Thursday, December 28, 2006

2006: Toledo's Top Moments

Well, with the end of the year approaching, it’s time to take a brief look back at those top moments that seem to define Toledo, in all it’s glory. So, in no particular order:

  • Tom Noe convicted on 29 counts of embezzlement: He did the crime, now he’ll do the time. But what defines Toledo even more was the Blade’s crusade against the man, noting at every opportunity that he is a Republican. Bernadette, look out.
  • Councilman Robert McCloskey indicted on federal bribery counts – bribes he took while being investigated for taking bribes. This time, however, the local daily failed to picture every prominent Democrat on the front page under the headline “INDICTED.” A guilty plea would follow.
  • The Blade locks out workers in an effort to gain concessions. Despite a recent court decision that the lock-out is illegal, the newspaper continues to keep its workers in the cold. Local politicians, always outspoken on union rights, remain silent on an issue that may deny them the endorsements they so cravenly seek.
  • Mayor Carlton Finkbeiner offers what amounts to a bribe to keep Toledo Public School Superintendent Eugene Sanders in Toledo. Sanders (to his questionable credit) refuses the bribe, but takes a hefty compensation package, exiting his contract two years early to become a paid consultant for the Toledo schools. The next day, he accepts a job with the Cleveland Public Schools. Never saw that one coming.
  • Mayor Carlton Finkbeiner vetoes an exception to Toledo’s living wage ordnance, over 7 cents. Perhaps that COSTCO was the employer, and non-union, played a small role.
  • Mayor Carlton Finkbeiner gets into a battle of wills with WSPD program director Brian Wilson, after calling morning host Fred LeFebvre a liar. WSPD is subsequently cut off from all communication from the city, including emergency services. I suppose Hizzhonor’s honor is more important than the city’s safety.
  • The city goes months without a contract with their safety workers. Again, local Democrats are silent on the issue.
  • The Mayor personally works to create jobs in Toledo, in the plumbing (via a shower) and electrical (tree and bridge lights) trades. That he does so with minimal or no oversight from City Council is a mere technicality. I guess if we have to see our Mayor, he should be clean. The Mayor and City Council rubber stamp David Ball and Jimmy Jackson’s plans for the former Toledo Edison Steam Plant, despite a competing plan. Five months later, the progress is evident every time one drives by.
  • Toledo elects a full slate of Democrats, and helps put Ohio in the enviable position of having a Socialist governor, a minimum wage law that allows anyone to see your financial data, and allows the sale of tobacco, but not the use of it anywhere someone from the “public” might visit (this includes your babysitter, folks.) And yet, after re-electing the same old people, the citizens of this city complain that nothing gets done.

Well, enough of looking back. Soon, I’ll publish my 2007 predictions for the city, state, and nation. And no, I’m not giving a date for TomKat’s divorce.

Margaritas ante Porcos,
Right Wing Toledo

13 comments:

-Sepp said...

Crime corruption and scandals of every type...were on the map now aren't we?!!!!

Right Wing Toledo said...

Toledo is not that different than many cities in that regard. What bothers me is the blatant disregard that the mainstream media has for the corruption and crime when the perp has a (D) by his or her name. But, the one party system that exists in this town (and others, to be sure) and the media has no intention of allowing it to change.

-Sepp said...

McCloskey and Trafficant are two "D's" that got nailed only because they were so blatant about their corrupt activities that even the daily local could'nt hide it any longer.

Lisa Renee said...

That's one advantage of the blogosphere, if there are other stories out there on corruption no matter the "D" or the "R" we do have the ability to write about it.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression from what I had read that the concerns about the minimum wage bill when it came to accessing personal data was one of the changes that the General Assembly made. That I can understand and had no issue with as compared to of the attempts made to add additional categories of exemptions.

Personally I think they should get these type of amendments correct before they are presented to the voters for both signature and to vote on.

I also can't disagree with you that the concerns/issues regarding Bob McCloskey should have been made public by both the media and quite a few elected officials much sooner. I do disagree with you on Strickland being a "Socialist" but then I guess that depends on how you define "Socialist".

:-)

Right Wing Toledo said...

Lisa,

I don't think that the General Assembly can make a change to a bill such as that after passed by the general public.

As to Comrade Ted, a socialist by defination is someone who believes that property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. Furthermore, social control as established by the government. So, when Strickland states that we need to "stabilize health costs for government and businesses alike and advance the health of our citizens," he is talking about control of 1/7 of the economy - no matter if it's directly (by seizing control of the health care industry to make it a part of the government), or indirectly (by seizing the funding and controlling the dispersment of monies to said industry).

Also, Ted states that we must "retain, create and attract jobs worthy of Ohio workers by focusing on industry sectors in which Ohio companies are growing, and which will spur our economy to generate wealth and prosperity for the future." Who decides what industries we should focus on? The government of course. Hmmm... if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

And, before anyone thinks I made these quotes up, they come from Strickland's own website at: http://www.tedstrickland.com/vision

Chris said...

"As to Comrade Ted, a socialist by defination is someone who believes that property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. Furthermore, social control as established by the government."

So....aren't tax cuts for the wealthy a "redistribution of wealth"?

Right Wing Toledo said...

Chris,

I'm going to take your comment in two points:

- A income tax cut cannot be a redistribution of wealth by defination. An income tax itself is the redistribution of wealth, by taking money from someone who has earned it (either by work, investment, or other legal means), and transfering it, via a government, to someone who does NOT earn it. Simply existing does not earn you cash - unless said cash comes from the confiscation of another's property. Removal of income taxes (and all taxes in a manner) is the removal of "social control" and return to "private control."

- As far as the left's premise of "tax cuts for the rich," please pay attention to the fact that the "rich" pay far more of the taxes in this country than any other segment. One cannot cut the taxes of a person who does not pay them. So, let's define "rich":
* Top 5% of earners (all income, not just wages) in 2001 paid 53.25% of the total income taxes paid in the US.
* Top 10% of earners paid 64.89% of taxes.
* Top 50% of earners, those individuals or couples earning more than $26,000 (not exactly rich), paid 96.03% of the income taxes.

So, how do you propose to cut the taxes of the "non-rich?"

End of Economics 101. I know this should be taught in High School, but we are dealing with TPS.

Chris said...

"A income tax cut cannot be a redistribution of wealth by defination."

There were 3 tax brackets, and now there are 6. Isn't that moving money or "redistributing" it? Cannot something be redistributed (by defintion) over and over again?

"As far as the left's premise of "tax cuts for the rich," please pay attention to the fact that the "rich" pay far more of the taxes in this country than any other segment."

I don't argue with that. We should. Once you accept the fact that taxes are here to stay, and let's face it--they are...then we who make more should logically pay more.

"So, how do you propose to cut the taxes of the "non-rich?"

Expanding the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit would be a start.

"End of Economics 101. I know this should be taught in High School, but we are dealing with TPS."

I didn't go to school in Toledo. But you should read some Paul Krugman. He goes a little farther that Econ-101

Right Wing Toledo said...

Isn't that moving money or "redistributing" it? Cannot something be redistributed (by defintion) over and over again?

Yes, it's called a free market.

Once you accept the fact that taxes are here to stay, and let's face it--they are...then we who make more should logically pay more.

They would under a flat-tax structure. However, a progressive tax scheme as is currently in place punishes achievemnt, but taxing at a higher rate. Under this type of thinking, the NBA would have scored every one of Michael Jordan's baskets at 1 point after he scored 10 points each game, and scored for no points after reaching 16 points. So, what incentive would Jordan have for remaining on the court after reaching 16 points per game?

Expanding the Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit would be a start.

So, you mean to expand the tax credit to those who already pay no taxes, which in effect is taking from those who do pay taxes (ie, the "rich") and giving it to those who don't. By means of the government...

But you should read some Paul Krugman.

Having spent quite some time with Krugman, including Pedeling Prosperity, and Self Organizing Economy (amongst others in the quest for higher education), I can say that for the most part, neo-Keynesian economics might seem to work in practice, but his theory can't expalin it. If the theory dosn't expalin the results, than perhaps the theory is wrong? We should reject bad theory, not coddle it and look to artifically create results that serve to explain it.

Chris - my point is that Comrade Ted believes in a governmental control over the economy (such as the government forcing "full employment" a la The New Deal - see Neo-Keynesian economics). A progressive tax structure is one way of accomplishing this by limiting achievement.

However, I must say, it is enjoyable to discuss, instead of listening to/reading the hysterical shouting that seems to prevail in the leadership of the left. Just keep an open mind, you might surprise yourself. ;)

Chris said...

"Just keep an open mind, you might surprise yourself"

True--economics is a new venture for me, and it has been an eye-opener. For instance, capitalism reminds me a lot of evolution in the way it works in regards to "creative destruction". And it's interesting--free trade seems like a progressive concept if you think about it. I think most liberals reject it since it's their nature to protect the weak (i.e. manufacturing jobs in the US). Agreed--it is enjoyable to discuss

Kurt said...

And economics is not a new venture for me. I have to say, right wing toledo, you seem to not understand why the tax structure is the way it is. The fact is that the rich can afford to pay higher tax rates. Indeed, during world war II, the tax rate for the richest americans nearly achieved 90%. However, in this age of war, your republican friends continue to lower the tax rate for the rich, while the poor fight the war. I can bet you your rich republican friends would not support the war if their tax rate were near the level it was at during WWII. While I generally support low tax rates and capitalism, during war time, we must all sacrifice. It costs a lot of money to conduct a war. This current government does not understand this. I've never seen a more incompetent president, and frankly I find your opinion ignorant of history and economics.

Right Wing Toledo said...

Kurt,

You are making my point brilliantly – you know how best to spend everyone’s money, the definition of “social control.” Which is exactly where Comrade Ted stands on this issue. Wear the name Comrade well! I would suppose that 100% taxation levels would be appropriate in a time of war, wait, that was tried in the Soviet Union. And we see how well that worked (and if it was a “workers paradise” - ask someone who lived there.) If you want to ruin an economy (the goal of leftists everywhere – it gives them an excuse to goose-step in and take control), raise the taxes to the point where no-one invests their money – the risks outweigh the returns by too large a margin.

But, I suppose that the “everyone” who must sacrifice doesn’t include you or your friends. In fact, most of the richest people in this country, the ones you rail against, are dyed-in-the-wool liberals. Let’s propose a “wealth tax” and watch Ted “drive me home” Kennedy and John “threw someone else’s medals” Kerry run for the hills – but I guess that isn’t “fair.”

As far as my “ignorance” goes, how many degrees in history and economics does it take to make me worthy of your respect? As far as that goes, ignorance can be cured, stupid is forever. I suspect, by the nature of your comments, that you fall to the latter half of that statement.

Hooda Thunkit said...

Very interesting discussion!

But, has anyone's opinion been changed?

I didn't think so...

But remember this, every time taxes have been cut the governments "income" from our taxes grew; every time.

So, if the government wants to increase their take, they should fight the urge to raise taxes; every time. . .