Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

  1. #16
    Pagan/Asatru Ravenlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Williamsburg, OH and the wilds.
    Posts
    8,994

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    "Don't tell me you'd vote for a Democrat over Taft?"

    i'd vote for Bill Clinton over Taft.
    the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop


    yes, this really is how we make our living.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,602

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenlord
    "Don't tell me you'd vote for a Democrat over Taft?"

    i'd vote for Bill Clinton over Taft.
    Isn't it moot since his term limit is up?
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  4. #18
    Pagan/Asatru Ravenlord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Williamsburg, OH and the wilds.
    Posts
    8,994

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    yep, but i'm just saying. and using it as a comparison, because i really don't like President Clinton.
    the store for all your blade, costuming (in any regard), leather (also in any regard), and steel craft needs.www.facebook.com/tdhshop


    yes, this really is how we make our living.

  5. #19
    RZ Chamber of Commerce Unassisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    13,440

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    This certainly puts the user fee issue in perspective.
    http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.p...118-A1-00.html
    Spending cap would cost Ohio in services

    Amendment analysis shows parks, schools might be hit hard

    Tuesday, January 18, 2005
    Joe Hallett
    THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

    If a proposed constitutional amendment to limit state spending had been in place during the past decade, Ohio government would have spent at least $18.7 billion less, an amount roughly equivalent to shutting down state government for a year.

    A new government analysis shows that lawmakers would have had to make hard decisions about whether to cut aid to schools, close prisons or parks, eliminate in-home care for the elderly or reduce other services to balance the state budget under the strictures of the amendment targeted for the Ohio ballot in November.

    "If this proposal goes forward — good, bad or indifferent — state government cannot continue to be for citizens what it has been over the last 10 years," said Scott Borgemenke, chief of staff for majority Ohio House Republicans.

    As lawmakers prepare to debate placing the amendment on the ballot — an action requiring three-fifths majority support from both the House and Senate — Borgemenke directed the House budget staff to analyze what the amendment would have meant for Ohio if it had been in place the past decade, encompassing nine fiscal years.

    "We’re trying to see whether we should be for or against this based on the data," Borgemenke said. "It’s a preliminary, back-ofthe-napkin sketch to show our members what the numbers look like. Then you have to take the numbers and apply them to public policy."

    The amendment, championed by Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell and fellow Republican conservatives in the General Assembly, has a good chance of passing in the absence of an alternative ballot proposal, because the concept of reducing the size of government has a visceral appeal to voters, Borgemenke said.

    If the legislature declines to put it on the ballot, Blackwell and his anti-tax group, Citizens for Tax Reform, have vowed to secure enough signatures from registered voters to qualify it for the Nov. 8 election. Neither Blackwell nor Rep. Linda Reidelbach, R-Columbus, House sponsor of a bill to put the amendment before voters, could be reached for comment last night.

    The amendment would prohibit state spending from increasing above the combined rate of inflation and population growth unless three-fifths of the legislature and a majority of voters approve the higher spending. The spending restrictions also would apply to city, village and township governments.

    The House budget staff, basing its analysis solely on state general revenue spending — excluding money from the federal government and subtracting local property-tax relief — determined that Ohio government would have nearly $3.5 billion less to spend in the current fiscal year alone if the amendment were in place.

    Decreasing spending by that amount would alter how the state serves virtually every one of its 11 million residents. Among possible scenarios assembled by Borgemenke’s staff for cutting $3.5 billion a year:

    • Reduce education spending by $2.5 billion. Per-pupil aid would fall from $5,169 to $3,550, ranking Ohio with Alabama and Mississippi among the nation’s lowest.

    • Eliminate half of state spending for local governments, saving $352 million.

    • Cut 80 percent of funding for local libraries, saving $380 million.

    • Eliminate all state spending for Passport, the $103 million program of in-home care for the elderly.

    • Close all state parks, saving $128 million.

    Other scenarios could include closing state prisons or state facilities for the mentally retarded, or wiping out all $2.48 billion spent on higher education.

    "Clearly what this shows is that all the services currently provided by the state could not be kept in place," Borgemenke said. "It’s like everything else — you don’t know what you have until it’s gone. I think taxpayers would realize what’s gone under this."

    Through the past nine fiscal years, the state has spent $135 billion from its general revenue fund. The proposed constitutional cap on spending would have meant $18.7 billion less for the general revenue fund during that time, or about $14 out of every $100 spent. This fiscal year, the state is expected to spend about $17.9 billion from the fund when federal money and local property tax relief are excluded.

    The reduction in state spending growth required by the amendment likely would transfer more responsibility to fund services from the state to local governments, which would be bound by the same restrictions, Borgemenke said.

    Required by federal mandates to help fund spiraling costs of Medicaid, the health-insurance program for the poor that consumes about half of Ohio’s annual spending, the state would have to stretch its reduced revenues if the constitutional amendment were approved, Borgemenke said.

    "We will become an insurer and an incarcerator," he said. "We’ll pay for Medicaid and put people in prison. Outside of that, we’re not going to be able to do much else."
    /r/reds

  6. #20
    A Little to the Left Redsfaithful's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Bexley, OH
    Posts
    7,463

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    Per-pupil aid would fall from $5,169 to $3,550, ranking Ohio with Alabama and Mississippi among the nation’s lowest.
    That's certainly company we want to be keeping.

    Thank you Governor Taft.
    We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
    --Oscar Wilde

  7. #21
    Lover of Trivialities Doc. Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Portland, OR (West Chester, OH)
    Posts
    6,091

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    Reduce education spending by $2.5 billion. Per-pupil aid would fall from $5,169 to $3,550, ranking Ohio with Alabama and Mississippi among the nation’s lowest.

    • Eliminate half of state spending for local governments, saving $352 million.

    • Cut 80 percent of funding for local libraries, saving $380 million.

    • Eliminate all state spending for Passport, the $103 million program of in-home care for the elderly.

    • Close all state parks, saving $128 million.

    Other scenarios could include closing state prisons or state facilities for the mentally retarded, or wiping out all $2.48 billion spent on higher education.
    The fact that some of this is even being ENTERTAINED makes me angry.

    Good lord, am I glad I'm getting out of this state by midyear. Now that virtually all the good things about my home state are available on the Internet- the Reds, Graeter's, Skyline, WOXY, chats with the family and friends- the state itself is flyover country.

  8. #22
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,304

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    Now that virtually all the good things about my home state are available on the Internet- the Reds, Graeter's, Skyline, WOXY, chats with the family and friends- the state itself is flyover country.
    And with Delta finally coming to their senses (or falling apart) it's cheaper to fly into CVG.... finally.

  9. #23
    Member TeamCasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    TeamBoone's Attic
    Posts
    12,317

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    Doomsday article. (Similar to school districts eliminating busing to get their levies through.)

  10. #24
    Lover of Trivialities Doc. Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Portland, OR (West Chester, OH)
    Posts
    6,091

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    WOY, I hope it's easier to get a job in Portland than you were implying.

  11. #25
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,304

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc. Scott
    WOY, I hope it's easier to get a job in Portland than you were implying.
    Depends on what you do and where you want to work.... i'll assume you edumacated....

  12. #26
    Lover of Trivialities Doc. Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Portland, OR (West Chester, OH)
    Posts
    6,091

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    MBA from one of our fine Midwestern state schools and almost five years pushing paper...?

  13. #27
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,304

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    You'll do fine........ especially if you don't mind working in a larger company.

  14. #28
    Lover of Trivialities Doc. Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Portland, OR (West Chester, OH)
    Posts
    6,091

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    That's what I do now. I just don't do "pure" sales. And I'd like a desk with a PC that faces away from whereever people walk, thanks.

  15. #29
    Member dman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Grove City, Ohio
    Posts
    1,385

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    Just saw today where Ohio's House Republicans are scrapping this idea.

  16. #30
    RZ Chamber of Commerce Unassisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    13,440

    Re: Proposed "User Fees" for State Parks

    Quote Originally Posted by dman
    Just saw today where Ohio's House Republicans are scrapping this idea.
    I wonder what they'll say to constutuents who complain that the grass is 3 feet high in their favorite state park?
    /r/reds


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25