24thState

White House Startup Initiative Doomed To Fail Because Startups Aren't The Answer

Time was that being a business owner was a swell thing.  You ran a company, employed workers, joined your local chamber and gave money to local philanthropies.  It felt good, and people looked up to you.  Today, that's not exactly the case.

While it's true that most politicians make kissy faces at small business owners, the "job-creating engines of the economy," they also do everything in their power to make the risk of owning a business unacceptable.

Don't be fooled by the Startup Initiative just released by the WhiteHouse.  Buried at the bottom in the last bullet-point is the real focus of the piece - campaign literature for states that Obama needs to carry in 2012 to be re-elected.

• Foster innovation and entrepreneurship in states and regions such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, and New Orleans

I'm sorry, but taking someone from AOL to teach small business start-ups?  That's typical of Washington thinking.

What can actually be done to boost small business job creation?  Very little by this president. We are facing major structural and attitudinal changes in the way we approach the economy, and a president that falsely accuses doctors of cutting off feet for profit, tells bankers that he is holding back mobs with pitchforks, and supports people like Van Jones who preach "social justice" as everyone having the same economic outcome just doesn't get it.

Small businesses are not start-ups.  There's a huge difference in what you're trying to achieve.  At issue is the very definition of a start-up and what people want from it. Start-ups are generally seen as a vehicle for quick money, rather than as a drive to improve a marketplace or improve a community. While there is nothing wrong with making money, those who make fast money building and selling a company emerge as different players than those who spend a lifetime or generations building a company.  That has a big effect on the next wave of entrepreneurs. Who wants to dig in and work 70 hours for 30 years when you can bust your hump for 5 years and walk out rich with plenty of leisure time? Of course, for most, this doesn't happen, but the dream is more powerful than the reality.

A tech company is a lot more exciting than a janitorial supply company. Which do you think has a higher success rate in creating millionaires?

The quick money paradox didn't just happen - it was also a reaction to decades of new regulations from all levels of government. Trying to build and run a company is hard work, and we've made it harder with paperwork and laws that on one hand are aimed at "fair" labor practices, but in reality make it not worth it to build a company over a long period of time.

It's the modern dilemma. Laws designed to prevent exploitation of the lower and middle class choke off the jobs that employ the lower and middle class. In our effort to be fair and just, we've simply not made it worth it for tens of thousands of highly qualified people to take the risk of starting a business.

I recently had a lengthy conversation with a friend of mine whose college roommate moved overseas to start a business.  The roommate was a mid-level worker, nothing much to see in his job.  1 year later, he's banking $2 million a quarter in a fresh business in Southeast Asia.  Now that's clearly an outlier, and earning that kind of money in the nation he's in has other problems (like warlords, crime bosses, and revolutions where they burn everything you own).  I also imagine he doesn't treat his workers that well.  But at least he has workers.  Surely there is some middle ground between no law, and laws that so utterly crush the entrepreneurial spirit that our best and brightest simply stop hiring?

We saw this in 2008, as businesses shed millions of workers in preparation for belt-tightening. What happened to the small businesses? Many laid off every worker and focused on a smaller, but more profitable book of business. What they found should terrify us. They found they could make more money working less hours, and without the hassle of employment.

Today, I know many, many talented people who have multiple streams of income from consulting to small websites, but who employ only a part-time accountant. They're happier, make more than they ever did, and while they have a tinge of guilt for their past employees, don't see a reason to risk their comfortable lives. The problem, of course, is that this leaves a lot of people without jobs, and creates a class of people who have been taught by experience that there is no gratitude from the community for being employers. When you complain that corporations and businessmen are all evil and greedy, it should come as no surprise that people stop putting themselves inside those targets.

When small businesses get tax breaks for selling out early (capital gains), but are penalized with legal compliance and workplace restrictions for staying in the game, what do you think you are going to get?

I want to stress that this is not just a federal government problem.  State and local paperwork play a role as well.  It's not that this paperwork is all worthless, it's that there is too much to do, and too much risk, and ultimately, too many barriers.  A worker protected from all risks will always, always end as an unemployed worker. 

We don't need investment.  Or coaching.  Or targeted tax cuts.  Or even capital gains cuts  What we need is a smaller system that punishes bad actors, tort reform that works, and a renewed commitment to lifting up the good business owners as the backbone of the country.

What we truly need is for all levels of government to shrink back into their constitutionally-prescribed roles, and let Americans achieve again.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

      — Robert Heinlein

 

Local Control: Politics, Not Principles

Many proponents of local control have been couching the debate in the rhetoric of the tea party movement.  The problem with rhetoric is that none of us buy into whatever our leaders tell us these days.  We do our own research and we frame the debate in our renewed understanding of American constitutional governance.  The following is what I have found.

The smallest political subdivision within the Constitution is a state.  People are the source of power for the political subdivisions and embody the concept of rights which run contrary to powers.  The Constitution left decisions of internal structures for states up to the states, with the exception that all new states had to first submit a constitutional structure to Congress for admittance to the Union.  This has been a boon for liberty, as each state can experiment with various republican forms of government.  Nebraska has a unicameral legislature and the Texas legislature meets every other year.

States cannot run wild, though.  Article IV Sec. 4 of the Constitution guarantees a republican form of government from the states.  However, this has generally been a nonjusticiable political question, or rather the courts have decided not to hear these matters.  If the public feels a state is not providing a republican form of government they must appeal to Congress.  (Note that the guarantee is for a republican form of government, and not a democratic form.  Our state allows for a democratic form through the referendum process, which may or may not be a good thing.)

Now proponents have not made a claim that the state is violating the republican form of government because no appeal has been filed to Congress.  Furthermore, the referendum process is available if proponents feel our republican government has somehow violated the public trust.  So we can conclude that the local control debate is not grounded in any violation of the Constitution.

If the debate is grounded in a violation of the state constitution, proponents have failed to identify the provisions.  My reading of the state constitution provides no instance where the current structure of control over the police might be unconstitutional.  Additionally, there does not seem to be any issue wih the constitutionality of the relevant statutes.  Proponents have not felt the need to appeal to our state courts in this issue. 

In fact, the City of St. Louis has lost a case regarding control over the fire department pension.  The city may not have been covering its obligations to the pension while it was fighting the issue out in the courts.  Perhaps the city obligation to the fire department is so high now (a point Mr. Rainford has consistently noted) because the city failed in its past obligations. 

At any rate, there does not appear to be any grounding by proponents in state constitutional or statutory principles.

Proponents argue the present system amounts to an unaccountable police force because the Governor controls appointments to the Police Board.  In fact, one proponent went so far as to compare this relationship to that of Blackwater, the private security firm (probably more like mercenaries).  He claims he only meant that in regards to the Governor, but any thinking individual can see what that comparison was meant to convey. The real problem with this argument, though, lies in the fact that the Governor does not have unlimited control over those appointments.  Each member of the Board must be a resident of the City of St. Louis for a number of years, and one of those members is the Mayor of St. Louis.  I am certain proponents do not mean to disparage the present Board; especially because the Mayor is one of those proponents.

What would a change to local control entail?  Well, under the City Charter the Board would be replaced by a Police Commissioner.  The Police Commissioner would act under the Director of Public Safety.  The Director of Public Safety acts under the Mayor.  The Director of Public Safety is not an elected official.  The Charter is not entirely clear on the selection of the Police Commissioner, though he (or she) may be removed by the Mayor for cause.  This is rather meaningless because the Director of Public Safety (an unelected official) may remove the Police Commissioner "with or without cause."

Even if we were to belive concentrating control in the Mayor were a good thing, it does not guarantee more accountability to the public.  St. Louis operates under one-party rule.  The last mayor not annointed by the Democrat Political Machine was in the 1940s.  Electoral accountability of the police is a farce under one-party rule.  So why are proponents harping on this point? 

What is really at stake is political power.  Local control means the Mayor has unfettered control over the police, and if we believe one proponent, the police become the Mayor's personal Blackwater brigade.  The Police Commissioner becomes the fall-guy when things go wrong, and the Mayor takes credit when things go right.  And while proponents state that corruption does not exist within the St. Louis Political Machine (heh), if corruption were to be investigated the city need only fire the Police Commissioner.

Another political issue that proponents want to avoid is the idea that the city just wants control over the well-run police pension.  Sound fiscal management has allowed for a large police pension.  The city claims it does not need control of that pension in Jefferson City and other proponents claim it will be safe.  The problem with this is the fact that the city has been actively fighting for control over the fire pension.  Are we to believe that the city will leave the police pension alone when it fights tooth and nail for the fire pension?

What is happening is proponents have been trying to co-opt the rhetoric of the tea party movement and to capitalize on the anti-government mood in the public.  We have already established that there are no constitutional or statutory principles at play here.  Empowering the people can be thrown out the window when we realize that St. Louis is run by a Democrat Political Machine that only differs from Chicago in size, not scope.  Vilifying the police and fire associations as bloated public unions fails when one realizes that neither has the ability to strike or binding arbitration and both have a commitment to public service that precludes work slowdowns like the "blue flu". Cutting fire and police protection should be the last thing a city does to make ends meet.

As a final note, those in St. Louis County that think this has no bearing on your lives, do not forget that there has been much talk of a city/county merger. 

All I really ask is for people to look past the rhetoric to understand that the issue of local control hinges on political power, not governing principles.  There is no inconsistency in tea party opposition.  There is no inconsistency in my opposition.  I believe local control is a bad idea.

Who Polices the Police?

Mayor Slay's Chief of Staff, Jeff Rainford has written that Tea Party opposition to the local control legislation pending in Jefferson City is puzzling. Thanks again to Mr. Rainford for engaging in the debate. Now let's look at the three arguments that he raises:

First, the Tea Party used to be against “taxation without representation.”   Now, they are for it.

Here’s what I mean. 

They call themselves the Tea Party as a connection to the Boston Tea Party. As we all learned in the fourth grade, the colonists threw tea into the Boston Harbor to protest taxes on tea levied by a faraway king, and the fact that they had little say in the matter. Thus, the modern Tea Party started out being against taxation without representation.

...

Second, the Tea Party used to be for less expensive government.

The third reason is the most puzzling. The Tea Party used to be against bailouts. It was against the Wall Street bailouts, the auto company bailouts, and the mortgage bailouts.  

It appears that Mr. Rainford's studies of the American Revolution were concluded in elementary school for otherwise he would have learned that American colonists of that time literally did not have representatives in the British government. In our time, not only do the residents of St. Louis have representatives in Jefferson City where this legislation is pending, but they also have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances."

That right proved important in the 1930's after Kansas City had been granted local control. As I blogged last week, KC had local control from 1932 when the legislature granted it until 1939 when the state revoked it because of the abuses of the Pendergast political machine.

And this is the heart of the matter. Yes, the Tea Party would like minimal taxes and spending, but not at the expense of other liberties or principals. The pro-local control argument is a compromise on a core principal: balance of power. Good governance thrives when there are checks and balances in place to assure that the authority of any one governing entity does not overwhelm the others; however, the legislation pending in Jefferson City will strike the existing state statute thus establishing local control. The Police Department will revert to the structure established in the St. Louis city charter. The five member police board will go away. The Director of Public Safety who currently oversees the fire department, EMS, corrections, etc. would have oversight of the Police Department.

Because the Director of Public Safety serves at the discretion of the Mayor, Mayoral authority loses the structural check that state oversight now provides. In most Missouri municipalities, an outside check on that power is provided at the county level. That's not the case in St. Louis because in the late 1800's (I think 1877, certainly after state control was established), the city of St. Louis left the county. Returning local control at this time effectively removes any outside check on the Mayor's police powers. In other words, what the Mayor, Mr. Rainford, and their Rex Sinquefield backed lobbyists in Jefferson City are arguing is to have the fox guard the hen house. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I have to take exception with Mr. Rainford's assertion that "[the St. Louis Tea Party] is willing to live with the possibility of a state bailout of the City of St. Louis." Not at all! We expect prudent fiscal management and that the city will honor the contracts it has signed. But, I had to chuckle when I read that line because of what it implies.

One complaint of police officers is that the city wants control of the department so that St. Louis can balance its budget on the back of the officer's fully funded pension plan. Mayor Slay testified in Jeff City that St. Louis would not do that; however, the implication of Mr. Rainford's words is that police officer concerns about their pension plan are well founded. With tells like that, the St. Louis Tea Party should host some high-stakes poker games with Mr. Rainford so that we can get some of our tax dollars back!

I'm puzzled by other things Mr. Rainford writes. For instance, he asserts that the "the state controls the St. Louis Police Department from Jefferson City." Really? Operational control of the force resides with Chief Isom. I doubt he lives and works in Jefferson City. Oversight of the force is provided by the five member police board. I believe Mr. Rainford was alluding to the fact that four of the five board members are appointed by the Governor; however, that omits a couple pertinent facts: 1) the Mayor of St. Louis is on the board; and, second, the four members appointed by the Governor must be residents of the city. In what sense does the state control the PD from Jefferson City?

Mr. Rainford closes his article this way:

Some political analysts predicted the Tea Party would get co-opted, would stray from its principles, and eventually fade away. They predicted that the Tea Party would compromise its principles for political gain. Even though I do not agree with many of the Tea Party beliefs, I thought they would stick to their guns even when it was hard.  I thought they would take principled stands even when it was not in their own personal or political best interests. I thought they were different. I guess they're not.

I had to chuckle at that. Mr. Rainford's remarks indicate to me that he takes a simplistic view of the Tea Party movement, a view which denies the complexity of the world in which we live. The irony of course, is that Republican legislators and well lubricated lobbyists have been co-opted by Rex Sinquefield. While Mr. Rainford laughably suggests that the Tea Party is straying from its principals, I'd like to applaud him for standing by his. He obviously recognizes the efficiency of unfettered police power and makes a forceful argument for legally curtailing any checks on it. Convinced that the use of force will be in the hands of the right people, he dismisses potential abuses in full knowledge that he and other members of the Democrat monopoly of St. Louis city stand to gain.

In 1934, two years after Kansas City obtained local control, the AP reported on election-day violence: "Big Tom Pendergast's Democratic machine rode to overwhelming victory today after a blood-stained election marked by four killings, scores of sluggings and machine gun terrorism." That's what unchecked police power looks like in the wrong hands. We can't guarantee that honest people will always be in positions of power; therefore, we must check the power of the offices which they hold. Perhaps, in so doing we will also help to keep them honest.

Editor's Response: Tea Party Represents More Than Taxes

I've not been as involved in the local control debates between the St Louis Fire Department and Metropolitan Police Department, to be honest, while they seem like interesting and important discussions, other Tea Party members have taken up the issue based on their experience.

Mayor Slay's Chief of Staff, Jeff Rainford, has been posting guest editorials here on 24thstate in a response to some of those editorials, and yesterday he sent me the piece just published on the Tea Party failing to stick to its principles in the matter.  

The column pulls no punches, and calls out the St Louis Tea Party Coalition for failing to support local control, for failing to support taxation without representation, and for supporting a future state bailout should the city go bankrupt.  It's pretty hard-hitting, and I fully expect those of you involved in the effort to respond.  For my part, I published it because if it's wrong, then we should be able to eviscerate the logic. If it's right, then we need to pause and take a look at why we don't support local control.  While I personally have no doubt that Mr. Rainford is incorrect in his assumptions about our principles, we do need to sharpen our arguments and our abilities.  This is a perfect time to do so. 

As to the choice to publish - it's simple.  The Republic, and the State of Missouri, can not survive without the robust exchange of ideas.  There are those we can argue with, indeed those we must argue with to win the debate of ideas in the public's eye.  Mayor Slay and Jeff Rainford are two of them.  Jay Nixon and Claire McCaskill are two others we will face in 2012.  Jeff Smith when he was running.  Jolie Justus.  ShowMeProgress bloggers when they're actually digging into an issue and not letting their emotions run wild.   These are politicians and political foes who must be confronted and their actions debated for merit.  

Have at it.

Jeff Rainford: Tea Party Opposition to Local Control Is Puzzling

The following is a guest editorial from Jeff Rainford, Chief of Staff to Mayor Slay in St Louis. The post is unedited.

The Tea Party has come out against local control of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department. That is puzzling for three reasons.  

First, the Tea Party used to be against “taxation without representation.”   Now, they are for it.

Here’s what I mean.

They call themselves the Tea Party as a connection to the Boston Tea Party. As we all learned in the fourth grade, the colonists threw tea into the Boston Harbor to protest taxes on tea levied by a faraway king, and the fact that they had little say in the matter. Thus, the modern Tea Party started out being against taxation without representation.

But, they apparently have changed their tune. The state controls the St. Louis Police Department from Jefferson City. But, the people of St. Louis pay the taxes. We are taxed, but have little say over how the taxes are spent. The Tea Party supports that arrangement. So, now it is for taxation without representation.

Second, the Tea Party used to be for less expensive government. It is very hard for government to reduce its costs when someone else controls a third of its budget.  (In the last ten years, the mayor’s office budget has gone down by 7%, while the police department budget has gone up by more than 35%.) It is also true that someone else spends your money a lot less carefully than you would. So, if the Tea Party wants more expansive government, they should support state control. If they want less government, they should support local control.

The third reason is the most puzzling. The Tea Party used to be against bailouts. It was against the Wall Street bailouts, the auto company bailouts, and the mortgage bailouts.

But, apparently, it is willing to live with the possibility of a state bailout of the City of St. Louis. Because the police department is a state agency, it is likely that if the City of St. Louis were to become insolvent, the state would have to bail out the city.

Under the law, if you own it and control it, you are responsible for it. The state owns and controls the police department. So, it is legally responsible for it. By our calculation, the City could be eligible for a state bailout of up to $100-million to cover costs in the state-controlled police department.

I expect the Tea Party to respond to this piece by contorting the facts to make them appear to comply with their principles. There are two descriptive phrases for that:  intellectual dishonesty and politics as usual.

Some political analysts predicted the Tea Party would get co-opted, would stray from its principles, and eventually fade away. They predicted that the Tea Party would compromise its principles for political gain. Even though I do not agree with many of the Tea Party beliefs, I thought they would stick to their guns even when it was hard.  I thought they would take principled stands even when it was not in their own personal or political best interests. I thought they were different. I guess they're not.

Why We Hate Politicians: Breaking A CFL Bulb In The House.

My wife dropped a CFL bulb in the laundry room a little while ago.  These bulbs are now the only kind you'll be able to buy because Congress decided and (George Bush signed) an idiotic, poorly thought out do-gooder law of 822 pages to save the planet.

My house is now a mercury death trap. Thanks, Congress  Not content to ruin the country at every level, they created major health hazards from frickin lightbulbs.  You're not allowed to smoke anywhere, but they'll force you to buy mercury death bulbs. And if you don't bother to clean it up correctly?  Fines and probable criminal charges for failure to dispose of hazardous material.

Here's the ridiculous clean-up procedure, which includes the use of sealed metal jars, a drive to a recycling center so I don't contaminate sewage with mercury, and did I mention that you need to be on your hands and needs with duct tape and damp paper towels?

Only Congress would save the planet by passing an 822 page law that turned your homes into a death trap.  And these people wanted to run our healthcare? I wonder if the ARRA covered mercury poisoning.  

 

Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:

1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

• Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
• Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
• Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces 

• Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.
• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
• Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

Springfield Schools Have A Revolutionary Plan To Save Money: Teach Less

Springfield Schools have a radical plan to save money in the next school year: teach less!

A committee proposes 30 fewer hours for students to be in classes next year in the Springfield School District.  The proposal for the 2011-12 calendar that was released on Thursday also includes three Fridays and one Wednesday when school would not be in session but teachers would still have to work for "professional learning, data analysis and other required work."

The district's release says:

Proposed revisions to the 2011-2012 calendar will reduce the number of early release days, increase flexibility for teachers and staff to participate in professional development and save about $400,000. With input from the district's calendar committee, comprised of staff, teachers, parents and community members, this revised calendar was developed and will be presented to the school board for initial review Feb. 1 and for final approval Feb. 15.

A recent state statute change provides additional flexibility for local school districts to develop school calendars as long as the school district maintains a minimum of 1,044 student contact hours.

The district's current calendar provides 1,090 student contact hours. No additional funding is earned for hours in excess of 1,044 that students attend. 

Well, then, so long as it meets all of the state's considerations for funding.  That's what's important.

Now, I understand that they save money running buses and save money not having to fully staff the school for those extra days off.  But does this cut best serve the needs of the students?  That should be the question.

Palin Appearance at Washington University Cancelled

Not Sarah Palin, but any Palin is unsavory to the academic crowd and to the young-turk-trying-to-impress-academics crowd.

Bristol Palin was supposed to come to Washington University for Sexual Responsibility Week to talk about abstinence.  But the students who are paying $40,000 annually (or are having something like that paid on their behalf) to attend the university have gotten the appearance cancelled, allegedly because it was too expensive:

Thug-ocracy

For 13 years I have been involved in the legislative process in Jefferson City representing the St. Louis Police Association and have never witnessed the arm twisting I experienced in the capital on Wednesday. The City contingent responded with about 50 people and displayed a total lack of class. City and State legislators were wearing bumper stickers on their clothing touting city control.

Three (3) female state representatives called me into their office and amazingly related identical stories that a group of St. Louis City representatives entered their office and demanded their support for city control. They were all threatened that if they voted for state control they would face primary opponents in their next election financed by Rex Sinquefield. I was told by another state Representative that when he assured a policeman in the hall outside the House Chambers that he supported continued state control, 7th Ward Committeeman Brian Wahby was standing nearby and he stated “You won’t be around after your next Primary.”

Republican representatives also advised that they were being strong armed by Speaker of the House Steve Tilley and republican leadership in what can only be described a "house for sale". Rex Sinquefield donated money to Tilley and he spread that around to republican house candidates and now expects pay backs in the form of compliance with Republican leadership. Republicans are flip flopping on this issue with a mantra of local government equals less government.

The city politics are rife with influence of Rex Sinquefield’s money and now the city is infecting the rest of the state with our St. Louis style of politics I describe as a thug-ocracy. These are the same people who want to run our police department, control our pension and manage our budget.

St. Louis Police Pension: A Pot of Gold

The St. Louis Police Retirement Fund has over $600 million in assets. That amount of money is like a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for a cash strapped city. Similar to a company that is purchased during a hostile takeover with their own assets, a large amount of savings makes the retirement fund susceptible to theft by politicians. 1st Ward Alderman Quincy Troupe has announced publicly his designs on our pension money to finance the city’s financial woes (video below).

Every time Mayor Slay says the police pension costs are bankrupting the city, he lumps the police pension with the other less lucrative city pension systems and omits facts that undermine his statement. For fourteen (14) years during the bull stock market the city contribution to the Police retirement fund was ZERO. During the stock market crash of 2008, the pension fund lost $200 million and the mayor cried poor in the media.

Let me explain in laymans terms how the St. Louis police Retirement fund works. The fund has what I call a base principle with bond and stock returns paying for a retired officer’s stipend. Any investment money remaining after meeting retiree’s financial obligations becomes new base principle. This guarantees the systems financial viability. The base principle was lowered 200 million in 2008; therefore, it did not cost the taxpayer any money.

The drawback was lower interest and lower stock sales returns causing for the first time the city to contribute to the pension fund. Mayor Slay disobeyed state law and refused to meet his financial obligations for 3 years. The mayor only paid into the fund at the order of the Missouri Supreme Court. This system of an adjusted base principle guarantees a well funded system and the city tax payer's money is a backup to a depressed market.

All officers contribute 7 % of salary to the pension fund. Officers do not pay into social security and are not entitled to social security benefits. The pension fund is their only safety net at retirement. This year the return on investment was 10 % and not a drain on city coffers.

I challenge social security or any other pension fund in the country to have these returns and still protect the taxpayer. The mayor needs to stop demonizing the Police Pension Fund and scaring the citizens of St. Louis.