Pickerington Area Taxpayers Alliance

Posted February 26,2006

The Blackwell assault on local control
The most important vote you will cast all year
By Michael Douglas, Beacon Journal associate editor
Visit www.kenblackwell.com, the home page of Blackwell for Governor, and you won't readily find reference to the candidate's proposed constitutional amendment setting limits on state spending and taxation.
You must click twice, and scroll down. There it is! -- under ``Ken Blackwell's Job Creating Agenda'' and ``Control Government Spending.''
How uplifting, right? Ohio must create more jobs. Anyone for out-of-control spending? To read more, click again.
You wouldn't think a proud candidate would throw even one obstacle in the way of the curious seeking access to such a sweeping and dramatic plan. Blackwell wants to limit annual increases in ``aggregate'' state spending to 3.5 percent or the rate of inflation plus population growth (whichever is greater). Does the click, click, click reveal a certain doubt, the secretary of state and Cincinnati Republican beginning to see the flaws and ambiguities, the real harm lurking in his proposal?
His appearance at a recent forum in Columbus, sharing the stage with the other candidates for governor, Republicans and Democrats, hardly suggested so. Blackwell appeared almost amused at the rhetorical bolts hurled by Jim Petro, his Republican challenger and the attorney general. Petro labeled the proposal a ``nightmare'' and a ``disaster.'' Blackwell responded, ``There's nothing more in need of restraint in the state than government spending.''
Good line? Of course.
That's what should concern the others running for governor -- and the rest of us. The amendment is set for the November ballot. If it wins voter approval, the next governor will face severe restrictions in moving the state forward. Petro isn't exaggerating. Colorado has already tried something similar, suspending the measure last fall, Republicans and Democrats joining to escape the devastating squeeze, having watched the state's investment in the future, from education to transportation, suffer gravely.
In other words, whether you favor Petro or Ted Strickland or Bryan Flannery or Blackwell (for heaven's sake), you will cast no more important vote than the one on this proposed constitutional amendment.
A political consultant may smile, twirling the end of his mustache, at the devilishness at work. Blackwell understands the pull of the gut, energizing the faithful with the slogan, ``Damn, they spend too much!'' Remember how good it may have felt to send a message by approving term limits. And now? What a miserable result.
This amendment reflects a similar false promise. Those tempted or determined to vote yes should consider two elements that have received too little attention: the sloppy (or sinister) crafting of the amendment and the withering assault on local control, the state driving decision-making in cities, townships and school districts.
How sloppy?


By Who you going vote for?

Elsea or Blackwell

The amendment applies to the spending of the state and local governments. An entity seeking to raise taxes or to spend beyond the limit must ask voters for approval. The provisions covering the state are straightforward: Win a majority of those who cast ballots, and you prevail. At the local level? It gets tricky. The requirement calls for gaining a majority of all electors, yes, all eligible voters.
Do the math. If 51 percent of eligible voters go to the polls, a city with a tax increase or plan to lift the spending limit would have to receive the support of virtually every voter.
If 40 percent of voters turn out? The city has no chance.
Blackwellian types reassuringly wave away concerns. Will the courts decide? What a splendid use of time, and somewhat contrary to the lament of so many in the conservative camp about the legal system having the last word on too many matters.
The amendment fails to define precisely how the limitation would apply to taxing districts that cross political boundaries. It requires the state to cover the cost of all mandates on local governments (not a bad idea). What's missing? A definition of ``mandate,'' leaving the courts with another task.
Blackwell has justified his own easy spending in office, far exceeding the demands of his proposal, by pointing to the virtue of fees, differing from broad taxes because they are voluntary. Yet the amendment would cover revenue from all kinds of taxes and fees. Any surplus money would go into a reserve fund or into the pockets of taxpayers in the form of a refund. Which taxpayers would receive refunds? Those who pay income taxes. That sounds reasonable -- until you note the many ways Ohioans are tapped, starting with the sales tax.
Township trustees often put aside savings when they intend in the coming years to buy, say, a fire truck. They smartly avoid having to finance the purchase. Under the amendment, they may face a dismaying choice, when the savings pushes the township above the spending cap. They might go to the voters for approval (inviting ridicule for asking such a silly question). Or they might increase the overall cost of the purchase by borrowing the money and paying interest.
In a similar way, the amendment blurs the distinction between the state's operating budget and its capital budget, neglecting the important difference between investing in the future and covering immediate needs.
This proposal is rife with perversities. The governor would have the final say on an emergency exception, after lawmakers approved exceeding the spending limit. Lawmakers wouldn't have the chance to override the imperial veto and send the question to voters.
Who intends to be governor? Why, Ken Blackwell.

Douglas is the Beacon Journal associate editor. He can be reached at 330-996-3514, or e-mailed at mdouglas@thebeaconjournal.com.










By Not me

More money saving

Posted on Sun, Mar. 05, 2006
Give Blackwell the business
How to defeat a dangerous amendment
By Michael Douglas, Beacon Journal associate editor
Ohioans must defeat the proposal engineered by Ken Blackwell, a constitutional amendment designed to limit severely state taxation and spending, set for the ballot in November.
How?
A band of opponents has challenged the validity of petitions collected to place the proposal on the ballot. They have filed protests in Cuyahoga, Franklin, Lorain and 12 other counties. Bill Faith, the executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio, jabbed sharply: ``The petitions are just like the amendment itself, sloppy and poorly done.'' He added the obvious: ``A constitutional amendment of this importance and complexity needs to be approached with a lot more care.''
I used this space last week to describe some of the myriad ambiguities, perversities and invitations to lawsuits that reside in the proposal. Worth emphasis is the supremacy clause providing that ``in any case of conflict between any provision of this section and any other provision contained in this constitution, the provisions of this section shall control.'' What a collision that sets in motion. You may think all gas tax revenue should be plowed into roads. The amendment suggests otherwise. Similar mischief lurks for the workers' compensation system.
Not to mention the colossal headache for local governments, a Republican candidate for governor now promoting a scheme that amounts to dictating from the top, the tossing aside of home rule for chartered cities.
Wish the petition protesters well. Their success will save the state much money, fury and ruin.
Jim Petro has another idea for stopping the amendment. The attorney general and Republican rival of Blackwell in the governor's race has his own proposal to limit state taxation and spending. He wants to cap state tax revenue at 5.5 percent of the state's total personal income. Blackwell and friends argue the Petro alternative lacks bite. They are right, the plan following the path of many other states with such limitations aimed at preventing truly out-of-control spending.
Petro hasn't yet pulled the trigger. He sees his proposal as a last resort, a way to give voters a choice on Election Day, a way to escape the wreckage promised by the Blackwell squeeze. That stance helps Petro in his primary run. He can talk tough about spending. The tactic mirrors the thinking of many Republicans who contend that it will take an amendment to defeat an amendment, voters getting a chance to express their disdain without causing too much harm.
Sound excessively calculating? Another simpler course exists: Defeat the miserable thing, straight up. Pull out all the stops. Build a broad coalition. Raise big-time money. Mobilize thinking in Ohio with a fitting sense of urgency.



By Still Here

Continuing with TABOR

Oklahoma faces a similar test in November, a ballot initiative labeled ``A Taxpayer Bill of Rights.'' Opponents recently filed petition protests. Striking was the presence of business leaders at the front of the line challenging the validity of the petitions. The chief executive officer of Spirit Bank told the Tulsa World that the taxation and spending limitation would stop and even reverse economic development. He described the measure as a fraud.
These weren't executives with flawed DNA, a liberal gene surprisingly at work. They represent the foundation of communities. They understand, as one put it, that the initiative ``sounds enticing at first glance'' but then comes the wicked punch: ``It cements a state in second-class status.''
In Oklahoma, they tell the story of Colorado. The tale bears repeating again and again. A taxation and spending limitation sent the state spiraling downward by all manner of measures, support for higher education, highway maintenance, health care. Amid the deepening damage, a broad consensus formed, including the Republican father of the initiative, Bill Owens, the Colorado governor. Democrats and Republicans, suburban communities and larger cities, business leaders (the Denver Chamber of Commerce!) and assorted interest groups all called for relief. In November, Colorado voters suspended the limitation for five years.
Already, the Coalition for Ohio's Future (www.ohiosfuture.org) has more than 140 organizations on board to defeat the Blackwell amendment. They understand the proposal is worse than the Colorado version with its sloppiness, supremacy clause and hammer blow to local governments. Unfortunately, the coalition is mostly a gathering of labor groups, local officials, ministers and good-government types. When will practical-minded business leaders from both political parties join the fight, aware of the high stakes?
The past few months, it has been hard to make the circuit of a cocktail party without someone recommending The Earth is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century, the very full and passionate call of Thomas Friedman for all of us to get smart, honing our skills in the light of the increasingly stiff global competition. In almost every instance, the voice from behind the martini urges: We gotta do something.
Here is our chance. Take heart in the recent Forecast 2006 poll by Opinion Consultants and Marketing Works. Of the Ohioans surveyed, 48 percent favored a constitutional amendment to limit state and local spending, and 28 percent registered opposition. The results signal the difficult job ahead in defeating the proposal, and thus, the little time to lose. They also suggest the measure is beatable.
Republicans may balk at an effort certain to rankle Ken Blackwell if he is the party's nominee for governor. Then again, it isn't about him, is it?

Douglas is the Beacon Journal associate editor. He can be reached at 330-996-3514, or emailed at mdouglas@thebeaconjournal.com.






By Is this want we want?