Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Inside a mind at COAST:  Interview with Christopher Finney

Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati

Photo courtesy of here.

Whenever the local anti-tax people make news, it certainly gets people upset.  Just look at this recent post from The Cincinnati Blog for an example.  Over the years, I have heard lots of positions against groups like COAST—including that they are mostly wealthy white people who dislike the poor, and wish to destroy institutions like the public library and public schools.  But I have never seen anyone squarely present such questions and accusations to COAST, and I wondered how they might respond.  So I decided to conduct an email interview with Christopher Finney.  I wanted to ask a few questions that address the worst I’ve heard about COAST in a general sense.  Here are the results.

The Dean:  Critics often claim that COAST, and the anti-tax movement more generally, is spearheaded by primarily well-to-do whites who do not wish to see poor people helped by programs funded through tax dollars.  How do you respond to such critics? 

If I might start with a few introductory comments to give my responses some context, I would appreciate it.

I am just now finishing Ron Paul’s new book (The Revolution, a Manifesto), and he speaks across ideological and party lines about the price we pay when we surrender liberty (fiscal and civil rights) so willingly to big government.  He also speaks eloquently about how both Republicans and Democrats have fallen into the big-government trap for decades, so much so that our form of government today would be unrecognizable to our founding fathers or even Teddy Roosevelt.

This same message was brought home with the folks I met during the jail tax campaign.  I was so impressed with Suhith Wickrema, a leader in the jail tax campaign, when he told us that he knew they would turn the corner in the issue of criminal justice, locking up more and more poor, black men, when fiscal conservatives learned just how much these policies were costing in real dollars, as well as in wasted human potential.

These issues, which we saw in the Paul campaign and in a smaller sense with the Jail Tax and Red Light campaigns, are really two sides to the same coin.  Big, oppressive government is bad for both reasons—it costs a lot in taxes, and it ultimately and unquestionably oppresses the very people we claim to want to help.

I want to be clear that the jail tax campaign, and the people we met along the way, and the ideas we shared together, have had a profound impact on the agenda that COAST and I want to pursue going forward.
___________________________

Historically, the COAST Board has taken positions on only a narrow group of candidates and issues over the years, so I do not pretend to know where the COAST Board would come out on each issue, or the individual philosophies of COAST Board members or all COAST members.  We have over 300 persons who are “members” and more than 6,000 who subscribe to our newsletter.  So, please accept these comments as my personal philosophy, that may or may not reflect the view and action agenda for COAST generally.

Let’s first talk big-picture philosophy.  Some people believe in government action; some people believe in purely free markets.  Most of us are in the middle—free markets are primarily preferred, but some governmental programs and regulations are appropriate in a modern society.  There are those on the fringe of both viewpoints who insist on absolutely open markets or that the entire economy (or greater and greater portions of it) should be centrally-controlled.  For those of us in the middle, the question becomes whether greater central direction of the economy (i.e., higher taxes, spending or regulation) is preferred over the free market (i.e., lower taxes, spending and regulation).  I and the COAST Board generally opt for the latter.

Our family just hosted a German medical student over the past year, and I asked him about whether Germany has charities like the Salvation Army.  He laughed and said “we are a socialist country; there is no need for charities.  Government supplies everything your American charities might provide.” I was stunned.  No charities?  Is that the world we want?  Everything comes from government?

Now, I fully respect the right of those who believe we should have more government (i.e., higher taxes and spending and more regulation), but I even more fervently disagree with them.

The best of all worlds would be if we could have a free and open debate in campaigns about this.  Candidate (A) says “I don’t think government is big enough or intrusive enough in our lives.  I think taxes should be higher, spending should be greater and government should regulate every aspect of our daily business and lives.” Candidate (B) says “I believe in the power of the individual and free enterprise, at least moreso than government allows today, to help people reach their human potential.  Therefore, I advocate lower taxes, lower spending, and less government regulation.”

Unfortunately, most candidates (Republican and Democrat) claim to want a more free-market economy, but in fact vote in favor of a more centrally-controlled economy.  These folks would include Bob Taft, Jean Schmidt, and the entire Ohio Republican House that voted for Taft’s foolish and entirely dishonest policies.

Now, we can debate the history of this nation and mankind, but I think the verdict is pretty clearly in that free markets and allowing individuals to pursue their entrepreneurial potential has created the wealth and functional economy that we all today enjoy.  Disagree? You can certainly do that, and many do.  I respect that point of view, and all the moreso in working with very many fine people of a more or less centrally-directed mindset on the jail tax campaign.  These folks were all good people, and have many of the same goals for their families, businesses and community that I do.  We just in many cases disagree with how we get to those ends.

Disagree?  I would encourage you to look at the command economies of North Korea and Cuba, the two committed Communist countries in the world, the complete shambles that Chavez is making of Venezuela.  Even socialist countries such as exist generally throughout Europe, Africa and South America enjoy less robust growth and a lower standard of living for the masses (including the poor) than in the US of A.

So, I do not buy into the general theory that more taxes and spending and more government programs “benefit” the poor as a general rule.  Moreover, I feel strongly there is an important value to liberty than simple measurable economic benefits.  I do not like government interfering in my life—or yours.

So, I think we must get to the specifics of such programs.  Are there issues on which I think “poor” people will benefit, even if temporarily from the largess of the taxpayers.  I suppose that may be so, but instead of looking at things in a broad-brush sense (i.e., all government programs regardless of how wasteful and expensive it is), it is appropriate to (i) analyze programs specifically, (ii) ask the very hard questions about them, (iii) eliminate waste wherever possible, (iv) look at the proposed program in the context of other community priorities, and (v) one of the issues at the table has to be the burden placed upon working class taxpayers as a result of the program.  I think almost everyone would agree with this approach if undertaken fairly and honestly.

Ohio is a very high tax jurisdiction.  We are also high on the scale of having a government-regulated economy.  In other words, we are not friendly to businesses and families.  Do you suppose that this might be why Ohio has four of the fastest-dying cities in the nation?  Or why Ohio has one of the top foreclosure rates in the nation?

Indeed, within a high-tax State, Hamilton County is a high tax jurisdiction, particularly as it relates to property taxes. Is this a good thing?  Is this helpful to folks who want to buy their first home?  Does this fact help or hurt the “poor” big-government types claim to want to help?

So, as I see it (i) less government and lower taxes are generally better for the poor and working class you describe and (ii) Hamilton County and Ohio are “tax hell” for businesses and individuals, meaning that rapacious and oppressive governments are creating tremendous misery for the very folks big-government advocates claim to want to help.

A perfect example of this would be the Lottery.  Rich white people could care less about the lottery, because it costs them nothing, and yet reduces the pressure for higher taxes on them.  Unquestionably, the Lottery is nothing more than a tax on the very poorest, stupidest citizens in our society.  http://mises.org/story/249.  Yet, when was the last time you heard a politician suggest opposing this terribly regressive, oppressive tax on poor people?  Never.  Why, because they are wed to the notion of helping people with big government (and the attaboys and campaign contributions that come with) without the slightest desire to really consider the impact on the people they claim to be “helping.” State Lotteries are a terrible and cynical attack on the poorest of our citizens and no one, absolutely no one cares about them, not one political party, not one politician.  From an economic perspective, this analysis about the Lottery is indisputably true.  If so, why won’t one single, solitary person stand up and at least say something about it, much less do something about it?

Then we end up with the cynical red herring of rich versus poor.  First, COAST generally does not attract members or donors from the “wealthy class.” Look at the finance reports for (i) the jail tax versus (ii) the COAST and WeDemand reports; look at the finance reports for (i) the light rail tax versus (ii) the ALRT and COAST reports.  Loot at the finance reports for (i) the CPS levies versus (ii) the COAST campaign finance reports.  In these specifics and in tax policy in this County, this state and this nation, generally big business and wealthy individuals actually like big government and regulation, just as in socialist countries.  I know this seems incongruous, but it is true.

Now, I reject the rich versus poor divisive debate.  First, it is wrong (as set forth above).  Second rich and poor are not identical.  Rich people are not all bad, and poor people not all virtuous, and vice versa.  Also, rich people support liberals and conservatives, republicans and democrats, white and black organizations.  I am constantly impressed with the big hearts and open wallets of people of all stripes, including rich people.  This notion that rich = bad and poor = good is trite and not at all enlightening in the debate before us.  Am I disappointed frequently in the priorities of what rich people do with their money?  You bet.  But if I disagree strongly enough, I guess I can go earn some myself.  It is their money, after all.

Still, as a general rule, my experience is that rich people far more frequently support high tax and spend policies than poor people.  Why?  For several reasons.  First, wealthy people (as a generality, there are certainly exceptions) like a “statist” society.  They want the status quo.  They fear change, and change might knock them off their wealthy perch.  Second, many rich people control the levers of power in our society, so they are not just the payors of the taxes, they spend the tax monies, or influence the spending of it.  Sometimes the spending of it is for or to their businesses.  This is far more common than you might think.  Third, they like to stifle competition.  Competition generally is not good for someone at the top of the heap.  Fourth, there is a certain “limousine liberal” white guilt aspect to all of this.  Once someone has “made it,” they want to share “crumbs” with the masses.  (If you are satisfied with crumbs, then support these failed policies...go ahead).  Mostly, however, like everyone else, they want to be seen to do “good,” so they support some foolish government program or other.  When they propose one, their rich friends help them, and when their rich friends propose another, they help that friend.  Back slaps and attaboys at the country club abound, guilt is assuaged, and those nuisance “little people” all go away for a while.  Misguided, but generally a truism.  Having said this, there are certainly notable exceptions across the board.

This is exactly the dynamic that took place during the jail tax debate.  Instead of one of those rich fellows getting off their lazy duffs and actually looking at the public safety issues (see tonight’s Enquirer for a probing analysis of last year’s debate—could not a single rich person figure this out?), they just write $1 million in checks to the pro-tax campaign and think the safety “issue” is resolved.  With the stadium campaign (which I initially supported and will forever regret), they wrote $750,000 in checks (I think) and then sat idly by while Bedinghaus and Neyer squandered nearly $1 billion in tax monies.  Oh My Goodness, was that ever a learning experience for our entire community.

In short, while most of our Board is moderately upper middle class, there is no one who can or does write John and Francie Pepper-sized checks or anything close to it.

I respect the right of people to support a more centrally-controlled economy if they think it is best for our society, and generally I do not question their motivations (I do sometimes challenge their judgment).  However, I and the COAST Board to a person rejects (i) the notion that higher taxes and spending generally benefit poor people and (ii) that there is some sinister, hidden motivation to our work.  Our members, men and women, give and give of their time, money and industry and have never asked for a government favor in return. Indeed, I find that COASTers generally believe their work will benefit working folks and poor folks more than the government programs they work so hard to scale back or make more efficient.

The Dean:  Has COAST ever opposed taxes that would help the less fortunate? 

1) Higher taxes generally hurt poor people (see above).

2) See a list of the priority issues we have tackled below.  Most of the issues we work on do not cut along the rich-poor divide.  Some would claim that some do, such as schools and the light rail tax.  Both are far too detailed to discuss here.  On the issue of schools, however, let me state that I attended Kennedy Heights Grade School (then a Cincinnati Public School) through the 6th grade and saw the miserable state of public education to which inner City families today are condemned under a near-closed monopoly of government-run schools.  Cincinnati Public Schools have some buildings where 0% of the children pass the proficiency tests and 90%+ of the kids never graduate from high schools.  This failure has continued for decades and comparable failure exists in every government-run inner school system in the nation.  More money or a new superintendent is really not going to solve the problem, certainly not in time for another entire generation of school children.  Would you condemn your worst enemy’s children to such a fate?  Is this the great “benefit” you are speaking of that is being provided to poor people?  I proposed to break this monopoly permanently and allow responsible parents a way out from this failing system.

The Dean:  Are COAST advocates typically of a higher socio-economic bracket than those helped by programming COAST has opposed? 

Programming COAST has opposed?  Let’s look at the major issues we have tackled:

1) Bringing the Olympics to Cincinnati (opposed).
2) 1/2 cent sales tax for Light rail serving Mason (opposed)
3) The jail tax (opposed)
4) More tax dollars for the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center (opposed)
5) The Drake Levy (opposed)
6) A property tax rollback for City residents (favored)
7) Funding for the “Arts,” i.e., some rich guy’s determination of what “art” is. (opposed)
8) Illegal spending of tax dollars on campaigning (opposed)
9) Excessive levies for for public school bureaucrats (opposed)
10) Red light cameras (opposed)
11) Cincinnati Trolley plan (opposed)
12) Open government initiatives (favored)

Now, let’s see, who benefits from this excessive spending and who is burdened by the taxes they spawn.

As to the Olympics, Arts, the NURFC, spending tax dollars to campaign, Red Light cameras, and open government initiatives there is no “poor” people even arguably benefited by more government taxes or spending on these programs so I needn’t respond.

As to Light Rail, the program was simply inefficient.  We could have built a $200,000 house in Mason for the cost of the program each poor person who supposedly was going to ride it.  Still, each poor person was going to pay the regressive sales tax to fund it.  Does that benefit these “poor” people?

The property tax rollback benefits the working poor and middle class in allowing them keep homes, and reducing the foreclosure rate.  Further, even tenants benefit to the extent that lower taxes reduce the need to raise rents.

You and I disagree on the Drake levy, and I will not win a debate on this blog on that topic.  Suffice it to say that the “poor” simply were not hurt in any way by the privatization of Drake: read this, or this.  In the process, taxpayers (including the poor, working poor, and middle class) have been saved $15 to $20 million per year that Todd Portune wanted to squander for no reason.  Finally, the four top administrators walked away with $2.5 million in severance benefits when that institution was sold.  The Board that Mr. Portune thought was doing such a great job left this legacy.  Exactly how are the “poor” helped by wasteful spending like that, which was rife at this institution.  Mr. Portune even opposed reforms in their operations and asked them this year to renew their levy—after they promised not to.

As to school levies, this raises the most hackles.  There is not enough space in this blog to address this issue thoroughly, but start by comparing the cost and quality of education at the Catholic Schools in Cincinnati to Cincinnati Public Schools.  We spend more than $15,000 in operational costs (not counting buildings) per student per year in Cincinnati Public.  That compares to less than half that amount in the Catholic Schools. And don’t give me this inner City stuff, as the CISE program operated by the Archdiocese has a comparable student population (proportionally) and kicks CPS’ tail every time.  COAST members generally support school choice, instead of condemning inner City kids to a sub-standard education.
________________

So, to answer your question, no, COAST members and Board members are the same or less well-to-to than the typical “beneficiary” of these programs.  The typical “beneficiary” is an over-paid bureaucrat who has some insider connection to a fat severance package. 

The Dean:  I have heard people claim that COAST is a bunch of fringe characters who don’t even think we should have public libraries or even public schools.  Is there ever a time or place to grant more funding to libraries or public schools? 

Sure.  Why or why not?  Look, I can only speak for myself on this issue.  I think libraries are a dandy thing.  I used to spend my summers at the library rather than on out-of-town vacations. I remember when they were designed to promote literacy in our society.  A great thing; indeed an entirely appropriate function of state and local governments.

However, have you been to the downtown library lately?  They have a DVD and music room larger than most Blockbuster video stores.  Here are some titles available courtesy of Joe Taxpayer:

“Kung Fu Hustle,” “The Parent Trap,” “The Simpsons Movie,” “The Wild Thornberrys Movie,” “Sponge Bob Square Pants, Season 4, Volume 1,” the absolutely fantastic but obscure John Travolta Movie “Be Cool” (one of my favorites), “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets,” “Shrek the Third,” “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure,” “Monster’s, Inc.,” the dynamic and culturally relevant “Magnum Force” featuring Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry, “Pokémon. 7, Bulbasaur, “Pokémon. 9, Charmander,” and “Calendar girls.” You can search other available taxpayer-funded titles for yourself at this location.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  I like"calendar Girls” as much as the next guy, and probably a whole lot more.  But I fail to see what important public service (as opposed to funding police, health care, etc.) that these expenditures serve.  Of course, when we question that (I think the only pronouncement I or COAST have ever made on libraries), we are “anti-library.” This silly name-calling and marginalization demeans the real debates we need to have about our community priorities.

Look at COAST specific positions on specific issues and they are entirely defensible—indeed I think most fair minded persons would agree.  Our mission states that we simply do not want government to grow larger—just to remain within the rate of inflation.

By the way, this library issue highlights two ways government wastes money: First, I am fairly sure that the Library Board spends more per movie-night than Blockbuster, because they are inefficient.  Second, this is the type of program that government should never have undertaken to begin with—it provides not a scintilla of public benefit for us to be in the movie “rental” (free rent) business.  We can save money not just by doing this silly function more efficiently, but eliminating this frivolous function entirely.

The Dean:  When tax dollars run low, municipalities (like the City of Cincinnati or Hamilton County) threaten to cut services, and kill programs.  Is that the outcome COAST would like to see by advocating for no additional taxes? 

Oh absolutely, we want that.  The state and local government are terribly bloated.  When their growth in spending outstrips their growth in revenues, they have a choice: become more burdensome on already burdened families or eliminate (i) lower priority programs and (ii) eliminate wasteful spending.  Hummmm.  Tough choice.

Recently, Hamilton County officials howled at a simple 6% spending cut.  6%.  Do you really think that there are not enough double dipping, lazy bureaucrats that 6% could not be cut from the County budget without affecting services materially?  Are there no low-priority programs to be eliminated?  Sure there are.  But what did they do?  Close two floors at Queensgate, eliminate Courthouse Security, idle Sheriff’s patrol cars 1/2 hour for each hour.  And people fall for this stuff.  It’s the same game over and over.

If so, please explain why citizens should have services and programs taken away.  If not, what solutions does COAST offer?  I agree services and programs, the lower priority ones like the Freedom Center, and DVDs at the library should be cut.  As to the City and County budget, the savings are there.  $2.3 million per year in new spending in 2007 (and every year thereafter) on promoting conventions including $75,000 to the Film Commission (this would require special state authorization that the Commissioners certainly should seek).  The savings, real savings, are there.  $6 million (I think) in annual drug forfeitures, go in part to fund Si Leis’ new Helecopter Hangar and teddy bears for the Dare program.  Recall, we have more jail beds today than 20 years ago, and more Sheriff’s deputies, and more of almost every County program you can imagine, but the population of the County has dropped more than 25% in that same timeframe.

When I was on the Tax Levy Review Committee, I took the time thoughtfully to reduce spending line item by line item, responsibly without harming anyone but over-paid bureaucrats. This is not easy to ferret out the waste and to set priorities so as not to burden people with unreasonably high taxes, but it needs to be done in every area of the budget.

Doesn’t the very premise of COAST mean that government should never provide new services?  In other words, how can new things be added while keeping expenditures below inflation?  Are there never situations that require new solutions? 

Absolutely not true.  We maintain that government will and should continuously re-prioritize its spending.  It’s just that their new boondoggle (see Chris Bortz’ silly and $ billion Trolley Plan) should not instantly become the spending priority of every family in this City.  If they want to fund something new and important, then cut something else or find more efficient ways of doing things, instead of making working class families cut from their household budget for the fad of the day.

The Dean:  In your view, how might a struggling, working class individual benefit from the ideologies you support?

Lower taxes and responsible spending benefit everyone.  This is not a hard concept to understand—just difficult to follow it with principle year after year ("the price of liberty is eternal vigilance").  If folks continue to fall under the sway of slick politicians, then they pay the price for doing so.  We saw this in the jail tax campaign.  The hunger of government for more tax money is unbounded, and the resulting policies to justify the extraction of that cash are many times worse than paying the tax itself.

I heard loud and clear the message of people like Dan LaBotz and Christopher Smitherman, you and Justin Jeffre, Michael Earl Patton and Josh Krekler during the jail tax campaign.  We have real and urgent priorities in our community that need to be addressed, and people are making hard decisions about whether to buy medicine, or make their house payment.  People surrender a good job because they can’t afford the gas to get there.  Mothers and fathers need to consider a second job for money versus staying home to help raise their children.  These are important issues that our corporate and political leaders ignore or superficially pander to, rather than working to make our lives better.

Inefficient government, of course, simply exacerbates these agonies of a typical middle class family.  It benefits no one but the bureaucrat who does not want to work.  Indeed, I run into countless good civil servants who complain the loudest about the inefficient and ineffective government programs that abound.

Shortly after the jail tax campaign, I sat with John Pepper at an engagement where we debated (even more) taxpayer funding for the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center.  He seems like as nice a fellow as you would want to meet, and smart, of course.  Still, he bemoaned the loss of the jail tax and attributed it, in part, to rapidly rising gas prices.  He was genuinely surprised (as I perceived his comments) that people would make a decision on higher taxes in part because of the cost.  He seemed (to me) shocked that ordinary folks are so closely on the precipice of economic disaster that gas prices shooting up would affect how they approached the jail tax issue.  This is, of course, from a man whose family spent nearly $100,000 to promote the passage of the new tax.

This shows how sorely out of touch our corporate and political leaders are from the lives and challenges of families from Avondale and Anderson Township, to Wyoming and Whitewater Township.  People are hurting—and not in small part because of the 30% to 50% of every dollar they earn going to fund government.

I thank you heartily for this opportunity to explain why COAST stands for what it does.  Let me know if I can help clarify anything.  I hope I answered all the questions.  I do not mean to dodge them, but wanted a full explanation so you and your readers might understand.

Socializer!

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.

anon says:
12 Aug 2008  at  08:56 am | #

You call that an interview, Dean? You simply threw Finney a handful of softball questions and gave him a platform to spew. We can get all that on COAST’s website.

Considering that the Three Centurions story broke on The Beacon, it’s hard to believe you didn’t even ask Finney why, when he was appointed to the county Tax Levy and Drake committees, he failed to disclose that he and Phil Heimlich were business partners. Also you missed the opportunity to ask him about his famous butt-slapping at the Pepper press conference, COAST’s endless misogynistic attacks on Jean Schmidt, COAST’s lawsuit-filing tactics, his reputation as a dirty trickster (was he behind the gay-baiting anti-Pepper website?), etc, etc.

Those kind of challenging subject questions would have made an interesting interview. Instead you played at being the “respectable interviewer,” like the worst of public broadcasting or the deadly dull Sunday morning TV pundits. 

If I had a subscription, I’d cancel it. Instead, I’ll just quote bold-type guy: PATHETIC!!!

vids says:
12 Aug 2008  at  10:30 am | #

The DVDs at the library are a great revenue generator for them at a $2 late fee per day!  If libraries were better funded, they wouldn’t need to have a large DVD selection.  These movie rentals are keeping the libraries alive, since available funding is limited, and they allow the public the opportunity to pursue more intellectual pursuits if they wish.

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  12:37 pm | #

To all of you endless whiners, instead of bitching about the poor quality of local reporting, do the work yourselves and publish it here.

Or is the goal just to find another reason to piss and moan because, oh my stars, Cincinnati media isn’t what you think it should be?

Okay, done. You may now commence whining.

anon, it seems like only yesterday you had a whole different attitude.

Crazy Guggenheim says:
12 Aug 2008  at  02:40 pm | #

+1 to what Anon said. That was a pathetic excuse for an “interview”.

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  03:13 pm | #

The interview was good enough to spark some discussion on some of these issues which was the point, I think.

Comment #1 pisses and moans, but at least suggests some other questions or topics they think would’ve been better.

Comment #2 makes a good point about video’s at the library.

Comment #4 pisses and moans, but fails to add anything to the discussion. 

While I strongly disagree with Christopher Finney and COAST on many issues, I see no reason why we can’t have grown up discussions about these issues here at the Beacon.

If you all have questions you’d like us to ask people there’s a contact button at the top, otherwise you can ask them yourselves.

R says:
12 Aug 2008  at  03:26 pm | #

I know nothing about butt slapping or anything else mentioned by post # 1,or really about this group, but if what he wrote was truthful about what they do and believe , it makes sense. The trolly is an idiotic idea that makes ZERO sense. I mean as stupid as stupid can be.

In my deal with the city,. I found person after person after person who couldn’t believe how dumb ( which I percieved as inefficent ) their departments were.

One thing I disagree on is the movies at the library.  remember, Blockbuster wouldnt put a store downtown.If people he was talking about are having trouble putting gas in the car, and they are, then how are they going to afford renting a movie?

Thanks, I appreciate the information.

R says:
12 Aug 2008  at  03:29 pm | #

PS the lottery.  Why do we not have casinos? they are worried about people gambling?  Lets see, office pools, trips to casinos not far away, and have you ever been behind the person at the Speedway counter, doing complex, lottery strageies, or speeding an hour picking one of a zillion scratch off tickets.  They are gambling anyway, so why not keep the money here?

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  03:39 pm | #

anon #1:

You ask good questions, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the philosophy of the anti-tax movement. 

If I took your advice, that would be like asking Smitherman for an interview about the NAACP, and instead asking him questions about how he addressed Chief Streicher his first day on the job, or about being called “a smart mouthed little punk.” Those questions, while perhaps interesting, have nothing whatsoever to do with the NAACP.

As noted in my introduction, certain people get upset whenever the anti-tax movement enacts their philosophy.  And I always hear things about how they are anti-poor, anti-public schools, and so forth.

I am not familiar with material on the COAST website that addresses issues like poverty.  I attempted to do that in this interview.  Finney’s responses were definitely long, but my agenda was not to talk about Finney’s political blunders or hidden real estate investments; instead, I wanted to get more in depth on the ideology of the anti-taxers. 

If the anti-taxers really are anti-poverty, anti-public education, or anti-public libraries, then now their opponents have even more material to craft even more thoughtful rebuttals as to why the anti-tax movement is wrong.

In fact, I was thinking about who might be a good figure to write a response to this—a response furthering the discussion about the role of taxes here locally.  I thought perhaps Portune or Pepper, since COAST blasts them at every available opportunity, but I’m not sure.

So if anyone has suggestions about public figures diametrically opposed to the COAST philosophy, who could provide thoughtful rebuttals to the concepts here, I’d appreciate the input.

Freedom Fighters says:
12 Aug 2008  at  03:52 pm | #

.

Why is it that every thing COAST advocated with the Drake fire sale benefited the cronies that COAST supported ?

Why hasn’t COAST sought attacks on the wealthy with their tax-subsidies ?

Especially the so called farms in Indian Hill. There are 123 properties receiving (CAUV) millions in tax reductions. Yet, this site claims there are only three working farms in the Village of Indian Hill ?

If everyone paid their fair share and eliminated ‘corporate welfare’ there could be the funds for ‘social responsibility’ !

When the ‘corporate cronies’ get their cut first (ie: stadium, 3CDC, etc.) to fund there inflated crony salaries, the only option is for the public to tax and earmark it for specific programs. Why not talk about closing public pools while paying the salaries of 3CDC ?

Those who can not afford ‘Blockbuster’ should have the right to view and enjoy movies, as well.

Unfortunately, kissing ‘Finney’s Fanny’ will not bring back the jobs that are sent to China while we pay for their expansion into Cambodia, Angola !

The ‘finny fanatics’ fail to mention that Chavez has helped more people under his administration then when the ‘COUNTRIES’ natural resources were managed by the ‘culture of corruption’, corporate welfare recipients.

.

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  04:04 pm | #

Great point about taxes and Indian Hill subsidies.  To the best of my knowledge, COAST does not like 3CDC.

Do you have any specific questions you’d like to see answered?

I’m going to ask Dan LaBotz to do a rebuttal.  I hope he has time!

Bearman says:
12 Aug 2008  at  04:14 pm | #

You ask good questions, but they have absolutely NOTHING to do with the philosophy of the anti-tax movement. 

Good question to ask COAST itself.  Why get involved in things that have nothing to do with taxes.

According to a Cincinnati Blog post (you’ll have to do a search there b/c I wasn’t able to link to it here), part of a COAST newsletter said:

In yet a further waste of County resources, Commissioners Todd Portune and David Pepper proclaimed Saturday, June 14, 2008, as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Day. COAST is just bursting with pride at this proclamation on behalf of our County. We are sure Simon Leis is also proud of his endorsed County Commission candidate. Read about the resolution here.


The “here” links to CCV’s website.  These are the kind of things that COAST gets involved in that seemingly have nothing to do with their charter, yet makes them lose credibility.

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  05:21 pm | #

Bearman, that’s a great question!

My impression of Finney is that he’s big on civil liberties. Does COAST have a problem with “gay rights” or what I simply call human rights? If so, what does that have to do with taxes?

Maybe that was just a chance to take a shot at the weird coalition between Pepper, Leis and Portune. They are strange bedfellows indeed.

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  06:14 pm | #

No more strange than us working via the NAACP in a coalition that includes COAST!

cincysuz says:
12 Aug 2008  at  07:09 pm | #

Nice recruitment piece for COAST. Interview? Please.

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  07:09 pm | #

I might add that I don’t think anyone should take shots at a “weird coalition” at the expense of another group, as COAST did, in this regard, against gays.

However, I do see COAST saying “In yet a further waste of County resources...” Is that just bombast, or did it really take resources for the proclamation?

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  07:11 pm | #

cincysuz,

Now you have a chance to deconstruct the political arguments of those you oppose.  Here is Finney speaking as though COAST is good for poor people.  Presumably, you disagree.  Take on the debate.  I would have thought you’d enjoy the opportunity!  What’s wrong with fostering discussion?

anon says:
12 Aug 2008  at  07:30 pm | #

(I’m not the same anon who posted first - he’s smarter than me)

Sorry, Dean, I think you softballed this one.  This wasn’t your usual insightful questioning of an antagonist.  It was apparently pay back for the nice dinner and drinks Finney bought you a few months back.  It was a free podium - pure and simple.

Speaking of simple, Finney the Fink is a simpleton, or at least looks down his nose at the rest of society as being so.

Bearman nails him and COAST.  The organization has no mission, only fluid stances that promote the interests of COAST leadership, that agenda changes with the tides.  They’ll do anything that garners them media attention and draws them some notoriety.  That’s why they have no 501C-3, no charter, no formal leadership or membership rules ; they don’t want to be accountable to any standards, for any mission, in any way --- and they aren’t.  They use disadvantaged people (and those who are suppose to represent them) to achieve their one, singular primary goal - to avoid taxes that promote social justice.

COAST sucks.

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  08:08 pm | #

anon #17:

Your comment supports my very questions!  You write the kind of thing I hear all the time, like when you said:  “They use disadvantaged people (and those who are suppose to represent them) to achieve their one, singular primary goal - to avoid taxes that promote social justice.”

And, while I’ve heard that criticism time and again, I’ve never seen anyone from COAST respond.  Getting a detailed response on that topic was the point of this whole interview.  That’s why I asked things like this:



Critics often claim that COAST, and the anti-tax movement more generally, is spearheaded by primarily well-to-do whites who do not wish to see poor people helped by programs funded through tax dollars.  How do you respond to such critics? 

Or this: 

Has COAST ever opposed taxes that would help the less fortunate?  Are COAST advocates typically of a higher socio-economic bracket than those helped by programming COAST has opposed?

Or this:

In your view, how might a struggling, working class individual benefit from the ideologies you support?

In addition, I’m going to try to get someone from a liberal perspective to write a response to the ideologies espoused here.

So, really, anons like you complain about COAST, attack them for being a certain way.  I asked them questions based on the very details of your attack—but now you are mad that I let them answer.  Is that what this is about?  We’re just supposed to attack them without hearing a response?  If so, you are no different than how you depict them as being.

cincysuz says:
12 Aug 2008  at  08:28 pm | #

I’ve said everything I need to say about COAST. Why repeat it. He said nothing new or surprising. Why don’t you try and explain why you support COAST? Defunding education, the arts, libraries so that only the wealthy have access? Of course those that champion rich folk’s causes claim they have some other, higher purpose that we ignorant poor folk don’t understand but that in the end, will benefit us--their version of the ronnie reagan trickle-down okie doke. Anyone with a social conscience would reject everything COAST stands for. Finney suggests that charity should take care of poor people’s needs, that they should have to go begging for handouts and that we have a responsibility to give to charities like, what? the Salvation Army? I’d rather do it through a regulated agency via tax dollars and sans the religious litmus test. Why didn’t you challenge him on anything? The answer is obvious. Do you think that the library video program is beneficial? I do. Not everyone has the $5 and a credit card on file to rent a film at Blockbuster. Poor children also like to watch films. We have a fabulous, stimulating, sophisticated world class downtown library. Maybe you and Finney dont want your tax dollars going there, but I do. I hope to hell there are more that think like me than think like you and Finney.

Finney says: Our family just hosted a German medical student over the past year, and I asked him about whether Germany has charities like the Salvation Army.  He laughed and said “we are a socialist country; there is no need for charities.  Government supplies everything your American charities might provide.” I was stunned.  No charities?  Is that the world we want?  Everything comes from government?

I say: (1), yes, our basic services should be supplied by our government and (2) the institution that the German and and every other medical student attends is funded with tax dollars. Why pick and choose? Why not attack the big ticket tax dollar items in the form of corporate subsidies? I’ll tell you why. Because COAST is just what it seems. A bunch of rich and wanna be rich guys that could give a shit less about society or who’s hungry, or homeless, or that kids are living in the streets. Leave it to charity? How’s that working for us?

Again, this is not an interview. You had an amiable, conversation with a friend, a compadre, and then published it.

Bearman says:
12 Aug 2008  at  08:42 pm | #

However, I do see COAST saying “In yet a further waste of County resources...” Is that just bombast, or did it really take resources for the proclamation?

I would imagine that the paper it is written on is the only real cost.  I would bet that proclamation’s by the county are a pretty regular thing.  The issue that COAST seems to have is not that the county spends actual dollars on the proclamations but that they spent money on THIS proclamation that certain members of COAST and their friends at CCV don’t like.  Again not what COAST seems to proclaim to be about.

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  09:31 pm | #

Bearman, vids and Freedom Fighters are the only ones that have actually made any interesting points. Most of you just seem to be whining that the Dean didn’t just launch a bunch of petty personal attacks which would have been ignored anyway.

cincysuz, you do know this wasn’t a live interview don’t you? How could the Dean have followed up, he can’t forsee the future?

I think if we have enough justice we won’t need any charity.

anon17 says:
12 Aug 2008  at  10:34 pm | #

Justin -enough justice… c’mon, so my husband dies without insurance and leaves me with 2 toddlers - I would need help.

Here’s the thing, I do respect the Dean, really, and I appreciate him taking the time to work on this blog (and others).  But there was an infamous blog called erievoices.com that eventually was shut down and people went to jail due to Dems up north censoring by prosecution.  Anyway, they interviewed me once via email questions.  He didn’t let me just skate by with responses.  It WAS a back and forth and he reserved the right to not publish the interview unless I gave him real responses to hard questions.

The Dean usually will rebut stupid, canned responses like this one.  He didn’t demand real answers and certainly didn’t get real answers.  Don’t give up the podium if they aren’t willing to talk straight - it just becomes false advertising from one of the most dangerous mindsets to justice.

And, Justin, I don’t know you seem teed off.  This is the most play I’ve seen the blog get in a while.  I think Dean has created over time an expectation of higher quality - and he just keeps slipping.

Wait a minute, isn’t Finney representing the Dean (or close allies) in some litigation?

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  11:06 pm | #

anon17, in a just world people get help with their children when needed. Other countries have free child care or at least affordable child care and the richest, most powerful country in the history of the world certainly should. What good is being a superpower if we can’t take care of all of our children?

This wasn’t about Finney, it was about COAST. I think he covered what critics say and who says he will never follow up with more questions? Only a few people have actually come up with any good ones and you aren’t one of them.  I’m not teed off, I just don’t think the interview was bad and people that are implying asking these questions was an endorsement are full of it.

As we’ve pointed out, the number of comments doesn’t equate to hits and you obviously haven’t paid attention because there are plenty of recent articles that got just as many comments as this. No Finney isn’t representing the Dean or (close allies) in some litigation.

says:
12 Aug 2008  at  11:23 pm | #

Dean,

Good work.

Remember, freedom will eventually prevail.  It is our destiny.

The far left and the far right have a lot in common. 

I will pray for you tonight.

says:
13 Aug 2008  at  05:49 am | #

Finney representing me?  Ha!  No, he is not.

Here’s the thing about his responses:  I don’t think he dodged the questions.  I think he actually gave a detailed representation of how the anti-tax crowd thinks they do beneficial work that benefits the poor, and others.

Now, that is not to say I agree with any of it.  In fact, as I have said several times, I want to get a liberal rebuttal to this.  I have invited Dan LaBotz to do it, but I have not heard back from him yet.  If he can’t, I think I’ll ask one of the Commissioners frequently targeted by COAST.

cincysuz, in between her petty personal attacks, raised some issues.  I’d like to copy her legitimate points below:

*Finney suggests that charity should take care of poor people’s needs, that they should have to go begging for handouts and that we have a responsibility to give to charities like, what? the Salvation Army? I’d rather do it through a regulated agency via tax dollars and sans the religious litmus test.

*Do you think that the library video program is beneficial? I do. Not everyone has the $5 and a credit card on file to rent a film at Blockbuster. Poor children also like to watch films. We have a fabulous, stimulating, sophisticated world class downtown library.

*I say: (1), yes, our basic services should be supplied by our government and (2) the institution that the German and and every other medical student attends is funded with tax dollars. Why pick and choose? Why not attack the big ticket tax dollar items in the form of corporate subsidies? I’ll tell you why. Because COAST is just what it seems. A bunch of rich and wanna be rich guys that could give a shit less about society or who’s hungry, or homeless, or that kids are living in the streets. Leave it to charity? How’s that working for us?

I have heard, since publishing this interview, that the library DVD program actually generates revenue for the library through the late fees.  This concept doesn’t quite jibe with the idea that poor people should be able to view movies, too (because then it would look like the library is fleecing poor people for late fees)—but, whatever the case, it seems COAST would have no point on issue if the program brings in more money than it costs.

I do like your point about those needing help not needing to pass a religious litmus test. 

Perhaps it will be appropriate to do a follow up interview based on issues raised in these comments.  I suggest people start leaving sample questions.  I ask that questions be based on the philosophy of the anti-taxers, and not about things you don’t like about Finney personally.  My motivation, here, is to understand the political philosophy of the anti-taxers, and to engage it in a discussion with its opponents.

Freedom Fighters says:
13 Aug 2008  at  10:18 am | #

.

The best argument against COAST !

.

Greg Harris says:
13 Aug 2008  at  01:44 pm | #

I have been on the opposite side of COAST on most issues, yet cannot help but to admire and even envy their incredible grassroots prowess matched with, at times, a good fundraising base.  I was part of the coalition that passed by way of ballot initiative public financing of city elections in 2001.  COAST responded by organizing a ballot initiative the very next election that, with the support of a few very large (and unknown) donors, defeated public financing before it could ever be enacted. 

Yet they were at a fundraising disadvantage when they succeeded at defeating the public safety levy as part of a potent grassroots coalition this past fall.  They know how to get their issues on the ballot and how to win.  Chris Finney and Tom Brinkman should be commended for their strongly held principles and ability to act on those principles in a very effective way. 

I hope some day they will consider taking on the issue of our antiquated form of governance in Hamilton County with layer upon layer of duplicative government agencies across 49 political jurisdictions.  Our county literally cannot survive much longer with this way of doing business.

simply62 says:
13 Aug 2008  at  02:13 pm | #

I’d rather do it through a regulated agency via tax dollars and sans the religious litmus test.

And I would rather my money that I work for go to the more efficient and effective private charities.

Do you think that the library video program is beneficial? I do. Not everyone has the $5 and a credit card on file to rent a film at Blockbuster. Poor children also like to watch films.

I like to have sex and get liquored up.  Should the government provide everything that people like or rather should it focus on what people need?

the institution that the German and and every other medical student attends is funded with tax dollars.

Correction it is partially funded with tax dollars.  Secondary learning institutions are public/private partnerships with large amounts of money coming from tuition and evil corporations.

Leave it to charity? How’s that working for us?

How is that government war on poverty working for us?  You want to admit defeat and leave iraq because everything isnt peachy in 5 years but you think the “war” on poverty that has been in effect since the sixties is worth keeping up?

says:
13 Aug 2008  at  02:43 pm | #

I will agree with cincysuz with one respect.  The cutting should start with the corporate whores.

Parking garages, the trolly concept, tax incentives.  These should all go away, before a metro subsidy cut even enters the conversation.

says:
13 Aug 2008  at  02:50 pm | #

And I would rather my money that I work for go to the more efficient and effective private charities.

Really?  Like “Closing the Health Gap” here in Cincinnati, with Dwight Tillery’s fat paycheck?

It would be interesting to note the average money spent administering charities, versus providing services, compared to when government does the same. 

What if government spends less?

NtotheC says:
13 Aug 2008  at  02:54 pm | #

On the issue of the Library DVD section: there are many people that feel that cinema is an art form and a basic extension of literature.  I tend to agree with these people.  Just as you can make a claim that any Sylvester Stallone movie isn’t literature, you can make the claim that Ann Rice novels are not either.  Where do you draw the line?

One of the major issues that i see with the claims of Mr. Finney has to do with education.  He supports vouchers, and claims that they will help poor people.  These claims are possibly true, but do not stand up under against the separation of church and state that allows state funding to be provided to organizations teaching religion.  That is not about keeping taxes down, as there is no platform for eliminating taxes at all, just for shifting the recipient.

One issue i have with calling for government to reduce costs is that there isn’t a company on this earth that would work under the conditions imposed on government.  I would not dare to suggest that government should operate in the dark, nor that there aren’t ways of cutting costs.  There are.  I am only saying that there are costs to doing the business of government and you can only cut them so far.

cincysuz says:
13 Aug 2008  at  03:52 pm | #

What world do you live in Justin? If there was justice, we wouldn’t need charity. If Nader was president, corporations would fall (except the one’s you’re courting for a comeback). If. If. If. People are hungry, homeless, sick, desperate and unemployed today, now. We need tax funded agencies to address these issues. More services, not fewer. It’s an outrage that groups like COAST want to make life even harder. Is that all you have to say about the interview? Finney’s actively working to dismantle/ eliminate/prevent funding for many things that you claim to support: free child care, free health care. And you have nothing to say to him? Nothing to refute? Challenge? No editorial comments, and neither does the Dean?

The library.  I couldn’t care less if the library is losing money. I would expect that. It’s not a for-profit business. We get great bang for our buck from our world class library system. In the real world, not Finneyville, many people don’t have $5 and a credit card to patronize the mega-monopoly Blockbuster that has driven every competitor out of business. The Hamilton County library system deserves more, rather than less funding to make available books, videos, computer time, storytime, a safe place to research, do homework and just hang out.  The knowledgeable, patient, underappreciated library staff deserve better pay. It’s worth every dime invested and more. Any right thinking person knows this. This is an outrageous attack. Of course making it difficult for poor people to obtain knowledge, is beneficial to the rich that have an ever increasing need for a desperate, uneducated workforce to serve them.

Education. That attack is the most hateful and insidious and of course COAST is hooked up with the nationwide charter school movement. so it all makes sense. Schools, again, deserve more not less funding and yes, frills--like art, music, physical education, field trips, tutoring--to provide a well rounded educational experience. And by the way, I happen to be a little tired of paying to educate Tom Brinkman’s ever-growing baby factory. I’m sure they have their hands out for every available service the taxpayers have to offer. I don’t know if Finney has kids, but ditto for him if he does. Again, they want to go back to the 1800s and make sure that only the wealthy have an education. Like perhaps the German student, attending our tax-funded and subsidized medical schools.

Has a light bulb gone off yet? If the Finney’s of the world really cared about being conscientious caretakers of the taxpayer’s money, they would not continue to worry about nickles and dimes but would get into the real waste issues that involve millions, billions, trillions and have, in effect, ruined this country. I spent a few minutes on the internet looking at some recent headlines--there are hundreds--of outrageous examples of waste and thievery by rich corporations and individuals. I’ll list a couple. COAST takes no interest which makes the claim that they are solely interested in making sure tax dollars are spent wisely, and have no other agenda, ridiculous.  We know their purpose. To preserve the class distinctions and the wealth gap that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.  It ain’t rocket science.

Iraq Contracts have Cost Taxpayers at least $85 billion since invasion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/iraq-contracts-have-cost_n_118527.html

Most Firms Pay No Income Taxes—Congress
Nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations do not pay federal income taxes, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://www.truthout.org/article/halliburtons-hidden-treuhand

First Step to Shifting to Cleaner Energy: End Unjustified Tax Loopholes for Oil and Gas
http://www.ctj.org/

says:
13 Aug 2008  at  03:56 pm | #

Mr. Scott Ryan, I certainly agree with you and cincysuz there.

Greg, there will be a debate between Bill Woods and Tom Brinkman on the issue of Campaign Finance Reform on Sept. 27th. I will post more details as we get a little closer. I look forward to that and hope we can make some progress on that issue. I think we would both agree that money buys influence, not “free speech”. It stifles the voices of those without big money.

NtotheC, I agree with you about the DVD section. Even what we might agree are bad movies can be used for educational purposes. People can study cultural attitudes on things.

For instance, I saw a documentary called ”Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People”. It was very interesting and educational. Hopefully you can get the DVD at our library, I highly recommend it.

One issue i have with calling for government to reduce costs is that there isn’t a company on this earth that would work under the conditions imposed on government.

I think you make an excellent point. Take Medicare vs. the for profit health care industry. The private (or corporate) for- profit-system actually creates more bureaucracy. In the corporate system they keep track of every single aspirin so they can bill people for each one. Think of all the paper work, plus you need to charge enough to pay for excessive CEO salaries and bonus, not to mention the share holders profits.

The number 1 priority in the for profit system is to maximize profit. Under Medicare or other not for profit systems it’s simply to maximize care. That doesn’t mean that governments can’t be inefficient at times (anything involving humans can be), but at least the number 1 priority is to maximize meeting health care needs instead of wealth care for the rich.

Not all government systems are as transparent as they should be, but you have a better chance of creating more transparency in government than with private corporations, like Halliburton or Blackwater. We should always look for more efficiency, but it’s a myth that the corporate sector is always more efficient.

Anne says:
13 Aug 2008  at  06:56 pm | #

This was interesting. I recently moved back here and have never heard of COAST. It sounds like they are simply a group of Libertarians, but may have attracted people who are anti-whatever (trolley, DVD, you name it). The attracted ones may or may not understand (or care about) the underlying libertarian concepts espoused by COAST.

Hmm, interesting food for thought, thanks.

cincysuz says:
13 Aug 2008  at  07:17 pm | #

Simply 62

You: And I would rather my money that I work for go to the more efficient and effective private charities.
Me: I know of no private charities--that don’t receive tax dollars--that house, feed, clothe and provide medical care for citizens. Please respond with the name, address and detail of the services, just one, and I’ll print up flyers and distribute the information to the thousands of people in need of those services. While you’re at it throw in the name of a charitable organization that will provide school supplies and clothing, child care, lunch money, elder care, mental health support, busfare… No such thing. But do keep on giving your money.

You: I like to have sex and get liquored up.  Should the government provide everything that people like or rather should it focus on what people need?
Me: I presume you also like to drive on roads, walk on sidewalks, flush your toilet, enjoy the park, etc.  I contend that information, knowledge and education are just as legitimate and are indeed, needs and an excellent use of tax dollars. I sense you’re frustrated that your booze and prostitutes aren’t tax funded. Maybe you could expense them. 

You: Correction it is partially funded with tax dollars.  Secondary learning institutions are public/private partnerships with large amounts of money coming from tuition and evil corporations.

Me: That’s not a correction. It’s an admission. You agreed.

You: How is that government war on poverty working for us?  You want to admit defeat and leave iraq because everything isnt peachy in 5 years but you think the “war” on poverty that has been in effect since the sixties is worth keeping up?

Me: What war on poverty? You’re mistaking that with the war on the poor, waged quite succesfully since the Reagan years. And you’ve got to be joking that you’re actually concerned about the library providing free, mostly donated, dvd’s to patrons while supporting the, how many trillion dollar war??? Admit defeat in Iraq? Attacking a country that doesn’t have an army, slaughtering citizens--now we’re talking civilians, women and children--by the hundreds of thousands with no plan, and for no reason. What would you consider victory. Continuing to hand billions of dollars to corrupt contractors? Would that be victory? Maybe if all Iraqis are dead? Victory you’ve got to be kidding? A typical COASTER, you don’t worry about the trillions wasted on this illegal invasion, some kid might be getting a DVD of Batman from the library. Now that’s a real crime!

says:
13 Aug 2008  at  09:19 pm | #

What world do you live in Justin?

One without much justice and a lot of need for charity. That doesn’t mean that it has to be this way or that it will always be this way.

If Nader was president, corporations would fall.

I strongly disagree with your premise. The Auto Safety legislation didn’t put the car companies out of business and OSHA didn’t put responsible companies out of business, it simply protected workers.

People are hungry, homeless, sick, desperate and unemployed today, now. We need tax funded agencies to address these issues. More services, not fewer.

The candidate I’m supporting is for not for profit health care for all Americans, why isn’t yours? My candidate’s for a living wage and public works projects so people can make a living. He’s for repealing NAFTA the job killing trade deal and repealing the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act, why isn’t yours?

Iraq Contracts have Cost Taxpayers at least $85 billion since invasion.

The bipartisan occupation has cost $3 trillion and that’s why I don’t support a candidate that wants to increase the bloated and wasteful Pentagon budget, send more troops to Afghanistan and keep the private mercenaries in Iraq, why do you?

Most Firms Pay No Income Taxes—Congress

I just wrote an article about this and talked about how this was nothing new, the candidate I support was talking about this in 2004 while you were supporting John Kerry, a pro-war candidate that would only “talk” about helping “the middle class”. Like Clinton, not once did he mention the working poor, much less do anything to help them.

First Step to Shifting to Cleaner Energy: End Unjustified Tax Loopholes for Oil and Gas

Your candidate flip flopped (again) and said he’s going to open up more off shore drilling and he supports more nuclear power. Please the Dean and me and misrepresenting our positions.

I was responding to the whining where some people are claiming the Dean’s article was a “Nice recruitment piece for COAST”. I think this interview has opened up a nice discussion about these issues. How about we discuss the issues like adults instead of launching a bunch of personal attacks this time.

Some people have some thoughtful things to say and you occasionally have some good points but we have to wade through your angry rants and petty attacks too often.

Greg says:
14 Aug 2008  at  10:41 am | #

Justin, I wasn’t aware of the debate, and would like to attend. Ironically, Tom Brinkman--who I actually admire as a very sincere and honest politician-- utilizes the state match better than anyone.  As you know, the State of Ohio reimburses in the form of a tax credit contributions up to $50 for legislative candidates.  Brinkman in his fundraising appeals constantly reminds prospective donors of this fact.  Brinkman is clearly taking advantage of public financing when he does this, and must support this form of public financing or else I assume he wouldn’t do this.  Would he thereby support a public match of donations at the city level (up to $50)?  If so, perhaps a compormise could be brokered.

says:
14 Aug 2008  at  10:56 am | #

Greg, that’s a great question!

Zombie Master says:
14 Aug 2008  at  01:54 pm | #

cincysuz: “I know of no private charities--that don’t receive tax dollars--that house, feed, clothe and provide medical care for citizens. Please respond with the name, address and detail of the services, just one, and I’ll print up flyers and distribute the information to the thousands of people in need of those services. “

The point about private charities is that they need DONATIONS, not more clients.  There are private charities that do housing, food, etc., that receive no government funding.  The needs are obvious and the current government system is failing to meet them.  Other charities receive government funding for some projects but not for others.  Shall we behave like zombies and act like the government is doing all that is possible and ignore the needs that private charities try to fulfill?

cincysuz says:
14 Aug 2008  at  08:17 pm | #

Zombie - I’m not understanding your point. Charity is fine. Churches distributing Thanksgiving food baskets around the neighborhood is great. We used to look forward to getting oranges and nuts from God’s Bible School during the holiday. I still am not aware of charities that provide services on a significant enough scale, and for enough numbers, to get people back on their feet. Are you saying that the needs of charities are obvious and that government is failing the charities? I must be misunderstanding. I know that you can’t be suggesting that government fund private charities instead of providing services through funded, regulated agencies.

Justin, my “rants” are no different than yours.  You’re often insulting, always condescending, and certainly no stranger to petty attacks. And not surprisingly you’ve redirected the subject back to Democrat-bashing when the subject is clearly Republicans. Do you get paid for that by the word? Back to Finney. You still haven’t commented on the subject. You just can’t bear to squeeze out a negative word about a Republican even though this is the perfect opportunity to have a debate on your differences, if they existed. But, mum’s the word. I’m not surprised.

says:
14 Aug 2008  at  10:58 pm | #

cincysuz, I criticize the records of parties and candidates. I see very little difference between them at all. I don’t launch personal attacks on people.

Unless you consider calling Bush a fascist war criminal a petty personal attack.

I think everyone else knows where I stand on these issues. No matter what I say you will pretend I’m a Republican, of course you’re the only one that would say something so upsurd.

It’s as if anyone who criticizes a Corporate Democrat must be a Republican, that is unless it’s cincysuz.

Oh, I’m sorry that’s the ghost of cincysuz’ Republican past. Just listen:


There’s no one more disgusted with the Democratic Party than me.

Obama and Clinton are one in the same. The only difference is that Obama names a Republican, Ronald Reagan, as his inspiration. Some choice.

Obama AND Clinton BOTH talked about invading Pakistan. Invading Pakistan. More war. More saber rattling. More commitment to wasting and devaluing human life. More American domination of the world.

I dismiss Hillary all together. But IF Obama wanted to be the real “people’s candidate” he would take the golden opportunity to attack the million ways the Republican’s have screwed up the country and spell out exactly how he would do things differently. I don’t see him differentiating himself at all. Americans DO want to hear that. Of course Republicans don’t and he wants so much to appeal to them, that he’s just going for the “America has great potential, we can do anything we set our mind to” patriotic, nationalistic, whip ‘em into an emotional frenzy message. He wants to create a bunch of Republicans for Obama, like the Democrats for Reagan bunch.

The democrats haven’t come up with a candidate that’s worth shit.

Did COAST give you a free membership? Has John McCain given you an autographed picture yet. Now you were saying?

Zombie Master says:
15 Aug 2008  at  12:05 pm | #

Cinsuz, there are charities out there which do good work and do not use government money.  Many people need help.  That should be obvious.  The government is not doing enough to help, and that should be obvious, too (health care).  Much of what it does do is in the wrong direction (Iraq War, subsidies to turn grain into alcohol, corporate welfare, military-industrial complex, drug war, prison-industrial complex).  Note that Germany, which is “socialist” per Chris Finney’s guest, avoids most of these.

Whether or not we can ever get government to properly respond, and until we do, there are charities out there right now which need our assistance.  That means donations from people who care.  They help whom they can with what they have.  If they had more funds they would help more people.  They have to turn people away all the time.

The last thing they need are thousands of more people to turn away for lack of funds.  Which is what you had offered.

says:
15 Aug 2008  at  12:28 pm | #

The government is not doing enough to help, and that should be obvious, too (health care).

Zombie Master, I agree with you that the government isn’t doing enough to help people with their health care needs. What we need is a permanent soultion instead of a charity that will only be a bandaid. We need a not-for-profit health care system. By expanding Medicare (a single payer system) we can reduce health care costs and cover everybody in full from the craddle to the grave. This is the only real solution that will be sustainable and efficient.

cincysuz says:
15 Aug 2008  at  08:43 pm | #

Justin - you don’t launch personal attacks? What could have been more personal than an actual article and nearly a hundred posts devoted exclusively to what? Attacking me. You set a precedent with that one. No other non-political, non-public figure has been targeted and swiftboated by this site. And I make no apologies for supporting Obama. Reality is what it is. It’s him or McCain, not Nader. I continue to send e-mails and attend meetings to voice my concerns. To strategize with like minded people on how to further our agenda. I’m still and always will be critical of the Democratic party. That’s okay in case you don’t know that. I realize that’s not possible with Nader. It’s well known that he doesn’t take kindly to dissent. Had Obama made a racist remark like Nader, I would have sent a message of protest to the campaign. That’s the difference between us. You follow blindly. I attempt to approach this election from a much more mature and realistic perspective.

Now are you ever going to talk about this interview with Finney?

says:
16 Aug 2008  at  12:53 pm | #

cincysuz, your obsession with Nader is showing again. As usual, you brought him up, not me. I didn’t write the article and it merely points out that you’ve taken the same position that I have before. Did that make you a Republican or not? Obviously it didn’t, so why do you keep pretending I’m a Republican? You use it to pretend I’m being deceptive. It’s your way of launching a smear.

Actually, I totally agree with Justin. We just disagree on the road to take having this knowledge.

I don’t know you or anything about you other than the fact that you consistently try to misrepresent my positions. You can support Obama if you want, I don’t care. Even though you vote for a pro-war candidate I think you really want peace. You are frustrated with your pro-war party but feel obligated to vote for them, well I don’t.

Had Obama made a racist remark like Nader, I would have sent a message of protest to the campaign.

You know Nader didn’t make a racist remark, you even said so yourself. You don’t have to like what he said, but don’t pretend it’s racist.

And Bearman’s right about Nad