The Rules of the Game and Economic Recovery

The Rules of the Game and Economic Recovery
By Amity Shlaes

The Monopoly board game originated during the Great Depression. At first its inventor, Charles Darrow, could not interest manufacturers. Parker Brothers turned the game down, citing “52 design errors.” But Darrow produced his own copies of the game, and Parker Brothers finally bought Monopoly. By 1935, the New York Times was reporting that “leading all other board games … is the season’s craze, ‘Monopoly,’ the game of real estate.”

Most of us are familiar with the object of Monopoly: the accumulation of property on which one places houses and hotels, and from which one receives revenue. Many of us have a favorite token. Perennially popular is the top hat, which symbolizes the sort of wealth to which Americans who work hard can aspire. The top hat is a token that has remained in the game, even while others have changed over the decades.

One’s willingness to play Monopoly depends on a few conditions—for instance, a predictable number of “Pay Income Tax” cards. These cards are manageable when you know in advance the amount of money printed on them and how many of them are in the deck. It helps, too, that there are a limited and predictable number of “Go to Jail” cards. This is what Frank Knight of the University of Chicago would call a know- able risk, as opposed to an uncertainty. Likewise, there must be a limited and predictable number of “Chance” cards. In other words, there has to be some certainty that property rights are secure and that the risks to property are few in number and can be managed.

The bank must be dependable, too. There is a fixed supply of Monopoly money and the bank is supposed to follow the rules of the game, exercising little or no independent discretion. If players sit down at the Monopoly board only to discover a bank that overreaches or is too unpredictable or discretionary, we all know what happens. They will walk away from the board. There is no game.

Relevance to the 1930s

How is this game relevant to the Great Depression? We all know the traditional narrative of that event: The stock market crash generated an economic Katrina. One in four was unemployed in the first few years. It resulted from a combination of monetary, banking, credit, international, and consumer confidence factors. The terrible thing about it was the duration of a high level of unemployment, which averaged in the mid teens for the entire decade.

The second thing we usually learn is that the Depression was mysterious—a problem that only experts with doctorates could solve. That is why FDR’s floating advisory group—Felix Frankfurter, Frances Perkins, George Warren, Marriner Eccles and Adolf Berle, among others—was sometimes known as a Brain Trust. The mystery had something to do with a shortage of money, we are told, and in the end, only a Brain Trust’s tinkering with the money supply saved us. The corollary to this view is that the government knows more than American business does about economics.

Another common presumption is that cleaning up Wall Street and getting rid of white collar criminals helped the nation recover. A second is that property rights may still have mattered during the 1930s, but that they mattered less than government-created jobs, shoring up home- owners, and getting the money supply right. A third is that American democracy was threatened by the rise of a potential plutocracy, and that the Wagner Act of 1935—which lent federal support to labor unions—was thus necessary and proper. Fourth and finally, the traditional view of the 1930s is that action by the government was good, whereas inaction would have been fatal. The economic crisis mandated any kind of action, no matter how far removed it might be from sound monetary policy. Along these lines the humorist Will Rogers wrote in 1933 that if Franklin Roosevelt had “burned down the capital, we would cheer and say, ‘Well at least we got a fire started, anyhow.’”

To put this official version of the 1930s in terms of the Monopoly board: The American economy was failing because there were too many top hats lording it about on the board, trying to establish a plutocracy, and because there was no bank to hand out money. Under FDR, the federal government became the bank and pulled America back to economic health.

When you go to research the 1930s, however, you find a different story. It is of course true that the early part of the Depression—the years upon which most economists have focused — was an economic Katrina. And a number of New Deal measures provided lasting benefits for the economy. These include the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the push for free trade led by Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the establishment of the modern mortgage format. But the remaining evidence contradicts the official narrative. Overall, it can be said, government prevented recovery. Herbert Hoover was too active, not too passive—as the old stereotypes suggest — while Roosevelt and his New Deal policies impeded recovery as well, especially during the latter half of the decade.

In short, the prolonged Depression can be put down to government arrogance—arrogance that came at the expense of economic common sense, the rule of law, and respect for property rights.

Arrogance and Discretion

Consider the centerpiece of the New Deal’s first 100 days, the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which was in effect an enormous multi-sector mechanism calibrated to manage the business cycle through industrial codes that, among other things, regulated prices. The principles on which its codes were based appear risible from the perspective of microeconomics and common sense. They included the idea that prices needed to be pushed up to make recovery possible, whereas competition constrained recovery by driving prices down. They held that big firms in industry—those “too big to fail”—were to write codes for all members of their sector, large and small—which naturally worked to the advantage of those larger firms. As for consumer choice, it was deemed inefficient and an inhibitor of recovery. The absurdity of these principles was overlooked, however, because they were put forth by great minds. One member of the Brain Trust, Ray Moley, described the myopic credentialism of his fellow Brain Truster, Felix Frankfurter, in this way:

The problems of economic life were to Frankfurter matters to be settled in a law office, a court room, or around a big labor-management bargaining table. The government was the protagonist. Its agents were its lawyers and commissioners. The antagonists were big corporate lawyers. In the background were misty principals whom Frankfurter never really knew at first hand. These background figures were owners of the corporations, managers, workers and consumers.

One family that was targeted by NRA bureaucrats was the Schechters, who were wholesale chicken butchers in Brooklyn. The NRA code that aimed to regulate what they did was called The Code of Fair Competition for the Live Poultry Industry of the Metropolitan Area in and about the City of New York. And according to this code, the Schechters did all the wrong things. They paid their butchers too little. They charged prices that were too low. They allowed their customers to pick their own chickens. Worst of all, they sold a sick chicken. As a result of these supposed crimes, they were prosecuted.

The prosecution would have been comic if it were not business tragedy. Imagine the court room scene: On one side stands Walter Lyman Rice, a graduate of Harvard Law School, representing the government. On the other stands a small man in the poultry trade, Louis Spatz, who is afraid of going to jail. Spatz tries to defend his actions. But he barely speaks English, and the prosecutor bullies him. Nevertheless, Spatz is now and then able to articulate, in his simple and common- sense way, how business really works.

Prosecution: But you do not claim to be an expert?
Spatz: No.
Prosecution: On the competitive practices in the live poultry industry?
Spatz: I would want to get paid, if I was an expert.
Prosecution: You are not an expert!
Spatz: I am experienced, but not an expert . . . .
Prosecution: You have not studied agricultural economics?
Spatz: No, sir.
Prosecution: Or any sort of economics?
Spatz: No, sir.
Prosecution: What is your education?
Spatz: None; very little.
Prosecution: None at all?
Spatz: Very little.

Then at one point this everyman sort of pulls himself together.

Prosecution: And you would not endeavor to explain economic consequences of competitive practices?
Spatz: In my business I am the best economist.
Prosecution: What is that?
Spatz: In my business I am the best economizer.
Prosecution: You are the best economizer?
Spatz: Yes, without figuring.
Prosecution: I wish to have that word spelled in the minutes, just as he stated it.

Spatz: I do not know how to spell.

This dialogue matters because little businesses like Schechter Poultry are the natural drivers of recovery, and during the Great Depression they weren’t allowed to do that driving. They weren’t allowed to compete and accumulate wealth—or, in terms of Monopoly, to place a house or hotel on their property. Instead they were sidelined. The Schechter brothers ultimately won their case in the Supreme Court in 1935. But the cost of the lawsuits combined with the Depression did not go away.

Regarding monetary policy, it is clear that there wasn’t enough money in the early 1930s. So Roosevelt was not wrong in trying to reflate. But though his general idea was right, the discretionary aspect of his policy was terrifying. As Henry Morgenthau reports in his diaries, prices were set by the president personally. FDR took the U.S. off the gold standard in April 1933, and by summer he was setting the gold price every morning from his bed. Morgenthau reports that at one point the president ordered the gold price up 21 cents. Why 21, Morgenthau asked. Roosevelt replied, because it’s 3 x 7, and three is a lucky number. “If anyone knew how we set the gold price,” wrote Morgenthau in his diary, “they would be frightened.”

Discretionary policies aimed at cleaning up Wall Street were destructive as well. The New Dealers attacked the wealthy as “money changers” and “Princes of Property.” In 1937, after his re-election, Roosevelt delivered an inaugural address in which he described government as an instrument of “unimagined power” which should be used to “fashion a higher order of things.” This caused business to freeze in its tracks. Companies went on what Roosevelt himself resentfully termed a “capital strike.”

These capital strikers mattered because they were even more important to recovery than the Schechters. Consider the case of Alfred Lee Loomis, who had the kind of mind that could contribute significantly to Gross Domestic Product and job creation. During the First World War, he had improved the design of firearms for the U.S. Army. In the 1920s, he became wealthy through his work in investment banking. He moved in a crowd that was developing a new form of utility company that might finally be able to marshal the capital to bring electricity to the American South. But when Loomis saw that the Roosevelt administration was hauling utilities executives down to Washington for hearings, he shut down his business, retreated to his Tudor house, and ran a kind of private think tank for his own benefit. We have heard a lot about a labor surfeit in the 1930s. Here is a heresy: What if there was a shortage of talent brought on by declarations of class warfare?

Another challenge to the Depression economy was tax increases. While these increases didn’t achieve the social equality at which they aimed, they did significant damage by confiscating too much individual and corporate property. As a result, many individuals and businesses simply reduced or halted production—especially as the New Deal wore on. In the late 1930s, banker Leonard Ayres of the Cleveland Trust Company said in the New York Times: “For nearly a decade now the great majority of corporations have been losing money instead of making it.”

As for big labor, the Wagner Act of 1935 proved to be quite destructive. It brought on drastic changes at factories, including the closed shop—the exclusion of non-union members. Another innovation it helped bring about was the sit-down strike, which threatened the basic property right of factory owners to close their doors. Most importantly, it gave unions the power to demand higher wages—and they did. A wage chart for the 20th century shows that real wages in the 1930s were higher than the trend for the rest of the century. This seems perverse, considering the economic conditions at the time. The result was high paying jobs for a few and high unemployment for everyone else. The reality of overpriced labor can be seen in several stock phrases coming out of the Great Depression—“Nice work if you can get it,” for example, was the refrain of a Gershwin song performed by Fred Astaire in The Damsel in Distress, a film released in 1937 at the zenith of union power.

To return to the Monopoly board metaphor, the problem in the 1930s was not that there was no bank. It was that there was too much bank—in the form of the federal government. The government took an arbitrary approach to the money supply and made itself the most power- ful player. It shoved everyone else aside so that it could monopolize the board. Benjamin Anderson, a Chase economist at the time, summed it up in a book about the period: “Preceding chapters have explained the Great Depression of 1930 to 1939 as due to the efforts of the governments and very especially the government of the United States to play god.”

Relevance for Today

It is not hard to see some of today’s troubles as a repeat of the errors of the 1930s. There is arrogance up top. The federal government is dilettantish with money and exhibits disregard and even hostility to all other players. It is only as a result of this that economic recovery seems out of reach.

The key to recovery, now as in the 1930s, is to be found in property rights. These rights suffer under our current politics in several ways. The mortgage crisis, for example, arose out of a long- standing erosion of the property rights concept—first on the part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but also on that of the Federal Reserve. Broadening FDR’s entitlement theories, Congress taught the country that home ownership was a “right.” This fostered a misunderstanding of what property is. The owners didn’t realize what ownership entailed—that is, they didn’t grasp that they were obligated to deliver on the terms of the contract of their mortgage. In the bipartisan enthusiasm for making everyone an owner, our government debased the concept of home ownership.

Property rights are endangered as well by the ongoing assault on contracts generally. A perfect example of this was the treatment of Chrysler bonds during the company’s bankruptcy, where senior secured creditors were ignored, notwithstanding the status of their bonds under bankruptcy law. The current administration made a political decision to subordinate those contracts to union demands. That sent a dangerous signal for the future that U.S. bonds are not trustworthy.

Three other threats to property loom. One is tax increases, such as the coming expiration of the Bush tax cuts. More taxes mean less private property. A second threat is in the area of infrastructure. Stimulus plans tend to emphasize infrastructure—especially roads and railroads. And after the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision of 2005, the federal government will have enormous license to use eminent domain to claim private property for these purposes. Third and finally, there is the worst kind of confiscation of private property: inflation, which excessive government spending necessarily encourages. Many of us sense that inflation is closer than the country thinks.

If the experience of the Great Depression teaches anything, it is that property rights must be firmly established or else we will not have the kind of economic activity that leads to strong recovery. The Monopoly board game reminds us that economic growth isn’t mysterious and inscrutable. Economic growth depends on the impulse of the small businessman and entrepreneur to get back in the game. In order for this to happen, we don’t need a perfect government. All we need is one that is “not too bad,” whose rules are not constantly changing and snuffing out the willingness of these players to take risks. We need a government under which the money supply doesn’t change unpredictably, there are not too many “Go to Jail” cards, and the top hats are confident in the possibility of seeing significant returns on investment.

Recovery won’t happen from the top. But when those at the top step back and create the proper conditions, it will happen down there on the board—one house at a time.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AMITY SHLAES is a syndicated columnist for Bloomberg and a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations, a graduate of Yale University and pursued postgraduate studies at the Free University in Berlin. She has served as a member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and as a columnist for the Financial Times.

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

Computer Vote Fraud Is A Growing Problem

Election Day, November 2, is when people go to the polls to vote their choices for who will represent them in national, state, county, and local offices, as well as for various levies, taxes, and various other issues and referendums. Vote they will, but will their votes be counted the way they are cast?

There are an alarming number of “voting machine errors” being reported around the country. Nevada, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and Washington have all reported recurring improperly cast votes with electronic voting machines.

These “errors” have a consistent trend. In cases reported thus far, computer voting machines in some locations have not properly recorded the wishes of voters as entered on the touch screens. Commonly what occurs are votes for one candidate, or party, being incorrectly recorded by the machine for the opposition.

In Clark County, Nevada, for example, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) is running for his Senate seat against Sharon Angle (R), voters have reported, and had confirmed, that Reid’s name was already checked on the computer ballot when it appeared on the screen. In other cases, votes cast for Angle changed spontaneously to indicate the vote was cast for Reid.

Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there was no voter fraud, although issues do come up as the touch screens are sensitive. For that reason, Lomax said, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screens after they make a selection. Complaining voters disagree, stating that no matter how they, or election officials, tried to record the proper vote by touch screen, it was only accomplished with many tries and much difficulty.

Voter fraud of this type can, and does, occur when technicians who program the computers modify the program, a simple task, to change the results of your vote. It is quick and simple for a knowledgeable technician and easily goes unnoticed if you are not aware the problem may exist.

With this in mind, it is strongly suggested that when you cast your vote using a computer, you check closely to make sure that your vote is recorded as you cast it. If you have any doubt as to the correct recording of your vote, call an election judge before you close the screen. Once you had directed the computer to record the vote, it cannot be changed.

This is your election. Do not allow your vote to be stolen. Carefully check to be sure your vote is recorded as you desire.

Ninth Circuit Court Overthrows Law Requiring Citizenship For Voting

If you don’t believe your liberty is in jeopardy, think again. If you think the Judicial Branch of the United States government is going to protect you by enforcing the United States Constitution, think again. If you think the Obama administration is going to prevent the overthrow of our country by foreign powers, think again.

On Tuesday, the 26th of October, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated Arizona’s Proposition 200 which was passed in 2004. Proposition 200 required Arizona voters to produce proof of citizenship to register to vote and produce photo identification, or two pieces of non-photo identification, to actually cast a ballot in any Arizona election. What the Court of Appeals did was open the voting booths to anyone who walks in, with no restrictions, no proof of citizenship.

In the first four years Proposition 200 was in effect,, 30,000 aliens were prevented from registering to vote in Arizona. The Ninth Circuit Court, in defiance of the United States Constitution, made it possible for anybody, Mexican illegals, Muslim terrorists, Guatemalan illegals, anybody, to vote in elections for candidates at any level of government, from dog catcher to the President of the United States, without proof of citizenship.

Should this be a surprise? Not when you consider Maine which, by executive order, has forbidden officials to ask anybody what their citizenship is. (See the October 5 blog, Non-Citizens May Be Permitted to Vote In Maine Elections.) Next on the list of states to be sold out by the judicial system will probably be Georgia, the only other state with a citizenship mandate requirement for registration and voting.

A joint statement by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and Secretary of State Ken Bennett, both Republicans, called the ruling "an outrage and a slap in the face to all Arizonans who care about the integrity of their elections."

In the mistaken and misguided effort to increase the number of people taking part in the electoral process, the courts and state and local election boards have relaxed the requirements for voting to the point where balloting by non-citizens is permitted with little, if any, confirmation of the legitimacy of the applicant to vote. The result is an unprecedented increase of fraudulent voting in elections at all levels.

In recent elections, including this one, we have seen groups like Acorn flooding the system with fraudulent registrations, felons voting, people going to the polls to vote for one candidate only to find the computer screen has already cast a ballot for the other, or to find someone has already cast a ballot, absentee or otherwise, in their name.

Voting registration should not be easy in these times when the continued existence of the United States is at stake. The Constitution requires citizenship, proven, undeniable proof of citizenship, to vote in the United States.

Voting is a privilege which comes with citizenship. Voting is a part of the American tradition which was bought with the blood of Americans, not illegals from Mexico or other foreign countries. The right to vote was not purchased by liberals on the left who want to impose their socialist ideals on United States citizens. It was wrenched by the common man from the monarchs of the British Empire. It was preserved by citizens who died in battles around the world and twice saved it from dictatorships. No court ever gave the United States of America its freedom. It was won and preserved by the common man, not the lawyer.

Wake up, America. You are losing your liberty and freedom. Make the decision now. Will you submit to the tyranny of those who will take your liberty from you or will you decide that freedom is worth the price of self-sacrifice, even to death if necessary?

Do not accept decisions such as those made by the Ninth Circuit Court passively. Be prepared to defend the United States Constitution from all enemies, both within and without.

There is no longer a neutral ground in the United States. You have to make the choice. Tyranny or freedom. The first is free, the second is not. Are you willing to pay the price?

Kick 'Em Out OnThe Second

November 2 is really close. If you haven't voted ahead of time, make sure you vote. With all the radio and television ads, recorded telephone calls, mail and newspaper advertising, it is hard to know who to believe. Every candidate is either the only one who can save the country or is the cause of all the problems we have past, present and future. There are a few things to consider before you vote.

First, the Congress, Senate and House of Representatives, make the laws. The President can make recommendations as to what he wants, but it is the Congress which decides what legislation is voted on and becomes the law of the land. The President can only approve or disapprove of what the Congress dictates.

The economic problems we have today are the result of congressional legislation which started with the 2006 Congress. When Democrats took control of the of both houses, the Senate and House of Representatives, in 2006 and the economy started to falter in 2007 is not a coincidence. Neither is the fact that the economy is continuing in the the worst depression since the thirties. It is due to legislation passed by the Congress since 2007 which lead to the current economic disaster we are now experiencing. It is pure and simple. Our problems today are the responsibility of the Congress.

The financial difficulties we are experiencing in New Philadelphia, and Ohio, are not going to be solved at the local level. It is impossible for either the city or state to solve the current financial, economic, or employment problems on their own, no matter who is elected locally, unless there is a major change in representation in the United States Congress. The pronouncements of candidates for state and local office that they, no matter which political party, can bring jobs, economic growth, and prosperity to our area are nothing but political promises which are impossible to fulfil.

The only way out of the economic mess Ohio, Tuscarawas County, and New Philadelphia are trapped in is to change our representation in the House and Senate. The incumbents who are running for reelection should be held responsible for what they have done, not credited for their irresponsible actions which have all but destroyed our economy.

On the state and local level, forget the rhetoric which this year's election has brought about. Check the past history of the candidates, where they stand on the issues, if you can sort that out. The claims by both sides, the slurs, the thirty second ads, should all be held in question. The important criteria, the reality of honesty, experience, past history, and integrity of the candidates should be the deciding factors for your vote.

If you get a bad haircut, do you go back to the same barber? If the mechanic doesn't repair the breaks on your car after a number of tries, do you go back? If restaurant serves poorly cooked food, do you go back? Then why reelect someone to Congress who doesn't look out for your interests?

Check out the record of the candidate. What has he really done to make life better for you? If you are not better off than you were six years ago, put the blame where it belongs. Kick the incumbents out who provided you with a 14-trillion dollar national debt for this year alone and a total national debt of 54.7-trillion dollars.

You have one of two choices on November 2. Keep the same Senators and Representatives in the Congress who have ruined the economy and sold the country down the path to ruin, or replace them with new representatives who can effect a change.

Vote. Kick 'em out. Take your country back.

New Philadelphia Law Director Comments On Airport Resolution 47-2010

The front page article in the Times-Reporter this morning, Airport Resolution Ready To Take Flight, raises more questions about the reasons for passage of Resolution 47-2010. If, according to the comments by the Law Director reported in the Times-Reporter article of October 25, 2010, the resolution doesn't make any changes to the operation of the airport, including implementation of the Master Plan, why should it even be on the floor for consideration by New Philadelphia's City Council? To quote the T-R, "Johnson, in his letter of reply to Lautenschleger, added that he doesn't believe the resolution before council at tonight's meeting materially changes the airport commission, the airport or the city's view toward the airport."

Why is City Council pursuing a meaningless piece of legislation when there is more serious business to be attended to? Has the city council become so ineffective that it now spends its time on do-nothing resolutions?

The T-R article also reports, "Taylor said during the Sept. 20 meeting that he no longer was asking council to adopt the master plan because the FAA, which approved the plan in 2007, doesn't officially require council to adopt it." That is true of course, unless he wants the city to accept the plan and pay for it.

The seems to be more to this whole issue than meets the eye. Look out New Philadelphia. We haven't heard the end of this yet.

City Council To Consider Airport Runway Extension and Natural Gas Pricing

On Monday, October 25, 2010, New Philadelphia City Council meets to vote on two important issues, the extension of the city airport runway and a natural gas aggregation program being proposed for the city. These issues will be read Monday evening at the 7:30 PM meeting.

The Airport Master Plan, Resolution 47-2010, started years ago under the previous mayor. A renewed effort by the Airport Commission to extend the runway was begun with the election of a new mayor, Michael Taylor, two years ago which resulted in a move to push the extension through City Council. A resolution drawn up to approve the Airport Master Plan met with heated vocal opposition from residents in the airport area who were in jeopardy of losing their homes and property should the Plan be adopted.

Because of the opposition to adopting the Plan, the Chairman of the Public Works and Economic Development Committee, presented to Council a resolution which stated, “City Council wishes to acknowledge, support and cooperate with the New Philadelphia Airport Commission for the continued operations of the Harry Clever Field as a valuable tool and asset for not only the City of New Philadelphia and Tuscarawas County, Ohio as well.” The wording is open to various interpretations, one of which would permit the Airport Commission to unilaterally approve the proposed Airport Master Plan.

As opposition continues unabated to the runway extension, on Monday one can suspect another change in wording, which will sound better but still leave the issue of a runway extension open for discussion. Runway extension should be discussed openly by City Council but without the omissions, half-truths, and misleading statements which have been made in Committee and on the Council floor. Candidness would be nice.

If Resolution 47-2010 is to show appreciation for past efforts made by the Airport Commission, a simple thank you is sufficient. A resolution or ordinance is not required.

Then there is the matter of the gas aggregation which will have its first reading Monday. The City was approached by Buckeye Energy Brokers, Inc. requesting permission to act as a broker representative for the City of New Philadelphia. Buckeye Energy Brokers would research existing natural gas suppliers who provide gas in the New Philadelphia area and provide the City with natural gas for a cheaper price. The price paid by the City for natural gas would be made available to other gas users in the city, if they contracted with the same supplier contracted with by the City.

Buckeye Energy Brokers are just that, brokers. They have no gas to sell. They represent existing gas suppliers the same way a real estate broker represents someone who wants to sell their home or other property.

Who does Buckeye really represent? Buckeye’s main interest is the commission, the money that comes from the gas supplier as a finder’s fee. Could there be a possibility that Buckeye’s supplier recommendation may be related to the commission?

When asked during a meeting the price of the gas being quoted, the answer was not forthcoming, nor was the name of the recommended gas supplier. Neither the Special/Contact Committee Chairman, nor the Mayor, were able to supply information on these important pieces of information.

When asked what other natural gas suppliers were contacted, the Mayor replied that no other supplier had called him. This makes no sense. The proper way to conduct city purchasing is to obtain at least three bids. We do that for car repairs, insurance companies demand it. The Service Director should have made such inquiries as a matter of course.

A contract which guarantees a specified number of years commitment with the gas supplier, unknown at this writing, is required of the City. The Mayor and Special/Contact Committee Chairman have been unable to provide what this commitment will be. The procedure and cost, should the City choose to opt out of the proposed commitment, was not known by either.

It has been reported that the City has a contract with an unnamed gas supplier. Confirmation or denial by Administration officials has not been forthcoming. If this is true, what will be the cost of reneging on that contract? We should be told who that supplier is, and the terms of that contract, before we enter into another.

Buckeye Energy Brokers insists the deal must be closed before October 31, 2010. We’re not sure why, but that’s the deadline, so City Council must act on an emergency basis this coming Monday. Sounds like a TV ad. “Send your money in for this shiny gizmo and we’ll include a shiny gizmo cleaner at no extra charge. But you have to order within the next 20 minutes because the offer is going to be withdrawn.” It’s a sales pitch as old as gullible people have been around to listen. I have dealt with gas suppliers for years and there is no deadline for start of service. You want gas, they turn it on. Beware the deadline offer. Beware of the last chance to act scenario.

The references Buckeye gave the city were checked, and not surprisingly they looked good to those who checked them. A question of logic – would Buckeye give a reference from anybody who wouldn’t say Buckeye was great. Of course not. Our inquiries to other sources paint a different picture. There is dissatisfaction with the services provided by Buckeye, which, had the advocates of the Buckeye aggregation plan done their due diligence, would have come to light.

Full details of the Buckeye plan are not known. Questions about Buckeye’s recommendations have gone unanswered. The “I’s” have not been dotted, the “T’s” have not been crossed. Research which should have been done by the Special/Contact Committee has not been done. The City is in close to buying into a plan of which little is known. As grandma used to say, “Act in haste, repent at leisure.”

These two unneeded resolutions have nothing to commend their passage by City Council. Ample opportunity has been given for an honest open discussion on both. The proponents of both did not present an overriding reason for their implementation. The Administration and the City Council Committees which sponsored both resolutions have failed to make their case. City Council should deny passage of both.

Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Recommends Inflation To Solve Depression

Unemployment stands at 17.1-percent. Homes are being foreclosed on. Family incomes are falling. Small businesses are closing, large businesses have cut back on expansion. The national debt is soaring, standing at more than $13.6 trillion. The federal budget deficit exceeds $1,357 trillion and is climbing. The trade deficit has reached $502.5 billion dollars, up 34% from last year. The value of the U.S. Dollar is declining. And then there’s Ben Bernanke.

Mr. Bernanke is the chairman of the Federal Reserve System. He controls the interest rates charged to banks which borrow money from the Federal Reserve and in turn loan it to businesses and individuals who need it.If Bernanke decides that the cost of living is expanding too quickly, that’s called inflation, he raises the interest rate of the money the Federal Reserve loans which slows spending down, as who wants to pay high interest rates on the money they borrow? Remember the 20% interest rates back in the 80s? If he wants to speed spending up, he lowers the interest rate and, hopefully, people and businesses will borrow more, spend more, and keep the economy rolling along.

Well, last Friday Bernanke decided that he should do something about the depression which started when the Democrats took control of the congress four years ago. He thought that Obama spending billions of dollars on programs to get people back to work wasn’t working, remember those shovel ready jobs which weren’t. What we need, he said, is to get an inflation started in the economy. Inflation. That is when prices for everything go up. He is worried, you see, that inflation rates are too low. So he wants to make some adjustments in the economy to increase the inflation rate upward, to make everything more expensive. His logic is that if things cost more, there will be more money for investment, a income for businesses, more money for taxes, and an end to the recession.

The cost of living increased by 1.1% in September. That’s not good enough, should be higher, Bernanke said. Obviously he looks at things from a different viewpoint than any of the folks on fixed incomes. He obviously doesn’t relate with the 54-million people on social security, nor is he concerned, apparently, with the 15-million people who are unemployed.He also doesn’t relate to business owners, large and small, who have cut back on what makes the economy really grow. Hiring is down. Investment is down. Construction is down. That’s true, according to Bernanke. His solution, however, is to make things more expensive rather than less.

But where is the money to do this to come from? Simple. Just turn on the printing presses at the Treasury Department, print more paper money which won't be backed by any real financial reserve, watch the value of the dollar drop, and let the good times roll.

Mr. Bernanke’s credentials are impressive, but as with most government and political figures, his education is incomplete. He lacks the one essential quality of good management, street smart. He does not know the reality of actually operating a business, or living on an income of less than $25,000 a year, as do 45% of working people. How can he relate to business concerns when his experience has been limited to academics and government? How can he understand the plight of the 75% of workers who earn less than $50,000 a year when his salary at the Federal Reserve puts him into the 6% of the population making in excess of $100,000 a year? He is in the position of the aeronautical engineer who can design an airplane, has never flown one, and is called upon to land a 747 because the pilot passed out.

Mr. Ben Bernanke missed an opportunity to make a major contribution to ending the depression we are in. The answer is not in increasing costs by inducing inflation. The answer, as Mr. Bernanke’s history books will tell him, is for the government to cut spending, decrease taxes, and get out of the way of American business.

America was not built on government control and subsidies. It was built on risk taking by people who invested their money in hopes of making a profit. Bernanke should advise the President and Congress, the surest way to economic recovery is for government to quit trying to control business. What is needed is less control, less taxes, and letting free enterprise and capitalism take control again. He is a highly educated and respected economist. Maybe the Obama group would listen. But then Bernnanke is a bureaucrat, a politician, a theorist without the street smarts.


“If you lay all the economists end to end they would point in all directions” - Harry S. Truman.

Obama's Plan to Subvert the U.S. Constitution

A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed health care bill. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish. This is stunning.

The Truth About the Health Care Bills
Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal health care direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide

If you decide not to have health care insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights... Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas

(Ed Note: Article was originally published on September 2, 2009, by Michael Connelly on his personal website, michaelconnelly.viviti.com.)

Zack Space and Solar Panels

According to the Times-Reporter, Zack Space announced the construction of the largest solar farm in the United States will be built in Muskingum County, Ohio.

Solar energy works well for the production of electricity and heating of water. It is used in the southwest with success. Solar panel generation of electricity and water heating is not effective at night or under low light levels, so an alternative source of power is required. The alternative sources are, of course, coal, oil, and/or natural gas.

According to Space, as reported by the T-R, 600 jobs could be created by the construction of this solar farm. This would include 300 engineering and design jobs, 300 more in the manufacturing of the solar panels. Engineering and design jobs disappear when the engineering and design of the panels is done. So those 300 jobs are a temporary increase in employment for Ohio, if that is where the engineering and design will be done.

Manufacturing jobs present a different situation, one which evidently was not disucssed by Space, at least not reported in the media. The media names two companies, Prius Energy S.L. and Isofoton, as the contractors for some 240,000 panels needed for the project. Haven't heard of them? No surprise. These companies are located in Spain, not the United States. According to Space, the companies should break ground on the plants next year.

But why not use United States manufacturers? We sure have them here. Why is it necessary to go to an overseas manufacturer when the job can be done by an American company? The United States has the knowledge, manufacturing capability, and experience to do the job. Why go to an overseas business instead of using facilities in this country?

Mr. Space should address the issue of why an overseas company was been selected to provide materials which could be manufactured by a United States company? Why send the money to Europe when we need it here at home? Isn't this the same Zack Space who supposedly wants to strengthen the U.S. economy?

Space announced the construction of a solar energy project "could be the stepping stone to create literally thousands of jobs in southeastern and eastern Ohio," is certainly open to question. His past actions do not exhibit the knowledge of how a free economy functions as shown the devistation he created by his support and votes for Obamacare and Cap and Trade

The solar farm facility may be a good thing for Ohio, that remains to be seen. Representative Space may have been instrumental in getting this project started, or he may be taking advantage of a situation "too good to waste." This is an election year. What are the chances that the timing of this announcement was politically motivated?

Space is a politician caught in an election year where the incumbants are in jeopardy. Listen to what Candidate Space has to say, then compare that with what Representative Space has done. The measure of a man is not in what he says, but in what he does. Dr. Phil said it best: The best indicator of what someone will do in the future is what he has done in the past."

This election is literally the most important in our lifetimes. The future of the United States, its freedom and liberty is at stake. Protect yourself, your family, your country. Know who and what you are voting for. It is your future. Vote.

Non-Citizens May Be Permitted to Vote In Maine Elections

Truth is stranger than fiction? If you don’t believe that, consider Portland, Maine. A referendum will be on the ballot in Portland this November to allow non-citizens to vote in the general election. This is insane.

The logic is that since they are living in Portland as legal aliens, are paying taxes, using the city’s services, that they should have a say in how the city is run. It goes deeper than that. Portland, among other things, is a city which offers sanctuary to illegal aliens, along with the State of Maine as a whole. While this is one more step in the destroying of the United States of America this action is not really surprising. as after all, it is Maine.

In April of 2004 Maine’s Governor John Badacci issued an Executive Order, “An Order Concerning Access to State Services by All Entitled Maine Residents”, making Maine the first sanctuary state in the US. Under his executive order, state employees are forbidden to ask about anybody’s immigration status. Because of this, illegal aliens, from any country, have unlimited access to all the privileges enjoyed by citizens of the United States, including the right to vote, driver’s licenses, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, subsidized housing, in-state college tuitions, you name it. These, along with other benefits offered by Maine are denied to American citizens who reside outside of Maine. The bottom line is that illegal aliens are free to sneak into Maine and, free from any threat of deportation or criminal prosecution, be supported by the state while planning the overthrow of the United States.

By exempting illegal aliens from the law with an executive order, Maine is in violation of federal immigration laws. Specifically Maine is in violation of United States Code 8, 1325, section 274, 276, 277 and other statutes. It is a federal crime to “aid, abet, assist, encourage or induce an illegal alien to remain in the United States.” Baldacci has left himself open to federal prosecution.

Now then, considering the stand Eric Holder has taken on Arizona’s stand on illegal aliens, he is suing Arizona for enforcing the United States laws on illegal entry into the country, there is nothing to stop the spread of sanctuary cities and states, like Portland, Maine, across the country. As Holder’s position on Arizona is totally political there is no reason to suspect the United States Justice Department will take any action against Maine nor Portland.

The danger which exists is mind boggling, so immense as to be unbelievable. In Maine it is now illegal to question someone who is registering to vote about his citizenship. It is possible, probable, that illegal aliens may vote in national elections. Portland is setting the precedent for this with the referendum appearing on their ballot this November. With the questionable tactics used by organizations such as ACORN, federal, state and local elections may be decided by a new voter bloc composed of illegal aliens in the United States.

It is time that the United States government lives up to its constitutional obligations and protects its citizens from enslavement by foreign nationals who are literally invading it. In towns and cities, large and small, law enforcement departments are not protecting their citizens from the infiltration of illegal aliens. It is the responsibility of government, from federal to city level, to arrest and prosecute anybody who is not legally in the United States. This is not being done and the results are bankrupting our country from both financial and security standpoints.

Wake up America! We are losing our freedom, liberty, security, and identity. We are being sold out by our President, our Congress, our appointed officials, our state, county, and city officials. Our country is being destroyed from within. Wake up and become involved.

On November 2, vote, and when you do, vote those candidates who will support out country. Vote for those who believe our republic is worth saving. Reject the special interest politicians who are self-centered and care only for the power, prestige, and financial gain the receive as politicians. Vote for the good of America.

How the Obama Tax Hikes Affect Your Bottom Line

In 1819 Chief Justice John Marshall stated, “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.”

With the Obama tax hikes, we are fast approaching that limit.

The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has compiled statistics demonstrating the catastrophic implications of this tax increase as the economy struggles to recover. In 2011, the first year of the new tax rates, the tax hikes will result in an estimated 238,000 fewer jobs and $40 billion less in total GDP. Fast forward to 2016, five years after the tax hikes: there will be over 800,000 jobs lost and a $135 billion loss to GDP in that year alone.

The Obama tax hikes will not just hurt the “wealthy,” as progressives would have you believe. The new tax rates will have a ripple effect throughout the entire economy.

•Mississippi, which has the lowest average household income in America, will lose 5,911 jobs annually, and each household will have $1,818 less in personal disposable income.
•Maryland, which has the highest-earning households in the United States, will lose an average of 13,983 jobs annually and will have $6,848 less in personal disposable income.
The Heritage Foundation has also measured the impact of the Obama tax hikes on individual states and Congressional districts. Find out how the tax hikes affect you and your family on Heritage.org.

Liberals often call the Obama tax hikes an end to “the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.” This is a fallacy that the Left has created in order to disguise the truth: taxes are increasing for the people and businesses that are creating jobs during a massive recession

In a piece on National Review Online’s The Corner, Heritage’s JD Foster explains:

More importantly for getting the economy kick-started, those higher rates will fall on the gazelles, those small businesses ready and able to grow rapidly — if they have the incentives, and if they have the cash. Higher tax rates on the gazelles, those small businesses that really matter to job creation, weaken incentives and drain cashflow. Higher tax rates on the gazelles are a real kick in the teeth.

“The average non-farm small business filing through the individual income tax code would see a tax increase of about $3,500,” the Center for Data Analysis report found. “Not only successful businesses would be hurt, although they would be hurt the most. Even firms with losses could face a tax increase, for example on capital gains, dividend, or carry-over income.”

Most economists agree with the Heritage Foundation’s findings. In a new poll conducted by CNNMoney.com, 60 percent of economists favor a continuation of tax rates as they currently stand.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) put it well in a speech to the Stamford Chamber of Commerce: “The surest way for Congress to help bring about a double-dip recession is to allow taxes to be raised on anyone during this uncertain economy we are struggling through.”

Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis has proven that “if the price of capital and labor increases through a tax increase, the pace of economic activity will slow down.”

They suggest another plan, whereby Congress will not raise taxes but will instead rein in its overspending to offset the enormous deficits their liberal policies have created.

----------------------------------------

(The above article by Bethany Murphy was reprinted from the Heratige Foundation, http://myheratige.com, original publication 9/21/2010.)

Democracy In Peril

“. . . [T]he Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.”--Justice Stephen Breyer

“By its terms, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; read properly, it does not even apply to individuals outside of the militia context.”--Justice John Paul Stevens

Those words in McDonald v. City of Chicago are at the core of a judicial activist attack on the Second Amend-ment, signed by four associate justices of the United States Supreme Court: John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.

They are the heart of two blunt U.S. Supreme Court dissents filed in opposition to the Court’s majority, which confirmed that the Second Amendment and its implicit individual right to armed self-defense must be applied to all levels of government.

Had these four justices been joined by a single new anti-Second Amendment vote on the high court, their words would have been the law of the land.

It didn’t happen that way, thanks entirely to courageous court appointments by then-President George W. Bush and a pro-Second Amendment U.S. Senate majority that fought hard to clear the nominations of John Roberts as chief justice and Samuel Alito as associate justice.

With those appointments, the future of the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right was assured: first, in the sea-change D.C. v. Heller case two years ago, striking down the District of Columbia gun ban as violating the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms; then with the McDonald case in June 2010 applying that decision to every level of government, including Chicago and its suburb, Oak Park.

With Heller, the court recognized armed self-defense as a core element of the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In McDonald, Justice Alito’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.

This adds up to a stunning victory, but with a huge cautionary flag. The dogmatically anti-Second Amendment minority on the high court is within a heartbeat of reversing both Heller and McDonald, especially with an Obama rubber-stamp Senate and a Judiciary Committee dominated by the likes of New York’s Charles Schumer.

The outcome of any future Second Amendment case before the high court would be disastrous if President Barack Obama and his Senate ideological water-carriers retain power to load the court.

So far--in terms of anti-gun high court nominations--Obama is batting a thousand. Justice Sotomayor, to gain confirmation, pledged that she considered the Heller decision to be “settled law,” yet she signed on to Justice Breyer’s vehement dissent in McDonald, which declared there is no such individual right. And as President Obama’s nominee to replace outgoing Justice Stevens, Elena Kagan has earned our firm opposition for confirmation due to her record of hostility to Second Amendment rights as a staff member in Bill Clinton’s White House.

Since Kagan would replace an anti-Second Amendment jurist on the high court, the 5-4 balance remains the same, but all that could change with the next vacancy.

Again, look no further than the threats leveled by the minority in McDonald.
Had there been five instead of four anti-Second Amendment justices, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would be effectively written out of the Bill of Rights.

As Justice Breyer wrote, “After all, the Amendment’s militia-related purpose is primarily to protect States from federal regulation, not to protect individuals.” Breyer’s opinion was also signed by Justice Ginsburg.

As for self-defense, try this from Justice Stevens: “In my view, the Court badly misconstrued the Second Amendment in linking it to the value of personal self-defense above and beyond the functioning of the state militias. . . .”

Or this embrace of foreign law: “. . . [T]he experience of other advanced democracies, including those that share our British heritage, undercuts the notion that an expansive right to keep and bear arms is intrinsic to ordered liberty. . . . it is silly--indeed, arrogant--to think we have nothing to learn about liberty from the billions of people beyond our borders.”

It takes no imagination to see where this is going. Try the United Nations and the kind of global gun-ban treaty pressed by internationalist billionaire and Obama moneybags mentor, George Soros.

A sobering revelation about the future liquidation of the Second Amendment came last year from Justice Ginsburg, who told the elite Harvard Club that when majority opinions are “grievously mistaken,” as in the Heller case, minority opinions would be used to rewrite legal history and thus create a purely “collective right connected to the militia.”

Unless we get our friends, family members and co-workers to the polls November 2 to create a pro-Second Amendment Senate that can block anti-Second Amendment nominees, we will face what Justice Scalia warns is “a system in which unelected and life-tenured judges always get their way.” Such an approach, he warned, “puts democracy in peril.”

All of this will come true, unless we do the right thing this November: Vote Freedom First!

-----------------------------------------

Reprinted by permission of the National Rifle Association

New Philadelphia Airport Master Plan Presented to City Council

There is an old saying, there is more than one way to skin a cat. It appears that the Public Works and Economic Development Committee of New Philadelphia City Council, PWEDC, has found a new way to get approval for extending the runway at the New Philadelphia Airport.

Last Monday, September 27, 2010, at the regular city council meeting, Resolution 47-2010 was read for the first time, of three required readings, on the floor. Resolution 47-2010, is another attempt to approve the Airport Master Plan to extend the runway at the New Philadelphia Airport. Despite assurances by Committee members to the contrary, passage of 47-2010, by its wording and intent, will pave the way for implementation of the Master Plan.

Section 1 of 47-2010 is explicit in its wording. “City Council wishes to acknowledge, support and cooperate with the New Philadelphia Airport Commission for the continued operations of the Harry Clever Field as a valuable tool and asset for not only the City of New Philadelphia but Tuscarawas County, Ohio as well.”

The important words in Section 1 are "acknowledge, support, and cooperate" with the Airport Commission. Should this resolution be passed by the City Council, two undesirable actions will take place.

If approved, City Council will agree to the proposed Airport Master Plan, which includes extension of the runway, taking of personal property by eminent domain, moving of existing grave sites, closure of at least two existing streets, and the taking of property of Schoenbrunn village. The PWEDC can deny that these actions are included in 47-2010, but other authorities disagree. Consultations with grammarians and legal council confirm that the wording in Section 1 is such as to allow implementation of the Airport Master Plan without further legislation by the City Council.

Approval of 47-2010 will shift legislative action, as applies to the Airport Master Plan, from the New Philadelphia City Council to the Airport Commission. By agreeing to acknowledge, support, and cooperate with the Airport Commission, the City Council will be committed by legislation, 47-2010, to agree to the desires of the Airport Commission regardless of what those desires may be.

This is another attempt to breakdown the division of responsibilities between Administrative and Legislative Branches, the first being Council President Day's appointment of himself as Chairman of an ad hoc committee to study pay increases for elected and appointed officials (See blog New Philadelphia Council President Oversteps Legal Authority, 9/2/2010).

In a statement before City council, a concerned citizen, Mr. Michael Bolinsky, spoke for a number of concerned citizens, expressing his concern for the lack of information provided by the Public Works Committee. According to Mr. Bolinsky passage of 47-2010 will approve all eight options of the proposed Airport Master Plan, a comment with which we agree. He also expressed concern that New Philadelphia citizens have not been told the whole story about the effects approval of the Airport Master Plan will have. His concern about the closing of Delaware Drive is best expressed by his request for the Public Works Committee to provide him with a copy of the letter from the Federal Aviation Committee which states that Delaware Drive should be closed. He also asked the Committee to provide information on how the city was going to provide financing for the airport renovation and the costs associated with taking property by eminent domain.

The presentation of Resolution 47-2010 to City Council is done at a time when many questions are still unanswered. It is apparent that the interests of the the citizens of New Philadelphia have not been considered by the sponsors of this legislation. No information is presented how the residents of New Philadelphia will prosper from this action. No economic advantage to New Philadelphia have been presented. The sole justification given for this proposal is a desire by Lauren Corporation to house a larger jet aircraft at the city airport, a justification which is not valid according to the FAA (See blog titled New Philadelphia Airport Runway Extension To Be Discussed dated 9/15/2010).

The handling of the proposal of the Airport Master Plan by the Administration has been poor. The full impact of the implementation of the plan has been withheld. Questions asked by members of city Council have gone unanswered. Citizen concerns have been ignored. Financial questions have gone unanswered. There has been opposition to the plan from the historical society.

Approval of Resolution 47-2010 by City Council is not in the best interests of the City of New Philadelphia. Urge your council representatives to vote against this resolution.

Pat Condell on the Twin Towers Cordoba Mosque

Pat Condell is a British comedian who has opinions on about everything, some of which we agree with, some we don't. In the following video his humor is lacking, being replaced with one of the better dissertations about the Cordoba mosque scheduled to be built at the Twin Towers site in New York. How come a Brit can understand the implications of building a victory memorial to the deaths of some 3,000 people by Islamic mass murders when likes of Obama and Bloomberg can't. It's worth a listen. It is an audio-visual clip so turn on the speakers.

Click on http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/06/pat-condell-on-ground-zero-mosque-is-it-possible-to-be-astonished-but-not-surprised.html

921 Billion In Tax Hikes Coming January 1, 2011

The Wrong Way to Get America on Track

According to a recent poll, 61 percent of Americans believe that our nation is on the wrong course.

While there are a number of factors behind this result, the economy, jobs and federal spending top the list of Americans’ most pressing concerns. This should come as little surprise given that Americans have been dealing with an economic recession for the past two years. And they’re desperately looking for a way out of it. Our leaders should be, too.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s policies won’t fix things. The Obama tax hikes -- not limited to high earners -- are scheduled to go into place on January 1, in less than four months. The $921 billion in tax increases will follow a new “stimulus” that even some in the White House refuse to promise will stimulate the economy.

“Raising taxes now or in the future is the wrong course,” writes Heritage Foundation economist J.D. Foster. In a separate, in-depth analysis, Foster peels apart the various myths and straw man arguments used to defend tax hikes and increased spending. He explains how increased taxes will slow down economic recovery; kill jobs; and incentivize additional federal spending.

The United States is saddled with unsustainable budget deficits that pose a severe and immediate threat to the economy. The cumulative effects of this spending and regulatory binge is already visible, with America sinking from the ranks of the world’s “Free” nations to the “Mostly Free,” according to Heritage’s 2010 Index of Economic Freedom.

Increasing taxes on already struggling Americans and businesses is based on the leftist myth that we can spend our way out of this recession. But it simply does not work this way. Our leaders must turn to policies that rein in runaway federal spending and promote a sensible tax policy.

------------------------------

Reprinted by Permission of the Heratige Foundation

Two Sides of Illegal Immigration

Despite federal judge Susan Bolton’s July 29 decision to block temporarily major portions of Arizona’s new immigration law, SB1070 is continuing to have rippling political effects this election season. Polls show that the majority of Americans support it, and politicians are quickly reacting. Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah, for example, are among the states where legislators have introduced similar bills.

The issue has rocketed Arizona’s interim governor Jan Brewer to national icon status and breathed new life into her previously stalled gubernatorial reelection campaign

Democratic advisors claim that the Obama administration has plenty of benefit to reap from the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona as well. They cite the likelihood that it will increase the president’s standing among Hispanics, a demographic with whom his poll numbers have been faltering.

Given how much both sides have invested in this fight, it’s little surprise that each is promising that it is from over and that they will take it to the Supreme Court if necessary, all but guaranteeing that immigration will be a major national issue in the months leading up to November.

But what of those most affected by HB1070 and the debate surrounding it – those living and trying to go about their businesses in the Grand Canyon State? Many – both supporters and opponents of the law – say the problem is being distorted to serve one political agenda or another and that the reality of illegal immigration is nowhere near as simple as it looks.

There are an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens residing in Arizona, and Holly Paulsen, a second-grade teacher in a Phoenix school that serves disadvantaged students, says the images of drug smugglers and gangs hyped by politicians don’t always paint an accurate picture of them. She has no idea how many of her students, who were placed in her class because of deficient English skills, are the children of illegal immigrants: “It could be 25 percent; it could be half; it could be the whole class. Unless they tell you specifically, you don’t know.” But what she does know is the immediate impact the law’s passage in April had in her school.

“Two hundred and fifty children in grades k – 8 didn’t come to class the day that Governor Brewer signed (SB1070). I had 10 second graders gone myself.” For the rest of that academic year, she says the atmosphere on her campus changed, and much more time was devoted to weathering the immigration storm while much less time was spent in learning.

“We had to counsel a lot of the kids because they were falling apart. They were scared for their parents and other relatives; they were scared they would have to move back to Mexico and not have a place to live. They were scared their parents would be arrested and deported and would have to leave them behind. These children already have a lot on their plates and then we throw this at them. It was tragic to see how distraught they were.”

And it wasn’t just the kids. Paulsen says she also noticed a dramatic change in the parents, who went from coming to her with concerns about their childrens homework and test scores to coming to her with concerns they would have to pull their kids out of school and flee the state. She describes it as a difficult end to a difficult year that left many of the teachers in her school in tears, fearful for their students’ futures. “You don’t know if you’re ever going to see or hear from some of the families again, you don’t know if they’re going to be safe, and you don’t know if you’re going to have a job next year – it was nerve wracking.”

Paulsen says she understands arguments about needing to secure the border and curb immigration-related crime, but she feels some middle way should be worked out that takes into consideration people who came to the United States for the right reasons, even if it was in the wrong way. “The parents I meet, they are so passionate about their kids – they want them to learn, they want them to succeed….I don’t think anyone after getting to know these families would say, ‘Nope, send them back home; kick them out.' I pray about it and I pray for the families and I hope they’ll be able to stay.”

On the flip side of the issue is naturalized citizen Lisa Hope of Tucson. Born in
Germany, Hope married an American serviceman who was stationed in Munich. She immigrated to the states during a long and arduous, but legal, process.

A mother of three, she describes having to stay in Germany for a year after the birth of her first child without her husband. When her visa was finally approved and she joined him in Indiana, she was confronted with the preparation book for her naturalization exam. “It was so big and full of facts on history and the Constitution . It scared the daylights out of me – I was intimidated by it! I had two small children by then and I had a job so it was very hard to find time to study.” It took her five years to become a citizen.

Citing her own background, Hope says it is unjust to people who immigrated legally to turn a blind eye to whose who would do so illegally. “There is a way to become an American and that is to follow America’s law. There shouldn’t be shortcuts. I waited and I did the right thing.”

What really angers her are suggestions that the law is based on racial prejudice and will lead to racial profiling. Says Hope: “The reality is that most of the illegals in Arizona are from Mexico, so it’s common sense that if the law is going to be enforced it is going to be enforced disproportionately against one racial group – but that’s not because the low or the police are raciest. It’s because one particular racial group is breaking that law more than the others.”

Hope says that while she sympathizes with that portion of the illegal population that is here to pursue better lives for themselves and their children, allowing them to circumvent the law may result in a lack of appreciation for the United States and the liberty that it offers. And she fears that allowing so many people into the country via illegitimate roads has eroded America’s fundamental values.

“I was happy to leave my German citizenship behind, and I am very proud to be an American citizen. Then I see these people marching, waving the Mexican flag, flying the American flag upside down. Of course I look at that and think those people who came here outside the proper channels don’t have an appreciation for what America means. They want to live here but still be Mexicans. They want to take advantage of what this country offers, but they’re getting the wrong idea about what that is because they didn’t have to sacrifice anything to get it. They think they’re going to come to America so the government can give them things. When they don’t go through the process like I did, they’re missing the point of the American Dream.”


(The preceding article by Megan Basham was taken from the August 28, 2010 issue of World, a magazine published out of Ashville, NC., and reprinted by permission.)

New Philadelphia Airport Runway Extension To Be Discussed September 20

It’s “Lets extend the runway at Clever Field” time again. Another meeting is scheduled for 6:30 P.M. on Monday, September 20, 2010, at the new Experimental Aviation Association hanger at the New Philadelphia airport.

The focus of the meeting is the same as it has been. The administration, some of the folks on City Council, and the Lauren Corporation, want to extend the main runway length. The reason for the extension seems to be that Lauren Corporation would like to buy a larger corporate aircraft and a longer runway would be to their advantage. Mention has been made of another corporation, maybe two, which might fly corporate aircraft into the New Philadelphia airport should be runway be lengthened, but determining who those corporations may be, has been difficult to pin down.

It has been said that an expanded runway would bring new business to New Philadelphia, which would certainly be a blessing, but somehow, it never seems to work out that way. Airport construction and enlargement follows the need of existing businesses. If building an airport brings manufacturing to an area, the number of airport facilities would be growing on a daily basis, which obviously it is not.

The adequacy of Henry Clever Field to handle corporate jets, and the possibility of losing FAA certification and funding of the airport if the proposed Master Plan for runway extension is not approved by the City Council, has been called into question.

The Master Plan offers a number of options for runway extension. All of them, every one, would require closing of a number of streets, the taking of existing cemetery plots, and taking of personal property, including family homes, by eminent domain.

The law is specific. Should the city elect to take property by eminent domain, an action done by City Council and approved by the Mayor, the residents of that property have no legal recourse. They cannot stop such action through the courts or any other legal avenue. Their houses will go. The only protection a resident has under an eminent domain order is to challenge the amount paid for their property by the City. Should the resident feel the city’s offer is too low they can challenge that in court and the court will decide what is a fair price for the property. And that’s it.

Much of the concern of proponents of the proposed Master Plan is centered around money, not only for runway extension, but also for maintenance and upgrading of the existing facilities including runways and taxiways. Rehabilitation projects, such as improvements to solve the problem of the aircraft parking area where aircraft tires were sinking into the asphalt on hot days, would still be funded even though the proposed master plan for runway relocation was not approved.

It is necessary to have a current airport layout plan on file with the FAA, which there is, when requesting funding for work on existing facilities. Relocation of the existing runway would require passage of the proposed Master Plan, while funding for maintenance and improvement on any existing facilities shown on the current layout plan is eligible without passage of the proposed Master Plan.

It has been said that without an extension to the runway, the airport may not meet the FAA requirements for handling larger aircraft. A conversation with the FAA cast doubt on that statement.

When asked if the airport classification, as regards the type of aircraft allowed to land on the existing runway, would be downgraded in the future should the proposed master plan not be approved, the response of our FAA contact was prefaced by, “That doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

The FAA spokesman explained that when "class of aircraft" is talked about, the classes are determined according to wingspan and landing airspeed. As the wingspan and airspeed increase, the airport classification increases. An airport designed to accept small single-engine airplanes would have a lower classification than one designed to accommodate a large jet airplane. Airports are designed, and classified, to service what are called critical aircraft, by aircraft types of particular wingspan and airspeed. Clever Field is rated B I, landing speeds of 105 to 139 miles per hour and wingspans up to 49 feet.

Can a larger airplane than that use the airport? Yes. The city cannot ban any airplane from using the airport regardless of size. However, when the critical aircraft changes, the city should consider means of accommodating the larger aircraft. But before such changes need be considered, there must be more than 500 operations per year of larger critical aircraft. When the five hundred operations is a reality, not a projection, then is the time to start to plan how to accommodate the larger aircraft on a regular basis.

Don’t be misled by the number of airplanes based at, or using, the airport as being a justification to increase the runway length. The determining factor is the number of critical aircraft which use Clever Field now and exceed the 500 yearly operations criteria.

There may be a reason to extend the runway at Clever Field but justification is hard to find. The question yet to be answered is what is the advantage to the New Philadelphia tax payer of such a project? The figures and talk from the Administration, the Airport Commission, and some members of City Council, favoring the runway relocation do not support the passage of the proposed Airport Master Plan. Until a greater argument than a local corporation wanting a larger airplane is presented, the Master Plan should be rejected.


(Ed: For more information concerning the proposed Clever Field Master Plan, refer to the New Philadelphia Tattler article New Philadelphia Airport Master Plan Raises Questions dated May 21, 2010.)

Muslim Terrorists Win Another One

Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, has been called “un-American.” Jones had planned to burn a copy of the Quran on Saturday, September 11, to commemorate the Muslim attack on the Twin Towers and the associated loss of life. I do not know Pastor Jones, nor have I spoken with him. What I do know is that the response to burning a copy of the Quran is far beyond what it deserves. It is the response, not the action, which is the disgrace, one of which every American should be ashamed of.

While the Quran is considered by Muslims to be a holy book, a statement of the precepts of Islam, it is just that, a book. When Muslims burn and desecrate Bibles or similar texts of non-Islamic religions, there no protest from the government of the United States. When Christian missionaries are murdered by Muslims there is no outrage.

Is it possible that Muslims consider the burning of the Quran as a great propaganda opportunity? Was Jones’s action blown out of proportion by the credo "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"? Could it be that a book burning offers Muslims the opportunity to create justified, at least in their minds, increased terrorism attacks?

Speaking for the Administration, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said, “We think that these are provocative acts (burning of the Quran). We would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values; in fact, these actions themselves are un-American.”

Whoa. Un-American? The First Amendment un-American? Has expressing an opinion become un-American? Since when is taking a stand against tyranny, murder, overthrow of the country, un-American? It is about time we look at the interests of the United States citizens. It is about time we stand up to Muslim terrorists instead of trying to “understand” the reasons for their worldwide terror.

It is American to defend our country, liberty, freedom, citizens, at home and abroad, with the full strength of the United States military and citizenry. Remember not only the First and Second World Wars, but also the War of 1812, the Tripoli Pirates, the Cuban missile crisis, to mention a few. The United States said “Enough”, took a stand, brooked no nonsense, and prevailed.

Past United States administrations have failed to protect the country and its citizens. Obama has stated often that the United States is no longer respected. His problem is that he refuses to recognize the cause. American administrations did nothing to protect United States citizens, offered no retaliation to the invasion of United States soil abroad, but instead chose top ignore Muslim attacks on United States interests throughout the world.

Take A look: In November 1979, shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini had seized power in Iran, a militant Islamic mob took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days.
April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
August 1998: 224 killed at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
October 2000: 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen.*

In all, 800 persons lost their lives in the course of attacks by militant Islam on Americans before September 2001 - more than killed by any other enemy since the Vietnam War.

Then there was September 11, 2001. In hijacked airplanes Muslim terrorists crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City. The casualty rate was 2,752 killed, 251 injured. Near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, a third airplane hijacked by Muslim terrorists who intended to crash it into the United States Capital, crashed after the passengers fought the hijackers in an attempt to regain control of the plane. Casualties, forty. A fourth plane, also hijacked by Muslim terrorists, was crashed into the Pentagon Building outside of Washington, D.C., casualties 200 dead, 53 injured. Total casualties 2,992 dead, 304 injured.

Murder by Muslim terrorists goes on unabated. In the period from August 28 thru September 3, 2010, worldwide known Jihad attacks by Muslims numbered 43 with 269 deaths and 758 injuries.

Under pressure from the United States government, Terry Jones changed his mind and will not burn the Quran on September 11. I guess that there is some logic there, but I can’t find it, probably because it is filed under Politically Correct. Muslims have vowed to destroy Judaism, Christianity, the United States, our freedom, and liberty. An American, Terry Jones stood up and said “Enough.” He may have been wrong in this day of apologetic administrations, but he did display, if only momentarily, the spirit of self-preservation and patriotism that this country was founded on.

I guess Muslims won another one for Islam.





* For a breakdown of Muslim terrorist attacks within the United States , click on
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm

MBAs Just Don't Get It

Why short Greeks succeed

by Mike Royko


The moment we sat down for lunch, I knew it was a mistake. It was one of those cute new Yuppie-poo restaurants, with ferns and a menu that listed calories.

I knew it was an even bigger mistake when five minutes passed before the busboy dropped the silver-ware and napkins in front of us.

About 10 minutes later, I snared a waitress as she was hurrying by and asked: "Is there any chance we can see a menu?" She flung down a couple of menus and rushed off. About five minutes later, she was back for the orders.

"I'm so sorry," she said. "We're shorthanded. One of the girls didn't show up today."

When she finally brought the food it wasn't what I had ordered.

"There are some problems in the kitchen", she said. "We have a new cook."

"Never mind," I said, "I'll eat it, whatever it is. But what about the beer?"

"Oh, I forgot, you wanted a beer," she said. The beer arrived just in time to wash down the last bite of sandwich.

When she brought the check, which was wrong because she charged me for what I ordered instead of what I got, I asked: "Who runs this place?"

"The manager?" she said. "He's in the end booth having lunch."

On the way out, I stopped at the manager's booth. He was a Yuppie in a business suit. He and a clone were leisurely sipping their coffee and looking at a computer printout.

"Nice place you have here," I lied. "Do you own it?"

The young man shook his head. It was owned by one of those big corporations that operates restaurants in far-flung office buildings and health clubs. He also proudly told me that he had recently left college with a degree in restaurant and hotel management.

That explained it all. His waitresses were short handed, his cook was goofing up the orders, the customers were fuming, and what was he doing? He was having lunch. Or, as he'd probably say, he was doing lunch.

I don't want to be an alarmist, but when this nation collapses, he, and those like him will be the cause.

First, we had the MBA - especially the Harvard graduate with a Master of Business Administration degree - who came along after World War II and took over American industry. With his bottom-line approach, the MBA did such a brilliant job that the Japanese might soon buy the whole country and evict us.

But we're told not to worry. Now that we don't manufacture as much as we used to, we'll be saved by the growing service industry. The problem is that the service industry is being taken over by people like the restaurant manager and his corporation. They go to college and study service. Then they install computers programmed for service. And they have meetings and look at service charts and graphs and talk about service. But what they don't do is provide service. That's because they are not short Greeks.

You probably wonder what that means. - I'll explain.

If that corporation expects the, restaurant to succeed, it should fire the young restaurant-hotel degree holder. Or demote him to cleaning the washrooms. It should then go to my friend Sam Sianis, who owns the Billy Goat Tavern, and say: "Do you know a short Greek who wants to manage a restaurant?"

Sam will say: "Shoo. I send you; one my cousins. Jus' got here from old country." Then he'd go to Greek Town and tell his cousin, who works as waiter, that his big chance had come.

When the next lunch hour rolled around, and a waitress failed to show for work, Sam's cousin would not sit down to do lunch. He would put on an apron and wait tables himself. If the cook goofed up orders, Sam's cousin would go into the kitchen, pick up a cleaver, and say "You want I keel you?"

He wouldn't know how to read a computer printout, but he'd get drinks in the glasses, food on the table, and money in the cash register.

That simple approach is why restaurants run by short Greeks stay in business and rake money. And why restaurants that are run by corporations and managed by young men who are educated beyond their intelligence come and go. And mostly go.

So, if you are ever approached by a stockbroker who wants to sell you shares in any of the giant service corporations, tell him not to bother showing you the annual report. just ask him one question. "Is it run by short Greeks?" If he says no, leave your money under the mattress.



-------------------------------



Mike Royko was a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune from the 1950s until his death in 1997. The above article, written around the 1970s, still applies with the exception that while Royko predicted Japan would take over the country, China is in the process of playing out his prophecy.

New Philadelphia Council President Oversteps Legal Authority

Last Monday, August 30, the Council President’s “ad hoc” committee met to discuss pay raises for elected officials and appointed supervisors and department heads. The Council President, Mr. Day, feels that the current wage levels are not commensurate with the positions and effort those individuals put into their jobs. While Mr. Day feels the pay is too low, many tax paying citizens feel the pay is too high.

The Council President has a specific position in New Philadelphia city government. He is elected by the populace to his seat every four years. He is elected to be Council President, a position which is a separate, autonomous, position not related to City Council itself. The duties of the Council President are to moderate the council meetings, make committee assignments, and act as parliamentarian should questions of procedure arise. The Council President is not an elected member of the City Council. He has no vote on legislation other than to break a tie vote should that be necessary. By State Code, the Council President is defined specifically as a member of the Administration.

No mention is made in the State Code or City Ordinances which allows the Council President to become actively involved in actions within the City Council, including taking part in discussions by City Council or its committees. Robert’s Rules of Order specifically states the Council President is not allowed to speak from his chair on any matter of legislation under discussion by City Council during either a general or committee meeting while presiding. In short, the Council President of New Philadelphia is prohibited from commenting on, or contributing to, any legislative discussion going on in council meetings. His job is moderation of legislative meetings of the City Council, no more, no less.

The Council President’s moderation tasks include the assignment of proposed legislation to the proper City Council Committee. There are seven committees in the City Council: Finance; Salary; Safety, Health, and Service; Public Works and Economic Development; Zoning and Annexation; Special and Contact; and Parks and Cemetery. It is in these committees that the legislative business of the City is to be conducted The assignment of legislative matters to the proper committee is the responsibility of the President of Council. If finances are involved it goes to the Finance Committee, road construction goes to Public Works, wages and benefits go to the Salary Committee.

How did these committees come into being? Robert’s Rules of Order, which applies when there is no other ordinance or law, is explicit about this. The Council President is forbidden to create a committee for any reason without the City Council’s permission as expressed in the passage of legislation to do so. In the case of an ad hoc committee, Robert’s Rules of Order is specific, stating “a special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing committee.”

Chairmen of committees are appointed when the committee members are appointed to the committee by the Council President, the chairmanship going to the first member appointed to the committee. Members of legislative committees, such as those of City Council, are appointed from elected members of the City Council. and may only be done with the approval of the City Council. The appointments are irrevocable except by action of City Council, the assignments lasting for the entire council term, that is, from one Council election to the next, in New Philadelphia a two year span. Individuals who are not elected to City Council cannot serve on a City Council Committee.

That being said, the legality of the ad-hoc committee, appointed by Council President Day, to recommend legislation for pay raises for non-bargaining New Philadelphia city employees, comes into question. While wage levels of the administration and city department heads and supervisors merit investigation and consideration by City Council, the methods employed by President Day to do this are highly questionable.

President Day created the ad-hoc committee without the formal approval of City Council. This in itself is questionable as it specifically relates to salaries, a subject which without argument falls under the responsibility of the Salary Committee. This action is unwarranted by Robert’s Rules of Order, precedents sent by previous City Councils, State Legislatures, and both Houses of the United States Congress.

President Day appointed himself as the Chairman of this ad-hoc committee in direct violation of all law and precedent as he is not a member of the New Philadelphia City Council and has no legal nor ethical right to sit on any New Philadelphia City Council committee. The President of Council has no authority to speak on legislative matters nor offer opinions on legislative matters. His sole function is moderation of meetings of the City Council which does not include his participation in discussions of matters being discussed on the Council floor.

President of Council Day exceeded his authority when he appointed the current ad-hoc committee without the legislative approval of City Council.

President of Council Day acted illegally when he appointed himself chairman of the current ad-hoc committee. The office of President of Council is by law an administrative position and as such has no authority to act as a member of the city council or its committees, nor take part, except as a guest, in any discussions within the city council.

President of Council Day acted improperly when he created an ah-hoc committee to bypass the standing Salary Committee in which this inquiry legally belongs.

Are more pay raises so important that the integrity of the New Philadelphia City Council is to be trashed by members of the Administration? What can we expect next?