You see the title of this blog post?

I really mean it.

“But wait a minute,” you might protest, “didn’t Republican domination of the Ohio General Assembly for years and years and years bring Ohio to it’s knees long before the Democrats seized the Ohio House?  Isn’t that the reason why the Democrats have the majority in the Ohio House now?  Weren’t Ohioans fed up with Republican legislative screw-ups in Columbus?”

That is so true.  When Larry Householder and Jon Husted served as back-to-back Speakers of the Ohio House, I was unhappy with the blatantly pay-to-play legislation they advanced just to help them set campaign fundraising records. Pay-to-play legislation only distorts the marketplace, creating a playing field that is not level across all companies and industries, thus making Ohio anti-competitive.  That Ohio’s business climate isn’t competitive with those of other states should be painfully obvious.  As Speakers, they were not fiscally conservative, having ballooned the state budget during the economic boom years that proved to be totally unsustainable during the lean years.  We should have had a state government budget that didn’t bank on an absence of future economic downturns.

I’m also dead serious when I say that Armond Budish, whose middle name might as well be “I’m-for-sale,” has compounded his propensity for pay-to-play politics by further painting state government into a fiscal corner.  The only solutions forthcoming from Democrats are to increase state revenues through imposing greater burdens upon businesses and Ohio residents.

Disastrously, they looked to increase state revenues for gambling, trying to expand the Ohio Lottery without allowing a referendum in an effort to get more people addicted to gambling.  This action emboldened the backers of the devastating casino ballot issue, as they proclaimed, “Morality is dead.  The moral arguments against casinos are now swept away.”  I still don’t forgive Ted Strickland for his betrayal that gave the casino backers such ammunition.  On the topic of gambling, Speaker Armond Budish declared himself to be unprincipled and spineless–a prime target for the lobbyists of special interests–which is partly why I say his middle name might as well be “I’m-for-sale.”

Tax and fee increases to further bolster the gluttonous state government will only further oppress Ohioans and businesses that are already being battered by an economic maelstrom.  Yet, somehow, the Democrats feel that the programs administered by state government can alleviate the plight of the least fortunate Ohioans, thus fee and tax increases are justified.  This is madness.

Under a Democrat governor and Democrat Ohio House, the least fortunate Ohioans are now the prey upon which the casinos will feed (as if the Ohio Lottery hadn’t already harmed them with the false advertising promises that they can get lucky by playing the lottery).  Blatant redistribution of wealth from the least fortunate Ohioans to the to the most fortunate Ohioans, especially to the money pit of those who are gambling addicts, will only increase the overall number of Ohioans who are less fortunate.

Using redistribution of wealth to level the socio-economic playing field among Ohio households only pulls the whole population economically downward.  When thrift and productivity are rewarded rather than punished, thus resulting in increased prosperity, there can be an upward economic lift for the whole population, as the pace of economic activity picks up, along with employment and investment prospects.  Instead of growing the tax rates, Ohio ought to grow the tax base.

William Batchelder, current Ohio House Minority Leader who would become Speaker if the Republicans regained control of the Ohio House, is no Armond Budish.  He is no Jon Husted.  He is no Larry Householder.  He’s more principled than the three prior Speakers put together. He was not a go-along-to-get-along stooge while Husted was Speaker.  Batchelder led a more principled faction that rivaled the one led by Husted.

Batchelder has changed the apparatus for the campaign fundraising of the Republican Caucus.  The Ohio House Republican Campaign Committee (OHRCC) that operated under Householder and Husted is no more.  It has been replaced with the Ohio House Republican Organizational Committee (OHROC), and the emphasis is on the work ethic, not on abandoning principles in exchange for donations.

Batchelder better fits the label of “fiscal conservative” than those 3 House Speakers already mentioned.  He sees the punishment of economic success and the redistribution of wealth as an assault upon liberty, itself.  He wants to examine and review each component of state government and fund or defund each according to its merits or lack thereof as part of a budget-cutting effort that will spare Ohio’s taxpayers from being further burdened.

The Republican Caucus in the Ohio House has rallied to support principled efforts, as well, as they’ve introduced a number of bills during this session of the General Assembly that are designed to stimulate business expansion in Ohio, especially through cutting bureaucracy and repealing ill-advised state regulations.  Cutting Ohio’s state government budget will allow for a more favorable tax climate to take hold than Ohio has seen for many many years.

They can hardly be considered the party of “no.”  If they just sat on their hands and voted no on every Democrat bill in the Ohio House, that would be the party of no.  Instead, they’ve been prolific in the amount of legislation they’ve sponsored that rivals Democrat legislation and offers a competing vision.  The Republican Caucus is showing that they are prepared to govern.    They just need a net gain of four more Republicans to retake the chamber.

I’ve often posted guest editorials and press releases here at Buckeye RINO that were issued by Ohio House 58th District incumbent Terry Boose.  We still need Terry Boose.  But we need to add Jeff Krabill in the 80th District, Ray Lynn Brady in the 57th District, Skip Lewandowski in the 56th District, and Rex Damschroder in the 81st District, among others.  I hope to include more information about these candidates in the upcoming weeks, perhaps even guest blog posts from the candidates themselves so that you can hear their messages in their own words.

I’ve often been chastised by the Libertarians and independents for shilling for the Republican candidates.  They rightfully point out that the troubles our government has caused for the citizens have been the doing of both Democrats and Republicans.  Besides pointing out the differences between the current Republican leadership, current Republican caucus, and current Republican and the failed ones of the past, I also need to point out that there are not enough independent or Libertarian candidates for Ohio House for them to capture a majority of the chamber.  The Ohio House majority caucus must either be a Democrat caucus or a Republican caucus.  Those are the two choices.

The Democrats who are currently accelerating Ohio along a downward spiral path are proving to me that they are not the party that can effectively govern during economic crisis.

Boose, with Krabill, Brady, Lewandowski, and Damschroder, are not of the brand of Republicans that followed in the footsteps of Householder or Husted.  Each one of them will improve the integrity of the Republican caucus and the Ohio House of Representatives.  William Batchelder is a capable leader.  I have confidence in them, and I hope voters will also express confidence in them with their votes during this election cycle.

Let me begin with a disclaimer.  I do not know the inner workings of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (abbreviated here as Ohio EPA, or just OEPA).

My knowledge of the Ohio EPA is mostly based on my eyes, my ears, and my ability to read.

Likewise, the proposal that follow are a response to what my eyes, ears, and reading ability tell me.

My ears heard something back in 2002 that made my eyes look a little more probingly at my surroundings.  While campaigning for state rep door-to-door, I spoke with a member of a family that owned and operated a construction and demolition debris dump.  He said that he understood that the OEPA needed to set some ground rules, inspect the dump from time to time, perhaps conduct a quick audit of reports that get sent to the OEPA, and even impose a dumping fee.  What he didn’t understand was why the OEPA didn’t investigate illegal dumping, where construction and demolition companies would try to avoid the fee collected at his dump by shedding their waste in some wooded or vacant area in an out-of-the-way place.

So I opened my eyes a little wider to take in my surroundings as I went from place to place.  Sure enough, in some-out-of the-way places, one can sometimes spot some rubbish that ought to be in a dump.

The construction and demolition dump is trying to provide a service.  That service is to have a place where such debris can be deposited where it poses less of a health and safety risk to the public.  To be sure, inspections may very well identify organic leachate or metal and inorganic leachate to exceed established parameters, but the dump is still a better repository for the debris than some other plot of ground is.

Sure, if you’re a neighbor of a megafarm and you believe the megafarm is contaminating runoff into surface streams because of improper handling of manure, you can report it to the EPA, and they’ll investigate.  They’ll investigate any number of companies.

But how do they investigate entities that are anonymous?  The landowner of the out-of-the-way plot of ground where debris was strewn may be just as perplexed and angered over the conditions he discovers as anybody else is.  The landowner may have no connections whatsoever to any construction or demolition companies, but he’s the one that will have to clean up that lot.

And, even if the land ownership is connected to a construction or demolition company, how long will the stuff sit there and leach hazardous materials into the ground before it is discovered?

Sure, a sheriff can gather evidence and a prosecutor can press charges, but does a sheriff even know what to look for in the first place?  And how can a sheriff assess the threat that an improperly discarded hazardous material might impose?  With cash-strapped counties cutting back on payroll, including sheriff deputies, what priorities will such investigations have?  If the OEPA is to protect Ohio’s environment, shouldn’t we widen the scope of their purview?

I’ve seen companies go out of business because they could not afford to meet all the requirements of the OEPA.  It could be said that the OEPA creates more brownfields than it cleans up.  I had an employer decide to get out of the gasoline station business because it just became too expensive.  You’ve probably seen some abandoned ones from time to time.  I wonder if those tanks are still in the ground.  The OEPA doesn’t want them there, but if no one can ante up the cash to take care of it, it’s possible they’re still there.

A family I knew from elementary school used to have greenhouses where they raised hydroponic tomatoes.  Now when I drive by, I see overgrown vegetation literally dismantling the greenhouses, as it pushes out panes of glass.  I asked my mom what happened to the greenhouses, because she knows the family, too.  The Ohio EPA wanted them to retrofit their greenhouses and the cost estimates turned out to be much more than they could manage.

For companies that only do demolition, the dumping fees may be the biggest expense they have to pay for, meaning that even labor costs can be cheaper than dumping fees.  Do you see the incentive for cheating?

On a smaller scale, what about littering?  It happens anonymously, too.  There’s supposed to be a $500 fine for it.  Yet, if I’m driving along U.S. Route 6 or State Route 2 between Huron and Toledo, I pass by state owned marshlands that have trash strewn amongst the reeds.  Funny how the state buys up all these lands for conservation, and then can’t keep them from getting contaminated, isn’t it?

It seems to me that dispatching inspectors from time to time to inspect and investigate out of OEPA headquarters or district offices is not the most effective way of dealing with these issues.  Also, having policy wonks at the OEPA headquarters is duplicative.  The federal EPA already has many policy wonks.  The OEPA also has lots of people performing management functions at headquarters in Columbus, as you can tell by the contact list for divisions and offices.  Can some of those be merged?

If you want to make contact with someone about a concern, you either have to describe it so that it’s easily categorized by a switchboard operator, and you wait to have your call transferred, or you can go to the OEPA keyword index at it’s website to see if your concern is handled by a division at headquarters, a district office, or a local health department.  I wonder, if your concern overlaps the the functions of more than one division, does that mean you have your call transferred to another division after you’ve already explained your concern to one division?  A lot of those phone numbers have a 614 area code on them.  Too bad you have to call someone in a distant ivory tower.

Regarding inspection and compliance, is it mostly comprised of stuff like identifying where limits of contaminants have been exceeded, which operating procedures aren’t being followed, which paperwork wasn’t submitted correctly, and what components of emergency plans are missing?  And if the inspection reveals some defects, what then?  Do they merely say “These items were in error.  Redouble your efforts to correct them.  We’ll be back for another inspection to see if they’ve been corrected,” and then take off back to their office in Columbus or to one of the 5 district offices?

I’ve heard that if I undertake a project that disturbs more than a half-acre of ground, that I have to get an EPA permit to do it.  I’ve seen vegetable gardens that are bigger than that, where the ground was initially tilled with a plow.  I can see how the soil could be carried by surface runoff into a stream under such conditions.  Does that mean the gardener must get an EPA permit?

Different soil types, the location of aquifers, the vegetation characteristics as surface runoff reaches streams . . . these are all site specific.  There are blanket regulations.  When inspections reveal items that need to be corrected, do they just hand the list over to the company they inspected, and then you’re on your own?

I was trying to navigate through the OEPA website to see where, if I were a small business owner, I could solicit some help in customizing my prevention efforts by having someone come out to the site, evaluating the soil types on various parts of the property, showing me which way the surface runoff drains, mapping the aquifer underground, and then guiding me on what to line any underground repositories with, what vegetation to plant where, if some of the terrain should be bulldozed to redirect surface runoff, but when I click on the tab for compliance issues, it seems to be mostly for helping small businesses navigate through all the paperwork, permitting, and inspections.    It’s as if navigating the red tape is 90% of compliance, and the other 10% is whether actual pollution is present or not.  I found a compliance page that turned out to be how legal penalties are applied.  It looked like there might be a link to information about how to get someone on site to offer recommendations on how to apply best practices to my specific plot of ground, but it turned out to be a list of phone numbers, and the webpage doesn’t exactly say they render that kind of assistance.  They just have broad headings, and I’m not sure about what falls under each heading.  Oh, it’s not one list of phone numbers.  I see two lists of phone numbers.  Are these redundancies? Which one do I call?  Is it a wild goose chase?

Sure, big corporations contract with developers, designers, and maybe even civil engineers who routinely know how to assess and adapt to a specific piece of ground.  They are likely to comply.  But what about the actions of others who anonymously cheat that the OEPA doesn’t collect a permit fee from?  How safe do you, as a member of the public, feel about only inspecting the entities that act the most responsibly?

Speaking of how safe you might feel, did you know that the Clean Ohio fund (funded with bonds, which equals state debt) doesn’t prioritize brownfield cleanup projects according to the magnitude of the hazard they pose to the public?  Nope.  The brownfield cleanup priorities are set by the developers.  The prime location properties they want to redevelop are the ones that get cleaned up.  Feel safe?

With all this in mind, I’d like to see the Ohio EPA decentralized.  We don’t need them in an office in Columbus shuffling all those papers or manipulating terabytes of data.  We don’t need to have seminars and workshops about how to navigate the OEPA red tape.  We need people in the field.  We need agents who see the same stuff I see.  We need agents that investigate the irresponsible entities that cheat on environmental regulations who don’t pay inspection and permit fees to the OEPA.

I’d like to see a small contingent of OEPA agents in every county, just like county agricultural extension agents.

Whether you are a farmer, a gardener, a landscaper who adds shrubs and flower beds to your customers’ lawns, or just a 4-H club member, you can contact the county ag extension office about all that stuff.  It’s a one-stop shop.  You don’t have to call a switchboard in Columbus and describe your problem to an operator who has to decide how she will route your call so that it ends up at the right person’s desk.  You just walk in to the county ag extension office, or call on the phone, and they’ll handle it, whatever challenge your green thumb might have run into.  If they have to consult with someone in order to respond to your concern, they’ll do that themselves.  You won’t have to do all that leg work and hang on the line while they transfer your call from one person to another to another.

So, if you were to walk into an OEPA office in your county to voice a concern, rather than them say, “Oh, the local health department handles that one.  You’ll have to talk to them.”  No.  I’d like the OEPA agent pick up the phone and call a designated contact at the local health department just in case there’s a very simple answer to the citizen’s query that can be stated in just a few sentences to save the citizen from doing that legwork.  If it turns out to be a more complex matter than that, the health department contact can say so, and THEN the OEPA makes the referral to the local health department.

Whatever the concern a citizen may have, whether it’s learning the permit process so that someone can start their own company, or whether it’s a matter of solid waste, or whether it’s a matter of drinking water quality, or whether you just want to know how to dispose of old paint and turpentine cans, I’d like to see an OEPA agent tackle the matter right then and there and provide the answers needed without having to reroute a citizen’s call.

The OEPA, more than just being an inspection bureaucracy, could actually be helpful to private individuals who can’t afford to hire a civil engineer to give them guidance about what would work for their specific property.  Instead, for a fee to cover the cost, an appointment could be made for an OEPA agent to come to the actual site, let the individual describe what they intend to use the property for, and then get some pointers from the OEPA agent about how to prevent pollution at that site.  It’s possible that some of the outlined tasks could be handled by the individual, while other tasks may require the individual to contract someone else more qualified and capable to handle it.  The OEPA agent could point those things out.  Then, based on the description of how the individual intends to use the land, the OEPA agent can give the individual a head’s up on what exactly the OEPA will be including on their inspection checklist.

The OEPA agents in the field could tackle more investigative type work to catch the irresponsible entities as well as inspect the responsible ones.  They could see who they might catch on a surveillance camera.  They might spot something that raises an eyebrow about a location that might indicate contamination, and then get a water sample, soil sample, etc.

With a few agents living and working in each county, they could see problems as they arise.  Someone dumped illegally onto a private undeveloped property?  When they spot it, maybe even during their morning commute, they’ll add that investigation to the office “to do” list. They will see and be able to act upon so much more when they live in the field than when they are merely dispatched from an office several counties away.

Give the OEPA authority to issue some of those $500 littering fines.  If they spot a stretch of property that appears to be littered frequently, they could set up cameras to catch the culprits in the act and then tip off sheriffs, prosecutors, etc., or set up a mechanism in-house to tackle the littering violations.

Please, no more wonks who think there should be another form to fill out and another unfunded mandate to pass along to business.  If someone can eliminate a few forms and spare us some of the more inconsequential mandates, then that would be useful.

Less managers and cubicle-dwelling bureaucrats, more front-line responders and enforcers.

The bottom line is that I’d like to see an OEPA that is more useful and more accessible to the public than they’ve been heretofore.  By redeploying OEPA agents, there’ll be a dimension of environmental protection added that has previously been missing.

There’s what a person says, and then there’s what a person does.

Gov. Ted Strickland has talked a good game about education in Ohio serving students better, but the measurements don’t substantiate the rhetoric.

Before the spring of 2008, the Strickland administration had laid out a game plan to improve the dropout rate of Ohio’s high schools.  Some high schools needed more attention because they were “dropout factories.”  In my own blog article on the topic mentioned that Strickland’s game plan was too geared toward the older students when interventions needed to take place much earlier in a student’s life.  I wrote:

The attempt to intervene with these actions is taking place at the boundaries between 8th and 9th and 10th grades.  Naturally, I pointed out that the challenges could be addressed in much earlier years in a child’s education.  There is a desire by the Governor’s administration to address these challenges in earlier years, but so far, they are working to at least get the ball rolling, and this is their starting point.

So, with the older years being the starting point, this is the 4th year of the Strickland Administration, so those 10th graders who received interventions at the get-go should be graduating in greater numbers.  Not so.  For the third year in a row, the graduation rate has fallen.

But Ohio, under the Strickland Administration should pat itself on the back, because, on the latest “report card,” more school districts moved into the “effective” or higher ratings.  I was reading a Youngstown Vindicator article about the most recent report card, when I saw this quote from State Superintendent Deborah S. Delisle:

“It is important to recognize the significant academic gains made by students, even if they have not yet met the proficiency target.  By demonstrating progress over time, educators can show these students that their efforts are paying off and identify ways to continue making progress in the classroom. More importantly, parents can be kept informed of their children’s progress throughout the year.”

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

Umm . . . excuse me for asking, but if more school districts are becoming effective than ever before, where are those dropouts coming from?  Could they be coming from the same “dropout factories” that the Strickland Administration was going to put the most focus on?

I guess that strategy to work on the older grades and the dropout factories isn’t panning out.

Why is that?  If you read through that dropout post I’d written more than two years ago, doesn’t the Strickland plan sound good on paper?

Maybe the outlined approach is OK, but maybe helping the schoolkids isn’t the ultimate goal of proposing these plans.

When reading Right Ohio, which I frequently do, I saw this eyebrow-raising blog post with video showing State Superintendent Deborah S. Delisle (yeah, that same person patting school districts on the back, including the districts who hadn’t met the proficiency target) walking out of a hearing regarding Ohio’s “Race to the Top” application for more federal funding.  This meeting in Washington DC was so important that even Ted Strickland, himself, was in attendance.  Oh . . . well . . . she just walked out of it.  Maybe it wasn’t so important after all.  Gosh, she seems so motivated to help our schoolkids, doesn’t she?  I bet she was leaving early so that she could get to an appointment in Youngstown to tutor an at-risk sophomore.  Or not.

A clue about what’s really afoot comes to us from the Ohio Inspector General’s report on the Ohio School Facilities Commission (OSFC) that spotlighted Director Richard Murray as manipulating the system to benefit union cronies more than schoolkids or communities.  The Plain Dealer has this August 5th article on the topic.  The Columbus Dispatch has this August 14th article in which Richard Murray says that his agenda is totally permissible within the workings of the OSFC, and the Dispatch adds this article from today, the 27th, wherein the OSFC adopts a rule urged by the Inspector General’s office, but Murray says it will be business as usual because he feels that he’s never abused his power in the first place.

Whether or not you agree with Murray’s defense that he has not abused his power, is there any indication at all that Murray deems the ultimate beneficiaries of the work of the OSFC are the schoolchildren or the communities?  No.  Murray says that he will not resign his position unless Gov. Ted Strickland asks him to step aside, but Gov. Strickland is standing by Richard Murray.

Do we have any reason to assume that the workings of the OSFC are any aberration from the way that Ted Strickland runs the rest of the education agenda?  That Strickland stands by Murray, that Delisle walks out of an important meeting, that the dropout rate worsens for the 3rd year in a row, these are all indicators that the motives are personal, or about cronyism, or about patronage, or about expansion of the bureaucracy, or about increasing the size and cost of government, or about the centralization of power over the education system.  Richard Murray is not an aberration.  Richard Murray is a window through which we can see Strickland’s education regime for what it really is.

Strickland may be keeping up appearances by attending the meeting in Washington and saying what he’s expected to say regarding better outcomes for Ohio students, but these are just posturing and lip service.  The actions of those who occupy chief education positions should carry more weight in assessing Strickland’s education regime than Strickland’s words and appearances do.

If you value Ohio’s schoolchildren, you ought not vote for Strickland in this year’s elections because you cannot trust him to support the right people to handle all the various components of Ohio’s education bureaucracy.

Editor’s note:  Afraid to acknowledge good ideas put forward by Ohio House Republicans, Ohio House Democrats not only take no action on Republican-sponsored bills, but, months down the road, VOILA! those same good ideas are unveiled in Democrat-sponsored bills.  This inane posturing by the Dems just to take credit for legislation popular with the public isn’t an inconsequential game.  As state reps Maag and Boose point out, the delays between introduction of a Republican-sponsored bill and the introduction of the Democrats’ duplicate legislation inconvenience the public, especially when, in the case of relief from state-imposed fees, the inconvenient delay amounts to $$.  State Rep. Terry Boose represents the 58th Ohio House district, covering the eastern third of Seneca County, all of Huron County, and many of the rural areas in Lorain County in the southern half and along the western county boundary.  State Rep. Ron Maag represents the 35th Ohio House district, which includes much of eastern and southern Warren County along with a suburban sliver of the northeast corner of  Hamilton County.  This press release was issued on 7/30/2010.

Dems Bequeath Ohio with Duplicative Legislation

Majority Attempts to Conceal Mistakes

 COLUMBUS –The Ohio House of Representatives has received several pieces of legislation from the majority caucus that are strikingly similar to other bills introduced earlier this General Assembly from the other side of the aisle. 

 Earlier this week, House Bill 562 was introduced that would eliminate the $20 late fee endorsed and signed into law by House Democrats and Governor Strickland with the passage of the biennial budget. State Representative Deborah Newcomb (D-Conneaut) and 15 of her Democratic colleagues cosponsored this measure that reverses a measure they previously endorsed by supporting House Bill 2.  However, State Reps. Ron Maag (R-Lebanon) and Terry Boose (R- Norwalk), introduced House Bill 428 in January 2010, nearly seven months earlier and encouraged all members of the Ohio House of Representatives to join them on this necessary repeal.

 “Every dime, every dollar counts in today’s economy. I am elated to see that my colleagues have introduced this legislation and look forward to swift action,” said Rep. Terry Boose. “Nonetheless, the majority Democratic Caucus cannot play both sides of the field. While Ohioans are suffering and partisan politics have been placed aside in the struggling business owners’ mind, the majority party does one thing, and then attempts to cover their malicious, expensive intent with political gimmicks.”

 The combined list of cosponsors to eliminate the late fee represents more than enough support to repeal it.  Earlier this year the Daily Record reported that more than $16 million has been collected from 818,429 individuals. However, the burden of duplicative legislation has been forced on the hard-working families of Ohio more than once.

 State Rep. Ron Maag questioned the duration of time that had elapsed, asking, “Why won’t the Speaker call us into session and pass legislation today?  Why did the House Democrats wait nearly eight months to do this? I look forward to swift attention being paid to this necessary repeal, just like the swift action with House Bill 473.”

 Rep. Maag introduced House Bill 132, legislation to address “sexting,” in April 2009. More than a year later, House Bill 473, a legislative measure to prohibit sexting, was introduced in March 2010 and the House voted on the bill two short months later.

Editor’s note:  State Rep. Ross McGregor, who introduced HB 561, represents the 72nd Ohio House district, a rectangular-shaped district consisting of the southwest corner of Clark County, with Springfield at the eastern end of the district and some of Dayton’s suburbs and exurbs at the western end of the district.

Capital projects have their own fund separate from the general fund.  In my opinion, the capital fund isn’t subjected to the same scrutiny that the general fund is, and is therefore more likely to be used for political purposes.  HB 561 addresses that.  You’ve heard of Congressional pork at the federal level.  If you want to sniff out pork at the state level in Ohio, you might want to peek into the capital fund. You might as well peek into the funds supported by voter-approved bond issues, too.

As for transparency, I wouldn’t mind if  the Ohio Lottery Commission ledger were more transparent.  I have a hunch that state bonds and the lottery might serve political patronage purposes.  Just my opinion.

McGregor: Cut Wasteful Spending, Keep Ohioans Informed

State Representative Ross McGregor (R-Springfield) today introduced House Bill 561,  legislation to require the Office of Budget and Management to maintain a database showing capital project appropriations and re-appropriations, to make the database available online and to submit a biennial report to the General Assembly.

“This legislation will reduce unnecessary spending and increase our government’s accountability to the public,” said Rep. McGregor. “Ohio is in the midst of the 15^th straight month of double-digit unemployment; we cannot afford to needlessly spend taxpayer dollars.”

Rep. McGregor drafted the legislation after a project budgeted more than five years ago in his district sought re-appropriation. When enacted, the proposed legislation would allow the public and the legislature to better monitor projects that have been appropriated state funds. With a biennial report, legislators will be equipped with information to choose whether or not to continue funding a specific project.

Editor’s note: State Rep. Terry Boose, (R-Norwalk) represents the 58th Ohio House district, comprised of the mostly rural south and west swaths of Lorain County, all of Huron County, and the eastern third of Seneca County. This editorial was released to media outlets on 7/28/2010.

OHIO MILITARY FAMILY MONTH

There are only a handful of days throughout the year that we honor the sacrifices of our servicemen and women, with barely any time devoted to their families. As these brave heroes give their lives to maintain our freedom, we should take more time to also honor the commitment that their families make back home. Ohio has the sixth largest veteran population in the entire nation, and for this reason, the legislature designated August as Ohio Military Family Month to thank the husbands, wives and children in our state with family members who are serving overseas.

Ohio Military Family Month calls us to not only remember the sacrifices members of our Armed Forces make, but to also remember the sacrifices their families make as well. When our servicemen and women are sent overseas to protect our liberties, their spouses, parents, children, and close friends back home must navigate their daily lives without the ones they love most. Imagine the extra burdens on these families and their constant worry for the safety of their loved ones.

This upcoming August, take time to remember the sacrifices of our Armed Forces and their families. Consider reaching out to neighbors who have a family member serving overseas. This is a struggle we are all in together; we cannot forget our bond as a community.

While Ohio Military Family Month is one way to honor these noble sacrifices, Ohio and our nation still need a way to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many of my colleagues and I support the adoption of the Honor and Remember Flag to pay homage to men and women who have lost their lives in service of the U.S. The Honor and Remember Flag honors fallen troops from every war and ensures that they will not be forgotten.

We are fortunate to live in a country that values freedom, democracy and human rights. Our future depends on those willing to risk everything to protect our country and the families that support them. I hope you will keep our service members and their families in your hearts this August and take time to honor them throughout the year. Every day, members of our military persevere against immeasurable odds; we should not delegate a mere few days a year to think of them.

Editor’s Note:  State Rep. Terry Boose represents Ohio’s 58th house district, comprising the eastern third of Seneca County, all of Huron County, and western and southern portions of Lorain County.  This editorial was released to media outlets on 7/23/2010.

Strickland’s Agricultural “Deal” Detrimental to the Industry

Here in Ohio, farming represents a vital component of our economy and ensures the livelihood of a number of Ohioans. Agriculture ranks as Ohio’s largest industry, which is an indicator of its importance to the well-being of our communities as well as to Ohio’s economic success.

Lately, I have been hearing a lot of negative feedback from constituents about the “deal” Governor Ted Strickland has brokered between agriculture leaders and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Farmers in the 58th Ohio House District seem especially concerned with this troubling development. I am devoted to looking out for the best interests of my constituency, and Governor Strickland’s deal simply doesn’t reflect this objective.

This “deal” that the governor was instrumental in organizing was struck between the HSUS and the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation on June 30th. It halted Ohioans for Humane Farms from submitting signatures to the Ohio Secretary of State, collected to put an HSUS-backed animal care initiative on the fall ballot. Strickland painted this agreement between Jack Fisher, CEO of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, and Wayne Pacelle, CEO of HSUS, as a welcome compromise that reflects the best interests of both parties. In actuality, this deal negatively impacts farmers by placing on them a host of constraining regulations.

Ohio’s farmers and the agriculture industry as a whole did not need to enter into negotiations or make any of the compromises contained within this debilitating agreement. The Ohio Secretary of State’s office has noted that it was unlikely that the Ohioans for Humane Farms would have amassed the requisite 402,275 signatures to get their animal care initiative on the November ballot. Therefore, it was unnecessary for Ohio’s farmers to give in to any demands that would impede the success of their industry. It worries me that Governor Strickland would broker a deal that will have such a negative impact on our communities and economy.

I am listening to the feedback from the farmers in the 58th Ohio House District and will continue to address the concerns of my constituency. Many of the items that were negotiated in Governor Strickland’s “deal” have to be enacted with legislation for them to take effect. As your state representative, I will not support anything that is not also backed by the farmers of our community. My concerns lie with the well-being of Ohioans, and I will work to ensure that their livelihoods are not compromised by the governor’s ill-advised agreement.

Editor’s note:  The Republican Caucus of the Ohio House of Representatives issued this press release on 7/23/2010.  Standing in the center of the photograph above is Brynn Allio, director of government relations at the Council of Smaller Enterprises (COSE).  Flanking Mr. Allio on the left side of the photo are Rep. Todd Snitchler of the 50th Ohio House district and Rep. Nan Baker of the 16th Ohio House district.  Next to Mr. Allio on the right side of the photo are Rep. Ron Amstutz of the 3rd Ohio House district, and Rep. William Batchelder of the 69th Ohio House district.  Rep. Batchelder also serves as the Minority Leader in the Ohio House.

ECONOMIC STRAIGHT TALK DRIVES DISCUSSION JOBS CREATION PACKAGE

Lawmakers: It’s All About Jobs!

WESTLAKE, OH- A crowded room conversed for more than two hours yesterday on how lawmakers and members of the business community need to proceed, with the “Future of Ohio” jobs package, legislation aimed to get Ohioans back to work.

 “The state loses $1,422 for each Ohioan who loses their job, plus the increased cost in social services needed to assist an unemployed Ohioan. It is vital that we focus on job retention and growth while fostering our small business community,” said Rep. Nan Baker (R-Westlake), who championed this legislative effort. “The recession’s toll on Ohio demands a swift answer from policy makers, and I firmly believe that this package is a necessary step to make Ohio a more business-friendly state.  As I continue to say, ‘It’s all about jobs!’”

 This 10-bill package of legislation consists of a broad span of initiatives that will create jobs, retain college graduates and foster economic growth. The tax reforms contained within the package will make Ohio a more financially attractive place for its workforce and the businesses that employ them. Ohio lost 200,000 jobs in 2009 alone due to the exodus of businesses to other states.

 “Ohio’s economic climate is not appealing to businesses across the country looking to expand or relocate to our state,” said House Republican Leader William G. Batchelder (R-Medina). “For more than 18 months, Ohio has reported substantially higher unemployment numbers than the nation as a whole. We cannot hope to remedy this situation without concrete efforts to create a positive business perception.”

Currently, Forbes Magazine ranks Ohio 47^th in the nation for prospective job creation, income growth, venture capital investments and business openings.

 “A healthy economy means increased job opportunity and business growth,” said Rep. Ron Amstutz (R-Wooster). “By attracting out-of-state companies to move and expand here, we are ensuring a more prosperous Ohio for generations to come.”

 The jobs package includes tax incentives, increases in flexibility in business options, and efforts to provide relevant information to companies. With this legislation, House Republicans have made a concerted effort to improve the business climate.

 “The goal of this legislation is to formulate both short and long-term solutions to economic problems specific to Ohio,” said Rep. Todd Snitchler (R-Uniontown).   “Without a thorough examination of how we (the state of Ohio) do business soon, the Buckeye state will continue to suffer.” 

When enacted, these legislative measures will address the departure of businesses, work to retain our college graduates, make the state more conducive to small businesses, and encourage businesses to expand their payroll. As the presentation came to an end, the representatives expressed their continued hope that the “Future of Ohio” jobs package will gain bipartisan support in the immediate future.

Amstutz to Administration: We’re Ready To Hear Your Budget Story

Columbus—State Representative Ron Amstutz (R-Wooster) today issued a letter to his colleagues on the Budget Planning Commission in hopes of helping to resolve recent contention as to who may contribute to the commission’s hearings.

“If the administration and our two members don’t want to have more executive participation, there are others who have substantial expertise in Medicaid and other major topics. I am hopeful that we will look to them for their insight,” wrote Amstutz.

The letter comes after some concerns of his colleagues were voiced to the media, instead of amongst the group, as to whether executive agencies including and beyond the Office of Budget and Management should participate in the process or whether this would lead to a political game.

The commission’s purpose is to identify challenges and potential solutions for addressing expected problems in the next state budget.

Rep. Amstutz has worked diligently and voiced his concern time and again on the looming $8 billion budget deficit that will become a reality in less than a year.

Governor’s School Funding Council Gives Failing Grade

Columbus—State Representative Gerald Stebelton (R-Lancaster), ranking member on the House Education Committee, today issued the following concerns with the projected $1 billion shortfall that Governor Strickland’s School Funding Advisory council voiced earlier this week.

“It is unfortunate that as recently as this week, the governor’s “evidence-based model” education plan has fallen short yet again by underfunding an estimated $1 billion annually.  For the first time since the DeRolph decision, Ohio’s schools saw a direct slash to their funding and multimillion dollar mandates, such as all-day kindergarten, on already-overwhelmed district–which believe they don’t need it and they don’t have the necessary classroom space.

Moreover, this Democratic majority imposed a cut to school funding for public and parochial schools by approximately $90 million. This education model has placed our entire education system at risk by preventing our children from receiving the high-quality, competitive education they deserve. It is my sincerest hope that the governor updates the school funding formula to more-accurately reflect the needs of our schools, teachers and children.”

Editor’s note:  State Rep. Terry Boose (R-Norwalk) represents the 58th district, comprising Huron County and portions of eastern Seneca County and southern and western Lorain County.  This editorial was released to media outlets today, July 7, 2010.

Guest Column From Representative Terry Boose

“Honor and Remember Flag” pays respect to Ohio’s fallen

With the passing of our nation’s Independence Day, it is hard to forget those who have fought to maintain that independence through the years. Americans are proud to live in a nation where we are not limited by religion, race or gender—a nation where the only colors that matter are red, white, and blue. We know that many have sacrificed their lives on both native and foreign soil to preserve the liberties we enjoy today.

Throughout the year, we pay special tribute to those men and women in the United States Armed Forces who paid the ultimate price to protect those back home. These brave individuals put their lives on the line so we could sleep soundly at night, knowing that we are protected by our men and women in uniform. Until now, throughout our nation’s long military history, there has never been an officially recognized symbol that honors the service members who lost their lives in service to our country. This past Independence Day, legislation was unveiled that designates the Honor and Remember Flag as Ohio’s emblem of service and sacrifice by those who have lost their lives while serving in the United States Armed Forces.

The distinct design of the Honor and Remember Flag is hard to forget. The red field represents the blood spilled by the brave men and women who gave their lives to protect our nation’s freedom. The white field at the bottom of the flag recognizes the purity of sacrifice. The gold star signifies the ultimate sacrifice of a warrior in active service who will not return home, while the blue star that frames it represents active service in military conflict. Within the gold star is the flame which serves as a reminder of the spirit that has departed this life yet burns on in the memory of all who knew and love the fallen hero. And finally, the folded flag beneath the stars signifies the final tribute to an individual life presented to the family for their significant loss.

As a vigilant supporter of Ohio’s more than 900,000 military veterans, I am proud to have supported this legislation in remembrance of our most heroic individuals. Serving in the United States military is one of the noblest endeavors a person can make, and I will continue to work to ensure that these individuals receive the respect and gratitude they deserve.