Are the Democrats better?

An overwhelming bipartisan majority of 406-16 passed a resolution linking Iraq to the Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Every credible analysis, including that of the barely credible 9/11 Commission, concluded that no such links ever existed.  Final Roll Call Vote: Go here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll431.xml

For text of Legislation, please go to http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/index.asp  Then click on 400-499.  Scroll down to 431 but click on HR 2866 directly to the right.  Then, click on "Text of Legislation."  Once that page opens, you click on the second version, which was the final bill language.  The government website will not allow a link to go to the text directly.  

Among the pious language (fifth paragraph in the language of the bill): "Whereas since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq while using diplomacy and sanctions in cooperation with Great Britain and the international community to lead a third terrorist regime in Libya away from its weapons of mass destruction;--"

Reservists pressured to re-enlist  (the Chicago Tribune)

By Tim Jones and Michael Kilian
Tribune national correspondents

May 23, 2004  

MariAnn Curta said she was "freaked out" during much of her son's recently completed nine-month tour of duty in Iraq, where he drove a fuel truck in the Sunni Triangle.

But when she got the call from a recruiter last weekend warning that her 22-year-old son, Bill, now on the Army's inactive reserve list, could be headed back to Iraq quickly unless he enlisted in the Illinois National Guard, her emotion changed from fear to rage.

"It's devious, it's deceptive, it's dishonest, it's valueless," Curta said. "I can't believe they'd pull this kind of fast trick on kids who have already served."

As part of an aggressive effort to bolster the dwindling pool of available reservists, Army and National Guard recruiting units throughout the country have called thousands of inactive reservists in hopes of persuading them to re-enlist in the active reserves or join their local Guard units.

If they don't, many recruiters warned, they could soon be headed to Iraq. The warnings come by telephone, and they have been concentrated in four areas: Chicago, Denver, Minneapolis and Louisiana.

"It then spread through the country, with the exception of New England," said Army Reserve spokesman Steven Stromvall.

Stromvall said some National Guard recruiters heard about this and then began using similar tactics.

The calls have generated a slew of complaints from veterans and their families.

Stromvall acknowledged that there has been a widespread problem with misleading, inaccurate and intimidating retention efforts throughout the nation in the past few weeks but added that the Army Reserve is moving quickly to fix it.

"They went a bridge too far," he said.

Stromvall said the problem stemmed from misunderstandings on the part of the reserve's 700 retention sergeants about a new drive to get service personnel in the Individual Ready Reserve, whose members do not have to belong to units or attend drills and meetings, to switch voluntarily to an active reserve branch known as the Selective Reserve.

There are now 169,000 reservists and National Guard members of all kinds on active duty, an increase of about 3,000 from last week but down from the more than 200,000 on active duty last year. The stress of the Iraq occupation and insurgency clearly is causing a crunch.

"There is no question the Army is stressed," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told a congressional committee earlier this year.

Adding to the problem is that the Pentagon can't find about 50,000 reservists who moved without notifying the government.

The reserve call-ups for tours of active duty in Iraq have largely been by unit. Individual Ready Reserve members have been called up during the war, but in relatively small numbers. Only about 6,500 such individual recalls have been authorized by the Pentagon.

Stromvall said the misleading methods included telling Ready Reservists they likely would be called up individually for service in Iraq if they did not join a Selective Reserve unit by a certain date. He said there was one case at Ft. Bragg, N.C., in which a soldier who was leaving active duty with the regular Army was told by a retention sergeant in the processing line that he would be sent to Iraq automatically if he did not join the Selective Reserve.

One Illinois National Guard veteran who asked not to be identified said the tactics disturbed him.

"They did call my wife and threatened that I'd be taken away from her," the Guard veteran said.

"Ethics are important to me. This bothers me a great deal. If it's an all-volunteer Army, it's just that," he said. "It's not something you should be tricked into."

Minimum commitment

Those who enlist in the armed forces have a minimum commitment of eight years of service, of which only a portion need be on active duty.

The remainder can be spent either in the Selective Reserve, which includes both the active reserve and the National Guard and requires assignment to a unit, or the Individual Ready Reserve, in which the serviceman or woman merely remains on call.

Curta said she was contacted last weekend by a recruiter from the Illinois National Guard who said it was "urgent" that her son get in touch with him.

"They put the fear in me that he was going back in 48 hours," Curta said.

Maj. Steven Rouse, who is responsible for National Guard recruiting in the northern Illinois region, did not return phone calls from the Tribune. A spokesman for the Illinois National Guard in Springfield said he had no knowledge of calls being made on behalf of the Guard.

That was news to Kelly Akemann of Elgin, who said she received repeated phone calls in recent days from a Chicago-area Guard recruiter warning that her husband, a Guard veteran, could be sent to Iraq if he did not re-enlist quickly.

"I told him I thought these were scare tactics and he told me they weren't scare tactics, these are the realities of life," Akemann said. "I told him you don't need to raise the blood pressure of a three-month pregnant woman. . . . Then I hung up."

Of the 1.1 million or more reservists in the U.S. military, about 820,000 are in the National Guard or active reserve components of the Selective Reserve and 282,000 are in the Individual Ready Reserve.

According to Stromvall, Army Reserve commanders decided to try to identify members of the Individual Ready Reserve by pay grade and military occupational specialty and contact them about voluntarily filling vacant slots in the Selective Reserve.

For each of the past few weeks, about 1,000 or more inactive reservists nationwide have been moving to the active reserve, a much higher number than usual.

Lt. Col. Bob Stone, an Army Reserve spokesman, said the Defense Department has asked Congress for authority to use the Internal Revenue Service to help track down members of the Individual Ready Reserve whose whereabouts are no longer known.

"This has been a concern for some time," Stone said. "Two years ago the Defense Department began working with the Treasury on this, and legislation has now been proposed in the Congress."

He said the military is not attempting to use the nation's chief tax collector for any Orwellian "Big Brother" purpose.

"The only information they would be seeking is an address," he said.

Though the numbers fluctuate, the Pentagon is now missing addresses on 50,217 of the 282,574 members of the Individual Ready Reserve force, or about 18 percent.

Stone said failure to notify the military of a change of address is a violation of military regulations, but no prosecutions will be sought.

"This is not a punitive measure," he said. "This is a way to effectively manage the reserve force."

Stone said he knew of no mass mobilization of reserves under way or planned and said reserve call-ups thus far have been a simple matter of meeting the needs of commanders in the field.

`This is unethical'

Bill Curta, who enlisted in the Army after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, declined to be interviewed for this story. He served in Iraq from March to December 2003, received his discharge in March and will be on the inactive reserve list for six years. Curta's father, Bill Curta, said his son does not intend to re-enlist.

"This is unethical, it's immoral, especially with kids who have already served," Curta said. "It's an ugly story."

Stone acknowledged that retention rates for both the National Guard and the reserves have been slipping. But he said the services have been able to maintain their authorized strength, largely by relaxing their "up or out" rules and allowing personnel to stay in the military even though they have not been promoted to their next grade within a prescribed period.

Stone said that, overall, the military has achieved 94.5 percent of its retention goal and is at 99.8 percent of authorized strength.

The Army National Guard, however, has reached just 93 percent of its retention goal and the Army Reserve 95 percent of its goal.

He said the Army Reserve has ordered a stop to intimidating retention methods and informed personnel of the proper procedures to follow in dealing with reservists.

"It was a mistake," he said.

What did Bush know and when did he know it?  Was 9/11 perhaps preventable?

Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission
Thursday, April 8th, 2004 Common Dreams - see link below

Condoleezza Rice: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: White House release, 7/22/01]   See whole story: 

Cut-rate drug plan heads for Ohio OK

12/10/03

Sandy Theis
Plain Dealer Bureau

Columbus - The Ohio House yesterday passed a sweeping prescription drug discount plan, handing a thundering victory to a labor-led coalition that has long championed discounts for the uninsured and the elderly.

The House vote was 91-1. The Senate is expected to give its approval today, then send the bill to Gov. Bob Taft, who has pledged to sign it.

Despite quiet grumbling that the bill requires $10 million in start-up costs, few lawmakers complained publicly about the costs,
which backers of the plan had initially described as minimal. Lawmakers focused instead on the improvements the bill would bring to more than 1 million of Ohio's oldest and poorest residents.

"The high cost of prescription drugs is one of the most important issues facing Ohio and our country," said Rep. Dale Miller, a
Cleveland Democrat who was among the earliest and most vocal advocates of the prescription discounts.

Although Democrats are the minority party in both chambers, Republicans agreed to make the discounts a top priority, rather than risk passage of a more ambitious plan.

Organized labor, consumer and civic groups had said they would place the more ambitious plan on the November 2004 ballot - unless legislators agreed to a compromise.

If Taft signs the bill, Republicans can campaign on the popular issue next year when the 99-member House and half of the Senate seats will be on the ballot.

Members of both parties praised the rare bipartisan cooperation that led to the bill's swift passage. The Senate bill's main sponsor - Sen. Bob Spada, a North Royalton Republican, noted that Ohio is "breaking new ground" by working together to deliver some of the deepest discounts in the nation.

It is unclear when the discounts would be available.

The program would be administered by the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services, which persuaded legislators to add a
$1-per-prescription charge on top of the $3 fee that will be paid by customers to pharmacies, to cover some state administrative costs.

"The goal is to have a pharmacy benefits vendor in place by early summer," said Jon Allen, a spokesman for the agency. "Exactly when the program becomes operational after that depends on how long it takes the vendor to get the program off the ground." His best guess: Discounts would be in place by late summer.

It's also unclear how the Ohio plan would affect a separate federal plan to provide prescription drug discounts to Medicare patients in 2006. Some Ohio legislators speculated that the state discount would be better than the federal discount. And because people would be ineligible for the Ohio plan if they are covered by another plan, some lawmakers expressed fear that the federal discount plan could hurt Ohio residents.

The $10 million for start-up costs would come from Ohio's General Revenue Fund. After about six months, rebates from drug makers would begin flowing into a rotating account designed to support the program.

Sen. Bill Harris, an Ashland Republican, conceded that the $10 million request comes as Ohio continues to struggle with budget problems, but said, "What the state has got to do is find the resources to get this program up and running."

Known as Ohio's Best Rx, the program would lower prices by negotiating drug rebates paid by pharmaceutical manufacturers. The amount of the rebate would be equal to the average rebate paid under state retirement and employees benefit plans. The average would be computed annually.

A mail-order version of the program would be available to offer potentially deeper discounts and offer them to consumers who do not live near participating pharmacies.

The plan is largely the work of private negotiations between the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association and a coalition headed by the Ohio AFL-CIO.

Although most major players praised the final product, pharmacists continue their efforts to raise the $3 fee they would receive to fill each prescription. They argue that the fee should be $3.70, the same as the Medicaid rate, and said the lower price narrows their profits and threatens to put smaller, independent pharmacies out of business.

The only dissenter on the bill was Rep. Tom Brinkman, a Cincinnati Republican, who said, "I came here to vote for less government, not more."

To reach this Plain Dealer reporter:

stheis@plaind.com, 1-800-228-8272

------------------------------------------

Prescription discount highlights

Who would be affected?

Between 1.4 million and 1.7 million uninsured Ohioans

How large would the discounts be?

25 to 40 percent off retail

What would the program cost taxpayers?

$10 million in start-up costs

When would the discounts begin?

No sooner than next summer

Who would be eligible for the program?

People without existing prescription drug coverage through an
employer who are 60 or older or live in a household with an income 2½
times the poverty level or less. A family of one would qualify by
earning $22,450 or less annually; a family of four must earn $46,000
or less.

How would the new Medicare plan to offer discounts affect the Ohio
plan?

It is unclear what the impact would be. Some legislators predict the
Ohio plan would offer deeper discounts. Many believe that once the
federal plan begins, people who qualify would be ineligible for the
Ohio plan.

© 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.

---

Columbus Politics/Political Contributions

4.2 million dollars in campaign contributions were accepted by two mayors and members of Columbus City Council between January of 1998 to the end of 2000. Of that amount, only 15 percent came from individual donations less than 500 dollars. Eighty-five percent came from those who gave 500 dollars or more. Most campaign contributions came from people doing business with the city.

For most people, giving even 500 dollars to a political candidate would be a real strain to their budgets, considering most expenses in their daily lives that are not discretionary. The chart shows how little impact even a sum up to 500 dollars has to a local political campaign, and why conflict of interest provisions are needed to combat pay-to-play political access to elected officials. Policies based on large political contributions are based first on what is best for the contributor and not what is best for the citizenry as a whole.

Franklin County Auditor Joe Testa in September of last year (2002) said he would recommend going after companies that don’t live up to their tax abatement agreements, for repayment of taxes if they do not live up to their agreements.

In return for abatements, companies supposedly agree to create jobs or invest money by an agreed to date. But no specific or legal guidelines exist, and even the agreements that are adhered to can demand little from the entities receiving them.  (related article)    Also see the next article and Campaign Finance information and links below.

Tax Abatements and Economic Development Subsidies 

A new study suggests that state and local tax incentives for existing businesses don’t create new jobs!

This very impressive study,  — written by Todd Gabe of the University of Maine and David Kraybill of Ohio State University — takes a critical look at the effect of one state-level economic development program.  Skeptics have always questioned the job-creation statistics in various press releases and reports.  Now a  new article in the Journal of Regional Science is suggesting that the skeptics are right.  The work done in this study is comprehensive and meticulously researched.  For a article that does a good job briefly summarizing their work that appeared in Governing.Com:

http://www.governing.com/articles/6econ.htm

 You can find an electronic version of the original paper at:

http://aede.osu.edu/people/kraybill.1/public/incentives.htm  

-------------------------------------------------------

Also see: 

http://www.ecodevdirectory.com/ AND: Extensive documentation, Campaign Contributions, Living Wage and Subsidies, Stealing Money From Kids

(Columbus Dispatch Graphic)

Campaign Finance:  Please see story above also.  Developers generally give at least 25 percent of campaign money that Columbus City Council members and the Mayor receive in campaign contributions.  

Please see: Campaign Finance: Local Proposal

The following articles tell the picture why Campaign Finance is clearly needed.  (With conflict-of-interest provisions added. ) Also see: Campaign Finance and Taxpayer Protection:  Free Press article   Please also see the Tax Abatement section.  

(The Columbus Dispatch ran a series of stories in the December 9th and 10th issues entitled Access at City Hall.  This is links to those articles, which were well-done and researched.  Of course the Dispatch did not report that they endorsed candidates that later granted business interests of Dispatch Publishing public benefits, but they were fair and balanced otherwise.  It would have better if the articles were printed before an election however, instead of after one.  Anyhow, this is links to those articles.)

Developers Dominate

Access at City Hall, (Dozens of campaign donors are also city vendors) 

Campaign Contributors receive about half of City's Tax Abatements   

Columbus has few rules  (regarding campaign finances) 

More Infomation:  Campaign Finance (local initiative) and also:  An introductory article about Campaign Finance and Taxpayer Protection

Why a LIVING WAGE is Just, Helpful for the Community and Sustainable Economically
[And the use of tax abatements] By Rick Wilhelm
(Living wage Links at end of article)

(Update On this article) This was originally written in 2001. The poverty line number used in this article is for the year 2000, which was $8.20. The poverty level for 2003 is $9.20 for a family of four.   http://www.livingwagecampaign.org/index.php?id=1954   Normally the Living wage figure is set above that, and a good figure to shoot for is 130% of the poverty line. That would be $11.96 without benefits, and the figure could be set at about $10.25 with a benefit package for employees that included health care.  (2002 figures are included in the chart below.)  The purpose of this article was to support a living wage ordinance for Columbus.  But the Poor People's Working Party calls for an increase in the minimum wage at the Federal Level of at least 10.25 an hour, based on 2003 figures for a  family of four, along with Universal Health Coverage for all Americans.

I) What is a Living Wage?

A living wage ordinance requires employers to pay wages that are above the minimum wage. Although in 1968, the MINIMUM wage was only $1.60 that was actually the peak of its effectiveness. That is because in real dollars the $1.60 then would be $8.05 in 2001, adjusted for inflation. That is close to three dollars higher than what it is today. In other words, if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, a living wage ordinance now would not be as important.

As you can see by the chart below, the minimum wage and the poverty level were almost the same rate in 1968. Now, there is a wide variance between the two.

II) What Employers does it affect?

Usually, it applies to those who contract with the city and their subcontractors, and to businesses who receive tax abatements or "economic development subsidies" from the locality in which it is in effect. However, there are essentially four different models. They are:

1) CITY CONTRACTS- covers only city service contractors and their subcontractors

2) CONTRACTS AND SUBSIDIES- includes the above with the addition of those that receive tax breaks or subsidies of some kind. This is the most common type.

3) CONTRACTS, SUBSIDIES and COMMUNITY HIRING- Includes the above provisions with stipulations that the people of the locality be given opportunities for the jobs "created."

4) CITYWIDE MANDATED LIVING WAGE- applies to all businesses that operate in the locality.

For the purpose of this article I will concentrate on the first three. The last proposal has never been successful in being legislated. A living wage for all Americans, however, is a goal that we should work toward.

III) By raising the wage paid to the workers who will be affected, doesn’t that really hurt the ones it’s supposed to help by eliminating jobs?

Not according to research conducted in cities after a living wage was instituted. In study after study in Baltimore, Chicago, Boston, and other Cities that have a living wage ordinance, there was no noticeable effect on employment levels or in City services. There are many other things that have a more pronounced effect on the economy, and on the businesses covered by the provisions. Among these are the fact that productivity has been shown to go up in businesses that pay a better wage. This is due in part to the fact that there are fewer turnovers in higher-paying jobs. Another factor mentioned in the research sources I used was that the moral goes up markedly in companies that have a more sustainable wage base. This may sound like pie-in-the-sky to some but if you have ever worked in a sweatshop type operation opposed to a well-managed enterprise that values it’s employees, the difference in productivity can be substantial. Plus, a further factor is the way a sustainable wage affects the market itself. The powers behind the shaping of our system today would have us believe that "trickle-down" economics are in our best interests collectively when in fact the principle has had a negative effect not just on Society but the market as well. When a little more money is placed in the hands of those at the bottom of the economic spectrum, those individuals tend to spend the wage gains on tangible commodities such as food, better and more reliable transportation, and household accessories that many people take for granted. That, according to the sources that I will list, actually STRENGTHENS the economy of a given local.

IV) Why is a Living Wage Ordinance considered to be a Just Cause?

Because of a simple principle: Those who work should be able to at least provide the basics for their families. The minimum wage is nearly 40 PERCENT BELOW the official Federal poverty guidelines for a family of four. From a moral perspective various groups think this is wrong. That is why many church groups have supported living wage proposals.

V) Why is the Living Wage mentioned in relation to tax abatements and other economic initiatives?

Because they are correlated. In order to understand why, a brief history of business subsidies is necessary. Largely since the early eighties, municipal governments, and states and federal governments, have pursued policies for reversing the economic decline of cities by the use of what is generally referred to as "Urban Development." To this end, massive tax abatement and other enticements have been devised. However, they have not been successful in reversing the decline or reducing poverty. In part, this is because government subsidies are not usually the primary reason that businesses locate or expand. Much more important considerations include the proximity to suppliers and markets, the quality of the infrastructure, the labor force, and life in the city. And of even more importance, the quality of the educational system.

The educational system, in fact, has suffered because of the subsidies. Millions of dollars are lost to the public school systems (Including Columbus) due to tax abatements. The argument that is used by the proponents of tax abatements is that any tax paid by new business is better than none at all. And that the employees that result from any new jobs will pay tax, thus increasing the tax base. But this assumes that 1) Jobs are actually created 2) The business or enterprise would not have proceeded without the subsidies and 3) That the business receiving the benefit pays there employees enough so as to be an asset instead of a hindrance to the community.

Actually, there is little evidence that jobs are even created in most cases, and even in those instances, the jobs come at such a cost to the community as a whole that the detriments often outweigh the benefits. As pointed out above, the primary reasons for business expansion are not usually the subsidies themselves, but a variety of other reasons. Another factor in considering the worth of tax abatements, TIFS, (tax-increment financing) and other "economic development subsidies" is their overall value to the municipality from which they receive the "financial Incentive". If, for instance, they pay only slightly above the minimum wage of $5.15 to a substantial number of their employees, those employees will be well below the poverty line and will probably receive subsidies themselves in the form of food stamps, housing assistance, (if available) medical care and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, if the employees covered under the living wage provision receive $8.20 an hour, those government subsidies diminish considerably. Unfortunately, the taxes also go up for those receiving the improved, though still low, wages. But they do have a substantial increase in their disposable income, plus the self-esteem that comes with the fact that they are receiving their livelihood in the form of a paycheck rather than a subsidy. For these reasons it is important to "tie-in" tax abatements to a living wage ordinance. I used the $8.20 figure because that is the poverty line for a family of four (year 2000 figure).  The Living Wage is usually set above the poverty level.  If it were set at 130 percent of the poverty level, that would be $10.66 using 2000 figures.  Or about $9.15 for employers who provide a benefit package that includes health care for employees. If tax abatements are a fact of life (for the time-being at least) municipalities and the citizens therein have a responsibility to make sure that those receiving them pay their employees a living wage. The vast majority of tax abatements are given WITHOUT STIPULATIONS THAT ANY PROMISED JOB CREATION ACTUALLY OCCURS OR HOW MUCH THEY PAY. Even if they do give assurances that jobs will be "created," NOTHING IS DONE if they’re not. Unless a living wage is passed that addresses those concerns.

VI) Are Living Wage Proposals Anti-Business?

Absolutely not. Most living wage ordinances cover less than 1% of the local workforce. In addition, the costs of the living wage will have a very small effect on the profits of the companies affected by the law. The profit margins for firms impacted by the living wage are estimated to be from 10 to 20% of production costs. The wage increases from the ordinances are usually around 2% of production costs or less. In addition, municipalities should encourage companies who are the "high-end" kind, that pay a living wage, not the ones who can’t or won’t. This ordinance will not mandate anything to those who pay less than the living wage, unless they contract with the city or receive some form of abatement or financial help.

VII) Does Labor support Living Wage proposals?

Very much so. As a matter of fact, they have been the driving forces behind them in many of the instances they were proposed and /or passed.

VIII) How have tax abatements and "financial incentives" been used in Columbus? Who have been the main beneficiaries? Have they been in the best interests of the citizens?

When business taxes are reduced for some it has the effect of raising taxes for property owners and small businesses that do not receive subsidies. After all, the taxes have to come from somewhere. And that can have the effect of actually keeping small businesses from locating to areas of high tax abatements, which are usually given to big business. It should be pointed out also that not all small businesses pay low wages. Plus, the tax abatement and economic development schemes are getting so out of hand that the cities are in a bidding war over who can give the better deal. Plus, the suburbs are in on the act. When only a few cities were offering these tax incentives, there was some justification that they could help their economies. But with almost every municipality now doing it because of competition, the economic benefits, never as good as advertised, are lost.

Now to address the questions above. Lets look at five examples of tax abatements and incentives that were approved by City Council. Former Mayor Greg Lashutka, now an executive with Nationwide, brokered the deal that gave Nationwide and the Dispatch (a 10 percent partner) control of the old Pen site. The City agreed to spend $9.4 million to clean up the site, which was polluted. In addition to that, the City granted the Developers (with Nationwide being the direct beneficiary) more than $12 million in tax abatements. The deal also included $18.1 million for capitol improvements, $3.5 million for a sewer line, and another $3.6 million that the developers don’t have to pay back as part of the Pen site deal. Total: $37.1 million, NOT INCLUDING the $9.4 million for the clean up. (This is the so-called Nationwide Arena hockey deal)  

Case # 2: Brewers Yard. The City Council approved in December of 1999 a total of $3 million in tax abatements for a retail and entertainment project planned for the corner of Front and Sycamore streets in the Brewery District. This is a combined Schottenstein and Capital Square Ltd. project. Capital Square Ltd. is a subsidiary of the Dispatch printing Co. Another $1.5 million was approved the same meeting for Casto Development for expensive apartments just south of Brewers Yard. When it was pointed out by opponents that the area was not a blighted area and would be developed anyhow, Councilman Sensenbrenner said, " I would rather err on the side of being too generous." The School Board recommended against these two abatements, led by Mary Jo Kilroy at the time. Both of these were submitted as "emergency legislation." The Dispatch is also the beneficiary of other tax deals though out the City. Also, the Dispatch’s interest in a Polaris property wasn’t mentioned in news stories or editorials as it covered the battle between Polaris and Northland Mall. It should be pointed out that the Dispatch endorsed all but one of the Council members, plus Mayor Coleman the last election. Right after the election, these abatements were approved.

Case # 3: Worthington Steel. On January 12, 2000, Worthington Industries was granted a $1.3 million tax abatement. How many jobs did they promise to create? None. Would they have left town without it? Extremely unlikely, since it would cost many millions to leave. Go to a Steel Company and look at the equipment. Then decide how much it would cost to move it. It should be known that John P. McConnell, CEO of Worthington Industries, gave 10,000 dollars to Coleman’s Mayoral campaign, and 2,000 to Councilwoman Jennette Bradley’s re-election effort.

Two other examples: The Easton Town Center mall: $12.86 million. They just gave a few weeks ago a $1.2 million abatement to a business enterprise of Warren Buffet, who is ranked by Forbes magazine as the fourth richest man in the world. Year 2000 worth: 26 billion. ( Jan. 18th, 2001 issue, Columbus ALIVE)

SUMMARY

Tax abatements should only be given in limited circumstances. And only then when a living wage is required. This is meant to serve as a guideline as to what those circumstances are and why a living wage ordinance will best serve the needs of the City.

Sources:

The Value of the Minimum Wage, 1947-2006  http://www.cbpp.org/6-20-06mw.htm 

For more articles on the Living Wage please see
Living Wage, Live Action

For more on Tax abatements please see: Stealing Money From Kids      

ALSO:  New study suggests many tax incentives may actually REDUCE jobs

By Rick Wilhelm

That is what Columbus City Councilman Richard Sensenbrenner said in 1999. He wasn’t talking about generosity to help the less fortunate or the working people of Columbus. City Council had just approved tax abatements totaling $3 million for the Brewery district. It was pointed out by opponents that the area was not blighted, and would be developed anyhow, without any tax abatements. That is when Mr. Sensenbrenner made the statement quoted above. Coincidentally, the beneficiaries of the abatements, Casto Development and Schottenstein, are among the biggest political campaign contributors. Combined, they gave more than $112,000 from 1998 through 2000 to Columbus City Council members and Mayors Coleman and Lashutka. Capital Square Ltd., a business subsidiary of Dispatch publishing, was a partner with Schottenstein in the Brewery district deal. Over $53 million in tax abatements were approved from 1998 to 2000 for companies that contributed to political campaigns. The political campaigns of the public officials that granted the abatements.

Of all the money that council members, and Mayors Coleman and Lashutka, received in campaign contributions during the three-year period, only 15 percent came from individual donations of less than 500 dollars. Government at all levels has become ever more corrupt, ever more dependent upon, and beholden to, wealthy special interests. Those interests are most always corporate.

Progressives know that in our system, access to government and to elected officials is bought and paid for by campaign contributions. Most people who take even a rudimentary interest in politics know this, regardless of their political leanings. Any democracy that values freedom as an ideal should be accessible at the grassroots level, by all of its citizens. Campaign finance reform has become a major tool in that effort. Comprehensive campaign finance laws that limit contributions will help over time, as long as they are well written, provide for penalties, and include reporting guidelines.

But it is rare, if ever, that Campaign Finance initiatives contain conflict-of-interest provisions. Of the 48 tax abatements granted by the city from 1998 to 2000, almost half were to entities that contributed to Columbus City Council members or the two Mayors. If you include money from those entities that received TIFs, (Tax-Increment Financing) "Economic Development Subsidies," and unbid contracts, the vast majority of campaign funds come from those doing business with the city.

A typical campaign Finance law will not prevent elected officials from gaining campaign advantage from those who receive public benefit. As a matter of fact, such practices might increase, since contribution limits would be imposed. Elected officials may well grant even more abatements, TIFS, "Economic Development Subsidies," and unbid contracts in an effort to maintain their coffers with more numerous, albeit smaller, contributions.

Fortunately a group in California, called The Oaks project, has been confronting this problem and has been successful in getting Taxpayer Protection ordinances passed in several cities, including San Francisco and Santa Monica. These laws forbid public officials from receiving campaign advantage from entities they voted to grant public benefits to.

A draft of a Campaign Finance proposal has been produced in Columbus. It is based on the Cincinnati ordinance that recently was enacted. It also includes many of the Taxpayer Protection provisions of the Oaks Project. It limits political contributions, sets reporting requirements, (including those of independent expenditures), and provides penalties for failure to report and for exceeding contribution limits. It also would create a Columbus Election Committee to administer the law. Public officials who voted to approve a tax abatement, TIF, "Economic Development Subsidy," or an unbid contract would be prohibited from accepting any campaign advantage or offers of employment from any companies or entities that received them for a period of one year after leaving office, or five years while still holding public office. Campaign advantage would mean money or any personal benefit. Honorariums would be permitted if they were for no more than one hundred dollars. A prominent and highly regarded attorney is analyzing the document. In this proposal we declare:

-----The use or disposition of public assets are often tainted by conflicts of interest among local public officials entrusted with their management and control. Such assets should be distributed strictly on the merits for the benefit of the public, and irrespective of the separate personal or financial interests of involved public officials. We find that public decisions made regarding the granting of tax abatements, TIFS, "economic development subsidies," and unbid contracts and business arrangements have often been made with the expectation of, and subsequent receipt of, private benefits from those so assisted to involved elected public officials. ------

Will this ever become law?

Frankly, it won’t be easy. City Council asked the electorate to pass a charter amendment several years back, but the law only gave Council the power to enact campaign finance limits, not the citizens. This would take a citizen-led Charter amendment petition to enact without Council support. Even the proposals of their own council-appointed panel have not been instituted in spite of its recommendations. Change is never easy, especially when so many roadblocks are erected to prevent change. But as more organizations support this, it becomes more likely that someone on council will be persuaded to introduce it.

This proposal, named the Campaign Finance and Taxpayer Protection Ordinance, for the City of Columbus, Ohio, would also provide for electronic filing, so anyone could find out what candidates received and from what entity. Campaign donation limits, by the way, are standard at the state and federal level, but the city of Columbus has no limits. It is time the public officials who grant public benefits are less generous to big campaign donors and more generous to the school children of Columbus, who are deprived of the funds that would be paid by those granted the public benefits.

This would not prohibit Tax Abatements and other tax handouts to business interests. It would address the conflict-of-interest concerning them, to make sure any benefits granted are not due to campaign influence.

If you would like to know more about the proposal, please contact rwilhelm2@att.net

To read text of proposal:  (go to)

In Solidarity,
Rick Wilhelm                                                                                            [ Top of Page]

Stealing Money From Kids
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

If there's one thing that brings together the right and the left, and citizens and corporations, it is the importance of education -- for stimulating the intellect, developing a moral sensibility, enhancing the civic culture, enabling a skilled workforce and creating a sense of community.

The question is: Who's willing to pay?

Not big corporations.

They instead demand cities and states offer tax breaks before they will invest in new plants and facilities. Those tax breaks, frequently in the form of property tax abatements or what is called tax increment financing (TIF, a long-term diversion of certain areas' property taxes to corporations investing in those areas), deprive schools of money.

Property tax breaks often directly siphon money away from schools, which rely heavily on property taxes as a revenue source. According to "Protecting Public Education From Tax Giveaways to Corporations," a report issued last week by the National Education Association (NEA), local property taxes constitute 65 percent of all local education funding, and 29 percent of all school funding, including local, state and federal contributions.

Property tax abatements and TIF districts cost schools hundreds of millions of dollars a year, at least.

Case studies in the NEA report, which was conducted by Good Jobs First, the leading organization studying state and local business subsidies, show that abatements and TIF districts cost schools in Texas $52 million a year. Montana schools lose $16 million a year in revenues to business tax subsidies. Abatements and TIF reduced or diverted property tax revenue for Ohio schools by $102 million in 1999.

Poor reporting rules and the diversity of jurisdictions and tax revenues make it almost impossible to determine a total cost to schools from business tax breaks.

However, some estimates have tagged the cost of local and state subsidies to business as high as $50 billion annually. This is an estimate of the total cost, not just the amount borne by schools, and some states reimburse schools, in whole or part, for revenues foregone due to property tax breaks.

The NEA report offers three recommendations to redress the problem highlighted by the study. First, there should be improved disclosure of subsidies and enforcement of conditions attached to subsidies. Second, local school boards should have a formal say -- up to and including veto power -- over subsidy decisions. Third, states should prohibit the
abatement or diversion of the school portion of property taxes.

This all seems logical enough to us.

What the report did not do was suggest what corporations' role should be in these matters. Since corporations drive the "bidding for business" game, this is an important question.

Since companies so heavily emphasize the importance of a skilled workforce, shouldn't corporations simply be willing not to ask for property tax abatements?

We decided to call up the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and find out.

We asked Marty Regalia, the Chamber's chief economist: In light of the impact on schools, should companies stop seeking tax breaks from cities and states?

That proposal, he said, is "blatantly un-American." (Yes, they really talk this way at the Chamber.)

No one forces cities and states to give tax breaks, he said. They are competing for a benefit -- new investment -- and they choose to enter the competition. If they think it is a bad deal, they are free not to offer tax breaks. "Local communities do not give away [tax breaks] at gunpoint," he said.

There is some truth to Regalia's point that cities and states are free to decline to offer tax benefits.

The problem, though, is not just that most government officials are spineless and/or indentured to business, but that there is an inherent difference in bargaining power between government and business. The companies have the power to decide where to locate. And even though most threats to move factories or offices are bluffs, in some cases, a tax break may influence a decision to locate in this town or the one next
door.

However, property tax breaks and benefits virtually never determine whether or not a company of any size is going to undertake a new investment.

In the bigger picture, and based on the rules of the game, the outcome is always the same: the cities and states collectively lose tax revenues, the investing company always saves money that it would have been willing to pay in taxes on investments it would have made anyway.

This all comes at the expense of education, among other important government spending priorities.

The tax breaks are taking money from kids as sure as the schoolyard bully stealing classmates' lunch money -- just on a scale so large that few have been willing to call it by name.


Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational Monitor, http://www.multinationalmonitor.org. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press; http://www.corporatepredators.org).

by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

This article is posted at:
http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/mokhiberweissman/stealingmoney012803.html

Also see:  Local Tax Abatements/Living Wage 

AND see: New study suggests tax incentives for existing companies do not produce jobs and may actually REDUCE jobs!

Lieberman Says He Will Run on His Own if He Loses Primary 
New York Times July 3rd, 2006

The Democrats have been complaining since 2000 about how third parties should support the "lesser of two evils."  Allot of so-called "Progressives" and "Greens" have bought into the charade.  Obviously it doesn't apply to them, since Lieberman running against the Democrat could cause the Republican to win. 

It is just as obvious it should not apply to third-parties.

Let them eat cake department 

On April 14 a federal appeals court ruled that the Los Angeles Police Department cannot arrest people for sitting, lying or sleeping on public sidewalks on Skid Row, saying such enforcement amounts to cruel and unusual punishment because there are not enough shelter beds for the city's huge homeless population. Judge Pamela A. Rymer issued a strong dissent against the majority opinion. The Los Angeles code "does not punish people simply because they are homeless," wrote Rymer. "It targets conduct -- sitting, lying or sleeping on city sidewalks -- that can be committed by those with homes as well as those without."  Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw was joined by the other judge on the court for the majority 2-1 opinion.  http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homeless15apr15,0,7767973,full.story?coll=la-home-local