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.
Showing posts with label Cleveland Plain Dealer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cleveland Plain Dealer. Show all posts
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Connie Schultz Advocates for Changes to Copyright Law
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.
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.
Monday, January 26, 2009
PD's Choice of NCB Economist to be on Panel seems Strange
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.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Home Construction in Northeast Ohio Goes South
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.
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.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Plain Dealer Editors Want to Reward Republican Bad Behavior
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.
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.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Who Has the Burden of Proof? Governor or his Critics
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
PD Article: NE Ohio Bleeding Jobs
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.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Plain Dealer Article on Dem Gains in Ohio
The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an interesting article last week on November 10, 2008 about Dem gains and GOP gains in the Ohio presidential election. As you can see from the map, McCain only gained on Bush's performance in 11 counties while Obama did better than Kerry in 77 counties. You can read the article here.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Browns Win, Anderson Keeps QB Job, McCain's Man Brady Stays on Sidelines
Last week Brady Quinn, the Browns' second-string quarterback appeared at a McCain rally supporting McCain. Last night, the first game after Quinn's appearance, Derek Anderson had a great game and soldified his grip on the QB position. A coincidence? We think not.
Here is a picture from the PD, and here is the link to the PD's article:
Here is a picture from the PD, and here is the link to the PD's article:
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
A Capitalism That Preys on the Weak, the Un-informed
There was a great article in the Sunday Cleveland Plain Dealer by a man who grew up in Cleveland. His name is Tom Palaima and he is the Dickson Centennial professor of classics at the University of Texas at Austin. He is a also a 1969 graduate of St. Ignatius High School. His article dealt with the effect of the de-regulation of the financial services industry. Here is a quote from the article:
In December 2006, I heard a Federal Reserve Bank official explain that the role of the United States in the world economy was to buy things. He said we should keep on buying things, despite the weakness of the dollar and our record levels of household and government debt. I was dumbfounded until I understood that there is a powerful segment of our society that profits from such policies.
Debt comes due. Many Americans are effectively debt slaves right now, and there are people or institutions taking advantage of that indebtedness.
A June 2 Newsweek story described how an entrepreneurial broker made a small fortune selling 71 houses in a depressed but stable Slavic neighborhood of Cleveland by manipulating the appraisals of these properties as much as 600 percent upward and then selling them via subprime mortgages. The neighborhood is now in ruins.
You can read the rest of the article here.
In December 2006, I heard a Federal Reserve Bank official explain that the role of the United States in the world economy was to buy things. He said we should keep on buying things, despite the weakness of the dollar and our record levels of household and government debt. I was dumbfounded until I understood that there is a powerful segment of our society that profits from such policies.
Debt comes due. Many Americans are effectively debt slaves right now, and there are people or institutions taking advantage of that indebtedness.
A June 2 Newsweek story described how an entrepreneurial broker made a small fortune selling 71 houses in a depressed but stable Slavic neighborhood of Cleveland by manipulating the appraisals of these properties as much as 600 percent upward and then selling them via subprime mortgages. The neighborhood is now in ruins.
You can read the rest of the article here.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Cleveland Plain Dealer Online Voter Guide
The Cleveland Plain Dealer has put its voter guide for the 2008 primary online at http://www.cleveland.com/voterguide/. Usually newspapers publish these guides in a special section that is released on the weekend before the election. One reason why they put them in a special section is that they can then sell advertisements to candidates. It will be interesting to see if the PD puts this guide out in a print format as well as an online format.
The PD's online voter guide allows you to find candidates by name, by geographical location, or by the type of race, ie, presidential, congressional, Ohio General Assembly. The page is set up so that the first thing you see is a place to enter you address and then you can get information on races for that area. The online guide covers 217 races and 295 candidates.
Each candidate was asked to give biographical information and then answer three questions that pertain to the position that the candidate is seeking. There is also a picture of each candidate.
If you are undecided about what candidate to support in certain races, or are interested in who is running for office in your area, you might want to check it out. Just click on the link given above.
The PD's online voter guide allows you to find candidates by name, by geographical location, or by the type of race, ie, presidential, congressional, Ohio General Assembly. The page is set up so that the first thing you see is a place to enter you address and then you can get information on races for that area. The online guide covers 217 races and 295 candidates.
Each candidate was asked to give biographical information and then answer three questions that pertain to the position that the candidate is seeking. There is also a picture of each candidate.
If you are undecided about what candidate to support in certain races, or are interested in who is running for office in your area, you might want to check it out. Just click on the link given above.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Why the Media Likes Personality: Most Reporters Don't Know Policy
There is an amazing post over at Cleveland.com in which PD reporter Mark Naymik takes some shots at how Clinton came across during her endorsement interview. Apparently she acted as if she knew more than the PD writers and she didn't ask them for their endorsement. Now, this caught our attention because right now in our house people are reading The Big Con by Jonathon Chait. It is a very fascinating book and deals with how believers in supply-side economics managed to convince the media and the public that this whacked-out economic theory was viable.
One of the most important reasons he cites is that most reporters don't know issues and don't want to learn issues. Therefore, according to Chait, they "scorn campaigns rooted in issues and lacking a personal narrative." Which leads us to the blog entry by Naymik. Nowhere in his entry does Naymik discuss any point of policy which was important to the PD in giving its endorsement to Obama. The tone of the entry can be found from this closing paragraphs:
Clinton is a fine candidate.
But she isn't paying attention to one of the messages voters sent Democrat John Kerry in 2004: Nobody likes a smarty-pants.
Basically he is telling candidates for public office that the PD doesn't really care what you know, they care how you get along with them. Interestingly, in the same blog, he points out that Senator John McCain was actually talking to someone else while do his telephone interview with the PD. Now, that strikes us as more than a little rude, but apparently being rude is more acceptable to the PD than knowing too much about the issues or not asking the editorial board for its endorsement. Naymik takes care to mention that both Obama and McCain did just that. Oh, and he also liked the fact that John McCain made a bad joke about "waterboarding."
The other thing that he doesn't point out is that relatively few Americans met John Kerry during his campaign for the presidency. So where did this belief that he was a "smarty-pants" come from? Why, the media, of course, only Naymik either doesn't realize it or doesn't want to acknowledge it.
Look, you can complain all you want about the fact that most media personnel are not really all that interested in issues, or you can accept it and try to go with the candidate who has the better personality. We realize it is aggravating, but you are probably not going to change the culure of the media during one campaign cycle.
Thanks to Jill Miller Zimon of Writes Like She Talks for bringing this to everyone's attention.
One of the most important reasons he cites is that most reporters don't know issues and don't want to learn issues. Therefore, according to Chait, they "scorn campaigns rooted in issues and lacking a personal narrative." Which leads us to the blog entry by Naymik. Nowhere in his entry does Naymik discuss any point of policy which was important to the PD in giving its endorsement to Obama. The tone of the entry can be found from this closing paragraphs:
Clinton is a fine candidate.
But she isn't paying attention to one of the messages voters sent Democrat John Kerry in 2004: Nobody likes a smarty-pants.
Basically he is telling candidates for public office that the PD doesn't really care what you know, they care how you get along with them. Interestingly, in the same blog, he points out that Senator John McCain was actually talking to someone else while do his telephone interview with the PD. Now, that strikes us as more than a little rude, but apparently being rude is more acceptable to the PD than knowing too much about the issues or not asking the editorial board for its endorsement. Naymik takes care to mention that both Obama and McCain did just that. Oh, and he also liked the fact that John McCain made a bad joke about "waterboarding."
The other thing that he doesn't point out is that relatively few Americans met John Kerry during his campaign for the presidency. So where did this belief that he was a "smarty-pants" come from? Why, the media, of course, only Naymik either doesn't realize it or doesn't want to acknowledge it.
Look, you can complain all you want about the fact that most media personnel are not really all that interested in issues, or you can accept it and try to go with the candidate who has the better personality. We realize it is aggravating, but you are probably not going to change the culure of the media during one campaign cycle.
Thanks to Jill Miller Zimon of Writes Like She Talks for bringing this to everyone's attention.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Medina County State Representative Compares Strickland to Rhodes
Back in the Sixties and the Seventies there was a four term Ohio governor named Jim Rhodes who campaigned on the platform of "Jobs and Progress". Although he had been mayor of Columbus and State Auditor before becoming Governor, he grew up in Southeastern Ohio. One of the ideas that he promoted was that there should be a college or university within 30 miles of every person in Ohio.
Now, 26 years after Rhodes left office, Governor Ted Strickland is advocating similar ideas. During his State of the State address, Governor Strickland called for using a bond package to try and revitalize Ohio's economy. State Representative Bill Batchelder, (R-Medina County), told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that he heard more Jim Rhodes from Strickland during the State of the State address than he had since Rhodes died.
Batchelder told the PD reporter that he thought the similarities came from both men growing up poor and both men coming from Southeast Ohio. This is how Batchelder put it to the PD:
"I think he knows more down here," said the veteran lawmaker of Strickland, motioning to his gut. "I think he has a real sense of the public just like Jim did. What they feel and what their aspirations are. I think it comes from growing up without much and coming from down there."
Those of us who are Ohio Democrats and remember the fact that Rhodes beat us in four elections find the comparasion interesting. Ohio Dems could do far worse, and have, than nominating and electing a Democratic version of Jim Rhodes.
Now, 26 years after Rhodes left office, Governor Ted Strickland is advocating similar ideas. During his State of the State address, Governor Strickland called for using a bond package to try and revitalize Ohio's economy. State Representative Bill Batchelder, (R-Medina County), told the Cleveland Plain Dealer that he heard more Jim Rhodes from Strickland during the State of the State address than he had since Rhodes died.
Batchelder told the PD reporter that he thought the similarities came from both men growing up poor and both men coming from Southeast Ohio. This is how Batchelder put it to the PD:
"I think he knows more down here," said the veteran lawmaker of Strickland, motioning to his gut. "I think he has a real sense of the public just like Jim did. What they feel and what their aspirations are. I think it comes from growing up without much and coming from down there."
Those of us who are Ohio Democrats and remember the fact that Rhodes beat us in four elections find the comparasion interesting. Ohio Dems could do far worse, and have, than nominating and electing a Democratic version of Jim Rhodes.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Does Slowdown in Home Construction Mean a Recession is Coming?
The Cleveland Plain Dealer had some stories during the last week about the slowdown in new home construction. One article dealt with the fact that new home starts in 2007 were the lowest in the last 12 years. Another article dealt with the fact that every county in the Cleveland-Akron metropolitan area has seen a significant reduction in new home sales since 2000. In northeast Ohio, the rate of new home construction has fallen by 31% during the first nine months of 2007 compared to the first nine months of 2006 and by 45% when compared to the first nine months of 2005.
In a graphic accompanying the article in the print edition, there was a chart showing the number of building permits issued for new homes in seven counties, including Medina County. According to the chart, in 2000 there were 1509 new homes built in Medina County. This year there have been only 559 new homes constructed, a drop of 62.9%. Medina County ranked ahead of Geauga, Lake, and Portgage counties, but behind Lorain, Cuyahoga, and Summit, all of which are appreciably bigger than Medina County. This slowdown is very unusual for Medina County that usually ranks in the top five counties of the state for new home construction.
Given the fact that home construction employs a lot of people, this drop in new home construction will be felt by all of us in Northeast Ohio, not just workers in the building trades. Car dealers, applicance dealers, furniture dealers, and others who sell goods to the owners of new homes or to the workers who build new homes will be affected by this slowdown in new home construction. Of course, the GOP answer will be to cut taxes and drive up the deficit even higher.
In a graphic accompanying the article in the print edition, there was a chart showing the number of building permits issued for new homes in seven counties, including Medina County. According to the chart, in 2000 there were 1509 new homes built in Medina County. This year there have been only 559 new homes constructed, a drop of 62.9%. Medina County ranked ahead of Geauga, Lake, and Portgage counties, but behind Lorain, Cuyahoga, and Summit, all of which are appreciably bigger than Medina County. This slowdown is very unusual for Medina County that usually ranks in the top five counties of the state for new home construction.
Given the fact that home construction employs a lot of people, this drop in new home construction will be felt by all of us in Northeast Ohio, not just workers in the building trades. Car dealers, applicance dealers, furniture dealers, and others who sell goods to the owners of new homes or to the workers who build new homes will be affected by this slowdown in new home construction. Of course, the GOP answer will be to cut taxes and drive up the deficit even higher.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
More Voinovich BS from the PD
Is there a law somewhere that says that the Plain Dealer has to describe Voinovich as some sort of Republican "moderate" on Iraq, even though it is obvious he is not such thing? Time and time again the PD tells us that Voinovich is searching for a different policy in Iraq than Bush's even though it is simply not true.
The latest example is a Plain Dealer editorial that appeared on Sunday, November 25, 2007. The editorial included this gem:
You might think that Democratic leaders, having already fallen hard on this path this year, would look to form an alliance with Republicans - including Ohioans Steve LaTourette in the House and George Voinovich in the Senate - who want a new course in Iraq.
Here's a question for the stupid editorial writer who wrote the above: When has George Voinovich proposed a new course for Iraq that is substantially different than George Bush's? Voinovich has supported the President on every vote that has been held this year. He refuses to come out in support of any kind of deadline for the withdrawal of American troops. He supported the so-called "surge." So just what is this new course that Voinovich and LaTourette supposedly want?
Look, we have long known that the Plain Dealer carries good old George's water. They did it when he was Cuyahoga County Auditor, when he was Cleveland's Mayor, when he was Governor, and now they are still carrying it when he is a Senator. Instead of insulting the intelligence of their readers by making up stuff, why doesn't PD's editorial staff just come out and admit the obvious: No matter what the facts are, they support whatever Voinovich does.
The latest example is a Plain Dealer editorial that appeared on Sunday, November 25, 2007. The editorial included this gem:
You might think that Democratic leaders, having already fallen hard on this path this year, would look to form an alliance with Republicans - including Ohioans Steve LaTourette in the House and George Voinovich in the Senate - who want a new course in Iraq.
Here's a question for the stupid editorial writer who wrote the above: When has George Voinovich proposed a new course for Iraq that is substantially different than George Bush's? Voinovich has supported the President on every vote that has been held this year. He refuses to come out in support of any kind of deadline for the withdrawal of American troops. He supported the so-called "surge." So just what is this new course that Voinovich and LaTourette supposedly want?
Look, we have long known that the Plain Dealer carries good old George's water. They did it when he was Cuyahoga County Auditor, when he was Cleveland's Mayor, when he was Governor, and now they are still carrying it when he is a Senator. Instead of insulting the intelligence of their readers by making up stuff, why doesn't PD's editorial staff just come out and admit the obvious: No matter what the facts are, they support whatever Voinovich does.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
GOP Controlled Ohio Senate Goes in the Bag for Ohio Utliities
The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a story in its November 12, 2007 edition about the energy bill that just passed the Ohio Senate. Perhaps not surprisingly, the GOP controlled Ohio Senate worked over Governor Strickland's plan and,guess who got screwed? If you answered Ohio's consumers, you win the prize! And what is that prize you ask? Well, let's just see what the Ohio Senate has in store for you:
Electric rates for consumers than can never be lower than they will be in February of 2008
Deep discounts for large commercial users of electricity.
No requirement that electric companies use renewable sources until 2025 and then only if such sources do not raise the overall average price of electricity more than 3%.
In short, Ohio's consumers are going to get the shaft courtesy of Ohio's Grand Old Party which never met a large corporation it didn't love.
Electric rates for consumers than can never be lower than they will be in February of 2008
Deep discounts for large commercial users of electricity.
No requirement that electric companies use renewable sources until 2025 and then only if such sources do not raise the overall average price of electricity more than 3%.
In short, Ohio's consumers are going to get the shaft courtesy of Ohio's Grand Old Party which never met a large corporation it didn't love.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Lake County and Medina County
The Cleveland Plain Dealer has an interesting article up about Lake County having a good track record of voting the same way that Ohio votes in presidential elections. What stood out for us is this quote from the article:
Lake County voters tend to be economically moderate and somewhat socially conservative, says Jack DeSario, a political scientist at Mount Union College in Stark County and a bipartisan political consultant who has run about 100 campaigns, including several in Lake County.
DeSario's quote sounds like it could be about Medina County, except we think that Medina County is more economically progressive than perhaps Lake County. What is right about both counties, though, is that the voters are somewhat "socially conservative."
If you ask people in Medina County what liberals stand for, chances are they won't talk about universal health care or making it easier for unions to organize. When they talk about liberals they are usually talking about "guns, gays, and God." They are talking about social issues and they are talking about the tendency of some liberals to act as if they are better than others.
Liberals who act or come across as elitist don't do well in Medina County, ie, John Kerry. Liberals or progressives, however, who talk about economic issues and come across as people who don't think they are better than others can do well in Medina County. People like Ted Strickland, Sherrod Brown, and Donald Pease, the late Congressman from the 13Th District. Representative Betty Sutton is another politician who comes across as approachable and concerned about economic issues.
We have said it before, and we will say it again, the way to beat the faux social populism of the right-wing is be a genuine economic populist. We have a word to describe such Democrats in Medina County: elected.
Lake County voters tend to be economically moderate and somewhat socially conservative, says Jack DeSario, a political scientist at Mount Union College in Stark County and a bipartisan political consultant who has run about 100 campaigns, including several in Lake County.
DeSario's quote sounds like it could be about Medina County, except we think that Medina County is more economically progressive than perhaps Lake County. What is right about both counties, though, is that the voters are somewhat "socially conservative."
If you ask people in Medina County what liberals stand for, chances are they won't talk about universal health care or making it easier for unions to organize. When they talk about liberals they are usually talking about "guns, gays, and God." They are talking about social issues and they are talking about the tendency of some liberals to act as if they are better than others.
Liberals who act or come across as elitist don't do well in Medina County, ie, John Kerry. Liberals or progressives, however, who talk about economic issues and come across as people who don't think they are better than others can do well in Medina County. People like Ted Strickland, Sherrod Brown, and Donald Pease, the late Congressman from the 13Th District. Representative Betty Sutton is another politician who comes across as approachable and concerned about economic issues.
We have said it before, and we will say it again, the way to beat the faux social populism of the right-wing is be a genuine economic populist. We have a word to describe such Democrats in Medina County: elected.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Analyzing the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Mason-Dixon Poll on Republican/Democratic Chances in Ohio in '08
The Plain Dealer is touting a new poll out by the Mason-Dixon polling firm that supposedly shows that Ohio Republicans are in much better shape than last year's state-wide elections indicated. Before people start quoting this poll they should look at who was polled.
According to the demographics of the poll, which are displayed at www.cleveland.com, the poll respondents broke down this way: 41% were Republicans, 35% were Democrats, and 24% were independents. In 2004, registered Democrats voting were 35% of the electorate, registered Republicans were 40% and independents were 25%, according to the CNN exit poll. Thus, the PD poll has 1% more Republicans than there were in the 2004 electorate and 1% less independents than there were in the 2004 primary.
Fifty-seven percent of the respondents to this poll were 50 years of age or older, while in 2004, according to the CNN exit poll, only 49% of Ohio's voters were age 50 or older. The Mason-Dixon poll respondents were 87% white, non-hispanic, 10% Afro-American, and 1% Hispanic. In 2004, according to the CNN poll, Ohio's voters were 86% white, non-hispanic, 10% Afro-American and 3% Hispanic. On gender, the Mason-Dixon poll polled 51% women and 49% men, but in 2004, again according to the CNN exit poll, the results were 53% and 47%.
Also, the Mason-Dixon poll doesn't show union households versus non-union households or income levels. In 2004, according to the CNN exit polls, 34% of Ohio voters came from union households while 66% did not. The number of union household members voting is important since in 2004 58% of those voting in union households went for Kerry.
Another figure that is interesting is the Bush job approval rating for the Mason-Dixon poll. In this poll, 40% approve of Bush's job performance. In the last Ohio poll, conducted by the University of Cincinnati, however, Bush's job approval rating was 31%.
Thus, comparing the PD's Mason-Dixon poll to the 2004 CNN exit poll, the PD poll has Ohio voters being slightly more Republican, slightly less Hispanic, older, and slightly more male. Compared to the Ohio poll, this poll has Ohio voters as appreciatively more supportative of Bush.
Given those facts, is it any wonder that the Mason-Dixon poll has Ohio as much more favorable for Republicans than would be assumed based on other polls? Is this an example of the PD trying to convince its readers that Republicans will carry Ohio in 2008? Does this poll reflect Ohio's voters or the hoped-for results of the Plain Dealer?
According to the demographics of the poll, which are displayed at www.cleveland.com, the poll respondents broke down this way: 41% were Republicans, 35% were Democrats, and 24% were independents. In 2004, registered Democrats voting were 35% of the electorate, registered Republicans were 40% and independents were 25%, according to the CNN exit poll. Thus, the PD poll has 1% more Republicans than there were in the 2004 electorate and 1% less independents than there were in the 2004 primary.
Fifty-seven percent of the respondents to this poll were 50 years of age or older, while in 2004, according to the CNN exit poll, only 49% of Ohio's voters were age 50 or older. The Mason-Dixon poll respondents were 87% white, non-hispanic, 10% Afro-American, and 1% Hispanic. In 2004, according to the CNN poll, Ohio's voters were 86% white, non-hispanic, 10% Afro-American and 3% Hispanic. On gender, the Mason-Dixon poll polled 51% women and 49% men, but in 2004, again according to the CNN exit poll, the results were 53% and 47%.
Also, the Mason-Dixon poll doesn't show union households versus non-union households or income levels. In 2004, according to the CNN exit polls, 34% of Ohio voters came from union households while 66% did not. The number of union household members voting is important since in 2004 58% of those voting in union households went for Kerry.
Another figure that is interesting is the Bush job approval rating for the Mason-Dixon poll. In this poll, 40% approve of Bush's job performance. In the last Ohio poll, conducted by the University of Cincinnati, however, Bush's job approval rating was 31%.
Thus, comparing the PD's Mason-Dixon poll to the 2004 CNN exit poll, the PD poll has Ohio voters being slightly more Republican, slightly less Hispanic, older, and slightly more male. Compared to the Ohio poll, this poll has Ohio voters as appreciatively more supportative of Bush.
Given those facts, is it any wonder that the Mason-Dixon poll has Ohio as much more favorable for Republicans than would be assumed based on other polls? Is this an example of the PD trying to convince its readers that Republicans will carry Ohio in 2008? Does this poll reflect Ohio's voters or the hoped-for results of the Plain Dealer?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Should Plain Dealer Provide More Opportunity for Feedback?
One of the nice things about the Washington Post is that its website allows readers to comment on most, if not all, of the stories that it runs. This means that if you read something you like, or don't like, you can post an online comment. These comments are apparently read by the Post's writers, who don't always like them.
In the past, journalists were protected from reader feedback unless a reader wrote a letter to the editor, which might or might not get published, or called the writer on the telephone. In either case, the feedback was not immediate and was much more edited.
In the case of letters to the editor it was edited by the paper itself and in the case of calls from readers, the editing process was a self-editing process. People aren't usually going to be as honest in a phone call as they are posting online.
Allowing readers to comment on stories they read online engages them with the story they are reading. That's the upside. The downside is, of course, that sometimes a lack of self-editing is a bad thing. It can lead to opinions or reactions that are not well thought out and are driven more by emotion than by intellect.
All of this brings us to the Plain Dealer's website. The Plain Dealer does not provide an opportunity for readers to post reactions to most of its stories. The question is: should it? Would readers on its website feel more engaged if they could post stories? Would it attract readers to the website? Would such a practice force journalists to confront criticism, and would that lead to better reporting?
Most newspaper websites that we have visited seem to be like the PD's and not like the Post's when it comes to allowing reader feedback. It will be interesting to see if more media websites allow greater opportunities for reader feedback in the future.
In the past, journalists were protected from reader feedback unless a reader wrote a letter to the editor, which might or might not get published, or called the writer on the telephone. In either case, the feedback was not immediate and was much more edited.
In the case of letters to the editor it was edited by the paper itself and in the case of calls from readers, the editing process was a self-editing process. People aren't usually going to be as honest in a phone call as they are posting online.
Allowing readers to comment on stories they read online engages them with the story they are reading. That's the upside. The downside is, of course, that sometimes a lack of self-editing is a bad thing. It can lead to opinions or reactions that are not well thought out and are driven more by emotion than by intellect.
All of this brings us to the Plain Dealer's website. The Plain Dealer does not provide an opportunity for readers to post reactions to most of its stories. The question is: should it? Would readers on its website feel more engaged if they could post stories? Would it attract readers to the website? Would such a practice force journalists to confront criticism, and would that lead to better reporting?
Most newspaper websites that we have visited seem to be like the PD's and not like the Post's when it comes to allowing reader feedback. It will be interesting to see if more media websites allow greater opportunities for reader feedback in the future.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Bush's Veto Complicates Ohio's Plans to Cover More Uninsured Children
The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article dated October 19, 2007 pointing out that Bubble-Boy's veto of the S-CHIP will complicate Ohio's attempt to cover more uninsured children. The article points out that Ohio's program is supported by both Governor Ted Strickland and the GOP leadership in the General Assembly. While it is possible that the Bush Administration could approve the changes that Ohio wants to make to its program, the article claims that this not likely to happen.
Below is a quote from the article explaining how this program would work:
Ohio currently offers coverage to children whose families earn up to twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four. The state plans to raise that in January to triple the poverty level, about $62,000 for a family of four.
The future of Ohio's plan has been uncertain since the Bush administration announced in August that it will oppose state efforts to extend coverage to children in families whose income is above 2.5 times the federal poverty rate unless states meet various conditions that Ohio does not expect to meet. The bill Bush vetoed would have prevented the administration from imposing those conditions.
Ohio officials, uncertain how the battle between Congress and Bush would play out, are now seeking permission from the administration to use money from the Medicaid program to cover children at higher income levels. In an interview with The Plain Dealer this week, however, an administration official who oversees state children's health programs sounded doubtful that the administration would approve such a plan
The article also notes that all six Democratic Congressional Representatives voted to override Bush's veto as did six out of 10 Republicans. It is interesting that Minority Leader John Bohner of Ohio, aka "Bonehead", couldn't get a majority of Ohio's 10 Republicans to vote his way.
Below is a quote from the article explaining how this program would work:
Ohio currently offers coverage to children whose families earn up to twice the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four. The state plans to raise that in January to triple the poverty level, about $62,000 for a family of four.
The future of Ohio's plan has been uncertain since the Bush administration announced in August that it will oppose state efforts to extend coverage to children in families whose income is above 2.5 times the federal poverty rate unless states meet various conditions that Ohio does not expect to meet. The bill Bush vetoed would have prevented the administration from imposing those conditions.
Ohio officials, uncertain how the battle between Congress and Bush would play out, are now seeking permission from the administration to use money from the Medicaid program to cover children at higher income levels. In an interview with The Plain Dealer this week, however, an administration official who oversees state children's health programs sounded doubtful that the administration would approve such a plan
The article also notes that all six Democratic Congressional Representatives voted to override Bush's veto as did six out of 10 Republicans. It is interesting that Minority Leader John Bohner of Ohio, aka "Bonehead", couldn't get a majority of Ohio's 10 Republicans to vote his way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)