Needless Regulation Is Killing Wind Power In OHIO

August 1, 2017

Three years ago the Ohio legislature passed a needless, onerous, burdensome regulation that denied rural property owner’s real economic opportunity.  This regulation stymies an industry that would bring 4 billion dollars of investment, hundreds of good paying high tech jobs and millions of dollars in income for rural land owners, as well as millions more in desperately needed tax revenue for rural Ohio communities and schools.

I am, of course, talking about the increased government restrictions on the siting of wind turbines.  There are professional anti-wind activists with questionable ties to powerful special interests that feel threatened by wind power in Ohio.  I urge you not to fall for the disinformation of the people and industries whose profit would be adversely affected by the presence of wind power in Ohio.  If we are serious about economic development and energy independence, then we must admit there is plenty of room in the market and in the electrical power grid for locally generated wind energy.

Wind power is safe, clean and highly cost effective.  It should be part of the electrical generation mix in Ohio.

But the real issue is not the merits of wind power. The real issue is property rights.  Who will decide how rural land owners can use their private properties to earn a living for themselves and their families for generations to come?

Ohio Senator Hite is working hard to fight against powerful outside interest groups that would rob rural Ohio land owners of their rights.  If you support wind power; stand up for the rights of land owners.  If you are a rural land owner; ask yourself who should decide the future use of your property – special interest groups or you, the owner. Please contact your local legislators to urge them to return the property rights of rural land owners.

Advertisements

Representing One Side of the Labor Market

November 24, 2015

Mr. Tony Iriti – Economic Development Director for the Hancock County Alliance –  made a request for local government’s help to offset a local “Worker Shortage”.   I found this interesting on many levels.

I understand many in business feel that if government would only get out of way the economy would thrive.  In this case at least, Mr. Iriti is asking for a government solution and government funds to resolve a market problem.

This brings me to the function of a market.  Mr. Iriti seems to be representing only one side on the market.  Mr. Iriti fails to understand or acknowledge that when it is harder for companies to find workers that means on the other side of the equation workers are finding jobs more easily.

Whenever a business makes the statement that it is unable to find workers, in my mind , I always add the phrase “at the wages, benefits and worker conditions that I am providing.”

As a labor market  tightens, workers have more choice where to sell their labor. If the market forces business to raise wages and benefits to attract a workforce than this is a good thing.  Maybe the market is finally addressing the gross income inequality that this nation is facing.

As wages for low income workers rise they will become less dependent on government programs; like food stamps.  That is good for the whole community.

Our ultimate goal in managing our local economy should not be growth; it should be promoting broad-base middle-class prosperity.

If a business is having issues finding workers then they need to look at what they are offering in the market place.  To business I say; get out there and compete.  Have faith in the market, let the market work.


Ohio’s Issue 3: Time to End the War on Pot

October 30, 2015

The very definition of fairness is to treat like things in a like manner.   Yet many of our local politicians and the Courier Editorial Board would lump marijuana together with heroin; even as every objective standard would say that marijuana is far more like alcohol.

Simply take every objection to legalizing marijuana and replace the word alcohol and you will see that it is obvious that the opponents of issue 3 favor prohibition.

Prohibition of alcohol did not work.  Prohibition of marijuana is not working and will not work.  The cost of enforcement to the tax payer, the cost to our economy by locking up young people who should be starting their working life as productive members of society, is too high.

You can make a strong case that marijuana is less costly to society and less harmful to individuals than alcohol.  Yet alcohol is perfectly legal and can be purchased at numerous locations throughout our city. The State of Ohio holds a monopoly on the sale of hard alcohol.  We promote and even celebrate the consumption of alcohol while we wage a pointless and costly war on marijuana.

Hypocrisy and bias of our laws regarding the use alcohol and marijuana is not lost on millions of Ohioans.  It is symptomatic of an elite who have completely lost touch with the realities of day to day life.  They have put their personal bias for their drug of choice over the choice of their constituents.  They are so committed to this bias, devoid of any rational justification, that they are willing to arrest and imprison thousands of their own constituents.

Issue 3 may not be the perfect answer, but don’t be fooled by our State Rep. Sprague and State Sen. Hite; they will never support the legalization of marijuana.  Issue 3 is our best hope to bring fairness to our criminal justice system.

This issue is about personal freedom and smaller, less intrusive government.

This pointless and costly war has gone on too long.

You can bring it to an end. I urge you to vote no on issue 2 and yes for issue 3.


Ohio Loses Political Power to Illegal Aliens

January 19, 2013

Ohio has lost a congressional seat and an Electoral College Vote (ECV) to a state with a large population of illegal aliens.  This shift in power is a consequence of our current understanding of the Article I Section 2 and the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Under our current interpretation of the law, illegal aliens are counted for the purposes of apportionment.

If illegal aliens were not counted in last apportionment, Ohio would have lost only one congressional seat, not two.  Ohio is not the only state affected.  Based on an analysis done by Clark Bensen for his company Polidata the following states lost one congressional seat and one ECV from the inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment process: Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.  The big winner in this apportionment shift is California which picks up 5 seats and 5 ECV.  Texas gains 2 seats and 2 ECV. Florida and New York both gain one congressional seat and one ECV.

Chirs Weigant, in an article published by the Huffington Post, makes the point that in terms of the ratio of “persons” to House seats; counting illegal aliens does not really have much effect on your numerical relationship to your elected representatives.  When you talk about a number of approximately one House Representatives per 650,000 “persons” (in most states), the change in this ratio caused by counting illegal aliens say of 25,000 more “persons” per House seat, it is hard to imagine a measurable decline in any single voter’s political power.

But saying that political power is not a function of the ratio of the represented to representative does not prove that political power is not being affected by counting illegal aliens.  If political power is a function of alliances, based on regional, party affiliations and state delegations, than it is easy to see how counting illegal aliens does affect the balance of political power in the United States.  House seats and ECV have been shifted to solidly blue states of New York and California.  Florida enhances its power as an important swing state, while Ohio, another important swing state, has becomes, if only slightly, less important.

This shift of power caused by the counting of illegal aliens is hard to gauge and may even be inconsequential with regard to many of the issues facing our country, but on one issue; immigration the political effect is undeniable.  As house seats and ECV are being shifted to states with large illegal alien populations, it follows that political power is being shifted to states more politically sympathetic to the plight of illegal aliens.  This obvious fact gives illegal aliens some real measure of political power over the laws they are currently violating.

You might say that even in the case of California, which has 5 seats that are directly attributed to a constituency made up of an illegal alien population, that this is not a significant number of votes in a house with 435 members.  But because of the political and vague nature of reapportionment, there is a multiplier effect that needs to be considered.  If apportionment excludes illegal aliens or if a significant number of illegal aliens are persuaded to leave the state of California before that last census, it would set off a round of house district of musical-chairs in which any member of the California house delegation could find themselves without a home district and without a seat in the US House of Representatives. So, in a very real sense, illegal aliens in California are an important constituency for every house member of the California delegation.  It should also not be forgotten that the distribution of federal dollars is based on census data and apportionment.

Without getting to the tortured history of how the constitution has handled citizenship, apportionment and voter rights, I find it hard to believe that the framers of the constitution or the purveyors of the 14th Amendment could have anticipated the current large scale and wholesale disregard of our immigration law by foreign nationals residing in the United States.  I find it hard to believe that these law makers would have approved of any legal framework by which a constituency of illegal aliens residing in the US – in direct violation of our immigration laws -, would have any measure of political power to effect those same immigration laws.

The failure of our current political class to make any serious effort to address a legal framework that takes political power away from United States citizens in Ohio and hands it over to the foreign nationals present in the US, in violation of our immigration laws, is an example of the breakdown in the integrity of our political and democratic institutions.

See Chis Weigant post “Should The Census Count Illegal Immigrants”: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/should-the-census-count-i_b_66897.html

See Clark Benses of Polidate Map of Congressional Districts without the incursion illegal aliens for the purposes of apportionment: http://www.polidata.org/comments/el06%5CSTCIT3CA.pdf


Latta, Come On, Name That Regulation

August 14, 2012

Despite the constant din of complaining from the GOP about how regulations are destroying our country, Rep. Latta comes up short on specifics.  There is a reason why Rep. Latta hides behind a nebulous cloud of generalities.  The word regulation has a negative connotation; no one likes rules.  But let’s be adult for a minute, rules are for our protection.  So until Latta names the regulations and how they unfairly harm business, he may think he is winning the argument, but it is really just childish whining.

So to Rep. Latta I say – “put up or shut up”.  Mindless rhetoric isn’t helping anyone.  All laws are a form of regulation.  What makes a good congressperson is the quality of the laws that he/she supports and passes. “REGULATIONS ARE BAD” is not sound public policy.  If this is the level of reasoning that we can expect from Rep. Latta in Washington, then I say we need a change.

Vote Angela Zimmann for Ohio’s Fifth District!  http://zimmannforcongress.com/

See Rep. Latta’s comments here: http://www.thecourier.com/Issues/2012/Aug/14/ar_news_081412_story2.asp?d=081412_story2,2012,Aug,14&c=n


Ever The Findlay Courier Wary Of Sprague Amendment

May 25, 2012

Even The Findlay Courier is “wary” of the Constitutional amendment put forward by Ohio State Rep. Robert Cole Sprague.  In an editorial appearing on May 16th, the Courier rejected Rep. Sprague’s support for the “National Debt Relief Amendment” saying in part “Requiring 50 legislatures to enter discussions on the federal budget would only make a bad situation worse”. Rep. Sprague, when The Courier takes sides against a Republican office holder it is time to wake up, smell the coffee and reconsider your support for this ill-advised idea.

Read the whole Courier Editorial here: http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/2012/May/16/ar_ed_051612.asp?d=051612,2012,May,16&c=e_0


Rep. Spraue’s Constitutional Craziness

May 23, 2012

At last week’s Findlay Rotary club, Rep. Robert Sprague put forward a proposed constitutional amendment that makes one question his fitness to represent the people for the 83rd district.  The National Debt Relief Amendment would give state legislatures the power to set our national debt limit.  How any legislator could believe for a second that this proposed amendment is in any way workable is beyond imagination.  This amendment would tear to shreds large sections of the United States Constitution.

Rep. Sprague also suggested that his constitutional amendment be put forward at a Constitutional Convention which might lead one to question his basic powers of reason.  Given our current level of political discourse, a constitutional convention could easily go off the rails, taking our nation spinning off into areas that are better left to a more reasoned political process.  Even Rep. Sprague seems to acknowledge these problems with his own proposal, yet he made it anyway.

It may make you feel better to know that Mr. Sprague did not dream up this nutty idea all on his own.    The National Debt Relief Amendment is the brainchild of the far right wing group American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) funded by the mega rich like the Koch brothers.  ALEC is intent on making the US a tax free paradise for the one percent.  Rep. Sprague’s support for this harebrained idea raises the question: does Rep Sprague have the independent mind that we want from our representative?

Luckily for the voters of Findlay and the 83rd district, we do not need to put up with Rep. Sprague and his screwball ideas.  In this election, we have a real choice.  We can vote for a legislator who will put the needs and concerns of his constituents; the working families of Ohio, before the desires of a far rightwing special interest group bent on serving the one percent.

John Kostyo will work for you, to build an Ohio that works for you.  Robert Cole Sprague voted against firefighters, law enforcement officers and teachers.  Next time he will vote against you.  Don’t let that happen.  Vote John Kostyo this November!


%d bloggers like this: