Let’s help legalize democracy

Government-by-and-for-businesses was bad enough before the U.S. Supreme Court gave foreign and domestic corporations new power to interfere with our already-failing democracy.

The situation and what’s being done about it are summarized by “Move To Amend,” a project of the Campaign to Legalize Democracy:

“On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

“We Move to Amend.

“We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:
Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.

“Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate ‘preemption’ actions by global, national, and state governments.”

If you want to sign a petition to help get this done, go to: http://www.movetoamend.org/

Go to the Obama wellhead

When I wrote “Shall we call it quits, America?” a comment by “nooman” asked: “I’m curious Bruce, what is is specifically that you think we should be standing behind this President on?”

Let’s look first at what’s happening with this Presidency.

1) Mr. Obama was elected, in part, because the middle class felt betrayed by unfair influences on federal government’s activities. That means the way lobbyists for special interests buy votes and thus steal our tax money and freedoms. Mr. Obama went to Washington partly on promises to change that and thus improve the lot of the middle class.

2) The President has launched a fight on our behalf with these special interests, largely multinational corporations which, in effect, nullify the wishes and needs of individual citizens by attempting to insulate incumbents from defeat at the polls. That’s what the President has gone to war against and he needs to mobilize and inspire the middle class to back him.

3) To do that requires facing off with the world’s best spin doctors, the people who have mastered media control and disinformation (meaning to deliberately mislead with partial or slanted or false information). I believe these special interests/multinationals control the nation’s mass media from the top, so the insertion of disinformation has a clear and easy path.

So back to “nooman’s” question: First way to stand behind the President is to find out what he is trying to accomplish by learning exactly what he’s saying. That’s the most important way we can support him: just listen to him without the disinformation filters.

Maybe it’s common knowledge by now that anything you get from mass media is filtered by definition (they have to filter it in order to present it). But what isn’t common knowledge is who is filtering and why. To find out, follow the money. See who owns mass media in this country. Look at their corporate interests. See if they have financial reasons to doctor the “news” in a way that favors multi-national corporations and other organizations with some bucks to be made from Washington.

Since you can’t be certain what the President is saying via mass media, then you have to go to the wellhead. The White House provides a thorough and user-friendly web site where you can read transcripts of every Presidential speech and reports on all Presidential activities. That’s where you can get your no-spin facts.

Go to The Briefing Room http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room for current Presidential announcements and statements of policy. For instance, today (2/4/10) there are five articles from yesterday’s White House news (Press Secretary briefing; meeting with governors on energy; steps to boost biofuels; memorandum on strategy on carbon capture and storage; and remarks by the President to Senate Democrats). On that same index page are links to eight categories of information covering Presidential policies, actions and legislation.

You can search the entire site by key word. From that, you can use one of several filters to arrive at the articles closest to your interests. If you want a no-spin report on what the President said and how he said it, type in any subject and get it straight.

Until you’re willing to do that much for own education, don’t even think you have a clue about what the President says, thinks, or does. So that’s the single best way to stand behind the President: Get your facts straight.

Newark remains unstimulated

Federal “stimulus” dollars were supposed to create jobs as a means of undoing the damage to our economy by Wall Street sharpies, bankers, unregulated monopoly businesses of all stripes, and by government. But in Newark we are far from stimulated. In fact, as one commentator said, the people of Newark are selling hamburgers to each other for survival.

A tedious and uncertain trip through the federal stimulus brag sheet on the web reveals that two jobs have been created for the private sector locally. The rest of the $27,494,419 total in grants for zip code 43055 has created 26.58 additional jobs (on paper), all of them apparently are government jobs if indeed any were created.

A lot of that money went to schools and a lot to construction projects - projects the government would have to take care of anyway. So government feeds itself more of our tax dollars - as usual - as a way to stimulate our economy.

The two local jobs created (on paper at least) from a $171,787 grant went to Newark Townehomes, 11 Daugherty Circle in Newark. This is a HUD property I was told, and I think it’s owned by a corporation in Columbus, but I couldn’t substantiate that because whoever answered the phone wasn’t too talkative.

So there you have two jobs in the private sector for Newark out of all the billions nationally for bankers, stock brokers, auto manufacturers, auto dealerships and governments.

If you did not receive one of the two jobs and were are not already working for government or a school your financial outlook is probably like mine: It hasn’t been this bad for decades. Meanwhile, the greed of companies like Time-Warner Cable, property tax collectors, oil companies and other monopolies, seems boundless.

Before his election, Obama & Company were on Ohio like flies on manure. Now he keeps in contact, with me at least, by sending incessant e-mails asking for donations for this Democrat project or that. There’s a red button to use for donating.

I’d really like to donate Mr. Obama and the Democrats a hamburger as a symbol of the two new jobs we’ve received in Newark.

Unfortunately, there’s no red button for hamburgers - and I couldn’t afford it anyway.

Unlike Ohio senators, clowns are professionals

Before passage of the Ohio budget in late December, Senate Republicans removed from the bill a provision that would have cut legislative salaries by five percent. This is great news to tax-weary Ohioans, knowing that legislators have so favored themselves because they only make $60,584 a year for part-time jobs with full benefits.

We appreciate their exemplary performance in not only representing their own interests, but for having frittered countless opportunities to do something important - anything important - but have used their time, instead, to bash political opponents as they try to influence the next election.

Thomas Suddes, whose political commentary is reproduced in the Dispatch, wrote on 12/13/09 “The only differences between the Republican-run Ohio Senate and the Ringling Bros. circus is that the Senate doesn't charge admission (unless you lobby), and Ringling clowns are professionals.”

In this essay he reports that of the 219 Senate bills introduced in 2009 three reached the governor’s desk. “That means (a) most Senate bills are just publicity stunts ... or (b) Republican senators ... aren’t dying of overwork.” Read his essay here. I personally favor the (a) option. And the (b) option.

While the solution for school financing has never been more distant in Ohio law books, our lawmakers nevertheless reserve plenty of time to interfere with lives of constituents. Consider wine purchases and auto wipers.

They had time to protect the interests of the Ohio Wine Producers Association with a new law that limits your household to no more than 24 cases of wine in one year. To understand the details, here’s a link to the Dispatch report.

Also, Ohio’s new law that makes little people turn on their lights when they use their auto wipers went into effect recently. That should draw international ridicule for crude and disruptive government interference.

It is, of course, one of those publicity stunts, but one that backfired with people who know in their hearts they are smart enough to figure out when to turn on their lights. Just when you think government has reached the limit for stupidity, along comes something like this.

Remember, on election day, not those politicians’ deprecating proclamations; remember their performance. If your public servants haven’t been part of the solution to your problems then they are a cause of your problems. That will be the only important point of focus when you step in the voting booth.

EDIT 1/5/10
State Rep. Jay Hottinger wasn’t in the crosshairs of this essay because he isn’t a senator. He is, however, among those I’ve indirectly criticized, without naming him, for what I’ve called, politely, “deprecating proclamations.”

I’m glad he called me 1/4/10 to brief me on his position regarding the state budget and other matters. As our representative from the 71st District we should keep up on what he’s thinking and how he’s voting, but unfortunately there is no easy way to do this, given the lack of interest by the Advocate and the Dispatch.

Related to the above essay, Jay said he supports the 5% pay cut for legislators and he voted against the windshield wiper bill.

He also addressed the state of Ohio economics. Most everyone who cares knows he is a loud and frequent critic of Governor Stickland’s budget. He said this is because it allows for a $5-$8 billion short-fall in a few years.

I said, ok, what are your solutions? He rattled off several possibilities, often adding that he wasn’t sure he’d fully support each of them or some such disclaimer. But from my hasty and incomplete notes, here’s what he said:

One source of more income would be a penny added to the sales tax. That would produce a billion dollars a year, he said.

The rest of his ideas were focused on the other side of the balance sheet: savings. Here are areas he would study: 1) Reform government pensions; 2) make cost-saving corrections in the way the state bids and awards construction projects; 3) prison reforms that would provide for fewer inmates; 4) reduced reimbursement to nursing homes by Medicaid; 5) privatization of the Ohio Turnpike; 6) repeal what are or will be non-funded mandates to schools such as the proposals for a) all-day kindergarten; b) adding 20 days to the school year; c) teacher ratio of 15 students per teacher (presently it is 21-1).

Without adding my thoughts about his thoughts at this point, that’s what he said.

Lesson learned - Election Reflection #3

The lesson to be learned from the overthrow of the Heath regime is that it is indeed possible to rein in government. That is a lesson worth remembering, worth repeating, worth applying.

We are by habit and training cowed by the political thickness of government bureaucracies. Consequently, we sigh, grow more angry and frustrated - and give up, go along. That’s how we are contained by the system; it makes us simply give up.

Most of the time.

Except when along comes a leader like Ronnie Kidd who demonstrates how wrong it is to simply give up.

I suspect he was motivated by anger at the injustice of what was happening in the city where he lived. But he was smart enough to harness that anger in a constructive way, to summon self-control and strike at the problem with facts.

Astoundingly, Ronnie wielded these facts against the power of the entire community establishment, including the Advocate. The facts won, the knowledge of the injustices won.

Not that Ronnie worked alone. He would likely be the first to credit those few very dedicated and brave individuals who joined the battle, and also the businesses who offered quiet, behind-the-scenes support. But this is another lesson to be remembered: Once a leader steps forward, if that leader is believable and dedicated and has a righteous goal, others will join.

What Ronnie and his small band of Freedom Fighters won can also be won in Newark, in Licking County government, in the Statehouse, in the U.S. Capitol and White House.

That is the lesson Ronnie Kidd has taught us.

Trash solution: Use laws on the books

Yesterday, the Advocate - again - editorialized in favor of a city contract with a trash hauler to solve the piggish behavior of certain residents who soil their yards and sidewalks with trash.

The last time the Advocate did that, I suggested that newspapers be licensed, since Gannett is so willing to take away freedom of individuals and give it to the Magic Nanny. Such a license might require Gannett to move its printing operation out of Newark as a means to save wear on the city’s streets. Read it here.

Trash-talking is an on-going pastime in Newark Ohio and its disciples are preparing another dopey offensive on free enterprise. Trash is a favorite avenue by which local meddlers attempt more regulation on private affairs, as I said in the most recent essay, 3/9/09, at this link.

Meanwhile, citizens have consistently sent the message to council- and busybodies like the “Trash Talkers” - and the Advocate - to butt out of the trash collection business.

The solution for the pigs among us is simple. The city must enforce its own laws against fouling yards, sidewalks, and streets. The laws are on the books.

Unless something’s changed since I checked it in March, 2009, all the city needs is to enforce 660.04 (Noxious odors; filthy accumulations ...); and 660.05 (Duty to keep sidewalks in repair and clean); but especially at 1860.03 (a), (1), (2), (6) and 1860.04 (a), (1). They prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.

Talk all the intrusive and ill-conceived and bothersome “solutions” to trash you can think of, but to clean it up, the administration, the police, and the courts need only to enforce current laws.

Kill the deer humanely

More than two years ago I wrote (Deer are like rats) that if government would butt out of deer control and let landowners handle it themselves, deer overpopulation would soon vanish. Of course that will not happen as long as the bureaucrats at ODNR and certain businesses feed off deer-hunting profits.

I suggested in January 2008 that governments should arrange for sharpshooters to dispense with these nuisance animals (Get a grip on the deer problem: Shoot them). I also mentioned as an aside that bow hunting, in my view, is animal abuse, more cruel than a well-aimed bullet to the brain.

Now, a year and a half later, the Advocate editorialist awoke to the need to get serious about the deer nuisance and start killing them,or as she put it, “repel the deer invasion.” With bows.

Bow hunter persons can squee their pants over the chance to kill animals with bows in the city and get approval, and free meat and - yes - even gratitude. But gunning deer is way less cruel and a lot safer if done by professionals; still nobody has had the brains to follow through. And government still hasn’t figured out how to profit from slash-and-slaughter with bows and arrows, so government still doesn’t seem convinced it should participate.

So here’s a suggestion. Hire a deer eradication company, kill the deer humanely, sell the meat to a packer or to individuals and charge a fee. There we have 1) a business or businesses profiting, 2) Newark government profiting 3) deer meat made available to people who like deer meat, and 4) ridding the city of its most destructive pests.

How sharpshooters are employed to kill deer is described in Deer Control Methods and at wiki.answers.com Is deer sharpshooting a good way to control deer population?

Natural Resource Consultants, Inc. of Fort Hill PA specializes in managing deer herds. Its web site is http://agmap.psu.edu/Businesses/2795 The contact is: Bryon Shissler Phone: (814) 395-5335.

The clash of Heath war drums and Aussie cameras

Likely the cameras along Ohio 79 are going to get a one-way ticket back to Redflex headquarters Australia, perhaps to the beat of angry citizens’ war drums.

That Heath’s traffic-“safety”-for-profit isn’t making any friends for the mayor or city council has been obvious for several days. Now city fathers okayed the mailing of 8,483 traffic tickets for a chunk of pain valued at $848,300 for driving in Heath, according to Ronnie Michael Kidd, who’s leading citizens’ battle against the invading Aussies.

Warm feelings toward Heath government were already fading before two councilmen were observed smirking while being addressed by a citizen about the traffic cameras: Tim Kelley, who works for the City of Newark in the Engineering Department, and Councilman Ron Krueger, a dentist doing business at 1102 Hebron Rd. The sound and the pace of the war drums intensified.

(Other Heath Council members with business interests on the Gotcha Strip are Council President Jeff Crabill who works at Fairfield Mortgage, 1357 Hebron Rd., Christopher May, associated with Honeybaked Ham, 1006 Hebron Rd. and with Dairy Queen, 720 Hebron Rd.)

It pleases me that Ronnie is proving how a pissed-off citizen can change the course of history. (This is also being demonstrated in Newark affairs by Rhonda Loomis and Lesa Best who are single-handedly kicking government butt, taking names and bringing improvements. Meanwhile, more and more citizens seem less afraid to talk back to bureaucrats.)

The beat goes on angrily in the Advocate comments, with Ronnie patiently and politely and factually responding to a gaggle of what are likely Heath government employees hiding behind screen names.

At least some of that commenting energy might better be spent writing to State Representative Hottinger and State Senator Tim Schaffer, who should have already outlawed the Aussie invaders and others of their ilk. In fact, they should have been on it when Mayor Diebold first tried to slip the cameras into Newark.

Other links and more background to this outsourcing of “justice” are at this link.

A law to prevent this type of highway robbery was introduced about four years ago and co-sponsored by then-State Representative Dave Evans. Then-State Senator Jay Hottinger voted for the senate version. This bill, which mandated that a police officer operate each traffic camera, or at least be nearby, passed both houses but was vetoed by consistently-anti-citizen then-Governor Taft so this travesty of justice from Australia is still legal in Ohio.

There is one bright spot to all this. At last folks in and out of Heath have heard of Richard J. Waugh, and know who he is. Retired from the insurance business, he is now the mayor of Heath, unaffectionately called “10-Watt” by some angry constituents.

I would love to know the names of all the politicians who are benefactors of traffic-ticketing company lobbyists. There’s a good research project for any and all citizen-soldiers who don’t like aboriginal music.

Birth of the Fifth Estate

The Washington Post publisher recently planned to sell seats - for as much as $250,000 each - at a private meeting between lobbyists and federal government officials with some of the paper’s journalists attending.

The thought of such an affair is abhorrent to principled journalists. It guts the concept of the “Fourth Estate,” which is the notion that because the press keeps an eye on government officials they will conduct themselves honorably.

That the Post would stoop to such depths says much about the reality of Big Publishers being in bed with Big Government which has for many decades already been in bed with Big Business. It magnifies the degree to which the news organizations have abandoned consumers, and explains why readers and viewers are jumping ship. We already could sense that Washington and Columbus press corps is a con job under direction of corporate money managers. Here’s Exhibit A.

Exposure of this fiasco was a media milestone, but it has gone virtually unreported. A search of the Advocate and Dispatch archives came up blank. Nor was much if anything made of it anywhere that I saw except Editor & Publisher reports. No big deal to the media.

Once it was so exposed the Post called it off and surprising to me were on-line commenters to follow-up reports (in E&P, I think). Many were media people concerned not by degree of self-serving arrogance in the Post affair, but with advice to the Post about damage control.

Perhaps the most important thing about this is that it was exposed not by the establishment press, but by Politico.com - by bloggers. The 7/2/09 report is at this link.

This apparently means that now we have a Fifth Estate - a machine to keep us aware of how worthless the Fourth Estate has become.

Robo-cop ticketing demands citizen scrutiny and oversight

At issue in the Heath robo-cop traffic-ticket caper is far more than who’s going to get caught running red lights and how. No. At issue is who is making government’s decisions about guilt or innocence and about whether those decisions could be based on profitability.

At the center is Redflex, a company headquartered in Australia, a company with revenue of $88.2 million and a net profit in 2007 of $15.3 million. How it operates has been best described in a USA Today article of 7/5/06. The article should have inspired more media attention and citizen concern. Now, three years later, Redflex has its own little money factory right here in Heath Ohio and local citizens will begin making contributions to the corporate net worth and the Heath treasury will take a percentage as reward for being the facilitator.

Yesterday (6/16/09) I published an essay in Observations from Newark Ohio based on an Advocate blog post of 6/13/09 by RonnieMicheal - “Questions for the Heath Mayor and City Council,” the recent Heath City Council meeting, and the resulting Advocate report, which elicited many reader comments.

The questions raised by Ronnie will affect more than just the Heath community because if citizens of, and visitors to, that city give permission for a company headquartered in Australia to oversee or even participate in local traffic enforcement, then all of Licking County won’t be far behind. Heath is where that battle will be played out.

This is about accountable, open government - and justice guaranteed to be just. It is about the principle of criminal justice for the sake of corporate profit, foreign corporate profit at that.

The issues are not easily understood and my essay yesterday didn’t help much. Today, I attempt to boil it down a bit by paraphrasing Ronnie’s original questions and explaining why they are important. They are:

1, 14, 15 - How was the study made and by whom?

(How the study was made and by whom and for what reasons is directly connected to the validity of these studies. Also, since the studies were made on an Ohio state highway, it seems that ODOT should have been a participant and should verify any such studies and also give its approval for installation of cameras, being as they must be, placed on a public highway right-of-way. Maybe ODOT was a part of it, maybe not.)

5 - Was the contract for the red light/speed cameras put up for competitive bid?

(State laws in many/most cases require competitive biding for purchases over a certain amount. Are those laws applicable to this agreement, and if so, were the followed?)

6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 18, 24, 60 - Content of the Redflex contract.

(This contract should be published on the Internet.)

17, 33, 35, 38 - Will the amount collected in fines become public record? Who maintains authority over timing of lights and how and by whom is that timing determined?

(How much, if any, oversight to this program will citizens be allowed? How much control will be maintained by local officials over Redflex?)

19, 27, 28 - Will citations be issued from Heath or Arizona?

(According to USA Today, “Redflex checks images for quality and turns them over to the city's traffic law enforcement agency, which reviews it for a violation and mails a ticket to the vehicle owner.” This implies the possibility of loopholes by which the tickets could be passed along to drivers without a thorough or meaningful review by police. So how are we guaranteed this will not happen? Must we simply accept the word of the Heath mayor and police chief both of whom will eventually be replaced by their successors? How are limitations on personal information gathered by Redflex guaranteed, if at all?)

This is the last trench, a final battleground where the power of the electorate will be heard - or not. Those who care must offer input and demand answers.

Issues with robo-cop tickets have not been laid to rest

Potential problems and injustices connected with installation of red light cameras by the City of Heath have not been laid to rest, notwithstanding an Advocate report that would seem to make it so.

As background to a Heath council meeting last night, there has been a continuing show of dissatisfaction in blogs and comments to news items about robocop traffic tickets ever since the idea was announced.

Two blog entries in particular should have drawn followup by the media. The first was a reproduction of an article that appeared in thenewspaper.com “A journal of the politics of driving.”

The article, entitled “Red Light Camera Studies Roundup” was reproduced by Advocate blogger “nekekami’s page,” 6/2/09. It listed nine legitimate and important studies that cast doubt on the value and trustworthiness of robocop traffic enforcement.

Full reports by University of South Florida, the Virginia DOT, the Washington Post, and others of that stature are available for download. Findings, in part, were: "Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them;” “The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes;” “No change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections;” and “The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%.”

That much pertains only to the studies on one page. There are many other noteworthy articles at that web site regarding worrisome topics such as improper enforcement by governments seeking maximum revenue from these cameras.

The second blogger who should have earned some respectful attention from media is “RonnieMichael's page,” when on 6/13/09 he presented a list of 61 questions that concerned him about Heath’s robo-cop cameras - for instance: how the contract was negotiated, what the contract with Redflex says, and what opportunities, if any, will the public have for oversight.

Though his blog entry “Questions for the Heath Mayor and City Council” contains questions - such as the timing of the yellow light signals - already spelled out in Ohio law, there are many that are legitimate concerns not just of motorists, but of citizens interested in good government. Making Ronnie’s case considerably weaker is the fact that he failed to provide links to factual information which inspired his questions.

The Advocate article said the Heath Mayor answered many of Ronnie’s questions, and maybe Ronnie is satisfied with that; if not, likely we’ll hear about it in another blog entry. But whatever went on between the Heath Mayor and Ronnie, the fact remains that many of Ronnie’s important questions have not been publicly answered, at least not in the reports I’ve read.

For instance, Question 1: “What safety studies were used to justify installing the cameras? Who conducted the traffic study completed March 9, 2009? Was Redflex involved in any way with this study?”

Also, Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19* (see below), 24, 27, 33, 35, 38, 60.

Question 19: If citations are issued from issued from Arizona, then also germane are questions 21, 22, 26, 30, and 50.

The dialog needs to continue.

Questions on gasoline prices for Obama

What determines the price of gasoline is a question that for years I've been asking media representatives, public agencies, and government officials, including the Bush administration. I have yet to receive an answer or a show of interest.

I hope President Obama's policies of government transparency don't stop where the interests of energy profits begin.

If they don't, I will receive answers to the questions I asked of him today:

What and who determines oil prices?

How does lack of anti-trust-law enforcement affect those prices?

Who is in charge of setting prices at the pump?

What influences traders in the futures markets and who is guarding against price manipulation at that level?

Only in government: Paying unneeded employees

There are only three things wrong with the proposal to cut jobs in the city building code department - it didn’t happen when it should have, it hasn’t happened yet, it may not happen until November.

Nobody wants to see more people loose jobs, but for too long city taxpayers have been paying wages for what are essentially unemployed employees. The job cuts should have been made when individuals’ services were no longer used. This is what would have happened in the real world where where justification for paychecks is required; only in government could it be otherwise.

This is a good time to review a bit of the history of keeping unemployed city workers employed, as I wrote about it 1/9/09 Bend over Bunky, here comes Mayor Diebold again.

Well, here it is, almost exactly six months later, and a few guardians of the public’s city purse appear at last to be admitting the folly of paying the unemployed for being unemployed.

But wait. Even if the shucking off of unneeded employees is approved by Council, apparently it will not happen until November, which is the present plan, according to the Advocate report.

Obama - World statesman

President Obama mesmerized me with his speech this morning in Cairo. His brilliant eloquence was matched only by his depth, decency, fairness and honesty. He wasn’t throwing punches or politically charged air balls. I am proud of him and for the fact that he demonstrated that - for the first time in decades - America has picked a man worthy of world leadership.

No sooner did he finish and the first news reports hit the Internet than the crazies began hitting on him, twisting his words and belittling the level of statesmanship exhibited this morning - world statesmanship that no other U.S. President in my adult lifetime has ever aspired to.

Likely, Christian zealots will also take aim at the man who would dare to recognize the rights and validity of other religions.

I agree with the person (Roger-356271) who commented on the MSNBC report:

“Just as our own (citizens) will now distort what was said, other Countries will experience the same ... (but) we do not have to look at other Countries to find ignorance. Both those that are paid to distort, and whose job depends on division, will find a fault in wording or party politics ...”

Those who agree with our President should take a moment to let him know. Write to him at this link.

NCS levy signals call to arms

Anyone who considers the passage of the $5.9-million-per-year levy a sign that the community is poised to kiss and make up with the Newark City Schools should go read the outpouring of rage in comments to the Advocate on-line news report.

The NCS tax take has grown by $230 a year per $100,000 value. That’s added to the $892 per year already in place, plus a 1 percent income tax, plus state and federal taxes giving Keith & Company a total of $12,693 per student, per year, plus an estimated 9.3% increase in state and federal aid over the next two years. 

Still NCS will not have enough, they say, to fully bus students, or fully fund the extras for students, but they do anticipate having enough for staff raises which are needed because the NCS classroom teachers’ average salary is only $55,331 for nine months’ work before benefits - and NCS has only one employee for every 4.9 students, and the superintendent makes more than the governor of Alaska.

That Keith & Company strategized a winning shell game on property owners comes as a call to arms. Sitting in front of a computer screen screaming insults back and forth may be therapeutic, but it’s a lousy solution. 

What has to happen next is state intervention into the rape of property owners. It has to happen before Keith & Company come back to rape again, and they will because it’s never enough no matter how much it is.

There are three people who are responsible for doing this, but who won’t do anything meaningful for property owners unless they are made to do it. One is State Representative Jay Hottinger, another is State Senator Tim Schaffer and the third is Governor Ted Strickland.

Jay Hottinger has practically grown to adulthood as our link to state government. Because of that, I think he is as responsible as any member of government for schools’ rape and re-raping of property owners in Newark, Licking County, and Ohio.

So here’s a suggestion for you guys sitting there moaning about having to pay yet another $5.9 million each year on top of an already-excessive tax bill:

Call Jay Hottinger’s office - 614/466-1482 - and ask him precisely what he’s going to do to solve the problem. If you don’t understand his answer, ask again. 

Then call Senator Schaffer at 614/466-5838 and ask him the same thing. Ask the same question as many times as it takes until you understand it.

Then call Governor Strickland at the constituent helpline 614/644-4357 and ask him what he’s going to do to solve the problem. Make sure you understand exactly what he intends to do before you hang up.

When you have done so, please leave a comment here about your experience. The number and kind of comments received will indicate how serious you are about dealing with the problem, rather than whining about it.

Hottinger works for more efficient government

Ohio Representative Jay Hottinger is co-sponsoring a bill that may lead to more efficient state government. It would create a commission comprised of business leaders to study how the State of Ohio can become more business-like. They might recommend combination, improvements or elimination of agencies and functions.

How many times have we wished government were run like a successful business? Well, Jay is among those opening the door for that and I hope folks at the Statehouse will rally to this cause.

The bill, HB66, would ensure that the 12 members of the commission could not personally profit from their decisions. Their work would not drag on forever, but end with a final report due 1/31/11.

Jay explains how this commission would work in a news release 3/13/09 entitled “Making State Government More Efficient” I have reproduced it at the Newark Tea Party web site at this link.

Big Brother, stop trying to be a parent

When are newspapers editorialists and legislators going to learn you can't legislate morality?

The latest media darling - “sexting” - is today’s excuse for more government interference into private lives and government control of the masses.

What the media herd is calling “sexting” is the fault of parents who won’t control their kids’ activities. The cure is for parents to confiscate their kids’ phones, not try to get laws to determine what kids may or may not do with their cell phones.

Anyway, why should a youngster believe that seeing nude pictures of anyone of any age is a bad thing? On television they see nude pictures with only the nipples, penises and butt cracks fuzzed out; on television see women preaching that “size DOES matter;” in magazines see older adults patting each other down because Viagra rules, also with ads for videos teaching the “art of oral sex;” and they’re only a mouse click away from reading about the “top lesbian sexual fantasies.”

All this government and media involvement should be aimed, instead, at the huge and all-pervasive sex-oriented industries which are in everyone’s face at every turn. As for children, they are still the responsibility of parents, not government.

Kids don’t need cell phones. Recognize that and you’re halfway there.

Butt out, Big Brother.

Taxpayer interests go unprotected during negotiations, Part Two

I posted 4/16/09 an essay which concluded with this paragraph: “The day when taxpayers are free to sit in on negotiations regarding pay and benefits for tax-paid employees is the day when the taxpayers’ interests will be protected. We need a law to provide that protection, but until then we need a full public report on what happens when our employees line up at the trough.” That essay drew a lot of comments from Advocate readers and it can be accessed at this link.

Since then, the Advocate’s short list of blogs has allowed this discussion to slip off into its cyber abyss, though the arguments were still flowing, and at least one of which is worthy of rebuttal. Here’s what “moreon” wrote:

“Bruce,
negotiations by public employees shouldn’t transpire under public scrutiny in real time. That would be nutty if you could do it. It would devolve into Bedlam. (Thus I got off on my tangent about pure democracy and Perot....)

“Law should specifically guarantee all the underlying facts of the system on which the public and its schools can rely to do their business. Those facts and the contract itself tell the story. Additionally, the board or its members and the superintendent/administration need to be responsible to field the questions of the public as to their decisions, etc. They should be forthcoming and if they are not, or if the public doesn't agree substantially, well...elections happen.

“Further, beyond the real time-Bedlam point, I think the very nature of negotiations cannot successfully be micro-managed, nor should they be. The concept of negotiation in any context requires a great degree of confidentiality. Without it, the process is ineffective in producing agreements, settlements and contracts, because the sides are chilled from freely bringing up anything openly which if it is not agreed to, will be of such a nature that it can later be brought up and used against them openly (politically or otherwise). You should want this freedom in negotiations which is founded on confidentially. The public benefits from it, and the public can be protected otherwise by the process. I, however, don’t think you should want a transcript of negotiations or the like to go to work on.

“You need the facts existing before the negotiation, you need the facts agreed upon at negotiation, and then you need truthful and good-faith accountability from your elected board and their administration. You can decide from this process whom to look to replace with a better candidate. (At some point, we need to start voting for someone, not against.) Even if someone doesn’t know the negotiator, he or she knows who was responsible– the ones who owned the decision– and they may be forthcoming about things if asked. A member may wish to be distinguished from another by answering.

“Believe me, I know how difficult it can be in this county to get to the bottom of things with public entities, prominent organizations, powerful people, and even the media– notwithstanding the board meeting open microphone, newspapers blogs, letters to the editor, etc. It’s even harder, after you get to the bottom of the facts, to get them noticed, realized, and listened to by the public without first being crushed or distorted by powerful interests of the status quo. Then, there is always the apathy. Many very bright people here concentrate not on the local but focus outward toward Columbus or the rest of the world. Oops, I feel a tangent coming on....

“Joe Citizen...sit in during the process?

“Yeah, let’s get all of us bozos on this blog in to micro-manage what our elected board does in negotiations!!! It might be fun at times and get the blood moving, but what we really need is more candidates, and less election walkovers and appointments. We need more people thinking about local action who now view things mostly at other levels or not at all. Tangent!...damn!!!
4/18/2009 11:51 AM EDT

Here’s my response to all that ...

“It would devolve into Bedlam.”

If the law were to guarantee public scrutiny, negotiators would learn to negotiate openly because they would have to. (And since you capitalized “Bedlam” I had to go look it up. Now I know.)

“Law should specifically guarantee all the underlying facts of the system on which the public and its schools can rely to do their business.”

I don’t understand “guarantee all the underlying facts of the system on which the public and its schools can rely to do their business.” Are you saying laws already address this? And if so, could you give me a fer-instance, and tell me where these underlying facts are available to the public? Or are you saying we need more laws to guarantee this?

“Those facts and the contract itself tell the story.”

Are labor contracts between public employees and government administrators public records, and if so how are they accessed (specifically, those for Newark City Schools and The City of Newark and Licking County)?

“... The board or its members and the superintendent/administration need to be responsible to field the questions of the public as to their decisions, etc. They should be forthcoming and if they are not, or if the public doesn't agree substantially, well...elections happen.”

But we don’t vote for the superintendent/administration. Further, until all these factors regarding who’s doing what, saying what, representing whose interests and how - until then we haven’t a notion who might be villain or hero.

“I think the very nature of negotiations cannot successfully be micro-managed, nor should they be.”

Nor did I say they should. I said they should be open to public observation, not that the public should intervene nor even be heard during this process.

“The concept of negotiation in any context requires a great degree of confidentiality. Without it, the process is ineffective in producing agreements, settlements and contracts, because the sides are chilled from freely bringing up anything openly which if it is not agreed to, will be of such a nature that it can later be brought up and used against them openly (politically or otherwise). You should want this freedom in negotiations which is founded on confidentially.”

I’m not sure how you arrived at any of this but, as regards public employees and public shepherds of tax money, I think you’re wrong. The public’s money is at stake and that’s justification enough to require by law that the public may observe the negotiations process.

“The public benefits from it, and the public can be protected otherwise by the process. I, however, don’t think you should want a transcript of negotiations or the like to go to work on.”

There is no way, in my opinion, that public exclusion from public business could ever be a benefit. In what context do you make such a pronouncement? And why wouldn’t I want - and why shouldn’t I be entitled to - a transcript of negotiations between public employees and the people who are presumably guarding my interests?

“You need the facts existing before the negotiation, you need the facts agreed upon at negotiation, and then you need truthful and good-faith accountability from your elected board and their administration.”

How do you propose that individual taxpayers get the “facts existing,” “facts agreed upon,” and most particularly “truthful accountability” from any public official and particularly from anyone representing Newark City Schools?

“Even if someone doesn’t know the negotiator, he or she knows who was responsible – the ones who owned the decision – and they may be forthcoming about things if asked. A member may wish to be distinguished from another by answering.”

That’s a stretch. The ability to hide behind closed doors provides a shield for collective irresponsibility. If everyone’s at fault, then no one is at fault. Straight answers begin to flow only when these folks are flushed out of the shadows.

“What we really need is more candidates, and less election walkovers and appointments. We need more people thinking about local action who now view things mostly at other levels or not at all.”

Right on. Opening negotiations between overseers and manipulators of public funding - all levels of government and quasi-government (not just schools) - and public employee unions would, in my opinion, help bring all that to fruition.

Taxpayer interests go unprotected during negotiations

In comments to my Advocate essay yesterday, spacemonkey9000 said he believed the constant spending increase by schools “starts with mandatory pay increases for all teachers, regardless of their ability, simply because they have a contract that dictates the same. I have always thought that teachers unions are the downfall of troubled school districts ...”

Amythirdward compared teacher unions to “the UAW and the outrageous pay and benefits autoworkers collected.”

PEARL52 believes “they'll raise themselves right out of a job.”

I agree with the thrust of these comments. I also believe that the fault is ours. We have let government and schools out on a long leash; we haven’t paid attention to what goes on when they line up at the trough. Now, taxpayer-voters waking up a little bit, thanks to the Internet, and learning more and talking more.

Because we’re learning about the excesses that are occurring, we’re sensing the need to put the brakes on these people by questioning their wisdom and ability in spending public money, rather than voting yes for “the kids,” for “higher property values,” for “attracting jobs,” and other babble from bobble heads whose only objective is getting the wherewithal to pay public employees more.

We should also be sensing the need to learn how this all comes about, and exactly which elected officials are giving away the farm, so we may have the chance to vote them out.

In my recollection, it’s been many years since the Advocate has reported details of new contracts and who negotiated them. We learn only about their cost - long after the fact - when these government and quasi-government representatives are asking for more money to pay the bills.

This is exactly why we have a superintendent of city schools making about twice as much as the mayor of the city and about $2,000 less than the Ohio governor - the one who currently “needs” more tax money to pay the bills.

The day when taxpayers are free to sit in on negotiations regarding pay and benefits for tax-paid employees is the day when the taxpayers’ interests will be protected. We need a law to provide that protection, but until then we need a full public report on what happens when our employees line up at the trough.

Aliens are not the same as settlers

Comments to yesterday’s Advocate essay about Obama’s balloon to legalize criminal aliens sometimes amazed me by their misunderstanding - and mixing - of issues.

For instance, leo21 (Jon Emler) wrote the following: “Bruce, My family came to America in 1732 from Germany. The American Indians didn't invite them and didn't want these white people to take over their land. I just don't understand how people think this land is only for them and keep others out. Fear isn't the answer.”

Here’s my response to that:

This argument implies that because settlers took over from the Indians that now anyone should be free to cross our borders at will, which is what happened in the case of the “criminal aliens” I write about.

If that is indeed your point then consider this: If our nation today were as weak, disorganized, and indefensible as the “nation” of Indians, then today our national language would be Russian or Nazi German and if not that, then Spanish.

It didn’t work out that way. Instead, millions of people - like your family and mine - entered this country legally (as laws developed to define the difference). They built our country into what it is - with labor and tax payments - so that we are able to protect ourselves from Russia and Nazi Germany, for instance, and also may decide who is allowed to cross our borders, and when they may cross, and what they must do to qualify for that privilege.

We pay a huge government a huge price to enforce those decisions, but government will not do that. Instead, it is ignoring our wishes in favor of big businesses who’ve bribed government to allow them cheap, illegal laborers.

I don’t think our ancestors, who obeyed immigration laws - no matter the delays and inconvenience - would be very proud of us if we threw open our borders to anyone who can find a way to get here.

And I think legalizing these millions would further weaken our national economy and national pride. All this aside from further straining a job market from which millions of jobs by U.S. employers have gone to other countries because it is more profitable.