Ron's Rants

Obama moves conversation from too much spending to ‘fairness’

January 27th, 2012, 3:53 pm by rlederman

That is how you refocus a conversation.

Six months ago, Republicans had the nation talking about spending, what was necessary, what was extra and what could go. There was some talk of people paying their “fair share,” of closing loopholes and the such, but the conversation focused largely on spending.

Now we’re talking about paying a fair share, being equitable and making much less come across as more. Give President Barack Obama and his political allies credit. They rerouted the conversation in a way that benefits them.
On the surface, it’s hard to say it’s fair for one group to pay 15 percent of their income while people making far less pay 25 percent or 30 percent.

Of course, it goes much deeper than that, but that involves explaining the difference between income and interest earnings, usually on money that was invested only after the earner had paid a much higher tax rate. It would involve discussion of whether paying 100 times as much money counts toward anything even if you’re paying a lower percentage of taxes on your second round of being taxed.

Obama and company don’t want that conversation The sound bites work much better for them on this one. “It’s not fair” is quick and easy, and it resonates with people making a lot less than the likes of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Which means Obama wins with the conversation heading the way it is even if nothing changes about taxes. He’s Mr. Every Man, while his Republican opponent this fall, whoever it ends up being, seems out of touch to the voters Obama is trying to reach with this message.

Posted in: Election 2012 • OMG, must we? Presidential politics | 1 Comment »

Auditing Romney: So we’re putting “only” in front of a $3 million federal tax bill?

January 25th, 2012, 5:37 pm by rlederman

So Mitt Romney only paid $3 million in federal taxes last year. Go ahead, say that without laughing: Romney “only” paid $3 million in federal taxes.

Egads! The horror! When so many people are paying so much more than Romney!

Really? Who all do you know paying $3 million or more a year in federal taxes?

Sure, many people pay a higher percentage of their income. If you want to have a debate about the relative merits or the fairness of a progressive income tax, let’s have that. But stop acting as if others are paying so much more than Romney because the percentage they pay is higher than the percentage Romney paid on this round of his money being taxed. It’s $3 million. All us middle-class wage earners paying as much as 35 percent, we don’t even begin to earn enough to match what Romney paid in taxes, let alone pay more in taxes.

Someone earning $50,000 a year and paying 35 percent in federal incomes tax is paying $17,500 each year — provided he doesn’t itemize, has no deductions and otherwise doesn’t really exist. But if he did, Mitt Romney was paying a federal tax equivalent to 171 of that Average Joe — you know, the guy paying so much more than Romney.

The facts are these:

• About half of U.S. citizens don’t pay any federal taxes. This is one reason a national usage or sales tax bothers many on the left — it would be a tax increase for many poorer people.

• The wealthiest among us — you know, those President Barack Obama says we don’t begrudge their wealth, only want them to pay their “fair share” — pay a big part of the tax bill. One has to assume they don’t use nearly as much of government as they pay for. Yet they’re not paying their fair share? Those on the lower end of the wage scale using more government services, somehow they’re paying for more than they use?

By the time Romney’s investments are taxed, he or the corporation from which he derived them already pay steeper tax rates back when they were profits or income. Romney is paying an additional 14 percent in taxes 3 additional as in being taxed a second time — because his investments increased in worth. Somehow government is entitled to part of everything you make or earn, and it should always be a third or more, in this view.

If someone wants to lay out the case for a person losing 35 percent of all forms on income, make that case. But no one seems willing to do that, perhaps because it’s a hard sell. So much easier to play with numbers — Mitt ONLY pays 14 percent! — than to deal with all the facts.

Romney’s aloofness on the issue certainly hasn’t helped his cause. For example, he said he didn’t earn much in taxable income from speaker’s fees last year — only about $370,000. OK, so he’s rich and he’s tone deaf to what average people think and clueless to what they do and go through. But he’s paying more than his share of federal taxes as do all wealthy people.

If you want to argue for a consistently progressive tax code that provides to government for all types of income, make that case. If you think government is entitled to a third of all income, no matter what, present the logic. But if you’re merely wanting to punish the rich for having so much more, be honest about that, too.

Posted in: Election 2012 • OMG, must we? Presidential politics • The Feds | 14 Comments »

State of the Union: Obama goes pandering across America

January 25th, 2012, 10:27 am by rlederman

You expect some campaigning from the president during his re-election year State of the Union address. President Barack Obama on Tuesday went swing state by swing state, including a couple stops here in Ohio.

Obama started early, touting both his own success in saving two of the Big Three — though he also mentioned Ford — but also mentioning Detroit. And what works in Detroit (catch that, Michigan voters) can work in Cleveland, Pittsburgh and Raleigh. Do you suppose voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina picked up on the name-dropping?

If not, Obama made sure they got a second chance. Again hailing Detroit — he should have been a Tigers hat — he then worked in Toledo and Chicago.

Obama did a bit of the usual pointing out individuals sitting in the chambers, and these included a woman from North Carolina whose story he used to mention Orlando (Florida and Ohio decide elections) and Louisville (in case anyone in Kentucky wanted to vote Democrat this year). He also highlighted a man from Michigan who now works on wind turbines. (Obama really would look good in that Tigers hat.)

Milwaukee also got a mention when Obama was urging Congress to adopt a tax policy that would reward companies bringing jobs back onshore to the U.S. Is Wisconsin up for grabs, or was this a dig at Republican Gov. Scott Walker, whom Obama challenged on that state’s collective-bargaining reform?

On topics such as immigration, where most of the important states are decided — California, Texas and Arizona — Obama didn’t go city or state name-dropping, though he might have missed a chance to cater to New Mexico’s five Electoral College votes. He also mentioned dairy farmers in his call for the repeal of useless regulations. While his options were wide open here, I would have enjoyed a reference Ohio’s leading dairy country, Mercer, which is solidly Republican. Chipping away even a little in a place like that helps carry the state, as Democrat Ted Strickland showed in the 2006 gubernatorial election.

I’m sure others will have more informed commentary pro and con on his speech, but I was impressed with his pandering to the states important to carry come election time.

Posted in: The Feds | 5 Comments »

Tax Day fun: Will they try to occupy the tea party?

January 24th, 2012, 5:51 pm by rlederman

This April could see, finally, the confluence of two overblown but still somewhat relevant reactionary political movements. Will they Occupy the Tea Party? Can we get a steel cage — at least matching podiums?

It seems like both movements have been with us forever, but they have yet to cross. Tax Day 2012 should change that. So, as the tea partiers gather — likely on Saturday, April 14 this year — will anyone in the Occupy movement try to occupy the tea party?

Again, can we get a steel cage?

The Occupy Wall Street movement took its life in different fashion than did the tea party movement. One started in New York to protest what its groupies saw as the excesses of investment bankers. The tea parties started in many places at the same time, to protest being (t)axed (e)nough (a)lready. Both started with enough of a grassroots feel, getting a lot of praise and criticism from those in politics and punditry, depending on which side was talking about which movement.

Reliably conservative U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, for example, is pretty sure tea parties speak for the will of the American people and the occupiers, when Jordan is feeling charitable toward them, miss the point. Oddly enough, Ohio’s liberal U.S. senator, Sherrod Brown, holds the exact opposite view.

(Both movements have legitimate points, but also miss some important points. For the tea partiers, bad move allowing your movement to be co-opted by the very party that started the federal spending spree you so detest. For the Occupiers, dumb idea thinking the widespread anger about the bonuses on Wall Street means most people want dirty campers mucking up the public square, wasting tax dollars and preaching Marxist nonsense.)

But my sidebar aside, both side have their true-believing zealots. So, if I’m an Occupier, I’m going out today and getting a permit for several good midday hours on both April 14 and April 16. Force the tea parties to have an actual April 15 rally. If the tea partiers, I’m getting in and getting my permit today.

Regardless of reserves the public square first for the little rally, if I’m the other side, I’m going to shout over the speakers.

Can we get a steel cage?

Posted in: Fringers: Occupying the tea pot or the street | 1 Comment »

[Column] Putnam County gets another shot at Kenneth Richey

January 21st, 2012, 11:54 pm by rlederman

It’s hard to disagree with Kenneth Parsigian. It looks like Putnam County officials finally have another shot at Kenneth Richey.

But two of the officials leading the current charge — Sheriff Jim Beutler and Prosecutor Gary Lammers — say justice, not revenge, is their motivation. Neither Beutler nor Lammers was in office all those years ago. Not when Richey was alleged to have killed a young Columbus Grove girl in an apartment fire, not when he was convicted and sentenced to death. And, though Beutler and Lammers were not in office for most of the 21 years Richey spent on Ohio’s death row, they both were there when he left.

Parsigian, whose appeals got Richey sprung from death row in 2005, told The Lima News last week that the arrest of Richey seemed like officials settling a score. Richey was arrested for a message he left at the Putnam County Clerk of Courts Office.

“It was certainly clear to me when we were in court the last day Kenny was released, they said in words or substance, ‘We’re going to get another crack at this guy.’ That was their attitude,” Parsigian said.

Richey was arrested Wednesday in Tupelo, Miss., after a Putnam County grand jury indicted him on charges of retaliation and violating a civil protection order. Both are third-degree felonies, and together they could earn Richey another 10 years in prison. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in: Columns | 9 Comments »

Election-year fun: Medical pot, abortion on the same Ohio presidential ballot

January 20th, 2012, 3:13 pm by rlederman

Pot and abortion? Could there be a more fun election?

Those two issues — actually medical marijuana and life at conception — are likely to appear before Ohio voters this November. Throw in a presidential election, and it’s just bound to be one fun November.

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine on Friday certified ballot language for a medical marijuana amendment to the Ohio Constitution. Seventeen states and D.C. already have some form of allowance of medical marijuana, according to the pro-legalization group NORML. The proposed amendment has to go through the Ohio Ballot Board and then its supporters will have to gather signatures in 44 of the 88 counties, equal to 5 perecnt of the votes cast in the 2010 gubernatorial election, according to DeWine’s office.

More than a t third of the states already have some provision of medical mariuana. expect opponents to point out that the federal government still doesn’t recognize the right of the people to grow or sell marijuane — and forget any movement anytime soon on that in Congress or from the DEA. Still, expect the amendment to be on the ballot.

Right by it will be an amendment to declare that life starts at conception. The Personhood movemebt was conceived in Mississippi, where voters snuffed it out overwhelmingly, but the movement has taken root and grown in other states — ironically enough in swing states like Florida and Ohio in a presidential election year.

So we’ve got good times ahead, talking about medical marijuana, abortion and the direction of the country for the next four years.

Posted in: Drug warriors • Ohio government • OMG, must we? Presidential politics | 1 Comment »

Ohioans are broke because they keep falling for scams

January 19th, 2012, 3:21 pm by rlederman

We’ve discovered the wealth problem in Ohio. It’s us, the people of Ohio.

Ohioans apparently would have a lot more money if they weren’t so quick throwing away their money thinking they had lucked upon a way to come into a lot more money.

Some 1,500 Ohioans lost $2 million in sweepstakes scams last year, the Ohio Attorney Genera’s Office reported Thursday. And “sweepstakes or prizes” ranked only eighth in terms of the number of complaints going to the AG’s office.

In typical paternal politician fashion, AG Mike DeWine urges caution and tells us what all his office is doing to help. Here’s what he can’t say, but I can and will: Quit being stupid. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in: Mrs. Misc. | 1 Comment »

Thanks to Obama, bailed-out GM again ranks as world’s No. 1 automaker

January 19th, 2012, 12:12 pm by rlederman

Apparently the auto bailout worked. At the very least, it seemed to help. General Motors again is the world’s No. 1 automaker, and it’s still in existence because a certain Democratic occupant of the White House diverted part of the bank bailout money to save GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy.

The Detroit Free Press reports today — and the Democratic National Committee was quick to send out a link — that in 2011 were higher than either Toyota or Volkswagen. The Free Press reports that GM sold 19.03 million vehicles, Volkswagen sold 8.16 million and Toyota, slowed by the March earthquake in Japan, sold 7.9 million.

Such bad news for Republicans: Not only is unemployment continuing to drop, but GM is again the world’s No. 1 automaker, and GM is still with us because of President Barack Obama.

An economic argument can be made that something would have replaced the Detroit automakers and that such is actually better for the long term, just as Republicans can say Obama exceeded his authority by diverting bank bailout money. The second first: Republicans spend a lot of time — and press releases — saying what Obama is doing is wrong, unconstitutional and socialist. They spend precious little time actually challenging him in court, as they could have done with the auto bailout. Now the first argument, on the economy: Long term, GM and Chrysler collapsing might have resulted in stronger automakers replacing them, but neither Ohio nor Michigan could easily have withstood that term until we reached the long.

To the political side, all the economic arguments in the world won’t matter compared to autoworkers and suppliers still having the jobs they had four years ago, and crediting Obama for that.

Posted in: The Feds | 5 Comments »

Regulate or go home: There are a lot of $500,000s in $1.3 billion

January 18th, 2012, 2:48 pm by rlederman

The Ohio Public Utilities Commission has fined Duke Energy $500,000 for a November 2010 apartment explosion in the Cincinnati-area town of Lebanon, an explosion that injured seven and caused more than $1 million in damage. PUCO Chairman Todd A. Snitchler sounded the tough guy, going on about how this will set an example of pipeline safety. Sure, Todd, it might cure cancer, too.

Libertarian-leaning people like me view government’s role differently than most other people do. But, folks, if you’re going to have regulations and if you’re going to fine companies for violating them, maybe those regulations and fines ought to mean something. In the case of Duke Energy, which agreed to the fine and other provisions, a half-million is a slap on the wrist, no more.

Duke’s 2010 profit was $1.3 billion. There are 2,600 of those oh-so-steep fines in that profit number — which, by the way, comes after paying the costs of doing business, including such fines. Divide your take-home pay by 2,600. Does it come to much. For the math-impaired, someone bringing home $52,000 a year would pay a $2 fine if he had to pay a fine comparable to this lesson-teaching fine imposed by the Public Utilities Commission on Ohio.

The larger problem is politicians who want it both ways and the bureaucrats they appoint. You can’t just let the market be free, they’ll argue, but they also don’t want to regulate it in such a way that matters. We end up with some gray nothingess instead, where bureaucrats send out press releases that include large sums of money to Joe Public ($500,000) but that offer no perspective on how little those large figures will matter. How little those large figures actually will change any businesses practices.

Obviously, I’d argue for a market that regulates itself, though with natural gas delivery we’re a bit past that. You can choose the company from which you buy natural gas, but one company has a lock on delivering it. But the free market approach, since you ask, would involve other consumers saying, Hmmm, my house also might blow up if I choose Duke Energy, perhaps I’ll keep shopping, maybe even pay a bit more for a safer company,” or “That was probably a fluke accident, so this lower price is a deal worth taking.”

Instead, Ohio has a system where Republicans argue for free markets but, even with all the political power, won’t establish them. We have Democrats who argue for the need for government, but then only in limited doses, enough to make you think someone’s watching but without doing any actual good. Basically, the middle ground is the wrong place to be when it comes to natural gas lines not blowing you up. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in: Ohio government | Post a Comment »

If their political careers have room, maybe Huffman, Faber could speak up — just once — for Lima

January 18th, 2012, 12:51 pm by rlederman

We hear often enough that Columbus ignores this part of the state. Every part of the state says that.

But when a state administrators agrees to come to Lima — on a date he chooses — then blows off Lima, what to make of it? More of the same? A bad signal? Just one of those things?

Whatever the case, it would be nice if either of Allen County’s members of the Ohio General Assembly acted as if he were upset when Columbus slights this area. No one is asking for a dramatic show each time, but some show of upset that, once again, Lima is slighted might be nice. Of course, a cynic would suggest that neither state Rep. Matt Huffman, R-Lima, or state Sen. Keith Faber, R-Celina, wants to do anything to upset party leadership, namely Gov. John Kasich. Republicans keeping the Ohio Senate this November means Faber is most likely Senate president. Huffman could move to the No. 2 spot in the House, provided Republicans keep control there, but Speaker William Batchelder also could step aside and allow Huffman to run the show there. Neither of our local party boys wants party insiders upset, goes the cynic’s view.

Just once, though, it would be nice to see either of this county’s representatives in Columbus actually look as if her were representing this area in Columbus rather than protecting his own political future.

What prompts this is not something done by either Huffman or Faber. Rather it was a meeting set up by Lima Mayor David Berger — more on his wasted tact in a moment — of the Lima Auto Task Force, which Berger created mostly to protect and bring more jobs to the Ford plant in Bath Township. Richard Frederick, Kasich’s workforce policy adviser, agreed to attend the meeting, but then begged off last week. Why would the state’s representative want to be at a meeting outlining concerns? (And why would the meeting go on other than to let Berger and others hear themselves?) The meeting was scheduled to fit Frederick’s schedule, if anyone in the Huffman or Faber camps needs help getting outraged on behalf of Lima.

Obviously, a mayor and local leaders can complain, and Berger normally does about what Columbus is or isn’t doing for Lima. Not this time. So the state blows off Lima, and Berger has nothing to say? Is he afraid state funding might get cut if he says he feels slighted?

But even were Berger to put some voice to that frustration, it’s what a mayor might do in that case. But, you know, supposing the currently No. 2 and No. 3 guys in the state Senate and the sate House of Representatives were to say something out loud about this, maybe showing constituents that they’ve going to bat for Lima, maybe that would have some effect.

Posted in: Berger World • Ohio government | 3 Comments »