Why people leave Toledo - one man's story

I want to tell you about my friend, Mike.

Mike is an engineer. He's got a good technical job in a local manufacturing plant. He's married and the father of three terrific - but very energetic - boys. His wife, now that their kids are older, has gone back to school to become a nurse. Two of the boys attend a good TPS elementary school and they're happy with the education the boys are getting. The youngest can't wait to go to school with his brothers.

Mike and his wife are involved in the school and with Boy Scouts. In their free time, they race sailboats (which is how we know them). They're a good family - young professionals - the type of family Toledo needs.

But...

Mike told us the other day that they're looking to move out of Toledo. Not because of the schools - at least, not yet. Not because of a lack of job opportunities or because of an out-of-town job opportunity. Not even because of the taxes, although they're not happy about those.

No - Mike and his family are looking at leaving because of something so simple, yet so offensive, that they just can't get past it.

You see, they had a garage sale last weekend. They put their stuff on their driveway and in their yard, put up their signs and began that summer ritual of getting rid of things they no longer need. And, for this sale, that included an old van. They put the van on their grass, as the driveway was filled, and put a 'for sale' sign on it.

At some point on Saturday, a police office was looking at the van. They didn't think anything of it - except to hope that maybe he'd be interested enough to make an offer. However, when they went to move it after the sale was over, they found a ticket on the windshield.

Yes, a ticket. For parking the vehicle on the lawn. Because, according to Toledo Municipal Code 351.07(a)33, you cannot:

(33) Stand or park a vehicle upon any unpaved portion of a front lot or side lot in any residence district, or upon any unpaved portion of a vacant lot in any residence district, except as otherwise permitted under the local Zoning Ordinance, Part Eleven of the Toledo Municipal Code.

Now, Mike didn't know this. But the officer did and, instead of mentioning this law to Mike during the garage sale, he just issued the ticket.

So, it isn't a major issue, but it's the final straw. It's the thought that the police/city is more interested in the fines they can collect than in helping citizens to follow the law. It's the thought that, instead of just mentioning the law to Mike and asking him to move his van, the mindset is to ticket/fine someone.

And then there is the whole purpose of the law, which was to prevent 'junk' vehicles from cluttering up a neighborhood. Clearly, this was not case in this instance, as the van was only on the 'unpaved portion' during the daytime hours of the garage sale - along with other items for sale.

Mike did consider contesting the ticket...he's still not sure. But knowing Mike, he'll probably just pay it - and then move. And I can't help but wonder how many other young, professional families make the same decision when they come across the straw that broke the camel's back.

Is it possible that Toledo will learn from this? Some will, but those who really need the lesson - those ensconced in the Ivory Tower known as 1 Government Center - won't. And, as a result, people will continue to leave while those in power will continue to scratch their heads...

Fiscal Wake Up Tour

Another in the 'things I found en route to other destinations' ...

I came across The Concord Coalition, a nationwide, non-partisan, grassroots organization advocating generationally responsible fiscal policy. Their goal is to educate the public about the causes and consequences of federal budget deficits, the long-term challenges facing America's unsustainable entitlement programs, and how to build a sound economy for future generations.

Accordingly, they've started the "Fiscal Wake Up Tour" - featuring a series of public forums around the country designed to focus attention on the country's long-term fiscal challenges. The closest one to us will be December 6th at Michigan State University.

Speakers at their forums include representatives from such diverse ideological organizations as The Brookings Institution and The Heritage Foundation.

Good people on both sides of the political aisle can disagree about the best way to address such fiscal problems, but before we can have meaningful discussion about the solution, we must make sure that all of us understand the scope and impact of the problem. If we, the people, really want our elected representatives to address the tough issues, we must have an understanding of fiscal issues that we face today - and our children will face tomorrow.

Robert Bixby, Executive Director of The Concord Coalition, puts it this way:

An unprecedented demographic transformation is taking hold against the backdrop of steadily rising health care costs and steadily falling national savings. This is a dangerous combination for the future health of the economy. It may seem that there is no immediate crisis, yet according to a broad bipartisan consensus current fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path.

The baby boomers' imminent retirement is ushering in a permanent shift to an older population -- and a permanent rise in the cost of programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which already comprise 40 percent of the federal budget. There is no plan to pay for it all other than running up the national debt.

No one can say when a crisis will hit, but by the time it does the economy will likely be burdened with a debilitating amount of debt; leaving painful benefit cuts and steep tax increases as the only options. Doing nothing to avoid such a gut-wrenching outcome would be an act of fiscal and generational irresponsibility.

Since it looks like we're going to have another rainy weekend, you can use your time indoors to check out these two websites and read the information presented. And then share what you've learned with others, because ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

The 'rest of the story'...

Today's Blade has the 'behind the scenes' story of the change in council president and, as I said yesterday, it's all about politics - and not the city of Toledo.

According to the reporting today, Democrat Party State Chairman Chris Redfern did, indeed, meet with the Dems on council prior to their vote and

"emphasized that he and the governor wanted a strong Lucas County Democratic Party in place for the 2008 presidential election."

Strong - as in, in control in both numbers and appearance. So certainly, they can't have a Republican president of council when they hold a majority in that body - how could they explain that awkward situation to presidential campaigns?!?

And the paper also verifies that this is all about the appearance of unity.

“By having a working majority and opening up the lines of communication, we’ll decrease the amount of public disagreements that we have,” Mr. Ashford said.

There's that term, again...'working majority'...because now, since we're trying to give the appearance of unity, we're not going to disagree in public anymore...after all - there's too much at stake in 2008 for us to have public disagreements.

All sarcasm aside, what they're really saying is that they're still going to disagree, but because word has come down from 'on high' (or rather from south of here) we're going to look like we're all working together because our party's interests far outweigh the public's interests in this regard.

Personally, I like the public discourse. I've truly appreciated Frank Szollosi's (and his colleague's) position on the garbage tax that Carty and the Republicans supported. With this new "unity" I can't help but wonder if such policy disagreements will now be hidden behind closed doors until some deal is worked out and presented to the public. That would be very bad for Toledo, Toledoans and taxpayers - but it sure will be better for the Democrat Party, locally and statewide.

It's sad that the priorities of the political party have taken precedence, but living in Toledo, that's what we've come to expect. And the result of such misplaced priorities are all around us - declining population, loss of businesses, budget deficits - all because it's more important to do what the party wants than what the people want.

The story behind the story...

Today's Blade has the story of the change in Toledo City Council president from Republican Rob Ludeman to Democrat Michael Ashford. But here's the story behind the story....

Ludeman was elected president with the support of the Republicans and a couple of B-Team Democrats, as well as the support of Democrat Mayor Carty Finkbeiner. The A-Team/B-Team split in the Democrat Party has deep roots and is the source of much embarrassment to the local and state parties. The fact that the two teams couldn't come together to elect a president of council when they hold the majority became a major sticking point and a further indication of the extent of their differences.

"The 7-4 vote came after almost two weeks of public jockeying for the job among Democrats who were embarrassed that Democrats held an 8-4 majority, but that a Republican ran the agenda and appointed the committee chairmen."

Yes, embarrassment was the reason for the change - not that Rob was doing a poor job in the role. But the political need for a Dem president far outweighed the actual skills and performance of the person in the position.

"He (Ashford) said it made sense for council's majority party to be a "working majority," and that he would work with Mayor Carty Finkbeiner.

"My job is to work with the mayor to make the mayor successful on all his initiatives. At the same time, my job is to serve as a voice for the citizens," he said."

The Dems already had a working majority - they just couldn't get themselves to work toward the same goal...and the stickler was the A-Teamers (Ashford included) who routinely opposed the B-Teamer mayor. Some might say that this was because there were no Republicans to oppose - but that's another story for another day.

And now, those who've positioned themselves against the mayor now say that their job is to 'make the mayor successful on all his initiatives'???? They could have done this without the presidency of council, as Ludeman was actually doing a better job in this role than Ashford and his A-Team colleagues. But now all is rosy...

""To replace him for no reason whatsoever, with but four months left in his term, underscores the pettiness, bitter partisanship, and ongoing political gamesmanship of this council," the mayor said."

Yes, the mayor gets it right...this was more about partisanship and political power than it was about any policy or public need.

"The change in leadership will give the A-team Democrats more power to make a difference in city policy, said Mr. (Frank) Szollosi, who led the effort to overturn the GOP leadership.

"We wanted to move into a period of greater cooperation and respect," Mr. Szollosi said."

Now, how 'having the presidency' will move them toward greater cooperation and respect is beyond me - especially considering than the leading spokesman against that mayor has been Szollosi, sometimes rightly so.

Szollosi opposed certain taxes and spending, gaining much support from both Republican and Democrat voters. But he never missed an opportunity to slam the mayor and others opposed to his own positions. If there was a true interest in moving toward greater cooperation and respect, it certainly didn't take a change in the council president to do so. This 'excuse' is a smokescreen for the real reason - that it embarrassed the Dems locally and state-wide for them to have a majority on council with a Republican as president.

Considering the past disagreements between the A/B teams, I'm sure some of the seven who voted for Ashford had to be persuaded. Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle (who reported the story before the local media outlets - congrats!) wrote that State Party Chairman Chris Redfern met with the Dems yesterday morning before their council meeting. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall in that room!

But that raises all kinds of questions - like why a state party chairman is meddling in our local city council presidency in the first place. Especially when it's extremely obvious that this vote to elect Ashford was more about Democrat Party unity (or the appearance of such) than it was about what is good for the city...and even more so when you remember that city council is a non-partisan office and race!

But, image is more important than substance these days. And the story behind the story is that now the Dems can brag that they've 'defeated' the Republicans and are 'standing together.' However, as I've said in the past, those A-Team/B-Team wounds are very deep and not likely to be healed by a thinly-veiled show of unity.

The sad part is that even Ashford, in his morning interview on WSPD, couldn't give a valid reason for why this change needed to take place. He tried to make the point that it was about 'policy' but his meager response to the question only demonstrated that the real reason is politics - he just couldn't say it honestly without looking even more foolish than he - and his cohorts - already look.

And that's the story behind the story...

What would the founders think?

From The Patriot Post:

Founders' Quote Daily

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823)

Can't help but wonder what our founders, and particularly Jefferson, would say about our tax code - or any other laws that are passed these days...

Don't need no education - I got gummit

In catching up with several of my favorite bloggers, as well as the news, I came across an interesting article linked by Brian at One Oar in the Water. This article on "Infantile America," coupled with a proposed law on land contracts, got me thinking about the lack of knowledge and understanding needed to be independent AND responsible members of society.

The article postulates that, today, many believe "it is their right to indulge to any extent and rely upon the Federal government to bail them out." The newly proposed law carries the 'bail out' to another extreme, requiring inspections and 'minimum levels of habitability' and fines if such conditions are not met. It's described as 'consumer protection,' conveniently forgetting that some people choose to buy a less-than-habitable home and fix it up, using their own sweat to build equity.

What society seems to be saying is that I don't need to have the ability to take care of myself because the 'gummit' will do it for me. We've seen this mentality for years in the old welfare system: I don't need to understand that having a child is expensive and that I should be able to support said child before engaging in actions designed to produce offspring. After all - if I have a kid I can't support, I can turn to the 'gummit' for pre-natal care, food, cribs, you name it...

With terms like sub-prime lending, adjustable rate mortgages, interest-only loans and predatory lending, I no longer need to have the finances to own a home. I can buy a house I can't afford, pay interest only - or a low adjustable rate - and not have to worry if interest rates go up or if I have a balloon payment due sometime in the future. And if I get into trouble with this kind of financing, I'll just turn to the 'gummit' to make me whole.

And I don't need to read the fine print and understand what it means - the 'gummit' will just make more laws to protect me from my ignorance. I don't need to understand budgeting - the 'gummit' will bail me out by giving me subsidies for my car, my gas, my home if I can't afford it on my own.

With this new law, I don't need to be responsible for inspecting any home I'm about to buy - the 'gummit' will just create a law for those 'evil predators' who are going to take advantage of my stupidity.

And in all of this, it won't be my fault for any failure or shortcoming - I'm a victim of others. Caveat emptor? Is that some kind of foreign language?

Sadly, the skills that are necessary for successful survival in today's world seem to be lacking in so many. And our 'gummit' seems all too ready to step in and 'provide' or solve all the problems. Those of us who scrimp and save to be able to afford minor luxuries - or even necessities - are finding that others who don't have the knowledge or the willpower are benefiting at our expense. Remember - any 'gummit' bailout of the sub-prime industry means that you and I are paying for those mortgages - in addition to our own. Eventually, some will wonder why they bother, figuring that if others can be irresponsible, they can too.

And then those of us "with" will be criticized as being greedy, selfish, or worse, for not wanting to "help" our fellow man...because certainly we should sacrifice our wants and needs for those who don't share our values of thrift, savings, budgeting or planning.

The solution to this problem is not 'gummit.' It's education and individual responsibility. Education so that individuals can understand the complicated dealings and contracts - or know enough to know what they don't know and hire someone who can help. Individual responsibility so that if they make a bad decision, they accept the consequences and don't expect to place blame anywhere other than upon themselves - "fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice, shame on me."

And therein lies the problem. If we're smart, or educated, enough to take care of ourselves - and we're able to assume responsibility for our own actions - what will all those 'gummit' officials do? They won't have anyone to take care of...and their campaign promises will fall on deaf ears. We can't have that, now can we?

They need dependency upon government, so they can promise more programs and services, creating more dependency, resulting in the need for more programs and services. It's a vicious and never-ending cycle, counting on the ignorance of the masses for perpetuation.

John Adams said, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people..." But Lord Acton said, "Liberty is the prevention of control by others. This requires self-control and, therefore, religious and spiritual influences; education, knowledge, well-being."

As 'gummit' continues to expand their benevolence toward us, I can't help but wonder if we're headed in the wrong direction.

Quotes of the day

If the rain spoils our picnic, but saves a farmer's crop, who are we to say it shouldn't rain?
~ Tom Barrett

The best thing one can do when it's raining is to let it rain.
~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Welcome to the Carnival!

The Carnival of Ohio Politics, #78, is up and a special welcome to fellow NWO blogger, Roland Hansen, who has his first entry this week!

Cruise over for a good look at what's hot in Ohio Politics.

Eminent Domain?

From The Patriot Post:

Founders' Quote Daily

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

-- John Adams (A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787)

I thought this quote particularly timely in light of Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner's comments in this Blade article.

For years, politicians have been promising to do something about the failing Southwyck Mall - despite the fact that the owners of the mall have expressed little or no interest in doing so. Upon Finkbeiner's election, he brought in local developer Larry Dillin and, together, they've made numerous announcements about renovations, redevelopment, etc. However, neither the city nor Dillin have any ownership in the property.

"Plans to redevelop the aging Southwyck mall as a mixed-use Village at Southwyck have been stuck in park with the refusal of mall part-owner Bill Dillard to either sell his share or join a redevelopment effort with Perrysburg real-estate developer Larry Dillin.

Mr. Finkbeiner said the possibility of using the city's eminent domain power to take control of the mall has not been ruled out. He said he intends to give the current owners 30 days to consider Mr. Dillin's proposal before taking any action."

I realize that the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a community may take private property from one owner and transfer it to another private owner if the benefit to the community is greater. However the Ohio Supreme Court, in a 2006 unanimous decision, ruled:

"Although economic factors may be considered in determining whether private property may be appropriated, the fact that the appropriation would provide an economic benefit to the government and community, standing alone, does not justify the taking of the property under a provision of the Ohio Constitution that requires eminent domain be for “public-use” (Section 19, Article I)."

The area doesn't currently qualify as blighted. And if the city wants to say that the area is 'deteriorating' in order to justify the taking, the Supreme Court weighed in with this:

"The use of the term “deteriorating area” as a standard for a taking is unconstitutional because the term inherently incorporates speculation as to the future condition of the property to be appropriated rather than the condition of the property at the time of the taking."

Carty's used to ignoring the laws (see story on 'Prior Restraint?') but this time he's not dealing with a bunch of college students. He's dealing with a national corporation with the resources to defend what is rightfully theirs and not be intimidated by the political posturing of a local city mayor.

Aside from the terrible message this action sends to business owners in Toledo (if we don't like what you're doing with your company, we'll turn it over to someone who we think has a 'better' idea), I don't believe that Carty can legally force the owners to kowtow to his wishes. And what happens if and when the Southwyck Mall owners say 'no thanks' to Dillin's offer? Will Carty, ever the one to fight defiance of his ideas, invest city resources to take them to court?

Because of the shaky legal footing regarding eminent domain, setting a 30-day deadline to 'finish negotiations' places Carty and the city in the wrong position. However, this appears to be what we've come to expect from our mayor.

More Police? How statistics can say what you want them to

It's that silly season, when candidates try to out-do each other in promises and ideas. But many of them, as is usual, are calling for more police.

In today's Blade, the Mayor "scolded" those who say we need more police officers in Toledo.

"Mr. Finkbeiner suggested some media and some political candidates overemphasize crime. "Every wannabe politician is out there waving the flag, easy flag to wave, 'We need more police,'" Mr. Finkbeiner said."

Never mind the fact that Carty Finkbeiner did the same thing when he was a candidate for mayor, calling for a force of 700 sworn officers within 16 months of taking office...another case of 'do as I say - not as I do'?

What I found interesting was this quote: "...the mayor said reported crime in Toledo for the first four months of 2007 was down by 14.4 percent compared to the same period last year..." - the key being reported crime. Of course, the reporter points out further down in the story that reported crimes against persons and property as of April 30th was actually up by 1,164 over 2006, which means that other crimes must have been down in order to give the 14.4% figure the mayor quoted.

But I go back to that key word - reported. There have been many stories and complaints that, for minor crimes, police are not responding to the scene, but are asking citizens to come into a precinct to file a report. Unfortunately, I fear that many, when faced with being told to 'come down and file a report' will perceive the effort to be futile and not bother.

Since we only know of the reports that are actually filed, we really don't have a good handle on the amount of crime that is occurring. We don't know if the number of people who fail to file a report is large or small, nor the impact that number would have on our crime statistics.

Since this reporting policy has been in place for a number of years, the crime statistics should at least be comparable year to year. But if we made it easier for people to report crimes - or had enough officers to actually respond when a crime is discovered - I can't help but wonder what our crime statistics would be...and whether or not citizens would think we need more police, no matter what the mayor says.

Prior Restraint?

According to this article, "Park shut down by mayor to thwart rally," in today's Blade, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner ordered a local park to be closed to prevent a group of 8-10 people from holding a rally. The article says the "police received word of a rally with potential for confrontation...."

Potential... no actual confrontation or other inappropriate behavior...

Has the mayor ever heard the term "freedom of assembly" and does anyone think he consulted with his law department before taking such action?

For more blogging on this topic, please visit Hooda Thunkit, History Mike, Glass City Jungle, Jay Ott's Questions and Toledo Talk.

Tax on 3000 sq.ft. homes?

Did anyone else hear about Rep. John Dingell's (D-Dearborn) brilliant idea to remove the mortgage tax deduction for people who own homes larger than 3,000 square feet?

According to this press release, Dingell plans to introduce such legislation on September 1.

NOVI, Mich., Aug. 8 /PRNewswire/ -- Longtime builders of country estates in Oakland County say U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, is ill informed and misguided in his call to eliminate mortgage tax deductions on homes larger than 3,000 square feet.

At an August 7th town hall meeting in Ann Arbor, in an effort to combat global warming, Dingell called for a 50-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline and elimination of mortgage tax deductions on what he called "McMansions." Dingell plans to introduce the measures September 1.

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any reference in Census Bureau data to say how many homes in Lucas County this might impact. In 1973, the average square footage of a new home in the Midwest was 1,615 sq. ft. By 2006, it had increased to 2,290 sq. ft. According to the National Association of Home Builders, the size of the average home has increased over the past 35 years - but is expected to be between 2,300-2,500 by 2015 as baby boomers look for smaller homes, but with different styles.

The Association predicts the elmination of living rooms in favor of larger dens, kitchens and baths...higher ceilings and accessibility are also among the growing trends.

But the backlash against larger homes is not new. According to this article from MSN Real Estate, "more governments have started imposing stricter building limits and even temporarily halted new construction while they try to get a handle on the explosion of these 4,000- to-10,000-square-foot homes, sometimes sneeringly called "garage mahals," "Hummer houses" or "starter castles.""

As someone who lives in a 3,130 sq.ft. home, I can tell you that bigger is not always better. But, we didn't pick the house, built in the 1950's, because of it's size - in fact, the size was a considerable 'con' in our evaluation. We picked it because of it's location and view - sacrificing our desire for a right-sized home for our needs in favor of the location and our expansive view of the Maumee Bay and Lake Erie.

However, what's right for me and my family might not be right for others. I believe that the market demands will make many of these "McMansions" undesireable in the future - and the housing market is certainly quick to respond to market demands. I don't see the need for government to try and influence the market by means of taxation.

Further, I resent the government trying to tax things it believes may contribute to global warming. Aside from the fact that it is still a matter of contention whether or not humans have anything more than a minor influence on the global temperature of the earth (versus the normal heating and cooling cycles of the planet along with the impact of solar cycles and sunspots), such a taxation theory will do little to impact the temperatures while giving the government more money to spend (they certainly don't save it, after all!)

If, however, you are one who believes in such a process, I'd have to ask - isn't it better to offer tax INCENTIVES for doing something else, rather than tax DIS-incentives to try and stop the natural desire people have for more space? (It seems to be working for ethanol production.)

I'm interested in your thoughts on this...

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