The good and the bad in Toledo's 2009 budget proposal

Mayor Carty Finkbeiner delivered a balanced budget proposal to Toledo City Council members last night, as he was required to do by law. It's a very lean budget with some good and some bad ideas.

Below is the information provided to City Council, with my notes following. Please note that some of the figures I reference are projections because the City has not yet closed out its 2008 accounts, so the final figures are not available.

Revenue Assumptions:
• Income Taxes are estimated to decline in 2009 approximately 2.09%, or $3,603,078 from the 2008 estimate, reflecting 2007 levels.

In 2008, Incomes Taxes were estimated to be 2.5% more than in 2007. Interestingly, 2007 estimates were 2.6% higher than in 2006. The problem is in current collections. According to the October Finance Committee report, as of September 2008, overall tax revenue to the city was down "nearly 6% from 2007." The only way to tell if this is a good projection would be to compare it to the 2007 final amounts.

• Property Taxes are estimated at $18.6 million for 2009. This is a decrease of about $200K. This decrease is due to a decline in property values and a rise in the number of delinquencies.

According to the spreadsheet the administration provided to council in October, the 2008 budget for Property Taxes was actually $19.1 million - not $18.8 million as indicated in this statement. Additionally, the revenue from this category is down - 11% as of the end of August - so this revenue line item may be higher than can actually be expected.

• Estate Taxes are projected at $4.0 million in 2009.

2008 Property Taxes were estimated at $5.6 million. 2007 income in this category was projected to be $4.4 million, so this appears to be a realistic budget amount.

• Local Government Funds are provided for at $17.9 million in 2009, the same as provided for in 2008.

If state tax revenues and income continue to decline, is it realistic to expect that we will have the same level of disbursement from the LGFs in 2009, or should we budget for LESS than we received in 2008?

• General Fund Interest Income is estimated to yield $2.5 million in 2009, an increase of $200K over 2008’s budgeted amount but equal to anticipated 2008 actual revenue. Interest yield for 2009 is expected to be consistent with what we are experiencing in 2008.

As interest rates decrease, is it reasonable to expect the same yield as 2008? And if we have less income and less funds on which to earn interest, is this truly an accurate budget projection?

• Red Light Camera revenue is provided for at $2.584 million for 2009. While this is the same as for 2008 it reflects an increase over actual collections for 2008.

So what makes the city think that it's going to have INCREASED collections from these cameras in 2009? Every study - even from the camera companies themselves - show that income/revenue from the cameras decreases over time. So far, in 2008, red light/speed camera revenue is $750,000 less than expected. What evidence does the city present to document why they think they'll have 30% more income in this line item? Do they plan to add more of these cameras to get to that point? And what will happen if residents, like those in Cincinnati, pass a charter amendment to prohibit the cameras? These are the contingencies the city should think about and build into their budget projections.

• Refuse Collection Fees are projected at $4.7 million for 2009.

First, this is less money than what they budgeted in 2008, which counted on a 90% collection rate. What is the current collection rate and is it consistent with this much revenue?

Also, the city is currently in a lawsuit over the legality of this fee. What happens if they lose and the court determines this is actually a tax and not a fee? Not only will the revenue not be there, but the city may be forced to repay all it has collected. That contingency is not accounted for. Additionally, if the budget for trash collection is actually reduced, as planned, then the 'justification' for the additional fee - to fund the department - is no longer valid, thus increasing the likelihood that a court will see this 'fee' as a general revenue fund 'tax.' Now, the city may be confident in its position on the lawsuit, but ... what if???

• Cable Vision revenue is budgeted at $2.9 million for 2009. This is an increase of $260K, which is predicated on an increase in the franchise fee from 4.5% to 5% effective January 1, 2009.

• The Revenue Estimate assumes the transfer of $2 million from the Economic Stabilization Reserve in 2009.

I couldn't find an 'economic stabilization reserve' listed in previous budgets. So if this is the new name for the 'rainy day fund,' I'm not sure there will be anything left in that account after the city balances it 2008 budget. If it's not the 'rainy day fund,' then what is this fund supposed to do and why is it acceptable to use it for a purpose other than intended?

Budget Assumptions:

There are a lot of good things in the expense assumptions: no pay increases, elimination of vacant positions, increases in health insurance co-premiums, using grants instead of the general fund - for demolishing homes, elimination of tuition reimbursements, and some savings as a result of fully automating the garbage pickup and switching to one-man instead of three-man crews.

However, there are some not-so-good things in the expenses as well: a planned four-day shutdown may not be possible, considering the legal challenge being mounted by the unions; there are no police or fire classes, despite planned retirements; gasoline costs have gone down in the past two months and while this is a very unstable commodity, projecting costs in this area is very difficult; and the expectation that they will be able to balance the 2008 budget with no negative carryovers, despite a projected $10 million deficit.

The assumptions:

• Staffing for 2009 was based on the elimination of all vacant funded positions as of October 28, 2008. The only exception to this rule is vacant Communication Personnel positions in the Police Department.
• Labor rates were frozen for 2009 consistent with the expired bargaining agreements. Local 20 was increased by 3% as a result of the arbitration agreement for 2009.
• Overtime increased by $1.9 million excluding fringes for the General Fund in 2009. This change from 2008 was specifically within three areas: Police, Fire and Solid Waste. Police was reduced as a result of the closing of the NorthWest Station; Solid Waste was reduced as a result of the implementation of the Solid Waste Plan as described elsewhere. An increase in Fire was the result to fully provide for minimum manning in 2009.
• Severance is based on the 2008 estimate; Police & Fire changes were developed by Public Safety to reflect the potential impact of the DROP program in 2009.
• The 2009 Budget assumes pension pickups as appropriate by bargaining unit as follows: Local 7, Police, and Fire at 10%; 2058 and classified exempt at 8.5%; Local 20 at 8%, and unclassified exempt at 5%.
• Workers’ compensation is assumed at 5.3% (valued at $8.1 million) and fully provides for the 2009 Budget for the Workers Compensation plan including accrual of Incurred but Not Reported claims (IBNR) for 2009.
• Medical Budget increases are $540K (excluding co-premiums) greater in the General Fund for 2009 over 2008, and $1.75 million greater overall (including co-premiums as noted below).
• Medical co-premiums were also built into this amount (as a reduction) on the following basis: a full year for unclassified employees and Local 2058; a February 1, 2009 implementation for Local 7, and an October 1, 2009 implementation for classified exempt employees and Police.
• The City Obligation for debt on the Downtown Housing Projects is provided for at $978k for 2009.
• The Tax Transfer to CIP at 22% net of Tax Administration is estimated at $37.2 million in 2009.
• The Debt Budget is derived from the 2008 Book of Bonded Indebtedness for the 2009 budget. It also reflects changes anticipated in 2009.
• The 2009 Demolition program reflects a redirection of budget from 2008. Grants will provide for demolitions previously performed by the General Fund. Streets, Bridges, and Harbor will continue to perform these demolitions. It anticipates an overall reduction of demolitions in 2009 of 100 units.
• Downtown Employment Incentive Program (DEIP) amounts were provided by the Department of Economic Development at $593K for the year 2009.
• Layoffs are built into the 2009 General Fund Budget. It provides for four one-day layoffs for all non-essential personnel in 2009.
• There is no provision for Police or Fire classes in 2009.
• Utility Increases provided on the advice of the Department of Public Utilities Division of Utility Administration were as follows: Electricity @ 12% per annum or $392k over 2008; Gas @ 15% per annum or $166k over 2008; Water @ 5% per annum or $9k over 2008; Sewer @ 10% per annum or $40k over 2008; and Storm Sewer @ 25% per annum.
• Municipal Garage Costs were assumed to rise by $1.3 million in 2009, even after a 10% cutback as a part of a deficit reduction plan due to the significant increases in the cost of fuel, parts, and labor they have provided for in their 2009 proposed budget.
• Facilities Budget in 2009 is relatively flat due to an approximate 10% cut as a part of the same deficit reduction plan mentioned above.
• ICT and Printshop charges were reduced by approximately $175k, also as a result of the deficit reduction plan.
• Risk Management Fund Budget was increased by $333k over 2008.
• The Solid Waste Budget assumes the commencement of implementation of full automation in 2009 including the implementation of the “Columbus Plan” in January 2009. It also assumes the beginning of the deployment of the automated packers in September 2009, with the appropriate personnel and other changes necessary under the circumstances. (This is primarily the elimination of the current three person crews with simply a driver).
• The CJCC (NORIS) Budget was $1.58 million for 2008 and is being increased by $270k in 2009.
• The 2009 Proposed Budget assumes the following as related to Criminal Justice: Courtroom Security with no change in operation is provided at $1.9 million; the Jail contract with the County at $1.3 million; Work Release at $580k; no provision for Public Defender or Hospital Services (as a part of the contract to be signed with the County for the above mentioned Jail Contract); Pretrial Services at $787k; and Pretrial Detention at $1.29 million.
• The City is advising CCNO that in 2009 it will no longer pay for overutilization of beds for prisoners. This, in conjunction with the assumption that credits from them will remain relatively unchanged from 2007-8, will provide for a reduction of approximately $500k in 2009’s budget.
• The 2009 Proposed Budget reflects the first year of a five (5) year chargeback of the bonded portion of the SAP-ERP or $1.322 million for 2009 from the General Fund. The total cost to be recaptured for the bonded portion of the project is estimated at $11.5 million. However, as a part of the deficit reduction plan, reimbursement to the CIP for the implementation of the ERP in 2009, originally estimated at $1.3 million, has been deferred.
• The 2009 Proposed Budget eliminates all funding for Swimming Pools and the T.O.R.C.H. program.
• Both the Clerk of Courts and the Municipal Court are being requested by the Administration to reduce their budgets in 2009 by 5%. The proposed budget reflects the effect of this change at $309k and $429k respectively.
• As a part of the deficit reduction plan all tuition reimbursement has been eliminated in the General Fund for 2009.
• A layoff is programmed into the 2009 Proposed Budget to reduce personnel costs, net of estimated unemployment by $2.54 million.
• THE 2009 BUDGET ASSUMES THAT THE FINAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET WILL END THE YEAR WITH NO DEFICIT IN UNDESIGNATED FUND EQUITY. IT WILL BE ASSUMED AT ZERO FOR PURPOSES OF THIS PROPOSAL.

What's missing:

Despite some steps in the right direction, it appears from the preliminary information that no departments have been eliminated. The cuts are pretty much across the board without determining priorities for service and whether or not some of the existing services should be eliminated in favor of adequate/proper funding for mandated services.

And many of the questions I asked about the 2008 budget are still valid - and unanswered - including the impact of NOT making the planned changes as of the first of the year.

I hope, when budget hearings are held, we'll get much more interest in them than we have in the past, and that it won't be special interests lobbying for their particular line item.

Denial is part of the problem

According to an interview in the Wall Street Journal, UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said neither unions nor management are to blame for the current condition of the Big 3 automakers.

"This industry is in a crisis situation not of its own making," he said.

Really?

So I supposed that every employee being paid to NOT work (job bank) is not a drain on resources? And huge compensation packages for management don't contribute to the losses? And wages higher than your competitors don't escalate the price of the vehicles beyond what people want to pay? No...those things are irrelevant when you're in denial about your own culpability.

As I've previously reported, General Motors has lost $57 billion since 2005. Ford has lost $24.5 billion since 2006. Despite Gettelfinger's claims, high gas prices and the Wall Street meltdown don't account for losses that go back that far.

So what's going one here? Well, when faced with possible bankruptcy of one of the auto companies, the UAW "is joining forces with the companies in a blitzkrieg public campaign to plead for a federal bail out. Although Mr. Gettelfinger rarely talks to the media aside from local radio stations in Detroit, he has reached out over the weekend to make the union's viewpoint clear."

Of course! We'll join together with our hands out to beg for tax dollars to save us from our mistakes. And we'll deny that we've made any mistakes, blaming everyone but ourselves in order to make it easier for Congress to give us someone else's money.

And what will the union do to help their employers avoid the potential dire consequences? Nothing.

"The union will not make concessions in order to seal a deal for governmental aid, Mr. Gettelfinger said.
...
"It's unfair for people to single out auto workers," he said."

Don't expect us to do anything other than put pressure on Congress to give us money so we can continue doing all the things that brought us to this point in the first place.

Great thinking! And reason only to say NO to the bailout!!!

Automotive bailout does not represent the 'future'

I've struggled with the issue of the automotive bailout currently being debated.

On the principled side, I oppose the government action. On the compassion side, I have empathy for the individuals and families affected by the problems.

There is plenty of blame for the current situation from the individuals demanding unsustainable wages and benefits all the way up to the CEOs, who made the bad decisions over the last decade, and Congress, who is more interested in placating special interests than in protecting all the rest of us who foot the bills.

I think this column by Michael Barone makes some good points, so I wanted to share it with you.

Toledo must fund it's municipal court, Appeals Court rules

As I said almost a year ago:

"...case law in Ohio is strongly on the side of the Judges and Clerk to determine their budget and to require the local municipalities to fund their budget.
...
But here's the kicker - that council and the mayor would be wise to remember: In determining the budget for the Clerk and Judges, the burden of proof is not with the Judges and Clerk. It is with the municipality - and the municipality, in denying the budgetary requests of these two entities, must prove that such budgets are 'unreasonable.' And that's a pretty high burden of proof for the city to undertake...especially when courts have ruled that the financial condition of the city is not an excuse for not funding the 'reasonable' requests of the Clerk and Court."

And as a result of the most recent ruling from the 6th District Court of Appeals, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner now knows this. Whether or not he chooses to admit it, though, is another thing entirely.

"In the decision, the appellate judges said: "The Court's judges are in the best position to know how many officers are needed to effectively secure courtrooms and the courthouse, whether such officers should be full-time or part-time employees, and which agency would best be able to provide qualified officers."

Although acknowledging a court's "power to demand funding from a legislative authority is not without limits," the appellate judges said the city has a duty to fund "suitable Municipal Court facilities.

"We are not unmindful of the city's concern about budgetary funding. … Nevertheless, [the city] does not claim [the judges'] cost proposal for 2008 or 2009 are facially groundless or unreasonable," the appellate judges said. "Instead, the city appears to have merely reduced the court security budget as part of an 'across-the-board' cut in overall expenses, and expected the court to accommodate the reduction by lowering security levels.""

So Toledo has to provide the funds requested by the Court for 2008, despite looking at a $10 million shortfall to close out the year. And it will have to do so for 2009, as well, even as the city struggles with a projected $23 million deficit.

Is this enough to get the mayor and city council focusing on priorities and mandated functions? Will this order for funding cause them to start cutting non-essential activities? Or will they 'spread the pain' so they don't upset particular interest groups?

The budget is due out today, so we'll know shortly. And then the people can speak.

Voinovich says he'll support auto bailout

I read an Associated Press article that claimed Sen. George Voinovich was the only Republican confirmed to support the proposed bailout of the automotive industry.

So I called his office to ask if it was true and the staff person who answered told me it was.

I, of course, expressed my opinion and urged him to vote NO on this - and any other bailouts.

But the only way he can be pushed to vote no is if he gets enough calls and emails instructing him to do so. He works for us, after all.

So, here is the contact information. Let him know what you think! (remember, be firm but polite...)

Washington office: (202) 224-3353
Toledo office: Phone: (419) 259-3895 Fax: (419) 259-3899
Cleveland office: Phone: (216) 522-7095 Fax: (216) 522-7097
Cincinnati office: Phone: (513) 684-3265 Fax: (513) 684-3269
Columbus office: Phone: (614) 469-6697 Fax: (614) 469-7733
Southeast office: Phone: (740) 441-6410 Fax: (740) 753-3551

His contact form

Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion has more on this.

Priorities, not special interests

For the 2008-09 fiscal year, Ohio will spend $21.9 million on the Ohio Arts Council. That's down from their original biennial budget of $24.9 million, as a result of the state's budgetary issues.

In case you've never heard of the OAC, they are "a state agency that funds and supports quality arts experiences to strengthen Ohio communities culturally, educationally and economically. With funds from the Ohio Legislature and the National Endowment for the Arts, the OAC provides financial assistance to artists and arts organizations."

Some of the local recipients of funding from the OAC include the Young Artists at Work program through the Arts Commission of Greater Toledo, small amounts to Bravo Magazine, and college professors/instructors who've received fellowships (usually $5,000 or $10,000). They have provided operational support to the Toledo Museum of Art, Toledo Opera Association, the Toledo Orchestra Association, Inc., Toledo Ballet, Toledo Jazz Society, Toledo Botanical Garden and the Arts Council Lake Erie West. Money from OAC has also supported performing arts seasons at Lourdes College and Toledo Cultural Arts Center.

I have always had a problem with government funding of 'the arts.' I don't believe that government should fund any particular industry and the arts are certainly a particular industry. My basic premise is that individuals who so choose would fund arts - and probably be more capable of doing so if the government didn't take so much of their personal funds in the first place. Additionally, as with anything governments do, the bureaucracy established to 'administer' any dedicated funds takes its own percentage off the top, resulting in less funds than what individuals could provide without the third-party costs of government.

But - that's really not the point of this post. My point is priorities. Even if you believe government funding of the arts should be done, is it the most important thing government should do – and at the expense of other government spending?

In January of this year, Governor Ted Strickland announced $733 million in budget cuts due to the economic condition of the state. One of the biggest budget reductions was $31 million from the Department of Mental Health. Could the state have eliminated the OAC and, instead, funded the Department of Mental Health? Yes.

Another cut was to the Department of Aging which was to lose $17.9 million in FY 2008. Could the state have eliminated the OAC and, instead, funded the Department of Aging? Yes - and with some money left over.

What about the $25.8 million that was earmarked for the state Department of Development? Such funding is key to Ohio's chances of attracting and retaining businesses and their jobs, politicians tell us. What would have been a better use of limited tax dollars: attracting new businesses or subsidizing 'starving artists'?

Instead of going through the state organization and eliminating unnecessary or non-mandated functions, departments had across-the-board cuts. As a result, everyone was equally unhappy, but the size and scope of government was not really reduced. The hard part of governance is setting priorities and sticking with them. Every organization that receives funding through the OAC will lobby for continued funding. Everyone who gets funds will say 'don't cut us.' But politicians and decision-makers rarely ask: if we don't cut you, who should we cut? And if they do, the response is almost always: don't ask me - that's your job.

Well, if that's the case, then go through and eliminate the non-mandated expenditures. It's actually a very easy criterion to meet, but often so very hard to get politicians to do because they don't want to risk alienating any group of constituents who might decide to oppose them in their next re-election bid.

The City of Toledo is facing the same circumstance. We had city council members insist on funding the city's Youth Commission ($2 million in 2008) and pools (about $500,000). Council is now faced with a $10 million budget deficit to address before the end of the year, including a reduction in the number of recruits in the new police class.

So what is more important: pools and 'hip hop' concerts or police officers?

I pick police every time - and I think most people would, considering that, without police, pools and concerts might not be safe places to be.

And that's the point: priorities. we don't have good ones when it comes to government spending. What we have is the priority of elected officials to try and placate everyone so as not to make enemies, thus ensuring they continue to have support for staying in office. These elected officials stop representing us when their priority is such as this - and we are to blame, because we reward them with re-election while our city and state continue their slide to the bottom in terms of growth, population, employers and jobs.

So - what do you think our priorities should be? And what are you willing to do to ensure the politicians support them?

Facts DO matter and double standards don't make good arguments

Today's Toledo Blade editorial says that a bailout for the auto industry is vital, critical, necessary to avoid extinction, blah, blah, blah... It's the same story coming from everyone who wants a handout of tax dollars to save them from the bad financial decisions they've made, whether it be financial companies, mortgage companies, homeowners or, now, automotive manufacturers.

America has lost automobile companies in the past, so the first question I would ask now is why shouldn't we expect that we will have a change in the automobile companies in the future? Just like global warming alarmists - they assume that the current conditions are the best, and any 'change' will be catastrophic. Perhaps we should remind all of them that their trust in President-elect Barack Obama was that 'change' would be for the good!

But the biggest problem in their editorial is the lack of FACTS - or, rather, the blatant disregard of them in order to support their premise.

"The American auto industry has doubtless made many mistakes in the past, but in recent years has done an admirable job getting its act together. General Motors' current cash flow woes come as a result of no fault of its own. America's once-proud corporation is a victim of the Wall Street panic and the crippling credit crunch, which means consumers cannot get loans to buy vehicles."

As I've previously reported, GM has lost $57 billion since 2005. Ford has lost $24.5 billion since 2006.

Note the dates? There was no credit crunch in 2005 or 2006 nor for most of 2007. So how can the current cash flow woes of GM be 'no fault of its own'? The Blade editorial does not explain this, presumably because addressing these facts would not allow them to place the blame on someone other than the auto companies themselves. And if their problems are not their fault, they don't have to do anything to solve them.

And then there is the double standard.

In 2006, The Blade went through its own financial struggles (though rumors persist that they are still in difficulties). Their solution was to insist on cuts in wages, benefits and even employees. They publicly stated at the time that companies, in order to survive, have to make a profit and that their employee costs have to be such that a profit is possible.

They were right. But while they made such decisions for their own operations, they don't seem to expect that other companies will make similar tough decisions - at least, not when the government can save them from the difficulty of doing so.

So why the double standard? Why is The Blade so keen on giving our tax dollars to the automobile industry instead of insisting that the automakers renegotiate their union contracts as The Blade did?

It's certainly puzzling - and I don't have the answer, but I can speculate.

I think it has to do with politics - imagine that!

The Blade 'loves' the President-elect, so if Obama thinks something must be done, they are highly likely to agree.

Obama and the Democrats are tied so closely to the unions, especially the UAW, that they are falling all over themselves to preserve both those jobs and the pensions. One of the options being considered is this:

"Help Detroit carmakers with health and pension obligations. Under the most controversial idea being floated, the firms would get $25 billion to help pay the rising costs associated with 780,000 retired autoworkers and their families. The United Auto Workers is pushing this idea. The generous health and pension provisions that the UAW won when Detroit was flush are now a big part of what makes them uncompetitive against foreign rivals who don't give their workers such expensive benefits."

So here are the facts:

* The auto makers have been suffering losses since 2005. While their existing financial situation may have been compounded by the credit crunch, it only hastened the inevitable.

* Generous health and pension provisions for their UAW members are a major component of their costs, which make them uncompetitive.

* While some are calling for less remuneration to executives, no one is calling for major revisions to their union contracts, which would have an immediate impact on their bottom line.

But The Blade seems to think that Obama will save us all.

"President Bush should take the lead of President-elect Barack Obama and speed immediate emergency legislation that will enable General Motors, and Ford and Chrysler as well, to survive, at least until a coherent strategy can be agreed upon for our nation's automotive future.

Waiting till the new administration takes over on Jan. 20 would be too late,..."

Um...since when was it anyone's responsibility - other than the car makers - to develop a 'coherent strategy' for their future? I don't seem to recall anywhere in the Constitution where 'saving specific companies' is listed as part of the duties of the federal government.

I could go through this editorial line by line and provide a comprehensive, logical and factual rebuttal, but when their entire premise - that this problem is not because of decisions made by the automakers, themselves - is wrong, their conclusions are also wrong.

That's why fact matter. If you ignore critical facts when facing an issue, you will inevitably end up with 'solutions' that don't actually solve the problem - and, in some cases, make things even worse.

So here's a question: what would be so bad about a 'Big 2'?

The real question on red light and speed cameras

It's no secret that I am opposed to red-light and speed cameras. Any time I write about it or talk about it on the radio, I am inundated with comments from people who argue the point that if you are not breaking the law, you have nothing to worry about when it comes to these instruments.

So I wanted to clarify - my issue with these cameras is NOT whether or not people who break the law (either speeding or running a red light) deserve to be caught and 'punished' for doing so.

My issue is the method by which we are enforcing our traffic laws.

We all agree that people should not speed and should not run red lights - and that they should operate their vehicles in such a manner to avoid being in violation of these and other traffic laws.

I do not believe these cameras were instituted for the 'safety' of the intersections, as claimed, especially with the city citing decreased revenues from camera violations as one of the reasons why we're facing a budget deficit in Toledo, as well as other methods that can increase safety without presenting such issues (like longer yellow lights and 'all red' times).

In the United States, you have a presumption of innocence. The prosecution in a case has to prove, in a open court to a jury (if you so choose), that you are guilty of the violation under which you have been accused. With the rules for Toledo's red light and speed cameras, the owner of the car is presumed guilty. Furthermore, your only defense to the accusation is to name someone else as the guilty party. Additionally, in Toledo, the hearings are not open to the public.

We should rightly question the objectivity of a hearing system whereby the recipient of the fines controls the hiring of the hearing officer, the contract for the instruments, the access to the evidence, and then refuses to allow the public to observe.

For those who see nothing wrong with such a set-up, I must ask: should the city be able to do the same with a photograph of a get-away car in a bank robbery? We all agree that the person shouldn't be robbing a bank or helping with robbing a bank. But would you support a system that presumes the guilt of the owner of a vehicle based upon such a photograph? Would you support a presumption of guilt for that person with the only defense being to name the driver if it wasn't the accused? Would you support imposing the penalty for such a crime without a court hearing that was open to the public?

This is the battle that is being waged over the traffic enforcement cameras - it's the process, not whether or not running a red light or speeding through an intersection is a bad thing.

The real question is this: should cities be able to avoid the due process rights of accused violators of a law just so they can increase the revenue to their coffers? And if you say 'yes' to this for traffic cameras, what's next?

Jimmy Jackson sued for $1.8 million

As we discussed last night on Eye On Toledo, Jimmy Jackson has been sued by Fifth Third Bank for $1,870,909.90, a listing in the Toledo Legal News shows.



Jackson, and David Ball, are the two investors in the revitalization of the downtown steam plant. In June, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner demanded that the pair get started on the project, or turn it back over to the city or to another developer.

A Blade article at the time (Condos dropped from steam plant development plan - Friday, June 20, 2008) said:

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the condo market, not only here in Toledo, but anywhere, just does not exist," Mr. Ball said. "Thank God we didn't start this project because we would have hated to be in the ground now because the market has changed."

Proposals for putting residential spaces into the former steam plant have been discussed for years with little progress. Mr. Ball and Mr. Jackson took ownership from the city Dec. 30, 2005.

Toledo filed a lawsuit April 10 demanding that Mr. Ball and Mr. Jackson's firm, Water Street Station Development LLC, start development work immediately or return the deed to the city.

The pair received long-awaited tax credits for the project in December from the Ohio Department of Development through the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit program, which provides recipients with up to 25 percent of their qualified rehabilitation costs.

Water Street Station Development LLC qualified for an estimated $3.1 million in tax credits on the $21.9 million project. About $12.5 million in rehabilitation costs qualified for the tax credit.

Ball and Jackson have already scaled back their plans, eliminating the 32 townhouses they originally included in the design because of the lack of market demand. The current plan calls for 75 apartments, using the tax credits they received.

And the suit filed by the city is currently pending in Common Pleas Court.

But if one of the partners in the company is facing financial difficulty, including lawsuits for defaulting on loans, is the financial stability of Water Street Station Development, LLC, in question?

City Council should ask these questions - and insist on the answers.

Quote of the day

From The Patriot Post:

"It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn."

— George Washington, letter to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, September 5, 1789

Banks, financials, automakers - who's next?

What about....

newspapers?

Aren't they as 'critical' to our economy as all these other industries? Don't they provide a vital function in sharing information about all things, including the economy? Aren't they an industry that is 'too big to fail'?

Well, that's what the arguments will be.

So how long do you think it will be before the print media goes to Washington with it's hand out? And what will the impact be if the people who are supposed to watch the government get a bailout from that same government?

Thank you, Veterans

For our freedoms, our liberty and our great nation.

"Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives." ~ John Adams, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 18, 1808


Veterans Day, 2008
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America


On Veterans Day, we pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of the men and women who in defense of our freedom have bravely worn the uniform of the United States.

From the fields and forests of war-torn Europe to the jungles of Southeast Asia, from the deserts of Iraq to the mountains of Afghanistan, brave patriots have protected our Nation's ideals, rescued millions from tyranny, and helped spread freedom around the globe. America's veterans answered the call when asked to protect our Nation from some of the most brutal and ruthless tyrants, terrorists, and militaries the world has ever known. They stood tall in the face of grave danger and enabled our Nation to become the greatest force for freedom in human history. Members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard have answered a high calling to serve and have helped secure America at every turn.

Our country is forever indebted to our veterans for their quiet courage and exemplary service. We also remember and honor those who laid down their lives in freedom's defense. These brave men and women made the ultimate sacrifice for our benefit. On Veterans Day, we remember these heroes for their valor, their loyalty, and their dedication. Their selfless sacrifices continue to inspire us today as we work to advance peace and extend freedom around the world.

With respect for and in recognition of the contributions our service members have made to the cause of peace and freedom around the world, the Congress has provided (5 U.S.C. 6103(a)) that November 11 of each year shall be set aside as a legal public holiday to honor America's veterans.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim November 11, 2008, as Veterans Day and urge all Americans to observe November 9 through November 15, 2008, as National Veterans Awareness Week. I encourage all Americans to recognize the bravery and sacrifice of our veterans through ceremonies and prayers. I call upon Federal, State, and local officials to display the flag of the United States and to support and participate in patriotic activities in their communities. I invite civic and fraternal organizations, places of worship, schools, businesses, unions, and the media to support this national observance with commemorative expressions and programs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirty-first day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Happy 233rd Birthday, U.S. Marine Corps!

From the U.S. Marine Corps press, in honor of their birthday:

The U.S. Marine Corps is the United States' military band of brothers dedicated to warfighting. The proud Brotherhood of Marines is guided by principles, values, virtues, love of country, and its Warrior Culture. This brotherhood of American Patriots has no song. Instead, Marine Warriors have a hymn. When The Marines' Hymn is played, United States Marines stand at attention. They silently show their pride in their fellow Marines, their Corps, their Country, their heritage, and their hymn.

The Marines' Hymn is a tribute to Warriors. Marine Warriors stormed fortress Derna, raised the American flag, and gave us "the shores of Tripoli." Marines fought their way into the castle at Chapultepec and gave us the "halls of Montezuma." Marines exist for the purpose of warfighting. Fighting is their role in life. They "fight for right and freedom" and "to keep our honor clean." They fight "in the air, on land, and sea." The Marine Corps is Valhalla for Warriors. U.S. Marines need no song. They have a hymn.

Ironically, no one knows who wrote the hymn, which was in widespread use by the mid-1800s. Col. A.S. McLemore, USMC, spent several years trying to identify the origin of the tune. In 1878 he told the leader of the Marine Band that the tune had been adopted from the comic opera Genevieve de Barbant, by Jaques Offenback. Yet, others believe the tune originated from a Spanish folk song. Whatever! Regardless of its origin, The Marines' Hymn has remained a revered icon of the United States Marine Corps for almost 200 years.

In 1929 The Marines' Hymn became the official hymn of the Corps. Thirteen years later in November 1942 the Commandant approved a change in the words of the first verse, fourth line. Because of the increasing use of aircraft in the Corps, the words were changed to "In the air, on land, and sea." No other changes have been made since that time. When you have attained absolute perfection, there is no need for further modification:

From the Halls of Montezuma,
To the Shores of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
Of UNITED STATES MARINES.

Our flag's unfurled to every breeze,
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in every clime and place
Where we could take a gun;
In the snow of far off northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;
You will find us always on the job --
The UNITED STATES MARINES.

Here's health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve;
In many a strife we've fought for life
And never lost our nerve;
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven's scenes;
They will find the streets are guarded
By UNITED STATES MARINES.

Bailout 'scope creep'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's scope creep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, that's scope creep.

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

Gay marriage and smoking - what the two have in common

The other day I heard a newscast referring to the passage of the gay marriage ban in California and the protests by those who opposed the ban and support gay marriage.

Now, this is not a post about the pros and cons of such a proposal, nor about gay marriage itself. It is, however, a post about the comment I heard referencing 'the tyranny of the majority to deny rights to the minority.'

Yes, that's what a gay marriage proponent said.

And then I thought about the smoking bans, because that's exactly what opponents of smoking bans said.

And they are right. The United States is not a democracy - we're a Republic, specifically because our founding fathers did NOT want the majority to be able to take away the rights of the minority by virtue of a vote.

You've heard the old joke about a democracy being two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner? The punch line is that a republic is when the sheep has a gun...

The problem comes in when the same people who think it's okay to ban smoking due to a majority vote oppose other bans via the same method - in this case, gay marriage.

Now some will argue that gay marriage doesn't impact anyone except the two individuals, so it's not the same as smoking. I disagree. If a bar/restaurant allows smoking, you do not have to go in if you don't want to be exposed to the smoke. It's the choice of the individual, so you are not impacted by someone else's decision to smoke. Likewise, gay marriage opponents will say it can impact others if such couples want to adopt a child. There are arguments on both sides of both issues that can be used as examples to indicate why these two issues are the same.

But the hypocrisy of saying one is a tyranny of the majority and cannot be allowed, while defending the tyranny of the majority on another issue needs to be pointed out and condemned.

You cannot have it both ways.

So if the vote for a smoking ban must be allowed, so must the vote for a gay marriage ban. And if the gay marriage ban is wrong, so is the smoking ban.

I don't care what your opinion on either issue is, but be consistent in the principle.

UPDATED: Ohio Governor suspends director over political fundraising via state computer

Governor Ted Strickland announced tonight that he has suspended Helen Jones-Kelly, the director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services over allegations of inappropriate use of state computers.

Jones-Kelly was placed on paid administrative leave pending an Inspector General review of alleged use of a state computer for political fund-raising.

This is the same director who authorized the search for any child support records relating to Sam "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher. Gov. Strickland defended that action at the time, saying it wasn't politically motivated.

The announcement was made after close of business on Friday.

According to emails provided as part of a public records request by the Columbus Dispatch, Jones-Kelly provided the Obama campaign with the names of 17 potential Dayton-area contributors ahead of the candidate's July 11 appearance there via her state email address.

"The e-mails about the Dayton event show Jones-Kelley corresponded with Michael O'Neil, who is listed as an Obama fundraiser. O'Neil did not answer a telephone number he listed in his e-mails. Jones-Kelley could not be located for comment. Obama's Ohio campaign spokesman did not return calls.
...
Other e-mails showed Jones-Kelley receiving information of a partisan political nature through her state e-mail account. One e-mail included an attached donation form for the Obama campaign.

Strickland administration polices forbid the use of state time, equipment and property for election-related purposes. Jones-Kelley sent a memo to all of her employees on Oct. 21 reminding them of the prohibition."

The future of the Republican Party

Any search of the blogosphere featuring the terms 'future, Republican Party, conservative' will give you more reading than you could possible do in a week. Republicans, conservatives and right-leaning individuals are discussing what is ahead.

If you're one of those who agree that the GOP has lost its way, I'd encourage you to take a look at some specific websites and get involved. The future of the conservative movement (which may be much different from the GOP) is in your hands.

Rebuild the Party

Recharge Ohio

The Conservative Underground and their blog

NextGenGOP

Michigan Governor on Obama's team?

I cannot possibly fathom why in the world President-elect Barack Obama would ask Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm to serve on his economic team.

Has he been so wrapped up in campaigning that he missed the patently obvious decline of Michigan's economy since she became governor?

My only hope is that he's included her to make sure HE doesn't do the same things...he did run on a campaign of 'hope,' after all....

Republicans can't win when they act like Democrats

Having been elected as a Republican four times in predominately Democrat areas, I believe I have some expertise in this subject. My four campaigns were intense, targeted and every 'expert' said I was going to lose.

I didn't - and here's why:

Campaigns are won by drawing a contrast and offering the voters something different - and hopefully, better - than your opponent.

When Republicans talk about being 'moderate' or 'appealing to the middle' they mean representing ideas that are just like what is being espoused by their opponents, the Democrats.

When given such a choice, voters are NOT going to select a Democrat-lite candidate when they can vote for, and get, an actual Democrat.

This lesson was clear on the national level with John McCain and locally with the 2006 election of Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop over Republican City Councilman George Sarantou.

In the national election, both candidates voted in favor of the biggest expansion of government - the bailout. There were other similarities in perspective and even the selection of Sarah Palin wasn't enough to give McCain the edge he needed to solidify his base and draw conservative-leaning voters to his side.

In the commissioner race, the GOP candidate said 'I agree with my opponent' more than he said anything else. Especially in Lucas County, which strongly favors electing Democrats, you cannot win by saying you're more like your opponent than not.

Many conservatives are concerned - and rightly so - that the GOP has lost its brand; that it no longer stands for the core principles of limited government, lower taxation, individual responsibility, local control and less government involvement in our daily lives. The reason we no longer 'own' those issues is because our elected officials have drifted so far from them. It certainly doesn't help that the Republican National Committee is more committed to maintaining incumbency than it is in promoting the values of the party.

And the voters, recognizing this, have rejected such Republicans.

Many times throughout my political career I had people disagree with me over my votes or positions on the issues. However, they always said they respected me because my positions and votes were consistent with what I said I believed. It didn't matter to me who was making the request - I first looked to the statutes to see if I had the authority to do it and, if so, I weighed it against those core principles.

Needless to say, I often found people mad - but not at me, personally, because they got what they elected. In many other areas, voters are not so lucky. They've elected "Republicans" who don't hold the line on their core principles and the choice is either to 'hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils' or withdraw from the process.

But it's not just the politicians or the philosophy, it's you and me and our willingness actually do something, rather than just complain.

There is hope, though. Many in the Republican Party are tired of being offered a Democrat or a Democrat-lite. They are forming new groups, on Facebook and other social media networks, and joining with others who are similarly angry. The only question is this: will there be enough of us to actually make a difference, and will we be able to use the tools we've seen the other side employ so effectively to do so?

Time will tell - but as the old saying goes, "If it is to be it is up to me."

Passage of Issue 5 already costs Ohio jobs

The sad part is that some people think this is a good thing. And just how much payroll and property taxes were these stores producing for the government coffers???

Press Release:

ELECTION RESULTS FORCE CASH AMERICA TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS

Fort Worth, Texas (November 5, 2008) – Votes to repeal a portion of Ohio’s new short-term loan statute fell short of the amount necessary to leave the existing cash advance product in place for Ohio consumers. As a result of this vote, Cash America International, Inc. (NYSE: CSH) will proceed with its previously announced plans and intends to close approximately one-third of its Ohio lending locations over the next few months. The locations slated for closure are in various markets throughout the state and operate under the trade name, Cashland. (emphasis added)

“We respect the democratic process and thank the voters who came out to the polls to support the cash advance product,” said Daniel R. Feehan, president and chief executive officer of Cash America International, Inc. “Sadly, this outcome will force us to close about 43 of our Cashland lending locations, leaving about 150 of our hard-working coworkers without jobs.”

The Cashland locations that remain open will begin offering customers alternative services including short-term unsecured loans governed by a different statute and, in most shops, both gold-buying and/or pawn lending services.

“This was a hard fought loss for the industry, but more importantly it will hurt consumers who have nowhere else to turn for short-term credit and they will incur higher costs associated with bank overdraft fees, late fees and penalties on items such as utility bills and credit cards,” said Feehan. “As an industry, we did everything we could through efforts like the ‘Vote NO on Issue 5’ campaign to avoid loss of jobs and credit options, as well as to prevent negative economic impacts in the State through the loss of jobs and the closing of many places of business.”

Calling for the repeal of a portion of Ohio HB 545 was necessary, said Feehan. The bill calls for an annual rate cap of 28 percent, which isn’t economically feasible for store front providers of small short-term loans to customers. The new law reduces the fee charged on a $100 two week loan to $1.08 (less than 10 cents a day). “There is no way to sustain a viable store front business by offering small, short-term unsecured consumer credit at this rate,” said Feehan.

“As a Company committed to helping people, we will do our best to continue doing business in Ohio by offering other products and services. We assured our coworkers in Ohio that we would do everything we could to save their jobs,” said Feehan.

Have we hit rock bottom yet, Toledo?

My husband often says, and I often repeat, that this area is like a drug addict who hasn't hit rock bottom to know he needs to change.

Toledo is losing population.

Toledo is losing businesses.

Toledo is over budget by about $10 million.

Toledo is in the top areas in the nation for home foreclosures.

Toledo just passed every tax increase on the ballot and approved a new tax, just for good measure.

This drug addict just went back to the ballot box for a fix - and will live blissfully unaware until the high wears off - probably just in time for another election and more of the same.

Stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. And when the results are continued loss of population, businesses, jobs and requests for even MORE money, it seems as if voters will again 'choose poorly.'

Insane!

Steady streams of voters and no big problems in Toledo

I've just returned from a trip around various polling locations in the north end and central city area of Toledo and I'm pleased to report no big problems, no long lines and very happy voters. While some areas had waits in the early morning, it was down to just a few minutes this afternoon.

I spent time at seven polling locations and, at each one, there were representatives from the Voter Rights Institute, Voter Protection Institute, County Issue 37 - the COSI levy, and the Democratic Party with slate card. At one location, a member of the UAW was there distributing a list of their endorsements.

Everyone reported that there were some lines in the morning, especially as the polls first opened up. This made sense to everyone working or volunteering for a campaign, since many wanted to vote before work and get it out of the way. In several locations, there were volunteers from Ann Arbor and locally who had on buttons that said 'line manager.' They were volunteering for the Obama campaign to help with long lines - and, as they explained, to go along and make sure everyone was ready with their ID, etc. so they would be ready to vote. When I spoke to these managers, there were no lines requiring their services.

The representatives from the Voter Rights Institute were pleasant, engaging voters and distributing lime green cards explaining their rights and the requirements. They made suggestions and reminded voters to remove their campaign buttons before entering the polling location, as the law requires. Voters were appreciative of this.

The representatives from the Voter Protection Institute were Obama campaigners, primarily attorneys, who spoke only to voters and not to any media. When I asked one of them which group they were with, VPI or VRI, she would only say that she didn't speak to the media, but when she displayed her tag, it said Voter Protection at the bottom. As she approached individual voters, though, they did not seem to receive her well, so maybe it was just her and not the organization.

All of the COSI levy supporters I spoke to said they had been asked to volunteer today and been requested to hand out information urging a yes vote on Issue 37. All explained that they did support the issue, but they had agreed to volunteer and this was what was asked of them.

I did meet a very impressive young man named Anthony who, at 19, had voted earlier in the week in his first presidential campaign. He was handing out COSI flyers and said he was enjoying the campaigning and would be likely to volunteer again next year. Good for him!

Having been one of those individuals who stands at a poll all day long, I truly appreciate the individuals who take their personal time and dedicate it to participation in the process.

As for election issues, most of the individuals said the problems had been minor and primarily upon opening as clarification for questions was made. Only in one location did there seem to be an issue with an observer speaking directly to the voters about things, instead of to the poll workers. I was standing within earshot as one of the presiding judges approached a Board of Elections troubleshooter and told him that the observer 'was at it again.' Apparently, this observer had been requested and told several times already that any issues he observed needed to be communicated to the poll workers and the presiding judge for the precinct - not directly to the voters. The troubleshooter then approached the observer to straighten things out.

I saw no instances of voter fraud, voter suppression and even found most people carefully following the 'no campaigning inside the flags' rule.

Additionally, many of the people I spoke to were happy and upbeat and said they'd been seeing the same attitude in others. The 70 degree, sunny weather obviously has a positive impact. Many of the long-time volunteers said their impression was that many of the voters were younger than they normally see and they were encouraged by this.

News reports indicate there are longer lines in some of the other areas of Lucas County, including Sylvania city and township where a merger issue is on the ballot. Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said some of the longest lines in the state are here in Toledo. According to the chairman of the Lucas County Board of Elections, Patrick Kriner, she told him her office had three phone call complaints.

Kriner estimates that as of about 2 p.m., they'd had about 58% of registered voters cast their ballots.

Voter Protection Institute not following election rules?

In travelling around to the various polling locations, I came across two groups with ID tags: The Voting Rights Institute (wearing green jackets) and the Voter Protection Institute.

At Chase Elementary, a member of the Voter Protection Institute was one of the certified observers inside the polling location. He recognized me and introduced himself and even volunteered to show me his official certification document to prove he was a certified observer. He seemed particularly proud that, even though he was certified on behalf of the Obama campaign, he helped a Republican to vote. But, as he explained, he's an attorney and, as an officer of the court, believed it appropriate to help any voter.

However, the non-certified members of the VPI, did not seem as interested in following the laws.

Upon our arrival, I had my laptop open in the car and it was easily seen as we pulled in. One representative of this group went over to the other one and they both looked in my direction and then moved to OUTSIDE the flags. In Ohio, any campaign or non-official poll workers/observers must stay outside the actual polling location (100 feet) which is designated by American flags.

Despite having their tags on lanyards clearly observable, they also had Obama campaign literature and stickers.

I went inside and, after identifying myself, added up the numbers on the slips of paper which indicate how many individuals had voted and by what method (either touch screen, paper or provisional). This is just the numbers - not any identifying information - and it is data that media/public are allowed to access.

At my polling location at about 10:30, we had around 250 people vote. At this polling location, by 10:45, they had over 550 ballots cast. Both polling locations have only two precincts.

There was also a representative from the Obama campaign waiting for the 11 a.m. list. At 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., each polling location publishes a list of all individuals who have voted. The various campaigns always rush for these lists and then use them to contact voters who haven't yet gone to the polls.

Upon leaving the polling area, I noticed that several of the VPI representatives were, again, inside the flags, so I politely reminded them that they had to be on the other side of the flags. They promptly complied.

However, considering that there aren't really people to enforce the distance requirement, I don't have much confidence that they will continue to abide by this rule.

First incident of error at my polling location - Toledo, OH

While waiting in line to vote at my polling location, a woman came in and her driver's license address did not match her address on the poll book. She did not present anything other than a mailer from the Board of Elections to prove her current address matched her voter registration address.

Under these circumstances, she should be voting provisionally. However, one of the poll workers - NOT the presiding judge instructed that she be given a regular ballot. She chose a paper ballot and voted.

Fortunately, there was a GOP observer at the location who recorded the incident.

However, what concerns me is the widely-publicized instructions to voters and the apparently contradictory information at this poll.

BREAKING - COAST sues Toledo over access to red-light camera hearings

The Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) and its chairman, Jason Gloyd, have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the City of Toledo, the mayor and others, over the red-light camera hearings.

The suit asks for a "declaratory judgment, temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction, and nominal damages arising from the unconstitutional policies and practices of the Defendant City in denying Plaintiffs access to certain administrative hearings established by the Defendant City that may result in the imposition of civil liability for putative violators of the Defendant City’s traffic laws."

In early October, Gloyd sent a certified letter - return receipt requested - to Mayor Carty Finkbeiner explaining that he'd made a request to attend the hearings where people appeal their red-light camera violations. He wrote:

"...your administrators in charge of the program have refused to let us know when the hearings are held and have indicated that my admittance is forbidden.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to provide me with the necessary scheduling information so that I may attend the same."

After receipt of the letter, a representative in the police department phoned Gloyd to tell him that the hearings were closed to the public.

The lawsuit seeks access "to such hearings for the purpose of investigating and reporting on important civil rights, operational, and fiscal issues relating to both the operation of such automated red light camera and speeding camera systems and the enforcement procedures for the same." It states that since such access has been denied - including excluding the media - the city is violating the First and Fourth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

COAST seeks a declaratory judgment declaring unconstitutional the Defendants’ policies and practices of prohibiting access to the Red Light and Speeding Hearings to the public and the press; requests the Court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining Defendants from enforcing their prohibition on Plaintiffs’ access to the Red Light and Speeding Hearings; and nominal damages as a result of the violation of Constitutional Rights.

The suit asks the Court to:

A. Declare that the Plaintiffs and the public have a right to full and unfettered access to the Red Light and Speeding Hearings;

B. Declare that the Defendants’ lack a compelling interest to preclude Plaintiffs and the public from having access to the Red Light and Speeding Hearings;

C. Declare that, if the Defendant have a compelling interest sufficient to preclude Plaintiffs and the public from having access to the Red Light and Speeding Hearings, then the means utilized by the Defendant are not the least restrictive means to promote such putative compelling interest;

D. Declare Defendants’ policy and procedure of denying access to the Red Light and Speeding Hearings to be unconstitutional and invalid on its face and/or as applied to Plaintiffs;

E. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from regulating or limiting the public access afforded to Plaintiffs and others to the Red Light and Speeding Hearings, and thereby permit Plaintiffs and others to attend and observe such Red Light and Speeding Hearings;

F. Award Plaintiffs nominal damages;

G. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and other applicable law, award Plaintiffs’ their costs and expenses incurred in bringing this action, including their reasonable attorneys’ fees; and

H. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just and proper.

They also ask for a temporary restraining order and preliminary enjoining enforcement of the City of Toledo's policy of excluding the public and representatives of the media, including Plaintiff Jason Gloyd and members of COAST, from attending the hearings conducted on red-light and speed cameras.

Single non-voter responsible for McCain win

Normally, I delete emails in my spam box from people and addresses I don't recognize. But the email from moveon.org had me a bit curious, so I opened the message and found this:

Dear maggie,

Your friend sent you the following video from CNNBC: "Obama's Loss Traced To Maggie Thurber"

Watch it here:

The link takes you screen with the following message:

Election Day Notice: The video you're about to see portrays events that haven't happened... yet.

It was prepared just for you. But if you go vote today you can make sure this joke doesn't become a reality.

Click here to continue.

Up pops a fake cnnbc news video indicating that "Obama's Loss Traced To Non-Voter, Single Nonvoter Tipped Election To McCain-Palin Ticket." It contained my name and the story of how I had to be taken into protective custody from all the Obama supporters who were rioting because I didn't vote.

The 'news' report also mentions a 'sliver' of people actually happy about the event, with cuts of President George Bush thanking me for my service, and the reporter asking how long it will be until we nuke Iran - probably Saturday, around lunchtime.

There is, of course, an option for you to customize the video for your friends.

This is certainly a unique idea, and it's not the first one I've seen. Earlier in the summer, a friend sent a customized video about a group of people who decide to nominate and vote for a 'regular person' so they picked a name out of a phone book and it turned out to be ... me!

My compliments to MoveOn.org for their cleverness and creativity.

GOP???

Ohio GOP slams Brunner in new ad

The video for the new web ad using Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's own words against her.

The script:

Jennifer Brunner: "I will work day and night for you to restore your trust to elections, so that when you are dealing with the presidential election in 2008, perhaps no one will know my name like Ken Blackwell or Katherine Harris, because the Secretary of State is doing her job."

Steve Doocy, Fox: "The Secretary of State is a Democrat by the name of Jennifer Brunner

Various Reporters: "Jennifer Brunner"

John Gibson, Fox: "To the great people of the state of Ohio, heads up, somebody is trying to steal your election"

Various Reporters: "Jennifer Brunner"

As Inigo Montoya said:

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Obama will kill Ohio coal industry and jobs

If elected, Obama favors draconian restrictions on coal and coal-fired plants. He's been traversing the state telling us how much he's going to do for us, but somehow forgot to mention that 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them.'

Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association, issued a devastating response to Obama's comments that have recently been released:

Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided. "It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation's coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to 'bankrupt' our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices."

This is one of the reasons Democrats love early voting...when these sorts of things are exposed in the final days of the campaign, it's too late for many to change their votes.

If you work in the coal industry - or rely upon energy generated (partially or totally) by coal, I hope you'll consider Obama's plan for your jobs and Ohio's industry.

Sowell: Obama nothing but ego and mouth

Wow - talk about directness! I would say that Thomas Sowell calls a spade a spade, but someone would probably accuse me of some sort of racist comment.

But this column is hard-hitting, direct, and factual, starting with:

"After the big gamble on subprime mortgages that led to the current financial crisis, is there going to be an even bigger gamble, by putting the fate of a nation in the hands of a man whose only qualifications are ego and mouth?

Barack Obama has the kind of cocksure confidence that can only be achieved by not achieving anything else."

He highlights Obama's lack of experience in running any type of enterprise and the corresponding lack of maturity:

"The kind of self-righteous self-confidence that has become Obama's trademark is usually found in sophomores in Ivy League colleges-- very bright and articulate students, utterly untempered by experience in real world.

The signs of Barack Obama's self-centered immaturity are painfully obvious, though ignored by true believers who have poured their hopes into him, and by the media who just want the symbolism and the ideology that Obama represents."

And then he hits just about every issue, in a concise, but biting, way.

On 'redistribution':

"For someone who has actually accomplished nothing to blithely talk about taking away what has been earned by those who have accomplished something, and give it to whomever he chooses in the name of "spreading the wealth," is the kind of casual arrogance that has led to many economic catastrophes in many countries."

On judicial appointments:

"The equally casual ease with which Barack Obama has talked about appointing judges on the basis of their empathies with various segments of the population makes a mockery of the very concept of law."

On the military and foreign relations:

"After this man has wrecked the economy and destroyed constitutional law with his judicial appointments, what can he do for an encore? He can cripple the military and gamble America's future on his ability to sit down with enemy nations and talk them out of causing trouble.

Senator Obama's running mate, Senator Joe Biden, has for years shown the same easy-way-out mindset. Senator Biden has for decades opposed strengthening our military forces. In 1991, Biden urged relying on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein's troops out of Kuwait, instead of military force, despite the demonstrated futility of sanctions as a means of undoing an invasion."

On his choice of a liar as his running mate:

"Flashing his special phony smile, Biden said, "I think I have a much higher IQ than you do." He added, "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship" and "ended up in the top half" of the class.

But Biden did not have a full academic scholarship. Newsweek reported: "He went on a half scholarship based on need. He didn't finish in the 'top half' of his class. He was 76th out of 85." "

Of course, many of these details were conveniently overlooked by the media - and most of Obama's adoring fans. Many have said they'll vote for Obama because he makes them 'feel good.' But that feeling cannot last forever, and eventually, the feelings have to be able to be supported by the acts - and Obama doesn't have a record of such follow-through.

Sowell's column gives all Obama supporters something to THINK about, rather than just bask in the glow of the Obama aura.

The politics of selfishness

“The state cannot get a cent for any man without taking it from some other man, and this latter must be a man who has produced and saved it. This latter is the Forgotten Man.” ~ William Graham Sumner

Barack Obama, in defending his 'spread the wealth,' redistributionist tax policies, recently said:

"John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

Isn't just like a socialist to describe your desire to make your own decisions about how to spend the money you've earned as 'selfish'?

What could be more selfish than someone thinking you should give them your money so they can spend it instead of you? Please note - they don't want to redistribute their own funds - no, they want to take your funds and give them away.

It's also a rather popular media ploy - to attack a logical argument with - what did the Clintons call it? - the 'politics of personal destruction.' You are no longer 'good' if you think you can do a better job of spending your funds than the government. Now, you are being 'selfish' if you don't want to give your money to the government so it can give it to someone else, instead.

And this is, indeed, a media ploy, as well as a poor defense against a policy rejected by the majority of Americans. Dictionary.com defines 'selfish' as:

"devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others"

Under this definition, Obama seems to be saying that Republicans, conservatives and even many Democrats care only for themselves, without regard to our fellow man.

But then, that's in keeping with what Democrats believe. Remember the interview with Ohio Democrat Party Chairman Chris Redfern on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD?

As I wrote on August 27, 2008, the date of the interview:

"When morning show host Fred Lefebvre used his board operator, Don Zellars, as an example of someone who wants to know why he has to pay for other people's homes and food while struggling to pay for his own, Redfern's comment was that Don must feel really good inside knowing he's helping so many people.

Redfern explained that America needs to tax people to provide charitable services through the government because, without forcing people through taxation, most Americans wouldn't help take care of the 'least among us.' When Fred pointed out that Don would be happy to help 'the least among us' if government weren't taking so much of his money first, Redfern said:

"I suspect Don would, but unfortunately, most Americans would not - and if we remove that kind of support, stratagem, then you remove the entire reason for having any kind of projects, programs, initiatives..."

This is the driving philosophy behind calling us selfish - the idea that if government doesn't FORCE us, through the power of law, to 'give,' we wouldn't do it.

However, nothing could be further from the truth. Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University and author of "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," documents that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives. Brooks found:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

You see, conservatives believe the duty to help others is their own - and not something they should abdicate to the government. And because we disagree on the METHOD of caring for others, Obama calls us selfish.

What's truly selfish is that the individuals supporting Obama and this 'share the wealth' philosophy believe they should be given what other people have - just because. I don't have X, you do, therefore, I should be given part of your X. Talk about selfishness and greed!

The biggest tragedy of the politics of selfishness is the emphasis on the money and the spending. By calling conservatives 'selfish' it focuses the discussion on a personal attribute, rather than the proper role of government. The question really isn't 'is a person selfish' because they don't believe in redistributionist tax policies, the proper question we should be asking is this: Is it the proper role of government to take something from a citizen of this country in order to give it to another citizen?

This is not about jointly sharing the costs of such public infrastructures as roads, or about interstate commerce, or even mutual defense of the country and persons. This is about whether or not the property you acquire is free from confiscation by the government in order to gift it to another.

As I said in my Toledo Free Press column, our founders would be appalled:

Ben Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

And James Madison said, “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

But I suppose Obama, Democrat leaders and others would call them 'selfish' too.

U.S. Attorney General should investigate Ohio voter fraud

When the Ohio Republican Party had it's lawsuit against Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court, it wasn't because of the merits of the case, but because the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) does not authorize a lawsuit by a private party. According to the law, only the Attorney General of the United States is authorized by Section 401 to bring a civil action to enforce the statute.

So what is the Department of Justice doing?

Two federal courts, including the applicable court of appeals, have stated specifically that the law is being violated by a state official. If the Justice Department believes the courts are wrong and the Secretary of State is correct, then it has an obligation to issue a statement explaining why it believes that is true. If the Justice Department agrees with the courts, then it has an even more compelling obligation to fulfill its enforcement duties and immediately file suit. Not a lot of work would be required other than to ask the federal district court to reissue its TRO ordering the Secretary of State to comply with the law – all of the evidentiary findings have already been made and approved by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

But the Justice Department excuse is that it isn't appropriate to file litigation so close to Election Day.

Now that claim is being disputed. In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, dated Oct. 31, 2001, former attorneys in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department dispute statements that "the activities of the Department before and after Election Day have essentially been limited to “placing federal observers to monitor elections pursuant to provisions of the Voting Rights Act.""

"This claim is inaccurate both as a matter of fact and established practice, as evidenced by the many lawsuits that have, over time, been filed by the Civil Rights Divisions before federal elections. In fact, just within the last month, the Division has filed two complaints and one amicus brief in three different election-related cases to enforce the Voting Rights Act and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.

More specifically, during both this Administration and prior Administrations, the Civil Rights Division has filed lawsuits close to Election Day to remedy violations of all of the statutes it is responsible for enforcing, including the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and the Help America Vote Act."

In what can only be perceived as something akin to a 2x4 upside the head, they point out that proof of such cases can be found on the department's own website.

They also state:

"As these cases show, in more than four decades of operation, the Civil Rights Division has never hesitated to fulfill its responsibilities by filing lawsuits to enforce federal voting rights laws that govern access to the polls and the administration of elections even on the very eve of Election Day. Against this backdrop, the Division’s recent failure to act in the case filed by a private party against the Ohio Secretary of State in which two federal courts, including the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, have specifically found that the Secretary of State is not complying with the verification requirements of Section 303 of HAVA, is difficult to fathom. Its similar lack of action in Wisconsin, where the state election board has also admitted that it is not complying with this provision of HAVA, is equally perplexing. This appears to be a dereliction of the Department’s obligations to enforce federal law."

In response to claims that such enforcement of the laws will somehow have a 'chilling effect' on voters, particularly minority voters, they rightly point out that "the only voters intimidated by strong enforcement of our
election laws are those behaving fraudulently."

So why isn't the Civil Rights Division doing its job? Numerous media reports and the campaign finance data on file with the Federal Elections Commission show that attorneys responsible for enforcing these laws are donors to Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

In a July speech at the “Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Symposium” in Columbia, SC, Muskasy pledged vigilance on the 2008 elections.

“Although instances of such fraud appear to be more the exception than the rule, the consequences of undeterred and undetected violations are potentially enormous. We’ve seen how close elections can be — and the fraudulent votes of even a small number can, in a close election, invalidate the votes of every other citizen who participated in the election. Whatever the exact numbers, even the prospect of vote fraud may undermine the integrity of the voting process. In a democratic society, even the perception of corruption or fraud has a damaging effect because it corrodes people’s faith in the democratic system.

Our task, then, is to support the greatest possible access to voting rights allowable under the law, and simultaneously to uphold the integrity of those rights through strong enforcement. In recent years, some have tried to suggest that these goals — protecting voting rights and protecting the integrity of elections — are somehow at odds. But they are really two sides of the same coin.

So what is he waiting for?

Voter access needs to be protected, but Democrats, like Jennifer Brunner, are using that principle as a political weapon, suggesting that any serious look at fraud is intended to "disenfranchise" voters - or denying that voter fraud even exists. This is a naked attempt to protect their friends at ACORN, who have been registering thousands of phony voters.

Congress put the voter fraud statutes on the books. The Attorney General and the Justice Department are obligated to enforce them.

HOPE ON - Let's Never Find Out

With my obligations to helping Mobile Meals of Toledo with their major fundraiser, the Wine Gala, I've not been able to post the last three HOPE ON videos...so here they are.

(Think that the Wine Gala might have set a record last night, in terms of funds raised...terrific!!!!)

These are the final posts in a 13-part series in the HOPE ON Project (Help Ohio Prevent Electing Obama Now). The daily videos involved are from NeverFindOut.org, a project of Let Freedom Ring.

Part 11 The Anti-Reagan: DarkeGOP.

Part 12 Left of Everyone: Darth Dilbert at Return of the Conservatives.

Part 13 Thank You Military.

Previous Posts — Part 1 (Obama “Part of the Problem” on Fan and Fred); Part 2 (”Energy”); Part 3 (”Punished”); Part 4 (”Number One”); Part 5 (”Earmarks”); Part 6 (’The Chicken Button’ and the Chicken Who Pushed It); Part 7 (”Trust” on Bill Ayers); Part 8 (”Middle Class”); Part 9 (”Not This Time”); Part 10 (”Income Taxes”).

Special thanks to Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog for organizing and following up on this effort!.