[UPDATE] The hubris of Kasich

January 16, 2010 — buckeyerino

I’m not at all enamored with Steve Stivers as a candidate for Ohio’s 15th Congressional District.  But I sure wish he was in Congress right now instead of Mary Jo Kilroy, who has amassed a voting record I absolutely deplore.  Stivers was edged out by Kilroy by less than one percentage point of the total vote count in the 2008 elections for the 15th Congressional seat.

Less than one percentage point.

Guess what?  In that same Congressional race, there was a write-in candidate, Travis Casper, who captured all of 6 votes.  No big deal.

But guess what else?  In that same Congressional race, there was an independent, Don Eckhart, that snagged over 4 percent of the vote.  Who knows . . . maybe he garnered some votes from people who would have left their ballot blank rather than vote for Stivers or Kilroy.  Then again, maybe not.  Or, maybe those votes would have been split 50/50 between Stivers and Kilroy.  Who knows?

But, again, guess what else?  In that same Congressional race, Mark Noble, a Libertarian, captured close to 5% of the vote.  Since Kilroy, by her voting record, stands for big, expensive, intrusive government, and Libertarians are opposed to such, I’m thinking that the presence of a Libertarian in the race created an additional hurdle for Steve Stivers.

But the headline of this post is about Kasich, not Stivers.  Hmm . . . Are you way ahead of me at this point?  Can you tell where I’m going with this blog post already?  Perhaps so.

Remember, that ally of ACORN, Jennifer Brunner, is still Secretary of State through the culmination of this year’s elections, thus she still has her hand in the cookie jar.  In 2009, and now in 2010, Jennifer Brunner has permitted the Libertarian Party much more access to the ballot.

Don’t forget the Tea Party movement, either.  It could be a wellspring of 2010 candidates that are independent of any political party.

All across Ohio, GOP candidates up and down the ballot will have to face up to November’s additional hurdles presented by Libertarian and independent challengers who will demonstrate that the GOP has no monopoly over conservative-minded voters.  On the left?  There will be little competition to fracture the Democrat base.

There might not be an independent running in the Governor’s race, as it is a fairly daunting task to mount an independent run for Governor, but it’s too early to tell.

The Libertarian Party, though rising in prominence, is still small, with meager resources.  It’s unlikely that the Libertarians would subdivide their meager resources to support candidates in all five statewide executive branch races.  I think someone with a Libertarian philosophy might make a good fit for a State Auditor’s race, especially since Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor has now been corralled into running on the Kasich ticket as a candidate for Lieutenant Governor.  But does consolidating Libertarian resources in the Auditor’s race make any sense to the Libertarian Party?  No.

In the Libertarian Party’s own interests, I believe they will contest the governor’s race.  The governor’s race is unique among the statewide executive branch races in that it determines which political parties are major political parties and which are minor political parties, in accordance with Ohio’s election laws. If the Libertarians concentrate their efforts on backing a Libertarian candidate for governor, they’d be hoping to get enough votes to qualify as a major political party.  If they managed to do that, one of the first changes one would notice in 2011 would be that, in 88 counties, Libertarians would be added as officers of each Board of Elections.  Right now, only Democrats and Republicans constitute each county’s Board of Elections.  Other changes to Ohio’s political landscape would follow, and the GOP’s influence would surely be impacted.

Mary Taylor, campaign funds notwithstanding, would have been a shoo-in to retain her Apportionment Board seat as Ohio Auditor.  Among the 5 statewide executive branch races, 3 have a bearing on the composition of the Apportionment Board.  2010 is a U.S. Census year.  Before  the 2012 elections, legislative districts across Ohio must be redrawn to adjust for population shifts revealed by the 2010 U.S. Census.  The 3 races that matter to the apportionment board are: Ohio Secretary of State, Ohio Auditor, and Ohio Governor.  If a political party captures two out of these three crucial races, they capture the majority of the Apportionment Board that will redraw Ohio’s legislative map.  Mary Taylor was the GOP’s surest foothold in the climb to capturing the majority of the Apportionment Board.  Now, she’s been removed from the Auditor’s race, repositioned as a Lieutenant Governor candidate on the gubernatorial ticket headed by John Kasich.

The GOP may have forfeited the Auditor’s race and the Apportionment Board seat.  No one in the GOP was planning on challenging Taylor for the Republican nomination in the Auditor’s race.  The race, at this point, is totally vacant, and petitions to appear on the primary ballot are due to be filed by February 18th.  That’s not a lot of time to qualify for the statewide ballot, let alone clear the candidate’s calendar for campaigning, and especially for raising campaign funds.  Taylor was criticized for her fundraising by some pundits in various corners of the state, but she had more of a campaign treasury to fight for re-election to the Auditor’s seat than an absence of a candidate has.  No candidate=no campaign funds to win the election.  So, how did criticizing Taylor about fundraising help the GOP’s chances of capturing the seat?  Hello! You’ve got to at least have a name on the ballot to have any chance of winning!  Isn’t that obvious?

I’m sure somebody will surface as a GOP candidate for Auditor, but they’ll probably have to do so with less funds than Taylor had in trying to capture an open seat.  Taylor was only defending a seat she already held, and she’d won accolades for her performance as Auditor from many quarters, including even from some Democrats.  Doesn’t a positive perception of her job performance by voters add up to an advantage that can compensate for some campaign dollars?  I think so.  All-in-all, this opportunity to retain this Apportionment board seat appears to have been squandered.

In the Secretary of State race, the supposed frontrunners for nominations to their respective parties are Jon Husted for the GOP, and Jennifer Garrison for the Democrats.  Jon Husted, however, isn’t popular among all of Ohio’s Republicans, and perhaps Sandy O’Brien can steal away the GOP nomination like she did in the Treasurer’s race in 2006.  Jennifer Garrison isn’t popular among all the Democrats, either, so Husted and the Ohio GOP chair, Kevin DeWine besides banking on winning the May primary, are hoping and praying Garrison’s base won’t be energized this November.  I think the GOP’s chances of securing this Apportionment Board seat are iffy, but I think the chances are better for this race than for the Auditor’s race or the Governor’s race.

And now for the hubris of John Kasich, Republican candidate for Ohio Governor in 2010.  No doubt he’s giddy about capturing Mary Taylor to run on his ticket.  He may even be giddy about Strickland’s poll numbers as Strickland’s term in office resembles a train wreck.  But John Kasich, not Mary Taylor, will be at the top of the ticket, and Kasich is not universally revered and loved.  In fact, Kasich is not even universally known.  Furthermore, Kasich won’t have a monopoly on the “smaller government” message, as there’s likely to be a Libertarian candidate as well, a Libertarian with lots of incentive to peel away as many GOP voters as possible.  Keep in mind that Jennifer Brunner is still Secretary of State, and she’s not shy about leveraging whatever she can to improve Democrat outcomes.  Those Strickland versus Kasich poll numbers?  They don’t include any Libertarian in the polling.  Kasich may tout his balanced budget in Congress all he wants, but many voters, even among the Tea Party crowd, might only be dimly aware of that accomplishment.  More than likely, those who know just one or two things about Kasich are probably going to know that he used to be in Congress (a Beltway insider!  Oh no!  Yes, they will conveniently have already forgotten that Strickland was once a Beltway insider, too  . . . but the Libertarian definitely won’t be a Beltway insider) and, thanks to the Strickland campaign, voters will learn that he was somehow involved in the bankrupt Lehman Brothers firm (a Wall Street insider!  Double whammy!  Even Strickland can’t be portrayed that way!  The Libertarian will, no doubt, be free of that baggage, too!).  When the eventual Libertarian candidate is included in the poll numbers, the pollsters will be informing those polled that there IS a Libertarian alternative, and they might even mention the name of that candidate in the same breath as John Kasich and Ted Strickland, helping the Libertarian candidate overcome anonymity enough to erode Kasich’s voter base.  The left wing media might do their part to help re-elect Strickland by devoting coverage to the Libertarian (at least, I suppose Jennifer Brunner was envisioning all this as she facilitated Libertarian candidates’ access to the ballot during the past year or so).

Kasich should take nothing for granted.  Unfortunately, that’s not the way he has campaigned, to date.  Kasich seems to be taking much for granted.  He doesn’t seem to have realized it, but, despite the Strickland train wreck, he faced longer odds of capturing the governor’s seat at the outset of his campaign than either Husted or Taylor faced of winning their seats.  The GOP had a sure foothold in the Auditor’s race, an iffy chance in the SoS race, and a very challenging race in the Governor’s race.  The sure foothold has been forfeited, and, somehow, Kasich prides himself on that accomplishment, but he hasn’t shored up the possible sources of electoral base erosion in doing so.

Mary Taylor, from all appearances, wants to challenge Sherrod Brown for U.S. Senator in 2012.  Supposedly, a Lieutenant Governor seat would afford her the opportunity to campaign for Senate and hold government office at the same time.  She was likely to win re-election as Auditor.  But, as a voter, what would add to Taylor’s stature as a Senate candidate?  Taylor as state auditor, doing a better job than any of her auditor predecessors?  Or Taylor as Lieutenant Governor, where it’s really difficult to quantify her contribution to state government for the benefit of voters?  I think she’s more formidable as a Senate candidate as the sitting Auditor.  Now, let’s take that one step further.  As I’ve outlined, Kasich has more obstacles to winning than he’s, so far, acknowledged.  What are Mary Taylor’s chances of winning the 2012 U.S. Senate race as a failed lieutenant governor candidate if Kasich loses this November?  Greatly diminished, I think.

Kasich, in his hubris, has probably shortchanged both the Ohio GOP, notably the GOP leadership and the eventual GOP Auditor nominee, but potentially shortchanging all Republicans who will be seeking General Assembly seats for a decade beginning in 2012, and he may even be shortchanging Mary Taylor’s U.S. Senate aspirations, as well.

He’d better get off his duff (he probably thinks he’s already doing so, but I think he needs to redefine his notions) and campaign like his life depends on it if Kasich is going to win this November.  He’s holding way too many of the Republican Party’s marbles for him to come up short on Election Day without seriously damaging the party.

[UPDATE 1/21/2010] Lo and behold, as foretold, a Libertarian on the ballot for Ohio Governor.

Posted in State Politics. Tags: . 15 Comments »

Ohio House GOP press release: Strickland, House Democrats Gamble With Education

January 4, 2010 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note: This press release was issued today, Jan. 4, 2010, on behalf of the Republican caucus in the Ohio House of Representatives. Rep. Martin represents the 70th Ohio House District, Rep. Morgan represents the 36th Ohio House District, and Rep. Stebelton represents the 5th Ohio House District.  Further information regarding this press release may be obtained via Megan Piwowar at (614) 466-0863.  As an aside, yours truly, DJW, the Buckeye RINO, thinks it is a huge mistake to depend upon the state’s gambling revenues, including the Lottery, to fund the essentials for K-12 education.  In my not-so-humble opinion, such gambling proceeds should be managed as a windfall, as the state ought not to be enticing more and more of Ohio’s residents to begin to gamble, or to gamble more often, or to gamble more $$$. Furthermore, it is the opinion of yours truly that education mandates ought to originate from the citizens within local school districts, not so much the state government, and definitely not the Federal government.

Strickland, House Democrats Gamble With Education: Schools Targeted As Political Pawns Throughout 2009

COLUMBUS— One year to the day House Democrats took the majority, State Representatives Jarrod Martin (R-Beavercreek), Seth Morgan, CPA, (R-Huber Heights), and Gerald Stebelton (R-Lancaster) summarized the 2009 legislative year as time of unfunded mandates on schools and damaging funding cuts to poorer districts, charter schools, e-schools and Catholic schools. Additionally, rather than streamlining state spending to ensure adequate funding for education, Governor Strickland chose to fund K-12 education with unstable revenue from video lottery terminals, an unconstitutional plan that eventually failed and put Ohio’s education system at risk.

“Throughout this economic turmoil, lawmakers Republican or Democrat need to remain committed to ensuring a bright future for Ohio’s students,” said Martin.  “The political pandering and aggressive tone that threatened devastating cuts to education was a clear demonstration of partisanship by Governor Strickland and House Democrats who carelessly placed the reductions on education before examining other bloated areas of the Executive branch or legislature.”

House Democrats managed to cut state education funding by nearly $400 million over the next two years, the first time since the DeRolph case of 1997 that the Legislature recommended education funding cuts. They also imposed costly mandates on schools by requiring the implementation of all-day kindergarten starting in the 2010-2011 school year, which many districts have said they could not afford in this economy.

“Recognizing that education is central to Ohio’s long-term success,” said Morgan.  “House Republicans proposed numerous ideas to increase Ohio’s chances of receiving federal funding through the Race to the Top program, preserve school choice, and alleviate oppressive mandates on districts. They also introduced a number of amendments to the budget to improve the governor’s evidence-based model.”

The Ohio Department of Development has estimated that establishing all-day kindergarten in Ohio’s 613 school districts will cost more than $200 million, including $127 million in operating costs and $78 million for classroom space. House Republicans avow that enforcing this mandate on already-struggling schools will force many to cut programs or extracurricular activities to be able to afford the mandate.

“I will continue to fight to save the taxpayers of Ohio money, and to cut wasteful government spending, while protecting our most valuable asset, the future of Ohio-our children’s education,” said Stebelton.  “I was disheartened by the inept leadership in Columbus to threaten our schools and even libraries while budget discussions were still going on.”

However, House Democrats have silenced many Republican initiatives since the beginning of the General Assembly. Although the Ohio House has been plagued by stalemates and inaction in 2009, House Republicans remain hopeful that 2010 will bring bipartisan discussions about Ohio’s future and how to responsibly bring our education system into the 21st century economy.

Posted in State Politics. Tags: . 4 Comments »

Federal judges interfering with petition laws set by the states?

December 23, 2009 — buckeyerino

Hat-tip to Ballotpedia.org for raising my awareness of what may be an emerging trend: Federal courts are being asked to invalidate laws passed by states that contain residency requirements for petition circulators.

In Ohio, voters, by way of petition and a subsequent vote, can enact and repeal laws through an initiative and referendum process spelled out by our state constitution, codified by state statute, and further clarified in the state administrative code, with any gray areas that can’t be decided by bipartisan county boards of election referred to Ohio’s Secretary of State.  Legal challenges within this scope ought to be handled by Ohio’s judicial branch.

At the level of the Federal government, there is no such petition process.  Any voter petitions presented to those who represent us in Washington DC are merely symbolic.  No petition has the power to compel the U.S. Congress or the U.S. President to act.  Petitions are clearly creations of the various states.  As one might expect, laws regarding petitions are not uniform throughout the nation, as each state sets forth its own laws governing petitions.

How is it that Federal courts are being asked to decide cases involving petition laws when there’s no such thing as a Federal petition?  Clearly, if the 10th Amendment to the Constitution means anything at all, then it’s a slam-dunk that state judiciaries, not the Federal judiciary, have jurisdiction over legal challenges to the laws that govern the petition process.

I found a Ballotpedia entry from Michigan and another Ballotpedia entry from Nebraska that made me scratch my head.

The Detroit Free Press reports that a Federal judge–got that?  Federal judge?–ruled that residency requirements for recall petitions (a Michigan state legislator, specifically, House Speaker Andy Dillon, was the target of the recall effort) were an unconstitutional restriction upon the freedom of speech.  Never mind that the judge, himself, trampled the 10th Amendment.  What did the statute say?  It said that for a recall of the state legislator, the petitions had to be circulated by those who resided within the state legislator’s district.  Who gets to vote for the state legislator in the first place?  Those who reside in the state legislator’s district.  Should I file suit because my freedom of speech is restricted because I don’t get to vote on that state legislator race because I’m not a resident of that Michigan legislative district?  To do so would be nonsense.

Yet, the Free Press article reports:

Judge Robert Holmes Bell found that requiring a petition circulator in a recall campaign to live in the district of the targeted officeholder violated the First Amendment because it substantially limited the pool of people who might participate.

I’m sure thousands of people reside in said district.  If not enough petition circulators can be rounded up from amongst that group, then perhaps there isn’t sufficient outcry for a recall.  One only needs to look at the chain of events to see this point borne out:  The motive behind the recall effort to oust Speaker Dillon was an anti-tax sentiment.  I certainly sympathize with anti-tax sentiments.  I have anti-tax sentiments, myself.  However, in 2008, a number of circulators for the anti-tax group’s recall petitions were circulated by those who were outsiders, not residing within Dillon’s district.  Understandably, the first response from elections officials were to invalidate the petitions circulated by the non-residents, in compliance with Michigan law.  Judge Bell, however, in a preliminary ruling, overrode the Michigan law, directed that the signatures from the invalidated petitions be counted anyway, so that the recall would appear on the ballot.  It did appear on the ballot.  Did the anti-tax group win their recall vote?  Nope.  Speaker Dillon easily prevailed.  There was no groundswell against Speaker Dillon after all.  Shouldn’t that have been all too predictable, considering an astro-turf effort was required to circulate the recall petitions in the first place?

But, if Michigan’s petition requirements really do squelch the voice of the people (which, apparently, they don’t), the matter should be challenged in Michigan’s courts, if the Michigan legislature and/or Michigan elections officials aren’t acting in the public’s interests.

Potentially, Judge Bell’s ruling, if it stands, could mean that out-of-state residents could invade Michigan to conduct whatever astro-turf petition drive strikes their fancy, burdening elections officials with paperwork that has little to do with the agendas of Michigan’s own registered voters.  And if out-of-staters are the ones circulating petitions, then Michigan wouldn’t even be in a position to determine whether the petition circulators are even citizens of the United States.  Foreign governments, multi-national corporations, and/or international NGO’s might conspire to conduct astro-turf campaigns on Michigan soil.  Whatever happened to self-determination?

The Omaha World Herald brings us the report of a suit filed in a U.S. District Court that challenges Nebraska’s petition laws.  In the case known as Citizens in Charge vs. Gale (John Gale is Nebraska Secretary of State), there are four legal provisions being challenged.  As in the Michigan case, the plaintiffs appear to be right-of-center on key platform planks.  Two of the legal provisions being challenged, I believe, are worthy of debate (but not in U.S. District Court, mind you, in a Nebraska state courtroom), as one provision stipulates that an independent candidate for statewide office must collect more valid signatures than partisan candidates are required to gather.

Another allegedly onerous provision is that an independent candidate’s petitions must include at least 50 valid signatures from at least 31 different counties.  That’s a lot of territory to cover, especially from the perspective of an Ohioan, since Ohio is a more compact state than Nebraska.  Such a stipulation would favor candidates from eastern Nebraska, where counties are smaller in size, than candidates from central or western Nebraska, where you have to put lots and lots of miles on your vehicle to string together 31 counties.

But the third provision being challenged in Federal court is the residency requirement for petition circulators.  To run for statewide office in Nebraska, your petitions need to be circulated by those who are eligible to vote in Nebraska.  Just like the Michigan case, I don’t see what’s wrong with that.  It’s a safeguard that prevents a guy like Iranian President Ahmadinejad from clandestinely putting a Quisling on the Nebraska ballot.

The fourth provision being challenged in Federal Court is particularly telling.  Nebraska law says the petition itself must disclose whether the circulator is a paid for his/her petition-circulating services or whether he/she is strictly a volunteer.  Why is it so telling?  Referring back to a sentence from the Detroit Free Press article about the case in Michigan:

Petition signature collecting has been a growth industry in the last decade, with professional collectors traveling from state to state to work for whoever would pay them.

I’m not exactly enamored with these enterprises who collect signatures for money.  Remember the dead people in Erie County, Ohio, who signed the casino petitions?  Paid circulators collected those signatures, and they were a nightmare for local officials to deal with when a majority of the signatures gathered were invalid.

In the Nebraska case, Citizens in Charge is an organization that would mobilize paid out-of-staters to invade Nebraska to circulate petitions.  It doesn’t matter to me that they are more conservative on issues than ACORN, and it doesn’t matter to me that they are a non-profit (like ACORN) rather than a for-profit (like the firm that circulated the casino petitions in Erie County), it reeks of astro-turf to have out-of-staters shape your state’s election ballot.

I see no harm in Nebraska’s requirement that circulators must be identified as either paid or volunteer, even though Ohio has no such statute.  But the challenge of that provision reveals what’s really at work in undermining these residency requirements, and by extension, eroding the 10th Amendment.

Frankly, I’ve had my fill of ACORN electioneering, but if these “conservative” plaintiffs prevail in these cases being heard in Federal courtrooms (where they don’t even belong), then we’ve got a lot more of ACORN headed our way.

Posted in Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »

No, I won’t be seeking the 56th District state rep seat in 2010

December 15, 2009 — buckeyerino

I was the Republican candidate who ran against Democrat Joe Koziura in 2002 and 2004 for the 56th District state rep seat.  In November 2006 and November 2008, Joe Koziura did not face a Republican opponent, which is regrettable.  I think voters should have choices.

The 56th District state rep seat will be an open seat in the 2010 election season because Mr. Koziura is term-limited.

The Morning Journal reports that one of those seeking the open seat will be Democrat Jose Candelario, who is stepping down from his position at the Lorain County Board of Elections.   I’m hoping that there will be others who will vie for this seat, so that voters will have choices.

I still get asked if I will be seeking the seat.  No, I will not be running for 56th District state rep in 2010.  I turn the question back to those who’ve posed the question to me, “Will you be running for the 56th District state rep seat in 2010?”  Hence, my prior blog post.

The 56th District includes the cities of Lorain, Sheffield Lake, and Oberlin, the 5th and 6th Wards of the city of Elyria, a very tiny, tiny, tiny sliver of the city of Amherst, the village of South Amherst, the whole of Sheffield Township, Amherst Township, and New Russia Township, most of Elyria Township, and a very tiny, eensy-weensy sliver of Carlisle Township.  If you are currently a resident and a legally-registered voter within said district, guess what?  You are qualified to be a candidate for state rep!

If you’re thinking about running and would like to ask me some questions, just send an email to my inbox.  I’ll try to be helpful.

Posted in Local Politics, State Politics. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Consider running for office in 2010

November 25, 2009 — buckeyerino

Up in arms over the direction your county is headed in?  Up in arms over the direction the state is headed in?  Up in arms over the direction our nation is headed in?  I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if that’s the case.

Wonder what you can do about it besides contacting your elected officials, attending civic meetings, signing petitions, voting, and rallying for causes?

You could run for office in 2010!  Despite all our gripes about elected officials, how many times do we see unopposed candidates on our ballots?  Far too often!  Voters need choices on ballots!

For many races, the eligibility rules for candidates aren’t all that complicated, especially legislative races, where citizenship, residency, and voter registration are often the only criteria for eligibility.  Don’t automatically suppose you wouldn’t be qualified to run.  There’s an excellent chance you’re eligible for a great many positions.  The Ohio Secretary of State webpage can be a starting point for checking on candidacy requirements and deadlines.  Some of the pointers I shared about launching a candidacy for municipal offices apply to running for county, state, and federal offices, too.

Don’t know much about running a campaign?  Phil Van Treuren, who ran a successful campaign this year, has a blog titled “Killer Campaigning,” which is very thought-provoking.  I bet you’ll find highly useful information there.  Start with this important advice about consulting family about a potential candidacy, then feel free to absorb the remainder of the blog’s articles thereafter.  Thanksgiving is a time for families to gather.  That’s a great opportunity to discuss launching a campaign with family members.  December’s holidays are also great opportunities to further communicate with family about launching an election bid.

On the ballot for next year:

  • Judicial branch: county court, state appellate court, and state Supreme Court judge positions
  • Legislative branch: county commissioner, some state school board seats, all state rep seats, odd-numbered state senate district seats, all seats for U.S. House of Representatives, and a U.S. Senate seat
  • Executive branch: county auditor, Ohio governor and lieutenant governor, Ohio Secretary of State, Ohio Treasurer, Ohio Auditor, and Ohio Attorney General

I’m hoping voters are swamped with choices next year.  Please consider putting your name on the ballot.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Posted in Local Politics, National Politics, Political Blogosphere, State Politics. Tags: , , , . 9 Comments »

Transportation, part 2, the city of Lorain

November 22, 2009 — buckeyerino

In response to my post that launched this transportation series, Brandon Rutherford asked a perfectly good question about how much importance to attach to transportation infrastructure.  Sometimes a site, at first glance, appears to be sufficiently connected, yet the site remains vacant or underutilized.  I didn’t fully respond to Mr. Rutherford’s comment, but I hope to fully address it over the course of this transportation series.  Mr. Rutherford cited the specific example of the former location of a Ford assembly plant in Lorain, so let me use that as a springboard to share a collection of my thoughts about transportation in Lorain.

So here is Lorain, that had it good as a port on Lake Erie when water transport was best.  Lorain was also well situated when railroads and surface roads were built, because, in relation to US geography, commerce between the Northeast US and the Midwest, where the bulk of the population lived, was compressed as it passed through Ohio because Lake Erie is the southernmost of the Great Lakes.  When freight travels from Boston or New York to Chicago, it can only go west as far as Buffalo and then it has to dip south through Ohio on its way to Chicago.  Just like today where I-80 and I-90 converge and follow the same route, or nearly so, for hundreds of miles, this was true of railroad networks and US highways, like US 6 and US 20, before interstates.  Ohio was a conduit for all this East Coast-Midwest transit.  The emergence of Detroit as the Motor City only helped, as it added a longitudinal dimension to shipping through Ohio.  Lorain had many things going for it, and Lorain thrived until the 1970’s.  Since the 1970 Census, Lorain’s population has declined.

Northern Ohio, including Lorain, had an excellent location for many years, as there was a time when two-thirds of the population of the United States and half of the population of Canada lived within 500 miles of the boundaries of Ohio.  Though the US has experienced southward and westward migration and Canada has seen more growth in the Vancouver area, Ohio is still very well situated among the most densely populated areas of North America north of the Mexican border.  In terms of sheer geography and demography, Ohio is still a great location for distribution centers, manufacturers, and corporate headquarters.  So, no matter what has gone wrong that led to the urban decline in Lorain, there is still a lot of potential for recovery.

Transportation has so much to do with the decline of Lorain.  Supertankers cannot travel on the Great Lakes, so freight moved upon the water has to take place in smaller vessels than are available elsewhere.  Lorain is not conveniently linked to Cleveland Hopkins Int’l Airport (Lorain isn’t even well linked to the county’s airport in New Russia Township).  Most noticeably, limited access divided highways bypassed Lorain instead of penetrating it.  Is it any wonder that business has dwindled as Lorain’s transportation advantages have disappeared?

By virtue of existing highways, Lorain is closely tied to Cleveland to the point that if Cleveland’s economy bottoms out, so does Lorain’s, and Lorain only prospers when Cleveland is also prospering. We need to branch out. We need to diversify. We need better connections with prospering, more diversified economies like that of Columbus. If we had a north-south highway that connected Lorain with I-71 at Ashland, commerce and innovation from Columbus could reach Lorain at the same rate that it reaches Cleveland. Right now, it is channeled up I-71 to Cleveland, and from there it is diffused slowly out to neighboring communities in concentric waves until finally it reaches Lorain, if it ever reaches Lorain at all. Lorain County has forecast a need for such a north-south corridor, but their proposal is to build it parallel to Quarry Road, cutting through the farmland of the western Lorain County townships.

I am fully aware that it costs less to build a highway through farmland than it is through developed areas, but to do so only heightens the problems we are trying to eradicate. When we think of the costs of building a highway, we must think beyond mere construction costs to the costs of the consequences of where we build. For example, it may have cost less to build the Ohio Turnpike between Lorain and Elyria rather than through the heart of either town, but what has it cost in terms of shoveling money into Lorain and Elyria to revitalize them when the revitalization never takes hold? What kind of a money pit did we create when we bypassed the already urbanized areas? And what about the sprawl that will only increase if a north-south highway is built parallel to and in the vicinity of Quarry Road? Will that suck more of the life blood out of the communities already in existence?  I know that they have talked about this in Oberlin, and Oberlin is fully aware that a highway in such a location will have negative repercussions for Oberlin’s downtown commerce. Right now, the lands that are most heavily commercially zoned in the western townships along a north-south artery stretch alongside SR 58. I say: Let’s make SR 58 the limited-access divided highway, with frontage roads alongside, so that we do not kill off the commerce that already exists along SR 58 to transplant it into the cornfields near Quarry Road. Why create more abandoned businesses? If the new highway runs exactly where SR 58 is now, wouldn’t that buttress the businesses that already exist there? Isn’t that what we want? Besides, those that live out in the vicinity of Quarry Road probably like the rural nature of their environs and would prefer to keep it that way. When the highway reaches Wellington and Oberlin, I have ideas on how to keep the downtown intact, especially buildings of historical significance, without building bypasses on the edge of town that would kill those downtowns, but I do not wish to elaborate on that here. I wish to focus more in depth on Lorain.

In this age of instant gratification, who wants to wend their way through all of Lorain’s stoplights, railroad crossings, and 20 mph school zones on crampingly narrow and potholed surface streets to reach downtown? A “smart” transportation system would make a lot of sense. In chronically congested places such as Los Angeles, they have installed “smart” transportation systems that use cameras and sensors to gauge traffic flow on city streets and highways. This ties into a nerve center where the flow of traffic across the transportation grid can be diagrammed. Signals can then be sent to traffic lights to optimize the timing to allow for the best traffic flow, to flashing message signs along the highway that alert motorists to traffic conditions and alternate routes, and to police officers on highway patrols and street patrols to mobilize them to bottlenecks where needed. But we need more than “smart” transportation to get people downtown.

Once this new SR 58 highway reaches an interchange with SR 2 and SR 254, I want to make it more likely that traffic will flow through Lorain closer to its downtown. Right now, SR 2 traffic flows eastward to where it converges with I-90 and heads to Cuyahoga County. There are some major bends in the existing highway. Let’s take advantage of these bends in the existing highway–we can build a shorter one. If we draw a line straight across from the SR 2 interchange with SR 58 to the I-90 interchange with SR 611, we will have built a straighter highway that crosses the Black River south of E. 21st St. but north of the steel mills on E. 28th St. That will put traffic flow much closer to downtown. The Colorado industrial park will also have much better access. East-west through traffic would prefer to flow through Lorain if it is faster than taking the existing route. The straighter we can make the highway, the bigger the advantage.

With this new cross-town highway built, what if we took SR 57 from the Ohio Turnpike interchange northward and turned it into a limited access divided highway that connected with the cross-town highway? Wouldn’t that allow more motorists to head toward downtown? Wouldn’t it also bolster South Lorain to have this major artery flowing through it? Wouldn’t the two highways combined bolster the industrial area that includes the steel mills?  Wouldn’t it vastly improve Lorain’s access to Cleveland Hopkins International Airport?

Consider the following map.  Existing surface streets are shown in yellow.  Existing limited access highways in the vicinity of Lorain are shown in magenta.  The additional highways I’ve just proposed in the preceding paragraphs are shown in red.

Lorain

My proposal is just one way in which Lorain could address its outdated transportation infrastructure. If others have alternative proposals that address Lorain’s transportation deficiencies, I’d love to see some additional debate on the topic, but so far, I haven’t heard a peep out of anyone about any alternative proposals, so I’ll continue to promote my own proposal in order to fill the vacuum.

LCCC once hosted a community forum that talked about Lorain County’s future based on trends reflected in the most recent Census data. When they talked about comparing the fastest growing urban areas in the country with those that were declining, they said that the growing cities were the most DRIVABLE! Get it? DRIVABLE! Lorain is not drivable. Not yet, anyway. Yes, what I propose is expensive, but it’s worth it if it achieves what we design it to do. A cheaper highway through nowhere gets us . . . nowhere.  As an illustration, the Flats in Cleveland are difficult to drive to, yet the city is constantly fighting blight there. A few years ago we heard about a much-ballyhooed revitalization of the Flats. Only properties were fixed up–the Flats were not made more drivable. Guess what?  There will never cease to be more calls for urban renewal of Cleveland’s Flats so long as the urban renewals undertaken are nothing but cosmetic facelifts without addressing drivability. How much money does it cost to pay for the same urban renewal over and over and over again? Add that into the cost of a highway through nowhere.  Urban renewal efforts in Lorain will fail to take hold so long as those efforts only result in cosmetic facelifts.

I will have more to say about paying for the expenses of transportation projects in future installments of this series, and I’ll branch out to addressing the transportation deficiencies of other communities such as Elyria, Norwalk, Sandusky, Tiffin, and Fostoria, as well.  I also want to address other modes of transportation besides highways, though I’ve already posted some thoughts pertaining to passenger rail here.

To be continued at a future date . . .

Posted in International Politics, Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics, Transportation. Tags: , , , , . 9 Comments »

The Obamacare vote among Ohio’s representatives in Congress

November 9, 2009 — buckeyerino

Late Saturday night, 11/7/2009, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed an Obamacare bill, 220-215.

As you may recall, this past summer, when Obamacare opponents said that the proposed legislation hadn’t ruled out federal subsidies for abortions, Obamacare supporters said that such a charge was as fictitious as death panels and coverage for illegal immigrants.  “Stop telling lies!” was the mantra of the Obamacare supporters.  Obamacare opponents, of course, were not telling lies, and federal subsidies of abortion weren’t stricken from the Obamacare bill until Saturday, just an hour before the final Obamacare bill vote, when an amendment to the bill, the Stupak amendment, was passed.

Not until the final hour had abortions been ruled out of the bill.

Could Congress have saved themselves some headaches by ruling out abortions much earlier in the process?  I think so.  Speaker Pelosi, however, has been playing a game of brinksmanship, to squeak uber-leftist legislation through.  Moderate Democrats have been left in a bind.

Many moderate Democrats arrived in Congress on the heels of Republican scandals.  Other moderate Democrats won seats because Republican officeholders voted like liberal Democrats on key issues.  Moderate Democrats pledged that they would represent voters’ interests more faithfully than their Republican opponents, and that they’d be scandal-free.  Voters in many conservative-leaning districts took a big risk by electing Democrats instead of Republicans.

While the moderate Democrats may have remained true to the pledge that they would not embroil themselves in scandal, their voting records under Pelosi’s leadership have been quite liberal, as Pelosi hasn’t sought middle ground on any issue whatsoever.  Conservative-leaning districts are quickly learning that the Democrats they elected aren’t really championing voters’ interests.

Let’s recap how the Ohio delegation voted on the Stupak amendment and on the House’s finalized version of the Obamacare bill:

  • Republicans Boehner, Turner, Latta, LaTourette, Tiberi, Jordan, Schmidt, and Austria all voted for the Stupak amendment (to rule out federal subsidization of abortion) and against the final Obamacare bill.
  • Democrat Boccieri voted for the Stupak amendment and against the final Obamacare bill.
  • Democrat Kucinich voted against the Stupak amendment and against the final Obamacare bill.
  • Democrats Space, Wilson, Kaptur, Ryan, and Driehaus voted for the Stupak amendment and for the final Obamacare bill.
  • Democrats Sutton, Kilroy, and Fudge voted against the Stupak amendment and for the final Obamacare bill.

Question:  Whose re-election bids were helped and whose were hurt by their votes on Saturday?

Republicans are helping themselves with these Saturday votes, and some need all the help they can get.  For Austria, he’s a freshman, so he needs votes like these to establish himself.  Boehner, Tiberi, and Schmidt all voted for the initial Wall Street bailout last fall, so they’ve got some catching up to do, as their votes started our nation down the socialist path.  LaTourette, who, in past years, has always faced very liberal campaign opponents, and who’d also been labeled as a RINO by many inside the GOP, has really benefited by Pelosi’s uber-left agenda.  With no middle ground being sought in the Pelosi house, LaTourette has had no middle ground to steer towards, and, having to steer either left or right, LaTourette has steered right, thus bolstering his conservative credentials and winning greater favor from the base.  Though his district lies in Northeast Ohio, and though local Democrats may postulate that LaTourette has moved too far to the right to be relevant in his district, I think LaTourette has strengthened his hold on the district, as Pelosi has steered Congress much further to the left than voters in LaTourette’s district can stomach.  LaTourette’s liberal campaign opponents didn’t gain enough traction against him in the past, and now that the true colors of liberals are openly displayed, I don’t think they’ll gain enough traction against him in 2010.

Leave it to Dennis Kucinich to march to the beat of a different drum.  Some speculate that if the vote had been 217 to 217 on the Obamacare bill, with Kucinich being the last person to cast a vote, that he would’ve capitulated, and voted for the measure.  He was given wiggle-room this time.  I’m not sure whether his constituents will be amused or annoyed by his capriciousness, but he’s dodged every bullet so far.

Though there are some liberal Democrats around Ohio that are incensed by Boccieri’s vote, I think the vote helps him.  The lefty voices claim that Boccieri can’t win over conservatives because they’ll still fault him for cap-and-trade and various sundry bailout votes, which is true, yet I think this vote, because it’s so highly publicized, will help Boccieri among independent, middle-of-the-road voters.

For Kaptur and Ryan, they haven’t sufficiently alienated their constituencies by these votes.  Their support of the Stupak amendment spares them from Catholic backlash while their support of the Obamacare bill leaves them in good standing with the unions.  Though Driehaus voted the same way, I don’t think it helps.  The high tide of Democrat turnout that carried Driehaus into office on Obama’s coattails won’t recur in the 2010 election, and I think his seat reverts back to Republican control.  Space and Wilson like to talk as if they are middle-of-the-road, but with no middle ground in the Pelosi House, they’ve chosen to steer to the left on every vote.  Somehow, eastern Ohio doesn’t keep close tabs on their Congressional representatives until scandal erupts, like it did with Bob Ney, Jim Traficant, and Wayne Hays.  If they were keeping close tabs, Space and Wilson would be dead meat in 2010.

Lastly, there are the Emily’s List delegation members.  In Fudge’s district, she’s a shoo-in.  I can’t imagine her re-election being screwed up by any Congressional vote. Whether she votes uber-liberal or ultra-conservative for the rest of her term, just the fact that she’ll have a “D” by her name in November 2010 will ensure her election.  Sutton has shown that she cares more about the views of liberal lobbyists around the Beltway than she does about the views of voters in her district.  Though her district leans slightly left, it’s not an uber-liberal district, so I think Sutton is hurting herself and increasing the risk that she could be successfully outflanked on the right.  Finally, there’s Kilroy.  Come November 2010, she’s toast.

One final note about the gamesmanship of Beltway lobbyists, I highly recommend this BizzyBlog post that explains how Obamacare might have been defeated if not for National Right-to-Life blocking the route.  Pathetic.

Posted in Health Care, National Politics, State Politics. Tags: , , . 2 Comments »

2009 election results: 1 step forward & 2 steps backward

November 4, 2009 — buckeyerino

Some of the election races turned out the way I’d hoped, but I’m sure regular readers know that, over all, I’m displeased with Ohio’s election results, especially pertaining to Issue 3.

All counties routinely covered by Buckeye RINO, namely Erie, Huron, Seneca, Lorain, and Cuyahoga, favored the casino cartel.  Absentee votes were overwhelmingly in favor of the casinos. In a few years, Ohioans will see how the casino vote is every bit as damaging as the lottery vote a few decades ago, but it will be too late to do anything about it, just as it’s too late to do anything about the lottery.  These things can’t be undone.  Sorry, Ohio, but you’ve stepped in it.

Ohio also voted to pay out more interest by taking on more debt with passage of Issue 1.

In Erie County voting, there were some election night successes that indicate an improvement for both the Sandusky school board and the Sandusky city commission.  Voters did pick Koonce for Sandusky school board and dump Patterson.  Smart move.  Also, two Sandusky city commission incumbents who are among the good old boys, Stahl and Warner, came in dead last, while challengers Nuesse and Hamilton picked up two of the three commission seats available.  However, by favoring Issue 3, Erie County residents rewarded some bad behavior and have undercut Cedar Point and the indoor water parks as tourist destinations.

In Cuyahoga County, voters did pass Issue 6 and reject Issue 5 in an attempt to come to grips with corruption in county government.  However, in passing Issue 3, voters have greatly facilitated the operations of organized crime, so, at the same time they are trying to heal the damage, they’ve shot themselves in the foot.

In Lorain County, it seems that Gary Bennett has won election to Elyria Municipal Court, that Phil Van Treuren did secure a seat on Amherst city council, and it seems that the Lorain school board candidates endorsed at Buckeye RINO have emerged as winners. Issue 4, a county sales tax increase, was also defeated.

However, Lorain may have to change its name to Giardini-on-the-Lake as Democrat good old boy party boss Anthony Giardini saw all of his preferred candidates sweep the elections for Lorain city council.  It’s really hard for me to feel sorry for Giardini-on-the-Lake when voters continue to support a Democrat machine that has abused them terribly.  In the race for Law Director, Giardini-on-the-Lake voters rewarded non-compliance.

Elyria voters chose exactly the same city council candidates that were endorsed by the Elyria Chronicle-Telegram.  Maybe the CT wants to do more than just report events–maybe they want to shape events.  Maybe the CT, with its endorsements, just wanted to bet on the winning horses and come out smelling like a rose.  I don’t know, but I bet the city won’t move forward as successfully as if the election results had matched Buckeye RINO’s endorsements.  Most disappointing were the Democrat sweeps in the at-Large seats.  Here’s the fly in the ointment with electing the CT slate:  The city tax issue, Issue 10, went down to defeat.  The CT endorsed Issue 10.  The city council that the CT has chosen doesn’t know how to govern without passage of Issue 10.  The Buckeye RINO-endorsed city council would have been able to move forward without passage of Issue 10.  If Elyria voters had thought this through more thoroughly, they would have realized that their opposition to Issue 10 meant that they needed to elect the Buckeye RINO slate, not the CT slate.  Just watch–Elyria will try to raise taxes again, because of who was elected to city council.  Leopards don’t change their spots.  Just look at the county commissioners with their sales tax hikes.  Voters in Lorain County chose commissioner candidates that can’t govern without hiking taxes.  Two years ago, a sales tax hike approved by county commissioners was soundly defeated.  Did voters oust the offending county commissioners?  No.  They returned them to office.  What happened?  They hiked sales taxes again.  Voters rejected that tax hike by rejecting Issue 4.  Want to stop going down the path of tax hikes?  Vote for different commissioners!  Next year, Betty Blair’s commissioner seat will be up for election.  Should you return Blair to office?  Not if you’ve voted against the tax hikes twice.  Think about it.

Posted in gambling, Local Politics, State Politics. Tags: , , . 5 Comments »

2009 Buckeye RINO endorsement recap megapost

October 29, 2009 — buckeyerino

Election Day is next Tuesday, November 3rd.  Don’t forget to vote.

This year, I’m weighing in on the following issues:  The statewide ballot Issues 1,2, and 3; Lorain County Issue 4; Cuyahoga County Issues 5 and 6.

Buckeye RINO’s local political coverage generally spans Lorain, Huron, Seneca, and Erie Counties.  This year, I’m endorsing local candidates in the following cities:  Amherst, Sandusky, Lorain, and Elyria.

ISSUES (Ballotpedia.org has info on state and local issues, including other viewpoints)

  • No on Issue 1.
  • Yes on Issue 2–I have mixed feelings about this issue.  This is about the living conditions of livestock.  Some special interest groups (animal rights advocates, climate change activists, vegetarian and vegan crusaders), using tactics such as those outlined in Saul Alinsky’s book, “Rules for Radicals,” are waging a campaign against animal-based agriculture.  I’m not enthralled with the proposed solution offered by Issue 2, because it authorizes creation of yet another governing body (groan).  I feel caught between a rock and a hard place.  I’ll take a chance on Issue 2, but my support is far from solid.
  • NO on Issue 3.  If you read Buckeye RINO at all, you know I’m very emphatic on this point.  NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO and NO.  Got that?
  • No on Lorain County Issue 4.
  • No on Cuyahoga County Issue 5.
  • Yes on Cuyahoga County Issue 6.

AMHERST

I’ve endorsed Phil Van Treuren for Amherst City Council at-Large.  Four candidates are running for 3 at-Large seats.  I’ve taken no position on any of the other contested races in Amherst this year.

Phil Van Treuren didn’t bring up this point, so let me do so:  Phil has a lot of knowledge of what goes on in Amherst and throughout Lorain County.  You don’t knock on all the doors of Amherst without getting an earful.  Phil’s knocked on those doors.  Phil started out in Lorain County as a journalist, covering the stories that pop up all over the county.  He has an awareness of conditions and issues that supersedes that of his peers who are running for Amherst council.  This has as much to do with why I endorse Phil as any other factor.

SANDUSKY

Purge the city commission of as many incumbents as possible.  They are “good old boys.”

Vote for Richard Koonce for Sandusky Board of Education.

LORAIN

Three positions are open for Lorain school board.  Above all else, vote for Jim Smith, even if you vote for just one.  Williams and Sturgill are the others preferred by Buckeye RINO.  Bivins is campaigning as a rubber-stamp of the superintendent, which is why I favor the other 3 candidates.

Buckeye RINO endorses Mike Scherach for Law Director.  I expect lawyers to make sure all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed.  The interim law director failed to meet that basic requirement.

Unfortunately, not all races for Lorain City Council are contested.  Lorain is a central city within a metropolitan area.  Lorain’s proper role is not to be a sleepy bedroom community and retirement center.  Lorain’s proper role is to be a mecca for industry and employment.  Infrastructure is the skeleton to which economic muscles attach.  Lorain’s infrastructure is 30 years overdue for an upgrade.  Anthony Giardini, Democrat party boss, is the puppetmaster for many of the members on city council.  The city’s government is fundamentally broken and entirely dysfunctional.  I favor city council candidates who will present the greatest challenges to existing authority and the powers-that-be.

  • For Lorain City Council at-Large, Buckeye RINO endorses Sean Kalin Stipe, who has correctly predicted that Lorain’s fiscal crash is being masked over until after Election Day.  I have my hunches about who the “good old boys” are trying to protect by these maneuvers.  There are 5 candidates running for 3 seats, which means it’s impossible to sweep out all the incumbents this time around.  Buckeye RINO favors Stipe and Keith Jones, the two challengers.  Of the incumbents, I’m willing to try one more term for Mitch Fallis, but I haven’t been impressed so far.  Please show Given and Molnar the door.
  • Melanie Szabo for First Ward.  She’s the only current city council member that hasn’t been a disappointment.
  • Joyce Early for Third Ward.  If Tim Howard were running for Oberlin City Council and if Timothy Haupt were running for Amherst City Council, they might make a good fit for those respective cities, which are far more functional than Lorain.  They don’t fit well for Lorain’s current situation, where the government is fundamentally broken.  Joyce Early takes the more confrontational approach that is needed in these desperate times.
  • Andy Winemiller for Fourth Ward.  This is the GOP candidate I’m most excited about in Lorain.  He clearly outshines Schuster.
  • Greg Holcomb for Sixth Ward.  Yes, he’s an incumbent, and yes, I’m disappointed so far, but his challenger is Bob Kerecz, who has served on council before.  Kerecz would represent a step backward from where Lorain is now (if that’s possible).
  • Kenneth Baughman for Seventh Ward.  Silecky makes no important contribution to council.

ELYRIA

Buckeye RINO endorses Gary Bennett for Elyria Municipal Court.  Bennett has been a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent over the course of his lifetime.  He’s held non-partisan office on the Elyria school board.  He served as an interim county prosecutor.  He pursues no partisan political agenda, and he’s remained apart from the political fray.  He just tries to do the best job he conscientiously can based on the facts at his disposal.  Grunda=partisan.

Unfortunately, not all city council races in Elyria are contested.  Like Lorain, Elyria’s proper role as a central city within a metropolitan area is to be a hub for industry and employment.  Additionally, as the county seat, it is a hub of government, as well.  For the economic vitality of the surrounding region, Elyria is not to be a museum for nostalgic retirees who yearn for Elyria’s past glory days.  The government hub is located downtown, in the heart of the community, which suffers from clogged coronary arteries.  The existing transportation infrastructure supports growth only on Elyria’s periphery.  Though LCCC is situated on the edge of Elyria, the local labor market is ill-equipped to absorb its graduates.  Mayor Bill Grace is a visionary who has the wrong vision.  Grace has Stepfordized Elyria, bringing death to Elyria’s inner soul in Grace’s pursuit of cosmetic conformity for the outer shell of Elyria that remains.  Elyria City Council is in dire need of members who can see the big picture who can provide an alternate vision to compete with Grace.  Council members must not be rooted in the past.  The infrastructure must be upgraded with a vision of the future clearly in mind.  Employee layoffs should begin with Grace’s own staff before ever proceeding to safety forces.  Unemployment and poverty rates are spiking higher in Elyria right now, signaling that the financial crunch will just get bigger if the city continues along the path that Grace is leading it.  With all that in mind, some of these council races are tough to decide, but I’m going to give it a shot.

  • Ray Noble for Elyria Council at-Large.  There are 9 candidates seeking 4 seats.  Noble is the wisest of the whole bunch.  Rae Lynn Brady, Christopher Best, and Diane Lesesky are the other three who are able to size up the picture quite well.  Oust the 3 incumbents, Lotko, Stewart, and Callahan.  The other Democrat, Siwierka, places too much faith in getting assistance from the state and federal governments.  Sorry, but nobody from DC or Columbus will be coming to Elyria’s rescue.  Quinn’s first reaction to the ensuing crisis is to look for more tax revenue.  Sorry, you can’t get blood from a turnip.
  • Forrest Bullocks for Elyria 2nd Ward.  This is bad news for 2nd Ward.  You aren’t well served by continuing to follow the city leadership that Bullocks supports, but Sandra Laubenthal hasn’t done enough homework to be prepared to challenge Bullocks, and would not hit the ground running if elected to council.  I hope 2nd Ward fields stronger candidates the next time around.
  • Garry Gibbs for Elyria 3rd Ward.  Thank you to all the 3rd Ward voters who’ve supported Gibbs year after year.  Gibbs is one of the few bright spots on Elyria council.  If you vote for Noble, Brady, Best, and Lesesky for the at-Large seats, Gibbs will be a capable leader on council that can serve as an effective counterbalance to Mayor Grace.  Koepp brings nothing to the table.
  • Brandon Rutherford for Elyria 4th Ward.  Among council incumbents, Mark Craig is my 2nd favorite, behind Gibbs.  Craig has been a model for communication and transparency.  If Craig were running for an at-Large seat, he probably would have picked up my endorsement.  Rutherford, however, is the more visionary.  There are several things I admire about Rutherford.  Rutherford is resourceful.  He makes lemonade out of lemons.  When faced with a setback, he usually reacts with a swear word, but after a few moments, he’ll start brainstorming  for a way to proceed.  Elyria is going to get slammed with more financial bad news in the near future, but Rutherford is one who won’t be paralyzed into inaction.  Read through Rutherford’s guest blog entry and see the stuff Rutherford can come up with that can improve a community for little to no $$$.  Also, when brainstorming, Rutherford reaches out and picks at other people’s brains across the political spectrum.  4th Ward constituents are among those prone to turn back the clock to a simpler time and less hurried way of life.  They want a cozy environment for their retirement years.  Unfortunately, they are the ones who will be clobbered with the price tag for what they desire, because the working population will have departed for elsewhere, seeking job opportunities that are missing in Elyria.  At a Rutherford fundraiser, I saw YOUNG people.  These are the people Elyria needs to attract and retain WITH JOBS in order to prevent retirees from getting crushed under a heavy tax burden.  What’s missing from the Craig platform is: the future.
  • Marcus Madison for Elyria 5th Ward.  Tom Aden seems like a very nice fellow.  Aden was instrumental in getting West by the River neighborhood designated as a historical district.  Great.  Madison is talking about infrastructure upgrades, like replacing 4-inch water lines with 8-inch water lines.  Good.  Aden=past.  Madison=future.  I’m going with Madison.
  • Dorothy Klimczak for Elyria 6th Ward.  A no-brainer, she is far and away the better choice.  Mitchell is running as a rubber-stamp for Bill Grace.
  • Jerry McHugh for Elyria 7th Ward.  This is a tough choice, but, unlike the tough choice for 2nd Ward, this is good news for the 7th Ward.  Ed Sinegar would also be a good choice.  Flip a coin over it.  The best news is that the incumbent is not in this race.  McHugh first caught my attention and raised my eyebrows during the primaries of 2007 at a candidate forum hosted by CHIP in Lorain.  After watching the event, I sent an email, comparing notes, with someone who was also at the event.  An excerpt of my email reads, “Can’t compare Jerry McHugh with no-show Burkholder, but I like the guy’s demeanor.  I’d like to see him on Elyria council.”  I guess that’s why I’m picking McHugh in this one, but whether you vote McHugh or whether you vote Sinegar, it’s bound to be an improvement over the previous occupant of the 7th Ward seat.

Like my endorsements?  Don’t like my endorsements?  Feel free to sound off in the comments, below.  (Keep the language clean, though.)  Don’t forget to vote.

Posted in gambling, Local Politics, State Politics. Tags: , , . 10 Comments »

Bonds and my opposition to Issue 1 explained

October 28, 2009 — buckeyerino

As a rule of thumb, I take a dim view of state bond issues.

We’ve seen several bond issues on our statewide ballots in recent years, championing majestic causes from cleaning up brownfields, preserving green space, raising venture capital for Ohio’s high-tech startups, and, this year’s Issue 1, showing our appreciation for our military personnel.

Keeping our environment clean is worthwhile.  Shifting our economy to high tech is worthwhile (though I don’t think the state should assume the role of venture capitalist).  Assisting our troops and their families is most definitely worthwhile.  These issues reach our ballot with broad, bipartisan support from the politicians.  Issue 1 is favored by a number of Democrats and Republicans serving in the Ohio General Assembly.

Former GOP Governor James Rhodes (deceased) loved bond issues.  During his tenure, inflation was rather high compared to the interest rate paid out on the bonds, so paying back the principal and interest on the bonds was rather easy when inflation was high.

Are we in an inflationary market at present?  The federal government announced that social security monthly benefits to be paid out (and social security withholdings) for 2010 will remain the same as 2009 because the cost of living fell this year, so, no, we are not in an inflationary market at present, so we can’t work Jim Rhodes’ magic on our bond repayments.

Our state budget must be balanced in every biennium.  If the state is not permitted to run a deficit, is it wise for the state to carry a debt?  I’d think not.  No thanks to bond issues that have passed in the past, Ohio does have a burden of debt.

If we don’t have the money in our budget to pay for worthy causes on a pay-as-you-go basis, then it makes no sense to commit the state to paying a chunk of money it doesn’t have and then combine it with interest payments.

Money for repayment of bond principal plus interest comes from the state’s general fund.  Money for education and Medicaid also comes from the general fund.  Many, many, many other expenses also have to be paid out of the general fund.  When faced with budget cuts, the legislature dares not cut the money to repay bonds, or the state’s bond rating would plummet.  Therefore, everything else from the general fund is subject to cuts, while political agendas funded with bonds are spared from getting cut.  Of course, Governor Strickland doesn’t want to make cuts, which is why he’s sold his soul to the devil for flipflops on gambling and taxes in an effort to raise more revenue for state government.  If we, the people, are to slam the door on the state government from reaching into our pockets for bigger money grabs, then the state MUST cut its budget, since the tax base appears to be shrinking.  As you can tell, though, some worthy causes, like education, can find its way to the chopping block if state revenues continue to drop.

So, is farmland preservation more important a priority than education?  No.  But will farmland preservation receive funding cuts?  No, because farmland preservation money comes from bonds, not the general fund.  Education comes from the general fund.  Education is at greater risk of getting cut.  This is how issuing bonds skews the state’s priorities.  If bonds had never been issued, and money for both education and farmland preservation came from the general fund, we’d be able to align priorities so much better.

So why is it that politicians from both parties love bond issues, even in the current economic climate?  It’s all about patronage and pleasing core constituencies without having to justify the expenses during a blistering biennial budget bill battle.  (Can you say “blistering biennial budget bill battle” five times fast?)  Anything funded directly out of the general fund (except bond repayment) must be scrutinized and fought over by the rival caucuses in the General Assembly.  Patronage to reward core constituencies for supporting incumbents would be endangered if exposed to the budget bill debates.  Bond funding allows safe haven for payback.  As an example, because of environmental bonds issued in the past, incumbents of both parties find themselves in the good graces of environmental lobbies, thus insulating themselves from being out-“greened” by challengers when they face re-election.

The mood of the electorate is surly.  Have you noticed any “tea party” action of late?  How do incumbents hold on to office in such a “throw-the-bums-out” atmosphere?  Issue 1 is a gimmick tailor-made to rally support for incumbents.  This is for the troops.  Even the “tea party” activists who are fed up with politicians can’t resist opportunities to support the troops.  Issue 1 is designed to placate the “tea party” bunch.  It’s also designed to allow the incumbents to ingratiate themselves on military families, who are probably more inclined to vote and be politically active than non-military families.

I can think of a much better way to show appreciation for the troops.  Just like our state income tax forms and drivers license bureau offices allow you to check a box to willingly donate to a wildlife fund or an organ donor fund, let’s add a “support our troops” donation option.

So, I see no reason why the state needs to obligate itself to pay more interest by taking on more debt and crowding out other funding priorities.  That’s why I’m against Issue 1.

Are there bond issues I could conceivably support in the future?  Possibly.  But here’s the criteria such a bond issue would have to meet:  The bond money must go toward a cause that grows the tax base so that the state receives a big enough revenue windfall as a result of the bond issue that the repayment of principal plus interest is all too easy.  As I said, I don’t think the state should take on the role of venture capitalist, so more “Third Frontier” bond issues would not likely pass muster with me.  Perhaps the bond issues that would have the best chance of garnering my support would be for infrastructure upgrades.  Upgrading infrastructure could definitely grow the tax base, if done right.  I’d have to be convinced that it’s the right infrastructure project, and not just a patronage project.  I’d expect the infrastructure project to be a game-changer and not just a cosmetic facelift.  If those conditions are met, I might be persuaded to get behind it.

Issue 1, though, would not do a thing to increase the tax base, and would therefore generate no additional revenue with which to pay back the bond principal and accompanying interest.  Vote NO on Issue 1.

Posted in State Politics. Tags: . 4 Comments »

Cuyahoga County Issues 5, 6, and predictions about voting over the next 50 years into the future

October 26, 2009 — buckeyerino

First of all, on the issue of Cuyahoga County reform, voting NO on Issue 3 would be quite helpful in keeping a lid on corruption.  Access to a casino, with its money-laundering potential, facilitates crime and political corruption.  Even the police will have a hard time trying to keep everything above board in a casino environment.

I urge support for Issue 6 and defeat of Issue 5.

Issue 6 is not a cure-all.  Even with the restructuring of Cuyahoga County government under Issue 6, the “good old boys” will eventually figure out how to game the system.  But, under Issue 6, there is provision for a charter review down the road that will allow the new structure to be re-evaluated and refined to address any unwanted unintended consequences that crop up in the short run.

The charter review process provided for in Issue 6 therefore makes Issue 5 a moot point.  Issue 5 would merely continue study of the issue of county reform, without any commitment to adopting any recommendations that might result from such a study.  If you think the issue of reform requires more study, this can still be accomplished with Issue 6, which does commit to a structural change, but which can and will be revisited.  For the “good old boys” who’ve been gaming the system for years, Issue 5 is all about gaming the system.  Thus, even though Issue 6 isn’t fool-proof,  Issue 5 is an attempt to fool the naive and gullible into thinking progress toward reform will still be underway when the opposite is more likely to materialize: the death of reform.

Issue 5 asks the voter to choose a slate of members for the reform-study commission.  Whether you vote yes or no on Issue 5, you are directed to choose one slate or the other.  If Issue 6 is defeated and Issue 5 passes, your best bet to avoid the death of reform is to choose the following slate:

Angela Thi Bennett
Jack Boyle
James Brady
Ruth Brady
Thomas Kelly
Roz McAllister
Joseph Miller
Mary O’Malley
Jamie Pilla
William I. Russo
Thomas P. Slavin
Linda Smigel
Elaine Trapp
Tom Wilson
Pat Wright

Here, at Buckeye RINO blog, I’d advanced a remedy of my own relative to cleaning up county-level corruption throughout Ohio.  My remedy included moving county commissioner races to odd-numbered years so that the county commissioner candidates would face more voter and media scrutiny rather than get swept into office by hiding in the coat-tails of presidential and gubernatorial candidates.

It just so happens that, during my present exile in Pierce County, WA, fighting county-level corruption is also fueling ballot issues.  What proposal is on the table to reform Pierce County government?  Voila!  Moving several county-level election races to odd-numbered years!  Just the kind of thing I’d recommend for Ohio!

I’ve looked into my crystal ball, and I’ve seen the future of voting.  Within the next 50 years, election calendars all over the nation will be introducing staggered elections and staggered start dates for terms in office.  Federal elections will still occur on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November of even numbered years, with terms beginning the following January, but I predict a shake-up in state, county, and local election calendars.

There are 4 years between Presidential elections, and 2 years between Congressional elections.  There are 12 months in each year.  There are 52 weeks in each year.  As political corruption that has gone on for decades at all government levels continues to come to light, there will be a mounting public outcry for greater transparency.  Transparency will be among the chief motivations for changing our election calendars.

Leading up to these election calendar changes will be refinements in election technology that allow for greater automation, tamper-proof security, result tabulation speed, remote voter ballot access, and streamlined voter registration processes.  We’ve witnessed experiments in early voting periods, same-day voting, voting by mail, voting by internet, touch-screen voting, optical-scan voting, voter paper trails and receipts, motor-voter registrations, and, of course, security upgrades.  We are on a learning curve.  Eventually, this learning curve will create all the technology needed for the greater flexibility that changes to our election calendars will require.

Currently, our election calendar features deadline dates that are fairly standardized from year to year.  There are deadlines for filing candidate petitions.  There are deadlines for filing issue petitions.  There are deadlines for registering to vote.  There are deadlines for requesting absentee ballots.  There are deadlines for registering as a write-in candidate.  There are primary election deadlines, general election deadlines, and even special election deadlines.  There are campaign finance reporting deadlines.  The work at a Board of Elections office, therefore, fluctuates on a seasonal basis, according to the deadlines.  During peak times, such as the general election, dozens upon dozens of temporary election workers have to be added in each county, and the permanent staff is on the clock for lots of overtime hours.

What if there were ways to make the work of the Board of Elections less cyclical, spreading out the work throughout the year more evenly, requiring less peak loads, thus reducing the need for temporary staffing and overtime pay?  If technology upgrades yielded by our experimentation and our learning curve allowed us to more evenly space out the elections calendar, could we save a lot of taxpayer dollars expended for elections operations?  I think so.

So, at first, in the interest of transparency, I foresee lower-profile election races from even-numbered years migrating to odd-numbered years.

Next, I see Boards of Election acquiring the ability to handle elections on a more frequent basis throughout each year.

Next, I foresee that start dates for terms in office will be staggered, so that not all governments at all levels start from a blank slate each January as they currently do.  Congress may begin in January, but perhaps the Ohio General Assembly may begin in September, or some other month.   School boards may begin in July, or some other month.  County commissions may begin in March, or some other month.  City councils may start in December, or some other month, etc., etc., etc.

Next, a revolving door of election cycles will be reflective of the staggered starting dates for terms in office.  Potentially, each elected office will have its own unique campaign cycle and term commencement date.  Voting booths will not need to be deployed county-wide through every county.  Instead, voters will have remote access to the ballot, and technology will assure that votes are securely tamper-proof.  Each new week could possibly usher in a new candidate election period for one office or another.  This week might be county auditor week.  Next week might be county coroner week.  The following week might be county clerk of courts week, and so on.  Peaks of the election cycle will be minimized, and the work of election boards more balanced throughout the year, and more automated.

Campaigns could be less costly, as a low-profile candidate won’t as likely be priced out of the TV advertising market by Presidential candidates who’ve bought up the bulk of air time.  With the staggered election cycle, every public office will have it’s time in the spotlight.  Like Andy Warhol said, everybody will be famous for 15 minutes.

Remembering to vote each week or so would be like remembering which day to set the garbage can by the curb for trash collection.  If a voter desires election reminders, the board of elections can send out a weekly tweet.  A voter can respond to the tweet, if they so choose, by casting their ballot du jour.

Pollsters wouldn’t have to rely so much on collecting random samples of the population to survey.  Each week, new election results would come in from many parts of the country, and they’d be able to analyze those results for shifting moods within the electorate.  Polimetrics would become more easily and cheaply interpretable.

Why am I so confident that election calendars will morph into revolving doors during the next 50 years?  The push for transparency, the desire to reduce the role of cash in campaigns, the convenience to voters and election boards, the revolutionized technology, the efficiency and cost savings of operations at election boards, and especially the outraged public who want to bring an end to the culture of political corruption will force these changes to our election calendar.

Posted in Local Politics, National Politics, State Politics. Tags: , , . 4 Comments »

Criminals sponsor gambling? No way! . . . umm, YES way, hello . . . wake up, people . . .

October 25, 2009 — buckeyerino

Dan Gilbert, the Michigan resident who, if Issue 3 passes, would be allowed to own and operate Ohio casinos while Ohioans would be forbidden from doing the same, is trying to whitewash his past.  Gilbert saw to it that an illegal bookie operation during his college days was expunged from his record.  In a Plain Dealer story, he said what he did back then was “dumb,” but since then, he’s had that criminal record fixed.  No harm done, right?

Jeff Jacobs, a would-be rival who covets an opportunity to own a casino of his own, was quoted by the PD saying:

“It’s one thing if your youthful indiscretion is a barroom brawl.  It is another if you caused a college student to be so fearful that he goes to the police, who end up wearing an undercover wire just to shut your illegal bookmaking down.”

Sobering observation about Dan Gilbert’s past, don’t you think?

Left-of-center blog Plunderbund has heavily discounted the notion that any noticeable increase in crime will materialize if Issue 3 passes.  If you click over to Eric’s blog entry on the matter, be sure to scroll down to the comments section, where I’ve pointed out that it’s a matter of historical record that the gambling industry and crime have a symbiotic relationship with each other.  The opportunity to launder money via casinos greatly facilitates organized crime.  Who first conceived of the notion of operating casinos in Las Vegas?  A criminal.

Quite frankly, Issue 3 backers are already demonstrating that they can run circles around law enforcement efforts.  So far, a solitary individual in Cincinnati, as a former employee of a company formerly contracted by Issue 3 backers, has been charged in an absentee voting fraud scheme.  But while there may be closure on the horizon in that Hamilton County case, Franklin County still has to get a handle on absentee voting irregularities within its jurisdiction.  And let’s not forget the dead voters who signed Issue 3 petitions, because Erie County, among others, has yet to get a handle on that, too.  These are clear demonstrations Ohio’s communities just don’t have the means to police the casinos proposed by Issue 3, I don’t care what Ohio’s FOP says to the contrary.

The leaders of the Republican Caucus in the Ohio House of Representatives, state reps William Batchelder and Louis Blessing, Jr., on Friday, released the following statement to the press:

Background Checks Needed with Advent of Casinos

Issue 3 may open floodgates for criminals without proper regulations

COLUMBUS—House Republican Leader William G. Batchelder of Medina, today announced his commitment to safeguarding casino licenses and preventing individuals who have committed crimes in the past from obtaining a casino license, if Issue 3 is approved by voters this November.

“If Issue 3 passes, the General Assembly has an obligation to ensure that the Casino Control Commission carefully screens applicants who want to own and run the Ohio casinos and makes sure that licenses are not granted to anyone with serious gambling infractions in their past,’’ Batchelder said. “Many other states ask applicants about past gambling charges, even if they have been later expunged or overturned on appeal. This industry is highly regulated for a reason, and Ohio should not bow to pressure and adopt regulations that are lower than industry standards.’’

As per Section 3770.051 of the Ohio Revised Code, the director of the State Lottery Commission must request the criminal records of any vendor with whom the commission is considering entering into a contract, to protect the integrity of the state’s online gaming system or instant ticket system. Batchelder seeks to extend a variation of this law to apply to Ohio casinos, should the issue pass a public vote.

“It is prudent that policymakers work together to ensure there are safeguards in place such as background checks, so that anyone with a criminal record cannot apply for a license to operate casino in Ohio,” Batchelder said. “I can remember the Ohio Lottery suffering from scandal in the early 1970s caused by the lack of safeguards.   Clearly defined rules and regulations on something as vague as gambling are necessary to prevent the dismal mistakes of the past.  I urge my legislative colleagues to come together to proactively work and prevent the potential abuse that could come from Issue 3.”

Assistant Republican Leader Louis Blessing Jr. of Cincinnati, who is an opponent to Issue 3, stated the following: “A review of other state standards suggests that criminals would likely be denied a casino license in other states. The cavalier attitude that individuals with similar pasts, who apply for a license here in Ohio tells me they think previous mistakes are just college pranks. This is another reason why we need to know the identity of all of the investors. If the main financial backer can’t get a license, can their partners? We have no idea because he refuses to list the other investors.’’

Other states have similar laws that serve to uphold the integrity of the state casino system. According to Blessing’s research, Pennsylvania regulators ask casino applicants to list all ‘offenses or charges,’ even if the charges were later dismissed, or downgraded.

In Indiana, applicants are asked whether they have ever been ‘arrested, detained, charged, indicted, convicted, received pro-trial diversion, pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or forfeited bail concerns any criminal offense, either felony or misdemeanor…’ In Colorado, the first question regulators ask is, “Have you ever been convicted of any gambling-related felony at any time?’’

Batchelder and Blessing have seen the polls showing that voters are favoring Issue 3, and they want to be as ready as they can be if the issue passes, but, as they’ve pointed out in an earlier press release, this criminal background screening they propose might be a moot point, as passage of Issue 3 would etch the casino proposals in stone as an amendment to Ohio’s Constitution.

Even if you favor casinos in Ohio, there is another casino proposal on the table that wouldn’t write loopholes for criminals into Ohio’s Constitution the way Issue 3 does, but for that proposal to reach voters, Issue 3 must be defeated.

I of course, remain in opposition to casinos, as they produce no wealth, they only redistribute it by plundering it from gamblers.  The numbers that Issue 3 backers throw at you, as the PD’s Thomas Suddes points out, are to dazzle you, but aren’t based in reality.  Casinos do no good for our economy.  Those that benefit, beyond the casino owners, are the criminals and the politicians.  (Is that redundant to say casino owners, criminals, and politicians in the same sentence?)

Gambling tycoons don’t ever play games that aren’t fixed.  The more closely you examine Issue 3, the more you will see that the fix is in.   Career criminals are drooling in anticipation.  Please frustrate them.  Don’t sit this election out.  Please get out to the polls and vote NO on Issue 3.

Posted in gambling, Political Blogosphere, State Politics. Tags: , , . 4 Comments »

Press release:House GOP Lawmakers Introduce Estate Tax Reduction Act

October 21, 2009 — buckeyerino

Editor’s Note: State Rep. Hottinger is from Ohio’s 71st House District, and State Rep. Grossman is from Ohio’s 23rd House District.

COLUMBUS—State Representatives Jay Hottinger (R- Newark) and Cheryl Grossman (R- Grove City) today introduced House Bill 326 that would shrink Ohio’s estate tax liability, a proposal included in “The Future of Ohio” plan introduced earlier this fall by House Republicans.

“It is time to improve Ohio’s heavy tax burden by reducing the estate tax,” Hottinger said.  “Ohioans are already handicapped by one of the highest tax rates in the country, which is shortchanging our ability to attract jobs and families. The estate tax continues to be a contributing cause of our population exodus. This legislation would encourage many Ohioans to remain in the state where they can pass on their life savings to their heirs without penalty.”

This legislation would allot all estate tax revenues to local governments by eliminating the state share, which is currently 20 percent. Municipalities and townships would have the right to exempt the estate tax within their territorial jurisdiction. The bill would also increase the state estate tax credit to $15,575 and link it with the consumer price index, effectively raising the exemption threshold to $366,250 for estates with dates of death on or after January 1, 2010.

“Ohio is one of only 23 states that still impose a death tax,” Grossman said. “What kind of messages does this send to Ohioans who have worked hard their whole lives and invested in our communities? It is important as we seek ways to improve Ohio’s economy that we ease the tax burden in any way we can, including for those families struggling with the loss of a loved one.”

Under current Ohio law, every estate is taxed at a rate ranging from 2 percent to 7 percent, and most have an initial fee assessed as well. There are six classified tax brackets ranging from taxable estates of $40,000 or less to estates worth more than $500,000. The payment of this tax is divided to provide 20 percent to state General Revenue Fund and the additional 80 percent is distributed to the local municipalities.

This bill is a key component to “The Future of Ohio” package of proposals rolled out by House Republican members last month. These economic development proposals were drawn from discussions with constituents and small business leaders across Ohio.  The initiatives would come at a minimal cost to taxpayers, with long-term job creation, economic stimulus, and far greater revenue in state income than costs.  Jobs created by these proposals would have a multiplier effect on the economy by increasing tax revenues for state and local government.

Posted in State Politics. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

Press release from leadership of Ohio House Republican caucus concerning Issue 3

October 14, 2009 — buckeyerino

Editor’s note:  This press release was issued on October 8th.  The proponents of Issue 3 have deflected criticisms of the specific language of the proposed Constitutional amendment by giving the impression that the Ohio General Assembly has the ability to correct whatever flaws may exist in its wording.  The Ohio General Assembly has no such power to override the Constitution, as set forth in this press release.  The only check and balance against the flaws of Issue 3 is held by the people, and can only be exercised by way of voting NO.  Election Day is November 3rd, and early voting has already begun.  Please vote NO on Issue 3.

Republican Leaders Question Issue 3 Tax Analysis

COLUMBUS – Ohio House Republican Leader William G. Batchelder (R-Medina) and Assistant Republican Leader Louis W. Blessing (R-Cincinnati) today stated in a letter to The Office of Budget and Management and The Ohio Department of Taxation their desire for a change in the tax and expenditure analysis created for Issue 3 on the November ballot.

In their letter, they outlined that the current analysis assumes legislative authority from the General Assembly and tax estimates that are not guaranteed by the language of the amendment.  Batchelder and Blessing express concern over the definitions of “Gross casino revenue,” and “Casino gaming” in regards to cash wagering. Highlights of the letter are as follows:

“Your assumption is that the General Assembly would pass a statute expanding the tax base to include cash wagering.  Whether the General Assembly would do that at all is highly speculative.  More importantly, the General Assembly has no authority whatsoever to contradict, rescind, repeal or override a provision of the Ohio Constitution…

It is well settled that the General Assembly can pass legislation which implements and complements constitutional provisions.  However, your assumption relative to the projected tax revenue is far different than that.  You are assuming that the General Assembly can substantially amend, and in fact repeal certain of the constitutional provisions as set out above.  We do not believe the General Assembly has that power…

The question is simple:  ‘Does the General Assembly have the power to revoke, contradict, repeal or override a provision of the Ohio Constitution?’…

We know that you share our interest in providing voters accurate and evidence-based projections.  It is our hope and request that you revise your analysis promptly so that all Ohioans may benefit from the accurate evaluation of the proposed amendment.”

Posted in gambling, State Politics. Tags: , . 2 Comments »

State rep Dennis Murray opposes Issue 3, but introduces his own casino bill

October 13, 2009 — buckeyerino

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that Dennis Murray (D-80) has introduced a casino bill in the Ohio House of Representatives to legalize up to 15 casinos in Ohio.

This is yet another example of ethically-challenged politicians helping themselves to more campaign funds while allowing casinos to cannibalize whatever’s left of Ohio’s ruined economy. Haven’t we, Ohio voters, figured out yet that Ohio’s politicians don’t care one eensy-weensy bit about our pocketbooks? Neither Republican majorities nor Democrat majorities in our state capitol have made any economic sense for our state in recent months and years.

There were several reasons why I endorsed Murray’s opponent for state rep last year, not least of which was the fact that it’s no secret that the Murray and Murray law firm attempted to help Sandusky’s Sortino family to own and operate a casino in Erie County.  Do you think we can guess who Murray might look to for campaign donations?

As a Sandusky City Commissioner prior to his election to the state rep job, Dennis Murray was also among the good old boys who put the smackdown on Kim Nuesse, Sandusky’s police chief.

I agree with Murray that Issue 3 deserves a NO vote, but, apparently, we don’t see eye-to-eye on much else.

I have to give props to the Erie County Commissioners for turning down the Daly’s Pub gambling proposal.  I think Erie County Commissioner Bill Monaghan might have some good advice for Dennis Murray when it comes to gambling.  In the meantime, as long as Murray makes no effort to mend his ways, I will continue to support his opponents.  So far, Sandusky school board member Jeff Krabill has announced his candidacy for the 80th Ohio House district in 2010.  All of Erie County and most of Ottawa County lies within the 80th district.

Posted in State Politics. Tags: . 3 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »