Welcome 2010. Hope this year is better than the last. For nice first of the new year post here is video of the Findlay High School Band marching in the Orlando Citrus Parade earlier today.
Ohio State Issue 2 is all about money not animal welfare
What do you do when you want to keep special interest groups from telling your state what to do? You change the state constitution. But in a bit of irony it is a special interest group that is wanting the change to prevent another special interest group from doing their job.
State issue 2 will create a 13 member board that would set regulations on the care of livestock and poultry in Ohio.
This proposed amendment would:
1. Require the state to create the Livestock Care Standards Board to prescribe standards for animal care and well-being that endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families.
2. Authorize this bipartisan board of thirteen members to consider factors that include, but are not limited to, agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being, biosecurity, disease prevention, animal morbidity and mortality data, food safety practices, and the protection of local, affordable food supplies for consumers when establishing and implementing standards.
3. Provide that the board shall be comprised of thirteen Ohio residents including representatives of Ohio family farms, farming organizations, food safety experts, veterinarians, consumers, the dean of the agriculture department at an Ohio college or university and a county humane society representative.
4. Authorize the Ohio department that regulates agriculture to administer and enforce the standards established by the board, subject to the authority of the General Assembly.
What is interesting to note is under number 2 above that the standards are tested against how much it would cost to implement them. So while the board would come up with some standards the best ones really wouldn’t be used if they cost too much.
Basically what happened was that the Ohio agribusiness concern went to the legislature and asked for the amendment. The amendment, unlike a regular law, can’t be changed easily if at all once passed. That’s why they wanted an amendment.
Ohio agri-business leaders appealed to state lawmakers earlier this year to place the issue on the ballot after the Humane Society of the United States said it planned to work in Ohio to push for more humane treatment for livestock and poultry. Similar reforms are already in place in seven states, including Michigan.
The thrust of the Humane Society’s proposal would be rules that ban treatment of animals that prohibit them from turning around, lying down, standing up and fully extending their limbs.
Issue 2 supporters blast “out-of-state interests” for wanting to make changes that would harm the Ohio economy and put a kink in the food supply chain.
Justice O’Connor says Issue 2 “inappropriate” for Ohio Constitution
Why would Ohio agribusiness “blast” the Humane Society? Don’t they both have the animal welfare in mind? As we can see this issue is all about the money and not the animals. That’s why people should vote No on State Issue 2.
*Update 10/31/2009*
The pro Issue 2 side has put out two commercials recently. One claimed that passing State Issue 2 would not prevent contaminated foreign grown food from being brought into Ohio. Obviously that is not true since the text of the amendment doesn’t say that, recent incidents of contaminated food were from US growers and producers, and existing food safety laws exist to take care of such incidents when they happen.
The 2nd commercial shows Governor Stickland and other political leaders at a rally in support of the issue. It is simply an appeal to authority. If one looks at the text of the issue and the reasons why it was put on the ballot one can see it was about money and not protecting Ohio.
Hite against delay in tax cut even with $900 million state budget hole
State Rep. Cliff Hite (R-76th District) was in the news today for a couple of state issues. While I didn’t agree with his overall comments I do give the man credit for acknowledging that alternatives for the budget issues facing Ohio would not be painless.
In an interview on WFIN’s morning show Hite said that the Republicans had ideas to help fill in the approx $900 million budget gap after the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that allowing video slot machines had to be voted on by the public. He said that one was restructuring state government by reducing the number of departments. The example he gave was eliminating the Department of Agriculture and absorbing the work into multiple departments. Such a change would lead to the loss of many state worker jobs.
Another suggestion was reducing Medicaid benefits which would hurt those who get those benefits.
Ohio Governor Ted Strickland has said he wants to postpone the 4.2% tax reduction scheduled to take place in 2009 for two years. Some Republicans are against the delay because they feel the tax cut was meant to make “Ohio more competitive for jobs.” Hite is also against a delay.
I will credit Rep. Hite, that unlike the previous guy to hold his seat, he at least acknowledges the Republican alternatives aren’t perfect.
I disagree with Hite’s view on postponing the tax cut and changing state government.
It makes no sense, when one is losing revenue, to cut your revenue further. Ohio has made massive spending cuts in the past so any more cuts will be hitting bone.
The fact is that Ohio isn’t even in the top 10 for personal income tax and the corporate tax rate is only 5.1% for those that actually pay it. The argument that our taxes are too high is not supported by the evidence. The tax cut that Strickland wants to delay was passed in 2005 before the economy tanked and was to be phased in 4% a year with this year being the last of the 21% cut.
It is good to know that Hite isn’t a plain Jane Republican ideologue. Picture Robbie the Robot waving arms and saying “Must cut spending must cut spending must cut spending must cut spending…” and ignoring reality like Mike Gilb and Lynn Wachtmann use to do.
In an article in The Findlay Courier Rep. Hite said he favored State Issue 2 which supposedly creates yet another state board to prevent groups like the Humane Society from getting laws passed in the state to protect farm animals from cruel treatment.
So smaller government is good for business unless you can use it to protect business, then it needs to be larger.
It doesn’t make sense to me either.
Internal division at Buckeye State Blog same old same old
I don’t declare myself for any political party as I find the organized parties – mainly the GOP and Democrats – actually hurt democracy through all the various election laws they have enacted in order to protect their hold on the offices of government. However, reading my blog, one should see where my political stances are. I just avoid official parties. I do read Democratic leaning blogs including Ohio’s Buckeye State Blog. A recent dust up over an interview with a potential candidate for the soon to be open US Senate seat just reaffirms my bias against parties.
It seems one of the admins and “front pagers” at BSB interviewed Lt Governor Lee Fisher and asked about a pledge issued by Ohio Democratic Party chair Chris Redfern that none of the people who wanted the soon-to-be vacant Senate seat, ask for their ODP endorsement for the primary.
The problem was the interviewer gave the Fisher people a chance to review the video and asked that question and answer about the endorsement pledge be removed.
This led to incriminations that the interviewer was “in the tank” for Fisher by even considering letting his people suggest edits. Words like “objective” and “journalism” were thrown around. There were a bantering of nasty comments made by each side and in the end the interviewer quit the blog and one of the people upset about the incident seem to also quit.
*SIGH*
This is a perfect example why a pledge against getting a pre-primary endorsement is a good idea.
Even in a political party you have people with different views and who support different people in the party. If the ODP endorses a single candidate for an office before the members of the party have a chance to decided who they want then you have the same kind of nasty dust up the Fisher interview caused.
You also get some who take their ball and go home because they didn’t get their way etc….
The sad part is the BSB seems to have this kind of thing happen more often than it should. There have been 3 administrators of the blog in 3 years and with each change has come a change in content focus and some behind the scenes dust up with hurt feelings and people quitting.
Why am I writing about it?
One reason is because I think the rules forcing an endorsement before the primary is plain stupid. If a person gets the endorsement then it makes it very hard for any other potential candidate to have a chance to win the primary because an endorsement forces the party to steer resources to the endorsed candidate. Some people only support endorsed candidates.
Think of it this way. If the national Democratic party had a stupid rule like the Ohio party we may or may not be discussing or hearing about President Hillary Clinton’s plans to deal with the economic melt down. When President Obama started his campaign most Democrats assumed Hillary was going to be their candidate for the national election and she might have gotten the endorsement if one was forced to be made before the primaries. Why a state party wants to make the primary moot is beyond me.
Another reason to write about the issue at BSB is to lament the almost narcissistic obsession with the operation of a blog. If I were in charge the issue would never be public and I wouldn’t have allowed the kiss off posts by the offended parties. It was more an internal dispute and the fact that it was on the front page when other issues are more important is a bit amateurish. And any one not in the loop would be confused about what was going on.
The person who was most offended by the interview and called the interviewer “in the tank” for Fisher has had some strong views both for and against certain Democratic candidates and office holders. In fact he called for Dennis Kucinich to be voted out of Congress on the front page of BSB for what appeared to be personal reasons – he just didn’t like him running for President all the time?
Of course I’m not looking for total objectivity at BSB since it supports Ohio Democrats but the admins should decide if they are going to let candidates to control the info posted about them and at least that hasn’t happened. The interview in question was not initially posted on BSB, which was the interviewer’s prerogative since it wasn’t for BSB, and the admin who is now left to administer the blog alone said it won’t happen ever. The blog should be a place to talk about and debate the merits of potential candidates and then when one is picked in the primary, then it should support that person.
So in conclusion, the issue of a party pre-primary endorsement is a big deal but the dust up at BSB over an interview including a question about the pledge is not and should have been dealt with in private.
Rep. Jim Jordan continues search for clue on economic meltdown
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R – Ohio 4th Congressional District) once again proves that the GOP are slow on the uptake. In a Q & A with Hancock County leaders he just restated talking points while failing to remember that he is in the party that helped lead us to the economic meltdown.
The Republican from Urbana voted against the package Jan. 28, believing that the $819 billion tax and spending bill would only balloon the federal deficit, reportedly headed toward $2 trillion.
Jordan told officials that a “bailout fever” has infected Washington.
“Once you go down this road, everyone gets in line,” he said.
“A much better solution is to reduce the tax burden on small business owners and entrepreneurs” and cut interest rates and capital gains, he said.
Jordan said he and the other 176 House Republicans who voted against the bill did so on principle, not partisanship.
Remember, we tried the tax cuts and those didn’t work either. But at least Jordan didn’t say anything more ridiculous than another Ohio Congressman.
U.S. Rep. Steve Austria (R- Ohio 7th Congressional District) said to the Columbus Dispatch editorial board:
“When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression,” Austria said. “He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That’s just history.”
WOW! Steve Austria is a dumbass. The depression started in 1929. Roosevelt took office in 1933. In 1933 Unemployment was 25% and by 1940 it had been lowered to 15%… etc etc etc.
And these guys think they have a better plan?