Anti-incumbent plan proves tricky

I heard about half of the Ohio governor candidates’ first debate on the radio last night. I was hoping to really hear the difference between Democrat (and current U.S. Representative) Ted Strickland and Republican (and current Ohio Secretary of State) Kenneth Blackwell.

You’ll never guess my overall response:

Disappointment.

Half was all I could stand. No matter who asked what question, Blackwell’s response was consistent: “Strickland will raise taxes.”

And while I have to give Strickland some credit for trying (key word: “trying”... perhaps I should add “trying lamely”) to address issues, he asked the wrong questions of Blackwell, particularly regarding Blackwell’s plan to privatize the Ohio Turnpike in order to make an estimated $4 billion for the state’s collapsing budget. AND he failed to adequately address his rating of 450 (or something like that) out of 435 representatives by some group that Blackwell has on his commercials.

There are a lot of groups out there who rate politicians. Some rate them by the number of votes they miss (without ever explaining that most votes are foregone conclusions long before the vote is actually held) and others rate them by what kind of music they say they like. I found one rating system on an angelfire server that rated congressmen by how they replied to letters from constituents. It sounds kind of silly, but it was probably the most legitimate system I saw in my brief search. It was pretty entertaining.

Anyway, back to the debate.

Here’s what I wanted to ask Blackwell: If this turnpike plan will generate so much money, then why can’t the state keep the middleman out and generate it themselves? After all, he’s the business manager for the state. If the plan would be that lucrative, then why bring in a private contractor to do it? And if there are contractors out there willing to pay that much to lease the turnpike, doesn’t that suggest that the state has been mismanaging it by not generating that much revenue from it?

I’m sure the response would be something like: well, yeah, but as a government entity we’re limited to keeping it non-profit and blah blah blah. OR Government isn’t as efficient as private industry.

To which I might then ask, why? Ohio’s Republicans have been in charge for 16 years with promises of reducing the size (but not the cost) and increasing the efficiency of government and all they really have to show for it is a squandered budget surplus, a convicted governor, and $25 million in lost state funds that was last seen in the hands of the governor’s golf buddy.

And as far as making a profit, if a private contractor isn’t limited like the state in its operation of the turnpike, does that mean it would then cost $75 to drive on it? Isn’t that sort of the same thing as raising taxes?

The turnpike is a ROAD... it’s part of Ohio’s infrastructure! If there’s one thing liberals and conservatives ever agree on, it’s that this is a function of government. It’s not welfare or public funding for abortion or prayer in schools. It’s a fricking public highway built by the state! Isn’t that what states are supposed to do?!

Proposing leasing the turnpike to a private organization is an admission that Ohio’s leaders have failed to do their job. Of course, the Derolph decision has already told us that, but no one pays any attention to that anymore, especially not Ohio legislators.

Claiming that privatizing the turnpike will generate revenue not only confirms what we heard initially (that Ohio’s leaders failed us) but also demonstrates the unproven, pie in the sky dreams that these folks live on. The turnpike is THE east-west route across northern Ohio. Many commercial vehicles already avoid the tolls by taking smaller, local routes, especially route 30. With only about 45 more miles left of the route 30 upgrade, just how viable as a revenue generator will the turnpike continue to be once 30 is complete?

Claiming that privatizing the Ohio Turnpike will generate revenue without raising taxes sounds like it will work the same as President Bush’s promise to lower taxes – the only thing missing is a way to balance the budget while doing it. (Oh, and tax cuts for the 95% of us who remain unaffected by the tax cuts Bush has put in place) Both plans pass the debt along to the public eventually. We’ll either pay for it in the future through tax increases that someone will eventually be forced to create, or, in the case of the turnpike, we’ll pay for it in either increased tolls, or in shouldering the cost of maintaining the road some other way. In the end, taxpayers will pay whether it’s called a tax or not.

But none of this addresses the real problem. In my last post, I vowed to vote anti-incumbent. The governor’s race is just one example of why this will be difficult. Strickland is an incumbent U.S. representative with a less than stellar record. Record notwithstanding, he is an incumbent. Does a vote for him for governor serve my goal of changing up the House?

Blackwell is a former Treasurer and the incumbent Ohio Secretary of State. He invested in Diebold, golfed with and managed the business affairs of the Taft administration. I imagine he even had to testify against Governor Taft?? Yet his campaign seems to be built on two main ideas: 1) Strickland will raise taxes, and 2) Ohio’s Republican leadership is doing a great job that he’ll continue.

Does voting for him for governor serve the goal of changing up the open corruption in Ohio’s Executive Branch? Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question. OK, so this one’s easy, but how do I handle the Ohio senate race between incumbent Representative and former Secretary of State Sherrod Brown and incumbent Senator Mike DeWine?!

Perhaps Steven Colbert’s anti-voting argument is starting to make more sense.