I'll be impressed if Kasich is re-elected in 4 years.

Anybody else just get the "send us your resume" email from Team Kasich?

^Oh my god, yes!  I guess they didn't read my email :(

hahahah ye

^Oh my god, yes! I guess they didn't read my email :(

 

 

hhahahhahah and they didnt read mine either.

Yeah... this is comical.  I guess you could send him an email telling him what a douche he is and he would respond with a "We want you to think about joining our team"

The resume email also had a link to their idea-solicitation web site: http://www.fixohionow.com/node/add/ideas

 

I just suggested: "How about using federal money to re-establish passenger rail service between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati?"

The resume email also had a link to their idea-solicitation web site: http://www.fixohionow.com/node/add/ideas

 

I just suggested: "How about using federal money to re-establish passenger rail service between Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati?"

 

Right on.  I also found a link within that link to "Report Government Waste"...... I mentioned something about throwing away $400 million.

LOL! I got the same email! Of course, sadly, this just means that he didn't read my email....and that I've  been inducted into the Republican machine. Oh god...I feel the need to lower taxes for the rich already.

 

Must...tax....and spend!

Wow.  The Enquirer actually wrote a negative piece about Kasich. 

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101119/EDIT01/11210325/Kasich-can-t-privatize-the-public-s-right-to-know

In any public records case, the presumption is in favor of openness.  Kasich is going to lose this one.

 

  Saw Kasich on CNN last night talking about "A high speed train that goes 39 miles per hour."

Wow.  The Enquirer actually wrote a negative piece about Kasich. 

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101119/EDIT01/11210325/Kasich-can-t-privatize-the-public-s-right-to-know

 

Hmm... Lack of transparency in submitted resumes for Kasich jobs. What did I tell you naive Republicans about who he was going to actually look out for?

 

  Saw Kasich on CNN last night talking about "A high speed train that goes 39 miles per hour."

 

You saw him where?

GOP governors-to-be alike

Midwest leaders share philosophy, troubles, goals Sunday, November 21, 2010  03:03 AM

By Mark Niquette

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

John Kasich and Scott Walker have more in common than being incoming Republican governors of Midwestern states formerly led by Democrats.

 

Kasich, the governor-elect in Ohio, and Walker, who will take over in Wisconsin, have worked in the public and private sectors. They both promise to lower taxes, cut spending and reduce regulations to make their states more business-friendly.

 

Both have said after the election that their respective states now are "open for business," and they even talked during the campaign about successful residents of their states going to Naples, Fla., to escape high taxes.

 

And then there's passenger rail.

 

Full story at: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/11/21/copy/gop-governors-to-be-alike.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

"It's a boondoggle"...... "It's a boondoggle"..... that's all they ever say.  Sure, $400 billion is a bit much to spend on a boondoggle:

 

 

But the amount is well worth seeing a few of these in action every day:

 

He also referred to rail advocates as a cult. Looks like immaturity and ignorance go hand in hand. I've met high school students with more maturity than this guy and his adies. And since Ohio is one of the few developed places on the planet without passenger rail or a rail project underway, who is the cult?

Mere weeks after defeating incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland, the Kasich team has said it won't make the names or resumes of applicants for state jobs public - an outrageous nose-thumbing at well-established principles of openness and disclosure of public information.

 

I'm getting out of this state. I don't want one cent of my tax dollars going to this clown.

He also referred to rail advocates as a cult. Looks like immaturity and ignorance go hand in hand. I've met high school students with more maturity than this guy and his adies. And since Ohio is one of the few developed places on the planet without passenger rail or a rail project underway, who is the cult?

 

He's probably read some of the transportation threads here on UO!  Very cult like!

South Minneapolis keeps looking better and better.

He is driving me nuts (not enough to leave the state, though). If he is willing to take this crazy at the number of school districts and local gov'ts in the state, then fine by me. The state should have 88 school tax districts w/ local control in clusters of about six or less per county. No county should have more than 10 identifiable subdividable gov'ts w/in its bounds.

^While I understand what you are saying, those numbers seem relatively arbitrary, and they fly in the face of the historic right of people to incorporate.  Not terribly Burkean, if you follow.

 

Better to define the rules a little better to do what you are saying.  Nut up and have the state take formal control for funding education instead of these school districts.  You'd still want a certain manner of local or diffuse control when it comes to curricula or something, at the very least to avoid a Texas School Board inmates running the asylum situation, but direct state funding allows you to eliminate more districts since they won't be funded by local property taxes.

 

Second you could give municipal corporations more powers and consequently more responsibilities.  You could eliminate small local governments in a county be saying something like- if the combined total bill of a basket of services (water, garbage collection, etc.) is such and such percentage higher than those of all the others in your county, or the primary city, or whatever, a straight up majority vote for annexation between the two is allowed.

 

There are actually plenty of opportunities for what would normally be considered conservative or indirect authority policies in this state (and in the federal government for that matter).  But the Republican party isn't concerned with anything except tax cuts and beating Democrats in elections, so you aren't going to see anything interesting coming from these guys.

I agree a bit. To get to six or so municipalities in most Ohio counties would require either growing the size of the core municipality or eliminating most of the townships. I'd rather see county and city gov't w/ the intermediary of the township system. I could only support state-wide funding if we eliminated the public schools and went to universal vouchers for all students of equal value w/ zero subsidization beyond the cost of the voucher for each student.

^Then on what basis are you wanting to combine public schools?  You're basically saying that you don't want the state to subsidize independent special-purpose governments (public corporations) but rather the sate subsidize private corporations.  Zero subsidization beyond the subsidy is still a subsidy for the cost of the voucher.  So your policy favors private corporations over public corporations, with the net effect of eliminating universal primary and high school education.  That's terrible.  I don't even understand the potential social utility of doing this.

Well, I don't think schools should be profit seeking institutions, but if a city wanted to incorporate an institution to educate their children, great. If a church wants to do the same, great.

 

That is never going to happen, so I think taxation at the county level evens out many inequalities w/out sacrificing local control over spending levels.

 

If it crushes a public sector union, I'm in favor. Private sector unions are valuable parts of the economic system. Public sector unions exaggerate the tendency toward the worst kind of interest group politics (I'd include police and fire unions in this).

Well, I don't think schools should be profit seeking institutions, but if a city wanted to incorporate an institution to educate their children, great. If a church wants to do the same, great.

I really think you are ignoring the historical record here.  I strongly suspect that the locally incorporated communities began the drive to universal education, then states took over so that poor kids in countryside could have access as well.  I'm not sure how you can ethically compel people to put their kids in school and then not provide the school.  And you've still not really addressed why it's okay for private schools to be subsidized by a state issued voucher but not not schools that ostensibly have a certain amount of affection in a community or at least a convenience/time-saving factor.

 

That is never going to happen, so I think taxation at the county level evens out many inequalities w/out sacrificing local control over spending levels.

How on earth does ending state public education even out inequalities?

 

If it crushes a public sector union, I'm in favor. Private sector unions are valuable parts of the economic system. Public sector unions exaggerate the tendency toward the worst kind of interest group politics (I'd include police and fire unions in this).

It seems pretty misguided to sacrifice the education of numerous children simply to futilely attempt to destroy the right of citizens to incorporate/peaceably assemble/join a union whatever you want to call it.

 

Bottom line is that there is no country in the world that has universal education without the state providing it.  Vouchers are just the grade school equivalents of student loans- a backdoor way to fund private schools with public money.

Well, I don't think schools should be profit seeking institutions, but if a city wanted to incorporate an institution to educate their children, great. If a church wants to do the same, great.

 

That is never going to happen, so I think taxation at the county level evens out many inequalities w/out sacrificing local control over spending levels.

 

If it crushes a public sector union, I'm in favor. Private sector unions are valuable parts of the economic system. Public sector unions exaggerate the tendency toward the worst kind of interest group politics (I'd include police and fire unions in this).

 

You dont think public safety force members should be allowed to organize?  Do you realize what manning and shift strength levels would be at in our big cities without those unions?  Do you honestly believe the city admins keep safety equipment up to par with national guidelines out of the kindness of their heart? 

 

Public employee unions serve vital interests outside of their members own financial stability.  For Police and Fire, they have to accomplish their goals without the ability to strike.

 

Thankfully, only two states in our entire union have the nerve to deny public employees the right to organize.

 

/rant off

3 pages of teeth-gnashing and the guy hasn't even been sworn in yet. This is rich!

I agree a bit. To get to six or so municipalities in most Ohio counties would require either growing the size of the core municipality or eliminating most of the townships. I'd rather see county and city gov't w/ the intermediary of the township system. I could only support state-wide funding if we eliminated the public schools and went to universal vouchers for all students of equal value w/ zero subsidization beyond the cost of the voucher for each student.

 

Are you talking about giving townships some kind of power separate from the county of which they're part, then?  Townships are not incorporated.  They are administrative subdivisions of their counties the way counties are administrative subdivisions of states.  Also, of course, if you allow them separate existence, you're immediately talking about a lot more political units than your ten-per-county guideline.

 

I would be all in favor of the universal voucher system as well (it's the only one that doesn't make children prisoners of arbitrary political boundaries), but I think that's a long-term project--sufficiently long-term that even if Kasich believes in it, the most he'd be able to do is start laying some groundwork for eventual movement in that direction and expanding the few token pilot programs out there of what might be.

^Then on what basis are you wanting to combine public schools?  You're basically saying that you don't want the state to subsidize independent special-purpose governments (public corporations) but rather the sate subsidize private corporations.  Zero subsidization beyond the subsidy is still a subsidy for the cost of the voucher.  So your policy favors private corporations over public corporations, with the net effect of eliminating universal primary and high school education.  That's terrible.  I don't even understand the potential social utility of doing this.

 

And the status quo favors public corporations over private corporations (completely the opposite of how it should be), with the net effect of terrible primary and high school education that in practice isn't universal anyway, because of the enormous drop-out rate.  It also makes children prisoners of arbitrary political boundaries, because someone whose parents live in Columbus can't go to Upper Arlington or Hilliard or Dublin or Grandview Heights, even if they live within very manageable driving distances of those better schools.  I don't understand the social utility of doing this, either.

 

Universal public education is a siren's song, and all the more dangerous because it encourages policies (including lax academic standards and lax discipline standards) aimed at keeping kids in school who are, by any rational analysis, deadweight that should be shed for the greater good.

I'd love to know what happens to the deadweights after they're shed, but instead I'm going to ask that we all get back on topic.

And the status quo favors public corporations over private corporations (completely the opposite of how it should be)

I doubt most people would agree with either of the contentions in that statement.

 

with the net effect of terrible primary and high school education that in practice isn't universal anyway, because of the enormous drop-out rate.

That is completely false.  The drop out rate has fallen over the years, largely because people can't get a good factory job without a high-school diploma.  You can't even enlist without a GED.

 

The majority of kids in all states attend public schools, and the majority of people who attend public schools express satisfaction with their school.

 

It also makes children prisoners of arbitrary political boundaries, because someone whose parents live in Columbus can't go to Upper Arlington or Hilliard or Dublin or Grandview Heights, even if they live within very manageable driving distances of those better schools.

As if having parents who have enough money to pay for private schools isn't arbitrary, or as if the lotteries people have to be present for to get into charter schools aren't arbitrary.  The only difference is that one could end the present arbitrary political boundary factor by simply having equal across the board state funding and no link between districts and their tax base, whereas your suggestions are premised on the notion of arbitrary inequality.

 

I don't understand the social utility of doing this, either.

That's because you don't believe in the social goal of universal primary education.

 

Universal public education is a siren's song, and all the more dangerous because it encourages policies (including lax academic standards and lax discipline standards) aimed at keeping kids in school who are, by any rational analysis, deadweight that should be shed for the greater good.

A siren's song that's been around for over 100 years in most U.S. states.  The rest of the world is starting to catch up, which is why you only begin to see the U.S. "falling behind" on comparative national scores.

 

I'm all for getting rid of the dead weight in this state as well.  You think the bottom of the ocean has room for one more bankruptcy lawyer? :laugh:

with the net effect of terrible primary and high school education that in practice isn't universal anyway, because of the enormous drop-out rate.

That is completely false. The drop out rate has fallen over the years, largely because people can't get a good factory job without a high-school diploma. You can't even enlist without a GED.

 

To the extent the dropout rate has fallen, it likely has more to do with the dumbing down of the standards for what it takes to get a diploma.

 

The majority of kids in all states attend public schools, and the majority of people who attend public schools express satisfaction with their school.

 

And if we switched to a universal voucher system, the majority of people would attend private schools that would likely be in the exact same buildings and with a reasonable number of the same teachers they have now, and would very likely be even more satisfied.  Do you think that all those existing facilities would just be razed to the ground following a shift to universal vouchers?  The primary difference would be, as I said before, that someone who lives in Columbus Public could send a child to Grandview Heights or another strong public school without having to flee to the suburbs.  We lose far too many families from the city to the suburbs because of hard school district lines.

 

I'll most likely have the means to stay in the city and send my children to private school, if I want.  Even then, if I want a secular private school, it will be tough, simply because of limited availability.  A universal voucher system would make most existing public schools into secular private schools, in practice, however, and greatly expand the options of those who want to live in the city even through their childrearing years.

 

It also makes children prisoners of arbitrary political boundaries, because someone whose parents live in Columbus can't go to Upper Arlington or Hilliard or Dublin or Grandview Heights, even if they live within very manageable driving distances of those better schools.

As if having parents who have enough money to pay for private schools isn't arbitrary, or as if the lotteries people have to be present for to get into charter schools aren't arbitrary. The only difference is that one could end the present arbitrary political boundary factor by simply having equal across the board state funding and no link between districts and their tax base, whereas your suggestions are premised on the notion of arbitrary inequality.

 

I'm not defending arbitrary lotteries.  It would be much better if we simply expanded the capacity of charter schools so that everyone who wanted to get in could at least get in the door (if they flunk out later, at least they had their chance).  Also, the fact that there is a degree of luck in the circumstances of one's birth hardly argues against my point--in fact, it reinforces it.  Having parents with the means to send a child to private school also means having parents with the means to move into a higher-end public school district and pay the property taxes to live there--or to stay in the city and send their children to private school.  Vouchers would eliminate the resource constraints of cradle roulette.  It wouldn't eliminate the non-pecuniary effects (the cultural advantages of successful, generally college-educated parents), or even all of the pecuniary ones, but it would go a long way.  I don't understand how what you wrote there at all argues against vouchers.  It sounds like just a rant against unequal distribution of wealth completely divorced from any connection to the argument you're trying to make.

 

I don't understand the social utility of doing this, either.

That's because you don't believe in the social goal of universal primary education.

 

False.  If I believed that, I would advocate privatizing the public schools and *not* supplying a universal voucher to allow parents to send their children where they wished.  A complete you're-on-your-own system.  I believe in the social goal of universal primary education (though I also temper that because of my goal of high-quality primary education, which in practice means I oppose dumbing down the requirements for a high school diploma--children should rise to the level of expectations; the level of expectations should not fall to accommodate them).

 

I'm all for getting rid of the dead weight in this state as well. You think the bottom of the ocean has room for one more bankruptcy lawyer? :laugh:

 

This was absolutely beyond the pale, and no emoticon can sanitize it.  I sincerely hope that this attracts moderator attention.

^you've never heard that joke before?

Now he wished me a happy thanksgiving lol.

Does the Ohio Constitution have a process for recalling a governor?

Ok, now we're on topic. My reading of the state constitution is that he can only be removed for committing a crime, not just for being an idiot.

What about being criminally idiotic?

He said what he was going to do before the election.  He was voted into office based on that.  Not taking that money will save us much more in the long run.

He said what he was going to do before the election. He was voted into office based on that.

Sadly (at least to me) you're correct.

 

Not taking that money will save us much more in the long run.

I'm not sure if I see how, but considering the decision has been made, there's no point in arguing right now.

 

Somehow I have a feeling that this issue is going to be brought up in 4 years when the Governor tries to run for re-election and people ask him why he gave $400 million to California.

I'm severly disappointed in the 3C wrap up, but I won't write him off (yet) as he hasn't even taken office....

 

That said, his burden of proof in showing me how he's going to improve the economy of this state has just increased by $400 Million.

Not taking that money will save us much more in the long run.

 

Can you post facts to back this up?

He said what he was going to do before the election.  He was voted into office based on that.  Not taking that money will save us much more in the long run.

 

1) He said he was going to cancel 3C.  True.

 

2) Unless you have some polling data showing that a majority of voters in the election who voted for Kasich voted for him because they thought he would kill 3C (and that alone- someone who voted for Kasich because they thought he would "stop spending" is clearly disappointed with him, since he still wanted to spend the $400 million), this second statement is completely unsubstantiated.

 

3) Well, it certainly won't save us any money in the short run, since it will be spent here or in another state.  The money is already allocated.  Of course the plan itself details the return on investment.  $400 million spent on existing roads would conceivably bring no new return on investment, since they would already be built (though the opportunity cost of avoiding maintenance would conceivably decrease current economic returns from the road, so we can't really say that there wouldn't be a return from using it for maintenance).  If he wanted to spend the money on new roads, then it would have resulted in long term costs as well.

 

Regardless, it is pretty funny that the first act of the new Republican Governor of Ohio will be to send more federal money and more jobs to Sun Belt states.  I know so-called conservatives honestly believe that federal investment is always bad, but do any of them really believe that so many people would be living in the South and West if the feds had not (and this is just one in a long list of things) built all those dams to supply power and water to those places?

 

Guess what, now they are getting high speed rail.  We're helping to pay for it, just as we always have, and thanks to John Kasich, we get nothing for it.

 

Florida's got a new Republican governor.  He's apparently not stupid enough to refuse federal investments.

The facts are that besides a few people who cannot drive, there will not be enough riders to pay for this train.  Stop comparing roads and highways to trains, as right or wrong, the roads were picked years ago.

 

The train will be too expensive for more than a very select number of passengers as it is set up.  Families will not ride it as the costs will be too high, and there is the need for other transportation once you arrive.  It would be better for individual cities to establish transportation options then link them together in the future.  The money is not there now, Kasich knows this, and the people who voted for him know this.

Why do similar trains work... in less populous places like North Carolina... if what you say is true and accurate?

 

Its OK to own up to the fact that it was simple partisan politics.  It was something YOU personally did not envision using, but you knew it was something your political opposites deeply desired.  Any and all fiscal arguments have been blown out of the water.  In fact, the fiscally IRRESPONSIBLE thing to do for THE STATE OF OHIO was to kill the project, not let it proceed

The facts are that besides a few people who cannot drive, there will not be enough riders to pay for this train.  Stop comparing roads and highways to trains, as right or wrong, the roads were picked years ago.

 

Kasich is the one is comparing this to roads, since that is what he wants to spend the money on instead of passenger rail.  A better comparison (at least for passenger purposes; the freight component of the plan continues to be ignored by anti-rail cult cultists) is between this plan and the public money expended on smaller airports which is about all Ohio has right now.  When you consider that this train has the power to link Cin-Day-Col-Cle cities + others in between, + drastically reduce times between Day-Col-Cle airports thereby making them more affordable to fly in and out of, and reducing prices, Kasich and the anti-rail cult cultists look even stupider.

 

 

The train will be too expensive for more than a very select number of passengers as it is set up.  Families will not ride it as the costs will be too high, and there is the need for other transportation once you arrive.

Do families not take the Greyhound between these cities?  Do you not need other transportation after an inter-city bus ride?  Does the state not have the authority to grant and remove the express powers of municipal corporations?  Can the state not de-regulate whatever

local regulations currently exist with regard to taxis in these cities?  Is not de-regulation and free enterprise supposedly a principle of the so-called conservatives?

 

 

It would be better for individual cities to establish transportation options then link them together in the future.

Is there any suggestion that Kasich is going to encourage such options?  Is this an attempt a joke?

 

The money is not there now, Kasich knows this, and the people who voted for him know this.

Do you really think repetition of the same sentences and phrases creates facts and data out of thin air?  Is there objective evidence to actually suggest this is the case?

^yup. Kasich and like minded people are definitely holding this state back.

Can we keep discussion of the 3-C to the 3-C thread, and keep the discussion here to Kasich and his policies, please?

This will simmer down quickly enough; right now, the two topics have momentarily converged because the 3C cancellation is the biggest accomplishment of Governor-Elect Kasich's not-yet-governorship.  There's not much news yet on the lame-duck and early-administration stuff like appointments yet.

 

Still, that's not everything, as Kasich has also started at least identifying some initiatives that he wants to pursue to reduce state spending, including public sector union reform, reform or repeal of the prevailing wage laws (which mandate the state pay more than market rate for construction work), and reducing prison sentences for nonviolent offenders:

 

Ohio gov-elect wants to relax wage, prison rules

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-10/ohio-gov-elect-wants-to-relax-wage-prison-rules.html

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Republican Gov.-elect John Kasich said Thursday he's pursuing obvious but politically dicey ways to save Ohio money, including taking on public employee unions and diverting non-violent criminals from state prisons.

 

Kasich made wide-ranging remarks on how he'll tackle a looming $8 billion budget gap at an event to announce his nominee for tax commissioner: former Franklin County Auditor Joe Testa.

 

Kasich said "low-hanging fruit" like union protections and prison reforms should have been plucked long ago to curb Ohio's tax burden.

 

He said he opposes paying union-scale prevailing wages on public job sites, doesn't think public employees should have the right to strike, and opposes using binding arbitration to resolve contract disputes involving police officers and firefighters ...

 

Kasich said he will also fight to chip away at Ohio's prevailing wage law, which he said adds to construction costs at universities and drives up their tuition costs. Although he said he would prefer to repeal it, "if we can make progress in some areas, we can allow people to provide more services at a lower price." ...

 

He said prison costs could be drastically reduced by rethinking whether non-violent offenders, including those who commit drug-related offenses, should be sent for short stays in state prison. Kasich said people who commit such crimes are not a public threat and shouldn't be imprisoned at high cost to taxpayers alongside murderers.

 

He also said state prison also seems like the wrong place for child-support delinquents.

 

"Why do I want to put somebody that doesn't pay child support in a state prison ... instead of putting them somewhere and forcing them on a work detail or home confinement or county jail, in a place where the public is safe and yet we can get our costs?" he said. "To me, that's low-hanging fruit."

 

**********

 

On the last point, I'm not even 100% certain of the division of state and federal authority.  He talks about reducing the sentences (or the security level, e.g., maybe not using state prisons, which tend to be more expensive per inmate than county jails) for "drug-related offenses," but I know at least a lot of drug-related offenses are federal, not state.  Not that I'd be against reforming drug sentencing at the federal level, either, but I wonder how much the state, specifically, is spending on prison for drug offenders.  (Regardless, though, I'm willing to take it on faith that the offenses and the sentences are likely disproportional to the harm the original offense inflicted on society.)

Well.... I understand the desire to not duplicate discussion in two separate threads.  But this topic certainly gets right down to the meat and bones of Governor Elect Kasich and his policies

I love how Kasich ran on creating jobs.

 

Let's see......

 

1.  Rejects 400 mil for rail and the 8000 or so jobs it would create.

2.  Next to be chopped is the education system of Ohio

 

But it's ok, he probably thinks the 12 million being spent on mowing is a good investment that creates hundreds of jobs. 

 

 

With regard to public sector unions, his two prong attack is confounding.  He wants to prohibit the right to strike AND do away with binding conciliation for emergency response services.  Maybe he does not understand that first responders must arbitrate their disputes because they are not allowed to strike.  The system is designed so that a neutral third party, not the City and not the Union, is tasked with the undesirable duty of dictating terms and conditions of employment when negotiations have reached ultimate impasse.

 

He won't get his wish.  If he wants to do away with strikes and send everyone, including service workers and other similar civil servants to conciliation when impasse in negotiations is reached, that maybe could be done.  If he wants to do away with ultimate impasse conciliation and allow all units, including Fire and Police, the right to strike, that is another potential avenue..... even if unwise.  But you can't get rid of both.

 

The best he can hope for is a cap on the conciliator's ability to award wage increases..... but then there would have to be a corresponding cap on the ability to decrease wages.