News Summary

Ever since the economy really started falling to pieces in October, people have been wondering about worst-case scenarios. Where's the bottom?

They wonder that about the businesses they work for; given that things are bad, how much worse might they get. They wonder about news reports that ask how bad the recession will be; is "recession" even a strong enough word?

Now Gov. Ted Strickland has decided to try to answer some questions about the future, at least about the state's budget. Taking a worst-case-scenario mentality, he has tried to draw a picture of just how bad things might get over the next couple of years.

His overarching message is that the state might take in $7 billion less than it has been assuming, necessitating 25 percent cuts in areas that can be cut. He has detailed just what that might mean.

He wants to deliver the message that we are talking about real programs affecting real people, that no amount of belt tightening and bureaucrat firing would solve the problem.

Specifically, he's forecasting the possible need to close six prisons, raise tuitions by $2,000, close some state parks, deliver devastating news to school districts that are already strapped, dump a massive number of newly unemployed people into a private sector that is losing jobs with every passing day, and much more.

Take the schools: Dayton school Treasurer Stan Lucas told a gathering of business and community leaders Friday that even a 10 percent cut in state aid would remove $14 million a year from the district's budget. That would wipe out the entire $9 million annual gain Dayton schools will receive from the tax levy voters just passed. And more.

(The page opposite this one has a commentary on that levy, written before the governor's worst-case budget came out. Things are moving fast. It must be said, however, that, so far, the worst-case scenario is just talk.)

The governor had his reasons for undertaking this exercise. He wants to attract the attention of the federal government to the problems of the states. He believes the bailout ethic that is strong in Washington these days needs to extend to state governments. He argues that the economy's recent problems are largely the fault of the feds, certainly not the states.

Also, he wants to pave the way for whatever harsh measures need to be taken. Whether those measures take the form of budget cuts or tax and fee increases, or some combination, they will be easier if people have had time to examine the options and conclude there are no good ones.

Even the federal option isn't good. It basically entails shifting the burden of state programs from a level of government that can't run deficits to one that can. The federal government does not have unused money sitting around. It does have the power to borrow an enormous amount, mainly because it has a better credit rating than just about anybody. But it is already engaged in unheard of amounts of deficit spending, with no end in sight. At some point, there's got to be an end.

Putting the worst-case scenario on record was a good idea. The governor is playing an important role of a chief executive: shaping debate. His scenario will get a lot of attention, generate a lot of discussion, sharpen a lot of thinking.

It raises as many questions as it resolves, but raising questions can be a good thing.