Ohio budgets billions more than it needs to

www.themediabriefing.com

As the Ohio General Assembly debates the state’s biennial budget, a new report says the state is spending too much.

Gov. John Kasich’s proposed budget increases spending by $5.4 billion, “representing a trend of unsustainable public-spending growth” the 2015 Piglet Book says.

And taxpayers will end up paying nearly $1.8 billion of that increase.

The House-passed budget isn’t much better, with taxpayers footing the bill for $1.7 billion in increased spending.

Greg Lawson, a policy analyst with the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions and a co-author of the report, said now is good time to look at historical spending growth, especially with tax reforms included in the budget proposals.

“The governor wants to get rid of the income tax – and we agree with that,” Lawson said. “Our difference with him is how we get there. The solution to eliminating the income tax is to reduce spending in a strategic way over a period of time so we don’t have to look at increasing taxes elsewhere to offset that reduction, like the governor’s budget does.”

Lawson and co-author Tom Lampman say policy recommendations in the report could save taxpayers $2.6 billion in the 2016-17 budget.

One recommendation is to limit spending growth to not more than 3 percent, taking into account inflation and population.

“Some people question if it should grow even that much,” Lawson said. “But I’m a realist. Before you can run you have to be able to walk and we have yet to walk in terms of keeping spending at that 3 percent level.”

Ohio’s spending over the past 20 years was 17 percent over the rates of inflation and population, the report says.

But if the state loses population, should the spending decrease accordingly?

“A very cogent case can be made that that should happen,” Lawson said.

Overall, Ohio hasn’t lost population, “but in theory, if we do, we absolutely should reduce spending,” he said.
The second recommendation is to end corporate welfare, saving taxpayers $212.9 million.

The Piglet Book specifically names the Horseracing Development Fund, Agriculture Market Development fund and TourismOhio as examples of corporate welfare.

“You’re using a government entity to impose and collect taxes within an industry and then the government is paying to produce ads to promote the industry,” Lawson explained. “You don’t need the government to do that for you. If you want to spend that money, you can hire an advertising firm and pay them out of pooled resources from within the industry.”

Lawson said this type of “user tax” is better than using General Revenue Funds directly, but still is not something government should be doing.

“Why does it need to be funneled through a government entity? Just keep the government hands out of it and hire someone to do it for you,” he said.

It’s also duplicative.

“Attractions and areas have their own advertising budgets. Look at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or the Hocking Hills area. There are numerous entities and chambers of commerce that do advertising all the time,” Lawson said. “Let thousands of marketing ideas bloom. It doesn’t need to be cycled through and have the government spend money on it.”

The third recommendation is to end government advocacy and philanthropy, saving nearly $55.7 million.

The Ohio Arts Council, the report states, receives $20.9 million in income and sales tax revenue to distribute to artists and galleries, making the state the “arbiter of taste and culture.” It says Ohioans are “more than capable” of choosing what artists to support “without the government’s guidance.”
Lawson said there were a lot of examples they could have highlighted but they tried to be pragmatic.

“We understand that changing minds on this is not something that is likely to occur overnight,” he explained. “It comes down to the core functions of government and if you decide something really is a core function, then how are you going to sustain the growth in funding that it will require?”

He says it really is about jobs and the quality of living in Ohio.

“The expanding scope of government makes cutting spending harder,” Lawson said. “As long as we keep spending like we are, when the next recession hits we’ll end up cutting a lot more of government in order to meet the budget, or we’re going to have to raise taxes and eliminate all the reforms we’ve made to date.”

Lawson said the recommendations are intended to put Ohio’s budget in the best position to weather future recessions so that the current economic growth can continue.

“We’re still not where we should be in terms of job growth,” he said. “We have some systemic problems we have yet to address and we cannot address those if we simply keep spending.”

Lawson also had a recommendation for Ohioans.

“Keep your eyes on government,” he said. “This book is just a snapshot of what is going on. We’re spending more than we need to – at all levels of government.”

But, Lawson warned, it will be a tough road to follow.

“There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who get it, even if they don’t always agree on the specifics,” he said. “At least there will be a dialogue and an effort at making the big-picture reforms so we can be freer and have a more prosperous Ohio.”

Gov. John Kasich’s office did not respond to a request to comment on the report and the recommendations.

Application deadline for Ohio's expanded school voucher program is July 31

For those of you with children headed to school this fall, I wanted to share with you the following email from the Buckeye Institute.

It gives details for the expansion of the school voucher program included in the budget bill signed Sunday night by Gov. John Kasich. Because the numbers are limited, it's important to apply now.

When Governor Kasich signed the new biennial budget Sunday night, Ohio joined only Indiana, the District of Columbia, and Wisconsin as jurisdictions with an income-based scholarship or voucher program that empowers parents to make the best possible educational decisions for their children. The new $4,250 scholarship will be open to 2,000 kindergarten students (who live at or below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines) in the 2013-14 school year. The scholarship is slated to grow by one grade per year for the next 13 years--until current kindergarteners become high school seniors.

Ohio already had several school voucher programs including EdChoice (for students attending failing schools), Jon Peterson (for students with special needs), Cleveland, and Autism scholarship programs.

This new legislation marks a significant positive step on the path toward ultimately allowing state money to follow the individual child, so that parents--not bureaucrats--choose where their children will learn best.

The program becomes effective immediately. Applications could be submitted beginning July 1 and are now available on the Ohio's Department of Education website. For more details, visit a website designed by School Choice Ohio, www.scohio.org/scholarship. The deadline for submitting an application is July 31.

This is a great victory for parents and others looking to expand educational choices in Ohio, but there remains much to be done to achieve complete educational choice in Ohio. Despite the advent of charter schools and vouchers, thousands of students remain mired in failing school districts that are often beholden to special interests rather than accountable to parents. Until the day arrives when school funding fully follows each of Ohio's children, preparation for the next round of policy battles must begin. But for today, please join us in celebrating the exciting new school choice policy and spreading the word to those who may benefit from it before the fast-approaching deadline passes.

Buckeye Institute shows how Blade is wrong on health care exchange

I was going to take apart the recent Blade editorial chastising Gov. John Kasich for not accepting federal monies for a health care exchange, but the Buckeye Institute has done a nice job already with "Obamacare, Politics and the Myth of Free Money," so why duplicate efforts?

Here's what they have to say specifically about The Blade's warped thinking:

Second, the underlying argument assumes that federal spending is somehow “free” money and that the offer of expansion is simply to good to pass up.

In a rather rich case of projection, Innovation Ohio accuses Governor Kasich of playing politics while Ohio loses millions. The ideologically sympathetic Toledo Blade follows a similar line, accusing Kasich of politics on the issue rather than taking the generous federal money and immediately implementing Obamacare in Ohio.

The irony is that this mindset is what has gotten us to where we are today. It is a belief that federal dollars are free and Ohioans should grab every penny lest they be scooped up by other states. The history of Medicaid is one of states getting hooked on federal dollars only to have the program gobble up their budgets even as it offers less and less flexibility and reduced quality of care.

But state taxpayers are federal taxpayers. These dollars don’t magically appear in Washington to be doled out to states, the money comes from individuals in those very same states. Ohioans are rightly concerned about the federal deficit and about paying higher taxes. Increased spending in Washington impacts Ohioans to pretend otherwise is to ignore fiscal reality.

The Blade casually tosses aside the fears of increased Medicaid enrollment through a woodworking effect as if the dollar amounts are not significant. But those numbers are big enough to give governors across the country, both Republican and Democrat, pause. And whose numbers should we trust, state experts or liberal think tanks who support Obamacare?

These governors understand that Medicaid is a deeply flawed system that hooks states on a process of expanded enrollment with the promise of federal funds. Once on this path any attempt to reign in spending or control costs means giving up not only the state’s share of spending but the feds as well.

And is it really realistic to assume the federal government will never attempt to roll back the amount it covers? Half the assumed savings of Obamacare comes from reducing Medicaid reimbursement rates. Facing a deficit beyond what many of us can conceptualize, will Washington continue to pay out vast sums to states already committed to expanded coverage for their citizens?

In reality, what underlies this debate is a mix of politics, policy disagreements and deep uncertainty about the future. Governors understand that what is good for Washington is not always (rarely?) good for the states. They understand that Medicaid is a failed program that has devastated state budgets, increasingly involves reduced flexibility, and carries with it perverse incentives.

I especially love the point that "state taxpayers are federal taxpayers. These dollars don’t magically appear in Washington to be doled out to states, the money comes from individuals in those very same states."

You'd think whoever wrote The Blade editorial would know that - and know that Toledoans know that as well.

New Report: Workplace freedom enhances prosperity

The Buckeye Institute held a press conference this morning to release their new report: Ohio Right-to-Work, How the Economic Freedom of Workers Enhances Prosperity.  The conclusion of the report is that  "forced unionization has meant lower income, fewer jobs and out-migration."

I think it's important to note that the first page of the report is titled "Why This Report Matters to You" and it puts the reasoning in very specific terms:

This Buckeye Institute report looks at how a right-towork law likely would impact Ohio for the good, helping stem the outflow of people and capital that has contributed to the stagnation of the Ohio economy. At a time when resources are limited, this is a state legislative action that does not add to budget woes, and indeed helps provide the resources for future growth of both private and public needs. The bottom line is that freedom is the key to opening the door of prosperity.

Here is the Press Release:

March 28, 2012—COLUMBUS, Ohio – If Ohio had passed a Right-to-Work law in 1977 the personal income of a family of four would, on average, be as much as $12,000 higher annually according to a report released by the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions today.

"Given the actions of our neighbor Indiana, right-to-work is not a debate Ohio can avoid,” said Buckeye Institute president Kevin Holtsberry. “But Ohioans deserve a debate based on the actual history of the issue and the economic realities that underlie it – not myths and misinformation. We believe this report will serve as a basis for that debate.”

The report finds that states with right-to-work laws have much higher rates of growth in income, new jobs, wages, capital investment and in-migration of people. Ohio has suffered a growth deficit for several decades¬¬¬–growing less than the nation as a whole, and its income levels have fallen below several southern states-historically the poorest of the nation. Ohio has paid a high price for failing to avail itself of right-to-work legislation.


The lead author of the report, Dr. Richard Vedder, is Distinguished Professor of Economics at Ohio University and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of numerous scholarly papers in journals of economics and public policy as well as several books.


“Monopolistic practices in labor markets have been an important factor in Ohio’s economic stagnation,” said Dr. Vedder. “The bottom line is freedom is the key to opening the door of prosperity and right-to-work laws are an important step in the right direction.”


At a time when resources are limited, the report argues, making Ohio a right-to-work state does not add to its budget woes and provides an opportunity for economic growth and increased income for Ohioans.


Recent polling data indicate that a majority of Ohioans support such reform.


###


The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is Ohio’s premier free market think tank. The Buckeye Institute has provided the research and solutions to Ohio’s toughest public policy challenges in economic freedom and competitiveness, job creation and entrepreneurship, and government transparency and accountability for 18 years.

I hope you'll take the time to read the report - it's not long and it provides facts and figures to consider about this highly-emotional topic.



NOTE:  Blogger has changed its layout and I'm still getting used to it.  I apologize for any technical issues in this post.

Buckeye Institute names Holtsberry as new president

Press Release:

BUCKEYE INSTITUTE ANNOUNCES NEW PRESIDENT

Kevin Holtsberry named to lead Ohio Think Tank

February 6, 2012-COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions announced today that Kevin Holtsberry has been chosen as the next president of the organization.

"We are excited about the vision Kevin has for Buckeye," said Greg Lashutka, Chairman of the Board of Trustees. "Kevin's strong background in communications and his experience in state government make him an excellent choice to grow Buckeye into one of the premiere state think tanks in the country."

"Freedom, opportunity, responsibility and community - these are the values that make Ohio great," said Holtsberry. "These are also the values the Buckeye Institute brings to its work on public policy. I am excited about the chance to foster an environment in Ohio where these ideas drive public policy and help our state become a vibrant, growing and attractive place to live and work."

Kevin Holtsberry has a decade of experience in state government - in both policy and communications - including work in the General Assembly, The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and The Auditor of State's office.

Holtsberry has recently been focused on strategic communications and public affairs as a writer, editor and consultant to candidates, organizations and advocacy groups. He has particular expertise in social media and online outreach. He was the New Media Director for Rob Portman's successful US Senate campaign in 2010.

Holtsberry has been involved in online and opinion journalism for over ten years. He has written for National Review and National Review Online as well as Human Events, The Washington Times and The Huffington Post. He has a Masters Degree from Bowling Green State University, a Bachelors Degree from Taylor University and lives in Columbus with his wife and two children.

###

Report: Ohio pensions 'hanging by a thread'

Press Release from Buckeye Institute - note that there is a new Retirement Comparison tool featured on their website which allows you to compare your potential retirement to those of public employees. As the release says, you "will be shocked."

Buckeye Institute Releases "Hanging by a Thread" Report on Ohio Pensions and a New "Pensions 101" Website

COLUMBUS - Today, the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions released another groundbreaking report focusing on Ohio's five government defined benefit pension systems. The report, titled "Hanging By a Thread: Big Payouts and Promises Leave Ohio Pension Plans on the Brink of Collapse--or a Massive Bailout" highlights the dire shape of each of the pensions and offers several options for reform that would prevent Ohio taxpayers from being forced to foot the bill for expensive bailouts of an unsustainable system.

The study finds that the combined unfunded liabilities from all of Ohio's pension systems have reached over $66 billion in 2010. That's $5,725.82 owed by every Ohioan and 118 percent of Ohio's biennial budget. Overall, Ohio's pension funds are only 67 percent funded, leaving only 67 cents of assets to pay for every one dollar of liabilities.

Several funds have seen double digit increases in the size of their retiree pension pools over the past decade. Further, monthly pension benefits for career employees also have increased over the past decade anywhere from 12 to over 40 percent.

"The numbers do not lie, there is no way that the current structure of Ohio's pensions is sustainable," said report author Adam Schwiebert. "Should the pensions not earn their assumed 8 percent rate of return, which seems increasingly likely given current global events, taxpayers will inevitably be asked to pick up the difference."

The report concludes by arguing that minimal reform will at best earn a temporary reprieve and that real reform would entail shifting from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans similar to the 401(k)s that are almost exclusively what is available in the private sector.

Along with the report, the Buckeye Institute is launching a dedicated website page, "Pensions 101," aimed at providing Ohioans with a compilation of information concerning Ohio's government pensions and their potential cost to taxpayers.

Included on this page is another innovative Buckeye Institute tool--the Retirement Comparison tool. This simple, but powerful, tool allows users to see the amount of cash they already need today and the amount of cash they will need at age 60 to fund the yearly retirement they'd like to have. To put these figures in perspective, data on the average yearly pension paid by the five government pensions to career retirees, as well as the total payout government retirees could receive over their retirement, is also provided.

"When taxpayers realize exactly what kind of benefits they are on the hook guaranteeing for government workers, they will be shocked," stated Buckeye Institute President, Matt Mayer. "Government workers should have solid retirements; they should not be retiring before the vast majority of private sector workers while getting benefits that far eclipse what the average private sector worker can expect."

###

Across the Spectrum: The Future of Ohio and the Path to Prosperity

Press Release:

BUCKEYE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY SOLUTIONS, THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS, AND GREATER OHIO POLICY CENTER ANNOUNCE JOINT CONFERENCE ON OHIO'S BIGGEST ISSUES

September 26, 2011- Columbus, OH - The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, The Center for Community Solutions and the Greater Ohio Policy Center-three Ohio-based 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations with varying perspectives on government and public policy-announce joint sponsorship of a unique conference, "Across the Spectrum: The Future of Ohio and the Path to Prosperity," to take place on December 8, 2011, at the Columbus Renaissance Hotel. The conference's dual goals are to:

* raise the level of public discourse in an era in which winning has replaced good public policy as the objective and
* explore differences and common ground on key substantive policy issues central to the future prosperity of Ohioans.

This conference recognizes that solving the deep economic and fiscal problems confronting Ohio and the nation requires fundamental government restructuring, across many areas, and new thinking about public policy and the roles of government. With its unique bipartisan underpinnings and multi-faceted approach, this conference is a singular event in the country at a time when partisanship has run amok and special interests on both sides of the aisle hold many elected officials hostage.

Keynote speakers include: Dr. Arthur Laffer, Founder and Chairman, Laffer Associates and The Laffer Center for Supply-Side Economics; Dr. Alice Rivlin, Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and former Director of Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton; and Professor Walter Russell Mead, Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College & Editor-at-Large of The American Interest.

"While we acknowledge that we don't agree on all the answers to these sticky questions, we do agree that Ohioans must take a fresh look at and restructure many of its policies and programs to address the challenges of the current era - and the future," said John Begala, Executive Director of CCS. "Our aim is to challenge individuals and organizations to think out of their intellectual and ideological silos and work collaboratively to jumpstart a new economy in Ohio," concluded Lavea Brachmann, Executive Director of Greater Ohio. Matt Mayer, President of the Buckeye Institute added: "This conference provides the forum to promote a healthy exchange of ideas and lay the groundwork for concrete policy reforms, reflecting Ohio's aspiration to regain its status as the "state" of innovation."

The full agenda with speakers is below.


"Across the Spectrum: The Future of Ohio and the Path to Prosperity"

Renaissance Columbus
50 North 3rd Street
December 8, 2011

8:30 am
Opening Remarks: John Begala, The Center for Community Solutions

8:45 am to 10 am
Panel I - 21st Century Government: Consolidation & Smart Growth
Moderator: Lavea Brachman, Greater Ohio Policy Center
* Eric Fingerhut, former Chancellor, Ohio Board of Regents
* Mayor Karl Dean, City of Nashville (Invited)
* Mayor Michael Bell, City of Toledo

10:15 am to 10:30 a.m
Break

10:30 am to 11:45 am
Panel II - Reforming Health Care: Improving Coverage & Outcomes While Restraining Costs
Moderator: Jon Honeck, The Center for Community Solutions
* Patrick Dugan, Chief Legal Officer and Executive Vice President, Medical Mutual
* Edmund Haislmaier, Senior Research Fellow, Health Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation
* Amy Rohling McGee, President, Health Policy Institute of Ohio

11:45 am to 12:00 p.m
Break

12:00 pm to 1:15 pm
National Debt, Deficits & the Future of Fiscal Federalism
Moderator: Colleen Marshall, Anchor, NBC4
* Arthur Laffer, Founder and Chairman, Laffer Associates and The Laffer Center for Supply-Side Economics
I* Alice Rivlin, Member, National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and former Director of Office of Management and Budget

1:15 pm to 2:15 pm
Panel III: Government Pensions: Balancing the Interests of the Public & their Employees
Moderator: Matt Mayer, Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions
* Daniel Liljenquist, Utah State Senator
* Hank Kim, Executive Director & Counsel, National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems
* Andrew Biggs, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute


2:30 pm to 2:45 pm
Break

2:45 pm to 3:45 pm
Panel IV: State & Local Taxes & Ohio's Future Prosperity
Moderator: Gene Krebs, Greater Ohio Policy Center
* Mayor Don Plusquellic, City of Akron
* Bob Williams, President, State Budget Solutions
* Nick Johnson, Vice President for State Fiscal Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

4:00 pm to 5:15 pm
Panel V: Ohio's Constitutional Review: Maintaining Tradition & Meeting New Needs
Moderator: John Begala
* William Batchelder III, Speaker, Ohio House of Representatives
* Michael Curtin, Editor Emeritus, Columbus Dispatch
* Steven Steinglass, Dean Emeritus, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

5:15 pm
Conference Closing Remarks: Lavea Brachman

5:30 pm to 6:15 pm
Reception

6:30 pm to 8:15 pm
Dinner Keynote Address: Where Is America Headed?
Introductory Remarks: Matt Mayer

Walter Russell Mead, James Clark Chase Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College & Editor-at-Large of The American Interest

Dinner Closing Remarks: John Begala

-30-

Ohio taxpayer contributions to public pensions higher than national averages

Press Release from the Buckeye Institute:

For more information, contact:
Matt Mayer, President
E-mail: mmayer@buckeyeinstitute.org
Phone: 614.224.4422

BUCKEYE INSTITUTE STUDY FINDS TAXPAYER CONTRIBUTIONS TO PUBLIC PENSIONS HIGHER THAN NATIONAL AVERAGES

September 2, 2011- Columbus, OH - The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions has released a report that finds that taxpayer funded employer contributions to most of the state pension plans exceeds both the national average and national median for comparable systems in other states.

The report, titled Taxpayers on the Hook, further finds that despite these generous contribution rates, none of the pensions are fully funded. In fact, the best-funded plan only has 75 cents in assets for every dollar in liabilities. This means that, ultimately, taxpayers would be on the hook to pony up additional dollars if pension investment returns decline.

By contrast, if the state were to simply pay a matching rate in line with the national median for the Ohio Public Employee Retirement System (OPERS), State Teacher Retirement System (STRS) and the Ohio Police and Fire Pension Fund (OP&F) it is estimated that $748 million in taxpayer dollars could be saved annually.

Breaking down the ranking, Ohio ranks 14 out of 50 states with a 14 percent of salary matching rate for its main state employee pension, OPERS. The national median is 11.94 percent and the average 12.17 percent.

For state's with separate teacher pension funds, Ohio ranks 9th in the nation with a 14 percent taxpayer contribution rate compared to a national median of 9.8 percent and an average of 11.85 percent.

For states with a specific state pension for police officers, Ohio ranks 10th in the nation with a 19.5 percent taxpayer contribution rate compared to the national median of 11.36 percent and average of 14.7 percent.

Ohio ranks 6th nationally when it comes to taxpayer funded pension contributions for firefighters, with a rate of 24 percent. The national median is 12 percent and average 15.61 percent.

The report also reaffirms that previous research done by the Buckeye Institute, the Impact of Shifting State Workers to Defined Contribution Plans, on the benefits of shifting from a defined benefit pension plan, as Ohio currently has for all state employees, to a defined contribution plan. Such a shift would eventually remove taxpayers from the hook of contributions above and beyond already high rates.

An appendix that includes all state contribution rates is also available.

###

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is Ohio's premier free market think tank. Based in Columbus, Ohio, the Buckeye Institute has provided the research and solutions to Ohio's toughest public policy challenges in economic freedom and competitiveness, job creation and entrepreneurship, and government transparency and accountability for over 21 years.

www.buckeyeinstitute.org

Myths about collective bargaining and SB 5

Yesterday, Ohio unions filed over 1 million signatures to put a repeal of Senate Bill 5, the collective bargaining reform bill, on the ballot. There already has been, and will continue to be, distortions about what the bill contains and what its impact on Ohio, Ohio taxpayers and unions will be.

The Buckeye Institute has done some terrific work laying out the 'myths' and clarifying SB 5. Just recently, they released a short video that explains The Fifteen Myths of Collective Bargaining. These are from their works released over the past several weeks, Five More Myths About Collective Bargaining and Senate Bill 5 and the Top Ten Myths About Collective Bargaining and Senate Bill 5.

Please read and watch - and then share with family, friends and neighbors. It is likely, with over a million signatures, that the repeal will be on the ballot in November and we need every voter informed on the issue.

To view the video visit www.buckeyeinstitute.org.

To view the five new myths click here.

For the original ten myths click here.

New comparison tool shows state workers are paid more than private sector

Press Release from yesterday:

NEW COMPENSATION TOOL LETS OHIOANS COMPARE THEIR COMPENSATION PACKAGES TO STATE GOVERNMENT WORKERS

June 6, 2011-COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions today launched the new Government Compensation Comparison Tool. This tool gives private sector Ohioans the ability to compare their compensation packages to that of state government workers.

The average hourly rate for state workers in 2010 was $25.28, which equals an average yearly salary of $52,580.

The highest hourly rate for a State of Ohio employee was a physician who was paid $101.79 per hour.

The highest paid state worker earned $325,700, including more than $174,000 in overtime pay.

A comparison of state worker salary averages and private sector worker data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics for Ohio shows that in many cases state workers are paid much more than their private sector counterparts. Below are a few examples of private vs. public sector compensation:

· Cashiers: (private) $18,830 vs. (public) $35,511

· Laborers: (private) $25,500 vs. (public) $29,752

· Janitors and Cleaners: (private) 24,670 vs. (public) $30,620

· Registered nurses: (private) $60,590 vs. (public) $65,660

· Customer-service representatives (private) $32,500 vs. (public) $41,156.

The Government Compensation Comparison Tool can be found at http://buckeyeinstitute.org/job-comparison

###

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is Ohio's premier free market think tank. Based in Columbus, Ohio, the Buckeye Institute has provided the research and solutions to Ohio's toughest public policy challenges in economic freedom and competitiveness, job creation and entrepreneurship, and government transparency and accountability for over 21 years.

Buckeye Institute: analysis of S.B. 5 and statement on OEA indoctrination

Press Release:

BUCKEYE INSTITUTE RELEASES AN ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 5 AND ON OEA'S PLAN TO INDOCTRINATE OHIO'S KIDS

May 5, 2011-Columbus, Ohio - The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions today released its analysis of Senate Bill 5. This analysis looks at the details of the bill from the Ohio taxpayer's perspective and shows the savings to taxpayers by looking at three separate government entities: the State of Ohio, City of Eastlake, and Dublin City Schools. The analysis also moves to discredit several claims reported by the unions on the effects Senate Bill 5 will have on our government employees.

"The passage of Senate Bill 5 is a monumental step on behalf of our right as taxpayers to efficient government. From the moment Ohio's collective bargaining law was passed in 1983, the interest of taxpayers took an increasing backseat to the interest of labor unions," stated Matt Mayer, President of the Buckeye Institute. "SB5 ends that faulty and costly premise."

The full analysis can be found at: http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/uploads/files/An%20Analysis%20of%20Senate%20Bill%205.pdf

The Buckeye Institute also released a short comment on the Ohio Education Association's push to indoctrinate Ohio's schools children with union propaganda. To see the report and example from the OEA monthly newsletter click here.

###

From the comment by Matt A. Mayer, President of the Buckeye Institute, referenced above:

"I will be the first to defend the right of Ohio's government workers to protest and to advocate for their position in the public arena. Such a right is among the foundational rights of our great Republic. The Ohio Education Association (OEA), however, believes teachers should carry their protest and advocacy into the classrooms all over Ohio. The OEA also believes teacher should not only be members of a labor union, but also should indoctrinate our children in unionism.

As the OEA dictates to teachers in their monthly newsletter, "it's essential that they not only be teacher unionists but teachers of unionism. We need to create a generation of students who support teachers and the movements of teachers for their rights." How about they focus on just teaching our kids the core skills they will need in math, reading, writing, and science? How about they leave their political ideology and unionism out of the classroom? As the National Assessment of Educational Progress results show, more than half of America's 8th graders fail basic civics tests. Clearly, our teachers have enough to do already."

I HIGHLY recommend you click on the link and read the entire document!

Buckeye Institute's State of the State Report

Press Release:

BUCKEYE INSTITUTE RELEASES STATE OF THE STATE REPORT

April 6, 2011-COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions today released its second annual State of the State report Ohio's Weak Economy Struggles to Prop Up an Oversized Government. The report shows an economic snapshot of the state and each county.

The main points of the report are:

* The average private sector salary fell while average government salaries at all levels increased.
* Median household income in Ohio has decreased nearly $3,000 to roughly $45,000.
* National median household income is about $50,000.
* All counties lost private sector jobs from 2008 to 2009.
* Ohio lost 537,500 jobs (11%) since January 2000, second to MI.
* Ohio has the 5th worst business climate, 18th highest tax burden and 6th worst population growth from 2000-2009.

"Private sector Ohioans are making less money while government employees continue to receive significant pay increases that we can't afford," Mary McCleary, Policy Analyst for the Buckeye Institute stated. "We have 537,000 fewer private sector workers supporting the same size of government we had 10 years ago, but it is more costly than ever."

The full report can be viewed at http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/uploads/files/2011StateoftheState(1).pdf


###

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is Ohio's premier free market think tank. The Buckeye Institute has provided the research and solutions to Ohio's toughest public policy challenges in economic freedom and competitiveness, job creation and entrepreneurship, and government transparency and accountability for over 21 years.

Mary McCleary is a Policy Analyst at the Buckeye Institute. She is the author of Dipped in Gold: Upper- Management Police and Fire Retirees become Public-Service Millionaires. McCleary has also been published in major newspapers around the state of Ohio and appeared on radio programs for her work.

TPS projects $97.6 million deficit by 2015

I posted the press release from the Buckeye Institute when they announced their "Six Principles for Fixing Ohio." As a follow-up to that report, today I received this blurb:

School District Financial Projection Charts

As a supplement to the "Six Principles for Fixing Ohio," school district charts from the fiscal projections have been developed for Ohio's 613 school districts. Roughly 91 percent of the school districts project deficits in their ending cash balances by 2015. The aggregate deficit for all schools exceeds $7.6 billion. By 2015, compensation package costs will swallow 96 percent of projected revenues. With only 4 percent of revenues remaining, no amount of cost-savings outside of compensation package cuts will ease the expected deficits. Thus, school districts will either have to dramatically increase revenue via higher tax levies or make cuts to compensation packages or a combination of both actions.

Click here to view the charts.

For Lucas County, you can begin on page 46 of this report. What I read in the report alarmed me.

Toledo Public Schools reported that their personnel costs in 2010 are 71.4% of their total revenues. For 2011, they're projecting a $3 million increase in revenue and the personnel costs drop to 64% of income. But they're projecting that their revenues will drop steadily from 2011 to 2015 - by $59.9 million (a 17.5% decrease). Interestingly, they're projecting increases in expenses of $38.8 million by 2015 - 11.3%.

This means that, by 2015, personnel costs at TPS will eat up 91.4% of their income resulting in a $97.6 million deficit. Remember - these are TPS's own figures.

Buckeye estimates that "by reducing compensation package costs by 10
percent and limiting future growth to 3.2 percent," their budget deficit could be reduced to $86.6 million.

So a 10% reduction in compensation costs coupled with limiting growth in spending to only 3.2% will save us $11 million by 2015.

Now, public agencies routinely estimate decreasing revenues and increasing costs, so without going through each of the line items, I cannot say if these numbers are realistic or not. But these are the numbers directly from TPS and they show that in four years, they'll be spending only 8.6% of their revenue to spend on items other than their personnel (buildings, utilities, books, supplies, transportation) and their budget deficit will be gigantic.

No amount of spending cuts - on school buses, after school programs, sports, etc... will address the huge hole they're heading into. And voters rejected their last levy request because, well, we're tapped out too. That was a 7.8 mill levy estimated to produce $22 million per year. To get to their projected deficit of $97.6 million, they'd probably need around a 34 mill levy. I just don't see that happening.

The 'transformational change' TPS has been talking about can save some money over time, but at an estimated savings of $25 million, it won't be enough to address their projected deficit of $97.6 million.

As personnel costs will be the largest component, only a restructuring of those costs can address the issue. But is there the will on the TPS Board to take the necessary steps? Only time will tell.

Buckeye Institute responds to Innovation Ohio report

There's a new left-leaning think tank in Ohio called Innovation Ohio. It was started by Janetta King, who was chief of staff for policy for former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland. Yesterday, they issued a report critical of S.B. 5, the collective bargaining bill, which concludes:

There is no evidence that ending or eviscerating collective bargaining would have a salutary effect on student success in the future, or that ending it is necessary to institute still-needed reforms. In fact, ending collective bargaining could and likely would have unintended negative effects.

Nevertheless, there is no denying the severity of Ohio’s budget crisis, the difficult financial straits of many local school districts, or the likelihood that further sacrifice will be required, not just from teachers, but from all Ohio citizens. While Innovation Ohio deeply believes that future sacrifice should be shared fairly and not limited to those at the middle and lower income levels, that is a subject that goes beyond the scope of this analysis.

What can be concluded from this analysis, however, is that past experience clearly shows that necessary sacrifices and reforms can be achieved through the collective bargaining framework that has existed in Ohio since the Reagan Administration.

Today, the conservative-leaning Buckeye Institute issued the following statement in response:

A Short Response to the Innovation Ohio Report

"Ohio Teachers and Collective Bargaining: An Analysis"
Matt A. Mayer, President February 28, 2011

First, we welcome Innovation Ohio to the public policy debate. Innovation Ohio joins the existing pack of progressive think tanks-Policy Matters Ohio, ProgressOhio, the Center for Community Solutions, Economic Policy Institute, and the Center for Working Class Studies-advocating for the same set of policies for Ohio. We will continue to do our best to keep up with these groups.

Next, we are perplexed that Innovation Ohio (and the Ohio Education Association), given the reportʼs findings that teachers make more outside of collective bargaining, does not support Senate Bill 5. Specifically, the report found that "the BLS data reveal that the more states erode teachersʼ rights to collectively bargain, the more it likely will lead, on average, to higher salary increases." Perhaps they believe teachers would rather have more process than higher pay.

Finally, the report found that "Ohioʼs kindergarten, elementary, middle school and high school teachers saw their salaries, on average, drop 3.8% between 2008 and 2009." This finding, based upon a limited national survey, conflicts with the more comprehensive school district data from the Ohio Department of Education.1 The ODE data shows that, instead of pay cuts, teachers across Ohio saw their median pay increase from 2008 ($49,951.40) to 2009 ($50,557.50) by $606.00, or 1.2 percent. Ohio teachersʼ median pay rose even higher from 2009 to 2010 ($52,001.00), as the median pay jumped by $1,443.50, or 2.9 percent.

As the financial projections of the 613 school districts show, by 2015, 91 percent of Ohioʼs school districts will reach severe deficits. Compensation packages will swallow 96 percent of projected revenues. With local taxes already high, homeowners across Ohio likely will not support increased operational tax levies. We look forward to seeing our friends on the left and the OEA provide solutions to this mounting crisis. For a district-by-district financial review, please see the easy-to-read charts at http://buckeyeinstitute.org/reports/school-districts.

1 Ohio Department of Education, District Data - Teacher Information 2008-2010, Interactive Local Report Card Home (accessed on February 28, 2011) available at http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/Downloads.asp.

ACORN out of Ohio

I saw this last night, but didn't get a chance to post about, so my apologies if this is old news to some....but even if it is, it bears repeating: ACORN is out of Ohio's elections.

From the Columbus Dispatch:

ACORN, the liberal group notorious for allegedly trying to inflate voter rolls through fraudulent practices, has seen its last election in Ohio.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now will permanently surrender its Ohio business license by June1 as part of a legal settlement with the conservative Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, both sides said yesterday.

The original announcement of the lawsuit, with details about the case, is available here.

While the settlement is not public, ACORN will surrender its business license by June 1 and, according to Maurice Thompson, director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, they will "cease to operate in Ohio and cease to support or enable other groups to do what they do."

ACORN, of course, claims they did nothing wrong and have already ceased operations in Ohio for 'other reasons,' though they don't explain what those 'other reasons' are. Some are speculating it has to do with the internal issues ACORN is having nationally, as well as cutbacks in their funds from the government.

And then others are wondering how long this will last. Will they reconstitute under another name and continue their operations, despite the agreement to not "support or enable other groups to do what they do"?

Who knows? But I believe that, despite what others claimed are 'good works' by this group, Ohio is better off without the myriad of problems they caused our elections system.

Initiative to repeal Ohio's estate tax begins

This just in via email:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, September 14, 2009

Buckeye Institute Sample Language Used for Estate Tax Repeal

COLUMBUS - The Buckeye Institute's 1851 Center drafted language for an initiated statute amendment to eliminate Ohio's estate tax that was adopted by Citizens United to End Ohio's Estate Tax. On Friday the Attorney General approved the language for the group to begin collecting the signatures required to have the state legislature consider the initiative.

"The estate tax causes a significant harm to Ohio's families, specifically families owning small businesses and farmers," said Maurice Thompson, 1851 Center Director. "It also drives many of our wealthiest citizens, who are sometimes our most productive, out of the state."

The Buckeye Institute released a study in cooperation with the American Legislative Exchange Council which finds Ohio's estate tax is the worst in the country, kicking in on estates valued as low as $338,333.

"People shouldn't be forced to move away from their homes and their families in order to avoid an overreaching government," Thompson added.

The language for the initiative is available here.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, together with its 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, is a nonpartisan research and educational institute devoted to individual liberty, economic freedom, personal responsibility and limited government in Ohio.

-30-

High-speed rail a waste of money, report says

This just in from Buckeye Institute:

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

High-Speed Rail a Waste of Money, Says Report

COLUMBUS - The Obama Administration's proposed high-speed rail plan will cost $1,000 for every federal income taxpayer, yet the average American will ride high-speed trains less than 60 miles a year, says a new report from the Buckeye Institute. The report estimates that the average Ohio resident will take a round trip on high-speed trains only once every 19 years. The report can be found at http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/highspeedrail.pdf.

On Wednesday, June 17, the Federal Railroad Administration released criteria for state applications for high-speed rail projects. The new report warns that the cost of these projects could grow to be hundreds of billions of dollars with very little public or environmental benefit.

The federal government is proposing to build true high-speed rail lines - with trains going faster than 120 miles per hour - only in California and Florida. In Ohio and most of the rest of the country, it is merely proposing to upgrade existing freight tracks to boost top Amtrak speeds from 79 to 110 mph.

Trains with a top speed of 110 mph will have average speeds of just 55 to 75 mph. Not only will that attract few people out of their cars, says the report, such trains will actually be less energy efficient and more polluting than driving.

"High-speed rail is an idea whose time has gone," says Randal O'Toole, a Cato Institute senior fellow and the report's author. "It is bad for taxpayers and bad for the environment."

Premium fares and a downtown orientation means that the main people riding these trains will be bankers, lawyers, government officials, and other high-income people who hardly need subsidized transportation. Not only will each federal income taxpayer pay $1,000 for someone else to ride the train, that passenger probably earns more than the average taxpayer.

The administration has compared its high-speed rail plan with President Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System. But interstates were paid for entirely out of gas taxes and other user fees, not general taxes, and the average American travels on interstates 4,000 miles per year. By comparison, general taxpayers will pay for the cost of building and much of the costs of operating high-speed trains that will be used mainly by a wealthy elite.

The report urges Ohio to use its share of federal high-speed rail stimulus money for safety improvements such as grade crossings and signaling systems, but not for new trains that will obligate taxpayers to pay millions of dollars in annual subsidies.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is a nonpartisan research and educational institute devoted to individual liberty, economic freedom, personal responsibility and limited government in Ohio.

Study shows Estate Tax is killing Ohio jobs

This just in from The Buckeye Institute:

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Estate Tax is Killing 58,000 Ohio Jobs Study Says

COLUMBUS - Ohio could add 58,363 new jobs at no cost to taxpayers if the federal estate tax were repealed, according to a new analysis by the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions. The estimates are based on research by the former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. The research was conducted for the nonprofit American Family Business Foundation (AFBF), Washington, DC. The full report can be found at http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/estatetaxreport.pdf.

"As this study clearly shows, the federal estate tax is hurting Ohio's families and businesses," said Buckeye Institute analyst Marc Kilmer. "The penalties this tax imposes on Ohioans who save and invest are ridiculous. Our state's economy would be in better shape if this death tax died and Ohioans were allowed to keep and pass on the assets they worked so hard to build."

The AFBF study found the estate tax has a significant impact on family businesses. Many small businesses are hit especially hard by the estate tax's high marginal tax rate. The current federal estate tax will be eliminated for one year, 2010, but in 2011 it will be reimposed at a rate of 55% on estates over $1 million.

The study found permanently eliminating the death tax would create 1.5 million additional small business jobs. In addition, it would increase hiring by almost 9%, increase payrolls by almost 3%, and expand investment by 3%. The state estimate is calculated based on the percentage of national small-business jobs located in Ohio.

By imposing a high marginal rate on savings and asset accumulation, an estate tax gives entrepreneurs incentives to spend and not save. In a small business context, this hurts the ability of businesses to grow and expand, leading to higher unemployment.

"President Obama has put job creation at the top of his priority list," said Kilmer. "Permanently eliminating the estate tax would be one of the most effective stimulus packages our nation could see."

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is a nonpartisan research and educational institute devoted to individual liberty, economic freedom, personal responsibility and limited government in Ohio. The American Family Business Foundation is the research and education voice of the American Family Business Institute, an organization representing American family business owners and farmers.

More bias in The Blade

It won't come as a surprise to those of us who live in Toledo, but instances of bias in our local daily paper exist and they need to be continually emphasized so as to provide the impetus for correction.

What bias in The Blade, you ask?

This isn't the in-your-face, good picture/bad picture (those we like/those we don't) reputation they've established. Nor is it the blatant 'identify the Republican in the headline and the Democrat in the last paragraph of a negative story.'

No, this is the subtle bias of how adjectives are used - in this most recent example, to describe think tanks.

On March 29, in a story about Ohio's debt, the Buckeye Institute, a free-market think tank, is referenced.

"This [constitutional] cap was put in historically to protect future taxpayers from bad decisions now. Frankly, the state has gotten careless in putting on more debt and just assuming that the economy only grows and we're not going to get up to the ceiling," said David Hansen, president of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions, a conservative, Columbus-based think tank. (emphasis added)

While some would consider Buckeye Institute to be conservative, they identify themselves as free-market. The proper way to reference them would be to call then what they call themselves, if you're going to call them anything at all. I suppose that calling them 'conservative' in the news article isn't really too much of a big deal, especially because supporting free-market principles is a component of a conservative political philosophy.

However...

It becomes a big deal when you see that The Blade does not identify liberal think tanks in the same way.

In today's paper, there is an article about women being the breadwinners as men suffer higher numbers of layoffs in this economy. While they constitute more of the workforce in hard-hit industries, this should come as no surprise, as the article points out. But then there is this:

Heather Boushey, senior economist at the Center for American Progress, says the gender gap in layoffs during tough economic times is not new, but this time it's far more dramatic.

And who is the Center for American Progess? Well, it's the highly liberal think tank started by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. They even say, on their 'about us' webpage:

Our ability to develop thoughtful policy proposals and engage in the war of ideas with conservatives is unique and effective.(emphasis added)

They call themselves 'progressives' and say they believe in the 'common good over narrow self-interest.' In their annual report, they tout "Talking Points – a daily line of argument to sharpen the progressive case and debunk conservative spin."

Now, this information about them being opposed to conservative ideas was readily available and easy to find. A simple Internet search on the name of the organization and their 'about us' page told me that they are clearly liberal in their thinking. That they call themselves 'progressives' (primarily because the liberal connotation is negative to many) doesn't change their philosophical approach to issues.

Had The Blade called them 'liberal' or, even, 'progessive' I wouldn't be making this post. But they didn't.

Their not-so-subtle bias and penchant for identifying conservative think tanks but not liberal ones needs to be pointed out. The Blade needs to treat all think tanks the same: either identify them by their philosophical standing, or don't. But do not expect to get away with calling out one and not the other.



SIDE NOTE: I've mentioned previously that I have a degree in journalism and was awarded the prestigious Dow Jone Newspaper Fund Editing Internship when I was in school. One of the things I know, as a result of my education and internship, is that newspapers have style books that are supposed to ensure references and copy are formatted similarly throughout the newspaper on a regular basis.

Such style books give reporters the information to, for example, properly reference individuals (do you use Mr./Mrs./Ms., or just their last name on first and subsequent mentions?). They cover such issues as capitalizing 'city council,' use of state names or abbreviations, how you use quotations, use of punctuation and even proper spelling. They should also list the rules for how think tanks and other organizations are identified.

I was taught that these guidelines exist not only to provide consistency throughout a publication, but also to avoid the appearance of bias or disparate treatment. Either The Blade doesn't have a rule for the philosophical perspective of think tanks, or they deliberate ignore it. Either way, it needs to be corrected.

2009 Ohio Piglet Book

Last week, The Buckeye Institute and Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) released the 2009 Ohio Piglet Book: The Book Ohio's Government Doesn't Want You To Read.

From the press release:

Ohio budget officials project a shortfall of $7.3 billion for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, which comes after a tough budget period in FY 2009, when Governor Ted Strickland ordered most state agencies to cut 4.75 percent from their budgets in order to backfill a $540 million deficit. As legislators consider how to make revenues meet expenditures, the 2009 Ohio Piglet Book gives concrete examples of waste for policymakers looking to trim the fat from state budgets.

* $126.5 million in FY 2009 for the Third Frontier, which is the Ohio Department of Development's (ODOD) ten-year project to expand high-tech research in Ohio slated to cost $1.6 billion when complete. Third Frontier funnels tax money to a select group of corporations. It is never a good idea for the state to be involved in picking winners and losers in the economy.
* ODOD, which is slated to receive $1.19 billion in FY 2010, distributes tax credits, loans and corporate welfare grants. Previous grants have included giving out $475,000 to open a Chuck E. Cheese in Lima, and $399,000 for construction of a Kroger in Lucas County.
* Ohio taxpayers have subsidized a variety of sports stadiums through the Cultural Facilities Commission, including: $73.35 million for the Great American Ballpark and Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati; $36.8 million for Cleveland Browns Stadium; $5.5 million for the Ice Arena in Toledo; and $200,000 for the City of Avalon Minor League Stadium, among others.
* Ohio taxpayers spent $22.4 million in FY 2009 for the State Racing Commission, even though the state already collects taxes on wagers placed at Ohio tracks and distributes the money to supplement purses, promote horse breeding in the state, and undertake research on horses.

"Ohio's elected officials should always spend tax dollars effectively and efficiently," said David Hansen of the Buckeye Institute. "In times of budget deficits, it is especially important that legislators and the governor make every effort to ensure that money is spent only on those government programs which are truly needed. They have yet to make this effort in Ohio."

"The Ohio Piglet Book should be a wake up call to taxpayers and legislators that state spending is out of control. This is only the first step. The Ohio Piglet has identified the excessive spending; it is now time to get rid of it," concluded David Williams of CAGW.

The booklet goes into detail about why many of the items selected constitute 'pork' despite being called 'economic development' by elected officials.

When it comes to 'investment' by the Ohio Department of Development in the Third Frontier program, the booklet states:

In 2007, venture capitalists invested $16.9 billion in the high-tech industry in the United States. It is unclear why Ohio taxpayers need to turn over $126.5 million to supplement what these entrepreneurs are already doing.

They question the $80 million expense for expanding broadband services across the state, pointing out that:

Ohio politicians, however, think that the government needs to be involved in this effort. But 92 percent of Ohioans already have access to broadband. Among those who do not have broadband available, 49 percent say that if it were available they would not use it.

They also note that there is nothing specific in the legislation for the 'broadband initiatives' that detail how the money is to be spent. But if 92% of Ohioans already have such access and half those without it wouldn't use it if available, why does the state need to spend $80 million to reach the remaining 4%???

The book also highlights the lack of accountability in the 'corporate welfare' categories of loans and grants and opposes them, the ridiculousness of the Grape Council, and the lack of economic development outcomes despite the rhetoric when it comes to justification for sports stadiums.

Then there is this on the Ohio Arts Council:

Apparently the OAC is finding it difficult to make the argument that it should receive funding and cannot determine the value that taxpayers receive from the money it bestows on artists. The OAC decided to use some of its money to urge citizens to find such justification. Of course, the OAC puts it another way:

In early 2008 the OAC launched a new initiative called Take pART that aims to gather public value stories from citizens around Ohio. The OAC introduced the idea of public value to its constituents in 2004 as a core concept for Ohio’s arts organizations as we move into a new era for the arts. Public value is difficult to define in concrete terms. The most important thing about public value is that it is something that exists within each community - it is created by the citizens, businesses and organizations of that community. The OAC can’t define public value for the entire state or even for a particular community or organization. Our goal is to help our constituents seek out and define the public value within their own work, within their own community, and to, in turn, help reveal that public value.

There is no doubt that as constituents define the “public value” of their work there will be more pressure on policymakers to increase funding for the OAC. In fact, the OAC has even posted a webpage to “aid you in making the case for the arts in your community and beyond” since “support for the arts and cultural sector is a sound investment of public dollars.” The OAC was kind enough to provide the “resources you need to demonstrate these key points effectively to community leaders and elected officials across the state.” Or, to put it another way, tax dollars are being used to set up a website to provide resources for people to lobby legislators to spend more tax dollars for arts programs.

Of course, when you go through some of the OAC funding, you can see why they have a hard time justifying it:

* $80,834 for the Dayton Philharmonic Orchestra Association.
* $14,165 for experimental visual art that will “develop, design and produce digital public art through the use of photo booths. Apprentices will create photo backdrops for the booths and members of the general public will use the booths to take their photos. Photos will then be broadcast publicly at each of the partner locations including the jumbo LED screen on Cincinnati Center City Fountain Square.”
* $8,188 for the Columbus Dance Theater.
* $7,326 for the Columbus Gay Men’s Chorus.
* $3,023 for the Cleveland Swingband Foundation.45
* $1,295 to Ana Garcia for an apprenticeship in breakdancing that takes place in Brooklyn, New York. The grant will fund a program where “the master and the apprentice will meet four days a week for three hours a day during two weeks in August. The master will teach new movement vocabulary and the history behind uprocking, toprocking, go-downs, footwork, freezes and power moves."

With the severe budget issues the state is facing, are these the priorities we need to fund? As the book says, "There is certainly a place for the arts in Ohio. There is just no reason for the government to find creative ways to fund them."

It comes down to priorities and the Buckeye Institute asks the hard questions in the Piglet book. I hope you'll take the time to read all 23 pages and then write your state legislators about what YOU think the priorities for funding should be.