Without delving too deep into Rocky River, I find it hard to view labor relations as a local self-government issue that's susceptible to home rule.  It has extraterrtorial effects on the labor market, and it has little to do with specifically local conditions (as opposed to, say, speed limits).  My personal view on home rule is that the concept has been over-expanded and it creates a perverse incentive to avoid consolidation.  It's anti-regionalism.   

I agree with 327 on both counts--labor relations aren't likely within the ambit of home rule powers, and home rule is a mixed blessing, anyway.  (Of course, the lack of home rule can also be a mixed blessing, but we could have a whole separate thread on home rule and regionalism issues--in fact, IIRC, there's already one gathering dust around here somewhere.)

You both need to read Rocky River IV again.  Initially, 327, you are taking the analysis a step too far by getting into 'extraterritorial effects'.  You are delving into a more traditional home rule analysis reserved for speed limits and traffic cameras, but not labor relations.  Review RR IV, Pension Fund, and Lima v State and you will see what I mean.  The question posed in those cases was much simpler.  State legislation at issue in those cases all survived because the question posed (as to the GA's constitutional authority) was answered in the affirmative.  Keep that in mind and then ask yourself whether the answer will/should be the same for some of SB5's provisions.

It's been a few years at this point and I do need to brush up.  Unfortunately today is not the day for that.  Stringcites don't help much here, so please summarize your take.  What aspects of SB5 run afoul of home rule in your view, and why?

Check your PM

Schools, local governments take hit in Gov. John Kasich's budget proposal

Published: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 12:50 PM    Updated: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 1:24 PM

Aaron Marshall, The Plain Dealer By Aaron Marshall, The Plain Dealer

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Local governments and schools districts are hit hard, facing nearly $2 billion less in total payments from the state in 2012 and 2013 under Gov. John Kasich's budget proposal, according to details released shortly after noon.

 

The Local Government Fund is cut by $555 million in the $120 billion, two-year budget which amounts to a 25 percent cut in the first year and a 50 percent cut in the second year. Additionally, the Kasich budget makes tax policy changes raiding a trio of reimbursement fund payments that local governments and schools receive, costing the entities roughly $1.3 billion.

 

The tax changes quicken the pace of phase-outs of payments to local governments and school districts for previous changes in state policy. The changes were made during electric deregulation in 1999 and when lawmakers overhauled business taxes in the 2005 budget. That $1.3 billion is then moved into the state's general revenue fund to pay for state government programs.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/open_impact/print.html?entry=/2011/03/schools_local_governments_take.html

I think you misunderstand libertarianism here.  There are some non-libertarian points in there, but in most respects, it's not an affront to libertarianism, particularly because most of the prohibitions are restrictions on the terms local governments can accept in contract negotiations.  Since local governments are extensions of the state government (regardless of how autonomously they function), this is not significantly different from establishing certain terms that the state itself cannot legally accept--a form of government self-restraint that is salutary and completely in keeping with libertarian principles.

The problem with this argument is that the state isn't really stopping itself from accepting certain terms, it is stopping municipal corporations from accepting certain terms.  Even though they are both government, they have distinct corporate identities.  You can't shift from state to government and back while accurately describing the content of Hts 121's concerns.

 

Also, I suspect libertarians would be up in arms if the state required all corporations to negotiate with unions.  The distinctions between private corporations and public corporations are only a hundred some plus years old, the legality of general incorporation is only about thirty some odd years older than that, whereas corporations are about a thousand years old.

 

The state is clearly extending greater protection to capital by maintaining laws concerned with private incorporation than they are to labor with these changes.  Ultimately these debates simply break down to whose side you are on.

From WTAM 1100

Ohio Poll shows Kasich not scoring high

 

The poll found only 40% of Ohioans approve of the job the new governor is doing.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

The first Ohio Poll on Gov. Kasich puts his numbers behind those of his three predecessors at the same point in their term. 40% of those polled approve of the job the governor is doing. Forty-seven-percent disapprove and 13% say they are undecided.

.......

Kasich also got low marks for his handling of the economy with only 38% of those surveyed approving of the job he's doing.

.......

 

(Copyright © 2003-2011 Clear Channel. All rights reserved.)

http://www.wtam.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=122520&article=8296590

I was well aware that they have distinct corporate identities and acknowledged that, but I also went on to state why I don't think that fact makes a difference.

 

As for the public-private corporation distinction, yes, I'm aware that that is a fairly recent legal innovation--but when you get down to it, libertarianism as an even somewhat unified (and that's still very much in progress) body of thought is a fairly recent development in human history, too.  I don't need to find evidence for my principles in the Code of Hammurabi, or even the original constitution as adopted in the 18th century, to consider those principles justified.  Public corporations (municipal governments) and private corporations are different entities now; that distinction is fairly strong as of 2011.

I think, with today's unveiling of the state budget, and some bold actions under the governor's belt, (as well as the recent release of approval poll data) now would be a good time to add a poll to this thread on how the governor is doing so far. (Better, worse, or about the same as expected would be my suggested evaluations.)

 

He's doing worse than I expected. SB5 tilts the scale, since the rest of his actions are more or less what I expected. SB5 is a strong negative for me, and since he didn't campaign on it, it creates a heavy gravitational force to the "worse than expected" category.

 

Just curious what others think. Also, it might be good to add answers for those who may have switched the way they voted, knowing what they know now.

The state is clearly extending greater protection to capital by maintaining laws concerned with private incorporation than they are to labor with these changes.  Ultimately these debates simply break down to whose side you are on.

 

Exactly, and I really don't understand how so many people are currently siding with the "owners" rather than the "laborers" right now, considering the income gap is wider than it has been in a long time.

If the federal government had never enacted a gasoline tax, the states would have eventually built turnpike networks, but would not have built them directly through the cities because it would have been too expensive.  Our cities would be in much better physical condition, people would have spent far less of their income on transportation, and we'd have fewer fat people.

 

That's the best two-sentence summary of our destructive, federally-funded highway construction I've seen in a while.

The state is clearly extending greater protection to capital by maintaining laws concerned with private incorporation than they are to labor with these changes.  Ultimately these debates simply break down to whose side you are on.

 

Exactly, and I really don't understand how so many people are currently siding with the "owners" rather than the "laborers" right now, considering the income gap is wider than it has been in a long time.

 

Because we're the owners.

According to the Plain Dealer "Budget Widget" calculator, $4.46 billion of the $8  billion budget gap is due to income tax cuts that a previous legislature had voted for.  We should just cancel or delay those tax cuts.  The "problem" certainly is not the school teachers.

 

I recall that Ohioans DID vote to approve the tax rate hikes in the early 1980s.  The republicans are peddling voodoo economics, to quote President GHW Bush. 

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/03/the_budget_widget_try_your_han.html

 

30. Idea: Reverse the 21 percent, across-the-board cut in state income taxes for all Ohioans enacted by lawmakers in 2005. You may not have realized it, but the state income taxes you pay have been dropping at a steady clip.

If you like this idea, skip the next one

 

Why it's a good idea: It brings the state some big money, and not many Ohioans even realized that their income tax rates were cut.

Why it's a bad idea: It affects those who make less to a disproportionate degree. It hikes taxes on almost all Ohioans. 

 

Estimated savings: $4.46 billion

 

 

Taxes are plenty high enough.

From WTAM 1100

Ohio Poll shows Kasich not scoring high

The poll found only 40% of Ohioans approve of the job the new governor is doing.

Another poll is looking worse:

"The PPP poll showed Kasich with a 35 percent approval rating – compared to a 40 percent approval rating in the University of Cincinnati’s Ohio Poll released yesterday"

"Ohio Gov.John Kasich would lose a do-over race today with former governor Ted Strickland by 15 percentage points"

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2011/03/15/more-bad-news-for-kasich-in-ppp-poll/

The state is clearly extending greater protection to capital by maintaining laws concerned with private incorporation than they are to labor with these changes.  Ultimately these debates simply break down to whose side you are on.

 

Exactly, and I really don't understand how so many people are currently siding with the "owners" rather than the "laborers" right now, considering the income gap is wider than it has been in a long time.

 

Because we're the owners.

 

Of what? The state government?

^That's what he's saying.

Exactly, and I really don't understand how so many people are currently siding with the "owners" rather than the "laborers" right now, considering the income gap is wider than it has been in a long time.

 

Because we're the owners.

But of course, by that logic, so are the laborers.

 

Meanwhile, Kasich's Policy director admits the policies they are implementing aren't in response to the budget deficit:

 

"I don't remember a course correction," said Struble, who is Kasich's policy adviser. "The things we were looking at pursuing haven't changed much over time. Even if there weren't an $8 billion deficit, we'd probably be proposing many of the same things."

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/14/kasich-has-been-working-years-on-budget.html

 

Because we're the owners.

 

I doubt many of us here are "owners", including you.  (Or do you have your own practice already?)

 

A very small percentage of the country holds nearly all of the capital.  The rest of us are laborers and are at their mercy.

A very small percentage of the country holds nearly all of the capital.  The rest of us are laborers and are at their mercy.

 

That's because "we've" allowed the teachers, cops, and firefighters to steal it all away from "us"!

A very small percentage of the country holds nearly all of the capital.  The rest of us are laborers and are at their mercy.

 

That's because "we've" allowed the teachers, cops, and firefighters to steal it all away from "us"!

 

Let's steal it back!

Because we're the owners.

 

I doubt many of us here are "owners", including you.  (Or do you have your own practice already?)

 

We were specifically talking about public sector unions.  The employer is the government.  By extension, that means us--we pay for it, and we vote for the "managers" of the "capital" that we "invest" (read: we vote for the people spending the taxes we pay).

^That's what he's saying.

Exactly, and I really don't understand how so many people are currently siding with the "owners" rather than the "laborers" right now, considering the income gap is wider than it has been in a long time.

 

Because we're the owners.

But of course, by that logic, so are the laborers.

 

Certainly.  It's perfectly possible for one person to wear multiple hats, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Meanwhile, Kasich's Policy director admits the policies they are implementing aren't in response to the budget deficit:

 

"I don't remember a course correction," said Struble, who is Kasich's policy adviser. "The things we were looking at pursuing haven't changed much over time. Even if there weren't an $8 billion deficit, we'd probably be proposing many of the same things."

 

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/14/kasich-has-been-working-years-on-budget.html

 

That may be true, but the budget deficit gives a significant amount of urgency to the matter.

Because we're the owners.

 

I doubt many of us here are "owners", including you.  (Or do you have your own practice already?)

 

We were specifically talking about public sector unions.  The employer is the government.  By extension, that means us--we pay for it, and we vote for the "managers" of the "capital" that we "invest" (read: we vote for the people spending the taxes we pay).

 

I was speaking more generally, but I see your point.  However, with respect to the government, we are all customers as well.

Kasich on Cunningham's show today at 12:30. 700wlw.com

Kasich will be on Triv today at 4:30 to talk about his budget.

 

Also, a link to the budget and summary, good read:

http://obm.ohio.gov/SectionPages/Budget/FY1213/ExecutiveBudget.aspx

If you are against SB5 (even if you are in favor of collective bargaining reform), you can sign a petition at:

 

http://ohio.sherrodbrown.com/petition

 

Forward it on to family and friends.

That may be true, but the budget deficit gives a significant amount of urgency to the matter.

Since the contracts through this fiscal year have already been signed, I'm not sure how SB5 is going to impact the present budget deficit.

 

Now Kasich selling off state assets like there's no tomorrow may allow him to cover the deficit, but that's probably the not the type of budgetry most of us would be in favor of.

Since we spent so much time on this thread about Scott Walker, I think we can take a brief foray into Michigan.  The Republicans in the Michigan Senate just passed a bill allowing the state to take over local governments, push aside and replace them with unelected emergency financial managers, who will be paid by the taxpayers at the same level of salary the governor gets.  Any number of financial issues can trigger these takeovers- it isn't simply limited to municipal bankruptcy.  That's when the EFMs would be authorized to unilaterally break contracts, which is probably a violation of the Constitution.  To be clear, that's the U.S. Constitution (though likely the Michigan Constitution as well).

 

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/2011/03/10/news/doc4d78d0d4d764d009636769.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

So basically the state central committee is going to have the authority to send in a commissar whenever they want.  That's how much these guys hate socialism.  Judge Cooley must be spinning in his grave.

LK - I've been following the developments in Michigan closely too.  I think your concerns are valid but you're mistaken if you think the state is excited about rushing in & taking over municipalities and appointing emergency financial managers.  I had experience when the situation occurred in Hazel Park, MI and Lou Schimmel was brought in.  This is a last resort move and often is long overdue after the city council or manager proves themselves too corrupt or incapable of making the required changes to restore solvency.  As for breaking contracts, that's a part of the city getting back in the black, and getting out of deals which they could no longer afford.

^Well, as you've just stated with your example, they've already got a structure in place to deal with actual emergencies, so why this legislation?  Why is this legislation not redundant?

 

I haven't been able to find the actual text of the legislation, but from what I can tell this would be the equivalent of telling an individual they are legally bankrupt because they decided to hold a balance on their credit card for one month rather than paying it off.

That may be true, but the budget deficit gives a significant amount of urgency to the matter.

Since the contracts through this fiscal year have already been signed, I'm not sure how SB5 is going to impact the present budget deficit.

 

Now Kasich selling off state assets like there's no tomorrow may allow him to cover the deficit, but that's probably the not the type of budgetry most of us would be in favor of.

 

Myself included--though the issue in our earlier discussion of that in this thread remains--no one has been able to figure out just exactly what Ohio is getting out of the deal and over how long a term.  For the record, I do not give Kasich the benefit of the doubt on this; my baseline assumption, until proven otherwise, is that Ohio is getting a raw deal and the private actors involved are getting a sweetheart one.

I've refrained from cherry-picking quotes from the article but it doesn't seem like this budget is all that different from past budgets.  Of course, from the simple fract that they've cut $1.3 billion from schools over the next two years, it is notably worse.

 

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/17/copy/budget-uses-accounting-maneuvers.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

That may be true, but the budget deficit gives a significant amount of urgency to the matter.

Since the contracts through this fiscal year have already been signed, I'm not sure how SB5 is going to impact the present budget deficit.

 

Now Kasich selling off state assets like there's no tomorrow may allow him to cover the deficit, but that's probably the not the type of budgetry most of us would be in favor of.

 

Myself included--though the issue in our earlier discussion of that in this thread remains--no one has been able to figure out just exactly what Ohio is getting out of the deal and over how long a term.  For the record, I do not give Kasich the benefit of the doubt on this; my baseline assumption, until proven otherwise, is that Ohio is getting a raw deal and the private actors involved are getting a sweetheart one.

 

Ohio's media should pay close attention to the privatization of state assets, not just because of the possibility that private individuals will profit off of long-term public investments because of their personal connections with the Governor. My concern is how privatization of prisons may lead, as it did in Arizona, to those same companies (like CCA) advocating for new laws and harsher sentences in order to fill those prisons and improve the bottom line. Kasich's new state warden is a 5 year veteran of CCA, the largest private prison contractor in the US.

 

The worst abuse of this was in AZ, where most of the prisons have been privatized. CCA and others like them were major forces behind the odious SB1070 anti-immigration bill.

 

With CCA and prison privatization lurking around Ohio, is it too early to predict that a similar law will be proposed in Ohio?

 

http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2010/10/21/operation-streamline-cca-immigration-and-private-prisons-and-how-it-all-connects/

 

 

In cases like this, privitization is just plain wrong.  And it should be obvious.  Robocop is looking more and more prescient as the years go on.

That may be true, but the budget deficit gives a significant amount of urgency to the matter.

Since the contracts through this fiscal year have already been signed, I'm not sure how SB5 is going to impact the present budget deficit.

 

Now Kasich selling off state assets like there's no tomorrow may allow him to cover the deficit, but that's probably the not the type of budgetry most of us would be in favor of.

 

Myself included--though the issue in our earlier discussion of that in this thread remains--no one has been able to figure out just exactly what Ohio is getting out of the deal and over how long a term.  For the record, I do not give Kasich the benefit of the doubt on this; my baseline assumption, until proven otherwise, is that Ohio is getting a raw deal and the private actors involved are getting a sweetheart one.

 

Ohio's media should pay close attention to the privatization of state assets, not just because of the possibility that private individuals will profit off of long-term public investments because of their personal connections with the Governor. My concern is how privatization of prisons may lead, as it did in Arizona, to those same companies (like CCA) advocating for new laws and harsher sentences in order to fill those prisons and improve the bottom line. Kasich's new state warden is a 5 year veteran of CCA, the largest private prison contractor in the US.

 

The worst abuse of this was in AZ, where most of the prisons have been privatized. CCA and others like them were major forces behind the odious SB1070 anti-immigration bill.

 

With CCA and prison privatization lurking around Ohio, is it too early to predict that a similar law will be proposed in Ohio?

 

http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans/2010/10/21/operation-streamline-cca-immigration-and-private-prisons-and-how-it-all-connects/

 

Not to take anything away from your point, but I think <a href="http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/8ef5320729ce4298abefc1903704c7d5/Article_2011-02-18-Courthouse%20Kickbacks/id-f2efafa287544cb9abf963bfc09b9977">this one was worse</a>, albeit smaller in scale.  A Pennsylvania judge took bribes from for-profit juvenile detention centers in order to sentence kids to long jail terms for relatively minor offenses.

Privatization of prisons brings a new industry to the state -- industry, as in powerful and connected special-interest group, a group that benefits from harsh sentences. And we know well that the Kasich administration is much more friendly to business interests than to worker interests.

Privatization of prisons brings a new industry to the state -- industry, as in powerful and connected special-interest group, a group that benefits from harsh sentences. And we know well that the Kasich administration is much more friendly to business interests than to worker interests.

 

Good point. It would be nice for the Toledo Blade, or another major paper to look into this before the budget passes.

Wake-up this morning to see that there is a "There's a new sheriff in town" and low and behold what Google Ad is at the top of Urban Ohio?  :|

I like the ads for Ford SuperDuty trucks in the oil threads.

Also, I don't recall the Strickland administration spending a bunch of money on Google ads trying to get us to agree with him when he wasn't campaigning. This guy is so corporate it hurts. While it's true that government should be run like a business, it should be run like a family business that intends to benefit the family as a whole. Instead, he's trying to run it like a sociopathic American publicly-traded company -- spending a bunch on advertising so that people don't notice the product sucks.

Also, I don't recall the Strickland administration spending a bunch of money on Google ads trying to get us to agree with him when he wasn't campaigning. This guy is so corporate it hurts. While it's true that government should be run like a business, it should be run like a family business that intends to benefit the family as a whole. Instead, he's trying to run it like a sociopathic American publicly-traded company -- spending a bunch on advertising so that people don't notice the product sucks.

 

I don't agree that government can, or should be run like a business. The primary goal of business is to seek profit. All else is secondary. I don't want my state government, or anyone in it, to "profit". In fact, government is and should be responsible for services that don't realize short-term or even long-term profit, like schools, prisons, roads, environmental protection. Government should do its work efficiently, but that's not the same as running it like a business.

Thank you!^

Also, I don't recall the Strickland administration spending a bunch of money on Google ads trying to get us to agree with him when he wasn't campaigning.

 

I think Kasich's a clown, but it seems pretty clear to me that the ad in question was paid for by Americans For Prosperity, not the Governor's office.

Speaking of political ads, tonight I saw an ad defending some nursing group from cuts proposed in the Kasich budget....  showed a couple old guys in veterans gear saying "don't take my choice away" inferring the new law will somehow take away veterans benefits????  Anyone else see this?

Also, I don't recall the Strickland administration spending a bunch of money on Google ads trying to get us to agree with him when he wasn't campaigning.

 

I think Kasich's a clown, but it seems pretty clear to me that the ad in question was paid for by Americans For Prosperity, not the Governor's office.

 

Thanks for clarifying that, I've seen several of those on here, but I saw another one that had a picture of Kasich saying "Join me... etc." that I can't seem to call up again to investigate further.

Kasick needs to find time to sit down and watch this along with all his followers/minions.  The clock is ticking for all Ohio cities.  We are in a death spiral which stands the chance of burying this state if we don't take action soon!  We can't put all of our eggs in one basket contrary to what Johnnies beliefs are that he learned at Lehman.  It's do or die!

 

You have to hand it to the people who ran the Kasich for Governor campaign.  They did an outstanding job of hiding what an arrogant egotist John Kasich is.  But since Kasich became Governor, any restraints they had on him are off.  Every interview is a new adventure.  Here is the latest from Tuesday's Columbus Dispatch:

 

Interview with governor:  Kasich opposes local tax hikes to offset state cuts

 

"Look, we're making hard decisions at the state level," Kasich said. "It is time for local government to make decisions at the local level. We're giving them a lot of tools, and if they want more tools, we'll give them to them.

 

"Everybody in this state, whether it's the townships, whether it's the cities, whether it's the school districts - raising taxes at the local level is not an option."

He's like Charlie Sheen without the drugs. (Drugs being about the only thing I'm able to give him the benefit of the doubt on, at this point. Though it might explain a few things.)

Also, I don't recall the Strickland administration spending a bunch of money on Google ads trying to get us to agree with him when he wasn't campaigning. This guy is so corporate it hurts. While it's true that government should be run like a business, it should be run like a family business that intends to benefit the family as a whole. Instead, he's trying to run it like a sociopathic American publicly-traded company -- spending a bunch on advertising so that people don't notice the product sucks.

 

I don't agree that government can, or should be run like a business. The primary goal of business is to seek profit. All else is secondary. I don't want my state government, or anyone in it, to "profit". In fact, government is and should be responsible for services that don't realize short-term or even long-term profit, like schools, prisons, roads, environmental protection. Government should do its work efficiently, but that's not the same as running it like a business.

 

I have to disagree.  The Government should be run similar to a business, but not operate as a business.  The main goal of a business is to perform it's services in compliance to contract obligations while at the same time post a profit.  If it doesn't, it's no longer a business.  For the state, the main goal should be to run the state while performing their services for the population, while at the same time, posting a profit.  You could call it a surplus if you would like.  If it does not, what right do we have to being a state, and providing services to our population.  We can not go on for years and years providing services that we can't pay for.  Just as oakiehigh said, the state is in a death spiral, and something needs to be done.