Compare with Monte Carlo . . .

In November, Ohioans will be asked if they wish to amend the Ohio Constitution to allow 4 casinos, owned and operated by out-of-state entities, to do business on Ohio soil.

As one can determine upon reading my correspondence with spokespersons for the casino proponents, the major thrust of their marketing efforts is to portray casinos as an economic booster.  I will have much to say about this portrayal beyond what is contained in this blog entry, so stay tuned . . .

Last year, in the days preceding the vote on another casino issue, Issue 6, I made a fuss over who gets the privilege of owning and operating a casino in at least a couple of posts (like this one, and this one).  With this latest casino proposal, I’ve already made this same fuss over special Constitutional rights to own and operate a casino granted to out-of-state tycoons that won’t be extended to the 11 million residents of Ohio.

Why is it that I concern myself so much with the right to own a casino and not so much with the right to gamble at a casino?  One obvious reason would be that adults already have the mobility to get to a casino, and if they can get there, they have the right to gamble there.  Therefore, the rights to gamble are not, in reality, curtailed.  However, the rights to own and operate a casino are very much curtailed.  If a casino happens to be publicly traded (and not all of them are) the average person might be able to own a few shares of stock, but a controlling interest in the corporation would clearly be out of reach.  Meanwhile, the average person, if they felt entrepreneurial enough, might manage to open a restaurant, a fitness center, a retail shop, a trucking service, a dry cleaners, a laundromat, an automotive repair shop, a mortgage brokerage, a realty, a manufacturing facility, a marina, a hotel, a software company, and so on and so forth . . . except a casino.

The clear economic advantage of having a casino in your city would accrue to the casino’s owners, not the casino’s gamblers . . . and since the casino’s owners aren’t even from your city, or even your state . . .

So, can you name an example of a casino that actually boosted an economy?  How about the famous Monte Carlo casino in the Mediterranean principality of Monaco?

OK, let’s look into the history of the Monte Carlo casino.  We can then compare it with what’s being proposed now.

The land area of Monaco amounts to less than a square mile.  It has a population of between 30 and 35 thousand people.  It lies on the shores of the Mediterranean, and beyond its land boundaries lies the nation of France.

The terrain of Monaco is sharply sloping, and it’s soil is relatively rocky.  Nevertheless, through much of Monaco’s early history, much of it’s economic lifeblood came from agriculture.  Lemons, oranges, olives, and grapes were cultivated in Monaco, once upon a time.

There was a sudden drastic change that left Monaco bereft of its agriculture.   Suddenly, Monaco was the poorest state in Europe.  What happened?

Monaco’s territory used to be bigger.  The Grimaldi dynasty that ruled Monaco imposed high taxes.  Grumblings over taxes led to a separatist movement.  The royal family didn’t have the power to hold Monaco together intact, especially with the behemoth of France breathing down its neck.  So, in order to remain a family of privilege with at least a tiny parcel of territory to rule, the Prince of Monaco arranged a treaty with France that recognized the Grimaldi family’s self-rule over the tiny parcel of land that constitutes present-day Monaco, but the Grimaldi family was forced to relinquish claims on the agricultural lands inhabited by the separatists.  In the year 1861, Monaco lost 90% of its territory, including all of its arable land.

What’s a Prince to do?  If the Prince allows Monaco to wallow in poverty, all its remaining residents will also revolt, and there will be no territory or people left to rule over.

In 1863, the first phase of the Monte Carlo casino was built.  Prince Charles III had been to a luxurious combo spa and gambling resort in Germany, and decided to give it a try in Monaco.  His resort would cater to the very wealthy, and he’d use the balmy Mediterranean seaside climate as an additional marketing tool to attract the upper crust.

The Prince knew that the casino would fail to enrich Monaco if its residents gambled there. Therefore, from its inception, the Monte Carlo casino was off-limits to Monaco’s citizens, including the royal family, itself.  Monaco’s citizens were not even to enter the casino.  To make sure that the casino was catering to an upscale clientele, guests had to dress up in order to gain entry.  No shorts or blue jeans or t-shirts.  Tuxedos and evening gowns, however, were quite acceptable attire.

In less than a decade, Monaco’s income tax was scrapped.  The royal family had managed to solidify its rule within its principality.

But that’s not the end of the story . . .

During the Great Depression, revenues at the casino dropped substantially.  The royal family realized they had to diversify Monaco’s economy.  From that time to this, Monaco has been working toward minimizing its dependence on casino revenue.  Nowadays, there’s competition from casinos in France, so there’s even more reason to diversify the economy.  When casino revenues fell, instead of pouring larger investments into casino expansion, the Grimaldi family invested in other  diverse ventures. The tourism industry is the largest economic sector of Monaco, even today, constituting roughly 50% of GDP.  The casino’s share of today’s economy?  Less than 5%.  The famous casino, while it endures, is not an economic necessity for Monaco.  The economy of Monaco today could survive quite well without it.  Many of the biggest investments the Grimaldi family made weren’t even in the tourism sector of the economy.  A chunk of land was filled in and reclaimed from the sea, and light, non-polluting, industry was attracted to the new stretch of land by the siren call of low taxes.

At one point, Monaco had to modify its stance on taxes.  The neighboring behemoth of France noticed too much of its tax revenue was being drained by wealthy people taking up residence and setting up business in  tiny little Monaco.  Therefore, French citizens must reside in Monaco for at least 5 years before they become exempt from French taxes.  With its scarce land, Monaco is a pricey location when it comes to renting an apartment, but, depending on a person’s tax bracket elsewhere, moving to Monaco could make your net income grow by 50%.  Wouldn’t that be worth something to you?  As a result, only 16% of Monaco’s population is comprised of native citizens.  The rest have been lured there from elsewhere, and they have a very high standard of living.  The Grimaldi family doesn’t have to worry about separatist movements any more.  Wouldn’t it be nice if Ohio aspired to be a tax haven?

OK, so let’s compare the Ohio casino proposals with the Monte Carlo model.  The royal family of Monaco has a controlling interest in the casino, and they, in fact, reside in Monaco.  Ohio’s casino moguls would not be based in Ohio.  Monaco’s citizens have not been permitted to gamble at Monte Carlo.  Ohio’s citizens would be be incessantly entreated to gamble at the casinos.  Monte Carlo’s marketing targeted only wealthy clientele.  Casinos in the USA, including the current casino proponents, have no such qualms over who they entice to gamble.  Monte Carlo pumps money into Monaco from elsewhere.  Ohio casinos would pump money in the outward direction.  During an economic downturn, Monaco did not ramp up its investment in casino expansion to shore up lagging revenues, while the casino tycoons seeking entry into Ohio are doing exactly the opposite.  Instead, Monaco sought to diversify it’s economy, while Ohio is seeking to put all its eggs in one basket: gambling.  Monaco realized that a casino is not an economic cure-all, but Ohio hasn’t caught on to that yet.  Monaco learned that high taxation will only cause power to slip through your fingers, and that low taxes can spur economic growth and diversification.  Ohio’s government?  They don’t seem to know squat about that.

To sum it all up, Monte Carlo was an economic boost for Monaco in the short run when they were in dire straits, but the proposal in front of Ohio voters is not at all like the Monte Carlo model.  The Ohio proposal, as structured, cannot possibly duplicate the results that Monte Carlo achieved.  In the end, the real lesson that Monaco learned was that tax policy is among the fundamental building blocks to obtaining and maintaining economic and political power.

Town Hall meetings with State Rep Terry Boose

Mark your calendars!  Willard–August 18.  Amherst–August 19.  New London–August 25.  LaGrange–August 26.  Grafton–September 3.  State Rep Terry Boose (R-58) will be conducting town hall meetings in these communities on these dates.

Plan to attend!  There needs to be dialogue between voters and elected officials, and this is a prime opportunity.  Boose’s 58th District includes much of southern and western Lorain County, all of Huron County, and the eastern portion of Seneca County.  I hope these town halls are well attended, because Ohio is facing a very rough road ahead.  Voters, we can’t afford to stick our heads in the sand and wait till trouble is over.  Government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, so I’m hoping that you’ll show up and participate.  Even if you live in Koziura’s 56th district, or Lundy’s 57th district, if you have concerns about the state of Ohio (and you should), you may want to take advantage of these opportunities to meet a state legislator, Terry Boose, face to face.

Ohio’s biennial budget is not done.  Sure, the General Assembly passed a budget, and the Governor signed it into law, but that budget relied heavily on revenue forecasts that cannot be relied upon.  There will have to be more budget slashing, you can count on it.  Which programs should get the ax?  Which programs should be spared the ax?  What do you think are the state’s funding priorities?  Terry Boose has shared a few thoughts, in writing, about what should have been done with the state budget.  I recommend reading through it, and showing up at these town halls prepared to grapple with these issues.

WILLARD–August 18, 2009

The Town Hall meeting will be at the Willard City Hall in the Council Chambers from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.  The City Hall is located at 651 S. Myrtle Ave. Willard, OH 44890.

AMHERST–August 19, 2009

The Town Hall meeting will be at the Trinity Evangelical Free Church from 7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.  The Church is located at 46485 Middle Ridge Road Amherst, OH 44001.

NEW LONDON–August 25, 2009

The Town Hall meeting will be at the New London Public Library from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.  The library is located at 67 S. Main St., New London, OH 44851.

LA GRANGE–August 26, 2009

The Town Hall meeting will be at the Village of LaGrange Administration Building from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.  The building is located at 355 South Center Street, LaGrange, Ohio 44050.

GRAFTON–September 3, 2009

The Town Hall meeting will be at the Grafton Midview Public Library from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.  The building is located at 983 Main St. Grafton, OH 44044.

Casino operators: Special rights for special people

There are so many illuminating tidbits of information to cull from my correspondence with the backers of the casino issue.  Thus, this will not be the only blog entry written about what’s revealed in that correspondence, so stay tuned . . .

If voters were to approve this casino issue in the November election, casinos would be legal in Ohio by an amendment of the Ohio Constitution.

So, are you, Ohio residents, ready to open up your casinos?  Oops!  Wait a minute.  Who do you think you are?  Dan Gilbert?  If you aren’t Dan Gilbert, and you open a casino, you will be raided by the police, your gambling equipment and revenues will be confiscated, you will be thrown in jail, and you will be charged with a crime and prosecuted.  PERIOD! But if you ARE Dan Gilbert . . . CHA-CHING!

Think that’s unfair?  Think it’s so unfair that it should be unconstitutional?  Guess again . . . it’ll be TOTALLY constitutional, because we will have amended Ohio’s constitution to make casino operation permissable for Dan Gilbert, and out-of-state casino operators (like Penn National Gaming Inc.), but IMPERMISSABLE for other Ohio residents.  Isn’t it interesting that an out of state casino corporation will be granted more constitutional rights by Ohio than Ohioans, themselves, will be granted?

And just who is Dan Gilbert, anyway?  He’s the loan-shark-in-chief of Quicken Loans.  He’s the special Ohioan who gets to own and operate a casino in Cleveland.  OOOPS!  Did I say Ohioan?  Duh!  I meant to say Wolverine (or, at least Spartan, as he’s a Michigan State alum)!  His hometown is Livonia, Michigan!  My oh my!  Do ANY Ohioans, any at all, get a crack at opening an Ohio casino if we approve this amendment to our state’s constitution?

So, all this agitating over neighboring states having casinos, but not Ohio, would result in allowing the entities from the neighboring states to be the ones to operate Ohio’s casinos.  So, after the taxes are paid by the casinos, where will the casino profits go that the casino owners get to keep?  Outside of Ohio?  WAIT A MINUTE!  I thought that the whole idea behind voting for this constitutional amendment was to KEEP THE GAMBLING MONEY INSIDE OHIO!!!!!  BUT IT WON”T BE THAT WAY AT ALL!!  MONEY THAT COMES FROM INSIDE OHIO WILL STILL BE PUMPED OUTSIDE OHIO!!!! The people who will be enriched by casinos will be non-Ohioans, and the people who will be impoverished by casinos will be Ohioans.  Sound like a wonderful state constitutional amendment to you?

And why won’t Ohioans be allowed to open casinos?  That’s the question I asked to the spokespersons of the casino proponents.  It’s because it’s “impractical.”  Our economy can’t sustain a free marketplace filled with casinos (and THAT’S A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE TO EXPLORE IN FUTURE BLOG ENTRIES!).  Expect any expansion beyond the original four casinos to be jealously fought over if they would allow new casino ownership groups to compete with the original mix of casino owners.

E-mail correspondence with casino issue spokesmen

From: David Kormanik <dkormanik@ohiojobsandgrowth.org>
To: williamsonworks@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:36:54 PM
Subject: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Daniel,

Hello, my name is David Kormanik and I represent the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan.

Over the coming weeks and months, I will keep you informed on our activities and make sure you have the latest information on our plan to bring four first-class casinos to Ohio —one in Cleveland , Columbus , Cincinnati , and Toledo .

In the meantime, feel free to follow us on Facebook and Twitter for the latest news, endorsements and campaign updates.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you have!

Thanks,

David Kormanik

Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

614-370-2363

__________________________________________________________

From: Daniel Williamson [mailto:williamsonworks@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 5:14 PM
To: David Kormanik
Subject: Re: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Question:  If the casino proposal represents a plan for Ohio ‘s jobs and growth, why just cherry pick 4 locations?

Question: If America is, by its nature, is intended to be a land of opportunity and free enterprise, and if Ohio voters favor legalization of casinos, why limit competition by creating a casino cartel, as your proposal intends, instead of allowing anyone to open up, own, and operate casinos wherever the zoning of Ohio’s communities permit them?

–Daniel Williamson

__________________________________________________

From: David Kormanik <dkormanik@ohiojobsandgrowth.org>
To: Daniel Williamson <williamsonworks@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 11:36:32 AM
Subject: RE: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Daniel,

Please contact our spokesperson, Bob Tenenbaum (news@ohiojobsandgrowth.org). He will be able to answer the questions below, as well as address any other concerns you may have.

I have also attached a document containing information on our proposal.

Thanks,

David Kormanik

Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

614-370-2363

_________________________________________________________
From: Daniel Williamson <williamsonworks@yahoo.com>
To: news@ohiojobsandgrowth.org
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 1:25:31 PM
Subject: Fw: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Question:  If the casino proposal represents a plan for Ohio ‘s jobs and growth, why just cherry pick 4 locations?

Question: If America is, by its nature, intended to be a land of opportunity and free enterprise, and if Ohio voters favor legalization of casinos, why limit competition by creating a casino cartel, as your proposal intends, instead of allowing anyone to open up, own, and operate casinos wherever the zoning of Ohio’s communities permit them?

–Daniel Williamson

______________________________________________________

From: Daniel Williamson [williamsonworks@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 3:49 PM
To: news@ohiojobsandgrowth.org
Subject: Re: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Question: Didn’t you pledge to answer questions?

–Daniel Jack Williamson

______________________________________________________

From: ” Tenenbaum, Bob ” <BTenenbaum@themilenthalgroup.com>
To: Daniel Williamson <williamsonworks@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:50:24 PM
Subject: RE: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Is this for a publication, or are these just personal questions? (We will answer either way, I’m just curious.)

______________________________________________________

From: Daniel Williamson [williamsonworks@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 4:09 PM
To: Tenenbaum, Bob
Subject: Re: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

I definitely intend to blog about the casino issue multiple times this year.  I’m surprised that you have a two-track answering system, one for on the record, and one for off the record.

Consider this “on the record.”

–Daniel Jack Williamson


From: ” Tenenbaum, Bob ” <BTenenbaum@themilenthalgroup.com>
To: Daniel Williamson <williamsonworks@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 1:13:02 PM
Subject: RE: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

We don’t ever answer “off the record,” and there is no two-track system. As I said, I was just personally interested.

_______________________________________________

From: Daniel Williamson [williamsonworks@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 4:31 PM
To: Tenenbaum, Bob
Subject: Re: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

I recant.  I’m so sorry, I apologize.  I shouldn’t be flippant like that, especially when the information is offered to me so graciously.

But, yes, I’ll be blogging about the casino issue.

–Daniel Jack Williamson

____________________________________________

From: David Kormanik <dkormanik@ohiojobsandgrowth.org>
To: williamsonworks@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2009 4:18 PM
Subject: YouTube Petition Filing Video

Dear Daniel,

The Ohio Jobs & Growth Committee released a video today on Facebook and YouTube highlighting last Thursday’s petition filing.

It includes footage of the 200+ petition boxes containing over 850,000 signatures (double what is necessary to qualify) being submitted to the Secretary of State’s office.

I invite you to watch the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DINbOCW6JxA.

Please let me know if you need any additional information about the campaign! Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

David Kormanik

Ohio Jobs and Growth Plan

www.ohiojobsandgrowth.org

Facebook

Twitter

YouTube

___________________________________________________

From: Daniel Williamson [mailto:williamsonworks@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:53 PM
To: Tenenbaum, Bob
Subject: Re: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

I’ve been waiting for your answer to the two questions I asked.  Plenty of time has elapsed.  I do intend to blog about the casino gambling issue.  I will include your answers in my blog if I can receive those answers in the next 48 hours.  If I do not receive answers, I will compose a blog entry, anyway, even without answers.

Daniel Jack Williamson
Buckeye RINO

_____________________________________________________

From: ” Tenenbaum, Bob ” <BTenenbaum@themilenthalgroup.com>
To: Daniel Williamson <williamsonworks@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 6:34:02 AM
Subject: RE: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Here you go:

Question:  If the casino proposal represents a plan for Ohio ‘s jobs and growth, why just cherry pick 4 locations?

Casino gaming is a business, and as such needs to be looked at in terms of what is practical. It is clear Ohio can support four casinos in the state’s four largest cities, where they will create jobs, contribute to the revitalization of our largest urban areas, and generate tax revenues to help support local governments and schools throughout the state. Every state that allows casino gaming limits the number of licenses available. The supporters of this issue believe that the most practical solution for Ohio is to place casinos in the state’s four largest cities, while making sure that every county and every school district in Ohio benefits from the tax revenue the casinos will generate.

Question: If America is, by its nature, intended to be a land of opportunity and free enterprise, and if Ohio voters favor legalization of casinos, why limit competition by creating a casino cartel, as your proposal intends, instead of allowing anyone to open up, own, and operate casinos wherever the zoning of Ohio’s communities permit them?

The notion that “anyone” can “open up, own and operate casinos wherever the zoning of Ohio’s communities permit them” implies that Ohio could support 10, or 20, or maybe 50 casinos spread throughout the state. It’s simply a totally impractical idea. Every state that has permitted casino gaming has limited the number of licenses available. In addition, opening up the state to casino gaming requires an amendment to the Ohio Constitution, and that requires a campaign that someone has to fund. The developers of the casinos proposed in this ballot issue have been very open about the fact that they are supporting the campaign because they want to develop these casinos. They have also committed to investing a minimum of $250 million of private money in each casino . . . a significant contribution to the economy of the state and its four largest cities.

Bob Tenenbaum

Spokesman for the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

250 Civic Center Dr., Suite 440

Columbus OH 43215

(614) 573-1377

_____________________________________________________

From: Daniel Williamson [mailto:williamsonworks@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2009 9:45 AM
To: Tenenbaum, Bob
Subject: Re: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Thank you very much.  This will be posted soon.

Daniel Jack Williamson
Buckeye RINO

_______________________________________________

From: Daniel Williamson [mailto:williamsonworks@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:18 AM
To: Tenenbaum, Bob
Subject: Re: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

My initial reaction:  What you refer to as practical and impractical serves to highlight one of the big differences between the casino industry and most other industries in a free market system: Sustainability.  Casinos require a very structured marketplace because they cannot be sustained in a free marketplace.

–Daniel Williamson

________________________________________________________

From: “Tenenbaum, Bob” <BTenenbaum@themilenthalgroup.com>
To: Daniel Williamson <williamsonworks@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:20:21 AM
Subject: RE: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

If you’re opposed to allowing the casino industry in Ohio , I respect your viewpoint. But this is for the voters to decide. Independent polls have consistently shown that Ohioans favor allowing casino gaming in concept. It is our belief that they have defeated four previous issues because they did not provide the kind of economic development and tax revenues the voters were looking for. We think this issue does . . . and therefore believe it has a very good chance of gaining passage in November.

_____________________________________________________

From: Daniel Williamson [mailto:williamsonworks@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 10:29 AM
To: Tenenbaum, Bob
Subject: Re: Hello from the Ohio Jobs & Growth Plan

Of course.  I want the voters to decide, also.  I think this dialogue will be instructive.

–Daniel Williamson

_________________________________________________________

Dear readers:  This is raw source material.  I plan to expand on this information in the near future.  Stay tuned . . .

Petition time looming for school board, township trustee, non-partisan municipal races

Fed up with government?  Do you feel you need to step in with common sense solutions?  Well, there’s still time to do that, and get in at the ground level.

This year, there are township races, school board races, and municipal races.

Municipalities that have partisan races already have their ballots set for fall elections.  If you missed that boat, you should have read my post last January about filing for those races.

But some municipalities have non-partisan races.  Please keep in mind that if your municipality has a city charter, it’s likely that you have non-partisan races, but the city charter may list a petition-filing deadline for candidates that differs from deadlines that pertain to other types of candidates.  Please check your city charter.  Unless otherwise specified by city charter, local non-partisan candidate petition filing deadlines are before 4 pm on Thursday, August 20, 2009, at your county’s Board of Elections office.

School board and township races are non-partisan local races.  Again, the deadline for filing petitions to be a candidate for these races is before 4 pm, Thursday, August 20, 2009, at your county’s Board of Elections office.

Perhaps my January post on the subject of launching candidacies might be helpful to you if you are contemplating a run for local office.  Questions?  You can try emailing me, if you like (see my “About” page), but you’re likely to get better answers from the Board of Elections office in your county, and you can always avail yourself of the Ohio Secretary of State webpage, and pose your questions to the SoS office.

At any rate, the deadline for declaring your candidacy for one of these non-partisan local races is right around the corner, so if you’ve been thinking about it, but haven’t taken action, NOW is the time to spring into action.

For Ohio’s sake, move county commissioner races

“Along the rust belt that hugs Lake Erie’s shores, Democrats have long enjoyed a near monopoly on municipal and county governments.”

I began another Buckeye RINO post with those words, titled “Democrats control everything.”

If you are a Cuyahoga County voter, you probably think that’s a pretty cool thing that Democrats control everything.  Nirvana has been achieved, right?

Oh.  Except for the corruption.  Funny thing, about that Cuyahoga County corruption . . . as I said before the last election, when I endorsed Annette Butler for Bill Mason’s County Prosecutor seat . . . “It has everything to do with the Democrat Party.”

Oh.  Except for the economic woes of Ohio’s Rust Belt.  But that has much to do with the corruption.  Let Plain Dealer columnist Phillip Morris connect the dots for you, as he did in a column last Monday:

“When will we begin to aspire and agitate for honest and efficient government?

“When will we stop accepting the oversight of party hacks, interested more in preserving power and patronage than in advancing prosperity?

“When will we start to understand that our futures are being compromised by too many uninspired and uninspiring public officials who routinely exploit their offices for self-enrichment?

“When will we realize that we can never become a business incubator as long as we tolerate inefficient city and county government?

“When will we demand better for our children — and our industry — which continue to flee the area in droves?”

I know that everybody in Cleveland likes to blame George W. Bush for the tanking Rust Belt economy, but the former U.S. President has not been implicated in any of the corruption probes of Cuyahoga County officials.  Let me just note that the “party hacks” referenced in the 2nd paragraph of that Phillip Morris column excerpt happen to be Democrat party hacks, since the Democrats are the ones who control all the legislative and executive branch offices of Cuyahoga County government.

Talk of a Cuyahoga County government reform package by way of home rule charter has died down.

Phillip Morris asks for voters to start pressuring Dennis Kucinich, Marcia Fudge, and Frank Jackson to present a new plan to reform the county.  I think that’s looking to the wrong direction for reform.

The right direction for reforming county government is for voters looking in the mirror and putting pressure on themselves to learn more about election candidates than whether they are Democrat or not.  They have to start voting for the person, and stop voting for the party.  Jimmy Dimora does not fear any wrath from Cuyahoga County voters.  He knows that they will always vote Democrat.  Even if Dimora has to step down, he knows that he can always get a crony to replace him, since Democrats will surely always win.  Unless Cuyahoga County voters demonstrate that they are capable of voting for a Republican instead of rubberstamping even the most corrupt of Democrats, reform will continue to be elusive.

How is it that even the most corrupt Democrats win county elections time after time after time?  I think it’s mostly that they hide in the coattails of the top of the ticket.  In presidential and gubernatorial years, the ODP looks to maximize voter turnout in Cuyahoga County to help the top of the ticket carry the state.  A lot of the voters that come out of the woodwork for those elections only know about the presidential or gubernatorial candidates at the top of the ticket, but they vote in all the races, using the Democrat party affiliation as their guide in the races they know nothing about.  It happens in more than just Cuyahoga County (an example from Lorain County here), and that’s how voters enable entrenched cronyism and corruption.  The counties with the least government corruption are those with swing voters, where politicians fear that if they screw up, they’ll be voted out in very short order.

I do have a proposal, though, for cleaning up county governments, not just in the rust belt, but throughout Ohio, and it doesn’t require any home rule charters be implemented for restructuring governments:

Just move the election dates.  Elect county commissioners in odd-numbered years.

If we are going to look to a Cleveland-area Democrat elected official to put pressure on to reform county government, let’s not start with Kucinich, Fudge, and Jackson, as Phillip Morris suggests.  Let’s start with Ohio House Speaker Armond “I’m for sale!” Budish.  Let’s see if Budish is willing to distance himself from the Dimoras, and Russos, et al, of Cuyahoga County.  Let’s get action from the Ohio General Assembly to begin the process to amend our state constitution, to change the law, whatever it takes, to move the elections for county commissioners throughout Ohio to odd-numbered years.

Odd-numbered years, like this one, are low turnout years, because we vote for obscure offices like city government, village government, school boards, and township trustees.  We ought to encourage more turnout for these local offices.  We can do so by bringing a higher profile race to odd-numbered election years.  So let’s hold elections for county commissioners in odd-numbered years.

County Commissioners wouldn’t be able to hide in the coattails of the top of the ticket.  Instead, they’d be the top of the ticket.  They wouldn’t be able to hide.  They’d have to withstand more scrutiny.  If Cuyahoga County commissioner candidates want to turn out Democrats who will vote straight tickets, they, themselves, will have to be the draw, not the presidential or the gubernatorial candidates.

We’ll make it easier for county commissioners all over Ohio to fear the wrath of voters.

How would we make the transition?  In 2010, we elect commissioners to a three-year term.  They’d be up for re-election to a four-year term starting in 2013.  Likewise, in 2012, we elect commissioners to a three-year term, and they’d be up for re-election to a four-year term in 2015.  That would complete the transition.

More than just Cuyahoga County would benefit from this change.  86 other counties (Summit County has home rule charter) would benefit as well.  This is a county government reform measure that can be put into place that Jimmy Dimora can’t block from being enacted, as the State of Ohio will be the entity that undertakes the reform, not Cuyahoga County.

Supplemental learning opportunities: School Enterprise Zones

In my recent post expressing my opposition to charter schools, I had this to say about my own education in the public schools:

My parents are aware that sometimes values are taught in public school that run counter to their own values.  My parents are aware that some values are totally missing from the public schools.  Knowing such things, but also knowing that they bore the ultimate responsibility for our education, they supplemented my public school learning with other opportunities for learning.

Parents can (and ought) to supplement their children’s education in order to customize and tailor the learning experience to fit their children’s unique personalities, and align that education with a parent’s values and priorities.  This follows from the assertion that parents (not the schools, not the government) are the ones who are ultimately responsible for a child’s education.  The government provides schools, but parents should view them as merely a tool to help them fulfill their own responsibility for seeing that their children are educated.  Parents should not feel tempted (yet they often are) to abdicate their responsibilities to educate their children and lay that burden, instead, upon the school.

Furthermore, for families who like charter schools because they have champagne taste and want a private school experience for their children, but they are only willing or able to set aside a beer budget to obtain it (with unvoted, confiscated tax dollars used as subsidies), supplemental learning opportunities make it possible to make the public school experience more like a private school experience without breaking the bank.

My own parents had limited time and limited funds, and they had 10 children.  That’s the main reason they opted for public schools.  However, public schools were only one item on the learning menu that they selected for us.  How much nutrition can you get if your meal only consists of one dish?  How much easier is it to optimize your nutrition if the main entree is a smaller portion of the meal and side dishes are added?  So, think of public school as an entree that delivers on a few of the educational nutrition needs, but think about the learning activities that should be offered as side dishes to add nutrients that the entree is missing.  If, after doing all this, your parental priorities and values aren’t reflected in what appears on your children’s educational dinner plate, don’t blame the schools.  Go look in the mirror.  Blame the person you see reflected in the mirror.

When I was in high school, I was involved in some extra-curricular activities, such as the cross-country team, the track team, the school play, the school choir, and a number of student clubs.  I also had a lot of responsibility at home, as the oldest of the 10 kids that my parents had, and those household responsibilities were learning opportunities.  Our family attended church together on Sundays.  I had occasional access to the YMCA.  I had ready access to the local library.  My parents had an excellent selection of reference books at home.  Our family had a very large yard for outdoor activities.  I met each school-day morning, before school started, for Bible study with other students who attended both my school and my church.  I also participated in 4-H and Boy Scouts.  When I was younger, I had piano lessons (I discontinued the lessons by my own choice–I was never any good at piano, but it did teach me how to read music, so it wasn’t a total waste) and swimming lessons.  As you can see, school was just an entree.  There were many side dishes.

I am mindful that supplementing a child’s learning might be inconvenient.  It’s hard to think of oneself as a parent when one is relegated to the role of taxi driver, shuttling this kid here  for this activity by this time, and that kid there  for that activity by that time, and then picking them up afterward.  Wouldn’t it be so much better if a wide array of supplemental learning opportunities were available in one location?  Wouldn’t it be better yet if that location were adjacent to the school?  A parent wouldn’t have to feel like a lowly taxi driver for their children, if such were the case.

I propose that we add another facet to regional and urban planning.  I call it the “School Enterprise Zone.”  This is a concept I’ve been publicly touting since the days of my first state rep campaign back in 2002.  When I was a contributor to Word of Mouth blog, before the launch of Buckeye RINO, I wrote a three-part piece about the concept, which you can find here, here, and here.  It’s a land-use designation that Ohio communities could add to their options when they contemplate zoning ordinances.  What it’s designed to do is make it easier for properties adjacent to schools to transition from residential/commercial/industrial property to property where supplemental learning opportunities are available for children.  The key mechanisms to make it work are removing impediments to entrepreneurial providers of supplemental learning opportunities.

Let’s say I’m a martial arts instructor, or a piano teacher, or a youth minister of a church, or a fencing instructor, or an arts and crafts workshop leader, or a ballet teacher, or a Brownie Scout leader, or . . . somebody that has some programs designed to involve kids, and I buy a house within a School Enterprise Zone that surrounds the school.  Let’s face it, I’m not going to become fabulously rich by offering after-school lessons to kids.  I just want to at least scrape by, or at least supplement some other household income with teaching or coaching or mentoring kids on the side, or maybe I’m just a volunteer, like the Brownie Scout leader, and I don’t want a lot of government-imposed red tape, regulations, and fees to get in the way of providing programs for kids.  A School Enterprise Zone could make the task less daunting.

Here are some examples of what a School Enterprise Zone designation could facilitate:

Example 1:  Schools are often located in residential zones.  Often, residentially zoned properties are prohibited from being sites of commercial activity.  The School Enterprise Zone would relax those restrictions to allow commercial activities that provide programming for kids.

Example 2:  Ohio laws don’t allow certain adult-oriented businesses, such as bars, within a certain distance of a school.  Also,  registered sex offenders are required to reside beyond a certain distance of a school.  By creating a School Enterprise Zone, the boundaries of the “safety envelope” would be expanded.

Example 3:  In converting a house within a School Enterprise Zone from strictly residential to a house where some of the space is reserved for private living space and some of the space is used for commercial activity related to programming for children, only a portion of the public space would be required to be handicap-accessible, not the entire facility, thus negating the need for expensive remodeling projects.

Example 4:  Tax exemptions could be offered to qualifying entities within the School Enterprise Zone to help keep overhead expenses low so that these enterprises can keep afloat.

Example 5:  Instead of parents being an after school taxi service, they may send a note to school signaling that their child is to be released to an agent of the after-school program when school is dismissed for the day.  The parents then don’t have to pick up, drop off, and pick up again.  They just have to pick up.

Example 6:  If the School Board allows it, some of the school facilities may be rented out to after-school program providers.  A ballet instructor may require more performance space than a residential setting may allow, and converting enough space for performance space on private property may be too costly.  Instead, the instructor’s property within the school enterprise zone may contain just the business office for the ballet instructor while she rents performance space at the school.

Example 7:  If school district budget cuts cause them to no longer offer some extracurricular activities, it may create an opportunity for a new program offering within the School Enterprise Zone.  For example, if the junior high no longer has a football team, perhaps an enterprising would-be football coach would set up office in the coach’s home within the School Enterprise Zone and rent the school’s athletic field so that kids can continue to play football.

Example 8:  Parents and kids could buy the supplies and equipment they need directly from the after-school program within the School Enterprise Zone instead of having to make a trip to the mall.  I propose that such purchases within the School Enterprise Zone be made exempt from sales tax to make the after school activities less expensive for parents.  But even without a tax exemption, there is added convenience when one can buy what supplies are needed on-site rather than having to taxi kids to far-flung shopping centers to procure the supplies.

Parents, of course, would foot the bill for whatever after-school programs they enroll their children in, and since funds may not be able to stretch far and since chidren are a precious commodity, the motivation behind creating School Enterprise Zones would be to conveniently locate an array of  low-cost, low-risk supplemental learning opportunities.

My opposition to charter schools

I oppose charter schools.

I’ve been called a RINO because of it.  Conservatives might say I’m a moderate, or might even say I’m from the liberal wing of the Republican Party because of it.  I think they’re wrong.  I think I’m more conservative than the supporters of charter schools (despite what this graph says).  I think backers of charter schools are the ones who are in the middle of the road, trying to have their cake and eat it too.

I guess I’m not a compassionate conservative, you know, the kind that grows government spending on corporate welfare while hiding the corporate welfare part by thumping the Bible and using compassionate conservative code words such as “faith-based initiatives,” and “school choice.”

So I guess if I wish to describe myself as a conservative, I’ll have to delineate that I’m not a compassionate conservative.  I guess that makes me an insensitive, uncaring, arrogant, and heartless conservative.

But I’m not liberal.  I’ll explain.

I firmly believe that parents are the ones ultimately responsible for educating their children.  I believe that schools should be used as tools in the hands of the parents to help the parents fulfill their responsibility of educating their kids, and that, ultimately, if kids aren’t prepared for adulthood by the time they finish school, it’s not the schools that failed the kids, it’s the parents and the kids that failed the kids.  Doesn’t that sound conservative to you?

Along that vein, parents have three choices:  Home schooling, public schools, and private (including parochial) schools.  I leave it to the parents to decide which of these tools to use.  I’m OK with whatever they choose from that menu.

If I were a liberal, I would scrub home schooling from the list, because liberals don’t believe that parents are competent teachers unless they are actually licensed as such by the state, and even then, they’d only be competent to teach the grade levels and subject matter indicated on the license.  Liberals would also be concerned that home schooling isn’t sufficiently multicultural.  I leave it to the parents for them to decide whether they have the competence.  In areas where they feel less competent to teach, they can always supplement instruction with tools from other sources.  Parents can make home schooling as multicultural as they like.  There aren’t limits on how multicultural they can make the home schooling experience.  Again, I would empower parents with that kind of discretion.

Looking back over the centuries, home schooling took the form of apprenticing your children in your own trade.  Before the industrial revolution, nearly everyone worked their business out of their own homes.  Stay-at-home housewives?  Yeah, and stay-at-home househusbands, too.  What do you do to take care of the kids at the house while you do the work that sustains the family?  Have them learn the work with you, of course.  Some families might send some kids to be apprenticed elsewhere.  Some families might send some kids to the military, or to a convent, or to a monastery, or to a university.  In these cases, the parents worked out some form of monetary agreement to make those other opportunities possible.  The parents, in some form or another, footed the bill.

Public education is a fairly newfangled contraption.  Especially after the industrial revolution drastically altered family life, compulsory education in one form or another was deemed desirable by society, so we, the people, agreed to means by which the government became a provider of schooling.  It’s a shared cost arrangement.  Parents still foot the bill by way of taxes, but so do non-parents.  Anyone may send their child to a public school without having to pay extra tuition for it.  Children who go to public schools vastly outnumber the children who are home schooled and the children who go to private schools.

My parents sent me to public schools.  After all, they were already paying the taxes that are used to support the public schools.  They could have sent me to a private school, but that would have cost them a lot more.  They realized that they didn’t want to be saddled with the burden of private school tuition costs, especially since I was the oldest of 10 children.  If they had chosen private school for all of us, the cost would have been prohibitive.   They didn’t home school us.  My dad was a die maker at Ford Motor Company who often worked overtime to support our very large family.  Mom was often either pregnant or nursing.  Thus, home schooling would have been too time-intensive for my parents.  Still, my parents understood their responsibility to educate us.  They tell me I knew my alphabet when I was one year old.  I knew how to read before I was age three.  When I got to kindergarten, I was one of a small handful of kindergarteners who could already read who spent a segment of each school day in the first grade reading room with a first grade teacher (we readers had to miss milk and cookies, which is what the other kindergartners did in our absence).  I was adequately prepared for school as a preschooler by my parents.

My parents are aware that sometimes values are taught in public school that run counter to their own values.  My parents are aware that some values are totally missing from the public schools.  Knowing such things, but also knowing that they bore the ultimate responsibility for our education, they supplemented my public school learning with other opportunities for learning.  Much of the learning took place in the home.  Some of the learning took place at church.  Some of the learning happened through friends and relatives of the family.  Some of the learning occurred through extra-curricular activities at school.  Some of the learning occurred in clubs and organizations that had nothing to do with school.  My parents truly sought to adequately prepare us for adulthood.  They made mistakes, of course, but one isn’t spared from mistakes no matter what form the schooling takes.  One other thing my parents did when the public schools were found lacking in one respect or another, was that they were advocates when they felt they needed to be.  They would make their voice heard at a parent-teacher conference.  They would have a discussion with a principal or a superintendent.  They would state their case at a meeting of the school board.  It is critical that public schools remain under local control and it is imperative that they are responsive and accountable to local parents and local taxpayers.

I guess compassionate conservatives, however, who don’t feel up to the rigors of providing home schooling would rather place the blame for failing kids upon the schools, as if the schools are ultimately responsible for the education of their kids.  What?  Pass the buck to big government?  That doesn’t sound conservative.  And if the public school isn’t satisfactory, do they take it upon themselves to supplement the child’s learning, as my parents did?  Apparently they’re too lazy for that.  OK, so send the kids to a private school.  Nope.  They don’t want to pay for that.  OK, so they’re too cheap to send their kids to private school and too lazy to supplement the public school instruction, so what do they do?  They come up with charter schools.

I believe that in being ultimately responsible for children’s education, the parents should foot the bill, unless others agree, by way of a vote of the people, to chip in, as well, and help foot the parents’ educational bills.

For home schooling, the onus is on the parents to make it all happen.  For private schooling, the parents have to foot the bill.  For public schools, the parents and the rest of the community pay taxes to foot the bill.  The taxpayers of Ohio have had many direct votes on the funding of public schools.

Charter schools, however, want to charge tuition AND squeeze the taxpayer, and maybe even make a profit.  The taxpayers of Ohio have never had a direct vote on whether they want to also fund charter schools. Oops, there I go, sounding like a conservative again–a heartless conservative.  Conservatives more compassionate than I orchestrated the charter school movement in the state legislature.  To me, it’s just more government spending on corporate welfare.  Essentially, the charter school organizers didn’t want to try to compete with private schools in the open marketplace.  They were too averse to taking such a financial risk.  Therefore, they found a way to open a school with a private agenda, like a private school does, but they found a way to pay for it from government coffers, like a public school does, and no one ever gets to vote on a tax levy of any sort to determine whether the public really supports the private agenda of the charter school.

Charter schools represent some kind of utopia for compassionate conservative parents who will only set aside a beer budget for their family’s education, but wish to quench their champagne taste, all with a minimum of effort.

They call it compassionate conservatism. To me, it’s just corporate welfare.  To me, it just sounds like socialism.  To me, it sounds like taxation without representation.  To me, I hear the grunting and squealing sound of pigs at the government trough.  To me, I see charter schools too incompetent to survive as private schools, so they become parasites to survive, feeding off the host government.

Education is something worth working for.  It’s something worth earning.  It’s something worth a lot of effort.  It’s not an entitlement.  It’s a responsibility.  It’s a prudent preparation for the future.

If I were Ohio governor or member of the General Assembly, I’d give all charter schools an expiration date, with enough time for parents to sort through the educational alternatives.  By the time the expiration date arrives, the charter schools would have to do one of the following:

  1. Become a self-sustaining private school.  Not a bad choice, considering that other private schools didn’t have the state government’s help with their startup costs like the charter schools had.
  2. Get the taxpayers of the community to vote for a tax to support the school independently from the public school.  I’d be so surprised if such an effort succeeded, but we do live in a democracy, and if the people voted to sustain the school and its mission with their tax dollars, so be it.
  3. Become an adjunct, alternative school within a school district.  Someone would have to come up with a brilliant sales pitch to persuade the community and the school board to allow the school to operate by different rules than the rest of the schools in the district in order for it to continue its mission.
  4. Have the school dissolved and all its resources absorbed into the public school district.  Investors in the charter school could get some reimbursement for the materials they provided that the school district absorbs, though the reimbursement would be tempered by the calculation that tax funds also helped pay for those resources.
  5. Shut its doors permanently.  Assets and resources could be sold however the charter school organization sees fit, but there might be some reimbursements due to the state according to how tax dollars were expended.

I’m such a moderate.  I’m so middle-of-the-road.  I’m such a RINO.  No.  I’m conservative.  An insensitive, uncaring, arrogant, heartless conservative, without an ounce of compassion.

Elected officials guest blogging at WMD

WMD is the abbreviation for Weapons of Mass Discussion, a blog among many fine blogs appearing in the blogroll sidebar under the heading of State of Ohio Blogger Alliance.

The Congressional Representative from Ohio’s 5th District, Bob Latta, shares his views on cap-and-trade policies that are supposedly designed to help the environment, but, if implemented, are sure to have negative ramifications for heavy industry in our nation.  How does it help the global environment to shove industries out of our country to some other country where they will pollute far more than they do here?  Latta hits the nail on the head when he discusses the economic forecast under such a cap-and-trade regime.  I, personally, think the United States does the world a favor by being the home of heavy industry where we have the means, the technology, and the conscience to minimize negative environmental impacts, but the cap-and-trade proposals would impose costs that will absolutely chase industries out of the USA, meaning that those industries will relocate to nations which do not have the means, the technology, nor the conscience to miminize negative environmental impacts in the manner in which we do in our own country.

Another guest column appears at WMD courtesy of Warren County Prosecutor Rachel Hutzel, who supports state legislation to use E-Verify as a tool to help employers make sure that the applicants they hire are legally permitted to work here.

It’s so nice to get news and views straight from the “horse’s mouth,” so to speak.  Kudos to WMD for making it happen.

MSM frames California Prop 8 debate incorrectly

Look back over the centuries at any culture you care to single out.  Was there ever a taboo against cohabitation of unrelated adults of the same gender?  Whether it’s military barracks, or university dorms, or monasteries, or convents, or private dwellings, I can think of no instance in which unrelated adult persons of the same gender were forbidden by culture to cohabitate.  Feel free to inform me if I’ve overlooked any such cultures that believed otherwise.

Undoubtedly, a study of history might reveal that there may have been occurrences of  homosexual activity within such environs, yet unrelated adults of the same gender still required no permission from society to cohabitate.

There have been taboos, though, against cohabitation of unrelated adult persons of opposite genders.  Hmm . . . I wonder why.  Could it be that cohabitation of unrelated adults of opposite genders is much more consequential to society?  After all, might such cohabitation lead to offspring?  And what are society’s responsibilities in regards to children?  Does it seem at all strange that society decided to regulate cohabitation among unrelated adults of opposite genders, considering what it might lead to?  So, to regulate cohabitation, an instrument that we commonly call “marriage” was devised by society.  Marriage regulated the cohabitation of unrelated adults of opposite genders, and it also served as a structure for the nurture of children.  Bastard children not born to such married couples were often stigmatized.  Even the word “bastard” has negative connotations.  Society has much more difficulty in defining its responsibilities for nurturing bastard children.  Thus, society devised taboos against cohabitation of unrelated adults of opposite genders and against occurrences of heterosexual activity outside the construct of marriage.  Marriage requires society’s permission.

Now we have activists who want government to peer into our bedrooms to determine whether we are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual so that we can inject more regulation into our households.  For some strange reason, we are now asked to regulate cohabitation of unrelated adults of the same sex by applying the construct of marriage to them, too.  These people never needed permission before.  Why do they seek such societal intervention now?  And if society intervenes to regulate such cohabitation by means of marriage, society must also intervene to regulate the breakup of such cohabitation by means of divorce.  Sounds like lawyers are the ones who stand to benefit the most.

But this is not how the MSM portrays the debate surrounding same-sex marriage.  This Associated Press article, written by Lisa Leff, is typical of how the debate is portrayed.

According to the MSM, opposition to same-sex marriage stems from religion.  Religion is portrayed as the boogeyman.  The MSM is apparently trying to stir up antipathy toward religion.  Did I mention religion in any of the foregoing paragraphs?  The MSM apparently doesn’t want an honest debate on the matter, because they are setting religion up to be a straw man.

Also, according to the MSM, denying same-sex marriage is a form of discrimination.  How so?  Marriage laws apply equally to all.  An adult may marry an adult of the opposite gender.  No adult may marry an adult of the same gender.  No exceptions are carved out for rich or poor.  No exceptions are carved out according to skin color.  No exceptions are carved out according to religious creed.  No exceptions are carved out according to sexual orientation.  Thus, the cry of “discrimination” has a hollow ring to it.

But proponents of same-sex marriage DO want exceptions carved out according to sexual orientation.  Proponents want special rights granted to those who aren’t heterosexual.  Beyond providing a marriage structure so that society can nurture the offspring produced through sexual relations between an adult male and an adult female, should government be prying into our bedrooms to categorize us as either being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual for the purpose of determining who gets special rights?  I think not, but the LGBT community would like to differ.  In past fights against anti-sodomy laws, the LGBT community told the government to stop prying into the bedroom, but these days, it seems the LGBT community has done an about-face, and frequently endeavors to parade their bedroom behavior in front of us while encouraging the government to categorize us according to our boudoir preferences.

The MSM also postulates that if same-sex marriage is not permitted, that laws against mixed-race marriage may emerge or resurface.  This unreasonable hypothesis is advanced by an MSM that views the African-American struggle for civil rights as a parallel to the LGBT crusade for special rights.  As I mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, society didn’t have taboos against cohabitation of unrelated adults of the same gender.  No government permission was necessary for persons of the same gender to cavort together within their domiciles.  How does that equate with an antebellum tyranny that didn’t even acknowledge that slaves of African descent were even human?  Has government ever designated that homosexuals are merely beasts or property?  The parallel does not exist.  At any rate, I am a Caucasian male who has been married (and divorced) twice.  My first marriage was to a woman who was a citizen of Japan.  My second marriage was to an African-American woman.  I am not at all fearful that such marriages will become illegal in the future if same-sex marriage is denied.  As I said before, as things currently stand, marriage laws are equally applied.

If the MSM were brutally honest, concerns over property and inheritance might be at the heart of the crusade to create same-sex marriages, in which case, I suggest that instead of beating around the bush, let’s have the legislatures address concerns over property and inheritance instead of trying to apply a marriage construct to a situation that it doesn’t fit.

In California, the people have spoken.  The future actions of California’s Supreme Court will illustrate whether we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or whether the people will be overruled by a tyranny of elites determined to grant special rights to a population that can only be quantified by an invasion of our bedrooms.

Rove (and Mandel) and the RPCC (and Mandel)

On Tuesday, February 24th, the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County held their Lincoln Day Dinner in downtown Cleveland in the Grand Ballroom of the Renaissance Hotel.  The featured speaker was Karl Rove.

The cost of an individual ticket to the dinner was $85.  In the hinterlands of Ohio, I’m accustomed to a Lincoln Day Dinner price tag of $25.  If it were $25 in Cuyahoga County, though, I imagine 3 or 4 thousand people would show up for dinner.  What facility is large enough to seat 3 or 4 thousand people for dinner all at the same time and serve them all a formal dinner?  The Grand Ballroom at the Renaissance Hotel was as big a venue as I’ve seen for such occasions, and it was packed.  I’m guessing there were 800 guests, since there were about 80 tables, with 10 persons to a table.

In one sense, Cuyahoga County Republicans may seem a bit dysfunctional.  After all, the Democrats have a virtual lock on elected offices throughout the county and especially in Cleveland.  Furthermore, the Republican base in southwest Ohio may be of the opinion that at least half of all Cleveland-area Republicans are RINO’s.  But, RPCC chair Robert Frost and featured speaker Karl Rove both underscored the importance of turning out the Republican vote in Cuyahoga County.  Which Ohio county gave more votes to John McCain for president than any other Ohio county last November?  Cuyahoga County did.

So, if you are looking to win a statewide office, and you forecast that you need a specific number of votes to win a statewide majority, where are you going to look for votes first?  Podunkville?  Heck, no!  You’re going to get as many votes out of Cuyahoga County that you can get your hands on.  From my conversation with Kevin DeWine in Sandusky last Friday, I’d say that the ORP would agree with that assessment.

Having said that, not all statewide hopefuls were in attendance in Cleveland on Tuesday night.  I hope they were doing something very meaningful, like attending a family member’s ballet recital, because if they were doing something of a political nature, and they weren’t in Cleveland, they weren’t being as productive as they could have been.

So who was there?  State Auditor Mary Taylor was there.  She led the Pledge of Allegiance.  Supreme Court Justice Terrence O’Donnell was there.  He gave a lengthy invocation after saying numerous words about Abraham Lincoln (I greatly appreciate Reverend Clyde Davis, who proceeded directly to the benediction prayer without speechifying, rather than following the example of Justice O’Donnell).  Jim Petro was there.  Sandy O’Brien was there.  State Rep Nan Baker was there, as well as a number of suburban mayors and council members.

Most of all, Josh Mandel was there.  State Rep Josh Mandel shared much the same message that he had when he appeared in Tiffin earlier this month.  But it didn’t end there.  Mr. Frost said a lot of nice things about Mr. Mandel.  But it didn’t end there, either.  Karl Rove, the keynote speaker, had some very nice things to say about Mr. Mandel, too.

They said Rob Portman had been in Cleveland to speak last year.  The U.S. Senator-wannabe had postcards distributed to every seat at every table.  Speakers urged us to fill out the form on the Portman postcards and send them in.  It seemed empty, though, because Portman wasn’t there.  He was a ghost, a shadow of the past.  He wasn’t larger than life.  Josh Mandel was there, and he was larger than life.

John Kasich was probably busy parsing President Obama’s speech so that he could appear as a pundit on Fox News with savvy commentary about the stimulus bill.  I get the sense that a lot of Cleveland Republicans are too busy in the evenings to tune in to television, let alone Fox News.  For whatever reason, John Kasich, who wants to be Ohio’s next governor, wasn’t there.  Unlike Rob Portman, Kasich wasn’t even a ghost, wasn’t even a shadow, wasn’t even a whisper, because he didn’t even have anyone plugging his candidacy and there was no Kasich literature.  Kasich wasn’t there, so he had no chance to be larger than life.  Josh Mandel was there, and he was larger than life.

Karl Rove’s most stirring moments occurred while he described the service of those in the nation’s armed forces.  He also talked about what it takes to keep the country safe.  He talked about the economic crisis, even pointed a finger at the person who stood in the way of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac reforms that would have prevented the housing bubble in the first place (the U.S. Senator from Connecticut, Christopher Dodd).  Of course, he also talked about George W. Bush.  And Josh Mandel.

Erie County Republicans meet Kevin DeWine

Matthew OldThis is a photo of Matthew Old, Erie County GOP Chair, taken in downtown Sandusky’s Washington Park on the day that John McCain and the Straight Talk Express made a Presidential campaign tour stop in Sandusky.

A few months later, at the Erie County Lincoln Day Dinner held last Friday, February 20th, Mr. Old remarked that local Republicans had been excited just to be able to host Senator McCain’s surrogates.  They were suprised when Senator McCain, the candidate himself, made plans to stop in Sandusky.

Are Ohio Republicans demoralized from the election losses in 2006 and 2008?  After seeing the turnout from Sandusky County, Seneca County, and Erie County at recent Lincoln Day Dinners, I’d be inclined to say that interest in participation in the party is on the INCREASE in early 2009.

2009 is an election “off-year,” when low profile local races such as city council, village council, township trustee, municipal court judge, and school board races are decided.  I’ve seen turnout for party functions in other “off-years.”  There may have been complacency on display during those other “off-years,” but this time is different.  What I’ve witnessed so far this year is hunger, and I’m not talking about hunger for food.

Tomorrow night, Tuesday, February 24th, I plan to be at the Cuyahoga County Lincoln Day Dinner, and I’ll be curious to see if the same trend manifests itself there.

At any rate, Matthew Old acknowledged that people in Erie County are seeking out the GOP in greater numbers.  One of the reasons I attended the function (held at the Sandusky Yacht Club, which, by the way, may very well have the most attentive and pampering waitstaff I’ve encountered anywhere) was that one of my mom’s friends, who lives in the city of Huron, was curious about getting involved in the Republican Party.  We thought that accompanying her to the Lincoln Day Dinner would help tremendously in introducing her to like-minded Republicans.  We weren’t disappointed.  In addition to the official Erie County GOP organization, there is also a club for Erie County Republican Women.  Apparently, my mom’s friend represented just the tip of the iceberg, because many new faces had emerged at recent party functions.

The keynote speaker for the evening was the chair of the Ohio Republican Party, Kevin DeWine.  He acknowledged that Republican officeholders in high places had made grave errors of hypocrisy leading to the election defeats of 2006 and 2008.  Our party platform includes principles of small government, balanced budgets, lower taxes, transparency, and ethics.  Yet, we witnessed the biggest expansion of government on the Republicans’ watch, with unbalanced Federal budgets, and closed-door deals that led to ethics scandals.  While Mr. DeWine acknowledged all of these errors, he said that the party must turn toward the future rather than wallow in the past.  I think everyone in attendance was there because we were concerned about the future, not because we were still focused on the past.

Regarding the future, Mr. DeWine said that we need to multiply our party’s membership rather than purge our party’s membership.  I’m inclined to agree.  After all, the name of this blog, Buckeye RINO, is partly a response to those who bandy the “RINO” appellation too freely.  Republicans are supposed to be the big tent party, not the groupthink party.  To be the big tent party, we have to be tolerant of varying opinions on a wide array of topics, though there are some bedrock principles that we all subscribe to.  The party of Lincoln is a party of liberty, not groupthink.

I think alarm over rampant socialism within our own nation is part of the motivation for the increased attendance at these functions.  Another common concern is the feeling that, when it comes to foreign affairs, we need to be every bit as relentless as our adversaries, and, frankly, it appears that our nation may be caving in on many international fronts.

Mr. DeWine said that he fully expected a solid GOP ticket for 9 statewide offices up for grabs in 2010.  While discussing some of the possible names that may appear on the 2010 ballot, he was careful to point out that only Rob Portman had made an official announcement so far.  Portman is seeking the U.S. Senate seat held by Senator George Voinovich, who has announced his retirement.

In one-on-one conversation with Mr. DeWine, I inquired about the ORP’s commitment to campaigning all over the state, not just in southwest Ohio.  Mr. DeWine gave his assurance that winning statewide races requires campaigning in northern Ohio.  What caused me to make such an inquiry?  It was the Secretary of State race in 2006, when Jim Trakas stepped aside to let Greg Hartmann carry the banner for the GOP.  Greg Hartmann was invisible in northern Ohio.  I don’t think we’ll see a repeat of that mistake in 2010.

Also in one-on-one conversation with Mr. DeWine, I asked about the GOP’s competitive disadvantage in early absentee voting.  Northern Ohio Republican candidates have fared much more poorly since absentee voting laws were changed to allow voters to vote early without having to specify a reason why they were choosing to do so.  Mr. DeWine said that many other states have made similar changes, so this is a topic of discussion that’s been brought before Michael Steele and the rest of the RNC.

Two other featured guests at the Erie County Lincoln Day Dinner on Friday night were two state senators:  Senator Karen Gillmor, and Senator Mark Wagoner.  Erie County is located within Senator Wagoner’s state senate district, so he was granted a few minutes to speak from the podium.  Senator Karen Gillmor didn’t speak from the podium, but she did work the room, meeting and greeting guests before dinner was served.

Kasich, Husted, Mandel, Latta, Gillmor, Wagner, Boose in Tiffin last night

Former Columbus-area Congressman John Kasich gave the keynote speech at the Seneca and Sandusky Counties’ Republican Party Lincoln Day Dinner last night (Feb. 5, 2009) in Tiffin.  I was in attendance to hear what he and others had to say.  You can check out this related article from the Tiffin Advertiser-Tribune, if you like.  Others who spoke from the podium included Dayton-area State Senator and former Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted, Cleveland-area State Representative Josh Mandel, and local Congressman Bob Latta.  Local State Senator Karen Gillmor and local State Representatives Jeff Wagner and Terry Boose were also in attendance, but did not speak.

As many in the blogosphere have already guessed, Kasich is giving serious thought to running for Ohio Governor in 2010, Jon Husted is giving serious thought to running for Ohio Secretary of State in 2010, and Josh Mandel is giving serious thought to running for Ohio Treasurer in 2010.  They confirmed from their own mouths that they were giving serious thought to running for these statewide positions, though none of them were ready to officially announce for certain that they were seeking these seats.

We’ve heard that Ohio has lost much more than 200,000 jobs since 2000.  Kasich is letting everyone know that Ohio has lost much more than 100,000 thousand jobs since Ted Strickland took office in early 2007.  Kasich is also letting everyone know that Ohio is dead last or nearly dead last among the fifty states for new business start-ups in virtually any way one chooses to measure such a statistic.  On the topics of both Ohio’s economy and Ohio’s education system, Kasich sees that under current leadership, Ohio is spiraling ever downward and out of control.  He likened the current national and statewide decay of our standard of living as what we’ve experienced during the Jimmy Carter Administration, with Democrats at the time telling us to lower our expectations for what the future had in store.  Ronald Reagan rejected the dismal forecasts and chose a bolder path.  John Kasich urged Republicans in attendance to reject the path of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Strickland.  He asked everyone to mobilize to turn Ohio around, starting with visiting the website www.RechargeOhio.com and signing up.

Husted echoed Kasich’s sentiments and reiterated some of Kasich’s statistics.

Mandel charmed the crowd with some self-deprecating humor about his youthful appearance, while reminding everyone of the dedicated women and men who serve in the armed forces.  He held up a pair of shoes with the soles and heels worn out from canvassing neighborhoods during his state rep campaigns, and promised he wouldn’t be outworked by his opponents if he officially undertakes the statewide campaign to become Ohio Treasurer.

Congressman Latta delivered the most red meat, as he hammered away at the foolishness of the bailout packages and the proposed economic stimulus bill.  Latta seemed quite genuine in his conservative assessment of the shenanigans on Capitol Hill, and the crowd reaction was very favorable.

Several local politicians were present, as well, with Seneca County Engineer Mark Zimmerman capturing much of the spotlight, since he emceed the event.

Petition time for municipal elections

While it seems that the last election is barely over, especially since Obama doesn’t take office until next week, it’s already prime time to circulate candidacy petitions for office if you’d like to run for municipal court judge or for partisan municipal elections this year.

Yes, there are elections in odd-numbered years.

In Ohio, in odd-numbered years, there may be elections for municipal court judges, city councils, village councils, mayors and other municipal executive branch offices, township clerks, township trustees, and school boards.

Of course, there aren’t usually announcements about petition filing deadlines.  By keeping quiet about such deadlines, political party insiders are often able to get their own hand-picked persons on the bottom rungs of the political ladder without much opposition.

I feel that some of my readers would make excellent public servants.  That’s why I’m giving you the heads-up.  If you want to run for municipal court judge, or you want to run for city council in a city that holds partisan elections (if there’s no city charter, then such would be the case), then the filing deadline for your petitions to run in the May 5th primary election is before 4 pm on February 19, 2009 at your county’s Board of Elections office.  For example, Lorain and Elyria are cities that hold partisan elections for city council (and there are many more such cities all over the state).  Some cities have city charters that specify that elections for city council are to be non-partisan.  City charters could specify the petition filing deadline date for such non-partisan races, so you’ve got some homework to do if that applies to your city.  Otherwise, candidates for township, school board, and non-partisan municipal races have until August 20 to file petitions for the November 3rd general election.

For those it applies to, February 19 is just around the corner.

It’s not required that you raise any money in order to run for office, but if you think you might want to raise campaign money, you need to fill out a Designation of Treasurer form with the county Board of Elections.  On the form, you will be asked to name your campaign committee.  You don’t have to organize boatloads of people to form a campaign committee.  Your committee could conceivably consist of just you, yourself.  Your surname should be included in the campaign committee name.  For example, if I were going to be a candidate, I might use “Williamson for City Council,” “Vote Williamson,”  “Friends of Daniel Williamson,” “Elect Williamson,” “Williamson Campaign Committee,” or some other phrase that included my surname of Williamson when naming the committee.  The form will ask you to specify which election race that you are a candidate for.  The form will ask you to include the contact information for your campaign committee.  The committee must have a PHYSICAL address, not just some P.O. Box.  Also, a treasurer must be named for your committee.  Your treasurer could be yourself.  If you wish, you could name a deputy treasurer in addition to a treasurer  (and the deputy treasurer could be yourself if someone else was named as treasurer).  If any campaign money is received or expended, the treasurer and/or deputy treasurer will be responsible for submitting the required financial reports.  None of the information  on this Designation of Treasurer form has to be permanently etched in stone.  If, after you file the form, you decide to change the office you seek election to, or decide to change the name of the committee, or decide to change the address of the committee, or change treasurers, just amend the information by filling out a new Designation of Treasurer form with the county Board of Elections.

If you do raise and expend campaign money, the campaign committee will need to have its own bank account.  Campaign funds cannot be commingled with any other funds.  Keep in mind, when shopping around for a bank account for the campaign committee, that you may need to submit copies of canceled checks (front and back) for your  committee expenditures to accompany your campaign finance reports.  You should receive printed instructions on campaign finance reporting requirements from the Board of Elections office when you submit your Designation of Treasurer form.  At the very least, make sure the BoE workers direct you to a source of information that will provide you with the most up-to-date rules concerning campaign finance reporting.  I’ve been my own campaign treasurer in the past, and I’m happy to say that preparing campaign finance reports isn’t rocket science, so please don’t feel intimidated.

Now, about the matter of circulating petitions.  You can get petition forms from the county Board of Elections.  Take a black ink pen and a clipboard with you when you gather signatures, so that you make it easy for people to sign without having to fumble around.  How many signatures you must gather depends on the election you are running for, and whether you are running as a candidate of a political party or not.  Do not collect more than 3 times the minimum number of signatures required.  Pay attention to the form.  The blanks at the beginning of the form must be filled in prior to collecting any signatures.  The blanks at the end of the form, where the petition circulator certifies and attests to collecting and witnessing all the signatures on the form, is to be filled out after collecting the signatures.  On any given form, there must be only one petition circulator, so if two or more people are circulating petitions for you, they must do so on separate forms, not ever on the same form.  Those who circulate petitions for you must be currently registered Ohio voters, and they must not be from a different political party than the candidate, if running in a partisan race, so don’t enlist the help of underage high school students to circulate petitions for you, since they wouldn’t be registered voters.

I recommend getting “walk lists” of the precincts that you’ll be running for election in, from the BoE.  The “walk lists” should show you the names of registered voters with their street addresses and party affiliations.  This way, you can make sure you are gathering VALID signatures.  You wouldn’t want the Board of Elections throwing out your petitions because signatures were found not to be valid.  Workers at the Board of Elections will be verifying that the signatures on your form match the signatures they have on file from the voter registration records.  They’ll verify that the name, signature, address, and party affiliation all match up between the petitions and the voter records.  That’s why I recommend walk lists.  You won’t see voter signatures on the walk lists, but you will be able to match up names, addresses, and party affiliations, since the walk list is generated from the voter records that the BoE has.

In partisan races, signatures won’t be valid if the voters who signed were from a different political party than the candidate.  Thus, Republican candidates cannot collect valid signatures from those identified as Democrats on voter rolls, but they can collect valid signatures from other Republicans and from independents.  For yet another example, Green Party candidates cannot collect valid signatures from those identified on voter rolls as Republicans or Democrats, but they can collect valid signatures from independents.  Those voters with no political party affiliation shown on the voter rolls are considered independent voters, and, as independents, they can sign on to any partisan petition without changing their independent status.  After all, party affiliation is determined by which political party ballot you choose to vote on during the primary elections.  Those who request “issues-only” ballots during primaries, and those who don’t vote at all in primaries are considered independents.  Those listed as Republicans must have voted in a Republican primary election in the past.  Those listed as Democrats must have voted in a Democrat primary election in the past.  That’s how those voters became affiliated with political parties on the voter rolls.

In the past, when I’ve inadvertently collected a signature that I believed wasn’t valid or thought might not be valid, I used my pen to draw a line through that entry on my form in order to cross it out before submitting the completed forms to the Board of Elections.  I did not include the crossed-off entries in my total tally of signatures that I certified and attested to when I filled in the blanks at the end of the form after finishing the signature collection but before the form submission to the Board of Elections.  Such precautions helped me to get an accurate count of valid signatures so that I knew my petitions wouldn’t be thrown out by the Board of Elections, and so that I wouldn’t have my petitions challenged by political opponents, either.

A disclaimer:  The recommendations I’ve made here are based on my past experience.  Laws may vary from locality to locality, and some laws may have been changed since I last ran for office in 2004, so please consult your county’s Board of Elections office for current laws applicable to you and your campaign in your location, or else consult the office of Ohio’s Secretary of State.

I really hope that voters have excellent candidates to choose from in this year’s township, village, city, school board, and municipal court races.  If you blog readers are among those who step forward to be candidates this year, I wish you the best of luck.

Ohio House Speaker Budish: “I’m for sale!”

He can’t help it.  Armond Budish is a Democrat politician from Cuyahoga County, after all.  If you don’t know what I mean by that, then you’ve probably never heard of the name of Jimmy Dimora, either.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Did you think that statehouse pay-to-play politics vanished because we switched from a Republican majority in the Ohio House of Representatives to a Democrat majority in the Ohio House of Representatives?  Did you think monumental changes are in store now that Democrats control legislation?  If you thought so, you haven’t been paying any attention to Buckeye RINO.  I’ve been saying all along that pay-to-play politics is a game that special interests play with BOTH political parties in the Ohio General Assembly.  I’ve been saying all along that you have to learn about the INDIVIDUAL you are voting for, and not just the party affiliation.

So, if you thought that ensconcing Armond Budish as the new Speaker of the House with Democrats in control would mark some kind of improvement over Householder/Husted/Dolan and a bunch of Republicans, you were WRONG.

This is the start of the biennium.  It’s the start of a new session of the General Assembly.   Do you know what that means?  Since it’s the point in time most distant from the time that one must stand for re-election,  that means now is the time to consider the most odious of legislation.  If there are issues that Ohioans oppose, but legislators favor, now is the time that legislators will act on those issues.

Why do legislators oppose the will of the people?  Because they get campaign contributions for doing so.  Now is the time to reward campaign donors, and now is the time to line up campaign donors for the next election run.  The legislators hope for two things:  First, that you won’t be paying any attention to the legislation that gets passed; and second, if you are paying attention, that you have a very short memory.

Perhaps the most publicized pay-to-play legislation at the beginning of the previous biennium was a Senate bill that hurt mom-and-pop cable television utilities in order to favor the big behemoths of the cable industry.  The spin of the politicians was that we’d see more competition within the cable TV industry, and our rates would go down.  Did anybody’s rates go down?  During the past year, my rate actually took a hike.  The Ohio General Assembly tried to feed us this hogwash because the cable TV behemoths, through their Political Action Committees, are able to be much more generous in donating to campaigns than the little mom-and-pop cable TV companies.

This biennium, the granddaddy of the pay-to-play PAC’s appear to be those connected to casino gambling.  Ohioans have repeatedly voted against casino ballot issues.  Ohioans don’t want casinos.  Our legislators do.  Our legislators always have.  Why?  Because if our legislators oppose gambling, they don’t receive PAC donations to their campaigns for sticking to their principles.  If our legislators support gambling, however, they stand to receive lots of campaign donations to gambling-related PAC’s.  With our legislators, money talks.  Ohioans talk, too, but our legislators turn a deaf ear when there’s no money attached.

Armond Budish (remember, he’s a Democrat politician from Cuyahoga County) was asked by the media about his thoughts on gambling.  The Plain Dealer quotes him thus:

“I have no inherent opposition to gambling by any means.”

He’s so emphatic, by adding the words “by any means” to the phrase “no inherent opposition.”  Doesn’t it sound like code for “I have no inner convictions,” or “I haven’t developed any scruples,” or, at the very least, “I might have some inner convictions/scruples, but why don’t you offer me some campaign money, and together we’ll explore just where those scruples might or might not be.”

How convenient.  At the get-go, politician Armond Budish is pointing out the lack of a personal conviction.  Just what we need more of–politicians without principles.  Yet, even if he, himself, lacked a personal conviction when it came to the gambling issue, isn’t he elected to represent Ohioans?  Since he leads the majority caucus in the Ohio House of Representatives, shouldn’t he feel a need to represent the majority of Ohioans?  And didn’t a majority of Ohioans vote down casino gambling every single time it was ever put before them as a ballot issue?  Yet, Budish did not acknowledge the demonstrated views of the majority of Ohioans in giving his position on gambling.  Instead, it was as if he was elected to a House district wherein he only represents himself, saying on the public record that he, himself, has no inherent opposition to gambling.  He’s not representing anybody but himself.  And by representing only himself, he’s advertising to all the PAC’s, even beyond the issue of gambling, that he’s all ears if you’ve got money to contribute.  Ohioans?  Bah, humbug!  Who are they, unless they can contribute $omething?

Hence, Armond Budish, Ohio’s Speaker of the House of Representatives, has announced to the world of lobbyists and donors, “I’M FOR SALE!!!!”

From the same Plain Dealer article, we see that Governor Strickland is advertising the fact that his spine is missing, as he’s caving in on pledges made to voters in 2006 that he opposes expansion of gambling.  He already introduced Keno to the Ohio Lottery.  Now he’s sounding the trumpet beckoning to all the casino tycoons.  If you want to read more on Strickland and gambling, check out Writes Like She Talks, with this article, this one, and also this one.

Before Strickland caved in on gambling, he was opposed.  Before he was opposed, he was wishy-washy, i.e. he was sending signals that he could be influenced, could be bought.  Again, Jill Miller Zimon posted at WLST about an interview that Strickland gave to an assembly of bloggers.  Back on March 27th, 2006, I had this to say about Strickland’s non-committal response:

” . . . As for Strickland and gambling, he has left the door open for pro-gambling PAC’s to donate to his campaign (I haven’t looked at any campaign finance reports yet to find out if this has indeed happened), and I certainly get the sense that he will let others do the dirty work to expand gambling here. He’s sending a signal that he can be ‘bought’ . . .”

Jill wanted me to elaborate on this point , so later, I added this:

” When a candidate makes a clear and definitive statement on an issue, then a candidate is clearly sending a message that they cannot be bought at an auction to the highest bidder. When a candidate makes a public statement on an issue that is totally ambiguous, that’s sending a message of ‘Go ahead and influence me! Make your checks out to . . .’”

And after Jill continued to press me on the point, I concluded with this:

“Someone who has known all sides of the issues for as long as Strickland has (How could he not? His whole career revolves around issues.) should have been able to draw some conclusions by now and found ways to effectively articulate for the positions he advocates. If he were merely a bystander, it would be easier to understand his indecisiveness. It almost makes me think that Strickland concedes that it’s a foregone conclusion that Ohioans support casinos. I doubt that Ohioans support casinos, since every ballot issue on the matter has gone down to defeat. The pro-gambling lobbyists have curried favor with our legislators, and that’s the arena where gambling really needs to be held in check.”

Was I clairvoyant, or what?  I’m telling you now, that I had Strickland pegged way back then.  So what I’m telling you about Budish . . . mark my words, he’s for sale.