Welcome to The Kicker!

Why Watch Meet the Press?

2011-12-11T14:13:00.002-05:00

Here is an interesting analysis of today's (12.11.2011) morning talk shows. Notice that the "talking heads" shows have 12 Republican guests and 2 Democratic guests. According to the article's author, this isn't just today, it is almost every week. So, here's the question: Why are Democrats, liberals, and progressives still watching these television relics?

I mean it isn't like they are the only way to get political information. Usually the questions are pretty soft and when they aren't soft, the guests are experienced enough to avoid answering them. Further, if something really newsworthy did come out of a Sunday talk show, you could probably watch a clip of it on the Internet.

What is so infuriating about the American media is how seldom crucial questions or issues are never addressed. Here is an example: Republicans have been telling us since the days of Ol' St. Ronnie that tax cuts lead to more jobs. They don't and that fact has been proved by more than one study. Yet, very seldom do you see a interviewer on a talking head show bring that point up with a Republican guest.

Here's another example: Republicans say they want to avoid excess governmental regulation that helps consumers if a company takes advantage of them. So, assuming that's true, then what remedy do they propose for someone who is killed or seriously injured by a defective product? After all, they don't like lawsuits either so what are consumers to do? Just get injured or killed without any protection?

I could go on, but you get the point. I suspect these questions aren't being asked because the companies who buy ads on the talking heads shows don't want such questions asked. So instead we get week after week of Republicans telling us how much of a socialist Barack Obama is even though he has adopted many of their ideas such as healthcare mandates.

You can keep watching if you like, but as for me, I long ago stopped watching these shows and I have never regretted that decision.

Economic Liberalism and Social Liberalism

2011-12-06T06:52:00.002-05:00

If you look at the Democratic nominees for president since 1932, those that have won have done so by stressing economic liberalism. "Economic liberalism" uses the power of the government to expand economic opportunities for all Americans, but especially for working class Americans, or by increasing the social safety net.

Examples are Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage laws, allowing unions to organize, work place safety laws, regulations regarding corporate activities, and laws regulating damage to the environment. When political campaigns are fought over these kind of issues, it is much easier for Democrats to win.

When, however, they are fought over issues of social liberalism, however, it is much more difficult for Democrats to win. "Social liberalism" uses the power of the government to change the way people in our society interact with each other. Examples of such laws are laws that change gender rules, change racial rules, and change sexual rules.

Another example of "social liberalism" would be using the power of the government to change personal behavior. An example of such use would be outlawing the ownership of certain firearms, or regulating their use and possession.

"Economic liberalism" pits the interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans against the interest of economic elites. "Social liberalism" often pits the interests of one group of Americans against another group of Americans. When that happens it is much easier for Republicans to win.

This is because each party's strength is also its weakness. The strength of the Republican party is that it is relatively homogeneous. It is mostly white, mostly middle class to upper class, mostly religiously conservative, and mostly run by males. Because they are more alike, it is easier for Republicans to get along and more difficult for Democrats to peel votes away from Republicans.

The Democratic Party is a coalition party. The strength of the Democratic Party is that it is easier to attract new voters to a coalition party. If you look at the voting history of immigrants to America, they often start out voting Democratic. That was true of the Irish and Italians and it is true of Hispanics today.

The weakness of such a party, though, is that it is easier to peel votes away from the coalition by arguing that one part of the coalition is inherently opposed to another part of the coalition. An example of such tactics is the so-called "Southern Strategy" used by Nixon, and Republicans since Nixon, to carry the South. The genesis of this strategy was southern white resentment over the passage of Civil Rights laws under the Johnson administration.

What Democrats need to do, then, is to stress economic liberalism over social liberalism. This doesn't mean giving up on issues like civil rights for minorities, or fighting for equal employment laws for women. What it does mean, though, is stressing policies that help middle class and working class Americans. In political campaigns, it isn't just the policies that are important, it is the tone in which the campaign is run.

Another example of

Why Bloomberg Wants a Third Candidate for President

2011-11-26T01:14:00.002-05:00

So here's this article from the Washington Post telling how Michael Bloomberg and a group calling itself America Elects wants to run a third person for president in 2012:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/moderate-americans-elect-group-hoping-to-add-third-candidate-to-2012-election-ballot/2011/11/21/gIQAtPpMtN_story.html

The theory seems to be that both parties are equally to blame for the fact that the United States government isn't working too well these days. This is another example of the "both sides are equally to blame" school of political analysis that seems so prevalent today. (Here is a good critique of this group by the Washington Monthly.)

What I find interesting isn't the fact that such a group exists but that N.Y.C. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is involved. This is a guy who is very, very rich. He is a person who is socially liberal but pretty conservative fiscally. So why is he involved in this project?

My theory is that he wants to defeat Obama and help the GOP nominee, which will probably be Romney. I think that he knows that Obama is likely to beat Romney and wants to make sure that voters who don't like Romney have someplace else to go besides Obama. Or that voters who aren't as conservative as the GOP but don't like Obama have someplace else to go.

Why would he do that? Because like a lot of fiscal conservatives he wants to make major changes to social programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He wants to make sure that Wall Street isn't regulated and he wants to get back at Obama for his support of the Dodd-Franks financial regulation bill.

It is interesting to note that the politicians mentioned in this article, Bloomberg and Whitman, are what used to be called "moderate" Republicans. That fact alone would make me suspicious of this group's intentions.

This group already has ballot space lined up for Florida, Ohio, Nevada, and Michigan. All states that are expected to be battleground states in 2012 and all states that Obama carried in 2008. Although the article mentions that it is headed for the ballot in other unnamed states, it is fascinating that the only states mentioned are states that are crucial to Obama's re-election strategy.

This group has also registered itself as a "social welfare" organization so that it can avoid making its donors public. So what we have is a group which has prominent former GOP elected officials working to run a candidate for president in critical states that won't tell us who its contributors are or how much they gave. And we are supposed to believe that this group doesn't have a partisan agenda?

By the way if you think that I am needlessly worried about this group getting candidates on the ballot in states like Ohio,think about this: Nader got George W. Bush elected in 2000 by getting less than 5% of the vote in Florida.

Wall Street’s Hippie Culture

2011-11-06T10:41:00.000-05:00

It has been amusing to me to hear some of Wall Street’s current crop of Masters of the Universe dismiss the Occupy Wall Street protestors as a “bunch of hippies”. What is funny about their doing so is this.

At age 67, I am old enough to have known some actual hippies and their philosophy, which they often distilled down to the single expression: “Do your own thing, man.” But isn’t that precisely what these investment bankers also offered—and still are offering—as their own philosophy, and isn’t it that philosophy which got us into the terrible economic mess the OWS people are now protesting?

It certainly seems so to me. What the investment bankers and their apologists told us again and again over the past three decades is that regulatory restraints on their behavior were bad. They repeatedly told us that if they were simply allowed to do their own thing that something they called “the market” would prevent them from engaging in antisocial behavior and that a great and widely-shared prosperity would result.

So deeply did they believe in this philosophy that they set about creating think tanks and resident experts to push the philosophy in the news media and before congressional committees and in other forums. They drew upon wealthy ultraconservative financial backers to provide the financial support for their proselytizing on behalf of this philosophy. And so persistent were they in their efforts that their philosophy, at first gradually and then with ever-greater force, took hold across our entire society as one after another restraint on their behavior was either prevented from coming into existence or wiped from the books.

As do many proselytizers, they needed an old written and somewhat inaccessible text to use in offering appeals to authority in response to common-sense questions about why their philosophy should be followed. To meet this need, they offered up The Wealth of Nations and its decent and careful author, Adam Smith.

But, as often happens when an old text is used to justify a new philosophy, they quoted the text and its author selectively. In fact, they were so selective that, to listen to these anti-government types describe them, all of Adam Smith’s philosophy and all of his 600-page treatise came down to the single concept of the invisible hand. They insisted that Smith’s philosophy was the following: everyone should just pursue his or her own individual self-interest and that the result would be generalized prosperity. In other words, they said, Smith’s message was that we should all just do our own thing.

So successful were they on pushing this concept that the average American has no idea that Smith also favored usury laws and bank regulation and a tax system under which the rich paid a higher tax rate than those making less than them–or that he worried that the government might become the captive of the wealthy and be used largely to protect their property interests instead of promoting the public good.

And so it came to pass that the investment bankers were allowed to do their own thing and create the terrible economic mess we have on our hands today: the very mess that the people in the park are protesting, the very mess which we taxpayers across the country had to rescue them from, the very mess which cost so many people their jobs and their pensions and their homes.

But even after this massive and very public failure of their philosophy, from the lofty heights of their glass towers the bankers look down on the protestors with disdain and call them hippies.

There is much irony in this, isn’t there?

For while I didn’t much agree with the philosophy of the original hippies, at least I’ll give them this: unlike this bespoke-suited new generation of hippies, they didn’t go running to the government to save them if their philosophical choices ended up making a mess of their lives.

David N. Brown

Medina, Ohio

Republicans Who Oppose Health Care Reform Don't Care......

2010-04-04T10:30:00.002-04:00

If medical insurance companies deny coverage to both adults and children for pre-existing conditions;

If millions of Americans are pushed into bankruptcy because of unpaid medical bills, bills that are either unpaid because the people couldn't afford insurance or because they exhausted their insurance benefits;

If medical insurance companies can raise rates with impunity;

If millions of Americans can't afford health insurance;

If medical insurance companies rescind policies when claims are made; or

If small businesses can't afford medical insurance coverage.

How do I know this? Because they are working to repeal the health insurance reform act which addresses all of these problems. Because in the six years that they controlled the Congress and the White House, they didn't do one damn thing to address these problems. Not one.

In the final analysis, those Republicans just don't care what happens to the millions of Americans who can't afford health insurance under the present system. Their attitude, by the way, is why I am not a Republican.

Senate Republicans Don't Want to Work a Full Day, Do They Need Naps

2010-03-26T10:05:00.004-04:00

The Senate Republicans are now attempting to block all work by the Senate after 2 pm. How are they doing this? By objecting under Senate Rules to any committee hearings that take place after 2 pm. Now, since most of the work in the Senate is done in committee, this means that committee hearings have to stop by 2 pm.

Now, apparently the Senate Republicans want the media to think that they are doing this as some sort of retaliation for the Democrats passing health care reform by reconciliation. We think, however, that they just want to take afternoon naps. Think about it, your average Republican Senator is a white guy who is in his late 50s or 60s. They need naps. They want naps. This is a good way to get naps.

When, however, you are blocking unemployed workers from getting benefits, it doesn't look too good to want to cut short your own work day, but, hey, if that's what they want, then they should go for it. Of course, Democrats need to point out to voters the desire of Republican Senators to avoid doing a full day's work for more than a full day's pay.

Palin Targets Boccieri, Let's Back Him!

2010-03-26T08:46:00.002-04:00

It seems that the half-term governor of Alaska, or the half-wit governor, whichever you prefer, has targeted Representative John Boccieri with defeat in the 2010 elections. This is, of course, because Boccieri decided to stand with the people of the 16th Congressional District and not the insurance companies in the recent vote on the House floor.

As readers of this blog know, we were pretty critical of Borrieri when he voted against the health-care reform plan when it first came up for a vote. We thought that his vote was a betrayal of promises he had made to Medina County Democrats when he asked us to support him in 2008. We weren't happy with the explanations he gave to a group of Democrats who met with him in December in Medina.

We were very pleased, therefore, when he voted for the health care bill when it came back from the Senate. We were happy when he voted for the bill amending the act, and we were happy when he voted for the final package of amendments late Thursday.

Us being happy, however, isn't going to help him win re-election. What will help him win re-election is Democrats supporting him, both financially and with time. This morning, we donated to his campaign. We urge all Medina County Democrats to do the same.

You can donate to Boccieri's campaign by clicking here. You can sign up to work for his re-election by clicking here. Don't let Palin win this November! Let's tell her that it is our district, not hers.

18 Things that the Health Care Bill Does Right Now

2010-03-23T12:15:00.001-04:00

Click here to read an excellent article on Huffington Post about 18 things that the health care reform bill does right now.

Call Congressman John Boccieri and Tell Him Thanks!

2010-03-22T10:00:00.001-04:00

Contact Representative John Boccieri and tell him thanks for voting for health care reform:

Boccieri District Office

300 W Tuscarawas St.
Suite 716
Canton, OH 44702
(330) 489-4414
(800)826-9015

Boccieri DC Office

1516 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3876

Congressman John Boccieri To Vote Yes on Health Care Reform Bill

2010-03-20T08:53:00.003-04:00

Representative John Boccieri, OH-16, announced yesterday that he will be voting for the health care bill when it comes up for a vote on Sunday. Previously he had voted against the health care bill when it came up for a vote last fall. Since then, there have been changes made to the bill in the Senate that addressed concerns that Boccieri had regarding the cost of the bill.

In the last week, several Democratic representatives who had voted against the health care bill have announced that they are now supporting the health care bill. This group includes Dennis Kucinich as well as Representative Boccieri.

Readers of this blog know that we were critical of Boccieri's "no" vote on health care reform last fall. We are very happy that he has decided to vote "yes" on Sunday. We realize that he will be criticized for this vote from opponents of health care reform,and we realize that voting for the health care bill will result in Boccieri being subjected to right-wing vilification. We are confident, though, that when the final returns come in next November that he will be re-elected, in part because he did the right thing on health care.

Republican Position on Health Care: 'I got mine, screw you."

2010-03-13T22:43:00.007-05:00

Earlier this week we published a piece entitled "Whose Side Are You On?"You can read the prior post by clicking on the link in the previous sentence.

In that piece, we opined that if you aren't for health care reform, then you are with those who really don't care if 30 million Americans don't have insurance, or are denied medical insurance because of pre-existing condtions, or have their medical insurance policies rescinded when they make a claim.

This position led to a writer who calls himself/herself "Be Responsible" writing to protest that he/she doesn't fit into either of the categories that we set forth in our above menioned blog entry. Here is his or her's comments:

I am not on either side that you mentioned and either are millions of other citizens. Older people don't want their services cut by half a billion dollars as in the senate package and people like me and teachers want to keep their present health care coverage.

For example, I was sick 3 months ago, called my doctor's office at 8:05 AM, he saw me at 8:30, examined me, wrote a prescription, I paid my co-pay, and took my first pill before 9 am. Sorry, I don't want to lose that !

If anyone thinks that I will get that same care by adding 30 million people and subtracting all the doctors, like mine, who said he would quit, is fooling themselves. Yes, EVERYONE wants the Fraud and rates to come down.

What's wrong with making the insurance companies actually compete?

By opening up all 50 States to all the insurance companies watch the rates drop !!

And stop the ridiculous law suits with Tort reform.

We don't need another big inefficient bureaucracy.

And we can not add to the debt anymore or all our money will be totally worthless.

Be Responsible's comment is all about him or her. It is typical of the attitude that most Republicans have, "I got mine, screw everyone else."

Nowhere does Be Responsbile talk about the needs of those who have no medical insurance, or get denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, or see their medical insurance rescinded just when they need it most. Nowhere does Be Responsible talk about the thousands of people who are forced into bankruptcy because of a lack of medical insurance or the thousands of people who die earlier than they would have to if they had medical insurance.

Be Responsible talks about how tort reform and allowing medical insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines will somehow miraclously lower health insurance costs. Of course, what Be Responsible doesn't talk about is how the Republicans had both the Congress and the White House for six years. During that time, we didn't see national tort reform, we didn't see legislation passed to allow the selling of medical insurance policies across state lines. What we did see was an unpaid for expansion of Medicare drug benefits with absolutely no payment mechanism.

Here's question for Be Responsible and all the other Republicans who badmouth Obama's plan: What did you do for the six years you ran the national goverment to lower medical costs, or expand coverage, or increase competition in the medical insurance industry. Oh, that's right, not one damn thing.

So here is a news flash to Be Responsible: The lack of health care for every American is am moral issue, not just an economic one. It is a national shame that this country can't do what every other Western country, including Japan and Germany, our former enemies, have managed to do and that is cover every citizen with adequate health care.

All of the misery the present system is causing to millions of Americans apparently doesn't matter to Be Responsible as long as he/she has his/her medical insurance. Personally, we think that most Americans are bigger than that, but we shall see.

"Whose Side Are You On?"

2010-03-12T07:44:00.002-05:00

A prominent Ohio Democratic politician recently commented on what he considers to be the crucial question in any election. The question is: "Whose side are you on?" That question is really at the heart of most domestic policy and political disputes. It is seen in the health care debate.

If you are opposed to the Obama plan, then you are for maintaining the status quo. Sure, you can say that you want a single-payer plan, or Medicare for all, or some other plan, like the plan offered by Senator Ron Wyden, but the reality is that its either the current plan or the status quo.

Why do I say that? Because it is obvious that there aren't the votes in either the Senate or the House to get a national payer plan. There aren't the votes to expand Medicare to all Americans, regardless of their age. As far as the Wyden plan goes, there probably aren't the votes to pass that plan either, especially once people realize it does away with the employer paid health insurance benefit.

So, its either the Obama plan or the status quo. Now, if you are for the status quo, then you are on the side of the insurance companies. You are on the side of those people who don't care if 30 million Americans are without health insurance, or if Americans are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, or if insurance companies try to rescind coverage just when people need it most. If you are against the Obama plan, then that's the side that you are on.

Now, if you are on that side, then you are not on my side, or my family's side, or my friends' side, and, if you are a U.S. Congressman running for re-election, then I am not voting for you. If this attitude results in the election of a Republican, I can live with that. The Republican won't be on my side, but either are you, so there's really no difference. Further, if you are defeated in 2010, then there's a chance the Democrats can nominate and elect a Democratic who is on my side in 2012.

Think of it as a example of single-issue voting, only from the Left, not from the Right.

Call John Boccieri and Tell Him to Support Health Care or You Won't Support Him

2010-03-06T11:29:00.003-05:00

The Columbus Dispatch ran a story yesterday that said that Congressman John Boccieri is now "undecided" on whether to vote for the Senate healthcare bill when it comes back to the House. If you live in the 16TH Congressional District, and want healthcare reform, now is the time to make sure that Bocceri hears from you. The numbers to call are:

Boccieri District Office

300 W Tuscarawas St.
Suite 716
Canton, OH 44702
(330) 489-4414
(800)826-9015

Boccieri DC Office

1516 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3876

As always, be police and civil, but let the staffer know that you are willing to consider not voting in the Congressional race if Bocceri votes against healthcare reform.

Does it Really Matter if Either Brunner or Fisher Win?

2010-02-08T18:42:00.002-05:00

Okay, so Jennifer Brunner and Lee Fisher want us to think that their election to the United States Senate will make a big difference in our lives. Well, here is a question for them, and for that matter, for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee: What evidence do we have that it will make any difference whatsoever?

I mean, look at the the situation we are in at the present time. The Dems have a nine vote majority in the Senate, a 78 or 79 vote majority in the United States House of Representatives, and a Democratic President. With all that legislative power, what have they accomplished?

Well, they passed a stimulus bill that probably avoided a second Great Depression. They passed the Lily Ledbetter bill. They passed a budget plan, and that's about it.

Health care reform: not passed
Financial regulatory reform: not passed
Energy bill: not passed

All the above big bills, by the way, passed the House, but either haven't made it out of the Senate, or in the case of health care reform, got passed by both Houses and is now stuck in the House-Senate limbo.

We are told that electing Lee or Jennifer will make everything better. Well, no, it won't. We will still not have 60 votes. We will still have to put up with Leiberman, Nelson, and all the rest of the so-called "moderate Dems." In short, the only thing that will be different is that one of them might be able to call himself or herself an United States Senator.

Well, maybe its just me, but I personally don't care if Lee or Jennifer get to be a United States Senator UNLESS they can get Democratic legislation enacted. If they want my vote, or my money, or my support, then they better start addressing that issue.

Why Health Care Matters to so-called "Democratic Moderates" like John Boccieri

2010-02-06T17:56:00.005-05:00

We have a friend who has donated in the five figures to Democratic candidates since late 2003. He has donated to gubernatorial candidates, senatorial candidates, congressional candidates, and presidential candidates. He has worked extensively for Democratic candidates for president, governor, senator, and representative. Recently he made the following observation:

He pointed out that Democrats have reached a 78 vote majority in the United States House of Representatives, a 9 vote majority in the United States Senate, and have a Democratic president. They have passed a health care bill in both the House and the Senate. They could pass a health care bill right now by having the House adopt the Senate bill without any amendments. Or, they could pass the Senate bill in the House, and then make changes by reconciliation. Either one he could live with.

But here's what he can't live with: Not passing a health care bill. If there isn't a health care bill passed, then he says he's done. No more contributions to Democratic candidates. No more working on Democratic campaigns. He will spend his time and his money somewhere else.

Now our friend can live without a health care bill. He has insurance. His wife has insurance. His children have insurance. But, he considers health care to be a universal human right. He is very distressed that we don't have affordable health care for all Americans. He has worked for Democratic candidates because he wants health care reform. So, to come this close, but not get there, is a big, big blow and calls into question just why in the world he worked so hard for Democratic candidates in the first place.

See, here's what our friend gets that so-called Democratic moderates like Representative John Boccieri don't get. People like our friend don't give money or work for candidates because they want those particular candidates to have political power. They work for them because they want certain policies adopted, certain laws passed, and certain results obtained.

A lot of Democratic moderates seem to think that it is some big thrill for us if they win political office. Well, here's a thought: Most of us don't give a crap if John Boccieri is a Congressman, we give a crap if he is a Congressman who is voting on issues the way we would vote if we were in Congress.

So, when he does something like vote against the health care bill in the Congress, and then thinks that we will vote for him anyway because he is supposedly better than the Republican running against him, he shows he doesn't get it. He does't understand that for some of us, like our friend, there are votes that are absolutely critical for continued support and health care is one of them.

Gallup Sees Most States As "Blue"

2010-02-06T11:04:00.003-05:00

Gallup has an interesting poll up showing that the Democratic Party has a marked advantage in party identification on a state by state basis. You can read about this poll by clicking here. The map below is from the article:

Job Losses Under Bush and Obama

2010-02-06T08:53:00.003-05:00

Below is a chart prepared by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office showing job losses under Bush and Obama since December of 2007. The point is obvious: Fewer jobs have been lost since Obama took office as compared to the final year of Bush's second term. Since both the media and Republicans are factually challenged, we are not sure how much play this will get, but we thought we should share it with our readers.

Ol' Deficit Hawk George Does It Again

2010-01-28T18:30:00.002-05:00

Today, January 28, 2010, the United States Senate took up the amendment to impose pay- as-you-go requirements on the United States Congress. This requirement, known as PAYGO, was credited by President Obama with helping achieve balanced budgets in Wednesday's State of the Union speech.

It works like this: If you are a Representative or a Senator and you want to propose a new Federal program, you have to come up the way to pay for the program. If you want to propose tax cuts, then you have to come up with spending cuts to balance out the tax cuts. Sounds simple, right? I mean if you were a deficit hawk, which is how George Voinovich describes himself, then you should love this idea.

Except, of course, George, along with the other 39 Republicans voted "Nay." Now why would they do that? Well, here's the situation they are in: They want to propose more and more tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations, but they don't want to cut Federal programs to pay for the tax-cuts. Instead they want to keep running up the Federal deficit.

So once again, we see, just like we saw in 2001 and in 2003 with Bush's reckless tax cuts for the rich, which Ol' Deficit Hawk supported, that George Voinovich's claims to want a balanced budget are just so much Deficit Hawk bird poo.

Game Over in Massachusetts

2010-01-20T08:10:00.002-05:00

Yesterday we published a piece called "Game On in Massachusetts". Well, as you can see from the headline above, the game is over in Massachusetts and we lost. Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley lost by about 2% of the vote. So now the junior Senator from Massachusetts is a Scott Brown who is determined to take America back to the Bush-Cheney years.

Now, part of the blame can be laid on Coakley herself. According to an online article, while Brown conducted 66 campaign events between the primary and election day, she only held 19. She came across as elitist and out of touch. Combine her campaign style with a bad economy, and it is easy to see why she lost.

Part of the problem is the way the Democrats handled health care. The Senate took way too long to pass the legislation; the need to get all 60 Senators who caucus with the Democrats to vote in favor of cutting off debate meant that conservative Dems like Nelson, Landrieu, and Lieberman had an enormous influence on the final product. This led to a dropping of the public option and pork-barrel politics that wasn't pretty to watch.

So was the refusal of the Obama administration to put the argument for the health-care reform issue in moral terms. For some reason, Democrats are reluctant to do that, while no such reluctance hinders their opponents. This is rather amazing because the moral argument is easy to make.

Studies from respected institutions like the Harvard Medical School put the number of Americans who die because of a lack of health insurance at 18,000 to 44,000 per year. This means that at least six times the number of people who died on 9-11 die each year because of how we structure medical care in this country.

So, this is what Republicans who oppose the Democrats on health care are for:

-Thousands of people needlessly dying
-Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions
-Medical bankruptcies
-Families devastated by uninsured illnesses

They recognize the political vulnerability of their position. You can tell it from the mantra they keep repeating, "We aren't against health care reform, we are just against this health care reform. We want to do it right." Which was exactly what Brown said last night during his victory speech. Only, guess what, he never tells you what that health care reform would look like because they don't have a plan. The shock isn't that Republicans campaign by being nihilists, the problem is that we don't call them on it.

Time to Get Rid of the Filibuster

2010-01-19T16:13:00.002-05:00

The reason why we are all holding our breaths today about the vote in Massachusetts's special election can be summed up in one word: filibuster If it wasn't for the filibuster and its requirement that motions to stop debate get 60 votes, then we wouldn't care. We wouldn't care because the Dem majority would go from 10 to 9 and, frankly, while it would be embarrassing to lose Ted Kennedy's old seat, it would not be critical. No, it is only critical because the Senate has the filibuster.

Now, the filibuster is not dictated by the United States Constitution, unlike, say the requirement that every state have two Senators. It was contrived by the Senate itself and has been used by reactionaries to make an institution deliberately designed to be conservative even more conservative.

Of course, just as it was used by Dixiecrats to stop civil rights legislation, it is now being used by Republicans to stop progressive legislation, or, in the case of the health-care reform bill, to take liberal legislation and turn it into conservative mush.

So, how do we get rid of it? Well, two Republicans who used to work for Bill Frist when he was Republican Majority Leader wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review on what they referred to as the "constitutional option." Click on the link to read the article. Then, contact Senator Sherrod Brown's office and tell them that you think the filibuster should go.

Game On in Massachusetts

2010-01-19T07:59:00.002-05:00

Very early Sunday morning I was watching the Cavaliers play the L.A. Clippers. With about four minutes to go the game was tied. Austin Carr, the color commentator for Fox Sports during the Cavaliers broadcasts, said, "Game's on now."

This is the situation we are now in regarding the Massachusetts Senate race. All the polling, all the political robocalls, all the ads end today and it is in the hands of the voters.

According to a posting at Boston.com, both sides expect a heavy turnout today. That is good news for the Dems. If you like at the polling done in this race, especially the polling of "likely" voters, the pollsters were expecting a relatively low turnout election. That is the model they used in their polling. If, however, the turnout is closer to a normal election in Massachusetts, then that helps the Democrats.

So, right now, Game is On in Massachusetts.

George Voinovich Is At It Again

2010-01-18T11:04:00.003-05:00

Once again, when there is a Democratic President who wants to spend money on people as opposed to giving tax cuts to the wealthy, George Voinovich becomes a "deficit" hawk. We saw this before during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

When Clinton was President, George Voinovich talked about the need for a balanced Federal budget. Although interestingly enough we don't remember a lot of praise for Clinton from Voinovich when the Clinton administration left a surplus for his successor to squander.

But when Bubble-Boy became President and wanted to pass his reckless tax cuts in 2001and then again in 2003, where was Voinovich? Well, ol' deficit hawk George was right there with him, agreeing to his cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now in 2003 the deficit hawk is given credit for helping to cut Bush's tax cuts in half, although half of budget busting tax cuts is still half too many. Ol' deficit hawk George, however, then voted to extend the expiration date of tax cuts which had the effect of undoing his work in 2003.

By this time you may be wondering why in the world we are ranting about George Voinovich on Martin Luther King Day. Let's face we could be ranting about the Massachusetts special election or talking about what King meant to America, why are we ranting about George?

Well, it is because we read this article in the Plain Dealer about how George is trying to cap off his career by helping create a budget commission to control Federal spending. Once again the PD is acting like the public relations officer for George's Senate office and telling us how great George is for caring about deficit and the Federal budget.

Although, come to think about it, at least in this article the reporter does point out how Voinovich supported Bush's tax cuts. That is something new for the PD, acknowledging, however obliquely, the hypocrisy of Voinovich on budget deficits when Republicans are in power.

Hey, no matter what happens in the race for the U.S. Senate seat from Ohio, at least we won't be treated to the PD creaming their jeans for Voinovich anymore. (See, and you probably thought this article was going to end on an angry note.)

Was Bobby Kennedy Right About Liberals?

2010-01-17T11:32:00.003-05:00

Years ago I read a biography of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy in which the author wrote about Kennedy attending a liberal Democratic meeting on the West Side of Manhatten. After listening to them bicker among themselves for a long time, Kennedy, who had been invited there to talk about supporting a reform candidate for Judge of the Surrogate's Court, told one of his aides that he thought that his father had been right about liberals all along. What he meant by that was that his father believed that liberals demand too much perfection from candidates they support, and when they don't get it, they stop supporting them.

Flash forward to the 2010 special election in Massachusetts for the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. On the political blogs there is a lot of talk about whether liberals such as Jane Hamsher of Fire Dog Lake would rather have Martha Coakely lose then win. The reasoning goes that a victory by Brown, who is a very conservative Republican, and who is dedicated to stopping the health care bill, would actually be beneficial. Their thinking goes that the defeat of a bill they see as too corporate friendly would then lead the Democrats to somehow get together and pass a much more liberal bill, say, one that had a public option.

Here's my take on this issue. The defeat of the health care bill won't result in a better bill, it will result in no bill. Democrats like Nelson, Lincoln, and Bayh won't come for a more liberal bill, they will take the position that the status quo is what they should support. Why? Because they are not going to be persuaded that the loss of a Senate seat in Mass. means that people want a more liberal bill. They are going to think to themselves, "If freaking Mass. voters don't want a health care bill, then the residents of my state, which is far more conservative, don't want a health care bill."

I saw this in 1980, when liberal friends of mine supported first Kennedy over Carter and then John Anderson over Carter. What did that get them? Eight years of Reagan. Then in 2000, people like Nader said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. What did that get us? Eight years of Bush. Now, the same types are saying that there is no difference between Obama's health care bill and the status quo? What will that get us? More of the status quo.

If you are against this health care bill, and there is plenty of things I don't like about it, then this is what you are for:

1. Continued discrimination based on pre-existing conditions;
2. Continued caps on medical insurance benefits, which will result in more Americans going bankrupt;
3. The unavailability of medical insurance to the approximately 31 million people who would be covered by this plan; and
4. The continued deaths of 44,000 Americans per year because they don't have health insurance, according to a study from the Harvard Medical School.

That's your choice. The choice is not between some hypothetical health insurance bill that is never going to get passed, the choice is between the current bill and the status quo. That is what is at stake on Tuesday in Massachusetts.

Tell Us Who You Are Backing for United States Senate

2010-01-14T14:26:00.002-05:00

We are taking a completely unscientific poll as to who our readers are supporting for the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat being vacated by George Voinovich. Tell us if you are supporting Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher or Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner. You can take the poll by clicking on the answer in the box on the right hand side of this page. You can also leave us a comment on why you are supporting one or the other.

When a Democratic Congressman Votes Like a Republican, Dems Apparently Shouldn't Get Mad

2010-01-07T13:18:00.006-05:00

This is one of the comments to a previous post about John Boccieri possibly getting a primary opponent from the left over the issue of health care reform:

Isn't it nice that a supposed democratic blog/website is being used to undercut our democratic congressman in one of the most highly competitive districts in the country. I'm sure Jim Renacci will be much more aligned with MCDAC's health care positions than John Boccieri.....

So let's see if have this right: Boccieri can come to Medina County, assure Medina County Democrats he supports health care reform, accept campaign contributions from Medina County Dems, have us work for him by canvassing for him, putting up yard signs, etc., but, when he turns around and votes like a Republican on health care reform, we aren't supposed to be upset with him?

Hey, here's a question for the anonymous person who posted the above comment: Why aren't you upset with Boccieri for voting against the health care reform bill? Why is your anger directed at this blog and not at Boccieri?

Since we have noticed that everytime we post a story on Boccieri, there are people who read it through the United States House of Representatives' servers, could it be it is because you work for the Congressman?

Will John Boccieri Get Primary Opponent?

2010-01-06T06:08:00.004-05:00

There is a rumor going around Medina County political circles that a prominent local Democrat may take out petitions to run against Representative John Boccieri in the 16TH Congressional District primary. Supposedly there was a recent meeting on the west side
of Cleveland with some labor leaders in which he told them of this possibility. Apparently a number of local labor leaders in the Cleveland area aren't happy with Boccieri's vote on health care reform. Stay tuned for further details.

Republican Definition of Hypocrisy

2010-01-05T05:32:00.002-05:00

This is the American Heritage Dictionary definition of hypocrisy:

hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European roots.]

This is the Republican definition of hypocrisy:

hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice by a Democrat of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European roots.]

New Republic Reports Dems Are Going to Avoid Conference Committee on Health Care Reform

2010-01-04T07:13:00.002-05:00

Jonathon Cohn of The New Republic is reporting on the magazine's website that Senate and House Democrats are going to avoid a formal conference committee to merge the two versions of the health care reform bill. Instead of convening a separate conference committee, they are going to negotiate informally, merge the two bills, and then vote on a final bill in each chamber.

If this report is true, this is very good news for a lot of reasons. One is that it will speed up the process and allow the Congress to pass health care reform and then move on to other pressing business. Another reason is that it will show Republican Senators that their obstructionism won't stop the Dems from passing health care reform. A third reason is that this will greatly encourage the Democratic base voters that the Senate and House aren't going to let Republicans set the legislative agenda by obstruction.

Of course, this is only one report on one website, and it will be interesting to see if other news organizations start to report the same thing. All in all, though, a very good sign.

Medina Dems Go After Boccieri on Health Care Vote on Talking Points Memo

2010-01-03T21:10:00.003-05:00

Two Medina county Democrats who go by the initials "DB" and "JK" reported to Josh Marshall at www.talkingpointsmemo.com about the recent meeting that Congressman John Boccieri held to discuss his "no" vote on the House health care reform bill. You can read their report here.

What has to be understood is the sense of betrayal that is evident in the article that the two Medina County Dems sent to Marshall. In 2008 then State Senator John Boccieri assured Medina County Dems that he was for health care reform. Yet, when the vote went down, he backed the GOP and voted against the Democratic bill. This vote has cost Boccieri much support in Medina County.

Just to make it clear, we are not talking about casual supporters. These are people who threw fund raisers for him; who canvassed for him; and who helped him take Medina County while the county was voting for John McCain over Obama. There is a very simple way for Boccieri to get this support back and that is to vote for the health care bill when it comes out of conference committee.

Comparing Bubble-Boy's First Year vs Obama's First Year on Terror Attacks

2010-01-03T11:23:00.002-05:00

Okay, so let's get this straight: During Bubble-Boy's first year of being President, his administration ignored a warning regarding al-Qaeda's plans to attack America and approximately 3000 Americans died. In Obama's first year of being President, according to the right-wing pundits, his administration ignored warnings about the Nigerian who attempted to destroy an American airliner and no Americans died. Yet, amazingly, according to the right-wing pundits, it is the Obama administration and not the Bubble-boy administration that failed the national security test in its first year.

Here's what Democrats need to start saying: In Bush's first year of being president we lost 3,000 Americans to organized terrorism. In Obama's first year of being President, we lost zero Americans to organized terrorism. That simple fact, repeated over and over, says everything that needs to be said about which administration did a better job of protecting the American people.

What Would Be Republican Response to a 9-11 Attack Today?

2010-01-02T08:59:00.003-05:00

On September 11, 2001, the United States suffered a horrible attack under George W. Bush's presidency. Over 3000 Americans died. Democratic politicians in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate publicly supported President Bush. They didn't criticize him for the hours it took him to respond; for the fact that he flew around in Air Force One most of the day before returning to Washington, D.C.; they didn't call for investigations into what his administration knew before the attack; and they certainly didn't send out fund-raising letters in an attempt to raise campaign contributions from the death of thousands of Americans.

Nor did former Vice-President Al Gore issue denunciations of the Bush Administration's strategy for dealing with terrorists. Vice-President Gore did not emerge from some dark lair to say that all that mattered to the Bush Administration was getting tax cuts for their rich contributors and that this preoccupation had led to lax security for Americans. Indeed, given the fact that Al Gore had lost a presidential election because of a United States Supreme Court that was dominated by Republican appointees, two of which were appointed by his opponent's father, Gore's response was incredibly generous, at least by today's standards.

Now, contrast the Democratic response to 9-11 with the Republican response to the attempted attack on the airliner over Detroit. We have heard Republicans use the attack to try and score cheap political points at the President's expense and we have seen the sickening sight of Republicans using the attempted attack to raise campaign funds. We have seen the propaganda arm of the GOP, otherwise known as Fox News, criticize Obama for using words like "allegedly", as if using that word was somehow in itself a weakness.

And, of course, we have seen former Vice-President Cheney give at least one interview in which he claimed that Obama's pre-occupation with "transforming" American society had somehow led to the Detroit attack.

So here is my conclusion, and it was difficult for me to come to, but I believe that if a 9-11 attack took place under Obama, we would see a much different reaction from the GOP than we saw from the Democrats on that fateful day. We wouldn't see statements invoking national unity or calling for support for President Obama. We wouldn't see former Bush administration officials calling on Americans to support President Obama. Instead we would see Republicans Representatives and Senators rush to the studios of Fox News to denounce Obama. We would see campaign consulting firms grinding out fund-raising letters for Republicans even as Americans were burying their dead.

It pains me to come to this conclusion. I hope that we never have to find out if I am right, and if such a horrible tragedy occurs again, I hope that I am wrong about the Republican response. But given their actions over the last week or so, what other conclusion can I come to?

Will Congressman John Boccieri Back Insurance Companies Over People?

2009-12-31T07:15:00.003-05:00

In 2006 Congressman John Boccieri, then a State Senator, came to Medina County to ask local Democrats for their support. He assured several of them that he supported health care reform. Based in part on those assurances, many of Medina County's Democrats took the time to canvass for him, to campaign with him, and to sponsor house parties for him. Many others gave him campaign contributions. This effort paid off with Congressman Boccieri not only winning the 16TH Congressional District, but also winning Medina County.

Many of these same Democrats were deeply disappointed when he voted against the House's version of health care. Not only did he vote against the House's health care bill, but he voted for the Stupak amendment which imposed restrictions on the use of subsidies contained in the bill to purchase health insurance policies which provided abortion services. (His vote against the health care reform bill, but for the Stupak amendment was actually more conservative than the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Conference backed the health care reform bill once the Stupak amendment was included.)

Recently Congressman John Boccieri met with a group of local Medina County Democrats to discuss his health care vote. His explanation of why he had voted against the health care was interesting.

Initially, when people called his office right after the vote to complain about his vote, his staff told them that Congressman Boccieri was concerned about the cost of the health care bill. When he met with the Medina County Democrats, his explanation was different.

During the meeting, he didn't mention cost, but talked about how the House bill would affect a particular company in Stark County. He claimed that the House bill could cost 600 jobs in Stark County, although he didn't really explain how that would happen. He also regurgitated a favorite GOP talking point about how the mandates in the bill could lead to people being fined without seeming to understand that the bill has to contain mandates to get enough uninsured Americans to buy insurance to make sure that premiums stay relatively low.

When asked what the bill would have to contain to get his support when it came out of a House-Senate conference committee for a final vote, he wouldn't answer. When asked why Medina County Democrats should continue to trust him, he didn't have an answer. He repeatedly told us how he was sacrificing time with his family to meet with us on a Sunday afternoon, even though he had chosen the date and the time. In short, he was defensive, evasive, and condescending.

Here's a news flash for Congressman Boccieri: you can side with the insurance companies on this bill, or you can side with the people, but you can't do both. You can either vote to stop insurance companies from denying people with pre-existing conditions health insurance or you can vote to allow them to continue such discrimination. You can either vote for a bill that removes caps from medical insurance coverage, or you can vote to continue to allow caps and the accompanying medical bankruptcies. You can either vote to help expand health insurance coverage to 31 million more Americans, or you can vote for the status quo. What you can't do is vote for the status quo and then tell us that we should continue to support you anyway. It's time for Congressman Boccieri to choose between people or insurance companies.

Medical Insurance Competition in Ohio

2009-06-30T13:51:00.005-04:00

Health Care for America Now, (HCAN), published a report showing the state of health insurance competition in America. Basically, to cut to the chase, it sucks, and Ohio is no different.

According to the report, 58% of the health insurance market in Ohio is controlled by two companies. These companies are Wellpoint, which is run by Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Medical Mutual.

The report notes that from 2000 to 2007:

1. The cost of health insurance premiums for Ohio working families has gone up 76%;

2. The average annual combined premium for employers and employees went from $6596 to $11636;

3.Employers saw their portion of annual premiums go up by 75% while employees saw their share increase by 80%; but

4. The median earnings of Ohio workers increased by 9%, from $25017 to $27255.

(You can read the full report here.)

One of the favorite talking points for Republicans is that somehow Obama's plan for a public option for health insurance will "destroy" the marketplace. Well, guess what, in a lot of states, including Ohio, there is not much of a marketplace left to destroy.

Maybe what we need is some good, old-fashioned, Teddy Roosevelt-style, trust busting. Maybe its time, in fact, past time, to unleash the Justice Department's anti-trust division on some health insurance providers.

Brent Larkin is a Law School Graduate and a Political Idiot!

2009-06-29T18:52:00.005-04:00

Brent Larkin had a column in Sunday's Plain Dealer berating Governor Ted Strickland for not proposing a tax increase to meet Ohio's budget woes. He also said that Strickland was the worse governor for Cleveland since he has been covering politics.

What's interesting about his rant againt Strickland is the fact that he totally ignores the fact that the Ohio General Assembly has to vote to raise taxes. Under Ohio's Constitution, the Governor doesn't have the power to impose taxes by executive fiat. They have to be passed by the Ohio General Assembly.

At the present time the Ohio General Assembly has one house controlled by the Democrats and the other by the Republicans. There is absolutely no indication that the Republicans who control the State Senate will vote for any sort of tax increase, including the proposals advanced by Larkin. Larkin thinks that Ohio should raise its sales tax by one cent and forego the last year of the five year reduction in the state's income tax passed by, yep, you guessed it, the Republicans in 2005.

Now, of course, Larkin doesn't even mention the fact that the Republicans in the State Senate would have to sign off on any tax increases. Nor does he mention the fact that it was the Republicans who got us in this mess in the first place. No, according to Larkin, all Strickland has to do is just ask the General Assembly to raise taxes and they will just jump to it.

Well, here's a news flash for Larkin, Bill Harris isn't going to support any increase in taxes. The Republicans in the State Senate aren't going to support any increase in taxes. How do I know this? Because if they won't support gambling to help raise revenue, they sure as hell won't support increasing taxes.

Strickland knows this, and he is unwilling to give the Republicans a campaign issue just to make people like Brent Larkin happy. You know, people who use to head editorial boards that endorsed Republicans like Bob Taft and Republicans running for the General Assembly.

Where Was The Library Board in 2005?

2009-06-28T13:16:00.002-04:00

I walked into the main branch of the Medina Public Library to check out some material. After the very polite woman who was manning the check out counter took care of my materials, she gave me a spiel about how I should contact Governor Strickland and members of the Ohio General Assembly to voice my concern about budget cutbacks. She also gave me a piece of paper that had the phone numbers of Governor Strickland, State Senate Majority Leader Bill Harris, and two State Representatives who I had never heard of and who don't represent Medina County.

This got me to thinking about whether, back in 2005 when the General Assembly enacted a 21% across the board income tax cut, the Medina Library Board protested that action? Did it pass a resolution calling on Taft and the General Assembly not to make those cuts? Did they go on record opposing the cuts? Or did they just assume that those cuts would never impact them?

Right now the State doesn't have the revenue to do what it has done in the past for libraries or anyone else, for that matter. The 21% tax cut, phased in over five years, is costing Ohio about two billion dollars a year in lost tax revenue. We were told, of course, that those tax cuts would bring thousands of jobs into Ohio, which, of course, have yet to materialize. We weren't told, though, that it would end up crippling Ohio's state government.

So, here is my question, what was the library board's position in 2005? If they weren't concerned then, why should I, as a patron, be concerned now?

Both Medina County Dem Representatives Support Energy Bill

2009-06-28T13:09:00.002-04:00

Both U.S. Representatives who represent Medina County voted for the recently passed energy bill. Betty Sutton, OH-13, and John Boccieri, OH-16, joined all but two Ohio Democrats in voting for the bill. The two Democrats that didn't were Dennis Kucinich and Charlie Wilson. The bill now goes to the Senate, where its fate is uncertain.

Connie Schultz Advocates for Changes to Copyright Law

2009-06-28T11:21:00.002-04:00

There is a column up on the PD website by Connie Schultz in which she argues that the United States copyright law should be changed to protect newspapers. The idea, which she credits to a lawyer from the same law firm that represents the PD and a economics professor from Arkansas, involves prohibiting sites that aggregate news articles from profiting from the aggregation.

The theory is that sites like Newser and The Daily Beast, which link to articles on newspaper sites, are profiting from the aggregation without sharing the revenue with the linked to newspaper sites. Schultz argues that they are basically ripping off the newspapers which produced the original article.

The two men she quotes are proposing some sort of revenue sharing arrangement and a prohibition on aggregation sites linking to stories during the first 24 hours a story is up and running.

Another possibility would be to treat newspaper articles like recorded music. If a radio station plays a record, they have to pay the owner of the rights to the record a fee. They also have to keep records of what they play and when they play it. It is not a perfect system, but it prevents radio stations from making money off the efforts of others.

The problem, of course, is what to do about links to newspaper articles in sites, such as this one, that doesn't generate revenue. If we put a link in one of our posts should we have to pay? On the one hand we are benefiting from the work of others, such as Ms. Schultz, but on the other hand we are not making any money from her work.

In any event, it is a good article and brings up a lot of interesting points. You can go to www.cleveland.com and read the whole article.

More BS From John Kasich

2009-06-26T18:49:00.003-04:00

There is a Cleveland Plain Dealer article on John Kasich appearing before the Cleveland City Club. According to the article, Kasich wants to eliminate the state's estate tax, phase out the state's income tax, and this will, of course, lead to a fiscal rebirth for Ohio. Oh yes, and the state's budget problems are all Ted Strickland's fault.

Nowhere of course, does he mention the ill advised income tax cut that the Republicans put through in 2005. You know, the one that cut the state income tax by 21%, causing at least a two billion a year drop in revenues. No, Blowhard John just ignores that fact and blames Strickland for the fiscal mess the state government is in.

Expect more of this type of bs from Blowhard John over the next 17 months until the election. Hopefully, after he is defeated, it will cease, but don't count on it.

Beacon Journal's Michael Douglas Shows Why Editorial Writers Aren't Politicians

2009-06-22T07:54:00.003-04:00

On Father's Day, June 21, the Akron Beacon Journal ran a column by Michael Douglas, who is in charge of the editorial board, blasting Governor Ted Strickland for advocating slot machines at racetracks to raise much needed revenue. Apparently Douglas believes that Strickland should advocate tax increases. Perhaps Douglas is in need of a history lesson, one that Ohio Democrats haven't forgotten.

In 1982, Dick Celeste became Ohio's Governor. Following his election, the Democrats had control of the General Assembly and all the executive offices in the state. They also had the obligation to govern the state during a severe recession.

The Democrats bit the bullet and raised the state income tax. Celeste managed to get re-elected in 1986, and the Democrats held on to the House of Representatives, but in 1984, they lost control of the Ohio Senate. The Republicans used the campaign theme of the supposed 90% tax increase that Celeste had gotten through the General Assembly. It worked, and the Republicans haven't lost control of the State Senate since that election.

Douglas apparently believes that all Strickland has to do is come out for higher taxes and the Republicans in the Senate will just roll over and help raise taxes. There is absolutely no evidence that Bill Harris, and the rest of the Republican leadership in the Senate, will go along with that idea.

What is more likely to happen is that Strickland would come out for a tax increase, the Republicans would block it in the Senate, and the Democrats would lose both the Governor's race and control of the House in 2010. Such a result is way too high a price to pay to make editorial writers happy.

Is It Just Me, Or Do Southerners Who Come from Confederate States Tick You Off with Claims of Being More Pro-American?

2009-06-21T12:31:00.004-04:00

The picture in this entry is of Rusty DePass, a South Carolina Republican GOP activist, who recently made some news by claiming that Michelle Obama's ancestors were gorillas, and then trying to claim that Michelle actually started that joke with a supposed comment about evolution. The Michelle comment, while obviously racist, is not what has drawn my attention. What has drawn my attention is another stupid comment this bigot made about New York City and the events of 9-11-2001.

Apparently, in the 2008 Republican primary, this guy was supporting Rudy Giuliani. In comments made once when introducing Rudy to some South Carolina Republicans, DePass stated that most of the time South Carolina Republicans didn't care what New Yorkers thought, but that the events of 9-11 had "made them Americans again."

Think about that line for a second. Here is a Republican coming from the state that led the secession movement in the South, starting with John Calhoun. The state that started the Civil War to defend slavery. The state that gave the nation the racist Strom Thurmond. And he has the gall to imply that New Yorkers aren't "real Americans?"

I am so tired of this kind of crap from Southerners. Just because you like to brag about how pro-American you are doesn't change the fact that many Southerners are still pissed off about losing the Civil War. Are still pissed off about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and are really pissed off that an African-American is President.

Here's some suggestions for such Southerners: 1. Stop putting Confederate flag bumper stickers on your cars and trucks; 2. Stop whining about how you are entitled to celebrate the culture of White America, and that flying the Confederate flag is "not about the hate, but about the heritage." Stop implying that Americans who don't agree with you are somehow less American than you are.

Medina County Foreclosure Rates Continue to Climb

2009-04-25T03:17:00.001-04:00

Judge James L. Kimbler reports that home foreclosures continued to climb during the first quarter of 2009 as compared to the first quarter of 2008. In the first quarter of 2008, there were 131 foreclosure cases assigned to Judge Kimbler's docket. In the first quarter of 2009, that number climbed to 149.

Although January of 2009 saw fewer foreclosure cases assigned to Judge Kimbler's docket than January of 2008, the other two months of the first quarter both saw more foreclosure cases assigned. In January of 2008, the number of foreclosures assigned to Judge Kimbler's docket was 44, while in January of 2009, the number of such cases was 43. In February and March of 2008, the numbers were 39 and 48 respectively while in 2009 the numbers for the same month were 45 and 61.

Throughts on "Tea Party" in Medina Public Square by a Dem Attendee

2009-04-24T11:40:00.004-04:00

The following is a letter to the editor of Medina County Common Sense. Medina County Common Sense is an online newspaper that can be read at www.medinacountycommonsense.com.

After witnessing the results of decades of tax cuts for the rich and stagnant wages for most employees as well as the crippling growth of government and private debt, we can say: Been there and done that.

Between 1979 and 2003 according to the Congressional Research Service, the income from wealth for the top 1% (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains) has risen from 37.8% of the pie to 57.5%. Today, it is clearly even higher. If that is not the definition of greed what is?

Wealth is being redistributed upwards in America, especially as the government with an employer-biased National Labor Relations Board undercut the ability of American workers to bargain collectively. We live in a society that rewards wealth and punishes work. A society created by the GOP and corporate Democrats.

When GOP officials talk of a free market economy they are talking about a government of, by and for the rich. They love the phrase "free market" because it conjures up pictures of the inevitable flow of the tides as the moon tugs on us. The fact is that a "free market" economy is an economy run by the financial sector for its ends: to create asset bubbles and dept dependency.

With each passing year Americans have and less ownership of their homes in the "loanership" society they are creating. For the first time they now own less than half their homes. In other words, the banks and the financial class now own more and more of our homes. Of course, personal debt is also at a record high.

The FIRE (Financial, Insurance, Real Estate) sector does not create real jobs in a real economy. Their jobs are strictly at the gaming tables of Credit Default Swaps and derivatives based on other dervatives based on other derivatives. (These three level gambling games actually exist! See A Demon of Our Design by Richard Bookstaber for the details.)

Successful economies are not Cuba's nor the recent American debacle. They are mixed economies where business and government each play an important - and necessary - role. I am a progressive who believe in market forces. I am also a progressive who sees hugely efficient, well-run economicl safety nets like Social Security and Medicare.

Unfortunately, the brand of extremism on display at the TEA rally has little concern for those safety nets, although I did see one sign:"Some help, yes, entitlements, No." While I would love to have had a discussion with the sign-holder about which programs to abolish, which people we should allow to suffer and die, I have learned a lesson. Most of these nice, well-meaning people are clueless as to what their slogans actually mean in practice.

Why do you think that their leaders almost never mention specific safety net programs? Could it be because they would be exposed as un-Christian, un-patriotic Americans? When these people are asked John Oliver (British correspondent for the Daily Show) type follow up questions they become agitated and frequently angry to the point of becoming violent. Clearly, many of the people at the rally were anxious about our economic times. Sadly, almost pathetically, they didn't recognize their own party's hand in all this.

This was not a meeting to assign accountablity for decades of failed GOP-plutocratic propaganda parading as policy. It was time to lambast an administration which has still not reached 100 days.

Incidentally, there are plenty of reasons to lacerate President Obama for continuing Bush's TARP program as Paul Krugman, James Galbraith and Michael Hudson and lots of other great Ph.D. economists do. But to scream at this administration for lowering taxes on nearly everyone in the crowd and trying to stimulate the economy seemed surrealistic.

But sadly, the rally was real. The puppet-masters in America's board rooms had summoned them to their grassroots-fabrication knowing of their inchoate anxieties about nearly everything - and they had come.

About the market speakers called "free." God did not make the capital gains tax 15% which is less than the Social Security and Medicare taxes on the first dollars every American earns. The capital gains tax and the lowering of the top marginal rates from 91% to the 30s did not occur because of planetary forces. It occured because the rich, the contributor class, made it happen with their minions in Congress - including plenty of corporate Dems. Their Gollumesque cries of "My precious, my precious, it's all mine" simply don't mesh with "We the people in order to form a more perfect society do hereby...." They just don't get it that we are our brother's keeper, that what happens to the least of us should matter to all of us philosophy and policies.

Do they not hear the gospel messages on Sunday? They don't even have a clue of how to answer this simple question: How is it that we are the only industrial society on earth not to have national health care. Perhaps because they haven't suffered from a lack of health care (I assume) the problem simply doesn't exist. They live in the bubble of Medina and the rest of the world is just so remote - and frequently - distasteful.

Incidentally, I did see a sign about "Government Greed" at the rally but none about the private greed mentioned over 200 times in the Bible. Nothing about a hedge funds manager earning $3.7 billion in a year and paying a lower tax rate, for most of it, than those who clean our bedpans.

It was odd that a crowd that clearly believes in personal responsibilty and working hard (I assume) helps a political party who policies punish work and reward wealth. Of course they try to sell the myth that if you tax the rich they will stop creating jobs. Did you know that the rich are a fragile group? That when we increase their taxes from 35 to 39% they become so disheartened and disconsolate they shut down their business. If they can't keep most of their money they simply see no reason to go on. If they make another $30 million and only keep $17, there is clearly no incentive to continue.
Remember, however, that the poor are very different than the rich: they need to be prodded to work. If we keep the minimum wage low, their hunger and physical needs will help "motivate" them to work.

Of course, rally speakers I heard said nothing about torture, aggressive wars, military waste, Social Security - especially private accounts, national health care, unemployment insurance, skyrocketing tuition costs for state schools. the budget problems of all local governments, the repeal of Glass-Steagall or the killing of the financial cops on Wall Street and Washington, what happened over the last eight years to cause this collapsel. And I heard nothing about the class warfare waged agains the middle class for decades. In fact, I don't believe I heard about anything good that taxes produce.

Nothing about the roads that got them there, the Park where they held the rally, the police protection, the education that some of them received.I never heard President Franklin Delano Roosevelt mentioned. The other Democratic president who had to save the "banksters" from their wretched self-dealing. A "socialist" who clearly saved capitalism and put our economy on a sound track for over 50 years until his reforms were unraveled by the money changers. Remember that FDR was the other Democratic president they called a fascist and socialist.

It would have been wonderful to hear someone recite part of FDR's first inaugural:
"The money changers have fled their high seat in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of our restoration lies in the extent to which we appy social values more noble than mere monetary profit."

Unfortunately, as one observer wrote, the money changers returned to Washington the following day on March 5, 1933. And so it was on January 21, 2009. And clearly it is up to Democrats to pressure our president to reject the advice of the Rubins, Geithners and Summers. They and the GOP Federal Reserve (See James Galbraith's research on how the Fed manipulates interest rates for GOP candidates) should be some of the last people we listen to. Saving THEIR economic system is not the same as saving a just economic system. The system (banks) they are putting on life support is one that has literally robbed American families of the fruits of their labors. It is time for an economy (and, of course, tax policy) that actually works to keep capitalism vibrant and not to preserve the privileges of the few.

Parenthetical: One well-intentioned minister talked of our Christian founders like Thomas Jefferson. They also had a Jefferson banner attached to the Gazebo. I guess he never heard of Jefferson's redacted bible. Redacted as in taking out all the miracles and leaving in the social message.

There were good and serious people at the rally who believe in self-reliance and that is a good thing. The problem is that these same people do not believe in self-reliance when bad things happen to them. They are more than happy that Social Security disability exists. Self-reliance is great when you are healthy because you can, with hard work, acquire money. But when the trials of Job come, you wish to live in a more compassionate society than the one the rally-holders envision. One with national health care.Some of the beliefs of the rally holders and GOP apologists in the media like Charlie Gibson are simply wrong.

Recently, the Plain Dealer ran an op-ed piece that said: "When taxes rise, revenues fall." Many apparently believe, despite Congressional Budget Office (CBO) evidence to the contrary, that less means more.. The "evidence" that cutting taxes actually increases them has a thin underpinning. When capital gains taxes were cut, revenue did go up for a while. Over time, of course, revenue drops. That why the non-partisan CBO indicates significant capital gains tax losses from permanently cutting the tax rate on them.

Why do you think that capital gains taxes did increase after a tax cut - at least for a short period? The CBO and others have pointed out the obvious: people rushed to realize their capital gains when they had the break. Capital gains only occur when you decide to take them. The timing is in your hands when to sell your stocks or other appreciated asset. It was simply a matter of timing and that over time, the Treasury would lose money.

Incidentally, I do believe taxes can be so high that people struggle to evade them with tax shelters etc. That is not the case when you are making small changes in the 30 percent area and not returning the top rates to the 90+%.

The Greed Party has only one issue left: taxes. After doing their best to destroy capitalism and our standing in the world no one listens to them about much of anything else. Their problem though is this syllogism they make: 1) The rich pay almost all the taxes 2) We must lower taxes

Conclusion: The only possible conclusion is that the TEA party was all about lowering taxes on the rich. That is a fair plutocratic proposition but it is rejected by many of the rich as well as the vast majority of the population. Of course, the vast bulk of the people at the TEA party (I attended and took copious notes) had no clue that they were working against not just the economic interests of consumer and industrial capitalism but against their own narrow economic self interests.

That in a society where over 70% of GDP is consumer spending that consumers (the middle class) must have enough to spend. They had merely been summoned by the economic elites to do their work, just as they do in their companies: for no or substandard wages.

At the end of the rally state representative William Batchelder III spoke. Clearly, the organizer and thinker behind the rally spoke last. The one with personal connections to Newt and other aspiring Republicans on the national stage. The chair person of the Ohio 1976 and 1980 Ohio Steering Committee for Ronald Reagan. As he spoke you recognized that he was facile, glib, skillful. I would guess he had 30 IQ points on the other speakers and 50 on the median score in the audience.

He made the point that the rally was not partisan and made a perfunctory attack on George W. Bush for not vetoing some spending bills.His most memorable line was: " “The answer to our economic problems will come from the private sector.”

First, I thought of George Washington's "doctors" applying more leeches to him on his deathbed. Clearly, the Ohio representative believed that we did not allow the banksters enough freedom to loot and pillage. Then I though of a more apt analogy for our sinking economy: the Exon Valdes.

There was the best and brightest of the Medina Republican Party standing on the bridge of the Valdes with Captain Joseph Hazelwood (George W. Bush) yelling: "Maintain course. Full speed ahead. Things are fine"Things are not fine and until the GOP explains the mistakes they had a hand in they will have zero credibility with the American voter.

Signed:

A Democratic rally attendee

Reader Submission: How to Respond to GOP Attacks on FDR

2009-02-23T15:48:00.001-05:00

As everyone has noticed, the GOP is mounting an ongoing offensive against FDR. Amity Schlaes in the Wall Street Journal and a host of others hell-bent on revising history are using false data about GDP and employment growth in order to claim that FDR not only failed to ameliorate the effects of the Great Depression but in fact either caused it or made it worse.

Their purpose is two-fold. First and foremost, they want to undermine support for President Obama's various initiatives to repair the damage done to our economy under Republican rule in the hope that they can keep the economy weak enough to hasten the GOP's return to power in 2010. And, second, they want to undermine FDR's legacy of having created a strong social safety net in the hope that they can head off any effort by Democrats to strengthen that safety net by new programs like national health insurance.

Because these GOPer's seem to have a lot of time on their hands since their trouncing last fall, because an idle mind is the devil's workshop, and because this very idleness may therefore be one of the causes of these attacks, it seems to me that an additional way to defend FDR and the truth about his record (apart from the excellent defenses already being mounted by DeLong and Krugman) is to create some new work for the GOP. What I am suggesting, of course, is that we open a new front in this rhetorical war they have started by forcing the Republicans to begin expending serious energy on defending a hero of their own.

You guessed it—I am talking about an effort on the part of the progressive blogosphere to remind Americans of the manifold deficiencies of Ronald Reagan. As I envision it, our effort would take the form of an essay contest sponsored by one of the progressive blogs, with the essayists being tasked with writing short, factual, and footnoted essays (with links to primary source material counting for bonus points) debunking the myth of Ronald Reagan as some sort of above-average president. The winning essays could then be used as the basis for special instructional units on the Reagan presidency to be used by our nation's high school teachers.

If one of the national blogs decides to sponsor this contest, I wish to stake my claim to the subject of Reagan's sorry record in combating terrorism. I will start by discussing Osama bin Laden, who cited Reagan's failure to have responded to the terrorist bombing of the 241 American servicemen in Lebanon in 1983 as having led him to believe that America had grown soft. I will then discuss Reagan's having traded TOW missiles for American hostages in the mid-80's, which led, of course, to the taking of additional hostages by the terrorists with whom he was trading. And I will finish with a discussion of Libya’s having bombed Pan Am 103 out of the sky over Scotland during the final month of Reagan's presidency (it happened on December 21, 1988 and was a grisly sort of going-away present to Reagan).

Please let me know when the contest begins.

Mainstreet

MCDAC Paper Goes Digital

2009-02-03T20:27:00.002-05:00

The Medina County Democratic Action Committee has decided to put its newspaper, Common Sense, online. The website can be seen at www.medinacountycommonsense.com. Our plan is to recruit citizen journalists who can cover local government in Medina County as well as other Medina County events. We are also looking for writers who want to submit opinion columns to us. Let us know what you think. Please send comments to joycekimbler@medinacountydemocraticactioncommittee.org.

Way to go, Joe!

2009-02-03T16:55:00.002-05:00

Republican Brunswick City Ward 3 Councilman Joe Delsanter has proposed that two of the three Brunswick City Council-at-Large be eliminated. His rationale is that this would save about $22,000 to $24.000 per year. This, of course, is a mere drop in the bucket for a city that has been operating with a deficit since 2001.

This proposal would involve amending the charter of the city of Brunswick. If this proposal were to come to fruition, it would necessitate a charter amendment on the ballot. The deadline set by the Secretary of State for the upcoming May 5th election is February 19th. This would give council sixteen days to complete this action in order to effectuate change this year.

Currently, the city of Brunswick has four ward councilmen and three at-large councilmen. The At-Large Council members represent the entire city, not just a ward. They provide a sort of checks and balance system within the council.

Some cities of similar size, i.e. Westerville, Oh, have a city council comprised of seven at-large members. A council of all at-large members ( perhaps five?) would be a more logical alternative than to eliminate two of the three at-large positions and keep the ward council members. The people of Brunswick would continue to be fully represented. Presently, if your ward councilman is not responsive, you still have the at-large council members. Of course, this would also necessitate a charter amendment.

Is Republican Mr. Delsanter’s stance a knee-jerk reaction to the city’s budget problems? Why hasn’t council done more cost cutting in the past? Is this a myopic glance at the overall budget deficit picture?

Or is his proposal an attempt to eliminate some people who just aren’t “on the same page” as Republican Mr. Delsanter? His proposed change would make life a lot easier for a city council that seems to be constantly embroiled in battles. Is he afraid of the outcome of the 2009 election? It appears that there is more to this proposal than he wants us to believe.

"Dems Suck"-Insightful Political Comment from a Republican

2009-02-02T18:07:00.002-05:00

This morning a person who is apparently a Republican from the Columbus area left a comment on our post about the Ohio House Republicans wanting to cut taxes on rich people. His insightful comment was "Dems suck." Now, you have to realize that this passes for learned political commentary among Republicans. They believe that calling names is the same as actually making arguments. They believe that insulting your political opponents is the same as actually advancing policies that help America.

This attitude is why they have, since 2006, lost control of the Ohio Governor's office, a U.S. Senator from Ohio, the Ohio House of Representatives, and four congressional seats. Not to mention, of course, the Ohio Attorney General's office, the Ohio Treasurer's office, and the Ohio Secretary of State's office.

So, to our GOP commentator, keep bringing that good old Republican attitude to Ohio. It works for us.

Why Did Greenspan Allow Stock and Real Estate Bubbles?

2009-02-01T09:33:00.002-05:00

A money manager, Bill Fleckenstein, co-authored a book titled Greenspan's Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve. (You can read a review here.) In the book, he makes a pretty convincing that Alan Greenspan contributed to the stock bubble of the 1990s and the real estate bubble of this decade by not taking appropriate actions. Actions like raising the interest rate in the 1990s; raising the amount that a stock purchaser had to deposit with a stock broker when buying on margin; and by allowing the creation of novel mortgage instruments.

They point out that the United States had gone from the stock market crash of 1929 to 1979 without a speculative bubble. Then, from 1980 to the present time, there have been three bubbles. One in real estate in the late 1980s that caused the collapse of the savings and loan industry, and the two mentioned above. All of which happened on Greenspan's watch.

The authors argue that a lot of the problems were caused by Greenspan's arrogance in thinking that he knew more than most people, by his belief that he was "the smartest guy in the room." There could be other reasons, however. Could it be that Greenspan was pursuing policies that he thought would benefit the presidents who appointed him?

While George H.W. Bush lost his re-election in 1992, both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush won re-election. In both administrations, however, toward the end of their second terms, financial clouds loomed on the horizon, although obviously much worse in Bush's case than in Clinton's.

In any event, no matter what his motivations, Fleckenstein and his co-author make a compelling case that far from being a good thing, Greenspan's time at the Federal Reserve had very bad consequences for most Americans.

Kasich, House Republicans Want to "Recharge Ohio" by Cutting Taxes on Rich People

2009-01-31T07:17:00.005-05:00

Here is an interesting quote from a Cleveland Plain Dealer article:

Proposals to offer cuts to the state's estate tax as well as capital gains tax are being hashed out behind the scenes by Republican state lawmakers, House Minority Leader Bill Batchelder, a Medina Republican, acknowledged this week.

Ohio is now in a situation where there is a huge shortfall in the state's revenues at a time when ordinary Ohioans are needing more and more government assistance. A large reason for the state's budgetary problems was the reckless tax cuts that the Republicans passed in 2005. Those tax cuts were targeted toward the rich. Now, with Ohio facing a multi-billion dollar shortfall, Republicans want even more tax cuts for the wealthy.

The Republican rationale for the tax cuts is that supposedly rich people are fleeing the state. Well here are some questions for the House Republicans:

1. How many rich people are fleeing the state because of the state's estate and capital gains taxes as opposed to fleeing the state for other reasons?

2. How many of those that are "fleeing the state" will stay if these tax cuts are passed"

3. What is the effect on the state's revenues if this proposal passes?

4. How will the Republicans make up any revenue loss?

How much do you want to bet that the House Republicans won't be able to provide answers to those questions?

Medina County Vote Total Up in 2008 from 2004

2009-01-28T15:07:00.003-05:00

The official count of the ballots cast in Medina County for the 2008 general election shows that 90,652 voters voted, which represented a turnout of 70.76%. In 2004, the number of voters in the general election in Medina County was 86,016, which represented 72.73% of registered voters.

In the 2004 general election, Bush received 48,196 votes and Kerry received 36,272 votes. In the 2008 general election, McCain received 48,189 and Obama received 40,924. Those figures would seem to indicate that nearly all of Medina County's growth in voters were Obama supporters.

Sutton Votes to Send Ledbetter Bill to President Obama

2009-01-28T07:37:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON , D.C. – On January 27, 2009, Congresswoman Betty Sutton (D-OH) voted in favor of S. 181 the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This legislation reverses the May 2007 Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber, which made it substantially more difficult for Americans to pursue pay discrimination claims. Congresswoman Sutton was an original co-sponsor of H.R. 11, the underlying House legislation. With Congresswoman Sutton’s strong support, S.181 passed the House by a margin of 250 to 177. The bill now goes to the desk of President Barack Obama, who has indicated he will sign it into law. Congresswoman Sutton released the following statement:

“Today is a wonderful day for women and all workers across America . But while we celebrate the passage of this critical legislation, it is disheartening that in this day and age, workers still face pay discrimination. It has been nearly 45 years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and yet pay discrimination still exists. By passing this legislation we are ensuring that workers will be able to take action against companies that discriminate against them.

While this legislation is in honor of Lilly Ledbetter and her brave fight for equal pay, it is also dedicated to all the workers across our country who have been the victims of pay discrimination. With every discriminatory paycheck, workers receive less than they deserve, hurting their families and robbing their pensions.

When the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is signed into law, it will overturn the unjust Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber. The Court held that Lilly Ledbetter would have had to have filed a complaint within 180 days of when her employer began years of discrimination against her - even though there was no way that she could have known that she was being discriminated against. This decision placed an unfair burden on workers, essentially protecting companies that discriminated against them.

With this law, a statute of limitations will no longer prevent workers from taking action against discriminatory employers. I am proud to support this important legislation for our country and I look forward to our President, Barack Obama, signing it into law.”

Click here to watch Congresswoman Sutton’s floor statement from when this legislation originally passed the House

Background Information:

Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly 20 years at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. She sued the company after learning that she was paid less then her male counterparts at the facility, despite having more experience than several of them. A jury found that her employer had unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that Ledbetter had waited too long to sue for pay discrimination, despite the fact that she filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as soon as she received an anonymous note alerting her to pay discrimination.

While Ledbetter filed her charge within 180 days of receiving discriminatory pay, the court ruled that since Ledbetter did not raise a claim within 180 days of the employer’s decision to discriminate against her, she could not receive any relief. Under this Supreme Court decision, employees in Ledbetter’s position would be forced to live with discriminatory paychecks for the rest of their careers.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act clarifies that every paycheck or other compensation resulting from an earlier discriminatory pay decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act. As long as workers file their charges within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, their charges would be considered timely. This was the law prior to the Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision.

Medina City has Millions in Bank, Why Isn't It Building New Courthouse?

2009-01-28T06:50:00.006-05:00

Here's an interesting story that appeared in the Medina County Gazette. According to this story, the City of Medina is carrying a balance of 34.1 million dollars, while the county is apparently losing revenue and threatening layoffs. So, given the fact that the City has a lot of money, and given the fact that the City insisted that the County build a new courthouse in downtown Medina, why isn't the City ponying up more money?

When the County Commissioners were considering moving the Domestic Relations and Juvenile Courts away from the square, there was an anguished outcry from downtown business interests. "You can't do that", they cried. "That will hurt our square." (For those of you who don't know downtown Medina it does have a very nice central park surrounded by a business district dominated by buildings done in an 1890s style. It is quite charming.)

So, the Board of County Commissioners re-examined their plans and decided to expand the present county courthouse. Of course, this meant that the already cramped parking situation had also to be addressed. The solution to the parking problem was to build a new parking garage. So, instead of building a new courthouse at a location where there would be enough room for parking, or instead of buying an existing structure on the square, (and there were such structures available), the County Commissioners are planning on building a new addition to the present courthouse, building a new parking deck, all at considerable expense and all while they are talking about laying off county employees.

Now, to be fair, the City of Medina, as well as the County Library, agreed to help pay for the cost of the parking deck, but, given the fact that it was downtown merchants who wanted the county courts to stay downtown, and given the fact that the City of Medina is apparently flush with cash, shouldn't the City had been asked to do more?

Maybe one reason why the City wasn't asked to do more is that both the City Mayor and the City Council President, as well as all three the County Commissioners are Republicans. So maybe the Commissioners weren't in the mood to do some tough negotiating with the City. Negotiating by telling the City to either pony up more money for the courthouse expansion, or the County was going to build a new courthouse at a location outside of Medina City limits. A location in the surrounding townships, and not only would there be a possibility of a loss of business revenue, but the City would also lose income tax revenue.

None of that was done, however, and while the City brags about its 34.1 million dollar balance, county employees worry about losing their jobs.

Republican Tax Cuts Force Strickland Administration to Seek Concessions from State Workers

2009-01-28T03:53:00.004-05:00

On January 17, 2009, the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article about the Strickland Administration seeking concessions from state workers that are represented by unions. The article detailed that the Administration was seeking a 5% pay cut, a 35 hour work week, and non-paid holidays. The article points out that the unions want to see what happens with the Federal stimulus package before committing to this proposal. What is significant, though, is that they aren't rejecting it out of hand.

We have two thoughts about this proposal, which, for the record, we don't like, but understand that it may need to be done. The first thought is that only an Administration with ties to labor unions could make this proposal and have any chance of it being accepted by state employee unions.

The reason why is that a Republican administration, say like the Bob Taft Administration, would have no credibility with state workers. It would be seen by the unions as an attempt to use the state's budget problems as a way to hurt unions. Since the Strickland Administration has credibility with unions as being supportive of their aims, this idea won't be seen as having a hidden agenda.

Our second thought is that this is another example of Republican tax breaks helping the rich while screwing workers. Time and time again Republicans pass tax breaks because they will supposedly help grow the economy. Jonathon Chiat
refers to this as "The Big Con" in one of his books. Why is it a big con? Because there is no evidence that cutting taxes grows the economy. There is, however, plenty of evidence that cutting taxes leads to government deficits and cutting government programs.

So, in Ohio, in 2005, the Republican General Assembly and Governor Bob "I don't have a clue" Taft team up to pass a 20% tax cut spread over several years. This leads to huge shortfalls in the state's revenues, just in time for the Bush Depression, or, to be fair, perhaps, the Bush Great Recession, when demand for government programs increases substantially.

The bottom line: Like the state unions we see the necessity for what the Strickland Administration is doing, but we don't have to like it.

Medina County's Republican Commissioners Talk Layoffs, Raise Sewer Rates, and Want to Build a New Courthouse

2009-01-27T08:50:00.003-05:00

In the last few weeks, the Medina County Board of Commissioners, which has three Republicans and no Democrats, has announced that it is considering laying off county workers, raised sewer rates for Medina County residents using the county-run sewer system, and still wants to build a new courthouse. All four judges in the present county courthouse, who presumably would benefit by building this new courthouse, signed a letter urging the Commissioners to delay the construction because of the bad economy. Yet, the County Commissioners persist in going ahead with the construction.

Now, to be fair, one of the County Commissioners, Pat Geissman, has come out against building the new courthouse, at least at this time. She had a very good column in the Medina County Gazette spelling out her position. Interestingly, the other two Republican Commissioners, Steve Hambley and Sharon Ray, personally paid for an ad that told Gazette readers that they supported the new courthouse construction, but, unlike Geissman's column, didn't really give any reasons for their position other than to make statements with no analysis of why the statements were factually accurate.

Complicating the situation for the Commissioners is that a Republican Judge, John Lohn, has ordered the Board to fund his court at a certain level. If Lohn is successful in this effort, it could lead to other county officials seeking court orders to fund mandated services. All in all, it is a very interesting time in Medina County.

PD's Choice of NCB Economist to be on Panel seems Strange

2009-01-26T07:31:00.002-05:00

Is it just us, or does seem strange to other people? The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a panel of economists from the area who it uses to forecast how things are going to go economically in the region. The PD ran an article on Sunday using this panel. One of the panel members is the chief economist from National City Bank, you know, the bank that just got sold to a Pittsburgh bank because it lost millions of dollars on bad loans. The bank that couldn't get Federal TARP funds. The bank whose demise may cost literally thousands of Ohioans their jobs.

Now this guy may be a very good economist, and may make good predictions, but using someone from a bank that just had to be sold because of bad decisions strikes us as strange. Of course, this is nothing new for the media.

You can look at any Sunday talking-heads show and see people who were wrong about the Iraq War, wrong about the effects of Bush's reckless tax cuts regarding federal deficits, and wrong about the economy chatting it up like nothing ever happen. Meanwhile, people who were right about these issues aren't represented on such shows nearly as often.

The media has developed cozy relationships with so-called "experts" and uses them regardless of whether they are right or wrong. While such a practice is great for the "experts", and probably produces great friendships between the media representatives and the "experts", it doesn't do a thing for the media's credibility.

Barack Obama Lays It on the Line for the GOP

2009-01-24T12:35:00.003-05:00

According to this article that appeared in the New York Post, when President Barack Obama met with Republicans, he was very candid with them. Among the highlights: He told them that they can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh if they want to work with the Democrats in Congress and the new Administration; he reminded them that he won'; and he told them that he would "trump" them with his victory if they opposed his policies.

Here are some quotes from the article linked to above:

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: "I won," according to aides briefed on the meeting.
"I will trump you on that."

Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.

Here's a difference between Obama and Bush. At heart, Bush was inherently not self-confident, so he had to bluster and bully to make up for his lack of self-confidence. At heart, Barack Obama is extremely self-confident, so he doesn't feel any need to bluster and bully. Therefore, he can deliver messages such as those quoted above without coming off as being mean or rude. It is, all in all, a very important character trait.

Examples of Republican Incompetence at Three Levels of Government

2009-01-24T12:06:00.003-05:00

Examples of Republican incompetence at the national level: the Iraq War based on false premises, response to Hurricane Katrina, federal deficits, and lack of oversight of the banking industry.

Example of Republican incompetence at the state level: cutting income tax rates by 21% over four years jeopardizing the state's finances.

Examples of Republican incompetence at the local level in Medina County : building a new courthouse while threatening the laying off county employees resulting in a Republican judge issuing a court order against an all Republican Board of County Commissioners.

Bushies Not Coping Well With GOP Defeat

2009-01-24T06:36:00.004-05:00

From complaining about the tone of Obama's inaugural address to complaining about the stimulus bill not including their ideas, Bushies seem to be having trouble with one overriding fact: The Republicans lost and Democrats won. Get ready for Republicans' attempts to discredit Obama's win and insist that their policies haven't been repudiated by the American people.

Here's how one Republican put it during the early part of this decade, before Bubble-Boy had screwed up the Iraq War, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and the American economy: "Elections have consequences." Well, he was right and one of those consequences is that the winners get to set the agenda for their term.

Having lost control of two of the three branches of government, the Republicans are in for a rough ride. Probably the best thing they can hope for is that the economy doesn't improve and Democrats suffer electoral defeats in the 2010 and 2012 elections. If the economy does improve, however, they are in for a long period in the wilderness.

Of course, their own incompetence brought this on their fate. Americans want government to be competent and Republicans have always insisted that they are much more competent than Democrats. Well, that myth, like so many others, was destroyed by Bush and his merry wrecking crew.

Maybe if they had put some distance between themselves and BB during BB's tenure in office, they wouldn't have been routed in two consecutive national elections. But they didn't and they were. As mentioned above, in America, elections do have consequences.

Greater Medina Chamber of Commerce Sponsors Candidate Training

2009-01-22T18:52:00.005-05:00

This appears on the website of the Greater Medina Chamber of Commerce:

ARE YOU INTERESTED IN RUNNING FOR PUBLIC OFFICE?
INFORMATION SESSION FOR POTENTIAL CANDIDATES

The Greater Medina Chamber of Commerce will host an Information Session for anyone in the County who would like more information about running for public office, whether as a candidate or to support or work on an election campaign. The one-hour meeting will be held on Wednesday, January 28, starting at 8:00 a.m. at the Medina Community Recreation Center.

In announcing the program, Greater Medina Chamber of Commerce President Debra Lynn-Schmitz pointed out that this is a non-partisan program. “Attendees do not have identify themselves or what position they are considering,” said Lynn-Schmitz. “We simply want to provide an opportunity to learn more for anyone who might be interested in public service, regardless of their political affiliation or the office in which they are interested.”

Medina County Commissioner Sharon Ray will be on hand for a brief presentation explaining what a potential candidate should consider. Ray will also be available for a Question and Answer session at the end of the meeting.

( Editor's Note: Even though the listed speakers are Republicans, we think that local Dems running for office in 2009 should attend this event. You can register online by going here.)

Brown Calls for Stimulus Funds to be Allocated by Unemployment & Foreclosure Rates

2009-01-22T18:47:00.001-05:00

January 16, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) today called on his colleagues to allocate economic recovery funds to states based on unemployment and foreclosure rates. In a letter to Senate leadership, Brown called for relief funds to be targeted to states like Ohio that have been disproportionately suffering from the economic downturn.

“Just as the recession has disproportionately affected certain industries, so too have certain states felt this downturn more acutely than others,” wrote Brown in a letter to Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). “In Ohio, this is evidenced by above-average unemployment and home foreclosure rates, swelling jobless rolls, increased reliance on the food stamp program, and a number of other economic indicators. Unfortunately, these problems are not limited to our state.”

Ohio is among the states hardest hit by the current recession. Since 2000, the state has lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs. The state’s unemployment rate of 7.3 percent is the tenth highest in the nation. Ohio’s foreclosure rate is the tenth highest in the nation, and significant water and sewer infrastructure needs—including $11.6 billion in documented clean water needs and $6.3 billion in unmet sewage upgrade costs.

In December, Brown sent a letter to President-elect Barack Obama advocating for specific priorities to be included in the final bill. The letter also was sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

In the letter today, Brown outlined how stimulus funds could be most effectively allocated to alleviate the economic downturn. The letter was also signed by Senator George V. Voinovich (R-OH).

“Factors like unemployment and foreclosure rates should be given great weight as stimulus funding is determined,” the letter continued. “The effects of the economic crisis have been uneven across the country. To be effective, our nation’s economic stimulus strategy should reflect this reality.”

New Republican Group Formed in Medina County

2009-01-22T18:34:00.004-05:00

There is a new Republican group active in Medina County. It is called Recharge Medina County. Its website can be viewed here. There are two things that are interesting about this group.

The first is that it doesn't use the word "Republican" in its title. We wonder if that is because the word Republican has become toxic, even here in reliably red Medina County.

The second is that since the Republicans have all three county commissioner seats, control the mayor's office of all three cities in Medina County, and have a majority of elected officials at the local and county level, what exactly are they recharging? Their own party? Medina County?

To recharge something implies that it is dead, like recharging a battery. If there is no life in Medina County government, then maybe the solution isn't to re-elect more Republican, maybe the solution is to elect a real difference, IE, Democrats. Just a thought.

Reader Submission: Shakira, Stevie Wonder, & Usher at Obama Concert

2009-01-21T13:37:00.002-05:00

One of our readers sent us the link to this video from the Obama Pre-Inauguration Concert held this last weekend.

"Free at Last, Free at Last, God Almighty We are Free at Last"

2009-01-20T07:37:00.003-05:00

After eight long years the national nightmare that was the George W. Bush Administration ends today. Eight years of trashing this nation's values, its government, its reputation, its financial future, and its legacy. Eight years of policies deliberately designed to divide Americans in the pursuit of political power. Eight years of turning our government over to the moneychangers who invaded the people's temple.

The damage done by Bubble-Boy and his minions will take years to undo, but the process starts today. We have freed ourselves from the pettiness, the nastiness, the meanness, the vindictiveness of a self-indulged, vain man who has gone through life having the way cleared for him.

Further, the election of Barack Obama wasn't just about getting rid of Bushism, as worthy a goal as that was, it was about showing the world that the best things about America haven't been lost. Things like our idealism, our commitment to democratic values, and our generosity of spirit. This is indeed the dawning of a new day in America.

Reader Submission: Goodbye to Bush

2009-01-19T08:37:00.002-05:00

Editor's Note: The following is a submission from one of our readers.

Good riddance George Bush. Your reign of terror may be ended, but the effect of your evildoing will last as it shapes your legacy into a history lesson that will be incorporated into my grandchildren’s adult lives and into what was supposed to be my retirement. Your legacy will be fear.

The America you are leaving behind contains a terrified shivering mass of people who are now so afraid to spend whatever money they do have that our economy is frozen and teetering on the brink ofGreat Depression 2.0.

A country filled with citizens so frightened that they have agreed to be publicly searched before they get on an airplane or enter a County Courthouse - a people so terrified that they allowed their Government to order the torture of fellow human beings and so fearful that they allowed fundamental aspects of their judicial system to be violated when there were clear absolute directives preventing that very action by the founding fathers.

A Government so terrified of further job losses that they are throwing bailout money at every company that asks for it when we all know it represents a tax burden that our grandchildren will be paying for long after these specific saved jobs are gone.

George Bush will never feel the intrusive hand of a pre-boarding pat-down security search or a cold chill of fear when he looks at his checkbook or credit card balance, but he may fear a future where there is an unprecedented and very powerful multinational effort to try George Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes.

I hope by then America will have overcome its national petrifaction and has the courage to do the morally right thing when the extradition requests are made.

John Galish

Sutton Supports Providing Health Coverage for 11 Million American Children

2009-01-17T18:01:00.005-05:00

Legislation will cover an additional 20,000 children in the State of Ohio
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Congresswoman Betty Sutton spoke on the floor of the House of Representatives in support of H.R. 2, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act. This legislation renews and improves SCHIP, providing health care coverage for 11 million children across the Nation. Congresswoman Sutton is an original co-sponsor of H.R. 2 and with her strong support this legislation passed the House by a margin of 289 to139. Congresswoman Sutton released the following statement:
"This legislation is long overdue for our nation's children. And I want to share a story about a girl from my district that puts this issue all into perspective.
I met Rose and her mother at an event one weekend back in my district in Ohio. I will never forget the moment when her mom introduced her to me. She looked up at me full of hope and in a moment, she reached out and she hugged me. After Rose walked away her mom explained to me that her daughter had cancer and was preparing for a bone marrow transplant. Before I could even digest what their family was going through, Dawn, her mother said:
"When are you guys going to pass SCHIP? Because Rose has insurance, but there are a lot of kids in this country who don't. And they deserve the same opportunity for a future.
And Dawn was right. Nearly 9 millions children in this country do not have health insurance. These kids should have the same opportunity to get the healthcare that they need. In the midst of fighting cancer with her daughter, Dawn found the courage and compassion to look beyond her struggle, to stand up for kids across this nation without health insurance.
I share this story because today we have the opportunity to look beyond all differences to finally pass this legislation. The bill before us allows an additional 4 million children across the country - which includes 20,000 children in Ohio - to obtain health insurance.
And the urgency could not be more clear. With an ailing economy, the population of uninsured is growing. And we know that a one percent increase in unemployment is projected to increase the number of uninsured by 1.1 million. In these difficult economic times, the least we can do is make sure that our children have access to the healthcare they deserve.
I am pleased to report that Rose has received her bone marrow transplant, and her eyes and her future are bright. Our children are our future and every child deserves the kind of care that Rose received. This is why I cannot stress enough the importance of passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this critical and essential legislation."
Click here to view Congresswoman Sutton's floor statement
Background Information:
The State Children's Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP) was created in 1997 to provide health care coverage for children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance. It has proven to be a successful and cost-effective program for providing health care to our nation's children.
H.R. 2 renews and improves SCHIP, providing health care coverage for a total of 11 million children. It preserves coverage for the 7 million children currently covered by SCHIP and extends coverage to 4 million uninsured children who are currently eligible for, but not enrolled in, SCHIP and Medicaid. More than 230,000 children in Ohio are currently covered by SCHIP and today's legislation will allow 20,000 more children to obtain coverage.
H.R. 2 reauthorizes SCHIP for four and a half years, through Fiscal Year 2013.
Contact: Erin Donar at 202-225-3401 or Erin.Donar@mail.house.gov

Senate Supports Cloture in Fair Pay Act

2009-01-15T22:07:00.002-05:00

On Thursday, Jan. 15, 2009, considered the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. There was a motion to invoke cloture and cut off debate. The vote was 72 to cut off debate and 23 to allow debate to continue. Fourteen Republicans voted for the motion and all the votes not to cut off debate came from Republicans. The question is whether the change in the Presidency led to 14 Rs deciding to vote for cloture on this legislation?

If you look at what states the Senators who voted against cloture came from, a pattern emerges. Only two Senators who voted against cloture came from states carried by Obama. On the other hand, seven Republicans who voted in favor of cloture came from states that Obama carried. Those seven Rs include both Republican Senators from Maine, one from North Carolina, one from Florida and Ohio's own George Voinovich.

Although this vote may not get the attention that the Senate's refusal to block the second part of the bank bailout, it is a good sign that progressive legislation won't always be blocked by Republican filibusters. Republican Senators have seen their ranks decimated in the 2006 and 2007 elections. Not all of them want to join the ranks of their fellow elephants.

Voinovich Only Shows Guts Where Dems Are Involved

2009-01-15T07:45:00.002-05:00

We were never wild about the choice of Tim Geithner for Treasury Secretary. His background seemed to be that of a person too close to the financial services industry to suit us. One of the big problems in the financial services industries is that the people who run it are too infatuated with their own brilliance to suit us. They also possess an arrogance that only comes from being able to control huge sums of money that others have earned. They seem to think that the rules don't apply to them.

The revelation that Geither didn't pay all his taxes only reinforces our opinion. He comes across as a guy who believes that he the rules don't apply to him. So if his nomination was defeated, we wouldn't be heartbroken.

Having said that, however, we find the attacks on him by Republicans like George Voinovich to be just a tad off putting. When the Bushies were lying about weapons of mass destruction, allowing Americans to die after Hurricane Katrina, passing tax cuts that plunged us into huge deficits, where was Voinovich?

As a member of Bush's own party, his criticisms would have carried some weight. Yet, while he was somewhat critical of Bush's tax cuts, he voted for them. He voted for the war in Iraq and voted against resolutions to end the war. He was a typical Republican "moderate" voicing concerns about Bubble-Boy's policies, but, in the end, enabling him by voting his way in the House or Senate.

Now, though, that's there a Democrat in the White House, Georgie has found his voice. Now, he is unafraid to speak truth to power. Pardon us for not being impressed.

Senator Sherrod Brown's Statement on December Unemployment Figures

2009-01-11T11:37:00.001-05:00

January 9, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) today reported that payroll numbers in December fell by 533,000 – for the twelfth straight month of job loss in the country. The nation’s unemployment rate jumped to 7.2 percent, from 6.8 percent in November.

In response, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) issued the following statement:

“Today marks the twelfth straight month of job loss for our country. In just two months alone, more than one million Americans lost their jobs. We are not only talking about numbers or percentages when it comes to unemployment. We are talking about families with mortgages and health care costs.

Ohioans don’t need statistics to tell them about the state our economy. Just this week, our state’s unemployment system crashed. Thousands of Ohioans are in need of assistance, and we need to act now. I will continue to work to pass an economic recovery plan that creates jobs and invests in the middle class.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown Introduces Legislation to Aid Unemployed Get Health Insurance

2009-01-07T18:00:00.003-05:00

January 7, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) today announced legislation to improve health care access for unemployed Americans. The Coverage Continuity Act of 2009 would address gaps in access to health coverage that jeopardize the health and stability of unemployed workers and their families.

“Layoffs don’t just affect a family’s financial well-being—they can also affect a family’s physical well-being,” said Brown. “Now is not the time for more American workers to join the ranks of the uninsured. We need to make sure that families have access to affordable health care during this challenging time.”

Brown’s legislation modernizes and improves the health coverage tax credit (HCTC), which is currently available to workers who have lost manufacturing jobs due to increased international trade and to retirees whose pension plans have been taken over by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The refundable credit, which can be redeemed in advance of tax season, currently covers 65% of the cost of health insurance. Due in part to the low subsidy rate, many potential beneficiaries—more than 320,000 in 2005—do not participate in the program. Brown’s legislation increases the subsidy to 85 percent of the health insurance plan cost.

The legislation also temporarily extends the HCTC to individuals with COBRA coverage. COBRA allows unemployed workers and their families to maintain health insurance through their former employer for up to 18 months, as long as they pay the full cost of the premiums and an administrative fee. Due to the high cost of COBRA coverage, only about 20 percent of those eligible for COBRA make use of it during their period of unemployment. The Coverage Continuity Act of 2009 would provide a 12-month extension of COBRA coverage and the HCTC to prevent additional Americans from being uninsured.

The Coverage Continuity Act of 2009 would:

Increase the Health Coverage Tax credit (HCTC) to 85 percent for all current and future recipients beginning in calendar year 2009: The HCTC is an important mechanism for preventing displaced workers from losing health coverage. However, the low take-up rate for the HCTC can be improved by increasing the subsidy level. Brown’s legislation draws from bipartisan legislation introduced in the last Congress by Senator Max Baucus, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and increases the tax credit from covering 65 percent of the cost of insurance to covering 85 percent of that cost.

Expand HCTC eligibility to individuals currently enrolled in COBRA: Effective January 1, 2009, Brown’s legislation would allow individuals currently enrolled in COBRA to claim the HCTC for 18 months or until the end of their COBRA eligibility, whichever comes first.

Extend COBRA coverage period: Brown’s legislation allows individuals whose COBRA eligibility ends between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009 to be eligible for an additional 12 months of COBRA coverage as long as they remain continuously enrolled. They would be eligible for the HCTC for the duration of their COBRA coverage.

Seen on a Car in Texas

2009-01-07T07:43:00.003-05:00

These two stickers were seen on a foreign imported car in Texas. Those of us who are Democrats can only hope that the GOP makes Ken Blackwell its Chair and Sarah Palin its 2012 nominee.

Senatorial Appointee Burris and the Presumption of Innocence

2009-01-07T06:53:00.002-05:00

Yesterday, the United States Senate refused to seat Roland Burris, who has been appointed by Governor Rod Blagojevich. I find this troubling since the Governor hasn't been convicted of anything and since there is no indication that Burris has done anything improper.

I can understand why Senate Democratic leaders want to distance themselves from the allegations concerning Blagojevich. They don't want to give Republicans a weapon to use against them in the upcoming months. Still, in the United States there is a presumption of innocence and, despite the willingness of the media to convict someone in the court of public opinion without any kind of hearing, it even applies to politicians.

Here you have a Governor who has been accused but not convicted of anything appointing a man, who hasn't been linked to any wrongdoing by the Governor, to the United States Senate. An appointment that he is allowed to make under the Illinois constitution. It seems to me that the appointment ought to be recognized and accepted by the Democratic leaders in the Senate.

Is there is a political risk in accepting Burris's appointment? Sure, but it is less of a risk than undermining one of America's cherished constitutional protections.

FDR, the New Deal, and Unemployment Rates

2009-01-07T05:54:00.003-05:00

There is this conservative writer named Amity Shlaes who authored a book called The Forgotten Man about FDR and the Great Depression. She has become the latest conservative expert on the Great Depression. Her book is an attempt to argue that Roosevelt's policies actually made unemployment worse, not better, and that it was WWII that ended the Great Depression, not governmental action. One of her outlets is the Washington Post, who is publishing her articles apparently as a conservative counter-weight to arguments being made for more aggressive public works spending.

Shlaes by the way, is a Ivy League graduate who majored in English, not economics or history. This is from the Wikipedia entry about her:

Shlaes graduated from Jonathan Edwards College, Yale University magna cum laude[1] with a bachelor’s degree in English in 1982.[2]

As David Sirota points out in an excellent column about Shlaes, the New Deal and unemployment, her analysis of unemployment data has been discredited by a University of California historian. Sirota goes on to point out that under the New Deal, America experienced the second greatest drop in the percentage of unemployed recorded from 1932 through 2008. (Sirota is considering the New Deal as having ended in 1941, the year that WWII started.) The only greater drop occurred during the period of 1940 through 1944.

Why is any of this important? Because right now the Congress is considering how to stimulate the economy. Conservatives and Republicans argue that government projects won't work in reducing unemployment. They will be citing Shlaes's book in support of these arguments. Sirota's column is one small way to argue back.

An Ignored Reason for the Mortgage Melt-Down in the United States

2008-12-24T08:19:00.003-05:00

Here's an interesting quote from a real estate website:

The size of the average American home has more than doubled over the past half-century. The most recent statistics from the National Association of Home Builders show that the average American home grew from 983 square feet in 1950 to 2,434 square feet in 2005. In 1950, only one percent of homes built had four bedrooms or more, but 39 percent of new homes had at least four bedrooms in 2003. Garages have become almost obligatory, with only eight percent of new homes built without a garage, as opposed to 53 percent built without one in 1950.

Think about the implications of the information contained in that paragraph. Since most contractors charge for home construction on a square foot basis, and apparently bid their jobs out on that basis, this means that as the size of homes went up, so did the cost of building those homes. Now, for the most part, incomes also kept going up, so people could afford the increase in the size of the average home and didn't think about what that increase meant.

Well, here's what it meant: It meant more energy usage per home; it meant more money being tied up in real estate instead of other assets; and it meant that when times got bad, a lot of homeowners couldn't make the mortgage payments. It costs a lot less to pay for a 1300 square foot home than it does to pay for a 2600 square foot home.

Why did this happen? Homes went from being a way to house people to a way to show off your wealth. Homes went from being a practical thing to a status thing. Homes went from a place to raise your family to an investment. Children who grew up in "McMansions" began to believe that they were entitled to live that way, and so, when they got married, wanted to start where their parents had left off.

One way to solve the housing crisis is for Americans to start thinking of homes as a way to house people and not as a way to show their status, or as an investment. This won't happen overnight, but it will happen because America can no longer afford the "average American home."

Home Construction in Northeast Ohio Goes South

2008-12-23T13:21:00.002-05:00

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported today, December 23, 2008, that the number of building permits being issued in the Cleveland area declined by 61% in November of 2008 when compared to November of 2007. The actual number of permits issued in November of 2007 was 365 and the number of permits issued in November of 2008 was 140. The figure for November is also 49% less then the number of permits issued in October of 2008.

Not only are less houses being built, but less homes are being sold. The number of residences being sold declined by 13.8% when compared to the number that were sold a year ago. Statewide the decline was 21.7%. Nationwide the decline in residential sales was 8.6%. Just further proof, in case you needed it, that Ohio's economy is hurting.

You can read the entire article here.

Plain Dealer Editors Want to Reward Republican Bad Behavior

2008-12-22T18:17:00.002-05:00

The editors of the Cleveland Plain Dealer recently gave an example on how Republicans' intellectual thuggery gets rewarded by the news media. The PD ran an editorial on Sunday, December 21, 2008, supporting Strickland's announcement that he was going to veto the flawed "election reform", (read voter suppression), bill passed by the outgoing Republican General Assembly. This is a quote from the editorial:

Senate Bill 380 was a textbook example of how not to improve election administration. Republicans eager to settle partisan grievances with Ohio's chief elections officer, Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, rushed it through on a series of party-line votes. And though Ohio GOP leaders will sputter in outrage when Strickland wields his veto pen, there is absolutely no way they ever could have expected him to sign such an ill-considered package.

The editorial then goes on to call for a bi-partisan approach to election legislation and notes that Ohio's Secretary of State recently hosted a conference to discuss the experiences of the 2008 election. The editorial writer refers to her conference as "valuable." Then, incredibly, the editorial calls for Brunner to step back and not be involved in such conferences in the future. Here's the reason:

Thanks to both GOP targeting and her own actions, she has become a partisan lightning rod.

What actions of Brunner is the writer referring to? Running a problem free election in 2008 compared to the soap opera Ohio experienced in 2004? Making sure that voters' rights were protected? Winning virtually every lawsuit that the Ohio GOP filed?

Basically, it seems to be the PD's position that since Republicans filed baseless lawsuits against her, and since they made hysterical comments to the media about her, somehow it is now illegitimate for her to make election law recommendations. Basically the PD is rewarding the Republicans' bad behavior.

The problem here is that the media is afraid to call Republicans bullshit for what it is, bullshit. When the media takes positions such as the one quoted above, it provides cover for baseless Republican attacks.

Here's our suggestion: Brunner should hold a another conference, invite Republicans as well as Democrats to the conference, develop proposed legislation, and then take that legislation to the Democratic controlled House of Representatives and see if the House will pass it. Once passed, then she goes to the Senate and tries to get them to pass it, and if the Senate doesn't pass it, then at least she has tried.

What she cannot do is forsake her constitutional duty to be Ohio's chief election officer just because the Ohio GOP will throw a hissy fit.

Who Has the Burden of Proof? Governor or his Critics

2008-12-21T11:48:00.002-05:00

Governor Ted Strickland is about to veto a bill that would have established tax credits for movie production companies to set up shop in Ohio. The companies getting these tax credits could then sell them to other companies to use. Strickland and his Lt. Governor, Lee Fisher, object to this idea and maintain that the state cannot afford it when it is facing a deficit in its revenues, a deficit that has been estimated at between 500 million and one billion dollars.

Today, December 20, 2009, both the Akron Beacon Journal and the Cleveland Plain Dealer carried opinion columns or editorials blasting the Governor for his planned veto. The Beacon's Dennis Willard, who reports from Columbus for the Beacon, called the Strickland administration "whiners" and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, in its editorial, called Strickland anti-Cleveland. Interestingly in both papers the justification for supporting the tax credit provision was that while Ohio would lose tax revenues, it would gain jobs.

Interestingly enough, however, neither article set forth any analysis of how many jobs would be created versus how much would be lost in tax revenue. This brings up the question, who has the burden of proof? Is the burden of proof on the sponsors of the legislation to show that the loss of tax revenue is worth it in terms of jobs created, or is the burden of proof on the Governor to show that the loss of tax revenue is too much when compared to the potential number of jobs created?

We think it is on those who would cut tax revenue at at time when the State of Ohio is facing massive budget deficits. It is impossible to have a informed debate on the Governor's proposed veto when neither the bill's Republican sponsors nor their media allies can tell people how many jobs would be created versus the tax revenue that would be lost.

This problem, of course, is nothing new. Ever since the 1980s when Ronald Reagan promised that tax cuts would actually lead to more tax revenue, a proposition that was shown to be totally bogus when the Federal deficit exploded under St. Ronnie, the media has never challenged Republicans on their claims about the supposed benefits of tax cuts.

Why? Because the corporations that own media companies and the executives who run them like tax cuts, especially tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy. Because they like these tax cuts, they never demand that Republicans produce the proof that their tax cuts result in benefits to the economy as a whole.

The column by Dennis Willard and the editorial by the Cleveland Plain Dealer are just one more example of this behavior. In their minds, the burden of proof is not on the Republicans who would deprive Ohio of tax revenue when it is facing a deficit but on the Democratic Governor who thinks that we can't afford such a tax credit. That position is simply ridiculous.

Hausted Falls Back on Family to Explain Not Running for Governor

2008-12-20T07:26:00.003-05:00

Former Speaker of the House Jon Husted told the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial board that he wasn't running for governor because of family commitments. This is how the PD put it in its article on the editorial board interview:

Running for the state's top executive spot would require too big of a commitment at a time when Husted is focused on his wife, 13-year-old son and baby daughter. At least that's the situation now. Down the road? "I have plenty of time," he said."

When a politician tells you that he or she isn't running for a certain office because of his or her family. nine times out of ten you can bet that it's really because they don't think they can win the race. Interestingly, while Husted ruled out running for governor, he didn't rule out running for State Treasurer or Secretary of State. Apparently, his family comes first when it comes to running against a popular Democratic Governor, but not when it comes to running for other state-wide offices.

Our guess is that Husted knows he can't raise the money to run against Strickland, but figures that there will be Republican money to run against Brunner for Ohio S.O.S. The reason is that if Republican donors think they are going to lose to Strickland again, they will go all out to beat Brunner so they can draw the district lines for the General Assembly and for Congress.

In the State Treasurer's race, the Democrats will have an incumbent, but one that will have been appointed, not elected. Such a race will be easier than running for Governor or for Secretary of State, although Husted will still be up against an incumbent. Our predication is that "family obligations" will be the reason why Husted passes on a state-wide race next year.

Strickland to Veto Three GOP Passed Bills

2008-12-20T07:07:00.002-05:00

In the waning days of the Republican controlled House, the GOP managed to pass four bills. Unfortunately for Republicans, they no longer have a rubber-stamp in the Ohio Governor's office. Three of those bills are going to be vetoed by Strickland, including SB 380 which was another attempt to "reform" Ohio's elections by suppressing votes.

This will be the first time since 2007, by the way, that Strickland has vetoed legislation. Since he has had to work with a General Assembly controlled by the Republicans since he took office, he obviously isn't veto-happy. These bills, however, were just bad legislation and needed to be struck down.

Two of them would hurt the state financially and the elections "reform" bill would have inconvenienced Ohio's voters by setting up three different dates under which Ohioans could vote early. If the Republicans needed a reminder that things have changed in Columbus, Strickland just provided it.

The irony of all this is that the Republicans drew the district lines of the General Assembly and, for that matter, of Ohio's Congressional Districts. If they are losing seats under lines that they drew, what will happen to them if Democrats retain control of the offices that make up Ohio's Reapportionment Board?

Cooper Tire to Keep Plant Open in Findlay, Close Plant in Georgia

2008-12-17T19:02:00.001-05:00

December 17, 2008

CLEVELAND, OH – In response to today’s announcement by Cooper Tire and Rubber to keep 1,100 jobs in Findlay, Ohio, U.S. Senator Brown (D-OH) released the following statement:

“I commend Cooper Tire for their decision to keep jobs in Ohio. Cooper Tire has been a part of the Findlay community for more than 90 years. I applaud the outstanding collaborative efforts of the United Steelworkers Local 207L, Greater Findlay Inc., the Ohio Department of Development, and the City of Findlay, and Hancock County. The community united to save jobs and to help keep Cooper Tire competitive. This is a proud day for Ohio and for middle class families. The productivity of Cooper Tire Workers is a big reason why this plant is staying open. I look forward to continuing to work with them and with the company as we rebuild Ohio.”

Brown, who has been working with union leaders, company management, state officials, and local stakeholders since a network capacity study was announced in October, also expressed concern for Cooper Tire Workers in Albany, Georgia, where Cooper Tire was forced to close a plant.

“Ohio has lost more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs in the last eight years,” Brown said. “I am extremely empathetic to the plight of Georgia families with this plant closing. This news underscores why we must have a new direction for our trade policies so that U.S. companies can stay globally competitive and keep jobs here at home.”

October 2008 Edition of Common Sense, Medina County's Democratic Newspaper

2008-12-17T09:37:00.002-05:00

In October of this year, the Medina County Democratic Action Committee sent out its newspaper, Common Sense, to about 23,000 Medina County households. You can view a pdf version of the paper by clicking here.

National Housing Values Go Down

2008-12-16T07:45:00.004-05:00

This picture represents what is happening to the American Dream of owning your own home and having that home increase in value. It is going down the drain, at least in 2008.

Zillow.com, a website that follows real estate trends, reports that in the third quarter of 2008, real estate values in the United States declined by 9.7% compared to 2007. Real estate values are down by 12.8% compared to 2006.

If click on the link above, you will find this really interesting tool that Zillow has created that shows the decline in real estate values by metropolitan area.

While things are bad for Cleveland, they are horrible for parts of Florida and California. In Miami, for example, values have declined by 21.5% compared to one year ago. In Riverside, California, real estate values have declined by 30.4% compared to one year ago.

Basically, according to Zillow, the United States real estate market just plain sucks.

PD Article: NE Ohio Bleeding Jobs

2008-12-16T07:02:00.003-05:00

The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article on Monday, December 15, 2008, about the number of job losses that Northeast Ohio has sustained during the past year. This picture is from the article.

According to the article, NE Ohio has lost 7,000 jobs through the end of October. This means that the article doesn't take into consideration the job losses in November, which, at least nationally, was a horrible month.

You can read the whole article by clicking on the link above.

Ohio Plant Shuts Down and Moves to Mexico

2008-12-15T18:29:00.001-05:00

Statement issued by Senator Sherrod Brown on the decision of Kongsberg Automotive to close its Ohio plant and move its production to Mexico:

December 15, 2008

WASHINGTON, DC – In response today’s Kongsberg Automotive announcement to close its Van Wert plant – formerly Teleflex – and move the jobs to Matamoros, Mexico, U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) issue the following statement:

“I am deeply disappointed by this decision. For more than 40 years, Teleflex was an excellent corporate citizen of Ohio. This is a betrayal of generations of Van Wert workers who raised families on Teleflex salaries and who helped build the company and support the community. This also underscores the need to review the results of trade deals like NAFTA, and move our nation’s trade policies in a new direction. We must also ensure that Kongsberg’s Van Wert workers get every benefit they deserve. I encourage workers to call my Cleveland office for assistance. My staff and I stand ready to assist workers and their families.”

Norwegian-based Kongsberg bought Teleflex last year. Shortly after the purchase, Kongsberg locked out Teleflex workers and moved a production line to Mexico. Brown, who contacted Kongsberg directly to call on them not to close the plant, has been working closely with workers as the situation unfolded.

Filing Deadlines for Wadsworth and Brunswick City Elections

2008-12-15T07:32:00.003-05:00

Because Wadsworth doesn't have a city charter,and because of a provision in Brunswick's city charter, candidates wanting to run for local office in both cities have to file by February 19, 2009. In Wadsworth, the city elections are partisan and, if there were two or more candidates running for their party's nomination for a particular position, there would be a primary in May. In Brunswick, although its elections are non-partisan, there could be a May primary if more than six candidates file petitions to run for the three council-at-large positions.

According to a sheet kept by the Medina County Board of Elections, Republicans have already picked up petitions for both Brunswick and Wadsworth city elections. Democrats have picked up petitions for Brunswick, but not yet for Wadsworth. Interestingly, the petitions for Wadsworth Republicans were picked up by Sharon Ray, one of the three Republican members of the Board of County Commissioners. This is not too surprising, however, since she is from Wadsworth and her first elected position was on Wadsworth City Council.

Although Brunswick is non-partisan, Republicans make up a majority of the City Council. There are currently two Republicans and one Democrat who are councilmen-at-large. With a little effort, Democrats could take all three positions in Brunswick.

Municipal elections in Wadsworth are always spirited. Wadsworth is interesting because it is the only political subdivision in Medina County that has partisan elections every year, either for city offices, for state and county offices, or for federal and county offices.

The Legacy of Ken Blackwell

2008-12-15T04:59:00.004-05:00

A fact that most journalists don't write or talk about is that George W. Bush was elected president because of controversial elections in two states: Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. In both states, partisan Secretaries of State used their position to help Bush. In Florida it was Kathrine Harris and in Ohio it was Ken Blackwell.

Recently a reader sent us a link to an article that appeared on the website Truthout written by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman. Firtakis and Wasserman, who write for a blog called The Free Press, have been talking about what happened in Ohio in 2004 for the last four years.

The article talks about the recently announced victory of Mary Jo Kilroy in Ohio's 15TH congressional district. This is a quote from the article:

Mary Jo Kilroy of Columbus will be the first Democrat to represent any part of Franklin County in Congress since 1982, and the first to represent her 15th Congressional District since the 1960s.

In 2006 Kilroy barely lost to incumbent Deb Pryce as thousands of contested provisional ballots went uncounted. Under then-Secretary Blackwell, voters in Democratic precincts were routinely challenged on minor details and forced to cast provisional ballots to allegedly be counted at a later time.

But thousands were merely pitched in the trash or otherwise negated. Some 16,000 provisionals and 93,000 machine-rejected ballots have never been counted from a 2004 election decided by an official margin of less than 119,000 votes. Independent observers believe a fair vote count would have given Kilroy her House seat in 2006. Also in that election, e-voting machines had statistically unlikely high rates of undervotes in central city polls.

So what happens when you get rid of Republican hacks like Harris and Blackwell and replace them with less partisan Secretaries of State? Well, not only do Democrats like Kilroy win congressional races, but both Florida and Ohio went for Barack Obama.

Now, obviously, just getting rid of Harris and Blackwell wasn't enough to tip those states to Obama. The horrible economic record of the Republicans as represented by George W. Bush's failed policies was probably the biggest factor in Obama's win. Still, having rabid partisans like Harris and Blackwell out of office certainly helped, especially in Ohio, since we had a relatively close presidential election.

What is also ironic is that when both Harris and Blackwell tried to run for statewide office, they were defeated, Harris for Senator and Blackwell for Governor.
What's also interesting is that after they were both defeated, the Bush Administration didn't find them a cushy government job. In fact, in Harris's case, neither Karl Rove or Jeb Bush would endorse her for the Senate.

The election of Jennifer Brunner was critical for Democrats in 2006 and it will be critical for Democrats in 2008. Brunner will be targeted by the Republicans who don't want to lose control of the State Reapportionment Board and who want to continue to disenfranchise minority and other Democratic leaning voters. All of us who value free and fair elections need to work for Brunner's election.

John Boccieri's Remarks at Medina County Dem Event

2008-12-14T20:32:00.004-05:00

On December 13, 2008, the Medina County Democratic Party held its annual Holiday Brunch at the Rustic Hills Country Club in Medina. Hosted by Pam Miller, Medina County Democratic Chair, the brunch featured remarks by John Boccieri, Congressman-Elect from the 16TH District. Below we have posted video clips of John's remarks as well as the opening and closing remarks by Pam.

Congressman-Elect John Boccieri's Remarks, Part One

Congressman-Elect John Boccieri's Remarks, Part Two

Pam Miller's Opening Remarks

Pam Miller's Closing Remarks

Republican Senators Who Support Wall Street Bankers but not Auto Workers

2008-12-14T09:13:00.004-05:00

Here is a list of the Republican Senators who voted for bailing out Wall Street with taxpayer funds:

Alexander (R-TN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

Here's a list of Republican Senators who voted against bailing out Detroit with taxpayer funds by voting not to cut off debate on the bill:

Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Corker (R-TN)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)I
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

The Republican Senators who voted for both bailing out Wall Street and against bailing out Detroit are highlighted in red on the second list.

So, why did these Senators find nothing wrong with using up to 700 billion dollars of taxpayer money to bail out banks, but opposed using 15 billion to help American automakers? Well, according to a report in the L.A. Times, it comes down to their opposition to unions. Republicans can't stand the UAW because it supports Democrats and because it fights for ordinary Americans, you know, Americans who build the Cadillacs and Lincolns that their rich supporters drive.

Here's our political lesson for the day: You can rip off your fellow Americans, and make scads of money doing it, and these Republicans will help you out with taxpayer money if you get in trouble because of your own stupidity. If, however, you are the ordinary citizen affected by these actions, there is no protection against foreclosure and no help in saving your union job. In other words, they are less troubled by protecting corporate golden parachutes than by providing nylon umbrellas for the ordinary citizen.

Government Subsidies to Foreign Car Companies

2008-12-13T23:26:00.002-05:00

As Republican politicians, mostly from the South, rant and rail against the UAW and insist that the "free market" should be allowed to take down American car companies, it is helpful to keep in mind that most of the foreign car companies received subsidies to build plants in America. Good Jobs First, a group promoting green economic development, released a study of what foreign car plants received government subsidies. Here is a list of such companies and the amounts they received:

Honda, Marysville, Ohio, 1980, $27 million*

• Nissan, Smyrna, Tenn., 1980, $233 million**

• Toyota, Georgetown, Ky., 1985, $147 million

• Honda, Anna, Ohio, 1985, $27 million*

• Subaru, Lafayette, Ind., 1986, $94 million

• Honda, East Liberty, Ohio, 1987, $27 million*

• BMW, Spartanburg, S.C., 1992, $150 million

• Mercedes-Benz, Vance, Ala., 1993, $258 million

• Toyota, Princeton, Ind., 1995, $30 million

• Nissan, Decherd, Tenn., 1995, $200 million**

• Toyota, Buffalo, W.Va., 1996, more than $15 million

• Honda, Lincoln, Ala., 1999, $248 million

• Nissan, Canton, Miss., 2000, $295 million

• Toyota, Huntsville, Ala., 2001, $30 million

• Hyundai, Montgomery, Ala., 2002, $252 million

• Toyota, San Antonio, Texas, 2003, $133 million

• Kia, West Point, Ga., 2006, $400 million

• Honda, Greensburg, Ind., 2006, $141 million

• Toyota, Blue Springs, Miss., 2007, $300 million

• Volkswagen, Chattanooga, Tenn., 2008, $577 million

Total: more than $3.58 billion

You can read more about the Good Jobs First study here.

Pics from Medina County Dems Holiday Brunch

2008-12-13T15:21:00.012-05:00

The Medina County Democratic Party held its annual Holiday Brunch at the Rustic Hills Country Club on Saturday, December 13, 2008. Hosted by Pam Miller, Medina County Democratic Chair, the brunch featured guest speaker Representative-Elect John Boccieri, who will be representing Ohio's 16TH Congressional District. Medina County is actually in two Congressional Districts, the 13TH and the 16TH.

Medina County Democratic elected officials who attended include Medina County Prosecutor Dean Holman; Medina County Coronor Dr. Neil Grabenstetter; Medina County Common Pleas Judge James Kimbler; Medina Municipal Court Judge Dale Chase; Brunswick City Councilman Vince Carl; and Brunswick City Councilman Pat McNamera. Judge Clair Dickinson of the Ninth District Court of Appeals, whose jurisdiction includes Medina County, also attended.

Below are some pictures from the event taken by Medina County Democratic Executive Committee member Carol Gurney.

Time for Senate Dems to Exercise "Constitutional Option" on Filibusters?

2008-12-12T06:32:00.003-05:00

Last night the Senate voted 52-35 to cut off debate on the bill that would have given Federal aid to American automakers. Since, however, the bill did not get 60 votes, the cloture motion failed. On the motion nine Republican Senators crossed over to vote for the motion. Four Democrats voted against the motion while 12 Senators did not vote. One of those who voted against the bill was Reid, the Majority Leader, who may have voted the way he did for procedural reasons.

The non-voting Senators included four Democrats and eight Republicans. Of the eight Republicans not voting, three were defeated Republicans. Of those three, two of the Democratic Senators-elect who will be replacing them would probably have voted for the motion. They are the new Democratic Senators from Oregon and New Hampshire. The newly elected Democrat from Alaska is much more of an unknown factor.

So, if you start with the 52 Democrats who voted for the motion, add Reid, add the two newly elected Senators from NH and OR, and then add the four Democrats who weren't present for the vote, you get 59 votes for cloture, and the motion still fails. Of course, one of those who voted against the motion was Coleman from Minnesota. If Franken manages to eke out a victory in MN, then such a motion after January 3rd would have reached the 60 votes necessary to cut off debate.

Why are we going through this analysis? Because there are going to be many votes in the Senate to cut off debate on legislation that Obama will be supporting. Legislation on energy, health care, the environment, and other issues. Despite his margin in the polls, there is a good chance that enough Republicans and Democrats will be found to oppose such motions and they won't pass.

Why do we think that? Because of the 35 Senators who opposed the cloture motion, only four came from states that Obama carried. Of the three Democrats other than Reid who voted against the motion, all three of them came from states that McCain carried.

Think about the legislation that was being debated. According to some experts, if there is a failure of two of the Big Three American automakers, three million Americans could be put out of work. We are not just talking autoworkers. We are also talking about employees of car dealers, parts suppliers, and other related businesses. Indeed, there are some automotive experts who claim that all North American car manufacturing could stop if GM goes down because auto companies like Nissan, Toyota, and Honda, which have American plants, depend on the same suppliers as GM. If GM goes down, the theory goes, so much of the business of those suppliers would be lost that they would also go out of business even though they also sell to foreign-owned plants in the U.S.

If 35 Republicans are willing to risk that kind of disruption to the American economy on this issue, then why will they be willing to support health care reform, energy legislation, education reform, and other big-ticket items on the Obama agenda?

So, here is the question: Should Democrats start laying the groundwork to exercise what conservatives call the "constitutional option" to change the Senate Rules to eliminate the filibuster? Should Democrats just sit back and let a minority of the Senate, representing states that comprise much less than half the nation's population frustrate progressive legislation?

Andrew Jackson, in his first State of the Union message, said that the first principle of our government is that the majority should govern. He said that in the context of calling for a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College and allow direct election of the President by the nation's voters.

The same argument can be raised against the filibuster, only, unlike the Electoral College, it isn't constitutionally mandated. Think about what the adoption of Jackson's philosophy would have meant over the last eight years. Get rid of the Electoral College and Gore becomes President in 2000. Get rid of the filibuster and there is a deadline set for Iraq withdrawal back in 2007 and health care for children is extended to millions more of America's children.

Is there a risk in getting rid of the filibuster? Sure, because in the future there will be a Republican President with a Republican Senate and Democrats will want to frustrate his or her legislative agenda. We think, though, that on the whole, filibusters have been used more often against progressive legislation than against conservative legislation. Get rid of the filibuster and it becomes a lot easier to pass progressive legislation. Grass-roots Democrats should start laying the groundwork for the Senate to exercise the "constitutional option."

Sectionalism in Auto Bailout Debate

2008-12-11T07:19:00.004-05:00

Last night, while the House of Representatives was taking a vote on a procedural matter on the automaker bailout legislation, CSPAN played a clip of Republican Senators denouncing the possible bailout. The Senators who spoke were Shelby from Alabama, DeMint from South Carolina, and Coburn from Oklahoma. All three states were part of the Old Confederacy.

Sectionalism is nothing new in American politics. Since the beginning of the United States, there have been sectional disputes centered around the economy. During the Jefferson Administration New England politicians debated the idea of secession. During the Jackson Administration South Carolina talked about secession. Obviously, during the Lincoln Administration secession became a reality.

All of these disputes centered around economic issues, including slavery. While slavery was a moral issue for abolitionists, it was a big economic issue in the South. A lot of Southern plantation owners had wealth tied up in owning slaves.

So sectionalism in American politics is nothing new, and sectionalism based on economic issues is certainly not new. Given that fact, then how do you rise about sectionalism? You rise about sectionalism by pointing out how interconnected the American economy is and how that what happens to one section hurts all sections.

What those of us in Northern states need to point out is that millions of Americans losing their jobs hurts all of us. Interestingly, there is an article on the Forbes website that points out that Southern auto workers realize this fact. Here is a quote from the article:

"If they go under I don't know what's in store for us," said the 41-year-old employee at Nissan Motor Co. (nasdaq: NSANY - news - people )'s Smyrna assembly plant. "Everybody at Nissan is scared."

The worker being quoted works at a Nissan plant in Tennessee. She realizes that the failure of GM and Chrysler would cripple auto production because of the effect on suppliers.

There is also the fact that bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM would actually cost more than the cost of the bailout being debated. If there is a bankruptcy, then literally thousands of jobs will be lost, leading to an increase for things like unemployment, medicaid, and a loss of tax revenue for local and state governments.

Southern politicians need to understand that poking the Yankees in the eye may lead to vision problems for residents of their states as well.

Republican BS on Auto-Bailout

2008-12-10T16:03:00.003-05:00

When the Wall Street bailout came up in the Senate on October 1, 2008, 29 Republican Senators voted for the bailout. The Republican Senators voting "yea" included conservative Republicans Coburn, Chambliss, and Corker. All of them are now saying that they can't vote for a bailout of the automakers because there aren't enough guarantees that the bailout will lead to the United States car companies changing their ways.

Well, here is a question: what demands did these conservative hacks demand of the Wall Street firms? What guarantees did the demand of any bank getting TARP funds? Why all of a sudden do they want guarantees from the car companies?

Let's see, what is the difference between car companies and banks? Could it be that car companies are unionized and banks are not? Could it be that car companies employ blue-collar workers and banks employ white-collar workers? Could it be that a lot of Republican contributors work for banks?
We think it is all that and more.

This is just another example of Republican bs. If the auto bailout bill is defeated and if GM goes under, then the GOP will be responsible for America's swelling unemployment rolls.

Reader Submission: Holiday Bailout Song Video Clip

2008-12-10T10:52:00.002-05:00

A reader sent us a link to this video clip. Check it out, it is pretty funny.

More Info on Medina County Cities and Poverty

2008-12-09T17:36:00.002-05:00

Earlier today we posted an entry on a report from the United States Census Bureau that consists of estimates of certain data for cities over 20,000. In that entry we noted that the Cleveland.com reported that according to this data the percentage of residents of Medina City living in poverty sometime during the last 12 months doubled from the 2000 census to this mid-decade estimate.

We got curious about the other two cities in Medina County, Brunswick and Wadsworth. We went to the Cleveland.com website and used this tool it has to compare cities in Northeast Ohio. According to this tool, the Census Bureau data for Brunswick shows that 5.2% of its population was estimated to have been living in poverty during the last 12 months. The figure for Wadsworth was 5.4%. The figure for Medina, as reported earlier, was 10.4%.

The tool, by the way, can be used for any city in the United States. You can access the tool here.

Census Bureau Report Shows Doubling of Medina Residents Living in Poverty

2008-12-09T07:00:00.004-05:00

The United States Census Bureau has released new estimates regarding the population of cities over 20,000. Previously, the Census Bureau only released data between census counts for cities over 65,000. Smaller cities had to wait until a new census was done and then go back and compare the data for the new census with the data from the census conducted 10 years before.

According to a Cleveland.com article on this change, the data released on December 8, 2008, shows that the city of Medina has experienced an increase in the number of residents living in poverty. This is from the article:

And urban ills have seeped into the city of Medina, the epicenter of the region's fastest-growing county. More than 10 percent of families in the city of 25,000 are living in poverty, compared with 5 percent in 2000, the bureau reports.

It must be kept in mind that this data represents an estimate, based on data collected by the Census Bureau. This data does show, however, that Medina City officials need to start planning on how city services will be affected by this apparent increase in the number of poor residents.

GOP Proves It Can Win Elections in States of the Old Confederacy

2008-12-07T07:56:00.002-05:00

So the GOP has won a run-off election in Georgia and has apparently won two congressional elections in Louisana, which were delayed because of Hurricane Gustav. The GOP Chair claimed that the election in Georgia, in which an incumbent Republican Senator managed to hold on to his seat in a state that Obama lost somehow shows that the United States is still a "center-right" nation.

The GOP Chair has his job to do and that is to make his party look good. Part of that job is to spin the facts and to try and get the national news media to accept that spin. So it is undertandable that he would try and put the best spin on the Georgia election.

There is, however, another way of looking at these elections, and that is the GOP has now proved that it can still win elections in the Old Confederacy. Frankly, we didn't think that was ever in doubt, but judgind from the fuss that the GOP is making over Saxby Chambliss holding onto his Senate seat, it must have been.

Far be it from us to point out that if the GOP is in the position that it can only win elections in the deep South, then it is totally screwed. No, we would never do that, would we?

U.S. Debt Under Clinton Compared to Debt Under Bush

2008-12-06T13:11:00.002-05:00

A reader sent us a link to a page on the United States Government website where you can calculate the public debt of the United States to the penny. We used this application to compare the debt incurred under the Clinton Administration to the debt incurred under the Bush Administration as of Friday, December 5, 2008.

As you can see from the graph below, Bubble-Boy wins this dubious honor. Under Bush the public debt of the United States has gone from 5.7 trillion to over 10 trillion in eight years. Folks, this is what happens when you combine reckless, radical, right-wing tax cuts with a Republican Congress who keeps funding their pet projects.

You can check out the actual numbers for both presidents to the penny by going here.

Will Senate Republicans Kill Automaker Aid?

2008-12-06T07:52:00.004-05:00

So, here's the latest from D.C. regarding aid to American automakers. The New York Times is reporting that the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate have reached a deal with the Bush Administration. The Democrats have agreed to allow the automakers to use 25 billion, which has already been appropriated for development of fuel-efficient cars, to help them stay afloat.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had been resisting this idea because she wanted Detroit to focus on getting more fuel-efficient cars to the market. She has agreed to allow the 25 billion to be used because she expects that money to be repaid, so to speak, when Obama takes over and there is an expanded Democratic majority in Congress next year.

The question now is whether the Republicans will block the legislation allowing this when it reaches the Senate. They would block it by threatening a filibuster, which could be ended by having 60 Senators vote to cut off debate. The Senate Minority Leader, McConnell, wouldn't commit himself to supporting the bill until he sees the details of the legislation.

If Republicans don't back this bill, and if one of the "Big Three" goes into bankruptcy, then the employment fall-out is on the Republicans' heads. If that happens, then Democrats should tar all Republicans with the brush of Herbert Hoover.

Editor's note: The above picture is from the Times article and is a shot of the executive officers of the Big Three and the head of the UAW at a recent hearing in Congress.

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown Receives Ohio Farm Bureau Award

2008-12-06T07:10:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON, DC – United States Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) received the “Friend of Farm Bureau” Award from the Ohio Farm Bureau on December 5, 2008. The award is given each year to members of Congress who have supported issues important to Ohio agriculture. Brown is the first Ohioan to serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee in more than 40 years.

“I’m honored to fight for the priorities of Ohio’s family farmers,” said Brown. “This award represents our shared success in passing the 2008 farm bill and serves as a reminder of the important work ahead. Together, we can invest in rural communities and support Ohio’s farmers as they meet our nation’s energy and nutrition needs.”
Ohio Farm Bureau President Bob Peterson presented Brown with the award today at the Ohio Farm Bureau’s Annual Meeting in Columbus.

Brown was instrumental in passing the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, commonly referred to as the Farm Bill. This 2008 farm bill makes bold investments in rural development. Through the Farm Bill and other programs, Ohio received $3.3 billion in rural development funds over the last seven years, with funding for more than 120 rural development projects.

Brown helped to secure several major provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill, including one of the bill’s most notable initiatives, the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program. This reform allows farmers to choose between traditional farm programs and a new program that protects against drops in yield or prices – critical for farmers given the uncertain and volatile farm economy. In addition to providing better protection for farmers, ACRE will save taxpayers more than $1 billion over five years.

Brown has held more 120 roundtables throughout the state, including a weeklong series of roundtables focused exclusively on agriculture. This past October, Brown held two hearings of the Senate Agriculture Committee on the effects of the economic crisis on rural America. Brown chaired these hearings, which were entitled “Path to Opportunity: Jobs and the Economy in Appalachia.”

President-Elect Barack Obama's December 6, 2008 Radio Address on Jobs

2008-12-06T07:03:00.002-05:00

President-Elect Barack Obama gives his radio address today, December 6, 2008, on the economy. His address focuses on the need for both job creation and job preservation. A transcript of his remarks appears below. You can see the video clip of his remarks here.

Remarks of President-elect Barack Obama
Radio Address on the Economy
Saturday, December 6, 2008

Good morning.

Yesterday, we received another painful reminder of the serious economic challenge our country is facing when we learned that 533,000 jobs were lost in November alone, the single worst month of job loss in over three decades. That puts the total number of jobs lost in this recession at nearly 2 million.

But this isn’t about numbers. It’s about each of the families those numbers represent. It’s about the rising unease and frustration that so many of you are feeling during this holiday season. Will you be able to put your kids through college? Will you be able to afford health care? Will you be able to retire with dignity and security? Will your job or your husband’s job or your daughter’s or son's job be the next one cut?

These are the questions that keep so many Americans awake at night. But it is not the first time these questions have been asked. We have faced difficult times before, times when our economic destiny seemed to be slipping out of our hands. And at each moment, we have risen to meet the challenge, as one people united by a sense of common purpose. And I know that Americans can rise to the moment once again.

But we need action – and action now. That is why I have asked my economic team to develop an economic recovery plan for both Wall Street and Main Street that will help save or create at least two and a half million jobs, while rebuilding our infrastructure, improving our schools, reducing our dependence on oil, and saving billions of dollars.

We won’t do it the old Washington way. We won’t just throw money at the problem. We’ll measure progress by the reforms we make and the results we achieve -- by the jobs we create, by the energy we save, by whether America is more competitive in the world.

Today, I am announcing a few key parts of my plan. First, we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work.

Second, we will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s. We’ll invest your precious tax dollars in new and smarter ways, and we’ll set a simple rule – use it or lose it. If a state doesn’t act quickly to invest in roads and bridges in their communities, they’ll lose the money.

Third, my economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.

As we renew our schools and highways, we’ll also renew our information superhighway. It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m President – because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world.

In addition to connecting our libraries and schools to the internet, we must also ensure that our hospitals are connected to each other through the internet. That is why the economic recovery plan I’m proposing will help modernize our health care system – and that won’t just save jobs, it will save lives. We will make sure that every doctor’s office and hospital in this country is using cutting edge technology and electronic medical records so that we can cut red tape, prevent medical mistakes, and help save billions of dollars each year.

These are a few parts of the economic recovery plan that I will be rolling out in the coming weeks. When Congress reconvenes in January, I look forward to working with them to pass a plan immediately. We need to act with the urgency this moment demands to save or create at least two and a half million jobs so that the nearly two million Americans who’ve lost them know that they have a future. And that’s exactly what I intend to do as President of the United States.

Thanks for listening.

MCDAC Kicker Word Cloud

2008-12-05T19:45:00.008-05:00

The picture above is a "word cloud" that we created from entries posted on the MCDAC blog using the website www.wordle.net. We thought that you would find it interesting.