Heavy lies the crown...

^^My original statement wasn't terribly clear.  I wasn't commenting with the intention of badgering any particular voter or their opinion.  I was deriding the news story and the reporting that gives no information about the Governor's race outside of the frame of one voters thoughts, and how awful and socially pointless this type of reporting is.  But I guess if we didn't have these types of stories democracy would cease to function.

Kasich would take Ohio development agency private

 

By JULIE CARR SMYTH

BUSINESS WEEK

 

Ohio governor hopeful John Kasich said Tuesday he would replace the state Department of Development with a nonprofit board of business leaders if he's elected in November.

...

The new entity he proposes would energize Ohio businesses and be unimpeded by civil service regulations, Kasich told onlookers at Tarrier Steel Co. near downtown Columbus.

 

"So I hope when you leave here you'll tell people, no more bureaucrats, no more bungling, no more tripping over one another," Kasich said. "There's a new sheriff, there's a new guy who wants to say we're going to be sleek, and quick, and light on our feet, and innovative, and creative."

 

more: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9HLEM480.htm

Kasich up 8 points over Strickland in a recent Rasmussen Poll that came out today

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/ohio/election_2010_ohio_governor

^Rasmussen Polls have been leaning right this cycle, but not that far right.

Would love to see this poll paralleled with a general history/civics test.

For people in government to constantly say that government is ineffective...For a potential governmor to say this...

 

Real leaders do not denigrate their teams.

Yes, but they also don't pretend that their teams are something that they aren't.

 

Your logic basically implies that no one who thinks the government is too big and/or doing something poorly should ever run for government office.

I don't understand the point of Kasich's proposal.  Literally, I don't understand what problem it's supposed to address.  Are the department of development people playing tetris all day but can't be fired because of civil service regulations? 

Let me frame it this way (note that this is *me* speaking, not Kasich, since I can't exactly say I know where he's going with this proposal du jour):

 

In the private sector, if you look at a development plan and think it will work, and you're right, you get rich.  If you look at a development plan and think it's going to work and you're wrong, you go broke and are basically kicked out of the game (at least until some bank will lend to you again).  If you look at a development plan and think it won't work and you're wrong, then either it doesn't happen or someone else gets rich instead of you.  If you look at a development plan and think it won't work and you're right, then either it doesn't happen or someone else goes broke instead of you (and perhaps you can then buy in at a more attractive price).

 

Regardless, these dynamics create incentives to do your homework and make proper judgment calls.  In addition, they forcefully weed out those who do not make proper judgment calls.

 

If a civil servant thinks a development project will fail, but a legislator with jurisdiction over his agency's funding really wants to see it attempted anyway, what are his incentives?  Even absent legislative interference, if a civil servant thinks that a development will work but he's wrong, what happens to him?  The civil service rules make it very difficult to dismiss or even demote someone with demonstrably poor professional judgment.  Likewise, suppose you've got a young superstar who actually knows what he's doing and proposes development programs that will work.  What's his reward?  Does it differ at all from the rewards of those who make bad decisions and/or no decisions?

 

This is the generic critique of government workers' incentives, but I think it has a special resonance in the development arena.  More than the same critique applied to the BMV, certainly.

Yes, but his proposal is for a nonprofit sector entity.  They won't get rich or go broke any more than a gov't employee would.  Kasich's reason is obvious- they will be unimpeded by civil service regulations, it's the only part of his pitch that is anything but happy talk.  What exactly that means I don't know.  I'm assuming that as you noted, the goal is that it's easier to hire/promote/fire who he would want.

So it would be a nonprofit entity controlled entirely by the state?

I guess.  Even odder, the governor would sit as chair of the board of directors.

 

Quoted in the PD:

"You'll have a board of directors and I'll be the chairman of the board," he told reporters.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/08/ohio_republican_governor_candi.html

 

Anyway, I don't understand exactly how it is to be run, and from the varying opinions given in the articles, I don't think I'm the only one.

This is the generic critique of government workers' incentives, but I think it has a special resonance in the development arena.  More than the same critique applied to the BMV, certainly.

 

Sure, I'm pretty familiar with the conceptual differences between public and private sector employee incentives and public choice theory, etc.  I suppose I should just infer that Kasich thinks the whole department is broken and needs to be thrown out, but the articles don't exactly spell out his critique so tough to know if the cost of total reboot is worth it.  I'd also like to know how many and which of those 400 department employees are covered by civil service regs- the governor already has some appointment powers at the top of the department.

 

The heart of the proposal seems to be having the legal ability to pay development officials much more in order to attract better talent and to tie compensation to "performance"- the investment bank model, I suppose.  If this proposal gains traction, it will be fascinating to see how these bonuses are structured.

Yeah, I don't know what exactly Kasich is proposing, either.  In fact, I think it's entirely possible that he doesn't even have a proposal himself yet, even as a starting point.

 

The investment bank model may have something to offer, but obviously the differences between the public and private sector make that difficult to simply copy-and-paste.  (Also, the investment bank model hasn't exactly been that stellar in the private sector, save at getting government bailouts ...)

 

Another "model," if it can be called that, might be the "university president model."  Basically, the #1 job qualification of a university president these days is the ability to raise capital for their schools.  Salaries for those who can do it are high.  (Salaries for those who *can't* do it also seem to be high, though, which is one reason I'm not that big a fan of the model in practice ... not to mention the fact that I disapprove of where that tends to incentivize presidents to focus.)  A development-agency model that rewarded successfully linking up development opportunities with outside funding sources might have a shot as well--again, I have no idea how (in the specifics, anyway), or if Kasich might mean something like this, but conceptually, it's derivative of a model that already exists.

Kasich should choose his words more carefully when he's communicating his positions and should not advocate a hybrid public/private structure without considering the larger effects.  Moving the agency from government hands to private hands doesn't mean that bureacracy will end - its just a shift.  Also, it's not clarly explained how decision making would be any easier - seems like instead of doing this he could spend more time spelling out his vision for Ohio and how that fits for Ohio's cities, suburbs, and rural communities.

 

Moreover if the board is going to have oversight over tax dollars then this board needs to be a governmental entitiy.  To me Kasich could use the organization that he's proposing to help guide his economic policies but he should not be seeking to replace an entire department with this organization.

 

All in all this sounds like he put about 10 min of thought into this idea.

 

Does anyone know where to get the Kent Markus opinion?  I can't search lexisweb in China.

Politics is a shallow business, and you guys are analyzing campaign speak too much. Kasich just wanted to throw the idea of injecting private/free-market mechanics into a public field. It makes the base go wild. They generally don't care if the idea makes any sense, or has any meat.

I am rather surprised that 28% of people on this site would vote for John Kasich.  I can see how somebody might support him because they are attracted to some of his economic plans even though I personally don't think they are very good. What I can not understand is how somebody that is interested in urban living and cities in general thinks he has anything to offer on these issues.  If any of his supporters have anything that he plans to do to improve the urban fabric of Ohio I would like to see it because I haven't yet. 

I had supported him until his recent anti-rail comments based primarily on his record as a rep in the late 90s, but I recently removed myself from his volunteer lists over some of his rail and related topics. I'll probably no vote that line as I did in the last gubernatorial election.

It would be interesting to know how many people will base their vote for governor on the 3C.

Will you, Scrabble?

Will you, Scrabble?

Of course not. While I support rail, I don't live and die by it.  I care more about unemployment, the budget (government spending and taxation), and what sort of image our governor projects to the rest of the country.  Right now I prefer what I know about Kasich and his record, both politically and privately, to what I've seen Strickland do the last four years.

 

I remain unconvinced that 3C as proposed will ever or even should happen and I know Kasich won't have the power to kill it no matter what position is politically advantageous for him on the campaign trail in August 2010.  Ideally, Ohio and the Midwest would have a modern, high speed rail network but at the moment the only way that will happen is via federal fiat and for whatever reason, LaHood and Obama only allocated a small fraction of what was needed to a project that should have been one of the keystones of their legacies.

^He's a hardcore sprawler. His anti-rail rants are pretty scary.

What makes you say he is a hardcore sprawler?  What sort of power over sprawl does the governor have in home rule state like Ohio? ODOT itself has said something about the (lack of) power the next governor will have over rail/3C.

 

And I question if he's a real fiscal conservative or just another "say one thing, do another" corporate welfare/Wall Street bailout Republican.

In this respect I'm comfortable saying that he has a record of actually doing what he promises to do even if it ruffles feathers on his side of the aisle.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich#Budget_chairman

Kasich or Strickland.  Strickland or Kasich.  Why do I feel like I am being forced to choose again between Bush (pre-war) and Gore?  Not a big fan of either, but I agree with the above comment that Kasich is just too far out on the wing.  In all likelihood, unless Strickland says something that actually excites me, I am going to be relegated to choosing between the lesser of two evils IMO.  For what it's worth, I think a very moderate republican would serve our state best at the moment.  However, I don't think those types exist anymore.... the last one may be in the White House right now.

Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans would allow another George Voinovich to reach a general election ballot, unfortunately.

Taft was fairly moderate, and he was a failure.  I'm not really a fan of Kasich's views on the 3Gs, but I'll put up with it because I feel like his economic ideas are far superior to Strickland's, and anything Taft ever did.

Is Strickland something other than "moderate"?

Is Strickland something other than "moderate"?

 

Well I was talking about moderate Republican gubernatorial candidates.

Taft was fairly moderate, and he was a failure. I'm not really a fan of Kasich's views on the 3Gs, but I'll put up with it because I feel like his economic ideas are far superior to Strickland's, and anything Taft ever did.

 

Explain what those are please

Taft was fairly moderate, and he was a failure. I'm not really a fan of Kasich's views on the 3Gs, but I'll put up with it because I feel like his economic ideas are far superior to Strickland's, and anything Taft ever did.

 

Explain what those are please

 

Explain what what are?

Taft was fairly moderate, and he was a failure. I'm not really a fan of Kasich's views on the 3Gs, but I'll put up with it because I feel like his economic ideas are far superior to Strickland's, and anything Taft ever did.

 

Explain what those are please

 

Explain what what are?

 

His 'far superior economic ideas'

Taft was fairly moderate, and he was a failure. I'm not really a fan of Kasich's views on the 3Gs, but I'll put up with it because I feel like his economic ideas are far superior to Strickland's, and anything Taft ever did.

 

Explain what those are please

 

Explain what what are?

 

His 'far superior economic ideas'

 

Lower taxes and get the budget reigned in.  Simple, tried and true, yet things Strickland will never do.

Sounds good.  What specific parts of the budget will he reign in?  How exactly does a Governor reign in the budget?  Who's taxes is he going to lower and by exactly how much?  How exactly does a Governor lower taxes?  Is this done through Executive Order?

Sounds good. What specific parts of the budget will he reign in? How exactly does a Governor reign in the budget? Who's taxes is he going to lower and by exactly how much? How exactly does a Governor lower taxes? Is this done through Executive Order?

 

Well, the Republicans will in all likelihood once again control both the Ohio Senate and House, so he'll be able to work with them.  As for what will be cut, who knows at this point, probably non-essential, beyond the scope of state government, vestiges of better days that some people will complain about. :)

 

I think I see now how this game works: Someone states why they're supporting Kasich, and the Strickland supporters come out of the woodwork with their "stumper" questions.  The fact remains that will Strickland has done a little bit to improve the business climate, but he hasn't gone far enough.  Ohio will never get turned around unless we have an aggressively pro-business governor in office that is conscientious about the budget and willing to cut taxes and regulations.  Someone who is not tip-toeing around trying not to piss off the unions of industries that have all but left the state.  If not now, then never, because I truly believe that time is running out (well maybe that's more of my personal view since I don't have forever to wait around for this state to start thriving again).

Hts121:  These constant questions of your are pointless.  We all know that the governor personally does not have the power to unilaterally cut either spending or taxes, any more than he has the power to raise them.  I could turn all of these questions around on you regarding Strickland.  The simple answer to your question is that the governor has the power to rein in the budget with the use of his veto pen and with the agenda-setting power that comes with the office, to the extent that the governor is able to keep it.  In other words, the governor commits to investing his political capital in getting taxes and spending lowered, and then follows through on that commitment as best he can once he knows how big a coalition he's got, how strong his popularity ratings are, how much fundraising clout he proves to have while in office (which is important for getting legislators to take tough votes in your favor, because they know you can help them survive the next election in spite of that tough vote), and so forth.

 

The whole point is that even though a governor may not be able to unilaterally impose spending discipline, a governor who is committed to such discipline is far, far more likely to get it than one who is not so committed.  That should be patently obvious.

 

All of your questions have a deep, deep status quo bias that is difficult for me to accept given the unsatisfying nature of the status quo.  It obviously sounds more awkward to ask how a governor does not rein in the budget, whose taxes he will not lower, etc.  However, failing to ask those questions implies that the status quo on those issues is acceptable.  Is it?  You tell me.  I consider it otherwise.  The decision to do nothing is still a decision, however.  On what basis do you imply that taxes and spending should not be lowered?  Or that a governor's commitment to accomplishing that is meaningless?  The fact that he does not have complete power to do that does not mean that the governor has no power to influence legislation.

10-4 Captain.  I'll refrain from inquiring into specifics.  I get it.  He's running on lowering taxes and reigning in the budget.  He should be a lock... unless the Dems find somebody willing to run on job growth and healthy babies. 

 

And for the record I am NOT a Strickland 'supporter'.  Go back and read up before going on a pointless rant.   

Hts121's questions are certainly not pointless.  How could one possibly make the statement that one candidate is superior because he is for lower taxes and reigning in the budget without asking specifics??  Would I get your vote if I said I would sh!t hundred dollar bills for all Ohio citizens every morning??  Would you ask how I intend to perform this feat??

I think Kasich has real strengths, but I don't think "new ideas" are among them.  Strickland has already embraced tax reform, reduced state employee headcount and launched an initiative to simplify the regulatory burden (Kasich's latest announcement)- these are not promises of his, this is his track record.  It could be that Kasich will approach them with new vigor, especially the business regulation reform, which doesn't cost much.  What's unclear, though, is if regulation reform reflects ideological differences or just technocratic skill.  Are there substantive regulations that Kasich thinks shouldn't exist that Strickland would defend?  Unless I hear more, I have to weigh vague Kasich promises against Strickland's actual track record.

 

Spending cuts (presumably necessary for tax cuts)- is one area in particular where Kasich really needs to mention specifics.  It's easy to describe this general category of services that are "probably non-essential, beyond the scope of state government, vestiges of better days that some people will complain about" in Clevelander17's words, but what are these?  How much money do they save?  If it requires a political battle to save $20M, is it worth the ammunition?

 

I'm sure Gramarye will agree that one of the biggest budget issues is probably state pensions.  Maybe both candidates have discussed the issue, but this is an area where some real leadership might make a lasting difference.  I tried googling "Kasich" and "state pension," and all I could find were news reports about Kasich and his "operatives" interacting with public pensions on Lehman's behalf.  I don't make much of it, but probably not what the Kasich campaign is aiming for.

10-4 Captain.  I'll refrain from inquiring into specifics.  I get it.  He's running on lowering taxes and reigning in the budget.  He should be a lock... unless the Dems find somebody willing to run on job growth and healthy babies.

 

And for the record I am NOT a Strickland 'supporter'.  Go back and read up before going on a pointless rant.

 

So you're not a Strickland supporter, just a Kasich opponent?  Or you're not even that?  Do you expect to assert complete neutrality and expect me to believe it?

 

At any rate, notwithstanding the fact that I detect significant hostility to principles of fiscal restraint in your other posts, not just the above line of questioning, I'll also add that I answered the question, hostile or otherwise, to the extent it can be answered.  No governor or gubernatorial candidate can know just how and how much he can rein in taxes and spending without knowing the legislative landscape that he will face.  That doesn't mean that commitments to keep taxes and spending in check are meaningless, because it shows a commitment to doing it to the extent that it is possible.

 

Do you believe that the fact that a candidate cannot guarantee success on all items on his agenda, that he should refrain from making such items part of his platform?

 

Do you believe that a gubernatorial candidate's position on taxes and spending is irrelevant without specifics (which I have already conceded cannot be given in advance)?

 

Do you believe that the fact that Strickland might not succeed in bringing the 3C to Ohio means that he should refrain from making that part of his platform?  Do you believe the fact that he might not be able to answer every specific question about the project means he is being unrealistic or ill-informed about the project?  What about the Third Frontier?

 

What would be a sufficient level of specificity to satisfy you?  Are you expecting him to have a complete rewrite of Ohio's tax code posted on his Web site?  And a complete budget?  And a complete parliamentary-procedure flow chart for getting it through the Ohio legislature, incorporating every possible contingency that could come up in committees and every possible legislative coalition that could arise from the November elections?

 

Bottom line: Clevelander17's point was fair.  Kasich stands for reducing taxes and spending, which, all other things equal, I believe to be painful but positive change that Ohio should be making.  The more, the better, as far as I'm concerned (because the levels that would actually be too much cutting, as far as I'm concerned, are completely beyond the realm of political possibility).  Of course, all other things are *not* equal, since Kasich has also expressed hostility towards the 3C project, which I support.  That is a separate issue, however.

^So if the heart of a candidate's platform is to reduce taxes, you don't think they need even to hint at how they'll try to make the budget work?

There you go with "pointless questions"...

 

I like a coach who has a game plan other than "we are going to hit the ball, throw the ball and catch the ball."  I am not asking him to make promises.  I am asking for his specific "ideas"...... but, by your responses, I guess he does not have any? 

 

As for campaign stump talk and not being able to follow through due to realities, I am going to sick you on Scrabble and Tedolph the next time either one brings that up in the Obama thread.

 

For my personal feelings on the race and the two candidates presented, just go back and read this page.  And I have no hostility towards fiscal restraint.  Your detection system must need some calibrating.  Regardless, you should get off the topic you love so much ("Hts121") and get back on the issues at the center of this campaign so we can continue discussion about the candidates.  If you are unable to discuss the issues without getting personal, maybe you (as DanB would suggest) should take a timeout.

^So if the heart of a candidate's platform is to reduce taxes, you don't think they need even to hint at how they'll try to make the budget work?

 

It would certainly be preferable, mostly, to know how they planned to make the budget work, yes.  However, even if those specifics cannot be known, someone who at least wants to cut the budget is preferable to someone who merely does so because he is forced by political realities and legal mandates.

 

For example, suppose Kasich said that he wanted to challenge the public sector pensions.  What could he then say about specifics?  He could say that he would want to consider raising the retirement age, cutting payouts, or increasing contribution requirements, but to do that, he would need information that he likely doesn't have.  For example, do the current pension funds assume an annual 8% return?  Regardless, what annual return have they been getting?  (Is that information even public?  I honestly don't even know.)  Based on that, how would they need to alter their payout structure to become solvent with a retirement age of X and an average life expectancy of Y?  What if the retirement age were raised to X+10 but the average life expectancy increases by 0.3 years per year?

 

Would changing the public pension structures to 401(k) equivalents be viable?  What would happen to those currently on the system?

 

What if Kasich took the position that he had the ability to slash payouts to restore solvency, but then, two years later, after vicious litigation, the Ohio Supreme Court holds that the benefits cannot legally be cut, either under federal law (Contracts Clause) or state law?

 

And, of course, there's the revenue side.  What if a dozen Fortune 500 companies decide to relocate to Ohio tomorrow?  (Or, more likely, decide to leave?)  That would change the fiscal picture a little bit.

 

The bottom line is that any work on specifics this early is likely to be wasted.  The facts underlying those specifics will change.

^I think it's a little harsh to assume that Strickland isn't interested in spending cuts but for political pressure and the recession.  His campaign material certainly covers tax relief and his track record is pretty decent.  The 2007 budget process (pre-recession) was very smooth by all accounts, enjoyed great bipartisan support, and included several tax breaks.  He even vetoed several spending requests made by the republic legislature, though for policy/political reasons, not for spending reasons (e.g., funding for abstinence only education; more school vouchers).

 

I agree with you that Kasich could never lay out in great detail his plan of attack, but you don't think there's a lot of room between that and "I will lower taxes"?  If he's interested in reforming the pension system, he could start by saying, as part of his campaign, that reforming the pension system is a priority of his.  To my knowledge, he hasn't even said that.  Maybe he will.  Maybe Strickland will too, who knows.

 

I know Kasich's not an idiot.  I just can't figure out what he thinks he'll bring to the state.  So far his policy ideas have been mysterious (the DoD privitazation), vague (cut taxes) or near copies of Strickland's (revisit regulations to simplify them).  Or things I outright oppose (eliminating the estate tax).  I actually think Strickland's been a decent, moderate governor, so I guess I need a little more concrete to want him tossed.

If he's interested in reforming the pension system, he could start by saying, as part of his campaign, that reforming the pension system is a priority of his.

 

But then he will have a bunch of angry old men screaming at him with signs saying "keep your filthy government hands off of my government pension!"

I was in support of Kasich early on, then I cooled off and figured he was toast when all the ads about him being a Wall Street exec for Lehman came out.  He seems to have weathered that storm pretty well and is definitely on the attack regarding the jobs issue. 

 

But as others have pointed out, I'm not really sure what he plans to do to create jobs.  He must have a TON of campaign support though, his commercials are on here in Cleveland 24/7.  Makes me think he must be making some big promises to big businesses, otherwise those people will do whatever to get rid of Strickland...

^I think it's a little harsh to assume that Strickland isn't interested in spending cuts but for political pressure and the recession. His campaign material certainly covers tax relief and his track record is pretty decent. The 2007 budget process (pre-recession) was very smooth by all accounts, enjoyed great bipartisan support, and included several tax breaks. He even vetoed several spending requests made by the republic legislature, though for policy/political reasons, not for spending reasons (e.g., funding for abstinence only education; more school vouchers).

 

You're right that that may be a little unfair of me (though I supported school vouchers--for policy reasons, obviously).  I actually don't think Strickland's track record is that bad, and I'm still on the fence with respect to where my vote goes.  He's held the line pretty well, and taken some tough stands.  I voted for him over Blackwell (not saying much, since Blackwell got crushed).

 

I agree with you that Kasich could never lay out in great detail his plan of attack, but you don't think there's a lot of room between that and "I will lower taxes"?

 

This is true, but he could never be as specific as Hts was asking.

 

If he's interested in reforming the pension system, he could start by saying, as part of his campaign, that reforming the pension system is a priority of his. To my knowledge, he hasn't even said that. Maybe he will. Maybe Strickland will too, who knows.

 

True again.  I was just using that as a hypothetical.  Maybe I should have been more clear (or picked something obviously generic, like cutting the excise tax on widgets or something).

I think you are overexaggerating the level of specifics I was asking for.  If he wants to lead an administration that is going to push for spending cuts, I will insist that he identify at least the areas he plans to target.  I realize how government works, although I fear that a lot of the electorate that buys into the stump talk (from whatever side) does not.  I know he can lay out a plan and it may never materialize.... but at least we know where his aim is.  If he said he was going to cut x amount of dollars from x program, and then never was able to realize those cuts despite efforts, you certainly won't see me posting some left wing blog lambasting Kasich for not living up to campaign promises (promises the blogger never desired in the first place, ironically). 

How would y'all answer these two questions:

 

What's the case to keep Strickland?

 

What's the case to elect Kasich?

What's the case to keep Strickland?

 

There isn't one.

 

What's the case to elect Kasich?

 

He's not Strickland.

 

 

Is that what you were looking for?

I just spent a half hour on Kasich website and I'm still not sure what he stands for. Reducing the debt and cutting taxes (how thats done simultaneously I'm not sure) and creating jobs. Ok....um.... how?

 

For what its worth, I have couldn't tell you what Strickland plans to do either.