The 2010 Trade In

The city of Toledo's CSI (Citizen's Special Investigation) Task Force met last night for the first time to discuss ways to fix the projected $44 million city budget deficit. A number of things were discussed in order to close this monumental gap ($9 million of which appears to have been carried over from the "balanced budget" of the previous year), including a proposal to put some city owned properties up for sale. 


While I agree with the philosophy that municipalities have no place in the business of business and even less with being a landlord and property owner (other than municipal buildings of course), I am forced to question the timing of this thinking. 


First, putting real estate up any market in the US right now seems counter intuitive, as prices are down across the board. Putting property up for sale in the current Toledo market seems almost counter-intelligent, as the market here is horrible and there is little private money available finance commercial real estate purchases. It is doubtful that the city would be able to recover what they originally paid for such properties, let alone make a profit. 


Second, selling assets to pay for recurring debt is something that most financial advisers will tell you to avoid. Imagine for example that you own a car and would like to trade it in for another. You go to the dealer and negotiate a price, but when it comes time to sign you lease rather than purchase, using your existing car as a down payment to reduce the debt incurred. 


In the short term, you will sign a lease based on a smaller financed amount and have less debt; but in the long term you will have given up a fixed asset and when the lease is over you will have nothing to show for it. So too with this potential asset sale. 


True, selling The Docks, the parking garages, and some of the parkland will close the massive gap between revenue and expenditure that the city is looking at. Next year however, the gap will return, and the assets will be gone forever. While thinking outside of the box is to be applauded by the Mayor and this commission, no real "balanced budget" will be achieved until the city begins to operate like the taxpayers who fund it and they begin to spend only the money that they can expect to have coming in.

The Level Playing Field

There has been a lot of talk in recent days about the Supreme Court ruling in the "Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission" case. By a margin of 5-4, the court decided that provisions that were part of the McCain-Feingold Act were a violation of free speech, and therefore Unconstitutional. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, the president responded negatively to the ruling, stating that it "gave a green light to a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics," particularly "big oil, Wall Street banks, health-insurance companies and the other powerful interests" that "drown out the voices of everyday Americans." 


Perhaps he is right that every one of those groups will take advantage of relaxing regulation on political contributions in the upcoming election cycles. On the other hand, he appears to have ignored some other groups that likewise find it worthwhile to contribute to politics. No one can deny the significant amount of money spent by unions in this country to influence government. SEIU contributed significantly to the 2008 Obama campaign and its president Andy Stern is quoted in a Las Vegas Sun article as saying that they contributed some $60.7 million to the Obama campaign. 


Without taking the time to document every one of them, I would likewise feel safe in saying that significant contributions to campaigns and politicians were made by most Unions during the last election cycle. Many then suggest that corporations put such contributions up to a vote of the stockholders, obtaining their permission before supporting a person or program. 


Should then not similar rules apply to the contributions of their labor counterparts, with members rather than union management deciding who or what gets the money and how much? Some will make the case that the 5-4 majority of this decision was split down partisan lines, with justices appointed by Republican presidents supporting the ruling and those appointed by Democratic presidents dissenting. I would say in turn that this should be considered small surprise. 


I would in fact expect that judges appointed by more conservative (and therefore probably Republican) presidents should take a more constructionist view of the Constitution and Bill of Rights than their more liberal counterparts, who might share the view of many progressive thinkers that the Constitution is a living document that should answer more to the times than the language. 


None of this even touches on the ability of the print media, TV, and movies attempting to influence policy through the non-monetary means of positive or negative portrayals of political offices, plot premises that are based on the concept of man-made global disasters, or "documentaries" on subjects that carry the political prejudice of the director, the network, or the movie studio. Where is the hue and cry over legislation to monitor and regulate this potential abuse of freedom of speech?

The truth of the matter is that even with the McCain-Feingold legislation, there was still plenty of money in politics. The Obama Campaign spent more than the Bush and Kerry campaigns combined in the previous election cycle, and since the President did not accept matching government funds, he was not obligated to share contributor lists or amounts in the same way as his competitor was with us. Ignored, and far more important than the influence these groups have in campaign finance however, is what they have in crafting legislation. 


Groups on the left and the right spend far more money attempting to influence (or even write) any legislation that might affect them than they do on candidates. Lawyers keep tort reform from entering the health care discussion, environmental groups get potential sources of oil protected as national parks, and the recent negotiations over Cadillac health care plans that would exempt unions until 2017 are but the latest example of the pressure that unions can bring to bear on legislators. 


Meanwhile agribusiness fights to keep farm subsidies and bio fuel legislation in place, and banks and Wall Street fight to keep their rights to legal gambling with government backed funds. No large organization is innocent of playing the system and many survive only by a combination of legislator coercion and nursing at the government teat. 


It has long been understood that money is speech in this country when it comes to elections. It appears that at least five members of the Supreme Court acknowledge that fact and understand that this freedom is guaranteed in the First Amendment of the Constitution. It also appears that they likewise understand that if the document on which this country's government is to mean anything, that allowing all sides to participate on an equal footing in the process is little more than leveling the playing field.

Modern Culture #1: SyFy Movie Plots

While many of the things that I write could be considered a commentary on modern society, I decided today to add a periodic feature with the above listed title simply to mention ideas that pop into my head (and there is usually plenty of empty space for them to do so). I hope you enjoy them as much as I do. 


I was watching a few movies on the new SyFy channel (Evidently you can't call this the Sci-Fi channel any more since wrestling was added to the network, which I suppose means that the fiction has little to do with science outside of steroid use). After watching a couple of these questionable efforts, I couldn't help but notice some similarities of the plots. 


See if you recognize this one: A group of people are stranded in the woods (or on an island, or in a house). They include at least one attractive woman in tight clothing who is extremely vain and doesn't have much on the ball, one clumsy but humorous male character who is equally shallow and clueless, one smart but ethically challenged character (often a scientist), one handsome man with hidden strengths and leadership abilities, and one woman who is attractive and smart and comes to realize that she enjoys the company of the handsome man. 


Unfortunately, the place that they are trapped in / on has one additional and not particularly attractive feature, that being that there is either a creature of some kind that has decided that human beings are on the menu, or there is an evil human (or human-like creature) who doesn't seem to enjoy having company. 


One by one, the visitors to the location fall victim to the creature or creatures (usually in particularly unattractive and grizzly ways) until only the handsome man and the smart, attractive woman are left. Somehow, in a relatively unexpected way, using only their native intelligence and a lot of luck, they manage to escape and/or kill their nemesis. 


Realizing then that they now care for each other a great deal; they ride, sail, or walk off into the sunset to live the rest of their lives in hopefully in a happier fashion than they were previously able to do, now much wiser than they were before. 


 Come to think of it, this actually sounds surprisingly like one of the plots from wrestling ... or maybe it was one of those reality shows. It kind of makes you wonder which came first ... or more importantly, why you keep watching.

If I Only Had A Brain

I was listening to some of the music from my past this weekend when I stumbled over the Stephen Bishop version of "If I Only Had A Brain". It's only a short intro to another song, not much over a minute and a half; but his arrangement is sad, funny, and unmistakable all at the same time. In light of the turmoil surrounding some of my most recent efforts, it gave me pause for thought.

Can anyone voice an opinion these days without appearing belligerently partisan any more? Can anyone write or speak with passion on a subject without appearing politically inflammatory? Can anyone stand for firmly principles in today's society without appearing both ignorant and inflexible?

I would like to believe that I am seeking honest debate, but these days I am force to question whether such is the case. It often seems that you cannot offer an opinion without alienating some of those whose opinions you respect (and far too many that you don't). It likewise appears that you cannot cry out against a perceived injustice without receiving a full measure of personal denigration in return.

As for irony, sarcasm, and the humorous use of parody; these particular forms of literary license appear to be completely lost on the general public lately when used on any subject of real importance. As a consequence, anyone attempting their use will quickly find themselves the subject of insults, accusations, and personal attacks on a scale that I will not attempt to describe to you. (Though I suppose that I should be grateful that at least most of the threats offered are verbal rather than physical.)

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not complaining as much as pointing out the state of reasoned debate in the country. This is after all, a path that I have freely chosen in which to express myself, and I am more than willing to reap the harvest of the seeds that I have sown (or at least most of them). I have to admit however, that these results do give me cause to wonder from time to time about my competence to make such choices.

Perhaps I simply have too thin a skin for the fray, though I would like to believe this not to be the case, especially after the weekly baptism of fire that occurs with such regularity. Perhaps I seek only approval and am unwilling to take criticism, though this too seems unlikely as I am often my own harshest critic (though not necessarily for the same reasons). Perhaps it is simply that I find myself often struggling to come up with the proper stinging rebuke, the clever riposte, or the perfect stunning retort that many of my betters are oh so capable of. Perhaps it would simply be easier to let the comments and insults stand, and allow the anonymous detractors to have the last word.

Or perhaps the problem is that I simply lack one of the essentials for the struggle. Perhaps this would all be much easier to deal with, to resist, and to effectively answer if like the scarecrow from Oz, I only had a brain.

(BTW, you may have noticed that I did not put up a post with a link to a column in the Toledo Free Press this week. This was not about the concern that I express in this post; but simple laziness on my part, combined with a wealth of material that Michael Miller had available to him this week.)

Quote of the Day

The 'Scott Brown Message' to current members of Congress: 


"Do you remember when we objected to the stimulus packages, a budget with a huge deficit, and health care reform; and you told us our problem was that we don't get it? Well, do you also remember that job in Washington DC that you expected to have after the next election? ... You don't get it." 
- me

Misreading The Tea Leaves

Results came in early in the special election for Senator in Mass Tuesday, and it appears that Scott Brown won handily by a margin of 52% to 47% and will take over the remainder of the term opened by the death of Sen Ted Kennedy. 


Many Republicans are already congratulating themselves on winning this seat and breaking the one party monopoly that has existed in the Federal government for the last year. Many Democrats have already cast Brown's opponent Martha Coakley under the bus for laziness and running a poor campaign, doing as Republicans did in 2008 and thus seeking a way to spin the loss. They are also already searching for a way to salvage some part of the legislative agenda still before Congress to satisfy their base, while properly positioning themselves for the upcoming 2010 elections. 


Before Republicans dislocate an arm or seek treatment for back bruises and Democrats spin anything too far however, they might want to take a closer look at these results. It's highly probable that this was neither a victory for the Republicans nor a defeat for the Democrats, but in fact simply the Independent voters of MA stepping up to speak their piece. 


According the the numbers in a USA Today story, the breakdown of registered voters in the state shows that Independents make up 51.2%, Democrats 37.1%, Republicans 11.4%, and Libertarians o.3%. One can only interpret this to mean that Brown's margin of victory must have included a significant amount of support by members of the opposing party or those not allied with either major party. 


Scott Brown seems to have understood the need for this, running his campaign on issues and principles rather than party affiliation. If Mr Brown showed any party affiliation in fact, it was with the "Tea Parties". He took their message of smaller government and reduced spending to heart and made their message his own, campaigning against many of the recent massive government programs either recently enacted or currently before Congress. He seemed to understand their righteous anger at both parties, and the politics of "business as usual" in government regardless of which party is in power. 


In spite of the fact that the seat had been assumed by professional political operatives to be a Democratic one, he instead called it both during the campaign and in his acceptance speech Tuesday night, "the people's seat". Unlike the Senator-elect from MA, there are many still out there both inside and outside the Washington DC beltway who have up until now misread the Tea Parties and their potential impact on future elections. They simply do not or cannot comprehend the righteous anger that exists in this country, was all too clearly displayed during Tea Party gatherings this summer, and may be beginning to bear fruit in these recent elections. 


And while it can be argued that there are those participating whose behavior was far from civil and whose message was framed poorly at best, what cannot be argued is that what we are seeing in this movement an attempt once again by angry citizens in this country today to insist on proper representation. Much like the Founding Fathers that they seek to emulate, they have taken to the streets and will not be satisfied until they see government in this country returned to the levels and limits established for it by the Constitution. 


Prior results in Virginia and New Jersey may have given some indication of what is happening, but the near future of politics may well have been clearly displayed in this MA election for those who are willing to see. It cannot be viewed however, in the way that most of the political pundits and operatives traditionally do. 


It's time to see that there are far more voters angry at the direction that this country has taken than either party seems ready to believe or understand. They are fed up with the "business as usual" of politics and affiliation with neither political party will provide protection for them. Neither will they support a candidate from either party who does not share this point of view. Those running for office here in NW Ohio might well take a lesson from Mr Brown's victory. Any politician expecting to be elected or re-elected had best take note of these signs, and not misread the tea leaves.

Mass. Election Strategy

Today is the day of the special election in Massachusetts, and I have been struck in recent days by the assumption of an apparent defeat of health care legislation if Scott Brown defeats Martha Coakley for the Senate seat vacated with the death of Ted Kennedy. It is not surprising that Republicans sense that this is their opportunity to break the filibuster-proof stranglehold that Democrats have on the Senate. Rather, it is shock that Democrats seem so willing to concede the death of legislation that the President and they have set so much stock in and worked so hard for. 


Somehow it simply seems incomprehensible that they should be so easily throwing in the towel on an issue that they have been trying to get passed for 20 years, and have never been closer to. Now it's apparent that Martha Coakley has run a feeble campaign at best since winning the Democratic primary. Perhaps she simply assumed, as did most of the rest of the nation, that Senator Kennedy's seat, held by him for some 47 years, was a title that should pass by divine right to the heir selected by his party. Perhaps Scott Brown simply ran a much better campaign than his rival, simultaneously distancing himself from the Washington DC crowd and the Republican party. 


But could this apparent surrender in fact be a savvy last minute strategy (or perhaps the only strategy left) for Coakley and the Democrats to win this election? I believe it is. Why else would such political luminaries of the Democratic party like former President Bill Clinton and current President Barack Obama tie their reputations to an effort considered already lost? 


This apparent concession however, does lend itself to two scenarios: 
1. The Coakley effort succeeds and the Democrats are able to claim that in spite of her poorly run campaign, this vote is a referendum on the President, the health care legislation, and the policies of Barack Obama and the Democratic-led Houses of Congress. The victory of Ms Coakley will be expected to shore up sagging support during final compromises in such health care legislation as many begin re-election campaigns, and empower Democrats to continue to move forward on the agenda outlined in the first year of the president.
 2. The Coakley effort fails and Democrats throw her under the bus, talking about just how poorly her campaign was handled and that perhaps she was not the best person to fill the shoes of a giant like Ted Kennedy. Likewise, they will say that this is a nothing more than a local election and that these are the yammerings of a few disgruntled Independent voters and "Teabaggers". As such, it has nothing to do with the President's agenda or Congress. 


In fact, Democrats must now unite behind the President and its leaders in Congress or face a return to the bad old days of Bush. Either way, rest assured (or as in my case, lay awake all night worrying) that there is in fact a Plan B, Plan C, and Plan Ad Infinitum still waiting in the wings out there for the current legislative agenda regardless of the results of this election. I simply find it more likely that Democrats have once again proved far more clever than Republicans give them credit for, and will use this apparent concession to energize their voters and get them out on voting day in the last days of this special election by threatening dire consequences to the "hope and change" only just begun in this country. 


It is likewise highly improbable that Democratic political operatives across the nation should be able to find nothing in their bag of tricks to turn this situation around and surrender, especially in a state that has traditionally voted Democratic politicians into office. 


As for the Republicans, they had best hope that in their exuberance over the turnaround in the polls in Mass. and the potential of winning of a long held Democrat Senate seat, that they have not once again blinded themselves to the political realities of the situation. They should hope that their but recently hoped for taste of joy be not turned to dust in their mouths by the cardinal sin of complacency by the time that this special election is over. 


(While I was at it, I couldn't help but throw in the "tin foil hat explanation": The Democratic Party, knowing that there was little or no chance to reach a compromise on health care legislation, asks Martha Coakley to take a dive for the team. She loses the election, health care legislation dies by filibuster after Brown takes his seat, and the Democrats get to blame the Republicans for being obstructionists and of abandoning the American people to evil insurance companies at the very beginning of the 2010 election cycle. I know, crazy ...)

Quote of the Day

The free market is innocent. But it's fair to say that crony capitalism created the economic mess. ... What is crony capitalism? It's the economic system in which the marketplace is substantially shaped by a cozy relationship among government, big business and big labor. Under crony capitalism, government bestows a variety of privileges that are simply unattainable in the free market, including import restrictions, bailouts, subsidies and loan guarantees. ... 
- John Stossel

The Haitian Posturing Parade

People are often at the best when things are worst, and the generosity of the American people, as well as those of the rest of the world is once more revealing itself. There are drives going on here locally in Toledo and NW Ohio, more going on everywhere across the state, and countless ones going on across the country and around the world. 


Unfortunately, not everything going on out there contributes to the relief of the Haitian people or to the standing of those making the effort, and I'm not just talking about the inevitable scam artists that will attempt to rip people off during this time of terrible tragedy. The NFL for example, is posturing today, broadcasting "public service" announcements allowing people to donate to the Red Cross by texting a special number on your cell phone. (Don't do it while driving though, or you might get a ticket, and remember that texting charges may apply.) I guess that people watching football wouldn't have the intelligence to know how to donate to the Red Cross or any other charitable organization without the NFL stepping into the middle to explain how. 


They are not alone however, with every good corporate public relations expert in the country attempting to position and posture his organization properly and find a way to jump to the front of the parade as it begins to form. They do so in the hopes of bolstering standing in their respective communities, while hopefully contributing to the actual relief of those doing the suffering. 


Such posturing is not beyond our presidents as well, as a recent announcement would illustrate. President Obama met today with former Presidents Bush and Clinton to announce their own fund raising effort at http://www.clintonbushhaitifund.org . This website is designed strictly for the acceptance of money and not material goods. 


Again I ask myself however, why such a site is necessary unless it is to provide an opportunity for power brokers seeking favors from those who still have some influence on politics and policy in this country? I believe that former President Clinton might actually have some standing in any effort on Haiti's behalf, as he is currently the UN special envoy to that country; (I'm not sure why they should need one, but that's a posting for another day.) but I'm not sure that putting his, Bush's or Obama's face on a charitable effort is going to gain extra money from the American people. 


Amazingly, it appears that we are all supposed to applaud such efforts, as politicians finally find a reason to reach across the partisan aisle and join together for a worthy cause. As a Curmudgeon and a skeptic however, I am forced view such endeavors with a more jaded eye. Why do we need former presidents to provide us with the means to do charitable work when such work is already well on its way? Why does the NFL need to take some of the credit for our donations rather than announcing what its own will be? (One from the owners and another from the players union please!) Why should we feel warm and fuzzy feelings about any corporation that lends its name (but far too often, not its money) to the efforts of Americans to come to the aid of others? (and the potential of getting a texting charge for a charitable donation really sets me off ...) 


I believe in the concept of charity and applaud charitable efforts in general. I believe in the notion of nations supplying aid to those in crisis when disasters occur. I believe that the tragedy in Haiti is one of those occasions and hope that all will attempt (as I have) to give something to the effort. I do not believe however, in efforts which appear to be little more than a posturing parade.

TFP Colum: Time To Stop Jump Starting

Another week has come and gone, and once again I have penned an effort for the Toledo Free Press; but while "Time To Stop Jump Starting" is one worthy of at least some consideration, it hardly seems to matter. 


Don Burnard, who I only just met at the recent TFP Christmas Party, offers something far more important than any opinion of mine when he shares his "Lessons From Sarah". Even though fellow columnists for some time, we had only recently met in person, and even though we came from opposite sides of the political spectrum, I found that I liked and admired him. I can only offer the my sympathies to Don and his entire family at this terrible tragedy. They will all be in my thoughts and my prayers.