Ohio House Passes "Heartbeat Bill"

After months of dithering, the Republican-controlled Ohio House finally brought the “Heartbeat Bill,” HB 125,  to a vote on the House floor.  Introduced by Rep. Lynn Watchmann (R-Napoleon) and with 48 co-sponsors, House members approved the bill with a 54-43 vote today.   The bill, which could be the most restrictive abortion law in the nation, would ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.  Doctors would be required to perform an ultrasound before an abortion is performed and if a fetal heartbeat is detected (usually around 6-7 weeks of gestation) the physician would be required to cancel the abortion.  The penalty for violating the law could be charged with a fifth degree felony and loss of the right to practice medicine in Ohio (no penalties for the mother).

(E)(1) Except as provided in division (E)(2) or (3) of this section, no person shall knowingly perform an abortion on a pregnant woman with the specific intent of causing or abetting the termination of the life of the unborn human individual that the pregnant woman is carrying and whose fetal heartbeat has been detected according to the requirements of division (C) of this section.

The law does not ban the use of the abortion pill and there is an exception to save the life of the mother or for abortions performed to prevent "substantial and irreversible" impairment of a major bodily function.  In a first for the Ohio legislature (and possibly any legislature), during a House sub-committee meeting in March, two unborn babies “testified.” Two pregnant mothers were given ultrasounds and committee members were able to “see” and hear the fetal heartbeats.

In addition to the heartbeat language, the bill also has a strong affirmation of the personhood of the unborn:

(10) “Unborn human individual” means an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.

The bill faces a steeper challenge in the 23-10 GOP-controlled senate and pro-life governor John Kasich has not said if he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

Still, this is a significant step.  It has overcome opposition from Ohio Right To Life Executive Director Mike Gonidakis, who has opposed several members of his own board, including Julie Busby and Dr. Jack Willke (founder of National Right to Life), fearing that court challenges to the Heartbeat Bill will overturn other pro-life protections in the state.

If this becomes law in Ohio, court challenges will follow.  Of course, the appellate process could take years and no one can predict what the make up of the Supreme Court will be.  It is a worthwhile effort and a risk worth taking to protect the unborn. Time to go on the offensive.

Thank you to House Speaker William Batchelder (R-Medina) for bringing this bill to the House floor for a vote!


Updated 7/1/11

Dispelling the myths of charter schools

Someone in my own small town of Doylestown, Ohio had the idea that they might want to start a little charter school.  The Gilcrest Wellness Center already houses a daycare center, a senior daycare facility, a fitness center, and a rehabilitation center.  The planning commission recently approved a conditional permit (pending a detailed site plan) for 2-3 modular units with two classrooms per unit.  Oh my!


This prompted the Chippewa School Board, the Chippewa Education Association, and even the local Catholic school, Saints Peter and Paul, to move swiftly and decisively to eradicate this menace to our bucolic way of life. Within days, the village council had 25 letters of opposition to the dreaded mini-charter school that threatened to suck the life out of our public and private schools.  


The Chippewa School board's unanimous letter to Council President Anthony Lindeman said the school would, "divert local taxes to a for-profit company," and that charter schools "are not held to the same standards as public schools and often lack highly qualified teaching personnel."


The Chippewa Education Association's (CEA) letter said,

"We understand that some communities need to develop charter schools to offer an alternative to a failing system. However, Chippewa Local is not failing....This is a time for the community to rally its resources around what is best for our children, not take them away...We are also concerned that our children may not receive instruction from someone highly qualified...There are too many unanswered questions for this school to be effective."

[for an explanation of how little it takes for a school to receive an "Excellent" rating see my previous blog post]

These are common concerns and arguments against charter schools.  Unfortunately, they're not factual.  Let's look at them one by one.  


First, let's get a couple terms right.  In Ohio,  charter schools are legally called "community schools."  And they are public schools.  The state pays for them, the students take state-mandated tests and the state has the authority to close them if they fail. 

The first assertion is that they "divert local taxes to a for-profit company." The fact is that community schools receive their funding from the state through the per-pupil foundation allocation.  Many also receive funding through grants and other government and private sources.  The formula amount for FY 2010 was $5718 per pupil.  Some students came with additional funding due to IEP's, special education designation, poverty-based assistance, etc.   There is no funding formula or per pupil funding that "diverts local taxes to a for-profit company." That statement by the Chippewa Board is simply untrue. Surely Superintendent Higgins, who has been a very outspoken critic of state budget cuts and lack of local funding, is aware of the flow of local dollars and is also aware that local tax dollars are not sent to charter schools. 


The only possible "local taxes" that could be used on behalf of community school students would be transportation costs if the parents insist that their children be transported to the new school at district expense, as is their right.  Of course, if the child decides to attend a community school or private school 29 minutes away from Doylestown, the district must also pay for that transportation, so that's probably not the expense the school board is complaining about here, since choosing a community school in Doyestown over an out of town school might save the district money. 


The second allegation is that community schools "are not held to the same standards as public schools and often lack highly qualified teaching personnel." Wrong and wrong again.



All Ohio certification and licensing requirements do apply to community schools, with the exception that teachers may teach outside their areas of certification.  Teachers must be highly qualified. 


As for the standards, community schools are required to follow the Individuals with Disabilities Act, No Child Left Behind, Ohio Core graduation requirements, and students take all state-required assessments.  Community schools are identified for improvement based upon performance and required to participate in the Ohio Improvement Process, just like every other public school in Ohio.  They are subject to closure criteria based upon ratings of performance. 


The main difference is that the teachers have more freedom in curriculum development and implementation. 


The letter from the Chippewa Education Association (the union) said, "This is a time for the community to rally its resources around what is best for our children, not take them away." [emphasis added] 


This is the biggest myth of all - that teachers, school personnel, bureaucrats, government officials, that anyone but the parents know what is best for their own personal children.  In fact, this is the very reason that many families choose alternative forms of education, including homeschooling, because they want want to be the ones influencing and making decisions for their children.  


I have no doubt that the Chippewa School Board and the CEA believe that they are providing an education far superior to anything a community school could ever provide. And perhaps they are.  But you don't prove that by bullying the little competitor out of town and shouting down any voices with alternatives ideas.  We live in an exciting time when education is exploding in a hundred different directions across many platforms.  We should encourage expansion rather than limitation in the best interest of the children and the community.  This isn't about building kingdoms, it's about the building kids. 

Dictator Ohio Dems want to hold kids captive in public schools

S.B. 175


Sec. 3314.062.  No community school shall admit any student ... for the school year in which admission is sought, to a district building whose most recent rating issued under section 3302.03 of the Revised Code is better than the most recent rating issued to the community school under section 3314.012 of the Revised Code...


This lovely little piece of legislation, introduced by State Senator Joe Schiavoni (D-Canfield), says that if you want to enroll your child in a charter school that happens to be located in the school district where you live and the public school has a better state report card (nanny nanny boo boo!), your child is banned by law from enrolling in that charter school.  


You see, the public school union bosses (and the Democrats, by extension) are so insecure about their product that they will go to great lengths to destroy their competition.  They don't want you to have choices for your child because they're afraid you might not choose their government-run school.  So they seek to pass ridiculous laws like this one (co-sponsored by Senators Tavares, Cafaro, and Sawyer) to put a stranglehold on parental choice. 


Schiavoni says it's all about accountability:

"Of the 14 traditional public schools in Mahoning County, 11 are rated as 'excellent' despite yearly budget cuts. However, these 'excellent' public schools continue to lose funding to charter schools whose educational track record is inferior. Our educational systems should be held accountable for their failures, regardless of whether they are community or public. In these difficult economic times, there should be no reason for our state's highest performing schools to lose additional state funding to underperforming community schools."

Does he think to ask himself why so many students are fleeing these 'excellent' schools in Mahoning county and flocking to 'inferior' charter schools?  Besides the fact that an 'excellent' rating isn't really....excellent (see my previous blog post on that subject), and besides the fact that when they "lose funding to charter schools" they also have fewer students to teach and provide services for, I'd be interested to know if Mr. Schiavoni is in favor of wholesale banning of enrollment in failing public schools.   Is this about providing the most effective education for the children or is it a schoolyard turf war?  I suspect it's the later. 


The truth is,  this type of legislation tells us a lot about Senator Shiavoni and others who continually battle against the inevitable forces of school choice.  They think they know what's best for your children and for mine. They think that parents are inherently too stupid to know the difference between a good and a bad school and so the state must be charged with making laws restricting the choices for parents because too many choices would just be confusing. Clearly Senator Shiavoni thinks that the parents in Mahoning County are ignorant of the facts for choosing the 'inferior' charter schools.


I imagine the thinking goes something like this:  If parents had to choose between a dangerous, excellent-rated school, where the child was miserable, and a safe, continuous improvement-rated school, where the child was thriving,  how could they ever decide such a thing without state oversight? Parents aren't qualified to make such decisions. It takes hoards of PhD-laden bureaucrats to crunch the numbers and determine which school should survive and which should be starved to death by mandate of the union bosses and their those who do their bidding in the Ohio Senate.


This is why it does not take a village to raise a child.  It takes a family.

Cut, Cap, and Balance

Senator Jim DeMint was on Hannity tonight promoting a new website - a movement, really - called  Cut, Cap, Balance Pledge.  It's a bold plan to set us back on the road to fiscal responsibility:

"We believe that the “Cut, Cap, Balance” plan for substantial spending cuts in FY 2012, a statutory spending cap, and Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is the minimum necessary precondition to raising the debt limit. The ultimate goal is to get us back to a point where increases in the debt limit are no longer necessary."

The group hopes to make this the focus of a national debate during next year's election cycle.  It is asking legislators, candidates and ordinary citizens to take the pledge:

1. Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
2. Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
3. Balance - Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.

So far three presidential candidates have signed on - Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain,  as well as 15 House members and 11 Senators. [UPDATE: Rick Santorum has also signed]  I hope in the coming days that I will see Rep. Jim Renacci from my district and Ohio Senator Rob Portman added to the list.  Both campaigned as fiscal conservatives and stressed the need to cut federal spending.  Time to walk the talk, gentlemen. 

Also notable is the list of 2012 Congressional candidates.  On the U.S. Senate list we find both Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel and former OH State Senator Kevin Coughlin.  So....I guess it's official that Mandel is running for the Senate?  He's been evasive when questioned about it, but all signs have pointed to him running.  This is just one more indication that he's in.  That he's boldly jumping in with DeMint, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul at the outset of the race gives us an indication of how he might position himself as a candidate and if elected,  with whom he might align himself.  This is a GOOD development!  After years of suffering through Sherrod Brown, Ohio could use a Marco Rubio-style senator of our own, couldn't we?  

Let's be honest here.  A balanced budget amendment is a long shot.  Amending the Constitution is a very difficult process by design.  Either two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures must propose the amendment.  Then, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve it.  But the 26th amendment, which gave 18-year-olds the right to vote,  only took four months, so it's not an impossible task.

And the first two parts of the pledge - cut and cap - are within reach if the Republicans will hold the line and stand on the promises they made when they were elected in 2010.

Take a few minutes to check out the website.  If your senator or representative has not signed on,  call, send an e-mail or Facebook message or tweet them.  It only takes a minute and a few dozen calls and messages can make a huge difference.  Also, share the website with all your Facebook and Twitter friends.

Rick Perry is right - the feds should stay out of education

The Fordham Institute, a generally conservative-leaning education think tank wrote an opinion piece critical of Texas governor (and possible presidential candidate) Rick Perry's education policy.  In "Good for Texas. Good for  America?" Chester Finn first blamed "cocky" Texans (in general) for saddling the rest of us with No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which ended up being a costly, regulatory nightmare that emphasized testing, testing, and more testing with a patchwork of state standards trying to conform to burdensome federal regulations.  By the time this federal  bureaucracy trickled down to the local level, school boards and teachers were left "teaching to the test" with the threat of harsh penalties from the Feds always looming.  


Finn acknowledges that the biggest flaw in NCLB was the loss of state control:

"NCLB tried. It tried harder than any federal education law in history. Its shortcomings are due in large measure to its architects’ failure to distinguish between what a state government in a place like Austin can make happen in K-12 education and what Uncle Sam can bring about."

He then goes on to criticize Perry for acknowledging that very thing - for saying that Texans wanted to take matters into their own hands do education their own way, without interference from the federal government:

"Governor Perry heads into his presidential quest with a different blind-spot, in some ways the obverse of Bush’s. He is best known in education (and several other domains) for his adamant refusal to let Texas be pushed or pulled at all by Washington or other forces outside the Lone Star borders. That’s why he vehemently refused to seek Race to the Top funding. (Texas’s share could have been $700 million.)

About RTTT he said:“We would be foolish and irresponsible to place our children’s future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington.”

But Uncle Sam isn’t the only education scarecrow in Perry’s wheat field. Consider the Common Core standards for reading and math. Several months before the draft product of that initiative was even ready for inspection, he declared that “I will not commit Texas taxpayers to…the adoption of unproven, cost-prohibitive national standards and tests."

I say good for Texas!!  More states should stand up and refuse to take the carrots the federal government is dangling because those carrots have mighty long strings attached. 

Finn goes on to say that many states are desperate for federal handouts and it's not fair to deprive them of this money.  Apparently, Rick Perry is setting a bad precedent - or a bad example for other governors.  He even goes as far as to say that in "gravely ill jurisdictions such as Ohio and Michigan...Uncle Sam might help reformers duke it out with entrenched unions."  


Really?  The Obama Department of Education is going to let Governor Kasich use NCLB and RTT money to battle unions?  The National Labor Relations Board is having the vapors as we speak. 


Finn continues:

"Yes, one can pledge allegiance to the tenth amendment and declare that such challenges are the states’ problems to solve if they want to and can. But is that the best thing in the twenty-first century for a big modern country that is being outpaced in education (and economic growth) by nations around the planet? And is it the best thing for 55 million kids, many of whom today face dim futures that could be brightened by a better education? Few deny that today’s federal role in K-12 schooling needs major surgery. But with a deft scalpel, not a cleaver. If Perry brings only a Texas chainsaw to the task, it could turn out that projecting another set of Lone Star precedents upon all of American education would be one more mistake."

Yes, pledging allegiance to the tenth amendment is the best thing!  The Federal government has no business meddling in education. It is a state function and the sooner we send it back there,  the better we'll be.  The Federal government is the problem, not the solution.  Part of the reason education is so expensive is the myriad of rules and regulations imposed by programs such as NCLB and RTTT.  Once you gut all those regulations, cut all those jobs at the Department of Education, cut all the jobs of people who must administer all those rules and regulations, states won't need all those carrots the Feds are dangling. 


I don't agree with Rick Perry on every issue, but on this one he gets an A+ in my book.

Announcement: New GOP slogan for 2012

Not that anyone asked, but I have come up with a slogan for the GOP that will help them win big in 2012:

The Audacity of Liberty

It's the perfect antithesis to Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope, or more appropriately, The Audacity of Hopey Changey. From Obama's book we get this twaddle:

"For in the end, laws are just words on a page- words that are sometimes malleable, opaque, as dependent on context and trust as they are in a story or poem or promise to someone, words whose meanings are subject to erosion, sometimes collapsing in the blink of an eye" (p. 92) 

Doesn't that just give you a thrill up your leg and inspire you?  To our president, the law means what he says it means. It's malleable, and typical of postmodern thought, we can't really know what it means with certainty. 


I consulted the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary of the English Language and found the following definition for "audacity":

"Boldness, sometimes in a good sense; daring spirit, resolution or confidence."

And the definition of "hope":

"A desire of some good, accompanied with at least a slight expectation of obtaining it, or a belief that it is obtainable."

Doesn't that essentially describe the Obama presidency in a nutshell?  A bold, daring confidence with a slight expectation that some good will come out of all of this. 


I don't know about you, but I'm a little underwhelmed by "The Audacity of Hope."

Now add that daring and boldness to the concept of "liberty" defined in the 1828 dictionary:

"Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government."

"Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty."

Our country's Founding Fathers gave us a bold, daring experiment in self-government -  a view of  liberty that only reluctantly imposed laws upon its citizens, who were born with natural, unalienable rights. 


John Adams described it this way:

"All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness" (The Political Writings of John Adams).

Over a hundred years ago, Frederic Bastiat, a French statesman said,

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place" (The Law)."

Because of this common understanding of Natural Law, many people were wary of the Constitution at first, fearing it would create a powerful ruling class.  Madison, in Federalist 46 reminded them that the Constitution explicitly granted the power to the people:

"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone."

 President Obama swings so far to the left of the Founders and their contemporaries in Audacity of Hope that they would not recognize him as an American president:

"According to [Justice Breyer's] view, the Founding Fathers and original ratifiers have told us how to think but are no longer around to tell us what to think. We are on our own, and have only our own reason and our judgment to rely on....

"...As we read these documents, they seem so incredibly right that it’s easy to believe they are the result of natural law if not divine inspiration. So I appreciate the temptation on the part of Justice Scalia and others to assume our democracy should be treated as fixed and unwavering; the fundamentalist faith that if the original understanding of the Constitution is followed without question or deviation, and if we remain true to the rules that the Founders set forth, as they intended, then we will be rewarded and all good will flow. Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. How could it be otherwise?" (Audacity of Hope, p. 90).

Obama rejects out of hand the collective wisdom of the Founders, who provided the framework for a very limited federal government, and the means by which the people can change it - the amendment process. This process, by design, is difficult, cumbersome, and rare.  Instead, he and other liberal progressives depend on activist judges and the Administrative State behemoth to impose their will upon the American people.  


That's why we need "Audacity of Liberty." A bold, daring return to freedom and self-government. 

Governor Kasich leapfrogs the Ohio Constitution, cuts a deal with Big Casinos

"I'm not ideologically opposed to gambling," the former Westerville congressman said. "I haven't made up my mind on it, but I'm not going to say we're not going to do it and pound my fist on the table. We'll have to see, and that doesn't mean we are going to do it. We'll have to take a really hard look at it."

Kasich said he is not sure what state-sanctioned gambling "ought to look like, although I have a sense that the state ought to own it and lease it if it's going to work."

As governor, he said he would ensure that the state gets a maximum return from gambling operations and that proceeds are used to reduce taxes, not fill budget holes.

Kasich was critical of Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland's decision to reverse his opposition to an expansion of gambling and order that video slot machines be permitted at Ohio's seven horseracing tracks."  Columbus Dispatch, July 31, 2009

Four months later,  Ohio's citizens voted to amend the Constitution to allow for limited casino gambling.  The "limited" part was quite extraordinary.  It was essentially a business plan enshrined in the Ohio Constitution - written by the casino industry.  It mapped out precisely where the casinos would be built, with an entire PDF page of Article XV of the Constitution now reading like a real estate property survey:'

"Being an approximate 1.83 acre area in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio,  as identifi ed by the Cuyahoga County
Auditor, as of 02/27/09, as  tax parcel numbers 101-
30-002 and 101-30-003 and all lands and air  rights
lying within and/or above the public rights of way adjacent  to such parcels"

"Consisting of  floors one through four, mezzanine,
basement,  sub-basement, Parcel No. 36-2, Item III,
Parcels First and Second,  Item V, Parcel A, and Item
VI, Parcel One of the Higbee Building  in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio, as identifi ed by the Cuyahoga County
Auditor, as of 2/29/09, as tax parcel numbers 101-23-
002 and  101-23-050F and all lands and air rights lying
within and/or above  the public rights of way adjacent
to such parcels. "

The preamble of the Constitution says, 

"We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to  Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings  and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution."

So I guess, when Ohio passed this (I don't say "we" since I voted against it), promoting "our common welfare" was expanded to include promoting the specific general welfare of Rock Ohio Caesars' (ROC) owner Dan Gilbert.  But I digress.  


The amendment specified that only four casinos would be built, one each in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Franklin County (Columbus),  and Toledo and that they would allow:

 "...any type of slot machine or table game  wagering, using money, casino credit, or any representative of  value, authorized in any of the states of Indiana, Michigan,  Pennsylvania and West Virginia as of January 1, 2009.. and shall  include slot machine and table game wagering subsequently  authorized by, but shall not be limited by subsequent restrictions  placed on such wagering in, such states."

Which means, in essence, that Ohio's Constitution could change at any time, without specific approval of the the voters, based upon the laws of surrounding states.  So if West Virginia passed a law allowing - I don't know - strip poker in casinos, it would immediately become legal in Ohio as well, enshrined in and protected by the Constitution.  The Constitution would actually have to be amended to ban it (how many of you knew that when you voted for it?).


Although four previous ballot issues attempting to legalize casino gambling had failed, voters had a change of heart in 2009.  Its success was mostly due to the tanking economy after years of mismanagement by Governors Taft and Strickland and millions of dollars poured into the campaign by gambling special interests and those who would profit from the deal.  Voters were given the false choice of increasing taxes or plugging the budget holes with casinos. They were promised thousands of high paying jobs and thriving, prosperous cities.  One look at Detroit should have been enough to convince voters that this was a Trojan horse, but a majority believed the glitz and hype and ignored the fact that the gambling industry wrote themselves a sweetheart deal.   


Work began on the casinos this spring, leaving my husband wondering where he's going to park in downtown Cleveland once they tear down the main parking garage at Tower City and build a casino on top of the free parking in the flats (maybe he can work out some kind of valet parking system with a strung out grandma who needs quarters for the slots).


Enter Governor Kasich and the GOP-controlled Ohio House in 2011.  In addition to the 33% tax on the "gross casino revenue" (defined in the Constitution as "the total amount of money  
exchanged for the purchase of chips, tokens, tickets, electronic  cards, or similar objects by casino patrons, less winnings paid to  wagerers"), the casino amendment stipulated that casinos are subject to taxes that every other business in Ohio must pay.  This includes the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT), which amounts to 26 cents on ever $100 of revenue.  The Ohio Department of Taxation makes it clear that this is a tax paid on gross receipts, before any deductions for the cost of doing business.  


Dan Gilbert and other casino owners knew this (or should have known it) when they wrote the amendment and submitted the ballot language for consideration by Ohio voters.  It's in no way unclear.  If I can understand it, the gambling industries' highly paid attorneys should certainly have been able to figure it out. 


When the Ohio House passed its budget earlier this year, it included language clarifying that the casinos would be expected to pay the CAT based upon gross receipts. They apparently felt this was necessary because there were no casinos when the CAT was created and it had never been specifically addressed.  The casino operators went ballistic and acted like no one had ever heard of "gross receipts" and "CAT" in the same sentence in Ohio.  Eric Schippers from Penn National released a statement:

“This unique and discriminatory tax hike on the casinos — which we believe is patently unconstitutional — will likely have severe consequences on our more than $1 billion planned investment in Ohio and the 34,000 jobs we were hoping to create...In a state that has lost 500,000 jobs in the last decade … we are flabbergasted by these continued anti-business attempts to increase taxes on the statewide voter-approved casinos. What kind of message does this send to other businesses seeking to invest in Ohio?”

Well, for starters, it sends the message that we are a state and a nation of laws.  We don't have a separate set of laws for wealthy casino owners who make backroom deals with the governor.  


They halted construction and a standoff ensued.   

Fortunately for everyone for the gambling industry,  Governor Kasich and Dan Gilbert were able to iron out their differences in a backroom deal and my downtown guys inform me that construction has already resumed.

Mark Duncan/AP

Here's the deal:

•  $110 Million in Additional Payments: ROC would provide an additional $10 million annually for the first five years and $12 million annually for the five years after that;
• CAT: Ohio’s Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) would be applied to, what in the gaming industry is referred to as, ROC’s “gross,” – total dollars wagered minus winnings and prizes to customers;
• Capital Expenditures: ROC would make a combined capital expenditure of at least $900 million in its two casino facilities (Cleveland and Cincinnati), up from the combined $500 million currently required by Article 15 of the Ohio Constitution;
• ROC Site: The two parcels of land on which ROC will build its Cleveland casino would be treated as a single facility for licensing and regulatory purposes;
• License Transfers: Casino license transfers must be approved by the Casino Control Commission and would require a $1.5 million application fee;
• License Renewals: ROC’s casino licenses must be renewed every three years for an amount designed to cover the Casino Control Commission’s administrative costs

So in exchange for Gilbert's Cleveland and Cincy casinos only having to pay the CAT on their net revenues (after paying the winners) in opposition to what the Ohio Constitution requires, Gilbert will have to fork out $110 million in "additional payments" and an additional $400 million in capital improvements. Talks are ongoing with Penn National and an agreement has not yet been reached.  Kasich must not have read the fine print of the constitutional amendment: 

"Except as otherwise provided in section 6(C), the casino section of the Constitution: no other  casino gaming-related state or local fees, taxes, or other charges  (however measured, calculated, or otherwise derived) may be,  directly or indirectly, applied to, levied against, or otherwise  imposed upon gross casino revenue, casino operators, their  operations, their owners, or their property."

The governor has no right to ink a backroom deal on behalf of the state with Gilbert or with anyone else, especially agreements that are in conflict with the Constitution.  In this deal, Kasich is forcing asking Gilbert to  pay "additional payments" in direct violation of the state Constitution.  Kasich simply leapfrogged the Constitution and decided that he didn't want to waste time on another ballot issue.  This is not the limited government governor I voted for!  


Here's what the Governor tweeted yesterday:

JohnKasich John Kasich 

Our casino agreement means more dollars for food banks and job training. It's a "win-win"! http://youtu.be/cNTnowjFb-I

10 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

Food banks?  In what section of the constitution will I read that there is a designation for gambling revenues to be used for food banks? It's a nice sentiment, but again, Governor Kasich has bypassed the Constitution. 


In addition, there is another provision that sweetens the pot and likely sealed the deal for  
Gilbert:  Kasich promised him Video Lottery Terminals (VLT's) in horse racing tracks.  Gilbert owns one of Ohio's seven racetracks and five of the other six are controlled by casino interests.  While proponents claim that VLT's are merely a "lottery" and not subject to the state's gambling and casino prohibitions, everyone knows that they're really slot machines, designed to bypass the rules.  Is it a coincidence that gambling interests have gobbled up Ohio's racetracks over the past couple of years?  Kasich said, 

"We want this to be legitimate, we want it to be professional and that's exactly what it will be."

He's just expanded casino gambling - slot machines - into seven racetracks across Ohio, clearly violating the Ohio Constitution's ban on additional casinos and he wants this to be "legitimate"?

Dave Zanotti, whose AP Roundtable has battled the legalization of gambling in Ohio for many years said in a statement released Wednesday, 

"[Any “deal” to place slot machines at Ohio race tracks is a clear violation of the Ohio Revised Code and the Constitution. Such a practice cannot become legal by edict of the Governor or any “deal” struck with casino operators. If the Governor wants to open racetrack casinos with Vegas-style slot machines, he is required by law to take such a proposal to the voters."

He also said, 

"So the Kasich people are going to put VLT's in the racetracks, in essence grant casino licenses to these facilities without a statutory amendment, without a public hearing. How does that work? Is this King George III? Did we just lose our whole form of government?"

Zanotti's group has announced it will pursue litigation if the legislature approves Kasich's backroom deal with Gilbert. 

It's worth quoting esteemed author and blogger, Dan Phillips:

"Raise one of the men who died to free us from King George and show him our lives, and he'd ask who conquered us, and when."

Indeed. We must insist that Governor Kasich follow the Constitution and other laws of the state.  We will not stand for backroom deals and secret negotiations out of view of the public.  He must be called to account by the Ohio House and Senate.  Attorney General Mike DeWine needs to advise him immediately that his actions are unconstitutional and they must be stopped. 

CNN GOP Debate

Monday's GOP debate, hosted by CNN, was largely an exercise in frustration and futility.  The format allowed each candidate 30 seconds to answer each question - hardly sufficient to say much more than, "Well, first, I'd like to say..." By the time the candidate would get those words out, moderator John King would start grunting and wouldn't stop until the candidate had concluded the answer.  It was irritating and distracting.  And weird.  King needs more training as a moderator.  I suggest a couple years on the spelling bee circuit before they let him anywhere near a high-profile debate again.  


I was also frustrated by the "11th Commandment" pact the candidates had apparently agreed to prior to the debate.  By that, I mean Reagan's famous 11th Commandment never to speak ill of a fellow Republican.   Aside from the fact that even Reagan didn't follow the Commandment religiously, this was a primary debate.  The idea is for candidates to convince voters to choose them and not their opponents.  While it's great to criticize Obama and his policies, it's also important to debate important issues within the Republican party.  There are important differences between the candidates, both in philosophy and governing history, and those issues need to be addressed and debated.  Ignoring the elephant (pun intended!) in the room just makes it highly likely that the candidate with the most money and the highest name recognition will win the nomination - Mitt Romney.  But by default, rather than on the merit of his ideas, beliefs, and record.    


Here's my assessment (in no particular order) of the candidates' performances on Monday night:


Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)  - Rep. Bachmann took the opportunity to announce that she had filed the paperwork to run for president.  Like Sarah Palin, some on the Left have made a sport of turning her into a bizarre caricature. In this debate, she was able to show 3.162 million viewers  (up 400% from CNN's normal audience) that she is warm, smart, determined,  and can play with the big boys.  Her story of five natural children and 23 foster kids shows that her lectures and policies relating to family values are more than cerebral ponderings and book knowledge.  She's walked the walk and has skin in the game.  I think she was a big winner, especially among those who had not heard of her and those who had only heard her taken out of context. 


Gov. Mitt Romney - Governor Romney was a winner in the sense that he didn't lose any ground.  He "looked" presidential and managed to stay above the fray.  The other candidates refused to attack or even engage him on his state-mandated healthcare program in MA and his flip-flop on abortion.  He must have breathed a huge sigh of relief.  I was irritated that he obfuscated on several answers, seeming to remain just vague enough that he could back away from his answer and later say, "That's not what I meant."  For example, moderator John King could not pin Romney down on whether or not the debt ceiling should be raised.  He said, 

"I believe we will not raise the debt ceiling unless the president is finally, finally willing to be a leader on the issue the American people care about."  

So, in other words, we won't raise the debt ceiling unless we will.  Got that?  



Gov. Tim Pawlenty - Gov. Pawlenty had some good moments, but much of it was overshadowed by the completely awkward confrontation with moderator John King.  King asked, cajoled, even BEGGED Pawlenty to criticize Romney about what Pawlenty had - just the night before - referred to as "Obamneycare."  As Romney looked on , Pawlenty punted.  He went after Obama instead, refusing to lay a hand, or even a sharp adjective on Romney.   Pawlenty has said over and over again on the talk show circuit that he can be nice, but as a former hockey player, is willing to "throw a sharp elbow" when needed.  It was needed at this debate and he came off as more of a figure skater than hockey player. Would he do the same in a debate with Obama staring him down?  He left me with that question. 


Rick Santorum -   I honestly don't know there is so little enthusiasm for this man.  He gets it.  He can articulate the values of the Tea Party and he voted that way consistently when he was in the Senate.  When he talks about foreign policy,  he sounds like the adult in the room. And no one in the race is a more solid social conservative.  During the debate, he was passionate about the Constitution and his love for this country and confidence in the American people.  I just don't agree with detractors who say he is "boring."  


Ron Paul - I didn't hear all of what he said, as I learned to tune out that frequency of whining when the boys were little.  Really, he didn't belong on that stage.  He's a Libertarian, not a Republican.  Oh, he runs on the Republican ticket and he often votes with the GOP, but you won't find the issues he's most passionate about and for which the loons flock to him  anywhere in the GOP platform (ending the Federal Reserve,  isolationist foreign policy, legalizing drugs).   During the debate, Paul alternated between populist (to a certain segment that he appeals to) slogans and monetary mumbo jumbo that almost no one understands:

"And when you have a reserve currency of the world and you abuse it, you export money. That becomes the main export so it goes with the money."

 I would venture to say that the vast majority of Americans have no idea what that means.  I have no idea what it means.  If you fail to communicate, you can't win.  That, in addition to his many other issues. 


Newt Gingrich - His demeanor was more "grumpy old man" than elder statesman.  In fact, he may have overtaken Ron Paul in this category.  I don't think he cracked a smile the entire evening.   He's clearly a very intelligent man, knows his facts, has been around a long time.  We know because he reminds us. Constantly.  He gave some of the best answers of the night, including those on immigration and appointing Muslims to his cabinet.  However, he's got so much baggage it's hard to discern what is fact and what is campaign fiction with this man. 


Herman Cain - I like Herman Cain.  I enjoy listening to him, I love his story of realizing the American Dream and I really want to like him more. But I fear there is little more to him than slogans, acronyms and 5-point plans.  Most of his answers in the debate started with, "We have to work on the right problem."  True enough, but not enough.  He usually followed up with a 3-point plan represented by an acronym.  To me, it came across as simplistic rather than studied.  He also has still not articulated a foreign policy, instead, continuing to insist that he cannot give his opinion until he has all the intelligence at his disposal.  This is a very amateurish policy and not one I wish to see in a presidential candidate.   I want to like him more, but I feel like it would be foolish to do so.  


So what did you think?