Are Christians, Jews and Muslims all of the one Faith?

The Crumbling ChurchThis perplexing question is answered in a new book by former Michigan Congressman, Mark Siljander.  It’s an interesting proposition.

I had the fortune to meet Mr. Siljander in 1991, when he attempted a new run at Congress from the state of Virginia.  He was not successful. But he has been successful in the diplomatic front in some interesting ways.

Now, in a book entitled  A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman’s Quest to Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide, Siljander tells us of his own theological journey.  He started with the idea that Islam was the antithesis to Christianity, but has ended with the idea that the Muslim’s Allah is the same as the Christian’s Jehovah, and it is merely that our understanding of God is different, but we’re all referring to the same Person.

For example, Siljander argues that the Muslims attribute to Allah the things that Christians attribute to the Trinity.  He raises the Eastern Orthodox rejection of the Trinity, attempting to argue that in the end it may not really matter whether or not we call the Persons of the Trinity simply “attributes”. It is apparently merely a matter of semantics.  He says,

All three holy books (Torah, New Testament, and Qur’an) describe these three same entities or attributes as Deity — God, Holy Spirit, and Messiah.  I have asked distinguished clerics, both Muslim and Christian, if they could explain to me the interaction of these three deified attributes, and after much bantering back and forth, in the end they have all given me the exact same answer: “Mark, it’s a mystery.”  So what are we arguing about?

This is an interesting proposition.  One that entertains the mind in a  number of ways.  All three books are holy?

You can see in this statement the very question that started me on these series of e-mails 59 weeks ago.  What is your rock-bottom, starting place in theology in terms of the written Word?  This is what determines what the holy books really should be.  Now, Siljander raises the Qur’an to the same level as the Torah and New Testament.

Here’s the challenge:  Where’s the starting point in God’s revelation?  Torah, New Testament, or Qur’an.  Your answer will reveal your basic presupposition about God’s revelation and how we should be seeking that revelation today.

So it seems that the question Siljander has come to is this:  Why can’t the Qur’an have at least equal value with the Torah and the New Testament?

On the other hand, I’ve simply been asking how did the New Testament get equal authority to the Torah.  Now I’ll have to expand this: How does the Qur’an get equal authority with the Torah?  Or, in the case of the Muslims, how did the Qur’an get raised above the Torah?

That ought to get your mind working overtime. Next week, I’ll add some other questions Mr. Siljander does not appear to ask.  Maybe there’s a reason.

Until then, God bless you in your efforts for His Kingdom.

Ian Hodge, Ph.D.

P.S.  If you like what you read here, forward this essay to your friends.  For a FREE subscription, go to www.biblicallandmarks.com and select the Subscribe button

Reclaiming State Sovereignty- How It’s Done!

This entry is part 27 of 28 in the series Freedom 21 Conference

f21-banner-4

As this article and the attached video (see below) demonstrate, the Oklahoma Legislature continues to run an impromptu class on the “How-To’s” of reclaiming state sovereignty. And while they’re at it, they’re also giving an unsolicited (and probably unwelcome) advanced level seminar on long-term political strategy and tactics. What have they done?

Once again, Oklahoma has passed a state sovereignty resolution. The previous one was passed in both the Oklahoma House and Senate but was vetoed by Gov. Brad Henry whose best excuse was to claim that it would require the “return of federal tax money,” thus proving that the Governor either completely failed to grasp the point of the resolution or grasped and rejected it.

What’s interesting here is that the Oklahoma House has come up with a parliamentary method to bypass the Governor who has proven himself to be a federal lick-spittle. Oklahoma House members led by Charles Key (R- Oklahoma City) has made the new resolution a House Concurrent Resolution which can be passed by both houses of the legislature and does not require the signature of the governor. The Oklahoma House passed it last Monday May 4, 2009.

But why is this bypass such a political coup, when the concurrent resolution really doesn’t have any legal punch?

The strategic reasons:

  1. Once state sovereignty begins to be discussed seriously, it means that discussion of the repeal of the 17th amendment, the amendment that requires Senators to be elected by popular vote rather than appointed as state government representatives to the federal legislature, can begin

  2. True federalism, i.e., Madison’s “divided sovereignty,” with true sovereignty of the states will only be returned through the repeal of the 17th amendment

  3. Repeal of the 17th amendment would make repeal of the 16th amendment, the amendment that allows the federal government to engage in direct taxation, far easier. This would be another step towards the re-establishment of true federalism. Direct taxation authority belongs only to the states in the original federalist design

  4. Once the federal leviathan is put on a strict forced tax diet, its unnecessary fat necessarily shrinks and falls away. The surest way to reduce the size, cost and intrusiveness of government is to reduce the revenue available to it.

  5. Repeal of the 17th would also make it possible to repeal of the Federal Reserve Act, which would go a long way to reducing the revenue available to grow government. It could be replaced with the old Independent Treasury System, often called the “most stable banking system of the 19th century”

  6. One state doing re-declaring its 10th amendment sovereignty is cause for derision from the “federal supremacy in all things” camp, 5 states is a cause for concern there, 10 states is reason for panic, 25 or more means that some form of completely irrational response would be forthcoming from those in the power centers which tends to awaken the sleeping populace.

The tactical reasons:

  1. Oklahoma Republicans now have their governor, a Democrat, on record as being against their state’s sovereignty. He has, in effect, said to them “We have to live with the federal boot on our necks to keep our own tax money coming back to us.”

  2. The Republican legislators now have a basis to work to expose an extremely popular governor of the other party who has clearly flouted the will of the electorate (this measure is quite popular in Oklahoma) who has now been show to be more interested in pleasing his federal overseers than protecting the constitutional guarantees of the rights of the citizens of his own state

  3. Republican legislators have demonstrated that they are willing to proactively go toe-to-toe with a popular governor in order to protect those same constitutional guarantees in spite of his efforts

  4. Republican legislators have demonstrated that they are willing to go toe-to-toe with the federal playground bully who has, up to now, had no qualms about whose lunch money it would steal

  5. Republican legislators have maneuvered Democratic legislators into demonstrating that they will do “whatever it takes” to protect a Democrat governor who kow-tows to the federal leviathan and disparages state sovereignty (thus exposing their own positions) from the political fallout of the resolution’s passage while Republicans have shown they’re willing to do “whatever it takes” to protect Oklahoma voters from federal usurpation

  6. A few state legislators working within the bounds of their authority in their own state legislature have made the now astronomically expanding federal leviathan begin to look over its shoulder to see the specter of the Constitution beginning to haunt its attempts to assume all authority and make the states an anachronism

The real question here is will other state legislatures, it really doesn’t matter what their party affiliation, recognize that there is a Constitution, that it sets boundaries and limits to federal authority and gives the states wide latitude to interpose on behalf of its citizens.

Frankly, that’s an open question in Ohio. If state leadership like the feckless Kevin DeWine have their way, Republican legislators would run screaming from the room if this type of legislation were to be mentioned. But it seems that there are some of that party who understand the two-fold utility of this type of resolution. It both alerts federal usurpers that Ohio will no longer stand idly by while the 9th and 10th amendments (not to mention article IV) are simply ignored by Congress and the Executive branch and it exposes those members of both parties who oppose Ohio’s move to protect its citizens from federal over-stepping of authority as despots or the toadys of despots. Thus, these resolutions HCR 11 in the Ohio House and the new resolution in the Ohio Senate (to be introduced today) are the tools Ohioans need to dig out from the avalanche of federal laws, rules, regulations and resolutions that are burying them in taxes and the fetters of government restriction.

What can be done?

Part of this article contains a promotion of a conference where you can learn how Oklahoma is getting the job done. Freedom21 is a grassroots coalition of state and national groups banded together to protect life, liberty and property from both federal and international assault. At its core, Freedom21 exists to oppose the UN’s laughably misnamed Agenda21 sustainable development power grab.

Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key is a headline speaker there and was last year as well. Last year Key, an aptly named key player, came to the Freedom21 conference and explained how he and other Oklahoma legislators stopped the NAFTA super-hiway (remember? It’s the road project that the federal government claimed never existed) from passing through Oklahoma.

Texas activists also did their part to stop the corridor using local planning commissions. They were so effective that Gov. Rick Perry (who appears to have gotten the message if his latest statements at a Texas TEA Party is any indication) came out and announced that the road project that didn’t exist was now officially canceled in Texas. These folks were at Freedom21’s conference last year as well to explain how they did it.

Will you be there this year to find out how to do it? Come out to Freedom21 in August and learn how to re-take your state’s sovereignty- proactively.

In the meantime, contact your state Senators and Representatives and urge them to co-sponsor and vote for the state sovereignty resolutions.


Valuing Civil Dissent

Dr. Mark Hamilton, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Ashland University

In November 2008 I was attending a conference in downtown San Diego.  As I exited a Saturday session and emerged out of the hotel onto the street for a breath of warm fresh air, I was struck by a distant roar.  It was low and constant but seemed to be gradually increasing.  I walked in the direction of the reverberating echo  and in about two blocks came to a brigade of humans about six across marching orderly and chanting in rhythm.   As I carefully read the signs and listened to their repetitious outcries, I realized it was an organized march on behalf of gay marriage protesting California’s passage of the Marriage Amendment.

I was shocked by the massive turnout of people, but I was equally surprised at the relative control and respect demonstrated by the crowd.  My only previous experience with a gay parade had been over a decade ago in Boston when my wife and I, along with our two daughters, drove into Boston for a walk along the famous historic Freedom Trail and while on our casual walk encountered a shocking gay parade.  We were forced to step into several stores to shield our eyes and the eyes and ears of our young children from the profanities being shouted and the visual obscenities.   The San Diego march was quite different.  The signs made their points, the crowd was loud but orderly, and they were respectful to the surrounding citizenry.  They allowed me to politely cross through their midst to meet my ride.  I later found out that there were dissents like that all across America that day but that the San Diego one was the largest, estimated at between 20-25 thousand people.   And though I disagreed with the content of their political statements, it was important to recognize they were appropriately exercising their political rights and freedoms and doing so legally and without infringing upon the rights of others.

It has been rightly stated innumerable times that America is a nation built on dissent.  The founding fathers began the rebellion against England as a form of dissent and had the insight to protect the rights of others to dissent through the First Amendment.  America’s great strength has been its ability to allow disagreement and dialogue.  I am a conservative yet I often dissented with the Bush administration on issues like spending, the increasing size of government, the War in Iraq, the use of what I would consider questionable means of extracting information, the lack of foresight in developing renewable sources of energy or the inability to make a decision on the status of the detainees in Guantanamo prison by placing them on military trial.

One of the great failures of the Bush presidency was its breakdown to dialogue with friendly dissenters, with conservatives.   I have been frequently disturbed by so-called conservatives who blindly followed his policies thinking that Republicans are naturally conservative, are always right, or that because Bush confessed Christ he was making “Christian decisions.”   Unfortunately many conservatives mindlessly think that a dislike of war is a lack of patriotism or that the more one refuses to support the use of force the more un-American a person becomes.  We fail to look at the complexities that are involved in defining a truly “just war.”   America is becoming a country of mindless conservatives and mindless liberals where dissent is seen as unpatriotic or as immoral where we must fight back or silence the dissenters.  Just look at the recent events at the University of North Carolina where students violently disrupted and shouted down Tim Tancredo.  One UNC student defended the action saying, “He was not able to practice hate speech.”  Have we become so afraid of words?

We can no longer just blindly trust our government’s interpretation or our media’s reporting on these events.  They all seem to want disagreement shut down.  I want to live in America because it is a place of dissent and discussion.  I feel threatened that we contrarians are being forced to be silent by both the liberals and the conservatives.  People no longer understand what free speech is; it is a necessary freedom with great responsibility.  We may disagree with the content of what fools may say but we cannot take away their right to speak.  I’ve known the freedom to peacefully demonstrate against nuclear build-ups, against abortion, against hazardous waste incinerators, or against child pornography in mainstream bookstores and the freedom to discuss openly great issues of controversy in the college classroom.  Do we dare annihilate this freedom?

Many liberals used to be strong supporters of free speech.  Sadly this has eroded from their midst.  Even the supposed “Tolerant Mr. Obama” has prided himself on this, but if this is so why does he mock those who attended the Tea Party rallies?  Was his ridicule of the Tea Baggers a form of “Hate Speech?”  Why has the media failed to fairly cover these Tea Party events the way it covered similar Gay Rights demonstrations?  My eyes were opened to this liberal failure several years ago when they wanted protestors outside abortion mills prosecuted for racketeering (RICO act).   I had always thought that liberals knew what free speech was.  That may have been true in the past but it is no more.  I am greatly disappointed in my American friends who are liberal.    Boy, was I fooled by thinking all these years that one of the real positive things that liberals stood for was the First Amendment.  I can no longer be fooled.   Ideology has replaced American ideals.    Certainly it is politics and not ideology or justice behind the desire for “Hate Speech” legislation and the desire to silence talk radio. I’m an American and dissent is at the fabric of my being.  Do not take this away from me and do not shut me down.   If you do so you shut down the last vestiges of America.

Tax and Spin- Part 10: Conclusion-Accountability the Key

This entry is part 10 of 11 in the series Understanding Property Tax Levies

taxOhio does combine a “renewal” levy and an ordinary “additional” levy into one single vote, and although renewal-plus-additional-levy issues and ballots are straightforward – unlike replacement levies and ballots – they still deny voters a real choice. In this writer’s opinion, such combination votes ought to be illegal; renewals and additionals should be in separate votes. Thus, the replacement levy should also be illegal.

A partial solution to the replacement levy problem – one that addresses only the ballot language – would be to change the ballot wording to show the true tax increase. That is, it must show at least the proposed millage and the effective millage of the levy to be replaced and in no way indicate a tax decrease, including in the ballot title. (The Revised Code prescribes the wording for the body of the ballot but does not address the title, which is as deceptive for replacement levies as the body and is more noticeable to the voter.)

Repealing the replacement levy or changing ballot wording would be done by the Ohio General Assembly – with much encouragement from citizens. Although at least some of the legislators are aware of the deceptive ballot language, any action by them thus far has been inadequate to remedy the problem.

The fact that state lawmakers are very greatly influenced by local officials cannot be stressed too strongly. Local officials have had much to do with getting the legislature to create the types of levies described in this treatise. Replacement levies, in particular, have been a cash cow that local governments will likely lobby to keep, should a legislator introduce a bill to repeal their existence (no bill has been introduced as of this writing). That means that many citizens must be able to understand replacement levies and care enough about fairness that they can and will explain to their representatives and senators the unjustness of these levies and will encourage them to actively support the repeal of the law or change in the law that authorizes the levies. Unfortunately, in addition to possible pressure from local officials, another hindrance to getting the law changed is what this writer has found: some legislators do not understand replacement levies.

Because repeal of the replacement levy law or even a change in ballot language could take months or years – or might not happen at all – informed citizens should also work at the local level by educating other citizens, including their local officials, and supporting only those candidates that pledge not to use replacement levies. Citizens should also vote against all replacement levies, no matter how desirable the intended use of the funds might be. Only if the levies repeatedly fail will local officials stop using them and again make more use of the simple “additional” levy when they truly need funds for appropriate services.

It is the hope of this writer that Ohioans will hold their government accountable – that they will learn about taxation and individual tax issues, that they will educate others, that they will work to eliminate unfair and deceptive taxes, and that they will support only those candidates for office who are honest enough to do the same.

You can access and print a copy of Carolyn’s full article here. Put this information into the hands of your family, friends and neighbors.

Tax and Spin- Part 9: Some Solutions

This entry is part 9 of 11 in the series Understanding Property Tax Levies

taxOhio law has traditionally given local voters the final say for all property taxes other than those that are levied on the ten inside mills, with a few exceptions. However, that authority is no authority when tax laws are cleverly written to force more taxes on citizens without their vote. Neither is that any authority when laws are written so that voters are misled into voting for the opposite of what they really want or when both the Yes and No choices on a ballot issue might be undesirable, as with replacement levies.

What is the solution to the replacement levy problem? One answer is to repeal the law that authorizes the levies. Following are some reasons:

• The replacement levy is an unnecessary tax. Simple “additional” property levies have always been available – and are still available – to increase revenue for the government.

• The replacement levy is an early product of the legislature’s continuing effort to diminish the effects of H.B. 920 and to tie taxes to increases in property values. However, there is no correlation between the rising cost of appropriate government services and increases in property values. Even if there were, trying to make levies match property growth is generally unworkable because, in addition to their property tax levies, government taxing districts get various other kinds of funding from local, state, and federal government sources, as well as private sources. Further, the fact that the “replacement levy and increase” and “replacement levy and decrease” exist is evidence that replacement levies don’t always fit with inflation of property values. Also, this writer has observed that the plain “replacement levy” is often used to inch up taxes – just because it is available – when renewals would be appropriate and would have been used previously.

• Replacement levies limit the reasonable authority of citizens – even citizens who know the levies are used to increase taxes – to determine the magnitude of their government. When an existing levy is expiring, replacement levies force voters to choose between 1) voting No to no longer pay even the tax they had been paying, or 2) voting Yes to increase their tax. They are unable to vote simply to continue to pay the same tax they had been paying, as some people prefer. Government officials know that the majority of voters generally would not vote to eliminate a tax; therefore, by using the replacement levy, they use the equivalent of a
new tax with the old – the equivalent of a renewal levy plus an additional levy. In that way, they twist the arms of the voters to increase their property tax. In fact, levy proponents often insist that the voters must pass a levy or the government agency would have to cut services because it would not even have the revenue it had been getting.

Next: Part 10: Conclusion–Accountability the Key

Tax and Spin- Part 8: Eliminating Confusion-Step 3

This entry is part 8 of 11 in the series Understanding Property Tax Levies

taxBallot Example No. 3

The third ballot example, proposed in November 2003, is for a “replacement and decrease.” It is even more deceptive than the first two examples because it appears to provide a tax reduction. Instead, it produced a 267% increase. It reads as follows:

“14 PROPOSED TAX LEVY (REPLACEMENT AND DECREASE)
GREENE COUNTY

A Majority Affirmative Vote Is Necessary for Passage.

A replacement of a portion of an existing levy, being a reduction of 0.02 mill, to constitute a tax for the benefit of Greene Memorial Hospital for the purpose of CURRENT OPERATING EXPENSES OF GREENE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC. FOR THE SUPPORT OF HOME HEALTH SERVICES AND FOR THE PURCHASING OF EQUIPMENT SERVING THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, NURSING SERVICES, CANCER SERVICES, BIRTHING CENTER AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF THE HOSPITAL at a rate not exceeding 0.5 mill for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to $0.05 for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for a period of five years, commencing in 2004, first due in calendar year 2005.”

The words “decrease,” “portion of an existing levy,” and “reduction of 0.02 mill” appear to indicate a decrease in tax. Nothing in the wording on the ballot in any way indicates a tax increase.

The misleading ballot language is explained as follows: Although the ballot does not show it, the existing levy that was to be replaced by this issue is called a 0.52-mill levy. That, unfortunately, refers to the millage that was voted at least as far back as 1976.

The ballot language compares the proposed levy of 0.5 (or 0.50) mill with the old, no-longer-in-effect 0.52 mill. The proposed levy was indeed 0.02 mill less than the old voted millage, but that old millage had nothing to do with one’s then-current tax.

The so-called 0.52-mill levy had been renewed a number of times over the years and, consequently, by 2003, the effective millage – the millage that determines one’s current tax – had decreased to 0.136028 mill. Therefore, instead of the tax being reduced from 0.52 mill down to 0.50 mill, as the ballot wording seems to imply, it was actually increased from 0.136028 mill to 0.50 mill.

The cost of this replacement levy was this amount: 35% X $100,000 X $0.0005 X 87.5% = $15.31.

Had the proposal been for a renewal levy, the tax would have been this amount: 35% X $100,000 X $0.000136028 X 87.5% = $4.17.

Therefore, the replacement levy cost 3⅔ times the existing levy – with no clue of the increase on the ballot.

In the case of another election and a similar “replacement and decrease” levy, this writer asked a number of people afterward what their thinking was about the tax issue. Every one of them said that he voted for the levy because he thought he was voting for a tax cut. Although the “replacement and decrease” is the most deceptive tax, none of the replacement levy issues gives any indication of a tax increase in the replacement portion of the ballot.

The reader should realize that although the dollar size of these countywide levies might seem small, each property owner pays on many such levies. Also, a large increase in the percentage of tax on individual properties is reflected in a large increase in revenue for the government because so many property owners are paying on the levies. To be informed, a voter needs to know the true effect of these levies so that he can question why such a large increase in revenue is suddenly necessary.

Next-Part 9: Some solutions

Tax and Spin–Part 7: Eliminating confusion-Step 2

This entry is part 7 of 11 in the series Understanding Property Tax Levies

taxBallot Example No. 2

The second ballot, presented in November 2001, is for a “replacement and increase.” It replaces a 0.3-mill existing levy and adds 0.2 mill:

“1 PROPOSED LEVY – (REPLACEMENT AND INCREASE)
GREENE COUNTY COMBINED HEALTH DISTRICT

A Majority Affirmative Vote Is Necessary For Passage.

A replacement of 0.3 mill of an existing levy, and an increase of 0.2 mill, to constitute a tax for the benefit of Greene County for the purpose of PROVIDING THE GREENE COUNTY COMBINED HEALTH DISTRICT WITH SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO CARRY OUT ITS HEALTH PROGRAMS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHILD AND SENIOR CITIZENS SERVICES, CONTROL OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES, FOOD AND WATER PROTECTION, HEALTH EDUCATION, AND AIDS/HIV DIAGNOSIS AND EDUCATION at a rate not exceeding 0.5 mill for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to $0.05 for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for a period of 5 years, commencing in 2002, first due in calendar year 2003.”

This proposal amounts to two tax increases in one vote: the hidden increase in the replacement tax part of the levy and the obvious 0.2-mill increase.

The proposed tax for just the 0.3-mill replacement tax part of the ballot was this amount: 35% X $100,000 X $0.0003 X 87.5% = $9.19.

The 0.3-mill tax includes a hidden increase because what is not shown on the ballot is the effective rate of the existing levy that was to be replaced, which was only 0.283881 mill. Had the existing levy been renewed rather than replaced, the cost would have been this amount: 35% X $100,000 X $0.000283881 X 87.5% = $8.69.

Therefore, just the 0.3-mill replacement tax is nearly 6% percent greater than the existing levy. That’s without the obvious 0.2-mill increase.

The cost of the entire 0.5-mill proposal was this: 35% X $100,000 X 0.0005 X 87.5% = $15.31, which was a 76% increase over the existing levy.

Next–Part 8: Eliminating confusion-Step 3

Tax and Spin- Part 6: Eliminating Confusion- Step 1

This entry is part 6 of 11 in the series Understanding Property Tax Levies

taxSince much of voters’ confusion has come from their thinking that replacement levies are renewal levies or from their having no idea how much greater a replacement levy is than a renewal, the explanation for each of the examples below includes a comparison of what the tax was as a replacement levy versus what it would have been as a renewal levy.

For simplicity, the following examples all deal with only the residential-agricultural class of real property. A $100,000 typical city/town residence assessed at 35 percent of its value with 12.5 percent in rollbacks is used to show the cost of the levies. (The taxes are 87.5% of what they would have been without the rollbacks.)

Ballot Example No. 1

The first ballot, presented in November 1999, is the plain “replacement” levy for 1 mill:

“15 PROPOSED TAX LEVY (REPLACEMENT)
GREENE COUNTY

A Majority Affirmative Vote Is Necessary For Passage.

A replacement of a tax for the benefit of Greene County for the purpose of SUPPORTING CHILDREN SERVICES AND THE CARE, PROTECTION, AND PLACEMENT OF ABUSED, NEGLECTED AND DEPENDENT CHILDREN at a rate not exceeding 1 mill for each one dollar of valuation, which amounts to $0.10 for each one hundred dollars of valuation, for a period of five years, commencing in 1999, first due in calendar year 2000.”

On a $100,000 residence, the cost of this proposal was this: 35% X $100,000 X $.001 X 87.5% = $30.63.

This replacement levy represents an increase compared to the existing tax that it replaced. Because of House Bill 920, taxpayers were not being taxed on the full 1 mill that had been voted years before. Instead, as the aggregate value of properties in the county increased, the effective millage on which their tax was figured had gradually decreased in order to keep the revenue for the government on that levy at a fairly constant amount. In fact, the effective rate had decreased to 0.844364 mill.

If the 1-mill tax that had been in existence had been renewed instead of replaced, voters would have been voting on the then-effective millage of the existing levy, which was 0.844364 mill. (Even though the effective millage is less than 1 mill on such a renewal, the levy keeps its originally voted 1-mill “name.”) A renewal levy would have cost a homeowner with a $100,000 home this amount: 35% X $100,000 X $.000844364 X 87.5% = $25.86.

Comparing $30.63 with $25.86, or 1 mill with 0.844364 mill, the replacement levy cost about 18½ percent more than the existing tax.

Many voters thought they were voting for a renewal levy. The ballot provides no indication that the proposal is for a tax increase, much less, how great an increase.

Next–Part 7: Eliminating confusion–Step 2

Tax and Spin- Part 5: The “Place” Where You Raise Your Own Taxes

This entry is part 5 of 11 in the series Understanding Property Tax Levies

taxPART 3: THE DECEPTIVE REPLACEMENT LEVY

The replacement levy, authorized by the Ohio General Assembly in 1990 (Ohio Revised Code, Section 5705.192), is a specific kind of property tax that has been used for the purpose of generating more money for a government subdivision or agency. Because it replaces an existing tax, it is a new tax. It is not a renewal tax.

Replacement levies have generated large amounts of revenue. Often that is not because voters have been so generous; rather, voters have been misled and are confused.

The problem with replacement levies is that the proposed millage is compared with the old, no-longer-in-effect, originally voted millage of the existing levy. This problem is reflected on the ballot. The old voted millage is not always shown or designated as such on the ballot; sometimes it is merely implied, as in Ballot Examples No. 1 and No. 3 below. To be clear and correct, the ballot should compare the proposed millage to the effective millage of the existing levy because that is the comparison that reflects what would happen to the property owner’s tax with passage of the levy.

Some local government officials and other levy proponents are well aware of the problem and have taken advantage of the deceptive ballot language and have put out misleading levy campaign advertisements, articles, letters to the editor, and speeches. For example, they have emphasized “no increase in millage” or “reduction in millage” by using the false comparison of the proposed millage with the irrelevant voted millage of the existing levy. They have even said “no increase in tax,” which is untrue no matter what millage is used. Unfortunately, some other public officials throughout the state still do not understand replacement levies. Also unfortunate is that newspapers and other media do insufficient investigative reporting and rarely publish information about tax issues other than what is handed to them by taxing authorities, including those seeking a tax increase.

Replacement levies are presented to voters in three ways: “replacement,” “replacement and increase,” and “replacement and decrease.” Not obvious from those terms is that all three are used to increase a tax. The operation of each and the reason they are so confusing to voters can best be shown with examples of actual tax issue ballots. The ballots reproduced in this treatise have been presented to voters in Greene County. The levies, ballot examples, and resultant voter confusion are typical of that found all over the state.

Next–Part 6: Eliminating confusion, Step 1

Tax and Spin- Part 4: “Schooling” the Taxpayers”

This entry is part 4 of 11 in the series Understanding Property Tax Levies

tax

The simplest method is timing by local officials. The various government entities collaborate to put their many different levies on the ballot at different times because taxpayers would rebel were they to be presented with them all at once. Also, officials try to get new taxes passed right after the sexennial property reappraisals and triennial updates so as to get the most dollars for the millage. Other methods are more involved and are generally aimed at eating away at the benefit of H.B. 920.

Ohio law states that school districts may not have less than 20 effective mills of tax for current operating expenses for either class of property (ORC, 319.301[E]). This requirement is often called the “20-mill floor.” A school district might have, for example, 21 mills of voted taxes for current operation along with 3 inside mills that are also used for operation. While the 3 inside mills could not decrease in effective millage because the reduction factor does not apply to inside mills, the 21 voted mills could theoretically decrease over the years to perhaps, for example, 16.6 effective mills because of the aggregate increase in property values in the district and the reduction factor. Total effective mills for operation would then be only 19.6 mills (3 inside mills + 16.6 outside mills). To keep that from happening, taxes are adjusted upward by 0.4 mill, without a vote of the people, till the 20 effective mills are met (3 + 16.6 + 0.4 = 20). A similar non-voted increase continues year after year as long as the combined value of properties in the district increases and other current expense levies that count in the 20-mill floor are not passed. (Vocational schools have a 2-mill floor.)

Not all types of levies count in the 20-mill floor. School districts that are near the floor often purposely keep the millage from their levies that count in the floor low so those taxes automatically grow. They then levy other taxes that do not count in the floor, such as the income tax.

School districts also use certain kinds of property taxes, including “emergency levies” for the same purpose. Aside from a favorable vote that might be generated by the emotional term “emergency,” school districts use these levies in preference to regular levies because they are not counted in the 20-mill floor. The district benefits from the emergency levy while also benefiting from non-voted tax increases from other operating levies that do count in the floor. Emergency levies may be proposed to provide for an emergency or to prevent an operating deficit (ORC, 5705.194). However, that is often said to be the purpose of other kinds of levies, as well. School personnel have argued that emergency levies are for a fixed sum and not for a specific rate, or millage, and therefore they should not or could not be counted in the 20-mill floor. However, emergency levies are figured in mills for the ballot and for each year they are in effect, and at one time they were counted in the 20-mill floor by law. Their use is a strategy to get more tax money.

Schools use the “permanent improvement” property tax because that tax, like the emergency levy, does not count toward the 20-mill requirement for current operating expenses. The use of the permanent improvement tax is limited to assets and improvements that have at least a five-year life expectancy, but it frees up other taxes for current operations.

When a school district’s operating millage is at the 20-mill floor, another way the district can manipulate levies that might be advantageous to it and produce more revenue is to reallocate its
inside millage (a public hearing by the board is necessary for any such change [ORC, 5705.314]). With this action, current expense millage that had been inside millage would be changed to outside millage, and permanent improvement millage would be changed from outside millage to inside millage. The purpose of the swap is to get more of the millage for operations into outside millage where the reduction factor would work on it in order to provide even more automatic non-voted tax growth. Meanwhile, the permanent improvement mills that become inside millage would grow with property values (when they were outside mills, the reduction factor applied).

Yet another means to grow property taxes for schools came about with H.B. 530 in 2006. The law (ORC, 5705.211) authorizes an additional property tax for current operating expenses to be approved by the electors at such a rate that the total taxes charged by the levy each year are sufficient to offset any reduction in basic state funding caused by increases in real estate values. The rate of the tax could be set to cause revenue generated from the levy to increase by up to 4 percent, inclusive, each year, but it could be set at a lesser rate. The tax increase would occur each year for a minimum of five years, and may be continuing – year after year after year.

The legislature has also passed laws for real property tax increases that are not just for schools. With the gradual reduction of taxes on tangible personal property of electric companies (S.B. 3 in 1999) and natural gas companies (S.B. 287 in 2000), all fixed-sum levies that were in existence in 1998 and 1999, respectively, and continued to exist in the tax year preceding the distribution year, were automatically – and quietly – increased by up to ¼ mill, inclusive, to help compensate school districts and local taxing units for their “fixed-sum levy loss.” The fixed-sum levy loss is the gradual loss of tangible personal property taxes for emergency levies and levies for paying debts (ORC, 5727.84[H]). The state makes up any difference between the tax loss and ¼ mill. The added property tax and state payments began in 2002 and they even cover emergency levies that are continually renewed after 2002 through 2016 and debt levies beyond that if they are still in effect. (Details are located in ORC, 5727.84 to 5727.87.)

With H.B. 66 in 2005 (revised with H.B. 530 and S.B. 321 in 2006), the state is phasing out tangible property taxes on other businesses, and the property tax on qualifying fixed-sum levies is automatically increased by up to ½ mill, inclusive, to compensate local government units for the phased-out taxes on those businesses. State reimbursements for tax losses above ½ mill continue for levies that are in effect through 2017. Qualifying school district emergency levies include renewals through that time. Voted debt levies are reimbursed till they expire, regardless of when that is. (Details are located in ORC, 5751.20 to 5751.23.)

Questioning the legality of these non-voted, outside-millage add-on taxes, some people both in and out of government have voiced strong disapproval of them. Voters had not agreed to the extra millage when they originally voted for the emergency and debt levies. However, some legislators said that because the tangible property taxes would have been paid, it was all right to add non-voted taxes to fixed-sum levies.

The last tax to be addressed is the “replacement levy.” Because it is the most deceptive and confusing of all taxes, it is given separate treatment via Part 3.

Next: Part 5–The “place” where you raise your own taxes