| Page 242

Gov. Strickland Should Seek Revision In Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Law — Before He Asks The Feds For Cash Handout

Posted on December 9, 2008 by Mike Bock

Ohio is missing a lot of money. A recent press release from the governor said, “Governor Ted Strickland and Budget Director J. Pari Sabety today announced that the state is facing not only a budget deficit in our current fiscal year, but is projected to face an exceptionally large, more than $7 billion deficit, in the upcoming 2010 – 2011 operating budget.”

Wow. $7 billion. The official line is that Ohio’s budget deficit is all because the recession has caused a crash in tax revenues. But I’m wondering what impact the 2005 Tax Reduction Act is exerting. This 2005 Act was a five year plan to reduce income taxes by 21% and radically modify and reduce business taxes as well. (I’ve read that the total business reduction, when the new system is implemented, will be 50%, but I can’t find the reference.)

This Tax Reduction Act was Republican designed and Republican lead and occurred at a time when the state of Ohio was under complete Republican control. This Tax Reduction Act reflects the sincere Republican philosophy that the smaller the government the better.

I’m surprised that at this time of economic crisis, our Democratic governor, Ted Strickland, isn’t taking a look at this 2005 Act for possible revision. Instead, Strickland speaks of the need for “shared sacrifice,” and seems set on making deep cuts in government services, in a sense, helping to fulfill Republican’s small government dreams.

It doesn’t seem fair or accurate to blame the lack of state revenues exclusively on the recession. For credibility’s sake, the 2005 Tax Reduction Act should be reexamined as well. It seems to me that our growing budget deficit should spark a debate of whether, in fact, Ohio can afford to give itself such tax relief, and whether the 2005 Tax Act should be revised.

There seems a race to the bottom to creating ever lower tax rates in states. The theory is that low tax states attract new businesses and these new businesses create jobs that create additional tax revenue. The idea is that lower taxes eventually leads to better opportunities and increased tax revenue as well. It’s a nice theory. But the race to the bottom also assures that the proper function of government — to help the less advantaged, to build infrastructure, to provide quality education — becomes degraded.

Governor Strickland is putting his hopes on Ohio getting a federal handout. But does a low tax state deserve federal help? If there is a budget deficit gap, what is the fair amount that state’s taxpayers should be expected to contribute before it makes sense to argue that federal help is needed to fill the gap?

Ohio is in the lower tier of states in terms of per capita taxation. Here is an interesting chart that shows all 50 states.

Ohio and some of its neighboring states:
……………………Ohio…………..Indiana…….Michigan……..Pennsylvania
Total Taxes 24,811            14,098        23,849             30,838
($ million)
Per Capita    2,164    2,222          2,368               2,480
Rank                       38                   35 29                  24
% of
Pers. Income          6.5                  6.9        7.0                  6.8
Rank                       35                  30                27                   32

Compared to all 50 states, Ohio is now 38th in per capita tax amount. Ohio is 35th in terms of percent of personal income. In other words, taxpayers in 34 states pay a larger percentage of their income to state taxes than what Ohio tax payers pay.

When the 2005 Tax Reduction Act is fully implemented at the end of next year, Ohio’s rank will probably be even lower. Ideologues might cheer the fact that Ohio’s taxes are decreasing, but does becoming a low tax state really make Ohio a better state? That is the question a Democratic governor should make a matter of public debate.

Next year is the last installment of the Tax Reduction Act and, I’m calculating, this installment will add an additional $440 million to income tax reductions in Ohio, completing the five year process, resulting in a total of $2.2 billion income tax reduction each year.

It is an interesting fact, that, at the same time Ohio’s tax payers are getting $440 million in additional tax relief, Ohio is asking the federal government for a handout. I’ve not seen this fact mentioned anywhere.

This unusual situation should provide our Democratic governor, Ted Strickland, a great opportunity to show leadership concerning Ohio’s tax policy. Governor Strickland has the opportunity to provide the leadership and moral vision needed to make tax fairness a matter of public debate. But, disappointingly, by all signs, Strickland is planning on doing his best to completely ignore the impact of the 2005 Tax Reduction Act on the budget deficit.

Strickland, evidently, is prepared to make the cruelest of budget cuts without a peep of discussion. How would Bob Taft, if he were still governor, act any differently?

To look at Strickland’s web-site, there seems an implied official policy to not discuss the 2005 Tax Reduction Act. What’s spooky is that this policy of ignoring the 2005 Tax Reduction Act seems to be the local newspaper’s editorial policy as well.

I finally telephoned Dayton Daily News reporter, Laura Bischoff, about her recent DDN article “State’s budget deficit growing.” Bischoff’s article on this important topic, to me, misinforms. The summation of the article is given in its sub-headline: “For the first time, most Ohioans may make less money in 2009 than they did in past years.” Bischoff’s article emphasizes the impact of the recession, but completely ignores the impact of the 2005 Tax Reduction Act on the budget deficit.

What really baffles me, in Bischoff’s DDN article, is this sentence: “Since Ohio started its income tax in 1972, there has never been a two-year decline in income tax revenues but now it looks like Ohio is at the start of a three-year, $1.4 billion decline.”

We already know that, as a result of the 2005 Tax Reduction Act, the state budget is missing $2.2 billion from personal income taxes each year. Is the $1.4 billion, then, in addition to the $2.2 billion?

I’m often quick to criticize the DDN, but, I’ve got to say, I am positively impressed by the fact that the paper encourages contact with their reporters by providing telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. This is the first time I’ve actually telephoned a reporter.

We had a nice conversation. Laura sounded awful, like she is fighting a major cold. She said her notes from the article were elsewhere, and so she couldn’t specifically answer my question. I had a chance to explain my concerns about her article and she seemed appreciative to hear some feedback. She said that she has submitted additional questions to the governor’s office that have not yet been answered, and that she hoped to write future articles about the topic.

I eventually also telephoned the governor’s office, since that was Bischoff’s source, and was directed to the office of the press secretary, Keith Daily. Mr. Daily’s office promised me that Mr. Daily would return my call at a later time. Nothing yet.

Strickland is seeking direct federal aid for Ohio. It seems to me, Strickland’s quest for federal aid would have more credibility if he would also ask Ohio’s legislature to cancel the scheduled tax reductions for this next year, provided for in the 2005 Tax Reduction Act. Canceling this year’s scheduled reduction would mean that $440 million in annual revenue would be added to the state. It would seem that such an act by the legislature would strengthen Ohio’s case to the federal government for a handout.

And here is something else: Just like George Bush’s federal income tax cuts, Ohio’s state income tax cuts disproportionately favor the wealthy. According to Policy Ohio, 26% of Ohio’s Income Tax Reduction goes to incomes in excess of $340,000. Of the $2.2 billion in total annual income tax reduction, the result of the 2005 Tax Law, 26%, or $572 million, goes to incomes in excess of $340,000.

Strickland could rescind the tax cuts just for the most wealthy — those incomes in excess of $340,000 — this action alone would add $572 million to the state’s yearly revenue.

Seeking revision to the 2005 Tax Reduction Act, I’m sure, would cause a political storm, and it well could be that a Republican dominated State Senate would never consider revision. But, if Strickland has any hopes of “turning Ohio around,” as he promised in his 2006 campaign, he needs to show leadership that educates and inspires.

Ohio needs to be turned around in its thinking about taxes, its thinking about the role of government. And this is Strickland’s opportunity. This time of crisis is an opportunity for leadership to be heard and to influence. I’m disappointed that Governor Strickland seems disinterested.

I’ve written about the state budget here:

Posted in M Bock, Opinion | Tagged Gov. Strickland, Ohio's 2005 Tax Reduction Law, Tax cuts for wealthy | Leave a comment

Deepak Chopra’s New Book: “Jesus: A Story of Enlightenment”

Posted on December 5, 2008 by Mike Bock

In searching around about Deepak Chopra’s controversial comments on CNN, I discovered that Chopra has published a new book, Jesus: A Story of Enlightenment.

This Time Magazine review, by David Van Biema, says, that in this book, “We meet Jesus consulting with a guru on an icy mountaintop in what seems like Tibet. He gets caught up with armed Jewish zealots, dallies with the Essenes (who collected the Dead Sea Scrolls) and eventually achieves a oneness with God. Chopra spoke with TIME about his novel.”

Here is a portion of Van Biema’s interview with Chopra:

Your version of Jesus’ “missing years” is heavy on his search for enlightenment, on both external and internal journeying. Is that an area in which you felt the Gospels needed supplementing?

When I was growing up, I went to an Irish-Christian missionary school. I was totally fascinated by the New Testament. I must have read it a few thousand times. One day I was reading the Gospel of John 10: 30, where Jesus says, “I and God are one.” The crowd immediately wants to stone him for blasphemy. But he quotes a psalm that says “You are Gods, sons of the most high,” which he tells them was addressed to “those to whom the word of God came.” He clearly sees himself as equivalent to that group.

I interpreted this as “those who have knowledge of God are God.” In Eastern philosophical systems there’s an established idea of a path through personal consciousness to a collective conscience to a universal conscience, which people call the divine. I concluded that Jesus must have experienced this consciousness, and that he must have followed a path. The story is about that evolution.

In fact, you write “making [Jesus] the one and only son of God leaves the rest of humankind stranded.”

Because we end up worshipping the messenger instead of the message and excluding all the theologies that existed before Jesus was born.

But it’s also the one thing that inspires Christ’s most fervent followers: that Jesus was God’s only son, who died for them and so took away sin. Isn’t your premise of an acquired godhood heretical to orthodox Christians?

It may be. Fundamentalist Christians always quote Jesus in the Gospel of John saying “I am the way. I am the life. Nobody comes into the kingdom of heaven except through me.” But what does Jesus mean by “I”?” In his language, Aramaic, the word is translated as “the I within the I.” So he may be speaking about himself as a universal spirit. In that case he can’t be squeezed into a body or the span of a lifetime.

But God’s crucifixion and resurrection as Jesus are all normative in Christianity.

All religions develop, become exclusive, become divisive and quarrelsome.

In your book there is a crucifixion, but only reported secondhand by Jesus as something like a dream.

The symbolic language of the crucifixion is the death of the old paradigm; resurrection is a leap into a whole new way of thinking. The language of the Sermon on the Mount — if someone hits you, turn the other cheek — he’s making a creative leap, and that’s the death of an old way of thinking and the birth of a completely new way. Every spiritual tradition has this idea of death and resurrection. It’s not unique to Christianity.

Posted in Dayton Blog Feeds | Tagged a Story of Enlghtenment, deepak chopra, Jesus | Leave a comment

Gotham Chopra Defends His Dad, Deepak, From WSJ Attack, About Origins Of Terrorism

Posted on December 5, 2008 by Mike Bock

Until the recent dustup about his CNN interview, I didn’t know that Deepak Chopra has a son, Gotham. Gotham’s bio shows that he works for Channel 1, the in school TV show for over 8 million students, as a foreign correspondent, and has published his own books.

Gotham has written an article in his Dad’s defense, in response to a Wall Street Journal article published yesterday, written by Dorothy Rabinowitz, “Deepak Blames America,” highly critical of Deepak’s response on CNN and elsewhere to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Rabinowitz in her article ridicules Deepak as “healer, New Age philosopher and digestion guru, advocate of aromatherapy and regular enemas.” She belittles his reasoning that America is responsible for a lot of terrorism.

Rabinowith wrote, “In his CNN interview, … what happened in Mumbai, (Deepak) told the interviewer, was a product of the U.S. war on terrorism, that ‘our policies, our foreign policies’ had alienated the Muslim population, that we had ‘gone after the wrong people’ and inflamed moderates. And ‘that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay.’

In Gotham’s lengthy reply, he says about Rabinowith, “Clearly she appears to be no student of history. If she was, she would understand the context in which this latest terrorist attack appears to have occurred.”

Excerpts from Gotham’s article:

In the 80’s the CIA financed the militarization of Afghan rebels to resist Soviet expansion in the region. At the same time, the US also subsidized Pakistan’s intelligence agency the ISI to train and provide tactical support to those same Islamic militants. Fast forward to the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Soviet’s pulling out of Afghanistan, and the United State’s subsequent withdrawal of support from the region as well. The result: a vacuum filled with a lot of guns and rage.
There is a distinct link between the rise of Islamic militancy in the Indian Subcontinent and the US activities there over the last few decades. Allegations that the group of terrorists that perpetrated the Mumbai attack has links to a Pakistani-based terror group and that they actually launched the attack from Karachi seems pretty solid.
To deny the inherent tangled hierarchy of ongoing conflicts in Israel, Iraq, and Kashmir that pit opposing ideals against one another with the supply of billions of dollars into the oil industry, ground zero for which is the American ally Saudi Arabia, and the even more profitable arms trade that subsidizes all sides of these wars showcases Ms. Rabinowitz’s unprofessional lack of understanding.
We can no longer afford the delusion that we have no part in a global community plagued by the sickness that is Islamic fundamentalism largely brought on by economic disparity and ideological hypocrisy, not to mention myopic policies, oil money, and arms sales that nurture it. To pretend otherwise is to perpetuate and encourage more brazen attacks. To think that this creative solution should not appeal in some way to the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, the vast majority of whom are not terrorists, is plain negligence.
Dorothy Rabinowitz, for example is an incredibly accomplished journalist and certainly someone with the intellectual capacity to understand the complexity of the issues if she wanted to. And yet instead of writing a thoughtful piece on the Mumbai attacks, she and the WSJ choose to publish a salacious article under the heading of DEEPAK BLAMES AMERICA which clearly is all about generating controversy and news.
There has to be an acknowledgment of the facts – that somewhere between 400 thousand to 1 million Iraqi civilians have perished. Some may argue that that is the price of war and long-term peace and security in the region. Others will say that beyond the immediate cost of those lives is how that has galvanized another generation of Islamic militants.
Saddam Hussein, the late dictator we love to hate so much, as noted above, was originally a prop of the US after an American sponsored coup. For years, the US was well aware of his brutal tactics with his own people including the infamous torture chambers and rape rooms and yet tolerated them because of the so-called broader strategic security interests in the region. To pretend that that was the reason the US decided to “liberate the Iraqi” people is revisionist at best, but really just flat out wrong.
Today, in the face of great danger around the world and more looming terrorist attacks, we all have to be willing to ask ourselves how we can actually contribute in a meaningful way to constructing a long term sustainable and peaceful planet.