Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > May > 11
Monday, May 11, 2009
Plain Dealer compares county spending
If you’re interested in how Montgomery compares to other metro counties in the state when it comes to spending, you might enjoy reading the Plain Dealer’s weekend stories on this issue. The chart that accompanies this story compares Montgomery County with Lucas, Hamilton, Franklin and Cuyahoga counties (home to Toledo, Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland, respectively) for spending.
There weren’t any big bombshells for Montgomery County in the data. Some of the comparisons, particularly the calculated averages and rates, didn’t seem to match well given the wide range in the size of the counties. But it’s still interesting to see the counties lined up this way.
Take a look and let us know what catches your eye.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Montgomery County, Scott Elliott
Editorial: Austria takes easy way out on earmarks
Many years ago, somebody did a study asking school children how big Israel is. Specifically, the kids were asked to draw it on a map. Almost invariably, they drew it as very large, like Saudi Arabia or even Russia. But, of course, it is tiny as countries go, the approximate equivalent of a 90-mile square.
The researchers concluded that the students assumed that anything that is in the news as much as Israel — and anything that gets so much attention from the most important people — must be huge.
If that’s true, then the kids today must think that earmarks consume about half the federal budget, rather than less than 1 percent, the reality.
“Earmark” is a slightly fuzzy term, but it refers basically to items in the federal budget that are added by individual members of Congress for narrow purposes back home.
People have been bombarded with stories about bridges to nowhere and gas stations where no private company would put a gas station. By now the public is presumed to be against earmarks as a class.
But there are certainly other kinds of earmarks. Former Congressman David Hobson, of Springfield, who represented Greene County, prided himself on looking after his district’s interests through skillful use of the earmark process. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base was central to his efforts. In fact, earmarks are at the core of funding for military construction.
But he also went to bat for Central State and Wilberforce universities (getting, for example, a gas station near them, which he thought was needed), and for other constituents.
Rep. Mike Turner, R-Centerville, has also pushed earmarks. He gets a list of projects that have been vetted by Dayton Development Coalition — military, educational and infrastructure projects and more — and does what he can.
Now, however, Rep. Hobson’s successor, Steve Austria, of Beavercreek, has decided not to seek any earmarks this year. He says that he hasn’t ruled out all earmarks forever. But, having sat through endless hearings about the budget, having concluded that way too much money is being spent, he felt he couldn’t ask for any this year.
There’s something admirable about a Republican putting his own district where his mouth is. Many others have done everything possible to get money for their own districts while posturing against spending in the abstract.
And yet, Rep. Austria’s position is too easy, too formulaic, too symbolic. It’s a cop-out. A good congressman should be against wasteful spending and for useful spending. The earmark category has some of both, as does every other category.
To write off a category of spending because it has a label that doesn’t play well isn’t the grown-up approach. This is especially true if nixing an entire category results mainly in other districts getting a bigger share of federal money, relative to your own.
Rep. Turner argues that, in any given year, the efforts of individual members of Congress to get some earmarks don’t add to federal spending, but just affect how the money is divvied up.
Many years ago, another local congressman, John Boehner, swore off earmarks in his first campaign. In those days, however, the earmarks process was more objectionable, primarily because of secrecy. Today much has changed.
Individual legislators must now attach their names to any request. Indeed, they are being asked by their leaders in Congress to post their requests on their Web sites. Meanwhile, the media are far more tuned into the subject, following closely what the members do.
In the Dayton area, the earmarks-vetting process is particularly formalized and open. Reform, openness, and focus on the merits of specific proposals are the keys. Symbolic posturing about savings — in such a tiny part of the federal budget — is not what’s needed.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Economy, Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Wright Patterson Air Force Base
Editorial: Slots at church or bar near you? No way
If you heard somebody say something had gone “from bad to worse,” you’d think they were talking about the economy, right?
Yes, but there’s also the matter of how people are trying to rework the idea of bringing more gambling to Ohio.
Would you believe that there are actually people in Columbus arguing that what Ohio needs is not a few big casinos, but slot machines in local bars, restaurants, churches and at horse-racing tracks — subject to a vote, not of the people of the state, but of just the affected precinct?
Great. Picture every bar in every dive of a neighborhood where voter turnout is low, or where there’s hardly anyone living, bringing in four slot machines as a way to keep the doors open and money coming in.
The host business and game operator would share 60 percent of the profits. The other 40 percent — and when have you heard this before — would go to the Ohio Lottery Commission, which would give it to schools.
That’s the same lottery that famously is not funding your local school district now because the lottery raises a pittance as compared to what schools really require.
Some bar owners might like the idea because slots could draw people who can’t smoke in their establishments any more.
Ditto for certain kinds of restaurants.
Churches? Maybe proponents figured they had to throw them a bone, lest they object that attendance at bingo would suffer. (Picture the dilemma: Do you put the slots in the vestibule to catch people coming and going? Or would the altar be a better drawing card?)
The explanation for including horse-racing tracks is easy. With Internet gambling growing, these enterprises can’t draw crowds or enough interest to create attractive purses. Some tracks are likely to go out of business.
Gov. Ted Strickland hasn’t been a proponent of gambling — though he did allow Keno in bars and restaurants — so it’s not likely he would ever agree to this craziness.
But the appeal of the suggestion in proponents’ mind apparently is that the governor, in theory, could act unilaterally — no statewide vote, no fussing with the legislature.
The strongest argument of the pro-gambling forces is that, when done well, casinos can create jobs because they bring with them hotels, restaurants and shopping.
Of course, the draw of that sort of entertainment complex — if we’re talking about bringing in tourists — was bigger when casinos were less of a novelty.
But possibly the worst thing about this particular proposal is that it has zero economic development benefits. No one is going to drive from out-of-state or out-of-town to go to a bar with four slots — the limit.
Rather, this gambling would appeal most likely to people in poor neighborhoods who could walk out their door and be stripped of money they can’t afford to lose; they wouldn’t even have to drive or make an effort.
The Northern Ohio Hospitality and Entertainment Coalition can’t be serious. If it is, it’s also laughable.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Economy, Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Ohio politics
Editorial: Legislative meddling cost Dayton big
The settlement the Ohio Department of Education struck this month with Dayton Public Schools vindicates the district and also nets the schools at least $7.1 million. While school officials are thrilled to have the money, in some ways it comes too late.
In 2006, the legislature blocked a financial deal to end Dayton’s dispute with the state about how it counted student enrollment. That helped push Dayton toward its ill-fated 2007 try for a huge levy. After that request went down, the district made devastating cuts that schools today are still climbing back from.
The story begins with the state’s broken process for counting students — a process that urban districts across the state knew was a crock. The state told Dayton, year after year, that it was undercounting charter school students, requiring the district to redirect more money to those schools.
In 2006, school officials decided to dig into the state’s enrollment data. Using newly available state data to better identify where students were attending school (or not), Dayton found hundreds of kids who were counted more than once at charter schools, and many others who had transferred out of charters or were otherwise missing.
Over a three-year period, Dayton estimated it lost as much as $14 million.
At first, the Ohio Department of Education was receptive to Dayton’s complaint, which it had shared with Cincinnati and other urban districts. Settlement talks began, and the department was leaning toward giving millions to districts that had been cheated.
Eventually a deal was struck to essentially split the difference, with the state paying back about half of what the districts said they were due. In early 2007, Dayton hoped that money would at least shrink the size of the levy it was contemplating.
It wasn’t to be.
Republican lawmakers, including then-Speaker of the House Jon Husted and then-Sen. Jeff Jacobson, were frustrated by what they viewed as constant enrollment revisions by the education department that ran up the cost of what the legislature had to spend on education. They ultimately scuttled the settlement, outraging urban school leaders and prompting Cincinnati to go to court.
The legislature was wrong to get involved, a contention that was borne out by the fact that Cincinnati won at trial and on appeal. Late last year, the case was finally settled just before the Ohio Supreme Court was scheduled to consider it.
The appellate court endorsed a calculation for repaying the districts that resulted in pay-outs that were close to what was being proposed way back when in the settlement talks.
Yes, Dayton’s school board made mistakes that led to the defeat of its 15.17-mill levy try in 2007. But a $7 million infusion from the state around that time could have made a real difference in reducing the levy’s size. (The tax increase would have raised $30 million annually.)
Superintendent Kurt Stanic says he will spend the money on reducing class size in early elementary grades. That’s a good plan. With the settlement money and new revenue from the 4.9-mill levy that finally passed last year, Dayton is starting to recover from the deep cuts of 2007.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott
