Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > February > 02
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Martin Gottlieb: Compromising with Obama, the destroyer of America
Quite matter-of-factly and calmly, state Rep. Seth Morgan, R-Huber Heights, said at this newspaper a few weeks ago that President Barack Obama is “slowly destroying America.”
So it was striking last week when Obama talked about the people who say that about him.
In his public meeting with House Republicans, his overarching point was that there’s a certain tension between their insistence that they want to compromise with him and their portrayal of him as somebody who’s “doing all kinds of crazy stuff that’s going to destroy America.”
How, after all, are they supposed to justify compromising with somebody like that?
Morgan isn’t in Congress, but the point remains.
On the other hand, perhaps, there’s Congressman Steve Austria, R, of Greene County and Springfield. At least in the wake of the Obama meeting, he was saying, “We are all going to have to take a step back” from confrontation. He embraced the tax credit and capital gains portions of the new Obama proposal on job creation, and he noted with satisfaction what the president said months ago on tort reform.
Asked what he might be willing to accept that he doesn’t like — what concessions Republicans might make — he had no specifics. But he spoke of the need for a “two-way street.” And he refrained from harping on past slights.
So, as a matter of fact, did Republican leader John Boehner, of West Chester, in a post-meeting press conference. Offered a chance to take a swipe at the president’s comments about past Republican practices, he generally resisted, saying only that it was a “frank discussion.”
Still, there’s no question that Republican voices — in and outside of Congress — have been whipping the party’s “base” into a frenzy. The “death squads” charge about health care was launched from Congress. Conservatives got to the point where they’d believe anything, even that the president was going to use a speech to schoolchildren as an opportunity to push his “socialist agenda.”
This newspaper ran a column Monday in which Mona Charen considered the president’s state of the union speech. She said he’s a “left-wing ideologue.”
“Raised in a left-wing cocoon, he has never given evidence of being anything other than a true-believing left/liberal…. He is not going to tack to the political center.”
And yet, in that very speech, he had proposed a tax credit for some small businesses and a capital gains tax break, more nuclear plants, more offshore drilling, a three-year freeze in domestic spending that can legally be frozen, support for more trade agreements that his liberal friends are skeptical of, a rule requiring that any new spending (or tax cuts) be offset by deficit-cutting measures, and a bipartisan commission to propose ways to bring the deficit under control, preferably with a rule requiring that Congress accept or reject the proposals in their entirety.
One particularly illuminating exchange happened at his meeting with Republicans. Their third-ranking leader, Rep. Mike Pence, of Indiana, asked the president why in the world he would enact his $800 billion stimulus when he could have gotten twice the stimulus for half the money with a Republican proposal.
Obama’s response was, why, indeed, would I do that? Twice the effect for half the money would be wonderful. I just consulted with economists from the left and right and found they didn’t believe what you just said.
“I’m not an ideologue,” he said, to some laughter from the Charen-minded in the room.
Many of such bent believe that the answer to Blount’s “why” question is simply that Obama is out to enlarge government. It’s an article of faith, a given. But, most likely, no such goal has ever occurred to him.
For too long before last week, Obama was weak about addressing ideology specifically. Like most liberals, he always brings the discussion back to why specific policy changes are needed. He pays a price for letting charges like “socialism” go unrebutted.
His problems now aren’t just in Washington. As historian Richard Norton Smith says, “If you look at the way the media has been transformed and the way the White House is covered, the bully pulpit itself is in danger of being drowned out by talk radio, cable and now Twitter.”
Obama has talked much about his desire to change the hyperpartisan atmosphere in American politics. Toward that end, he should do more of what he did with the Republicans: engage with and confront his critics in person, publicly, gently.
That might not help him win all his battles, but it’d undermine the most absurd charges. It’d help bring politics someplace closer to reality, to sanity.
Permalink | Comments (40) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Locals in national affairs, Martin Gottlieb, National Politics
Editorial: Kasich tax plan looks like one more problem for Ohio
When a Republican state legislator from Sidney recently proposed eliminating the Ohio income tax over 10 years, he said he’d be lucky to get one hearing, given that Democrats control the House of Representatives.
Well, he got lucky. And the Democrats said more hearings are coming. They’re actually trying to focus all the attention they possibly can on his idea.
That’s because John Kasich, Republican candidate for governor, also wants to eliminate the tax gradually.
The Democrats are raising an alarm.
The tax raises about 40 percent of state revenue.
Rep. John Adams, of Sidney (not to be confused with state Rep. Richard Adams, of Miami County) insists that his 10-year plan will actually increase government revenues.
You know the argument he makes: “When the people we chase out of the state (under current tax laws) decide to stay, they will create jobs. The tax base will expand. That’s the way it works in every scenario.”
That, of course, is why Ohio is now rolling in revenue, having adopted a gradual cut in income taxes in 2005.
That’s sarcasm. The 2005 act has not worked any miracles, has it?
(It also included elimination of taxes that were said to be hurting business. And it created a very low CAT — commercial activity tax — to make up part of the difference.)
Mr. Kasich says he can’t offer specifics about how and when he’d eliminate the income tax, because the current budget is in turmoil. It must be stabilized first.
But he has no gripe coming about the people who criticize his proposal anyway, as the Democrats are doing. After all, the general idea has won him plenty of support, too, revving up conservatives, resulting in donations and other help.
His Web site notes that he is celebrated by Human Events, the conservative-warrior magazine. It praises him for a plan that is “conservative as well as adventurous” and includes “phasing out the state income tax.” It’s the big idea associated with him. The magazine writes that Mr. Kasich “noted that the state in the Midwest that attracts the most business is Indiana, and ‘that’s because Indiana has a governor who understands business and how to attract it.’”
It’s an interesting reference.
In response to the Kasich plan, the Associated Press took a look at how Ohio compares with other states on taxes. It quotes an outfit called the Tax Foundation that has criticized Ohio on taxes. Says the AP:
“The Foundation also said that although Ohio’s top income tax rate of 5.925 percent is about average nationally and regionally, add-ons at the local level are unusually high. When state and local taxes are added together, Indiana is the only Ohio neighbor with higher taxes.”
AP looked at the nine states that have no income tax. Turns out, four collect more money per-person in state taxes than Ohio. And others are close. Florida collects about $350 less per year than Ohio’s $2,288 and Texas about $450 less.
Why would their substitutes be better? At least with income taxes — unlike property taxes — you know that the payers actually have some income.
Truth is, in Ohio, the property tax — not the income tax — generates the most complaints. Calls for change in income taxes come not so much from the public as from ideological warriors, from conservative movement people who have a one-size-fits-all agenda for every state.
Permalink | Comments (19) | Post your comment | Categories: Economy, Editorials, Elections, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics
