Divisive issue becoming a uniter?: Blackwell tax measure seems to be taking on a whole new role

Dayton Daily News ^ | August 12, 2005 | Martin Gottlieb

[AuH2ORepublican]

Divisive issue becoming a uniter?

Blackwell tax measure seems to be taking on a whole new role

By Martin Gottlieb

Dayton Daily News

Secretary of State Ken Blackwell's anti-tax ballot initiative has been transformed before our eyes, without changing.

When he first put it forth, he was engaged in an effort to distinguish himself from other Republican politicians. Planning a run for governor in 2006, he was confronting the then-growing belief that being a Republican might not be a great advantage in that year.

After all, Republicans would have been in power for about as long as one party ever is, and they would be blamed for everything that was going wrong. And a fair amount was going wrong. (This was even before the scandals of the last few months.)

Blackwell made the decision that he wasn't going to run as a continuer of the Republican regime. He wasn't going to say Republicans should keep the governorship because they had done well with it. He was, on the contrary, going to run against Gov. Bob Taft's record. He began criticizing that record with all the energy of a Democrat.

He criticized not only Taft, but the Republican Legislature. Others might carry on about how Republican it had become, and about how the Republicans had moved to the far right because there were no tough general elections anymore, just primaries.

But to Blackwell the legislators were just another group of spendthrift politicians catering to interest groups. He talked about them pretty much the way he would have talked if they were Democrats.

His proposed ballot measure to limit state spending was the big symbol of his difference. If the other big-name Republicans objected — and they did, to be sure — good. That just underlined his point.

Now Blackwell has decided to put his measure on the ballot not this year, but next, when all the big statewide offices will also be on the ballot. And state Republican Chairman Robert Bennett is saying this will help the party.

Never mind that Bennett — a representative of the party establishment — always gives top priority to the task of keeping peace within the party and that the Blackwell measure was designed to highlight internal party differences.

Bennett says, "I've told (Blackwell) all along that I thought it was an issue ... (that) should be debated in the context of the gubernatorial election next year." And Bennett said he basically supports the measure.

And, "I think this is a good issue for Republicans to run on and to frame the debate, regardless of who our candidate is."

Hmmm.

There are, at this writing, still three big-name Republicans seeking the governorship. One, state Auditor Betty Montgomery, has said of the Blackwell initiative that Ohio would "rue the day when this is passed."

The other, Attorney General Jim Petro, has called the measure a "gimmick."

Given that political people normally expect a party chairman to be neutral among major candidates, Bennett's behavior is unusual. Maybe he is trying to signal to the other candidates that Blackwell looks like the winner in the primary or the strongest candidate in the fall.

What's clear is this: Republicans have been put on the defensive by recent scandals. In that context, a case can be made that putting the Blackwell measure on the ballot next year helps the Republicans change the subject from scandals to policy.

It gives them something positive to run on. It helps change the subject away from Bob Taft's record.

And, after all, the polls show the Blackwell measure to be popular. And yet a Democratic candidate would risk dividing his party by supporting it.

So the potential for a Republican upside in the delay is there.

Other possible motives for the delay have been speculated upon (in this space). For example, it clears the 2005 calendar for a Republican focus on defeating redistricting reform and for passing a big bond issue.

But nothing there is inconsistent with the goal of changing the subject of the 2006 election.

So the Blackwell measure, having once had the conscious purpose of dividing the Republicans — of separating one from others — is now apparently being used as way to bring them together under a common message.

Neat trick if they can do it. If the party is really worried, the timing of events does suggest giving it a shot.

[AuH2ORepublican]

In order for the GOP to retain the Ohio governorship in 2006, it needs to run a candidate who can (i) distance himself from Governor Taft and the state's other corrupt RINOs, (ii) motivate conservatives to get out the vote, and (iii) appeal to moderate and conservative Democrats. The only gubernatorial candidate who can do all that is Ken Blackwell, who is 100% conservative and routinely gets upwards of 30% of the black vote in statewide elections (and without 90%+ of the black vote, the Democrats are toast in Ohio). I hope that Blackwell becomes one of two or three black Republican governors in January of 2007 (with Lynn Swann of Pennsylvania and maybe J.C. Watts of Oklahoma being the others).

[AuH2ORepublican]

*Ken Blackwell Ping*

[Ann Archy]

I LOVE Ken Blackwell!!!

[Sonny M]

What measure are they talking about putting on the ballot exactly?

Is this a TABOR?

[AuH2ORepublican]

According to Ken Blackwell and Art Leffer, the proposed constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limit (TEL) amendment would "re-establish fiscal discipline for Ohio's state and local governments. In short, Ohio's TEL initiative would limit state and local spending growth to the greater of 3.5% or the sum of inflation and population growth."

What is a TABOR? Are you referring to the guy who was running in the NC-05 congressional primary last year? (I think his last name was Tabor.)

[Sonny M]

What is a TABOR? Are you referring to the guy who was running in the NC-05 congressional primary last year? (I think his last name was Tabor.)

TABOR is a "Taxpayers Bill of Rights" or pretty much exactly what you are calling "TEL".

It looks like the same thing with a different name, but TELs exemption seems slightly bigger then the TABOR exemption which was limited only to inflation plus population growth.

The only way to raise taxes after that is a referendum.

Colorado has it as does several other states, it looks like Blackwell just modified it and gave it a new name, but its looks like basically the same thing.

Its a good bill and I wish more states had it, but its movement is growing.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"It looks like the same thing with a different name, but TELs exemption seems slightly bigger then the TABOR exemption which was limited only to inflation plus population growth."

---

Blackwell's amendment limits the amount that the state can increase spending more than the TABORs you describe, since spending may only increase by the *greater of* (i) inflation plus population growth and (ii) 3.5%. So if inflation plus pop growth equals 10%, spending could still be raised by only 3.5% in Ohio (as opposed to by 10% in a state with a TABOR such as the one you describe).

[Sonny M]

Even better,

I'm gonna cut a check out to the good man.

[JohnnyZ]

since spending may only increase by the *greater of* (i) inflation plus population growth and (ii) 3.5%.

The greater of would be (i) 10%.

[JohnnyZ]

Good article tho, and hope things work out for Blackwell. He's clearly what the Ohio GOP needs, now more than ever.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"The greater of would be (i) 10%."

---

D'oh! You're right, of course. I guess I assumed that it would be a tighter cap and read it to mean lesser.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I forgot to ping you that I was mistaken, and Blackwell's TEL is just like the TABORs you'd seen before---if population increase plus inflation are higher than 3.5%, it would allow spending to increase by the sum of inflation and pop increase.

[Sonny M]

I like it, I just wish more states had their own variations of TABOR.

I could only dream of what would or could happen if NYS (or NYC) would adopt such a measure.