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.

I'm pretty sure if you keep repeating your mantras over and over to yourself it becomes true!  "Every day in every way, I'm getting better and better, and the government is getting worse and worse.  Every day in every way..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Cou%C3%A9

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.

I'm pretty sure if you keep repeating your mantras over and over to yourself it becomes true!

 

They're not mantras; they're facts.  I repeat them because they bear repeating.  Government apologists can deny them only so long before the illusion falls apart--and the people revolt and elect people like Kasich into office.

 

If government monopolies really could provide services that everyone wanted and do so efficiently, the Democrats would never lose an election.

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.

 

The difference is that the private corporation will skim a bunch off the top as profit.

Monopolies are inefficient.  Governments are inefficient.

 

You're right, but government monopolies are not as bad as private monopolies (I don't have time to get into my theory on why right now, but I'll just say that I believe that government monopolies are likely better than private oligopolies as well).  In this country, most private sectors are controlled by a very few massive corporations, so the government alternative (especially in a field like insurance) doesn't seem so bad.

 

Many competing firms is great, but even there are some disadvantages there (like losing the benefits of economies of scale).  So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not as easy as simply saying "X (usually private industry) is better than Y (usually government) just because I can rattle off a couple of benefits."

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.

I'm pretty sure if you keep repeating your mantras over and over to yourself it becomes true!

 

They're not mantras; they're facts.  I repeat them because they bear repeating.  Government apologists can deny them only so long before the illusion falls apart--and the people revolt and elect people like Kasich into office.

 

If government monopolies really could provide services that everyone wanted and do so efficiently, the Democrats would never lose an election.

 

It's not that efficiency is a problem is the wanting: deciding what programs we 'want' versus 'need', and further private individuals 'wanting' to squeeze profits out of services like schools that have never been profitable on a mass scale. Private corporations might be more "efficient" in "providing" government services, but they slash pay and benefits, and take the rest as "profit". Sure, over time, I suppose other corporations could come in and take less profit, but in the end your left with low-paid workers who, in all likelihood, are less qualified over time to do those jobs. It's a cost/quality dilemma, as always.

They're not mantras; they're facts.  I repeat them because they bear repeating.  Government apologists can deny them only so long before the illusion falls apart--and the people revolt and elect people like Kasich into office.

Really?  Did that just happen?  You've clearly made the effort to discuss the "facts" of the 2010 election- you've compared the Republican voter turnout to the Republican voter turnout in 2008, you've done the same thing for the Democratic voter turnout, etc.  Home run.

 

"Every day, in every way, my facts are so obvious the don't bear citing and government apologists deny my writing."

They're not mantras; they're facts.  I repeat them because they bear repeating.  Government apologists can deny them only so long before the illusion falls apart--and the people revolt and elect people like Kasich into office.

Really?  Did that just happen?  You've clearly made the effort to discuss the "facts" of the 2010 election- you've compared the Republican voter turnout to the Republican voter turnout in 2008, you've done the same thing for the Democratic voter turnout, etc.  Home run.

 

"Every day, in every way, my facts are so obvious the don't bear citing and government apologists deny my writing."

 

Well, at least you don't deny being a government apologist. :-P

 

And we both phrase our analyses of facts as facts themselves--or do you have some evidentiary study on why joblessness and poor health are somehow more unique among misfortunes than other major losses?  Or on the extent of the crowding-out effect of our government-run social insurance programs?

Are you guys even talking about Kasich anymore?

Are you guys even talking about Kasich anymore?

 

I thought they were talking about Nic Cage

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?

 

Aww, c'mon. How can you whine about a few stinking dollars from highway signs going to drastically underfunded rail initiatives when highways don't come close to paying their own way and are bailed out at the level of tens of billions of dollars of federal general revenue, and surcharges on rail passenger tickets in years past went not to rail transportation but to highways. And, if I'm not mistaken, taxes on railroad diesel fuel and/or airline fuel go to highways? Highways get everything and the highway boosters still whine for more.

No matter what they do, all these roads still aren't going to be able to be kept in shape -- same with affordable short to medium distance air travel. We're going to be really sorry that we didn't build alternatives when they were affordable (now). Oh well, the Gov wants a throne of dirt and he'll get it.

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.

 

And therein lies the problem.  You think all of society are noble, capable, honest minded people and these programs are in place to help them when times get rough.  I don't think you understand the difference between thoery and practical application.  Typical problem with liberal minded folks. 

False.  You fail to understand us "liberal minded folk" shs96.  As a whole, I think we are just more of the type to say "better 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man go to jail".  On that same note, we would rather see 10 lazy bums get something they arguably don't deserve than see one child starve or go without proper clothing or shelter.

 

IMO every single entitlement program we have is a good idea.  Welfare, SS, medicare, disability, workers comp, unemployment comp, etc are all sound programs.  I won't debate for a second that fraud and waste is rampant in those programs, but I don't believe that justifies their elimination.  What is desperately need, and you might not want to hear this, is major investment in enforcement.  But that would mean, gasp, increasing the size of government.  Can't have that ;)

No matter what they do, all these roads still aren't going to be able to be kept in shape -- same with affordable short to medium distance air travel. We're going to be really sorry that we didn't build alternatives when they were affordable (now). Oh well, the Gov wants a throne of dirt and he'll get it.

 

Even if building alternatives (even at today's depressed prices for labor and materials) isn't in the budget, we're at least going to be sorry that we kept building the even more unaffordable highway infrastructure, especially through exurban and rural areas where you can spend hundreds of millions to pave miles of wilderness that will be seldom-traveled and suffer more wear and tear from the elements than from actual traffic (which at least represents people using the thing).

And therein lies the problem.  You think all of society are noble, capable, honest minded people and these programs are in place to help them when times get rough.  I don't think you understand the difference between thoery and practical application.  Typical problem with liberal minded folks. 

 

And the "typical problem with conservative minded folks" is that they think that ALL poor people are only poor because they are dumb and lazy.  They would rather deny help to all of them than take the chance of possibly helping someone who doesn't deserve it.  Also, they think they are the supreme judges of who deserves what in the world (and by extension the wealthy ones always seem to think they deserve every penny they have schysted out of the system).

 

See how this stereotyping game works?

Another misunderstanding among your typical self-proclaimed conservatives is that the majority of this entitlement spending goes towards inner city minorities. 

IMO every single entitlement program we have is a good idea.  Welfare, SS, medicare, disability, workers comp, unemployment comp, etc are all sound programs.

 

SS is not an entitlement program like the others, where someone only receives a benefit if they have the misfortune to need it.  SS is insurance that we all buy.  We all pay for it, the payouts are ours because we paid for them.  Just like we pay for food, we're only "entitled" to it because we bought it.  Everyone pays in, and everyone gets the benefit.

 

SS also has no effect on the federal budget and IMO it is wrong to talk about cutting SS benefits because we overspend.  A big part of that overspending is the borrowing that we did to pay for Iraq and other wars.  (Remember the halcyon days of candidate Bush railing against wars of foreign intervention?  He was complaining of Clinton's military intervention in Kosovo.)

 

Instead of selling all of the T-bills on the open market to get money to pay for budget excesses, Congress borrowed SS's excess by selling T-bills to SS.  US treasury bills are still (perhaps foolishly) considered to be very safe, if low-interest-earning, investments.  China owns billions of $ (at least) in US T-bills.  If Congress decides not to pay some of the T-bills owned by SS as they come due, what happens to the federal government's ability to sell future debt to foreign countries?  The cost will go up dramatically at the very least. 

 

So we shouldn't even THINK of not honoring those SS obligations, i.e., not paying on the T-bills held by SS.  Doing so will only make foreign investors nervous, and future sales of T-bills harder and more expensive.

 

The budget problem is that the government (Congress) borrows too much money and the interest payments are now a significant part of the budget.  It's the borrowing that is the financial problem, not SS.

 

 

IMO every single entitlement program we have is a good idea.  Welfare, SS, medicare, disability, workers comp, unemployment comp, etc are all sound programs.

 

SS is not an entitlement program like the others, where someone only receives a benefit if they have the misfortune to need it.  SS is insurance that we all buy.  We all pay for it, the payouts are ours because we paid for them.  Just like we pay for food, we're only "entitled" to it because we bought it.  Everyone pays in, and everyone gets the benefit.

 

SS also has no effect on the federal budget and IMO it is wrong to talk about cutting SS benefits because we overspend.  A big part of that overspending is the borrowing that we did to pay for Iraq and other wars.  (Remember the halcyon days of candidate Bush railing against wars of foreign intervention?  He was complaining of Clinton's military intervention in Kosovo.)

 

Instead of selling all of the T-bills on the open market to get money to pay for budget excesses, Congress borrowed SS's excess by selling T-bills to SS.  US treasury bills are still (perhaps foolishly) considered to be very safe, if low-interest-earning, investments.  China owns billions of $ (at least) in US T-bills.  If Congress decides not to pay some of the T-bills owned by SS as they come due, what happens to the federal government's ability to sell future debt to foreign countries?  The cost will go up dramatically at the very least. 

 

So we shouldn't even THINK of not honoring those SS obligations, i.e., not paying on the T-bills held by SS.  Doing so will only make foreign investors nervous, and future sales of T-bills harder and more expensive.

 

The budget problem is that the government (Congress) borrows too much money and the interest payments are now a significant part of the budget.  It's the borrowing that is the financial problem, not SS.

 

This is not correct, though it is a very popular myth propagated by those who want to guarantee that taxes go up rather than spending goes down.

 

I'll see if I can dig up the link for this later that goes into more detail--but basically, paying out in full would allow the older generations to double dip (their payroll tax money was spent on them years ago, and now would be spent on them again by giving them checks in retirement) and force the younger generations to double pay.  Social security is a "paygo system" (their polite euphemism for a Ponzi scheme).  There are no assets there.  Intergovernmental debt is very different than publicly held debt, which is why it isn't counted in the official figures (or the national debt would be closer to $14 trillion than $9 trillion); the left hand owing the right hand money is an accounting mechanism and does not represent an asset with real value.

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?

 

Aww, c'mon. How can you whine about a few stinking dollars from highway signs going to drastically underfunded rail initiatives when highways don't come close to paying their own way and are bailed out at the level of tens of billions of dollars of federal general revenue, and surcharges on rail passenger tickets in years past went not to rail transportation but to highways. And, if I'm not mistaken, taxes on railroad diesel fuel and/or airline fuel go to highways? Highways get everything and the highway boosters still whine for more.

 

Desperate? Well, only in the sense that Article XII, 5a of the state constitution, which dictates that the only sizeable pool of funding available MUST be used for more roads forever. This amendment was passed in 1948 at the behest of the highway lobby and means that for ANYTHING other than roads, we have to resort to creative solutions like the sign program to meet the need. Otherwise, we are hamstrung.

 

And we've been getting raped by the road gang for years. Why do you think Repubs are so against rail? Guess who their campaign contributors are...the same road gang! 98% of Ohio's transportation dollars goes to roads and that means there are a lot of needs not being met by this state supported transportation monopoly.

 

We had a gift-wrapped intercity rail project turned down because of our illustrious governor's road-zombie mentality. Now he wants to work his magic on the Cincinnati streetcar. He might be run out of office one day, but before that happens, Ohio and its citizens will pay the price.

I'll see if I can dig up the link for this later that goes into more detail--but basically, paying out in full would allow the older generations to double dip (their payroll tax money was spent on them years ago, and now would be spent on them again by giving them checks in retirement) and force the younger generations to double pay.  Social security is a "paygo system" (their polite euphemism for a Ponzi scheme).  There are no assets there.

 

Intergovernmental debt is very different than publicly held debt, which is why it isn't counted in the official figures (or the national debt would be closer to $14 trillion than $9 trillion); the left hand owing the right hand money is an accounting mechanism and does not represent an asset with real value.

If this is the way you want to look at SS then you can't say that it is a Ponzi scheme.  If the government debt held as part of the SS trust fund doesn't count as a credit or asset, then you can't view the system as "Paygo", it is simply a liability of general government that must be met by general revenue.

I'll see if I can dig up the link for this later that goes into more detail--but basically, paying out in full would allow the older generations to double dip (their payroll tax money was spent on them years ago, and now would be spent on them again by giving them checks in retirement) and force the younger generations to double pay.  Social security is a "paygo system" (their polite euphemism for a Ponzi scheme).  There are no assets there.

 

Intergovernmental debt is very different than publicly held debt, which is why it isn't counted in the official figures (or the national debt would be closer to $14 trillion than $9 trillion); the left hand owing the right hand money is an accounting mechanism and does not represent an asset with real value.

If this is the way you want to look at SS then you can't say that it is a Ponzi scheme.  If the government debt held as part of the SS trust fund doesn't count as a credit or asset, then you can't view the system as "Paygo", it is simply a liability of general government that must be met by general revenue.

 

Well, yes.  And therefore the oft-hyped trope that beneficiaries have "earned" the benefits by contributing to the system fails; it's simply one more welfare program, and the payroll tax is simply one more tax to fund the general operations of government.  If the welfarists would ditch the meme that Social Security benefits represent simply a return of money (with an ostensible "return on investment") that a retiree has paid and own up to the fact that it is simply one more big government welfare state entitlement program, I'll drop the Ponzi scheme analysis in turn; the two are fundamentally linked.  You can't have a fraudulent investment scheme when you don't have an investment scheme.  However, if Social Security is spun as an investment scheme, then it is a Ponzi scheme: the investments do not exist in any tangible sense and are only a promise to redistribute more inflows from new "investors" (read: taxpayers) to current beneficiaries on an ongoing basis.  Any private enterprise operating on this basis would be committing fraud.  The fact that the government can force new "investors" to contribute does not materially alter this fact; it just means that the system will run longer before collapsing, because it can force even people who are wise to the game to play.

 

As for the Kasich administration and other governors with cash-strapped state budgets trying to do the responsible thing and avoid raising taxes, the real elephant in the room is Medicaid, not Social Security, since Social Security is federally administered and doesn't share burdens with state governments the way Medicaid does.  Social Security and the rest of the federal government affects state (and local) budgets only indirectly, by stressing the tolerance of the public towards the limits of what they will endure in terms of overall tax burdens.  Thus, Kasich has been focusing on <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/17/copy/kasichs-medicaid-planisntonlycuts.html?sid=101">restructuring Ohio's Medicaid burden</a>, with a <a href="http://assets.bizjournals.com/columbus/blog/2011/03/mix-of-yelps-muted-applause-from.html">mixed reception even from within the industry</a> (a positive sign, considering that it would reduce the overall flow of money to that industry); there is nothing he can do from his current position about our Social Security situation.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/60781/march-23-2006/john-kasich

 

Old interview from 2006 with John Kasich. 

Ohio Inc.

 

When your governor is a former investment banker and his jobs guru is a venture capitalist, you shouldn't be surprised when your state starts to look like a corporation. But when the result is full-speed-ahead faith in a governance model that looks more like Goldman Sachs than John Locke, it's time to slow down and ask whether transforming the state into Ohio Inc. is a desirable goal.

 

A good place to start would be Gov. John Kasich's plan to lease the state's liquor distribution network to his new, private economic-development group.

 

Ohio is one of 19 states in the liquor business. Last year, the state made a record profit of nearly $229 million on the 10.8 million gallons of vodka, gin, and other spirits it sold. Liquor sales, which have risen by almost 5 percent since 2008 despite the recession, offer one of the state's most secure revenue streams.

 

Full editorial at:

http://toledoblade.com/Editorials/2011/04/04/Ohio-Inc-2.html

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/state/dems-back-bill-to-allow-recall-of-ohio-governor-

 

Ohio's governor and members of its Legislature could face voter recall efforts under a proposed law being pushed by several Democratic state lawmakers.

 

The measure was spurred by a new state law that dramatically restricts the collective bargaining rights of public workers.

 

Starting a governor recall effort would require a petition signed by 15 percent of the number of voters in the last governor election. The bill would also apply to other statewide officeholders, excepting judges.

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/state/dems-back-bill-to-allow-recall-of-ohio-governor-

 

Ohio's governor and members of its Legislature could face voter recall efforts under a proposed law being pushed by several Democratic state lawmakers.

 

The measure was spurred by a new state law that dramatically restricts the collective bargaining rights of public workers.

 

Starting a governor recall effort would require a petition signed by 15 percent of the number of voters in the last governor election. The bill would also apply to other statewide officeholders, excepting judges.

I understand that people have serious disagreements with the governor, but recalling him seems like a waste of money and effort. I'd rather see those that disagree with an elected official put their time into trying to minimize his/her impact, and setting up someone to replace them. IMO we should remove officials for committing crimes, not for making unpopular policies/laws.

It won't pass.

Bill Seitz was stripped of his chairmanship now....Kasich has it out for the guy.

 

"For the second time, Green Township Republican Bill Seitz has been yanked off a committee in the Ohio Senate – this time stripped of his chairmanship.

 

Seitz riled Republican leaders last month by opposing Senate Bill 5, legislation that limits collective bargaining rights for public unions; he lost an earlier committee seat when GOP leaders feared his ‘no’ vote would kill the bill....."

 

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20110406/NEWS0108/304060045/

I understand that people have serious disagreements with the governor' date=' but recalling him seems like a waste of money and effort. I'd rather see those that disagree with an elected official put their time into trying to minimize his/her impact, and setting up someone to replace them. IMO we should remove officials for committing crimes, not for making unpopular policies/laws.[/quote']

 

Are you kidding? Minimize his impact? He needs to be removed. Take the 3C project as a simple and singular example:  Ohio taxpayers are now PAYING around $17m--some of which is for Indiana and Pennsylvania to have a competitive advantage over Ohio. This is not only angering, its reprehensible. Four years of him and he will do far more damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^ Please cite.

 

But I agree with Keith: how does recalling him really do Ohio any better? So you are not politically aligned with Kasich, much like you probably were not with Bush. So far, he hasn't done anything outright scandalous or illegal that even remotely warrants a lot of expenditure both in time and money, to remove him from an office he was fairly elected to.

^ Please cite.

 

I think Pugu is referring to the $400 million we didn't accept.  $17 million sounds about right for the amount Ohio is contributing towards that federal total, which is now going to another state.

^  jam--yes, thanks--that's what I was referring to.

 

Sherman--illegal, no--not that I know of. But scandalous? I say undermining the population whom you were elected to serve the best interests of is certainly 'scandalous'. this has nothing to do with bush or republicans vs dems--its has to do with competent leadership and whats best for the state.

I think we are seeing the worst of him right off the bat.  You can't say the man didn't come in swinging.

^ God, let's hope so.

That should be his re-election campaign slogan... "I am way better now than I used to be."

 

You shouldn't go around saying you are about bringing jobs to Ohio, then work to pass legislation against those already employed and that would stimulate more jobs, and claim it is part of the agenda you were elected for.  The sad thing is the economy will improve enough in the next two years regardless of Kasich or his policies, and he can lay claim to following the wave of inertia.  But I digress, in the back of my mind I hope dearly that he totes the party line as long as he can get away with it and to prove to his base he did what he could, and then when he meets adversity he will back down. (re: Cincinnati Streetcar)

Doing exactly what we elected him for.

^you poor thing...

Most of what he's done is what he campaigned on doing and was elected to do. I didn't vote for him, and don't agree with some of what he's done, but just because I disagree with him, doesn't change the fact that he won the election. 

 

To put it another way, I wish our president had taken a more liberal stand on healthcare than he did, even if it pissed off Republicans more than he already did. It would have been unpopular and guaranteed little to no chance of reelection, but I think he should have done it.

 

Kasich is doing what he thinks is right for Ohio, no matter the damage it does to him. I would admire his political courage if I didn't disagree with his position. I would prefer that politians put their positions before themselves. Sadly it looks like the only politicians doing this right now are the ones on the right.

 

If he had run as a moderate, then started doing what he's been doing the last few months, I could see the reason for a recall. But that's not what happened. He ran as an anti-union fiscal conservative. That's what he's been. (Though I think SB5 went a little further than anyone expected prior to the election.)

You don't wait for scandal or legal breaches to recall an elected official. Incompetence is reason enough. And I think Kasich is utterly incompetent. He speaks before engaging his brain. He pushes big principles and goals without thinking them through. Even his supporters in the General Assembly look at his "Jobs Budget" and scratch their heads at the lack of details. Take his plan for local governments to cooperate and share services, and even merge. It's a great concept, and I agree with it. But it's not going to do anything about the current budget crunch. It will have long-term benefits, but only if the various jurisdictions carefully plan how to do it. That will take years, if it's done right. He has no strategy. He just says, "Look, here's what I want. Do it. And do it now, OK!?" He commands, but he does not lead.

You don't wait for scandal or legal breaches to recall an elected official. Incompetence is reason enough.

Who defines incompetence? Last Nov the voters determined he was competent. If the voters have now discovered that they were mistaken, and he is incompetent, they should be letting their State Reps and State Sens know that they disagree with the direction the State is moving. Without the approval of the legislature the Gov can't do too much damage, irregardless of his level of competence. That's the point of checks and balances.

 

SB5 barely passed the State Senate because a portion of the Republicans were willing to stand up against it. If the same Senators that voted against SB5 continue to defy the Gov and are joined by a couple of their colleagues that are facing reelection in 2012, the damage Kasich can cause will be minimized.

 

If we allow recalls, then we put our elected representatives into a state of perpetual campaign which, in my opinion, is worse for our state than allowing a incompetent Governor to remain in office.

 

As for his budget, yes, I think it's screwed up, but if it passes through the legislature without serious changes, that's the legislature's fault, not the Governor's. 

And if the legislators insist on supporting incompetence? We're already seeing that. Yes, we need to work on the legislators, but if we had the power of recall, we would have more power to make our voices heard. I think most Ohioans did not expect this level of bombast and slash-and-burn when they elected Kasich and would like a chance to to take it back.

I would not support the recall of Kasich, but I do firmly believe there should be a mechanism for doing so..... so long as it can't be accomplished with a simple majority.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

 

Forget enacting a system of recall or anything like that. We should follow Kasich's model of governance and put in the state constitution that John Kasich is not allowed to hold political office in Ohio.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

 

Forget enacting a system of recall or anything like that. We should follow Kasich's model of governance and put in the state constitution that John Kasich is not allowed to hold political office in Ohio.

That is the dumbest thing I have EVER heard. It is amazing how nobody on the left is willing to give this guy a chance. In four years you will see this guy drastically improve the mess that Taft and Strickland left him and he'll easily win re-election... #BookIt!

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

 

Forget enacting a system of recall or anything like that. We should follow Kasich's model of governance and put in the state constitution that John Kasich is not allowed to hold political office in Ohio.

That is the dumbest thing I have EVER heard. It is amazing how nobody on the left is willing to give this guy a chance. In four years you will see this guy drastically improve the mess that Taft and Strickland left him and he'll easily win re-election... #BookIt!

 

Of course it's dumb. So is inserting language in the transportation budget asserting that state and federal funds are not allowed to go to the Cincinnati streetcar.

 

Fight dumb with dumb. It's the American way.

Yeah, except what Kasich did was not illegal nor was it impeachable. You are just upset that he strongarmed his way into your personal hopes and dreams, much to the delight of many others who did not support the streetcar project.

Neither is it illegal to amend the constitution to block him from holding office.

Yeah, that is. You guys are starting to sound like crybabies and sore losers because you aren't getting the streetcar or rail. Get over it, another 3.5 years and he is gone most likely.

Casino developers blame Kasich indecision for Delays

http://www.daytondailynews.com/casino-developers-blame-kasich-indecision-for-delays-800924.html

 

Gov. John Kasich’s indecision about whether to seek additional fees and taxes from the state’s casino developers could delay construction in Cleveland and Cincinnati for months and put off the economic boost that the cities are desperately counting on.

 

More immediately, casino-related construction jobs and the tax revenues they are generating could be reduced or idled.

 

Uncertainty about the fee and tax issues — which ultimately determine the cost of the casino and the revenue it can generate — has kept developers from getting financing for the projects, said Matt Cullen, president and chief operating officer of Dan Gilbert’s casino company, Rock Gaming.

Yeah, that is. You guys are starting to sound like crybabies and sore losers because you aren't getting the streetcar or rail. Get over it, another 3.5 years and he is gone most likely.

 

Political dissent, bro.  Welcome to America.  Speaking out against sitting politicians does not make you a "crybaby" or a "sore loser".  I suppose you think exercising your 5th Amendment right would make you a wussy?

I'm no fan of Kasich, but all he's guilty of doing right now is following through on his campaign promises to be a real sonofab!tch. That's why I voted against him. But as has been pointed out, nothing he's doing is illegal, or technically outside the job description. I'd be hesitant to start using impeachment as a tool to forcibly remove a governor just because a group is unhappy with him. Sort of erodes the ability to lead and make tough decisions for all parties going forward.