About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

The Ohio Budget

Posted by Josh Todd on Thursday, January 31, 2008 11:29:22 PM
The Ohio State budget is in disarray…again.

A budget shortfall ranging anywhere from $733million to $1.9billion will plague state leaders in Columbus again this year. Several years ago, Bob Taft had the same problem. Both Taft and current Governor Ted Strickland have taken one common step, and that is to make budget cuts.

So far so good.

Critics of a 2005 Bob Taft tax cut package, namely Policy Matters Ohio (a liberal economic research organization), claim that the budget results from the tax cuts. Zach Shiller of the group tied manufacturing job losses to the tax cuts, which, he said, took effect in 2005 (which is not true—they were enacted in 2005 but went into effect this year). But this simply isn’t true.

What is more to blame may be the so-called landmark budget that is Ted Strickland’s lone crowning achievement as governor, mainly because it was so overwhelmingly passed. Simply put, there was more spending in last year’s budget. Combine that with an Ohio economy that has been mired in a one-state recession for the past few years, resulting in slumping tax receipts, and you have a budget shortfall.

But I digress—back to the solutions. Another Strickland remedy is to raise funds through an expansion of the lottery. Senator George Voinovich criticized Strickland on a populist basis, citing the voters’ past rejection of casino gambling. If Buckeyes don’t have a lot of discretionary income due to the sagging economy, then they probably won’t boost the state’s revenues in this manner.

Another option is to buy in bulk, at least according to the Office of State Procurement. Apparently, state agencies purchase commodities and energy separately instead of as a state, a practice that, if reversed, might save the state $50million by mid-year. Sounds reasonable enough.

Then the Ohio State Senate passed a ballot initiative that would pay war veterans cash bonuses. As an Iraq veteran, I find the bill highly suspect and somewhat insulting (Isn’t it just like a big government to toss out money as a “thank you?”). Furthermore, when the state’s budget is in peril, another unnecessary bonus would only compound the problem. Lastly, the initiative is likely an election year ploy in an important presidential state—let’s make anti-war politicians look pro-military with a handout.

Thus, Governor Strickland has a dilemma. He has already proposed cutting spending—a good first step. His lottery idea probably won’t increase tax receipts significantly, and raising taxes might eventually sound tempting. In this case, he should resist that urge. The last thing Ohio needs is a tax hike to make the state even less attractive to businesses and potential migrants; in fact, further tax cuts and deregulation might actually stimulate economic activity and solve the budget problem for him.

Again, the budget is in disarray, but we may actually see our new governor engage in a political fight for the first time.

Source(s): http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2008/01/31/voinovich_blasts_strickland_lo.html, http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2008/01/31/voinovich_blasts_strickland_lo.html, http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2008/01/31/voinovich_blasts_strickland_lo.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Heck, Recuse Yourself

Posted by Josh Todd on Saturday, January 26, 2008 11:06:21 PM
When Montgomery County (Ohio) Commissioner Debbie Lieberman was charged with driving under the influence this past week, an article on the incident actually appeared on the cover the Dayton Daily News. But that’s not the most remarkable aspect of the debacle.

Lieberman, a Democrat, will be placed in a special diversion program that will allow her to avoid jail time and license suspension. The judge who placed her in the program is Vandalia Municipal Judge Cynthia Heck.

Judge Heck happens to be married to Montgomery County Prosecutor Mathias (Matt) Heck. Commissioner Lieberman is married to Montgomery County Board of Elections member and former Montgomery County Democrat Party Chairman Dennis Lieberman.

In other words, the parties involved are part of the county’s upper crust and Democrat political machine. Furthermore, they are admittedly close friends. Mrs. Lieberman even placed a call to Judge Heck before her initial hearing, a call not intended to garner favor, she claims.

While all media reports indicate that Lieberman is, in all likelihood, guilty, I make no judgments about her case at this point. Instead, I shall make a case of a different sort.

Here is what should happen: Judge Heck should recuse herself from the case. Her close friendship with Mrs. Lieberman is the sort of conflict of interest that will warrant suspicion of favorable treatment. Heck said she would have recused herself if Lieberman had signaled her intent to fight the charge; however, she should have moved to do so from the beginning.

In other industries, such as finance, brokers are typically advised not to deal with family members and friends. As one of my investment trainers once said, “If he’s in your cell phone, don’t do the deal. Have somebody else do it.”

And such should happen in the case of County Commissioner Debbie Lieberman. The proper thing for Judge Heck to do is to simply say, “Heck, I recuse myself.” After all, she should have already done so.

Source(s): http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/01/25/ddn012608lieberman.html, http://www.daytondailynews.com/search/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/01/26/ddn012608liebermaninside.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Conservative Voter Quandary

Posted by Josh Todd on Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:25:30 AM
When the Cincinnati Reds narrowed its search for a new cleanup hitter to two players, the choice was tough. The CEO, President, General Manager, and other upper management had a “vote” in the matter.

The choices were: 1) A Cuban expatriate, age 24, who hit .570 against Major League players at the last two baseball World Cup games. He also slugged 30 homeruns during a 45-game winter league schedule, again, against mostly big leaguers. 2) A Cincinnati-native, age 34, who has toiled around the Majors between AAA and the big clubs of his respective franchises. His best season in the Bigs was three years ago when he hit .271 with 28 homeruns and 87 runs-batted-in.

When it came down it, the staff voted with its collective heart. (Having read the descriptions, whom would you sign?) They chose the Cincinnati-native. During the following season, the big Red offensive woes continued and the club finished fifth, again. The Cuban expatriate signed with another club and was named Rookie of the Year.

Now this tale is, obviously, notional and fictional; but it illustrates a point. If Thomas Sowell had written about this particular quandary, he might have written the following: “It is one thing to say that particular statistics of a player go against fundamental baseball principles derived from your club’s needs and something very different to be against a player whose actual statistics and play are consistent with your principles but who simply comes from a different country.”

During the ongoing Republican Primaries, the same quandary applies to evangelical voters. We have on the one hand, the evangelical preacher who follows a political philosophy very different from what we’d call conservatism. On the other we have the Mormon who says all the right things and, at least now, adheres to the very policy ideas most conservatives hold dear.

As for what Dr. Sowell really wrote: “It is one thing to say that particular policies of a candidate go against fundamental moral principles derived from your religion and something very different to be against a candidate whose actual policies are consistent with your principles but who simply attends a different church.” (Yes, I altered the first excerpt.)

But a great many evangelical voters are apparently willing to do just that.

At this point, Mitt Romney proclaims all the right positions for purebred conservative Republicans (meaning those who are conservative on all of the “big three”—social, fiscal, and foreign policy issues) but he’s a Mormon. Mike Huckabee holds, or has held, positions that would enrage many of these same people, but he’s evangelical.

So these evangelical voters will opt to vote for a president who will govern with policies more akin to Bill Clinton simply because he is a member of the right church. Thus it appears that even the GOP base is not above identity politics.

Source(s): http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2FiNWZkYTk3NDY0NmU3Mjk5ZmU1ZTZiYzQ3YmRiZTY=
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Si, se puede

Posted by Josh Todd on Monday, January 14, 2008 7:38:04 PM
At a Barack Obama rally in Las Vegas this past weekend, supporters chanted, “Si, se puede!” meaning, “Yes we can.” Upon further meditation, one will find great irony with the chant.

Barack Obama is obviously a very inspiring figure to a great many Americans, so much in fact that a Vegas Culinary Union has given the senator its endorsement. One laborer cited in the article was Geoconda Arguello.

Known simply as “Geo,” Arguello is a Nicaraguan immigrant. Geo is now president of her local union chapter.

Shift gears for a moment and recall the immigration demonstrations from last spring. Protestors voiced their opposition to proposed policies to limit illegal immigration. Their chant was that of the Caesar Chavez followers: “Si, se puede!” They opposed several facets of the then-numerous policy ideas: border enforcement, language proficiency, fines, etc.

Members of the US Congress supported an amnesty as an act of compassion.

The irony comes into play when comparing the springtime protestors to Geo Arguello, with the latter, while openly flouting US law, almost refusing to assimilate. Geo, on the other hand, is an example of what one immigrant can do when choosing to follow the law.

She came to Las Vegas, taking a low-skilled job. Eventually, Geo learned English, saved enough money to buy a home, took job-training courses, and, as we already know, became head of her local union chapter.

Another dash of irony: Obama repeatedly voted for amnesty, against enforcement, and against assimilative measures in the Senate during 2007.

So where does the greater compassion reside?

Source(s): http://www.lvrj.com/news/13729202.html, http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8GT7NAG6&show_article=1, http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=IL&VIPID=1162
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Welcome Back Human Intelligence?

Posted by Josh Todd on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 7:30:06 AM
New York Times reported on Sunday that the Bush administration is considering a proposal to broaden the authority of the CIA to conduct covert operations in Pakistan in order to combat al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. It is a good idea, not just in Pakistan, but in general.

9/11 made it apparent to all that the CIA, America’s chief spy arm, was ineffective as a whole—or at least not nearly effective enough (because, after all, we don’t know exactly what they’ve thwarted, either). That intelligence was adversely affected by a severe lack of human intelligence (HUMINT) collectors and operatives.

In short, the CIA’s collection abilities were somewhat impotent.

Why? For starters, the CIA had, during the Cold War, fomented revolutions and other mayhem; but then Congress overreacted with the Church Commission in 1975, which uncovered some of the agency’s questionable activities. Subsequent legislation limited CIA covert, HUMINT activities, including a ban against the assassination of leaders of state.

Since then, US intelligence has been, in retrospect, somewhat poor in many respects. To illustrate this assertion on a more micro level, allow me to discuss an experience from Iraq.

For a time, my battalion did without HUMINT collectors (those who get information from people via informants, locals, and interrogations). Instead, we relied on our technological collectors for information, which caused us to detain the wrong men on at least two occasions. Human intelligence might have verified or called into serious question our conclusions.

Later, as my battalion moved into Anbar Province (to the city of Hit), we again did without HUMINT collectors for the first few weeks. IED and mortar attacks came on a daily basis. The few intelligence successes we had came through pattern analysis—and we didn’t know the people we were looking for; we just caught or killed them in the act.

It wasn’t until my intelligence cell was augmented with a HUMINT team that we began to connect the dots regarding the leaders of the city’s main terror cells. After a half-day battle in Hit, human intelligence pointed to a key suspect. Within 24 hours, our forces detained him and the city enjoyed a relative period of quiet.

The US as a whole is in a similar situation. Why did we miss 9/11 as badly as we did? Why was the intelligence about Iraq’s WMDs off so much? Why can’t we find bin Laden? The answer, in short, is related to our HUMINT abilities, or lack thereof.

We have great people in the HUMINT world; however, they, like fighting soldiers in Iraq, have not been unleashed. If we really want to protect this country, then we must again bolster our HUMINTers in the CIA and allow widespread covert collection and operations, not just in Pakistan—a marvelous idea by itself—but in general.

Source(s): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washington/06terror.html?ei=5065&en=4d9a85a2dc657cc0&ex=1200286800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Latest Willing Suspension of Disbelief

Posted by Josh Todd on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:29:16 PM
Several of my good friends have expressed their support for Mike Huckabee, and most of them are evangelical Christians like Huckabee. Unfortunately, I believe their support is narrowly based, creating a propensity for evangelicals to overlook other aspects of his record and platform with which most of them would not agree.

In fact, I am even willing to say that the vast majority of my Huckabee-supporting friends do so for the mere reason that he is a Southern Baptist preacher. He has certainly expressed the right positions on issues like abortion, but it seems as if many evangelicals are willingly ignoring the rest of Huckabee’s record.

For instance, in terms of fiscal policy, Huckabee is a liberal. In fact, Mother Jones—a very liberal publication—calls his fiscal record “very un-Republican.” As Governor of Arkansas, the people of his state saw a net increase in their tax burden. Among the taxes he supported and/or signed into law were: a gasoline tax, a diesel fuel tax, a sales tax (at least twice), a nursing home bed tax, an income surcharge tax, and a tax on Internet access.

On size and scope of government, many of my evangelical friends might also hesitate if they admitted (or knew) Huckabee’s past. For example, he supports farm subsidies, an expanded federal role in health care, a national smoking ban, a federally mandated art and music curriculum (Just who do you think would determine that curriculum?), energy subsidies, and the expansion of SCHIP. Likewise, as governor, state spending in Arkansas increased at three times the rate of inflation.

Huckabee also employs liberal class warfare rhetoric. He constantly lambastes Wall Street and corporations. Likewise, he uses protectionist rhetoric in calling for “fair trade.”

If immigration is a key issue to voters, then Huckabee’s record might give them pause, as well. He supported giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants as well as giving them a clear path to citizenship.

Just one more side note: We have already noted Huckabee’s willingness to broaden the feds’ role in education, but there is more. Huckabee praised the No Child Left Behind Act precisely for its role in expanding federal control over education. He has consistently opposed school choice programs. And perhaps worst of all, the largest, most liberal union in the land, the NEA, has endorsed Huckabee for president.

While not all evangelicals, or even conservatives in general, will find themselves abhorred by every non-conservative aspect of Huckabee’s past, at least some of his positions and policies should make them think twice about their support. That support, in my opinion, is based solely on his membership in the Southern Baptist Convention and/or his profession as an evangelical pastor—support that would prove a mistake if manifested as a Huckabee GOP nomination.

Source(s): http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/13/huckabee/; http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmI2ZWZmYTEyMTZhMGI3NTM2ZDRhZTNiMzk2YzU5ZDQ=#more; http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=280972917314915; http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/huckabees_fiscal_record.html; http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODI3NWI5ZmM2ZWQ5OTc4NTlkZGQ2MmE1NzE2MjYzYzE=; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OrE6IusJ1U&feature=related; http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/11/6266_examining_mike.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Attack on the Caucuses

Posted by Josh Todd on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:35:38 PM
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland recently criticized the Iowa caucuses as “hugely undemocratic.” While he might not have been “right on” in his criticism, Strickland might have an implied point.

According to Strickland, the Iowa caucuses are undemocratic because voters who are unable to get out for a few hours on Thursday night will be excluded. Perhaps true, but I would not describe a caucus as undemocratic.

Still, the governor’s remark that the caucuses are not representative of the country as a whole and the implication that Iowa has undue influence over the nomination process has some validity.

In our state, Ohio, when primary time comes around, our votes are often irrelevant, as Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, etc. typically determine who gets the most delegates—or at least the momentum to those delegates. Thus, Ohio voters can be justified in feeling left out the nominating process.

A way to fix this problem while maintaining the traditions held so dear in Iowa, New Hampshire, and elsewhere is to create a series of “super primaries” in which the states are broken down into three or four groups with primaries held a month apart (or even two or three weeks). Traditional early states like Iowa could always be in the first round and other states, like Ohio, could be rotated through the other rounds.

This is not a new idea, but one that merits exploration. Until some change is made, we can expect more attacks on Iowa and its traditional brethren. Thus, our governor was not entirely wrong with his criticism.

Source(s): http://www.coshoctontribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/UPDATES01/71231021; http://www.wtov9.com/politics/14951096/detail.html?rss=steu&psp=news
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Case for Doing Nothing: Strickland and the Taft Tax Package

Posted by Josh Todd on Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:19:38 PM
We have been highly critical of the undeserved praise for Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, who has, essentially, done nothing of note to improve the economic situation in the state. However, there is one case in which we wish he would literally do nothing—and Ohio would be better off for it.

In 2005, then-Governor Bob Taft signed into law an overhaul of the Ohio tax code. Major changes included: a decrease in the income tax withholding rate; the elimination of a tax on personal business property; a drop in the corporate franchise tax.

The changes, as the Dayton Daily News finally realized, will give Buckeyes more cash each month. The economic environment will also improve for business, marking the first real change in years that will make Ohio a tad more attractive for new and relocating businesses.

Should the tax code changes garner public attention, or should they assist an improving economic situation, the governor will undoubtedly get good press. He will, of course, not deserve one ounce of the praise, but Strickland could do his state a great service if he allows the changes to proceed. He could even do more for Ohio if he offered further changes.

It will be ironic if Governor Strickland—recipient of Norman Hsu campaign contributions and willing ignorer of his AG Marc Dann’s shenanigans—receives credit for a Bob Taft—convicted of receiving unauthorized gifts—tax plan. But he should receive praise if he continues his modus operandi in allowing the changes to continue by doing nothing.

Source(s): http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/01/02/ddn010208taxweb.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »