Ohio Townships look to Unconstitutionally Tax Homeowners

On September 9, the 1851 Center asked the Supreme Court of Ohio to review, and stop, Hamilton Township’s implementation of a tax on new homes.

Ohio’s townships cannot levy taxes. This has made them a popular destination for Ohioans who wish to flee the high costs of city living. However, Hamilton Township (in southwest Ohio) has imposed a charge that, if allowed to stand, would change this. The township has simply labeled its $6,000 tax on new homeowners and developers an “impact fee.”

“This case is about whether Ohio townships may tax citizens, simply by labeling those taxes ‘fees,’ even though Ohio law denies townships this privilege,” 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson wrote in the brief. “Accordingly, this case raises several issues of great importance: (1) where the line is drawn, in Ohio, between what constitutes a ‘tax’ and what constitutes a ‘fee;’ and (2) whether Ohio townships have some form of inherent police powers beyond those specified in the Ohio Revised Code, or instead, are creatures of limited and defined powers.”

1851 Center, September 29, 2010

Ohio Counties Can’t Avoid Public Meetings Law; Hold Secret Meetings on Million-Dollar Contracts

In an effort against public corruption in Cincinnati, the 1851 Center filed an amicus brief in the First District Court of Appeals to stop secret meetings amongst Hamilton County Commissioners.

To prevent sweetheart deals and ensure open and objective debate, Ohio’s county commissioners must discuss important public business in public meetings. Cincinnati residents were alarmed to discover Hamilton County Commissioners met behind closed doors to discuss a multi-million dollar contract associated with Cincinnati’s government-planned riverfront development.

The commissioners, which include David Pepper, who is running for Ohio Auditor, claimed they were entitled to meet in secret because Mr. Pepper and Commissioner Todd Portune are attorneys, and were giving legal advice to the remaining commissioner at the meeting.

“A fundamental right underlying our government in Ohio is that Ohioans have a right to know and understand the actions taken by elected officials. This principle is reflected in the Ohio Constitution and Revised Code,” according to the 1851 Center’s brief.

The case awaits oral arguments and the court’s decision.

Source: 1851 Center, September 29, 2010

Early Voting, Politics Without Debate?

By Daniel Downs

Am I the only voter in the world receiving umpteen million calls about early voting? I have never had both parties telling me how crucial it is to my precious liberty to send in a early registration card as soon as it is received. Until this year, I have had no calls about it.

Is it really about freedom to vote? I don’t think so!

Just think, if voting occurs now, much candidate literature, televised or town hall debates will have been missed. Granted, most brochures and debates consist of little deep substance any way. And, apart from stated party agendas, know one ever knows what politicians will do. Nonetheless, multiple debates and literature at least give a voter something to consider before voting.

An informed, not a duped, citizenry stimulates functional democracy in our federal republic of liberty .

I don’t know; maybe I already missed most of the debates. I do know if I voted now, I would miss debates between Rob Portman and Lee Fischer (Oct. 4 & 12 PM) as well as Gov. Strickland and John Kaisch (Oct. 7). I imagine other meet the candidates nights and townhall debates are in the works as well.

This being the case, I have to conclude that the great drive for early voting is not to ensure that everyone will practice their voting right. Rather, the purpose is to get as many voters to support all the party ticket. Early voting thus seems to be politics without meaningful debate.

P.S. Who would be stupid enough to send the registration card in anyway. People willing to making their driver’s license number or security number available to any rip off artist? Or, maybe just die-hard party numbskulls?

Senator Brown Calls on Navistar CEO to Keep Jobs in Springfield

U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) sent a letter this week to Dan Ustian, CEO of Navistar International Corporation, urging him to maintain operations at the company’s plant in Springfield. In early August, nearly 400 workers received notice that layoffs may begin as early as October 4.

“The workers in Springfield are second to none in work ethic, dedication, and productivity,” Brown wrote to Ustian. “As Navistar continues with its military and commercial sales and further progresses with the development of cutting edge technology, I urge you to consider the Ohio workforce that has played a critical role in the company’s success.”

Navistar International Corp. produces commercial trucks and diesel engines. The company recently made a commitment to expand operations in Illinois. Brown urged Navistar to make a similar commitment to the Springfield community. In his letter, Brown urged Navistar to continue working with local, state, and federal officials to keep employees working.

Christians Preach to Muslims & Get Arrested

By David J. Rusin

Does the First Amendment protect Christians who bring their message to Muslims at public events or in front of mosques? This is a good question, given the trend of missionaries being placed under arrest while proselytizing to followers of Islam — right here in the United States:

• On June 18, four Christians were arrested for breach of peace at the Arab International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. The group’s videos show them engaging in reasoned debate with Muslims or merely roaming around, but one festival volunteer accused them of harassment, making him feel “nervous.” According to the Detroit Free Press, “Police said the missionaries were arrested because they failed to obey police commands. Officers maintain the group’s actions were a public safety issue because they caused a large number of people to gather in a small place.” The trial is now in progress.

• On July 3, two evangelicals in front of Philadelphia’s Masjid al-Jamia were arrested by University of Pennsylvania police officers for disorderly conduct and obstruction of a highway. Michael Marcavage says that a bicycle cop demanded that they cease preaching there. When backup arrived, Marcavage started to film. The Daily Pennsylvanian recounts: “He claimed that Officer Nicole Michel assaulted him and forcibly shut off his camera. Marcavage called 911 because ‘the officer was out of control,’ and began filming once more, at which point the police confiscated the device.” He insists that they intentionally destroyed his footage. The trial is scheduled for November.

• On August 30, Mark Holick was outside the Islamic Society of Wichita, Kansas, distributing “packets that included the Gospel of John and the Book of Romans in English and Arabic, [and] a DVD with testimonies of former Islamists who have come to the Lord,” when police allegedly ordered him and a dozen others to move away from the building. He was then arrested for “loitering and failing to disperse.” Holick wants the charges dropped.

At the core of all three cases is the principle that government or entities acting on its behalf cannot muzzle unpopular speech. Newt Gingrich sounds a more specific alarm: freedom is being sacrificed to Shari’a law’s “intolerance against the preaching of religions other than Islam.”

No American city epitomizes this concern as much as heavily Muslim Dearborn. Members of the same Christian group, Acts 17 Apologetics, were tossed from last year’s Arab fest by abusive security personnel. Dearborn authorities attempted to curb the rights of a separate Christian organization to disseminate material at the 2009 event, restrictions later overturned by a federal appeals court. To add insult to injury, Mayor John B. O’Reilly Jr. recently declared that his city is “under attack” by Acts 17.

To learn more, go to the Islamist Watch blog. This article was originally posted there on September 24, 2010.

Increase in Unemployment Numbers for August

Unemployment numbers released last week by the Department of Labor show an increase in unemployment from 9.5 percent to 9.6 percent. This means a net loss of 54,000 U.S. jobs in August. Despite the net loss, private-sector employers added 67,000 jobs in August, however that wasn’t enough to counter balance the 114,000 temporary Census workers that are no longer employed by the Census Bureau.

Prior to the formal announcement, many economists were expecting growth in the unemployment rate. During his speech to bankers and economists in Jackson Hole, Wyo. on Aug. 27, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke eluded to the negative numbers and the need for strong responses from both lawmakers and private-sector leaders as well.

Unfortunately, despite modest gains throughout the year, manufacturers in August cut 27,000 jobs, while struggling state government cut 14,000 jobs. There were a few bright spots: 28,000 new jobs were created in the health care sector, and 19,000 jobs were added in the construction industry. Temporary staffing companies also added jobs to the tune of 17,000 in August.

This data is in-line with the NSBA Mid-Year Economic Report which showed only 11 percent of small businesses hired new employees while the majority—53 percent—made no changes whatsoever to their employment.

Source: NSBA, September 7, 2010.

Six Month Check-Up of the New Health Care Law: A SBE Council Evaluation

SBE Council issued a “check up” regarding the success, to date, of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). According to SBE Council President & CEO Karen Kerrigan, ObamaCare has already broken many promises and left small business owners more vulnerable than ever in terms of losing coverage for themselves and their workforce.

“After six-months of ObamaCare, small business owners are getting hit with higher premiums. And, if the regulatory process continues to move forward on grandfathering, most small business owners will lose the coverage they currently offer or be forced to buy more expensive plans,” said SBE Council President & CEO Karen Kerrigan.

SBE Council highlighted the following problems with PPACA at six months:

• The miniscule tax credits for small business are not working. Many report that the value of the tax credit is too low, and its tight restrictions disqualify many small firms from accessing it.

• Premium costs continue their upward trajectory. Small business owners are reporting premium rate hikes in the 10%-20% range, and higher. PPACA is not helping to lower the cost of health insurance for small businesses – in fact, the new mandates are driving costs higher.

• “Grandfathering” is a joke. Rules issued by Health and Human Services (HHS), if they become final, will force many small firms to purchase more costly plans if they wish to remain “grandfathered” once PPACA fully kicks in. Even the HHS reports that 80% of small firms will lose the plans they currently offer. What happened to the promise of being able to keep the health coverage you currently have?

• Paperwork Nightmare. A massive paperwork burden awaits small business owners in 2012 when they will be required to file a 1099-MISC form for all vendor transactions that total $600 or more on an annual basis. What does this have to do with health care?

• Higher health spending and more bureaucracy. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reported that PPACA will increase health care spending by 6.3% annually, consuming nearly 20% of the national’s health care bill. The Congressional Research Service described the size and scope of PPACA’s bureaucracy as “currently unknowable.” More cost to taxpayers – higher taxes for small business owners.

• The high-risk pools are a failure. In Iowa, 32 people have enrolled in the state’s high-risk pool, which beats Kansas where only 17 people have enrolled.

• Uncertainty in the marketplace. Small business owners remain uncertain about scores of other regulations being developed by the federal government as to their impact on health savings accounts (HSAs) and other consumer-directed health plans. Will these plans survive once HHS decides what “qualifies” as health care? Will a government-designed “essential benefits package” drive HSAs out of the marketplace?

“ObamaCare has increased costs, uncertainty, and the size and scope of government. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning and we have to hope that more rational heads will prevail in the new Congress so this mess can be fixed,” concluded Kerrigan.

Who Is God For?

Listening to another great sermon this morning, this question came to mind: who is God for? The pastor’s message was God is for you. A whole lot of issues would be resolved if you settled that in your thoughts. What I do not remember the pastor explaining is why God was for his listeners. That is the pastor did not state or explaining the premise of his argument. His assumptions were not expressed.

What were his assumptions?

The pastor’s premise informing his argument for God being FOR his listeners is comprised of at least the following assumptions:

God loves humanity.

Because the Creator does, he seeks to redeem humanity from the consequences of sin. Those consequences include alienation, sickness, impoverishment, corruption, violence, war, injustice, and the like.

Because sin is a moral crime against the laws of God in human nature, justice is demanded.

For God to forgive humanity’s crimes, means to satisfy divine justice fully must be enacted.

Because the consequence of sin is death, the penalty of death is required.

Good works and moral behavior cannot be the basis of satisfying justice. That is true for all systems of justice of all peoples as well as God’s.

Although the appeasement of divine judgment for sin through sacrificial death of animals has been a universal practice throughout most of human history, and although mammals and human share similar biological nature, animals are not culpable for intentional moral crimes.

Therefore, only the death of a human could possibly fully satisfy divine justice.

Because all humans commit sin, only a human who has never committed sin could be qualified to satisfy the divine demand of justice.

The only human claimed to have fulfilled these qualifications is Jesus of Nazareth. His death has fully satisfied God system of justice thus enabling God to acquit human of their moral crimes and to empower to begin to live sinless lives.

Because the sinless Jew and only-begotten son of God, Jesus, has fulfilled the demands of God’s justice fully, God unmerited love can be forever expressed to those who submit to God by faith with Jesus. This is also called mercy and grace.

Therefore, God is unwavering for and never against those who live under the rule of God’s redemptive justice. All of God’s promises are forever yes. Because temporary lapses in sin cause temporary hindrances to the realization of promises, the hindrance is internal not external. God’s “yes” has not changed because Jesus has already suffered the penalty for all moral crimes and thus completely and forever satisfied all demands of divine justice.

The one contingency to the above is this: Faithfulness to God. That is the underlying problem throughout all of human history. It is why moral reformations resulting in the major religions of the world have occurred. It is why moral reformation will continue to occur, which often called revivals. However, unlike in the past, such reformations without the incorporation of Jesus’ accomplishments on humanity’s behalf as planned by God will not result in the desired future, which is the perpetuation of true justice and eternal life with God.

For those who already are faithful in their practice of righteousness as defined above, implementing the principles of Isaiah 58 can help with the internal resistance.

By Daniel Downs

Majority of New Yorkers Oppose Ground Zero Mosque

The NY Daily News/Marist Poll reports 51% to 41% of New Yorkers oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.

The poll “showed 48% of city residents against the planned $100 million community center don’t want it downtown at all, let alone two blocks from where the twin towers came down.”

“The poll of anti-mosque New Yorkers also found that 23% believed one mile from Ground Zero would be far enough for the mosque to be built. Ten blocks was sufficient for 17%, while 7% could accept a five-block buffer and 5% were unsure.”

“There was a gender split. Women outnumber men as opponents of a mosque near Ground Zero, and among those, 52% want to keep it out of lower Manhattan, compared with 41% of men.”

New Yorkers are not the only opponents of mosque/community center. Other polls show most Americans are opposed to it. Muslims have voiced opposition as well. The main issue is not whether an Islamic community or another mosque should be built in New York; the issue is most are opposed to either being built near the site where Islamic zealots achieve a partial victory against America.

Source: NYDailyNews.com, September 13, 2010.

School Building Projects – Rewarding Special Interests at the Expense of Students, Teachers, and Taxpayers

By Mary McCleary, Policy Analyst

Hiring union labor in school construction projects increases the costs period. You will be hard pressed to find an example in modern-day Ohio where hiring a labor union has led to cost savings that otherwise would have gone unrealized. By their very nature, labor unions drive up costs through paying workers higher wages than the market dictates.

Due to Senate Bill 102 passed in 1997, school districts are exempt from Ohio’s little Davis-Bacon law, which requires the government to compensate laborers at the prevailing wage rate. Essentially, this law forces workers to join unions to work on government-funded building projects. More often than not, school districts choose independent companies because they can bid projects at lower, more competitive rates than their union counterparts.

The fact that using union labor drives up school construction costs can be illustrated by three recent examples. Earlier this summer the Executive Director of the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) Richard Murray chose to use a project labor agreement for the construction of the new deaf and blind schools in Columbus. At each of the four stages of the design process, the OSFC signed off on the cost estimates. When Murray decided to use a project labor agreement, bids for the project came back $11.4 million over the $28 million budget – a 41 percent increase in estimated costs.

Only the kitchen equipment portion of the deaf and blind schools was exempt from a project labor agreement. Ironically, the kitchen equipment bids were the only bids that came back within the allotted budget, and there were twice as many bids for kitchen equipment than there were for any other part of the project.

Second, the Washington-Niles Local School District near Portsmouth planned to use a project labor agreement at the advice of the OSFC. However, when the bids came back 22 percent over budget, the district backed out. Washington-Niles is the eighth poorest of the 612 Ohio school districts and simply could not afford such significant cost overruns.

Third, the New Boston School District, also near Portsmouth and among the poorest Ohio school districts, has accused the OSCF of increasing costs and delaying the project because the district refused to accept a project labor agreement. When the district ran into a few problems during the planning phase, Richard Murray told school board members that he would make their problems disappear if they used union labor.

Because the OSCF has added extra costs to the schools estimate to account for a project labor agreement, the project is over budget by $400,000. To reduce costs, the OSCF has demanded the removal of the proposed facility’s front area and the reduction of cafeteria size. The OSCF has put construction on hold until the district concedes and is charging the district fees for delaying the project.

Unfortunately, when a project goes over budget due to a labor agreement, the OSFC recommends reducing building size and cutting other amenities instead of finding savings through nixing the project labor agreement. Sadly it has become more important to enhance the wallets of special interest groups rather than to act in the best interest of the students, their teachers, and the taxpayers.

With Ohio’s economy in shambles, this is no time to be pushing for the use of unions in school construction projects. Between January 1990 and July 2010, job creation in states that forced workers to join unions to obtain jobs only grew by 17 percent. On the other hand, job creation in states that protected a worker’s freedom to choose whether or not to join a union to obtain employment grew by 37 percent, or more than double the rate of forced unionization states.

Ohio’s road to economic recovery will not be paved with higher taxes and will not be found through paying homage to unions. Robbing Peter to pay Paul does nothing to promote job growth or prosperity in Ohio. Try explaining to the taxpayers that they are better off by paying more for less. The logic simply does not add up.

Source: Buckeye Institute, September 6, 2010.

Abandoned to the State?

In 2006, parent David Parker insisted he would not leave his son’s elementary school until someone spoke to him about opting his kindergarten son out of offensive sexual material. Parker was arrested for trespassing and spent the night in jail. Further, the school refused to excuse his son from the class. The case of Parker v. Hurley ensued.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in that case held that “Parents do have a fundamental right to raise their children. They are not required to abandon that responsibility to the state. [They] may send their children to a private school…. They may also educate their children at home.” In other words, the court outlined three options for parents: send your child to private school, teach them at home, or “abandon [your] responsibility to the state.”

The court further held that allowing students to opt out of offensive materials “might also undermine the [school’s] efforts to educate the remaining other students to understand” the subject being taught.

In 2008, the Supreme Court refused to grant review to this case, leaving the District Court’s decision to stand as precedent nationwide. Parents who believe they have a right to opt a child out of offensive material in the public school, therefore, should think again; the courts have already decided otherwise.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will restore the responsibility of all government institutions (including public schools) to treat parental rights as a fundamental right. As a result, these rights will have to be respected even inside the school, and not evaporate at the front door.

To learn more about the Parental Rights Amendment, visit http://www//www.parentalrights.org.