Author Archives: Editor

New Year Resolutions For Local Officials

Making resolutions is a tradition of the New Year’s holiday. Most organizations establish plan objectives in order to reach their goals. One example of an organizational objective is to reach a specified number of potential customers, clients, or audiences. Another might be to recruit a certain number of new members, clients, new readers, or new businesses. Still another objective might be to increase revenue by a targeted amount whether in the form of sales, membership dues, or taxes.

In the spirit of setting corporate goals, I propose two New Year resolutions that would improve the service of public officials to those who pay them their salaries and that might increase public respect of the same.

Resolution one. Treat Xenia taxpayers like stakeholders and investors. To accomplish this goal, the City will create and distribute to every taxpayer a corporate-like annual report that includes goals, accomplishments, new issues, and simplified financial statements.

Government exists to serve specific needs of the citizens who created it. Services needed by local citizens include police and judicial protection of property and person, facilitation of economic prosperity, education, sanitation, and the like. Like investors in for-profit business, taxpayers invest their hard-earned money into government. Taxpayers have a right to expect a return on their investment (ROI). It could even be said that they are obligated to demand measurable results. To achieve this reasonable demand, city officials could create and distribute an annual report as stated above. An annual report would provide taxpaying investors both with measured and comprehensive results of service achievement and with financial accountability by means of simplified financial statements.

Some people will like react negatively to this resolution because they believe the cost are not justified, That is, they believe the money would be better spent on paving streets, repairing equipment, or some other necessary expenditure. It must be admitted they are mostly right.

The city spends tens of thousands of dollars for each levy campaign to increase taxes. Yet, most local taxpayers have no real clue why the money is needed, whether the need is legitimate, how tax revenue is in a reserve fund, or whether some of that reserve could be used for a proposed levy. It is for these and similar reasons that an annual report widely distributed would provide all taxpayers will the necessary information to overcome such ignorance. In short, such an annual report would go along way in making Xenia taxpayer informed citizens–one of the more important requirements for good decision-making in a participatory democracy.

Resolution two. Honesty and transparency is the only public policy worthy of the public trust. Therefore, honesty and transparency in all public issues, ordinances, levies, and all other public matters will always be practiced. If it is found to be otherwise, any legal matter involved will be deemed null and void.

Not only are taxpayers not treated as investing stakeholders in their public institutions, but they are treated like consumers and dupes. The underlying view of citizens and taxpayers by officials is the old sales adage: “A sucker is born every day.” The mentality is if you are stupid enough to buy the lies and half-truths, you deserve what you get. What school officials gave South Hill residents and taxpayers in general was a royal snow job. Officials said that a soil study was conducted showing that the school was atop a high water table, which was the cause of a flooding problem in the basement of Spring Hill elementary school. Because of this, Spring Hill could not be rebuilt.

However, the official geological study also states that all of Xenia is on just as high a water table. In fact, the land Tecumseh is built on is even more prone to flooding than at the Spring Hill site. The fact is officials have no good reason not to rebuild Spring Hill on the same site. Certainly, Spring Hill has no greater land limitations than at Shawnee Elementary.

Any votes for public money schemes based on such misleading information should nullify those votes in favor of it.

Candidate to GOP: Sorry, But Tea Party Label Better for Me

In a recent CQ Politics post, John McArdle reports about network computer consultant Donn Janes, a Tennessee’s 8th district GOP candidate, decision to run as an Independent Tea Party candidate this cycle.

Janes, who has bashed the National Republican Congressional Committee for backing gospel singer Stephen Fincher (R) in Tennessee’s open 8th district, said he decided to seek a third party nomination because “the National Republican Party continues to aggressively support candidates who lack depth on issues and conservative values, but instead focus on candidates who are able to self fund or raise large sums of money.”

Democratic strategists said Monday the move will help their chances to hold the seat of retiring Rep. John Tanner (D) by siphoning off Republican votes in the general election.

Janes made his announcement at a a Tea Party event in Paris, Tenn., on Saturday, about a week after wealthy physician Ron Kirkland of Madison County officially threw his hat into the GOP race.

Janes said last month he expects to report less than $20,000 raised in the fourth quarter of 2009.

CQ Politics presently rates the Tennessee 8 race as a Toss Up.

Senate Health Care Bill Gives $7 Billion to Health Centers, Could Fund Abortions

A new analysis of the Senate health care bill finds a section of the manager’s amendment Senate Leader Harry Reid added to the bill that could find billions of dollars going to abortion funding. The little noticed provision could open a new door to direct taxpayer funding of abortions.

During the closing stages of the Senate’s deliberations on its health care bill, HR 3590, Reid got his lengthy manager’s amendment added to the measure.

That contained language designed to secure the 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster against the bill and it included the Nelson-Reid deal that allows states to force taxpayers to fund abortions.

Now, in a memo the National Right to Life Committee has furnished LifeNews.com, a new analysis of the manager’s amendment reveals $7 billion in funding for Community Health Centers buried deep in Section 10503 of the 383-page amendment.

NRLC says the money could be funneled to abortion businesses to pay for abortions and will not be subject to provisions like the Hyde Amendment that stops abortion funding.

“Because this is a direct appropriation in the health care bill itself, these funds will not flow through the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services,” NRLC says. “Therefore, these funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment, which is a limitation provision that has been attached to the annual HHS appropriations bill in past years.”

There is also no other language anywhere in the Senate bill, despite protests from supporters of the measure to the contrary, that limits the community health center funding to non-abortion services.

National Right to Life also indicates that federal law doesn’t prohibit these federally-funded centers from doing abortions.

“Also, there is no restriction in the current laws authorizing CHCs that restricts these centers from performing abortions,” the pro-life group says.

Referring to Section 330 of the Public Health Services Act, NRLC says federal law says CHCs can only use Section 330 funds “for purposes within the scope of their grants, but one can assume that grant applications that included (for example) ‘reproductive services’ would not be deemed objectionable under the Obama Administration, and abortions could be subsumed under various other classifications as well.”

Right to Life says the concern is not a hypothetical one.

NRLC points out that the there is already an organized effort underway by the Reproductive Health Access Project to encourage Community Health Centers to perform abortions, “as an integrated part of primary health care.”

In fact, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project, two pro-abortion groups, have already produced an “administrative billing guide” to help CHCs integrate abortion into their practices within the confines of existing federal and state restrictions.

NRLC says the inclusion of the funding for CHCs with no abortion limitations presents another reason why the final health care bill must contain the Stupak amendment to truly ban abortion funding.

“The sudden appearance in the Senate health care bill of $7 billion in direct appropriations for CHCs, unconstrained by the Hyde Amendment or any other impediment to the use of the funds for direct federal funding of elective abortion, provides one more illustration of why it is critical that the final health care reform bill include the Stupak-Pitts language,” the group says.

Source Steven Ertelt, Editor, LifeNews.com, January 12, 2010.

Ohio Population Aging, Number of Children Under 18 Declines

New statistics from the US Census Bureau reveals an aging population. Since the 2000 Census, Ohio’s 18-64 year old population grew 3 percent from 6.97 million to 7.18 million. The number of 65 and over group increased by 4 percent from 1.51 million to 1.57 million.

The inverse is true of Ohio’s children. The number of children under 18 declined 5 percent. Children 5 years of age and under saw the least decline, only 1 percent (753,669 to 743,750). Ohio’s teen population also declined by nearly 1 percent (655,411 to 646,135). The largest decline was seen among Ohio’s 5-13 year old group, which was 9 percent. The number children ages 5-13 declined from 1,476,529 to 1,340,492.

The question is whether Ohio politicians and business leaders will find creative solutions for this group of future workers and taxpayers to both funding the elderly retirement and health needs, or will they simply greater debt burden that will rob them of a decent lifestyle. If so, the increasing debt burden will likely produce a citizenry oppositional to those aged leaders and their irresponsible generation.

Ohio government is too big to pay for its employees pensions, taxpayers should pay for no more

By Daniel Downs

Ohio public employee pension fund are suffering the same fate as their employers revenue streams. They are dwindling. Partly to blame is our spend-thrifty government; the other part is the financial industry that was willing to follow the lead of their liberal politicians.

According to an excellent report by the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio public pensions cost taxpayers $4.1 billion annually. Those costs are directly related to the size of government payrolls, which continue to grow. As noted, government employees get higher than average retirement incomes. These are guaranteed by law.

Because 401K and other sources of pension funds are subject to stock market volatility, the Ohio budget is now revealing another part of its budget shortfall.

To make up for the loss, Ohio public employee union-negotiated pension funds are asking taxpayers to foot the bill.

What is wrong with this picture?

As noted at the beginning, the growth of government bureaucracy outpaces the private sector. Socialistic and special interest programs along with related federal mandates drive much unnecessary growth and its costs to taxpayers. The answer is in cutting them. Ohio government should follow their private sector partner and downsize. Cut departments, programs, employees, and cut related expenses. By downsizing, the executive branch the savings would cover most, if not all, of the current budget deficit, which means covering pensions too.

And, what about all of Ohio’s private sector employee who are suffering either declines or loss of their retirement pensions? If taxpayers should maintain retired employee pension because they pour billions of dollars into Ohio’s economy as argued Democrat Rep. Todd Book and the unions, retired private sector employees pour in many more billions. It would be more profitable for the economy if taxpayers funded their retirement funds.

Then, there is the frequent practice of allowing double dippers to burden Ohio taxpayers. As with Xenia Community Schools Supt. Lewis, many government employees receive pension income as well as taxpayer funded paychecks. Why should taxpayers pay double for such employees, and pay double or triple amounts for bailouts, and pay double for levy debts to schools and to investors? Public corruption obviously is very profitable.

Ohio government is just too big and corrupt to pay for its employees’ pensions. That is why taxpayers should refuse to pay more.

Revolving door undermines public trust in government

By John Mitchel

RE: Local contractors under scrutiny for using paid military “mentors”, Dayton Daily News, December 30, 2009: Many consider Gen. Bill Creech as “father of the modern Air Force.”

During his distinguished career and before he died in 2003, Gen. Creech practiced and preached the notion that the most important responsibility of a leader is to train new leaders. “Mentoring” was on Gen. Creech’s short list of important tasks required to prepare Air Force leaders for the future. However, simultaneous receipt of $1600 a day mentoring fees plus a six-figure military pension plus hundreds of thousands in consulting fees from defense contractors doesn’t seem to fit Gen. Creech’s noble intentions of preparing Air Force leaders for challenges they may face in the future. Besides, each senior officer participating in the Air Force mentoring program has more than 30 years experience on active duty. That should be sufficient time to positively instill the core values of duty, honor, country in subordinates of all ranks, and especially the senior troops who more senior officers deal with on a daily basis.

“Mentors for hire” may seem abusive to some, but it pales in comparison to the ease and speed in which elected officials and their staff members pass through the “revolving door.” Take for example Congressman Dave Hobson, who retired a multi-millionaire after nearly 30 years of public service, then took a job as a lobbyist for Vorys Advisors, a subsidiary of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, LLC, a Columbus law firm. And let’s not forget Congressman Steve Austria’s wife Eileen, who moved from Congressman Dave Hobson’s District Director to Director of Sales and Marketing with Nextedge Development Corporation, a non-profit, tax exempt company 60-70 percent financed by tax dollars including federal earmarks requested by Dave Hobson and Third Frontier and other state funding sponsored by Steve Austria when he was in the Ohio General Assembly. It’s no wonder approval ratings for Congress are at all-time lows.

If the revolving door between government and the private sector should exist at all, it should be with two conditions; full and open disclosure, and a reasonable cooling off period, especially at the most senior levels. Instead, the usual suspects prefer to conceal their self-dealing with faceless private corporations, and more often than not, through non-profit, tax exempt entities financed mostly with taxpayer dollars. Term limits, self imposed or otherwise, would be a step in the right direction to mitigate the revolving door issue for federal elected officials. That would motivate our congressional leaders to act as citizen legislators who serve for a time, and then return to their home districts to enjoy the liberty and freedom they helped protect as representatives of the people. The longer we allow the self-dealing career politician mindset to prevail in Washington and Columbus, the closer we will come to America falling into the abyss.

John Mitchel was a candidate for Ohio governor in 1998 and ran for U.S. House of Representatives in the 7th Congressional District in 2008. In 2006 he wrote and self-published America at the Abyss: A View from the Heartland.

Who will be awake at 12:01AM January 1, 2010

If a poll taken by Ramussen today is any indicator, 62 percent of Xenia residents will awake to celebrate the beginning of a New Year. About 75 percent of adults under 30 will be praying, toasting, cheering, or kissing during the New Year’s arrival, but only 41 percent of adults over 30 will be doing the same. That means of the 38 percent of Xenians will be snoring at the New Year. Among those lazy rebels will be 25 percent will under 30s and and 69 percent of the over-the-hill-gang (those over 30).

Those who intend to still be awake at 12:01 are like to be one of the following places: 23 percent will be relaxing at home, 11 percent will be at a friends home, 5 percent will be bashing at a restaurant or bar, 13 percent will be still be wondering around, and 10 percent are not revealing where swanky place will be. Of course, the 38 percent who intend to be asleep at 12:01 AM did not say in whose bed they would presumably be snoring away. Maybe those who will be praying could pray for them as well. You never know it just might make a good and happy New Year become a reality. Anything is possible in Xenia.

Why I Signed the Manhattan Declaration

By Gary Palmer

On November 20, 2009 a group of nationally known and respected Christian leaders set forth an historic declaration.

The Manhattan Declaration is a long overdue message from men and women of faith to all those in political power from state and local governments to the federal government and its myriad bureaucracies. The Declaration focuses on three foundational principles of justice and the common good on which the signers will not compromise: the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions; the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife; and religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

The Declaration states, “Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense.”

Obviously, this is a direct challenge to the power of the government at every level but especially the federal government under the current dominant liberal regime. In an interview with Katherine Lopez of the National Review, Dr. Robert George, one of the principal authors of the Manhattan Declaration, said that important decisions are now being made, or soon will be made, by state and federal government on the issues addressed in the Declaration.

Dr. George said that as a result of the 2006 and 2008 elections there is unprecedented strength in both houses of Congress and in many state legislatures to push laws that advance the abortion agenda, that seek to legalize same-sex marriage, and that threaten religious liberty. In fact, some Christian groups have already come under assault.

In May 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston ended its 103 year ministry of providing adoption services to place foster children rather than comply with the Massachusetts state law that required them to place children with homosexuals. In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is threatening to take action against Belmont Abbey College, a private Catholic college in North Carolina, because the college refuses to include insurance coverage for abortion and contraception in the college’s health insurance plan.

While both of these involve Catholic institutions, they could just as easily be Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian or any other denomination.

Lopez later asked Dr. George how the White House should take the Declaration. He responded, “I hope that President Obama will understand that the signatories to the Manhattan Declaration are determined to defend the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage, and respect for religious freedom. On these issues, they cannot compromise, and they will not remain silent.”

The Declaration’s signatories understand that the principles of the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and religious freedom are under threat from powerful political and cultural forces in our nation. They want it understood that, as Christians, those who sign the Declaration regard these principles as non-negotiable, and will therefore be unceasing in their defense of them. A critical line of the declaration states, “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence.”

In explaining why he signed the Manhattan Declaration, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky wrote that he signed it “…because I want to put my name on its final pledge — that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth — and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.”

Dr. Mohler was referring to the last lines of the Declaration that should be regarded as a solemn oath by all who sign it, “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.” Mohler then added, “I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all.”

The opportunity to stand with other believers of such courage and moral clarity is why I signed the Declaration.

You can read the Manhattan Declaration at www.manhattandeclaration.org.

Gary Palmer is president of the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Americans Against Congress’ Deficit Increasing Health Care Reform

In a December 22 Quinnipiac University poll, most Americans (53-36 percent) opposed the House and Senate Health Care Reform plans.

As usual, partisan politics is evident. Independent voters “mostly disapprove” 58 – 30 percent, as do Republicans 83 – 10 percent. Democrats “mostly approve” 64 – 22 percent.

Although most Americans (56-38 percent) support giving individuals the option of coverage by a government plan, they strongly oppose 72-24 percent using any public money in the health care overhaul to pay for abortions.

Americans are not happy with Pres. Obama’s performance concerning health care reform. Quinnipiac researchers found that 56-38 percent disapproved. They not only are Americans dissatisfied with Obama’s role in pushing for more universal health care, but a strong majority do not believe he will be able to keep his promise to overhaul it without increasing the federal deficit.

Slightly more Americans 56-36 percent do not want health care reform if it will increase the national debt.

Strickland Shouldn’t Count on Federal Bailout

By Marc Kilmer

Governor Strickland and the General Assembly last week agreed on a tax hike to close this fiscal year’s budget deficit. When they return in January, though, they will have to deal with a projected deficit of roughly $5 billion for next fiscal year. The governor is hoping the federal government will send some money Ohio’s way to make this deficit disappear. While a federal bailout is unlikely, even if it happens Ohio’s budget problems won’t go away.

The seemingly endless debate in the General Assembly this year over closing the deficit clearly illustrates that Ohio has budget problems. The spending obligations made by politicians can’t be funded with the money being paid by state taxpayers. Politicians of both parties were unwilling to cut state spending to close the gap. Instead, they supported a federal “stimulus” bill that papered over part of the difference and then raised taxes.

Since the next fiscal year will also have a deficit, we can count on similar tactics in the 2010 legislative session. Trimming a little spending, “delaying” tax cuts, or hoping for a federal bailout won’t address the fundamental problem: Ohio’s politicians simply spend too much.

From 1998 to 2008, Ohio’s budget grew by 41%. New government programs were created, existing government programs were expanded, and various interest groups were given tax dollars for their desired projects. Republicans as well as Democrats were happy handing out tax dollars at ever-increasing rates and there was little fiscal discipline in Columbus.

When tax revenue was flowing in, it was easy to sustain the growth of Big Government. When tax revenue declines, though, those who now count on the new government spending fiercely resist seeing it stop or even decrease. Legislators and the governor are faced with an uncomfortable situation.

That seems to be why Governor Strickland has expressed his hope for another round of federal money to alleviate the state budget woes. Most other states are in a similar budget predicament, and they, too, would like to see the feds help them cover up their fiscal mismanagement. With estimates that state budget deficits could total $180 billion in the next fiscal year, a hefty federal bailout would be necessary at a time when even the big spenders in DC are blanching at adding to the record-high federal deficit.

Of course, whether the money comes from Columbus or Washington, DC, it comes from our pocketbook. Government can’t spend what it doesn’t first tax or borrow. Ultimately taxpayers will be paying for any federal bailout funds that come to Ohio. The only difference is whether it is funneled through the U.S. Treasury or the Ohio Department of Taxation.

Instead of hoping for an unlikely federal bailout, Ohio policymakers should learn from this year’s budget debacle and get serious about enacting reforms that will provide a more permanent solution to the state’s problems. Eliminating useless government programs, cutting the bloated state workforce and trimming its wages and benefits, and finding more efficient ways to provide necessary services is a good start. It’s also necessary to enact tax and regulatory reforms that will make Ohio an attractive place for businesses, which will increase tax revenue without the need to hike tax rates.

A federal bailout may make politicians’ jobs easier, but it’s not what Ohio really needs.

Marc Kilmer is a policy analyst with the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a research and educational institute located in Columbus, Ohio.