending the charter.
Following council's vote, the mayor suggested that the number of council members be reduced from 12 to 8.
So the issue has gone from a balanced budget, to a reduction in the number of councilmen, to a reduction in the mayor's salary, to a charge of violating the charter by mentioning candidates during a council meeting, to a legal review...to who knows where it will end up?
This is not to say that such issues as number of council members and mayor salary are not substantive nor deserving of discussion and consideration. However, the main purpose of raising these issues is strictly to use them as a political ploy. They're just the topic de jour in the never-ending battle for power and control of the city.
In the meantime, FedEx is probably going to move to Wood County - if they actually stay in the state, population is continuing to decline, and taxes are continuing to rise. At what point will these warring political factions abandon their petty bids for control and actually focus on the job they were elected to do?
Of course, that would require them to understand they weren't elected to 'control' but, rather, to serve.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
More thoughts on mayor's pay cut proposal
I've thought about this a while and want to make sure everyone understands that I think a mayoral pay cut is a good idea. I appreciate when anyone makes suggestions for cutting the costs of government.
And by making the offer to cut his own salary by 10%, Carty, being a shrewd person, may be setting the stage for an across-the-board pay cut for all city employees. While this would meet with substantial opposition from the employees, it would be appreciated by the citizens. Citizens who, by the way, may have gone several years without pay increases when city employees didn't. The city unions, too, would oppose this as they've made 'concessions' and other agreements in the past to obtain their current wage scales.
But, as he hasn't said anything about 'setting the stage,' this is speculation on my part. And in the meantime, the discussion around the city reflects a skeptism of the idea.
Toledoans have seen the mayor spend money - some would say frivolously, but certainly unnecessarily...and it's to the point where a $13,670 cut appears to more of a publicity stunt than anything else.
The reason for this skeptism is all because of Carty's own actions...he spent just under $10,000 to put a shower in his office. He spent $39,900 for flowers and then said it was a 'pittance' when people complained. These are two instances that received a lot of media attention, so most people know about them. So when he makes the gesture to cut his pay by 10%, people see it only as a gesture...(for some of my budget-cutting suggestions, go here)
Knowing Carty, he will be surprised by the reaction of Toledoans to his 'gesture.' I'm sure he thinks he's making a personal sacrifice for the city he loves so much. And I'm equally certain he will not understand the sarcasm that accompanies the reaction and comments about his idea.
But such public reactions should come as no surprise. You can't spend $40,000 on unneeded items and call it a pittance and then expect people to jump for joy when you offer to save less than half that amount.
If this is the first of many spending cuts, the public will support it. But if it's just an empty gesture, the public will see right through it. The real problem is that with Carty, the public never knows for sure.
And by making the offer to cut his own salary by 10%, Carty, being a shrewd person, may be setting the stage for an across-the-board pay cut for all city employees. While this would meet with substantial opposition from the employees, it would be appreciated by the citizens. Citizens who, by the way, may have gone several years without pay increases when city employees didn't. The city unions, too, would oppose this as they've made 'concessions' and other agreements in the past to obtain their current wage scales.
But, as he hasn't said anything about 'setting the stage,' this is speculation on my part. And in the meantime, the discussion around the city reflects a skeptism of the idea.
Toledoans have seen the mayor spend money - some would say frivolously, but certainly unnecessarily...and it's to the point where a $13,670 cut appears to more of a publicity stunt than anything else.
The reason for this skeptism is all because of Carty's own actions...he spent just under $10,000 to put a shower in his office. He spent $39,900 for flowers and then said it was a 'pittance' when people complained. These are two instances that received a lot of media attention, so most people know about them. So when he makes the gesture to cut his pay by 10%, people see it only as a gesture...(for some of my budget-cutting suggestions, go here)
Knowing Carty, he will be surprised by the reaction of Toledoans to his 'gesture.' I'm sure he thinks he's making a personal sacrifice for the city he loves so much. And I'm equally certain he will not understand the sarcasm that accompanies the reaction and comments about his idea.
But such public reactions should come as no surprise. You can't spend $40,000 on unneeded items and call it a pittance and then expect people to jump for joy when you offer to save less than half that amount.
If this is the first of many spending cuts, the public will support it. But if it's just an empty gesture, the public will see right through it. The real problem is that with Carty, the public never knows for sure.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
A new neighbor
For the past couple of weeks, we've been noticing that a hawk has been hanging around our area, usually perching in my neighbor's tree. We believe he/she has a nest there, but we only saw it fly by...until today.
I saw the hawk fly very low through our side yard and toward the back of the house. When I quietly walked around to the back of the house, I saw it perched on our fence. This photo was taken through the door, for fear of opening it and scaring him/her off. Unfortunately, despite turning it's head toward me several times, I wasn't able to capture it with the camera.
If, from this picture, you can tell what kind of hawk it is, I'd really like to know!
Carnival #75
The Carnival of Ohio Politics is up here with several new entries as well as a round up of the usual suspects.
Cruise over and enjoy!
Cruise over and enjoy!
Mayor to cut his salary?
According to The Blade, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner is offering to cut his salary by 10% to help the budget situation...
The mayor earns $136,700 per year, so a 10% cut is $13,670.
I can't help but remember Carty's comments when people complained about $39,900 for planting flowers. He said that it was a 'pittance' compared to the entire city budget...
So now I wonder what word he's going to use to describe his $13,670 pay cut?
The mayor earns $136,700 per year, so a 10% cut is $13,670.
I can't help but remember Carty's comments when people complained about $39,900 for planting flowers. He said that it was a 'pittance' compared to the entire city budget...
So now I wonder what word he's going to use to describe his $13,670 pay cut?
Levy Fatigue
As part of the research I was doing last week to guest host WSPD 1370's Eye on Toledo show, I found an old list of county-wide levies and how much money they generate.
Quite some time ago, I'd suggested that we change our method of putting levies on the ballot and insist that all levies be on the ballot at the same time - so that voters were able to see, in one place, all the issues/agencies/organizations asking for their money. Obviously, this didn't sit well with many organizations and agencies who thought they'd actually have to compete with others for the limited funds of the citizens...
So, I thought I'd list all the current county-wide levies so you can see everyone you're supporting and how much it's costing you. If I could confirm the estimated collection for the levies, I've listed that as well.
* Children Services Board: 2.4 Mills - two levies, one for 1.0 Mills that expires in 2007 and will be collected through 2008; and one for 1.4 Mills that expires in 2010 and will be collected through 2011. Total estimated collection is $18,725,000.00. Most people don't realize that CSB has two levies.
* Community Mental Health: 1.5 Mills - two levies, one for .5 Mills that expires in 2013 and will be collected through 2014; and one for 1.0 Mills that expires in 2008 and will be collected through 2009. Total estimated collection is $10,935,000.
* Toledo Zoo: 1.85 Mills - two levies, one for 1 Mill for Capital Improvements only that expires in 2015 and will be collected through 2016; and one for .85 Mills for operating expenses that expires in 2010 and will be collected through 2011.
* Metro Parks: 1.7 Mills - two levies, one for .3 Mills for new land purchases that expires in 2011 and will be collected through 2012; and one for 1.4 Mills that expires in 2007 and will be collected through 2008. Total estimated collection is $11,500,000.
* TARTA: 2.5 Mills - two levies, one for 1.5 Mills that expired in 2006 and will be collected through the end of this year; and one for 1 Mill that expires in 2010 and will be collected through 2011.
* Toledo Lucas County Public Library: 2 Mills - two levies, 1 Mill each, both expired in 2006 and are collected through the end of this year. Total estimated collection was $12,250,000.
* Port Authority: .4 Mills, expires in 2008 and will be collected through 2009.
* 9-1-1: .7 Mills, expires 2010 and will be collected through 2011.
* Senior Levy: .45 Mills, expires in 2008 and will be collected through 2009.
* MR/DD: 5 Mills continuous per state law.
Total: 18.5 Mills
For quick math, you can figure a single mill generates about $30 of taxes for a $100,000 valued home. So if your home is $100,000, you're paying about $550 for these levies.
Now, so far, the Metroparks wants their 1.4 Mills to be voted on as a replacement. Replacement levies are usually the same millage amount, but applied to the most recent valuation of the property. This means that, for a $100,000 home, you'll pay an additional $15.89 per year for this levy.
The Library wisely wants to combine their two 1-Mill levies into a single 2-Mill levy. However, this would be a replacement levy and taxed against the most recent valuation of your home - an increase of $19.94 per year for a $100,000 home.
And then there is COSI who has a new levy request for .167 Mills. While "it's only" $5 per year for a $100,000 home, it's a new property tax that is not likely to ever go away, much less stay the same in terms of millage or collections. (for more on the 'it's only' please see my previous post)
So far, the proposed increase for you on your taxes is $40.83 per year for a $100,000 home - and that's on top of the roughly $550 you're already paying. If TARTA puts a replacement levy on the ballot, your amount will top the $600 level...and then some.
Oh - and for a really sobering thought - this doesn't include the school levies. TPS has 63.5 Mills that are on your tax bill, their continuous 44.8 Mills and all voted on additions including: 6.50 mills General, 4.90 mills General (Emergency), 2.50 mills Permanent Improvement, 4.30 mills Construction Bonds, and 0.50 mills Classrooms.
If all these were on the ballot at the same time, would you vote yes on all of them? Or would you be more selective and prioritize the spending of your tax dollars? Would you support more than one levy per agency?
Many fear that voters would NOT support everything that they do now, if they knew or understood the TOTAL implication of the combined effect these levies have on your tax bill. But then, that's exactly why support for putting all levies on the ballot at one time is virtually non-existent.
Remember this the next time someone tells you "it's for the children," "but it's only...," or "it's for our quality of life."
Quite some time ago, I'd suggested that we change our method of putting levies on the ballot and insist that all levies be on the ballot at the same time - so that voters were able to see, in one place, all the issues/agencies/organizations asking for their money. Obviously, this didn't sit well with many organizations and agencies who thought they'd actually have to compete with others for the limited funds of the citizens...
So, I thought I'd list all the current county-wide levies so you can see everyone you're supporting and how much it's costing you. If I could confirm the estimated collection for the levies, I've listed that as well.
* Children Services Board: 2.4 Mills - two levies, one for 1.0 Mills that expires in 2007 and will be collected through 2008; and one for 1.4 Mills that expires in 2010 and will be collected through 2011. Total estimated collection is $18,725,000.00. Most people don't realize that CSB has two levies.
* Community Mental Health: 1.5 Mills - two levies, one for .5 Mills that expires in 2013 and will be collected through 2014; and one for 1.0 Mills that expires in 2008 and will be collected through 2009. Total estimated collection is $10,935,000.
* Toledo Zoo: 1.85 Mills - two levies, one for 1 Mill for Capital Improvements only that expires in 2015 and will be collected through 2016; and one for .85 Mills for operating expenses that expires in 2010 and will be collected through 2011.
* Metro Parks: 1.7 Mills - two levies, one for .3 Mills for new land purchases that expires in 2011 and will be collected through 2012; and one for 1.4 Mills that expires in 2007 and will be collected through 2008. Total estimated collection is $11,500,000.
* TARTA: 2.5 Mills - two levies, one for 1.5 Mills that expired in 2006 and will be collected through the end of this year; and one for 1 Mill that expires in 2010 and will be collected through 2011.
* Toledo Lucas County Public Library: 2 Mills - two levies, 1 Mill each, both expired in 2006 and are collected through the end of this year. Total estimated collection was $12,250,000.
* Port Authority: .4 Mills, expires in 2008 and will be collected through 2009.
* 9-1-1: .7 Mills, expires 2010 and will be collected through 2011.
* Senior Levy: .45 Mills, expires in 2008 and will be collected through 2009.
* MR/DD: 5 Mills continuous per state law.
Total: 18.5 Mills
For quick math, you can figure a single mill generates about $30 of taxes for a $100,000 valued home. So if your home is $100,000, you're paying about $550 for these levies.
Now, so far, the Metroparks wants their 1.4 Mills to be voted on as a replacement. Replacement levies are usually the same millage amount, but applied to the most recent valuation of the property. This means that, for a $100,000 home, you'll pay an additional $15.89 per year for this levy.
The Library wisely wants to combine their two 1-Mill levies into a single 2-Mill levy. However, this would be a replacement levy and taxed against the most recent valuation of your home - an increase of $19.94 per year for a $100,000 home.
And then there is COSI who has a new levy request for .167 Mills. While "it's only" $5 per year for a $100,000 home, it's a new property tax that is not likely to ever go away, much less stay the same in terms of millage or collections. (for more on the 'it's only' please see my previous post)
So far, the proposed increase for you on your taxes is $40.83 per year for a $100,000 home - and that's on top of the roughly $550 you're already paying. If TARTA puts a replacement levy on the ballot, your amount will top the $600 level...and then some.
Oh - and for a really sobering thought - this doesn't include the school levies. TPS has 63.5 Mills that are on your tax bill, their continuous 44.8 Mills and all voted on additions including: 6.50 mills General, 4.90 mills General (Emergency), 2.50 mills Permanent Improvement, 4.30 mills Construction Bonds, and 0.50 mills Classrooms.
If all these were on the ballot at the same time, would you vote yes on all of them? Or would you be more selective and prioritize the spending of your tax dollars? Would you support more than one levy per agency?
Many fear that voters would NOT support everything that they do now, if they knew or understood the TOTAL implication of the combined effect these levies have on your tax bill. But then, that's exactly why support for putting all levies on the ballot at one time is virtually non-existent.
Remember this the next time someone tells you "it's for the children," "but it's only...," or "it's for our quality of life."
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
But it's only....
I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty tired of the expression, 'but it's only...' followed by a dollar figure. And it seems to be used primarily for unnecessary expenditures.
Parents probably hear this a lot - I know it was a phrase I used myself when young. But every time I used such a phrase, I got an economics lesson about how those 'it's only's' added up.
COSI Toledo, our local hands-on children's science museum, has requested a second attempt at passing a levy. Their attempt last year, approved by the Board of County Commissioners by a 2-1 vote (guess who voted 'no') to be on the ballot, did not pass. As our local paper put it, it was only a 1,200 vote margin.
COSI board members had said they would have to close without the levy...but they didn't. They found some generous sponsors (as they should have done prior to the levy) which allowed them to stay open until they could put another levy on the ballot. It is expected that the vote by the BCC today will be 'yes' and they will have .17 mill levy on the ballot in November.
But, you say, it's only .17 Mill...that's only $5 per year for a $100,000 home. Yes, it's only...
However, I remember when, in 2003, the Commissioners were faced with an issue of either tapping into the general fund to support the operations of the Dog Warden (it's supposed to be a self-sustaining operation) or raising the license fees by $5. Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak was very concerned that seniors, who rely upon dogs and other pets for companionship, would have to choose between the license and their prescription medicines. Her comment, for the press release announcing the increase was:
“I am concerned that this fee increase represents an additional financial burden on senior citizens already facing increased healthcare, prescription, and other costs,” said Lucas County Commissioner Wozniak.
With this as her reason, she voted 'no' on increasing the fee.
Please understand...I have no problem with her position on this. I disagree with it, but can understand her concern - if - and this is a big IF - she is consistent with her position and votes against other such increases that represent an 'additional financial burden on senior citizens.' Besides, costs today are even higher than they were four years ago, so her logic is even more applicable. If she's truly concerned about our senior citizens, she'd vote 'no' to put COSI on the ballot.
We'll see...especially since "it's only"...
NOTE: please check back tomorrow as I'll be discussing all the county-wide levies and their financial impact.
Parents probably hear this a lot - I know it was a phrase I used myself when young. But every time I used such a phrase, I got an economics lesson about how those 'it's only's' added up.
COSI Toledo, our local hands-on children's science museum, has requested a second attempt at passing a levy. Their attempt last year, approved by the Board of County Commissioners by a 2-1 vote (guess who voted 'no') to be on the ballot, did not pass. As our local paper put it, it was only a 1,200 vote margin.
COSI board members had said they would have to close without the levy...but they didn't. They found some generous sponsors (as they should have done prior to the levy) which allowed them to stay open until they could put another levy on the ballot. It is expected that the vote by the BCC today will be 'yes' and they will have .17 mill levy on the ballot in November.
But, you say, it's only .17 Mill...that's only $5 per year for a $100,000 home. Yes, it's only...
However, I remember when, in 2003, the Commissioners were faced with an issue of either tapping into the general fund to support the operations of the Dog Warden (it's supposed to be a self-sustaining operation) or raising the license fees by $5. Commissioner Tina Skeldon Wozniak was very concerned that seniors, who rely upon dogs and other pets for companionship, would have to choose between the license and their prescription medicines. Her comment, for the press release announcing the increase was:
“I am concerned that this fee increase represents an additional financial burden on senior citizens already facing increased healthcare, prescription, and other costs,” said Lucas County Commissioner Wozniak.
With this as her reason, she voted 'no' on increasing the fee.
Please understand...I have no problem with her position on this. I disagree with it, but can understand her concern - if - and this is a big IF - she is consistent with her position and votes against other such increases that represent an 'additional financial burden on senior citizens.' Besides, costs today are even higher than they were four years ago, so her logic is even more applicable. If she's truly concerned about our senior citizens, she'd vote 'no' to put COSI on the ballot.
We'll see...especially since "it's only"...
NOTE: please check back tomorrow as I'll be discussing all the county-wide levies and their financial impact.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Random Thoughts-National and Local
*** According to an article in the Boston Globe, Governor Deval Patrick has asked the federal government's Small Business Administration to provide financial assistance to some businesses impacted by a weekend fire. Since when is it the responsibility of the federal government to deal with a local fire? Perhaps Gov. Patrick, as well as those in Washington, need to read Col. David Crockett's 'Not Yours to Give."
*** According to The Hill, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) (bridge to nowhere) is at it again...basically "declaring that 'those who bite me will be bitten back.' Young's outburst came in response to an amendment offered by Garrett that would cut an $11.8 million earmark for 'Strengthening Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions.'" Guess he and the other members of Congress, especially the Republicans, cannot hear what the American public is saying. Unfortunately, it may not make a difference in his home district - and that's the problem.
*** Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is again working on eliminating pork projects from the Defense Department authorization bill. He's got four amendments zeroing in on earmarks. "...But Senate Chief Deputy Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said Coburn probably would not get much leadership support for his efforts. 'I don't think there's any appetite for taking this on,' Thune said of the earmark fight." (Roll Call, 7/18/07) No appetite from the leadership for fighting earmarks? No wonder Republicans across the nation are withholding financial support for these people!
*** Locally, State Democrat Party Chairman Chris Redfern attributes the split between the A-Team and B-Team to....The Republicans! Yep, that's right! You see, the reason that the local Democrats are fighting among themselves is because they don't have any Republicans to fight against. According to the article in Sunday's Blade, "The absence of a viable competitor prevents the Democrats from uniting." I guess what they're really saying is that they're not standing 'for' something, since the key to maintaining their unity to is to have something to 'oppose.' While there is truth to the lack of a strong 2-party system in Lucas County, what does it say about your own party that you would make such a statement?
*** Finally, in the on-going saga of our Mayor's criticism of neighbor Wood County, accusing them of trying to "pilfer, pirate, raid, poach Toledo" businesses, it appears that the local company considering either expansion or a move is the FedEx Ground sorting center on Reynolds Road. The company says it's considering several sites in Toledo, Wood County and Southeastern Michigan. Our mayor's outburst certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the local government and may make FedEx look more aggressively to leave. (For more on this issue, you can listen to a podcast of my guest hosting stint on WSPD's Eye on Toledo show the day of the Mayor's press conference.)
But there's more to the story...it seems that FedEx's real estate agent is a member of the Perrysburg Township Trustees. Which, in Toledo thinking, means that this individual cannot do what's best for his client, FedEx, and instead will use his business relationship to his advantage as a township trustee. I think our local officials should look up the definition of 'psychological projection.'
*** According to The Hill, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) (bridge to nowhere) is at it again...basically "declaring that 'those who bite me will be bitten back.' Young's outburst came in response to an amendment offered by Garrett that would cut an $11.8 million earmark for 'Strengthening Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions.'" Guess he and the other members of Congress, especially the Republicans, cannot hear what the American public is saying. Unfortunately, it may not make a difference in his home district - and that's the problem.
*** Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) is again working on eliminating pork projects from the Defense Department authorization bill. He's got four amendments zeroing in on earmarks. "...But Senate Chief Deputy Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said Coburn probably would not get much leadership support for his efforts. 'I don't think there's any appetite for taking this on,' Thune said of the earmark fight." (Roll Call, 7/18/07) No appetite from the leadership for fighting earmarks? No wonder Republicans across the nation are withholding financial support for these people!
*** Locally, State Democrat Party Chairman Chris Redfern attributes the split between the A-Team and B-Team to....The Republicans! Yep, that's right! You see, the reason that the local Democrats are fighting among themselves is because they don't have any Republicans to fight against. According to the article in Sunday's Blade, "The absence of a viable competitor prevents the Democrats from uniting." I guess what they're really saying is that they're not standing 'for' something, since the key to maintaining their unity to is to have something to 'oppose.' While there is truth to the lack of a strong 2-party system in Lucas County, what does it say about your own party that you would make such a statement?
*** Finally, in the on-going saga of our Mayor's criticism of neighbor Wood County, accusing them of trying to "pilfer, pirate, raid, poach Toledo" businesses, it appears that the local company considering either expansion or a move is the FedEx Ground sorting center on Reynolds Road. The company says it's considering several sites in Toledo, Wood County and Southeastern Michigan. Our mayor's outburst certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the local government and may make FedEx look more aggressively to leave. (For more on this issue, you can listen to a podcast of my guest hosting stint on WSPD's Eye on Toledo show the day of the Mayor's press conference.)
But there's more to the story...it seems that FedEx's real estate agent is a member of the Perrysburg Township Trustees. Which, in Toledo thinking, means that this individual cannot do what's best for his client, FedEx, and instead will use his business relationship to his advantage as a township trustee. I think our local officials should look up the definition of 'psychological projection.'
More on SCHIP
For those following the on-going issue of expanding socialized medicine, in the form of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, I offer this column by Star Parker.
According to the article:
The reason for the launch of the SCHIP program in 1997 was affordability of health care. The point was to finance health care for children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.
Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, almost half of our nation's children have government-paid health care either through Medicaid or SCHIP.
This new proposed expansion would entrench government health care more deeply into the nation's middle class.
Whereas SCHIP coverage has commonly covered families earning up to 200 percent above the poverty line, the new proposal lifts this ceiling to 300 percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, up to 75 percent of families in this income range already have private coverage.
This is an informative article which also addresses the issue of less government regulation - rather than more.
According to the article:
The reason for the launch of the SCHIP program in 1997 was affordability of health care. The point was to finance health care for children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.
Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, almost half of our nation's children have government-paid health care either through Medicaid or SCHIP.
This new proposed expansion would entrench government health care more deeply into the nation's middle class.
Whereas SCHIP coverage has commonly covered families earning up to 200 percent above the poverty line, the new proposal lifts this ceiling to 300 percent. According to the Congressional Budget Office, up to 75 percent of families in this income range already have private coverage.
This is an informative article which also addresses the issue of less government regulation - rather than more.
So wrong on so many levels - Part 2
Well, it was to be expected...The Blade, our local daily newspaper, has another article on the 'Art Assist' program. They did call me for comment, but I said no - I suggested that, if they wanted a Republican Party perspective on this as they said, they should contact the Republican Party or interview Republican elected officials throughout the county.
I don't know if they did this, but the only 'contrary' opinion given in the article was when they quoted my original blog post on this topic. Don't get me wrong - I'm glad they read my writings. But I am disappointed that they either didn't contact anyone else OR that local republicans failed to take a principled stand on this issue.
But back to today's article...
It starts with a hard tug on the heart strings with a poor local artist who doesn't sell enough of his art to support himself full time. Got news for you...a LOT of artists don't sell enough to avoid another job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, earnings for self-employed artists vary widely. "Some charge only a nominal fee while they gain experience and build a reputation for their work...Many, however, find it difficult to rely solely on income earned from selling paintings or other works of art." And, the $25,000 the County is making available in low interest loans of $500 - $2,000 isn't going to make a difference in that!
The article says:
"Joe Zsigray, the (Collingwood Arts) center’s executive director, said he hopes the program can lure not only new art buyers into the market but also induce those who already buy local artwork to buy more.
(induce those who already purchase art? perhaps those LEAST likely to need a loan???)
“The problem that we have in Toledo is not that we don’t have enough artists. It’s just that we don’t have enough people buying the art,” he said."
So our market isn't good. Okay - then let's artificially support the market...and then, when the limited $25,000 for local purchases expires, the market will return to what it is now. How does that really help our local artists or our local economy? We artificially create a demand, but when that artificial demand is gone - what then? Government will use MORE of our tax dollars to subsidize MORE of an artificial demand? Wasn't it Reagan who said that a government program is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth?
In the article, a local gallery owner says: "Mr. Zaleski said: “Everybody needs a new pair of shoes, but not everybody needs art.” He also said that there's been no formal study of the art market in Toledo. Wouldn't such a study have been a good idea before investing public monies in ANY program? Wouldn't we, as a community, have been better served by understanding the issues that prevent our local artists from being successful and then helping to address those issues - rather than implement a superficial program with limited impact? I'm not suggesting another government study - but before trying to impact an industry and local market, wouldn't it be nice to understand it?
And then there was this quote:
"Some artists who have had trouble selling work in Mr. Zaleski’s galleries have traveled to Chicago and sold their pieces for double or triple the original price tag. When the artwork was on sale in Toledo, people seemed to place a lower value on it, he said."
Wow - your work doesn't sell well here, but it does sell well elsewhere...so why are we subsidizing - with tax dollars - purchases here? (And don't say it's for the sales tax - the County's portion of the sales tax on $25,000 is only about $300.) Why aren't the artists traveling en masse to Chicago? And how smart is that, especially in an industry that doesn't rely upon location for success? Would any type of analysis of our local market have shown this as a factor?
So, the County is losing investment income, the small amount of available loans isn't really going to make much of a difference in terms of sales tax or individual artists ... IF anyone actually takes advantage of it (The Blade didn't mention anyone who's actually qualified for the loan). So why are we doing this?
Are we just trying to set the stage for a more significant investment of public dollars in the future? Is there some special "arts lobby" out there pushing for a new government program? Are we using public funds and offices to cater to a personal interest? Does the fact that our local paper promotes such art programs factor into the decision in any way?
Or is it just a really nice press opportunity... all smoke and mirrors with no real substance?
I have no idea, but I resent the attempt by this latest article to make me feel sorry for these 'struggling artists.' Isn't the 'struggle' supposed to make the artist better? And if we're supposed to feel sorry for these individuals to the point that we subsidize their 'products,' what about everyone else in our community who is struggling? How about if we subsidize every local business who can't sell enough of their product to be self-sustaining? Where will it stop?
One of the major points of my first blog on this was that the priorities of the County, in putting this program above everything else, were misplaced. They still are misplaced, in thinking that this program will spur any economic development. True economic development and growth don't come from an artificial market demand. And no government program can create a true demand for a product. But they can certainly spend your tax dollars in a failed effort to do so.
I don't know if they did this, but the only 'contrary' opinion given in the article was when they quoted my original blog post on this topic. Don't get me wrong - I'm glad they read my writings. But I am disappointed that they either didn't contact anyone else OR that local republicans failed to take a principled stand on this issue.
But back to today's article...
It starts with a hard tug on the heart strings with a poor local artist who doesn't sell enough of his art to support himself full time. Got news for you...a LOT of artists don't sell enough to avoid another job. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, earnings for self-employed artists vary widely. "Some charge only a nominal fee while they gain experience and build a reputation for their work...Many, however, find it difficult to rely solely on income earned from selling paintings or other works of art." And, the $25,000 the County is making available in low interest loans of $500 - $2,000 isn't going to make a difference in that!
The article says:
"Joe Zsigray, the (Collingwood Arts) center’s executive director, said he hopes the program can lure not only new art buyers into the market but also induce those who already buy local artwork to buy more.
(induce those who already purchase art? perhaps those LEAST likely to need a loan???)
“The problem that we have in Toledo is not that we don’t have enough artists. It’s just that we don’t have enough people buying the art,” he said."
So our market isn't good. Okay - then let's artificially support the market...and then, when the limited $25,000 for local purchases expires, the market will return to what it is now. How does that really help our local artists or our local economy? We artificially create a demand, but when that artificial demand is gone - what then? Government will use MORE of our tax dollars to subsidize MORE of an artificial demand? Wasn't it Reagan who said that a government program is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth?
In the article, a local gallery owner says: "Mr. Zaleski said: “Everybody needs a new pair of shoes, but not everybody needs art.” He also said that there's been no formal study of the art market in Toledo. Wouldn't such a study have been a good idea before investing public monies in ANY program? Wouldn't we, as a community, have been better served by understanding the issues that prevent our local artists from being successful and then helping to address those issues - rather than implement a superficial program with limited impact? I'm not suggesting another government study - but before trying to impact an industry and local market, wouldn't it be nice to understand it?
And then there was this quote:
"Some artists who have had trouble selling work in Mr. Zaleski’s galleries have traveled to Chicago and sold their pieces for double or triple the original price tag. When the artwork was on sale in Toledo, people seemed to place a lower value on it, he said."
Wow - your work doesn't sell well here, but it does sell well elsewhere...so why are we subsidizing - with tax dollars - purchases here? (And don't say it's for the sales tax - the County's portion of the sales tax on $25,000 is only about $300.) Why aren't the artists traveling en masse to Chicago? And how smart is that, especially in an industry that doesn't rely upon location for success? Would any type of analysis of our local market have shown this as a factor?
So, the County is losing investment income, the small amount of available loans isn't really going to make much of a difference in terms of sales tax or individual artists ... IF anyone actually takes advantage of it (The Blade didn't mention anyone who's actually qualified for the loan). So why are we doing this?
Are we just trying to set the stage for a more significant investment of public dollars in the future? Is there some special "arts lobby" out there pushing for a new government program? Are we using public funds and offices to cater to a personal interest? Does the fact that our local paper promotes such art programs factor into the decision in any way?
Or is it just a really nice press opportunity... all smoke and mirrors with no real substance?
I have no idea, but I resent the attempt by this latest article to make me feel sorry for these 'struggling artists.' Isn't the 'struggle' supposed to make the artist better? And if we're supposed to feel sorry for these individuals to the point that we subsidize their 'products,' what about everyone else in our community who is struggling? How about if we subsidize every local business who can't sell enough of their product to be self-sustaining? Where will it stop?
One of the major points of my first blog on this was that the priorities of the County, in putting this program above everything else, were misplaced. They still are misplaced, in thinking that this program will spur any economic development. True economic development and growth don't come from an artificial market demand. And no government program can create a true demand for a product. But they can certainly spend your tax dollars in a failed effort to do so.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Socialized Medicine, SCHIP and the role of the GOP-UPDATED
As I was doing some research on the proposal to expand the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) by taxing cigarettes and cigars, I came across and interesting perspective from Marc Kilmer of the Buckeye Institute.
(For some background information on this issue, I recommend local blogger Smoke If You Got 'Em, who has a post on the issue as well as the response to a letter he sent to Sen. Sherrod Brown. Toledo Talk also has a thread on the issue.)
Kilmer starts with an challenging question:
"If a politician ever suggested that taxes should be raised on the poor in order to pay for a product that people in the middle or upper class could already afford, it is not likely that this politician would have much of a future in office. So why, then, are so many members of the U.S. House and Senate rushing to support an effort to raise cigarette taxes (which hit the poor much harder than the rich) to pay for expanding federal health insurance program to include many middle class families?"
The reason, he explains, that SCHIP needs more money isn't just because of increasing medical costs - it's because coverage is being expanded to children in families that should be able to afford medical coverage (in some states a family of four can make up to $83,000 and still qualify) - and to ADULTS. In my logic, this doesn't make sense, as such expansions seem to be directly opposite to the original intent of covering children in families who made too much to qualify for medicare, but not enough to purchase their own insurance.
Kilmer says, "In fact, according to a recent study by the non-partisan Tax Foundation, almost 60 percent of American children would be eligible for government health care under a proposal being pushed by some Senators. Can anyone say with a straight face that this is really about “poor kids”?"
He further explains that the idea for such taxes is because "smokers impose such a heavy burden on government health care programs" so it's logical that they should pay more for medical care. But he rightly points out that children aren't supposed to be smoking, so how do you justify the use of such fund for them?
Kilmer hits the nail on the head with this statement:
"Why tax smokers more to pay for this program, then? I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people like “free” government programs. They like the concept of government funding children’s health care, but they do not want to pay for it themselves. So they pick out a group of folks engaged in activities they do not like – such as smoking – and decide to tax them."
But before you go off on the Democrats who are supporting this, remember that there are plenty on the right side of the aisle who believe this expansion of government is a good idea. In fact, it was a Republican Congress that, in 1997, gave us (what was at the time) the largest expansion of government health care since 1965, when Medicaid and Medicare were created.
The new federally funded program? "State Children's Health Insurance Program" (SCHIP).
At the time of passage, Congress estimated SCHIP would cost taxpayers $48 billion over ten years. Ten years later, the current figure being bandied about is $5.04 billion per year, which is not that much more than what's been spent, on average, each year previously. But the kicker is that the re-authorization is only for five years and some estimate that the shortfall from the states during that time frame could be $7 billion - yes, billion with a 'b'...
Ironic - when the Democrats controlled Congress in 1993, the Clinton administration failed to pass a national plan for socialized medicine. But Republicans, in 1997, implemented the administration's backup plan. According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a "kids first" strategy which could be implemented through Medicaid was the backup option in case the larger plan failed. Many rejected 'HillaryCare' as socialized medicine...but those same people willingly took the first step toward the end goal by passing SCHIP.
So why did the GOP do this? Some speculate that they caved to an effective Democrat strategy which went something like this: Let's propose a new government program for children and fund it with cigarette taxes. Then, if Republicans oppose "KidCare" we'll charge that they don't care about children and that the only reason they oppose it is because they get large sums of money from the tobacco industry. This was a brilliant political strategy and one that is duplicated in numerous issues today. How many times do you hear, in a campaign, that it's 'for the children'?
At the time of passage, there was concern that the program would encourage families and employers to drop private health insurance and take this new government subsidy.
Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office in 1997/1998 were that half of the participants in the new program would be families who gave up private insurance. And they had good reason for such expectations....In 1987, Medicaid was expanded to pregnant women and their children with incomes 250% of the poverty level. Between 1988 and 1995, the number of kids covered by private insurance fell 8 percentage points while the percentage of kids covered by Medicaid climbed 7.6 points. Some studies showed that at least 3/4 of the shift was the result of parents dropping private coverage for themselves and their children.
Another concern at the time was that SCHIP would eventually become mandatory, regardless of family income or need. With the current proposed expansion to higher income levels, it's not yet mandatory, but it looks like it will certainly become the 'insurance of choice' for those eligible, after all - if the government is going to pay for something, why should I?
In 1994, the Republicans won control of Congress by promising to reduce government. But they didn't. Recently, under the guise of 'compassionate conservatism,' Republicans continued to expand the scope and reach of the federal government. One would think they would have learned a good lesson from previous experiences - that it is almost impossible to roll back entitlement programs once they're created, especially health-care entitlements. Yet instead of learning that lesson, in 1997 Republicans helped create the largest health-care entitlement in 30 years. And then, in 2003, they exceeded their previous record by passing what became the largest expansion of health-care entitlements when they approved the Medicare Prescription Drug program.
If they support the proposed expansion of eligibility for SCHIP, they may get credit for paving the road to socialized medicine.
UPDATE:
Fellow SOBers weigh in: Porkopolis has additional information on SCHIP and some good links, and One Oar in the Water shares thoughts about socialism and presidential candidate Ron Paul.
(For some background information on this issue, I recommend local blogger Smoke If You Got 'Em, who has a post on the issue as well as the response to a letter he sent to Sen. Sherrod Brown. Toledo Talk also has a thread on the issue.)
Kilmer starts with an challenging question:
"If a politician ever suggested that taxes should be raised on the poor in order to pay for a product that people in the middle or upper class could already afford, it is not likely that this politician would have much of a future in office. So why, then, are so many members of the U.S. House and Senate rushing to support an effort to raise cigarette taxes (which hit the poor much harder than the rich) to pay for expanding federal health insurance program to include many middle class families?"
The reason, he explains, that SCHIP needs more money isn't just because of increasing medical costs - it's because coverage is being expanded to children in families that should be able to afford medical coverage (in some states a family of four can make up to $83,000 and still qualify) - and to ADULTS. In my logic, this doesn't make sense, as such expansions seem to be directly opposite to the original intent of covering children in families who made too much to qualify for medicare, but not enough to purchase their own insurance.
Kilmer says, "In fact, according to a recent study by the non-partisan Tax Foundation, almost 60 percent of American children would be eligible for government health care under a proposal being pushed by some Senators. Can anyone say with a straight face that this is really about “poor kids”?"
He further explains that the idea for such taxes is because "smokers impose such a heavy burden on government health care programs" so it's logical that they should pay more for medical care. But he rightly points out that children aren't supposed to be smoking, so how do you justify the use of such fund for them?
Kilmer hits the nail on the head with this statement:
"Why tax smokers more to pay for this program, then? I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people like “free” government programs. They like the concept of government funding children’s health care, but they do not want to pay for it themselves. So they pick out a group of folks engaged in activities they do not like – such as smoking – and decide to tax them."
But before you go off on the Democrats who are supporting this, remember that there are plenty on the right side of the aisle who believe this expansion of government is a good idea. In fact, it was a Republican Congress that, in 1997, gave us (what was at the time) the largest expansion of government health care since 1965, when Medicaid and Medicare were created.
The new federally funded program? "State Children's Health Insurance Program" (SCHIP).
At the time of passage, Congress estimated SCHIP would cost taxpayers $48 billion over ten years. Ten years later, the current figure being bandied about is $5.04 billion per year, which is not that much more than what's been spent, on average, each year previously. But the kicker is that the re-authorization is only for five years and some estimate that the shortfall from the states during that time frame could be $7 billion - yes, billion with a 'b'...
Ironic - when the Democrats controlled Congress in 1993, the Clinton administration failed to pass a national plan for socialized medicine. But Republicans, in 1997, implemented the administration's backup plan. According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a "kids first" strategy which could be implemented through Medicaid was the backup option in case the larger plan failed. Many rejected 'HillaryCare' as socialized medicine...but those same people willingly took the first step toward the end goal by passing SCHIP.
So why did the GOP do this? Some speculate that they caved to an effective Democrat strategy which went something like this: Let's propose a new government program for children and fund it with cigarette taxes. Then, if Republicans oppose "KidCare" we'll charge that they don't care about children and that the only reason they oppose it is because they get large sums of money from the tobacco industry. This was a brilliant political strategy and one that is duplicated in numerous issues today. How many times do you hear, in a campaign, that it's 'for the children'?
At the time of passage, there was concern that the program would encourage families and employers to drop private health insurance and take this new government subsidy.
Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office in 1997/1998 were that half of the participants in the new program would be families who gave up private insurance. And they had good reason for such expectations....In 1987, Medicaid was expanded to pregnant women and their children with incomes 250% of the poverty level. Between 1988 and 1995, the number of kids covered by private insurance fell 8 percentage points while the percentage of kids covered by Medicaid climbed 7.6 points. Some studies showed that at least 3/4 of the shift was the result of parents dropping private coverage for themselves and their children.
Another concern at the time was that SCHIP would eventually become mandatory, regardless of family income or need. With the current proposed expansion to higher income levels, it's not yet mandatory, but it looks like it will certainly become the 'insurance of choice' for those eligible, after all - if the government is going to pay for something, why should I?
In 1994, the Republicans won control of Congress by promising to reduce government. But they didn't. Recently, under the guise of 'compassionate conservatism,' Republicans continued to expand the scope and reach of the federal government. One would think they would have learned a good lesson from previous experiences - that it is almost impossible to roll back entitlement programs once they're created, especially health-care entitlements. Yet instead of learning that lesson, in 1997 Republicans helped create the largest health-care entitlement in 30 years. And then, in 2003, they exceeded their previous record by passing what became the largest expansion of health-care entitlements when they approved the Medicare Prescription Drug program.
If they support the proposed expansion of eligibility for SCHIP, they may get credit for paving the road to socialized medicine.
UPDATE:
Fellow SOBers weigh in: Porkopolis has additional information on SCHIP and some good links, and One Oar in the Water shares thoughts about socialism and presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Quote of the Day
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Monday, July 16, 2007
Guest Hosting Eye on Toledo
As Kevin Milliken is on vacation this week, both Michael Miller, editor of the Toledo Free Press, and I will guest host WSPD 1370's Eye on Toledo Show from 6-7 p.m.
Michael will cover Monday and Wednesday and I'll cover Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.
On Tuesday, I'll be talking about festival fees and cat license fees...you'll have to tune in to find out what they have in common.
Hope that you'll listen - and you can listen on-line if you're outside their broadcast radius.
Michael will cover Monday and Wednesday and I'll cover Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.
On Tuesday, I'll be talking about festival fees and cat license fees...you'll have to tune in to find out what they have in common.
Hope that you'll listen - and you can listen on-line if you're outside their broadcast radius.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Carnival #73
The 73rd Carnival of Ohio Politics is up. Cruise on over and enjoy the informative and thought-provoking posts you'll find linked.
If you're a blogger, you might want to consider offering your posts for inclusion, as well.
If you're a blogger, you might want to consider offering your posts for inclusion, as well.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Who speaks for Lucas County Republicans?
This morning on WSPD 1370 AM, morning show host, Fred Lefebvre, asked why I hadn't spoken out about the recent Democrat Party Fundraiser controversy, wherein certain 'female entertainers' were recruited to be waitresses at a golf outing. (This link will take you to the first story in The Blade, but it is only the first of many.)
My first reaction was to spout off a well-known adage that many candidates learn early in their careers: When your opponent is destroying himself, don't get in the way. And this certainly applies to the controversy currently splitting the local Democrat Party - with A-Teamers taking proper advantage of a lack of good judgment by B-Teamer party chairman, John Irish, and going so far as to call for his resignation.
That this issue represents a lack of good judgment is clear, considering it's gotten international attention. But the local Republican Party leaders and elected officials have been pretty quiet on the issue.
I'd defend them, by going back to the adage...the local Dems don't need a lot of help on this one as they're doing a good enough job internally. But Fred does raise a good question - who IS speaking for the local GOP?
We have a party chairman who has traditionally been the spokesman for our local GOP. Certainly, elected officials have spoken for themselves on all sorts of issues, so their ability to comment on this one is a given...whether or not they WANT to comment is another question, entirely.
So if Fred - or anyone else, for that matter - is looking for an official GOP response, this is where they should start. As for me, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show.
UPDATE: Lisa at Glass City Jungle has an interesting post about local Democrat women calling for a boycott of a meeting at their local headquarters. Rumor has it that State Party Chair Chris Redfern has decided NOT to attend the meeting, as scheduled.
As I said, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show...although now I may need some popcorn.
My first reaction was to spout off a well-known adage that many candidates learn early in their careers: When your opponent is destroying himself, don't get in the way. And this certainly applies to the controversy currently splitting the local Democrat Party - with A-Teamers taking proper advantage of a lack of good judgment by B-Teamer party chairman, John Irish, and going so far as to call for his resignation.
That this issue represents a lack of good judgment is clear, considering it's gotten international attention. But the local Republican Party leaders and elected officials have been pretty quiet on the issue.
I'd defend them, by going back to the adage...the local Dems don't need a lot of help on this one as they're doing a good enough job internally. But Fred does raise a good question - who IS speaking for the local GOP?
We have a party chairman who has traditionally been the spokesman for our local GOP. Certainly, elected officials have spoken for themselves on all sorts of issues, so their ability to comment on this one is a given...whether or not they WANT to comment is another question, entirely.
So if Fred - or anyone else, for that matter - is looking for an official GOP response, this is where they should start. As for me, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show.
UPDATE: Lisa at Glass City Jungle has an interesting post about local Democrat women calling for a boycott of a meeting at their local headquarters. Rumor has it that State Party Chair Chris Redfern has decided NOT to attend the meeting, as scheduled.
As I said, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show...although now I may need some popcorn.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Blog Tag...Are You It?
Well, there's an interesting little game going around the blogosphere called "Blog Tag," and apparantly, I'm one of the 'its.'
These are the rules imparted to me by my 'tagger,' HoodaThunkit:
1. Let others know who tagged you.
2. Players start with 8 random facts about themselves.
3. Those who are tagged should post these rules and their 8 random facts.
4. Players should tag 8 other people and notify them they have been tagged.
However, this blog post by Jeff Pulver from back in December says that the number of 'facts' and people to tag should be five. So, Hooda, I'm going with the ORIGINAL rules - and I'm sure I could go into some kind of political commentary about checking first for the originator's intent before joining the game...lol
So, five little known facts about me:
1. When I was younger, I used to bite my nails. This so annoyed my grandmother that she resorted to bribery to get me to stop. While it took about 7 years for me to stop this 'despicable habit,' as she called it, I did manage to do this - more because it seemed so important to her. I still have the birthstone ring she bought me in celebration of my accomplishment.
2. I enjoy watching fishing shows - not the bass masters or other small fresh water fish ... the Shark Hunters or Spanish Fly or Offshore Adventures are the ones I like - basically, anything with large, preferable edible, salt water targets.
3. I don't particularly like berries - strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, mulberries...pretty much berries in general. Although this non-preference has my husband absolutely flumoxed, as he could live on berries alone.
4. I don't drink beer...just never developed a taste for it, I guess.
5. I raced in my first sailboat race at the age of 7.
So, for the second part of the blog-tag, here are those whom I've tagged:
Chad, Right Wing Toledo, Luke at Smoke If You've Got 'Em, Matt at Toledo Tattler, and Kurt at Progressive Toledo.
Enjoy the game!
These are the rules imparted to me by my 'tagger,' HoodaThunkit:
1. Let others know who tagged you.
2. Players start with 8 random facts about themselves.
3. Those who are tagged should post these rules and their 8 random facts.
4. Players should tag 8 other people and notify them they have been tagged.
However, this blog post by Jeff Pulver from back in December says that the number of 'facts' and people to tag should be five. So, Hooda, I'm going with the ORIGINAL rules - and I'm sure I could go into some kind of political commentary about checking first for the originator's intent before joining the game...lol
So, five little known facts about me:
1. When I was younger, I used to bite my nails. This so annoyed my grandmother that she resorted to bribery to get me to stop. While it took about 7 years for me to stop this 'despicable habit,' as she called it, I did manage to do this - more because it seemed so important to her. I still have the birthstone ring she bought me in celebration of my accomplishment.
2. I enjoy watching fishing shows - not the bass masters or other small fresh water fish ... the Shark Hunters or Spanish Fly or Offshore Adventures are the ones I like - basically, anything with large, preferable edible, salt water targets.
3. I don't particularly like berries - strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, mulberries...pretty much berries in general. Although this non-preference has my husband absolutely flumoxed, as he could live on berries alone.
4. I don't drink beer...just never developed a taste for it, I guess.
5. I raced in my first sailboat race at the age of 7.
So, for the second part of the blog-tag, here are those whom I've tagged:
Chad, Right Wing Toledo, Luke at Smoke If You've Got 'Em, Matt at Toledo Tattler, and Kurt at Progressive Toledo.
Enjoy the game!
Monday, July 02, 2007
Happy Birthday America!
“Somewhere in our growing up we began to be aware of the meaning of days and with that awareness came the birth of patriotism. July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the greatest nation on earth... In recent years, however, I’ve come to think of that day as more than just the birthday of a nation. It also commemorates the only true philosophical revolution in all history. Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours. But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rules for another. Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government. Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people. We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should. Happy Fourth of July.” —Ronald Reagan
"You have to love a nation that celebrates its independence every July 4, not with a parade of guns, tanks, and soldiers who file by the White House in a show of strength and muscle, but with family picnics where kids throw Frisbees, the potato salad gets iffy, and the flies die from happiness. You may think you have overeaten, but it is patriotism." - Erma Bombeck
"A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle." - George William Curtis
"How often we fail to realize our good fortune in living in a country where happiness is more than a lack of tragedy." - Paul Sweeney
"The United States is the only country with a known birthday." - James G. Blaine
"You have to love a nation that celebrates its independence every July 4, not with a parade of guns, tanks, and soldiers who file by the White House in a show of strength and muscle, but with family picnics where kids throw Frisbees, the potato salad gets iffy, and the flies die from happiness. You may think you have overeaten, but it is patriotism." - Erma Bombeck
"A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle." - George William Curtis
"How often we fail to realize our good fortune in living in a country where happiness is more than a lack of tragedy." - Paul Sweeney
"The United States is the only country with a known birthday." - James G. Blaine
Friday, June 29, 2007
What Toledo can learn from the immigration bill defeat
Yesteday, a majority of senators voted no on a motion for cloture on the comprehensive immigration bill, including Ohio's Senators Brown and Voinovich. And good for them. It's obvious that they listened to the majority of Ohioans - and Americans - who believed that this was a bad bill that did not deserve to pass.
But what can Toledo learn from this? That public pressure can be brought to bear on our elected officials and result in them doing OUR wishes, instead of their own.
So many times, I've heard my fellow Toledoans say, "what's the point - they don't listen to us anyway." And this defeatism seems to be contagious. Whether it's electing the same names to different positions, recycling old politicians in appointments and committees, getting different faces but the same failed policies, refusing to communicate with politicians through mail, phone or public hearings...Toledoans - at times - seem to have given up. And then they leave.
But despite what appears to be a pervading attitude, I see isolated pockets of success: the south Toledo neighborhood who successfully defeated an effort to build an ill-conceived bike path, the override of the mayor's veto of a charter school in the old Shriner's building downtown, the existence of a recall effort (at least they're trying to make a difference!), and even the frustration followed by positive ideas showing up on blogs and forums (Toledo Talk and Swamp Bubbles - links on the side).
Toledoans should be encouraged and inspired by the example set on the immigration bill. Americans didn't like what their senators were going to do - so they spoke loudly, consistently and OFTEN - telling them to vote NO on a bad bill. The Senate phone system even shut down because it couldn't handle the number of calls...although it was characterized as a 'modest' increase in calls.
When the public gives direction to our elected officials, it can be effective. But it requires a sustained and consistent message, followed up by consequences on election day.
We've seen that it can work on a national level, Toledo...but do we have the will to make it work here?
But what can Toledo learn from this? That public pressure can be brought to bear on our elected officials and result in them doing OUR wishes, instead of their own.
So many times, I've heard my fellow Toledoans say, "what's the point - they don't listen to us anyway." And this defeatism seems to be contagious. Whether it's electing the same names to different positions, recycling old politicians in appointments and committees, getting different faces but the same failed policies, refusing to communicate with politicians through mail, phone or public hearings...Toledoans - at times - seem to have given up. And then they leave.
But despite what appears to be a pervading attitude, I see isolated pockets of success: the south Toledo neighborhood who successfully defeated an effort to build an ill-conceived bike path, the override of the mayor's veto of a charter school in the old Shriner's building downtown, the existence of a recall effort (at least they're trying to make a difference!), and even the frustration followed by positive ideas showing up on blogs and forums (Toledo Talk and Swamp Bubbles - links on the side).
Toledoans should be encouraged and inspired by the example set on the immigration bill. Americans didn't like what their senators were going to do - so they spoke loudly, consistently and OFTEN - telling them to vote NO on a bad bill. The Senate phone system even shut down because it couldn't handle the number of calls...although it was characterized as a 'modest' increase in calls.
When the public gives direction to our elected officials, it can be effective. But it requires a sustained and consistent message, followed up by consequences on election day.
We've seen that it can work on a national level, Toledo...but do we have the will to make it work here?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Pres. Bush's statement on failed immigration bill
According to the AP, the President said the following:
"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," he said after an appearance in Newport, R.I. "A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work."
Sadly, the President is wrong. It isn't "legal" immigration that is one of the top concerns of the American people - it's ILLEGAL immigration. And it's why so much of the nation was opposed to this flawed bill. Maybe now he'll 'get it.'
"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," he said after an appearance in Newport, R.I. "A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work."
Sadly, the President is wrong. It isn't "legal" immigration that is one of the top concerns of the American people - it's ILLEGAL immigration. And it's why so much of the nation was opposed to this flawed bill. Maybe now he'll 'get it.'
So wrong on so many levels - low-interest loans to buy art
Well, it's been a couple of days since this story was in the local paper, The Blade, but it got me so angry on so many levels that I've just now been able to blog about it.
Apparently, our county commissioners don't think that enough people are buying art, so they've decided that they're going to help. (Nice of them, huh?) You see, people who want to buy art, aren't always able to because of the cost - so, according to Comm. Ben Konop, there's now a program to make it 'more affordable.'
Under the new 'economic development' program, individuals who qualify can get a loan of between $500 and $2500 at an interest rate of 1% to purchase a piece of local art. The maximum amount that Key Bank will loan under this program is $25,000.
And why would Key Bank make such a program available? It's because they're going to get a $250,000 investment from the county in the form of a certificate of deposit...and they're only going to pay 1% interest for the cd.
So...instead of the County Treasurer, Wade Kapszukiewicz, getting the best rates for the county, he's agreeing to this investment which, according to his office, means that the county treasury will be out $7,881 (the difference between the going interest rate and the 1% that will be paid).
And please don't advance the argument that "it's only" a small amount of money...in this case, the issue is not the amount of interest that's NOT going into the county treasury, it's the mistaken philosophy that public funds should be used to advance social issues.
From the article:
"County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz said he is always looking for ways to use the "financial resources of the treasurer's office to move the county forward.""
In doing research on this, I could find nowhere in the Ohio Revised Code that detailed this as one of the responsibilities of the office of treasurer. But I did find plenty of references to 'safe' or 'secure' investments including the following:
"Safety, liquidity and earning a market rate of return on the county's money are primary responsibilities of the Treasurer."
Further, the State Auditor has issued a manual for county treasurers which states:
"The main goal of the county treasurer is to coordinate the county spending with the active/inactive funds. The desire is to match short-term needs with the short-term deposits, and to match long-term needs with long-term investments. It is fiscally irresponsible to invest short-term funds in a long-term investment. This matching can be achieved by coordinating spending with estimates of income. Open communication is necessary between the auditor and the treasurer to plan the timing of the investments. The portfolio should be managed to maximize interest rates while keeping risk to a minimum." (emphasis added)
So, if the investments should be managed to maximize interest rates, has our treasurer done this? Nope! He's decided that, instead of maximizing interest rates, he's going to help people buy art.
Then there is the whole issue of a the program itself. If the county commissioners were going to provide a program of low interest loans, is buying art the best target of those loans? What about purchasing a vehicle - that would generate more than the $300 in sales tax that they estimate the art sales will provide. Or maybe a recent high school graduate would like a $2500 loan at 1% interest to help pay for college. Or maybe you'd like to redo your kitchen - wouldn't YOU love to have a 1% interest loan for that? How about any other purpose - landscaping your yard, putting up a new fence, buying a new big screen tv, or even a vacation?
And what are the qualifications for such loans? The article doesn't say, but is it likely that people who qualify aren't really in NEED of a loan to purchase art? And do we think that people who don't NEED a loan to purchase art will still take advantage of this program?
If I was planning to purchase a piece of art at $2000, I could invest $2000 in any number of ways that would generate more than 1% interest, but let's use the county's rate of 4.157%. Such an investment would give me about $83.
Then, I could take out the loan at 1% and purchase the artwork. The interest on the loan will only be $20. So I get the artwork AND I make $63 doing so. And I do this at the expense of the county treasury and all the county taxpayers. Sounds like a great deal to me!
I know that there are a lot of people who are firmly convinced that the best investment for a community is art - everything from subsidized rent to this kind of a program. But 'art' is in the eye of the beholder and it's so completely subjective.
My preference is that we prioritize better.
Our county jail is in serious need of attention - individuals with multiple court cases are never held to account because their crimes are non-violent misdemeanors so they are released without ever going to court due to the Federal Court Order on overcrowding in our jail - not to mention all the security issues and recent problems well documented in our local media.
Our historic County Courthouse has needs that have been detailed for years by the judges. What about all the individuals who've appealed their property tax valuation - any decrease in property valuation means a decrease in property taxes resulting in less money in the county treasury. I'm sure there are many other things that you think would be more important than using county tax dollars as a guarantee for artwork loans.
But as of today, other than the media report on the day of the announcement, no one's said a thing. So remember - any lack of opposition to a decision is perceived by our elected officials as being support for the decision, leading to similar types of actions in the future. Make your opinions known.
Apparently, our county commissioners don't think that enough people are buying art, so they've decided that they're going to help. (Nice of them, huh?) You see, people who want to buy art, aren't always able to because of the cost - so, according to Comm. Ben Konop, there's now a program to make it 'more affordable.'
Under the new 'economic development' program, individuals who qualify can get a loan of between $500 and $2500 at an interest rate of 1% to purchase a piece of local art. The maximum amount that Key Bank will loan under this program is $25,000.
And why would Key Bank make such a program available? It's because they're going to get a $250,000 investment from the county in the form of a certificate of deposit...and they're only going to pay 1% interest for the cd.
So...instead of the County Treasurer, Wade Kapszukiewicz, getting the best rates for the county, he's agreeing to this investment which, according to his office, means that the county treasury will be out $7,881 (the difference between the going interest rate and the 1% that will be paid).
And please don't advance the argument that "it's only" a small amount of money...in this case, the issue is not the amount of interest that's NOT going into the county treasury, it's the mistaken philosophy that public funds should be used to advance social issues.
From the article:
"County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz said he is always looking for ways to use the "financial resources of the treasurer's office to move the county forward.""
In doing research on this, I could find nowhere in the Ohio Revised Code that detailed this as one of the responsibilities of the office of treasurer. But I did find plenty of references to 'safe' or 'secure' investments including the following:
"Safety, liquidity and earning a market rate of return on the county's money are primary responsibilities of the Treasurer."
Further, the State Auditor has issued a manual for county treasurers which states:
"The main goal of the county treasurer is to coordinate the county spending with the active/inactive funds. The desire is to match short-term needs with the short-term deposits, and to match long-term needs with long-term investments. It is fiscally irresponsible to invest short-term funds in a long-term investment. This matching can be achieved by coordinating spending with estimates of income. Open communication is necessary between the auditor and the treasurer to plan the timing of the investments. The portfolio should be managed to maximize interest rates while keeping risk to a minimum." (emphasis added)
So, if the investments should be managed to maximize interest rates, has our treasurer done this? Nope! He's decided that, instead of maximizing interest rates, he's going to help people buy art.
Then there is the whole issue of a the program itself. If the county commissioners were going to provide a program of low interest loans, is buying art the best target of those loans? What about purchasing a vehicle - that would generate more than the $300 in sales tax that they estimate the art sales will provide. Or maybe a recent high school graduate would like a $2500 loan at 1% interest to help pay for college. Or maybe you'd like to redo your kitchen - wouldn't YOU love to have a 1% interest loan for that? How about any other purpose - landscaping your yard, putting up a new fence, buying a new big screen tv, or even a vacation?
And what are the qualifications for such loans? The article doesn't say, but is it likely that people who qualify aren't really in NEED of a loan to purchase art? And do we think that people who don't NEED a loan to purchase art will still take advantage of this program?
If I was planning to purchase a piece of art at $2000, I could invest $2000 in any number of ways that would generate more than 1% interest, but let's use the county's rate of 4.157%. Such an investment would give me about $83.
Then, I could take out the loan at 1% and purchase the artwork. The interest on the loan will only be $20. So I get the artwork AND I make $63 doing so. And I do this at the expense of the county treasury and all the county taxpayers. Sounds like a great deal to me!
I know that there are a lot of people who are firmly convinced that the best investment for a community is art - everything from subsidized rent to this kind of a program. But 'art' is in the eye of the beholder and it's so completely subjective.
My preference is that we prioritize better.
Our county jail is in serious need of attention - individuals with multiple court cases are never held to account because their crimes are non-violent misdemeanors so they are released without ever going to court due to the Federal Court Order on overcrowding in our jail - not to mention all the security issues and recent problems well documented in our local media.
Our historic County Courthouse has needs that have been detailed for years by the judges. What about all the individuals who've appealed their property tax valuation - any decrease in property valuation means a decrease in property taxes resulting in less money in the county treasury. I'm sure there are many other things that you think would be more important than using county tax dollars as a guarantee for artwork loans.
But as of today, other than the media report on the day of the announcement, no one's said a thing. So remember - any lack of opposition to a decision is perceived by our elected officials as being support for the decision, leading to similar types of actions in the future. Make your opinions known.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Carty's "Passion"
For many years now, I've watched Carty Finkbeiner's political career. Anyone who knows anything about him will say that he truly loves this city and he is known for being the #1 Cheerleader for Toledo.
But a closer look at his career will also show that, on any given day, 40-45% of the people love him, 40-45% hate him and the other 10-20% switch back and forth, depending.
We were both elected to office in 1993 - he as the first strong mayor and me as the Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court. I've always had a cordial, professional and often friendly working relationship with him, despite our disagreements on various issues. Like everyone else, I've heard the stories about his language and behavior, but nothing 'on the record.'
And right about now, you're probably wondering where this post is going. So let me get to the point.
Recently, he took exception to the Shriners wanting to move to a more economical building than the one they've occupied for decades in downtown Toledo. Carty characterized their financial decision as "abandoning" the city - "running away" from the city - among other things.
Today, on WSPD 1370 AM, there are clips of his town hall meeting last night, in which he 'passionately' (he likes to use this term) defends the job the police department is doing. I wasn't at the meeting, but from the discussion on the morning show, it appears he was responding to a question about crime.
In both these instances, his 'passion' has gotten the better of him. His reaction to the decision of the Shriners to move was one of saying 'shame on you for this decision.' I don't know if he met with them to offer a location within the city limits that might meet their need - although, that's what I would have done. But I do know that his criticism of them was severe, public and personal - certainly not the way to generate goodwill.
But generating goodwill is really hard to do when you see a financial decision as a personal affront.
At the meeting last night, when asked about increased patrols, he changed the subject to say that crime is down and that he thinks the police are doing a very good job. He got defensive about the job the police are doing despite the fact that no one said that individual officers weren't doing a good job.
He saw this as a personal affront to the police department and reacted to defend them. However, he missed the critical point. The concern wasn't the individual actions of all the officers, but rather the management of the department - which is his ultimate responsibility.
I've got to hand it to him, though...taking such a position in defense of the police officers was an effective way to shut down the criticism. All of a sudden, the 'complainer' finds him/herself in a defensive mode. Some may see this as a good political strategy, but I don't ... and the danger of such a 'strategy' is that it leads the public to think you are just deflecting the issue and not really answering the question.
These two incidences draw a clear distinction.
In the first case, the Shriners' decision wasn't personal and shouldn't have been taken as such. The mayor of a city should understand why people/businesses move into a city AND why they move out. This was an opportunity to look at factors within our limits that encourage or discourage such decisions. It was also an opportunity to see if we could have met the needs of an organization that needed to make a change. Had the mayor not issued such a scathing personal attack, there might still have been an opportunity to keep the Shriners in Toledo - but I believe that opportunity has now passed.
In the second case, Carty should have take the criticism of the management of the police department personally. He should have explained what decisions he was making regarding staffing levels, why he hasn't brought them up to the number he identified while campaigning, why citizens wait hours, sometimes, for an officer to respond and what he plans to do about it. He even could have begun the discussion of setting priorities with the budget - something he says he wants to do anyway with performance-based budgeting.
But he didn't do any of these things. He chose, instead, to 'interpret' the public comments as a slam on the officers, apparently in the hope that it would eliminate the need for him to account for his mayoral decisions regarding the department. And then he responded 'passionately.'
Passion in politics or leadership can be a good thing. But as these situations demonstrate, 'passion' falls short - when it's all you've got.
But a closer look at his career will also show that, on any given day, 40-45% of the people love him, 40-45% hate him and the other 10-20% switch back and forth, depending.
We were both elected to office in 1993 - he as the first strong mayor and me as the Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court. I've always had a cordial, professional and often friendly working relationship with him, despite our disagreements on various issues. Like everyone else, I've heard the stories about his language and behavior, but nothing 'on the record.'
And right about now, you're probably wondering where this post is going. So let me get to the point.
Recently, he took exception to the Shriners wanting to move to a more economical building than the one they've occupied for decades in downtown Toledo. Carty characterized their financial decision as "abandoning" the city - "running away" from the city - among other things.
Today, on WSPD 1370 AM, there are clips of his town hall meeting last night, in which he 'passionately' (he likes to use this term) defends the job the police department is doing. I wasn't at the meeting, but from the discussion on the morning show, it appears he was responding to a question about crime.
In both these instances, his 'passion' has gotten the better of him. His reaction to the decision of the Shriners to move was one of saying 'shame on you for this decision.' I don't know if he met with them to offer a location within the city limits that might meet their need - although, that's what I would have done. But I do know that his criticism of them was severe, public and personal - certainly not the way to generate goodwill.
But generating goodwill is really hard to do when you see a financial decision as a personal affront.
At the meeting last night, when asked about increased patrols, he changed the subject to say that crime is down and that he thinks the police are doing a very good job. He got defensive about the job the police are doing despite the fact that no one said that individual officers weren't doing a good job.
He saw this as a personal affront to the police department and reacted to defend them. However, he missed the critical point. The concern wasn't the individual actions of all the officers, but rather the management of the department - which is his ultimate responsibility.
I've got to hand it to him, though...taking such a position in defense of the police officers was an effective way to shut down the criticism. All of a sudden, the 'complainer' finds him/herself in a defensive mode. Some may see this as a good political strategy, but I don't ... and the danger of such a 'strategy' is that it leads the public to think you are just deflecting the issue and not really answering the question.
These two incidences draw a clear distinction.
In the first case, the Shriners' decision wasn't personal and shouldn't have been taken as such. The mayor of a city should understand why people/businesses move into a city AND why they move out. This was an opportunity to look at factors within our limits that encourage or discourage such decisions. It was also an opportunity to see if we could have met the needs of an organization that needed to make a change. Had the mayor not issued such a scathing personal attack, there might still have been an opportunity to keep the Shriners in Toledo - but I believe that opportunity has now passed.
In the second case, Carty should have take the criticism of the management of the police department personally. He should have explained what decisions he was making regarding staffing levels, why he hasn't brought them up to the number he identified while campaigning, why citizens wait hours, sometimes, for an officer to respond and what he plans to do about it. He even could have begun the discussion of setting priorities with the budget - something he says he wants to do anyway with performance-based budgeting.
But he didn't do any of these things. He chose, instead, to 'interpret' the public comments as a slam on the officers, apparently in the hope that it would eliminate the need for him to account for his mayoral decisions regarding the department. And then he responded 'passionately.'
Passion in politics or leadership can be a good thing. But as these situations demonstrate, 'passion' falls short - when it's all you've got.
Quote of the Day
Founders' Quote Daily from The Patriot Post:
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823)
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823)
Monday, June 25, 2007
Readthebill.org
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." - James Madison
I came across a blurb in the Wall Street Journal which mentioned a relatively new organization called Readthebill.org founded by Rafael DeGennaro, a registered independent.
The organization's inspiration is Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the rules of the U.S. Senate and founded the Library of Congress. Their mission is to promote transparency in government to revitalize American democracy. ReadtheBill.org seeks only transparent process and does not support or oppose policy on substance, and it is non-partisan and philosophically independent from the two major parties.
Their most recent initiative, supported by numerous groups including the National Taxpayers Union and Common Cause, is to have legislation posted online 72 hours prior to any debate in Congress. They believe that doing so "will harness the collective intelligence of thousands of American to ensure someone reads the bills."
If in doubt about whether or not such a requirement is needed, just take a few minutes to read these comments by legislators - comments which clearly demonstrate that our Congress routinely passes laws without having any idea about what such laws require.
And then take the time to encourage your congressional delegation to support this initiative as well.
I came across a blurb in the Wall Street Journal which mentioned a relatively new organization called Readthebill.org founded by Rafael DeGennaro, a registered independent.
The organization's inspiration is Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the rules of the U.S. Senate and founded the Library of Congress. Their mission is to promote transparency in government to revitalize American democracy. ReadtheBill.org seeks only transparent process and does not support or oppose policy on substance, and it is non-partisan and philosophically independent from the two major parties.
Their most recent initiative, supported by numerous groups including the National Taxpayers Union and Common Cause, is to have legislation posted online 72 hours prior to any debate in Congress. They believe that doing so "will harness the collective intelligence of thousands of American to ensure someone reads the bills."
If in doubt about whether or not such a requirement is needed, just take a few minutes to read these comments by legislators - comments which clearly demonstrate that our Congress routinely passes laws without having any idea about what such laws require.
And then take the time to encourage your congressional delegation to support this initiative as well.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
A Triple!
Three items of interest from Chuck Muth's News & Views:
This first one sounds a bit familiar...
BIKE-PATH TO NOWHERE
"The city (of Chesapeake, VA) will move forward with a plan to build a two-mile bicycle path along Dominion Boulevard at an estimated cost of $16 million. . . . City Council members recently voted 7 -1 in favor of the bike path. Mayor Dalton Edge cast the lone vote against the idea, arguing the money should be used elsewhere. 'It's a $16 million project,' Edge said Thursday. 'It reminds me of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. You talk about government spending, and to spend that kind of money on a bike path that would be rarely utilized is stunning to me.'"
- The Virginian-Pilot, 6/14/07
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE HOUSE, STAYS IN THE HOUSE
"Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of 'openness and transparency' in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.
"Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted. Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't."
- CNN.com, 6/19/07
Rep. Marcy Kaptur did respond. Rep. Paul Gillmor did not.
And there was this from columnist Robert Novak:
VETO ONSLAUGHT ON THE HORIZON
"(President) Bush plans to veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill nearing final passage, followed by vetoes of eight more money bills sent him by the Democratic-controlled Congress. That constitutes a veto onslaught of historic proportions from a president who did not reject a single bill during his first term. Of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008, only three will be signed by the president in the form shaped by the House. What's more, Bush correctly claimed he has the one-third plus one House votes needed to sustain these vetoes. The unpopular president is taking the offensive on fiscal responsibility."
I can't help but wonder if the President thinks that his sudden attention to fiscal responsibility will somehow win over those whom he's lost on the 'comprehensive immigration' (a.k.a amnesty) issue.
This first one sounds a bit familiar...
BIKE-PATH TO NOWHERE
"The city (of Chesapeake, VA) will move forward with a plan to build a two-mile bicycle path along Dominion Boulevard at an estimated cost of $16 million. . . . City Council members recently voted 7 -1 in favor of the bike path. Mayor Dalton Edge cast the lone vote against the idea, arguing the money should be used elsewhere. 'It's a $16 million project,' Edge said Thursday. 'It reminds me of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. You talk about government spending, and to spend that kind of money on a bike path that would be rarely utilized is stunning to me.'"
- The Virginian-Pilot, 6/14/07
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE HOUSE, STAYS IN THE HOUSE
"Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of 'openness and transparency' in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.
"Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted. Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't."
- CNN.com, 6/19/07
Rep. Marcy Kaptur did respond. Rep. Paul Gillmor did not.
And there was this from columnist Robert Novak:
VETO ONSLAUGHT ON THE HORIZON
"(President) Bush plans to veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill nearing final passage, followed by vetoes of eight more money bills sent him by the Democratic-controlled Congress. That constitutes a veto onslaught of historic proportions from a president who did not reject a single bill during his first term. Of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008, only three will be signed by the president in the form shaped by the House. What's more, Bush correctly claimed he has the one-third plus one House votes needed to sustain these vetoes. The unpopular president is taking the offensive on fiscal responsibility."
I can't help but wonder if the President thinks that his sudden attention to fiscal responsibility will somehow win over those whom he's lost on the 'comprehensive immigration' (a.k.a amnesty) issue.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Eye on Toledo on WSPD 1370 AM
Just a quick note to let everyone know that I'll be guest hosting for the Eye on Toledo show 6-7 p.m. on WSPD news talk 1370 AM this Friday and Monday.
Among other things, I plan to talk about the recent report on graduation rates issued by Education Week. The report shows quite a discrepancy between their calculations and the ones developed by Toledo Public Schools. For background, here's a link to the Toledo Blade article on the issue.
Please tune and share your thoughts on this - or other news of the day!
Among other things, I plan to talk about the recent report on graduation rates issued by Education Week. The report shows quite a discrepancy between their calculations and the ones developed by Toledo Public Schools. For background, here's a link to the Toledo Blade article on the issue.
Please tune and share your thoughts on this - or other news of the day!
Orwell's 1984 and Pork
"The more than 32,000 earmarks requested in the Homeland Security spending bill have roiled the House this week, and now Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) wants the word 'earmark' to just go away. In a Tuesday press conference about appropriation bills, Pelosi said, 'Why don't we leave here today forgetting the word earmark?' She said they should be called 'legislative directives' instead." - Columnist Amanda Carpenter
Guess that Pelosi's taking lessons from George Owell's 1984.
Then there was this tidbit:
"...(A) provision in the $151.5 billion Labor-HHS measure to be taken up by the House Appropriations Committee Thursday would fund travel expenses for labor representatives heading to a November conference on worker safety in Portugal hosted by the European Union. 'It's offensive that Democratic leaders would earmark taxpayer dollars to fund a junket for AFL-CIO union bosses,' said a spokesman for House Minority Leader Boehner. 'We know Democrats are using their newfound clout to pay off their union comrades right and left, but this takes the cake.'"
- CongressDailyAM, 6/13/07
No wonder Congress's approval rating is 27% down from 36% in January...
Guess that Pelosi's taking lessons from George Owell's 1984.
Then there was this tidbit:
"...(A) provision in the $151.5 billion Labor-HHS measure to be taken up by the House Appropriations Committee Thursday would fund travel expenses for labor representatives heading to a November conference on worker safety in Portugal hosted by the European Union. 'It's offensive that Democratic leaders would earmark taxpayer dollars to fund a junket for AFL-CIO union bosses,' said a spokesman for House Minority Leader Boehner. 'We know Democrats are using their newfound clout to pay off their union comrades right and left, but this takes the cake.'"
- CongressDailyAM, 6/13/07
No wonder Congress's approval rating is 27% down from 36% in January...
Flag Day
How many people know that today is Flag Day, or what it means?
Flag Day, 14 June, marks the anniversary of the adoption by Congress in 1777 of the Stars and Stripes as emblem of the nation. Celebrations of the flag began in local communities throughout the country during the nineteenth century, largely for the purpose of educating children in history. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson, and later, in 1927, President Calvin Coolidge, suggested that 14 June be observed as Flag Day. It was not until 3 August 1949 that the National Flag Day Bill became law, giving official recognition to 14 June to celebrate the flag.
What does our Nation's flag mean to you? I offer this quote by Franklin Knight Lane:
"I am whatever you make me, nothing more. I am your belief in yourself, your dream of what a people may become.... I am the clutch of an idea, and the reasoned purpose of resolution. I am no more than you believe me to be and I am all that you believe I can be. I am whatever you make me, nothing more."
Remember to fly your flag today, and every day.
"The flag of the United States has not been created by rhetorical sentences in declarations of independence and in bills of rights. It has been created by the experience of a great people, and nothing is written upon it that has not been written by their life. It is the embodiment, not of a sentiment, but of a history." ~Woodrow Wilson
P.S. It's also the 231st birthday of the United States Army...Happy Birthday soldiers!
Monday, June 11, 2007
Quote of the day
"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity."
~James Madison (Federalist No. 46, 29 January 1788)
~James Madison (Federalist No. 46, 29 January 1788)
Tidbits
* Revolver, a Findlay restaurant specializing in haute cuisine, garnered a mention in the Wall Street Journal's weekend edition June 2/3...congrats to them!
* Also seen in the WSJ, was an interesting letter to the editor by Dr. Stephen Ball, Lourdes College Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Leadership Studies. He took exception to the characterization of the woes of the West Outer Drive neighborhood in Detroit (an article about the effects of sub-prime lending). He says, "An element that comes through in almost every story of subprime-lending failure is the inability of borrowers to take personal responsibility because of the ignorance of personal finance concepts and their application." He advocates for problem-based learning in K-12 math curriculum. Way to go Prof. Ball!
* And while on the subject of economic ignorance, I came across this quote by Winston Churchill. "The multitudes remained plunged in ignorance of the simplest economic facts, and their leaders, seeking their votes, did not dare to undeceive them."
* Also seen in the WSJ, was an interesting letter to the editor by Dr. Stephen Ball, Lourdes College Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Leadership Studies. He took exception to the characterization of the woes of the West Outer Drive neighborhood in Detroit (an article about the effects of sub-prime lending). He says, "An element that comes through in almost every story of subprime-lending failure is the inability of borrowers to take personal responsibility because of the ignorance of personal finance concepts and their application." He advocates for problem-based learning in K-12 math curriculum. Way to go Prof. Ball!
* And while on the subject of economic ignorance, I came across this quote by Winston Churchill. "The multitudes remained plunged in ignorance of the simplest economic facts, and their leaders, seeking their votes, did not dare to undeceive them."
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Ambulance Fees - What will they be? UPDATED
On June 12th, Toledo City Council will consider an ordinance to give the Fire Department the authority to establish and implement Basic Life Support (BLS) transport fees. The ordinance also awards "a contract to Advanced Data Processing, Inc. under terms and conditions prescribed by the Director of Law to collect transport fees for the Basic Life Support (BLS) transport billing and collection service."
The County has established a cap on the amount that ambulance companies, under contract with the County, can charge for BLS runs dispatched by them. That cap is $500 plus mileage. Dennis Cole, director of the County Emergency Management Agency which oversees the County's ambulance contracts, explained that the County does not have any contractual language that would limit the amount that the City of Toledo can charge.
Toledo has not said what they're looking at in terms of a fee. Interestingly, I could find no news coverage of any discussion on how much would need to be charged to generate the "at least $1.2 million a year in extra cash for the city's general operating fund" that this service is supposed to produce. And with no publicized discussions of what fees would equal $1.2 million in revenue, there are likely no 'promises' of not increasing the cost to those who have to use the service. And with all the discussion of 'continuity of care' being more important, I can predict that this will be the excuse should the fee be more than $500.
Somehow, I don't think Toledoans will happy if it's anything other than the $500 that they were paying under the private structure, and woe to any politicians who supported this if it is.
UPDATE: I've been trying to find my old notes on this issue, but I believe that the County's rate is set at a maximum of $500 - and that many ambulance companies were charging less than this for BLS runs. Since the ordinance gives the Fire Department the ability to set the fees, I wonder if anyone will question or require documentation for how those fees are determined?
The County has established a cap on the amount that ambulance companies, under contract with the County, can charge for BLS runs dispatched by them. That cap is $500 plus mileage. Dennis Cole, director of the County Emergency Management Agency which oversees the County's ambulance contracts, explained that the County does not have any contractual language that would limit the amount that the City of Toledo can charge.
Toledo has not said what they're looking at in terms of a fee. Interestingly, I could find no news coverage of any discussion on how much would need to be charged to generate the "at least $1.2 million a year in extra cash for the city's general operating fund" that this service is supposed to produce. And with no publicized discussions of what fees would equal $1.2 million in revenue, there are likely no 'promises' of not increasing the cost to those who have to use the service. And with all the discussion of 'continuity of care' being more important, I can predict that this will be the excuse should the fee be more than $500.
Somehow, I don't think Toledoans will happy if it's anything other than the $500 that they were paying under the private structure, and woe to any politicians who supported this if it is.
UPDATE: I've been trying to find my old notes on this issue, but I believe that the County's rate is set at a maximum of $500 - and that many ambulance companies were charging less than this for BLS runs. Since the ordinance gives the Fire Department the ability to set the fees, I wonder if anyone will question or require documentation for how those fees are determined?
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
New School Board Member - updated
Well, the Toledo Public School Board has a new member, following Deb Barnett's resignation. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the current members voted 3-1 to appoint former Mayor Jack Ford. The lone 'no' vote came from Darlene Fisher.
Why should this come as no surprise? Several reasons...there were five scheduled to be interviewed, but one dropped out, leaving Ford, Dr. Francis Dumbuya, and the two endorsed Democratic candidates for the open seats, Lisa Sobecki and Richard Brown.
Now, the Dems on the board couldn't be expected to choose between the two endorsed candidates and Dr. Dumbuya has been aligned with groups that have opposed the actions of the majority of the board - so everyone knows he wouldn't get the votes...which leaves Jack Ford.
And this must have been pretty much a slam dunk considering the way in which Mr. Ford 'applied' for the position. Prospective candidates were supposed to supply their resume, but Ford sloppily filled out a teacher application. He didn't even get his contact number correct, as the number he submitted wasn't a valid extension. And you'd think that he would know his own address...
My concern at the time these applications were made public (resumes can be viewed here) was that if someone was so disinterested and nonchalant in the way they applied, what kind of interest and guidance would he bring to the board?
Personally, I would have eliminated Ford from the start for failing to follow the directions for applying - but this is Toledo. Perhaps he knew it really didn't matter what he submitted, so there was no need to be accurate or detailed. And after The Blade did their editorial supporting him, and Mayor Carty Finkbeiner announced his support...well, what were the Board members to do, especially when one board member works for Carty?
They could have acted like Darlene Fisher. And kudos to Darlene for her principled stand - foregoing all politics and looking, instead, at the qualifications of the individuals. She may be standing alone, but she's standing for what's right.
UPDATE ON THE VOTE: It's been reported that the vote for the vacant seat was a bit unusual. Darlene Fisher nominated, and Robert Torres seconded, Dr. Francis Dumbuya. When it came to vote on Dumbuya, Darlene voted yes, Larry Sykes and Steven Steel voted no and then Torres abstained. Yep - you read correctly, the man who seconded the nomination abstained and did not vote in favor.
Jack Ford was then nominated and selected by a 3-1 vote.
While I do not know the legalities, had Torres voted yes on Dumbuya, there would have been a tied vote. Usually, this means that the measure fails, leading to an opportunity to nominate someone else. Why Torres did not allow a tie vote, but instead chose to abstain makes no sense. Perhaps he's walking a very fine line between those who support Dumbuya - and also supported his candidacy as part of the 'Three for Change' - and the 'powers that be' which include his boss, the mayor. Perhaps Torres will explain his two votes so there will be no misunderstanding?
Why should this come as no surprise? Several reasons...there were five scheduled to be interviewed, but one dropped out, leaving Ford, Dr. Francis Dumbuya, and the two endorsed Democratic candidates for the open seats, Lisa Sobecki and Richard Brown.
Now, the Dems on the board couldn't be expected to choose between the two endorsed candidates and Dr. Dumbuya has been aligned with groups that have opposed the actions of the majority of the board - so everyone knows he wouldn't get the votes...which leaves Jack Ford.
And this must have been pretty much a slam dunk considering the way in which Mr. Ford 'applied' for the position. Prospective candidates were supposed to supply their resume, but Ford sloppily filled out a teacher application. He didn't even get his contact number correct, as the number he submitted wasn't a valid extension. And you'd think that he would know his own address...
My concern at the time these applications were made public (resumes can be viewed here) was that if someone was so disinterested and nonchalant in the way they applied, what kind of interest and guidance would he bring to the board?
Personally, I would have eliminated Ford from the start for failing to follow the directions for applying - but this is Toledo. Perhaps he knew it really didn't matter what he submitted, so there was no need to be accurate or detailed. And after The Blade did their editorial supporting him, and Mayor Carty Finkbeiner announced his support...well, what were the Board members to do, especially when one board member works for Carty?
They could have acted like Darlene Fisher. And kudos to Darlene for her principled stand - foregoing all politics and looking, instead, at the qualifications of the individuals. She may be standing alone, but she's standing for what's right.
UPDATE ON THE VOTE: It's been reported that the vote for the vacant seat was a bit unusual. Darlene Fisher nominated, and Robert Torres seconded, Dr. Francis Dumbuya. When it came to vote on Dumbuya, Darlene voted yes, Larry Sykes and Steven Steel voted no and then Torres abstained. Yep - you read correctly, the man who seconded the nomination abstained and did not vote in favor.
Jack Ford was then nominated and selected by a 3-1 vote.
While I do not know the legalities, had Torres voted yes on Dumbuya, there would have been a tied vote. Usually, this means that the measure fails, leading to an opportunity to nominate someone else. Why Torres did not allow a tie vote, but instead chose to abstain makes no sense. Perhaps he's walking a very fine line between those who support Dumbuya - and also supported his candidacy as part of the 'Three for Change' - and the 'powers that be' which include his boss, the mayor. Perhaps Torres will explain his two votes so there will be no misunderstanding?
Friday, June 01, 2007
Words of Wisdom
Buddha said:
"If we could see the miracle of a single flower clearly, our whole life would change."
"If we could see the miracle of a single flower clearly, our whole life would change."
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Invitation to film debut - "A Watershed Mentality"
I received an announcement about the premiere of “A Watershed Mentality.”
From the announcement:
It is a PBS TV documentary about the problems of sediment and erosion in the Maumee River Basin. This project was undertaken by the Fort Wayne City Utilities, the Allen County (IN) Partnership for Water Quality, and WFWA PBS TV-39. This was partly funded through a grant from the Great Lakes Commission and the USDA.
The Maumee River is the largest tributary and watershed in the Great Lakes and deposits millions of cubic yards of sediment into Lake Erie yearly.
Sedimentation and erosion are not unique to the Maumee River; it plagues most all of the tributaries of the Great Lakes. The nature of sedimentation in our waterways impacts the lives of many people within and beyond any given watershed. The overhead of remediation and cleanup of the sediment alone is quite costly.
The combination of various non-point source pollutants bond to the soil and exacerbate the already vexing problem of cleanup. These contaminants lead to other water quality issues such as: algal blooms; expensive dredging; loss of habitat and added treatment of drinking water.
On behalf of the other agencies and myself, I invite you to join us for the premiere of this documentary at the following venues:
May 31, 2007 – Cinema Center Tech theater at Indiana Tech , 1600 E. Washington Blvd., Ft. Wayne, IN. Meet and greet at 6:00p.m.; 1st showing at 6:30p.m.
June 14, 2007 – Univ. of Toledo/Lake Erie Center, 6200 Bayshore Road, Oregon, OH. Meet and greet at 7:00p.m.; 1st showing at 7:30p.m.
Please feel free to invite your neighbors, co-workers and friends about this event. The premieres are free and open to the general public. Seating and refreshments are limited, so plan accordingly.
For more information, please contact: Matt Jones at 260/484-5848 x 111 or email at matt.jones@one.usda.gov. We hope to see you there!
From the announcement:
It is a PBS TV documentary about the problems of sediment and erosion in the Maumee River Basin. This project was undertaken by the Fort Wayne City Utilities, the Allen County (IN) Partnership for Water Quality, and WFWA PBS TV-39. This was partly funded through a grant from the Great Lakes Commission and the USDA.
The Maumee River is the largest tributary and watershed in the Great Lakes and deposits millions of cubic yards of sediment into Lake Erie yearly.
Sedimentation and erosion are not unique to the Maumee River; it plagues most all of the tributaries of the Great Lakes. The nature of sedimentation in our waterways impacts the lives of many people within and beyond any given watershed. The overhead of remediation and cleanup of the sediment alone is quite costly.
The combination of various non-point source pollutants bond to the soil and exacerbate the already vexing problem of cleanup. These contaminants lead to other water quality issues such as: algal blooms; expensive dredging; loss of habitat and added treatment of drinking water.
On behalf of the other agencies and myself, I invite you to join us for the premiere of this documentary at the following venues:
May 31, 2007 – Cinema Center Tech theater at Indiana Tech , 1600 E. Washington Blvd., Ft. Wayne, IN. Meet and greet at 6:00p.m.; 1st showing at 6:30p.m.
June 14, 2007 – Univ. of Toledo/Lake Erie Center, 6200 Bayshore Road, Oregon, OH. Meet and greet at 7:00p.m.; 1st showing at 7:30p.m.
Please feel free to invite your neighbors, co-workers and friends about this event. The premieres are free and open to the general public. Seating and refreshments are limited, so plan accordingly.
For more information, please contact: Matt Jones at 260/484-5848 x 111 or email at matt.jones@one.usda.gov. We hope to see you there!
City Spending Updated
Well, at least the vote was 7-5 instead of unanimous for spending more of our tax dollars unnecessarily....
City Council approved $75,000 for Citifest, a non-profit organization that provides entertainment (festivals, concerts and parades) in downtown Toledo. Citifest is a good organization, but City Council said they had no where else to cut in the budget before imposing a garbage tax of $5.50.
Turns out, they did have places to cut and while they were willing to knock off $25,000 from the mayor's request of $100,000, this is still $75,000 that didn't need to be spent.
So, having the extra money from the garbage tax, they've now spent the first month's collection. Stay tuned - I'm sure this isn't the last update to our city spending.
City Council approved $75,000 for Citifest, a non-profit organization that provides entertainment (festivals, concerts and parades) in downtown Toledo. Citifest is a good organization, but City Council said they had no where else to cut in the budget before imposing a garbage tax of $5.50.
Turns out, they did have places to cut and while they were willing to knock off $25,000 from the mayor's request of $100,000, this is still $75,000 that didn't need to be spent.
So, having the extra money from the garbage tax, they've now spent the first month's collection. Stay tuned - I'm sure this isn't the last update to our city spending.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Special Memorial Day Thank-You
Yesterday morning we woke to find that some kind person had put a small flag in every yard on our street.
The flags are on our street only and there isn't a note or indication of who provided them for us.
So, to our kind neighbor who took this action to help us pay tribute to those who've guaranteed the freedom to such a thing, many thanks!
And Happy Memorial Day!
The flags are on our street only and there isn't a note or indication of who provided them for us.
So, to our kind neighbor who took this action to help us pay tribute to those who've guaranteed the freedom to such a thing, many thanks!
And Happy Memorial Day!
Friday, May 25, 2007
Memorial Day
Please join in honoring Memorial Day across our great nation on Monday by observing a minute of silence at 1500 local time for remembrance and prayer. Flags should be flown at half-staff until noon, local time.
"[G]ather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime.... [L]et us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us as sacred charges upon the Nation's gratitude, the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan." --General John Logan, General Order No. 11, 5 May 1868
A overhead photo of graves from Arlington National Cemetary
"But fame is theirs - and future days
On pillar'd brass shall tell their praise;
Shall tell - when cold neglect is dead -
"These for their country fought and bled."
~Philip Freneau
General George Patton insisted, "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived."
Founding Patriot John Adams said: "I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth more than all the means...."
"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others, at whatever cost." - Arthur Ashe
"For love of country they accepted death..." ~James A. Garfield
"Decoration Day is the most beautiful of our national holidays.... The grim cannon have turned into palm branches, and the shell and shrapnel into peach blossoms." ~Thomas Bailey Aldrich
"I have never been able to think of the day as one of mourning; I have never quite been able to feel that half-masted flags were appropriate on Decoration Day. I have rather felt that the flag should be at the peak, because those whose dying we commemorate rejoiced in seeing it where their valor placed it. We honor them in a joyous, thankful, triumphant commemoration of what they did." ~Benjamin Harrison
"[G]ather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime.... [L]et us in this solemn presence renew our pledges to aid and assist those whom they have left among us as sacred charges upon the Nation's gratitude, the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan." --General John Logan, General Order No. 11, 5 May 1868
A overhead photo of graves from Arlington National Cemetary
"But fame is theirs - and future days
On pillar'd brass shall tell their praise;
Shall tell - when cold neglect is dead -
"These for their country fought and bled."
~Philip Freneau
General George Patton insisted, "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived."
Founding Patriot John Adams said: "I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the gloom I can see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth more than all the means...."
"True heroism is remarkably sober, very undramatic. It is not the urge to surpass all others at whatever cost, but the urge to serve others, at whatever cost." - Arthur Ashe
"For love of country they accepted death..." ~James A. Garfield
"Decoration Day is the most beautiful of our national holidays.... The grim cannon have turned into palm branches, and the shell and shrapnel into peach blossoms." ~Thomas Bailey Aldrich
"I have never been able to think of the day as one of mourning; I have never quite been able to feel that half-masted flags were appropriate on Decoration Day. I have rather felt that the flag should be at the peak, because those whose dying we commemorate rejoiced in seeing it where their valor placed it. We honor them in a joyous, thankful, triumphant commemoration of what they did." ~Benjamin Harrison
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Reparations to Japanese victims in Guam
While this is covered in the comments under my 'random thoughts' post, I thought it important enough to move it to it's own post...
The House approved the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act 288-133. A link to the bill is here. The purpose of the bill is as follows:
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are to—
(1) acknowledge the suffering of the residents of Guam as a result of the occupation of Guam in World War II by Imperial Japanese military forces;
(2) acknowledge the steadfast loyalty to the United States of the residents of Guam as a result of the occupation of Guam in World War II by Imperial Japanese military forces;
(3) compensate surviving relatives for the deaths of residents of Guam as a result of the occupation of Guam in World War II by Imperial Japanese military forces;
(4) compensate persons who themselves suffered personal injury (including rape and malnutrition), forced labor, forced march, or internment as a result of the occupation of Guam in World War II by Imperial Japanese military forces; and
(5) establish a trust fund to sponsor research and educational activities regarding the wartime occupation and liberation of Guam, scholarships, medical facilities, and other benefits for the people of Guam.
If you'd like to know who voted for/against this bill, you can check here.
Of course, it comes as no surprise that our congresswoman, Marcy Kaptur, voted to support this bill. What may surprise people is that Paul Gillmor also voted in favor. Other Ohio representatives who voted yes are: Stephanie Jones, Dennis Kucinich, Tim Ryan, Zachary Space, Betty Sutton, and Charles Wilson.
Those who voted no are: John Boehner, Steve Chabot, David Hobson, Jim Jordan, Steven LaTourette, Deborah Pryce, Ralph Regula, Jean Schmidt, Pat Tiberi, and Michael Turner.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will cost $130 million during the 2008-2012 budget cycle.
Isn't there a better way to spend tax dollars from U.S. citizens? And, if reparations need to be paid, why aren't our representatives telling the Japanese government to take responsibility for this?
I think this is atrocious!
The House approved the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act 288-133. A link to the bill is here. The purpose of the bill is as follows:
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are to—
(1) acknowledge the suffering of the residents of Guam as a result of the occupation of Guam in World War II by Imperial Japanese military forces;
(2) acknowledge the steadfast loyalty to the United States of the residents of Guam as a result of the occupation of Guam in World War II by Imperial Japanese military forces;
(3) compensate surviving relatives for the deaths of residents of Guam as a result of the occupation of Guam in World War II by Imperial Japanese military forces;
(4) compensate persons who themselves suffered personal injury (including rape and malnutrition), forced labor, forced march, or internment as a result of the occupation of Guam in World War II by Imperial Japanese military forces; and
(5) establish a trust fund to sponsor research and educational activities regarding the wartime occupation and liberation of Guam, scholarships, medical facilities, and other benefits for the people of Guam.
If you'd like to know who voted for/against this bill, you can check here.
Of course, it comes as no surprise that our congresswoman, Marcy Kaptur, voted to support this bill. What may surprise people is that Paul Gillmor also voted in favor. Other Ohio representatives who voted yes are: Stephanie Jones, Dennis Kucinich, Tim Ryan, Zachary Space, Betty Sutton, and Charles Wilson.
Those who voted no are: John Boehner, Steve Chabot, David Hobson, Jim Jordan, Steven LaTourette, Deborah Pryce, Ralph Regula, Jean Schmidt, Pat Tiberi, and Michael Turner.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will cost $130 million during the 2008-2012 budget cycle.
Isn't there a better way to spend tax dollars from U.S. citizens? And, if reparations need to be paid, why aren't our representatives telling the Japanese government to take responsibility for this?
I think this is atrocious!
We have guests!
Earlier this spring, a pair of ducks built a nest in the rocks on our shoreline of the Maumee Bay. This thrilled my husband, who loves all things in nature, especially creatures (except groundhogs - lol). However, it was clear that they'd abandoned their nest a couple of weeks ago, even though they were still hanging around. Hubby had hoped that they'd found a safer place to build a nest and lay their eggs - and it turns out, he was right.
As we looked through our vegetable garden last night, we discovered their 'safer place' was under our sage plant in the corner of our garden. The nest is situated between the sage and the chicken wire we put up to keep our recycled leaves inside the garden. There are eight eggs in the nest - and this pretty much explains why we kept seeing the papa duck waddling around inside the garden.
Of course, this does present a problem for us because there's no way to plant our squash, tomatoes or broccoli without seriously disturbing this nest or
causing it to be abandoned. If you look closely at this second photo, you can see the white of the eggs near the bottom center of the garden. I don't think we'd even be able to pull out the chicken wire without disturbing the nest. So it appears that we're either going to find a new place for our tomatoes this year, foregoing all the other veggies - or forego our own garden entirely. But this seems a small price to pay for the pleasure of having baby ducks and watching them grow.
You don't think they'll come back next year, do you?
As we looked through our vegetable garden last night, we discovered their 'safer place' was under our sage plant in the corner of our garden. The nest is situated between the sage and the chicken wire we put up to keep our recycled leaves inside the garden. There are eight eggs in the nest - and this pretty much explains why we kept seeing the papa duck waddling around inside the garden.Of course, this does present a problem for us because there's no way to plant our squash, tomatoes or broccoli without seriously disturbing this nest or
causing it to be abandoned. If you look closely at this second photo, you can see the white of the eggs near the bottom center of the garden. I don't think we'd even be able to pull out the chicken wire without disturbing the nest. So it appears that we're either going to find a new place for our tomatoes this year, foregoing all the other veggies - or forego our own garden entirely. But this seems a small price to pay for the pleasure of having baby ducks and watching them grow.You don't think they'll come back next year, do you?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Random Thoughts
* There's been a lot of talk about the growing disparity between the rich and the poor...but I haven't seen anyone analyze the impact an aging population has on this 'disparity.' Older people tend to have more 'wealth' than younger ones - and with an aging population, it seems logical to have such disparity. Is it possible that no one has examined this because it wouldn't fit into a political agenda?
* When I attended college, the emphasis was on getting a job to help pay for my tuition, books, etc. Today, it seems like the emphasis is on getting college loans so you don't have to work while going to school. If this is really the case, are we doing a disservice to our students?
* Congress has passed a $2.9 TRILLION budget that they say does NOT include any tax hikes. But, if you let tax cuts expire, you're still raising taxes - how is that NOT a tax hike? And, by bringing forth the immigration/amnesty bill, they've actually relegated their budget to the back pages...
* The House approved the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act 288-133. The Act not only recognizes the suffering and loyalty of Guam during World War II, but it authorizes reparations for the descendants of those killed by the Japanese. Why are United States citizens, through their tax dollars, paying for people killed by the Japanese????
* Congrats to Kansas, the first state in the nation to adopt a “Google Government” database that will allow citizens to see all state expenditures. “Show Me the Spending” organization, consisting of 19 groups who lobby for such searchable archives in all states, is mostly responsible for pushing for this. Maybe we need a chapter here?
* A recent post on Toledo Talk about an upcoming Young Republican meeting along with Thomas Sowell's column on "The Anger of the Left" has really caused me to think about the future of political discourse. It's easy to understand that emotions can run high when people are passionate about issues...but the intense hatred toward people because they have a different opinion is something that I just don't understand. If you do, please let me know.
* Memorial Day is coming up - a day that we honor those who've died in the service of our country. Will you do anything in tribute to those who've guaranteed your freedoms?
* When I attended college, the emphasis was on getting a job to help pay for my tuition, books, etc. Today, it seems like the emphasis is on getting college loans so you don't have to work while going to school. If this is really the case, are we doing a disservice to our students?
* Congress has passed a $2.9 TRILLION budget that they say does NOT include any tax hikes. But, if you let tax cuts expire, you're still raising taxes - how is that NOT a tax hike? And, by bringing forth the immigration/amnesty bill, they've actually relegated their budget to the back pages...
* The House approved the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act 288-133. The Act not only recognizes the suffering and loyalty of Guam during World War II, but it authorizes reparations for the descendants of those killed by the Japanese. Why are United States citizens, through their tax dollars, paying for people killed by the Japanese????
* Congrats to Kansas, the first state in the nation to adopt a “Google Government” database that will allow citizens to see all state expenditures. “Show Me the Spending” organization, consisting of 19 groups who lobby for such searchable archives in all states, is mostly responsible for pushing for this. Maybe we need a chapter here?
* A recent post on Toledo Talk about an upcoming Young Republican meeting along with Thomas Sowell's column on "The Anger of the Left" has really caused me to think about the future of political discourse. It's easy to understand that emotions can run high when people are passionate about issues...but the intense hatred toward people because they have a different opinion is something that I just don't understand. If you do, please let me know.
* Memorial Day is coming up - a day that we honor those who've died in the service of our country. Will you do anything in tribute to those who've guaranteed your freedoms?
Students protest because they failed test
Some of our high schools seniors protested in front of the administration building of the Toledo Public Schools yesterday - because they failed one portion of the Ohio Graduation Test and won't be able to graduate.
According to the article in The Blade, some of the students and their parents tried applying pressure yesterday to force the district to let seniors who failed the required exam walk across the stage.
According to the paper, 10% of the graduating students did not pass - which means that 90% did pass and can graduate. Of the 1,486 graduating seniors, only 295 took part of the test in March, which means that all the others had passed all portions of the test previously. The district says it will follow the rules, and not make an exception for these students, but some may be eligible for a waiver and, if so, can still graduate.
This article raises quite a few questions. What's the purpose of setting a graduation test and making passage required for graduation if you're also going to set up a waiver system to get around the test?
One of the protesters attends Scott High school and has a 4.0 gpa. Scott is one of the schools with 'honors' classes where you get an extra point for each grade (A=5 pts, not 4 and on down the line). So I wondered if this student with a 4.0 had taken honors classes - and, if so, why couldn't she pass her exam? If you're capable of earning a 4.0, do you just not take exams well or did you think that because you've got a 4.0 you didn't have study for the OGT?
And then I read, too, farther down the article that this is the third year these students have had to pass the exam - and I wondered what their scores were on the previous tests - were they showing improvements in their scores?
And then I worry about 'teaching to the test' - which is something I don't think should be done.
But I don't know that protesting their inability to walk across the stage was the right thing to do - those are the rules and they've been in place long enough for all the students to know about them. One student said, "“I didn’t pass the science part by seven points. I feel that it’s wrong."
Are these students and their parents suggesting that we ignore the rules because it makes them unhappy or prevents them from doing something that they want to do? Well - welcome to the real world where this kind of thing happens on a regular basis...perhaps this is good training for after graduation.
If there are problems with the tests - the administration or the preparation, etc. - then let's address them. But let's also instill in our students some personal responsibility for their own behavior along the way.
According to the article in The Blade, some of the students and their parents tried applying pressure yesterday to force the district to let seniors who failed the required exam walk across the stage.
According to the paper, 10% of the graduating students did not pass - which means that 90% did pass and can graduate. Of the 1,486 graduating seniors, only 295 took part of the test in March, which means that all the others had passed all portions of the test previously. The district says it will follow the rules, and not make an exception for these students, but some may be eligible for a waiver and, if so, can still graduate.
This article raises quite a few questions. What's the purpose of setting a graduation test and making passage required for graduation if you're also going to set up a waiver system to get around the test?
One of the protesters attends Scott High school and has a 4.0 gpa. Scott is one of the schools with 'honors' classes where you get an extra point for each grade (A=5 pts, not 4 and on down the line). So I wondered if this student with a 4.0 had taken honors classes - and, if so, why couldn't she pass her exam? If you're capable of earning a 4.0, do you just not take exams well or did you think that because you've got a 4.0 you didn't have study for the OGT?
And then I read, too, farther down the article that this is the third year these students have had to pass the exam - and I wondered what their scores were on the previous tests - were they showing improvements in their scores?
And then I worry about 'teaching to the test' - which is something I don't think should be done.
But I don't know that protesting their inability to walk across the stage was the right thing to do - those are the rules and they've been in place long enough for all the students to know about them. One student said, "“I didn’t pass the science part by seven points. I feel that it’s wrong."
Are these students and their parents suggesting that we ignore the rules because it makes them unhappy or prevents them from doing something that they want to do? Well - welcome to the real world where this kind of thing happens on a regular basis...perhaps this is good training for after graduation.
If there are problems with the tests - the administration or the preparation, etc. - then let's address them. But let's also instill in our students some personal responsibility for their own behavior along the way.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Interesting column from Ron Paul
Congressman Ron Paul does a weekly column on various topics of interest. I thought this week's column, primarily a response to the criticism of his statements during the South Carolina debate, to be quite interesting.
He lays out his belief that Congress abdicated its responsibility to declare war and that the U.S. should have never gone to war to enforce U.N. resolutions.
He also says:
"This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .
Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later."
I do not yet know if I support his position - but I cannot fault his emphasis on abiding by the Constitution...if you'd like to read the full article, click here.
He lays out his belief that Congress abdicated its responsibility to declare war and that the U.S. should have never gone to war to enforce U.N. resolutions.
He also says:
"This week I plan to introduce legislation that will add a sunset clause to the original authorization (Public Law 107-243) six months after passage. This is designed to give Congress ample time between passage and enactment to craft another authorization or to update the existing one. With the original objectives fulfilled, Congress has a legal obligation to do so. Congress also has a moral obligation to our troops to provide relevant and coherent policy objectives in Iraq .
Unlike other proposals, this bill does not criticize the president’s handling of the war. This bill does not cut off funds for the troops. This bill does not set a timetable for withdrawal. Instead, it recognizes that our military has achieved the objectives as they were spelled out in law and demands that Congress live up to its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. I am hopeful that this legislation will enjoy broad support among those who favor continuing or expanding the war as well as those who favor ending the war. We need to consider anew the authority for Iraq and we need to do it sooner rather than later."
I do not yet know if I support his position - but I cannot fault his emphasis on abiding by the Constitution...if you'd like to read the full article, click here.
International Baccalaureates
Perhaps they're more common than we realize...
And you're wondering just where it is you've heard this term before? Well, Dr. Harner - who was being considered for the position of Superintendent of Toledo Public Schools - has a daughter enrolled in the IB program and wanted her to be able to continue her studies if they moved to this area. But the only IB program offered was in a Sylvania high school. TPS eventually decided to hire acting superintendent John Foley for the position.
According to a Wall Street Journal article (subscription may be required) public and charter schools are increasingly using IB programs as a way to challenge students and pull up test scores.
"Since 2000, ... growth in the number of high schools offering the program has been brisk, reaching 758 high schools this past academic year."
Private schools have used this program, which is more stringent than Advanced Placement courses, for years. However, most schools offering the program do not offer it to all students without some sort of placement or admission standards. In fact, according to WSJ, there are only two schools in the U.S. that teach IB to students of any level, but those students are selected by lottery.
The Journal says that the main obstacle to such offering is the cost - usually around $8,000 per year, along with payments for the exams and teacher training.
I'm not saying that TPS should immediately start such a program, but I do believe our school board should consider such programs as part of their educational programming.
There was even a school board in Pennsylvania that voted to end their IB program. Parents rallied to have it restored and won a pro-baccalaureate majority in a school board election last Tuesday. I can only wonder if there are lessons we could learn from them...
And you're wondering just where it is you've heard this term before? Well, Dr. Harner - who was being considered for the position of Superintendent of Toledo Public Schools - has a daughter enrolled in the IB program and wanted her to be able to continue her studies if they moved to this area. But the only IB program offered was in a Sylvania high school. TPS eventually decided to hire acting superintendent John Foley for the position.
According to a Wall Street Journal article (subscription may be required) public and charter schools are increasingly using IB programs as a way to challenge students and pull up test scores.
"Since 2000, ... growth in the number of high schools offering the program has been brisk, reaching 758 high schools this past academic year."
Private schools have used this program, which is more stringent than Advanced Placement courses, for years. However, most schools offering the program do not offer it to all students without some sort of placement or admission standards. In fact, according to WSJ, there are only two schools in the U.S. that teach IB to students of any level, but those students are selected by lottery.
The Journal says that the main obstacle to such offering is the cost - usually around $8,000 per year, along with payments for the exams and teacher training.
I'm not saying that TPS should immediately start such a program, but I do believe our school board should consider such programs as part of their educational programming.
There was even a school board in Pennsylvania that voted to end their IB program. Parents rallied to have it restored and won a pro-baccalaureate majority in a school board election last Tuesday. I can only wonder if there are lessons we could learn from them...
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Armed Forces Day
Taken from an old Presidential proclamation, in honor of Armed Forces Day, traditionally celebrated the third Saturday in May:
The words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower written in 1953 remain true today: "It is fitting and proper that we devote one day each year to paying special tribute to those whose constancy and courage constitute one of the bulwarks guarding the freedom of this nation and the peace of the free world." On Armed Forces Day, our grateful Nation salutes the brave men and women who protect our country, defend freedom, and help make our world a better place.
During these extraordinary times, we are reminded that our achievements in peace and war stand upon the service and sacrifice of those in uniform. These brave men and women follow in the footsteps of previous generations who, since our Nation's founding, have stepped forward to defend our homeland and secure liberty for our country and our friends and allies. The members of our military exemplify the true spirit of patriotism -- a love of country expressed through a commitment to serve our Nation and defend our freedom. Their selfless dedication and determination are an inspiration to every American.
In difficult times, America has called on members of our Armed Forces to protect the democratic ideals on which our country was founded, and they have never let our country down.
Thank you to all those who serve - and to the families who support them!
The words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower written in 1953 remain true today: "It is fitting and proper that we devote one day each year to paying special tribute to those whose constancy and courage constitute one of the bulwarks guarding the freedom of this nation and the peace of the free world." On Armed Forces Day, our grateful Nation salutes the brave men and women who protect our country, defend freedom, and help make our world a better place.
During these extraordinary times, we are reminded that our achievements in peace and war stand upon the service and sacrifice of those in uniform. These brave men and women follow in the footsteps of previous generations who, since our Nation's founding, have stepped forward to defend our homeland and secure liberty for our country and our friends and allies. The members of our military exemplify the true spirit of patriotism -- a love of country expressed through a commitment to serve our Nation and defend our freedom. Their selfless dedication and determination are an inspiration to every American.
In difficult times, America has called on members of our Armed Forces to protect the democratic ideals on which our country was founded, and they have never let our country down.
Thank you to all those who serve - and to the families who support them!
Friday, May 18, 2007
Quote of the Day
“The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.”
— Alexander Hamilton
Hat tip to The Patriot Post which also contains an interesting column, "The GOP - A Party in Distress."
— Alexander Hamilton
Hat tip to The Patriot Post which also contains an interesting column, "The GOP - A Party in Distress."
Just a Thought or Two...
I can't help but wonder if any of our representatives in Congress bothered to think past the next election cycle when it comes to the fiscal impact of adding 12 million people to our social security/medicare system? (re: proposed agreement on illegal immigration)
Nope - probably not, as that would require logic, reason and common sense - all of which seem to be severely lacking in the realm of politics.
***
And what was Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis thinking when he said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Cong. Ron Paul from more debates? Since when did the Republican Party become the party of censorship? Perhaps this is just another demonstration of how far party leaders have come from the core principles of our party.
If you don't like his positions, don't vote for him. But we defend a person's right to speak - especially when we disagree with them. Shame on you, Mr. Anuzis.
Nope - probably not, as that would require logic, reason and common sense - all of which seem to be severely lacking in the realm of politics.
***
And what was Michigan GOP chairman Saul Anuzis thinking when he said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Cong. Ron Paul from more debates? Since when did the Republican Party become the party of censorship? Perhaps this is just another demonstration of how far party leaders have come from the core principles of our party.
If you don't like his positions, don't vote for him. But we defend a person's right to speak - especially when we disagree with them. Shame on you, Mr. Anuzis.
Love-Hate Relationship with Sweeps Weeks
Usually, I look forward to May and the sweeps - ratings periods for tv shows. All the favorite shows I like to watch do their season finales - some two-parters which give you something to look forward to in the fall. The shows tend to tie up any loose ends while interjecting a new twist for the next season. It's enjoyable and can certainly provide for an entertaining distraction from everyday work and obligations. This is the 'love' portion of the relationship.
As for the 'hate'...it's developed this year as a result of the local news shows which have sent me over the edge. I have yet to sit through a prime time show without doom and gloom coming up at 11.
If you actually paid attention, you'd find your children aren't safe, seniors aren't safe, YOU aren't safe...deep baritone voices using alliteration to scare you and hope that you're worried enough to tune in...
And then you couple that with the normal gloom and doom - if it bleeds it leads - approach to the regular news cast...and you'd think the world was about to end.
I quit watching the news casts quite some time ago because of this, but you can't avoid it during sweeps....which is too bad.
As for the 'hate'...it's developed this year as a result of the local news shows which have sent me over the edge. I have yet to sit through a prime time show without doom and gloom coming up at 11.
If you actually paid attention, you'd find your children aren't safe, seniors aren't safe, YOU aren't safe...deep baritone voices using alliteration to scare you and hope that you're worried enough to tune in...
And then you couple that with the normal gloom and doom - if it bleeds it leads - approach to the regular news cast...and you'd think the world was about to end.
I quit watching the news casts quite some time ago because of this, but you can't avoid it during sweeps....which is too bad.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Quote of the Day
Warning or prediction?
“No free Government can stand without virtue in the people, and a lofty spirit of patriotism; and if the sordid feelings of mere selfishness shall usurp the place which ought to be filled by public spirit, the legislation of Congress will soon be converted into a scramble for personal and sectional advantages.” —President Andrew Jackson
“No free Government can stand without virtue in the people, and a lofty spirit of patriotism; and if the sordid feelings of mere selfishness shall usurp the place which ought to be filled by public spirit, the legislation of Congress will soon be converted into a scramble for personal and sectional advantages.” —President Andrew Jackson
Thursday, May 10, 2007
More frivolous spending - secret shoppers?
Well, according to many news reports today, our Mayor decided to spend $2,250 on secret shoppers to go into our city hotels and critique them. Of course, he chose a firm OUTSIDE the city to actually perform this service...
And he's using these secret shopper reports to issue citations from the Department of Neighborhoods.
But Carty didn't just hire secret shoppers and use their reports for citations - of course not. He personally delivered the citation to the hotel and then held a press conference.
Many people will praise his actions to 'clean up the city.' But many business people and others will see a mayor more interested in grandstanding. And then they wonder why people are leaving our city....
(BTW - I've updated my 'Tracking Spending' column to include this latest example of our mayor's lack of fiscal prudence.)
And he's using these secret shopper reports to issue citations from the Department of Neighborhoods.
But Carty didn't just hire secret shoppers and use their reports for citations - of course not. He personally delivered the citation to the hotel and then held a press conference.
Many people will praise his actions to 'clean up the city.' But many business people and others will see a mayor more interested in grandstanding. And then they wonder why people are leaving our city....
(BTW - I've updated my 'Tracking Spending' column to include this latest example of our mayor's lack of fiscal prudence.)
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Spend, Spend, Spend
Well, what did you expect. If a politician or political body has money - they spend it.
Last night, Toledo City Council voted to spend $39,900 on flowers for the 'gateways.' Interestingly enough, Point Place, which is the major north-south gateway into the city from Michigan and my home neighborhood, doesn't have any special type of entranceway or beautification project. However, the Anthony Wayne Trail does and so do Cherry and Summit Streets downtown. So even if beautifying the city's entranceways is a good idea, the major entrances to the city seem to be neglected. If this money is truely to provide a pleasant view for people entering the city, perhaps the locations of planting should be revised.
Then there is the Labor-Management-Citizens Center which got another $42,886 for a total of $113,314. Now, the LMC is a really great organization and, when I was the Clerk of Court, I took advantage of their services. Both my unions and I were very pleased with the assistance they provided. But the idea that the city just budgets money for an organization has got to end. L-M-C provides a service, but it's a service that other entities can also provide. The city needs to issue an RFP and then enter into a contract with a firm or organization to provide such services. By just listing L-M-C as an item in the budget, the city avoids the need to bid out such services and get the best price for the citizens who are footing the bill.
Finally, there is Sister Cities. I appreciate the work that Sister Cities does. They help to foster good relationships and better understanding, especially in a growing global economy. But they are not a necessity when it comes to the duties and responsibilities of a city. I believe they deserve individual support from citizens and businesses, but not our tax dollars - especially if it means that we need to pay an additional tax (garbage tax) so they can have funding. They got $50,000, but council was told there was a small carryover from 2006 and that was the source of the funds.
Total for the night? $132,786!
It's evident that none of our administrators and elected officials are thinking ahead. They had a small carryover from 2006 of $334,000 and they're going to collect one more month of garbage tax than they originally estimated which is going to generate $364,500. So, obviously, they have money to spend - right? WRONG!
According to earlier estimates, city staff is projecting the 2008 budget deficit to be around $18 million. Wouldn't it make more sense to NOT spend money and set aside any "additional" funds to help cover the deficit for next year?
Ah - but that's not how you buy votes....
Last night, Toledo City Council voted to spend $39,900 on flowers for the 'gateways.' Interestingly enough, Point Place, which is the major north-south gateway into the city from Michigan and my home neighborhood, doesn't have any special type of entranceway or beautification project. However, the Anthony Wayne Trail does and so do Cherry and Summit Streets downtown. So even if beautifying the city's entranceways is a good idea, the major entrances to the city seem to be neglected. If this money is truely to provide a pleasant view for people entering the city, perhaps the locations of planting should be revised.
Then there is the Labor-Management-Citizens Center which got another $42,886 for a total of $113,314. Now, the LMC is a really great organization and, when I was the Clerk of Court, I took advantage of their services. Both my unions and I were very pleased with the assistance they provided. But the idea that the city just budgets money for an organization has got to end. L-M-C provides a service, but it's a service that other entities can also provide. The city needs to issue an RFP and then enter into a contract with a firm or organization to provide such services. By just listing L-M-C as an item in the budget, the city avoids the need to bid out such services and get the best price for the citizens who are footing the bill.
Finally, there is Sister Cities. I appreciate the work that Sister Cities does. They help to foster good relationships and better understanding, especially in a growing global economy. But they are not a necessity when it comes to the duties and responsibilities of a city. I believe they deserve individual support from citizens and businesses, but not our tax dollars - especially if it means that we need to pay an additional tax (garbage tax) so they can have funding. They got $50,000, but council was told there was a small carryover from 2006 and that was the source of the funds.
Total for the night? $132,786!
It's evident that none of our administrators and elected officials are thinking ahead. They had a small carryover from 2006 of $334,000 and they're going to collect one more month of garbage tax than they originally estimated which is going to generate $364,500. So, obviously, they have money to spend - right? WRONG!
According to earlier estimates, city staff is projecting the 2008 budget deficit to be around $18 million. Wouldn't it make more sense to NOT spend money and set aside any "additional" funds to help cover the deficit for next year?
Ah - but that's not how you buy votes....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
