Buckeye State Blog - Comments

Cutting the $30 million from big oil would be a start...

progressive dem — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:54:55 -0700

or maybe....gasp...raising taxes. Did I get lost at naugblog? Why is everyone here more willing to cut essential services instead of modest tax increases?

LOL @ Jennifer Brunner's Tweet:

modernesquire — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:47:56 -0700

Maybe Pres. Obama is appointing her Ambassador to Russia, since it's in her backyard.

What "duplicative services"

AmberCat — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:23:09 -0700

do you mean? This sounds a lot like when people say "cut waste," without enumerating what they consider "waste" and how much it would save. If you mean close all charter schools and end vouchers, well, I agree. It probably wouldn't fly with Republicans since they are funded by the charter-school industry. I would even settle for just closing for-profit charters (but again, that's who is funding the GOP), because I recognize the good that nonprofit charters can do — but they are a luxury in financially challenged times.

Anyway, to paint this as Strickland's "fault" is insanely short-sighted. It wouldn't matter WHO the governor was — if it was the most brilliant progressive who ever lived — we'd STILL have a shrtfall. I am getting those panicked emails from every group that doesn't want their funds cut — and I agree with ALL of them. But where's the money?

I think it's more complicated than that

AmberCat — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:16:59 -0700

For the economy to be truly a negative for Strickland (or Brunner even more), you would have to posit blank-slate Republicans who have nothing in their backgrounds or platforms that would lead Ohioans to believe during a campaign that they would be worse. Of COURSE, people are upset about the economy. But I also suspect most people know the governor can't work magic, because this problem isn't unique to Ohio. I suspect most voters aren't that walled off from what's going on around the country; many have friends and relatives in other states. So you would have to assume — to paint this as exceptionally gloomy for Strickland — that Kasich is going to be able to perform the magic of explaining how he will balance the state budget, create jobs and not close schools and libraries, cut police, fire and other services, not let the infrastructure decay even more and cut state government to the point where you can't get anything done — without a full third of the revenue we have now, since his big theme is to eliminate the state income tax. And Portman, in a state where the words "free trade" are equivalent to "serial killer," is going to have to explain how he DIDN'T help outsource jobs and how he has flip-flopped 180 degrees on this position — IF he has. If he hasn't, he's toast. I think he's toast against Jennifer anyway. I agree with you that Lee abandoning the department of development won't be a good talking point for him, but with a smart campaign, it will be impossible for Portman to make much of it. A smart campaigner would just bounce the blame back to Portman and his ex-boss Bush, and most Ohioans know that the depression in this state started long before Strickland took office. People know when their familt and friends started losing their jobs.

I would have to pay a higher sales tax on books..

progressive dem — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 13:44:58 -0700

And i would be willing to do it to save our libraries.

I guess I can't complain that a scholarship that was guaranteed if I stayed in good academic standing in an Ohio college just vanish.

I guess that the high school I went to which will not exist in three or four years without new revenue because the "relevant parties" didn't support it.

Ted ran on the "Turn Around Ohio" pledge. What has he done to turn around this state? Some. BUT NOT ENOUGH!!

I have stood at family gatherings for two years, standing by Ted. In high school I wore my Strickland for Guv. T-shirt a bunch of times and talked to a bunch of people about supporting him. But enough is enough.

Oh, and as to my scholarship, I'd gladly see it go in exchange for the libraries or the seniors. I'll go to the end of the line for that. I just want there to be a line.

I praise Ted for being better than Taft. But being praised for that is like being happy if your football team goes 6-10 after going 1-15. Better, but not good. We can do better.

PS I'll gladly support Ted over "0-16" John kasich, but I will strongly consider a primary challenger.

SCO Model

Ohio2nd — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:31:17 -0700

I would have to assume that they were following in the footsteps of the SCO Group with their lawsuits against Linux, i.e. damages against deep pockets vendors.

See, above

modernesquire — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 08:11:52 -0700

The whole point of the post was to support the idea of stop the income tax cuts (although Kasich has proposed a phaseout, none is presently being implemented.) So did I not criticize the Governor's position? How is that blindly standing by Ted no matter what he does? You're fighting a straw man.

Ted didn't have an education plan until this year. That's why. He spent the first two years of his term getting the relevant parties together to listen to them to come up with the best plan he thought was needed for Ohio. That seems to be a rather sane thing to do if your promoting your plan being based on objective evidence and not ideological platitudes. Also, he did it to try to build broadbased public support for his changes. I think it was smart politics.

But you can't praise him for freezing tuition and then saying he didn't do anything for education during those first two years. His first budget reflected a major change in Ohio's attitude towards higher education.

What you were ignorant for saying was that things wouldn't be any different other Blackwell.

Other than the scholarships, how did the Governor "screw" people in private colleges (where the State, by definition, has little role to control things in the first place?)

I'm glad you're in college, but it's pretty easy for you to advocate for higher taxes you don't have to pay more of during a global recession. Like NIMBY, everyone favors raising someone else's taxes so long as it saves the government spending that benefits them. Sales tax increases depress consumer spending which deepen the economic problem while also failing to solve the revenue problem. So, who do you tax without making things worse?

In case you missed it, Strickland's budget calls for an increase in over a hundred of different types of fees the State charges. So it *is* ignornant for you to say his budget doesn't do anything on the revenue side to avoid these unpopular cuts.

Yeah, you deserve a scholarship. But we can't afford it. You aren't the first college student to suddenly find an unexpected change in financial aid during their academic career.

It wasn't a contract. Heck, it wasn't even an entitlement. Is it unfair? Sure, but the person losing their job and house think you should get behind them in line.

My plan...then again I'm "ignorant" and "delusional"

progressive dem — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:11:24 -0700

If I were Governor...

I would number one stop the income tax phaseout.

Second, I would put in the slot machines.

Third, whatever shortfall was left I would patch with higher taxes.

Anyone that has studied economics understands that spending cuts often have a more drastic impact on the economy than do higher taxes. (see Keynes, John Maynard) That is why something like 23 other states have raised taxes.

While Ted may have frozen tuition at public instutions he has totally screwed those of us at private colleges.

And guess who went to a private college! Ted...Lee Fisher...Armond Budish

He also totally screwed 3000 reciepients of the Ohio Academic Scholarship. We were promised the scholarship for 4 years, earning it after 4 years of hard work in high school. Then again maybe someone as "ignorant" as me didn't deserve it in the first place.

Why did Ted do nothing about education in 2007 or 2008??? Maybe he could have used it as a rallying cry to get a good state Senate.

Now, of course I will support Ted, if he makes it out of the primary, but if he is challenged by a Dem with a backbone, then I will strongly consider the challenger.

Delusional...It's delusional to continue to blindly stand by Ted no matter what he does.

I don't see where the revenue comes from

AmberCat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:51:54 -0700

that "saves" the Plain Dealer or any other newspaper. In her own column, Connie admitted that online advertising revenue is a fraction of print advertising. What do you think Daily Beast's revenue is? Enough to save all the papers they link to? It's hard to conceive.

Also, something else you mentioned where I think papers have dropped the ball — the attitude that they and only they can do this wonderful, absolutely necessary investigative reporting without which we would never know all the awful things going on and be able to hold people accountable.

While I commend Mark Puente for his series on corruption in the sheriff's office, which Connie mentioned, the PD decided that we did NOT need to know about how corrupt Betty Montgomery and Jim Petro were and how deeply implicated in the Coingate scandal (Bloggers posted the video of Montgomery beaming in the front row at a Tom Noe roast she co-hosted). They pretty much decided we didn't even need to know about Coingate until the persistent coverage of the Toledo Blade made it impossible to ignore. They decided we did not need to know anything about why our 2004 presidential election was as chaotic as it was. They decided we didn't need to know about the chaos, indecisiveness, favoritism and linefficiency in Ken Blackwell's serertary of state office, or how the office was being used for right-wing evangelism (I think I was the only one who reported on how they peppered the office with religious and anti-abortion propaganda as they were leaving). They decided we didn't need to know what a center of corruption and suppression Bob Bennett was at the county Board of Elections and that it was probably a conflict of interest for the state Republican party chair to head the BoE in the biggest Democratic county in the state.

They decided we didn't need to know that even the New York Times had noticed — on their front page – that Ohio's Supreme Court is corrupted by campaign contributions. They decided we didn't need to know how the utility companies are recording record profits, demanding rate hikes and contributing to the state economic depression by laying off people — they buried the stories and disconnected them so almost no one would connect the dots. (I connected them — in a blog). They decided we didn't need to know that all those "ACORN! A threat to democracy!" stories were fabricated by the right to try to depress turnout among the poor and that there was only ONE documented case of voter fraud in the entire state in last November's election.

They decided we didn't really need to hear a full airing of the pros and cons of an expensive convention center/medical mart project, nor did we need to hear how such projects are money-sucking pits around the country (Well, they did sorta touch on it in passing, but you'd have had to wade through the incessant cheerleading to find it). They decided we didn't need to consider whether Fred Nance's shepherding of a project he stands to profit handsomely from is a conflict of interest. They joined the "just get it done" brigade, without sharing with readers what the potential costs and downsides might be and who might profit at our expense. Thank goodness Roldo is still around and writing — on blogs. No one else is reporting some of the stuff he is.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. The PD would rather tug our heartstrings with multipart series on women (too often their own reporters) as victims for us to weep over and DO something about their terrible plight than provide honest reporting on what is really going on with governance in our state and county. If the PD had HONESTLY covered these stories I mentioned, I would still be a subscriber.

Brian, the main way it relates to Connie's status

AmberCat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:22:28 -0700

isn't that WE believe or even that it's realistic to believe that Connie could use her column or influence to lobby her husband. It's that the PLAIN DEALER has openly said THEY believe this, and that THEY have had problems in the past with Connie writing about things that MIGHT be taken up by Congress, even when not attached to a specific bill. And they have taken to warning readers about what they perceive as a potential conflict of interest by adding a disclaimer to her column stating her relationship with Sherrod, which I find to be demeaning and sexist. It's not Connie who is the bad guy here, although I think she was being a bit of a dupe. It's the Plain Dealer, that works so hard to muzzle and/or undermine Connie until it's in their self-interest to use her like this.

People I discussed this with today were so confused about the proposal as she described it in her column that they felt like Connie herself didn't understand exactly what it was about, and from your description of the webcast, which O did not hear, it sounds like not a lot of clarifying was done. I am completely baffled as to where the revenue to save daily papers is coming from in this (Susan Goldberg HAS mentioned Google). Daily Beast? Please. And the vagueness and back-pedaling on the 24-hour thing makes it sound like no one gave that much serious thought. It sounds like the more the PD attempts to justify what it did (and its exploitation of Connie in this), the more it's wading deeper into doggie doo. I'm disappointed that Connie would play the victim by saying anyone thinks Sherrod put her up to this. Of course not. It's transparent that the PD did. And it was a blunder for them.

I respectfully dissent, OLS

modernesquire — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:41:31 -0700

This proposal wouldn't expand copyright to apply to internet sites. The very rule you discuss applied to internet sites now. It's called the Fair Use Doctrine. Copyright law doesn't magically cease to apply once something is spread on the Internet. See, Napster.

The problem with Connie's proposal is that its still not entirely clear what, exactly, would trigger the need for a license. I know of nobody, not one blogger, who reprints newsstories in full without attribution.

Her only example of an offender is the website the Daily Beast. However, she concedes that it does not reprint entire stories in full, and it also cites and links to the original source material. So, what is it about the Daily Beast that makes the PD think it should pay them money, but I don't?

Well, the best answer Connie could give us is that the Beast gives such great summaries of their stories that readers have little reason to go to their website. How they know this is true is beyond me. The only way they could know the Daily Beast is having any impact is reviewing their own website logs and seeing how much traffic they get from that site. Which, again, would seem to disprove their assumption that the site doesn't generate them traffic.

Connie's proposal, by design and presentation, would evicerate the Fair Use Doctrine. And for no other reason than to protect one industry which is one of the guiltiest offenders of the very practice they are now trying to condemn. Rather than put internet users under the same copyright restrictions as print medium, it would actually place them under a tighter restriction that required payment for acts that print newspapers don't have to do. Last I checked, the Plain Dealer doesn't cut checks to other papers for royalities for when their columnists like Ms. Schultz comments on stories from other national publication. And her print column doesn't have hyperlinks to source materials since, you know, it's on paper.

Again, by their own admission, they have no interest in a 24-hour embargo. What they really want is legal grounds to force people to pay them licenses to talk about their reporting. It's extortion.

If its not designed to crack down on common blogging practices, then I fail to see how this proposal could possibly "save" the newspaper industry.

The 24-hour cable news cycle killed the newspaper, it's just been bleeding to death before the Internet came to take its last breath.

Frankly, if this proposal's application is only designed to attack the reproduction without attribution of the Plain Dealer's work, I fail to see why legislative action would even be necessary since I'm pretty sure such activity is already actionable.

So, I can't help but suspect that the impact of this proposal is alot broader than Connie is claiming. I fail to see how it could "save" the PD if otherwise.

No TV

Erin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:41:28 -0700

We don't have cable TV. In fact, we don't even have the converter box yet - no TV. We do have a DVD and VCR player and have been to the library at least 3 times this past month to get our fill of entertainment - books most especially (I just read a great book about Mary Magdalene called "The Expected One" by Kathleen McGowan). I can order books from another branch online from the catalog and get e-mail messages when something is ready to be picked up at my branch as well as an e-mail reminder when my materials are due to be returned. It's invaluable. Sunday hours in the winter too. It would be a travesty if any of these services were cut due to the state budget.

I agree

Erin — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:34:09 -0700

The budget has always been a matter of priorities. Cutting college scholarships? No way. How about eliminating duplicative services, in education especially? Ask yourself who can live with the hope of a budget cut being temporary (ie. 2 year biennium)? That's why the house and senate are rolling out their dog and pony shows - its their job to be responsible when it come to generating revenue and cutting spending. Just like its Governor Strickland's responsibility. It's not an easy job, especially in a tough economy but it has to be done. The more we talk it up - revenue generation and responsible spending cuts, the easier it should be for them.

How would you balance the budget then?

modernesquire — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:25:22 -0700

Raising taxes in a recession would not solve our problems. During a recessionary economy, they could make them worse... see Hawley-Smoot tax during the Great Depression.

Anyone who sees this and thinks this is what Blackwell would do is just ignorant. Period.

Would Ken Blackwell done anything to freeze college tuition in this State? What about Strickland's education plan? Think you would have seen that under a Blackwell Administration? The new energy plan that focuses on developing alternative energy technologies and implement them in Ohio? Yeah, Blackwell would have been all over that. The collapsing global economy which has disportionately hit Ohioans and a requirement that the budget be balanced, even in depressionary times, forced Strickland's hands.

Anyone who says we could be taxing our way out of these cuts is delusional.

Cuts had to be made. The state constitution requires a balanced budget. It's one thing to say further tax cuts should be delayed as a way to balance the budget. But tax hikes during an economy in meltdown?!? Short-sighted policy. An economic and political loser.

Why will you be "just as vocal an advocate."

progressive dem — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:31:51 -0700

I am frankly sick of Ted. Cut college scholarships. Check. Destroy libraries. Check. Gut elder care. You betcha!! Raise taxes to make up budget shortfalls. INCONCEIVABLE. Seems to me like I supported Ted, but got a whole lot of Ken.