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.
Showing posts with label read this before the next election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label read this before the next election. Show all posts
Monday, January 4, 2010
Monday, March 9, 2009
Solve Newark’s trash problems by enforcing the law
If hot air from politicians could solve problems, Newark’s trash would have long ago melted and our city would by now be pristine.
It matters not, however, that politicians have blown hot air at this problem since the days of Mayor Bain. So far, nothing has changed; trash lines the streets of Newark in many, if not most, parts of town; residents freely use sidewalks and curbsides to store unconfined junk and litter without regard for how it looks and smells, or whether it emits germs and vermin, nor into which neighbors’ yards it blows.
And hot air is all we get from these helpless public employees whose solution is not the least hidden in city ordinances. As I wrote 8/29/08 There is a solution for curbside trash. It’s called police work - enforcement of city laws by the mayor, the safety director and the policemen.
The most recent report by the Advocate that I’ve seen was 2/8/09 Property owners could feel trash burden in which this group called “trash talkers,” (defined in the article as “a group of concerned citizens along with local trash companies”) assigned by the “city administration” to make recommendations to council. Surprise! These folks are STILL hashing the idea of limiting the way and the areas specific trash haulers could do business. That, plus burdening landlords with trash bills for renters, which would be another brilliant intrusion on the conduct of private business. That’s only about an inch away from requiring every homeowner to buy trash services whether they need it or not. Trash is a favorite avenue by which Newark yearns to intrude on private affairs.
This is just more of a rich tradition of foolish, bureaucratic ideas to solve a problem which has years ago been solved. I have written about them 5/1/08 Trash is fertilizer for Newark government and 5/7/08 Let’s license newspapers and 12/5/08 Are trash dumping centers feasible?
Here it is, 3/9/09, and these people still haven’t figured it out. It goes right back to my solution of more than a year ago which is the solution put in place long ago by Newark City Council. That solution is evident and obvious where it’s dealt with in Newark City Ordinances.
Look at 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) What you will find is that Newark’s laws already prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.
And what that means, clearly and simply: laws are not being enforced by the people we pay to enforce them.
This city needs a mayor and a safety director who will order officers to get out of their cruisers and solve the trash proliferation by enforcing city ordinances. How simple can it get?
It matters not, however, that politicians have blown hot air at this problem since the days of Mayor Bain. So far, nothing has changed; trash lines the streets of Newark in many, if not most, parts of town; residents freely use sidewalks and curbsides to store unconfined junk and litter without regard for how it looks and smells, or whether it emits germs and vermin, nor into which neighbors’ yards it blows.
And hot air is all we get from these helpless public employees whose solution is not the least hidden in city ordinances. As I wrote 8/29/08 There is a solution for curbside trash. It’s called police work - enforcement of city laws by the mayor, the safety director and the policemen.
The most recent report by the Advocate that I’ve seen was 2/8/09 Property owners could feel trash burden in which this group called “trash talkers,” (defined in the article as “a group of concerned citizens along with local trash companies”) assigned by the “city administration” to make recommendations to council. Surprise! These folks are STILL hashing the idea of limiting the way and the areas specific trash haulers could do business. That, plus burdening landlords with trash bills for renters, which would be another brilliant intrusion on the conduct of private business. That’s only about an inch away from requiring every homeowner to buy trash services whether they need it or not. Trash is a favorite avenue by which Newark yearns to intrude on private affairs.
This is just more of a rich tradition of foolish, bureaucratic ideas to solve a problem which has years ago been solved. I have written about them 5/1/08 Trash is fertilizer for Newark government and 5/7/08 Let’s license newspapers and 12/5/08 Are trash dumping centers feasible?
Here it is, 3/9/09, and these people still haven’t figured it out. It goes right back to my solution of more than a year ago which is the solution put in place long ago by Newark City Council. That solution is evident and obvious where it’s dealt with in Newark City Ordinances.
Look at 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) What you will find is that Newark’s laws already prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.
And what that means, clearly and simply: laws are not being enforced by the people we pay to enforce them.
This city needs a mayor and a safety director who will order officers to get out of their cruisers and solve the trash proliferation by enforcing city ordinances. How simple can it get?
Friday, January 9, 2009
Bend over Bunky, here comes Mayor Diebold again
Creative stiffing of taxpayers is a trademark of Newark Mayor Bob Diebold and it happened again when he announced his new policy under which city workers can retire and then become immediately rehired in the same job.
Thus may city employees claim a city salary along with retirement benefits, which are funded in large part by tax money.
Diebold's justification is that this employee will cost the city about $13,439 less per year, according to the Advocate report, considering a $7,318 reduction in salary, the rest in benefits. What hasn't been reported yet is the total increased cost to taxpayers under this practice. Apparently this isn't illegal, but in my opinion it should be so declared by Ohio legislation.
Diebold can carve another notch into his needy-greedy government stick - along with the one for the $10 auto tag tax and another for stiffing citizens for rides to the hospital in taxpayer-owned trucks manned by taxpayer-paid employees and another for his push for robot-issued traffic tickets and another for permitting the use of city vehicles in violation of the city vehicle policy.
Speaking of stiffing the public, all but four city council members voted to increase the Building Code Department fees in order to keep on the payroll workers in that department who are no longer needed. And why is that?
Good-Ol'-Boy-To-The-Core Irene Kennedy was quoted in the Advocate: “I think it is important to keep this skill set in place, at least to the end of the year.”
Right. It's someone else's money. And end of which year? And will the fees be reduced when construction picks up?
When the next election comes around, remember that. Also remember the names of the four council members who voted in favor of public - not government - interests: Marmie, Rhodes, Uible and Bubb.
Thus may city employees claim a city salary along with retirement benefits, which are funded in large part by tax money.
Diebold's justification is that this employee will cost the city about $13,439 less per year, according to the Advocate report, considering a $7,318 reduction in salary, the rest in benefits. What hasn't been reported yet is the total increased cost to taxpayers under this practice. Apparently this isn't illegal, but in my opinion it should be so declared by Ohio legislation.
Diebold can carve another notch into his needy-greedy government stick - along with the one for the $10 auto tag tax and another for stiffing citizens for rides to the hospital in taxpayer-owned trucks manned by taxpayer-paid employees and another for his push for robot-issued traffic tickets and another for permitting the use of city vehicles in violation of the city vehicle policy.
Speaking of stiffing the public, all but four city council members voted to increase the Building Code Department fees in order to keep on the payroll workers in that department who are no longer needed. And why is that?
Good-Ol'-Boy-To-The-Core Irene Kennedy was quoted in the Advocate: “I think it is important to keep this skill set in place, at least to the end of the year.”
Right. It's someone else's money. And end of which year? And will the fees be reduced when construction picks up?
When the next election comes around, remember that. Also remember the names of the four council members who voted in favor of public - not government - interests: Marmie, Rhodes, Uible and Bubb.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Shall we please taxpayers or city employees?
Mayor Diebold has decreed that city vehicles will not be driven home by non-emergency/on-call employees (except those covered in union contracts). But, too bad, taxpayers. This will happen only after those present employees with city vehicles have left their jobs by retirement, etc.
So why are we waiting, if indeed this has been deemed an unnecessary and expensive perk for employees?
The city vehicle policy is reproduced in pdf format at this link. It was recently amended by the mayor who added of the last paragraph.
But notice also, two paragraphs above that which says "Employees are not permitted to take home vehicles outside of a twenty mile radius of Newark City Hall except for those who respond to emergency police and fire business."
Meaning that Service Director Barch is not complying with the official policy if she's driving a city vehicle back and forth to her home in Grove City.
Some of the history of Kathy's Car can be found in my Observations entitled
"Sweetheart deal: a car for Kathy, courtesy the mayor with blessings of the Advocate" and "City council makes a good beginning in '08"
So why are we waiting, if indeed this has been deemed an unnecessary and expensive perk for employees?
The city vehicle policy is reproduced in pdf format at this link. It was recently amended by the mayor who added of the last paragraph.
But notice also, two paragraphs above that which says "Employees are not permitted to take home vehicles outside of a twenty mile radius of Newark City Hall except for those who respond to emergency police and fire business."
Meaning that Service Director Barch is not complying with the official policy if she's driving a city vehicle back and forth to her home in Grove City.
Some of the history of Kathy's Car can be found in my Observations entitled
"Sweetheart deal: a car for Kathy, courtesy the mayor with blessings of the Advocate" and "City council makes a good beginning in '08"
Friday, November 7, 2008
More Newark politics as usual
Newark Mayor Bob Diebold is now proposing to eliminate one at-large councilman and require the other two to be residents of 1) east, and 2) west because, well, the 5th Ward is overloaded with at-large councilmen.
Such a move would tilt council in a way that Council President Guthrie could no longer function as a tie-breaker vote, thus burying an essential check on Newark government balance of power. It would also eliminate, as one of the mayor's personal bumps in the road, At-Large Councilman Rhodes.
Read the Advocate report here.
We do, indeed, need a professional city manager, not politics as usual.
Such a move would tilt council in a way that Council President Guthrie could no longer function as a tie-breaker vote, thus burying an essential check on Newark government balance of power. It would also eliminate, as one of the mayor's personal bumps in the road, At-Large Councilman Rhodes.
Read the Advocate report here.
We do, indeed, need a professional city manager, not politics as usual.
Monday, October 27, 2008
How to improve Newark City Schools
The largest player in community perception of Newark City Schools is the superintendent, as it should be. Under his leadership, with school board backing, city schools have morphed from a once-admirable community asset into something feared, a constant problem against which taxpayers must defend themselves.
On August 6 I called for the superintendent to be replaced and for the schools to stop bullying the community.
Neither has happened. Meanwhile I've delivered sermonettes here on "Ask not what your school district can do for you ..." and "Newark Schools: No more sucker punches, no more B.S." and"Keith, the invincible. Or not." and "Latest levy request is insolence"
Next week NCS is coming back at voters with yet another levy request, and if that doesn't pass, the promise is to bring it again.
Over and over property owners have decisively told Keith and Company that we are tapped out. There comes a point where self-survival kicks in and real-estate taxpayers reached it long ago. Still, NCS/Keith can't trim their professed "needs" enough to balance with the burden on homeowners already place, in addition to the healthy tax on citizens' income.
Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if parents and other voters aren't wondering why they ever let NCS/Keith close our neighborhood schools in favor of new buildings out in the boonies without school busses and where few can get to by foot and parental auto traffic can be aggravating. This is an example of how NCS constituents are being served.
Another is the raise that Newark Schools staff employees received just after the defeat of the last levy request. You'd expect the schools to begin tightening belts, but in this instance they didn't.
Yet another is the subsequent raise given to teachers. You don't have to be very perceptive to recognize that these raises are not what citizens mandated when they overwhelmingly put down the schools' most recent request for more money: a genuinely frugal, cut-spending-to-the-bones management plan. Giving more raises was an act of defiance on the part of NCS/Keith.
I was dismayed - as must have been most taxpayers - to learn by what amount Keith Richards is overpaid. His $201,433 and 30 days vacation is an obscene extravagance for a community in which the average salary is about $29,000, according to SimplyHired.Com.
The Newark median earnings for men is $32,542/yr and for women $24,868. Median-wise they have a $566/mo mortgage payment, plus taxes and insurance. The average property tax in Newark is, according to Rates.Banks.com, already $1,321.539/yr, and Keith Richards - making $201,433 a year with 30 days vacation - is asking Average Joe go out to dinner one time fewer each month so he can pay more in property taxes "for the sake of the kids."
Keith Richards has already retired once, almost surely with an income that beats the Newark median by far. So it is that we who own property in Newark and we who live here and have an income are contributing as serfs (required by our taxpayer status) to pay for the enhancement of Keith Richards' lifetime estate.
Meanwhile, there should be a stable full of talented school managers willing to work for a lot less and be a lot more accommodating to the people who are paying the bills, managers who can balance income with expenditures. I say go find one, and do so quickly - because I really want to again become a supporter of our once-admirable city school district.
On August 6 I called for the superintendent to be replaced and for the schools to stop bullying the community.
Neither has happened. Meanwhile I've delivered sermonettes here on "Ask not what your school district can do for you ..." and "Newark Schools: No more sucker punches, no more B.S." and"Keith, the invincible. Or not." and "Latest levy request is insolence"
Next week NCS is coming back at voters with yet another levy request, and if that doesn't pass, the promise is to bring it again.
Over and over property owners have decisively told Keith and Company that we are tapped out. There comes a point where self-survival kicks in and real-estate taxpayers reached it long ago. Still, NCS/Keith can't trim their professed "needs" enough to balance with the burden on homeowners already place, in addition to the healthy tax on citizens' income.
Moreover, I wouldn't be surprised if parents and other voters aren't wondering why they ever let NCS/Keith close our neighborhood schools in favor of new buildings out in the boonies without school busses and where few can get to by foot and parental auto traffic can be aggravating. This is an example of how NCS constituents are being served.
Another is the raise that Newark Schools staff employees received just after the defeat of the last levy request. You'd expect the schools to begin tightening belts, but in this instance they didn't.
Yet another is the subsequent raise given to teachers. You don't have to be very perceptive to recognize that these raises are not what citizens mandated when they overwhelmingly put down the schools' most recent request for more money: a genuinely frugal, cut-spending-to-the-bones management plan. Giving more raises was an act of defiance on the part of NCS/Keith.
I was dismayed - as must have been most taxpayers - to learn by what amount Keith Richards is overpaid. His $201,433 and 30 days vacation is an obscene extravagance for a community in which the average salary is about $29,000, according to SimplyHired.Com.
The Newark median earnings for men is $32,542/yr and for women $24,868. Median-wise they have a $566/mo mortgage payment, plus taxes and insurance. The average property tax in Newark is, according to Rates.Banks.com, already $1,321.539/yr, and Keith Richards - making $201,433 a year with 30 days vacation - is asking Average Joe go out to dinner one time fewer each month so he can pay more in property taxes "for the sake of the kids."
Keith Richards has already retired once, almost surely with an income that beats the Newark median by far. So it is that we who own property in Newark and we who live here and have an income are contributing as serfs (required by our taxpayer status) to pay for the enhancement of Keith Richards' lifetime estate.
Meanwhile, there should be a stable full of talented school managers willing to work for a lot less and be a lot more accommodating to the people who are paying the bills, managers who can balance income with expenditures. I say go find one, and do so quickly - because I really want to again become a supporter of our once-admirable city school district.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Will Tim Bubb survive in the Political Game of Chicken?
Lest voters failed to pick up on it in yesterday's print edition of the Advocate, two candidates for county commissioner said they would work to remove the 1/2% sales tax imposed without voter approval by Commissioners Bubb and Smith.
Bubb and Smith were playing Political Game of Chicken, in which elected officials bet their careers that voters won't remember instances of insolence. I think they will remember, but we'll see.
Mark Van Buren, running against Brad Feightner, and Doug Moreland, running against Tim Bubb, have pledged to roll back that tax. You can go to the Advocate's on-line voter guide and compare candidates' positions on this tax thanks to the editors, whose first question to all commissioner candidates was: "Do you agree with the decision to increase the sales tax two years ago without voter input? Would you consider eliminating it?."
If voters are smart enough to replace Bubb with Moreland, that will leave only Doug Smith as the commissioner who voted to stuff citizens by giving them an end-run on taxes. (Last commissioner election, Smith did win the Game when voters re-elected him.) And Mark Van Buren over Feightner is a good bet, even if it weren't for the tax issue.
My previous rants on abuse of power by Bubb and Smith are linked here.
Bubb and Smith were playing Political Game of Chicken, in which elected officials bet their careers that voters won't remember instances of insolence. I think they will remember, but we'll see.
Mark Van Buren, running against Brad Feightner, and Doug Moreland, running against Tim Bubb, have pledged to roll back that tax. You can go to the Advocate's on-line voter guide and compare candidates' positions on this tax thanks to the editors, whose first question to all commissioner candidates was: "Do you agree with the decision to increase the sales tax two years ago without voter input? Would you consider eliminating it?."
If voters are smart enough to replace Bubb with Moreland, that will leave only Doug Smith as the commissioner who voted to stuff citizens by giving them an end-run on taxes. (Last commissioner election, Smith did win the Game when voters re-elected him.) And Mark Van Buren over Feightner is a good bet, even if it weren't for the tax issue.
My previous rants on abuse of power by Bubb and Smith are linked here.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Licking County stands out among bad governments
When Licking County's zealous prosecutor took advantage of a quirk in a Licking County state legislator's badly written law to snare a 15-year-old girl as a sexual predator, (which I wrote about yesterday) I suspect he didn't know it would be a world event.
AP picked it up from the Advocate's report and it has been a subject of interest from New Jersey to Spokane, from Alabama to Canada, and recently it has jumped the ocean to England. Google News claims to have listed 223 news articles about this event as of this morning.
Only one reason for such widespread interest and that is the depths to which government - our local government - has sunk. We are an oddity in a world filled with bad governments.
Let us reflect on our world reputation when our county prosecutor, Ken Oswalt, and our state representative, Jay Hottinger, ask for re-election.
AP picked it up from the Advocate's report and it has been a subject of interest from New Jersey to Spokane, from Alabama to Canada, and recently it has jumped the ocean to England. Google News claims to have listed 223 news articles about this event as of this morning.
Only one reason for such widespread interest and that is the depths to which government - our local government - has sunk. We are an oddity in a world filled with bad governments.
Let us reflect on our world reputation when our county prosecutor, Ken Oswalt, and our state representative, Jay Hottinger, ask for re-election.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Newark Ohio is well represented in the rape of taxpayers
King Bush's so-called "bailout" is virtually a done deal among Washington's crooks, cronies and liars, including those who represent Newark Ohio.
Your government is in the late stages of stealing $700 billion and giving it to Wall Street. But it couldn't get past the Senate until $1.7 billion of pork was added - including $6 million for manufacturers of kids' wooden arrows, $192 million for rum producers and a bunch of other bribes. You get the idea, but if you want to get really PO'd, read PIGGY POLS IN HOG HEAVEN WITH PORK-PACKED PACT by the NY Post
What so far has been omitted from media reports that I've seen is a curious bit of irony revealed in one of the comments to that article: "KC-Hollywood" wrote:
"You know what is really ironic? The fact that both Obama and McCain have said they will change Washington and stop earmarks and pork barreled spending. Then in stunning, predictable form, they both are VOTING YES for the largest pork barreled, earmarked behemoth of apocalyptic proportions. So much for changing anything. They just proved their word means NOTHING. First chance to prove they are against earmarks and pork spending and they EPIC FAIL THE TEST."
Both Ohio Senators Voinovich and Brown voted for this rape - as might be expected from men of their calibre - as did our U.S. Representative Zack Space, when the House voted earlier. Voter protests may change his mind when they vote again, perhaps today.
EDIT: Zack Space and Pat Tiberi voted for the "bailout" when it passed the House today. Space's "bailout" vote follows closely on his vote supporting oil-company demands for off-shore drilling. As with others we've sent to Washington who started out as Mr. Clean Jeans, Space is starting to smell like one of the good old boys. These are things to remember next time we vote.
Your government is in the late stages of stealing $700 billion and giving it to Wall Street. But it couldn't get past the Senate until $1.7 billion of pork was added - including $6 million for manufacturers of kids' wooden arrows, $192 million for rum producers and a bunch of other bribes. You get the idea, but if you want to get really PO'd, read PIGGY POLS IN HOG HEAVEN WITH PORK-PACKED PACT by the NY Post
What so far has been omitted from media reports that I've seen is a curious bit of irony revealed in one of the comments to that article: "KC-Hollywood" wrote:
"You know what is really ironic? The fact that both Obama and McCain have said they will change Washington and stop earmarks and pork barreled spending. Then in stunning, predictable form, they both are VOTING YES for the largest pork barreled, earmarked behemoth of apocalyptic proportions. So much for changing anything. They just proved their word means NOTHING. First chance to prove they are against earmarks and pork spending and they EPIC FAIL THE TEST."
Both Ohio Senators Voinovich and Brown voted for this rape - as might be expected from men of their calibre - as did our U.S. Representative Zack Space, when the House voted earlier. Voter protests may change his mind when they vote again, perhaps today.
EDIT: Zack Space and Pat Tiberi voted for the "bailout" when it passed the House today. Space's "bailout" vote follows closely on his vote supporting oil-company demands for off-shore drilling. As with others we've sent to Washington who started out as Mr. Clean Jeans, Space is starting to smell like one of the good old boys. These are things to remember next time we vote.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Payday lending referendum
If you're still confused, or haven't paid attention to the statewide referendum on payday lending, read this:
"Here's the deal: Ohio lawmakers have enacted a law that caps the annual interest rate on payday loans at 28 percent. A "yes" vote on Issue 5 would continue the cap. A "no" vote means lenders could return to the wicked ways of the Check-Cashing Lender Law, which caps annual interest rates and fees at 391 percent."
That's from today's column by Ann Fisher in the Columbus Dispatch at this link.
"Here's the deal: Ohio lawmakers have enacted a law that caps the annual interest rate on payday loans at 28 percent. A "yes" vote on Issue 5 would continue the cap. A "no" vote means lenders could return to the wicked ways of the Check-Cashing Lender Law, which caps annual interest rates and fees at 391 percent."
That's from today's column by Ann Fisher in the Columbus Dispatch at this link.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Howard Hill is a serious contender
With the pot boiling over the sucker punch delivered to voters by Newark School District in the recent election, this is a good time to reflect on the candidacy for the Ohio legislature by Howard Hill.
He promises to make educational funding a priority, if elected, and work toward relief from "constant taxation and request of levies from the schools," while recognizing the state's unfunded mandates to schools are part of the problem, as I reported 2/8/08.
In a recent news release, Howard has pledged that he would use all "campaign donations for purely campaign-related expenses." This is his response to "recently publicized use of campaign dollars to purchase OSU football tickets, meals, gas, automobiles, tickets to cultural events, and even a tuxedo!”
He said "although these people’s actions were legal, I do not believe that they were an ethical use of campaign funds ..."
I really like his campaign motto: "common people putting forth uncommon effort in order to do public good." There never was a time when that's needed more than it is today.
He promises to make educational funding a priority, if elected, and work toward relief from "constant taxation and request of levies from the schools," while recognizing the state's unfunded mandates to schools are part of the problem, as I reported 2/8/08.
In a recent news release, Howard has pledged that he would use all "campaign donations for purely campaign-related expenses." This is his response to "recently publicized use of campaign dollars to purchase OSU football tickets, meals, gas, automobiles, tickets to cultural events, and even a tuxedo!”
He said "although these people’s actions were legal, I do not believe that they were an ethical use of campaign funds ..."
I really like his campaign motto: "common people putting forth uncommon effort in order to do public good." There never was a time when that's needed more than it is today.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
All but three Council members voted responsibly on paving debt
Except for John Uible, Don Ellington, and Ed Houdeshell, Newark City Council turned in a responsible vote for Newark citizens when it decided not to borrow money to pave streets. Those same three were among the six council members who stuffed voters with the additional $10 tax to city residents' auto licenses for the purpose of paving city streets.
That tax was the brainchild of Mayor Diebold - along with the one about charging Newark citizens for rides to the hospital in city-owned equipment already paid for by taxes - who now wants to compound the costs to residents by borrowing money to pave streets.
That plan may not have been okayed by Council anyway, but an Advocate article by Amy Picard 7/17/08 perhaps sealed its fate by pointing to previous irresponsibility by city officials in paying off debt. Here's the link.
This issue of street paving has been on the front burner for many months. It seems we heard it in every argument about adding more fees/taxes to the cost of living in Newark.
Here it is, July 22nd and they still don't know where to get money for this, the most basic and consistent costs of keeping a city in order. The Advocate report - another good one by Amy - is here and it is recommended reading because certain of the Council members were shown to be truly responsible, as they were elected to be. Rick Henderson, Ryan Bubb, Shirley Stare, and David Rhodes all made good points in this report.
City mayors and Council members come and go, but debt to taxpayers lives on. Only the responsible among our elected officials seem to care, while the others continue to play the Game of Chicken with voters (will they remember what we did to them by the time I run for re-election?).
That tax was the brainchild of Mayor Diebold - along with the one about charging Newark citizens for rides to the hospital in city-owned equipment already paid for by taxes - who now wants to compound the costs to residents by borrowing money to pave streets.
That plan may not have been okayed by Council anyway, but an Advocate article by Amy Picard 7/17/08 perhaps sealed its fate by pointing to previous irresponsibility by city officials in paying off debt. Here's the link.
This issue of street paving has been on the front burner for many months. It seems we heard it in every argument about adding more fees/taxes to the cost of living in Newark.
Here it is, July 22nd and they still don't know where to get money for this, the most basic and consistent costs of keeping a city in order. The Advocate report - another good one by Amy - is here and it is recommended reading because certain of the Council members were shown to be truly responsible, as they were elected to be. Rick Henderson, Ryan Bubb, Shirley Stare, and David Rhodes all made good points in this report.
City mayors and Council members come and go, but debt to taxpayers lives on. Only the responsible among our elected officials seem to care, while the others continue to play the Game of Chicken with voters (will they remember what we did to them by the time I run for re-election?).
Monday, June 9, 2008
Earmarks: the Washington hog trough
Among the most important freedoms that citizens gave away to government is control over the money they earn. Most is sent to Washington bureaucracy where it is disbursed in ways that would be amusing if it were someone else's money.
"Earmarking" our money for specific projects and political interests is a budgetary end-run which is commonly practiced and evermore expensive.
SourceWatch encyclopedia says earmarks "are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen."
Ohio legislators, as a group, are doing their share at the hog trough - $305 million this year, according to an Associated Press report in yesterday's Advocate.
Another report in the Columbus Dispatch yesterday told how Voinovich, Ohio's own "chief deficit hawk," did his part to balance the budget by making off in the night with $18.7 million for his folks back home in Ohio. He also co-sponsored another $171 million for other states.
Let the meaning of "oink" start to rule Ohio's voting booths.
"Earmarking" our money for specific projects and political interests is a budgetary end-run which is commonly practiced and evermore expensive.
SourceWatch encyclopedia says earmarks "are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen."
Ohio legislators, as a group, are doing their share at the hog trough - $305 million this year, according to an Associated Press report in yesterday's Advocate.
Another report in the Columbus Dispatch yesterday told how Voinovich, Ohio's own "chief deficit hawk," did his part to balance the budget by making off in the night with $18.7 million for his folks back home in Ohio. He also co-sponsored another $171 million for other states.
Let the meaning of "oink" start to rule Ohio's voting booths.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Yes, we do need a city manager
I am amazed at Mayor Diebold's lack of cool when he was cornered by the Advocate on the matter of undone employee evaluations - evaluations specified in his own written management policies.
That only 60 percent of city employees have been evaluated was questioned in a really fine piece of reporting by Amy Picard. The mayor's defense for such sloppy administration? That Council president is gunning for a couple top administrators.
Bloggers such as Rhonda4thWard in her May 18th Advocate blog entry have already thrashed Diebold for such a response and Mr. Guthrie, council president, has yet to kick the mayor's public patootie over this matter. When this settles out, there won't be many parts of him left to pick on, so I'm going to pass, sort of.
By now City Hall's resident guitarist must no longer believe - as he seemed to believe when he strummed himself into the mayor's office - that his is an easy job. Managing 335 employees can't be an easy task. But abiding by and enforcing one's own written policies should be a no-brainer in that management process.
Because the Mayor doesn't get that, his thorough lack of management skills has again been laid bare for citizens. It is one more example of how Newark is being managed by folks who aren't qualified for such a complex, intricate, and difficult task. Most are merely citizens-turned-vote-getters, folks who've never had to make business-management decisions, even on the simple level of employee evaluations.
This seems to be a good time to reminisce about a couple Tea Party pronouncements. One was that early in his mayoral career, I predicted that Mr. Diebold was already looking like a one-term mayor. Bloggers have since hinted that he may not last one term.
The other is that I said earlier how Newark desperately needs a city manager to do professional-level work.
This latest fiasco adds to the evidence for both statements.
That only 60 percent of city employees have been evaluated was questioned in a really fine piece of reporting by Amy Picard. The mayor's defense for such sloppy administration? That Council president is gunning for a couple top administrators.
Bloggers such as Rhonda4thWard in her May 18th Advocate blog entry have already thrashed Diebold for such a response and Mr. Guthrie, council president, has yet to kick the mayor's public patootie over this matter. When this settles out, there won't be many parts of him left to pick on, so I'm going to pass, sort of.
By now City Hall's resident guitarist must no longer believe - as he seemed to believe when he strummed himself into the mayor's office - that his is an easy job. Managing 335 employees can't be an easy task. But abiding by and enforcing one's own written policies should be a no-brainer in that management process.
Because the Mayor doesn't get that, his thorough lack of management skills has again been laid bare for citizens. It is one more example of how Newark is being managed by folks who aren't qualified for such a complex, intricate, and difficult task. Most are merely citizens-turned-vote-getters, folks who've never had to make business-management decisions, even on the simple level of employee evaluations.
This seems to be a good time to reminisce about a couple Tea Party pronouncements. One was that early in his mayoral career, I predicted that Mr. Diebold was already looking like a one-term mayor. Bloggers have since hinted that he may not last one term.
The other is that I said earlier how Newark desperately needs a city manager to do professional-level work.
This latest fiasco adds to the evidence for both statements.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Councilman Marmie: friend of citizens
Last week Newark City Council voted to stuff Newark City taxpayers by skimming off another $10 per auto license sale, even after taxpayers had voted overwhelmingly against such a tax. I wrote about it here.
In comments before council voted, Shirley Stare of the 2nd Ward mentioned this referendum vote as part of the reason she wouldn't support any more tag tax. Doug Marmie spoke at length about reasons why more taxes for street paving was a bad choice.
The fact that citizens had already spoken on the matter was my main reason for opposing it, but Doug said this is only one of several reasons council should give it a thumbs-down; it didn't make any sense from a governmental and business standpoint anyway.
1- The city had a savings that could have been used for paving but the administration asked that it be moved to a different category.
2 - Borrowing for a depreciating asset is bad business. (The mayor plans to borrow money for street paving and use the tag tax to pay off the interest on this loan.)
3 - We need a long-term plan (for street maintenance) and the city doesn't have one. This would include prioritizing repair expenditures.
4 - Citizens are already paying taxes to repair streets.
5 - Voters don't want this additional tax.
6 - City government should show people what it can do with the additional $5 tag tax that's already been passed by council before asking for more.
7 - You don't just throw money at this kind of problem and hope it's going to get resolved. You need a plan for spending on paving and there is none.
8 - It's not fair to citizens who are already struggling to make ends meet to ask for more taxes. This adds more to the cost of living in Newark.
9 - The tag-tax legislation under consideration does not limit expenditure of that money exclusively to paving, as has been the impression given by statements issued to the press.
Doug was thorough in his assessment and he delivered his thoughts in an understandable and sincere manner.
There were six council members who simply ignored his facts. They are David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward).
These people are counting on the majority of their constituents not being aware of their stand against facts in this matter and their vote for the tag tax and/or forgetting it by next election day.
There were three council members who felt the will of the people should override the temptation for yet another Diebold-sponsored tax grab. Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
I am greatly impressed by the position and the class of Councilman Marmie, and by his willingness to stand before his peers and tell them how many ways this legislative proposition was bad business and bad government. He proved to be, in this instance, a very good friend of the citizens of Newark.
In comments before council voted, Shirley Stare of the 2nd Ward mentioned this referendum vote as part of the reason she wouldn't support any more tag tax. Doug Marmie spoke at length about reasons why more taxes for street paving was a bad choice.
The fact that citizens had already spoken on the matter was my main reason for opposing it, but Doug said this is only one of several reasons council should give it a thumbs-down; it didn't make any sense from a governmental and business standpoint anyway.
1- The city had a savings that could have been used for paving but the administration asked that it be moved to a different category.
2 - Borrowing for a depreciating asset is bad business. (The mayor plans to borrow money for street paving and use the tag tax to pay off the interest on this loan.)
3 - We need a long-term plan (for street maintenance) and the city doesn't have one. This would include prioritizing repair expenditures.
4 - Citizens are already paying taxes to repair streets.
5 - Voters don't want this additional tax.
6 - City government should show people what it can do with the additional $5 tag tax that's already been passed by council before asking for more.
7 - You don't just throw money at this kind of problem and hope it's going to get resolved. You need a plan for spending on paving and there is none.
8 - It's not fair to citizens who are already struggling to make ends meet to ask for more taxes. This adds more to the cost of living in Newark.
9 - The tag-tax legislation under consideration does not limit expenditure of that money exclusively to paving, as has been the impression given by statements issued to the press.
Doug was thorough in his assessment and he delivered his thoughts in an understandable and sincere manner.
There were six council members who simply ignored his facts. They are David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward).
These people are counting on the majority of their constituents not being aware of their stand against facts in this matter and their vote for the tag tax and/or forgetting it by next election day.
There were three council members who felt the will of the people should override the temptation for yet another Diebold-sponsored tax grab. Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
I am greatly impressed by the position and the class of Councilman Marmie, and by his willingness to stand before his peers and tell them how many ways this legislative proposition was bad business and bad government. He proved to be, in this instance, a very good friend of the citizens of Newark.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Newark School administrators: You don't have to trick us with an August vote
It must seem to regular readers of these Observations that I am dead-set against any new tax. I am not. I am dead-set against the chicanery used by government and schools to get income by tricking voters or otherwise denying them the right to vote on tax matters.
Classic case of this was the sales-tax increase by County Commissioners Tim Bubb and Doug Smith. They simply refused to hear voters asking to have a voice in the matter.
City officials regularly ignore the wishes of the majority in order to avoid the majority opinion on tax issues, most recently the decision by council to skim off another $10 per auto license plate sale, in spite of the fact that voters earlier had sent a clear message of their disapproval.
No sooner did taxpayers get that jammed into their orifice than the Newark School District board sends notice it might attempt to end-run voters in an August repeat of the failed tax-levy request, thinking that the majority of what few voters might show up for such an election will be parents and teachers, thus giving the majority of people who will have to pay for it yet another shafting.
This special election could cost the school district as much as $40,000 to produce, according to the Advocate report. That same $40,000 used for the good of the people would provide many miles of school bussing the district claimed it can't afford.
For people who are supposed to be smart enough to oversee the community's main educational factory, they don't have much going for them.
Worse, they see their constituency as one dumb, numb, mass of people too helpless and worthless to defend against another stuffing by the school board intelligentsia. That is the theory on which consideration of an August tax vote is predicated.
The news for these "public servants" is that there are many folks just like me, thousands maybe.
And what we expect from you is for you to convince us of a two things before you come to us for more money.
First is that you are wisely spending the money you have, that you are not wasting it on high-priced and useless administrators and employee wages and benefits that are out of line with what other people make;
and second that after you have cleaned house and eliminated all the useless people and programs you have acquired over the years that you need more of our money to educate (not entertain and not babysit) our children.
When you get that done, you won't have to try to trick us with an August vote.
Classic case of this was the sales-tax increase by County Commissioners Tim Bubb and Doug Smith. They simply refused to hear voters asking to have a voice in the matter.
City officials regularly ignore the wishes of the majority in order to avoid the majority opinion on tax issues, most recently the decision by council to skim off another $10 per auto license plate sale, in spite of the fact that voters earlier had sent a clear message of their disapproval.
No sooner did taxpayers get that jammed into their orifice than the Newark School District board sends notice it might attempt to end-run voters in an August repeat of the failed tax-levy request, thinking that the majority of what few voters might show up for such an election will be parents and teachers, thus giving the majority of people who will have to pay for it yet another shafting.
This special election could cost the school district as much as $40,000 to produce, according to the Advocate report. That same $40,000 used for the good of the people would provide many miles of school bussing the district claimed it can't afford.
For people who are supposed to be smart enough to oversee the community's main educational factory, they don't have much going for them.
Worse, they see their constituency as one dumb, numb, mass of people too helpless and worthless to defend against another stuffing by the school board intelligentsia. That is the theory on which consideration of an August tax vote is predicated.
The news for these "public servants" is that there are many folks just like me, thousands maybe.
And what we expect from you is for you to convince us of a two things before you come to us for more money.
First is that you are wisely spending the money you have, that you are not wasting it on high-priced and useless administrators and employee wages and benefits that are out of line with what other people make;
and second that after you have cleaned house and eliminated all the useless people and programs you have acquired over the years that you need more of our money to educate (not entertain and not babysit) our children.
When you get that done, you won't have to try to trick us with an August vote.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
City Council votes 6-3 to stuff voters again
Newark voters got stuffed again by the Needy Magic Nanny, this time for a $10 bill with every auto license they ever have to buy in Newark for the rest of their lives.
By a vote of 6-3 (one absent), council increased the city tax on auto licenses even though voters earlier held a referendum on this matter and rejected it soundly.
By replacing the unwanted charge, six of your Newark City Council members - with the blessing of Mayor Diebold - gave you the their dimpled middle digits, right in your face. Take that, stupid! You're not going to remember this on election day.
Isn't that right, David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward)?
And thank you, Advocate, for naming names in the report of May 6.
Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
About her vote, Shirley said “In 2005, the citizens soundly defeated the bill that was on the ballot. I am speaking for people in my ward, and I just do not think if they were here tonight they would support it.”
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all office-holders would think of their obligations to the people who put them in office above all else, thus maintaining a true representative government for, of, and by the people?
In case you don't know who your representatives on council are (in addition to the at-large councilmen), there's a ward map on the city's web site at this link.
Probably all browsers have the same capability as mine does to increase the size of the screen image until the lines of the streets and ward numbers are large enough to read. Otherwise, call the board of elections at 670-5080 or e-mail them at this form.
Anyone who cares to communicate with their representatives to Council about this or anything else can get the contact information here.
By the way, this vote will be a great memento when you to decide how you'll vote next election. I have elsewhere described the Game of Chicken played by office-holders who bet on short memories of voters. Whenever they can be stopped from winning this game, an improvement in government is guaranteed.
By a vote of 6-3 (one absent), council increased the city tax on auto licenses even though voters earlier held a referendum on this matter and rejected it soundly.
By replacing the unwanted charge, six of your Newark City Council members - with the blessing of Mayor Diebold - gave you the their dimpled middle digits, right in your face. Take that, stupid! You're not going to remember this on election day.
Isn't that right, David Rhodes (Councilman-at-large), Ed Houdeshell (First Ward), John Uible (Fourth Ward), Carol Floyd (Seventh Ward), Irene Kennedy (Councilman-at-large) and Don Ellington (Fifth Ward)?
And thank you, Advocate, for naming names in the report of May 6.
Voting in favor of democracy were Ryan Bubb (Councilman-at-large), Shirley Stare (Second Ward) and Doug Marmie (Sixth Ward).
About her vote, Shirley said “In 2005, the citizens soundly defeated the bill that was on the ballot. I am speaking for people in my ward, and I just do not think if they were here tonight they would support it.”
Wouldn't it be wonderful if all office-holders would think of their obligations to the people who put them in office above all else, thus maintaining a true representative government for, of, and by the people?
In case you don't know who your representatives on council are (in addition to the at-large councilmen), there's a ward map on the city's web site at this link.
Probably all browsers have the same capability as mine does to increase the size of the screen image until the lines of the streets and ward numbers are large enough to read. Otherwise, call the board of elections at 670-5080 or e-mail them at this form.
Anyone who cares to communicate with their representatives to Council about this or anything else can get the contact information here.
By the way, this vote will be a great memento when you to decide how you'll vote next election. I have elsewhere described the Game of Chicken played by office-holders who bet on short memories of voters. Whenever they can be stopped from winning this game, an improvement in government is guaranteed.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Trash is fertilizer for Newark government
If one were studying the methods by which government fertilizes itself to greater power, scope, wealth, and economic influence - while becoming ever-more intrusive on private lives and business decisions - he would be fortunate to be a citizen of Newark Ohio in 2008.
Just now our city government is attempting to carve a new dimension for itself in the matter of private businesses serving private citizens. It is attempting to set itself up as ruling authority in the business of trash collection.
The irony of this is that almost exactly two years ago citizens told Newark government to butt out of the trash collection business.
Ah. But this is not the style of Mayor Diebold, his administrative minions, nor of Council's good ol' boys, of whom Irene Kennedy is the queen.
On April 29, 2008 the Advocate headline on this subject read: "Task force to consider putting trash pickup under Newark control," with Kathleen Barch hinting that trash bills would be halved, and the mayor suggesting that such a plan "might reduce the deterioration of the city streets."
In spite of the wonderfulness of this proposal as presented by the Advocate, lots of on-line readers thought otherwise. Such reaction should be enough to end any discussion, even if were only the comment by "paul" who said, in part, "Without exception when competition is removed or governmentally controlled, price fixing, gouging and general rate abuse is imminent." If you don't think he's right, just consider cable TV and how its evolved under its city contracts.
Mayor Diebold has - even as a councilman - been a major inspiration for my use of the term "Magic Nanny" in reference to how government perceives itself. So now it seems pertinent to review how the proposal of city assuming trash-hauling contracts went two years ago. Because Mayor Diebold knows this and yet has the incredible gall to try it again with total disregard for the way citizens feel about it.
First, here's what I wrote April 28, 2006:
Go away, little trash haulers
Magic Nanny's solution to bad streets: Don't use them
The Newark service director's willingness to reduce the number of trash trucks doing business here is another knee-jerk solution to a non-problem. It is a proposal to create more power and control by government at the expense of small businesses and consumers.
Tim Weisert, service director, is offering a plan to allow only certain trash trucks to use Newark's streets and alleys - to be guided and organized by the wisdom of the Magic Nanny. A Gannett report said he has had "numerous complaints" from residents about too many trucks that tear up streets and alleys.
Weisert's plan would divide the city into quadrants and "bid it out." Thus would the Magic Nanny put the smaller haulers out of business and create yet another non-competitive gift for some Nanny-preferred business under government supervision and control. Though Gannett reports that "the bidding process could lower the cost of trash service," we have only to look at what has for years been taking place - and still is taking place - with cable TV rates in Newark to see the folly of that suggestion.
The "numerous complaints" rationale is what the Magic Nanny drug out during the smoking ban debate. I didn't believe the legitimacy of it then and I don't believe it now. If Weisert is in fact getting "numerous complaints" he should keep a good record of them, with names and dates, because he might get asked to prove this claim. But let's say he gets five calls a week and let's say the population of Newark is 47,000. That would make 46,995 people who didn't call each week.
The service department's job is to fix the streets and alleys if they are indeed being damaged. It's more in line with what they know how to do than it is to improve upon a free market.
Then on May 10, 2006 I wrote:
Poop hitting the fan over trash-hauler balloon
In today's Gannett report, there is an essay by Newark Mayor Bruce Bain designed to douse the controversy about the proposal to eliminate haulers of trash save for one or a few companies selected by the Magic Nanny. That idea was discussed at this Tea Party on April 28th.
The mayor says that there was no trash-hauling proposal put before the city service committee and "not even a suggestion offered for the formation of any type of trash-hauling legislation."
However the mayor chooses to split hairs today, there certainly was a proposal being discussed in a public meeting by Newark Service Director Tim Weisert for new trash-hauling legislation to limit the number of haulers. In fact, Gannett headlined its report "City may toss extra trash trucks - Council may take away choice of provider from residents" and in the second paragraph said: "City council members will consider such a proposals (sic) in the next several months."
If that report of April 26 was not accurate the mayor should have been splitting his hairs back then. Well, it took a bit of time for the poop to really hit the fan and so here it is, May 10th before we get the mayor's verson of the truth in this matter.
Maybe we'll just call it back-pedaling: "In my opinion, there is nothing so bad or dangerous that people can't debate or discuss a topic. Through broad conversations, we are able to see pros and cons of various issues. Because something is talked about doesn't make that something a formal proposal or legislation."
Why couldn't he just admit it was a dumb idea and be done with it?
And in spite of all that, the Magic Nanny rides again. Building greater government power, scope, wealth, and economic influence - while becoming ever-more intrusive on private lives and business decisions is just too great a temptation for Diebold and some of the good ol' boys.
Just now our city government is attempting to carve a new dimension for itself in the matter of private businesses serving private citizens. It is attempting to set itself up as ruling authority in the business of trash collection.
The irony of this is that almost exactly two years ago citizens told Newark government to butt out of the trash collection business.
Ah. But this is not the style of Mayor Diebold, his administrative minions, nor of Council's good ol' boys, of whom Irene Kennedy is the queen.
On April 29, 2008 the Advocate headline on this subject read: "Task force to consider putting trash pickup under Newark control," with Kathleen Barch hinting that trash bills would be halved, and the mayor suggesting that such a plan "might reduce the deterioration of the city streets."
In spite of the wonderfulness of this proposal as presented by the Advocate, lots of on-line readers thought otherwise. Such reaction should be enough to end any discussion, even if were only the comment by "paul" who said, in part, "Without exception when competition is removed or governmentally controlled, price fixing, gouging and general rate abuse is imminent." If you don't think he's right, just consider cable TV and how its evolved under its city contracts.
Mayor Diebold has - even as a councilman - been a major inspiration for my use of the term "Magic Nanny" in reference to how government perceives itself. So now it seems pertinent to review how the proposal of city assuming trash-hauling contracts went two years ago. Because Mayor Diebold knows this and yet has the incredible gall to try it again with total disregard for the way citizens feel about it.
First, here's what I wrote April 28, 2006:
Go away, little trash haulers
Magic Nanny's solution to bad streets: Don't use them
The Newark service director's willingness to reduce the number of trash trucks doing business here is another knee-jerk solution to a non-problem. It is a proposal to create more power and control by government at the expense of small businesses and consumers.
Tim Weisert, service director, is offering a plan to allow only certain trash trucks to use Newark's streets and alleys - to be guided and organized by the wisdom of the Magic Nanny. A Gannett report said he has had "numerous complaints" from residents about too many trucks that tear up streets and alleys.
Weisert's plan would divide the city into quadrants and "bid it out." Thus would the Magic Nanny put the smaller haulers out of business and create yet another non-competitive gift for some Nanny-preferred business under government supervision and control. Though Gannett reports that "the bidding process could lower the cost of trash service," we have only to look at what has for years been taking place - and still is taking place - with cable TV rates in Newark to see the folly of that suggestion.
The "numerous complaints" rationale is what the Magic Nanny drug out during the smoking ban debate. I didn't believe the legitimacy of it then and I don't believe it now. If Weisert is in fact getting "numerous complaints" he should keep a good record of them, with names and dates, because he might get asked to prove this claim. But let's say he gets five calls a week and let's say the population of Newark is 47,000. That would make 46,995 people who didn't call each week.
The service department's job is to fix the streets and alleys if they are indeed being damaged. It's more in line with what they know how to do than it is to improve upon a free market.
Then on May 10, 2006 I wrote:
Poop hitting the fan over trash-hauler balloon
In today's Gannett report, there is an essay by Newark Mayor Bruce Bain designed to douse the controversy about the proposal to eliminate haulers of trash save for one or a few companies selected by the Magic Nanny. That idea was discussed at this Tea Party on April 28th.
The mayor says that there was no trash-hauling proposal put before the city service committee and "not even a suggestion offered for the formation of any type of trash-hauling legislation."
However the mayor chooses to split hairs today, there certainly was a proposal being discussed in a public meeting by Newark Service Director Tim Weisert for new trash-hauling legislation to limit the number of haulers. In fact, Gannett headlined its report "City may toss extra trash trucks - Council may take away choice of provider from residents" and in the second paragraph said: "City council members will consider such a proposals (sic) in the next several months."
If that report of April 26 was not accurate the mayor should have been splitting his hairs back then. Well, it took a bit of time for the poop to really hit the fan and so here it is, May 10th before we get the mayor's verson of the truth in this matter.
Maybe we'll just call it back-pedaling: "In my opinion, there is nothing so bad or dangerous that people can't debate or discuss a topic. Through broad conversations, we are able to see pros and cons of various issues. Because something is talked about doesn't make that something a formal proposal or legislation."
Why couldn't he just admit it was a dumb idea and be done with it?
And in spite of all that, the Magic Nanny rides again. Building greater government power, scope, wealth, and economic influence - while becoming ever-more intrusive on private lives and business decisions is just too great a temptation for Diebold and some of the good ol' boys.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Marc Guthrie takes the high road
Being truly honest and conscientious is not the easiest route to take when you hold an elected office. Ask Marc Guthrie, Newark City Council president, who chose yesterday to do the right thing instead of the easy thing.
When he broke from the crowd of good old boys who manage City Hall and talked to Newark citizens about the additional cost that would go with Mayor Diebold's plan to reorganize city jobs - and certain on-going costly practices - he put himself squarely in the middle of traffic. It would have been so much easier for him to go with the flow, sink back into the shadows of anonymity and let taxpayers remain uninformed, as is the tradition in governments at all levels.
Marc's statements on these matters were reported in the Advocate under the headline: Council president wary of Newark City Hall reorganization's costs and in Marc's Advocate column entitled City needs to do more to be a wise steward of taxpayers' money.
Is he correct in what he says about the wasteful biggerin' of government by the mayor (at a time when it can be least afforded) and about the excessive use of city cars by employees, and about use of public funds for a non-mandatory and far-away conference? Is his idea for merging divisions of traffic and streets something the city should seriously study as a way to provide more efficient use of money?
Marc is in the position to know about these things. When he speaks, those with less experience than he has - which would be pretty much everyone else in the City of Newark, including City Hall - should listen.
The mayor need not get defensive about mistakes that have been pointed out; we all make mistakes. He should be open about the problems Marc has mentioned and fix them.
Marc is doing what he is paid to do: looking out for the people he serves, rather than the people he serves with. By taking the high road - the more difficult road - maybe he can inspire others in City Hall to follow his lead, but don't count on it.
Marc is demonstrating what good government is all about and he deserves a high-five from taxpayers-voters.
When he broke from the crowd of good old boys who manage City Hall and talked to Newark citizens about the additional cost that would go with Mayor Diebold's plan to reorganize city jobs - and certain on-going costly practices - he put himself squarely in the middle of traffic. It would have been so much easier for him to go with the flow, sink back into the shadows of anonymity and let taxpayers remain uninformed, as is the tradition in governments at all levels.
Marc's statements on these matters were reported in the Advocate under the headline: Council president wary of Newark City Hall reorganization's costs and in Marc's Advocate column entitled City needs to do more to be a wise steward of taxpayers' money.
Is he correct in what he says about the wasteful biggerin' of government by the mayor (at a time when it can be least afforded) and about the excessive use of city cars by employees, and about use of public funds for a non-mandatory and far-away conference? Is his idea for merging divisions of traffic and streets something the city should seriously study as a way to provide more efficient use of money?
Marc is in the position to know about these things. When he speaks, those with less experience than he has - which would be pretty much everyone else in the City of Newark, including City Hall - should listen.
The mayor need not get defensive about mistakes that have been pointed out; we all make mistakes. He should be open about the problems Marc has mentioned and fix them.
Marc is doing what he is paid to do: looking out for the people he serves, rather than the people he serves with. By taking the high road - the more difficult road - maybe he can inspire others in City Hall to follow his lead, but don't count on it.
Marc is demonstrating what good government is all about and he deserves a high-five from taxpayers-voters.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Diebold is point man for government greed
In everything written about Mayor Diebold's thirst for more money from taxpayers, never has he said anything about getting it honestly - by asking taxpayers to vote to spend more on city government.
In fact, just the opposite. Most recently this has focused on whether the city should levy yet another fine for living in Newark by squeezing each auto owner annually for $10 more. It's the opposite because voters in November 2005 voted on this one and defeated it in a referendum vote 58-42.
The voting booths hadn't cooled after the referendum when Mayor Bain was plotting another attempt to end-run voters with it. Since then, this matter has been considered by Diebold and some others in city government as the delectable piece of cake that could be translated into more government and to hell with what voters want.
It not just the additional tax burden that's important here; it about stuffing voters who've already spoken on the matter. It's about this endless government greed, which Diebold has so willingly served as point man without yet paying the political price. Of course he was among councilmen to vote for the reinstatement of part of the same tax in September 2006. (See: Council rejects voters' directive on Tag Tax.) Only Doug Marmie and Don Ellington voted in favor of upholding citizens' wishes.
This is not about pot holes, it's about more government. As I said here earlier, "If the city budget fails to account for city potholes - even with the addition of the $1-million Diebold cash cow from EMS services - then what in God's name is wrong with city budgeters?"
It IS about more government because no matter what they say they'll use this money for in the immediate future, their promises will unenforceable anyway, and surely will last no longer than their own terms of office. (Consider what happened to promises made while the city pushed for the pot-of-gold at the end of an EMS ride to the hospital. See Riding to the hospital with your city employees; Bend over taxpayer...
Once the money gets thrown into the gigantic kitty full of tax proceeds nobody is going to know exactly where those dollars have gone; only that there will be 880 thousand more of them in the kitty. And this translates as: Newark is going to have more government and better-paid government employees.
It's about milking for the last dime and the for largest employee raise. Thanks to the persistent greed of Mayor Diebold and his continuing willingness to stuff voters - and thanks to the cooperation from Ways and Means Committee members Irene Kennedy and Ed Houdeshell - good ol' boys to the core - the tax grab plan will be considered by full council, because you see, it doesn't matter to Kennedy and Houdeshell what voters have said. They want you to bend over and stay there.
In fact, just the opposite. Most recently this has focused on whether the city should levy yet another fine for living in Newark by squeezing each auto owner annually for $10 more. It's the opposite because voters in November 2005 voted on this one and defeated it in a referendum vote 58-42.
The voting booths hadn't cooled after the referendum when Mayor Bain was plotting another attempt to end-run voters with it. Since then, this matter has been considered by Diebold and some others in city government as the delectable piece of cake that could be translated into more government and to hell with what voters want.
It not just the additional tax burden that's important here; it about stuffing voters who've already spoken on the matter. It's about this endless government greed, which Diebold has so willingly served as point man without yet paying the political price. Of course he was among councilmen to vote for the reinstatement of part of the same tax in September 2006. (See: Council rejects voters' directive on Tag Tax.) Only Doug Marmie and Don Ellington voted in favor of upholding citizens' wishes.
This is not about pot holes, it's about more government. As I said here earlier, "If the city budget fails to account for city potholes - even with the addition of the $1-million Diebold cash cow from EMS services - then what in God's name is wrong with city budgeters?"
It IS about more government because no matter what they say they'll use this money for in the immediate future, their promises will unenforceable anyway, and surely will last no longer than their own terms of office. (Consider what happened to promises made while the city pushed for the pot-of-gold at the end of an EMS ride to the hospital. See Riding to the hospital with your city employees; Bend over taxpayer...
Once the money gets thrown into the gigantic kitty full of tax proceeds nobody is going to know exactly where those dollars have gone; only that there will be 880 thousand more of them in the kitty. And this translates as: Newark is going to have more government and better-paid government employees.
It's about milking for the last dime and the for largest employee raise. Thanks to the persistent greed of Mayor Diebold and his continuing willingness to stuff voters - and thanks to the cooperation from Ways and Means Committee members Irene Kennedy and Ed Houdeshell - good ol' boys to the core - the tax grab plan will be considered by full council, because you see, it doesn't matter to Kennedy and Houdeshell what voters have said. They want you to bend over and stay there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
