I occasionally get press releases about training opportunities for coastal communities. I'm passing this along, in case anyone is interested:
Dear Lake Erie Coastal Community Leaders and Residents:
You are invited to attend a free two-day workshop that will provide you with several useful tools for alternative community growth and development planning, including cost-benefit analyses of development scenarios, case studies of US EPA Smart Growth award communities, implementation tools, and a community scorecard.
To be held in Sandusky on March 27-28, Coastal Community Planning and Development will actively engage you in learning about alternatives to how and where development will occur in your community and provide you with background, examples, strategies, data, and resources to support alternative development. You will apply new knowledge through group discussions and develop an action plan so consider attending along with others involved in growth and development planning for your community.
This workshop was designed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is being provided by the Ohio Sea Grant College Program and Ohio Coastal Training Program. Contact Joe Lucente at (419) 213-2028 or lucente.6@osu.edu with questions or to register by Tuesday, March 13. On-line registration is available at www.coastaltrainingohio.com.
Date/Location
March 27 - 28, 2007
9 am – 4:30 pm
Erie County Building Commission Chambers
247 Columbus Avenue, Sandusky, OH
Who Should Attend
City councils and commissions, planners, developers, business leaders, realtors, civic organizations, concerned citizens from Lake Erie coastal communities or counties
Monday, February 26, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Serenity and Nature
There's a lot to be said for the soothing, yet rhythmic, sound of the ocean. Even on a day as calm as the one pictured, the gentle curl of the waves from the tides going in and out has a restful lure, like the sound of a mother's heartbeat heard from a cradled child.
But Nature has a vicious side - survival of the fittest where the predator takes every advantage of the weaker creature. And the teeth on this barracuda clearly show that he is the predator, at least in the shallow depths just outside the ocean's reef. Even with man at the top of the food chain, encountering something like this, especially in its watery element, gives one pause.While we take some time to enjoy the view and do a little fishing, please forgive the scarcity of posts. I'll certainly catch up after next week.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A must-read
From Dr. Walter Williams, one of my favorite columnists, in his column today: "Do we want socialized medicine?"
"There's a cure for our health care problems. That cure is not to demand more government but less government. I challenge anyone to identify a problem with health care in America that is not caused or aggravated by federal, state and local governments. And, I challenge anyone to show me people dying on the streets because they don't have health insurance."
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics
"There's a cure for our health care problems. That cure is not to demand more government but less government. I challenge anyone to identify a problem with health care in America that is not caused or aggravated by federal, state and local governments. And, I challenge anyone to show me people dying on the streets because they don't have health insurance."
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics
From The Patriot Post:
Founders' Quote:
"I leave to others the sublime delights of riding in the
storm, better pleased with sound sleep & a warmer berth below
it encircled, with the society of neighbors, friends & fellow
laborers of the earth rather than with spies & sycophants...I have
no ambition to govern men. It is a painful and thankless office."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Adams, 28 December 1796)
Founders' Quote:
"I leave to others the sublime delights of riding in the
storm, better pleased with sound sleep & a warmer berth below
it encircled, with the society of neighbors, friends & fellow
laborers of the earth rather than with spies & sycophants...I have
no ambition to govern men. It is a painful and thankless office."
-- Thomas Jefferson (letter to John Adams, 28 December 1796)
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Abraham Lincoln
February 12th is President Lincoln's birthday. In honor of the man who saved the union:
"If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference." The Inner Life of Abraham Lincoln: Six Months at the White House by Francis B. Carpenter (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1995), pp. 258-259.
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1859), p. 376.
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858?), p. 532.
"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860.
"I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 502.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
"Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came." Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865.
"I am rather inclined to silence, and whether that be wise or not, it is at least more unusual nowadays to find a man who can hold his tongue than to find one who cannot." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Remarks at the Monogahela House" (February 14, 1861), p. 209.
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas debate at Ottawa" (August 21, 1858), p. 27.
"The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Speech on the Sub-Treasury" (in the Illinois House of Representatives, December 26, 1839), p. 178.
"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864), pp.
259-260.
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum,of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838), p. 109.
"If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference." The Inner Life of Abraham Lincoln: Six Months at the White House by Francis B. Carpenter (University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1995), pp. 258-259.
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1859), p. 376.
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, (August 1, 1858?), p. 532.
"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February 27, 1860.
"I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 502.
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.
"Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came." Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865.
"I am rather inclined to silence, and whether that be wise or not, it is at least more unusual nowadays to find a man who can hold his tongue than to find one who cannot." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Remarks at the Monogahela House" (February 14, 1861), p. 209.
"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas debate at Ottawa" (August 21, 1858), p. 27.
"The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Speech on the Sub-Treasury" (in the Illinois House of Representatives, December 26, 1839), p. 178.
"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Reply to New York Workingmen's Democratic Republican Association" (March 21, 1864), pp.
259-260.
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume I, "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum,of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838), p. 109.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
More Iceboating...
In case you're wondering, it's been years since we've had this many ice boats on the Maumee Bay - so those of us into 'hard water' sailing are pretty excited!
But the iceboaters aren't the only ones enjoying the day...this group of snowmobilers took a break from their trips around the bay to get together...
These photos are of our Renegade "Rag Time"...my father built it when I was in grade school and I still recall the smell of the fiberglass and glue...These days, Dad thought it would get more use if my husband sailed it...and that's exactly what he's doing!
Friday, February 09, 2007
ICEBOATING TIME!!!!!
Well, finally!!!! For the first time in several years, it looks like we not only have good ice, but good weather, limited snow and wind all at the same time!!!
This weekend, the Toledo Ice Yacht Club will host their annual regatta, open to the public. It's also the National Renegade Championship on Maumee Bay.
Let's start with the Nationals...These boats are about 20 feet with around 65-70 square feet of sail area. They're one of the larger boats you'll see on the ice. (Photo curtesy of TIYC) If you'd like to see them, there should be good viewing via any of the public access roads in Point Place - at the ends of 116th - 149th streets. Their course starts pretty far out in the bay, so a pair of binoculars may help a bit - at least until they come by.
The other boat you're most likely to see is a DN. These are open cockpits and are steered by a tiller. The Renegades are closed up and only your head sticks out...you steer them with your feet.
As for the Regatta, there's a Friday night party at the Ottawa River Yacht Club on Edgewater Street in the Point. Saturday is the Fun Day with ice boat rides all day long. "Round the Horn Club-Race" will start at 11 a.m. There's also a Poker Run - with sign-up at 10:30 a.m. Of course, no regatta is complete with a big party with live entertainment - that's Saturday Night at ORYC.
So for those who say there's nothing to do in this town, take a drive out to Point Place and enjoy!!!
ps - make sure to dress warmly in layers if you plan on going for a ride...these boats can go up to 40 knots with decent wind and that's a bit chilly when it's just you, the boat, the ice and the sail!!
This weekend, the Toledo Ice Yacht Club will host their annual regatta, open to the public. It's also the National Renegade Championship on Maumee Bay.
Let's start with the Nationals...These boats are about 20 feet with around 65-70 square feet of sail area. They're one of the larger boats you'll see on the ice. (Photo curtesy of TIYC) If you'd like to see them, there should be good viewing via any of the public access roads in Point Place - at the ends of 116th - 149th streets. Their course starts pretty far out in the bay, so a pair of binoculars may help a bit - at least until they come by.The other boat you're most likely to see is a DN. These are open cockpits and are steered by a tiller. The Renegades are closed up and only your head sticks out...you steer them with your feet.
As for the Regatta, there's a Friday night party at the Ottawa River Yacht Club on Edgewater Street in the Point. Saturday is the Fun Day with ice boat rides all day long. "Round the Horn Club-Race" will start at 11 a.m. There's also a Poker Run - with sign-up at 10:30 a.m. Of course, no regatta is complete with a big party with live entertainment - that's Saturday Night at ORYC.
So for those who say there's nothing to do in this town, take a drive out to Point Place and enjoy!!!
ps - make sure to dress warmly in layers if you plan on going for a ride...these boats can go up to 40 knots with decent wind and that's a bit chilly when it's just you, the boat, the ice and the sail!!
"Comprehensive" solutions
I was reading various articles this morning including ones on immigration reform and raising the limits on Social Security taxes...and it struck me:
Why is that we need a 'comprehensive' approach to immigration reform, but we don't need a comprehensive approach to Social Security reform?
Anyone???
From The Heritage Foundation:
The Economic Impact of Raising the Wage Cap
Raising the amount of earnings subject to Social Security payroll taxes would do nothing to address the wider challenge of securing retirement for working Americans. Moreover, it would have real and damaging effects on working families and the U.S. economy. Some would dismiss the negative effects by noting that “only”about 6.5 percent of taxpayers would be affected, but a large proportion of those whose taxes would increase earn less than $125,000 annually. While these workers are not poor, neither are they wealthy. Subjecting all earnings to Social Security payroll taxes would:
* Reduce the annual take-home pay of 10.3 million workers by an average of $5,650 in the first year alone after the cap is removed. Most of these workers have incomes below $125,000.[1]
* Raise taxes on 4.0 million workers over the age of 50—just when they are trying to steer towards retirement.
* Raise taxes on 3 million small business owners.
* Greatly increase the top effective federal marginal tax rate.
* Weaken the U.S. economy by reducing the number of job opportunities and workers’personal savings. By fiscal year 2015, the number of job opportunities lost would exceed 965,000, and personal savings would decline by more than $55 billion, in real terms.[2]
* Not save Social Security. A 2003 Social Security Administration study showed that eliminating the Social Security wage cap would delay the program’s deficits for only about six years.
Rather than focus on raising the wage cap, Congress should develop a comprehensive solution to Social Security’s future deficits that examines all aspects of the program and places a strong emphasis on increasing personal savings across all income levels. This approach would be the first step towards placing all entitlement programs on a sound financial footing and protecting our children and grandchildren from having to deal with those program’s massive deficits.
Why is that we need a 'comprehensive' approach to immigration reform, but we don't need a comprehensive approach to Social Security reform?
Anyone???
From The Heritage Foundation:
The Economic Impact of Raising the Wage Cap
Raising the amount of earnings subject to Social Security payroll taxes would do nothing to address the wider challenge of securing retirement for working Americans. Moreover, it would have real and damaging effects on working families and the U.S. economy. Some would dismiss the negative effects by noting that “only”about 6.5 percent of taxpayers would be affected, but a large proportion of those whose taxes would increase earn less than $125,000 annually. While these workers are not poor, neither are they wealthy. Subjecting all earnings to Social Security payroll taxes would:
* Reduce the annual take-home pay of 10.3 million workers by an average of $5,650 in the first year alone after the cap is removed. Most of these workers have incomes below $125,000.[1]
* Raise taxes on 4.0 million workers over the age of 50—just when they are trying to steer towards retirement.
* Raise taxes on 3 million small business owners.
* Greatly increase the top effective federal marginal tax rate.
* Weaken the U.S. economy by reducing the number of job opportunities and workers’personal savings. By fiscal year 2015, the number of job opportunities lost would exceed 965,000, and personal savings would decline by more than $55 billion, in real terms.[2]
* Not save Social Security. A 2003 Social Security Administration study showed that eliminating the Social Security wage cap would delay the program’s deficits for only about six years.
Rather than focus on raising the wage cap, Congress should develop a comprehensive solution to Social Security’s future deficits that examines all aspects of the program and places a strong emphasis on increasing personal savings across all income levels. This approach would be the first step towards placing all entitlement programs on a sound financial footing and protecting our children and grandchildren from having to deal with those program’s massive deficits.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Podcasts on WSPD
Well, it's about time. Starting tomorrow, WSPD will make interviews available in podcasts.
They've always enjoyed a reputation of having good guests, but not everyone can listen all the time. Having the ability to listen to the interviews at your own convenience will certainly allow more individuals to become informed about issues. It will also mean that comments and quips can be reviewed long after the actual interview.
I hope that people will take advantage of this and encourage them to continue it.
They've always enjoyed a reputation of having good guests, but not everyone can listen all the time. Having the ability to listen to the interviews at your own convenience will certainly allow more individuals to become informed about issues. It will also mean that comments and quips can be reviewed long after the actual interview.
I hope that people will take advantage of this and encourage them to continue it.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Happy Birthday, President Reagan
Yep - I'm one of those whose formative years were framed by Ronald Reagan as President. To me, he was able to articulate the things I believed and was an example of how to stand for your principles in the face of intense criticism. As an elected official, I followed his strategy - go directly to the people when articulating your positions, your votes and your philosophy. They're the ones who matter the most.
In honor of his birthday, and the influence he had on me and our nation, I recommend reading this brief from The Patriot Post.
They say that history repeats itself and that fact is demonstrated by the similarities between today - with our fight against terrorism - and the 1970s when we feared a nuclear war. Reagan gave a speech entitled "The New Republican Party" that contains a message critical to us today.
The issues our Republican Party faces today are similar to the ones faced then. Defining who we are and what we believe in seemed to be lost in the politics and other issues. I'm a conservative before I'm a Republican. I'm a member of the Republican Party because it's always been the closest party to my own core personal beliefs. Reagan, in his speech, said:
"If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.
When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.
When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing -- he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.
When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education -- he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school.
When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.
Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way -- this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.
The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations -- found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.
One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: "Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for." That is not "ideological purity." It is simply what built this country and kept it great."
Then, as now, there is talk of a strong third party. Reagan addressed this issue as well:
"I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends -- perhaps including some of you here tonight -- who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.
I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party."
He articulated his view of what this new party would stand for, mirroring it on the 1976 platform:
"Tonight I want to offer to you my own version of what such a declaration might look like. I make no claim to originality. This declaration I propose is relatively short, taken, for most part, word for word from the Republican platform. It concerns itself with basic principles, not with specific solutions.
We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following propositions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people.
We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. Government must step in when one’s liberties impinge on one’s neighbor’s. Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves.
Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. Those concerns of a national character -- such as air and water pollution that do not respect state boundaries, or the national transportation system, or efforts to safeguard your civil liberties -- must, of course, be handled on the national level.
As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible.
We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.
Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation.
Families -- not government programs -- are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved.
Thus it is imperative that our government’s programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeopardize the family. We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. The New Republican Party must be committed to working always in the interest of the American family.
Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individuals. Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?
Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.
Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimination of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people as the American market system.
The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.
The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom. We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none."
These principles are as true today as they were then. And in all that he did, he appealed to the common values we share. He recognized that good people would always have differing views. Rather than cater to the differences among us, he brought us together by focusing on our shared perspectives. His message appealed to individuals of all parties, resulting in the term "Reagan Democrats" not because they'd switched parties, but because, as Reagan said, the majority of American already shared basic core conservative values of freedom and individual rights. He concludes his speech with some words of wisdom that Republicans need to remember:
"Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it.
The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when?
Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.
Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.
Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us."
Today, many of us are not exactly thrilled with the leaders in our party. As a final comment on Pres. Reagan, I recommend reading this column, "Wanted: Another Reagan" by Mark Alexander. His message is simple - Reagan was right and we'd be well-served to remember that.
In honor of his birthday, and the influence he had on me and our nation, I recommend reading this brief from The Patriot Post.
They say that history repeats itself and that fact is demonstrated by the similarities between today - with our fight against terrorism - and the 1970s when we feared a nuclear war. Reagan gave a speech entitled "The New Republican Party" that contains a message critical to us today.
The issues our Republican Party faces today are similar to the ones faced then. Defining who we are and what we believe in seemed to be lost in the politics and other issues. I'm a conservative before I'm a Republican. I'm a member of the Republican Party because it's always been the closest party to my own core personal beliefs. Reagan, in his speech, said:
"If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.
When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.
When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing -- he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.
When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education -- he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school.
When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.
Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way -- this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.
The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations -- found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.
One thing that must be made clear in post-Watergate is this: The American new conservative majority we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: "Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for." That is not "ideological purity." It is simply what built this country and kept it great."
Then, as now, there is talk of a strong third party. Reagan addressed this issue as well:
"I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends -- perhaps including some of you here tonight -- who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.
I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over. Rather than a third party, we can have a new first party made up of people who share our principles. I have said before that if a formal change in name proves desirable, then so be it. But tonight, for purpose of discussion, I’m going to refer to it simply as the New Republican Party."
He articulated his view of what this new party would stand for, mirroring it on the 1976 platform:
"Tonight I want to offer to you my own version of what such a declaration might look like. I make no claim to originality. This declaration I propose is relatively short, taken, for most part, word for word from the Republican platform. It concerns itself with basic principles, not with specific solutions.
We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following propositions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people.
We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. Government must step in when one’s liberties impinge on one’s neighbor’s. Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves.
Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. Those concerns of a national character -- such as air and water pollution that do not respect state boundaries, or the national transportation system, or efforts to safeguard your civil liberties -- must, of course, be handled on the national level.
As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible.
We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.
Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation.
Families -- not government programs -- are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved.
Thus it is imperative that our government’s programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeopardize the family. We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. The New Republican Party must be committed to working always in the interest of the American family.
Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individuals. Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?
Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.
Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimination of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people as the American market system.
The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.
The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom. We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none."
These principles are as true today as they were then. And in all that he did, he appealed to the common values we share. He recognized that good people would always have differing views. Rather than cater to the differences among us, he brought us together by focusing on our shared perspectives. His message appealed to individuals of all parties, resulting in the term "Reagan Democrats" not because they'd switched parties, but because, as Reagan said, the majority of American already shared basic core conservative values of freedom and individual rights. He concludes his speech with some words of wisdom that Republicans need to remember:
"Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it.
The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when?
Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.
Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, galloping inflation, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.
Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.
Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us."
Today, many of us are not exactly thrilled with the leaders in our party. As a final comment on Pres. Reagan, I recommend reading this column, "Wanted: Another Reagan" by Mark Alexander. His message is simple - Reagan was right and we'd be well-served to remember that.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Cold Weather and a Good Samaritan
It's frigid outside...and especially so at 4:30 in the morning...which is when we had to leave so hubby could catch a plane.
On the way to the airport, the wiper fluid wasn't working well and the conclusion (while driving) was that the line must be frozen. It wasn't too much of a problem until after I dropped him off and started home. When the trucks came by on the wet roads and the wiper fluid didn't come out - I couldn't see at all.
I concluded that I must be out of wiper fluid since even the passenger side had stopped working, so I stopped at the first available place to purchase some. Which is when the difficulty started...
I couldn't find the hood release. (Now, I know that some of you may be thinking "what a girl" but this is something I usually don't have to worry about, so I never really paid that much attention to it.) Fortunately, there was a gentleman at the station who offered to take a look under the dash, too. He couldn't find the release, but thought maybe it was by the seat...turns out - nope!
Well, never one to eschew instructions, I got out the owners manual and, while I was looking it up, the gentleman decided to wash the windows for me - front and back. He stayed while I opened the hood and located the wiper fluid container. While I thanked him profusely for his kindness, he was gone before I finished filling the fluid, so I didn't get a chance to offer him a cup of coffee or anything.
So, many thanks to the kind man who helped me out at 5:30 this morning.
ASIDE: Great photo our our friend, Ryan Lashaway, and his iceboat in today's Blade. We ran into many snags getting out on the ice...cold weather (usually don't sail under 10 degrees) and too much wind on Saturday. Sunday, the water the wind pushed out previously came back in, filled around the boats and froze - leaving the boats stuck and too much water under the thin layer of ice separating us from the good ice and a successful iceboating day. Rumor has it that it's supposed to warm up to around 20 by next weekend. If we actually manage to sail, I'll post photos here.
Stay warm!!!
On the way to the airport, the wiper fluid wasn't working well and the conclusion (while driving) was that the line must be frozen. It wasn't too much of a problem until after I dropped him off and started home. When the trucks came by on the wet roads and the wiper fluid didn't come out - I couldn't see at all.
I concluded that I must be out of wiper fluid since even the passenger side had stopped working, so I stopped at the first available place to purchase some. Which is when the difficulty started...
I couldn't find the hood release. (Now, I know that some of you may be thinking "what a girl" but this is something I usually don't have to worry about, so I never really paid that much attention to it.) Fortunately, there was a gentleman at the station who offered to take a look under the dash, too. He couldn't find the release, but thought maybe it was by the seat...turns out - nope!
Well, never one to eschew instructions, I got out the owners manual and, while I was looking it up, the gentleman decided to wash the windows for me - front and back. He stayed while I opened the hood and located the wiper fluid container. While I thanked him profusely for his kindness, he was gone before I finished filling the fluid, so I didn't get a chance to offer him a cup of coffee or anything.
So, many thanks to the kind man who helped me out at 5:30 this morning.
ASIDE: Great photo our our friend, Ryan Lashaway, and his iceboat in today's Blade. We ran into many snags getting out on the ice...cold weather (usually don't sail under 10 degrees) and too much wind on Saturday. Sunday, the water the wind pushed out previously came back in, filled around the boats and froze - leaving the boats stuck and too much water under the thin layer of ice separating us from the good ice and a successful iceboating day. Rumor has it that it's supposed to warm up to around 20 by next weekend. If we actually manage to sail, I'll post photos here.
Stay warm!!!
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Superbowl Commercials
It was a good game, but I don't recall seeing 2 back-to-back fumbles before. But since I didn't have a favorite team, I was interested, but not involved, in the game.
So, as we usually do, we critiqued the commercials and we were rather disappointed. Many of them seemed to be aggressive - more than necessary to make the point. And many were rather weak. Additionally, there seemed to be a significant number of ads for other CBS shows, so we wondered if perhaps the sales were not as high as in the past.
Our ratings are below, but I'm interested in your take on this.
Nice: (these are the feel-good commercials)
* Coke's Black History Month – featuring historical dates of significance and the matching coke bottle from that time.
* Doritos/Tostitos/FritoLay – This was the 'enjoy the game' message with the quote,‘getting here is half the battle.' It was a tribute to the first time both teams had Black coaches.
Good for the guys: (designed to appeal to the baser male interests)
* GoDaddy.com where everyone wants to work in the marketing department.
Swing and a Miss:
* Coke – give a little love and it all comes back to you...while the special effects were good and the message was okay, we just didn't like the unrealistic impression that drinking a Coke will solve all the world's problems.
* Garmin – take off on Godzilla movie - we're just not sure what this was for...
* Doritos – check out line, where the clerk is making comments on the variety of Doritos being bought. (perhaps this, too, appeals to the baser male interests, but the guys in our house thought it was lame)
* HHR and the men stripping off their clothes to clean the car...Disturbing was the most common word used for this one.
* BudLight – slap the face commercial was extemely predictable and not very original.
* GM – robot “all by myself” suicide dream sequence - while the message had to do with obsession with quality, it's hard to feel pity for a robot.
* Sprint – connectile dysfunction - parody of the erectile dysfunction commercials was good, but I'm not sure you want your product associated with E.D., even if it is a parody.
* BubbleTeam – march madness...maybe I just don't get it (not the bubble, but the whole commercial).
* E-trade: getting robbed by your bank - again, a pretty aggressive commercial to try and make you want to use E-Trade?
* Myrtle Beach/WTOL– football playing grandmother...please don't ask me to explain this one.
* Budweiser – crabs worshipping the cooler of beer...This one started out well, but the finish was a let-down.
* Salesgenie.com - perhaps this, too, tried to appeal to the baser male interests - as if using Salesgenie.com will make you good looking, successful and popular...
Good: (only two qualified)
* Bud Light – pick up the hitchhiker with an axe - except he's also got Bud Light. Creative, similar to the type of conversation you'd expect and with a good twist at the end...
* E-Trade – things you can do with one finger...again, creative and with a couple of good examples many would like to use...
The rest we ranked as 'okay' - not too bad, but not too good either. So, what did you think and which one(s) were your favorites for the night?
All commercials can be viewed here.
So, as we usually do, we critiqued the commercials and we were rather disappointed. Many of them seemed to be aggressive - more than necessary to make the point. And many were rather weak. Additionally, there seemed to be a significant number of ads for other CBS shows, so we wondered if perhaps the sales were not as high as in the past.
Our ratings are below, but I'm interested in your take on this.
Nice: (these are the feel-good commercials)
* Coke's Black History Month – featuring historical dates of significance and the matching coke bottle from that time.
* Doritos/Tostitos/FritoLay – This was the 'enjoy the game' message with the quote,‘getting here is half the battle.' It was a tribute to the first time both teams had Black coaches.
Good for the guys: (designed to appeal to the baser male interests)
* GoDaddy.com where everyone wants to work in the marketing department.
Swing and a Miss:
* Coke – give a little love and it all comes back to you...while the special effects were good and the message was okay, we just didn't like the unrealistic impression that drinking a Coke will solve all the world's problems.
* Garmin – take off on Godzilla movie - we're just not sure what this was for...
* Doritos – check out line, where the clerk is making comments on the variety of Doritos being bought. (perhaps this, too, appeals to the baser male interests, but the guys in our house thought it was lame)
* HHR and the men stripping off their clothes to clean the car...Disturbing was the most common word used for this one.
* BudLight – slap the face commercial was extemely predictable and not very original.
* GM – robot “all by myself” suicide dream sequence - while the message had to do with obsession with quality, it's hard to feel pity for a robot.
* Sprint – connectile dysfunction - parody of the erectile dysfunction commercials was good, but I'm not sure you want your product associated with E.D., even if it is a parody.
* BubbleTeam – march madness...maybe I just don't get it (not the bubble, but the whole commercial).
* E-trade: getting robbed by your bank - again, a pretty aggressive commercial to try and make you want to use E-Trade?
* Myrtle Beach/WTOL– football playing grandmother...please don't ask me to explain this one.
* Budweiser – crabs worshipping the cooler of beer...This one started out well, but the finish was a let-down.
* Salesgenie.com - perhaps this, too, tried to appeal to the baser male interests - as if using Salesgenie.com will make you good looking, successful and popular...
Good: (only two qualified)
* Bud Light – pick up the hitchhiker with an axe - except he's also got Bud Light. Creative, similar to the type of conversation you'd expect and with a good twist at the end...
* E-Trade – things you can do with one finger...again, creative and with a couple of good examples many would like to use...
The rest we ranked as 'okay' - not too bad, but not too good either. So, what did you think and which one(s) were your favorites for the night?
All commercials can be viewed here.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Rep. Paul on WSPD
Sorry for the lateness of this post, but blogger's been having some troubles today...
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), candidate for President, will be on the Brian Wilson Show this afternoon at 5 p.m. following the news. For those not from around this area, that's 1370 AM or you can listen live at www.wspd.com
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), candidate for President, will be on the Brian Wilson Show this afternoon at 5 p.m. following the news. For those not from around this area, that's 1370 AM or you can listen live at www.wspd.com
Today in history...
Today is the birthday of Hattie Wyatt Caraway (born in 1878), the first woman elected to the US Senate. She represented the State of Arkansas from 1931 to 1945. She was appointed as a Democrat on November 13, 1931, and subsequently elected on January 12, 1932, to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the death of her husband, Thaddeus H. Caraway. She was re-elected in 1932 and 1938 and served until January 2, 1945.
It's also Clark Gable's birthday...He was born in 1901 in Cadiz, OH.
Other notables from history that I found interesting:
1790 Supreme Court convenes for the 1st time (New York NY)
1862 Julia Howe publishes "Battle Hymn of the Republic"
1865 JS Rock, 1st black lawyer to practice in Supreme Court, admitted to bar
1906 1st federal penitentiary building completed, Leavenworth KS
1949 RCA releases 1st single record ever (45 rpm)
1961 1st full-scale test of US Minuteman ICBM is successful
1972 1st scientific hand-held calculator (HP-35) introduced ($395)
It's also American Heart Month and Black History Month.
It's also Clark Gable's birthday...He was born in 1901 in Cadiz, OH.
Other notables from history that I found interesting:
1790 Supreme Court convenes for the 1st time (New York NY)
1862 Julia Howe publishes "Battle Hymn of the Republic"
1865 JS Rock, 1st black lawyer to practice in Supreme Court, admitted to bar
1906 1st federal penitentiary building completed, Leavenworth KS
1949 RCA releases 1st single record ever (45 rpm)
1961 1st full-scale test of US Minuteman ICBM is successful
1972 1st scientific hand-held calculator (HP-35) introduced ($395)
It's also American Heart Month and Black History Month.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Pension Pick-Ups
Anyone who's ever gotten a paycheck from a non-government company has become very familiar with Social Security and Medicare (also known as FICA) taxes. Until you make more than around $97,000, you'll have 6.2% of your earnings taken out and given to the federal government for your Social Security tax. For Medicare, there's no limit and you pay 1.45% of all your earnings. Your employer withholds these amounts and pays them - along with their matching amounts - to the government.
In public employment in Ohio, there is a similar system called PERS (Public Employees Retirement System). Personally, I think PERS is better in that the money is in your own personal account and has better earnings than SS does. But the contributions are done in a similar manner with the employer and employee making contributions. (See ORC Chapter 145 for more information)
Under PERS, the 2007 employer contribution for retirement will be 8.65% for local employers. Employers also pay into the Retiree Medical Acount and a Mitigation Factor bringing their total contribution to 13.85% (see this document for more details). Employees contribute 9.4% under this plan.
EXCEPT...unions have, for years, negotiated a 'PERS pickup' in lieu of wage increases - in addition to wage increases. Under this concept, the employer agrees to pay some of the employee's 9.4% in addition to the 8.65% employer portion that they're required to pay. In Toledo, the amount of the pickup ranges from a portion to all the 9.4%...and such pickups apply to non-bargaining units as well.
(Trying to collect the information about how much of the 9.4% employee contribution is picked up proved to be quite a task, but that's another post soon to come.)
This is a terrific deal for the employees...They're getting that money into their dedicated retirement accounts (pre-tax) but not having to pay it themselves. From an administration standpoint, it sometimes makes political sense to negotiate such a benefit. People often make an issue of the amount of pay increases or vacation amounts, but usually pay little attention to other such negotiated benefits like PERS or uniform allowances, etc.
In Toledo, this PERS pickup costs us significantly each year. An employee making $42,000 would normally pay $3948 into their PERS account. However, if you're in AFSCME Local 7, that $3948 is completely paid by the City of Toledo.
Police and Fire contribute to the Police and Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund instead of PERS. Beginning in 2008, the city will pick up all of their contributions. For 2007, they'll still pay 1.5% of their 9% contribution themselves. So if you're a patrolman with 10 years of seniority, you'll make $53,451.84 in 2007 and the city will pay $4008.89 of your pension contribution and you'll pay $801.78. In 2008, when your salary goes up to $55,055.52, the city will pick up all of your contribution - to the tune of $4955.
(For estimating purposes, I used an average amount of pickup of $4900 and multiplied that by 690, the approximate number of sworn officers, to get a rough cost of this benefit...$3,381,000 for one year just for the police department. When you start adding in all the other unions and employees, you can see the fiscal impact of this benefit.)
I realize that these pick-ups are fairly negotiated...but they're also subject to 'me-too' bargaining...and when one unit manages to get all their contributions "picked up," it's only a matter of time before the rest of the units want the same thing. And once you've said 'yes' to one union, it's really hard to say 'no' to the others.
Now, I know items which are given in negotiations are extremely difficult to recover. But considering the amount of the budget deficit that Toledo is facing, it may be time to re-think this negotiation strategy and begin a return to the mandated amounts. Afterall, the taxpayers who are footing the bill for these pickups rarely have such generous packages themselves..and before the City starts talking about tax hikes, it may be wise to remember this fact.
In public employment in Ohio, there is a similar system called PERS (Public Employees Retirement System). Personally, I think PERS is better in that the money is in your own personal account and has better earnings than SS does. But the contributions are done in a similar manner with the employer and employee making contributions. (See ORC Chapter 145 for more information)
Under PERS, the 2007 employer contribution for retirement will be 8.65% for local employers. Employers also pay into the Retiree Medical Acount and a Mitigation Factor bringing their total contribution to 13.85% (see this document for more details). Employees contribute 9.4% under this plan.
EXCEPT...unions have, for years, negotiated a 'PERS pickup' in lieu of wage increases - in addition to wage increases. Under this concept, the employer agrees to pay some of the employee's 9.4% in addition to the 8.65% employer portion that they're required to pay. In Toledo, the amount of the pickup ranges from a portion to all the 9.4%...and such pickups apply to non-bargaining units as well.
(Trying to collect the information about how much of the 9.4% employee contribution is picked up proved to be quite a task, but that's another post soon to come.)
This is a terrific deal for the employees...They're getting that money into their dedicated retirement accounts (pre-tax) but not having to pay it themselves. From an administration standpoint, it sometimes makes political sense to negotiate such a benefit. People often make an issue of the amount of pay increases or vacation amounts, but usually pay little attention to other such negotiated benefits like PERS or uniform allowances, etc.
In Toledo, this PERS pickup costs us significantly each year. An employee making $42,000 would normally pay $3948 into their PERS account. However, if you're in AFSCME Local 7, that $3948 is completely paid by the City of Toledo.
Police and Fire contribute to the Police and Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund instead of PERS. Beginning in 2008, the city will pick up all of their contributions. For 2007, they'll still pay 1.5% of their 9% contribution themselves. So if you're a patrolman with 10 years of seniority, you'll make $53,451.84 in 2007 and the city will pay $4008.89 of your pension contribution and you'll pay $801.78. In 2008, when your salary goes up to $55,055.52, the city will pick up all of your contribution - to the tune of $4955.
(For estimating purposes, I used an average amount of pickup of $4900 and multiplied that by 690, the approximate number of sworn officers, to get a rough cost of this benefit...$3,381,000 for one year just for the police department. When you start adding in all the other unions and employees, you can see the fiscal impact of this benefit.)
I realize that these pick-ups are fairly negotiated...but they're also subject to 'me-too' bargaining...and when one unit manages to get all their contributions "picked up," it's only a matter of time before the rest of the units want the same thing. And once you've said 'yes' to one union, it's really hard to say 'no' to the others.
Now, I know items which are given in negotiations are extremely difficult to recover. But considering the amount of the budget deficit that Toledo is facing, it may be time to re-think this negotiation strategy and begin a return to the mandated amounts. Afterall, the taxpayers who are footing the bill for these pickups rarely have such generous packages themselves..and before the City starts talking about tax hikes, it may be wise to remember this fact.
Health Care Costs Follow-Up
I'm sharing the following article by Jeff Jacoby as a follow-up to the issue of health care/health insurance and their costs...
From the article.
"Why is it," asks David Gratzer, a physician and scholar at the Manhattan Institute, "that in every other field where enormous technological strides have been made, total costs have fallen over time, but in health care they have increased?" The answer, he writes in The Cure, a lively and engrossing new book on the American health care mess, is simple: Health care costs so much because most of us pay so little for it. And we pay so little -- out-of-pocket expenses amount to just 14 cents of every health dollar spent in this country -- because a third party nearly always picks up the tab. For most working Americans, that third party is an insurance company paid by their employers. (For the poor and elderly who rely on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, it's the government.)
Why does it matter whether Americans pay for medical care directly or let insurers cover their bills? Because thrift and price awareness usually go out the window when we're spending other people's money. Under the present setup, most Americans have little incentive to be economical consumers of health care. As a result, health care expenditures -- and insurance premiums -- have been racing ahead at three and four times the rate of inflation.
He raises a very valid question and points out the perspective identified by Milton Freidman:
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. – Milton Freidman
As I've said earlier, many people don't know how much their employer pays for their ability to fork over only a small amount of a co-pay at the doctor or pharmacy. If you don't know the true costs, how can you be a good consumer? And when you allow your employer to make decisions about your insurance coverage, you abdicate your ability to decide what coverages you need.
Jacoby goes on to say that, under Pres. Bush's recently announced proposal,:
Millions of others would have an incentive to shop around for a health plan less pricey than the one available through work, since cheaper insurance would end up meaning a bigger tax break. That would put pressure on insurers to develop more high-deductible, low-premium plans -- and on health care consumers to start paying attention to prices.
Again, I don't know if this will work, but I'm willing to have the discussion.
From the article.
"Why is it," asks David Gratzer, a physician and scholar at the Manhattan Institute, "that in every other field where enormous technological strides have been made, total costs have fallen over time, but in health care they have increased?" The answer, he writes in The Cure, a lively and engrossing new book on the American health care mess, is simple: Health care costs so much because most of us pay so little for it. And we pay so little -- out-of-pocket expenses amount to just 14 cents of every health dollar spent in this country -- because a third party nearly always picks up the tab. For most working Americans, that third party is an insurance company paid by their employers. (For the poor and elderly who rely on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, it's the government.)
Why does it matter whether Americans pay for medical care directly or let insurers cover their bills? Because thrift and price awareness usually go out the window when we're spending other people's money. Under the present setup, most Americans have little incentive to be economical consumers of health care. As a result, health care expenditures -- and insurance premiums -- have been racing ahead at three and four times the rate of inflation.
He raises a very valid question and points out the perspective identified by Milton Freidman:
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. – Milton Freidman
As I've said earlier, many people don't know how much their employer pays for their ability to fork over only a small amount of a co-pay at the doctor or pharmacy. If you don't know the true costs, how can you be a good consumer? And when you allow your employer to make decisions about your insurance coverage, you abdicate your ability to decide what coverages you need.
Jacoby goes on to say that, under Pres. Bush's recently announced proposal,:
Millions of others would have an incentive to shop around for a health plan less pricey than the one available through work, since cheaper insurance would end up meaning a bigger tax break. That would put pressure on insurers to develop more high-deductible, low-premium plans -- and on health care consumers to start paying attention to prices.
Again, I don't know if this will work, but I'm willing to have the discussion.
Monday, January 29, 2007
John Kasich & the GOP's Lincoln Day Dinner
UPDATE: The event will be at Gladieux Meadows on Heatherdowns. The Chairman's reception with Mr. Kasich is $250 from 5:30 - 6:30. Regular tickets for dinner are $50 with cocktails at 6 p.m. (cash bar) and dinner/program at 7 p.m.
The Lucas County Republican Party has set the date of their annual fundraiser - the Lincoln Day Dinner - and announced that the guest speaker is none other than Ohioan John Kasich, currently host of "The Heartland with John Kasich."
Mr. Kasich's bio is available here.
The dinner will be Friday, March 9th. For more information, you can contact the LCRP at lucascountygop@totalink.net or watch here for details on price, location and reservations.
Quote
From The Patriot Post:
“[A] Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States... as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” —Thomas Jefferson
“[A] Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States... as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” —Thomas Jefferson
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Tidbits found in route to another destination
* Next month begins the Chinese Year of the Pig, but China Central Television, the communist state-run station has banned all images and spoken references to the animals in commercials - to avoid offending Muslims who consider the pigs unclean. Pigs symbolize prosperity and good fortune as well as fertility and virility. Many Chinese think they mean good luck.
According to the Wall Street Journal, "The pig ban is a significant shift for a government that seldom puts the interests of minority groups ahead of those of the broader population. China has more than 20 million Muslims, but they constitute less than 2% of the population."
There's no word if the ban will be extended to other media or marketing in the country.
* GAO has data which shows the percent or households in each income percentile holding credit-card debt. While the numbers are from 2004, they're still interesting:
Top 10 - 38.5%
Next 10 - 57.6%
Next 20 - 56.0%
Middle 20 - 55.1%
Next 20 - 42.9%
Bottom 20 - 28.8%
All - 46.2%
Most people with credit cards (53.7%) don't hold debt...And the Senate will be holding hearings on the issue in their Banking Committee.
* Prizes are now being offered for solutions to problems...Netflix is offering $1 million for an algorithm that does 10% better than its current system for predicting whether a customer will enjoy a movie. Go for it!
* Many people talk about freeing ourselves from dependency on foreign oil...the following list shows the average net exports to the U.S. for the 12 months ending October, 2006 (in thousands of barrels per day):
2,131 from Canada
1,498 from Mexico
1,449 from Saudi Arabia
1,395 from Venezuela
1,154 from Nigeria
628 from Algeria
551 from Iraq
532 from Angola
360 from Russia
322 from Virgin Islands
264 from United Kingdom
258 from Ecuador
197 from Norway
196 from Kuwait
181 from Columbia
157 from Brazil
119 from Aruba
114 from Trinidad/Tobago
112 from Netherlands
94 from Chad
81 from Libya
Surprises, for me, were that we get oil from the Virgin Islands, Aruba and Trinidad/Tobago...
* "There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government." – Milton Freidman
* "The energy agenda in Washington has been long dominated by oil interests, but in a reversal of political fortunes, these days it is Big Oil fighting to preserve its tax incentives and the ethanol industry that is adding new ones," The Washington Post reports. "President Bush may up the ante tonight in his State of the Union address, many analysts think, by setting new targets for ethanol use or encouraging automakers to shift to engines capable of handling E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol."
In "Oil Subsidies in the Dock," Cato senior fellows Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren write: "The Democrats' somewhat dodgy anti-subsidy crusade... collapses into ashes with the proposed 'Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve' tacked on to the bill. In short, all fiscal gains to the Treasury associated with the above will be handed back out again to corporations like GE, British Petroleum, and you-name-the-industrial-conglomerate engaged in energy efficiency and renewable energy businesses. But the same arguments against handouts to 'Big Oil' can be as easily marshaled against handouts to Big or Little Fill-In-the-Blank. And with energy prices this high, there are ample incentives for investors to spend money on oil and gas production, renewable energy, energy conservation, or other energy exotic."
In "For Now, Gasoline Is Our Only Cheap Fuel," Taylor dispels the myth of ethanol as the answer to America's energy woes: "Ethanol made out of corn is probably the closest thing we have to a domestic alternative to gasoline. But no matter how nice 'growing our own fuel' might be in theory, it's uneconomically expensive in fact. Even after 30 years of lavish federal subsidy, ethanol (defined as fuel that is nine parts gasoline and one part ethanol) has only managed to capture a bit more than 3 percent of the automotive fuels market, and even industry participants concede if the subsidies and consumption mandates were removed today, the entire industry would collapse."
* “Countless studies have shown that children raised in a two-parent family are less likely to be raised in poverty, less likely to do drugs, less likely to be criminals later in life, and more likely to graduate from and do well in school. Married people tend to take care of themselves better and live longer. They typically eat better, have more settled lives with less stress and fewer risky habits, monitor each other’s health, and are quicker to seek medical attention for problems that arise. Married people, particularly those with children, seem to be motivated to save and invest more for the future and to live longer to enjoy their savings and their children’s future. Out-of-wedlock births increase the national incidence of: lowered health for newborns; retarded cognitive, and especially verbal, development of young children; lowered educational achievement; lowered job attainment as young adults; increased behavioral problems; lowered impulse control (aggression and sexual behavior); and increased anti-social development. It’s been said you need only do three things in this country to avoid poverty: finish high school, marry before having a child and marry after the age of 20. Among those who follow such advice, only 8% are poor, while 79% of those who do not are poor. The consequences of this trend are crime rates higher than they should be, graduation rates lower than they should be and a treasury depleted in the name of trying to solve both problems by throwing more money at them. No culture can remain healthy with illegitimacy rates like these. And it is simply impossible to understate the socially catastrophic consequences of America’s crisis of illegitimacy. The family is still the best department of health, education and welfare ever invented.” —Investor’s Business Daily
* The vision Ronald Reagan shared with the British parliament in 1982: "We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable right of all human beings. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy."
According to the Wall Street Journal, "The pig ban is a significant shift for a government that seldom puts the interests of minority groups ahead of those of the broader population. China has more than 20 million Muslims, but they constitute less than 2% of the population."
There's no word if the ban will be extended to other media or marketing in the country.
* GAO has data which shows the percent or households in each income percentile holding credit-card debt. While the numbers are from 2004, they're still interesting:
Top 10 - 38.5%
Next 10 - 57.6%
Next 20 - 56.0%
Middle 20 - 55.1%
Next 20 - 42.9%
Bottom 20 - 28.8%
All - 46.2%
Most people with credit cards (53.7%) don't hold debt...And the Senate will be holding hearings on the issue in their Banking Committee.
* Prizes are now being offered for solutions to problems...Netflix is offering $1 million for an algorithm that does 10% better than its current system for predicting whether a customer will enjoy a movie. Go for it!
* Many people talk about freeing ourselves from dependency on foreign oil...the following list shows the average net exports to the U.S. for the 12 months ending October, 2006 (in thousands of barrels per day):
2,131 from Canada
1,498 from Mexico
1,449 from Saudi Arabia
1,395 from Venezuela
1,154 from Nigeria
628 from Algeria
551 from Iraq
532 from Angola
360 from Russia
322 from Virgin Islands
264 from United Kingdom
258 from Ecuador
197 from Norway
196 from Kuwait
181 from Columbia
157 from Brazil
119 from Aruba
114 from Trinidad/Tobago
112 from Netherlands
94 from Chad
81 from Libya
Surprises, for me, were that we get oil from the Virgin Islands, Aruba and Trinidad/Tobago...
* "There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government." – Milton Freidman
* "The energy agenda in Washington has been long dominated by oil interests, but in a reversal of political fortunes, these days it is Big Oil fighting to preserve its tax incentives and the ethanol industry that is adding new ones," The Washington Post reports. "President Bush may up the ante tonight in his State of the Union address, many analysts think, by setting new targets for ethanol use or encouraging automakers to shift to engines capable of handling E85, a fuel that is 85 percent ethanol."
In "Oil Subsidies in the Dock," Cato senior fellows Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren write: "The Democrats' somewhat dodgy anti-subsidy crusade... collapses into ashes with the proposed 'Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve' tacked on to the bill. In short, all fiscal gains to the Treasury associated with the above will be handed back out again to corporations like GE, British Petroleum, and you-name-the-industrial-conglomerate engaged in energy efficiency and renewable energy businesses. But the same arguments against handouts to 'Big Oil' can be as easily marshaled against handouts to Big or Little Fill-In-the-Blank. And with energy prices this high, there are ample incentives for investors to spend money on oil and gas production, renewable energy, energy conservation, or other energy exotic."
In "For Now, Gasoline Is Our Only Cheap Fuel," Taylor dispels the myth of ethanol as the answer to America's energy woes: "Ethanol made out of corn is probably the closest thing we have to a domestic alternative to gasoline. But no matter how nice 'growing our own fuel' might be in theory, it's uneconomically expensive in fact. Even after 30 years of lavish federal subsidy, ethanol (defined as fuel that is nine parts gasoline and one part ethanol) has only managed to capture a bit more than 3 percent of the automotive fuels market, and even industry participants concede if the subsidies and consumption mandates were removed today, the entire industry would collapse."
* “Countless studies have shown that children raised in a two-parent family are less likely to be raised in poverty, less likely to do drugs, less likely to be criminals later in life, and more likely to graduate from and do well in school. Married people tend to take care of themselves better and live longer. They typically eat better, have more settled lives with less stress and fewer risky habits, monitor each other’s health, and are quicker to seek medical attention for problems that arise. Married people, particularly those with children, seem to be motivated to save and invest more for the future and to live longer to enjoy their savings and their children’s future. Out-of-wedlock births increase the national incidence of: lowered health for newborns; retarded cognitive, and especially verbal, development of young children; lowered educational achievement; lowered job attainment as young adults; increased behavioral problems; lowered impulse control (aggression and sexual behavior); and increased anti-social development. It’s been said you need only do three things in this country to avoid poverty: finish high school, marry before having a child and marry after the age of 20. Among those who follow such advice, only 8% are poor, while 79% of those who do not are poor. The consequences of this trend are crime rates higher than they should be, graduation rates lower than they should be and a treasury depleted in the name of trying to solve both problems by throwing more money at them. No culture can remain healthy with illegitimacy rates like these. And it is simply impossible to understate the socially catastrophic consequences of America’s crisis of illegitimacy. The family is still the best department of health, education and welfare ever invented.” —Investor’s Business Daily
* The vision Ronald Reagan shared with the British parliament in 1982: "We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable right of all human beings. It would be cultural condescension, or worse, to say that any people prefer dictatorship to democracy."
Thursday, January 25, 2007
The President's Health Care Proposal
By now, there's been a lot of discussion about Pres. Bush's proposal to allow a personal tax deduction for health care. But I'd like to ask a few questions:
* How many people with employer-sponsored health insurance actually know how much their employer spends on such coverage?
* How many people with employer-sponsored health insurance have coverage for things they don't need? If you're a young single man, do you really OB/GYN coverage? If you and your spouse are finished having children, do you need maternity, well-baby or child immunization coverage? If you're a healthy individual, do you need prescription coverage?
* If you had to select your coverage and pay for itself, would your employer plan be the one you choose?
In most cases, employers select a plan that meets the needs of most, if not all, their employees. This means that individuals are getting - and paying for - coverage they don't need and probably don't want. And with it being paid for by the employer, few have a good idea of just what such coverage is costing.
The President's proposal is an attempt to put the consumer in charge of selecting and paying for the coverage that fits their needs - with the same tax breaks companies have gotten for the cost. You don't let your employer select your car insurance, homeowners/renters insurance or life insurance, why do you want them to select something much more important like your health insurance?
Most insurance companies offer packages with the biggest difference being amount of deductible, out-of-pocket expenses and networks. A company with a diverse staff likes such packages because it meets their needs. But does it meet your individual needs? If consumers need variety in their packages and they're now in charge of making such choices and paying for them, insurance companies will respond to such demands and the health insurance field will change dramatically - hopefully for the better.
This is point of the proposal - to inject a sense of the free market into the system by allowing the actual consumer of services to select the ones they want and be responsible for paying for them and by allowing the insurance providers to tailor their products to the actual needs of the consumer.
I have no idea if this will work or if the concept will be butchered in Congress or by special interests as the proposal makes its way through the process. But, this is the first time in a long time that anyone has looked at letting the individual be in charge of such decisions - and its certainly worthy of discussion.
UPDATE: I wanted to share a column with you on this subject...Linda Chavez's "How to cure the health insurance crisis."
* How many people with employer-sponsored health insurance actually know how much their employer spends on such coverage?
* How many people with employer-sponsored health insurance have coverage for things they don't need? If you're a young single man, do you really OB/GYN coverage? If you and your spouse are finished having children, do you need maternity, well-baby or child immunization coverage? If you're a healthy individual, do you need prescription coverage?
* If you had to select your coverage and pay for itself, would your employer plan be the one you choose?
In most cases, employers select a plan that meets the needs of most, if not all, their employees. This means that individuals are getting - and paying for - coverage they don't need and probably don't want. And with it being paid for by the employer, few have a good idea of just what such coverage is costing.
The President's proposal is an attempt to put the consumer in charge of selecting and paying for the coverage that fits their needs - with the same tax breaks companies have gotten for the cost. You don't let your employer select your car insurance, homeowners/renters insurance or life insurance, why do you want them to select something much more important like your health insurance?
Most insurance companies offer packages with the biggest difference being amount of deductible, out-of-pocket expenses and networks. A company with a diverse staff likes such packages because it meets their needs. But does it meet your individual needs? If consumers need variety in their packages and they're now in charge of making such choices and paying for them, insurance companies will respond to such demands and the health insurance field will change dramatically - hopefully for the better.
This is point of the proposal - to inject a sense of the free market into the system by allowing the actual consumer of services to select the ones they want and be responsible for paying for them and by allowing the insurance providers to tailor their products to the actual needs of the consumer.
I have no idea if this will work or if the concept will be butchered in Congress or by special interests as the proposal makes its way through the process. But, this is the first time in a long time that anyone has looked at letting the individual be in charge of such decisions - and its certainly worthy of discussion.
UPDATE: I wanted to share a column with you on this subject...Linda Chavez's "How to cure the health insurance crisis."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
