WILL STARK COUNTY EDUCATORS AND PARENTS OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN EVER GET IT ON SCHURING?

On December 17, 2009 state Senator Kirk Schuring voted to put the funding of 17 Stark County school districts in jeopardy.

 

House Bill 318 in its essential part delayed the effective date of a 4.2% state of Ohio income tax decrease so as to come up with about $850 million to balance Ohio's 2010's budget.

Had it not passed, Governor Strickland was set to do an "across the board" funding cut of about 10% for each and every school district in Ohio including, of course, Stark's 17.  The core of the 51st, which Schuring is running for in 2010, Jackson, GlenOak and Massillon schools would have suffered big time had Schuring's "no" side prevailed.

Who would think that Schuring would put Stark County education at risk?  Schuring, when he ran for Congress against John Boccieri, had a backdrop on his website of his visiting a school within the 16th Congressional District.

Before he began his campaign against Boccieri, Schuring did a political grandstand move in proposing that the Ohio General Assembly place a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution on the ballot (November, 2008 - at the same time his race with Boccieri was to be decided) that Schuring said would solve Ohio's unconstitutional funding of public schools problem.

The fact of the matter is that it would not have and, being the astute politician that Schuring is, he had to know that the proposal had no chance to make it to the ballot.

The SCPR has long maintained that neither Schuring nor Oelslager are serious about solving Ohio's education funding problem but that they do play the obligatory "lip service" to the cause.

Stark County educators and parents of school age children could, if they would make it their cause, send a huge message to the Ohio General Assembly by defeating Schuring and Oelslager at the polls and make it clear that the defeat was inextricably tied to this Republican duo's failure to solve the problem over more than 40 years in the Legislature and much of it when Republicans were in the majority and supermajority.

Oelslager and Schuring play musical chairs in an "in your face" voters (on your having approved term limits) every 8 years move between Ohio's 51st House District and 29th Senate District.  Schuring now wants to move from the Ohio Senate to the Ohio House.

It will be interesting to see whether or not Schuring's announced opponent - Andrew Haines - will be able to hang Schuring's no vote on House Bill 318 and his chronic failure to achieve results solving the pubic education funding problem like a albatross around the good senator's neck?

WILL STARK STATE SENATOR BE ABLE TO PREVENT SENATE PRESIDENT BILL HARRIS FROM FORCING A 10% CUT IN STARK PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDING?

Ohio Senate president and Republican Bill Harris is not making friends with Senator Kirk Schuring (Republican - Jackson - 29th District) these days.

First, Schuring says he condemns Harris for the attributed quote: “come Dec. 31, the education governor [Strickland] gets to cut public schools by 10 percent.”

Schuring told the SCPR in a telephone interview yesterday that educators throughout Ohio are extremely sensitive to the prospects of future cuts to elementary and secondary education and that he [Schuring] will not support any budget bill that forces the governor to make any such education cuts.

There has been an effort in the Republican controlled senate to pass a modified HB 318 (which includes delaying the scheduled 4,2% Ohio income tax for tax year 2009 [Governor Strickland's proposal]). Media reports throughout Ohio indicate that there is a "gang of 5" Republican state senators who are poised to join with the minority Democrats to pass the modified bill.

Schuring tells The Report that he is not one of the five.

In fact, Schuring believes that there are constitutional/legal problems in the offing, if the Senate ultimately decides to go with the Strickland plan to plug a nearly 900 million dollar gap in the 2010 state budget. Schuring is for cobbling together a plan that does not include the delayed tax cut approach.

Interesting enough, Schuring says that there is a proposal which met his [Schuring's] criteria that is one vote shy of passage. 

Interesting in what way?

Interesting in that Bill Harris himself could provide the vote for passage, but refuses.

It is beginning to look to the SCPR that the Republican leadership [Harris and former Republican Speaker of the Ohio House - Jon Husted) is playing gubernatorial election year politics.

Stark Countians and all Ohioans should be upset with Republicans (like Senate president Harris) who are willing to damage the already fragile state of financing public education for a perceived political advantage come November, 2010.

Stark County Republicans Schuring, Snitchler and Oelslager need to be all over Harris and Husted in a very public way.

IS NEW STARK COUNTY DEM CHAIRMAN RANDY GONZALEZ INTENT ON ENDING THE OLESLAGER/SCHURING GAME OF MUSICAL CHAIRS WITH THE 29TH & 51ST?

Could Stark County Democratic chairman Randy Gonzalez be a different cup of tea for Ohio General Assembly fixtures Scott Oelslager and Kirk Schuring, both Republicans in a county that former Dems chair Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., has declared to be s solidly Democratic county?

The SCPR has a conversation with Stark County commissioner Todd Bosley this past week in which he indicated that the Stark Dems are asking him to run against Oelslager.

Bosley is one Stark County Democrat who could defeat Oelslager. But why would he run? He has small children and the back and forth between Columbus and Marlboro Township would not play well with the Mrs. Moreover, there is very little chance that the Democrats can take control of the Ohio Senate and therefore he would be a back bencher - which, knowing Bosley, would not set well with him.

So, the SCPR thinks there is virtually no chance Bosley will take Oelslager on.

But the question remains: does this inquiry to Bosely mean that the "free passes' courtesy for former chairman Maier to Oelslager and Schuring" are coming to an end?

Both Oelslager and Schuring supported "term limits" as a way to get the Republicans in control in Columbus. Now in playing a game of musical chairs (ha, ha) with the 29th (the Ohio Senate) and the 51st (the Ohio House), in which they conspire to exclude fresh-minded Stark Citizens from the Legislature by the power of "transferred" incumbency; they damage Stark and, derivatively, the rest of Ohio (hence the tears flowing from the map of Stark County).

Though Oelslager and Schuirng obey the "letter of the law" on term limits; they violate the "spirit" of the law so that they can maintain their "entitlement" attitude that is inherent in looking after oneself first and foremost. No doubt, their old friend Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. (from the days he represented Ohio's 56th) as been a major asset in the "thumbing their noses" at the real intent of term limits.

Oelslager has been either the state representative from the 51st or state senator from the 29th since 1985 (24 years).

Here is is bio from VoteSmart:Schuring has been either the state representative from the 51st or state senator from the 29th since 1993 (16 years).

Here is is bio from VoteSmart:

Oelslager and Schuring: a combined 40 years of producing very little for Stark County and Ohio.

Note that both are on the education committees of their respective chambers of the Ohio General Assembly (OGA).

Has either made any progress over the combined 40 years to solve the problems the funding of public education?

Other than Oelslager's "open records" work, this duo has little to recommend themselves about.

And with these two Stark County remains without much of a voice in Columbus.

TRACKING OUR LEGISLATORS SERIES: SCHURING (R-29TH) "NO" ON BUDGET BILL, OELSLAGER (R-51ST) "YES" /SIDES WITH STRICKLAND, INTERESTING, NO?

State Senator Kirk Schuring acts like a small letter "d" democrat in voting no on the next two year budget bill whereas Governor Ted Strickland was for denying the people a vote on the matter of whether or not Ohio is to have slots at racetracks.

Interesting indeed.

In an Op-ed (The Repository, July 17th, Kirk Schuring: Why I voted no on state budget), Schuring recognizes that Ohioans and Stark Countians have voted consistently by substantial margins not to allow expanded gambling in Ohio and believes that voting Ohioans should have the final say.

Not only do Ohioans/Stark Countians not get to vote on the "slots at racetracks," the Strickland administration insisted on cover from legal challenge (except in the "discretionary jurisdiction of the Ohio Supreme Court)

Stark County voters by the 2010 election should be getting a better take on Strickland. In 2006, he was the "aw-shucks" guy from Duck Run, Ohio who seemed "as innocent as a lamb"

But Strickland is proving he is not the open, accessible, democratic person his handlers have endeavored to project.

Schuring is more open, accessible and democratic that Ted Strickland.

It is hard to believe, but that clearly seems to be the case.

Strickland is in for a much tougher time in 2010. Why is that?

Because Ohioans are becoming more and more aware that he is not the man the public relations types successfully created in the 2006 election.

Oleslager?

Kind of spineless if you ask yours truly.

From The Rep's Robert Wang account of why Oelslager (Oelslager breakes with Republicans, July 14) says voted sort of with Strickland:

Oelslager said he opposed the governor’s plan to install slot machines at race tracks. He said the issue should have been placed on the ballot, but he noted that the bill was a package deal and that he could accept all of it or none of it.

Run for political cover Scott!