It’s amusing to hear Newt Gingrich proclaim that, in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination, he is the “true conservative.”  The Tax Policy Center shows that the Gingrich tax plan would add $1.3 trillion to the U.S. budget deficit each year. True conservatism? For his tax ideas, alone, Gingrich deserves to be laughed off the stage.

George H. Bush in 1980 said Reagan’s “supply side” tax proposals amounted to “voodoo economics.” He had it right. During the Reagan presidency, the national debt tripled — going from one to three trillion dollars.

To be conservative means to believe “there is no such thing as a free lunch.” To be conservative means to be prudent, logical, reality based. It means taking a long term view and making wise plans for a secure future. It means showing a resolve to “conserve” what is important and what is of value.

Gingrich and Republicans want to frame their wacky ideas as “conservative,” but they are not conservative at all. What Gingrich calls “true conservatism” is an ism, all right.  It is a collection of irrational beliefs based on a pretend universe that demagogues like Gingrich use to manipulate the gullible. It is simply wrong to call this ism conservatism. It is “Republicanism.”

George Lakoff states, “At stake is the moral basis of American democracy.” He writes:

“The individual issues are all too real: assaults on unions, public employees, women’s rights, immigrants, the environment, health care, voting rights, food safety, pensions, prenatal care, science, public broadcasting, and on and on.

Budget deficits are a ruse, as we’ve seen in Wisconsin, where the governor turned a surplus into a deficit by providing corporate tax breaks, and then used the deficit as a ploy to break the unions.”

What is astounding is how effective Republicanism propaganda is. There are true believers who actually think Gingrich and other “true conservatives” are wonderfully logical and honestly interested in advancing the general good. Long time Republican, David Frum, asks, When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality? He writes: “We used to say ‘You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.’ Now we are all entitled to our own facts, and conservative media use this right to immerse their audience in a total environment of pseudo-facts and pretend information.”

In 2005, the Ohio Republican government passed a big tax cut drastically reducing taxes on corporations and changing the progressivity of the income tax system, and gave the lion’s share of the tax cut to the wealthy, those who least needed to receive it. The tax cuts, phased in over a five year period, reduced revenue to the state by $2.6 billion each year.  There is no way this big change in Ohio’s tax laws could be defended as following “conservative” principles — prudently planning for the future.  It could only be defended by using “pseudo-facts and pretend information.”

It was obvious, to anyone not believing in voodoo, that this tax cut would cause a big gap in the budget. In 2005 Ohio Policy Matters said, “Closer scrutiny reveals that massive cuts in state spending, or alternative tax increases, that will be required to make up for the revenue shortfall of about $2.8 billion in 2010, the fifth and final year of the tax reform plan’s phase out period.”

And so, in 2011, when it came time for the first Kasich budget — Wow. Surprise, surprise — reality slapped us in the face. The state didn’t have enough revenue. Kasich argued that the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions should be gutted via SB-5 because such action would save the state $1.3 billion.

The motive behind pushing SB-5, of course, had nothing to do with conservatism, nothing to do with dealing with the deficit. It was an attempt to advance the ism of the true believers — smaller government, less regulation, free markets — a belief system deemed worthy of fierce loyalty.

But, authentic conservatism has nothing to do with this wacky belief system of Republicanism, but instead is centered on the democratic principles that make this nation exceptional. The first goal of authentic conservatism should be, in Lincoln’s words, to produce a “government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Why Republicanism rejects authentic conservatism is obvious. A “government of the people” would flatly reject the irresponsible, class warfare strategies that true believers of Republicanism hold dear.

In this campaign season Democratic candidates need to educate voters that “Republicanism” is not conservatism. Democrats should co-opt the word “conservative,” should show that they have ideas that are prudent, reality based, and honor the wisdom of our forefathers. Democrats should speak boldly how “We the People” must work together to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

• Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Act Was Predicted, By 2010, To Result In Yearly State Budget Shortfall of Billions, December 15th, 2008
• Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Law Diminished, By 21%, The Progressivity of Ohio’s Tax Code , August 6th, 2008
• The Ascending Issue In Our Democracy Is Democracy Itself, September 17th, 2007

Jim Butler, Representative for OHD-41. I failed to get a picture today, so I took this from Mr. Butler's web-site.

This is democracy at work. About twelve citizens, out of a possible crowd of 79,000 voters in this district, attended an informal meeting today at the Oakwood Library with Republican Jim Butler, their representative for Ohio House District 41. Butler responded to questions from the entire group for 50 minutes, or so, and afterward, met privately with individuals who chose to do so.

I asked Butler if he would be willing to do “Lincoln Douglas” type debates with his Democratic challenger, Caroline Gentry, and he answered, “Sure.” Wow. Gentry and Butler are both attorneys and both are residents of Oakwood. Butler said he recently had coffee with Gentry and thinks highly of her.

This may be a great year for citizens in OHD-41. Two excellent, articulate candidates, both thoughtful individuals with impressive credentials, both, I believe, well meaning and seeking to do what is best for Ohio, may actually conduct a campaign that will elevate our political discourse and cause thoughtful participation by voters. It would be a great compliment to the citizens of OHD-41 if “Lincoln Douglas” type debates between Gentry and Butler would actually happen.

Butler has been in the Ohio House for one year, appointed to his position by the Republican Party after John Husted was elected Secretary of State and the representative for this district, Peggy Lehner, replaced Husted in the Ohio Senate, leaving her seat in the Ohio House open. This is Butler’s first election.

As I left the meeting today, I praised Butler for his demeanor and openness. Butler, a graduate of the Naval Academy, creates a good rapport with his constituents and shows a positive attitude. It’s just too bad he votes with the Republican caucus.

The meeting started with one member of the group asking Butler to explain his priorities as representative. Butler indicated that he sees his first priority as advancing public policies that will make Ohio more competitive in attracting and growing businesses and growing jobs. He spoke positively about how Ohio’s system has been made more business friendly via the “Jobs Ohio” legislation, and added that he wants to make sure that there are “guard rails” to make sure “Jobs Ohio” works as it was intended to work. He spoke with pride at how Ohio’s $8 billion budget gap was closed without raising taxes, and, how, in fact, because of action of the Assembly, taxes for Ohioans were reduced. He said he particularly was proud that the Assembly voted to end Ohio’s inheritance tax.

In response to my question, Butler said he personally would like to see Ohio follow Indiana’s lead and pass “Right To Work” legislation, but that he agrees with Governor Kasich that the time is not right to pass such legislation now. (At a recent press conference, Kasich said, about “Right to Work,” speaking about the repeal of SB-5, “If you’re going to bring about massive change, that’s going to cause great unrest – I mean, I’ve learned this – is you’ve got to prepare the way.”)

New legislation that Butler hopes the Assembly will agree to pass includes a law he is writing, and will soon present, to empower Ohio prisons to create manufacturing facilities. This new law would allow prisons to employ eligible prisoners, on a voluntary basis, to work for 40 hours each week. Butler says such manufacturing would not compete with American workers, because the prison population would make products that currently are made in foreign countries. Butler says this manufacturing would create profit for the state and would create a savings account for prisoners — money that will be available to them on their release. He proposes that prisoners would work for 25 cents to 50 cents per hour, and says such work would prepare prisoners to reenter society as productive citizens.

Butler said he has refused to sign the Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” to oppose all tax increases, but that about 26 members of the Ohio House have signed the pledge and that Governor Kasich has signed the pledge as well. I’d like to know more about Butler’s thinking about this issue, but didn’t pursue asking a follow-up question.

I asked Butler about his vote, as a member of the House Education Committee, to support legislation (HB136) that would subtract money from public schools and use that money to fund vouchers to pay for private school tuition. Butler said that this legislation is being rewritten and that the new version addresses some objections raised to the original bill. The new version will reduce the number of students who will be eligible to receive such vouchers to only 1% of the student population of any district, will reduce the size of each voucher, and will finance the vouchers with state funds allocated to local schools, not funds generated by local taxes. He said, with the new formula, the new legislation would mean that Oakwood Schools would lose only about $40,000 in revenue each year.

Over 90% of Ohio private schools are religious schools. I told Butler that I was amazed that legislators who consider themselves “conservative” would advance legislation to empower coercive taxation to fund religious education.

He offered a lame excuse, the same excuse offered by the courts who have approved Cleveland’s voucher program, that, in the voucher program, tax money is not paid to religious schools directly, but, instead, is paid to parents of children. Parents, in turn, pay the religious schools. I asked if he had read the mission statement of a private school that clearly reveals that one central purpose of the school is coercive religious indoctrination. I said I was surprised that, as a conservative, he would abandon the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state.

Then, I said, I would get off my soap box.

In my brief private meeting with Butler, I told him about my Deming inspired thoughts that public education needs transformation and that the basis for such transformation is creating a new system — one based on free market and entrepreneurial principles and one based on local control — centered on accomplishing a much more profound aim than what directs the current system. I said the House Education Committee should research how local systems, particularly those now deemed “excellent,” might be incentivized to attempt this hard process of transformation.

Mr. Butler is an engaged listener and had some insightful comments in response to my POV about public education. He promised that sometime soon we would meet again for more discussion.

For the twelve of us in attendance, it was a good meeting.

• Ohio’s Proposed Voucher Law, HB136, Raises TQM Question: “In Public Education, Who Is The Customer?”, November 17th, 2011
• Why Some Libertarians Oppose Ohio’s HB136 — A Big Increase In Tax Funded Vouchers For Private Schools, October 4th, 2011
• Ohio’s Proposed Voucher Law HB136 — Should Tax Money Be Used To Fund Religious Education?, September 29th, 2011
• What Quality Guru W. Edward Deming Had To Say About Reforming and Improving Public Education, August 30th, 2009
• Let’s Bring Back Lincoln Douglas Style Debates To Today’s Campaigns, September 9th, 2008
• Strickland Should Use Charter Schools To Help Fulfill His Promise: “Reform and Renew the System of Education Itself”, November 13th, 2007

In OHD-41 (formerly OHD-37) Republicans have clobbered Democrats in each of the five contests since the last reapportionment in 2000.

The repeal of SB-5 surprised many entrenched Republicans. The repeal of SB-5 gives stark evidence that our Republican governor, along with the Republican Senate and Republican House, in advancing a right wing agenda, has gone beyond what most Ohio voters will support.

The question is: Will this rejection of Republican radicalism continue to resonate in November’s elections?

Voters generally don’t like one party rule, so, in contests for the State Assembly, voters who habitually vote Republican may be more open minded than ever, this year, to voting Democratic.

With their easy domination in gerrymandered districts, Republicans have become complacent. Rather than finding candidates who might have some appeal to moderates or Independents, Republicans have advanced the most zealous members of their group, those most out the mainstream, to be their candidates. These zealous Assembly members hold a POV that offend even some Eisenhower / Taft Republicans.

Ohio House District 41, where I live, provides a telling example. Republicans traditionally clobber their Democratic rivals in this district (previous to reapportionment, OHD-37), usually by 65% to 35%. But this past election, 53% of voters in OHD-41 rejected SB-5.

Last year, when the Republican representative for this district, Peggy Lehner, was promoted to the Ohio Senate, the small clique running the local Republican Party got to choose who they wanted to fill the empty seat. And, they chose Oakwood attorney, Jim Butler.

Most voters in OHD-41 are women, and, by far, most are unaffiliated.

Butler, on a personal level, seems a quality person. He is a  Navy Academy graduate and a former Navy Aviator. But his views are to the far right and, I believe, outside of the mainstream of voters in OHD-41. Butler supported and defended SB-5, as well as every other legislation dreamed up by the most far out Republicans. Butler is on the House Education Committee and, in committee, voted for an amazing law, HB136, that would subtract money from public schools and fund vouchers for religious private schools. (HB136 has not yet been brought to the Assembly.)

To challenge Butler, OHD-41 Democrats have a great candidate, Caroline Gentry, and, it looks like the stars have aligned — Kasich’s and Butler’s radicalism, repeal of SB-5, a great Democratic candidate — so that, miracles of miracles, OHD-41 this election has a good shot of sending a Democrat to the Ohio House.

Gentry is 41 years old, a mother of two, a graduate of Yale Law School.
I write about her here: Moderate Oakwood Democrat Seeks To Replace Radical Republican Jim Butler To Represent OHD-41

An analysis of the voter base in OHD-41 shows opportunities for the Democrats. Yes, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats almost by 2:1. But, still, here are some other facts:

• There are over 7000 Democrats in OHD-41. And Kasich and the radical actions of the 129th Assembly may just provide the fire needed to propel a lot of these Democrats into grass roots activism.
• There are over 11,000 voters age 18-30 and 93% of these voters are unaffiliated. It is this age group that is most likely to vote Democratic and so the huge size of this group is an advantage for a qualified Democratic candidate.
• 56% of registered OHD-41 voters are women. A qualified Democrat who is a woman has an advantage with this huge block.
• 72% of registered OHD-41 voters are unaffiliated. Yes, the biggest block of these voters habitually choose Republican candidates, but their unaffiliated status means they should be open to considering a qualified Democrat.