A fundamental problem with the Sotomayor confirmation hearings

I've been reading a lot about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's answers to questions during her confirmation hearing and one point keeps striking me as a fundamental problem.

She seems to be basing her answers on what the Supreme Court has previously ruled - not on the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land - not nine individuals in black robes.

In doing this, she fails to reveal her judicial philosophy and her interpretation of the Constitution - which is critical to know when deciding whether or not to appoint or confirm a person to such a position.

My speculation is that this is a planned approach designed to conceal exactly what her judicial philosophy is, or to provide a non-controversial response to difficult questions that might, if answered differently, imperil her confirmation.

It’s a shame that none of the Senators asking her questions have noted this fact and asked her to state her own position - and not just recite what the court has previously done.

After all, that’s what she’ll have to do if she gets confirmed.

Toledo to repeal convenience store licensing law

Kudos to the Midwest Retailers Association (MWRA) on their huge win in the settlement of their lawsuit against the City of Toledo over the convenience store licensing law!

In 2007, the city passed an ordinance which required a 'license' to operate a convenience store - on top of all other licensing already required for such an operation. Included in the 'not business friendly' provisions were requirements to clean up debris and litter on other people's property as well as the threat that the license would be revoked if illegal activities happened upon the store grounds, regardless of the owners' efforts to stop them.

Fortunately, many of the store owners got together, hired an attorney and sued the city over the constitutionality of the law. They also filed an emergency request for an injunction to stop the implementation of the law, which was granted.

The city did repeal that version of the law and implement a new one - which was immediately challenged in court as an amended complaint as well. But not before the federal judge awarded MWRA $29,999.00 in attorneys fees for the first portion of the case (which was paid in March, 2009).

Since that time, the two parties have been in negotiations over a settlement. Council President Joe McNamara issued a press release explaining some of the terms of the settlement:

The proposed settlement agreement, which would need to be approved by Council, repeals the licensing ordinance. In exchange, the Midwest Retailers Association agrees to do the following:

* Adopt a code of ethical business practices for its member that includes:

1. banning the sale of items commonly used as drug paraphernalia,
2. establishing a zero-tolerance loitering policy
3. keeping stores clean and well-maintained
4. not generating any undue noise
5. selling healthy items like milk, fruit and vegetables

* Encourage store representatives to attend Block Watch meetings

* Develop a plan for a coordinated security patrol of member stores consisting of off-duty and laid-off police officers

* Meet quarterly with representatives of the Community Development Corporation alliance to review the relationship between the stores and their neighborhoods.

* Waive any additional attorney fee or damage awards.

So the store owners will do what they probably would have done in the first place if just asked and the city repeals the law, which never should have been implemented to begin with. The city also gets out of paying any more attorney fees.

But the city is still out more than $30,000 with the payment of the first set of fees and the amount of time, effort, energy and wages spent on defending this case in court over the last two years, not to mention the negative publicity over the law and the 'not business friendly' message it sent to current and potential businesses within the city limits.

I still have a problem, though, with the city's dereliction of duty when it comes to safety. The agreement requires that the stores "develop a plan for a coordinated security patrol of member stores consisting of off-duty and laid-off police officers."

First of all, why must it be off-duty or laid-off police officers? Many companies use private security personnel for such purposes, so this can only be construed as the unnecessary interference of the city in operational aspects of a private business. Or perhaps this has more to do with helping the police unions and/or covering the city because they've so overspent in almost every other area that they had to lay off police. Regardless, this is wrong and I wish the settlement would have contained more generic language to be able to give the store owners as much flexibility as possible.

Secondly, this particular requirement is a bad precedent for the city to set. The reason this is needed - and the reason 'community development groups' and politicians wanted the law in the first place - is because of a lack of enforcement of existing laws. The original problem wasn't the stores, but the illegal activities that police were unable to address, either because of lack of numbers or low priority.

Rather than address the lack of policing, politicians did what they normally do - created a new problem in an attempt to 'solve' an old one, enacting a law for every single store of this type, despite the fact that only some of the stores were having a problem. What they should have done was increase the enforcement in and around those particular problem areas - but they didn't.

Now, the solution is not for the city to assume its chartered responsibility, but for store owners to pay additionally for that same service. And if the city can do it with one, it can do it will all.

Considering everything, this may be a win-win for the parties: the store owners get the law repealed and the city doesn't have to pay anything more in attorney fees.

However, there are other 'costs' to this settlement:

* the enforcement of the anti-business reputation of the city;
* the perspective that if business owners don't do what politicians want, laws will be passed to force compliance - also know as extortion, especially with the threat of reintroducing the law;
* the precedent of making certain businesses pay extra for police protection which should be a service available to all; and
* the negative message that if some members of a group (convenience store owners) are acting in a way that some do not like, all will be punished.

...and those 'costs' will be felt for years to come.

Quote of the Day

"Fraud may consist as well in the suppression of what is true as in the representation of what is false." ~ Justice Heath, English Jurist

An oldie but goodie - Konop should read it

With both Lucas County Commissioner (and mayoral candidate) Ben Konop and President Barack Obama touting a taxpayer-funded college education for all, I thought it might be a good idea to take a look at this oldie but goodie from the Foundation for Economic Education.

The article, "No More Subsidies for Higher Education" by George C. Leef, was published in FEE's magazine, The Freeman, which is also available on line.

The author makes several excellent points:

* He tears apart the 'social justice' argument that higher education is something that society 'owes' to low-income and other 'under served' populations.

* He points out that a 'good education' does NOT equate to a college degree, especially considering the lack of 'quality' education many students are getting in today's public schools.

* He looks at employment outlooks that show many anticipated job openings are in fields that might require specialized training, but do not require a college degree.

* He questions why existing opportunities are not sufficient to meet the demand. (And note that neither President Obama nor Comm. Konop have indicated a 'demand' for more college graduates - especially in such fields as women studies or English literature.)

While the article is from 2002, the points are as valid today as they were then. Even if you look at the 'green job's' being touted by the President and Konop, you'll see that many of them are for tasks that certainly do not require an 'advanced' degree. Does a window or insulation installer need a four-year bachelor's degree - or just some on-the-job training?

Konop should read the article ... but I won't hold my breath waiting for his 'rebuttal.'

Uh-Oh! Private insurance is not an option

From the National Center for Policy Analysis:

PRIVATE INSURANCE IS NOT AN OPTION
It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal, says Investor's Business Daily (IBD).

The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions, says IBD:

* Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it.

* Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither:

* Drawn by a public option that will be 30 percent to 40 percent cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington's coverage.

* The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program.

* That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers; this could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, "fizzle out altogether."

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law, says IBD.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years, says IBD. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

Source: Editorial, "It's Not An Option," Investor's Business Daily, July 15, 2009.

For text:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=482329

Here is a link to the Senate's Health Care Bill

Here is the link to the House version. HR 3200 American's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

Behavior modification

I received an email the other day about a program being sponsored by the Ohio Chapter of the American Public Works Association and the Butler County Engineer's Office.

Here's the title and opening description:

Fostering Sustainable Behavior Workshop

“...Conserve Water ▪ Save Energy▪ Don’t Pollute ▪ Recycle ▪ Compost ▪ Wash Hands to Prevent Disease ▪ Slow Down in the Work Zone ▪ Click It or Ticket...”

Is your organization charged with implementing programs that incorporate similar themes? If so, then you probably already know that information alone is not the answer to a successful program. The goal of most Public Education and Outreach programs is not simply to inform the public, but to empower the public to take specific action which ultimately leads to sustainable behavior change. Learn how to move beyond brochures and information intensive programs.

I know that advertising campaigns are all about getting individuals to 'agree' with what you want them to do: buy a product, vote a certain way, support or oppose something... But I couldn't help but think of George Orwell's "1984" when I read this email.

Look at the wording and think about who funds 'public education and outreach' programs. The message is that government, the primary funder of such efforts, will 'empower' us to change our behavior to what they want it to be.

First of all, I don't need to be 'empowered' by government. I have the power to change or modify my behavior as I see fit. My ability to do such is not granted by the government, nor is it dependent upon government ad campaigns to tell me what they believe I should or should not be doing.

For example, I wear a seat belt and always have. It's not because I've been 'educated' by government that it's a good thing to do, but because I've evaluated the pros and cons of seat belt use and decided to use one. Similarly, I don't smoke and never have. This is not because government has told me it's bad for me, but because of my own evaluation of the product in light of my mild asthma...and also because I don't like the smell.

I have independent thought and reasoning skills and have made these decisions on my own. Others have decided differently based upon their own circumstances, wants and needs and don't wear seat belts and do smoke. That's fine with me.

However, it's not fine with government which uses the power of force (of law) to get us to do things according to the wishes of bureaucrats and politicians. And now, we have 'specialists' to tell various groups who do the bidding of government on these issues how to be more 'effective' at modifying our behaviors.

About the Speaker: For over twenty years Dr. McKenzie-Mohr, an environmental psychologist, has been incorporating scientific knowledge of behavior change into the design and delivery of community programs. He is the author of the best-selling book, “Fostering Sustainable Behavior,” and he has provided training internationally for over 40,000 environmental program planners in the use of community based social marketing. Further, this approach is now being utilized in thousands of environmental programs worldwide.

According to his bio,

Dr. McKenzie-Mohr has served as a member of the Canadian Public Education and Outreach issue table on climate change, as the coordinator of the international organization, “Holis: The Society for a Sustainable Future,” and as a member of the Canadian Education Task Force of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He has been awarded the Canadian Psychological Association’s “Psychologists for Social Responsibility Research and Social Action Award,” and the “Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues Public Advocacy Fellowship.” He is a Professor of Psychology at St. Thomas University in Canada where he co-coordinates the Environment and Society program.

In one of his papers, he points out that, despite good 'educational' efforts and the fact that individuals 'know' what is good for them, they don't always do it. (Imagine that!) His approach is to define what 'prevents' people from acting as others think they should, remove the barriers to such action, use a pilot to test the approach and then evaluate the change of behavior.

In effect, he is teaching groups how to psychoanalyze their targeted audiences in order to get them to behave as the groups want. He calls it 'community-based social marketing.'

I don't know about you, but I find this rather disconcerting. I know that this is the same approach taken in various advertisements of products and services, but it appears to be somewhat ominous when it's done by government, or groups funded by government.

I don't believe it's government's role to tell us what to do and how to do it. Government is not the arbitrator of what is and is not good for us, though they've taken on that nanny-type role in so many ways. Government is supposed to ensure my freedom and liberties and also to protect my rights, including my 'freedom' to behave in a way that is contrary to what they want me to do and my 'right' to do something they consider to be stupid.

Ah, but Maggie, you say, government is supposed to ensure the common good and if you're hurt in an accident because you're not wearing a seat belt and you don't have insurance, government (meaning all of us) has to pay for your 'right' to be stupid.

Well, there's an easy solution to that situation - government doesn't pay. If I happen to suffer negative consequences as a result of my decision, others should not have to bear the burden of those consequences nor their costs. Under the accident scenario, I may end up paying off a hospital debt for the rest of my life, but that's my choice and, therefore, my obligation.

If government doesn't step in to alleviate me of my responsibility (in this case, to pay my medical bills), they have no justification for dictating to me (that I should wear a seat belt).

The problem is that too many people don't want to be responsible for their actions. They have readily embraced dependence upon government for all kinds of things (housing, food, medical coverage, retirement, etc...) and they appear to be willing to accept government dictates on their behavior in order to maintain that dependence.

Of course, those who do this are no longer 'free,' but slaves to the decision-makers who make up the government.

And now we have these kinds of seminars and workshops to make changing our behaviors easier and more effective. And the scariest part of this approach is that so many will not even realize it's being used.

How the Democrat Health Plan would work

Republicans have released a chart showing the "bureaucratic nightmare" of the Democatic's government-run health care. Check it out here.

Debt, debt and more debt

Toledo City Council has several items on their agenda for their meeting next Tuesday, including issuing debt for multiple purposes. Some of them, like bonds for street improvements, are relatively routine. Others, like the $12.2 million for new garbage trucks, are not.

Interestingly, the city is again refinancing the bonds for the repair work on the Martin Luther King Bridge (Cherry Street Bridge for those of you who still haven't gotten used to the new name). Here is the text of the ordinance:

Providing for the issuance and sale of bonds in a maximum aggregate principal amount of $10,000,000 to provide funds to pay costs of improving the Martin Luther King Bridge in the City by rehabilitating, reconstructing and replacing the bascule lift spans and the bascule piers, installing new mechanical and electrical control systems, and relocating and reconstructing the operator towers, in each case together with the necessary appurtenances and work incidental thereto; and declaring an emergency.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
This is one of a series of ordinances that authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds that the City plans to sell in August 2009. The amount received from the sale of the bonds authorized by this ordinance will be used, together with other funds, to retire a prior bridge improvement note maturing on October 22, 2009. With the issuance of these bonds and the retirement of the prior note, the City’s outstanding debt will be unchanged. There will be no negative impact on debt limits.

Pursuant to Ordinance No. 723-07 passed November 13, 2007, a note in anticipation of bonds in the amount of $10,000,000, dated December 4, 2007, was issued for the purpose described in Section 2, which note was retired with funds available to the City and the proceeds of a $10,000,000 note issued in anticipation of bonds pursuant to Ordinance No. 146 08 passed March 25, 2008, as a part of a consolidated issue of $18,950,000 Capital Improvement Notes, Series 2008 1, dated May 29, 2008, which note was retired at maturity with funds available to the City and the proceeds of a $10,000,000 note issued in anticipation of bonds pursuant to Ordinance No. 548-08 passed September 9, 2008, as part of a consolidated issue of $18,760,000 Capital Improvement Notes, Series 2008-2, dated October 23, 2008, which note was retired at maturity with funds available to the City and the proceeds of a $10,000,000 note (the Outstanding Note) issued in anticipation of bonds pursuant to Ordinance No. 130-09 passed March 31, 2009, as part of a consolidated issue of $16,840,000 Capital Improvement Notes, Series 2009-1, dated May 28, 2009, which Outstanding Note is to mature on October 22, 2009.

Note how many times the city has issued notes in anticipation of bonds, paid off bonds with new bonds and paid off notes with new notes?

Each time this is done, the length of time we pay interest on this money is extended.

And we're doing the same thing with bonds to pay for a paving project on Blackstone Drive between Homer Ave and Manhattan Blvd.:

Providing for the issuance and sale of bonds in a maximum aggregate principal amount of $115,000 to provide funds to pay costs of improving Blackstone Drive from Homer Avenue to Manhattan Boulevard by grading, draining, curbing and paving; and declaring an emergency.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
This is one of a series of ordinances that authorize the issuance of general obligation bonds that the City plans to sell in August 2009. The amount received from the sale of the bonds authorized by this ordinance will be used, together with other funds, to retire a prior Blackstone Drive improvement note maturing on October 22, 2009. With the issuance of these bonds and the retirement of the prior note, the City’s outstanding debt will be unchanged. There will be no negative impact on debt limits.

Pursuant to Ordinance No. 162-06 passed March 28, 2006, a note in anticipation of bonds in the amount of $195,000 was issued for the purpose described in Section 2, as a part of a consolidated issue of $15,235,000 Capital Improvement Notes, Series 2006-1, dated May 25, 2006, which note was retired at maturity with funds available to the City and the proceeds of a $195,000 note issued in anticipation of bonds pursuant to Ordinance No. 555-06 passed March 27, 2006, as part of a consolidated issue of $12,260,000 Capital Improvement Notes, Series 2006-2, dated October 26, 2006, which note was retired at maturity with funds available to the City and the proceeds of a $195,000 note issued in anticipation of bonds pursuant to Ordinance No. 146-07 passed March 27, 2007, as part of a consolidated issue of $11,015,000 Capital Improvement Notes, Series 2007-1, dated May 24, 2007, which note was retired at maturity with funds available to the City and the proceeds of a $195,000 note issued in anticipation of bonds pursuant to Ordinance No. 639-07 passed September 18, 2007, as part of a consolidated issue of $10,770,000 Capital Improvement Notes, Series 2007-2, dated October 25, 2007, which note was retired at maturity with funds available to the City and the proceeds of a $155,000 note issued in anticipation of bonds pursuant to Ordinance No. 145-08 passed March 25, 2008, as a part of a consolidated issue of $18,950,000 Capital Improvement Notes, Series 2008-1, dated May 29, 2008, which note was retired at maturity with funds available to the City and the proceeds of a $155,000 note issued in anticipation of bonds pursuant to Ordinance No. 547-08 passed September 9, 2008, as part of a consolidated issue of $18,760,000 Capital Improvement Notes, Series 2008-2, dated October 23, 2008, which note was retired at maturity with funds available to the City and the proceeds of a $115,000 note (the Outstanding Note) issued in anticipation of bonds pursuant to Ordinance No. 129-09 passed March 31, 2009, as part of a consolidated issue of $16,840,000 Capital Improvement Notes, Series 2009-1, dated May 28, 2009, which Outstanding Note is to mature on October 22, 2009.

(I wonder how much it costs us to do each one of these transactions? I know we pay a bond counsel - attorneys - each time ...)

Now, these two items do not impact debt limits, but the $12.2 million in bonds for the garbage trucks and the $8 million in bonds for 2009 street improvements do. From those two ordinances:

The amount of the City’s outstanding debt will be increased by $12,200,000 by the issuance of these bonds. They will be subject to legal debt limits and reduce the City’s legal borrowing capacity.

and

The amount of the City’s outstanding debt will be increased by up to $8,000,000 by the issuance of these bonds. These bonds will be subject to legal debt limits and reduce the City’s legal borrowing capacity.

To top it all off, the city also wants to spend another $110,000 on an engineering study for solar fields on the landfill. They've already allocated $65,000 for this solar field study, and now their "logic" is that they need to do more of a study and do it right now so that maybe the project will be eligible for federal 'stimulus' funds. From the ordinance:

"By completing the planning and engineering for the project immediately, the City of Toledo may be able to make the project eligible to receive federal funds." (emphasis added)

So let's hurry up and go forward with this because we might get other borrowed money to help fund it ... better not worry about the lack of return on investment (ROI) or long-term operational costs that may make the project an unwise decision. Someone may give us other taxpayer money for it!

And they're going to use the Water Improvement Fund for this expenditure, though I don't see how building solar fields on a dump has anything to do with our water system....

It's just more spending and more spending ... and more debt to fund the spending.

Will it ever stop?

Toledo's Jeep Liberty listed as one of most over-priced vehicles

This is not good news for our city.

Forbes has the story:

"These days, car buyers have the upper hand when they walk into the showroom. They have access to dealer invoice prices and day supply data on the Internet--not to mention a recession that has spurred lowest-ever financing deals and unprecedented cash-back incentives.

But that doesn't mean every vehicle is a bargain; plenty are still overpriced. Right now, according to Vincentric, a firm that tracks vehicle ownership costs for the auto industry, several cars on sale now have market values far below their manufacturer's suggested retail price.

The Jeep Liberty, for example, has a true market value 20.9% lower than its MSRP(emphasis added); the Dodge Ram 2500 is worth 26% less; and the Chevrolet Trailblazer is worth 16.4% less than its MSRP.

Those three models, in particular, tell the story of the most overpriced autos currently on the market: Our entire list is comprised of vehicles manufactured by Detroit's Big Three. No foreign brands make the list, as those automakers' cars tend to be priced fairly when considering supply and demand as well as their high rankings on consumer-satisfaction surveys."

Quotes of the Day

"The modern press itself is a new phenomenon. Its typical unit is the great agency of mass communication. These agencies can facilitate thought and discussion. They can stifle it…. They can play up or down the news and its significance, foster and feed emotions, create complacent fictions and blind spots, misuse the great words and uphold empty slogans."

"Protection against government is now not enough to guarantee that a man who has something to say shall have a chance to say it. The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public."

~ both from Commission On Freedom Of The Press; Source: A Free and Responsible Press, 1947

It's called 'savings' for a reason

Dictionary.com defines 'savings' as:

–noun
5. a reduction or lessening of expenditure or outlay: a saving of 10 percent.
6. something that is saved.
7. savings, sums of money saved by economy and laid away.

Pretty simply, isn't it? Common sense? Definitely. If you have cost 'savings,' it means money not spent.

Except when it comes to politicians - especially in our area.

The most recent example is Lucas County Commissioner and mayoral candidate Ben Konop's idea for garbage.

You see, he doesn't think that anyone over 62 or disabled is capable of putting out their trash on a weekly basis - so government needs to do it for them.

Let's start with the condescending attitude that age equates to infirmity. My parents are both over the age of 62 and are perfectly capable of taking out their garbage, even in bad weather. Now, I recognize that not everyone over 62 is in good health, but to set an age limit doesn't make sense.

It does make sense to address those with disabilities. But if a person has a disability, how are they taking care of their garbage right now? The new cans will have wheels which make them easier to maneuver - and residents have the option of smaller sizes to fit their needs. So the new cans aren't any more difficult than whatever is being used right now by people with disabilities.

The suggestion that people with disabilities need help might also be offensive to those with disabilities who prefer to think of themselves as 'differently abled' and who have made accommodations for such routine tasks as taking out their garbage.

Konop also suggests that it's not 'morally right' to 'force' someone to take care of their garbage:

"It's not morally right to force a 95-year-old grandmother in the city of Toledo living alone to take one of these to the curb by herself," Mr. Konop said, pointing out the increased difficulty of doing it in winter.

This is the same Konop who thinks he has 'no moral obligation' to appear on WSPD radio, so I'm not sure about his judgment when it comes to 'moral' issues. But even if you think he's right about the grandmother, does that mean that you and I need to pay taxes in order to meet what Konop believes is a 'moral obligation'? (And just how many of these grandmothers do we actually have in Toledo????) Aye, there's the rub...and the point of this post.

He didn't have a cost estimate. "If there are additional costs, I think we can generate it from savings," he said.

I do not understand why it is that politicians, and Konop in particular, think that finding savings in government operations means that the money can be spent in another way that they think is equally, or more, important.

Konop has suggested savings in county government operations in the past - some of which I believe deserve further examination and discussion. But he didn't want to have savings in order to reduce the overall cost of government. No, he wanted those savings so he could spend the money on his pet projects (can you say government funded scholarships). And his suggestion for his latest 'bold, fresh, new' proposal is to again use taxpayer funds for what he thinks is a better use.

Konop isn't the only one - politicians do this all the time. They decide they want X so they take money from Y or generate 'savings' from cutting Z and then put the money toward what they want (or what they've told their constituents they can get them) and they think all is well. Obviously, if government has the money it needs to spend it. Heaven forbid that they actually return any of it to the taxpayer who provided it. And they only look for 'savings' when they have another need for the funds - they rarely, if ever, decide to reduce the cost and size of government 'just because' it's the right thing to do.

What they all fail to realize (or maybe they do realize and just don't care) is that savings created should not be spent in the first place - they should be used for either the long-term needs of the mandated - and limited - functions of government, to cover down times like we're having now so we jurisdictions don't end up laying off police officers, or returned to the public from whence it came.

That's what we all do with savings. Think government will ever learn that lesson?

What did Ginsburg really mean by 'the populations we don't want to have too many of'?

Yesterday, I tweeted about this statement from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which will appear in a New York Times article this weekend:

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."

Ben Domenech has a great article pointing out the serious questions this statement raises in What Does Ruth Bader Ginsburg Mean By “The Populations That We Don’t Want to Have Too Many Of”?

I highly recommend you read the entire thing - and then ask yourself 'what does Ruth Bader Ginsburg really mean'?

Carty will veto council resolution to hire firefighters in '09

Last night, Toledo City Council passed a resolution, 11-0, urging Mayor Carty Finkbeiner to appoint a class of 11 firefighters to help reduce overtime costs in the Fire Department.

The Mayor plans to veto the resolution. His response was sent to City Council and also sent out as a email press release:

Things I'd blog about if I had more time

I've been a bit busy the last couple of days, so here are some bullet points about things I'd blog about if I had more time:

* CNSNews is reporting that the global warming bill passed by the House could lead to increased regulations on fireworks.

"Americans use more than 200 million pounds of fireworks each year, the majority on July Fourth. Because fireworks emit carbon dioxide (CO2) as they burn, however, the fireworks industry may come under tighter regulation if cap-and-trade legislation passes in the Senate in coming months."

We have plenty of regulations on fireworks already - and local noise ordinances to boot. But none of that seems to matter when it comes to the Fourth of July celebrations. What makes anyone think that new regulations on fireworks because of the global-warming charade will have any impact whatsoever? And what could be more unpatriotic than to disallow the celebration of our liberties by infringing upon them in the name of some cooked-up crisis?

* "Democratic Leader Laughs at Idea That House Members Would Actually Read Health-Care Bill Before Voting On It" That's the headline in a story yesterday about when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was asked "whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote."

In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.

“Members clearly--and staff and review boards, they read them in their entirety. They go over it with members, and members read substantial portions of the bill themselves, but the issue is--I don’t know who signed this (pledge), but frankly the opposition has been very vociferous, not of the verbiage and bill, but on the concept that it incorporates,” Hoyer said.

So the concept that our representatives should read what they vote on prior to voting is what he opposes? Amazing - just simply amazing!

* I might have missed it over the past couple of days, but I didn't see this story featured prominently in any of the news:

"Washington (CNSNews.com) – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the chief culprits in the housing crisis because they encouraged people who could not afford payments to borrow money, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

The claims in the report have long been advanced by conservatives, who argue that the Community Reinvestment Act and other federal programs fed the housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to the economic downfall in 2008.

But the report explains in detail how Fannie and Freddie -- government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that were not subject to the same oversight as other publicly traded firms -- “privatized their profits but socialized their risks.”

“In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal – raising the national homeownership rate,” says the report, the result of an investigation launched last fall by Republican members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy,” says the report. “While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention.”"

Told you so!

Maybe term limits ARE the answer

"Nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents, as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens." ~ George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788

Finkbeiner to address Census issue before House subcommitte

This just in via email:

At the request of the Representative William Lacy Clay, Chairman of the Information Policy, Census, National Archives Subcommittee of the United States House of Representative, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner will testify on behalf of the City of Toledo at the congressional subcommittee hearing, entitled “Census Data and Its Use in Federal Formula Funding”.

Mayor Finkbeiner will speak about his first-hand experience as a Census Leader in 1970, his vigorous leadership to ensure an accurate census count for Toledo including the City’s partnership with Social Compact, Inc., and his concerns with the CDBG allocation formula’s effect following a successful population estimate challenge.

The prepared text of his remarks:

Remarks for Mayor Finkbeiner
Testimony before the House Committee
Information Policy, Census and National Archives
July 9, 2009 2:00 p.m.


I appreciate the opportunity to address you today on the importance of an accurate count of the census every year, particularly every ten years.

I have been Mayor of Toledo for 12 years. My experiences in attempting to get an accurate count of Toledo during that 12-year period have been rather frustrating. That is why we hired Social Compact on the recommendation of the Mayor of Cincinnati where Social Compact had helped them significantly.

I can speak today with perhaps as much knowledge of a census count as any Mayor coming before you, as I was a Census Leader in 1970 in Toledo, Ohio. I want to tell you what I learned from that experience. Many of my counters were elderly females. We began the census count in affluent, upper-middle and middle class neighborhoods. My elderly enumerators felt very comfortable as they walked up and knocked on the doors of rather spacious, extremely well kept, trendy suburban type households. My enumerators enjoyed themselves immensely.

As the weeks progressed and my enumerators completed their task in these middle-class neighborhoods, they methodically worked their way toward Central City Toledo. As they did, their enthusiasm began to taper off. Their gusto for enumerating poorer neighborhoods of significant diversity became really apparent. With multiple- story, apartment-tenement buildings as part of their daily agenda, I began to lose my crew. Ultimately, of the three-dozen members of my staff that began, one remained to tackle Central City Toledo neighborhoods. Even though others were brought onboard, they did not have the same degree of training and enthusiasm, my initial crews had.

I began to worry about a serious undercounting of the poor, the disadvantaged, and men and women of color.

In the 40 years that have gone by since, there are more poor people than ever living in the heart of our cities, including Toledo. Some are homeless men and women. Some are regular visitors at the shelters that provide food on a daily basis. Others have been released from mental hospitals, and seek counseling and meds. These men and women cling to the heart of the city where assistance is available and they are able to “fit in” as opposed to looking extremely out of the normal in those suburban and middle class enclaves I mentioned earlier.

Fast forward to my 12 years of mayor, I asked my Neighborhoods Department staff to help me estimate how many John and Jane Does were being left uncounted. It is the John and Jane Does who need the help of the Federal Government, as well as the State and Local governments, 501 C 3’s and non-profit agencies. If people that are not counted because the U.S Census workers are tentative at best, as they count the central city, (marching door-to-door, apartment-to-apartment, homeless shelter-to-homeless shelter), how can we ensure we are identifying all of our citizens?

One thing I know for sure - there are more men and women living in mobile housing conditions, in bleaker environments and in growing numbers. These men and women need the help of Federal agencies. Our responsibility is to find out how to get each and every one of these individuals counted by the U.S. Census.

During the past few years there have been numerous reports, saying that the City of Toledo, as well as Lucas County, is losing population. In preparation for our 2010 Census, the staff of the Toledo Plan Commission, at my direction and with the help of Social Compact, identified over 1400 addresses previously not recorded on the U.S. Census Bureau’s current address list. This confirmed my suspicion that there was a population undercount of housing units from 2000 to 2007 in the City of Toledo. In fact, the adjusted estimate meant that Toledo’s population in 2007 was actually higher than in 2000! Far from declining, as had been consistently reported over several years!

To the Credit of the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau, they acknowledged Toledo had a population of 316, 851, 21,822 more people than the U.S. Census Bureau’s original 2007 Population estimate. The date of that acknowledgement was January 9, 2009. A copy of the letter is attached.

Then, to my surprise, on June 2, 2009, I was sent a letter from HUD’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, stating that as a result of Toledo’s successful challenge, the city will actually be receiving $293,585 less in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding in Fiscal Year 2009. A copy of that letter is also attached.

CDBG Entitlement Communities Grants are a vital source of funding from HUD directly to Toledo. The ability to use the grants flexibly allows my administration the freedom to respond to the very specific housing and development needs of Toledo’s low and moderate-income communities. At a time when great efforts are being made to stimulate the economy, CDBG funding serves a vitally important role in that endeavor. Having successfully participated in the Census Challenge Program, we expected to receive a larger allocation in CDBG funding.

If there are more people in the City of Toledo as confirmed by the federal government, but increasing poverty and unemployment topping at 12 percent, why would City of Toledo’s CDBG allocation be reduced? I can only conclude that the CDBG allocation formula needs to be addressed to rectify the situation facing the City of Toledo.

In closing, the City of Toledo, regardless of current formula allocations, will continue to strive for accurate data for investment and planning purposes. And we will continue to work cooperatively with our community and the U.S. Census Bureau to make sure every citizen of the City of Toledo is counted.

Each human infant is given a name at birth. Until death, they are to remain a concern of a caring society. Without a name or identity, they may as well be condemned to death. None of us want that. Therefore let’s make sure every person is counted.

A picture is worth ...

I was stuck by this photo from the Drudge Report story about President Barack Obama's trip to Russia (photo on the left):


I realize that photographers capture only a split second in time with a single picture, but this photo looks as if our President is reaching our and warmly embracing his host...but not so much from the other side. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev seems to be acting in a more perfunctory manner, not even bothering to look at Obama.

Is this just a moment in time, or a reflection of what the Russian president thinks of Pres. Obama?

'The bacchanal wil continue...'

At Bloomberg.com, Kevin Hassett writes:

"It takes years and years to make a mess as terrible as the California debacle, but the recipe is simple. All that you need is two political parties that are always willing to offer easy government solutions for every need of the voters, but never willing to make the tough decisions necessary to finance the government largess that results. Voters will occasionally change their allegiance from one party to the other, but the bacchanal will continue regardless of the names on the office doors."

I hope you'll read the entire article linked above

The union contract 'savings' that aren't

On Thursday, the City of Toledo issued a press release 'documenting' the savings from the tentative contract agreement with the Toledo Police Patrolman's Association:


















As you can see from the chart, the PERS pension roll back is only for six months only 7% of the 10% employee portion. Any new employees will pay their full portion of 10%, as the chart shows. This also means that the city is counting on hiring new police officers in 2010. If the city does not put on a class after recalling the remaining laid off police, there are no savings in that category.

The co-pay on the insurance is a good move and it looks as if that is included as a provision for all three years. But the elimination of the stipends and tuition reimbursements is only for 2009, which means these will be a continuing cost in future years.

Then there is the overtime deferral, with employees being eligible to use comp time instead. While it's listed as a savings in 2009 and 2010, there is no way the city can no this figure. The administration cannot predict how many patrol officers will choose the time versus the pay or some combination thereof. And it really doesn't matter because general accounting practices require the city to calculate the obligation on the books. The agreement calls for any overtime not converted into comp time to be paid out in March 2010, leaving the expense for the next mayor to deal with in next year's budget.

And there are no guarantees that next year's budget won't be as bad as this year's.

So the real savings in 2009 is only $1,605,785. Technically they're 'saving' more when you add in what they don't have to pay for the overtime, but since that money has to be paid out eventually, it's not a 'savings'.

And the real savings in 2010 turns out to be no savings at all. When you add the cost of the deferred overtime payments of $878,000 to the claimed savings of $774,000, you get a negative $104,000.

This contract's actual savings are about $1.5 million in 2009. And that's good for the '09 budget. But the agreement will actually cost us $104,000 in 2010 and even more in 2011 when the wages are scheduled to go up 3.5% (which also means that overtime and pension costs, because they are calculated upon the wage, will go up).

While we've dodged one of the small bullets aimed at us in 2009, we've done nothing about the cannon balls still coming in from this contract, and others, in the future.

I hope members of council recognize this prior to voting on the agreement tomorrow.

New catch phrase for our time

Paul Miller has a great op-ed piece that looks at what our founders fought for 233 years ago.

We're all familiar with 'no taxation without representation' and today many justify outrageous taxation on the grounds that it's okay simply because our 'representatives' have approved it.

I like the phrase 'no taxation without information,' which Miller, and others, use. But he gives us an additional one that I think will get much more play:

Stop ramming it through before the people can review.

It's a message all in Congress need to hear - loudly!

Happy Fourth of July!!!

"Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." ~ Leviticus 25:10 Inscription on the Liberty Bell

Quotes of the Day

More quotes regarding our government and founding documents:

“A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the “social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact." ~ Black's Law Dictionary

"...The Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have the right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any circumstances." ~ Harry Browne

Kaptur refuses to release info on calls for/against cap and tax bill

UPDATE: Maybe we'll start a trend...Kansas Meadowlark has also filed a FOIA request for similar information from his congressman, Rep. Dennis Moore.

And this isn't the first time.

This morning on WSPD, they read an email from Lisa who recounted her experience with Rep. Marcy Kaptur's office when she requested to know the number of for and against communications regarding the Waxman-Markey energy bill, more properly known as the cap and tax (not cap and trade) bill.

She was told, as they have informed others, that they don't keep that information. She had two polite conversations with individuals in the office, one of whom told her the majority of calls were in favor of the bill. How they knew that if they didn't keep count was not explained.

Then Steve Fought, Kaptur's communications director, got on the line. Lisa described his demeanor as 'rude.' He said they weren't required to give out that information. When Lisa asked about accountability, Fought explained that Kaptur is accountable to the Constitution.

Well, that's true. So where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to require us to retrofit our homes according to some government-created standard?

But it's also true that as our representative, Kaptur is accountable to us, the people she's supposed to be representing. And if she refuses to tell us, on numerous occasions, what her constituents have instructed her to do, how do we hold her accountable?

Aye, there's the rub.

But the bigger problem is that this information is a public record. So today I used the 'contact me' form on her website and made a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for anything that documents the communications from her constituents on this bill. I used the FOIA Letter Generator to help me word it properly and, because I'm a blogger, requested a waiver of fees, as allowed under the law.

The instructions of the public relating to this bill are critical to know, especially because she was reported to be undecided, saying it would "have an economic impact on the Midwest" and that she was "uncomfortable with the idea of trading carbon permits." But after her $3.5 billion pork project was included, she voted yes.

We need to know if she voted yes in because of her constituent instructions - or if the $3.5 billion was the cost to overcome the will of those she's supposed to represent.

I'll keep you posted on any response to my request.

Quote of the Day

A perspective from the past as we celebrate the Fourth of July:

"About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If govern­ments derive their just powers from the con­sent of the governed, that is final.
...
No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propo­sitions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress." ~ President Calvin Coolidge, July 5, 1926

Another poor ranking for Ohio

Mercatus has a new ranking out on freedom by state.

"This paper presents the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres."

Ohio ranked 38th out of 50, and ended up in the top 10 worst states for personal freedoms. From the report:

Ohio
Ohio (#32 economic, #46 personal, #38 overall) has much to improve. Adjusted government spending is over a standard deviation higher than average. Ohio is higher than average in every spending category except transportation. Gun control laws are relatively poor, though not in a class with Illinois, New Jersey, and others. Marijuana laws are liberal overall, but cultivation and sale sentencing could be reformed. Most gambling is illegal. Private and home school regulations are unreasonable, including teacher licensure and mandatory state approval of home
school curricula. Asset forfeiture rules are appropriate. Eminent domain reform has not gone nearly far enough. Draconian smoking bans are in place.

Quotes of the Day

More quotes as we prepare to celebrate our nation's birth:

Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it." ~ as recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry.

"I answered that the die was now cast; I had passed the Rubicon. Swim or sink, live or die, survive or perish with my country was my unalterable determination." ~ John Adams

"There, I guess King George will be able to read that." ~ John Hancock

Is this retaliation for filing a lawsuit?

I received this press release at 9:13 a.m.:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, July 2, 2009

Mayor Finkbeiner holds Press Conference to address unkempt properties

Today, at 2:00 p.m., Mayor Finkbeiner and city officials will hold a press conference to address unkempt properties and the City of Toledo's responsibility for enforcing housing, nuisance, and zoning codes. The press conference will be held at CMT Limited & State Line Group LLC - 210 W. Alexis.

The Media is respectfully asked to attend.

###

What struck me was the address, only because it stuck in my mind when I heard it as part of a lawsuit filed against the city and I wondered where, exactly, 210 W. Alexis was...

According to NBC24,

Christian Ewert, owner of CMT Limited and State Line Group, claims Susan Frederick seized vehicles from his company's Alexis Rd. lot without legal reasons.

In a lawsuit filed by Ewert's attorney, the West Toledo business owner says that in September of 2008, Frederick, who is currently director of the city's Streets, Bridges and Harbor, trespassed oh his property and entered his business with "absence of consent, or other lawful justification." The suit alleges Frederick entered a "fenced-in storage area and had numerous cars, boats, trailers, pickup trucks, and mobile homes towed away."

Frederick is alleged to have used bolt cutters to gain access to a gated area of the lot. A number of other vehicles were improperly towed from the lot, according to the lawsuit

You can view a copy of the lawsuit filed in Lucas County Tuesday here.

Frederick Lawsuit 063009 .

This part of Alexis road is more industrial than anything else and I suppose the press conference will take place on the sidewalk because I cannot imagine the owner letting the mayor onto his property when there is a lawsuit pending.

Additionally, I cannot believe that the city law department would condone such a press conference, which can clearly be considered retaliation for filing the lawsuit or even harassment for daring to challenge the city. Of course, the Finkbeiner administration has developed a reputation for doing just that, so perhaps this is no surprise.

If I can, I'll video the press conference and post it here.

UPDATE:At 1:30, Megan Robson sent out a press release saying the conference was changed to 2:30. I will not be able to attend it now, but will follow the media reports...

Will police concessions be enough?

The City of Toledo and the Toledo Police Patrolman's Association have reached a tentative contract and the TPPA has voted to approve it. Toledo City Council will vote today.

There were concessions by the union - many were not insignificant. They include no pay increases in 2009 and 2010, but a 3.5% raise in 2011; members paying 7% of their pension from July-December; paying a portion of their health insurance costs; and overtime payments being postponed until March 2010.

While these are probably good compromises, there are still problems for the citizens in terms of the long-term issues of unsustainable government costs.

I'm glad the TPPA will be paying 7% of their 10% pension contribution, since right now they pay nothing with the city (taxpayers) picking up the city's share as well as the employee's share (total of 29.5%). But having the union members make a portion of their own payment for six months does not address the problem that these pension pick-ups are unsustainable, and grossly out of whack with what the private market in Toledo is doing. Additionally, they 'traded' that concession for 6.5 more vacation days to be used over the same time frame.

The best part of the arrangement is that new officers will be required to pay their 10% pension share. Perhaps this is the start of addressing the problem, which exists in all of city government. If so, this is a good thing. However, if this is just a temporary step for the existing employees, we will find ourselves right back in the same mess for each upcoming yearly budget.

The same goes for the overtime. The city is not saving any money, just postponing when it will be paid. In effect, we're incurring costs we cannot now afford with the hope that the money will be available next year. Nothing in the economy or in the decisions about spending being made by the administration and council indicate that our situation in 2010 will be any different than now. In fact, because they've put off maintenance-type actions and removed money from the Capital Improvements Budget to balance the General Fund, we'll eventually find ourselves without the money for our capital needs as well.

Then there is the issue of the trash tax. Included in the tentative agreement is a little clause that says it is in the interest of both the union and the administration that the council address the deficit through revenue enhancements. In an interview with WSPD this morning (podcast will be here when posted), TPPA President Dan Wagner said the union agrees the budget must be balanced with either cuts in spending or additional revenue.

This contract does not solve the city's budget deficit. Neither will similar concessions by other unions who still haven't agreed on new contracts. So the administration is still insisting upon an increase in the trash tax (the equivalent of a 3.91 mill levy) and eliminating the payroll income tax reciprocity for Toledoans who work outside the city, both of which have been rejected by city council.

Stay tuned...

Cap and Tax bill may mean retrofits for all homes

CNSNews is reporting the following:

The 1,400-page cap-and-trade legislation pushed through by House Democrats contains a new federal policy that residential, commercial, and government buildings be retrofitted to increase energy efficiency, leaving it up to the states to figure out exactly how to do that.

This means that homeowners, for example, could be required to retrofit their homes to meet federal “green” guidelines in order to sell their homes, if the cap-and-trade bill becomes law.

The bill, which now goes to the Senate, directs the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement a national policy for residential and commercial buildings. The purpose of such a strategy – known as the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) – would be to “facilitate” the retrofitting of existing buildings nationwide.

“The Administrator shall develop and implement, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy for single-family and multi-family residences,” the bill reads.

It continues: “The purpose of the REEP program is to facilitate the retrofitting of existing buildings across the United States.”

The bill leaves the definition of a retrofit and the details of the REEP program up to the EPA. However, states are responsible for ensuring that the government’s plans are carried out, whatever the final details may entail.

“States shall maintain responsibility for meeting the standards and requirements of the REEP program,” the bill says.

Here is the full text of H.R. 2454 as approved by the House. Title II, subtitle A:: Building Energy Efficiency Codes contains the specifics relating to this portion of the law. Section 202 details the Building Retrofit Program for residential homes.

The bill also establishes a national building code that states must enforce - and, of course, threatens a loss of federal funds for non-compliance. Can you say 'state sovereignty' and 'states rights'?

Maybe if they'd actually read the bill - and allowed all of us time to read it, we'd already know about these details that are going to cost us considerably....

Kaptur makes Drudge headline for pork in energy bill

Here's the Drudge Report with a link to a story on Rep. Marcy Kaptur's 'sweetener' for her vote in favor of the Waxman-Markey energy bill (bottom left column):


According to the story from the Washington Times (be sure to read the comments, too), Kaptur was undecided until this was added. Her spokesman said it was a factor in her decision.

But not everyone from Ohio liked the idea:

"Although the program would benefit his home state, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, also of Ohio, criticized the provision during a more-than-hourlong speech Friday evening. He said an Ohio-based power authority was unneeded because electricity already flows well through Ohio without a new federal power authority.

"We do it today," he said. "We are doing it already." "

My problem is with the logic of her request - the federal government is doing this sort of subsidizing elsewhere, so we should get money and the program, too.

I think that's part of what's wrong with government - everyone trying to get funding for their special interest because someone else got funding. Instead, legislators should be working to eliminate such federal spending on pet projects and return the money to the taxpayers, who wouldn't need such 'help' if the feds weren't taking so much of their own money to begin with. But that's just me...

However, in this case, we're going to be stuck paying a $3.5 billion bill for a pet project of a legislator in exchange for her vote on a law that will cost of dearly in terms of increased energy expenses on everything. What a bargain!

Charging for Sheriff patrols needs to be uniform

The Lucas County Commissioners and Sheriff James Telb have been meeting with and telling township trustees that they will now have to pay for services from the Sheriff's Department.

I understand the county's desire to collect more revenue for the Sheriff's Department - which habitually overspends and is rarely able to stay within their approved budget.

As a commissioner, I advocated against bailing out the Sheriff when he couldn't meet his budget, but was always on the losing end of that idea. My position was that rewarding his overspending with more funds just encouraged the poor fiscal behavior.

Then there is the general perspective that government should fund its mandates before doing anything else, and if the Sheriff's Department has a mandate to 'preserve the public peace' in the county, then that should receive funding before any 'initiative' that is the fancy of any commissioner.

Comm. Ben Konop has identified several cost saving measures (from a 4-day work week to lowering thermostats in buildings, including privatizing some services), but he wants to use those funds to give some Lucas County residents a 'free' college education (though it wouldn't really be 'free' if they have to 'serve' after graduation). He, and the other commissioners, reject using those cost saving ideas to fund current services - like the Sheriff's patrol in the unincorporated areas of the county.

This is part of the overall expansion of government that many, including me, find so repulsive: available dollars or cost savings are not used to reduce OUR payments to government, but to provide more and more 'services' for some while continuing to expect the same, and often more, funding from the rest of us.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that billing the townships for the services of the Sheriff Department makes sense and is the 'right' thing to do.

Will the Commissioners and Sheriff also charge the City of Toledo? Or is this just a billing of the townships?

The Sheriff has a downtown Toledo patrol car/route that covers many of the county buildings. Around the first of May, at the urging of Konop, the Sheriff agreed to some additional services within Toledo to help with the safety of citizens after the city laid off police officers.

According to the paper at the time, these are some of the arrangements made:

- Deputies who already patrol county buildings will be more available to respond to police calls downtown.

- Toledo Police would get first-in-line status at booking prisoners in the jail to get officers back to the street more quickly.

- Off-duty deputies will be assigned to the schools to replace Toledo police known as "school resource officers" for the rest of the school year. The school districts would pay for the deputies' time.

- Laid-off officers would be deputized so they can continue to earn money "projecting" at supermarkets, baseball games, and concerts. The entities hiring the officers would pay for the uniforms and gear.

- Deputies would attend Block Watch meetings in place of Toledo police officers.

- The sheriff would keep four SWAT team officers on duty to back up Toledo in an emergency.

Some of these have no costs associated with them - but others do, as Telb explained:

"We understand it's a bad situation and we'll do the best we can in the sheriff 's office to do our part to try to make the streets as safe as we can, at very limited cost."

So - if there are 'limited' costs, will Toledo be charged for those costs the same as the townships? And at the same rate?

If the commissioners believe that some jurisdictions should pay for road patrols by the Sheriff, certainly they agree that ALL jurisdictions should be treated the same, and charged the same rate.

I'll be interested to see how much Toledo is charged for the patrols within their limits.