Panel Discussion on Ohio Budget

2007-05-25T17:35:00.000-04:00

On May 14th I attended a forum on the 2007 Ohio Biennium Budget sponsored by America Votes and Progress Ohio in North Olmsted. The panel featured state budget expert John Corlett of the Center for Community Solutions and three area state representatives, Mike Skindell (D-Lakewood), Jennifer Brady (D-Westlake), and Mike Foley (D-Cleveland).

John R. Corlett, Senior Fellow and Director, Public Policy and Advocacy, Center for Community Solutions
Corlett began with an overview of the budget process, the budget request by Gov. Ted Strickland (D-New Lisbon), changes to that request made by the Ohio House, and expectations for action by the Ohio Senate. Describing the sources of Ohio's General Revenue Fund (GRF) in general, Corlett surprised the audience by pointing out that the biggest sources is personal income tax, the next biggest is sales tax (37%), the third is the tax on cigarettes, and tax on business comes in a distant fourth (3%). As far as budget outlays, the biggest category is education (49%), the second biggest is health and human services (including Medicaid, child welfare, and hunger and health programs), and the third is public safety (including corrections and court services).

When Strickland introduced his budget request on March 15th it was the first such action by a Democratic governor in 20 years. Corlett called Strickland's budget "a seismic shift" and said that "by and large, it took a lot of people by surprise." Corlett outlined the major elements of Strickland's budget request as:

* Significant new investments in early care and education (birth through six), including all-day kindergarten, public preschool, and subsidized daycare (both eligibility and quality).

* Proposal to securitize the tobacco litigation settlement to provide immediate funds for expedited school construction and property tax relief for seniors and the disabled (i.e., exempting the first $25,000 in value from taxation).

* Undoing previous cuts to the state health care budget, including restoring Medicaid coverage to working mothers under the poverty line (about 27,000 people), full dental coverage (about 800,000 people), covering pre-natal care for women up to 200% of the federal poverty level, and restoring coverage of certain psychological, chiropractic, and other health services. The most exciting health care proposal, however, was to provide health care coverage to all children. This would be done first by increasing eligibility for State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) to 300% of the federal poverty level, and second by allowing families above that eligibility level to buy into the program if they want (which is most important for families including children with pre-existing conditions). Another aspect of Strickland's request relating to health care is the proposed Ohio Health Care Exchange, which is designed to extend coverage to about half of Ohio's uninsured by allowing them to buy into a program funded in large part by federal dollars.

* Increasing funding for education, freezing tuition for higher education (0% increase the first year and 3% increase the second year, when prior years had seen an average increase of 9%), and freezing the number of, and tightening accountability for, charter schools.

* Restoring sufficient funding for the Passport Program, which enables certain seniors to receive home care instead of much more expensive nursing home care;

* Provided about $7 1/2 million for food banks;

* Allows disabled people who go back to work to keep their Medicaid coverage; and

* Eliminated support for ineffective abstinence-only sex education.

The budget bill passed unanimously by the Ohio House (the first unanimous vote on a budget since 1955) made a number of important changes to Strickland's request. Strickland commenced a 16-city, to week tour to try to build public support for the budget and for reversing some of the House changes as the budget process continues in the Ohio Senate. Corlett listed examples of some of the changes made by the House:

* Took out the restoration of Medicaid coverage for working mothers below the poverty line;

* Eliminated the ability of families above the eligibility threshold to buy into S-CHIP coverage; and

* Restored funding for abstinence-only sex education programs.

Hearings in the Ohio Senate are continuing through the second week in June. Corlett encouraged audience members to testify at the hearings. Summarizing the state of the budget process, Corlett said that "there's a lot of things to like about the budget and there are some things we have to fix," but he is feeling pretty confident about it.

Iraq War Funding Votes Today and Tomorrow Are Not as Momentous as Portrayed

2007-05-24T12:06:00.000-04:00

The House will vote today on giving the Bush administration the timetable-free Iraq War funding bill that he wants, and the Senate will vote on the measure tomorrow. Passage is deemed likely in both chambers.

Liberal groups like MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, and ActForChange are in full court press today, urging their members to call their representatives in opposition to the bill. Sen. Russ Feingold, co-sponsor of a separate bill to impose a withdrawal timetable, posted a diary on DailyKos that calls the bill a "collapse." The news media is portraying the bill as a surrender on the part of Democratic leadership.

I have a few thoughts on the matter. First, the vote is historic, but its practical impact is in fact limited. If the Democrats had insisted on passing another bill that faces certain veto, the veto would once again have been sustained and no real change would result. The military establishment has said that a funding bill must be passed by Memorial Day in order to prevent an interruption in funding, but in such an emergency the funding could be found by shifting accounts and re-allocating budget items. The hard reality is that the War will grind on for the foreseeable future regardless of whether the Democrats pass this particular bill or not.

So, the significance is not practical but symbolic. However, the symbolic statement has already been forcefully made by the prior funding bill and veto. There is simply no question that this is Mr. Bush's war, and the men and women who fight are held hostage to his refusal to admit the futility of his war. Moreover, additional opportunities for symbolic statements will arise in the future. To move beyond symbolism, conditions would have to change sufficiently to have a veto-proof majority in Congress opposed to continuing the war, and we simply are not there yet. Personally I would prefer to make another symbolic statement now, but not doing so is not nearly so consequential as anti-war activists suggest.

In the meantime, it is worth noting that the votes today and tomorrow may have a more lasting impact on the campaigns of the Democratic presidential contenders. Chris Dodd has said he will vote against it. Biden has said he dislikes it but will vote in favor. Clinton and Obama are mum for the moment. What they say and what they do will stay with them for the rest of the campaign. It is worth noting that a recent Fox news poll showed that a majority of Americans regard the Iraq War as the single most significant factor in determining their vote for president, eclipsing such hot button issues as abortion, illegal immigration, and the economy.

In addition, the appearance that President Bush is winning a tactical victory is very misleading. Prevailing in this particular political stand-off is just another step toward losing the long term political struggle. Americans are increasingly opposed to the war and are giving this president his lowest approval ratings ever. What Bush is winning is the ability to perpetuate the very fiasco that has undermined his presidency and crippled his party.

Today's news is that military and diplomatic officials are already looking beyond the temporary "surge" and mapping out the next phase for the war. When this funding bill expires at the end of September, the Bush administration will be faced with trying to justify this Plan B, and at that point perhaps more GOP legislators will begin to shift to the anti-war camp. What is plain is that the struggle does not end with the votes today or tomorrow, and the White House gains no lasting advantage from the outcome of those votes.

ADDENUDUM: Read this post by Chris Weigant on Huffington Post, which begins:

Amidst the weeping and wailing and the chest-beating and garment-rending which is currently emanating from the anti-war crowd, I would like to interject some optimism about ending the war in Iraq.

It is cautious optimism, to be sure... but optimism nonetheless.

Now, I do not make light of the fact that Congress just voted to give Bush a few more months' funding for the war, and that during that time period hundreds of U.S. soldiers (and thousands of Iraqis, no doubt) will die. That is a tragedy which cannot be made light of in any way, shape or form. But this tragedy should be laid squarely at the feet of President Bush, and (to a lesser extent) Republicans in Congress. Yes, the Democrats acquiesced in the end, too... but make no mistake about it, this is Bush's fault -- just as the entire war has been, all along.

But I remain optimistic that, during the next round of funding (which will begin debate in Congress as early as July), things will be different. And the difference will be a widening split within congressional Republican ranks. Which will make all the difference.

Rep. Murtha (D-PA), an icon of the growing anti-war ranks, explains his "yes" vote here.

ODB Issues

Panel Discussion on Ohio Budget

Iraq War Funding Votes Today and Tomorrow Are Not as Momentous as Portrayed