Foreign trade agreements that Kasich voted in FAVOR of costed a LOT of Ohioans their jobs. The job losses under Strickland were inevitable with the economic crisis. You know, the one caused by banks like Lehman.

 

I don't like the idea of having a governor who gets paid 40k a speech to talk about Britney Spears and Paris Hilton causing the economic crisis.

 

Btw, Kasich may have been one of several hundred managing directors but he was hand picked as a kickback, to a company who even at the time had a notoriously bad reputation in the finance industry.

 

I could go on forever about this guy.

 

No need, you have already sold me on him

I'm not sure.  It may be overdoing the Occam's Razor here, but it may simply be that municipal law reform simply doesn't have the potential to spark and maintain momentum in what is shaping up to be a momentum-driven election.  This board likely represents an unrepresentative sample of the population with respect to how excited people generally get about the subject of local government law.  For most people--quite possibly including candidates for office, though it's less excusable for them than it is for your average guy off the street--it's just stultifying.

 

A fair point, but if the Republicans haven't done anything they've at least shown a remarkable ability to wrap up large policy changes in pleasant one-sentence sound-bites.  They are much better at this than the Democrats are.

 

Yes, the Democrats prefer to do it in single words rather than sentences, e.g., "hope" and "change."

 

One can make a pretty fair argument that no government policy is particularly exciting.  I suspect that the Republican platform that exists represents a consensus not to offend, rather than an actual practicable plan of action.  Offering specific tax cuts without corresponding specific budget cuts screams, "First do no harm to your electoral prospects."

 

Maybe.  But on social policy, they're quite aware that they offend many people by their stances on gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues, so I don't necessarily think that the GOP platform is silent here out of a desire to avoid offending potential voters.  It more likely suggests disagreement among the major players in the party itself about which specific programs would be cut to bring the budget into balance, assuming that the tax cuts passed.

 

Another possible explanation is that unincorporated townships, which tend to be Republican bastions, don't want to rock the boat and would prefer not to bring any part of the field of local government law into the spotlight because it's difficult to imagine that reforms would make local government law (in Ohio, anyway) more pro-township.

 

Agreed.  But the township 'success' has been fed by state largesse.  And there are plenty of villages and small cities that consistently vote Republican.

 

That township success has largely been fed by state largesse would be exactly the point--exactly the reason why the township-dominated GOP doesn't want to bring up local government law reform.  Likewise, while many villages and small cities consistently vote Republican, a lot of them still have similar mindsets, and are likewise similar beneficiaries of outsized per capita benefits from the state.

 

I'd say that at the level of the lowest common denominator, Ohio wants to do everything to avoid being in a California or Illinois type of situation.

 

This is true, and I think that the GOP may actually have an issue in November with public sector employment reform/cost control, since public employee salaries and benefits are the largest reason why those states have such high taxes and are still hemorrhaging public cash.

 

To the extent that Kasich is in favor of free trade agreements and Strickland isn't, I consider that a point in Kasich's favor.  They are not unmitigated benes, but they are far more good than bad--for both the U.S. and our trading partners.  And that's just in the economic sphere.  As a foreign relations matter, free trade agreements are among the more welcome things we can do for friendly nations; the holdup of the Peru and South Korea trade pacts strained relations with those countries.

 

Well, I would just say that as far as Kasich supporting NAFTA and his trade agreement with China, ones perception of its effectiveness is going to depend entirely on who they ask because it's impossible to truly determine a trade agreement's effect on the economy. You have to look at other factors like a declining/stronger peso, yuan or even dollar. Different groups such as the AFL-CIO and the Heritage Foundation are going to look at entirely different things. One is going to look at domestic job losses and declining wages, the other is going to focus on increased output for exports. Ohio has increased its exports every year since 1998 but it comes at the expense of declining wages and the closing of factories in Ohio that make things for the domestic market. All of the statistics are dressed up and exclude relevant factors though.

 

The thing that p!sses me off is China's entry into the WTO because of well-connected finance guys like Kasich. There's free-trade and then there's fair trade. We're competing with a country that has no EPA equivalent, allows child labour and most importantly, lies when they promise to float their currency freely as we keep finding it still pegged or fixed at a rate below the dollar which is only helping them stimulate their exports. Why are we making deals with countries who refuse to play fair? In international trade, it's all about finding an equilibrium and that hasn't been possible with China, even after we opened up our markets to each other. Like you said, free-trade should create better relationships between countries; it hasn't with China. NAFTA hasn't caused Mexico's government to cooperate fully in issues like securing our borders. I really want to believe in free-trade; I'm no socialist, but we're really going to have to take the Carpenter's approach and think two steps ahead before engaging in these agreements, imho.

 

 

No need, you have already sold me on him

 

Kasich? Wow, I thought I was at least a little persuasive there; didn't know I'd seal the deal on the opposite end!

Maybe. But on social policy, they're quite aware that they offend many people by their stances on gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues, so I don't necessarily think that the GOP platform is silent here out of a desire to avoid offending potential voters. It more likely suggests disagreement among the major players in the party itself about which specific programs would be cut to bring the budget into balance, assuming that the tax cuts passed.

 

I seriously doubt it.  The GOP stances on the social issues you mentioned don't simply give them a minus with certain voters, they also give them a corresponding plus with many other voters.  The difference with the spending is as you mention...

 

That township success has largely been fed by state largesse would be exactly the point--exactly the reason why the township-dominated GOP doesn't want to bring up local government law reform. Likewise, while many villages and small cities consistently vote Republican, a lot of them still have similar mindsets, and are likewise similar beneficiaries of outsized per capita benefits from the state.

 

that GOP constituencies benefit from the state spending inherent in the programs they don't wish to mention, and therefore they won't mention them.  I suspect that they'll try and go after public education.

 

I'd say that at the level of the lowest common denominator, Ohio wants to do everything to avoid being in a California or Illinois type of situation.

 

This is true, and I think that the GOP may actually have an issue in November with public sector employment reform/cost control, since public employee salaries and benefits are the largest reason why those states have such high taxes and are still hemorrhaging public cash.

 

They are hemorrhagin public cash because they are much more irresponsible than other high tax high service states.  You don't see New Jersey, New York or Massachussetts in the same desperate position.  (One could make a case that some of the highly regressively taxed, low service states are irresponsible too, but that's a different discussion).  I simply don't have your faith in the Republicans regarding public sector union reform/cost control, which I have mentioned several times previously.

 

The thing that p!sses me off is China's entry into the WTO because of well-connected finance guys like Kasich. There's free-trade and then there's fair trade. We're competing with a country that has no EPA equivalent, allows child labour and most importantly, lies when they promise to float their currency freely as we keep finding it still pegged or fixed at a rate below the dollar which is only helping them stimulate their exports. Why are we making deals with countries who refuse to play fair? In international trade, it's all about finding an equilibrium and that hasn't been possible with China, even after we opened up our markets to each other. Like you said, free-trade should create better relationships between countries; it hasn't with China. NAFTA hasn't caused Mexico's government to cooperate fully in issues like securing our borders. I really want to believe in free-trade; I'm no socialist, but we're really going to have to take the Carpenter's approach and think two steps ahead before engaging in these agreements, imho.

 

I think your concerns about China are overblown.  If the U.S. has any particular issue its that its trade policy is national but its development policy is local, and that the rise of China corresponded to an administration that wasn't particularly concerned with development.  The U.S. has so many more advantages vis-a-vis China it is sick.  Also, I'm not sure what being against free trade has to do with government ownership of industries, which is what socialism actually is.  There are plenty of countries that are notoriously free trading, such as Singapore and those Gulf Countries that have massive sovereign wealth funds and own and control huge sectors of their economies.

I'd say that at the level of the lowest common denominator, Ohio wants to do everything to avoid being in a California or Illinois type of situation.

 

This is true, and I think that the GOP may actually have an issue in November with public sector employment reform/cost control, since public employee salaries and benefits are the largest reason why those states have such high taxes and are still hemorrhaging public cash.

 

They are hemorrhagin public cash because they are much more irresponsible than other high tax high service states. You don't see New Jersey, New York or Massachussetts in the same desperate position. (One could make a case that some of the highly regressively taxed, low service states are irresponsible too, but that's a different discussion). I simply don't have your faith in the Republicans regarding public sector union reform/cost control, which I have mentioned several times previously.

 

I'm aware, just as you're aware that I don't have much faith in the myth of a "high tax/high-service state."  That false dichotomy was compellingly addressed in an extended column in, of all places, the Los Angeles Times last year:

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/01/opinion/oe-voegli1

 

In America's federal system, some states, such as California, offer residents a "package deal" that bundles numerous and ambitious public benefits with the high taxes needed to pay for them. Other states, such as Texas, offer packages combining modest benefits and low taxes. These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over what it means to get the size and scope of government right.

 

It's not surprising, then, that there's an intense debate over which model is more admirable and sustainable. What is surprising is the growing evidence that the low-benefit/low-tax package not only succeeds on its own terms but also according to the criteria used to defend its opposite. In other words, the superior public goods that supposedly justify the high taxes just aren't being delivered.

 

Those other high-tax states *are* in bad shape, just not quite as bad as California.  It's going to be interesting to see if the new governor of New Jersey has the chops to impose some genuine fat-cutting on the bloated public sector there; he's made a promising start, but he's got some bitter battles ahead of him with the entrenched special interests of the public employees' unions.

 

There is, in practical terms, no such thing as a high-tax/high-service state.  There are high-tax/low-service states, and low-tax/low-service states.

 

I think your concerns about China are overblown.  If the U.S. has any particular issue its that its trade policy is national but its development policy is local, and that the rise of China corresponded to an administration that wasn't particularly concerned with development.  The U.S. has so many more advantages vis-a-vis China it is sick. 

 

You're incredibly vague with all of your responses. It sounds like you're more concerned with accusing people of being wrong than seeing where people are coming from. I can't imagine what your personal relationships are like.

 

What are the advantages the U.S. has over China that make you so sick? I know we have advantages but that doesn't excuse matters of ethics which I would consider cheating in the economics game.

 

Trade policy and Economic Development on the local level are two different realms. Trade policy is national because the federal government is responsible for signing treaties, enforcing trade laws and resolving international disputes. That stuff has has very little to do with issues on the local level.

 

Each state or municipality has different economic, social and environmental conditions that warrant whatever rationale they use to attract or retain certain businesses.  Municipalities all have different priorities, whether it is diversifying their economy and creating jobs, developing brown field sites, alleviating congestion, improving distressed neighborhoods, the list goes on. Then you have developers who have issues with land cost, lack of skilled labor, citizen opposition, etc. etc. Why should the federal government be responsible for policy that effects people on a local level when in this vast country we have a different set of priorities in every city or state in terms of development? It should be the state or municipality's responsibility to develop relationships, accommodate, and incentivize individual businesses here or from abroad.

 

When it comes to stuff like prospective engineering disasters, the environment, inter-state transportation or extremely distressed cities I can see why the federal government should step in but if you're suggesting that municipalities shouldn't handle economic development, you're going to have to explain that one in detail to me.

 

 

You're incredibly vague with all of your responses. It sounds like you're more concerned with accusing people of being wrong than seeing where people are coming from. I can't imagine what your personal relationships are like.

 

My personal relationships are an absolute disaster.  Why do you think I spend so much time posting on this forum?  But enough about me, let's get back, as you say, to my real passion, vague accusations.

 

What are the advantages the U.S. has over China that make you so sick?

 

Now I can see why you hate the CPS so much, you seem to have real trouble reading other peoples posts.  The U.S. has enormous advantages over China- 1) Better education and educational resources 2) Personal liberty and a responsive government 3) Better environment 4) Better relations with other countries 5) Better relations with other IMPORTANT countries.  There are other things as well.

 

I know we have advantages but that doesn't excuse matters of ethics which I would consider cheating in the economics game.

 

Chinese currency manipulation occurs because the goal of the Chinese government is 1) Full employment 2) Rising living standards and 3) Political stability.  They chose export lead growth as it is the only proven model for bringing an economy from Third World to First World status.  We benefit from cheaper inports (with some concerns around the edges regarding unsafe products).  But the current lack of will by the federal government to combat present unemployment, or form some sort of new industrial policy is a direct result of our political system, and the lack of desire of the federal government to be perceived as chosing winners and losers.  It doesn't really have anything to do with what China is doing with their currency.

 

Trade policy and Economic Development on the local level are two different realms. Trade policy is national because the federal government is responsible for signing treaties, enforcing trade laws and resolving international disputes. That stuff has has very little to do with issues on the local level.

 

Each state or municipality has different economic, social and environmental conditions that warrant whatever rationale they use to attract or retain certain businesses.  Municipalities all have different priorities, whether it is diversifying their economy and creating jobs, developing brown field sites, alleviating congestion, improving distressed neighborhoods, the list goes on. Then you have developers who have issues with land cost, lack of skilled labor, citizen opposition, etc. etc. Why should the federal government be responsible for policy that effects people on a local level when in this vast country we have a different set of priorities in every city or state in terms of development? It should be the state or municipality's responsibility to develop relationships, accommodate, and incentivize individual businesses here or from abroad.

 

When it comes to stuff like prospective engineering disasters, the environment, inter-state transportation or extremely distressed cities I can see why the federal government should step in but if you're suggesting that municipalities shouldn't handle economic development, you're going to have to explain that one in detail to me.

 

If you are concerned about the local effects of trade policy, such as de-industrialization and underemployment, and the cause [trade policy] is under the aegis of the federal government, then effects of federal policy can only be mitigated by federal action.  There's no way a state government is going to be able to spend or forgo the resources through tax credits to deal with a policy that might be ruining their economy but benefiting others throughout the nation.

There is, in practical terms, no such thing as a high-tax/high-service state. There are high-tax/low-service states, and low-tax/low-service states.

 

That's certainly not true if you have someone in your family with mental health issues, or if you are concerned with the quality of public school systems, or public universities, or transportation.

I still see them in different realms. I'm not too dissatisfied with the current state of who deals with what, except that we have too many municipalities - redundancies in administration and public services. At least we have representatives of congressional districts for the checks and balances of trade policy.

There is, in practical terms, no such thing as a high-tax/high-service state.  There are high-tax/low-service states, and low-tax/low-service states.

 

That's certainly not true if you have someone in your family with mental health issues, or if you are concerned with the quality of public school systems, or public universities, or transportation.

 

Painting with a broad brush much?  You say this based on what, exactly?  Did you even read that column?  At least in terms of the quality of public school systems, lower-tax Texas has caught up to high-tax California; California teachers simply get paid a lot more.  The roads in Texas are basically indistinguishable from those in California.  How many people need to vote with their feet to get out of places you think should be high-tax/high-service paradises in order to penetrate that ideological haze in which you hide yourself?

 

Just out of curiosity (I'm taking a risk here and asking a question to which I genuinely don't know the answer), can you name a *single* pair of states in which there is greater internal migration from the lower-tax one of the two to the higher-tax one?  If your dream of a high-tax/high-service state were actually feasible in practice, shouldn't at least *one* state have been able to pull it off by now and be successfully attracting people away from states that offer lower levels of service?

 

I am concerned with the quality of education, which by necessary implication means that I am an opponent of most public school systems as currently constituted.  That doesn't mean I'm not concerned with the quality of public schools and universities--quite frankly, at least on the former point, I'm downright alarmed by them.  That doesn't mean that more spending is the answer, however.  It means that those institutions need to be declared failed experiments (and sinkholes of union-mandated and bureaucratically-mandated inefficiencies) and exposed to the cleansing destruction of the marketplace, to be replaced with places that are more serious about results because results determine survival.

 

As for mental health issues, I don't consider that relevant because I don't believe that the government has any business providing free mental health services, so I consider any mental health spending by any public entity per se wasteful.  That said, I do have some family members with mental health issues, as they're still Obama supporters, but I believe that their derangements are fading. :-P

There is, in practical terms, no such thing as a high-tax/high-service state.  There are high-tax/low-service states, and low-tax/low-service states.

 

That's certainly not true if you have someone in your family with mental health issues, or if you are concerned with the quality of public school systems, or public universities, or transportation.

 

Painting with a broad brush much?  You say this based on what, exactly?  Did you even read that column?  At least in terms of the quality of public school systems, lower-tax Texas has caught up to high-tax California; California teachers simply get paid a lot more. 

 

If that's the case, I'd hate to know how much the administrators make or what kind of wasteful spending is involved. I've been in some elementary schools lately and they're totally state-of-the-art with flatscreens all over the place including the offices. It's ridiculous. Yet I go to my old elementary school and it's all boarded up due to "lack of funding". This is a school where every kid in the neighborhood could walk, and walk safely, to school. Now they're being bussed 7 miles away to another school. It would seem to me that something is seriously wrong with the administration. If they're so great at their job and deserve their extremely high salaries then why aren't they aggressively marketing education to the public to get levies passed and why do they get away with such wasteful spending while old buildings are being shut down and boarded up?

I've seen some talk about NAFTA and "trade agreements" that Kasich voted for.  Let's not forget that NAFTA was pushed through a Democratic House by Rahm Emanuel and signed into law by Bill Clinton.  It's easy to knock NAFTA but I've yet to hear a full discussion of its merits and drawbacks. That'd be for a different thread but that's a lot drier than partisan bickering.

 

LincolnKennedy makes good points about China's long-term instabilities, the positive aspects of their cheap "inports," etc.

 

That's not to say China isn't going to dominate us because we sold our souls (and toxic assets) to them.

 

Finally, do any non-partisans actually like what Strickland's been doing?  He seems pretty bland to me.  Not too different from Taft.

I don't consider "bland" a disqualification from public office.  Strickland is definitely not the kind of orator or cult-of-personality figure that Obama is.  I don't particularly care.

 

He was dealt a bad hand.  He's played it in some ways differently than I would have, but overall, I think he's done a lot better than is commonly appreciated.  I certainly don't regret supporting him in the last election over Blackwell.  He's a fairly pragmatic centrist, and I'm not one of those firebreathing partisans who uses "centrist" as some kind of derogatory term.

When debating high-tax or low-tax states, I think we need to stop comparing Ohio to states that have either the natural resources or level of tourism which generate revenue for the State's budget not seen here in Ohio.  Alaska is allowed to have a negative income tax because of its natural resources.  Texas can give its corporations tax breaks because its exports generate so much money.  Florida is allowed to have no income tax, in part, because of tourism.  Ohio does not have those advantages.  What entitlement programs does Ohio offer to its citizens that these states do not? 

 

You also can't compare us to a state like Nebraska because our population is so much larger, requiring more roads, services, etc.  We should follow the models (if any) which are comparable, such as Michigan, Illinois, etc., if there are any that actually work.

"Just out of curiosity (I'm taking a risk here and asking a question to which I genuinely don't know the answer), can you name a *single* pair of states in which there is greater internal migration from the lower-tax one of the two to the higher-tax one?  If your dream of a high-tax/high-service state were actually feasible in practice, shouldn't at least *one* state have been able to pull it off by now and be successfully attracting people away from states that offer lower levels of service?"

 

I think that while this factor may be an important issue to many people when talking about an environment they like to live, it is probably not a high priority to them when deciding where to locate. For example, most people choose to live near family, jobs, good weather, shopping or entertainment. Tax and public services are pretty low down on the list when considering a place where to live. Plus they are often complicated and poorly communicated so people do not think about them when deciding where to live. I would think that the only people who really would give this thought are more senior citizens who may choose to relocate to Florida for the positive tax environment down there, and even then, I would say that is a minimal number.

 

If that's the case, then why is the correlation so strong?  If the tax environment really were irrelevant, both directly and indirectly, then you'd expect to see no real relation between internal migration and tax and regulatory environments.  As it happens, those states with suffocating state governments are the ones people are leaving.  Maybe that's direct (the people dislike the government per se), or maybe it's indirect (they're following the jobs and the jobs are fleeing to places where capital is more welcome), but either way, the correlation is far too strong to ignore.

So what's the solution for Ohio.  What government services can/should we cut in order to lower the tax rate or eliminate income tax altogether and yet balance the budget at the same time?  Not looking for generalizations.  Be specific.

Painting with a broad brush much? You say this based on what, exactly? Did you even read that column? At least in terms of the quality of public school systems, lower-tax Texas has caught up to high-tax California; California teachers simply get paid a lot more. The roads in Texas are basically indistinguishable from those in California. How many people need to vote with their feet to get out of places you think should be high-tax/high-service paradises in order to penetrate that ideological haze in which you hide yourself?

 

I have to think about the number and get back to you.  I'm not quite sure how isolating one factor (lower state taxes or non-existant state income tax) and saying it is the answer to every question of competitiveness as you are doing isn't painting with a broad brush.

 

Just out of curiosity (I'm taking a risk here and asking a question to which I genuinely don't know the answer), can you name a *single* pair of states in which there is greater internal migration from the lower-tax one of the two to the higher-tax one?

 

I would be extraordinarily suprised if people from Mississippi, Louisian or Arkansas weren't moving to Texas, and Texas probably has higher taxes than those three states.  I frankly have no idea either, but since there are plenty of states with low taxes and low opportunity, constantly referencing how "Texas does it better" is not a terribly good argument.  There are a whole host of articles regarding Texas' economic performance and the lack of correlation between a state's tax laws and its relative economic performance, as well as a clear historical argument that I've laid out previously within this thread, that you've never attempted to refute.  Californians have been moving to Texas.  They've also been moving to Arizona (low tax), Oregon (high tax), Washington (high tax) etc.  People leaving California are the primary drivers of population increase of most western states whether they are high tax or low tax.  Since California became a state in 1850, it really speaks more to the opportunities that the state of California provided for so long than it does to any particular present day policy that Texas.  Your disinterest in viewing anything in an historical context speaks volumes about your ideological view.

 

If your dream of a high-tax/high-service state were actually feasible in practice, shouldn't at least *one* state have been able to pull it off by now and be successfully attracting people away from states that offer lower levels of service?

 

If your dream about a successful low-tax state is true, can we please have one example where the majority of the infrastructure wasn't built after the Second World War, and the state overturned its own segregation laws prior to 1964?

 

I am concerned with the quality of education, which by necessary implication means that I am an opponent of most public school systems as currently constituted. That doesn't mean I'm not concerned with the quality of public schools and universities--quite frankly, at least on the former point, I'm downright alarmed by them. That doesn't mean that more spending is the answer, however. It means that those institutions need to be declared failed experiments (and sinkholes of union-mandated and bureaucratically-mandated inefficiencies) and exposed to the cleansing destruction of the marketplace, to be replaced with places that are more serious about results because results determine survival.

 

Your concern with quality education is purely rhetorical, as you've previously admitted in the back-and-forth we've had about vouchers, which don't work: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/07/13/365349lschoolvouchers_ap.html?tkn=VZMFmmmVudi8I8YcI44RV%2BRGyjhndSECZ7qy&cmp=clp-edweek

 

As for mental health issues, I don't consider that relevant because I don't believe that the government has any business providing free mental health services, so I consider any mental health spending by any public entity per se wasteful. That said, I do have some family members with mental health issues, as they're still Obama supporters, but I believe that their derangements are fading. :-P

 

You've already shown that what you don't consider relevant you won't respond to.  It is yet another example of the typical behavior of the ideologue- the classic Bolshevik language, where every failure marks the presence of traitors and every retreat is glorious.

If that's the case, then why is the correlation so strong? If the tax environment really were irrelevant, both directly and indirectly, then you'd expect to see no real relation between internal migration and tax and regulatory environments. As it happens, those states with suffocating state governments are the ones people are leaving. Maybe that's direct (the people dislike the government per se), or maybe it's indirect (they're following the jobs and the jobs are fleeing to places where capital is more welcome), but either way, the correlation is far too strong to ignore.

 

Feel free to read the articles other folks post:

To belabor a point on a tangent long abandoned, Texas ranks above other states in the amount of tax burden it imposes:

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

 

including similar states such as New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, and others like West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Nevada, Alaska and South Dakota.

 

Also, the most taxed states, New Jersey and Connecticut, are the wealthiest per capita.

 

But people and businesses aren't necessarily moving to the states that impose the smallest tax burden.

 

Also, there is the possibility that those states that are losing population are losing a certain segment of the population, retaining the high earners and low earners while losing the middle earners.

 

Californias a particularly bad example because the people leaving it are engaging in the same behavior as the people shifting around within the state- moving to greenfield sites that are close to the major economic centers.

If your dream of a high-tax/high-service state were actually feasible in practice, shouldn't at least *one* state have been able to pull it off by now and be successfully attracting people away from states that offer lower levels of service?

 

If your dream about a successful low-tax state is true, can we please have one example where the majority of the infrastructure wasn't built after the Second World War, and the state overturned its own segregation laws prior to 1964?

 

First, I don't see how that's relevant, particularly the second part.  Furthermore, for whatever point you're trying to make, I think New Hampshire would probably qualify.  Delaware at least has no state income tax and is doing better than most of its neighbors.  I don't think Colorado is at least associated with the segregation laws of the South--though I repeat, I don't get what your point is here.

 

I am concerned with the quality of education, which by necessary implication means that I am an opponent of most public school systems as currently constituted.  That doesn't mean I'm not concerned with the quality of public schools and universities--quite frankly, at least on the former point, I'm downright alarmed by them.  That doesn't mean that more spending is the answer, however.  It means that those institutions need to be declared failed experiments (and sinkholes of union-mandated and bureaucratically-mandated inefficiencies) and exposed to the cleansing destruction of the marketplace, to be replaced with places that are more serious about results because results determine survival.

 

Your concern with quality education is purely rhetorical, as you've previously admitted in the back-and-forth we've had about vouchers, which don't work: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/07/13/365349lschoolvouchers_ap.html?tkn=VZMFmmmVudi8I8YcI44RV%2BRGyjhndSECZ7qy&cmp=clp-edweek

 

Education Week is the last place to go to look for objective information about vouchers.

 

By the way, you are flatly lying through your teeth, and I'm not going to sugarcoat that with any softer words.  I *never* "admitted" anything remotely resembling the words you're trying to put into my mouth.  You can quote Ed Week, the quasi-official organ of the public school cartel, but I'd like to see you quote what exactly you're interpreting as any form of admission that I don't care about education.  (For Pete's sake, I'm a volunteer instructor--I'm doing half days at work next week in order to mentor high school students.  Never mind the fact that education clearly was what allowed me to break into the profession I've entered, since it certainly wasn't preexisting connections or family money.)

 

The fact that I vehemently disagree with the teachers' unions equivalence of their own salaries and benefits with the quality of American education doesn't make me an opponent of education.  It makes me an opponent of the people who charge too much for low-quality education.

 

There is substantial evidence that voucher competition both offers quality alternatives to public schools *and* forces public schools to improve in ways that they otherwise would not.  E.g., http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_02.htm.  Not to mention the fact that the theoretical case against the public school monopoly is overwhelmingly compelling.  You can't possibly have a near-monopoly market *and* compulsory market participation (i.e., everyone being forced to buy the monopoly's product) without inevitable corruption, inefficiency, and waste.  It would be like requiring everyone to buy a car and then stating that if you want a Ford, the government will pick up the tab, but if you want anything else, you buy it yourself (and pay your share of the Fords given to others).

 

As for mental health issues, I don't consider that relevant because I don't believe that the government has any business providing free mental health services, so I consider any mental health spending by any public entity per se wasteful.  That said, I do have some family members with mental health issues, as they're still Obama supporters, but I believe that their derangements are fading. :-P

 

You've already shown that what you don't consider relevant you won't respond to.  It is yet another example of the typical behavior of the ideologue- the classic Bolshevik language, where every failure marks the presence of traitors and every retreat is glorious.

 

And you're projecting.  I don't respond to what I don't consider relevant?  If there's anything that characterizes my posts, it's probably overresponding.

So what's the solution for Ohio. What government services can/should we cut in order to lower the tax rate or eliminate income tax altogether and yet balance the budget at the same time? Not looking for generalizations. Be specific.

 

Prisons, highway construction, workers' compensation, nursing homes, university subsidies, local government subsidies, and the pay scale of state workers, for starters.  Give me a few more picoseconds and I could come up with more.

So... we cut money out of all those programs?  How much? 

 

What prisoners do you release since we are already over capacity?  Personally, I would be all for releasing drug users and not spending anymore money on them.  But we already have programs such as IPP which is intended for early release and the judges (who have the final say) are frustrating that goal to some extent.  To really cut prison costs, you'd probably have to re-write a lot of the Revised Code to take away certain discretion of judges who like to campaign on the "tough on criminals" mantra. 

 

How much do you cut WC benefits and what conditions do you disallow?  If you have any experience with this, you know it is a mess that has no easy solution.  I still say we should root out the fraud before we re-write the system. 

 

If you cut local government subsidies, won't that result in an increase in local tax collections to maintain local services?  Or are you proposing that local governments start to cut back on their safety forces and other services to compensate for the decreased revenue?  Lower levels of services surely is not going to attract more residents... especially in urban settings where its not a "burn your leaves in your backyard" type atmosphere. 

 

You do realize that a lot of pay scales of state workers are set by contract and not at the discretion of the Governor?  You can't just arbitrarily cut pay scale... it has to be done through collective bargaining in many circumstances.  You would open the floodgates for litigation and bring down the quality of applicants for employment at the same time. 

 

Just a few thoughts, for starters.

First, I don't see how that's relevant, particularly the second part.  Furthermore, for whatever point you're trying to make, I think New Hampshire would probably qualify.  Delaware at least has no state income tax and is doing better than most of its neighbors.  I don't think Colorado is at least associated with the segregation laws of the South--though I repeat, I don't get what your point is here.

Delaware is a classic example of a state that benefits disproportionally from the federal government.  Companies can do business in any state but are not incorporated federally.  Drive on I-95 and see how much you extra you have to pay simply because the feds routed that highway through that state.

 

New Hampshire is a good example of your case but I'd be surprised if it is anything but migration from the greater Boston area, although I recognize that in your world, geography is irrelevant.  This example is more similar to the growth of the Inland Empire in California more than anything else.  There is certainly a difference in taxation between Vermont and New Hampshire, yet both gained population over the past decade.  Shouldn't NH be draining Vermont of people?

 

Do you think that these Jim Crow states would be performing as well economically as some of them are if they still had those Jim Crow laws?  Those improvements to personal liberty were imposed upon those unwilling states by the federal government, not because the officials in those states wanted those laws changed. 

 

Right, I was putting Colorado, along with Washington and Oregon, under the federal expenditure only heading, as opposed to Texas, which I would put under both.  Nice pickup.

 

By the way, you are flatly lying through your teeth, and I'm not going to sugarcoat that with any softer words.  I *never* "admitted" anything remotely resembling the words you're trying to put into my mouth.  You can quote Ed Week, the quasi-official organ of the public school cartel, but I'd like to see you quote what exactly you're interpreting as any form of admission that I don't care about education.  (For Pete's sake, I'm a volunteer instructor--I'm doing half days at work next week in order to mentor high school students.  Never mind the fact that education clearly was what allowed me to break into the profession I've entered, since it certainly wasn't preexisting connections or family money.)

From a previous post of yours in the Obama Presidency thread:

I think you definitely misinterpreted, and I'm still not following your train of thought.  How exactly are public schools at all market-based today, and how would going this route move them further away from a competitive market model?  (Also, remember, we moved into this segue through the topic of the voucher program that the Obama administration is killing even as he sends his own daughters to one of the ritziest private schools in America.  I've made my own pro-market education-based views known--I oppose the very existence of government-run public schools, and would hope to see a model like the one I've described above emerge in the context of a universal voucher program in a world of all private schools.  However, within the confines of reform of existing public schools, planning is necessarily bureaucratic and top-down, even more so under the status quo than under my proposal.  I don't know what you think a more "market-based" approach would be, and it really feels like you're just trying to score some kind of point against me personally related to some other thread, but I certainly don't think the mere addition of counselors would involve a more "market-based" approach to education.)

 

The sentence in bold is what I was referring to when I described your support for education as being purely rhetorical.  Where is the evidence, in any state or any other country, that moving to a privatized system of education is going to fufill the goal of universal education?  The people of the nation expect a system of universal education.  It's fine if you don't like it, but declaring after the fact implementation that your 'solutions' to present day concerns won't work in the same conditions means that they don't work.

 

Education Week is the last place to go to look for objective information about vouchers.

There you go again with your Bolshevik-style ad hominem attacks.  It's like listening to Zinoviev at the Twelfth Party Congress. 

 

Why should one dismiss an article in Education Week as being 'inherently biases' but believe that something from the Manhattan Institute isn't?  Given that the Manhattan Institute says that they advocate 'market-oriented policies', and that vouchers are presented as market-oriented policies, then why don't they have just as much self-interest in promoting a certain viewpoint as Education Week?

 

The fact that I vehemently disagree with the teachers' unions equivalence of their own salaries and benefits with the quality of American education doesn't make me an opponent of education.  It makes me an opponent of the people who charge too much for low-quality education.

 

There is substantial evidence that voucher competition both offers quality alternatives to public schools *and* forces public schools to improve in ways that they otherwise would not.  E.g., http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_02.htm.  Not to mention the fact that the theoretical case against the public school monopoly is overwhelmingly compelling.  You can't possibly have a near-monopoly market *and* compulsory market participation (i.e., everyone being forced to buy the monopoly's product) without inevitable corruption, inefficiency, and waste.  It would be like requiring everyone to buy a car and then stating that if you want a Ford, the government will pick up the tab, but if you want anything else, you buy it yourself (and pay your share of the Fords given to others).

But the public schools don't have and have never had a monopoly, at any level of education.  There's been parochial and non-parochial private schools since before the Republic.

 

New Orleans has been the single biggest testing ground for vouchers.  If you want to ignore things that are happening there simply because the data doesn't fit in your pre-conceived graph, don't expect folks to pat you on the back about it.

 

And you're projecting.  I don't respond to what I don't consider relevant?  If there's anything that characterizes my posts, it's probably overresponding.

If you're over-responding, I'm equally over-responding.  Are you sure you are using 'projecting' in the correct manner in this case?

I don't claim the Manhattan Institute is unbiased.  However, I do think that their research methodology is superior.

 

I'm done responding.  I've never had such a naked ideologue accuse me so relentlessly of being nothing but a naked ideologue, when I'll lay odds that the distribution of votes over my voting life is far more bipartisan than yours: Considering the absolutely absurd things you say, and apparently believe, about the Republicans, I have to assume that you're either a straight-line Democrat, a third party supporter, or one of those who likes to talk politics but doesn't actually vote.

^You really do assume a lot about my behavior.  Your claim that you can bet you've voted in a more bipartisan manner than I have, as if we were talking about that rather than specific policy, is completely absurd.  I'm sorry you felt like taking your toys and going home.  It's been fun.

So... we cut money out of all those programs? How much?

 

Good question.  But I don't know how I could answer that without a staff of CPAs and economists--which the governor has, while I don't.  As a matter of general guiding principle, though, I would say "enough to hurt."  (I don't believe in platitudes like "enough to get rid of fraud and waste"--no one ever affirmatively campaigns in favor of fraud and waste.)

 

What prisoners do you release since we are already over capacity?

 

Nonviolent ones, primarily.  Perpetrators of victimless crimes in particular, which goes in part to your next point:

 

Personally, I would be all for releasing drug users and not spending anymore money on them. But we already have programs such as IPP which is intended for early release and the judges (who have the final say) are frustrating that goal to some extent. To really cut prison costs, you'd probably have to re-write a lot of the Revised Code to take away certain discretion of judges who like to campaign on the "tough on criminals" mantra.

 

Agreed on most counts.  Sadly, most drug offenses are federal, so you end up in federal prison; the state can't let them out, more's the pity.

 

How much do you cut WC benefits and what conditions do you disallow? If you have any experience with this, you know it is a mess that has no easy solution. I still say we should root out the fraud before we re-write the system.

 

As I said above, no one ever campaigns in favor of fraud and abuse.  However, the generous payouts are the primary reason the system is so attractive to fraudsters--or people simply hamming up genuine injuries--and it's also one of the highest expenses on manufacturers and other heavy industries still remaining in the state, because of the system for determining premiums.

 

I'm obviously all for rooting out fraud; who isn't?  However, even if we got fraudulent payouts down to under 1% of the total, the system as a whole would still be too big of a burden.  Shifting some of the risk of injury back to the employee level would not be popular, but it would result in a substantial cost savings.

 

If you cut local government subsidies, won't that result in an increase in local tax collections to maintain local services? Or are you proposing that local governments start to cut back on their safety forces and other services to compensate for the decreased revenue? Lower levels of services surely is not going to attract more residents... especially in urban settings where its not a "burn your leaves in your backyard" type atmosphere.

 

It could result in an increase in local taxation, but on balance, the total tax burden would be lower--and at the local level, a vote tends to count for more.  Lots of people are discouraged from voting in federal elections by the psychology of the wasted vote.  That often keeps them away from the ballot box entirely, which is disappointing, because every vote really does count for something in local races.  Hardly a local election day goes by in this state in which some local issue or candidate race isn't decided by 20 votes or less.

 

Also, as a matter of general economics, if you subsidize something, you get more of it--just as people will buy more foods containing large amounts of corn syrup if corn syrup is overly subsidized, local governments will buy a lot more programming that would not be cost-effective if they actually had to internalize all of the costs.  Would towns get rid of their safety forces?  I don't know.  Dublin might, but then again, Dublin probably doesn't need as many police as it has.  Others would find other things to cut.  They would be things that many urbanists (including myself, for that matter) would hate to lose, but I think that at least a few things would get cut ahead of safety forces.

 

You do realize that a lot of pay scales of state workers are set by contract and not at the discretion of the Governor? You can't just arbitrarily cut pay scale... it has to be done through collective bargaining in many circumstances. You would open the floodgates for litigation and bring down the quality of applicants for employment at the same time.

 

Collective bargaining agreements expire.  In addition, there are trump cards available if circumstances get truly dire (which may well be closer than many defenders of profligate government spending want to admit): States have sovereign immunity, and municipalities have <a href="http://stjohns.abiworld.org/node/83">Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code</a>.

If that's the case, then why is the correlation so strong? If the tax environment really were irrelevant, both directly and indirectly, then you'd expect to see no real relation between internal migration and tax and regulatory environments. As it happens, those states with suffocating state governments are the ones people are leaving. Maybe that's direct (the people dislike the government per se), or maybe it's indirect (they're following the jobs and the jobs are fleeing to places where capital is more welcome), but either way, the correlation is far too strong to ignore.

 

I am not saying there is no correlation but I think it is very minimal. The states with the population growth (FL, TX, AZ, NC, SC, AL, TN, NM, etc) all may have much lower tax burdens but the things that are causing their net inmigration are 1) immigrants from Latin America (both legal and illegal) and 2) The snowbirds desire for warmer climates, and 3) Shutting down of old line manufacturing with creation of jobs in the service sector where location was not nearly a factor oon where to live and the creation of ancillary jobs in those areas from it.

 

Not to say business tax environment is not an improtant issue because people will locate where the jobs are but from a personal tax point, I do not think most people consider it / and are in position to consider it. Unless you are one of the people in the highest tax brackets, then it really does not matter too much where you live for tax planning purposes. Therefore, there is only going to be a small percentage of people affected by this. This is not enough to explain the gains that are occurring in such states. Therefore, I think the majority of it is explained by immigration and people's desire to live in a warmer climate in general if given the choice.

^^Yes, CBA's expire, but then the duty to negotiate arises.  Good faith negotiation is the key term here.  Sovereign immunity does not protect the state or any of its agencies from unfair labor practice charges.  And with safety forces, they can't strike and the government can't lock them out, so once impasse is reached in negotiations it goes to SERB's conciliation process, each party makes one last, best and final offer, and the conciliator picks one or the other on each issue at impasse.  It's a complicated process and is a legislative issue a governor can not realistically campaign on.

I am not saying there is no correlation but I think it is very minimal. The states with the population growth (FL, TX, AZ, NC, SC, AL, TN, NM, etc) all may have much lower tax burdens but the things that are causing their net inmigration are 1) immigrants from Latin America (both legal and illegal) and 2) The snowbirds desire for warmer climates, and 3) Shutting down of old line manufacturing with creation of jobs in the service sector where location was not nearly a factor oon where to live and the creation of ancillary jobs in those areas from it.

 

The growth of Texas, Florida, Arizona and New Mexico seem pretty clear, albeit for different factors.  I'm somewhat surprised there are more people moving to South Carolina, Tennessee and Alabama, and that Georgia isn't on that list.  I'm not sure if people in Ohio and the Midwest would necessarily want to trade places with folks who move to those states, however.

 

The place that really seems interesting to me, and holds the best prospect for lessons that Ohio and the Midwest could implement is North Carolina.  The state really seems to have made a place for themselves that doesn't have anything particular to do with natural geography or resources or sprawl from a major metro in another state.  They seem to have done a good job of attracting businesses to Charlotte and investing in their university system to further job growth.

 

Not to say business tax environment is not an improtant issue because people will locate where the jobs are but from a personal tax point, I do not think most people consider it / and are in position to consider it. Unless you are one of the people in the highest tax brackets, then it really does not matter too much where you live for tax planning purposes. Therefore, there is only going to be a small percentage of people affected by this. This is not enough to explain the gains that are occurring in such states. Therefore, I think the majority of it is explained by immigration and people's desire to live in a warmer climate in general if given the choice.

 

I think that we can't forget that the 'greenfield' model of development that has propelled growth in the suburbs holds equally true for the above states as well.

 

^^Yes, CBA's expire, but then the duty to negotiate arises.  Good faith negotiation is the key term here.  Sovereign immunity does not protect the state or any of its agencies from unfair labor practice charges.  And with safety forces, they can't strike and the government can't lock them out, so once impasse is reached in negotiations it goes to SERB's conciliation process, each party makes one last, best and final offer, and the conciliator picks one or the other on each issue at impasse.  It's a complicated process and not a legislative issue a governor can not realistically campaign on.

 

I'm curious if there would be a way for the state to incorporate a Constitutional amendment that forbids the state government or any of its subsidiaries (municipalities of special bodies such as school districts) from offering defined-benefit pension plans.  Maybe as a corollarly to balanced budget requirements that the states and municipalities have?  Because now would be the best time to pass something of that nature, since you've got a Republican majority state Supreme Court and Republican majority U.S. Supreme Court.  If they did move to defined contribution pensions you'd probably end up increasing the cost of these workers, but then you'd be paying for what you were using when you were using it rather than allowing it to become some budgetary ticking time bomb.

The people of this state can pass any Constitutional Amendment that does not violate the Federal Constituiton or conflict with defined and exercised Federal powers.  They could pass an amendment that forbids the legislature from compelling the state and the political subdivisions to collectively bargain with public employees if they want, although such conditions only exist in two other states.

 

Forbiding the subdivisions from doing the same would be trickier because you have the Home Rule issue to deal with. 

I'm curious if there would be a way for the state to incorporate a Constitutional amendment that forbids the state government or any of its subsidiaries (municipalities of special bodies such as school districts) from offering defined-benefit pension plans. Maybe as a corollarly to balanced budget requirements that the states and municipalities have? Because now would be the best time to pass something of that nature, since you've got a Republican majority state Supreme Court and Republican majority U.S. Supreme Court. If they did move to defined contribution pensions you'd probably end up increasing the cost of these workers, but then you'd be paying for what you were using when you were using it rather than allowing it to become some budgetary ticking time bomb.

 

The state and federal supreme courts probably wouldn't be the obstacle; state constitutional amendments cannot be declared unconstitutional by state or federal courts unless they hold that they're in contradiction of a federal constitutional guarantee that is binding upon states (i.e., states cannot constitutionally legalize slavery, deprive women of the right to vote, impose tariffs on trade with other states, etc.).  It would be a valid constitutional amendment.  Whether it would pass at the ballot box is the real issue; that would be an interesting test of the currently circulating narrative that there is substantial growing resentment to the costs of public sector workers.

 

The potential federal constitutional wrinkle is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause">Contracts Clause</a>, which prohibits states from passing laws (and constitutional amendments are counted as laws for this purpose) retroactively impairing contract rights.  Since existing collective bargaining arrangements are set forth in contracts, this would appear to sharply limit the ability of states to deal with existing pension and benefit obligations.  Municipalities have Chapter 9 bankruptcies available to them, as I mentioned earlier.  States are in an interesting limbo.  They cannot retroactively impair contract rights, but they are also immune from most forms of remedy for breaches of contract absent waivers of sovereign immunity.  In cold political terms, at least in some ways, they can breach and get away with it.

^Not true re the immunity point.  The union would have its grievance rights which are set forth in the CBA's.  They also have administrative appeals to the Franklin County court if that is the proper route to take.  They also may request that SERB file unfair labor practice charges if the City/Village/County/State unilaterally alters a contract or refuses to bargain in good faith.  Sovereign immunity moreso protects the governments from actions of discretion.  It is not discretionary for the agencies to collectively bargain.  They have to per Ohio law.  It is also not discretionary for the agencies to adhere to the provisions of the resulting CBA's.

 

This is why we have SERB, SPBR, Civil Service Commissions, etc.

They have to under current Ohio law.  I do not believe they are required to do so by the federal or state constitutions.  Therefore, since we're talking about the governor's race here, we're talking about what a governor might do to change Ohio law, both as it's actually written and as it's implemented (i.e., by appointing more pro-municipality and less pro-union individuals to positions on relevant public bodies).

The people of this state can pass any Constitutional Amendment that does not violate the Federal Constituiton or conflict with defined and exercised Federal powers.  They could pass an amendment that forbids the legislature from compelling the state and the political subdivisions to collectively bargain with public employees if they want, although such conditions only exist in two other states.

 

Forbiding the subdivisions from doing the same would be trickier because you have the Home Rule issue to deal with.

 

Forbidding the latter legislatively would be problematic because of home rule issues, though I don't think Ohio's home rule shields are quite that strong.  Forbidding the latter by constitutional amendment is perfectly permissible, though--later-in-time amendments supercede earlier ones to the extent that the two are necessarily inconsistent.  (To the extent that they can be read consistently with one another, the usual rule is that you pick whichever reading allows both provisions to survive--if that can't realistically be done, then the older one yields, which in this case would be established home rule protections to the extent inconsistent with the new individual-bargaining rule.)

This is a long press release. Essentially, Kasich is mitigating his responsibility at Lehman Brothers, as verified by new public records requests. Kasich denied giving direct pitches to pension funds in Ohio for toxic assets and misled the media regarding the number of Ohio public pensions he approached to do business with Lehman Brothers.

 

http://www.tedstrickland.com/blog/entry/public_records_show_kasich_campaign_repeatedly_dishonest_about_kasichs_role/

 

 

They have to under current Ohio law. I do not believe they are required to do so by the federal or state constitutions. Therefore, since we're talking about the governor's race here, we're talking about what a governor might do to change Ohio law, both as it's actually written and as it's implemented (i.e., by appointing more pro-municipality and less pro-union individuals to positions on relevant public bodies).

 

I don't care if the people elected Rush Limbaugh to be Governor, there is no way in hell the General Assembly is going to rip apart the Collective Bargaining Act.  You know a Governor can't change the way a law is written.  Not within his/her province.  You're right, of course, that the power of appointment can be influential, but remember that almost all agency decisions are appealable to the courts one way or another.

They have to under current Ohio law. I do not believe they are required to do so by the federal or state constitutions. Therefore, since we're talking about the governor's race here, we're talking about what a governor might do to change Ohio law, both as it's actually written and as it's implemented (i.e., by appointing more pro-municipality and less pro-union individuals to positions on relevant public bodies).

 

I don't care if the people elected Rush Limbaugh to be Governor, there is no way in hell the General Assembly is going to rip apart the Collective Bargaining Act. You know a Governor can't change the way a law is written. Not within his/her province. You're right, of course, that the power of appointment can be influential, but remember that almost all agency decisions are appealable to the courts one way or another.

 

Rip it apart?  Probably not.  But more incremental reforms might be within reach, particularly if the feeling among the electorate in the fall is that public sector workers have been too coddled due to their insulation from market forces, which is a meme that is developing now but the strength of which remains untested.

 

In the same statute that defines the rights of workers to organize, for example, Ohio already forbids public employers from negotiating with county boards of elections (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4117.03).

 

Granted, the FOP and OEA are infinitely more powerful and have more than enough resources to buy the necessary votes in the legislature to prevent any reforms that would actually take the gravy away from the largest public sector unions, so I believe that at the end of the day, you're right.  However, remember that candidates campaign on what they want to accomplish, and what they believe the electorate wants, whether or not the remainder of the political stars align in favor of such an end.  Heck, candidates even campaign on platforms that are unconstitutional, hoping that a more favorable Supreme Court will render their agenda constitutional later, whether it's ending all abortions on the right or gun control and restraining corporate campaign spending on the left.

This is a long press release. Essentially, Kasich is mitigating his responsibility at Lehman Brothers, as verified by new public records requests. Kasich denied giving direct pitches to pension funds in Ohio for toxic assets and misled the media regarding the number of Ohio public pensions he approached to do business with Lehman Brothers.

 

http://www.tedstrickland.com/blog/entry/public_records_show_kasich_campaign_repeatedly_dishonest_about_kasichs_role/

 

 

 

Nice tedstrickland.com puff piece.  Now, how has Ohio fared under Strickland's watch?  It might be nice to have someone who knows how to get things done.  His bio is pretty good and even Newsweek called him one of "100 people for the 21st century." 

 

I don't think Strickland will be too happy about this:

This is a long press release. Essentially, Kasich is mitigating his responsibility at Lehman Brothers, as verified by new public records requests. Kasich denied giving direct pitches to pension funds in Ohio for toxic assets and misled the media regarding the number of Ohio public pensions he approached to do business with Lehman Brothers.

 

http://www.tedstrickland.com/blog/entry/public_records_show_kasich_campaign_repeatedly_dishonest_about_kasichs_role/

 

 

 

Nice tedstrickland.com puff piece. Now, how has Ohio fared under Strickland's watch?

 

I don't think bankrupted people who lost their life savings from investing in toxic assets like these would call it a puff piece. How have we fared under Strickland's watch? Definitely no worse than conservative California, Louisiana, Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, and so on. These are states that have either the worst budget gaps, the highest unemployment rates, or a combination of both. Even Texas, a state that champions low, business-friendly taxes has a projected $18B budget shortfall and this is after cuts. The whole U.S. is struggling.

 

Ohio GOP Chairman Kevin DeWine sent a comment out via email last night, stating that if Strickland keeps it up, his own past will come back to haunt him regarding his screwed up budget. An idiotic statement considering that under the Ohio Constitution Strickland is merely allowed to present a budget recommendation to state legislators based on his meetings with state agencies. Since DeWine was one of those state legislators you would think he'd be the last to undermine their larger role in the process.

 

If you want a governor who "gets things done" you should be concerned about Kasich being the true lame duck right now, spending so much time signing his books and raising money while completely ignoring the media's concerns about him.

"Conservative California?"

That wasn't well constructed. I meant states led by conservative governors. Overall I think California is pretty conservative though. Places like Bakersfield are a whole different program compared to SanFran.

Arnold is conservative only by California standards.  He'd be a Democrat in many states.

 

Also, as has already been rightly cautioned on this thread, there are limits to what a governor can do alone--some states have more powerful governorships than others.  California's is fairly weak; the legislature is strong.  New Jersey actually does have strong gubernatorial powers, which is one reason Chris Christie has been able to push more conservative policies there successfully.

Miamisburg voter example of Strickland’s nightmare

By William Hershey, Staff Writer 

Updated 2:01 AM Sunday, July 25, 2010

 

COLUMBUS — In this very hot summer of voter discontent, Miamisburg’s Carrie Golden is the nightmare that Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland must turn into a sweet dream to have any chance of winning re-election.

 

She’s the angry face and voice behind Ohio’s 10.5 percent June unemployment rate, a rate that’s been in double digits for 15 straight months.

...

Golden said she doesn’t know much about Kasich and wants to look over the whole roster of candidates for governor before deciding whom to back this time.

 

“I know it won’t be Strickland,” she said.

 

more: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/election/miamisburg-voter-example-of-stricklands-nightmare-828331.html

^She wants to look over the whole roster of candidates?  Has she ever voted in this country before?

 

I can't wait for more stories about people who describe themselves as independents but vote as as partisans.  Oh wait, that's every story about the independent voter.

^^ She claims to have voted for Strickland in 2006 and Obama in 2008, i  would not call her a partisan. You could call her many other things, but that does not really say partisan

^^ She claims to have voted for Strickland in 2006 and Obama in 2008, i would not call her a partisan. You could call her many other things, but that does not really say partisan

 

She's like many ignorant people who vote for the opposite party simply because the economy is bad!

So I guess she was ignorant when she voted for Obama in 08 then based your last statement.

So I guess she was ignorant when she voted for Obama in 08 then based your last statement.

 

Her reason might have been; but you're right, I don't know her personally and I should probably give her the benefit of doubt.  I do know the general trend is that people vote for change when they feel they have little to lose. 

 

Personally, I think that when it comes to state-level politics, citizens are least in-the-know. It simply doesn't get as much media attention as something like the Presidential Election. The media does less investigative reporting to find the smoking gun against candidates (it's mostly a battle between people within the campaigns like opposition researchers, spokespersons) and citizens are left with little to base their decision on so they vote with their emotions and pick the candidate that is the least distance, most "in-touch". This is something polticians can easily capitalize on no matter what their real intentions are.

^^ She claims to have voted for Strickland in 2006 and Obama in 2008, i would not call her a partisan. You could call her many other things, but that does not really say partisan.

 

I'm not sure why this invalidates the assumption that she votes in a partisan manner.  She says she's not going to vote for Strickland in July, who knows what she'll do in November.

 

I'm impressed that she got the DDN to write a whole story about her (potentially) idiosyncratic voting habits.  But that article is a perfect example of how vapid most reporting on political races are.  It's not persuasive.  Her reasons for opposing Strickland are irrational.  While neither candidate had the means to keep GM from moving jobs and NCR from leaving the Dayton area (and it's doubtful that we would want them to have such authority), Kasich worked for a firm whose irresponsible business practices contributed to the present recession and unemployment!  Kasich's firm no longer exists, yet the money said firm extracted from the economy and paid out to its employees remains with Kasich, despite performance so bad that the firm has been dissolved.  It would be absurd to blame Kasich for these events, since he wasn't in charge of them, yet likewise the Governor of Ohio doesn't get to decide that Dayton is a better location than Atlanta for NCR, etc.

 

I suppose the DDN could have run a story that contained numbers from several good polls, described the history of where various Governors were at this time in these conditions in Ohio's history, and what that might tell us about the current race, and discussed their respective fundraising levels.  Instead we have a human interest story about the idiosyncratic views of one voter.  No wonder newspapers are a dying business.

lets face it voters are irrational, it is not about who can do the job better but rather about who sells the job better. Strickland had very little to do with NCR leaving, Their CEO wanted no part of Dayton from the start, but because he was in charge, he unfairly gets the blame. However, the reverse can be said that Bush was not solely responsible for the economy tanking in 2008, there were many Dems to share equally in the blame, but again he was in charge so he takes the blame.

 

Just the way things are, sometimes you just have to chalk it up to circumstance.