Friday, July 20, 2012

Another group says 'no' to Kasich's severance tax increase


An email from Americans For Prosperity - Ohio urges members to oppose Gov. John Kasich's proposal to increase the oil and gas severance tax in order to redistribute that extra revenue in the form of an income tax cut. They are the second group to do so.

It's the "Tell them to STOP!" campaign and here is the text of the email:

For the last several years, news of Ohio's economy and jobs picture has been bleak. But now, Ohio has a unique and very exciting opportunity -- the exploration for oil and natural gas.

The opportunity presented through shale exploration is nothing short of a boom for Ohio's economy. Whether you live on the eastern side or the western side of the state-- all of Ohio is bound to be positively impacted through the exploration and extraction of energy producing resources from our ground.

Unfortunately, some leaders in Ohio, including Governor Kasich, have suggested that taxes be increased on the oil and natural gas explorers to fund regulation and provide a tax decrease at legislative discretion -- in essence, the plan will slow or stifle energy exploration, pick winners and losers again, and fail to secure true tax reform which is necessary in Ohio.

If our elected officials want to lower taxes they should they should do it by following through on cuts to Ohio's bloated government rather than raising taxes on job creators and stifling the true creation of wealth by private landowners.

This issue promises to continue to be heated throughout the summer and fall and we at Americans for Prosperity -- Ohio aren't going to just go away.

You have responded to our calls to action before on this issue and NOW WE ARE ASKING YOU TO RESPOND AGAIN.

Please let your leaders know that you:

1. Want to them to stop picking winners and losers
2. Oppose this tax increase that will impact private land holder rights
3. Support exploring for energy in Ohio and are committed to keeping government intrusion at a minimum
4. Believe government stifling private economic growth WILL NOT lead to true job creation

Action items:

1. Email Governor Kasich (http://www.governor.ohio.gov/Contact/ContacttheGovernor.aspx) and the Senate leadership (http://www.ohiosenate.gov/leadership.html) including your Senator (http://www.ohiosenate.gov/directory.html) -- tell them you don't want to see new taxes raised on energy explorers and land holders in Ohio.
2. Email Speaker of the House Batchelder (http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&task=detail&district=69), the House leadership (http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&Itemid=52) and your Representative (http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php?option=com_displaymembers&Itemid=58) and thank them for standing up for landholders, job creation, and liberty in Ohio. Ask them to remain resolved to fight this proposal.

The general assembly might be "out of session" right now, but the fight for liberty and sound economic policy never ceases -- WE NEED YOU TO ACT NOW!


8 comments:

Nick (aka Bytor) said...

I find it intriguing that Sarah Palin raised taxes on oil production while governor of Alaska, by a much much larger degree, that some of her tax increase went to increased state spending, yet she is still quite welcome by AFP.

Don't you, Maggie? ;-)

Maggie Thurber said...

C'mon Nick ... you know better than to mimic a liberal tactic of saying that because some other Republican has done it that it is somehow okay.

Disagreeing with a policy decision doesn't mean you don't like a person or want them to speak at an event.

It's a poor attempt at criticism...but you appear to be repeating a lot such poor attempts that keep coming from 'people' in the Kasich administration. In fact, I can almost predict your posts and comments...they so closely follow the emails I get from a Kasich staffer who refuses to go on the record with anything he says.

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad you've got such a contact, but it's so blatantly his arguments you're making that I wonder why he doesn't just go on the record and make them himself.

Nick (aka Bytor) said...

Thats odd. I participated in a conference call with other bloggers, both for and against the proposal, and the governors office last week, and not one time did they mention Sarah Palin. Check with Matt Hurley.

C'mon Maggie, you know better than to mimic a liberal tactic of accusing someone of simply repeating what others tell them.

Actually, its a little insulting. I could accuse you of repeating what the OLC says, but I certainly didn't and never would.

Maggie Thurber said...

Nick - yesterday afternoon I had an email from a Kasich staffer who took exception to what the OLC said...shortly thereafter, you make the exact same argument on your blog.

You repeated exactly what was said - that's why I accused you of doing so.

I've listened to both sides of the issue and have independently come to my own conclusions. I know your arguments - the same as the ones the Kasich people are making - and I think they're poorly made. I think that simply because other Republicans have done something doesn't make it right. That's an argument the left tries all the time and we - conservatives - reject it. To find you using the same tactic is disturbing. It indicates to me a sort of desperation ... when you're losing an argument claim other people have done it too.

So just because two other Republian governors have raised taxes on a particular industry doesn't make it the right thing to do. And just because Palin did it when she was governor doesn't mean that she doesn't get invited to speak at a function. I'd invite Kasich to speak regardless of my opposition to this particular policy.

I stated the facts as I know them - no insult was intended.

Maggie Thurber said...

besides Nick - at least I said you 'appear to be repeating' ... I didn't accuse you of being "suckered...by deceit." lol

Nick (aka Bytor) said...

The mistake that the OLC made in their post was information given to everyone on the call. They got the numbers wrong in their very first argument. It's extremely relevant that OLC is making an argument based on bad numbers.

The fact the other respected conservative governors have done it gives the proposal a LOT of credibility. Its not just a case of a "poor attempt a criticism" or "desparation because I'm losing an argument".

I was nothing but friendly to you, Maggie. Your response was insulting and uncalled for.

Maggie Thurber said...

Nick - you started this by your comment basically calling AFP a bunch of hypocrites for 'welcoming' Sarah Palin when she raised taxes.

I challenged you in a friendly way bringing up the whole 'if everyone else is jumping off a bridge' concept. Just because Palin raised taxes on the oil & gas industry doesn't mean it ts he right thing to do.

My point is that just because others have done it doesn't make it right. That argument is sound, valid and stands. It's not insulting and it's not uncalled for. Continuing to point out that others have done it still doesn't make it right.

Yesterday I had an email - shortly thereafter, you print the exact same thing on your own blog. You 'appear to be repeating' the same lines coming from the administration. I specifically used the words "appear to be" as that is my perception. There is no right or wrong and there is nothing insulting intended. In fact, I compliment you on having such good contacts, but wonder why the source doesn't just go on the record. That's directed at the source - not you, so again - not uncalled for.

So let me explain again. I don't care if others have done the same thing. That fact does not give a policy credibility. Others have supported pork projects. Others have supported a tax here or a tax there. Others have supported increased regulations, Others have supported all kinds of things that go contrary to the core conservative beliefs in limited government, low taxation, individual responsibility and personal property rights. Simply because others have done something does not make it right, nor does it change a policy that is contrary to core conservative principles into a 'conversative' position. That's such faulty logic that it shouldn't need to be explained or defended.

It is my experience that when people resort to the 'others have done it argument' they are losing the argument...just like when kids use the same logic with their parents resulting in the parents asking 'if everyone was jumping off a bridge' ...

There is no reason for you to feel insulted on being called out on such a position. Actually, your reaction of being insulted rather than providing any rebuttal says more for my position on the matter than any rebuttal you probably could have offered.

I'm sorry you don't think this is a friendly discussion, that's probably because the written work is hard at conveying emotion, though I thought my use of the 'c'mon' and 'lol' showed I meant it lightheartedly.

You're welcome to stop responding ...

Maggie Thurber said...

As for the OLC - yes, they got their numbers wrong, referring to the state and local taxes as the severance tax. They should correct their error.

But in focusing on the numbers, you've missed their point. Both Kasich and the oil & gas association admit that the state will see increased revenue from the inreased business activity relating to the shale ressources. That is not disputed.

The OLC's point was that the additional revenue everyone agrees the state will get is what should be used to offset the income tax. If the state is getting more money just from the increased activity - why aren't they talking about dedicating THAT revenue to the income tax reduction?

Why do they need an additional tax? What are they going to do with the additional revenue they're going to get which, between state and local governments, will be millions every year? Are they going to keep and spend that, thus increasing the size of government even more?

Kasich doesn't need an additional tax to cut the income taxes - he just need to take the additional revenue he's going to get from the increased activity and decide to use THAT for the reduction. THAT is the point the OLC was making - and their error on the numbers is irrelevant to the point.

Now, you may claim that their mistake invalidates their opinion and you'd be entitled to make that conclusion. However, many people happen to agree with their POINT, no matter what the numbers are.

But they should issue a correction.

Google Analytics Alternative