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.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Socialized Medicine, SCHIP and the role of the GOP-UPDATED
As I was doing some research on the proposal to expand the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) by taxing cigarettes and cigars, I came across and interesting perspective from Marc Kilmer of the Buckeye Institute.
(For some background information on this issue, I recommend local blogger Smoke If You Got 'Em, who has a post on the issue as well as the response to a letter he sent to Sen. Sherrod Brown. Toledo Talk also has a thread on the issue.)
Kilmer starts with an challenging question:
"If a politician ever suggested that taxes should be raised on the poor in order to pay for a product that people in the middle or upper class could already afford, it is not likely that this politician would have much of a future in office. So why, then, are so many members of the U.S. House and Senate rushing to support an effort to raise cigarette taxes (which hit the poor much harder than the rich) to pay for expanding federal health insurance program to include many middle class families?"
The reason, he explains, that SCHIP needs more money isn't just because of increasing medical costs - it's because coverage is being expanded to children in families that should be able to afford medical coverage (in some states a family of four can make up to $83,000 and still qualify) - and to ADULTS. In my logic, this doesn't make sense, as such expansions seem to be directly opposite to the original intent of covering children in families who made too much to qualify for medicare, but not enough to purchase their own insurance.
Kilmer says, "In fact, according to a recent study by the non-partisan Tax Foundation, almost 60 percent of American children would be eligible for government health care under a proposal being pushed by some Senators. Can anyone say with a straight face that this is really about “poor kids”?"
He further explains that the idea for such taxes is because "smokers impose such a heavy burden on government health care programs" so it's logical that they should pay more for medical care. But he rightly points out that children aren't supposed to be smoking, so how do you justify the use of such fund for them?
Kilmer hits the nail on the head with this statement:
"Why tax smokers more to pay for this program, then? I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people like “free” government programs. They like the concept of government funding children’s health care, but they do not want to pay for it themselves. So they pick out a group of folks engaged in activities they do not like – such as smoking – and decide to tax them."
But before you go off on the Democrats who are supporting this, remember that there are plenty on the right side of the aisle who believe this expansion of government is a good idea. In fact, it was a Republican Congress that, in 1997, gave us (what was at the time) the largest expansion of government health care since 1965, when Medicaid and Medicare were created.
The new federally funded program? "State Children's Health Insurance Program" (SCHIP).
At the time of passage, Congress estimated SCHIP would cost taxpayers $48 billion over ten years. Ten years later, the current figure being bandied about is $5.04 billion per year, which is not that much more than what's been spent, on average, each year previously. But the kicker is that the re-authorization is only for five years and some estimate that the shortfall from the states during that time frame could be $7 billion - yes, billion with a 'b'...
Ironic - when the Democrats controlled Congress in 1993, the Clinton administration failed to pass a national plan for socialized medicine. But Republicans, in 1997, implemented the administration's backup plan. According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a "kids first" strategy which could be implemented through Medicaid was the backup option in case the larger plan failed. Many rejected 'HillaryCare' as socialized medicine...but those same people willingly took the first step toward the end goal by passing SCHIP.
So why did the GOP do this? Some speculate that they caved to an effective Democrat strategy which went something like this: Let's propose a new government program for children and fund it with cigarette taxes. Then, if Republicans oppose "KidCare" we'll charge that they don't care about children and that the only reason they oppose it is because they get large sums of money from the tobacco industry. This was a brilliant political strategy and one that is duplicated in numerous issues today. How many times do you hear, in a campaign, that it's 'for the children'?
At the time of passage, there was concern that the program would encourage families and employers to drop private health insurance and take this new government subsidy.
Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office in 1997/1998 were that half of the participants in the new program would be families who gave up private insurance. And they had good reason for such expectations....In 1987, Medicaid was expanded to pregnant women and their children with incomes 250% of the poverty level. Between 1988 and 1995, the number of kids covered by private insurance fell 8 percentage points while the percentage of kids covered by Medicaid climbed 7.6 points. Some studies showed that at least 3/4 of the shift was the result of parents dropping private coverage for themselves and their children.
Another concern at the time was that SCHIP would eventually become mandatory, regardless of family income or need. With the current proposed expansion to higher income levels, it's not yet mandatory, but it looks like it will certainly become the 'insurance of choice' for those eligible, after all - if the government is going to pay for something, why should I?
In 1994, the Republicans won control of Congress by promising to reduce government. But they didn't. Recently, under the guise of 'compassionate conservatism,' Republicans continued to expand the scope and reach of the federal government. One would think they would have learned a good lesson from previous experiences - that it is almost impossible to roll back entitlement programs once they're created, especially health-care entitlements. Yet instead of learning that lesson, in 1997 Republicans helped create the largest health-care entitlement in 30 years. And then, in 2003, they exceeded their previous record by passing what became the largest expansion of health-care entitlements when they approved the Medicare Prescription Drug program.
If they support the proposed expansion of eligibility for SCHIP, they may get credit for paving the road to socialized medicine.
UPDATE:
Fellow SOBers weigh in: Porkopolis has additional information on SCHIP and some good links, and One Oar in the Water shares thoughts about socialism and presidential candidate Ron Paul.
(For some background information on this issue, I recommend local blogger Smoke If You Got 'Em, who has a post on the issue as well as the response to a letter he sent to Sen. Sherrod Brown. Toledo Talk also has a thread on the issue.)
Kilmer starts with an challenging question:
"If a politician ever suggested that taxes should be raised on the poor in order to pay for a product that people in the middle or upper class could already afford, it is not likely that this politician would have much of a future in office. So why, then, are so many members of the U.S. House and Senate rushing to support an effort to raise cigarette taxes (which hit the poor much harder than the rich) to pay for expanding federal health insurance program to include many middle class families?"
The reason, he explains, that SCHIP needs more money isn't just because of increasing medical costs - it's because coverage is being expanded to children in families that should be able to afford medical coverage (in some states a family of four can make up to $83,000 and still qualify) - and to ADULTS. In my logic, this doesn't make sense, as such expansions seem to be directly opposite to the original intent of covering children in families who made too much to qualify for medicare, but not enough to purchase their own insurance.
Kilmer says, "In fact, according to a recent study by the non-partisan Tax Foundation, almost 60 percent of American children would be eligible for government health care under a proposal being pushed by some Senators. Can anyone say with a straight face that this is really about “poor kids”?"
He further explains that the idea for such taxes is because "smokers impose such a heavy burden on government health care programs" so it's logical that they should pay more for medical care. But he rightly points out that children aren't supposed to be smoking, so how do you justify the use of such fund for them?
Kilmer hits the nail on the head with this statement:
"Why tax smokers more to pay for this program, then? I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people like “free” government programs. They like the concept of government funding children’s health care, but they do not want to pay for it themselves. So they pick out a group of folks engaged in activities they do not like – such as smoking – and decide to tax them."
But before you go off on the Democrats who are supporting this, remember that there are plenty on the right side of the aisle who believe this expansion of government is a good idea. In fact, it was a Republican Congress that, in 1997, gave us (what was at the time) the largest expansion of government health care since 1965, when Medicaid and Medicare were created.
The new federally funded program? "State Children's Health Insurance Program" (SCHIP).
At the time of passage, Congress estimated SCHIP would cost taxpayers $48 billion over ten years. Ten years later, the current figure being bandied about is $5.04 billion per year, which is not that much more than what's been spent, on average, each year previously. But the kicker is that the re-authorization is only for five years and some estimate that the shortfall from the states during that time frame could be $7 billion - yes, billion with a 'b'...
Ironic - when the Democrats controlled Congress in 1993, the Clinton administration failed to pass a national plan for socialized medicine. But Republicans, in 1997, implemented the administration's backup plan. According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a "kids first" strategy which could be implemented through Medicaid was the backup option in case the larger plan failed. Many rejected 'HillaryCare' as socialized medicine...but those same people willingly took the first step toward the end goal by passing SCHIP.
So why did the GOP do this? Some speculate that they caved to an effective Democrat strategy which went something like this: Let's propose a new government program for children and fund it with cigarette taxes. Then, if Republicans oppose "KidCare" we'll charge that they don't care about children and that the only reason they oppose it is because they get large sums of money from the tobacco industry. This was a brilliant political strategy and one that is duplicated in numerous issues today. How many times do you hear, in a campaign, that it's 'for the children'?
At the time of passage, there was concern that the program would encourage families and employers to drop private health insurance and take this new government subsidy.
Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office in 1997/1998 were that half of the participants in the new program would be families who gave up private insurance. And they had good reason for such expectations....In 1987, Medicaid was expanded to pregnant women and their children with incomes 250% of the poverty level. Between 1988 and 1995, the number of kids covered by private insurance fell 8 percentage points while the percentage of kids covered by Medicaid climbed 7.6 points. Some studies showed that at least 3/4 of the shift was the result of parents dropping private coverage for themselves and their children.
Another concern at the time was that SCHIP would eventually become mandatory, regardless of family income or need. With the current proposed expansion to higher income levels, it's not yet mandatory, but it looks like it will certainly become the 'insurance of choice' for those eligible, after all - if the government is going to pay for something, why should I?
In 1994, the Republicans won control of Congress by promising to reduce government. But they didn't. Recently, under the guise of 'compassionate conservatism,' Republicans continued to expand the scope and reach of the federal government. One would think they would have learned a good lesson from previous experiences - that it is almost impossible to roll back entitlement programs once they're created, especially health-care entitlements. Yet instead of learning that lesson, in 1997 Republicans helped create the largest health-care entitlement in 30 years. And then, in 2003, they exceeded their previous record by passing what became the largest expansion of health-care entitlements when they approved the Medicare Prescription Drug program.
If they support the proposed expansion of eligibility for SCHIP, they may get credit for paving the road to socialized medicine.
UPDATE:
Fellow SOBers weigh in: Porkopolis has additional information on SCHIP and some good links, and One Oar in the Water shares thoughts about socialism and presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Quote of the Day
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Monday, July 16, 2007
Guest Hosting Eye on Toledo
As Kevin Milliken is on vacation this week, both Michael Miller, editor of the Toledo Free Press, and I will guest host WSPD 1370's Eye on Toledo Show from 6-7 p.m.
Michael will cover Monday and Wednesday and I'll cover Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.
On Tuesday, I'll be talking about festival fees and cat license fees...you'll have to tune in to find out what they have in common.
Hope that you'll listen - and you can listen on-line if you're outside their broadcast radius.
Michael will cover Monday and Wednesday and I'll cover Tuesday, Thursday and Friday.
On Tuesday, I'll be talking about festival fees and cat license fees...you'll have to tune in to find out what they have in common.
Hope that you'll listen - and you can listen on-line if you're outside their broadcast radius.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Carnival #73
The 73rd Carnival of Ohio Politics is up. Cruise on over and enjoy the informative and thought-provoking posts you'll find linked.
If you're a blogger, you might want to consider offering your posts for inclusion, as well.
If you're a blogger, you might want to consider offering your posts for inclusion, as well.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Who speaks for Lucas County Republicans?
This morning on WSPD 1370 AM, morning show host, Fred Lefebvre, asked why I hadn't spoken out about the recent Democrat Party Fundraiser controversy, wherein certain 'female entertainers' were recruited to be waitresses at a golf outing. (This link will take you to the first story in The Blade, but it is only the first of many.)
My first reaction was to spout off a well-known adage that many candidates learn early in their careers: When your opponent is destroying himself, don't get in the way. And this certainly applies to the controversy currently splitting the local Democrat Party - with A-Teamers taking proper advantage of a lack of good judgment by B-Teamer party chairman, John Irish, and going so far as to call for his resignation.
That this issue represents a lack of good judgment is clear, considering it's gotten international attention. But the local Republican Party leaders and elected officials have been pretty quiet on the issue.
I'd defend them, by going back to the adage...the local Dems don't need a lot of help on this one as they're doing a good enough job internally. But Fred does raise a good question - who IS speaking for the local GOP?
We have a party chairman who has traditionally been the spokesman for our local GOP. Certainly, elected officials have spoken for themselves on all sorts of issues, so their ability to comment on this one is a given...whether or not they WANT to comment is another question, entirely.
So if Fred - or anyone else, for that matter - is looking for an official GOP response, this is where they should start. As for me, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show.
UPDATE: Lisa at Glass City Jungle has an interesting post about local Democrat women calling for a boycott of a meeting at their local headquarters. Rumor has it that State Party Chair Chris Redfern has decided NOT to attend the meeting, as scheduled.
As I said, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show...although now I may need some popcorn.
My first reaction was to spout off a well-known adage that many candidates learn early in their careers: When your opponent is destroying himself, don't get in the way. And this certainly applies to the controversy currently splitting the local Democrat Party - with A-Teamers taking proper advantage of a lack of good judgment by B-Teamer party chairman, John Irish, and going so far as to call for his resignation.
That this issue represents a lack of good judgment is clear, considering it's gotten international attention. But the local Republican Party leaders and elected officials have been pretty quiet on the issue.
I'd defend them, by going back to the adage...the local Dems don't need a lot of help on this one as they're doing a good enough job internally. But Fred does raise a good question - who IS speaking for the local GOP?
We have a party chairman who has traditionally been the spokesman for our local GOP. Certainly, elected officials have spoken for themselves on all sorts of issues, so their ability to comment on this one is a given...whether or not they WANT to comment is another question, entirely.
So if Fred - or anyone else, for that matter - is looking for an official GOP response, this is where they should start. As for me, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show.
UPDATE: Lisa at Glass City Jungle has an interesting post about local Democrat women calling for a boycott of a meeting at their local headquarters. Rumor has it that State Party Chair Chris Redfern has decided NOT to attend the meeting, as scheduled.
As I said, I'm going to sit back and enjoy the show...although now I may need some popcorn.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Blog Tag...Are You It?
Well, there's an interesting little game going around the blogosphere called "Blog Tag," and apparantly, I'm one of the 'its.'
These are the rules imparted to me by my 'tagger,' HoodaThunkit:
1. Let others know who tagged you.
2. Players start with 8 random facts about themselves.
3. Those who are tagged should post these rules and their 8 random facts.
4. Players should tag 8 other people and notify them they have been tagged.
However, this blog post by Jeff Pulver from back in December says that the number of 'facts' and people to tag should be five. So, Hooda, I'm going with the ORIGINAL rules - and I'm sure I could go into some kind of political commentary about checking first for the originator's intent before joining the game...lol
So, five little known facts about me:
1. When I was younger, I used to bite my nails. This so annoyed my grandmother that she resorted to bribery to get me to stop. While it took about 7 years for me to stop this 'despicable habit,' as she called it, I did manage to do this - more because it seemed so important to her. I still have the birthstone ring she bought me in celebration of my accomplishment.
2. I enjoy watching fishing shows - not the bass masters or other small fresh water fish ... the Shark Hunters or Spanish Fly or Offshore Adventures are the ones I like - basically, anything with large, preferable edible, salt water targets.
3. I don't particularly like berries - strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, mulberries...pretty much berries in general. Although this non-preference has my husband absolutely flumoxed, as he could live on berries alone.
4. I don't drink beer...just never developed a taste for it, I guess.
5. I raced in my first sailboat race at the age of 7.
So, for the second part of the blog-tag, here are those whom I've tagged:
Chad, Right Wing Toledo, Luke at Smoke If You've Got 'Em, Matt at Toledo Tattler, and Kurt at Progressive Toledo.
Enjoy the game!
These are the rules imparted to me by my 'tagger,' HoodaThunkit:
1. Let others know who tagged you.
2. Players start with 8 random facts about themselves.
3. Those who are tagged should post these rules and their 8 random facts.
4. Players should tag 8 other people and notify them they have been tagged.
However, this blog post by Jeff Pulver from back in December says that the number of 'facts' and people to tag should be five. So, Hooda, I'm going with the ORIGINAL rules - and I'm sure I could go into some kind of political commentary about checking first for the originator's intent before joining the game...lol
So, five little known facts about me:
1. When I was younger, I used to bite my nails. This so annoyed my grandmother that she resorted to bribery to get me to stop. While it took about 7 years for me to stop this 'despicable habit,' as she called it, I did manage to do this - more because it seemed so important to her. I still have the birthstone ring she bought me in celebration of my accomplishment.
2. I enjoy watching fishing shows - not the bass masters or other small fresh water fish ... the Shark Hunters or Spanish Fly or Offshore Adventures are the ones I like - basically, anything with large, preferable edible, salt water targets.
3. I don't particularly like berries - strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, mulberries...pretty much berries in general. Although this non-preference has my husband absolutely flumoxed, as he could live on berries alone.
4. I don't drink beer...just never developed a taste for it, I guess.
5. I raced in my first sailboat race at the age of 7.
So, for the second part of the blog-tag, here are those whom I've tagged:
Chad, Right Wing Toledo, Luke at Smoke If You've Got 'Em, Matt at Toledo Tattler, and Kurt at Progressive Toledo.
Enjoy the game!
Monday, July 02, 2007
Happy Birthday America!
“Somewhere in our growing up we began to be aware of the meaning of days and with that awareness came the birth of patriotism. July Fourth is the birthday of our nation. I believed as a boy, and believe even more today, that it is the birthday of the greatest nation on earth... In recent years, however, I’ve come to think of that day as more than just the birthday of a nation. It also commemorates the only true philosophical revolution in all history. Oh, there have been revolutions before and since ours. But those revolutions simply exchanged one set of rules for another. Ours was a revolution that changed the very concept of government. Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people. We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should. Happy Fourth of July.” —Ronald Reagan
"You have to love a nation that celebrates its independence every July 4, not with a parade of guns, tanks, and soldiers who file by the White House in a show of strength and muscle, but with family picnics where kids throw Frisbees, the potato salad gets iffy, and the flies die from happiness. You may think you have overeaten, but it is patriotism." - Erma Bombeck
"A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle." - George William Curtis
"How often we fail to realize our good fortune in living in a country where happiness is more than a lack of tragedy." - Paul Sweeney
"The United States is the only country with a known birthday." - James G. Blaine
"You have to love a nation that celebrates its independence every July 4, not with a parade of guns, tanks, and soldiers who file by the White House in a show of strength and muscle, but with family picnics where kids throw Frisbees, the potato salad gets iffy, and the flies die from happiness. You may think you have overeaten, but it is patriotism." - Erma Bombeck
"A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle; and patriotism is loyalty to that principle." - George William Curtis
"How often we fail to realize our good fortune in living in a country where happiness is more than a lack of tragedy." - Paul Sweeney
"The United States is the only country with a known birthday." - James G. Blaine
Friday, June 29, 2007
What Toledo can learn from the immigration bill defeat
Yesteday, a majority of senators voted no on a motion for cloture on the comprehensive immigration bill, including Ohio's Senators Brown and Voinovich. And good for them. It's obvious that they listened to the majority of Ohioans - and Americans - who believed that this was a bad bill that did not deserve to pass.
But what can Toledo learn from this? That public pressure can be brought to bear on our elected officials and result in them doing OUR wishes, instead of their own.
So many times, I've heard my fellow Toledoans say, "what's the point - they don't listen to us anyway." And this defeatism seems to be contagious. Whether it's electing the same names to different positions, recycling old politicians in appointments and committees, getting different faces but the same failed policies, refusing to communicate with politicians through mail, phone or public hearings...Toledoans - at times - seem to have given up. And then they leave.
But despite what appears to be a pervading attitude, I see isolated pockets of success: the south Toledo neighborhood who successfully defeated an effort to build an ill-conceived bike path, the override of the mayor's veto of a charter school in the old Shriner's building downtown, the existence of a recall effort (at least they're trying to make a difference!), and even the frustration followed by positive ideas showing up on blogs and forums (Toledo Talk and Swamp Bubbles - links on the side).
Toledoans should be encouraged and inspired by the example set on the immigration bill. Americans didn't like what their senators were going to do - so they spoke loudly, consistently and OFTEN - telling them to vote NO on a bad bill. The Senate phone system even shut down because it couldn't handle the number of calls...although it was characterized as a 'modest' increase in calls.
When the public gives direction to our elected officials, it can be effective. But it requires a sustained and consistent message, followed up by consequences on election day.
We've seen that it can work on a national level, Toledo...but do we have the will to make it work here?
But what can Toledo learn from this? That public pressure can be brought to bear on our elected officials and result in them doing OUR wishes, instead of their own.
So many times, I've heard my fellow Toledoans say, "what's the point - they don't listen to us anyway." And this defeatism seems to be contagious. Whether it's electing the same names to different positions, recycling old politicians in appointments and committees, getting different faces but the same failed policies, refusing to communicate with politicians through mail, phone or public hearings...Toledoans - at times - seem to have given up. And then they leave.
But despite what appears to be a pervading attitude, I see isolated pockets of success: the south Toledo neighborhood who successfully defeated an effort to build an ill-conceived bike path, the override of the mayor's veto of a charter school in the old Shriner's building downtown, the existence of a recall effort (at least they're trying to make a difference!), and even the frustration followed by positive ideas showing up on blogs and forums (Toledo Talk and Swamp Bubbles - links on the side).
Toledoans should be encouraged and inspired by the example set on the immigration bill. Americans didn't like what their senators were going to do - so they spoke loudly, consistently and OFTEN - telling them to vote NO on a bad bill. The Senate phone system even shut down because it couldn't handle the number of calls...although it was characterized as a 'modest' increase in calls.
When the public gives direction to our elected officials, it can be effective. But it requires a sustained and consistent message, followed up by consequences on election day.
We've seen that it can work on a national level, Toledo...but do we have the will to make it work here?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Pres. Bush's statement on failed immigration bill
According to the AP, the President said the following:
"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," he said after an appearance in Newport, R.I. "A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work."
Sadly, the President is wrong. It isn't "legal" immigration that is one of the top concerns of the American people - it's ILLEGAL immigration. And it's why so much of the nation was opposed to this flawed bill. Maybe now he'll 'get it.'
"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," he said after an appearance in Newport, R.I. "A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work."
Sadly, the President is wrong. It isn't "legal" immigration that is one of the top concerns of the American people - it's ILLEGAL immigration. And it's why so much of the nation was opposed to this flawed bill. Maybe now he'll 'get it.'
So wrong on so many levels - low-interest loans to buy art
Well, it's been a couple of days since this story was in the local paper, The Blade, but it got me so angry on so many levels that I've just now been able to blog about it.
Apparently, our county commissioners don't think that enough people are buying art, so they've decided that they're going to help. (Nice of them, huh?) You see, people who want to buy art, aren't always able to because of the cost - so, according to Comm. Ben Konop, there's now a program to make it 'more affordable.'
Under the new 'economic development' program, individuals who qualify can get a loan of between $500 and $2500 at an interest rate of 1% to purchase a piece of local art. The maximum amount that Key Bank will loan under this program is $25,000.
And why would Key Bank make such a program available? It's because they're going to get a $250,000 investment from the county in the form of a certificate of deposit...and they're only going to pay 1% interest for the cd.
So...instead of the County Treasurer, Wade Kapszukiewicz, getting the best rates for the county, he's agreeing to this investment which, according to his office, means that the county treasury will be out $7,881 (the difference between the going interest rate and the 1% that will be paid).
And please don't advance the argument that "it's only" a small amount of money...in this case, the issue is not the amount of interest that's NOT going into the county treasury, it's the mistaken philosophy that public funds should be used to advance social issues.
From the article:
"County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz said he is always looking for ways to use the "financial resources of the treasurer's office to move the county forward.""
In doing research on this, I could find nowhere in the Ohio Revised Code that detailed this as one of the responsibilities of the office of treasurer. But I did find plenty of references to 'safe' or 'secure' investments including the following:
"Safety, liquidity and earning a market rate of return on the county's money are primary responsibilities of the Treasurer."
Further, the State Auditor has issued a manual for county treasurers which states:
"The main goal of the county treasurer is to coordinate the county spending with the active/inactive funds. The desire is to match short-term needs with the short-term deposits, and to match long-term needs with long-term investments. It is fiscally irresponsible to invest short-term funds in a long-term investment. This matching can be achieved by coordinating spending with estimates of income. Open communication is necessary between the auditor and the treasurer to plan the timing of the investments. The portfolio should be managed to maximize interest rates while keeping risk to a minimum." (emphasis added)
So, if the investments should be managed to maximize interest rates, has our treasurer done this? Nope! He's decided that, instead of maximizing interest rates, he's going to help people buy art.
Then there is the whole issue of a the program itself. If the county commissioners were going to provide a program of low interest loans, is buying art the best target of those loans? What about purchasing a vehicle - that would generate more than the $300 in sales tax that they estimate the art sales will provide. Or maybe a recent high school graduate would like a $2500 loan at 1% interest to help pay for college. Or maybe you'd like to redo your kitchen - wouldn't YOU love to have a 1% interest loan for that? How about any other purpose - landscaping your yard, putting up a new fence, buying a new big screen tv, or even a vacation?
And what are the qualifications for such loans? The article doesn't say, but is it likely that people who qualify aren't really in NEED of a loan to purchase art? And do we think that people who don't NEED a loan to purchase art will still take advantage of this program?
If I was planning to purchase a piece of art at $2000, I could invest $2000 in any number of ways that would generate more than 1% interest, but let's use the county's rate of 4.157%. Such an investment would give me about $83.
Then, I could take out the loan at 1% and purchase the artwork. The interest on the loan will only be $20. So I get the artwork AND I make $63 doing so. And I do this at the expense of the county treasury and all the county taxpayers. Sounds like a great deal to me!
I know that there are a lot of people who are firmly convinced that the best investment for a community is art - everything from subsidized rent to this kind of a program. But 'art' is in the eye of the beholder and it's so completely subjective.
My preference is that we prioritize better.
Our county jail is in serious need of attention - individuals with multiple court cases are never held to account because their crimes are non-violent misdemeanors so they are released without ever going to court due to the Federal Court Order on overcrowding in our jail - not to mention all the security issues and recent problems well documented in our local media.
Our historic County Courthouse has needs that have been detailed for years by the judges. What about all the individuals who've appealed their property tax valuation - any decrease in property valuation means a decrease in property taxes resulting in less money in the county treasury. I'm sure there are many other things that you think would be more important than using county tax dollars as a guarantee for artwork loans.
But as of today, other than the media report on the day of the announcement, no one's said a thing. So remember - any lack of opposition to a decision is perceived by our elected officials as being support for the decision, leading to similar types of actions in the future. Make your opinions known.
Apparently, our county commissioners don't think that enough people are buying art, so they've decided that they're going to help. (Nice of them, huh?) You see, people who want to buy art, aren't always able to because of the cost - so, according to Comm. Ben Konop, there's now a program to make it 'more affordable.'
Under the new 'economic development' program, individuals who qualify can get a loan of between $500 and $2500 at an interest rate of 1% to purchase a piece of local art. The maximum amount that Key Bank will loan under this program is $25,000.
And why would Key Bank make such a program available? It's because they're going to get a $250,000 investment from the county in the form of a certificate of deposit...and they're only going to pay 1% interest for the cd.
So...instead of the County Treasurer, Wade Kapszukiewicz, getting the best rates for the county, he's agreeing to this investment which, according to his office, means that the county treasury will be out $7,881 (the difference between the going interest rate and the 1% that will be paid).
And please don't advance the argument that "it's only" a small amount of money...in this case, the issue is not the amount of interest that's NOT going into the county treasury, it's the mistaken philosophy that public funds should be used to advance social issues.
From the article:
"County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz said he is always looking for ways to use the "financial resources of the treasurer's office to move the county forward.""
In doing research on this, I could find nowhere in the Ohio Revised Code that detailed this as one of the responsibilities of the office of treasurer. But I did find plenty of references to 'safe' or 'secure' investments including the following:
"Safety, liquidity and earning a market rate of return on the county's money are primary responsibilities of the Treasurer."
Further, the State Auditor has issued a manual for county treasurers which states:
"The main goal of the county treasurer is to coordinate the county spending with the active/inactive funds. The desire is to match short-term needs with the short-term deposits, and to match long-term needs with long-term investments. It is fiscally irresponsible to invest short-term funds in a long-term investment. This matching can be achieved by coordinating spending with estimates of income. Open communication is necessary between the auditor and the treasurer to plan the timing of the investments. The portfolio should be managed to maximize interest rates while keeping risk to a minimum." (emphasis added)
So, if the investments should be managed to maximize interest rates, has our treasurer done this? Nope! He's decided that, instead of maximizing interest rates, he's going to help people buy art.
Then there is the whole issue of a the program itself. If the county commissioners were going to provide a program of low interest loans, is buying art the best target of those loans? What about purchasing a vehicle - that would generate more than the $300 in sales tax that they estimate the art sales will provide. Or maybe a recent high school graduate would like a $2500 loan at 1% interest to help pay for college. Or maybe you'd like to redo your kitchen - wouldn't YOU love to have a 1% interest loan for that? How about any other purpose - landscaping your yard, putting up a new fence, buying a new big screen tv, or even a vacation?
And what are the qualifications for such loans? The article doesn't say, but is it likely that people who qualify aren't really in NEED of a loan to purchase art? And do we think that people who don't NEED a loan to purchase art will still take advantage of this program?
If I was planning to purchase a piece of art at $2000, I could invest $2000 in any number of ways that would generate more than 1% interest, but let's use the county's rate of 4.157%. Such an investment would give me about $83.
Then, I could take out the loan at 1% and purchase the artwork. The interest on the loan will only be $20. So I get the artwork AND I make $63 doing so. And I do this at the expense of the county treasury and all the county taxpayers. Sounds like a great deal to me!
I know that there are a lot of people who are firmly convinced that the best investment for a community is art - everything from subsidized rent to this kind of a program. But 'art' is in the eye of the beholder and it's so completely subjective.
My preference is that we prioritize better.
Our county jail is in serious need of attention - individuals with multiple court cases are never held to account because their crimes are non-violent misdemeanors so they are released without ever going to court due to the Federal Court Order on overcrowding in our jail - not to mention all the security issues and recent problems well documented in our local media.
Our historic County Courthouse has needs that have been detailed for years by the judges. What about all the individuals who've appealed their property tax valuation - any decrease in property valuation means a decrease in property taxes resulting in less money in the county treasury. I'm sure there are many other things that you think would be more important than using county tax dollars as a guarantee for artwork loans.
But as of today, other than the media report on the day of the announcement, no one's said a thing. So remember - any lack of opposition to a decision is perceived by our elected officials as being support for the decision, leading to similar types of actions in the future. Make your opinions known.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Carty's "Passion"
For many years now, I've watched Carty Finkbeiner's political career. Anyone who knows anything about him will say that he truly loves this city and he is known for being the #1 Cheerleader for Toledo.
But a closer look at his career will also show that, on any given day, 40-45% of the people love him, 40-45% hate him and the other 10-20% switch back and forth, depending.
We were both elected to office in 1993 - he as the first strong mayor and me as the Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court. I've always had a cordial, professional and often friendly working relationship with him, despite our disagreements on various issues. Like everyone else, I've heard the stories about his language and behavior, but nothing 'on the record.'
And right about now, you're probably wondering where this post is going. So let me get to the point.
Recently, he took exception to the Shriners wanting to move to a more economical building than the one they've occupied for decades in downtown Toledo. Carty characterized their financial decision as "abandoning" the city - "running away" from the city - among other things.
Today, on WSPD 1370 AM, there are clips of his town hall meeting last night, in which he 'passionately' (he likes to use this term) defends the job the police department is doing. I wasn't at the meeting, but from the discussion on the morning show, it appears he was responding to a question about crime.
In both these instances, his 'passion' has gotten the better of him. His reaction to the decision of the Shriners to move was one of saying 'shame on you for this decision.' I don't know if he met with them to offer a location within the city limits that might meet their need - although, that's what I would have done. But I do know that his criticism of them was severe, public and personal - certainly not the way to generate goodwill.
But generating goodwill is really hard to do when you see a financial decision as a personal affront.
At the meeting last night, when asked about increased patrols, he changed the subject to say that crime is down and that he thinks the police are doing a very good job. He got defensive about the job the police are doing despite the fact that no one said that individual officers weren't doing a good job.
He saw this as a personal affront to the police department and reacted to defend them. However, he missed the critical point. The concern wasn't the individual actions of all the officers, but rather the management of the department - which is his ultimate responsibility.
I've got to hand it to him, though...taking such a position in defense of the police officers was an effective way to shut down the criticism. All of a sudden, the 'complainer' finds him/herself in a defensive mode. Some may see this as a good political strategy, but I don't ... and the danger of such a 'strategy' is that it leads the public to think you are just deflecting the issue and not really answering the question.
These two incidences draw a clear distinction.
In the first case, the Shriners' decision wasn't personal and shouldn't have been taken as such. The mayor of a city should understand why people/businesses move into a city AND why they move out. This was an opportunity to look at factors within our limits that encourage or discourage such decisions. It was also an opportunity to see if we could have met the needs of an organization that needed to make a change. Had the mayor not issued such a scathing personal attack, there might still have been an opportunity to keep the Shriners in Toledo - but I believe that opportunity has now passed.
In the second case, Carty should have take the criticism of the management of the police department personally. He should have explained what decisions he was making regarding staffing levels, why he hasn't brought them up to the number he identified while campaigning, why citizens wait hours, sometimes, for an officer to respond and what he plans to do about it. He even could have begun the discussion of setting priorities with the budget - something he says he wants to do anyway with performance-based budgeting.
But he didn't do any of these things. He chose, instead, to 'interpret' the public comments as a slam on the officers, apparently in the hope that it would eliminate the need for him to account for his mayoral decisions regarding the department. And then he responded 'passionately.'
Passion in politics or leadership can be a good thing. But as these situations demonstrate, 'passion' falls short - when it's all you've got.
But a closer look at his career will also show that, on any given day, 40-45% of the people love him, 40-45% hate him and the other 10-20% switch back and forth, depending.
We were both elected to office in 1993 - he as the first strong mayor and me as the Clerk of Toledo Municipal Court. I've always had a cordial, professional and often friendly working relationship with him, despite our disagreements on various issues. Like everyone else, I've heard the stories about his language and behavior, but nothing 'on the record.'
And right about now, you're probably wondering where this post is going. So let me get to the point.
Recently, he took exception to the Shriners wanting to move to a more economical building than the one they've occupied for decades in downtown Toledo. Carty characterized their financial decision as "abandoning" the city - "running away" from the city - among other things.
Today, on WSPD 1370 AM, there are clips of his town hall meeting last night, in which he 'passionately' (he likes to use this term) defends the job the police department is doing. I wasn't at the meeting, but from the discussion on the morning show, it appears he was responding to a question about crime.
In both these instances, his 'passion' has gotten the better of him. His reaction to the decision of the Shriners to move was one of saying 'shame on you for this decision.' I don't know if he met with them to offer a location within the city limits that might meet their need - although, that's what I would have done. But I do know that his criticism of them was severe, public and personal - certainly not the way to generate goodwill.
But generating goodwill is really hard to do when you see a financial decision as a personal affront.
At the meeting last night, when asked about increased patrols, he changed the subject to say that crime is down and that he thinks the police are doing a very good job. He got defensive about the job the police are doing despite the fact that no one said that individual officers weren't doing a good job.
He saw this as a personal affront to the police department and reacted to defend them. However, he missed the critical point. The concern wasn't the individual actions of all the officers, but rather the management of the department - which is his ultimate responsibility.
I've got to hand it to him, though...taking such a position in defense of the police officers was an effective way to shut down the criticism. All of a sudden, the 'complainer' finds him/herself in a defensive mode. Some may see this as a good political strategy, but I don't ... and the danger of such a 'strategy' is that it leads the public to think you are just deflecting the issue and not really answering the question.
These two incidences draw a clear distinction.
In the first case, the Shriners' decision wasn't personal and shouldn't have been taken as such. The mayor of a city should understand why people/businesses move into a city AND why they move out. This was an opportunity to look at factors within our limits that encourage or discourage such decisions. It was also an opportunity to see if we could have met the needs of an organization that needed to make a change. Had the mayor not issued such a scathing personal attack, there might still have been an opportunity to keep the Shriners in Toledo - but I believe that opportunity has now passed.
In the second case, Carty should have take the criticism of the management of the police department personally. He should have explained what decisions he was making regarding staffing levels, why he hasn't brought them up to the number he identified while campaigning, why citizens wait hours, sometimes, for an officer to respond and what he plans to do about it. He even could have begun the discussion of setting priorities with the budget - something he says he wants to do anyway with performance-based budgeting.
But he didn't do any of these things. He chose, instead, to 'interpret' the public comments as a slam on the officers, apparently in the hope that it would eliminate the need for him to account for his mayoral decisions regarding the department. And then he responded 'passionately.'
Passion in politics or leadership can be a good thing. But as these situations demonstrate, 'passion' falls short - when it's all you've got.
Quote of the Day
Founders' Quote Daily from The Patriot Post:
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823)
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823)
Monday, June 25, 2007
Readthebill.org
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." - James Madison
I came across a blurb in the Wall Street Journal which mentioned a relatively new organization called Readthebill.org founded by Rafael DeGennaro, a registered independent.
The organization's inspiration is Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the rules of the U.S. Senate and founded the Library of Congress. Their mission is to promote transparency in government to revitalize American democracy. ReadtheBill.org seeks only transparent process and does not support or oppose policy on substance, and it is non-partisan and philosophically independent from the two major parties.
Their most recent initiative, supported by numerous groups including the National Taxpayers Union and Common Cause, is to have legislation posted online 72 hours prior to any debate in Congress. They believe that doing so "will harness the collective intelligence of thousands of American to ensure someone reads the bills."
If in doubt about whether or not such a requirement is needed, just take a few minutes to read these comments by legislators - comments which clearly demonstrate that our Congress routinely passes laws without having any idea about what such laws require.
And then take the time to encourage your congressional delegation to support this initiative as well.
I came across a blurb in the Wall Street Journal which mentioned a relatively new organization called Readthebill.org founded by Rafael DeGennaro, a registered independent.
The organization's inspiration is Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the rules of the U.S. Senate and founded the Library of Congress. Their mission is to promote transparency in government to revitalize American democracy. ReadtheBill.org seeks only transparent process and does not support or oppose policy on substance, and it is non-partisan and philosophically independent from the two major parties.
Their most recent initiative, supported by numerous groups including the National Taxpayers Union and Common Cause, is to have legislation posted online 72 hours prior to any debate in Congress. They believe that doing so "will harness the collective intelligence of thousands of American to ensure someone reads the bills."
If in doubt about whether or not such a requirement is needed, just take a few minutes to read these comments by legislators - comments which clearly demonstrate that our Congress routinely passes laws without having any idea about what such laws require.
And then take the time to encourage your congressional delegation to support this initiative as well.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
A Triple!
Three items of interest from Chuck Muth's News & Views:
This first one sounds a bit familiar...
BIKE-PATH TO NOWHERE
"The city (of Chesapeake, VA) will move forward with a plan to build a two-mile bicycle path along Dominion Boulevard at an estimated cost of $16 million. . . . City Council members recently voted 7 -1 in favor of the bike path. Mayor Dalton Edge cast the lone vote against the idea, arguing the money should be used elsewhere. 'It's a $16 million project,' Edge said Thursday. 'It reminds me of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. You talk about government spending, and to spend that kind of money on a bike path that would be rarely utilized is stunning to me.'"
- The Virginian-Pilot, 6/14/07
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE HOUSE, STAYS IN THE HOUSE
"Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of 'openness and transparency' in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.
"Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted. Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't."
- CNN.com, 6/19/07
Rep. Marcy Kaptur did respond. Rep. Paul Gillmor did not.
And there was this from columnist Robert Novak:
VETO ONSLAUGHT ON THE HORIZON
"(President) Bush plans to veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill nearing final passage, followed by vetoes of eight more money bills sent him by the Democratic-controlled Congress. That constitutes a veto onslaught of historic proportions from a president who did not reject a single bill during his first term. Of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008, only three will be signed by the president in the form shaped by the House. What's more, Bush correctly claimed he has the one-third plus one House votes needed to sustain these vetoes. The unpopular president is taking the offensive on fiscal responsibility."
I can't help but wonder if the President thinks that his sudden attention to fiscal responsibility will somehow win over those whom he's lost on the 'comprehensive immigration' (a.k.a amnesty) issue.
This first one sounds a bit familiar...
BIKE-PATH TO NOWHERE
"The city (of Chesapeake, VA) will move forward with a plan to build a two-mile bicycle path along Dominion Boulevard at an estimated cost of $16 million. . . . City Council members recently voted 7 -1 in favor of the bike path. Mayor Dalton Edge cast the lone vote against the idea, arguing the money should be used elsewhere. 'It's a $16 million project,' Edge said Thursday. 'It reminds me of the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. You talk about government spending, and to spend that kind of money on a bike path that would be rarely utilized is stunning to me.'"
- The Virginian-Pilot, 6/14/07
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE HOUSE, STAYS IN THE HOUSE
"Despite the new Democratic congressional leadership's promise of 'openness and transparency' in the budget process, a CNN survey of the House found it nearly impossible to get information on lawmakers' pet projects.
"Staffers for only 31 of the 435 members of the House contacted by CNN between Wednesday and Friday of last week supplied a list of their earmark requests for fiscal year 2008, which begins on October 1, or pointed callers to Web sites where those earmark requests were posted. Of the remainder, 68 declined to provide CNN with a list, and 329 either didn't respond to requests or said they would get back to us, and didn't."
- CNN.com, 6/19/07
Rep. Marcy Kaptur did respond. Rep. Paul Gillmor did not.
And there was this from columnist Robert Novak:
VETO ONSLAUGHT ON THE HORIZON
"(President) Bush plans to veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill nearing final passage, followed by vetoes of eight more money bills sent him by the Democratic-controlled Congress. That constitutes a veto onslaught of historic proportions from a president who did not reject a single bill during his first term. Of the 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008, only three will be signed by the president in the form shaped by the House. What's more, Bush correctly claimed he has the one-third plus one House votes needed to sustain these vetoes. The unpopular president is taking the offensive on fiscal responsibility."
I can't help but wonder if the President thinks that his sudden attention to fiscal responsibility will somehow win over those whom he's lost on the 'comprehensive immigration' (a.k.a amnesty) issue.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Eye on Toledo on WSPD 1370 AM
Just a quick note to let everyone know that I'll be guest hosting for the Eye on Toledo show 6-7 p.m. on WSPD news talk 1370 AM this Friday and Monday.
Among other things, I plan to talk about the recent report on graduation rates issued by Education Week. The report shows quite a discrepancy between their calculations and the ones developed by Toledo Public Schools. For background, here's a link to the Toledo Blade article on the issue.
Please tune and share your thoughts on this - or other news of the day!
Among other things, I plan to talk about the recent report on graduation rates issued by Education Week. The report shows quite a discrepancy between their calculations and the ones developed by Toledo Public Schools. For background, here's a link to the Toledo Blade article on the issue.
Please tune and share your thoughts on this - or other news of the day!
Orwell's 1984 and Pork
"The more than 32,000 earmarks requested in the Homeland Security spending bill have roiled the House this week, and now Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) wants the word 'earmark' to just go away. In a Tuesday press conference about appropriation bills, Pelosi said, 'Why don't we leave here today forgetting the word earmark?' She said they should be called 'legislative directives' instead." - Columnist Amanda Carpenter
Guess that Pelosi's taking lessons from George Owell's 1984.
Then there was this tidbit:
"...(A) provision in the $151.5 billion Labor-HHS measure to be taken up by the House Appropriations Committee Thursday would fund travel expenses for labor representatives heading to a November conference on worker safety in Portugal hosted by the European Union. 'It's offensive that Democratic leaders would earmark taxpayer dollars to fund a junket for AFL-CIO union bosses,' said a spokesman for House Minority Leader Boehner. 'We know Democrats are using their newfound clout to pay off their union comrades right and left, but this takes the cake.'"
- CongressDailyAM, 6/13/07
No wonder Congress's approval rating is 27% down from 36% in January...
Guess that Pelosi's taking lessons from George Owell's 1984.
Then there was this tidbit:
"...(A) provision in the $151.5 billion Labor-HHS measure to be taken up by the House Appropriations Committee Thursday would fund travel expenses for labor representatives heading to a November conference on worker safety in Portugal hosted by the European Union. 'It's offensive that Democratic leaders would earmark taxpayer dollars to fund a junket for AFL-CIO union bosses,' said a spokesman for House Minority Leader Boehner. 'We know Democrats are using their newfound clout to pay off their union comrades right and left, but this takes the cake.'"
- CongressDailyAM, 6/13/07
No wonder Congress's approval rating is 27% down from 36% in January...
Flag Day
How many people know that today is Flag Day, or what it means?
Flag Day, 14 June, marks the anniversary of the adoption by Congress in 1777 of the Stars and Stripes as emblem of the nation. Celebrations of the flag began in local communities throughout the country during the nineteenth century, largely for the purpose of educating children in history. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson, and later, in 1927, President Calvin Coolidge, suggested that 14 June be observed as Flag Day. It was not until 3 August 1949 that the National Flag Day Bill became law, giving official recognition to 14 June to celebrate the flag.
What does our Nation's flag mean to you? I offer this quote by Franklin Knight Lane:
"I am whatever you make me, nothing more. I am your belief in yourself, your dream of what a people may become.... I am the clutch of an idea, and the reasoned purpose of resolution. I am no more than you believe me to be and I am all that you believe I can be. I am whatever you make me, nothing more."
Remember to fly your flag today, and every day.
"The flag of the United States has not been created by rhetorical sentences in declarations of independence and in bills of rights. It has been created by the experience of a great people, and nothing is written upon it that has not been written by their life. It is the embodiment, not of a sentiment, but of a history." ~Woodrow Wilson
P.S. It's also the 231st birthday of the United States Army...Happy Birthday soldiers!
Monday, June 11, 2007
Quote of the day
"But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity."
~James Madison (Federalist No. 46, 29 January 1788)
~James Madison (Federalist No. 46, 29 January 1788)
Tidbits
* Revolver, a Findlay restaurant specializing in haute cuisine, garnered a mention in the Wall Street Journal's weekend edition June 2/3...congrats to them!
* Also seen in the WSJ, was an interesting letter to the editor by Dr. Stephen Ball, Lourdes College Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Leadership Studies. He took exception to the characterization of the woes of the West Outer Drive neighborhood in Detroit (an article about the effects of sub-prime lending). He says, "An element that comes through in almost every story of subprime-lending failure is the inability of borrowers to take personal responsibility because of the ignorance of personal finance concepts and their application." He advocates for problem-based learning in K-12 math curriculum. Way to go Prof. Ball!
* And while on the subject of economic ignorance, I came across this quote by Winston Churchill. "The multitudes remained plunged in ignorance of the simplest economic facts, and their leaders, seeking their votes, did not dare to undeceive them."
* Also seen in the WSJ, was an interesting letter to the editor by Dr. Stephen Ball, Lourdes College Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Leadership Studies. He took exception to the characterization of the woes of the West Outer Drive neighborhood in Detroit (an article about the effects of sub-prime lending). He says, "An element that comes through in almost every story of subprime-lending failure is the inability of borrowers to take personal responsibility because of the ignorance of personal finance concepts and their application." He advocates for problem-based learning in K-12 math curriculum. Way to go Prof. Ball!
* And while on the subject of economic ignorance, I came across this quote by Winston Churchill. "The multitudes remained plunged in ignorance of the simplest economic facts, and their leaders, seeking their votes, did not dare to undeceive them."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
