Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Exploding the Myth of the Fiscally Conservative Republican Governor

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Exploding the Myth of the Fiscally Conservative Republican Governor

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #98150

    News
    Participant

    Exploding the Myth of the Fiscally Conservative Republican Governor

    Friday, July 26th, 2013

    http://www.urbanophile.com

    Republican governors like to strut around like they are the adults in the room, making the painful cuts and decisions needed to balance budgets and propel economies. This lets them portray their policies as somehow rooted in some different and better philosophy of government than their Democratic opponents. But peek under the covers, and you’ll see that all too often these Republicans are just as much big spenders as their Democratic brethren. The only difference is the list of boondoggles they want to waste money on.

    READ MORE: http://www.urbanophile.com/2013/07/26/exploding-the-myth-of-the-fiscally-conservative-republican-governor/

    #547131

    InnerCore
    Participant

    This article highlights the complete hypocrisy of fiscal conservatives, especially those here on the board. As soon as the conversation turns to more efficient forms of transit you’ve got the usual conservative crew swarming in to rebut peoples opinions. However post an article about $3 Billion in highway spending and not one of those people says anything about the spending.

    #547132
    Walker Evans
    Walker Evans
    Keymaster

    InnerCore said:
    However post an article about $3 Billion in highway spending and not one of those people says anything about the spending.

    Good timing… The Dispatch Editorial Board just endorsed the $3 Billion spending plan in today’s paper.

    #547133

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    Walker said:
    Good timing… The Dispatch Editorial Board just endorsed the $3 Billion spending plan in today’s paper.

    Shocking… what’s next, endorsing a Republican candidate for president?

    #547134

    Mercurius
    Participant

    I think both the state and federal governments should be doing a better job with basic Keynesian Economics–that is to save when times are good and spend when times are bad. In my opinion, Governor Kasich’s first biennium budget (Jobs 1.0) did a terrible job of this in that it saved when times were bad (i.e. he cut local government spending and education spending–which a small part of that was passenger rail spending.) The results of this are that Ohio now has a surplus and is dumping money into the rainy-day fund while at the same time local governments are laying off more jobs than the private sector is creating, causing a stagnation in our economy and unemployment rate.

    Many republicans’ salient issue is to maximize ‘the economy.’ The belief is that with a stronger economy, there will be more money circulating for everything else (e.g. education, NGO’s, jobs, infrastructure, whatever.) What they often fail to understand is that workforce development and good infrastructure are much more important to private companies than economic tax incentives, regulatory easing and marginal tax changes.

    I understand the point of this article is to highlight how little passenger rail development would have cost, compared to highway spending in the current proposal. However, that is a false dilemma. Ohio’s highway infrastructure is in desperate need of improvement and I’d be willing to argue that (even the Portsmouth bypass) the return on investment will be much greater than the cost. Portsmouth and Athens would have much stronger economies if it were easier for companies to be located there. That said, I also support passenger rail.

    However, if you want to compare ROI’s, having a region with a good quality of life (which includes public transportation) that helps to attract a strong workforce is much more important than marginal infrastructure improvements. Still, no reason Ohio shouldn’t be trying to do both.

    #547135

    InnerCore
    Participant

    Mercurius said:
    Ohio’s highway infrastructure is in desperate need of improvement and I’d be willing to argue that (even the Portsmouth bypass) the return on investment will be much greater than the cost.

    How so?

    #547136

    Mercurius
    Participant
    #547137

    GCrites80s
    Participant

    The Portsmouth Bypass proposal was put together to please a Russian steel company that was supposed to build a couple mills along the Ohio in like 2005 that never happened. Nobody’s going to move their business to Portsmouth over a road. That’s the kind of hoodwinking that resulted in the entire state of West Virginia getting carved up with highways in the ’90s and 2000s with little significant economic development seen outside of coal trucks being able to drive faster. Appalachia’s already covered in highways with nothing on them already.

    Everybody keeps moving to New York, though, despite that the entire city is “functionally obsolete”.

    #547138

    GCrites80s
    Participant

    Anyway, Reagan’s “Star Wars” and raising taxes all those times taught me all I needed to know about any political party claiming to want to spend less money than another.

    #547139

    Mercurius
    Participant

    GCrites80s said:
    That’s the kind of hoodwinking that resulted in the entire state of West Virginia getting carved up with highways in the ’90s and 2000s with little significant economic development seen outside of coal trucks being able to drive faster. Appalachia’s already covered in highways with nothing on them already.

    I’m sure Senator Byrd being the Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations had nothing to do with that…

    but to an extent, you’re right. Like I said above, workforce is much more important than infrastructure in site selection. Quality of life is important in attracting a quality workforce.

    #547140

    InnerCore
    Participant

    @Mercurius:

    Did you even read what you posted? We should spend $440 million to help generate a couple extra jobs?

    Here is basically the summary of you detailed ling:

    The Portsmouth Bypass holds the economic future for Scioto County, as the county only has several hundred acres left which is out of the flood plain for development. The Bypass will open up thousands of new acres for development, creating job opportunities for thousands of citizens in a very depressed area of the State. Local developers and local government have proven capacity to take advantage of infrastructure development and transportation improvements in attracting new industry and in assisting the expansion of existing commercial/industrial businesses.

    In other words, let’s subsidize roads in an area to create demand where there isn’t much demand. It’s clear that the trend is now to move back toward urban areas. So as the areas in the rural areas get worse and worse, instead of following market dynamics back to the areas that are going better we should continue to subsidize these areas more and more so they can stay there.

    Meanwhile we can’t spend a quarter of that money to build something in downtown Columbus where it will affect 10 times the number of people and probably pay for itself instead of being a continued burden.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2013/03/05/few-ohioans-face-grueling-commute-times.html

    Few Ohioans face grueling commute times

    Ohio rates as one of the best states when it comes to long commutes, according to a new report.

    Spending money on highways has little to do with what Ohio needs and more to do with pushing the ideology of the few. Should the state be spending money to generate economic activity in a depressed area where people don’t even want to move to?

    If companies really wanted to build factories out in the middle of nowhere, then why not let them build the infrastructure to get out there?

    #547141

    Mercurius
    Participant

    InnerCore said:

    @Mercurius
    :

    Did you even read what you posted? We should spend $440 million to help generate a couple extra jobs?

    Here is basically the summary of you detailed ling:

    The Portsmouth Bypass holds the economic future for Scioto County, as the county only has several hundred acres left which is out of the flood plain for development. The Bypass will open up thousands of new acres for development, creating job opportunities for thousands of citizens in a very depressed area of the State. Local developers and local government have proven capacity to take advantage of infrastructure development and transportation improvements in attracting new industry and in assisting the expansion of existing commercial/industrial businesses.

    In other words, let’s subsidize roads in an area to create demand where there isn’t much demand. It’s clear that the trend is now to move back toward urban areas. So as the areas in the rural areas get worse and worse, instead of following market dynamics back to the areas that are going better we should continue to subsidize these areas more and more so they can stay there.

    Meanwhile we can’t spend a quarter of that money to build something in downtown Columbus where it will affect 10 times the number of people and probably pay for itself instead of being a continued burden.

    http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/news/2013/03/05/few-ohioans-face-grueling-commute-times.html

    Few Ohioans face grueling commute times

    Ohio rates as one of the best states when it comes to long commutes, according to a new report.

    Spending money on highways has little to do with what Ohio needs and more to do with pushing the ideology of the few. Should the state be spending money to generate economic activity in a depressed area where people don’t even want to move to?

    If companies really wanted to build factories out in the middle of nowhere, then why not let them build the infrastructure to get out there?

    My point is that it’s not an either/or scenario. You are making a false dilemma and cherry picking data.

    #547142

    Bear
    Participant

    News said:
    Exploding the Myth of the Fiscally Conservative Republican Governor

    With all due respect, I don’t think this is news.

    #547143

    Analogue Kid
    Participant

    Bear said:
    With all due respect, I don’t think this is news.

    I would agree, even though I think the point Aaron makes is quite accurate.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: