Here is a string of videos showing the movement of things as they are in Whitehall government when I, a citizen, critical of its leaders, draws attention to their words and behavior, as is my responsibility. I am often accused of simply making things up (despite the empirical evidence I’ve presented with my arguments) and that my presentations are simply ‘my opinion’. That is why I’m presenting these assembled videos. The first starts with Council President Jim Graham effusing about ‘free money’.

As you saw, it’s simply city officials using the term ‘free money’ to describe grants the city applies for and receives, those which are sometimes subsidized with our own money. Their use of the term gives off the impression that money can just miraculously appear out of the heavens. When I heard Mr. Graham say this it just seemed irresponsible on his part to exclaim this boon to Whitehall’s affairs in such a simplistic fashion.

Here too, we hear our Economic Development and Service Department Director, Zach Woodruff say it in the recent meeting to inform Etna/Seigman residents of an intended bike path using a 75/25 grant:

Again, ‘free money’. I honestly believe its a term which helps them sell citizens on a project that they want*. Who doesn’t love the term ‘free money’, right? Well, its not free and it usually comes at a price. Like the Etna/Seigman bike path plan. Mr. Woodruff says the price, per the engineers estimate, before getting into full engineering, is $2,999,999. The 75/25 grant would then pay 3/4ths of that, the other 1/4th, $749,999.75, would be the citizens to pay. That which would more than likely be paid in a loan or bond which then would come out of the yearly budget over a period of time, thus squeezing the taxpayers money which is there for the budget. (In answer to a citizen’s concerns that the project would increase taxes, Mr. Woodruff pointed out that the Etna/Seigman project would increase taxes by 0%, which sounds good to residents but the truth is that the loan it generates will actually decrease the budget’s spending ability at City Hall to pay for things like paving the entirety of a street, like Westphal; that aspect of the truth he nor anyone else at City Hall mentioned).

That’s where I came in. Firstly, I was tired of City Hall misrepresenting tax dollars with their characterization of ‘free money’, I thought it misrepresented the truth of the matter. Secondly, it doesn’t address the issue of fiscal irresponsibility on City Hall’s or any government’s part. I spoke off the cuff then, right after Mr. Woodruff’s presentation:

The following week, during the council’s committee meeting, Council President Graham thought mocking my legitimate concerns over government’s use of our tax dollars was acceptable. Here is that video:

What is sad is that, because of my criticism of them, I have seemingly lost my citizenship status as a Whitehall resident (forget my native status). They don’t take me seriously, my valid points and arguments, whether its on concerns for Constitutional issues or government’s spendthrift ways because I have, rightly in my estimation, gone after them for the wrong and foolish things they’ve done, as is my very American right as a citizen (and as they deserve). This is shown in Council President Jim Graham’s mocking my concerns over their use of the term ‘free money’, which was awkward, evidenced by Zach Woodruff saying, “Uh, not gonna do that”. People in that room knew it was mocking me, me who was sitting behind the camera. Council President Graham’s unprofessional tack towards a citizen is very telling. That is why I decided to clarify my point in a poll public last evening. The video is followed by the entirety of what I said, in case any of it is garbled in the video:

“Free money. The first time I noticed this term, it was said by Council President Graham in reference to grant money we receive as I’ve also heard it since. Everyone here seems so excited by all this ‘free money’ (your term, not mine) and yet, simple economics show us the inherent wrong and trouble of this ‘free money’. That is why I spoke up at the poll public two weeks ago. I was tired of this misnomer being bandied about by my government without a more thorough understanding of its impact. So then, let me be clear on the ramifications of this free money you get to prop up our city’s limited resources to support itself.
As Auditor Miller pointed out, it is, to some extent, the money we paid out in State and Federal taxes, and that is true. However, what is not said is this: Whitehall is a poorer than average town which seemingly can’t afford to take care of its responsibilites on its own. Of course we can afford to buy properties with citizen’s money at the cost of around $20,000,000 but we can’t afford to, in a timely fashion, repair our own infrastructure? On one hand we give tax abatements to businesses like beggars hoping someone will take advantage of our ‘opportunities’, losing money which could pay for many things, while we make up for that lost money by taking advantage of grant money. Businesses win, we all lose per the national debt. In truth, we’re pretending to be something we’re not, and for whom? Because we’re embarrassed to call ourselves Whitehallians of the Whitehall that actually exists and not the one we pretend to be with the makeup and fashionable attire the grants afford us? We’re living beyond our means, City Hall is not fiscally responsible, we can’t afford that which we have or do. We can’t even afford to maintain our own city and in doing so, not only have we put a great deal on bonds which take away from the money we have to spend for our city in the yearly budget in the future, we are also helping to balloon the national debt, but yet, our shortsightedness says, that’s not our problem, not here, not now. However, that debt, which is over 21 TRILLION dollars** is gonna come due and whether its our community saying, ‘If we don’t take that grant money, someone else will’, then its another community saying the same thing and so, who is finally going to show sense and restraint for the common good? When will reason finally prevail in this country, in this community, saying, enough is enough? The egos to sell an inorganic expensive ‘vision’ for a Whitehall you want it to be are simply selling future generations down the river where they will undoubtedly deal with tough austerity measures, all because no one in the present could face the reality of their situations, instead pretending to be something they’re not. The shine then on the gleaming city of ‘Team Maggard’ will be cold comfort to your grandchildren living with the real impacts of that short-sighted, self-centered vision. Mark my words.”

Then came Jim Graham’s rebuttal, one that, as usual, missed the point of my argument:

There is certainly plenty to rebut in Jim Graham’s defense of the city using grant money but I will save that for another post, lest someone think me ‘long-winded’. Suffice it to say, this represents our government. They’ll like you and respond to you when its something simple as someone’s unkempt property or a sign missing or needed, sort of service-oriented needs or complaints but, if you challenge them on policy or administration or the movement of their designs for Whitehall, then they have little for you. They are in charge, how dare you challenge them. Thus then, the always sychophantic Councilman Bailey, regardless of the merit of Mr. Graham’s opinions, offered this:

Notice, they always have each others backs but not the citizens.

Mr. Graham thought of it as ‘free money’ whereas Mr. Woodruff, in facing the sometimes unyielding public, I believe, used it at that moment to sell the bike path grant, after all, everybody loves ‘free money’. Regardless, truth should be where we live when it comes to the reality of our taxpayer-funded government. We can handle the truth. Just because the administration wants something doesn’t mean the public does and if that’s not respected, via giving them the whole truth and accepting and respecting their wishes, then the citizens should revolt against that kind of disrespect. The fact is that Mr. Graham couldn’t professionally deal with a citizen challenging him on their behavior. That is to Mr. Graham’s discredit. Until he and they all do better in these jobs the citizens entrust them with, they will and should hear from not just me but, other mindful citizens as well.

*I honestly believe that Mayor Maggard would love to bypass all this irritating, obstructing governmental/checking-in-with-citizens business and just plow forward with her ‘vision’ using our money. She filled City Hall with her devoted team players, I’m sure it frustrates the hell out of her that she can’t bend all the citizen’s will to be on board ‘Team Maggard’ too.

**http://www.usdebtclock.org/