(VIDEO) KIRK SCHURING TO STARK COMMISSIONERS 4/22/11: MORE ABOUT TALKING POINTS THAN EFFECTIVENESS? (VIDEO) FELLOW HOUSE MEMBER AMSTUTZ OWNS UP TO GOP PART IN $8 BILLION DEFICIT: - THE 2005 TAX CUTS

On April 22, 2011 state Representative Kirk Schuring (along with state Rep. Stephen Slesnick and state Sen. Scott Oelslager) appeared at a Stark County commissioners' work session to field questions about unfunded state mandates, Senate Bill 5 curtailing public unions collective bargaining rights and cuts in state provided local government funding among other matters.

The SCPR's take on Schuring is that he consummately affable guy who has a captivating way about himself in enticing his Stark County constituents into believing that he is going to deliver for them in terms of state monies, policy changes, Ohio Revised Code revisions and authorizations and the like.

While he has delivered here and there over his going on 17 years in the Ohio House, then the Ohio Senate and then back to the House in overcoming Ohio's term limits law, The Report believes he (nor his musical chair pal Scott Oelslager) have't produced commensurate to their being long term members of the Ohio General Assembly.

Stark County local governments are desperately in need of a reprieve from the draconian cuts that Republican Governor John Kasich's executive budget (Budget) portends for Stark's cities, villages and townships.  But it appears that all Schuring has to offer in Kasich administration (Administration) talking points.

The primary talking point is that the Administration is providing tools to local governments to deal with the large cuts in state funding by changing Ohio law to allow for permissive and mandatory efficiencies in local government.  In the video of Schuring speaking at the commissioners' work session, he mouths the Kasich administration's only answer to the dramatic cuts in local government funding.

A significant provision of the Budget, according to the Ohio General Assembly's Legislative Service Commission (LSC), is authorizing boards of county commissioners to require the use of centralized support services by departments of county government.

While this change in Ohio law is needed and undoubtedly welcome, it pales hugely in offsetting the huge cuts that the same Budget document mandates for Stark County and its political subdivisions.

It appears to the SCPR that Schuring and his Republican Stark County colleagues (state Senator Scott Oelslager and state Rep. (the 50th) Christina Hagan) are powerless to mitigate the expected 50% local government cuts coming over the next two years. 

All they can offer is a Yogi Berra-esque "its not over until its over" hope and a prayer.  Schuring predicted on April 22nd that the cuts would be lessened by the time the House passed SB 153.

Well, Schuring should not give up his day job for fortune telling.  The fact of the matter is that SB 153 cuts on the date of passage (May 5th) were the same cuts (in terms of local government funding) that were on the table April 22nd.

Another disingenuous thing that Schuring brought up in the meeting with commissioners was assigning to those who oppose the cuts with an obligation to come up with a solution.  Simply unbelievable!  This man has been in Columbus for going on 17 years and this is the best he can do?

Kasich and the Republican controlled Legislature are running for cover under the umbrella of the national financial and economic calamity that have in process since 2007.  And they are correct and therefore entitled to a partial bye for the cuts they are making.

However, what they are not accounting for is the dramatic 20% plus drop in state revenues that Republicans visited on Ohio with year 2005 action which reduced Ohio's individual rates over 5 years, reconfigured the corporate tax structure by going to a "commercial activities tax" (CAT) and concomitantly phasing out the tangible personal property tax (TTP).

Here is a video of state Representative Ron Amstutz (R - Wooster) captured by the SCPR at Representative Christina Hagan's May 9th Townhall meeting wherein he owns up to the failed strategy of cutting individual Ohio income tax rates being a spur to an improved Ohio economy more than offsetting the cuts.  The strategy proved wrong and about one to two billion in lost revenues are a significant part of the shortfall that is now being covered.

Schuring, Oelslager and Hagan's father all voted for the reduction in state revenues.  Accordingly, they (including appointed-daughter Christina) own part of the budgetary problems now as having brought it on themselves.  In addition, Schuring and Oelslager have had a hand in accelerating the the drop off to local governments in TTP tax revenues.  Moreover, they along with Christina Hagan are parties to eliminating Stark County local government Ohio Estate Tax revenues effective with the latter half of 2013.

In the end, all three will hold hands with county commissioners, mayors and councilpersons of Stark County cities and villages as well as township trustees and beseech divine intervention.

But the saying is:  "the Lord helps those who help themselves."

Oelslager and Schuring have been integral parts of creating a fiscal/financial problem for themselves and, unfortunately, for all of Ohio.

Stand back and watch as they punish us for the mistakes they and their colleagues have made.

Here is a video of Representative Schuring addressing the commissioners.

A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATE SEN. BILL SEITZ (A CINCINNATI AREA REPUBICAN) & JACKSON TWP REPUBLICAN KIRK SCHURING!

The Stark County Political Report has learned that state Senator Bill Seitz (Republican - Hamilton County [Cincinnati]) has been disciplined by the Republican Senate Caucus for not following the party line.

The Columbus Dispatch reports (Republican who opposed Senate Bill 5 punished, April 7, 2011, Jim Siegel [SB 5 is the highly controversial collective bargaining recently passed by the Ohio General Assembly and signed by Governor Kasich]) that Seitz has been removed as chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee (GO&RC).

While Senate President Tom Niehaus (Republican - New Richmond) gives some cockamamie about a supposed slight of another Republican member of the Senate as being the reason, the truth of the matter is that Seitz is being punished for voting to keep SB 5 successfully from keeping the bill from coming out of committee [the Insurance, Commerce and Labor Committee].

Along with Republican Jim Hughes voting with four Democrats on the committee, it was blocked 5 to 4 in getting out.  So, the Republican leadership removed Seitz from the committee and replaced him with "tow the party line" state Senator Cliff Hite.

Now the punishment is complete with Seitz's removal as chairman of the GO&RC.

The SCPR's ideal elected official is the likes of Senator Seitz.  He is willing to incur the wrath of political leadership and suffer punishment to vote his conscience.  Moreover, he perseveres.

To be contrasted to Seitz is Stark County's Kirk Schuring (R - Jackson).  He not only voted for SB 5 but he insulted mental processes of Stark Countians in justifying his vote in saying that it really is in the interest of affected public employees.  "You can trust me and my judgment on this issue," he says "after all I have over the course of my legislative career gotten some recognition/awards from public employee organizations" (paraphrase)

While the SCPR has long maintained that Schuring is largely ineffective for Stark County interests, his vote for Senate Bill 5 and his bamboozling-esque justification of the vote is clear indication that he has become the persistent, consummate shill for the Republican Party line; whatever it happens to be.  And if that means helping the Kasich administration balance Ohio's budget on the backs of middle class public workers, so be it.

But stand up for a constituent's desire that voters be more informed about local candidates and who are the big money contributors to their campaigns are?  No much stomach for that.

About two years ago, the SCPR approached the then state Senator Kirk Schuring (Republican - 29th) to introduce legislation to require local (county level and below) candidates to report the occupation or employer for campaign contributions of $100 or more received from financial supporters.

This is important information for voters to know for such candidates (by way of example) as Mayor William J. Healy, II of Canton.

During his first run for mayor,  he was out getting contributions from Cleveland political figures, Arizona interests and even a Las Vegas based contributor.  However, in a number of instances no listing was made on campaign finance reports as to the occupation/profession of the contributor and the law as it currently exists does not require such of local candidates.  The Report believes that Cantonians/Stark Countians should have a right to know who these contributors are and what, if any, financial interest they may have in helping likes of Healy get elected.

Well, Schuring did introduce the bill in October, 2009 (Senate Bill 191).  And it got a hearing or two.  One of which The Report went to Columbus to testify for.  To hear Schuring tell it, the measure was very likely to pass.

For a time, Schuring was making periodic calls updating yours truly on the progress of the legislation.  Over time the calls got less and less frequent.

Now that the 128th Ohio General Assembly is over and the bill died with the end of the session, of course, there is nothing from Schuring.  No re-introduce.  No nothing.  After all yours truly is no longer a constituent.  Schuring no longer is in the Senate.  He has "musical chair gamed" (but in this game each player gets a chair; just a different chair) over to the Ohio House (the 51st) in tandem with Stark County political fixture Scott Oelslager in their joint enterprise to game Ohio's term limit law which both support when it became law back in the 90s.

So what good is this guy as a legislator whose main characteristic seems to be perpetuating himself in office, just to be in office?  Playing it safe for the sake of his own political security. 

No gumption, no perseverence!  Certainly no putting himself out for the good of his constituents unless, of course, it has the Republican Party "good political housekeeping - seal of approval."

Senator Bill Seitz is; Kirk Schuring is not.

AN UNBELIEVABLE "APPLES TO ORANGES" BY REPRESENTATIVE KIRK SCHURING ON SB 5!

 

Yesterday, yours truly was driving home from covering the Stark County commissioners regular work session (Mondays at 10:00 AM) and per chance tuned in to WHBC's Ron Ponder of Points to Ponder (1480AM on your radio dial).

And lo and behold!  Who should Ron's guest be but Jackson Township Republican J. Kirk Schuring (Ohio House - 50th) explaining his vote - yes - for passage of Senate Bill 5 which is deemed by unionized public employees (police, fire, teachers et cetera) as being hostile to and damaging of their rights to collectively bargain.

If memory serves correctly, Ron recited an email he received which got to that part of SB 5 which sets out criteria within the bill by which teachers (being public employees) have the possibility of merit pay increases (a favorite theme of Republicans).  The email focused on a situation which by the terms of SB 5 will - if implemented - prohibits teachers from bargaining on such things as classroom size.

The point of the email - as The Report recalls (and paraphrasing):  "since teachers will no longer be able to negotiate their classroom sizes; wouldn't it be unfair to the chances of teachers saddled with school administration-imposed classroom sizes of, let's say, anywhere from 30 to 40 to 50 students to get merit increases?"

The SCPR understands the concept of effectively teachable classroom sizes and commonly negotiated maximums now to be somewhere around 25 for middle and secondary schools and 15 for elementary schools.

The gist of Schuring's answer:   "Ohio via prior legislative action requires that school building administration and district administration be graded on administration performance on an annual basis.  If classroom sizes get to the level referred to by the e-mailer's point, then such would be reflected in the annual report card."

Hmm?

The Report's question.  Where in Schuring's response does he address the unfairness issue?

Schuring's answer is to be likened to "two ships passing in the night," obviously not seeing each other.

But such is what politicians do.

His answer sounds like an answer, but it isn't.  Yours truly has known Schuring for many years.  And his answer on Ponder's show is rather typical of him.

And as if his non-answer on the classroom size was not enough of an insult to the e-mailer and Ponder's listening audience, Schuring went on to cite a number of awards he has gotten over the years from the likes of the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police), a federation of teachers organization, and the like which was another "dissembling-esque" (i.e. to give a false or misleading appearance to) response.


What listeners were to conclude from the fact that Schuring has gotten awards from public unions is that in voting for Senate Bill 5 he should - by virtue of his prior good deeds - be assumed to have voted in the best interest of public unions on SB 5.


Hmm?


On a personal level Representative Schuring is a nice guy.  But as a public official he is highly insulting to anyone who can think through his politically inspired specious speech!