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

And if you don't like it, run for office.

I bet if you look at many of the states that are raising taxes, you'll find out that they're making cuts as well. Many of them probably also have growing populations too, which Ohio doesn't.

I would be okay with a compromise for minimal cuts if that was the best we could do.  That would show me that Ted Strickland was a t least trying to save important social services.  As is it seems as if that is not on the agenda.  Why is it so important to not raise taxes even the minimal amount that would be needed to save our essential services? 

I know that come next May I will be supporting the Dem with the most guts and willingness to stand up.  If Ted is the best choice, I'll vote for him.  But if a credible primary makes its way on to the ballot, then I will vote for that choice if they will stand up for progressive causes and not send us up the river so that they can say that they never raised taxes.

Oh, and it not about ALWAYS getting what I want as a progressive, its about EVER getting what I want.

for the state programs we have in place now. 

Its like admitting defeat before even suiting up for battle.

The people also elected a Republican majority to the State Senate.  And I followed the 2006 gubernatorial campaign very closely, and I seem to recall Strickland promising that he would not raise taxes as Governor.

So, it's difficult for you to say that our election was a mandate for higher taxes.

If we choose to use it.

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/state_bank_option.php

“North Dakota is a sparsely populated state of less than 700,000, known for cold weather, isolated farmers and a hit movie – Fargo. Yet, for some reason it defies the real estate cliché of location, location, location. Since 2000, the state’s GNP has grown 56%, personal income has grown 43%, and wages have grown 34%. This year the state has a budget surplus of $1.2 billion!”

What does the State of North Dakota have that other states don’t? The answer seems to be: its own bank. In fact, North Dakota has the only state-owned bank in the nation. The state legislature established the Bank of North Dakota in 1919. Fleetham writes that the bank was set up to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. By law, the state must deposit all its funds in the bank, and the state guarantees its deposits. Three elected officials oversee the bank: the governor, the attorney general, and the commissioner of agriculture. The bank’s stated mission is to deliver sound financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota. The bank operates as a bankers’ bank, partnering with private banks to loan money to farmers, real estate developers, schools and small businesses. It loans money to students (over 184,000 outstanding loans), and it purchases municipal bonds from public institutions.

Still, you may ask, how does that solve the solvency problem? Isn’t the state still limited to spending only the money it has? The answer is no. Certified, card-carrying bankers are allowed to do something nobody else can do: they can create “credit” with accounting entries on their books.

Under the “fractional reserve” lending system, banks are allowed to extend credit (create money as loans) in a sum equal to many times their deposit base. Congressman Jerry Voorhis, writing in 1973, explained it like this:

“[F]or every $1 or $1.50 which people – or the government – deposit in a bank, the banking system can create out of thin air and by the stroke of a pen some $10 of checkbook money or demand deposits. It can lend all that $10 into circulation at interest just so long as it has the $1 or a little more in reserve to back it up.”

"The rich are a small percentage of the electorate. So I don't see how proposing higher taxes on them is political suicide."

Great. Fifty percent plus one looting fifty percent minus one. And you're good with that?

"...the Republicans' selfish and heartless position."

"I want to keep what I've earned" is selfish and heartless.

"I want to take what you earn" is selfless and compassionate.

When did legalized theft become honorable? You guys have the civil liberties thing pretty much nailed right up to the point where you think the natural place for the government's hand is in my pocket.

Because people don't care about which marginal taxes rates were raised, because we all hope to someday be in those higher brackets.

You comment is just nonsense.  Where in the State or National Democratic platform does it say we're the party of higher taxes?!?

Governor Strickland has fought for more rights for organized labor, implemented the most progressive energy policy in our State's history, reversed decades of neglect and unchecked higher education, increased access for health care for Ohio's families, etc.

And here you are talking like he's Ken Blackwell. It's NONSENSE.

The people that elected Strickland, Budish, and a Republican Senate are not PROGRESSIVES.  And poll after poll showed that the people would rather have spending cuts than increased taxes.

There simply was no public support for what the ABJ is advocating and Strickland would have looked downright foolish to have pursued such dead-on-arrival idea that would not have even passed the Democratically controlled House!

Quit tilting at windmills.  The fact is that Strickland relunctantly embraced expanding gambling as a means to raise sufficient revenues to avoid even further painful cuts.

In his own ideal worlds, Governor Strickland never would have wanted to make these cuts, but the economy thrusted a situation into the Governor's hands that forced him, constitutionally, to raise revenues and cut spending.  There was no politically viable way for the Governor to solve this just by raising revenues.  In fact, I'd dare say that the mythical tax increase would still have required substantial cuts in government spending.

Since when should politicians govern based on polls??  If polls showed Lincoln should have given up( which they would have) would you have advocated that?

Oh, and here is a way to stop this round of cuts:

Gambling

Stop Taft Phaseout

.5% sales tax increase

 That covers nearly everything.

You keep moving your target.  First, your Lincoln poll argument is a straw man.  First, there was no scientifically reliable polling back then.  Second, there's absolutely NO evidence to suggest that if there had been, the majority would support the Union giving up.  The fact that Lincoln was re-elected and his party gained seats in Congress would suggest that the Union voters SUPPORTED Lincoln.

By the way, the three things you listed would still have required CUTS!

1) School funding.  Republicans had to eat it.  But when the Senate and the House can't reach an agreement and there's a constitutionally mandated deadline that's expired, and one party refuses to budge, your ability to "jam things down people's" throat goes away quite a bit.  It's also hard to jam things down the other party's throat when that party controls one legislative chamber by a substantial majority.  So, again, your theory of governance is naive.

2)  Yeah, a premise based on actual public opinion polling, not GOP talking points.

But let's pretend that my premise isn't backed by objective data.  The fact is that no massive tax increase on the rich would ever become law.  Period.  You have yet to explain how the Governor would have gotten that through the State House, let alone the Senate. 

Yes, governing is about making hard choices.  Perhaps you should listen to yourself because this is the thing that piercing the heart of the progressive fantasy that higher taxes on the top marginal rates will solve any revenue problems and that you never should have to make the really hard choice of cutting social government spending.

It's the idea that the top 1% of income earners can simply be taxed to pay for anything the political majority wants.  It's the "other guy" theory of politics.  Give me the benefit at no costs is an easy sell when you claim that some unknown "other guy" is the one responsible for the costs.

The fact that you claim it would "take a public information campaign" suggests that people would otherwise be hostile to it.  You write this and then claim that there no evidence people would oppose it.  Odd.  If it weren't inherently unpopular, then why would there need to be a public information campaign to get people not to oppose it.  And how much of that additional tax revenue would have to be spent just to justify the collection of the additional tax revenue?

3) The income tax cuts were across the Board.  As much as you want to rant about Bob Taft's income tax cuts, your taxes were cut, too.  And yet, I've noticed that you aren't willing to give your own tax cuts up for the government spending you favor, but you want the "other guy" to pay for it with his taxes.  How selfish.

While I didn't agree with your repealing Taft's tax cuts, I did think that some serious consideration should have been given in delaying the final phase of the tax cuts (5-year plan) until the economy recovered.  That is a think a far more reasoned line of attack, though, than what you, other progressives and the ABJ were arguing for an actual net tax increase.

I have cited Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stigliz and OMB Director Orszag.  Are these men living lives of fantasy??

I would CHEER to see my taxes go up to save social services.

Oh and my taxes may have gone down, but Strickland's "Smart Student Tax" through the elimination of the Ohio Academic Scholarship is sure going to hurt.

His "Screw Private Students Tax" by the elimination of the Student Choice Grant won't be much help either.

And this pain might be worth it if it, for example, had gone to libraries and food banks and things like that.  But with still massive cuts to libraries and other services their wasn't a whole lot of gain.

I've said it many a time now: I supported Ted, but got a whole lot of Ken. 

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.

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.

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.

And demand the government they voted for!!

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 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...

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.

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

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?

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.