ARE OHIO STATEHOUSE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS CONSPIRING TO RAISE YOUR TAXES?

Are Ohioans (and, of course, Stark Countians) going to be paying more taxes soon?

For sure!

At least $236 million in state services fee hikes that the Democrat Strickland Administration has already gotten the go ahead from Ohio General Assembly Democrats and Republicans to count on them to vote for the fee increase.

Politicians love to raise fees as alternative to the t-word (taxes).

But you and I are not as stupid as they think we are.

Fee increases are tax increases but the they are tax increases in sets of Ohio citizens; not all Ohioans.

To give you an example of who the fee/tax increase falls upon, take the follow description of the $236 million fee increases published on the Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants (Ohio CPAs) website:

Gov. Strickland’s 2010–11 state budget proposes to increase fees ... .

The include 120 fee increases include tipping fees for construction projects, a new hospital franchise fee, a doubling of the nursing home bed tax and an increase in the cigarette wholesale and retail licensing fee.

To see whether or not you will have to pay any of the fee/tax increases, CLICK HERE.

Hold on there is more on tax increases.

Yesterday, the SCPR's favorite Ohio Statehouse reporter Dennis Willard of the Akron Beacon Journal (remember Stark County's only countywide newspaper - The Repository - got rid Paul Kostyu, its Statehouse analyst), wrote a compelling piece that indicates to yours truly that Republicans and Democrats are working to set up a tax increase masked so that no one has to bear potential political consequences.

Willard paints a likely picture of how Ohioans' taxes get increased.

He shows that at the end of the legislative session (mind you, the pressure is on because the biennial budget must get passed and signed by the governor not later than June, 30, 2009) with a $8 billion structural budget looming during the course of the budget implementation; the politicians may well devise a scheme to raise taxes.

Because there will be three different budget bills (one each from the Ohio House, the Ohio Senate and Governor Strickland), the Ohio House and Senate will have to appoint conference committees to iron out their legislative differences. The final component is that the Governor, at least with a "wink and a nod," will have to signal he agrees with the reconciliation because of his veto power.

Here is Willard on the possible structure of how a tax increase gets included:

Typically, the conference committee is comprised of the chairmen, vice chairmen and ranking minority members of the Senate and House finance committees, but legislative leaders might decide to pack the panel with lawmakers who are term-limited or from safe districts.

The conference committee's work on the budget goes back to the House and Senate for a concurrence vote only — meaning up or down without amendments.

Lawmakers could blame the conferees for any controversial ideas like a tax increase or casinos by maintaining that they could only vote to accept or reject the budget. (emphasis added)

Plausible deniability isn't the best excuse, but it might be the only course for lawmakers to pursue on the road to re-election in 2010.

What to do?

Contact Representatives Slesnick, Snitchler, Oelslager, Schuring, Shiavone and Okey now.

What is the point of the contact?

Not necessarily to object to a tax increase. But to insist that they do an up or down vote on any tax increase.

TRACKING OUR LEGISLATOR SERIES: DO OUR OHIO GENERAL ASSEMBLY REPS "REALLY" CARE ABOUT "SUNSHINE?"

It is a rarity, but they did it!

Who did it?

The Repository Editorial Board.

What did they do?

Wrote a meaningful editorial.

What about?

Ohio's "open records" law.

What's so special about this?

Follow through, follow through and follow through. That's what!

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report/SCPR) applauds the The Rep's Editorial Board for criticizing (the Ohio Supreme Court's decision State ex rel. Toledo Blade Company v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth. - See Courts deal setback to disclosure, April 27, 2009)

But there is a remedy for this "against the public interest" decision against requiring full public disclosure of the bases of actions by public entities when private legal counsel does the investigating. And the solution lies with the Ohio General Assembly.

If Stark County's legislators care, they will amend Ohio Revised Code Section 2713(A)(2) to provide for the situation the Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Auth. case.

The Report is not optimistic Oleslager, Schuring, Slesnick or Snitchler will do so.

Why is The Report pessimistic?

Because of this group's collective refusal to act when it was pointed out to them that legislation granting public utility companies virtual veto authority over PUCO (Public Utilities Commission of Ohio) rate hike decisions. None of these legislators were even aware of this huge loop hole in the legislation.

Does anyone think any one of these legislators have the courage to stand up against American Electric Power, First Energy and Duke Energy?

Unless The Rep's Editorial Board, yours truly and the like keep up the pressure on our Stark County legislative delegation; they, like most public officials, will continue seeking to get from day-to-day; ruffling as few feathers as possible and maintaining a
de facto "the public be damned attitude.

The Report questions the stamina of The Rep Editorial Board.

Outside of "Sunshine Week," they do not do a consistent (let's say an Sunshine-esque editorial at least once a week directed at Stark's legislators) job editorializing in the public interest.

Is that about to change?

Probably not.

But one can fantasize, no?

DISCUSSION: WILL SENATOR DO WHAT'S RIGHT OR WILL HE DO WHAT'S POLITICAL?

Dennis Willard, Columbus Bureau Chief, of the Akron Beacon Journal (remember - The Canton Repository - [Stark County's only countywide newspaper] has no political reporter in Columbus) wrote an interesting piece about how politicized Ohio Auditor Mary Taylor has become (or, more likely, has always been) a highly partisan politician even though she has a responsibility to be a "rule of law" person as a state government administrator.

It is especially interesting when an "accountability/auditing" person is primarily a political partisan. Because Ohio Republicans are nearly shut out of state government in Ohio these days, the Ohio Republican Party (OPR) is using her (though she likely is fully complicit) as a point person to oppose the Strickland administration in any way she can for any political gain she can make for the OPR.

The flap that Willard writes about is Taylor's prediction (looking into a "red" tinted crystal ball). Before the 2010 - 2011 budget has been dealt with, Taylor is saying that there will be an $8 billion shortfall in the 2012 - 2013 budget.

Strickland through his political mouthpiece (Democratic state party chair Chris Refern) says that Taylor and House Republicans are set to be Ohio's version of the "Just Say No Republicans" (i.e. refuse the stimulus money [including the jobs that the money will create] and, by the way, cut taxes),

Willard points out that "just say no" (or, if you will, play the role of backbenchers) will work with isolated Republicans like Taylor and Ohio House Republicans but not likely with Ohio Senate Republicans. Unlike minority Republican members of the House, "in the majority" Republican state senators actually have a state constitutional responsibility, working with the governor and majority Democrats in the House, to provide Ohio with a balanced budget.

This is where Stark County comes in.

Undoubtedly, Stark Countians Scott Oelslager (Republican - Jackson) and Todd Snitchler (Republican - Lake) will toe the party line in the Ohio House Republican caucus.

Both Oelslager and Snitchler like to insinuate that they seek opportunities to be bipartisan. But the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) sees very little evidence to support either's claim.

Oelslager has done a little bit along bipartisan lines over his 20+ years in the Ohio General Assembly. While Snitchler is in his first term, there is no "real" evidence (only rhetoric) that he will shake free of Ohio minority leader Billy Batchelder and do what is good for Ohio and Stark County over his political party.

If you take his performance at Matt Patrick's and Jason Wise's highly partisan ditty (with denials of partisanship galore - "thou protest too much") at Tax Day, Tea Day - Canton as any indication where Snitchler is on the right wing continuum, it is beginning to appear to The Report that Snitchler is pretty much a carbon copy of his predecessor John Hagan except he may be a little smarter. He should be. After all he is a lawyer who should have superior analytical skills.

Maybe in time Stark Countians will realize that Todd Snitchler is not one wit sharper than Hagan, just more polished. And perhaps even worse on policy matters.

State Senator Kirk Schuring is the local politician to watch on the budget.

Schuring keeps telling yours truly that he is "no cookie cutter Republican."

Well, according to Willard, his vote on the Strickland budget will be "come to Jesus" time for the good senator and his colleagues in the Ohio senate.

We shall see.

Watch Ohio Auditor "Mary Taylor" (from the nearby City of Green - Summit County) speak for herself in the accompanying video snippet from the full piece produced by the Ohio Republicans.

Be sure to note the "great" Ohio economy that Taylor refers to in the video that apparently only a blindly partisan Republican such as Mary can see as having come from Republican one-party-rule for the better part of 20 years in the pre-Strickland political era of Ohio.

How did the rest of us miss the booming Ohio economy that Taylor thinks came out of the Voinovich and Taft administrations and the Republican controlled Ohio General Assembly?

DISCUSSION: ARE STARK COUNTY REPUBLICANS OELSLAGER AND SNITCHLER VOTING FOR THE GOOD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OR FOR THE GOOD OF OHIO?

Dennis Willard of the Akron Beacon Journal (Beacon Columbus Bureau - remember? The Repository doesn't have one after getting rid of Paul Kostyu) wrote an interest piece in today's edition.

It seems as if Republicans from Washington down through Ohio are voting the "party line." We recall Congressman John Boccieri (D-Alliance) complaining about how not one Republican voted for President Obama's stimulus bill.

Has the Republican Party put out the word across the land: "We are going the be the party of no."

Willard's work had to do with how Republicans voted right down the party line on Governor Strickland's Transporation Bill (House Bill 2). Willard put it this way:

In the first vote on major legislation in the new session — since Democrats took the majority with a slim 53-46 margin — all but one Republican opposed Gov. Ted Strickland's $7.6 billion two-year transportation budget.

Quite a change from two years ago, when Republicans controlled the House and the transportation budget passed with a 98-0 vote. (emphasis added)

The STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) checked on the votes of Stark Countians Republican Scott Oelslager (Plain) and Republican Todd Snitchler.

How do you think they voted?

Both voted no - the official Billy Batchelder (GOP Minority Leader) line.

Maybe Snichler and Oelslager voted this way because the thought on their own it was the way to vote.

The Report is skeptical.

So what The Report is going to do is track "key" votes and see whether or not the consistently vote the party line.

If they do, then we will surely know that they care more about the Ohio Republican Party than the people of Ohio and Stark County.

TODD SNITCHLER: A FIRST- RATE STATE REP IN THE MAKING?

As readers of the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) know, The Report, during his campaign against Democrat Celeste DeHoff (Tuscarawas Township trustee), was skeptical of Todd Snitchler's ability to represent everyday citizen interests given his historical connection with chambers of commerce from the state level to the local level.

Despite The Report's critical look at his candidacy, Snitchler (pre and post election) has always been cordial and responsive in personal encounters. Snitchler is beginning to remind me of Kirk Schuring (whom The Report tabs as the most mature of all Stark County's legislators).

Oelslager will get ugly with you, if you get critical. Otherwise, you wouldn't find a nicer guy in Stark County politics.

John Hagan, well, John has no business being a public official at any level. When he was state representative (and thank God he got term-limited out and lost to Dr. Pete Ferguson in the recently concluded county commissioner race), Hagan was notorious for not getting back to constituents. Criticize him? He wouldn't even say hello.

Getting back to Snitchler.

Snitchler seems to be really into doing his job as a state representative. A number of Stark Countians, including The Report, are unhappy about a provision in SB 221. This bill is the legislation which set up procedures for Ohio's public utilities to adhere to in seeking rate increases.

Because of Jon Husted (the Ohio Speaker of the House) insisted (and some say that current minority-leader Billy Batchelder concurred and was really the force-majeure), that a provision be inserted in SB 221 which gives electric utilities the right to veto any rate increase modified by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO).

A leading Stark Countian in the quest to get the veto provision taken out is Trustee Louis Giavasis (Plain Townshi0).

State Rep. Mark Okey (D-61st) has shown some interest and now The Report learns so is Snitcher (R-50th).

Here is the text of an e-mail sent by Snitchler to Trustee Giavasis that has been released to The Report (by Giavasis), to wit:

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:22:06 -0500
From: Todd.Snitchler@ohr.state.oh.us
To: lougiavasis1@hotmail.com

Mr. Giavasis,

Thank you for your e’mail on the issues surrounding S.B. 221 and its implementation. I was not a member of the legislature when S.B. 3 or S.B. 221 were passed, but as a consumer have followed these issues with some interest.

As you may know, I filed a letter of opposition to the AEP-Ohio Power rate increase proposal with the PUCO. As I stated in my letter, at a time when Ohio is struggling economically, a rate request seeking at 15% increase for three consecutive years is not good corporate citizenship. I can certainly understand that the cost of doing business has increased for AEP, but I have not seen anything to suggest that the 52% increase is warranted.

I have spoken with some of the other members of the Stark County caucus (and hope to catch up with the others soon), as well as other legislators on the recently announced Public Utility Committee, in an effort to understanding of both the intent of the bill when it was considered and what actions may be taken to respond to this specific issue.

I welcome your input and look forward to talking with you. Thank you for your proactive stance on the issues affecting Stark County citizens.

Respectfully,

Todd Snitchler

State Representative – 50th District
614.466.9078
330.858.4930

The Report does not know if Snitchler's reference to "other members of the Stark County caucus" was intentional or not. But as readers know, that the state senators and state representative who have a representational duty to Stark County think of themselves as a caucus who come together a develop a common agenda (irrespective of party affiliation), has been a prime project of The Report.

In any event, The Report compliments Representative Snitchler for getting started on the right foot as a legislator.

The Report is beginning to believe that Snitchler was be a bold representative who will aggressively look out for the interests of 50th District constituents, Stark Countians and, indeed, all Ohioans.

DISCUSSION: STARK COUNTY HAS AT LEAST ONE LEGISLATOR WHO IS AT LEAST WILLING TO CONSIDER FIXING SB 221?

Plain Township trustee Louis Giavasis has received communication from Mark Okey (D - 61st which only includes the extreme eastern slice of Stark County), to wit:

I did recieve (sic) a letter from Representative Okey in support and he is polling other legislators to see if there is any interest in revisting SB 221.

SB 221, what's that?

It is the bill that set up the mechanism for the likes of American Electric Power (locally, Ohio Power), First Energy (locally, Ohio Edison) to ask the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio for rate increases and WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE UTILITIES HAVE A "VETO" POWER OVER PUCO MODIFICATION/REJECTION of the request.

SB 221 received "unanimous" support in the Ohio General Assembly which means, of course, no one read the bill. Who would allow an affected party to legislation to have a veto power of the action taken. This is like sentencing to jail then providing the key to the inmate.

Of course, we do have Oelslager on record as saying in effect "no way, Jose" in terms of taking the matter on. Oelslager defers to higher powers in the government of Ohio.

Otherwise, nothing from Schuring, Slesnick, Snitchler, and Shiavoni (also, only the eastern slice of Stark).

To the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT it speaks volumes to their constituents for "core" Stark County legislators to ignore a specific request to act.

Even Oelslager had to be buttonholed by Giavasis at a public event.

And elected officials wonder why the general public does not hold them in high esteem?

DISCUSSION: STARK COUNTY CITIES & THE COUNTY ITSELF PARCEL OUT OUR MONEY. WHERE'S THE ACCOUNTING?

A question that every Stark Countian ought to have on his or her mind?

What are taxpaying Stark Countians, Cantonians, North Cantonians, Massillonians and Allianceites getting for their economic development money?

Yesterday, the Alliance Review ran an outstanding AP wire piece which critiques how government accounts for our tax dollars in the area of economic development.

When the STARK COUNTY POLITICAL REPORT (The Report) visited with Democrat Mayor Francis Cicchinelli a few months ago, he decried the absolute need to ante up taxpayer money as a precondition to even begin discussions with companies about expanding in or relocating to Massillon. Cicchinelli doesn't like this reality, but a reality it is. Being kind, one would call this an "entitlement attitude," but to be brutally honest about this corporate economic development reality would be to term it: "we have you over a barrel and we are going to put the screws to you - grin and bear it."

A couple of days ago, The Report e-mailed Commissioner Todd Bosley an asked him whether or not Stark County could account better than Ohio does. No answer as of the writing of this piece. But The Report will be patient, with the storm and all.

The Report turns attention to Ohio House 50th District candidate Republican Todd Snitchler on this "reality." Here's a guy who has unbridled faith in the goodness of corporations and their "PR organizations" to wit: Stark County's local chambers of commerce and, of course, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

As far as The Report is concerned, Snitchler's fascination with the chambers has more to do with his deficient ability to think of new approaches to get at solving severe Stark County and Ohio economic problems than anything else. The chamber of commerce thing is a cover for his inadequacies to think outside-the-box. He is so utterly unoriginal in thought that he needs the chambers to have any economic program whatsoever, notwithstanding Ohioans' clear understanding that the Ohio Chamber of Commerce has been and continues to be a failed key player in solving Ohio's economic problems.

By his own account, his own Lake Development Foundation is floundering. How's that? Snitchler says on a video published by The Report (prior article) that the foundation has no money.

With ties like his, it is not likely that Stark Countians can count on him to push for greater accountability in the slipshod relationship between government and the corporate world on the matter of economic development.

Snitchler's only consolation in his race is that his opponent, Democrat Celeste DeHoff, is even more anemic on this front. All she has to do, if elected, will be to call on former state representative Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., (now clerk of courts in Massillon and chair of the Stark County Democratic Party and her chief sponsor) for direction. We all remember what a "giant of a legislator" he was in the Ohio House, don't we?

There is a growing citizen suspicion that taxpayers are getting worked over by companies who are working a system they invented and who are insulated from public scrutiny by bumbling government officials or those who are in the hip pocket of corporate interests.

We have "No Child Left Behind" to document achievement/non-achievement as a check on educators. But what to we have to measure how state and local governments are "investing" taxpayer dollars and whether or not recipient companies are producing according to their promises.

Ohio, for its part, in The Review piece admits that it has no way to tell whether or not the 200, 000 promised jobs over the past 10 years have materialized for the $1.7 billion in tax breaks, et cetera.

How about this for a laugh (to the lament of the taxpaying public)? Ohio is going after Skybus which is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. What genius in the Ohio Department of Development (Lee Fisher?) helped this company with taxpayer money? A company which was offering $10 fares (a terrific business model). Gee, maybe it would have been prudent to require the company to post a bond with the state of Ohio?

All Ohio has is a fragmented, case-by-case, way to track. And currently, it is obvious that the fragmentation reduces to some Department of Development bureaucrat scrambling to come up with a scintilla of data to satisfy an inquiring newspaper reporter for the moment.

And remember, in January, 2006 Governor Strickland, in his Inaugural address, promised government accountability as well as personal accountability. Now, according to the AP report, in the light of big deficits that Ohio is currently running - there's a question: Is there money for devising a tracking system that will provide the promised accountability.

Returning, for a moment, to Todd Snitchler and his chamber friends. Next we will hear how requiring corporate accountability and requiring them to return taxpayer money for promises unkept will hurt Ohio's and Stark County's ability to compete.

The question: (Republican or Democrat) Will Ohioans, Stark Countians, Cantonians, North Cantonians, Massillonians, and Allianceites ever get accountability from our government executives? From beneficiary-corporate executives?

DISCUSSION: WHAT OHIO HOUSE 50TH DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE HAS IN COMMON WITH GOP VP NOMINEE SARAH PALIN?

From the Akron Beacon Journal Editorial Board writing yesterday on the DeHoff (Dem) v. Snitchler (Rep) 50 Ohio House race:

Troubling about her candidacy is an openness to teaching creationism in the biology classroom, a distraction to an understanding of science.

What in the world is Celeste DeHoff thinking? This is an issue that will not play. She says she's not political. Maybe this stance proves it. For if she rides this horse, she will lose in November.

DeHoff need check no further than James Craig (Plain Township) a former member of the Ohio Board of Education. He played footsie with this issue back in 2006 and it got him defeated.

Question: Is being pro-creationist in Stark County schools evidence of DeHoff self-destructing?