The City County Observer would like to make this extensive study on municipal broadband complete with financial results available to our readers. It is a whopping 211 pages but reads quicker than most documents of that length. Here are a couple of excerpts from the conclusions to pique your interests.

Excerpts:

“The problem with the municipal broadband “storyline” is that most of the accounts and analyses are generally superficial and cannot be evaluated because of the absence of data. The reality is far too complex to be distilled in a few points captured in a headline or article. Further, journalists frequently do not have the space or the background to examine the data in a constructive manner. So, the public is left with analyzing “spin” based on quotes from opposing parties that, more often than not, summarily dismiss the other viewpoint on the basis of who sponsored the study.”

“The financial performance of municipal fiber operations has generally been poor. Over the last decade, municipal communications operations have posted a financial record that was, at best inconclusive, and most often disappointing. While some communities highlight positive social accomplishments, the financial performance has fallen short in terms of penetration, revenues, net profitability and return on investment. In some or many instances, the projected “policy” goals have been supplanted by new policy problems in terms of cross-subsidizations and increased utility rates.”

“While some municipalities such as Cedar Falls, IA, provide some detail about most key items, many municipalities fail to supply information that is needed to perform a sufficient financial analysis.”

“The financial case for municipal fiber is difficult to justify if the municipality owns no other utility assets, as the investment costs appear very high at this time. The financial case for fiber based on the municipality’s utility assets is not as clear as many utilities suggest, and the historical data highlight those financial risks. The overwhelming majority of municipalities offering commercial fiber services are reporting operating losses, and virtually all the municipalities evaluated by the authors of this study appear to have operations that will prove to be negative in terms of net present value. The communities may believe that they derive other benefits from those operations, but the negative valuation suggests that there are subsidizations borne by the ratepayers or taxpayers. Those subsidies should be understood and should be explicit commitments by the general citizenry.”

Municipal Broadband–Digging Beneath the Surface

A bankruptcy judge on Wednesday tossed out Harrisburg’s Chapter 9 bankruptcy case, putting Pennsylvania’s capital on the path to mitigate its financial malaise under the state’s guidance.

Judge Mary France of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Harrisburg ruled that the Harrisburg City Council did not have the authority to place the city of roughly 49,000 residents under bankruptcy protection. The Chapter 9 petition was filed on Oct. 11.

“For Chapter 9 bankruptcy to work, all of the branches of a municipality must be on the same page,” Judge France said at a court hearing Wednesday afternoon.

State leaders, bondholders and even the city’s Mayor argued for the case to be thrown out of court, saying it violated the state’s rules laid out for financially struggling cities.

Harrisburg faces roughly $300 million in growing debt from a financially failed incinerator project that was meant to turn the city’s waste into energy.

This action allows the State of Pennsylvania to move forward on its takeover of the city’s finances. Late last week, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, directed a state agency to ask a state judge to appoint bond attorney David Unkovic as the city’s receiver—a step that would put the finances of the city under his control.

All states are required to lay out rules for municipalities to file for bankruptcy. Nearly half of U.S. states either prohibit or don’t expressively authorize local municipalities to file Chapter 9. Many other states set limits on municipal-bankruptcy filings.

Sheriff tips to keep your vehicle safe

Who Needs a Do Nothing Stupor Committee
11/22/2011 12:44 PM PST Palm Springs, CA

We are now more than $500,000,000,000.00 in debt than we were 4 short months ago…

For anyone who hasn’t been watching the news lately, this might come as a surprise, but our Federal Government is approximately $15,000,000,000,000.00 that’s 15 TRILLION dollars.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Now we can point our fingers and blame this party or that party, this President or that President, this “class” or that “class”…all of which does nothing to the $15,000,000,000,000.00 that’s 15 TRILLION dollars of debt that we find our Federal Government in.

We can talk about ways to fix the problem, some say tax the rich, tax the oil companies…tax anything and everything some people think that’s the cure. Others say cut spending, cut spending to subsidies, cut spending to foreign aid, cut spending to Social Security and Medicare (something has to be done with these programs before they implode).

I’ve seen many say that we should go back to the higher tax rates under Clinton (even he says it’s a bad idea) or Reagan. Now let’s not just breeze over this suggestion, let’s take it for a stroll shall we?

Under Reagan (Jan 20 1981 to Jan 20 1989) the highest marginal tax rate was 50% for five years before dropping to 38.5% for a years and 28% in the final years of his Administration. Under Clinton (Jan 20 1993 to Jan 20 2001) the highest marginal tax rate went from 39.6% in for the first seven years, then dropped to 38.6% in his final year in office. For the sake of argument we will drop the first year from each Presidents term since it basically was carry over from the previous administration, we will do the same a little later…

Our current highest marginal tax rate is 35%.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

Now here is where it gets tricky…I, as a conservative and taxpayer have a hard time dealing with a tax increase, it just doesn’t sit right with me. However, I suggest that we listen to those who want to revert back to the historical tax rates under Presidents Reagan and Clinton. Obviously going to the 1981 rate of 69.13% carry over from the Carter years needs to be taken out of the equation, but quick math gives us a rough average of 41%, 6 % higher than our current rate. I’ll bite, unfortunately I’m not currently in the highest marginal tax rate so it won’t bother me as much as the high earners.

Yes, I just agreed to raise taxes…shocking for most I’m sure, devastating for others, and sweet sweet music to the ears of others.

But…yes there is always a but…

Let’s also go back to the spending under these two Presidents. That’s right we raise taxes, AND cut spending.

Spending under President Reagan ranged from roughly $745,700,000,000.00 in 1982 (first full year in office) to $1,143,800,000,000.00 in 1989. Spending under President Clinton ranged from roughly $1,461,900,000,000.00 in 1994 (first full year in office) to $1,863,200,000,000.00 in 2001. The average Federal spending under Presidents Reagan and Clinton works out to $1,293,875,000,000.00.

In 2008 Federal spending was roughly $2,982,500,000,000.00, 2009 was roughly $3,500,000,000,000.00, 2010 was roughly $3,500,000,000,000.00, and 2011 will be roughly $3,800,000,000,000.00. The Federal spending average for the last 4 years is roughly $3,445,600,000,000.00 or roughly $2,151,725,000,000.00 more than and nearly TWICE that of the average annual spending seen under Presidents Reagan and Clinton combined.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

The way I figure it, if we raise taxes to the average of the Reagan and Clinton years while spending levels during those same years are followed we will save trillions per year and payoff our National Debt in a less than seven years time. Of course that assumes that my plan doesn’t create a massive surplus which would quicken the pace and restore the economy to the wonder years seen under former Presidents, perhaps even surpassing those years. Then, once we are debt free we can cut taxes knowing that our future as a Country is secure and maybe even increase spending in a responsible manner.

Source: Mydesert.com (Palm Springs Desert Sun Comment Section)