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 > August > 16
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Editorial: Boehner offers some truths, some nonsense
U.S. Rep. John Boehner had a piece in USA Today on Thursday, Aug. 13, about health care. To his credit, the column got beyond the ongoing fight about political tactics (those famous town hall brawls).
To his further credit, he didn’t mention the preposterous “euthanasia” complaint that he has raised before.
Because Rep. Boehner (whose district includes parts of Dayton and Huber Heights, as well as Miami, Darke and Preble counties, and part of Butler) is the leader of the House Republicans, his statements have to be taken as important.
He starts by insisting that “Republicans have stood ready to work with him to pass bipartisan health care reforms.”
In truth, though, many in his party have been in a “Just Say No” posture, to quote a chant from some town halls. All the political energy seems to be coming from the “Just Say No” people.
Rep. Boehner complains that Congress and special-interest groups want to “put Washington in control of Americans’ health care.” If that where true, they simply would extend Medicare to cover everybody. Instead, the reformers are bending over backward to maintain the outlines of the current system, while pursuing the goals of covering everyone and controlling costs.
Rep. Boehner also says “the more the American people learn about the Democrats’ health care bill, the less they like it.”
What’s really happening is that a small group of people spread false and outrageous alarms, and some other people do, indeed, become alarmed.
After these general points, Rep. Boehner makes four specific others, in response to points President Barack Obama made Tuesday in New Hampshire. The congressman says:
• Some people could lose their employer-based health insurance. “Experts at the Lewin Group estimate the number could be more than 100 million Americans,” he says. This is a reference to the “public option,” in the various Democratic plans, under which people could join a government-run insurance plan. The Lewin Group, funded by the health insurance industry, worries that employers would stop paying for health insurance.
Of course, people would actually have more options than they do now: not only the public plan, but new private plans that would be fostered and could compete for customers.
At any rate, the Lewin Group has lowered its figure a little, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office uses a number just a tenth as large.
The public option is a big idea that needs more airing. Serious debate of its potential flaws has been crowded out by irrelevant noise.
• The pending bills would worsen the deficit, despite the president’s insistence that he wouldn’t sign any bill that does that. On this Rep. Boehner is right. Democrats have not put forth a bill that meets the Obama standard.
And yet, standing still makes no sense. The deficit is on an out-of-control path, with health care being one of the big drivers.
• Democrats would cut Medicare “to the tune of $361.9 billion over 10 years. That means fewer choices and lower quality care.”
What the White House says it wants is more efficiency. Do the Republicans really want to insist that, in a huge government program, there’s no way to cut costs without cutting care?
• The Democrats plan would foster more “rationing” by creating a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” to make decisions about what can be covered by insurance. Some advocates have said the idea is to mandate what must be covered — to set minimum standards for insurance programs. They say it’s not about rationing.
Rep. Boehner makes points that are worth debating in the shaping of a plan.
But in a time when tens of millions have no insurance, when scores of millions are on the edge of having no insurance if they lose their jobs, when costs are soaring to the point of driving employers crazy, and when the nation’s long-term fiscal health cannot be addressed without dramatic changes in health care, all efforts must be bent to passing something.
Permalink | Comments (27) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, National Politics, Social Services
Editorial: Strickland’s new plan might prompt more levies
Gov. Ted Strickland’s new “evidence-based” school funding plan is supposed to ensure schools get the money that research says they need to educate children.
Perhaps it will. But, in the short run, it’s creating big headaches for school districts — and maybe the politicians who’ll have to defend the changes.
Gov. Strickland spent two years crafting a plan aimed at improving Ohio’s education system and changing the funding scheme. One major goal was to limit how often school districts have to ask voters for money.
Some of his changes are part the state budget that was passed last month. The Ohio Department of Education is briefing school officials now on how those changes will play out, but the best they can say is that the system will be completely different than the way the state allotted money previously.
What administrators need to know — how much money they will receive this school year and next — won’t be known until at least October.
This means that districts, which started a new financial year July 1, can only guess (and hope) that the funding will be roughly comparable to last year. This has put some school boards in a bind.
Consider Sugarcreek schools, which just passed two critical levies in May and August that are supposed to stabilize the budget and avert a deficit.
After this month’s levy win, Superintendent Keith St. Pierre remained cautious. Early projections showed Sugarcreek could actually see a slight decrease in state aid under the new model.
There’s also the question of mandates. Districts must, for instance, offer all-day kindergarten by the 2010-11 school year unless they’re given a waiver. But the state is still deciding the rules for getting waivers.
High-performing suburban districts like Sugarcreek think they can make a case for moving slowly to all-day kindergarten, which would phase in the costs of new classroom space and new teachers. But they don’t know if their argument will prevail.
Likewise, there are questions about how the state will adopt other features of Gov. Strickland’s plan, such as smaller class sizes. How will the state calculate student-teacher ratios? Will teachers’ aides, for instance, be factored in?
Those answers haven’t been spelled out and will affect hiring decisions and personnel costs.
Bob McClintock, business manager for Northmont schools, said he needs more information before he can deliver the district’s five-year forecast, which is normally due to the state by the end of October.
He also needs to inform the school board about the finances because the board is looking ahead to a renewal or replacement levy in 2010. About half the district’s revenue comes from state aid, so fluctuations can have a big effect.
“We need good information to make that choice,” he said. “This is so new and such a revolutionary, systemic change.”
West Carrollton Superintendent Rusty Clifford expects his district will be on the ballot in May with a 6.5-mill renewal levy last passed in 2007. But he thinks the district could need another levy soon thereafter, especially if new requirements aren’t funded by the state.
This is where it could get sticky for Gov. Strickland.
He’s said that the whole point of the coming changes are to limit the need for levies. But if districts are contradicting him, chances are good that voters are the ones who will think local school members have the story right.
Gov. Strickland’s school funding reforms are supposed to shift the burden for financing schools more toward the state, with the goal of reducing inequities between rich and poor communities. But with Ohio’s money tanking, any big step up in state aid won’t occur soon.
This is especially true for suburban districts — like Sugarcreek, Northmont and West Carrollton — because some extra aid in the new formula is being redirected toward poorer urban and rural districts.
Gov. Strickland is eager to say his plans are transforming education. Talk to school administrators who are trying to make the numbers work, and they’re not so sure the shift is for the better.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Education, Scott Elliott, Suburban Communities
Martin Gottlieb: Husted, Brunner find agreement: Call in top court
As has been noted here before, the case of Jon Husted and whether he actually lives in Kettering or Columbus has certain fun elements to it.
One is that the matter has been in the hands of Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner even as Republican Husted has been planning a race for that job.
The case arose at a time when Brunner was putting together a run for the U.S. Senate; but many Democrats have been hoping she will, instead, run for re-election.
She could theoretically rule that Husted is not a qualified voter in Kettering, upholding the view of the Democrats on the county elections board.
However, she could not remove him from the Senate. That would be up to the Senate, which wouldn’t do it.
A candidate (meaning Husted) for the office that applies the laws about who can vote wouldn’t relish a finding that he’s not eligible to vote where he votes.
As to that, though, if such a finding were reached entirely by Democrats, it would carry about as much moral weight as the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the then-Republican U.S. House.
So Brunner seemed to be squirming as much as Husted. She does not want to be seen as a flaming partisan.
She took her time about coming to a decision. When the local elections board deadlocked 2-2 along party lines, the buck was passed to her. She said she didn’t have enough information. She sought some from Husted and ultimately sent the case back here.
Now Husted has filed a suit with the (all-Republican) Ohio Supreme Court, saying she had no right to seek more information or send the case back.
He says she was obligated to make a decision fast. On that ground and more, he wants the court to take control of the matter and preferably resolve it his favor.
Husted’s timing adds another little element of amusement here.
When Brunner came through Dayton a few weeks ago, she said she expected to have a decision right about now. She said the local board had a couple of weeks to send its second finding to her. (It deadlocked again, shocking everybody — with the exception of everybody.) She expected to act a couple of weeks later.
In fact, when Husted filed his suit, Brunner says, she was about to review a staff draft and hopefully make a decision that very night. The filing aborted that process. Now Brunner has three weeks to respond to the suit.
She says having the court resolve the case has much to be said for it. For one thing, she expected it to end up there anyway if she ruled against Husted.
Moreover, she says, there are three conflicting statutes about residency and how to determine it. She says there’s no case history as to which trumps which. So the court should decide.
Nobody is looking great here. An ordinary voter-residency case is supposed to be resolved in about 10 days. Blame for the delay can be spread around. Husted is seeing political motives in stringing him along. Brunner says Husted was slow about providing requested information. And, yes, the laws are less than crystal clear.
At this stage, there certainly is something to be said for getting the thing resolved fast. It’s been hanging around roughly all year.
Some might consider the whole issue frivolous. Husted was speaker of the House for four years, a full-time job. He married a woman in the Columbus area and has two children there. Obviously, he wasn’t going to be spending much time in Kettering.
Still, the state — through the county — did have to do an investigation after issues arose about which residence is his primary one, which affects what he pays in property taxes; about whether he ever spent significant time in Kettering; and about whether he plans to return to Montgomery County (which is one consideration in determining residency).
If the public has the impression that everybody so far seems to be acting as a member of his or her political party, the reason is that the law is murky enough to allow that.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Martin Gottlieb, Miami Valley Politics, Ohio politics
Jim McCarthy: Judges should ensure homeowners are treated fairly
Montgomery County judges are making the mortgage foreclosure crisis worse.
Not by what they’re doing, but by what they’re not doing.
If they’d order lenders to negotiate with homeowners facing foreclosure, families’ homes could be saved, and the spiral of blight many neighborhoods are in could at least be slowed.
In January, the court started a tracking system of foreclosures with the goal of requiring mediation. But nothing is happening. Homeowners who have asked for mediation have been told that the court’s program isn’t funded.
Meanwhile, judges won’t insist that lenders negotiate. What’s wrong with ordering them to the table?
Judges in other Ohio counties are not taking such a hands-off approach. They’re insisting lenders and borrowers talk. Montgomery County courts are overwhelmed with foreclosure cases, but Franklin and Cuyahoga counties are facing the same crush of cases, and they’re working with borrowers and lenders.
Mediation is critical because borrowers often can’t get answers on their own from mortgage servicers about how much it would take to save their homes. Judges can force disclosure about what’s owed and how much has been run up in penalties and late fees (which often are horrendous and can, and should, be reduced).
Foreclosure is usually a losing strategy for a lender, borrower and the community. If a loan can be modified to allow a borrower to afford a new, lower payment, that keeps a family in their home and prevents the loan holder from taking a big loss. Meanwhile, neighborhoods aren’t left with a vacant property.
This is why judges have to become involved. And they should not wait for the state or federal government to declare a moratorium on foreclosures. Even if that happens, there’s a glut already in the pipeline.
If they dig into foreclosure cases, judges will see that the process is being manipulated by out-of-state lending-industry players. Most lenders do not keep their loans, but instead sell them in large bundles, perhaps several times over, to outfits that the borrower has never heard of and can’t contact.
Some of these entities then sell the loans at a large discount to debt buyers, who profit by throwing people out of their homes. These loan holders have no interest in negotiating. They make money by reselling discounted homes, not by keeping a homeowner in a property.
Another trick is to conceal who the real investors are, which prevents a borrower from talking to the party that has the authority to modify a loan. If judges adopt a local rule requiring that the real owner of a mortgage be disclosed, and that someone representing that party must participate in mediation, that would allow borrowers to make their case to a representative who can agree to a new — and workable — loan.
Judges also need to know that the federal government has established the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) to help stop the foreclosure crisis. Many loan servicers have agreed to participate, but recent news reports show that they’re playing all the angles:
• They have made it difficult for borrowers to get their loans considered and denied loan modifications for undisclosed reasons.
• When they have given modifications, they have not explained the costs and fees and often combined temporary rate reductions with longer loan terms.
• Contrary to the federal program’s guidelines, servicers have proceeded with foreclosures, while telling borrowers they were reviewing a loan modification request. At the same time, they’ve required borrowers to sign waivers that strip them of their legal rights.
To make sure that our local community benefits from this program — and that people aren’t actually victimized by it — judges can use the mediation process to ensure that servicers are following the rules.
Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and the Federal Housing Administration have always encouraged lenders, servicers and investors to be involved in loss mitigation or loan modifications before burdening the courts and resorting to foreclosure.
But that expectation has been lost and forgotten.
Judges can return fairness and sensibleness to court proceedings, but they have to get personally involved in foreclosure cases. They’re treating foreclosures filings as paperwork, not as disputes involving people who deserve to be heard.
Jim McCarthy is president of the Miami Valley Fair Housing Center.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: Economy, Guest Columns
