Words of wisdom for the college-bound

Well, it's going to be sunny and 85 in Toledo today and tomorrow the same with only a 30% chance of a thunderstorm in the afternoon.

(One of the things that I've noticed about the weather forecasts is that they only mention the 'chance' of rain, if it's estimated to be 30% or more...and they estimate percentages by increments of 10. So if it's only a 20% chance of rain, it doesn't make it into the forecast.)

And considering the numerous days we didn't get rain when there was a 30%chance of it, I'm expecting a beautiful weekend!

And why, you may be wondering, do I find the weather for this particular weekend worthy of a blog post? It's because of my niece, Ashley, who is having her graduation/off-to-college party today...and I'm so very glad she'll have a good day for it.

In many ways, Ashley is a typical teenager - her favorite music, the things she likes to do, the clothes she likes to wear, her penchant for sarcasm. But in many ways, she is not. She strikes me as more thoughtful of others and more patient than many of her contemporaries, except - of course - when it comes to her brother. :)

Ashley loves to read - everything! She enjoys Harry Potter as much her uncle and grandmother, but she also likes the classics and books many would look at and ask "why are you reading that?" She is inquisitive and courageous (try something new? sure!) But blessed with sound judgment so she doesn't take unnecessary risks.

I think these traits will serve her well in college.

Many families are sending their children off to college at this time of the year. They won't be "children" by the time they come home for winter break. So in honor of the incoming freshmen (anxious to be out on their own) and their families (anxious about everything else), both filled with excitement and fear, and especially to Ashley, I offer the following quotations for reflection as you embark upon this next stage:

The college undergraduate is a lot of things--many of them as familiar, predictable and responsible as the bounce of a basketball, and others as startling (and occasionally disastrous) as the bounce of a football.
- John Sloan Dickey

You can lead a boy to college, but you can't make him think.
- Elbert Hubbard

The purpose of the university is to make students safe for ideas -- not ideas safe for students.
- Clark Kerr

A college education is not a quantitative body of knowledge salted away in a card file. It is a taste for knowledge, a taste for philosophy, if you will; a capacity to explore, to question, to perceive relationships, between fields of knowledge and experience.
- A. Whitney Griswold

I have never let schooling interfere with my education.- Mark Twain

I learned three important things in college - to use a library, to memorize quickly and visually, to drop asleep at any time given a horizontal surface and fifteen minutes.
~Agnes DeMille, Dance to the Piper, 1952

The things taught in schools and colleges are not an education, but the means to an education.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing worth knowing can be taught.
~Oscar Wilde, "The Critic as Artist," 1890

Where we love is home,
Home that our feet may leave, but not our hearts.
~Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., Homesick in Heaven

You have brains in your head.
You have feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself in any direction you choose.
You're on your own.
And you know what you know.
You are the guy who'll decide where to go.
~Dr. Seuss

Four Tidbits too short for their own posting

* Today's Blade has an editorial properly chastising our mayor for leaving his dog in his car and parking in a handicapped spot. They say: "...it is worth remembering that Mr. Finkbeiner has a long and well-documented history of behaving as if society’s rules don’t apply to him. It’s his version of a tragic flaw." But then they go on to excuse this same behavior by saying it's okay for him to take his dog to work with him, when he doesn't allow his employees the same privilege. Wonder how many dogs are allowed in the Blade building???

* What do Britain, France, Germany, Bangladesh and China all have in common? According to the Heritage Foundation, they all have a lower corporate tax rate than the United States. "In fact, the global average corporate tax rate is 27 percent, while America’s remains at 40 percent. This leaves America at a tremendous competitive disadvantage." Of course, the basic theories of economics are lost on those in Congress who think that the solution is always more corporate taxes, not recognizing that the higher rates encourage job providers to go elsewhere while tacking on the additional taxes to the price of goods that we pay.

* In the "things I learned enroute to other destinations" category, it seems that members of Congress have their own gym. According to The Hill, Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) is chairman of the House gym committee. (Yes, they even have a committee for said gym!) But the real kicker is that Abercrombie is seeking $8 Million - yes, $8 Million - to renovate the gym. It appears that others in his party are afraid of the political ramifications of such an expenditure, but that isn't stopping Abercrombie.

In fact, Abercrombie thinks the Congressional gym should be equal or better than the 'staffer's gym,' where "each elliptical machine and treadmill has its own flat-screen TV hooked up to cable." Yes, a gym for Hill staffers...your tax dollars hard at work.

But, according to one congressional wife (families, evidently have access to the gyms as well), "Taxpayers would be furious if they knew we were spending their money on gym renovations." What arrogance - as a taxpayer, I'm furious that we're paying for a gym in the first place. Don't we pay these people enough that they can afford a gym membership paid for out of their own pockets??? Priorities, priorities...

* And finally, the Club For Growth has released a 2007 rePORK card for members of Congress. "Taxpayers have a right to know which congressmen stand up for them and which stand up for the special interests," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "Unfortunately, the Club for Growth RePORK Card shows that most congressmen care more about lining their buddies' pockets than they care about protecting American taxpayers." The rePORK card scores reflect the percentage of YES votes on 50 anti-pork amendments. Our own Representative Marcy Kaptur (D OH-9) scored 0%.

- UPDATE: Matthew at Right Angle Blog looks at the rePORK card scores of the Ohio Congressional Delegation - you might be surprised by some of the Republican scores.

Is this the job of a Commissioner?

According to a Blade article today, Lucas County Commission President Tina Skeldon Wozniak asked a non-profit organization to offer free admission to their event for all Lucas County residents.

I'm sure that the fact that this organization is using county property didn't influence their answer in any way...

As you'll see from the article, the non-profit had offered Maumee residents free admission for some of the time on Sunday of their Rib-Off event - they explained that this was because of the people and amount of traffic they're bringing into the city - sort of a good-neighbor gesture. And it's certainly their prerogative to do so.

However, it's also noted in the article that Comm. Wozniak didn't come up with this idea on her own - rather that the idea came from Toledo City Council President Rob Ludeman who was hoping for a me-too arrangement, despite the fact that the City of Toledo, in response to this event moving to the Maumee due to a lack of space in their previous location of downtown Toledo, decided to create their own 'rib event' the weekend BEFORE the annual Rib-Off.

What many don't know, however, is that last year, after the announcement that the Rib-Off was moving, two county commissioners threatened to shut down the event in retaliation for them leaving downtown Toledo - threatening to prohibit use of the parking areas and extra entrances. (The Ag Society has control of the fairgrounds property so the Commissioners couldn't do anything about their desire to allow the event on that portion of the property.)

Eventually, the Commissioners realized that they really didn't have legal standing and that the publicity about their efforts could be rather negative. The Rib-Off went forward - and the new location was liked by 'all.'

But along comes Toledo who sees that another city is getting something they're not...and like a spoiled child, demands the same...with a county commissioner only too happy to oblige...

Which leads to the question of whether or not it is proper for a county commissioner to ask a non-profit organization to waive their entrance fee to an event for county residents - especially when said commissioner can restrict usage of public property if she doesn't get an answer she likes.

Oh - and for the record, the logic for the request is that all municipalities in the county should be treated the same...too bad our commissioners don't apply this logic in their other decisions.

Finkbeiner breaking the law?

According to an Attorney General Opinion, #2006-048, a "county sheriff and deputy sheriffs are prohibited from using county law enforcement vehicles to run personal errands, or otherwise using county vehicles for their personal use and benefit."

The opinion states:

"This conclusion is consistent with common law principles prohibiting county sheriffs and other public servants from using the resources of their public office for personal gain or benefit." (emphasis added)

How, then, can it not be a violation of law for the Mayor of the City of Toledo to use city employees to walk his dog and take said dog on 'potty breaks'?

Such a task is certainly not relevant to the operation of the city and, since they are doing this during normal working hours, it's clear that they are being paid with city funds for performing this 'duty.' Additionally, it is a personal benefit to the mayor who is relieved of having to perform such a task.

Further, the Ohio Ethics Commission, in an advisory opinion #96-004, said:

"A public official’s or employee’s duty is to the exercise of the public trust by performing the tasks assigned to him by the public agency with which he serves. Advisory Op. No. 89-010. A public agency provides resources to its officials and employees for the performance of these tasks and not for the official's or employee's personal financial gain or benefit."

Not being an attorney, I do not know if utilizing city employees to walk your dog constitutes a 'personal financial gain or benefit.' However, one could speculate that the use of public employees eliminates the need for the mayor to hire someone to perform these tasks, thus resulting in a financial gain.

And then there is the issue of the mayor using his city vehicle to go to the doctor's office, which is clearly not a city purpose. Following the 2003 incident of former County Treasurer Ray Kest's DUI conviction while in a county-owned car, the City of Toledo modified their vehicle use policy.

However, according to this Blade article, Clerk of Council "Mr. Dendinger said the mayor is viewed differently than other city employees because he is not taxed for taking a city vehicle home overnight.

Mr. Dendinger said Mr. Finkbeiner is assigned a vehicle for use 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is not violating any laws by driving the car around Toledo for personal use."

Is this still another instance of 'do as I say, not as I do'? And where's an auditor or attorney general when you need one?

Priorities...Priorities

"There are 500 bridges around the country similar to the Minneapolis span, and ... these are potential deathtraps. ... We have to, as a Congress, grasp this problem. And yes, I would even suggest, fund this problem with a tax."

~ Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), former chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

And this from one of the sponsors of Alaska's 'bridge to nowhere.'

The Cost of Money

"At the current specifications for these coins, it costs the government 1.7 cents to make a penny, and 10 cents to make a nickel."

- Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Illinois)


So...for some time now, the U.S. Government has been losing money every time it creates money? Only in America...

Carnival #77

The Carnival of Ohio Politics is up and running - filled with more links to interesting stories than I had time to read at one sitting.

I again have some links, as does Lisa over at Glass City Jungle. And welcome to Craig at Idea Treks!!

One interesting post worth reading right away is from The Virtuous Republic about Hamilton County Commissioners deciding to increase their sales tax after voters rejected the measure at the ballot...a referendum on the increase is in the works. There are so many lessons here for Lucas County...

The biggest irony of SCHIP - UPDATED

There are many ironies in the proposed expansion of SCHIP...but the biggest one of all is the fact that many families who are "too poor" and will thus qualify for enrollment in SCHIP, are also "too rich" and will have to pay the alternative minimum tax.

Guess the government has devised way to have OUR cake and eat it too.

***special thanks to Hooda Thunkit who pointed out that it's "our" cake...

Animals in government - part 2 - UPDATED

In December, I posted about the mayor bringing his new dog to work (click here for complete article), and I said that I didn't think the proper place for a pet was in the mayor's office. But here it is eight months later, and he's still bringing the pet to work with him.

But not just to work ... he apparently takes Scout everywhere and leaves him in the car. Craig, over at Idea Treks, has a good perspective on the first instance of this. But according to what's being reported on several local blogs, Carty also brought Scout to a press event at the University of Toledo this morning - and left him in the car again. WSPD ran audio from the press conference this afternoon and you can hear Scout barking during many of the speakers' presentations. (audio available here)

I'm not going to go into the insanity of leaving your pet in a car during this kind of heat - that's been covered in enough places already. But I have to wonder just what's gotten into the mayor that he thinks it's professional or acceptable to have his pet accompany him everywhere he goes, especially when his barking disrupts the activity. Scout's barking, that is...

(Which is not to even get into the subject of who walks Scout or takes him outside to do his business during working hours, as it's been reported numerous times that it isn't the mayor.)

Is Carty so insecure that he must have Scout with him in all his activities? Is Scout supposed to provide some type of calming therapy for Carty? If so, it's not working.

And if Scout is so dependent upon human interaction that the excuse for bringing him to Government Center and press events is that he needs the constant contact, perhaps Carty should have thought about a different selection when looking for a pet.

Whatever excuse the mayor may come up with, the fact remains that having a pet in the mayor's office is unprofessional and sends the wrong message to subordinates who aren't allowed such a priviledge. But then - Carty's known for 'do as I say - not as I do.' Having a barking pet at someone else's press event is beyond unprofessional - it's amateurish and inconsiderate, at best.

If you have an opinion about this, you can always call the Mayor's office and share your thoughts. His number is 419-245-1001.

Why do we demonize wealth?

In response to a blog post and a similar article in the Toledo Free Press about levy fatigue, a friend sent me an email that nicely joined together several factors impacting Toledo.

For background, she refers to several items in the news:

*The Blade published an article lamenting the loss of area executives.

*There was the announcement of low interest loans to encourage those who can't afford to purchase art to do so (see articles here and here).

*COSI is asking for another levy for operational funds - after their request last year failed.

She wrote:

"If we have truly lost the upper middle to upper levels of wealth in this area we are probably finished. These are the people who underwrite art and music and culture to which the less affluent get access usually at no cost. They are the ones who need a place to network to generate the deals that make a city/region work both literally and figuratively.

Without this layer of people we are reduced to asking poor people to go into debt to support art. We have to get excited about the numbers of people in poverty because there is money to hand out rather than jobs. We put the burden of keeping non-profits operational on the backs of low wage earners through levies rather than the fundraising efforts of people who do not have to worry about the price of gas.

I think the loss of labor jobs is regrettable but the previously unnoticed loss of management jobs is far worse because the ripples are farther reaching. When will Toledo/Lucas County get over its hypocritical view of wealth and the wealthy who really are the answer to many of our area's problems?"

And I think that she's raised a very valid point - that we discourage or penalize those who attain wealth. We tax them, we take from them to give to others, we call their companies 'evil corporations,' we criticize them when they spend their own money on themselves, we blame them for excessiveness - especially when it appears that they contribute to 'global warming' ... But you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd say they don't want more money than they have right now.

It used to be that the American Dream was to rely upon oneself to achieve whatever goal one set. We used to admire those who achieved wealth by working hard, creating something new or even playing the stock market well.

But today, class envy has become the norm. The normal response to someone who has wealth is to say they got it at someone else's expense. Many politicians and opinion-makers promote the idea of a limited pie - that if someone has wealth, it's because some else doesn't. They look for more ways to 'tax the wealthy' to provide benefits for the 'poor.' And they promise such programs in exchange for votes, relying upon income from those they claim shouldn't have wealth in the first place.

Locally, we subsidize the creation of market rate housing...but many who'd be able to afford such housing are not the ones buying memberships to country clubs, becoming patrons of the arts or sponsoring major initiatives of non-profits. Can you imagine the outcry if local leaders said they were going to subsidize the creation of luxury housing - perhaps in the planned Marina District - in order to attract those with enough disposable income to generously contribute to the economic revitalization of the downtown area?

We say we want a knowledge-based economy, but we demonize those who would lead such an economy. We say we want good jobs, but make it nearly impossible, cost-wise, for job-providers to locate here. And heaven forbid if such job-providers happen to be non-union... We say we want to encourage success, but then tax and criticize those who succeed.

We can't have it both ways - and I'm reminded of the "10 Cannots" by Rev. William J. H. Boetcker, 1916:

* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatreds.
* You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.

Would Toledo be better if we had more "wealthy" people? Would our community and economy benefit by such a population? You decide.

More unnecessary spending

Well, the Mayor is at it again...secret shoppers to test our local hotels...and a public press conference to tell our hotel workers that they need to be "professional in their attitude and conduct."

And this cost taxpayers another $2500 - which has been added to my running total of unnecessary city spending.

Are secret shoppers the duty of government? Carty Finkbeiner tries to make the argument that visitors to Toledo judge our city by the hotels in which they stay. Personally, I've never judged a city by a hotel. I've judged the hotel, and if it was less than I was expecting, figured that I'd picked poorly. In fact, in talking with friends who travel often for business, they all said that their perspective of the city was NOT tied to their hotel experience.

So do visitors judge our city by the hotel they pick? Or do they judge the city by the roads, the cleanliness of the public spaces, the safety/police presence, good directional signs and ease of parking, whatever event/activity they came for and their overall experience? I think most people are smart enough to distinguish between a city and a single hotel.

And then there is the concept that our mayor is spending tax dollars to evaluate local businesses. To further add insult to injury, he publicly chastizes them because they don't 'measure up.' If I were a prospective visitor who'd just read this article, I'd be looking for a hotel in Perrysburg, as the mayor certainly didn't cast our hotels in a positive light.

I can't help but wonder - after he's finished with the hotels, what will be next? Will he turn his attention to local restaurants? retail outlets? movie theaters?

Perhaps everyone would be better served if he turned those secret shoppers on the city departments and agencies...especially since he has direct authority over those entities - and that's what he was elected to do.

If I believed that evaluating hotels was a good idea, I'd approach the local hotel owners association and ask for their help and support. I'd suggest that such a 'secret shopper' program would benefit them, as owners, and their guests. I'd ask them to pay for the program and use it to their advantage as a marketing or sales tool. This would be a good business decision for them and, together, they could improve their local industry.

Such an approach would accomplish the same results - the improvement of our local hotels - but it would be a voluntary, cooperative way of doing so...instead of a public humiliation at public expense.

Quote of the Day

"Sometimes I wish I were a Democrat because Democrats seem to have more fun. At other times I wish I were a Libertarian because Republicans are too much like Democrats. What I actually am is a right-wing independent who is registered Republican because there isn't any place else to go."

- Lyn Nofziger

What's all the fuss about?...what the charter really says about a balanced budget

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.

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.

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!

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?

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."

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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?

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.'

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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!

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...

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!

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)

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."

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?

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?

Words of Wisdom

Buddha said:

"If we could see the miracle of a single flower clearly, our whole life would change."