In Kettering’s Ward 4, where I live, there is shaping up a very interesting race for City Council. Lisa Crosley is challenging Bruce Duke, the incumbent who has represented Ward 4 for 24 years. Mrs. Crosley is making specific proposals — including a gradual reduction of the city income tax from 2.25% to 1.5% — that, so far as I can tell, Mr. Duke has not yet responded to.

Kettering has four Wards. This is Ward 4

Today, I received a great campaign piece from Mrs. Crosley — a three color large envelop with printing outside (reproduced below). Inside contained a three color letter written on both sides.  In her letter — see PDF of one side here — Mrs. Crosley makes specific proposals to revitalize Kettering. Her eighth point states, “By implementing the above proposals, we will lower the cost of government, create new jobs, and stabilize our population. This will allow a gradual and responsible reduction in our City income tax from 2.25% to 1.5% — while maintaining excellent essential public services.”

Each proposal is explained with several sentences, ending with a summary statement:

1. Cut excessive council salaries — “Leadership starts at the top.”
2. Stop out-of-control spending — “Better Stewardship is needed.”
3. Implement term limits — “I strongly support term limits for council and mayor.”
4. Create Transparency and Accountability — “I support open government.”
5. Seek Collaboration — “I support creative cost-cutting.”
6. Review Ordinances, Regulations — “I support a business-friendly Kettering.”
7. Bolster Economic Development — “I support a vibrant private sector.”
8. Reduce Taxes — “I support responsible tax reform.”

I am going to ask Mr. Duke to respond to these eight proposals, and I will post his response here.

On her web-site, Mrs. Crosley explains what motivated her to run. She writes it struck her as “distinctly un-American” that Mr. Duke was running unopposed.  She writes, “Voters should have clear choices.  That is the American way. …  I believe that 24 years is long enough for any incumbent to serve.  I believe it is time for New Leadership…and New Vision.  I believe in citizen representation, and that local government must run like a business, not a political organization.”

Mrs. Crosley writes, “I believe government at all levels has become too big,  is trying to solve problems it is not equipped to solve, and has assumed responsibilities better left to individuals and the private sector.  Government is, too often, the problem, not the solution.  In today’s troubled economic climate, we must commit to rational discussions on the role of government and the services it can reasonably be expected to provide.  Government must cut costs to meet its income, not expect its citizens to bear increasing tax burdens.”

Mr. Duke’s web-site shows that is has the support of The Mayor of Kettering, Don Patterson; The Vice Mayor of Kettering, Tony Klepacz; Councilwoman, Amy Schrimpf; Former Congressman, Tony Hall; and the Kettering Professional Firefighters, IAFF 2150.

His web-site shows a list of accomplishments he is proud of in his 24 years of service on the City Council.

Great looking campaign material from Lisa Crosley. This is the outside of the envelope delivered to my home today.

Incumbent Council Member, Bruce Duke, earlier this week distributed a great looking large card. On the other side is his picture and more information.

Yesterday was the deadline for local candidates to file their finance reports with the Montgomery County Board of Elections. An article in today’s DDN revealed that, for the first time, these reports have been posted at the BOE web-site in PDF form.

Candidates are required to file this initial finance report, only if they have raised $1000 or more in contributions. In Kettering’s City Council races, six candidates filed.

Ward One

This seems to be the hottest race, with three impressive candidates vying for the open council seat.

• David Brown: 9 contributors gave him a total of $4975. His major contributions were $1000 from John Staten, Chairman of O’Neil & Associates; $1000 from Dennis Quebe, President of Quebe Holdings; and $1000 from Harold Rieck of Rieck Services. See PDF.
• Rob Scott: 20 contributors gave him a total of $2,475. His biggest contribution was $500 from The Realtors Political Action Committee CP40. See PDF
• Nolan Thomas: 125 contributors gave him a total of $7530. His biggest contribution was  $500 from The Realtors Political Action Committee.  See PDF

Ward Two

Bruce Duke is the incumbent and has served on the City Council for about 25 years and has been an exemplary member of the Council. In this race he would have to be seen as the favorite. But, he has a very sharp challenger in Lisa Crosley who, at the LWV forum, I thought, was very impressive in her presentation. I wish I had video taped that event.

• Lisa Crosley: 11 contributors gave her a total of $6648. Her biggests contributions came from Joshua Crosley for a total of $4000 and from herself for $1550. See PDF
• Bruce Duke: 1 contributor for a total of $4020. Mr. Duke’s report shows that his campaign is totally self-financed. See PDF
  

  Ward Three

The incumbent is Joseph Wanamaker.

• Mike Brandt reports contributions of $1651. His biggest contributors: $400 from himself, $250 from Ashley Webb and $250 from Doug Arnold. See PDF
• Joseph Wanamaker, the incumbent, did not file a finance report.

Kettering Board of Education

There are four candidates competing for two positions on the the Kettering Board of Education.  The two incumbents, Lori Simms and Jim Trent, both are seeking reelection and are being challenged by Jim Ambrose and Frank Spolrich.

Jim Ambrose is the only Kettering Board candidate who filed a finance report — showing nine contributors and total contributions of $2175. His largest contribution was for $1000 from the Kettering Education Association. See PDF

The distribution of wealth in our society is becoming ever more disproportionally distributed. A new report released the Congressional Budget Office shows that changes in government policies has caused an even bigger proportion of new income to be distributed to the already wealthy.

The report — “Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007” — gives the good news is that 1979 to 2007 the income of American households, on average, adjusted for inflation increased by 62%. It shows some interesting graphs as to how this new wealth has been divided:

The graph (above) shows that the top 1% of income earners saw their incomes increase by 275%. The bulk of income earners — the 60% in the middle — saw increases of about 40%. and the lowest incomes saw increases of only 18%

Market share (figure 2 above) is defined as “income measured before government transfers and taxes” and those already wealthy had the biggest increases in market share. The highest income quintile’s share of market income increased from 50 percent to 60 percent. The change in the top 1% was the most dramatic, more than doubling — from 10% to 20%.

This third chart shows that government policies was a major reason why the big increases in wealth were distributed to favor the wealthy.

The report notes,

“Although an increasing concentration of market income was the primary force behind growing inequality in the distribution of after-tax household income, shifts in government transfers (cash payments to individuals and estimates of the value of in-kind benefits) and federal taxes also contributed to that increase in inequality.” …

The size of transfer payments — as measured in the study — rose by a small amount between 1979 and 2007. The distribution of transfers shifted, however, moving away from households in the lower part of the income scale. In 1979, households in the bottom quintile received more than 50 percent of transfer payments. In 2007, similar households received about 35 percent of transfers.

Likewise, the equalizing effect of federal taxes depends on both the amount of federal taxes relative to income (the average tax rate) and the distribution of taxes among households at different income levels. Over the 1979– 2007 period, the overall average federal tax rate fell by a small amount, the composition of federal revenues shifted away from progressive income taxes to less progressive payroll taxes, and income taxes became slightly more concentrated at the higher end of the income scale. The effect of the first two factors outweighed the effect of the third, reducing the extent to which taxes lessened the dispersion of household income.

As a result of those changes, the share of household income after transfers and federal taxes going to the highest income quintile grew from 43 percent in 1979 to 53 percent in 2007 (see Summary Figure 3). The share of after-tax household income for the 1 percent of the population with the highest income more than doubled, climbing from nearly 8 percent in 1979 to 17 percent in 2007.

The population in the lowest income quintile received about 7 percent of after-tax income in 1979; by 2007, their share of after-tax income had fallen to about 5 percent. The middle three income quintiles all saw their shares of after-tax income decline by 2 to 3 percentage points between 1979 and 2007.