House Passed Medical Bill Fails

In case you missed it, the United States House of Representatives passed Obama's health care bill last night. After months of debate, it came down to seven votes in the House. Ohio's Representatives split down the middle, nine for and nine against, the surprising vote being that of Zack Space who broke from the Democratic Party and voted No. It was an interesting turnaround as Space generally votes the party line.

So what did we get? A lot of it is still a mystery, not only to me but to the Representatives who voted on the bill. One thing is sure however. It is going to cost a bundle, and you and I are going to pay for it

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will cost 875 billion dollars over the next ten years. The scary part is that if you don't want to buy health insurance, in four years you'll be fined seven hundred fifty dollars a year. We still don't know what it is going to cost to buy health insurance. If you work for a company with less than 50 employees, the company evidently won't have to provide insurance to you, so want it or not, as an employee, it is going to cost you a minimum of $750. Well, maybe, because if you can't afford it, there are going to be tax credits to help you but health insurance through a State agency. And folks making less than 133% of the federal poverty level will become eligible for Medicaid.

The House also decided to change Medicare. This plan will use the power of Federal money, obtained from the Medicare tax, to force doctors, hospitals and other private-sector medical providers to become "more efficient and provide better care". Wait a minute. The Federal Government is going to show private industry how to become more efficient and provide better services? Medicare Advantage, the country's largest health insurance plan, will probably lose in excess of 120-billion dollars in the next ten years and will cut back on benefits as a result.

Good news however for stay-at-homes, the "children", ages 25 and less, who will be allowed to stay on their parents policies. This change is to take place in six months.

If you run a small business with fewer than 25 employees, whose yearly wages average fifty thousand dollars, you will get tax credits to help pay off the mandatory insurance for your employees.

In six months all insurance coverage will be required to pay for preventative health care, all of it, which means annual physicals. Preexisting conditions will no longer exist. All children will be covered for all conditions. This will be accomplished thanks to states being given five billion dollars each to set up high risk pools. Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to drop people because of their claim history and benefits will last for a lifetime.

Effective July 1, the Medicare drug plan will mandate a 50% discount on name brand drugs for low-income old folks.

But wait. There's more. Not being satisfied with passing one bill, the House passed another, which is on it's way to the senate. This one would give tax credits to families who make less than 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. For a family of two, this earning level $58,286 a year. For a family of four the eligible income level for tax credits is $88,100 or lower. By 2014, a cost cap of 9.4% of total income for insurance for those below 400% of the poverty level becomes effective.

The House would also add a 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income. Instead of the proposed 40%tax on employer provided medical insurance policies, the House would revise the penalty for employee failure to purchase medical insurance to $695 a year or 2 1/2 percent of the employee's income, which ever is higher. The fine for companies which do not provide "affordable" insurance to employees, will be increased to $2,000 an employee.

Well, Obama's Washington doesn't want you to worry. First of all, while the cost of the plan is nine hundred forty billion dollars over the next ten years, it will lower budget deficits by a hundred forty billion. That only increases the debt by $800,000,000,000. Yep, that's eight hundred billion. But wait! What happens to the $143 billion? I know. It is going to paid back to the taxpayer. Nah. It is going to be spent on some other government program, who knows what? Probably global warming research.

We should be filled with confidence that passage of the bill last night, and the one being sent to the Senate, will solve the problems currently abounding in a country with the best medical care available in the world. It will show those greedy companies which provided insurance for a profit of slightly over 3% the error of their ways. It will get those doctors who, to provide medical care to the sick who can't afford it, write off their costs, to understand their place in the medical profession.

Congress has the experience to make medical care in the United States better. They have the experience to control budgets. They have the knowledge to understand the desires of those who elected them. After all, it was Congress which passed the first Medicare and Medicaid bills, which had a 50% over-run the first year of their existence and have been in debt ever sense. It is Congress which pays thousands of dollars for hammers, millions for Pelosi's, and others, use of Air Force aircraft to go home on weekends. These are people of integrity, who just forgot to pay income taxes. These are people who don't understand that 65% of the people of the United States are against more government regulation, especially of medical services. These are the economists who don't understand that increased business expenses and more taxes don't create jobs.

The still unanswered question: Who's going to pay for this?

Makes yu' feel kinda proud of 'em, don't it.

New Philadelphia City Council Meets 3/22/10

New Philadelphia City Council meeting on March 22, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. There will be two committee meetings, the first being at 6:15, the second immediately following. For details, call the mayor's office.

Brady Campaign Continues Slide

On Friday, March 19, 2010, the following article was published by the NRA. I found it interestiang and thought you may as well.

The notion that lemmings deliberately hasten their demise by rushing into the sea may be a myth, but the anti-Second Amendment group and its spokesmen really are scurrying through a series of blunders that may hasten their steady march to irrelevancy.

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the group's two theories about the Second Amendment were rejected by the Supreme Court, one of them by five justices and the other by all nine. In 2009, they tried, with no success, to frighten America about tourists carrying guns for protection in national parks

This year, they've insulted their most powerful ally, President Obama, for not setting aside the economy, the war, and his social agenda to push for gun control legislation Congress does not support. They've given the states their worst "Brady grades" ever, even though violent crime continues to decrease. And, they've badgered the Starbucks coffee company for allowing customers to legally carry firearms in its stores.

This week, though, Brady lawyer Dennis Henigan—the world's most prolific advocate of the legal theories the Supreme Court sent to the shredder two years ago—further diminished the group's credibility by claiming "The evidence is overwhelming that the 'shall-issue' concealed carry laws have been a disaster for public safety. . . . [T]he scholarly research shows that the laws generally have been 'associated with uniform increases in crime.'

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

If he had just pushed himself away from the computer after his first four words, he would have been much better off. There's "evidence," all right, and it's certainly "overwhelming." Today, there are 36 states with "shall issue" laws—an all-time high. Sixty-three percent of Americans live in "shall issue" states, five million Americans have carry permits, and two states don't even require a permit to carry concealed.

"Uniform increases in crime"? The nation's violent crime rate is at a 35-year low. Since adopting "shall issue" laws, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Virginia have had decreases in violent crime ranging from 26 to 53 percent.

Henigan also claimed to have 33,000 signatures on his anti-Starbucks online petition, which can be signed by anyone with a computer anywhere in the world. But in a country of five million carry permit holders, up to 80 million gun owners, and 300 million people, Brady's petition and $1.70 will get you …

Unemployment Statistics Explained, Sort Of

We hear a lot about unemployment, but from where do those figures come? It would seem that they would be based on number of folks on unemployment compensation. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, that is not the case. The numbers are determined by, are you ready for this, a government survey.

Sixty thousand households are polled each month, which means about 110,000 individuals are surveyed. None are polled for more than four consecutive months, then not sampled again for eight months, after which they are put back in the system for another four months. The selection of who gets called is made by the federal government, which also interprets the results, in an effort to determine how many people are working are working and how many aren't. According to the government, "the possible error resulting from the sampling is not large enough to distort the total unemployment picture."

The categories are pretty straight forward:
People with jobs are employed.
People without jobs are looking for a job, and are available for work are unemployed.
People who are not employed or unemployed are not in the labor force.

Some people aren't counted no matter what. Those in prison, nursing homes or mental institutions, and members of the armed forces, are eliminated, as are those 15 years old and younger.

Okay. So who's considered employed? Anybody who, during the survey week, worked at all, no matter how long, or short, for pay or profit, is employed. The boy across the street cut my lawn for a couple of dollars. He's employed. So are people who have jobs but didn't work during the survey week because they were on vacation, sick, have child care problems, maternity or paternity leave, out on strike, or didn't work because of bad weather. It doesn't matter if they were paid or not, they're still considered employed. If your husband has a business and you help out during the week, you're employed even if you don't get paid.

Who is unemployed? If you don't have a job, but have looked for one in the past four weeks and are available to work, you're unemployed. Looking for a job, in this case, means you have contacted an employer or had a job interview, have been in touch with an employment agency, have talked to friends or relatives, been to a school or university employment center, are sending out resumes or filling out applications, placing or answering advertisements, checking with union or professional registers, or contacted some other means of job placement. If you are on a temporary layoff, but expect to be recalled, you are unemployed whether or not you have been looking for another job.

Then there are people not in the labor force. These folks fit into one of two categories. The first is termed "marginally attached to the labor force". They haven't looked for a job in the past four weeks. Some are going to school, retired, or have "family responsibilities" which keep them from working. They are jobless, are not currently looking for work, but have, in the last 12 months, looked for, or held, a job. They must be available for work to be termed marginally attached.

The second category for people not in the labor force, are called "Discouraged Workers." A discouraged worker is one who is not currently looking for work because: 1) they believe there is no job available in their line of work; 2) they have not been able to find work; 3) they lack the needed skills or experience; and, 4) employers feel they are too young, too old, or turn them down because of some type of discrimination.

Oops. Almost forgot about "seasonal fluctuations." The building trades, for example, tend to taper off during the winter months, as do the needs for ground keepers. This happens every year, so government numbers crunchers don't count them in the survey. I guess the logic is that unemployment change can't be determined as folks who are unemployed due to seasonal conditions aren't a factor to overall unemployment, even if they aren't working.

That being said, where does the government go to make these surveys? There are 7,300 areas the government uses, collectively called Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), to gather figures. These areas are Census Regions and Divisions, States, Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan NECTAs (New England City and Town areas), Metropolitan Divisions and NECTAs, Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Metropolitan NECTAs, Combined Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Combined NECTAs, Small Labor Market Areas, Counties and county equivalents, Cities of 25,000 population and more, Cities and towns in New England regardless of population. Seems to rely heavily on New England.

What about unemployment insurance? The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not use those figures, which are maintained by the Employment and Training Agency of the U.S. Department of Labor, for a number of reasons. The numbers of those on unemployment insurance exclude unemployed workers who have used up their benefits, those who have not been employed long enough to have earned unemployment benefits, those who have lost jobs because of their own actions such as being fired for misconduct, and others who do not file for benefits.

So, how are unemployment numbers finally determined? Through number crunchers and bean counters. How accurate are they? Only as good as the counters are. Do they give an indication of the employment situation in the country? Probably. But with the experience we have had of late with projections coming from the capitol, the old adage of figures never lie but liars figure, might cause some concern.

Consumers' Remorse

When I was little, adages were popular. For the younger generation, an adage is a saying, a proverb, if you will. Most of them were pretty good even if you had to figure them out, which sometimes took some thought.

Recently this one came to mind. Buy it new, wear it out, fix it up or do without. The mere fact that it came to mind is an indication of how our society has changed. Fix it up is no longer a priority. It used to be, twenty or more years ago, that you bought something with the expectation was that it would last for years. It wasn't unusual that things would last a lifetime. Sure, they may have had to be fixed or repaired a number of times, but they worked, sometimes for generations. Well, times have changed.

I had a pair of shoes, wing-tips, if you are old enough to remember shoes before they went to canvas and plastic. Had them about four years, only wore them for church, business meetings, nights out, that sort of thing. They didn't get a lot of use. A couple of weeks ago the sole wore out. A hole appeared in one shoe sole. No big deal, I thought. I'll go to the shoemaker and he put on a new set of soles and heels and bingo, a new pair of shoes. No so.

I went to the shoe repair shop in New Philadelphia and was told that the shoes could not be repaired. Seems that the stitching which held the soles and heels onto the shoe required a special stitching machine which he didn't have. Cost a bundle to purchase. Turns out no shoe repair shop in this part of Ohio has such a machine. Okay. So now I have a pair of shoes in great condition, shined up, ready to go, but with soles like Adlai Stevenson's. If you weren't around in 1950s you probably don't remember him. I needed a pair of shoes, so headed for the mall.

I'm a guy, so that shouldn't take that long. I knew what I wanted. Cordovan wing-tips, size 9 1/2 D. First store we went to, took the wife along, had hundreds of shoes but no wing-tips. Matter of fact they had all sorts of other shoes, but nothing in a size 9 1/2 D. The sales gal looked at me and asked, "What is a 9 1/2 D? Our shoes only come in small, medium, large, and extra large. I never heard of D." Obviously, she hadn't been in the shoe business all that long. Shoe widths used to come in sizes from AAA, which were very narrow, to EEEE, which were really wide. I had a friend who wore a 12 EEE shoe. They looked like rowboats. They were so big that he was almost rejected by the Army during the war because there was a question if the Army could supply shoes in that size. They could and he thought his tour of duty in the Pacific was "interesting".

Next store had leather. When I asked for cordovan I got another blank look. "Gee," the sales gal said. "I don't think I have heard of that brand." I explained to her that cordovan wasn't a brand, it was a color. She said she had shoes which were black, brown, and one or two in gray, but never heard of cordovan. Obviously she had never heard of the Marine Corps either.

Finally ended up at a clothing store on High Street and settled for a pair of shoes which were not wing-tips, not cordovan but infra-red brown in color, couldn't be resoled, had shoe strings which were nine inches too long, were 9 1/2 medium in size, and made in China for the Hush Puppy Company. They also cost a bundle. A few years ago, I could have had the old ones resoled and saved sixty-five dollars in the deal. It was getting on to cocktail hour, a time of day that was really needed after shoe shopping, so out came the credit card.

But that's not the worst of it. We had two VCR players. They were ten and twelve years old. While most everything now is on DVD, a big improvement over tape, we have one large stack of tapes which contain a lot of family history. You know what is coming, right? Within a month of each other both VCRs broke. They wouldn't even turn on let alone play. After a number of phone calls we came to the realization that one, they have no value because two, they can't be repaired. So what to do? The options are limited. Buy a new VCR, throw them away, or give them to our friends Jim and Sandy for use as boat anchors. The first choice won't work because plain VCRs are hard to find. You can get combination VCR and DVD players and recorders. I don't need a another DVD player but may be forced into buying one. Not a good deal for me as a consumer.

We bought a Bose CD player five or six years ago. It worked so well that we bought one for the office and a multi-CD player which will play three additional CDs. The first one still works fine. The second one has developed a problem. It doesn't play CDs. I called Bose for help. The accessory player not only didn't play a CD, but was hungry as well, and tried to eat it. Bose told me that the warranty had expired so there wasn't a lot they could do to help. If I would send it in, they would take a look at it and try to get the CD out. There would be a minimum charge. No, they said, there is no shop locally which can fix it, it has to be done by Bose. The minimum charge, which was shocking, and shipping and handling, helped make the decision to throw caution to the wind, grab a screw driver, and get the CD out myself. A friend of mine who has a complete Bose home music center, which has six speakers and cost about the same as a Caddy, had one of his speakers go out. He called Bose about getting it fixed or getting a replacement. Bose told him no, he couldn't do either. Some modifications had been made to the speakers and the new ones are not compatible with the old system. More boat anchors.

Now the surprising part about this is that folks evidently don't care. If it doesn't work, buy a new one. That way you get all the neat things you don't need, that will cost more, last less, and give you more frustration and trouble. We live in a throwaway society, not by accident, but by design. Folks today accept this as a way of life, albeit a very expensive way of life.

Children have been taught that money is expendable, that planning for the future isn't important. Businesses have lost concern for consumer needs, placing profit before quality. Manufacturers have discarded quality products for cheap products with made with minimal quality control. Retailers accept poorly manufactured goods on the premise that if there are problems with what they sell, they will take them back without question, eat the loss which will be paid for by their markup, or hope they will get reimbursed by the wholesaler.

And who pays the bill for all this? The consumer. Buy it new, wear it out, fix it up or do without? Forget it. That died when we lost pride in our work, our ethics, ourselves, and our country.

Health Care In A Free Society

The following is adapted from a speech delivered by Paul Ryan, on January 13, 2010, in Washington, D.C., at an event sponsored by Hillsdale College's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship. Paul Ryan is in his sixth term as a member of Congress, representing Wisconsin's First Congressional District. He is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee. He is a graduate of Miami University in Ohio.



Someone once said that before there was the New Deal, there was the Wisconsin Deal. In my home state, the University of Wisconsin was an early hotbed of progressivism, whose goal was to reorder society along lines other than those of the Constitution. The best known Wisconsin progressive in American politics was Robert LaFollette. “Fighting Bob,” as he was called, was a Republican—as was Theodore Roosevelt, another early progressive. Today we tend to associate progressivism mostly with Democrats, and trace it back to Woodrow Wilson. But it had its roots in both parties.

The social and political programs of the progressives came in on two great waves: the New Deal of the 1930s and the Great Society of the 1960s. Today, President Obama often invokes progressivism and hopes to generate its third great wave of public policy. In thinking about what this would mean, we need look no farther than the health care reform program he is promoting along with the leadership in Congress.

Let me say here at the beginning that even though after survey shows that 75 percent or more of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care, no one I know in Congress denies that health care reform is needed. Everyone understands that health care in our country has grown needlessly expensive, and that some who want coverage cannot afford it. The ongoing debate over health care, then, is not about whether there should be reform; it is about what the principle of that reform ought to be.

Under the terms of our Constitution, every individual has a right to care for their health, just as they have a right to eat. These rights are integral to our natural right to life—and it is government's chief purpose to secure our natural rights. But the right to care for one's health does not imply that government must provide health care, any more than our right to eat, in order to live, requires government to own the farms and raise the crops.

Government's constitutional obligations in regard to protecting such rights are normally met by establishing the conditions for free markets—markets which historically provide an abundance of goods and services, at an affordable cost, for the largest number. When free markets seem to be failing to meet this goal—and I would argue that the delivery of health care today is an example of where this is the case—government, rather than seeking to supply the need itself, should look to see if its own interventions are the root of the problem, and should make adjustments to unleash competition and choice.

With good reason, the Constitution left the administration of public health—like that of most public goods—decentralized. If there is any doubt that control of health care services should not have been placed in the federal government, we need only look at the history of Medicare and Medicaid—a history in which fraud has proliferated despite all efforts to stop it and failure to control costs has become a national nightmare. In 1966 the cost of Medicare to the taxpayers was about $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that it would cost $12 billion (adjusted for inflation) by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was nearly nine times that—$107 billion. By 2009 Medicare costs reached $427 billion, with Medicaid boosting that by an additional $255 billion. And this doesn't take into account the Medicaid expansion in last year's “stimulus.

The health care reform bills that emerged from the House and the Senate late last year would only exacerbate this crisis. The federal takeover of health care that those bills represent would subsume approximately one-sixth of our national economy. Combined with spending at all levels, government would then control about 50 percent of total national production.

The good news is that we have a choice. There are three basic models for health care delivery that are available to us: (1) today's business-government partnership or “crony capitalism” model, in which bureaucratized insurance companies monopolize the field in most states; (2) the progressive model promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders, in which federal bureaucrats tell us which services they will allow; and (3) the model consistent with our Constitution, in which health care providers compete in a free and transparent market, and in which individual consumers are in control.

We are urged today—out of compassion—to support the progressive model; but placing control of health care in the hands of government bureaucrats is not compassionate. Bureaucrats don't make decisions about health care according to personal need or preference; they ration resources according to a dollar-driven social calculus. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the administration's point people on health care, advocates what he calls a “whole life system”—a system in which government makes treatment decisions for individuals using a statistical formula based on average life expectancy and “social usefulness.” In keeping with this, the plans that recently emerged from Congress have a Medicare board of unelected specialists whose job it would be to determine the program's treatment protocols as a method of limiting costs.

President Obama said in December: “If we don't pass [this health care reform legislation]...the federal government will go bankrupt, because Medicare and Medicaid are on a trajectory that are [sic] unsustainable....” On first hearing, this argument appears ludicrous: We must stop the nation from going broke by enacting a program costing $800 billion or more in its first decade alone? On the other hand, if the President means what he says, there is only one way to achieve his stated goal under the new program: through deep and comprehensive government rationing of health care.

The idea that the government should make decisions about how long people should live and who should be denied care is something that Americans find repugnant. As is true of the supply of every service or product, the supply of health care is finite. But it is a mistake to conclude that government should ration it, rather than allowing individuals to order their needs and allocate their resources among competing options. Those who are sick, special needs patients, and seniors are the ones who will be most at risk when the government involves itself in these difficult choices—as government must, once it takes upon itself management of American health care.

The very idea of government-run health care conflicts with the American idea of a free society and the constitutional principles underlying it—the principles of individual rights and free markets. And from a practical perspective it makes no sense, given that our current health care system is the best in the world—even drawing patients from other advanced countries that have suffered by adopting the government-run model.

But if one begins with the idea that health care reform to reduce costs should be guided by the principles of economic and political liberty, what would such reform look like? Four changes to the current system come immediately to mind.

One, we should equalize the tax treatment of people paying for health care by ending the current discrimination against those who don't get health insurance from their jobs—in other words, everyone paying for health care should receive the same tax benefits.

Two, we need high-risk insurance pools in the states so that those with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage that is not prohibitively expensive, and so that costs in non-high-risk pools are stabilized. To see the value of this, consider a pool of 200 people in which six have pre-existing heart disease or cancer. Rates for everyone will be through the roof. But if the six are placed in a high-risk pool and ensured coverage at an affordable rate, the risk profile of the larger pool is stabilized and coverage for the remaining 194 people is driven down.

Three, we need to unlock existing health care monopolies by letting people purchase health insurance across state lines—just as they do car insurance and other goods and services. This is a simple and obvious way to reduce costs.

Four, we need to establish transparency in terms of costs and quality of health care. In Milwaukee, an MRI can cost between $400 and $4,000, and a bypass surgery between $4,700 and $100,000. Unless the consumer is able to compare prices and quality of services—and unless he has an incentive to base choices on that information, as he does in purchasing other goods and services—there is not really a free market. It would go a long way to solve our health care problems to recreate one.

These four measures would empower consumers and force providers—insurers, doctors, and hospitals—to compete against each other for business. This works in other sectors of our economy, and it will work with health care.

So why can't we agree on them? The answer is that the current health care debate is not really about how we can most effectively bring down costs. It is a debate less about policy than about ideology. It is a debate over whether we should reform health care in a way compatible with our Constitution and our free society, or whether we should abandon our free market economic model for a full-fledged European-style social welfare state. This, I believe, is the true goal of those promoting government-run health care.

If we go down this path, creating entitlement after entitlement and promising benefits that can never be delivered, America will become like the European Union: a welfare state where most people pay few or no taxes while becoming dependent on government benefits; where tax reduction is impossible because more people have a stake in welfare than in producing wealth; where high unemployment is a way of life and the spirit of risk-taking is smothered by webs of regulation.

America today is not as far from this tipping point as we might think. While exact and precise measures cannot be made, there are estimates that in 2004, 20 percent of households in the U.S. were receiving about 75 percent of their income from the federal government, and that another 20 percent were receiving nearly 40 percent of their income from federal programs. All in all, about 60 percent of U.S. households were receiving more government benefits and services, measured in dollars, than they were paying back in taxes. It has also been estimated that President Obama's first budget alone raises this level of “net dependency” to 70 percent.

Looked at in this way, I see health care reform of the kind promoted by the Obama administration and congressional leaders as part of a crusade against the American idea. This is a dramatic charge, but the only alternative is that they are ignorant of the consequences of their proposed programs. The national health care exchange created by their legislation, together with its massive subsidies for middle-income earners, would represent the greatest expansion of the welfare state in our country in a generation—and possibly in history. According to recent analysis, the plan would provide subsidies that average a little less than 20 percent of the income of people earning up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. In other words, as many as 110 million Americans could claim this new entitlement within a few years of its implementation. In addition to the immediate massive increase in dependency this would bring on, the structure of the subsidies—whereby they fade out as income rises—would impose a marginal tax penalty that would act as a disincentive to work, increasing dependency even more.

And before I conclude, allow me to clear up a misperception about insurance exchanges: it makes absolutely no difference whether we have 50 state exchanges rather than a federal exchange, as long as the federal government is where the subsidies for consumers will be located. In other words, despite what some seem to believe, both the House and the Senate versions of health care reform set up a system in which, if you are eligible and you want a break on your insurance premium, it is the federal government that will provide it while telling you what kind of insurance you have to buy. In this sense, the idea of state exchanges instead of a federal exchange is a distinction without a difference.

Americans take pride in self-government, which entails providing for their own well-being and the well-being of their families in a free society. In exchange for this, the promoters of government-run health care would make them passive subjects, dependent on handouts and far more concerned about security than liberty. At the heart of the conflict over heath care reform, as I said at the beginning, are two incompatible understandings of America: one is based on the principles of progressivism, and would place more and more aspects of our lives under the administration of unelected “experts” in federal bureaucracies; the other sees America as a society of free individuals under a Constitution that severely limits what the federal government can rightfully do.

We have seen many times over the past 100 years that the American people tend to be resistant to the progressive view of how we should reform our system of government—and I believe we are seeing this again today. Americans retain the Founders' view that a government that seeks to go beyond its high but limited constitutional role of securing equal rights and establishing free markets is not progressive at all in the literal sense of that word—rather it is reactionary. Such a government seeks to privilege some Americans at the expense of others—which is precisely what the American Revolution was fought to prevent.

Americans understand that the problems facing our health care system today, real as they are, can be addressed without nationalizing one-sixth of the American economy and moving us past the tipping point toward a European-style social welfare state. They know that we can solve these problems while at the same time remaining a free society and acting consistently with the principles that have made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth. It is our duty now as their representatives to come together and do so.


(Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College)

Clerical Union Contract Part 2

Monday, March 8, was another one of those nights at City Hall. The good news is that City Council won't have to go through another union contract session this year. Well, maybe not. With this administration and the realignment of City Council, anything can happen.

The contract for city employees, the clerical workers, came to what appears to be its final stage last night when Council voted not to accept it. It wasn't the vote which was so disturbing, but how that vote came about. (To get part one of this story, take a look at the Blog "Wage Increases Strain City Budget", published March 2, 2010.) After failing to get a decision on resolutions to accept or reject the Clerical contract a week ago, the resolutions came up on the floor again last night for a final vote.

There were two resolutions. The first to accept the Clerical Contract, was defeated by a four to three vote, those voting against acceptance being Ms. Cox, Ms. Espenschied, Ms. Walker, and Mr. Lautenschleger, those voting to accept it being Mr. Locker, Mr. Maurer, and Mr. Zucal. The second resolution, to reject the Clerical Contract, was passed by a five to two vote. Those voting to reject the contract being Ms. Cox, Ms. Espenschied, Mr. Lautenschleger, Mr. Locker, and Ms. Walker, while those voting to accept the contract being Mr. Maurer and Mr. Zucal

Whoa. Wait a minute. It happened again. Councilman Locker voted both ways, to accept the contract on the first resolution, but to reject the contract on the second resolution. What's going on?

Messrs Maurer and Zucal voted for acceptance of the Clerical Contract because of the cost of a fee, quoted by both, of $5,000, which would be paid if the contract went to fact finding. They expressed their concern that the money would, for all intents and purposes, be wasted as past experience indicated that a Fact Finder would rule in favor of the union and $5,000 would have been spent for nothing

So what happens now? Mayor Taylor requested a special meeting of Council, Tuesday, March 16, at 6:00 p.m., to discuss changes it would recommend if another negotiating meeting can be arranged with Clerical Union representatives.

The Mayor should by this time recognize that neither he, nor any member of his administration is capable of negotiating union contracts. He has failed completely in three cases, Fire, Police, Maintenance, to protect the city from wage and benefit increases which are unique in municipal budgets during this period of economic disaster, and is only moments away from a fourth. He does not understand that it is not City Council's responsibility to negotiate these contracts, their responsibility is limited to advice and consent.

Advice and consent. The advice part he doesn't understand. If he did why is he requesting another meeting with Council so they can advise him "of what changes they would like to see." What went on in the executive session of last week? It lasted over an hour and was called to discuss the Clerical Union contract before a vote on the council floor. Can it be that council members did not express their concerns at that time? And if they did, should not the Mayor know what changes they thought necessary?

Trying to involve City Council in the negotiation of any contact is no more than an attempt to shift responsibility away from where it belongs, the Administration. In trying to shift responsibility which belongs solely to the Mayor brings back memories of when Mr. Taylor was running for his present office in 2007. He spoke before a group of downtown merchants and blamed the lack of planning for downtown New Philadelphia on City Council. He evidently didn't understand the system then and he surely doesn't understand it now.

The administration, and some council members, are unable to understand the fallacy, and stupidity, of making financial commitments which the city may not be able to meet in future years. The path they have set us on is based on the political credo that "it's not my money, so who cares?" They fail to recognize that unemployment is up and statements from the federal government that last month's job losses were "only 36,000" is not a good omen to New Philadelphia's economic health.

How long can we afford to spend money we cannot guarantee will become available over the coming years? How long could you, as a citizen, exist following the current fiscal policies of New Philadelphia government?

Wage Increases Strain Tight City Budget

Last night, Monday, March 1, 2010, many New Philadelphia City Council members displayed a lack of understanding of financial affairs when they considered contracts for the clerical and maintenance workers of the city. Not only did their action on those contracts increase the probability of the city falling into default, but also set the stage for layoffs of city employees, decreased city services, and lower levels of protection from both the Fire and Police Departments.

The Council failed in its responsibility to protect the residents of New Philadelphia when it refused to reject contracts for the clerical workers and the service, maintenance, and technical employees unions of the city. Even worse, their deliberations on those contracts were done in an unnecessary Executive Session, whose only purpose seemed to be hiding the true costs and dangers of accepting the proposed contracts. What transpired in that Executive Session should remain unknown except to those who participated in it, but the results were evident when Council resumed its public deliberations.

The two Union contracts were brought to the floor for a vote. Each contract had two resolutions assigned to it, one to accept the contract, one to reject it. Each contract resolution was brought to the floor as an emergency, which requires the council rules to be waived before any action can be taken. Six council members must agree to any action brought to the floor requiring a waiving of the rules. There were only six members of Council present, Ms. Espenscheid, Ward One Councilman, was absent.

The final result to all four Resolutions concerning the union contracts was a pass. Without the required votes, of which five were required, Council took no action. The agreement between the City of New Philadelphia and the Service, Maintenance and Technical Employees Union will go into effect the end of this week by default. The contract with the Clerical Union will be brought up in Council at its regular meeting on March 8, but will more than likely become effective by default because of inaction on the part of council Members.

A number of concerns were expressed on both contracts. Mr. Lautenschleger stated his concern about the City being able to keep the General Fund within budget because of pay increases contained in both contracts. He felt that if the contracts were rejected and referred to a Fact Finder, the next step, with proper and adequate representation by the City, the Fact Finder would understand the gravity of the City's financial situation and reduce the wage increases to a more realistic level. Ms. Cox expressed her concern as the future financial condition of the country being uncertain at this time, there was no certainty that the City would be able to meet its General Fund obligations in the future.

Two questions were asked from the floor by Bob Conner, who requested the total additional cost of salaries and benefits paid to workers covered by the contracts. He also asked if the four clerks, who were specifically denied a nine cent per hour bonus paid to clerical personnel in the last contract, were included in the nine cent per hour bonus being paid by this contract.

City Auditor Gundy replied that increased cost for the Service and Maintenance contract was $46,631, for the Clerical the increase was $10,585, both beginning on January 1, 2010. Conner asked Gundy if base wages for employees went up, did not the cost of city paid benefits based on salary, such as retirement, medicare, and similar benefits, also increase. Gundy replied that she only worked up base wage increases, that other costs related to wage increases were not considered. Conner asked the Council President if it would not be possible that Gundy provide the entire cost of the increased costs to the city.

The Auditor offered no further response to either question.

The concern about these contracts is the ability of the City of New Philadelphia to pay the wages they mandate. The Administration's statement that the Clerical contract is limited to a 1.5 % wage increase is inaccurate. Article 28 of that contract reports a base wage rate of 1.5% but fails to consider "a $.09 per hour allowance in addition to the base rates". This "allowance" increases wages in the Clerical contract to a high of 2.41%, with an average wage increase for this contract alone being 2.15%.

Mr. Maurer, Councilman of Ward Four stated he was against rejection of the contracts, as, if rejected they would be sent to a Fact Finder. The expense of paying a Fact Finder, $5,000 by his estimate, would be an unnecessary expense to the City as past experience has shown that fact finding rulings would probably favor the Unions in any event.

In the end, City Council failed to approve or reject either of the contracts last Monday. The Service, Maintenance and Technical Employees' contract will become effective by week's end. The Ohio Revised Code allows Council 30 days in which to approve or reject a union contract before it becomes effective by default. Those days expire Thursday. The Clerical contract will be be considered on the floor next Monday, March 8, as a No vote was cast by Ward One Councilman John Zucal to suspend the rules on a resolution to reject the Clerical Contract preventing further action by Council.

The debacle last Monday evening must be shared by the Administration. For its part, the Administration did not learn from the disaster of the Police and Fire Departments contract negotiations last fall. The lesson which should have been learned, that negotiations should not be left in the hands of amateurs, seems to have been lost. Hiring of a competent lawyer, one with proper training, knowledge, and experience dealing with union negotiators is essential to protect the interests of the City.

Mayor Taylor stated that he thought the agreements with the Unions were as good as the City could achieve and expressed optimism that the economy would improve so the wage increases would not create a problem. Taylor commented that if the economy did not improve and financing became a problem, the solution would be to cut back on city personnel and services. Another option may be what he promised when he was campaigning for election three years ago, when he said he would raise taxes should the city experience financial difficulties.

It was an interesting evening.

(Editor's Note: For the record, the following statistics:

Voted Yes to Accept the Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Jim Locker, At Large
Voting No to Accept the Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 3; Sandy Cox, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large

Voted Yes to Reject Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Sandy Cox, At Large; Jim Locker, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted No to Reject Maintenance and Technical Employees Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4

Voted Yes to Adopt the Clerical Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Jim Locker, At Large
Voted No to Adopt the Clerical Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Sandy Cox, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large

Voted Yes to waive the rules to allow a vote to reject the Clerical Contract:
Darrin Lautenschleger, Ward 2; Rob Maurer, Ward 4; Sandy Cox, At Large; Jim Locker, At Large; Winnie Walker, At Large
Voted No to waive the rules to allow a vote to reject the Clerical Contract:
John Zucal, Ward 2

Absent from the council Meeting: Colleen Espenschied, Ward 1)

New Philadelphia Bureaucratic Surveys

Years ago I was involved in initiating surveys for a large manufacturing company. While I did not write the surveys, I had a voice on what the survey questions were and how they were posed. Back then we were seeking answers to questions which would determine what products would be sold, how we could make them better, and most importantly, what was wrong with what we already had on the market.

One of the managers of the survey company gave me some good advice. Never, he said, write a question for a survey which limits or directs the answer. There are two surveys currently on the Internet, one from the New Philadelphia School System, the other from the City of New Philadelphia. Both are asking the citizen to rate certain aspects of the operation of each. Both present questions which, when finally tabulated, will provide no information which will have any value in determining the feelings and concerns of those who contribute answers. The problem is all in the wording.

The problem with both these surveys is that meaningful questions are not presented. In the case of the City survey, it fails completely the goal it sets for itself "to improve the quality of the downtown and make it more usable for businesses and patrons." Of the eleven questions, six are demographic, three repeat each other and two ask mundane questions about shopping habits. Anybody who reads the survey already knows the answer to questions 7, 8, and 11. If the City Administration and Councilmen aren't aware of those answers already, well, what can one say?

The School Survey is a different situation. One question is demographic and worded in such a manner as to permit arbitrary rating of the other answers, a fatal flaw. It is shocking that questions 1 through 4 even appear on this survey, as all the choices listed should be mandated by, and for, every administrator, principal, or teacher in any school system. Questions not asked in this survey, which certainly should be, are, were you were adequately educated to become a productive member of the labor force, did your children receive the training which will allow them to sustain themselves in the market place, are you receiving a good value for the tax dollars you are putting into the New Philadelphia school system, questions which require only a yes or no answer.

These surveys are faulted in their design. They appear to be designed to meet the needs and goals of those who designed them, showing that all is well. Unfortunately they will produce no changes in either the educational deficiencies of the New Philadelphia school system or in the economic problems of downtown New Philadelphia. Surveys won't solve the problems. Solutions can only come from an understanding of what, where, and why those problems exist and confronting them with solid business knowledge and experience.

Messrs Alsept and Taylor need to confront their challenges by getting out of the office and talk to those citizens who are paying the taxes to support the school system and economy of the city.

Surveys which ask irrelevant questions to relevant problems won't solve anything.

(Editor's Note: Surveys mentioned in this article can be found on the following Internet sites: www.npschools.org and www.newphilaoh.com)

McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit

Back the first of the year, January 9, 2010, to be exact, I wrote an article about lawyers and lawsuits, "Let's Sue Somebody." A couple of weeks later I had lunch with a lawyer friend of mine at Gavin's and that article came up in the conversation. You know, he said, sometimes things aren't always as they appear. Sometimes there is another part of the story that just doesn't get out. With that he reached into his coat pocket, took out a piece of paper, and gave it to me. I read it and what appears below is the rest of the story.

McFacts about the McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit
Everyone knows what you're talking about when you mention "the McDonald's lawsuit." Even though this case was decided in August of 1994, for many Americans it continues to represent the "problem" with our civil justice system.
The business community and insurance industry have done much to perpetuate this case. They don't want us to forget it. They know it helps them convince politicians that "tort reform" and other restrictions on juries is needed. And worse, they know it poisons the minds of citizens who sit on juries.
Unfortunately, not all the facts have been communicated - facts that put the case and the monetary award to the 81-year old plaintiff in a significantly different light.
According to the Wall Street journal, McDonald's callousness was the issue and even jurors who thought the case was just a tempest in a coffee pot were overwhelmed by the evidence against the Corporation.
The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonald's Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

The most important message this case has for you, the consumer, is to be aware of the potential danger posed by your early morning pick-me-up. Take extra care to make sure children do not come into contact with scalding liquid, and always look to the facts before rendering your decision about any publicized case.
Courtesy of Legal News and Views, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers

The lesson to be learned here is one taught by my grandfather. Don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see. He was a little strong perhaps, but there is an essence of truth in what he said. The media has become more biased in recent years than in the past, but still is a major opinion maker in the United States. This case illustrates the ease in which biased reporting, intended or not, can influence the thinking of those who read or hear it. It also serves as a reminder to all of us to seek the truth rather than blindly accept what is printed and spoken.

I admit I was taken in by the press reports of this case. But then, weren't we all?

Thanks Counselor.

Snow Plowing Revisited

"There are folks who read New Philadelphia Tattler. I know that because I received calls about a recent article, "A Question About Snow Plowing". If rolled into a single comment it would read something like this: "If the city doesn't plow the airport until even the alleys are plowed, why do I still have snow and ice on my street and the city has a number of trucks plowing at the airport?"

So on Friday, February 19, I went out to take a look. Nice day for a drive, the sun was out, temperature in the lower 40's. I visited all four wards and did find streets and alleys in need of some serious plowing. Let's not get picky. Snow patches are one thing, but two to three inches of snow and ice over the entire street for a couple of blocks is another. I didn't really have to look all that hard.

For instance, Cedar Lane and 6th Drive, NW, where there wasn't a bit of the street visible. Alleys between 10th and 12th Streets, NW, were in the same condition. Third Drive, SE, needed plowing to get rid of the snow and ice, as did Third Street, SW. These are but a few of streets which, even after three days of no snowfall, were still hazardous to drive on. A resident on Ninth Street, SW., told me that they were snowbound for a number of days, not even being able to get onto the street. I took a look there and snow and ice were still on the street. I drove out to the airport and sure enough, just as reported by callers, city crews were plowing snow. When I was there, early afternoon, the runways and taxiways looked pretty good. Matter of fact crews were cleaning up around the hangers. So what happened?

The answer is twofold. First, snowplow drivers are human. As a result they miss things, in this case some smaller streets and alleys. The solution to this is simple. Call the City Garage, 330-339-2121, and report it. When you do, follow the first rule with dealing with the city, write down the time of the call, who you spoke with, what you asked for, what response you were given, and what finally happened in response to your call. This is important if you don't get the response you think you deserved and want to follow up with a higher up official. Once that call is made, some patience may be needed, but it will take care of the situation of snow still on the street days after the last snowfall. Incidentally, I have been told that New Philadelphia police officers frequently call the Street Department about streets which need snow plowing, potholes, and similar problems.

The second problem as it turns out is, you guessed it, political. Some of the people who use the airport have connections, and connections can make all the difference in the world. When the Street Department is told to plow the runways and taxi areas, it is going to get done regardless of what any plan says. It is another case of the select few taking priority over the majority. About 60 airplanes are based at the New Philadelphia airport, could be a few more. Why are 17,000 citizens deprived of be benefits of city snowplows for the convenience of 6o aircraft owners? Most of the aircraft owners fly as sportsmen and if that is reason enough, why are not baseball, football, and soccer fields plowed as well? The only reason that the airport gets plowed before all the streets are clear is politics.

Don't blame the snow plow drivers. They do what they are told. If you are looking for someone to blame, start where the responsibility really lies, at the top. Talk to the mayor. Reminds me of what a master sergeant once told me. You can delegate authority but you can never delegate responsibility.

A Question About Snow Plowing

I received the following message on the Blog site Tuesday from Mr. Anonymous, a prolific correspondent, and thought you may be interested in the answer. That being said, here goes:

"Bob, you have blogged about the airport, and you have blogged about the budget...so here is my question. I live on a short street (2 blocks long, but not an alley, connected to main streets at both ends, there is enough room for parking on both sides and two cars can still pass each other). The snow removal has been lax at best, and salt nonexistent. I understand that budget constraints can cause the city to cut back on the overtime hours needed to plow to the extent we have become accustom to here in NP.
"The question I have is why are City trucks plowing and salting the airport runways before all the streets are plowed? It's not just the runways, it's all the hard-surface...they even bring backhoes in and clean the individual ramps to the hangers. I compare this to plowing a driveway; the City has never cleared my driveway for me, but has often plowed it shut.
"Can you find out why the City is plowing at the airport before plowing for it's citizens?"

I talked to Mr. Fred Neff, Superintendent of the Street Department, who, among other things, has the responsibility of keeping the streets open when it snows. His folks have been busy this year, and for the most part, have done a decent job. Much of the reason for this is a formal plowing and salting policy the city is committed to and is being closely monitored this year. The guide lines are quite specific, not only on what is to be done and how, but also on the consequences if the policies are not followed. This is the first time to my knowledge that such a stand has been taken by the city and in practice it seems to be working.

Some interesting procedures which are in place this year make a lot of sense. Hills and bridges in New Philadelphia are top priority. Streets such as Donahey Avenue, Parklane Drive, Shel Mar Hill, and other hill streets are plowed first. Major downtown streets, Broadway, Front, High, are plowed at the same time. Secondary streets, Tuscarawas Avenue, Commercial, Bluebell Drive, Second Street, for example, are next on the list. The access streets like North, Fair, Providence, Minnich, finish off the list. Basically there are four routes, or areas, to be plowed, each route defined so as to prevent misses and duplication of effort. Alleys are plowed when time allows.

A long needed procedure is the plowing of major streets. These are plowed with trucks two or three abreast which moves the snow much more quickly and efficiently. Once those streets are done, the trucks then go to their assigned routes and plow. Part of the plowing routine is that no truck, while there is snow on the roadways, will travel with its blade up. It only makes sense that a snow plow traveling over a snow covered street should have the plow down and get the snow off to the side.

The point of this whole discussion is two fold. Neff has a plan on how to clear the streets of snow in an efficient, organized way which seems to be working. It should also cut back on expenses for snow removal, although the proof of that won’t be know until the spring thaw.

The second point is that, as it has been in the past, the airport is last on the list, last after the alleys are done. The City does not have an obligation to plow the runways, but does it as a service. The airport is shut down because of snow clogged runways and taxiways, and remains that way until the city streets and alleys are plowed. Corporate jets are not hangered at the airport, rather are kept at the Akron airport. So far this year, the airport has experienced long waits to have the runway and ramps plowed. And at no time has city salt been spread there.

So to answer your question, Mr. Neff and his crews have not put the airport ahead of the secondary streets and alleys of the city.

As you didn't provide your address, I wasn't able to get specific information about your particular concern.

Anyone interested in a copy of the Snow Plowing/Salting Guidelines 2010, the folks to call would be the Mayor, the Service Director, Fred Neff at the City Garage, and of course, your City Councilmen.

Thanks for the question, whoever you may be that asked.

Where Did In-Depth Reporting Go?

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” It was Sunday’s Times-Reporter, it was Saturday’s Times-Reporter. How so, you say? The lead story on Sunday, February 14, headlines “Year ahead shows promise.” The lead story on Saturday, February 13, headlines “Housing woes mount.” Confused? If you only read one or the other lead story, it made sense. If you read both, there could be cause for confusion.

The New Philadelphia Mayor’s State of the City address, presented to City Council in printed form on Monday, February 8, the basis of Sunday’s lead article, paints a picture of a city successfully working its way out of recession. Mr. Taylor cited a number of business improvements which have taken place over the last year, all of which are encouraging. The remodeling of Wendy’s, the Holiday Inn, and Wal-Mart are encouraging signs, but are not recent developments of planning and investment. Projects such as those are not accomplished overnight, rather require a year or more to come to fruition. A few new businesses have come to New Philadelphia, and for this we are genuinely thankful, and bid them welcome.

On the other side of the coin, Saturday, February 8, the Times-Reporter reported foreclosures in Tuscarawas County in 2009 at 454, the highest in the past two years. According to the article, foreclosures are 17% ahead in January 2010 when compared to the same period of 2009. On the same page was an article that Gorant Candies, Cards, and Gifts will close by the end of February. A walk through the city, including downtown, reveals a number of empty buildings, some of which have been unoccupied for months. Figures released by the Bureau of Labor the first of February show unemployment slightly higher than 11%.

The two lead articles send conflicting messages. Part of the confusion may be a lack of understanding on the part of the media of what is really happening in the city. Their articles appear to be not much more than quotes from city officials and others, which are accepted at face value and without question.

The media doesn’t seem to understand that the business of the City is generally not decided during meetings of City Council. The hard decisions, confrontations, negotiations, and, yes, political deals occur behind the scenes. Within City Council these activities take place in committee meetings, which, by the way, are open to the public. The news media is, by law, informed of such meetings 72 hours before they convene. The media, unfortunately, doesn’t generally publish such notices, nor do they attend the committee meetings in which decisions are made on which legislation is sent to the Council floor for a vote.

An example of the desirability of more in-depth reporting would be The Mayor’s State of the City presentation. It created questions which need examination but were ignored by the media. In it the mayor requested personnel increases including a Human Resources manager, an Assistant Street Superintendent, an Assistant Water Superintendent, and a permanent fourth Lieutenant for the Fire Department, the later in addition to the four Lieutenants hired last year. The four new positions alone have the potential to add a quarter of a million dollars to New Philadelphia’s budget. Tax revenues at all levels of government are down because of high unemployment. The Media failed to recognize the danger of increasing city personnel at a time when city income is decreasing.

It wasn’t that long ago that the guiding words in journalism were what, who, why, and where. It took digging, interviews, critical evaluation, to come up with the four W’s which made the news an important part of informing and educating the American public. It was inquisitiveness on the part of the news media which informed the public of current events, concerns, and kept watch over governmental follies. The search for truth and in-depth reporting, which made the American press unique in the world in past years, seems to have disappeared to be replaced with quotes from press releases and sound bites. What happened to the media of the past which aggressively protected citizens’ rights, guarded our liberties, attacked government excesses, and informed the public?

The citizen of New Philadelphia deserves to get the full story on events that shape and control their lives. It is the media’s responsibility to provide not only the story, but the facts behind it. It is the media’s legacy to find the truth and, regardless of political implications and pressures, report it to the citizenry.

Will New Philadelphia, and Dover, ever again experience the thrill of such a committed, informative chronicler of our times? I hope so.

Zucal Recommends Job Changes For Council Clerk

Mr. John Zucal, new New Philadelphia Councilman for Ward Two, hit the floor running Monday, February 8, 2010, when he presided at his first committee meeting as Chairman of the Special/Contact Committee. The purpose of the meeting was consideration of a resolution, assigned to his committee by Council President Joel Day, concerning a job description for newly appointed Clerk of Council Patti McKay.

The resolution contains four sections: A) General Assignment Responsibilities; B) Necessary Skills; C) Organizational Structure; and D) Specific Duties and Responsibilities. The document attempts to define the duties of the Clerk of Council. However, it is redundant to, and conflicts with, existing New Philadelphia Codified Ordinances, the Ohio Revised Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as Amended. It places duties on the Clerk of Council which are in violation of the principle of separation of powers in government.

The tradition of government organization in the United States, regardless of size, is three separate divisions of government, Administrative, Legislative, and Judicial. Crossing territorial boundaries of these divisions is unacceptable as it leads to the suppression of one by another. When one takes precedence over the others, our republican form of government becomes a totalitarian system which inevitably leads to uncontrollable excesses by those in power.

The organizational structure, suggested by this job description, requires that the Clerk of Council report to the Mayor and President of Council as well as City Council, thus making the Clerk of Council submissive to the administrative branch of government. By law, the Administrative branch, the Mayor and President of Council, have no power over City Council.

The President of Council is not a member of the City Council. He has no vote, unless there is a voting tie, is not able to introduce legislation, cannot speak on any matter being discussed on the floor. His sole responsibility is to preside over the proceedings, assign requests for legislation to the proper committees, and keep order. He has no connection, privileges, or responsibility in the legislative body.

A discussion developed between Mr. Zucal and Ms. Sandy Cox over the requirement that the Clerk of Council report directly to the President of Council and the Mayor as well as to the City Council. Mrs. Cox stated that the Clerk of Council was hired by the City Council and should report only to the City Council, not the Mayor or Council President. Zucal replied that they were talking about two different things, saying that by whom you were hired and who you “report to are two different things.” He also asked why “she could not report to the Council President and Council Members?….How could you have a structure where she reports to all members of Council?” Cox replied that the Clerk is hired by Council and should deal with Council and Council alone. Zucal asked whether or not the President of Council, Joel Day, was a member of Council, to which Cox replied, “No. He is a member of the Administration.”

President Day commented that the Clerk is the administrative assistant of City Council, charged with handling all administrative tasks connected with, and pertaining to, the Council. Zucal remarked that he has seen the President assign the Clerk tasks and wanted to know what those tasks were.

Day replied that he provided her with information that he considered pertinent to conducting council meetings. Zucal then said, “I believe that if we are looking for an organizational structure….we have to consider that the President of Council, who acts along with the seven of us (members of Council), all you have to do is, sitting at these meetings, see that there is a relationship, organizational, between the President of Council and the clerk.”

Cox replied that she agreed that there should be cooperation with the Mayor’s office, but the Clerk was an employee of Council and should only report to Council. Mayor Taylor inquired who on Council the Clerk should go to if she had a problem. Cox replied that any member of council would be an appropriate contact. Zucal stated that there should be a single member of Council to whom the Clerk should go to and that is why a new organizational structure was needed. He also stated that he would change the language that stated the Clerk would report directly to the President of Council and the Mayor. The meeting adjourned with no decisions being made.

I talked with President Day after the Committee meeting, asking his opinion of the meeting discussion. He said that he had assigned the Job Description project to Zucal. When asked who requested the job description, he said that he did. “I felt that there should be a job description for the Clerk. There never has been and why not do one now?” When asked if he felt that the Revised Code and City Ordinances didn’t cover what the Clerk’s position is, Day replied, “I feel that it’s got to be like we have job descriptions for us, the duties of the City. 39-97. Have you read that Ordinance?….We wrote job descriptions back then which are still in effect.” When asked if this was an indication that Council was going to mandate job descriptions for all the other jobs in the City as well, Day answered that he didn’t know and it was “up to Council.”

I looked up Ordinance 39-97 and found some really interesting material. The ordinance concerns itself with “Guidelines for staffing certain departments…under the jurisdiction of the Mayor and Auditor.” It covers all sorts of things, pay, vacation, number of folks in each city department, holidays, you name it. But it is limited to employees under the jurisdiction of the Mayor. City Council is not mentioned. Nor are job descriptions for any City position mentioned, let alone defined.

Ordinance 39-97 did lead me to The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, As Amended (29 U.S. C. 201, et seq.), which defines employee as “any individual employed by an employer. In the case of an individual employed by a public agency, such term means any individual employed by a state, political subdivision of a state, or an interstate governmental agency other than such an individual who is an employee in the legislative body of that State, political subdivision, or agency and is not employed by the legislative library of such State, political subdivision, or agency”.

In short, 39-97 does not apply to the Clerk of Council, while The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 specifically exempts the Clerk of Council from any Administration control.

One has to wonder why an ordinance defining a job description for the Clerk of Council was placed in the Special/Contact Committee in the first place, especially by the President Of Council who has no authority in, nor responsibility for, City Council? Why was the task of guiding the job description resolution for Clerk of Council given to the newest and most inexperienced member of the City Council? Why was this not assigned to a member with the experience of working with Clerk of Council? Why is a new job description necessary when the Clerk of Council had been effective and efficient for years following City Ordinances and the Ohio Revised Code?

Is there something here more sinister than what meets the eye?

2010 New Philadelphia Budget

On Wednesday, February 10, 2010, the Finance Committee met in Council Chambers, that is Sandy Cox, Chairman, and Darrin Lautenschleger, Committee Member, did. The other two members didn’t make it.

The reason for the meeting was to go over the 2010 City budget. This occurs once a year and sets spending for that year. The process is simple. The Committee receives the budget recommendation from the Mayor, then compares the requested expenses to the anticipated income. If expenditures exceed anticipated income, the budget has to be reworked to prevent going into a deficit.

This year the budget brought before the Committee was trimmed to the bone by the Mayor and for just cause. The carryover for 2009, money which is carried over from the previous year to run the city for the first three months of the new year, amounted to $1.5 million. The estimated carryover for 2011 is only $200,000, the economy being the villain. It’s another case of the dreaded “R” word, recession. Income is down although fixed expenses are up.

In no special order, here are some of the highlights:

The Fire Department has had problems with the floor at the fire station. It has sagged recently in recent years and needs to be propped up. Chief Parrish also considers the floor to be a hazard because over the years it has become slick and a number of firefighters have taken some spills. Budgeted: $24,000 to remedy the situation.

The Police Department had few requests for equipment. Their major concern was the purchase of new computers for two police cars and a new video recorder for one of the cars. Budgeted: $18,000. Also budgeted was $14,000 for portable radios and miscellaneous items.

The Sanitation Department received $25,000 for repairs to their garage. This is a priority item because of age and lack of maintenance over the years. The water pipes leak, the roof leaks, the walls leak, and the floor drains don’t drain. The heating is insufficient. The alternative is a new building, at $1.2 million, and the budget can’t afford it.

The Recycling operation needs a new truck. In this case the adage that no good deed goes unpunished, strikes home here. Fred Neff told the committee, that to cut down on expenses, the recycling route schedules were revised to reduce the work week to four days producing an approximate 20% savings. The Stark Tuscarawas Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District has funds available to provide a truck to the City, free of charge, but New Philadelphia isn’t qualified. The reason? We don’t collect recycling five days a week. So as Fred Neff explained it, if we go to five days a week, increase expenses, we might get the gift of a new truck. Neff has appealed this decision but has yet to receive an answer from the Solid Waste District. As a backup plan, Neff requested, and received budget money to buy a used truck for sanitation use not to exceed $18,000.

A used truck was budgeted for the Sewer Department, price not to exceed $12,000. The truck it will replace is held together by rust, has a rusted bed, and a shot transmission. Money was appropriated to replace the cover on one of the holding tanks, a “request” made by the EPA.

The advisability of purchasing used trucks versus new was discussed. The Mayor told the Committee that with proper inspection before purchase, used trucks have held up well in the past. Proper maintenance is essential once purchased. The savings are substantial and decrease in city income makes such decisions reasonable.

An interesting innovation may be coming soon to the Sidewalk Replacement Program. For the past couple of years the program has not been fully utilized. If you are not familiar with the program, the City will pay half the cost of residents replacing their sidewalk provided certain requirements are followed, like filling out the paperwork and submitting it to the Service Director’s office. The Sidewalk budget for this year is $20,000. Ten thousand dollars was unused last year and remains in the fund. A couple of alternatives were suggested for the use of that money. One was to use some of the money, on a fifty-fifty basis, to replace curbing for homeowners. The other was to change the usage limitation from replacing sidewalks to constructing new sidewalks where none presently exist. Note that these are possible alternatives, not done deals. That may take a while.

The Water Department came with a shopping list which included two trucks, a trencher/backhoe, and an assistant for Kelly Ricklic, none of which were approved. Ricklic also told the Committee that the Water Department was seeking a consultant to estimate how much un-metered water was being used by city buildings in an effort to determine the cost without the necessity of purchasing water meters.

The Cemetery is considering a renovation to their building because of concerns in compliance with the Disabilities Act. Mr. Limbacher, Cemetery Supervisor, stated the building is not accessible to visitors in wheelchairs. Restrooms are out of date and the front porch needs repair. No request for funding of these projects was requested at this time.

One new computer was approved for the City Treasurer.

Balancing the budget is complicated by wage and benefit costs. Those are set by contract and cannot be changed. When the percentage of department wages to budgets is compared, the complexity of budgeting becomes clearer. For instance, of the total budget for the Fire Department, 96% goes to wages and benefits. In the Police Department, 90%; City Prosecutor, 93%: Cemetery, 87%, City Auditor, 82%; Street Department, 69%.

On the whole the Mayor presented a budget which was trimmed to what appears to be the minimum which is consistent with City income. An increase in City revenue would ease the financial situation, but this is an uncertainty and evidently the Administration recognizes this, as does the Finance Committee.

Wake Up To the Terrorist Threat

Times seldom change. History gives us examples and when they are ignored, the results are devastating. The idea that tyrants can be peacefully dealt with is as false today as it has always been. What we are experiencing today is reminiscent of 1939, and just as dangerous.

After the First World War, on November 8 and 9, 1923, a German activist, Adolf Hitler, was arrested in what came to be known as the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, an attempt to seize the government of Germany by revolution. The putsch failed. Hitler was imprisoned.

During his incarceration he wrote a book, Mein Kampf, or My Battle. In it he laid out the plan for the Third Reich, a Germany which he would control, and which under his control would take over, literally, the world. Mein Kampf detailed the plan of aggression, concentration camps, methods to terrorize and subject nations to Nazi tyranny. On January 30, 1933, he was elected Chancellor of Germany. On March 23 that year Hitler assumed total control and became dictator of Germany.

By September of 1938 Germany was an armed nation which was threatening war in Europe. Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Britain, met with Hitler in Munich and came to an agreement. Germany would be given the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia in return for peace. The Czechoslovakians were not included in the discussions. On September 29, 1938, Nevelle Chamberlain stood on the steps of Number Ten Downing Street, the residence of the Prime Minister, and read the following statement:

"We, the German Fuhrer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister, have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for our two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again. We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe.” He concluded by saying, "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

In March of 1939, the German army entered Czechoslovakia and occupied the rest of the country. This was the start of the deadliest war in history. When the war ended six years later, deaths, military and civilian, exceeded seventy million, some calculations exceeding seventy eight million. No country in the world was untouched.

Hitler’s plans, all of them, were no secret. They were carefully spelled out in Mein Kampf. But nobody listened. Nothing was done to stop the rearming of Germany. No one believed the stories of death camps. Nobody expressed concern about the organized massacre of Jews. Hitler was not challenged until his armies were moving across Europe. Then it was too late.

There is a lesson to be learned from this. Aggression is not deterred by appeasement, trying to understand motives behind it, reaching out to establish a dialogue. Motives should be judged by actions, not words. The adage, if it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, then it must be a duck, applies to aggressors regardless of nationality, religion, race, or politics. Today, those aggressors are Muslims and they want to destroy our country, economy, liberty, our very lives.

That not all Muslims are against the western world is certainly a truism. In the Second World War not all Germans were against the United States, nor were all the Italians, or Japanese. But fight they did and they almost won. It is a deadly miscalculation to believe that only a minority of Muslims are attacking our country. It is a fallacy to think that Muslims do not believe that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, and others are infidels and must be destroyed.

It is insanity to believe that they can be reasoned with and through negotiation their war against our culture can be ended. We are in a war of cultures. We are at risk on a daily basis and may not survive unless we realize that the attacks on the United States, and other non-Muslim nations, are not attacks by random individuals. We are involved in a holy war. The Muslim leaders make no secret about their aims. Our problem is that we don’t listen. We don’t hear them when they preach that the Koran dictates that all true believers of Islam are bound to kill the infidel.

Understand what is happening. It was no random act which destroyed the Twin Towers and killed three thousand more people than the Japanese killed at Pearl Harbor. Understand that this is the same group who tried earlier to destroy the Twin Towers, who killed hundreds of US Marines in their barracks in the Mideast, who blew up the USS Cole, who laid hostage to US embassy staffs, who cheered as they hung American dead from bridges in Iraq, who beheaded US servicemen and showed the executions on television.

The time for appeasement is over, long over. The myth that terrorists can be negotiated with should be discarded for the realization that negotiations are only successful if both sides already agree. Ignoring the acts of Muslim terrorists, forgiving the carnage predicated by Islam teachings, apologizing for retribution against those who kill our citizenry, is prelude to surrender and defeat.

We are in a fight for our very lives. If we don’t become aggressive in the defense of our country, we will surely lose that fight.

Maybe Brady Campaign Should Switch To Decaf

On Friday, February 05, 2010, the National Rifle Association published the following article. Thought you may find it interesting.

The hand-wringers at the Brady Campaign must have figured out what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Having been rendered all but entirely irrelevant, at least for the time being, the group is resorting to weird publicity stunts, in a vain attempt to again be taken seriously by its former not-so-secret admirers in the national anti-gun news media.

Last month, the group gave President Obama an “F” for “failed leadership” on gun control, accusing him of “squandering” the opportunity to push for tighter gun control laws. Now it’s attacking Starbucks for allowing people to carry firearms in its stores as provided for by state law.

Get this doozie: “It’s everyone’s right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns,” the Brady Campaign says, in its modern rendition of FDR’s famous “freedom from fear” quote.

Not surprisingly, while the Brady Campaign easily fabricates a “right” to feel free from fear, it angrily scoffs at the right to self-protection by encouraging its minions to sign a petition demanding that Starbucks establish a gun policy more restrictive than state law. “I demand that Starbucks stand up for the safety of its customers and prohibit guns in your [sic] retail establishments,” the petition reads.

A call to Starbucks has confirmed what was pretty obvious on its face. The company is in the business to sell coffee, not jump in the middle of a Brady-generated squabble that state law has already resolved in favor of the right to carry firearms, in certain circumstances. Starbucks also isn’t in business to help Brady get its name in the paper.

The Brady Campaign’s resorting to this kind of silliness is understandable. It was once the most influential anti-gun group in town, able to claim some of the “credit” for the temporary imposition of the federal handgun waiting period between 1994 and 1998 and the federal “assault weapon” ban between 1994 and 2004.

But in recent years it has experienced the longest losing streak in gun control history. The waiting period has expired in favor of the instant check system. The 1994 gun ban has expired. The number of Right-to-Carry states has continued to rise. The list goes on, at the federal, state and local level. And the group’s core arguments about the Second Amendment were rejected entirely by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. President Obama even signed bills into law which included provisions allowing the carrying of firearms in national parks according to state law, and protecting the sale of surplus military ammunition components to the private sector.

And today, the media’s gun control darling is not the Brady Campaign’s leader, former Fort Wayne, Indiana mayor Paul Helmke, who spends his time blogging about gun control on the Huffington Post website, where members on the fringe gather to rant about mainstream America. Today, the leader of the gun control movement is billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spends his time (and money) as mayor of America’s most influential city.

Gun owners who like coffee ought to drop Starbucks a line and respectfully encourage the company to stay above the fray into which anti-gun activists are trying to drag them. As for the Brady Campaign, let’s hope things continue at the present rate. If they do, before too long we’ll have to explain who the group was, before it was forced to close its doors for lack of interest.

Copyright 2010, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.

City Budget Primer - How It Gets To Be

Budget time for the city of New Philadelphia is drawing near. According to the Ohio Revised Code, the City budget has to be approved by City Council, and in place, by the first of April each year. I haven't heard when the Finance Committee is going to hold hearings this year, that usually takes a day, but it has to be soon to meet the deadline.

To reiterate, the procedure to get a Council vote, in this case on the budget, there first has to be a Finance Committee meeting. The Finance Committee, as with all City Council committees, has three members, Sandy Cox, the Chairman, Darrel Lautenschleger and Colleen Espenschied, Committee Members, and John Zucal, the Alternate, who fills in should one of the Committee members be absent.

Remember, it takes two voting members to make a decision in a committee. The members meet at the Chairman's request, and if there is a quorum present, which requires a minimum of two members, the Committee transacts its business. After a discussion on an issue, a motion is made to bring the issue to the whole Council for a vote. The motion is read on three consecutive Council meetings before it is put to a vote. It requires a majority of Council members, four, to pass a motion, after which it becomes law.

The Finance Committee is the most important committee on City Council as its responsibility is to approve a budget for the operation of the city. The decisions it makes mandates how the money will be spent in the coming year. These decisions should be based on sound business principles, not the least making sure that the requested expenditures do not exceed the anticipated income. If they do, the City will go into default, a fancy term meaning go broke, and will be taken over and run by the State of Ohio, not a good thing. If expenditures are less than income, the city is considered financially sound and everybody breathes easier.

Where do the requested items on the budget come from? That is the responsibility of the Mayor. He asks for recommendations from the department heads and uses the information they provide to put the City budget together. His budget includes all the operating expenses for the City for the next year. He is assisted in his effort by the City Auditor, Beth Gundy, who advises him on the money available to the City to pay all the expenses for the year. The money comes from various sources, taxes, the federal government, state government, the county, New Philadelphia income tax, grants, endowments, and other sources. The anticipated income for the year is divided between all city departments, based on the requests which are submitted to the Mayor. The Mayor makes adjustments to these requests to keep all expenses within the available income, approves the budget and passes it on to the Chairman of the Finance Committee for advice and consent.

The Finance Committee then meets and studies the budget, item by item, to be sure that the requested items can be paid for out of the anticipated income. They are helped in this effort by information provided by the mayor and department heads, as to the necessity of each item, its cost, and whether the City can afford the expense based on the projected income. It is the responsibility of the Finance Committee to make whatever changes are necessary to keep the budget at a level which can be paid during the year. Part of this responsibility is to cut expenses where necessary, which includes the refusal to purchase equipment, hire personnel, that sort of thing. It is just like home budgets. If you don't have the money to pay for what you buy, don't buy it. Once this gets worked out in committee, it votes to pass it on to the City Council with a recommendation for Council action. The Council then has the option to approve, reject, or change the budget as it sees fit. If Council votes to approve it, it becomes law.

As with all budgets, there are two types of expenses, fixed and discretionary. Fixed expenses are those which have to be paid no matter what. They are generally recurring, and are not controllable. Discretionary expenses are those which are controllable and it is those expenses which are critical when putting budgets together. Discretionary expenses are the only ones which the Finance Committee and City Council can work with to control the budget.

Under discretionary expenses are the General Fund (pays salaries, operating expenses, building maintenance), and Master Capital (pays for purchases of new equipment, building construction or purchase, and other items which are expected to be used for years). Interestingly, included in the General Fund is the Police and Fire income and payroll expense. This is in addition to the money which comes from the half-percent income tax increase voted in a few years ago, which goes into a special fund. This money can only be used for Police and Fire operations.

If there are not enough funds to make the budget work, it is from discretionary funds where the cuts come. Services such as street paving, park maintenance, new vehicles, land purchases, health department services, and the like, get the cuts. Salaries and operating funds of the Administration and City Council fall under this category.

Fixed (or non-controlled) expenses are those which include total costs for all union salaries, federal, state, and county grants, such as the CHIP and Small City grants which help the poorer neighborhoods in the city by providing housing repair and street improvement. These expenses cannot be cut as their use is directed by federal, state, county, and/or city law.

Getting a budget from the Mayor's office to the final vote on the Council floor may not seem all that complicated, but the reality is that the effort is one which is all too often taken for granted. Poor information concerning anticipated income for the coming year can, and does, contribute to bad financial judgements. To get the job done properly requires honesty, candidness, and good communication between all parties involved, the Mayor, City Treasurer and Auditor, department heads, the Finance Committee, and City Council.

It also requires interest and curiosity on the part of the citizens of New Philadelphia. They must become actively involved in the process by finding out how, where, and why the money is spent. It is your responsibility to find the facts, and there is no better place to start than to contact your City Councilmen and the Mayor. It's your money. It's your city. Get involved.

Jesse, Barack, and the Railroads

History, in a way, tends to repeat itself. In this case look at the railroads. Back in the 1800s, the James boys stole from the public by holding up trains. Actually, it was an innovation by Jesse and Frank James who came up with the idea that it was quicker, safer, and more profitable to stop a train, rob the passengers and the express boxes, and scoot with the money. Innovation being what it is, Mr. Obama wants to do the same thing, but with a twist. He wants to build more railroads. To do it, he wants the American taxpayer to foot the bill. The difference here, between the James boys and Mr. Obama, is not as great as you may think.

Both of them are using the railroads to take money from the citizenry. The difference is in method, gunpoint versus tax legislation, or maybe there isn't that much difference after all. The President wants to dump eight billion dollars, that's an estimate, of course, into the building of more passenger routes between major cities in the country. We're talking passenger routes here, not freight, and that's an important point to remember. In addition, the Obama plan is to dump another billion dollars a year for the next five years, to "get it started."

Unfortunately, passenger traffic on the railroad has never been profitable. From almost day one, the railroads have been subsidized by the government in one form or another and the creation of Amtrack was welcome news to railroad management. The move by the government to take over the management and operation of passenger service from the railroad companies undoubtedly saved them from bankruptcy and allowed their continued operation as freight haulers. Last year Amtrack lost in excess of $468 million, which, by the way the government calculates things, was good news and a sort of victory, as it was $6.8 million less that what it had budgeted to lose. The number of riders dropped last year, with the shorter commuter routes showing the least loss, which makes sense when you consider these short routes serve the larger cities, New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles. The fact remains that even these heavily used routes are still, as they always have, losing money.

So with typical political logic, Mr. Obama wants to make a large transfer of money from the working public, which uses it for food, housing, medicine, and clothing, to the federal government to spend on Amtrack. The idea sounds great except for one thing. The national debt stands at $12.4 trillion. Unemployment rolls stand in excess of 11%, probably closer to 18% if you count those who are unemployed but not receiving benefits. Income to federal, state, county, and municipal governments are down, including Tuscarawas County and New Philadelphia. We're in a depression folks, and they just don't get it. Yep. That's the "D" word I just used. Depression.

But fear not. We can afford Mr. Obama's railroad expansion. He just hasn't told us how yet. That will be coming this year along with the proposals to raise taxes. They are coming, surely on the federal level, and probably on the state county and municipal levels as well. But don't be fooled by the oft repeated Obama promise that he won't raise taxes. That is part of governmental double-speak which translates to the Bush tax cuts will not be renewed. That isn't raising taxes, it's just not letting the taxpayer keep what he already has. Washington still doesn't understand that more taxes kill business and jobs.

And the trains probably still won't run on time.