I am a little late in the game, and just a question.  Does Senate Bill 5 actually cut take home pay from teachers?  Or does it open the door to possibly cutting their pay in the future?

 

I was just looking and i think it does. significantly. It's a huge bill and i could be missing something, though. I'm hedging like crazy right now, because they've made this incomprehensible, but there is a table in there that suggests teachers could max out (with masters degrees and experience) at $32k.

 

Boreas' basis is that they elect Republicans.  In his world, Republican party affiliation is akin to a confession that one enjoys drowning puppies.  It's best to ignore him.

 

There you go again, making up sh it that I didn't say, Gramarye.  Who asked YOU, anyway?

What you can expect is for wealthy old people to move to Florida to escape the bite of the state estate tax.

I've seen several studies quoted that show estate taxes have minimal effect on people's choice of residence.

 

For example: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/nawm04/111.html

 

I would say that weather and the lack of income tax is just as big a reason for wealthy old people to move to Florida. Considering we don't have the weather they do, or the tourism that comes with that weather to support the state allowing us to eliminate the income tax, wealthy old people are going to move to Florida regardless of the estate tax.

 

They often end up moving back before they die for support from family and legal counsel/estate planners. I can think of several people that moved back after hurricanes as well.

^what's your basis for commenting "sh!thole states"...?  Are there some numbers you're using for the basis of that statement?  If the Southern states are "sh!tholes" like you indicate, why are college graduates from the midwest heading there in droves?  Seems to me like the midwest states are the ones becoming the "sh!tholes".... 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/21/us/census-districts.html

 

Like my old calculus professor used to say, "If you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten"

 

Well, I guess it depends on what criteria you are using to evaluate the state. 

 

Health of the residents?  In the ten "least healthy" states, all but Nevada are "southern" to some extent (depending on how you classify Oklahoma and Texas), and all are in the Sun Belt. 

 

http://blog.healia.com/00194/top-10-least-healthy-states-america

 

Poorest?  Again, the top 10 is dominated by Southern states.

 

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfact4.shtml

 

Education?  More of a mix here, though there are plenty of southern states near the bottom (and the top 20 is dominated by northeastern and midwestern states).  (Not the most recent data, but there is a more recent PDF from the Census bureau that is along these same lines.) 

 

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes_edu_ind-education-best-educated-index

 

This is 2004 Census data, but now you see an advantage--lower taxes in the southern states.

 

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_tot_tax_bur-total-tax-burden-per-capita

 

I'm sure there are other things we could use to debate...

 

 

 

 

 

I am a little late in the game, and just a question.  Does Senate Bill 5 actually cut take home pay from teachers?  Or does it open the door to possibly cutting their pay in the future?

 

I was just looking and i think it does. significantly. It's a huge bill and i could be missing something, though. I'm hedging like crazy right now, because they've made this incomprehensible, but there is a table in there that suggests teachers could max out (with masters degrees and experience) at $32k.

 

 

All good points, but people are voting with their feet and the Midwest, especially Ohio, is losing bigtime.  We're losing our jobs, our young talent, our tax base, and our political base to the South.  The statistics you posted are interesting indeed, but I have plenty of friends & family who've relocated to Florida, Georgia, Texas & Carolina's and it doesn't seem to be the pit of misery that those statistics would indicate.  They all seem to be doing quite well and none that I know have any plans of moving back to Ohio.  And it's not just because of the weather.

I am a little late in the game, and just a question.  Does Senate Bill 5 actually cut take home pay from teachers?  Or does it open the door to possibly cutting their pay in the future?

 

Not technically, salaries can be collectively bargained for.  What it does is increase the amount employees pay into their health care system.  For the record this ultimately is leading to a NEW state wide public health care COMPANY. 

 

You are probably referring to an old provision in the bill that had minimum salaries for teachers and a stipulation were teachers could not bargain salaries.  Both of those items were amended out. 

 

The other reduction in pay part you might have heard about, depending if you’re in the profession or not, deals with provision for binding arbitration, under the current bill technically teachers can still bargaining, but in the end the board, city, state doesn’t have to except any offer made by the union. 

 

It gives us power to do something and takes it away in the end.  Most people don’t understand that part.

^what's your basis for commenting "sh!thole states"...? 

 

 

Well, I guess it depends on what criteria you are using to evaluate the state. 

 

Health of the residents?  In the ten "least healthy" states, all but Nevada are "southern" to some extent (depending on how you classify Oklahoma and Texas), and all are in the Sun Belt. 

 

http://blog.healia.com/00194/top-10-least-healthy-states-america

 

Poorest?  Again, the top 10 is dominated by Southern states.

 

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfact4.shtml

 

Education?  More of a mix here, though there are plenty of southern states near the bottom (and the top 20 is dominated by northeastern and midwestern states).  (Not the most recent data, but there is a more recent PDF from the Census bureau that is along these same lines.) 

 

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes_edu_ind-education-best-educated-index

 

Libraries, state parks, metroparks, schools, clean water, shopping, and winter sports.

I am a little late in the game, and just a question.  Does Senate Bill 5 actually cut take home pay from teachers?  Or does it open the door to possibly cutting their pay in the future?

 

Not technically, salaries can be collectively bargained for.  What it does is increase the amount employees pay into their health care system.  For the record this ultimately is leading to a NEW state wide public health care COMPANY. 

 

You are probably referring to an old provision in the bill that had minimum salaries for teachers and a stipulation were teachers could not bargain salaries.  Both of those items were amended out. 

 

The other reduction in pay part you might have heard about, depending if youre in the profession or not, deals with provision for binding arbitration, under the current bill technically teachers can still bargaining, but in the end the board, city, state doesnt have to except any offer made by the union. 

 

It gives us power to do something and takes it away in the end.  Most people dont understand that part.

 

Gotcha!  Thanks.

 

All in all, based on what you said, it really does not sound that bad.  Basically, just like anyone, you will have the right to speak your mind, however, it may get shot down in the end.

 

As far as healthcare, that is another story.  It must be understood by the teachers as to why they would have to pay more into healthcare these days.

They do understand that.  Teachers, Fire Fighters, Police have been making concessions on healthcare here in Ohio even before the national recession hit.  On a whole, their premiums have gone up and their coverage has gone down.  When they have challenged the cities on this issue recently, they have lost for the most part.  The third party neutrals who mediate these disputes have been leaning towards the cities and/or school boards on this issue and other cost issues for the past several years. 

 

I think there is a misconception that our public servants were entitled to dictate the terms of their agreements prior to SB5.... although that is exactly what SB5 allows the public employers to now do.

 

I don't like the fact that the State is now replacing the "floor" approach with a "ceiling" approach.  It is one thing to say that the employer must contribute x amount to healthcare/pensions/etc.  It is quite another to say that the employer can only contribute x amount to healthcare/pensions/etc. 

All good points, but people are voting with their feet and the Midwest, especially Ohio, is losing bigtime.  We're losing our jobs, our young talent, our tax base, and our political base to the South.  The statistics you posted are interesting indeed, but I have plenty of friends & family who've relocated to Florida, Georgia, Texas & Carolina's and it doesn't seem to be the pit of misery that those statistics would indicate.  They all seem to be doing quite well and none that I know have any plans of moving back to Ohio.  And it's not just because of the weather.

 

Well, of course it's going to depend on the individual circumstances. 

 

One thing I did not do was take a look at the difference in tax revenue sent to Washington versus that coming back.  IIRC, Southern states are pretty routinely near the top in getting more money out of Washington than they send.  If the hard-right GOPers manage to really cut spending, it could have a disproportionate effect on Southern states. 

^that would be very interesting data to see.  I hope you can find it, regardless of what it proves.  Personally, I can't imagine that larger southern cities are receiving a higher percentage of federal money than midwest cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee???

^that would be very interesting data to see.  I hope you can find it, regardless of what it proves.  Personally, I can't imagine that larger southern cities are receiving a higher percentage of federal money than midwest cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee???

OK. Let's talk about the Sunbelt/Southwest. Las Vegas and Phoenix would barely exist without massive federal subsidy. Where would you get the electricity and water in the middle of the desert if not for enormous federal dams built to subsidize the development of those areas? More federal subsidies build the highways that enable the sprawl.

Cities routinely don't get back all the taxes they pay out.  The cities subsidize the rural areas of their states, and the urban states subsidize the rural ones. 

 

This data is a little old, but in 2004 for example, the worst "offender" in federal tax income vs. spending was New Mexico, which got twice as much federal spending versus the taxes they paid in.  Other mostly rural states like Alaska, Montana, the Dakotas, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Virginia, and Hawaii all had ratios higher than 1.5.  The states that were the biggest losers, contributing the most taxes while getting the least spending, were California, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire.  I think that Nevada is an anomaly because they get so much taxes from Las Vegas while the feds have very little stuff to spend on in that state.  http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr139.pdf

 

I can't find the city data, but I'm pretty sure Aaron at http://www.urbanophile.com/ posted statistics showing that the urbanized counties of Indiana paid more to the state than they got back in spending compared to rural counties.  It could've been another site, but it's out there somewhere. 

Vegas owes its very existence to federal subsidies. It would be impossible to build a metropolis in the desert without them. Notice how many of the states that are winners are the Sunbelt states that are gaining population from the Northeast and Midwest "loser" states. The workers, in effect, are following the subsidies.

It's pretty intuitive frankly.  Was the Hoover dam built by the feds or by the state of Nevada?  How about any dam that provides most of the electricity to western states?  How did rural electrification come about?

 

But if you want numbers, you can scroll through these for years 1981-2005:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

 

They clearly show that if Mississippi were judged like a elementary school it would have been closed down years ago.

 

Hoover Dam was a federal project, money authorized by Congress in 1928.

Interesting take on the GOP mantra of "government's broke".....

 

Editorial

The Hollow Cry of ‘Broke’

Published: March 2, 2011

 

“We’re broke! We’re broke!” Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday. “We’re broke in this state,” Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said a few days ago. “New Jersey’s broke,” Gov. Chris Christie has said repeatedly. The United States faces a “looming bankruptcy,” Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/opinion/03thu1.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

 

Teaching is no laughing matter.  If you teach in an urban district in Ohio, there's a good probability that fifteen of your students show up on Tuesday, and the other 15 show up on Wednesday.  You can't make headway that way.

 

Teachers aren't paid enough.  They have to manage transition at the state level, local superintendent's office and with their own principals, who most teachers can't stand.  If it became a more prestigious, well-paid position, the bad seeds would be weeded out and the old lazy teachers sent to early retirement.

Interesting take on the GOP mantra of "government's broke".....

 

Editorial

The Hollow Cry of ‘Broke’

Published: March 2, 2011

 

“We’re broke! We’re broke!” Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday. “We’re broke in this state,” Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said a few days ago. “New Jersey’s broke,” Gov. Chris Christie has said repeatedly. The United States faces a “looming bankruptcy,” Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist, wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/opinion/03thu1.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211

 

Before the union uprising, Wisconsin voters might not have noticed when Mr. Walker approved business tax cuts earlier this year that made his budget gap worse. But now, with his cries of being “broke,” they should listen more closely. On Tuesday, Walker unveiled a budget that would cut aid to school districts and local governments by nearly $1 billion over two years, while preventing those jurisdictions from raising property taxes at all to make up for the loss.

I don't understand how these alleged "small government" folk are so strong behind Kasich and Walker.  Both have no respect for local discretion.  Senate Bill 5 is full of caps/ceilings which prevent the local communities from engaging in self-governance.  If a community wants to pay 100% of their firefighters healthcare costs, what business is it of Kasich's?  If a community wants to increase its property taxes to pay for better schools, why would Walker want to stand in the way?

 

Just goes to show that these "small governmant" folk really are all talk. 

Sounds like they typical ploy to bankrupt government services so they can be cheaply sold off to cronies in the name of privatization.  It's just another form of corporate welfare.

One of the key provisions of senate bill 5 does just that..... allowing public employers to contract out areas traditionally reserved for the public sector.  I guess we will find out shortly exactly which one of Kasich's supporters that was intended to benefit.

Kasich is tickled pink The Avengers will be filming in Cleveland. He cites the film tax credit (as is production) & the Cleveland Film Commission is taking some credit.

I know Kasich fired the state film commission. Did he eliminate the department or just fire the current staff?

http://tinyurl.com/4e8xx6k

I don't understand how these alleged "small government" folk are so strong behind Kasich and Walker.  Both have no respect for local discretion.  Senate Bill 5 is full of caps/ceilings which prevent the local communities from engaging in self-governance.  ...

 

Just goes to show that these "small governmant" folk really are all talk. 

 

Governor Taft and the Republican legislature took away Cleveland's right to regulate firearms and to regulate predatory lenders.  The Plain Dealer editorialized against their collusion with "the banks".

All in all, based on what you said, it really does not sound that bad.  Basically, just like anyone, you will have the right to speak your mind, however, it may get shot down in the end.

 

It really is bad for not just the employees of the state, but all of the states citizens.  It's much worse than people realize. 

 

In education it does say you can bargain all you want for salaries, but working conditions are off the table and in the end we don't have to accept any of your proposals and if you strike we can fire all of you.  It works essential the same for every other public employee.  Why is that significant?  Obviously the public sector is not run anything like the private sector. Most people don't understand that it is much more complex than that.  What you have is separate system of oversight and I assure you there is A LOT of oversight.  The public sector has in a very general sense its own "legal system" it goes through for pretty much everything (firing, disputes, even changes in how services are administrated).  What this bill truly does, is take a system that is as neutral as can be (which is good), and push the control to one side, which are the legislators.  Like I have said before, salaries and health care are a small part of collective bargaining.  The average CB for teachers is around 60 pages, roughly 5 pages of that deal with salary, health care and sick days.  So what's the other 55?  An agreement between the teachers AND administrators AND the local community (school board) on how education should be administered for that individual school.  CB agreements are a guide for how the job should be done.  Most items are included because all parties think they are important; think for example class sizes and class offerings.  The state currently has very loose guidelines how specifically education should be delivered, that is the job of the community and schools.  This takes all of that control away.  Now legislation will guide solely what happens in our schools.  I am sure a one size fits all education system will work out for everyone…

One of the key provisions of senate bill 5 does just that..... allowing public employers to contract out areas traditionally reserved for the public sector.  I guess we will find out shortly exactly which one of Kasich's supporters that was intended to benefit.

 

So you're of the opinion that govt always does things the most efficiently and privatization should not be an option because some jobs might be lost or because someone might make a few bucks off it? 

No.  Not sure where you inferred that out of what I wrote.  The first sentence is fact and was in direct response to the previous post.  The second sentence is a hunch in this particular situation.

 

Your response is akin to the type of folks who, if I said I was pro-choice, would call me a "baby killer"

 

The issue of privatizing public sector work is a complex one to say the least.  I don't think it should be forbidden, but I don't think public employers should be given carte blanche to do so either.  It depends on the job and a lot of other circumstances.   

As strident a capitalist as I generally am, I'm actually a little leery of outsourcing government functions.  I would much rather simply end nonessential government functions entirely, reduce public sector compensation to levels consistent with the government's obligations to live within its means, and then have the government actually hire people to do the remaining tasks rather than outsource them.  Private outsourcing of government functions is a mixed bag in terms of cost savings, but is also a glaring red light in terms of accountability.  Regardless of the law on paper, private companies often find ways to evade any disclosure laws that would apply to a government entity doing the same work; in some places, that's because the law allows it, and in others, it is because the law is ignored or avoided somehow.

 

There are times when this outsourcing is relatively benign.  I certainly don't mean to impugn the integrity of everyone out there driving a Waste Management truck.  Likewise, for tasks that are one-time-only (a specific research or construction project, for example), going outside makes sense--a private company with a specific need might do likewise in the same circumstance.  However, on balance, if the government considers something worth doing, there are many times when I'd rather they just *do* it rather than hire someone else to do it.

I'm not resolutely against everything in SB5 or the idea itself but Tim Ryan gave a pretty impressive speech against it in the House "open mic" segment.

 

Spot on, Rep. Ryan.

 

For the record, I don't think that anyone would argue that the Collective Bargaining Act couldn't use a little reform here and there.  But SB5 is anything but reasonable reform.  Every, single repeal and amendment is intended to harm the rights of our public employees / civil servants.

 

I wonder how the military soldiers became such golden cows of the right-wing, but not police and fire.  Sure, they had their little moment of glory after 9/11, but that appears to be long gone.  On that note, imagine if they tried to pull this stunt back then....

Are soldiers unionized?  That would be news to me ...

I was on board with it initially, but the more I read about it, it goes too far.  Repub leaders could've scored a major victory here and still accomplished the economic goals they were striving for and held their heads high for doing what they set out to do - make Ohio better.  Instead they've gone for the jugular, to decimate the union base & Democratic support and it's coming across as overly harsh & greedy.

^ exactly

 

^^I never said they were.... nor do they have a need for one.  Voting against funding/support for our troops is unamerican, no?  I've never had a soldier come to my door asking support for a levy so they can buy gear that more closely complies with commonly accepted guidelines and/or enlist more personnel so they can meet staffing criteria.

Teaching is no laughing matter.  If you teach in an urban district in Ohio, there's a good probability that fifteen of your students show up on Tuesday, and the other 15 show up on Wednesday.  You can't make headway that way.

 

Teachers aren't paid enough.  They have to manage transition at the state level, local superintendent's office and with their own principals, who most teachers can't stand.  If it became a more prestigious, well-paid position, the bad seeds would be weeded out and the old lazy teachers sent to early retirement.

 

Isn't this one of the arguments for something resembling SB 5? Maybe we don't have to utterly deny them the right to strike, but why should we tolerate useless, unproductive workers, even if they are a distinct minority of teachers? I know people who worked in Cleveland public schools and who cited two problems as holding the district back: Bad Parents, Bad Teachers. The good teachers are popular, well-liked by students, and get decent results. The bad ones coast and adopt the same apathetic or overwhelmed attitude that many parents take. Whether it's because they're just not able to cut it or because they don't care, we shouldn't be guaranteeing people like that a nice retirement for ineffectual babysitting.

 

If it was better paying, I'd teach. I might not be the best, but I'd be willing to work for the money. And I'd want to be evaluated, both objectively and subjectively, otherwise, how do I improve?

Teaching is no laughing matter.  If you teach in an urban district in Ohio, there's a good probability that fifteen of your students show up on Tuesday, and the other 15 show up on Wednesday.  You can't make headway that way.

 

Teachers aren't paid enough.  They have to manage transition at the state level, local superintendent's office and with their own principals, who most teachers can't stand.  If it became a more prestigious, well-paid position, the bad seeds would be weeded out and the old lazy teachers sent to early retirement.

 

Isn't this one of the arguments for something resembling SB 5? Maybe we don't have to utterly deny them the right to strike, but why should we tolerate useless, unproductive workers, even if they are a distinct minority of teachers? I know people who worked in Cleveland public schools and who cited two problems as holding the district back: Bad Parents, Bad Teachers. The good teachers are popular, well-liked by students, and get decent results. The bad ones coast and adopt the same apathetic or overwhelmed attitude that many parents take. Whether it's because they're just not able to cut it or because they don't care, we shouldn't be guaranteeing people like that a nice retirement for ineffectual babysitting.

 

If it was better paying, I'd teach. I might not be the best, but I'd be willing to work for the money. And I'd want to be evaluated, both objectively and subjectively, otherwise, how do I improve?

 

This oversimplifies everything to fit into clean arguments. First of all, no bad teacher is "guaranteed" anything. Teachers can usually be fired for anything, or nothing, for their first three years. It's a common fallacy to believe that "tenure" entitles teachers to lifetime employment. It does not. "Tenure", both in K-12 and higher education, means that administrators must adhere to a formal process for firing a teacher or professor. That's all it does. Where unions exist, they usually ensure that the process is fair, but they don't "protect" bad teachers. If you want to know why "bad" teachers remain, and I believe there are very few of them, look to administrators. They are responsible for identifying and collecting evidence of poor teaching.

 

If you believe that it's only a very small minority of teachers who are making the profession look bad, why would it make sense for a union to "protect" those teachers who aren't doing a good job? Similarly, if it's only a small number, then why do away with collective bargaining, pensions, and set maximum starting salaries (yes, all in SB 5)? How does any of that "improve" student outcomes? In fact, what it does is protect veteran teachers from cost-cutting, irascible administrators and selfish parents.

 

Finally, there's no clear way to "measure" students or teachers. We are talking about complex human interactions here that are intimately impacted by environment, economy, culture and history. This is brain surgery. Nationwide, and necessarily quantitative measures of teacher "effectiveness" are a pipe dream. Train your principals and administrators to regularly observe teachers, train them to know what to offer for improvement, and keep the system flexible enough to make up for the vagaries of the student population. And when a teacher can't or won't improve, you'll have enough evidence to get rid of them.

 

In general, if you want better teachers, you have to pay them better. Whether teachers work 9 or 12 months is immaterial; the fact is that teacher salaries are low compared to what a bright person can make in the private sector. Poor salaries is also why so few African-Americans go into education, particularly first generation college students. A lack of role models who look, talk and understand them is, in my experience, another problem for children to overcome. More money would help.

 

But more than anything, the failure isn't with teachers, or schools, it's our country's refusal to address poverty and the lingering impact of racism. By any international measure, America's middle and upper class schools do as well as any in Finland, Singapore or Korea. It's when we start looking at areas of high poverty that the gaps emerge. This isn't because of bad teachers, or dumb kids, or oppositional culture, it's because our political economy is based on a bootstraps, frontier myth that "anyone" can make it if they try hard. Any one might make it, but everyone won't. Unless we talk about poverty and, perish the thought, making sure people have access to livable-wage jobs, we'll still be debating "education reform" 50 years from now.

 

Kasich's plan is an interesting bit of class warfare, imho. Rather than the old canard that "everyone has a chance" in America, it now pits people whose lives have been ruined by speculators, bankers and politicians invested in trickle-down, borrow-heavy politics, and sicks them on the few people who still have stable jobs: government workers. We extend ever larger tax cuts to people who don't need it, starve the lower and, ever more, middle income people to "compete" with each other for the scraps. Kasich and others may not live to see it, but a relatively equal distribution of wealth has been the key to social stability in industrialized economies. When and if we reach a critical mass of people who can't make ends meet, and our politics remains unresponsive to their needs, that stability will be something we'll long for.

^Bravo! You nailed it. Our "education problem" is fundamentally a social and economic problem, yet those factors are utterly left out of policy discussion at the federal, state and local level.

This bill is not just an attack on the working class, it is blatantly offensive to the notion of local self governance.  But yet the Tea Party is rallying in support of it.  Hmmmmmmm.....

I wouldn't jump to any conclusions about Tea Partiers on this just yet.  Most of them are simply in favor of smaller government and cutting taxes and anything along those lines gets them excited.  You have to admit the specifics of what the bill actually includes other than limiting collective bargaining are hardly common knowledge, so any indication that people who support the bill, don't support local self governance doesn't quite add up.

The Tea Party is holding a rally today in support of the bill.  I would say they are in support of it.  This Bill does nothing to cut taxes.  Any such conclusion is speculative at best at this point.  Further, the bill is offensive to the notion of smaller government.  This is the big bad state coming in and telling the local governments how to run their operations. 

 

And, further, if the specifics are not known, then why is it being hastily rushed through.  Sounds awfully familiar (even though HCR was debated for at least a year... if not decades).  My throat is getting sore again....

The reason the country invested so much hope and money in the public schools after the mid-60s was that it was seen as a easier and less politically volatile way of dealing with the problems of America's inner cities (poverty, racial isolation, urban disinvestment). We spent money on schools because it was easier than fixing poverty (which you can't 'fix' anyway). Also, public employees and public sector unionism ties into attempts to buy social peace after the disruptions of the 1960s. To complete the disassembly of the 60's-era welfare state, you have to go at the schools and the make-work public sector (not in a WPA style, but rather the gov't found new things to do so it could employ more people - a great example would be the money spent on recreation departments and swimming pools in the big cities after the mid-60s).

 

And, further, if the specifics are not known, then why is it being hastily rushed through.  Sounds awfully familiar (even though HCR was debated for at least a year... if not decades).  My throat is getting sore again....

 

"....We have to pass it to find out what's in it!!!"

Bingo.  As much as the Tea Party and conservatives railed against that line, muttered by the airheaded Pelosi, you'd think they would have similar concerns about a Republican sponsored bill.  Think again.  Hypocrites.

Congrats to Gov. Kasich, BTW, for finalizing the deal to keep American Greetings in NEO.... although I probably don't want to know what level of corporate welfare was promised...

To complete the disassembly of the 60's-era welfare state (cough), you have to go at the schools and the make-work public sector (not in a WPA style, but rather the gov't found new things to do so it could employ more people - a great example would be the money spent on recreation departments and swimming pools in the big cities after the mid-60s).

 

Park levies get approved by healthy margins: that tells you what the public WANTS. 

Pools for kids.  It's not that complicated.

To complete the disassembly of the 60's-era welfare state (cough), you have to go at the schools and the make-work public sector (not in a WPA style, but rather the gov't found new things to do so it could employ more people - a great example would be the money spent on recreation departments and swimming pools in the big cities after the mid-60s).

 

 

Park levies get approved by healthy margins: that tells you what the public WANTS. 

Pools for kids.  It's not that complicated.

 

It seems like levies tend to get approved when they are for physical upgrades (school buildings, parks, pools), or for people with disabilities. Something tangible, or for people who clearly rely on public services.

Some random facts I heard from a house member last night:

 

12% of the state is public employees

The above group makes up 9% of the entire budget.  This includes the Governor all the way down (legislators, state workers, police and fire, teachers ect...)

If you fired the entire group above you would save 2 billion towards the 8 billion dollar gap.

The average teacher salary decreased 3.6% last year.

This one I found the most interesting, Ohio, while being the 7 largest state, has the smallest government (state AND local) of all 50 states.

 

Also, is there a separate sb5 thread? I could not find one...

From the front page of the Toledo Blade:

 

"I come to work, and I've got an $8 billion hole,'' Mr. Kasich said.

 

I don't know what to say. Well, I do, but I think it might be over the line.

For John Kasich:

 

Solidarity activists during the "State of the State" address

Kasich playing by his rules

 

Wednesday, March 9, 2011  02:53 AM

By Darrel Rowland

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

A State of the State speech with loud booing outside and occasional outbursts inside was a new one even for House Speaker William Batchelder, who's seen virtually every address since the mid-1960s.

 

But the high-voltage performance yesterday by Gov. John Kasich would have stood out even without the backdrop of noisy protesters.

 

"We're going to save the state, I have no doubt," Kasich asserted.

 

Read more at: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/09/copy/kasich-playing-by-his-rules.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

 

Forget the status quo, governor tells legislators

 

Wednesday, March 9, 2011  02:53 AM

By Joe Vardon

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Gov. John Kasich used his first State of the State address yesterday to issue a final warning that widespread changes to Ohio's governing and spending practices are coming soon.

 

It was a point already heard loud and clear by the estimated 3,200 protesters who had gathered outside the Statehouse, the hundreds who had filed into the rotunda, and the few who had made their way into the House chamber for the governor's speech. Speaking before a joint session of the General Assembly for more than an hour, the Republican governor set the stage for his much-anticipated two-year budget due Tuesday by challenging lawmakers to "not let fear clog your mind."

 

Kasich promised changes to late-in-life care, prison sentencing, care of low-birth-weight babies and their mothers, and education to help tackle an $8 billion shortfall in Ohio's budget.

 

Read more at: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/09/copy/forget-the-status-quo.html?adsec=politics&sid=101