Agreed. The role of a government is to provide partly, services to its population, but it must do so fiscally solvent. A government cannot function running a deficit, and so sacrifices must be made during times of economic downturn. In some respects, the government should be operated more as a business than as the typical wasteful entity it is - we can hold our "shareholders" to be more accountable, and under a rosy picture, boot them out when things aren't going so well.

 

There is no reason that Ohio should be facing a $8 billion deficit. With it pegged that high - and $8 billion is no chump change, major sacrifices must be made, even in the short term, to return to good fiscal health.

 

If I must maintain my finances to be in good order, why can I not expect our government to do the same?

gotribe & Sherman Cahal +1.

I think Kasich is overreaching too much into issues of purely local concern.

 

On the government being run like a business debate, without inserting the us (citizens) vs them (gov't) viewpoint that I don't hold, I agree that government has the duty to be financial responsible.  But I disagree that you are suppossed to run it like a business.  These constant comparisons between the private sector and the public sector don't hold much water with me.  It is a false equivolency.  I look at gov't more like a not-for-profit entity.... if a comparison to the private sector must be made.  Despite what many believe, the #1 priority of gov't is not to lower your taxes. 

I think Kasich is overreaching too much into issues of purely local concern.

 

On the government being run like a business debate, without inserting the us (citizens) vs them (gov't) viewpoint that I don't hold, I agree that government has the duty to be financial responsible.  But I disagree that you are suppossed to run it like a business.  These constant comparisons between the private sector and the public sector don't hold much water with me.  It is a false equivolency.  I look at gov't more like a not-for-profit entity.... if a comparison to the private sector must be made.  Despite what many believe, the #1 priority of gov't is not to lower your taxes. 

Sure, the main priority of the government may not be to lower taxes.  However, they in no way should raise property taxes and sales tax, then two years later say they are operating at an $8 billion dollar defecit.  That's fine if they want to keep our taxes stagnant for many years to come, however, they need to learn how to operate within that "income" that is coming into the state.  That is their revenue source, and they need to operate within that budget. 

 

As far as operating as a non-profit, I can not jump on board with that.  If the state of Ohio could operate at a surplus, we may be able to have an upper-hand over places that historically within the past ten years have been able to attract large companies.  We simply need to make it easier to do business here, and that is nearly 100% impossible when we are faced with an $8 billion dollar deficit. 

Can we recall him now?  Please??!??!!?

The only way to get rid of an Ohio Gov. is through impeachment, and that is not happening when republicans control every aspect of government.

 

His approval rating is now at 30% while his disapproval rating is 46%(Recent Quinnipiac Poll).  The overwhelming majority disagree with his position on Unions and the budget. 

 

Ohioans are stuck with him

^^^ non-profits can certainly have surpluses.  The difference is that the surplus can't be used to increase the CEO's savings account.... or his/her children's trust funds.  There is a difference between a surplus and a profit.

The only way to get rid of an Ohio Gov. is through impeachment, and that is not happening when republicans control every aspect of government.

 

His approval rating is now at 30% while his disapproval rating is 46%(Recent Quinnipiac Poll).  The overwhelming majority disagree with his position on Unions and the budget. 

 

Ohioans are stuck with him

 

We could "pull a Kasich" and have a referendum on a constitutional amendment which explicitly bans Kasich from holding office.

Also, most nonprofits are run much like businesses in most ways, so I'm actually comfortable moving the analogy to running like a not-for-profit corporation as opposed to a for-profit corporation.  Essential principles like staying within the entity's means, being sensitive to the reduced means of funding sources (donors for nonprofits, taxpayers for governments), and getting the most bang out of every buck still apply.  Also, in terms of labor costs, nonprofits are often able to be substantially leaner and more efficient than most unionized government enterprises.

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.)

 

Ironically enough, Sheen's "Violent Torpedo of Truth" tour will be in Ohio next month.

Poll: Voters dislike Kasich's plans

Wednesday, March 23, 2011  06:28 AM

By Darrel Rowland, The Columbus Dispatch

 

Ohio voters disapprove of Gov. John Kasich's performance.  They don't like his push to gut collective bargaining for public employees.  The budget he rolled out last week is regarded as unfair.  His plan to sell several Ohio prisons gets thumbs down, too.

 

A new poll today -- the first since Kasich unveiled his $55.5 billion two-year budget  -- by Quinnipiac University contains almost no good news for Kasich, a Republican who took office a little more than two months ago. 

. . .

Details of the litany of bad tidings for Kasich in the poll:

 

• A total of 30 percent approve of his job performance. That's the same as in Quinnipiac's first poll, released Jan. 19. But his disapproval rating has skyrocketed, from 22 percent to 46 percent. Independents now disapprove by 49 percent to 25 percent, virtually the same breakdown as among women.

 

• Only 31 percent approve of his handling of the state budget, with 51 percent disapproving. The same minority primarily Republicans say Kasich's cuts will improve Ohio's economy. Another 35 percent say the proposed reductions will hurt the economy, 25 percent say they won't make any difference.

 

• By 17 points 53 percent to 36 percent Ohio voters don't think the Kasich budget is fair to people like them.

 

• Kasich's plan to sell five state prisons to help balance the budget draws fire from 46 percent; 39 percent approve of the proposal.

 

• While just 30 percent say Kasich's budget cuts are "about right," that's at least within shouting distance of the 40 percent who say they go too far. And 15 percent contend they don't go far enough.

 

• By 55 percent to 37 percent, Ohio voters don't think limiting collective bargaining for public employees is necessary to help balance the state budget. And by 58 percent to 35 percent, Ohioans don't think strikes by government workers should be banned, as proposed in Senate Bill 5.

 

The telephone survey, which included land lines and cell phones, from March 15 through Monday of 1,384 registered Ohio voters has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.  The poll is at http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/oh/oh03232011.doc

 

MORE: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/23/copy/23-poll-public-dislikes-kasich-plans.html?sid=101

 

 

^As far as the points listed above, I do not think anyone should be able to walk out on their employer.  Not only that, as far as teachers go, they are walking out on their students.  My Mom and Sister are both teachers, and my Mom said walking out on the North Royalton Schools back in 1971 was one of the most embarrassing things she ever had to do. 

 

Secondly, I really don't think John Kasich thought he would be a very popular person when he had to come up with a way to shrink an $8 billion dollar budget deficit.  The crazy thing is, he knows he will never get re-elected do to the decisions he had to make, and the benifits from it probably will not be felt until he is out of office. 

You're making the giant assumption that the decision he DID make he "has to make".  I disagree.  He didn't have to kill the 3C, for example.  He doesn't have to restrict the ability of my community to reach a fair and mutually agreeable contract with the exclusive bargaining reps for our firefighters, cops and teachers.  It is these types of decisions that are making him unpopular, not any non-partisan, good faith efforts to bring the budget into balance.

 

That said, I am not one of the many who is calling for his removal.  He won the election fair and square and unlike too many in our society I do understand that 'heavy lies the crown'.... especially in modern politics.  He will be judged again in 2014.  Until then, he is my governor.  I actually probably agree with 85% of the decisions he has made.  But I so strongly disagree with the other 15% that, if polled, I likely would be in the 'disapprove' category

I think the debate over how to run the government and budget for the state goes like this:

 

Republican:  How much do I want to spend?  (not a lot)  Ok, what kind of government services can I get for that? (not  a lot)

 

Democrat:  What kind of services should the government provide?  (a decent amount)  Ok how much should I make the check out for. 

 

It is basically a fact that Republicans are more selfish and do not want anybody spending their money and Democrats are more sympathetic and realize how much a collective effort can accomplish but sometimes at the risk of  overspending.  A healthy balance is necessary and the citizens of Ohio think Kasich has cut too much in his budget.  I think the voters of Ohio got what they deserved because Kasich really has not done much that he didn't say he was going to do.  If they would have paid more attention to the election they would not find themselves being unhappy with him.  Maybe they will think more about their vote next time.  I am surprised at the level of apathy towards politics among Americans these days but when something doesn't go the way they want they complain.  Its called voting.  Voting really does affect people and with the drastic measures that Kasich has taken maybe people will figure that out.

^ I don't know. I think he was pretty vague about what he was going to cut and how he was going to balance the budget during the campaign. (That was the primary reason I voted against him. I didn't like the idea of giving someone permission to cut the budget without telling me where the cuts are from.)

 

That said I also agree with most of what he's done (with some notable exceptions) but I think he's done a poor job of selling us on some of his changes. That might be partially due to him being new to the office though.

 

I agree with HTS that he's been elected and we need to deal with it and judge him in a few years.

Mikel, I think you are way overgeneralizing.

 

How many republicans and democrats do you know?

 

What in your life experience tells you that republicans are more selfish than democrats?

 

Most republicans I know are not selfish. Quite the opposite, in fact. They are generous with their charity. Just like most democrats I know. The republicans I know simply believe that government should play a lesser role in solving our social problems.  You can have a "collective effort" outside of government. It's in your power.

 

Now whether you agree with that method is your prerogative. But I think it's wrong to make vast, sweeping judgments like that.

 

 

I think the debate over how to run the government and budget for the state goes like this:

 

Republican:  How much do I want to spend?  (not a lot)  Ok, what kind of government services can I get for that? (not  a lot)

 

Democrat:  What kind of services should the government provide?  (a decent amount)  Ok how much should I make the check out for. 

 

It is basically a fact that Republicans are more selfish and do not want anybody spending their money and Democrats are more sympathetic and realize how much a collective effort can accomplish but sometimes at the risk of  overspending.  A healthy balance is necessary and the citizens of Ohio think Kasich has cut too much in his budget.  I think the voters of Ohio got what they deserved because Kasich really has not done much that he didn't say he was going to do.  If they would have paid more attention to the election they would not find themselves being unhappy with him.  Maybe they will think more about their vote next time.  I am surprised at the level of apathy towards politics among Americans these days but when something doesn't go the way they want they complain.  Its called voting.  Voting really does affect people and with the drastic measures that Kasich has taken maybe people will figure that out.

In addition, why should one assume even based on the stereotypical policies that each party supports that the Republicans are more selfish than the Democrats?  A significant majority of the Democratic base consists of people who get much more money out of the government than they put into it: public sector unions, transfer payment recipients, and so forth.  Yes, there are notable exceptions like George Soros.  There are also a fair number of more aristocratic or upper-middle-class Democrats with less name recognition who don't mind the higher tax burden.  They are still the exception, not the rule.

 

Who's more selfish, the one who wants to keep what he's earned or the one who wants the government to give him a healthy slice of what his neighbor earned?

^^Republicans believe that government should play a lessor role in solving our social issues?  Ha!!!!  Hysterical!

 

Sure they do.... as long as it doesn't involve who we marry, what we consume, what we do in the privacy of our own bedroom, how we express ourselves in public, what a private property owner does on his own land, what we do with our own body, and a plethora of other invasions into our individual discretion.

 

^you could phrase the question that way Gramarye.... or you could ask who is more selfish, the one who wants to keep what he earns (or what was handed to him with a silver spoon up his arse) and say screw the less fortunate... or the one who wants to help out his neighbors and those who truly are in despair.  Or we could both stop with all the partisan phraseology and say that the American solution is found somewhere in the middle, as it always has been.

The one who wants to help out his neighbors voluntarily is clearly the less selfish.

 

The question is what to think of the neighbor who expects (or demands) to be helped out.

 

This is not a matter of perception; this is a matter of reality.  Most (not all, but most) of the people agitating for increased government spending are the ones who stand to benefit from it, not the ones who have to pay for it.

The one who wants to help out his neighbors voluntarily is clearly the less selfish.

I think that depends on your perspective. We could just as easily make the argument that the one that wants all of us to help out as a community is just as generous.

 

In either case I think we've moved way off subject.

I disagree with your last paragraph Gramarye.  Strongly disagree. 

Come on Hts, not today!!!  I mean social "ills" such as poverty and the like.

 

Sure, many republicans are hypocrites, as are democrats. One can argue that democrats want to intrude on our personal freedoms just as much.

 

Trust me, I can't stand republican's who preach "small government" in one breath only to increase military spending, Drug War and Patriot Act in another.

 

That's why I'm a Libertarian.

 

 

^^Republicans believe that government should play a lessor role in solving our social issues?  Ha!!!!  Hysterical!

 

Sure they do.... as long as it doesn't involve who we marry, what we consume, what we do in the privacy of our own bedroom, how we express ourselves in public, what a private property owner does on his own land, what we do with our own body, and a plethora of other invasions into our individual discretion.

 

^you could phrase the question that way Gramarye.... or you could ask who is more selfish, the one who wants to keep what he earns (or what was handed to him with a silver spoon up his arse) and say screw the less fortunate... or the one who wants to help out his neighbors and those who truly are in despair.  Or we could both stop with all the partisan phraseology and say that the American solution is found somewhere in the middle, as it always has been.

Who's more selfish, the one who wants to keep what he's earned or the one who wants the government to give him a healthy slice of what his neighbor earned?

 

"The one who wants to keep what he's earned" is pure rhetoric.  The issues are about what laws exist and whom or what groups they benefit.

 

The "which party is more selfish" discussion is pretty silly.  All parties claim their program confers greater general benefit to the public than other parties.  While some may try and argue that laissez-faire is more free and others may argue that a level playing field is more free, both of them represent express choices.  There is no default pure society, no real state of nature.

 

That's why the notion of "keep what he's earned" is false- you've only earned something in the sense that we understand the word if others recognize that you've earned it AND if the state may use force to compel others to recognize it.  So the dichotomy that sentence suggests: pure individual effort on the one side and heavy handed government compulsion on the other side, is false.  The state is compelling others to recognize property rights just as heavy handedly as they are redistributing in the contrasting case.

Sure, Kasich didn't have to kill the notion of a 3C rail corridor. Or the Cincinnati Streetcar. Or dozens and dozens of other important, equally worthy projects. But if we didn't have Kasich, and we were facing with such a large deficit that we must balance, what do you cut? Projects that have not yet started? Or projects that have broke ground and are under construction? Or close down projects that are already in operation?

 

Both the 3C and the Streetcar were destined not to generate revenue - that is a fact, but there are other tangible benefits that are beyond that that was not taken into account before both were axed. But try selling that to any governor and taxpayer during a time of recession, or a time of massive deficit. When you have the Feds beating down the door and saying that the US could be insolvent in as little as 10 years, that's downright scary. We need to right our finances, get back to fiscal health, and then hopefully get a governor that will resurrect these projects if the funding is available.

 

I don't see either of those projects happening under Kasich, at all.

If we are so desperate for money then why in the h e double hockey sticks is eliminating the estate tax even up for conversation?  Why are we spending over $1 billion to widen a highway in Columbus (or whatever that project is)? 

 

The budget had to be balanced.  It is required by law.  If Strickland was still in office, he would have had to do it too..... but I HIGHLY doubt he would have made the same choices.  Many of Kasich's decisions reflect a blatant attack on his political opponents.  They are driven by partisanship, thinly veiled under the guise of purported fiscal responsibility. 

^ I agree with that, but you have a different administration who does things, well, differently. 3 out of 10 Ohioians don't agree with his stances and actions so far, so in another 3 3/4 years, voters will get to decide again if they want Kasich (if he runs again), another Republican, or a Democrat. The populace voted him in because they believed that Strickland wasn't effective, and so here we have another shot to see if Kasich is any different.

I think you just repeated my post from earlier today ;)

Sure, Kasich didn't have to kill the notion of a 3C rail corridor. Or the Cincinnati Streetcar. Or dozens and dozens of other important, equally worthy projects. But if we didn't have Kasich, and we were facing with such a large deficit that we must balance, what do you cut? Projects that have not yet started? Or projects that have broke ground and are under construction? Or close down projects that are already in operation?

The state administered money that was voted to be removed from the streetcar project was not cut, it was reallocated to other projects.  Spending however much money in state funds (something like $30 million, I think) for a $400 million federal grant (that was both already allocated, and let's not forget, Kasich still asked for, he just didn't want to spend it on rail) was a silly thing to do because you end up giving that money to another state to leverage.  Bear in mind that money would have lead to improvements in private rail corridors that could conceivably have generated tax revenue from increased shipping and commercial activity.

 

In addition, the deficit is from the operating budget.

 

Both the 3C and the Streetcar were destined not to generate revenue - that is a fact

This is the complete opposite of a fact.  The state has the ability to create any tax regime it wants, save one that interferes with interstate commerce and that violates due process.  There's absolutely no reason why the state could not alter its laws to allow for some means to collect the expense of paying for the improvement from those most directly benefited by the improvement (say, impact fees on adjacent property owners in defined zones adjacent to the improvement, or whatever is most efficient and equitable).

 

but there are other tangible benefits that are beyond that that was not taken into account before both were axed. But try selling that to any governor and taxpayer during a time of recession, or a time of massive deficit. When you have the Feds beating down the door and saying that the US could be insolvent in as little as 10 years, that's downright scary.

If this was true, which it isn't, government securities would not have been selling at record lows for the past three years.  What's the interest rate on ten year treasury bonds?  What has it been since 1. Jan 2009?  How do those rates compare with other similar financial products (corporate bonds or foreign country bonds)?

 

We need to right our finances, get back to fiscal health, and then hopefully get a governor that will resurrect these projects if the funding is available.

In truth, now is the time that we should be spending money on physical improvements since so many people are out of work and costruction costs are considerably lower than at the start of the boom.  The biggest problem with government (because it is true for human nature) is the tendency to spend when the economy is humming and save when the economy is weak.  But we have an operating deficit because people aren't working.

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. 

 

What is the purpose of running a surplus? In government, that's usually called overbudgeting. And it a unit runs a surplus, should it be distributed to the workers in the form of a bonus, or back to the taxpayers? Do any governments actually do this, by the way? Usually, when governments run regular surpluses, it's a sign that taxes should be cut, assuming that the services are being delivered well.

In addition, why should one assume even based on the stereotypical policies that each party supports that the Republicans are more selfish than the Democrats?  A significant majority of the Democratic base consists of people who get much more money out of the government than they put into it: public sector unions, transfer payment recipients, and so forth.  Yes, there are notable exceptions like George Soros.  There are also a fair number of more aristocratic or upper-middle-class Democrats with less name recognition who don't mind the higher tax burden.  They are still the exception, not the rule.

 

Who's more selfish, the one who wants to keep what he's earned or the one who wants the government to give him a healthy slice of what his neighbor earned?

 

By your definition, any parent who sends their child to public school is a "Democrat", and anyone who is paying into Social Security (and not yet receiving any SS monies for themselves) is a "Republican". I don't think this holds.

The one who wants to help out his neighbors voluntarily is clearly the less selfish.

 

The question is what to think of the neighbor who expects (or demands) to be helped out.

 

This is not a matter of perception; this is a matter of reality.  Most (not all, but most) of the people agitating for increased government spending are the ones who stand to benefit from it, not the ones who have to pay for it.

Isn't this more of a question of the society we hope to live in? Should employed people be 'forced' to pay into social security, especially with the 2% change (I'm making this up) that they won't live long enough to draw benefits? The answer since the 1930s has been "yes", because we recognize the extreme poverty that many elderly people fell into before that time, and the benefits (to young people in particular) of erasing extreme poverty among the elderly. So, it doesn't really come down to "expectations" versus "demands" for benefits, but consideration of how all people can contribute to what we recognize as a greater social good. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are bitter at the compulsory nature of welfare, and would trade the personal costs for greater social cost.

 

My belief is that those people have an overweening sense of their own independence and ability, and probably think that just about whatever befalls a person -- from joblessness to health problems -- is deserved.

The one who wants to help out his neighbors voluntarily is clearly the less selfish.

 

The question is what to think of the neighbor who expects (or demands) to be helped out.

 

This is not a matter of perception; this is a matter of reality.  Most (not all, but most) of the people agitating for increased government spending are the ones who stand to benefit from it, not the ones who have to pay for it.

Isn't this more of a question of the society we hope to live in? Should employed people be 'forced' to pay into social security, especially with the 2% change (I'm making this up) that they won't live long enough to draw benefits? The answer since the 1930s has been "yes", because we recognize the extreme poverty that many elderly people fell into before that time, and the benefits (to young people in particular) of erasing extreme poverty among the elderly. So, it doesn't really come down to "expectations" versus "demands" for benefits, but consideration of how all people can contribute to what we recognize as a greater social good. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are bitter at the compulsory nature of welfare, and would trade the personal costs for greater social cost.

 

Say rather, that we believe that there are better ways than a government-run pension program to mitigate the risk of extreme poverty among the elderly.  Ways that would likely lead the vast majority of the elderly better off, some significantly better off, and only a very small number worse off.  In addition, it would leave the country as a whole better off because the financial health of the federal government affects everyone.  It is not that we deny that there are social costs to a less government-centric system; it's that we feel that everyone else is unfairly and dangerously minimizing the social costs of the government-centric system.

 

My belief is that those people have an overweening sense of their own independence and ability, and probably think that just about whatever befalls a person -- from joblessness to health problems -- is deserved.

 

I just had a similar conversation with StrapHanger on the recession thread about whether the people whose homes declined in value "deserved" to suffer those declines.  The real problem, however, is the jump from the question of whether a problem is "deserved" to demand for payment or support from the government on that basis.  Many people suffer damage to their houses or cars through no fault of their own; the government does not compensate them for that.  They are required to purchase their own insurance if they want to be protected from those losses.  (We do mandate that people carry liability insurance to protect others, but we don't--yet--mandate that they carry collision or comprehensive insurance to protect themselves.)  Hell, many people lose parents, spouses, or children through no fault of their own; we don't compensate them for that, even though that's about as serious a loss as one can conceive.  You can buy life insurance on those individuals, of course, but you don't get an automatic payment from the government on account of those losses.

 

Many people in Canton did not deserve to have the inner city neighborhoods become slums.  The government did not compensate them for the declines in their property values between 1960 and today.

 

Many people born in Michigan did not ask to be born in Michigan.  The government does not compensate them for that grievous misfortune.

 

Somehow, however, losses of jobs and losses of personal health acquired a kind of special status.  Those two things you mentioned, joblessness and health problems, are the two major expensive ills that the government essentially insures against.  Why?  Why is the private sector presumptively incompetent to insure against such losses when it insures against so much else?  Or, if you insist on using the rhetoric of justice, what makes those undeserved misfortunes so much more deserving of being covered--at enormous taxpayer expense--than the myriad other undeserved misfortunes that the government does not insure?  Or are you arguing that the government should insure against all of those losses (and potentially many more that lobbyists would then convince Congress were socially insurable losses) as well?

 

I do not think that anyone deserves to be jobless.  I do not feel that anyone deserves to be sick, or to die.  I just do not think that the enormous, ongoing expenses of trying to have the government mitigate those misfortunes are worth it.  I question the conceptual underpinnings of the programs because I don't think that joblessness and ill health are somehow special in the hierarchy of misfortunes.  I also question the practical effect of the programs because I seriously wonder just how much more unemployment, poverty, or ill health there would be in, say, ten years if those programs were completely phased out over the next five years.

 

As for the sense of my own independence and ability: on the latter point, yes.  On the former point, no.  I recognize that we live in an interdependent world.  I just don't draw the redistributionist conclusions that liberals seem to think somehow obviously flow from that premise.

Government role in joblessness is a debatable issue. On health care, however, given that this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal, it is unacceptable and perhaps immoral for a country as wealthy as ours ($40,000 per capita income) to allow fellow humans to go hungry and without health care. Now, that does not mean it is government's responsibility to provide that care. But given the private sector's inability -- or lack of desire -- to address the problem, then it falls upon the government to find a solution, either by working with the private sector or, if the private sector doesn't want to cooperate, finding a public-sector remedy.

As for Kasich, I would have to say I support 0.0% of what he's done since his election. I didn't think it was possible for one man to be so wrong and so arrogant about so many things.

 

Look at SB5. Is that intended to deal with the $8 billion budget deficit? Or is it a political move to disembowel the unions? These are legitimate questions because it does not appear to have been done for economic reasons. The unions in recent years have agreed to pay freezes, unpaid furloughs, and greater contributions to health care and pensions and are willing to accept further cuts. But the bill was forced through the Senate with a bit of chicanery by the Senate President. And if the bill is intended to deal with budget issues, why does it allow public employees to continue bargaining on wages, but not on working conditions? And what do future local decisions on working conditions have to do with this year's budget deficit?

 

Now let's look at education. What is Kasich's policy other than "Ugh! Private sector good. Public sector bad?" It's been established that, by and large, private charter schools are no better than public schools when it comes to test scores and overall performance, and that many of the charters were fly-by-night operations with neither the academic nor economic wherewithal to operate. That's what happens when a state throws open the doors and then fails to monitor the schools. Strickland rightly screened this open-door policy, but now Kasich wants to shred the screen. Does his plan include standards and regulations for the charters? I'm not sure he even has a plan. He only has an ideology.

 

Take the cut in government funding. Even when Kasich has an idea with some merit, he carries it out like a bull in a china shop. The idea of getting Ohio's many, many local governments (though far fewer than a lot of other states) to work more collaboratively and to share services to cut costs is a good one. But I'm not sure it will happen, given Kasich's approach. First, he slashes state funding to local governments that already have been making a lot of cuts, and then he comes out and tells them they should not raise local taxes. Never mind the notion of a dictatorial governor telling the leaders of home-rule cities how to do their jobs. His strategy is to make all the local governments so desperate that they're forced to get together and hammer out some cooperative deals. Is that how we design a better system? By fomenting anger and desperation?

 

Ohio desperately needs to find ways to operate more efficiently and effectively, and we have too many units of local government. So -- how do we do it? Well, to begin with, a lot of governments are already working on that. The Regional Prosperity Initiative in 16 NE Ohio counties is a good example, and there are others. But a lot of efforts are stalled because state law stands in the way, and lobbyists like the powerful Ohio Homebuilders Association fight against change, and legislators bow down to them. Ohio also has a great vehicle to facilitate regional and collaborative approaches to governing. There are about 16 regional councils covering every metro area in the state, and about 80 or 90 percent of the population: NOACA in Cleveland, TMACOG in Toledo, OKI in Cincinnati and MORPC in Columbus. I know for a fact that Kasich has not reached out to these local and regional experts. Wouldn't it be more effective to include these councils, and to reach out to the mayors of major cities, commissioners in many counties and trustees in many townships and have a statewide conference on government reform -- the best ways to do it from the local standpoint, and what the state needs to do to facilitate it? Of course it would. But that's not the Kasich way -- that makes too much sense and shows some cohesiveness. Kasich wants to be a tough guy and order people around. That's a tough way to do things, but a stupid one.

 

I could go on and on -- and I probably will later.

Thank you for bringing this back on topic.

Sure, Kasich didn't have to kill the notion of a 3C rail corridor. Or the Cincinnati Streetcar. Or dozens and dozens of other important, equally worthy projects. But if we didn't have Kasich, and we were facing with such a large deficit that we must balance, what do you cut? Projects that have not yet started? Or projects that have broke ground and are under construction? Or close down projects that are already in operation?

The state administered money that was voted to be removed from the streetcar project was not cut, it was reallocated to other projects.  Spending however much money in state funds (something like $30 million, I think) for a $400 million federal grant (that was both already allocated, and let's not forget, Kasich still asked for, he just didn't want to spend it on rail) was a silly thing to do because you end up giving that money to another state to leverage.  Bear in mind that money would have lead to improvements in private rail corridors that could conceivably have generated tax revenue from increased shipping and commercial activity.

 

In addition, the deficit is from the operating budget.

 

Sorry, it was 'redirected' but that isn't how it is being spun. Of course, one could say that Canton was a more worthy recipient than Cincinnati for the funding, and I wonder how they are taking it all in.

 

And I agree with your statement LK, but governments rarely look at project planning from a long-term prospective. They look at the short-term bang-for-your-buck analysis - what provides the most return-on-investment in 5 years. Not 10, not 20, and certainly not 30. It's why we give tax breaks to Bob Evans to relocate from Columbus to another suburb, and why we couldn't use that money ($8 million?) to attract a new venture. It's why we do everything to keep the marginal jobs in Company A that is left versus being proactive and seeking new employers.

 

 

Both the 3C and the Streetcar were destined not to generate revenue - that is a fact

This is the complete opposite of a fact.  The state has the ability to create any tax regime it wants, save one that interferes with interstate commerce and that violates due process.  There's absolutely no reason why the state could not alter its laws to allow for some means to collect the expense of paying for the improvement from those most directly benefited by the improvement (say, impact fees on adjacent property owners in defined zones adjacent to the improvement, or whatever is most efficient and equitable).

 

I don't disagree with that, but with the way the scheme is set up in the United States, rail - passenger rail, almost always needs to be defined in terms of profit. How much will the Northeast Corridor profit from Project A improvements? How much revenue will this line generate? The questions that should be answered are: How does this line serve the community's needs? How can we make this line to be as efficient - fiscally, as possible (and possibly not generate a profit)? How can this line be promoted as a replacement to airlines and highways?

 

As a result, we look at the 3C and other similar projects in terms of profitability. The 3C planners were looking at the highway sign logo program for revenue at one point - the logos on interstates and expressways that indicate a particular business off of an interchange. In a better situation, we would not have even called for such a desperate measure.

The highway logos were not a desperate measure. It was basically hidden money. I have a friend who has been a rail planner for the state for 30 years and did not know about this money until somebody proposed it for 3-C. Now they're looking at it to support freight rail projects. It's a rare bit of discretionary transportation money and it would have been great for 3-C operating expenses.

I do not think that anyone deserves to be jobless.  I do not feel that anyone deserves to be sick, or to die.  I just do not think that the enormous, ongoing expenses of trying to have the government mitigate those misfortunes are worth it.  I question the conceptual underpinnings of the programs because I don't think that joblessness and ill health are somehow special in the hierarchy of misfortunes.  I also question the practical effect of the programs because I seriously wonder just how much more unemployment, poverty, or ill health there would be in, say, ten years if those programs were completely phased out over the next five years.

 

This is the best thing I've read on this board in awhile.  The ongoing effort to prevent the unpreventable is where I really just don't understand the point of some of these social programs.  The poor will always be among us.

The only way to get rid of an Ohio Gov. is through impeachment, and that is not happening when republicans control every aspect of government.

 

His approval rating is now at 30% while his disapproval rating is 46%(Recent Quinnipiac Poll).  The overwhelming majority disagree with his position on Unions and the budget. 

 

Ohioans are stuck with him

 

We could "pull a Kasich" and have a referendum on a constitutional amendment which explicitly bans Kasich from holding office.

 

I am mistaken.  There is a way to send Kasich packing before his term is over.  However, it would require a Citizens Initiative Process to amend the Governors term of office

Need to circulate initiative petitions for a Constitutional amendment that would allow for recall votes in Ohio, then would have to circulate more petitions for a recall election.

This is the best thing I've read on this board in awhile.  The ongoing effort to prevent the unpreventable is where I really just don't understand the point of some of these social programs.  The poor will always be among us.

You don't understand it because you've missed the point.  These social programs aren't attempts to prevent the unpreventable.  They are essentially insurance devices to mitigate risks, particularly in the case of the larger ones by transferring the cost of poverty in old age to ones younger years.

 

I do not think that anyone deserves to be jobless.  I do not feel that anyone deserves to be sick, or to die.  I just do not think that the enormous, ongoing expenses of trying to have the government mitigate those misfortunes are worth it.  I question the conceptual underpinnings of the programs because I don't think that joblessness and ill health are somehow special in the hierarchy of misfortunes.

What an incredibly odd thing to say.  Not having work and being in poor physical shape speak to our purpose as sentient beings and our very existence.  Feeling worthless or without the ability to take care of yourself rank among the top in the hierarchy of misfortunes.

 

I also question the practical effect of the programs because I seriously wonder just how much more unemployment, poverty, or ill health there would be in, say, ten years if those programs were completely phased out over the next five years.

My guess is that you can look at old data from when these programs didn't exist and get a pretty good idea, though you'd probably have to account, at least in the unemployment situation, the massive differences that mechanization has played in countless industries.  One reason why studying history is important is that it lets us see that a bunch of other people have already had what we may have considered our own unique insights.

 

I do not think that anyone deserves to be jobless.  I do not feel that anyone deserves to be sick, or to die.  I just do not think that the enormous, ongoing expenses of trying to have the government mitigate those misfortunes are worth it.  I question the conceptual underpinnings of the programs because I don't think that joblessness and ill health are somehow special in the hierarchy of misfortunes.  I also question the practical effect of the programs because I seriously wonder just how much more unemployment, poverty, or ill health there would be in, say, ten years if those programs were completely phased out over the next five years.

 

 

This is the best thing I've read on this board in awhile.  The ongoing effort to prevent the unpreventable is where I really just don't understand the point of some of these social programs.  The poor will always be among us.

 

On the first point, the real issue for me is not whether we should have unemployment insurance, or Medicare, but how they are paid for. Right now, the feds collect for Medicare/aid and Social Security, and if taxes need to rise to reflect the real coast of what people are paying into those systems, then that's fine with me. Social Security, for one, has always generated a surplus for the feds.

 

I do believe, though that ill health and unemployment are things that the government can help mitigate. I don't think that the loss of a family member is necessarily the kind of "pain" that the government can mitigate, although Social Security does provide for minor children in case their parents die. In the other cases, loss of neighborhood vitality, or the misfortune of having been born in Michigan (?), are not categorical problems easily addressed by government policy on a national level.

 

To SHS's comment, it sounds like we should just throw up our hands and give up on trying to do anything. If the poor will always be among us, then so will death, so why have medicine? It's also a matter of degree - societies with wide income gaps tend not to last very long without losing any semblance of democracy or human rights. Our country's strength lies both in its individual and collective spirits, including taking care of one's neighbors and, as it says in the Constitution, "the common welfare". Yes, the founders used the term WELFARE. Our current economic adjustment can be as painful as we want it to be, or we can remember that our fellow human beings might also need some assistance once in a while. And perhaps government, rather than dreaming that everything can somehow be for-profit, is the best way to address those persistent social ills. 

 

And that has a lot to do with Kasich; since he's made it on Wall Street, I have a feeling he thinks that everyone should be able to.

 

I do not think that anyone deserves to be jobless.  I do not feel that anyone deserves to be sick, or to die.  I just do not think that the enormous, ongoing expenses of trying to have the government mitigate those misfortunes are worth it.  I question the conceptual underpinnings of the programs because I don't think that joblessness and ill health are somehow special in the hierarchy of misfortunes.  I also question the practical effect of the programs because I seriously wonder just how much more unemployment, poverty, or ill health there would be in, say, ten years if those programs were completely phased out over the next five years.

 

 

This is the best thing I've read on this board in awhile.  The ongoing effort to prevent the unpreventable is where I really just don't understand the point of some of these social programs.  The poor will always be among us.

 

On the first point, the real issue for me is not whether we should have unemployment insurance, or Medicare, but how they are paid for. Right now, the feds collect for Medicare/aid and Social Security, and if taxes need to rise to reflect the real coast of what people are paying into those systems, then that's fine with me. Social Security, for one, has always generated a surplus for the feds.

 

At first blush, this is true.  The problem is that that surplus has been raided and spent over the years.  Now we've (ostensibly temporarily) cut the payroll tax without cutting benefits, another way of opening a gap between actual collections and promised future benefits.  This essentially gives the older generation a double-dipping benefit and demands that the younger generation pay twice for it: the older generation got the advantage of having that extra money spent on them 30 years ago in the general government budget, and then also wants the benefits of the money now as if it had never been spent from the social security surplus.

 

I do believe, though that ill health and unemployment are things that the government can help mitigate. I don't think that the loss of a family member is necessarily the kind of "pain" that the government can mitigate, although Social Security does provide for minor children in case their parents die. In the other cases, loss of neighborhood vitality, or the misfortune of having been born in Michigan (?), are not categorical problems easily addressed by government policy on a national level.

 

The Michigan comment just slipped out from somewhere in my Buckeye blood.

 

As for the rest, though, the issues are (i) whether the costs of trying to mitigate those ills justify the expense and the strain on the federal treasury, and (ii) how much of the gap left by eliminating those programs could and would be filled by the private sector, not whether any mitigation occurs in the absolute sense.  Of course if you spend trillions of dollars a decade paying for health care and unemployment insurance, you're going to somewhat mitigate those risks.  The issue is whether what we get out of it is worth those trillions.  All spending carries an opportunity cost.  What else might we have accomplished as a country without those perennial gargantuan drains on the federal budget?

I do not think that anyone deserves to be jobless.  I do not feel that anyone deserves to be sick, or to die.  I just do not think that the enormous, ongoing expenses of trying to have the government mitigate those misfortunes are worth it.  I question the conceptual underpinnings of the programs because I don't think that joblessness and ill health are somehow special in the hierarchy of misfortunes.

What an incredibly odd thing to say.  Not having work and being in poor physical shape speak to our purpose as sentient beings and our very existence.  Feeling worthless or without the ability to take care of yourself rank among the top in the hierarchy of misfortunes.

 

"Feeling worthless" is not something that I think justifies the amount we spend to mitigate it--also, simply collecting an unemployment check has been shown to do very little, even less than nothing, to increase one's sense of self worth.

 

I stand by my original point.

 

I also question the practical effect of the programs because I seriously wonder just how much more unemployment, poverty, or ill health there would be in, say, ten years if those programs were completely phased out over the next five years.

My guess is that you can look at old data from when these programs didn't exist and get a pretty good idea, though you'd probably have to account, at least in the unemployment situation, the massive differences that mechanization has played in countless industries.  One reason why studying history is important is that it lets us see that a bunch of other people have already had what we may have considered our own unique insights.

 

Again, I stand by my original point.  I am well versed on my history--well enough versed to appreciate how much has changed since the Great Depression, and how much faster change for the better continues to happen, with a decade of progress today being closer to the equivalent of a hundred years of progress in the eighteenth century.  Our grasp of economics is much more sound today, though one wouldn't necessarily guess it by the protectionist calls in Washington; still, we would not likely repeat some of the more grievous policy mistakes of the Depression era, which most economists agree prolonged the Depression, not mitigated it.  A great deal of other laws have changed in the past three generations, too.  I reject the argument that getting rid of those programs now would actually return us to the way the world was before they were introduced.

The highway logos were not a desperate measure. It was basically hidden money. I have a friend who has been a rail planner for the state for 30 years and did not know about this money until somebody proposed it for 3-C. Now they're looking at it to support freight rail projects. It's a rare bit of discretionary transportation money and it would have been great for 3-C operating expenses.

 

Sure it is. It's desperate. Why would you rape a fund that is designed for businesses to display their logo on a highway sign, whose funds goes towards the maintenance of said signage and to general highway funds where they are appropriated at?

 

These special funding tricks really help derail any good faith judgements on politicians. Pullman Square in Huntington, WV, for instance, was built not because of private enterprise, but because the federal government authorized money for the construction of an "intermodal transportation center." All it included were two massive parking garages and a bus shelter that sees a grand total of 0 buses that stop daily. Disguised as something different, with money being pilfered from highway transportation funds as a special enhancement project.

"Feeling worthless" is not something that I think justifies the amount we spend to mitigate it--also, simply collecting an unemployment check has been shown to do very little, even less than nothing, to increase one's sense of self worth.

 

I stand by my original point.

You don't receive unemployment benefits in order to feel better about yourself.  You receive unemployment benefits because you've paid into the program.  The program is designed to facilitate the job search/retraining of the individual during the period of unemployment, so that they are able to maintain their basic lifestyle (because your expenses that you've contracted when you were employed don't disappear when your job does) while looking for an appropriate position.  And they've paid into the insurance program via the payroll deduction while they were working.  The program is designed to mitigate the immediate effects of unemployment by allowing people to maintain their obligations and also provide a cushion so that they can find a more appropriate job for their skill set, rather than just grab the first job they can get and may be vastly overqualified for simply because they need a certain amount of income.

 

But joblessness (and ill health) certainly is special in the hierarchy of misfortunes.  Having no creative purpose in life or no capacity to contribute is a terrible misfortune that goes to the heart of our vary nature as humans.  Federal unemployment insurance doesn't speak to this at all.  But this certainly is special in the hierarchy of misfortunes.

"Feeling worthless" is not something that I think justifies the amount we spend to mitigate it--also, simply collecting an unemployment check has been shown to do very little, even less than nothing, to increase one's sense of self worth.

 

I stand by my original point.

You don't receive unemployment benefits in order to feel better about yourself.  You receive unemployment benefits because you've paid into the program.  The program is designed to facilitate the job search/retraining of the individual during the period of unemployment, so that they are able to maintain their basic lifestyle (because your expenses that you've contracted when you were employed don't disappear when your job does) while looking for an appropriate position.  And they've paid into the insurance program via the payroll deduction while they were working.  The program is designed to mitigate the immediate effects of unemployment by allowing people to maintain their obligations and also provide a cushion so that they can find a more appropriate job for their skill set, rather than just grab the first job they can get and may be vastly overqualified for simply because they need a certain amount of income.

 

All true ... but there is no reason that that could not be done by the private sector with the same payroll deduction that pays for the vast majority of other forms of insurance.  Everything you just wrote would apply to a private program as well: you receive benefits because you've paid into the program, and those benefits are to compensate you for your loss, not to make you feel better about yourself.  Why should this be a compulsory federal obligation?  What if I want more unemployment insurance, or less?  What if I want to self-insure by simply investing my own money?  And, perhaps most important, why should I, with a skill set that makes me fairly employable, be paying the same premium (or even a higher one) than someone with a nearly useless skill set that makes them very likely to be unemployed?  That last part is the reason that unemployment insurance isn't really insurance; it's inherently a redistributive welfare program.  "Insurance" just sounds better for propagandists for the program.

All true ... but there is no reason that that could not be done by the private sector with the same payroll deduction that pays for the vast majority of other forms of insurance.

What's the difference?  Except, admin costs when done by the government are far less.

All true ... but there is no reason that that could not be done by the private sector with the same payroll deduction that pays for the vast majority of other forms of insurance.

What's the difference?  Except, admin costs when done by the government are far less.

 

Salient differences include (1) risk pricing (in the private market, your rate depends on your risk; in the public market, your rate depends on your income); and (2) customization, in the sense that people could purchase different tiers of insurance rather than being forced into a one-size-fits-all "policy" within a government monopoly.  Also, I seriously question that the administrative costs are that much less in the public system.  I've seen newspaper articles claiming that, but the assertion is just facially not credible.  Monopolies are inefficient.  Governments are inefficient.  The idea that this government monopoly is efficient is just laughable.

Some other tidbits that just got passed by this administration:

 

[*]The brown attraction signs on the interstates and expressways can now be sponsored to generate revenue. Expect to see: "Adams Lake State Park, Sponsored by Bass Pro Shops" in the future.

[*]The removal of the word "Stimulus" or any mention of the stimulus funding from any roadway sign. Granted the signs cost $4,000 each and are reusable, the rationale was not the cost but the "advertisment" of the Obama administration.