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?
Showing posts with label Ohio General Assembly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ohio General Assembly. Show all posts
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Strickland to Veto Three GOP Passed Bills
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?
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?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Medina Rep Becomes House Minority Leader
Medina County Representative Bill Batchelder became the House Minority Leader on a vote in the House Republican caucus. Batchelder was battling with Representative Matt Dolan for the House Speakership during the 2008 campaign. Once the Republicans lost the majority in the House, Dolan withdrew his name from consideration as House Minority Leader.
State Senator Capri Cafaro Becomes Ohio Senate Minority Leader
Ohio State Senator Capri Cafaro has become Ohio Senate Minority Leader on a vote of the Democratic State Senators. Cafaro is known to Medina County Democrats from her campaign for the Democratic nomination for the 13TH Congressional District in 2006. Cafaro defeated Ohio Senator Tom Roberts of Dayton for the position. Cafaro is 30 years old. She was appointed State Senator in 2007 after Marc Dann left the seat to become Ohio's Attorney General.Saturday, November 08, 2008
Medina County Rep Loses Chance for Ohio House Speaker, May Become House MInority Leader
One of the surprises from the November 4, 2008 election was that Democrats now control the Ohio House. Although there had been talk in political circles that the Democrats were making a push to gain control, it is safe to say that most observers felt that they would fall short. Instead, they captured control by at least five votes, and it could go as high as seven, once the results of two close races are known.
The Democrats capturing control of the Ohio House means that Medina County won't see Representative William Batchelder become Speaker, at least not this coming term. Batchelder, who has over 30 years experience in the House, was vying with Representative Matt Dolan, son of the Indians' owner for Speaker.
There are reports, though, that Dolan has decided that he won't seek to become Minority Leader. Instead, it appears that Batchelder will become House Minority Leader. Interestingly, when Dolan told the Dispatch that he wasn't interested in becoming House Minority Leader, he didn't endorse Batchelder for that position. Dolan and Batchelder had been locked in what was described as a "bitter" battle for House Speaker. It appears that the bitterness is still there.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Ohio News Media Ignores GOP Tax Cuts When Discussing Ohio's Budget Woes
Back in 2003, under the late, unlamented Taft Administration, there were reports about how Ohio was going to run a one billion dollar deficit on its two-year budget. Now, its five years later, and a new Governor, but there are still such reports about how Ohio is in fiscal trouble. There are reports on how this budget crunch is going to impact on local governments.
Surprisingly absent from all these reports, however, is the fact that in 2005 the GOP-controlled General Assembly, in a fit of tax-cutting mania, decided to cut the taxes of all Ohioans by 4.2% each year for five years. In 2005 alone, this meant that the State lost revenue of around $340 million. Over a five year period this works out to a revenue loss of around two billion a year, according to the group Policy Matters Ohio.
Of course, like most Republican tax cuts, this one was geared to help the top. This is from the analysis prepared by Policy Matters Ohio:
The 1 percent of Ohio taxpayers who make at least $274,000 a year with an average income of $643,000 would save an average $8,464 a year if such a change were implemented. This group would receive 23 percent of all the tax savings – more than half again as much as the total amount received by the bottom 60 percent of Ohio taxpayers, who each make less than $43,400 a year. Taxpayers who make less than $16,000 – the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers by income – would save an average of just $12 a year.
While an across-the-board cut may appear to affect taxpayers equally, in fact the most affluent taxpayers would save much more of their income than lower- and middle-income taxpayers. The top 1 percent of taxpayers would save 1.3 percent of their income, while the middle 20 percent would save only 0.5 percent, and the bottom 20 percent just 0.1 percent. That’s because richer Ohioans pay steeper rates under the state’s graduated income tax.
Yet, the media acts like the current fiscal crisis in Ohio is caused by "bad forecasting" and higher fuel prices, to quote from the Cleveland Plain Dealer article linked to above. Now, those things very well may be having an impact, but here is another thought: When you cut the revenue stream of the state by around two billion a year during bad economic times in the state, you are going to have big fiscal problems.
We suspect that the news media is covering this angle because Governor Ted Strickland isn't talking about it. We suspect that Strickland isn't talking about it because he wants to get re-elected in 2010 and because the Democrats are within four or five votes of taking back the Ohio House. Those of us over 50 remember full well the way the Republicans used the so-called Celeste tax increase in 1984 to take the Ohio Senate.
The fact that Strickland isn't talking about the effects of the 2005 tax reduction by the GOP doesn't mean, however, that the media can't talk about it. It also doesn't mean that Democrats in local government positions can't talk about it. We suspect that Republican local officials will try to ignore the role the Ohio GOP General Assembly had in making this problem. We shouldn't let them.
Surprisingly absent from all these reports, however, is the fact that in 2005 the GOP-controlled General Assembly, in a fit of tax-cutting mania, decided to cut the taxes of all Ohioans by 4.2% each year for five years. In 2005 alone, this meant that the State lost revenue of around $340 million. Over a five year period this works out to a revenue loss of around two billion a year, according to the group Policy Matters Ohio.
Of course, like most Republican tax cuts, this one was geared to help the top. This is from the analysis prepared by Policy Matters Ohio:
The 1 percent of Ohio taxpayers who make at least $274,000 a year with an average income of $643,000 would save an average $8,464 a year if such a change were implemented. This group would receive 23 percent of all the tax savings – more than half again as much as the total amount received by the bottom 60 percent of Ohio taxpayers, who each make less than $43,400 a year. Taxpayers who make less than $16,000 – the bottom 20 percent of taxpayers by income – would save an average of just $12 a year.
While an across-the-board cut may appear to affect taxpayers equally, in fact the most affluent taxpayers would save much more of their income than lower- and middle-income taxpayers. The top 1 percent of taxpayers would save 1.3 percent of their income, while the middle 20 percent would save only 0.5 percent, and the bottom 20 percent just 0.1 percent. That’s because richer Ohioans pay steeper rates under the state’s graduated income tax.
Yet, the media acts like the current fiscal crisis in Ohio is caused by "bad forecasting" and higher fuel prices, to quote from the Cleveland Plain Dealer article linked to above. Now, those things very well may be having an impact, but here is another thought: When you cut the revenue stream of the state by around two billion a year during bad economic times in the state, you are going to have big fiscal problems.
We suspect that the news media is covering this angle because Governor Ted Strickland isn't talking about it. We suspect that Strickland isn't talking about it because he wants to get re-elected in 2010 and because the Democrats are within four or five votes of taking back the Ohio House. Those of us over 50 remember full well the way the Republicans used the so-called Celeste tax increase in 1984 to take the Ohio Senate.
The fact that Strickland isn't talking about the effects of the 2005 tax reduction by the GOP doesn't mean, however, that the media can't talk about it. It also doesn't mean that Democrats in local government positions can't talk about it. We suspect that Republican local officials will try to ignore the role the Ohio GOP General Assembly had in making this problem. We shouldn't let them.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Feds Reject Ohio Plan to Epand Kids' Health Coverage
The Toledo Blade has a story dated Saturday, December 21, 2007, on how the Bush Administration has rejected Ohio's bi-partisan to expand health insurance for working families. This plan, which was in the Governor's budget which passed with only one negative vote, would have expanded health insurance coverage for families up to $62,000 in family income. The Bush Administration announced this rejection with a one-sentence explanation and refused any other requests for more information.
This means that the Bush administration is not only fighting the Democratic Congress in its efforts to expand S-CHIP but is also fighting the efforts of states like New York and Ohio to use state money and federal money to insure children. This is, of course, in keeping with Bush's philosophy of trying to get uninsured children into private health insurance plans as opposed to using government funded plans. Never mind, of course, that such insurance plans are prohibitively expensive and don't really exist for working families. It's more important to Bush and his radical right-wing allies to fight for a philosophy than actually see uninsured children insured for medical purposes.
Ohioans need to recognize that Ohio can't depend on Washington to solve this problem for us. It is possible that a Democratic President will get elected and that S-CHIP will be expanded in early 2009, but it is certainly not a certainty. That's why SPAN-Ohio, which stands for Single Payer Action Network is working for a universal health insurance plan in Ohio. If you are interested in their efforts, go to www.spanohio.org. You will find ways to get involved in this struggle.
This means that the Bush administration is not only fighting the Democratic Congress in its efforts to expand S-CHIP but is also fighting the efforts of states like New York and Ohio to use state money and federal money to insure children. This is, of course, in keeping with Bush's philosophy of trying to get uninsured children into private health insurance plans as opposed to using government funded plans. Never mind, of course, that such insurance plans are prohibitively expensive and don't really exist for working families. It's more important to Bush and his radical right-wing allies to fight for a philosophy than actually see uninsured children insured for medical purposes.
Ohioans need to recognize that Ohio can't depend on Washington to solve this problem for us. It is possible that a Democratic President will get elected and that S-CHIP will be expanded in early 2009, but it is certainly not a certainty. That's why SPAN-Ohio, which stands for Single Payer Action Network is working for a universal health insurance plan in Ohio. If you are interested in their efforts, go to www.spanohio.org. You will find ways to get involved in this struggle.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Respected Republican Judge Throws Out GOP Campaign Finance Law
The Columbus Dispatch is reporting that Franklin County Common Pleas Judge John Bender, a Republican who used to be legal counsel to Bob Taft when he was Ohio's Secretary of State, has struck down the campaign finance law the GOP passed in late 2006. The bill was passed after the Republicans had lost five out of six state-wide offices. The bill was aimed at curtailing unions from engaging in politics by helping to fund political campaigns.
This paragraph from the Dispatch article explains why Judge Bender struck down the law:
After the bill passed the legislature, the House clerk’s office left out 33 pages of the final bill. It was that incomplete version that was attested to by the House speaker and Senate president, and then signed into law by Gov. Bob Taft.
After the mistake was discovered, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner let the House clerk substitute the first 33 pages of House Bill 694, even though it already had been filed with her office. The missing text dealt with union contributions; at the time, Brunner said the fixing of clerical errors was permitted in years past.
The unions sued earlier this year. Common Pleas Court Judge John F. Bender said late yesterday the General Assembly passed one bill, but the governor technically signed a different bill.
The bottom line for Bender: The governor can’t sign a bill not passed by the General Assembly, and lawmakers can’t send the governor a bill that they did not pass.
The fact that a Democratic Secretary of State allowed the Republicans to substitute the first 33 pages of the bill's text with her office, but it was then struck down by a Republican judge actually helps any future judicial review of Judge Bender's actions. What also helps is the reputation of John Bender for being a very fair judges and one who carefully considers his decisions.
This doesn't mean that campaign finance is dead in Ohio. What it does mean, if the ruling stands, is that the Republicans controlling the General Assembly won't be able to pass a one-sided bill. Of course, if they can't pass a one-sided bill, maybe they won't want to pass one at all.
This paragraph from the Dispatch article explains why Judge Bender struck down the law:
After the bill passed the legislature, the House clerk’s office left out 33 pages of the final bill. It was that incomplete version that was attested to by the House speaker and Senate president, and then signed into law by Gov. Bob Taft.
After the mistake was discovered, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner let the House clerk substitute the first 33 pages of House Bill 694, even though it already had been filed with her office. The missing text dealt with union contributions; at the time, Brunner said the fixing of clerical errors was permitted in years past.
The unions sued earlier this year. Common Pleas Court Judge John F. Bender said late yesterday the General Assembly passed one bill, but the governor technically signed a different bill.
The bottom line for Bender: The governor can’t sign a bill not passed by the General Assembly, and lawmakers can’t send the governor a bill that they did not pass.
The fact that a Democratic Secretary of State allowed the Republicans to substitute the first 33 pages of the bill's text with her office, but it was then struck down by a Republican judge actually helps any future judicial review of Judge Bender's actions. What also helps is the reputation of John Bender for being a very fair judges and one who carefully considers his decisions.
This doesn't mean that campaign finance is dead in Ohio. What it does mean, if the ruling stands, is that the Republicans controlling the General Assembly won't be able to pass a one-sided bill. Of course, if they can't pass a one-sided bill, maybe they won't want to pass one at all.
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.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Ohioans Want Renewable Energy, Republican State Senator Gets Sarcastic
The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article dated October 13, 2007, on a poll that was taken for a group called Environment Ohio on whether Ohioans would support Ohio setting a requirement that energy suppliers get a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources. According to the article, this was the result:
The support for renewable energy cut across political lines. For example, 71 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Democrats said they would support a renewable standard.
Support for the standard was just as high in rural areas, 80 percent; small towns, 81 percent, as in large cities, 84 percent.
By a nine-to-one margin, those surveyed said their legislator's support of a renewable energy standard would be a positive in their vote decision.
More than 90 percent said they would be willing to pay more for green energy, with more than a third saying they would be willing to pay an extra $10 per month.
Not surprisingly, a Republican State Senator, Robert Spada of North Royalton, didn't like the result. Here is a quote from the article:
After a skeptical committee member Sen. Robert Spada, a North Royalton Republican, sarcastically asked whether the poll was a survey of "your members," Bowser told the committee that Public Opinion Strategies, "the largest Republican polling firm in the nation," conducted the telephone survey.
This is very typical of how a lot of Republicans react to information that they don't want to hear. Instead of debating the merits of renewable energy, the Republican response is to try and belittle the person bringing them the information. It doesn't matter whether the issue is the environment, the Iraq War, health insurance for children, just to name a few, the response is always the same: don't debate the issue on the merits, go after the person or organization supplying the information.
If you want to know why nothing gets done on the pressing issues facing our country, the answer lies in the fact that the leaders of one of the two major political parties that run our government is comprised on people who apparently can't handle or process information they don't like.
The support for renewable energy cut across political lines. For example, 71 percent of Republicans and 76 percent of Democrats said they would support a renewable standard.
Support for the standard was just as high in rural areas, 80 percent; small towns, 81 percent, as in large cities, 84 percent.
By a nine-to-one margin, those surveyed said their legislator's support of a renewable energy standard would be a positive in their vote decision.
More than 90 percent said they would be willing to pay more for green energy, with more than a third saying they would be willing to pay an extra $10 per month.
Not surprisingly, a Republican State Senator, Robert Spada of North Royalton, didn't like the result. Here is a quote from the article:
After a skeptical committee member Sen. Robert Spada, a North Royalton Republican, sarcastically asked whether the poll was a survey of "your members," Bowser told the committee that Public Opinion Strategies, "the largest Republican polling firm in the nation," conducted the telephone survey.
This is very typical of how a lot of Republicans react to information that they don't want to hear. Instead of debating the merits of renewable energy, the Republican response is to try and belittle the person bringing them the information. It doesn't matter whether the issue is the environment, the Iraq War, health insurance for children, just to name a few, the response is always the same: don't debate the issue on the merits, go after the person or organization supplying the information.
If you want to know why nothing gets done on the pressing issues facing our country, the answer lies in the fact that the leaders of one of the two major political parties that run our government is comprised on people who apparently can't handle or process information they don't like.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Mike Todd for State Senate Campaign Website
Do you know that Medina Township Trustee Mike Todd is running for the Ohio Senate in 2008? Learn all about him by checking out his new website: www.toddforohio.com
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Strickland's Uses Line-Item Veto Power
The difference in the Republicans only having 54 votes in the Ohio House of Representatives is shown in this quote from an article in the Newark Advocate regarding the 2007-2009 Ohio Budget: Attempts to override any Strickland veto are remote. A three-fifths majority in each chamber is required. That means 60 votes in the House, which has just 54 GOP members. House Republican spokeswoman Karen Tabor said her caucus had not yet decided whether to challenge the governor. Any override attempt would have to begin in the House, where the budget bill was introduced.
Strickland vetoed the establishment of a voucher program for special needs children; a provision to limit the powers of the Governor and require more reporting to the State Controlling Board; attempts to control lottery payouts and prohibit Sunday lottery drawings; an attempt to put limits on the Ohio Department of Job and Family services regarding the cost of prescription mental health medicine; and the establishment of a fund that could only be used to promote absintence only sex education for teens.
Clearly this whole budget process has been a victory for Strickland. He basically got what he wanted from the General Assembly and looked good while doing it. It was essential that this process go well so that he could keep his momentum going into the second half of 2007, and he certainly accomplished that goal. There was only one dissenting vote regarding the adoption of the budget.
One personality trait that Strickland brings to the Governor's office is that he is a polite person, but not a push-over. The Republicans saw that he wasn't a push-over when he exercised the veto of the bill that Taft tried to have become law without his signature, but he has followed that up with being polite to the Republican leaders during the budget process. Both of these traits have served Ohio well during his first six months in office.
Strickland vetoed the establishment of a voucher program for special needs children; a provision to limit the powers of the Governor and require more reporting to the State Controlling Board; attempts to control lottery payouts and prohibit Sunday lottery drawings; an attempt to put limits on the Ohio Department of Job and Family services regarding the cost of prescription mental health medicine; and the establishment of a fund that could only be used to promote absintence only sex education for teens.
Clearly this whole budget process has been a victory for Strickland. He basically got what he wanted from the General Assembly and looked good while doing it. It was essential that this process go well so that he could keep his momentum going into the second half of 2007, and he certainly accomplished that goal. There was only one dissenting vote regarding the adoption of the budget.
One personality trait that Strickland brings to the Governor's office is that he is a polite person, but not a push-over. The Republicans saw that he wasn't a push-over when he exercised the veto of the bill that Taft tried to have become law without his signature, but he has followed that up with being polite to the Republican leaders during the budget process. Both of these traits have served Ohio well during his first six months in office.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Election of Strickland Changes Budget Priorities
Here are four examples from Ohio newspapers on how Strickland' election is changing Ohio:
Budget bill extends health insurance coverage to 4,000 children who have serious illnesses but can't get private health insurance.
Kent State University will not be raising tuition for undergrads and credits the just enacted budget bill.
Seniors applaud homestead break pushed by Strickland.
Funding for clinics treating women for breast and cervical cancer restored, saving 18 clinics.
Do you think that we would be reading these stories if Ken Blackwell had been elected?
NOTE: This entry is the 500th entry posted on the MCDAC Blog.
Budget bill extends health insurance coverage to 4,000 children who have serious illnesses but can't get private health insurance.
Kent State University will not be raising tuition for undergrads and credits the just enacted budget bill.
Seniors applaud homestead break pushed by Strickland.
Funding for clinics treating women for breast and cervical cancer restored, saving 18 clinics.
Do you think that we would be reading these stories if Ken Blackwell had been elected?
NOTE: This entry is the 500th entry posted on the MCDAC Blog.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Should Governor Strickland Have Vetoed the Stripper Bill?
The Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an editorial criticizing Governor Strickland for allowing the stripper bill to become law without his signature. The editorial appeared in the Monday, May 28, 2007 edition of the Plain Dealer. Although Strickland said that he would have voted against the bill if he had been in the General Assembly, he wasn't going to veto it.
The PD feels otherwise. Jill of Writes Like She Talks agrees with the PD. She points out in one of her blog entries that Ohio will have to spend taxpayer dollars defending a bill in the Federal Courts that will most likely be struck down as unconstitutional. The issue of attorney fees isn't, by the way, a small matter. If a person brings a lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 because his or her civil rights have been violated, they are entitled to attorney fees if successful.
The counter-argument in favor of Strickland's veto would be that he needs to have some co-operation with the General Assembly and fighting over this bill, a fight that he probably won't win, is simply not worth it. It is very possible that Strickland and the General Assembly could be heading for some fights over potential Strickland line item vetoes in the state's budget bill. The question is whether such political capital, to use a term our President is fond of, should be used in this fashion.
One thing that Strickland has going for him is that voters, so far, approve of his performance in office. His popularity is going to go down over the next several months. If he is constantly seen as vetoing legislation passed by the General Assembly, especially if he is not upheld in that veto, he could be seen as weak and ineffectual.
We are interested in your opinion, please tell us what you think by leaving a comment on this entry.
Cross-posted at www.medinacountycommonsense.com.
The PD feels otherwise. Jill of Writes Like She Talks agrees with the PD. She points out in one of her blog entries that Ohio will have to spend taxpayer dollars defending a bill in the Federal Courts that will most likely be struck down as unconstitutional. The issue of attorney fees isn't, by the way, a small matter. If a person brings a lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 because his or her civil rights have been violated, they are entitled to attorney fees if successful.
The counter-argument in favor of Strickland's veto would be that he needs to have some co-operation with the General Assembly and fighting over this bill, a fight that he probably won't win, is simply not worth it. It is very possible that Strickland and the General Assembly could be heading for some fights over potential Strickland line item vetoes in the state's budget bill. The question is whether such political capital, to use a term our President is fond of, should be used in this fashion.
One thing that Strickland has going for him is that voters, so far, approve of his performance in office. His popularity is going to go down over the next several months. If he is constantly seen as vetoing legislation passed by the General Assembly, especially if he is not upheld in that veto, he could be seen as weak and ineffectual.
We are interested in your opinion, please tell us what you think by leaving a comment on this entry.
Cross-posted at www.medinacountycommonsense.com.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Does Ohio Need State Law on Strippers?
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read an Akron Beacon Journal editorial chiding the Republican General Assembly for adopting a state law prohibiting contact between strippers and patrons. The thrust of the editorial is not that such a prohibition is a bad idea, but that it should be adopted by local governments and not the state. If Cincinnati wants to adopt a no-contact rule and Columbus doesn't, then why is that Cleveland's problem? Why can't local officials decide this issue for themselves? Why does it take a state law to regulate strip clubs?
One of the arguments that conservatives used to make against Federal legislation was that local governments and state governments were better equipped to handle problems. Conservatives used to argue that this was especially true where the government's police power was concerned.
Now, however, Republicans in the General Assembly are more than willing to override the principle of self-government when it helps them score brownie points with a special interest group such as Citizens for Community Values.
Again, the issue here isn't the merits of a no-contact rule. Frankly, we can sympathize with the goals of this legislation. The issue here is which level of government should address this issue.
Cross-posted at www.medinacountycommonsense.com.
One of the arguments that conservatives used to make against Federal legislation was that local governments and state governments were better equipped to handle problems. Conservatives used to argue that this was especially true where the government's police power was concerned.
Now, however, Republicans in the General Assembly are more than willing to override the principle of self-government when it helps them score brownie points with a special interest group such as Citizens for Community Values.
Again, the issue here isn't the merits of a no-contact rule. Frankly, we can sympathize with the goals of this legislation. The issue here is which level of government should address this issue.
Cross-posted at www.medinacountycommonsense.com.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Cleveland PD Articles on Lawsuit Over Strickland's Veto
On Tuesday, May 1, the Ohio Supreme Court will hear the lawsuit involving Gov. Strickland's veto of the bill that Taft refused to sign and that capped punitive damages in consumer cases. Cleveland Plain Dealer Business columnist Sheryl Harris has a good article about this case in Sunday's Plain Dealer. You can read her story here. She had a recap of the bill's legal history here. Here she explains who is backing the Governor and who is backing the General Assembly. In this sidebar she sets forth the text from the Ohio Constitution that is at the center of the dispute.
If you are looking for a good explanation of what is involved in this lawsuit and why it is important these stories are ideal. What is most interesting is the groups backing the two sides in this lawsuit, Secretary of State Brunner and the Ohio General Assembly.
Groups backing the GOP led General Assembly include the following:
Ohio Automobile Dealers Association
Ohio Business Roundtable
Ohio Chamber of Commerce
Ohio Chemistry Technology Council
Ohio Council of Retail Merchants
Ohio Manufacturers' Association
Groups backing Ohio Secretary of State Brunner include the following:
AARP
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality and Legal Aid of Western Ohio
Cleveland Tenants Organization
Coalition on Homelessness and Housing
Cuyahoga County Foreclosure Prevention Program
Equal Justice Foundation
Gov. Ted Strickland
Ohio State Legal Services Association
Legal Aid Society of Cleveland
Legal Aid Society of Columbus
Miami Valley Fair Housing Center
National Association of Consumer Advocates
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless
Toledo Fair Housing Center
18 constitutional law professors from state and private colleges
We will leave it to you to decide which groups represent the interests of Ohio consumers and ordinary citizens.
If you are looking for a good explanation of what is involved in this lawsuit and why it is important these stories are ideal. What is most interesting is the groups backing the two sides in this lawsuit, Secretary of State Brunner and the Ohio General Assembly.
Groups backing the GOP led General Assembly include the following:
Ohio Automobile Dealers Association
Ohio Business Roundtable
Ohio Chamber of Commerce
Ohio Chemistry Technology Council
Ohio Council of Retail Merchants
Ohio Manufacturers' Association
Groups backing Ohio Secretary of State Brunner include the following:
AARP
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality and Legal Aid of Western Ohio
Cleveland Tenants Organization
Coalition on Homelessness and Housing
Cuyahoga County Foreclosure Prevention Program
Equal Justice Foundation
Gov. Ted Strickland
Ohio State Legal Services Association
Legal Aid Society of Cleveland
Legal Aid Society of Columbus
Miami Valley Fair Housing Center
National Association of Consumer Advocates
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless
Toledo Fair Housing Center
18 constitutional law professors from state and private colleges
We will leave it to you to decide which groups represent the interests of Ohio consumers and ordinary citizens.
Ohio Republican Hypocrisy
If you click on the link in this entry's title you can read about how the GOP House Speaker Husted and the incoming Ohio GOP Chair Dewine want to cut 22 million out of Gov. Strickland's proposed budget for economic development but also want to earmark 9 million additional dollars for economic development for the Dayton area, where, gee, both of them come from.
As Gov. Strickland points out, it doesn't make a a lot of sense to be cutting funds for economic development in a state that is bleeding jobs. It is also inconsistent to cut funds out of the state budget for economic development for the whole state but then add funds for economic development for one area of the state.
As we have commented before, former GOP Governor Jim Rhodes used to talk about "jobs and progress" in the 1960s. This current group of GOP leaders want to talk about "guns and gays", except, of course, if the jobs are in their areas. Just another example of GOP hypocrisy.
As Gov. Strickland points out, it doesn't make a a lot of sense to be cutting funds for economic development in a state that is bleeding jobs. It is also inconsistent to cut funds out of the state budget for economic development for the whole state but then add funds for economic development for one area of the state.
As we have commented before, former GOP Governor Jim Rhodes used to talk about "jobs and progress" in the 1960s. This current group of GOP leaders want to talk about "guns and gays", except, of course, if the jobs are in their areas. Just another example of GOP hypocrisy.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Sen. Bill 117 & the Ohio Constitution's Impairment of Contracts Clause
One of the bills being talked about in the General Assembly is Sen. Bill 117 which would apparently wipe out local franchise agreements between cable tv providers and local governments. Apparently members of the General Assembly are taking some heat from mayors and other local government officials. You can read about their pressuring the Ohio Senate by clicking on the link in this entry's title.
What Sen. Bill 117 supposedly does is wipe out local franchise agreements and replace them with one state-wide franchise agreement. What is interesting about this proposal is that it would seem to violate the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Constitution contains a provision that prohibits the impairment of contracts. The clause is found in Art. II, Sec. 28, which reads as follows:
§ 28. Retroactive laws The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts; but may, by general laws, authorize courts to carry into effect, upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest intention of parties, and officers, by curing omissions, defects, and errors, in instruments and proceedings, arising out of their want of conformity with the laws of this state.
If Sen. Bill 117 would "wipe out" local franchise agreements, then how could it not be a law impairing the obligation of contracts? It would seem that such a law would violate the Ohio Constitution. Of course what is interesting about this debate is how it would seem to go against three supposed "conservative" values. They are respect for local governments, respect for the sanctity of contracts freely entered into between contracting parties, and respect for the property right that is, according to many conservative writers, implicit in such contracts.
So why is the supposedly "conservative" GOP that controls the General Assembly pushing such a bill? Because in the final analysis the GOP has become the corporate party of American politics. Conservative values are fine as long as they don't interfere with what private corporations want, but if such a conflict happens, then corporate interests will win out almost everytime.
What Sen. Bill 117 supposedly does is wipe out local franchise agreements and replace them with one state-wide franchise agreement. What is interesting about this proposal is that it would seem to violate the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Constitution contains a provision that prohibits the impairment of contracts. The clause is found in Art. II, Sec. 28, which reads as follows:
§ 28. Retroactive laws The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts; but may, by general laws, authorize courts to carry into effect, upon such terms as shall be just and equitable, the manifest intention of parties, and officers, by curing omissions, defects, and errors, in instruments and proceedings, arising out of their want of conformity with the laws of this state.
If Sen. Bill 117 would "wipe out" local franchise agreements, then how could it not be a law impairing the obligation of contracts? It would seem that such a law would violate the Ohio Constitution. Of course what is interesting about this debate is how it would seem to go against three supposed "conservative" values. They are respect for local governments, respect for the sanctity of contracts freely entered into between contracting parties, and respect for the property right that is, according to many conservative writers, implicit in such contracts.
So why is the supposedly "conservative" GOP that controls the General Assembly pushing such a bill? Because in the final analysis the GOP has become the corporate party of American politics. Conservative values are fine as long as they don't interfere with what private corporations want, but if such a conflict happens, then corporate interests will win out almost everytime.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Plain Dealer Series on Medicaid Continues
If you click on the link in this entry's title, you can read the second of three articles on Ohio's Medicaid programs. This one points out that 40 years ago Medicaid accounted for 3% of Ohio's state budget, now it accounts for over 40% of Ohio's budget. This article details the influence that nursing homes have over Ohio's state government. According to the PD this influence is very bi-partisan in that whoever controls the General Assembly gets money from the nursing home lobby, be they Democratic, as in former House Speaker Vern Riffe, or Republican, as in former House Speaker Larry Householder. Check it out, it is very interesting.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Medicaid Funding & the Ohio General Assembly
The Cleveland Plain Dealer has a story by its Columbus Bureau Chief discussing the funding of Ohio's Medicaid program. According to this story a family of four earning $60,000.00 per year would see approximately $1,300.00 of its tax dollars go to this program.
One of the issues that always comes up during debate over Medicaid is how to handle senior citizens and their care. The article points out that in the past the nursing home lobby has managed to get what it wanted from the Ohio General Assembly. That is changing.
One of the changes that is being discussed is to try and shift more people from nursing homes to in-home care which would theoretically save money. Such a policy change, however, assumes that there will be skilled nursing aides to help families cope with caring for sick and disabled senior citizens.
In one of her last acts as State Auditor Betty Montgomery released a report calling for over 100 changes in Ohio's Medicaid program that she said would save over 400 million dollars per year. That report could become the blueprint for changing Ohio's Medicaid program. It will be interesting to see how much the House and Senate GOP leadership are willing to take on the nursing home lobby.
One of the issues that always comes up during debate over Medicaid is how to handle senior citizens and their care. The article points out that in the past the nursing home lobby has managed to get what it wanted from the Ohio General Assembly. That is changing.
One of the changes that is being discussed is to try and shift more people from nursing homes to in-home care which would theoretically save money. Such a policy change, however, assumes that there will be skilled nursing aides to help families cope with caring for sick and disabled senior citizens.
In one of her last acts as State Auditor Betty Montgomery released a report calling for over 100 changes in Ohio's Medicaid program that she said would save over 400 million dollars per year. That report could become the blueprint for changing Ohio's Medicaid program. It will be interesting to see how much the House and Senate GOP leadership are willing to take on the nursing home lobby.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)