The NRA is almost certain to endorse Strickland as his Congressional record regarding gun ownership rights is quite a bit better than Kasich's. That won't be insignificant.

I don't know about that.  Their running mates matter too.

 

John Kasich names former Buckeye Firearms Association endorsee Mary Taylor as running mate

If Strickland wins in this political environment, he'll have really earned it.

I'm not sure why anyone would support Strickland other than blind allegiance to the Democratic Party or out of fear of hurting Obama's feelings.

Why would I vote for Kasich?  At the moment I'm presented with "I believe in Ohio" and "We're uncompetitive", I'm in my mid 20s and I can already say I've heard this all before several times.

Why would I vote for Kasich? At the moment I'm presented with "I believe in Ohio" and "We're uncompetitive", I'm in my mid 20s and I can already say I've heard this all before several times.

Because Kasich will protect us from passenger rail boondoggles.

Because Kasich will protect us from passenger rail boondoggles.

 

You are correct, Kasich has said that the federal government should give the $400 million to another state, Ohio doesn't want to upgrade its rail lines.

I'm not sure why anyone would support Strickland other than blind allegiance to the Democratic Party or out of fear of hurting Obama's feelings.

I'll agree that Strickland isn't a good candidate, and I'm not excited about him at all, but Kasich hasn't given me any reasons to vote for him either. I'm still undecided.

Because Kasich will protect us from passenger rail boondoggles.

 

You are correct, Kasich has said that the federal government should give the $400 million to another state, Ohio doesn't want to upgrade its rail lines.

 

This is why Kasich must lose, but I fear it is why Kasich will win.

I'm not sure why anyone would support Strickland other than blind allegiance to the Democratic Party or out of fear of hurting Obama's feelings.

 

Then do some research before making gross generalizations (for YOUR sake).

^But Scabble was giving his "independent" opinion.

I'm not sure why anyone would support Strickland other than blind allegiance to the Democratic Party or out of fear of hurting Obama's feelings.

I'll agree that Strickland isn't a good candidate, and I'm not excited about him at all, but Kasich hasn't given me any reasons to vote for him either. I'm still undecided.

I'm not saying vote for Kasich.  That was just my analysis of Strickland.  Other than 3C (which won't be in Kasich's hands), why choose Strickland other than the reasons I mentioned?

^The lesser of two evils perhaps?  I really can't weigh in on the issue yet as I have not done the necessary research, but there certainly are some things about Kascich that I do not like.  And there always were disagreements I had with Strickland.  My views on State/local politics are much different than my views on national politics.  I am much more conservative when it comes to Ohio/Cleveland save for the social issues.  But I still haven't found much to like about Kascich.  At least I can agree with Strickland on many of his stances on social/moral issues.

 

Is there any indication on what Kascich might do with Strickland's executive order regarding gays in the employ of the State?  Any promise to repeal that order would probably cause him to lose my vote.

I like Kasich's ideas about making the state more business friendly, but I haven't seen any details on how he intends to do that except "reduce red tape" and "cut taxes". Both are worthy ideas, but he hasn't indicated how he'd do either, so I can't support him and unless he comes up with a better plan than some conservative talking points by the fall I don't know if I could vote for him.

 

Strickland on the other hand hasn't started campaigning much yet, so it's hard to make a decision on how to feel about him.

 

Thus, I'm waiting at least until the summer to decide which of these two I will vote for.

If I still lived in Ohio, I'd probably vote for Strickland again.  However, since I live in Illinois, I get to observe the Rod Blagojevich fall-out election. :D

You're waiting for Strickland to campaign to decide?

You're waiting for Strickland to campaign to decide?

I have an idea what he's accomplished and failed to accomplish over the last few years, but I want to see if he has any ideas left on how to improve Ohio. I honestly don't know as much about his positions and priorities as I could, (I wasn't living in Ohio during the last gubernatorial election) and I probably won't take the time to do a lot of research for the next few months. If he still has a few good ideas, as opposed to some talking points, I'm willing to consider voting for him.

I like Kasich's ideas about making the state more business friendly, but I haven't seen any details on how he intends to do that except "reduce red tape" and "cut taxes". Both are worthy ideas, but he hasn't indicated how he'd do either, so I can't support him and unless he comes up with a better plan than some conservative talking points by the fall I don't know if I could vote for him.

 

Ditto

If it's a Democrat, it's an "idea," if it's a Republican, it's a "talking point."  Or vice versa.  Goodness people need to think outside the box in this country.  :roll:

Wrong.  Both sides use talking points.  Always have and always will.  Talking points are effective tool to give some consistency to the message.  What we were discussing, and you apparently missed, is the fact that Kascich - at least so far - is ONLY talking points.  Everybody would like to make Ohio more business friendly.  That is not exclusive to one side.  Just like (don't tell Scrabble) every American loves liberty, freedom and apple pies.  I need to know what his plan is to make Ohio more business friendly.  If he is going to cut taxes, I either need to know what services he will cut or any other ideas for closing the gap in revenue that such a tactic would cause.  Even the most ardent supporters of trickle-down economics would admit that it takes time.  Ohio already has a tax revenue crisis and any significant and meaningful tax cut would only add to that crisis during a time of recession.

 

And, keep in mind, that we are already - at least by some accounts - one of the more business friendly states -

 

In 2009, Ohio was ranked #4 in the country for best business climate by Site Selection magazine, based on a business-activity database. The state won its fourth consecutive Governor's Cup awards from the magazine in 2010, based on business growth and economic development.[2][10] The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council ranked the state #10 for best business-friendly tax systems in their Business Tax Index 2009, including a top corporate tax and capital gains rate that were both ranked #6 at 1.9%.[4] Ohio was ranked #11 by the council for best friendly-policy states according to their Small Business Survival Index 2009.[11] The Directorship's Boardroom Guide ranked the state #13 overall for best business climate, including #7 for best ligitation climate.[12] Forbes ranked the state #8 for best regulatory environment in 2009.[13]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Ohio

 

 

If it's a Democrat, it's an "idea," if it's a Republican, it's a "talking point."  Or vice versa.  Goodness people need to think outside the box in this country.  :roll:

What are you talking about? I'm the only person that has posted today about "ideas" or "talking points" and if you'll take another look I contrasted Kasich's ideas and Republican talking points, then contrasted Strickland's ideas and Democratic talking points. I'm not thinking "outside the box"? Ok, sorry you don't approve. :roll:

The point is that neither of you are going to vote for Kasich under any circumstance anyways, so I think it's disingenuous to make up some silly rationale for it.

And, keep in mind, that we are already - at least by some accounts - one of the more business friendly states -

 

Then we're doomed.  I'll call U-Haul and see if they have enough trucks to get us all out of here.

The point is that neither of you are going to vote for Kasich under any circumstance anyways, so I think it's disingenuous to make up some silly rationale for it.

 

Assumptions certainly are what you do best.... no matter what thread we are in apparently.  How exactly do you know I am not going to vote for Kasich before I do?  Grumpy said he likes Kasich's broad ideas but needed to see the details.  I agreed.  I said earlier that I tend to lean more conservative on state/local issues.  Not sure where you are finding the courage to make this giant leap in logic that "neither of you are going to vote for Kasich under any circumstances anyways"

 

All right, I'll bite.  Under what specific circumstances would you vote for Kasich?  More specifically, what substance would you have to find behind the pleasant-sounding talking points that would make you find him a more attractive candidate than Strickland?  You can already guess what he means by "business-friendly," even if this definition is not universal: lower taxes and a lighter regulatory touch.  Reasonable assumptions include measures to contain the power of unions, likely including public employees' unions, and measures akin to those currently proposed by the new Republican governor of New Jersey (Christie), including reduced spending on subsidies to local governments and limits on the ability of local governments to raise taxes in response to such cuts.

Go back and read my posts, because I think I have already answered this question... at least in part.  Cutting taxes is fine and dandy with everyone I would think.  It sounds great.  But how does he balance the books once he removes that revenue from the State's budget.

 

And as I have said before, I prefer tax credits to tax cuts.

 

I would like to hear that he will be an advocate for gay rights at the state level, even if he opposes a Federal measure to protect such rights.

 

He would need to take a more lenient stance on the 3-C project as well.

 

The Governor has very little power over the influence of public employees unions (it's kind of supposed to be that way) so I would not put too much weight on any such stump talk.

 

I'm also not sure, given home-rule, how much the State could really cap local taxes.

I was not under the impression that Ohio's home rule powers were all that powerful, though I'll admit this isn't an area of the law with which I'm as familiar as I'd like to be.  (Also, my old haunts of Canton, where I first started taking an interest in the topic, are a bit of an anomaly even for Ohio, but that would take a long time to explain, and I'd still not be completely certain I got the details or meaning right ...)

 

I, too, would also like to see a bit more detail about where the budget would be cut, since that's obviously the harder decision to make.  I wouldn't expect dollar figures, but identifying certain priorities and programs as overvalued or unnecessary would be a start.

All right, I'll bite. Under what specific circumstances would you vote for Kasich?

 

I'll tell you how Kasich could attract me as a voter and and still remain a conservative:

1) Abolish all local school districts and have no local funding of schools, only statewide funding, based only on property taxes.  This is conservative because it eliminates duplicative services and would put the state in compliance with the DeRolph decisions by making every school funded equally.  Cost-saving and law-abiding, popular opinion and established constituencies be damned.

2) Abolish all aid to local governments.  Eliminate the taxes that currently provide for this aid.  Anti-welfare.

3) Abolish all laws that constrict municipalities from annexing.  Deregulation.

4) Abolish all laws that restrict all municipal owned water, waste treatment, and waste management facilities from competing with privately owned companies for contracts with counties or other municipalities.  Deregulation.

5) Immediate halt on all new road construction for the next ten years, with all the money going to maintenance on roads we've already got.  Anti-welfare.

6) Creation of a new power company a majority of which is owned by the state, to take advantage of Lake Erie wind and to put us in line for new nuclear plants.  Infrastructure investment, revenues in lieu of new taxes.

7) Totally revise all drug laws and incarceration policy with the intention of reducing the amount of people in state prisons and local jails. Libertarianism, expenditure reduction.

8) Simplify the tax code. Pro-entrepreneurial.

9) Don't actively oppose 3C rail even if you aren't for it.  Pro-instructure, pro-Ohio versus other states.

 

Most of those policies probably wouldn't be considered "conservative" though I think there are plenty of reasons to argue that they are in fact so.  If conservative = use of state power to enforce lower taxes and lower services then I think that shows more of a corruption of the word 'conservative' than a practical worldview.

And, keep in mind, that we are already - at least by some accounts - one of the more business friendly states -

 

Then we're doomed.  I'll call U-Haul and see if they have enough trucks to get us all out of here.

 

From: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/nostatetax.htm

 

It is worth noting that during 2006 and 2007, the seven states with no income tax whatsoever, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming, led the nation in net population growth.

 

No matter what you're opinion, we should all be able to agree that the entire tax system is a mess.

All right, I'll bite.  Under what specific circumstances would you vote for Kasich?

 

I'll tell you how Kasich could attract me as a voter and and still remain a conservative:

3) Abolish all laws that constrict municipalities from annexing.  Deregulation.

 

I like a number of your other points, though I would disagree about the lack of conservatism of using state power to hold down local taxes: municipalities are administrative subdivisions of states, not independently sovereign, even under the most potent home rule statutes.  That means that state governments ultimately bear responsibility for their management and powers even when local legislators and executives have their own independent sources of democratic legitimacy.

 

On your #3, though, my problem isn't one of principle but simply one of structure: The annexation laws have to say something.  There is no default mechanism of annexation that exists in the state of nature that could be altered by the government.  Therefore, "abolishing laws that restrict municipalities from annexing" isn't going to be as simple as deleting a special-interest provision somewhere.  You have to affirmatively redesign the system, which means you need to have a concept in your mind of how the system should work, not merely how it shouldn't.  Do you mean that annexation should be done at the ballot box, with simple majority-of-the-whole voting?  That would definitely give more power to larger cities to annex smaller ones, but that's not necessarily what you had in mind.  Also, what about annexation of only part of another city?  Or a tract of land that's partially incorporated and partially within the bounds of another municipality?

 

The reason legislative codes get so long is that there really are a lot of permutations of even apparently simple questions to consider.

In matters of local self-government, the chartered political subdivisions are independently sovereign.  The only exception to this rule recognized by the Court (through the Constitution) is the State's power to regulate employment, including municipal employment.

And, keep in mind, that we are already - at least by some accounts - one of the more business friendly states -

 

Then we're doomed.  I'll call U-Haul and see if they have enough trucks to get us all out of here.

 

From: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/nostatetax.htm

 

It is worth noting that during 2006 and 2007, the seven states with no income tax whatsoever, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming, led the nation in net population growth.

 

No matter what you're opinion, we should all be able to agree that the entire tax system is a mess.

 

Alaska, Florida, Nevada and Texas...I bet you I could give a big reason for each why each of those states is able to get away without having an income tax.  They've got things--gambling, oil, tourism, etc. that we don't that let them get away with it.  I'd love to think that one day we'll be able to leverage our water to the same effect, but perhaps that's not realistic, at least not anytime soon.

I like a number of your other points, though I would disagree about the lack of conservatism of using state power to hold down local taxes: municipalities are administrative subdivisions of states, not independently sovereign, even under the most potent home rule statutes. That means that state governments ultimately bear responsibility for their management and powers even when local legislators and executives have their own independent sources of democratic legitimacy.

 

Right.  The defining of public corporations (meaning municipalities) as administrative subdivisions of the states happened through the courts during the 19th century and is, in my opinion, is a far more insipid usurpation than anything the feds did to the states, but that is another topic.  My only point was that one can make a perfectly good argument on conservative grounds that municipal corporations are the governments closest to the people and therefore should have the broadest powers.  Currently (I believe) property taxes can only be adjusted within a certain range given by the state and in a certain fashion (land 20% improvements 80% of value, I think).  Similar ranges and limitations exist on sales and excise taxes as well.  Obviously the state would have an interest to make sure that cities wouldn't raise taxes on certain items to the point that they would be erecting trade barriers (though this would likely be moot because of modern transportation) but even then so they wouldn't necessarily have to exercise it.  Ultimately my point is that if people really believe that tax rates are so freaking important (and by that I mean substantially outweigh any other possible factors) to the success or failure of a local economy then lets have a free-for-all and see what happens.

 

On your #3, though, my problem isn't one of principle but simply one of structure: The annexation laws have to say something. There is no default mechanism of annexation that exists in the state of nature that could be altered by the government. Therefore, "abolishing laws that restrict municipalities from annexing" isn't going to be as simple as deleting a special-interest provision somewhere. You have to affirmatively redesign the system, which means you need to have a concept in your mind of how the system should work, not merely how it shouldn't. Do you mean that annexation should be done at the ballot box, with simple majority-of-the-whole voting? That would definitely give more power to larger cities to annex smaller ones, but that's not necessarily what you had in mind. Also, what about annexation of only part of another city? Or a tract of land that's partially incorporated and partially within the bounds of another municipality?

 

The reason legislative codes get so long is that there really are a lot of permutations of even apparently simple questions to consider.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with simple majority of the whole voting + proximity.  This is what I believe they had in the late 19th century, and it was what I was assuming when I wrote that point.  But I'm not wedded to it- I also wouldn't have a problem with something to the effect of competitive service delivery: waste, water, electricity, or whatever relatively simple, independently and easily observable metric of service delivery you want, couple with some sort of density or non-agricultural zoning requirements.

 

I think there are plenty of ways to apply competitive and (I'll say) market-inspired systems to government at every level.  But all we ever hear from the party of self-proclaimed free-market principles is same tired rhetoric of lower taxes and school vouchers.  There's plenty of stuff out there to do if they wanted to do it.  Since they don't do it, I have to assume they don't want to.

Forgot to cite source for 19th century municipal law history aside:

http://www.amazon.com/City-Making-Building-Communities-without/dp/069100742X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1270003932&sr=8-1-spell

 

For anyone who thinks the Republicans are actually going to do anything that improves the state, I ask, "Then how do you account for 1994-2006, when the GOP controlled every branch of the Ohio government?"  I particularly want to know what those guys did to curb spending on public sector unions.  I'm willing to give credit if there's any credit due.

Forgot to cite source for 19th century municipal law history aside:

http://www.amazon.com/City-Making-Building-Communities-without/dp/069100742X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1270003932&sr=8-1-spell

 

For anyone who thinks the Republicans are actually going to do anything that improves the state, I ask, "Then how do you account for 1994-2006, when the GOP controlled every branch of the Ohio government?" I particularly want to know what those guys did to curb spending on public sector unions. I'm willing to give credit if there's any credit due.

 

Does either candidate have any really good ideas?

Does either candidate have any really good ideas?

So far? Not that I can see. Kasich has been talking a lot about balancing the budget when he was in congress and Strickland has been talking a lot about what he's done the last couple years, but I haven't seen or heard any unique ideas from either of them.

I'm sure they both have good "ideas"... but I want to hear how they plan to implement those ideas.  Strickland got away with running a very vague campaign in 2006.  Ohioans need to demand more than just stump speeches.  We have very real problems and need to know more than the candidate simply promising to "fix" those problems.  We also need an honest assessment of the collateral effects of the "fixes"

 

 

 

The City Club [of Cleveland] hosted the state party heads a couple months back.  It wasn't exactly mind blowing, but did cover some of the state-level partisan policy debates that are ongoing and touch upon the governor's race.

 

It can be watched or listened to here:  http://www.cityclub.org/Programs/Archived/tabid/174/Default.aspx

 

At this point, I don't have anything to go on regarding Kasich.  His web site has zero policy proposals so far- maybe there's something buried in his blog I didn't see.  This is otherwise the best I can find: http://www.kasichforohio.com/site/c.hpIJKWOCJqG/b.5280649/k.A1C8/What_I_Stand_For.htm ...which is nothing.

 

I'm sure Strickland's 2006 web site wasn't much better, but he at least has a gubernatorial record to run on, which is where I need to learn more.  As far as I can tell, it includes tax reform, reduced state payroll and even some new direction for ODOT.  Also setting in motion reforms to the state's higher education system.  I don't know much about Strickland's appointees who run the day to day machinery of the state- have there been scandals and expensive corruption like in the last administration (an honest question)?  I often wonder if competent management is really the best you can hope for from a governor.

 

EDIT:

 

One more specific proposal that would make me like either candidate better:

 

*I think the current senior citizen homestead property tax exemption is nuts.  It's not a huge program- it exempts $25k of a house from property tax and the state reimburses local governments/schools for lost income- on average it's a $400 per year savings for participants.  But I don't think it's income tested anymore, and I don't understand why people with significant wealth (their home) should not have to pay full property taxes when elderly renters do (through their rent).  If it's a cash flow issue for fixed incomes, allow deferred payment- a lien on the property that must be paid off by the estate. 

 

 

 

^Seniors wouldn't like it and seniors vote in greater numbers than young people so I doubt we'll see that.

 

Poll: Democrats get bump in Ohio

 

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

 

(CNN) - A new poll suggests that Democrats are on the rise in Ohio, which will hold two important statewide elections this November and is considered a crucial battleground in the race for the White House.

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/31/poll-democrats-get-bump-in-ohio/?fbid=6JzlECuZ8xT

^Seniors wouldn't like it and seniors vote in greater numbers than young people so I doubt we'll see that.

 

Yeah, I know, but I'm sure both candidates claim they want to fight the influence of "special interests."  Well guess what home-owning seniors are, Ted and John.  The whole idea of "special interests" is a little strange- most legislation has winners and losers; at what point is the number of winners large enough that they're no longer a "special interest"?

Does either candidate have any really good ideas?

 

Strickland froze tuition rates, which I think was a great idea.  He wants to do 3C rail, which I think is a fantastic idea.

 

All I've heard from Kasich is that he wants to eliminate the state income tax.  The argument is always, "Look at how well low tax Florida or Texas has done compared to Ohio in the past 30 years.  If we got rid of our income tax, we'd be just as competitive as them."  It seems to me that we'd also have to move the state so that it was next to or very near third world countries to provide cheap immigrant labor and proximity to developing markets, and wish away all our old brownfields and hope they turn into greenfields.  After we got all that, we'd then have to figure out a way to compete with Florida & Texas in the same exact league when they've had a 30 year head start.  And our state's elementary & high school school systems would go to utter shit.  As bad as you might think they are, I don't think there as bad as Florida & Texas.

 

Geography plays much more of a determining economic factor than simply tax rates.  Why aren't Mississippi and Arkansas places where people want to go?  To reiterate the point I made earlier, if you want to cut taxes and services, you have to really narrowly define what role the state government will play in the economy, and then allow others, particularly municipal corporations, at the very least the opportunity to step up.

Quinnipiac Poll: Strickland Leads Kasich

 

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland leads expected challenger John Kasich among likely voters, according to the latest Quinnipiac Poll.

 

The Connecticut school’s survey of 1,526 Ohio voters, conducted March 23, found Strickland with 43 percent support for his re-election bid, while Republican Kasich had 38 percent support. That’s virtually unchanged from Strickland’s 44-39 lead in February, but a more comfortable margin than dead-heat results in earlier polls.

I think it's crap that the state politicians always throw the libraries on the chopping block when they can't balance the budget.

I think it's crap that the state politicians always throw the libraries on the chopping block when they can't balance the budget.

The libraries, schools, and public transportation are my big worries about Kasich. If he can figure out a way to cut taxes without cutting those three, I think he'll very likely have my vote. And frankly at this point transit has been cut so much that I don't think transit will get a LOT worse if the 10 million from the state is cut. (State funding makes up a really small percentage of RTA's budget.) So basically if he can convince me he won't cut the libraries and schools (K-12 AND Colleges) I will give him serious consideration.

 

The biggest reason I like Strickland is the 3C, but I won't make my decision based on that issue alone.

 

Strickland froze tuition rates...

Until the budget got tight, then he allowed the schools to raise their rates.

I think it's crap that the state politicians always throw the libraries on the chopping block when they can't balance the budget.

The libraries, schools, and public transportation are my big worries about Kasich. If he can figure out a way to cut taxes without cutting those three, I think he'll very likely have my vote. And frankly at this point transit has been cut so much that I don't think transit will get a LOT worse if the 10 million from the state is cut.

Agreed but these are actually bigger worries with Strickland than with Kasich for me because Kasich is better prepared to turn cuts into net positives while Strickland will just shrug and say "I tried" to his cronies. 

 

The jury is still out on Kasich but I'm not seeing myself voting for Strickland this year.

...Kasich is better prepared to turn cuts into net positives while Strickland will just shrug and say "I tried" to his cronies.

Why do you think that? From my perspective it looks like Kasich is prepared to make cuts and let others (like local school boards) deal with the consequences, while Strickland is not willing to make the cuts at all.

...Kasich is better prepared to turn cuts into net positives while Strickland will just shrug and say "I tried" to his cronies.

Why do you think that? From my perspective it looks like Kasich is prepared to make cuts and let others (like local school boards) deal with the consequences, while Strickland is not willing to make the cuts at all.

I think many cuts will happen regardless of who wins so we might as well support the guy who has a plan to transition the state toward a more decentralized government and more citizen/community control.  I think local control is an important part of school reform for example.  Education is one of my biggest issues on the state/local level and I think Strickland has failed the students, schools and communities of Ohio in that respect. 

 

I'm eager to see if Kasich has any meat to his campaign or if he'll mostly play the anti-Strickland card.

Ohio gov hopeful Kasich reports gift from Bono

 

By Associated Press

 

POSTED: 03:57 p.m. EDT, Apr 05, 2010

 

COLUMBUS: U2 lead singer Bono and the staff of the "The O'Reilly Factor" are among the people who gave gifts to Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich.

 

...

 

Kasich's blog mentions meeting Bono before a concert last year in Chicago, where they reminisced about an earlier humanitarian trip to Rwanda.

 

...

 

Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, reported gifts from former President Bill Clinton and his wife, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

more: http://www.ohio.com/news/ohiocentric/89937182.html

 

I think many cuts will happen regardless of who wins so we might as well support the guy who has a plan to transition the state toward a more decentralized government and more citizen/community control. I think local control is an important part of school reform for example. Education is one of my biggest issues on the state/local level and I think Strickland has failed the students, schools and communities of Ohio in that respect.

 

I'm eager to see if Kasich has any meat to his campaign or if he'll mostly play the anti-Strickland card.

 

What has Strickland (as opposed to the Oh. Supreme Court or NCLB) done to take away control from local school boards?  What state government functions has Kasich proposed devolving to local governments?  Honest questions, I'm not on top of things.

Here's an interesting piece about analysis of Ohio's tax burden; particularly as imposed on corporations.  The more I read, the less I'm inclined to believe that Ohio's tax system is really an obstacle to the state's economic performance.  http://www.ohio.com/business/89894102.html

 

If this article's description of their analysis is correct, the Tax Foundation sounds like a bunch of sloppy clowns.

I generally agree that the recent reform has made it much better. The state could stand to see some more simplification of the tax code - especially at the local level, but I'm not really buying the Kasich big boom of getting rid of the income tax.