I don't know why but states with Right to Work and no income tax attract more business investment (ie jobs).  Can anyone explain this seemingly unrelated correlation? ...sarcasm

 

In other news, Indiana and Atlanta continue to snipe the heck out of Ohio.  The new state motto for Ohio should be "How Low Can We Go?"

 

Kasich might get my vote because Strickland seems really stupid.  If Kasich wins, I'll probably feel the same way when he's up for re-election.  When did Ohio get into this R-D goober flip-flop mode in which someone like Taft is replaced by someone like Strickland who (might be) replaced by someone like Kasich?

I don't know why but states with Right to Work and no income tax attract more business investment (ie jobs). Can anyone explain this seemingly unrelated correlation? ...sarcasm

 

Is that why California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachussetts have been getting so little investment?

 

It's interesting that someone who is generally against government regulation is in favor of so-called right-to-work laws, since it is of course more regulation of a market than less.

Kasich might get my vote because Strickland seems really stupid.

 

In what ways does Strickland seem really stupid to you?  Honest question.

Kasich might get my vote because Strickland seems really stupid.

 

In what ways does Strickland seem really stupid to you? Honest question.

 

Just listening to him.  I'm mostly judging from State of the State (pathetic) this year and sound bites from TV.  Taft was equally bad.

I'm not sure I buy your examples of states, LK. New York State has been completely destroyed by its tax structure which is entirely geared around fleecing Upstate and Western NY to benefit NYC. I think the reform will help Ohio over the longer term, but beyond bringing a bit more uniformity across the state (maybe more regional earnings tax agreements) and doing something about the property tax system, I don't think cutting is going to help at this point.

^It's pretty simple.  The statement presented was that "states with Right to Work and no income tax attract more business investment (ie jobs)".  The states I presented certainly have attracted both more jobs and more capital investments, and certainly more immigrants, than any number of, and possibly the vast majority of Right-to-Work states.  Since we on UO are conducting simple thought experiments rather than actually trying to persuade in a formal manner, it seems legitimate to say that both Right-to-Work laws and income tax regimes do not in fact influence investment as was described in the statement referenced.

 

Whether or not New York State specifically has lost more jobs than it has gained is not relevant to the discussion, because the position wasn't about why jobs are lost but why people invest (in his terms, create jobs).  And where in the State and what kind of jobs also weren't relevant, because, once again, the statement didn't bother with any such distinctions.  Again, in summary, the contention that Right-to-Work laws and state income tax regimes are the primary and overriding issue that determines job creation simply isn't borne out when you superficially look at real world examples.

I'm not sure I buy your examples of states, LK. New York State has been completely destroyed by its tax structure which is entirely geared around fleecing Upstate and Western NY to benefit NYC.

 

I'm not sure NY State is a great example of economic success either- Western and Upstate don't seem any better off than Ohio and the NYC region is sui generis, IMHO. But I think your characterization of its tax structure is highly suspect.  State revenue tends to be generated where the personal income is earned and the consumer dollars are spent.  And that's not Upstate and Western NY.

I neither endorse nor disclaim any of the views of these particular authors, but this is a topic that has come up before:

 

http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2010/03/right-to-work-states-and-job-creation/

 

http://www.nilrr.org/node/5

 

http://www.nilrr.org/node/67

 

http://www.mackinac.org/12558

 

http://www.righttowork.org/en/free-tagging/job-losses

 

http://buckeyeinstitute.org/article/1480

 

These are just some links I found with a quick Google search.  They're obviously all advocacy-based sites, so all usual caveats apply--that said, many do cite empirical statistics (insert yet more caveats about statistics here).  More significantly, I did not find any pro-union takedowns of the statistics themselves (demonstrations, using other statistics, that the stats were wrong or used misleadingly).  In other words, I did not find people making LK's argument that the statistics either show the opposite of what the conservatives claim or show no discernible trend whatsoever.  At least with respect to job creation, the statistics do appear in favor of RTW states.  To the extent that job creation and investment are linked, the same should hold true of investment, which was the topic/angle originally raised in this thread.

 

I find the statistics credible, but then, people know my economic predispositions on these boards by now.  However, I think the explanation is fairly common sense: If an employer has flexibility in siting a new project that will employ a number of workers in traditionally unionized industries, a state being right-to-work is a check mark in the state's favor in the corporate decision-maker's decision-making process regarding where to site the facility.  On the margins, it could be outcome-determinative, though obviously it's not the only factor weighing on such a business decision.

I think the best examples of Right to Work states with lots of investment would be North Carolina and Virginia.

These are just some links I found with a quick Google search. They're obviously all advocacy-based sites, so all usual caveats apply--that said, many do cite empirical statistics (insert yet more caveats about statistics here). More significantly, I did not find any pro-union takedowns of the statistics themselves (demonstrations, using other statistics, that the stats were wrong or used misleadingly). In other words, I did not find people making LK's argument that the statistics either show the opposite of what the conservatives claim or show no discernible trend whatsoever. At least with respect to job creation, the statistics do appear in favor of RTW states. To the extent that job creation and investment are linked, the same should hold true of investment, which was the topic/angle originally raised in this thread.

 

While I haven't looked at those sites referenced and certainly haven't examined any statistics on the matter whatsoever, I would simply like to, once again, reiterate the statement that started the discussion: "I don't know why but states with Right to Work and no income tax attract more business investment (ie jobs).  Can anyone explain this seemingly unrelated correlation?" 

 

So the question isn't whether unions proved themselves, it is whether Right to Work and non income tax are factors that can actually be isolated to prove that they are the reasons for the investment (job creation) according to Scrabble's claim.

 

The question of course is whether we can truly isolate Right to Work and no income tax as reasons why business expand, as opposed to other factors for a state's success, the most glaring factors being simple geography or natural resources.  Also, we should have to compare why one Right to Work and no income tax state should be able to attract more investment than another Right to Work and no income tax state.

 

So dmerkow's example of Virginia and North Carolina success could also be explained by geograhy (BosWash creep) + historical investments (education at older schools like Wm&Mary, UVa & UNC & Duke as well as simple size as to why they have been more successful than South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas.

 

And I would like to once again remind everyone that Right to Work laws are state laws that exist as a result of a federal law (Taft-Hartley) regulating the labor market and forbidding certain exigencies that result from the inalienable right to free assembly.  Not that anyone gives a shit.

Demanding the ability to truly isolate RTW (or any factor for any reason) is generally indicative that the speaker's sympathies lie on the opposite side of the proposition and the speaker wants to frame the debate to manufacture a burden of proof and put it on one side, when most political debates entail no such burdens.  Modern life is invariably too complex for such isolation to be possible, so demanding such isolation is tantamount to opposing the measure.

 

Political debates are not legal proceedings.  Both parties start with zero evidence for their positions and make their cases.  The most convincing case wins.  It is every bit as fair to demand proponents of forced-union states to make the case for forced unionism as it is to demand proponents of RTW to make the case for the same, and the economic track records are sufficiently disparate to give rise to an inference that RTW plays a role in economic development, unless a more convincing explanation for the correlation is found.  The standard, to the extent there is one, is "best evidence available," not a preponderance of the evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt (nor scientific certainty).

 

Natural resources, you say?  West Virginia is quite resource-rich, but has not enjoyed the economic growth of North Carolina and Virginia.  Nor are most of the economies of most RTW states based on resource extraction.  In fairness, of course, the growth of those states is *also* not largely based on traditionally unionized industries such as manufacturing, though to the extent America still has a textile industry, it is (unsurprisingly) in the states where most of our textile crops are grown.

 

As for climate: The climate hasn't changed much in the last 100 years.  To advance climate as a rationale for the superior economic performance of RTW states, one would have to also posit a reasonable explanation for why this did not attract those jobs, including those manufacturing jobs, before Taft-Hartley.

As for climate: The climate hasn't changed much in the last 100 years.  To advance climate as a rationale for the superior economic performance of RTW states, one would have to also posit a reasonable explanation for why this did not attract those jobs, including those manufacturing jobs, before Taft-Hartley.

 

Air Conditioning.

 

And there are some examples of RTW states with superior economic performance (NC and Virginia), but there are equally an number of RTW states that don't have such strong numbers (Mississippi, Kansas, Iowa)

As for climate: The climate hasn't changed much in the last 100 years. To advance climate as a rationale for the superior economic performance of RTW states, one would have to also posit a reasonable explanation for why this did not attract those jobs, including those manufacturing jobs, before Taft-Hartley.

 

Air Conditioning.

 

And there are some examples of RTW states with superior economic performance (NC and Virginia), but there are equally an number of RTW states that don't have such strong numbers (Mississippi, Kansas, Iowa)

 

Kansas and Iowa have been doing better than you might think.  They're certainly better than the worst of the forced-union states, at any rate.  The fact that the RTW states' worst performers might be worse than the forced-union states' best performers is like saying that the Bulls' starters might be better than the Cavs' bench.

Once again, you are trying to turn my post into something that it is not.  I simply said that those states don't have the strong numbers of NC or Virginia.  However, we could go on for pages about this debate and it really has nothing to do with the Governor race since it is not an Executive branch issue, it is a Legislative issue.

Demanding the ability to truly isolate RTW (or any factor for any reason) is generally indicative that the speaker's sympathies lie on the opposite side of the proposition and the speaker wants to frame the debate to manufacture a burden of proof and put it on one side, when most political debates entail no such burdens.  Modern life is invariably too complex for such isolation to be possible, so demanding such isolation is tantamount to opposing the measure.

 

I assume that the above comment was directed at Scrabble, who, as I continue to repeat, made the statement that drew my response.  I'll quote it again-  "I don't know why but states with Right to Work and no income tax attract more business investment (ie jobs).  Can anyone explain this seemingly unrelated correlation?"

 

I'm not sure why someone would want to take the opinion that creating major additions to the states legal code or major changes to how the state takes in revenue isn't something we would want to understand fully before we do it.  Why Texas is far more successful than Mississippi seems like it's worth investigating if we want to test the idea that Right to Work makes a difference.  Seems like the responsible thing to do even if it ends up conflicting with someone's simple connect the dots ideology.

 

Political debates are not legal proceedings.  Both parties start with zero evidence for their positions and make their cases.  The most convincing case wins.  It is every bit as fair to demand proponents of forced-union states to make the case for forced unionism as it is to demand proponents of RTW to make the case for the same, and the economic track records are sufficiently disparate to give rise to an inference that RTW plays a role in economic development, unless a more convincing explanation for the correlation is found.  The standard, to the extent there is one, is "best evidence available," not a preponderance of the evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt (nor scientific certainty).

 

Yawn.  Do you have any hierarchy, or reasonable shorthand way to weigh what is causing what?  This argument started out as blanket statement with no evidence, response by me with a series of off the cuff examples, a question by dmerkow about an example, a response from me about that example, and then a statement that I was advocating a position by Gramarye.  I never made any argument, I just tried to shit on Scrabble's snarky and undocumented point.

 

Natural resources, you say?  West Virginia is quite resource-rich, but has not enjoyed the economic growth of North Carolina and Virginia.  Nor are most of the economies of most RTW states based on resource extraction.  In fairness, of course, the growth of those states is *also* not largely based on traditionally unionized industries such as manufacturing, though to the extent America still has a textile industry, it is (unsurprisingly) in the states where most of our textile crops are grown.

 

So coastline, navigable rivers, greenfield sites and other things of this nature don't count as natural resources to you?  The so-called conservative point of view seems to have a pathological disinterest in anything that doesn't conform to their deterministic viewpoint.  I simply find it incredibly boring and obnoxious to hear them give the same answers no matter what the question is.

 

As for climate: The climate hasn't changed much in the last 100 years.  To advance climate as a rationale for the superior economic performance of RTW states, one would have to also posit a reasonable explanation for why this did not attract those jobs, including those manufacturing jobs, before Taft-Hartley.

 

I always thought that whole climate/weather theory of economic development that people like Ed Glaeser likes to toss around as being silly.  Just because warmer U.S. states had higher growth rates for the past 30 or 50 years doesn't mean that growth happened because of the temperature or climate. 

 

It seems to me that the massive infrastructure investments undertaken by the federal government in the 30's through the 60's, which extended modern transportation and energy infrastructure that existed in the rest of the country to the South and West; and the large social investments undertaken by the federal government in the 50's through the 70's that brought the South into line legally with the rest of the country, basically allowed for U.S. manufacturing to shift from the Northeast & Midwest to something akin to a huge third world country that was right next door, under U.S. law, used the dollar and spoke English.  After the end of the Cold War, these same industries start moving further South (and West) until they are out of the country almost entirely.  This however, allows these same regions to continue to grow because they are physically closer to these new emerging markets and they are primary destinations for immigrants from these same emerging markets.

 

The rise of Houston and Miami for example have a kind of obvious geographical origin.  Austin, Raleigh-Chapel Hill-Durham, Nashville and NoVa as well.  Places like Charlotte and Atlanta are more interesting because there success seems less obvious.

Natural resources, you say?  West Virginia is quite resource-rich, but has not enjoyed the economic growth of North Carolina and Virginia.  Nor are most of the economies of most RTW states based on resource extraction.  In fairness, of course, the growth of those states is *also* not largely based on traditionally unionized industries such as manufacturing, though to the extent America still has a textile industry, it is (unsurprisingly) in the states where most of our textile crops are grown.

 

So coastline, navigable rivers, greenfield sites and other things of this nature don't count as natural resources to you?  The so-called conservative point of view seems to have a pathological disinterest in anything that doesn't conform to their deterministic viewpoint.  I simply find it incredibly boring and obnoxious to hear them give the same answers no matter what the question is.

 

Funny how I could say the same thing about the progressive point of view.

 

And the I-don't-have-my-own-stance-but-I'll-sh!t-on-yours point of view.

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

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

Does the Governor determine our income taxes or whether we should have an income tax?  Has something changed?

He doesn't--but that doesn't mean that his views on the matter are irrelevant.  No one has complete power to determine anything in a government with institutional separation of powers, after all.  What was the point of your question?

It's called a rhetorical question.  I already knew the answer.  But this isn't rhetorical - is Kasich proposing the elimination of our income tax?  If not, then why are we even discussing it in this thread?  It is a pipedream.  We might as well discuss their views on installing Maglev trains along the 3-C route or the erection of the world's tallest skyscraper in Columbus... both of which are more likely to come to fruition than the elimination of our income tax.

Actually, if a gubernatorial candidate were indeed talking about installing Maglev trains along the 3-C route or building the world's tallest skyscraper in Columbus--wouldn't that still be relevant campaign material even if it were admittedly a pipe dream?

 

I think the kinds of things one considers pipe dreams are still relevant to one's qualifications to serve in public office.

Here's at least one view on why Texas is outperforming other states:

 

Why is Texas doing so much better economically than the rest of the nation?

By Daniel Gross

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2250999

 

Heavy on the geography and infrastructure with a dash of strong regulation and relaxed zoning.

 

I always thought that whole climate/weather theory of economic development that people like Ed Glaeser likes to toss around as being silly.   Just because warmer U.S. states had higher growth rates for the past 30 or 50 years doesn't mean that growth happened because of the temperature or climate. 

 

It seems to me that the massive infrastructure investments undertaken by the federal government in the 30's through the 60's, which extended modern transportation and energy infrastructure that existed in the rest of the country to the South and West; and the large social investments undertaken by the federal government in the 50's through the 70's that brought the South into line legally with the rest of the country, basically allowed for U.S. manufacturing to shift from the Northeast & Midwest to something akin to a huge third world country that was right next door, under U.S. law, used the dollar and spoke English.  After the end of the Cold War, these same industries start moving further South (and West) until they are out of the country almost entirely.  This however, allows these same regions to continue to grow because they are physically closer to these new emerging markets and they are primary destinations for immigrants from these same emerging markets.

Good summary.  The cheaper labor and land costs drew businesses out of Ohio. 

 

Ted Strickland on Healthcare

University of Cincinnati poll issued last week on the 2010 Ohio Governor race:

 

2010 Ohio Gubernational Election

Ted Strickland (D) 49%

John Kasich ®    44%

Other                  1%

Undecided            6%

 

Full article: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/05/28/ohio-poll.html?sid=101

^Strickland is a fundraising machine, and if he can start polling consistently above 50% before September, I think he'll have it in the bag.  He's going to be talking about investing in education, and he's going to have the record to prove that he's serious about it.  I think it's a great platform to run on when people are short cash and realizing what a deal the public schools (both grade school and colleges) are. 

 

What's Kasich got?  "No New Trains!"?  I just don't see him with any issues that are going to attract people, and I think that federalizing the gubernatorial election simply isn't going to work.  In addition, given what we've seen in the Congressional by-elections (almost all Dem wins except Mass Senate) and gubernatorial elections since 2008 (nearly all Republican wins despite Obama campaigning in states he just won) it strikes me that attempts to attach to President to these elections for non-federal offices haven't make a whit of difference one way or the other.

^I think you're underestimating Kasich. It's way too early to read that much into poll numbers.

I don't think Kasich was the best possible candidate for the GOP at this moment in history.  I expect the "Wall Street" angle to be a factor.  Strickland's record isn't great but I think enough people will be able to view that in context... a context that deeply involves Wall Street.  I don't think the Bexley tobacco scandal will resonate nearly as well as this.

Strickland's participation (not to mention his performance) in that shamefully embarrassing "Lebron Song" may have cost him my vote.

^I think you're underestimating Kasich. It's way too early to read that much into poll numbers.

 

I'm interested in hearing opposing analysis.

I think a lot depends on whether Strickland can keep the reality of the next budget quiet until the election. If it leaks, Kasich's experience from the Budget Committee in the 90s can become more relevant.

^I'm still waiting to hear what issues Kasich is going to run on that actually bear on the conscience of voters.  Blame Strickland for the economy strikes me as being about all they've got, but the fact that every Republican candidate is saying the same thing- cut spending, but they're generally not willing to say what programs they will cut, I don't see how that beats, "I saved the schools."

I agree that the economy is going to be Kasich's primary point, but I think that he can convince a lot of voters that Strickland hasn't done enough jobs wise for the state, that our taxes are too high, and that the state government is too large and inefficient.

^I'd probably agree with that criticism of Strickland.  HOWEVER, he (Kasich) will then have to tell me what exactly he will do jobs wise for the state, what taxes he is going to cut and how that will affect our operating budget, and how he will reduce the size of government and make it more efficient.  If he can't articulate his plan and the rationale for that plan, his talking points will be nothing more than colored bubbles.

Blame Strickland for the economy strikes me as being about all they've got, but the fact that every Republican candidate is saying the same thing- cut spending, but they're generally not willing to say what programs they will cut, I don't see how that beats, "I saved the schools."

 

Strickland saved schools but he didn't save education. He cut certain parts of public education and cut libraries (which  btw recieved like 3x as much funding maybe a decade ago). It just looks good because he used a generous amount of the General Revenue Fund for K-12 education while there was a 12% drop in General Revenue Fund tax receipts that amounted to -$2 Billion in '09. We won't recover from that budget shortfall for probably 10 years.

 

What I want to know are specific details from each candidate on what they plan to do about the Third Frontier Fund. It will be terminated in 2012 and they're going to have to introduce a new bill to keep it going. This is an amazing program that provides a huge return on investment. It's used for start-up technology-based companies who partner with universities and hospitals (which can easily share their resources). These incubators have a profound effect on our economy and I think that they need to focus the money on where it's best spent. Not by spreading it equally across all regions but putting money where the best partnerships between universities, hospitals and small firms can make the biggest economic impact. Lets face it - Ohio is major manufacturing state. It's declining but within the manufacturing sector, it's very diverse and that's why it won't die. That's why we trade more with other countries than most states do. Ohio needs to work with research institutions related to advanced manufacting more than anything else. This is why Germany is so successful. They essentially have the same state-funded program where they have what they call "Competence Centers". You already see this to some extent in Ohio (Center for Automotive Research/Ohio State; Ergonomics lab at OSU; collaboration between UC and marketing/manufacturing companies, etc). The problem is that a lot of the companies are already large, well-established corporations, not start-ups. I'm not sure where Kasich stands on preserving Third Frontier funding in 2012 but I'm not optimistic.

 

Under Strickland we saw ODOD establish local collaboration grants which is desperately needed considering how many and how small Ohio's municipalities are. This effects land use and negatively effects future economic growth.

 

Then you have Strickland's Compacts With Cities Task Force - a 29 member panel that works with cities to promote smart growth and redevelopment policies across the state.

 

You conservatives in Cleveland have Strickland to thank for your tremendous Cleveland Health-Tech Corridor stretching from University Circle to CSU. This is part of Strickland's Ohio Hubs of Innovation and Opportunity program that will eventually benefit all major Ohio cities as our metro areas have great assets which serve as a breeding ground for innovation and collaboration between corporations, R&D organizations, universities and hospitals.

 

Strickland announced earlier this year the Energy Gateway Fund, a $40 million fund using federal and state stimulus money that will offer operating capital for energy companies focusing on wind, fuel cells, solar, and energy storage. He's also providing tax incentives for green energy start-ups. What a great way to help modernize our manufacturing sector.

 

 

I don't see Kasich promoting programs like this.

 

 

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.

LK - You make it sound so simple. Nevada doesn't need to collect taxes because of tourism-mostly coming from a city whose growth rates aren't likely sustainable. West Virginia has low taxes as a trade-off for living in a state where the top half of the mountains are blown off, doomed to become desert plateaus and reaking havoc on natural ecosystems in a mountain region that is considered to be one of the most biodiverse in the world. Alaska's citizens were bought out so that the oil industry can destroy the environment with little complaint and bad PR. Every citizen of Alaska gets a couple thousand dollars per year extra in their tax return; you even get a couple grand per child.

 

Oh, what I wanted to mention (maybe I did, I don't know).

 

Ohio's tax policies make it the best state in the U.S. for exporting manufactured goods not only to the rest of the United States but to the WORLD! Pro-business policies that were enacted in the last 5 years! We export more goods to China and India than other states because we have such a strong and diverse manufacturing sector that state agencies cater to. You always hear about the U.S. trade deficit and how we don't export as much as we import- clearly a problem since economics is all about finding an equilibrium.

 

Ohio is essentially carrying the weight of other states in that regard and it's not just auto parts or rubber, it's other cutting-edge products like high-tech machinery and advanced medical devices. The Department of Development authorizes sales tax exemptions for warehouse and factory machinery, equipment used for research and development, as well as tax relief for warehouse inventory from goods that get stored here which would otherwise count as "personal property tax". There are many, many other great programs in place that help Ohio manufacturers go global, especially when they're facing heavy international competition. I would much rather have taxes go to things like that rather than the "every man for himself" attitude.

 

I know I rant a lot about this type of stuff and I may seem like a state-booster but I get sick of people trashing the current administration because of the unemployment rate or budget woes (hell, we would have a better budget in order if Republican state-legislators didn't block Strickland's plan to allow other forms of gambling at the race track, for instance), not to mention the obvious national economic collapse whose effects inevitably trickle down to each level of government which the fourth branch of the federal government is responsible for.

 

Oh..and by fourth branch I mean the Federal Reserve, ran by a certain elite white minority ethnic group whose coercion by means of wealth and corporate/political influence have bought out politicians of all parties and basically set up an economy based on global finance that we have come to find out requires welfare from the common citizen to fix and maintain. Anywho I digress!

 

David's clearly back!

^And clearly isn't bothering to read any earlier posts.  Good energy though.  Also, aren't you the guy who hates Cincinnati Public Schools?

Continuing the Ohio relative tax burden vs. investment angle, a post from economist Brad DeLong that describes the relative difference in tax burden between Texas and California to be at about 1.3% of income:

 

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/06/and-what-are-our-immigrants-from-overseas-chopped-liver.html

 

Also contains an interesting breakdown of cities with Bachelor and Graduate Degrees per square mile.

 

Other studies concerning wealth flight from states:

 

Maryland: http://www.itepnet.org/pdf/MD_Millionaires.pdf

 

California: http://cbp.org/pdfs/2008/0808_DP_High-IncomeTaxpayers.pdf

 

New Jersey: http://www.princeton.edu/prior/PRIOReconomy-Final-(2).pdf

^And clearly isn't bothering to read any earlier posts.  Good energy though.  Also, aren't you the guy who hates Cincinnati Public Schools?

 

Sorry, probably didn't have time for that. Yes, I hate Cincinnati Public Schools but I don't hate the idea of public schools.

^I'm not exactly sure what that means.  I think that Kasich, who was originally a congressman, had the idea in mind that he was going to win this election on issues that mirrored what he and others considered to be the national mood, and I believe his policy prescriptions reflect that.  It doesn't seem like a winning strategy, let alone a coherent one that will actually improve the state.

 

I'm inclined to agree at this point.  It's old, so I shouldn't make too much of it, but I just listened to his half hour talk at the [Cleveland] City Club from last summer, and the only policy proposals were eliminating the estate tax and phasing out the income tax.  That's it.  No mention of how to replace lost income or how to cut the budget.  Came off like a unicorn salesman.  If had been in that audience, I would have been insulted that he wasted my time with such throw away stuff at that venue.

I'm inclined to agree at this point. It's old, so I shouldn't make too much of it, but I just listened to his half hour talk at the [Cleveland] City Club from last summer, and the only policy proposals were eliminating the estate tax and phasing out the income tax. That's it. No mention of how to replace lost income or how to cut the budget. Came off like a unicorn salesman. If had been in that audience, I would have been insulted that he wasted my time with such throw away stuff at that venue.

 

It's also sort of strange from an "I'm involved in politics because I believe in the power of government policy (which obviously still holds if you believe that government policy distorts things) sort of way" and also a "I'm presenting my case to the voters because I want to win this election" sort of way.  On the latter side, who is going to be attracted to this platform who wasn't already there?

I overheard the anti-Strickland NCR ad over the weekend mentioned in this article.

Republicans blame Strickland for NCR exodus

 

By Laura Bischoff | Wednesday, July 7, 2010, 10:57 AM

 

The Republican Governors Association is pinning blame for NCR Corp.’s move to Georgia squarely on the lapel of Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat now up for re-election.

 

In a 30-second TV ad unveiled Wednesday, July 7, the RGA hammers Strickland for losing 400,000 jobs on his watch, including 1,250 NCR jobs.

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2010/07/07/republicans_blame_strickland_f.html

Kasich launches first ad in Ohio gubernatorial race

Posted: July 17th, 2010 10:26 AM ET

 

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

 

(CNN) – Ohio gubernatorial candidate John Kasich is going on the defensive in his first campaign ad, hitting back against Democratic efforts to portray him as a former Wall Street big wig.

 

"Ohio has lost 400,000 jobs under Ted Strickland. He can't campaign on his record, so he and his friends try to tear me down," says the Republican in the new spot released Saturday. "Here's the truth. I didn't run Lehman Brothers. I was one of 700 managing directors. I worked in a two-man office in Columbus. I have a record of balancing budgets, cutting taxes, and creating jobs."

 

 

more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/17/kasich-launches-first-ad-in-ohio-gubernatorial-race/?fbid=qgiHgqmkcxg

 

@@@@@@@@@

 

Y'all might want to submit your ideas to fixohionow.com:

 

http://www.fixohionow.com

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.

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.

^^&^I'm endlessly curious as to why a major plank in the Republican platform for state governance isn't a return toward corporate responsibility, and by that I am referring to municipalities.  It hits so many of their purported ideals- local control, less taxation (in the sense that the state government removes itself as a provider to allow locally incorporated communities to raise the money to provide for things they themselves want) return to past practices, and competition (communities that are better providers either attract more business and residents or annex non-performing municipal corporations).  Obviously the state needs to be in charge of some things in order to be both worth anything to the taxpayers and to comply with several provisions laid out in the state constitution, but there are numerous possibilities for theoretical conservatism to be enacted, yet we don't hear anything new.

Theoretical conservatism is dead.... if it was ever really alive in the first place.

I'm endlessly curious as to why a major plank in the Republican platform for state governance isn't a return toward corporate responsibility, and by that I am referring to municipalities. It hits so many of their purported ideals- local control, less taxation (in the sense that the state government removes itself as a provider to allow locally incorporated communities to raise the money to provide for things they themselves want) return to past practices, and competition (communities that are better providers either attract more business and residents or annex non-performing municipal corporations). Obviously the state needs to be in charge of some things in order to be both worth anything to the taxpayers and to comply with several provisions laid out in the state constitution, but there are numerous possibilities for theoretical conservatism to be enacted, yet we don't hear anything new.

 

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.

 

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.

 

In case it's not obvious, all of the above is speculation, and based on general, not specific, knowledge of the actors involved.

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.  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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

In case it's not obvious, all of the above is speculation, and based on general, not specific, knowledge of the actors involved.

 

I need to find a way to put that as the quote at the end of all my posts.