Strickland mentioned a possible state shutdown if the Senate does not pass his budget.
Dispatch article: Shut down the state? Just maybe
It sounds like he promised the slot machines to someone.





Strickland mentioned a possible state shutdown if the Senate does not pass his budget.
Dispatch article: Shut down the state? Just maybe
It sounds like he promised the slot machines to someone.
So glad I got out of working for the state last year...
Mae wrote >>
Strickland mentioned a possible state shutdown if the Senate does not pass his budget.
Dispatch article: Shut down the state? Just maybe
It sounds like he promised the slot machines to someone.
It sounds to me like he wants to get the Republican Senators to come up with ideas rather than saying no to everything. I think the Republicans will call his bluff though. Idiot conservatives think that no government is a great thing and that a shut down would save money.
The state is also not paying its bills. Many checks are cut by the Department of Administrative Services. Currently, state agencies are sending processed payment information to DAS but DAS can not send out the checks due to the budget situation.
In my case, all of the money for my budget is federal dollars so the state budget is a non fiscal issue - except that that money gets processed by DAS. So my agency has the money, but the checks can not be cut. So a big backlog of payments is starting and my vendors - many of whom work only for my agency are not getting paid.
As is often the case - efforts to save money often cost money and cuase additional work in the long run.
Anyone want to hire me....this nonsense is driving my batty.
Rockmastermike wrote >>
CMH Gourmand wrote >>
As is often the case - efforts to save money often cost money and cuase additional work in the long run.late fees and interest payments to vendors can really add up. It's totally fiscally irresponsible.
Is the state government actually on the hook for those in the event of a shutdown?
gramarye wrote >>
Rockmastermike wrote >>
CMH Gourmand wrote >>
As is often the case - efforts to save money often cost money and cuase additional work in the long run.late fees and interest payments to vendors can really add up. It's totally fiscally irresponsible.
Is the state government actually on the hook for those in the event of a shutdown?
Listening to NPR this morning, it sounds like it is.
gramarye wrote >>
Rockmastermike wrote >>
CMH Gourmand wrote >>
As is often the case - efforts to save money often cost money and cuase additional work in the long run.late fees and interest payments to vendors can really add up. It's totally fiscally irresponsible.
Is the state government actually on the hook for those in the event of a shutdown?
subject to unusual contractual details with some vendors, but generally yes.
I'd like to propose a Constitutional amendment that says that, any time the State government is shut down, an algorithm kicks in and random citizens are furloughed from their jobs without pay for a week at a time, and their salaries are put in escrow to pay off late fees and interest payments, until a budget is passed. We can blame the politicians all we want, but ultimately we're the ones who elect them.
they should enact a statewide ordinance to collect license fees for bicycle plates. problem(s) solved.
The Ohio Government's future is solely dependent on gambling, eh?
Wow.
We often meet our destiny on the road we take to avoid it. The time for the hard decisions is here. The legislature needs to make the decision given what they know and move forward. Its the only way out of this. If there were better options, I'm certain the collective intelligence of government and community would have come up with it. At some point we have to see it for what it is - government spending more than it makes.
Do it.
No, not bingo....slot machines. First the governor gives us keno, now he is forcing slot machine gambling on us. He is threatening to refuse to sign the budget bill unless the legislature votes to allow digital slot machines at Ohio race tracks.
Ohio voters have rejected slot machines three times already if I recall correctly. The legislature is unwilling to vote to authorize slots; they want to leave it to the voters. My guess is that they don't want to authorize something that the voters hate...that seems responsible and respectable to me.
Why is Strickland so hot on slots? He must owe someone a big favor.
hugh59 wrote >> Why is Strickland so hot on slots? He must owe someone a big favor.
That's a pretty crumby insinuation. I have been against all of the previous gambling ballot initiatives, because they would enrich businesses at the expense of the state. This is a much better deal for the state. I was also against building new casinos and bringing the dreck that comes with them to vibrant places. This proposal lets people gamble by pulling levers in the same place when they can already gamble by placing a bet on a horse. I support this as an unvoted-upon action by the governor and legislature because we simply need the revenue right now. If you don't agree, tell me what taxes you would raise or what programs you would cut.
did you say hot on slots?
joev wrote >>
hugh59 wrote >> Why is Strickland so hot on slots? He must owe someone a big favor.
That's a pretty crumby insinuation. I have been against all of the previous gambling ballot initiatives, because they would enrich businesses at the expense of the state. This is a much better deal for the state. I was also against building new casinos and bringing the dreck that comes with them to vibrant places. This proposal lets people gamble by pulling levers in the same place when they can already gamble by placing a bet on a horse. I support this as an unvoted-upon action by the governor and legislature because we simply need the revenue right now. If you don't agree, tell me what taxes you would raise or what programs you would cut.
yes, we do need the revenue right now, but with his proposal, you wont see any cash coming in until Spring of 2010...
and, crumby insinuation? not really, Ted isnt above that.
I'm still not really getting the issue with allowing a different kind of gambling in a building where gambling is already taking place...
maybe that's just me though.
You must log in to post.