Thursday, January 7, 2010

Ohio public employees face a triple whammy

1. On Sunday, the Columbus Dispatch wrote an investigative piece about the costs of the five Ohio public employee retirement plans. The piece was factual, but was slanted in favor of scrapping defined-benefit plans in favor of defined-contribution plans similar to 401(k).

2. Tuesday morning, radio station WOSU (National Public Radio) reported that many public employees cannot collect their full public employee pensions because of Federal rules related to Social Security. The end result, primarily affecting non-teaching school employees, is a pension that pays less than survival level.

3. Also on Tuesday, Fox News reported that the Senate version of the health care bill (the one that no one but the Congress and the President want) will impose an income tax on recipients of "Cadillac" health plans – those costing employers more than $27,000 a year. While promoted as taxing health plans for high-level executives in the private sector, half of those this provision would tax make less than $100,000 per year, many of whom happen to be public employees.

Disclaimer: I am a public employee. I benefit from the health coverage, and my retirement is largely (though not entirely) dependent on my public employee retirement plan. I agree that the existing pension and health care plans are unsustainable, but a few facts are not being brought out.

Public employees in Ohio and several other states do not pay into, nor will they receive Social Security related to their public employment. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the state to contribute the 6.2% rate that private employers are required to pay into Social Security. In addition to Social Security, private employers who have 401(k) plans typically contribute up to 3-5% of the employee's salary into those plans. This means that the combined employer contribution for employees who fully support their 401(k)s typically falls between 9.2% and 11.2%. Employees in the private sector also pay 6.2% of their salary into Social Security.

The problem is, Ohio's public employee plans receive 14-29.5% in taxpayer contributions, while employees pay 10-12% from their salaries. (State employer contributions higher than 14% are limited to pensions for law enforcement and firemen).

The Retirement Study Committee should consider gradually reducing the state contribution for non-police and fire employees from existing levels to 10%. Another change they might consider is to offer an incentive, in the form of a higher benefit, for those who will delay retirement until age 70, as Social Security now does. Otherwise, I agree with their recommendations as cited in the Dispatch. Obviously, these proposals will reduce the benefits, but sooner or later, they will be reduced anyway. The question is, do we want to reduce benefits in a controlled manner now, or wait for the system to collapse when the state has no money left?

As for medical insurance, I personally have no problem with going to a plan more like the old major medical plans, with higher deductibles and copayments, but such plans would work serious hardships for employees making less than $40,000 per year.

Whenever state employee numbers or compensation becomes a political issue, the General Assembly gets the temptation to cut staff levels so much that the agencies' ability to carry out public services is handicapped; and compensation to a point where state and local governments are no longer able to compete with private enterprise for the best people.

I am sure that these suggestions will not go down well with some of my peers; and certainly not with AFSCME or SEIU; but for the state, it's about the only place left to cut back without starting another round of staff reductions.

Then again, if Gov. Strickland and the General Assembly were to see the light on what the feds are doing to state governments, maybe we could ease the pain to both state employees and the taxpayers.

Bring the National Guard home!

On Monday, I commented on the absurdity of the wars in which the United States is engaged. One way we can quickly put an end to this madness is for state governors to refuse deployment orders for their state's National Guard units. There is a website, Bring the Guard Home, that is organizing a nationwide campaign to get bills through state legislatures to force state governors to do exactly that. The site is attractive and contains many useful resources. It would be even more useful if it linked to the relevant U.S. Code sections relating to the governor's authority to deploy the National Guard.

The site claims to have an active campaign started in Ohio, but includes no Ohio contact information.

On a related note, U.S. militarism appears to be hitting a wall in Yemen. Lee Keath at the Associated Press (Columbus Dispatch link) reports that the Yemeni government welcomes cooperation from the United States military for training, support, and logistical purposes, but will not allow U.S. combat forces on the ground. It will be interesting to see whether Yemen's sovereignty will be respected.

Sadly, the comments in the Dispatch ran more in favor of "bombing them back into the Stone Age." How can we explain it better? The equation is very simple:

Increased U.S. force in the Middle East = Increased terrorism in U.S.

Bringing our troops home will reduce the motivation for terrorists to attack us. It's as simple as that. I am for a strong national defense -- which means effective defense of our borders from outside attack (something we obviously aren't doing very well, by the way).


Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Ohio Secession Petition

... and no, I had nothing to do with it!

PetitionsOnline has a petition for Ohio secession. To date, it has received 45 signatures, but only about half of them have signed their real, full names (in contrast with the state sovereignty petition, where the great majority signed their real, full names and addresses). I don't think much of online petitions presented in this way, and this one is very badly written. For those reasons, I am not signing it and do not endorse it. However, it is an interesting indicator of sentiment in this state that such a petition has been introduced on the Internet.

Secession will require a much higher level of frustration with the federal government than Ohioans have displayed to date, and a much higher level of sophistication in communicating the need. A movement for secession should also follow accepted procedures (see OFA video 4B for my recommendations as to how secession should be carried out).

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Coal vs. the environment

This should get you warm, figuratively as well as literally. Frank Smecker at Vermont Commons reports on a coal mining practice known as "mountaintop removal" (MTR), in which entire tops of mountains are literally blown away to yield coal. As Mr. Smecker describes it, it is an environmentally horrible practice.

My question is, does the economic value of MTR really exceed the environmental cost? If we don't know, this points to the need for accounting standards to deal with the costs of cleaning up the environment, which should be part of the bookkeeping for every company that deals in an environmentally hazardous process -- coal companies being near the top of that list.

Ohio is heavily dependent on coal, both for electricity and for jobs in the southeastern part of the state. Since Ohio has no mountains, it is unlikely that MTR is done here. It is still important that Ohioans should continue to be vigilant to ensure that coal mining causes as little environmental damage as possible. And to ensure that coal miners and their families are adequately compensated in wages and health benefits, taking into consideration the nature of their work.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Mark Twain's War Prayer

As we now go into Yemen, we need to remember that when we seek victories of war on foreign soil, this is what we are, in effect, praying:


O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

The "War Prayer," written by Mark Twain, was written during the U.S. war in the Philippines in 1905; but was not published until 1923, thirteen years after his death.

How any Christian can hold that in his heart is beyond my understanding; even in self-defense. (In my opinion, "self-defense" means the minimum amount of force necessary to repel invasion).

Support the Troops: End the Wars.

One way we can do this on the state level is to demand that Gov. Strickland refuse any further deployments of National Guard troops from Ohio.

Quotation of the day

What state sovereignty is all about:

"The way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of high places."
-- Frank Chodorov

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Well, this should come as no surprise...

Neil Irwin of the Washington Post (link is to the Columbus Dispatch) confirms what we all know -- workers and families went backward economically since 2000. Here is one telling quotation from the article:

“This was the first business cycle where a working age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone’s well being,” said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

Another expert attributes it to "macroeconomic mismanagement." I wouldn't expect the liberal Washington Post to call it what it really is -- a calculated theft of resources from those who earn the money to those who simply play with it.

Of course this is not all new...

Ohio Freedom Alliance releases four additional videos on state sovereignty

I announced and posted the first video December 26, which is an introduction to the concept of state sovereignty. The Ohio Freedom Alliance has now released the remaining videos in the series. The links below also appear on the right sidebar for future use.

Part 1: Ohio State Sovereignty - An Introduction
Part 2: Federalism
Part 3: The Constitution and the Courts
Part 4A: Nullification
Part 4B: Secession

Secession: Freedom's Greatest Ally

David Kretzmann at Freedom Chatter has been reading a subversive book by Thomas Woods: 33 Questions About American History That You're Not Supposed to Ask. He comes up with a stunning revelation -- the War between the States was not about slavery!

He quotes a letter from British Lord Acton, who was the leading libertarian of his day, to Robert E. Lee:

I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy.

I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our
progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo. — Lord Acton (Emphasis added by Mr. Kretzmann.)


Mr. Kretzmann includes quotations of Abraham Lincoln, familiar to most readers of this blog, about the purpose of that war being the preservation of the Union at all costs.

He then observes:

Today many find the idea of secession immoral and totally unacceptable largely based on what they learn about the Civil War in school. Textbooks and teachers are quick to blast the South’s secession, yet they omit the fact that the U.S. itself exists because we attempted to peacefully secede from Great Britain.

Secession is perhaps the greatest weapon of peace against a tyrannical, centralized authority. Without the possibility of state secession or nullification, what does the federal government have working against its power? As Thomas Jefferson stated, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” How can the states, and the people thereof, possibly resist that “natural progress” of government expansion if they are forcefully bound within a central government that may not serve their interests, and possibly even works against them?


How, indeed? Recently, I have been emphasizing that secession is a last resort. The legislative program I recommended yesterday has two purposes: First and foremost, to preserve the Union as it was intended by our Founding Fathers -- but failing that, to help prepare Ohio for life as an independent nation.

Daniel Webster, in his Second Reply to Hayne (1830), called for "liberty and union, now and forevermore, one and inseparable." That's fine, but when liberty and union work to cross-purposes, liberty must prevail.

Friday, January 1, 2010

A legislative program for 2010

Restoring Freedom to Ohio: Part 3 of 3
(Part 1: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself)
(Part 2: Finding the path to freedom)

Let us not delude ourselves. The struggle for liberty is ongoing. We cannot erase a century's damage to our Constitutional freedoms in a year or two; but we have to have the courage and the organization to start somewhere.

Here is what I would like to see introduced (and in my wildest dreams, passed) in the Ohio General Assembly in 2010, in rough priority order:

1. Gradually repeal the Ohio income tax (introduced in the House 12/23/2009 by Rep. John Adams as HB 400 and awaiting referral, probably to the House State Government Committee). This will make Ohio a more desirable location for business and help stop the "brain drain" we have long experienced.

2. Introduce a measure similar to my proposal to redirect federal tax funds to the Ohio Department of Taxation for escrow pending a determination of the Constitutionality of their purpose by a commission established for that purpose. This will give the State of Ohio greater control of "federal funds" to enable more realistic budgeting and elimination of unfunded mandates; and free some Ohio agencies to adopt procedures that are more efficient or which provide better service, but are contrary to federal regulations.

3. Introduce a measure to stabilize money in Ohio, which may take one or both of two forms:

a. The Honest Money initiative, which facilitates the use of gold and silver coin as legal tender by enabling the State Treasurer to accept same in payment of state taxes and other obligations.

b. Establishment of a State Bank, similar to the Bank of North Dakota, which, holding all state funds on deposit, will provide backing for secured low-interest loans to individuals and small business. The Bank could operate as a "banker's bank," eliminating concerns that it would operate in competition with existing Ohio banks.

4. Nullify mandatory participation in the federal health care system (introduced in the House 8/26/2009 by Reps. Ron Maag and Barbara Sears as HJR 3 and sitting in the House Insurance Committee, and in the Senate 9/24/2009 by Sen. Timothy Grendell, and sitting in the Senate Insurance, Comerce, and Labor Committee). The federal health care system is clearly unconstitutional, and will distort the health care market. It may also result in the rationing of health care to the detriment of the chronically ill and the elderly.

5. Nullify Federal firearms law for weapons manufactured in Ohio (introduced 10/16/2009 by Reps. Seth Morgan and Jarrod Martin as HB 315 and sitting in the House Commerce & Labor Committee). This will send the feds an important message – that we demand adherence to the strict letter of the Constitution in the federal government's dealings with the states.

Five or six measures is an aggressive agenda, but three of them have already been introduced, and the Honest Money initiative is in an advanced stage of development.

During the first half of 2010, the liberty movement should press for adoption of these measures. To the extent they are not adopted, the movement should be prepared to hold the incumbents accountable for their failure to pass them, and have candidates ready to oppose them.

There are many more ideas out there, and some of them need to be addressed later, but we need to consider which measures in 2010 are the most politically feasible, and will provide us with the greatest benefit. As I stated on Wednesday, working within state government is likely to produce far more beneficial results than a concentration on the federal.

Now, let us reason together and come up with a plan. Let us pursue that plan with such enthusiasm that, when the history of our time is written, it will show that in 2010, the people of Ohio asserted their rights as a free people, by demonstrating their preparedness to take on the corresponding responsibilities.

The views expressed in this series are my own, and do not reflect those of any organization; but they are based on years of study and some experience with practical politics. I trust that these views will make sense to the reader; but am certainly open to better strategies as we move ahead.