Ohio Governor Ted Strickland Gives His First "State of the State" Address

Last week, Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio gave his first "State of the State" address that delivered much on detail that was not expected by the Republican controlled Ohio House and Senate. This at the very least should encourage very thorough debate.

I try to get a feel for several different perspectives on an issue when I write political opinion pieces. That may seem like I want to have someone else develop my thoughts or opinions for me, but I truly find it useful to see where common ground might actually be between both sides of an issue and focus in on that, as I am ever hopeful that someday we will actually get to the point in this country where party lines are no more, but real solutions become the norm.

I was very anxious to see the results of Governor Strickland's address, and for a candidate that was widely criticized during the campaign for lacking vision, I felt that he delivered not only many detailed policy initiatives, but a fairly large tax cut that I am sure that the Republican controlled House and Senate of Ohio wasn't expecting. The details of the address were kept very "hush hush", so the initial reaction by Republicans in my opinion was very genuine in the fact that House Speaker Jon Husted and Senate President Bill Harris sounded encouraged by what they heard. Typically the opposite party response is one of attacking what they feel are the weak spots of these types of addresses and use them as their sounding boards to their supporters. With this not being the case this time around, I feel there is hope that true solutions may be in the cards.

However, funding of several of Strickland's initiatives remain somewhat cloudy, and that is where things could get sticky after the period of dialog between leaders of both parties in Ohio. Another potential problem is there potential contradictions in initiatives that could provide spark some political fireworks. The biggest example of this would be the Ohio school voucher program.

Strickland has proposed the elimination of Ohio's voucher program everywhere but in the City of Cleveland. I am concerned about the message that this sends. Is he saying that schools EVERYWHERE but in the Cleveland are doing great, or is the point that Cleveland schools are doing that poorly? I suppose this is sort of the "half empty, half full" way of looking at things, but the perception seems to be that Cleveland schools need much more help to turn around a dismal situation. It seems to me though that school choice, and the vouchers that make it possible should be good for everyone, not just Cleveland.

The freezing tuitions at Ohio universities is personally appealing to me as a parent of student at one such university, but even while reading about Strickland's pledge to a 5% increase of state funding to universities that promise to freeze tuition next year, and another 2% for 2009 if colleges and universities raise tuitions no more than 3%, the first thing that hit me was "how does this get funded?" The last that I heard, money still does not grow on trees, and since Ohio is the third highest taxed state in the country, I simply cannot believe that the Governor would commit political suicide this early on by proposing additional taxes for this initiative, would he? He could of course be gambling on the fact that if the proposal worked even if new taxes were required to fund it, that people would be accepting of the tax, if results were visible. Possible, yes, risky, absolutely.

What essentially Governor Strickland has done at this point is "handed off the ball" to other state leaders to debate in the true spirit of compromise as it applies to education. He has done his job by giving them something to consider, the question is, how realistic and how costly will thew considerations ultimately be?

The other initiative that has caught my eye specifically was the jobs portion of his address. I have long been a supporter of casino gambling initiatives in Ohio as a way of helping the current economic crisis in Ohio created by alarming job losses, dwindling state population that combined with high taxes have pushed the state to the brink of the point of no return. This in my opinion was the weakest part of Strickland's address, but only because I feel it was too much a "long term" approach to the crisis, whereas I feel Ohio needs a bit more of a "short term" solution to embrace which I have always felt that casino gambling could provide if packaged properly. You see, Ohioans need hope, they need to know that jobs are coming, people will be staying, and that relief is on the way in the form of homes, education, health care etc. Then we could embrace Strickland's vision of turning Ohio into a center of advance technologies. The proposal of investing $1 billion dollars to boost the economy and create jobs sounds great, but how and what, and more importantly, when? Grants to businesses as an incentive to hire and train young workers from poor parts of the state is a great "feel good", but businesses in Ohio don't need another thing on their plate because they currently are fighting against archaic rules that make it difficult to do their everyday business already, let alone having to now take on the responsibility of adding the responsibility and resources necessary of training additional personnel. The idea is a noble one, but it should be laid at the door of the businesses, the "finished product" should be brought to them, not vice-versa. The state of Ohio has an obligation, in my opinion to make business owners feel valued, not taken for granted.

These three pieces of Governor Strickland's address caught my attention, primarily for personal reasons, but that is ok, others probably caught your eye for the same reasons, the point is, solutions have to come quickly, Ohio is at a crossroads of sorts, with hope being one direction, and the point of no return being the other. The question today is, "which is which?"