Buckeye State Blog - Why Governor Strickland couldn't raise taxes (besides the Ohio Constitution) - Comments

Thanks Free Market

Dion — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:40:51 -0700

That was a great post on the U-M economist Mark Perry's blog. Thanks!

The Problem With Being Young....

Dion — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:33:58 -0700

is only the young think it is an asset.

As a Democrat, yes, social issues are important, but what looks good on paper or in theory doesn't always work in practice.

Yes, no one should go hungry, but who pays for it if they are physically able but mentally unwilling?

Which is my point. Programs are implemented, people discover the resource en masse and the program is drained until it collapses or continues to be funded in greater and greater amounts. Eventually even the people that don't need the resource, collect a benefit.

Everyone is not disabled or incapable of earning a living on their own, but "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" while it sounds wonderful, until each participant has a personal revelation to fully invest (knowing human nature will never happen) it is a Utopian fantasy.

The Democrat and Republican party used to be one party. In other words it takes multiple perspectives to make our republic function and that includes multiple parties. Democrats are never all right and Republicans are never all wrong.

Partisanship is for the proletariat, it is the division that political parties use to raise funds and select candidates. Beyond that it has little more use than to keep constituents polarized and distracted from the solutions to issues in an equitable manner. Blind devotion to any party is only slightly above complete ignorance. It is only slightly above complete apathy, because it is easier to allow a party to direct you how to vote, than for you to become informed on your own. Politicians must be blindly devoted to their party, if they wish to get elected, there is no such requirement on voters.

Being young I would expect that you perceive that partisanship is becoming old school, old boy network, business as usual, status quo politics. It will eventually give way to a new "information revolution" where voters can easily select candidates, acquire information and vote online. And candidates can promote their message and platform to voters, with little to no, campaign finance. Blogs are a part of the process to freely exchange information without editorial involvement, manipulation or censorship and will not only be the demise of the newspaper, but also of political parties. Eventually there will be an "internet" or "online" party that will form and a candidate will campaign 100% online without the influence of main stream media. At some point in the future, a "Twandidate" could emerge onto the political scene and engage in full scale "Twolitics" (just one example, online social networks form faster than I can keep track of them)

Online campaigning and voting is closer to reality and farther away from being a fantasy, than expecting to raise taxes during a recession, to pay for social programs, for people that just don't want to work. Just because people complain they need a resource or benefit, does not mean they actually do. People that pay taxes know this, and so does Gov.Ted Strickland.

Attn: Dion, Modern

Free Market Politics — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:36:36 -0700

Dion: Check out this semi-related post at U-M economist Mark Perry's blog (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/want-health-insurance-go-out-and-buy-it.html). A person who can afford a cell phone, cable TV or both is a person who can afford health insurance. A person who chooses a cell phone and/or cable TV to the exclusion of health insurance is a person who has made a choice...a choice...

Modern: It is hilarious that only days after you came to the conclusion that Ronald Reagan's views on taxes are more pro-growth than Barack Obama's, your Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to raise taxes (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124759535535340189.html) on small business owners - the engine of the U.S. economy, according to none other than Barack Obama - at a time when unemployment's headed toward the wrong side of 10% in a hurry. Thoughts?

Thank you all for the immature name calling!!

progressive dem — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:40:07 -0700

It shows I am really getting under younr skin. Have I not said that although I am sad to see my scholarship that I earned by being one of Ohio's top 1000 high school graduates go I would rather the money go to poor people, or the mentally disabled, etc.!! However, I would rather see the 30 million to big oil cut. (Note I think this is still in the budget. I happen to work to help pay for college so I may have missed a few details.) I did not call this budget Blackwellian, I called Strickland's budget "Blackwellian" (as did the ABJ). Also, I never suggested to you thought Celeste and Co. should get kicked out, I was asking you. Also, I particualarly like the attacks for being young. I thought progressives were more willing to rise to debate than the conservative goons back home, but OH WELL!

How would you propose to manage this?

Randy — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:37:33 -0700

Modern, I agree with your fiscal idea in principal - "run a temporary deficit until the economy recovers with the debt repaid immediately once tax revenues increase due to growth in the market."

But how would you propose to manage this? Assume you ran a deficit for a couple years, then the market responded. How would you guarantee the debt would be repaid?

Legislators have enough difficulty managing programs - deciding which ones to fund and how much. I can see the debt being carried over because some of the programs are too important.

I think we have to tie legislators hands and make them balance a budget. It would be nice if they were mature enough to do it on their own, but it just doesn't work that way. Look at our US budget as an example.

Taxes are Never "Fun"

Dion — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:29:33 -0700

Free Market, lol! Raising taxes during a severe recession isn't the greatest idea for either party. I am thankful that Democrat leadership can see that.

It is easy to give away money when it is someone else's and "progressive" seems to think the democratic party tent isn't big enough to allow people to participate, that aren't excited about raising taxes in an economic downturn. People will survive without a library every 1/4 mile, and without well funded food banks. I am a moderate democrat not a militant one.

Here are some "fun facts." Mid Ohio Food Bank purchases from local grocers, over stocked or nearly expired food at an extreme discount. They also receive food donations. Mid Ohio then in turn gives some free food and sells food at pennies on the dollar to local 501c3 charities called "pantries." These "Food Pantries"operate from donations made to them. Pantries distribute the food they receive for free or buy at a discount, to people through an application process. I volunteered at a food pantry for 8 months. From these experiences, it amazed me to the frequency that people come to the food bank, with $100 hair styles, $40 acrylic nails, gold rings and gold chains completely out of food stamps, and load their free groceries in a new SUV on the 15th of the month. Mercedes driving woman collects food stamps. Some food pantries are not in operation until the 15th of the month. Many times people only need an education on how to manage the resources they have, not given more resources. Liberals love to throw other peoples money at "programs."

Food Banks will survive without massive amounts of funding.

This is an inherent problem with liberal "programs." Once they are implemented people discover the resource and the demand for it increases as people flood to utilize it. Social safety nets then become trampolines.

Unfortunately, some eligible Ohioans are not even able to apply for food stamps. Some of that is federal assistance money the state doesn't get to collect. Despite the increase of The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 increasing Food Stamp benefits by 13.8%.

Currently, eligible children receive some food through a summer lunch program and get free lunch during the school year.

Hot dogs at Speedway are 2 for $1. I see aggressive panhandlers buying them all the time. No one should starve in the United States of America. It is nearly impossible. Meals on Wheels/Lifecare helps take care of the Elderly.

Some college students survive eating less than $.30 a day (more money for beer on the weekends).

So where are all these "starving" American's at?

Many "progressives" champion others unfortunate issues and bundle those issues with their own personal issues, to bolster their assertions and add validity to their arguments. This kid just wants his scholarship so other people pay for his education instead of paying for it himself like the majority of people do.

Progressive, join the military, like many poor, unfortunate, low income minorities have to, risk your life in an illegal war, and make use of the Montgomery G.I. Bill, and the State of Ohio tuition reimbursement for the Ohio National Guard like blogger/commenter/politician Judge William O'Neill. There is a "free education" for you.

Thanks,

Dion

Pipe Him Aboard!

Dion — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:25:48 -0700

Beam him up, Scotty!

Get the record straight...

modernesquire — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:13:32 -0700

Saying you can't tax your to prosperity is not the exclusive domain of the supply-sider. I think the flat tax is as intellectually equal to the idea of a flat-earth. I support progressive tax policies. I favor targeted tax credits and deductions over broad cuts in the marginal rates.

And actually, if you haven't figure it out, I, like Strickland, am very moderate. Socially liberterian. Fiscally conservative, but I believe a balanced budget amendment such as Ohio's is a constitutional straightjacket that prevents the State from doing what it should do-- run a temporary deficit until the economy recovers with the debt repaid immediately once tax revenues increase due to growth in the market.

I opposed the Bush tax cuts and publicly advocated for a freeze in the last year of implemention of the Taft income tax cuts. A position that this post does not constitute a reversal from.

What I object to is the naive notion that Strickland should be attacked by progressives in my party because of these cuts he made because he refused to go on the fool's errand that would have been seeking an actual income tax hike.

And, yes, I have been known to criticize the "other man" theory of thinking that so predominates progressive thinking before.

So, there's been no change in my views at all.

I'm pissed at your sheer ignorant arrogance

modernesquire — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:03:34 -0700

You're citing a FICTIONAL progressive fantasy television show designed to help liberals and progressives escape from the reality of the Bush Administration. You might as well be talking about this one time Captain Kirk.... or when KISS saved Christmas. But if you're going to "West Wing" me, let me also remind you that in a pivotal episode Mandy admonished Josh that the White House was fighting the wrong battles.

Yeah, it's easy to say that the intellectual liberals will always win out in the end when its a fictional script written by intellectual liberals.

There's nothing grand about flushing ourselves back into the minority in both the statewide offices and legislative offices so we could say we supported a tax increase that never had a chance to become law. That's not noble; it's foolish.

Cut your scholarship programs and you start talking like a Republican whose seen their taxes go up to pay for someone else's social program benefits. It's ironic.

Did I say string up every Democrat who advocated a tax hike? No... I said no such nonsense. Again, you trying to defeat me via a strawman. The reality is that so long as the Republican Senate is unwilling to give Strickland a bipartisan blessing to raise taxes, it'll never happen.

By the way, Celeste and those other Dems lost the debate within their own caucus, or else the House (or some committee at least) would have had some vote considering increasing taxes. So, again, you confirm my belief that such a tax hike wouldn't even get a majority of the House Democrats' support. The more arguments you raise the more you prove my premise-- the idea that this all could have been avoided with tax hikes is a liberal/progressive fantasy that ignores political reality.

And in case you haven't read it yet, food pantries are the one of the very few areas that are seeing an increase in funding from their prior budget. From $8.5 million last budget to $12 million in this one. From the very budget compromise you've been criticizing as Blackwellian.

Isn't that how Obama got elected?

Free Market Politics — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:14:36 -0700

You want to raise Ohio taxes and you don't even pay taxes.

Excuse me, isn't that how Obama got elected? By promising federal goodies for non-taxpayers to be financed by taxpayers? 50% + 1...

I'm always happy to see new supply-siders joining the cause, but honestly: Some of you are making fools of yourselves. Somebody should copy several of Modern's comments above and paste them into the next Internet skirmish in which he finds himself embroiled. Very funny to see a complete denounciation of the very policies he so fiercely advocated less than a month ago when it seems your Governor finds himself in a little bit of hot water over Ohio's budget...

Your Mom is Calling!

Dion — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:48:31 -0700

Thank you for clarifying what a progressive is, I can now leave the Democratic party with a clear conscience.

If your idea of politics is a TV Episode not only are you young, you are an idiot. You are quite the know-it-all, snot nose aren't you?

Maybe when you are 40 you won't know so much.

It is funny to me, how you can argue with Hester an experienced Politico and attorney when you are still nursing your Mom's hind tit in college, begging for your free ride and claiming you aren't looking for a free lunch. Sit down and learn. You are embarrassing yourself.

You want to raise Ohio taxes and you don't even pay taxes.

Oh, what is that? I think I hear you Mom calling. Supper's on! Turn off your Apple it's time to eat your humus/pita and Top Ramen noodles.

You are all so pissed that you are blind

progressive dem — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:21:33 -0700

You know, its a lot of fun to yell names at a college kid, I get it. But I think that the anger all of you have in know that all of us truly on the left are completely right. I never mentioned Strickland being a dictator, I want him to stand up and FIGHT. Maybe he'll lose some votes or even reelection, but he'll have done it while doing what is right. I suggest, modern and others, that you watch the West Wing episode "Let Bartlet be Bartlet."

That's the leadership I want. Oh, and I saw the cuts were scaled back, but IT IS STILL TOO MUCH!

The Stiglitz and Orszag were for you modern, not the Gen. Assembly. Here's a question modern, is it time to kick out Celeste and the other Dems advocated for a tax hike. Finally my math adds up to 3.0 billion/3.2 billion. We can slash the oil company subsidy and maybe tack on a small cig tax.

Oh, and Dion, nice try, but progressives don't attack trial lawyers, poor people, and free speech. You missed your stop on the way to naug blog or red state. It's okay though, we all make mistakes!!

I don't want a free lunch, I just want to make sure that poor people can still eat lunch. (at my expense if it needs to be!)

State Funds Chronic Masterbaters

Dion — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:58:50 -0700

Progressive dem, "I would CHEER to see my taxes go up to save social services." Then why don't you pick up the tab and leave the rest of us that can't afford it alone?

I wonder how much tax you pay currently.

And I wouldn't mind my taxes going up one bit if the money made it to actual people that need it and not layers of bureaucracy. CUT the budget to eliminate waste! Contraction from time to time is GOOD! It is painful, but it is sometimes necessary.

Why not let's start with revoking Social Security benefits to those that do not need them. For starters, how about an executive decision at the federal level on that? That President won't be very popular.

To reduce medical costs to the elderly, as a hospital worker, I suggest stopping "frequent flyers" that dial 911 to get a warm place to stay and a free meal?

How about some tort reform and unnecessary law suits to reduce medical cost? (to elderly)

How about restricting ambulance chasing personal injury "trial attorneys" and restricting their advertising on Maury, Wilcos and Springer, that encourage low income people to bring forth sometimes unnecessary lawsuits.

How about reducing waste in the library? Eliminating some music like "Thriller" and Britney Spears from the budget and only including "educational" music libraries? How about not including "Dude Where's my Car" in the public library movie section?

How about stopping chronic masterbaters from accessing porn under the guise of defending free speech?

There are steps libraries themselves can take to reduce their costs. Do we really need 6 copies of "Mien Kampf" and "Catcher in the Rye" in every library in the state? I mean 6, seriously.

Does Columbus Ohio need 22 Municipal Libraries?

Food banks? How about coming over the the East Side of Columbus and see charity board members load steak & lobster into their Cadillacs, that they buy for pennies on the dollar from Mid Ohio Food Bank, with donation funds, then give the free expired items, such as spaghetti and ketchup, to people that need food on the 15th of the month after they have expended their food stamps.

I am not sure you are completely informed, maybe you need the scholarship to help you get educated.

Political Reality

Erin — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 09:11:57 -0700

Modern hit the nail on the head.

Again, the immature name calling and the half-truths

modernesquire — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:42:05 -0700

Guess what, jerk, the General Assembly doesn't give a fuck about Joseph Stigliz or OMB Director Orszag.

The reality is that any believe that a tax hike would have solved this is a fantasy. It's a fantasy because it never was going to pass either the Democratic-led House or the GOP-controlled Senate. Period.

You can whine and moan about Strickland not being a dictator and just imposing a tax increase, but I count votes, and I don't see the votes in the legislature that would be there for a tax. The votes just weren't there.

You live in this fantasy world where if it's progressive and the Democrats control one branch of government and one House of the legislature, it should happen. And if it doesn't then that means the Democrats are no different than Ken Blackwell. Nonsense. You blissfully ignore the leverage that the Senate Republicans had in the equation. You write off their majority by claiming ours is the only one with a mandate behind it. I'd dare say the Senate Republicans don't share your view that they lack a mandate to keep Strickland and the House in check.

Again, your arguments may support the notion that we shouldn't have a State Senate because it unnecessary logjams important legislative iniatives supported by the public.

It's small-minded ignorance. Blackwell would have ELIMINATED these programs regardless of the budget situation. Strickland's hand was forced by budgetary pressures. There was simply no political ability to raise taxes like you were advocating. Call up your State Reps and ask them if they would have done things differently. Ask them to pass a tax increase now! And let us know what you hear.

And I guess that you didn't read that much of the cuts for libraries, etc. has actually been scaled back as a result of the compromise reached between the Governor, the House and Senate leadership?

Welcome to the political reality that there's no such thing as a free lunch, kid.

Why Governor Strickland couldn't raise taxes (besides the Ohio Constitution)

modernesquire — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:29:23 -0700

It seems some people have just flat out lost their minds. Including the editorial board of the Akron Beacon Journal who just cannot understand why Governor Strickland didn't just raise the state income tax and solve all of our problems. You know, a big massive tax increase on the "rich" is all that was needed to solve our problems instead of these painful cuts in government spending.

Well, first, genius, is the little constitutional issue that a Governor cannot raise taxes. Legislatures do, and yet they have largely escaped scrutiny (including the Democratic-led House for its cut first, revenues later philosophy.)

But let's say that Strickland had used his bullypulpit and called up the Speaker of the House to announce that he was proposing a massive tax increase. So Guv calls up his partisan ally, Speaker Budish who's busy trying to keep his caucus united and on an agenda path that prevents a net loss of four or more Democratic seats next year.

Assuming that you can suspend your disbelief further, believe that Buddish not only agrees to the tax increase, but gets his House majority to vote it through... where it goes to the Senate Republican majority.

Anyone think the Republicans Senate majority would have approved such a tax increase a year before a statewide election? Me, either.

So what would have happened is that these unpopular cuts would have likely still need to be made with the addition that the Republicans have a failed massive tax increase to run against the House Democrats and Governor Strickland in 2010. And the editorial board of the ABJ would instead be running an editorial criticizing the political naivety of Strickland for advocating for a tax plan that was doomed from the start in order to avoid the politically hard decision of how to cut government spending.

In other words, there was no way in hell a tax hike would pass anyways, so quit blaming Strickland for not chasing the mythical pancea that a progressive, top-income loaded tax hike would have solved all of the State's financial problems.

You might as well blame the Governor for not solving Ohio's fiscal problems by not budgeting for a government agency responsible for seizing all pots of gold at the end of every rainbow in Ohio. It's a pipedream unless someone can convince me how the State Senate Republicans would give Strickland political cover by putting their own blessing on a tax hike. For God's sakes, look at the absurd things he's having to do just to get the slot proposal done.